Director Report Card: Barry Sonnenfeld (1999)

6. Wild Wild West

In the sixties, the Western – the stalwart genre of American TV – was loosing ground to James Bond's televised off-spring. Writer Michael Garrison came up with the novel solution of combining the two ideas. “The Wild Wild West” essentially stuck “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.” into the days of cowboys and Indians. By including era appropriate high-tech gadgets, the show accidentally brought steampunk to the masses. The series ran for four years, became a cult favorite, and replayed in re-runs often. In the nineties, movie studios sought to cash-in on audience's built-in fondness for old TV shows by adapting them to film. Someone had the idea to retrofit “The Wild Wild West” into a vehicle for Mel Gibson, with the “Lethal Weapon” team of Richard Donner and Shane Black reuniting behind the camera. When Gibson and Donner decided to adapt a different old western show instead, “Wild Wild West” was handed over to Barry Sonnenfeld and Will Smith. Sonnenfeld's “Addams Family” films were some of the best entries of the TV-to-film fad and “Men in Black” was a blockbuster, so the decision made sense at the time. The resulting film, however, was widely loathed and a box office disappointment. But here's the moment where you, the reader, loose all respect for me: I kind of like this movie. 

The year is 1869, President Grant is in the Oval Office, and America is still recovering from the wounds of the Civil War. Army Captain James West is on the trail of former Confederate General McGrath, who perpetuated a massacre on a village of freed slaves. McGrath is seemingly kidnapping top ranking American scientists for mysterious reasons. While investigating, West runs into U.S. marshal, inventor, and master of disguise Artemis Gordon. Grant forces the two combustible men to work together. They soon learn that McGrath is simply working for Dr. Arlis Loveless, a former Confederate who lost half his body in the war... And has replaced it with steam-power mechanics. Loveless has hatched a mad plot to take over America and only these two men, with the help of the supposed daughter of one of the missing scientists, can stop him.

“Wild Wild West” came out a mere two years after “Men in Black,” suggesting production began on the film the minute it was clear Sonnenfeld and Smith's first collaboration was a hit. This was clearly on everyone's mind as “Wild Wild West” is an obvious attempt to replicate “Men in Black's” success. Like that film, it takes the very familiar buddy cop set-up and applies a sci-fi coat of paint to it. Yet “Wild Wild West” is even more indebted to formula than Sonnenfeld's last stab at the genre. Jim West and Artemis Gordon bicker far more than Jay and Kay did, fitting the traditional roles of by-the-book expert and loose cannon rebel more closely. Their banter is more belligerent and their growth from enemies to friends more obvious. We even have the scene of their boss – the president, in this case – insisting they become partners, hoping their competing tendencies will mellow each other out. If “Men in Black” put a clever spin on the familiar premise, “Wild Wild West” is in dutiful servitude to it.

The adherence to buddy cop formula includes one of the unspoken rules of the subgenre: Barely contained homoeroticism. “Wild Wild West” is, in fact, all too aware of the gay subtext. West and Gordon are introduced while the latter is in drag. This leads to a later conversation, about the merits of Gordon's fake breasts design, causing a hilariously contrived discussion when heard out-of-context. Later, a scene involving magnetic collars concludes with West's face level with Gordon's belt buckle. Before the film's end, West gets in drag too. Honestly, it's almost delightful and kind of subversive how much “Wild Wild West” front-lines the queer element of this genre. (Even if it means the female characters are a causality of the overriding machismo, reduced to eye candy in fetish-y lingerie, schemers, prostitutes, or evil hench-women.)

This is not the only way “Wild Wild West” is either extremely dumb or surprisingly subversive. The use of a black protagonist in a western was not unheard of in 1999, thanks to a mini-wave of blaxploitation westerns in the seventies. Yet a 170 million dollar blockbuster in the late nineties addressing themes like racism and the legacy of slavery was practically unheard of. West is clearly traumatized by the violence and horrors he's endured. As he beats down Loveless, he's striking back at the entire history of black oppression in America. Yet don't give “Wild Wild West” too much credit for being “Django Unchained” before “Django Unchained” was a thing. It's handling of racial issues is clumsy, at best, as West and Loveless get into a childish name-calling contest every time they face each other. Whether this is a bold take-down of America's racist history or a clueless popcorn flick tastelessly fumbling over a sensitive topic is a matter of opinion. 

While its debatable how far ahead of the curve “Wild Wild West” was on creating a black hero, it was definitely ahead of the curve when it comes to steampunk. Twenty years later, steampunk officially got so big that it's played out now but “Wild Wild West” was one of the first major films to utilize the concept. It is, I think undeniably, the coolest thing about the film. Scenes were Gordon sups up his bone-shaker bicycle with a steam engine or the introduction of Loveless, in his steam-powered wheelchair, are very indicative of the style. While the behind-the-scenes reasons why it's in the movie have long since become a source of Hollywood legend, I'm going to admit this too: I actually really like the giant steam-powered spider. It's an amazing visual, beautifully brought to life via a combination of practical props, stop-motion, and CGI that still looks pretty good. Despite many reviewers referring to the giant spider's presence as nonsensical, it's actually what the entire movie is building up to. Loveless even builds himself a pair of hydraulic spider legs for himself. 

Compared to the absurd and sometimes dry humor well utilized in “Men in Black,” the comedy in “Wild Wild West” is much more aggressively goofy. Some sequences feel painfully wacky. Such as when Jim West first arrives on Gordon's gadget-laden train, the comedy getting too CGI heavy and too cartoonish. This is hardly the only time the wacky gadgets are utilized for overly broad comedy. Later, Will Smith springs into the air via a rubbery noose. The sequence that predates that moment, in which Smith desperately explains to a crowd of Southern gentleman why he drummed on a white lady's big titties, is more awkward than funny. The movie is certainly not above stupid, easy gags, such as when Smith kicks a cyborg henchmen in his jangling metallic balls. 

The dumb-ass humor is not the only thing about “Wild Wild West” that could accurately be criticized for being dumb. The script isn't exactly as sturdy as it could be. West and Gordon depend on blind luck too many times. The first scene has Smith getting on the trail of the bad guys because they happen to show up right under the water tower he's having sex in. Later, Gordon is led to the train tracks Loveless is using via a ultra-powerful magnet that randomly pulls him towards it. Later, West sneaks right into Loveless' lair by dressing in drag, a scheme that works out for him far too well. Probably the most random decision in the script is a moment where a giant henchman West is fighting just... Literally drops dead for no discernible reason at all. The writers – which included S.S. Wilson and Brent Maddock of “Tremors” fame, who claim their script was completely rewritten – clearly got themselves into a corner they couldn't escape there. 

The times when “Wild Wild West's” stupidity works is when it allows Will Smith and Kevin Kline to play off each other. The scene of the two feeling each other's fake boobs or trading ass puns while sleeping across from each other generate the biggest laughs. Kline's performance is one of extreme hamminess, going through the whole movie as a foppish dandy. Smith's performance, meanwhile, lacks much of the smart-ass energy that made Agent J likable. In fact, he largely plays Jim West as a macho asshole who whips his gun out at the smallest provocation. Yet, somehow, these two balance each other out more often than not. Kline screaming West's name to the heavens, their light banter while flying through the air, or Smith swinging a small knife around are stupid jokes... But they made me laugh, so I guess they work.

