Review: Flight of the Navigator (dir. by Randal Kleiser)


“That is my family, but that’s not my home. My home is back in 1978!” — David Freeman

Flight of the Navigator turns a child’s worst possible homecoming into an unexpectedly funny, wistful, and imaginative science-fiction adventure. Released in 1986, it begins as a modest suburban mystery before expanding into a story about time displacement, missing years, alien technology, and the strange loneliness of returning home to a life that has moved on without you. It has the glossy, accessible surface of a Disney adventure, but there is a surprisingly melancholy idea at its center: what would it feel like to lose eight years of your life while everyone you love has had to live through them without you?

The movie follows David Freeman, a 12-year-old boy who disappears in 1978 after going into the woods to retrieve his younger brother Jeff. David wakes up in 1986, apparently having been gone only a few hours from his own point of view. The shock is immediate. His parents are older, Jeff is now his taller teenage brother, the family has moved, and David has become a long-unsolved missing-person case. This opening stretch is probably the film’s strongest material because it plays the scenario straight enough to make it genuinely unsettling. David is not simply a kid dropped into a flashy futuristic world; he is a child abruptly disconnected from the only reality he knows.

That emotional hook gives Flight of the Navigator more weight than many similar children’s adventures. David’s confusion is easy to understand, and the film wisely lets the situation breathe before revealing all of its science-fiction machinery. The sight of his family recognizing him after years of grief is touching, but it also comes with discomfort. David wants everything to return to normal, while his parents are overwhelmed by the impossible fact that their vanished son has returned unchanged. The movie does not dig into the full psychological consequences of that situation, because it is still fundamentally a family adventure, but it gives the idea enough attention to make the stakes feel personal.

Once NASA becomes involved, the story shifts into a more conventional but still entertaining sci-fi mode. Doctors discover that David has advanced knowledge in his brain that he cannot consciously explain, and the mystery leads him to a crashed alien spacecraft. The ship, known as the Trimaxion Drone Ship, is the movie’s most iconic element. Its smooth silver form, with no visible seams or conventional cockpit, still looks appealing because it has a simple, alien elegance. It is not overly busy or mechanical in the way many science-fiction vehicles are. Instead, it resembles a floating metallic organism, something sleek and strange that could plausibly have appeared in a child’s dream.

The ship’s computer, MAX, is what really gives the movie its personality. Voiced by Paul Reubens, MAX begins as a calm, efficient artificial intelligence but gradually becomes sillier and more mischievous after downloading human information from David’s era. Reubens’ performance is a major reason the character works. He does not simply do a recognizable Pee-wee Herman routine, although the playful vocal energy is certainly there. MAX’s changing voice and increasingly erratic sense of humor make him feel like an alien intelligence trying to imitate human behavior and getting it only partly right.

There is a fine line between amusing and annoying when a movie lets its comic sidekick become too hyperactive, and Flight of the Navigator occasionally crosses it. MAX can become a little much, especially during the later scenes where he starts cracking jokes, changing his vocal effects, and behaving like an overexcited child with access to interstellar technology. Still, that energy is part of what makes the film feel uniquely of its era. MAX is not as polished or emotionally sophisticated as later animated or CGI companions, but he remains memorable because he is odd. His humor feels less like a studio-tested collection of one-liners and more like a machine that has accidentally discovered cartoons, pop culture, and sarcasm all at once.

Joey Cramer carries much of the movie as David, and he gives the role more sincerity than the material sometimes requires. He is believable as a regular kid who becomes frightened, angry, curious, and eventually exhilarated by what is happening around him. David is not written as a perfect young hero. He can be stubborn and impulsive, especially when he decides he has to take control of his own situation, but that makes sense. Adults have spent much of the story examining him, restraining him, and treating him as a scientific puzzle. His decision to escape with MAX is reckless, yet it also feels like the response of a child who is desperate to reclaim some agency.

The film’s visual effects deserve credit for helping sell its larger ideas. By modern standards, the effects are obviously dated in places, particularly when the ship changes shape or moves at impossible speeds. Yet the movie uses its effects well enough that they remain charming rather than distracting. The morphing sequence in which the ship transforms into its sleeker form was especially impressive for the time, and even now it has an appealing practical-digital hybrid quality. It does not look completely real, but it looks imaginative. The ship has presence, and the movie understands the pleasure of simply watching it fly through clouds, skim across water, or streak through the night sky.

