Godzilla 1985/ Return of Godzilla (1984)

“Now he is back. And he’s more magnificent, more glamorous, more devastating than ever. Prepare yourself. The greatest star of all has returned,” proclaimed the television promo for Godzilla 1985. The last time movie audiences had seen the giant lizard in action was in Terror of Mechagodzilla.  In the original movie, Godzilla was a metaphor for the atomic bomb, but by the time Terror of Mechagodzilla has rolled around, he had become a defender of the Earth. His adventures became increasingly sillier throughout the decades. Return of Godzilla was Toho’s attempt to bring the monster backs to his roots; as a result, the movie is a direct sequel to the original movie and ignores that more kid friendly movies of the 60s and 70s.  New World Pictures acquired the rights and distributed it in the states as Godzilla 1985. In order to “Americanize” the movie, over twenty minutes of footage was cut, and new scenes with Raymond Burr (reprising his role as reporter Steve Martin from Godzilla, King of the Monsters) were added.  Therefore, it is not surprising that many fans consider Godzilla 1985 to be a complete bastardization of Return of Godzilla. 

This assertion isn’t entirely false – in a fairly dubious piece of re-editing, the Soviet Colonel Kashirin pushes a red button and launches a nuclear missile, while in the original cut he dies trying to prevent it from being launched; it’s fascinating to find a piece of American Cold War propaganda in the middle of a Japanese monster movie. 

 The character arc of the Maki is completely discarded in the New World edit. He begins the movie as an opportunistic reporter looking for the big scoop; when brother and sister, Hiroshi and Naoko, have their tearful reunion, Maki crashes onto the scene with his photographer in tow. It makes for a great human interest story. This reunion has been arranged by Maki; he informs Naoko that her brother is alive and tells her which hospital he is staying at. She, naturally, assumes that Maki is doing this out of the goodness of his heart, rather than for his own ulterior motives.  She later takes him to task for his callous behavior. It clearly has an effect on him, because by movie’s end he is a more compassionate figure.  It is also interesting to note the difference between Japanese and American cinema - if Return of Godzilla was a traditional American blockbuster, the relationship between Maki and Naoko would blossom into a full fledged romance. The movie would end with them locked in a passionate kiss, completely oblivious to the massive destruction that surrounds them. However, the romance is merely hinted at and the only intimate moment the two characters share is a brief hug at the end.

The New World edit also jostles around a few of the scenes; the meeting between Prime Minister Mitamura and the American and Soviet ambassadors happens before Godzilla’s attack on the nuclear power plant, rather than after.  The Prime Minister initially wants to keep Godzilla’s reappearance a secret, but that plan gets shot down after a Soviet submarine is destroyed by Godzilla, and the Russians assume that the Americans are responsible for the act. After it is revealed that Godzilla is responsible for the attack, there is a long debate as whether or not nuclear weapons should be used to stop Godzilla.  This is a crucial plot point in Return of Godzilla, but is only briefly touched upon in Godzilla 1985. There is a scene where the Prime Minister debates this idea with his cabinet before giving his answer to the Russian and America ambassadors.  

However, with all that being said, Return of Godzilla is hardly the masterpiece that many of the fans would have you believe. Maki's character arc is fully realized by the middle of the movie; all attempts at characterizations are abandoned in the second half as Godzilla lays waste to Tokyo.

 
 In a few instances, the editing in Godzilla 1985 is actually better than the Japanese version – the attack of the giant sea louse is great example of this. In Return of Godzilla, the scene is longer and we are given a good look at the sea louse prop and it is pretty laughable. In the New World edit, this scene is fairly brief and we are only given a few  glimpses of the sea louse as it attacks our protagonist – it is a much scarier sequence.  The New World edit is quicker paced and direct to the point – in Godzilla 1985, after Maki reveals to Naoko that her brother is alive, the movie immediately cuts to her running into Hiroshi’s hospital room.  In Return of Godzilla, the conversation between Maki and Naoko is slightly longer, but is fairly redundant.

