Johnny Dangerously

The spoof is a delicate art.  You don't want to overload your spoof with pop culture gags, because your movie will feel dated almost immediately.  However, you aren't trying to tell a real story, either.  The spoof should, when properly done, act as an homage to something, even as it pokes fun at it.  Johnny Dangerously is a spoof of old-time gangster flicks, a genre that modern audiences probably aren't terribly familiar with.  Can a spoof be successful and funny, even if its spoofing subject is not well-known to its audience?  Let's find out.

This is a spoof, so I'm not going to spend too much time on the story.  Johnny Dangerously (Michael Keaton) is an up-and-coming mobster in his town, the beloved Number Two guy to crime boss Jocko Dundee (Peter Boyle).  Jocko, feeling the heat from his competition, hires some new guys, including self-described scumbag, Danny Vermin (Joe Piscopo).  The funny thing about scumbags is that they're not very nice.  Or loyal.  Meanwhile, Johnny has kept his professional life very separate from his personal one; his gang doesn't know about his family, and his family doesn't know that he's a mobster.  That's not a big deal, really, until Johnny's little brother Tommy (Griffin Dunne) graduates from law school (which Johnny's illegal activities paid for) and starts a strong campaign to eliminate organized crime from their city, especially that infamous Johnny Dangerously.  Well, that's what happens when you pay for someone's schooling.

Johnny Dangerously: favorite mobster of the young and the elderly

So, the plot is pretty basic, if a little silly.  Is it funny?  It's not side-splitting or anything, but Johnny Dangerously is pretty enjoyable.  Michael Keaton is solid in the lead role; I wish more of his jokes relied on his natural comic timing and dialogue, rather than on physical gags, but he is better than average here.  The surprising performance in this movie is Joe Piscopo's.  Outside of this movie, I have never laughed at anything that he has done, but he is definitely the best part of this film.  And I don't mean that as an insult to the movie.  I can honestly say that I found his character's recurring gag and almost all of his dialogue extremely funny.

Proof that Joe Piscopo was funny once.  Once!

The rest of the supporting cast was a bit of a letdown.  I wasn't expecting comic gold from Marilu Henner --- and she wasn't bad, per say --- but she doesn't really bring anything to the picture.  Maureen Stapleton was more of a prop than a character, but she did deliver a few funny lines.  I was definitely disappointed that Peter Boyle didn't have better lines, even if he sold the hell out of the lines he was given.  Danny DeVito was okay as a sleazy District Attorney, but it was about as nuanced as his part in The Nightman Cometh.

Note: the words "troll toll" and "boy's hole" do not appear in this film.

Ray Walston has a bit part/recurring physical gag in this movie.  It took me a few minutes to realize why he would agree to such a small role, but then I remembered that he worked with this director in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and apparently owed her a favor.  I was disappointed in Griffin Dunne's performance; being the goody-goody character is a thankless task, but I was hoping he would add a little something more to the part.  That expectation is my own fault, I suppose.  This is only the second movie I have seen Dunne in, and he looked like this in the last one:

Oh, and Dom DeLuise makes a cameo appearance as the Pope, delivers one line and got prominently displayed in the opening credits.  I have no idea why he was ever popular.  It is also worth noting that Chicago Bears legend Dick Butkus played a supporting role in this movie.  He doesn't really do much of anything, but, as a Bears fan, I had to mention him.  Sadly, I could find no images of him (in Johnny Dangerously) on the internet.

I did find this using the search terms "Dick Butkus awesome"

Johnny Dangerously was only director Amy Heckerling's second film (the first was Fast Times...).  It's an interesting choice to make a period piece spoof for a sophomore work, but I think Heckerling did a good job.  I like the tone of the movie far more than I like most of the jokes.  There's just something fun and laid-back about this picture, so the little moments that should only be "cute" are more entertaining than they have any right to be (like Johnny addressing his old neighborhood).  The humor drops off in the final third of the film, as it relies more on physical jokes, but Heckerling managed to squeeze out a comprehensible plot from a spoof script.  She deserves some credit for that.


