Prime Time: Bedazzled (2000)

It's been a while since I've seen the original Bedazzled, a 1967 feature that showcased the wonderful comedic duo of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, but I remember having a lot of fun with it. Moore is a great "dimwit" and Cook is sardonic and wonderful as George Spiggott AKA the devil, looking to gain another soul from a human who keeps making wishes that deliver unintended consequences, of course. It's a series of sketches nicely smooshed together (apologies for the technical jargon) to make a great comedy film. So just keep in mind the fact that I am a big fan, and will aim to revisit it soon.

This version of the tale, however, feels like a decent remake. Brendan Fraser is the clumsy and awkward Elliot, looking on with puppy dog eyes at Alison (Frances O'Connor), and the devil this time around is played by Liz Hurley. Elliot is given seven wishes. He hopes that he can use them to create a life with Alison, which would make the price tag (his soul) worthwhile.

Directed by Harold Ramis, who also worked on the screenplay with legendary writer Larry Gelbart and less legendary writer Peter Tolan (look, not knocking his work, but check out the respective CVs of both individuals and you'll see what I mean), the biggest thing working against Bedazzled is that it cannot find a double-act equal to Cook and Moore, but that feels like an impossible task. Ramis directs well enough, and the script is full of amusing exchanges, but some people will roll their eyes at the mere thought of Fraser and Hurley being cast in the lead roles. I think it's a good move though, particularly because neither of them feel comparable to the iconic Pete and Dud.

Most people will have encountered a fun and lively incarnation of Fraser in one of his many broad comedies, but the opening scenes here don't play to his strengths at all, making his character far too sad and dull. Thankfully, that starts to fade away once he meets Hurley, and the various wishes allow him to play a fun variety of characters that often make use of his comedy chops. Hurley, on the other hand, is almost consistently wonderful in this. I wouldn't ever nominate her as a great unsung talent of cinema, but I do wish she had a few more roles that allowed her to have as much fun as she seems to be having here. The film makes use of her sex appeal, but it also uses her appearance to sweeten the poisoned apple that she keeps offering people while tempting them into various sins. O'Connor is fine, defined more by how Fraser's character loves her than how she really is, and Miriam Shor, Orlando Jones, Paul Adelstein, and Toby Huss play co-workers who also end up portraying different incarnations of themselves as the wishes are played out.

There's nothing really memorable here, but that doesn't stop it from being fun. Ramis is a dependable director, and he puts together a number of moments that make good use of the two main stars. That's it. It doesn't have the same feeling of anarchic joy that the original film had, and I would have enjoyed some different scenarios in place of one or two weaker sections, but it still aims to provide a mix of laughs and devilish mischief. And Hurley certainly seems to remind some of us that, as AC/DC once informed us, Hell Ain't A Bad Place To Be.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Prime Time: Year One (2009)

Some films you just watch once and immediately forget about. Some films become firm favourites. Some films require a few viewings for you to really clarify your thoughts. And some films you end up watching a few times simply because you keep forgetting about it almost as soon as the end credits roll. Year One is in that latter category. This is my third time seeing it, and it is a film that really doesn’t warrant repeat viewings. The fact that I also own it is neither here nor there (it was cheap and I have a retail-based obsessive nature).

Jack Black and Michael Cera play Zed and Oh, respectively, two men from ancient times who end up banished from their tribe and encountering a bunch of famous biblical characters. One of them is famous brother-killer Cain (David Cross), one of them is famous son-sacrificer Abraham (Hank Azaria), and there are a whole lot of citizens of Sodom to deal with. That is all you need to know, although the men are also interested in romantically pursuing two female members of their tribe (played by June Diane Raphael and Juno Temple) and there are cameo roles for the likes of Xander Berkeley, Olivia Wilde, Vinnie Jones, Oliver Platt, and quite a few others.

I like Jack Black, despite the fact that many of his best-known movie roles are based around him doing his usual Jack Black schtick. I like Michael Cera, also not really known for his range. They just don’t work here though, feeling wrong in their lead roles and having no decent chemistry with one another. So that has the film starting off with a major disadvantage.

Director Harold Ramis (this was, sadly, the last feature he directed before his passing) seems to think that the script, co-written by himself, Lee Eisenberg, and Gene Stupnitsky, is full of chuckles that will be improved by the performers. He couldn’t be more wrong. The highlights come about despite the writing, many of the jokes are disappointingly obvious, and there are a few too many instances of toilet humour that feel all the worse for being inserted in between the few scenes that have actual wit. The best thing here is the ongoing story strand that allows Cain to remain a central character, but even that is slightly undermined by the fact that his first scenes are so good that it ends up going downhill from there.

