The Quest of 1992: The Single Finest Film of Our Generation?

I don't know what happened in 1992, but there was a severe hiccup in my growth as a movie goer that just doesn't sit right with me today. Just a year prior, as discussed two weeks ago, I was falling in love with the action film. (Yes, both Point Break and The Last Boy Scout were actually enjoyed on VHS 1-3 years later, but let's keep things chronological for argument's sake.) The films of 1991, while also laying down some solid family-oriented groundwork, showed a marked shift toward fare that made me feel grown-up, badass, and totally awesome. I watched the surf crime caper and football madcap explosionfest with my older brother in his downtown Milwaukee apartment, not on a Sunday afternoon with my mother, who had to look away when Joe Pesci's hat caught on fire, much less when gunshot sound effects battered away through the cinema speakers. But then came 1992, only coming close to continuing my action film fetish with things like Lethal Weapon 3 (this franchise, while I admittedly watched at least thrice, is overrated), Under Siege (I much prefer the Eric Bogosian-filled sequel), and Passenger 57 (I cannot express how much disappointment in my life Wesley Snipes is responsible for). Instead, 1992 reignited, or rather saved, as the flame hadn't totally dissipated yet, my love for the goofy kid-friendly comedy. Let's continue our Quest for the Single Finest Film of Our Generation. Make your vote in the comments section after you check out the nominees for the year 1992...

Beethoven: Oh, Charles Grodin. If Clifford made any money (it was funny because Martin Short wasn't actually a child! just like Roscoe in Martin!), it would be a contender for this Quest in a heartbeat. Really though, this man is the star of this movie. Not the dog. The dog, by all accounts, is actually probably the most benign possible starring role canine that has ever existed. Otis (from the terrifyingly sad upon adult viewing The Adventures of Milo and Otis) beats him cuteness, Hooch beats him in hilarious slobberiness, and Michael J. Fox the bulldog in Homeward Bound beats him in fast-cracking jokes. Hell, whoever voiced any dog in Look Who's Talking Now makes Beethoven look like a furry sack of quarters. St. Bernard? Yeesh. He didn't even have hot chocolate in a tiny barrel around his neck. But Charles Grodin, now he's the man. This movie shoulda just been called Grodin (Goes Apesh*t Over a Dog). It would have made more of my money and its sequel coulda been called Grodin is Still Royally Pissed instead of Beethoven's 2nd. Wow why did I nominate this movie? I should have just nominated Charles Grodin. If you were to Google Image search "Blogulator Chris Memory", the man's angry face is probably on the 3rd page of results.

Home Alone 2: Lost in New York: Just like my decision to nominate TMNT II in our voting period for the films of 1991, I immediately regret including this much lesser sequel to the already-in-the-final-running original Home Alone. Yes, there are many moments of grandeur in this fine specimen of the year in question, all starting and ending with Tim Motherluvin Curry. How glorious it was to fantasize about temporarily living in that hotel room with such a hilariously bumbling front desk dude. That buzzy feeling garnered from the premise and "whoa!" low-angle shots of the Plaza alone was enough to get this film in the running, as was just the general feeling of anticipation for Culkin's return to the screen, wondering what kind of totally tubular pranks he'd concoct the second time around. Too bad he didn't set up his obstacle course in the hotel itself (mega let down for 9-year-old Chris) otherwise this coulda been the be-all end-all to kid flick sequels. And the Pigeon Lady was just not as a frightening/sympathetic of a character as Old Man Marley from the original!! And big apologies to the late John Hughes, who produced and wrote both, but my mind likes to imagine that Hughes basically directed Home Alone while the painfully generic Chris Columbus was the one who finally got to get in the driver's seat for Lost in New York.

The Mighty Ducks: Here we have a film whose sequel might actually outweigh the original (the third of three listed here, by the way, that has at least one). It also is the only film of the three mentioned (possibly the only film EVER) to inspire a nationally-recognized sports team name (though I would be the first to suggest someone please start up the Gary, Indiana Grodins). These facts alone make it infinitely difficult to intelligently and coherently discuss the merit of the original Mighty Ducks film. Can I start though by pointing out that what started the legacy of Gordon Bombay and his Flying-V'ers in the very beginning of the first movie was that his character was pulled over for drunk driving and his sentence is community service, aka coaching a pee-wee hockey team? How DARK is that?! Can you imagine in real life being a shrimp wanting to play hockey and this guy who got a DUI shows up all haggard and creepy in a denim shirt and says, "all right let's play some hockey, kids"? What a weird logline for one of the most beloved family films of all time. And it's a Disney motion picture! Anyway, Joshua Jackson got his start here so that's worth something I guess. But the Knuckle Puck doesn't come in for another couple of years, so I honestly must put this baby to bed and look on to our next nominee.

Encino Man: Okay, I'm going to need you all to deal with something. My official vote for 1992 goes to a Pauly Shore film. Take a second to absorb that, punch a wall or cry in your pillow, or whatever. Then get over it. Because you must realize that not only is the tour-de-force Encino Man a Pauly Shore film, but arguably it even more so a Sean Astin film, or even a Brendan Fraser film. That may not make things that much easier for you to digest, but that's why you get to vote in these things. And if you prove that an unrecognizable Fraser (seriously, I didn't realize until a couple years ago that it was him playing the caveman because he just INHABITS the role) gettin' taught the four major food groups (Corn Nuts = meat, Sweet Tarts = fruit, Abba Zabba's = vegetable, Milk Duds = dairy) by The Weasel himself is not the highlight of 1992, then by all means, go ahead. But I have to warn you, the film also features a climax set at a roller rink, Link (Fraser) doing a freaking back flip in the middle of the high school (I will admit I had once made it my dream to do this by the time I got to high school), and the most awesomest final wacky scene where Link finds the (cave)woman of his dreams!!!

3 Ninjas: Your mandatory WTF nominee for 1992 is the sadly forgotten mashup 3 Ninjas. I say "mashup" because ostensibly the film was only a success because it competently mashed together the two crazes of early-90s young-boy-targeted films: martial arts (TMNT) and male kids prevailing over adult bad guys with violent but adorable tricks (Home Alone). "You see," Jon Turtletaub probably began in his pitch to Touchstone executives, "the turtles had these awesome abilities, but no boy could really relate to them because they were turtles, not boys, you know? But that Culkin kid, he's a human. And now every boy in America wants to be him, wants to save his family by making robbers or mobsters trip on Micro Machines. But they don't want to do it alone and they don't want to do it based solely on their clever ingenuity. They want to do it like the Turtles would if they were slightly younger, non-turtle boys. They want to make you laugh and kick ass, like do a roundhouse kick to the groin! And they want their brothers there helping them, teaching them the importance of teamwork and brotherhood!" Actually he probably just said "Ninja Turtles meets Home Alone" and they got out their checkbooks, but still, I like to imagine dramatic Don Draper-esque pitches in the Hollywood Hills. Doesn't make the film any more qualified to win this round, but it certainly is a half-memorable bit of 1992 that shan't go unnoticed.

This entry was posted by chris, on Tuesday, August 11, 2009. You can leave your response.