Finally checked out the sole movie from Canada's biggest comedy troupe The Kids In The Hall after growing up a fan of their sketch show. Seems like this was both a box office grab from their producer and SNL mastermind Lorne Michaels and a bittersweet kiss-off from the boys. Brain Candy has the same production style and budget as It's Pat and Wayne's World and The Coneheads movie, but its way more ambitious and un-commercial (which says a lot as Its' Pat and Coneheads are fairly weird). Brain Candy feels more punk rock in sentiment and I think its a much more successful film artistically than the others. Its a ripe Fuck You to everyone, including Lorne Michaels.
The plot concerns a pharmaceutical scientist who develops a wonder drug that cures depression but goes to internal and external war with his boss, a now-obvious parody of Lorne Michaels. Its very interesting that this Michaels satire had to have been a spiky in-joke because it was Austin Powers that actually made Lorne Michaels' mannerisms and cold persona so famous. The villain here sounds, looks and acts like Michaels. I assume the troupe blamed Michaels for maybe softening their comedy near the end of the TV run as the major themes in Brain Candy are selling out, commercialization, conformity, easy riches, etc.
The film is reminiscent of Wayne's World superficially as its a simple small good guy vs a powerful bad guy with a backdrop of middle class stereotypes for laughs. At the same time, this baroque Ayn Rand-ian Romantic drama mythos was evident in the Kids' work for some time previously. Maybe Wayne's World borrowed ideas from Brain Candy and this is why the Kids are so pissed here. Whatever the reason, the bitterness fuels some awesome ideas and the film is really a buried classic; one of the finest film moments in the comedy genre from that period.
Its absurd, gross, sexy, sweet, bizarre, brilliant, sophomoric and hilarious as the gang was on TV. The boys made a fine leap to film so its a shame that they didn't do more together. This is more Monty Python's Meaning of Life than Bob and David's Run Ronnie Run, though its a fair mix of both dissimilar qualities. Those uninitiated with the KITH will have no trouble starting here and longtime fans of the Kids will get everything they could want, though curiously Dave Foley is barely in this film. Thankfully, the troupe's most underused and underrated Kevin McDonald takes center stage for most of the movie, which is a sweet touch showing the group still had a lot of love and respect flowing for one another, if no one else.
Thursday, May 11, 2017
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
In The Bedroom 2001
This is one of the most haunting, emotional, honest and bold films that I've ever watched. With that much integrity its unsurprising that In The Bedroom is also immaculately executed and one of the most obviously great films in the first decade of he 21st century.
Its the story of the power of grief to transform us and our lives. Its so poetic that this film arrived the same year as 9/11. Its greatness is then cosmic and pre-ordained. This is a movie that was needed and not just a piece made for egos, politics or gain. When true artists get to work in the film medium with this much resource and freedom, cinema becomes the best artform again. The only artform that can effect you in this way.
In The Bedroom is based on a 1970s novella called "Killings" and I'm sure its excellent, but In The Bedroom uses that effective plot to engage the emotions of the audience by engaging the emotional storytelling of its cast of actors and its director and his technical team. Everyone does an incredible job but Sissy Spacek is so triumphant in her role that it eclipses everything else phenomenal in this movie. The movie seems crafted to nurture this performance and she steps up and delivers the power that the movie asked for.
This is a short review because I don't want to spoil anything but there is so much to explore and praise in this movie. Track it down and enjoy it.
Its the story of the power of grief to transform us and our lives. Its so poetic that this film arrived the same year as 9/11. Its greatness is then cosmic and pre-ordained. This is a movie that was needed and not just a piece made for egos, politics or gain. When true artists get to work in the film medium with this much resource and freedom, cinema becomes the best artform again. The only artform that can effect you in this way.
In The Bedroom is based on a 1970s novella called "Killings" and I'm sure its excellent, but In The Bedroom uses that effective plot to engage the emotions of the audience by engaging the emotional storytelling of its cast of actors and its director and his technical team. Everyone does an incredible job but Sissy Spacek is so triumphant in her role that it eclipses everything else phenomenal in this movie. The movie seems crafted to nurture this performance and she steps up and delivers the power that the movie asked for.
