Ron and Chuck in Disneyland Discovery

I'm back again and looking at the content I have written when I return, I have a nasty habit of disappearing after writing one or two posts for the year. I will try to produce a little more content, in spite of my busy work schedule, and other projects I've been working on. While I have been away, I came across a fascinating short underground film from 1969 entitled...

The film is unknown to the general public, remaining obscured. I never heard of the film, until a screening of it was held in one of my college classes. While some may view the film as cheap, boring, and predictable, there is more to the picture than what is captured on-screen. The point of this review is to raise awareness for this forgotten film, by discussing its significance in aesthetics, culture, and history, as well as how it has aged over time. 

It is practically common knowledge that Disneyland is considered one of the iconic amusement parks in the world. The film documents the park's appearance in the last summer of the sixties highlighting attractions such as The Jungle Cruise, It's a Small World, the Matterhorn Bobsleds, Dumbo, The Flying Elephant, and Mad Tea Party. Furthermore, the film features an extinct attraction entitled Mine Train Through Nature Wonderland before Big Thunder Mountain Railroad took its place. The display of attractions and the shops and restaurants in Main Street U.S.A., help serve as a time capsule to see how much the park has changed and how much has remained the same over time. 

Of course, Walt Disney's television program Disneyland (at the time of the short's release, renamed The Wonderful World of Color) would visually promote the park. And in terms of films, movies have been made involving the park before this picture, whether it was a documentary short, entitled Disneyland U.S.A. (1956) or a comedy starring Tony Curtis in 40 Pounds of Trouble (1962). Plenty of visual material from the fifties and sixties shows how Disneyland appeared at the time. However, there is a big difference in how this film presents Disneyland itself. 

Rather than getting permission to film on location, it was an unauthorized shooting in the park using a 16mm film camera and a tripod. Typically, when people used video cameras in the park, it was to take photos of their family or the attractions around them. It was rare and unusual for people to consider making a story-based film in a famous amusement park. In modern times, using the theme park for guerilla filmmaking is considered a norm. YouTube personalities visit the park illegally to create videos centered around their visits while providing commentary. A famous example is Tony Goldmark, better known as “Some Jerk with the Camera,” who frequently visits theme parks (especially Disney and Universal) to perform skits, review the attractions, or give fun historical insight. Half of his material even has a semi-plot tying his skits and commentary together. 

It is not the internet alone that guerilla filmmaking in the parks became popular. Two full-length films have done the same thing. The Oscar-nominated documentary Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010) features a scene of the film's director Banksy placing an inflatable doll resembling a Guantanamo Bay detainee by the tracks of Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, causing the documentary subject Thierry Guetta to get arrested after Banksy flees. Another film, Escape from Tomorrow (2013), ambitiously takes what Disneyland Discovery and Exit Through the Gift Shop did even further. The film is not a short, nor does the illegally filmed park footage show up in sequence; it is presented as a one-hour and 45-minute film. And the movie is not filmed as a silent film or a documentary; it is a horror film that was not only partly made in Disneyland but filmed in Disney World. Regardless of whether the content of the two films is good or bad, they did show the art of making guerilla films in theme parks, which can be traced back to Disneyland Discovery as an early example of this concept. 

Particularly, what makes the short film special, outside of how it is made, is the premise. The film plays out as a typical romance story. Two people meet at the right place at the right time, date, make love, and live happily ever after. The subject is as simple as the romance in Disney films at the time of their releases, such as Cinderella (1950) and Sleeping Beauty (1959), just minus the singing and the action. How is the premise intriguing if it is by the numbers to the Disney romance formula that can easily be used as a promo for the park? The reason is that the film does not involve a heterosexual couple. It instead revolves around a gay couple. 

