UHF (1989)

There comes a time in every man's life where he has to look the potato of injustice right in the eye. There's a powerful evil force in the universe, and it lives at Channel 8!

Director
Jay Levey

Cast
"Weird Al" Yankovic - George Newman
David Bowe - Bob Steckler
Michael Richards - Stanley Spadowski
Fran Drescher - Pamela Finklestein
Kevin McCarthy - R.J. Fletcher
Victoria Jackson - Teri Campbell

There's a list of movies in my head I consider "dumb, but not really." Movies such as Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990), The Addams Family, The Gods Must Be Crazy, and a few others come across as stupid-ish at first glance, but tell an entertaining, perhaps well written, story.
UHF, written by musical satirist "Weird Al" Yankovic falls into that category.
I first watched this back in the early 1990s and remembered a few scenes all these years. I watched it for the second time a few days ago.
It's certainly not a cinematic masterpiece by any means. It's a ridiculously silly, slaphappy comedy satire.
For those even somewhat familiar with Yankovic and his music, it's exactly the kind of satirical comedy you'd expect. It entertains in just the way you think it would.
Years after its 1989 release, UHF also managed to leave an impression on audiences. For many, it was in the form of a "Twinkie wiener sandwich." You'll just have to Google that one because I'm not handing out that recipe.
Yankovic plays George Newman who's quite the daydreamer.
His lack of attention causes his friend Bob and himself to get fired from their job at a burger joint.
Desperate for work, George finds out that his uncle Harvey won the deed to local TV station, Channel 62, in a Poker game.
The station is near bankrupt, and its ratings and program line-ups aren't anywhere close to being on the charts. It's a doomed station.
But George sees a potentially rewarding opportunity with Channel 62 despite it being found on the lower end of the TV dial. So, he encourages his uncle to let him run the station with Bob to help him out.
When he starts his new job, George takes it upon himself to go meet his main competitor - RJ Fletcher, CEO of VHF Station Channel 8. This station would be located on the prime front end of the TV dial - the side reserved for stations with money. Obviously, this is before streaming and digital TV.
We see what kind of ruthless, unsympathetic, self-centered businessman Fletcher is when he fires the station's janitor, Stanley Spadowski (Michael Richards - Seinfeld) and takes his one true prized possession away from him...his mop!
With the support of his girlfriend, Teri Campbell (Victoria Jackson - Saturday Night Live cast member 1986-1992), George creates a lineup of programs which boosts the station's ratings to the top.
During this line of success, George meets Stanley and hires him to clean the station. By chance, George discovers Stanley makes a popular host on an otherwise unsuccessful children's program. This, of course, helps boosts the station's ratings considerably. But Fletcher has his own plans to avoid getting beat.
A lot of the gags and jokes in the movie make me laugh. The rest is dated humor, and typical stereotypes often seen in comedies from 30 years ago. The reference to Geraldo Rivera's busted nose comes to mind.
The premise is ripe for parodic opportunities Yankovic is known for. And he pulls it off rather well for fans and comedy buffs to appreciate.
As a satirist, Yankovic is extremely talented. It shows in this movie. Audiences are even treated to a song, Beverly Hillbillies spoofing the song

Michael Richards and Weird Al Yankovic in UHF

Money for Nothing by Dire Straits. The music video, however, doesn't quite fit in the movie. Rather, it feels a forced as though the producers thought they needed to plant a Weird Al video in the movie somewhere. And instead of making the video as a part of the network's line of programs, they made it into a dream sequence. It felt planted.
This isn't a movie audiences will watch for its acting, although I could see some Kosmo Kramer in Michael Richards wirery and off-the-wall goofy physical performance as Stanley Spadowski.
When it comes to Weird Al, I think his true talent lies in his line delivery - his vocal inflections to show despair and sadness, or over-the-top excitement at the most mundane things. It's funny when he does it. Yankovic is the everyday man...Mr. Joe Sixpack. He pokes fun at the reactions to situations he and anyone else would encounter day to day.
Otherwise, I can see why film critic Roger Ebert referred to his acting on screen as creating a "dispirited vacuum at the center of many scenes." His talent his humor rather than acting. Audiences watch UHF to laugh.
Still, Yankovic excels tremendously on music albums for sure. As for this movie, well, audiences wouldn't go to see a Weird Al movie expecting an intense cinematic performance. UHF isn't nor tries to be that kind of movie.
What UHF  does do rather well is entertain.
Something about UHF still holds up as a comedic gag movie with all its spoofs of American pop culture and lifestyles.
Some of those jokes are still applicable to today despite the shift in commerce, change in entertainment platforms, and what passes for comedy 30 years later.
The movie relies just as much on its story as it does on its jokes.
George is touched upon as a daydreamer - someone who fantasizes himself as an untouchable hero similar to a Walter Mitty and his "secret life."
This characteristic isn't played in such a constant way to where it distracts from the movie and grows tiresome. Quite the opposite. In one instance we see George imagine himself as John Rambo as he goes to rescue Stanley from the evil clutches of Fletcher and his tough guys with guns and New York accents.
We also see him imagine himself as Indiana Jones going after a golden Oscar rather than the pagan idol from Raiders of the Lost Arc.
When UHF was released in 1989, it was up against some big titles - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Batman, Ghostbusters II, Honey I Shrunk the Kids, and Lethal Weapon 2. Talk about being buried! But somehow, Weird Al's movie has crawled its way through this crowd of heavyweight movies, and came out as a very respectable lightweight.  

Some jokes may have grown stale and dated over time, but there's still some life left in this movie's humor, satire, and sight gags. It's a parody that, in more instances than not, still applies to modern America. I'm glad I gave this movie another chance 30 years later.

Don't Fast Forward This One: Did the Joker Really Die at the End of Tim Burton's Batman?

Kim Basinger and Jack Nicholson in Batman.

I was seven years old when the movie Batman was released in June, 1989. The movie's poster had two names on it - Keaton and Nicholson. Nothing seemed more impressive than that! Jack Nicholson plays Jack Napier/ Joker in a performance resembling his role as Jack Torrance in The Shining. Michael Keaton, fresh off the set of Tim Burton's Beetlejuice plays Bruce Wayne/ Batman. People held their breath for that casting choice, but it all turned out brilliantly. With Kim Basinger as reporter Vicki Vale in the cast, Batman was the blockbuster movie of that summer.
Batman was something new for general audiences at the time as it portrayed a dark caped crusader. Gone was the campy Batman of the 1960s.
In 1989, Batman was everywhere. I became obsessed over Batman, buying into all the toys and merch after I saw it in the theater with my older brother. This has since subsided into a healthy appreciation. Still, I have a nostalgic love for this Burton film.
One thing about this movie I heard back in its glorious Bat- heyday that I haven't heard since is a fan theory (before the term existed) that the Joker didn't die in the end. (Look out! Spoiler! Oooh...too late.) There was no way to look into this theory back then except possibly finding some tidbit of info inside a movie magazine, specifically a Batman collector movie magazine. That existed. Or, if a sequel were to come about, which one eventually did, then audiences would have to wait for it to come out and see if the Joker returns or not. Otherwise, nothing ever popped up. I only heard this theory through word of mouth.
Even in the pool of infinite knowledge that is the internet, I can't find any mention of this outdated, perhaps generally unheard of film theory. Why? The answer of course is that the Joker/ Jack Napier dies at the end. He falls from a dangling ladder attached to his getaway helicopter as a granite gargoyle hangs from his leg thanks to Batman's attempt to prevent his escape. He splats on the pavement below. He dies. The end.
I'm guessing this short-lived theory was based on hopes of seeing Jack Nicholson's Joker performance come back in a sequel, before fans knew Tim Burton's Batman Returns would be that anticipated sequel. And when that came out, alas...no Joker. Although there was a fan theory back then that while the Penguin in Batman Returns is living in the sewer, the Joker is up above committing all his criminal shenanigans on the streets of Gotham City.

If he didn't die at the end of Batman, Joker's return in a later movie could have been the stuff of movie legend. Or, it just as easily could have been the dumbest thing to happen. Who knows? Hollywood can bring anyone back from the dead, after all.

