the damned united 2009
I was tempted to dip my toe, for the last throw of October into horror. No, not a Nic Cage romcom (sorry), a proper horror. I love a good gorefest but it has to be a very good. Then I began thinking a bit laterally - what has been tried many times but rarely hits the mark, ending in a horror show of epic proportions? This is why I decided to go for a sports movie. Some of these can be worthy of your attention - Tin Cup and Mean Machine (Reynolds, not Vinnie) for example. Then there's the others...Escape to Victory and Mean Machine (Vinnie, not Reynolds). So on a quiet Saturday afternoon, when I should have prepping a Halloween costume, I popped on The Damned United.
The film stars Michael Sheen as the legendary Brian Clough and explores his short tenure as Leeds United manager. Michael Sheen is always good value and in portraying Clough it seems like he has been studying Clough footage for months on end before bringing him back to life. Although Sheen is clearly very talented he seems to impersonate rather than act. The more I watched, the more I felt an unbalance as he flips from bang on serious acting to impression. The supporting cast pull their weight admirably with Colm Meaney and Tim Spall. They don't try anything too fancy but give their performances heart and grace. My quibble was wondering why, with such a strong cast, Director Tom Hooper cast someone as a Scotsman without first checking if they can pull off a Scottish accent. The usually bankable, Stephen Graham struggled. Why not cast a Scottish actor?
The cinematography is reminiscent of the period of the time. It has dark shade similar to how 70's football was which adds to the Northern grit of the movie. The football montages are crisp and what's more important for a sports flick, don't look faked or choreographed. There are clever time jumps in the story that keeps the film interesting. A quality that strips the film bare and relies on the characters to tell the story. One wrong move and the viewer could be lost however get the right actors, as The Damned United did, and the story leaves the viewer working for insight and becoming emotionally involved. Real Brian Clough footage is mixed with dramatised pieces which makes the conclusion feel a bit tacked on. I'm of the opinion if I'm interested in what happens next then I will find out for myself.
Aside the football, this is a heartfelt tale of one man's struggle against his ambition and self destructive ego. There is a touch of a revenge tale in here too and although played up and serving as the lynchpin of the story, the film really sings when Sheen's Clough hits the self destruct button. The film is well made however I am sure the subject matter would be a turn off for some. If anyone has aspirations towards management of any kind this film provides a "how to.." and a "How not to.." in one sitting.
Did I get my horror show? Yes and No. The film is a quality outing and worthy of your viewing, whether you are into football or not. It does demonstrate how ego can be a rampaging monster that terrorises your nearest and dearest.
Rating - 8.0/10, 0.5 off for acting/impersonating, 1.0 off for the accent, 0.5 off for hiding the genius of the subject matter.
- I agree - It was too unbalanced. I think it focused to much on the negative, I think it might have been for shock value and missed
skyfall 2012
Cards on the table, folks, I'm a Bond fan. I grew up with these movies and even had the surprising treat of sitting across from four Bond girls on a train (if I haven't told you this story already, trust me, I will at some point). Roger Moore was my Bond, not through choice but by age. I wasn't aware that there were other incarnations of the character and got caught in the lore on discovering Goldfinger - there was another person who played Bond, and he was Scottish? So following it through the years from Moore, back to Connery and Lazenby, Dalton (entirely underrated) and Brosnan, I enjoyed each Bond flick at different levels. Some were brilliant, some were good and some where forgettable but they always had something that I could latch onto and pick out that was worth watching.
With the future release of Spectre, Daniel Craig's forth outing as Bond, terrestrial TV aired Skyfall. Yes, I had seen it at the movies, bought it on DVD but I thought I would dip my toe again for review purposes - promise (who am I kidding!)
When Daniel Craig was cast it was a strange decision, he was blonde (a lot got made of this in the press), was the lesser known among his casting competitors and he didn't have the traditional Bond looks. Let's address each point, he's blonde - so what? Lesser known - cheaper, more raw, perhaps. Traditional looks - Attractions and what is considered good looking changes over time so Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli (long time Bond producers) took a bold step and moved with the times. I have felt in his previous Bond movies that Craig has been holding back. In Skyfall, he pulls out all the stops. He immerses the screen with presence, not as sleazy Moore ended up, not as misogynistic as Connery, not as grumpy as Dalton and not as slick as Brosnan. He becomes Craig's Bond. it took two so-so movies to get there, but he did get there.