The electronic score by Alan Silvestri is another major part of the film’s identity. Silvestri is often associated with larger, more overtly heroic scores, especially in films such as Back to the Future, but his work here is more synthetic and futuristic. The music helps create a sense of wonder while also grounding the film in the mid-1980s. It can sound very much of its time, with prominent synthesizers and a clean electronic texture, but that is not a weakness. The score fits a movie about an ordinary kid encountering a cold, shiny, unknowable piece of advanced technology.

One of the better things about Flight of the Navigator is that it does not make its protagonist’s adventure entirely consequence-free. David gets to fly an alien ship, travel at incredible speeds, and encounter a universe beyond his suburban life. That is the wish-fulfillment element, and the film delivers it well. At the same time, the adventure exists because something has gone wrong in David’s life. His journey begins with loss. The movie never becomes as emotionally dark as its premise could allow, but it never completely forgets that David has been separated from his family and displaced in time.

The ending is satisfying because it returns the story to that emotional core. David’s ultimate choice is not just about whether he wants to keep flying around with MAX. It is about whether he can go home, even if home is no longer exactly what it was. The resolution is neat and arguably a little too convenient, but it earns its feel-good payoff. This is a family film, after all, and the movie knows that its audience wants the wonder of space travel without being left in despair over the time-travel implications.

In the end, Flight of the Navigator remains a warm, inventive, and slightly strange piece of 1980s science-fiction. It is not a perfect movie. Some of the comedy is broad, the adults at NASA are more functional than memorable, and the story occasionally rushes past ideas that could have been explored more deeply. But its central concept is strong, its spaceship is iconic, its score is distinctive, and its combination of melancholy and fun gives it more staying power than many nostalgia-driven family movies. It captures the feeling of being a kid who wants to escape into the unknown, while also recognizing that the people waiting at home are what make that escape matter.

Retro Television Reviews: Dawn: Portrait of a Teenage Runaway (dir by Randal Kleiser)


Welcome to Retro Television Reviews, a feature where we review some of our favorite and least favorite shows of the past!  On Sundays, I will be reviewing the made-for-television movies that used to be a primetime mainstay.  Today’s film is 1976’s Dawn: Portrait of a Teenage Runaway!  It  can be viewed on YouTube!

Dawn Wetherby (Eve Plumb) is fifteen years old.  She’s naive.  She’s innocent.  She’s …. well, let’s just be honest and admit that she’s not particularly bright.  Sick of being embarrassed by her alcoholic mom (Lynn Carlin), Dawn decides to hop on a bus and travel to Hollywood.  Maybe she can make a new life for herself in California.

Of course, it doesn’t take long for Dawn to discover that Los Angeles is not a city where dreams magically come true.  It’s a tough and harsh town and it’s not like Dawn has any money or any particular skills.  When she tries to get a job, she’s told that she’s too young.  When she tries to rent a room, she’s told that ten dollars is not enough to cover two weeks rent.  When she gives a dollar to a boy who says that he needs it, he responds by mugging her for the rest of her cash.  A prostitute named Frankie Lee (Marguerite DeLain) takes some sympathy on Dawn and tells her to call if she ever wants to make some money.

Eventually, a nasty cough leads to Dawn going to the free clinic.  That’s where she meets Alexander (Leigh McCloskey).  Alexander is a teen runaway, just like Dawn.  However, Alexander also can somehow afford an apartment and food to eat.  Alexander invites Dawn to live with him and Dawn, realizing she has no where else to go, agrees.  Alexander offers to look after her but, after Dawn discovers that Alexander makes his money by working as a male prostitute, Dawn decides that she needs a job of her own.

It’s time to call Frankie Lee!  And it’s time for Frankie Lee to introduce Dawn to Swan (Bo Hopkins), a pimp who lives in a nice house and who offers to put Dawn to work….

