Categories
Movies

Home Alone (1990)

Some movies you watch every year, or almost every year. Most of the time, these are holiday movies. Let’s face it, get yourself a successful holiday song or movie, and you’ll be rolling royalties until the cows come home. That’s all by way of saying that there are movies that I love – love – that I don’t watch once a year. These include classics like the Seventh Seal and blockbusters like Raiders of the Lost Ark. Yet I find myself watching some movies once a year, every year. It makes we wonder if these movies are worth my time. One of the easier ones to answer that question for is Home Alone.

Home Alone is a great movie. It is not particularly influential. You won’t generally find it discussed among film students or academics. It isn’t made by a great director (although Chris Columbus is by no means a bad director), and it boasts no legendary movie stars. Macaulay Culkin may have been the most bankable child star since Shirley Temple, but he’s not exactly Robert Redford.

Then, is it a bold statement to say a film is a great one if it does not measure up to traditional great movie metrics? Look closer. Home Alone is a tightly shot and plotted film. The story connects with the audience, despite how absurd it seems to modern eyes. It’s not just holiday nostalgia either – I’m watching A Christmas Story as I type this. Talk about your meandering, nonsense film. People love it, but at some level, we all have to agree it’s a silly movie. We like silly movies, and that’s okay, by the way.

So if Home Alone isn’t a silly movie or a nostalgic movie, that’s fine. Sure. But a great movie? That’s a stretch, right? It’s like the time that I tried to convince a film buff that The Empire Strikes Back is a superior film to 2001: A Space Odyssey and Solaris. I mean, it is a superior film, but a film buff will never admit that – and neither, by the way, did the one I spoke to. By the way, the greatest science fiction/fantasy (i.e. speculative fiction) movie of all time is the Seventh Seal.

I digress. Greatly. Let’s talk about the holiday classic you came here to talk about. What’s great about Home Alone, first of all, is how it re-creates the insane family dynamics of the Holidays in the first act without making the movie “about that.” It sets the stage with very few interactions between the family characters, and does not leave Kevin’s point of view, for the most part. This centers the story on Kevin’s experience, but also believably creates a madhouse family reminiscent of Holiday classics like National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation.

The film doesn’t let up either. There are no wasted scenes – everything builds up to the next or develops the characters. The jokes are funny, the touching scenes are touching (e.g. the church scene), and the famous slapstick scenes in the third act live up to their reputation. It’s an efficient and effective movie. If that isn’t a great film, what is?

By the way, I partially take back what I said about A Christmas Story. That scene where Ralphie beats the living daylights out of that bully is pure gold.

D.G. McCabe; December 24, 2018

Categories
Movies

The Other Side of the Wind (2018, Review)

Orson Welles directed a handful of the most influential and important films in history. Despite his personal and professional failings, of which there were many, Welles remains a great artist. We should give any work of his the benefit of the doubt.

I tried to do that. Really, I did. But The Other Side of the Wind is a train wreck.

It’s not without its charms. I thought it interesting how Welles makes fun of the pompous “cineasts” who follow Jake Hannaford (John Huston) around. It’s not without irony – those nerds are the primary reason people still care about Welles today. Even so, the movie overall is a slog to get through.

Let’s start with the obvious. This movie is essentially two hours of obnoxious people rambling about nothing intercut with scenes from what looks like a pretty crappy movie.

My biggest issue with the movie is that it’s basically a lesser version of 8 1/2 (1963). I don’t know if this was intentional, but the movie just isn’t funny enough to work as satire. It’s like Welles saw Fellini’s masterpiece and thought to himself, “I can do that!” [Ron Howard voice – he couldn’t.]

Then there’s the “Where’s Poochie?” quality. Ninety percent of the dialogue involves people talking about Hannaford. But Hannaford barely has any lines. We learn a lot about what the characters think of Hannaford, but little about the characters themselves.

I didn’t get a good sense of why these characters are so obsessed with Hannaford anyway. The only reason we know he’s a good or important director is because no one will shut up about it. The film within a film certainly doesn’t showcase the workings of a genius.

That brings me to the film within the film. Is it supposed to be a knockoff of risqué arthouse movies of the 60’s or part of the brief mainstream porno period of the 70’s? It certainly feels more like the latter, only weirder.

It’s not even a good example of film within a film. Take HBO’s “The Deuce.” The film within a film on the show, Red Hot, makes sense. We see why it’s good too, through the energy of the making-of scenes. We know Candy (Maggie Gyllenhaal), and we understand her motivations and passions. We aren’t just made to think it’s good because the characters won’t stop talking about how good it is.

Maybe, maybe, if Welles supervised the final cut of The Other Side of the Wind, it wouldn’t be such a mess. Who knows? That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a bad movie.

You might like The Other Side of the Wind if you’re an Orson Welles completist. Otherwise, you can probably skip this one.

(c) 2018 D.G. McCabe

Categories
Movies

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) (Review)

The rock and roll biopic is hard to pull off. For every Ray (2004) or Hard Day’s Night (1964) there are a dozen films like Jersey Boys (2014). Bohemian Rhapsody (2018), the story of Queen, was an especially troubled production, with almost a decade mired in development hell. It’s no small success, therefore, that the movie is more on the “good” side of Rock and Roll movies than the “schlock” side.

Much like legendary French film Children of Paradise (1945), the story of Bohemian Rhapsody’s production is more interesting than the movie itself. The first director, Dexter Fletcher quit, only to be rehired when his replacement, Bryan Singer, was sacked. Sacha Baron Cohen was supposed to play Freddie Mercury, but left the project because of creative differences with David Fincher, who by the way, also left the project. Queen itself was unhappy with the first several scripts too – they wanted a Hard Day’s Night style family movie apparently and the studio wanted a raunchy, R rated retelling of the hard-partying life of Freddy Mercury. Somehow the final product achieved some balance of these two visions.

Bohemian Rhapsody is enjoyable enough, but it’s not a great film. Then Queen isn’t a “Great” band, are they? Music critics, after all, loathe Queen with a passion – so much so that the movie itself emphasizes the negative reviews. Case in point, New York Magazine’s clickbait hole Vulture recently ranked every member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Queen was ranked second to last, ahead of only recent “fan vote” winner Bon Jovi.

The most interesting thing about Queen, therefore, is how a band can be so beloved by fans but so despised by supposed experts. The movie does a solid job exploring this. It’s at its best when it explores the nuts and bolts of Queen’s creative process.

Rami Malek does a fine job capturing Mercury’s stage persona, which is no small task. Still, I felt that the parts that focused on Mercury rather than the band were the weaker parts of the movie. Maybe that was intentional. After all, Mercury needed Brian May, Roger Taylor, and John Deacon to become a superstar. Otherwise he was just an awkward kid with an incredible signing voice.

Much like its subject matter, the movie gets self indulgent. It recreates so many of Queen’s legendary performances that it feels at times more like a concert film than a biopic. I don’t know how one is to value that particular quality critically-speaking, but it makes the movie a lot of fun to watch.

Overall, you should go see Bohemian Rhapsody if you want to see a fun rock band movie and/or if you like Queen. Otherwise, if you’re a professional music critic, you probably won’t enjoy a movie about the Rock and Roll press’ favorite punching bag. Or you might like to give it Mystery Science Theater treatment. I can’t answer that for you.

(C) 2018 D.G. McCabe