This is a short review because I don't want to spoil anything but there is so much to explore and praise in this movie. Track it down and enjoy it.
Friday, May 5, 2017
Being John Malkovich 1999
BJM is considered one of the best films of 1999 and a game-changer in indie/comedy circles. It put director Spike Jonze and writer Charlie Kaufman on the map and made John Malkovich a symbol of indie cinema humor. Its a very important and fun movie that has inspired so much. Its the first absurdist romantic farce with existential themes and gorgeously moody cinematography, but not the last. I don't think we would have The Lobster or the over-the-top quirkiness of Anchorman 2 or Walk Hard without BJM. It showed that something supremely weird and stupid could still be smart and emotionally involving. That said, I don't think its a masterpiece.
The film starts very strong but loses track near the climax. The story's original ending was much more elaborate, surreal and followed the setup's themes more closely with a grander meditation on artistic ego and the metaphysical horror. The final ending focuses on those things but at the expense of something else.
BJM is about a puppeteer (played astutely by John Cusack) who eventually controls the body of actor John Malkovich. Why? To impress (Catherine Keener) the woman he leaves his wife for, even though she is a sociopathic manipulator who is in love with his wife (wonderfully realized by the underrated Cameron Diaz). There are lots of crazy plot twists and brilliant characters and dialogues along the way and thats the stuff that makes this film a cult-classic. But the disturbing ending left me numb, not from its defeatist poetry but from its cobbled-together kookiness. SPOILER: The puppeteer is trapped in the child his 2 wives have had and basically all of the villains win because our hero made the tragic decision to forfeit his artistic dreams for a cheap exploitation of another man's soul. Very poignant and yet it doesn't seem earned.
Does the punishment fit the crime? Probably. But what bothers me is that the agent for Cusack's corruption is always Keener. His love for her damns him and her only punishment is some sadness after rejecting Diaz for money and power. Cusack's character is unlikable and corrupted, but he's never worse than Keener's. Kaufman must have wanted this unsatisfying effect in his ending but its unsatisfying dramatically and logically, not just emotionally. The villains win and our tragic hero loses but it doesn't work as a great tragedy because the least villainous characters are the only ones who suffer. It can be argued that Diaz is the most virtuous because she does the least harm, but she is the one who keeps Lector's Malkovich room a secret from Cusack, she tries to kill Keener when rejected and she shows no other virtuous beliefs besides loyalty.
Kaufman is a great writer but I think many decisions were made just to tie together a great plot at the expense of fully-blossumed character motivations and a grander thematic statement. Since BJM, his films have grown more absurdist and existential but less comic and neat narratively. Maybe he is trying to perfect what he almost had in BJM, though he's had a hard time topping the popularity of BJM (Eternal Sunshine could be his most popular script is it as universally lauded or as good a movie???). Kaufman seemed to have more personal voice in his next collaboration with director Spike Jonze, the superior Adaptation.
Why the BJM is as likeable as it is and as imperfect as it is, in my opinion, is Spike Jonze's interpretation of the work. What was supposed to be a story about artistic madness and the exploitation of human beings becomes a metaphor for Jonze's own troubled marriage then to Sophia Coppola. The heavy focus on adultery, lust, betrayal and guilt run through his and Coppola's work from then to now and it probably starts with BJM. This film works best in context with her Lost in Translation and then his Her. They confess their sides of their divorce through their art and form a joint body of film work in the process. Talk about Freudian. This is what happens when two very brilliant but damaged directors fall in love. At least the films are good. The melodramatic ending and sulking obsession with bad relationships is why BJM was such a populist film and its original script might have made for a better film, but not much of a commercial launching pad.
So "Being John Malkovich" is not as good as it should be but it works for what it is. That can be said for most popular movies.
