Brewster's Millions (1985)

"Monty pitches and I catch. The money won't change us."

Director

Walter Hill

Cast
Richard Pryor - Montgomery Brewster

John Candy - Spike Nolan

Stephen Collins - Warren Cox
Lonette McKee - Angela Drake

Pat Hingle - Edward Roundfiel
Jerry Orbach - Charlie Pegler
Jerome Dempsey - Norris Baxter
David White - George Granville
Hume Cronyn - Rupert Horn

With all the reboots, remakes, and long, long, long awaited sequels hitting theaters the last 15 years, audiences generally think this a result of a creativity shortage in Hollywood. Maybe that's true to a large degree, but there's a lot of writers out there, and there's a lot of sublime and excellence movies coming out that don't often get the same attention as the more anticipated movies do. 

As far as all the remakes and reboots, my normal retort is that these movies are as old as the movie industry itself. There's a lot of classic and well-beloved movies that are remakes of earlier films. "The Wizard of Oz" from 1939 comes directly to mind. 

The 1985 comedy, "Brewster's Millions" with Richard Pryor and John Candy is a perfect example of how movie remakes are nothing new in Hollywood. 

I knew about this movie for decades, but I've never watched it until a few nights ago for a movie night with my wife. She somehow earned a code from Roku and was able to pick a free movie to download on the "My Movies" app. So, this is was the most appealing from the movies we could choose from.

I wanted to get to "Brewster's Millions" while I've been on a John Candy movie binge lately, as I've mentioned in my previous John Candy movie reviews. 

In this movie, Richard Pryor plays Montgomery 'Monty' Brewster who pitches for the minor league team, the  Hackensack Bulls.

He's pals with the Bulls catcher, Spike Nolan (John Candy). After a post-game stop at the local bar, the two get into a big bar brawl and wind up in jail.
They're visited by a stranger named J. B. Donaldo who offers to cover their bail, but they have to plead guilty. 

Once they're out of the slammer, he takes them back to the law firm of Granville & Baxter out in Manhattan. There, Monty is tossed into a meeting with an executor, Edward Roundfield. 

Much to Brewster's shock and surprise, his great-uncle Rupert Horn (Hume Cronyn) suddenly died. Monty didn't even know he had a great-uncle Rupert. What's more shocking is that Rupert is an insanely rich white dude...or, was an insanely rich white dude. And what's even more shocking is that Monty is his only living relative. So, upon Rupert's death, there's no one to inherit his $300 million fortune except Monty. 

Richard Pryor as Monty Brewster in "Brewster's Millions."

However, he's not going to get that fortune without a little catch. He's got two choices. Monty can either take $1 million right away. The law firm would then become the lawful executor of great-uncle Rupert's estate and will collect a service fee, while the rest of the millions will be given to charity. 

Or, he can have $30 million upfront and spend every cent of it within 30 days. 

If he picks the second option, the catch is that despite all the required spending, when the 30 days is up, Brewster cannot own any assets other than what he doesn't already own. If he hires anybody and uses part of the $30 million to pay them, he has to utilize the services he hires them for. 

Brewster cannot destroy or damage any of the items he might purchase. He's permitted to give five percent away to charity, and he can only gamble another five percent. In other words, he can't just give the millions away, nor can he squander all of it on gambling. 

Finally, he cannot tell anyone about this challenge. Not even Spike. If he can spend the entire amount and stick to the rules, he'll inherit the entire $300 million. If he fails, he forfeits all of it and gets nothing. 

Brewster picks the $300 million and doesn't waste a minute in spending his millions. 

Though "Brewster's Millions" has an original feel to it, it's obviously not an original story as I mentioned. 

It's based on the 1902 novel written by George Barr McCutcheon. It was also a Broadway production in 1906 starring Edward Abeles.

The earliest movie based on McCutcheon's book is the 1914 silent comedy movie of the same name directed by none other than Cecil B. DeMille along with Oscar Apfel.

In 1921, another silent movie adaptation, also called "Brewster's Millions," was released. It stars the legendary Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle. 

Over in the U.K., they made their own movie based on the novel in 1935 also called "Brewster's Millions." Their version is a musical comedy directed by Thornton Freeland

Back in the U.S., another remake, again called "Brewster's Millions," was released in 1945 and stars Dennis O'Keefe. And that takes us to the 1985 comedy. 

Richard Pryor, Rick Moranis, and John Candy.

There's a buddy chemistry between Richard Pryor and John Candy. It's unfortunate these two comedians didn't do more movies together.

For a movie starring two of the best comedians in the industry, there's not enough comedy in "Brewster's Millions." In other words, their collective comedic talent isn't used to the fullest extent. Candy and Pryor work well with what their given. But there's so much more room in the premise for more comedy from these guys. And with that buddy chemistry I mentioned, "Brewster's Millions" could have been a decent starting-off point for some more comedies from these guys. 

That's not to say the movie doesn't earn some laughs. There's even a cameo from Rick Moranis.   

Otherwise, "Brewster's Millions" is a story which I can't really compare to any other story though there's a lot of movies about regular people who suddenly strike it rich through some out-of-the-ordinary circumstance, or through a million-to-one stroke of amazing luck. But adding the element of the protagonist being required to spend millions to get millions makes an intriguing and unique comedy.

I previously reviewed the film "Waking Ned Devine" about a jackpot lottery win in a small Irish village. Also the 1954 British comedy, "The Million Pound Note" starring Gregory Peck and based off a story by Mark Twain, led to the 1983 comedy "Trading Places" with Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd. Both are about sudden wealth with main characters who are like fishes out of the water with their fortune. 

In 1979, the "MAD Magazine Board Game" was introduced. In this game, each player starts off with $10,000. And in true MAD Magazine form, satirizing "Monopoly," each player rushes around the board trying to lose all their money. The first loser is the winner. That's the closest thing I can compare the movie to. 

Despite how much more humor from Candy and Pryor that could have been used, the movie is still a fun, fast yet well paced story. Not to mention the moral of the story that money really isn't everything. It's more of a burden than it is a blessing. 

Even so, I can't think of another movie or story that makes its audience want to be in the protagonists spot any more than "Brewster's Millions." 

Delirious (1991)

"This stranger knows no danger. I'm much stranger than you think."

Director
Tom Mankiewicz

Cast
John Candy - Jack Gable
Mariel Hemingway - Janet DuBois/Louise
Emma Samms - Rachel Hedison/Laura Claybourne
Raymond Burr - Carter Hedison
David Rasche - Dr. Paul Kirkwood/Dennis
Charles Rocket - Ty Hedison
Dylan Baker - Blake Hedison
Jerry Orbach - Lou Sherwood
Renée Taylor - Arlene Sherwood

John Candy is a comedic talent that's still sorely missed among fans even 30 years after his death. 

 I love his movies! I have a list of John Candy films I am searching for wherever I might happen to find them. Specifically, I'm looking for the Candy films that don't seem to get the same sort of attention as his more popular movies. Movies such as "Only the Lonely," "The Clown Murders," "Brewster's Millions," "Once Upon a Crime," "Going Berserk," "Armed and Dangerous," and "Canadian Bacon" are the ones I want to get to but can't seem to find fast enough. I happened to find his 1991 romance comedy "Delirious" on the streaming app, Tubi.

