Tag Archives: 1992

Movies or shows released in 1992.

Movie Reviews

The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992) Review – A Christmas Classic… with Muppets!

Leave a comment
Advertisements

Believe it or not, but until recently, I have not watched a single Muppets movie or TV show. Yes, I did see the occasional YouTube clip, and I am aware of Muppets, but it’s not something I grew up watching. But sooner or later, being a movie fan, you can’t escape the Muppets. And when I was looking at some Christmas classics I have never seen, The Muppet Christmas Carol showed up on my list. After checking with a few good people at SiftPop (I wanted to make sure this would be a good one to jump into if I have never seen any other Muppets movies), I gave this a chance. And I was surprised how much I loved it.

First of all, I know of the book A Christmas Carol even though I’ve never read it (believe it or not, it’s not that adored in the Czech Republic, but I remember learning about it and Dickens). Then, I had seen A Christmas Carol (2009, my review here) starring Jim Carrey as Scrooge and thought it was a great story in a decent film with Carrey over-acting at times and dated CGI. That was a few months ago, and I hadn’t thought about it until I’ve watched this Muppet version of what probably is the most famous Christmas story. And who would’ve thought everything here would work so well?

I can’t say The Muppet Christmas Carol is the best version of that story, simply because I have not seen the other versions. What I can say is I can’t imagine what could possibly be improved upon now. Because this story starts and ends with Scrooge, and if you don’t have yourself a great Scrooge, the movie won’t make any impact. That is where Sir Michael Caine steps in to deliver one of his best performances…? In a Muppet movie? Yep, I couldn’t believe it, but it is true. From the beginning of this movie, you feel his presence, and he is the standout of this film. He never lets his guard down; he never winks at the camera or acknowledges the fact that he is acting “against” the Muppets. And that was a very conscious choice of his that could have made him look like a fool. Except, it’s Sir Michael Caine, and he understood why he made that choice. He understood that if we didn’t trust his character being an evil person at the start, we couldn’t buy into anything else. Muppets or no Muppets, the heart of the story is Scrooge and his redemption. And he delivered.

Another thing that surprised me was how much I had enjoyed the “actual” Muppets. They fit in the story, the film, their style of humour wasn’t clashing with the narrative. On the contrary, having two Muppets narrate the story was a genius idea, and it helped to deliver “more Dickens” on the screen. And even if this was meant for the kids, I could watch it today (being 30 years old) and laugh at it too while being invested in the story. I often write about this “phenomenon” of some kids movies being too dumb because the adults behind them think children will eat anything up. And this movie proves that no, you can have a balance. You can make silly jokes, but at the same time, you can have some meat on your bones in the kids’ movie because they can handle/process much more than you think. And this was in 1992!

On the technical side, if you are like me and watch it for the first time on Disney+, make sure to watch the deleted scene “When Love is Gone” under Extras. And instead of me trying to explain it, see it for yourself as to why producers felt the need to remove it (a wrong move, btw, the song works and shows us Scrooge’s emotional depth):

The song “When Love Is Gone”, sung by Belle, was dropped from the theatrical release (over the objections of producer and director Brian Henson) at the request of Disney chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, who considered it too sad for young children.) The last-minute decision resulted in a jarring edit in the scene from which it was removed, and caused some confusion about Scrooge, Gonzo, and Rizzo’s reactions. The scene was restored in the VHS, LaserDisc, and first DVD (full screen) releases, but it isn’t used in television airings, Blu-ray releases, or the Netflix or Disney+ version. However, it is available as an “EXTRAS” option on Disney+. In mid-December 2020, Brian Henson announced that the original negatives for the removed scene had been found and would be re-instated (back) into the film, hopefully in time for its 30th anniversary in 2022.

Source: IMDb.com

I don’t know why I avoided any Muppets films. I think there might have been a part of me that thought I wouldn’t appreciate them. Thinking about it, yeah, I might have thought to myself that since I didn’t grow up watching the Muppets, now it might be too late to get into them, trying to catch up. But it seems like I was wrong. I was genuinely surprised by how heartwarming, funny and entertaining this movie was. So, yeah, I might get to watch more Muppets movies in the future. And I can’t wait to see them.

