Director Report Card: Ivan Reitman (1998)

12. Six Days Seven Nights

According to Wikipedia, “Six Days Seven Nights” was only a minor hit, making back a little more than its budget. I, however, remember the movie being a much bigger deal. I recall the poster being prominently displayed at our local rental place for quite some time. My mother rented it, bought the VHS, and re-watched the film a number of times. Like seemingly every thing Ivan Reitman has made, the film is very indicative of its time. “Six Days Seven Nights” was made back when Harrison Ford was still a viable sex symbol, when most women probably would’ve been happy to spend a week with him on a desert island. The film was also released before Anne Heche’s very public mental breakdown made her a punchline. Though the film has faded from memory, re-watching it takes me right back to 1998.

Robin Monrue is a successful editor of a fashion magazine. She works too hard but has a devoted boyfriend, Frank. The two fly to a French Polynesian island for a week long vacation, where Frank proposes. Immediately afterwards, Robin receives a phone call, work interrupting her scenic vacation. She must fly away from the island for an important meeting. Quinn, a crude and tough pilot, agrees to take her. In route, a thunderstorm blows in. Lightning strikes the plane, forcing a drastic crash landing. The two are stranded on an empty island, forced to work together to survive. It’s not too long before a romance forms between Robin and Quinn.

I imagine “Six Day Seven Nights” was an easy sell for screenwriter Michael Browning, his first of only three credits. The film mashes up two ever-green genres: The shipwreck survival story and the romantic-comedy. The film cribs generously from “Robinson Crusoe,” the most famous of island survival stories. The female protagonist’s name is a likely reference and pirates randomly appear in the middle of the run time. As for the rom-com elements, “Six Days Seven Nights” follows the standard outline for the genre. A man and a woman meted unexpectedly. At first, they dislike each other. The universe tosses them together and romance quickly blooms between the two. It’s not rocket science.

Considering she’s been languishing in obscurity for years now, it’s hard to believe Anne Heche was ever a bankable movie star. In “Six Days Seven Nights,” Heche sports an unconvincing New York accent. Once you get pass that, Heche gives a reasonably likable performance. She has a winning smile, displaying a decent dose of attitude when trading barbs with Ford or her other co-stars. Once on the island, Heche also shows a willingness to wade through rivers, roll down hills, and sleep on the ground. The only time her performance becomes embarrassing is when the character downs some sleeping pills and begins to act very broad and silly. Still, considering her light presence and girl-next-door beauty, it’s not surprisingly that Heche was once primed to become a major movie star.

If Heche was an up-and-comer at the time, Harrison Ford was a proven superstar. In 1998, he was coming off the success of “Air Force One” and the enormous box office of “The Fugitive” was only a few years back. In “Six Days Seven Nights,” Ford isn’t playing the president or a wrongfully accused man. Instead, he’s a scoundrel, introduced tinkering with an old plane in his underwear or getting a massage from his scantily clad girlfriend. Or drunkenly hitting on Heche at the bar. In other words, the film tries to make Ford as unappealing as possible, despite his obvious charm and rugged handsomeness. Harrison doesn’t stretch his acting abilities much. Mostly, he grins, gripes, struggles in the dirt, and plays hero. It’s fun to watch Harrison Ford do these things, so I’m not complaining. However, this is not the deepest material and does not provide Ford with much more to do.

Even when the story goes to more serious places, “Six Days Seven Nights” is a light-hearted comedy. The film is filled with slapstick comedy, deployed broadly. After crash-landing on the island, Robin accidentally inflates a raft inside the plane wreckage, pushing her face against the window. Later, Heche is frightened by a pig while next to a lake. This leads to a sequence where Ford has to fish a snake out of her shorts. The jokes are hardly cutting edge but, occasionally, “Six Days Seven Nights” got a laugh out of me. After the raft incident, Heche gives a blunt response to Ford’s question. After making a navigational mistake, Ford retreats to a bush, cursing in frustration. Too often though, the film is a little too goofy for its own good. This is best exemplified when Robin’s attempt to signal an airplane has her rolling to the ground, setting a tree on fire.

Even if you didn’t know “Six Days Seven Nights” was a romantic-comedic going in, the film lays down its cards relatively early. When Robin and Quinn met in his airplane, they are already sharing some belligerent sexual tension. Before the plane crashes, they have a conversation laced with innuendo about how men and women's different approach to romance. In the second of the six days, Quinn is commenting on how Robin isn’t his type. All of this is obviously setting up the two falling into each other arms. Before leaping off a cliff, to avoid the pirates, Ford plants a kiss on Heche. After washing up in the surf, the two are rolling around in the sand, making out. The two performers share decent enough chemistry but it’s not quite enough to overcome the routine script. At the end, I was mostly thinking about how doomed this relationship is, as the two characters truly don’t have anything in common.

I’ve criticized the tonal changes in Reitman’s previous films, mostly the shift from madcap comedy to maudlin sentimentality in “Kindergarten Cop” and “Junior.” “Six Days Seven Nights” has some tonal shifts of its own. While rowing off the island, Robin and Quinn spot two boats. Just in time, they realize the boat has been captured by pirates. In some ways, the sudden incorporation of action/adventure elements stick out. The pirates shooting a hostage and tossing him overboard definitely seems out of place. However, the movie still manages to keep things light. A tussle between the heroes and the pirates is fairly farcical, with machine guns tossed into the air and people throw into the sand. There’s an element of adventure inherent to the “stranded on an island” concept, so pirates suddenly appearing isn’t too out of the blue. Even if the movie could’ve handled it better.

While Heche and Ford are falling in love on the island, “Six Days Seven Nights” has a routine subplot involving their other mates. From the moment David Schwimmer’s Frank begins ogling Jacqueline Obradors’ Angelina, you know they’ll end up together. The dramatic irony of the two couples swapping partners is too great to pass up. Schwimmer brings an expected level of anxious energy to Frank. (You do wonder how a sweetheart like Heche could end up with a nervous mess like Schwimmer.) Odradors, who spends the whole movie in not-very-much clothing, gives a Charo-worthy performance. The scene where those two wind up in bed is relatively funny, if extraneous. Among the supporting cast is Alison Janney in a routine part as Robin’s boss, bringing some funny energy to a nothing role. Also watch out for Amy Sadaris and Danny Trejo in tiny roles, back before either became much bigger stars.

The pirate business never entirely solidifies. A much better adventure element is when Ford and Heche throw together a replacement for their downed plane, escaping the island. Here, Reitman’s talent for cutting together a colorful montage is nicely utilized. The flying scenes also allow Harrison Ford to show off his piloting skills, as he does his own flying. “Six Days Seven Nights” has a totally superfluous last act. After escaping the island, Robin attempts to return to her life with Frank. Naturally, this is entirely unnecessary. We knew who she was going to end up with before the movie started. Mostly, this is an unneeded resolution of subplot nobody much cared about.

Ivan Reitman’s movies are usually unremarkable to look at. His strengths as a filmmaker rarely includes note-worthy cinematography. “Six Days Seven Nights” is not shot in an exciting fashion. However, the film does take place in some awfully pretty locations. The movie was shot on the Hawaiian island of Kauai, a place of great natural beauty. The scenic rolling beaches are shown off. A notable sequence takes place among the island’s great green mountains, a gorgeous location. Reitman and his team seemed to understand that the exotic, picturesque location is as much a part of the film’s attraction as its two stars.

