Here is where I will keep track of the flicks I've watched. If you see typos or errors, or you really like what I wrote, or maybe you flat out disagree with me. Don't be shy! Lemme know what YOU think.
I was trepidatious some about going to this, leery that it was going to be awful like all those terrible sitcom like, bumbling man, sexist comedies, Seth Mcfarlane and ilk, like making, so I almost bailed on going, especially since my husband didn't want to see it. I decided to go though, because I was pretty sure it was a remake of Starbuck - a film that got great buzz the year it screened at the VIFF. And yeah, it is a remake and it's even written and directed by the same guy, just transplanted from a Francophone Montreal locale to a more marketable NYC English language setting.
Vince Vaughn is a bumbling man child in this, but he's a doofus with an arc, and yeah it's the usual guy gets serious about shit when he's about to become a parent tale, but this flick adds in the so ripe for hilarity complication of his having to deal with 533 biological children wanting to meet their sperm donor dad, known to them only by the ID "Starbuck".
I liked it. I've always liked Vince Vaughn, even in his asshole roles, since I think he's a cutie-pants sweetheart, but especially that his character in this is a lovable fuckup, is something I can relate to. I'm really comfortable identifying with the characters who stumble and struggle eh? :P
It's a fun movie with the a sweet message about family values, and doing the right thing. Sure it's got a happy ending, but what's wrong with that? Every movie doesn't have to be all traumatic and dramatic to have some deepness. Yeah, it's a male lens on parenthood too, but I'll overlook its white bread, falsely presented, middle class positioning, in favour of it's over arcing messages on the importance of love, accepting, redemption, and family.
The chubbed up Chris Pratt, is really funny as the best friend lawyer, and I'm pretty sure I saw Patrick Huard, (who played Starbuck in the original), in a small uncredited cameo. And I'd say seek out the original too, if you'd rather hear this story told on a smaller, culturally specific, scale - en Francais.
The town that banned dancing! This is a ridiculous premise for a movie, but I guess when you're doing remakes from the 80's you're forced to stay within the confines of whatever terrible concept. I mean, you don't absolutely have to, some remakes only borrow the name to bring brand familiarity to the game. This remake is not one of those though. Too bad. It could have been about a dude who dances his way across America in a wheelchair after a terrible tour in Iraq, or maybe a guy who couldn't stop dancing, like in that fairytale The Red Shoes. Or even a thiller solving the mystery of all the feet washing up on the shores of B.C.
Whatever, I don't remember the original very well except for the song and Kevin Bacon dancing around in tight jeans and cowboy boots to the Kenny Loggins' song. I have vague recollections of the plot.
Actually, watching the remake revived more memories, like it was John Lithgow doing the preacher dude, I mean he wasn't doing him haha, just portraying him. This time it was Dennis Quaid playing the holy roller, and I kept thinking that it was kind of appropriate that Jerry Lee Lewis got all religious and turned his back on rock and roll.
I don't remember why the town banned dancing in the original, but I'm assuming it's because of a terrible drinking and driving auto wreck which wouldn't have happened if there hadn't been dancing before that to loosen the morals of the kids towards all that boozing for sexy time made them forget about how stupid it is to drink and drive, at least that's what happens in the remake. The accident is pretty shocking. I didn't expect it because I forgot that it was about a town that banned dancing and I was just enjoying the opening party dancing scene. Gotta gotta cut loose. I have to tell you it was a pretty harsh contrast and brought the start of the movie way down low.
When the Kevin Bacon replacement (Kenny Wormald) goes to school and almost gets into a fight with a tall hayseed, (Miles Teller), I suddenly remembered, oh yeah, Christopher Penn (RIP) played the local, because this guy is totally doing Christopher Penn doing that hayseed part. It was my fave part of the movie. Hayseed don't know how to dance so he's got to learn in a montage sequence, first the Kevin Bacon replacement's little cousins are teaching him their cute little girl dance moves - I guess they know the moves from watching TV or the kids teach each other, dance knowledge was only suppressed 3 years back, so I dunno, these girls are young, they probably only remember a town without dancing so dance osmosis potential has got to be the highest at their young age. Whatever, it's a cute sequence, him all bumbly toed and then bringing it home with proper line dancing and what not. I liked him the best in the film. Christopher Penn replacement, you dun good.
