THESE ARE NOT THE MUSHROOMS OR BEANS, YOU ARE LOOKING FOR by PHIL CONGLETON

 As we move through 2023, I want to explore, from top to bottom, from start to present, genre to sub-genre, as many areas of film history as we can. I will pick a New movie, an Old movie, a Best movie, a Least movie (aka a bad movie), and a film I rated an "E for Effort". So far this year, Phil Meets The Movies has had a common theme or thread each month. The movies highlighted in each article have had certain connections or similarities to each other. I pick half of the theme for each month, based on the New movie choice. I pick the other half of the theme, each month, based on the Best movie choice for the month. The Best (Great), movie pick of the month comes from our Film366 film list. 

At times, Phil Meets The Movies 2023, just like Digging Star Wars, also explores the films and the creators of those films, that eventually inspired the Star Wars saga. Some of that inspiration came from the directors, writers, and cinematographers, who originated some of the great camera techniques, set-pieces, and plot points, found in these films, which helped pave the way, later on, for some of the wonderful moments found in Star Wars. Some of that inspiration, however, doesn't just come from the technical side of the film world. It can sometimes come from the performances by the actors and actresses from the Star Wars films, who proved previously in other works, that they could sell the idea of great character representation. Sometimes, one actor's previous impressions can affect a director's decisions on how they want to use that actor in their film. It also helps justify why they used that actor in the first place. So keep all of this in mind, as we move through this month's installment of Phil Meets The Movies on Digging Star Wars.

This month's subtitle is your first clue, to part of the theme, for this month. We will call this month's list, "Your Movie Entertainment Homework For the Month". A great member of the Star Wars (1977), cast, celebrates a birthday in April, and we try to uncover the meaning of mushrooms and beans. Welcome to April 2023. Let's start things off with a great film this month. A Best film choice from Film366.

Let's start up big here. April is a big month for the star of our next Best film choice. A star, who also is a Star Wars legend. Sir Alec Guinness was born on April 2nd, 1914 in London. Why are you reading this if you don't know who Alec Guinness is? Since everybody knows who Alec Guinness is, we will skip the introductions and move on. However, we will still briefly examine some of Sir Alec's film history. After a film cameo in 1934, which he received no credit for, Guinness got busy with his legendary theater career, which took him out of the film business for 13 years. In 1946, one of Guinness' theater plays he originated, based on a Charles Dickens novel, was adapted into a film. Guinness was able to play the same character he portrayed in the theater play. The film was a hit at the box office and was a critical hit in 1946. Great Expectations (1946), is still considered a great film today.  

Alec Guinness would return two years later, with director David Lean, for another Charles Dickens film adaptation. It would be the film, that would put Guinness onto the international film radar. It was another successful film at the box office, critically loved, and is reveled today as much as Great Expectations (1946). It is based on one of Dickens' most famous stories, Oliver Twist (1948).

Alec Guinness' early career would be considered very influential by filmmakers, actors, and aspiring knights, who came after him. His films from the late 1940s through the 1950s are considered, in the range between, very good motion pictures to cinematic masterpieces. He was nominated for an Academy Award in 1953 for his role in the Lavender Hill Mob (1951).

He was nominated for a BAFTA Award in 1956 for his portrayal of an imprisoned Cardinal in the film The Prisoner (1955) and appeared in the dark-comedy, crime film, the Ladykillers (1955). A film that would be remade in 2004, starring Tom Hanks and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen.

The year 1957 showed to the world, that Alec Guinness was destined for greatness. Twenty years before he stormed onto the screen as Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars (1977), he finally won an Oscar for his performance as Colonel Nicholson, a British commanding officer, during World War II, trying to keep himself and his men alive in Japanese-occupied Burma. This film shows us why George Lucas picked him and you will also notice in the trailer for this film, the text tracking across the screen, is already making things resemble Star Wars (1977).

In Star Wars (1977), we are introduced to Obi-Wan Kenobi, among the sands of the desert planet of Tatooine, the home of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill). Among the alien creatures, droids, and stormtroopers, Obi-Wan can get entrance into the Mos Eisley spaceport, so they can charter a ship to the planet Alderaan and rescue Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher). Obi-Wan is a Jedi Knight and he can use the powers of the Force. Already knowing, that his droids are being hunted down by the empire and Darth Vader, when he is approached by the stormtroopers at the gate, all he does is wave his hand and say the words, "These are not the droids you are looking for". He does the Jedi mind trick on the guards and they completely forget what they are asking him. He then says, "Move along", to which the guard says, "Move along". They are now inside Mos Eisley, free to move about the spaceport and search for a ship, to make their escape. There is more to the scene as you will see below. 