With the island setting, “Six Days Seven Nights” has a typically tropical flavored soundtrack. Randy Edelman – trading places with Reitman’s other regular composer, James Newton Howard – makes sure the score has lots of steel drums in the mix. It’s a decent bit of music, if not especially memorable. Also befitting the setting, several reggae songs appear on the soundtrack. The band, Taj Mahal, put in an appearance at a party. I’m not really a fan of the genre but it definitely adds an interesting flavor to the movie.

“Six Days Seven Nights” is a decently entertaining flick. The audience gets a few chuckles, the two lead performers are having fun, and the film floats by quickly. It is not, however, especially memorable. The film is the purest form of popcorn, amusing the viewer before drifting quickly out of your memory. The movie does not distinguish itself among its genre, following most of the expected beats. As lazy afternoon viewing, it does fine. There’s nothing wrong with that but don’t expect the movie to make a very big impression on you. [Grade: C+]

Director Report Card: Ivan Reitman (1997)

11. Fathers’ Day

Ivan Reitman spent the first half of the nineties making one popular comedy after another. Whether or not you’re a fan of the films, “Kindergarten Cop,” “Dave,” and “Junior” all made money. “Fathers’ Day” ended that successful streak. Reviews were largely negative. The movie apparently cost 85 million dollars to make but only grossed 28 million domestically. “Fathers’ Day” should’ve been a sure thing. A remake of a well-liked French film, “Les Comperes,” the project brought together Robin Williams and Billy Crystal, two of the biggest comedy stars of the decade. Crystal’s career would never truly recover. Yet is “Fathers’ Day” really that bad?

Jack is a successful lawyer. Dale is a manic-depressive writer. On the same day, both receive a phone call from Collette, a girl each man was intimate with back in college. Collette separately tells Jack and Dale that they fathered her child, Scott. Scott has recently gone missing, chasing after a girl. At first unaware of the other, Jack and Dale go off looking for their boy. Soon, the two cross paths, each uncertain of who is actually Scott’s father. Misadventures ensue.

Fatherhood is a premise Ivan Reitman has touched on before. His previous film was, after all, “Junior.” Parental anxiety boil inside “Kindergarten Cop” as well. And, least we forget, Peter Venkman learning to become a dad in “Ghostbusters II.” (Related: Ivan Reitman’s son, Jason, would have his biggest hit with “Juno,” another story about impending parenthood.) Parenthood and kids are obviously topics ripe with comedic and dramatic potential. “Fathers’ Day” is not an especially deep movie, mostly using its premise as set-up for lots of wacky shenanigans. However, even a film this thin manages to scrap together some decent pathos, concerning the feelings the men have for their potential son. This is most evident in the last act, when both guys happily accept Scott as their boy.

After many ups and downs in the eighties, the “City Slickers” movies made Billy Crystal a genuine box office draw in the nineties. The archetypal Crystal character is an East Coast mensch who is tossed into some kooky environment. “Fathers’ Day” does not strayed too far from this archetype. Crystal’s Jack is a hot-shot lawyer, who usually has a bead on any given situation. A reoccurring gag has Crystal headbutting people any time a scenario gets too hot. Crystal is amusing, producing chuckles when fumbling through a nutty position and is even better when keeping a cool head in crazier scenes.

Long time Robin Williams fans will be very uncomfortable going into “Fathers’ Day.” Williams’ character is introduced putting a loaded gun in his mouth, preparing to commit suicide. Holy shit, talk about harsher in retrospective. As with Crystal, Williams plays a part he’s accustomed to. Dale has a manic personality, prone to emotional outburst. He cries with little warning. While driving, he slams on the break suddenly due to a serial fear of hitting someone. When totally unleashed, Robin Williams can be intolerable. Some scenes in “Fathers’ Day” pushes Williams’ manic humor too far, such as a montage of him trying on different outfits and imaging his first meeting with his newly discovered son. Yet there’s enough honest heart to Williams’ performance, such as when he tells Crystal how much he needs his son, to keep “Fathers’ Day” from being all hollow shtick.

“Fathers’ Day” was undoubtedly sold on Williams and Crystal being on-screen together. Despite never making a movie together before, Crystal and Williams had worked together many times during the Comic Relief charity specials. So, Billy and Robin have a built-in chemistry. Some of the best scenes in “Fathers’ Day” are devoted to the two performers bouncing off each other. When on a dock, trying to convince the mother of Scott’s girlfriend to help them, Williams pretends to cry while Crystal plays it up. A few minutes later, the men realize they’re talking about the same boy. Their reaction is great. Jack nicely plays off a random gambling fit Dale goes through. Similarly, Jack’s bemused reaction to Dale’s strangled driving gets some okay laughs. The two performers are comfortable together and the audience picks up on that.

As the title indicates, “Fathers’ Day” is not a movie about mothers. Despite that, the script does make room for some female performers. Nastassja Kinski gets the short stick as Collette. She has a handful of scenes, near the beginning and end of the film. Kinski, an incredibly talented performer, doesn’t have much more to do than deliver exposition. Her blatant disinterest in the material is clear on her face. Julia Louis-Dreyfus plays Crystal’s new wife. She too only has a few scenes. However, she has some funny moments with the leading men, being the straight man to their comedic antics. For some reason, Louise-Dreyfus was nominated for a Razzie for this perfectly serviceable, fine performance. Honestly, the best actress in the movie might be Haylie Johnson as Nikki, the brainless girl Scott is chasing. Johnson breathlessly delivers the cruel dialogue she’s given.

Ivan Reitman is usually good at putting together a supporting cast. “Fathers’ Day” does not have his hottest cast but features one or two bright spot. Charlie Hofheimer is fine as Scott, gritting his teeth during the awkward scenes. When given more room by the script, Hofheimer has a decent nervous energy. Bruce Greenwood plays Collette’s husband, Scott’s foster dad. Greenwood, a solid character actor, enlivens what could’ve been an empty role. Charles Rocket has a funny scene as a mechanic, who goes from hostile to frightened of the movie’s heroes. Jared Harris has a tiny role as a cartoonish drug dealer, fuming through a handful of lines. Also, I must mention Mel Gibson’s bizarre cameo as a body piercer. I’m not sure why he’s in the movie but it’s certainly a memorable moment.

“Fathers’ Day” goes for big belly laughs and does get them from time to time. Probably the stand-out moment in the flick occurs when Robin has the unconscious Scott in a hotel shower. While trying to clean the boy’s vomit off his chest, Crystal is on the phone with his wife. Adding to the absurdity is the room service guy coming in at the same time. This scene escalates nicely in silliness. When meeting a rock band, Williams pretends to be a European record executive. Robin Williams was often mocked for his goofy voices but this scene did get laughs out of me, especially everyone’s acceptance of his story. “Fathers’ Day’s” big climax centers around an escalating fist fight at a rock concert, another amusingly silly sequence.

Like many gag comedies, not every joke inside “Fathers’ Day” is successful. Bruce Greenwood ending up inside a Port-a-Potty as it rolls down the hill is a sequence that goes far too long. The film actually returns to it a few times, the audience getting more tired each time. A scene focuses on Robin Williams’ burning his crotch on hot coffee and leaping into a bath. Billy Crystal’s phobia of mimes is a gag that pays off in the limpest way. Williams’ eccentricities are piled a little too high, even if the actor does his best to ground the part. This is best emphasized during the bit where he goes crowd-surfing at a rock concert.

“Fathers’ Day” wouldn’t be a nineties era Ivan Reitman movie without a number of a odd tonal shifts. The subplot about Scott owning money to a pair of drug dealers comes out of nowhere. Occasionally, it threatens to push this zany comedy into a darker direction which is not appreciated at all. “Fathers’ Day” never becomes sappy or maudlin, like “Kindergarten Cop” or “Junior,” which is beneficial to the final project. The reveal at the end, concerning which of the central characters are actually Scott’s father, is lazy screenwriting. Still, “Fathers’ Day” attempts to plop an emotional bow on at the end and that sort of works.