If there is one major weakness in Johnny Dangerously, it is that the script is kind of weak.  Aside from Michael Keaton's delivery and Joe Piscopo's dialogue, this film is lacking in funny jokes.  Don't get me wrong --- there are several funny one-liners and visual gags.  My problem is that this film has about as many funny moments as you would find in a romantic comedy.  That's a low joke quotient for a spoof; that means that way too much time was spent on the story and not enough on making people laugh.  Part of the problem is with the spoofing material.  Poking fun at a film genre that was at least thirty years old at that point?  Really?  And I thought Mel Brooks was late to the party with Spaceballs!  The jokes that playfully nudged the cliches of gangster movies weren't terribly clever or unique, probably because the conventions had already been pointed out by then.  "Well, maybe it's not supposed to be a spoof."  Then why doesn't the main character have a moment of sincerity in the whole movie, jackass?  Let me do the genre categorizing, okay?  Johnny Dangerously isn't a great spoof, but the two lead performances keep it funny and the direction gives it a light-hearted-enough tone so that doesn't really matter.  It's not a classic, but definitely worth a watch.

Batman (1989)

Is it too bold to call Batman the most influential film of the past 25 years?  Sure, Saving Private Ryan changed battle scenes forever, and Pulp Fiction popularized nonsequential storytelling and awesome dialogue, but I really think there is a case to be made for Batman.  For starters, this is the first "dark" take on any comic book hero; before this, you had the campiness of Batman: The Movie (1966) and Flash Gordon (aaa-AAA-aaa!!!)

This was the first big-budget comic book movie, the first one to make a controversial casting choice (Mr. Mom as Batman?), the first one to take something resembling a real-life look at superheroes (look ma, no spandex!), and the first superhero movie to get award recognition (it won an Oscar and had an acting Golden Globe nomination --- an acting nomination in a comic book movie!).  This is the film that allowed Tim Burton to do whatever he wanted for the next ten or fifteen years.  Heck, this is the sole reason they made the fantastic Batman: The Animated Series, and that alone is enough of a legacy for me.

So, even though you already know the basics, I'm going to run through the Bat-plot.  The movie opens with a couple of thugs robbing a family in Gotham City and making off with their spoils.  Naturally, they go up to the rooftop of a building to do this, because going to a hideout, alley, apartment, or their car would be much too private.  One of the thugs is nervous that "the Bat" will come after them; he heard that so-and-so got dropped off a building by the Bat.  Naturally, that's nonsense.  That is when Batman (Michael Keaton) suddenly appears.  He kicks the ever-loving crap out of one guy, but then takes a bullet to the chest and goes down.  But he doesn't stay down.  He get right back up and scares the remaining thug; Batman politely tells him to spread the word to all his hoodlum friends that Batman is protecting Gotham City's streets.  I detail this opening scene for a reason, but I'll get to that later.

Basically, this is a "Batman Begins" before Batman Begins.  Bats is a fairly new sight in town, more of an urban legend than a known entity.  The police are not sure what to make of him, either, but they've got other things on their plate.  Organized crime has Gotham City under siege.  Instead of doing the logical thing and calling Steven Seagal, Lawman, to fix their problems, Gothamites instead opt to elect a new District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Billy Dee Williams) to help Police Commissioner Gordon (Pat Hingle) in his war on crime.  Their "war" is not terribly effective, though, as local mob kingpin Carl Grissom (Jack Palance) and his number two man, Jack Napier (Jack Nicholson), are having their way with the town.  Things start to get complicated when Grissom realizes that Napier is sleeping with his fugly girlfriend, Alicia (Jerry Hall), and sets Jack up to get busted by the police. In the ensuing raid, the police (with the help of Batman) manage to back Napier into a corner, only to have him "accidentally" fall into a vat of dangerous chemicals.  Dangerous, but not apparently lethal.  Jack Napier survived his chemical bath with only a few side-effects: chalky white shin, green hair, his cheek muscles frozen into a big grin, and little to no sanity.  The Joker has arrived.

Meanwhile, a couple of reporters, Alex Knox (Robert "Arliss" Wuhl) and Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger), are trying to dig into the Batman story.  Does he exist?  Does he work for the police?  Why are there no photos of him?  Et cetera?  Et cetera?  Little do they realize that the mysterious and wealthy Bruce Wayne spends his evenings dressing up as a giant bat to fight crime.  If I was a reporter and saw all the customized and expensive equipment Batman had (Hello?  Batmobile?  He even has a Batplane!), I would certainly begin suspecting the nearest millionaire, but that's just me.  Can Batman handle these two muckrakers and still defend the city against a sociopath who has just upgraded to psychopath?  And what about love?  Does he have time for love?  Oh, wait...sorry...I got "love" and "beating the hell out of criminals" mixed up again.