We see a bevy of other Bond favourites in Skyfall in the continual involvement of Judy Dench's M, playing it very spiky and Rory Kinnear's Tanner which is gloriously underplayed. We also have the introduction of a few franchise regulars in Q and others. The casting of Ben Wishaw as Q is glorious and, again, moves with times. His head to heads with Bond are fresh but somehow nicely familiar.
The direction is taken seriously with Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition) at the helm. He adds gravitas to the piece taking Bond and placing him in the real world, not some fictional realm which has underground bunkers with water as camouflage (I think the Austin Powers movies knocked this on the head). Mendes tips his hat to his predecessors using blasts from the past so the direction has a "handing over the baton" feel to it which gives him free reign for the next instalments.
My only quibbles with the wonderful Skyfall is a particular part in the story and the villain. Part of the story has been used before and happens around the end of the second act. With following my own website protocols, unfortunately I will not be able to share this with you without bursting the plot. Suffice to say, if you look at The Dark Knight (mandatory superhero ref) and Skyfall around the same point in each story, there is parity. Javier Bardem overacts terribly and clearly didn't read the brief of making the film lifelike. He hams the screen up in different scenes, making him less believable as an equal to Bond. Yes it adds colour but in doing so goes back to the old ways in that you could pick the villain out in a crowd. He does however provide one of the most unique elements of any Bond film in teasing Bond with a same sex sexual advance which is incredibly brave for the franchise. A further example of moving with the times.
So with the introduction of Skyfall I will continue to watch Bond movies but not for the same reason as before. It did become a bit habitual and had to pick through the occasional wreckage of a movie for some salvage. Mendes, Craig and others have given Bond a much needed update and thrust Bond flicks from period pieces to modern action/thrillers for the masses with the occasion homage for the fans. Given this new direction I am very interested in what they do with Spectre.
Rating - 8.0/10 1.0 off for Javier Bard..ham, 1.0 off for plot pilfering.
With the future release of Spectre, Daniel Craig's forth outing as Bond, terrestrial TV aired Skyfall. Yes, I had seen it at the movies, bought it on DVD but I thought I would dip my toe again for review purposes - promise (who am I kidding!)
When Daniel Craig was cast it was a strange decision, he was blonde (a lot got made of this in the press), was the lesser known among his casting competitors and he didn't have the traditional Bond looks. Let's address each point, he's blonde - so what? Lesser known - cheaper, more raw, perhaps. Traditional looks - Attractions and what is considered good looking changes over time so Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli (long time Bond producers) took a bold step and moved with the times. I have felt in his previous Bond movies that Craig has been holding back. In Skyfall, he pulls out all the stops. He immerses the screen with presence, not as sleazy Moore ended up, not as misogynistic as Connery, not as grumpy as Dalton and not as slick as Brosnan. He becomes Craig's Bond. it took two so-so movies to get there, but he did get there.
We see a bevy of other Bond favourites in Skyfall in the continual involvement of Judy Dench's M, playing it very spiky and Rory Kinnear's Tanner which is gloriously underplayed. We also have the introduction of a few franchise regulars in Q and others. The casting of Ben Wishaw as Q is glorious and, again, moves with times. His head to heads with Bond are fresh but somehow nicely familiar.
The direction is taken seriously with Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition) at the helm. He adds gravitas to the piece taking Bond and placing him in the real world, not some fictional realm which has underground bunkers with water as camouflage (I think the Austin Powers movies knocked this on the head). Mendes tips his hat to his predecessors using blasts from the past so the direction has a "handing over the baton" feel to it which gives him free reign for the next instalments.
My only quibbles with the wonderful Skyfall is a particular part in the story and the villain. Part of the story has been used before and happens around the end of the second act. With following my own website protocols, unfortunately I will not be able to share this with you without bursting the plot. Suffice to say, if you look at The Dark Knight (mandatory superhero ref) and Skyfall around the same point in each story, there is parity. Javier Bardem overacts terribly and clearly didn't read the brief of making the film lifelike. He hams the screen up in different scenes, making him less believable as an equal to Bond. Yes it adds colour but in doing so goes back to the old ways in that you could pick the villain out in a crowd. He does however provide one of the most unique elements of any Bond film in teasing Bond with a same sex sexual advance which is incredibly brave for the franchise. A further example of moving with the times.