The film starts very strong but loses track near the climax. The story's original ending was much more elaborate, surreal and followed the setup's themes more closely with a grander meditation on artistic ego and the metaphysical horror. The final ending focuses on those things but at the expense of something else.
BJM is about a puppeteer (played astutely by John Cusack) who eventually controls the body of actor John Malkovich. Why? To impress (Catherine Keener) the woman he leaves his wife for, even though she is a sociopathic manipulator who is in love with his wife (wonderfully realized by the underrated Cameron Diaz). There are lots of crazy plot twists and brilliant characters and dialogues along the way and thats the stuff that makes this film a cult-classic. But the disturbing ending left me numb, not from its defeatist poetry but from its cobbled-together kookiness. SPOILER: The puppeteer is trapped in the child his 2 wives have had and basically all of the villains win because our hero made the tragic decision to forfeit his artistic dreams for a cheap exploitation of another man's soul. Very poignant and yet it doesn't seem earned.
Does the punishment fit the crime? Probably. But what bothers me is that the agent for Cusack's corruption is always Keener. His love for her damns him and her only punishment is some sadness after rejecting Diaz for money and power. Cusack's character is unlikable and corrupted, but he's never worse than Keener's. Kaufman must have wanted this unsatisfying effect in his ending but its unsatisfying dramatically and logically, not just emotionally. The villains win and our tragic hero loses but it doesn't work as a great tragedy because the least villainous characters are the only ones who suffer. It can be argued that Diaz is the most virtuous because she does the least harm, but she is the one who keeps Lector's Malkovich room a secret from Cusack, she tries to kill Keener when rejected and she shows no other virtuous beliefs besides loyalty.
Kaufman is a great writer but I think many decisions were made just to tie together a great plot at the expense of fully-blossumed character motivations and a grander thematic statement. Since BJM, his films have grown more absurdist and existential but less comic and neat narratively. Maybe he is trying to perfect what he almost had in BJM, though he's had a hard time topping the popularity of BJM (Eternal Sunshine could be his most popular script is it as universally lauded or as good a movie???). Kaufman seemed to have more personal voice in his next collaboration with director Spike Jonze, the superior Adaptation.
Why the BJM is as likeable as it is and as imperfect as it is, in my opinion, is Spike Jonze's interpretation of the work. What was supposed to be a story about artistic madness and the exploitation of human beings becomes a metaphor for Jonze's own troubled marriage then to Sophia Coppola. The heavy focus on adultery, lust, betrayal and guilt run through his and Coppola's work from then to now and it probably starts with BJM. This film works best in context with her Lost in Translation and then his Her. They confess their sides of their divorce through their art and form a joint body of film work in the process. Talk about Freudian. This is what happens when two very brilliant but damaged directors fall in love. At least the films are good. The melodramatic ending and sulking obsession with bad relationships is why BJM was such a populist film and its original script might have made for a better film, but not much of a commercial launching pad.
So "Being John Malkovich" is not as good as it should be but it works for what it is. That can be said for most popular movies.
Thursday, May 4, 2017
Evil Dead 2 1987
Here's a beloved film that was seminal to my film-viewing as a teenager. It captured my imagination because this was an adventure/comedy in the Spielberg/Lucas vein but filled with gore, monsters and spooky settings. And it was so much more fun and flashy than the original Evil Dead. But its not one of those films that I revist often and this last viewing revealed that its not as great as I and others remember. It sucks when nostalgia wears off.
I went back to this movie because there is internet debate on whether the film is a sequel or remake. People who worked on it have called it both or just a remake, while its fans are outraged at the idea that its not "the greatest horror sequel ever". I can now confirm that the film is a remake and not a traditional sequel. To be more precise, its a reboot and maybe the "original" reboot.
