Director's Report Card: Mel Brooks (1991-1995)

9. Life Stinks
Definitely feels like experiment on Brooks’ behalf. The film is slightly more straight-faced then what you’d expect from him as it does attempt to seriously examine the world of homeless people. However, you get the feeling that he can’t completely commit to the material. So there are just as many typical Brooks gags as there are serious moment. But these goofy moments feel totally out of place and stick out like sore thumbs. They hurt the film in the long run, especially considering that many of these gags aren’t the best.

Lesley Ann Warren gives a really good performance, surprisingly, bringing a real melancholy to the role, though you do feel like the part was written for Madeline Kahn. The scene were Brooks and her dance around an abandoned factory plays like a scene from a forties’ musical-comedy and is easily the best part of the film, full of a sweeping, goofy, sincerity. Sadly, this feeling is missing from much of the rest of the picture. [Grade: C+]


10. Robin Hood: Men in Tights
Better then it gets credit for. Easily on the same level as “Spaceballs” and number four, behind “Young Frankenstein,” on my list of favorite Mel Brooks films. Almost all of the gags hit, with the rapping minstrels and Don Deluise’s godfather being the only real duds. There are an enough solid gags in this one, that if one misses, you’re immediately sent to another funny set-up, just like in the best of stupid gag movies.

Cary Elwes gives his best performance since “The Princess Bride,” Roger Rees gives a great riff on Alan Rickman, and Mark Blankfield sacrifices all dignity in his role. Also watch out for a pre-fame Dave Chappelle, Isaac Hayes, Tracey Ullman, Patrick Stewart, and Dick Van Patten.

“Men in Tights” is extremely goofy but not in a simple-minded way. It’s silly but rarely all that dumb and enduring in its own way to its audience. Probably one of Brook’s more minor films, but I like it none the less. [Grade: B+]


11. Dracula: Dead and Loving It
Another fairly obvious attempt to recapture the success of “Young Frankenstein.” I’d like to say that this doesn’t hit as much as that one simply because I’ve never like “Dracula” as much as I do “Frankenstein,” but truthfully, this just isn’t as good.

Peter MacNicol is a great Renfield and gets the most laughs. Leslie Nielson gives it the old college try as the Count and produces a couple of chuckles. Mel Brooks is a good Van Helsing, proving again he does better in supporting role then in the lead.

The number of gags that work and those that don’t can pretty much be split right down the middle. There are some enduring goofy moments, such as the chandelier gag or Dracula’s dream. However, too many of the moments, some of which are potentially hilarious, such as the foundation of blood bit, fall flat. And none of the gags are as hilarious as anything from the other horror parody. The picture is sadly lacking in replay value too. This is just a silly gag movie, with little else to offer. [Grade: B-]

Mel seems more-or-less retired these days. And why shouldn't he be? The dude is friggin' old. His legacy is secure.

Director's Report Card: Mel Brooks (1976-1987)

5. Silent Movie
Brook’s potency as a comedy writer comes from verbal wit, so doing a silent picture cuts down on how funny this could have been. What we are left with are a handful of amusing sight gags and some half-cooked satire on Hollywood.

We’re doing okay until about halfway through until momentum is lost, like it often is in gag based comedies, and we just have to trudge through the rest of the movie as the story goes through its steps.

The central cast of Brooks, Marty Feldman, and Dom DeLuise are actually composed of some of Brooks’ weakest reoccurring actors. The collection of celebrity cameos feel more like they where put into the film for marketing reasons then for anything else. Supposedly this was suppose to be a parody of silent comedies ala Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton, but I didn’t really get that feeling nor is it a good idea to do a parody of comedies. [Grade: C]


6. High Anxiety
Similar to “Young Frankenstein” in that it takes pot-shots at a specific set of films instead of just a wide genre. In general, parodies of this sort are not as successful simply because they limit themselves so much.

Still, “High Anxiety” does get pretty good mileage out Hitchcock’s stuff. There’s never too long a period without at least a chuckle producing moment. The movie also has the best “Psycho” parody I’ve ever seen. The story does drag in the middle because the mystery is given more focus in parts then just being silly.

