Party Now, Apocalypse Later Industries

Where creativity went when it said it was going out for cigarettes.
  • Home
  • BOOKS
    • THE ONCE AND FUTURE ORSON WELLES
    • IF ANY OF THESE STORIES GOES OVER 1000 WORDS...
    • ORSON WELLES OF MARS
    • THE DEVIL LIVES IN BEVERLY HILLS
    • A LOSS FOR NORMALCY
    • RIGHT - A NOVEL OF POLITICS
  • PODCASTS
    • Beyond the Cabin in the Woods
    • THE HOLODECK IS BROKEN
    • THE FOURTH WALL
    • As The Myth Turns
    • FRIENDIBALS! - TWO FRIENDS TALKING ABOUT HANNIBAL LECTER
    • DISORGANIZED! A Criminal Minds Podcast
  • MOVIE REVIEWS
  • BLOGS AND MORE
    • Bloggy B Bloggington III, DDS
    • THE HOLODECK IS BROKEN BLOG
    • REALLY GOOD MAN!
  • Home
    • THE ONCE AND FUTURE ORSON WELLES
    • IF ANY OF THESE STORIES GOES OVER 1000 WORDS...
    • ORSON WELLES OF MARS
    • THE DEVIL LIVES IN BEVERLY HILLS
    • A LOSS FOR NORMALCY
    • RIGHT - A NOVEL OF POLITICS
    • Beyond the Cabin in the Woods
    • THE HOLODECK IS BROKEN
    • THE FOURTH WALL
    • As The Myth Turns
    • FRIENDIBALS! - TWO FRIENDS TALKING ABOUT HANNIBAL LECTER
    • DISORGANIZED! A Criminal Minds Podcast
  • MOVIE REVIEWS
    • Bloggy B Bloggington III, DDS
    • THE HOLODECK IS BROKEN BLOG
    • REALLY GOOD MAN!

A Blog About Watching Movies (AKA a Blog in Search of a Better Title)

Coneheads (1993)

Mac Boyle April 19, 2025

Director: Steve Barron

Cast: Dan Aykroyd, Jane Curtin, Michelle Burke, Michael McKean

Have I Seen it Before: Sure! Any real discussion of my awareness of the film will veer into what I actually think of the film, but I only add here that I have a strange memory of the film having a line of action figures—what movie didn’t have one in those years?—and I’m not entirely sure why. I also was under the impression that there was a day when Subway sandwiches didn’t exist, then this film came out, and those footlongs never left our lives.

Did I Like It: This movie either can’t or doesn’t try to answer or escape from a central question every film has to reckon with on some level: Who is this movie for?

it takes on the air of a family comedy with some sci-fi seasoning buried deep within the fry batter. On that front, it probably mostly succeeds. It’s inoffensive, and I remember as a kid being fairly amused by it.

A tame enough level of ambition undercuts other things the film might accomplish. An attempt to re-acquire the strange off-the-wall quality of the early years of Saturday Night Live mostly fails in service of the need to make a film the whole family can enjoy. Maybe most of the major players had kids. I’m told that can change a person, especially while those kids are young. Maybe Belushi died and everyone sobered up. It probably made their lives better, but the film does sadly suffer.

Another strange flex that the film can’t quite follow through on is the sheer tonnage of its cast. Almost everyone who has a connection to SNL or to well-regarded TV of the age brings to mind the over-stuffed cast of It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963). Whereas that film expands its scope to accommodate giving everyone in the guild work, this film breaks apart at less than 90 minutes, again, likely in a an attempt to be the most risk-averse commodity possible.

Tags coneheads (1993), steve barron, snl movies, dan aykroyd, jane curtin, michelle burke, michael mckean
Comment

The Blues Brothers (1980)

Mac Boyle January 8, 2025

Director: John Landis

 

Cast: John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, James Brown, Cab Calloway

 

Have I Seen It Before: Oh, sure. Having parents who hailed from Mount Prospect, the BluesMobile was always a delightful chuckle growing up. Also put it in my mind that buying an old police car at auction would be a great way to get a vehicle that doesn’t look like much, but still has all the best parts and maintenance.

 

Maybe I took the wrong things away from this one.

 

Did I Like It: I look at a movie directed (and in this case largely written) by John Landis, and my immediate instinct is to not like. It sure helps that he hasn’t really made a watchable movie in thirty years, but his early stuff sure does throw me for a loop. You might come to his defense for what happened on the set of Twlight Zone: The Movie (1982), but giving the maximum weight to any kind of acquittal, the man always seemed to be so full of himself, so supremely confident that the movie he is making at that moment is worthy of any (and I do mean any) sacrifice that it gives the entire catalog a sour taste.

