Fond Memories of Childhood Movies

Some movies do not age well.  They seem fine for their time, but after a while they become horribly dated.  After all, everything that was cool and trendy in the 80's is universally regarded to be terribly bad.  So there are some movies that were cool or on the cutting edge then, but now are as wonderful as leg warmers.

And then there are movies that have never been good, but that I loved when I was a child.  Let's be frank, shall we?  We all loved some really awful things as children.  In my childhood things like Care Bears and He-Man were popular.  He-Man is about a guy who lives in a technologically advanced world but fights with swords, who wields space magic to be immensely strong and explore the cosmos.  Basically, it is Conan the Barbarian meets Buck Rodgers.  Terrible idea.  And yet every boy of my generation thought it was the greatest thing ever.

Here's the issue: I have so many wonderful memories from my childhood.  Included in those memories are favorite movies that I would repeatedly watch over and over.  I loved those movies.  Yet looking back through the murky fog of my memory I wonder about the quality of those films.  I mean, did you ever get the opportunity to watch a movie you simply loved as a kid, only to spend your time aghast, wondering how this movie got to be so bad?

I had that experience with Superman II.  I adored all the Superman movies as a kid (except #4, I think I knew how terrible that one was even as a child) and would watch them countless times.  I remember loving especially #2, with the epic showdown between Supes and General Zod.  Then I watched it again when I was about 24.  Somehow, Superman II became full of terrible dialogue, questionable acting, poor pacing, and bad overall direction (I know now the powers-that-be replaced Richard Donner before he had a chance even to finish filming).  Someone replaced the dreaded bad guys from my memory of the movie with guys who just posed a lot and told us they were bad guys.  Something about my childhood died the day I rewatched Superman II.

With such a bad experience I am absolutely loath to watch more of my favorites from my younger years.  I'm staying away from Superman III.  I loved Transformers: The Movie (the animated one).  I hear some people say it's not that bad, but do I risk it?  There was another that I loved called The Last Electric Knight (I think that was the full title).  It was some kung fu kid beating up bad guys.  THAT one I'm positive would be painful to watch now.

But my absolute favorite movie as a kid was called Ewoks: The Battle for Endor.  I loved it.  It was a straight-to-TV movie in 1985 about a kid, an old guy, some Ewoks, an alien army with their witch, and some cross between The Flash and an Ewok.

In other words, this movie has "annoying" written all over it.  How bad is it?  I point to exhibit A, the poster for the movie:

Just look at this horrible, horrible artwork.  Look at that.  You can never un-see something that bad.



This is a movie that forgets that the Ewoks don't even live on Endor -they live on the forest moon of Endor.  EVERYONE knows this!




The plot, so far as I can remember, is that the kid is stranded on Endor (really the forest moon) after his parents are killed by bad guys.  The kid is helped by Ewoks and some old dude and the aforementioned giant speedy rodent.  They steal a power source that the bad guys think is magic, fix a broken ship and have a happy ending after a brutal final "defend the alamo" type of showdown.

Of course, I'm sure that none of those elements are nearly so good as they are in my memory.  If I think hard enough I can almost discern very terribly awful acting.  I also seem to remember the Ewoks talking, which simply cannot be a good sign.

I remember enjoying this show so much it still brings happy feelings.  Why should I spoil that by watching this abomination again today?  I think I'll just keep the good memories and stay away.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

"They send you here for life, and that's exactly what they take."

The Shawshank Redemption is the story of Andy Dufrane (Tim Robbins), a man sent to prison for life for the murder of his wife and her lover.  He maintains his innocence, but hey, who doesn't in Shawshank prison?  Only Red (Morgan Freeman) freely admits to his crime -he is the "only guilty man in Shawshank."  As the story goes, Red and Andy strike up a friendship, pass the time, find work to do, and deal with both guards and dangerous inmates.

But of course, there is much more than that.  (as a fair warning, I'll be spoiling absolutely everything about the plot in this review.)

Shawshank is a story about life.  Sure, it all takes place in a prison, but really the movie is about the human condition and our need for redemption.  We may not be trapped by stone walls, but we are all trapped on this earth.  In many ways we on the "outside" are not more free than those on the "inside."  Ultimately, our basic problem is the same -in a world of pain and hurt, where there does not appear to be the possibility of anything better coming down the line, is there any reason for hope?

