Skip to main content

Compliance!

Flight of the Navigator
(1986)

It’s easy to see why a remake of Flight of the Navigator is being mooted (although whether Colin Trevorrow remains attached will probably depend upon the success of Jurassic World). It has a strong premise, one it makes the most of for the first 40 or so minutes. Unfortunately, no one has much idea what to do next. As a result, director Randal Kleiser settles on Paul Reubens’ verbal mugging to fill the back end.


I’m not sure if I’d actually seen Flight of the Navigator all the way through before. I certainly recall it’s release, and Bazza Norman reviewing it on Film ’87 (it came out within a few months of the also time travel-themed Star Trek The Voyage Home; back in the glorious days when UK releases were regularly six months-to-a-year behind the US). But I’d have been 14 at the time, and traditional Disney fare was no longer in favour. I wanted to see Spock Vulcan grip a punk on a bus.


Maybe I wasn’t alone. Navigator came at an indeterminate juncture during Disney’s ‘80s (financial) nadir and gradual rejuvenation. Touchstone had been established, and it was the salvation of a studio previously reluctant to release anything stronger than a U certificate. Suddenly, through reneging on Walt’s wholesome image (aside from the racism and fascism and anti-Semitism), the Mouse House was viable again. From Splash to Down and Out in Beverly Hills to Ruthless People, PG+ fare could be sold and not tainted (in either respect) by the Disney logo. Now, of course, Touchstone is virtually redundant, but back then it left the main studio in a curious limbo state.


The “dark” Disney period was a few years past in 1986. It had seen the studio stumbling to find an identity, with patchy but interesting, flawed but creative failures. These stretched from its twisted sister to Star Wars, The Black Hole, and on into The Watcher in the Woods, Popeye, Tron, Something Wicked This Way Comes and Return to Oz. In tandem with this, the core animated features had all but dried up. The Black Cauldron was heavily edited for being too extreme for the kiddies, and it was only with The Great Mouse Detective, the same year as Navigator, that the tide was seen to begin to turn. Jump forward three years and it wasn’t only Disney animation that was in the grip of a fully-fledged rebirth. The Little Mermaid has introduced a new golden age, and Honey I Shrunk the Kids was the studio’s biggest (Disney brand) hit in a decade.


Flight of the Navigator doesn’t have the easy confidence of Joe Johnston’s hit, however (notably, its director Randal Kleiser went on to direct the inferior sequel Honey, I Blew Up the Kid). With its yellow titles (always a warning sign of something bargain-basement), beatific child protagonist and UFO trappings, Navigator hearkens back to the cheap-and-cheerful Disney pictures of the ‘70s such as the Witch Mountain films, Cat from Outer Space, and The Spaceman and King Arthur). But it didn’t start life as Disney picture at all. It was initially brought to the studio, which rejected it, and financed instead by Producer Sales Organisation. When PSO went into bankruptcy in ’86, Disney picked up the film and financed its completion.


In its early passages at least, Navigator is liable to surprise – like a good few Disneys of the preceding period – for what it lets by without comment. On July 4 1978, 12-year-old David Scott Freeman (Joey Cramer, competent but forgettable) is sent to fetch his brother from the woods. At night.  David has a fall, awakes, and then returns home to discover his family are no longer there. He is taken to the police station, and thanks to some solid work from the boys in blue, reunited with them. Only they are now eight years older. It’s 1986, and David’s little brother is now his older brother.


It’s a great opening, although one wonders how the casual approach to themes of child abduction would play in a remake. It’s only that this abduction is at behest of a friendly alien spacecraft that softens the effect (albeit a spacecraft voiced by Paul Reubens, which definitely wouldn’t happen now, given the adverse publicity that has attached itself to the actor over the years). We aren’t talking Communion-type alien business, fortunately. Rather, screenwriters Michael Burton and Matt MacManus (from a story by Mark H Baker) effectively set up a Twilight Zone shift in reality. Perhaps this was an influence on a young Christopher Nolan; its emotional core is essentially that of Interstellar, only reversed.


