Batman (1989)

Why it's here:

One of the problems with having this blog, is trying to keep up with the workload of maintaining the blog :)  It has been quite a while since we saw this movie and though I remember that we watched it, I really don't remember when, or why, or having ever taken the time to review it critically.  I think it may be here because my younger son was interested in watching the Batman series.

Specs:

2 hours; PG-13

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:

7.75

More about the film and our reaction to it:

OK. As I've just admitted, I didn't really reflect on the merits of this film while we were watching it, so now am at a bit of a loss to evaluate it.  Perhaps the most important thing to note is that it stars Michael Keaton who bears shockingly little resemblance to the guy who delivered a very different recent performance in Beetlejuice. I guess that he can hit these polar opposites (serious, reflective, attractive hero vs. silly, gross, absurd villian) so convincingly, goes to his skill as an actor and ought to be appreciated.

Both films are Tim Burton endeavors and thus have a surreal, comic and slightly disturbing aura about them.  Other than this, anything I might add would seem obvious. I mean this is a comic book adaptation, the first in a long line of modern Batmans (Batmen?), all of which showcase high-end special effects, dark seedy moods and cutout characters.

Sure, its good. Whether you watch or not should just be a function of your family's tolerance for violence and intense action. If these hit the mark for you, then there is no reason you won't love the film.

Iconic image:

Beetlejuice (1988)

Why it's here:
To sample one of Tim Burton's first directorial efforts. I was also excited about the deeply talented cast.

Specs:
An hour and a half; rated PG*

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
7.75

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This is a strange film. I guess saying that Tim Burton directed it may have already made that apparent. Although it ultimately becomes a weird, scary-ish, supernatural 'comedy', the film starts out as an idyllic and romantic film of pleasant country life with our young couple played by Geena Davis and Alec Baldwin. But all that changes soon enough and we transition into a story about an unpleasant and stressed urban family and their resident ghosts. I won't say much more so I don't give away interesting plot twists.

My older son (age 15) loved the film! My younger (age 12) really wasn't sure what to make of it, but ultimately enjoyed it a lot. I think he found parts of it slightly more disturbing but was won over by the incredible creative talents that are found everywhere in this film.  If you watch with your family, just go in with few expectations and you will probably get a huge kick out of it.

* As with other PG films of this era, the boundaries are stretched with sexually inappropriate content including some erotic gestures, a visit to a brothel, comments from Beetlejuice of a sexual nature and abundant proof that Beetlejuice is "interested" in teenage Winona Ryder. However, much of this stuff is short-lived on screen and might be glossed over quickly by parents or not fully understood by kids. There are also some fairly grotesque or disturbing images related to showing how various afterlife characters died or related to our main characters attempting to scare the living. These are played for absurd comedy purposes and not for horror, so it is hard to say how cautious you might wish to be about them. If you have tender souls in your household, a pre-watch is probably warranted just to see. This would not be a typical PG rated film today.

Iconic image:

Labyrinth (1986)

Why it's here:
We already know David Bowie as a singer with incredible presence; it seems right to check out his presence as an actor. He doesn't disappoint!

Specs:
Just over an hour and a half; PG

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
7.7

More about the film and our reaction to it:
My 15 year old gave this a high compliment when he said, "this film surprised me. I really liked it." That's as good as I can expect from anyone these days and clicked with me, because I felt the same way.

Of course it is heavily steeped in 80s weird funk, but it is good. And I've now seen, time and again, that good movies can really transcend their date-trappings.  We noticed many transcendent themes in this film that make it a classic story of adventure and the comforts of home and stability. In fact, in large part, it seems to have borrowed plot and purpose from the Wizard of Oz. There are also numerous parallels to the story of Alice in Wonderland and even Harry Potter.  It is a classic fantasy tale told with high-level production values for its time.

The only human actors to have any appreciable screen time are Jennifer Connelly and David Bowie and they are both extremely solid. Connelly plays a teenager who wishes for (and then gets) more adventure. Bowie plays her evil nemesis -- the Goblin King -- i.e. the guy who's taken her baby brother. The Goblin King is shadowy, unknown and unknowable; he is mysterious and amorphous; he is compelling and repulsive. And Bowie is perfect in the role. He shows the screen presence we were expecting and the acting chops we were not. Connelly, too, is admirable here. She is understated, unflappable, direct and shows very little teenage primping and posing. Pretty amazing, really.

