Always (1989)

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096794/

Official Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxMZnKm-kAw

BEFORE THE VIEWING

So this isn't something I tend to share, but the internet is super private so here it is: my parents are divorced. The divorce was brutal. I was maybe 12 when things started souring in the house, but it reached its peak a few years later and by the time I turned 16, my parents were parting ways. The divorce dragged on through a series of legal proceedings that didn't stop until I was almost a sophomore in college.

But there was a time when my parents weren't so resentful, and I have some great memories attached to those days. One of those great memories was watching "Always" with my mom and dad.

This isn't a rom com, but it is romantic. And it is comedic. It's also about a dead guy, so there's obviously some drama, too. And even though romantic love is a big theme in this film, it manages to include a lot about work, friendship, mourning, sacrifice, and healing. It's a bit of a genre-bender in that way, although I prefer to just categorize it as a damn fine movie.

The whole cast is solid, of course, but I'm especially excited to see John Goodman in a role that is sometimes sloppy, sometimes stern, but always full of heart. I'll also see Audrey Hepburn circa 1989, in what I think is the last film she participated in before passing away in 1993.


AFTER THE VIEWING

Damn, this movie holds up so beautifully over time. From the opening scene, all the way through the closing credits, "Always" makes me giddy...and sad...and full of admiration.

I forget that it was helmed by Steven Spielberg, who (heh) ALWAYS excels at creating a well-rounded film. It's not as grandiose as "Jurassic Park", and it hasn't got the gravitas of "Schindler's List", but "Always" has a way of hitting me right in the feels, over and over again.

As a kid, I don't think I ever fully understood how tragic Pete's death was. It comes on the heels of him making some big, sweeping promises to the woman he loves, and happens right in front of his best friend's eyes. The tragedy of that, and of him having to come back and somehow recover and move on alongside them, creates a lot of powerful moments throughout the film.

And his mentor, Ted Baker, has never been such an interesting character to me. He always seemed a bit lovestruck and a bit on afterthought to me, but this time I tried to focus on his part in the film, and how good of a man he was, and I realized that there's been a lot of proof of that in this movie that I somehow blocked - probably because I spent so much time rooting for Pete.

Something else I noticed this time around that plays heavily into why this movie is so distinct for me as a love story is that it doesn't have a glamorous backdrop. These characters aren't ambling through Central Park or surrounded by glittering, elaborately-decorated backgrounds; this is a blue-collar crowd tromping through military-style barracks, hangers, and bars. The most intense scenes in the film take place inside of airplane cockpits. There's sweat and oil and fire all around, and that's just the way it is.

The last film I reviewed in this blog was "Along Came Polly", and as far as I'm concerned, "Always" is far superior to that film in pretty much every way imaginable. "Always" is a well-balanced, well-crafted, well-performed piece of cinema, and it gets the first 5 out of 5 rating I've given out. It's hard to find anything wrong with this film.


Overall rating: 5 out of 5

9 down. 289 to go.

Airheads (1994)

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109068/

Official Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD9a_EVDk-s

BEFORE THE VIEWING

There's a lot of star power in "Airheads". Maybe not stars at the time of its release, but by the time I picked up the DVD in some bargain bin, the three leading actors had enough skill in my eyes to be worth the 5-ish bucks.

I can see why this movie didn't make a killing commercially; it's hard to sell a hostage situation as a comedy. And there's a grainy quality to the production, probably because most of it was shot inside a radio station. Have you ever been in a real radio station? I interned at one, and while it was an interesting place to work, it wasn't exactly a glamorous or visually-stunning environment.

But the thing I always took away from "Airheads" was the importance of passion. These guys weren't stone cold thugs or heartless criminals, they were three guys who wanted their music to mean something. I saw that passion particularly well-played by Brendan Fraser, who's always had a little chunk of my heart (and who I'll gush about again in future posts for movies like "Bedazzled" and "The Mummy").

When I watched the trailer, I was reminded of some other surprise appearances. So whatever the quality of the film may be, I know I'm in for a good 92 minutes.

AFTER THE VIEWING

Man, Brendan Fraser and Steve Buscemi can rock long hair. I always forget how good those two (and Adam Sandler) looked in this movie. Chazz's low-slung belt over holey jeans? Pip with his pants around his ankles and a beanie covering his junk? Yowza. The overall looks of the characters (even the supporting ones!) are so well crafted; I'd never really noticed before.