The added scenes with Steve Martin and the pentagon officials are fairly pointless; Raymond Burr stands around and utters such banalities like, “Godzilla will win.” He is a complete wet blanket and there is really no reason for him to there other than name recognition. At least in Godzilla, King of the Monsters, Steve Martin had the function of narrator - he was an audience surrogate and we saw the events unfold through his eyes.  Still, it is slightly amusing to see Burr reprise a role he played thirty years earlier and under the exact same circumstances.  

As silly as the dubbing in Godzilla 1985 is, it is preferable to the International English version that is on the Return of Godzilla DVD. The dubbing in Godzilla 1985 maybe cartoonish at times, but at least the voice over actors give emotional performances, whereas voice over acting on the International English version is fairly monotonous and actually slows the pacing of the movie. Plus, Godzilla 1985 had some genuinely memorable lines; my favorite is when a wino shouts at Godzilla, “Don’t act like such a big shot, hick, you just got to town. If you want to hang with me, you better learn some manners.” 

It is great that Return of Godzilla is finally available in the United States, but I would like to see a decent print of Godzilla 1985 released on Blu-ray. It may be bastardization, but it is also an interesting relic from the Cold War era.

Credits (for Godzilla (1985)
Cast: Raymond Burr (Steve Martin), Ken Tanaka (Goro Maki), Yasuko Sawaguchi (Naoko Okumura), Yosuke Natsuki (Professor Hayashida), Keiju Kobayashi (Prime Minister Mitamura), Shin Takuma (Hiroshi “Kenny” Okumura), Hiroshi Koizumi (Professor Minami), Kenpachiro Satsuma (Godzilla), Warren J. Kemmerling (General Goodhoe), James Hess (Col. Raschen), Travis Swords (Major McDonough), Eitaro Ozawa (Minister of Finance Kanzaki).
Directors: Koji Hashimoto, R.J. Kizer.
Screenplay:  Shuichi Nagahara, Straw Weisman, Lisa Tomei. Tomoyuki Tanaka (story)
Running Time: 91 min. 103 min (Japanese version)

A Christmas Story (1983)

It has been a tradition in my family to kick off the Holiday season by watching A Christmas Story after finishing Thanksgiving dinner. It’s a movie I have seen countless times since my childhood and it still cracks me up, despite the overexposure. The majority of Christmas movies have a fantasy element to them – It’s a Wonderful Life, A Christmas Carol, White Christmas, and Miracle on 34^th Street, to name a few – but A Christmas Story is the most relatable out of the bunch, because it has a fairly simple premise: a boy desperately wants a Red Ryder BB gun for Christmas. The only fantasy elements we get in A Christmas Story are Ralphie's day dreams.

A Christmas Story is one of the most accurate depictions of childhood ever put onto film. The children in Christmas movies tend to be wide eyed innocents that don’t possess a single selfish bone in their body; this is not the case with Ralphie Parker in A Christmas Story, who behaves like complete shithead at times. After Flick has stuck his tongue to a frozen pole, Ralphie leaves him to freeze in the cold. He doesn’t even bother to inform their teacher, Miss Shields, about Flick’s plight. Later, when Ralphie’s mother wants to know who he heard the f--- word from, instead of ratting out his father, he opts to throw his friend Schwartz under the bus. Yet, despite these acts of cowardice, Ralphie remains a completely sympathetic character – he’s just an awkward kid trying to survive childhood.

 A Christmas Story is a funny movie, but the movie is largely about Ralphie learning to cope with disappointment: He is constantly told, “You’ll shoot your eye out,” by the adults in his life when he reveals he wants a BB gun from Christmas; the Little Orphan Annie decoder ring he gets in the mail turns out to be an advertisement for Ovaltine; he gets a C+ on his Christmas theme, after imagining that it would get him a standing ovation from the class; his crazy aunt makes him a pink bunny costume for Christmas;  the Santa Claus at the department store turns out to be a complete maniac; and he nearly shoots his eye out with the Red Ryder BB gun. Ralphie’s most redeemable quality is his ability to shake off the disappointment and get on with his life. It’s fitting that the movie ends with him sleeping in bed with a smile on his face. 