No matter the quality of the script, Sonnenfeld's films usually have fantastic supporting cast. This is also true of “Wild Wild West.” Kenneth Branagh affects an entertainingly ridiculous Southern accent as Loveless. He clearly enjoys hamming it up as a verbose supervillain prone to cartoonishly evil statements. Ted Levine plays a very Ted Levine-like part, as a hideous and sleazy Confederate soldier who sweats and grunts through his whole role. M. Emmet Walsh's ability to milk reaction shots for maximum humor is well-utilized as the train's engineer. (Punningly named “Coleman.”) Salma Hayek was clearly cast largely as eye candy, as she spends most of the movie is minimal clothing, but she tries her best to make the character a little more. It's clear that Rita is adapt at manipulating the spellbound men around her.

If nothing else positive can be said about “Wild Wild West,” let it be known that this is obviously a Barry Sonnenfeld movie. From early on, he utilizes a lot of his trademark moving camera. Such as when West is sliding along an improvised zip line. Or during the very first scene, when the camera takes the perspective of a flying buzz saw. When those saws return later in the film, it provides lots of similarly fluid camerawork. Sonnenfeld can't help but throw in a number of visual puns. Such as when a tank unloading on an army of men leaves giant bulls-eye pattern on the ground. Or when a puppy is introduced into a scene specifically to recreate the famous “His Master's Voice” painting. 

“Wild Wild West” was one of the most expensive movies ever made up to this point and that money is clearly on-screen. The sets, costumes, production design, and effects are all excellent. That extends to the music. Elmer Bernstein, a veteran of several iconic westerns, provides a properly rollicking score. He combines traditionally western-sounding themes with a more modern sound, reflecting the movie's content. In another naked attempt to recreate “Men in Black's” success, Will Smith also rapped a sample-heavy hip-hop theme song for the movie. Much like the “Men in Black” song, the “Wild Wild West” song is also extremely stupid and ridiculously catchy. (Though I'm completely incapable of hearing it without thinking of Neil Cicierega's hilarious evisceration.) 

From early on, the execs at Warner Brothers realized they had a bomb on their hands with this one. After limp test-screenings, a number of extremely costly reshoots were done but they did little to improve its outlook. By all reports, the entire cast hated making the movie and Will Smith has publicly apologized for it on several occasions. (He famously turned down “The Matrix” to star in this, which must sting.) By the time the movie arrived in theaters, the buzz was toxic. Critics were savage, audiences largely stayed away, and the movie swept the Razzies. The movie seems to broadcast its contempt to the audience, as one of the final shots is of a rock formation in the shape of a middle finger. It's only because of the international market, more immune to dumb-ass action flicks, that the film kept from being a nuclear-scale bomb. No re-evaluations have arrived and the movie continues to be a cinematic punching bag to this day. I guess you can just chalk it up to being a guilty pleasure on my behalf, though I hope I've made the case for this one being a little better than it's reputation suggests. Fuck it, I'm going to give this movie a positive score. If “Wild Wild West” is trash, look at me, I like trash. [Grade: B]

 

RECENT WATCHES: Addams Family Reunion (1999)

“Addams Family Values” is a beloved cult classic now but it was a box office disappointment in 1993. Combined with the tragic death of Raul Julia, any plans to produce a third film in the franchise were effectively scuttled. Yet the “Addams Family” brand name remained well known enough to have value. Saban Entertainment, rolling in dough after the phenomenal success of their “Power Rangers” franchise, purchased the rights to the characters with eyes towards launching a new television version. Before that came about, a direct-to-video film entitled “Addams Family Reunion” was produced essentially as an extended pilot. Though ultimately unrelated, save for Carel Struycken and Christopher Hart reprising their roles as Lurch and Thing, the film went out of its way to remind viewers of the Barry Sonnenfeld duo. Crapped out straight-to-video in 1998, “Reunion” has become especially reviled by “Addams Family” fans. 

The loose plot of “Addams Family Reunion” revolves around Gomez suddenly getting a desire to reach out to the extended Addams family. He pays for a costly service that arranges reunions for families. However, the creepy, kooky Addams are accidentally switched up with the Adams family, a mundane but despicable band of suburbanites. After tormenting Philip, the patriarch of the Adams brood that is slowly poisoning his rich father, Gomez and Morticia end up in prison while the kids are re-homed with some bratty WASPs. Otherwise, “Addams Family Reunion” is a loose series of gags involving a monstrous dog, Lurch making out with a woman in a pool, various sporting competitions, and two of the Adams ending up at the Addams home with Granny.

To put it simply, “Addams Family Reunion”  might be one of the most aggressively shrill and unpleasant movies I think I've ever seen. The jokes range exclusively from thuddingly obvious to shrieking. The movie begins with a painfully unfunny sequence of a postman being tormented by the Addams' mailbox and only goes downhill from there. There are multiple sequences of people screaming at a crocodile. When Lurch goes sleepwalking through the hotel, it results in repeated scenes of a scared woman screaming obnoxiously. Granmama chases the other Adams through the house while parodying “The Shining,” with more yelling. When not devolving into incoherent shrieking, “Reunion” focuses on the laziest switcharoo jokes possible. While the Sonnenfeld films spun gold out of the expected beat of the Addams interacting with quote-unquote normal people, “Reunion” hammers that same note in the least clever, most lazily executed and boring way possible.

“Addams Family Reunion” was directed by Dave Payne, a filmmaker who has mostly made low-budget horror movies. He claims he wanted to make a more darkly humorous film in-line with “Addams Family” tradition but that the studio demanded something strictly for kids. Yet even that doesn't explain why so much of this movie is so visually unappealing. The rich production design of the Sonnenfeld films have been traded for a very rinky-dinky looking Addams mansion, which is shot as flatly as possible. Most of the movie is set in a generic hotel, robbing the story of any spooky atmosphere. An especially dreadful moment is a pathetic attempt to recreate Gomez and Morticia dance scene from “Addams Family Values,” resulting in a horrible looking shot of Moritica spinning through the air. Worst yet is the puke-like CGI employed throughout. One of the film's worst running gags is a dog Fester has raised for Pugsley, that turns into a monster when hearing certain words. Far too many of the film's scenes are devoted to the ghastly CGI monster-chihuahua chasing and attacking people. It's maddening in its incompetence and lack of wit.

But a movie looking cheap and shitty and having terrible jokes would be one thing. What makes “Addams Family Reunion” truly despicable is how it treats the titular family as characters. The entire thematic point of the Addams Family is that, despite their rejection of traditional societal norms, they are fundamentally good people. The Addams here are all assholes. Gomez repeatedly humiliates Philip, in increasingly violent ways. To the point where his revenge, of sticking them in jail, feels totally justified. Thing and Fester's terrible dog terrorize people throughout the hotel for no reason. Wednesday and Pugsley get it worst of all. After being briefly adopted by the other family, it's heavily implied the kids tortured – if not murdered – their foster family. These gags, simultaneously too dark but not broad enough, represents a complete misunderstanding of the characters. Lastly, the film ends with Gomez abandoning his grandparents – who have come down with a condition that makes them “normal – at a nursing home, something the Addams simply would never do.

As awful as all of this is, there is some evidence to suggest “Addams Family Reunion” might have had a reason for existing. Replacing Raul Julia and Angelica Huston was never going to be easy but, on paper, Tim Curry and Daryl Hannah seemed like decent choices. To his credit, Curry does get the film's sole laugh, a reaction to being told he's made bail. Curry hams it up in his usual style but the material fails him. Hannah, meanwhile, is simply given nothing to work with and sleepwalks through the film. But they are better than the rest of the cast. Someone named Pat Thomas plays Uncle Fester and it's one of the most annoying performances I've ever seen. Thomas mugs furiously, giggling and shrieking and always making lots of noises. Nicole Fugere and Jerry Messing are both terrible as Wednesday and Pugsley, flat and far too mean. (Though it's awful that several mean-spirited gags are directed at Messing's weight.) 

