Ever After: A Cinderella Story (1998)

Image by 20th Century Fox via IMDB

Hello again my friends, sorry for the super late posting. I woke up Friday feeling like I was hungover, migraine and stomach pains. Only problem was, I didn't drink the night before. Has that ever happen to you? Awful, isn't it? Anyway, I was sick Friday, recovering and working this weekend, then hit with a return of the stomach pains yesterday. But here's the latest review! Thanks for your patience! I appreciate you readers out there!

So we're back in 1998. What was so bad about 1998? Everything. But the summer wasn't too bad. When this movie came out at the end of July, I was getting close to losing my second grandmother of the year. My Dad's mom had already passed and my Mom's mom would go in October. My Mother, brother, and I, may have already been in Southern California at this point though, visiting long term to take care of my Grandmother. We were there for a few months taking care of her. It was my job to watch my brother and try to keep my sanity. Last thing you want to do at 15 is be away from home for the majority of the year, watching people you care about slowly get sicker and die. In fact, I'm pretty sure were were in SoCal by the time the movie I'm reviewing came out. If memory serves, I was only back in CA for a matter of weeks before leaving to be with my Grandmother in Riverside County, which is a little past LA. I remember seeing print ads in newspapers for this Ever After movie when it was released, but never watched it until a few nights ago on HBO streaming.

Classic and iconic.

Image by 20th Century Fox via IMDB

Ever After was released on July 31, 1998, and was a pretty unique piece for it's time. There have been dozens of versions of Cinderella over the years. Hell, this is the third Cinders movie of the 90s. Not counting the Japanese anime series that also came out in the same decade. What really makes this movie unique though is the setting. Instead of a musical or a fairytale with supernatural elements, this is presented as straight up realistic historical fiction. Many of the characters are loosely based on real historical figures in 1500s France. That easily makes this version stand out from others.

The core of the plot should be familiar to anyone who has seen at least one version of Cinderella. Drew Barrymore plays Cinders (or Danielle de Barbarac in this movie,  Cinderella is a nickname). Cinderella's life is forever changed when she gets a new, wicked stepmother, the wonderfully evil Anjelica Huston. Megan Dodds and Melanie Lynskey play the two wicked stepsisters. Cinderella is forced into being a servant for her step family, until she has a chance to go to a Royal Ball, wearing glass slippers, and potentially win the heart of the Prince (in this version, Dougray Scott as Crown Prince Henry). They fall in love, but sadly, Cinders has to leave the ball abruptly. She loses a slipper which leads to the Prince deciding he has to go and find her. He finds her, puts the glass slipper on her foot, and they live Happily Ever After.

All I could think of was: "Excuse me! I'm trying to conduct a wedding here which has nothing to do with love, so please be quiet!"

Image by 20th Century Fox via IMDB

That's the core of the story in Ever After. But it's all the details that make it different. For instance, there are no fairy godmothers. No coach that turns into a pumpkin at midnight. Not only is it loosely based on real history, but it also addresses many social issues in regards to feminism and class struggle. The barriers between social standings, especially with education, are a core theme of the movie. Also, we get a great example of the Self Rescuing Princess story theme. Barrymore gets herself out of most of the situations she finds herself in. Not all, but most, including an important one at the end.

The downside is this can lead to some fairly awkward scenes. I can't imagine in 15XX that anyone, especially a lady, would be able to get away with what Barrymore gets away with in this movie. In one scene, she is standing in the middle of a crowded street, loudly and assertively lecturing the Prince on the ethics of the mistreatment and criminalizing of the lower economic classes. A great argument, delivered with gusto! But I can only suspend my disbelief so far. She would have been arrested and hung for talking to royalty like that in public.

He has this same look for most of the movie.

Image by 20th Century Fox via IMDB

Which brings me to the main thing I disliked about the movie. Drew Barrymore. Which is difficult to say, because I really like her, and I wanted to like her in this more than I did. The issue I have is that she comes across as a girl from the 20th century trying to play a character from the 16th century. Her accent is awful, the only one in the movie that really distracted me. And while I don't blame her for all the things I didn't like about her character, the delivery of her monologues on classism and gender roles come across like a freshmen college student arguing with their philosophy professor, rather than someone of the time period fighting against injustice.

I have absolutely zero qualms with the themes of the movie, or their moral arguments. I'm pretty close to a socialist myself. I was just distracted and taken out by the delivery of some of these scenes, because they felt out of place.

The other thing I didn't like was the length. The movie was too long. Two whole hours, but it felt longer. It should have been an hour and a half, and could easily have been. There was a lot of fluff in this story. Multiple subplots, one revolving around gypsies and one about this shady rich dude literally named Le Pieu (are we going full Looney Tunes now?). There are other things, most needless to the overall story. Anything from those scenes that was used as a major plot point or character moment could easily have been reworked into a more important part of the film. Also, Leonardo da Vinci is in this, for some reason. This makes two movies this month that he's randomly been in, the other being Hudson Hawk.

How many movies have this guy in it? We're at two so far, and it's only the first month!

Image by 20th Century Fox via IMDB

As much as I didn't care for Barrymore in this, I could say the opposite about Huston's take on the wicked stepmother. Huston is a classic actress, who understands the subtle importance of things like body movement and acting with your eyes. She tingles in hints of humanity for a character that has traditionally been portrayed as nothing but evil. Don't mistake, she is clearly the antagonist. But she comes across as angry, jealous, and more importantly, will to do whatever it takes to survive... as opposed to just straight up cartoon evil. It's a shame the script dips in places and doesn't live up to the promise of Huston's performance.

I would wear those headpieces. Just sayin'.

Image by 20th Century Fox via IMDB

Another thing I really liked in Ever After were the sets and locations. Much of this was filmed on location in France, and it shows. As a viewer, I always prefer location shooting whenever possible, there is a feeling of authenticity that is difficult to replicate on a sound stage or with computers.

Nothing is better than authenticity. Look at that castle!

Image by 20th Century Fox via IMDB

They also a really nice long take of Barrymore chasing her stepsister, Dodds, through the chateau. I love long takes and this one was great. Dramatic, hilarious, and garners a wonderful roller coaster of emotions. I won't spoil it for you with what happens, but I was like "Booyah! Yes! Yes! Yes! ...... wait ..... NO! That was wacked."