And jeez, the supporting cast and crew in this film is spectacular. So many names and faces with long careers in show biz: Michael Richards, Judd Nelson, Chris Farley, Ernie Hudson, Michael McKean, David Arquette. And new ones that I noticed this time around - like Michelle Hurst (Yvonne), who went on to play Miss Claudette in "Orange is the New Black", and Carter Burwell, a composer who's been attached to three "Twilight" films, "In Bruges", "Being John Malkovich", and so many others.

But what about the actual story, the actual film? Well, there's a scene in which the radio DJ puts Chazz on the spot and asks him what he wants to say, and the best Chazz can come up with is an emphatic "ROCK AND ROLLLLLL!" It's a pure message, but not very sophisticated or meaningful...and that's pretty much how this whole movie feels to me.

That doesn't mean the film is bad, necessarily. In fact, a lot of movies that try to say something meaningful end up saying way too much, or nothing at all. But I guess maybe "rock and roll" isn't a theme that resonates with me, or other movies have done a better job of conveying what rock and roll is ("Almost Famous" or even The Monkees' movie "'Head'" are the two that immediately spring to my mind).

Still, "Airheads" isn't a bad way to spend an hour and a half.

Overall rating: 3 out of 5

6 down. 292 to go.

Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994) and Ace Ventura, When Nature Calls (1995)

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109040/ and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112281/

Official Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzxDlS6QY1s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A99O84ct-WM

BEFORE THE VIEWING

I was chatting with a friend about this blog recently, and he asked me what was coming up next on my watchlist. I expected him to groan and roll his eyes when I told him it was an Ace Ventura feature, but instead, his eyes lit up and he immediately performed the best Jim Carrey impression I've ever seen. I was floored.

Although I loved these movies as a kid, I'm skeptical about how well they'll hold up. Perhaps because I loved them while young, the Ace Ventura films have a bit of a time capsule effect; they performed very very well in the moment that they were made, but seem firmly planted in the mid-90s and have been seldom thought of or talked about since.

And that's a bit of a shame, really. I was 7 years old when the first one came out, and it was my first introduction to Jim Carrey (having been too young to truly appreciate him in "In Living Color" or anything else he had made up to that point - did you know his filmography dates back to 1980?). His physical comedy, his full-on absurdity, the way he can chew on a line as simple as "Really?" - I can't remember seeing another performer, all these years later, that left quite the same impression on me.

Quite honestly, I thought he was brilliant.

Are these movies brilliant, though? Probably not. I'm excited to brush the dust off them and see how the intervening years have treated them, but braced for the possibility of jokes landing flat or performances seeming hammy. Still, it should be an interesting few hours reconnecting with our favorite - and only - pet detective.

AFTER THE VIEWING

Man, I'm glad to be done viewing these movies.

There's nothing wrong with them, really. Both films have decent plots, decent performances, a few funny moments. But they're just so bland - especially when I compare them to some of Carrey's later work. The comedy isn't nuanced, the characters lack depth, and there's just no reason to re-watch them; they're like popcorn for your brain.

Although I love Carrey's style, I feel like he didn't totally get to shine in these films as much as he has in things like "The Truman Show" or "Liar Liar" or "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." Perhaps that's due in part to a lack of stellar co-stars; Courteney Cox and Carrey displayed a distinct lack of chemistry in the first film, and hardly anyone in the sequel even bears a mention (except Ian McNeice, who made for an interesting sidekick).

However, this viewing reminded me that the Ace Ventura films fall into that very rare category of the sequel being better than the original. The original certainly had some high points, but it didn't really say very much beyond "Hey, here's this unconventional - but effective - detective."

The sequel actually provided some depth to Ace's character: not only did he seek spiritual solace after failing to rescue a pet in the opening sequence, but he had multiple opportunities to express his sentiments about those who treat animals thoughtlessly. The scene in which he knocks out a small man and tosses him about his neck, satirizing the fox-fur shrug a woman is wearing, lets him express his distaste of animal cruelty while remaining firmly in the absurd, comedic world in which Ace resides.

In addition, the sequel's conclusion allows Ace and his animal friends to retaliate against the main animal aggressor in a delightfully "neener neener" sort of way - there's a symmetry and a full-circle quality in the sequel that the first movie lacked.

