Movie Review: Labyrinth (1986)

Hello, friends!

From time to time some of us probably think it would be great if we could wish all of our mundane problems away and instead go to a magical world where we are fighting against dark powers with a group of loyal friends. Since that's not possible, a good substitute is immersion through stories, so today I'm reviewing a film that transports the viewer to the world of the goblins, the world of the movie Labyrinth. 

A note about spoilers: This majority of this review is spoiler-free as I will not talk about the ending of the movie. I'll be talking about the characters and their dynamics but not what happens to them so feel free to read without fear of the secrets being spoiled. NOTE: As I get into the general thoughts section I'll talk about some events that are further along than I usually talk about (normally I don't go further than the inciting incident) but will still refrain from talking about the ending itself.

Labyrinth (1986)

Premise: Sarah is full of daydreams, but her dad and stepmom leave her to babysit her half-brother, Toby, when he just takes her things. She finds it absolutely unfair and when he won't stop crying she wishes that the king of the goblins would just take Toby away so she didn't have to worry about him. Turns out, her wish comes true as Jareth, the very king of the goblins himself, appears and does just that. Now Sarah has to find her way to his castle before time is up to get her baby brother back and come home, or else he'll belong to Jareth forever. The only problem is, to do that, she has the face the labyrinth where the rules are always changing and Jareth isn't above cheating to get what he wants. 

If only there was a worm to guide her...

Genre(s): Adventure, Family, Fantasy.

Length: approx. 101 minutes.

Age Range: This is rated PG. There's a bit of peril that might be too much for really little kids, but nothing gory ever happens so kids over 8 would probably be okay. The goblins can be a bit alarming but they're more bumbling than (think of Maleficent's minions in Sleeping Beauty (1959)) scary. Jareth is probably the eeriest thing in this world.

Crew: Directed by: Jim Henson. Produced by: Eric Rattray. Written by: Terry Jones, Dennis Lee, and Jim Henson. Music by: Trevor Jones and performed by David Bowie.

Starring: David Bowie and Jennifer Connelly, and a whole slew of voice actors and puppeteers! 

Personally, I'll always choose the blue option.

General thoughts:

Coming after Henson's earlier work The Dark Crystal (1982) (which I am now curious about to see if it's in the same world), this film is in the classic "girl goes to another world to learn about herself" canon, up there with The Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland, and Jim Henson himself didn't mind the comparison. However, this story didn't stop at garnering inspiration, but was substantial in influencing future stories in this niche micro-genre. Some other films that come to mind with a similar premise are:

• Spirited Away (2001): spirits instead of goblins fill this world, but our main character still has a spiky-haired antagonist to face.
• The Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland (1999): this may not count because it's a play on Alice in Wonderland already, but what it has in common with Labyrinth is puppets, so I think it's still of note. It also features something that is lost and claimed by the antagonist (in this case, it's a blanket instead of a baby).
• Pan's Labyrinth (2006): I have yet to see the film itself, but have seen a couple presentations about it so I have a pretty good idea about the plot. My basis of comparison isn't just the title, but also the dynamic between a girl and her brother.

As far as I know none of those films have credited Labyrinth as an inspiration, they just stood out to me so this is my own un-researched hypothesis. What is known is that this film has a cult following and there have been discussions of a sequel since 2016. While there haven't been any updates since 2024, it was still thought to be sincere.

And besides, Mr. David Bowie is no longer with us and who else could play Jareth?

Though, it would be hard to follow this up because this film is so distinctively 80s, so something made 40 years later would invariably feel out of place and not even in the same world. It's hard to pinpoint a tone for this story as the stakes are high--Sarah's brother's life is in the balance!--yet then there are puppets, the occasional crass joke thrown in, and musical numbers.

Quick tangent: These songs are low-key insane. I get it, they couldn't bring in someone as famous in the music world as David Bowie and NOT have him sing, but at the same time it's not a musical? And David Bowie is the only one who is singing?? The muppets sing along sometiems, too, but Sarah never has a song which is what keeps this from feeling like a musical and more of a pop experiment. It just plays into Jareth being dramatic that he breaks out in song from time to time, usually just to sing things he could've just as easily said with a few words. I somehow have them stuck in my head even though I don't know what the words are.

Is that a magic 8 ball?

With that out of the way, back to defining the tone. As strange as it is for me now--and strange doesn't mean I don't like it!--it's not too far out there for the time frame, as it is believably in league with other 80s fantasy films, such as The NeverEnding Story (1984). I'd classify this as funky fantasy. That's not an official genre, but it's as close as I can get to describe it, as opposed to things like high fantasy or dark fantasy or...romantasy.

And that's what leads me to what I really want to talk about: I think this film inspired a generation of fans who also love romantasy (romance + fantasy), and explains so much about people being obsessed with the "romantasy" genre even if the film itself isn't part of it. 

For those of you who are not around the current book spheres, romantasy often involves characters from opposing sides (enemies-to-lovers) as the main couple, frequently including a brooding character who has for much of the story been seen as the villain/antagonist/or just plain dangerous. You'll notice that Romance isn't in the genres listed for this film, yet there's a scene where Jareth is up to his usual manipulation and is trying to make Sarah forget why she's there until time runs out, so he traps her in a time-loop and the common reading from the cult following is that this is romantic. 

I'm here to argue that it isn't and that the movie isn't trying to show that it is.

Sarah has been longing for an escape this whole time, and that's all Jareth is offering her, to be stuck in a time-loop forever. In this hazy escape world Sarah is clinging to things that have a sense of familiarity, not attraction. There are other options for escape given later and they are just as attractive options to Sarah as this scene, and so that's no indication of feelings on either side. The goblin king is never in love with Sarah, only ever trying to trick her. And she's never in love with him, just under the spell.   

I think that's more to do with the dress, if we're being honest.

Romantasy as a genre is fine on its own--let people read what they like!--but I think it's problematic if it's read into things that are not there. Remember: he's the villain and she's 16 years old. I think the film itself does not support that as we are constantly reminded of the true motivations (only a villain would nearly drop a baby so many times).

And who knows, maybe people don't see it this way; that's just the impression I had of this movie for years now before watching it and was impressed that it actually had such a hard line of just being manipulation and nothing more, and it's up to the characters to break free.

And while we're here, let's talk about the characters.

Preciousssssss

I really liked Sarah as our progatonist. At first she is somewhat petulant, whiney, and has her own idea of what is and isn't fair in life (the "I wonder what your basis for comparison" line is ICONIC), but like all great stories, her worldview changes and she becomes strong and kind. Her arc is about growing up, grief, and coming to appreciate those you have, not those you lost.

To continue the comparison to The Wizard of Oz, Hoggle, Ludo, and Sir Didymus remind me of The Scarecrow, The Tinwoodsman, and The Cowardly Lion. There is not an exact counterpart for each member of the trio, but instead all have parts of intelligence, compassion, and bravery.

I would also hold Ludo's hand.

Those characters are bold in their personalities but also in their appearance, thanks to the work done to bring them to life and I so appreciate the effort of all of those puppets. I mean, it's Jim Henson, so that's kind of his forte. To our modern eyes, some of the transitions aren't perfect, but that's part of the charm.

In addition to the puppets, I was constantly blown away by the set and the utter commitment of dusting everything in gold. I mean it, there's glitter on everything. I could not find a great picture to demonstrate this, so you just have to watch it to see how in-depth they go. This alone makes me think of it as not being as "dark fantasy" as it is often portrayed. Yes, there are dark moments, but there's also enough humor to keep things light. There's a light at the end of the tunnel, or at least, at the end of the Labyrinth.

Look at the sparkly walls!

For the blogathon:

This is my entry to the "Eddie's Year" Blogathon hosted by Sally Silverscreen at 18 Cinema Lane. This blogathon is celebrating the character Eddie Munson from Stranger Things and through that the year 1986, the year he would've graduated. I haven't watched Stranger Things, but Sally also opened this blogathon up to movies made in 1986 and when I saw Labyrinth back in February I sprung at the chance to talk about it. Last year around this time I reviewed The Breakfast Club (1985) for a blogathon celebrating movies from 1985, so this felt like the next logical step.

From what I understand about Eddie and the world of Stranger Things, Dungeons and Dragons is a part of it. This film feels very much like it could be in that world with the twists and turns and changing rules. If this were a Dungeons and Dragons set-up then Jareth feels like the Dungeon Master--one that nobody likes--as he changes the scenarios from minute to minute. I've never played D&D but would love to give it a go, so my character that I'll claim is either Hoggle or Sir Didymus. Pretty simple when anything comes up: Hoggle runs away from danger and Sir Didymus runs towards it. But as I talked about above, they have development of their own, too, so the story is never dull.

This review of mine is last minute, at the thirteenth hour, but thanks to Sally for hosting this! Readers, if you liked this article and want to revisit more of 1986, check out the other entries in the blogathon HERE.

13 is prime time.

Thank you for reading! Have you seen this movie? Do you think this fits into the romantasy genre? I'd love to discuss it with you in the comments! Who do you think of Hoggle, Ludo, and Sir Didymus is the best fit for each Wizard of Oz character I listed? What are other 80s fantasy films you enjoy? What should I know about Stranger Things?

Until next time,

Chloe the MovieCritic

Movie Review: Phenomenon (1996)

Hey, friends!

Have you ever had someone tell you to watch a film again and again but it's months before you get around to it? Ever since December my dad had been trying to get me to watch Phenomenon (1996) but I was hesitant because I'm not a big John Travolta fan. We finally sat down to watch it at the end April and I now have to say that I take it back about not liking John Travolta. One could say that that is a rare occurrence, or more aptly, a phenomenon. 

A note about spoilers: This review is spoiler-free as I will not talk about the ending of the movie. I'll be talking about the characters and their dynamics but not what happens to them so feel free to read without fear of the secrets being spoiled.

Phenomenon (1996)

Premise: George Malley is living his simple small-town life working as a mechanic and dealing with everyday problems like how a rabbit keeps getting into his garden. On his birthday, George sees a bright light in the sky that knocks him to the ground and changes him. He has more ideas, more concentration, and can move things with his mind. While pursuing inventions and knowledge he also aspires to a relationship with Lace and her two kids, but Lace doesn't trust easily already so George is not sure he should reveal his powers to her. When people find out what he can do, will their reaction give him fame or fear?

Looking for light...a spotlight, perhaps?

Genre(s): Drama, Romance, Fantasy.

Length: approx. 123 minutes.

Age Range: This film is rated PG. There is one scene that is more on the sensual side, but I think it would go over the heads for most kids so it would probably be fine for them to watch. Two of the characters are kids so there are roles for which the whole family can relate.

Crew: Directed by: Jon Turteltaub. Produced by: Barbara Boyle, Michael Taylor, and Charles Newirth. Written by: Gerald Di Pego. Music by: Thomas Newman.

Starring: John Travolta, Kyra Sedgwick, Forest Whitaker, Jeffrey DeMunn, Robert Duvall, Richard Kiley, Brent Spiner, Vyto Ruginis, and David Gallagher and Ashley Buccille as Al and Glory.

Hittin' the books.

General thoughts:

I love a good story about a genius--be it A Beautiful Mind (2001), The Imitation Game (2014), or Sherlock (2010-2017)--but this film is unique in that it is not about national high stakes and problems to solve in a bustling city. Instead, it's just about a guy and the small town he lives in. The genius here is more of the quiet type, kind of like the main character in another film from that year, Matilda (1996).

George lives in the middle of nowhere. Due to that, the small-town vibe gives the film a comfortable atmosphere from the beginning, as the characters joke with people they have known their whole lives. This could easily be the set of Gilmore Girls or Groundhog Day (1993). Yet in this small town something extraordinary happens, and because the citizens have never experienced anything like this before they don't know how to react.

True small-town: where you can stand in the middle of the street with only a whole film crew behind you.

This film is an examination of how people react to someone who is different. It's about what it means to be kind to people and take care of them when everyone else has abandoned them. George has had a good support system his whole life--from his friend Nate to his boss to the bartender--but this movie considers that maybe social isolation can be MORE severe in a small town, where you can't hide, when everyone you have known your whole life turns on you. Though the movie we see who George's true friends are: those with integrity, who don't treat George different from before he encountered the light.

My dad had a really good point that it's notable that the mystery of the light is maintained. Maybe it's aliens. Maybe it's a divine blessing. Maybe it's a metaphor for "seeing the light." Maybe it's zen or scientology or something else. Anyone watching can come up with their own explanation of what happened, that's outside the bounds of the story. Inside those bounds is what George does with it. The plot includes the external factor, but the story is about George.

All eyes on you.

George is my favorite John Travolta role to date as he's sweet and kind and not trying to take credit/exploit his abilities, but just is excited about all the ideas he has. From his jokes to his genius, he reminds me of a friend of mine (he didn't take that as a compliment when I told him, but it was). George is good with animals and people, especially knowing how to have fun with kids and including them when no one else will. 

And speaking of, Al and Glory are THE cutest kids EVER, oh my goodness. Al has big questions and big sensitivities and is trying to figure out life at all of 9 or 10 years old. Sometimes that means going with what the crowd, but his mom is quick to point out that kindness is more important than aligning with what everyone else believes.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall...I mean, mirror mirror in my hand...

Lace is very protective of her kids and her heart as she doesn't want either to get hurt again, and I thought George's relationship with Lace had a good pace (which is fun because it rhymes). As far as pacing for the rest of the film, I originally thought that the ending was dragging it out too long, that they could've ended it already, but I was wrong. Where they ended was perfect and full circle and it wrung a tear out of me at the very last shot.

The reason I hadn't cried before then was because I was too busy having a great time; the dialogue is quick but also subtle. For example, there's a part about language and from my brief experience with Portuguese, I knew that wasn't a literal translation which is intentional but never explicitly stated, and it made it all the funnier. I also enjoyed George's quick comebacks when he's being tested yet it's his heart that shines through.

Chair-ity?

For the blogathon:

This review is my contribution to the Robert Duvall Tribute Blogathon, hosted by Rebecca at Taking Up Room. Mr. Duvall passed away earlier this year so this is Rebecca's way of celebrating his body of work!

One character and relationship with George that I didn't mention above is that of the doctor, played by Robert Duvall. This role was key as Doc believes George, he knows he can turn to George when in need, and he defends George when the whole town forgets that George is their friend. 

Mr. Duvall's performance is consistently gentle and jocular, yet when he thinks morals are neglected he speaks out. He's a faithful friend to George and is unafraid of who knows it. He imparts wisdom to both his fellow townspeople and to the viewer. As a doctor his job is to take care of people, but he extends that beyond the physical. He's a character who will stay with me for some time.

And Doc plays chess, which will always win over a character for me.

E.T....phone home...

Thanks to Rebecca for hosting this blogathon and giving me a chance to get some thoughts out on this movie! Thank you to all of you who decided to read those very thoughts! If you'd like some more content about Robert Duvall's career, make sure to check out the other entries in the blogathon HERE, HERE, and HERE.

What is your favorite role of John Travolta and Robert Duvall? Who are the cutest fictional kids that you've seen? How do you explain circumstances that aren't revealed in a plot? What would you do with powers?

I'll be back in a few days for another review, so until then, stay phenomenal yourselves.

Chloe the MovieCritic

Movie Review: Jack the Giant Slayer (2013)

Fee-fi-fo-fum, the time to talk about tall tales has begun!

A trend for fantasy movies in the early 2010s was to embrace a darker and grittier version of well known fairy tales. Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) and Maleficent (2014) were two popular examples, but sandwiched between them was another entry in this sub-genre that had hopes for being killer. So let's see if, as folks say nowadays, it "slayed."

Spoiler warning: This movie follows the basic outline of the fairytales Jack and the Beanstalk and Jack the Giant Killer and as those are relatively well known in their outcomes, I'll reference those more than I usually do when talking about the endings of movies in my reviews. As for the unique elements of this film, I'll talk about some details but leave how it actually turns out a surprise for you!

Jack the Giant Slayer (2013):

Premise: Jack is a big dreamer, having developed a love of reading from a young age by the stories his father read to him. Unfortunately, dreaming doesn't create food for one to eat, so Jack's uncle sends him to market to start selling some of their belongings. However, the legends about giants may have an element of truth, and evil Lord Roderick is looking for the way to the skies, and that way falls right into Jack's hands: magic beans. Meanwhile, Princess Isabelle keeps trying to escape her arranged marriage, much to the chagrin of Elmont, the captain of the guard assigned to keeping her safe. Both Isabelle and Jack are thrown into a bigger adventure in the sky as they try to get home before a clash between the worlds is created.

Genre(s): Fantasy, Fairytale retelling, Adventure.

Length: approx. 114 minutes.

Age Range: It's rated PG-13 for some intense violence, usually in the form of CGI/fantasy brutality rather than one on one combat.

Crew: Directed by: Bryan Singer. Produced by: Neal H. Moritz, David Dobkin, Bryan Singer, Patrick McCormick, & Ori Marmur. Written by: Darren Lemke, Christopher McQuarrie, Dan Studney, & David Dobkin. Music by: John Ottman.

Starring: Nicholas Holt, Eleanor Tomlinson, Stanley Tucci, Ian McShane, Bill Nighy, Ewan McGregor, Eddie Marsan, Ralph Brown, John Kassir, and Cornell John, Andrew Brooke, Angus Barnet, and Ben Daniels (credited as giants with the names Fee, Fye, Foe, and Fumm, which I appreciate).

General Thoughts:

This movie is relatively unknown as compared to others in this sub-genre, and I think it suffers most from critics due to the quality of the CGI. The visuals were laughably bad, which makes the violence (which, warning, includes popping eyeballs and skewered tongues) all the more eyebrow raising because THIS is what they came up with? For me drags the movie down a little but to give it some credit, there is also motion capture involved not just computer simulations. Battle choices aside, what impacts the quality the most is in the design of the giants. All of the giants are purposefully made to be grotesque and unnatural, when I feel like it could very well have just been made with people and special effects or makeup.

Comparatively, Snoke is a masterpiece.

It makes me wonder if making the giants look as gruesome as possible is an attempt to compensate for the body counts later, because the viewers surely wouldn't care! It's their comeuppance! In a fantasy world it is typical to make an us vs. them (see the orcs in Tolkien's work), but here it lacks nuance. I would've liked to see the fairy tale element of one outside the norm, i.e. one of the giants helping the little people out. In fact, the original tale is marked by the compassion of the giant's wife who helps Jack hide but there is no such show of heart for these giants in the sky. It did feel like it was missing something (maybe the Bechdel test?); making everyone bad or good and not have any grey area feels a little lazy. Maybe I'm used to Big Friendly Giants, but it rubbed me a little wrong.

This isn't to say I don't like the movie! I'll talk about what I liked it a minute, and it will show how the rest of my nitpicks made me go "huh" but didn't really change my enjoyment of it. 

The script isn't anything spectacular, as it has some cliches, but those can also be seen as part of the fairy tale genre that starts ("Once upon a time...") and ends ("happily ever after") almost every story the same way. The film walks the line between being serious and being tongue-in-cheek so I think it would've been more successful if it had picked a lane? But success is overrated, as I vibed with the nonchalant yet adventurous attitude, which felt apropos of fairy tales, even if it was unconventional in the movie sphere.

I'm not sure if it would go as far as being called plot holes, but I definitely have questions about how the magic works in this land because it seems conditional; I counted the beans getting wet many more times than the plot counted them getting wet. That is, if this even is a different kingdom, as suddenly--with a jolt--we were England? I don't know if they ever considered a sequel, but there was some potential through some loose threads that didn't get wrapped up. If they had considered a continuation, it would've been fun to see even more classic fairy tales included!

Now to talk about what I liked, it's time to mention the blog party this is for!

For the blogathon: 

This review is my last contribution to Hamlette's We Love Fairy Tales Week!

My favorite part of this film is that it is an ode to storytelling and fairy tales themselves, as both our young protagonists grew up listening to and believing in fairy tales. While that is frowned upon at first by others as a foolish pastime, it is their creativity and ingenuity that was nurtured by these stories that helps them to solve problems and get out of sticky situations.

This is a combination of two fairy tales: Jack and the Beanstalk and Jack the Giant Killer.  For an adaptation, they did a good job of keeping enough of the elements so the story feels familiar and comfortable, but also adding in new plots and goals to keep the viewer wanting more. They introduced and developed characters to make it suitable for a 2 hour format, and I'll always be won over by in-depth characters.

I relate to Jack and his tendency to dream, as shown by my frequent daydreaming when I should've been writing this post that I said I would over a month ago...

Jack was sweet and I liked how he was clever and just distracted at times. The scene where Isabelle is blaming herself and Jack totally reshapes her perspective was darling. 

There's a bit of a romance, which makes my reviewing this on Valentine's Day appropriate. 

This film's biggest asset is the cast because you can tell they are all having so much fun. They take their roles seriously, but in a way that is also lighthearted? I can't really describe the attitude, but it's a fun time.

Evil Stanley Tucci played up the villain role to the max. I also really liked Eddie Marson as Crawe, the second in command for Elmont as well as Ewen Bremner as Wicke, the minion to Lord Roderick. I love a good sidekick and I thought they played their opposing archetypes with the right amounts of camp.

Warwick Davis has a cameo which was a delight but also not enough! I wanted more because it was great fun contrast for telling a story about giants.

The whole cast pulls its weight and at times I thought "why are we focusing on Jack!?" when I was equally intrigued by what was happening to the other characters and I had to remind myself that he is indeed the titular character, so it checks out.

Though, if it was up to me, this movie would be about my favorite, favorite, FAVORITE, character, Elmont. He had the exact right amount of snark, loyalty, and energy. He was brilliant and along for the ride. As a bonus, Ewan McGregor just looks like he's having the time of his life. So I can count this a Valentine's Day movie for me watching him.

Thanks to Hamlette for hosting this blog party! Check out the wrap-up post for the blog party to make sure you didn't miss out on any of the entries.

What do you guys think of this sub-genre of gritty fantasy fairy tales? Do you have a favorite "ode to storytelling"? Who are some of your favorite characters who are not the main character? Do you think there should be some nuance for fairy tale creatures? What fairy tales could you see connected to this one in a sequel?

Thank you for reading and happy Valentine's Day!

Chloe the MovieCritic

Movie Review: Kung Fu Panda (2008)

 Hello, friends!

I've found it to be a common theme that when I was little I would enjoy a movie, but then I got to a phase where I just thought it was silly or inane. Eventually I grew out of that and once again saw many of the films for how brilliant they are. Kind of like that C. S. Lewis quote, "One day you will be old enough to read fairytales again."

Today, I'm talking about one of those movies! I remember just missing Kung Fu Panda when it came out in theaters in 2008, but I've seen it countless times since. Since my years of shunning it I now claim this to be one of the most humorous films I've ever seen. It always cheers me up to watch it, and likewise to talk about it, so let's get down to business (wrong movie) let's get to kung fu fighting.

The following is me talking about why I enjoy the movie and the messages therein but not what actually happens in it, so this article is spoiler-free. Enjoy!

Kung Fu Panda (2008):

Premise: Po eats, sleeps, and dreams thinking about kung fu. Due to an accident, Po gets chosen to be the new "Dragon Warrior" and disgruntled by this, Master Shifu is determined to make him quit. The Furious Five are disappointed at not being chosen but they aren't the only ones as word reaches Tai Lung, an exiled former student of Shifu. Tai Lung will stop at nothing to get the Dragon Scroll given to the Dragon Warrior and the way to defend is through kung fu...that is if a panda can learn how to master this ancient martial art.

Genres: Comedy, Family, Action/Adventure, Animated films.

"There is now a level zero."

Length: approx. 92 minutes.

Age Range: This is rated PG, for some mild violence (the titular action of kung fu is part of it!). Some tiny kids might be scared of Tai Lung, but all in all this works for any age.

Crew: Directed by: John Stevenson and Mark Osborne. Produced by: Melissa Cobb. Written by: Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger based on the story by Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris. Animation by: DreamWorks studios. Music by: Hans Zimmer.

Kung Fu...red panda?

Starring the voices of: Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman, Ian McShane, Angelina Jolie, Seth Rogen, Lucy Liu, David Cross, Jackie Chan, Randall Duk Kim, and James Hong.

General thoughts:

How I look when I'm acting out what happens in this movie.

Me watching this movie is like Po being tickled: I'm just in stitches the whole time through. There's one scene where Po is in a hall of ancient kung fu weapons that my sister and I can't reenact without giggling. It is marvelously quotable, so much so that I couldn't even begin to tell you how many times I've said lines from it over the years. It is a movie that is as satisfying as the dew from a ginkgo leaf.

While the majority of the movie is in 3D animation, the beginning and credits have a 2D animation style that links back to other Chinese art forms. The score by the brilliant Hans Zimmer is mystical and magical, and I love the song "Kung Fu Fighting" performed by Jack Black and CeeLo Green.

"One often meets his destiny on the road to avoid it."

As for the story itself, Po is quite a relatable and sympathetic character. He goes through real struggles of trying to achieve things while everyone doubts him while staying cheery himself. This movie deals with real moments in small ways, such as having to communicate to family member that what you love is different than what they love. Po's dad runs a noodle shop and wants Po to take over, but Po wants to do "kung fuuuuuuuuuu!"

The rest of the characters are so lovable, from wise Oogway to impatient Shifu to the strengths of the Furious Five, each character has their own goals and sense of humor.

This film was so successful that it has since received three sequels. I've only seen the first of them (Kung Fu Panda 2) and think it's one of the most solid sequels I've seen. It is missing one aspect that is quite prominent in this film: food.

Food in the film:

"Well done, students...if you were trying to disappoint me."

When I was younger I was told that I was a stress eater. This was not in an official diagnosis, just observation from others, and it immediately confused me. First of all, I was never all that stressed, and second, I just liked to eat. It seemed like something that was wrong with me, but I took comfort in the character of Po, because he eats when he's upset. College since taught me that I'm not a stress eater; I eat when I'm bored. When I'm stressed, I just don't eat. Which also isn't a healthy thing to do. Po learns that what he wants to be (a kung fu master) and who he is (a panda) can be possible when he does it the way a panda would. It's not going to be the same for a snake, a bird, or a tortise. 

"I guess my body doesn't know it's the dragon warrior yet." 

Through this lens, I think this movie subtly looks at abelism. It starts because Po cannot get up the stairs. He's called "just a fat panda" many times but learns to take ownership of it and who he is actually becomes an asset. Already there are many different animals that are the kung fu experts as within the Furious Five you have Tigress, Monkey, Crane, Mantis, and Viper. The characters in this movie already understand that one can be small and mighty, but this looks at the other end. What that would like to have a panda as a kung fu master? It would be wrong for a panda to not be cute and cuddly, but Po shows other possibilities of what to do. He is made how he's supposed to be and he just needs the right training.

"Oh, careful! That soup is...sharp."

Which involves food. 

Once Shifu figures out the lengths Po will go to get a snack, he uses food as a way to train this panda. Thus commences one of my favorite training sequences in film. I've always loved this approach of maybe you're not doing it wrong, maybe the teacher just hasn't found what works for you. In Po's case it is through food and once Shifu realizes this, he becomes a better teacher himself.

From Po's dad running a noodle shop to Po making food for his friends to the idea of "secret ingredient soup," food is a medium for the characters to learn and grow.

Mmmmmm, delicious.

Why am I talking about food so much? This is my submission to Sally's Food and Film Blogathon! 

Thanks for hosting, Sally!

For my readers, what motivates you to achieve the impossible? For me it would probably be food. Or getting to watch a movie or read a book. Do you have a favorite movie in the Kung Fu Panda series? What would ideal kung fu training look like for you?

I guess all my talking here would be what Shifu would consider "flapping" so by response to his request of "Would whoever is making that flapping sound please quiet down?" I'll take my leave.

Chloe the MovieCritic

Movie Review: The Breakfast Club (1985)

"Don't you forget about me..."

We all have probably heard that song. Maybe some of us know the references from watching other films such as Pitch Perfect (2012), but I'd never actually watched the 1985 cult classic The Breakfast Club.

I wasn't a complete stranger to it, though. Even without knowing names, from the first few minutes into the film I recognized "the guy in the trench coat."

Now I know the names of all the characters. I still don't understand why it's called The Breakfast Club, but I have more thoughts to contribute. With that, enjoy my spoiler-free review of John Hughes's hit film:

The Breakfast Club (1985):

Premise: Five kids are stuck in detention for all of a Saturday. They're all from different school cliques and at first have nothing nice to say to each other. As the tensions of being stuck in the same room with each other escalate, it makes them each question who they really are.

Genres: Coming-of-age, drama.

Length: approx. 97 minutes.

"I'm in a math club." Look at him count!

Age Range: This is rated R, so not advised for under 17 without an adult. It is a movie about teens for teens, but that does come with a little baggage. There is a lot of language including intense swearing and name calling. Teen smoking. Bullying both verbally and references to physical bullying with a discussion of hazing. There are quite a few inappropriate comments about people and their bodies as well an invasion of personal space. Dialogue with suggestive sexual undertones as well as several discussions of whether these teens have or have not done these things. Additionally there are darker subjects such as allusions to domestic violence and attempted suicide.

Crew: Directed and Written by: John Hughes. Produced by: John Hughes and Ned Tanen. Cinematography by: Thomas Del Ruth. Music by: Keith Forsey.

Starring: Anthony Michael Hall, Emilio Estevez, Molly Ringwald, Ally Sheedy, Judd Nelson, Paul Gleason, and John Kapelos.

While all of the five actors playing the roles of the high schoolers were known as part of the "Brat Pack"---the name for a group of young actors who tended to appear in the same films together, playing off of the idea of the 1960s Rat Pack---this movie also possibly sets the stage for casting non-teens to play teenagers. Of the five students, only Molly Ringwald was under 20.

General thoughts:

I am not known as a lover of 80s movies. In fact, I usually stay as far away from that decade as I can (though as I've seen a wider range of films I now consider the 70s to be the worst decades of movies made). With this knowledge of my least favorite decades, years ago my younger sister told me that I wouldn't like The Breakfast Club. I figured she was probably correct, but as it is on the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die list, I thought I should check it out. It was the 100th on that list for me to see, so approx. 1/10 of the way there I feel like I'm finally making progress!

Back to this film from 1985, was my sister correct in her prediction? 

"When you grow up your heart dies." Way to shoot an arrow to my heart.

I really like the premise of bringing people together from different groups and having them interact with people they would never choose to. I think that is a very human story and makes us rethink the walls we put up in our own life. At the same time, the execution of that idea is not my favorite here. Maybe that makes it time to admit that I was baffled through most of this film for the way the characters treat each other due to how I never went to a public school. Are high schoolers really this cruel to each other? Does an eight-hour session of detention on a Saturday really exist?

I see this as is a precursor to other stories such as The View From Saturday - by E.L. Konigsburg and Lemonade Mouth (2011), where kids from different school cliques join forces through detention or competition and realize that they are more than the barriers dividing them. The difference with The Breakfast Club (1985) is that all of the film takes place in one day. Brian asks the others what is going to happen to them on Monday, and while dialogue and actions tell some possibilities, we as the audience don't know. It's let up to our imagination. There was the possibility of a sequel for a long time, but that never got fully developed.

I'm left with a few questions. Why was Claire in detention? My web searches for the answer to this question is that it is because she skipped school, but I don't remember that being mentioned anywhere. Then again, while I did watch this movie within the last week, I watched it over a few days in 20 or 40 minute pieces, so I could've lost some of the continuity.

As far as other continuity, I like the way that it tried to show us eight hours in under 100 minutes, but there were a few times it felt a little off to me. There was a bit jump from learning about Bender's life to roaming the halls that did not flow and I would've like to see how Bender convinced the others to do that.

While I was not around in 1985, this film dates itself in a few ways. One being the ending, which is portrayed as being a good one, but I did not think it was the right one. While the characters developed and relationships grew, I don't think it had earned where it went. I did not understand the dynamics between a few of the characters, especially how one was nothing but cruel to another and never apologized yet we the audience are supposed to be rooting for the two of them to come to an understanding? I'm all for connection between these characters, but I think kindness is key to be displayed sometime throughout the eight hours and one day is not enough to grow close the in way the film forced them to be. 

Are they in school or jail? Is there a difference?

There was another reason that I did not love the ending. Ideally, part of characters finding the similarities between each other is where they come to realize that the differences are important, too. Here, it feels like the differences between "us weirdos" was kind of erased? For no real reason? I'm more than a little grumpy about this.

Another way that it is dated to the 80s is in terms of content, and in particular I felt it was typical that while three of the characters really pressed about details of their personal and intimate lives, the other two never were under this same pressure. That unfortunately played into stereotypes instead of challenging them. Not that needed to know, I just think it unfair of how these characters were treated as opposed to Andrew and Bender. 

"Didn't we already talk about this?" I was thinking the same thing.

With all of this, I didn't dislike it either. One of the dancing scenes made me ridiculously happy. The montage of what it was like being bored was peak comedy. While I didn't love some of the cinematographic choices for invading a person's personal space, for the most part the camera angles didn't strike me as being anything special. That is until a scene where Andrew is talking about his relationship with his dad. The camera moves around him, behind the heads of the other teens, ducking behind walls, but the focus is always on Andrew and doesn't change until he's done. It was a very effective way to capture his feelings with the breaks in the viewer seeing him almost working along with his breathing.

My absolute favorite part of the movie was a scene between Andrew and Allison where he asks her what's going on. There is such a softness and gentleness to this gesture and I loved the demonstration that persisting in asking a simple question means that someone is listening to you. 

I also am not ashamed to admit that I cried while watching this film. Not in the part that people usually do I suspect, but when my favorite character cried. How dare you hurt his poor feelings!

I'm glad I watched this movie. It had depth. It feels like an ode to the struggles some high schoolers face, and I appreciate that. So to reassure what the band Simple Minds is singing about, no, I won't be forgetting about it any time soon. With that, I think the message of this movie was accomplished.

"Don't you forget about me // Don't, don't, don't, don't // Don't you forget about me"

This is my entry in the blogathon hosted by Hamlette (of Hamlette's Soliloquy) and Quiggy (of Midnite Drive-In), which is the Back to 1985 Blogathon! Make sure to check out HERE and HERE for a roster of all of the entries celebrating the films of 1985.

Thanks to both Hamlette and Quiggy for hosting!

How accurate is this movie to your high school experience? What are other stories of people from different backgrounds getting together that you enjoy? Do you have a favorite character from this movie? Does anyone know why it's called The Breakfast Club? I understand the club part and when the title is said, but it seemed non sequitur to me. However, most of my own thoughts probably seem non sequitur to others, so maybe this movie and I are well matched!

Thanks for reading, friends! 

Chloe the MovieCritic