Though films at the time were able to show more adult-rated material after the lifting of the Hays Code a year before the film’s release, it was not common to see a positive depiction of gay people. When gay people in movies were not subtly hinted as gay, they were either portrayed as silly and over-the-top stereotypes played for comedy or as sexual predators stalking straight men and children. What this film offers that was not a norm of the time is a proper representation of a gay couple. Neither of the film’s characters falls under the negative stereotypes Hollywood was using at the time. Both are presented as down-to-earth human beings whose love for each other is presented just as healthy and happy as the heterosexual couple that society and media like to think is the only appropriate and natural relationship, which is not the case.

Illegally making a film inside Disneyland is daring enough, but presenting a gay couple in the movie raises the stakes. Since gayness was crucially considered a taboo topic back then, it was unfortunately only natural for a family-friendly entertainment business like Disney to avoid showing a gay romance. Like most of popular entertainment during this period, the Disney company’s films, shows, and park primarily catered their family material to white nuclear families. After all, most of Disney’s promos regarding the park usually showed their target demographic, and the romance in their movies always centered on a heterosexual romance. To see a film associating a gay romance with the Disney brand at the time was shocking and ambitious. 

The first scene, when the two guys meet, plays itself like something out of a Disney movie (since neither character is identified, for the analysis, I will address them by the color of their shirts.) A master shot captures the man in the yellow shirt attending the popcorn stand on Main Street, U.S.A. In the same shot, as the man debates if he should spend money on popcorn, a man in a light blue shirt standing by the stand moves his arm forward to offer him some. A medium shot captures the yellow-shirt man standing and staring at the stranger, quickly followed by a cut showing the blue-shirt man up close. The image cuts back to the yellow-shirt man as the camera zooms in on him as he eats some of the popcorn with a sweet smile. The camera zooms in on the smile of the man holding the popcorn box, where the audiences get a closer look at his adorable face. The two stand together until the yellow-shirt man leaves, only to stop in his tracks to look at the man he just met. The other man slowly walks towards him. Both men gaze at each other again through close-ups capturing their cheery smiles, signifying their attraction. Further creating a romantic mood, the film uses the song A Dream is a Wish from Cinderella. Since the film has no dialogue, nor could the filmmakers get away with singing a song in the park, the use of the song serves as their musical love ballet, like how all Princesses meet their Prince in that era.

The only place not filmed in Disneyland is when the characters visit Disneyland Discovery, which in the context of the film, is located across the Rivers of America in Frontierland. After the characters visit most of the park's famous attractions, the characters head into the restricted area. The framing and lighting for the area appear as mystical as the forest where Aurora would meet Prince Phillip in Sleeping Beauty or Snow White riding horseback to the prince’s castle after bidding her seven friends and the animals goodbye. The two young men frolic around in the forest to suddenly halting as the man in yellow places his arms around the other man’s neck. The camera zooms on the man in yellow's face showing a sincere look of love. The man in blue gently moves the other man's hand off his neck and lowers them down by holding his hand, followed by the camera zooming in on their hands clenched together. The two slowly walk through the forest hand and hand until stopping to embrace each other. As they kiss, the camera circles them to capture their magic romantic moment while constantly dissolving, showing them making out and holding hands in the nude. Just as the film's soundtrack used A Dream is A Wish to enhance the magical romantic mood, and serve as a musical moment, the song When You Wish Upon Star shares for the same purpose for the scene. The song is practically the company's theme song, and never would the writer nor the company ever guess that it would ever associate with erotic nudity or gayness. 

Even though the film was not aimed to have a theatrical release, it did not slip past the Disney lawyer's radar. Upon finding out about the film, they demanded it to be trimmed down to 15 minutes, excluding any signs and symbols that the park the characters are in is at Disneyland. The film was trimmed, but the title remained the same, and Disney's iconic locations (including the Sleeping Beauty castle) were still displayed. The Disney lawyers were about to sue the film's director Pat Rocco for filming in their park and using their copyrighted music. However, they dropped the case, fearing the lawsuit would consequently give the film publicity, which could attract a larger audience than originally intended, making the film famous. Ironically, decades later, Disney went from trying to shut down a film about gayness in their park to now having gay pride celebrations in their parks. However, while the parks are also marketing to gay audiences, their animated movies have yet to create a love story centered around a gay couple. So even with all the years of progress from Disney, the short still touches upon a subject that Disney is uncomfortable fully displaying in their films unless the character's gayness is hinted at or shown in a blink and miss moment.

