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 Relatively 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.

The NeverEnding Story II: The Next Chapter (1991)

"That book asks too much of you."

Director

George T. Miller

Cast
Jonathan Brandis - Bastian

Kenny Morrison - Atreyu
Clarissa Burt - Xayide
John Wesley Shipp - Bastian's father
Alexandra Johnes - The Childlike Empress
Thomas Hill - Carl Conrad Coreander
Donald Arthur - voice of Falkor
Martin Umbach - Nimbly

While the 1984 fantasy movie "The NeverEnding Story," based on the 1979 novel by Michael Ende, only covers half of the book, the movie's 1991 sequel "The NeverEnding Story II: The Next Chapter" hardly, barely, just ever so slightly covers the remaining story. Otherwise. the movie writers decided to toss the book aside and create a story of their own and add just enough small details borrowed from the book to justify the title. 

The only returning cast members from part one are Thomas Hill as bookstore owner Carl Conrad Coreander and Bastian's kitchen. 

Jonathan Brandis takes over for Barret Oliver as the main character, Bastian Bux. 

Bastian's imaginative side kicks off right away as the movie begins with him reading out loud to himself and acting out the pages of whatever he's reading, all while he's making a sandwich. 

Bastian hasn't yet gotten over his fear of...stuff. He was afraid of horses, despite his love for horses, in part one. 

Now, his dad (John Wesley Shipp) inquires if he made the swimming team at school. 

Thanks to his fear of heights, Bastian chickened out from jumping off the high dive. So, no. He didn't make the swim team. 

He pays a visit to Coreander's bookstore - the one he hid in while running from the bullies in part one - to seek out a book on courage. 

Of course, Bastian stumbles upon the book "The NeverEnding Story" from the first movie - the book that's a portal between the human world and the world of human fantasy known as Fantasia. He can hear the Childlike Empress (Alexandra Johnes) calling to him from within the pages. 

Mr. Coreander once again forbids Bastian from reading the book. 

"That book asks too much of you," he says. 

Bastian begs Coreander to let him read it again, but Coreander insists books change the second time someone reads them, and the experience won't be like it was before. So, Bastian takes it again without Coreander's permission. 

He goes back home to read it this time. No more school attics for him! 

Right away, he's able to reach into the cover and remove the Auryn. As soon as he starts reading, he's summoned back to Fantasia at the request of the Empress. 

Once he arrives, Bastian meets a bird creature named Nimbly (Martin Umbach) and heads to Silver City by boat. 

Little does he know that a sorceress named Xayide (Clarissa Burt) knows Bastian, the earthling child, has returned to Fantasia. So, she has her scientist named Tri-Face invent a machine that extracts a memory from Bastian each time he makes a wish on the Auryn. She sent Nimbly as a spy to befriend and encourage him to keep making wishes. 

Xayide's ultimate goal is to take control of Fantasia from the Childlike Empress. If Bastian makes enough wishes, he'll forget why he came to Fantasia in the first place and won't be able to save it.

Jonathan Brandis as "Bastian" in "The NeverEnding Story II."

Armored giants sent by Xayide attack Silver City. Nimbly keeps encouraging Bastian to wish the giants away until Atreyu (Kenny Morrison) shows up and helps defeat them. 

Bastian learns that a mysterious force called the "emptiness" is threatening Fantasia this time around. 

Atreyu and Bastian take Xayide as their prisoner. She tells them that she'll lead them to the Ivory Tower now that she's at their mercy. It's all a ploy by Xayide to gain influence over Bastian. 

She convinces Bastian that Atreyu and Falcor (yeah, Falcor shows up to help Bastian) are against him, and easily divides him against his friends. 

Meanwhile, Bastian's dad is looking for him. He finds "The NeverEnding Story" book in his son's room and sees Coreander's Bookstore address label inside the cover. 

He pays Coreander a visit, who tells him the answers he needs are in the book. Also, the label inside the cover is missing for some unexplained reason. 

Mr. Bux goes to a police officer for help and takes him back to the bookstore. To his shock, the bookstore is completely empty and abandoned. Why? Who knows? 

He goes back home and starts reading "The NeverEnding Story" himself. And as he reads, Mr. Bux is shocked to discover he's following his son's adventures in Fantasia. Bastian needs to save Fantasia from the emptiness, and Mr. Bux can only follow his son through the words of the book. 

Normally, I don't mind if a movie deviates from the source material as long as it respects the source material. After all, movies based on books are a retelling by someone else. "The Lord of the Rings" as told by Peter Jackson. "Pinocchio" as told by Walt Disney. You get the idea.