Anyhow the theory was that the Joker audiences see fall is either a double or a puppet...or, something other than the real Joker. Whenever he made the alleged switch is anyone's guess.

The character was popular back then, and to watch him die in his first big on-screen confrontation with Batman is disappointing. At least for me it was. There was not much set up for a sequel. But like the comics, there doesn't need to be a setup as Batman could (and did) come back to take on another threat to Gotham City.
Three particular scenes stirred the imagination of some movie goers back then just enough to come up with this theory.
During the fight scene with the Joker and Batman, Batman beats him up pretty badly causing the Joker to have blood run down his chin. The crimson blood is visible on his powdery white chin as he's dangling from the ladder. When we see the Joker's dead body lying on the pavement below, the blood on his chin is completely gone. That, of course, is a mere movie mistake. But at the time of its release - Joker didn't die! See? No blood!
In that same scene, Commissioner Gordon (Pat Hingle) pulls a joke laughing bag from the Joker's coat pocket. The sound of mechanical laughter emanates from this small bag.
Some thought this was a clue Joker would get the last laugh...perhaps, in a sequel. 

Incidentally, after the 1997 Joel Schumacher film Batman and Robin, a script for a fifth Batman film supposedly entitled Batman Triumphant made the rounds at Warner Bros.

From what I've read on various movie websites such as denofgeek.com, and others was that the film was to have Batman facing off with the villainous Scarecrow as well as Harley Quinn. Quinn would be written as the Joker's daughter seeking revenge on our hero.

In this version, audiences would have seen Batman suffering visions of his old foes thanks to the noxious gas of the scarecrow, including the Joker which would have been played again by Jack Nicholson. 

Would Batman Triumphant have been a reality, I'm sure by that time audiences would know the Joker didn't die in the first movie, if in fact he actually didn't die. And he wouldn't be portrayed as a mere hallucination.   

It's important to keep in mind that the campy 60s Batman was the Batman 1989 audiences were familiar with. Such a scenario would have been a likely one in the 60s series, with any villain trying to pull that same plot to foil the dynamic duo.

I think, however, that particular gag in the Joker's pocket was simply that - a gag. Joker has the last laugh.
The final scene that suggests this theory still baffles me as to why it's there in the first place.
When Vicki Vale and Batman are hanging on the edge of the cathedral as the Joker stands over them, the scene cuts away briefly to a shot of the Joker's overcoat and hat hanging on a gargoyle.
Why was that scene included? Why does the audience need to see where the Joker hung his hat and coat right in the middle of the movie's intense climax?
Somehow, a few people interpreted this odd cutaway scene as a clue that the Joker somehow replaced himself with a double. Even though this is an incorrect interpretation, the purpose of this short scene is still baffling to me.
The only online reference to this hat and coat scene I found was a post on moviemistakes.com.

If the joker had a chance to get away before jumping on his getaway copter, it seems he would have done so. The idea he went to the trouble of finding and using a double seems superfluous.
Then again, it could be argued that maybe he anticipated Batman would somehow foil his helicopter escape and he wanted to make it seem like Batman killed him. Doing so may have benefited him in the long run.
Nevertheless, it's all theory. The Joker dies when he hits the pavement below, and Batman is deemed Gotham City's hero.

Phantom Killer (1942)

Director
William Beaudine

Cast
Dick Purcell - Edward Arlington Clark
Joan Woodbury - Barbara Mason
John Hamilton - John G. Harrison
Mantan Moreland - Nicodemus

I found the movie Phantom Killer after purchasing a three-film collection of black and white "phantom" movies at a Half-Priced Books in Kansas City.
The set also includes The Phantom of 42nd Street (1945) and The Phantom of Chinatown (1940). The latter stars Chinese-born American actor, Keye Luke (Gremlins, Gremlins 2). I'll get to those later.
The movie centers around John G. Harrison (John Hamilton), a deaf-mute philanthropist, who's supposedly witnessed seen leaving Cromwell Finance Corp where a murder has taken place.
A janitor named Nicodemus (Mantan Moreland) witnessed a man similar in appearance to Harrison leave the Finance Corp. The man also asked Nicodemus for a light for his cigar, and for the time.
Nicodemus later finds the Cromwell president dead.
However, other people witnessed Harrison attending a charity function at the time of the murder.
Assistant District Attorney Edward Clark (Dick Purcell) knows Harrison is guilty, but can't figure out how. Still, he has a "feeling" based on the fact that other murders around the city were committed on nights when Harrison was attending charity functions. Coincidence? I THINK NOT!
His journalist girlfriend, Barbara Mason (Joan Woodbury) doesn't understand his inclination as there's no way someone can be two places at once...or...is there?
On top of this, a physician has previously examined Harrison and can confirm that he is a deaf-mute. Yet, someone matching his exact description verbally asked Nicodemus for a light and the time.
During a trial, Nicodemus identifies Harrison as the man he saw at the Cromwell building.
Meanwhile, Mason has been interviewing Harrison for an in-depth story, and continues to work against Clark's investigation believing Harrison to be innocent.
It's an intriguing story for sure.
They used Nicodemus's character as a comic relief during a questioning scene at the trial.
Nicodemus, being a black man, was portrayed rather juvenile as his testimony prompted laughter from court observers rather than just convey relevant information.

Mantan Moreland (center) as Nicodemus in Phantom Killer

His was that typical low-quality humor, not stupid but not intelligent either, that's often seen with black characters in early movies.
Nicodemus had a crucial role in the movie as he was a key eyewitness to something big. Yet, he was portrayed as being not the brightest witness in the story despite his crucial testimony. Even in 1942, Nicodemus could have been written a whole lot better than he was - an important character, yet still the joke.
It was out of place for a court scene.
Still, I admire movies from this era as actors generally put their best effort into their roles, which is evident in Phantom Killer.
Even Moreland as Nicodemus put in all he had in his character.
Director William Beaudine later went on to director episodes of the TV series The Green Hornet as well as Lassie. He also directed a movie I've been trying to get my hands on for some time  - Billy the Kid vs. Dracula.
Phantom Killer is a quick fix for any film noir fan. It's like reading a cheap paperback from a used bookstore. The story is a nice getaway for an hour. And then the mystery is solved - back to real life.
In this movie, the conclusion is suggested very early on. It risks spoiling the entire movie because once one of the characters suggests how the crime was committed, it's pretty obvious.
Phantom Killer is an overall enjoyable popcorn crime drama. It's very much a period movie, which goes without saying. Fans of movie serials and early crime stories should get something out of it.

Class of 1984 (1982)

Face the music, teacher teacher!

Director
Mark L. Lester

Cast
Perry King - Andrew Norris
Timothy Van Patten - Peter Stegman
Roddy McDowall - Terry Corrigan
Michael J. Fox - Arthur

Class of 1984 started as an informative drama, then became an action thriller, and ended as a horror movie. I've never seen a movie do that before.
It's listed on IMDB.com as an "action, crime, drama" film. I wasn't sure what this movie really wanted to be. The overall feeling was that its a sort of dystopian movie about the "current" state of American public schools and what they're likely going to become...in 1984.
It was entertaining, though, despite whatever genre it actually is.
The most notable part of this Canadian-American movie is that it starred Michael J. Fox (credited as Michael Fox). This was just before he hit major fame by starring in the sitcom Family Ties.  
The movie begins with a small prologue stating some facts about how many teachers are physically abused by their students in American high schools, and that this movie is based on true events. I thought maybe this would be a follow-up on American schools from what was portrayed in the movie Blackboard Jungle (1955). If Class of 1984 is to be believed, then nothing improved between 1955 and 1982.
Also, for this review, there will be spoilers.
Andrew Norris (Perry King) starts a new job as a music teacher at an inner-city high school. He's not accustomed to the gangs within the student body, nor the metal detector at the front door, the graffiti adorning every inch of the campus walls, and the drugs saturating the school grounds.
On his first day, he meets another teacher named Terry Corrigan (Roddy McDowall) who carries a gun to school. Corrigan tells the new teacher it's "for protection."
Norris learns that on top of his teaching duties, he also must work as a security guard during his off-periods.
During his very first class, a group of students make it a point to disturb him and his students. And some of them aren't even a part of his class.