Dave Payne does attempt to replicate Sonnenfeld's directorial style a few times, with a handful of tracking shots following various items tossed through the air. It does little to distinguish the film. I actually owned a VHS tape of “Addams Family Reunion” as a kid and watched it a few times. Proving once again that kids have a higher tolerance for obnoxious bullshit. Saban would produce a new (mediocre and subsequently forgotten) version of “The Addams Family” for Fox Family shortly after this film. The show recast everyone. Making me wonder what the point of creating this monstrosity was at all. Unless you're a devoted Ed Begley Jr. or Clint Howard fan, I would suggest only inflicting this movie on your worst enemies. [2/10]

Director Report Card: Barry Sonnenfeld (1997)

5. Men in Black

In the 1990s, for whatever reason, there was a renewed interests in UFOs, alien abductions, and government conspiracies revolving around them. There's no doubt a number of interesting socioeconomic reasons for this but the internet – which gave cranks and weirdos a visible place to voice their opinions – coming to prominence was doubtlessly a big one. Whatever the reason, a lot of pop culture arose to cash-in on this newfound alien fever, with “The X-Files” being the most prominent example. A less famous example was Malibu Comic's “The Men in Black.” An obscure comic book inspired by real conspiracy theories, which had morally gray agents killing witnesses and fighting various extraterrestrial/supernatural threats, it only ran for six issues. But this was enough to catch the attention of Hollywood producers. Barry Sonnenfeld, who did a good job fusing special effects with comedy and lively direction in his “Addams Family” movies, was drafted to direct. The result would be one of the icon blockbusters of the decade. 

James Edwards is a smart-mouthed New York City cop. On one fateful night, he tracks a strange witness down and sees several things he can't explain. Afterwards, a man in black calling himself Agent K tracks Edwards down. He is drafted into a secret organization that regulates extraterrestrial travel to and from Earth. They are the Men in Black and Edwards – now known as Agent J – is the latest recruit. At the same time, a highly aggressive species of alien called a Bug crash lands on Earth. He arrives to kill alien royalty and gather a rare form of energy. If the destructive bug, walking around in the skin of a farmer named Edgar, finds “the Galaxy,” Earth will be destroyed to protect the rest of the universe. It's up to Jay and Kay, still navigating their new partnership, to stop the Bug, retrieve the Galaxy, and save the world.

It's easy to see why big movie studios were attracted to the “Men in Black” premise. Once you strip away the sci-fi/comedy combo – reminiscent of “Ghostbusters” – and then in-vogue UFO angle, it's essentially a buddy cop movie. The story is built around a grizzled old officer, who is used to doing things by the book, teaming up with a younger officer who is sarcastic and plays by his own rules. While they initially butt heads, they soon grow to love and respect each other. Granted, “Men in Black” is not a direct photocopy of earlier buddy cop successes. Kay is pretty sarcastic himself, just dryer. Jay is a fish-out-of-water on the force not just because he's rebellious but because he doesn't really know the rules at all. For the variations that are made, this is still a tried-and-true formula being sold here.

What really makes “Men in Black” a success is that the sci-fi angle is not just a gimmick dressing up a familiar story. It honestly features some of my favorite examples of world-building. Much like the viewer, Jay is thrust into this strange new world. We're experiencing everything for the first time just as he is. And he's stuck knee-deep into the film's setting without much preparation. The film never explains much about the various oddball aliens glimpsed in the background or in various minor roles. They just exist and the audience is left to make-up our own theories about them, based on the peeks we get at their personalities. Moreover, an alternate world is created within our own, secret and elaborate bases and personale hiding within our pre-existing social structures. (This is certainly helped along by more excellent production design.) It feels like a totally developed and inhabited universe.

I might be more willing to buy into “Men in Black's” fictional universe because I'm an easy mark for practical creature effects. This is the movie that taught me who Rick Baker was. From the opening scene, we are introduced to some fabulous creature. Such as Mikey, a many-flippered upright being with an awfully expressive body. Or the Worm Guys, talkative non-humanoids addicted to earthly vices. Even minor creatures – a pulsating and partially translucent worm nicknamed Grouchy, the many-stalked Bob and his unpronounceable brother – are unforgettable creations. The crowning achievement in the film is the dying Arquillian prince, a beautifully life-like little alien that seems utterly alive even as its will slips away. They are all so vividly brought to life and it goes a long way to crystallizing “Men in Black's” immersive world. 

The mixture of a crowd-pleasing set-up with a beautifully created world is just part of why “Men in Black” works so well. This might be a perfectly paced movie. The opening scene immediately sets up the premise, introducing what the Men in Black do as well as establishing Kay's dilemma. We slam right into Jay's introduction, showing us what he's about and what he's capable of.  From there, we begin his descent into the MIB world. That's as strong and concise a first act as anyone could ask for and, after that, we are off to the races. “Men in Black” quickly establishes its threat and escalates tension at all the right moments. A warning shot from the Arquillians provides a tight time limit for our last act, keeping the audience invested and excited up through the end. “Men in Black” immediately sucks you in and keeps you hooked throughout its runtime. (Which, compared to most bloated modern blockbusters, runs a tight 98 minutes.)

And it's not just simple mechanics and creativity that makes “Men in Black” good. The movie is more thoughtful than it gets credit for. Early on, Kay describes Earth as “like “Casablanca” without the Nazis.” In this film, Earth is depicted as a mixing pot of countless intergalactic cultures. (It's no mistake that the movie is set in New York City, one of America's most famously multicultural metropolises.) The Men in Black allows them to live, habitat, or just visit here with minimal interference. It's heavily implied that many of the alien visitors are refugees. The Arquellian prince's human life is obviously meant to invoke a Jewish immigrant starting his own business. This is a 90 million dollar Hollywood blockbuster hat is explicitly pro-immigration. The opening scene, set at the Mexican border, makes this point all too clear. Kay lets border-crossing workers into the country because it's no big deal, when you consider everything else the planet is dealing with on a daily basis. 

That this is the movie's opinion only makes sense within its wider logic. The thematic crux of the second half is that the smallest things can hold great importance. The movie pulls back even further in its final, reality-bending seconds. On a cosmic scale, we are a little thing. Earth, and all the humans on it, are but microscopic bits of matter spiraling through a universe of infinite size. Yet we matter, yet we make a difference. (Not to mention that a microscopic galaxy as a thermodynamic power source is a bitching far-out sci-fi concept.) It's all really interesting and almost enough to make you overlook the movie's at-times fascist set-up. That human nature is unavoidably fearful and omniscient, pseudo-military forces – that can control our very memory – ultimately know what is best for us as a species. It's either complicated or really dumb, depending on where you stand.

Perhaps popcorn flicks like this aren't meant to be read too deeply into. “Men in Black” is filled with lizard-brain thrills and that's largely thanks to its brilliant cast. Will Smith was an A-lister in the making in 1997. Hot off the heels of another alien-themed blockbuster, “Men in Black” would make him a superstar. While opinions on Smiths' merits as a performer have wavered over the years, he's perfect in “Men in Black.” His smart-ass wit is frequently hilarious, best displayed in the scene where he's recruited to the MIB. His explanation for his actions on the shooting range still cracks me up. His macho bravado in some scenes would be hard-to-handle if Smith wasn't clearly playing Jay as a tough-talking rookie utterly in over-his-head. No wonder it would make Smith a mega-star.