This movie barely touches the book save for the characters and the title. What are the chances that's all really because of the first movie's popularity?

To be fair, there are some elements from Ende's book used in this sequel. For instance, in the book the Childlike Empress gives Bastian the Auryn by which he can make wishes on. She does this after he gives her a new name as seen at the end of part one.

For each wish, he loses one of his memories. Also in the novel, Bastian uses the Auryn to galivant around Fantasia (or Fantastica as it's called in the book). He even uses it to create monsters and such for himself to conquer. One of these creatures he creates is a dragon he calls "Smerg" which is depicted in this movie. The evil sorceress Xayide also shows up in the book to help Bastian do some bad stuff. And this is about all that part two borrows from the novel, as far as I know. I read the book once about 15 years ago.

Clarissa Burt as "Xayide."

"The NeverEnding Story II" makes a slightly decent effort to respect and fit alongside the first movie while trying to be its own movie. 

The first movie, even as a children's fantasy film, carries a certain dignity that gives the children in its audience the respect that they can handle heavy themes such as sadness, loss, and death. 

Part two replaces that tone with mere pandering. It's watered down compared to the first, which has made lasting impressions on young audiences since its 1984 release. Does anyone remember anything about part two, aside from it being a Jonathan Brandis movie? 

The original has a complex scenario, memorable characters, an impressive and unique atmosphere, a great theme song, and a valuable lesson in confidence, perseverance, and imagination. It's one of the best family movies out there.

The unfolding story element from the first movie is mediocre in part two. The original brings the audience, just as Michael Ende's novel brings in its readers, into the fold as they follow Bastian's adventure while he follows Atreyu's adventure in trying to save Fantasia and the Childlike Empress. The story acknowledges the viewing audience's participation. And both Bastian and Atreyu have imposing doom looming over their respective quests. Kudos to the writers for making a non-entity called "the nothing" such a menacing presence.

The first movie makes it clear to its young audience that this isn't just another story. This is an ongoing tale that continues on each time they watch. It's a story where imagination is a pivotal character. It acknowledges its audience and that this story, and all other stories they'll read, will forever be a part of their lives.

"Just as he is sharing your adventures others are sharing his," the Empress tells Atreyu in part. "They were with him when he [Bastian] hid from the boys in the bookstore....They were with him when he took the book with the Auryn symbol on the cover in which he's reading his own story right now."

In part two, the audience's place is given completely to Bastian's dad, and the audience is placed back where the audience always is- behind the fourth wall. 

Overall, the writing in part two is very weak. If it's empty of anything, it's logic. For instance, Bastian knows he can make wishes on the Auryn while being clueless about Xayide's plans to steal his memories after each wish. I don't understand why he doesn't use the Auryn more often. And the few instances he does make wishes, they're stupid! In one scene when the armed soldiers are closing in on Bastian, he wishes for a spray can as a weapon. The stupidity speaks for itself. 

Despite weak writing, this movie has a little effort behind it. It's just not enough. 

I think much of this effort in the introduction of new characters. But like the big bad threat "the emptiness" in the movie, "The NeverEnding Story II" really is empty.  

The plot is subpar. Some plot points feel like they were made up along the way, such as Coreander's bookstore suddenly disappearing. And Bastian's work to defeat the emptiness is underwhelming and tame with hardly any emotion. 

There's also plenty of recycled footage from the first movie to give it the same atmosphere as before. However, it does have its own wonderful imagery and atmosphere. Some of the scenes are well shot, such as a scene with Bastian walking against the sun. Like the first, part two does work in a lot of light and dark which helps give it a similar tone at times. 

I've seen rumors online which strike me as legit that Disney has plans to remake "The NeverEnding Story." If that's the case, I'm curious enough to see how much they keep the story tied to the book, and at what point they'll end the movie. Disney needs a win and needs it badly. I'm not holding out much, but as the book has a real dignity and uniqueness to it, I hope a remake can capture and maintain that, and not resort to pandering or pointless fan service. 

Part two tries to capture the feel and sophistication of the first movie but doesn't come close to its level. The only reason it's remembered is because it stars the late Jonathan Brandis, and it has "The NeverEnding Story" in its title. 

 

Birdman of Alcatraz (1962) - A San Francisco Cinema Classic

"You're a highballin' sparrow. So you fly high, old cock. Go out there and bite the stars - for me. Find yourself a fat mama and make a family."