Perry King (center) and Timothy Van Patten (left) in Class of 1984.

These rufians are part of a gang led by Peter Stegman (Timothy VanPatten) and they'll do whatever he demands.
Norris finally gets them to leave, and the other students in the class tell him they intend to learn music.
Trying to get as accustomed to the school as he can, Norris decides he wants to have his advanced students put an orchestra together and hold a concert later in the year.
Meanwhile, we see just how far gone Stegman and his gang are. They not only sell drugs in school (that was super bad in the early 80s), they also operate a strip club (there is nudity in this movie), and wreak violence where they can for the sake of violence.
Norris and Stegman's gang grow increasingly at odds the more Norris learns of Stegman's crimes and such.
At one point in the movie, Norris sees one of the gang members standing guard at the bathroom, pushing people away who try to walk in. Inside, there's a drug deal going down. A clean cut looking student is buying something from Stegman's gang. One of Norris's good students, Arthur (Michael J. Fox) is witness to the deal but won't talk for fear of retribution.
As Norris approaches, the look-out warns everyone he's coming. They toss the evidence into a urinal. When Norris checks out the scene, he finds the small bag of drugs they tossed. But that's not enough to bust anyone.
The turmoil between the music teacher and the gang continues to escalate until it reaches an ultimate showdown.
On the night of the orchestral concert, the gang breaks into Norris's home while his wife, Diane (Merrie Lynn Ross) is home alone preparing to attend the concert.
Stegman pins her to the bed and pretends to rape her while one of the other gang members takes a Polaroid photo.
They kidnap her and take her back to the school.
Just minutes before the concert, a gang member shows up and passes the photo to someone to hand to Norris.
Shocked at what he's seeing, Norris runs after them without saying a word to anyone.
The movie never has a dull moment.
I wondered why these far-gone students even bothered to attend school if their so void of morality, responsibility and self-control.
I recently watched and reviewed the 1987 movie The Principal with John Belushi as the new principal of an inner-city high school. I asked the same question with that film. However, Class of 1984 does provide a bit of an answer.
In one scene, Norris feels the necessity to visit Stegman's home to speak with his parents. He finds that his mom is ready to jump at the defense of her son in a heartbeat. She is either blind to her son's activities, or Stegman is really great at hiding it all from her. But no doubt she makes sure he goes to school. Her role certainly makes a clear point about a parent's part in their child's behavior.
All the while, the police and school security are not much help as none of them ever has any hard evidence of any crime. The law is portrayed as favoring students no matter how far their crimes go. Meanwhile, teachers suffer at the unsympathetic binds of the law.

Michael J. Fox and Erin Noble 

I appreciate how Norris is portrayed as flawed in his own way. He allowed himself to deal with the intimidation impulsively. It's easier, and maybe more satisfying that way, but in his authoritative position it works more in the favor of the antagonists. 

He grows too violent, lowering himself to the level of the thugs albeit justified in his own mind because he's the authority.
In the final climax of the movie, Norris and one of Stegman's cronies find themselves in a shop room. They both tackle each other, and the thug pins Norris onto a table saw inches away from the blade. He turns the machine on and tries to push Norris's face into it, but Norris gets the upper hand. He pins the thug onto the table saw, and has the thug's arm outstretched in front of the spinning, wheezing blade.
He looks at the blade. We know what he's thinking. There's no way he'll go through with it. But, he does. He slices the guy's arm clean off. When he gets off the table, screaming in pain, Norris slams him backside down onto the blade and leaves him for dead.
The horror aspect of this movie continues as two other gang members chase him into the school's auto repair classroom.
Norris pours gasoline on the floor and one of the thugs goes up in flames. The other member tries to run over Norris with a car. She crashes into a wall, and Norris releases another car on the lift over her. It crashes on top and pins her in, barely conscious.
The entire scenario with Norris is hard to justify. Sure, his actions are based on self-defense, but he resorted to murder in a way that's very retaliatory. Can that be justified?
The movie intended to be raw, gritty, and revealing. I think it tried to hard to showcase violence in public schools. The thugs weren't just bad. They were irredeemably bad and over their heads in anti-social behavior. Thanks to the beginning of the movie, I was under the impression this was going to be more of an informative movie rather than a picture similar to Escape From New York. It went a little over-board on the revealing part, making the issue of crime in public schools as in-your-face as it possibly could.
The performances are great. Each actor seems to put a lot of effort into their roles, specifically Timothy Van Patten. They try to make something that would leave an impression on audiences, and entertaining them as well. It shows.
For what it is, Class of 1984 is an entertaining movie.

Don't Fast Forward This One: Is A Christmas Story Really a Stupid Movie?

The holiday staple A Christmas Story is a movie people either love or hate. I have yet to find someone in between.
For those who love it, it's an intense fandom. For those who hate it, it's with an unwavering, fixed disdain. It's like the Marshmallow Peep of movies. It's either enjoyed or hated. There's no in-between. 
I'm in the fan camp with this one. I find it original, and a simple entertaining story.
I'm very honest when I say I cannot understand the dislike some have for this traditional Christmas movie - one that's on the same holiday movie classics list as It's a Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th Street, and A Christmas Carol. It's very relatable. It's not pretentious nor is the story and comedy over-the-top and ridiculous. For anyone who hasn't seen this film, or know nothing about it, it's a narrated story set in fictional Hohman, Indiana back in the post-war 1940s. It centers on young Ralphie Parker (Peter Billingsley) and his quest for someone to give him a Red Ryder BB Gun for Christmas.
Despite his requests to his mom, his teacher, and even Santa Claus, all he's given is the same warning, "you'll shoot your eye out." It has become a Christmas catchphrase that surely everyone has heard whether they've seen this movie or not.

Then again, with TNT and, I think other networks, running A Christmas Story on a 24-hour loop during the holidays since 1997, and the obnoxious onslaught of merchandise bombarding us every holiday season for the last 20 or so years, I understand the disgust. That's what saturating a market with merchandise can do - even to Star Wars, but that's getting off topic. All that saturation turned a rather quiet gem of a movie into a victim of exploitation. With that much Christmas Story inundation, I can maybe see why people would be sick of it. All that commercialism has taken something away from the movie. 
Fans can even visit the actual house in Cleveland, Ohio where the exterior shots were filmed.
Someone purchased that house, gutted the inside, and refurbished it to look as close to the movie as possible, right down to the small details. Despite my dislike for the commercialism of A Christmas Story, I admit I want to see this house for myself.
I see aspects of my own youth in some scenes and characters. Ralphie's teacher even reminds me of my second grade teacher, all the way down to her hair and vintage dresses.
Speaking of commercialism, there was a part two released in 2012 despite the original movie not ending on any kind of cliffhanger whatsoever. I don't know if anyone asked for a sequel, but I think Hollywood is long past that.
A Christmas Story 2 is one giant cash grab of a movie that takes void of all the charm, honesty, and simplicity of the original. Never has a sequel been so unnecessary. 
It sucks out the small-town charm and simplicity of A Christmas Story.

I've only seen copies of part two sold bundled with the first movie. That's probably the only way producers could get anyone to buy a copy.
It's not the first sequel, though. The 1994 film It Runs in the Family (aka My Summer Story) was the first. Like A Christmas Story, that movie was directed by Bob Clark and narrated by Jean Shepherd - I'll get to him shortly.
There was also some horrific, completely forgettable live TV musical production called A Christmas Story LIVE! that aired in 2017 which...I just don't want to talk about it.
A Christmas Story was no commercial success when it was released in 1983. It took a lot of years to grow on audiences the way it has. Even critic Roger Ebert gave it a good review back in 2000.
But to determine if it's not really a good movie and deserves to be ignored, I'll start with its roots.
The movie is based on the writings of humorist Jean Shepherd, specifically his book In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash. It's a novel about American homelife. The stories come from those which Shepherd used to tell over the radio.
Shepherd narrates the movie.
His writing can keep a reader glued just by his careful choice of words when describing a day-to-day situation. His relatable stories about childhood flow so nicely. His writing is fun to read. It's poetic with creative use of words. And it's certainly not pretentious. Shepherd is hilarious and a wonderful storyteller. His cleverness is clear in the movie as many of his narrations are lifted straight from his writings.
"Only one thing could pull me from the soft glow of electric sex gleaming in the window" he narrates at one moment in the movie when Ralphie and his younger brother, Andy, leave the stimulation of their dad's leg lamp - an advertising piece for Nehi (pronounced 'knee-high') soda - in the front room window to tune into Little Orphan Annie on the family radio.

