The greatest romantic comedy not named Annie Hall ever made. Only 25 years old, but feels like we’ve always had this one with us. Classic…
Spoiler-free Movie Review of When Harry Met Sally…:
This movie is so good it’s on another level. Nora Ephron’s screenplay is the best of her career, and she’s not alone in having this film be her personal best. When Harry Met Sally features arguably the best work put in by Billy Crystal, Meg Ryan, Bruno Kirby & Carrie Fisher.
There is unquestionably a very Woody Allen quality to the picture, enough so that he may have had grounds for complaint if not actual legal action. It’s that close…
That said, while it is a very stereotypical picture it goes about its business in very fresh ways. This may be a typical New York rom-com on paper, but in execution it is nearly flawless. The dialogue is lovely and full of great new commentary on relationships. If it seems familiar to new viewers it is only because nearly every rom-com since 1989 has been borrowing this playbook.
As great as the screenplay is, the actors really make the picture. Crystal certainly added a ton of the best lines and both he and Ryan played their roles so well that they were stuck doing the same thing for years after as a result.
When Rob Reiner developed this project with Ephron, he was in the middle of a serious hot streak, having just wrapped on The Princess Bride, following Stand By Me. When Harry Met Sally is among his finest efforts, and he is helped in his mission to romanticize New York perfectly by Barry Sonnenfeld’s cinematography.
Even more impressive may be the huge boost this film gave to the career of Harry Connick Jr., who was tapped by Reiner to provide a soundtrack for the film comprised of standards. He put together a Grammy-winning performance on the must-have soundtrack album, although for some bizarre reason the film itself only features a couple of the performances, opting instead for more traditional versions of the same standards. Bizarre.
It’s hard to find anything negative to say about When Harry Met Sally, unless you’re going to hold it responsible for all the crappy rom-coms it inspired. It’s pretty much a perfect comedy and still plays 25 years later.
[schema type=”movie” name=”When Harry Met Sally…” description=”Harry and Sally have known each other for years, and are very good friends, but they fear sex would ruin the friendship.” director=”Rob Reiner” actor_1=”Billy Crystal” actor_2=”Meg Ryan”]
Batman turned 75 years old earlier this year (2014). In recognition, we are rebranding our site for one week to Now Very Bat… and focusing on the blockbusters, the smaller films, the comics and the video games that feature the Dark Knight.
140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW
Released 25 years ago today, Batman kicked off a golden age for comic books & comic book movies that has yet to end. It’s still pretty good.
Spoiler-free Movie Review of Batman:
In 1988-89 I was a sophomore in high school and a huge comic book fan. My friend Bill got me into the hobby by lending me then relatively new copies of the graphic novels Watchmen & The Dark Knight Returns and I was hooked. We would go to local convenience stores and buy whatever titles they stocked, but things didn’t really pick up until he told me about New England Comics (NEC), a local chain based out of Norwood, Massachusetts. We’d pile into our friend Seth’s brown Hornet after school and drive up to their Quincy Center shop, stopping only to buy some very mediocre American Chinese food and then would hit NEC.New England Comics in its first location in Quincy was everything you could want in a comic shop. It was small, narrow and absolutely jammed with longboxes & bins filled with back issues. Things hung on the shelves, on the walls, from the ceiling and seemingly underfoot as well. They would later move to their current location a bit further up on Hancock Street, into a larger and much better space, with more room, organization and good lighting. I retain a fondness for the original spot, though. It was the right amount of overwhelming, with brightly colored displays and covers all vying for your attention (and cash).
I started collecting at the perfect time, as Neil Gaiman’s Sandman comic had just come out – I picked it up simply because it looked promising, along with fistfuls of copies of Aliens, Animal Man, The Demon, and The Tick (an NEC title written by a friend of a friend). (Another friend of ours, Benn, would later run a few different locations – and write a Tick comic.)
But Batman was unquestionably the king. I collected every title he appeared in and as many back issues as I could afford. Simply everyone was excited about the upcoming movie and every other inch of the shop had some promo or reminder about the first big comic book movie we could remember.
Comic books were not well thought of at this point, but had begun to find a respectability with books like Watchmen & Dark Knight. But comic book movies were a non-starter. No one could remember the success of Superman: The Movie after the sequels sputtered to a not early enough grave. The only properties that had made it to film were also-rans that flopped like Sheena, Red Sonja and Wes Craven’s Swamp Thing. The genre wasn’t a genre – it was a death sentence.