Director

John Frankenheimer

Cast
Burt Lancaster - Robert Stroud
Karl Malden - Harvey Shoemaker
Thelma Ritter - Elizabeth McCartney Stroud
Neville Brand - Bull Ransom
Betty Field - Stella Johnson
Telly Savalas - Feto Gomez
Edmond O'Brien - Thomas E. Gaddis

The 1962 classic biopic "Birdman of Alcatraz" starring Burt Lancaster is a fantastic film despite any historical inaccuracies in its depictions of convicted murderer Robert Stroud. The movie is a testimony to the idea that nurturing one's intellect can lead to a self-improvement and greater moral standards.

In 1909, Stroud was arrested in Alaska for manslaughter. He was sentenced to 12 years at McNeil Island Federal Penitentiary in Washington. This is where the film begins. 

Stroud isn't so inclined to follow the strict prison rules. 

While being transported by train to Leavenworth Penitentiary in Kansas, he smashes a window to allow cool air into the stifling train so the inmates can breathe. This incident of course reaches the ears of Leavenworth's warden, Harvey Shoemaker (Karl Malden) who sees it as an act of insubordination. Immediately, Stroud and Shoemaker are at odds with each other as prisoners and wardens often are. Stroud is not one to be told what to do. And Shoemaker runs a strict prison. Rules are meant to be adhered to. And crime deserves punishment that's carried out to its fullest extent. 

Stroud's mother, Elizabeth Stroud (Thelma Ritter), whom he's very close to, requests to pay her son a visit which he's been eagerly looking forward to. However, her request is denied. This infuriates Stroud, and he fatally stabs a prison guard out of anger. 

As a result, Stroud is ultimately sentenced to death by hanging. 

His mother manages to obtain a personal visit to First Lady Edith Wilson to ask if she'll convince her husband, President Woodrow Wilson, to change her son's death sentence to life in prison. 

Elizabeth's efforts pay off, and Stroud's sentence is changed. However, he has to carry out his life sentence in solitary confinement.

During a rainy evening alone in the prison yard, Stroud finds a nest with a baby sparrow still alive that fell out of a tree. 

So, he takes it back to his cell to care for and raise. This piques his interest, and Stroud starts reading up on birds. He has nothing but time, after all. 

Burt Lancaster as Robert Stroud in "Birdman of Alcatraz." 

News of his interests spreads throughout the prison. Other inmates begin bringing him small birds to tend to, which they've obtain from outside contacts. 

He starts building birdcages in his cell and experimenting with medicines to administer to sick birds. 

Stroud also starts writing books which impresses bird experts. Stroud becomes an expert himself.

His expertise in ornithology spreads outside the prison walls. 

Bird enthusiast, Stella Johnson (Betty Field), visits him in prison to propose he begin marketing his bird remedies. 

Stroud agrees. And soon after, he also agrees to marry Stella, much to his mother's dismay, 

Elizabeth is opposed to this union. After all, a woman up in Alaska was the start of his downfall into prison.  

His relationship is torn with his mother. And she refuses to support his release petition. 

Suddenly, the powers that be transfer Stroud to Alcatraz out in San Francisco. 

Unfortunately, he's not permitted to keep birds at Alcatraz and make money off his books and remedies. 

Stroud is getting rather old and begins writing a history of the U.S. penal system. 

The warden at Alcatraz, which happens to be none other than Harvey Shoemaker from Leavenworth (he was also transferred) suppresses Stroud's book project. 

In 1946, a prison riot erupts on Alcatraz. 

Though Stroud and the warden are still on unfriendly terms, Stroud helps put a stop to it. 

He gives the police the two firearms other inmates managed to get a hold. 

He informs the police guards and the warden that they can re-enter the prison without fear. Shoemaker insists Stroud has never lied to him before and takes his word for it. 

Stroud's admirers on the outside sign a petition. Stroud is then transferred to another jail out in Missouri. 

That's when he meets author Thomas F. Gaddis, who would later write a book about Stroud's life.

The character development is fantastic thanks to Lancaster's performance. It's impressive. His performance brings to mind Anthony Hopkins's role as Dr. Hannibal Lecter in "Silence of the Lambs" as well as it's prequel "Red Dragon" and sequel "Hannibal." Stroud, like Lecter, is a violent, monstrous character. Yet Hopkins gives him a suave je ne sais quoi mannerism that, dare I say, makes him likeable. Brian Cox plays Lecter in the 1986 movie "Manhunter" based on the novel "Red Dragon", but he doesn't quite give Lecter the same charm that contrasts his sadistic crimes. 

Lancaster gives Stroud a certain respectability which leads to a kind of likeability. He starts off in the movie as an unlikable inmate centered on his own desires. 

He dedicates his hard time towards something purposeful and beneficial. The birds give him the opportunity to think of something other than himself.

