One Crazy Summer

“Stupid” is not always a pejorative. For instance, this is, objectively, a stupid movie. Yet, it’s not entirely a bad movie, and indeed, in certain parts the stupid is the appeal. The film hits all the '80s youth comedy fundamentals: the appealing couple (John Cusack and Demi Moore) in the lead roles, the cartoonishly obvious villains (including the de rigueur mean, uberblond rich kid), the musical montage at a key plot point (if one can even say this film has a plot), and an absurd and improbable victory in the climactic competition. Further fun derives from the supporting cast; you’re really hitting the '80s comedy taproot when your flick has both Bobcat Goldthwait and Curtis Armstrong in it. After that, having Mark Metcalf — that's Animal House's Niedermeyer, not to mention Buffy’s The Master, to you—as the primary villain is an embarrassment of riches. The soundtrack—a melange of then-contemporary pop hits to complement various Beach Boys "Soundtrack of Summer" tunes—also goes a long way toward building audience goodwill. Mostly, the appeal at this point grows out of a sense of nostalgia…if you’re the type who would actually remember the era and its characteristic entertainments. As noted, it’s really a pretty stupid movie, so anyone lacking the nostalgic angle—i.e., young people—probably won’t see anything good here. But for us elderly types, there’s a touch of amusement to be had from this work. 

The Substance

There are a lot of different dimensions to the question of what this movie is, is all about, and whether or not it succeeds, either overall or on its own terms. Just for starters, the story asks for a fairly massive amount of suspension of disbelief, and not just as regards the tale's science/horror elements. For instance, how is it even possible that Elizabeth—who is still viable as of the beginning of the story—winds up so isolated and alone that the action could even have plausibility? I mean, even has-beens tend to have hangers-on long after their expiration dates. Also, are the generic settings, elements and trappings of the story meant to convey the kind of stripped down aesthetic of a stage play, or does the lack of a more fleshed-out context simply reflect laxity, if not outright laziness, on the part of the screenwriter? Finally, the overarching message seems to be a muddle; the film wants to have its chocolate mousse cake and eat it too. To wit: is the sexism and emphasis on youth and beauty presented as the catalyst for Elizabeth's actions truly an example of villainy, as the script wants to suggest (if not insist upon)? How is that so, given the objective reality presented in Sue’s side of the story, where standard measures of beauty, youth, vigor and attractiveness all translate into success and positive attainment? The whole tableau seems highly debatable, even as the story appears to be very pointedly in favor of a specific, feminist critique of Hollywood in particular and the world in general. So did the filmmakers create a movie to be puzzled over, or did they fail to clearly convey their message? It’s hard to know. What is for certain is that this flick is arresting in its concepts and visuals—particularly in its lack of squeamishness about showing the viewer all of its gory details. It can be hard to look at and impossible to look away from at the same time. An enigmatic work, for sure, with a qualified PURR, but substantial and absolutely worth viewing, especially if it gets you thinking about all of the various elements this movie has on its mind. 

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Disney)

Immediate impression: the animation here is exquisite, some of the best in the canon to this point. The songs are inconsistent; some are quite good, others rather bland. The story works quite well--it is a fairly faithful adaptation of Hugo's original, as far as I can tell, so it's a time-tested tale. So the story works...except for its climactic betrayal, when the rules of who gets to be whom are upheld, contravening much of the case made by the whole rest of the narrative. That’s standard operating procedure, of course, found in a thousand tales, but it grates a bit more here, where the very arc of the plot builds the case for rejecting such notions, and a more modern interpretation would have been welcome. (It's not like today's producers and publishers--or even those of 25 years ago--ever shy away from changing a story to suit the times and their own tastes; witness Pocahontas just a couple of films back.) All in all, setting aside that one quibble, this is a solid effort from the Disney studio, not quite up to the dizzying heights of the earlier in the decade works, but probably better than its immediate predecessor (the aforementioned Pocahontas) and at least as good as much that came after. Not perfect, but a win is a win.