So with the introduction of Skyfall I will continue to watch Bond movies but not for the same reason as before. It did become a bit habitual and had to pick through the occasional wreckage of a movie for some salvage. Mendes, Craig and others have given Bond a much needed update and thrust Bond flicks from period pieces to modern action/thrillers for the masses with the occasion homage for the fans. Given this new direction I am very interested in what they do with Spectre.
Rating - 8.0/10 1.0 off for Javier Bard..ham, 1.0 off for plot pilfering.
masters of the universe 1987
If you look over the last reviews, I have enjoyed every movie I have watched. I have been the consummate, happy go lucky viewer. Either this or I have been conning myself into watching exclusively good movies . For this reason I have tested myself with the latest offing. I viewed Masters of the Universe (MOTU). This is how much I love my faithful readers of this website..I watched it, so that you don't have to. And if you have already, in Ash's fine words from Alien..you have my sympathies. Is it bad? Well..Yes, it's bad, but let's get the waders on and get into the sludge.
Those of you out there who are of a certain age will remember the very popular 1980's cartoon and the line of toys called "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe". It turns out the road to success goes cartoon to toys to..live action movie. Sorry that last stage was a complete fabrication. It turns out this is a different road. A road to killing a franchise with potential and a road to help bankrupt a studio (Cannon). So who's in the mix? We have Dolph Lungren, Frank Langella and Courteney Cox. Only one of these actors comes out with any dignity, the great Frank Langella as the villain, Skeletor. He gets the best of a bad lot of lines and chews scenery with guile and grimace. Only his makeup lets him down. Not his fault, I grant you, but the makeup department should have been looking closer at the cartoon and the toys. If he is a skeleton, hence "Skeletor", why does his bones move like rubber and his nose hole coverings resemble a piece of black cloth? Meg Foster holds her own as the delightfully devilish Evil-Lyn. Is it wrong to say I was slightly attracted to her? Probably says more about me than Foster.
This should've been an action and effects piece with marginal amount of acting required (we have this with Dolph). The problem lies when the effects are really bad, even for the late 1980's. They are of a low budget and extremely low quality. I have nothing against low budgets but you have to set your out house accordingly. MOTU has big ideas but neither the effects personnel or imagination to realise them. The fight sequences are slow and tedious. And it doesn't stop there kids, the post production seems rushed causing some effects and voice overs to not match up with the hyper slow action.
I am not sure what movie MOTU was trying to piggy back onto. This flick consists of pieces of different successful sci-fi outings and pieces them together in an attempt to make a Frankenstein's monster of a movie. And a monster, they did make. A grotesque, uncoordinated creature that doesn't have a place in this world. Back to the Future, Star Wars, Conan and even the campy Flash Gordon are the most noticeable rip offs however I am sure you will spot more, if you choose to go down this particular rabbit hole. Let's be clear, director Gary Goddard doesn't homage these movies, he steals their hubcaps in the hope that his movie will somehow take on their persona. It doesn't, instead MOTU looks like it lacked clear ideas and had to "borrow" them.
There are so many things wrong with MOTU that its probably more appropriate to concentrate on the good. Frank Langella is a plus as is Meg Foster but that's really where it stops. The time travel elements are poorly thought out and seem like they were put in to make the flick more "hip" but instead dates it terribly. MOTU is so poor I lost my focus several times, but it didn't matter as there was very little plot to grab hold of. I am still pondering who the target audience was as it was a bit sweary for kids and too childish for teens/adults.
So there you go, dear readers, I took one for the team, a movie I will not be visiting again, not even for Evil-Lyn..
Rating - 3.0/10 1.0 for lack of plot, 1.0 off for lack of focus on target audience, 1.0 off for Dolph, 1.0 off for the dated time travel, 1.0 off for the makeup, 1.0 off for the action set pieces, 1.0 off for the special(?) effects.