The Parkers are a fairly interesting family because they are neither a perfect nor dysfunctional family unit that you often see on television. They are a fairly normal family, but like most normal families they have their quirks: the youngest son, Randy, refuses to eat; The Old Man is “one of the most feared furnace fighters in northern Indiana”; Ralphie constantly day dreams; and the mother holds the family together, but isn’t above getting into a petty argument with her husband.  The most famous image from A Christmas Story is the leg lamp that the Old Man wins in a contest. He is completely in awe of his “major award,” while the mother is embarrassed by it. When he suggest they put in by the front window (where all the neighbors can see it), the mother begins to freak out. The leg lamp subplot is not only hilarious, but its denouement shows just what an imaginative director Bob Clark could be; the mother leaves the frame to water the plants and then seconds later we hear an off screen crash. The Old Man emerges from the furnace, wondering what the noise was, only to discover that his precious leg lamp is in pieces. The mother claims it was an accident, but the father suspects foul play.  Was it really an accident? Did the mother do it on purpose? We are never given a clear answer, it is left ambiguous. If A Christmas Story were made today, there would, no doubt, be a shot of the mother knocking over the leg lamp and then giving the audience a wink. She would also be played by a “hot” actress, instead of the natural looking Melinda Dillon.

It is interesting to note that Darren McGavin was in his sixties and Melinda Dillon was in her forties when A Christmas Story was released, which makes them the oldest pair of parents in movie history. Yet, this works greatly in the movie’s favor – the movie is told from Ralphie’s point of view and children tend to view their parents as being old timers. When I was a kid, I thought anyone over the age of thirty was ancient. How times have changed! The great thing about the parents in A Christmas Story is that, despite their squabbles, they still enjoy each other's company – the movie ends with her sitting on his lap in the living room as they watch the snowfall.

This leads me to my final point: What happened to Bob Clark after A Christmas Story? It’s like there are two Bob Clarks; pre-Christmas Story and post-Christmas Story. The pre-Christmas Story Clark made a series of flawed, but interesting movies: Black Christmas is an unsettling precursor to Halloween; Murder by Decree is an eerie Sherlock Holmes thriller; and Porky’s is a better than average sex comedy. His filmography after A Christmas Story is absolutely horrendous; the nadir probably being Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2.  His early movies showed a director with great promise, while his later projects make you wonder, “How does this guy keep getting work?” It is an absolute shame. Well, at least he will always have A Christmas Story.

Cast: Melinda Dillon (Mother Parker), Darren McGavin (The Old Man Parker), Peter Billingsley (Ralphie), Ian Petrella (Randy), Scott Schwartz (Flick), Tedde Moore (Miss Shields), R.D. Robb (Schwartz), Zack Ward (Scut Farkus), Yano Anaya (Grover Dill), Jean Shepherd (Ralphie as an adult – voice), Jeff Gillen (Santa Claus).

Director: Bob Clark
Screenplay: Jean Shepherd, Leigh Brown, Bob Clark
Running Time: 95 min.

Batman (1989)

There is a tendency in the comic book community to retroactively hate on earlier film adaptations of their superheroes, while anointing the new version as “the best adaptation ever.” This was the fate that befell the Tim Burton Batman movies when Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” trilogy hit theatre screens (the same fate also befell Richard Donner’s Superman movies after the release of Man of Steel). This is predicated on the logic that the Nolan movies are a far more faithful recreation of the Batman comic books than Tim Burton’s more gothic approach. The flaw with this argument is that there have been various incarnations of Batman throughout the decades, therefore the argument that the Nolan films are the most “faithful” is based entirely on what version of Batman you grew up with: Everyone talks about how the early Batman comics were dark and gritty, but they quickly took a more fantastical turn; as early as 1939, Batman was fighting vampires. By the time World War II rolled along, Batman went from being a dark vigilante to being a full-blooded patriot who devoted his time to fighting Nazis and the Japanese. In the 1950, he was a warm and fuzzy father figure who easily thwarted his incredibly inept enemies. 

