Maximum Overdrive

While orbiting around the Sun, minding its own business, the Earth passes through the tail of a comet.  I think we all know what happens next: inanimate objects come to life with homicidal tendencies.  Yes, lawnmowers, electric knives, power cords, and especially vehicles all take on a life of their own and begin to kill humans.  Like many great movies, this one takes a global disaster and personalizes it.  The film focuses on a group of people trapped by circling semi trucks at a North Carolina truck stop.  Can they escape without becoming road kill?

That is the basic story of Maximum Overdrive, directed by author Stephen King and based on his short story, Trucks.  If you think this movie sounds bad, trust that instinct.  It's pretty terrible.  In fact, this is the only directorial effort from Stephen King; he claims to have been coked out of his mind while making it, which might explain a few things.  While certainly not an Oscar contender, this is a surprising change of pace from most adaptations of King's work.  For one, it sounds stupid.  And it is.  Want proof?  AC/DC made the soundtrack.  But most of King's story premises are pretty dumb, when you think about them; he just plays up the suspense and seriousness to make them seem less ridiculous (Christine, Cujo, and The Running Man are all good examples of this).  This movie, though, is aware of how stupid it is and plays up its humor and campiness.  Is that a good choice?  Maybe not, but it could have been much worse.

Undoubtedly, this movie's biggest strength is Emilio Estevez as the hero, Bill.  Bill is an ex-convict (or ex-juvie kid or something...it's really not important) that works as a cook for Bubba (Pat Hingle).  Estevez doesn't have much to work with, but he manages to not sound like a complete idiot when he someone says things like "Jesus is coming, and he's pissed!"  Despite quality lines like that, Estevez is clearly the most charismatic actor in the movie, which serves as a reminder that he was actually half-decent in the 80s.

The movie's story isn't very good (obviously), but it has a lot of kinda goofy stuff in it.  The first line of the movie is delivered by Stephen King himself: "Honeybun, this [ATM] machine just called me an asshole!"  Not terribly clever, but it sets the tone for the movie pretty well.  Bubba is a shady guy, forcing his staff of ex-cons to work unpaid hours by threatening to report violations to their parole officers.  Not surprisingly (well, not in this movie, anyway), Bubba illegally sells guns.  Not just any guns, but uzis, grenades, rocket launchers and the like.  As you might imagine, that turns out to be pretty convenient when fighting semis.  Also interesting is the newly married couple (including Yeardley Smith of The Simpsons, whose voice is grating at best here), who manage to have the only car in the world that is not trying to kill its owners.  Instead, they drive to the truck stop for safety; being surrounded by trucks is apparently better than just pulling over on the highway and hiding in the woods.  The best part of this movie is the clincher at the end.  SPOILER: It turns out that all this was caused by aliens, as the first stage in a massive invasion.  AND EMILIO ESTEVEZ FIGURED THAT OUT ON HIS OWN.  Of course!  Why didn't I think of that?  Luckily, the end credits tell us that Soviet lasers take care of the threat for us.  So, I guess this is an 80s movie that makes the USSR heroes.  How about that?

Is this movie good?  Not even close.  It does, however, embrace its own stupidity with enthusiasm.  Even common sense stuff, like "don't give the killer semis gasoline when they run out" is ignored and justified.  You need stupidity of the boldest kind to even think of that, but bold stupidity is what this movie has in spades.  It's not quite fun enough to be awesomely bad (and therefore, fun to watch), but it's close.  I don't blame those that enjoy this movie.  I just think they need to get out more.

Hotel Rwanda

I borrowed this DVD from a friend when the movie first came out, intent on watching Don Cheadle's acclaimed performance.  I never got around to it.  I always looked at the film as inevitably depressing, and I didn't know much about the Rwandan genocide of 1994, and I always feel sketchy if I let a movie educate me on world events.  In the intervening years, I've educated myself to a point where, when I saw the movie available On Demand through my cable, I finally felt I was ready to watch it.