Cloris Leachman and Harvey Korman are given thankless jobs in pretty one-bit roles though Madeline Kahn and Ron Carey get a couple laughs. Decent but not a must-see. [Grade: B]


7. History of the World, Part I
Definitely the worst thing Brooks has ever had his hand in. The thing that really bothers me about “History of the World, Part I” is it’s reliance on low-brow humor. Not to say that Brooks hasn’t made naughty jokes before and not to say he hasn’t done it well, but the majority of the jokes here are of that variety. In small doses it works, but that type of humor just isn’t where Brooks’ strengths are. “The French Revolution” segment is definitely the worst victim of this. The Roman segment seems to go on forever and is mostly laughless. (And also features a pot joke. Come on, Mel, are you really stooping that low?)

A group of celebrities march through and do their cameo thing but nobody is really memorable. The Spanish Inquisition musical number is really the only part that reaches the gut busting levels of his past films and pretty much the only reason to see this one. The ending also features a dancing Hitler (always good) and a more-or-less preview for Brook’s next film. Still, I can’t say I’d look forward to Part II. [Grade: D+]


8. Spaceballs
Most professional critics, at the time of its original release, pointed to “Spaceballs” as the turning point for Mel Brooks, when his films went from being on the cutting edge of parody to something slightly less then the cutting edge. I can’t really tell you where that attitude came from because, all things considered, “Spaceballs” is pretty funny.

The movie is, as you’d expect, packed from start to finish with gags and, surprise!, most of them are actually good. Maybe not super-inspired comic genius, but the funny is brought. Ludicrous speed, the ship execution, and John Hurt’s cameo all classify as minor classics in my book. The movie also proves to be one of Brooks’ most quotable. (In the right area a “What didn’t anybody tell me my ass was so big?” or a “Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.” will get you a nice response.) One of the best reoccurring gags in the movie is the mocking of “Star Wars” merchandising. (Lucas would only give the movie the okay if Brooks promised not to produce any merchandise. Little bitter perhaps, Mel?)

One of the best things about the movie is just how successfully it copies the “Star Wars” look. I’d say the special effects are at least as good as anything else you’d find in the original trilogy. The cast also help things along. Dark Helmet might not be the role Rick Moranis was born to play (That’s Seymour Krelborn, by the way) but his “villainous” turn is still one of his best. Bill Pullman is underrated. Let’s face it, the guy has proven his skills in just about every genre and he’s pretty funny here to. And hey, let’s give the required shout-out to John Candy and Dom Delusie. (Am I the only one who thinks the Pizza the Hut make-up is a little disturbing?)

I can fault the movie for some of its really obvious visual jokes. (They still made me laugh) and its bad ‘80s funk/soul soundtrack, which is distracting. All things considered, “Spaceballs” is a great time. Brooks, forget about that awful cartoon show and give us “Spaceballs II: The Quest for More Money!” [Grade: B+]

Director's Report Card: Mel Brooks (1968-1974)

So, here's some older reviews I've been sitting on for a while, debating wither or not I should rewrite them to be more up to snuff with my current quality or just be lazy and post them as they are.

Well, today I decided to be lazy. Here's the first part of the Mel Brooks Director's Report Card.

1. The Producers
Perhaps what makes this film work more then anything else is Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder. Wilder is a nervous, twitching wreck while Mostel is trying to swindle everyone. The two play off each other nicely.

The central premise of the film is hilarious stuff. Not just purposely creating a flop to get rich, but making a musical about Hitler. It’s this kind of thinking that makes (Or made?) Mel Brooks the comic genius he is (Was?), taking something nobody would think of as absurd, and making it so. This kind of tactic could just be offensive. Luckily Brooks is a really funny guy. Some of the skit here are just side splittingly funny, the Nazi playwright, the beatnik lead in the play, the flamboyantly gay stage director. These are just really great comic moments and there really isn’t any more to say about it, other then perhaps I’ve never really liked the stage musical version of this. [Grade: A]


2. The Twelve Chairs
When you think about Mel Brooks’ films today, it’s surprising to watch his first two features. While “The Twelve Chairs” and “The Producers” certainly aren’t short on zaniness, compared to the gag-driven parody films that dominate his career, they are more character based and even somewhat restrained.