Ivan Reitman’s habit to insert pop songs into his movies actually makes some sense in “Fathers’ Day.” The boy is part of the mid-nineties power-pop/punk scene. The band Sugar Ray, back when they were a slightly edgy rock band instead of a wimpy pop group, are actually reoccurring characters. The Muffs show up on-screen too. Does that justify the director playing “The Impression That I Get” by the Mighty Mighty Bosstones twice? No. Paul McCartney songs, “Young Boy” and “The World Tonight,” play over the opening and closing credits. Like most latter-day McCartney songs, they’re listenable but forgettable. James Newton Howard’s score is better than his previous scores for Reitman. This one features some okay guitar and piano driven melodies.

“Fathers’ Day” is not a comedy classic waiting to be rediscovered. It’s totally minor and relatively forgettable. However, in the moment, it provides some laughs and leaves the audience with a smile. Billy Crystal and Robin Williams are both funny and the script plays to their strengths. That the film would bomb and garner acidic reviews is surprising. This seems like the kind of easy going crowd-pleaser that would’ve done alright at the box office. Go in with low expectations and you might enjoy it. [Grade: B-]

Director Report Card: Ivan Reitman (1994)

10. Junior

I’m sure there was some validity to the idea, initially. “Hey, people liked “Twins” and “Kindergarten Cop!” Let’s get the stars and director back together for one more!” Reasonable enough. Both of Ivan Reitman’s previous collaborations with Arnold Schwarzenegger had easily grasped high concept premises. “Arnold and Danny DeVito are twins!” “Arnold teaches a kindergarten class!” Yet “Junior’s” easily summarized log line is perhaps where the film went wrong. This is a movie about Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming pregnant. And giving birth. To a human child. Somebody, somewhere, should have stepped back and said “Hey, Ivan, I’m not so sure about this one!” If “Junior” had even a third of the charm of either of the other two Schwarzenegger/Reitman joints, maybe the film could overcome that awful premise. This is not the case and “Junior” continues to persists as a baffling experiment in nineties comedy.

Dr. Alexander Hesse and Dr. Larry Arbogast, a geneticist and obstetrician, have created a new drug called “Expectane,” meant to prevent miscarriage and make women more fertile. The trials on chimpanzees have been so successful that even a male monkey became pregnant. Yet the F.D.A. hasn’t approved the drug and Alex and Larry are soon kicked out of their lab. Determined to prove the product works, Hesse becomes his own test subject. Expectane works too well and Alexander becomes pregnant, a human embryo growing inside him. The hormonal effect is such that he bonds with the unborn fetus, determined to carry it to term.

By 1994, Arnold Schwarzenegger had become more than willing to embrace the “Tough Guys in Tutus” subgenre, having pioneered it himself. By that point in his career, subversion of his action hero persona were becoming more common than straight examples. “Junior” extends the Tough Guys in Tutus concept far pass its limited breaking point. The film not only has Arnold doing uncharacteristic things, such as wearing brightly colored shirts or chasing after rugrats, but fully emasculates him. The toughest action star in the world gives birth, an act so unmanly that a man can’t physically do it.

If “Junior” set out to poke fun at Arnold’s image or make a statement about gender roles, none of that is evident in the final film. “Junior” is totally devoid of laughs. The film’s idea of a joke seems to be having Arnold simply do something effeminate. For example, he comments on how sensitive pregnancy has made his nipples. Or how soft his skin suddenly is. His voice softens, he becomes overly attached to the child inside him, and demands Larry’s attention in a cutesy manner. There’s no actual jokes here, just simply written scenarios that anyone could have come up with, stripped of any absurdity or chuckles.

The idea of a man giving birth has been explored in fiction before. Thanks to the internet, we now know that some people have even turned it into a fetish. As any mother can attest too, pregnancy and giving birth is not an easy act. To a man, many aspects of birth seem outright horrifying. Truthfully, only a little tinkering is necessary to transform “Junior” into a horror movie. “Junior” too rarely acknowledges the body horror of this scenario. Arnold has a frankly terrifying nightmare in which he is presented with a child with his screaming, scrunched face. In the last act, Dr. Hesse’s child is tangled inside his small intestine. While that raises a truckload of questions, mostly I wonder how literally gut-splittingly painful that must be. Look, I know “Junior” is a comedy. I don’t expect the film to linger on the extensive changes a male body would have to undergo while pregnant. Yet strictly whimsical probably wasn’t the best choice for this story.

My fandom of Arnold Schwarzenegger has come up many times before. There are few performers I find more fascinating. Look at the 1759 words I wrote about “Twins,” many of them devoted to how much I like Arnold’s performance. The man’s charm knows no limits and can, and has, made the most dire material entertaining. The first act of “Junior’ has Arnold affecting an intentionally flat delivery. He is a strict scientist, not well liked by most of his co-workers. After becoming pregnant, Dr. Hesse’s demeanor changes entirely. He is goofy, moody, and emotional. Much of the comedy is devoted to Schwarzenegger’s idea of a “girly man,” mincing and gripping. Look, Arnold is seemingly incapable of being embarrassed by any material. Even with a script as dismal as “Junior,” he remains committed and upbeat. Yet not even the Austrian Oak’s infinite affability is enough to save “Junior.”

Considering how winning the combination was in “Twins,” re-teaming Schwarzenegger and DeVito must have seemed irresistible. “Junior” does not have DeVito expanding too far pass his established persona. Even as a respected doctor, Danny DeVito still plays a bit of a conman. He swipes a female co-worker's cryonically frozen eggs. He seems to relish presenting a sperm donor with a selection of pornography. For a lengthy portion of the film, DeVito believes his ex-wife has been impregnated by a member of Aerosmith, a relatively absurd subplot. These issues aside, Danny and Arnold still share fantastic chemistry. The script may make it look like they’re playing the weirdest gay couple ever but simple scenes of the two chatting have more charm than anything else in the movie.

Emma Thompson is an extraordinarily talented performer, especially in comedy where her effortless combination of effervescent charm and complete lack of fear goes far. Unfortunately, Thompson is not well utilized in “Junior.” Her character is Arnold’s love interest, a scientist whose egg unknowingly provides the baby Schwarzenegger. Yes, she’s the mother of his child. Instead of giving Thompson’s character a real personality, the script makes her massively clumsy. She’s introduced by riding a giant machine into the lab. Later, she tosses a lobster claw across a sea food restaurant. A make-out session with Arnold results in them tumbling over a couch. It’s extremely broad physical comedy, not becoming of Thompson, and gives her little to work with.

Aside from Arnold and DeVito, Reitman would bring back two other actors he had worked with before for “Junior.” As in “Dave,” Frank Langella plays the bad guy. The two parts are very similar. In both films, Langella plays an authority figure that should be reasonable. Instead, he’s a two-dimensional villain, attempting to foil the heroes’ plan for no discernible reason. Langella doesn’t even have as much to do here as he did in “Dave,” as his part is much smaller. Pamela Reed, last seen as Arnold’s partner in “Kindergarten Cop,” appears here as DeVito’s ex-wife. Both characters have a tendency to over-eat, though her character has the excuse of being pregnant. Reed is actually funny, being one of the film’s few bright spots even if she’s basically reprising her “Kindergarten Cop” role.

