Prime Time: Drop Dead Gorgeous (1999)

The argument has been made that 1999 was one of the greatest ever years for movies. I don't know if I buy into that, although it's hard to dismiss any one of the major titles that a movie fan could namecheck for you. It was an undeniably strong year though, and a number of movies created a butterfly effect still reverberating through the cinematic landscape to this day, and may keep affecting things far into the future. Drop Dead Gorgeous, on the other hand, is one 1999 movie that didn't necessarily have that kind of impact. I would argue that it's equally deserving of praise and celebration though.

The debut feature from director Michael Patrick Jann, working from a screenplay by Lona Williams (who also gave us the very enjoyable, and sadly forgotten, Sugar & Spice), Drop Dead Gorgeous is a mockumentary that I would actually rate higher than many of the films directed by Christopher "master of the mockumentary" Guest. It's all about a teen beauty pageant, and allows viewers to follow the determined Amber Atkins (Kirsten Dunst), the seemingly destined Becky Leeman (Denise Richards), the absolutely impartial, honest, pageant host, and mother to Becky, Gladys Leeman (Kirstie Alley), and a number of other wonderful and quirky characters.

As well as those already mentioned, the cast list here includes Ellen Barkin, Allison Janney, Brittany Murphy, Amy Adams, Mindy Sterling, Alexandra Holden, Matt Malloy, Michael McShane, and Will Sasso (if you don't recognise the names then, rest assured, you should recognise the faces). They're all doing great work, and everyone gets such an equal chance to shine that I would find it impossible to single anyone out ahead of anyone else. Dunst, Richards, and Alley feel like the three sides of an important trio though, and they should be happy to have this film on their respecting CVs. Between this and some of her other roles at the time, Richards shows such a knack for slyly comedic material that I am always sad we didn't get her in more features that could have made better use of her talent.

There are some moments of dubious taste, to put it mildly, and one or two words are thrown around casually that wouldn't be thrown around so much nowadays, but there's a consistent effort made to ensure that most of the jokes are targeting the concept of beauty pageants, whether it's mocking the importance bestowed upon them by people who may keep that as an all-time high point in their lives or showing the damage caused by the focus on looks, weight, and generally being viewed as an ornamental object capable of stating vapid platitudes instead of a fully-rounded human being. 

The real test of any mockumentary is just how convincing it is though, how easily can you forget that you're watching something scripted and acted. This is where Drop Dead Gorgeous manages to remain high in my own list of great 1999 movies. I struggle to think of any one moment that strikes a wrong note. Maybe a couple of the gags are just a bit too hilarious to ensure the purity of the format, but I'll happily put up with that if I can continue to cry tears of laughter as Denise Richards presents a very special interpretation of "Can't Take My Eyes Off You".

Every one of the main people involved with this, behind and in front of the camera, has delivered other work in the years since it was released. Some of that other work is great, particularly when you think of the powerhouse performances we've had from Dunst and Janney in the last quarter of a century, but I would still hold this as a very high benchmark for everybody named in the credits. It's still as beautiful as ever.

9/10

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. All links are HERE.
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

Look Who's Talking Now! (1993)

After the disappointing second movie in this short series, I was not looking forward to Look Who's Talking Now! Surely the fact that the film was about to focus on a pair of dogs didn't bode well. But those dogs being voiced by Danny DeVito and Diane Keaton was a small plus point.

Anyway, John Travolta and Kirstie Alley return as James and Mollie Ubriacco, the married couple bringing up two children together, Mikey (David Gallagher) and the younger Julie (Tabitha Lupien). James is encouraged to make a better career move, which he does, becoming the main pilot who flies a woman named Samantha (Lysette Anthony) to her various meetings. Samantha seems to take quite a shine to James. It's not long until there is strain in the Ubriacco marriage once again, a situation made slightly more fraught when the household also ends up with two dogs, one very well-behaved and "posh" (voiced by Diane Keaton), the other lovely and seemingly averse to any training (voiced by Danny DeVito).

Look, this is not going to top any list of best movies ever made, it's not really that well put together (especially with the annoying dream sequences that punctuate the storyline every so often), but it's perfectly fine entertainment for anyone who enjoyed the first movie, and who also happens to love dogs.

Travolta and Alley work even better together here than in the previous two movies. They feel more like a natural couple, two people who are closer than ever before after going through some major ups and downs. Gallagher and Lupien are both okay in their roles, I guess, although Gallagher fares better, being the older child and having a bit more of an idea of what he is doing in front of the camera. Anthony does well as the successful businesswoman who takes an interest in her married employee, and there are one or two scenes that allow Olympia Dukakis and George Segal to return for what are basically cameo appearances. As for the voices of the dogs, the wrong cast members would make this a tougher watch, but DeVito and Keaton work well as the canine additions to the family.

The second, and last (to date), feature film from director Tom Ropelewski (who had previously written and directed Madhouse, another Kirstie Alley vehicle), he may not have the good qualities of Amy Heckerling, but he also avoids the excessive nonsense that marred her own second time round with the material. The script, co-written by Ropelewski and Leslie Dixon, usually works well enough for this kind of thing. There are no big laughs, but there are a number of little moments that should have you smiling enough until the dogs come along to steal a few scenes.

If you saw the first two then you may as well see this one. It's not as good as the first film, but it's a step up from the dire second. I'll end this review with that ringing endorsement.

5/10

Here's a triple-pack for you.

Look Who's Talking Too (1990)

I knew there had to be a reason for me having never seen any of the sequels to Look Who's Talking before now. That would be because they may be awful (the verdict on the next one is due next week). Where the first film had the novelty of allowing viewers hear what a baby may be thinking as they make sense of the world around them, this sequel decides to . . . ummmm . . . actually, it decides to just keep doing that more. In a way that is much less entertaining.

James (John Travolta) and Mollie (Kirstie Alley) are now an item. There's another baby on the way. It's a girl. So Mikey (still voiced by Bruce Willis) has to figure out what is required of him in his new role of big brother to Julie (voiced by Roseanne Barr). Meanwhile, things start to become strained between James and Mollie, a situation not helped by the arrival of Mollie's brother, Stuart (Elias Koteas).

With Amy Heckerling returning to the director's chair, this time co-writing the script with Neal Israel, you would hope that she had an idea good enough to help her recapture the magic of the first film. That's not the case. Look Who's Talking Too isn't without very occasional moments of fun (one being the unexpected treat of watching Gilbert Gottfried dancing alongside Travolta), but it generally tries to rework elements of the first film with less wit and smarts. That's what many sequels do, of course, but it's harder to enjoy something that feels a lot lazier and poorly handled.

The adults don't do a bad job. Travolta and Alley still work well together, and I am always happy to see Koteas have some screentime. The aforementioned Gottfried cameo is as bewildering as it is highly amusing. If the film somehow managed to sideline the kids and stay focused on the adults then it could have been an okay, if unspectacular, comedy about parents dealing with the various issues that life throws at them. But this is a film trying to focus on the kids, and it's the kids who do the worst work. To be fair, they're not exactly to blame. Remember when Mikey seemed a bit too old by the end of Look Who's Talking to continue communicating with the inner monologue of Bruce Willis and not his own words? Yeah, that's a much bigger problem here, what with him being an older character, and the child seemingly unable to stop wanting to babytalk to anyone close enough to him in every scene. Although Julie is younger, it also feels as if she has already gone beyond the point of just having an inner voice. Willis and Barr deliver their lines in a fairly perfunctory manner, which also doesn't help, but there are a couple of fun voice cameos from Damon Wayans and Mel Brooks, with the latter portraying a bizarre "talking" toilet.

It's a shame that they didn't decide to either do away with the inner voice gimmick, or perhaps mix that inner voice with whatever the kids might have been able to say in person, because this could have been more bearable if that hadn't been the focus. As it is, you will end up smiling far too infrequently, rolling your eyes at the contrived finale, and being glad when it's all over.

3/10

You can buy this set here.
Americans can also buy that, or get this set here.

Look Who's Talking (1989)

I was about thirteen or fourteen when I first saw Look Who's Talking, which is just about the perfect age. This is a family film, but it's from a time when you could start and end such things with footage of sperm swimming merrily on their way to tray and fertilise an egg. I was old enough to realise what I was seeing, realise that this was the result of *gasp* sex, and appreciated every time the film gave me a scene that presented a mix of simple guffaws and some mildly risqué humour.   