This is a movie that changed the industry.  For better or for worse, there would be no Spider-Man, X-Men, or Watchmen without the success of Batman, much less any of the dozens of lesser-known works that have become movies over the past few years.  The first thing this movie does right is in the set design department.  Gotham City looks awesome.  It's big, tall, imposing, and dirty --- the perfect place for crime to breed.  Wayne Manor is perfect, too; it's big, imposing, and museum-like --- absolutely the last place you would want to eat soup.  The costumes are good, too.  It was nice to finally see a superhero that wasn't wearing his underwear on the outside of his outfit.  And, since Batman has no super-powers, adding things like bulletproof armor makes sense; his tools on his utility belt looked real and effective, too.  Of course, Batman's vehicles looked awesome, even if the Batmobile is impractical for city driving.

Right.  It's that easy to find street parking for this beast.

Once you get past the sets, costumes, and props, what are you left with?  Some surprisingly solid acting, actually.  I've always liked Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman, partially because he was able to convey both distraction and mental unrest separately, and also because he made a pretty good Batman.  Let's be honest, though --- his charming Bruce Wayne performance is what grounds this movie.  This is essentially the only action role Keaton ever played, so kudos to Tim Burton for having the vision to cast him.  Of course, you can't talk about Batman without mentioning Jack Nicholson's performance as the Joker.  I think Nicholson's work here has been diminished in the past few years by Heath Ledger's amazing performance in The Dark Knight, but that's a little unfair.  The key comic stories that inspired Ledger's performance had not been written yet when this film was being shot; I know Tim Burton often credits The Killing Joke as inspiration for his movie, but it was published a month before pre-production started for this movie, so I doubt it had much of an impact.  Despite this, Nicholson came off as a devious, dangerous loon, and he's a hell of a lot of fun to watch.  Besides, he manages to look good while wearing a purple suit.  He's no Prince, but he still looks good.  Heck, his Jack Napier performance alone was good enough for its own movie.  Aside from the powerful performances from the two lead actors, most of the supporting cast was only decent.  Michael Gough did a good job as Alfred, Bruce Wayne's fatherly butler, and Tracey Walter (who got the job just because he's friends with Nicholson) was awesome as the Joker's henchman Bob, but the rest were pretty dull.  That's too bad, because Billy Dee Williams is capable of a little more than that (but not much more).  As for Kim Basinger, Robert Wuhl, Jack Palance,  Jerry Hall and the rest...well, they played their parts.  I'll give Jerry Hall some credit --- I have trouble differentiating between her pre-Joker-deformed face and her regular one.  Wait..."credit" was probably the wrong term to use there...

Tim Burton's direction is pretty good, but it is a little dated.  Yes, Batman was surprisingly and refreshingly gritty in 1989.  Yes, he got good (even great) performances from his two lead actors.  The look and feel of the movie are great.  And yet, there is a lot more campiness in this film than I remembered.  Most of it deals with Joker's henchmen; they all have matching, custom-made uniforms, drive professionally detailed Joker-themed cars, and are willing to die for the Joker for reasons I cannot fathom.  As amazing as Bob's final scene is, if I was dumb enough to be a villain's henchman, that would have been the moment I decided to retire.  As for Burton's "dark" take on the characters, it has gotten comparatively lighter with time.  When Batman was first released, it was a revelation to the general public that wasn't nerdy enough to have studied The Dark Knight Returns already.  Over twenty years later, though, it almost feels quaint, especially when compared to Batman Returns and the Christopher Nolan movies.  Despite all that, I think this was a monumental effort by Burton to go against expectations and risk a lot of money on an idea that had no guarantee of success.  Is this Burton's best work?  No, it's not even his best Batman movie.  It is, however, the godfather of the new millennium's summer blockbusters, and it deserves some respect, dammit.

The story doesn't deserve as much respect, though.  I like that this isn't an origin story for Batman, but I wish it was a little less silly at times.  What's so silly?  In a word, the Batplane.  In two words, Joker's revolver.  Let's ignore the idiocy of characters that live in fear of the Joker when he poisons their groceries, but dance in the streets with him if he's giving away money --- that obviously won't have a catch, right?  By the way, Arliss, if there is poison gas killing people all around you, a paper face mask isn't going to protect you.  Thank goodness there are no police near this publicly advertised parade.  Am I the only one who wonders how Batman's identity remains a secret after this movie?  He crashed his custom-made Batplane.  Commissioner Gordon should be fired if he lets his CSI team investigate the wreckage and not track down a manufacturer.

