Home

Two Cents is an original column akin to a book club for films. The Cinapse team will program films and contribute our best, most insightful, or most creative thoughts on each film using a maximum of 200 words each. Guest writers and fan comments are encouraged, as are suggestions for future entries to the column. Join us as we share our two cents on films we love, films we are curious about, and films we believe merit some discussion.

The Pick

Dario Argento was a known quantity throughout the 70’s, but the surprise success of his seminal Suspiria with American audiences in 1977 afforded Argento previously unknown resources to indulge his darkest imaginings.

Working again with (uncredited) collaborator Daria Nicolodi, Argento quickly went to work on what he dubbed “The Three Mothers trilogy”, with each film following a different witch-queen as she assailed the world of mortals and sanity (Suspiria is about the Mother of Sighs, and the decades-delayed follow-up would be about, and named for, The Mother of Tears).

For the Mother of Darkness, Argento prepared Inferno. Along with Nicoldi helping to craft the story, Argento brought in multiple generations of horror masters to help him realize a surreal journey into an underground world of monstrous alchemists and hidden witches, all existing just out of sight of the sane world of day. The legendary Mario Bava assisted on the film’s designs and special effects and even stepped in to direct when Argento was laid low due to illness, while future cult icons William Maniac Lustig and Lamberto Demons Bava (son of Mario) also had roles in the production.

Inferno follows brother and sister, Mark (Leigh McCloskey) and Rose (Irene Miracle), as they investigate the old apartment building that Rose has taken residence in in New York City. Rose becomes convinced that ancient evil lurks beneath her domicile, and it’s not very long before madness and murder begin following the duo wherever they go. But can they unlock the secrets of “Mater Tenebrarum”, or will doom catch them first?

Despite Suspiria’s popularity, Fox buried Inferno for five years before allowing a paltry theatrical run in 1985. Contemporary reviews were mixed, with many comparing the film unfavorably to Argento’s earlier triumphs. Argento himself would later identify Inferno as his least favorite of his work, owing to both this reception and the grueling film shoot (marked by illness). But today, Inferno has a devoted cult following, with many citing the film as perhaps Argento’s masterpiece, and the crown jewel in the “Three Mothers” saga.

With a new Suspiria heading our way, we thought it only fitting that this Halloween season be marked with a trip into the nightmare realm of Dario Argento, and his Inferno.

Next Week’s Pick:

We’re finishing out the season strong with one of the greats. One of the most influential and beloved horror films of all time, low budget shocker The Evil Dead pioneered the “cabin in the woods” trope, launched the careers of star Bruce Campbell and brothers (director) Sam and (actor) Ted Raimi, and was followed by two sequels, a remake, and even a TV series which recently ended its three season run. Go back to the cabin — or dare we hope, for the first time? — with us as we watch: THE EVIL DEAD!

Would you like to be a guest in next week’s Two Cents column? Simply watch and send your under-200-word review on any MCU film to twocents(at)cinapse.co anytime before midnight on Thursday!

Our Guests

Trey Lawson:

It had been a few years since I revisited Inferno, so I fired up Shudder (seriously, thank goodness for that awesomely curated streaming service) and gave it a fresh look. I like this movie a lot, although I wouldn’t say it’s my favorite Argento. There are some impressive kills — more gruesome than Suspiria — and for better or worse more plot and exposition. In fact the story of Inferno is almost like a matryoshka doll, with each mystery opening only to reveal another — Rose investigates the Three Mothers; Sara investigates Rose’s investigation; and ultimately Mark is left to investigate everything. In addition Inferno retains the awesomely vivid colors and production design of its predecessor. Unfortunately Leigh McCloskey as Mark is no Jessica Harper, and his character seems increasingly dense as he takes far longer than the viewer does to put the various pieces of the plot together. Also the score by Keith Emerson usually left me wishing for Goblin, although the cue that plays in the film’s last 15 minutes or so is quite good. Overall Inferno is a film that certainly follows Suspiria in concept and style, but without quite reaching the same heights as that earlier film. That said, above-average Argento is still worthy of attention. In many ways it feels like a transitional film, as I can see in certain sequences hints at the style/tone of Argento’s slightly later film Phenomena. If you must watch one Dario Argento film, watch Suspiria — but if you enjoy Suspiria, you’ll probably enjoy Inferno too.

