The Great Outdoors

Howard Deutch, 1988

Can I Stream It?

2/5

Chet Ripley (John Candy) is looking forward to spending some quality time with his family on their vacation in rural Wisconsin when his in-laws Roman (Dan Akroyd) and Kate (Annette Benning) suddenly show up expecting to join in on the fun.

The Great Outdoors is probably one of those films that you put on thinking you've never seen it before, and when it hits a couple of the key scenes you realize that you've seen it. The Old 96'er steakhouse scene. The bat loose in the house scene. Or perhaps the quintessential 80's romance scenes are enough to jog the memory. The point is, those comical scenes stand out in what's ultimately a rather forgettable film. While John Hughes has plenty of notable writing credits over the course of his career (Home Alone, Ferris Bueler's Day Off, The Breakfast Club), not all of them are winners (Curly Sue, Beethoven, Career Opportunities). The presence of two of the great Canadian imports Dan Akroyd and John Candy are certainly enough to pull you in. What's interesting with both of them is they do what they typically do, and as long as that's within the proper framework it's fine. Akroyd is always the fast-talking chubby(ish) robotically-toned force who relies on and shifts in accent and facial expression rather than slapstick comedy. Candy typically uses more physical comedy and is more limited as an actor, but is certainly more of a warm force on screen. There's a familiarity with him, a sentimentality. Whenever you see John Candy on screen it reminds you of how much you miss him. The Great Outdoors certainly has it's flaws. Distracting edits, poor set design, weak story, too much bear, too much raccoon subtitling. Why did they have to talk so much? At times the very heavy animal presence is as wearisome as watching bears pick through the garbage heap like they do in the film. Perhaps their was a SAG quota for animal trainers' working hours in 1988.

Wanderlust

David Wain, 2012


4/5

George (Paul Rudd) and Linda (Jennifer Aniston) get over their head in expenses after purchasing an apartment in New York City. After George loses his job, and Linda's documentary gets turned down by HBO they decide to get out of the city. They venture down to stay with George's brother in Georgia. On the way down they decide to stop at a bed and breakfast which turns out to be a hippie commune. The freedom and positive energy that is connected to the lifestyle becomes attractive to them and they contemplate staying.

This comedy by Wain (Wet Hot American Summer, Role Models) blends some social commentary with some slapstick elements. Because the film jumps head first into the story the characters feel like caricatures. Once things get moving that fades away and the film really maintains a steady pace using solid characters. It effectively uses a lot of the same actors as Wet Hot but provides them with much better writing. The picture itself at times feels like a much more grown up version of Wet Hot. It examines the communal lifestyle, which of course in real life has proved to be a failed experiment over and over again. The human emotional spectrum always precedes the ideals of an attempted Utopian community, and no matter how many good vibes you try to spread - there's still going to be conflicts that are unavoidable (jealousy, deception, greed). Wain examines a lot of these through comedy, and very effectively at that. Nudism, Free love, Organic farming, New age pregnancy techniques, Primal screaming, hallucinogenics. Some really stand-out performances in the picture. Paul Rudd, who is always consistent, is particularly good in this. His brother, Rick (Ken Marino), is perfect as the douchey brother who surrounds himself with materialism to peacock his success. His character comes off as very Apatowian, reminiscent of Bradley Cooper's character Sack Lodge in Wedding Crashers. Some of the scenes felt like you were watching a good improv group at work (ie. the truth circle, or Paul Rudd talking into the mirror). It will be interesting to see what Wain does in the future. Some of his past work felt loosey-goosey, but he had some solid writing here to work with. Hopefully he keeps the same people on board for future work.

Meatballs

Ivan Reitman, 1979


2/5

          Tripper (Bill Murray) is a fun-seeking camp counselor who is trying to make sure all of the kids at summer camp have a good time, including the outcasts. He tries to boost the confidence of quiet Crockett (Russ Banham), while also trying to win the various competitions against the rival Camp Mohawk.
          This is Bill Murray's first starring role and a predecessor to other successful Reitman film's Stripes, Ghostbusters & Ghostbusters II. It has the typical high jinks and quirky humor that one would come to expect from Murray, but ultimately falls flat because that's really ALL it has going for it. A good portion of the film feels unscripted, which is fine, but there's just not a whole lot there to laugh at. Most of the film feels very dated 34 years later. While Meatballs clearly influenced future Summer Camp films (Heavyweights, Wet Hot American Summer), it's guilty of not maintaining enough structure as its counterparts. It contains a lot of slapstick humor, combined with a lot of physical comedy that treads common themes (bullying the geeks, poking fun at the fat kids, awkward teen romance, social cliques). Groundhog Day, Ghostbusters and pretty much EVERY Wes Anderson film that Bill Murray has been in proves that he needs to have some framework in order to pull it all off. Seeing him dance by himself to disco music is hilarious, don't get me wrong, but not for an hour and a half. For me the more minimalist, restrained Bill Murray has always been the most effective comedically (Life Aquatic, The Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore). Meatballs is trumped by the laughs in Wet Hot American Summer, likely due to the fact it's main energy source is child acting and not Michael Ian Black or Paul Rudd.
          Meatballs pops up on a lot of lists of people's favorite Summer Camp films. This is likely because there really aren't a lot of good films in that genre. That's surprising, because one would think it could be a very manageable type of film to create seeing as you don't need a big budget for set design (you can just shoot at one rural location) and all you really need is good comedic acting and a good writing staff.