And what about the scene where Bruce Wayne is trying to explain to Vicki Vale that he's Batman?  Man, this scene is a sign of the times.  Wayne tries to explain it to her by talking about personalities having different aspects, and sometimes it's almost like you have to lead another life to express yourself fully.  If this scene was shot today, we would naturally assume that Bruce Wayne is gay.  Instead, Vicki assumes that he is married.  I guess, with Robin out of the picture, there is a little more leeway in that discussion.

Back to the story.  Let's focus on that first scene, where Batman is introduced.  I don't like that Batman, who has been strictly a non-killing vigilante since the 1940s, has been rumored to kill random thugs.  Sure, it's just a rumor, but it still bugs me --- and I'm pretty sure he lets a few random thugs fall to their deaths in the chapel scene, too.  Not cool, Bats.  I also don't like that Batman lets a random street thug pull a gun on him, much less shoot him in the chest and knock him off his Batfeet.  Maybe I just have a little more respect for Batman than most screenwriters, but I think Batman comes off as occasionally amateurish in this movie.  I mean, he has the balls to dress up for Halloween every night and attack violent criminals; you would think he would be a smarter, tougher, meaner opponent than "you shot me, so now I'll scare you."  Even this horribly written comic book panel grasps the Batman idea better than these screenwriters.

Despite the story weaknesses, this is still a fun movie to watch.  I'll admit to nitpicking some of those problems; I just think Batman is an awesome character that deserves the best.  Batman changed what we expected from comic book adaptations and has led to dozens of awesome (and some godawful) action movies since.  It's cool, fun, and influential.  Sure, it's a little silly, but what do you expect from a movie about a guy who dresses up like a rodent to fight crime?

On a closing note, I can't resist mentioning the Batman soundtrack, which was composed by Prince.  I always giggle when I imagine how excited Warner Brothers was to have multi-platinum (and Warner Brothers property) Prince do the whole soundtrack...and then he turned in "Batdance."  Seriously, what the hell was that?

I love me some Prince (he is The Man, after all...well, he's The Kid, anyway), but the success of this soundtrack astounds me.  It topped the Billboard charts and had four legitimately successful singles, including "Batdance," which somehow became a Number One hit single.  That has to be one of the dumbest hit singles of the 80s, and I know there is a lot of competition for that crown.  The public did benefit from this soundtrack in two distinct ways.  First and foremost, we got to see that Prince could be a convincing comic book character (nice hair).  Second, "Batdance" was followed as a single by "Partyman," which means that the first two hit singles from this album were both over seven minutes long.  I dare you to find another album that pulls that off.  Prince is The Man!

Toy Story 3

I really don't know why I put off seeing Pixar movies all the time.  I have enjoyed every one I've seen, and they have made some of my absolute favorite animated movies of all time.  When Toy Story 3 was released, I decided I was going to definitely see it in the theaters.  I didn't.  When it was released on DVD, I decided to pick it up (with a coupon from Disney's website) on Day 1.  I think I ended up watching it around Day 110.  Maybe I just have to be in the right mood to watch a kid's movie.  Maybe I heard everybody saying "It was so good, but so sad...!"  Whatever my reasons for waiting, I have finally seen Toy Story 3.  I shouldn't have waited so long.

If you're unfamiliar with the Toy Story series, here's a brief summary.  Your toys are alive.  You might not notice it, but when you're not looking, all the toys in your home move around on their own, talk, play games, and live their own mini-dramas.  The human in Toy Story is Andy.  We watch his toys come to life.  And now you're caught up.

Toy Story 3 picks up several years after Toy Story 2 ended, with the characters having aged in real-time.  Woody (Tom Hanks), Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), and their friends still belong to Andy (John Morris, the same kid from the first two movies), but Andy is seventeen now.  He's getting ready for college, and hasn't played with his toys in years.  When it comes time to pack for school, the toys fear that they will be thrown away or donated to a day care center, like so many of their fellow toys have been in the past few years.  After being pressured by his mom to pack up or throw out his belongings, Andy finally decides what to do with his toys.  He packs Woody in a box that is going to college with him and tosses the others in a trash bag; Andy intends to place the bag in the attic, but the bag is accidentally thrown away instead.  The toys are taken to the dump, and the next two hours is filled with the sound of Don Rickles crying.