As you might have guessed from that last sentence, Cross is a lot of fun in his role here, and arguably steals the movie. Aside from Black and Cera, the rest of the cast often try their best with weak material they are unable to greatly improve. Jones comes onscreen to be tough Vinnie Jones, Azaria is amusing enough for his few minutes, Berkeley had to sit around and look regal, which he does, and Wilde is a potential “fair maiden” alongside Raphael and Temple, with none of them getting to do more than look pretty enough to motivate our leads. Although you can question the choices made in his performance, it’s Oliver Platt who almost rivals Cross for the added comedy value provided, playing his character as a lusty hedonist who takes a fancy to Oh.

Not entirely without entertainment value, Year One is just a huge missed opportunity. What should have been a rapid-fire cavalcade of jokes, be they new, old, smart, or silly, just settles for being a vehicle built around two sorely miscast leads. It is telling that every decent laugh in the film comes from moments not focusing on the main characters.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Groundhog Day (1993)

I remember when Groundhog Day first came out and at least one of the many reviews said the following: "how you feel about this film will really depend on how you feel about Bill Murray." That remains as true today as it was then. Of course, back then I didn't realise that there were people who DISLIKED Bill Murray.

The story is known by most people nowadays, but I'll cover the basics nonetheless. Murray plays Phil Connors, a weatherman sent out to cover Groundhog Day, with a producer (Rita, played by Andie MacDowell) and cameraman (Chris Elliott), in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. Groundhog Day is when the residents wake up a groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil, and claim to receive an answer from him regarding whether or not he sees his shadow. If he sees his shadow then they're due for six more weeks of winter. Once he has filmed his bit, Phil just wants to get out of Punxsutawney. But it turns out that heavy snowfall stops him from leaving. Even worse, when he wakes up the next day . . . . . . . . . . . . it's Groundhog Day all over again. Stuck in a time loop, Phil tries to figure out how to escape his fate.

The only problem I have with Groundhog Day is Andie MacDowell. I'm sorry to any of her fans that might read this, but whenever she appears in a movie I always end up wishing that the director had instead held out for someone who could actually act. To call MacDowell wooden is an insult to a versatile building material. But that's it, that's my only negative comment out of the way.

Murray is fantastic in the central role, giving a performance that people are sick of me going on about as one of the most overlooked of all time. It is. Just because it takes place in a comedy film, that doesn't mean that people should forget what a brilliant, nuanced turn it is. Often broad, admittedly, there are great laughs in almost every scene derived from how Murray reacts to his situation, depending on how he's trying to make his day turn out. Elliott is fun as the cameraman who seems to deserve his assignment alongside Phil, as the two of them are as bad as one another, albeit in different ways. Stephen Tobolowsky steals his scenes, playing an old school associate named Ned Ryerson (bing!), and Brian Doyle-Murray once again gets a decent role alongside his brother, playing the mayor of Punxsutawney.

Harold Ramis does a near-perfect job in the director's chair (this remains his best film, for me) and he's helped by a sharp script, co-written by himself and the man who came up with the whole premise, Danny Rudin. There's also a great score by George Fenton, sharp editing by Pembroke J. Herring, perfect performances from every supporting player (including Michael Shannon in his cinematic debut), and memorable use of I Got You Babe, sung by Sonny & Cher.

Everything works so well that I am even able to overlook the mis-casting of MacDowell in the female lead role. This is, to me, a perfect film. Even if I have just mentioned one main imperfection. I'm not sure if that will make any sense to anyone except me. I hope so. Let me just end with something obvious, although no less true - this is a modern comedy classic that I can watch again and again and again.

10/10

http://www.amazon.com/Groundhog-15th-Anniversary-Special-Blu-ray/dp/B001KEHAI0/ref=sr_1_2_twi_2_twi_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1421090645&sr=8-2&keywords=groundhog+day

Ani-MAY-tion Month: Heavy Metal (1981)

An interesting, quirky, sci-fi anthology movie, Heavy Metal, with its gratuitous nudity, wish fulfilment moments and title-appropriate soundtrack, is pretty much designed for teenage boys. That's not to say that it's a bad film, but it does seem to fill many sequences by going for easy options and rather juvenile moments.

