Sunday [June 22] was the anniversary of this amazing movie's opening. In an age of digital characters being rather ubiquitous, it's hard to believe this film was the showcase in state-of-the-art special effects for integrating live action with an imaginary character. In many ways, the techniques used to make Roger "real" were a vast improvement over Mary Poppins and probably led to the refinements in making Gollum possible while sharing the blame for Jar Jar Binks. Looking back, one would think everybody involved was nuts. Before computers became practical on the tedious matters, people had to draw, ink and paint all the characters in. Then they took it a step further by painstakingly getting all the light and shadow elements as close as possible. This is what blew audiences away. 
 
After two decades, Roger Rabbit continues to impress me because it is based upon a solid screenplay. The original book is completely different and would've flopped according to Somara, the only person I know who actually read Who Censored Roger Rabbit. Why Disney [the parent corporation of Touchstone Pictures] chose to buy the story is beyond me. When Somara gave me a synopsis of Gary Wolf's 1981 novel, Roger Rabbit sounded more like another controversial Ralph Bakshi cartoon. 
 
The great acting of Bob Hoskins is what really made the film a success. Christopher Lloyd, Kathleen Turner, Joanna Cassidy and Charles Fleischer helped immensely but Bob did most of the physical stuff to make it appear realistic. Somara's deluxe DVD of Roger Rabbit shows all the behind-the-scenes work he had to endure, mainly hanging from strings to assist the blue-screen work or maintaining his eye lines for interacting with characters the animators had to paint in later. The only downside is future viewing does get ruined a tad because you notice the robots under the animation in certain scenes more. 
 
As a huge fan of animation, this movie was also one of coolest gathering of characters which rarely happens since the copyright holders are as petty as they are greedy. I cannot remember how the producers ironed out an arrangement Disney, Warner Brothers, Universal and Ted Turner's corporation could agree on. Somehow the producers did it and Roger Rabbit contained a showcase of Who's Who from animation's Pre-WWII period which will probably never happen again. 
 
With this Summer being the movie's Twentieth anniversary, I want to make a recommendation to revisit it. If you have kids now, I think they'll be amused even after the opening cartoon. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ June 25, 2008 8:58:04 AM CDT ( 0 comments )

The final movie from Somara's recovery marathon! 
 
Yeah, I know, this DVD was watched way over two months ago so why the delay? Life gets in the way plus other more immediate stories get written, stuff I can whip together in a hurry such as Gene Wilder's birthday or the Roadrunner computer. Usually, I do jot down some notes [mentally and on my MacBook] on the movie, book, DVD set or game I want to review and it is moved into a queue. Not the best method yet it prevents me from ever claiming I've run out of things to write about. The upside of being behind! On to the review but I think I will be pushing for more succinct stuff if the inspiration isn't there or in the case of this DVD, it was hard to articulate. 
 
The Life and Death of Peter Sellers  slipped through the general public because it was initially released in America via HBO only. Either Peter Sellers has powers from beyond the grave or his fourth wife raised a powerful stink to prevent it from being in theaters. Such a shame. It brilliantly captures Sellers' volatile, unpredictable and self-loathing side. Many people with his level of talent tend to be miserable because audiences always expect them to be "on." In Peter's case, he didn't always like who he was so his characters were masks to hide behind. 
 
The cast borders on perfect too. Geoffrey Rush practically channels Peter Sellers even better than Ewan MacGregor mimicking Alec Guinness as Obi-Wan; many accused Sellers of "stealing" from Guinness after they did The Ladykillers together. Accompanying Rush are Charlize Theron as Britt Ekland [wife number two], Emily Watson as Anne [wife number one], John Lithgow as Blake Edwards, Stanley Tucci as Stanley Kubrick, Miriam Margoyles as Peg [his domineering mother] and Stephen Fry as Maurice Woodruff, the con-artist/fortune teller who held more sway than Peter's agent. Again, with such a list of heavy hitters, someone had the pull to prevent this biopic from getting the distribution it deserved. Reminds me of all the fuss to prevent the John Belushi flick Wired from even being made. 
 