The movie takes place during the genocide, but thankfully is not a document of the killings.  Instead, it tells the tale of Paul (Don Cheadle), a manager for the finest hotel around.  Paul is very talented at using words to get what he wants; when that fails, bribery usually does the trick.  This serves him well as manager, allowing him to get his hands on high end cigars, liquor, and more.  These treats are not for him, but to gain favor with local politicians, international military leaders, and anyone else.  It's a good thing he is good at his job, because ethnic tensions in Rwanda reach their boiling point, with paramilitary groups of the Hutu ethnic majority gathering and executing any of the Tutsi minority they can find.  Paul is Hutu, but his wife (Sophie Okonedo) is Tutsi.  Seeing his neighborhood quickly becoming a war zone, Paul manages to sneak and bribe his family's way into the hotel.  There, he tries to keep things business-as-usual.  It doesn't really work.  First of all, a war was going on, just outside the hotel.  Secondly, it's the old any-port-in-a-storm rule.  The hotel quickly acts as a shelter for overflow from the United Nations camps, the Red Cross, and for war orphans.  Why don't the Hutu militias just attack the hotel?  Good question.  The answer seems to be because Paul maintains the image of a professional European hotel; it feels like another country, or at least an embassy.  That means that, if the locals attack, there could possibly be some retaliation from the Western world.  Seeing the importance of maintaining this image, Paul must keep the hotel running for appearances' sake, care for the refugees, and act as the support for his own family.  For a while, Paul has his hopes set on the United Nations sending in a peacekeeping force to stop the massacre, but that never happens.  The burden for saving the 1200+ refugees in his hotel ultimately falls on Paul's shoulders.

This is an important movie to watch.  Hearing the abstract numbers (about 800,000 dead in an area about the size of a New England state) doesn't really sink in.  Seeing people being shot in the streets is more effective.  Showing trucks drive over miles of road, clogged with dead bodies is better still.  This movie doesn't set out to over-horrify you, which is good.  This is an exhausting viewing experience, and I say that in the best way possible; at the time of this genocide, Americans were either upset over Kurt Cobain's suicide, or fascinated by OJ Simpson's car chase in a white Ford Bronco.  Sure, those are obviously important things, but I have no recollection of Rwanda from school or news at that time, and that embarrasses me.  Still, this could have easily become a testament to the horrific things humans do to each other, but director and co-writer Terry George wisely chose to avoid making this movie an unwatchable guilt trip.  Instead, we have these terrible things framing a true story of heroic humanitarianism.

I was surprised that this movie did not show off the director or cinematographer's skills more.  Usually, when directors make an "important" movie, they make sure to show their skills or make things a little artsy.  This movie is shot in a straightforward fashion, with no artistic embellishments.

The film clearly focuses on Cheadle's character, but there are several recognizable actors with supporting roles.  Nick Nolte plays a Canadian UN military forces member, and he delivers the best white-versus-black speech I have heard in a long while.  Joaquin Phoenix is a news cameraman that asks many questions about the Hutu and the Tutsi for the benefits of the viewers; since his character is essentially there for exposition, his role is less impressive.  Jean Reno makes a brief, uncredited cameo just for recognition purposes.  Cara Seymour is the Red Cross worker that helps Paul save refugees; she's not in the movie much, but I thought she did a pretty good job.  Sophie Okonedo plays Paul's wife, and it is a demanding performance; she basically spends the whole movie terrified.

As I mentioned earlier, though, the real acting burden belongs to Don Cheadle.  It's rare to see a movie about death and destruction where the hero is not a man of action.  There are several points where Cheadle's character reaches a breaking point, and you watch him crumble in private, only to put himself back together in front of others.  It's fairly common for a low-key drama to have a nuanced grieving performance given by the lead actor or actress; this movie is not low-key, but Cheadle is still able to channel that same sort of private, subtle performance here.  There are two great scenes in particular that show this off.  The first is when he tells his wife to kill herself and their kids if the hotel is invaded; this could have easily been overacted, but his control here made his loss of control later all the more effective.  The second scene is just Cheadle cleaning himself up after unwittingly stumbling upon thousands of fresh corpses.  Cheadle has always been pretty good, but this role really showed what he is capable of.

