A-^

Family Suitability
+ ✅1️⃣ Mostly OK for teens and adults. (Grades 10+, ⚠️ Might be considered inappropriate for sensitive teens and adults.) | PGa

Alignment with Judeo-Christian Values
+ ⚠️0️⃣ Tolerable (Not in alignment with Judeo-Christian values, but focuses more on entertaining, not on advocating its viewpoint or pushing an agenda.)

+ 1️⃣/3 films in Bill & Ted series ⭐

Grade: A-^ (8.0) / HOF: 15
EQ 👍A- | 📖A- 👥A- 📽️A 🎼A
DW 😎9.7 | 🌚9 🌝11
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R ☮️n/a ◀️n/a ▶️n/a 🛐n/a

Be excellent to each other.
–Bill

Party on, dudes!
–Ted

The entire ethos of the 1989 movie Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure is perfectly summarized in the two lines above directly quoted from the film. So it’s no surprise that the movie is a well-meaning fun adventure, that occasionally misses the mark, but never gets too much out of hand.

Bill S. Preston, Esq. and Ted “Theodore” Logan are a couple of high school slackers from San Dimas, California, dreaming of becoming rock stars who have formed a band in their garage, but don’t even own guitars yet. Their future is threatened when they are both about to fail their History class. As they contemplate their fate while visiting the Circle-K convenience store, a visitor from their future appears with an offer to help. Supplied with a time machine in the form of a phone booth, all our heroes must do is go back in time, and kidnap a few historical figures, then bring them back to tell their class what those historical figures think of the modern world of San Dimas.

Now this movie spawned a couple of spin-off TV series, some comic books, video games, and theme park attractions, not to mention two theatrical sequels, the latest released just a few years back in 2020. So obviously it was a big success at the time, right? Well, maybe not everywhere—critical opinions were mixed—but in some circles…

In 1989, I lived in Southern California, not all that far from San Dimas. I was in my late 20s, and I was involved in a singles group at my church, where I was the groups unofficial emcee. I was often asked to introduce speakers or handle announcements to the group. The quick and easy method I used was to create Top Ten lists modeled after the humor of Late Night with David Letterman. And whenever they could talk me into it, I would write and perform comedy sketches, sometimes on my own, and sometimes with help from enlisted friends.

It just so happened that one of those friends, was named Ted. Really. He was the groups unofficial worship leader. Played a bass electric guitar. (I’m getting to the point here.) The movie Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure was so very big in this So Cal peer group of mine, that Rick & Ted’s excellent parody of the film was one of our biggest sketch successes. Repeated sequels were requested and delivered such that it became a sketch series that lasted months, probably well into the home video release of the movie on which it was based.

Now if you were to check the imdb listing for this film, it would tell you that Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure can be included in the Romance and also the Music genres. Don’t buy that. There’s a little bit of romance in the film and the guys want to form a band, so it’s about music a little. But neither category represents a genre this film fits into well. Oddly the imdb listing leaves out the Historical genre, but it correctly includes the Teen Adventure, Buddy Comedy, and Science Fiction: Time Travel genres.

So you should expect a fun and funny film. There’s a lot of spoofing of time travel tropes, and historical laughs abound, especially in the first half to two-thirds of the movie. Writers Chris Matheson & Ed Solomon understand the same concept used frequently and well by the Coen brothers in movies such as Raising Arizona, namely that dumb people who wax eloquently with large vocabularies they haven’t quite mastered are hilarious.

As much as I love Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, I have to admit that it trails off for awhile in the late middle portion. It descends into some silliness that just isn’t very funny for a bit. Historical figures in San Dimas just didn’t work as well for me as San Dimas figures in history. Perhaps you will see it differently, but I think for me it was due mostly to the great performances by Alex Winter and Keanu Reeves in the title roles as the San Dimas travelers. Reeves went on to super-stardom later. Winter, not so much, but he was great here.

My least favorite character in the film was Napoleon. The characterization and jokes around him just weren’t funny to me. There’s one scene where he unleashes a stream of French obscenities, but the repeated word “s**t” is displayed in English using subtitles. That’s the content parents would probably object to more than any other, so use VidAngel dot com if you want to screen it out. Without that one scene instead of rating the film’s Family Suitability as “✅1️⃣ Mostly OK for teens and adults. (Grades 10+)”, I would have rated it as “✅2️⃣ OK for teens and adults. (Grades 7+).”

I must say that it is ironic that the visitor from the future, Rufus, is played by the iconic stand-up comedian George Carlin, and doesn’t use a single dirty word. Carlin was known in large part for his “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” routine. But in this film his language is squeaky clean. The little bits of crude language in the movie come from elsewhere.

Despite the slow parts in the late middle, the film ends strong with some good time travel spoof-plotting and a feel-good finale. If you have never seen this film, it’s a fun way to remember the 1980s if you lived through them, or experience them for the first time if they were before your time. You will learn a lot more about the 1980s from this film than you do about any of the other history thinly addressed in the movie! But that’s OK. It’s all in good fun. You can probably learn more about history from reading a book. Unless you happen to have a phone booth time machine.

Onwards!

Leave a comment

+ last viewed (3) 2025-07-25, HDX7, 2.39, 2M
+ first viewed 1989, ThX, 2.39, 2
+ ⏳🛹🪐♾️🛡️🥸😛

Family Suitability Detail
+ ✅1️⃣ Mostly OK for teens and adults. (Grades 10+, ⚠️ Might be considered inappropriate for sensitive teens and adults.) | PGa
+ 😡+2 😵‍💫+2 🤬-0^ 🤭+2 🫣+2

Judeo-Christian Values Detail
+ ⚠️0️⃣ Tolerable (Not in alignment with Judeo-Christian values, but focuses more on entertaining, not on advocating its viewpoint or pushing an agenda.)
+ ✝️ +0 ➕❤️❤️❤️ ➖(😍🗿👙🚬🍺)
+ ✡️ -0 ➕(🤍) ➖(😍🗿🤬)
+ 🗽 -0 ➖(😍🗿)

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

Last updated 2025-08-18

A->

Grade: A-> (8.0) / HOF: 15
EQ 👍A | 📖A- 👥A 📽️A 🎼A
DW 😎9.2 | 🌚10 🌝9
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R 💻⬇️2️⃣ 👀⬇️1️⃣ 🛐⬇️2️⃣

Most people don’t like this movie as much as I do. Most of you who haven’t seen it yet probably won’t either. So as much as I think that Moon Over Parador is an underrated film, I’m okay with that. It is what it is.

This movie is a modernized remake of the 1939 film, The Magnificent Fraud, with both films being based on the 1936 short story by Charles G. Booth, “Caviar for His Excellency”. Having experienced neither, any comparisons of the works will have to wait. 😉

At its beating heart, Moon Over Parador is a film about the love of acting and about how that can be an overriding passion in life for an actor. Although acting was never my greatest passion in life, it was a passion of mine once—enough so that when I stopped acting, I could not attend theatrical plays for around 15 years, because it hurt too much to be reminded of what I had lost.

So I kinda get it, and I definitely relate to the main character in the film. If you have never been an actor or actress, you won’t have that connection to the movie, but just maybe with your eyes open to that theme in the film, you will enjoy it a little better than you would have otherwise. (For an even better film about acting, one that almost everyone really enjoys, whether or not they’ve taken acting lessons, see Tootsie!)

In Moon Over Parador, Richard Dreyfuss plays Jack Noah, an actor who is just finishing up a film shoot in the fictional South American country Parador. (Which has a better ring to it than Ecuaguay!) The dictator of the country, President Alphonse Simms visits the filmsite and is amused by Noah’s impersonation of him.

Unfortunately for Noah, the President’s most powerful aide, Roberto Strausmann, also takes notice. And when the President drops dead of a heart attack, Strausmann forces Noah to take the role of his life, as he must take the dictator’s place so that the regime can continue in power.

Moon Over Parador is a solid comedy, if not full of non-stop laughs. Much of the comedy is from satire, both obvious and subtle, and most of the satire is of Hollywood and the acting profession. Many, perhaps most, critics who wrote about the film, after its initial release, disliked this choice in the script. They felt that a film like this should have included far more political satire than it actually did. While there was some, I agree that there wasn’t much.

In my opinion, this was a good choice. More politics in the film might have meant alienating half the audience. Back in the 1980s, as today, most film critics were left-leaning and wanted to see their views advocated everywhere. But unlike today, American audiences were less polarized. Viewers of Moon Over Parador could agree that authoritarian right-wing dictators are bad and Communist left-wing guerilla terrorists are bad too. So that’s what the script condemned, while advocating a generic dosage of populist democracy, sprinkled with a tiny bit of quasi-socialist populist class envy.

So even though the film can be described as political satire, the generic populism infused by the creators does indeed water that down. If you want a film that skewers politics, a kind of film loved by many critics, this just isn’t it.

A better description of the film, that allows the viewer to perceive it in a different light, is to see it as a romantic comedy in an exotic setting. While there are a few romcoms that are more romantic and a few others that are funnier, Moon Over Parador actually is quite good at both romcom requirements. Sônia Braga represents the populist roots of the country, playing Madonna Mendez, the dictator’s mistress and a potential problem for Jack Noah. The hot-blooded Latin romance may be a bit stereotypical, but it works here, set in picturesque locations filmed in Brazil. And the conflict between Jack’s growing interest in Madonna and his true passion for acting give the writers dramatic and comedic opportunities that they use well.

Moon Over Parador received a PG-13 rating, going up right to the line of an R-rating. It’s probably not a good choice for teen viewing, including heavy smoking, adult language up to a couple of F-bombs, and a good bit of innuendo and near-but-not-quite nudity. (There’s also heavy drinking, but it is portrayed as a bad choice.) The truth is that the subject matter of this film won’t interest most teens, so the easier parental choice would be to just steer them away from it. As always, I recommend VidAngel dot com to filter out any content you don’t want.

You might have noticed something in common between Moon Over Parador and a couple of older films that were among the first we visited on this tour of my Dark Whimsy favorites. That’s right, both The Mouse That Roared and The Great Race were set at least partially in fictional countries.

In both of these older films, the head of state of the fictional country is portrayed by the same actor who plays another more significant role in the film. You can be forgiven for thinking the same thing happens here—I always believed that actor Richard Dreyfuss played both the part of Jack Noah and the part of the dictator he replaces. Nope. I discovered only this week in my pre-review preparation that dictator Alphonse Simms is portrayed by Richard’s older brother, Lorin Dreyfuss!

I’m not going to tell all of you to rush out and see Moon Over Parador. Like I said, odds are good that you won’t like it as much as I do. But if you think you would enjoy a good romcom about acting, with a sprinkling of Dark Whimsy, and you’ve already had your fill of Tootsie, then Moon Over Parador is a good second choice. 😉

Onwards!

+ last viewed (3) 2025-07-01, HDX7, 1.85v, 2D
+ first viewed 1988, ThX, 1.85, 2
+ 🥰💘🥸😛🤩🎬

+ ❌0️⃣ Problematic for teens and sensitive adults. | PG-13
+ 😡+0 😵‍💫-1^ 🤬-1^ 🤭-0 🫣-0

+ 👀⬇️1️⃣ ➖😍
+ ✝️ -1 ➕🥴 ➖👙🚬
+ ✡️ -1 ➖🤬🫢
+ 🗽 -1 ➕📜 ➖💲⬛

Last updated 2025-07-02

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

A+^

Grade: A+^ (20.0) / HOF: 90
EQ 👍A+ | 📖A+ 👥A 📽️A+ 🎼A+
DW 😎😎11.9 | 🌚11 🌝13
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R 💻⬇️0️⃣ 👀⬆️0️⃣ 🛐⬇️1️⃣

In 1981, Who Censored Roger Rabbit?, the first novel in a comedic mystery series by author Gary K. Wolf was published. The novels are set in a world where comic strip characters are real, photographed to provide comic strips for the humans with whom they share the world. Disney purchased the film rights almost immediately, but it wasn’t until 1985 that production began when Steven Spielberg’s Amblin Entertainment agreed to join Disney in the production of the movie.

The film wisely departed from the novel a bit, changing the “toons” from comic strip stars to movie cartoon stars, setting the story in the golden age of American animation, specifically an alternate 1947 version of Hollywood. Title character and cartoon star Roger Rabbit is framed for the murder of Marvin Acme, the human owner of Acme Corporation and Toontown, a cartoon neighborhood in Los Angeles where most toons live.

R.K. Maroon, owner of cartoon-producing Maroon Studios, is dismayed about his star’s declining performance and hires Eddie Valiant to investigate, but Eddie has an alcohol problem and a resentment of toons. Once a hero to toons for solving crimes against them, he now hates them, ever since a toon killed his brother.

By now you can see this is a film that is right in my Dark Whimsy wheelhouse, right? Of course I love it.

Now, there are Darker movies, but with the neo-noir stylings, and a double-digit dose of human and toon deaths, Who Framed Roger Rabbit registers just fine on the Dark scale.

Whimsy? Duh! Obviously, the Whimsy comes close to breaking the scale, with animated fantasy characters, cartoon gags and comedy galore, and cute anthropomorphic characters by the bucketload. If you loved cartoons as a child or still enjoy them as an adult, this movie is the most delicious tribute to cartoons you could ever find.