Verdict: Treat (@T_Lawson)

Brendan Agnew (The Norman Nerd):

Yeah, it’s…preeeeeeeeeeetty good?

I’m at a bit of a loss as to why Dario Argento’s Inferno didn’t quite work its magic on me. Make no mistake, I still enjoyed my time in the twisted tale of the second of The Three Mothers, with its deliberately dizzying dream logic and fantastical imagery. The sense of stepping into the otherworldly is intoxicating, with sequences of “falling” through holes and walking through surreally small doors recalling something like Alice stumbling through a hellish Wonderland. There are plenty of sequences where psychedelic experiences brush up against something so nasty that they can’t help but come to a sticky end, and Argento plays those notes just as skillfully as he did in Suspiria — and with even more gory abandon.

But some of that movie’s secret sauce just felt missing here. I know it’s arguably gauche to compare (even if being a thematic sequel invites comparison), but so much of my intoxication with that earlier film came from how deftly it set up and stuck to a specific main character perspective and central setting. Inferno seems to take digressions more often with characters you get to know just enough to wonder why you don’t spend more time with them rather than…I think his name was Mark? Look, he’s boring. His lack of direct action through much of the film helps differentiate Inferno from Suspiria in that one feels like confronting a mystery where here the “hero” is mostly just trying to survive the storm, but it’s also less involving (even if watching him get tossed about is quite fun).

Such complaints aside, this film is a head trip still very much worth taking, and the sort of alluring nightmare that I’m in no real hurry to awaken from.

Verdict: Treat (@BLCAgnew)

The Team

Justin Harlan:

It seems my trend of enjoying Argento films that don’t involve any of the “three mothers” and caring very little for said moms continues. I love Deep Red, love Phenomena, really enjoy Opera… but Suspiria and, now also, Inferno do nothing for me. I know, I know, it’s an unpopular take, but I just can’t figure out how to get myself to care. I didn’t hate it, but Inferno really did nothing for me.

I can’t put my finger on what didn’t jive for me. It’s similar to my feelings on Suspiria. The elements seem to add up to being something I’d enjoy, but I can’t seem to find anything that grabs me. The acting felt strong, in that giallo overacting kind of way. The imagery and shots were well crafted. I just don’t get it.

Thus, I’m sorry to say, for me this is a TRICK.

Verdict: Trick (@thepaintedman)

Brendan Foley:

There is exactly one way in which Inferno lags behind Suspiria: Argento’s band, Goblin, didn’t do the score. If Inferno had a signature sound that banged as hard as the iconic lullaby from Hell that was such an indelible part of Suspiria, I’d have no problem calling this the superior film. As it is, Keith Emerson’s score does a solid enough job at underlining the spooky goings on, but it doesn’t do enough to differentiate itself from every other keyboard-heavy horror score of that era.

And that’s a shame because, as I mentioned, I think in every other way this film might just be Argento’s masterpiece. He’s often praised/criticized for the ‘dream-like’ nature of his films, but Inferno to me is one of the few to actually feel like a bad dream that you have wandered into and cannot find your way out of. The film has no true protagonist, and it’d be a stretch to say it even has a plot. What it has is sequences of terror and death that unfold with a rhyme and rhythm unlike anything else in horror. At times, Inferno feels almost like an anthology film, repeatedly wandering off from the siblings allegedly at the center of the film so it might follow their neighbors down alleys that grow stranger and darker the longer you walk. For anyone who prizes structure and coherence in their horror, I can see why Inferno would likely drive you crazy, but somehow the combination of Argento and Bava working in tandem creates a dread-laced haze in which I am happy to wander.