In an interview recorded in the National Gay Lesbian Archives, Pat Rocco expressed regret for Disney lawyers not going through with the lawsuit since it would have made it at least known to the public. That does not mean the film does not still have a chance to be known to the general public. The film displays Disneyland as a time capsule historically and politically. The guerilla filmmaking aesthetics would be the earliest examples of making an unauthorized film at the parks before it became mainstream. The romance between a gay couple is treated with the proper representation compared to how films at the time portrayed gay people. And the fact that Disney has yet to display an explicitly gay couple as the center of attention in their films makes the film more relevant, given the setting and how the romance is played out. The short has remained off the radar for too long and deserves more attention from modern audiences. Unfortunately, the movie is hard to find, but if anything in this review interests you, I promise you it is worth the search. 

The Snowman and the Snowdog

During the final chapter in the "Toys R Us" business, before the one right by my house closed down, I was able to buy one item before I would no longer walk inside its doors. The item I bought wasn't a toy but a DVD copy of the timeless animated classic "The Snowman". Interesting enough the copy I bought also contained its 2014 sequel...

 

As soon as I learned that there was a sequel, I was unamused by the idea for how pointless it sounded. There just seemed nowhere else to go with the story, nor should there be a continuation for how big an impact the ending has left on viewers. It just seemed like it was just going to be a nostalgia cash-grab. Nevertheless, since I am always going to find myself seeing the sequel's title on the case for whenever I pop in the film, I figured I might as well give it a chance. Is it a sequel that deserves to exist; ON WITH THE REVIEW!

Taking place 30 years after the events from the previous short. A young boy named Billy moves into the house where the kid James from "The Snowman" once lived. In the wintertime, Billy finds a picture of James and his snowman, as well as the items he used to help build the snowman. Billy decides to build the same snowman that James built. Noticing some snow remaining on the ground after finishing his recreation of the Snowman, Billy decides to build a Snowdog in memory of his pet dog who had recently passed away. On Christmas Eve, Billy discovers that both the Snowman and the Snowdog are alive, and they play, get into mischief, fly, and go to a party in the North Pole with other snowpeople hosted by Father Christmas.

For anyone who has seen the original, you'll know there are no surprises here; it’s exactly identical to the plot in the classic short. The only difference in the plot is that it has a Snowdog in it. Apart from the first few minutes that shows Billy moving in, mourning over his dog, and finding the Snowman's belongings, as soon as he builds the Snowman and Snowdog you know where the story is going beat by beat. There are a few changes here and there, only they are minor and at times pointless. The snowman for instance flies an airplane instead of driving a motorcycle. The idea sounds cool if only not for the fact that he can already fly in midair. How is piloting a plane more exciting than being lifted-up in the air with the world literally dangling at your feet as if you can fly? The Snowdog seems like a welcoming addition to bring something new to this world. It would seem cute and fascinating seeing a kid take care of a dog made of snow. After all it's more original than a Snowman coming to life. But despite that the beginning of the film is focused on Billy wanting a new dog, after the Snowdog comes to life, the character becomes more of a side-character as most of it is just watching Billy and the Snowman interact. We have already seen a kid bonding with a snowman before, why do we need to see this again? There is nothing different that we learn about the Snowman either. The reason why he is included is because of lazy nostalgia writing. I'm not saying that the short shouldn't include the character at all. However, if you're going to give this relationship more focus than what the film was building on from the start, it comes off as random and lazy. It's like the writers weren't sure how to juggle both the Snowman and the Snowdog, so they just played it safe. It's not until the race at the climax when the Snowdog is back to be given some importance to the plot. As for the ending, without giving too much away, let’s just say we get two different fates and neither one of them work as anything emotionally powerful. One is a cop-out, as the other is one that anyone who has seen the original can see coming from a mile away. This is all mainly because the film doesn't care to focus or take its time when establishing an emotional connection between the characters. It's more focused on recreating the original with a few tiny differences hoping that you're wearing the nostalgia goggles when watching it to fill in the gaps that should be given more time. Everything in terms of pacing feels either rushed in scenes that need more time and attention, or dragging on in scenes that could have been trimmed. 