Despite Cheadle's performance, this isn't a movie I will ever watch over and over again.  That's probably not the point of this movie, I get that, but it should be a little better.  Joaquin Phoenix's character is a little too guilt-ridden and a little too clueless to not be offensive.  I understand that Americans don't know what Hutus and Tutsis are; I think a short prologue would have worked better than having a stupid American make obvious comments about how he can't tell the difference between the two groups (there's a racist joke there, but I'm passing it by).  I think it's funny that Nick Nolte's character expressed his guilt more creatively and accurately (basically, the West sees Africa as a crap pile) as a Canadian than Phoenix's American could.  I also would have enjoyed a little more time spent adding symbolism and the like to make this a little more technically interesting.  I'm not saying the movie needed a Schindler's List red jacket, but a few little touches would have been nice.  Other than that, though, this is an interesting subject with one excellent performance.

The Bad News Bears

When I sat down recently to watch The Bad News Bears for the first time, I thought I knew what I was in for.  The premise is pretty familiar by now.  A somewhat unwilling coach, Morris Buttermaker (Walter Matthau), is pegged to manage a little league team.  He takes the job from a city council member because he needs money and because baseball is all he's ever been good at.  Buttermaker is a washed up minor league pitcher that now spends his time drinking beer and bourbon...sometimes in the same beer can.  The team is wretched beyond belief.  Not only do they have the smallest and weakest kids in the league, but they also have the only Mexican or black kids, too.  Gasp.  I would like to point out that it's nice to see ethnic kids not being stereotyped as awesome athletes, but the movie's not trying to be progressive.  Not surprisingly, the team (The Bears) lose their first few games horribly.  The team can't  do anything right and they call Buttermaker out for not caring.  Fair enough.

That gets him to care a little and he recruits a ringer, the daughter of an ex-girlfriend.  "Aww, she's a girl!"  Yes, and she's the team's best player.  Amanda (Tatum O'Neal) is a great pitcher, and the team becomes competitive quickly.  But, like all misfit teams, they need one more wild card to win.  Enter Kelly (Jackie Earle Haley), the local bad boy that also just happens to be the most gifted natural player around.  He's too naughty to play for any of the rich kids' teams, so he just hangs out and makes fun of them until Amanda convinces him to join The Bears.  From there, the team gets all the way to the championship, but they soon ask themselves the question: do they want to have fun, or do they want to win?

At the time, this movie was most notable for its innovative use of child profanity.  In one of the more memorable quotes, the team loudmouth characterizes his teammates as "a bunch of Jews, spics, niggers, pansies, and a booger-eating moron."  While that would be kind of offensive today, I imagine that it was more shocking 30+ years ago.  Even those that are turned off by the racist terms and the swearing should be able to see that they were used for comedic purposes.  I don't know if that makes it better, but at least it makes them intentionally funny.

The performances are alright, I guess, for a movie filled with child actors.  Most of the cast does only one thing at a time, so they aren't too bad.  I guess director Michael Ritchie knew enough about children to keep them doing what they are good at.  "You're nerdy?  Let's get you some glasses and you can act nervous.  You're a smart ass?  Let's get you some dialogue, etc., etc."  Unsurprisingly, Tatum O'Neal (who won her Oscar three years before) is very good; it is fun watching her trying to out-tough or out-indifferent Matthau, and she does a good job in her romantic scenes with Haley.  Jackie Earle Haley was a bit of surprise for me; I thought he was really good here, but his career didn't really take off for another thirty years.  Walter Matthau, of course, is the best part of this movie.  He's always entertaining, but especially so when he's playing a prickly character.  Here, he gets to play an alcoholic for laughs and still ends up on moral high ground.