The movie was a critical and box office hit, gaining rave reviews upon its release, and bringing in $98 million to its budget of $26 million. Good numbers for 1998. There's an interview with Barrymore and one with Scott from 1998, around when the movie came out.

The song over the end credits is Put Your Arms Around Me by Texas. I had no idea Texas was a band, I had never heard of them. I thought it was weird that they didn't sound anything like a band from Texas at all. Then it turns out they're from the UK. But I like them, and you should check them out if you like that late 90s Britpop sound.

Lastly, I enjoyed seeing this story told without wacky magic and random songs. I think that was a strong point. So what do people do? In 2013, they made a stage musical version... because everything needs songs.

Cinderella explaining the poetic irony that there is not a fiddle in the band called Texas. That's obscure, three people will get that joke.

Image by 20th Century Fox via IMDB

Before we finish, I want to note there are some historical inaccuracies in this. I know, shocking for a Hollywood movie! In the movie, Barrymore was given a copy of the "new book" Utopia by Sir Thomas Moore. It was published in 1516. Ten years later, Barrymore meets Da Vinci. But in real life, Di Vinci died in 1519, only three years after the book was published. Also the King of France in this movie is based on and named after King Francis I. He did have a son who, in real life as well as the movie, became Henry II. King Henry II, however, was married from age 14 to a woman named Catherine. King Francis' wife in the movie is Queen Marie, but he was never married to someone with that name in real life. For a movie about female empowerment, I find it interesting that they got the names of the male King and Prince right, but messed up the wives. Henry II can understand, because it would ruin the plot of the movie. But why wasn't the Queen to Frances I named after the real life Queen? It didn't change anything in the story to change her name, so why do it? Makes no sense. Lastly, the da Vinci portrait "Head of a Woman" is a semi-important plot device of the movie, and it does actually resemble Barrymore enough to make it plausible for the film. But the portrait was painted in 1508, before the movie takes place. Ultimately, I'm not going to take anything away from the movie's score for these inaccuracies. It's a movie. And none of them ultimately matter. I'm mostly just pointing them out for conversation sake. Unless you're an expert on French history, you likely won't care one way or another about the name of the Queen.

I wonder what this women's favorite scary movie was...

Image Source

Final Verdict:

I know it sounds like I didn't like Ever After. I did like it. I just wasn't in love with it. It dragged on for too long. I paused to go to the bathroom at one point, thinking we must be about halfway through. It was only 40 minutes, still an hour and twenty left to go. We hit the finale, and I think to myself "well that's clearly the end, it must be.... oh god, why is it fifteen minutes longer?!" And I thought that Barrymore was a bit miscast in this,  not because she was a bad actress, her performance just didn't fit the vibe of the time period. Those negatives aside, Huston steals the screen in this with her outstanding  performance. And the rest of the supporting cast, whom I know I didn't talk much about, is also pretty top notch. Dodds especially drips with malice and seduction, as well as having a good sense of comic timing. And I really enjoyed and appreciated the themes of this movie. The social class commentary and discussion of gender roles. A bit out of place and unrealistic in some scenes, but a good message for the target audience none-the-less.

And that's ultimately the thing. This movie was not made for a 37-year-old biological male in the year 2020. It was made for a 14-year-old girl who is struggling to gain a sense of independence, figure out her place in the world, and trying to find her inner strength. And if that was you when you saw this movie, change my rating to 5/5 stars. It did its job. I think Barrymore herself put it best in this recent interview where she said "It's not that she doesn't want the Prince or love, she wants it, but it's when he comes to rescue her and she's already rescued herself, that's such a great metaphor for women."

My brother, "Wow, The Witcher looks worse than I thought it would"

Image by 20th Century Fox via IMDB

But that's what I thought! Did you see it when you were a teen or when it came out? I would love to hear your perspective on it if you did, especially if you were a teenage girl at the time, I feel like this would have been meant for you. Was it all that and a bag of chips? And if you haven't seen it, hey, it was on HBO last week, and you can also visit Just Watch if you want to see what other options there are of how to view it.

Next time, we're going to do another 1998 movie. A rom-com that no one I know seems to remember ever hearing about. Natasha Henstridge and Luke Wilson star in... Dog Park. Is this movie a walk in the park? Or is its bark worse than its bite? Find out next time!

Romeo is Bleeding (1993)

Image by Gramercy Pictures/Focus Features via IMDB

Hello again my friends! Happy Hump Day! Hope you're all doing well and making it through the week. I know I am! I got some comfy new sweatpants yesterday and for dinner I had some of that Nashville style hot chicken that's becoming trendy in Los Angeles, so I'm on Cloud 9! Nothing quite like spending time with close friends, being physically comfortable, and having delicious food. Can't think of much else to say, so let's just jump into the review!

I think I probably first really became aware of Gary Oldman in the Naughties, after he played Commissioner Gordon in a couple of Christopher Nolan's Batman movies. He was in all three, but it was probably after The Dark Knight that I was really impressed by him. Those were my early days of really getting into film amd actors and directors and not just watching movies. I remember looking at his filmography and being amazed at his roles. "Wait, he was in The Fifth Element? Wait, he was Sid Vicious? Hold on a minute, I don't remember him in Air Force One. True Romance? Leon: The Professional? Immortal Beloved? Stop right there. Dracula in Bram Stoker's Dracula?" I was shocked. I had no idea who he was in the 90s, but he played a key character in many of the movies I knew or liked from that decade. The man has the rare ability to fully disappear into his roles so well, that you don't always know him.

What I mean... it's not just the Johnny Depp thing. "We're going to slather you in makeup and elaborate costumes, just make sure that you act the same as in all your other movies, so people know it's you." I know that's a bit unfair, I like Depp, but come on... he isn't best actor of all time, like some people claim. Why, because he played a variety of different roles? So does literally every actor. But with Oldman or someone old school lile Peter Sellers or Cate Blanchett, it becomes more of "We're going to comb your hair different and wear these glasses, no become a completely different person." Thankfully, today, Oldman is highly regarded as one of the greats. But that wasn't always the case. Let's take a peak at Romeo is Bleeding, a little neo-noir that came out between his two big roles in True Romance and The Professional.

