JayDee's Movie Musings

Well this one threw me a little bit. While I had seen it before and remembered really enjoying it, it wasn't anywhere near to how much I LOVED it this time. I just had an absolute blast with it, probably laughing more than I have at a film in a good long while. I'll need to revisit it at some point in the future to see if this was an aberration because if not this could be top 100 material. While Hughes may have created films that were 'better' than Uncle Buck, I'm not sure if he made any that were ever funnier than this. This is largely thanks to John Candy in perhaps his best performance; he's just on fire as Buck Russell, consistently killing it throughout the whole film. I loved pretty much everything he was involved in, particularly his confrontations with Tia's boyfriend Bug. While I've always liked Candy I could also find him rather irritating and over-the-top on occasion, but Hughes had the ability to cast him in a sympathetic light as someone with sensitivity and heart.

As Tia, Jean Louisa Kelly was also very good at being very bad! Her character was just so evil, so much so that you could argue her character was poorly written as no sense of sympathy or understanding was generated for her. The film also does a great job of utilising its child actors, limiting their exposure so they remain entertaining without crossing over into the territory of being precocious and irritating. Gaby Hoffman is absolutely adorable while Macaulay Culkin shows the charisma that would later be put to great use in the Home Alone films; I love the scene where he interrogates Buck with a series of questions - “I'm a kid, it's my job!” Whatever you want to say about him once he grew up, he was a great child actor. There's also some great support from Amy Madigan as Buck's beleaguered girlfriend and Laurie Metcalf as the crazed sexpot from across the street.

While I had a great, laugh-filled time watching this film there was also a rather melancholic under current to it, brought about by the untimely deaths of the two men most responsible for the film's success, John Hughes and John Candy. That both of these great comic talents would be taken from us before their time, Hughes before he was 60 and Candy at the tragically young age of 43, is truly sad. The one consolation we have however is that both men left behind a great collection of their work that we can remember them by, with this film serving as one of the best examples of both men's respective talents.









I've been aware of this film's existence and been interested in it for quite a while now, with its placing on the board's 80s list finally giving me the push to track it down. While I didn't love this film, certainly not as much as others clearly do, I did admire its quality and have to admit to finding it pretty damn compelling. While scary wouldn't be the right word, it's these kind of films that I generally find to be more creepy and unsettling than your big over-the-top horror films. A film like this, or 10 Rillington Place which I reviewed a year or two ago, plays out more like a reconstruction rather than a piece of entertainment. There is no hammy villain, no intrusive or overpowering score and no jump scares. Instead it gets under your skin with its downplayed, realistic depiction of the crime. The film presents a realistic and terrifying prospect that we can all imagine and relate to, has no violence whatsoever but still builds terrific menace and dread and most worryingly of all presents a villain who is just about the most normal and seemingly harmless individual you could imagine.

The film has quite an unusual structure which you'd imagine could easily kill the suspense but it actually works and helps to create a wonderfully atmospheric tone. In addition to examining the crime and its effects the film also explores the impact that obsession can have on one's life. We flash forward three years after the event and find that the guy's life has pretty much come to a standstill. He has been unable to move on and it has severely affected his life. It also examines the question of just how far would you go in such a situation to learn the truth. Frequently in press conferences you will see family members ask the person responsible to come forward and reveal the truth. They are not interested in them facing justice, they just have to know.

In line with its realistic stance the performances are quite restrained but impressive. As the sociopathic killer, Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu pitches his performance perfectly between being a run-of-the-mill everyman while still giving hints of his dark nature. Gene Bervoets suitably conveys the greatly detrimental impact that the event and his subsequent obsession has upon him, while Johanna ter Steege is delightfully sweet and likeable as the victim of the heinous act.









I can't believe it took me so long to get round to watching this film, especially as someone who considers themselves a fan of John Carpenter. I just loved this, finding it absolutely delightful. The film mixes together three rather disparate genres that you don't often see brought together; science fiction, romance and the road movie. It may be rare but in this instance Carpenter blends them into an intoxicating and beguiling experience. The film presents a bit of a unique spin on the bodysnatcher genre, having its character come into being by cloning the DNA of a dead person; in this case the late husband of Karen Allen's character. And this cloning element actually proves very fitting as in many ways Starman plays out like a clone of the Spielberg classic, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Both films feature an alien stranded on Earth who must accomplish a task if they are to be saved and return home. The only real difference here is that it's a more adult version of the story, both in terms of the alien and the person whose life they crash into.

