The Long, Long, Trailer. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer 1953.
Before watching the movie:
This was recommended to me because I was going to pull a trailer across the country in a move as “something to watch after you’re done with the trailer”. The trailer is gone, and the movie is here, so here it is. Mine was somewhat smaller. I couldn’t imagine my car pulling a 36′ camper trailer, but I think they did make cars more powerful back then.
I was thinking more about a few Disney cartoons with misbehaving trailers, but I can certainly see the potential for comic mishap. It’ll be interesting to see if there’s any difference between Lucy and Desi’s characters here versus on I Love Lucy, since both are star vehicles meant to showcase what they do best and giving audiences what they expect of the actors. Continue reading →
Culture clash and Australian stereotypes. An icon in American perception of Australia. I’ve been waiting a long time to get access to this one.
For all the fame of this movie, the only thing I’ve seen that comes directly from it is the memetic “that’s not a knife”. The rest is a complete blank. Just a cartoonish expert of the Outback in somebody else’s world.
This is a story that gets remade every so often, probably because the state of film technology marches on and someone decides they can do better than the last one. Certainly, the recent version with Jack Black established the look very realistically. However, hardly anyone has adapted the entire book, and the title is almost universally considered to refer to only the Lilliput section, which this appears to do. Brobdingnang sometimes gets included since it’s just the reverse of the scale effect, but to my knowledge no version, or at least no enduring version, has attempted, for example, the island of the horse people. Not even the Harryhousen-powered The Three Worlds of Gulliver tried.
This is a staging by another great name in animation and effects, Fleischer Studios. I feel animation is underrepresented on this site, and I’m glad to bring in a historically significant animated feature now. I’ve never really cared much for the Fleischer style, so much as I’ve seen it, but Fleischer didn’t really endure long enough to develop as well as Disney and Warner Bros. did. But it should serve to tell the story adequately.
Major League. Mirage Enterprises/Morgan Creek Productions 1989.
Before watching the movie:
This is one of those that I feel like I should have more preconceptions of than I do. It’s a “The Producers” kind of sandbagging scheme, only the sandbagger isn’t the protagonist. It’s just about a team that’s so bad they’re good, I guess. I can’t tell what the mohawked sunglasses-wearing baseball is trying to convey. Attitude? Eighties attitude? Am I reading too much into the mohawk that’s probably just for the Cleveland Indians?
Kind of impressive that a movie could be made with a real pro sports franchise cast as the ragtag misfits. The only comparable example I can think of is The Mighty Ducks, and I think Disney money made the Ducks a real team after the fact. Maybe Angels in the Outfield, but the team is reasonably competent in that.
There are some more familiar names lower down in the credits, but of the headliners, I only really know Charlie Sheen.
I was only familiar with this story previously through a Wishbone adaptation of the play. What I recall of it is rather different from the summary I’ve seen of this movie, though on the one hand this is credited as “suggested by” the play, admitting they’ve walked rather far away from it, while Wishbone could well have bowdlerized the bungled assassination attempts mentioned as being in this movie. Having quickly scanned a summary of the play, I’m inclined to think it’s more the former than the latter.
It’s a rather surprising notion to do a story about corruption in the Imperial Russian government as a cheery-looking musical starring Danny Kaye, no matter how farcical the plot may be.The songs should either be quite something or a lot of nothing.
This is clearly a cash-in on the Indiana Jones franchise, but it’s a response to a pulp adventure pastiche with one of the original pulp adventurers. I don’t know much of anything about Allan Quatermain (I’m discounting everything I might remember from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen because it’s a bouillabaisse of literary big names with little regard for detail) other than that he’s the inspiration for a lot of more recent adventure throwbacks.
I guess I saw him in The Three Musketeers, but I don’t really have a very strong impression of Richard Chamberlain yet. I have a hard time keeping the Musketeers that aren’t D’artagnan straight.
The poster shown here is overwhelmingly the image associated with this movie, but for the longest time I took it at face value, as if it was telling me Carrey’s character is really a sinister, murderous psycho. However, in light of the descriptions usually attached, I think this is a joke that’s lost its context. From the descriptions, I think I see a story about a needy character who has more of an exasperating effect than a worrying one. Less Fatal Attraction, more What About Bob? But then looking at IMDB just now I’m thinking I’ve underestimated the darkness again.
I expect good things from Matthew Broderick in a beleaguered straight man role, and Jim Carrey’s proved himself in pretty much any kind of role.
I grew up on Aladdin, Flubber , Jumanji, and Bicentennial Man all came out when I was the right age for them. I rediscovered Hook at a well-developed age between childhood and adulthood. Mork and Mindy may have been the first grown-up TV show I discovered on my own, but even if it wasn’t, it struck a chord with me the other possibilities didn’t. Robin Williams was the first person I did a search for in the library system and I pulled several movies from that search, a strategy I only applied so earnestly to two other actors. Having a blog focused on catching up with movies I haven’t seen led me to check off more of his filmography. So when news of his death came, I had some trouble finding a movie to review in his honor. It’s not so much that there are no movies left that I haven’t seen, but most of them are bleak dramas or too recent.
In the outpouring of love for the man I saw online in the last few weeks, Dead Poets’ Society seems to be very highly regarded, perhaps his most inspirational film. I indeed have not seen it and will certainly be getting to it soon, but I wanted to remember him with a proper comedy of the sort that there’s hardly anything left.
So here’s Father’s Day, a nearly forgotten movie about two men who have both been led to believe they’re the father of an ex-girlfriend’s runaway son, for the purpose of getting both of them to track him down. Sounds like a road movie with two giants of comedy at odds with each other. Let’s have some fun.
You couldn’t make this kind of movie today (I hope). Three women make it their top goals to marry into money. This will probably be a fun little romantic comedy romp running on outdated gender values, which isn’t in itself a bad thing, as long as one keeps in mind that it’s no longer considered healthy.
I was kind of looking forward to this until I put on my feminist glasses.
Anyway, three powerhouse ladies of the golden age of cinema in a story about taking control of their lives by manipulating anybody in reach with a thick enough wallet.
Once in a writing class, we were told to look at a collection of pictures from the art department and write some vignettes inspired by those images. I saw a picture of a woman stepping out of a pair of fancy shoes, and I think I connected that with this movie’s poster to write a scene at a wedding reception, but the implied plot was in an entirely different direction.
So apparently most of what I have to say about this movie before seeing it is nearly unrelated to it. I’m expecting a generic romantic comedy with one obvious unusual twist. And Gere and Roberts have had success before with Pretty Woman and I think a few others, so they should do well here.