Disney made an agreement with Warner Bros. to include several of their Looney Tunes characters in cameos, along with several of Disney’s own animated characters. Classic characters from other studios also make cameo appearances, including Betty Boop, Droopy, and Woody Woodpecker, while efforts to acquire rights to use other characters, such as Popeye, Casper the Friendly Ghost, and Tom and Jerry were unsuccessful. Many of the original voice actors reprised their roles in the cameos that were included, while several notable contemporary voice actors also participated in the film.

And while those cameos mentioned are neat, the battle of Daffy Duck vs. Donald Duck, and the meeting between Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny have to be included among the most memorable scenes in animation history.

Audiences must have channeled their own inner children. Who Framed Roger Rabbit was the second-biggest box-office hit of 1988, trailing only the star-studded dramedy, Rain Man.

Don’t get me wrong here. While watching this Roger Rabbit film can be a joyful, childlike experience to enjoy as an adult, and while imdb-dot-com includes it in the “family” genre, it’s really not for kids. (That’s why Disney released it under its adult-themed Touchstone Pictures banner, instead of including it in its Walt Disney Pictures animated canon.)

There’s a lot of cartoon violence and gunplay in the movie, and while the deaths that occur aren’t graphic or bloody, they could still be scary for your youngest kids. Your older kids probably won’t catch on to most of the double entendres and, to be honest, even if your teens do catch on, they are pretty mild as such things go.

When considering your older kids and teen viewing, you should know there’s a lot of drinking and smoking in the film. The drinking is portrayed in a negative light, but the smoking isn’t. As I said, most of the innuendos are pretty mild, but Roger’s wife, Jessica Rabbit—well, as she says about herself, “I’m not bad. I’m just drawn that way.” So if you have a teenage boy, you can tell yourself it’s just a silly cartoon, but having once been a teenage boy… Let’s just say Jessica is a highly sexualized cartoon, even though there is no nudity, cartoon or live-action in the movie. However she’s highly loyal to her husband, making the film ever so slightly, if surprisingly, pro-marriage.

The film is intended to be an entertaining blockbuster and it achieved that. There isn’t really any message or agenda to be found in the film, but it has a very strong, commendable sense of good vs. evil. It does utilize the common progressive stereotype that the villain is already wealthy and greedy for more, but the heroic efforts of the good characters probably outweigh the subtle anti-capitalism propaganda, likely included more for the convenience of the stereotype than for any political intent.

By the way, the movie opens with a short Roger Rabbit cartoon, which is not quite completed when the story cuts to the movie. In later years, three more Roger Rabbit cartoons were produced and released theatrically to precede three other feature films. Don’t be surprised if I review them all down the road! 😉

If you are an adult who has never seen Who Framed Roger Rabbit or hasn’t seen it in a long time, I encourage you to watch or re-watch this highly-entertaining film. If you are looking for something in the same vein, but a little more appropriate to share with your children, I instead encourage you to look for some of the classic cartoons from the first half of the 20th century that are honored by this Roger Rabbit movie. A large number are in the public domain and can be found on YouTube. Message me if you need ideas!

Onwards!

+ last viewed (3) 2025-06-28, HDX7, 1.85v, 1M
+ first viewed 1988, ThX, 1.85, 1
+ ⏳🍌👤🔎🤔🦄🛡️🥸😛🤩🎬🐾🐰

+ ✅0️⃣ Mostly OK for teens and adults. | PGa
+ 😡+0 😵‍💫-0^ 🤬+0 🤭+0 🫣+0

+ 👀⬆️0️⃣
+ ✝️ +0 ➕(💒)🥴 ➖(🚬)
+ ✡️ +1 ➕🌗💎
+ 🗽 -1 ➖💲🇻🇳

Last updated 2025-06-30

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

A->

Family Suitability
+ ⚠️0️⃣ Problematic for teens and sensitive adults. | PGa

Alignment with Judeo-Christian Values
+ ⛔2️⃣ Poor/Moderately Unfavorable

+ 1️⃣/5 works in Big multiverse 🔜⭐

Grade: A-> (8.0) / HOF: 15
EQ 👍A+ | 📖A+ 👥A 📽️A+ 🎼A+
DW 😎8.8 | 🌚8 🌝11
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R ☮️n/a ◀️n/a ▶️n/a 🛐n/a

In 1988, Big was big. It was the first motion picture directed by a woman to gross over $100 million in ticket sales, and they can never take that distinction away from Penny Marshall. It was the turning point in his career that skyrocketed Tom Hanks to the heights of the A-list, proving he had box-office draw and award-winning talent. But to me, its most impressive accomplishment as a film was to deliver an iconic scene that makes both “Heart and Soul” and “Chopsticks” entertaining, as opposed to annoying!

The simple premise of the film is that a 13-year old boy, Josh Baskin, makes a wish that comes true, to be “big”, and wakes up in a grown-up body. Unable to convince his mother of his true identity, he enlists his best friend Billy, who helps him move to New York City, where he finds a job working for a toy company. The story is a sweet fantasy with lots of laughs, scoring high on my Whimsy scale, and also delivering some poignant drama and a romance that is charming on first blush.

With the screenplay co-written by Steven Spielberg’s little sister, Anne, the development history of Big is noteworthy for the big names that were briefly attached, but didn’t end up participating in making the film. Steven was originally going to direct, but didn’t want to steal any thunder from Anne. A half dozen or so other big names were considered or turned down directing the movie.

Compared to finding a director, finding a lead actor was even more difficult. Well over a dozen big names reportedly received consideration, offers or even an audition. While it’s hard to imagine anyone but Hanks in this role, it’s fun to try. So here’s the list, as far as I know, alphabetically by last name:

Warren Beatty, Jeff Bridges, Albert Brooks, Gary Busey, Kevin Costner, Robert De Niro, Harrison Ford, Andy Garcia, John Goodman, Steve Guttenberg, Michael Keaton, Matthew Modine, Bill Murray, Sean Penn, Dennis Quaid, Judge Reinhold, John Travolta, Robin Williams, and Debra Winger, who unsuccessfully lobbied to change the lead role to a female one.

Ultimately, it was Hanks who prevailed and gave a performance so funny, so endearing and so expertly delivered that he won the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Musical or Comedy, while also earning an Oscar nomination for Best Actor. When filming the adult-Josh scenes, they were first performed by David Moscow who plays young Josh, while Hanks looked on, studying how Moscow acted and reacted. Hanks then drew from that to emulate being thirteen himself, a smart tactic that really worked well.

The movie also earned co-writers Gary Ross and Anne Spielberg a nomination for an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay, and the film was nominated for the Golden Globe for Best Picture, Musical or Comedy. Big has since landed on a few all-time lists of best comedies and fantasy films.

I personally enjoyed it quite a bit in a couple of viewings back in the 1980s, and was looking forward to enjoying it again for this review. While I did enjoy it, and will always cite the previously mentioned iconic scene as one of the great scenes in film history, to my surprise, I found it didn’t resonate as well with older me.

In my younger years, I was a sucker for romance. OK, I still am. But I think that older me has slightly higher standards.

Elizabeth Perkins as Susan Lawrence, Josh’s romantic interest, plays her part well, growing more attractive as she also starts accessing her inner child. But to be honest, the role wasn’t written all that well—Susan doesn’t really have much going for her. Josh calls her the nicest person he’s met, but of course, he has zero experience relating to adults as equals, and what woman wouldn’t be nice to a guy as charming as he is? Beyond what we see in their relationship, all we really know about Susan is that she smokes way too much, and that she slept her way through several other guys at work—hardly a stellar character recommendation, or a relationship I’m rooting for Josh to make permanent.

Big is yet another example of a movie that could have been a great family film, but isn’t. The premise is one that can be entertaining for all ages, but the execution makes it very borderline even for teens. The adult language includes one blatant F-word and another in the background that could easily be missed. There’s an assortment of lesser obscenities. Normally I just recommend filtering that stuff out if it’s not for you or your family. But the plot of the film includes a lot of sexual content too, and I’m not sure it can be effectively filtered, without losing some of the story. On the other hand, leaving it in is problematic and slightly creepy, when you think about the implications of the actual age difference between Josh and Susan.

Finally, Christians can rightly object to some profanity, “J***s” and more than one “G*dd*mn”, and also that the magic wish is delivered through occult means. Less devilish magic would have been preferable and more family friendly.

All-in-all, I still recommend Big for big folks, but not for small ones. Don’t go out of your way to see it, but if you are a movie lover who hasn’t seen it yet, it’s an important and entertaining film of the 80s that you should add to your list.

By the way, in 2007 an extended version of Big was released to home video, adding about a half an hour of footage not used in the theatrical version. At some point, I plan to watch that version, and either bring you a full review if warranted, or just a brief recap if the extended version isn’t significant enough to deserve a full review.

Note, 2025-07-22: While it probably does deserve a full review, I made the Big <Extended Cut> my first Retro Recap, both to save some time and also to give you an example of what the Recaps will be like. I hope you enjoy it!

Onwards!

+ last viewed (3) 2025-06-17, HDX7, 1.85v, 2M
+ first viewed 1988, ThX, 1.85, 2
+ 🦄🧙🥰💘😏😥🥸

Family Suitability Detail
+ ⚠️0️⃣ Problematic for teens and sensitive adults. | PGa
+ 😡+1 😵‍💫-0 🤬-1^ 🤭-0 🫣-0

Judeo-Christian Values Detail
+ ⛔2️⃣ Poor/Moderately Unfavorable
+ ✝️ -2 ➖🗿🔮(🤬)♀️🚬
+ ✡️ -2 ➕🤍 ➖🗿🔮🤬🫢🫢
+ 🗽 -1 ➖🗿🔮💻

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

Updated for new review formatting 2025-07-16

A+>

Grade: A+> (20.0) / HOF: 90
EQ 👍A+ | 📖A+ 👥A+ 📽️A 🎼A+
DW 🕶️9.0 | 🌚9 🌝9
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R 💻⬇️0️⃣ 👀⬆️🔼 🛐⬇️2️⃣

Every Thanksgiving, I’m thankful I’ve never experienced a trip as bad as the one Neal Page experiences in Planes, Trains & Automobiles.

This movie sees John Hughes depart from his typical teen comedy, and, with the assistance of the comedic talents of Steve Martin and John Candy, he gives us what I think is his funniest movie from a long and very funny filmography of hits.

Martin plays Neal Page, an uptight marketing executive trying to get from his job in New York City to his home in Chicago in time for Thanksgiving. He’s leaving New York on Tuesday, so what could go wrong? Enter John Candy as travelling salesman Del Griffith. Del is good-hearted, but he’s also a borderline disaster, overly friendly and overly irritating.

Needless to say, everything that can go wrong does go wrong. If that isn’t funny to you, you won’t like this movie! I don’t normally like cringe humor, and there is some of that here, but the chemistry between Martin and Candy and the warm heart of the film soften the cringe for me just enough. When the problems get so ridiculous the characters begin laughing at their own predicament, you are right there laughing with them, remembering your own worst travel glitches!

(Oh, please, please, someone share with us a story of a disastrous travel experience that you can laugh about now!)

Leave a comment

I watched Planes, Trains & Automobiles last Thanksgiving, the last film I watched before becoming Rick Retro and reviewing everything since. It’s a movie that lends itself to being a Thanksgiving holiday tradition.

Sadly, Planes… isn’t family friendly. There’s a brief but close up shot of nude photos in a taxi driver’s car. And there’s a lot of adult language, even though every use of the f-word is all crammed together in one scene. As always, I recommend VidAngel dot com for your filtering needs if you want a version with offensive content filtered out.

For me, it isn’t the comedy alone that makes this a great film. And for me, the offensive content is greatly outweighed by a really powerful message. This movie is, to me, like a modern day Good Samaritan story. But instead of seeing a couple of people who are bad neighbors and one who is a good neighbor, we instead watch our two main characters alternate between bad and good. It’s less of a parable and more like real life, but the same message comes through if you are open to it.

How does the movie hit me? Every time I watch Planes, Trains & Automobiles, I laugh and laugh for about an hour and twenty minutes and then fight off the tears through the last ten minutes. Your mileage may vary.

Onwards!

+ last viewed (4) 2025-06-13, HDX7, 1.85v, 2M
+ first viewed 1987, ThX, 1.85, 2
+ 🎈🦃✈️🚂🚗😏😥🥸

+ ❌1️⃣ Light adults-only content. | R
+ 😡+1 😵‍💫+0 🤬-3^^ 🤭-1 🫣-1

+ 👀⬆️🔼 ➖(😍)
+ ✝️ +2 ➕😇😇❤️❤️💒🩸 ➖(🤬👙)
+ ✡️ -1 ➖🤬🖤
+ 🗽 -0

Last updated 2025-06-13

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

A+^

Family Suitability
+ ✅1️⃣ Mostly OK for teens and adults. (Grades 10+) ⚠️Might be considered inappropriate for sensitive teens and adults. | PGa

Alignment with Judeo-Christian Values
+ ❎1️⃣ Fair/Slightly Favorable

+ Based on literature (novel) The Princess Bride: S. Morgenstern’s Classic Tale of True Love and High Adventure, The “Good Parts” Version (1973)❗by William Goldman ⭐
+ 2️⃣/3 works in Princess Bride multiverse ⭐

The Princess Bride (1987)

Grade: A+^ (20.0) / HOF: 90
EQ 👍A+ | 📖A+ 👥A+ 📽️A 🎼A+
DW 😎😎11.8 | 🌚11 🌝12
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R ☮️n/a ◀️n/a ▶️n/a 🛐n/a

You haven’t seen The Princess Bride?!? Inconceivable!