The animations, muppets and special effects are very enjoyable if you watch with the right attitude. Don't expect modern CGI, just high-end visual effects circa 1986. There is a lot of "technology" going on in the production and, at times feel it feels a bit cluttered. But it is all cool and in fun. Near the end when Jennifer Connelly, David Bowie and the baby are scrambling around on an Escher drawing come to life, the effect is extremely well done and very cool. Overall, the effects add greatly to the whimsical fantasy story and the feel of the film is etherial and entrancing.


Iconic image:

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

Why its here:
Its 1977 and we've already seen Star Wars a million times, so what to include? Close Encounters of course.

Specs:
Well over 2 hours; rated PG.

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
7.63

More about the film and our reaction to it:
It's interesting to note that this film came out in the same year as Star Wars. In the mid-70s, two major directors started to shape the film industry with their vision of the big-budget summer blockbuster: George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. In our family we were vastly familiar with the Star Wars films -- the brainchild(ren) of Lucas, demonstrating his stunning creative mind and sci-fi vision. We were less familiar with Spielberg's work. I have come to believe that Spielberg has a much more sophisticated understanding and a more adult perspective on film, and is clearly the better director.

That said, this movie (Close Encounters) is certainly less suited to families and kids than Star Wars. This is a film for grown ups. And a darn good one at that. As with other films from this era, the action moves slowly and intricately; it is psychological, not just adventure-laden.  It is the kind of film that modern kids will fall asleep to (like one of my children did). But that doesn't mean it isn't good, just that you want to know what you're getting in to before showing it to your family.

It tells the story of a small town in which several of the residents have near-alien abductions and start to become obsessed -- in a way they cannot fathom and driving those around them crazy -- with getting even closer to those aliens. In particular, Richard Dreyfuss is on duty as a lineman when an alien spaceship approaches the area. He loses interest in all else (including wife, children and job) and spends his time inexplicably imagining a mountain form. A neighbor woman whose son is the target of the aliens is also drawn to experience more of the aliens. Ultimately, these two, plus a government team doing some cover-up, converge on the locale where the alien ship appears again (Devils Tower in Wyoming).

This is a rather odd plot to try and describe! I realize I am not giving much of the flavor of the film with my synopsis.  But, as in the case of many other films, it is not really the plot that wins you over, it is the subtle details of the storytelling. And that's when you really appreciate the genius of Spielberg. He makes this film phenomenal by capturing your interest and emotion and connection to these characters and a fantastic musical score. He sucks you in.  By the end, we were all spellbound (even the kid who had fallen asleep early on), and felt transported to a possible reality out there somewhere in Wyoming.

Iconic Image:

Wizard of Oz (1939)

Why it's here:
Like most everyone, we've seen the Wizard of Oz many times. Its here in our festival, because we wanted to see it in its proper time.

Specs:
Just over an hour and a half. Color - with a black and white beginning and ending. Available on dvd with tons of special features.

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
8.5

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Seeing The Wizard of Oz "in" 1939 in our festival made it just that much better. 1939 was a profoundly good year for film. In that year alone we watched The Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, Ninotchka, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and Stagecoach! With so much competition from these and other great films that year, it is perhaps not surprising that the Wizard of Oz did not actually take the world by storm when it was released. It was only a modest success.

However, its popularity endured and continued to grow after it started to be aired on TV every year. It is now probably the best known and most watched of all classic film and has been enjoyed by people for generations. What makes it so good? and so enduring? A mix of excellent musical numbers, a wonderfully appealing story, a fantasy element, an element of close friendship and the important bonds of family, along with a great plot full of danger, adventure and magic. And on top of all that, there are incredibly great performances from Judy Garland as Dorothy, Ray Bolger as the Scarecrow, Jack Haley as the Tin Man and Bert Lahr as the Cowardly Lion  -- not to mention Margaret Hamilton's intensely frightening Wicked Witch of the West. These performances and characters are iconic for a reason.

At its core, the movie is great because the central idea is so compelling. The idea of a twister picking up a child and transporting her to a fantasy world is so appealing that it is bound to continue to enthrall for decades.

We enjoyed the film immensely -- especially the very clean, beautiful and painstaking restoration that has been done on it. The dvd we checked out from the library contained enough special features to keep a fan busy for many hours.

This is, obviously, the quintessential classic movie for families and not surprisingly rated as one of our very favorites in the festival. It is tailor-made for families to enjoy together.

Iconic shot: