The mockumentary - it’s ubiquitous as a comedy from across both film and TV now but there was a time when this wasn’t the case. Along came this film and changed all that…
Spinal Tap
In A Nutshell:- Frighteningly accurate portrait of a fading band
Why’s It So Good? That boils down to the combination of the improvisational skills of Christopher Guest, Michael McKean and Harry Shearer combined with the commitment to the format that Rob Reiner brings in. Guest, McKean and Shearer aren’t just playing the characters - they know them inside and out and completely inhabit them. The first workprint of the film was four hours long - around an hour of extra footage has been released on the official releases over the years and the remarkable thing about it is that it’s mostly very funny. Reiner just had to be ruthless to pare the film down to the bare essentials which is, at its heart, a love story between two friends.
Of course, there have been other mockumentaries and two from recent years that have entered my repeat rotation…
What We Do In The Shadows
In A Nutshell:- Crap vampires flat-sharing in New Zealand
Why’s It So Good? The deadpan New Zealand sense of humour fits very well with the mockumentary genre but there’s also a sense of naivete and optimism that Taika Waititi brings to that sensibility. The cast are on top form (largely thanks to the three main cast members having made this as a short film some years before) and it’s got some genuine strong laughs in there. The follow up series is enjoyable (and has the nice addition of an energy vampire who feeds on people’s negative emotions) but doesn’t quite match the heights of the film.
Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping
In A Nutshell:- Spinal Tap for pop stars.
Why’s It So Good? It’s a film that not very many people have seen, having performed poorly at the box office, but it definitely deserves a wider audience. The product of The Lonely Island (whose current special The Unauthorised Bash Brothers on Netflix is also well worth a watch), it’s more clearly a comedy than Spinal Tap with several scenes played for broader laughs but is no less funny for that. Andy Samberg, Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone star, write and (in Schaffer and Taccone’s case) direct alongside a who’s who of comedy and music. In the same vein to Tap, even the deleted scenes are worth watching (particularly the throwing around of banal instructions as insults ina fight - “You eat soup!”)
So if we’ve strayed into the realm of comedy that starts to closely resemble that thing that it is (often lovingly) mocking, that probably leads us on to these…
It was pretty much a given that I was going to watch this one, wasn’t it? Let’s face it, I’m clearly locked in with the whole Marvel film thing now. Seems unlikely to change any time soon. Oh, and as always, there may be some level of spoilery-ness about all this. Warning duly delivered.
Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)
Dir. Jon Watts / Dur. 129 mins
The Good:- Picking up pretty much directly where Avengers Endgame left off, it’a a world mourning the loss of its heroes and struggling to come to terms with what’s now being called the Blip (the five years where half of all life disappeared). It’s clear from the off, though, that the tone here is going to be fairly light after the relentless nature of Endgame. Tom Holland and Zendaya are both on good form and have suitably awkward and nerdy chemistry as Peter and MJ and I’m also enjoying the current trend of expanded screen time for Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury. In fact, Tom Holland works really well as the traditional teenage Spider-Man; I really enjoyed the Sam Raimi Spider_man films but was never bowled over by Tobey Maguire as either Peter or Spidey. It brings the focus back in to the main characters after the universe-spanning events of Endgame and feels like the right change of pace. It zips along nicely, it’s good fun and had an extremely satisfying mid-credits tease of a big status quo change for Spider-Man (as well as the return of a familiar face playing a Spider-Man character not seen in the MCU to date).
The Bad:- Jake Gyllenhaal as Mysterio is a little on the lacklustre side; not bad as such but it feels a little like he’s phoning it in. The big reveal (while nicely tying in to previous to Marvel continuity) is nothing of the kind if you know anything at all about Spider-Man comics and, given that I’ve read some over the years, was exactly what I was waiting for so therefore a little disappointing.
Not something that the film can do anything about but this is the first Marvel film without a Stan Lee cameo and I certainly felt its absence.