I've already reviewed his movies, "Nothing but Trouble," "Summer Rental," and Who's Harry Crumb?" not too long ago on this platform. 

"Delirious" is one of his comedies that should stand out above the rest primarily because of Candy's performance, though the film as a whole was poorly received upon its release. In fact, it was a flop. However, Candy's performance alone deserves a lot of attention. It's a rare gem in that he takes on a romantic lead, albeit not as romantic a lead like he did in the John Hughes movie "Only the Lonely" in which he co-stars with Ally Sheedy and Maureen O'Hara. I cannot wait to get to that movie! 

By the way, speaking of Ally Sheedy, I didn't realize until five minutes ago that she has a cameo in "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York." I completely missed that! But I digress. 

Looking at his filmography, John Candy had quite a year in 1991. He appears in five movies released that year - "Nothing But Trouble," "Career Opportunities," "Only the Lonely," 'Delirious," and Oliver Stone's "JFK." The latter is a cameo in which Candy takes on a serious role. 

In "Delirious" Candy plays the head writer of a soap opera, "Beyond Our Dreams" named Jack Gable. The series takes place in the fictional town of Ashford Falls.

He's deeply immersed in his writing and is attracted to the self-absorbed show's head actress, Laura Claybourne (Emma Samms) who plays the lead role, Rachel Hedison.

When he arrives to work on a rather business-as-usual morning, he bumps into another actress, Louise (Mariel Hemingway) who's there to audition for the role of Janet DuBois. 

Janet is a character Jack is adamantly opposed to. When he catches wind of this character's debut, he takes the issue to the show's co-producers, Lou Sherwood (Jerry Orbach) and Arlene Sherwood (Renée Taylor). 

The Sherwoods respond to Jack's protest by telling him they don't care much, if at all, for his ideas for the series' upcoming season. One of his ideas is to introduce a new character called Jack Gates who'll be a self-centered rich yahoo. 

The late, great John Candy as Jack Gable in "Delirious."

In fact, they want to kill off the lead character, Laura Claybourne. This doesn't make sense. Their decision is based completely on Rachel's ridiculous contract demands. And to ensure they get what they want, Lou and Arlene hire Jack's nemesis in the field, Arnie Fetterman (Milt Oberman) who'll basically do whatever they tell him. The Sherwoods are very set in their ways. 

That weekend, Jack has plans to take a vacation to Vermont. 

Before leaving, Laura calls him crying about breaking up with her boyfriend, Dennis (David Rasche), who happens to play the character, Dr. Paul Kirkwood on "Beyond Our Dreams." She insists on tagging along with Jack on his trip. 

Of course, Jack is all for it since he has feelings for her.

As he tries to pile her luggage into his trunk, he catches her making out with Dennis. It didn't take long for them to make up. 

The trunk then closes on his head pretty hard. Still, he takes off for his trip, and then crashes his car. 

When he wakes up, Jack finds himself in Ashford Falls Hospital. He recognizes the set right away. Dr. Kirkwood is standing over him. Of course, Jack thinks it's a joke, until he leaves the hospital and finds himself in the actual town of Ashford Falls. 

While outside wrapping his head around the situation, he bumps into Janet DuBois. He recognizes her from the office, but she thinks he's actually Jack Gates looking for a weight-loss formula her father developed. Jack insists he's the show's writer which she doesn't believe.

They get into a frustrated argument which ends with her telling him to write his way out of his situation. 

So, that's what he does. Jack pulls out his typewriter and writes a scene for the show in which the local mechanic calls him to say his damaged car is now fixed. As soon as he does, the mechanic calls and tells him his car is fixed. 

In no time, Jack realizes that whatever he writes on his typewriter quickly becomes reality. He can control the flow of events and the actions of the characters around him by simply typing out scenarios. So, Jack uses this incredible gift as a way to pursue Rachel in as epic a way as he can. But the reality he writes out only lasts as long as the scene is written. 

However, it works, and Rachel falls for him despite having a boyfriend. 

Meanwhile, Jack starts developing an attraction to Janet and uses his typewriter to help her avoid some schemes which the wealthy brothers, Blake (Dylan Baker) and Ty Medison (Charles Rocket) are plotting in an attempt acquire the weight loss formula at the behest of their dad, Carter Medison (Raymond Burr). 

The family owns and operates a huge pharmaceutical company which explains why they want this weight loss formula. So, Jack is forced to keep writing scenes to ensure everything plays out the way he deems best. 

Emma Samms and John Candy.

John Candy takes on a romantic lead alongside his funny buddy type of humor and persona. 

His characters are generally easy for audiences to connect with. Candy is just likeable. There's no reason to say it all fancy-like. That's why I've been searching for a bunch of his not-so-talked about movies and watching them when I can. His performance in "Delirious" is no different. 

I was barely interested in everything going on outside of Candy's screen time. 

Everything else, especially the acting, needs polishing. Lots of it. Then again, it's soap opera acting. In that regard, the cast nailed it!

I did get a few laughs out of the jokes both from Candy and from other the actors. 

The movie has potential to be much more memorable than it is. It feels more like a dress rehearsal than a fun, well made comedy. 

Despite what it lacks in the performances, line delivery, and enthusiasm from some of the other actors, "Delirious" barely passes as a movie that deserves an audience, or at least a heart filled cult following. 

Otherwise, the rest of the comedy falls flat too often. 

John Candy really does his Candy best to carry this thing to the end, working with what he's given and with as much enthusiasm and energy as he can. 
It becomes absurd at times which actually works for a comedy like this. But it still strikes me as forced, such as when he gets upset and tosses his typewriter against the wall. 
"Delirious" also feels like a unique twist on the premise seen in "Groundhog Day" which was released in 1993. 

Aside from John Candy, "Delirious" has a respectable cast of notables such as Mariel Hemingway, Raymond Burr, Dylan Baker, Jerry Orbach, Robert Wagner, and an uncredited cameo from Margot Kidder. 
Like I said, some of the jokes got a laugh out of me. The other times, I wondered "what the hell kind of writing is this?" Then again, that's the who point of the movie.

The Little Rascals (1994)

"Then the clouds opened up and God said, 'I hate you, Alfalfa'!"

Director
Penelope Spheeris

Cast

Travis Tedford - Spanky McFarland
Bug Hall - Alfalfa Switzer
Brittany Ashton Holmes - Darla Hood
Kevin Jamal Woods - Stymie
Ross Bagley - Buckwheat Thomas
Jordan Warkol - Froggy Laughlin
E.G. Daily - voice of Froggy Laughlin
Zachary Mabry - Porky
Sam Saletta - Butch
Blake Jeremy Collins - Woim
Blake McIver Ewing - Waldo Johnston III
Courtland Mead - Uh-huh
Juliette Brewer - Mary Ann
Heather Karasek - Jane

I've never seen the 1994 movie "The Little Rascals" until a few weeks ago. That's kind of odd for me given that I'm a fan of the Hal Roach comedies which includes the "Our Gang" comedy shorts, also known as "The Little Rascals." It also includes the comedies of Laurel and Hardy, Charley Chase, and Thelma Todd and ZaSu Pitts. In fact, I recently wrote a post about Pitts and Todd (later Todd and Kelly) comedies which took me over a year to put together. 