Sellers has a typical beginning; it's after WWII, he's a star on a popular radio show yet it doesn't pay enough to support his wife and two children. He auditions for movies and is rejected because he doesn't fit what the casting director is looking for. So he returns, disguised as a WWI veteran, lands the gig and then reveals his ruse as a demonstration of his talent. Peter is then on the roller coaster of fame and fortune until his death in 1980. The story of his life isn't what sold me on recommending this DVD, you can watch that and make up your own mind on how interesting it is. What made the lasting impression on me was Rush's performance and how the movie takes it a step further. At different intervals of the story, Rush portrays the different people in his life and breaks the fourth wall to tell the audience how that particular person felt about Peter. For example, during one of his many squabbles with Blake Edwards, Rush replaces Lithgow in the role and speaks to the camera about how their relationship was as stressful as it was profitable. 
 
This movie is certainly a must for fans, like me and probably an interesting side trek for those who enjoy biography flicks. Even the casual watchers of the Pink Panther series will be entranced by Rush’s performance as the man who inspired lesser comedian-chameleons Mike Meyers, Dana Carvey, Robin Williams and Jim Carrey. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ June 12, 2008 8:54:58 PM CDT ( 0 comments )

Today is Superman’s 70th birthday. With his first appearance in Action Comics #1, comic books have been associated with superheroes ever since thanks to the success of this iconic character. What timing too. This week we got the chance to rent the Richard Donner version of my favorite of the five Superman movies, I’ve only seen three so I only have a bad opinion of Superman III. 
 
The first Superman’s opening scene was always puzzling. What did General Zod, Ursa and Non being sentenced to the Phantom Zone have to do with the rest of the movie? Namely Superman’s origins. Only those familiar with past Salkind-produced movies knew; it was cheaper to shoot two films while they had all the sets and actors in place; they did this before with their two Musketeers flicks in the mid Seventies. Besides, anything related to Science Fiction was a sure thing after Star Wars in 1977. Having the sequel made simultaneous could keep up the momentum by releasing it shortly after the original. How long the gap would be, I don’t know but I’m sure it wasn’t as long as it turned out to be. Seems easy nowadays after Peter Jackson pulled it off with in his Rings trilogy. Then again, Jackson practically had all the resources of New Zealand at his disposal. Richard Donner didn’t fare so well. As everyone knows, Donner was rushed into completing film one for the Christmas 1978 release date was in stone. Then the Salkinds fired him after over various differences regarding the second. Richard Lester, who did the Musketeers franchise, was brought in to finish it. According to Donner, he completed shooting 80 percent of Superman II and Lester used most of it; the movie is half of each director by Donner’s estimates. The end result was II being okay until the end which I always thought was lame. 
 
This all changed in 2006 with Warner Brothers finally issuing Donner’s version because people had been asking him for years, “What would you have done differently?” The studio owed him too. Donner has directed all four Lethal Weapon movies which have made a fortune. This director’s cut is a solid reconstruction without relying on digital effects to “enhance” what was impressive for its day. The plot remains the same, General Zod, Ursa and Non escape from the Phantom Zone, conquer the Earth while Superman is distracted by his relationship with Lois Lane, and then the big fight over New York until the evil trio are defeated. 
 
It’s Donner’s execution which I preferred. First, there’s a quick recap of Superman with the Phantom Zone’s prisoners being more involved: they saw Krypton explode, they saw Kal-El’s ship and they drifted toward our solar system over the years. How they escape is tied in with the previous movie, not Lester’s Eiffel Tower terrorists jazz. Second, Marlon Brando returns as the essence of Jor-El, advising Supes through the Fortress of Solitude’s computer. This was a much better and more plausible solution for Superman regaining his powers so he could fight the evil trio. Meanwhile, Zod and the gang are even more destructive in their conquest and fight against Superman. Finally, Donner’s ending is better by retaining the spirit of his predecessor, not Lester’s puzzling solution which makes Lois forget Clark, Kal-El and Superman are the same guy. 
 
It’s not completely flawless. One scene Donner insisted on inserting was only done as a screen test so it has a rather jarring continuity problem. Even the casual viewer will find it jarring. However, Donner’s instincts were right. The interaction between Clark and Lois is too important to let the glitch ruin it. There are noticeable differences in sound quality too making the restored/reconstructed elements stick out easily. 
 