 

And then there’s the whole exercise that is The Blues Brothers. I remember reading in George Carlin’s final book that he had a wide-ranging apathy for a lot of the Saturday Night Live crowd, as he (and I’m wildly paraphrasing) couldn’t see why a bunch of white guys had anything about which to sing the blues. I would have counted myself among the fans of the film up until the moment I read that, and afterwards, wondering if that was part of the problem.

 

Then, finally, there is the question of whether or not any sketch from SNL should ever be flattened to the point that it runs over 90 minutes. To say nothing of the more than 120 minutes this asks us to endure. Wayne’s World (1992) works, but does anything else really work?

 

All of that comes together, and I should be firmly ambivalent about the film these days. And yet, the thing moves along at a clip and is a delight. It helps that Belushi and Aykroyd often take a back seat to other legendary musicians as things unfurl. It’s not quite as funny as I might have remembered, but it has more than enough attitude to compensate.

Tags the blues brothers (1980), snl movies, john landis, john belushi, dan aykroyd, james brown, cab calloway
Comment

Chaplin (1992)

Mac Boyle March 21, 2024

Director: Richard Attenborough

 

Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Dan Aykroyd, Geraldine Chaplin, Kevin Dunn

 

Have I Seen It Before: There was a stretch there in the early 2000s where I likely ran my VHS copy into sputtering dust from repeated viewings. But then, I’ll admit, I was sort of a strange kid. While I surely tried to keep the man Chaplin in my head when I was writing both The Devil Lives in Beverly Hills and parts of The Once and Future Orson Welles, but it would be hard to deny that a bit of this movie didn’t leak in there around the edges.

 

Did I Like It: But that may be the central problem with the film. I still enjoy it, but I do wonder if the whole experience rang hollow for many (and I can see now how it might be that way for some) because Chaplin himself is an unknowable figure, and therefore maybe not the best subject for a biopic. His contemporaries didn’t really know him. Attenborough and the screenwriters never really attained the level of understand for which they may have strived, hence the soft dramatic structure* of the film being a conversation between Chaplin (Downey) and the editor of his autobiography (Anthony Hopkins, never quite looking like he is doing anything other than doing Attenborough a favor). Even Chaplin himself never seemed to really know himself, as the filmmakers can’t help but note that his autobiography** is a prolonged attempt to dodge connection with the reader. Even Downey only seems to understand the man in fits and starts, although even that might be a bit of subterfuge hidden behind the confidence and craft on display.

 

That’s what we’re left with, unfortunately. A hagiographic survey which tries to re-create decades old comedy, but done well with Downey’s skill so it isn’t an embarrassing display of mimicry. That, and a John Barry score which sounds like it was taken from rejected tracks for a Bond score. 

 

 

*And to have a dramatic structure at all does put it above the larger pack of biopics. I’m looking in your direction, Napoleon (2023).

Tags chaplin (1992), richard attenborough, robert downey jr, dan aykroyd, geraldine chaplin, kevin dunn
Comment

1941 (1979)

Mac Boyle January 24, 2024

Director: Steven Spielberg

 

Cast: Dan Aykroyd, Ned Beatty, John Belushi, Lorraine Gary

 

Have I Seen It Before: Yes. I have the strongest memory of sitting in my bedroom and watching the thing on VHS. Why wouldn’t I have done so? Spielberg? Check. Aykroyd and Belushi? More check. Script by Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale? Yet more check.

 

Did I Like It: Well, I suppose Coppola went to Vietnam, and Spielberg decided to instead go to Santa Barbara… Both of them probably thought on some level that they were going to war in their own way.

 

Spielberg was absolutely right in understanding that he was two-ish decades away from being ready to handle a serious war movie, and so went lighter with the whole affair. Thank God he got the idea that he could do a big, John Landis (if not out-and-out ZAZ-style) comedy out of his system here, or we might have been forced to endure Bill Murray as Indiana Jones or something unfathomably awful by the time he came around to Saving Private Ryan (1998).

 

And I say this all without trying to say that the film isn’t worth a look. Spielberg is working with that same “Gee, Sammy Fabelman loves movies more than the rest of us ever could” energy that made virtually every other film he’s ever made a classic. The John Williams score is exactly what any reasonable person would want out of one of his score. If the film had stuck with the collective imagination a little (probably a lot) more than it did, it might have joined the pantheon of his great works.

 

It's just not very funny. I can’t remember laughing once during the thing. That’s okay, there are plenty of great films that aren’t particularly funny. Zemeckis and Gale harnessed similar energy in Romancing the Stone (1984), and yes, even in Back to the Future (1985). Spielberg, certainly in this era, is the absolute, undisputed king of light pop entertainments. But it is impossible for a viewer to look at Aykroyd, Belushi, or even John Candy and think they are supposed to laugh. And when those laughs come, there isn’t a whole lot else to say.

Tags 1941 (1979), steven spielberg, dan aykroyd, ned beatty, john belushi, lorrain gary
Comment
Twilight_Zone_-_The_Movie_(1983)_theatrical_poster.jpg

Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983)

Mac Boyle January 5, 2019

Director: John Landis, Steven Spielberg, Joe Dante, George Miller

Cast: Vic Morrow (RIP), John Lithgow, Scatman Crothers, Dan Aykroyd

Have I Seen it Before: I think it’s probably safe to say that I’ve 

Did I Like It: You get four chances to like it, and I would say I get the job done about half the time.

The text of this review appeared previously in a blog post entitled “Do You Want to See Something *Really* Morbid? Why the Ends Almost Never Justify the Means” published on 07/02/17.

I’m a big fan of The Twilight Zone. I’m such a big fan of the show that I’ve been known to suggest fisticuffs whenever the honor of Rod Serling is impugned*. “To Serve Man,” “Nightmare at 20,000 Feet”, “Time Enough at Last”. These are truly great episodes of television.

And yet, efforts to re-capture the magic of the original TV show have often floundered. Sure Zone inspired a pinball machine that is the absolute pinnacle of that art form, but both attempts to bring the television series back—in 1985 and 2002—are less than memorable. Maybe the advent of color removed all magic from the concept**.

When the movie powerhouse of Steven Spielberg and John Landis attempted to make an anthology film based on the series, the reaction to the film was equally tepid. 

In some cases obliquely, and in others much more directly, Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983) offers remakes of four classic episodes of the TV series to varying degrees of effectiveness, and for that matter, sheer horror. 

The strongest segment among them is the last: a manic, claustrophobic redux of the Richard Matheson classic “Nightmare at 20,000 Feet” with John Lithgow as a naturally neurotic replacement for William Shatner. The gremlin on the wing of the plane in this version is far less laughable than the demented Lamb Chop of the original episode, and is more a terrifying, self-aware wraith ready to set up a homestead in your nightmares.

Moving backwards both in chronology and quality, Kathleen Quinlan stars in a re-constructed “It’s a Good Life”, the tale of a young boy with nigh-omnipotent powers and the destruction he leaves in his wake. Joe Dante (Gremlins, Innerspace) brings his penchant for cartoonish malevolence to bear here, but it is an aptitude that doesn’t come to full fruition until Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990). The ending Dante and company choose for the tale—wherein the kindly school teacher (Quinlan) tries to temper the god-boy’s misanthropy—falls short of the ending that appears in the original episode and skews a little too close to the happy-happy Spielbergian ideal so prevalent in the 80s.

Which makes sense, given that Spielberg’s own entry for the film is such a concentrated package of pathos that it almost warrants a dosage of Humalog packaged with every DVD. Scatman Crothers gives a group of residents at an old folks home the opportunity to reclaim their childhood, quite literally. It’s precious. And that’s all fine. Spielberg’s gonna Spielberg, especially pre-The Color Purple (1985), but you should at least be prepared.

And then there’s director John Landis’ (Animal House, The Blues Brothers) opening entry in the movie. It’s the least conceptually sound of all four stories. One imagines that this is because it has the least to do with one of the original TV episodes. Bill Connor (Vic Morrow) is an unrepentant racist and basket case who finds himself tumbling through time. With each Quantum Leap like jump, he finds himself as a different oppressed minority. At the end, he watches his friends shrug through his disappearance as he is taken away to a concentration camp in Nazi-era Europe.

It’s kind of a muddled mess, although it does have the virtue of having the classic hopeless-turn-as-moral ending that made the TV series famous. There is a reason both for its messiness and its bleak ending. It’s more horrifying than any moment in the finished film, I assure you. 

I made reference to the incident in <last week’s blog>, but in the early hours of July 23, 1982, on the final night of filming for the segment, an accident occurred that took the lives of three actors.

Accounts vary, but these are the generally accepted facts. The final shooting involved a massive sequence that would find Morrow’s character saving two Vietnamese children from a village under attack by American helicopters, after which he would be redeemed and return to his life reformed after only a half-hour or so of trauma. 

With a helicopter hovering nearby and explosions igniting all around them, Morrow crawls out into a small lake with a child in each arm. One of the pyrotechnic explosions caused the rear rotor on the helicopter to fail. The craft spun out of control and crashed into the nearby lake. The pilot and other crew members on board the chopper survived with minor injuries. On the ground, the helicopter decapitated Morrow and one of the child actors, 7-year-old Myca Dinh Le, and crushed the other child actor, 6-year-old Renee Shin-yi Chen. Rolling cameras from at least three different angles caught the whole sequence of events. The internet has archived this footage for all time, because of course it has. Several industrious online editors have even managed to enhance the footage frame-by-frame, because of course they have. I don’t recommend seeking out the footage for yourself. Just… Trust me.

Under “normal” circumstances, this would be a horrifying tragedy, but it gets worse from there. Some insist that Landis—in complete disregard of any semblance of safety—tried to order the lethal helicopter to an altitude even lower than the already dangerous 25 feet it maintained above the ground. Landis denies this, and instead points to the error of a special effects technician and a mis-timed explosion as the sole causes for the accident. The producers and director further disregarded safety and labor laws in a number of other ways. Child actors weren’t supposed to work in such close proximity to that degree of pyrotechnics; the filmmakers did anyway. Child actors weren’t supposed to work at such a late hour; the filmmakers paid their parents under the table. Landis copped to this much but, again, insists to this day that those factors had nothing to do with the actual accident.

NTSB inquiries labeled the event an accident, although they significantly changed their rules regulating helicopters on film sets. Civil cases took several years to settle with the families, while Landis and four other crew members were placed on trial for manslaughter. Amid some degree of controversy in the pre-OJ world, the five were acquitted of any criminal wrongdoing.

Even if I accept Landis’ side of the story and that every moment of the incident was beyond any reasonable control, I can’t imagine having blood on my hands for one of my own silly projects, regardless of how it turned out. Maybe it’s a shocking, potentially overwhelming story, but whenever I think about the Twilight Zone movie and the accident that accompanied it, I try to find some object lesson in the events. Maybe it’s that being creative is great, but being a human being is probably far more important.


*Don’t believe me? I issued just such a challenge on Friday. Twice. I will defend Mr. Serling’s honor, so help me Krom.

**To be fair, I think conversion away from black and white not only diminished attempts at remaking the Zone, but television, film, photography, and the entirety of human civilization. I’m willing to admit I might be alone there.

Tags twilight zone: the movie (1983), john landis, steven spielberg, joe dante, george miller, vic morrow, John Lithgow, scatman crothers, dan aykroyd
Comment
220px-Ghostbusters_ii_poster.jpg

Ghostbusters II (1989)

Mac Boyle December 26, 2018

Director: Ivan Reitman

Cast: Bill Murray, Sigourney Weaver, Dan Aykroyd, Peter MacNicol

Have I Seen it Before: Let’s just assume I’ve seen every movie released in the summer of 1989 about a thousand times.

Did I Like It: It has all the same ingredients as the original, and is still a satisfying meal, but in the end there is nothing like the first taste.

Comedy sequels are rough. Quick, name a good one. You probably didn’t mention Caddyshack 2 (1988). Or Analyze That (2002). Or The Whole Ten Yards (2004). Or Fletch Lives (1989). Smokey and The Bandit II (1980)? Smokey and the Bandit Part 3 (1983)? What’s left that can rise above the absolute laughless masses? The Austin Powers movies? Was the original even that funny after the hazy binge that was the 90s ended? Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013)? Watchable, yes. Funny, sure. But not the same as the original.

So it is too with Ghostbusters II. Many—including much of the cast—have poured cold water over the second film, and I get it. The plot needlessly contrives putting the busters back to square one. There’s too much of Slimer and other elements and choices elevated by the only occasionally good Real Ghostbusters cartoon series. The notion of a Jaeger Statue of Liberty is sort of disappointing in a world that has Kaiju Marshmallow Men.

Although I admit that my soft spot for the movie may be a byproduct of people irrationally loving movies they first saw when they were five years old, but this movie is still Peak Murray, and thus cannot be dismissed entirely. I enjoy it every time I watch it, even if it is not as joy inducing as the original, or even if it is not quite as fresh as the 2016 remake. Watch it, and realize that while it isn’t perfect, it could have been truly embarrassing. That it isn’t in that low pantheon of comedy sequels is certainly worth something.

Tags ghostbusters ii (1989), ivan reitman, bill murray, harold ramis, sigourney weaver, dan aykroyd
Comment

Powered by Squarespace

Party Now, Apocalypse Later Industries

Where creativity went when it said it was going out for cigarettes.

Where creativity went when it said it was going out for cigarettes.