But "The Little Rascals" was one of many movies I've had on my to-watch list.

I've not only wanted to see it because of its being a remake of Hal Roach's "Our Gang" brand, but also because of another Hal Roach brand remake that was released straight to video and doesn't get much attention, if any at all. That movie is "The New Adventures of Laurel and Hardy in For Love or Mummy." It was released in 1999 and stars Bronson Pinchot as Stan Laurel alongside Gailard Sartain as Oliver Hardy. Before I get to that one, I wanted to watch this movie first. 

What's more fascinating about that Laurel and Hardy reboot is that Oscar winning actor F. Murray Abraham also stars in it. Abraham is no small name in Hollywood. He had a masterful performance as Salieri in "Amadeus" and also stars alongside Al Pacino in "Scarface."

In the meantime, I decided to finally watch "The Little Rascals" one Sunday afternoon with my kids after stumbling on it on some streaming app; I don't remember which one. 

To be honest, I wasn't expecting anything fantastic. In fact, I was expecting some disappointment despite having heard several times before from random people how much they love this movie. I'm just a harsh critic, I guess. 

〰 Time Out for Lessons 〰

Hal Roach's 'Rascals' in the 1925 silent film, "Your Own Back Yard."

As for the classic "Our Gang" films, from what I found, there are approximately 220 original short films that span from the 1922 pilot short "Our Gang" to their last movie, "Dancing Romeo" from 1944. 

The first 66 films between 1922 to 1928 are silent movies produced by Hal Roach Studios and distributed by Pathe'. 

Often, these shorts were billed as "Hal Roach presents his rascals." They feature the original cast of kids before the shorts with Alfalfa, Spanky, Darla, Buckwheat and all the rest of the commonly known cast of characters popped up on screen which are depicted in this 1994 reboot. 

The original silent "Gang" include characters such as Sunshine Sammy (later replaced with the character "Pineapple"), Farina, Mickey Daniels, Jackie, Peggy, Snowball and Jack Davis. Mickey Daniels, by the way, was the original leader of the gang. 

There was also another member named Sing Joy, played by Sonny Loy - a Chinese kid who would join in these shorts from time to time such as in "Derby Day" (1922) and "The Mysterious Mystery" (1924).

Several silent "Our Gang" shorts between 1927 to 1929 were also produced by Hal Roach Studios and distributed through MGM. 

Finally, the talking films were produced between 1929 to 1944. 

Some of these original young cast members lasted until the early talking "Our Gang" shorts of the 1930s. Farina was one of those original Gang members to star in the early talking "Our Gang" films. And he's often considered one of the best of the child actors to star in these movies. His comedic performance and emotional displays are well respected for being superb.

As the earlier Gang does what kids have a knack for doing - grow up - new child actors where cast for the talking shorts. 

As Roach saw it, kids are naturally imaginative and creative. So, the humor and entertainment they would provide would be, and is, natural. 

1935 marks the year when the characters who are most popular today began making their "Our Gang" appearances. Carl "Alfalfa" Switzer first appeared in the 1935 short, "Beginner's Luck" as "Tom." In the next short released that same year, "Teacher's Beau" he plays the character "Alfalfa." 

Stymie first appears in "Teacher's Beau." And it's worth mentioning that Stymie's over-sized derby hat is actually an old hat that belonged to Stan Laurel.  

A scene from the 1937 short "Glove Taps" in which 
Tommy Bond (2nd from right) debuts as "Butch."

"Porky" first appears in "Little Sinner." And Darla Hood debuts in "The Our Gang Follies of 1936." 

Spanky McFarland joins the gang a little earlier in the 1932 short "Free Eats."  

Also, actress Hattie McDaniel, famous for her role in "Gone with the Wind" portrayed Buckwheat's mother in the "Our Gang" shorts, "Anniversary Trouble" (1935) and "Arbor Day" (1936).

I knew of the later talking "Our Gang" shorts from the mid to late 1930s since before I can remember. However, I was introduced to the silent films thanks to VHS releases from "Cabin Fever" which came in a set. Each tape had an introduction from film critic Leonard Maltin. 

Quite often, Hal Roach actors would cross paths in other movies. For instance, Stan Laurel has a role in the silent flicks "Rupert of Hee Haw" and "Short Kilts," both from 1924 and starring the original "Our Gang." 

Laurel and Hardy have a cameo in the later "Our Gang" film "Wild Poses" (1933).

And several of the "Our Gang" kids appear in the Laurel and Hardy movie "Babes in Toyland." 

Meanwhile, Little Rascal bully Tommy "Butch" Bond has a cameo in Laurel and Hardy's feature movie, "Block-Heads" (1938). And the famous little rascal, Darla Hood, appears in another Laurel and Hardy movie, "The Bohemian Girl" (1936). 

Lastly, as I've mentioned before, Spanky McFarland stars in Thelma Todd and ZaSu Pitts final short together, "One Track Minds" right before Todd began making shorts with Patsy Kelly. And Mickey Daniels stars in the Todd and Kelly short "An All-American Toothache." 

〰 'The Little Rascals' 〰

Bug Hall (left) as "Alfalfa" and Sam Saletta as "Butch" in "The Little Rascals."

In this movie, rascal Spanky McFarland (Travis Tedford) and the other young members of the "He-Man
Womun [sic] Haters Club," an "organization" that goes back to the original "Our Gang" series, select Alfalfa Switzer (Bug Hall) to be the official driver of the club's go-cart dubbed "The Blur" in an upcoming soapbox derby. 

They make this decision without Alfalfa's presence. So, when they go to tell him, they find Alfalfa on a romantic outing with a girl named Darla (Brittany Ashton Holmes). This goes against the principles of the He-Man Womun Haters Club.

When Darla and Alfalfa set up a lunch date, which Alfalfa hosts inside the clubhouse, the rest of the gang go out of their way to sabotage it. 

Spanky is the mastermind behind this scheme to split his buddy up with Darla, but Alfalfa doesn't know that.

Their efforts lead to the clubhouse burning down. 

One of the club members leads Darla to believe that Alfalfa no longer cares for her and is, in fact, ashamed of her. 
Stunned and angry, Darla takes an interest in Waldo Johnston III (Blake McIver Ewing), a self-centered rich kid who's trying to win over her affection. 

The other club members then "punish" Alfalfa for spending time with a girl by instructing him to guard "the Blur" until racing day. 

Meanwhile, Alfalfa tries again and again to win Darla's love back, but to no avail. He can't get a break. 

And the other club members have work to do to rebuild their clubhouse. 

They try to come up with money for building materials. They also have to come up with another go-cart after some bullies, Butch (Sam Saletta) and his buddy Woim (Blake Jeremy Collins), steal "the Blur." 

When Alfalfa finds out what Spanky has done to sabotage his romance with Darla, things only get worse...before they get better. 