The stories in this movie are all connected by a deadly, glowing orb. The orb has intelligence, and also the ability to voice its thoughts, and the framing device of the movie is the orb relating some cautionary tales to a scared young girl. The stories all tend to show how the orb affects those it comes into contact with, for better or for worse, and violence occurs frequently.

Mostly based on material from a long-running magazine of the same name, Heavy Metal is easy to enjoy, even if it's not so easy to love. The stories often have a nice, old-fashioned feel to them, they're all pulp pleasures taking place in different environments, and sometimes developing interesting mythologies in the limited time they have. Screenwriters Daniel Goldber and Len Blum have a great selection of stories to work with, including some written by the great Dan O'Bannon, and they manage to keep the tone consistent while hopping from one story to the next, mainly by populating the tales with a mix of robots, space travellers and topless women.

Director Gerald Potterton keeps everything moving along nicely, helped by a voice cast that unexpectedly includes John Candy, Eugene Levy, John Vernon and Harold Ramis, among others, and it never quite outstays its welcome (running at just under 90 minutes), although it comes close during the last section.

And then there's the soundtrack, which caused the film to be unavailable for a number of years due to problems with the music licensing, apparently. The bands/artists getting to invade your ears include the following: Blue Oyster Cult, Stevie Nicks, Journey, Cheap Trick, Nazareth, Black Sabbath, and more. Okay, none of the songs will appear on any greatest hits album, but they're an extra part of the appeal to the target demographic.

It's not a great film, and the love that some people have for it surprises me, but it's enjoyable enough. And has plenty of those robots, space travellers, and topless women to keep me happy. Which may just be yet another sign of my struggle to keep wearing the disguise of a mature adult.

6/10

http://www.amazon.com/Heavy-Metal-Collectors-Richard-Romanus/dp/0767836316/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1400860259&sr=1-2&keywords=heavy+metal

April Fools: Caddyshack (1980)

There was a time when Caddyshack was the very best golf comedy that you could name. Okay, okay, we're still not exactly inundated with golf comedies, but at least nowadays we also have the wonderful Tin Cup, and Adam Sandler fans can always point to Happy Gilmore as proof that the guy used to be very funny. I might actually prefer those two movies to Caddyshack, but only ever so slightly.

What's the story? Well, Rodney Dangerfield is the brash bundle of cheek upsetting some of the old brigade when he joins a golf club. He likes to have fun, which is something that many of the other members seem to frown upon. The cast of characters includes the uptight and grouchy Judge Elihu Smails (Ted Knight), young Danny Noonan (Michael O'Keefe), a young caddy who wants to make something of his life, and a groundskeeper (Bill Murray) who always seems to be one or two steps behind a disruptive gopher. And let's not forget Ty Webb (Chevy Chase), a great golfer who's also quite the zen master.

There are two reasons for me not loving Caddyshack quite as much as some people do. The first one is that it has some moments that make it feel very dated (whenever someone gets their groove on it feels more like a 1960s movie than one that came out in 1980). Second, I'm not that big a fan of Rodney Dangerfield. I've enjoyed some of his stuff, but I can't think of any movie vehicle he starred in that couldn't have been improved by someone else taking over his role.

Caddyshack, however, is not focused on Dangerfield. Well, it is, but it doesn't focus on him to the detriment of the rest of the film. Everyone gets their turn when it comes to providing the laughter, with Chase and Murray being the standouts.

Director Harold Ramis, who also co-wrote the script with Brian Doyle-Murray and Douglas Kenney, blends everything together perfectly, allowing everyone to play to their strengths. O'Keefe may be a bit bland compared to the great cast members surrounding him, but he's good enough to root for, and Ramis knows this, making his story a central strand while filling up each scene with enough laughs and lunacy to keep viewers entertained.

It may not be a glorious hole in one, but this comedy is easily way below par, if we're going to use the golf-specific scoring system. But that is me saying that it's actually way above par. Confused? Yes, me too.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Caddyshack-Blu-ray-Region-Chevy-Chase/dp/B0036BT8EE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1396327840&sr=8-2&keywords=caddyshack

Ghostbusters II (1989)

When Ghostbusters II was released in 1989 it did solid business at the box office. You wouldn't think that nowadays, with the way many people deride it and claim that it's a completely unworthy sequel to the classic first movie. Well, the first movie is a classic. I completely agree with that and already praised it here. What I don't agree with is the opinion that this sequel is completely unworthy. It's not as good as the first movie but few films are. It is, however, a very enjoyable film that picks up some years after the events of the first movie and allows viewers to find out just what the main characters have been up to since their big battle with Gozer.