Donner’s stronger execution clobbers its shortcomings easily. I think for most who don’t have memories like a steel trap would be better served by watching the first Superman then following it up with this. Then it’s a less puzzling experience or maybe most people don’t care so much about the details. 
 
Of all the Superman movies to choose from to celebrate the Man of Steel’s big Seven Oh, this is my pick. The first is great too, it just dwells on his origin longer than I’d care for because his early career isn’t as compelling as Batman’s which was finally captured successfully in Batman Begins. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ April 27, 2008 4:56:05 PM CDT ( 0 comments )

Movie number two from Somara’s recovery marathon!  
 
We saw a trailer for this one once, agreed that we wanted to see it, especially after catching a story about her on The History Channel [or was it E!?]. I remember us sitting through the end of it, predicting the narrator reporting her death. How wrong we were. The producers ended the special with a rare interview of the elusive pin-up but in silhouette at her insistence. She didn’t want to disappoint fans with reality. Meanwhile, I never recalled this movie being released to any Austin theaters despite the buzz at SXSW 2006. Could’ve been a straight-to-cable thing such as Reefer Madness: The Musical. 
 
The film begins with an undercover sting operation at an adult bookstore which is hilarious by today’s standards [if you ever come to Texas, these places impossible to avoid seeing along I-35]. Still, the point of it was to establish the era’s mood: Senator Kefauver [Strathairn, always great] is on his tear against “dangerous” materials such as dirty pictures, horror comics and anything else that could be blamed on the anti-social behavior sweeping teenagers in the Fifties. Not to spoil the plot, the bust and Congressional hearings act as foreshadowing on how the story ends—if you’re not familiar with Bettie’s life. 
 
Then time rewinds to rural Tennessee in the Thirties. Even as a pre-teen, Bettie is shown as a rather popular, attractive girl. It upsets her socially conservative, super religious parents. There are other details covering her background [first marriage, college, etc.] I’ll skip. My goal is to review, not retell the whole story. How much of it is true can only be verified by Mrs. Page or an official biographer. Other events in Bettie’s life are truncated to get right to the key period everyone knows, her “sordid” career from the early to mid Fifties in New York and Florida. 
 
Much like thousands of young people after WWII, Bettie leaves for NYC to pursue acting and modeling. It’s not a far-fetched idea since she studied it in college and had past experience. The going is tough but she’s an optimistic, upbeat person. One day while walking through a park, she meets a policeman who’s also a photographer. They strike up a conversation and this eventually leads to her pin-up career with Irving Klaw and Bunny Yeager. You learn that she’s also naive, if the movie is to be believed. To clarify, Bettie isn’t naive to the point of stupid because no harm comes to her; the handlers make sure of this. She’s naive about the pictures’ purpose, context and enemies. To her, many of these peculiar photo shoots were just the equivalent to today’s cos-play or acting exercises she studies on the side. As for the nudity? Bettie doesn’t see the harm in it. These are pictures, not instructions, and her rationalization is usually derived from her interpretation of the Bible: Adam and Eve were “naked” too. 
 
When Bettie is called before Kefauver’s hearing, she has a change of heart [or epiphany] yet she never was called to testify. The movie takes a stab on the “why.” Only Mrs. Page can truly answer this. Whatever her reason was, everyone knows that she quit everything related to modeling, acting, etc., and became a more devout Christian, proselytizing to anyone willing to listen. What really followed after the credits was obscurity and mystery until the Eighties. 
 
The people involved in making Bettie did a solid job presenting this as a serious, amusing tale about the notorious period of her life. It can’t help but be an R-rated movie due to the subject matter yet it doesn’t sink to arbitrarily showing Bettie [Gretchen Mol] naked unless it’s crucial to the story. The use of black-and-white supports my point against the nudity being thrown in to attract an audience a la Showgirls. It serves the bigger purpose of setting the tone of the Fifties, as Americans seem to collectively remember them; how ideal it was when there were no “gray” moral areas. When Bettie visits Florida, it shifts to color to amplify the sunny nature of the place. Maybe it emphasizes the protagonist’s fondness for Miami. 
 
