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.