Moreover, Smith's quick-witted retorts play fantastically off Tommy Lee Jones' Kay. Jones is not the traditional straight man. He gets plenty of great jokes to himself. Such as his tendency to undermine Jay's attempts at bad-ass posturing. Jones' dead-pan delivery of utterly absurd moments, like tough-talking a dog or delivering the punchline of some obscure joke. Ultimately, it's his complete seen-it-all gruffness – an absolute strength of Jones – that makes Kay so funny. Jay is blown away by every new alien reveal but Kay got used to this shit decades ago. There's depth to the guy too, in a lost love story in his backstory. Maybe it's sappy but the way that is set-up, and then paid off on at the very end, always gets to me. I think the film earns that sentimental streak.

Really, the cast is strong all the way through. Vincent D'Onofrio commits with every fiber of his body to the role of The-Bug-in-the-Edgar-Suit. He twitches, spasmodically flails, and limps along all while barking in a gruff, grumbling voice and looking like a rotting corpse. The pure contempt for the human race he conveys is impressive. It's truly a masterclass in exaggerated mega-acting. If D'Onofrio goes way over-the-top as an unforgettable villain, much of the rest of the cast underplays it. Oh, not Tony Shalhoub as a delightfully twitchy, greasy intergalactic fence. But Rip Torn's balance of utterly nonchalant reactions and grave delivery of exposition compliments the other performers nicely. So does Linda Florentino, who brings just enough eccentric spice to what would otherwise be a damsel-in-distress role.

His previous movies didn't have much in the way of action sequences but Barry Sonnenfeld's already motion-heavy style is well-suited to the genre. From early on, there's a definite sense of movement to the movie. Such as when Mikey sprints across a sparse desert road, towards the screaming immigration officer. You see this again during the rocket car sequence through the Queens tunnel, the camera careening along with the speeding vehicle as it defies gravity. It's most obvious when Jay accidentally unleashes a bouncing ball of doom throughout MIB headquarters. More than once, the camera assumes the P.O.V. of the ricocheting object, as it bounces off little aliens or around offices. 

Yet, even though “Men in Black” is largely defined by the moving camera, Sonnenfeld understands the value of a nearly still image too. Especially when it comes to comedy. While Jones interrogates an alien in the foreground, Smith is bashed about by an alien in the throes of labor. The montage of bouncing destruction is broken up by Zed, calmly sitting in his office and deflecting the object with a folder, is hilarious. Over all, the blending of humor and action works fantastically throughout. Whether it be the Bug's shocked facial expressions during the final fight, Jay tossed around by the Noisy Cricket, or Will Smith crawling around inside an upside down car. 

While I'm partial to the practical creature effects, it must be said that the CGI effects in the film holds up extremely well. Edgar the Bug's full form, which the film holds off on revealing for as long as possible, doesn't look photorealistic. Yet it's a highly expressive creature with a clear personality, that moves with weight and realism. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones even interact with the creature fairly convincingly. The CGI Bug was a replacement for a huge puppet that was deemed too stiff for the action-heavy last action, the result of a rewrite during filming. (This was late enough in the game that merchandise still featured the original Bug design.) Why is it that this twenty-three year old creation look better than stuff we see in major blockbusters in recent years? Perhaps more time and attention was taken with the Bug, considering CGI was still a new toy at the time. The computer graphics used on the MIB car and Mikey are noticeably not as strong. 

Lastly, the film's particular tone is established early on by Danny Elfman's fantastic score. The opening credits sequence, following the perspective of a dragonfly before it squishes on a windshield, is set to one of my favorite pieces of Elfman music. Low bow strings establish a foreboding mood of mystery before whimsical melodies take us higher and a driving theme takes over. This sets up the secret nature of the titular organization but also the sense of cool and humor that defines the film. (Many of these elements are returned to for the similar but equally excellent ending theme.) And, for what it's worth, I do like Will Smith's theme song. It's campy and pretty dumb, perhaps, but also insanely catchy. 

If it isn't obvious by now, “Men in Black” is a movie I love. I watched it countless times as a child. I credit the film for taking my already existing interest in UFOlogy and directing it more towards conspiracies and urban legends. (Which, thankfully, evolved into more of an anthropological interest in this topics and not wing-nuttery.) I think it's a just about perfect example of popcorn cinema. While critics were indifferent in 1997, audiences showed up in droves and made it the third highest grossing film of the year. Perhaps nostalgia colors my view of the movie some but, if that's the case, so be it. I still find this to be such a purely entertaining motion picture. [Grade: A]

Director Report Card: Barry Sonnenfeld (1995)

4. Get Shorty

There was, for however brief a time, a period were John Travolta was a major movie star again. After the decade-defining success of “Pulp Fiction,” the former Tony Manero was a red hot name again. It was during this time that we got a string of films attempting to cash-in on Travolta's newly reborn star power. “Phenomenon,” “Michael,” “Broken Arrow,” and “Face/Off” managed to be box office successes based almost solely on Travolta's name. The Travolta vehicle that would follow directly after “Pulp Fiction” was “Get Shorty.” Barry Sonnenfeld would direct and add another hit to his resume. But how does “Get Shorty” play in 2021?

Chili Palmer is a successful loan shark but, after his old enemy Ray “Bones” ends up being his boss, Chili gets tired of the tough guy life style. He follows Leo, a guy who faked his death to pull off an insurance scam, to L.A. There, he encounters B-movie producer Harry Zim. Zim has his hands on a red hot script called “Mr. Lovejoy” and is attempting to get Oscar-nominated actor Martin Weir to star. Palmer decides to try out movie producing, which involves pitching a movie based on his own life. At the same time, he gets tangled up in a criminal plot motivated by a would-be gangster that Zim owes money to, as well as falling in love with Weir's ex-wife.

“Get Shorty” was released almost exactly a year after “Pulp Fiction,” so it seems unlikely that the film was made exclusively to capitalize on Quentin Tarantino's groundbreaking sophomore effort. Yet one can't help but think of the earlier film while watching it. And not just because of Travolta's starring role and gangland plot. “Get Shorty” is adapted from a novel by Elmore Leonard, an author famous for his twisting plots and colorful dialogue. The film's soundtrack is filled with funky R&B classics and jazzy needle drops. The comparisons are unavoidable... And disappointing. Because “Get Shorty” is working so hard to capture the sense of effortless cool that “Pulp Fiction” pulled off, that it often feels belabored and insincere. 

And you can't say that this was all a big coincidence either. Aside from Travolta's presence, the producers apparently offered the movie to Tarantino and tried to get Samuel L. Jackson for a supporting role. The most obvious way “Get Shorty” emulates “Fiction,” is that this is a movie full of people who watch movies. Chili Palmer is a film fanatic. In the first scene, he references James Cagney. He catches a revival screening of “Touch of Evil” and can quote it from memory. Later on, he's annoyed that someone can't tell the difference between “Rio Bravo” and “El Dorado.” Moreover, Chili is so enamored of film that he desires to make his own life into a movie. His attitude and worldview is informed by cinema, which makes “Get Shorty” something of a meta movie that eventually folds in on itself.

Yet, while the film references and conversations in Tarantino's movies come from a place of genuine passion and love, “Get Shorty” always feels phony. It never really comments on the relationship between its characters and the movies. Everyone just wants to be in show business because... Everyone wants to be in show business. Moreover, the fake movies-within-the-movie never sound real. We never learn the actual plot or any real details about “Mr. Lovejoy.” The B-movie productions Zim produces, with names like “Slime Creatures” or “The Freaks,” all sound tossed-off.  Additionally, Chili's ability to convince everyone that his life story would make a great movie strains believability. 

As half-assed as the Hollywood plot of “Get Shorty” is, it proves a lot more compelling than the crime movie scenario. As is common in Leonard's books, and the films inspired by them, the narrative winds through several competing subplots and an extended cast of characters. If you're not paying close attention, it's easy to get lost. The guy who ran off with the insurance money, the reason Chili ends up in Hollywood, never returns to the story. A reoccuring plot point about an airport locker full of cash, or Ray “Bones'” rivalry with Chili, come and go when it suits the narrative. Yet few of these plot points actually add to the movie, merely complicating it further. Maybe this kind of plotting is more compelling in Leonard's book.