There are a lot of parts in this movie that wouldn't be included nowadays.  I haven't seen the remake, but I'm pretty sure the scene where Buttermakerdrives a car full of kids around town (without seat belts) while obviously hammered isn't included.  The swearing isn't too bad really (and it reminds me of elementary school), but it's pretty rare to see a family movie have kids swearing, even for laughs.  Another thing that is commonplace in real life and present in this film, but is rare in movies: adults obviously lying to children and getting away with it.  That's probably not a bad thing, but I'm just saying...More importantly, though, this movie is not overly saccharine, something that just doesn't happen in modern movies for kids.

The premise of this film is pretty commonplace by now, but it was pretty fresh in 1976.  What I liked about this movie, more than any of its successors and sequels, is its honesty.  You can predict how most sports movies end within the first ten minutes you watch them.  This story doesn't just follow the team's narrative, but the player's emotional arcs as well.  This isn't a particularly deep movie, but it has a message and it has fun getting it across.

Ghostbusters

Have you ever really considered what a great logo the Ghostbusters have?  It's simple, but is iconic enough so anyone that sees it can get the gist of it, regardless of language.  Well, the occasional person might think it means "No KKK," but I think that's implied in most signage nowadays anyway.

Ray (Dan Aykroyd), Egon (Harold Ramis), and Peter (Bill Murray) are three parapsychological researchers with a grant at Columbia University.  Their research focuses on extrasensory abilities (like ESP) and the scientific possibilities for spirits to exist on the physical plane.  There are two great things about their work; it does not require hard results (Ray's reason) and is a great way to meet slightly gullible women (Peter's reason).  The three lose their grant and are forced out into the real world for the first time, so they do what any of us would do in a similar situation.  They purchase an abandoned firehouse and a used hearse, and open up a ghost capture service called the Ghostbusters.  Naturally, their actions coincide with an increase in paranormal activity and it's ultimately up to these goofballs to save the world.

Despite that surprisingly brief synopsis, I (like my entire generation) am a big fan of Ghostbusters.  It has a great cast, filled with some of the funniest people of the late 70s and early 80s.  Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd were still very funny people (their funniness seems to have decreased proportionally to their increase in weight over the years), and the script (which they co-wrote) has some of their better contextual jokes.  Ramis and Aykroyd have written some of the best subtle conversational humor in film history, and this script is full of it.  Of course, there is a decent part of the film that was at least partially improvised; are you telling me that you think that someone wrote exactly what came out of Bill Murray's mouth in this movie? I'll take the high road and just call you an idiot.  Even without Murray's fantastic improvisational talents, this is still a great script.  It's a comedy, sure, but it's a sci-fi movie first.  These guys could have gotten away with a plot that made absolutely no sense (Want proof?  Watch Aykroyd in Nothing But Trouble), but they actually based this in science.  Well, as much science as parapsychology has to back it up, anyway.

The plot and script are good, but a decent part of this film takes place with its supporting cast, so they are more important here than in other films.  Luckily, the supporting cast is pretty great.  Rick Moranis was funny as the socially awkward health food nut, Louis, but he was awesome once he was possessed by The Keymaster demon.  Likewise, Sigourney Weaver is a good fit for Murray as his love interest, Dana, and she does a good job hamming it up once she is possessed by a demon named Zuul.  Ernie Hudson primarily acts as a straight man for the group, but he does it without coming off as stupid or inept, which is especially nice in a comedy.  Annie Potts has a pretty minor role, but she is able to provide some laughs and gives the movie a little bit of the New York flavor that we would see more of in the sequel.  Last, but not least, William Atherton is completely successful as the short-sighted jerk who doesn't see the value of the Ghostbusters; like his weasel reporter role in Die Hard, Atherton does a great job playing a complete bastard.