Those of you out there who are of a certain age will remember the very popular 1980's cartoon and the line of toys called "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe". It turns out the road to success goes cartoon to toys to..live action movie. Sorry that last stage was a complete fabrication. It turns out this is a different road. A road to killing a franchise with potential and a road to help bankrupt a studio (Cannon). So who's in the mix? We have Dolph Lungren, Frank Langella and Courteney Cox. Only one of these actors comes out with any dignity, the great Frank Langella as the villain, Skeletor. He gets the best of a bad lot of lines and chews scenery with guile and grimace. Only his makeup lets him down. Not his fault, I grant you, but the makeup department should have been looking closer at the cartoon and the toys. If he is a skeleton, hence "Skeletor", why does his bones move like rubber and his nose hole coverings resemble a piece of black cloth? Meg Foster holds her own as the delightfully devilish Evil-Lyn. Is it wrong to say I was slightly attracted to her? Probably says more about me than Foster.
This should've been an action and effects piece with marginal amount of acting required (we have this with Dolph). The problem lies when the effects are really bad, even for the late 1980's. They are of a low budget and extremely low quality. I have nothing against low budgets but you have to set your out house accordingly. MOTU has big ideas but neither the effects personnel or imagination to realise them. The fight sequences are slow and tedious. And it doesn't stop there kids, the post production seems rushed causing some effects and voice overs to not match up with the hyper slow action.
I am not sure what movie MOTU was trying to piggy back onto. This flick consists of pieces of different successful sci-fi outings and pieces them together in an attempt to make a Frankenstein's monster of a movie. And a monster, they did make. A grotesque, uncoordinated creature that doesn't have a place in this world. Back to the Future, Star Wars, Conan and even the campy Flash Gordon are the most noticeable rip offs however I am sure you will spot more, if you choose to go down this particular rabbit hole. Let's be clear, director Gary Goddard doesn't homage these movies, he steals their hubcaps in the hope that his movie will somehow take on their persona. It doesn't, instead MOTU looks like it lacked clear ideas and had to "borrow" them.
There are so many things wrong with MOTU that its probably more appropriate to concentrate on the good. Frank Langella is a plus as is Meg Foster but that's really where it stops. The time travel elements are poorly thought out and seem like they were put in to make the flick more "hip" but instead dates it terribly. MOTU is so poor I lost my focus several times, but it didn't matter as there was very little plot to grab hold of. I am still pondering who the target audience was as it was a bit sweary for kids and too childish for teens/adults.
So there you go, dear readers, I took one for the team, a movie I will not be visiting again, not even for Evil-Lyn..
Rating - 3.0/10 1.0 for lack of plot, 1.0 off for lack of focus on target audience, 1.0 off for Dolph, 1.0 off for the dated time travel, 1.0 off for the makeup, 1.0 off for the action set pieces, 1.0 off for the special(?) effects.
dallas buyers club 2013
There are moments in life where you watch movies and wish you had spent the time doing something else. You know the types of movies I'm writing about..they usually involve Nicholas Cage (Cageism, again?) and you look back over the time you invested and thought..two hours, really, felt like..three. This leaves a black hole of time that will never be regained. On the flipside to this, on occasion, you happen upon a movie that you expected little of, didn't set out to watch and find yourself staying up way past your usual precious slumber time because you are in its tractor beam like, clutches.
The second experience happened to me with Dallas Buyers Club on Netflix. It was a late one, it was an impromptu viewing and it was so worthwhile.
DBC (Dallas Buyers Club) stars Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto. Both actors are at different stages of their careers with McConaughey, at one time, tipped for super stardom but not really delivering and Leto on the rise. I like to see Matthew McConaughey in flicks but don't exactly seek them out. I last saw Jared Leto in American Psycho (briefly) and he only caught my attention when he was cast as the Joker in the future Suicide Squad movie (I knew I could get a superhero reference in here somewhere). Both Leto and McConaughey are outstanding in DBC. They give everything they have into their performances, consequently I forgot I was watching acting and concentrated on the story, due to their portrayals. Credit indeed to both actors for sublime performances that told the story expertly. Jennifer Garner is the third and vital piece of the main cast. She acts well and does what is needed but rather than taking the central actors' limelight, she plays her part down almost to an ethereal level. This paves the way, rightly so, for McConaughey and Leto to shine. And shine, they do.
The story is not for the young or the fainthearted and if you are looking for a "pick me up" movie, this is not for you. The story is uncomfortable and is like looking at the sun then closing your eyes. The images stay with you. Not only is it uncomfortable to watch, it is uncomfortable to remember, but stay with you, it will. To make your way through the first act is a bit of a stamina test and seems like a rite of passage. Stay with it, dear reader, because the second and third act pays you back, with interest.