Andy Dufrane, after a compellingly beautiful rebellion against the powers-that-be, gets thrown in solitary for a while.  Upon emerging and cheerfully greeting his friends, they ask him why he can do time in "the hole" so happily.  He replies that he has something deep in him that sustains him.  He urges them not to forget that "There are places in this world that aren't made of stone.  That there's something inside they can't get to, that they can't touch!  That's yours."  To this, Red replies, "What are you talking about?"  Andy: "Hope." Red scathingly replies: "Let me tell you something my friend, hope is a dangerous thing.  Hope can drive a man insane."

Here we have the core of the movie: do we hold onto hope, or do we become institutionalized?  Do we anticipate a day of freedom to come, or do we begin to get used to our prison?  Do we desire to leave the prison, or has our walled world become home?

Brooks, the old man of the prison, is the great example of the institutionalized man.  Through his experience we the audience see the horror of the man who, having spent the chief portion of his life in Shawshank prison, is forced to leave and rejoin society.  But how can he rejoin society?  It is a world he doesn't understand, a world he left far behind.  His only home is Shawshank, and he considers re-offending just to get back.  He faces a stark truth -he is unable to go home to what is comfortable, yet unable to fit in on the "outside."  He is free, but prefers the cage.  That's institutionalized.  Is it possible to think that this "institutionalization" process can happen to us as well?  What if we are made for another world, yet because of our crimes we are trapped in the prison of this one instead?  What if we come to accept our cage, then come to depend on it, then come to love it?  What if we get to that point where we are unable to imagine that we even could live in true freedom?

That's the need we have for redemption.  Without it, even freedom is captivity and a horror.  Without redemption, heaven becomes our hell.  It's just too much for Brooks; unable to handle freedom he commits suicide.

And then the parallels start stacking up, and we realize that this movie is really about Red, and not about Andy ("Red" is spelled with the first three letters of "redemption" after all).  Red is also a lifer, a guilty man who has a hard time remembering life outside Shawshank prison.  He needs redemption, a reason to live, not just exist, even if he never leaves the confines of those stone walls.  That's where Andy comes in.  Andy brings the possibility of redemption, and the good news that all the condemned men might still have hope.

Since redemption is such an important plot element in literature and film, there is often a character who represents a type of Jesus Christ.  Andy is that character in The Shawshank Redemption.  He is an innocent man who enters the world of the condemned.  He suffers as a condemned man, though he is innocent.  He performs "miracles," bestowing favors and tastes of the free world on those who are still inside.  He pulls together a band of disciples, teaches them of the outside world again, and after his "death" and (SPOILER!! but you've been warned) "resurrection" those disciples tell and retell his stories.  And all he asks from his disciples is that they have faith, and keep hope alive.

So when Red is finally released on parole, we are left to wonder if he will follow the footsteps of Andy, or the footsteps of Brooks.  Andy has invited him to travel to Mexico, to a town on the Pacific named Zihuatanejo, and find him there.  What will Red choose?  Will he have found redemption, or despair?  The final monologue of the film, narrated by Red, are among the most beautiful lines that I know of in film:  "I find I'm so excited I can barely sit still or hold a thought in my head!  I think it's the excitement only a free man can feel, a free man at the start of a long journey whose conclusion is uncertain.  I hope I can make it across the border.  I hope to see my friend and shake his hand.  I hope the Pacific is as blue as it has been in  my dreams."

"I Hope."

Those last two words of the movie resound with meaning.  It has been quite the journey, and not an easy one. But Red has found redemption.

Now, it needs to be said that this movie deserves its "R" rating.  The sheer volume of vulgar language is astounding.  Furthermore, it deals head-on with such uncomfortable prison themes like homosexual rape, brutality, corruption, and suicide.  The main antagonist is a man who spouts Christian lingo and Bible verses, while all the time hypocritically acting in an antichrist way.  I wish I could unreservedly recommend it, but the content of the film makes that impossible.  However, even such content does lend power to the film's resolution.

This is a movie exceptionally well put together, with hardly a line or moment out of place.  It has so much that is memorable, so much that is inspiring, and an ending you'll never forget.  Along with Red, the audience is taken from walls of stone to a limitless horizon at the ocean.  Like Red, we long for the Pacific.  We long for a place with no memory, a place of true freedom, a place where our Savior has gone to prepare a place for us.