Like “Kindergarten Cop,” “Junior” is not satisfied with just being a goofball comedy. Instead, the film has an unsightly maudlin streak. As Dr. Hesse hangs out in a clinic for pregnant women, he sniffs flowers. He writes romantic letters back home to Emma Thompson’s character, telling her how much he loves her. The sequence where the baby is born is not play for utterly absurd comedy, as it should’ve been. Instead, the film attempts to play it straight, Arnold struggling during the birth. When the baby is safely delivered, somehow, he holds his child with pride. It’s astonishing that a movie this dumb, this bizarre, would try to play its central gimmick for anything but bemused laughter.

To its benefit, “Junior” does generate one or two laughs, the thinnest wisps of chuckles. Pamela Reed gets most of these. When she gives birth, she happily declares she needs drugs. The biggest laugh in “Junior” have nothing to do with the material and everything to do with Arnold screaming like a madman, something that is inherently hilarious. Such as when he goes into labor and groans “Oh shit!” When visiting the aforementioned clinic, Schwarzenegger goes in drag and pass himself as a former female Olympiad, forever changed by steroids. These are not big laughs and certainly not sophisticated ones. But in a humor barren landscape like “Junior,” you take what you can get.

The musical score for “Junior” is from James Newton Howard, also returning from “Dave.” Howard’s music is as flowery and overblown as his music for Reitman’s previous film. Once again, the composer manages to capture that unmistakable “nineties comedy” sound. “Junior” is, if you can believe this, an Oscar nominated film. The theme song, “Look What Love Has Done,” snagged a nomination for Best Original Song. Sang by Patty Smyth, who should definitely not be confused with Patti Smith, it’s an incredibly earnest pop-romance number. Considering the movie it’s attached to, the incongruity is staggering. The piano-driven melody and Smyth’s throaty vocals are kind of catchy, even if the song itself is fairly generic and the title sounds like a threat.

Amazingly, “Junior” was financially successfully, grossing 106 million against a 60 million dollar budget. The reviews, however, where much less certain. Some critics, including a surprisingly enthusiastic Roger Ebert, liked the film. Others were baffled. Since then, “Junior” has acquired an ironic cult following for being the most miscalculated of Arnold’s forays into comedy. Even as an enthusiastic fan of Schwarzenegger, very little about “Junior” works. It’s creepy, not cute. Off-putting, not charming. Lacking in laughs, not funny. There are many things I’m willing to watch Arnold Schwarzengger do but give birth to a baby is not one of them. [Grade: D]

Director Report Card: Ivan Reitman (1993)

9. Dave

Gary Ross has had an interesting career. Ross initially worked as a political aide, involved in campaigns for Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton. This led to an unlikely second career as a screenwriter, Ross winning acclaim for “Big.” Later, Ross would direct other well-liked films like “Pleasantville” or “Seabiscuit” before taking a shot at blockbuster filmmaking with the first “Hunger Games” movie. Coming after the former film but before the latter ones, Ross wrote “Dave.” Like “Big” (little boy wakes up in a man’s body) or “Pleasantville” (modern teens enter the world of a 1950s sitcom), “Dave” has an easily understood, high concept premise. “What would a normal man do if he suddenly became president?” The reason I’m talking more about Ross than Ivan Reitman, the man who directed “Dave,” is because its Ross’ sensibilities that guides the film, not so much Reitman’s.

President Bill Mitchell’s term as the highest elected office in our country has progressed with little controversy or events of note. His wife is estranged from him and Mitchell is having an affair with his secretary but, other than that, his administration mostly seems directed by Chief of Staff Bob Alexander. Dave Kovac, a normal man who runs a temp agency, has an uncanny resemblance to the President. The Secret Service taps him to be the President’s double during brief public events. During one such event, President Mitchell suffers a stroke during an intimate meeting with his secretary. Alexander talks Dave into impersonating the President full-time. While the Chief of Staff thinks he can manipulate Kovac easily, Dave has other ideas.

If you only heard its premise, “Dave” would probably sound like a cutting edge political satire. The web of politics can often seem impenetrable to the common man. Dropping a normal guy behind the commander-in-chief’s desk would present the often baffling decisions of the government to a mass audience. A film with this premise could maybe even explore the seedier side of politics, the back room decisions and handshakes that make power. “Dave” is not this movie. Those with a knowledge of politics have dismissed the film as nothing more than a fantasy, with a childish grasp of real politics. At the very least, a cover-up of massive proportions would be necessary to make “Dave” work in reality.

Instead, “Dave” is exactly the kind of high-concept flick its premise describes. So, what would a regular man do if he unexpectedly became the President? Dave’s puppet masters veto a bill, cutting 650 million dollars for a charity program, housing homeless children. Discovering this, he calls a meeting with his staff, cutting extraneous programs and expenditure in order to raise the amount. Basically, the film imagines a common man cutting through the complexities of political office to actually help people and solve problems with common sense. I suspect that it would be more difficult then that. Yet “Dave” doesn’t pretend to accurately reflect the presidency. Instead, it’s a very light-weight comedy.

“Dave” came four years after Kevin Kline won an Oscar for “A Fish Called Wanda,” representing the brief period when the actor could open a movie. Kline is very well cast in the part. His distinctive voice projects an intelligence, suggesting the kind of personality you’d hope for from a president. Yet his charm is relatable, making him believable as a common man. Kline is essentially playing three roles: Dave, President Mitchell, and Dave-acting-as-President-Mitchell. He’s good in each, presenting a different body language for every part. Kevin Kline’s charm is such that he easily carries the film. When interacting with a lonely child or making chit-chat with his Secret Service agent, Kline creates a likable, sympathetic character. It doesn’t exactly elevate the thin script but it makes watching the final film tolerable.

“Dave” reunites Ivan Reitman with his “Ghostbusters” leading lady Sigourney Weaver. As the First Lady, Weaver begins with film resenting her husband. A hard-edged, cold ball-buster is something Weaver can do with ease. The part also calls for her icy exterior to melt, revealing a compassionate woman. Weaver is good at this too, as her radiant smile shows. However, I wish Sigourney’s role had a little more to do in the script. After deducing that Dave is not her husband, she's mostly stuck being pretty and knowledgeable.

 

Another reason “Dave” comes off as simplistic is its almost cartoonish bad guy. Frank Langella plays Bob Alexander, the Chief of Staff who attempts to control Dave. Alexander’s scheme is to discredit the Vice President, slowly push Dave out of the President’s position, and slot himself into the Presidency. Bob is never anything less than scheming and duplicitous. In many scenes, he causally makes the decision to character-assassinate someone or push hundreds out of their homes. When cornering someone with a descending opinion, you half expect Alexander to sick a black ops hit squad on the guy. As a character actor who excels at playing hammy bad guys, Langella is fine in the part. Once again, the actor is only provided so much to work with.

A number of familiar faces appear in the supporting cast. Kevin Dunn, who had a small role in “Ghostbusters II,” plays Communications Director Alan Reed. Though he basically acts as Langella’s sidekick, Reed is a much softer character. Dunn’s smiling face makes him inevitably being charmed by Dave easier to buy. Ving Rhames plays Secret Service Agent Stevensen. Rhames mostly stands around, his arms crossed in an intimidating fashion. Well, that’s something Ving Rhames is very good at. He tries to give the character some personality-lending gestures but there’s only so much he can do. Charles Grodin shows up in a small role as Dave’s accounting friend, brought in to help balance the U.S. budget. Grodin’s typically squirmy energy gets a few laughs. Ben Kingsley plays the Vice President, his considerable talent being called upon for a simple role as an upstanding man. Laura Linney is wasted as the secretary the president is screwing around with. I have no idea why a talented, recognizable actress was cast in such a nothing role.