Incidentally, this same Nehi leg lamp scene was first enacted in the 1976 made-for-TV film "Phantom of the Open Hearth" based on Shepherd's writings. 

"There it was. Nehi orange! It was so spectacularly gassy that violent cases of the bends were common among those who gulped it down too fast. It would clean out your sinuses faster than a Roto-Rooter," Shepherd narrates in that film.
Anyways, at another moment in "A Christmas Story" when Ralphie has to write a theme for homework, Shepherd describes Ralphie's eagerness and satisfaction with his finished work by saying, "Oh, rarely did the words flow from my penny pencil with such feverish fluidity."
Shepherd later describes the Parker's activities of Christmas morning by stating, "we plunged into the cornucopia quivering with desire and the ecstasy of unbridled avarice."
His words expose the humor in typical American behavior for his readers to see and laugh at.
Having watched A Christmas Story every holiday since my age was in the single digits, these quotes have stuck with me.
A Christmas Story has a lot of good things going for it in and of itself. Its cast for instance.
Actor Jack Nicholson was originally considered for the role of the "old man" - Ralphie's dad. The
part ultimately went to actor Darren McGavin, who was known for his playing Kolchak in the TV series Night Stalker.
Actress Melinda Dillon, who may be recognized from the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind, played Ralphie's mom.
And Peter Billingsley, who aside from a role in an episode of Little House on the Prairie as well as roles in movies such as If Ever I See You Again, Honky Tonk Freeway, Paternity, and Death Valley, wasn't a major child star back then.
Without the distraction of big-name actors, it's easier for audiences to relate to the characters. They can appreciate the movie for what it else rather than watching it just to see their favorite actors. The movie is A Christmas Story, not "that Jack Nicholson Christmas movie about the kid who wants a BB gun."
Incidentally, we never find out what the names of Ralphie's parents are. They're just Mrs. Parker and Mr. Parker - the old man. But they're every person's mom and dad, making them relatable to audiences.
Remember when your mom did this, and your dad did that.
The depiction of the not-so-stereotypical Midwest American family works in the favor of A Christmas Story.
The era the movie is set in is often looked upon by people who never lived through the decade as golden. It's an era that certainly didn't have the circumstances we do today. Men were men, and women were women back then. Father knew best. Mom stayed home and took care of the house. Everything must have been perfect in America. That's generally the depiction we see in movies and television.
But the Parker family, though not falling apart, possess a lot of imperfections. They're not a completely dysfunctional family. There are still ties that bind. But they are far from the ideal Americana family we think so many families of the early to mid-part of the 20th century must have been like thanks to movies and television.
The exhausted Mrs. Parker can't get a warm dinner because dad and the kids keep asking her to scoop more supper onto their plates.
The dad basks in the appreciation he received after winning some newspaper contest and being rewarded with a gaudy "major award." 
That attention and appreciation isn't something he must receive much of, if at all, from his family. They seem too engrossed in their own goals and tasks. So, he'll take it from wherever he can get it.
Otherwise, he curses and swears at his coal furnace, and whatever else is causing him grief - a broken lamp, his frozen Oldsmobile. 

"That sonavabitch would freeze up in the middle of summer on the equator!"

 He's not the brightest man on the block, but he's no imbecile or deadbeat.
The kids, Ralphie and Andy, aren't bad kids, but are certainly not outstanding overachievers. Ralphie is a day dreamer. His little brother Andy is, well...he's a part of things, too.

And the ending is a charming one. The one person who gives Ralphie his BB-gun for Christmas is the one person Ralphie doesn't ask - his dad. 

The situations in the movie are very relatable - bullies, homework assignments, picking out a Christmas tree, going to visit Santa at the mall. 

The movie is a collection of small moments certainly not dripping, or even damp, with the syrupy perfect goodness often seen in portrayals of post-World War II era America. None of it is far-fetched humor overdoing the imperfections of the Parker family. For all practical purposes, they're a normal family. And thanks to humorist Jean Shepherd, we can see the humor, through the Parker family, in what we as Americans do and have always done, especially around the holidays. 

The audience is on the outside looking in on, and laughing out loud at, the big details and the small idiosyncrasies. 
This movie can really open a conversation among audiences. "It's funny because in my family, we used to..."

This is the gold standard for satire. It allows the subject matter to poke fun of itself without any mean spirit or ill intent. There's still much love and respect for the time period, for Christmas, for the season, for that time in all kids lives where they pursued their holy grail of Christmas gifts.  
With the overblown commercialism of A Christmas Story, I can understand why a lot of people roll their eyes when the movie comes up in conversation. I'm bothered by that, too. Not everyone is going to like this movie or relate to the story or the characters. But I think to say it's a stupid movie is, perhaps, misguided. It's a movie that has a lot going for it and still does despite the onslaught of merchandising, and the unnecessary, stupid A Christmas Story 2.

Jean Shepherd

Correction: 12/10/2020

I mention that It Runs in the Family, released in 1994, is the "first sequel" to A Christmas Story. This isn't correct. The 1988 made-for-TV movie from American Playhouse called Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss is considered the first sequel. 

Before this, another made-for-TV production called The Star-Crossed Romance of Josephine Cosnowski aired on American Playhouse in 1985 It follows the character Ralph Parker and his family. 

Midnight Madness (1980)

"How long are you gonna keep driving around without knowing where we're going?"

Directors
Michael Nankin
David Wechter

Cast
Adam - David Naughton
Laura - Debra Clinger
Scott - Michael Fox
Harold - Stephen Furst
Melio - Andy Tennant

I'm convinced Midnight Madness was Disney's attempt to make their own version of Animal House which was released two years before. After all, it stars Stephen Furst who played Kent Dorfman in Animal House. It centers around a group of stereotypical college student factions. There's a lot of drinking (for a Disney flick). The topic of one guy's virginity comes up. And there's attention to cleavage. All this is before Disney created Touchstone Pictures so they could release movies with more mature themes.
In Midnight Madness, Furst plays blue team leader Harold whose gluttonous and careless behavior reminds me of John Belushi's character "Bluto" from "Animal House." 

The rest of the characters are as cliche as 'cliche-ably' possible.
There's the mindless college jocks, the nasel-voiced nerds with Coke bottle glasses, the fat guy who hoards junk food, giggling sorority girls, and the straight "normal" guy. He's played by David Naughton (An American Werewolf in London).
There is a lot to say about this movie. I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just jump in somewhere.
It's Michael J. Fox's first movie, credited as Michael Fox. I can't recall seeing any movie with Michael J. Fox credited as "co-starring."
Paul Reubens (aka Pee-Wee Herman) makes a cameo as the proprietor of the Pinball Arcade. On a side-note, his other Disney credits include the voice of Max in Flight of the Navigator, the voice of Lock in The Nightmare Before Christmas, and the droid pilot's voice in the early version of the Star Tours ride at Disneyland.
In Midnight Madness, a grad student named Leon, assisted by his two lovelies, Sunshine and Candy, gather a group of college students to play an involved cat and mouse game called the "Great All-Nighter." 
He organizes group leaders, who initially refuse to play, but eventually agree thanks to existing rivalries.
The game is a race-to-the-finish all around Los Angeles, following clues set by Leon that'll ultimately lead the teams to a finish line.
Leon also turns his apartment into game central where he, Candy and Sunshine keep track of the teams locations and status on a giant wall map.

Each team, along with Leon inside his apartment, have their own subplots.
For instance, Adam (David Naughton), the yellow team's leader, finds his little brother Scott (Michael J. Fox) at a bus stop during the game.
Adam is disappointed in his brother as Scott constantly finds trouble. It turns out to be an attempt to gain Adam's approval. With the help of Adam's love interest, Laura (Debra Clinger), Adam will surely see his little brother as more than someone who just causes trouble. It's predictable as can be.
Meanwhile, Leon's neighbors initially complain about all the noise coming from his apartment. But one by one, their intrigue in the game pulls them in.
All the while, Leon's landlady, Mrs. Grimhaus (Irene Tedrow) threatens him with eviction as neighbors complained about his noise level. She finds that the more they're interested in the game, the more they don't have any complaints after all. There's a lot going on in this movie.
There's a lot of content in this Disney "family" picture that made me think immediately of Animal House.
When we're introduced to Adam, a college student who later joins the yellow team, asks him how he can loose his virginity. Thanks, Disney!
One of the clues has players in a restaurant looking for something "between the melons." While the game participants find themselves inside a Johnie's Big Boy restaurant ordering a variety of melons, it turns out "melons" refers to cleavage on a waitress who's wearing a necklace that reads "hug me." (It's a Disney family movie?)
In another scene, players are instructed to visit L.A.'s  Griffith Observatory. When Adam arrives, he has to wait for a young obnoxious kid to finish his turn peering through the Observatory's telescope. The camera pans to the kids view through the telescope which is fixed on an unsuspecting young woman undressing in front of an apartment window. He calls his father over, who confronts Adam stating his son needs to observe Venus for a school assignment. The kid remarks, "If I'm lucky, I'll be able to get a view of Venus's two moons."
Later, players are instructed to visit a local Pabst Blue Ribbon brewery. Not only do we get a product placement for Pabst beer in this Disney movie, we get a tour of the brewery, along with commentary that Pabst Blue Ribbon is "cold, foamy, and thirst quenching." (Midnight Madness - drink up kids! Love, your pals at Disney.)
Scott, who's underage, tries to purchase beer at the bar inside the brewery, claiming it's for someone else. He's almost arrested as a result. Nice, Disney. Very nice! (Sarcasm intended).

Michael J. Fox as Scott.

Disney, however, didn't associate themselves with the movie until it was released on DVD in 2004, with the "Walt Disney Pictures Presents" logo. However, they made sure to include their essence in the movie with a shot of Mickey Mouse's star on the Hollywood Walk-of-Fame, as well as inserting an image of Mickey in the background of another scene.
Disney isn't known for its edginess, and to see it is just rather off-putting, though laughable. I guess had they founded Touchstone Pictures just a few years earlier, and released "Midnight Madness" through that, it wouldn't have been as much of a bother. Otherwise, it's like having a fun uncle stop by. But this time, he's uncharacteristically creepy and uncomfortable, pushing beer on your kids and offering advice on how to lose your virginity.
Co-director Michael Nankin was a writer for the horror movie The Gate which I reviewed on my horror film blog.
One awesome scene in an arcade has team members play a video game called Star Fire, which looks a lot like a first person shooter blasting TIE fighters from Star Wars. Oh, if people in 1980 only knew what would come years down the road as far as Disney and Star Wars are concerned.
It's the second live action Disney movie to score a PG rating (the first being The Black Hole.)
Once the characters received their first, and second clue, I thought the movie would be fun. It didn't take long before I lost interest in the clues altogether and where the characters had to go.
This movie dragged on, and on, and on. It's relentless with one silly joke and lame stereotype after another. 

The writers tried way too hard with their sight gags. And the acting is too often lazy.
The characters aren't even interesting by accident. It's all stale. It's ugly for a Disney movie. And it failed to entertain. I hated this movie. I would love to sit down with whomever gave the green light for Midnight Madness back then, and just pick their brain to determine what the hell they were thinking.
Even the soundtrack is forgettable. I'd put money on the claim that there's isn't one person out there who clearly remembers the soundtrack to this movie. Midnight Madness is worth nothing more than a pass. Too bad Disney doesn't keep this one locked away in their precious vault. Or better yet, sweep it under the carpet inside their precious vault. 

Coming Up Next...
Another Michael J. Fox movie that's pre-Back to the Future. This one, which is non-Disney, promises to be a much better movie that what I just reviewed. 

The Principal (1987)

"No more!"

Director
Christopher Cain

Cast
James Belushi - Rick Latimer
Louis Gossett, Jr. - Jake Phillips
Rae Dawn Chong - Hilary Orazco
Michael Wright - Victor Duncan

There was a bit of a "new teacher, tough school" trend in movies back in the 1980s - Stand and Deliver, Class of 1984, Lean on Me are a few titles that come to mind. Even Sister Act which came out in 1992 comes to mind, changing the scenario a bit, and spawning a sequel.
The drama, comedy The Principal starring James Belushi, Louis Gossett, Jr., and Rae Dawn Chong fits very comfortably in this motif.
I like this movie. I think part of the reason is that The Principal was filmed in my beloved hometown, Oakland, California - the "paradise" that wasn't always found on postcards. This movie can explain why. So, please pardon this bias.
Otherwise, it's overall entertaining - more of a drama than a comedy. It's one of those movies that would air on Saturday or Sunday afternoon movie presentations on channel 20 or channel 44.
The movie opens with high school teacher, Rick Latimer (James Belushi), at the bar trying to heal some wounds.
He spots his ex-wife, Kimberly, walk in with another guy whom he recognizes as her divorce attorney.
So much for healing those wounds.
Latimer reacts by jumping over the bar, grabbing a baseball bat, and chasing this other guy out of the place.
He traps him in his car, causes some property damage with the bat, and ends up at the police station.
Soon after, Latimer finds himself in a mandatory meeting with the school district. With his hand still in bandages from the incident at the bar, he knows his career is about to end.
But the unexpected happens.
Sometime earlier, Latimer put in an application for a principal position. And the school district offers him precisely that - at Brandel High School.
"Why am I not excited about it," Latimer responds to the job offer.
Brandel is filled with students kicked out from other schools. It's the last rung on the education ladder with nothing else underneath to catch them if they fall off. Despite the chaos inside its walls, and the thugs and gangs inside - that all seemed exaggerated to me - Latimer has no choice but to take the job. A tough man for a tough place.
I couldn't help wonder if some of these students are that bad, why do they even bother to go to school.
On his first day, before he even has a chance to park his motorcycle, he witnesses a gang fight involving a car crashing through the chain link fence heading straight for two guys running for their lives.

A fight breaks out, and Latimer intervenes.
He brings two of these kids into his office, never once asking if they're actually students or not.
He realizes right then just what kind of a place he's in.
After telling one of the staff to call the police, the question they ask is why?
"Cops'll only ask you why you stopped them," Someone replies.
Latimer is determined to make Brandel a real school, with successful students. When it comes to the gang activities, drugs, and all that Brandel is known for, he enforces one painfully simple rule - "No more!"
And despite being in a battle of wills between himself and a few students, which leads to Latimer getting severely beaten up by gang leader, Victor Duncan (Michael Wright), he doesn't let anything get in his way.
Head of security at Brandel, Jake Phillips (Louis Gossett, Jr.,) slowly gains respect for Latimer as he realizes Latimer is actually making some progress with students. Latimer is not all talk and looking to quit at the first sign of difficulty. He takes Brandel by the horns and isn't going to let this opportunity be another failure. This is his final chance.
Some of the bad behavior comes across as just a bit over exaggerated - students just sitting in hallways, high as a cloud, with no care in the world. What would stop these kids from not coming to school? But this is probably me being nitpicky.
The story really focuses on the principal's determination, with a few instances of students overcoming the odds in their respective difficult lives.
One student, Treena Lester (Kelly Jo Minter - Nightmare on Elm Street 5) is busted in the girl's bathroom for practically setting up a drug stand in one of the stalls.
After Latimer flushes her inventory down the toilet, he finds out she's going to drop out of school. So, he pays her a visit at her low-rent apartment to encourage her not to quit, and finds she has a child.
Rather than see her quit school, he decides to tutor her himself. And even though she gets Victor and his gang to beat him up, he still doesn't quit on her.
These side stories make the movie, though the bottom line is all about Latimer, and that's fine.
The suspense, excitement, and interest last throughout the movie, and it is an entertaining film. It also had some funny dialogue at times from Belushi.
It does bolster up the rough interior of James Belushi more than the students of Brandel. He's a tough guy, so he's a tough principal. But his character's influence on certain students as well as certain faculty members is different. 

Of course, a movie like this wouldn't fly today. A certain loud political side would call this a "white savior" story. It was filmed before President Obama set race relations back about fifty years. 
It's weak around the edges. Audiences have seen this motif over and over. There are really no surprises in this movie. Yet, it still holds itself up.


Coming up next... 
Have you ever asked yourself what movies Michael J. Fox starred in before Back to the Future? I did, and I found out he was in two other movies...and his first was a Disney film.

Don't Fast Forward This One: Did Charlie Really Deserve the Chocolate Factory?

These "Don't Fast Forward" posts are my thinking points for specific movies. They're not meant to be reviews. 

The ending of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is probably nothing new to many people. And that probably goes for the previous hour and half, too. 

The movie is far from being an obscure picture. Very much the opposite. So, my take on the ending is probably bleedin' obvious.
But I've heard arguments claiming the end of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory taught an objectionable lesson. Some argue Charlie Bucket, the protagonist of the movie, is rewarded for "bad behavior" which is a terrible lesson for the film's young audiences. But is Charlie actually rewarded for bad behavior? 

This argument bugs me a bit because it's one of those opinions I know isn't the case.
In any good story, the protagonist needs to have a flaw they need to overcome. Otherwise, they usually have something they're trying to achieve or accomplish. There ought to be some kind of imperfection or struggle. It makes the character more relatable, and gives the audience a sense of hope that no matter what sins we've committed in our past. All is not lost.
In Charlie's case, his misdeed is a rather small one, but it's a misdeed none the less.
During the tour of Wonka's factory, Charlie and his grandpa Joe decide to lag behind and take a swig of some bubbly "fizzy lifting drink" Wonka previously said wasn't ready for consumption. He instructed his visitors not to drink any. 

As they chug, the gas causes them to float higher and higher. At first it's fun, until they float dangerously close to fan blades in the ceiling.
They both cling to the sides of the wall to avoid getting caught up there, until Grandpa Joe realizes that burping will release the gasses, and they'll float back towards the floor. They both think they got away with it, until the end of the movie.
There's also a point in the movie when Wonka shares a secret candy with his visitors - Everlasting Gobstoppers. It's a candy that won't dissolve no matter how long people suck on them. They're "everlasting!"
He makes each child promise not to let theirs fall into the hands on his adversarial competitor, Slugworth, as that would lead to Wonka's ruin.
At the end of the movie (SPOILER for those living in caves over the last 40 or so years and haven't seen this movie), when Charlie goes to collect his life time supply of chocolate promised him when he found the Golden Ticket, Wonka refuses and calls both of them out for breaking the rules by stealing some of his fizzy lifting drink. He tells them that they touched the sterile walls which now have to be sanitized. And according to the huge contract Charlie signed before the tour, the promise of chocolate is null and void as a result.
"You get nothing! You lose!" he shouts at Charlie and his Grandpa Joe.

Grandpa Joe grows angry and vengeful calling Wonka a crook and tries to retaliate by telling his grandson, "C'mon Charlie, if Slugworth wants a Gobstopper, he'll get one!"
But though Charlie already broke a rule, he's not about to break a promise.
Instead, he defies his own grandfather and through his actions admits what he did. He turns back to Wonka, and hands him his Gobstopper. Why? Because Charlie knows he doesn't deserve it for breaking this one rule. 

In my more youthful days, I saw this as Charlie loosing his appreciation for Wonka. I thought his returning the Gobstopper meant he simply didn't care for him anymore. But that really doesn't make sense as it would be a really conceited action. Though Charlie isn't a perfect child, he's certainly not conceited and dense like the other kids on the tour. 

And unlike the other kids who broke a rule or two, Charlie fesses up as expressed in his actions. That's what made him stand out above the rest.
"So shines a good dead in a weary world" Wonka says to himself when he's given back the Gobstopper.
As Charlie is honest and humble enough to take responsibility for his own actions, and give

something up because he knows he no longer deserves it, Wonka praises him. His honesty and integrity is just the sort of characteristics Wonka wants in a successor for his factory.
Wonka doesn't reward Charlie for stealing. He initially chastises him by denying him the reward - the lifetime supply of chocolate. 

But he rewards Charlie for admitting to what he did, and giving back what he was originally privileged to get but is no longer deserving of. A penitential act, indeed. 

If Wonka wanted an absolutely flawless child, he'd never find one.

Incidentally, this is something I hated, hated, hated in Tim Burton's remake Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. 
Charlie Bucket in Burton's version is portrayed as absolutely flawless. He's so squeaky clean, Charlie is left being completely unrelatable. I mean, he's so perfect, I'm surprised Burton's movie doesn't end with Charlie rising from the dead to redeem us all. 

There are good kids, but no kid is flawless. Whether a child is a good child can be determined by how they deal with their shortcomings, and work to overcome them. This is what distinguishes Charlie from the other kids in the original 1971 version, making him the better choice for a successor to Wonka. 

With Burton's movie, there's nothing for Charlie to overcome. Burton's Charlie just takes the tour, looks innocent and cute, watches the other kids get picked off one by one, and then gets his reward. Boring! No lessons. Nothing for audiences to take away. The entire movie is a hot mess, but that's another blog post for another day.
The idea that Wonka simply rewards Charlie despite his misdeed completely misses the point of the ending. So, because of his honesty and humility, he deserved the factory when all was said and done.

Don't Fast Forward This One: Is Warren Beatty's Dick Tracy a Forgettable Comic Book Movie?

I came up with "Don't Fast Forward This One" posts as quick discussions about movies, or specific aspects to specific movies. They're not reviews...just thinking points.

