Almost Heroes

After I got done watching Almost Heroes I immediately rewound the tape saw it again. It is one of the funniest movies ever created. If Chris Farley isn't a good enough reason to watch it, Matthew Perry should be. Both men do an incredible job acting dumb and yet civalized. If you ever get in a bad mood, I guarantee this will cheer you up as you roll on the floor with laughter.

This is the kind of movie you need to watch more than once to appreciate. I'd never go so far as to say this is a "good" movie, on the contrary, its a very bad movie, and thats what makes it funny. No one seems to be able to appreciate the humor in the poor writing and acting that make this movie hilarious. Watch Farley's battle with the eagle a few times and you'll see the humor. Watch the gauntlet with creamed corn and tell me thats not funny because of its sheer ridiculousness. I say people need to lighten up and respect this movie for what it is, a harmless farce that allows for some cheap laughs at physical humor and absurd dialog.

As an amateur historian who has read extensively about the settlement of North America and The Corp of Discovery, I really liked this movie. While decidedly a comedy and parody of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, I found it to be surprisingly accurate. My reasons for this opinion are: 1) The costumes and accoutrements were right on. How many times since Davy Crockett have you seen a flintlock actually fire in a movie? The lodges were from Panther Primitives and Farley's pistol is an early 1800's Harper's Ferry. 2) The crew members all had distinct personalities. The members of the Corp of Discovery varied from well educated to nearly illiterate though all were accomplished at their respective skills. 3) Anyone who has ever been on a long term encampment will remember humorous events. 4) There were other explorers and adventurers on the Missouri in 1803-1806. 5) The dialog, while humorous, is accurate to the time and circumstances. If you read between the lines, you'll actually come away with a picture of 1804 North America that is surprisingly accurate rather than politically correct.

Chris Farley had his last leading role here, in a feature released five months after his death. A great epitaph it is not, but it does showcase him in the kind of role he was obviously born to play. Bartholomew Hunt is a rowdy tracker hired by effete adventurer Leslie Edwards (Matthew Perry) in 1804 America. Edwards hopes to make a name for himself beating Lewis & Clark to the Pacific Ocean. Hunt & Edwards set out for the coast, in the company of various other kooks and half-wits. They must deal with Indian tribes, a bear, an eagle protecting its nest, and an arrogant Conquistador named Hidalgo (Kevin Dunn).

Both Farley and Perry are well-cast in what amounts to a fairly enjoyable comedy. Like a lot of comedies, it has its share of gags that work and those that don't. One might consider this an off-day for veteran writer / performer / director Christopher Guest, who'd started his string of "mockumentaries" with "Waiting for Guffman" the previous year. But it's all put across by an enthusiastic bunch of actors, with supporting players like Dunn, a hilarious Eugene Levy as a French "language expert" named Fontenot, Hamilton Camp, and Patrick Cranshaw tending to steal the show. A tantalizing Lisa Barbuscia is the love interest for Perry, playing Fontenots' Indian wife. Bokeem Woodbine, as Edwards' slave, is unfortunately under-utilized.

Various familiar faces - Don Lake, Lewis Arquette, Christian Clemenson, and Brent Hinkley - turn up, and Guests' longtime colleague Harry Shearer does the opening narration. Michael McKean is credited as "project consultant".

A decent attempt at creating the period, lovely photography, and use of various wilderness locales all help in making this pleasant enough to watch, if also rather easy to forget. At the least, it may make a viewer interested enough to read up on Lewis & Clark, as it pokes fun at details of their own historic journey.

Six out of 10.

If I saw this movie with almost anyone else cast in Chris Farley's part I probably, well, would have never seen it in the first place, but if I did I would have given it a lousy review. OK, the movie itself was completely predictable and dumb (not like it was supposed to be intellectual). I think Matthew Perry had't made it to rehab yet because during certain scenes he looks too thin and pale. During others (did they toss both of the leads in rehab halfway through shooting, then continue when they were out?) he looks pretty good. In fact, if you have the hots for Perry, you should definitely see it because he was looking pretty good to me by the end of the movie, and I never thought he was all that hot before. I have a feeling the part of "Edwards" was originally meant for David Spade, but he pulled out.

We saw it opening weekend, Saturday night, and the theater had already split up the movie (and even cut the poster in half! Jerks) with another in the same part of the theater because no-one was showing up. The audience was us and maybe a dozen other Farley fans who sat silently when he wasn't onscreen, then you'd hear us all laugh at the top of our lungs scattered from various parts of the mostly empty auditorium (the laughs were scattered, not our lungs, sorry for the bad grammar) when he did or said something funny. This is not his best movie (he was obviously and sadly on his last legs, but doing his best to give his fans their money's worth)but not his worst. If you're a Farley fan, don't be scared away by the bad reviews, rent it or buy it! The scene where he has to go find an eagle's egg in the wilderness to cure his sick friend is priceless, and so is his comment when he finally brings it back and finds out which part of the egg they needed. Every single review in the media I read said something along the lines of "this is a sad legacy to be Farley's last movie, with this weak performance, blah blah" but I think he could have done a lot worse.

RIP big guy, your fans miss you.