Evil Dead 2 starts with a flashback but not to Evil Dead. The events in the original Evil Dead didn't happen (because Sam Raimi couldn't get the rights), so similar events happen to this film's version of Ash but he's not the same Ash. The characters and hellish torture he went through is erased and replaced with a condensed 10 minute version of some scenes from the original. This film's Ash then goes through a scene-by-scene recreation of the first film (this is what makes it a remake and not a sequel) including a possessed witch in the cellar, man-eating trees, a bridge thats been destroyed and finding a book to send demons back to Hell. Notice how ED2's Ash finds the bridge and book as new discoveries. Because he is not the original Ash.
Losing continuity really spoils the fun for me. It was a clever trick to hide that this isn't a real sequel, but the appeal was that the same universe had suddenly shifted its tone to a more comic and action-driven one and that Ash had to re-live the horrors he experienced. Now I see that this Ash is really a comic book copy of the original and the plot is just a lazy re-telling to cash-in on the original film. The charm has worn off and the cynicism is pretty thick as Raimi does a fairly shabby job with much of the film, only showing interest in trying new camera tricks and playing with a bigger budget. He's obviously looking towards his future Hollywood career and mining old ideas to prep for it. Its a very kinetic, wild and weird movie, but not nearly as effective, sincere and artistic as the original. The rubbery FX and cheap laughs were so cool 15 years ago but now come off as boring. I'm really turned off at the lack of thrills and suspense. It tries to be scary a few times and fails miserably. The action is there but its so dated by today's standards. Kudos to being ambitious and very high quality in its day.
To Raimi's credit, he has done much more with the premise of a action-comedy Evil Dead with his new Evil Dead TV series, which is just Evil Dead 2 done over and over again. But the best continuation of the original Evil Dead, ironically, is the 2013 reboot. That film was much more original and simultaneously faithful to the 1980 classic. (Evil Dead 2's sequel "Army of Darkness" has nothing to do with the other Evil Dead's, but is a fun horror movie for kids and delivers more of the Monty Python/Three Stooges worship).
Evil Dead 2 has earned a huge reputation as an entertaining and over-the-top follow-up to a film that was very hard to top. It does not top the original, but its a very unique spin-off. But its not the best horror sequel. I think it works best as a standalone film, which is why its very popular with people who don't necessarily enjoy the original. Like I said, this is the original reboot.
I went back to this movie because there is internet debate on whether the film is a sequel or remake. People who worked on it have called it both or just a remake, while its fans are outraged at the idea that its not "the greatest horror sequel ever". I can now confirm that the film is a remake and not a traditional sequel. To be more precise, its a reboot and maybe the "original" reboot.
Evil Dead 2 starts with a flashback but not to Evil Dead. The events in the original Evil Dead didn't happen (because Sam Raimi couldn't get the rights), so similar events happen to this film's version of Ash but he's not the same Ash. The characters and hellish torture he went through is erased and replaced with a condensed 10 minute version of some scenes from the original. This film's Ash then goes through a scene-by-scene recreation of the first film (this is what makes it a remake and not a sequel) including a possessed witch in the cellar, man-eating trees, a bridge thats been destroyed and finding a book to send demons back to Hell. Notice how ED2's Ash finds the bridge and book as new discoveries. Because he is not the original Ash.
Losing continuity really spoils the fun for me. It was a clever trick to hide that this isn't a real sequel, but the appeal was that the same universe had suddenly shifted its tone to a more comic and action-driven one and that Ash had to re-live the horrors he experienced. Now I see that this Ash is really a comic book copy of the original and the plot is just a lazy re-telling to cash-in on the original film. The charm has worn off and the cynicism is pretty thick as Raimi does a fairly shabby job with much of the film, only showing interest in trying new camera tricks and playing with a bigger budget. He's obviously looking towards his future Hollywood career and mining old ideas to prep for it. Its a very kinetic, wild and weird movie, but not nearly as effective, sincere and artistic as the original. The rubbery FX and cheap laughs were so cool 15 years ago but now come off as boring. I'm really turned off at the lack of thrills and suspense. It tries to be scary a few times and fails miserably. The action is there but its so dated by today's standards. Kudos to being ambitious and very high quality in its day.