“Dave’s” greatest strength is its relaxed tone. Kevin Kline can be thanked for a lot of this, as his easy-going charisma directs much of the movie. “Dave” never gets belly laughs. Instead, that laid back atmosphere allows it to satisfies with a handful of chuckles. Weaver confronting Kline in the shower or the double enthusiastically shouting to a crowd create small laughs. Probably the funniest scene occurs when Dave and the First Lady, while out for a drive, are pulled over by some cops. This leads to a surprise rendition of “Tomorrow” from “Annie” and a predictable if amusing aside about Weaver’s appearance. Okay, I take it back. The funniest scene is a cameo from Oliver Stone, wherein the director suggests a conspiracy, that the President has been replaced with a look-a-like. It’s good to know that Stone is self-aware enough to allow that cute gag to pass. (That’s but one of a number of celebrity cameos, such as Larry King, Jay Leno, the McLaughlin Group, and Reitman’s favorite Austrian Arnold Schwarzenegger.)

As a comedy, “Dave” is mildly amusing. As a romance, it amuses to an even milder level. Kline and Weaver have solid chemistry. How he slowly shows his attraction to her, such as a fleeting glimpse at her exposed leg, is cute. The moment she realizes he isn’t her husband is well executed. This leads into a gently touching scene, of the two talking on a hill top about what the president can accomplish. The final scene of “Dave” shows the two leaping into each others’ arms, locking lips. It’s not a moment the film truly earns, as the romance is nowhere near developed enough. However, the connection between the two performers does count for something.

Like some many similarly orchestrated nineties comedies, or even Reitman’s own “Kindergarten Cop,” “Dave” aims for dramatic elements totally outside of its reach. In the second half, Bob Alexander’s evil scheme comes together. The Vice President is framed for crimes he didn’t commit. Dave discovers that the President, the man he’s impersonating, is responsible for the crimes he’s accused of. Considering how silly and thinly sketched the movie was up to this point, it jives badly with the rest of the picture. “Dave” wraps everything up with a neat bow, with Alexander being defeated, the Vice President ushered into office, the real President dead, and Dave allowed to return to his ordinary life. Once again, I suspect it would be more complicated than that.

If “Kindergarten Cop” was maybe the most nineties sounding movie ever made, “Dave” is certainly a clear runner-up to the title. James Newton Howard, an accomplished composer, contributes the score. Howard’s music sounds less like a sitcom soundtrack than Randy Edelman’s score for the previous film. It’s orchestral, lush, and pretty. It’s also simple and forgettable. Like the movie it accompanies, Howard’s score is pleasant in the moment but doesn’t linger in the brain for very long.

Despite being a film of such little ambition, “Dave” received positive reviews, good box office, and even snagged an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay. The Oscar nomination can probably be attributed to residual good will toward Gary Ross. As for the box office receipts, I guess there’s something to be said for a mildly amusing time-killer like “Dave.” That “Dave” is such an utter trifle, that it squanders a great deal of potential, is disappointing. Though fine as background noise while cleaning the house, or even as a lazy afternoon watch, “Dave” is ultimately forgettable. [Grade: C+]

Director Report Card: Ivan Reitman (1990)

8. Kindergarten Cop

After “Twins” proved to be a bigger hit then anyone expected, Ivan Reitman and Arnold Schwarzenegger returned to familiar territory. Reitman literally returned to a previous story with “Ghostbusters II” and Arnold made another violent genre film with “Total Recall.” However, the two obviously enjoyed working together. It wouldn’t be long before the Austrian Oak and the Canadian comedy maker re-teamed. As with “Twins,” the film would play against Schwarzenegger’s established tough guy image. “Kindergarden Cop” would go even further in that direction, saddling the action icon with a room full of rugrats.

Detective John Kimble is a bad ass super-cop on the trail of bad guy Cullen Crisp. After pursuing Crisp and his equally villainous mom for years, Kimble gets a clue that Crisp is after his ex-wife. The cops don’t know what the woman, or her young son, look like but they do know they’re living in Astoria, Oregon. The plan is for Kimble’s female partner to go undercover as a kindergarten teacher, slowly discovering who the target is, hopefully finding Crisp soon afterwards. However, Kimble’s partner is struck with a sudden case of food poisoning. Meaning the giant, muscular cop has to go undercover. Though used to shooting creeps and cleaning up the streets, Kimble is not so used to the unique challenges of a room full of four-year-olds.

The beginning of “Kindergarten Cop” doesn’t hint much at the sillier comedy to come. Arnold first appears with a three-day stubble, dark sunglasses, a trench coat, and a shotgun in hand. He storms into a filthy drug den, shooting at goons and blowing away a couch. He cracks cheesy one-liners, such as “I’m da party poopa!” He intimidate and retrieves key witnesses while pursuing the bad guy doggedly. The only hint that “Kindergarten Cop” isn’t going to be the usual Arnold shenanigans is that the comedy is a little more self-aware then usual. (Well, and the title too.) Those expecting the usual over-the-top violence associated with Schwarzenegger films will be disappointed. Soon, the action icon is teamed up with a blatantly comedic partner, feeling sad about his estranged son, and handling a pet ferret.

Of course, contrasting Arnold’s usual action movie behavior with a roomful of silly little kids is entirely the point of “Kindergarten Cop.” Schwarzenegger fans would probably prefer to watch him killing people and cracking lame one-liners. However, the movie gets decent mileage out of the Austrian superstar screaming at kindergartners. As you’d expect, Kimble is set up as hating kids. He sternly curses at a pair of rambunctious youngster on a plane. When he first enters the classroom, the little kids are nonplussed by his intimidating behavior. They act like… Well, kindergartners. “Kindergarten Cop” has exactly one joke, that a super-hard cop is unprepared to handle the stresses of a kindergarten class. But it’s a pretty good one. It’s difficult to undersell the amusement value of Arnold screaming like a crazy person, yelling “SHUT UP!” and denying that he has a tumah.

However, even a funny movie would have difficult stretching that joke to feature length. So, inevitably, Kimble has to develop an affection for his class of little kids. At the time, Arnold was the chairman of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. When he signed on for the movie, he insisted that kid-friendly fitness be made part of the script. Thus Kimble grabs a whistle and starts ordering the kids to march around. That an entire class of kiddies would be okay with this is a far bridge to cross. There’s some decent humor here, like when John first introduces the whistle, insisting that there are no bathrooms now. However, his transformation from action hero cop to kindergarten teacher happens a little too cleanly and quickly.

You may notice that learning to love a rowdy crowd of toddlers would force Arnold to do something he doesn’t usually do in his movies: Emote. Now, I give Schwarzenegger’s acting abilities more credit then most people usually do. The guy has fantastic comedic timing and a screen presence unlike anyone else’s. However, nobody pays to see Arnold get sad about his estranged son. Or explain to a classroom of kids that ferrets aren’t dangerous. Some of the biggest indignities the screenplay puts Schwarzenegger through is playing the ukulele, singing “Old McDonald’s Farm,” and reading Winnie the Pooh. Somehow, the action star doesn’t totally loose his sense of cool through all of this. Schwarzenegger’s effortless charm still makes “Kindergarten Cop” a lot easier to watch then it otherwise would have been. However, you can tell he’s not entirely comfortable with the material.

