— 3 —
iviovit; Keview
Howard's comedy "Gung Ho” isn’t funny
By Matt Diedrich
Reporter
With the back-to-back suc
cesses of “Splash” and “Co
coon” under his belt, director
Ron Howard is starting to look
like the next Steven Spielberg.
Like Spielberg, he has received
high praise for his ability to
make hit movies that display a
lot of heart.
Yet even Spielberg had his
“1941,” and now Howard con
tinues the tradition with his
new movie “Gung Ho,” a lame
comedy that simply isn’t funny.
Michael Keaton stars as Hunt
Stevenson, an auto worker who
convinces a Japanese company
to re-open the plant in his fi
nancially-ailing hometown.
When the company sends a
management team to teach the
American workers the Japanese
style of auto making, a predic
table culture clash results.
T^he Japanese tiy to teach the
Americans the value of working
as a team, while the Americans
try to teach the Japanese the va
lue of the individual. It never
really gets any more compli
cated than that, or any more in
teresting.
The viewer does find himself
becoming more involved in the
movie’s second half, mainly be
cause the filmmakers decide to
Too many of the gags are easily
predictable, based on Japanese
stereotypes, or just not funny.
To make matters worse, the
writers insist upon giving Kea
ton an endless string of “rous
Whenever Keaton tries to crack a joke, the
Japanese respond with blank, unamused
stares. Unfortunately, the audience will
likely react the same way.
throw in a little more plot. Dur
ing this section of the film, Kea
ton arranges a contest of sorts.
If the Americans can build
15,000 cars in one month (the
Japanese record), they will re
ceive a much-needed raise.
This sequence provides a few
honest laughs and some emo
tional impact, but by then it’s
too late. Howard and company
have already blown it.
Part of the fault lies in the
script of Lowell Ganz and Ba-
baloo Mandel. It contains very
little real insight into the prob
lems of its characters, and its
humor content is even slimmer.
ing speeches” and, towards the
end, upon getting him into a
few too many fistfights.
Yet some of the blame has to
go to Howard and the cast.
Many of the jokes were proba
bly funny as written, but fall
flat on the screen due to ill-
timed delivery. Howard needs
to regain the sense of comic
timing that he displayed so
flawlessly in his earlier films.
Keaton could also use a
change. His hyperkinetic wise
guy bit may have worked won
ders in “Night Shift” and “Mr.
Mom,” but in “Gung Ho” it’s ir
ritating. The fact that his char-
actor behaves like an idiot most
of the time doesn’t help matters
either.
Gedde Watanabe, who ap
peared in “Sixteen Candles” and
“Volunteers,” achieves some
success as the leader of the
management team. His charac
ter is certainly more believable
and more likable than Keaton’s,
and he frequently steals scenes
from his co-star.
iWimi Rogers gives an unim
pressive non-performance as
Keaton’s girlfriend, in a role
which requires her to dump
him when he’s a jerk and take
him back when he makes up
for it.
Even George Wendt of
“Cheers,” normally an asset to
any movie, has trouble as one of
Keaton’s worker-buddies. His
character comes off as a big
oted creep who never really re
deems himself.
“Gung Ho” even makes the
unfortunate mistake of con
stantly reminding the viewer
how bad it is. Whenever Keaton
tries to crack a joke, for in
stance, the Japanese respond
with blank, unamused stares.
Unfortunately, the audience
will likely react the same way.