And just what have the Ghostbusters been up to since saving New York City and, indeed, the world? Well, they were sued by a number of city and state agencies and the brand became worthless. Ray (Dan Aykroyd) and Winston (Ernie Hudson) are trying to keep the Ghostbusters name out there by entertaining ungrateful children at birthday parties, Egon (Harold Ramis) is conducting scientific studies with his usual, detached demeanour and Venkman (Bill Murray) is hosting a paranormal chat show. Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) has a son and is enjoying the time that she spends helping to restore paintings under the watchful eye of Dr. Janosz Poha (Peter MacNicol). There's one painting in particular, of a nasty man called Vigo (Wilhelm Von Homburg) that starts to cause no small amount of trouble and so the gang need to get back together and get back to doing what they do best.

The baddie may not be as memorable this time around and there's no denying that the movie doesn't feel as fresh as the first film (but sequels rarely do, by definition) but there's a hell of a lot here to enjoy and anyone dismissing this movie completely is, I'd say, being very harsh.

Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis and Hudson are all still great in their ghostbusting roles, Weaver plays off them all very well once again and Annie Potts and Rick Moranis return to reprise their memorable characters. Peter MacNicol is also good fun and Wilhelm Von Homburg keeps his mean face on throughout. Kurt Fuller may not be able to replace the great William Atherton as the main jerk of the movie but he tries his best. David Margulies returns to play the Mayor of New York and Harris Yulin has a small, fun role as a very strict judge who ends up seeing the Ghostbusters on trial in his court.

With Aykroyd and Ramis also returning to their writing duties and Ivan Reitman once again directing the action, this is very much the kind of sequel that feels like audiences are getting to catch up with some old friends. Because that's exactly what it is. I will watch Ghostbusters any number of times and never tire of it but this second outing is almost as rewatchable and has a smattering of great lines in almost every scene. The ending is a bit of a letdown but I think that any ending would have been slightly underwhelming compared to the brilliance of that big finale of the first movie featuring Gozer and The Traveller.

Oh, okay, there's also a pretty lame soundtrack compared to the complete '80s greatness of the first movie but that's the only other major complaint I have.

If you haven't seen it in a while then do give it a go and you might just find that the Ghostbusters are still the guys to call when you want some ectoplasmic entertainment.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ghostbusters-2-DVD-Bill-Murray/dp/B001G61178/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351446146&sr=8-1

Ghostbusters (1984)

The 1980s is a strange time. It's easy to look back and point and laugh at a decade that had so much excess. The big shoulder pads, the clouds of hairspray, lots of clothing in nigh-on luminous colours. But when it comes to movies it was almost a golden age. Before you stop me and tell me off for letting nostalgia overrule my critical faculties let me just make one thing clear. EVERY year has a fair share of great movies and stinkers. Every year. I am well aware that we can look back with fondness at certain times simply because the rubbish has been forgotten and, boy, did the eighties have a lot of rubbish. But it was also, in a way, the perfect mix of cinema made with the latest technology that still relied mainly on practical effects. Of course, there WAS CGI but it was still a bit of a novelty. The best films, the ones that we remember with such fondness, from that decade are, in my view, so fondly remembered because they took us all on an incredible journey and they did it in a way that felt more realistic, despite the outlandishness of the plots. I'm thinking of the likes of The Goonies, Gremlins, Back To The Future, Labyrinth, The Thing, An American Werewolf In London, Die Hard, The Terminator, The Lost Boys and quite a few others. Of course, nostalgia does contribute something (especially in the case of The Lost Boys) but I don't think that any of these movies would be remembered as fondly today if they were full of dated CGI. Just look at An American Werewolf In Paris compared to its predecessor. Actually, don't do that. You don't want to lose your eyesight.

Ghostbusters is one of those movies and that's why I stopped listening a long time ago when the talk of a third movie kept going round and round and round for years (who knows, if you're reading this some time in the future then maybe the damn thing finally got made). A third movie just won't have the heart that this movie has. It won't have the same texture. The second movie isn't all that beloved (though I like it) so why not let sleeping dogs lie. Or sleeping ghosts rest in ecto-containment units, or something.