This film has been named among the funniest movies of all time and the greatest love stories of all time. On the whole, critics grade the movie favorably, but audiences have true love for The Princess Bride. CinemaScore has polled audience reactions to movies for about 46 years, and only 128 have received the coveted “A+”. In 1987 The Princess Bride was the only one to achieve that honor.

A story within a story, The Princess Bride is ostensibly a book being read to a sick grandson by his grandfather. Set in a fictional kingdom of the 15th century, a young couple in love are separated when the young man goes off to seek his fortune. Five years later, with her beau presumed dead, the young woman Buttercup is fated to marry the evil prince of the kingdom, whom she does not love. Meanwhile, her true love, Westley, is, in fact, alive, and will surmount every obstacle to find her again. Those obstacles are many—Buttercup is kidnapped by a criminal and his henchmen, and pursued by Prince Humperdinck and his soldiers.

“Meh,” you think? Not so fast. The romance is passionate and the adventure is real, with deadly duels of swordplay, strength and wits, dangerous terrain and devious villains. But it’s the comedy that makes The Princess Bride worth your time. It’s really a parody of fairy tale fantasy adventures, making fun of all the conventions while, strangely, revering them at the same time. And while some of the humor is laugh-out-loud slapstick that no one could miss, there are also subtle funny moments, where you will feel proud that you caught the joke and wonder how many people miss it.

Rob Reiner does a fantastic job directing a large ensemble cast and every performance borders on perfection. Mandy Patinkin as the Spaniard bent on revenge, Inigo Montoya, gives a memorable performance with, not just one, but two unforgettable and epic swordfight scenes.

The film score is not especially memorable, but the sound effects are as good and goofy as in a Looney Tunes cartoon! The scenery, sets and costumes are very good, but perhaps not quite up to today’s high visual standards. These are only slight blemishes on one of the very best movies of the 1980s.

The Princess Bride gets extra points for being very family friendly. There are three uses of language in the film: a “dear G*d”, “J***s” as a swear word, and “son of a b****”. That’s not much, but you can still filter it out with VidAngel dot com if not right for your family. There’s nothing really objectionable in the story, but some intense scenes make the film better for teenagers than younger children.

I don’t really agree with some Christian reviewers I’ve read who view Westley as representing a Christlike savior-figure—this film was clearly meant only to entertain, not to deliver messages. Nevertheless, positive messages of committed love and redemption in the film can be found, included not to teach, but to make sure that you, the audience will love the movie. And it works!

If you haven’t seen The Princess Bride, by all means, move it up high on your list. It’s always high on mine.

But it’s not as good as the book.

There. I said it.

I know there is a lot of debate on that issue. I suspect it depends a lot on which you experienced first.

In the mid-80s, an older cousin, whom I respected, told me that The Princess Bride by William Goldman was his favorite novel ever. Then one day in a bookstore, I discovered it, re-released in a new paperback edition because the movie was about to be released. I bought it and read it, and I agreed. It is my favorite novel ever.

So when I saw the movie, it had no real chance of measuring up. To be fair, it is very faithful to the book, since the original author is the screenwriter who adapted it into the movie script. But it can’t be completely faithful, because the book is a satirical representation of literature, presented as the abridgement of another author’s work.

Like the film, the novel is considered “metafiction”, but in the novel, the inner story is presented with a different outer shell, including asides from the fictional “editor” of the supposed original story by the fictional author S. Morgenstern. Confused yet? The literary version has even more subtle humor than the cinematic version, and overall would appeal to a more mature and intellectual audience, I would guess. But there’s so much to be said for a great family movie with True Love and High Adventure. I dunno, I can see an argument either way.

Since it has been decades since I experienced the book or the movie, I decided to visit the movie first this time around, so that I could gain a fresh look on the film. It helped. Without having read the novel recently, I enjoyed the movie for its own greatness. Now I can hardly wait to read the book again and write a review of it for you! If you have missed either or both, well, obviously I highly recommend you rectify that situation!

Onwards!

+ last viewed (3) 2025-06-09, HDX7, 1.85v, 2M
+ first viewed 1987, ThX, 1.85, 2
+ ⏳👨‍👩‍👧‍👦⚔️🦄🧚🛡️🥰💘🥸🤪😛

Family Suitability Detail
+ ✅1️⃣ Mostly OK for teens and adults. (Grades 10+, ⚠️ Might be considered inappropriate for sensitive teens and adults.) | PGa
+ 😡+1 😵‍💫+1 🤬-0^^ 🤭+1 🫣+0^

Judeo-Christian Values Detail
+ ❎1️⃣ Fair/Slightly Favorable
+ ✝️ +1 ➕😇❤️❤️💜🩷 ➖(😍)🤬🔥
+ ✡️ +1 ➕😠😠🤍🤍 ➖(😍🤬🚨)
+ 🗽 +1 ➕📜📜 ➖(😍)

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

Updated for new review formatting 2025-12-15

A->

Grade: A-> (8.0) / HOF: 15
EQ 👍A | 📖A+ 👥A- 📽️A 🎼A
DW 😎8.6 | 🌚8 🌝10
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R 💻⬆️1️⃣ 👀⬇️1️⃣ 🛐⬇️2️⃣

Steve Martin never fails to make me laugh—He’s just always hilarious. This is his fourth appearance of five on our current journey through my Dark Whimsy favorites. We met him first in The Muppet Movie with a hilarious cameo as the Insolent Waiter. He had the starring title role in The Man With Two Brains as Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr. Then he played Orin Scrivello, DDS, a sadistic dentist in Little Shop of Horrors, where he teamed with Bill Murray for the funniest scene of the movie.

Martin is again fantastic in Roxanne, a modernized-for-the-1980s version of the 19th century play, Cyrano de Bergerac, by Edmond Rostand. It’s a story of a man with very little self-esteem due to having very much nose. He falls in love with the beautiful Roxanne (Roxane in the original play), but instead of pursuing her himself, his lack of confidence leads him to help another suitor for her love, in whom Roxanne seems more interested.

Notwithstanding his solid performance throughout the film, in Roxanne Steve Martin again give us a superb scene that outshines the rest of the film. On a bar dare to come up with twenty insults better than “Big Nose”, he takes self-deprecation to the extreme, with a continuous litany of categorized insults. (He actually delivers twenty-five self-owns, but apparently the writers and the bar crowd couldn’t count.) It’s my second favorite comedic monologue scene of all time, after Dustin Hoffman’s amazing reveal in Tootsie.

I’ll have to take a few points off of this movie for the fact that besides the superb comedic performance of Steve Martin, most of the other attempts at comedy in the film fall flat, especially the antics of a group of incompetent volunteer firefighters. Fortunately, we get a lot of Steve Martin here, and over all the screenplay by Martin is a great modernized adaptation of the original play.

As for Dark Whimsy, one could argue that this film should have a lower reading in Dark than my scale gives it—the darkest moments of the film were mostly brief asides. But nighttime settings and the subtle (and sometimes not subtle) bullying of C.D. stealthily rack up an undercurrent of Dark that add up to a reading a bit higher than one might initially expect, considering that many of the scenes in the film have no Dark to be found at all.

The romance in the movie comes across as sweet and charming, as does Daryl Hannah in the title role of Roxanne. It’s her best performance that I can think of—can you think of a better one?

Leave a comment

I absolutely loved this movie when I saw it in my twenties. I was single and lonely and a sucker for romance! I completely missed the lesson the movie could teach young singles that romance is less about how people feel about you, and more about how you inspire them to feel about themselves.

Now that I am much older, and perhaps slightly wiser. I was a bit disappointed on re-watching Roxanne. I now feel that the romance was cheapened quite a bit by the secular worldview of the movie. The objective of the romance was not “happily-ever-after”, but instead “let’s-have-sex-because-we-have-strong-feelings”. Regrets of having a cheap one-night stand based on false feelings are portrayed, and that’s a start in the right direction, but any idea of commitment was completely absent from the film. The original play invites no comparison, since the plot takes a different direction towards the ending, but I wish the romance in Roxanne implied a longer-lasting love than it does.

The very sexualized story and some fairly excessive adult language make it astounding that the film received a PG rating, especially since it was made after PG-13 had been available to the ratings board. A commenter on imdb claims that the MPAA originally gave the film an R, but it was appealed down to PG without any cuts. I think the PG-13 rating in the 1980s was used primarily for excessive violence, which might have explained skipping it on the downgrade. It certainly would have been PG-13 nowadays.

While the language in the film could be toned down with a filtering service such as VidAngel dot com, the sexuality is intertwined into the script and I can’t imagine how it could be made acceptable for your teen, but there’s no graphic nudity and modern TV sitcoms are worse (low bar, I realize), so I will leave the choice to your discretion, and not say this is an “adults only” film, but it was a very tough call for me. The film was sweet and charming overall, so perhaps that message wins out. As I said, in my twenties, I didn’t really view the film the same way I do now. What do you think?

Leave a comment

There are just so very many movies like this one which are very good films, but could have been all-time greats except for adding excessive adult content and content that undermines a more positive message. It makes me sad. 😔 I recommend the film for adults who enjoy rom-coms or are fans of Steve Martin, but please consider it a lukewarm recommendation.

Onwards!

+ last viewed (3) 2025-06-05, HDX7, 2.39, 2M
+ first viewed 1987, ThX, 2.39, 2
+ 🍌🥰💘🥸

+ ❌0️⃣ Problematic for teens and sensitive adults. | PGa
+ 😡+1 😵‍💫+0 🤬-1^ 🤭-0 🫣-0

+ 👀⬇️1️⃣ ➖😍
+ ✝️ -1 ➕❤️ ➖♂️♀️
+ ✡️ -2 ➖🤬🫢🫢
+ 🗽 -0

Last updated 2025-06-07

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

A+^

Family Suitability
+ ⚠️0️⃣ Problematic for teens and sensitive adults. | PG-13

Alignment with Judeo-Christian Values
+ ❎1️⃣ Fair/Slightly Favorable

Grade: A+^ (20.0) / HOF: 90
EQ 👍A+ | 📖A+ 👥A+ 📽️A+ 🎼A
DW 😎😎11.7 | 🌚11 🌝12
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R ☮️n/a ◀️n/a ▶️n/a 🛐n/a

Cinephiles, a.k.a. movie-lovers, are, in general, quite familiar with the work of the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan Coen, who have made a significant impact on the art of filmmaking. 1987’s Raising Arizona was just their second film, but in my humble opinion it remains their very best, at least of their films that I have seen. That’s no small praise from my point of view, since I include their films Fargo and O Brother, Where Art Thou? among my all-time favorites also.

Many of their works probably fall into the Dark Whimsy genre, but Raising Arizona sticks the landing most precisely. It’s a story of a male ex-convict and a female police officer who fall in love and get married, and that all happens before the opening credits! The ill-fated couple discovers that they are unable to have children, so they decide to kidnap a baby for themselves, setting off a chain of delightful mayhem, that makes for a story that is off the charts when it comes to any measurement of movie-watching fun that comes to my mind.

The brothers use bright colors and delightfully theatrical sets to deliver the Whimsy, along with dream sequences, a well-timed musical score, and of course, there are babies! The comedy aspect of Whimsy is not neglected either and in 2000 the American Film Institute included Raising Arizona at #31 on its list of “100 Years… 100 Laughs”.

One of the brilliant methods by which the Coen Brothers often bring comedy is by including really dumb characters, often criminals. It’s a feature of many of their feature films, but probably not delivered as well or as funnily in their other films, compared to Raising Arizona. You’d be hard-pressed to find a character of average intelligence in the movie, much less above-average. And let’s face it—stupidity can be hilarious, as it is here. (My favorite technique they use to portray a lack of IQ is giving a character a large vocabulary, but also a lack of understanding of the precise meaning of the bigger words that they use!)

Meanwhile, Nicolas Cage and Holly Hunter give solid performances as the wannabe parents, straddling the line between heroic protagonists and baby-napping villains. While their own virtue is ambiguous, they must contend with, and thus are contrasted with, some truly monstrous villains that bring the Whimsy-balancing Dark by the bucketload.

And that brings me to the place where I want to speak directly to my Christian readers. My normal course of action is to let you start off with the Family Suitability rating of the film’s content and the Alignment with Judeo-Christian Values rating of the film’s viewpoint, to give you a feeling for whether the film might include material you would find objectionable, or push viewpoints you don’t agree with. But here I want to highlight a common mistake that I think we can make as Christians when viewing a Hollywood film made by creators who do not fully share our worldview.