I've read that Warren Beatty tried to get a movie adaptation of the comic strip Dick Tracy created by Chester Gould since 1975.
He finally succeeded in 1990. I was about second grade when Dick Tracy was released, and I was a fan. I even dressed as Dick Tracy for Halloween that year, with a cheap yellow trench coat and plastic fedora hat that had to be Scotch taped before Halloween arrived because I wore it too much before then. I even had a toy two-way wrist radio watch that digitally told time (I think?) and would light up red when pressing the small button on the side.
The movie is a fireworks show of color and sights. It looks like a modern film noir. I struggled unsuccessfully to come up with another movie Dick Tracy resembles. I couldn't find a single one, and I'm open to suggestions.
Dick Tracy came out a year after Tim Burton's Batman gave audiences a new perspective on the caped crusader, completely opposite of Adam West's campy Batman from the TV series of the 1960s. No doubt many audience members were unfamiliar with Frank Miller's dark Batman graphic novels at that time. These took comic book readers away from the corny 60s Batman before the movie took general audiences in that same direction. Burton, I believe, took inspiration from Frank Miller.
Aside from the cinematography, what makes Dick Tracy unique and important is (like Tim Burton's Batman) its demonstration of how a comic book movie can be a serious movie.
The movie is set around the 1940s. A small gang of mafia members (Little Face, the Brow, the Rodent, and Shoulders) are mowed down by a couple of tommy guns in the hands of rival gang members, Flattop and Itchy. Little do Flattop and Itchy know, this massacre was witnessed by a young street kid named..."Kid."
As Dick Tracy investigates, gangster "Lips" Manlis (Paul Sorvino) is forced to hand over his Club Ritz to notorious rival gang leader, Al "Big Boy" Caprice (Al Pacino). Big Boy then gives Lips a "cement bath" and then forces him to spend the rest of his days with the fishes.
Big Boy is determine to take over Lips's little empire, which includes his girlfriend, Breathless Mahoney (Madonna).
Tracy knows Big Boy is behind Lips's disappearance, but needs evidence and Breathless's testimony. What he uncovers in his investigation is bigger than he imagined.
The Dick Tracy comic strips first debut in 1931 by Chester Gould, before Superman and Batman.
They were colorful, silly, and offered a huge rogues gallery for Tracy to fight, each with a visually distinct characteristic stereotypical of mobsters - Pruneface, the Rodent, 88 Keys, the Brow, Lips Manlis, Ribs Macca, B.O. Plenty. The list is long. The idea behind these appearances is that crime is just as ugly on the outside as it is on the inside.
So, with the 1990 film, this silly and cartoonish comic strip became a movie experience that's gritty, even gory at times with scenes of criminals getting sprayed with bullets. It followed the example of Burton's Batman that a comic-based movie doesn't have to be corny or slapsticky.
Let's face it, the Superman movies had some of that. It didn't make those movies bad (well...the first and second Superman, anyways. Let's not talk about parts three and four.)
Dick Tracy demonstrated just how serious a comic movie can be. It's a triumph in its visuals, in its cast of big names (Al Pacino, Madonna, Dustin Hoffman, Warren Beatty...even Dick Van Dyke, James Caan, Catherine O' Hara, and Kathy Bates make cameos), and in its action special effects.
When the movie was released, Dick Tracy's profile was everywhere. Playmates produced a short lived toy line. McDonald's put out one of their sweepstakes games. Nintendo had a video game - a terrible video game! And then, it all just faded away into a footnote.
The story line has been often ridiculed as being uninteresting and lacking.
But Roger Ebert, who said Burton's Batman was "disappointing" called Dick Tracy a "masterpiece of studio artificiality, of matte drawings and miniatures and optical effects." He even claimed Dick Tracy outdid Batman, writing that it was a "sweeter, more optimistic movie."
He does criticize the movie not going into the villains a little more, claiming the movie glimpses over them too quickly. Well, ok...I agree to some degree but with all the villains in the movie, doing so could have been a little too much, and could have hindered the flow of the story.
What Batman started for comic book movies, Dick Tracy took to a new, and yet-to-be-matched, level. It may not be the best comic to movie adaptation. It is definitely far from the worst. Like Batman, it hoisted the genre to more respectable heights. Where Batman turned campy and silly into dark and gritty, Dick Tracy added color while keeping things dark. What Batman started, Dick Tracy helped solidify. I believe modern comic book movies (SpiderMan, The Avengers) can find roots in Warren Beatty's movie. It shouldn't be trodden on, and thrown into the heap of comic book film flops.


Also, as I mentioned the TV series Batman, the show's producer, William Dozier, made a pilot episode for a live-action Dick Tracy series that was similar in style to Batman.
However, as ratings for Batman were dropping at the time, ABC and NBC declined to purchase the series.
The show starred Ray MacDonnell as well as a very young Eve Plumb as a character called "Bonnie Braids." Plumb later stared as Jan Brady on The Brady Bunch.
According to tvobscurities.com, the series was going to be played straight when compared to Batman. Judging on the opening title sequence, found here, the series definitely looked like it would be similar to Batman. (Sigh...what could have been.)

Freaked (1993)

I wonder if they're still casting 'Gremlins 3?"

Director
Alex Winter and Tom Stern

Cast
Alex Winter - Ricky Coogan
Michael Stoyanov - Ernie
Megan Ward - Julie
Randy Quaid - Elijah C. Skuggs
Alex Zuckerman - Stuey Gluck

The term "cult" is used often to describe a lot of movies. I think it's often misused. "Cult" is meant to describe generally unpopular obscure films that manage to have a fan base for the simple fact they're bad or obscure yet still entertain.
For example, some audiences consider A Christmas Story to be a cult film. But the thing is, though it was a low-budget movie, and faded for a short time after its 1983 release, it's well established in pop culture now. It's by no means an obscure movie. Low budget doesn't mean cult.
Freaked is a movie I hadn't heard of until a few months ago. It definitely has a specific target audience- a specific group of fans. It's Airplane meets Tim Burton, meets Pee Wee's Playhouse, meets that weird animation scene Rob Zombie did for Beavis and Butthead Do America.
This flick cost about $13 million to make (mostly towards its special effects), but it only made back a little over $29,000.
According to IMDB.com, some audiences believed this was going to be a sequel to Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure as it stars Alex Winter and an uncredited Keanu Reeves. It also stars William Sadler who starred as the Grim Reaper in Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey in 1991. They must have been sorely disappointed to learn that wasn't the case.
A lot of celebrities are in this movie - Brooke Shields, Randy Quaid, Megan Ward, Mr. T, and Bobcat Goldthwait, and a cameo by Morgan Fairchild.
I just cannot say it's a good movie, even if I believed it to be so. I just can't. I don't think it's meant to be a good movie. It's meant to be a comedy filled with gross-out humor, pseudo science fiction, with one liner after one liner and sight gag after sight gag.
There is so much happening here. And it definitely accomplished what it set out to do.
Directed by Alex Winter and Tom Stern, both of whom were in the Bill & Ted movies, it's a gross and a high energy movie.
Winter plays a former child star, Ricky Coogan, who shares his story on a talk show hosted by Skye Daley (Brooke Shields) of how he became so hideously disfigured...or, "freaked."
His story begins with his accepting a contract from a giant company called E.E.S. (Everything Except Shoes) that'll ensure he promotes a toxic fertilizer called Zygrot 24 in South America.
The E.E.S. CEO (William Sadler) offers Coogan $5 million, which he can't refuse.
So, Coogan flies down to the South American town of San Flan (snicker) with his buddy, Ernie (Michael Stoyanov). While on the flight, he finds his "number one fan" - a 12-year old Alfred E. Neuman looking kid named Stuey Gluck (Alex Zuckerman), He's constantly referred to as a troll throughout the movie.
Gluck begs Coogan not to promote the toxic stuff, but he ignores the pleas.
When they finally land in South America, they stumble across a group of environmental protesters.
Coogan sets his eyes on one cute protester named Julie (Megan Ward).
In an attempt to hook up with Julie, Coogan disguises himself as an accident victim, body bandages and all, and tells her they're also protesters.
She agrees to join them for another protest elsewhere. But as Julie is driving to the next location with them, she figures out it's really Coogan, and now she's stuck with them.
While driving, they decide to make a stop at Freek Land - a local freak show.
When they arrive, they end up kidnapped by the demented proprietor/ scientist, Elijah C. Skuggs (Randy Quaid).
Skuggs turns them into freaks using some green slimey chemical, and keeps them to show them off for his tourists.
While being held captive, they run into other freaks - Ortiz the Dog Boy (Keanu Reeves), a human worm (Derek McGrath), a cowboy that's really a human cow (John Hawkes), a bearded lady (Mr. T), and Sockhead, who actually has a sock puppet for a head (Bobcat Goldthwait), to name some.
Coogan explains in the interview how he and the others managed to escape Freek Land.
Among the stop motion special effects, the jokes and gags, and the makeup, what impressed me was Winter's makeup and dialogue. Half of his face was mutated, and the prosthetic teeth and lips kept him from being able to completely close his mouth. He clearly had to say his lines off-camera, so they could be dubbed in. There's no way he could have spoken coherently without being able to completely close his mouth. It is done so well. His tone matched his mannerisms and body language perfectly. It sounds like a small detail, but I'm sure filming a majority of the movie unable to close his mount was no small feat for Winter. His character drooled and spit a lot after being transformed. I read on IMDB.com that this excessive saliva was real, caused by the prosthetics.
I couldn't take my eyes off this movie. So much went into this movie, or so it seems.
One running joke that made me laugh was the "spiritual connection" between Coogan and Gluck.
Through this connection, Coogan is able to show Gluck what he's become, and Gluck makes a crude, childish drawing of what Coogan looks like, all "freaked-out."
He tries to take his drawing and his story to several major newspapers. As he does this, we see the silhouettes of Gluck and each news reporter through the translucent doors of each paper in a film noir fashion. Each one ends up physically throwing him through the glass on the door.
One newspaper does take the story, and offers to pay the kid. When the reporter tells someone off camera "show the kid out." Gluck responds, "I know the way out" and chucks himself out the window. It's funnier when you see it.
I never heard of this movie until about six months ago from the date of this post. I laughed a lot. I was overall entertained. And Alex Winter put a lot into this movie. Through the saliva and heaving makeup, it showed.
There are also two walking Rastafarian eyeballs with guns making sure the freaks don't escape. I'll just lay that little tidbit of movie fact right here, and let the reader deal with it themselves. I just can't explain this part of the movie. It's not lazy writing. I just can't get myself to do it without making it sound less sensical for the reader than it is. Again, two Jamaican eyeballs with guns are walking around FreekLand.
Freaked is definitely for a specific audience. It's as though Alex Winter and Tom Stern had an idea and just went without, throwing caution to the wind. If that was the case, then good for the both of them. They managed to get some big names attached, and...boom! Freaked! They made a legit cult movie. The idea behind it came from both directors' show The Idiot Box. 
I don't know if this flick is available on DVD or not. I think it is? Regardless, I found it on YouTube, and watched it that way. I doubt the studio would really care.