All the best humor here comes from the interaction of the three very strongly rendered lead characters. There is plenty of physical humor, I mean, this is basically a chase film after all, and while a good deal of it is funny, some of it very funny; it can’t compare with the barbs the leads trade.

Ron Moody is quite good as the short-fused and usually nervous Ippolit Vorobyaninov. Frank Langella, back when he was still a heart-throb, brings a great deal of wry slyness to his part. And, even though I know it’s hard to believe, Dom DeLuise was actually funny once. He fully commits himself to the goofiness of his part, never stopping once for the sake of personal dignity. Mel Brooks himself also gives one of his best performance in a small supporting role as the simple and often drunk man-servant Tikon. The very catchy opening song, “Hope for the Best (Expect the Worst)” also deserves mention.

The story does drag a bit in the middle and I don’t think it would have hurt the movie any if some of the gags related to the theater trope was cut. The occasional use of sped-up footage doesn’t work either. Mostly forgotten today, “The Twelve Chairs” has plenty of laughs in it and, though not the director’s funniest film, is one of his better written. [Grade: B]


3. Blazing Saddles
It’s sad to say that this movie would probably never get made today. It’s so rare that a film tackles a serious subject, one like racism, with humor. And it’s not like Mel Brooks’ humor is exactly subtle either. Basically, “Blazing Saddles” is a knee-slapping funny film, not beyond fart jokes and silly sight gags, but still has a brain about it. Somehow the two methods blend and we are presented with what I’ll call smart stupid humor. The movie makes points with gags. That is such a simple concept but works so incredibly well.

The cast is excellent, with the supporting parts being the most memorable. Not to say Cleavon Little is bad in the lead, he’s good, with his constant state of bemusement at everything. But the likes of Gene Wilder, Madeline Kahn, Harvey Korman, Alex Karras, and Slim Pickings easily walk away with the show. And how about the ending when the movie explodes out into full fledged goofiness? Comedy gold.

Its mixture of astute, if blunt, social commentary, sublime silliness, and an occasional naughty streak makes “Blazing Saddles” the director’s best film and one of the funniest comedies ever made. [Grade: A]


4. Young Frankenstein
This is probably better appreciated by horror fans then by most other people. Sure, “Young Frankenstein” works great as a gag comedy, full of wonderfully funny actors being wonderfully funny, as well as a very interesting melancholy undertone; but there are so many subtle nods and riffs on scenes from just about every one of the classic Universal Frankenstein films. Yes, the bogermeister with the wooden arm or the dart throwing gag, are great, but if you know where they come from, they are better. I known because I remember watching the film years before I became a big horror geek and laughing a lot, but I remember laughing more watching it more recently.

Of course the cast is great, with only Peter Boyle and Marty Feldman being some of the great performances here. Though not as smart as “The Producers” or “Blazing Saddles,” “Young Frankenstein” certainly stands as one of Mel Brooks’ best films. [Grade: A-]

So, I made a movie...

I know I don't normally use this blog to promote my other projects. But since this is a film-related blog, and we're talking about a film, I figured it was at least appropriate.

I wanted to upload it to a classy website like Vimeo, but was having trouble making that work. So then I tried a less classy website, like Veoh or Dailymotion, but was still having trouble getting the upload to go all the way through. So it wound up on Megavideo. (Where I expect it to be ignore. The only thing people watch on Megavideo are pirated movies and TV shows.) Yes, I'm aware of the pop-up that appears when you click play. I apologize for that.

It's called "Knowing Mike Barton" and is suppose to be a depressing comedy. I worked very hard to pull off this lo-fi look so, yes, if you're wondering, it's suppose to look that crappy. It's about a half hour long and does contain adult language.

