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.

The Thin Man

Dashiell Hammett essentially wrote only five novels, but three of my favorite movies are based on his work, including this one.  The Thin Man is one of the best dialogue-based movies you will ever see and it is still extremely entertaining, despite having been released in 1934.  To put that in perspective, please consider that the following all happened in 1934:

• Lou Gehrig won the Triple Crown and was not the American League MVP in baseball.
• The Chicago White Sox finished 47 games back in the American League.  Wow.
• John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, and Bonnie and Clyde all died.
• Persia changed its name to Iran.
• The first Three Stooges short film was released.
• Adolf Hitler became the Fuhrer of Germany.
• Leonard Cohen, Ralph Nader, and Sparky Anderson were born, none of whom were ever young.

Until I watched this movie, I was under the impression that no true classic movies were made until at least 1939, but The Thin Man proved me wrong.

Nick and Nora Charles are quick-witted, hard-drinking socialites in New York for Christmas.  Nick (William Powell) was a detective before marrying Nora (Myrna Loy), but now he spends his time amusing her and running her father's business.  An old client of Nick's, Claude Wynant, has gone missing and his girlfriend has turned up murdered.  Wynant's daughter, Dorothy (Maureen O'Sullivan), manages to drag Nick into the investigation.  There are a lot of reasons for Wynant to have left New York; his girlfriend was stealing from him, his ex-wife (Minna Gombell) milked him for money at every opportunity, his ex-wife's boyfriend (Cesar Romero) lived off the money he gave his estranged family, and his son had a creepy Elektra complex.  Clearly, a lot of people have their own reasons for Wynant to stay on the lam or to turn himself in to the police or to turn up dead.  In the process of solving the case (that shouldn't be a spoiler), Nick manages to get shot, knock out his wife, unite lovers, end relationships, and solve three murders (maybe more...there's a lot of people to keep track of), all while pleasantly buzzed from habitual drinking.

This film was only the first Thin Man movie; its success led to five sequels, all with "Thin Man" included in their titles.  Nick Charles is not the titular character, though.  In a bit of throwaway dialogue (that acts as a clue to the case), Nick refers to Claude Wynant as a thin man.  Nevertheless, Nick was identified as the thin man by the movie going public, so the title stuck throughout the series.

The plot to this film is decent, but nothing spectacular.  It's a layered mystery, where one answer leads to another puzzle, which leads to another puzzle, ad nauseam.  The story and director W.S. Van Dyke both do a good job keeping the pace brisk.  This movie has dozens of characters and plot twists, but does not really demand much comprehension.  This movie is more of a ride than something you want to puzzle out for yourself.  That would be a problem with most mystery movies, but the mystery is logical and clever for those who choose to pay close attention; this movie doesn't demand your analytical mind, though, to enjoy it.

The dialogue is what separates this film from so many others.  The screenplay from Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett is smart, funny, and --- most of all --- fast.  The only movie I have ever seen that has faster dialogue with this much quality is His Girl Friday, which had the benefit of Cary Grant, so it's an unfair fight to begin with.  This script, though, has more explicit flirting and outright affection, even if it is pretty sarcastic.  The first time I watched this, I thought it was decently funny, but I missed a lot of the lines because I didn't hear them, or was trying to figure out the last joke.  Sure, there are little easy jokes that anyone can catch, but there are a lot of language jokes as well.  Not everyone out there is an English major, I know, but my favorite jokes are the ones that come from misunderstandings of vocabulary.  "I heard you were shot five times in the tabloids.  It's not true; he didn't come anywhere near my tabloids," is a good snapshot of the movie's dialogue.  Now just imagine every other line being like that, and you'll have a pretty good idea of why I like this so much.

Of course, the dialogue would just be noteworthy, were it not for the truly great work from William Powell and Myrna Loy.  Powell steals the show with his wit and charm.  It is rare to see an actor enjoying himself this much in a role.  I also appreciate the quality of his drunk acting; as a child, I just assumed that all adults hiccuped and stumbled around while a trombone played in the background for effect.  Most movies play up the overacting drunk for comic relief.  Powell manages to appear subtly tipsy for the entire film, only occasionally delving into the stereotype.  Loy is able to match Powell's intensity and dialogue delivery in every scene. It's a shame that she was not nominated for an Oscar for her work because I think hers is one of the smarter and stronger female leads in early Hollywood.  The rest of the actors are fine, but they are just playing broad, usually comical, characters.  Their role is simply to show up and be commented on by Powell and Loy, and they do it well.

This is a fun movie, and one with replay value since you definitely won't catch every funny line the first time through.  The movie's pace keeps up with the dialogue, but can get a bit confusing at times; a lot of the supporting characters in Hammett's novel didn't do much speaking, so those characters are sometimes interchangeable on the big screen.  Van Dyke does a good job making sure that the dialogue doesn't fall flat, but he spends all his effort on the humor, and probably not enough attention on the plot.  It's okay, though.  The film is a little uneven because of that and is a little dated (not bad for being over seventy years old), but I absolutely love it.

Manhunter

Manhunter is at a bit of a disadvantage with modern viewers.  While it was the first Thomas Harris novel to reach the big screen, it does not feature Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Leckor (not Lecter, as in the later films).  This was remedied when the movie was remade taking the source novel's name of Red Dragon.  That remake was a star-studded spectacle, even though it was clearly just an excuse to get Hopkins into the Lecter role one more time.  Because of Hopkins' success with the Lecter role, this movie has been unfairly overlooked.  While it is dated, this movie stands on its own well enough.

Manhunter is the story of Will Graham (William Petersen), a former profiler for the FBI.  His former coworker, Jack Crawford (Dennis Farina), approaches Graham with a serial killer case; Graham wants nothing to do with the work, but Crawford convinces him that the case is a ticking clock (the killer operates on a lunar cycle, so they know how much time they have) and Graham unhappily submits.  Graham is unquestionably the focus in this movie and is on the screen for the better part of the first half.  He approaches criminal profiling like method actors approach their roles; he takes the facts and then tries to get in the killer's head.  With this insight, he is able to follow their logic and, theoretically, catch them.  This killer, dubbed the Tooth Fairy, is harder to predict than most.  Graham has difficulty finding connections between the victims, so he turns to a criminal for help.  Graham's last case was that of Dr. Hannibal Lecktor (Brian Cox), who was both a psychiatrist adviser to Graham and the serial killer that Graham was hunting; Graham discovered Lecktor's secret and led to his capture, but not before Lecktor nearly killed him.  Meanwhile, Francis Dollarhyde (Tom Noonan) is the Tooth Fairy killer.  However, he manages to fall in love with a blind woman, Reba (Joan Allen), at work.  Her confidence and straightforward manner puts him at ease, since he is socially awkward and is self conscious of his repaired cleft lip.  Unfortunately, Dollarhyde is a psycho-killer and Graham is practically psychic, so this movie can't end well for everybody.

This is not a movie without its problems.  The production values definitely indicate that this was made in the eighties.  The title is just silly; the producers decided not to call it "Red Dragon" (partially) because it doesn't have any karate.  Toward the end of the movie, when Dollarhyde is reveling in his serial killer persona, he turns on Iron Butterfly's "In-A-Godda-Da-Vita" to frighten his girlfriend.  Unless she has a fear of organ music, he made a poor choice.  The movie's ending strays significantly away from the book's, which isn't necessarily a problem.  The ending is very physical, where the rest of the movie is psychological; the ending is abrupt because of this.

There are a lot of good things about this movie, though.  I liked William Petersen's performance; he seemed genuinely disturbed as he figured out what and why the Tooth Fairy did his work.  Some of his lines seemed a little unnatural, but I think that suits a character that can put himself in the mental shoes of killers.  Brian Cox does a decent job as Hannibal Lecktor, but he made the character seem more human; making him more approachable and understandable, though, makes his aloofness seem pettier.  My overall impression was that Hannibal was a fairly intelligent, snotty jerk --- not necessarily a monster.  Tom Noonan, on the other hand, was very effective as the Tooth Fairy.  Maybe it's because this movie does not give nearly as much background to his character as Red Dragon does, but he is socially awkward, abrupt, unsympathetic, and genuinely creepy.  Unfortunately, when he assumes his killer persona, he wears what appears to be pantyhose over half of his head.  While a little weird, it's also a little funny.  The other actors (basically Dennis Farina, Joan Allen, and Stephen Lang) play their parts well enough.

Michael Mann directed and wrote the screenplay to this film.  That means that this movie is a little long, has abrupt violence, and a gratuitous sex scene.  I think he did a pretty good job with the actors in this movie; Cox and Petersen do pretty well and Noonan (who is not a good actor) was impressive.  This movie is a lot less graphic than both the book and the remake, which I liked better than having Graham flash back to murders that he is imagining.  I disagree with the choice to omit all references to the Red Dragon from this movie; a lot of Dollarhyde's dialogue is based off of the ideas of William Blake, and ignoring the painting, tattoos and everything else made his dialogue more nonsensical.  I really didn't like much of Graham's monologuing, but it got absolutely terrible toward the film's climax.

In the end, the odd creative choices led to an ending that didn't match the tone of the film as a whole.  I liked several aspects of the movie, but it was occasionally awkward to watch.