I'll give the short this, it at least looks like we're revisiting the same world. The animation and visuals are identical to its predecessor for looking like we're watching illustrations in a book coming to life for how sketchy it appears. Some scenes I'll admit look nicer than they did in the first film, particularly the North Pole party. In the original, all we saw were snowpeople eating food and dancing around Christmas trees, party lights, and the auroras. The party in the sequel is more of a carnival with food tents, a bandstand, and a giant mountain to go skiing or sleigh riding. The designs for the snowpeople who are attending the party are even a little more creative for half of them having their own distinct look. The music isn't bad either. It still stays true to the relaxed tone that the previous short had. That is with the exception of the song that plays when Billy and the Snowman and Snowdog are flying. "Walking in the Air" was a song that felt that it was part of the entire score for how whimsical and mellow it is. Instead of getting a song that matches the tone of the film, we get a rock song by Andy Burrows entitled "Light the Night". The song alone is fine, it's a pretty soothing tune actually. It just doesn't match the rest of the music that's carries the short's narrative (except when you hear a choir of it prior to the scene), making it out of place. It's an overall forgettable and dated song that doesn't come close to being as breathtakingly haunting and timeless as "Walking in the Air".

                                              Overall Thoughts

Watching the original, you can tell there was passion when bringing this children's book to life in a way that is unique and meaningful. With the sequel, it's easy to tell that this was made to make a quick buck for how uninspiring, safe, and manipulative it is. The film looks and sounds (for the most part) like the original film, and you can tell there was effort when recreating it, but that's all that it is, a recreation just with a Snowdog. There are no surprises, the emotions are lacking, the pacing is uneven, and the Snowdog is only present just so this film can be a sequel and sell merchandise. It's not terrible by any means. It's just a forgettable short that doesn't have a need to exist in the slightest.

DISNEY'S THE SMALL ONE

In 1978 as Disney re-released their animated classic "Pinocchio" to the big screen, Disney premiered an underrated Christmas short to give audiences something fresh and new on the big screen before the feature film began titled...



The film was legendary animator Don Bluth’ directorial debut and the last project he would do with the Disney Company before doing films of his own (such as “An American Tail” and “The Land Before Time”). Despite that I've never seen the film, I remember hearing the title of it during the previews for Disney Christmas films being released on VHS that was played right after the video "Very Merry Christmas Songs". Many years later I would, he hear about the film from Walker Brothers, which led to my curiosity from hearing how good it was. The film itself is not a household Christmas title as many other Christmas films, nor is it ever played on TV. Seeing how it has such a low profile I began to wonder if its underrated gem that should be brought out this time of year, or is it forgotten for a reason; ON WITH THE REVIEW!

A young boy, who lives outside the city of Nazareth, is close friends with the smallest and oldest of his father’s four donkeys who he calls him Small One. When Small One becomes too old to carry heavy loads, the boy's father regrettably has to sell him, but decides to give his son a chance to find a suitable owner for the donkey in the city of Nazareth before night fall. The kid takes Small One to the city only to find that nobody wants to buy him for how small and weak he is.