Written and directed by Amy Heckerling, this is best summed up as the comedy about that baby voiced by Bruce Willis. That's all there is to it, basically, but it also has so much more. Kirstie Alley, who doesn't get nearly enough credit for her enjoyable comedic ability, is the Mollie, woman who gets pregnant by her married lover (George Segal, playing an amusingly selfish and obnoxious ass), and then finds her life intersecting with the taxi driver, James (John Travolta), who ends up speedily driving her to the hospital and helping as much as he can during the delivery of baby Mikey (aka voice of Bruce Willis).

There are a number of factors here that help to keep Look Who's Talking almost as much fun today as it was when it was first released, despite the dubious "the best thing I can do for my baby is find him a worthy father" motivation of the central character.

First of all, the cast are all great. Pulp Fiction may have been the more solid resurrection of John Travolta's career, but this role makes better use of his particular mix of charisma and his cheeky, rugged charm. He's always done well at roles that show up his flaws, often as he tries to put on a front in front of others, and this is no exception, although his flaws are largely only flaws in the eyes of a woman who is being a bit too critical and judgemental. Alley is a lot of fun, whether she's suffering the symptoms of pregnancy, being fed line after ridiculous line by Segal, checking out how much her own breasts have swelled, or just being worn down by a baby that has figured out crying gets him fed. Some of the line delivery from Willis isn't as good as I can imagine it being from some others who were considered for the role (Steve Martin, Robin Williams, etc) but his smirky sassiness generally suits the script. Segal is ridiculous and fun, Olympia Dukakis is an over the top movie mom, and Abe Vigoda gets a couple of nice moments in his role as the grandfather of Travolta's character.

Second, the writing and direction from Heckerling are just what you want for this material. She takes the concept, makes a lot of the obvious gags (that still raise a chuckle), and expertly keeps everything moving along nicely for the perfect popcorn movie runtime of just about 90 minutes (IMDb has it listed at 93 minutes, the main point is that this film starts, entertains you for the duration, and ends before overstaying its welcome). Although coming hot on the heels of a number of other movies from this time focusing on the joys/perils of sudden parenthood (e.g Baby Boom, She's Having A Baby, Three Men & A Baby, and, well, Parenthood), this doesn't feel like a cash-in on the trend. Heckerling was inspired to make the movie by her own experiences with parenting, including the way her husband would make up a voice as he pretended to relay what their child might want to say, and that inspiration takes this on a different path from those other movies, even if there is some crossover. Point me towards any comedic look at parenthood and I will eat my hat if there's not a scene in which a parent at one point has to deal with a stinky nappy.

Third, and connected to the previous point, the high concept here is centred in something that all parents can identify with, whether it's wanting to know what your baby is desperate to communicate with you, being worn out at the end of a long day, or even trying to arrange date nights around the schedule of a little one you cannot just entrust to the care of any babysitter.

There's also a decent selection of hits on the soundtrack, a few good nods to Travolta's past, and special effects showing Mikey in utero that hold up surprisingly well. I think people, for a variety of reasons, like to dismiss some of the hit films of years gone by, viewing them as something they enjoyed at the time but not worth revisiting. Look Who's Talking is still worth your time, even if it is perhaps not quite as sophisticated or smart as it could have been. It isn't aiming for that. It just wants to entertain, and make you laugh. It succeeds.

7/10

You can buy this set here.
Americans can also buy that, or get this here.

Mubi Monday: Village Of The Damned (1995)

The second reworking of classic sci-fi horror material by director John Carpenter, this is much less successful than his previous attempt. Perhaps it's because the original was already a pretty perfect adaptation of the John Wyndham novel, "The Midwich Cuckoos", or perhaps it was just too lacklustre in all departments, from cast to cinematography, through to score and direction.

You will probably already know the plot. A small village is temporarily knocked out. Completely. Everyone just passes out, and anyone trying to enter just passes out as soon as they step within a certain radius of the location. Then everyone wakes up, and nothing seems different. It becomes clear, however, that all of the females who can bear children have become pregnant. And when those children are born they are all very similar in their physical characteristics. And they share the ability to read the minds of the people around them. Not only that, they can influence people to do things, even if that leads to self-harm or death for the person being controlled. Someone has to stop them, but it may already be too late.

