New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mel O&#039;Drama" data-source="post: 327797" data-attributes="member: 23">Herbie Goes Bananas (1980) <img src="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pastposters.com%2Fcw3%2Fassets%2Fproduct_expanded%2FJamieF-AST%2Fherbie-goes-bananas-cinema-quad-movie-poster-(1).jpg&f=1&nofb=1" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="width: 766px" />My main memory of this title isn't actually of the film at all. Back when it first came out, I bought the novelisation through my primary school's book club.<img src="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fproductimages.worldofbooks.com%2F0590722174.jpg&f=1&nofb=1" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />Weirdly, I can't actually remember reading the book. I read a lot and had a good memory for their contents, but clearly this one is in a minority that didn't make much of an impression on me beyond the cover.Mind you, having watched the film I can understand why. This is definitely the bottom of the barrel of the four original films.It didn't have to be that way. The plot is actually decent enough on paper, and even the characters had potential. But the execution is poor. The script is far from sparkling and the casting feels very much like a Seventies TV show rather than a feature film. The leading actor - or at least the man playing Herbie's new owner - feels as though he was cast more for his pretty looks rather than his acting ability, and he delivers his dialogue without pauses giving it a school play-like quality which could be viewed as endearing or annoying depending on how full your glass is. He'd be fine in a supporting role, but here the poor boy is strapped with carrying an entire film on his shoulders. And not a good film at that.There's also no chemistry between the lead actor and the actor playing his accident-prone sidekick (let's not even get into that one).And they're both so young. I would feel I'm getting old, but I only watched the previous film the night before and I haven't felt this with any of the others.The romance this time involves the archetypal Ugly Duckling plot as seen so many times throughout the Seventies and Eighties (think June from Carry On Up The Jungle; Plain Jane from Neighbours; Janice from Sons and Daughters and even Diana Prince in early Wonder Woman). Girl wears big glasses and is engrossed in her studies which makes her undesirable to the bland-but-handsome boy who is coerced into spending time with her. She takes the glasses off and he manages to get past the fact that she's bright and knowledgeable and falls for her. Or something like that.Even before the plot got underway, I found myself thinking that they must have really cut down on the budget for salaries this time round. There are very few familiar faces, and even experienced supporting character actors seem to struggle. Poor Vito Scotti - so good in several Columbo episodes, and enjoyable in his brief cameo in the previous film - is wasted here and I couldn't even get enthused about his scenes.Cloris Leachman was present and was fine with the little material she had.The main antagonists weren't particularly interesting. Perhaps it's telling that some twelve hours on I cannot remember what they were called, what they looked like or what they said and did.Perhaps the best served was another aggressor: the ship's permanently furious Captain Blythe, played with gusto by Harvey Korman. Though stealing even his thunder was Fritz Felt as Blythe's Chief Steward, looking startled every time Blythe went into a rant and quietly gesturing towards the guests at the Captain's table in a bid to save the reputation of both Captain and ship. His nonplussed looks were hilarious, reminding me of Charles Hawtrey (speaking of which, many of the ship scenes actually felt very Carry On in tone).As mentioned, there's a lot I don't remember about the film, so I suppose it made about as much impression on me as the book. Well, less, really. At least I enjoyed looking at the book's cover from time to time.</blockquote>

Verification: 6 + 4 =