To Raimi's credit, he has done much more with the premise of a action-comedy Evil Dead with his new Evil Dead TV series, which is just Evil Dead 2 done over and over again. But the best continuation of the original Evil Dead, ironically, is the 2013 reboot. That film was much more original and simultaneously faithful to the 1980 classic. (Evil Dead 2's sequel "Army of Darkness" has nothing to do with the other Evil Dead's, but is a fun horror movie for kids and delivers more of the Monty Python/Three Stooges worship).
Evil Dead 2 has earned a huge reputation as an entertaining and over-the-top follow-up to a film that was very hard to top. It does not top the original, but its a very unique spin-off. But its not the best horror sequel. I think it works best as a standalone film, which is why its very popular with people who don't necessarily enjoy the original. Like I said, this is the original reboot.
Funny Farm 1988
ChevyChase tried his hand at producing with the very underrated screwball comedy "Funny Farm". Its not the best Chase vehicle but maybe his most personal. It operates at his leisurely pace and is full of the romance, slapstick, cleverness and scenic beauty that is found in his best roles (Caddyshack, Vacation). Chase was a tremendous talent who needed particulars to do his best work. The producer's role had to make things much easier for him as an actor as he picked his director, writer and co-stars. But I can't decide if Funny Farm is an almost-classic or a true hidden gem.
Its certainly better than the great but uneven films Nothing But Trouble and Spies Like Us, but does it compare to Fletch or at least Fletch Lives? I prefer it to those actually. Chase is typecast as a lazy, snarky wiseass with a hard-on and lots of dated 80s dad coolness and, while he's excellent at it, I don't know if that was what Chase ever intended. Funny Farm shows Chase in a more realistic, Everyman role. He's very imperfect but never a buffoon or a prick. With a scaled back character, Chase's charm is more warm and his very muted emotionalism is very endearing. This may be his most fleshed out character. He played darker and more sympathetic characters, but this feels like someone you can more easily root for.
Its a simple premise: Chase and his wife (played by the gorgeous and quite subtle Madolyn Smith) move from the city to the country and things don't go as planned. Chase's fans probably expected a really juvenile movie and Chase gives them a few treats, but this is much closer to the sentimentality and family-friendliness of Christmas Vacation than his other films. Totally in-step with the John Hughes comedies of the period, but more sophisticated and less trendy which allows the film to hold up better. The film is full of great character actors and Madolyn Smith is one of the actresses you wish had a bigger career before stepping away from acting. Statuesque and as deadpan as Chevy, he never had a better companion in his romantic roles.
There isn't much more to say as its a fairly soft plot (but not dumb or loose) and it all sails on the execution of the perfectly assembled production. A few laughs could've been bigger than they are and maybe you will miss Chase's one-liners and little boy antics, but I think it stands on its own as a great moment in his career. It helps contextualize Chevy Chase as the Will Ferrell of his day, the coolest SNL hero of his day turned Hollywood leading man who is best remembered for zany sophomoric comedies and some warm-hearted family flicks but had a riskier side that made the occasional mature satire for his artsier fans.
Its certainly better than the great but uneven films Nothing But Trouble and Spies Like Us, but does it compare to Fletch or at least Fletch Lives? I prefer it to those actually. Chase is typecast as a lazy, snarky wiseass with a hard-on and lots of dated 80s dad coolness and, while he's excellent at it, I don't know if that was what Chase ever intended. Funny Farm shows Chase in a more realistic, Everyman role. He's very imperfect but never a buffoon or a prick. With a scaled back character, Chase's charm is more warm and his very muted emotionalism is very endearing. This may be his most fleshed out character. He played darker and more sympathetic characters, but this feels like someone you can more easily root for.
Its a simple premise: Chase and his wife (played by the gorgeous and quite subtle Madolyn Smith) move from the city to the country and things don't go as planned. Chase's fans probably expected a really juvenile movie and Chase gives them a few treats, but this is much closer to the sentimentality and family-friendliness of Christmas Vacation than his other films. Totally in-step with the John Hughes comedies of the period, but more sophisticated and less trendy which allows the film to hold up better. The film is full of great character actors and Madolyn Smith is one of the actresses you wish had a bigger career before stepping away from acting. Statuesque and as deadpan as Chevy, he never had a better companion in his romantic roles.