Anyway, here's the link:

Knowing Mike Barton - MEGAVIDEO

I'd really appreciated if you took the time out of your day to watch and leave a comment on this blog below. Viewer feedback is essential.

Director's Report Card: David O. Russell (1999-2004)

3. Three Kings
If nothing else, “Three Kings” shows David O’Russell at his peak as a stylist. The film is shot in way that’s halfway between MTV and the art house. While the slow-motion explosions and scenes of gun play are action movie 101, the swirling skies and internal body parts aren’t exactly something you see all the time. On a purely visual level, it’s O’Russell’s most impressive film. It’s pure eye-candy if nothing else.

The movie is, in itself, Not Your Typical War Story. The First Gulf War is still an under-explored piece of history in our country, as far as cinema goes. The lack of action seen during the war seems to be a reoccurring concepts in these movies. The beginning of the movie is real promising. Our ragtag team of heroes, all perfectly normal dudes with shitty day jobs, head off not to save the day or rescue anybody, but for gold. It’s a selfish, immoral motivation and very refreshing. If the characters had remained like that throughout the entirety of the story, I’d have a more positive reaction.

But, no, within thirty or so minutes they wind up defending a group of captured Iraqi rebels and my interests went way down. The heroes decide to be all honorable and stuff and do the right thing. Soon, the story gets wrapped up in political stuff and big action parts. While the directorial zest keeps things spicy, the story is strictly hoo-hum from here on in.

Not to say the movie totally looses me at this point. The cast is a winner, if nothing else. George Clooney, still primarily known at this point as that handsome doctor on “ER,” really distinguish himself as an actor with parts like this. The character plays up his roguish, cynical aspect to good effect. Spike Jonze is highly amusing as the redneck private that would probably come off as annoying in a lesser movie. The same goes for Jamie Kennedy’s role. Mark Whalberg brings in a balanced, thoughtful performance and his subplot proves to be the juiciest part of the later second part of the flick. All of the torture is handled dynamically (and comes off rather eerie these days) and the philosophical conversation he has with his interrogator makes for intriguing material.

The movie has been sold as a dark comedy. The subplot involving the reporter lost in the desert is the primary source of humor, in addition to American pop culture stuff cropping up unexpectedly. (Seeing high-end luxury cars driving around the desert sure is unexpected, if nothing else.) So, “Three Kings” probably could’ve kick a whole lot more ass then it does, but it’s still a daring, exciting film. [Grade: B]


4. I Heart Huckabees
The concept of an existential comedy is one that is bound to cause a certain amount of “Huh?”-ing among the audiences, but I totally dug it. First off, the movie is hilarious. The story moves in a hundred different directions at its own bent pace but, within in the context of the film, it really works. Russell’s direction is on the same wavelength as he allows himself to go off into the deep end with many of the images presented within. There are so many hilarious scenarios here that it’s hard to narrow them down.

Russell has assembled an excellent cast, as the material requires a very talent assortment of actors if it is to work at all. Everyone gets their fair share of the hilarity, from wacky-everyman Jason Schwartzman to the continuously surprising Mark Whalberg.

Best of all, the movie does manage to actually get something out of it. There is truly some interesting existential philosophy presented. It’s not for everybody but those with a flavor for the lucidly loopy and the philosophic are bound to have a field day. [Grade: A-]

Yep, I skipped the short films. Because I'm lazy.

Apparently, Russell is a crazed, childish, control-freak of a director and you can find some real horror stories about that. But who cares, right? I don't have to put up with him. And, heck, he makes some pretty amusing movies.

Right now, Russell has two movies in post-production. "Nailed," the long in development Jessica-Biel-gets-a-nail-in-the-head political satire, is finally close to completion. More likely to come out first is "The Fighter," an Oscar-friendly sounding movie about Irish boxers in the 1980s with Mark Whalberg, Christian Bale, and Amy Adams. Out of those two projects, it's probably not hard to figure out which of those I'm more looking forward too. Either way, I'll see both of them, because of my crippling Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

Director's Report Card: David O. Russell (1994-1996)

I know I haven't updated this blog in a long time. So, sorry. Finals and working on various projects have kept me busy. Here's the David O. Russell report card.