If “Kindergarten Cop” was content with just being a silly comedy, it probably would have been somewhat embarrassing but overall entertaining. Instead, around the half-way point, the film awkwardly introduces a number of serious elements. First off, Kimble discovers that Zach, the weird kid in class, has a physically abusive father. The way he handles this information is something that would get even the best-intended teacher fired. Before the film is over, the movie has more-or-less completely abandoned any attempt to be funny. Kimble is rescuing a kid from falling off a tower and making serious confessions to his love interest. That tonal shift not only feels at odds with the earlier parts of the movie, they also aren’t very interesting in their own right.

The key aspect of the movie’s melodramatic side is Kimble relationship with Joyce, the single mom played by Penelope Ann Miller, and her son Dominic. Compared to the goofy, cut-up humor of the first half of the film, the romance between the two characters is treated in an entirely earnest manner. They have a meet-cute at the school. They bond over a dinner, where Kimble reveals the (presumably made-up) origin for his desire to become a teacher. When he reveals that he’s actually an undercover cop sent to investigate her ex-husband, Joyce freaks out, grabs her son, and goes on the run again. Aside from being rather trite, all of this wouldn’t be so bad if Miller wasn’t sleep-walking through the role, delivering all of her dialogue in a bored monotone and barely connecting with Arnold at all.

Arnold has far better chemistry with his partner Phobe, played by Pamela Reed. Reed is a game comedic performer. She has a good time as the energetic character, hyper-actively downing way too much food in far too short a period. One of the humor high-lights of the film is her pretending to be Kimble’s sister, sporting a ridiculous Austrian accent that nevertheless fools the supporting characters. (One notable thing about “Kindergarten Cop:” Arnold is actually playing an Austrian immigrant in it and even briefly speaks German!) When the character becomes ill and begins puking all over the place, Reed leaps into that with full force as well. Reed is light enough on her feet to deliver a stiff one-liner about cars and still make it funny. Though the character has a love interest of her own, a chief fiance that is awkwardly introduced mid-way through, I sort of wish the tiny Reed and the towering Arnold ran off together at the end instead. The two make for a better couple.

Another aspect of the film’s overly serious underbelly manifests itself in the villains. Richard Tyson plays Crisp as a greasy, creepy, barely concealed psychopath. The guy exudes an obvious weirdness, revealing himself as a creep to anyone but the most oblivious. He’s blatantly evil enough to murder a drug addicted runaway in cold blood and cartoonishly bad enough that he beats a guy senseless over a toy race car. Those aspects would probably be enough for most movie villains, especially for one from a relatively light-weight comedy, but Crisp is also given a creepy mom. Played by the harsh-looking Carroll Baker, she is intense and straight-ahead, willing to kill for her son and accompanying him everywhere. Naturally, the two seem a little too close, the script adding a creepy undertone of incestuous feelings. Does something like that really belong in a movie like “Kindergarten Cop?”

In the final third, those competing tones of gritty crime flick and silly comedy collide head-on. When Crisp finally finds his son, he sets fire to the school and kidnaps the boy. This leads to a surprisingly bloody showdown in the boy’s bathroom. The indication that the movie can’t decide what it wants to be is best illustrated in how the bad guy is defeated. Remember that ferret I mentioned earlier? Yeah, it ends up saving the day, sort of. By the resolution when, predictably, Kimble chooses to be a school teacher over a cop, “Kindergarten Cop” has been totally consumed by its squishy-hearted desire to be a melodramatic family drama. I liked it better when Arnold was screaming at toddlers.

Just as “Twins” was dominated by an oppressively late eighties aesthetic, “Kindergarten Cop” is unmistakably a product of the early nineties. Randy Edelman returns to score and creates a quasi-electronic soundtrack that reeks of the time period. Behold, the steel drums and soft chirping! Another sign of the times is that the movie is a little too heavy for real young kids but obviously too goofy for full-grown adults. Thus, kids saying the darnest things co-exist with naughty sex jokes like a horny mom, played by Cathy Moriarty, attempting to seduce Kimble. Even the casting of diminutive character actress Linda Hunt as the eccentric principal of the school seems like exactly the kind of thing you’d expect a movie released in 1990 to do.

“Kindergarten Cop’s” insistence to have it both ways is its undoing. I don’t think it’s an accident that all anyone remembers about the movie is Arnold freaking out around the little kids. That’s the best part. The mushy sentimentality and the awkward attempt to fuse a crime plot onto the film are rightfully overlooked. The easy sense of breezy fun and genuine heart that kept “Twins” afloat was more difficult to recapture then you’d think. Critics at the time were fairly dismissive of the film but that didn’t stop it from becoming a huge hit, another success for Reitman and Arnold. That the movie isn’t remembered as a low-point for either proves that I’m being harder on “Kindergarten Cop” then it deserves or that both artists would make far worst stuff in the future. I’m betting on the latter. [Grade: C+]

Director Report Card: Ivan Reitman (1989)

7. Ghostbusters II

After the enormous, blockbuster success of “Ghostbusters,” the studio naturally was interested in a sequel. Considering how prone Dan Aykroyd is to self-mythologizing, it’s surprising to read that he wasn’t interested in making “Ghostbusters II” at first. Ivan Reitman, Harold Ramis, and everyone else considered the first film a complete story, with no room for continuation. Bill Murray certainly wasn’t interested, as he only appeared in the first one after Columbia agreed to finance his pet project, a remake of “The Razor’s Edge.” Eventually, five years later, the studio talked the guys into making a sequel. “Ghostbusters II” remains controversial among fans. Some hate the movie bitterly. Others considered it a worthy continuation. As someone who watched the sequel nearly as much as the original, I’ve always liked it.

Five years after saving New York City, the Ghostbusters have fallen on hard times. The business has been sued into non-existence. Ray and Winston now do birthday parties for unappreciative kids. Egon is doing quasi-scientific work and Venkman hosts a cheesy paranormal talk show, his relationship with Dana long over. In her job as an art restorer, Dana and her child Oscar come across an unnerving painting, of Vigo the Carpathian. A blood-thirty warlord from the twelfth century, Vigo’s spirit survives inside the painting. Gathering negative energy from all over the city via a subterranean river of slime, Vigo plans to bring about the apocalypse. The city needs the Ghostbusters again.

“Ghostbusters” begins with an unlikely proposition. New Yorkers now believe the events of the first film to be an elaborate hoax. So, wait, the entire city is now convinced that four guys somehow tricked everyone into seeing a giant marshmallow man? It’s unlikely, to say the least. The real reason the story takes this direction is to restore the status quo. Once again, the Ghostbusters have to convince every one that ghosts are real, that the city is in danger. Skeptical judges and officials have to be persuaded that spooks exist. Instead of being treated like heroes, the Ghostbusters were faced with volumes of law suits, their credibility destroyed. This story decision is lazy. Instead of building off the possibilities of the first film, we’re back to zero.

The movie doesn’t open with its heroes in the best place either. The relationship between Venkman and Dana, the secret heart of the first movie, has also been dissolved. It’s so over that Dana had enough time to marry another man, have his child, and then divorce him. As with the other sequel resets, Venkman has to impress Dana again, earning her trust once more. However, the sequel adds an aspect that works: Oscar, a bouncing, baby boy. Despite still being a charlatan, a slacker, and a horn dog, Venkman immediately bonds with the baby. The scenes of Dana and Peter navigating parenthood together are adorable. Bill Murray and Sigourney Weaver still have great chemistry. By making Dana a single mom, it changes her dynamic. She’s even stronger, more determined. Venkman, meanwhile, has to grow up a little bit without loosing his roguish charm.