There isn't much more to say as its a fairly soft plot (but not dumb or loose) and it all sails on the execution of the perfectly assembled production. A few laughs could've been bigger than they are and maybe you will miss Chase's one-liners and little boy antics, but I think it stands on its own as a great moment in his career. It helps contextualize Chevy Chase as the Will Ferrell of his day, the coolest SNL hero of his day turned Hollywood leading man who is best remembered for zany sophomoric comedies and some warm-hearted family flicks but had a riskier side that made the occasional mature satire for his artsier fans.
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
Nothing But Trouble 1991
In my review of Big Trouble In Little China, I talked about a connection to Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. Here are two films from the dawn of the post-Spielberg/Lucas multiplex era of Hollywood, both made by 70s genre madmen and both made completely surreal by their sloppiness, bloated budgets and a zaniness that is perceived to be a post-Reagan cocaine mania. Let me complete the trilogy by adding Dan Aykroyd's 1991 horror-satire "Nothing But Trouble" to create a very bizarre marathon of films that closed the generational revolution in 1970s/1980s mainstream cinema.
Big Trouble and Chainsaw 2 have become loudly embraced online by cult film enthusiasts, but not so for Nothing But Trouble. Reasons being those previous films are closely associated 1980s adolescence, they both belong to very film nerd-friendly genres and were directed by very popular cult directors. We're still waiting for a re-appreciation of Bush Era cinema, mainstream comedy bombs by SNL alum and no one really examines Dan Aykroyd's one-off directing job because Aykroyd is mostly obscure to young people outside of Ghostbusters, Tommy Boy and maybe My Girl.
Which is a shame because Dan Aykroyd is the most enigmatic, cerebral and undervalued of the first generation of SNL stars. Frankly, he had the strongest career in the 1990s as Chevy Chase and Bill Murray's stars were fading fast. He branched out into broader roles in Driving Miss Daisy and carried a very ambitious film version of The Coneheads (what could be argued as the best SNL film adaptation against Wayne's World). But as Bill Murray reinvented himself in Wes Anderson movies and Chevy Chase gained a fratboy cult thanks to Fletch reruns, Aykroyd all but retired to focus on UFOS, vodka and Hard Rock Cafe. After Blues Brothers 2000, many comedy fans forgot how valuable Aykroyd was to his generation.
Nothing But Trouble is the best film evidence of Ayroyd's immense talent and uniqueness. It seems like a a last Fuck You from a maturing rebel who has one chance at sharing his vision. Dan Aykroyd had a good career in the 1980s, but never captured the fire, weight and popularity he had on SNL. Chase and Murray became cool anti-authoritarian clowns who carried blockbusters but Aykroyd was usually cast as the sidekick or straight man, typically to his SNL or Second City friends. And he was great at it. The Great Outdoors, Spies Like Us, Dragnet, Neighbors, Caddyshack 2. He was also the only star to write the scripts he performed (as he did on SNL). Maybe the nice guy who always finished last needed to rack up enough good merit and favors because Nothing But Trouble is a very surprising directorial debut in every conceivable way.
First off its produced by Warner Bros with a titanic production, a totally un-commercial script and an HUGE star in Demi Moore. For the unitiated, this film contains: giant obese men in diapers, a carnival ride that removes flesh from living human beings, John Candy as a woman, a penis nose, a removed nose, bed pan humor and a lengthy rap performance featuring a teenage 2Pac. Even at its most grotesque or subversive, its all presented in a cartoon fashion. Its very similar to TCM2 in what it satirizes - conservative politics, yuppies, older men/younger women dynamics, dysfunctional families, rednecks, drug abuse, law enforcement, mental illness, greed and the American value system. I wouldn't be shocked if Dan was a big TCM2 fan or friend of Tobe Hooper. And the film is very reminiscent of Big Trouble in that its a schizophrenic mishmash of wildly different genres, this time being The Goonies, screwball Cary Grant comedies, John Waters shock comedies and rural horror movies like Spider Baby. Like TCM2 and BTILC, NBT doesn't really work. Its derivative, half-baked and poorly edited, but you can tell a lot of passion went into this and a lot of fun was had making this. The "What the fuck am I watching?" factor is high and the very game actors had to 2nd guess the material and then fully commit to the fun and weirdness and it pays off.
