Monkasi Reviews

Forrest Gump (1994)

Ma nime's Forse, Forse Guh-uhmp...

[26 September 2002]

FORREST GUMP was a much more enjoyable experience for me when I was a boy. I thought it was a wonderful, magical tale about taking life slow and easy. But now I am older, and I see it as little more than an overlong showcase of clichés in which Tom Hanks talks in an embarrassing Southern drawl and plays a cardboard caricature.

I admire Forrest for the good old boy that he is; unfortunately, that's ALL he is. If you will pardon the hyperbole, our mentally retarded hero is so pure and innocent and decent and good-hearted that he makes Jimmy Stewart's character in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE look like a child pornographer. Whether he's the knight in shining armor protecting girlfriend Jenny from any menace; the selfless warrior rescuing all his comrades in the heat of battle; or the pious Christian whose faith remains fervent even as Lieutenant Dan Taylor curses God, Forrest Gump never does anything morally questionable.

In addition, throughout the film Gump displays an "idiot savant" personality type that really gets on my nerves. Now I know that some autistic people are blessed with highly unusual skills, but it is simply not feasible that Forrest is perfect at everything he does. He runs faster, plays better ping-pong, assembles a rifle quicker, is more successful in the business world, and in general proves to be a whiz at almost everything through a combination of freakish talent and dumb luck.

Not to be insensitive, but I think Gump had it pretty swell. After miraculously overcoming a childhood infirmity (really!) by busting the braces on his legs through sheer willpower, Forrest has an infinite string of good luck while all of his friends and loved ones either die painful deaths, surrender to their personal demons, or become human vegetables. These are the characters we should feel sorry for, and not Forrest Gump.

If Gump had been plagued with at least ONE character flaw - alcoholism, for instance, or some kind of sexual disorder - then maybe I would find it easier to sympathize with him and rejoice in his many accomplishments. As it is, however, Hanks's character is hopelessly squeaky-clean.

Which is not to say that FORREST GUMP is an inherently bad movie. It's fine, I suppose, if you like simpleminded morality plays. For the more cynical among us, however, GUMP is just too gummy.

Screwballs (1983)

The misadventures of five pathetic reprobates

[26 September 2002]

In my review for the similarly themed ZAPPED AGAIN!, I noted that it came across as a whitewashed T&A offering that was much better received as a puerile comedy than anything voyeuristic in nature. SCREWBALLS, which was apparently made on a much lower budget and with much less renowned performers, is the exact opposite - a chaotic carnival of soft-core porn in which the humor is at best unremarkable and at worst painful.

Some have compared this movie to NATIONAL LAMPOON'S ANIMAL HOUSE, but that comparison is extremely unjust. You see, ANIMAL HOUSE was not just an excuse to show drunken frat boys and girls in their underwear. It also tackled such trenchant topics as class conflict, race relations, and the lure of irresponsibility in a hopelessly puritanical and joyless world. I view it more as a poignant examination of the trials and tribulations of adolescence than as the purely tawdry slice of camp which it's usually tagged. The makers of SCREWBALLS do not deserve to lick the boots of John Landis and company.

SCREWBALLS was put together by a gaggle of confirmed slackers with absolutely no regard for taste and decency. The movie is unabashedly politically incorrect (granted, the idea of "political correctness" did not exist as such in the early 1980s; but these guys violated most of its tenets just the same) and is based on the erroneous belief that high school boys do not care about anything other than sex. While the members of Delta Tau Chi may not have been above reproach, at least they didn't spend most of their time trying to separate the prom queen from her clothes.

If you are a diehard fan of this genre, I don't want to spoil the ending for you. Let's just say that it involves sartorial decay and magnets, and leave it at that.

Female moviegoers will probably not enjoy SCREWBALLS because of its sexist nature, so I recommend that they skip it. Their male counterparts, on the other hand, might have a good time. But remember this, fellows: a movie about female stripping becomes less and less entertaining every time you see it - so limit your viewing of SCREWBALLS to one night.

8 Heads in a Duffel Bag (1997)

When this movie was over, I needed a different kind of bag...

[26 May 2002]

I rented this movie from the local video store when I was seventeen years old. At this young, tender age I innocently believed that all comedies were created equal. If a film wanted to make me laugh, it would make me laugh - no questions asked. Truth be told, I can't even remember why I rented it. Perhaps it was because Joe Pesci was in it; if he was funny in HOME ALONE, then surely he'd be funny here. And the movie would be a blast as well.

As it turned out, I was right on only one count. Pesci is wonderful in 8 HEADS IN A DUFFEL BAG, playing his sadistic mobster shtick to the hilt. However, a little bit of Pesci goes a looooong way: halfway into the picture, I realized that his brand of dark comedy had seeped into every comic situation, rendering the movie a sordid mess.

I have nothing against dark comedy, but 8 HEADS IN A DUFFEL BAG doesn't so much push the envelope as rend it asunder. There is so much vulgarity and mean-spiritedness that I actually began to pity the characters, trapped as they were in their little 1950s sitcom universe from Hell.

Joe Pesci notwithstanding, every character in this movie is a loathsome stereotype. We have the naive young man, the squeamish girlfriend, the clueless father, the ditzy wife, the crotchety old grandma, etc. And let's not forget all those hot-blooded Italians and sneaky Mexicans.