The Verdict:- It’s enjoyable, funny and has some strong set action pieces. A completely obvious twist and an underwhelming turn from Jake Gyllenhaal stop it from being lifted up to the top tier of Marvel films as well as the feeling that this is largely an epilogue to what has gone before. An enjoyable slice of Marvel fun but not one that’s likely to be at the top of anyone’s Marvel films list.
There’s been a lot of talk about television and some books but what about film, eh? What about those things that I’m always posting reviews about? Well, yes, comedy films have definitely formed part of the sense of humour bedrock. I could probably publish a whole raft of posts on this but let’s pick out some of the ones that are indelibly imprinted on the brain.
Comedy Films
Airplane
In A Nutshell:- A masterclass in silliness.
Why’s It So Good? Because, while it may be very, very silly in terms of gags, it’s actually a remake of a genuine disaster movie and everyone (with one notable exception*) plays it completely straight. It’s that deadpan sense of the characters not being in one the joke that makes it so funny. That and it features a great combination of daft wordplay and strong visual gags. While it does, of course, have a plot to follow, there is still a strong sense of sketch comedy about it which works in its favour. The gag rate is so high that, for those that don’t quite hit, another belter is just around the corner. It’s also one of those films that you find gags you hadn’t seen before almost every time you watch it.
Blazing Saddles
In A Nutshell:- My favourite Mel Brooks
Why’s It So Good? It’s another one, like Airplane, that’s endlessly quotable and I find lines from it popping into my head all the time. Arguably, The Producers is a “better” film but this is the one that I love more. The two central performances from Cleavon Little and Gene Wilder hold the whole thing together (Cleavon Little in particular) but the supporting cast, notabling Harvey Korman, Madeleine Kahn and Slim Pickens are great. This is also probably the film (along with the Muppet Movie) that is most responsible for my love of breaking of the fourth wall, from Harvey Korman talking directly to the audience through to the whole final act of the film.
Ghostbusters
In A Nutshell:- Who you gonna call?
Why’s It So Good? It’s one of those rare beasts - an all-ages comedy beloved by people of all ages. The performances and writing are all superb and, like Airplane and Blazing Saddles, so many lines are permanently imprinted in my head. As I’ve mentioned before, fantasy/sci fi and comedy mixing are tricky beasts to get right but this one absolutely nails it. (Side note:- The sequel gets a lot of stick and it doesn’t reach the near perfection of the original but it’s a lot more enjoyable than people give it credit for.)
The other main ones that would get a mention here are Monty Python’s Life Of Brian and Monty Python And The Holy Grail but I’ve already talked about Monty Python as a whole so take it as read that those ones are also part of the comedy DNA.
There’s another film that would sit here but let’s go into that next time when I talk about a specific genre...
* Stephen Stucker as the manic Johnny is one of my favourite things about it, particularly the fact that his over-the-top performance is largely ignored by the other characters
It’s hard to imagine now but there was a time when this show was new, exciting and a threat to the status quo. Like anything that swiftly becomes beloved, it’s now a part of the furniture (I’d even go so far as to say it’s part of the background) and has lost that energising spark that it once had. The early years, though, were and still are examples of sitcom writing at its finest.
The Simpsons
It’s become (and I am sad to say it) almost an irrelevance now. As it heads towards its thirty first and thirty second seasons as well as its 700th episode, it’s not really a show that anyone talks about anymore. In the early 90s though, I was obsessed.
It’s easy to forget that this was a series that so challenged the traditional image of an American TV family that it was criticised by the first President Bush ('We need a nation closer to the Waltons than to the Simpsons!'). It was bold and brash and showed a family that, although they did love each other, weren’t afraid to show all the other times when they were ready to grab each other by the throat (probably the only other similar show at the time would have been Roseanne). The family dynamic was clear and the characters well-defined and the supporting cast were appealing enough to warrant further fleshing out.