DBC's director, Jean-Marc Valée has taken risks. He has chosen to portray the main protagonist in a gritty, real life way when it would have been easier to give you someone to care about from the get go. This allows the viewer to go on a journey and overcome prejudices at the same time as the main character. This is done in such a way that never feels preachy or like you are being lectured to. Bold choices, because if this had not worked, the story would've ended with you not caring whether this character won, lost, lived or died. Instead, because this is based on a true story, Valée will have you reaching for the internet to find out what happened next.
Would I watch DBC again? The answer is a firm and frank..No. It is not that I felt I had lost time, it is because the acting, story and direction is so incredibly strong that it has stayed with me and will for a while. I won't need to watch it again to know how powerful the film is. Dallas Buyers Club is an emotional must see, folks.
Rating - 9.0/10 1.0 off for the slow first act.
The second experience happened to me with Dallas Buyers Club on Netflix. It was a late one, it was an impromptu viewing and it was so worthwhile.
DBC (Dallas Buyers Club) stars Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto. Both actors are at different stages of their careers with McConaughey, at one time, tipped for super stardom but not really delivering and Leto on the rise. I like to see Matthew McConaughey in flicks but don't exactly seek them out. I last saw Jared Leto in American Psycho (briefly) and he only caught my attention when he was cast as the Joker in the future Suicide Squad movie (I knew I could get a superhero reference in here somewhere). Both Leto and McConaughey are outstanding in DBC. They give everything they have into their performances, consequently I forgot I was watching acting and concentrated on the story, due to their portrayals. Credit indeed to both actors for sublime performances that told the story expertly. Jennifer Garner is the third and vital piece of the main cast. She acts well and does what is needed but rather than taking the central actors' limelight, she plays her part down almost to an ethereal level. This paves the way, rightly so, for McConaughey and Leto to shine. And shine, they do.
The story is not for the young or the fainthearted and if you are looking for a "pick me up" movie, this is not for you. The story is uncomfortable and is like looking at the sun then closing your eyes. The images stay with you. Not only is it uncomfortable to watch, it is uncomfortable to remember, but stay with you, it will. To make your way through the first act is a bit of a stamina test and seems like a rite of passage. Stay with it, dear reader, because the second and third act pays you back, with interest.
DBC's director, Jean-Marc Valée has taken risks. He has chosen to portray the main protagonist in a gritty, real life way when it would have been easier to give you someone to care about from the get go. This allows the viewer to go on a journey and overcome prejudices at the same time as the main character. This is done in such a way that never feels preachy or like you are being lectured to. Bold choices, because if this had not worked, the story would've ended with you not caring whether this character won, lost, lived or died. Instead, because this is based on a true story, Valée will have you reaching for the internet to find out what happened next.
Would I watch DBC again? The answer is a firm and frank..No. It is not that I felt I had lost time, it is because the acting, story and direction is so incredibly strong that it has stayed with me and will for a while. I won't need to watch it again to know how powerful the film is. Dallas Buyers Club is an emotional must see, folks.
Rating - 9.0/10 1.0 off for the slow first act.
john wick 2014
There was a frightening message on Twitter a few days ago which I am going to share with you. It wasn't "Ray gun wielding aliens overrun Las Vegas" or "Zombies spotted in suburban London with only a man with red on him to fend them off". It was that 1980 is as far away as 2050. With this in mind, I turned my movie head to Keanu Reeves. The last time a Keanu flick held my full attention was The Matrix which was 16 years ago or in Twitter terms as far away as 2031. Yes, I had a slight dabbling with Constantine in 2005 (due to the comic book) but really couldn't get over the diabolical casting. No harm to Keanu but a Sting lookalike, he is not. Most of Keanu's performances have passed me by and John Wick was going to be added to the list. Then a strange thing occurred, the more I heard about John Wick, the more it was tickling my interest. Has Keanu returned to form?