Her religious nature isn’t ridiculed into something cartoonish neither. It was a part of her character which is why her “conversion” seemed genuine. I use quotes because I don’t think Bettie ever quit being a Christian. She chose to embrace her faith on a more involved level and rebuilt her new career around it. She wasn’t painted into a moral corner like most reborn “Christians” who use the process to absolve past misdeeds; see Charles Colson and Gary Busey. 
 
I used to dismiss the Bettie Page revival in the Eighties because I didn’t get it. Being a comic-book fan, it could be embarrassing showing non-geek friends your favorite shop and there’d be one of those well-done Dave Stevens posters. “Oh, you’re socially adjusted. Uh huh,” is going through their minds, especially the female chums. Anyway, I figured she was another unattainable, lame ideal woman from the past like the overrated Marilyn Monroe. After reading an article about her [I think it was Buck Henry] and seeing the TV special I mentioned earlier, I think I understood the interest [or obsession]. Bettie Page represents the standard of beauty, erotic or not, before the West became obsessed with thin blondes under 25 needing airbrushed assistance. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ April 20, 2008 7:35:01 PM CDT ( 0 comments )

Movie number one from Somara’s recovery marathon! 
 
This is what Peter Jackson was originally going to do until The Lord of the Rings came his way? Originally I was puzzled as to why. The DeLaurentis remake wasn't very good but I've always felt that the 1933 version with Fay Wray didn’t need to be improved upon. Seriously, it was a product of its time and today's audiences are terrified by mists, alien butt probing, Japanese ghosts on videotapes and serial killers wearing goalie masks. I did give Jackson a pass though. He has a great sense of vision and the casting was pretty solid. 
 
Sadly, more is less with this remake. Around an hour could've been edited out to tighten up the story and pacing. Kong isn't based upon a rich, detailed novel like Rings so nothing would have been lost by streamlining the trip or exploration of Skull Island. The giant gorilla is the star, Denham [Black] discovering him, capturing him and exploiting him takes takes too long to achieve.  
 
The film's duration is its only flaw. What Jackson and crew did right is numerous. Black is great as the alcoholic Denham, a struggling film maker who is constantly scheming and rationalizing his actions while the situation keeps shifting. Watts is equally great as Darrow, the vaudeville actress Kong grows fond of; it explains her acrobatic abilities to keep the brute amused. The supporting cast is outstanding too because when the various personalities of the ship or filming crew are killed, their deaths have an effect to the story and Denham. What I'm trying to articulate [poorly] is Jackson's ability to get the audience emotionally invested in those supporting characters as he did in Rings. Remember Boromir's death? Same goes for Kong, I just won't spoil it with the names. Skull Island is fleshed out more with its numerous insects, dinosaurs and freaky natives, another Jackson strength. Kong climbing the Empire State Building with Darrow in his hand [not a spoiler] definitely invoked my fear of heights. 
 
Is it really worth watching? Yes despite its length and numerous slow spots. Maybe it’s best watched in two sittings. When you get to about 90 to 100 minutes in, find a logical place to stop it, turn it off and finish viewing the next day. One user comment on imdb.com said it best: “A 10-star 2-hour movie screaming to get out of a 7-star 3-hour movie.” 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ April 13, 2008 8:15:16 PM CDT ( 0 comments )

This is the movie Event Horizon probably aspired to be, if it didn’t give up and go with the lame supernatural angle. Leave it to Danny Boyle of 28 Days Later and Shallow Grave to bring out the horror, fright and terror people bring upon themselves without having to resort to some deux ex machina solution…I’m looking in your direction Tim Burton. 
 
Fifty years from now, our Sun is dying because something is destroying it from the inside; a theoretically impossible object called a Q-ball, explained by the movie’s science advisor Dr. Brian Cox. All life on Earth is gambling on the eight crew members of the Icarus II to deliver a nuclear weapon the size of Manhattan which will reignite the Sun and purge the Q-ball. Definitely a suicide mission. 
 
It wouldn’t be much of a movie if the mission went smoothly. Notice the “two” after the ship’s name. Almost ten years earlier, the first Icarus left for the same purpose and all contact was lost some time after the vessel passed Mercury. Everyone assumed the spacecraft was destroyed and/or its bomb failed. Turns out, it’s parked very close to the Sun. Commander Kaneda [Sanada] decides to investigate at the advice of Physicist/Payload Specialist Capa [Murphy]; his reasoning is that the nuclear device may not work and it would be wiser to have two. Altering their course slightly to intercept the previous ship inflicts serious damage to the Icarus II, increasing the probability the crew will not be returning alive. Now they have no choice but to dock with the older vessel, find out what happened to the crew and cannibalize it for spare parts. Anything further would spoil it. 
 
