You've Got Mail (1998) / Empire Records (1995) Paramount Summer Classic Film Series Double Feature

 

You've Got Mail

Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan were the epitome of screen couples in the 1990s. They made three romantic comedies together and all of them are worth a look, but my personal favorite is their last one, the Nora Ephron directed and co-written "You've Got Mail." The film is a remake and update of the 1940 Classic, "The Shop Around the Corner". It is extensively inspired by the then new phenomena of electronic communication. America On-Line (AOL) was the portal that most users of the internet in the mid to late 90s were found on. Instant messaging and e-mail were sparkling new toys that enticed people into communities, chat rooms and ultimately on-line relationships. 

Although the movie holds up pretty well when it comes to story, the technology has developed so much in the last thirty years that several things seem incredibly quaint to older viewers and foreign to younger audiences. The dial up tones for connecting to the internet have vanished and they are only a memory for early users of the internet. The notification in the mailbox that there were new messages, was probably useful in 1998. I recently covered "Eurotrip" on the LAMBcast, and the audio notification on e-mail there is quite different, just six years later. Of course today, if I had an audio notification for every new email, my phone would never shut up. 

The original film featured Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan. Hanks has frequently been compared to Stewart for his aw shucks personable style and open faced handsomeness. Of course he has a quick wit and can dash off a line with flare, which is different than Stewart's deliberate and often halting delivery of lines. The two actors have different styles regardless of personality or physical similarities. Meg Ryan is completely different in her character than Sullavan was in the 1940 film. Kathleen is quiet and deferential at the start of the film, it is only after she gets advice from Joe Fox that she is able to actually confront Joe Fox. The realization that her words might be cruel, is a lesson that most people on the internet should learn.

This is a big spoonful of nostalgia for me. Like "Sleepless in Seattle" from a few years earlier, I experienced this movie with my late wife who adored it. The DVD was one of the first DVD purchases after we acquired a player late in 1998.  There was a promotional sale at "Comp USA" an long defunct computer store, which had a location about ten miles from our home and I remember driving over there on a Saturday, with the kids in the minivan, to buy the movie for the low price of $14.99. It has some Christmas sequences, but I have never thought of it as a Christmas movie. This is a romanticized view of New York Movie. It's sort of funny that there is a joke about Rudy Giuliani as mayor because it was largely his policies that allowed the idealized view of New York to flourish in the 1990s. If this film had been made in the seventies, it would have been set in San Francisco rather than NYC.

Empire Records

This was a strange pairing for the double feature. The tone of the two films is very different, and although they came out in the same era, it is very clear that they were seeking very different audiences. "Empire Records" is the antithesis of "You've Got Mail" in a number of ways. Both films feature a ton of needle drop musical moments, but "Mail" is all about established and well worn songs and moods, "Empire" is contemporary and focused on clashing subcultures of music. The former is all about polish and smooth story telling, the later is chaotic and frenetic. 

A dozen characters are featured with storylines in the film. They are not background but main arcs of the movie. The film bounces around all of those stories and barely lets us know the characters, much less develop any affinity for them. The cliched stereotypes are the short hand way in which we are expected to connect with these young people. The store appears to have more employees than customers and all of the employees have quirks that are off putting to some degree, regardless of whether they have other traits that might endear them to us. 

I suppose it is the retail workplace setting that makes this combination of films feel any sort of theme between them. Both the "Shop Around the Corner" and "Empire Records" are businesses on the brink of collapse due to competition from newer business models. It is a little ironic that youth lead internet culture subsequently consumed both industries to a large degree. Books and  Music were first, but movies are in the same buffet, and will soon be swallowed up by on-line users who will be soulless and will crush the individuality of all of us.

This movie was not a success when it was released but it has become something of a cult film as a result of cable exposure over the years. I can see why. Watching this in a theater reveals all of the films flaws, and makes it a chore to get through. This is one of the few films I think works better on a small screen and at home viewing. You can tune in and out of the dialogue without losing anything because most of the dialogue is not very good. The sequences don't really build on one another, so if you miss something while answering the door, going to the bathroom or getting a snack, it won't matter. This is not a film that was mad for my generation, but it tries to take the attitude of a touchstone film from my era like "Caddyshack" or "Animal House" and apply it to the millennial audience.   Unfortunately, from my point of view, that is a fail. 

