Skip to main content

Unwatched Movie Festival: Walter Hill's Brewster's Millions

 After almost five years of movie collecting, I've become that collector with at least one good stack of stuff I've never watched. I had some reason for buying, but I've never gotten to or never finished some. It's embarrassing. It feels wasteful. Decadence does not come naturally to me. 


I've got Grumpy Internet today and I've run "out of" movies, which is to say I depleted the newest stack, not that I'm actually "out of" movies. It will take over a month to run all the way out. What better time to dredge up four likely candidates and watch them?

Today's Unwatched Movie Fest entrants:
Brewster's Millions
Bustin' Loose
Harper
The Enforcer (1950)

Brewster's Millions
Richard Pryor, John Candy, Lonette McKee, Hume Cronyn. Dir. Walter Hill, Universal, 1985

Walter Hill would seem a strange choice for a screwball comedy adapted from the same 1902 novel as six other classic pictures, and Brewster's Millions makes a strange comedy. Hill, as he likes to say, makes westerns disguised as other genres, and though some hilarious westerns exist, it's not an intuitive genre-shift. Which may be why it only kind of works.

Montgomery Brewster, a down-on-his-luck minor leaguer, inherits $300M, but only if he spends $30M in 30 days with no assets left. He cannot tell his friends, teammates, or assigned accountant why he's blowing through money.

Released summer '85, a comedy with that premise and starring Pryor, whose best roles always find him playing working-poor characters, looks like a natural vehicle for some pointed, comedic commentary on Reaganomics and the "greed is good" '80s. Hill feints in that direction, sort of suggesting a man can appear to have a great time betraying his own values, as Brewster does, but the suggestion comes in the form of Brewster's election as mayor of Hackensack, NJ by running an amazingly cynical campaign encouraging people to vote "None of the Above." It's a pretty good gag, but surrounding Brewster with cheering crowds wherever he goes is a strange way to show him abase himself, and the campaign gag could, itself, form the story of another movie, altogether, so it doesn't entirely fit here.

Something, however, perhaps Hill's unfamiliarity with the screwball-comedy form, keeps him from ever definitively making most ANY point, about Reaganomics or even that old standby, the human condition. Anytime Hill veers too close to commentary he defaults to Pryor and/or Candy, who appear to be freestyling their way through most scenes. John Candy has no real reason to be in Brewster's Millions, it's not much of a buddy-picture, but he's hilarious everytime he appears, so thank goodness he's here. For whatever reason.

Thing is, though Brewster's Millions doesn't work as a political or social farce, and doesn't get it as a real buddy-premise, it did work, today, for me, as a couple of very funny men I miss very much being somewhere between silly and very funny for a couple hours while talented supporters like Pat Hingle, Stephen Collins, Jerry Orbach, and Lonette McKee act as well-paid straight men. Not unlike yesterday's The Benefactor, Brewster's Millions engaged me and made me laugh loudly a number of times today, so I'm recommending it, but don't go in expecting deft comedy or something special. It's special, to me, as an effective, solid reminder of the days when target-audience big-studio comedies could be good movies without being some kind of art project. Not unlike The Hunger, Brewster's Millions is my kind of '80s movie - holding up remarkably, and quietly, well over the years.

Back in '85, Pryor was coming off his comeback movies Richard Pryor on the Sunset Strip and Some Kind of Hero, as well as bigger-budget, higher-profile comedies like The Toy, co-starring Jackie Gleason. John Candy had been steadily on the rise as an edgier comic originating with SCTV and often appearing with SNL-associated actors. Expectations of their teamup were a real thing in 1985. While I can see where the results may have underwhelmed - Pryor and Candy never develop the effortless chemistry he and Wilder found - I can also say the film survives well with somewhat reduced expectation.

I'm damning with faint praise yet that's not my desire. I liked Brewster's Millions very much. I'll watch it again. Would show it to others. Not everyone will see what I see, though, and that's valid. If silly, Pryor, and Candy are three great things that go great together in your life, Brewster's Millions may be your movie. I'm pleasantly surprised to find it's mine.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Junkie-fatigue: Taylor Hackford's Ray

 Jamie Foxx, Kerry Washington, Terence Howard, Warwick Davis, Curtis Armstrong. Dir. Taylor Hackford, Bristol Bay/Universal, 2004 Jamie Foxx, nominated for both Supporting Actor and Best Actor at the 2004 Academy Awards, won Best Actor for Ray and, watching Ray tonight for the first time in about 15 years, I'm glad it went down that way. Tom Cruise gave a career-best performance in Collateral, for which Foxx received his Supporting Actor nod. It's a great performance, too, but no moreso than Cruise, ignored by the Academy, so it feels right to me that Foxx got his statuette for the movie where he didn't share the spotlight with a star of Cruise's magnitude. Not that it would make much difference if Foxx had some high-voltage costar in Ray, because the movie simply doesn't exist without Foxx and his essay of Ray Charles. Not unlike Coal Miner's Daughter, the other music biopic whose star picked up a Best Actor, Ray occurs from Ray's point of view, so ther...

Cuck Fiction: Charles Vidor's GILDA

 Rita Hayworth, Glenn Ford, George MacReady, Steven Geray. Dir. Charles Vidor, Columbia, 1946 My favorite erotic fiction deals with cuckolding. The stories fascinate me. As people, cuckolds don't seem to think they're worth nice things. Or happiness. On the other hand, the cuckolding partners and their multiple lovers don't come over as the clear victors, either. Part of the fascination - maybe most of it - lies in trying to decide which party comes out the MOST degraded.  Is it the submissive, sensitive husband and his unsatisfactory size/staying power? Is it the "slutwife" who finds satiety in being transformed into a fuckdoll to humilate her husband? Or is it the lover - often black - who gets to degrade the sexy white lady but who doesn't otherwise matter? As in bdsm scenes, if the cuck is most degraded, that means he also "wins," as his desires to see his wife turned into a promiscuous slut while he gets to be bi without shame are most fulfi...

Obligatory TL;DR Statement of Purpose

 A not-so-brief explanatory note as to how this blog works: I can't recall a time when movies weren't my passion, my compulsion, my addiction. Ever since my parents took me to see Disney's Bedknobs&Broomsticks, I've been hopeless. Born in 1967, I grew up with free range parents. They took my brother and me to all kinds of movies, often using Hollywood as a babysitter. We saw movies about which many parents today would cluck their tongues (though nothing R-rated until I was 12. My first R-rated movie was MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN.) Though my parents were professionals and we grew up affluent, our home saw its share of dysfunction. Dad was in the house, but not often present. Mom, stressed and disappointed at discovering her marriage wasn't an equal partnership, took out her frustrations on me.  Without getting too far into the weeds, let me just say my adult life has been far from typical middle class stability. I've never had a career. Never finished ...