This is a film that's innocent and, thankfully, family friendly. 

What makes the original "Our Gang" casts stand out is Hal Roach's insistence that their respective characters reflect the real personalities of the actors no matter their class, race, or background. This gives the kids the freedom to meld with each other so well amidst direction. In other words, he

Travis Tedford as "Spanky."

preferred they act like kids instead of trained performers.

I think this movie carries on that legacy to some degree, especially between Buckwheat (Ross Bagley) and Porky (Zachary Mabry) who pal around as a bit of a sideline. Plus, the young actors in this movie perform exceptionally well, and are clearly enjoying what they're doing.

The movie pulls jokes and gags from original "Our Gang" films, primarily "Hearts are Thumps," "Rushin' Ballet," and "Hi'-Neighbor." 

Director Penelope Spheeris has also directed a couple other comedies during the 1990s that have a large fanbase - "Wayne's World" and "Black Sheep." 

She also directed the 1993 movie "The Beverly Hillbillies" based on the TV series. 

This version of "the Little Rascals" is blended amazingly well. Though it's obviously an updated version of the original series, the source material isn't too modernize. It maintains both it's classic nature along side a timeless quality.   

The source material is treated respectfully with a lot of the jokes and gags taken straight from the "Our Gang" shorts plus more updated humor for the time.

This film grabbed the interest of my three oldest children ages five, eight, and nine. So much so, they've taken an interest in the original black and white shorts. Trying to get children interested in old films is nearly impossible. I think the "Our Gang" shorts might be a perfect doorway to introducing kids (at least my kids) to classic films.

The movie also packs in several cameos, including Donald Trump, which I certainly have no problem with. His cameo fits. 

If I have to pick out something negative, I'd say the dialogue sounds scripted here and there, but it's easily forgivable. 

Otherwise, there's such a natural ease in giving this movie a modern feel (for 1994) while maintaining the classic nature of the "Our Gang" brand. It's an innocent and enjoyable experience worth re-watching. 

Gung Ho (1986)

"We're going to have to do what the Japanese do!"

Director

Ron Howard

Cast
Michael Keaton - Hunt Stevenson
Gedde Watanabe - Takahara "Kaz" Kazihiro
George Wendt - Buster
John Turturro - Willie, another worker, also Hunt's friend
Mimi Rogers - Audrey, Hunt's girlfriend
So Yamamura - Mr. Sakamoto
Sab Shimono - Saito
Rick Overton - Googie

Clint Howard - Paul

Rance Howard - Mayor Conrad Zwart

There are two comedies from the 1980s that stand out in my mind above other 80s comedies as being underrated. One is "Throw Momma from the Train" (1987) with Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito which is also directed by Danny DeVito. 

The other is "Gung Ho" with Michael Keaton and directed by none other than Ron Howard. 

They're two totally different comedy movies, and they're by no means perfect. But they're both highly enjoyable, hilarious, memorable, and appealing. I'm sure there's other underrated comedies from the 80s. These two just stand out at least to me.  

The movie "Gung Ho" centers on an Assan Motors car manufacturing facility (a fictional company) that's the primary source of jobs for the fictional town of Hadleyville, Penn. Unfortunately, the plant has been closed for nearly a year and residents desperately need jobs. 
The movie starts as Hunt Stevenson (Michael Keaton), the car plant's former foreman, is on his way to Japan to meet with Assan Motor execs to try and persuade them to reopen the Hadleyville plant. 

After meeting with the executive board and giving a presentation, he doesn't think he succeeded in convincing them, but the execs later agree to reopen. 

They send Takahara "Kaz" Kazihiro (Gedde Watanabe) to the U.S. to oversee plant operations upon its reopening. This is Kaz's chance to redeem himself as he has been failing miserably in his current career, due to his leniency towards employees in the eyes of his corporate higher-ups. 

To redeem himself, he's expected to operate a 100 percent successful car plant and, basically, do what his superiors tell him to do and how to do it.

When Kaz and a bunch of managers from Tokyo arrive in Hadleyville, they implement their own work ethics workers are expected to follow and take advantage of the desperate situation the workers face. 

Michael Keaton and Gedde Watanabe in "Gung Ho."

Employees are given low wages, are not allowed to form a union, and are moved around within the plant to learn how to perform each and every job. They're also expected to perform at a greater standard than they're used to. 

The quality and number of cars they have to produce are deemed unreasonable. The managers, however, boast how their workers back in Japan can out produce Americans with ease. They don't believe that any of theirs demands are unreasonable so long as the workers perform as expected. Job first! Everything else second. 

Hunt, however, knows none of this will fly well with his workers. They need better pay, to begin with. Income is an incentive, obviously. 

The more both sides clash, the more Hunt loses the confidence of his workers. 

So, to remedy the situation, he makes a deal with Kaz. If his workers can manufacture 15,000 autos in one month, they can earn a raise, and the managers will open up more positions for the remaining unemployed workers. But if they're short even one single car, the deal is off. 

Hunt calls a worker's assembly to try and sell them on the deal. But to them, 15,000 cars in a month is asking too much. 

Under pressure, Hunt leads them to believe that if they can make 13,000 cars, they can at least obtain half a pay raise. His workers are o.k. with that. 

Regardless, he desperately tries to encourage them to shoot for the full 15,000. However, they catch wind that the deal is 15,000 or nothing. 

Overall, the movie is predictable right from the start. Regardless, I find it hilarious and really entertaining. I think its appeal is its relatability and comedic chemistry between Keaton and Watanabe. It's gold! If only they starred together in some more movies. John Turturro and George Wendt co-star as Assan employees, both conveying the typical norms and demands of American blue-collar employees struggling to support families and balance work and family life. 

Michael Keaton as Hunt Stevenson.

Gedde Watanabe is a character actor who truly deserves a lot of recognition. He's appeared in a large number of popular movies - "Gremlins 2: The New Batch," "Sixteen Candles," "UHF" and "Vamp" to drop a few titles. His beginnings in San Francisco as a street musician is worth looking up.

I think the fact that such a movie as "Gung Ho" probably wouldn't be made today just adds to its comedic charm. Trigger warnings and cultural (over) sensitivities are for the mindless. Who cares about stereotypes? A lot of them are hilarious! And the world won't be worse off because a lot of us think so. Complain if you have to about "problematic stereotypes." Nothing in this movie is ill-intended. 

The comedy relies on the clash of cultures. Why shouldn't it? 

The Japanese higher-ups are depicted as clean-cut, disciplined, and rigid with by-the-book work methods and ethics. Their mindset is set on dedication to the job above anything else, even their private lives and families. Meanwhile, the blue-collar American workers operate on a get-it-done-any-way-you-can method, to produce a quality product as fast as possible. But family and personal health come first. And more income will lead to a greater incentive to work and work harder.  

The one thing both sides have in common is that they're led by a foreman and a plant manager who are both struggling to redeem themselves. 

Michael Keaton is perfectly cast as he has a naturally likeable and persuasive personality. It's an underrated performance by Keaton. 

And Gedde Watanabe is almost a sympathetic character has he tries to 

They're both under pressure They both see themselves as failures while trying to appear as leaders. 