 

The Outsiders (1983) Alamo Drafthouse Movie Party

 

In spite of the fact that "The Outsiders" was released in 1983 and was made by one of my favorite directors, it has only just dawned on me that I had never seen it. I have been to NYC twice to see the musical stage adaptation, and I own the Complete Novel Version DVD/Blu-ray of the film, so I thought I'd had this as part of my history, but while watching it, I came to the realization that this was a completely new experience for me. Knowing the story is not the same as seeing actors play out the roles on screen or watching a director make choices to emphasize one visual element over another.

I have been lax this summer in keeping up with my blog and the films that I have seen. Some of this passivity is a result of the large number of retrospective films I have been seeing, but an even bigger influence has been my devotion to the LAMBcast episodes and the videos, which take up a lot of my time and reprioritize my efforts. Which is why this post is both late and not as complete as I had originally intended. in the first few years of this blog, I wrote about the films I saw immediately after seeing the movie. Sometimes I would stay up into the next morning to get my thoughts down completely. That has not been the case for the last couple of years and since I don't take notes, when a post goes up days or even weeks after a screening, I have forgotten many of the things I wanted to write about while watching the film. That has happened with this movie.

I know there were performance moments that I thought were great, but I cannot recall the images or nuances that struck me at the time. I do know that I thought the church fire scene worked much more effectively in this film than I was expecting. C. Thomas Howell and Ralph Macchio were really strong in the film and this sequence was a standout. 

Francis Ford Coppola and his cinematographer Stephen Buram, captured the golden hue of the evening that matches the poem and the theme for Ponyboy at the end of the movie. In fact, the whole film does a nice job of creating the 60s era without over doing cultural images that give us a shorthand way of seeing the time period.  

The rest of the cast was also great, with Matt Dillon and Rob Lowe the standouts. Tom Cruise is in the edges of the film and his breakout role in "Risky Business" came this same year. Many of the cast members were reunited for "Red Dawn" the John Milius film of 12984, and they all seemed to play off of each other pretty well. 

If I see the film again, I will try to be quicker in writing about it so that you get a more complete picture of my experience. Until them Stay Golden. 

Ghostbusters (1984)-Revisit/Alamo Drafthouse Movie Party

 

Whenever I get a chance to see one of my 1984 films on the big screen, I am going to take it. Last week the Alamo Drafthouse had a Movie Party Screening of "Ghostbusters". The Movie Party screenings include a theme hosted introduction with a contest for a prize, and props are distributed as you enter the theater. In the past, some of the props are clever, but not useful for the interactions of the Party Atmosphere. This event however did include some props that made the screening feel like a party. We were given two foot long glowstick streamers that allowed us to join in on the ghost hunts when the proton packs came out. 

Everyone in the half full theater would wave their proton streams whenever the Ghostbusters did. It was quite a sight. I did not record during the screening, that would still be a no no by Alamo standards, but you can imagine the effect by looking at the video above. 

No one used the slime in a jar during the movie, but I did see several people eat their marshmallow at the end of the film when the Stay Puft Man makes his appearance.  

Here is a link to a decade old post on one of my visits to see Ghostbuster in a theater. 

and here is a 30th Anniversary screening link as well. 

One more link for you, this is the post on my 30 Years On Project from 2014. 

I am always happy to revisit a film that I love in a theater. Getting to do so with other fans is one of the things that makes movie going special for me. Oh, by the way, I wone the ring toss Slimer game and got two passes for an Alamo Screening. Not to shabby for a 41 year old movie and an even older fan. 