My Alignment with Judeo-Christian Values rating for this film indicates that when I grade Raising Arizona I’m probably giving it a grade-step bonus for its messages, beyond the Entertainment Quality of the film (which in this case, is top-of-the-scale already). My best-guess about how a typical Christian conservative (of which I am one, so no offense intended) might reflexively react to the reviewed work is that they would probably downgrade the film a grade-step or two.

The common mistake I’ve seen in Christian criticism, which could certainly apply here, is to conflate the viewpoint of a story’s protagonist with the viewpoint of the author, or in this case, the screenwriters. Just because the two main characters justify kidnapping a baby, and the movie finds humor in the story, that does not mean that the creators are confused about right and wrong or that they condone selfishly breaking the law for your own gain. I don’t want to spoil anything, but to understand the message of a story, you have to follow it to the conclusion.

The truth is that Raising Arizona evidences some really commendable Judeo-Christian values that were really rare to find in secular Hollywood films even 40 years ago. Although the movie includes some sexual content, it is entirely within the bounds of marriage, and sex outside of marriage is portrayed negatively. Ultimately redemption happens in the film, and right prevails over wrong. Sorry if that spoils it for you, but without telling you how that happens, you can still enjoy the journey. In the end, this is a pro-marriage, pro-family film, and—dare I say it—even pro-life, although I have my doubts that the latter message was explicitly intended.

On the down side, the movie includes one use of the F-word and boatloads of “lesser” obscenities and profanities. Christians, if you use a filter to mute those words, such as the language filter available at VidAngel dot com, you can transform this movie into a very good family film you can enjoy even with your younger teenagers. There are also a couple of pornographic magazines briefly depicted, cover only, with no nudity shown. It’s completely gratuitous, but only very slightly damaging to the overall message of the film. I suppose they thought the inclusions were funny, but I doubt anyone would have laughed less had those quick shots been edited out, and my guess is that VidAngel can edit those shots out for you too.

Whether you use filters for yourself and your family, or choose to watch the movie with adults only and tolerate the adult content issues, Raising Arizona is one of the better comedies ever, with slapstick, screwball and satirical influences, includes a great crime caper motif, and surprisingly delivers a feel-good positive message that can even be approved of by conservative Christians. That makes it a rare find and a must-watch in my book!

Onwards!

+ last viewed (3) 2025-05-17, HDX7, 1.85v, 2D
+ first viewed 1987, ThX, 1.85, 2
+ 🍌👤💰🥸🤪😛

Family Suitability Detail
+ ⚠️0️⃣ Problematic for teens and sensitive adults. | PG-13
+ 😡+1 😵‍💫+1 🤬-1^ 🤭-0 🫣+1

Judeo-Christian Values Detail
+ ❎1️⃣ Fair/Slightly Favorable
+ ✝️ +2 ➕😇❤️💒💒🩸➖(😐😍)
+ ✡️ +1 ➕🌗😊😊🤍 ➖(😐😍)🤬
+ 🗽 +0 ➕⬜(🏛️🤱) ➖(😐😍💻💲)

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

Updated for new review formatting 2025-08-18

A+^

Grade: A+^ (20.0) / HOF: 90
EQ 👍A++ | 📖A+ 👥A+ 📽️A+ 🎼A+
DW 😎😎12.0 | 🌚12 🌝12
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R 💻⬆️0️⃣ 👀⬇️0️⃣ 🛐⬇️2️⃣

Rick Retro: For fans of Dark Whimsy, it rarely gets much better than the 1986 masterpiece, Little Shop of Horrors. On our current tour of my Dark Whimsy Favorites, Re-Animator was Darker and The Muppet Movie scored higher on the Whimsy scale, but so far, only Little Shop has registered at twelve or better on both scales.

Based on a 1982 stage musical, which was, in turn, based on a 1960 low-budget black-and-white B-movie, Little Shop of Horrors got the star treatment in 1986, and the result lived up to the effort.

This is Rick Retro, from my Reel Room, and we are joined today, direct from Transylvania, by our new guest critics, Count Doctor Gene Siskelsteinula of the Transylvania Tribune and Roger Egor of the Transylvania Moon-Times.

So, picture a young man working in a Skid Row flower shop. You already know he’s kind of a loser, right? But then as luck would have it, following a total eclipse of the sun, he comes across a plant that seems kind of special. Well, that’s because it’s from Outer Space. And it just so happens that it feeds on human flesh and blood. Dark enough for you, Doctor Gene?

Siskelsteinula: Vell, Reek, eet vuz not awvul. Zeez alien plant vould enyoy our faworeete reztaurant een Tranzylwania!

Egor: Heh heh. Yeth, Doctor.

Rick Retro (sarcastically): I suppose it’s called “The Little Restaurant of Horrors”?

Siskelsteinula: No, yuzt “The Leettle Reztaurant”. Vhat part uv “Tranzylwania” you don’t underztand?

Rick Retro: Right. Moving on. The Whimsy in the film comes from multiple angles. First and foremost, the movie is hilarious. Yeah, the comedy is dark at times, but the film is an out-and-out farce that delivers laughs in all kinds of ways. A scene with Steve Martin as a sadistic dentist and Bill Murray as a masochistic patient is one of the funniest scenes I’ve ever seen!

Siskelsteinula: Vhat “funny”? Great drama, you azk me! Ze character eez no doktor, but vor a deenteezt, he’z kvite eennowayteefe!

Rick Retro: Hm. Well, “innovative” is a good word to describe the producers of the film. They built a huge set, complete with overhead train, to represent downtown 1960s New York. All the settings are full of Whimsy, looking like they were made for the stage.

Then there’s the music.

Egor: Heh. I don’t theenk we are eento mewthic tho much. We prefer leth pleathant thoundth.

Rick Retro (under his breath): Why am I not surprised?

(continuing out loud) The musical numbers are imported from the play, with a change here and there, but without losing a single note of Whimsy, featuring music by Alan Menken and lyrics by Howard Ashman. It’s no surprise that every song fits perfectly, since Ashman also wrote the screenplay. The songs are styled with early 1960s rock, doo-wop and Motown influences. Most of the songs can be categorized as Dark Whimsy themselves, so it’s a must-have soundtrack for a Dark Whimsy fan.

Ellen Greene reprises her role as Audrey from the original off-Broadway production of the stage version. She has a superb voice and thanks to her talents, “Suddenly, Seymour” and “Somewhere That’s Green” are the two best songs of the film. And while Rick Moranis will never be highly praised for his singing talents, “Suddenly, Seymour” soars despite the fact that his vocals as Seymour don’t help. Meanwhile, “Dentist!” succeeds, even with Steve Martin’s vocals, because the lyrics are laugh-out-loud perfection!

Providing great back-up vocals to many numbers, are Crystal, Ronette, and Chiffon, three waifs who dress impeccably and sing sublimely.

(not really wanting to ask) Do you two have anything else to add?

Egor: Yeth, Meethter Reek. Theeth eeth a thpethial thtory of an aththithtant who thurpaththeth heeth thtation and thuck-theedth wildly. We thyould all thtrive to be like Thee-mour!

Rick Retro: I’m not sure I would characterize the message of the story in quite the same way, Roger, but thank you for your input. Doctor Gene?

Siskelsteinula: Vell, Zeymour’z expeereementation eez commendable, uhv courze. Howeffer, he vould perhaps haf better luck putting parts togezzer, razzer zan zeffering zem!

Rick Retro: Um, that would be a different story, Doctor Gene. He has to sever them to feed them to Audrey II. And please, this is a no-spoiler zone. Save plot details for the Chat, OK?

Siskelsteinula: Uhf courze, Reek! My zeenzere apologiez. I get zo exzited about Zcienze!

Rick Retro (drily): Yes, I suppose Science can be exciting.

Thank you for calling in, gentlemen. (abruptly cuts feed from Transylvania)

It should be mentioned that in an early test screening of the film, the audience did not care for the ending, so it was changed for the theatrical release. In 2012, for a DVD and Blu-Ray release, the original ending was restored as a Director’s Cut version.

I plan to review that version in the future, but before I do, see this version! Even if you don’t typically like Dark Whimsy, especially of the comedic horror or perhaps musical varieties, this is about as good as it gets! You may be pleasantly surprised. But who am I talking to? If you don’t like this sort of thing, you’ve probably stopped reading already, right?

I hope you enjoyed today’s Retro Movie Review. Until next time…

Onwards!

Rick Retro (heard faintly, to Producer John): Those two are a disaster! I say we… (audio cuts off)

+ last viewed (5) 2025-05-06, HDX7, 1.85v, 2D
+ first viewed 1986, ThX, 1.85, 7
+ ⏳🪐🌎👽🗄️🎶🧌💀🥰💘🌑🥸

+ ❌0️⃣ Problematic for teens and sensitive adults. | PG-13
+ 😡-0 😵‍💫-0 🤬-0 🤭+0 🫣-0

+ 👀⬇️0️⃣ ➖(😐😍)
+ ✝️ -0 ➕(❤️💒🥴) ➖(🤬💣👙)
+ ✡️ +0 ➕💎(🤍) ➖(🤬)
+ 🗽 -0 ➖(💻)

Last updated 2025-05-14

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

A+>

Family Suitability
+ ❌2️⃣ Moderate adults-only content. | R

Alignment with Judeo-Christian Values
+ ⛔1️⃣ Subpar/Slightly Unfavorable

+ Based on literature (novella) The Body (1982)❗by Stephen King ⭐
+ 2️⃣/2 works in Stand by Me multiverse ⭐

Stand by Me (1986)

Grade: A+> (20.0) / HOF: 60
EQ 👍A++ | 📖A+ 👥A+ 📽️A+ 🎼A+
DW 🕶️🕶️10.1 | 🌚11 🌝10
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R ☮️n/a ◀️n/a ▶️n/a 🛐n/a

Note from Rick Retro, 2025-12-15.
I am saddened to learn today of the passing of Rob Reiner. Although I was critical of his character in this review, that in no way diminishes my opinion of his talents, nor does it mean I wished any harm to him. I hope that comes across in the review. I always intended to make that clear, but I’m adding this note to give that extra emphasis. Beyond the character criticism, I hope the review makes it clear how grateful I am to Mr. Reiner for giving the world this exceptionally good film, Stand by Me.

If you happen to come across this review while you are grieving Mr. Reiner’s passing, please do not read it at this time if it would be painful for you to hear personal criticism of him. I understand that the immediate aftermath of a person’s passing is not the time for negative criticism of that person. Please give me the grace to understand that this was written before Mr. Reiner’s passing. I stand by my words, but would request that all readers use their best judgment and come back to read the review after a respectful amount of time has passed. Thank you.

Bad people can create good art. I don’t have to mention names, but you will know who I am referring to when I point out a mega-star pop artist accused of being a child molester or a famous comedian accused by multiple women of sexual assault.

I do not consider Stephen King or Rob Reiner to be especially good people. I’m not saying they compare to the examples I just cited. They don’t. However they have both made nasty, bigoted, borderline-vile generalizations against Christian conservatives, of which I am one.

Perhaps King and Reiner are more good than bad. I don’t know them personally. But from their public statements I know they have, in the past, harbored hatred in their hearts for people like me, whom they don’t know personally, and who have a different worldview from theirs.

I have no ill will towards them. King and Reiner are both creative geniuses, if not political geniuses. I hope they both live long, happy lives and, perhaps, soften their rhetoric towards people who disagree with them, as so many of us should. I myself have said hateful things about people who disagree with me at times, and I regret it, and hope to do better in the future.

All that said, the movie Stand by Me, based on a novella by King and directed by Reiner is an exceptionally good film, one of the best of the 1980s.

For the most part, the anti-Christian worldviews of the film’s creators are not promoted in Stand by Me, although death is a major theme of the movie and treated from a humanist viewpoint that assumes death is final and tragic.

There is a surprising moment in the movie where one character refers to the talent of another as a gift from God. I’m not sure how that line sneaked into the screenplay—maybe due to the writers who adapted the King novella.

There are also a lot of blasphemous profanities in the film, not to mention numerous obscenities. Much of this is from the mouths of twelve-year-olds and the rest from teenagers. The excessive language earns the film an R-rating, and although there is little sex or violence, the movie is definitely for adults only, in spite of being a story about young boys.

And yet, despite these flaws in Stand by Me, I still recommend the film to adults, even to Christian conservatives. (As Christians who believe we are all sinners, there would be no movies to watch at all if we eliminated all films made by imperfect people.)

First, Stand by Me is a cultural touchstone, an iconic 80s film that still resonates today and can be a great conversation starter with anyone who has seen it.

Second, it is both entertaining and thought-provoking, and though not perfect, contains much truth and some positive messages, despite the humanist worldview.

Stand by Me is a summertime story of four young boys, about to enter seventh grade, who go on an overnight hike to see the dead body of a boy their own age.

The movie is a coming-of-age drama with both dark and comedic overtones that combine with the youthful point of view to make it Pure Dark Whimsy in my book—in this case Pure Dark Whimzy due to the adults-only language.

Set mostly in bright sunshine that contrasts with the grim portrayal of a lower-working-class 1959 Oregon town, Stand by Me deals with some dark topics that also overshadow the sunlight. When nightfall comes it feels like the story is now in sync with the mood, but daylight returns and the dissonance remains jarring for the remainder of the movie. Death is ever present in the story, but child abandonment and child abuse are also explored a bit. Self-image is a core component of the coming-of-age portion of the narrative.