Most importantly? It was genuinely laugh out loud funny in those early years. There are so many Simpsons moments and lines from those first seven or eight years that are indelibly printed upon my long-term comedy memory (next to all the lines from Monty Python, Hitch Hikers, Blackadder, Fawlty Towers, The Young Ones, etc…). Bart joining the scouts, Homer going to space, the competing ice hockey teams, Bart getting an elephant - all of which have a high hit rate of gags that actually hit the mark (Homer spinning round on the floor while trying to read writing on the back of his head had me genuinely crying with laughter the first time I saw it)
Maintaining a consistently funny level over a long period of time becomes difficult. Writers and producers don’t necessarily want to spend thirty years working on the same show and so, by necessity, things change behind the scenes. Also, once you become a massive success, it’s pretty much impossible to be the anarchic fly in the ointment. At some point the Simpsons shifted from gently mocking the rich and famous to courting them for cameo appearances. As for the characters and situations themselves, the lure of the silly and the surreal becomes stronger and stronger when you have more episodes to fill. Sometimes that works and sometimes it moves the show so far away from what it was that it becomes a bit lost.
Is it a patch on what it was in the early years? Definitely not. That shouldn't take away from the fact that this is one of the most influential comedy shows of the last three decades and shouldn't detract from the memory of those early slices of comedic gold.
Let’s crack back on with a bit of excavating of the comedy influences. I’ve talked before about how big an influence upon me Douglas Adams’ brand of science fiction and comedy was. It wasn’t the only sci-fi comedy to have a formative and lasting impact though…
Red Dwarf
Arriving in 1988 and the brainchild of sketch writers Rob Grant and Doug Naylor, Red Dwarf (for those of you who haven’t come across it over the last 31 years) tells the story of Dave Lister, the last human being alive, stuck three million years in the future on the mining ship Red Dwarf with a hologram of his hated dead bunkmate, a being evolved from his stowaway pet cat, an increasingly deranged computer and, from series three onwards, a service mechanoid trying to break free of his programming. It wasn;t an overnight success but was fortunate enough to come along at a time when the BBC still had enough leeway to give a chance to shows that hadn’t found their audience yet.
Sci if comedy often struggles from leaning too hard one way or the other. It might be heavy on the comedy but too loose on the sci fi or full tilt on the sci fi at the expense of the comedy. Red Dwarf, for my part, manages to get the balance right. There are some genuinely decent sci if plots (and in fact one second series episode has pretty much the same plot as an episode of Star Trek The Next Generation which aired a few years later!) and the comedy does that important thing that has run through most of these posts so far - it gets the character dynamic spot on.
Lister and Rimmer have the classic antagonistic but co-dependent relationship that has been the backbone of many a sitcom beforehand and since. Nowhere does this become clearer than during season 7 which only features Rimmer in a few episodes as Chris Barrie had decided to leave the show and the quality very much suffers as a result. Bringing in a version of Lister’s long lost love Kochanski as a substitute doesn’t give the same feel. Fortunately for all, Chris Barrie decided to come back for the following series.
It’s also one of the few series where the tie-in media is just as worthwhile. Rob Grant and Doug Naylor wrote two books together (under the combined name of Grant Naylor) and a further book each separately following the dissolution of their writing partnership and all are fascinating remixes of existing concepts and plots from TV episodes. They offer a richness to the characters backstories as well as freeing them from the constraints of a BBC budget to allow them to tell the familiar stories in a newer and arguably more emotional way. If you can track down copies, definitely give those a read.
Red Dwarf is one of those rare beasts that is still going strong. It’s found a new lease of life on Dave in the last few years and, while not quite at the heights of the glory days, is far funnier than a thirty year old sitcom has any right to be.
Speaking of thirty year old sitcoms, let’s have a look at one next time that, in the early days at least, was a true obsession…
Ah, you can't really move for comic book adaptations these days. You also can’t move for reboots/remakes either. Let’s go with one that ticks both of those boxes.
Hellboy (2019)
Dir. Neil Marshall / Dur. 121 mins
In A Nutshell:- Time to dust off Hellboy again for something similar but different.