Directed by Ivan Reitman, and written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis (with some uncredited work from Rick Moranis too), Ghostbusters is all about three men (Aykroyd, Ramis and Bill Murray) who become . . . . . . . . ghostbusters. They end up doing great business, so great that they have to hire an extra member of staff (Ernie Hudson) but the increase in paranormal activity also leads them to believe that something big is happening. Maybe that something is linked to whatever is happening in the apartment of Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver). Whatever it is, the guys try to stay ready for action even while weaselly Walter Peck (William Atherton) tries to make big trouble for them.

I don't even know why I wrote that last paragraph. You already KNOW Ghostbusters. Or know OF it. If you don't, stop reading now and go and watch it. Now. Seriously.

It's a great supernatural comedy, it's one of the best outright comedies of the decade, if not THE best, it features brilliant performances from everyone involved (and I'd better mention the superb turns from Annie Potts as Janine Melnitz and Rick Moranis as Louis Tully, two absolutely classic supporting roles) and if you don't think that every line is worth quoting then you'd be hard pushed to deny that every other line is worth quoting.

It's one of my favourite movies of all time and I can't really think of anything worthwhile to convince you to see it if you haven't already done so. There's that great theme song, the pace and editing are both pretty perfect, every single main character is memorable for a different reason and it features the best use of marshmallow I've ever seen outside the world of adult entertainment (don't ask!).

On a more personal note, I have since been relieved to discover that I wasn't the only one to think that the big villain named Gozer (Slavitza Jovan) was a bit sexy while also being really, really evil. On a less embarrassing personal note, I will always have an added fondness for this film because of the cinema that I saw it in - I can't recall if it was The Dominion here in Edinburgh or The Odeon that has long since closed down but whoever put little "ghosts" over all of the side lights deserves good karma forever. You, sir or madam, helped this movie to leave a smile on my soul that has not waned in over a quarter of a century.

10/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Multiplicity (1996)

Harold Ramis is a director who I can happily say has provided me with a lot of laughs. In fact, Groundhog Day is one of my favourite comedies of all time. The high concept and great lead performance from Bill Murray even managed to distract me from the fact that the female lead was played by one of my least favourite actresses ever, Andie MacDowell. In a similiar way, Multiplicity is a high concept movie with a great lead performance from Michael Keaton that manages to distract me from the fact that the female lead is played by one of my least favourite actresses ever, Andie MacDowell.

That's not the end of the common ground that both movies share. Both films show what can happen when someone is given much more time on their hands and both films, ultimately, try to convey the message that it doesn't matter how much time you have, what matters is how you use it.

Michael Keaton plays Doug Kinney, a busy man who is struggling to do well at work and keep his boss (Richard Masur) happy while also getting to spend time with his family and keep his wife (Andie MacDowell) happy. Fortunately, after a stressful incident at a site he's working on, Doug is given the chance of a miracle by Dr. Leeds (Harry Yulin). That miracle comes in the shape of . . . . . . . . . . . Doug. Well, Doug number two, to be exact. A clone. An extra Doug means that the original Doug should be able to spend more time with the family, relax occasionally and generally get more done. That's the theory anyway. In reality, things start getting more and more complicated. Maybe a third Doug could take the pressure off slightly. And a fourth?

There are a number of factors here that you can all too easily complain about. Andie MacDowell for one. The script, written by Chris Miller, Lowell Ganz, Mary Hale and Babaloo Mandel, is sharper than a lot of people give it credit for but there are also a few untidy loose ends and a number of developments that make holding your suspension of disbelief harder with every minute that goes by.

So it's a good thing that Ramis, who directs with his usual bright and breezy touch, has a good cast in place for many of the supporting roles - Yulin, Masur, John de Lancie, Eugene Levy, Brian Doyle-Murray - and then tops everything off with yet another great performance from the consistently brilliant Michael Keaton. In fact, Keaton gives four great performances, playing each Doug in the different way required to show exactly who they are. Clone number one is a more macho Doug, clone number two is a more sensitive and caring Doug in touch with his feminine side and clone number three is . . . . . . . . . . . well . . . . . . . . . he's not quite right. Keaton gets to have a blast playing all of the characters and it's a tour de force of acting that lifts the whole movie from something good to something very good and, to me, almost great.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Multiplicity-DVD-Michael-Keaton/dp/B0001E5T6K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348517780&sr=8-1