The two primary characters discuss topics with more adult insight than you would actually get from sixth-graders in real life, but you won’t mind because the story and tone make those scenes deeply touching.

More than even death, Stand by Me is about friendship. Director Reiner gets solid performances from all four young actors playing the group of friends, who all went on to be notable in different ways, coincidentally paralleling their characters to some extent.

Beautifully photographed and set to well-known 1950s rock hits, Stand by Me is as moving a story about friendship as you will ever see. It’s also one of the most accurate portrayals I’ve ever seen of the emotions boys feel when they are just beginning to become men.

I highly recommend Stand by Me for a first viewing or a revisit. If excessive language bothers you, then I highly recommend using a filtering service like VidAngel dot com, to remove the distraction and allow you to enjoy the many strong points of this film.

Onwards!

+ last viewed (3) 2025-05-02, HDX7, 1.85v, 1M
+ first viewed 1986, ThX, 1.85, 1
+ ⏳⛱️🛡️😏😥🌑🥸

Family Suitability Detail
+ ❌2️⃣ Moderate adults-only content. | R
+ 😡-0 😵‍💫-0 🤬-3^ 🤭-0 🫣+0

Judeo-Christian Values Detail
+ + ⛔1️⃣ Subpar/Slightly Unfavorable
+ ✝️ -1 ➕❤️ ➖😐🤬🤬🤬
+ ✡️ -1 ➕(✡️)🤍 ➖😐🤬🤬🤬
+ 🗽 -0 ➖😐

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

Updated for new review formatting 2025-12-15

A->

Grade: A-> (8.0) / HOF: 10
EQ 👍A+ | 📖A+ 👥B+ 📽️A+ 🎼A+
DW 🕶️7.7 | 🌚13 🌝7
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R 💻⬆️0️⃣ 👀⬇️2️⃣ 🛐⬇️4️⃣

The severed head doesn’t fall far from the body in Re-Animator, a low-budget 1985 film based on the 1922 novelette “Herbert West—Reanimator”, which I reviewed yesterday. The movie is considered to be a cult classic, and, like the short story it was based on, it’s not for everyone. It’s a horror story with subtle tongue-in-cheek humor that some people would not find amusing in the least.

I like horror if it is particularly scary and/or funny. If it is both, it often lands in my Dark Whimsy genre and I like it a lot. For my tastes, Re-Animator could have surpassed the novelette it was based on, but instead fell short.

Like the written story, the movie is about a mad doctor named Herbert West who reanimates the dead with a scientific serum. The movie is updated to the present, adds a main character and only covers a portion of the written story, but the zombie mayhem vibes are pretty faithful to the original.

I found the novelette to be a bit scarier, or creepier, or however you might phrase it. I found the movie to be a lot funnier than the original story.

Jeffrey Combs is fantastic as the psychopathic Herbert West. The rest of the cast? How should I put this? Really bad. I think that might have been a brilliant, intentional decision, because the bad acting and bad dialogue is hilarious, amidst the over-the-top plot, laugh-out-loud gory visuals and delightfully cheesy jarring soundtrack.

I liked that the movie de-emphasized Lovecraft’s anti-Christian cosmicist beliefs. A trace was still there, but just barely.

The violence and gore in the movie are comparable to the literary version of the story, but the special effects easily make it more gory than most of us would take the trouble to imagine when reading. Although I graded the violence/scariness as extreme, it is mitigated by being somewhat cartoonish and meant for laughs, so it isn’t extreme in the sense of the more sadistic torture-horror films that have been popular recently.

I did find the over-the-top mayhem and gore to be very funny, but it definitely isn’t appropriate for kids. If you think there must be something wrong with me to be amused by this sort of content, I won’t argue with you. Maybe you’re right, but I typically just don’t take comedy that seriously.

For me, the movie dropped from an A-plus down to an A-minus due to an extreme quantity of nudity. While that content also seems to be (partly) intended comedically, I do take it seriously, for many reasons I won’t go into here. I don’t think nudity belongs in films, even films for adults.

In this case, we are talking about full frontal male and female nudity. About half of this content in the film is naked corpses, both dead and reanimated, but the remaining unclothed content is the lead actress and intended for prurient interest, in addition to comedic intent.

By the way, there are multiple versions of this film. The unrated version originally released in American theaters is, I think, the one that is currently available on streaming platforms. But edited versions were released in many countries and an edited R-rated version was released on DVD in America. Some of the edited versions added some originally cut non-adult outtakes to add time back into the film, and I think there is a version that uses both this content and the adult content. Looking for an older R-rated release might be a good choice for someone wanting a cleaned up version.

So. Even with a surprising and welcome lack of heavy adult language, Re-Animator is clearly an adults-only movie. Not one I would recommend to most people, and not one I’m particularly proud to admit I found entertaining.

But it’s one of the funniest horror films I’ve ever seen, and you know how I love my Dark Whimsy, or as we say here when it’s an adults-only work, Dark Whimzy.

Onwards!

+ last viewed (3) 2025-04-29, HDX7, 1.85v, 1M
+ first viewed 1985, ThX, 1.85, 1
+ 🧛🪐🌎⚛️⚕️🧌💀🌑🥸

+ ❌4️⃣ Extreme adults-only content. | UN
+ 😡-4^ 😵‍💫+0 🤬+1 🤭-2 🫣-4

+ 👀⬇️2️⃣ ➖(😐)
+ ✝️ -3 ➖(💣)🩳🩳👙👙👙
+ ✡️ -2 ➖(🤬)🚨🚨🫢
+ 🗽 -0 ➖(💻)

Last updated 2025-04-30

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

A >

GPA: 13.33 (A >) [n/a] / HOF: 1 [n/a]
EQ 👍A+ | 📖A+ 👥A- 📽️A+ 🎼A+
DW 😎8.7 | 🌚13 🌝8
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R 💻⬇️1️⃣ 👀⬇️1️⃣ 🛐⬇️2️⃣

We are on schedule to release the Retro Review of Re-Animator (1985) tomorrow. I found the time to read and review the novelette it is based on, so I hope you enjoy this bonus Retro Review.

Before The Walking Dead, and before Night of the Living Dead, there was “Herbert West—Reanimator”. This 1922 novelette was released as a six-part serial in the pulp magazine Weird Tales, and is one of the first fictional depictions of zombies reanimated from the dead by scientific processes, as opposed to dark magical forces.

This is the first time I have ever read anything by author H. P. Lovecraft, and it’s certainly about time. I’ve seen more than one adaptation of his tales, and even played a couple of tabletop games based on his fiction.

I have to say I enjoyed it. I like horror if it is particularly scary and/or funny (Dark Whimsy anyone?), and this little serial did well at both.

Now Lovecraft himself complained about the serial format, since he was editorially forced to begin each chapter with a quick recap and end each chapter with a cliffhanger. Tough luck, H. P. The editors are right. That’s how you do serial fiction. No points against that from me.

Critics call it one of Lovecraft’s worst works, with the arguments being that it’s too cliché and that it’s over the top.

My response is that if that’s his worst, I want to read more.

Too cliché? This was written in 1922. This story invents the clichés that became clichés due to being so on-target that multiple writers over the decades have borrowed or flat-out copied them.

Too over the top? Lovecraft claimed this was a parody of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Parodies are over the top on purpose. That’s where they get much of their humor.

“Herbert West—Reanimator” isn’t laugh-out-loud funny. The humor is tongue-in-cheek and subtle. A lot of readers probably would not find anything amusing in the story at all. That’s okay. This is definitely not a story for everyone.

This is especially not for anyone who dislikes the horror genre. There’s a creepy vibe throughout, and the death, violence and gore intensify as the story continues towards its conclusion.

The violence and scariness unfold at a level that I would ordinarily recommended for adults only, but considering there’s not strong adult language or any sexual situations, you may or may not find it tolerable for a mature teen, if not ideal.

The story does show off a little bit of Lovecraft’s racist, elitist, and anti-Christian biases.

In the Viewpoint block after the body of this review, I’ve used the emoji for humanism to represent the viewpoint of this work, but that is an approximation which is not exactly correct.

Lovecraft originated and promoted a belief system he called cosmicism.

Cosmicism and humanism share most of their beliefs. They are both characterized by atheism, disbelief in anything supernatural, hostility towards religion, and a tendency to embrace elitism and socialism.

The difference (which makes little difference in practice) is that humanists believe that mankind can progress through reason and secular ethics, while cosmicism proposes that humanity is insignificant and not a part of any greater purpose in the universe, even if such a purpose might exist.

Since both systems exhibit, practically speaking, the same biases and political inclinations, labeling Lovecraft’s viewpoint as a humanist one seems close enough, if not one hundred percent correct.

Going forward, if I read more Lovecraft, I hope he spends more time creating entertaining stories than pushing his anti-Christian belief system. In the story of “Herbert West—Reanimator”, the beliefs were evident and very slightly offensive, but were only promoted lightly, not pushed heavily, so I was still able to enjoy the story.

If you like your Dark horror flavored with some tongue-in-cheek Whimsical parody, you can read “Herbert West—Reanimator” at the link below, and you might enjoy it too.

Onwards!

+ first read 2025-04-28, dS
+ ⏳🧛🪐🌎⚛️⚕️🧌💀🌑🥸😛

+ ❌0️⃣ Problematic for teens and sensitive adults. | UN
+ 😡-1^ 😵‍💫+0 🤬+1 🤭+3 🫣+3

+ 👀⬇️1️⃣ ➖😐😐
+ ✝️ -2 ➖💣💣
+ ✡️ -1 ➖(🤬)
+ 🗽 -1 ➖🤎

Last updated 2025-04-28

Read “Herbert West—Reanimator” (1922)

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

A+^

Grade: A+^ (20.0) / HOF: 90
EQ 👍A+ | 📖A+ 👥A+ 📽️A 🎼A+
DW 😎😎10.4 | 🌚10 🌝11
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R 💻⬇️1️⃣ 👀⬇️0️⃣ 🛐⬇️2️⃣

One of the taglines for the 1984 movie, Electric Dreams, is as follows: “The most unusual triangle in the history of love: a boy, a girl, and a computer.”

On the surface, that’s a good description of the movie. San Francisco architect Miles Harding purchases a home computer to help him be on time for work.

While he becomes smitten with his neighbor, concert cellist Madeline, the computer accidentally becomes sentient and falls for her too.

Now, in my opinion Electric Dreams is a masterpiece and one of the best romantic comedies ever, albeit a lot stronger on the romantic side of the ledger (10 out of 10) than the comedic side (5 out of 10). To be fair, it is trying to be a mix of drama and comedy, a.k.a. a dramedy, not a pure comedy.

Sadly, the film got little respect in the industry or with critics. This is probably due in large part to some industry elitist snobbery against director Steve Barron, making his feature film directorial debut after directing dozens of music videos.

The prejudice seems particularly unfair, considering that he directed some of the best music videos ever, including Michael Jackson’s “Billie Jean” and the iconic MTV hit “Take on Me” by a-ha.

But music videos were new in the 1980s and not viewed as serious work by feature film creators, similar to how comic books were not viewed as serious literature for decades, until they were upgraded to “graphic novels”.

Indeed, what makes Electric Dreams a masterpiece is that it is a music video—a glorious upgraded one. Or, better yet, an epic anthology of music videos, with a connecting theme and story.

Really, what are music videos? Short films. What’s wrong with extending one to feature length? And nobody had a problem with Fantasia, an anthology of music videos with far less story connection. But I digress.

Of course for a music video to be great, the music must be great. Credit here goes to composer Giorgio Moroder, responsible for the score of the movie. The Electric Dreams soundtrack album, produced by Moroder, and featuring pop artists such as Culture Club, is one of the best ever in my opinion.

However it’s also one of the hardest to get your hands on. For years I had a cassette of the album and finally got a CD sometime after it was released for the first time in limited amounts in the US in 1998. It isn’t available on Spotify or streaming services as far as I know.

I hate that it’s not on Spotify because I can’t include one of my favorite pieces of music ever in any of my Spotify playlists! While I like every track on the album, one is a stand-out. “The Duel” by Giorgio Moroder, based on the classical piece “Minuet in G major” by Christian Petzold, is a breathtaking fusion of classical music and electronic pop.

“The Duel” is best experienced in stereo with good separation between the speakers. Although not available on streaming services, it is on YouTube. I’m including it here for your convenience. It will sound beautiful even from cellphone speakers, but if you have a better way to listen, like stereo speakers with your desktop computer, it will be worth the effort. If you must listen with your phone, then put it in landscape, close your eyes and hold it just an inch or two in front of your face. 🙂 Listen in. I’ll wait.

“The Duel” is far more than just the best track on the Electric Dreams soundtrack album. It arrives early in the film with a scene that establishes the theme of the movie, while also setting up the plot conflict. Since the scene is early in the movie, watching it ahead of time won’t spoil much. Personally, I’d recommend just watching the entire great film, but if you want to experience what I’m writing about here’s a link to the scene itself.

