(+JMJ+) "Learn to go see the 'worst' films; they are sometimes sublime." - Ado Kyrou, Le Surrealisme au Cinema.
*Check out my horror movie blog, too, at 1000daysofhorror.blogspot.com & my SciFi blog, 1000daysofscifi.blogspot.com
Now that October is over, and my annual horror movie commentary thread "extravaganza" that I share over at 1000daysofhorror.blogspot.com is all done, I'm now getting back to all my other stuff. My other stuff includes this thread of Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau movies. Those movies include works with both of them acting together, or one or the other.
The 1971 movie "Kotch" stars Walter Matthau and is based on Katharine Topkins's 1965 novel. It's unique as far as Lemmon and Matthau movies go as Jack Lemmon sits in the director's chair for this flick, directing his old acting buddy, Matthau. It's also Lemmon's directorial debut. It's also the only movie he directed.
The movie also stars Deborah Winters, Charles Aidman, Ellen Geer, and Lemmon's wife Felicia Farr. Lemmon does have an uncredited role as a sleeping bus passenger - a performance I completely missed.
In this movie, Walter Matthau plays Joseph Kotcher - Kotch for short. He's a grandfatherly fellow, mild-mannered and more than willing to share with others what life has taught him regardless of whether anyone wants to listen or not.
He's also not going to sit idlily as his own son, Gerald (Charles Aidman) and his daughter-in-law, Wilma (Felicia Farr), whom Kotch lives with, treat him like he's a burden.
Their living situation reaches a difficult point when Wilma insists Gerald put Kotch in a retirement home.
Kotch initially checks out the retirement home but has no intention of staying. The tests that the home's psychiatrist conducts to consider his mental and cognitive state put Kotch off.
Instead, he decides to go travel someplace else on his own. He's an adult, so he doesn't think he needs to tell anyone.
He befriends a young pregnant girl named Erica Herzenstiel (Deborah Winters), whom he met earlier when Gerald and Wilma hired her to babysit their infant son, Duncan.
Her parents kicked her out because she became pregnant out of wedlock and also decided to quit school for a hairstyling job in San Bernadino.
Feeling bad, Kotch offers Erica a little money so she can survive a little longer, especially since she's pregnant. She reluctantly agrees to take it promising to pay him back as soon as she can.
Kotch follows through on his escape plan, hops on a Greyhound bus and travels afar staying in motels and seeing the sites.
Walter Matthau as 'Kotch.'
After a long excursion, Kotch returns home on Halloween night.
Erica informs him she can't repay the money he gave her claiming she's come into some serious issues.
Kotch also learns she was let go from her hairstyling job as she didn't have a license. So, Erica is back looking for work.
Feeling pity, Kotch offers Erica a job as his personal housekeeper as he goes to live on his own.
She doesn't accept at first, but after spending the fall season by herself, come Christmas time she thinks it's the best option she has.
The film centers on this unlikely friendship. Kotch, in the winter of his life and refusing to be thought of as a burden, becomes the support Erica needs. Her parents kicked her out. The father of her baby is unreliable. The two have something in common.
His fatherly role over Erica renews in Kotch a feeling of purpose. This way, he can maintain his dignity.
Erica, meanwhile, doesn't have to face this unexpected life change all alone. Someone cares.
In Joe Baltake's book, "Jack Lemmon: His Films and Career" Lemmon is quoted as saying in regards to this movie, "I was drawn to 'Kotch' first by the character and the individual spirit of the human being. I was fascinated by it. It raises a lot of questions that I think need to be raised, but I was not trying to make any kind of statement about old age. I merely wanted to do a nice little drama about a character who happens to be old." (Baltake, 193)
Even in the closing chapters of his life, Kotch once again has to find his place in the world. He may have lived in the right place before the story begins, but new journeys can call someone in an unexpected moment regardless of their age.
On the topic of directing Matthau in the lead role, as opposed to acting opposite his comedy partner, Lemmon says, "Walter will take direction well, I found, unless something goes totally against his instincts. But I directed him mostly by leaving him alone. He's so inventive that when I was editing the film, I found he never did the same thing twice, and I wanted to kill him because it was almost impossible to cut." (Baltake, 193)
On the flip side, in regard to working under Lemmon, Matthau says, "He's a fantastic director because he has a most unique ability to communicate with the broad spectrum of personalities on the scene, a man with a magnificent command of all the integral parts of a script. He has taste, talent, and imagination. And being an actor, he has the added advantage of understanding an actor's problems." (Baltake, 194)
To its credit, the movie doesn't try to saturate the audience with sentimentality. The plot and acting speaks for itself, and the audience is free to take whatever emotion is there. It gives the audience considerations to think about as well.
Walter Matthau and Deborah Winters
The film opens with scenes of Kotch and his grandson enjoying the day. It certainly sets the mood.
And though the movie doesn't wash the audience with emotion, Matthau's performance carries much sympathy and heart. Kotch knows people don't want him around. He copes with these difficulties by diving into his past when times were better...when he wasn't old.
Still, despite a great performance from Matthau, it was hard not to seem him through his makeup and grandfatherly appearance. Rather, I kept seeing Matthau playing a sympathetic old man.
That's not to say Matthau is a bad actor. I have never seen a Matthau performance I didn't like, though some I like better than others. I enjoyed his performance in this role as he makes Kotch someone worth rooting for.
The comedy is light, while the emotion flows naturally. One scene in which Kotch is undergoing a Rorschach test at the retirement home from a serious psychiatric nurse who looks as though she hasn't cracked a smile since elementary school, he feels like she's unimpressed with his answers. When she turns to answer a phone for a few moments, he sneaks a peak at her notes about him so far. "Unimaginative? Literal?" her notes read. His answers have all been one-word answers. Now that he has some insight into her opinions, at the next ink blotch where she asks what he sees, Kotch responds, "An inexperienced spermatozoon, about fifteen years old, asking directions to the nearest fallopian tube." Why not crack a joke? He won't be staying anyways. The scene cracked me up. The time was perfect, and the delivery of that line alone was comically unexpected.
I had to let this movie stew a bit before sharing my thoughts.