Verdict: Treat (@theTrueBrendanF)

Austin Vashaw:

Inferno was one of the first films I ever watched in the giallo/Italian horror realm years ago, and may have even been my first Argento. As such, I didn’t have any framework of the “Three Mothers” or his other films (including Suspiria, which I didn’t actually watch until last year).

Coming back for seconds all these years later, I couldn’t really recall much about it — the celebrated underwater scene was etched in my memory, but beyond that I just had a vague recollection of really enjoying it, without remembering too many particulars.

But Inferno truly is a great film, both horrific and nightmarish, and stylish to boot, in Argento’s classic aesthetic. It definitely recalls Suspiria to be sure, though it changes things up a bit — there’s no central protagonist, which gives it a less distinct narrative, but adds more of a sense of delirious chaos. The series of revelations of what’s going on at the evil site provides more questions than answers (What’s with the underwater room and the hot dog vendor??), but that’s all just part of its mysterious, fever-dream charm.

Verdict: Treat (@VforVashaw)

Two Cents Verdict: Treat!

Next week’s pick:

https://www.shudder.com/movies/watch/the-evil-dead/2228269

Two Cents Film Club is here with the Scoop on the Goop!

Two Cents is an original column akin to a book club for films. The Cinapse team will program films and contribute our best, most insightful, or most creative thoughts on each film using a maximum of 200 words each. Guest writers and fan comments are encouraged, as are suggestions for future entries to the column. Join us as we share our two cents on films we love, films we are curious about, and films we believe merit some discussion.

The Pick

The Shaw Brothers film studio is best known for their iconic martial arts films like The Eight Diagram Pole Fighter, The 36th Chamber of Shaolin, and Come Drink with Me, among countless others.

But the Shaws were not strangers to other genres, particularly once the expansion of television began cutting into the profitability of feature films. As tastes changed, the studio tried to change with it, shifting from period martial arts pictures to grimy, contemporary action thrillers and even out-and-out horror.

Enter Ho Meng Hua. While Ho Meng Hua had worked at Shaw Brothers on wuxia film, he seemed to find his true calling going absolutely gonzo with their horror pictures, infusing his low budget nightmares with deranged imagery and stories, often derived from the culture and myths of the Malaysian Shaw Brothers Studios location.

One such legend concerned the Orang Minyak (literally “oily man” in Malay), a creature of the night that abducted young women. The Orang Minyak was said to be covered head to toe in black oil and gifted with fantastical abilities, able to evade capture because of its slippery skin.

In Ho Meng Hua’s riff, The Oily Maniac, the monster is actually a man. Shen Yuan (Danny Lee) is an ordinary enough man, just trying to manage life in the big city despite being left physically impaired by a bout of polio. But Shen Yuan’s life changes when he is gifted with a magic spell that allows him to transform into the squishy lunatic, a super-powered behemoth that begins wreaking havoc on evildoers across the city. But it’s not long before Shen Yuan begins exercising his power for selfish reasons, or for the city’s police to begin working in earnest to exorcise the oily maniac from the streets.

Next Week’s Pick:

With the remake of Suspiria a smashing success, people are also naturally discovering Dario Argento’s original fever dream on film. We’ve covered that one previously, but in honor of the master we’re gathering around another of his spooky and wildly colorful classics, Inferno, considered by many a spiritual sequel to Suspiria and the second of the “Three Mothers” thematic trilogy which deals with witchcraft. But no prior knowledge or viewing is needed to enjoy Inferno. Watch it (free to watch on Vudu or Kanopy, also available on Shudder & Amazon) and send us YOUR two cents! — Austin

Would you like to be a guest in next week’s Two Cents column? Simply watch and send your under-200-word review on any MCU film to twocents(at)cinapse.co anytime before midnight on Thursday!