In this scene, without consciously realizing it yet, Madeline begins to fall in love with Miles, Miles’ computer begins to fall in love with Madeline and viewers like me completely fall in love with the movie. (Miles was, of course, already falling for Madeline, because she’s beautiful, friendly, and witty, and he’s a guy, so beautiful alone would have begun the process.)

All of this falling in love happens because of the powerful emotional bonds created through sharing music. The connection between romantic love and beautiful art, whether classical or electronic, is at the beating heart of Electric Dreams.

Lenny Von Dohlen and Virginia Madsen portray the romantic leads and are each charming in their own way. Their romance is sweet and believable against the scenic backdrop of San Francisco (with interior scenes filmed in England).

Most of the Dark and most of the Whimsy in this underrated gem of a film comes from Miles’ computer, a childish little monster that acts out because he just wants to be loved. Bud Cort voices the petulant device perfectly.

If it weren’t for some adult language in this film, from both Miles and his computer, it would earn an overall content rating of “✅0️⃣” from me, meaning “Mostly OK for teens and adults.” There’s a handful of uses of blasphemous profanity (mostly against God, once, Jesus) and while the F-word is used in just one scene, by the sentient computer in a weird electronic voice, it is repeated rapidly over a dozen times and certainly unmistakable. If you prefer not to hear objectionable language, this movie is a great candidate for using a video filtering service such as VidAngel.com to keep it clean.

Even with the language scrubbed up, the film would still only be “mostly OK for teens” in my book due to a brief scene implying sex between an unmarried couple. Younger teens might not even catch it, so as they say, “Parental discretion advised.”

For adults, Electric Dreams is a delightfully sweet romantic comedy with a Dark Whimsy edge. Since the computer technology is dated now, you don’t even notice that the film is technically science fiction! Instead, the 1980s setting seems nostalgic as if it were made today as historical fiction and a loving homage to that decade, with just a hint of wicked parody. 😉

Perhaps you should make a date to share Electric Dreams with someone you love!

Onwards!

+ last viewed (4) 2025-04-25, HDX7, 1.85v, 2D
+ first viewed 1984, ThX, 1.85, 2
+ 🪐🌎⚛️🥰💘😏😥🥸🎧

+ ❌0️⃣ Problematic for teens and sensitive adults. | PGa
+ 😡+1 😵‍💫+2 🤬-1^ 🤭+0 🫣+0

+ 👀⬇️0️⃣ ➖(😍)
+ ✝️ -0 ➕❤️ ➖(🤬🩳)
+ ✡️ -0 ➕🤍 ➖🤬(🫢)
+ 🗽 -0

Last updated 2025-04-26

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

A+^

Family Suitability
+ ✅1️⃣ Mostly OK for teens and adults. (Grades 10+) ⚠️Might be considered inappropriate for sensitive teens and adults. | PGc

Alignment with Judeo-Christian Values
+ ❎1️⃣ Fair/Slightly Favorable

+ Based on literature (novel) The Natural (1952)❗by Bernard Malamud ⭐
+ 2️⃣/2 works in The Natural multiverse ⭐

Grade: A+^ (20.0) / HOF: 120
EQ 👍A++ | 📖A+ 👥A+ 📽️A+ 🎼A+
DW 😎9.1 | 🌚10 🌝9
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R ☮️n/a ◀️n/a ▶️n/a 🛐n/a

My father passed away in 2019 at the age of 80. Born in 1938 to an itinerant farm worker and his wife, he was the ninth of twelve children—thirteen if you count the one who died near birth. Raised in poverty, my father later provided a relatively comfortable middle-class upbringing for thirteen children of his own, of which I am the oldest.

As a member of the aptly named Silent Generation, my father didn’t speak much of his childhood, but he was a sports fan, especially baseball. I remember attending my first major league baseball game at age seven in 1969 with my father and maternal grandfather. Looking back, I realize that Dad bonded with his father-in-law over their mutual love of the game.

I didn’t have a lot of quality time with my father in my childhood. With so many younger siblings, I was mostly left alone to fend for myself. But baseball was a connection that formed my strongest childhood bond with my father. (We also both loved movies, but that came in second.)

I remember playing catch in the front yard. Not often, but the memories are more precious because of the rarity.

Best of all were the summer nights in the living room, listening together to the voices of Dick Enberg and Don Drysdale narrating California Angel games over the radio.

The 1984 film The Natural, based on the 1952 Bernard Malamud novel of the same name, is the story of a gifted baseball player, whose life takes a wrong turn and doesn’t work out the way he expected it to unfold.

In my review of the book, while noting the love of baseball revealed in its pages, I also lament its depressing, pessimistic view of humanity.

By contrast, the writers who adapted the novel, Roger Towne and Phil Dusenberry, and director Barry Levinson, give us a feel-good film for the ages. It’s arguably the best baseball movie ever made.

Sports writer Bill Simmons has argued, "Any 'Best Sports Movies' list that doesn't feature either Hoosiers or The Natural as the No. 1 pick shouldn't even count."
–Wikipedia

So how did the film creators redeem an essentially identical story and change it from a tale of despair to one of hope and celebration?

Well, I could talk about how they added Whimsy with more humor and less adult content. There’s a focus on young boys and their love of baseball, again bringing more Whimsy.

I could talk about the amazing cinematography and the numerous scenes involving not only deep shadows, but also bright sunlight by day and floodlights by night. The book only seemed to deliver darkness.

I could talk about the soaring Randy Newman score that brings Whimsy with magical music at all the major moments.

I could talk about the great performance of Robert Redford as Roy Hobbs, the title character, who transforms the antihero of the novel into the hero of the film.

But all of those factors merely enhance or cascade from the key difference between the book and the film.

They gave Roy Hobbs a father.

Who loved him.

In both stories, Hobbs is a man motivated primarily by a burning desire for greatness. Like today’s Shohei Ohtani, Hobbs is both a great pitcher and a great hitter. And like the traitorous Ohtani, Hobbs betrays the loyalties of people who care about him, but I digress.

In the book, Hobbs almost cynically uses baseball as a means to an end because that’s where his great skills happen to fall.

In the film, Redford captures the same ambition of Hobbs, but also shows the true love of baseball passed down to him from his father, with a twinkle in his eyes and joy in his heart at just the right times.

A young woman named Iris is an important character in both the book and the film. In the movie Hobbs meets Iris Gaines years earlier than he meets Iris Lemon in the book—because unlike in the book, his father gave him a home and thus he has a hometown, and there was a hometown girl.

While Hobbs makes most of the same bad decisions throughout the book and film, ultimately, it is fatherhood and the generational bonds of baseball between a father and a son that redeem his final choice. By giving Hobbs a loving father, the filmmakers gave us a Most Valuable Picture for the ages.

In 1984 at the age of 23, I had lived away from home for a couple of years. I had already viewed The Natural in a theater once, and then invited Dad to see it with me on Father’s Day.

Afterwards, he said he liked it and he appeared to be feeling some emotion, though it was never easy to tell with him. I was disappointed that I didn’t feel any bonding, like I remembered from my childhood.

Looking back with wiser eyes, I have a feeling he was remembering a childhood further in the past and a father of his own.

Onwards!

P.S. Ladies, or gentlemen, who aren’t sports fans: It isn’t a requirement to love sports in general, or baseball in particular, in order to love The Natural. If you love portrayals of heroic men and boys in general or a few good men and boys in real life, this film can touch your heart too!

+ last viewed (4) 2025-04-20, HDX7, 1.85v, 2M
+ first viewed 1984, ThX, 1.85, 2
+ ⏳🏆⚾😥

Family Suitability Detail
+ ✅1️⃣ Mostly OK for teens and adults. (Grades 10+) ⚠️Might be considered inappropriate for sensitive teens and adults. | PGc
+ 😡+1 😵‍💫+1 🤬+1 🤭+1 🫣-0^

Judeo-Christian Values Detail
+ ❎1️⃣ Fair/Slightly Favorable
+ ✝️ +2 ➕😇🩸🩸💜💜 ➖(😍)
+ ✡️ +0 ➕(🌗)💎 ➖(😍🤬🫢)
+ 🗽 +0 ➕(🇺🇸) ➖(😍)

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

Updated for new review formatting 2025-09-16

B ^

Family Suitability
+ ❌3️⃣ Heavy adults-only content. | UN

Alignment with Judeo-Christian Values
+ ⛔3️⃣ Very Poor/Heavily Unfavorable

+ 1️⃣/2 works in The Natural multiverse ⭐

GPA: 2.65 (B ^) [n/a] / HOF: 3 [n/a]
EQ 👍A | 📖A 👥B 📽️A+ 🎼A-
DW 🚫1.6 | 🌚10 🌝1
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R ☮️n/a ◀️n/a ▶️n/a 🛐n/a

The review scheduled for today was for my all-time favorite sports movie, The Natural, a 1984 film starring Robert Redford.

I watched it again in preparation for writing the review, and while lamenting to myself that I had never read the book on which it was based, I suddenly realized that I had the time and energy to read it and squeeze an extra review into my schedule. So the movie review will be released tomorrow, and, for an appetizer, here’s a bonus review of the novel.

The 1952 novel, The Natural, was the first published novel by Bernard Malamud, a notable Jewish American 20th century author. It’s the story of a gifted baseball player, whose life takes a wrong turn and doesn’t work out the way he expected it to unfold.

Born and raised in Brooklyn, Malamud became a teenager at the beginning of the 1927 baseball season. It was the year that Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig led the New York Yankees to the pinnacle of success, winning the World Series and gaining recognition as the best baseball team ever for decades to come.

Babe Ruth was just one of the many real-life baseball stories that Malamud clearly drew from in writing The Natural. The lead character Roy Hobbs is loosely based on Eddie Waitkus, a major leaguer who played for the Cubs and Phillies. A misfortune suffered by Waitkus after being traded to Philadelphia serves as the basis for the turning point in Hobbs’ life. Both the Ruth and Waitkus parallels contribute to as dramatic an opening for a novel as any I’ve ever read.

There’s no doubt in this novel that Malamud loved baseball. His descriptions of games and a dramatic pennant race are epic. His prose is powerful, both when describing on-field or off-field events.

If, like me a few days ago, you have seen and loved the movie, but never read the book, you should now be wondering why I’m giving the novel merely a high B grade. What went wrong?

Well, Malamud’s love for baseball is apparent, but his love for humanity is in doubt. Most of the characters are unlikable, with Hobbs considered to be an example of the literary antihero.

While the 1984 film based on this novel has a generous amount of Whimsy, it’s all sucked out of the novel. What little Whimsy it might have had is reduced to naught by a generous amount of adults-only content, including lots of profanity and sex.

If you are saying to yourself that you aren’t a prude and adult content won’t bother you, fine. But let me point out that when the Whimsy goes, so does the fun, the joy, the happiness and the hope of the movie. What is left is a depressing tragedy with no light at the end of the tunnel.

All Dark, no Whimsy. That’s not my favorite stylistic choice in fiction, but it can be a powerful way to tell a story and a great way to deliver a serious message. I’m not sure that happens here.

Perhaps, one wonders, the author means the story as a bad example—a cautionary tale warning us to make better choices. Perhaps. There is some evidence that might be true. But most of the time, it comes across instead as a tale of despair, covered with a sports frosting. Life is horrible, and we are merely its victims, but at least we have baseball.

Tune in tomorrow for the review of the film, where, among other topics, I will go into how the screenplay adapters turned The Natural from a feel-bad book into a feel-good movie, while still staying faithful to the majority of the plot elements of the novel.

Onwards!

+ first read 2025-04-21, dK
+ ⏳🏆⚾😥

Family Suitability Detail
+ ❌3️⃣ Heavy adults-only content. | UN
+ 😡-1 😵‍💫-0 🤬-2 🤭-3 🫣-3

Judeo-Christian Values Detail
+ ⛔3️⃣ Very Poor/Heavily Unfavorable
+ ✝️ -4 ➖😐🗿🔮🤬🤬♂️♀️♀️
+ ✡️ -3 ➖😐🗿🔮🤬🫢🖤
+ 🗽 -2 ➖😐🗿🔮⏰

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

Updated for new review formatting 2025-09-16

A-^

Grade: A-^ (8.0) / HOF: 15
EQ 👍A | 📖A 👥A 📽️A+ 🎼A
DW 🕶️8.2 | 🌚10 🌝8
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R 💻⬇️1️⃣ 👀⬇️1️⃣ 🛐⬇️3️⃣

I am having a hard time thinking of a movie to compare with Romancing the Stone, other than its sequel Jewel of the Nile, which nearly everyone agrees isn’t as good.

It isn’t on the list of the all-time funniest movies, but it has plenty of funny moments. The romance in the movie is very good, and it can fairly be included in the rom-com genre, but it is not really typical of what you think of when you think of the rom-com genre.

That’s because it’s better described as a romantic comedy-adventure. How many of those can you think of? I’ll wait.

If you have some you can recommend, let me know in the Comments. I wish there were more. I thought of The Princess Bride and Stardust, but they are significantly different since they also fall in the fantasy genre.

Leave a comment

Let’s see, there’s The Great Race, but it mixes in so many genre parodies that it doesn’t really seem comparable either.