I really liked it because I felt terrified for the crew. They’re caught between being either instantly desiccated by the cold vacuum of space or vaporized by the Sun if the ship’s giant deflector fails. The tension amongst the astronauts doesn’t help, this was established immediately to illustrate why Computer Specialist Mace [Evans] dislikes and distrusts Capa. It didn’t seem genuine at first yet it wasn’t detrimental to the big plot’s execution. I also thought Boyle trying to make the crew as international as possible was a nice touch: two Americans [Evans & Garity], an Australian [Byrne], a Malaysian [Yeoh], a Maori/New Zealander [Curtis], an Irishman [Murphy], an ethnically Chinese Englishman [Wong] and a Japanese commander [Sanada]. 
 
SPOILER ALERT: I know it’s just a movie but the ship losing the ability to communicate with Earth before it reaches Mercury is poetic license on Boyle’s part. NASA sent probes there in the Seventies and successfully received scores of pictures on the first planet in our solar system. I guess it wouldn’t be as terrifying if Icarus II could get further advice from home. 
 
Definitely worth renting if you want to see a scary, realistic SciFi flick in the same vein as 2001, 2010 and the first Alien. Even though The Black Hole is plain silly and Event Horizon was disappointing, Sunshine shares some elements from them. Now to see if Dr. Phil Plait ever got around to reviewing this. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ March 3, 2008 5:08:21 PM CST ( 0 comments )

Judd Apatow, Hollywood's current golden child of comedy, loans his production company and magic touch to Seth Rogen [a regular of Apatow's] for this coming-of-age picture. It's a fouler-mouthed version of Weird Science with Dazed and Confused's flow or snapshot of one day's events. Unfortunately, it's immediate legacy is the overplayed McLovin gag so it's hard to tell if it will go on to be remembered like John Hughes' beloved Eighties streak. 
 
Seth [Hill] and Evan [Cera] are best friends trying to make the best of their senior year before they're separated by college; Evan was accepted to Dartmouth while Seth made it into a local and/or lesser university. They're not popular, they're not successful with girls and hanging out with the dorkier Fogell doesn't help. Thus high school hasn't lived up to their expectations, or more accurately, Seth's because Evan is more ambivalent about life. When they're invited to a party being thrown by Jules [Stone], the gears start turning in Seth's mind about the possibilities on how this could be the biggest night of their lives. Evan only agrees to tag along since Becca [MacIsaac] will be there. He's attracted to her and her friend says she likes him too, Becca is a bit shy. Fogell only gets to come because he has a fake ID and can purchase alcohol, something Seth promised Jules he could provide. 
 
After some more exposition, mainly why Seth dislikes Becca and why the DVD's main home screen had numerous doodles of "body parts," our protagonists head out to the liquor store. Obviously, the place is robbed while Fogell was trying to pay; another scene played to death by the ads. When the police arrive [Rogen and Hader], Seth and Evan flee out of the assumption that Fogell is being arrested. Then the evening of misadventure begins: Fogell riding around with two corrupt cops, Seth and Evan trying to find alcohol because they can't go to the party empty handed, life lessons about the opposite sex and friendships being strengthened through adversity. 
 
Is it funny though? Not really, it's more amusing like past movies Apatow has directed [40 Year Old Virgin] or produced [Anchorman]. The dialog between the teenagers is pretty accurate, crudeness and all, since most males are obsessed with sex at their age. I did enjoy the sequences of Seth and Fogell reliving moments of selective memory. Yet I was rather disappointed in how unlikable the policemen were. They're just corrupt, lazy cops who patrol the suburbs. I will admit, I was gasping for air, laughing too hard at the closing credits' gallery of Seth's childhood drawings of "body parts." In the end, Superbad is only worth watching to kill time, catch up on Pop Culture references and see how Apatow and Rogen have updated the misadventures of Gary and Wyatt in the form of Seth and Evan. Meanwhile, I've discovered that the first and second season of the USA Network's series Weird Science is out on DVD which did a better job stretching out a 90-minute movie into a clever sitcom. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ January 23, 2008 3:59:03 PM CST ( 0 comments )

Thanks to the backlog created by getting sick, the holidays and my general apathy, I have made a promise to myself that I can’t rent any new movies until I finish posting the last three I saw. I also felt I should complete them before I get past the two-month mark, as my memory will fade. However, if you find these reviews worthless, you can say so in the Comments, otherwise silence ends up being “compliance.” 
 