Our Guests

Trey Lawson:

I literally had no idea what to expect with this one. The Oily Maniac is basically late 1970s Shaw Bros predicting the sort of movies Troma Entertainment would release in the mid-80s. It’s Swamp Thing by way of the Toxic Avenger, with a whole lot of exploitation mixed in. I was totally on board with the horror-vigilante angle that makes up most of the plot (goofy low budget creature effects and all), but there are frequent misogynistic & rapey digressions that drain the fun out of the experience. I’ve seen worse, more offensive exploitation movies, but The Oily Maniac never really manages to be more than a curiosity.

Verdict: Trick (@T_Lawson)

The Team

Justin Harlan:

Any film that in any way inspired The Greasy Strangler starts with a strike against it. You may call me a bullshit artist, but The Greasy Strangler is an out out awful film. To say I’m not a fan would be a gross understatement and a legitimate miscarriage of justice. But, alas… we aren’t here to talk about that abomination.

The Oily Maniac is fun. It’s stupid and bizarre and not a particularly “good” movie, but it’s a ton of fun. My favorite moments were probably the maniac Alex-Mack-ing his way around the screen, though the ass whoopings the oily mess of a monster delivered were quite awesome.

My only complaint, if it could be called that, is that a premise this absurd deserves some goofy, poorly timed dubs. I tend to prefer my cheese dubbed (dubs over subs, y’all!), though admittedly that’s just me.

This may not be an oily masterpiece, but it’s an oily good time.

Verdict: Treat (@thepaintedman)

Brendan Foley:

Yeah, no thanks. There are certainly engaging moments of low budget monster mayhem to keep you watching throughout The Oily Maniac’s relatively short running time, but, to put it bluntly, there’s just too much goddamn rape shit for this movie to be any entertaining. Yeah, yeah, don’t hold the entertainment of the past to today’s social standards, blah blah blah. But the simple truth is that The Oily Maniac is too lousy a movie to take seriously, so its only real value is as a goofy, campy curiosity. And it’s real hard to enjoy the goofy camp when the film takes such clear delight in ripping the clothes off the actresses so gross dudes can paw at them for minutes on end until a stupid looking monster runs in and starts smashing stuff. Although sometimes you don’t even get the stupid looking monster, you just get the rape.

Like I said up top, there are moments where The Oily Maniac is a fun time, almost all of which featuring the titular monster getting into martial arts tussles or parkouring his shit-coated Grimace-looking hide over walls and off buildings. At those times, you could imagine this film being discovered as a bad movie classic, but the film surrounding them is sleazy and leering in a way that’s just no fun at all.

Verdict: Trick (@theTrueBrendanF)

Austin Vashaw:

I wanted so badly to love this one — it’s been on my radar for a long time — but certain aspects make it a pretty rough watch.

All the creature stuff is actually delightful — the absurd effects are actually infused with some cool horror elements, and the transformations/appearances of the Oily Maniac, eyes aglow, accompanied by harsh musical cues and a primal scream, are both legitimately jarring and undeniably cheesy. I dig the lo-fi aesthetic and hero’s journey — to villain. The title character is both likeable enough to empathize with and chumpy enough to mostly abandon that empathy once he starts raging out of control.

But as my colleagues have noted, while the film can be deliciously mean-spirited (watching this blobby trash heap murder bad guys never gets old), that also extends to several leery scenes (including rape) in which various bad guys get handsy. So while I enjoyed the film’s horror and action aspects, the unnecessarily lurid vibes undercut it with an overall distaste.

Devil’s Advocate though, a year from now I’ll probably have forgotten about all the lurid rapeyness but still remember the cool bonkers shit, of which there is thanks plenty. Even if I never watch it again, this is so singularly wild and obscure that I’m glad to have it under my belt.

Verdict: Neutral (@VforVashaw)

Two Cents Verdict: Trick

Next week’s pick:

https://www.vudu.com/content/movies/details/title/15866

Two Cents is an original column akin to a book club for films. The Cinapse team will program films and contribute our best, most insightful, or most creative thoughts on each film using a maximum of 200 words each. Guest writers and fan comments are encouraged, as are suggestions for future entries to the column. Join us as we share our two cents on films we love, films we are curious about, and films we believe merit some discussion.