There was one - only ONE - point where I really surrendered myself to gales of joyful laughter. It was the great comic set-piece wherein Pesci's mobster is asleep and dreams that the eight severed heads of the movie's title come to life and begin singing "Mr. Head Man" (to the tune of "Mr. Sandman") like seasoned recording artists. Then their headless bodies crash through the wall and begin to strangle our hero. I laughed my proverbial butt off at this surreal comic masterpiece. Then the scene ended - and I went back to being not amused again.

At the end of the movie, one of the characters tries to make up for nearly two hours of bleak vacuum by spouting a barrage of "head" puns ("Stop a-HEAD," "Anyone need to use the HEAD?", etc.) and other corny jokes, some of which were, admittedly, quite clever. But, as they say, it was too little, too late.

On a scale of 1-8 heads, I give 8 HEADS IN A DUFFEL BAG a small section off the smaller ear of the smallest head in Tommy Spinelli's bag.

The Brady Bunch Movie (1995)

Response to Kayla

[5 May 2002]

I'm going by a different name, but I'm still Jay from Southern California.

Anyway, Kayla...your post telling me to "lighten up" doesn't make any sense. For one thing, shows like "Leave It To Beaver" DID portray their contemporary periods accurately. "The Brady Bunch" didn't. And, if it is true, as you say, that people watch television to escape from the harsh realities of everyday life...then why is it that, with life being so chaotic in 2002, I turn on the television and find shows that are even MORE chaotic? Why don't we have any non-children's shows nowadays that are anything like "The Brady Bunch"? (And don't tell me there are, because there aren't.)

Anyway, thanks for your comments.

The Simpsons (1989– )

I like this show, but...

[27 April 2002]

I like this show, but...

Matt Groening and company really got carried away with the celebrity cameos. I watch "The Simpsons" for its FANTASY element, because it takes place in a world that never was - not so I can see yellow-skinned, lipless versions of the REAL world's movers and shakers.

Tony Bennett, Aerosmith, Linda Ronstadt, Adam West, Leonard Nimoy, George Harrison, Johnny Carson, Elizabeth Taylor, Luke Perry, Mel Brooks, Bono from U2, Ron Howard, Mel Gibson, Britney Spears...arrggh! It's not that I don't like these people, but their overexposed mugs belong in live action and not in cartoons! I watch "The Simpsons" as a means of escape from reality, so it's frustrating that I get reality shoved right in my face about 75 percent of the time when I watch this show.

The really annoying episodes are the ones where the celebrity's name is said over and over and we're supposed to be entertained just because that person is famous. "Gasp! It's James Woods!" "Oh my God, it's Kim Basinger!" "Wow! It's 'N Sync!" (actually said TWICE, by Milhouse) Give me a freaking break! True, celebrities have made cameos on other cartoon shows; but at least then they had the good taste to play satirical versions of themselves (like "Ann Margrock" on "The Flintstones").

In closing, let me just say that "The Simpsons" would be a perfect show if it weren't for all these celebrities shamelessly self-promoting themselves. I don't mind the celebrities, but I wish they would play fictional characters and not themselves. Then the pristine atmosphere of Springfield could be protected from the incursions of modern American life. "The Simpsons" is a fantasy - and it should remain that way.

Oh, and one more thing: I wish they would shut up about what state Springfield is in! NOBODY CARES!

All that aside...I really like "The Simpsons."

Fools Rush In (1997)

Made me want to vomit...

[17 April 2002]

I hated this movie. In fact, I was all but seething with rage after watching it. Sure, it was SUPPOSED to be a romantic comedy; but it quickly degenerated into yet another insulting farce about how White Protestants are greedy, clownish, and totally devoid of any imagination or sexuality. Meanwhile, the Hispanic characters are unbearably noble brown Catholics who lead lives of self-righteous morality out in the desert and think all White Protestants are clueless Babbitts - which, of course, is exactly what Alex's parents are! After watching the movie, I sat myself down and tried to calm down. My ire had been aroused: I felt both contempt for the blockheaded WASP characters and resentment toward the arrogant Latinos.

I apologize for the bitter nature of this review, but FOOLS RUSH IN is a prime example of allegedly innocent race-baiting (particularly of people like me, since I am an upwardly mobile white middle-class dweller much like Alex is). I never truly understood the frustration and humiliation felt by African-Americans, Jews, and other groups who have been misrepresented or even mocked in movies throughout the years. Now I finally understand.

Celebrity Deathmatch (1998–2007)

Movie stars, TV stars, and rock stars make each other see stars...

[15 April 2002]

Part WWF freak show, part celebrity roast, and 100 percent outrageous satire, "Celebrity Deathmatch" is one of the best ideas for a novelty TV show to come out in years. There's nothing more satisfying than seeing snobbish starlets, overhyped matinee idols, and self-aggrandizing mega-entertainers maim each other and humiliate themselves in front of the entire world (as clay facsimiles, of course).

But despite all the schadenfreude, it's all in good fun. Fictional hosts Johnny Gomez and Nick Diamond provide a hilarious running commentary on the grisly goings-on with nonstop puns, quips, and zingers at the unfortunate celebrities' expense. Real-life referee Mills Lane moderates the bouts and sometimes even plays a crucial role in which celebrity will win. And the celebrities themselves (actually impersonated by voiceover artists) have the most fun of all, coming up with ever more creative ways to annihilate each other while making references galore to their own movies, their opponents' movies, and pop culture in general.