Sadly, Oldman does not renounce God in this movie. Spoiler.

Image by Gramercy Pictures/Focus Features via IMDB

Romeo is Bleeding is about a detective, played by Oldman, who is not named Romeo. In fact, there is no Romeo in this movie. But there isba lot of bleeding. The title comes from a 1978 Tom Waits song. So this detective Oldman plays, see he works both sides. There is this mob boss, see, named Don Falcone, played with gusto by Roy Scheider. Oldman takes jobs on the side for Scheider, see, in exchange for money, and he's built up a nice little nest egg. It's in a hole in his backyard, and he's always "feeding the hole" with more and more money. Oldman is also a bit of a sexual fiend, he has a wife played by Annabella Sciorra, as well as a mistress done by the wonderful Juliette Lewis.

Trouble starts to brew as an assassin, portrayed with tons of zeal by Lena Olin, shows up to town. She gets caught and Scheider wants her taken out, because she might talk and he's afraid she wants to take over his operation. He wants Oldman to do it, but he doesn't want to, because cops might die or get hurt. Sleeping around on my wife is fine. Taking bribe money to commit crimes is fine. But this is the one thing he has a conscience about. Then he ends up sleeping with Olin instead of killing her. Brilliant idea.

What follows is a total descent and systematic devastation of Oldman's carefully constructed double life. He apparently will sleep with anything with legs. He ends up being tricked or bribed into sleeping with Olin and doing her bidding multiple times. It's a very violent movie, but unfortinuately, like many of the movies of this type from this era, it ends up getting super cartoony. At one point, Olin completely no-sells a violent car crash, while she's handcuffed in the backseat. She basically just gets up and runs away. Ugh.

To top it off, we're supposed to feel sorry for Oldman, who I might repeat: is a corrupt cop working for the mob AND can't keep his weiner in his pants. I get that these girls are attractive, but jesus christ. Maybe having someone nearly kill him gets him off? Death fetishism is a real thing, after all.

For the love of chud man, please please keep it in your pants!

Image by Gramercy Pictures/Focus Features via IMDB

A character like Oldman's CAN work, but he needs to have some sort of redemption arch to pull it off, and there is none for Oldman. You could argue they go the path of Scarface or GoodFellas, in which you get to see the villains lose everything, but they don't really do that either. See they never tried to paint Tony Montana as anything other than, basically, a super villain. With Ray Liotta in GoodFellas, you have a character who has been working for the mob his whole life, since before a time when he was really mature and wise enough to make good decisions. He knows nothing else. Not so with Oldman, who comes across as "poor me, what have I done?!" Well, maybe don't work with the mob or sleep with psychopaths. Idiot.

There are some good scenes. The ending scene I liked. And I really dug the whole "feed the hole" metaphor. But most of the movie is bullcrap. Bottom line, the plot of the film descends into stupidity. A noir or crime film, to work effectively, has to be grounded in reality and be plausable. Reservoir Dogs and again GoodFellas, for example, are over the top and have funny bits, but everything that happens I can still see as a thing that might happen in real life. Plausible.

There are two things I liked that almost saved this movie. First, the acting. Oldman, in particular, is killer in this. He brings a strong sence of authenticity to this dumb story. Olin is also strong in this, very sexy and seductive. Scheider has grown on me over the years. I was first exposed to him on the TV show SeaQuest DSV in 1993. A few years later, I saw him again when I watched the classic film Jaws for the first time. I've seen him in multiple things since then, and he's always surprised me in his versatility, including this movie. Whenever I see him, I always start out thinking "Oh hey! It's Captain Nathan Bridger! YOU'RE GONNA NEED A BIGGER BOAT!" Then by the end, I have forgetten about SeaQuest and Jaws.

"WE'RE GONNA NEED A BIGGER TOE!" 

Don't worry, you'd get it if you watched this movie.

Image by Gramercy Pictures/Focus Features via IMDB

Lewis is terrific as the side chick, who is in love with Oldman for whatever reason. Lewis is one of those actors that I always love seeing in things. Sciorra brings some depth to the depressed housewife, who knows she's stuck and you can really feel that in her performance. The incredibly talented James Cromwell amd Ron Perlman have small roles in this as well. Lastly of note, David Proval and Tony Sirico, both of whom would go on to be in The Sopranos, are in this and have minor roles.

I also have to bring mention to the other things that almost saved this movie: cinematographer Dariusz Wolski, who did a great job. The movie is shot with tons of great, stylistic angles, making it a joy to look at. Almost makes this movie worth it. Almost.

Lewis is smoking! Get it? Because she's attractive and literally smoking?

Image by Gramercy Pictures/Focus Features via IMDB

Romeo is Bleeding bombed in the box office. It made only $3.3 million against its budget of $10 million. Critics didn't like it, neither did audiences, though Oldman in particular got a lot of praise for the film.

Jon Bon Jovi wrote the song Always for the movie, however... he decided to withhold it after seeing a preview for the film and not liking it. Before you start praising him for his artistic sensibilities though, remember that he did allow Bon Jovi music in Uga Uga and Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed.

Don't point that gun at me, Olin, unless you plan to use it. So I can stop watching your dumb movie.

Image by Gramercy Pictures/Focus Features via IMDB

Before we wrap this one up, let me talk about another song right quick. The song the movie got their title from, Tom Waits' "Romeo is Bleeding." It was a track off Waits' 1978 album, Blue Valentine. I'll be honest and say that I haven't listened to this album, but I did pull up the song for research while writing this review. It's a great track, full of swinging jazz saxophone. Like most of my favorite Tom Waits work, it feels like it should be played in some seedy jazz or blues club at 3 am, though this one is more upbeat than most. The song is about a Mexican gang leader who gets killed in a movie house. Not the same plot of the movie, but I can sort of see where they might have gotten the inspiration from for the title of the movie. You can hear the track here.

Final Verdict:

I can't recommend this movie. I feel like I wanted to like it far more than I did. It was a pleasure to watch and look at, in many ways, just due to the camera work and solid acting, especially from Oldman. But I just could not invest in this, emotionally or intellectually. I didn't care about any character except, maybe Sciorra, her being the only innocent one in this mess. Unfortunately the script is bad, the story is lame, and the action gets way too cartoony. I can't recommend it to anyone outside of Oldman fans and people who like cool 90s era camera work.

There you have it. The crux of the plot summed up in one statement.

Image by Gramercy Pictures/Focus Features via IMDB

But what do you think? Have you taken the time to watch it? Do you like it? What's your favorite Gary Oldman role? Let me know in the comments below! I think mine is a tie between Norman Stansfield in Leon: The Professional and Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg in The Fifth Element. If you want to see Romeo is Bleeding and form your own opinions, you can go to Just Watch for options.

Next time, we go back to 1998 for a more realistic retelling of an old fairy tale. Drew Barrymore and Anjelica Huston star in Ever After: A Cinderella Story. Does this live action adaptation live on happily ever after? Or should it be reduced to cinders at midnight? Find out next time!

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)

Image by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. via IMDB

Hello friends! I hope you and a good weekend and enjoyed my personal blog yesterday. I got a lot of positive feedback from it. Turns put that my Titans vs 49ers Super Bowl fears were all in vain. Tennessee lost. But San Francisco won. So I am 100% behind the Niners to win Super Bowl LIV in two weeks! We shall see!

In my youth, British television was available, but harder to get than today. In the days before the Internet or BBC America or Britbox, Americans could expose themselves to British TV through PBS. Our local PBS affiliate in the bay area in the 90s, KQED, had a feast of BBC shows. Are You Being Served? was a favorite of mine and my mother. She was also really into Fawlty Towers and all the Jane Austin style dramas. Later in the decade, I we got into Mr. Bean and Keeping Up Appearances. I know I got my first glimpse of Doctor Who om KQED, at least a decade before I properly sought it out on my own. My Mom really liked the British shows. My Dad didn't. I think that's the same in many households. I loved it though, still love British programming today. And I love the dry whit British humor.

After Four Weddings and a Funeral was released in the US in 1994 (limited: March 11; wide: April 15), it was kind of a phenomenon. I think a lot of it was the quirky title. I think it was Jay Leno who made the joke "Four weddings and a funeral? Isn't that like... five of the same thing?" Hahahahaha. Hahahahaha. Hahahahaha. Oh man. That was actually kinda funny when I was 12.

I remember the movie getting a lot of attention and I know my mom loved it. She loved Hugh Grant, not just in this, but in many other movies as well. He and Colin Firth were her two Brit guys. And I don't know why I never watched this movie with her, I wish I had. But we always end up wishing we had done more with our parents while they were still here, no matter how much you actually did do with them.

After all this time, I finally sat down and watched Four Weddings and a Funeral. And holy crap. Now I'm in love with Hugh Grant!

Don't lie and say that he isn't devilishly handsome here

Image by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. via IMDB

So the movie is a romantic comedy and the plot revolves around (surprise surprise) four weddings and a funeral. Most of the scenes take place at the five events, with a handful of other parts scattered in between. The crux of the plot is Hugh Grant meets Andie MacDowell at a wedding,  where they have mutual friends. They reunite again at another wedding a few months later, and it goes from there. I'm sure you can tell where the plot goes from the title of the movie and the genre. Yada yada yada.

The plot itself isn't special, it's predictable and straight forward. What makes it work so well is both the extremely funny jokes and the heart that the movie exhibits. You end up liking all the players right away. They're funny and have personality. I just want to be friends with the entire ensemble cast. This is a project where differing views melted together to create something wonderful. Richard Curtis, the writer, wanted the movie focus on the comedy. Mike Newell, the director, wanted it more grounded with realism and heart. Sometimes those conflicting interests make the movie have a personality crisis. I it funny or romantic? Thankfully, like peanut butter and jelly or chocolate and cheeburger, the two meet in the middle and create something magical.

Let's talk about Hugh Grant for a moment. Oh my god. He's so damn charming! Dorky and clumsy and handsome and funny and charming. He does some questionable stuff in the movie, in fact he pulls a real douche move at one point. But I think that makes him even more interesting. He's a flawed person, who doesn't do anything truly evil, but he makes a HUGE, devastating error, because he got caught up in making bad choices. It's easy to jump on a bandwagon and point fingers, but we've all made errors that really hurt someone else. I don't see him as a hero but as a real person. And the fact that he is willing to face the consequences of his action speaks for his character as a person. The supporting cast is terrific, but Grant is what makes this movie work. It's easy to see why the world fell in love with him. I did.

"Hey, ya know, other people are in this movie too! Bugger!"

Image by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. via IMDB

Okay, I'm gushing over Grant, but I don't want to take anything away from the rest of the supporting cast. Everyone in this movie is amazing. Andie MacDowell is beautiful and charming. The extended friend group consists of Charlotte Coleman, David Bower, Kristin Scott Thomas, John Hannah, Simon Callow, and James Fleet. They're all great and I wish they were real, so I could find them and hang out with them. Callow in particular was pretty great, I loved the carefree way he approached the role, he looked like he was having so much fun in that part. I really need someone like him in my life. Also in this movie, Rowan Atkinson plays a priest. Yep. If i get married, I want Mr. Bean to be the officiant. Rupert Vansittart and Corin Redgrave have small roles in this too.

They did a good job (for 1994) of diversifying the characters. They're all white, yes, but... the thing is that there is a gay couple AND a deaf character. And yes, this is a comedy, but they aren't played for cheap gags and comic relief. While there are jokes revolving around them, they aren't crass or disrespectful or insensitive. And there are no scenes where the deaf character is shown as being helpless, he's just as much of a functioning adult as everyone else. While I would never say this movie is a showcase for diversity, by 1994 standards, it was pretty progressive.

Okay, I should really talk about MacDowell for a minute. I don't want anyone to think I'm just talking so much about Grant because he was the male lead. The fact is, and please don't take this the wrong way, but she didn't blow me away in this. I've seen both actors in other things, they've always been good, and she was good in this. I have no complaints with her or her performance in this movie. It's just that Grant took me completely by surprise. I had no idea how captivating he would be in this and how much he would steal the show. That's all. But I liked her. She was good in this movie.