The Pick

“Sex = Death” is one of the oldest tenets of horror stories, since long before this and other “rules” were codified by Scream in 1996. But perhaps no film has taken this principle to such extremes as David Robert Mitchell’s 2014 chiller It Follows.

The rules of It Follows are punishingly simple: There’s a curse, and whoever is cursed will be pursued, endlessly, by ‘it’, a shape-shifting specter of unknown nature and origin. If it catches you, you die. It walks everywhere, so you can avoid it for a long time, but it will always, always find you. The only way to get it off your trail, even temporarily, is to pass the curse on to someone else via sexual intercourse.

The current curse holder is a young woman living an unassuming life in Detroit. Jay (Maika Monroe) is just going about her life when her new boyfriend Hugh (Jake Weary) suddenly informs her that he’s just passed a lethal haunting on to her, and the only way to save her own life is condemn someone else.

Jay runs, of course she does, joined by her sister Kelly (Lili Sepe) and friends Yara (Olivia Luccardi), Greg (Daniel Zovatto), and Paul (Keir Gilchrist). She runs as far and as hard as she can.

But…it follows. — Brendan

Next Week’s Pick:

We’re digging deep this week to call up on a relatively unknown film that we’re certain will be new to most readers. In our Trick Or Treat lineup, this is the sole film that neither of has seen before. The Shaw Bros are known for their enormous library of legendary kung fu and Wuxia classics, but they also have a respected run of horror films, notably with director Meng Hua Ho. Based on Malay folklore about a blobby supernatural man-creature, The Oily Maniac is noted for its exploitative insanity and goopy creature, and beloved by the small cult of fans who’ve actually seen it. — Austin

Would you like to be a guest in next week’s Two Cents column? Simply watch and send your under-200-word review on any MCU film to twocents(at)cinapse.co anytime before midnight on Thursday!

Our Guests

Trey Lawson:

It Follows is a well-shot, well-scored movie that I otherwise didn’t much care for. The underlying premise of a slasher killer as sexually-transmitted disease had potential, but in execution the results are muddled at best. Sex is… bad? Except when it’s not? But maybe it always is? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I guess my problem is that a high concept like this begs for more thematic weight. The actual scenes of “following” (for want of a better description) are quite good at building tension, with a palpable sense of dread that builds from one to the other. But I just didn’t feel like I got to know the characters well enough to really be invested in theme as much as I wanted to be, and ultimately the final confrontation was anticlimactic. The ending, which I think was meant to evoke the apocalyptic anti-resolution endings of 1970s horror, was unsatisfying. It’s slick, with a few solid scares, but not much else. This will sound cliché, but it’s true — I wish I liked It Follows more than I did. (@T_Lawson)

Brendan Agnew (The Norman Nerd):

I’ll admit, over the years I’ve struggled to pin down exactly what keeps wrapping me around It Follows. The film knocked me for six when I first saw it, and even after several viewings, still has a hold on me that questionable character choices and slightly wobbly act structure just can’t shake. There’s an undeniable primal draw to Disasterpiece’s synth score, but that really only does half the work. With the rest coming from a lot of canny camera work and unspoken implications that still manage to read crystal clear.

To the former, It Follows quickly trains the viewer to scan the frame for the titular menace after Jay has it passed to her. At first, focus is pulled in deliberately, but it’s not long before the camera settles back and lets the viewer start playing the “…oh shit, was that it?” trick on themselves. The visual language extends to the characters interactions and allows the actors to communicate hard choices, desperate and foolhardy plans, and questionable ethics naturally but clearly. There’s a subtle tweaking of tropes with the final shots framed as more conflict pragmatic than romantic, or bold gestures and crazy schemes resulting in failure and mundane injuries where many genre films would use them as brick to lay the path to victory.