Keanu Reeves acting has always been a bit hit and miss. For every Matrix there is a Day the Earth Stood Still, for every Point Break there is Chain Reaction and for every Bill and Ted there is Dracula (what accent were you going for?) In John Wick he plays it dead straight. The starting points in this film are emotionally charged and Keanu brings his "A" game to the titular John Wick. He sets the character on a journey without using that "whoa" look that he has. Bravo sir! In fact, throughout the whole movie he does not break character once, he plays it steely, low key and this builds his character.
The other cast members are bit players. John Leguizamo, Ian MacShane and Willem Dafoe pop up on screen but are not vital. They are always nice to have as they add a sprinkling of star quality. The big bad is played by Michael Nyqvist (Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo). Unfortunately I am not quite sure what he is going for other than "mad Russian". At times, Nyqvist makes the audience fell uncomfortable akin to Joe Pesci in Goodfellas which works very well however he camps up the villain a bit too much for me and when he does this, it comes across as "villain by numbers".
The start of the film reminded me of the slow haul to the top of a roller coaster. It is not the most exciting part but vital to the thrill of the ride. Once it reaches the top, the action pieces are well choreographed and very, very violent. Blood splatters purposefully across the camera on a couple of occasions so it's not one for the squeamish. The action does start to resemble a tiresome video game in that it is the similar action on different levels (game levels, not artistic levels), even to the point of having end of level bosses. If John Wick was made in the 80's in would have an adjoining 8 bit Ocean game tie in.
The story will not require you to run out and buy a protractor and slide rule to work out intricate plot points as it is very simple. This is why it works so delightfully well. There is a marvellous linear quality. John Wick immerses you in a hit-man world and expects you to catch up. It is building a universe and I hope it is successful in doing so as I would like to see more of the characters and more of this world in the inevitable sequels but we thought that about The Matrix and look how that turned out.
Rating - 8.0/10 1.0 off for the campy villain, 1.0 off for the video game action scenes.
Keanu Reeves acting has always been a bit hit and miss. For every Matrix there is a Day the Earth Stood Still, for every Point Break there is Chain Reaction and for every Bill and Ted there is Dracula (what accent were you going for?) In John Wick he plays it dead straight. The starting points in this film are emotionally charged and Keanu brings his "A" game to the titular John Wick. He sets the character on a journey without using that "whoa" look that he has. Bravo sir! In fact, throughout the whole movie he does not break character once, he plays it steely, low key and this builds his character.
The other cast members are bit players. John Leguizamo, Ian MacShane and Willem Dafoe pop up on screen but are not vital. They are always nice to have as they add a sprinkling of star quality. The big bad is played by Michael Nyqvist (Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo). Unfortunately I am not quite sure what he is going for other than "mad Russian". At times, Nyqvist makes the audience fell uncomfortable akin to Joe Pesci in Goodfellas which works very well however he camps up the villain a bit too much for me and when he does this, it comes across as "villain by numbers".
The start of the film reminded me of the slow haul to the top of a roller coaster. It is not the most exciting part but vital to the thrill of the ride. Once it reaches the top, the action pieces are well choreographed and very, very violent. Blood splatters purposefully across the camera on a couple of occasions so it's not one for the squeamish. The action does start to resemble a tiresome video game in that it is the similar action on different levels (game levels, not artistic levels), even to the point of having end of level bosses. If John Wick was made in the 80's in would have an adjoining 8 bit Ocean game tie in.
The story will not require you to run out and buy a protractor and slide rule to work out intricate plot points as it is very simple. This is why it works so delightfully well. There is a marvellous linear quality. John Wick immerses you in a hit-man world and expects you to catch up. It is building a universe and I hope it is successful in doing so as I would like to see more of the characters and more of this world in the inevitable sequels but we thought that about The Matrix and look how that turned out.
Rating - 8.0/10 1.0 off for the campy villain, 1.0 off for the video game action scenes.
mr mom 1983
So lovely readers we ended September on something of cerebral note (Macbeth), now it's time to get a bit silly for the start of October. I have had a bit of a break from Netflix movies as it becomes a bit stale and more miss than hit if you look every evening. At times it even turns to frustration when you can't find the flick that will quench that movie thirst. But jump back in, I did, and found a wee gem from the 1980's in Mr Mom.