"Celebrity Deathmatch" is even more fun to watch if you have a bunch of friends over and you want to do some Vegas-style gambling. Wagering on the outcome of the fights can be fun, but be forewarned: don't always root for the more popular celebrity (for example, Eddie Murphy over Nick Nolte). The playing field is level in these fights, and just about anything goes - so the victor may surprise you. Bet on your personal favorite instead.

America's Funniest Home Videos (1989– )

A laugh riot!

[13 March 2002]

This was TV's first true "reality show," and boy, was it a doozy! It must have been a revolutionary concept at the time; but now, twelve years later, it's become lodged in our cultural consciousness.

But enough content analysis. This show was great! Where else could people win thousands of dollars for sharing their embarrassing moments with the entire country? And host Bob Saget was the icing on the cake. The video clips just wouldn't have been as funny without his zany voiceovers, in which he imitated everybody from Jerry Lewis to Sylvester Stallone. We usually saw him as "straight man" Danny Tanner on "Full House," so it was cool to see him be goofy for a change.

Many people have condemned this show for being mean-spirited and exploitative. That is a very unfair accusation. Obviously the producers at ABC got permission to use the tapes sent in by the people in them, and you could tell from the audience's reaction that it was always in good fun. And if you can't laugh at yourself getting whacked in the crotch by a golf club, how are you supposed to laugh at the antics of the Three Stooges or Itchy and Scratchy?

Kudos to this show, which proved once and for all that real life could be more hilarious than any Hollywood comedy. I just wish that Bob hadn't turned the reins over to Daisy Fuentes and John Fugelsang.

High Noon (1952)

Can't be beat

[7 March 2002]

The greatest western movie ever - and that includes STAGECOACH and THE SEARCHERS. The script jettisons all the tiresome clichés of the genre and the black-and-white photography is haunting. Gary Cooper is terrific as Will Kane, the ultimate good-guy sheriff; he even manages to lend a Christ-like majesty to his role as a man left stranded by his friends to battle the forces of evil alone (after all, I don't think it's a coincidence that the theme song, "Do Not Forsake Me," almost echoes Jesus' lamentation on the cross). And of course it's extremely refreshing to watch an action movie where the villain - here a gunslinger named Frank Miller - neither goes over the top nor dominates the proceedings. This is Cooper's show all the way, and he comes through with flying colors. Great drama, thrilling suspense, and a happy ending to boot - what more could you want?

Braveheart (1995)

Maltin-style review

[25 February 2002]

A robust and inspiring masterpiece about Scottish farmer William Wallace (Mel Gibson), who overcame personal tragedy to rise to the ranks of leadership in the Scottish rebellion against England. The general atmosphere becomes a little melodramatic at times, but overall this is a passionate tribute to anyone, anywhere in the world, who has ever risked all for the ultimate prize of freedom. Perfect for those who wish to experience the full range of human heroics, emotions, atrocities, and victories in one movie.

The Searchers (1956)

A poor film, but also misunderstood

[25 February 2002]

THE SEARCHERS is not the John Ford masterpiece that many critics would have us believe. It would be a good film if not for its uneven tone, which undercuts a good deal of the drama and pathos. Perhaps this movie should have been shot in black and white, or maybe the comedy should have been excised. Either way, Ford ruined a potentially good idea.

One thing confuses me, though. The character of Ethan Embry (John Wayne) is often tagged a "racist" because of his belligerent attitude toward the red man. To me, this is a gross oversimplification. What is a "racist," after all? A racist is a very ignorant, stupid person who judges people based on the color of their skin. Ethan may be bloodthirsty and cruel, but he certainly isn't stupid. He doesn't hate ALL Indians, just the Comanches. (Hmmm...does that make him a "Comanchist"?) And his reasons for wanting to kill Scar and his followers are motivated not by physical appearance, but by revenge. Yes, vengeance may not be a healthy thing; but it's not necessarily indicative of bigotry. From a certain point of view, you can even sympathize with Ethan.

And finally, people who watch this film have seriously erred if they consider John Wayne's character to be the villain. The real villains are the smarmy white settlers who simply assume that the frontier belongs to them and thus casually foment the conflict between Indians and whites. They're the true racists.

That '70s Show (1998–2006)

Good and bad...

[9 February 2002]

This show is something of a mixed bag for me. Yes, it's funny. Topher Grace and Wilmer Valderrama get most of the laughs, of course, but I love all the characters. Also, I'm glad a show finally came along to show what the 1970s were REALLY like, rather than the sanitized universe of bloodless WASPs offered up by "The Brady Bunch" and its subsequent TV specials and movies. The kids in "That '70s Show" swear, smoke pot, make out, and defy their elders - just like teenagers in any decade do. I love it!

Even so, I can't help but wonder if the show has gone downhill. I stopped watching it on a regular basis once I realized that the writers had stopped trying to satirize the Seventies and were just dressing the kids up in retro clothing and hairstyles and placing them in absurd situations. In any case, most of the characters are cartoonish stereotypes who never existed in any decade. They're all there: the gruff father, the ditzy wife, the foreign kid who gets made fun of, etc. And that Kelso (Ashton Kutcher) is such a jerk. I don't know if young men in the Seventies actually acted the way he did, but in the Nineties no girl would want to date him and he'd be lonely and bitter.