Going into this short as interested I was in seeing it, I was pretty much thinking to myself, all right cartoon warm my heart, make me emotional; make me feel the spirit of Christmas. Once it began, I was completely sucked in by it. It is more than obvious of how the short is going to end, and how it connects to Christmas, just by its setting alone. Nevertheless, the emotions of the short are so strong, that I really didn't care about how predictable it was. The relationship between the boy and his donkey feels completely genuine. You feel the kids attachment to his pet and his determination to find him a person who will love him just as much as he does and find him useful. The journey itself may not be as dark or intense as the films that Don Bluth would later do in his career, but it's still enough to make the boy's journey feel like hell. Everyone the kid meets in Nazareth are selfish, cruel, and mean that are always insulting the donkey, threatening him, and even abusing the poor little fellow just for laughs. And like in any good Don Bluth movie, after going through all this drama the ending would be so emotionally gripping and up lifting that it feels rewarding, even if you do know how it ends. What I also admire about the movie is how the film is both a Christian and Jewish film. It has characters that are Jewish, but the story and its morals are very reminiscent to the stories we would hear during Christmas time. And instead of the message coming off as preachy or direct, it's actually delivered as subtle and laid back as how "A Charlie Brown Christmas" delivered its message.

Now even though the film is a Disney film, this is practically Don Bluth's film. Yes there are plenty of Disney style animation where you'll know right off the bat that this is a Disney film (such as the design for the boy almost looking like Mowgli from "The Jungle Book", or the auctioneer looking like a mix between Stromboli from "Pinocchio" and Tony from "Lady And The Tramp".) But if you're familiar with Don Bluth's work, then you'll catch on to Don Bluth's animation style as well from the way the characters move, how they're designed, and how certain scenes and backgrounds are animated, colored and lit. The combination of both styles of animation is just as gorgeous as it sounds, especially when it involves Christmas. The short even has a few songs that bring the warmth that Disney and Don Bluth bring in their other works.The opening credits song "Small One" gets you into the Christmas feeling the same way that the opening credits song "Oh, What A Merry Christmas Day" did in "Mickey's Christmas Carol". And the song "Friendly Face" that the kid (who's by the way, voiced by the same kid who played Pete in "Pete's Dragon") sings to Small One is just as touching as hearing Fievel and Tanya sing in "An American Tail". The one song that pales in comparison with the other songs is "The Merchant Song". It does move the story forward, the Merchants are fun to watch and listen too, and the parts where the kid sings as he tries to sell Small One to people who don't want him (including one voiced by the late and great Thurl Ravenscroft) do keep to the short's emotional core. But the problem I have with it is, the parts that the Merchant sings, and the parts that the kid sings sound like totally separate songs badly edited together. This is mainly due from how it just keeps going back and fourth from between comical and sad, that it almost keeps you off-guard for how bio-polar the change of tone is, unlike how Don Bluth would successfully balance out both emotions for the song "There Are No Cats In America" in "An American Tail".'

"The Small One" is without a doubt in my mind an underrated Christmas classic that should get more recognition. The two leads are cute. The songs, while a mess on one occasion, are still beautifully sung. The overall journey and lessons plays on levels of emotions very authentically, despite how predictable the story is. And the combination of Don Bluth's animation style with Disney's gives us one of the most beautiful short animated pieces that Disney has ever created. If you haven't seen it yet, be sure to check it out this holiday season. It's 25 minutes that I'm sure you won't wish to get back!

ERNEST RIDES AGAIN

So far the films and TV specials with Ernest aren't as bad as I thought they would be. They're stupid, and very cheesy, but they aren't god-awfully annoying or dull either. The only one that I can think of that was very close to being down-right awful was his first TV Special involving his family album for how offensive it was, but at least the first two skits were tons of fun (not to mention that the Billy Boogie segment has a groovy soundtrack). Aside from that, the rest I found to be enjoyable for Jim Varney's charisma, the set-ups, the wacky ways of capturing Ernest's world and style of humor, and a few of the film's occasionally offering moments of sadness, darkness, and heartwarming joy (elements I wouldn't expect to see in any of these films). Now I'm taking a look at the last Ernest film that was released theatrically before the character would appear in straight-to-video films, which was...

Just judging the film by the title and cover alone, it's without question the worst cover for any of the Ernest films for how boring it looks and sounds. All the covers to the Ernest films told you what was going to happen to our beloved childish redneck through their titles and the wild imagery of the character in distinct locations, whether it would be him hanging onto a Christmas tree in "Ernest Saves Christmas" or escaping from prison in front of a guard in "Ernest Goes to Jail". The cover of this film tells me nothing of what's in store for him. It's just him smiling with the title "Ernest Rides Again" in front of his forehead as confetti falls. Is he entering a race, is he going to the party of his life, what is there to attract young audiences other than it's another Ernest film because that seems what the title and picture only suggest. The short film "Mr. Bill Goes to Washington" that's attached to the cover, tells me more about the film than the feature presentation. I know I shouldn't judge a film by its cover, and maybe the film will be as enjoyable as the others, but given its cover, the previous Ernest film losing a little bit of steam, and this being the last of the theatrical films in the franchise, the signs aren't good.

So what's the plot, what kind of misadventure is our pal Ernest going to get himself into this time? Well upon finding an old metal plate at a construction site, Ernest brings it to a Doctor he knows at a college with the last name Melon (Ron James), who believes its part of a giant lost cannon from the "Revolutionary War" called "Goliath" that contains the real Crown Jewels of England hidden inside. The two embark on an adventure to find the lost cannon, and eventually find it, only to have multiple people chase after the two for it. Melon's colleague Dr. Glencliff (Tom Butler) wants to place it in his collection of rare historic antiques; Britain's secret service want to take the jewels back to England where they belong; and Doctor Melon's wife Nan (Linda Kash) with the help of two vacuum cleaner salesmen want to get rich quick by selling the jewels.

From the start of this review, I've stated that there wasn't one Ernest film or TV Special that didn't offer something worthwhile within these mindless films which had me pleasantly surprised (judging by the standards of these movies). This film gave me exactly what I expected to get when reviewing the series from the very start, an unamusing obnoxious experience. Jim Varney (god bless him) is still full of life who is doing everything he can to make the film work, but he's not given much to really work with. And that's odd for me to say because the film does attempt to give him a friendship with the character Dr. Melon that plays out similar like a buddy-comedy, a concept that wasn't given to the character since "Ernest Goes to Camp". But unlike how Ernest's ambitions to befriend the kids and achieve his dream was always felt, here it feels like an after-thought for how generic it is, as Ernest's attempt to befriend him feel phoned-in with the miserable aid of corny music to signal us to have an emotional reaction.

The film clearly just wants Varney to do his usual shtick without challenging him, which at this point is getting kind of old and more annoying. This may have to do with a few things. The first few being the film's look and environment. In every previous Ernest film and TV special there were distinctive settings and themes that Varney was given to play around with, whether it would be locations like a summer camp, Jail, "Splash Mountain", or the film's being holiday themed. In this film, Ernest is pretty much just walking through the woods, to an abandon construction site, getting into trouble at a college campus, and riding a cannon on the open road. This may sound interesting on paper but comes off as rather colorless in execution. That's most likely because the film isn't all that fun to look at. When I think back at the visuals to the other Ernest films, I think of them looking exaggerated and drenched with colors that would at times pop-out at you to provide the right atmosphere and tone when gazing at Ernest's world that's almost as cartoony as he is. This film is by far the ugliest looking one in these films for how grey and dirty it appears, with toned down colors and less amusing locations. Alright, the set-piece for the room where Dr. Glencliff stores his historical antiques is pretty neat, and this random party that Ernest literally crashes seems festive, but aside from that, the depiction of Ernest's world looks like trash.

Considering that the film's look isn't as exploited as the film's before it, and is relying on a premise that's not all that intriguing, this means the bad jokes and unappealing characters are going to stand out even more now that Varney doesn't have the proper support where his expressions and energy isn't going to be enough to save the film. The Ernest films after he went to Camp, though weren't funny still made their gags as bizarrely overblown as possible, resulting with them being entertaining and leading to a couple of laughs for how out of the norm they were. This film takes its comedy back to the stages of "Ernest Goes to Camp" where it plays little on the surreal, and just on cartoony slapstick that's very run-of-the-mill. Most of the sound effects used for the abuse that Ernest goes through clearly sound added-in for how cheesy and cartoony they sound. And many of the moments of Ernest getting hurt or is in some kind of trouble looks staged for the cheap effects, lack of weight, and not looking like he's in any real pain, making it obvious that Varney is just mugging in front of the camera hoping that post-production will edit his scenes nicely together where they'll be funny and believable. The film's humor even contains a decent amount gags where anyone can predict that Ernest is going to ruin things from the moment when someone's told to be careful with a rare book or a new car, which doesn't have a funny pay-off. Some jokes even overstay their welcome, most noticeably the whole sequence with Ernest riding on top of a moving cannon. It pretty much takes up at least 20 minutes of the movie and drags on for so long at such a slow pace with jokes that are incredibly weak and the destruction it causes having very little impact, that I started to find myself questioning how this cannon is still rolling at this point as I was praying for it to stop. It's a painfully long sequence but not as painful as watching Ernest talking to himself as he mimics different voices to make it seem like he's speaking to more than one person. Varney's timing and skill of playing more than one character has been done better in the other Ernest films, for fitting a hilarious set-up of a soldier trying to fool an army of Native American that an empty fort is filled with troops, or working with the odd nature of "Ernest Scared Stupid" by having him change his entire appearance with the help of crazy lighting to fit the tone. But here he doesn't interact with anyone as he mimics different voices nor alters his looks to fit the character he's pretending to be, which makes these child-like moments of a grown-man playing pretend to be creepy, as opposed to charming or funny.

If I said that the film's humor is entirely tasteless than I would be a big liar because the film does offer a couple of moments that are funny or stand-out on the same appeal as dumb-fun entertainment as the previous films after "Ernest Goes to Camp". Some of the lines that Ernest gets provide a few good giggles, his funniest is how he breaks the fourth wall after an accident stating how he would've been dead if he weren't so close to being an actual cartoon character (which begs the question, why we should fear for him being killed or severely injured at all since he survives the impossible). There's a bit when he disguises himself as his Aunt Nelda character that's less awkward than his other scenes of him pretending because he's interacting with another person in order for him to escape from being abducted. And the bit when Ernest is chased by an old angry farmer after borrowing his tractor gives a big laugh from Varney's casual delivery and the expressions and movements from the actor playing the farmer. It's too bad that these bits and a few of Ernest's best lines are very short and far apart. The film's only true highlight that looks as zany as the other films, doesn't feel short-lived, and constantly throws enjoyable gags at you is the opening credits. The opening credits to the Ernest films (after "Camp") have always been one of the strong points in these films to get you in the right mood before the story unfolds, and the credits here are certainly no exception. Throughout the credits, we see old illustrations of Ernest interacting in historical events as the images would occasionally move through an animation style similar to Monty Python. The gags are fun enough, but it's the film's theme song "There Once Was a Man Named Worrell" that makes it stand-out for how ridiculously big and triumphant it sounds, coming complete with a sing-along. It's a song that gives this loony character so much respect and dignity through such wonderful exaggeration that honestly it should be the theme song to all of his films. This intro had me so pumped to see what was in store that little did I know the film had already outdid itself.

It's rare for Ernest films to have characters who stand-out as much as he does. Some have carried his sentimental charm like Santa in "Ernest Saves Christmas", and Eartha Kitt managed to be as delightfully kooky as her star in "Ernest Scared Stupid", but usually they were either incredibly bland, or annoying to the point where they come across as poor imitations of the Ernest character. And just like the entire supporting cast in "Ernest Goes to Camp", there's not a single character or performance present who comes across as anything special. The relationship that Ernest has with Dr. Melon takes every predictable route that are seen in buddy comedies. Abner can't stand Ernest and wants to distance himself from him until fate brings them on a conquest together where they start to get close until a misunderstanding splits them up for a little while before they get back together in the climax. As much as Varney tries to make it work, Ron James’ wooden performance as this bumbling scientist doesn't mesh well with Varney's stale performance. The characters maybe bland in "Ernest Goes to Camp" but at least the performances had enough heart to bring some kind of emotional connection. This character is also given an arc of manning up, and even that feels as emotionally lacking as the relationship that he shares with the protagonist. When he starts punching people and kissing his wife as he's doing a terrible Elvis impression to sound cool and tough, he still feels like a weak dweeb. Most of the other characters in the cast all seem just there leaving no impression, except for the two salesmen. The fat and skinny duo who are usually seen in these films are both recasted with actors that have good timing for how quick they are to finish each other’s sentences, until it becomes tiresome after 5 minutes and starts to become irritating for how they never take a break from their shtick with jokes that aren't funny enough to overlook it.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