IMO, for a movie about kids being all footloose, there is too much emphasis on NON-dancing. I know this is a town that banned dancing and the kids have to dance in secret, like the drive in hoedown, (btw it was kinda ridiculous that the old dude was smuggling in the crunk sounds - did this town ban the internets too?) I just think there should have been more depictions of secret dance clubs and West Side Storyesque dance fighting or something, because the replacement activity - reckless car driving at the track, was not as much fun. I mean it was OK, just I didn't expect Fast and Furious in the fields ya know? And really, not as many people can race cars as can dance. And the only racing that has a plot point is actually school bus racing which is not that fast to be honest.
The movie is dumb, but it's based on a dumb movie. It's fun, but it has stretches of boredom and eye rollery stupid dialogues. I particularly liked "You're hotter than socks on a rooster." I think the original was the same though. Still I think the original is probably better. The 80's version has better acting, but less dancing, though more iconic dancing I'm guessing. I'm not sure though, the angry dance scene in the remake is maybe better, for sure more over the top with the emotive expression. He is really venting with his choreography. They are both campy, so probably hit the old one if you're a retro hound with principles of holding out against the future or if you're feeling the 80's and want to see old stars when they were young. Check the remake if you want to hear remixes of the old tunes and see new stars before they fizzle or shoot up or should that be out? Who knows, both probably, this is the folks what live in n Hollyweird, and odds are some of these folk will end up in rehab. Not Miles Teller I hope. He's got a bright future I'd bet.
The opening scene of the movie has three little girls playing tea party then leaping to their deaths. My immediate reaction? Fuck you movie! And that's not the only fuck you reaction it got from me because this gothic ghost story is package delivery of child death, and it wraps that tragedy right up tight to the end. Once more, FU movie! I avoided articles on the film, and trailers after I caught the first one, besides it didn't give away much, just that there was some shady lady in black and Harry Potter was going to her spooky house, so the film's subject matter surprised me.
Perhaps I should have seen it coming, but I didn't and that's okay I guess. I like scary movies, but I hates when horror flicks utilise the child in danger trope. It's so cheap and exploitive to milk that scenario. It works though, because who the hell can remain stoic in the face of that? Someone fronting, or someone with a heart of stone, a grinch heart maybes.
It's well done. The acting is good, the setting is eerie, the house in the middle of a tideland oasis is spectacular, even if it's a set or CGI or whatever, cudos on the spooktacular atmosphere. They got the Edwardian period details down and it's a total creepshow, with tons of jump scares. I counted 8 that gave me a start and a flinch, with 2 that actually made me give a little shriek. There was scattered laughter throughout the theatre after most all of them. Tension relief and all, but the laughs died out, as the scares came fast and furious when the story escalated in the third act toward the resolution. It was pretty satisfying spook flick overall.
Even though this is being marketed as Daniel Radcliffe's first adult/non Harry Potter role, I couldn't help but think of him as Harry. It even has the look and feel of a Potter flick some, with the supernatural elements and the toff's house with the eccentric posh lady and her mad behaviours that the non-Harry, junior lawyer/clerk character Radcliffe is playing, gamely tolerates - even down to the same mannerisms he used for Harry Potter. Plus it's got a magical problem Radcliffe is bent on solving, and when Radcliffe does battle with the spooks, I wanted him to pull out his wand and splat them with an expelioramus!, or whatever magical Latinesque gibberish does the trick.
I dunno what to say about the end. It was awful, and romantic both, so I have to commend the writer of the book Susan Hill, or maybe it's the one what did the screenplay adaptation, Jane Goldman, whichever is responsible - Good job! It's not easy to pull off summat that gives you chills yet your kinda happy about, because even though it was terrible, yeah, it was a happy ending.
It was also made into a movie in 1988, which you can see on youtube.
Another Harry Potter connection - Adrian Rawlins, who played James Potter, Harry's dad in the Potter flicks, does the same character as Daniel Radcliffe in the 1988 version.