Entertainment:  7/10
Artistic Value: 10/10
Technical Merit: 8/10

Overall:  9.5/10

Remakes and Movies Worth Making

Right now I'm reading through Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities.  I'm again astonished at how wonderfully tight, personal, and yet epic in scope the plot of this novel is.  Really, it ought to be a great movie, but there hasn't been a serious attempt to film it in decades, and certainly no definitive version.  I'd love to see a big budget movie that deals reverently with the source material and gets this story right.

What we certainly don't need is Hollywood making new versions of movies that have already been done right.  Hollywood is reportedly remaking Rebecca, which Hitchcock adapted masterfully in 1940.  It needs no remake, it just needs modern audiences to get over their phobia of black and white film.  Worse, there is also a My Fair Lady remake in pre-production.  Tell me honestly, what can they possibly improve on?  How could this remake even remotely be better than the 1964 classic with Rex Harrison and Audrey Hepburn?  (aside from the decision to dub Hepburn's singing voice, I can't name a single flaw in the first My Fair Lady.)  Some movies just plain should NEVER be remade, and My Fair Lady is one of them.

Could you imagine a remake of Citizen Kane?  The idea is nigh unto blasphemy! (ok, not quite that far!)  How about Casablanca?  The Godfather?

But for all my indignation at the whole concept of remakes, I have to admit there are times when a remake is a good idea.  The 1959 Charlton Heston classic Ben-Hur is technically a remake; the story had first been very successfully filmed in 1925.  However, that version was silent, and limited by the techniques and technology of its age.  By 1959 they had the technology, the know-how, and the budget, to give the story the enormously epic treatment it deserved.  That was a remake worth making.

So Here's The Question:
Are there old movies that Hollywood really SHOULD remake?

I've got perhaps one or two:
-Godzilla.  Now understand: the original (Japanese) is a classic that is amazingly influential.  But it hasn't aged well as a film.  The special effects were amazing in its day, but now it just looks like a guy in a rubber suit stomping on models.  Plus, they (SPOILER ALERT!) kill it with an "oxygen exploder."   I swear I'm not making that up.  Time for a good remake.  The Matthew Broderick version doesn't count, 'cause I said a "good" remake.  And believe it or not, there is one scheduled for release in 2014.  We'll see if it's good.

-Metropolis.  This is a classic silent film that simply set all kinds of trends for science fiction.  But it is a stinkin' long film (153 minutes of no talking is LONG) that feels every bit as long as it is, with groundbreaking yet questionable special effects.  Time for an update with sound.

So what do you think?  Are there remakes that ought to happen?

Red Tails (2012)

The story of the Tuskegee airmen needs to be told.  It is the inspiring true story of a segregated group of black pilots and ground crew who rose above prejudice and racial politics to become one of the most celebrated and decorated air units in World War 2.  This story needs to be told.

But the story needs to be told much better than it is in the movie Red Tails.  Simply put, Red Tails is beyond disappointing, combining poor writing and some of the worst acting I've seen in a long time.  Ultimately the blame for such a horrible movie falls on the director, Anthony Hemmingway, and by extension also upon the producers, including George Lucas.

The story here, being that it is based on history, is overall not bad.  They managed to focus on a good selection of the air squadron, distilling many stories into just a few characters that we could easily follow.  The problem was the execution.  Much of the writing was very poor, particularly individual lines.  Compounded upon that was the fact that the lines were then delivered so terribly it was unbearable to watch.  Lines like "I sure hope those red tails are with us again tomorrow" are bad enough (in context).  That the line is read in such a way that a high school drama seems better is just embarrassing.  Not even Cuba Gooding Jr. and Terrence Howard -two perfectly decent actors in their own right -could turn in good performances.  They just are not given much to work with, and the directing is so obviously bad they must have spend most of the time feeling underused.

It's been a while since Hollywood put out a good WW2 dogfighting film, so most of the flying stuff felt fun and lively.  There was once or twice that the visuals just didn't seem very good, but overall the dogfighting was the best part of the film.

I watched Red Tails hoping for something like a cross between Glory and Twelve O'Clock High. What I got instead was a hopeless mess with a lot of expensive sparkle.  Maybe someday the Tuskegee airmen will get the film tribute they deserve.  It just hasn't happened yet.

Entertainment: 3/10
Artistic Value: 4/10
Technical merit: 3/10

Overall: 3/10