The script has some problems but “Ghostbusters II” gets a lot out of just reassembling the cast. The first scene that reunites the team, inside the occult book store that Ray owns, has them joking around and quibbing like nothing happened. When the guys disguise themselves as construction workers, drilling a huge hole into a busy NYC street, they end up talking shit with cops and officials. After busting their first ghosts in five years, they’re trading one-liners and jokes. If Bill Murray wasn’t as involved in this project as the first one, he doesn’t let it show. He’s as funny as ever, tossing off improvised lines. Aykroyd and Ramis both contribute plenty of dry hilarity, playing off each other fantastically. Though he still has the least screen time of the gang, Ernie Hudson is even given more to do. The sequel has issues but the charm of the team, and the joy of seeing them back together, takes it a long way.

The first “Ghostbusters” had a fairly vague villain. Gozer didn’t appear onscreen until the end, after all. The Terror Dogs, though impressive, didn’t have much personality. “Ghostbusters II” has an adversary with a clear motive. The idea of a living painting, containing an evil spirit, is interesting. Though immobile for most of the story, Vigo speaks with Max Von Sydow’s voice, a resounding baritone that conveys plenty of ominous wickedness. Unlike Gozer’s vaguely apocalyptic plan, Vigo has a defined scheme: To be reborn. Helping him in this goal is Janosz. Already a weirdo with an undetermined accent, the henchman helps the ancient warlord be reborn. Peter MacNichol invest a huge amount of eccentric energy into the part, making Janosz a bizarre, funny, unforgettable character.

In some ways, “Ghostbusters II” has more ideas than it can properly contain. Consider the river of slime. At first, the river of slime doesn’t connect with Vigo as an idea. It’s almost like two separate sequel concepts were smashed together. The river of slime reportedly generates bad vibes, in addition to feeding off it. At one point, the Ghostbusters emerge from the slime, angry at each other. Otherwise, the idea of the slime putting out negativity isn’t really expanded on. Why Vigo has access to a river of slime beneath the city, even where it comes from, are other questions left unanswered. Still, it certainly makes for a memorable visual. The sight of an endless river of pink goo, flowing under the city, is unlikely to be forgotten. How the film utilized it too, via a dancing toaster and slime blasters, is pretty cool too.

The original “Ghostubsters” signaled its transformation into full awesomeness when the guys met Slimer at the Sedgewick Hotel. “Ghostbusters II” has a similar story structure. After winding up in a courtroom following the road digging incident, a small jar of the hate slime and an angry judge combine to awaken the spirits of the Scoleri Brothers. Purple spectres jolting with electricity, both are fantastic designs. The sequence, with tables and chairs flipping into the air, escalates nicely. Mostly, the scene is worth it to see the gang back together again, busting ghosts just like the old days. When Ray, Peter, and Egon flick on their proton packs, the reaction is joyous. Both inside the film and inside the audience.

“Ghostbusters II” came after the massive success of “The Real Ghostbusters” animated series. The sequel, in terms of salaciousness and spookiness, was reportedly toned down, in hopes of not upsetting younger viewers. While the humor is definitely less risqué, “Ghostbusters II” creeped me out as much as the original during childhood viewings. A sequence of Janosz walking down a darkened hallway, highlighted in red light, with glowing eyes always spooked me when I was young. Later, he flies through the air, dressed as an antiqued nanny, extending out an arm to grab Oscar from a perch. The slime emerging from a tub, twisting the metal as it reaches for the baby, is also striking. While exploring an abandoned train tunnel, the Ghostbusters are haunted by visions of floating, decapitated heads. During the montage of ghosts terrorizing the city – another scene emulated from the first – a woman’s mink coat springs to life and attacks her, a sequence that has always stuck with me. “Ghostbusters II” isn’t exactly scary but neither was the original. It still manages to be pretty creepy for a PG-rated film.

While I consider “Ghostbusters II” a solid follow-up, the sequel does struggle to match any of the iconic images from the first film. Nothing really matches Slimer or the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. In the last act, the sequel makes its biggest attempt to recapture some of the original’s famous imagery. A dome of hate-powered slime covering the museum containing Oscar and Dana, the Ghostbusters decide the only thing that break through it – the only symbol that all New Yorkers can get behind – is the Statue of Liberty. Lady Liberty, marching through the streets of New York and piloted by an NES Advantage, is an eye-catching visual. The special effects are extremely good. It’s also a not-overdone but genuinely sweet example of this franchise’s love of New York City. No, it’s not as great as the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. But it’s not bad either.

The sequel smartly brings back much of the original’s supporting cast. Even David Margulies is back as the Mayor of New York City, blustering his way through a few short scenes. Annie Potts and Rick Moranis return as Janine and Tully. Moranis has an expanded role, being upgraded to the Ghostbusters’ attorney and accountant. He even puts on a ghost busting suit by the end. Even while trading quibs with a suddenly pacified Slimer, Moranis’ maintains the comedic anxiety he built his career upon. As an enthusiastic Egon/Janine shipper, I’m not a huge fan of Janine throwing herself at Tully. It’s seems unlikely that an incredibly attractive woman like that would be interested in a mess like Tully. Still, Potts and Moranis have a few nice moments together, both actors getting the most out of the material.

Something consistent throughout Ivan Reitman’s thus far seven films has been the director’s use of pop music. “Ghostbusters II” brings back Ray Parker Jr.’s unforgettable theme song, a handful of times. In a likely attempt to stay hip and relevant, the sequel fills its soundtrack with trendy hip/hop and R&B songs. Run-DMC present their own take on Parker’s song which is… Interesting, if not especially memorable. Bobby Brown’s “On Our Own” is the sequel’s proper theme song, playing twice. Brown even has a cameo. The song’s not bad but doesn’t fit the film’s tone very well. Doug E. Fresh’s “Spirit” is silly but awfully catchy, the song I always associated with the movie. Randy Edelman’s score is decent, putting amusing spins on Elmer Bernstein’s themes from the original.

Detractors of “Ghostbusters II” claim it leans heavily on the formula established by the first film, that the villain is not as effective, the cast isn’t as invested, and the jokes aren’t as funny. Perhaps. Maybe countless childhood viewings have made the weaknesses of the sequel unnoticeable to me. “Ghostbusters II” is obviously not as good as “Ghostbusters.” Yet it makes me laugh, entertains consistently, has several memorable sequences, and features a beloved cast successfully reprising their roles. Without topping the original, it manages to be a totally pleasing follow-up. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Ivan Reitman (1988)

6. Twins

In 1988, two creative forces had reached the peak of their power. Ivan Reitman was still running high on the success of “Ghostbusters,” now established as one of the leading comedic directors in Hollywood. Meanwhile, Arnold Schwarzenegger had never been more popular. Action hits like “The Terminator” and “Commando” had launched him to the front of movie super-stardom. In a few years, he’d be the highest paid, highest grossing actor in the world. Before that, Arnold made the decision to stretch his - some would say “limited” - abilities in a new direction. These days it’s normal for an action star to try his hand at comedy. That’s because Arnold did it first. “Twins” would become a big success and prove the Austrian Oak was more then just a pair of biceps. Furthermore, it would provide Reitman with another hit, showing his continued ability to create likable, money-making comedies.

Julius Benedict has lived his whole life on an island. The result of a genetic experiment to create a perfect human being, Julius is tall, buff, and brilliant. His schooling and training has left him a super genius and an incredible athlete. However, he’s curious about the outside world. When he discovers he has a twin brother, a result of the same experiment, he leaves the island and heads to America, in search of him. When they meet, the short, tubby Vincent is not only the physical opposite of Julius but his less then stellar morals stand in contrasts to Julius’ up-right behavior. However, the two form a shaky friendship. Soon, with Vincent’s girlfriend and her sister in tow, the two head out on a road trip. Vincent is only interested in delivering a car to a mysterious millionaire, the latest ploy to make himself rich. Julius, on the other hand, is in search of the brothers’ origins. Along the way, they learn a lot from each other.