Now they're continuing the tradition with "That '80s Show." If history is any indication, they'll throw as many Reagan-era clichés against the wall as possible in the first few episodes and then revert to the standard sitcom situations like forgetting someone's birthday, etc. Then they'll expect us to laugh simply because the characters are wearing "acid-washed jeans" (whatever the hell those are) and saying bizarre things like "Gag me with a spoon." (Yeah, I'm REALLY sure that any real-life teenager in 1984 ever used that expression without irony.) I haven't seen many episodes of "Happy Days," but I can only assume that the above applied to that show as well.

I wonder if they'll continue the franchise all the way up to our own time, giving us "That '90s Show" in about five years or so. Then the young people of 2007 will be able to laugh their heads off at soul patches, reality shows, and all those candy-colored iMacs.

Small Wonder (1985–1989)

A bittersweet comedy...

[25 January 2002]

I liked this TV series as a kid, but it always made me wonder. In almost every episode there seemed to be some dark undercurrent. I think it arose from the fact that, quite simply, Vicki was a robot and not a human being. I enjoyed the character immensely, but I always felt sorry for Vicki because I knew - even if it was never explicitly spoken on the show - that one day she would stop working and her "family" would have to destroy her.

The lightness of the comedy usually made me forget about this dire outcome, but it was always there, beneath the surface. Actually, the entire notion of robots in movies and TV has always disturbed me. Here are creatures with artificial intelligence who seem almost human, yet they are treated as slaves by real humans and shut out from the joy and pain that humans are heir to. And when they stop working, they're put to death. That seems a bit unfair; after all, even pet dogs and cats are kept alive after they've attained old age.

That's why it's always been hard for me to watch movies or TV shows where robots are the main characters, whether it's C-3PO in the STAR WARS movies (I don't care what anybody says, he's a real person to me) or Haley Joel Osment's heartbreaking performance as David in Steven Spielberg's A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

Perhaps "Small Wonder" would have been easier for me to swallow if there was ever a possibility of Vicki becoming a human girl. Unfortunately, I knew that her "father," for all his scientific ingenuity, could never grant her that wish. The program never showed it, of course, but I knew how it would have all turned out: after Jamie went to college, the Lawsons would've taken the now-malfunctioning Vicki to the junkyard and left her there. It must be awful to be a robot.

Shakes the Clown (1991)

Maltin-style review

[20 January 2002]

Inspired low-budget chuckler that follows a boozing party clown named Shakes (though to look at his name you'd think his favorite beverage was either malteds or martinis) who ends up fighting the forces of evil. Effective satire of the various nooks and crannies of American junk culture makes this movie enjoyable, but there's a curious ambiguity at its core - too dark for kids, not sophisticated enough for adults. Be on the lookout for Robin Williams as a mime teacher.

Zapped Again! (1990 Video)

I didn't get zapped; I got swindled

[16 January 2002]

I'm glad I saw this movie on late-night TV rather than renting it for four bucks on video, because I got screwed big time. Why weren't the characters as funny and outrageous as they were in the 1982 original? More to the point, where was the SEX? The Scott Baio movie fairly dripped with prurient appeal. I mean, they had an entire prom full of scantily-clad people running around; why didn't they have a prom scene this time? And why was this movie so gosh darn wholesome? You have to be between the ages of 13 and 18 to fully appreciate it, and I think I was about 20 when I saw it. There's hardly any profanity, and the writers must have thought that people would find jokes about the word "wiener" daring and hilarious. Who thought up this sequel, a roomful of second graders? It was direct-to-video, for God's sake! There should have been MORE racy material, not less! It should have been worthy of an R rating, but instead they made it tantamount to a PG-13. I was very disappointed with ZAPPED AGAIN! Watch it for the laughs, but not so much for the flesh.

The Burning Bed (1984 TV Movie)

Sad

[16 January 2002]

The dramatic action of this made-for-TV movie is incredibly sad, but what is sadder is the host of questionable attitudes and false notions it tends to instill in viewers.

I saw this film in high school, as part of a lesson on marital relationships in our Christian studies class (I went to a Catholic school). The atrocities which Mickey and Francine inflicted on each other disturbed me immensely, but my fellow students seemed to relish each and every one of them. I heard laughter and lots of gleeful cries like "Woohoo!" and Yeah!" when Francine set Mickey on fire. This is not to say that they actually enjoyed the violence; I guess they just saw Mickey as the stereotypical Southern redneck and were happy to see him reinforce their prejudices and then get his just deserts.

THE BURNING BED not only cheapens respect for human life, but also glorifies vigilante murder and appears to insinuate that men born south of the Mason-Dixon line have an innate tendency toward brutality and other heinous acts.

I don't think TV movies like this one should be made so often. No family is perfect, but I'm positive that most families do not want to see themselves torn apart on the screen. Why don't the TV people keep violence on the streets where it belongs?

National Lampoon's Animal House (1978)

Kael-style review

[13 January 2002]

There is a remarkably effective scene early in this comedy in which an English professor lectures his class on the works of Milton. "Now, was Milton trying to say that being bad is more fun than being good?" he says, immediately thereafter biting into an apple. The scenario - and its accompanying visual punchline - is just so perfectly subtextual and archetypal, just so RIGHT, that it elevates this hilarious portrait of 1960s college life to the firmament of genius. Indeed, what sane individual would not choose the happy-go-lucky hedonism of the apelike Bluto Blutarsky over the stern, self-imposed WASP misery of the American patrician class? As the college hijinks spin gleefully out of control, one eventually comes to the realization that chaos, when tempered by the spirit of guileless fun, is infinitely preferable to the vacuum of order. It's John Landis' paean to good old-fashioned mischief, and its winning exuberance manages to carry the day despite the movie's more subversive undercurrents. With John Belushi, John Vernon, Tim Matheson, Peter Riegert, Karen Allen, Tom Hulce, Stephen Furst, Mark Metcalf, and Donald Sutherland.

