Little Shop of Horrors

Directed by: Frank Oz

Written by: Howard Ashman (screenplay and musical play); Charles B. Griffith (1960 screenplay)








Some movies follow the cookie-cutter model. Some movies break off in new directions and blaze new trails.

Then there are movies like Little Shop of Horrors which subvert and twist the cookie cutter model into something completely different.

Little Shop of Horrors has elements of science fiction, elements of romance, elements of comedy (both dark and slapstick), and elements of horror, all under the disarming guise of a musical with puppets. It's disorienting and confusing, and unlike anything else.

It's brilliant. It doesn't try to be pretentious or over-the-top (except in its own ironic way). The energy is all focused in the same direction. There's a synergy which doesn't often hold up in other movies which try to pull off the same tricks this movie does.

Like the interesting looking plant in the window, this movie will lure you in. Just be prepared for what you'll find inside.

Hoosiers

Directed by: David Anspaugh

Written by: Angelo Pizzo

There aren't too many great basketball movies out there (sorry, Space Jam), but "Hoosiers" is by far the best. In fact, it's easily one of the most inspirational sports movies, regardless of the sport. (As a brief aside, "Hoop Dreams" takes a close and very honorable second place.)

A former college coach (Hackman) with a violent past takes over the basketball program at a high school in small-town Indiana. Not everyone in town takes to his less-than-traditional style of coaching, but with the help of another teacher (Hershey), he manages to earn the loyalty of the best player in town. The long road to the championship isn't easy, though.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about what this movie does right, and trying to narrow it beyond "just about everything." What stands out most is just how real everything in the movie feels - especially the characters. Aside from a few moments of dialogue, nothing feels forced or contrived. It seemed like real people would make these real comments when faced with these real situations. Even the romance subplot, usually the downfall of most movies, plays out in a very natural and unforced fashion. Dennis Hopper, playing the alcoholic assistant coach, even earned an Academy Award nomination for his performance.

The movie is a bit slow at first. It takes a long time to meet the final cast of characters. But it is totally worth the wait. The slow development is an element of the style of the film, not a flaw in the pacing. The film gives us enough time to reflect on the characters and events, which is key in a film where reflection on life is such an important theme.

I won't spend time here describing how Hackman's character is an unlikely amalgam of the great John Wooden and the infamous Bobby Knight. Suffice to say that Hackman balances the virtues of Wooden's coaching with the intensity (borderline fury) of Knight's style. It makes him a rich, full character, who you find yourself rooting for even after you know about why he was dismissed from the college position.

This is a film worth seeing. I highly recommend it, especially now as the shadows of "March Madness" begin to creep in on the edges of our national consciousness.

Top Gun

Directed by: Tony Scott

Written by: Jim Cash, Jack Epps Jr.

In the U.S. Navy, the best fighter pilots are sent to a special school in Mirimar, California - Top Gun - to hone their skills. Seriously. This movie, though, has both everything and nothing to do with that premise.

Maverick (Cruise) is a navy fighter pilot with an attitude and a bad reputation as being reckless. Fate intervenes, and he and his co-pilot Goose (Edwards) are given a chance to prove themselves as the best pilots in the country. To succeed, Maverick must both overcome the ghost of his father and control his feelings for his flight instructor Charlie (McGillis).

(Even that plot description is a stretch and gives a lot of credit to the film. But more on that later.)

"Top Gun," when taken piece by piece, is awful. But somehow, as a whole, it overcomes its inadequacies to become one of the definitive films of the 1980's. Tom Cruise's acting is a perfect example of the film's contradictory nature. Cruise is campy and hammy, but he's also charming (in a 1980's kind of way). The film is both action packed, but, considering that most of the missions are training, devoid of any real danger.

The songs on the soundtrack are awesome - until you realize that almost all of the music in the film is made up of variations on just three songs. (But then again, those three songs rock, so...)

Elements of the story come and go at the convenience of, well, the story itself. For example, Maverick is supposed to be haunted by the ghost of his father - who was, himself, one of the best fighter pilots of his time, and who disappeared mysteriously on a mission. But, this fact only comes up at random times to explain his behavior within a certain scene, and is abandoned the moment his behavior is different. It's even easy to argue that he is more haunted by his former co-pilot than his father. At times, Maverick's romance with Charlie must be kept a secret from everyone (lest a conflict of interest arise), but at other times they are completely out in the open with their relationship. Baffling, yes; problematic, not really.

Just as Maverick is all torn up inside, so am I in how I feel about this film. I both laugh at and fall in love with "Top Gun." And you should too!

(Please note: I've avoided any interpretations that delve into any depth on the film. But there is potential. It could be a propaganda piece for the military strength of the US in the face of the eminent collapse of the Soviet Union. It could be an examination of the modern American military conscience, needing to overcome its failures in the Vietnam conflict. It could be an examination of masculinity in a hyper-masculinized world. Those are all there. But yeah, I'm not getting into any of those here.)