And when a Batman film was announced, most everyone’s minds turned immediately to the most indelible portrayal of the character from the camp 1960’s tv show and companion movie Batman (1966). This was not the image the producers wanted potential audiences to fixate on. Instead producers Peter Guber, Jon Peters, Benjamin Melniker & Michael Uslan turned to the recently successful graphic novels The Dark Knight Returns (Frank Miller & Klaus Janson) & The Killing Joke (Alan Moore & Brian Bolland) for the look and tone they were going for: DARK.
When released on June 23, 1989, Batman was a blockbuster success, breaking attendance records everywhere and setting off a worldwide Batman merchandising phenomenon. Bat-saturation would be complete by summer’s end and the comic shop was flooded with new customers. Some of us probably grumbled, but it was great for the industry and launched comic books and their film adaptations into not only viable properties but massive success stories. It was a cultural shift and far from being in danger of shifting back, comics and their film counterparts are more successful now than could have been previously imagined.
So, how is the actual film? How was it then and how is it 25 years later?
Well, at the time, it was an unqualified success. No one had seen anything like it. It was dark and moody and nothing like they had been led to expect from this former Saturday morning cartoon character. Director Tim Burton had created a new vision of the character by enlisting extremely talented creators like production designer Anton Furst, composer Danny Elfman and writer Sam Hamm.
With the confidence that comes from having one of the world’s most famous actors, Jack Nicholson, already in hand as the Joker, Burton made the controversial decision to cast his Beetlejuice star Michael Keaton as the Dark Knight. Everyone thought he had lost his mind, and everyone was proven wrong when Keaton crushed it.
In 1989 it was a hit and an instant classic. In 2014, it shows some wear.Even at the time there was some criticism that the Joker dominated the movie. That probably would have happened with any actor in the role, but with notorious ball-hog Nicholson, it was very nearly a one-man show. He is certainly captivating, and it helps that being over-the-top is actually appropriate for this character. My problem then and now is a simple and perhaps petty one: he’s too old and fat. The Joker of my comics is tall and stick-thin with an angular face. Sorry, that’s what I’m looking for. A younger Nicholson would have been much more pleasing. But he really did deliver here and if the script is gratuitous in its use of him (it is), it’s easy to understand why.
Keaton’s performance is timeless, and Kim Basinger’s didn’t get any worse (if only because it was pretty thin on the ground to begin with). The worst thing about looking at this cast is the slight twinge when you reflect on the missed opportunity with Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent. It would have been so fascinating to see his take on Two-Face, but the producers lost their nerve come sequel-time.
The story was never really that much to write about; it definitely is a style over substance film. While I found it riveting at the time, I have to say I find the movie kind of boring now. There’s a stilted quality to the dialogue and the scene changes are abrupt and jagged.
Also, the film simply looks lousy. It was always a very cold look by DP Roger Pratt, and it hasn’t aged well. It’s very rough and flat, with darkness sitting in for clarity.
The production design is simply marvelous, with the 1940’s era suits and the confused architecture. The look of the production still plays, even if the mattes and effects now look poor by comparison.
Batman was a hugely successful and important film. The best thing about it may be that it set up the sequel Batman Returns, which I consider better in every way. (Although many violently disagree.) In the end it’s more notable for the impact it had than for it’s own merit. But don’t misunderstand – Batman is a very good movie.
[schema type=”movie” name=”Batman” description=”The Dark Knight of Gotham City begins his war on crime with his first major enemy being the clownishly homicidal Joker.” director=”Tim Burton” actor_1=”Jack Nicholson” actor_2=”Michael Keaton”]
Watered-down, kid-friendly sequel proves that with enough talented people phoning it in, you can still sometimes come up with something ok.
What’s more:
Ghostbusters II is not a bad movie. It has the unenviable job of following up a nearly perfect movie. It can’t hope to equal the quality or success of the first film, and doesn’t.
“Hairless pets. Weird.”
Like so many sequels, the biggest problem is that it’s completely unnecessary and a blatant cash cow. There was nothing more to say, nothing original to add, and it doesn’t. The creative team behind the first film, (writers Dan Aykroyd & Harold Ramis and director Ivan Reitman) had absolutely no interest in revisiting the story to make a sequel, but were talked into it. That lack of enthusiasm shows. It’s just kind of half-baked.
“Everything you are doing is bad. I want you to know this.”
It’s really a testament to how likeable the actors and the main characters are that the movie works at all. The story is terrible, but it’s not as though the story for the first film was the reason for its success. There, as here, the movie lives and dies because of Messrs. Aykroyd, Murray & Ramis. But this time around, they are suffocated by the indifferent story.