Maybe the reason “Twins” was successful, aside from being a pretty likable flick, might be due to its brilliant poster. The central joke is right there. “Schwarzenegger. DeVito. Twins.” The brilliant simplicity of that is obvious. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito do not look like twin brothers. The movie certainly plays that simple visual joke to its fullest. The film goes out of its way to contrast the two performers. Arnold is as pumped as he’s ever been on screen, showing off his huge, toned muscles on several occasions. DeVito, obviously, is shorter, tubbier, and hairier. The movie emphasizes his baldness with a cheesy ponytail. Moreover, the two have opposing personalities. Julius is naïve, sweet, and sort of nerdy. Vincent, meanwhile, is a bit of a sleazeball, sleeping with married women, making his money by stealing cars and with a shady loan company.

Though the movie’s main conceit might be a cheap, easy joke, the best attribute of “Twins” is its good-natured tone. At first, Vincent is attempting to rip Julius off as much as he would anyone else. However, the guy’s sweet tone wins his conman of a brother over. He wins the audience over too. Though the film is full of laughs, “Twins” also has a lot of heart. The scene where Vincent and Julius learn that their mother is still alive, when Vincent discovers that Julius’ crazy story is true, is surprisingly touching. For the first time in his life, Vincent realizes he has a family, people who care about him. The moment when Vincent realizes he’s a “side effect” is devastating for him. Shaken, the two brothers hug. Later on, the two go to meet their mother and are told that she’s dead. The shock and sadness on their faces read clearly. Why it’s easy to yuk it up about the obvious differences between the two, “Twins” gets the audience to care about the guys and their situations.

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s acting abilities have frequently been criticized. In my opinion, unfairly. In “Twins,” Arnold shows that he’s actually a capable performer. That the action star would want to try his hand at comedy is not surprising. Schwarzenegger has always brought a lot of humor to his action roles, slinging cheesy one-liners and making them genuinely hilarious. With the part of Julius, Arnold gets to really stretch his abilities. Julius is sort of a dorky goofball. He’s adapting to the outside world for the first time. He sings along to pop music for the first time, at inappropriate volumes. He stumbles into confrontation with pick-pockets, hilariously overturning their plan. He dances, climbs walls, and more, always with a big, goofy smile on his face. It’s one of Arnold’s most appealing performances, the guy appearing more likable then ever on-screen.

Danny DeVito is equally inspired as the less toned brother. It’s a very typical part for DeVito. He’s more then a bit greasy, attempting to con every one around him for one reason or another. He always owes someone money and is always attempting to talk some other fool out of their money. However, as the film goes on, Vincent reveals a more sensitive side. We discover that all of his scheming and back-biting is a defense mechanism. He’s actually a very sad, wounded person. He also genuinely cares for his girlfriend, proving he’s not a total scumbag. DeVito is in fine form, getting to play both sides of the spectrum nicely.

Despite mostly being a yuk-fest, an unlikely theme emerges in “Twins.” The central premise raises an interesting question: Are ethics genetic? The movie, at first, seems to assure us that they are. Julius, the “perfect” brother, is as morally up-right as possible. Vincent, meanwhile, steals cars for a living, sleeps with a married woman, and seduced a nun when he was only a teenager. Everyone expects him to be in jail, which is indeed where Julius finds him. However, as the story develops, we begin to question this assumption. The film comes down on the side of environment over genetics influencing a child’s personality. Julius was raised in a supportive, nurturing environment. Vincent was left in an orphanage and kicked out at a young age. By the end, the two rubbing off on each other, Vincent is revealed to have a heart and be as nice as his brother.

Like any big comedy of the time, “Twins” also has a romantic subplot. Accompany the twins on their adventure is Vincent’s girlfriend Linda and her sister Marnie. Naturally, Marnie quickly falls for Julius. Vincent quickly identifies Julius as a virgin due to his idealized concept of women, a moment hilarious in light of Arnold’s real-life behavior. This makes the relationship between Julius and Marnie delightfully awkward at times. The moment when they finally consummate their relationship is full of gentle, amusing laughs. And it doesn’t hurt that Kelly Preston, as Marnie, is probably the sexiest she’s ever been on-screen, especially when wearing a tiny, slinky nightgown. Preston’s chemistry with Arnold is believable. Amusingly, the movie casts DeVito as an equal romantic lead, who has an emotionally revealing scene with Linda, played by a capable, likable Chloe Webb.

The entire second half of “Twins” is devoted to the brothers’ journey across the country. The film doesn’t focus too much on the great American countryside or anything like that. However, it is a road trip picture of a sort. There’s lot of footage of the characters driving around. On their trip, they stop by a gas station, where Julius buys his first T-shirt, an especially silly moment. A winning moment has the brothers dancing in a honky-tonk bar, which ends in a nicely goofy fight scene. Probably the best moment is when the two finally meet up with their mother. The audience immediately realizes that Bonnie Barlett’s character is actually the twins’ mom but the eventual pay-off to that meeting is worth it.

Like seemingly every other goofy eighties comedy, “Twins” has an incongruous crime plot motivating the main story. The reason Vincent gets on the road is because he stumbles upon a high-tech super-motor in the back of car he’s stolen, which he’ll get five million dollars to deliver. Unbeknownst to the brothers, a dangerous hitman is on their trail, leaving several bodies and shot limbs in his trail. As you’d expect, this story line is wildly at odds with the rest of the film. In the last act, when the two plot lines finally converge, “Twins” takes a bizarre tonal shift, full of sudden death and speedy pursuits. The film resolves this with slapstick comedy, which seems right. Marshall Bell is even an odd choice for the part, looking more like a creepy uncle then a deadly assassin.

Aside from its lead actors, “Twins” features some strong performances by the supporting players. Bonnie Bartlett overcomes the silly plot mechanism of her character arc, providing some genuinely sweet moments. Notable character actors David Caruso and Tony Jay, putting those fantastic pipes of his to good use, have small parts despite their unusually high billing. And watch out for cameos from the likes of Sven-Ole Thorsen, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, and Heather Graham.

“Twins’ is also an unmistakable product of the late eighties. The characters frequently dress in neon pastels. Such as Arnold’s mint shorts or the matching salmon suits DeVito and Schwarzenegger wear in one moment. The movie is also sprinkled with references to the then-and-now, such as a cameo appearance from Sylvester Stallone’s biceps, that leaves Arnold unimpressed. The score by Randy Edelman and Georges Delerue, with its pseudo-electronic, quasi-steel drum chirping, is immediately recognizable as a product of its time. Atop the campy-ass score is a campy-ass end credits song provided by Little Richard and Philip Bailey, which is as ridiculous as you’d expect. In general, “Twins” is the sort of light weight, gimmicky but still surprisingly earnest comedy that just doesn’t get made anymore.

To call “Twins” a classic is overstating it. The movie is silly, light-weight, and features more infectious chuckles then full-blown belly laughs. However, the movie does feature one of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s most entertaining performances and has a surprising amount of heart to it. That the movie would go on to become another big hit for Ivan Reitman, and prove that action hero Arnold could branch out into comedy, isn’t a surprise. It remains a favorite of the Austrian superstar as well. For years, he’s been trying to get a sequel made, which would co-star Eddie Murphy as a newly discovered third brother. I don’t know if “Triplets” is a thing the world needs but “Twins” stands on its own as a perfectly serviceable, entertaining bit of eighties comedy. [Grade: B]