Shut Up Little Man! An Audio Misadventure (2011)

"You always giggle falsely!"

Director
Matthew Bate

Cast
Eddie Lee Sausage
Mitch Dupry
Ray and Peter

Before YouTube, Facebook, or any social media platform, or before the internet, and before everyone carried a camera in their pocket, when the word "viral" only referred to viruses, there was Peter Haskett and Raymond Huffman.
The documentary Shutup Little Man! covers the rise to fame Ray and Pete, two cantankerous drunks living together in a low-rent apartment complex at 237 Steiner Street in San Francisco's Lower Haight District, never felt the "joys" of.
Had it not been for two 20-something year old punks, Eddie Lee Sausage and Mitch Depry, spreading their wings out of Wisconsin and into the bright pink Steiner Street Apartment, which they dubbed the "Pepto-Bismol Palace," back in 1987, Ray and Pete would have just been barely even a memory in the faint recollect of anyone who came into contact with them. What was their claim to fame? It was their nightly drunken fights that often went well into the early morning hours.
As a result of their tumultuous fighting, they've been written about in Rolling Stone Magazine, Vanity Fair, Playboy, and other various big publications since the early nineties. They're lives together have been portrayed in plays, skits, comic books, and parodied in a variety of shows including SpongeBob SquarePants. There was even a 2001 movie (one I have yet to find a copy of) called Shut Yer Dirty Little Mouth based entirely on Ray and Pete. I even read that these two guys where the inspiration behind the noisy neighbors in Disney's Zootopia.
And when Ray and Peter were still alive, they had no idea just how popular they'd become nationwide, particularly in underground cassette trading circles known as "audio vérité" or "found sound." 

Well, Peter was informed about all the attention later on in the mid-nineties (he died in 1996). But it seems Ray, who died in 1992, may not have known.
Peter was a homosexual man living with Ray who drank a lot and had a way with words. And Ray? Well, in the documentary Eddie describes him as a Cro-Magnon of a man who drank, and drank, and belittled Ray for being "queer", and then drank.
As Eddie describes in the film, for the first three or so nights of moving into the apartment, he was awoken by the mysterious shouts of "Shut up little man! Shut up little man! SHUT UP LITTLE MAN!" coming from the neighbors next door.
Not only did this make him frantic, the fact that Mitchell wasn't hearing what he was hearing made him frantic. So, unable to take anymore sleepless nights, Eddie walked over to the apartment one early morning, pounded on the door, and was greeted by a behemoth of a man who could barely stand. That was Ray.
He basically told this guy to shut up. And Ray responded with "Hey listen, you c---sucker! Shut your 

f---in' mouth and go back to bed. I was a killer before you were born and I'll be a killer when you're dead."
Eddie also noticed the neighbors kept a fake skull in the front window. Welcome to the city, guys!
So, they began recording these nightly arguments for the sake of documentation in case Ray carried through with being a killer. But the arguing quickly went from maddening to intriguing and entertaining. Eddie and Mitch would even prank call Ray and Pete just to get them going.
To record their nightly tête-à-têtes, Eddie and Mitch would attach a microphone to a ski pole and extend it to their neighbors window.

Raymond Huffman (left) and Peter Haskett

They would play back the recordings for Ray and Peter in the hopes they'd get the message. 

Still, their neighbors in apartment three argued despite hearing themselves. 

Eddie and Mitch distributed their recordings to their friends, who distributed them to other friends, and before Eddie and Mitch knew, they were being contacted by San Francisco based publication Bananafish Magazine asking them to release the tapes commercially. Thus began the fame of Ray and Peter, who didn't realize any of this was going on. Peter was later discovered and interviewed, as shown in the film, in 1995 so he could sign a release form.
Their ever-so quotable and colorful phrases uttered in the anger and alcohol enriched moments of temper, such as “You always giggle falsely,” “Something happened with the dinner because you crucified it,” “If you wanna talk to me, then shut your f--king mouth,” “Don’t call me ‘goodnight'," and my personal favorite, "I am the human race" would easily be recognized if emblazoned on a t-shirt. Of course, heavily sprinkled in all these catch phrases is the colorful profanity usually spewed forth. You’d think these guys were married!

The spread of these audio recordings at a time when the term "social media" didn't exist is intriguing. 

And according to the documentary, the recordings of Ray and Pete were the holy grail of audio vérité. Mitch and Eddie also discover that a third person, Tony Newton, was often in the apartment with them. Of course, he was just as much a lush as Peter and Ray, but didn't quibble like they did. He can still be heard in some of the audio. 

I’ve listened to the sounds of Raymond and Peter several times on YouTube. At first, I felt guilty sitting there listening to drunk-fueled arguments between two grown men. It felt really intrusive, especially knowing this was a surreptitiously recording debacle. 

But something drew me back to them. Call it a sick curiosity? I don't know. After listening to it for the first time, which was after I watched this documentary, their voices continued to replay in my head. I wanted to go back and see it all over again for my own curiosity and (why lie?) to get some laughs. 

I've even had their arguments playing in my headphones as background noise while at work. 

Recordings of two drunks arguing is certainly not art. As the documentary attests, what people do with the recordings might be considered art by modern standards. When all the layers are peeled back, what's left is the misery of two long-gone drunks who (again, as the documentary proves) actually cared for each other when they were sober. 

Otherwise, their misery in the last few years of what may be considered pissed away lives is what we're given. They didn't have much say in the matter. It's like they were forced to give the world, who didn't otherwise care much for them before Shutup Little Man, a little something extra pulled right out from the darkest areas of their last years on earth whether they liked it or not. 

Anyhow, the story behind all this, the ethical questions that arise, the legality in certain aspects, and the role media plays here is simply amazing to me. 

The documentary tackles ethical issues such as the legality or illegality of recording people without their knowledge and distributing it for profit, and even attempting to copyright it. Mitchell argues in the documentary that Ray and Peter were so loud, their arguments were heard outside the confines of their apartment, making it public domain. There's a story on their Shut Up Little Man website that corroborates just how loud these two were.
The movie is fascinating to watch, especially when Mitchell and Eddie discover at the time of filming that Tony Newton is still alive - the last vestige of the Peter and Raymond legacy. They find him still living in San Francisco, and after a couple of attempts persuade him to agree to an interview, he agrees to one.

Eddie Lee Sausage (left) and Mike Dupry.

Shutup, Little Man is certainly a media story to top other media stories. The hypothetical issue of how Ray and Peter would fair on platforms such as YouTube if they were alive and loud today is talked about, as so many altercations no matter how private, or embarrassing, or violent, or damaging, are shared for everyone to see for the sake of entertainment and personal recognition. It all comes down to the question, why?  Is it just our fascination with people we don't know? It's a media topic that's crucial in this day of viral videos and privacy.
Ray and Peter are the stuff of urban legends. Whether they like it or not, they've been shoved into the realm of San Francisco history. May their legacy live on, and may they continue always giggling falsely.