I liked her way more in this than Hudson Hawk

Image by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. via IMDB

My one gripe with this movie, and it's a small one, is the gay couple. The two men are clearly homosexuals, you can tell from their first scene. They aren't stereotypically flamboyant or anything like that, you just... you just know that they're in love with each other. But they never do anything truly overt and they try to murk the water a bit with it. And it kind of feels like they're trying to downplay the homosexuality for the movie. Like I don't think one of them should have yelled "I'm gay and FABULOUS" while doing the... the gay hand thing. I don't know what it's called. But I wanted them to go further with it. And, sadly, you could tell they wanted to be more progressive with this couple, but that's sadly the way things were back then. Remember that, a year previous to Four Weddings and a Funeral, in 1993, the movie Philadelphia was released. It came out to negative responses from the Christian community, for daring to depict a gay man dying of AIDS as sympathetic. And that was a movie trying to make a statement, trying to open people's eyes. So it had to be bold to get its message across. Four Weddings and a Funeral was just trying to tell a fun, heartfelt story. This was also an era where they had to re-shoot a scene where Grant was dropping the F-word over and over again, because it offended Mormons and they would have trouble selling tickets in Salt Lake City. So the fact that they had two males, heavily implied to be lovers, in the movie at all is impressive. I just wish they had pushed the envelope a bit more.

Hannah's scene here is not the most iconic from the movie, but might be the best.

Image by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. via IMDB

This is another "Heart of Darkness" movie, where the process of making the movie is super interesting. They had a budget of only £2.8 million! Hugh Grant made £40K for his role. Pennies compared to what he'd make today. But he was a total unknown at the time. Grant was about to quit acting until he read the script for Four Weddings. Seventy other actors auditioned before him, and they almost didn't even pick Grant! Alex Jennings and Alan Rickman were favorites, before they finally decided to go with Grant. Can you imagine Snape in this movie?

The budget was so tight that the actors had to provide their own clothes, including the aristocrats, many of whom were actual Marquess and Earls in British Aristocracy. Atkinston was cast as the priest for two scenes, so they wouldn't have to pay another actor. Interesting too is he and Richard Curtis were good friends, they broke in together doing Not The 9 O'clock News, Blackadder, and Mr. Bean. It's always amazing to me, reading about low budget movies and the shortcuts and tricks they have to take.

Here are some interest behind-the-scenes clips. First, they filmed a couple of fake behind the scenes trailer intros, which you can see here. A proper news clip, on location with Film 94. A Hugh Grant interview from 1994 and another one on Jay Leno in 1995, so you can really see how huge he would become. Recent interviews with Rowan Atkinson and Richard Curtis talking about the film.

I changed my mind about Mr. Bean being my wedding officiant. I want Blackadder instead. "Baldrick, your head is as empty as a eunach's underpants."

Image by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. via IMDB

We can't talk about this movie without also talking about The Song. Some movies are defined by a single tune from the soundtrack. This is one of those. The song in question is Wet Wet Wet's cover of "Love Is All Around." Originally by The Troggs, the Wet Wet Wet version went number one on the UK charts for 15 weeks, the third longest reign of all time, as well as the 9th (now 12th) best selling single in the history of the UK. The video for the song is here.

The movie was a smash hit, raking in a huge box office of $246 million worldwide. Well received by fans and critics, Four Weddings and a Funeral won some BAFTAs and a bunch of other awards and was nominated for Academy Awards for both Best picture and Best Original Screenplay. It was included on a bunch of lists in the early 2000s about "best comedies" or "best British films" of the century.

Almost overnight, Grant turned into an international sex symbol. Audiences and the media were pleased to learn that Grant was as dorky and charming in real life as he was in the movie. The studio took out full page advertisements in newspapers, which I remember seeing. Grant's then girlfriend, Elizabeth Hurley, famously wore a Versace dress with safety pins to the premiere.

That dress is still pretty awesome, I wish I had the body to pull that off!

Image by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. via IMDB

Last year, most of the surviving cast members of the original movie got together for a short reunion special called "One Red Nose Day and a Wedding." Richard Curtis and Mike Newell also returned to write and direct it, respectively. It was for an annual UK comedy charity event. Here's a news clip about it and the trailer. But you can actually watch the whole thing here.

Also, last year, Mindy Kaling created and stared in a miniseries for Hulu loosely based on the movie. I haven't seen it, so I can't comment one way or another on it, but it does exist.

Final Verdict:

Booyah! Five stars! I can't explain properly how much I love this movie and it's hard not to recommend it to everyone. Watch it if you love funny movies or romantic movies or British movies. If your heart is black and stone and you hate love and the Brits, don't watch it. But it's worthy of my first five-star review. Kick back, relax, and enjoy Four Weddings and a Funeral. "Isn't that like five of the same thing?" Ugh, as if!

Who did it better? Andie MacDowell or Graham Norton?

Image by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. via IMDB

So, obviously, that was my opinion. But you should watch it anyway! Go to Just Watch if you want to see where you can stream it or buy a digital copy (recommend). Did you hate it? Or did you love it? Let me know in the comments! Also let me know if you've got any humorous wedding hook up stories or if you met the love of your life at someone else's wedding, I'm curious!

Next up, 1993's thriller Romeo is Bleeding, staring one of my favorite actors, Gary Oldman. Does this neo-noir stand up to the greats of its genre? Or should it just be left to bleed out? Find out next time!

Now if you'll excuse me, Hugh and I are off on holiday to Bath where we will engage in many British activities, such as tea and biscuits as well as being snarky to others. Cheerio!

Personal Blog: Clash of my Childhood Titans?

Image Source

Hello friends! So this is a special blog, not a movie review. But I needed to discuss something happening today that relates to my childhood and I don't think I will ever have the opportunity to talk about this in a format like this again.

Since this is still, technically, a film review blog... we're gonna discuss this in three act structure!

Act 1: California Raised

Image Source

I grew up in the Bay Area in the 80s and 90s, near San Francisco. In the late 80s and early 90s, I think it was actually illegal to be a football fan and NOT be a 49ers fan. Niners mania was everywhere. The Raiders were still in Los Angeles and San Francisco was enjoying a dynasty. We were in the transition from the Joe Montana/Bill Walsh Era into the Steve Young/George Seifert Era and it was magical. Jerry Rice, the greatest wide receiver to ever play the game, was on the field. For the 1994 season, the 75th Anniversary of the NFL, I went to the 49ers training camp in Rocklin, California, for the first of three times. And I just so happened to be one of a lucky few to bump into Steve Young at the end of the day! I feel kinda bad, because he was trying to go home, but... 11 year old me didn't care. He was my hero, I had a trading card, and he signed it. I actually still have it, it being a rare thing that survived the purge of all my childhood items a few years ago. The card got bent before I got it signed and there is a streak of sunscreen on it. I have no certificate of authenticity. I don't know if it's worth anything or not. But it's priceless to me. I got to watch the 49ers win Super Bowl XXIX that year, becoming the first team to win it five times. I don't want to say it was because of me, but it was the only time Steve Young won the big game and the only season he met me. So, you draw your own conclusions.