It’s also arguably more successful at exploring the reverberations of lost time than Nolan’s film; David has no advance warning, nor the cushion of adulthood with which to process his experience. It’s wholly believable when he crumples and cries in his family home, now occupied by strangers, and it’s an effective rug pull for any viewer. Prior to this, Kleiser has humorously set the stage for alien intrusions. Those yellow titles playing out over footage of a sliver Frisbee competition. He repeats the trick several times; the shadow of a Good Year blimp passes by, as if the mothership is landing, and the dome of a tower pokes up expansively over some trees, before becoming clearly identifiable.


These give the impression Kleiser is more engaged than he is with the material. There’s little else to suggest a director with vision. In the previous decade he had made both Grease and The Blue Lagoon, but you wouldn’t get the impression from his filmography that he was the ambitious type. He subsequently directed Reubens again, in Big Top Pee-wee (another inferior sequel). He comes across as a director without much passion, so probably didn’t pay much attention to tone or consistency.


David’s bewilderment at his aged parents (too aged? It’s only eight years) is also convincing. Veronica Cartwright (already consigned to mum roles, when she’s wasn’t cherry-souping) actually looks a lot better in ’86 when she’s got rid of her horrendous ‘70s perm. Dad Cliff de Young has taken a serious hit, however, prematurely grey and balding. This out-of-time, out-of-synch, leads to an interesting possibility at the climax. David, who just wanted to go home (it’s the weakness of the last 30 minutes that this is the best the writers could come up with) realises he has no home (“I’m sorry. I don’t belong here”), and returns to the spaceship and Max. For a moment, there’s a glimmer that the makers might take a brave leap (as in, modern Spielberg would never have a dad leave his young family), in which the kid goes off to explore the universe with his computer eyeball pal. After all, Gilliam didn’t don on kid gloves with the conclusion to Time Bandits.


No such luck, as the very dangerous manoeuvre (a cheat to enable the plot in the first place, but that’s forgivable) is a success, and David is returned in time to his point of departure, unscathed. Complete with cute, post-Lucas/Spielberg/Henson, homeless alien critter pal. This is a Disney movie, after all. It also makes it one, after setting itself up so intriguingly, that buries its potential under linear time travel thinking. It’s fairly certain that we’re not expected to conclude that there are two parallel timelines, one of which has a bereft Freeman family having lost their son twice (!). Rather, David’s return has rewritten the timeline (always the least satisfying option, as it creates an inevitable paradox).


Navigator is a consistent mishmash of the surprisingly effective and the cheesy or amateurish. Alan Silvestri had just scored big time with Back to the Future, and, at times – when he’s attempting to be atmospheric –, the score is perfectly serviceable. At others, it’s a nightmarish clatter of over-deliberate synths, struggling for domination (David’s escape in the NASA mailbot is especially ear-rattling). The picture’s culture shock approach has none of the charm of Back to the Future, or The Voyage Home. It’s as clumsy as one might expect from an out-of-touch studio. No kid who liked Twisted Sister (repeatedly referenced) would be seen dead watching one of their films. There’s also referencing of the nascent MTV and David rocking out to The Beach Boys. A young Sarah Jessica Parker, with purple hair, informs us of what the hip kids are listening to right now (more alarming is that she tells a 12-year-old, “You know, you’re cute!”)


Kleiser grasps faintly for many of the same beats as those more successful culture shock movies, but he ends up closer to Herbie movie double takes than anything really witty. David parks his spaceship next to some “geeks” and asks the way to Fort Lauderdale. Fat Al (of Al’s Gator City) stands open mouthed at the silver craft sat at his petrol station, but the visiting tourist’s reaction is quite amusing (“Well, your Indian village wont win any awards, but that flying saucer’s first rate”). There are movie references too, reminding us that other pictures with young protagonists have stolen Disney’s thunder, and been embraced (“He just said he wanted to phone home”). Even the previous year’s flop Explorers shows care, wit and craftsmanship out of reach of the frequently sloppy Navigator.