1. Spanking the Monkey
“Spanking the Monkey” starts off as a dry, low-key, character and dialogue driven comedy with occasional moments of laugh-out-loud hilarity. (Most of which involving dogs and masturbation.)

Jeremy Davis does really well and, with his distinctive voice and unique screen presence, immediately drawls the audience’s eye. Alberta Watson gives a very thoughtful performance and it’s obvious a lot of work went into the role. The two actors have a definite chemistry and a certain amount of tension between them that is pivotal to the film’s success. Benjamin Hendrickson and Carla Gallo have less to work with in their parts but both also give good supporting roles.

Towards the midsection of the story, things become more dramatic and the comedy values begins to all but disappear. As with almost all films that shift gears like that halfway through, the final half is decidedly less successful and entertaining then the first. The attempts to pull of a “serious indie film” look, even when aided by Russell’s nice visual work, are never fully convincing. Still, two wonderful lead performances hold your attention and keep you watching even through the depressing final act and heavily symbolic ending. [Grade: B]


2. Flirting with Disaster
I can’t even begin to imagine how David O. Russell’s mind works. As an amateur screenwriter, I have enough difficulty putting together a straight ahead story that flows properly. How Russell can create a story like this that takes so many different twist and turn, goes in several different directions and then goes back on those choices, and yet never falters in pacing or comical punch is just beyond me at the moment, I guess. That “Flirting with Disaster” works so well even with a story that is too wacky for the adjective “madcap” is a testament to the skill of the makers.

Maybe it works so well because, despite all the insanity that unfolds and all the varied and distinct characters brought in here, we have a likable two lead characters to relate too. Ben Stiller and Patricia Arquette play off each other very well and are totally believable as a married couple, even when the characters are at odds (which is during most of the movie.) The naming of their baby is also the main quest here (even if it doesn’t appear to be) and that steel objective keeps the story grounded as well.

The ensemble cast is really phenomenal with more great performances then I have room to point out. I will single out a young Josh Brolin, who plays a character much different then the type your use to seeing him in, and great supporting turns from instantly recognizable character actors Richard Jenkins and David Patrick Kelly.

If I haven’t brought to attention how funny this is, I will now. The movie is hilarious in spots and totally surprising. You never know what will happen next and that level of unpredictability makes this a hugely successful comedy. I’ll admit, despite being really funny in spots, its never as gut busting hilarious as it could be. There is also a minor gripe about Stiller’s character (whose selfishness is annoying at times) and a gag involving Indian wrestling which seems contrived. Still, I liked the characters and the out-of-control pitch of the story enough that these aren’t really issues. “Flirting with Disaster” is an extremely well-written, lovable, funny movie that you can watch over and over again and never looses its strengths. [Grade: A-]

Director's Report Card: Alexandre Aja (2006-2008)

3. The Hills Have Eyes
Casual horror fans might not have even seen Wes Craven’s original “The Hill Have Eyes” and therefore probably don’t understand the level of anxiety that accompanied serious fright fanatics at the news of this remake. Serious fans can get touchy when a favorite of their’s is being redone, especially after the many subpar adaptations a lot of classic have received recently. Even a talented filmmaker would have trouble meeting the skill of Craven’s best film. Though Aja had one impressive horror behind him at this point, his mettle was still fully unproven.

Luckily, all in all, the new take on “The Hills Have Eyes” is pretty good. The story is faithful to the original and really only makes two serious changes to the tale. My biggest bone of contention would be with the changes made to the family of cannibalistic madman. Originally, the murderous clan was equal in numbers to the Carter folks and many deliberate comparisons were made between the two, suggesting that environment has more to do with the vast difference then anything else. In this rendition, the hill dwellers are a small colony and have become grotesquely deformed nuclear mutants. The main villain of the original piece, Papa Jupiter, is barely in this telling at all.