The preface is a simple one, Michael Keaton plays a father of three kids who has recently been laid off from his job so he takes over his wife's role in the family when she returns to work. So follows child rearing antics and cooking and cleaning hi jinks. It's the sort of film Adam Sandler would make today but don't let this put you off, adorable readers, this one is full of delectable asides that props the movie up. Sub plots are explored and ride like mini instalments of the family's life. The film expands on his wife's experiences in the workplace, Keaton relationships with the other "moms" and his overall mental fall and eventual rise. Very serious topics indeed and handled with a sugar coating that is required for an out and out comedy. The asides are important because if we didn't have them we would be lucky to have about 20 minutes of film.
Keaton's star was on the rise back then and although he, again, plays..Michael Keaton we hadn't seen too much of him so he was fresh, original and enjoyable to watch. This is not a one man show as there is a main stay of 1980's quality cast around him in Teri Garr, Jeffrey Tambor and Martin Mull. The child actors are also superb and gloriously understated. They act as a foil for Keaton and on the whole it works. There are touching sequences with the children that plucks the heart strings of even the hardened movie viewer. Watch out for the "woobie" scene. Sniff!
Credit has to be given to the late, great John Hughes (The Breakfast Club, Home Alone) for writing an ordinary tale and giving it emotion, purpose and dipping into extraordinary pathos, when required. Hughes manages to delve into the psychology of values and family roles while referencing 1980's pop culture. Very clever stuff.
I suppose the big questions to ask is did the flick work then and does it work now? The film has not dated very well and whole "fish out of water" tale has been done to death but back then it was quirky. The idea of a (semi) alpha male being asked to home make seemed odd enough to make a screwball film. Flash forward to 2015 and we have house husbands aplenty so the odd factor is lost. There are also desperate stereotypes that don't really sing that well in modern times.
Mr Mom will not stay with you but it has heart and serves as a prototype for some very valuable Hughes films later on. We all get moments when we need this type of movie and after a dose of the Shakespeares this is exactly what was required. This is a low maintenance movie to switch on and turn the brain off. It doesn't take itself seriously and it won't expect you to either.
Rating 7.5/10 - for the womanising boss/bombshell neighbour, c,mon! 1.0 off for outdated concepts, 0.5 off for the lack of stick.
The preface is a simple one, Michael Keaton plays a father of three kids who has recently been laid off from his job so he takes over his wife's role in the family when she returns to work. So follows child rearing antics and cooking and cleaning hi jinks. It's the sort of film Adam Sandler would make today but don't let this put you off, adorable readers, this one is full of delectable asides that props the movie up. Sub plots are explored and ride like mini instalments of the family's life. The film expands on his wife's experiences in the workplace, Keaton relationships with the other "moms" and his overall mental fall and eventual rise. Very serious topics indeed and handled with a sugar coating that is required for an out and out comedy. The asides are important because if we didn't have them we would be lucky to have about 20 minutes of film.
Keaton's star was on the rise back then and although he, again, plays..Michael Keaton we hadn't seen too much of him so he was fresh, original and enjoyable to watch. This is not a one man show as there is a main stay of 1980's quality cast around him in Teri Garr, Jeffrey Tambor and Martin Mull. The child actors are also superb and gloriously understated. They act as a foil for Keaton and on the whole it works. There are touching sequences with the children that plucks the heart strings of even the hardened movie viewer. Watch out for the "woobie" scene. Sniff!
Credit has to be given to the late, great John Hughes (The Breakfast Club, Home Alone) for writing an ordinary tale and giving it emotion, purpose and dipping into extraordinary pathos, when required. Hughes manages to delve into the psychology of values and family roles while referencing 1980's pop culture. Very clever stuff.
I suppose the big questions to ask is did the flick work then and does it work now? The film has not dated very well and whole "fish out of water" tale has been done to death but back then it was quirky. The idea of a (semi) alpha male being asked to home make seemed odd enough to make a screwball film. Flash forward to 2015 and we have house husbands aplenty so the odd factor is lost. There are also desperate stereotypes that don't really sing that well in modern times.
Mr Mom will not stay with you but it has heart and serves as a prototype for some very valuable Hughes films later on. We all get moments when we need this type of movie and after a dose of the Shakespeares this is exactly what was required. This is a low maintenance movie to switch on and turn the brain off. It doesn't take itself seriously and it won't expect you to either.
Rating 7.5/10 - for the womanising boss/bombshell neighbour, c,mon! 1.0 off for outdated concepts, 0.5 off for the lack of stick.