"Kotch" is a modest and underappreciated film with a solid theme of independence, compassion and connection between generations. Plus, there's a subtle pro-life message that I can definitely get behind.
Matthau gives the role his all. He depicts a tender character who's not gruff, wisecracking and who doesn't succumb to any mistreatment around him.
Instead, he seizes upon an opportunity to do one last remarkable thing unselfishly. He's not making up for any past misdeeds or sins. He wants this last chapter of life to be meaningful. Of course, he succeeds and is happy in his small corner of life.
I think "Kotch" nicely complements Matthau and Lemmon's career together, even the parts of their work together after this movie's release. By 1971, Lemmon and Matthau had starred in two movies together - "The Fortune Cookie" and "The Odd Couple." Their next picture together would be, "The Front Page" in 1974.
"Kotch" is a well-made depiction of concern and empathy which can come about in even unlikely situations. There's always room to improve and grow, even in the final stages of life.
"Journalists. Bunch of crazy buttinskies with dandruff on their shoulders and holes in their pants. Peeking through keyholes, waking people up in the middle of the night to ask them what they think about Aimee Semple McPherson. Stealing pictures off old ladies of their daughters that get raped in Oak Park. And for what? So a million shop girls and motormen's wives can get their jollies. And the next day, somebody wraps the front page around a dead mackerel." - Hildy Johnson ('The Front Page')
If "The Odd Couple" is the movie that Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau are most remembered for, "The Front Page" should be the second movie they're remembered for.
I feel like their usual roles are reversed a bit in Billy Wilder's 1974 comedy "The Front Page," the third movie Lemmon and Matthau appear in together.
In "The Fortune Cookie" and "The Odd Couple," Jack Lemmon's character is somehow at the mercy of Matthau's character. However, in this movie, Matthau's Walter Burns is at Jack Lemmon's Hildy Johnson's mercy. Matthau is the pain in the backside this time.
"The Front Page" is based on the 1928 play also titled "The Front Page" by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur.
It's the third film adaptation following "The Front Page" from 1931 and "His Girl Friday" from 1940 with Cary Grant as Walter Burns and Rosalind Russell as Hildy Johnson.
The movie is set in 1920's Chicago. The twenties, by the way, is my favorite decade as I've mentioned in my commentary of Milos Forman's movie, "Ragtime." So, that's an added perk. The movie as an atmospheric feel similar to the movie "The Sting" which came out the year before.
Anyways, in this movie Hildy Johnson (Jack Lemmon) is about to quit his news reporting job at the Chicago Examiner as he's getting hitched to his fiancé, Peggy Grant (Susan Sarandon). He's the best reporter the Chicago rag has got. Hildy's departure comes at the great chagrin of his editor, Walter Burns (Walter Matthau). To add salt to Walter's wound, Hildy is taking on a new gig (besides marriage) in advertising.
"You mean you're going to be writing crap like 'I'd walk a mile for a Camel', or 'Quick, Henry, the Flit'," Burns says at the news. Hildy replies, "You bet! For 150 bucks a week!" "Hildy, you're a newspaper man! Not some faggot writing poetry about brassieres and laxatives," Burns says.
This departure falls right as a big story involving the hanging of Earl Williams (Austin Pendleton), a scrawny wimp of a leftist dweeb with Communist sympathies, is about to explode. Williams had previously been inserting propaganda demanding the release of murderer anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti into a fortune cookies.
Walter Matthau, Jack Lemmon and Susan Sarandon in "The Front Page."
Well, somewhere in the process, Williams had "accidentally" murdered a police officer.
Now, he's on death row waiting for his turn at the gallows.
As Hildy is saying adios to the newswriting business, Earl Williams escapes prison the night before his execution.
Not only does he escape, but he also secretly makes his way right into the courthouse next door to his jail. Even more specifically, Williams crashes into the courthouse pressroom where Hildy is sitting by himself after he and his old press buddies have one last hurrah! The rest of the reporters scamper off like a pack of hungry wolves to find Williams.
Hildy can't resist this whopper of a story in the last few moments of his journalism career.
It's just him and Williams, and a typewriter.
Well, Williams's romantic fling, Mollie Malloy (Carol Burnett), an "angel of the pavement" to put it nicely who lurks around the press room to yell at the reporters, barges in to find Williams there with Hildy in the pressroom.
Hildy dials up Burns to tell him what just landed in the palm of his hand (not referring to Mollie, of course). He gets to writing the biggest story he's ever written all while trying to hide Williams from the police as well as trying to make it to the train station with Peggy to catch a train to Philadelphia for their wedding and honeymoon. Peggy, growing more and more ticked, is willing to catch that train on her own if Hildy doesn't shake a leg.
I'm biased when it comes to my love of this movie as I was once a news reporter for a paper in Junction City, Kan. I had a few reporting stints before then, but the JC paper is where I really fell into place.
I'm comfortable in a newsroom. There's something about providing people with news and information that appeals to me. So, "The Front Page" is a movie I love. Plus, having Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau in it makes it perfectly cast.
Carol Burnett stars alongside Lemmon and Matthau. As far as I'm concerned, she's one of the best (if not the best) female comedian! And if Lemmon and Matthau had a third member to their unofficial act, it would and should be Carol Burnett.
In an interview with Conan O'Brien, Burnett said of her performance in this movie, "I was terrible in it. I was just awful."
Sorry, Carol. Maybe I don't know good acting from bad, but I enjoyed watching you play off Lemmon and Matthau. Maybe there was more your character could have done. Or you could have shared more screen time with them. The chemistry is there. At least it could have been a jumping off point to more projects with them.
Watching her play against Matthau and Lemmon still feels like a true golden movie moment. She's a perfect addition to Lemmon and Matthau.
Austin Pendleton and Carol Burnett along with Jack Lemmon.
Speaking of Matthau, his performance as a gruff editor is spot on. Editors don't care about the personal problems of their writers. A writer could have a story on deadline and wind up comatose in a hospital or unconscious in a ditch. It's in an editor's nature or mindset to hound the writer regardless to get the story done. Don't die now. There's space in the paper that needs filled.
During my stint at the paper, I once had to take a story home to work on it as my wife was heading out for the night and I needed to watch the kids. I still needed to finish a big feature I was working on. I was already passed deadline. So people were waiting for me. Right in the middle of things, my poor wife hit a deer. She was ok. And our newborn who was with her was also ok. But her car wasn't. My editor was sympathetic but frustrated as hell because my feature needed to land on the front page. And the paper needed to be put to bed.
I finished my story with a lot of sweat on my brow and some choice words muttered under my breath. Mea culpa.
Anyways, Matthau captures the nature of a newspaper editor wonderfully. They're a bunch of cold, heartless, self-righteous know-it-alls. Cigarettes and booze were invented with news writers in mind first because they work for editors.
Editors! Their paychecks get them out of bed and the minute hand keeps them going.
Once, someone pointed out some grammatical errors on this platform. I told this guy "Sorry. I'm a writer. Not an editor."
"Well, why don't you get an editor?"
"What! And take the fun out of blogging?"
The lines and back-n-forth jargon and yelling between Walter and Hildy holds the comedy as Walter schemes to keep his best reporter on.
"You'd wreck my marriage just to keep me on that crummy paper of yours," Hildy tells Burns.
And the best line Lemmon delivers - "I wouldn't cover the last supper for you if they held it in the pump room of the Ambassador East."
The supporting cast of news writers are some yellow journalists with a matter of fact, what ya see is what ya get demeanor. News writing is second nature to these clowns, except for Bensinger (David Wayne) who's the dandy storyteller of the bunch. Woo, woo!
You've seen "His Girl Friday" right? Of course you have! I just watched it last night before finishing this post. So, let's compare.
Vince Gardenia as Sheriff "Honest Pete" Hartman fits the role well. The character is a real stooge for the mayor (Harold Gould). Gardenia matches the kind of character Hartman is - a yes-man who thinks he's a master at hiding his corruption concerned at hiding his corruption and is more concerned at being useful for the mayor than for the taxpayers.
Gene Lockhart plays the same character in "His Girl Friday", but his depiction is less unlikeable. He isn't as much of a buffoon, though he's still a buffoon, as Gardenia's portrayal.
"The Front Page" has a lot of humor but with just enough energy to make it entertaining.
"His Girl Friday" tells a ever-so-slightly different story with Hildy being played by Rosalind Russell, a former wife of Walter Burns and still working as his reporter. So, there's more of a romantic plot. However, "His Girl Friday" has a lot more energy behind it, and just enough humor to hold it up.
Cary Grant's performance as Walter Burns in "His Girl Friday" goes from his being the jerk of jerks (you know... a typical editor) to likeable (also, typical editor for some fluke reason).
Matthau in the same role pulls off that same sort of performance with not as much energy as Grant. He makes up for it with hilarious gruffness and a hard exterior.
Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon are just as much of a perfect cast for this story as they are in "The Odd Couple" and their later comedy "Grumpy Old Men."
The image of Jack Lemmon sitting in front of a Royal manual typewriter pounding out a story with sweat glistening his brow, a cigarette dangling from his lips, liquor bottles staggered in front of him, and his tie and collar undone while Walter Matthau looms over him, saying "atta boy, Hildy" is iconic. Their chemistry carries on in their respective performances as a hard-shelled selfish editor and a reporter who'll get the story any way he can.
Lemmon and Matthau are a raucous version of Laurel and Hardy, sort of, in this newsroom comedy. I could easily see Walter telling Hildy, "Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into." Instead of crying, Hildy would shout back, "Listen, you lousy baboon. You better start wearing cast-iron shorts because the next time I see you, I'm gonna bury my shoe up your ass, so help me."
No one else could fit this scenario as well as these two guys. "The Front Page" is an underrated classic.
Superman movies of recent memory, starting way back in 1983 with "Superman III" and including "Supergirl" from 1984, up to today have been met with many unfavorable reviews.
When news of another Superman movie broke, I heard the same comment from various people. "Another one?"
With James Gunn in the director's seat after directing other comic-based movies "Guardians of the Galaxy" vols 1 through 3 and "The Suicide Squad," it definitely drew in a ton of attention.
Some friends of mine say they like "Man of Steel" from 2013 better than this new movie. I haven't seen that since its release. All I remember thinking about it was that it started off slow. I'll have to rewatch it and refresh my memory.
So, in this new movie, Superman (David Corenswet) once again goes up against Lex Luther (Nicholas Hault), while also facing the evil wrath of fake news and a little cancel culture along with finding himself and coming to terms with who he is.
Like the 2022 movie, "The Batman" with Robert Pattinson, a lot of audiences seemed to gush over this new Superman movie, treating it as though "Superman" has reached the pinnacle of cinematic art. "Superman" and "The Batman" are, evidently, the greatest of comic book movies to date, so some fans believe.
But, for me, "Superman" is just... alright. I don't see it (nor "The Batman") as being so much different from previous comic book movies. I don't see it as having such depth and highly insightful insight into this well established and largely appreciated comic book character as some claim it does. There really isn't any of that in this movie.
While I was generally entertained by James Gunn's "Superman" just as much as I enjoyed my popcorn, I wouldn't get so high on its fumes to call it a cinematic masterpiece nor even a great movie.
But there were some things I did like, such as Lex Luthor's room of brain-controlled monkeys writing mean Tweets and TikToks about Superman. Take your criticism, Gen Z!
However, that's not to say "Superman" is a terrible movie. Like I said, James Gunn's "Superman" is simply o.k.
I live in a small town, and the nearest movie theater only shows one film each Friday, Saturday and Sunday. So, "Superman" arrived a bit later than everywhere else. And the theater was only showing it in 3D. I don't care about 3D at all, and my few experiences watching new releases in 3D have been very underwhelming. The theater I went to had the 3D setup perfectly.
The flying scenes in the movie were great and best experienced in 3D. This movie nailed the shots of Superman in flight. Seeing these shots in 3D was amazing and probably the best parts of the movie for me. Shout out to the Murphy Theater in Stuart, Neb., for a great 3D experience!
When he's not flying in this movie, it seems Superman spent a lot of time healing in some way. There are one or two moments with Superman fighting to save Metropolis. Otherwise, he's constantly being tortured and beat up, laying down to get better, or coming to terms with himself. Even Lois Lane has a scene where she's questioning Superman to the point of nearly berating him and then criticizes him for getting up to leave and not taking her verbal thrashing.