That’s a big part of the reason for its relative failure. Kids in 1985 wanted to see Indiana Jones or The Goonies. They don’t want to see the latest Disney picture. The brand was out in the cold, and they hadn’t caught up with the product. Science fiction trappings were popular, and as noted, Disney was in there first during the ‘70s, before Spielberg and Lucas captivated the marketplace and pushed them out, but Navigator is playing catch up stylistically. The kid learning of potentially nefarious government goings-on doesn’t have the tension of, say War Games. NASA has a fairly low-tech warehouse with a robot containing child-sized compartments for easy escape. The government conspiracy aspect is there, post-Spielberg, but it feels half-hearted. Howard Hesseman, on the verge of success with Head of the Class, makes for the memorable government stooge Dr Faraday (geddit?) and David’s decision not to stay in 1986 is based on the assumption that NASA will never stop poking and prodding him, but there’s little that’s really sinister here.


Indeed, it’s a bit of a fizzle narrative-wise once the big reveals of David’s increased brain capacity have taken place. There are some interest ideas; he hears voices and encounters telepathy, and “He’s communicating with the computer in binary code”. When David is asked a question, his subconscious responds with intricate knowledge (when he was gone, he was “In analysis mode on Phaelon”). He didn’t time travel to 1986; rather, “time slows down when you approach the speed of light”.


Unfortunately, the momentum disperses once David is aboard the spaceship (a Trimaxion Drone Ship). The clamshell design is arresting and economical, and occasionally impressively integrated. There is some rudimentary CGI on display (the entrance portal and stairs), of the kind that would later be made pervasive by James Cameron. The interior is well conceived, and the eyeball/lens that is Max attains a character all its own.


The flight sequences are variable (over land, not so much, shooting 20 miles straight up, not at all bad). Kleiser and co appear to be picking up bits and pieces of UFO lore; “Max” is indeed abducting a variety of specimens, but not to do unspeakable things to their bottoms (“I have been sent from Phaelos to collect samples of life”). When Max lands in a field of cows (another odd moment, which consists of David taking a whizz), he doesn’t mutilate them; rather, he imitates their mooing.


The specimens are a cute collection (Max is very much restricted in terms of the size of his subjects), including one with a cold, one that eats David’s hat and belches, and the bat fella that David keeps (whose home planet was destroyed by a comet – aw, poor little guy!) Mainly, though, the second half is preoccupied with the antics of Reuben’s Max.


In some respects, this was a canny move. Pee-wee’s Big Adventure was a surprise sleeper hit the year before, and a well-chosen voice part can pay huge dividends (Guardians of the Galaxy, er, Look Who’s Talking). When Reubens is voicing the uncontaminated Max there’s a restraint and dry cleverness, and a memorable catchphrase (“Compliance!”) Once he has read David’s mind, though, the problem isn’t that it’s Reubens improvising to the max, Max, it’s that he is, basically, Pee-wee. Complete with Pee-wee laugh and insaniac man-child voice. Reubens could clearly do interesting voice work –as the pure, unsullied Max proves – so it’s a shame he resorts to the crowdpleaser. At no point do we hear Max gone crazy. We hear Pee-wee under full steam, and it’s a misjudgement. Reuben’s needed to be held in check, or given some character notes beyond Pee-wee in Space.


The reason for Max needing David at all is a fairly convoluted backpedalling, and doesn’t bear close analysis. Max tested this inferior (human) species by filling up the 90% of its unused brain with star charts. Then Max had an accident that erased his star charts, so he needed to get a download from David. There ought to have been some other objective, besides David getting home (and his brother lighting fireworks – those same fireworks from 1978! – to attract the spaceship to land).


Flight of the Navigator was part of a dying breed of Disney movies, then. Young protagonists would either be cruder and less innocent/more wised up (The Goonies) or they’d be well into teenhood (The Last Starfighter, Labyrinth). More importantly, directors in touch with their inner child would envisage them, in contrast to the dated formula packages Disney found itself unable to move beyond. Navigator is halfway between the two. It has half of a good script, and it has half an eye on the up-and-coming (new special effects techniques, Reubens). But it botches the execution as much as it succeeds, stymied by sloppy pop culture references and a simpering child lead.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

We’re not owners here, Karen. We’re just passing through.

