Re-evaluating my priorities, and what that means for my posts on here

I've been unhappy for a few months now.  Super unhappy, having a really hard time getting excited about much of anything, feeling like I was worthless.  So I've been searching for an answer, and I happened to stumble upon this episode of the Cracked podcast last night, and it got me thinking super hard about the way I've been spending my time.  If you've had any doubts of your own, I recommend listening to it.

A Return to the Dreaming

I've said before and I'll say again that I hate editing podcasts.  I love doing them though.  Guesting on other podcasts has always been the best because it means I get to show up to discuss and then do nothing afterward.  For my own, I definitely don't want to present the idea that I hated doing Strangers from the Internet or A Return to the Dreaming.  I love talking to Bethany and JD (as well as our guests on SftI) and I think we had some really great discussions on both shows.  As I listen again to edit, I enjoy our discussions again.  There's nothing cooler than when you're sitting there listening to a show you recorded a while ago, and a topic comes up and you're thinking about the topic while you edit and then a little while later, boom, that thing you were thinking is right there because we're awesome people so of course it occurred to us then.  It's getting down in the weeds, having to clear up every single stutter and verbal tick, listening to a sentence three, four, five times in a row as you slowly clean up those things and make sure it still sounds like a normal proper sentence.  Deciding if it's better to leave in that goof up because taking it out may make the rest sound stilted or odd without the context.  I know from listening to other podcasts that too many verbal ticks can drive a listener crazy and I want to provide a quality product, but the tedium of editing means I can't do it for more than small bits at a time.  So far I have kept A Return to the Dreaming to a once a month schedule but every time it feels like I'm going to end up taking longer.  And knowing I've still got five episodes to get through after the one I'm on isn't helping things, it feels like there's no end in sight.

My point being that I am committed to getting the episodes out, but I don't know what kind of schedule it will be at going forward.  If past history is an indicator, it may stay on schedule.  This may just be a mental thing I need to get over, is my point.  Stop imposing a deadline on myself for no good reason.

Bill Murray Project

Here's an honest confession.  I care a lot about what other people think.  Way, way too much.  I frequently set expectations from myself based on how I think others are going to react.  An image that I feel like I need to uphold.  "If I don't post frequently, people will forget about my blog entirely."  Ha!  As if there's ever been a large number of people paying attention anyway.  "If I abandon a project, people will think I am irresponsible/somehow worth less."  Because all those people I know who start projects and abandon them are totally hated by the people who follow them, right?  Yes, it's true that when those people announce a new project, internally I'm thinking "we'll see how long this lasts" but so what?  It's their time and they can do as they please with it.  Ditto with my own.

I came up with this project because there are a few Murray films I want to revisit.  I added in all Murray films as a way to "post more often."  I switched them to videos in an effort to make videos again even though I didn't have the time to edit.  Also because I quickly found out there's only so much to be said about most comedy films.  I look at the remainder of Bill Murray's work, and I still see some of the movies I want to revisit, but I also see some I feel no need to revisit because I know I don't like them (I'm looking at you, Coffee & Cigarettes) or because I know perfectly well that they're enjoyable, and most of them are popular enough that you don't need me telling you that Ed Wood is good and you should see it.

So going forward I plan to revisit the films I want, check out some of the others I haven't seen before that look interesting to me, and I will post about them if I feel like there's something I want to say about them.

I also plan to find a way to use the "5 minutes about..." videos in another fashion, because I really do enjoy talking to the camera.  The time limit has already proved helpful for Pop Culture Revolver, where Jak, JD and I all felt like knowing that we were limited on time kept us all on point and focused for the discussion.

Beatlemiscellania

Unlike the Bill Murray films, I'm interested in all of these because I'm a big Beatles fan.  Even the ones I've already seen I want to revisit, and even if hardly anyone is listening, I just like explaining Beatle references and talking about them.  These have obviously already been on a "whenever I feel like it" schedule and will probably continue as just that.

Monthly Midnight Movie Exchange

Once a month I sit down to watch a film and then talk to Jak and Noel about it the next day.  Some of the choices haven't been particularly enjoyable for me, but I still like the idea of the project, I enjoy talking to them both, and I see no reason to change anything about it. I would say the main possibility is if I feel like I run out of movies to share.

Castle Rock Companion

Noel and I already worked together on the Golden Years posts and I enjoyed them.  I listened to The Gunslinger audiobook because I want to revisit the series, and conferring with Noel he agreed I should cover it for CRC regardless of whether or not an adaptation ever appears.  Basically, the name of the project is vague enough that it can encompass any and all King related works we wish to cover.  Like the Beatles, I really enjoy King and I will continue to talk about his work in one form or another.  The most likely change that could happen would be not posting so regularly.

No Game New Year

A large part of what started this post is that I started drafting a post for the end of the year, a "what I have learned" kind of thing.  And the ridiculousness of waiting until December 31st for things I already know now began to seem super-duper ridiculous to me.  So I asked myself why, and once again it's all related to these promises I made to myself and not letting myself down, which in my reality means not letting other people down or the imagined "other" down.  So yeah, that post will probably go up pretty soon and I will lift this foolish embargo.  Because giving up on new year's resolutions before the year is up is normal and human, and I'm not going to win the love and adoration of millions just because I make it all the way to December 31st.  Especially if there's a game out there that I have the time and money to play.  And I haven't had the time lately because I've been forcing myself to do these other projects.

Wolverine and the X-men posts

The X-men are up there with the Beatles and King for me.  I love them, and will always want to talk about them and share my love with others in some fashion.  I'm going to keep re-watching this series because I think it's great.  Will I keep writing about it?  I'm not sure.  I've noticed that my last couple of posts were really just me recapping the show, pointing out some cameos.  Some of which I have to confirm through Wikipedia because I missed a good decade of X-men comics.  I think I just took that from a "not sure" to a definite "no," unless I find something I really want to say about them.

Pop Culture Revolver

I think what you can kind of tell over all is that a lot of the above is about slimming things down or slowing them up.  A good portion of them could even be incorporated into Pop Culture Revolver instead - for instance once I get to the end of Wolverine and the X-men, I could invite on anyone else who has watched the series to talk about it.  I don't feel like I need to force myself to watch The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou or Moonrise Kingdom again because I know I like them, but that doesn't mean I couldn't do an episode about Wes Anderson films in general.  There are many Sandman related comics not directly written by Gaiman that JD and I didn't do an episode for, but could totally be covered here without giving me yet another episode to edit.  My general idea is to do this podcast every other week, but we'll see how realistically that can be upheld.