Also, Superman's adoptive parents, Jonathan (Pruitt Taylor Vince) and Martha Kent (Neva Howell) aren't portrayed as wise as they've previously been portrayed in past depictions.
Instead, they're much frumpier, coming across as more country bumpkins than common sense, learned and sensible people.
In one scene after Superman discovers what his true parents from the planet Krypton really intended for him to do while on Earth (that's a big twist in the film so I won't spoil it), Jonathan Kent tells Superman that the role of parents, referring to Superman's real parents, isn't to tell their kids who they are. Personal choices determine that. That's kind of true.
Well, I think that's a bit too watered down when it comes a parent's role. Sure, we have free will and all that.
Still, the role of parents is to tell their children who they are. Educate them. Guide them. If that isn't the case, then what's a parent's role?
Granted, Superman doesn't have to be like his real father from Krypton. But his real father will always be a part of him and continue to have some influence.
I think Richard Donner's 1978 movie sets the standard for what a Superman movie ought to be. Hollywood has certainly deviated from that thanks in large part of Hollywood's left-leaning political mindset.
Superman is a figure of Americana who has been lifted up in American pop-culture as being a symbol of American strength, righteousness and morals. Superman is super! So, he fits right into the American way of life. He needs to maintain his stand for truth, justice, and the American way.
In this movie, Superman, "the man of steel" isn't as "super" as we've previously seen him. He's a little too lacking in that major detail. Oh, he's still the man of steel. Despite that, Superman gets pummeled more times than I've ever seen him get pummeled. The moment he appears on screen right at the beginning of the movie, he's knocked down for the count. It's that scene in the trailer where Superman crashes into the ice and snow, and then whistles for Krypto the Superdog to save him.
In fact, everyone and everything with a red cape in this flick seems like a dunce. Krypto is an annoying pain in the rear. And Supergirl (Milly Alcock), who shows up at the end of the movie, is a bratty drunk girl. Oh, spoiler. Sorry!
I took a lot more interest in the rest of the "Justice Gang" - Green Lantern (Nathan Fillion) and especially Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi). There's also Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced). She's a part of things, too. Hawkgirl got annoying real fast, though, as she screeches like a hawk in practically every shot of her flying through the air. I get it. She's a girl hawk representing both girls and large birds within the bird community. Did she need to screech like one (a hawk, I mean) in every scene?
Anyways, Green Lantern, Mr. Fantastic and Hawkgirl acted much more "super" and really took care of business when Metropolis was under threat. Even Green Lantern, in one scene, calls out Superman for being weak. That's not the word Green Lantern uses, but that's pretty much his point.
I don't know, nor do I care, how many people were involved with the script, but the plot feels like many writers had their fingers in it all trying to pull it in different directions. And the whims of different writers all found their way into the story. In other words, "Superman" borders on convoluted.
James Gunn doesn't make Superman that interesting. He doesn't dive into what makes Superman an remarkable hero. Instead, he relies on the hope that audiences already know all about Superman's story and then takes this iconic hero in his (James Gunn's) own personal direction, leaving Superman's greatness to the past.
He also tosses in a bunch of his own style of humor on top of a lot of plot points and action. I'm not above humor and campiness, even in a Superman movie. I enjoyed that style of humor in "Guardians of the Galaxy" vols. 1 and 2.
And Superman has to be a bit campy because a character as powerful as he is would certainly appear more frightening for audiences without any of it, more so than what the IP intends. Check out the movie "Brightburn" which shows how terrifying a character like Superman can be if he were to use his superior powers to dominate the entire world. It was produced by James and directed by his brothers, Mark and Brian.
In this case, the humor was inserted in places where it doesn't belong, and distracted from any necessary insight into Superman's motivations and desires in this story.
In one scene where Lois Lane and Superman are making up after an argument earlier in the movie, as they talk and have a serious moment, Gunn decides to include a giant monster in the background attacking Metropolis while Green Lantern, Hawkgirl, and Mr. Fantastic fight it off. As they're in this serious moment, the audience can see this huge monster in the background destroying everything. It's also destroying a golden moment for the audience to gain any understanding into Superman and Lois.
Gunn does delve into Lex Luthor's (Nicholas Hoult) motivations, that being jealousy (I guess) of Superman. That's about all the audience gets in regard to character exploration.
Thankfully, the politics in this new movie is very minimal. There's some slight social commentary referencing the current political climate. But this isn't a movie about all that, especially illegal immigration. You know, because Superman is from another planet and crash lands in the American Midwest rather unexpectedly.
At least audiences still cheer Superman on for reducing crime. That depiction certainly doesn't reflect today's reality. Reducing crime in our major cities isn't met with the same enthusiasm these days, at least not from one political side that revels in taking to wrong side of insanely dumb arguments. I digress, though. Now, here I go bringing politics into it.
In another scene Superman and the Justice Gang attack a giant monster unleashed on Metropolis by Lex Luthor and his goons as a distraction while Lex infiltrates Superman's Fortress of Solitude. While the Justice Gang attack this thing, Superman is more interested making sure they don't kill it but rather take it to some space zoo or something to study it. Meanwhile, he's trying to make sure civilians clear the area, which they don't because they're stupid, and even swooshes down faster than a speeding bullet to rescue a random squirrel. That's were Green Lantern calls Superman out for pussyfooting around the situation. What did James Gunn do to you, Superman?
To be fair, I enjoyed "Superman" as much as I enjoy any other Saturday night popcorn flick. I just don't see what there is to gush over. For me, the best Superman movie is "Superman II" from 1980. In fact, I prefer it over the first Superman movie. That's another discussion for another time.
The worst is still "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" but that's also another post for another time.
Audiences need to know the story behind Superman when coming into this movie as it starts in media res.
What I did like about the movie, other than the spectacular shots of Superman flying, was the acting. The casting choices are great, especially Nicholas Hoult as Lex. He did a phenomenal job and really put in a convincing performance! Rachel Brosnahan as Lois is also fantastic. And, despite my issues with Superman's portrayal, David Corenswet in the lead role did really well with what he was given to work with.
James Gunn's "Superman" is mediocre. It did pull me in and kept me invested, albeit disappointed at times. At least it's not worse than "Superman IV," so there's that but that's not saying much.
Otherwise, if this movie indicates the direction Superman is going, then he needs to turn around and go back the way he came. He needs to be that symbol of strength and integrity. He needs to get back to standing for not only truth and justice but the American way because compared to the rest of the world the American way is still magnificent and truly ideal. Simply put, Superman needs to be super again.
The 1979 comedy "Scavenger Hunt" is a movie made in the midst of a subgenre trend I call "chase and race" flicks. I don't know if that's the right term, but that's what I call them.
These "chase and race" movies are generally comedies with a cast of big-name actors, maybe some celebrity cameos, and a story involving characters divided into groups racing for an ultimate prize or goal of some kind.
"Scavenger Hunt" has all the elements of a chase and race movie, beginning with its star-studded cast being divided into groups and then competing against each other.
The reason "Scavenger Hunt" jumps out at me and why I wanted to watch and review it, is because of a 1983 Milton-Bradley board game also called "Scavenger Hunt."
My family owned this game during my youth, and I remember enjoying it. So much so that a few years ago, I ordered the game online and didn't have to pay much for a complete copy.
My kids and I play it from time to time, and they enjoy it, especially my daughter. So, "Scavenger Hunt" has come full circle in my family.
It's a fun game in which players need to strategize in finding a variety of random items such as trombone, a comic book, a wooden Indian, a birdcage, and other various objects located in different parts of various houses in a neighborhood. Players use cards to maneuver through front yards and rooms, find the items they selected in a particular order, and then race back to their own house to win. The game requires players to make a list of their objects in the order they're picked before game play and then find those objects in the order they've listed them.
Cloris Leachman, Richard Masur, and Richard Benjamin in "Scavenger Hunt."
It's worth mentioning that the box art is designed by one of my favorite comic artists, Jack Davis. His caricature artwork was and still is found in practically every issue of MAD Magazine. That's a big plus for me!
I had never heard of the movie "Scavenger Hunt" until I was looking into another movie for a previous post on this blog and stumbled upon the title.
Of course, I was intrigued. I wanted to know if the board game is based on the movie, or the movie is based on the board game. The answer to both is no. But the game does have enough similarities to the film, aside for the title, to make me wonder if the game which was released in 1983, takes some inspiration from the movie.
For instance, my kids and I spotted most, if not all, of the objects from the game within the movie. And the center of the movie's plot centers around a board game creator. Also, the characters are given a list of objects which they have to fund in order, if I'm not mistaken. And the characters have to return to a house to finish the hunt. The similarities are there.
In this movie, Vincent Price plays Milton Parker who's an immensely wealthy game inventor. While playing an electronic game with his nurse, he drops dead. Or, rather Milton Parker passes "Go" for the last time!
No sooner does he croak that his relatives come barreling to his estate in the hopes of getting at least some inheritance. Parker's lawyer, Charles Bernstein (Robert Morley) informs them that Parker's Will states that his $200 estate will be given to whomever wins a scavenger hunt. The rules to this scavenger hunt are all laid out in the Will.
The beneficiaries will have to form five teams, with each team given a list of 100 items they'll have to find and bring back to a partitioned section outside Parker's house.
Each item on the lists are worth different points, ranging from five points up to 100 points, depending on the item.
They can obtain their respective items through any means necessary except purchasing. So, aside from buying the items, anything goes!
Each team has until five pm on the day of the hunt to get as many points as they can. Whichever team has all their items unloaded in their team section and scores the most points by 5:00 will inherit Milton Parker's estate. Let the laughs ensue!
There's a lot of slapstick action followed by more slapstick action. It starts to get exhausting to watch, leaving the audience with an eagerness to see the movie hurry up and end.
The movie has its funny moments, got some laughs out of me, and has a cast that make the general experience of watching "Scavenger Hunt" engrossing. But none of the celebrity cast manage to save the movie, not even the legendary Vincent Price. He's only on screen for a few minutes at the beginning of the movie. As for the comedy, the humor is thin and repetitive.
Speaking of cameos, Arnold Schwarzenegger shows up for a cameo as a body builder named Lars. That's a trip!
It's constant movement from start to finish that's all combined into one confusing cluster of cinematic catastrophes. I couldn't keep up with what teams found what objects, or what their schemes were, or what subplots the movie was jumping to.
The dialogue is just as jumbled as the comedy. The flow shifts around so much, the movie ended with me slack jawed and glassy eyed. There's no room for anyone to pause a moment and catch their breath.
Its nearly two-hour run time didn't help in that regard. There's just a lot packed into that near two-hours with insane dizzying scene after scene of non-stop goofiness as if it doesn't want the audience to pause from laughing, even for a moment.
Even the final scene with all the points being counted dragged on.
"Scavenger Hunt" is an unforgettable film but largely for the wrong reasons. At least the board game allows players to take their time.
The two best things that the 1970 comedy, "The Out-of-Towners" has going for it is that it's written by comedy playwright, Neil Simon, and it stars Jack Lemmon. Double win! Or is it?
I think "The Out-of-Towners" story best simplifies Neil Simon's comedic style.
Comedy happens amidst the most mundane of human activity, and even amidst the frustrations of common activities.
Traveling encompasses both the mundane and frustrative. The light at the end of that tunnel is the final destination. Everyone can relate to the stress of travelling. And I mean everyone! It's one of those necessary evils where travelers just know before setting out that something is surely going to go wrong. Simon certainly knew that and used the comedy within to write "The Out-of-Towners."
This movie is the kind of scenario that matches Simon's knack for seeing the comedy in everyday life amidst ordinary and truly relatable characters. As far as I'm concerned, Neil Simon is a titan among comedy writers. I've praised him quite a bit already in previous posts.
In this movie, George Kellerman (Jack Lemmon) is heading to New York City as his job invited him to interview for a promotion. He takes his wife Gwen (Sandy Dennis) along so they can make the business trip into a getaway for the both of them.
Beginning with their flight out of Ohio to New York, their trip turns into a situation where issue after issue ruins all their plans.
