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:

Roxanne (1987)

Why it's here:
I remembered this film as extremely charming and thought we could use the full exposure to Steve Martin's talents.

Specs:
Just over an hour and a half; rated PG

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
For a while, I felt that I was watching an almost perfect movie. The scenery is beyond gorgeous; the quaint little idyllic town forms a perfect setting for this clever re-imagining of the Cyrano de Bergerac story. And Steve Martin at the height of his talents is awesome to behold. But, as the film went on, the weaknesses began to show. Oddly, I'm not sure the movie actually got worse in the latter half so much as that I became more aware of its flaws as the mega impact of its initial charm subsided and as I acclimated to the heady power of Martin's performance. It is a touching and lovely film in many ways. But it is also seriously flawed.

Beyond Martin's hilarious and touching performance and the funny antics of the local fire department, you find a rather thin film. Sure the fun take on the Cyrano story is seductive, but it also feels a bit absurd if you look beyond the charm. Daryl Hannah falls for handsome Chris in an absurdly quick and superficial way, and, even more bizarrely, somehow fails to notice how different he is in real life from his letters. (Perhaps a better script could have made this seem plausible?) Also, I'm sorry, she's beautiful, but Hannah's acting chops are definitely minimal. Her loveliness just isn't quite enough for me to be OK with Steve Martin falling so deeply in love with her. Setting a classic love story in modern times presents difficulties in making outmoded romantic mores fit modern characters' motivations and seem reasonable. This film doesn't succeed with that ... in the way "Clueless", for instance, does.

Despite these shortcomings, I would still recommend the film as a satisfying cinematic experience overall. A caveat, though: I would recommend this film for families who are comfortable with with adult relationships. There are many scenes and a good deal of dialog that goes directly to characters wanting to have sex or having sex. The film is not visually explicit at all. (Though there is a scene at the very beginning where Daryl Hannah gets locked out of her house as her robe gets caught in the door and ends up outside naked. This scene is played for laughs and is not explicit). But the dialog definitely pushed boundaries of what I thought was appropriate several times.

Iconic image:

The Three Amigos (1986)

Why it's here:
The main impetus was to see Chevy Chase, who, though hilarious, does not happen to appear in many good family friendly films.  (Of course Steve Martin is a significant draw as well, but we already had "Roxanne" lined up for him).

Specs:
About an hour and a half; rated PG. Like many other movies from the era, this film is a bit more randy than you might expect in a PG rating.

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
7.0 (We all gave it a 7!)

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This film is certainly good and entertaining, but is by no means a great film. It follows the exploits of a trio of silent film cowboys who have fallen into disfavor with their production company and who travel to Mexico for what they think is an acting gig but turns out to be a real village's real need to defeat an evil bad guy (El Guapo) and his mob.

Cute set up! Very funny leads! So-so execution. Your kids -- or others with sophomoric taste -- will probably like the film, but you may be moderately disappointed. I am not sure exactly where this film loses its potential -- whether in the writing or the lack of overarching purpose -- but it is our lowest-rated film since the Aristocats from a decade earlier. Our comedians are spilling over with talent, but the film can't quite find its purpose. It seems to be primarily for kids, however, and as I mentioned above, there are many sexual themes, including El Guapo's kidnap of a lovely woman for whom he has distinctly sinister intentions.  All in all, its simple fluff, pretty funny and short, engaging entertainment, but my overall advice would be "don't really bother; watch Beetlejuice or Roxanne instead"

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:

Back to the Future (1985)

Why it's here:
It slipped in at the last minute. We've seen the film before, so I wasn't going to include it in the festival, but right when our family was smack in the middle of the 1980s, the local art-house movie theater scheduled a showing of this film on the big screen. Unfortunately, I had to work!, but my family attended the screening and had a blast.

Specs:
2 hours; PG

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
8.1

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Well... I wasn't there. So I guess that means I don't have to write about it...? I can just tell you this: my family came home jazzed up and gabbing -- both unusual occurrences.  They already knew that loved the film; but what they really loved was seeing it on the big screen. Any opportunity to see a great film from the past in the theater should really be seized.

Iconic image:

The Gods Must be Crazy (1984)

Why it's here:
I remember watching this quirky strange movie back in the day and being absolutely charmed by it. Though there was little I remembered about the film -- save the amazing performance by native Bushman actor, N!xau -- I knew it was good and wanted to share it with the kids.

Specs:
1 hour 45 minutes; PG
(A note about the date; I saw that the US release date was 1984, so we watched it 'in' 1984 in our festival. However, I learned later that the film was actually made in 1980. Oh well!)

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
7.8

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This awesome film is charming, sweet, funny, and quick-paced. It unfolds in a unique way, starting off like a documentary telling the story of a tribal community of Bushmen in Africa, contrasted with the busy life in the nearby city. However, the film takes a clever shift when men in a helicopter drop a coke bottle and life for the tribe becomes unstable. Nixau goes to return this unwanted 'gift' to the gods and hilarity ensues as we follow him on his adventures.  Other parallel adventures, involving bumbling revolutionaries, a school teacher, and an earnest but nervous field scientist start to intersect and play out much like old silent short films do. Everything is absurd; everything is played for laughs; and there is a kernel of humanity and meaning at the core. Its a very well made movie that we thoroughly enjoyed.