Dawn: Portrait of a Teenage Runaway is an earnest film that was obviously made with the best of intentions and which actually did have something say, in its melodramatic way, about the dangers of running away from home and trying to make it on your own when you’re not even old enough to drive.  That said, I imagine that most people who go through the effort to track down this film will do so because it stars The Brady Bunch‘s Eve Plumb as an underage runway who ends up walking the streets and taking men back to her motel room.  The movie might as well be called Jan Brady Goes Bad, because Eve Plumb does essentially give the same performance that she gave when she was playing the whiniest member of the Brady Bunch.  There’s nothing tough or streetwise about her, which works for the first half of the film but not during the second half.  Once Dawn has been on the streets for a bit, you would expect her to toughen up a bit but she still comes across like she’s mad at Greg and Bobby for tying up the phone.  Dawn goes through a lot and becomes a bit jaded as a result but, every time she speaks, you expect her to exclaim, “Why does Marcia get to runaway from home but I don’t?  It’s not fair!”  Far more impressive are the performances of Bo Hopkins and, in the role of Dawn’s probation officer, George Stanford Brown.  William Schallert also has a good bit as Dawn’s first client, who ends up feeling so sorry for Dawn that he just give her twenty dollars and then tells her to go back home.

Dawn: Portrait of a Teenage Runway is one of those film that was obviously designed to make parents worry about their kids.  It seems to be asking, “Do you know where your children are tonight?”  In 1976, I imagine they were busy watching Jan Brady try to make it on the mean streets of Hollywood.

Cleaning out the DVR: The Boy In The Plastic Bubble (dir by Randal Kleiser)


This made-for-television film from 1976 tells the story of Tod Lubitch (played by a pre-Saturday Night Fever John Travolta).  Tod was born without an immune system and, as a result, he’s had to spend his entire life in a germ-free, plastic bubble.  When Tod was a child, it wasn’t such a big deal not being able to leave his house without getting in a plastic ark beforehand.  But now, he’s in his teens and he wants to do teenager stuff.  His parents (Robert Reed and Diana Hyland) are overprotective.  His doctor (Ralph Bellamy) says that there’s little chance that Tod’s condition will ever improve.  But the girl next door, Gina (Glynnis O’Connor), finds herself falling in love with Tod and she wants to help him live a normal life.  Gina loves to ride horses and Tod wants to ride one with her.  As we all know, horses are totally germ-free.

The Boy In The Plastic Bubble is one of those movies that has a reputation.  It’s usually cited as being the epitome of 70s schmaltz and, indeed, it is very 70s and it is very schmaltzy.  It’s one of those films where the big dramatic moments are so overdone that they instead often become kind of comedic.  When Tod finally convinces his parents to allow him to attend school, he does so while wearing a special protective outfit that makes him look like a cross between an old school astronaut and a demented teddy bear.  When it looks like his suit might be malfunctioning, he runs into the plastic cell that’s been set up in the back of the classroom and strips it off while all of his classmates watch.  Everyone’s truly impressed by both Tod’s positivity and the sight of a 22 year-old John Travolta rolling around in gym shorts.

Indeed, while watching the film, it’s impossible not to ask certain questions.  In what world, for instance, could Robert Reed, best known for playing the patriarch on The Brady Bunch, be John Travolta’s father?  Why is there such a weird tension between Tod and his mother?  (It may have had something to do with the fact that Travolta was dating Diana Hyland at the time.)  How does Tod keep his hair so perfect while living in a plastic bubble?  Did anyone think that the scene where Tod is carried onto the beach inside a plastic box would be so odd to watch?  Reportedly, The Boy In The Plastic Bubble was based on the lives of two young men who has the same condition as Tod.  According to Wikipedia, one of them was very amused by the idea the Todd’s protective outfit would keep him safe at school.  And, then of course, there’s the film’s ending, which tries to offer a ray of hope but instead leaves you convinced that Tod is going to die at any minute.

And yet, for all the obvious flaws, The Boy In The Plastic Bubble is slightly redeemed by the sincerity that Travolta and O’Connor bring to their roles.  In particular, Travolta brings a smoldering anger to his role, which may not have been present in the script but which feels appropriate for the character.  As played by Travolta, Tod may understand why he’s in the bubble but he’s still pissed off about it.  O’Connor has an even more difficult role to play because Gina’s actions often don’t make a lot of sense.  But O’Connor makes you believe that she’s sincere in her desire to give the Bubble Boy the high school experience that he deserves.  It’s a schmaltzy film but Travolta and O’Connor bring a few moments of emotional honesty to it.