It all boils down to understanding. Communication. True leadership. Meeting expectations. If you're going to royally screw things up, at least have friends nearby. 

Gedde Watanabe as Takahara "Kaz" Kazihiro.

It's a story dedicated to hard work, the duties of our state, taking pride in that work and the accomplishments it leads to. Failure is not the end of the world. There's often a chance to make things right. Victory can still be achieved depending on how we deal with our own failures, no matter what size that failure is. 

The conflicts between cultures are hilarious as the audience is on the outside of it, looking in. It's not just one-sided. Watching the American workers wrap their head around Japanese work ethics is funny. It goes both ways. Watching Japanese executives scratching their heads around American production methods is also funny. And though this type of story isn't anything new, it's still a great comedy.

Still, story could explore more details about how Japanese businessmen taking over their town's car plant is impacting the community. I think that aspect could have elevated the movie a little more. 

The film did spawn a short-lived sitcom which ran for one season from 1986 to 1987. Patti Yatsutake, Gedde Watanabe, Rodney Kageyama, Sab Shimono, and Clint Howard reprise their roles from the movie for the sitcom. Scott Bakula plays Hunt Stevenson instead of Keaton. I only recall watching one episode of the series which has stuck with me all this time. 

Anyways, there were opportunities in the story for Stevenson and the other workers to really lay in to the Japanese company heads amidst what they deemed as unfair treatment, to show them just what they think of them without shrinking back. Thankfully the movie didn't really go that direction. What was important is coming to terms as far as work ethics, and that's the direction the story goes. There's no ill intention. I appreciate that. 

"Gung Ho" is a feel-good movie. It wants you to feel good about dedication to hard work and taking care of our responsibilities. It wants the audience to feel good about accomplishing goals and acquiring the fairness we deserve. Afterall, the hardships, failures, and successes are shared among everyone across all backgrounds. 

Don't fast forward this one: My 'When We Went Mad: The Unauthorized Story of MAD Magazine' trailer reaction

Does anyone still read "MAD Magazine" anymore?

I mean anyone under the age of 40. Anyone at all?

Probably not. But as I'm already in my early 40s and listen to the Gen Zs and Gen Alpha's I've found myself working with in my last three jobs, the more I realize just how out-of-touch I am with whatever's popular now. I'm long into the "when I was your age" stage of my life, especially when talking to my kids. It's a bit painful to think 'MAD Magazine' is an old joke. As I heard someone once say, there's no such thing as an old joke if you've never heard it before!

These kids today with their sensitivity, and inclusivity, and trigger warnings, and cultural appropriation labels, and all that other crap just don't have a good and hearty sense of humor anymore thanks to their flaky parents who take everything way too seriously. 

I love satire! Jean Shepherd. P.G. Wodehouse. H.L. Mencken. Gilbert and Sullivan. "Weird Al" Yankovic. If these are my entrees, "MAD" is my dessert! *Chef's kiss. 

The best thing about "MAD" is that no one in politics or pop culture is spared a ribbing. When it comes to politics, I guess you can say each side gets the same treatment. It's comedy where it hurts. Humor in the jugular vein. How's that for equal outcome? 

Our politically divided country needs a sense a humor, especially among those sour faced, hysterically shouting zim/zers with their face masks and half-shaved dyed heads.

They're too comfortable telling the rest of us what kind of humor we can or cannot have, and what demographics are untouchable or not when it comes to cracking jokes. And anyone who dares question their "expertise" must feel the wrath of the woke like a heretic about to be torched at the stake. 

As long-time "MAD" publisher and EC Comics Co-Creator Bill Gaines once said, "Don’t believe in ads. Don’t believe in government. Watch yourself--everybody is trying to screw you!"

"MAD" was once America's joke book.

It started off as a satirical horror comic published by EC Comics back in the 1950s called "Tales Calculated to Drive You Mad." It was started by American cartoonist, Harvey Kurtzman.

EC is especially known for a variety of other comics, which include the horror classics, "The Vault of Horror," "The Haunt of Fear," and the ever popular, "Tales from the Crypt." I've collected a nice, delectable assortment of such EC horror reprints for my leisurely reading pleasure.
In 1955, "Tales Calculated to Drive You Mad" was converted into a magazine to skirt the requirements of the Comics Code Authority which enabled comic publishers to self-regulate the content of comic books in the United States. Comics would be required to brand their covers with an ugly little comics code label.

So, the first "MAD Magazine" is issue no. 24. Kinda weird, huh?

I read "MAD" on a fairly regular basis in the late 1980s through the early to mid-1990s. I even had a subscription, paid for reluctantly by mom, from 1992 to 1995. And though mom most likely threw my stack of 'MADs' away years later, deservedly so no doubt, little by little I've come across those issues I used to own...and then some.

I had quite a stack of "MAD" in my younger days. Aside from issues received in the mail, a few of my issues were hand-me-down issues from my older brothers. And some I picked up from the magazine rack at my local Safeway grocery store.
For years I was on a hiatus from "MAD" until around 2018 when, in a random bookstore, I came across the latest issue at the time which had the words "Landmark Final Issue" (no. 550) scrolled along the top. 

To my shock, but really no surprise, it looked as though the "What, me worry?" magazine was on its last chapter with issue no. 550. 

"MAD" moved its DC Comics owned publishing office from 485 MADison Avenue, New York over to Los Angeles. 

It then ended its news stand distribution. "MAD" readers would only be able to purchase their regular issues through subscriptions and comic store sales - if local comic shops choose to sell 'MAD.' 

"Landmark final issue!" That just couldn't be. The era of "MAD" could not end. The number one "Echh" magazine couldn't disappear, despite the encouragement to do so from parents and schoolteachers alike, and the merriment and mirth they would obtain from seeing it go. But "MAD" couldn't go. Not like this. The idiots can't untie for the last time without me. 

So, I bought my first issue in 30 years, for $5.99 - cheap!

I then started hunting old back issues of "MAD" at comic stores, antique stores, dumpsters, back alleys, the black market, the internets, the back alleys behind the black markets on the internets, shady dealers, garage sales, doctors' office waiting rooms, and anywhere else where people were trying to rid their homes of 'MAD.' And, well, I have a lot of 'MAD Magazines' now. Over 200 issues which includes mostly regular issues along with a bunch of 'Super Specials.' I even own a Swedish issue thanks to my 3rd-cousin, Sten, in Sweden. Not to mention a (dis)respectable library of 'MAD' paperbacks often found in the "Please, get them outta here" sections found in used book stores and thrift shops. 

I'll add that 'MAD Super Specials' can still occasionally be found on newsstands and grocery store magazine racks. 

I thought I possessed the end of an era with issue 550. I even bought a little bag and cardboard backing to preserve this garbage.

I read it and it wasn't completely as I remembered 'MAD.' To begin with, it went from the $1.75 (cheap) cover price to a $5.99 (cheap) cover price. 

And the pages are printed in color on glossier stock. It's nice but there's something about the paper pages of old, in glorious black and white print that entices me. 