It's hard to describe how big of a football fan I was in this time period. Between that and NASCAR, I always had something sports related to look forward to. ESPN used to have a wonderful hour-long show on Sunday nights, that would discuss all the games played that day in short, 3-5 minute bites. You got the super highlights, brief analysis, and had the awesomely entertaining Chris Bergman hosting. I could have told you every NFL starting quarterback and most of the 49er players in that time period.

You'll have to indulge me for a moment here and let me name drop the guys I love and still remember from that legendary 1994 squad, still my favorite individual team of all time: John Taylor (WR), Brent Jones (TE), Dana Stubblefield (DT), Bryant Young (DT), Ken Norton, Jr. (LB), Deon Sanders (CB), Eric Davis (CB), Merton Hanks (S). And of course Carmen Policy (President) and Ed DeBartolo, Jr. (Owner).

The 49ers would enjoy several seasons at the top, but only winning that lone Super Bowl during my uber fandom. Injuries would plague Steve Young and Jerry Rice and, ya know... people get old. George Seifert was replaced by Steve Mariucci as head coach. Ed DeBartolo got ousted as owner. Candlestick Park became 3Com Park which became Candlestick Point which became Monster Park. Today, they play in Levi Stadium in Santa Clarita, not even in San Francisco anymore. They had good players and good seasons here and there, but nothing huge until the 2012 season when Colin Kaepernick would take them to Super Bowl XLVII, which they would lose to the Ravens. Their first Super Bowl loss.

Fun fact about Steve Mariucci, his brother Bob started as the athletic director at Cuesta College, my first semester as the Sports Editor of the school newspaper. Since it was the first semester for us both at that school, we kind of bonded. It was great working with him and I really regret not staying in touch with him and some other people from that school. But that's more for the upcoming Naughties Blog in 2030.

Image by Packers.com via Source

Today, the 49ers play the Green Bay Packers in the NFC Championship game. If they win, they will go on to play in Super Bowl LIV. Fun fact, this is the NFL's 100th Anniversary. They last won in the season of the 75th Anniversary...

Act 2: Tennessee Born

Image Source

My Dad was from Tennessee and I was actually born there as well. I've always been proud of parts of my Southern heritage. The non-racist parts, thank you very much. But the sports scene in my youth was lacking. There was the University of Tennessee, which has always been my college football team. But they were never outstandingly great at anything, except women's basketball, with the Lady Vol's being coached by one of the all time greats, Pat Summitt. But the football team was good enough to go to the bowl games, but only once in my lifetime did we win a National Championship. But besides the Memphis Showboats, a team in the short lived USFL in the early 80s, there were never professional sports teams in Tennessee. And none when I was growing up.

That all changed when it was announced after the 1995 NFL season that, following the 1996 season, the Houston Oilers would be moving to Tennessee. WHAT?! Oh man! I was so excited! Finally. A team in my home state! And my favorite sport too! I couldn't wait.

The Oilers played for two lackluster years, 97 and 98 seasons, as the Tennessee Oilers, while their stadium in Nashville was being built. I met quarterback Steve McNair and I think running back Eddie George in 97, while I was visiting in Tennessee that year. They had a meet-and-greet with several Oilers in my hometown. Those first two seasons, 97 in Memphis and 98 in Vanderbuilt, were lackluster and featured low attendance numbers. All that changed starting in the 1999 season. The Tennessee Oilers changed their name to the Tennessee Titans and relocated to their new stadium. And holy crap.

The new stadium, then called The Adelphia Coliseum (now Nissan Stadium) became known as having one of the loudest crowds in the NFL, pretty much overnight. The Titans responded by winning, over and over again. The team had an amazing offense consisting of McNair, George, Kevin Dyson (WR), Derrick Mason (WR), Frank Wycheck (TE), and one of the greatest offensive linemen of all time, Bruce Matthews. Jeff Fisher was the head coach and Jevon Kearse (DE) was a star on defense.

The Titans made the playoffs at the end of the 1999 season, which was amazing for me. They were playing the Buffalo Bills in the first round. In front of their home crowd in Nashville, the Titans were winning, 15-13. The Bills kicked a field goal, giving them a 16-15 lead, with 16 seconds left. "Oh well," I thought as I was watching. I was disappointed. But at least we made the playoffs this year. Maybe next year would be different. However, the game wasn't over yet.

Bills kicked the ball to the Titans, after the field goal. Lorenzo Neal fielded it. Wycheck came up behind him and Neal handed him the ball. Wycheck ran up the right side of the field, drawing Buffalo defenders to chase him. Suddenly, he then turns and throws the ball laterally across the field to Dyson. Dyson catches the football and takes off. And he has all the room in the field to run. He said later that he was going to run it out of bounds to bring their own field goal unit on. But the only Bill in his way was the kicker. And he had two other Titans to block for him. Dyson takes the ball 75 yards and scores the game winning touchdown. No flags. The officials reviewed the play. No penalties. The next day, the newspapers in Tennessee were calling it The Music City Miracle. Holy crap! If any one else ever tells you there was a more memorable play in the history of this franchise, they're lying. And I saw it, on TV, when it happened. Speechless.

Following this, the Titans beat the Indianapolis Colts (with second year player, and former University of Tennessee quarterback, Peyton Manning) in the next round and then the Jacksonville Jaguars in the AFC Championship. They would go on to face the St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXIV.

The Rams were god-like in 1999. Kurt Warner was bagging groceries just a couple of years prior to this, and somehow ended up with a shot as the quarterback of the Rams. He took advantage of it, becoming the MVP for the 1999 season, leading an offense that included Issac Bruce (WR) and Marshall Faulk (RB) and was called "The Greatest Show on Turf." How could the Titans compete? Actually, they were one of only a couple of teams to have the Rams number and beat them in the regular season. They had tons of momentum. They had a shot. The Music City Miracle wasn't for nothing.

