Hot Shots! (1991)

Director: Jim Abrahams

Cast: Charlie Sheen, Cary Elwes, Valeria Golino, Jon Cryer

Have I Seen It Before: Chalk another one up to the “I had cable in the 90s, so I had to have” although I imagine I did seek the film out at some point.

Did I Like It: There’s not a lot of room for creative criticism when it comes to films like this. It all boils down to: Is it closer to Airplane! (1980) or is it closer to the dreary—and thankfully curbed in recent years, after a quick look at Wikipedia—work of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. At least one part of ZAZ is directly—read: not just getting a contractual credit—involved. That’s a big step in the right direction. It was released earlier than 1996. That’s another step in the right direction. So, yes, this is “one of the good ones.” You will laugh more often than you don’t. Whether or not it bothers you if you’re laughing at something occasionally pretty stupid is a question you’re probably not concerned with if you have decided to watch Hot Shots!.

The only thought I think I can add to the discussion is wondering why there has yet to be some discussion, on some level—especially after the unassailable box office success of Top Gun: Maverick (2022), and the reasonable success of The Naked Gun (2025)—of doing a legacy sequel to this. Sure, Sheen may be a little bit harder to get an insurance bond on, but give him the same deal they gave Robert Downey Jr. in the 2000s: Make him put his own bond money up, incentivizing to finish the movie. It could a be a big success for him, and a reasonable amount of money for Disney. Hot Shots!: Topper. The poster sells itself. Get Jeff Bridges to play Lloyd Bridges son…

Why am I not pitching this right now?

Shadow of the Vampire (2000)

Director: E. Elias Merhige

Cast: John Malkovich, Willem Dafoe, Cary Elwes, Suzy Eddie Izzard

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure. It’s hard to think of a movie in this era that was more coming for me directly than this one. It’s a little strange to think that it has taken this long for us to get around to it on Beyond the Cabin in the Woods. That being said, it’s weird to admit that my DVD has quite possibly not seen the light of day since I originally bought it in 2001.

Did I Like It: There’s a lot to like here, but not without some disappointments. Dafoe is swinging for the fences with his performance, and chewing scenes in the best possible way. Of particular delight is the scene where Schreck/Orlock is on his own and manages to take in a rush of a sunrise, and is absolutely transfixed by the mere possibility of film. It reminds me of a scene in Chaplin (1992) where Robert Downey Jr. is similarly transfixed by the celluloid possibilities in front of him, and even that scene had to be propped up by voice over narration. It also reminds me of the sequence in Interview with the Vampire (1994) where Brad Pitt is similarly distracted by the possibilities of going to the movies. Here, all we are given is Dafoe’s face, and the film of the sun. The point is made all the same, and honestly gives the only good argument for vampirism that I’ve yet to hear. Somebody comes around and tells me they have a way for me to see films released even beyond my lifetime, I’m going to need someone to talk me down.

And yet, there’s something so singular about his face that the great makeup job can’t quite erase Dafoe from the character he is playing, like the makeup job in the 1920s did for the real (or is he?) Max Schreck in Nosferatu (1922). It’s a minor complaint, given that Dafoe’s face is almost a special effect in its own way. Just try to continue staring at the hypnotic opening titles that tries to make something human out of Dafoe’s face and Art Deco elements. It’s easily the most unnerving sequences of this or any horror movie.

My real reservation about the film is structural, though. Searching for a new cinematographer after their first one is waylaid by the downsides of vampirism, Murnau (Malkovich, playing himself) disappears from the movie for some time. This renders the second more than a little aimless and disorganized, robbing the film of its central tension between Murnau and Schreck when it could use it the most.

The Princess Bride (1987)

Director: Rob Reiner

Cast: Cary Elwes, Mandy Patinkin, Chris Sarandon, Robin Wright

Have I Seen it Before: Well, sure. But this is where I am going to have to open up this review with a confession.

Did I Like It: Is this somehow going to be more controversial than my review of Halloween Ends (2022)? Ok. Truth time. I’ve never liked it as much as some people. Some people love this movie like it would be able to patch the hole in the ozone layer and always smell like freshly popped popcorn.

It’s a frequently funny film. There are large swaths where it is thrilling and heartwarming. Every inch of this film is designed to be likable, and it delivers on those goods… I think one could make the case that there is nothing particularly wrong with the film?

And yet?

Doesn’t it all seem a little too slim for it’s own good? Maybe complaining that the film is “too short” is praising the movie with faint damnation, but aren’t there like three dozen characters jammed into just over 90 minutes?