But Dan Aykroyd carries the entire film with his performance as the disgusting but charming antagonist. He's covered in prosthetics in TWO roles and its obvious he wanted to play every role in the film. The other characters are really after thoughts to tie scenes together and are actually underutilized. When it finally takes off, NBT is a string of Aykroyd skits that really echo his best SNL work, unlike everything else in his film career. This is the awkward, confrontational, bizarre, grotesque, outsider comedy that made him standout from the pack as the friendliest weirdo and a kind of comic chameleon. The movie is padded with very sophomoric, self-indulgent slapstick and Aykroyd's patented surreal lingustic showboating, but how its tied together in something resembling a meaningful whole is impressive. Its light, inoffensive and totally surprising cinema. Some may not get it or even like it, but who could hate it?
BTW Chevy Chase still had a big name and looks pretty fantastic here, so its a coup that he signed on but its no surprise. Chase seems to be Aykroyd's life partner even if Belushi was his one true love and Bill Murray his most successful romance. They worked together on Spies Like Us, Caddyshack 2 and Aykroyd was one of Chase's biggest supporters in the tumultuous first 5 years of SNL. NBT offers Chevy one if not his last leading man roles (as did John Carpenter's Memoirs of an Invisible Man - another Big Trouble connection). Wikipedia has this to say:
According to one biography, Chase "knew that the film was going to be the worst film he would ever make", but because of his friendship with Aykroyd, he accepted the role of Chris Thorne.[4] Reflecting on the film some years later, it was noted as an "unfortunate turning point" in Aykroyd's career that, as the director, writer and star, left "only (Aykroyd) to blame for the film's spectacular failure".[5]
Unfortunate that it probably ended their partnership and probably hurt their friendship. I would be very interested in seeing where Aykroyd's directing went next and I think its a gem in both of their careers. Nothing But Trouble probably ended both of their careers as Hollywood players, but it shows Chase wasn't always a selfish diva and that Aykroyd never lost his edge. I wonder if they realize this legendary bomb has become, at least in my family, a very beloved little film. I hope fan support grows for it and Aykroyd and Chase can make peace with it.
Big Trouble and Chainsaw 2 have become loudly embraced online by cult film enthusiasts, but not so for Nothing But Trouble. Reasons being those previous films are closely associated 1980s adolescence, they both belong to very film nerd-friendly genres and were directed by very popular cult directors. We're still waiting for a re-appreciation of Bush Era cinema, mainstream comedy bombs by SNL alum and no one really examines Dan Aykroyd's one-off directing job because Aykroyd is mostly obscure to young people outside of Ghostbusters, Tommy Boy and maybe My Girl.
Which is a shame because Dan Aykroyd is the most enigmatic, cerebral and undervalued of the first generation of SNL stars. Frankly, he had the strongest career in the 1990s as Chevy Chase and Bill Murray's stars were fading fast. He branched out into broader roles in Driving Miss Daisy and carried a very ambitious film version of The Coneheads (what could be argued as the best SNL film adaptation against Wayne's World). But as Bill Murray reinvented himself in Wes Anderson movies and Chevy Chase gained a fratboy cult thanks to Fletch reruns, Aykroyd all but retired to focus on UFOS, vodka and Hard Rock Cafe. After Blues Brothers 2000, many comedy fans forgot how valuable Aykroyd was to his generation.
Nothing But Trouble is the best film evidence of Ayroyd's immense talent and uniqueness. It seems like a a last Fuck You from a maturing rebel who has one chance at sharing his vision. Dan Aykroyd had a good career in the 1980s, but never captured the fire, weight and popularity he had on SNL. Chase and Murray became cool anti-authoritarian clowns who carried blockbusters but Aykroyd was usually cast as the sidekick or straight man, typically to his SNL or Second City friends. And he was great at it. The Great Outdoors, Spies Like Us, Dragnet, Neighbors, Caddyshack 2. He was also the only star to write the scripts he performed (as he did on SNL). Maybe the nice guy who always finished last needed to rack up enough good merit and favors because Nothing But Trouble is a very surprising directorial debut in every conceivable way.
First off its produced by Warner Bros with a titanic production, a totally un-commercial script and an HUGE star in Demi Moore. For the unitiated, this film contains: giant obese men in diapers, a carnival ride that removes flesh from living human beings, John Candy as a woman, a penis nose, a removed nose, bed pan humor and a lengthy rap performance featuring a teenage 2Pac. Even at its most grotesque or subversive, its all presented in a cartoon fashion. Its very similar to TCM2 in what it satirizes - conservative politics, yuppies, older men/younger women dynamics, dysfunctional families, rednecks, drug abuse, law enforcement, mental illness, greed and the American value system. I wouldn't be shocked if Dan was a big TCM2 fan or friend of Tobe Hooper. And the film is very reminiscent of Big Trouble in that its a schizophrenic mishmash of wildly different genres, this time being The Goonies, screwball Cary Grant comedies, John Waters shock comedies and rural horror movies like Spider Baby. Like TCM2 and BTILC, NBT doesn't really work. Its derivative, half-baked and poorly edited, but you can tell a lot of passion went into this and a lot of fun was had making this. The "What the fuck am I watching?" factor is high and the very game actors had to 2nd guess the material and then fully commit to the fun and weirdness and it pays off.
But Dan Aykroyd carries the entire film with his performance as the disgusting but charming antagonist. He's covered in prosthetics in TWO roles and its obvious he wanted to play every role in the film. The other characters are really after thoughts to tie scenes together and are actually underutilized. When it finally takes off, NBT is a string of Aykroyd skits that really echo his best SNL work, unlike everything else in his film career. This is the awkward, confrontational, bizarre, grotesque, outsider comedy that made him standout from the pack as the friendliest weirdo and a kind of comic chameleon. The movie is padded with very sophomoric, self-indulgent slapstick and Aykroyd's patented surreal lingustic showboating, but how its tied together in something resembling a meaningful whole is impressive. Its light, inoffensive and totally surprising cinema. Some may not get it or even like it, but who could hate it?
BTW Chevy Chase still had a big name and looks pretty fantastic here, so its a coup that he signed on but its no surprise. Chase seems to be Aykroyd's life partner even if Belushi was his one true love and Bill Murray his most successful romance. They worked together on Spies Like Us, Caddyshack 2 and Aykroyd was one of Chase's biggest supporters in the tumultuous first 5 years of SNL. NBT offers Chevy one if not his last leading man roles (as did John Carpenter's Memoirs of an Invisible Man - another Big Trouble connection). Wikipedia has this to say:
According to one biography, Chase "knew that the film was going to be the worst film he would ever make", but because of his friendship with Aykroyd, he accepted the role of Chris Thorne.[4] Reflecting on the film some years later, it was noted as an "unfortunate turning point" in Aykroyd's career that, as the director, writer and star, left "only (Aykroyd) to blame for the film's spectacular failure".[5]
Unfortunate that it probably ended their partnership and probably hurt their friendship. I would be very interested in seeing where Aykroyd's directing went next and I think its a gem in both of their careers. Nothing But Trouble probably ended both of their careers as Hollywood players, but it shows Chase wasn't always a selfish diva and that Aykroyd never lost his edge. I wonder if they realize this legendary bomb has become, at least in my family, a very beloved little film. I hope fan support grows for it and Aykroyd and Chase can make peace with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)