Some unexpectedly delightful moments in these films included Ace pretending to be a German dolphin trainer, him singing "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" while blundering through the jungle in a Jeep, and, in both films, Ace nibbling on sunflower seeds while we get the boring exposition out of the way.

I can't say I'll plan to watch these films ever again, to be honest. But if I do, they'll be a good way to pass a few hours, remember Jim Carrey's rise to stardom, and wince at some questionable 90's fashion choices.

Overall rating: 3 out of 5

4 down. 294 to go.

Accepted (2006)

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0384793/

Official Trailer: https://youtu.be/MZkurgJOP4c

BEFORE THE VIEWING

I'm honestly pretty excited to start off with "Accepted". If my memory serves correctly, this film is a really fun time. Justin Long plays a graduating senior who's struggling to get into college...so he invents one of his own, which his friends (and eventually some strangers) turn into a legitimate institute of unconventional learning.

The high schoolers in this movie graduated in 2006 - just a year after myself. Not knowing of any films featuring the class of 2005, I've embraced this film as a close-enough depiction of my own generation. I've always been pleased with the depiction, too; the kids in this movie are a little stressed, a little crazy, very brave, and delightfully creative.

A quick review of the official trailer has also reminded me of two phenomenal casting decisions: a pre-"Superbad" Jonah Hill, and the seemingly-timeless curmudgeon Lewis Black. I'm already pumped to slide this DVD into my PS3 and let the hilarity ensue!

AFTER THE VIEWING

Nobody at my school got so excited about their acceptance that they screamed about it in our school's courtyard. Was that just my school? I feel like people kept that to themselves and their closest friends.

I love the inclusion of Hands, a jock who lost a lot of opportunity because of a football injury. I think a lot of writers would set up a strong dichotomy of oddballs vs. standards in this kind of movie, like "Animal House" did; the standards are all absolutely wrong and oddballs are absolutely worthy of praise. This film doesn't bash any group of people, just acknowledges that different groups exist. At the end Bartleby asks, "Why can't we both exist?", referring to the established and the unconventional methods. That's such a healthy quest; not wanting to squash what is "other" than oneself...just to coexist.

Although Justin Long is an adorable protagonist (and I've always struggled not to crush on him in this role), I spent a lot of time during this viewing appreciating the supporting characters:

The hyper-active redhead, Rory, is the only reason this whole thing happens. She shows the boys the mental hospital that they convert into the school, she brings "students" from her English-as-a-second-language class to complete the illusion for the parents, and she's extremely organized! Even though she mellows considerably by the end of the film, I'm really glad she was in the mix.

And there are so many one-liners by Jonah Hill! I forgot how funny he was. It's interesting that, for a big person, there was never any humor or cruelty attached to his weight. This movie went out of its way to respect Schrader as a dude, while simultaneously giving us room to laugh at his antics.

Finally, I realized during this viewing that Glen, the idiot-savant cooking whiz, is just about as funny and random as Brick Tamland in "Anchorman". Practically every line he has makes me giggle. I can only think of a handful of performances that have pulled that off!

One character who did not retain my interest is Blake Lively as Monica, Bartleby's love interest. Ironically, I find her just about the least-lively part of this flick. Although I've always thought of her as pretty, I think she's an idiot for overlooking a character like Bartleby for even a second. Maybe I'm biased.

Another fun aspect of "Accepted" was that it had an excellent soundtrack. Grinding rock, high energy, kick ass. There's a great montage set to Green Day's "Holiday", Justin Long covering a Ramones classic in front of hundreds of people, and the final credits roll to a techno song full of quotes from the movie. It's like spending just 2 more minutes reveling in the fun you just had.

"Accepted" is aging pretty well, I think. While the characters do have smart-ish phones, they aren't glued to them. The characters are varied, but not stark stereotypes (for the most part). Writing is solid, plot and pace are tight, and there's enough comedic talent here to guess that some of the funniest lines aren't scripted, but come from a genuinely humorous moment of filming.

Watching it as an adult, it's a little harder for me to suspend my disbelief and have a mindless good time. However, I did spend a good chunk of my viewing with a grin on my face, and you probably would, too.

Overall rating: 4 out of 5

1 down. 297 to go.