“Get Shorty's” overbearing commitment to seeming cool, and its ultimate failure to achieve that goal, is directly rooted to its star. Like most of his star vehicles that would follow in the nineties, the film completely misunderstands what is appealing about John Travolta. Travolta's best roles aren't cool guys. They are dorks who think they are cool. Vincent Vega was a fast talker but ultimately an unlucky drug addict. Tony Manero was trapped in a sexist, racist subculture and slowly becoming aware of that. Danny Zuko was a pining sad-boy in greaser drag. If played as a film nerd grossly overestimating his own slickness, Chili Palmer might've been a compelling character. Instead, the movie treats Palmer as a charming, intimidating bad-ass who is always one step ahead of his rivals. It's a character type that only leads to mugging on Travolta's behalf.

Early on, Harry Zim tells Chili Palmer that any movie worth its weight has a female lead and a corresponding love story. A line of dialogue about how a script must contain a romantic subplot, no matter how perfunctory, might have been a satirical commentary on Hollywood and “Get Shorty” itself, if this movie was as smart as it pretends to be. Instead, the romantic subplot in “Get Shorty” is simply lifeless and unnecessary. Rene Russo plays Karen, a woman romantically linked to three of the movie's male characters, as a character with a lot of attitude. Yet she never truly comes to life, save for a mild scene where she talks about her career in B-movies. She has no romantic chemistry with Travolta and Russo is reduced to a damsel-in-distress by the end. If all of this was intentional, it's a choice executed with no grace or intent at all.

Still, the A-list cast “Get Shorty” attracted does lead to some entertaining moments. Gene Hackman was reluctant to take the role of Harry Zim, saying he doesn't do comedies. (Which is fine, as “Get Shorty” is never funny.) Despite the weak material, Hackman is never anything less than entertaining. As a slimy Hollywood producer who says whatever people want to hear, Hackman clearly is having a ball. It is interesting to see such a respected actor in the role of a greasy shyster. If Hackman is cast against type, Dennis Farina is cast exactly to type as Ray "Bones," a blustering mafioso type that bludgeons and berates his way through the story. Watching Farina do his thing, which he's good at is, certainly has value too.

Delroy Lindo appears as Bo Catlett, the primary antagonist. Catlett's motivations for getting into the film business are left especially vague, though his insistence that screenwriting is easy did amuse me. Lindo, an actor of considerable range, doesn't get to stretch his muscles too much in the role of a generic bad guy. Before he became Tony Soprano, James Gandolfini appears here as a part-time stuntman and criminal enforcer. Gandolfini adopts a questionable southern accent and gets an unconvincing redemptive story arc. Despite that, he still has a particular charm that is hard to deny. Bette Middler also shows up uncredited, for one of the movie's most disposable subplots. Though she is at least entertaining in the handful of scenes she has.

Ostensibly a comedy, “Get Shorty” is far too self-satisfied in its slickness to ever actually create laughs. Yet there is one moment, in this entire 105 minute long film, that manages to be both funny, fascinating, and insightful about Hollywood. Chili goes to Martin Weir's home to pitch him on “Mr. Lovejoy” but, instead, convinces him to star in his own movie. Weir, played by a low-key Danny DeVito, is depicted as an egotistical A-lister that fills his mansions with portraits of himself. He bounces off Palmer, who tries to teach him how to play a convincing loan shark. The actor cycles through several facial expressions before it's finally decided he finds the right one. It's such a succinct, amusing take-down of self-involved actorly types. In this one scene, “Get Shorty” says more about the film industry than it does over the rest of its run time. 

Even if “Get Shorty” is nowhere near as cool as it thinks it is, Barry Sonnenfeld at least ensures that the movie looks cool. The shot most reminiscent of the Tarantino-style movies that obviously inspired “Get Shorty” occurs late on. It's a tracking shot on a pair of feet as they navigate through the airport. There's a number of his trademark tracking shots throughout, as characters walk from location to location. A handful of fight scenes are shot in cramped, frantic fashions that are convincing. Sonnenfeld also includes a few slow pans-out from high angles, which also look pretty nice. The editing is sharp and the film is stylishly assembled. It doesn't have the cartoonish energy of the “Addams Family” films but it still looks pretty slick.

Seen through modern eyes, “Get Shorty” seems almost embarrassingly of its time. It's a slick looking flick that isn't really about much of any, without really addressing its themes or ideas in any meaningful way. Yet the public's bizarre appetite for Cool Guy John Travolta at the time was so intense, “Get Shorty” was still a box office success. It stayed atop the box office for three weeks and grossed over 100 million dollars. If nothing else, this was the kind of hit Sonnenfeld's career needed after the disappointing grosses of his last two movies. Yet it also says a lot that “Get Shorty” is rarely discussed these days, even in light of a late sequel and television adaptation. [Grade: C]

Director Report Card: Barry Sonnenfeld (1993) - Part 2

3. Addams Family Values

Movie studios were not quite as franchise crazy in the early nineties as they are now. However, the whole point of making a movie like “The Addams Family,” an adaptation of an old TV show, was to capitalize on a known intellectual property. This was the same thought process behind every movie-to-television project of the time. So when Barry Sonnenfeld's “Addams Family” grossed over 100 million worldwide, a sequel was immediately given the greenlight. Obviously not wanting to mess with the formula too much, Sonnenfeld and his cast returned. Only two years later, “Addams Family Values” was playing in theaters all over the globe. While the sequel failed to match the box office success of the original, it has acquired a considerable cult following in the decades since.

As announced in the final minutes of the first film, Morticia is pregnant with her and Gomez' third child. After being rushed to the hospital, she delivers little Pubert. Wednesday and Pugsley are immediately jealous, attempting to murder the baby repeatedly. Annoyed by this, Gomez and Morticia seek a nanny. They soon find Debbie, who is seemingly not bothered by the family's macabre ways. Fester, who is increasingly lonely, is smitten with Debbie. Unbeknownst to the others, Debbie is the infamous Black Widow killer, who marries rich men just to off them. And Fester Addams is her latest target.

The first “Addams Family” movie suffered a little bit – but not too much – from the episodic nature of the TV show and comic strips it was adapting. “Addams Family Values” essentially has the same structure as the first film but finds a clever solution to smoother pacing. The two various plots of the movie are nicely tied together. The presence of the new baby brings Debbie into the story, who just happens to be the antagonist for the rest of the film and drives the plot in the last third. When the Debbie storyline and little Pubert B-plot threaten to break apart, another connecting fiber is introduced: Debbie's presence puts a curse on Pubert, making him into a precious little angel to his parents’ horror. It's not A-plus screenwriting or anything but it proves that someone learned from the flaws of the first go-around.

Paul Rudnick's screenplay also finds another angle to keeping the comedic formula fresh too. “The Addams Family's” angle – of the Addams responding with delight to “bad” things and being horrified by “normal” things – was delightful. Yet the joke probably would've strained under a second tour. The introduction of Debbie changes things. She's a seemingly normal person who has no problem with the Addams' life style. She smiles and chuckles with every new macabre sight. Not even Thing puts her off that much. It's all a con job for her but it manages to keep things fresh, nicely subverting expectations again.