It feels like a cheat to call an off-the-beaten track a “mood piece,” but the vibe sticks to the roof of my mouth because it’s so unsettling in the same way as the subtext of the film. We’re all being stalked by our own relentless morality, but rarely is the metaphor so in synch with a film’s refusal to give the protagonists an out when it can’t offer it to the viewer, as well. We’re left with no explanation of origin or assurance of escape, just a promise of pursuit …and constantly looking over our shoulder. (@BLCAgnew)

The Team

Brendan Foley:

For roughly its first hour, It Follows is about as good as any other modern horror film, if not better. From the riveting cold open, to the establishing of Jay and her circle of family and friends, to the way the rules of how ‘it’ stalks and threatens, it’s all laid out cleanly, clearly, and with the utter confidence of a director completely assured of their vision. That director, David Robert Mitchell, demonstrates an early mastery of mood and tension, creating images and set-pieces that rank alongside the most nightmarishly powerful as any within the genre.

And then…somewhere in there…I don’t know, it’s not that It Follows turns ‘bad’ or anything. It never jumps the rails into idiocy or stupidity, but it’s almost like Mitchell realized, ‘Huh, I actually have to resolve this somehow’. The ending-ending is terrific, haunting and bittersweet and perfectly in tune to the film’s themes, but the film’s big climatic showdown, set in a local pool, is a nonsensical mess that abandons almost all the rules and characterization that had been established by that point for the sake of a battle that wouldn’t have felt out of place during a lesser Elm Street sequel.

It’s a shame that It Follows loses its way a tad, but so much of the film works as a waking nightmare, it’s easy to overlook those shortcomings and luxuriate in the deliciously suffocating mood and dread that Mitchell and his team conjure.(@theTrueBrendanF)

Next week’s pick:

https://amzn.to/2O6cs3f

Two Cents is an original column akin to a book club for films. The Cinapse team will program films and contribute our best, most insightful, or most creative thoughts on each film using a maximum of 200 words each. Guest writers and fan comments are encouraged, as are suggestions for future entries to the column. Join us as we share our two cents on films we love, films we are curious about, and films we believe merit some discussion.

The Pick

Rodney Dangerfield was just shy of 60 when Caddyshack blew him up from a popular comic into a household name. Dangerfield was reportedly so new to movies that on his first day of shooting on Caddyshack, he broke into a sweat and started trembling because no matter how hard he played his material, no one was laughing. Another actor had to explain to him that on movie sets, no one’s really supposed to laugh.

Caddyshack wasn’t immediately the comedy landmark it is now known of today, but it raised Dangerfield’s profile enough that he became ubiquitous in households across America, a momentum that he parlayed into a series of movies ranging in quality and response from positive to…well…Rover Dangerfield.

Best known and best-liked of that run is Back to School, in which Dangerfield plays a self-made millionaire who decides to follow his son (Keith Gordon) to his prestigious college. When he learns that his son is close to dropping out, Dangerfield vows to go through the courses with him. Hijinks ensue.

The cast also includes Sally Kellerman as Dangerfield’s English professor/love interest, Burt Young as his chauffeur/bodyguard, Robert Downey Jr. as Gordon’s flamboyant roommate, William Zabka as a William Zabka-esque bully, plus smaller turns by Adrienne Barbeau, M. Emmet Walsh, Sam Kinison, and Ned Beatty.

Next Week’s Pick:

School has started, leaves are changing, and there’s a taste of frost in the morning air. That’s right, boils and ghouls, it’s time once again for our Trick Or Treat series.

Four weeks, four films. Endless terror.

First up is It Follows, which takes the “you have sex, you die” ethos of many horror films to a whole new extreme.

It Follows is available to stream on Netflix Instant.

Would you like to be a guest in next week’s Two Cents column? Simply watch and send your under-200-word review to twocents(at)cinapse.co anytime before midnight on Thursday!

The Team

Justin Harlan

It’s commonly held that Back to School is a classic 80s comedy and maybe it is… but I’ve never thought much about it. Dangerfield never bothered me but he also never resonated. Even in films I remember growing up with and loving like Caddyshack, he’s typically one of the weaker spots.

