Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

3/5

Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a quirky little movie. It blends live action film noir with animated cartoon comedy to create a unique and wholly original atmosphere. The movie is about Eddie Valiant (Hoskins), a down-on-his-luck private investigator who has to work for cartoons in Toon Town when he's not busy guzzling down alcohol. Cartoons exist side by side with real people, but they're placed in a segregated society and are forced into the service or performance industries. Roger Rabbit (Fleischer) works in the movies as an actor. Just like all the violent cartoons of our childhood, we realize that he can't be killed by having a refrigerator dropped on his head or falling off a cliff. His wife Jessica Rabbit works in a night club as a singer. "[She's] not bad. [She's] just drawn that way." Valiant photographs her in a compromising position with prop giant Marvin Acme and shows it to Roger, who goes berserk. When Acme is found dead the next day, Roger is the usual suspect. Judge Doom (Lloyd) has devised a way to kill cartoons, by dipping them in his own special mix of paint thinners (turpentine, benzene, and acetone), and he is eager to test it out on Roger Rabbit.

Quite frankly, the special effects weren't quite at the level to make it work for me. It should have been made 25 years later at a time when special effects were advanced enough to have them believably live on screen with real actors (I'm imaging something fluid along the lines of District 9). I loved the concept though--it was bold and innovative--but the mood was just too farcical. The movie should have been a true film noir with very minor elements of black comedy, directed by someone unafraid to make an unapologetically dark film like Darren Aronofsky or the Coen brothers. And, I just realized, there are a bunch of plot holes and the whole thing doesn't really make sense in a truly cohesive and believable way. It's a great idea marred by the limitations of its time; if it gets remade into a far more serious film, I will be first in line to see it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096438/

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

2/5

Halloween 4 is not a terrible movie by any means. It's simply forgettable. Unlike the first one, there are no characters to feel for, no plot to unnerve you, and no technical cinematic prowess to astound you. It was just simple slasher fare. And with it came a few startling moments, a few gory special effects, and lots of low-lit environments. What sets it apart from other slashers is the awesome Halloween theme and multiple references to the original, including its ending. This doesn't make it a good film, but it certainly made it more fun for me to watch. I really can't recommend this unless you're one of those people who are obsessed with the series. Or you're like me and have nothing to do late at night and are too lazy to change the channel.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095271/

The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)

4.9/5

The Last Temptation of Christ is a powerful fictional account of the human nature of Jesus; his wants, his fears, and his temptations. The music was amazing, and an absolutely perfect fit from start to finish. The most cinematically lush scenes I found were when the camera rapidly and unexpectedly went over the edge of a cliff, the aggregation of followers in the desert, and the raising of the cross. (I know there are many more that I'm ignoring.) Though there were numerous stunning images and ideas presented (not the least of which being the titular final temptation), I personally found the most powerful one to be the possibility that even without Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection, Paul still spreads the gospel exactly the same as if that had taken place. Did Jesus need to die if we believe it all anyway? The other striking feature of this movie is the mesmerizing and sympathetic image of Judas that is painted. He is a man who makes arguably the bigger sacrifices by agreeing to betray Jesus so that Jesus could die and save mankind.

--"If you were me, could you betray your master?"
--"No. That is why I got the easier job. To be crucified."

I don't know what it was about it, but some of the filmmaking had a very 80's feel to it. The dialogue was a mix between natural speech and epic monologuing. Sometimes it flowed well from one to the other, but often it was a jarring disjunct that took me away from the movie. There seemed to be some unnecessary slow parts and some flashy but ultimately empty scenes. It also seems as if Scorsese went out of his way to show the inhabitants of the gospels as dirtier, more violent, and more extremist for the sole purpose of challenging your Sunday school interpretations. The subject matter limits the audience to the devout but questioning Christian, and the length limits the audience even further to only the most interested. But if you fit within that very select group, you will find an astounding film to watch, analyze, and remember.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0095497/