That ink and paper smell that permeates when breaking open a "MAD" is the scent of those childhood days sneaking an issue onto the school yard
or staying home from school and lying in bed sick with a cold or flu and flipping through this rag.

I admit I went a bit out of my head collecting these things. Or maybe my brains fell out thanks to those years of reading this stuff - a side effect I knew would come about someday. After buying that landmark final issue, I ended up buying more back issues. And then more. And more...and more. Now, I have three long boxes full of 'MADs' along with a handful of (dare I say) 'Cracked magazines' and one issue of 'Crazy Magazine' - Marvel's attempt at humor in the jugular vein. I never read nor heard of "Crazy" magazine, but I read a few issues of "Cracked" in my day. 

My back issues date back to the magazine's early days of magazine-hood in the mid-1950s. My oldest issue is no. 33 from June 1957.

When "MAD" relocated to Los Angeles, they have continued printing the magazine, starting over at no. 1 which was printed in 2018 right after issue no. 550.  

Since issue one in 2018, the magazine is mostly reprinted material from previous issues, along with some new content. I've purchased subscriptions to "MAD" since 2019. 

But the majority of my back issues are from the 1970s and 1980s. 

So, I guess all that's left for me to say is...hello! My name is Mike, and I'm a "MAD" reader. I don't

know? It just sorta happened. One thing led to another. I was just minding my own business. You know, it's just one of those things. I'm a victim of circumstance, really. Honestly, I just read it for the articles. As a matter of fact, I don't really enjoy it that much. I swear it's not my fault, officer! I'm just holding them for a friend! Am I being detained or am I free to go? 

'MAD Magazine' has been pushing limits when it comes to society's sensitivities since its beginnings. Issue #166 had a fat, big, middle finger printed on the cover for all to see. Newsstands and grocery stores refused to carry that issue because decent people existed in large numbers back then.  Despite public outrage, both from adults and from school kids who got their magazines taken away by teachers across the nation that April in 1974, the magazine managed to survive.  

In issue no. 270, they poked fun of the 80s sitcom "Perfect Strangers" which is probably the satire I love most. The usual gang of idiots over at "MAD" titled that parody, "Perfectly Strange." Even as I write this, I can think of a few movies I would like to see "MAD" kick around a bit, or just re-read from issues passed.

In a 1989 interview, Bill Gaines said he didn't know why his magazine had lasted among young readers, even amidst the distractions of video games and such. But somehow it has, so they kept it going.
"MAD" artist, Ray Alma, stated on a recent YouTube interview with a channel called "Pop Goes the Culture" that, perhaps the publication would fare a whole lot better with an on-line presence - leading the internet in colorful, tongue-in-cheek memes, and the like. I think it would pump some new life into 'MAD.' It could well give it a few more years. Somehow, I feel the end is on the horizon for the magazine. It hasn't come yet, but I have a sense it's coming sooner than later. 

(Reel Me In Dept.)

My Thoughts on the Trailer

I had no idea before today (Aug. 5, 2024) that a documentary and tribute to the legacy and influence of 'MAD Magazine' was in the works. 

Evidently a trailer for it dropped back in 2013. 

And I just discovered that the documentary's world premiere, according to the film's Facebook page, is supposed to premiere Aug. 22, 2024. 

According to the film's description, it'll include celebrity interviews from Judd Apatow, Quentin Tarantino, Howie Mandel, the late great Gilbert Gottfried, David Zucker, Bryan Cranston, and “Weird Al” Yankovic. 

But I'm particularly interested in the interviews with the artists and writers including Al Feldstein, Dick DeBartolo, my favorite caricature artist Mort Drucker, Sergio Aragones, "MAD" fold-in creator Al Jaffee, and bunch of other faces from among the "usual gang of idiots." 

As stated in this trailer, the magazine is a "fun house mirror of our culture and society." 

I'm anxious to see what sort of impact this one satirical magazine has had on American popular culture. As a former news reporter, probably undermedicated after what that all entailed, I take interest in this kind of highly informative content. 

"MAD" dropped on American society at a time when society was ripe for a little self-satire -1955. It persisted with its tongue-in-cheek humor through periods when society needed some common ground amidst division here and there. 

America finds itself ripped in two, politically speaking, these days. WE Americans have very little in common these days, especially left-wing college students completely saturated with politics and social issues compared to all the rest of us normal Americans.  

The political has permeated into every facet of life and society. Lightening up seems out of the question.    

I would love to see "MAD" find some new blood and reach a new audience, perhaps in a new format, if possible, to raise the levity a bit. It's no cure to anything, but maybe it would be an enticement to cool off the thick social tension. 

I generally enjoy documentaries, especially about oddball subjects (i.e. "Shut Up Little Man," "The Pez Outlaw") so this one is right up my alley. "MAD" is a unique piece of pop culture and media.

There have been other such publications that most likely take some amount of inspiration from "MAD" such as 'National Lampoon Magazine," "Cracked Magazine," "'The Onion" and "The Babylon Bee." 

As some of "MAD's" long time artists and writers have passed, there's no more opportunities to get the stories from their own mouth as this upcoming film has accomplished. There's little in the way of full-length documentaries, if there are any, in which the gang at "MAD" are all together to share their stories, experiences, and shattered dreams of doing anything else other than working for "MAD."

I have a feeling in the pit of my stomach (different from indigestion) that this is a last big hurrah for "MAD." 

Otherwise, if they haven't done so already, the publishers (i.e. DC Comics) might start considering other platforms and formats to publish the decades old magazine, even if alongside printing the actual magazine itself. Maybe not? Maybe the magazine is doing just fine financially. Should young blood find its way into the magazine, I hope they don't resort to preferential treatment of one political side while taking cheap shots at the other. But I'm old, and these guys from "MAD" (the ones still alive) are even older, so these kinds of things are nothing short of old people talking about the good ol' days, how they came to be, what they were like, and where they've gone. I'm all for that! If I'm not in that mindset now, I'm a lot closer to it than before. Very close!

Still, I sincerely wonder if anyone still reads "MAD" anymore.

*Read my review of the not commercially nor critically successful 'MAD Magazine' movie, "Up the Academy." Spoiler - it's revolting! So revolting, in fact, that the publishers called it "Throw Up the Academy" in issue no. 218. 

The Devil and Max Devlin (1981) - Disney Under the Rug

"What we're looking for is fresh, unsullied innocence."

Director
Steven Hilliard Stern

Cast

Elliott Gould - Max Devlin
Bill Cosby - Barney Satin
Susan Anspach - Penny Hart
Adam Rich - Toby Hart
David Knell - Nerve Nordlinger
Julie Budd - Stella Summers


I wouldn't be surprised if the 1981 flick, "The Devil and Max Devlin" is Disney's darkest movie ever. I've heard that their 1978 made-for-TV movie "Child of Glass" is pretty dark for a Disney production as it's about the ghost a murdered little girl. 

Regardless, dark elements, to some degree or another, have been included into their popular animated movies. General audiences never held that against Disney. 

As I've mentioned in my review of the Disney movie, "Something Wicked this Way Comes," the 1980s were a particularly bleak and dreary time for Disney. It reflects in their flicks. 