Director Randal Kleiser later worked with John Travolta on Grease.  I don’t think Danny Zuko would have been a good influence on the Boy in the Plastic Bubble.

Back to School Part II #10: Grease (dir by Randal Kleiser)


Grease_ver2

When it comes to reviewing Grease on this site, the film and I have a long and twisted history.  There have been several times when I was tempted to review Grease but one thing has always stopped me:

I absolutely hate this film.

Grease is one of my least favorite films and, to be honest, just thinking about it causes me pain.  Just about everyone that I know loves Grease.  They love the songs.  They love the music.  They love the performances.  They want to see it on stage.  They want to see it on the big screen.  They watch every time it pops up on AMC.

Growing up as a theater nerd means being surrounded by people who love Grease.  I cannot begin to count the number of times that I forced to watch this movie in school.  So many theater teachers seemed to feel that showing Grease in class was some sort of reward but, for me, it was pure torture.  And the fact that I was usually the only one who disliked the film made the experience all the more unbearable.

Back in 2014, when I was doing the first set of Back To School reviews, I was planning on reviewing Grease.  But I just could not bring myself to voluntarily relive the film.  Instead of putting myself through that misery, I decided to watch and review Rock ‘n’ Roll High School instead.  It was the right decision and I stand by it.

Jump forward two years and here I am doing Back to School again.  And again, for some reason, I had put Grease down as a film to review.  It’s just a movie, right?  And yet, after I finished writing my excellent review of Animal House, I again found myself dreading the idea of having to even think about Grease.

So, I said, “Fuck this,” and I promptly erased Grease from the list and I replaced it with Skatetown USA.  Then I watched Skatetown and I’m glad that I did because that was an experience that I can’t wait to write about!  And yet, I still had this nagging voice in the back of my mind.

“You’re going to have to review Grease at some point,” it said, “If not now, when?”

The voice had a point.  However, I was soon reminded that there was an even more important reason to review Grease.  A little further down on my list of Back to School films to review was a little film called Grease 2.  How could I possibly review Grease 2 if I hadn’t already reviewed Grease?  My OCD would not allow it!

And so, here I am, reviewing Grease.

Grease, of course, is a musical about teenagers in 1958.  Danny (John Travolta) is in love with Sandy (Olivia Newton-John) and Sandy is in love with Danny.  But Danny’s a greaser and Sandy’s Australian!  Will they be able to work it out, despite coming from different worlds?  Of course they will!  Danny’s willing to dress up like a jock in order to impress Sandy while Sandy’s willing to wear black leather to impress Danny!  Yay!  They go together!  And they’ve got a flying car, too!  YAY!

Screen-Shot-2013-07-12-at-13.51.48

And then Satan arrived…

Of course, there’s other subplots as well.  For instance, Frenchy (Didi Conn) nearly drops out of school but she’s visited by Satan (Frankie Avalon) and he manages to change her mind.  And Rizzo (Stockard Channing) might be pregnant because Kenickie (Jeff Conaway) hasn’t bought any new condoms since the 8th grade.  Comparing the sensitive way that teen pregnancy was handled on a show like Degrassi: The Next Generation with the way it’s handled in Grease is enough to make you want to sing “O Canada” every day for the rest of your life.

Here’s what I do like about Grease: Stockard Channing is great as Rizzo, though it’s hard not to feel that she deserves better than a doofus boyfriend like Kenickie and a boring bestie like Sandy.  I also like You’re The One That I Want.  That’s a fun song.

But as for the rest of the movie … BLEH!  I mean, it is so BORING!  It takes them forever to get to You’re The One That I Want.  Olivia Newton-John is so wholesome that she literally makes you want to tear your hair out while John Travolta pretty much acts on auto pilot.  As for the supporting cast, most of them appeared in the stage production of Grease and they still seem to be giving stage performances as opposed to film performances.  They’re still projecting their lines to the back of the house.  Worst of all, it’s obvious that director Randal Kleiser had no idea how to film a musical because the dance numbers are so ineptly staged and framed that, half the time, you can’t even see what anyone’s doing with their feet.  If you can’t see the feet, it defeats the whole purpose of having an elaborate dance number in the first place!

So, no, I don’t like Grease.

Sorry, everyone.

However, I’m sure I’ll enjoy Grease 2….

Love you, Canada!

Love you, Canada!