Honey, I Shrunk the Kids - Series Retrospective

I’ve done quite a lot of Disney-themed retrospectives over the years. It all started, of course, with the big series of retrospectives that I did on Disney Animation’s vast library of feature films back in 2016 (and, technically, 2013). There’s also the one that I did last year for the classic Disney franchise that is Herbie the Love Bug. Thus, with the impending debut of Disney’s new streaming service Disney+ in November, which promises to host practically every Disney film ever made, I figured that it’d be fun to continue doing retrospectives on other classic Disney franchises. This brings us to today’s subject, which is a franchise that was quite arguably a staple of the 90’s that starred Rick Moranis as a bumbling yet good-natured inventor whose latest invention causes all sorts of problems for his family. This franchise’s first installment also happens to be celebrating its 30^th anniversary this year and is currently being set up for a reboot starring Josh Gad that will debut on Disney+. Yes, we’re talking about the franchise known as the Honey, I Shrunk the Kids series, which provided Moranis one of his most famous roles as Wayne Szalinski and consisted of two feature films and one direct-to-video release. However, it would also notably spawn a TV series that aired in the late ’90s (even though Moranis wasn’t involved with it) and a few notable attractions at Disney’s theme parks. Disney’s Hollywood Studios used to have a playground themed after the original film and a 4-D show titled Honey, I Shrunk the Audience ran for several years at Epcot, Disneyland, Tokyo Disneyland, and Disneyland Paris. However, for the purpose of today’s retrospective, we’ll only be discussing the films. Thus, without further ado, be careful not to step directly in front of the shrinking machine as we look at the three feature films that make up Disney’s Honey, I Shrunk the Kids franchise.

HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS (1989)

The original Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, released in 1989, served as the official directorial debut of Joe Johnston, who of course would later go on to direct films like Captain America: The First Avenger, Jumanji, and The Rocketeer. But before all that, Johnston officially got his start in the industry as a visual effects artist for ILM, meaning that he had a considerable hand in developing several of the effects for the original Star Wars trilogy and Raiders of the Lost Ark. As such, it’s safe to say that he was a solid choice to direct this effects-heavy film about an inventor whose shrinking machine accidentally shrinks both his kids and his grumpy neighbor’s kids. While there are a few effects here and there that have dated a bit, Johnston and his team deserve quite a lot of credit for all the creative ways that they manage to put their characters in literal larger-than-life situations, from oversized sets to the use of stop-motion animation. All this and a generally breezy pace make up for the film’s more generic familial drama (e.g. a misunderstood son, marital problems between the inventor and his wife, etc.). That said, the film does feature a solid ensemble cast. Rick Moranis headlines the project excellently as Wayne Szalinski as does Marcia Strassman as his wife Diane and Matt Frewer and Kristine Sutherland as their neighbors, the Thompsons. Meanwhile, Amy O’Neill, Robert Oliveri, Jared Rushton, and Thomas Wilson Brown impressively manage to hold their own as the Szalinski and Thompson children, respectively, especially considering that the whole film revolves around them. Because of this, it’s easy to see why Honey, I Shrunk the Kids continues to be a fondly remembered live-action outing from Disney to the point where, upon its release, it was even the highest-grossing Disney film of all-time at that point (probably due in part to a Roger Rabbit short that ran alongside it).

Rating: 4/5

HONEY, I BLEW UP THE KID (1992)

To answer your first question… yes, Disney managed to get away with having a title like that in 1992. To answer your second question… no, this is not about kids literally getting blown up. Instead, it’s just the opposite of what happened in the first film, as Wayne accidentally exposes his youngest son Adam to his shrink ray’s growth setting, causing Adam to grow to over 100 feet tall. Just like the previous film, Honey, I Blew Up the Kid (directed this time by Randal Kleiser, who directed the classic musical Grease and would later do the film segments of Honey, I Shrunk the Audience) features some fun visual-effects work to juxtapose the ever-growing Adam with the various locales that he goes through. It all culminates in a solidly entertaining finale where he ‘rampages’ (a term used loosely since he’s just a baby) through the Las Vegas strip. And sure, it could be argued that the visual effects work isn’t exactly as impressive as it was in the previous film since it simply revolves more around an infant going around shrunken sets. Still, a lot of the visual effects in this film do manage to hold up just as well as those from the first film. Plus, if there’s one advantage that this film has over its predecessor, it’s that everything has a better emotional hook to it given the necessity of the family keeping Adam safe (although it could’ve given the older sister Amy more to do since this was technically spawned from a different screenplay, which meant having to write Amy O’Neill out entirely save for a cameo). Also, dare I say that the humor is a little more consistent in this one? In short, the usual consensus towards Honey, I Blew Up the Kid is that it’s a generally inferior follow-up to Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. And yet, I’d argue that, at the very least, it’s ‘just as good’ as the original.