It's no wonder why the rest of the Ernest films were made for home video after this film, because with the exception of the opening credits sequence there's nothing in it that's worth seeing. Jim Varney's performance is getting stale at this point; the supporting characters are all forgettable; the film's environment is very unappealing; and there are so little good jokes in this film that it's not worth your time to watch the film to see the good ones. Instead of this film moving the series forward by offering something unique enough to make the experience joyfully entertaining if not funny, this film decides to move backwards to the character's beginnings in the film series just minus the heart, charm, and color. If this were a stand-alone movie that wasn't part of the franchise, I wouldn't have wasted my time reviewing it for how boringly safe and unfunny it is. There's nothing in it that's offensive, it just exists to simply cash-in on the character with no style or substance.

BONUS REVIEW

This review wouldn't be complete if I didn't cover the short film preceding the main film...

I've been familiar with the Mr. Bill character growing-up as a kid. I never watched any of his shorts (except for the commercials and TV promos featuring him), but I am familiar with the overall idea of the character and its brand of humor. He's a friendly clay figurine clown who originated from "SNL" who tries to enjoy life, only to find himself getting destroyed in horrendous ways while shouting his famous catchphrase "Oh nooo"! He sounds like a funny enough character, after all, he is one of the most iconic SNL characters, so perhaps his short film maybe funnier than the actual film that he's billed with. And the sad part is, it is! A film that's only 5 minutes long involving a person made out of clay who doesn't move a muscle, contains more laughs and entertainment value than the film that follows after it. The plot is just simply about Mr. Bill becoming President of the United States America, realizing the brutal truth that it's not as easy or grand as it sounds which hurts him...literally. Every time he's shown on-screen, this character is always getting squished or torn apart in all kinds of horrific ways possible. Sometimes from a sinister looking clay figure named Sluggo, most of the time from a pair of giant hands interacting with him, and occasionally from people who accidentally step on him. I couldn't believe the number of times I saw this character suffering. It’s in many ways cruel seeing this cute happy-go-lucky fellow get undeserved pain, but it’s exaggerated and cartoony to the point where it's too hilarious to not even care, especially when there seems to be an awareness that he isn’t supposed to be a character who’s supposed to be living and breathing as a Claymation figure like Gumby. He’s clearly just made to look sweet and be ripped apart. And the major reason why it’s so funny is that there’s simply no telling what kind of abuse is going to happen to him next as the short plays out like an episode from a children's show. 

OVERALL THOUGHTS

This short succeeds with everything that "Ernest Rides Again" fails at doing. The character of Mr. Bill is hilariously charming; the slapstick and scenarios are endlessly funny for how quick, innovative, and unassuming they are; and to have it set in Washington D.C. creates tons of possibilities that this short isn't afraid to exploit as much as it can within its budget. It's almost as if the people making "Ernest Rides Again" knew their film wasn't going to be as engaging as the films before it and wanted a short to draw people in to provide them with as many legitimate laughs they can cram in before having them sit through Ernest's weakest film yet. I kept my review on the film brief not because of its incredibly short run time, but because it's best to go into this film as blind as possible in order for the jokes to truly work. If you're remotely interested in Mr. Bill or have been a fan who has not seen it yet, spare a few minutes of your downtime watching this poor little fellow in office, you won't regret it. And if you just so have a little extra time, be sure to check out the opening credits for "Ernest Rides Again". The film maybe bad, but the opening credits deserves a watch for the reasons I've mentioned in my review.