As far as the rating goes -- PG has me seriously exhausted. It is such a huge and confusing category. We saw the PG rated Dead Poet's Society recently (our review coming soon) and it features boys ogling a magazine image, which alone wouldn't be so troubling, but the nude picture itself is shown full on camera for several moments of on screen time. And, don't even get me started on horrific, scary and violent images including melting faces, in Indiana Jones, also PG.  Yet, here Gods Must be Crazy is a film that plays innocently in the vein of a silent movie but gets a "PG" rating because of brief cultural and non-sexual nudity and slapstick shenanigans. This movie deserves a PG no doubt, but to my way of thinking is extremely appropriate to larger audiences in a way that either of the other two I just mentioned clearly are not.  My constant advice for any film from 1970 - 1990 is don't trust the MPAA rating! Look deeper into what a film contains or doesn't contain.

If you do watch this film, the most important thing will be to have an open mind and few expectations, because it is likely different than anything you've seen before. It is its own fun adventure; but there is no reason that modern American audiences, including families, cannot hop along for the ride with the right attitude.

Iconic image:

Gandhi (1982)

Why it's here:
I couldn't wait to have us view this highly acclaimed film, which, for some reason, my husband and I never saw back in the day.

Specs:
Over 3 hours; PG

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
8.63

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I am ashamed at how little I knew about Mohandes Ghandhi. Having now viewed this film, I am proud to have prevented my own children growing up quite as ignorant. This was an amazing movie. I am assuming it is basically historically accurate (because as I have already confessed, I would not know otherwise) and it is one of the most inspiring and profoundly interesting history lessons we have ever had.

In sweep, scope and grandeur it reminded us of Lawrence of Arabia. In fact, like other epic films, its power is similarly in the cinematography, the incredible story, and the great drama of a particular moment in time (here, the rise of Indian nationalism and independence). It is like other epically powerful films also, in its huge, deep and talented cast. But it is unlike any other I can think of in that it has a main character of nearly perfect humanity who is simply a wonder to behold. Gandhi is a historical figure who is beyond compelling -- who is truly admirable and inspiring.

And Ben Kingsley's performance in the title role is flawless. It moved me. I think he moved us all. (By the way, the film received our highest rating since 1953's Roman Holiday and is our fifth highest rated film in the whole festival.)

For my part, I have not been able to stop thinking about the film since we watched it last week. I viewed it again with director commentary and then again without. I'm not quite sure who I am more in love with or find more inspirational right now, Kingsley or Gandhi.

While all of the above might make you think I am about to highly recommend this movie, you'd be wrong.

I recommend Gandhi very highly to adults. And I recommend it with caveats galore for children.  First off, parents should know that the film is very long - well over 3 hours; complete with intermission (something we haven't had in a film since the 1960s). We watched it over the course of two nights.  Still, it is not just the length, but the very dense story that should make parents think twice before showing. Know your kids and their maturity levels and their endurance before attempting this one.

Its primary audience certainly is not kids. I would imagine that even most teens might be bored out of their minds with this film. Unfortunately, if not bored, it is likely your kids will be horrified. Some of the events depicted here are grotesquely cruel, including the British massacre of a peaceful assembly of families, a scene of workers quietly advancing to be bludgeoned by troops, and a riot scene where parents with children are dragged from cars and many are killed, and other such horrors. As I write this, I'm wondering why the heck I enjoyed this film and how I was OK showing it, but, these scenes just felt (profoundly sad) but honest and true - not gratuitous. In fact, they were really the whole point. The idea that peaceful protest is stinkin' hard for the people doing it, is a point well made here when confronted with the violence they bore.

Gandhi has an amazing speech in the film when he is talking a group of the downtrodden in South Africa into his vision of protest. He says "We will not strike a blow, but we will receive them. ... They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me. They will then have my dead body -- not my obedience."

Iconic Image

On Golden Pond (1981)

Why its here:
The driving reason for its inclusion was the chance to see Henry Fonda and Katherine Hepburn again, this marking our 5th and 4th film by them, respectively. Toss in a 2nd Jane Fonda appearance and a heart-warming tale of family stress and love and how can you go wrong?

Specs:
1 hour 45 minutes; rated PG* (see parent cautions below)

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
8.25

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Henry Fonda plays Norman, and Katherine Hepburn plays Ethel, a married couple that vacations on Golden Pond in the summers. Norman is celebrating a birthday and their daughter Chelsea (Jane Fonda) comes to visit, along with her soon to be husband Bill and his teen son, Billy. Its a small cast and a small set-up. That's it right there. Not surprisingly, it is based on a play. The story is highly character-driven and very appealing.  The cinematic vision is quiet -- shot in muted colors, with a slow methodic and peaceful tone.

But the acting is energetic and mesmerizing. Our family's favorite parts of this film centered on Henry Fonda's incredible performance (and the great dry humor of his character Norman) and Norman's relationship with his step-grandchild, Billy, a slightly bitter but basically compliant teen.  (Layer on top of this, my own profound appreciation for the locale and gorgeous scenery and Katherine Hepburn's loveliness and skill, and I was in love with the picture).

While the film's primary audience is grown ups, it should be a hit with any kids that are old enough, or troubled enough, to recognize that family relationships and aging can be hard. Still there are several cautions for parents:

* First of all, language is much harsher than the PG rating would suggest (or than a modern PG would contain). "God damn" and "son of a bitch" and similar words make many appearances in the film; "bullshit" is highlighted in one comic scene.  There is also some very frank discussion of sex, as Bill asks Norman for permission to sleep in the same room as Chelsea. The dialog goes on for several minutes making it clear that they are sharing the room in order to have sex and Henry Fonda crudely mentions the room in which he first violated her mother. Its a bit jarring.There are a couple of places in the film where we are meant to feel fearful (primarily for Norman's well-being) and it is clear he is in a declining state. This is unsettling for adults and kids, though it ends without tragedy. Its main themes are aging and debilitation/fear, dysfunctional connections with adult children, and quirky blended family -- as they say, "thematic elements."  Still, we recommend it very highly for the right families. It is a beautiful film.

Iconic image: