Strange Brew Review

There are a couple of movies that are regularly brought up among friends of mine when talking about 1980's comedy movies. One is Strange Brew (1983). When I confess that I have not seen it, I'm told to "Take off, you hoser." Well, I finally got around to seeing it. It is wacky, silly, and at times surreal. Though early on, it prompted me to reflect on the subjective nature of comedy.

In their quest for free beer, bumbling Canadian brothers Bob (Rick Moranis) and Doug McKenzie (Dave Thomas) wind up working at the Elsinore Brewery. The hapless hosers uncover a sinister mind-control plot spearheaded by Brewmeister Smith (Max von Sydow) and must stop the scheme, which also involves Uncle Claude (Paul Dooley), a member of the Elsinore family. As Bob and Doug try to help the brewery founder's daughter Pam (Lynne Griffin) regain the brewery founded by her recently-deceased father, they also manage to drink plenty of their favorite sudsy beverage.

Bob and Doug McKenzie were popular characters on the SCTV (Second City Television), a Canadian television sketch comedy show offshoot from the Toronto's Second City troupe that ran between 1976 and 1984. The two dim-witted beer-swilling brothers, wearing heavy winter clothing and tuques, would comment on various elements of Canadian life and culture, frequently employing the interjection "Eh?" The sketch was conceived when SCTV moved to the CBC television network which had shorter commercial time which required the SCTV show to need a two-minute filler. The characters became remarkably popular and Strange Brew was formulated during the height of their popularity.

The challenge for Strange Brew was expanding an improvised two-minute comedy sketch about two guys talking about how hard it was to find parking spaces in donut shops into a full-length story. Strange Brew purports to be to be loosely based on Hamlet, though I saw more similarities between Hamlet and The Lion King than I did between Hamlet and Strange Brew. The movie starts out being remarkably loose and unstructured. It looks a lot like I imagine the SCTV's sketches looking like, the two McKenzie brother sitting around talking about beer and how they are in a movie. This went on longer than it should have and I was worried that I was in for 90 minutes of this sort of thing. When the story actually got underway, it was easier to watch. The story is decent for what it is; a silly adventure that serves as a vehicle to deliver some bizarre humor. That's about all the plot does and it does that well.

The humor here I felt was hit-or-miss. Sometimes it was funny, other times it took me a moment to realize the punch line had already been delivered. The two brothers still make commentary on things around them; one of my favorite moments of this is while they are driving, Bob begins to speculate and says, "Did you ever notice that, like, in movies when they're driving they don't look at the road for a long time?" Doug, who is driving turns to Bob and says, "Geez, no, I never noticed that, eh?" Doug continues to make eye contact while Bob explains, "Yeah, it's because they're being towed by a rig." The conversation is interrupted when Doug nearly front ends a truck. The humor makes constant jabs at Canadians and stereotypes about them. Reoccurring themes include hockey, beer, and donuts. The villain's henchmen all wear hockey gear and carry hockey sticks. The whole story centers around trying to get free beer from a brewing company. In one rather amusing scene, the McKenzie's get classified company information from a receptionist by offering her donuts; she cracks when presented with a jelly-filled donut.

Yes, there are plenty of funny moments, but there were a lot of gags I didn't find so funny. I found the aforementioned opening scenes pretty bland and even annoying, which is what prompted my reflection on the subjective nature of humor. Analyzing humor won't get anyone anywhere, though. Humor is very subjective and if I laugh at something and you don't, no amount of my logic is going to convince you that it was funny. Overall, I didn't think Strange Brew was nearly as funny as many of my friends had made it out to be, but it was alright for a few chuckles. Also, having lived in Canada myself, I can honestly say actual Canadians don't act the way the McKenzie brothers do.

Strange Brew is fairly lowbrow in its intent and outcome, though it effectively draws out a few laughs from its unique premise and weird characters. I thought other comedy titles from its time were funnier, such as Better Off Dead, UHF, or Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. Strange Brew isn't a bad way to spend an afternoon watching a movie, it's just not something I think I'd go out of my way to see again. It seems to have made a lasting impression culturally as Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas basically reprised their roles as the McKenzie brothers as the two moose in Disney's Brother Bear many years later. Strange Brew may be worth seeing once if you enjoy bizarre comedies or jokes about Canadians. Otherwise, you may be better off watching something else.

What are some other good television sketch comedies made into movies that you've enjoyed? Comment below and let me know!

Brother Bear Movie Review

Disney produces a new animated feature just about every year.  Many of these become cinema classics that withstand the test of time. Beauty and the Beast, for example, is still a well known classic that you can still find merchandise for decades after its initial 1991 release. Brother Bear (2003) was released only about ten years ago, and it’s been about ten years since I heard anyone talk about it.

Set in a post-ice age North America, three Inuit brothers return from a hunting trip. The youngest, Kenai (Joaquin Phoenix), is to receive his sacred totem which will make him a man in the eyes of his tribe. In the ceremony Kenai receives the bear of love to guide him through his life. Kenai hates bears and considers the attribute of love to be pretty far down the totem pole, so to speak. Kenai finds his fishing catch stolen by a bear after the ceremony and decides to hunt down the beast. While attempting to save his brother from the bear, the oldest brother, Sitka (D.B. Swenney), is killed. With a renewed sense of vengeance, Kenai later kills the bear. Following this, Sitka appear as an eagle spirit and transforms Kenai into a bear. The middle brother, Danahi (Jason Raize), believes that bear-Kenai is responsible for the death of both his brothers and begins hunting down Kenai out of a strong sense of hate. As he tries to seek the spirits who can restore him to his human form, Kenai tries to stay ahead of Danahi while learning how to be a bear from a young bear cub named Kota (Jeremy Suarez).

Possibly the best thing I can say about Brother Bear is the animation and art direction is impressive. The art direction was heavily influenced by ancient cave paintings. The film’s aspect ratio was used as a storytelling device. It begins in a standard widescreen aspect ratio of 1.75:1, which is common in U.S. movies and on HDTVs these days. After Kenai turns into a bear, the aspect ratio changes to an anamorphic aspect ratio of 2.35:1, accompanied by a much brighter and fanciful color pallet with slightly more caricatured art direction. This is done to illustrate how Kenai’s perception of the world changes and broadens.

During the character introductions early in the film, the script seemed forced; everyone goes out of their way to address other characters by name so that we know exactly what everyone’s name is. We’re also repeatedly told about Kenai’s desire to receive his spirit totem and become a man. The writing wasn’t very good for the first ten minutes of the movie because it didn’t feel very natural. After the characters were established, the script flowed much smoother.

Of course where would an animated Disney movie be without its token comic relief characters? In Brother Bear there is a pair of moose named Rutt and Tuke that periodically tag along with Kenai and Kota as they travel. They are played by Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas and are essentially the same characters they played in Strange Brew, except they look like moose. They really add a humorous tone to the movie.

Remembering that Brother Bear came out in the years following the 9/11 attacks sheds some light on its cultural impact. After September 11, 2001 the United State was still reeling from the terrorist attack which was fueled by hatred and anger. Many people were resentful, angry, hurt, and some were even vengeful. I think we needed a film like Brother Bear to remind us of the value of forgiveness and love. The themes in Brother Bear included seeing things from another’s perspective, admitting fault, and forgiving hurtful, irreversible offenses. These are key components to conflict resolution that are important in the healing process. Disney isn’t responsible for the US recovering from the attack, but I think they may have influenced some level of spiritual healing that I believe many people were still needing.

I think that what made Brother Bear not withstand the test of time is that is wasn’t very bold. The Disney films that have achieved the status of “classic” did things in terms of character, setting, and animation that their predecessors did not. Brother Bear was good, but seemed to strive to be sweet and cute rather than bold and exciting. And it really did achieve that, which is why it’s been overshadowed by bolder and more exciting classics like The Lion King or Finding Nemo. Brother Bear is worth seeing at least once. Kids will enjoy it and adults will relate to the spiritual healing in the story. It’s also got plenty of material to help you teach younger viewers about forgiveness, love, and healing.

Have you ever seen a movie that helped you “heal” in some way? What movie was it? Comment below and tell me about it!

Ghostbusters Movie Review

We’ve all seen monster movies. We’ve all seen comedies. Monster movies rely on suspense to move the story forward, leaving little room for comic relief. Comedies have the flow disrupted if there is much tension. It’s rare to see a movie that combines these two elements; I can’t think of another example of a fusion of monster mayhem and humor as accomplished as the iconic movie Ghostbusters (1984).

Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Dr. Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), and Dr. Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) are parapsychologists at Columbia University who research paranormal activities and ghost appearances. After gathering their first useful hard data from a specter at a library, they return to Columbia University to find their funding and tenure cut off. Now jobless with useful scientific data on ghosts, they create their own paranormal exterminator service called “The Ghostbusters” using ghost catching technology invented by Egon. They catch their first ghost at the Sedgewick Hotel, and become hugely successful. Business booms and they have to hire Winston Zeddmore (Ernie Hudson) to help meet the demand. The Ghostbusters are summoned by Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) to investigate a demonic spirit that she finds in her refrigerator. Peter takes interest in Dana and begins competing with her neighbor Louis Tully (Rick Moranis) for her affection. Ray discovers that the Dana and Louis’s apartment was built by a cult leader and that the design of the building acts as a conductor to summon Gozer, a demon god of destruction, from another dimension. The Ghostbusters are summoned by the city to handle the massive ghost outbreak, and save them from impending annihilation.

Where to start on this classic?

One of the more endearing features of Ghostbusters is the combination of genres. It’s sort of a suspense/action/comedy movie. Usually high production special effects and comedy don’t blend well. Comedy requires spontaneity while special effects require meaningful planning ahead of time. High end special effects detract from spontaneity, and thus from good comedy. Ghostbusters somehow managed to pull it off, though. Most of the scenes featuring improvisation comedy sketch masters Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis were in fact, improvised. This is amazing because every line of dialogue, even the improvised ones, develops the plot and characters. Yet the spontaneity doesn’t detract from the special effects; there was a natural progression of the plot and characters to cause Gozor to take the form of the cute food mascot, the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. The ordinarily contrasting film elements merged beautifully to make a great movie.

The art design in the movie was fantastic as well. Remember that this movie was made long before computer special effects were available. The models and puppets for the ghost creatures were made transparent and well designed. They looked monstrous and creepy, yet weightless and ghostlike.

The wardrobe was fantastic, too.  The characters all looked really believable within their context.  The Ghostbusters team looked perfect in their field gear.  The jumpsuits and proton packs (used for catching the ghosts) were so well designed that they are now iconic symbols of the Ghostbusters film.  The Ghostbuster’s car, Ecto-1, is a 1959 Cadillac ambulance/hearse combination which is, itself, so iconic that it is almost its own character. It was beautifully designed with lots of detail.  A good indication of great movie design is seeing ordinary people try to replicate it.  You’ll see Ecto-1 and Ghostbusters uniforms replicas at sci-fi conventions and even some car shows decades after the movie was released.  Everything about this movie exudes personality and classic cinematic artwork. 

With great special effects, some suspenseful scenes, hysterical humor, and one of the catchiest movie theme songs in cinema history, Ghostbusters has withstood the tests of time. It is required viewing even if you have only the vaguest of recollection of the film.  If you have seen this movie before, go see it again! If you’re a bit too young to have seen it back in the day you must watch it at your earliest convenience so that you will know who you’re gonna call.