Out of Africa (1985)
I did not warm to Out of Africa on my initial viewing, which would probably have been a few years after its theatrical release. It was exactly as the publicity warned, said my cynical side; a shallow-yet-bloated, awards-baiting epic romance. This was little more than a well-dressed period chick flick, the allure of which was easily explained by its lovingly photographed exotic vistas and Robert Redford rehearsing a soothing Timotei advert on Meryl Streep’s distressed locks. That it took Best Picture only seemed like confirmation of it as all-surface and no substance. So, on revisiting the film, I was curious to see if my tastes had “matured” or if it deserved that dismissal. 

Life is like a box of timelines. You feel me?

Russian Doll Season One
(SPOILERS) It feels like loading the dice to proclaim something necessarily better because it’s female-driven, but that’s the tack The Hollywood Reporter took with its effusive review of Russian Doll, suggesting “although Nadia goes on a similar journey of self-discovery to Bill Murray’s hackneyed reporter in Groundhog Day, the fact that the show was created, written by and stars women means that it offers up a different, less exploitative and far more thoughtful angle” (than the predominately male-centric entries in the sub-genre). Which rather sounds like Rosie Knight changing the facts to fit her argument. And ironic, given star Natasha Lyonne has gone out of her way to stress the show’s inclusive message. Russian Dollis good, but the suggestion that “unlike its predecessors (it) provides a thoughtfulness, authenticity and honesty which makes it inevitable end (sic) all the more powerful” is cobblers.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Mountains are old, but they're still green.

Roma (2018)
(SPOILERS) Roma is a critics' darling and a shoe-in for Best Foreign Film Oscar, with the potential to take the big prize to boot, but it left me profoundly indifferent, its elusive majesty remaining determinedly out of reach. Perhaps that's down to generally spurning autobiographical nostalgia fests – complete with 65mm widescreen black and white, so it's quite clear to viewers that the director’s childhood reverie equates to the classics of old – or maybe the elliptical characterisation just didn't grab me, but Alfonso Cuarón's latest amounts to little more than a sliver of substance beneath all that style.

Even after a stake was driven through its heart, there’s still interest.

Prediction 2019 Oscars
Shockingly, as in I’m usually much further behind, I’ve missed out on only one of this year’s Best Picture nominees– Vice isn’t yet my vice, it seems – in what is being suggested, with some justification, as a difficult year to call. That might make for must-see appeal, if anyone actually cared about the movies jostling for pole position. If it were between Black Panther and Bohemian Rhapsody (if they were even sufficiently up to snuff to deserve a nod in the first place), there might be a strange fascination, but Joe Public don’t care about Roma, underlined by it being on Netflix and stillconspicuously avoided by subscribers (if it were otherwise, they’d be crowing about viewing figures; it’s no Bird Box, that’s for sure).

We’re looking for a bug no one’s seen before. Some kind of smart bug.

Starship Troopers (1997)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven’s sci-fi trio of Robocop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers are frequently claimed to be unrivalled in their genre, but it’s really only the first of them that entirely attains that rarefied level. Discussion and praise of Starship Troopers is generally prefaced by noting that great swathes of people – including critics and cast members – were too stupid to realise it was a satire. This is a bit of a Fight Club one, certainly for anyone from the UK (Verhoeven commented “The English got it though. I remember coming out of Heathrow and seeing the posters, which were great. They were just stupid lines about war from the movie. I thought, ‘Finally someone knows how to promote this.’”) who needed no kind of steer to recognise what the director was doing. And what he does, he does splendidly, even if, at times, I’m not sure he entirely sustains a 129-minute movie, since, while both camp and OTT, Starship Troopers is simultaneously required t…

If you could just tell me what those eyes have seen.

Alita: Battle Angel (2019)
(SPOILERS) Robert Rodriguez’ film of James Cameron’s at-one-stage-planned film of Yukito Kishiro’s manga Gunnm on the one hand doesn’t feel overly like a Rodriguez film, in that it’s quite polished, so certainly not of the sort he’s been making of late – definitely a plus – but on the other, it doesn’t feel particularly like a Jimbo flick either. What it does well, it mostly does very well – the action, despite being as thoroughly steeped in CGI as Avatar – but many of its other elements, from plotting to character to romance, are patchy or generic at best. Despite that, there’s something likeable about the whole ludicrously expensive enterprise that is Alita: Battle Angel, a willingness to be its own kind of distinctive misfit misfire.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.