Before watching the movie:
This just sounds odd. It doesn’t help that all the summaries I’ve seen are one sentence long. As I recall, it runs something like Erik starts Ragnarok because he’s bored. That sounds like a two minute sketch. I don’t see how it can last as long as it does. But it’s Pythonesque, so I have to trust that it’s fun.
Continue reading
Before watching the movie:
I don’t think I’ve seen a Woody Allen movie he didn’t star in yet. Well, depending on how much What’s Up, Tiger Lilly? counts.Oddly, this is a metafictional fantasy about crossing the barrier between film and reality, but it feels more traditional than I expect from Allen. I’m expecting a more traditional performance from Jeff Daniels, too, despite the fact that he’s a fictional character who’s walked off the silver screen.
One thing I’m uncertain about in my expectations is the inner movie’s style. I’m imagining a golden age of Hollywood feel, but that was the 40s at the earliest, and this movie is set in the 30s. I’m much less familiar with films of the 30s.
Before watching the movie:
I first heard of this movie as the project that made Eddie Murphy back out of Star Trek IV. It was probably for the better, since the comedy of that movie comes from the serious characters being dumbfounded by the 20th century, and a wisecracking, street smart native would have made it more farcical.
Besides that, I know what the blurb says, about a social worker searching for a Tibetan boy destined to save the world, and I recall there being some kind of prop/replica in the quiet footpath with movie memorabilia at King’s Island before they replaced that area with something more interesting for their target clientele. Probably a gift shop, I don’t remember.
Before watching the movie:
The intent to depict contrast is very overt here. Separated at birth, a pair of twin babies grow into Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito, from completely opposite walks of life. A series of comic misadventures happen when they finally meet that probably has a “not so different” or “family is stronger than upbringing” theme.
I thought this marked my entry into Schwarzenegger’s infamous comedy period, but technically Last Action Hero is infamous and a comedy also, even if I liked it. I’ve also seen Jingle All The Way, which is frequently derided, but doesn’t get lumped in with the infamy surrounding Twins, Kindergarten Cop, and Junior. Hopefully I’ll like this better than the conventional wisdom as well.
Before watching the movie:
This is billed as a comedy, but it sounds like it could be more serious. How many moody dramas follow the dissolution of a marriage because the man had his head turned by a beautiful woman? The summaries point out that he’s happily married at the start, which makes it sound sadder.
On the other hand, a lot of comedies track the beginning of a relationship at the expense of another, and Wilder would do well at the flustered sort of unfaithful man like the type in The Seven Year Itch.
Before watching the movie:
I always had the idea this was a movie extrapolated from a recurring Saturday Night Live character. My logic was that Fletch is often considered Chase’s most iconic character, and the title is simply the character’s name, as if we’re expected to already know him. When I got the disc and learned Fletch is a master of disguise, it just seemed more logical that this would be a vehicle movie to showcase Chase’s talents. I only found out just now that this is an adaptation of a novel.
Not much has changed in my expectations. I still expect some digressions to do characters more to be funny for a while than to advance the plot. However, since it’s based on a book, the plot will probably be a little more fully realized than with a typical vehicle movie.
Before watching the movie:
Rodney Dangerfield should be able to play a slob pretty convincingly. It’s a large part of his persona. And all he has to do to inherit a windfall is give it all up. It’s an interesting conflict for an actor known for one personality to do a movie where he has to give up a large part of that personality. Vaguely like Jerry Lewis turning ultra-suave in The Nutty Professor.
Beyond that (admittedly large) nugget I’m going into this movie pretty blind. I don’t know how it’s going to play out in any detail beyond a guess at the basic plot structure.
Before watching the movie:
This film’s use of archive footage within the narrative reminds me of What’s Up, Tiger Lilly?, but when I try to draw a tighter comparison, they aren’t really all that alike. The Woody Allen film takes a few foreign films and uses the audio to dub a new story onto it. I can’t quite tell if this is new material supported by old films or new material stringing old film clips together, but there’s much more new content on the screen than in “Tiger Lilly”. I get the idea it has more in common with Forrest Gump than the other. I’m sure there’s a better example of new material interacting with old material to tell a new story, but I can’t bring it to mind.
Otherwise, this looks like a standard noir detective spoof rested on Steve Martin’s capable back. It’s hard to say much past that, since everything I can find about it focuses on the classic clips.
Before watching the movie:
This movie’s plot looks completely insane, which I suppose fits the title. John Candy acquires a congressman’s enemies by getting engaged to his daughter, so religious aerobic instructors come after him, and then somehow the poster is involved at some point. I have no idea what to expect.
I’d never heard of this movie before. I don’t remember what specifically got it recommended to me, but it’s in my list with a handful of other John Candy movies. The timing might put it in line with when I looked up Top Secret!, but this one may not have been the one specifically like it.
Before watching the movie:
I’m not quite sure what this is. The synopsis I’ve seen about a rock star getting involved in a counter-operation on a Nazi attack on submarines is simply confusing, and I have a hard time picturing Val Kilmer and not someone like Brendan Fraser, but its cult reputation that I’ve very recently stumbled upon is that it’s a Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker comedy of the same caliber as Airplane!. That’s a tall order to fill, since Scary Movie 4 tried and failed to live up to it, and even The Naked Gun franchise eventually let me down (the first one is good, and I look forward to the short-lived TV show it was based on).
Also the presence of cows in boots on all the posters baffles me, but that’s probably intentional.
Yesterday's Movies 