Radio Flyer (1992)

hyped garbage

Highly Overrated But Still Good

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

This movie tells us a tale, where Tom Hanks narrates a dark part of his past. Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazzello star as two the kids who live their life with big dreams. Joseph Mazzello stars as the younger brother who is being abused by his mother's alcoholic intimate who puts Joseph into silence about the entire abuse. Elijah Wood as the older brother, becomes protective and wants to become his hero and so they create a big idea to conquer the bad situation. It was a successful film because it's easy to relate to with both the dark reality and the imaginary, where we have two bright kids looking for a better way to enjoy their life. Then, we have the drunk father (Adam Baldwin) who you will never see the face of because he is symbolized as a monster throughout the film. This technique allows us to only judge him by his actions.Radio Flyer is the the waggon; also a symbolism for the dreams they will carry off. If you are the type of person who enjoys meaningful movies with symbolism's then Radio Flyer is a perfect movie for you. Also make sure to hold a napkin box because it is bound to make you into a cry baby.

Back in the dark days of 1990, the hoped-for Heir to the Spielberg Throne (after the failure of supposed whiz-kid Phil Joanou) was mistakenly believed to be pretentious Spielberg wannabe David Mickey Evans. Evans managed to fleece the studios for over a million dollars, suckering baby-boomer executives into believing his screenplay -- a combination of nostalgic, 1960s references and a disturbing drama about child abuse -- somehow equaled good storytelling, and a decent film. As Rod Stewart once sang, "look how wrong you can be."But the novice's artsy-fartsy, "E.T."-inspired script convinced enough people he was the next Chosen One -- the New Spielberg -- and so a deal was struck to not only buy the script for more money than 99 percent of the world's population will ever see in their lifetime, but for Evans to direct the film as well -- even though he'd had never directed anything in his life. Hey, how hard can it be to be another film-making genius, after all?Two weeks into the shoot, Columbia found out. His dailies were called "totally unusable" by the studio -- or at least those level-headed enough to not to have fallen under the E.N.C. (Emperor's New Clothes) spell. All his footage was scrapped and recycled into guitar pics.So what's a studio to do after sinking 10 or 20 million dollars into something they still believed represented the Resurrection of Steven Spielberg? Hire Spielberg himself to save the day? Columbia probably tried that.Enter old pro Richard Donner. Hey, he may not be a cinematic genius, but he gets the job done. "Superman" wasn't too bad, after all -- and the first "Lethal Weapon" was pretty good.So Donner steps in and grabs the directorial reins. Fortunately he manages to convince Columbia that the worst of the film's insipid fantasy sequences -- which would have played out like a ten year-old's acid trip -- have to go. Unfortunately, he leaves in the Crying Buffalo (ooh, how poetic) and the ridiculous, pseudo-Spielberg fantasy ending, complete with Clueless Mom perfectly content for the rest of her life to get postcards from her missing son as he circles the globe in his red wagon. Right.But Donner did manage to get a decent performance out of Elijah Wood. And Lorraine Bracco as the Idiot Mom wasn't bad either. Maybe Donner should be reevaluated. Maybe he's not such a phony Hollywood hack as everyone has always believed.The only reason I'm giving this over-baked misfire a 2 rating is that someone was smart enough to cast the great John Heard (but in the wrong part, of course). The kids do okay... though Tom Hanks' horrible, overly-explanatory narration nearly destroys every scene it intrudes upon.One might think that after the David Mickey Evanses and Phil Joanous and Troy Duffys of the world, the studios might finally wise up. One might hope that these hype-driven film-making debacles might prevent the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome from ever rearing its ugly head again.Doubtful!

Simply an amazing bittersweet movie that portrays a side of life often skipped over in feel good movies. I saw this as a child and came back to it very recently and fell in love again.As a child it sparked my interest purely for the building of a plane, as an adult it captured me in the dark world and a young mans escape from that world. The portrayal of the King was great, the camera style chosen with low shots and shots focusing on actions and hand movements was I thought well done, I personally can not recall anything quite done in that style and adds to the character and portrays him as a force almost not human (which may not be far from reality) it makes for interesting developments Worth a watch any day

This movie was a heart-felt piece of cinema that helped show the darker side of childhood, and the little things that shaped who Tom Hank's was. Using a very cryptic story, they were able to give you an idea of what truly happened to Tom Hank's character as a child. And while scenes like the flying machine may have never happened, it helped to show how even denial can help tell the truth. In all good conscience, I could not rate this lower then a 9 out of 10, great performances from all the actors, and while many may not have understood the cryptic ending in which the brother is murdered by his step father, and Tom Hanks covers it up using a far-fetched story about a flying machine, pay close attention to the little details, such as the turtle that he still has, even though his brother "flew" off with it. Truly, a beautiful piece of cinema, and every actor deserves recognition for it.