Isn’t every great, well-remembered moment of the movie just a catchphrase pre-packaged for the meme era? Do we really love “My name is Inigo Montoya” and “Have fun storming the castle,” or is it just that their both easily imitateable?

And I can get over all of those complaints, but somehow there are people who with great earnestness proclaim this as their favorite movie. There are people out there who have built their entire identity around this movie. We’re never likely to get a proper memoir from Cary Elwes, because he figured we were all good after he got through all of his stories from The Princess Bride. I see the appeal. I just don’t see that much of the appeal.

Is it just that I’m nuts?

Inconceivable, I’m sure.

Twister (1996)

Director: Jan de Bont

Cast: Helen Hunt, Bill Paxton, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Cary Elwes

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure. When your family gets HBO for the first time in late 1996, you almost had to watch it. It was the law. I’m sort of sad that I didn’t catch it in the theater, as my memory includes a screening of the film at the Admiral Twin Drive in here in town had to be cut short due to—you guessed it—marital discord between Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton.

That’s what the movie is about, right?

Did I Like It: This has got to be one of the flimsiest, silliest blockbuster films to exist, and somehow, almost kind of work at the same time. The marriage subplot is so thin that both viewers and the movie itself decide to pretty much forget about it before the third act.

The movie makes a mad scramble for an antagonist. One would think the tornadoes would be enough bad guy for a movie… about tornadoes. There’s even a moment, right at the film’s climax where I think we are supposed to believe the probes contained within Dorothy actually killed the final tornado? Was this the same tornado that killed Jo’s (Hunt) father? But it isn’t enough, there has to be a cadre of black hats, or rather SUVs. 

One might point to the special effects as worth a view, but I think the one-two punch of seeing it on television, combined with the fact that it has been 25 years since the film was released, even those moments have grown tame.

What more is there? There aren’t that many movies that take place in the place I came from, to say nothing of action movies. There’s also a certain dopey charm in the storm chasers. Sure, if you forced me to come up with the names other than Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Alan Ruck, and that one guy who I’m fairly sure disappears before Paxton’s fiancée excuses herself from the proceedings. They’re a fun bunch and I have a vague recollection of there being development of a sequel in the years since. What would that have even looked like? Maybe they go after hurricanes? Or snow flurries. Yep. I can see the poster now. Twister 2: Snow Flurries. Released in 1999. Bill Paxton returns; Helen Hunt couldn’t be bothered. In that universe, the Twister saga displaces The Fast and The Furious. 

One shudders. I just won’t growl. That should be left to the tornadoes.

Glory (1989)

Director: Edward Zwick

Cast: Matthew Broderick, Denzel Washington, Cary Elwes, Morgan Freeman

Have I Seen it Before: I got two eyes, a heart, and had cable in the 90s, didn’t I?

Did I Like It: Remember when we could just like blatant Oscar bait movies instead of thinking we’re so savvy that if we can identify the intent behind something, then it must automatically be bad.

Were Glory—the fitfully true story of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw (Broderick) and the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment—to be made today, the backlash would be brewing before any nominations for the Academy Award were even announced. There are large swaths that are emotionally manipulative, sure, but it tries to jam the complex context of both Shaw as a man and the racial attitudes of the time into a package just over two hours long. 

Thankfully, it was made in the era in which it was—and it didn’t win too many awards (I’m looking in your direction Forrest Gump (1994))—that we are free to enjoy it for what it is: a stirring war story. It never forgets to entertain, and if it ends up being, morally admirable in the process, that’s fine too.

My only complaints with the film would have to be with the presentation. I’m always up for seeing a beloved film on the big screen, but I’m relatively sure most films made before 2001 should never be converted to to 4K*. The seams show. every shot Washington or Broderick take in the film’s final scenes looks like a hole poked in their uniform, drizzled with a bit of red tempra paint. 

Some of the increased resolution does actually help the film. The detailed and what appears to be accurate production design comes to life on a large screen with as much resolution as possible. And, also to be fair, there are some parts that are weighed down by subpar editing. To my count there were no fewer than three instances of a soldier being shot in the face, and we are shown the musket firing, only to quickly cut to the soldier holding their face in pain. Maybe that’s what happens when someone is shot in the face by a musket (I don’t think it is, but am not really interested in researching the point), but the technique only serves to distract when used that many times.

I offer quibble but remain steadfast in my recommendation of the film. That scene before the big battle where all of the soldiers are singing? Doesn’t get much better than that.

*Oddly enough, the only exception to this notion that comes to mind: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).