Further adding to its comedic potential is one simple fact: “Addams Family Values” is also maybe the sickest comedy ever sold as a family film. They play this on ABC Family every October after all. This is a movie where the most frequently reoccurring gag is attempted infanticide, performed by other children no less. Baby Pubert is almost decapitated, dropped out a window, and crushed. There are throwaway jokes about incest, suicide, a woman being cooked alive, sadomasochism, and child molestation. Honestly, it's sort of amazing that something this genuinely dark came out of a major studio at the time. (Then again, this was the same year as “Batman Returns,” so I suppose big budget, goth-tinged sequels were getting away with a lot at the time.)

Enlivening the material even more is another dose of energetic visuals from director Sonnenfeld. His love of the moving camera is evident in numerous scenes. Thing rides a roller skate around like a skateboard, surfing through the hallways of the house. His camera assumes the P.O.V. of darts that Gomez throw at a board, handled by Lurch. As much as "Addams Family Values" is characterized by movement, Sonnenfeld also knows when to let an image linger. A shot of Pubert crawling towards the mansion's staircase or of the kids playing with a lightning rod in the rain are wonderfully framed. It's subtle sometimes too, such as in the hilarious decision to always light Angelica Houston's eyes, in a way reminiscent of Bela Lugosi as Dracula. And, of course, the production values are as gorgeous as before. (Such that the set dressing was nominated for an Oscar.)

As much as Sonnenfeld's energetic visual design is a highlight of "Addams Family Values," perhaps he pushes it too far at times. There are only two sequences in the sequel that are largely laughless. The first concerns a manic car ride, with Thing behind the wheel and Fester in the passenger seat. A smashed meatloaf on the side of the road is a reoccurring visual. The second is the long sequence of Rube Goldberg-like events at the end that result in little Pubert saving the day. It gets a little too cartoonish at times, the baby springing into the air. It's the only time this otherwise charming sequel feels like it's trying too hard.

But none of that is what "Addams Family Values" really owes its cult following to. The subplot where Debbie ships the kids off to summer camp is undoubtedly the fan favorite. Deadpan, sardonic Wednesday throwing dark quibs at the smiling, preppy kids around her has made the character even more beloved than before. Christina Ricci, somewhat stiff in the first movie, develops into a perfect performer. (Most evident in the hysterical smiling scene.) Yet the satire goes a little deeper than that. Nearly everyone else at camp is blonde, blue-eyed, and beautiful. Wednesday, Pugsley, and anyone else who refuses to conform to the strict societal rules for attractiveness are excluded, often to a small cabin in the woods. When a ridiculously self-indulgent Thanksgiving patent is performed, all the non-W.A.S.P.-y campers are forced into the roles of Native Americans. When Wednesday leads a bloody revolt, it's not just a hilarious rebuking of America's whitewashing of its own racist, bloody history. It's a rejection of the mindsets and society that created that whitewashing in the first place.

It's dark and subversive and very funny. Yet let's not give the movie too much credit. "Goths disrupt polite society" was a mini-genre at the time, encapsulating the entirety of Tim Burton's early career. There was always a degree of self-indulgent wish fulfillment in stories like this, of smarmy outsiders deflating their square oppressors. This is most evident in the character of Joel Glicker, the boy that develops a precocious romance with Wednesday at camp. One suspects that director Sonnenfeld saw a bit of himself in the dark-haired, neurotic, very Jewish young boy. A director giving his quasi-self-insert character a cool, goth girlfriend can't help but invite a certain amount of side-eye. But it's really cute too, as David Krumholtz and Ricci have a likably quirky chemistry. Like everything else, the movie subverts this summer romance with the darkly humorous ending, which is a nice example of the movie calling itself on its own bullshit a little bit. 

As with the first film, more than anything else, it's the cast that really makes "Addams Family Values" so much damn fun. The absolute joy Raul Julia brings to every one of his scenes is infectious. He's having so much in so many scenes. This becomes even more bittersweet once you realize he was already ill at the time of filming, dying less than a year after the movie came out. If Julia is a constant ball of enthusiasm, Angelica Huston is cool, quiet, and sensual as Morticia. This is most evident during the opening scene, where she remains calm and collected even during labor. The uncontrollable passion they feel for one another is best depicted in an impromptu dance sequence, another scene that might've been too cartoonish if the sheer joy of the actors wasn't so apparent.

Despite being tighter paced than the original, "Addams Family Values" even manages to find more stuff for its supporting cast to do. Carel Struycken's wonderful talent as a comedic straightman is well utilized, in several gags that puts the voiceless Lurch at the center. Carol Kane steps into the role of Grandmama, despite actually being a year younger than Morticia. No matter, because Kane's eccentric delivery manages to make small lines - such as simply repeating Debbie's objections back to her at the end - into big laughers. Mostly, Christopher Lloyd as Uncle Fester shines throughout the film. Lloyd's ability to combine child-like innocence, eccentric perversity, and a blushing comedic power makes him a highlight of the cast. (Even if he's playing the character very differently than he did in the first film.)

One definite way "Addams Family Values" is superior to the original is the antagonist department. Joan Cusack plays Debbie as a totally calculated human being who does everything as a ploy to get what she wants. While the Addams are never anything less than genuine, always defiantly their true selves, Debbie is continuously disguising her true intentions. When the mask comes off, after successfully marrying Fester, she reveals herself as a profoundly petty, greedy person only interested in the shallowest of things. Which also contrasts against the Addams' devotion to each other. In other words, she's a perfect foil. Joan Cusack attacks the role with a manic glee that is truly admirable. 

“Addams Family Values” was far better received than its predecessor, even managing to win some positive reviews from critics who were dismissive of the first film. Despite that, it wasn't as successful at the box office, merely managing to break even. Perhaps the humor in both films were too dark for mainstream audiences. Cable and video is where “Addams Family Values” would truly find an audience and it's a certified cult classic now. Look no further than the hundreds of GIF sets inspired by the movie. Many declare it the superior of the two flicks. I'm a little fonder of the original, perhaps entirely because of nostalgia, but there's no denying how fresh and funny and wholly entertaining “Addams Family Values” remains. [Grade: B+]

Director Report Card: Barry Sonnenfeld (1993) - Part 1

2. For Love or Money

“The Addams Family” had a difficult production. Two separate D.P.s quit during filming, Barry Sonennfeld got horribly sick at one point, and the financially crumbling Orion sold the movie before it was even completed. Despite that, the movie came out great and was a box office success. Sonennfeld immediately went to work on not just his second directorial credit but his third as well. A few weeks before “Addams Family Values” hit theater screens in 1993, a little movie called “For Love or Money” was released. The Michael J. Fox vehicle failed to make much of an impression on audiences or critics. Now, twenty-eight years later, the movie is entirely forgotten. But let's take a look at what this meant for the director's career.

Doug Ireland is the concierge at the Bradbury, a prestigious hotel nestled in the heart of Manhattan. Doug is the best there is at his job and especially talented at making sure the hotel's exclusive clientele is satisfied. He holds his own dreams of opening an equally glamorous hotel on Roosevelt Island. He's been saving all the money for years to achieve this dream. He also has a crush on Andy, the pretty young lady who works at the cosmetics stand. Despite his advances, she tells him she has a boyfriend. He smoozes with high-roller Christian Hanover, the rich guy that could finally make his dreams a reality. But there's a problem: Christian is Andy's mysterious boyfriend. And he's married and has no intention of his wife finding out about his girlfriend. Doug is pulled between his feelings for Andy and playing his cards right with his biggest investor. 

Michael J. Fox's legacy, at least as a movie star, is largely dominated by “Back to the Future.” Give a “Teen Wolf” or two, his other starring roles have more-or-less faded from memory. “For Love or Money” is part of a series of romantic comedies Fox would star in, on the trails of his most famous motion pictures. In fact, the movie has more than a few things in common with an earlier Fox vehicle, “The Secret of My Success.” Both have the former Marty McFly chasing love and money among the high-rollers of New York City. Much like that movie, “For Love or Money” lives or dies based entirely on Fox's charm. His boyish energy and movie star charisma keeps the utterly routine script afloat.