The Super Bowl was pretty evenly matched, but the Rams were leading 23-16 with two minutes left. The Titans start on their own ten-yard line. Could they go all the way? Plenty of time on the clock, it had been done before. Montana did it in Super Bowl XXIII with my beloved 49ers. Tennessee could do it too. The Titans have a spectacular drive, going down the field. With :06 seconds left, at the Rams 10-yard line, do they have one more miracle they can pull off this season? McNair takes the snap. He passes to Dyson. He's going. He has it! He! ...... gets tackled by a Rams defender, Mike Jones, at the 1 yard line. Less than that. He was a foot away from the endzone and a touchdown and a Super Bowl victory. They called it "The Tackle" later in the press (sports have lots of nicknames for things). Jones was a hero in St. Louis. The game was over. The Titans lost. No Super Bowl. The Miracle was for nothing.

The Titans would have good players and teams over the years. McNair would win the league MVP in 2003. But nothing like the 1999 season. Only player from that team in the NFL Hall of Fame today is Matthews.

Image by Titans Online via Source

Today, the Titans play the Kansas City Chiefs in the AFC Championship game. If they win, they will go on to play in Super Bowl LIV.

Act 3: Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny?

Image Source

So. Today features the possibility of an unprecedented event in the history of my sports fandom. Both the San Francisco 49ers and Tennessee Titans could win their championship games and face each other in the Super Bowl. Of course, there could just be one of the two teams advancing. Or neither! But what if... what if both teams make it?

I don't honestly know how I'll feel about that. One of my two beloved teams will win. But one will lose. These aren't just my two favorite NFL teams, they're my two favorite teams of any sport. I want the 49ers to get their 6th Super Bowl but I don't want the Titans to go 0-2. And I want the Titans to win the big game, finally, but don't want the 49ers to lose again.

If neither the 49ers or Titans win, I'll be pulling for Kansas City, to support some friends from Oklahoma. Either way, there is no scenario where I pull for Green Bay. Sorry cheese heads.

I don't know. Either way, I have Feb. 2 requested off from work, because if one (or both) of these two teams makes it, I wouldn't miss it for anything!

You can catch the Titans and Chiefs at 3:05 pm EST today on CBS. 49ers and Packers will be on FOX at 6:40 pm EST. And Super Bowl LIV will be at 6:30 pm EST on FOX on Sunday, Feb. 2nd.

Image by Music City Miracles via Source

Anyway. I had to share this, because I don't know if I'll honestly ever have this conflict come up again in my life. Thanks for indulging me. Did you like this more personal piece? Who are you pulling for to go to and win the Super Bowl? Have you ever had a conflict like this? Let me know in the comments! See you next time with more film reviews!

Jetsons: The Movie (1990)

Image by Universal Pictures via IMDB

Happy Friday, my friends! I hope you all had a great week and are looking forward to a relaxing weekend. The NFC and AFC Championship football games are on Sunday, and I might post a little something about it tomorrow, seeing as how it's kinda significant to my backstory.

So, I wasn't planning on reviewing this movie for a while, but I couldn't help myself. A couple of nights ago, I was hanging out at my brother's place, and we were looking for a film to watch on his HBO. We settled on Detective Pikachu. While Pokemon is a 90s property, this isn't a 90s movie. It came out last year, in 2019, so no review of that today (but it's great, I loved it, go watch it). While scanning for a movie to watch, I noticed something else. A movie from my childhood that was, unexpectedly, available for streaming on HBO. A movie I watched constantly when I was a youth, but probably haven't seen since at least 1995, if not earlier. I wasn't going to go back to a movie from 1990 so quickly, but I guess I can do whatever I want in my blog. So today, let's look at... Jetsons: The Movie.

Now, this wasn't some cheap, straight to video, 45 minute long "movie" with the Jetsons. This was a proper theatrically released film, with a budget and everything. It was released on July 6, 1990. It came out on VHS (and betamax and laserdisc) in October, which is honestly pretty quick turn around time in 1990. The home video came out after my birthday, so I'm not sure exactly when I got it. But it wasn't out for long before someone gifted it to me. And I watched the crap out of it. For years, it was one of my nicer VHS tapes, with the box maintaining a bit of its glossy sheen. It was one of those movies from childhood that, at one time, I could easily recite all the lines of duologue. It was cool and kind of weird and kind of spooky.

Of course, The Jetsons have been a staple of everyone's childhood since the 1960s, when they debuted. I don't think they have ever been off TV, along with other Hanna-Barbara productions, like The Flintstones and Scooby-Doo. How is The Movie? Well...

Honestly, if I had an employee that literally sleeps at his desk all day, I'd also want a giant screen from which to yell at them.

Image by Universal Pictures via HBO

What is the plot of Jetsons: The Movie? Remember my Addams Family review? "Let's make a movie about an old TV show, for nostalgic purposes, but make sure the plot is like NOTHING ever seen on the show!" So like the show, George Jetson works for Spacely Sprockets and Spindles. All the cool, weird, impractical future tech is present. My brother commented, "This is the most inaccurate prediction of the future I have ever seen." Mr. Spacely decides to open up a factory on an asteroid, but things keep going wrong. Someone keeps sabotaging the plant! You'd think that because, on the show, there was a rival company called Cogswell's Cogs, that they'd have a security staff at this new factory. Or at least cameras. Nope. Cameras nor security are at this factory. Neither is Cogswell's Cogs in the movie, so maybe they went out of business and Spacely didn't think they needed security?

So George gets promoted to Vice President and transferred to the asteroid, because Spacely needs someone to press the start button to turn the factory on. George can "press a button" and is "expendable." Perfect! The Jetsons have to move right away and the family isn't happy about it. His boy Elroy, because of his spaceball playoffs at school, of which George missed the first game! Daughter Judy, because of a date she has with rock singer Cosmic Cosmo. And Jane, his wife, because of her recycling program. Don't worry. Jane never brings up recycling again. Elroy brings up that George missed the game only one more time, randomly too. And Judy spends half the movie pining over her "boyfriend" Cosmo. They had a 30-second interaction, by the way. I don't mean only on screen, I mean their characters. A big part of the movie is her being broken hearted, swearing never to love again, and then for some reason getting mad at Cosmo and vowing to "Never trust another man again." I'm sorry... do you need professional help? You should get someone to talk to. Then she bumps into a new guy, Apollo Blue (because his skin color is blue) and falls in love and is fine again. I know this is all a trope from the show and is meant to poke fun at lovelorn, melodramatic, fickle teenage girls. But that's why I'm poking fun at it back.

The factory is huge, like the size of the asteroid. Not counting the giant living area and HUGE mall in the middle. I know that towns will pop up around factories, but that's because a factory will employ hundreds or thousands of people, and they meed a place to live and shop and schools... but this space factory literally had only two people working at it. Including George. Why did they need a mall for two people? What does everybody do for work? How does the economy of this town work? These are the questions that keep me up at night. The station is full of exotic aliens, including Apollo Blue and the Furbelow family. The Furbelows are also blue, but more of a teal shade. They are also fuzzy. They also play "Furbelow Music" which kinda reminded my brother of Korn. Their last name is also the name of their species. Also, how is Mr. Spacely so rich. This factory produces his One Millionth sprocket. That doesn't seem like a lot. Even if he was selling them for five dollars a piece that's only five million dollars. These are all plot holes that I never really noticed when I was eight, but now that I'm approaching 40, they glare out at me.

The rest of the movie focuses on both The Jetsons acclimating to their new environment, exploring the mystery of the factory sabotage, and then takes an almost  surprising left turn into environmentalism and conservation and destruction of the land of indigenous people. Um, what? It's a good message, just kinda comes out of nowhere.

 My brother's legit reaction to this shot: "HOW?!?!?!"

Image by Universal Pictures via Oh My 80s

The voice cast is, mostly, actors from the original show. George O'Hanlon voices George. The legendary Mel Blanc does Mr. Spacely. Penny Singleton returns as Jane. Don Messick once again does Astro. And Jean Vander Pyl reprises as the sarcastic Rosie the Robot. However, problems came into production, with everyone being kind of old. O'Hanlon and Blanc both passed on late in production, and the film was dedicated to them. Jeff Bergman stepped in to finish their dialogue. Also, Daws Butler, the original voice of Elroy, died in years prior. Patric Zimmerman replaced him for the movie, which if that name sounds familiar to you gamer nerds out there, it's because he would go on to voice Revolver Ocelot in Metal Gear Solid.

"We're going to launch that nuke and ride it all the way into history"

Image by Universal Pictures via IMDB

But the biggest, and most controversial change, came with the choice for the voice for Judy Jetson. Janet Waldo, the original actress, was set to reprise her role. But at some point, the studio decided to replace her with... teen pop star Tiffany. Tiffany was pretty huge at the time, and they thought her presence would help boost viewers and box office numbers. Apparently, Waldo was livid with the change. They did give her a minor voice role as a robot secretary, but that's a far cry from a main character. Tiffany, for her part, does a pretty good job. I remember seeing her name in the credits and thinking it was weird and cool that she was only going by her first name. Though I will say that, hearing all the voice work in the year 2020, hers is the only one that stands out as being dated. Everyone else is kind of timeless, but something in Tiffany's voice absolutely makes her sound like she's from the 80s. Here's a clip of her talking about the movie.

Judy is a punk rocker. Actually no, she's a pop singer.

Image by Universal Pictures via IMDB

Tiffany also does three songs for the movie. Oh, did I mention the movie was also a musical? It's isn't a bad soundtrack, but again, it really dates the movie. Full of 80s ballads and pop tunes. I liked it though, I can see myself putting the soundtrack on later. Standouts include Tiffany's I Always Thought I'd See You Again and You and Me, as well as the Cosmic Cosmo song Maybe Love written and performed by Steve McClintock. Oh, and because this is 1990, the film ends with a rap number. We're The Jetsons (Jetsons Rap) by XXL.

The movie did makes its money back, $20 million on a budget of $8 million. But it was a critical flop and fell off the box office charts fast. There was a lot of backlash towards the casting of Tiffany, as you can see in this LA Times piece, and again, the plot is all over the place. William Hanna and Joseph Barbera themselves were the directors and producers of the film. Oh, and further dating the project is the use of really bad early computer animation. Ground breaking in 1990. It looks awful today.

Hanna-Barbera marketed the hell out of this movie. There was merchandise and Wendy's had kids meal toys. There was even a breakfast cereal! The only thing I really remember was an environmental PSA about air pollution, featuring clips from the movie, with poorly done voice dubbing. Even at eight, I could see that they just recorded new dialogue and didn't bother to try to match it up to the animation.

When The Addams Family was released a year later, it reinvigorated a franchise and introduced the quirky family to a whole new generation. Sadly, not so with The Jetsons. While the old show would continue to be on channels like Cartoon Network, Jetsons: The Movie would be the last official original Jetsons production for 27 years, until 2017's The Jetsons & WWE: Robo-WrestleMania!

Final Verdict:

Ultimately, I find it hard to recommend this movie today. It's not awful by any means. But it is very dated and the plot is poorly, poorly constructed. Again, if you're a kid, you may not notice all those issues as much. But also, for a modern kid, the music will make the movie feel old. And there are so many better options for kids out there today. If you're a huge Jetsons fan, you might like it, but that's about all I can think of who might enjoy it.

George. You don't have to stick your finger in literally every hole you see. This has HR Incident written all over it.

Image by Universal Pictures via IMDB

Sometimes you revisit something from your childhood and you love it more, maybe for the same or for different reasons, as an adult. But that isn't always the case. Sorry Jetsons: The Movie, but this is one film about the future that should stay in the past. Yes, please, Jane. Get me off this crazy thing. But that's just my opinion! You should watch it yourself and let me know what you thought. I know it was streaming on HBO like... three days ago, as of this post. But you can see where else it might be available now on Just Watch.

Next time, we move forward from 1990 to check out a classic Rom Com. 1994's Hugh Grant vehicle, Four Weddings and a Funeral. Is this a film to love with all of your heart until death do you part? Or should it be buried six feet deep (Covered in concrete, turned into a street. Sorry, couldn't resist)? Find out next time!