This may look like an ensemble cast, but the film really belongs to Bill Murray.  He uses Aykroyd and Ramis --- two generally funny guys, mind you --- as little more than props in his scenes...and it works!  Murray's comic timing is at its best here, making even his blandest lines just a little funny.  He isn't as wacky as his Caddyshack role, or as outgoing as he was in Stripes, but I think this is probably Murray's most well-rounded early work.  This isn't his best acting role, mind you, but he is able to show charm, wittiness, boldness, cynicism, and a great talent for the understatement at different times in this film.  If there is one actor that benefited the most from director Ivan Reitman's experience filming comedies, it was definitely Murray.

Having stated that, I feel a little weird saying that my main criticism of this film is its reliance on Bill Murray.  That may not make a whole lot of sense, but let me try to explain.  Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis were not new to comedies at this point and both had written and acted in several movies and on television.  Both had worked with Murray before, too.  And yet, their roles seem extremely two-dimensional.  Yes, Aykroyd is occasionally a little funny, but it's mainly in response to something hilarious that Murray said.  Ramis, on the other hand, is dry to the point of flaking.  As a trio, they are fun to watch, but without Murray, these two can only hope to inch the plot forward with some vaguely scientific dialogue.  Of course, there's something to be said for giving a star some room to work.  I'm not trying to say that this was a bad choice, because it definitely works in this movie, but I just mourn the complete over-awesomeness that could have been if Aykroyd and Ramis had spent a little more time on their characters.

 Looking at the movie as a whole, I think this is the best comedy/sci-fi blend ever (although Men in Black is pretty good).  Even with some of the main actors contributing less than others, the acting is still great all around, with some fantastic bit parts and a good plot.

Youth In Revolt

All comedic actors have an image problem at some point in their careers.  Yes, it's great that Jim Carrey can talk out of his butt, or that Adam Sandler can start a sentence very quietly and then talk real loud, but eventually, they got tired of the same shtick and branched out into more varied roles.  This usually means a dramatic role that forces audiences to look at the actor in a new light, but these new roles are usually less impressive than their earlier silly stuff.  Michael Cera, who has managed to play the same character in several comedies over the past three or four years, takes a different approach to reinventing his image in Youth in Revolt.

Cera plays the lead role of Nick Twisp, a smart, introverted sixteen year old that longs to have a woman to give him a reason to desire.  He spends his time listening to Frank Sinatra vinyl and reading classic prose, trying to imagine a plausible way to lose his virginity.  It doesn't help that his family essentially rubs their sex lives in his face.  His mother (Jean Smart) is unapologetic about her low dating standards and his father (Steve Buscemi) is dating a buxom twenty-five year old (Ari Graynor).  With nothing better to do, Nick follows his mother and her boyfriend on a short vacation to a trailer park.  There, Nick meets Sheeni Saunders (Portia Doubleday), a pretty girl his age that is interested in literature and vinyl, too, although with a distinct preference for all things French.  Since she lives in a trailer park, there's not much to do but see how the new kid is, and they begin to spend time together.  Sheeni enjoys flirting with Nick and teasing him about his virginity, while Nick is simply amazed that an attractive girl would ever speak to him, much less kiss him.  Sheeni dreams of living in France and likes the idea of "bad boys."  Nick is obviously not bad.  Still, he falls in love with her, does a few silly things and temporarily wins her affection.  Unfortunately, Nick's time in the trailer park is limited.  Nick professes his love to Sheeni and comes up with a plan for them to be together, permanently.  Sheeni's part is to find a job for Nick's unemployed father near the trailer park.  All Nick has to do is be a bad enough son for his mother to send him to live with his father.  Sheeni has her doubts about this plan, but Nick swears he can do it, so she tells him to be "very, very bad."  Enter Francois Dillinger, the agressive, selfish, rude, and (above all else) French alter-ego for Nick.  With the help of Francois, Nick gets to be very bad indeed.  Of course, being bad has its consequences, and earning love is not necessarily one of them.