There's a problem though. On paper, Doug Ireland is a money-chasing asshole. He's introduced in the back seat of a limo, making calls on a cellular phone and paying lots of money for fancy gifts. The immediate assumption is that Ireland is a rich Wall Street asshole. In order to counteract this image of rich boy douchebaggery, “For Love or Money's” script goes out of its way to clarify that Doug is actually a really good guy. He stands up for an elderly bag boy, making sure he keeps his job despite the demands of the asshole owner. He repeatedly helps a schlubby guy whose marriage is falling apart, creating a perfect second honeymoon out of the kindness of his own heart. He selflessly goes out of his way to help people. You know, if you have to go to this much work to make sure the audience knows your main character isn't an asshole, maybe just don't write that character in the first place?

“For Love and Money” is a romantic comedy, with the focus perhaps more on the romance than the comedy. Andy is played by a young, shapely Gabrielle Anwar. She has a certain girlish charm and seems to be enjoying most of the scenes she's in. When matched up with Michael J. Fox, the two have a likable chemistry together. Especially in the moments when they are laughing together. When flirting gratuitously during a car ride, or nearly kissing during a romantic dance, there is a certain warmth you can link onto. Much of this is owed to Fox's effervescent charm and his ability to have chemistry with literally anyone, no matter how dire the material. 

Even describing the script for “For Love and Money” as “dire” is a bit unfair. It is, truthfully, utterly typical of the genre. The movie hits all the usual story beats exactly when you expect them. That includes what is easily my least favorite trope of the rom-com: That melodramatic push at the end of the second act, when some sudden crisis pushes our couple apart. In “For Love or Money,” it's a totally ridiculous misunderstanding between Doug and Andy that leads to a big fight, climaxing with a glass vase thrown against a wall. As is usually the case with moments like this, if either character had paused and actually explained what was happening, the fight could've been avoided. It takes you out of the movie, when you feel the machinations of the script pushing the characters forward, not their fictional personalities.

This is not the only rom-com cliché “For Love and Money” unironically indulges in. The Big Melodramatic Break-Up is almost always followed by the Big Romantic Gesture That Wins Her Back. In this film, it's Fox running across New York City, riding a horse and even leaping over a parked car, to catch up with Andy on the Brooklyn Bridge. To facilitate this, the movie drops two massive plot points within five minutes of each other. Christian Hanover tells Doug that he has no intention of leaving his wife for Andy. Christian then tells Andy he plans to rip Doug off. The script makes a normal asshole into a cartoonish bad guy just to facilitate its big, goofy finale. Sure, Michael J. Fox riding a horse down the street is cute but there were probably less strangled ways to get there. 

“For Love or Money” was originally titled, and released in some markets as, “The Concierge.” This is a far better title, as most of the run time is concerned with Doug's job at the hotel. The new title frames the conflict as being between Doug's desire for Andy and his hope of launching his own luxury hotel. Yet, due the overwhelmingly conventional nature of the script, there's never much doubt that Doug and Andy are going to get together. Of course, when ask to make the titular choice, he's going to choose love. So there's no suspense or drama throughout the entire last third of the movie, resulting in a film that ends with a sigh, instead of a bang. 

While built around Fox's strength and his chemistry with Anwar, “For Love or Money” did collect a largely overqualified cast. Udo Kier, of all people, is hilarious in a bit role as the (naturally) sleazy manager of the hotel. Dan Hedaya appears for a small role as some sort of sketchy, mafioso type customer, who contributes to some of the film's better running jokes. Even if they end up having little to do with the actual plot. Anthony Higgins is largely perfunctory as Hanover but, as the character becomes more ridiculous, his performance grows more cartoonishly evil. Which may be contrived but at least it's sort of entertaining. 

“For Love or Money,” clearly, aspires to be like the great screwball comedies of the forties or fifties. It very rarely reaches that level though there are a couple of close attempts. After accidentally inviting her to a party where Hanover's wife is present, Doug has to spin the girl around, making sure she's never seen by the wrong party. Later, while an elderly bag boy is packing as many objects onto a cart as possible, repeatedly drops a guitar, a decent gag that goes on for just the right amount of time. There's also an entirely random moment where a group of Rabbis chase someone down a street, wielding begets. I don't know why that joke is in the movie but it definitely made me laugh.

Ultimately, while “For Love or Money” is mildly charming a few times, it rarely produces those kind of laughs. Honestly, it's the small moments, that seem like the kind of thing Fox could've thrown in between takes, that prove the most memorable. Such as a minor moment where he hands some dogs a plate of leftovers. Or a moment were an impromptu clap plunges his room into sudden darkness, via The Clapper. It's not a lot and if I hadn't written these moments down I probably would've forgotten about them. But it counts for something in an otherwise droll motion picture.

If nothing else, Barry Sonnenfeld maintains his playful visual style throughout. The tracking shots that ran rampant throughout “The Addams Family” pop up a few times here, especially during the numerous shots set in the hotel's winding hallways. More than once, Sonnenfeld also includes some amusingly flippant crash-zooms, on a squawking parrot or an enthusiastic handshake. Two shots especially stick out in my mind. One is a slow zoom out of the doorway of an elaborate doll house that Doug has constructed for some reason. The other is a silhouetted shot behind a car as sundown happens in the back... As the characters describe vomiting to each other. 

I'm probably being too negative towards “For Love or Money.” It's... Fine. It's fluffy and relatively entertaining throughout its brief run time. However, there's simply very little memorable or interesting about it on most any level. I can only assume Sonnenfeld made the movie to further prove he could bring a project in under time and budget, following the somewhat messy production of “The Addams Family.”  The thing I most remember about the movie, when I remember it at all, is how the trailer played in front of seemingly every video tape I rented or bought back in the early nineties. (That and the “Make it a Movie Night!” rental promo with Byron the Dog.) Let that be this motion picture's legacy. [Grade: C-] 

Director Report Card: Barry Sonnenfeld (1991)

If Barry Sonnenfeld had stuck to his career as a cinematographer, he would probably still have a great career. He was the director-of-photographer on three of the Coen Brothers' early classics, as well as a series of other highly regarded popular films. If he never transitioned to directing, he'd still have “Blood Simple” and “Big” on his resume. Yet Sonnenfled would make that leap in the early nineties, eventually becoming the filmmaker behind several beloved cult classics and major blockbusters. Even if his career definitely declined in the last decade, he still made some movies that I adored as a kid. So let's indulge in some nostalgia and take a look back at this amusing fellow's successes and failures.

1. The Addams Family

In 1938, cartoonist Charles Addams created a comic strip about an eccentric family. The characters, which soon came to share their creator's surname, reveled in the macabre, bizarre, and the unconventional. The one-panel gag strip soon ran regularly for fifty years. The family members gained first names, growing more fleshed-out, when the strip became a television series in 1964. Despite only running for two seasons, the show became a fondly recalled classic due to its lovable cast, quirky humor, and unforgettable theme song. It's that catchy theme song, after an impromptu singalong in a car ride, that inspired producer Scott Rubin to pursue a film adaptation of Addams' comics in the early nineties. After first choice Tim Burton, who even did some work on the script, passed, Barry Sonnenfeld would make his directorial debut with the film.

The ever-eccentric Addams Family have lived out their defiantly unique lives in peace and prosperity for years. Yet something haunts otherwise enthusiastic patriarch Gomez. His brother Fester disappeared years ago, following a disagreement. This comes to the attention of the family's duplicitous accountant, Tully. He realizes that the psychotic son of his loan shark Abigail Craven resembles Fester. The trio cooks up a con to get at the Addams' considerable fortune. As “Fester” lives among the altogether ooky Addams, he begins to suspect that he may actually be a part of the macabre brood. 

“The Addams Family” is a movie essentially with one joke. The Addams will do something morbid or macabre, treating it as totally normal and charming. Likewise, when faced with something ordinary or typical, they will respond with horror or confusion. Yet, somehow, this gag is executed with perfect pitch each time. Mortica will nod approvingly as her children go about electrocuting each other or calmly hand her daughter an oversized cleaver. Fester and the kids bond over pictures of scabs. The family claps and cheers during a talent show, that concludes with the audience sprayed with fake blood. You can easily predict what the punchline to every joke will be, yet the laughs come each time. “The Addams Family” is a perfected oiled gag delivery machine, the flawless execution bringing up material that might've floundered in lesser hands. 

Part of why “The Addams Family” gets so many laughs out of its premise is due to its versatility. The Addams represents diametric opposites of the traditional American family. Which means they love cobwebs, deformities, cemeteries, the insane and the brutal. Yet it also means, in a sly type of social commentary, that the husband and wife are deeply in love. Gomez and Mortcia's passion for each other is unquenchable. In a shocking display of progressiveness from a nineties studio movie, they are openly kinky. The “normal' people in the film include the greed-obsessed Craven and the deeply unhappy Tully. Soon enough, Tully's wife is drawn into the Addams lifestyle, realizing that their eccentricities hide genuine warmth. When forced to exist in mundane society in the film's second half, Gomez falls into a depression. Though the rest of the family refuses to give in, remaining determined to their individuality. Through the lens of the Addams' world, we see how truly unhealthy “regular” society is.

Perhaps another reason why “The Addams Family” remains so refreshingly funny throughout is the playfulness inherent in its visual design. After two other directors-of-photography quit, Sonnenfeld decided to just shoot the movie himself. And he sure as hell wanted everyone to know a cinematographer made this movie. A kinetic sense of energy propels every minute of “The Addams Family.” Multiple tracking shots slide through the halls and along the floors of the Addams mansion. Sonnenfeld attaches his camera to darts, swords, and fireballs as they fly through the air. Dutch angles, eccentric close-ups, and charmingly artificial visual effects further the film's pitch-perfect visual construction.

Sonnenfeld's joyfully energetic style contributes to the comedy more often than not. The mad cap energy seen in scenes devoted to Thing delivering gifts or tapping out a message might not have connected at all without the speedy visuals. Or the delightfully goofy scenes devoted to characters dragged through the home's booby traps, Gomez playing with his trains, or the storm-filled finale. These represent the most aggressively wacky jokes, a pitch the film wisely doesn't attempt to hold throughout. In fact, “The Addams Family” is also home to some wonderfully still and quiet sequences. Mortica leading Fester on a tour through the graveyard or Wednesday found asleep in a tomb have an almost melancholy presence to them, a perfect compliment to the film's gothic set dressing. 

Yet the production design goes a hell of a long way too. Every set, prop, and costume is gorgeous. The Addams mansion is a perfectly gothic location, bathed in almost monochrome blacks and greys. The Addams family cemetery, dotted with unforgettably expressionistic statues, is another unforgettably designed element of the film. The attention to detail is even present in the mundane locations. The world outside the Addams' home is painted in puke greens and dirty whites. It's bland and awful and lacking in all the loving details and rich artistry of the family's home. A perfect visual summation of the film's ideas.

As well assembled as “The Addams Family” is, it can't escape some of the pitfalls of its genre. I don't mean as a comedy. I mean as a TV series adaptation. The film's plot is more than a little episodic. The premise of a possible impostor Fester trying to integrate himself into the family drives the story. Yet this set-up is still mostly an excuse for a series of comedic encounters. A minor subplot involves a charity auction. Another sequence is built around Wednesday and Pugsley's talent show performance. Or the reunion meant to celebrate Fester's return. Even the series of scenes in the second half, showing the Addams' attempt to integrate into the regular world, feels like it could easily stand alone. Honestly, writing this has made me realize how all these scenes sound like half-hour episodes.

There's also a dramatic risk of sorts in the script, that the film can't quite overcome. We, as the viewer, know immediately that “Gordon Craven” is actually Fester Addams. As soon as he comes on-screen, it's kind of hard not to realize that. The story has “Gordon” denying this, clashing with the family, being freaked out, but slowly coming to realize his actual identity. This can be pretty funny – Fester's reaction to meeting Thing, and Gomez's reaction to that, is hilarious – but it probably could've been a little better realized. Fester remains secretly cold to the family, thinking they're crazy, before suddenly developing a fondness for the kids. It happens in one scene and the character is almost totally changed after that moment. A slower, more natural build-up to this was certainly possible.

Not that it really matters too much because “The Addams Family” soars thanks to its incredible cast. Respected thespian Raul Julia would make his commercial breakthrough as Gomez. And he's perfect. Julia summons a boundless energy in many scenes, leaping through windows or off his desk. You really believe he can dance the Manuska. Julia also has perfect comedic timing, leaping right over absurd dialogue in such a way that you could miss it on a first viewing. His Gomez is distinct from John Astin's, less goofy, but immediately iconic. He also has amazing chemistry with Anjelica Huston as Morticia. Huston beat out Cher for the part and it's not hard to see why. Her precise body language captures the exacting sensuality and clear personality of the character. Huston's delivery is always quiet, because Morticia always knows exactly what she wants.

Though not quite her first role, Wednesday Addams is still the part that turned Christina Ricci into a cult icon. (Not to mention making her a goth fashion icon.) She still has some of that unavoidable child actor stiffness in a few scenes but Ricci's unblinking glare and deadpan delivery makes her ideal for the role. Ricci's ability to maintain an icy composure while saying terrible things certainly results in some of the movie's funniest lines. Jimmy Workman's Pugsley is the wide-eyed innocent to Ricci's quietly boiling Wednesday. His goofy, puppy dog energy is an ideal match. Carel Struycken also has just the right body language as Lurch, who goes about his job with Frankenstein-ian composure, no matter how offbeat the activities might be. 

All of these casting choices are obvious, in retrospect, with one exception. Christopher Lloyd, on paper, probably didn't seem like anyone's first choice for Fester Addams. You wouldn't associate bald, rotund Uncle Fester with the guy who played tall, thin figures like Doc Brown or Judge Doom. The fat suit Lloyd wears throughout is a little weird. Yet he still makes the part his own, providing a darker and more sardonic edge to the part first played by Jackie Coogan before slowly revealing a goofier side. He certainly plays nicely off Elizabeth Wilson, as Abigail Craven. Wilson plays Craven as someone utterly banal in her evil, committed to her abusive and manipulative ways. Dan Hedaya and Dana Ivey also make Tully and his wife way more entertaining than they probably needed to be. 

If it wasn't obvious, “The Addams Family” is a movie I'm inordinately fond of. It was a common feature in my childhood VHS player. I was already developing my appreciation for spooky stuff and sick humor, which is probably why I attached myself to the movie so much. Those who accuses the movie of being Burton Lite are right on the money. (This is especially true of Marc Shaiman's score, which does such a good job of aping Danny Elfman's style that I assumed it was his work for years.) Yet when compared to the numerous other TV-to-film adaptations of the decade, “The Addams Family” undoubtedly emerges as the leader of the pack. Sonnenfeld's energetic direction, amazing production design, and a cast that could not have been better cements this as a nostalgic classic for me and weirdos like me. [Grade: A-]