It's his gentle side which comes through in the story that leads Stroud to becoming a sympathetic character.

Regardless, it can't be forgotten that the real Robert Stroud was a convicted murderer and a notorious criminal. 

His name is counted among the "famous inmates" who did hard time on Alcatraz Island along with Al Capone and 'Machine Gun' Kelly.

In a 1996 SFGate article titled, "Alumni' revisit The Rock," former Alcatraz inmate Glenn Williams is quoted as saying, "That guy [Stroud] was not a sweetheart; he was a vicious killer. I think Burt Lancaster owes us all an apology."

And in the book "Full Circle," author Michael Palin quotes another former inmate, Jim Quillan, who describes Stroud as, "A guy that liked chaos and turmoil and upheaval... Always at somebody else's expense."

The movie utilizes the confined jail space to bring the audience up close into Stroud's space which he sets up to write, build cages, and study bird medicine. It's not forgotten that despite whatever good he might have accomplished in the way of ornithology, he was still in prison for life.  

Burt Lancaster nails the role. He takes a historic figure and depicts him as someone who becomes more human than monster as he puts his mind and efforts towards something that will benefit others. He makes it look so flawless and easy to do. 

The Incredible Mr. Limpet (1964)

"The fish... has a wife... in Brooklyn?"

Director

Arthur Lubin

Cast
Don Knotts - Henry Limpet
Carole Cook - Bessie Limpet
Jack Weston - George Stickle
Andrew Duggan - Harlock
Larry Keating - Admiral P.P. Spewter
Oscar Beregi, Jr. - Nazi admiral
Charles Meredith - Fleet Admiral
Elizabeth MacRae - voice of the Ladyfish
Paul Frees - voice of Crusty

Growing up, my grandmother lived in an apartment on Pacific Avenue in San Francisco. On holidays or special occasions, she would either come over to my family's house across the Bay in Oakland, or dad and company would battle that Bay Bridge traffic heading over to her Pacific Avenue apartment. Whichever way she was going, we would have to drive over to the city. Dad would have to pick her up if she came our direction. And then take her back.

"The City" by the way, is the general term for San Francisco. Even when living in Oakland "the city of" any reference to "the city" always meant San Francisco. 

I recall often going with him for the mere enjoyment of the car ride over to "the city."

I loved driving across the Bay Bridge, hitting Columbus Ave. though it meant seeing the bright lights and towering signs of certain red light establishments along Columbus which my young eyes shouldn't have seen. And then hitting my grandmother's vintage apartment building that was built back in the 1920s or 1930s. Even the building's elevator was an antique from the period. The elevator door had a doorknob, and you had to close the screen before hitting your floor. These trips, as I recall, generally took place on weekends. 

I remember some nights coming home early enough to catch the Saturday night movie on TV, starting around 8:00, and airing on either one of the local stations - KOFY-TV 20 or KBHK-TV 44. I especially remember channel 20 as it used to air old Batman reruns from the 1960s. 

And I recall KTVU channel 2 showing movies on Saturday nights as well. 

That was our FOX affiliate in the Bay Area. It still is. Channel 2 often picked better movies to air than the more local stations higher up on the TV dial. We didn't have cable then.  

For some reason, in my head I've tied those Saturday TV movies with trips back from San Francisco. I recall that I often hoped the movie would be "The Incredible Mr. Limpet." 

And once or twice, Mr. Limpet aired. 

"The Incredible Mr. Limpet" is a live action/ animated comedy - a precursor to later movies like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" and "Space Jam." It even came out before Disney's "Mary Poppins" and "Bedknobs and Broomsticks." And those are pretty much the only live action/animated movies I can think of right now. 

The movie begins in the present day (i.e. the movie's present day which would be the 1960s) as Naval Officer Machinist's Mate 2nd Class (PO2) George Stickle (Jack Weston) and Admiral Harlock (Andrew Duggan) are having a secret conversation about the behavior of porpoises observed out in the ocean. These porpoises are displaying unusual behavior, and the two of them suspect the Navy's top-secret informant and asset, a fish named Henry Limpet, is the source of such behavior. 

The movie then goes back to the 1940s, just before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. 

Henry Limpet (Don Knotts), who's human at this point in time, has quite a love for fish. He also loves books, but fish are a little more fascinating. So much so, he wishes he could escape the world with all its difficulties and become a fish. 

Don Knotts as Henry Limpet in "The Incredible Mr. Limpet."

He's a patriotic yet shy kind of guy. 

Limpet's wife, Bessie (Carole Cook), is just as patriotic, and would like to see her husband enlist in the service. 

Henry tries to but is rejected because he has poor eyesight. 

Their friend George Stickle is working as a machinist in the Navy during this time. While on leave, he goes to visit Mr. and Mrs. Limpet.

The three of them decide to go to Coney Island for the day and have a picnic on the docs. 

Henry stares into the water and continues in his longing to become a fish. 

During his daydream, he falls into the water and actually turns into a fish. 

Oddly enough, Henry can't swim (as a human). But once he becomes a fish, it comes naturally to him. 

Bessie and George think Henry drowned. A rescue team attempts to locate Henry by sending a diver down there, but no such luck. All traces of Henry disappear. 

Henry quickly adapts to life as a fish. In fact, he discovers a new ability to generate a sonar-like shout underwater, which calls his "thrum." The word sounds like something you do moments before vomiting, but I digest...or digress. Whatever. Forget it.  

Henry makes friends with an old hermit crab named Crusty (voiced by Paul Frees) and quickly falls in love with a flirtatious Ladyfish (voice by Elizabeth MacRae). Although, he has moral qualms about the apparent mutual attraction as he is technically married. Can a fish be married to a human, he wonders. But he's a fish, and so is the ladyfish. 

Soon after this fluke of nature takes place causing Limpet to become a freak of nature, the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor. 

Henry, who can still talk by the way, helps the U.S. Navy by communicating with the soldiers as well as George who, though shocked that Henry is still alive, eventually affirms Henry's reliability to the Navy. 

Henry directs U.S. Naval forces to a German U-boat close by. 

He uses his "thrum" capabilities and plays a crucial role in the battle of the Atlantic. 

Nazi forces develop thrum-seeking missiles to attack. And to make matters worse, Henry loses his glasses and can't see. 

It's not explained how Henry turns into a fish. However, it's alluded that this occurs thanks to some instantaneous evolution. This, of course, adds to the fantasy of this movie. But I digress. Despite that, it's an enjoyable movie with a little charm, likability, and some jokes that still get a laugh. Some of the funnier lines come from Limpet's interaction with the Ladyfish.
"What if I told you I used to be a human being?" he tells her.
"I don't care how terrible your past was, Limpet," she replies.
"Do you suppose that we could just be more or less friends," he asks.
"Friends? But wouldn't that be more or less nothing, Limpet?"

It's leans a bit into the area of preachiness. It wanders into some territories it really doesn't need to go into. 

The whole situation of Mr. Limpet falling in love with a ladyfish while mulling over the reality of his being a fish married to a human is a little cringy. Since he's married, I guess it does need to be address. 
"Henry, am I the widow of a man or the wife of a fish?" Bessie asks.
"Well, let's be logical, Bessie. You can't very well keep me in the bathtub, can you?"

And then Henry's spiel about the wonders of evolution, which is still a mere theory, feels forced. In one scene, Henry tells George, "With the war in Europe and new weapons being invented all the time, why, what if men were actually foolish enough to destroy themselves completely? Then, you see, the fish in the ocean would develop into a new race of men, and, well, this time they might turn out better, you see?"

Well, that's stupid. The idea starts off legitimately and ends on a conclusion that's amazingly ludicrous and delusional. I bring this up because I don't think this is meant to be comedic. If it is, then forget what I just wrote  

This really is a nitpick as its more of an explanation, albeit a poor one, about why Henry suddenly turns into a talking fish in the first place. Regardless, the premise is originally entertaining, and the animation is certainly pleasing for its time.
There's some emotion in "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" to make it worth the time to watch. And though it got a laugh out of me here and there, I can't say it's Knott's funniest, or even near his funniest movie. The humor comes more from the reactions of other characters, especially Jack Weston.
Mr. Limpet isn't the first talking animal movie Arthur Lubin\ directed. He also directed the 1950 movie "Francis" starring Francis the talking mule. He also directed the "Francis" sequels, "Francis Goes to the Races" (1951), "Francis Goes to West Point" (1952), "Francis Covers the Big Town" (1953) and "Francis Joins the WACS" (1954), and "Francis in the Navy" (1955). Like "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" there's a military theme with some of these Francis movies. 

Speaking of which, Lubin also has a fair number of other patriotic military movies in his arsenal such as "Eagle Squadron" (1942), and the Abbott and Costello military comedies, "Buck Privates" (1941), "In the Navy" (1941), and "Keep 'Em Flying" (1941). He also directed Abbott and Costello in "Hold That Ghost" (1941) and "Ride 'Em Cowboy" (1942).

As for "The Incredible Mr. Limpet," it has its charm and enjoyability despite it falling short for a Don Knotts comedy. He's too reserved in this picture, and his comedic talent isn't harnessed enough.