I’d like to revisit this when I’m more in the mood for this type of broad comedy; but, as it goes this time around, it didn’t do much for me. There are laugh out loud moments, sure, but it’s hard for me to be impressed by this one with so many great comedies from the same era. It’s not a waste of time, but it’s also not a film I’ll return to often. Perhaps one day it’ll grow on me more, but for now it’s really just “not bad”. (@ThePaintedMan)

Rod Machen:

Back to School is an absolute classic from the golden years of the 80’s. After killing in Caddyshack, Rodney Dangerfield takes this lead in this collegiate comedy. Once again, he’s rich guy out of water, having enrolled in college, following his son (played by a pretty unlikable Keith Gordon who was having quite a moment after starring in Christine and The Legend of Billie Jean.)

The cast is absolutely stellar. Sally Kellerman is both perfect and completely out of place as the classiest of all English professors. Robert Downey Jr. plays the goofy friend, but might have the funniest overall performance. Burt Young is Rodney’s chauffer and pretty much reprises his role as Paulie from the Rocky movies. And when it comes to 80’s teen villains, there’s no one like William Zabka of Karate Kid fame. He’s as good as a swim-team bully as he is at martial arts.

There are some seminal moments in Back to School, including the Triple Lindy dive Rodney pulls off, but nothing beats the scream-riffic performance of Sam Kinison in his best big-screen appearance. Seeing him yell in Dangerfield’s face as he rants about what’s wrong with the world is absolutely epic and worth a watch just for this scene. There’s also a musical number by Oingo Boing, featuring the now ubiquitous composer Danny Elfman. In a decade of great comedies, Back to School holds its own. (@rodmachen)

Brendan Foley:

It literally kills me to say this, but…I agree with Justin. Like Bill & Ted, I found Back to School less overtly funny than just overall amicable, but lacking the positive, sweet-hearted vibes that Keanu, Winters, and the whole gang brought to Bill & Ted. Instead, we get Rodney Dangerfield, and while Rodney Dangerfield can be effective on film, it’s almost always the product of filmmakers building a support system around Rodney and using him judiciously. Here, they clearly just pointed a camera at him and let Rodney roll. If that’s your thing, then hey great, but I quickly wearied of his schtick and unfortunately, that’s really the only card the film has to play. Keith Gordon as Dangerfield’s son and Robert Downey Jr. as Gordon’s best friend both turn in interesting work, and they’re good enough together and apart that I think I would’ve rather watched those town bungle through an adventure together, as opposed to just doing reaction shots to whatever bug-eyed lunacy Dangerfield happens to be doing during that scene. Honestly the only cast member who drew consistent laughs out of me was Ned Beatty as the dean, and when Ned fucking Beatty is your comedy heavyhitter, you got problems.

Back to School is mercifully almost completely free of the sleaze that has rendered big swaths of 80’s comedy unwatchable these days, but it’s also lacking in any kind of personality or distinguishing features. Not a terrible film, but not one I expect to retain any memory of going forward. (@theTrueBrendanF)

Austin Vashaw:

Back to School is an immensely enjoyable comedy, but one that I think several of us are having trouble finding something to say about — perhaps because it doesn’t have much to say. There are undercurrents of the importance of family, standing up for your friends, and believing in yourself, but ultimately this is mostly a vehicle for Rodney Dangerfield to do his schtick, which is to say lots of quippy insults, casual rudeness, and bug-eyed expressions.

But all things considered, this is probably the best vehicle for him to do his schtick. He’s in a bunch of movies (many of them awful), but this is perhaps the only film with the simple hat trick of Rodney at his comedic best, in the starring role, in a movie that makes the most of his kind of laughs. The incredible cast is packed with amazing actors, comics, and cameos including Burt Young, RDJ, Ned Beatty, M. Emmet Walsh, William Zabka, Sally Kellerman, Danny Elfman (!), Sam Kinison (!!), and Kurt Vonnegut (!!!). Sometimes a movie is simply a great time, and that’s reason enough. (@VforVashaw)

Next week’s pick:

https://www.netflix.com/title/80013607