It's his power of persuasion, that helps Colonel Nicholson and his men survive in the POW camp they are in. Nicholson shows, just like Obi-Wan, that he too can get his way into success with the enemy, by using the power of verbal compromise. Nicholson might not be a Jedi, but he wasn't made a Colonel for nothing. It is the parallel of these two men, that follows them both to the end, that makes the comparison between Obi-Wan and Colonel Nicholson so intriguing because Nicholson has no midi-chlorian.

Phil's Full Letterboxd Review of Bridge on the River Kwai (1957):

9.4 (A MyGrade) = 9 IMDB, 4 1/2 Stars Letterboxd

Our E For Effort film for April involves the greatness of Bud Abbott and Lou Costello. An E is worse than a D, but better than an F. An E is technically, also an F, but if you scored an E, you were allowed to retake the class in summer school, to pass the year or graduate. If you got an F, you failed the class. So, I used this model, to come up with my E For Effort grade, when grading certain movies. I still recommend seeing these films, because a film might have the right idea, but the execution ends up being bad. They are films, that the filmmakers clearly showed to the audience, that they tried their best, but for some reason or another, the film fails in the end. Another thing that makes these movies recommendable, is the idea, that they usually have something interesting for film-buffs, have a historical significance (in film history or real-world history), or a technical gimmick, that still keeps these films as a "need to be seen", type-of film classification. It also could be, they are just good enough, to be "middle of the road" (nothing great, but nothing terrible either). They are films, that have those, one or two blemishes, that if the filmmakers could fix them or re-shoot a scene, it would be the difference between a bad movie or a really good film. Also, once we get to our next few films, you will then understand the mushroom aspect of this article, but first, the beans side of it. Of the 37 films Abbott and Costello did, this film falls in the bottom ten of their films. It is not a very good one, but it isn't a horrible one either. It represents a different kind of Abbott and Costello film, from the ones seen in the 1940s. It shows how they were in the middle of a transition period in their careers. The fame and riches of the 1940s had evolved into a television-era, family routine, that still clung to the popularity of their "Meets" films, which started with Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948).  

Since Frankenstein, Bud, and Lou did three other "Meets-styled" films if you count Abbott and Costello in The Foreign Legion (1950). The idea is that those films, whose titles begin with "Abbott and Costello", fit the "Meets" criteria.

 

Our E For Effort film for the month also fits the "Meets" criteria, even though "Meets" or "Abbott and Costello" isn't in the title. The idea is still there though. This time it's Abbott and Costello Meet the Giant. This also would be the first time Abbott and Costello made a color film. April is also a good month to see this film because it was originally released in Lou's hometown of Paterson, New Jersey on April 4th, 1952, with its New York City premiere on April 7th and finally across the United States on April 12th, 1952.  

 

Abbott and Costello wanted to make color films, but Universal Pictures did not, so Lou's independent film company, Exclusive Productions, funded and produced Jack and the Beanstalk (1952). Even though it had the full backing of Lou Costello, this film was still considered an independent film production and it shows in some of its design. The boys still give the audience a good show, albeit on the kids’ side of the equation. The musical interludes, acting, and overall quality seem average at best. There are, however, inherent qualities to the film, that make it worth watching. It does give a good effort, even though the cash wasn't there. It also has historical film interest, being the fact, that it is their first color film appearance (the opening scene of the film is done in sepia-tone before it changes to color, just like The Wizard of Oz (1939). There are some cool, stylized animations, drawn backgrounds, and art designs, that depict the beanstalk fairly well. Jack and the Beanstalk (1952), is however, bogged down with spastic pacing, related to bad songs, creepy characters, and an overall feeling of a B-movie atmosphere, which brings this film down to E For Effort level.

Phil's Full Letterboxd Review of Jack and the Beanstalk (1952):

5.1 (E+ MyGrade) = 5 IMDB, 2 1/2 Stars Letterboxd

Now for the "Mushrooms". One of the most famous stories to feature mushrooms is the 1865 tale of Alice in Wonderland. The field of mushrooms is the place where the Caterpillar lives. He helps Alice understand her height changes and tries to answer her questions, while he relaxes on his mushroom home. He is an important character, involved in the success of the story found beyond the rabbit hole. The Alice in Wonderland story has had treasured success throughout the history of motion pictures too. It is a history that goes all the way back to 1903. 

 

There were other versions of Alice in 1910 and 1915, and an awful version of it in 1931. Of all the Alice in Wonderland films from 1903-1931, the best attempt came from a source, that made perfect sense. Almost 30 years before Walt Disney's Alice in Wonderland (1951), an animated classic, a younger Disney took a crack at the character in 1923, with help from fellow animator, Ub Iwerks. Five years later, they would both collaborate on one of the most famous characters in history, Mickey Mouse. The Alice Adventure series consisted of 57 short films from 1924 to 1927. This film, for lack of a better word, was the pilot film of the series.

Finally, a breakthrough arrived in 1933, when MGM produced a blockbuster adaptation of Alice in Wonderland. It was a new version of the story of Alice and it is our "Old" film pick for April 2023.

 

This film was not liked by the audiences of the 1930s. Audiences were not happy with most of the Alice adaptations to this point. They probably needed 1951 to arrive at Disney's classic. However, in the later years following its release, the 1933 adaptation eventually developed an appreciation from film-buffs and critics. The production values are so much higher. The all-star cast is a classic film buff’s dream. The story flows well and the effects look good for the time period. The costumes had improved but still had their flaws. It's probably why the audiences of 1933 didn't like it. The musical interludes are very good. It is a huge improvement, with some minor blemishes. The cast is the biggest selling point. Just for example; it has W.C. Fields, Gary Cooper, and Cary Grant. 

Phil's Full Letterboxd Review of Alice in Wonderland (1933):

7.3 (C+ MyGrade) = 7 IMDB, 3 1/2 Stars Letterboxd

In this section, I am going to give away what my "New" film choice for April is, by revealing what my "Bad" film choice for this month is. This film is bad, but I did not put it on my Unwatchables list. It does get an F, but I feel it deserves at least one viewing. I was thirteen years old when Donkey Kong was released in 1981. I played it a lot in the arcades back then. It would be the first time we all were introduced to Mario Mario. In 1985, when the first Super Mario Bros. video game came out, it was cool, that the character of Mario, the guy who foiled Donkey Kong, had received his own game, along with his brother Luigi. My biggest exposure to the Super Mario Bros. came when the second sequel, Super Mario Bros. 3 came out in 1990. I played that game a lot with my little sister back then. So, I have been a fan of the Super Mario Bros. for a long time. When the Mario brothers got their first film appearance, eight years after the first game debuted and twelve years after Mario's first appearance, it failed miserably at the box office and was a critical disaster. Since the film had so much bad press at the time, I never got back around to the movie until 29 years later. I understand the uproar now.   

It turns out, that Bob Hoskins hated working on this film. He called it a nightmare. Much like all the Alice in Wonderland adaptations I talked about earlier, that failed with the audiences from 1903-1949, who had to wait for the 1951, animated, Disney masterpiece to be made, Super Mario Bros. (1993), suffers from the same problems. It needs the right kind of cinematic technology to make this story work. It would be something, that would be rectified 30 years later, with the release of our "New" film choice pick of 2023. Super Mario Bros. (1993), is a failure, but I still recommend you seeing it, at least once, as a curiosity, because you have to see it to believe it. Applaud the attempt, but understand the negativity.  

Phil's Full Letterboxd Review of Super Mario Bros. (1993):

3.9 (F+ MyGrade) = 4 IMDB, 2 Stars Letterboxd

This brings us to our final movie for April 2023. Our new film choice tries to rectify the disaster, that happened 30 years ago, with the Super Mario Bros. (1993), by using 21st century CGI to tell the story. Instead of attempting a completely live-action adaptation, the creators went with a special effects direction, that couldn't be scrutinized for its believability.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie (2023), is a cool movie. It is slightly sloppy with its plot but overall is quite entertaining. Even though the film was made mostly for kids, a filmmaker still needs to remember, that they also have to entertain and not insult the grown-ups, who have to accompany the kids to the theater. So, an adult will spot some of the mistakes seen in the film. Also, the constant CGI makes the film look more like those interactive inter-movies seen in video games between different levels of the game. The film doesn't really feel like a theatrical motion picture, but more like a 90-minute video game, which made part of the experience, slightly cheap. My suggestion for the next adaptation is to try a happy medium between CGI and live-action. Super Mario Bros. Movie (2023), is still a good time and this film is a strong apology for the 1993 version.    

Phil's Full Letterboxd Review of the Super Mario Bros. Movie (2023)

7.4 (C+ MyGrade) = 7 IMDB, 3 1/2 Stars Letterboxd

Have a great month my fellow movie-buffs. Phil Meets The Movies will return to Digging Star Wars in the middle of May. Remember, go to your theaters, as much as possible, in 2023.