Casablanca (1942)

I can see why this film is so well-loved...

[17 December 2001]

Rick Blaine is perhaps one of the greatest movie characters I've ever had the pleasure of getting to know. Why? Simply because he's not perfect. At certain points in the film he perfectly embodies the cynic, the grouch, the moral coward, even the jerk. But the fact is, almost every human being who ever lived has been capable of cynical, grouchy, or cowardly behavior - and yes, all of us have been jerks at one time or another. You see, CASABLANCA is about much more than just intrigue and romance during World War II. It's about a selfish man who overcomes his self-hatred and finds the long-dormant goodness at his core. It's about overcoming obstacles and making amends for past wrongs, about rejoining the human race and rediscovering idealism. I watched this movie last night on DVD following a family Christmas party, and Humphrey Bogart made the perfect Grinch. But instead of stealing Christmas, Bogie ended up stealing victory from the jaws of the Nazis - and stealing our sympathy as well. I will never forget CASABLANCA.

I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)

I know what went wrong with this movie...

[26 November 2001]

Though I am not an ardent fan of horror flicks, I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER is a good movie. Notice that I say "a good movie"; this is, unfortunately, not a great movie.

Oh, it's scary all right. And well-directed, too. An almost flawless film - except for one glitch. And that glitch is...Jennifer Love Hewitt and Sarah Michelle Gellar.

Not that those two aren't good actresses; they're terrific. But it seems the nimrod casting director who cast this movie gave these two gals each other's roles!

Think about it: wouldn't Gellar have been a better choice for the role of Julie James? Actually, I think she would have been perfect for the role. She's everything Julie should have been: lean, wiry, athletic, yet with those deep, haunted blue eyes that at once suggest both victim and predator (geez, I'm getting corny here). In retrospect, I can't see anybody else in the role.

But who do we get instead? Jennifer Love Hewitt, who plays the strong-willed heroine about as well as Arnold Schwarzenegger would play Hamlet. With her pale, unblemished features and almost bony physique, Hewitt looks as if she would get eaten alive on the back streets of any small town, let alone the streets prowled by the hook-handed fisherman. Sheesh, what's the point of making Julie the heroine if she is going to be so WEAK?

Let me reiterate: Sarah Michelle Gellar would have made a much better Julie, with Jennifer in the Helen Shivers role. If for no other reason, the lead role in this movie would have given Sarah the springboard to fame she would need to build a fan base for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." (Not that that show's fan base isn't doing very well as it is, mind you.)

As for the rest of the movie - pure gold. The supporting players are fantastic. Character actor Muse Watson, who plays the fisherman, brings a palpable menace and also a surprising amount of pathos to his villain role. Also outstanding is Ryan Philippe as Barry Cox, the macho blowhard who turns coward after the fisherman gives him a proper scare. And Freddie Prinze Jr. is...well, Freddie Prinze Jr. 'Nuff said.

Except for the fact that Jennifer Love Hewitt makes a rather wimpy heroine, I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER is as good a slasher flick as you're gonna get. I haven't seen the sequel yet, but I might soon. I just hope that this time around, Julie James is made of sterner stuff.

Batman & Robin (1997)

A too-tidy wrap-up

[31 August 2001]

Other than the inclusion of Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Gough) and Commissioner James Gordon (Pat Hingle), BATMAN & ROBIN continues no other great Batman movie traditions except for its two major themes: family and reconciliation.

These themes were perhaps strongest in Tim Burton's 1989 original, where the loss of his family proved a catalyst for Batman's war on crime. Seeing his parents gunned down by a mugger as a child not only drove Bruce Wayne to vengeance but wrought other changes in his character as well. Consider, for example, the ambivalence of Bruce's personal relationships: he clings to his butler Alfred as a sort of surrogate father (when asked by Vicki Vale about his family, Bruce replies, "Alfred IS my family."); yet simultaneously he is wary of getting too close to Vicki, who represents a second chance. Having already lost loved ones, Bruce doesn't want to experience that pain again. Accordingly, he forsakes his desire for a family as a sort of defense mechanism.

Having thus resolved the conflict within him between family and commitment, Bruce Wayne observes that struggle within others in BATMAN RETURNS. The Penguin has also been denied the protective cocoon of family and wants retribution in a fashion not unlike Bruce's. The difference is that Oswald Cobblepot wants revenge not only on those who wronged him directly but seemingly on the entire planet; this prompts Batman to incongruously sympathize with the bird-man while clucking his tongue in disapproval. In a similar vein, Selina Kyle also lacks a familial axis in this movie. However, her loneliness is but a secondary factor in her impulse to become Catwoman (the primary factor, of course, being the copious abuse and eventual murder attempt she suffers at the hands of her brutal employer, Max Shreck. There are various other references to family in RETURNS: Shreck refers to The Penguin's circus gang as his "extended family" and ultimately must offer his own life to preserve that of his beloved son Chip (his sole redeeming character trait, it turns out).

Now, observe the basic changes in attitude that emerge from the "family values" mythology of new director Joel Schumacher in BATMAN FOREVER. Bruce Wayne's initial coyness at rebuilding his circle of friends is apparently reversed. First he adopts the young orphan Dick Grayson, totally disregarding the fact that the boy has just lost his own parents and is obviously reluctant to graft himself onto a new "father." Then, later in the film, Bruce is so ardently wooed by the pretty psychiatrist Chase Meridian that he actually considers abandoning his crusade and settling down with her. (Compare this to the cold shoulder he gave Vicki Vale six years earlier.) The only rock-solid parallel to Burton's vision in FOREVER, in fact, is Dick's angry, vindictive attitude toward the ruthless gangster Two-Face - not to mention the murder of his parents and brother, which inspires Dick immensely in his quest to become Robin the Boy Wonder.

By the time BATMAN & ROBIN comes out in the summer of '97, it is crystal-clear to even the most casual observer that the image of Batman as hopelessly obsessed loner has undergone a paradigm shift. (Bruce does mingle easily with Vicki wannabe Julie Madison, but that's beside the point.) Just as he is getting chummy with foster son Dick, into Bruce's life steps a foster daughter - Barbara Wilson, the niece of aging, kindly butler Alfred. With growing fanfare, a new cycle begins: Bruce Wayne, the onetime lost little boy, now finds himself the proud "father" of two troubled kids. And Schumacher doesn't stop there, piling on the family propaganda all the way to the film's conclusion. We meet the pathetic, tortured genius Victor Fries ("Mr. Freeze"), whose loss of his young wife to an incurable disease has driven him to the same kind of wholesale misanthropic hatred in which The Penguin once revelled. Concurrently, we are invited to share in Bruce's renewed grief as he witnesses the decay of the slowly-dying Alfred. "I love you, old man," Bruce consoles the weakened patriarch; one wishes that he could have shown half as much sentiment when The Penguin succumbs to an excruciatingly painful death in the stony, emotionless vacuum that was BATMAN RETURNS.

In conclusion, the sensitive viewer could look upon the BATMAN movie quadrumvirate as a sort of psychological marathon. I don't mean to sound like Dr. Meridian here, but the whole affair gets really touchy-feely toward the end. Like an oddball collection of co-dependents in a twelve-step program, the cast of the BATMAN franchise are all striving for the joyous nirvana of BATMAN & ROBIN, where the rallying cry is "Family above all." The Penguin and Catwoman falter along the way, but the rest of our heroes more or less manage to patch things up and conquer the plagues of history.

The problem with all this? BATMAN isn't supposed to be about family and reconciliation! It's not meant to be upbeat, to be replete with folks turning lemons into lemonade. Tim Burton understood this, which was why his brainchildren were forced to exist within the nihilistic framework of an alienated Gotham. Then Schumacher came along and twisted the series into a sort of Chicken Soup for the Comic Book Soul. What manner of bilge is this? Burton had Batman and company transcend adversity, stoically become one with it; Schumacher had everybody blithely overcome it. Therein lies the main problem with the development of the Batman character at the movies. At the climax of BATMAN & ROBIN, we're all encouraged to have a good cry as Batman urges Mr. Freeze to help him save Alfred as the cold-hearted scientist once endeavored to save his wife, to rediscover the real Victor Fries, "buried...beneath the snow." Give me a break. I'll take Burton's gloomy, Nietzschean outlook any day of the week. As Max Shreck would say, if it's broke, don't fix it.

The Brady Bunch (1969–1974)

Garbage

[28 August 2001]

I call this show garbage not because I hate vintage TV programming; indeed, I adore such baby-boomer shows as "Batman" and "Gilligan's Island." No, the reason why I detest this show is because it's, well, simply put, stupid.

The atmosphere of the show doesn't make sense, considering the era in which it was made and the sociopolitical climate in which it flourished. Thanks to this program, people today seem to think that the 1970s was a time when lots of happy, loving people wore colorful clothes and smiled at each other all day long. In reality, however, it was nothing like that. At the time this show aired, the United States of America was coming apart. There were violent antiwar demonstrations, race riots, outrageous sex and violence in the movies, etc. "The Brady Bunch" blithely ignored all this, coming off instead as a sort of throwback to Fifties shows like "Father Knows Best." I realize the need for the pop culture to provide a little escapist entertainment during that time of turmoil, but "Bunch" overdid it a tad. If Sherwood Schwartz intended the show to be a parody of bland Fifties sitcoms, I think he worked a little too hard at it and ended up making it - ironically - into exactly that which it was trying to spoof.

Whenever I think of "The Brady Bunch," the far superior "All in the Family" always comes to mind. Norman Lear's cutting-edge dramedy tackled all the burning issues of the day: rape, bigotry, losing one's job, hate crimes, etc.; "The Brady Bunch" addressed none of these themes. For this very reason, "All in the Family" is a much better sitcom than this one and thus deserves to be lionized and held up as a prime example of masterful Seventies programming, rather than this tripe. I hope the Bradys eventually fade into oblivion, freeing up some room in the cultural topography for Archie Bunker and his beloved chair.

Gilligan's Island (1964–1992)

Quality entertainment for everyone

[22 August 2001]

"Gilligan's Island" is a real winner, and I can see why two generations of TV viewers continue to be delighted by the zany adventures of Gilligan and company. The show's premise was simple: take seven quirky individuals representing various social strata and plunk them all in the midst of an unthinkable situation (in this case, a shipwreck on a deserted South Pacific island) and watch them interact. Watching it today, it's like "Survivor" with a script and jokes - and this makes it infinitely more entertaining than any "reality" show.

Yes, the characters were stereotypes. You had the gruff sea captain (Skipper), the wide-eyed innocent (Mary Ann), the arrogant tycoon (Thurston Howell III), and so forth. But by taking the best (and worst) of human nature and setting it all on a small island, the show's creators crafted a witty character study that even today invites us to chuckle at the hijinks that ensue when wildly disparate personalities bounce off of - and influence - each other. Indeed, some of my favorite episodes are the ones where the characters act in ways you wouldn't expect, such as when sultry Ginger turns on the charm and gets the buttoned-up Professor to play by her rules. Or how about the episodes where Gilligan actually did something smart or even made a monkey of the Skipper? Truly classic comedy.

Some people stigmatize this show by calling it "corny." That, to me, is a pretty pointless evaluation. Of course "Gilligan's Island" is corny. But it is corny precisely because 1). it is a situation comedy, and thus, ipso facto, wears corniness on its sleeve; and 2). it wisely eschews the three "c's" - cruelty, crudity, and cynicism - that sully many of today's sitcoms. You'll never hear Gilligan make a homophobic remark or Mr. Howell utter "Whassup?!" - and that is quite all right by me. Sometimes I wonder if today's television writers draw any inspiration from these old sitcoms or if they just read trashy comic books and watch "Beavis and Butthead" videos to get their ideas. (Of course, I believe that the American sitcom attained perfection in the year 1992, so what do I know?)

All that aside, "Gilligan's Island" is truly one for the ages. A million laughs, and definitely not to be missed.

Big Daddy (1999)

An "Adam" bomb

[20 August 2001]

If movies were bombs, BIG DADDY could take out Hiroshima. The plot seems almost schizophrenic, as we are invited to cluck our tongues in disapproval as Sonny makes an idiot of himself and then urged to root for him in the movie's God-awful courtroom climax. It doesn't work, and ultimately neither does the film. Sonny's not an underdog; he's just a plain dog - period.

I really have nothing against Adam Sandler. When it comes to classic comedy, he is a precious diamond in the rough. His aw-shucks, Simple Simon shtick - a marriage of Jimmy Stewart and Forrest Gump with a dash of Jim Carrey thrown in - never fails to endear him to audiences. When he really turns on the charm (as he did as the sweetly naive Southern buffoon Bobby Boucher in THE WATERBOY), he can do no wrong. But there is another Adam, and this one is as horrid a counterpart as Mr. Hyde was to Dr. Jekyll. I'm talking about the anguished man-child of HAPPY GILMORE, the painfully scarred soul so full of self-loathing that he has to punch out innocent bystanders and spew sewer language to bolster his fragile ego. That's not funny, but incredibly sad. If we laugh at such rampages, it is only due the comfort we take in knowing that it's just an act.

Sandler, fortunately, doesn't resort to a lot of that here. Instead, he wants us to view him as a prototypical merry prankster who just can't contain his chaotic id every once in a while. That's fine and good, but you have to question the innocence of Sonny's dalliances when there is a five-year-old boy present. And since prepubescent children can be as mimetic by nature as circus monkeys, the image of young Julian as a Sonny-reared adult poses a fascinating quandary: how much good-intentioned permissiveness is too much when raising a kid? If you let some little boy call himself "Frankenstein," order thirty packets of ketchup for lunch, pee on the side of a building, and hock loogies in public - will he still be able to get a date for the prom when he's eighteen?

Urged on by Sonny's erratic role-modeling, Julian shuttles back and forth incongruously between apple-cheeked munchkin and overly precocious demon child. For some reason, we're supposed to find that hilarious; it is, but only because of the banality of it all. It just doesn't seem right for the twins who played Julian to get in front of the camera and humiliate themselves just so a bunch of grown-ups can make oodles of dough.

There are, to be sure, plenty of chuckles to be found in BIG DADDY. Most of them, however, are tinged with the irony of our awareness that in real life such events wouldn't be quite so amusing. Not that the talented cast doesn't give it 110 percent, though. As Sonny's girlfriend, Joey Lauren Adams does a decent job of salvaging the comedy through sheer earnestness - this despite the fact that she's got that gratingly breathy voice that suggests a permanently crushed larynx. Rob Schneider strives valiantly to make us smile with his dopey immigrant character, but in the end he just contributes to the movie's smarmy attitude. The always-welcome Jon Stewart shows up for a spell, though he isn't given the opportunity to really let loose with the withering quips like he does on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show." And it's a great pity indeed that the mesmerizing Kristy Swanson is here reduced to such a faceless character with a one-joke role. Her remarkable animal magnetism alone would have done much to redeem this comedy from cinematic hell.

The '60s (1999)

New Left propaganda

[14 August 2001]

"The '60s" TV miniseries would have you believe that between the years 1962 and 1969, the United States of America - the last conservative stronghold of the Western world - did an abrupt about-face and sped off to the left, never to return. Not only is this a gross generalization, but it is also based on naive assumptions and faulty logic that anyone with a high school diploma can readily refute.