Shampoo (1975) Paramount Summer Classic Film Series

 

I wrote about this film just a couple of years ago on the 1975 Throwback Thursday Project that I did. You can read those comments here. I don’t know that my opinion has changed much on the film, it is still a mildly humorous look at mores of the era (set in 1968 but easily applicable to the 70s). Warren Beatty Produced, Co-Wrote and stars in this film from Director Hal Ashby. The events all take place on election day in 1968, but not a single character is shown to participate in the election process. There are a few news clips in the background, some of which are meant to carry irony, given the passage of time from when the film is set, to the time that the film was released.

George is a hairdresser in Beverly Hills, who styles himself as an artist, and not just a barber. From the very beginning, we know that he is straight, and it is clear from the number of women he beds, that he also wants to be Warren Beatty in real life. Near the end of the picture we learn that the main thing that drew him to the field was the target rich environment that the hairdressing industry would be. Whereas he might have been admired as a “player” fifty years ago, today he would be seen as a predator. He is not malicious but he is selfishly using his partners instead of developing a relationship with them. Julie Christie and Lee Grant are able to defend themselves to some degree, but they are hurt by George in spite of their insights about him. The character we are going to feel the most empathy for is Goldie Hawn’s Jill.

Jack Warden plays a powerful businessman, Lester, married to Grant, while carrying on an affair with Christie. George is a former lover of Christie’s Jackie, but Lester does not know that and thinks George is gay. George is sleeping with Felicia, Lee Grant’s character. So George is involved with two of the women that Lester is involved with, and the confusion over how they all play out the dance is the stem of the story. All of the events take place over a 48 hour period, so there are lots of awkward moments surrounding chance meetings, hair appointments, business deals and political events.

Both George and Lester are manipulators, and although he is sometimes harsh in assessing women, Lester may be the more honest and respectable of the two. George is a nicer guy to know, but he is callous in a way that is unexpected and wounds the women more deeply than the shallow hurts that Lester inflicts.

Everyone ends up at two different parties on the same night. The uptight election watching party forces everyone to deny their feelings for each other, while the second party that is hosted at a Playboy style mansion, seems freer but is just as deadly to true love as anything else in the film. Both parties give us glimpses of the cultural divide that was rising in the period. Race and the War are barely mentioned, this is a clash over ethics and how we manage our romantic feelings. The film does not have a clear answer, but it is clear that George ends up with the short end of the stick, and he has no one to blame but himself.

Legally Blonde (2001)/ Clueless (1995) Paramount Summer Classic Film Series Double Feature

A rare Wednesday double feature at the Paramount this week with a screening of "Legally Blonde" and "Clueless". Both films have elements of female empowerment in them, and both of them have completely silly components, which keep them firmly in the comedy category and diminish any social commentary. Not that that's a bad thing.

What both films have going for them are charming leads, and comic scenarios that get resolved with happy endings. In other words they are audience fantasies that deliver what people want from their entertainment

.

LEGALLY BLONDE

Legally Blonde was the Breakthrough movie for Reese Witherspoon, and it's success catapulted her to the ranks of Highly sought after actresses in the first decade of the century. Playing a high school senior who is pursuing her boyfriend to Harvard Law School, Witherspoon plays Elle Woods, a fashion merchandising 4. 0 student who manages to excel on the LSAT after cramming very hard. The fact that she's a cute blonde in a bikini in her video essay doesn't with the admissions committee either. So when the film makes a point about the importance of female accomplishments over appearance, that is going to be undermined by this plot point. Okay that's the last serious thing I'm going to say about Legally Blonde.

What I will say is that it is delightfully droll, Witherspoon is a blast playing a perky Fish Out of Water in an elitist cultural niche which judges you by your family in source of wealth more than your character or even income. Harvard I'm sure appreciates being portrayed as an exclusive Miley sought after admission, but the movie shows us some of the most stereotypical intellectual snobs that you can imagine, as being the sort of students that Elle will have to compete with.

The courtroom antics are fine, but you will actually get a better sense of legal procedure by watching My Cousin Vinny. Legally Blonde resorts to an old Perry Mason trick to finish off this Underdog Story. But no one will care because Elle Wood is a good person who wins out in the end, and all of the other good guys win as well. Cue the Applause from the overwhelmingly female audience that attended Wednesday's performance.

CLUELESS 

Cher, the heroine in this reimagined version of Emma, is played by Alicia Silverstone. This was another one of those films that established young actors as the Bedrock of '90s and early 2000 films. In fact we're still getting Paul Rudd, who looks pretty much like he did back in 1995, starring in movies. Silverstone is the quintessential spoiled dumb blonde of classic film. Although she sees herself as the authority in the story, the rest of us recognize quite early on that she is the one who is out of Step.

I can't tell you how authentic the relationships between teen girls in Beverly Hills are represented by this film. It is however easy to imagine Petty jealousies and misunderstandings creating broken friendships or lost romantic opportunities. The themes in Clueless are actually a little bit more serious than the legal drama of Legally Blonde. Everybody engages in some kind of manipulation, sometimes we have the best of intentions when doing so, but in the long run we should really reassess the choices we make. Like Jane Austen's Emma, Cher is manipulating others in what she sees is an altruistic attempt to help them out. The problem is she puts her own vision ahead of what is best when it comes to her friends.

Once again it all works out, and there are serious laughs to be had throughout the film. I've always liked Dan Hedaya who plays Cher's dad, and even in the small role that he has here he puts his grumpy but sympathetic persona to good use. Wallace Shawn shows up as the stern but naive debate coach, and I see too much of myself in this role, fortunately I can laugh at myself.

About a third of the audience left after Legally Blonde, but those who remained embraced Clueless almost as enthusiastically and we all shared a laugh as we left later in the night than we usually do during the week.

Nobody 2 (2025)

 

Weapons (2025)

 

While I was watching this movie, I was not sure if I liked it or not. There were a number of things about it that were intriguing, but it also seemed to be taking a long while to get to the point. I like a Slow Burn, after all I grew up on the films of the '70s, where everything was a Slow Burn. Weapons however, seem like every time it got to second gear it downshifted again. The reason for this is the storytelling structure of the film. In the end I've come down on the side that this is a terrific way to tell the story and I should get over my occasional sense of impatience.

I don't think it gives away too much to tell you that the story is told around six distinct characters. Also the narrative path is a little bit like memento, where the previous sequence means more after we've seen the follow-up sequence. Stories are interlocking, but they rarely repeat the same Beats. There might be a brief moment or two, that is repeated in each of the sequences, but for the most part they stand alone and give us the kind of context that make the events feel more real and a heck of a lot more interesting.

Julia Garner, Josh Brolin, Alden Ehrenreich, and Benjamin Wong, are all terrific in their roles as players in this horror scenario. As an unjustly maligned teacher, Garner is sympathetic but she is also not perfect. Her flaws make her a better protagonist. The only character who doesn't have an obvious flaw is Benjamin Wong, as the school principal Marcus. He is the epitome of an effective principal would be like. That of course makes it particularly disturbing when we see the first truly horrific scene in the film. Up until the part where Marcus loses it, our main horror element was dread. When the turn here takes place, it is fear and revulsion that take over.

There is a major character in the story that I'm not going to talk about, because it feels like it would be a spoiler. Although seen around the edges of two or three of the opening sequences, it is only when this character steps into one of those stories openly, that we start to figure out what the hell is going on with the children who have vanished. 

Director Zach Cregger, who previously made the film Barbarian, has interesting ideas and fun Concepts in his stories. And well they are admirable I'm not going to buy into the hype that these films are exceptional. There are still narrative problems, and inconsistencies, but Cregger does have the ability to direct the film well enough to distract us from those flaws , and still deliver something highly entertaining to watch.

For the first two thirds of the film this feels like a melodrama, posing as a horror film. Once we get to the final character story, The Narrative plays itself out straight, and the usual horror elements do appear. The climax of the film does feature several deaths, and disturbing images, and surprisingly a little bit of Hope for some of the characters who are left. I do need to say however that the film starts off telling us a lie, which distracts us from what's really happening, and then ignores the lie at the end of the film. As long as you don't mind being Hoodwinked into seeing a film that is not what is advertised in the opening moments, weapons will satisfy your Jones for a summer horror flick. It's not perfect, but it's pretty darn great.