The company had quite a financial slump back then, rolling out movies that had a continual habit of underperforming, or just straight up flopping all together. That is, until a certain mermaid pulled them out of it. 

It was also dark as far as the content they were producing. In 1985, Disney produced their darkest of animated movies, "The Black Cauldron." It underperformed with negative reviews. But it's a movie I'm anxious to write about. I have a lot to say about it. That's the movie Disney ought to go live action on!

It's still not as dark as "The Devil and Max Devlin." That's definitely not a movie you'll catch on Disney+. And it certainly wasn't among their selections back in the 1990s when they did their whole Disney Vault marketing campaign in which they would release their classics for a limited time before tossing them back into this "vault" of theirs. 

In this really grim and forgotten movie, Bill Cosby plays a demon. Now, I'll add here that there's obviously a lot of room for jokes about Bill Cosby playing a demon when considering his recent convictions and whatever else he got busted for. 

And all things considered, seeing "The Cos" actually play a devil now after his fall from grace might make some people spit their Jell-O pudding out in hysterics, or maybe disgust. Nevertheless, I'm not even going to go there, although I just kinda did.
Anyways, the movie starts with a disreputable apartment manager, Max Devlin (Elliot Gould), who runs a slummy looking apartment complex somewhere in Los Angeles. 

He tries to go out of his way to avoid his angry tenants who have a lot to complain about. 

After dealing with a small rabble of his angry tenants one afternoon, Max runs off to escape their justified complaints, only to have his life end thanks to an on-coming bus. 

Suddenly, he finds himself plummeting into the eternal abyss of everlasting damnation. He falls along with various other souls all screaming and wailing in fear and despair. Again, this is a Disney movie. 

Elliott Gould and Bill Cosby in "The Devil and Max Devlin."

Hell, as you would expect, is a vast cavern of fire, torture and twisted imagery. Down there, Max finds himself in front of an executive board led by Barney Satin (Bill Cosby) who is the Devil's head of managing souls. 

He threatens Max with placement into the fourth level of Hell. 

Max begs to leave. But the only way Hell will let him out is if he finds three innocent souls to take his spot. 

"What we're looking for is fresh, unsullied innocence," Barney says. Again, this is a family movie... from Disney.

I have to add here that current Disney execs and writers have certainly referred back to this old playbook of theirs with their "not-at-all secret gay agenda" they go out of their way to spew into the minds of their young viewers. Just ask Disney's Executive Director, Latoya Raveneau, who stated in front of God and everyone to be, "wherever [she] could, adding queerness" to Disney content and sexualize young viewers.

The Devil normally works in secret, but I guess not so much anymore. Why should he when he's met with hardly any resistance, if any at all, among the current Disney execs.

Anyways, desperate, Max agrees to the ultimatum and his sent back to his body up on the surface. 

Barney still has possession of Max's soul. So, he's not completely free. 

Max has to keep his end of the agreement. He has a few supernatural powers in order to accomplish his task. He can locate to any place just by focusing in on it and desiring to be there. But time is limited. He has a few months to sign over three innocent souls to the Devil. 

If he succeeds, he'll continue to live, and those souls will continue to live until the natural end of their lives. After that, down they go. 

So, in no time, Max has his sights on three young people. 

The first soul is Stella Summers (Julie Budd), a young girl who dropped out of high school and is aspiring to be a singer. However, she's not very good. But Max is able to use his evil power to somehow make her sing phenomenally. 

The next soul is Nerve Nordlinger (David Knell), a nerdy teenager who wants to be an accomplished motorbike racer. 

The last soul is a little boy named Toby Hart (Adam Rich) who lives with his single mom, Penny (Susan Anspach). Max falls in love with Penny and they begin to date, much to the approval of Toby who wants a dad in his life. 

Barney pops in often to see how Max is doing in leading these poor souls to Hell, all while taunting him. Of course, only Max can see and hear Barney. 

The more Max becomes involved with these three souls, the more he discovers that he actually cares for them.

By the very last day, he manages to fool them all into signing contracts to give over their souls. 

Once they all sign, Barney reveals that he lied. All three are going to die at midnight that same day. He also tells Max that he's free to live out the rest of his natural life. When his natural end shall come, he'll still be damned for eternity. Shame on you, Max, for trusting a demon.  

Since that's the case, Max threatens to destroy the contracts by tossing them into a fire. 

Just as he's about to carry out his threat, Barney transports him back to Hell where he reveals his true evil demonic form and threatens Max with the worst torture Hell can inflict if he destroys the contracts. I mean Cosby's character really hurls the threats on heavily. 
"Burn those contracts and eternal damnation is yours," Barney shouts. "You'll know the unmitigated pain and horror of limbs being torn from their sockets! Your limbs! Your sockets! You'll feel pain you've never imagined in life! Yours, forever! Flesh, you'll smell burning! Your flesh! Rotting! Forever!"
"The Devil and Max Devlin" everyone! A Disney family picture! 

The satanic imagery (namely, the depictions of Hell, and Cosby made-up like a demon) is as darker than any Disney picture I've ever seen or know about. Hell looks like something Bosch painted back in the 1500s. No doubt that's where Disney pulled their inspiration from. 

I really want to know who at the Disney Studios back in 1980 thought that this was definitely the kind of film that would fit within the Disney brand.

Who came up with it, and who gave it the green light?   

I have to mention the ending. After Max destroys the contracts despite Barney's threats. By God's grace, his selfless act releases him from Hell's grasp. And the film ends with Max looking up to Heaven and giving thanks to God. 

In a very general way, the movie has some theological soundness. God can permit us to fall, and maybe fall hard, in order to pick us up and elevate us to a higher level than we were before we fell. And if the Devil is involved in our fall, then God can use the Devil to accomplish His will - namely, our salvation. Max figures that out as he tells Penny, "It's like it's good and bad and-and Heaven and Hell and God and the Devil! Penny, look, all my life, I made wrong choices. I made wrong choices!"

Then he pauses a moment and says, "But this time, I made the right choice and the Devil lost my soul! He lost me!" 

Bill Cosby as Barney Satin, in his true form.

Max attributes his turnaround to God. So, there's that. It does try to end on an uplifting and soft note, which it does technically. But it may fly over a lot of heads after just watching some unforgettable depictions of Hell uncharacteristic of Disney, followed by the main character spending the entire movie trying to drag three innocent souls to Hell. No happy ending can reverse that desensitization.

It was a little uncomfortable to watch. It takes a serious religious element (Hell - eternal separation from God), and one man's desperate attempt to save his own soul while damning three young innocent people, and tries to make it light-hearted. Those two sides of the movie don't mix well. 

Perhaps if the depictions had been toned down, it might be more a palatable family-oriented comedy with a religious twist. 

As a practicing Catholic, I'm certainly not above religious comedy as long as it's in good taste and in good faith. Such content from Hollywood is always a touchy subject, especially considering Hollywood has been known, more often than not, for really slamming religion (Christianity specifically) and completely misrepresenting religion in its depictions. That's especially true when it comes to horror movies. And many of the religious comedies coming out recently are just vulgar and ill-intended. 

The 2017 movie "The Little Hours" about a convent of nuns set in 1347 comes straight to mind. I haven't seen it. I don't need to. I read the synopsis and commentary, and that's all I need to know how malicious and mean-spirited it is. Movies like that don't take cheap shots at faith and religion, and those who practice it faithfully and piously such as a cloister of religious nuns. No, they flat out punch it in the face, spit on it, mock it relentlessly and arrogantly, and then kick it some more with maniacal laughter. 

Hollywood will trip over itself to mock religion.

I think when it comes to religious comedies, Monty Python leads the parade with the "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", "The Life of Brian," and "Monty Python and the Meaning of Life." A lot of their humor is more satire than mockery, while trying to push the envelope. But take those movies as you will. 

Some religious comedies are lighthearted and bear no ill-intent. The movies, "Oh, God!," "Oh, God! Book II," and "Oh, God! You Devil!" with George Burns and John Denver come to mind, though I admit I've only watched the first one a long, long time ago. I just remember George Burns in the title role, and John Denver's character. 

"The Devil and Max Devlin" does try to be light-hearted but it doesn't feel-lighthearted. What it doesn't do is take cheap shots at Christianity or religion in general, which I appreciate. I wouldn't even call it blasphemous as I wouldn't attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance. 

There's some rather cheesy devil-themed one-liners and idioms sprinkled throughout such as "speak of the devil" and "soul responsibility."

One of them did score a chuckle out of me. 

Max talks to Nordlinger about his riding and says, "You ride like a bat outta hell!"

Bill Cosby suddenly pops his head into frame from out of nowhere and says, "Have you ever seen one of our bats?"

Hell as depicted in Disney's "The Devil and Max Devlin."

I read somewhere, sometime in the past, that there was some controversy casting a black person as a devil in this movie. I suppose that's the other elephant in the room squeezed alongside the dark theme of this movie. What can I say? Hell is all about equal opportunity!

What I will say is that despite his success as a comedian, I honestly couldn't tell you what Bill Cosby movie is the best. All the ones I've seen are lousy. "Leonard Part 6," "Ghost Dad," "The Meteor Man," "Jack," "Fat Albert" were terrible and forgettable to subpar at best. 

Cosby's famous standup show, "Bill Cosby: Himself" is hilarious, entertaining, memorable, and enjoyable. 

His sitcom "The Cosby Show" is a hilarious and successful sitcom. I used to own the entire series on DVD. And I had the pleasure of seeing Cosby live at Kansas State's McCain Auditorium back around 2011. I was in the second row from the stage, which was amazing!

To be fair, his 1974 action/ crime comedy "Uptown Saturday Night" isn't too bad. I've been on the look-out for it, but haven't yet found a copy to watch. 

As of now, Disney just doesn't like their own catalog of movies. They're almost ashamed of both the live action and animated movies that rocketed them into an unreachable level of global success. They slap trigger warning labels on just about all their classics, and then cower in fear lest some self-righteous entitled idiot yells at them on 'X' or wherever else.

"The Devil and Max Devlin" is uncharacteristic of Disney (at least the Disney I and millions of others around my age are familiar with) as are a bunch of the other live action movies Disney rolled out in the 1980s. 

It has some good intentions, but I've heard the road to Hell paved with those. 

The only clip of "The Devil and Max Devlin" I could find is this one dubbed in Italian. If you watch it, keep reminding yourself that this is a Disney movie. Doing that makes it all the more weird!

If (2024) - My Thoughts Real Quick

Actor, writer and director John Krasinski (Jim from "The Office") is a likeable actor. He's also creative and confidant in his work, especially when it comes to his movies. That's particularly true with his popular movie series, "A Quiet Place." 

Krasinski definitely works well off the question so many storytellers ask themselves before pounding out a story. "What if?" 

So, I was interested in seeing his recent fantasy movie, "If." I decided to wait until I could stream it. I wasn't excited enough to pay the ticket price.

The story centers on a young girl named Bea (Cailey Fleming) who moves into her grandmother's apartment, played by Fiona Shaw. 

Her father, played by John Krasinski, is in the hospital waiting to undergo heart surgery. He happens to be in the same hospital where her mother died previously. Having to revisit the hospital where her mom died is a huge weight on Bea's shoulders as the worries about possibly losing her father in the same hospital. 

Bea starts seeing unusual characters around her grandmother's apartment building. They turn out to be the imaginary friends of other people. 

She follows one of these characters back to an apartment tenant, Hal's (Ryan Reynolds) pad. 

He runs some sort of one-man agency from his apartment to reunite imaginary friends with the respective people who imagined them up.

Hal can also see these imaginary friends, or I.F's for short. And a couple of them crash at his place. 

After Bea and Hal become acquainted, Bea wants to help him reunite kids and adults with their forgotten I.Fs. He's reluctant at first, but she's determined to volunteer. And the story goes from there. 

To begin with, Fleming's performance is underwhelming. She doesn't emote much - just a little here and there. Otherwise, I started losing interest in what her character was doing and why she was doing it. I just couldn't grow invested in Bea and her drive to help people reunite with their imaginary pals. 

She's pretty dull, even when she's submerged in her imaginary world. 

And Ryan Reynolds goes through the motions with some grins and a lot more laziness. 

The movie has its charming and attention-grabbing moments. Outside of those, it tries too hard to be cute, sweet and heartwarming. It distracts from the plot. 

To the movie's credit, the effort to be an engaging film is clearly visible. It's something different for Krasinski, and I certainly wouldn't suggest he stay away from making family-friendly movies. Regardless of "If" being mostly a miss, he's on the right track. 

It's a creative take on the imaginary friend story, which is nothing new. I appreciate "If" being a family-oriented film that comes across as selfless. 

The vast array of different imaginary characters, and how they reflect the personalities of their

respective imaginative humans are what carry the movie. That, and the imagery and atmosphere. Still, it falls short in a lot of places where it needs to be strong. I was a bit lost on what I was supposed to take away from "If." Is diving into fantasy best way to deal with the hardships and losses of life? I don't know what the message was. 

The imaginary friend motif goes as far back as Jimmy Stewart playing Elwood P. Dowd in "Harvey" (1950). In fact, "If" gives "Harvey" a nod. 

But the imaginary friend trope is an old one. There's a lot that can be done with this concept. The 2019 movie "JoJo Rabbit" is a perfect example of a truly original and hilarious take on the imaginary friend movie. I previously talked about the 1984 movie "Cloak & Dagger" with Henry Thomas and Dabney Coleman which is about a boy and his imaginary hero buddy. And, for some reason, when it comes to this sub-genre, the 1991 oddball comedy "Drop Dead Fred" comes to mind. 

"If" didn't really impress me much. The premise of assigning imaginary friends to children who need one while reuniting adults with that part of their childhood has the feels of a wholesome attempt to create something original, intended to stand out among other movies with similar storylines.

It tries to be original, and maybe it is in some respects. Otherwise, it's more of the same old stuff, but with fancy cartoon characters. It needs less heart tugging and overly sweet sentimentality, and more substance. A swing and a miss for Krasinski.