Before I mention anything else, I have to say that I find Michael Cera in the Francois persona an absolutely hilarious concept.  Of course Michael Cera's bad side looks just like him, only with a wispy mustache and a part in his hair.  I loved that Nick and Francois shared the screen together, taking turns observing and being in control.  It's like the old Tom and Jerry cartoons, where Tom would have a mini-devil pop up on his shoulder and give him advice.  Actually, it's better because Francois smokes cigarettes and wears vaguely European clothing (white pants and no socks?).  I even liked how Francois held his cigarettes; it always looked cool, but was pretty unrealistic (is he holding it between his pinkie and ring finger?).  Most of Francois' manners and mannerisms feel completely fabricated, which is perfect for a character that was created by a well-read nerd that desperately wants to be cool.  You would think that Nick would be a less funny version of Cera's typical neurotic role, if only to give Francois room to work, but the Nick character also works well.  As far as I'm concerned, the Michael Cera content in this movie was great.

The rest of the movie works less well.  One of the main problems I have is with the language.  No, it's not particularly vulgar (although it's by no means a family comedy).  The dialogue for most of the cast is just not natural, for lack of a better description.  It sounds like the dialogue belongs in a volume of flowery prose, which I'm sure is the creative team's intent.  Unfortunately, this comes off as clunky; the script is pretty clever and is full of references that I cannot speak to (I'm not being egotistical, but that's hard to do in American cinema), but a lot of it feels lost in translation.  I get the impression that the book (which I haven't read) plays up Nick's love of literature and letters more than a film adaptation ever could, and it's too bad.  I think this would have worked better if the story was clearly being narrated by Nick throughout, like this movie was his screenplay about his love for Sheeni and he was an unreliable narrator.

The language could have been seen as a bizarre quirk if the pacing had been better.  This is only ninety minutes long, but it feels a lot longer, and I'm not sure why.  One reason could be the glut of secondary characters in this movie.  They are all colorful, but I don't know if they were all necessary to the story.  The pacing could be because the source material from author C.D. Payne was set up as a series of letters, a la Dracula.   I'm inclined to believe, though, that the pacing suffered because director Miguel Arteta did not edit the movie well.  So much of this movie is repetitive, hammering the same ideas over and over; I get it, Michael Cera is a subtle actor to a fault, but I don't need to be told that he's lonely and awkward more than once or twice to believe it.  It's like belaboring the point that Woody Allen is a neurotic Jewish New Yorker.

The rest of the film was fine.  The acting was all good, but most of the actors had only bit parts.  Cera was his typical awkward self, but I happen to really enjoy his awkwardness.  Portia Doubleday did a good job as his foil, but aside from showing a talent for deadpanning lines, it's hard to judge her talents.  It was nice to see Steve Buscemi in an indie movie again, even if it had him in a relationship with a woman far too attractive to be with him.  Still, casting Buscemi as Cera's dad is a good choice.  I liked Zach Galifianakis, and Ray Liotta in their small roles as the boyfriends of Nick's mom.  Fred Willard is always Fred Willard, but he gets some decent material here and that makes all the difference.  Justin Long has a bit part and I actually liked him, which is a first for me.  You might recognize Jonathan B. Wright from his small role in Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist; he doesn't get much more screen time here as Nick's largely unseen nemesis, but he could be good if given more to work with.  Adhir Kalyan was an okay choice for Vijay, but there aren't really a lot of Indian actors that can play nerdy right now.  M. Emmet Walsh is clearly too old to have fathered Sheeni, but he's still funny.  I liked Mary Kay Place fine as Sheeni's mom, but I wasn't particularly impressed with Jean Smart as Nick's mom.

Between the overwhelming amount of recognizable actors, the slow pace, and the language barrier, this film's negatives overwhelm the presence of Francois Dillinger.  For a movie with such a clear-cut purpose (be bad to win the girl), the story was surprisingly slow.  Sure, I enjoyed most of the characters, but there was rarely a unique payoff for their scenes.  I wouldn't mind if one of C.D. Payne's other Nick Twisp books was eventually made into a movie, but I would hope that the filmmakers learn from this film and deliver the sharp, quick movie these characters deserve.