The Good:- If you’re a fan of the Hellboy comics then this movie has been squarely aimed at you. From the opening Mexican wrestling/vampire sequence to the closing scene teasing the return of a familiar character, almost every element of this film has its roots within the comic somewhere. The storyline itself largely mixes together a number of elements from The Wild Hunt and The Storm & The Fury comic arcs with some key changes.
David Harbour makes an enjoyable enough Hellboy - the spectre of Ron Perlamn still looms over the whole thing a little but Harbour does enough to make it feel like the same character without aping the previous performance. Stephen Graham as a Scouse pig monster turns in a fun vocal performance and Milla Jovovich takes her villainous role seriously without going too far over the top.
The character design and effect s work is impressive in places too with a suitably creepy way of movement for Baba Yaga being a highlight.
The Bad:- While it may be doing its best to include as much from the comics as possible, this has the unfortunate effect of making the whole thing feel overstuffed. There’s so much going and so many little back stories to set up (Hellboy, Alice, Captain Daimio, The Osiris Club, Nimue, The Grugach, Lobster Johnson, Baba Yaga) that it leaves a fair chunk of the film given over to exposition and flashbacks. It makes the whole film feel crowded and it could have done with a bit of breathing room from time to time.
I’m not opposed to blood and guts in films but it does feel unnecessarily violent at times and the uses of profanity feel adolescent and out of place at times. Ian McShane is basically playing the Ian McShane character that he now always plays and so, for me, I didn't buy him as Professor Bruttenholm.
I’m also getting tired of films ending with a selection of epilogue scenes designed to set things up for a sequel. It would be nice to just have a film stand alone with the possibility of a sequel left unteased (because, let’s face it, based on box office, this film isn’t going to get one).
The Verdict:- While nowhere near the car crash that the reviews would have you believe, it’s definitely not as successful as the previous films and does suffer by comparison. In making a laudable attempt to represent some of the elements and characters not shown in the other films (and wisely keeping Liz Sherman and Abe Sapien out of this one to reduce the comparisons), it tries to bite off more than it can chew and ends up with a mouth full of half-chewed bits. If you’re a fan of Hellboy, it’s definitely worth a watch but don’t expect it to match up to the Guillermo Del Toro originals.
Alright, it has been relatively Disney-themed around here but this is Pixar - it’s a subtle distinction given that they are a wholly owned subsidiary of Disney but a distinction nonetheless.
Toy Story 4
Dir. Josh Cooley / Dur. 100 mins
In A Nutshell:- The final film. Again. For real this time. Until the next time.
The Good:- Pixar know how to craft films. In the twenty four years since they kicked off with the first Toy Story, there is no doubt that they have honed that craft with each successive release. Back for another instalment after what very much seemed like the last film (which featured quite the emotional gut punch at the point where it looked like they might - just might - go out on a surprisingly bleak moment), it features all the characters you love with a beefed up role for a returning cast member (absent from Toy Story 3 and you find out why here) and some welcome new additions, particularly in the form of Key and Peele’s Ducky and Bunny and a selection of creepy ventriloquist dummies (who move like they’re being operated in the same way as Thunderbirds-style marionettes).
Forky makes a fun addition and the filmmakers slyly sidestep the question of what makes a toy “live” in the world of Toy Story and what doesn’t. Tony Hale is clearly also having fun in the role as is Keanu Reeves as Duke Caboom, the Canadian answer to Evel Knievel.
It is, as you would expect from a Toy Story film, funny, exciting, heart-warming and emotional and it definitely feels like this is the end point for these characters - if Toy Story 3 was about Andy growing up and moving on then Toy Story 4 is about Woody doing the same.
The Bad:- If I do have a criticism of it, it’s that it doesn’t quite have the same emotional heft as Toy Story 3. It feels very much like an extended epilogue to the trilogy rather than a necessary end point. While it does offer a definitive feeling full stop to the franchise, you could still watch the first three and still get the same sense of closure.