“You know, I have met some dumb blondes in my life, but you take the taco, pal! Only a Carpathian would come back to life now and choose New York! Tasty pick, bonehead!”
The story picks up with the group disbanded after being sued for all of the damage they caused in the first film. That’s not a bad setup, and leads to some great stuff. I would strongly argue that most of the good moments in the picture occur before they ever get back into the suits. You’ve got Ray & Winston singing to “Ungrateful little yuppie larva”, Venkman hosting the world’s best bad psychic show and Egon taking away a child’s puppy. Dana and Peter have some good dialogue and the courtroom scene is great. Everything after that is just slime…
“Well, there are so many holes in 1st Avenue, we really didn’t think anyone would notice.”
Ahh, yes, the slime. The slime has feelings, it has emotions. The slime likes music and responds negatively to those grumpy New Yorkers. Are you serious with this? It’s a deal-killer. If you haven’t seen this in a while and are saying “C’mon, it was a good movie and really funny”, cue up the picture again. Watch the toaster dance to Fats Domino. Watch the Statue of Liberty inspire the citizens by blaring elevator music. See the bad guy defeated by the hardened city folk singing. Bobby Brown is in the movie, for God’s sake. The only way you remember the movie fondly is in fact by not truly remembering it. Not all of it…
“Boys! Boys! You’re scaring the straights, okay?”
Rick Moranis is brought back for no real reason at all, except due to my previously noted rule of minor characters being overused in sequels. Let’s go ahead and call it the Louis Tully rule, because this film is the best example of it. Both this character and the character of Slimer (who wasn’t really a character at all in the first movie) are here in large part because they were made into more “meaningful” roles in the Real Ghostbusters cartoon. Yes, Ghostbusters II was made primarily because of the success of a Saturday morning cartoon. Still confused about the goofy tone of the film?
“Very good, Louis. Short, but pointless.”
Poor Ernie Hudson. He barely gets any more screen time than he did in the first picture, and in that one he wasn’t even introduced until the second half.
“Well, better late then never.”
The Vigo the Carpathian bit works fairly well from a humor perspective; not quite as well as the big bad. Peter MacNicol is absolutely perfect with his Dr. Janosz Poha character. It’s over the top in all the right ways.
Venkman: “Kinda makes you wonder, doesn’t it?” Winston: “Wonder what?” Venkman: “Whether she’s naked under that toga. She is French. You know that.”
I retain mostly positive memories of Ghostbusters II. It’s got more than enough funny material to compensate for the lousy effects and weak story. It works best if you completely forget all of the lousy feel-good moments. The ending is as sickly sweet as Murray’s previous film, Scrooged. Must have been something in the water with these late 1980’s movies.
“You’re short, your bellybutton sticks out too far, and you’re a terrible burden on your poor mother.”
Ghostbusters II was a box-office hit upon release, but the reviews were negative, and after Batman came out a week later, it looked sickly by comparison. No one was clamoring for another sequel. So it’s unfortunate in my opinion that our nostalgia for the original has rekindled plans for a Ghostbusters III. The project has even gained momentum after the death of Harold Ramis. Such an ill-advised idea. I hope to be proven wrong, but I’m not waiting up nights. I’d be far happier if it rotted on the vine and left this flawed but fun sequel as the last chapter for our boys…
Now that’s more like it! Shrugging off joylessness of Temple of Doom, fun-loving but not slight. Still as much fun as it was 25 years ago…
What’s more:
After the mine cart wreck that was Temple of Doom, virtually everyone involved realized that if the franchise was to continue, a return to form was necessary. (Spielberg wanted “to apologize for the second one”.) One of the ideas frequently suggested by Temple of Doom supporters is that the Indy trilogy closely mirrors the Star Wars Trilogy. That is to say, Raiders was the fun-loving adventure in the vein of Star Wars (1977) and so Temple of Doom followed the mold of The Empire Strikes Back, in that it was darker and more serious. I don’t doubt that was the intent – Lucas has stated as much – but it falls apart for two principal reasons.
The first is that Empire had to be darker as it was the second part of a three-part story and so needed to develop and raise the stakes; that’s not what Temple did – it was a prequel so the chronology doesn’t make sense. (Besides, Empire is the greatest sequel ever made and Temple sucked – not because it was dark, but because it was poorly conceived and executed.)
The second reason is that The Last Crusade is by extension the Return of the Jedi of this series, which is nonsense. I know, Last Crusade has some cutesy moments and if you liked Temple you would necessarily regard this third installment as a dumbing down or retread of the original, much as Jedi is (rightly) accused of. But while The Last Crusade is certainly the most family friendly, humorous and accessible of the series, that isn’t actually supposed to be a bad thing. You get that, right? Trying to make crowd-pleasing movies isn’t in of itself a flawed plan. If you sacrifice the character of your story (or your characters) in order to appease, well, yes, that’s pandering and shame on you. But I reject the idea that The Last Crusade does this. On the contrary, I believe it to be nearly as good of a film as the original Raiders, and if it lacks the edge of the original (and it does), so did all of the parties involved. Everyone was 8 years richer and fatter and more content.(Besides, if this is Jedi, where are the Ewoks? If anything, Short Round is the Ewok of this series…)
No, the two big trilogies have some significant differences to go with their many similarities, although it is certainly difficult to not think of these franchises as relatives. (Note: I wonder if one of the reasons that Temple is so divisive as a film is because it was released after Jedi? Certainly you brought your feelings about the final SW film into the theater with you when you saw Indy 2.) Last Crusade needs to be judged on its own merits. And how does it fare? Wonderfully…
Writing this installment was a circuitous journey; Chris Columbus first sent Indy to Africa to battle the Monkey King. Wisely passing on the chance to insult all of African descent as they had recently those of Indian descent, Spielberg came up with the introduction of Henry Jones, Sr. and worked with first Menno Meyjes, then Jeffrey Boam (Innerspace, The Lost Boys) to come up with the screenplay. (They weren’t done there, though, as Tom Stoppard did an uncredited rewrite of almost all of the dialogue and some of the scenes.) None of this is visible on-screen, as the story feels very streamlined and direct.
It’s a funny movie, which may be one reason so many people count this as their favorite. It had been five years since the humorless 2nd film, and during that time Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (or as it seems generally to be known “the one with the whales”) had come out and made fans of even non-Trek moviegoers. I can’t help but think that was noted by Lucas & Spielberg, but in truth, all of their films had a great deal of humor.
The simple fact is that this is just a very good story. Yes, the tone helps, but at the end of the day it has a better story than Temple, if not quite as good as Raiders. (And heaps better than Skull…)
The actors are great, with Connery as Indy’s dad a brilliant coup. (Even if Connery is actually only 12 years older than Ford and 58 at time of filming, they were projecting the character as approximately 75.) Rhys-Davies is back as Sallah & Elliot as Brody and that’s just all kinds of good. Their inclusion in Temple wouldn’t have saved it but could have made quite a bit of difference. Kevork Malikyan has a small but important role as Kazim, some consolation for being passed over for Rhys-Davies as Sallah in Raiders. I’m a little surprised that they didn’t try to shoehorn in some cameo or mention of Short Round. If Crusade is really the family-friendly cop-out that some claim it to be, why wouldn’t they have included the precocious kid?
While I still don’t consider The Last Crusade to be the equal of Raiders, it is only because nothing can top the original. Besides, the first of anything is always special in a way that can’t be replicated. Nevertheless, I know many consider this the best installment in the franchise – I can’t agree with them, but I certainly see where they are coming from. There’s a lot to like.
Play by play (thoughts written down as I watched the movie):
Casting for this movie is inspired; Connery & Phoenix, both.
Opening scenes in Utah so gorgeous.
This started off the excitement for Young Indiana Jones – such a great series…
Phoenix eerily good as the early Indy, so many mannerisms from Ford’s portrayal of the character.
“Everybody’s lost but me.”
I wonder if Douglas Slocombe has switched to digital photography – I doubt it – can’t get much better than this…(Note: looked this up later – this was actually the last film in the nearly 50 year career for the truly gifted Slocombe, who was responsible for the cinematography of all three of the original Indy films.)
Usually I think these kind of explanatory backstory flashbacks are cute and gimmicky, and this one is, too, but it’s just so well done that it doesn’t matter.
What is also wonderful about the opening is that, similarly to the 1st movie, it sets not just the tone for the film, but provides significant story and character insight.
1938? That’s only two years after Raiders. Not the years, honey, it’s, ah, you get it…Only eight years in real life time between films 1 & 3 but that’s a long time in grumpy actor years…
I don’t really get the whole rock star treatment for a professor, but then I guess I’m a long time removed from academia.
Ah, Julian Glover makes the transition from Star Wars (Ep. V) to Indy. Great choice.
They just get to the point so quickly in this movie. Such a streamlined plot makes for a fantastic film.
Wonderful exposition scene. Write great dialogue and give it to skilled actors.
More Denholm Elliot? Yes, please…
Alison Doody as Dr. Elsa Schneider is a good pickup. She works very well here. Cute banter between the two makes sense because they are both very smart. She’s not too squeamish, either. Breath of fresh air after Willie Scott.
Henry Jones Sr. is afraid of rats. Classic…
Boat chase straight out of a Bond movie; brilliant.
“Ah, Venice.”
“Nazis. I hate these guys.”
I love the interplay between Jr. & Sr. Every scene from now until the end of the movie with these two is a treat. Just the looks between the two…
Sallah!
“Our situation has not improved.”
So much fun with something as simple as a revolving secret door. Comedy genius…
Motorcycle joust – make this happen now…
“My boy, we are pilgrims in an unholy land.”
Good effects on the zeppelin.
“Ships that pass in the night…”
The dialogue for the conversation on the zeppelin is some of the best in the series.
When Dr. Henry Jones Sr. suddenly goes missing while pursuing the Holy Grail, eminent archaeologist Indiana Jones must follow in his father’s footsteps and stop the Nazis.
Poster
Runtime
127
Tagline
He’s back in an all new adventure. Memorial Day 1989.
Released 25 years ago, Bill & Ted just as triumphant today. Must have seen this 5x in theaters, then wrote Wyld Stallyns on jeans jacket…
What’s more:
Has it really been 25 years since the formation of the Wyld Stallyns? Their music is such a huge part of our lives, the foundation of our society; it’s hard to remember a time when they weren’t with us.
Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure is a dramatized biopic, detailing that famous incident in the past when our fearless leaders nearly lost their way, ending the Stallyns before they even got started.
The film centers on the celebrated decision of The Three Most Important People in the World to send the Prophet Rufus (played here by George Carlin) back through the Circuits of Time to help the great ones prevent the disbanding of the Wyld Stallyns by passing their history class.
In this telling of events, Bill S. Preston, Esquire (ably played by Alex Winter) and Ted “Theodore” Logan (portrayed in this version by a young Sir Keanu Reeves) are beginning their journey to perfect the music that will define our way of life, but they’re having a few problems. Their devotion to the Stallyns is affecting their ability to master their studies and as a result they are flunking history. (Ed. Note: A risible notion – Lords Bill & Ted practically ARE history.) Actor Bernie Casey was tapped to play the controversial teacher Mr. Ryan, who had the temerity to threaten the Great Ones with such failure, although it must be noted that he provided them with the impetus to excel in their studies by means of “the final project”. Casey is certainly up to the task of handling such a complex character, so it is perhaps a shame that more time is not spent detailing his inner struggle at how best to develop Bill & Ted’s talents. (See “Tempus Fugit Excelsior: The Untold Story of The Great Ones Who Nearly Weren’t” for a more balanced and nuanced portrayal of this often misunderstood figure.)
Ted must pass history class or else he will be exiled to the reviled Oats Military Academy by his father, Captain John Logan (or “El Capitan”, as he would come to be known during the Water Loop Crisis). As the Two prepare their project, they are sent out of the unwelcoming home of Mr. Preston and “Missy the Inconstant” and they repair to The Circle K.
Ah, the Circle K. Much has been written about the San Dimas Circle K, but modern people may find it difficult to believe that this great institution was once a simple convenience store. At that time, people often drove right by without stopping. Amazing. So it was that the arrival of Rufus in a phone booth-disguised time machine was completely unobserved by anyone save for The Great Ones. Once Rufus had demonstrated the technique, they were off through the Circuits of Time in order to learn about the past in order to preserve the future.
The director chosen by the The Three Most Important People in the World for this project, Stephen Herek is known for his work with lighter comedy fare, and does a good job highlighting the excellent early adventures of The Great Ones. It’s exhilarating to re-experience those lighthearted and hilarious days before Bill & Ted realized their true importance. Writers Chris Matheson & Ed Solomon wisely chose to keep their focus on a brief period of roughly 24 hours for this adaptation and this helps keep the action moving briskly. The tightly plotted film keeps it simple and that is admirable with a time-travelling adventure.
The film is scored by David Newman and the music is decidedly of the time and does its best; it’s not fair to judge the music of that period against the Wyld Stallyns. The acting is everything it needs to be and while filling these roles is a daunting task, Winter & Reeves acquit themselves well.
25 years later, Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure reminds us to embrace the credo of The Great Ones: “Be excellent to each other. And party on, dudes!”