A much better Oscar promo than I would have expected from Disney.

Actually, no.  The toys escape the trash bag, find a box heading to the daycare center, and hop in.  Woody tries to convince them that they actually belong in the attic, but nobody is listening.  They feel rejected, and they want to be played with (the innocent kind), so that is where they want to go.  Woody argues that they all belong to Andy, and need to be there for him, in whatever capacity he needs.  While they are arguing, the box is packed up and taken to the day care center, with Woody and the gang inside.  Once there, they are met with an enthusiastic welcome from the day care toys, led by Lots-O'-Huggin' Bear (Ned Beatty).  Day care seems absolutely perfect; there are no owners to tire of the toys and throw them away --- when the kids grow up, new kids come in.  They are guaranteed hours of play time in the day, and hours of unsupervised night time.  It's the perfect life for a toy, right?  But what about Andy?  Aren't they still his toys?  Is it more important for the toys to be with Andy or each other?  What should happen to old toys when their owners grow up?  And why are the day care toys hiding from the incoming toddlers?

It must suck to own shirts that are more awesome than your tattoos

There are a ton of characters in this film, and many of them are voiced by recognizable actors.  Of course, there is the core duo of Tom Hanks and Tim Allen, for starters.  As usual, they bear much of the narrative load, and Hanks once again handles most of the drama.  And, once again, they do great jobs.  Joan Cusak and Ned Beatty have the next biggest roles, as the cowgirl Jessie and Lots-O', respectively; I thought Cusak was fine, but Beatty did a very good job playing both sides of his character.  The rest of the cast included Don Rickles, Estelle Harris, John Ratzenberger, Michael Keaton, Whoopi Goldberg, Timothy Dalton, Bonnie Hunt, R. Lee Ermey, as well as the voices of some of the animators.  The voice acting was very good, but it was missing a staple of animated movies.  Where was the obvious comic relief?  Aside from Spanish Buzz, I can't think of any character that didn't have depth, and that shows how different Toy Story 3 is from just about every other animated movie out there.  This isn't a cartoon that is showing off how goofy a comedian can sound (sorry, Robin Williams); this is an ensemble piece that has well-known actors playing smaller parts for the greater good.

Pixar tends to rotate its directors around on every project.  Someone who is a supervising editor on one movie may co-direct the next,and do a little bit of editing on the next; basically, if you watch enough Pixar movies, you're going to see the same names popping up over and over.  This is Lee Unkrich's first solo outing as a director (and only the third solo director credit on any Pixar movie) after three successful co-directing runs, and he has a story credit, too.  This is Michael Arndt's second screenplay, and his second Academy Award-nominated screenplay.  Despite the cast of thousands, this is a very personal film, and I believe that having only one screenwriter and one director (both anomalies with animated films) contributed greatly to that.  I thought both the screenwriting and the direction were excellent and the two are responsible for the intimacy and heartfelt effect this movie has on viewers.

You can't pinpoint the source of this film's greatness quite so easily, though.  Yes, the cast did a great job with their voice-over work.  Yes, the story is complex enough for adults and fun enough for kids.  And, yes, the themes of growing up, moving on, and sweet sadness are universal ones that everyone knows (or will soon).  But I think the overwhelming reason Toy Story 3 is so good is its imagination.  Playtime for the toys is seen as a big-budget adventure movie, just like it is in a child's imagination.  The scale of the movie feels so natural and the way the toys navigate around obstacles like locked doors makes sense, and yet you could spend a compelling twenty minutes having the characters figure these problems out.  Toy Story 3 doesn't bother with the small stuff because it has a much wider lens than that.  This is a movie that goes from "horror" of the sandbox to some legitimately scary scenes at the dump.  It doesn't settle for trite morals, like "girls are people, too" (Monsters vs. Aliens) or "be yourself" (Shrek).  Instead, it paints a picture that hits deeper, rings truer, and feels astoundingly real.

Honestly, I wasn't prepared for this film.  I enjoy animated movies, but they usually don't blow me away, and the more I think about it, the more I am impressed by this film.  I would liken Toy Story 3 to Alan Moore's Watchmen; both stories are told in mediums where you think you know what to expect, but both go well beyond the boundaries of what would normally be considered a kid's movie or a comic book.  And the best part of all of this is also the most important: it works as a kid's movie.  A really, really good kid's movie.  What a brilliant idea.