The social subtext of Wes Craven’s vision, the critique of the American family and proper society, has instead been transformed into a metaphor for America’s involvement in Iraq. Hear me out: A strictly conservative father leads his family into a desert area where the technologically advanced group is picked off easily by the primitive native inhabitants. Its only when the liberally minded man takes charge does things turn around for our victims. Reading too much into it? Perhaps. But the presence of an American flag in a key scene surely isn’t by accident.

As just a scare flick, the new “Hills” is successful, too. Aja continues to show a knack for creating intense attack sequences. His mobile home invasion is, dare I say, more suspenseful then Craven’s original. The final confrontation between Doug and Pluto is also a great moment.

The cast is solid and filled with several familiar faces, such as Ted Levine, Robert Joy, and Billy Drago. I might have preferred a more subtle take, the atomic mutants do push believability, but the monsters are created by cool old school make-up and I can’t complain about that. Aja’s visual style adapts well to the flatness of the Nevadan desert and though some say the remake lacks the grindhouse grittiness of the first, the director has create a new sort of grit, empathizing the heat and dirt. There’s plenty of blood too, even in today’s climate of ultra-gory torture horror, this is still one of the bloodiest films I’ve ever seen in a theater, but it’s never used needlessly and always has a point. Perhaps it’s his European roots, but Aja never befalls to the obnoxious trend of rock video shots prevalent in so much horror today. (Except briefly during the opening credits. Yeah, I noticed.) Unlike a lot of remakes, this one is respectful of its originator and was obviously made by fans. As another fan, I approve of the effort. [Grade: B+]


4. Mirrors
I had really hoped that “Mirrors” would be able to overcome its silly concept. I mean, the movie wants to do for reflective surfaces what “Psycho” did for showers. But I trusted the talent involved. So I’m sad to report that “Mirrors” is, to sum it up, dumb. My biggest disappointment is that almost all of Aja’s trademark style seems to be absent. Only twice does anything resembling his typical style rear its head at all.

The red-band trailer gave me hope that, even if the movie sucked, we’d at least get some crazy gore. Not really. There are only two moments and, while both are quite impressive, it amounts to about six minutes of a 110 minute movie. (And we saw most of the action in the R-rated trailer anyway.) The first act is composed mostly of what I call “stock-and-shock” segments. Basically the scare is pitched so far in advance that when it comes, we don’t even get a little jump. Besides, the scare is usually nothing more then something jumping at us or something “spooky” passing by the camera. The overzealous musical score helps none at all and often I was more irritated by the blast of loud cords then anything else.

Kiefer’s character starts out as morose but mildly compelling, but his ex-wife and kids that figure into the subplot are as boring as can be, in particular the kids, who are terrible actors. And what was with Paula Patton’s gratuitous cleavage? Her boobs are always falling out of her shirt and are framed prominently in every scene she’s in. I mean, its distracting.

After Amy Smart, who does nothing by the way, exits the film and the second act starts, things pick up. We basically have Kiefer Jack Bauer-ing every mirror he encounters. Sure, it’s goofy, but at least it’s entertaining. It should be a rule somewhere that the crazier Kiefer becomes, the better the movie gets. If the whole thing was just him punching glass, I would have liked it better. The mystery here is swiped pretty heavily from “The Ring” but didn’t completely bore me.

It wasn’t until the third act, when Busty Mom and Annoying Kids are locked in the house with the evil-mirror bound spirits, that things become uninteresting again. After another neat moment of gore, the movie takes a bizarre hard turn in its last minutes. We get a climatic fight scene that feels like something out of a video game and is tonally unlike anything else before. And then there’s a dumb twist.

Aja does get some atmosphere out of the creepy abandoned mall but any mood is soon crushed by a goofy plot point or a loud blast of music. I think it would be best if Aja stayed away from supernatural horror in the future as its obvious he doesn’t have any wings for it. Oh well. [Grade: C]