Heavy fog causes their flight to JFK Airport to circle around the city for hours before landing at Logan Airport in Boston. That reroute ruins their fancy dinner plans in the city. And, as expected, their luggage gets lost. Of course, the airline is going to lose their luggage! Unfortunately, George's ulcer medication is in his suitcase.
Regardless, the couple still has to get to New York City. So, they book it to Boston's South Station only to just miss the train. Of course!
They get a cab and try to outrun the train before it gets to the next station. They make it and are able to board. However, the train is overcrowded. George and Gwen have to wait two hours just for a table in the dining car.
Sandy Dennis and Jack Lemmon as Gwen and George Kellerman in Neil Simon's "The Out-of-Towners."
Once they're able to get a table, all that's left on the menu are peanut butter sandwiches, green olives and crackers. They can't even get a cup of coffee. Their only choices are tonic water and clam juice. And neither of those are served cold.
With a belly full of peanut butter and an olive pit, they get to Grand Central Station at 2 am. However, they can't get to their reserved room at the Waldorf-Astoria because subway, bus and taxi drivers are all on strike. So are the city's sanitation workers. George and Gwen have to walk eight blocks to get to the hotel in the pouring rain. They don't have an umbrella. Garbage is piled all along the wet city streets, stinking to high heaven.
They make it to the hotel. Their smelly eight-block trek in the pouring rain is met with the hotel giving their reserved room to someone else. The reservation was guaranteed until 10 pm. It's now 3 am. And on top of that, the hotel is booked solid thanks to all the strikes in New York.
Nothing continues to go as planned through the night. It's the worst luck New York has to offer versus George and Gwen Kellerman of Twin Oaks, Ohio.
The comedy in this movie is running on rinse and repeat. Travel plans are thwarted by unforeseen issues that can't be helped, as Gwen often puts it.
Each mishap has the same pay off. George flies off the handle as only Jack Lemmon knows how, swearing with more and more sincerity that he's not going to take it anymore, until the next mishap falls in his path. And his wife Gwen is there to just take it and be the voice of reason that her husband can't hear because he's too busy not taking it anymore. It does become too monotonous by the final act.
He's even kicked out of a church by a camera crew setting up to film some upcoming Easter services just after his wife suggests he go in to pray for relief.
The laughs are there. And the premise isn't unreasonable. What is unrelatable are the bad decisions of Jack Lemmon, such as refusing to stick around the lobby of the Waldorf when his room is given away, after the clerk offers him a room that won't be available until 7 am. But then again, good and logical decisions don't get the laughs.
The movie is a sophisticated slapstick comedy. It's good for a laugh and some reassurance that no matter how bad our travel plans go, or any of our plans for any situation, at least we're not that guy!
I think Lemmon's performance is hilarious and it's really easy to garner a lot of sympathy for George Kellerman. It's impossible not to connect to these two characters. All they want is a nice trip together while George's situation is about change for the better. We've all been there. We can all laugh.
It gets to the point where Jack Lemmon's character anticipates something to go wrong, which it does. Expectations are met.
The comedy ends with it continuing on when he, like the audience, thinks all that bad luck has got to have run out by now.
So, it shows that travelling can actually be a form of eternal punishment. Just ask the staff at Frontier Airlines. They won't hesitate to tell you how the experience of travelling can be a veritable hell, all while arguing with you and charging you multiple fees along the way unsympathetic of the obstacles airlines like Frontier callously toss into your travel plans.
Director Arthur Hiller has some truly notable titles on his resume, including one film titled "W. C. Fields and Me" (1976) which is something I'm interested in finding.
"The Out-of-Towners" managed to get a remake in 1999 with Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn. I haven't seen it, but reading the synopsis on Wikipedia, it sounds like the remake makes one or two more logically outcomes when compared to those in this movie. For instance, in the remake, the couple are kicked out of the hotel instead of leaving and venturing back out onto the stinky and wet city streets because of George's principle. The remake also has John Cleese in a supporting role. I might have to check it out despite its poor reception.
Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis are perfectly cast in their respective roles. Both are fantastic and entertaining actors. Their chemistry together, though, is faint. That is, it's not solid enough. But that's not to say their performances are terrible. I will say that Dennis struggles to keep up with Lemmon's energetic performance. Sometimes, her comedic performance doesn't match well enough against Lemmon's. It feels a tad mismatched. Even so, their collective pain is keenly felt with the audience.
I still manage to find this movie entertaining, and it gives me just enough laughs. Still, perhaps it's a victim of its own repetitious humor.
Jeremy Swift - voice of Doc Jason Kravits - voice of Sneezy Martin Klebba - voice of Grumpy Tituss Burgess - voice of Bashful George Salazar - voice of Happy Andrew Grotelueschen - voice of Sleepy Andrew Barth Feldman - voice of Dopey Patrick Page - voice of the Magic Mirror Ansu Kabia - the Queen's Huntsman
I'm late to the game commenting on Disney's live action remake of their first animated movie from 1937, "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs." The remake is simply called "Snow White." I guess calling a fictional character a "dwarf" is bad? A heptalogy of dwarfs is septupley offensive!
I admit I was marred a bit by other opinions on this movie before watching it. I just couldn't completely escape all the online commentary surrounding Disney as the company felt a need to rewrite their greatest masterpiece.
So, I had an idea of what was coming. Still, I tried to come into this with a bit of an open mind. I did the same with the 2024 movie "Conclave" though that turned out to be the garbage movie I expected it to be.
I waited until "Snow White" was on Disney+ to see it as I just wasn't excited for this, not even out of curiosity regarding the amount of attention this whole thing received before its release.
All, and I mean "all" of Disney's live action remakes in the last 10 or 12 years can easily be rated on a scale between underwhelming to really bad. I'd put Disney's 2016 live action version of "The Jungle Book" on the underwhelming side of the scale. "The Jungle Book" hits one or two positive chords until Christopher Walken, who voices King Louie, awkwardly sings "I Wanna Be Like You" - the only musical number in the movie.
The only other live action remake from Disney that grates on my nerves as bad as "Snow White" is their 2022 remake of "Pinocchio." I wrote a review of that flop for a local newspaper. That, along with the live action version of "The Lion King" would fall on the "really bad" portion of that scale. Well, "Snow White" can be tossed on that side now. Like 2022's "Pinocchio" this "Snow White" shows little, if any, respect to its source material that is both Disney's original animated movies and the books their based on.
If Walt Disney's animated "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is an exquisite rib-eye steak dinner cooked to perfection and served at a Morton's Steakhouse somewhere in Beverly Hills (who can forget where the best steaks are served), Disney's 2025 live action remake is microwavable lab-grown "cow-meat" sold frozen at Dollar General for a discounted price. No one wants to remember that, but it's in their collective memory whether they like it or not.
So, I watched Disney's new "Snow White." I think the story needs no synopsis. I mean, if any reader doesn't know the story of "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" whether from the Brothers Grimm fairytale, or the 1937 Disney film, then they must have had a terribly sheltered life. Good luck with your social life.
"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is one of the most classic (I mean that in the truest meaning of the word) and most respected films ever made. It's one of many films that every man, woman, and child should see at least once in their life along with other family-friendly titles like "The Wizard of Oz," "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial," and "Star Wars."
It's a movie solidly cemented in popular culture. Its songs. Its lines. Its charm. Its innocence. Everything about it is instantly recognizable. Nothing can remove "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" from the pedestal on which it has proudly sat and respected by millions, since 1937.
"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was called Disney's folly back when it was released. It was hugely over budget, and had it failed, it would have destroyed the company. But it didn't fail. It made the Disney company what it is now. The height of Disney has yet to be surpassed.
Now, the media giant took the one...the "one"... groundbreaking animated masterpiece film that hoisted Walt Disney and his company to unreachable heights and defecated on it in front of their entire fan base all around the globe with this updated remake.
Rachel Zegler, who plays Snow White inadvertently and arrogantly explained how this remake has been updated, no doubt to the dismay of Disney when they sent her out to promote the film.
In that infamous interview she gave to "Variety," Zegler impulsively regurgitated all the typical inane, banal, left-sided sentiments and platitudes about the original movie being too dated when it comes to female portrayals. She even referred to the prince in the original story as a "stalker" because... of course she would.
“I just mean that it’s no longer 1937, and we absolutely wrote a Snow White who's not going be saved by the prince, and she’s not going be dreaming about true love," Zegler said. "She’s going be dreaming about becoming the leader she knows she can be."
How platitudinous and utterly charmless!
Of course, fans of the original movie reacted accordingly, criticizing her idiotic remarks. The collective eye-roll could be heard across the world and any interest in Disney's Snow White remake that might have existed died right there.
After watching "Snow White," I'm immovably convinced without any doubt that the Disney Company no longer respects its own IP. I mean, they act completely ashamed of all...ALL...their animated feature length content that made them the favorited and trusted production company families have loved for all these decades. While each live action remake generally seems to outdo the previous remake as being abysmal and unlikable flops, they've finally outdone themselves.
As I said, Disney's "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is a classic in the truest meaning of the word. It has been loved for generations. So, why rewrite it, Disney? Why rewrite any of your memorable movies all at once?
With all of Disney's live action remakes in the last 10-plus years, I thought Disney was merely cashing off their old intellectual property while making a feeble attempt to breath some more life into them as if those classic movies need "new life." No! Disney hates its past.
Funny! Fans just revert back to the original movies after these remakes spew forth.
They're remaking everything as far as their classic animated movies go, and maybe some of their live-action properties. More and more, Disney disfigures their content to "fit" with modern political ideologies. They haven't accepted the fact that when they do this, these movies crash and burn in no time.
There was a time when Disney treated their animated films as valuable gems. They kept these gems in their "Disney vault." It was an ingenious marketing device in which they would release an animated movie of theirs for a limited time before putting it back in the vault. Customers would snag a copy before the movie was gone from shelves.
Now Disney slaps warning labels (no joke) on their own past movies as seen on their streaming app, "Disney+" as if to apologize for their past. It's pathetic to watch. And these remakes, such as "Snow White," makes Disney look as though they're groveling on their knees to modern "woke" ideologues as if trying to convince them, "See! We can behave and do better. Please don't cancel us. Please!"
These live action Disney remakes of their classic IP went from being a mere novelty to reinventions of their own content.
What makes a "classic" is how well it endures time - decades, centuries? This "Snow White" is the real folly! Twenty years from now, this will only be remembered (maybe) because of the contrary. "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" meanwhile will be just as loved as it is today, and as it was fifty years ago.
I honestly hate to just dump all over "Snow White" despite it being the easy target that it is. However, it's completely unappealing. Outside of what it takes from the original film such as most of the songs and a few other elements, it's really uninspiring.
Disney added some new songs to the film, and I mean this sincerely that none of those new songs are catchy or memorable. None!
The song "Someday My Prince Will Come" from the original film is replaced with "Waiting on a Wish." In this song, Snow White chants about her dream to be a fearless leader because anything else would be problematic for a female protagonist. It's too on-the-nose.
Gone are Disney's best days when artists like the Sherman Brothers could produce marvelous, catchy, time-enduring and truly good songs for Disney pictures. Gone are the days of whimsical, uplifting and entertaining songs. Now, with songs like these new ones meant to change the image of Snow White, they're drab, boring, out of place, forgettable and wreak too much of a political agenda of some sort. For example, when the Evil Queen (played by Gal Gadot) transforms into the old woman and poisons an apple to give Snow White, Gadot sings a tune called "All is Fair."
Thanks in part of Gadot's boring and emotionless performance, the song is completely mismatched in that scene. I was just waiting for Gadot to break into John Lennon's "Imagine" somewhere in this movie like she did on YouTube back in 2020- a song I find even more distasteful and charmless. At least "Imagine" would have fit the Queen's evil image.
Speaking of performances, Zegler's performance comes across as centered more on wanting to be loved for her own sake instead of treating the character with the respect she deserves. Zegler doesn't put in much effort to be a sympathetic Snow White which is especially evident when she finds herself in the darkest part of the forest just before she finds the cottage of the dwarfs. Basically, she doesn't show much emotion, even when she's trying to be the social warrior Zegler wants her to be.