The Verdict:- Is it worth a watch? Definitely - it’s funny and entertaining in a way that’s consistent with the other Toy Story films. Is it necessary? Probably not as Toy Story 3 was also a fine finish to the series so there’s a slight sense that this is a little superfluous. Fortunately, Pixar’s standards are such that their films are always worth watching. If you’re after another fix of Woody, Buzz and the rest, this will hit the spot.
We’re entering a slightly strange run of films here. They’re not the one that many people remember and are definitely outside the format of the regular Disney animated features, being more a collection of shorts (sometimes themed, sometimes not so much) produced during and immediately after the Second World War.
Saludos Amigos (1943)
Dir. Norman Ferguson, Wilfred Jackson, Jack Kinney, Hamilton Luske and Bill Roberts
Based Upon:- A trip to South America...
The One Where
Disney animators go on a jolly to South America in order to bolster US relationships with countries being courted by Nazi Germany (no, really).
General Viewing Notes
It’s a very odd film and is almost ludicrously short (clocking in at an ultra-minimal 42 minutes). It’s a mixture of live action and animation featuring crowd-pleasers Donald Duck and Goofy and is more like an animated travelogue. It also has slightly more the fell of something Warner Bros would do with the constant breaking of the fourth wall (but in a safer, less anarchic way than the Looney Tunes cartoons).
Disney Tropes
None really - it’s not like any of the other films so far (not even Fantasia, the other outlier) so you've not got much by way of trope material here.
Things You Notice As An Adult
- It feels a little like the film was produced as a justification for sending the animators off on a lovely holiday to various South American countries. Almost as if this was the assignment to prove that there was some educational worth in their visit (“What I Did On My South American Holiday”).
- Jose Carioca, the Brazilian parrot character introduced in this film, speaks largely in untranslated Portugese which feels quite refreshing.
Classic Songs - Are They?
There are two songs during the “Aquarela do Brasil” (“Watercolour Of Brazil”) segment ("Brazil" and "Tico-Tico no Fubá") but it’s not really a song-and-dance sort of film in the same way as the others.
Any Good Then?
It’s a diverting enough piece but feels very throwaway, partly due to unusual origins, structure and length. Interesting to see something different from what will become the standard Disney format in future. Is it one I;d watch again? Probably not but it doesn’t outstay its welcome (I’m looking at you, Bambi).
Next One Of These
Another lesser known effort from the war years.
I know I’ve stated previously that this blog was largely trying to be positive about things as there is enough of the internet railing against things that people think are shit. Today is going to fail on that point...
Bambi (1942)
Dir. Supervising Director: David Hand; Sequence Directors: James Algar, Samuel Armstrong, Graham Heid, Bill Roberts, Paul Satterfield and Norman Wright
Based Upon:- Bambi, A Life in the Woods (Austrian novel, 1923) by Felix Salten
The One Where
A whole lot of nothing happens apart from that one bit that everyone remembers.
General Viewing Notes
This film is five minutes longer than Dumbo but feels about three times as long. It really, really dragged for me and I found myself clock-watching most of the way through. Remarkable how different a feel this has just one film further on. The animals' cutesy kid voices are deeply irritating - I genuinely hated them. To try and find something positive to say, the animation does looks great in a lot of places and the movements of the deer in particular feel very well observed. Also, the depiction of the parenting relationship between Bambi and his father feels less sentimental than in other Disney efforts (surprising given the sickly sweet, cutesy nature of much of the film).
Disney Tropes
- Dead Parent - It’s the one thing that everyone remembers about this film (Bambi’s mum) and is the archetypal Disney Dead Parent (DDP). What is surprising is that it happens well over halfway into the film - in my memory, I had thought that it happens much earlier.
- Cute Animal Montage - To be honest, most of the film seems to consist of cute animal montages. There really isn’t that much more to the film.
It’s That Voice Again
Sterling Holloway is back, this time as Bambi’s friend, Flower the Skunk.
Things You Notice As An Adult
- The theme music for Man (who is a more threatening presence for not being seen) feels a little reminiscent of the Jaws theme.
- There’s a very odd tonal shift after Bambi loses his mother. It switches from Bambi’s father telling him that he’ll never see his mother again into an extremely jaunty spring song.