Of other good movies that come to my mind, The Gods Must Be Crazy might come the closest to being a non-fantasy romantic comedy-adventure, but I don’t include it in the romance or rom-com genre. It’s borderline. I say the romance in that film is a sweet, likeable sub-plot, but not significant enough to be considered part of its genre. It’s debatable.

The romance in Romancing the Stone is not debatable. It’s right there in the title. The main character, Joan Wilder, is a romance novelist, for crying out loud!

Wilder is played well by Kathleen Turner. She was excellent as a villainess in our most recent review, The Man With Two Brains, and here she gives a superb performance as the romantic heroine. We get to savor watching Turner ably portray the transformation in Joan Wilder’s character arc as the romance writer changes from a timid character who fantasizes about life into a courageous character who embraces life.

Joan is forced into her journey of change when her sister Elaine is taken hostage in Colombia. (Supposed Colombian scenes in the movie are all actually filmed in Mexico.) It’s all about a treasure map in Joan’s possession, pursued both by the two American antiquities smugglers holding Joan’s sister, and by a murderous officer in the Colombian secret police.

As the adventure unfolds, Joan meets Jack T. Colton, played by Michael Douglas. He’s a selfish American living in Colombia to try to save enough money by hunting and selling rare birds so that he can buy a sailboat and explore the world. Jack is in no way the unselfish romantic lead as found in one of Joan’s romance novels. Which, of course, is what makes the romancing in Romancing the Stone so much fun.

Yes, I do think that Romancing the Stone might be the best non-fantasy romantic comedy-adventure movie ever. But that is in large part due to the lack of competition. As much as this movie is a favorite of mine, and as much as I really wish I could give it the highest possible praise, it falls short of greatness in a few ways.

For example, the soundtrack is not bad, but nothing special.

Minor characters? One of the funniest bits in the film involves a great performance by Alfonso Arau as a drug smuggler. But on the other hand, I don’t even want to name the actress who played Joan’s sister. Not a good performance at all.

Danny DeVito plays one of the antiquities smugglers. He’s funnier than the other one, but it’s not one of his best performances.

As a fan of Dark Whimsy, this film had some of both, but would have benefitted from more Whimsy. It was funny, but could have been funnier. A well-meaning but trouble-causing kid interfering throughout the story, might have been a possible improvement, delivering both more comedy and also a Whimsical childlike perspective.

The biggest Whimsy fail though was the excessive adult language used in the film. They avoided an R-rating by avoiding the F-word, but the stream of other words was constant, and, for me, took the movie from a 9 to an 8 on the Whimsy Scale.

Common Sense Media astoundingly rates this film as acceptable for ages 12 and up. Sorry, but I wouldn’t want my teenager cursing like a drunken sailor who is tempered only slightly by suffering under a curse where there’s one word he’s not allowed to say.

The Motion Picture Association ratings board gave Romancing the Stone a PG-rating. A few months later, they added a PG-13 to the ratings possibilities, and had it been released later, that’s probably what this movie would have received—it pushes as close to the boundary of an R-rating as possible, without quite crossing over, in pretty much every type of adult content.

I say the language alone is enough to consider this film as appropriate for adults only. I might have grudgingly looked past that, but the violence, drug usage, sexual content and near nudity are all very, very close to adults-only content as well. So in my opinion, I can only recommend Romancing the Stone as an adults-only film, which also changes its designation in Rick Retro’s Realm from Dark Whimsy to Dark Whimzy.

I hope I’m not being too hard on this film. It may not be as good as it could have been, but it is very entertaining. (Sadly, first-time screenwriter Diane Thomas died in a car accident in 1985 and never had a chance to write something even better.) Romancing the Stone won the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy. And Turner won the Golden Globe for Best Actress, Musical or Comedy. If you are wondering whether or not you would enjoy it, the odds are good that you would.

Onwards!

+ last viewed (3) 2025-04-16, HDX7, 2.39, 2M
+ first viewed 1984, ThX, 2.39, 2
+ 💥🛡️🥰💘🥸

+ ❌1️⃣ Light adults-only content. | PGc
+ 😡-0 😵‍💫-0 🤬-2^ 🤭-0 🫣-0

+ 👀⬇️1️⃣ ➖(😍🗿)
+ ✝️ -1 ➕❤️ ➖🤬👙💉
+ ✡️ -1 ➕🤍 ➖🤬🫢
+ 🗽 -1 ➖(💲)

Last updated 2025-04-17

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

A-^

Grade: A-^ (8.0) / HOF: 15
EQ 👍A | 📖A 👥A+ 📽️A 🎼A
DW 🕶️8.4 | 🌚11 🌝8
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R 💻⬇️1️⃣ 👀⬇️1️⃣ 🛐⬇️3️⃣

When it comes to the 1983 film The Man With Two Brains, I’m a man of two brains minds.

On the one brain mind hand, I really want to love it and recommend it to everyone. It’s a favorite of mine, despite itself. After Planes, Trains and Automobiles, it’s arguably Steve Martin’s next-funniest movie and has Dark Whimsy written all over it.

On the other brain mind hand, it could have been so much better. But before I get into that, let me tell you a little bit more about the movie and what it gets right.

The Man With Two Brains is a spoof of old 1950s-style mad scientist movies, complete with brains in jars and minds in the wrong bodies. Directed by Carl Reiner, who shares writing credits with Martin and George Gipe, the movie delivers plenty of funny lines and sight gags, while Martin’s acting in the film brings lots of his trademark physical comedy.

Martin plays Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr, a widower and brilliant brain surgeon, longing to find a new lifelong love.

Instead, he meets Dolores Benedict, well-played by Kathleen Turner. She’s a gold digger who seduces and marries wealthy men, then delights in cheating on them and mentally torturing them for a while, before she offs them for their money.

I won’t go further into the story, as this is a no-spoilers zone, but I’m sure you can see the potential for humorous conflict here!

Trivia note: Sissy Spacek is very good as the uncredited voice of Anne Uumellmahaye, a character whom I won’t say more about, because, no spoilers.

Now the next portion of this review is about my coined genre, Dark Whimsy, what it is, and why I like it so much. I really need to put this in an essay of its own, but I haven’t yet, and this is a great film to use to illustrate some of my thoughts about Dark Whimsy.

Dark Whimsy is a blending of dark fears like death and horror with childish impulses like laughter and fantasy. It’s popular in fiction for children, because it helps to make the worst realities of life less scary. In other words, Dark Whimsy can help prepare kids for growing up.

Dark Whimsy is less popular with adults. Some people don’t want to face anything unpleasant ever, even when it is lightened with Whimsy. Other people don’t care for the Whimsy, considering it too childish for a mature adult to enjoy.

I disagree. At its core, Dark Whimsy is about Darkness vs. Light, Bad Things vs. Good Things, Evil vs. Innocence, Despair vs. Joy. I believe Dark Whimsy in storytelling can not only be highly entertaining, but also a force for good in the world, and is highly consistent with my Christian worldview.

You can read about how I measure Dark Whimsy here. But let’s look at The Man With Two Brains as an example.

On the Dark Scale, this film has plenty of mayhem and death, up to even several murders. We have monsters, not just Dolores, but also a mad scientist, Dr. Alfred Necessiter, played by David Warner. We even have plenty of scenes with a Dark mood, many in a creepy dungeon-style environment.

On the Whimsy Scale, we start with all the humor, much of which is delightfully childish. So while we have much mirth, we’re mostly missing the munchkins, excepting for a very funny scene near the start of the film involving a little girl. We do make up for that with some magic, including mysterious telepathy and magical moments of music and romance. And that dungeon-style setting brings not only a Dark mood, but also a Whimsical one.

So where does The Man With Two Brains go wrong?

It could have been a Dark Whimsy masterpiece. I designate works that score very high on both the Dark and Whimsy Scales as Pure Dark Whimsy, and this film could have received that designation, had it been done right.

But adult creators sometimes blend in adults-only topics into their works. This decreases Whimsy by reducing its childlike innocence. (Ironically, it’s kind of immature to do this, as it is usually brought to us by male creators who are still behaving like young boys losing their innocence and giggling at obscene language and dirty jokes, while openly ogling anyone or anything wearing a skirt.) I call works like this Dark Whimzy, because the Whimsy is twisted a bit.

The Man With Two Brains makes this mistake. It is absolutely for adults only, containing adult language, adults-only sexual situations and humor, and some nudity. If you love Dark Whimsy and don’t mind adult content mixed in, I guess this movie is for you. If you love Dark Whimsy and do mind adult content mixed in, then, like me, you will probably be of two brains minds about this film.

You see, I think that the incongruity of true Whimsy and this type of adult material is unconsciously felt by most viewers. Where Dark Whimsy is a symbiosis, the phrase “adult whimsy” is an oxymoron. Thus I coined the word “Whimzy” and I have come to believe that this dissonance weakens works that might otherwise have been great.

In this case I gave a 🕶️8.4 | 🌚11 🌝8 to a movie which could have instead been a 😎😎10.1 | 🌚11 🌝10.

And I haven’t even delved into the topic of nudity in film, which I consider to be a far more problematic issue than other adult content. That’s a conversation for later.

In the end, I’m generously giving The Man With Two Brains an A-minus for its non-stop laughs. It really is funny, but for your guidance, I’d say about 75 percent of the humor is clean, while the remaining 25 percent is not. If they had made it a film for all audiences, it could have earned my A-plus rating, and a recommendation without reservations.

Onwards!

Share Retro Movie Reviews

+ last viewed (4) 2025-04-13, HDX7, 1.85v, 1D
+ first viewed 1983, ThX, 1.85, 1
+ 🪐🌎⚛️⚕️💘🌑🥸😛

+ ❌1️⃣ Light adults-only content. | R
+ 😡+0 😵‍💫+0 🤬-1 🤭-2^ 🫣-1

+ 👀⬇️1️⃣ ➖🗿
+ ✝️ -2 ➖🩳👙👙
+ ✡️ -1 ➖🤬(🌓🖤)
+ 🗽 -0 ➖(🤎)

Last updated 2025-04-14

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

A+^

Family Suitability
+ ⚠️0️⃣ Problematic for teens and sensitive adults. | PGc

Alignment with Judeo-Christian Values
+ ❎0️⃣ Neutral (No clear values of any type or ⚠️ includes both negative messages and positive messages, which balance out.)

+ 1️⃣/2 works in Tootsie multiverse ⭐

Grade: A+^ (20.0) / HOF: 90
EQ 👍A+ | 📖A+ 👥A+ 📽️A 🎼A+
DW 😎7.6 | 🌚7 🌝9
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R ☮️n/a ◀️n/a ▶️n/a 🛐n/a

Tootsie (1982)

Michael Dorsey has a problem. He’s a great character actor living in New York City in the prime of his career, but he’s difficult to work with, so no one will hire him.

He solves his problem by putting on a dress, taking on the identity of actress Dorothy Michaels, and landing a part on a daytime TV soap opera. That’s when his problems really begin!

Tootsie is one of the funniest romantic comedies ever, delivering killer lines, hysterical situations and maybe the best satirical climactic monologue in cinematic history.

The cast of Tootsie is stellar. Dustin Hoffman excels as Michael/Dorothy. Jessica Lange, Teri Garr, Dabney Coleman, Charles Durning, Bill Murray and Geena Davis, all well known in the 80s, contribute greatly.

And producer/director Sydney Pollack, who deserves much credit for all the fantastic performances, even has a role as well, playing the part of Michael’s long-suffering agent.

Tootsie was nominated for ten Academy Awards, although only Jessica Lange took home an Oscar, winning Best Supporting Actress.

The theme song “It Might Be You” with music by Dave Grusin and performed by Stephen Bishop, received one of the ten Oscar nominations and hit #1 on the Billboard Adult Contemporary chart in 1983. The soundtrack album for Tootsie remains a favorite of mine forty-plus years later.

While the comedy and music of Tootsie are both top-class, the movie delivers much more than that, making it one of my favorite films ever.

I was a drama major in college when it was first released, and Hoffman’s performance is a masterpiece of acting, while the film is both a gentle satire of the acting community and a generous gift to the acting community.

Beyond even that connection with the film, my first viewing of Tootsie was during one of the loneliest times of my life. Underlying all the comedy of Tootsie, there is an undercurrent of romantic loneliness.

But the movie gives us hope. Yes, it makes us laugh when it illustrates bad behavior by both sexes that sabotages our chances of finding romance. But it makes us better when it promotes unselfishness and honesty as the right answers to loneliness.

And Tootsie does all this, delivering comedy and meaning, always with perfect authenticity. It understands that the differences between men and women are real, not cosmetic, and are worth celebrating.

Did you know that Dustin Hoffman didn’t view Tootsie as a comedy? Take three minutes to watch this interview where he explains why. Then if you’ve never seen Tootsie, move it to the top of your list. If you have seen it, trust me, it gets better with each viewing!

Onwards!

+ last viewed (5) 2025-04-08, HDX7, 2.39, 1M
+ first viewed 1982, ThX, 2.39, 1
+ 🥰💘😏😥🥸😛🎭🤩📺

Family Suitability Detail
+ ⚠️0️⃣ Problematic for teens and sensitive adults. | PGc
+ 😡+2 😵‍💫-0 🤬-1^ 🤭-0 🫣-0

Judeo-Christian Values Detail
+ ❎0️⃣ Neutral (No clear values of any type or ⚠️ includes both negative messages and positive messages, which balance out.)
+ ✝️ +1 ➕😇💜💜🩷 ➖(😐)🤬(👙)
+ ✡️ -0 ➕🤍 ➖(😐🌓🫢)
+ 🗽 -0 ➖(😐💻)

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

Updated for new review formatting 2025-08-27

A ^

Family Suitability
+ ✅1️⃣ Mostly OK for teens and adults. (Grades 10+) ⚠️Might be considered inappropriate for sensitive teens and adults. | PGc

Alignment with Judeo-Christian Values
+ ⛔1️⃣ Subpar/Slightly Unfavorable

+ ?/? works in Star Wars multiverse⭐
+ 1️⃣/4 works in E.T. franchise⭐
+ 1️⃣/2 works in E.T. video series⭐

Grade: A ^ (12.0) / HOF: 30
EQ 👍A+ | 📖A 👥A+ 📽️A+ 🎼A
DW 😎😎10.4 | 🌚10 🌝11
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R ☮️n/a ◀️n/a ▶️n/a 🛐n/a

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

In 1983, I was probably one of the last people to see E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial in a movie theater at the end of its first run. It hit American theaters on June 11, 1982, and topped the box office charts for six straight weeks, ending up at #1 for sixteen weeks by the end of its long run.

I first saw this classic early in its 1982 summer release and thoroughly loved it. It was an easy A+ in my book.

In the fall of 1982 I moved out from my parents house to be closer to the university I had been commuting to for three years. Turned out to be a good move—by Spring 1983 I had a girlfriend for the first time.

But here’s the problem: she hadn’t seen E.T.! She was out of the country on a summer mission in 1982, and now that she was back, she desperately wanted to see the movie. I learned this on the last day that the film was going to be in theaters, when she showed me a newspaper article indicating it was her last chance, and proclaimed to me her need to see it that very night.

It was over forty years ago, so the details are fuzzy. But if I recall correctly it wasn’t showing in very many theaters by that time, nearly a year after the initial release. We went to the closest one and settled in to enjoy the film. The projector broke a few minutes in. We scoured the newspaper listings and only found one late night showing miles and miles away, but we barely made it, and being on the west coast of the USA, were probably in the last audience of the movie’s first run.

Now I didn’t share that story just to bore you with details of my past that you aren’t interested in, and I apologize if you did find that a little mundane. There’s a point, er, method, to my madness: This movie was BIG. It broke the record held by Star Wars as the highest-grossing film ever, and held the record for ten years until Jurassic Park took over.

Also, I share this story to point out that my second viewing in no way diminished my opinion that E.T. was an all-time great film. It was still very much an A+ in my book.

Somehow E.T. didn’t take home the Oscar for Best Picture, surprisingly losing to Gandhi, another weird little creature. But it did win Oscars for Original Score, Sound, Sound Effects Editing and Visual Effects. It won Golden Globes for Best Picture (Drama) and Best Original Score. It won Saturn Awards for Best Science Fiction Film, Best Writing, Best Special Effects and Best Music.

The accolades didn’t stop after the initial run. Over the decades E.T. has been prominently placed on all sorts of all-time best lists, as high as the fifth best movie ever, second best science fiction movie and very best family film. (Those rankings and more are mentioned here.)

With all that in mind, can you imagine how surprised and disappointed I was when, to write this review, I watched E.T. again for the first time in forty years and didn’t like it as much as I originally did?

For the few of you who might be reading that have never seen the film, it’s about a little space alien, accidentally left behind by his fellow aliens after a visit to Earth. He’s befriended by a young boy, but pursued by shady agents of the US Government.

The animatronic alien puppet that was E.T. managed to be simultaneously one of the ugliest, yet cutest, creatures ever seen on film and was unquestionably a major reason for the success of the film.

But credit for the emotional success of the film should also be given to director Steven Spielberg, one of the rare directors with a skill in drawing great performances out of child actors. In this case it’s Henry Thomas as E.T.’s friend Elliott, and Drew Barrymore as Elliott’s little sister, Gertie, who are exceptionally good.

Dee Wallace as the children’s single mother is also outstanding, delivering a powerful pro-marriage, pro-family performance by portraying the personal devastation of spousal abandonment, while subtler moments in the film show the impact of paternal betrayal on the kids.

This movie is good in so many ways—funny, suspenseful, thrilling, inspiring, and a tear-jerker to boot. So what went wrong with my 2025 viewing of E.T.? Why did it lose a bit of the wonder and charm it delivered to me before?

Well, even though the John Williams score is highly praised and won awards, it just isn’t one of my favorites as far as John Williams scores go. But then it never was, so that’s not the answer.

I considered that watching at home is never as good as watching on a big theater screen. But my TV has an 84" diagonal, and that has always been enough for me to fully appreciate other films with epic visuals. So that can’t be it either.

Eventually, I realized that there were three significant factors that contributed to the loss of wonder and charm this time around.

I won’t discuss one of the three factors here, because it involves spoilers and politics, a couple of things I prefer to minimize in my main reviews. I will elaborate a little in the chat for this film, where such topics are more appropriate.

A second factor is the adult language. As a young adult in my twenties, I didn’t think twice, care about, or really notice adult language much, unless it was excessive. The language in E.T. is not excessive, for adults. There aren’t a lot of inappropriate words in the film, but if I was a parent of teenagers, I wouldn’t want them using the handful of words that are there.

And it’s teenagers that use the words in the film, compounding the problem by tacit approval. It’s really a shame that a film considered one of the all-time great family movies contains such language, because it isn’t necessary. One could argue that it helps show the damage caused by the missing father, but that’s a weak argument when that point would be completely lost on the viewing teenager who just sees other teens acting cool.

While those two factors combine to lower my grade for E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial from a solid A+ down to a high A, it is the third factor that saddens me the most.

E.T. isn’t unique anymore. We had never seen anything like him on film before. Wonderful and charming aren’t big enough words to convey the emotional impact of that little animatronic puppet.

Decades later we have seen hundreds of similar creatures and critters. For better or worse, CGI surpasses 1980s practical special effects. We’ve been charmed by so very many characters now that E.T. is just one in a crowd.

I give full credit to Spielberg and writer Melissa Mathison for the groundbreaking nature of their magical character. But the sad truth is that, today, anyone seeing E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial for the very first time is not likely to experience as much wonder and charm as we did forty years ago. E.T., both the movie and the character, just isn’t as special anymore.

Am I wrong? Feel free to argue with me in the comments!

Leave a comment

Onwards!

+ last viewed (3) 2025-04-04, HDX7, 1.85v, 2M
+ first viewed 1982, ThX, 1.85, 2
+ 👨‍👩‍👧‍👦🎈🎃🪐🌎👽🛡️

Family Suitability Detail
+ ✅1️⃣ Mostly OK for teens and adults. (Grades 10+) ⚠️Might be considered inappropriate for sensitive teens and adults. | PGc
+ 😡+3 😵‍💫+2 🤬+1 🤭+3 🫣+3

Judeo-Christian Values Detail
+ ⛔1️⃣ Subpar/Slightly Unfavorable
+ ✝️ +1 ➕❤️❤️💒🩸➖🗿♻️
+ ✡️ -1 ➕🤍 ➖🗿♻️🤬
+ 🗽 -2 ➖🗿♻️💻🇺🇳☠️

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

Updated for new review formatting 2025-08-27

A+>

Family Suitability
+ ⚠️0️⃣ Problematic for teens and sensitive adults. | PGc

Alignment with Judeo-Christian Values
+ ❎0️⃣ Neutral (No clear values of any type or ⚠️ includes both negative messages and positive messages, which balance out.)

+ 1️⃣/6 films in Arthur (1981) multiverse 🔜⭐
+ 1️⃣/2 films in Arthur (1981) series ⭐

Grade: A+> (20.0) / HOF: 90
EQ 👍A+ | 📖A+ 👥A+ 📽️A 🎼A+
DW 😎9.7 | 🌚9 🌝11
POPCAP 💯n/a 🍿n/a 🧢n/a
L-R ☮️n/a ◀️n/a ▶️n/a 🛐n/a

Arthur (1981)

When you say that a movie contains non-stop laughs, you’re usually referring to the effect its comedy has on the audience. In the case of the 1981 film Arthur, you could also be referring to the title character, Arthur Bach, who laughs at life, the universe, and everything, including most of all, his own jokes.

Arthur's laughter is contagious and the film has been as high as #10 on lists of the funniest films. Audiences at the time must have been infected with the laughter, as the movie was the fourth-highest grossing film of 1981. It won a Golden Globe for Best Picture, Musical or Comedy. Dudley Moore as Arthur and Sir John Gielgud as his butler, Hobson, won Golden Globes for Best Actor, Musical or Comedy, and Best Supporting Actor, respectively. Moore also received an Oscar nomination for Best Actor, while Gielgud got both the Oscar nomination and the win for Best Supporting Actor.

These two actors both delivered hilarious performances in Arthur.

Moore as Arthur Bach is a spoiled wealthy Manhattan playboy, an heir to nearly a billion dollars, who is nearly always drunk. His drunken antics and unfiltered comments provide much of the humor in the film.

Gielgud as the butler, Hobson, provides most of the rest of the comedy. He is Arthur’s best friend and father figure, and also provides a running commentary. But instead of laughing at his own jokes, Hobson is a snob, delivering biting insults and an occasional obscenity with a deadpan delivery and a proper, upper-crust British accent.

Now I normally wouldn’t recommend a film that derives much of its humor from drunkenness and a bad word here and there. But Arthur is so much more than its humor. Its positive messages and feel-good charm balance and even outweigh the borderline content. Arthur is a film about love, romantic and familial, and about a boy becoming a man.

I was just twenty years old when I first saw this movie, and I hadn’t really experienced either type of love all that much. Certainly I was only beginning to learn about being a grown-up. So Arthur touched me to my core.

Liza Minnelli plays Linda Marolla, a waitress from Queens, and Arthur’s love interest in this romantic comedy. Unfortunately, Arthur’s family will disinherit him if he doesn’t follow through on a pre-arranged marriage with a different woman. This conflict provides the opportunity for some good screwball comedy hijinks, but also the moments of drama where Arthur must confront his own immaturity.

These dramatic moments, played to perfection by Moore and Gielgud, are the frosting on their comedic cakes that earned them their deserved awards. Laughs are great, but the ability to portray serious human emotions under difficult circumstances resonate with audiences and earn awards for capable actors.

Writer/director Steve Gordon also received nominations and awards for his screenplay. I’m at a loss as to why his directing was not equally honored, because the consistently good performances of minor characters throughout the film speak to some directorial prowess. Sadly, Arthur was the only feature film he ever directed, passing away from a heart attack in 1982 at the young age of 44.

While Gordon’s screenplay received an Academy Award nomination, but didn’t win the Oscar, Gielgud was not the only winner from Arthur on Oscar night. The Oscar for Best Original Song was claimed by “Arthur’s Theme (Best That You Can Do)”. Performed and co-written by Christopher Cross, it also won the Golden Globe in the same category, and spent three weeks as the #1 song on the Billboard Hot 100.

Composer/songwriter Burt Bacharach was another co-writer of that hit song, and also was responsible for the excellent original score that helped shape the audience’s emotional response to the film.

Bacharach was the writer of every track on Arthur: The Album, which was one of the first vinyl albums in my short-lived collection after I moved out of my parents’ house in college. The advent of CDs put vinyl records into a long hibernation a few years later, but this soundtrack remains one of my favorite soundtrack albums. The music in the album brings up warm memories for me, and I’m listening to it on Spotify while I write this review!

Can you tell I really love this movie? It’s arguably the funniest romcom ever, and unarguably a joyful celebration of love, both romantic and generational. It was a huge hit in 1981, but seems largely forgotten today. I almost never see or hear it brought up, even when movie-lovers are discussing great older films. Maybe the critical and commercial failures of a 1988 sequel and a 2011 remake have something to do with this. Who knows?

Nevertheless, whether you are a younger movie-lover born after Arthur made its debut, or an older one who simply missed it in the 80s, the laughter and love found in Arthur should put it high on your “Must See” list.

Onwards!

+ last viewed (4) 2025-03-31, HDX7, 1.85v, 1D
+ first viewed 1981, ThX, 1.85, 1
+ 🥰💘🥸🤪

Family Suitability Detail
+ ⚠️0️⃣ Problematic for teens and sensitive adults. | PGc
+ 😡+2 😵‍💫-0 🤬-0 🤭-0 🫣-0

Judeo-Christian Values Detail
+ ❎0️⃣ Neutral (No clear values of any type or ⚠️ includes both negative messages and positive messages, which balance out.)
+ ✝️ +2 ➕😇❤️❤️💒🩸💜💜🥴 ➖(😍)🤬🍺🍺🍺
+ ✡️ -0 ➕(🌗)🤍 ➖(😍🤬🌓🤑)
+ 🗽 -1 ➖(😍)💲

Please do not include spoilers in the comments.
Spoilers are permitted in the Chat for this work.

⬅️Previous (all sections) | Next (all sections) ➡️

Updated for new review formatting 2025-08-27