Her Snow White is more like a wandering gen-z'er meandering the realm that could be a 1500s version of Berkeley, disguised as a humble princess who's merely interested in redistributing the Queen's wealth to all those in the land. "Snow Red" is more like it.
Then she finds the cottage of the seven dwarfs just as she did in the original story, and then makes them clean their own house for her.
In the original movie, she and the cute woodland animals do the cleaning because gratitude and selflessness meant something once. However, today's over-sensitive folk can't stomach watching a woman do anything helpful for a man...let alone seven of them all at once.
There is no way for this movie remake to succeed. Disney is practically built on the 1937 movie "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs." It's the first full length animated movie. It's a solid, foundational movie that has withstood time as generations have watched it and enjoyed it. There is no way a Disney remake of their groundbreaking film would succeed. No way! Audiences will immediately compare it to the original classic which it can't hold a candle to.
The movie's budget was somewhere around $240 million according to "Variety." It opened domestically at $43 million which was below the $50 million projections. Overseas, it pulled in $44.3 million though it had a global projection of $87.3 million.
This movie is just an unsalvageable disaster all around. I just couldn't get myself to care what happened to Snow White, nor did I find her motivations believable. I'll just say it. The whole thing as a potent stench of modern left-wing propaganda.
Zegler was the worst casting choice beginning with her appearing more like a DEI hire to play a character who's described in the original story as having skin as white as snow. I find it hard to believe Disney hired her solely for any talent she might have. As my nine-year-old daughter inquired, "Why is she Snow White?" Honestly, she asked that on her own accord. But we all know the answer. It's because Zegler isn't white. That's the bias we find acceptable these days.
The film's writers couldn't even give the character's name, Snow White, its original backstory. In this fractured fairy tale remake, Snow White's mother finds herself in the middle of a bad snowstorm when she gives birth. So she names her "Snow White." Never mind the fact that this carries the story into the realm of completely nonsensical stupidity because modern sensitivities dictate there cannot be a good character who both displays good qualities and morals worth emulating and is also white. Not only white, but having skin "as white as snow," as the story of Snow White originally describes her. Disney couldn't even cast a white actor to play "Snow White." Producers clearly "needed" to come up with a different origin for her name, and this is the best they could do. How embarrassing.
So, another slow clap to Disney for taking Walt's masterpiece film and holding their noses to it.
Gal Gadot's performance is flat all around. So much so that it bolsters up Zegler's performance which, I will say, has much more energy and emotion when compared to Gadot's.
Zegler at least tries to put on a show. She does put in effort during her musical numbers.
Gadot barely has any emotion and lacks any intimidation. She physically looks the part of an evil queen, but that's as far as it goes.
The dwarfs look like CGI creations for a straight-to-DVD version of Snow White made for a quick buck.
The lack of chemistry between Zegler's Snow White and the CGI dwarfs stands out like...well...like a CGI dwarf in a poorly made Snow White movie.
My 10-year-old so aptly observed that the dwarf Dopey strongly resembles Alfred E. Neuman straight from a MAD Magazine cover. What's really odd is that Alfred looks dopier than this Dopey.
The Dopey in this remake is a more sophisticated yet depressed version of the character from Disney's original movie. Honestly, there's nothing "dopey" about him. They should have changed his name to "Troubled." That would have made more sense.
As for the rest of the dwarfs, I had trouble distinguishing which one was which.
Funny! In today's social climate when it suddenly became offensive about 10-minutes ago for actors to play characters that don't reflect the race, lifestyle, or in this case, size of the actor themselves, I guess for "Snow White" the morons at Disney felt the "moral" alternative was to deny seven short-statured actors the opportunity to star in a Disney film and play short-statured characters, and earn a sizeable paycheck.
They didn't even hire short people to voice the dwarfs, save for Martin Klebba who's the voice and facial motion-capture for Grumpy. Slow clap for Disney!
Frankly, I don't care about any of that. I don't care who plays what. I'm just looking at this self-righteousness emanating from Hollywood elites in near-wonderment. The mental gymnastics they must deal with in following their own rules is exhausting to think about. Thank God I'm not in their camp.
Instead of a prince, the movie tosses in "Jonathan" (Andrew Burnap). He's a local rebel/ thief who's more like a redistributionist out to stick it to the Queen and society rather than a man of moral clarity and leadership. You know...kind of like a prince.
He meanders around with a group of thieves, or more aptly, social justice warriors just out to protest the regime.
These thieves were once actors who were forced to leave their acting craft and resort to thievery because the Queen's high taxes forced them to steal. To me, there's a subtle smell of criticism towards a certain sitting president and his administration. Yawn.
I wouldn't be surprised if the controversy leading up to "Snow White's" release was a mere method to attract audiences to see what this thing is all about. Without it, I sincerely doubt "Snow White" could attract audiences. Disney needed something to attract crowds.
Disney came up with a charmless remake that's focused more on appeasing modern ideologues by checking all the "correct" boxes rather than telling (or retelling) a timeless classic fairy tale. This one sets up Snow White as a girl boss fighting for distribution of goods and equity of outcome as though she's a comrade. Otherwise, I really don't know what point I am supposed to take away from this flick.
The whole story ends on such an anti-climactic note like paper money going up in a poof. The original animated film has a scene with the dwarfs fighting the evil Queen forcing her off a cliff.
In this remake, Snow White returns to the Queen, remembers the names of the villagers so they rally behind her, and the evil Queen is sucked into her magic mirror. It's rather anti-climactic, and ends in an awkward dance fest where all the villagers alongside Snow White dance around the main square of the village. It's awkward.
Disney needs to cease these lame live-action remake failures that I have trouble believing are more aimed at pleasing their audience with whom they're completely out of touch with in the first place. Disney needs to stand by their OG movies with confidence and appreciation! This remake is another crappy re-write of a classic tale that deserves to be forgotten.
I walked away from this movie with only one thing worth hanging onto - a greater respect and appreciation for everything about the original Disney movie. Disney gave its foundation a proverbial middle finger. They've outdone themselves in hating on their past like it's something to be torn down in the same way a protestor tears down a statue. This sad remake is nothing more than a tiresome progressive red cloaked screed.
