The Frighteners

Fun fact: The Frighteners was the movie that convinced executives at Universal to offer director Peter Jackson the chance to make King Kong (2005).  Why?  I honestly do not know.  The Frighteners is not a bad movie, but it doesn't scream "give me the keys to a blockbuster remake," does it?  We're talking about a Michael J. Fox film where he neither travels through time nor is a werewolf --- hardly the sort of thing that makes you sit up and notice.  And yet, there was something about this film that gave those movie execs faith in Peter Jackson's talent.  Of course, those same bigwigs also chose to move scoot up the release date of this film from October (which makes sense for a movie about ghosts) to July (where it could get crushed by Summer blockbusters), so maybe the answer to this mystery is that Universal only hired idiots.  Or, maybe The Frighteners is an underappreciated gem, a glimpse at what a moderately successful Jackson could do, back before The Lord of the Rings made him truly famous.

The Frighteners follows Frank Bannister (Michael J. Fox), as he operates a low-rent ghost-busting business out of his (unfinished) home.  Many of the locals consider Frank a con artist, and they're right --- just not in the way they think.  Following a car accident that killed his wife, Frank gained the ability to see and speak to ghosts.  In fact, a trio of ghosts --- disco gangster Cyrus (Chi McBride), classic nerd Stuart (Jim Fyfe), and Old West veteran The Judge (John Astin) --- are his only friends, as well as his business partners.

Frank sends his ectoplasmic buddies to haunt a place, and he shows up to "exorcise" them for a fee.  Things start to get weird for Frank shortly after meeting Lucy (Trini Alvarado) and her awful husband, Ray (Peter Dobson); Ray drops dead and starts pestering Frank, so Frank starts spending time with Lucy, only to fall in love with her.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a rogue ghost that is murdering folks around town.  Even more unfortunately, the FBI believes that Frank is the killer.  Worse still, the killer likes to mark his upcoming victims with a ghostly number on their forehead...and Lucy is lucky number forty-one.

Who can possibly clear Frank's name and save Lucy and the other innocent victims-to-be?  Frank.  It's obviously Frank.  He's the only one who can talk to ghosts.  Think about it.

The special effects in The Frighteners are probably the most memorable aspect of the film.  They still look pretty good, even if the CGI is a little dated now.  It just depends on how creative Peter Jackson & co. were.  For instance, the whole killer-pressing-his-face-out-of-the-wall bit wasn't that great.

MJF realizing that they're aping A Nightmare on Elm Street 12 years too late

Unfortunately, that bit was used a lot.  On the other hand, scenes that toyed with the idea of what ghosts could do or have done to them turned out much, much better.  When I think of The Frighteners, my mind doesn't jump to the killer --- I think about when a ghost got a blast of bug spray through the face.

That sort of creativity overcomes some of the technical shortcomings of the FX in general.  Granted, they aren't all examples of great special effects, but they are probably what you will remember about the film.

I will never forget shit stain Jake Busey face

The acting in The Frighteners is pretty much all over the place.  Michael J. Fox doesn't play angsty very well, and a lot of his character's mannerisms bring Marty McFly to mind.  He's still able to make the character likable, though, even when the script doesn't do him any favors.  Trini Alvarado played a paper-thin character, and she didn't do it very well.  I get it, her role was poorly written --- that doesn't excuse her lack of range.  Of the ghosts, Chi McBride, Jim Fyfe, and John Astin probably got the most screen time, but the most entertaining one was definitely R. Lee Ermey playing a (surprise!) drill instructor.  Yes, he's done this schtick before, but he does it well.

His likes could be "Blah, blah, blah, maggot!" and I'd still smile

I was surprised to find Jake Busey in a role that I liked him; he was completely over the top, but he doesn't play "convincingly human" well, so it fit him.  Another pleasant surprise was Jeffrey Combs getting a chance at a memorable role outside of the Re-Animator series.

Above: Combs as "An asshole with an uzi" --- actual movie quote

Combs was my favorite character in the movie.  His particular brand of crazy matched the tone of the film better than anyone else in the cast.

I'm not entirely convinced this isn't Combs' actual chest

I also enjoyed Peter Dobson in his role as a self-absorbed jerk.  Like Ermey, Dobson doesn't stray far from his comfort zone, but there is no denying that he is good at what he does.  It was also nice to see horror veteran Dee Wallace in a key role.  She hams it up a bit, but I think she did well, given the lines she had.

Director and co-writer Peter Jackson made an unusual film in The Frighteners.  It's not a straight-up horror movie, but it's not funny enough to succeed as a horror-comedy hybrid, either.  The main reason for this is a dumb script.

I mean, how do they expect us to believe a dementor got from Azkaban to Australia?

Some of it can be seen in the little moments, like a flashback to Michael J. Fox's character --- an architect building his dream house --- playing basketball A) in a suit B) with bad 90s skater hair C) on a court he put in before he finished his house, because architects LOVE basketball courts and D) on what appears to be a regulation -height hoop, despite being approximately 4'6".  Other times, the stupidity comes at you in the main plot, like when MJ figures out who killed his wife thirty minutes after the audience does --- and the film treats that moment like it's a revelation.  Hell, you can argue that the entire climax at the abandoned hospital felt rushed and under-explained.  If the script was wittier or funnier, the flaws in the plot wouldn't matter so much.  But it's not and they do.  Thankfully, Jackson knows how to film entertaining action sequences and goofball moments, or else this movie would be painful to watch.  And if you were expecting the acting to save this movie from it's plot, then you aren't familiar with most of Peter Jackson's work.  The Frighteners is at its best when it is being weird and goofy, but there's just not enough of those elements to make the movie stand out.

Chi McBride's last-ditch meeting to salvage the movie: everybody gets an afro

The Frighteners is undoubtedly a flawed movie.  It's too kooky to be scary, but not funny enough to balance dozens of murders.  The central concept is a solid one and Michael J. Fox and the ghosts are likable enough, but the picture doesn't gel as a whole.  Even Danny Elfman's score feels a little scatterbrained.  Is there a good idea for a movie here?  Yes.  Does The Frighteners pull it off?  Not really, but it's not offensively bad.  It's a good try that didn't quite work.

Am I the only one who watched Michael J. Fox's erratic driving in this movie and immediately blamed it on his Parkinson's?  And then felt kind of bad?

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.