Village Of The Damned is not a BAD film, not exactly. It's certainly not the worst from Carpenter, but the titles in his filmography that rank below this at least had some interesting ideas and imagination, even if the execution of the material was flawed. This is just a film that feels exactly like what it was, a contractual obligation. It's hard to think of a better way to update this material but I am sure there is one. There has to be a better approach than just taking the main plot points and including some moments of unimpressive violence and death.

I always enjoy seeing Christopher Reeve onscreen (this was the last film he completed before the horse riding accident that left him paralysed) and this is another role that makes use of his stoic nature and dependability. He's really the only lead character who remains interesting throughout, with anyone else - Kirstie Alley, Linda Kozlowski, Mark Hamill, etc - either hampered by the script or their unsuitability to the roles assigned to them. Thankfully, there's a great little turn from the legend that is George 'Buck' Flower and the kids are all easy enough to dislike, even if they often emanate an air of irritability rather than pure evil.

This is TV movie stuff when it should have been much better. It's not as if Carpenter wouldn't be a fan of this kind of material, making it all the more surprising that he didn't try to put more of a stamp on the script, credited to David Himmelstein, and either update the material in a much smarter way or use the central idea as a springboard for something that diverted further from the source novel.

It's not a painful viewing experience, but that's really the best thing I can say about it. It's arguably the worst film in Carpenter's filmography, because at least the other films that could be nominated for that title had some imagination and atmosphere to them. They felt like John Carpenter films, even as they started to fall apart. This doesn't.

4/10

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 

Sci-Fi September: Runaway (1984)

Michael Crichton was, from my limited exposure to his work, quite a brilliant mind. As a writer, he developed stories around core ideas that would predate their implementation and/or development in our real world. In the world of sci-fi, I'd mark him out as being just as prescient as any other leading name that you could throw in to the hat. He may have been simply competent as a director, but I think that was more a case of the tech never really being up to the speed of his visionary imagination. As is the case with Runaway.

Tom Selleck is a cop in the near future who specialises in dealing with runaway robots. It's such a big problem, for example, that he's flown by helicopter just to deal with a runaway farming robot that is not doing anyone any immediate harm. Selleck inhabits a world in which his priorities are his son (Joey Cramer), his job, and the need to mention his vertigo in a way that allows viewers to figure out where the finale might head. He's just been given a new partner (Cynthia Rhodes) in time to deal with a disturbing case - there's a bad man (Gene Simmons) trying to fit all robots with implants that would allow them to break their programming and kill lots of people.

Slightly hampered by the special effects available at the time, and also the fact that it's often hard to get all excited about, Runaway remains a lot of fun, despite the obvious flaws. It has robo-spiders, bullets that can trace individual targets, and Tom Selleck being his usual, charming self.

A number of scenes feel a bit flat, with Crichton highlighting the fact that he's a solid, not great, director. He can't do enough to liven up the moments that surround the few set-pieces, with domestic situations and the standard police procedural stuff making up the majority of the runtime.

The cast do their best with their characters. Selleck gets by simply by being his usual Selleck-ness, which has been good enough in pretty much anything he's ever done. Rhodes is a decent partner for him, Cramer is an acceptable cinematic moppet, and Stan Shaw and G. W. Bailey lend decent support in the police station environment. Kirstie Alley also makes a good impression, as a potential victim that the police (well, Selleck and Rhodes) are trying to keep alive. Simmons, on the other hand, is pretty awful, but he's awful in such an entertaining, over the top, way that it works for a villainous performance.

Very much a product of its time, I'll always have a soft spot for Runaway because I saw it at a young age, an age when I thought tracker bullets and robo-spiders were the coolest things ever. Admittedly, I've not matured much beyond that stage, so that may explain my enduring affection for the film. Or it might just remain an enjoyable slice of robo-hokum. Watch and decide for yourself.

6/10

http://www.amazon.com/Runaway-Tom-Selleck/dp/B00004TX5G/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1411202107&sr=1-1&keywords=runaway