Things that have nothing to do with posting on the internet, gasp!

I have multiple Excel spreadsheets that I use to organize my time.  There is "Week Schedule" where I have columns for Monday through Sunday and rows for hours that I'm awake.  I block out the time when I'm at work and use the rest to plan my meals and activities the rest of the time.  There's "Creative Projects and Ideas" where the first tab is a calendar where I fill out what posts on what day and the remaining tabs are separated by project and I organize what needs to be done for them.  There are abandoned projects, current projects, and possible future projects.  And one thing I noticed is that recently I've been adding tabs that are not necessarily related to something I could post on here.

• I'm tracking which of those gifted comics I've read regardless of whether or not I'll review them.
• I've got my Netflix disc queue prioritized so I can see when I can realistically discontinue that part of the service.
• I recently put my amazon wishlist in there, seeing what I can change from physical media to digital, to see what I can experience through a streaming service instead, and whether there's stuff there I truly want/need.
• I've got a list of movies I only have via VHS to determine whether I should get better versions or just copy them over via a VCR/video camera hook up.
• I've got a list of books sitting around my house that I've never actually read
• The No Game New Year tab is really just a list of games I haven't played yet
• I've got some helpful links on how to make a t shirt quilt out of some old shirts that no longer fit me but I'm too attached to part with.

The point is, my house is currently full to the point that I can't get to things easily.  And I've realized I'm just not that attached to things as a I used to be.  I'm not going to know what is worth keeping and what's not unless I have the chance to go through these things, and going through them often gets deferred because "I must edit" or "Gotta watch this so I can make progress on this project" while I allow myself to be continually miserable because I feel cramped in my packed house.

It's stupid behavior.  I have to stop making myself guilty if  I want to be a consumer rather than a producer.  I have to stop telling myself that cleaning up the house isn't an accomplishment because it's not a creative endeavor.

I'm not going to be rich and famous.  I'm not even going to be internet famous.  Honestly, the idea that that is somehow a good thing to be is ludicrous when you see how those people get harassed and criticized on a regular basis.  Obviously it means enough to them to continue, but I'm so tired of putting things out there and being disappointed because people didn't get excited about it the way I hoped they would.

I've been really stupid.  I started doing videos because no one reads but people like to watch videos, so maybe if I make them they'll love me like they love those other people!  I sit around like an asshole and think "Oh well, Igor and Noel will like this, but no one else will notice" totally under appreciating the fact that I do in fact have two awesome friends who enjoy what I do.  And they're not the only ones, they may be the ones who comment the most but sitting around expecting comments is just sitting there going "Love me!  Validate me!  Need me!  Convince me I'm special!"

There's a line from a Liz Phair song.  She's talking about something else, but she says "If you do it and you're still unhappy, then you know that the problem is you."

So this is the point where I say no more.  No more putting something out there in the hopes that others will notice.  I will write when I want to write and I will work on videos when I want to do them and I will discuss things with my friends and record them when I want to.  And if I want to sit at home and play a game or watch a show or read a book I will without stopping to think about whether or not such thing is something I can review.  And the world will not end!  Imagine that.

5 minutes about Mad Dog and Glory

I'm so glad I know for sure I like the next film on the list.

5 minutes about Groundhog Day (video)

5 minutes about What About Bob? (video review)

5 minutes about Quick Change (video review)

Time to discuss a largely forgotten film that Murray himself co-directed.

 

(A little more than) 5 minutes about Ghostbusters II (video review)

I have been missing making videos like crazy, and simultaneously getting a little bored with the written reviews, and wanted to try something different.  This is unscripted, so expect it to be a little rough around the edges.  I'm sure the stuttering will decrease the more I do them.

 

Club Paradise

This film is another of Harold Ramis' films that I wanted to watch in addition to the Bill Murray films. Murray is not in this one, but his brother Brian Doyle-Murray co-wrote it with Ramis and appears in the film.  Apparently, Bill was actually offered the lead role and turned it down.  This film was hard to find and seems to be mostly forgotten, and after viewing it I can understand why.

The cast is spectacular and filled to the brim with comedic actors of the time.  Simon Jones, best known for playing Arthur Dent in the radio and BBC mini-series of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy even has a small role in it.  Besides Doyle-Murray, you've got Robin Williams, Rick Moranis, Eugene Levy, Andrea Martin, Steven Kampmann, the list goes on and on.  So you would expect this to be an entertaining film.

Unfortunately, it's not.  The plot follows Williams as he escapes the hectic and dangerous life of being a firefighter to move to a remote island in the Caribbean.  He purchases a hotel to help his friends and a lot of the assorted cast are people who booked a stay there.  The main problem is that the plot largely meanders around all this and packs in too many story lines, none of which are particularly interesting or funny.  Williams is far too subdued in his role, and all the other assorted bits like the two nerds trying to score some weed to get ladies or the married couple complaining about every little thing that's wrong just fall flat.

I'm going to have to agree with Bill on this one, the film just isn't worth your time.  I can't even point to a scene or two that might be worth checking out.  My excitement at seeing Simon Jones at the beginning was the only enjoyment I got out of it, and mostly because I took that to mean Ramis was probably a fan of H2G2.  This is a film  that can remain mostly forgotten.

Scrooged

Reviewing a Christmas movie in April doesn't exactly put you in the spirit of things but that's what happens when you approach a person's body of work in chronological order.  I had thought I had seen this one before, but viewing it this time around I'm pretty confident I never did.  Or perhaps I was so young that I forgot it all.  Regardless, I was pleased to find how much I enjoyed it this time.

The tale of Scrooge can be a tired one, and sprinkling in Disney characters or Muppets doesn't necessarily help it.  But I appreciated this modernized version of the tale which follows a TV executive who has abandoned his personal relationships for  the sake of his career.  While Frank Cross' life is very similar to Ebenezer's, the variations help it feel fresh.

This movie also contains a pretty amazing cast for the time period.  Besides Murray in the title role, you've got Karen Allen as his love interest, Bobcat Goldthwait as the employee he fires, David Johanesen as the Ghost of Christmas Past, and Carol Kane as the Ghost of Christmas Present.  Lots of actors portray themselves thanks to the fact that this is set at a TV studio and two of Murray's brothers play his father and brother.  I even spotted a lot of lesser known actors in small roles, like Tony Steedman as a waiter (I know him as Socrates in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.)  And I recognized John Glover's voice immediately as one I associated with the Riddler in Batman the Animated Series.  Spotting the cast is a fun adventure in and of itself.

But beyond that the performances are worth it, the story well told, and the effects pretty decent.  If I was only allowed to watch one version of A Christmas Carol every year, I think this one would be it.  I look forward to watching it again come December to get me in the proper mood.

Little Shop of Horrors (1986)

A while back I had posted a review of the original 1960 Roger Corman film and in that I did make mention of this not-quite-remake.  It's an interesting chain to get from there to this one because the stage show was an adaptation of the film and then this film is an adaptation of that stage show.

I said a lot about this film already but I'll say it again, the songs are great, and Levi Stubbs in particular stands out whenever he's singing.  The other actors are comedic actors first and foremost, so their voices are not as strong, but the catchiness of the tunes usually makes up for it.  Ironically, Ellen Greene is a broadway performer and yet she's the one who I like the least.  I suppose it's a style choice and I just don't care for it.

I did really like the set design, which looks a lot like a stage show, giving everything a slightly plastic look to it.  The puppets used for Audrey II also look great and move well, which is no real surprise since Frank Oz is the one directing the film.

Steve Martin is great as the sadistic dentist, but Bill Murray really does steal his scene as the masochist coming in to be tortured.  It's so completely over the top and hysterical and even if you're not a fan of musicals, you owe it to yourself to find this scene and watch it.

This time around I was able to watch the original ending of the film, the dark ending in which Seymour and Audrey die.  I can see why some people didn't like it, as it is very dark and scary, but the song and the effects used as the plants take over the world is fantastic, and it's a shame that most people never got to see this.  The dark end also makes sense for Seymour, who has been murdering people up until now.  Yes, he was manipulated by Audrey II, but he didn't put up much of a fight up until the end.  The story is largely a revenge fantasy for him, and revenge fantasies often (and in my opinion should) end with the person paying the ultimate price.  I also just enjoy dark endings when they are told well.

I would recommend the film to pretty much anyone, regardless of whether you like musicals or not.  Between the strong cast and the excellent puppetry, I think there's enough here for just about anyone to enjoy.  If you're already familiar with the film but haven't seen the original ending, you can find it out there on Youtube as well as on the recent blu-ray release.

The Razor's Edge

It's almost inevitable that famous comedic actors will eventually go for a dramatic role.  They seem to have the desire to prove themself capable of more than just making people laugh.  These days most of us are pretty familiar with Bill Murray sometimes doing these dramatic roles, but The Razor's Edge was his first such film.  He co-wrote the script with director John Byrum, adapting the novel of the same name.  There was another adaptation of this book back in 1946, and from what I hear it is pretty different.  Probably because Murray puts a lot of influence on the main character Larry Darrell.  What's interesting is that no one wanted to produce this film and it was only because Murray agreed to do Ghostbusters that Columbia agreed to help make the picture.

The story is a fairly common one of a man in search of himself and the meaning of life.  Larry is a carefree spirit, having much in common with the rascals we've seen Murray portray in film up to this point.  But he's sent to Europe as an ambulance driver in World War I and the experience changes him dramatically, leaving him lost and confused.  He postpones his planned wedding and declines an offer to be a stockbroker in order to go to Paris.  His travels also take him to India before returning back to Paris.  He spends time with Tibetan monks and tries to be a good man, though a sequence of tragic events make him question whether or not it all truly matters in the end.

While Murray's wit does come through in some of the scenes, overall this is a pretty quiet film, relying far more on drama than comedy.  He handles it well and Catherine Hicks, Theresa Russell, Denholm Elliot, and James Keach round out a strong supporting cast around him.  Perhaps the strongest scene happens while he's still in the war, when the man leading them (I'm not sure if he's meant to be a captain or not) dies.  He had seen the man insult other servicemen who had just passed away, clearly a way of dealing with their deaths.  As such, he leans over the dead man and talks about how much of a slob and a glutton he was, mourning him in much the same way.  It's partly emotional because the man is playing by Murray's brother Brian Doyle-Murray, and partly because it was Murray's tribute to his recently deceased friend John Belushi.

Like a lot of adaptations, the movie has the feel of just scraping the surface.  I get the feeling that the depth of the relationships Larry has with the other members of the cast probably goes a lot further than what we get to see in the film.  His time in India deep in meditation would probably be better explored as well.  That said, the movie doesn't feel like it's missing anything either.  They seem to have done a good job of finding key points to build a proper story around.

I was surprised to find that this film was not well received when it was released.  Maybe at the time people weren't quite ready to accept Murray as a dramatic actor.  As for me I enjoyed it a lot.  If you're the type of person who thinks the journey is far more important than the destination, I think you'll enjoy it too.  While not well known, the film is currently available and I recommend watching it if you get the chance.

Nothing Lasts Forever

This film is another mostly forgotten Bill Murray appearance, primarily because the film has never had a home video release.  As a primarily black and white film meant to have the feel of  the 1930s, a lot of film clips were used, and Warner Bros has never fully secured the rights that would allow a DVD release to be possible.  The copy of the film I was able to find was clearly taken from VHS and contained a lot of audio corruption, so it is out there if you know how to find it.

The plot of the film makes you expect this to be a Terry Gilliam picture:  a young man trying to make his way as an artist in New York City discovers a secret society living underground.  They work to bring a better world for everyone, and they want young Adam to journey to the moon and fall in love with a local girl there, Eloy, because doing so will help them bring peace there.  He's able to go because tours are conducted on a regular basis sending elderly there to shop, though when they come back they find every time they try to say "the moon," "Miami" comes out instead.

The film was actually written and directed by Tom Schiller, who was an original writer on Saturday Night Live.  As such the film is produced by Lorne Michaels and contains Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray.  It also stars Zach Galligan, best known as the star of Gremlins.  Aykroyd plays Adam's boss at the Holland Tunnel, and Murray is the tour guide on the bus tour to the moon.  It makes him the somewhat villain of the piece. as he doesn't want Adam to interact with Eloy or otherwise disturb their lucrative money making scheme they've set up on the moon.  He's a smiling villain, playing nice with the elderly guests but stern and mean with Adam.  It's a bit different from the characters I've watched him play up until now.

I wanted to like this film.  The black and white retro feel has a nice charm to it, Galligan is a decent, likeable lead and the fantastical nature of the story is amusing.  The plot barely makes sense and is barely resolved, but the design of the moon landscape and the way the film just kind of randomly stops so that Eloy can sing the title song to Adam is very sweet.  But the film spends a little too much time getting to the good parts and feels overly long for its 82 minutes.

That said, while I would probably never watch this film again, I do hope it does eventually get a DVD release.  Fans of Aykroyd, Murray and Galligan would definitely find it worth a watch, and a cleaned up version of the film would probably look really nice.  If you're a fan of whimsical modern fantasy, it's worth finding.

Ghostbusters

I was already putting off doing this review, feeling like I couldn't properly state the affect this movie had on my generation or explain what it was that made it so magical, and then today I hear the news that Harold Ramis has passed away, and I am even more overwhelmed.  But perhaps that means it's the perfect time to try.

The original idea for the film was Dan Aykroyd's, but it was too large in scope to be filmed.  Having recently watched the extended edition of The Blues Brothers, I can tell you that an unfocused Aykroyd not being reigned in is not a good thing.  Fortunately Ivan Reitman knew this too, and called in Harold Ramis to help Aykroyd with the script and bring it more down to earth.  While the two previous Reitman/Ramis collaborations were lacking in focus (Meatballs, Stripes) Ramis seemed to have learned quite a bit from his time in the director's chair since then (Caddyshack, National Lampoon's Vacation).  As such this film stands miles ahead of all those that came before it.  It's a merging of all those talents plus Bill Murray at just the right moment to create something truly special, something that couldn't ever entirely be reproduced again (depending on how you feel about the sequel anyway).

This was also the first family friendly film for all of them, and you almost have to wonder if that was also a large part of the reason why it stands above - while there is plenty of sexual innuendo and jokes designed to fly over the heads of children and make the adults watching with them laugh, the fact that they're not trying to throw in a pair of breasts just because seems to help.  Or maybe it's that this is going into the realm of science fiction and the paranormal, a fascinating subject, and something children in particular are ready to believe.

That last part definitely has a lot to do with why the film became such a phenomenon at least.  The cartoon and toys that followed helped too, providing us with the continuing adventures and allowing us to don our own proton packs and throw out traps to catch ghosts.  It also made something we were once so afraid of seem controllable and fun.  There was less of a reason to worry about the monster under your bed or hiding in your closet if you could blast them and trap them in a containment unit.

The Ghostbusters themselves were the height of cool.  I've never taken a poll, but from most people I know, it seems like Egon and Peter are the stand out favorites.  Egon was the awkward nerd that reminded us of ourselves, and Peter was the wise-ass you wished you could be.  Which is not to put down Ray or Winston - Ray's enthusiasm and childlike innocence is a large part of the appeal of the film, and Winston's every-man attitude gives you someone to relate to.  They are all perfect in their own way, and it's this strong cast that really makes the film work, and continued to make it work in the sequel even when the plot wasn't as strong.

Somewhere in an alternate universe stands a film where Venkmen is played by John Belushi, Louis Tully by John Candy, and Winston by Eddie Murphy.  While I'd love to see that film, I feel pretty confident in saying that the one we got is better.  Because while John Belushi was a talent in his own right, this film needs Bill Murray, and is better because he's here.  Murray always brings at least some degree of improvisation to his roles, and it may just be personal opinion but his wise ass beats Belushi's any day of the week.  It's hard to pull off asshole who is also likeable, but that's exactly what Venkman is, and you can understand why Dana Barrett does ultimately fall for him.

Of course, I didn't.  I fell for Egon.  Hard.  As I said earlier, a large part of the appeal was that Egon was like me - glasses, quiet and reserved, a bit awkward and shy and oblivious.  But he was also accomplished and capable and had what seemed to be one of the coolest jobs in the world.  When I watched the cartoon and saw Janine so completely smitten with Egon, I totally understood.  I was too.  Even watching it today, I still find myself smitten with him.  He's written intentionally creepy in parts, but he's still adorably awkward, Ramis' quiet charm coming through all the way.

I technically wrote about this film once before on here, and everything I said there still applies.  It's a great film for both kids and adults, and it deserves its cultural status.  I would go so far as to say it will hold up as a classic for years to come as well.

As far as my thoughts on losing Ramis, I'm at a loss.  As a writer and director in particular, he did a lot to change comedy for the better, and his influence is immeasurable. I'm looking forward to checking out some of his work that I missed even more now.  It's a shame that it will now have a bit of a bittersweet edge to it, knowing he's now gone.

Beatlemiscellania - The Rutles - All You Need is Cash

Trying to point out every Beatles reference contained in All You Need is Cash would be a mammoth undertaking.  Writer/director/star Eric Idle meticulously looked through photographs and books to try to capture something as close to the history of the Beatles as possible for this mockumentary. George Harrison even provided him access to The Long and Winding Road, an unreleased film Neil Aspinall had put together that was essentially an early version of The Beatles Anthology.  This film is the story of the Beatles, just twisted around a bit to have a laugh and poke fun at it all.

The film started as a short created for Rutland Weekend Television, Idle's television series at the time.  The short was a parody of the Beatles in the field in A Hard Day's Night, and Idle also brought the short to Lorne Michaels for him to play on Saturday Night Live.  Everyone loved the skit and Idle decided to expand it into a full film that Lorne agreed to produce and pushed for it to appear on NBC.  What we get is an interesting hybrid of both Monty Python and Saturday Night Live style humor wrapped into one, featuring performers that appeared on both shows, as well as excellent parody songs done in the Beatles style by Neil Innes.  Some of the songs are more traditional and could easily fit side by side the Beatles tunes, while others are direct copies of existing songs with (if possible for "I Am the Walrus" and "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds") even sillier lyrics.

The attention to detail on the project is really quite stunning, and makes The Rutles essentially one of the first Beatles tribute bands.  Throughout the musical performances, not only are they often matching the outfits the Beatles would wear, they frequently match their movements and facial expressions as well.  Innes even sounds like John Lennon on most of the songs he sings lead on.  Even though the details are changed for the sake of comedy, the events still mirror most of what happened to the Beatles exactly, and stretches out to the other major players along with them.

What comes off the most poorly is the portrayal of Leggy Mountbatten, the parody character of Brian Epstein.  It's a well known fact that Epstein was gay, and Leggy is as well, supposedly only managing the Rutles because he liked their tight trousers.  He's repeatedly made fun of until he eventually takes a teaching gig in Australia, which is a stand in for when Epstein committed suicide.  It's the one part of the film that I feel comes off a bit more mean spirited than the rest.  While you might say that having the Yoko Ono stand in be a daughter of Hitler is worse, I felt like that one had more to do with the public's reaction to her than saying Yoko was ever truly that bad.

Probably the funniest part of the film for me is when the Rutles take up tea drinking as a stand in for the Beatles drug use.  The serious way in which Idle as the reporter talks about their excessive tea drinking just tickles me.  Right behind that would be when he interviews Brian Thigh (played by Dan Aykroyd), the man who turned down the Rutles.  It's primarily the slow way in which he explains the mistake the man made, claiming that he thought guitar groups were on the way out, and then point blank asking "Why are you such an asshole?"  Not surprisingly, that was cut off when televised in America.

While I didn't count this film for my Bill Murray project as it was not played in theaters, it is worth mentioning that he is here as "Bill Murray the K," a radio DJ in America playing the Rutles.  It's essentially just him yelling into a microphone for a few minutes, but he's amusing in the role.

Besides appearances by Ron Wood, Mick Jagger, and Paul Simon, George Harrison plays a reporter in the film in one funny scene.  He was supportive of the project from the very beginning, and loved the results.  All the other Beatles are on record for saying they also enjoyed it.

This film also has a little extra bit of fun for me as a New Orleans native, as the reporter briefly visits the city to try to interview musicians who influenced the Rutles.

As a huge Beatles fan the film is really endless fun for me as I can recognize every reference and joke being done, but I do have to wonder how enjoyable it is for someone who isn't as large a fan.  In 1978 when this was made, most people probably still remembered the Beatles phenomenon pretty well, but as time passes I wonder how much life it will have for those who don't know the Beatles story.  I don't think you need to know the Beatles story to understand the film, but the humor is definitely more dry and subtle than laugh out loud hilarious.  I would still recommend the film to non-fans, particularly to people who enjoy mockumentaries in general.

Tootsie

This is one of those films I've heard about all my life, but never seen before.  It came out when I was very young and was very highly regarded, so I was looking forward to have the chance to see it and see if it lived up to those standards.  I was a little worried a cross dressing comedy might not hold up too well in today's modern world, but I have to say my worries were unfounded.

This film is really more drama than comedy.  While there are some funny moments, this is not the outright silliness of something like Mrs. Doubtfire though it's also obvious that that film took a lot of influence from this one.  This is primarily the story of struggling actor Michael Dorsey, who dresses like a woman to get a job because his reputation prevents him from getting a job as a man.  While he originally does it as an excuse to make some quick money, he ends up learning a lot about himself as well as about women in general.

Bill Murray appears in the film as Dorsey's roommate Jeff, and this is probably the most serious role he's played up to this point.  He is still there for laughs, but they're far more subtle laughs than the goofy groundskeeper in Caddyshack or the devil may care wiseguy from Stripes.  He's a playwright of the most pretentious caliber, explaining to friends in one scene that he doesn't want people to come up to him and say "I dug your play" but rather to have them ask "What was that?"  It's a good spoof on these type of artists.  He also often becomes the voice of the audience when talking to Michael, questioning him if maybe he's taking his pretending to be Dorothy Michaels just a little too far.

The story also works pretty well as an examination of feminism and gender roles, as Michael shakes up the soap opera status quo by being a more independent woman on the show without falling into the role of ice queen, thereby inspiring women who watch the show everywhere.  He also tries to inspire his coworker Julie to get out of the relationship she's in with their womanizing boss. It creates an interesting duality as Michael is not only lying to his coworkers and most of America watching the show, but he's also doing his own lying and womanizing to an old female friend of his at the same time.  Add to that the layer of his coworker's widowed father trying to court him, and the film ends up with a lot of layers but handles them all really well.

Another problem that can happen with a film like this is how it ends.  With this level of deception, can relationships truly be repaired once the lie is revealed?  I think it manages to handle that pretty well, giving Michael a little bit of hope to have a relationship with Julie (who he of course fell in love with, what else would you expect?) but also not having her forgive him 100% either.  I also like that he at least tries to apologize to her father, though I can't help but think a traditional man like that would realistically not want to associate with him at all after everything that happened.

Overall, I was pleased with Tootsie, finding it a good drama with some nice touches of humor here and there.  If you've never seen it before, I recommend giving it a watch.

Stripes

Stripes was made by much of the same creative team that made Meatballs, but it's a strong improvement over that film.  I believe that's partially due to them learning and growing over the two years, as Bill Murray and Harold Ramis had worked on Caddyshack in between this, and also because of the addition of some strong cast members like John Candy, Judge Reinhold, John Larroquette, and John Diehl.

Stripes is also much more focused than either Meatballs or Caddyshack, because the plot isn't just "a series of whacky events at boot camp" but also shows at least some degree of characters growth for both Murray's John and Ramis' Russell as they go from being losers with no real future to actual soldiers.  It is of course a comedy, so it's not exactly a sharp dramatic change, but it does help to give the film much more focus than those previous films had.

This was also Ramis' first time working on a film, and while I chose to do this project around Murray's films, I have to admit I have a really strong soft spot for Ramis.  The reason why is related to the next film we'll see the two of them together in, but his goofy charm is also present here.  His inexperience as an actor does show, as some of his line delivery can occasionally be a little flat, and you can tell there are times when he's just looking to Murray or Candy to give him something to react to.  But that awkwardness actually helps, such as in the scene when the two of them are enlisting, and Murray starts singing in ominous tones as the officer hands Russell the papers to sign.  The big grin Ramis has plastered on his face tells you he's just really enjoying being there and watching Murray perform, and it adds an extra element to the moment you might not get from someone more experienced.  He also just has a wonderfully expressive face, and even when he's just mugging Candy, he steals some of the attention from that scene.

The movie does rely on the strength of its various bits and pieces, and naturally some are going to be better than others.  Murray does carry the majority of them, like when he's leading the troops at the graduation ceremony or flirting with P.J. Soles character.  That moment is also a strong improvement over Meatballs, as while there is still a little bit of "She doesn't like him, oh wait she does" to the plot thread, the two of them have more chemistry and it comes off a little more natural.  I was also happy to see that the schmuck he is at the beginning of the picture isn't rewarded for his garishness, but instead flat out dumped by his girlfriend.  Instead of inappropriately tackling P.J. Soles, he pokes at her with kitchen utensils.  That probably sounds awful as a description but it's not as violent as it sounds, and the scene actually comes off really cute.

There's also some more raunchiness and nudity here, as seems to be the status quo for adult comedies of this period.  John Larroquette's character spies on female soldiers in the shower, and the gang goes to a strip club where John Candy ends up mud wrestling four women.  I will say that it's at least believable that Murray's character's idea of a fun night out for the boys would be that type of thing, but I also don't know that it was necessary to really spend so much time on it.  Mostly because you could take out the nudity and this would probably end up being a PG film that anyone could enjoy.

The movie also changes in tone a bit after the guys graduate, sending them on a mission.  Mostly because we've had a lot of craziness leading up to this point and now suddenly we're staying focused on this one plot for the rest of the film.  It's a little odd to see them become action heroes, even bungling ones, after we've spent most of the film on them training and goofing off.  But I can see that they wanted there to be a payoff to all that, and it does work well enough to do so, it's just not as strong as the rest of the film.  But it also gave us an appearance by Joe Flaherty, and I can never say no to that.

Overall, I definitely recommend the movie to anyone who loves comedy.  I also watched the extended cut this time around, and it adds a few more funny scenes to the film as well as a little exposition that was probably cut for a reason, but leaving those moments in didn't make the movie drag at all. It's a fun time and a good film in the careers of Reitman, Murray, Ramis and Candy.

Loose Shoes

Sometimes the problem with projects like reviewing every film a person is in is that some films aren't entirely reviewable. I find myself in that space right now with Loose Shoes, also re-titled as Coming Attractions and Quackers, because I guess if your movie doesn't have much value you might as well give it three titles.

You'll see most descriptions saying the film is a series of shorts presented as trailers, but that's not entirely accurate. While the first few shorts do resemble trailers, many of them become too long and show too much story to truly be considered a preview for a film, and there's also an intermission with a kind of commercial and a musical performance at the end. As such, it's largely a cluttered mess of various sequences pushed together. A skit show stretched out to 70 minutes.

The jokes are immensely flimsy. "The Howard Huge Story" is a trailer for a bio pic of Howard Hughes, except he has a large penis. "Skateborders from Hell" (that's how they spell it) is basically a biker gang on skateboards. "Invasion of the Penis Snatchers" shows us a UFO, then cuts to a man going to use the bathroom and reaching and searching in his pants for what feels like eternity before finally screaming in horror because his member is gone.

The one trailer I found mildly funny was called "The Shaggy CEO" where Walt Whizney dies but comes back as a large shaggy dog (a man in a suit) and has to convince his brother Roy that he's really him. It's not much of a joke, but I thought it played on the hoax of Walt Disney freezing himself to come back to life combined with the proliferation of Shaggy Dog sequels the Disney company made well enough. Or maybe it was just the first one that wasn't in as poor taste as the others that I didn't mind it.

Bill Murray appears in a short titled "Three Chairs for Lefty" that while framed like a trailer really goes on far too long to be one. He's a man on death row for killing a judge, who studies law while he's on the toilet, starts a riot in the mess hall because he doesn't like the food, talks to a guy who tells him they found a tunnel out of the place but doesn't tell him where the tunnel is, then gets laughed at by the warden who tells him he appreciates the food Lefty made for him but he's still going to the electric chair. And would he mind holding a roast while he's sitting there so his wife can fix it up for dinner later? Murray also seems to be wearing blush and mascara for the short, though that may be a mix of a poor makeup crew and poor lighting on the set. As you can probably tell, it's not very funny and Murray doesn't really bring much of anything to the role.

Buddy Hackett appears as himself as a spokesman for S.T.O.P.I.T. during the intermission. The organization is there to help kids stop wetting the bed. They have a reproduction of the Manneken Pis on their grounds, but the water in the fountain is yellow. The nurses yell at the boys and tell them how bad they are, while Hackett asks for donations.

Howard Hesseman is in another short as a war correspondent, and this is where I have to be totally honest and admit I dozed off for a little bit. I don't remember what the joke was supposed to be here, but given how poor the other jokes were in the film I didn't really find myself wanting to rewind and find out. I apparently also missed some porn parody trailers. There were plenty of topless women in the early trailers, so I'm not surprised they included that too.

The movie ends with "Darktown After Dark." David Downing portrays a Cab Calloway type singing "Loose Shoes." The title of the song and its refrain are taken from a statement by racist politician Earl Butz. I won't quote it here because it's offensive and NSFW, but you can read it on the Wikipedia page for the film. The song runs with the quote, introducing other likes like "I don't need a watermelon patch." I understand the purpose of something like this, but I'm not sure the perfomance had to go on as long as it did. The other really awful thing about it is that thanks to the repetition, it's easy for the phrase to get stuck in your head. Given how awful it is, I'm not really crazy about that. In fact I'm really anxious to put this whole thing behind me so I never have it pop up in my head ever again.

Obviously, I do not recommend you finding this movie. There's nothing here all that funny, the shorts don't really tie together, and it's a waste of some perfectly good actors. Fortunately for me, Murray's film career improves quite a bit from here.

Caddyshack

I saw Caddyshack for the first time a couple years ago, and I mostly remember that I found Chevy Chase annoying and Bill Murray amusing.  In that short amount of time I forgot the main plot, as for the majority of the story we're actually following a young guy named Danny who is trying to earn a caddy based scholarship for college.

Harold Ramis co-wrote and directed this picture, and you can see some similarities between this and Meatballs, which he also co-wrote.  Though while Meatballs was a cluttered mess of events happening at a summer camp, the events surrounding this country club golf course are at least better strung together, if not always connected.  Danny's story is probably the most uninteresting, mostly because Michael O'Keefe sort of blends into the background.  The idea of a poor kid trying to get ahead while temptations of girls get in the way is pretty standard.  I think they knew this from the get go, and therefore filled the film with zany characters to help spice it up a bit more.

There's Chevy Chase, a rich man who loves to play golf but isn't interested in keeping score.  He just wants to live his life to the fullest and chase women.  There's Rodney Dangerfield, playing the same character he always plays, except this time he is also rich, and therefore being a foil to the bossy, stuck up judge who runs the country club and causing chaos wherever he goes.  Then there's Bill Murray as the assistant groundskeeper, occasionally interacting with the rest of the cast but largely off in his own world.

I'm not a fan of Chevy Chase myself, and as such I don't enjoy most of the scenes he's in.  He's just too smarmy and unlikeable.  Dangerfield's scenes strike me as at least half improvised, if not more.  His schtick is pretty one note, but it does have its moments.  Murray is definitely the oddest of the group, speaking in a strange muffled accent that makes him hard to understand at times.  But more often than not, the things he's mumbling to himself do end up being entertaining.  I would guess a large portion of his scenes were improvised as well.  His rivalry with the gopher is one of the elements that happens to run for the entirety of the film, and while the gopher puppet isn't the most advanced, it still works well in a cartoonish way.

This movie does rely on fart and poop jokes a little too heavily at times, though it's pretty mild in comparison to what movies would do later in the 90s.  But this is the kind of movie that has someone throw a Baby Ruth candy bar in a pool and have everyone freak out thinking it's poop.  There's also a few moments with topless ladies, for those who enjoy that.  It's all pretty mild compared to some of the raunchier comedies of the day though.  The dialogue is often pretty sharp too, which helps keeps it entertaining even when the plot is dragging.

This is not a film I normally would have returned to if it wasn't for this project.  It's not bad, but it does wander and there just isn't enough there that would keep me coming back.  Honestly I would recommend most people see the Bill Murray moments if you haven't before, and leave the rest for Chase and Dangerfield fans to enjoy. 

The Missing Link/B.C. Rock

The late 70s was a time for irreverent cartoons aimed at adults. After the success of his X-rated animated film Tarzoon: Shame of the Jungle, French cartoonist Picha created a follow up called The Missing Link. The original was in French, but an English dub was also created. The English version toned down the script in order to avoid the X rating. The soundtrack for the film was done by Leo Sayer, who I know best for his version of "When I Need You." If you're familiar with that song, the style here is fairly similar - that sort of light jazz sound.

 The plot of the film is pretty loose, but primarily follows the adventures of O, suggested by the narrator to be the missing link between cavemen and humanity. This is not meant to be any where near historically accurate, as the cavemen live in the same time as the dinosaurs, as well as some made up species like the No-Lobes (bald identical men who speak in cliches) and unnamed female feline creatures who seem to be on the same intelligence level as the cavemen if not a little smarter.
There's also a dragon thrown in for good measure, and in the English version he is voiced by an uncredited Bill Murray.

The humor here, such as it is, depends on raunchiness and shock value. In the beginning, the cavemen, who are fully nude and have their little tiny penises exposed at all times, don't know how to make love to the cavewomen, who all have ginormous breasts, until they view a stegosaurus mount another stegosaurus. The stegosaurus union also results in the male getting cut in half as he humps the female, because her plates are just that sharp, I guess. While the film does get away from this for a while when O goes out on his own, it doesn't really get any funnier.

O wanders the world, first with his brontosaurus dog-like companion Igua, then with a talking pterodactyl named Croak who wants to teach him things and show him the world. O, Croak, the no-lobes, and the dragon are pretty much the only characters who talk - all the other creatures are silent or speak in gibberish. There is a narrator trying to hold it all together, but more often than not this just becomes a bunch of barely connected scenes that are only vaguely interesting. The dragon is thoroughly ridiculous, and even Murray can't really save it. Apparently, dragons actually shoot fire out of their ass. When O sticks a cork up the dragon's butt, he's able to breathe fire after a bit of indigestion. He also curses a lot, calling O an asshole with just about every sentence he speaks. He eventually gets propelled away from him when the fire shoots from his mouth and he flies off like a rocket.

The point of O's various misadventures is for him to learn about fire, the wheel, clothing, and other such early caveman knowledge. He returns to the other cavemen and teaches them this, becoming their ruler. But it isn't long before they overthrow him, and use the things he taught them to become the most powerful creatures on earth. The dinosaurs commit mass suicide, the once large rats shrink in fear of them, etc. So see, the film wasn't just all shock value, it was about how evil man is and how he's ruining everything. Yeah, sure.

 In 1984, another version of the film was released, this time titled B.C. Rock. The footage was re-cut and the audio redone, replacing a few of Leo Sayer's songs with ones by popular musicians of the time including Hall & Oates and Genesis.The narrator was also replaced, this time being O telling us his story, though O is renamed to Stewie Babcock.  More of the characters are able to talk, but most of the time they either state the obvious or make some weak jokes.  The rock music does help to make some of the previously silent scenes more interesting, but none of the songs really stand out as something strong I'd listen to on their own.  The dragon scene is identical, as they clearly just used Murray's previous recording and combined it with the new lead responding to him.

In the end, I can't recommend either version of this movie.  The music is uninteresting, the animation is below average, the humor isn't funny, and the story is weak.  While it seems to have a small cult following, overall this movie has disappeared into obscurity for a reason.

Where the Buffalo Roam

Long before Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas became a film, there was Where the Buffalo Roam.  Made in 1980, it was an attempt to make a film out of Hunter S. Thompson's obituary for Oscar Zeta Acosta.  It stars Bill Murray as Thompson, which is why I'm reviewing it.

The film doesn't truly have a plot as much as it is just Thompson looking back at three moments in his life where he interacted with his friend, in the film named Carl Lazlo.  Lazlo is an attorney in the beginning, and he's on the side of the youth culture in the late 60s.  We see him defending young kids who were busted for marijuana possession, and then we fast forward to four years later when he is no longer an attorney and instead a freedom fighter trying to help an unnamed Latin American country.  Thompson runs into him one more time when covering the 1972 presidential election where he ends up getting Thompson thrown off the press plane.  In between these moments we see Thompson under the heavy influence of drugs and alcohol messing with people, speaking at a university, and just being his weird self.

I have to admit, I'm not a particularly big fan of Thompson or his style.  It's a little too out there for me, and a little too drug addled to be interesting.  I enjoyed the film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but that was primarily because it did a good job of showing us just what Thompson was seeing while under the influence, and also had a decent amount of humor to it.  Where the Buffalo Roam doesn't have either of those things.  The one scene that is at least slightly amusing is when Thompson gives another reporter an hallucinogenic drug. It's mostly worth it because Rene Auburjonois plays the straight laced man under the influence with a nice amount of humor.  But it's also not terribly different that any other such scene you've ever watched in film and television.

Credit should be given to Bill Murray however, who portrays Hunter S. Thompson very accurately.  It's hard to look at Bill Murray and forget who he is most of the time, but here I was able to forget for a while and just see him as Thompson.  The two of them apparently spent quite a bit of time together before and during filming, and he clearly absorbed his mannerisms and ways of speaking very well.

Overall, I can't recommend this one unless you're a fan of Thompson, or perhaps if you really enjoyed Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and wanted to see more of him.  For the average person, this film is just too messy and not particularly funny.

Mr. Mike's Mondo Video

As I said at the end of my Meatballs review, part of going through Bill Murray's entire film work means there's some buried and obscure films from the start of his career that I had never heard of before. This is definitely one of them. I'm kind of amazed that this even has a DVD release, and I would guess it is solely because of the fact that this film involves many of the original cast members of Saturday Night Live.  In fact, this was originally intended to air in the place of an episode when they were on break, but NBC rejected it and they chose to make it a film release instead.  The film is directed by Michael O'Donoghue, who plays the titular Mr. Mike.

The film is meant as a spoof the 1962 documentary Mondo Cane, which from what I can tell was a precursor to videos like the Faces of Death tapes I remember people talking about when I was young.  A sequence of disturbing imagery meant to shock and disgust you.  This one counts as a spoof in that overall, there's nothing truly shocking here, despite the repeated warnings throughout the video.  Nudity is about as racy as it gets, and some jokes are in poor taste, but it didn't make me feel uncomfortable watching it.  This is definitely a very dark style of comedy, however, and I have a feeling that many would not see any humor in it at all. 

It's a truly bizarre film, and one hard to describe without going through the various shorts one by one and recapping them.  There are so many that I don't really want to do that, but I'll touch on some that stood out to me.

After essentially three different warnings about how shocking the film is, the first short takes us to Amsterdam and shows us a man who gives cats swimming lessons.  I was initially horrified when I saw him throw the first cat into the pool, but the cat started swimming so expertly afterward and climbed back onto ground and strutted off without any type of panic that I don't think there was any kind of cruelty going on here.  Not all cats hate water and some of them do learn to swim, so clearly they found some who fit the bill.  This short is a little long, where we cut to a montage of various cats swimming in slow motion while orchestral music plays, but it was also kind of adorable to watch them swim.  Even that isn't enough for it though, as it then talks about cats being given hang gliding lessons, pauses on a "Deleted by the network" text screen for quite a while before finally cutting back to showing a cat fall from a great height. It's obviously a fake cat, but given the long pause followed by the splat it just doesn't work too well.

The next short flew completely over my head, as I didn't know who Jack Lord was.  I figured they were spoofing televangelists, as we see a group (led by Dan Aykroyd)  worshiping his picture and all wearing matching wigs.  If you're a fan of Hawaii Five-O you might get a kick out of it, but otherwise it hasn't aged very well.  Speaking of Aykroyd, he also has a brief short where he shows off his webbed toes.  From what I can tell, they are in fact real and not just them goofing around.

One of the smarter bits, in my opinion, is where they mash together Thomas Edison's "Electrocuting an Elephant" short with people being interviewed about whether or not an elephant should be put to death.  Judging by the people's answers, I have a feeling they were asked something else, possibly whether mentally handicapped people should receive capital punishment, or something like that.  The answers seem too thoughtful and considered than I think you would receive if you asked them about an elephant.  The sequence works for me, though it may  be because I've always found that short upsetting.

There's a recurring bit where Mike is trying to find footage of the American military testing out the "Laserbra 3000" and he pays people large sums of money for footage.  One person gives him home movie footage, and because he's been exchanging this footage in a violin case, another gives him an actual violin.  When he finally does get the footage and we watch it however, the joke runs on far too long.  The idea of women shooting lasers from their bras is a pretty thin joke at best, so having to see them shoot various things is rather boring.

The film features moments that are labeled "Dream Sequence" by a title card moving in and out of the screen.  I imagine that in itself is supposed to be laughable, as if anything else presented here makes any more sense than the dream sequences.  One of these I liked because it features stop motion animation.  A cat skeleton approaches a drawer, which pops open.  The skeleton is then covered with bugs, and dissolves into a pile of grey goo.  It has no point but I like the style of it.

Apparently the short "Uncle Si and the Sirens" is actually a piece of found footage, an early silent film featuring nude women.  A man has a machine that lets him watch various women, and he eventually stumbles on the sirens, which is basically a sequence of women lounging in the nude.  There's a charm to these early forms of eroticism, I think, something that makes them very beautiful.  The women look natural and most are posing fairly modestly.  I found this one charming as well.

Bill Murray makes his appearance in another sequence where they ask people on the street moral questions.  They ask if deaf and dumb people should be allowed to talk with their hands while driving a car, and for this question it is clear that they didn't ask the people anything else.  Murray portrays a drunk bum that I know I've seen him portray before, probably on Saturday Night Live.  His speech is slurred and he's rather dopey.  It's not terrible but it's not exactly funny either.  If you wanted to watch this film solely for his appearance, you would be very disappointed.

The film features three musical performances, the first, of Sid Vicious performing "My Way," is muted and overlaid with text saying Paul Anka and his team refused to allow the rights to the song.  You can hear the actual performance in The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle, which the clip is taken from.  The other performances are from a strange blues inspired act called Root Boy Slim, and performance artist Klaus Nomi. The music is widely varied in style, but does fit the overall subversive and absurdist nature of the film.

The final short is the one in poorest taste, presenting us with what is supposed to be a Native American culture but portrayed by primarily African American actors, and the idea is that they have given up their beliefs and instead now worship discarded pop culture, like lava lamps, I Like Ike buttons, and Star Trek posters.  I can see what he was going for here, but it just doesn't work, especially with his narration over the whole thing.  The "natives" eventually hear his narration and turn on Mr. Mike and the crew, killing them.  It's a disappointing end to a film that showed occasional glimmers of potential but largely fell flat.

If you have an interest in experimental film, or enjoyed the more subversive qualities of early Saturday Night Live, you may enjoy this one.  It's odd and is very much a product of its time, but there are a few fun moments here and there.  For the common person, you're probably better off skipping it.