I like the Christopher Nolan movies, but they didn’t nearly have the cultural impact that the Tim Burton movie had back in 1989. It is really hard to describe to younger audiences just how big Batman was in the summer of 1989; it wasn’t merely a movie; it was an event!  Super Hero movies have become a fixture in modern day cinema (Marvel has three movies slated for release in 2017, while DC has two), but they were a complete scarcity in the 1980s; the Superman series hit an all-time low with the 1987 Superman: The Quest for Peace. Before the Tim Burton, if you were to bring up Batman in a conversation, the Adam West television show would undoubtedly spring to mind. Sure, the comic book had already adopted a darker tone in the 1970s, but West’s tongue in cheek approach had cast a long shadow. It was the Tim Burton movie that helped shift the public perception of the character; he was no longer goofy Boy Scout but a dark, brooding vigilante that would resort to whatever means necessary to capture his guy. There have been complaints over the fact that Burton’s Batman kills, but this isn’t far removed from the early Batman comic books in which The Dark Knight often racked up a body count. 

I prefer the style of Burton’s movies to Nolan’s more “realistic approach.”  There is a timeless look to the Burton’s Batman movies; the characters dress in different fashions that it is really hard to pinpoint what time period it takes place in. The only thing that really dates the first movie to the 1980s are the songs by Prince. In my opinion, Tim Burton's Batman has the best opening of any comic book movie: two scuzzy muggers hold up a family in an alley way and are dividing the take on top of a building, when Batman swoops in and kicks their asses.  The reveal of Batman is extremely clever – the two muggers are stationed in the foreground when the Batman descends into frame in the background, while the two thieves remain oblivious to his presence. This effectively builds suspense, when will Batman strike? 

The main mugger shoots Batman multiple times and he falls to the ground, only to rise up again and take out the two bad men; bullets seemingly have no effect on Batman.  Batman then grabs the main mugger and holds him over the edge of the building, and then commands, “I want to you tell all your friends about me.”  Batman throws the man aside and jumps off the building. The mugger is scared shitless! It’s an incredibly exciting way to open a movie and definitely preferable to the disjointedness of Batman Begins. It is not only a visually exciting opening, but it sets up the psychological warfare Batman wages on crime – what makes Batman frightening is the idea that he could be watching you any place and any time, so you better be on your best behavior.  A mythic stature has already been bestowed upon Batman – the two muggers arguing over his existence before he punches them into next week. The interesting thing about Burton’s movie is that it avoids the structure of most Super Hero movies – the first half is devoted to the origin story, the second half has the hero fighting the villain – Batman has already begun his crime fighting campaign and has become a newsworthy topic. The police deny his existence, while secretly viewing him as a threat to the public.  

 

The main criticism of Tim Burton’s adaptation is that it is more of a Joker movie than an actual Batman film; this isn’t entirely false.  It is the Joker that is given a lengthy back story, while Bruce Wayne’s is told in a brief flashback.  Jack Nicholson certainly dominates the proceedings with his wonderfully over the top performance as the Joker.  However, even this isn’t too far removed from the comic books – Batman’s foes were often far more colorful (and interesting) than he was.  Tim Burton’s interpretation of the character is that he is a man that keeps to the shadows and has a very low key personality; Bruce Wayne goes through the motions of being a millionaire – he holds fundraisers, he attends business meetings, and he dates attractive women.  The only time he comes to life is when he dons the bat suit and fights criminals. This is not the flamboyant character from the Batman TV series. He is so obsessed with his work that he foregoes a social life and is willing to sacrifice a potential romance with Vicki Vale. I always felt that Michael Keaton was miscast in the role of the Caped Crusader, but he is good enough of an actor that it isn’t too big of an issue. I also prefer his interpretation of The Dark Knight to Christian Bales nonstop grunting. 

I like the fact that Burton and company don’t go to the default ending of most modern Super Hero movies – the leveling of an entire city. It ends on a rather small, personal note: Batman faces off against the Joker in a church bell tower.  It’s a completely unique sequence and certainly trumps the massive amounts of destruction seen in most modern day Super Hero movies; it’s really hard to distinguish one from the other.  Batman certainly has its share of flaws; I never bought Alfred showing Vicki Vale into the Batcave behind his master’s back.  Alfred over steps his bounds and would probably feel the wrath of Batman in some form or other. Also, Bruce Wayne has only known Vicki Vale for a couple of days; therefore it’s a bid odd that he would want to reveal his true identity to her.  In Batman Returns, it is revealed that their relationship didn’t work out. Way to go, Alfred.  Plus, the reveal that it was the Joker that murdered Bruce Wayne’s parents is a bit too convenient. It’s an unnecessary addition to the script that doesn’t really serve any purpose. If Batman is solely drive by revenge, then killing the Joker should be enough for him to move on. 

I know I’m in a minority when I say that I prefer the Burton movies to Christopher Nolan’s trilogy, and I’m willing to admit that there is a nostalgic bias at work. The Tim Burton movie came at the right time in my life (I was ten) and is what got me hooked on the Batman comic books. It was the first time I, and most fans, had seen a more serious adaptation of the comic books.  The Christopher Nolan movies are terrific movies, but I’ve notice they are much easier to nitpick because of Nolan’s “realistic” approach.  It is easier to accept the flaws in the Burton movie, because it never makes an attempt at realism and is much more fantastical in its approach.  However, the Nolan films deserve credit for willing to take risks, when most Super Hero movies play it safe. However, it must be said that if it wasn’t for the success of Tim Burton’s 1989 movie, there is a good chance that the Nolan movies would have never been made. 

Credits
Cast: Jack Nicholson (Jack Napier/The Joker), Michael Keaton (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Kim Basinger (Vicki Vale), Robert Wuhl (Alexander Knox), Michael Gough (Alfred), Pat Hingle (Commissioner James Gordon), Billy Wee Williams(Harvey Dent), Jack Palance (Carl Grissom), Jerry Hall (Alicia), Tracey Walter (Bob the Goon), William Hootkins (Lt. Eckhardt), Lee Wallace (The Mayor).

Director: Tim Burton
Screenplay: Sam Hamm, Warren Skaaren.
Running Time: 126 min.

Mr.Boogedy (1986)

Cinema history is filled with movies that slipped through the cracks and are condemned to live out their existence to absolute obscurity, whether they deserve it or not. This is the unfortunate fate that has befallen the 1986, made for television Disney movie, Mr. Boogedy. It has never been given a proper DVD release and the only prints that you can find online are VHS quality, or worse.  It’s a fairly forgotten movie now, but it was a big enough deal in 1986 to warrant its own sequel, Bride of Boogedy.  The movie was a huge staple in my childhood; my dad recorded it off of television when it premiered in April of 1986, and my sister and I watched it repeatedly to the point of wearing out the VHS.

The premise is fairly straight forward: Carlton Davis, a novelty salesman (he specializes in gag gifts), moves his family to a small town in New England, the aptly named Lucifer Falls, to open a Gag City store and finds out that his house his haunted by ghosts. There is a scene early on that perfectly encapsulates the tone of the movie:  Jennifer Davis, the oldest of the three siblings, discovers green slimy footprints running up the wall of a room. The dad goes into investigate, peels the footprints off the wall, sticks them all over himself and jokes, “Honey, look! The Boogedy man has walked all over me.”  It is established that Davises are family of practical jokers, so he naturally assumes this is a prank. The movie has a few eerie moments in it, but in the end it is all about the humor.  

 Jennifer is the only sane one in the group, but her pleas fall onto deaf ears. There's a nice piece of characterization going on here; Jennifer is a teenager and is not at all amused by these pranks. She wants to go out and have fun, and is slightly resentful that her parents have chosen to move to "the middle of nowhere," because there is nothing to do. Her relationship with her brothers, Corwin and Aurie,  is  antagonistic at times, because they are "just kids" in her eyes, plus they are constantly ganging up to play tricks on her. When Jennifer attempts to tell her parents about her encounter with Mr. Boogedy, the two boys start taunting her. However, the two boys eventually realize Jennifer is telling the truth and the three of them team up to find a way to stop Mr.Boogedy.  There is a fascinating role reversal going on in Mr. Boogedy; the children act like grown ups, while the parents act like children.  

 

Mr. Boogedy is an interesting villain: He is the ghost of a grumpy pilgrim named William Hanover, who fell in love with the prettiest woman in town, Marion, but she did not reciprocate his feelings. He later sold his to The Devil for a cloak that would give him magical powers and then kidnapped Marion’s son Jonathan, who had a cold. However, while attempting to cast his first spell, he blew up his own house (located on the same spot as the Davis house) and killed Marion, Jonathan, and himself in the process. It is revealed that the ghost of Jonathan is trapped in the Davis house along with Mr. Boogedy; while the ghost of Marion cannot enter the house because Hanover has forbidden it.  The interesting thing about Mr. Boogedy’s haunting of the Davis family is that it is more mischievous in nature than malevolent: a toaster starts to dance around on the kitchen counter; a prop mummy comes to life and starts dancing, while a piano plays wildly in the background; and he zaps a prop vacuum cleaner to life and it chases after the youngest son, Aurie.  He doesn’t want to kill the family; he just wants them to go away. He is the supernatural equivalent to a grumpy old farmer who fills his shotgun up with rock salt to chase away all the no good teenagers trespassing on his property.  He just wants to be left alone. 

There are a lot of interesting directorial decisions by Oz Scott.  The flashback involving William Hanover and Marian is done in a minimalistic fashion.  The buildings and trees are cardboard cutouts, while The Devil is played by a man in the kind of costume you might find on clearance at Wal-Mart.  However, this scene works greatly to the movies benefit as it has a storybook-like feel to it. It is an effective piece of exposition – the audience is given all the information it needs to know.  It doesn’t resort of elaborate camera set ups, or over the top special effects, and gives the actors (especially Howard Witt as Hanover) room to perform.  

Scott also does a nice job of building up to Mr. Boogedy’s final appearance; he is first represented as an eerie green light. When Jennifer goes to investigate the light, we are only shown her reaction to Mr.Boogedy; the fact that she faints clues us in to the grotesque nature of his appearance. She describes his face as looking like “a grilled cheese sandwich” and later on calls him “hamburger face.”

The movie effectively uses sound to suggest a supernatural presence; characters constantly hear a child sneezing (this turns out to be Jonathan) and a maniacal laugh is often heard at the end of scenes.  Mr.Boogedy himself looks like Freddy Krueger’s long lost brother; his face is horribly burned and he is constantly laughing. Hey, the make up may look silly now, but it scared the hell out of me as a kid. 

The acting has often been described as “awful,” but I disagree – the broad, slight campy performances are appropriate for this material. The last thing we need is a scene of Carleton internalizing his most inner thoughts; this is a family comedy not a Tennessee Williams drama. Richard Masur steals the show as the dad without a serious bone in his body. I also like Mimi Kennedy’s portrayal as the mother, Eloise; she gives a fairly eccentric performance (her laugh sounds like a braying donkey) without robbing the character of her humanity. Indeed, Eloise turns out to be a compassionate person, especially when confronted with the ghost of Marion. The children are likeable enough (David Faustino and Benji Gregory would go onto star in Married With Children and ALF, while Kristy Swanson was the original Buffy, the Vampire Slayer), and John Astin is fun as the oddball historian, Neil Witherspoon.  The only really cringe worthy performance comes from Jamie McEnnan as Jonathan, but he has about two minutes of screen time.  It also helps that the movie is a lean 46 minutes; it gets directly to the point and doesn’t feel the need to pad its running time with unnecessary subplots. 

The sequel, Bride of Boogedy, is amusing but far less successful due to its fairly contrived story line – Mr.Boogedy mistakes Eloise for Marion and wants her to be his bride. Though, Eugene Levy is amusing as the grumpy store owner who resents the Davis family for imposing on his territory. The two movies would make for a fun double feature and I highly recommend you seek them out. 

Credits
Cast: Richard Masur (Carleton Davis), Mimi Kennedy (Eloise Davis), Kristy Swanson(Jennifer Davis), David Faustino (Corwin Davis), Benji Gregory (Aurie Davis), John Astin (Neil Witherspoon), Howard Witt (William Hanover/Mr.Boogedy), Katherine Kelly Lang (Widow Marion), Jamie McEnnan (Jonathan), Kedric Wolfe (The Devil).

Director: Oz Scott
Teleplay: Michael Janover
Running Time: 46 min.