Overall, The Muppet Christmas Carol delivered everything I didn’t know I wanted/needed. The movie is funny, heartwarming, has a lot of catchy songs and at its core, it has Sir Michael Caine, who delivers one of his best performances. If you are like me and have never watched any Muppets film or you might be looking for something to watch during the holidays, this movie holds up beautifully. And to be clear, this wasn’t the last time I’ve seen this film, that is for sure.

Rating: 5 out of 5.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

Single White Female (1992) Review – As 90’s As It Gets

Leave a comment
Advertisements

If there is one genre of films, we kind of lost over the years, it’s dark, psycho thrillers, that can be somewhat sexy, just as Single White Female. And for some reason, they were all the rage in the ’90s. I am guessing because of the technology we have at our disposal, it’s hard to replicate those conditions, that is why we can’t have movies like this anymore…? Just imagine, looking for a flatmate in newspapers and not googling them before letting them move in with you. See? Nowadays, you do background checks even for people you know, let alone strangers you meet for the first time.

Single White Female is one of those films, you might enjoy. That “might” depends on how many movies of this nature have you seen throughout your life. Because nothing here surprises you by any means, and yet, for most of the movie, you are still entertained, you are in the movie and you think to yourself: “Is it me, or does Bridget Fonda seem a bit too bland for this role?” Yes, one of the main issues I had with this film was with the lead actress.

Look, I am not saying she is bad in this role, but I think either her or maybe the director made her character a bit too “meh”, where I never fully understood Jennifer Jason Leigh‘s fascination with her. Because for the movie to click properly, you need to see Bridget’s character as this all-powerful almost goddess, who “behind the closed doors” is just a normal person, who needs somebody to be there for her. I didn’t read the book this movie is based on, but I can’t imagine her character was portrayed like that. I think a general idea was there (she needs to be slightly gullible, so she can’t see how Jennifer’s character is slowly manipulating her) but they went a bit too far with that, so Bridget’s character seems a bit more clueless/gullible at certain moments than I think the screenwriter and director intended. So when it “goes down” towards the end, it’s hard for you to see how would she hold her own against the psycho, which Jennifer portrays superbly.

She is the one, who truly shines in this film, Jennifer Jason Leigh, aka “all bets are off”. To me, she understood the character 100%, she knew exactly, when to put her foot off the gas a bit and when to speed up. The flatmate-turned-psycho is for me the highlight of this film. Even if you see everything she will do before she does it (again, if you have seen a few movies, nothing in this one will surprise you) she still makes it enjoyable and it’s a delight to watch her.

Where the movie loses its charm for me is the predictable last 20 minutes of “mandatory fight sequence” all these thriller movies seemed to have. That is one thing I will never understand. You spend most of your movie building tension, playing with your audience, just to have the film devolve into a “catfight” towards the end, where you can bet there is the inevitable “she is not dead, even though she looks like she is”. And I kind of get it, you want to have some action in your movie, but why do these films always feel like it needs to be a proper big chunk of it towards the end? Just once, I would love for one of them to have maybe 5-minute action sequence, that would end the movie. Leave it open a bit, leave us wanting more. Or the movie doesn’t even have to end but don’t go to “a hero vs villain” fight unless you are going to do something new, surprising. Or again, at least make it short.

Overall, I have enjoyed watching Single White Female. Even though there were no surprises for me when comes to certain twists and turns the movie took, I still had fun, I thought Jennifer Jason Leigh was great, I thought Bridget could have been better. What struck me as odd was the last 20 minutes or so of this film and the fact how today, you couldn’t make a movie like that, because one single google search and the movie could have been 30 minutes shorter. It is insane to think how much technology has evolved over the last 30 years. It makes you wonder, how it’s going to look like in 30 more years.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

Basic Instinct (1992) Review – Sexy, Dark and Twisty

Leave a comment
Advertisements

If there is a movie that sums up what 90’s were all about (cops, mystery thriller, nudity), Basic Instinct might be it. This thriller/crime film with a dash… well, more like a proper pint of pretty outrages scenes still holds up even today. Which is what makes it a bit bizarre, if you consider the people behind this movie are the same ones who couple of years later made Showgirls (1995) (my review here). Yep, not only the same director, but the same exact screenwriter! I know!

The biggest difference between those two is Paul Verhoeven trying to tell a story, rather than trying to be clever. I know this sounds mean, but hear me out. While watching Showgirls, if you pay close attention throughout that wreck of a movie, you might notice how there was an attempt to be satirical/critical towards show business, Hollywood, almost like a giant middle finger to the “sell outs”. And it feels like he went on almost a crusade, which can lead to great things, but sometimes they just lead you to your doom. Whereas Basic Instinct is just a good old fashion crime mixed with thriller mixed with lot of nudity, but there is a focus. And not just on Sharon Stone‘s private parts, but focus on the characters who might behave like maniacs (Michael Douglas‘s character is a prime example of an unstable person you will see in a while) but they are still grounded in reality, so you understand why they behave like they do.

Both him and Sharon have an excellent chemistry and play characters who are so compelling, that in a way, the nudity is almost hurtful for the movie, as that’s what people tend to remember/focus on. And they often forget that even minus all that nudity… well, the movie would have been a lot shorter, that’s for certain. But more importantly, you’d still have a pretty great movie with a compelling story on your hands, where you are not sure until the very last minute, who’s the killer, or whether there is one “normal” person in this film.

I do feel a bit bad for Sharon Stone. She’s so stunning (and naked) in this, that people tend to overlook that she’s genuinely great and not because of the nudity! If you were to cast somebody who’s “just stunning” without any acting talent, this movie would have become Body of Evidence (1992). No disrespect to Madonna herself, but that movie wasn’t exactly the highest/brightest point of her career. And that’s the point – because Sharon is actually more than just “great body to look at” and gives us properly fleshed out character, who is believable. Next time you watch Basic Instinct, try focusing on Sharon (not just in THOSE scenes, you perv!) and I think you will realise that she doesn’t get the accolades she deserves for this movie. If she didn’t sell us on her character, this movie would’ve been long forgotten and she wouldn’t have had the career she’s had.

I was surprised how much I’ve enjoyed re-visiting this movie. For some weird reason I thought this won’t age well, that it might just be one of those “this was so great in the 90’s, but now it doesn’t really hold up” films, but either my standards are low, or this is still pretty great crime mixed with thriller, that on top of everything has Sharon Stone in her prime, leading this movie and pushing it a good grade higher than it deserves to be. And yes, she’s not exactly bad to look at, but that’s beside the point. I still haven’t seen Basic Instinct 2 but based on what I’ve heard and the ratings, I don’t know whether I want to… But knowing myself, curiosity will get the better of me…

Rating: 5 out of 5.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Movie Reviews

The Player (1992) Review – Tim Robbins shines in otherwise average movie

Leave a comment
Advertisements

I have mixed feelings about The Player. On one hand I respect Robert Altman, I loved the unbroken opening shot where movie people are talking about unbroken shots in different movies (“I haven’t seen that one, I only watch American movies”) and I do love the “meta” thing Altman has going on (more on that later).

What I found hard to grasp is everything else – the story is pretty straightforward, so you won’t get lost, but I couldn’t help but feel disconnected from it. I don’t know how to put it in words – have you ever been in a situation where you knew “I should be happy right now” or “I should be sad” but couldn’t, as you were somehow disconnected from the world? That’s how I felt watching this movie, disconnected, emotionally blank. It might’ve been on purpose that we, as just a common viewer, weren’t meant to feel connected to these Hollywood types who refuse ideas on daily basis because “they only have a budget for 12 ideas/year.” If so, the movie succeeded.

The Player does have an interesting story and where I wish it could’ve been bit more “meta”, aware of itself, as it seems somehow disjointed – are we meant to sympathise with Griffin Mill (I honestly wish to see Tim Robbins in more newer movies, as he’s such an underrated actor) even though there is no morality to him? I don’t think the character has one redeeming quality, but then again, the “metaness” (that’s 100% a word!) of this movie comes in where “the bad guy doesn’t have to punished”.

I really liked the meta factor of this movie, where for the entirety of it, people are pitching different movies (Graduate Part II is my personal favourite), usually starring Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis, so we can then see both of them at the very end in the movie that “is not even American movie, this is real, black woman goes to die in a gas chamber, they found out she was innocent and her man tries to rescue her, but he’s too late!” is not so subtle wink at Hollywood and their entire thing about being “real and relatable”. And nothing has changed in almost 30 years, go reckon…

This is one of the movies I can’t wait to re-watch in a couple of years to see whether I feel the same about it as I do now, because who knows? Maybe on my second viewing I’ll find it better than now, but for now, it is, what it is.

Rating: 3 out of 5.

That’s all for this one? What’s your favourite Altman movie? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke