Funny Farm (1988)
★★ / ★★★★
Happy couple Andy (Chevy Chase) and Elizabeth (Madolyn Smith Osborne) decided to move out of New York City and into the country so Andy could work on his novel. They anticipated to live an easier life with far less worries while in the country. But from the minute the Farmers left the city, something went wrong in every turn starting with the movers getting lost overnight. Eventually, the unfortunate events and eccentric small town ceased to become amusing as various elements challenged Andy and Elizabeth’s marriage. I am the most difficult person to please when it comes to slapstick comedy so I was surprised that I actually enjoyed this film. The movie offered a variety of situations in which something funny happened and not simply relying on, for example, someone carrying a big cake tripping over a cord and the cake goes flying onto someone’s face. I liked its humor most when it came at the most unexpected time. For instance, a typical gardening session led someone to find a coffin buried in the yard, a modern-looking door from the outside turning out to be somewhat of an old-fashioned door when touched, and the ongoing joke about pay phones inside the home. But my favorite scene was when Andy, beaming with excitement and happiness, allowed his wife to read a few chapters from the book he had been working on for quite some time. Her reactions, from being forced to read during their anniversary to her struggle in expressing what she really thought of the novel in progress, were priceless. I couldn’t help but laugh out loud because most of us could relate to her situation. Do we tell the absolute truth or do we sugarcoat certain facts (which essentially is tantamount to lying)? However, I would have given the movie a recommendation if the last twenty or thirty minutes did not become so depressing. What kept the script afloat for the majority of its running time was the couple’s natural chemistry and ability to forgive each other for just about anything. So when the story took a serious turn and the friction between the couple was magnified, I stopped having fun and the subsequent attempts at humor felt forced. The pacing took a drastic halt and it did not feel like the same movie I was watching before. “Funny Farm,” directed by George Roy Hill, had great energy behind its creative ideas. When the jokes worked, they worked well, and when they did not, it was almost forgivable. Aside from its misguided last third, the rest might have been formulaic but, as a whole, it was still delightful to watch.
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
★★ / ★★★★
I feel like I’m the only person in the world who didn’t enjoy this western classic about two fugitives, Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and the Sundance Kid (Robert Redford), who decided to go to Bolivia in order to escape the law and rob banks there instead. Directed by George Roy Hill, Newman and Redford were definitely charismatic and their characters had a brotherly chemistry without even trying; unfortunately, everything about it was so blasé to the point where I thought I was watching boys acting on their id rather than men trying to accomplish something that they could be proud of (no matter unlawful such things may be). Although it had a lot of energy especially during the chase and gun-wielding scenes, the movie had no idea when to turn down the energy and focus on the characters so that the audiences would know more about the two leads, such as where they came from, why the turned to the life of crime and what was it about their relationship that made them dependent on each other. The romantic angle regarding Katharine Ross as Etta Place was a mere filler for me. Those scenes lacked passion and sensuality so I was somewhat uncomfortable watching it. I wish Redford and Newman’s characters had more edge or danger instead of just being likable because there were times when I thought the film glorified violence. Except for the final minutes, I didn’t feel like their actions had any sort of consequences so the movie became one-dimensional for too long. I expected a lot coming into this film because I’ve heard from both critics and audiences alike that it was nothing short of exemplary. Perhaps I was in a bad mood when I saw the picture, I don’t know, but it didn’t engage me like “Bonnie and Clyde,” with which it had a number of parallels. I wouldn’t have minded the (very light) humor so much if it let the darkness took over from time to time. It’s a shame because I really do love watching Newman and Redford because I think they’re very talented actors. Luckily, they star together again in “The Sting,” a movie that really showcases the two of them as a whole package backed up with superior writing and direction (also by George Roy Hill).
The Sting (1973)
★★★★ / ★★★★
I’ve heard a lot of great things about this film back when I was not yet in love with the cinema but never actually tried to search for it. I recently got around to watching this picture because I was in the mood for a classic story about American con men. What I loved about “The Sting” is the partnership between Paul Newman and Robert Redford. Each of them brought something to the table that the other one lacked, so having them together on screen was a joy to watch. I’ve seen a few of Redford’s more modern movies but none of them comes close to his performance here. In the beginning of the film, I thought he looks like a man who’s just in it for the money (and maybe a little bit of revenge) but as the film unfolded, among the chicanery and greed, he surprised me. He played the character with such honesty and introspection to the point where I realized the real reason why he does the things he does. Even though he cons other people, he feels remorse and is aware that he’s just like anybody else: capable of loneliness and hoping for a break from it all. As for Newman, I haven’t seen him in a lot of movies but this convinced me that I should. Behind those bright blue eyes, I found a certain connection–a sort of power–that is hard to come by in modern cinema. I must also commend the director, George Roy Hill, for the excellent pacing and the way he told the story. Yes, the 1930’s look of the film is magnificient–from the shiny vintage cars, exquisite clothes, colorful buildings up to the certain dialects the characters used–but without that feeling of wide-eyed excitement, all of those elements would’ve gone to waste. I thought this picture had a nice balance between thrill and comedy. Even though it’s comedic 80% of the time, that 20% of darkness peeks at the audience from time to time and that’s when I really I got involved. I wish the movie explored that darkness a bit more because it reminded me of modern gangster films’ certain styles and attitude. On top of all that, “The Sting” has a handful of twists and double-crossing that I didn’t see coming. This is a must-see.