Classic Songs - Are They?
It’s unusual in that it doesn’t really have any songs per se (apart from April Showers and the Spring Song which are more like prominent parts of the soundtrack than actual songs within the film). Maybe that lack is what makes it feel longer than it is.
Any Good Then?
From my point of view, no. I really did not enjoy this one at all and found it a hard slog to get through. I had hoped that, having not seen it since being a youngster, my attitude toward it may have changed but sadly that was not to be the case.
Next One Of These
The most famous of all the Disney films (this comment may contain a hint of sarcasm…)
Oh yeah, I was doing this, wasn’t I? Well, let’s pick it back up again and get through some of the backlog, shall we?
Dumbo (1941)
Dir. Supervising Director: Ben Sharpsteen; Sequence Directors: Norman Ferguson, Wilfred Jackson, Bill Roberts, Jack Kinney and Samuel Armstrong
Based Upon:- Dumbo, the Flying Elephant (American Roll-A-Book, 1939) by Helen Aberson
The One Where
Everyone seems to think to think it’s reasonable to abandon/put in mortal danger what is effectively a baby.
General Viewing Notes
It’s surprisingly short, clocking in at a minimalist 64 minutes (which technically these days would probably qualify it as a short film), but that’s no bad thing. After the experimental exercise that was Fantasia, we’re back in more traditional Disney territory now with cute character designs, songs and a story with a moral. The one thing that is slightly different is that there’s no real villain to speak of in this one - no one’s out and out the “baddie”.
Disney Tropes
- Small Animal Sidekick - Following on from Jiminy Cricket, we have another small animal as a sidekick to the main character in the form of Timothy Mouse.
- Parental Separation - Alright, it’s not the full-on “Death Of A Parent” that will become a staple of most Disney and kids films in general but Mrs Jumbo does spend most of the film forcibly separated from her child.
It’s That Voice Again
A couple of first appearances for vocal artistes who will become regulars in Disney films throughout the next couple of decades. Sterling Holloway voices the Stork and will later become known for Kaa in The Jungle Book, Flower in Bambi, The Cheshire Cat in alice In Wonderland and, most famously, Winnie The Pooh. Verna Felton voices both the Elephant Matriarch and Mrs Jumbo and will go on to provide voices for the Fairy Godmother in Cinderella, Winnie (another elephant) in The Jungle Book, Aunt Sarah in Lady And The Tramp, Flora in Sleeping Beauty and The Queen Of Hearts in Alice In Wonderland.
Things You Notice As An Adult
- I loved the “Pink Elephants On Parade” segment as a child but it is genuinely creepy and borderline terrifying in places. The shot of an elephant composed entirely of elephant heads is genuinely the stuff of nightmares.
- Also, the whole catalyst for the Pink Elephants sequence is a child getting accidentally pissed. Not something that you’re likely to see in a modern children’s film (if you’re about point out Elliott getting pissed by psychic link in E.T., that film’s nearly 40 years old so I don’t think you can call it “modern” anymore…)
- The crows - to a modern sensibility, they are a little problematic. Are they out and out racist? They’re certainly uncomfortably close to stereotypical racist portrayals of the time. That said, they’re the only characters (other than his mother and Timothy) who seem to actually display any empathy for Dumbo. I think I’m going to take the easy way out on this one and just leave them be...
Classic Songs - Are They?
Yes, definitely. Pink Elephants On Parade” and “When I See An Elephant Fly” are definite classics but I’d forgotten about “Casey Junior” (ludicrously catchy) and “The Song Of The Roustabouts” (definite shades of Heigh ho).
Any Good Then?
Absolutely. Dumbo himself is utterly charming in the way that they have animated him and the plot, characterisation and music all move along at such a brisk pace that the film is over before you know it. This very much fits the template for a Disney animated film and has justifiably earned its place as a classic.
Next One Of These
My least liked Disney film (out of all the ones I’ve seen) and one I’m not looking forward to...