The previous paragraph now dovetails excellently into the movie’s subject matter, life in a police state and the people who do the dirty work to make it possible. Sadly, the key actor Ulrich Muhe died from stomach cancer last year, depriving him of all fame he could’ve gained in the English-speaking world for his performance. Muhe grew up in the oppressive nation and was spied upon more than the average German due to his profession. I think it made him quite attuned to the Staatssicherheit’s behavior. NPR’s Fresh Air got me interested in seeing this rather emotional, touching story when Gross interviewed the director Henckel von Donnersmarck. During the height of East Germany’s existence, the secret police employed almost 300,000 operatives to cover a population of 17 million, giving it the highest ratio of secret police-to-citizen in the Soviet Bloc. Doesn’t sound like much but to give you a better illustration, New York City has half the population and there are only 100,000 police officers to enforce the law. Thus, the legends of the Staatssicherheit being “everywhere” were pretty close to true. 
 
Lives begins in the mid-Eighties with Captain Wiesler [Muhe] teaching an interrogation class. A no-nonsense, by-the-book, inflexible hard-ass. Then his old classmate and commander Grubitz invites him to see a play by Georg Dreyman [Koch from Black Book], a very pro-regime writer with friends in high places; this protects him for associating with other artists on the subversives list. Turns out, Grubitz needs someone he implicitly trusts to monitor Dreyman and find just enough dirt on the intellectual which will defang the powerful friends. Wiesler agrees to the assignment and cases Dreyman. When there’s an opportunity, Wiesler’s team enters Dreyman’s apartment and plants listening devices throughout with another demonstration of thoroughness, intimidation and efficiency after a neighbor is caught witnessing the handiwork. The spying then begins in earnest through a special room on the top floor giving total access to Dreyman’s phone, doorbell and entrance. What Grubitz didn’t count on was Wiesler’s detective skills: Dreyman is a high-priority surveillance case because his girlfriend, popular actress Christa-Maria Sieland, is in a love triangle with Minister Hempf [the equivalent of a cabinet member in the US governent]. Using State operatives and equipment to remove a romantic rival is against the ideals of the Party according to Wiesler. Confronted on this point, Grubitz tells him to see the silver lining: a grateful minister will promote both of them to better positions. Otherwise, obey these orders or else. Disillusioned, Wiesler faithfully carries out his duties for the next few weeks, gradually growing sympathetic to Dreyman until he can no longer be impartial and it alters his perspective on the regime. 
 
Any further descriptions would spoil it. I will write this though. The bulk of the movie stays anchored in the mid-Eighties and when you think it’s over with the news of Gorbachev’s ascendency, it continues. First you see the characters reacting to the events of 1989 and then it concluding with their lives in the Nineties under a unified Germany. 
 
Lives is pretty heavy. Definitely not a date flick, a diversion or a popcorn movie [what educated people call “terrible”]. Yet it is the kind of movie I do like. Something thought provoking. Something to drum up a conversation, debate or argument about afterwards. I remembered the heated discussion at TGIFridays after seeing The Matrix or how Hollywood Shuffle really ended. I readily admit that Lives has formulaic elements but it triumphs in the execution of the acting; or I just can’t tell if someone is terrible in German. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ January 14, 2008 6:34:29 PM CST ( 0 comments )

This goofy movie has a special place in my heart for several reasons. In the past, it was a Silder tradition to watch it on New Year’s Day while you’re nursing a hangover from the previous night, eating Paul’s infamous chili. Currently, I now watch it every Fall to get fired up over the new NHL season, right there with Miracle, and that Gordie Howe movie slated for the near future. Slap Shot is also ingrained all hockey fans. Various lines from it is their secret language like teenagers have with their flavor-of-the-month comedy. Austin is a bit behind the curve but we have numerous transplants who say “Two minutes by yourself, and you feel shame!” when the opposing players are sent to the penalty box. 
 
