sme_no_densetsu

Recently, "Home Alone" was added to the Library of Congress's National Film Registry, sort of a hall of fame for American movies or at least an acknowledgement of these movies being "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant". In the case of "Home Alone", its position as an enduring Christmas classic testifies to its cultural impact but, rewatching the movie for the first time in years, I was pleasantly surprised by its considerable aesthetic qualities.

To start with, "Home Alone" benefits greatly from a script by John Hughes. Although he never received any love from Oscar voters, Hughes had a knack for crafting relatable stories blending comedy & heart that often featured younger performers. He's the writer behind such movies as "The Breakfast Club", "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" and another Christmas classic, "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation". Here, he created a story that somehow seems both nostalgic and timeless, which has no doubt contributed to its continuing popularity. While the high-concept premise of a kid getting left home alone and having to fend off a pair of robbers hopefully isn't a familiar experience for many viewers, the movie's core themes are universal. That being said, not everyone may be a fan of the movie's often slapstick style of comedy but I think that the script is clever enough to appeal to both adults and children.

Of course, writing a story is only half the battle. In order for the movie to actually work it requires the right people in front of (and behind) the camera. Thankfully, the cast is better than you might expect for a movie that's primarily aimed at kids. Macauley Culkin became an overnight sensation for his central performance as Kevin McCallister and he hadn't even reached his 10th birthday when filming wrapped. Considering how his character's first impression is somewhat bratty, another child actor could have easily turned out to be more irritating than endearing. Culkin, however, had a quality about him that seemed like a near-perfect balance between cuteness & mischievousness.

Beyond Culkin's breakout performance, the movie features several memorable turns from seasoned pros. Joe Pesci was an inspired choice for Harry, the more intimidating half of the pair of thieves rounded out by Daniel Stern. Both are fine actors in their own right and they had excellent chemistry together here. Similarly, John Heard & the always dependable Catherine O'Hara are good together as Kevin's parents. I was probably most pleased to see an appearance by the late, great John Candy but I have to admit that Roberts Blossom also made a strong impression as the mysterious 'Old Man' Marley. I should also mention Devin Ratray (Buzz), to single out just one of the other young actors.

Rather than John Hughes handling the directing duties himself, he handed the reins to Chris Columbus, another writer (responsible for both "Gremlins" & "The Goonies") with a couple of directing jobs to his credit, including 1987's spirited "Adventures in Babysitting". I think that Columbus did a nice job here but really the entire production showed plenty of care and attention to detail. The sets really enforce the Christmas feel and so does the memorable score by the legendary John Williams which is supplemented by a handful of well-chosen holiday tunes. The stunt work also deserves mention because there's plenty of it and it's all well executed.

Realistically speaking, I'm sure that at least some of my affinity for this movie comes down purely to nostalgia. I was a kid when "Home Alone" came out and, like most kids, I thought that it was a blast. However, watching it again has shown me that there is indeed some considerable filmmaking craft that went into the movie. I can easily see it enduring as a Christmas classic for years to come.

At the time of its release, "What We Do in the Shadows" didn't exactly set the world on fire. While it raked in a respectable two million dollars at the box office in its native New Zealand, the rest of the world unfortunately didn't show the same level of enthusiasm. Eight years later, the movie is probably as popular as it ever has been, thanks to the successful American television adaptation.

Like the subsequent TV series, "What We Do in the Shadows" uses a mockumentary format. In this case, the premise is that a documentary crew was given access to follow a group of vampires in the months leading up to the Unholy Masquerade (basically a shindig for the undead that takes place every few years). The film chronicles the daily lives of the vampires as they share a flat in Wellington, the capital city of New Zealand.

The setup is simple but part of the movie's appeal is how it marries mundane real world conflicts with the supernatural. The opening scene with the flatmates arguing about chores is a prime example and sets the film's tone right away. As you might expect, the script is a bit light on narrative but there are indeed distinct character arcs that play out over the course of the film.

The cast is nicely assembled, though not exactly star-studded. American audiences already had some familiarity with Jemaine Clement & Rhys Darby due to "Flight of the Conchords" but the rest of the cast (even Taika Waititi) were pretty much unknown. That actually works well for a mockumentary because it lends a sense of authenticity. In any case, from top to bottom, this cast delivers the goods.

Production-wise, I'm frankly amazed that the movie had a budget of only $1.6 million. Granted, it's shot documentary-style but you can hardly make anything for that kind of money these days. So, my hat's off to Clement & Waititi for the quality behind the production (and the direction). I also have to say that using Norma Tanega's "You're Dead" as the music for the opening credits was an inspired choice.

In the end, "What We Do in the Shadows" is among the very best mockumentaries around. If you appreciate the work of Christopher Guest ("This is Spinal Tap", "Waiting for Guffman", "A Mighty Wind", etc...) then I feel confident in saying that this will be right up your alley. Horror buffs ought to get a kick out of it as well.

David O. Russell's "American Hustle" is a dramatization of the "Abscam" operation conducted by the FBI in the late 70s & early 80s. For those who aren't in the know, this was basically a sting operation targeting high profile government officials who were suspected of corruption.

To be honest, I don't know how much artistic license the writers took with the actual events but I will note that it opens with the message "Some of this actually happened". There are indeed some ridiculous developments in the plot but nothing that strikes me as particularly unbelievable. In terms of tone, the screenplay is mostly comedic but it can get dramatic at times as well. Generally speaking, I'd say that the comedic aspects are probably better executed than the dramatic ones (or at least I find them more rewarding).

The movie's cast is enviable and includes several returnees from previous David O. Russell projects. Oscar voters must have been impressed because nominations were received by no less than four cast members: Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper & Jennifer Lawrence. I wouldn't argue with any of those except for Amy Adams. She's a talented actress but I just don't think that she was right for this part. I also later read that she clashed with the director so that probably didn't help her performance. As for the rest of the cast, Jeremy Renner & Louis C. K. are a couple of standouts in smaller roles.

From a production standpoint, "American Hustle" does a lot of things right. After all, a film doesn't manage to garner 10 Oscar nominations by accident (though it didn't manage to actually win any Oscars). The production design & costumes were particularly noteworthy in my opinion. These did a great job of bringing the movie's period setting to life, as did the carefully chosen soundtrack.

And yet, while there's a lot to like about the movie there are also some unavoidable flaws that detract from the overall experience. As I said before, I think that Amy Adams was miscast and I also find that the movie's blend of comedy & drama isn't always successful. Don't get me wrong; I still think it's a good movie in the end but it irritates me that it could've been even better.