Despite its out-there and high concept nature the film is grounded and made oddly believable by two terrific performances at its heart. In the role of the alien entity is Jeff Bridges giving an Oscar nominated turn, and he is just tremendous. From his very first moments on screen you just completely believe that he is not of this Earth, with his awkward ways and childlike naivety proving to be just absolutely endearing. And opposite him you have the lovely Karen Allen as Jenny Hayden, initially his captive who eventually finds herself falling for and helping him. She does a tremendous job as the tragedy-struck and vulnerable Jenny who is given the chance to grieve and to achieve closure thanks to this odd situation. She's just enchanting and her performance is wonderful.

Marking a bit of a departure from his usual fare, Carpenter does a solid job on directing duties in quite a restrained fashion. And given his great experience in the field of special effects-heavy films it comes as no surprise that on the few occasions where special effects do come into play Carpenter proves himself more than capable of handling them. And the road movie element of the film allows for some lovely cinematography of the landscapes that the unlikely duo travel across.

__________________

I never realized Uncle Buck was John Hughes. I really liked that movie 20 years ago.

__________________
Letterboxd

Love Uncle Buck. Was fortunate to see it at a movie theater when it came out in '89. I think it was a week or so before I started kindergarten.

I actually always loved Gotcha; it's a big 80's guilty pleasure for me. I didn't care for Young Sherlock Holmes but I haven't seen it since it was out. I'm not sure if I've seen Uncle Buck or Brainstorm, I loved Starman, and The Vanishing is on my to see list. I love that whole set with all John Hughes movies-classic 80's awesomeness.

Glad you got some enjoyment out of The Gate, JayDee. I can understand your criticism of the slow first half. Personally it's one of my favorite 80's horrors and I love the creature work in the second half.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

A very pleasant surprise. When this was released back in March of last year it had absolutely no impact on me; I took absolutely no notice. I don't remember a single trailer or TV spot grabbing my interest, while in general it didn't have a lot going for it in my eyes. Up until now the career of Channing Tatum had completely passed me by, in fact I can't think of a single film of his that I've actually seen. Although that was better than my relationship with Jonah Hill, who up until now I've had quite a strong dislike of. And in fact that's true of most current comedies, particularly those of Judd Apatow that frequently include the likes of Hill and Seth Rogen. So with all that going against it, it was a nice treat just how much I enjoyed it. Although to begin with I felt my instincts about it were going to be proved right as it didn't have the most auspicious of starts. During the opening stretch the film throws us a slew of curse words. Now I don't care or get offended by that (I've been completely desensitised to bad language, violence etc) but I feared it was going to be like so many comedies these days that think they can be funny just by constantly swearing.

After that however things turned around. I wouldn't say it was a laugh riot of a comedy but on the whole I found it to really quite enjoyable, with Hill and especially Tatum doing well in my eyes. The majority of the more recent comedies that I've liked (I Love You Man, Role Models, Baby Mama, Easy A, Pitch Perfect etc) have had one thing that's lifted them above all the other drek - heart. And 21 Jump Street also has a bit of heart in the friendship that develops between Hill and Tatum, Hill finally finding his place at school and Tatum's sensitive performance at being excluded. The film also takes the chance to poke some fun both at the conventions of the action genre and at the film itself. I loved the little bits about the explosions and about recycling old ideas from the 80s. Oh and there's also a really fun little cameo towards the film's conclusion.








What a flat, insipid film. And when you take into account the talent that is involved (Carrel, Carrey, Buscemi, Arkin), and the potential to be found in its premise then I found it to be exceptionally disappointing. A large part of the reason why it failed so much in my eyes was how it utilised the aforementioned talent at its disposal. I really like Steve Carrel when he's playing naïve, simple-minded and sweet-hearted characters in the likes of Date Night, Get Smart and 40-Year-Old Virgin. I don't find him anywhere near as entertaining when he's playing douchebags however. I just don't feel he has that in his locker the way a Will Ferrell or Jim Carrey does. Speaking of Carrey, he is by far the best thing about the film in his David Blaine/Criss Angel inspired role, stealing every scene he is in and grabbing about 95% of the laughs. It's such a shame then to find that he's in the film substantially less than I thought. The same can also be said of Steve Buscemi, with the script sadly conspiring to remove his character from proceedings for a large degree of the time. This leaves Carrel and Olivia Wilde to carry the majority of the film, and I just didn't find a trace of chemistry between them. A large part of the film revolves around Carrel's character losing his passion for magic, meaning that he has no joy or energy to impart to it. It also feels like the film has been made under similar circumstances; there's a lot of just going through the motions. When you consider the rich pickings that should be produced from the rather pompous world of magicians, and the ridiculous nature of street magicians like Blaine, it comes off as a very lame, lazy approach. It's storytelling is all so predictable, telegraphing every move it's going to make long before it actually happens. Sits alongside Elysium as the most disappointing film of 2013.








I found this to be really quite delightful little film. On the one hand it's a fun, quirky little indie, while on the other it's a deep, bitter-sweet film about ageing. I found the whole thing to be entertaining, wryly funny and really very touching. The laughs come from Frank and his robot companion who make for a very amusing double act, with the robot proving to be the straightest of straight men. The one reason why I'd recommend this film to anyone is the exceptional performance of Frank Langella. In the role of Frank Weld he is just fantastic. Some of the little moments that capture the ailing condition of his character are just heartbreakingly beautiful. Early on we see him talking to his children but there is just no sign of recognition or emotional connection there, he doesn't realise who they are. We see him walking through town with a baffled look on his face as if he's landed on an alien world. My gran has dementia and is getting really bad now and I thought the film captured a lot of it really well, such as the frustration and anger that it causes for both the individual suffering from it and their family around them. It's a truly horrible thing. And because Langella's performance was so affecting it really drew me into the story and made sure that a couple of the emotional punches carried quite a wallop. Through Frank's relationship with the robot the film is able to relate to and comment about father-son relationships. In the role of his kids, both James Marsden and Liv Tyler also impress. Susan Sarandon is a very warm presence, while Peter Sarsgaard's voice works wonderfully for the robot. Greatly recommended.

I agree that 21 Jump Street was a pleasant surprise. I enjoyed it much more than I expected to. As for The Incredible Burt Wonderstone--- Terrible, terrible, terrible movie. Your rating for it is way too kind.

I still need to see Robot and Frank.

You're wasting your reviewing talent on some "meh" films. How about.................Zatoichi?

__________________

Yeah, speaking of meh films. CGI blood? I can't forgive it.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

I have not seen Robot & Frank but I have been meaning too. Also I think it is over due to see Uncle Buck.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

Uh oh, JayDee. Don't sleep. The pods are coming for you.

Can't beliveve you found Burt Wonderstone to be one of the biggest 'disappointments', I could have told you it was going to be *****

Yeah, I've not seen it (naturally) but I could've told you that, too.

Well I didn't think it would be a great film that way I hoped Elysium would be. But I thought there was a chance it could have been a really fun comedy and had done ever since hearing about it for the first time a few years back. And I actually think it should have been fun. It had a really good cast (at least for my personal tastes) with Carrey, Carrell, Buscemi and Arkin and was set in a world (magic and magicians) that should have provided some prime material for p*ss-taking. But it just didn't happen. Perhaps it would have been better had it arrived 5-10 years ago when people like David Blaine where really at their height.

That's strange. There was a line in the review that I meant to write and was sure I had. It was how about how the only reason I did score it so 'highly' was because of Carrey's efforts and my fanboy obsession for him. His involvement aside yes the rating is probably too kind

Yeah I know you are a big fan of Carrey I guess, I find he his good in the right role, same with Carrel really, although they produce some stinkers as well. Buscemi seems to appear in quite a few of these silly comedies, normally Sandler ones though, like the brilliant Grown Ups

Robot and Frank is WONDERFUL movie and you really brought forth its essence and it's charm. BRAVO


Great 80's mini, micro, middle, marvelous reviews. Always loved Young Sherlock and haven't seen Starman since it came out in the theaters, need to see it again.


firmly agree about huges and candy, and again, bravo

Thanks for the gushing compliments ed.

I didn't realise that. I've not seen any of Sandler's films for a while so didn't know Buscemi had become a bit of a regular in them. I thought this was something a little different for him

Very disappointing. This just was not at all what I was expecting. Just going on the basis of its setting within the world of male stripping I thought there were a few directions that Magic Mike could have gone in. I thought there would be a lot more bawdy comedy involved. I thought it may perhaps be quite trashy like a male version of Showgirls. I thought it could act as a warts-and-all expose of the male stripping business. Well it was none of those. Instead the film plays the whole thing disappointingly straight, basically just giving us a drama comprised of one cliché after another. It really is a story we've seen many times before and done so much better; the only thing that sets this film aside is the world its set in. Other than that there is hardly anything of interest here. About the only thing the film can hang its hat on in terms of interest are the scenes of stripping, which are fairly entertaining and creative, and filmed with a decent level of energy by Soderbergh. Outside of that the only thing the film has going for it are a couple of decent performances, although Alex Pettyfer is exceptionally bland and forgettable. Him aside though there were a few success stories to be found. Matthew McConaughey breezes through the film on a wave of his natural charisma and swagger while I found Cody Horn to be really likeable and engaging as the sister of Pettyfer's character. The biggest surprise for me however was Channing Tatum who I felt made for a very strong and commanding lead as the eponymous 'Magic' Mike. Oh and any film that features a topless Olivia Munn can't be completely without merit.








I don't know that I'd say this is a particularly great film; it's something we've seen many times before and it certainly treads over a lot of familiar territory. Despite that however I still really liked it. For the large part it's quite a light-hearted and feel-good exercise, highlighting the impact that a single man can have on so many people. However there is also an underlying current of melancholy and regret throughout, brought about by having to put your dreams on the back burner because life gets in the way and having to make sacrifices to take care of the ones you love. Throughout the film the passage of time is highlighted by numerous montages of iconic stories and events, and yet for all the upheaval and change in the world we keep returning to Mr. Holland and find that his life has not changed at all. Maybe it's just me but I found something rather sad about that. What I really enjoyed about the film where the stretches were it was attempting to be uplifting and life-affirming. I wasn't quite as keen when it attempted to go serious and sentimental. Its handling really was rather melodramatic and ham-fisted, right down to the heavy-handed irony of this music lover having a deaf son. Much of the reason that I did enjoy the film was down to the touching and sincere performance of Richard Dreyfuss who really was very good. Solid support comes in the form of several familiar faces including William H. Macy, Olympia Dukakis and a rather baby-faced Terrence Howard. Oh and the film's rousing finale was really quite heart-warming.








I know this film has already generated quite a lot of love on here but I just didn't really see it. I'll admit to it being well-made technically and featuring some strong performances but I was never really compelled by it like I expected. I think I was expecting more of an eventful thriller. Instead a large portion of the film is dedicated to being more of a sombre drama detailing the impact such an event can have on your life, and examining the rights and wrongs of the actions that it can inspire you to undertake. I just felt that the film was too slow and plodding, meaning that the level of tension was allowed to slacken too often. I think it needed some tightening up either at the script stage or in the editing bay. Some of the story's logic was also a problem for me, presenting moments that I just wasn't able to really go with. The fact that I was also able to predict fairly early on where the film was heading certainly didn't help.

The most impressive aspect of the film was probably the mood and tone that was created throughout by the direction of Denis Villeneuve and especially the cinematography of Roger Deakins (well deserving of his Oscar nomination); just setting a really bleak and ominous world. The performances were generally very impressive. In the lead roles both Gyllenhaal and Jackman were strong, as was Melissa Leo. And Paul Dano, one of the more intriguing and quirky actors working today, proved to be great casting in the role of the potentially devious child snatcher. I've seen several people calling this the best thriller to come out of Hollywood since David Fincher's Se7en. For me however it never came close, too often just a bit flat and lacking in the plethora of memorable moments that Se7en had up its sleeve.

Haven't seen Magic Mike and I've never heard of Mr Holland's Opus but I'll look out for it now that you like it. Magic Mike seems to generate an 8/10 ish sort of rating everywhere so I'm surprised you rate it so low.


I like Prisoners though, watched it twice recently, it never quite rises to "greatness" but it's still very solid, kept you guessing for 80% then became a little obvious who the culprit was going to be. 8/10

I enjoyed Magic Mike. If you were expecting a bawdy comedy or a male-stripper version of Showgirls, then you were setting yourself up for disappointment, because it's much more than either of those.

Never seen Mr. Holland's Opus, but it doesn't sound like something I would like.

Prisoners stumbled a bit in the final act, but overall I thought it was a well-executed thriller. Great performances by Jackman, Gyllenhaal, and Dano. And I liked that the movie made me question my own morality, since one second I was rooting for Jackman, feeling that his actions were justified given the desperate circumstances, then later I just felt dirty and guilty.