Slap Shot debuted thirty years ago and it still holds up. There are dated elements but the core story holds up because the execution is what separates it from cheesier sports flicks such as Major League. When it opens, the Charleston Chiefs are a mediocre, minor-league hockey team based in a dying industrial town during the late Seventies. Attendance is poor, the town’s primary employer is shutting down and many of the players don’t have serious futures in the NHL, WHA or Europe because they’re too old or untalented. Reggie [Newman] fears the team may be folding with all this bad news on top of the general manager’s evasiveness regarding money. So he starts a rumor about the Chiefs being sold to a buyer in Florida to keep the players’ morale up. Then on the ice, Reggie makes the team “goon it up” to draw attention. The newly acquired Hanson brothers have no problem picking fights, same goes for the naive Dave [Houser]. Oddly, the strategy of turning their games into a blood sport circus works. The Chiefs start winning, their home stadium fills up, fans follow them on road games and the opposition fears, hates or dreads them. Except for Ned [Ontkean], he refuses to fight for he sees through Reggie’s ploys. Unfortunately, Ned is having problems with his wife Lily [Braden] which gives Reggie a different way to antagonize the team’s best goal scorer. I’ll end the plot synopsis there. The movie’s last 30 minutes are some of its finest moments entailing the Chiefs reaching the championship and Reggie finally meeting the team’s real owner. 
 
Earlier I stated this film as being dated. The hair, the clothing, the technology, the music [“Right Back Where We Started From” by Maxine Nightingale permeates travel sequences] and the style of hockey scream “Seventies!” But it has held up pretty damn well after 30 years because it retains the bulk of its best scenes when network TV cuts the nudity and dubs over the cruder language; this is how I first saw it on ABC as a kid in the early Eighties. Maybe it wouldn’t air today since its primary humor is physical, namely the Hansons hitting people and their attack on a fan pre-date Terry O’Reilly’s Madison Square Garden brawl by two years. Comedy Central wouldn’t object for it’s tame compared to South Park. It also has a place in my heart as being one of the better films as a window to the past. When it was made, it was a contemporary movie so all those dated details were genuine which “retro” movies tend to go overboard on [the easiest example being The Wedding Singer]. Finally, it has a solid, Sixties-Seventies bittersweet ending Hollywood rarely gives movies now. It ends on an up note yet the future for Reggie, the Hansons, Dave, Ned and Lily is uncertain. I prefer to be left wondering instead of having the postscript telegraphed which completely ruined Unbreakable. 
 
Someone in the hockey press once wondered why this sport doesn’t have as many movies as football or baseball. Yet Slap Shot was mentioned as the penultimate hockey flick for it captures the game’s essence on and off the ice in addition to being funny. Personally, if those other sports had a movie half as clever as Slap Shot, then the world would’ve been spared the Major League trilogy and Friday Night Lights every week. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ December 10, 2007 7:11:24 PM CST ( 0 comments )

Probably the worst Disney Movie I’ve ever seen since The Emperor’s New Groove. My immediate guess is that Disney made this dog in anticipation of Pixar taking their movies elsewhere. All they got right was it being a computer-generated cartoon. What they couldn’t copy was Pixar’s sensibilities on plot, characters and overall entertainment. It’s so dull that it made Barnyard seem brilliant. 
 
The plot is about an orphaned kid who makes inventions that don’t work, or what if Jimmy Neutron had no parents. Then a mysterious stranger arrives to steal his current gadget, a memory inducer so he can remember what his mother’s face looked like. Then there’s another kid trying to protect him but he turns out to be from the future. It goes on with little point or interest because it stinks of revisionism midway through its production. Maybe kids will like it for the physical violence jokes, singing frogs and the lame robot. I fell asleep sometime after the tour of the Robinson mansion. Somara told me I wouldn’t be missing anything if I jumped back on the DVD player. 
 
Save your money, avoid this turkey. It might keep children occupied for 80 minutes but so would a DVD of a log burning in a fireplace over the same amount of time. 

Posted by: Steve Maggi

@ December 2, 2007 8:23:43 PM CST ( 0 comments )