Take the issue of race, for example. This movie argues that Negroes were relentlessly persecuted all the way up to 1965, so what choice did they have but to rebel? Well, maybe America's racist chickens DID come home to roost in the Sixties - but it wasn't because white Americans were just sitting idly by. Full equality for African-Americans had already been provided for by the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and '64 and by the Voting Rights Act of '65, so there was absolutely no reason for young black men to go hog wild during the latter part of the decade. They may have looked smart in their snappy berets, but in reality most - if not all - advocates of Black Power succeeded only in making a mockery of the civil rights movement with their penchant for violence and their irrational fear of all whites.

"The '60s" likewise tries to prove that prior to 1962 and the dancing of The Twist, exuberant sexuality in America simply didn't exist. What nonsense. The so-called sexual revolution wasn't really so radical when one considers that the forces behind it had been fermenting for decades (Margaret Sanger's crusade for birth control, for instance). The people who put this miniseries together apparently also consider the Fifties to be a time of cardboard, puritanical sexlessness. But that belief simply doesn't hold water. Was it not during the '50s that Elvis Presley provocatively swiveled his hips and Marilyn Monroe had her dress blown up past her waist? Not to mention Playboy magazine, Bettie Page pinups, and the word "rock 'n' roll" itself, which was originally a euphemism for sex. When you get right down to it, the revolution wouldn't have come as quickly as it did had it not been for the introduction of the birth control pill in 1960, which made sex more common only because it made it less hazardous.

And what about Vietnam? This movie simply shows that conflict blowing up in our faces in 1964. What it doesn't show is that the war in Indochina had been raging since 1954 - ten years earlier. The top brass in Washington - if not the American public at large - had been keeping abreast of the events in Southeast Asia since day one. In fact, Dwight D. Eisenhower had the opportunity to nip the entire Vietnam conflict in the bud during his first term, when he refused to give aid to the French at the siege of Dienbienphu. Yes, LBJ must bear the brunt of the blame for what happened to our boys; but we wouldn't have gotten into such a pickle in the first place if Ike hadn't sat on the teakettle a decade earlier. The movie also focuses almost exclusively on the activities of war protesters, failing to note that most Americans actually supported the war to the bitter end.

One final note: the movie opens with an ironic presentation of that bland, insipid, happy-go-lucky Fifties sitcom "Ozzie and Harriet." Good point, but it's not as if we were all watching blood-soaked shoot-'em-ups and kinky S&M on TV by 1969. As a matter of fact, by the end of the decade Americans were watching bland, insipid, happy-go-lucky Seventies sitcoms like "The Brady Bunch."

I may be only 20 years old, but I know my American history. And "The '60s" gets a lot of it wrong.

Animaniacs (1993–1998)

They are zany to the max, there's baloney in their slacks...

[10 August 2001]

Meet Yakko, Wakko, and Dot Warner. They are three innocent yet mischievous children who look something like a cross between dogs and monkeys. They were actually created as cartoon characters in the 1930s but were so out of control that they were locked away in a water tower. Needless to say, incarceration only contributed to their insanity.

"Animaniacs" was a great show. There was always a heaping helping of the kind of in-your-face, subversive humor that flourished in the Looney Tunes cartoons of the Tex Avery era - so much so, in fact, that the show even included a curvy blonde bombshell of a nurse whose presence invariably caused Yakko and Wakko to exclaim, "Hell-looo, nurse!" (obviously a play on Archie Bunker's catchphrase from "All in the Family").

Each Warner sibling had a distinct - and extremely colorful - personality. Yakko was the backbone of the trio, delivering the most scathing insults and excelling at repartee. His sharp inflection (voiced by Rob Paulsen and eerily reminiscent of Groucho Marx) conveyed both cynicism and sheer comic menace. Wakko was the most vulgar and hedonistic of the three, serving up the lion's share of the show's zany slapstick and eating everything within arm's reach. And Dot? Well, she was the self-proclaimed "cute one." Even her brothers sometimes found her to be a real pain.

Most of the shorts on the half-hour program followed a basic formula: Yakko, Wakko, and Dot are so sickeningly endearing that they annoy the living daylights out of everyone they meet. If you remember Bill Murray's neurotic mental patient character from WHAT ABOUT BOB?, they were kind of like that. Every cartoon would have them pestering a respectable "straight man" - often an eminent historical figure like Albert Einstein or Ludwig von Beethoven - by means of corny puns, daring double entendres, and even a bit of subdued bathroom humor (belching, drooling, etc.). These trademark antics tended to have catastrophic effects; in the very first episode, the Warner kids drove their psychiatrist, Dr. Otto von Scratchansniff, so completely bonkers that he tore out all his hair and became totally bald!

And that was just the tip of the iceberg. There was a truly extensive menagerie of supporting characters filling out the "Animaniacs" roster, both human and animal. They included Thaddeus Plotz, the WB studio's tyrannical CEO; Ralph, a dimwitted security guard with a potbelly and perpetual five-o'clock shadow; The Brain, a stentorian-voiced lab mouse obsessed with world domination; Pinky, his dopey partner in crime; The Goodfeathers, a gang of Central Park pigeons with the mannerisms and attitudes of characters in a Martin Scorsese movie; Buttons, a well-meaning dog who always screwed up; Rita and Runt, a cat-and-dog team known for their soaring songs; two refined hippos named Flavio and Marita; and so on ad infinitum.

The show ran for five seasons, so to catalogue all the little quirks that made the show so unique and magical would be a daunting task. Suffice to say that "Animaniacs" was a cartoon show unlike any other, with universal appeal and engaging characters. A wonderful show; I, for one, am still awaiting a big-budget "Animaniacs" movie.