Rating: 4/5

HONEY, WE SHRUNK OURSELVES (1997)

Our last film for today is the third and final film in this little franchise, Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves. As the title suggests, this one follows the route of the first film by having Wayne, Diane, Wayne’s brother Gordon, and his wife Patti be the ones who get shrunk, thus forcing them to try and get their kids’ attention, especially after the kids decide to throw a party in their parents’ ‘absence’. The film notably served as the directorial debut (and admittedly only directorial effort to date) of veteran cinematographer Dean Cundey, who’s been responsible for the camerawork of classics like Halloween and Jurassic Park. Originally, the film was intended to be a theatrical release before it was downgraded to a direct-to-video release, meaning that its budget was cut from $40 million to $7 million. As such, it’s easy to see that the visual effects in this film aren’t as impressive as those from the first two films. Most of the shots where the parents are shrunk are just them in front of a green screen while other visual effects are the very definition of ‘90s dated’ (see the 1997 remake of The Love Bug for further proof of that). For what it’s worth, though, the film does still offer a lot of fun sizing gags even if it basically just rehashes most of the key moments from the original, whether it’s characters having to fend off a bug or them trying to avoid getting eaten. It’s also worth noting that, perhaps due to the various behind-the-scenes changes that were going on, Marcia Strassman did not return to reprise her role as Diane while Amy and older brother Nick were written out entirely save for passing mentions. Because of this, Adam (who’s also recast since he’s older in this film) is the only one of Wayne and Diane’s kids featured here and is thus paired with Gordon and Patti’s two kids Jenny and Mitch instead. And while it would’ve been nice if they had kept the original cast so that some sort of continuity could be maintained, Eve Gordon is a solid enough replacement for Strassman while Stuart Pankin and Robin Bartlett provide solid support as Gordon and Patti.  

But perhaps the most interesting aspect of this film (from my perspective, at least) was that, technically speaking, this was the film that served as my official introduction to this franchise. Yes, the first Honey, I Shrunk the Kids film that I ever watched wasn’t the original or Honey, I Blew Up the Kid; instead, it was Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves, which was mainly due to it airing a lot on Disney Channel back in the day. After that, my further experiences with this franchise mainly stemmed from two things. The first was watching a few episodes of the short-lived TV series (which I won’t be covering here but will note that some episodes of it can be found on YouTube) that starred Tom Hanks’ Bosom Buddies co-star Peter Scolari as Wayne. There were also the various times that I went to see the Honey, I Shrunk the Audience 4-D show at both Epcot in Walt Disney World and Disneyland up until its closure in 2010. It wasn’t until sometime in the early 2000s when I watched Honey, I Blew Up the Kid for the first time, meaning that it too was one that I had more experience with than the original and could also partially explain why I feel that it isn’t the ‘inferior follow-up’ that it’s often viewed as. So how long did it take me to watch the original Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, you ask? Well, aside from catching the tail-end of the film on Cartoon Network one night around the early 2010s or so, I didn’t fully watch the film until recently when I was preparing to do this retrospective. Luckily, this didn’t end up impacting my thoughts on the film in any way since, just like the Herbie films, this is another Disney franchise that was generally consistent throughout its run. And while Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves is the weakest of the bunch due in part to it being downgraded to a direct-to-video release, it’s still a pleasantly nostalgic affair for those who grew up with it.

Rating: 3.5/5

And that concludes this little retrospective on Disney’s Honey, I Shrunk the Kids franchise. Thanks for following along and be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own personal history with this franchise. And like I said in the intro, thanks to the coming advent of Disney+, this is only the beginning when it comes to me doing more Disney-based retrospectives on this site. Stay tuned…

Ghostbusters (1984, 1989): 30th Anniversary Retrospective

There have been quite a few film franchises that have become iconic parts of pop culture history like ‘Star Wars’, ‘Batman’, and ‘Harry Potter’. And easily one of the most famous franchises of all time has to be ‘Ghostbusters’, which got its start in 1984 with the film of the same name. Directed by Ivan Reitman and written by Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd, who both starred in the film along with Bill Murray, Sigourney Weaver, and Ernie Hudson, the film, centered on a trio of parapsychologists who set up a ghost-catching business after being dismissed from their university, became a major critical and commercial success when it was released. It has since spawned a huge multimedia franchise that includes a 1989 sequel, two animated series (1986’s ‘The Real Ghostbusters’ and 1997’s ‘Extreme Ghostbusters’, the latter of which was a spin-off of the first show), and much more. A third film has been in and out of development for the past few years now but with the recent passing of Harold Ramis along with reports that Bill Murray isn’t that interested in returning, it doesn’t really look like we’ll ever get an ‘official sequel’. So because of that, recent reports say that director Paul Feig (‘Bridesmaids’, ‘The Heat’) will instead be helming a ‘reboot’ of the series with a female-led cast. It’ll be interesting to see how that turns out if it does get made but for now, in honor of the first film’s 30^th anniversary, it’s time to look back upon the two ‘Ghostbusters’ films and for the record, just those two films. This post will not include reviews of the two animated series, simply because I didn’t watch either of them as a kid. So now with that out of the way, here are my reviews of ‘Ghostbusters’ and ‘Ghostbusters 2’.

GHOSTBUSTERS (1984)

Really, what more can be said about the first ‘Ghostbusters’ film? It’s an undeniable comedic classic; a film that blends its comedy with a wide array of zany visuals and it is done to great results. It’s highly quotable with great lines like ‘Dogs and Cats living together, Mass Hysteria!’ or ‘That’s a Big Twinkie’ and of course there’s much more. This is one of those comedies that isn’t afraid to get a little ‘mature’ at times when it comes to its humor. Case in point, Bill Murray. While Aykroyd and Ramis’ dialogue mostly consists of them spewing science jargon and, as Star Trek fans like to put it, ‘techno-babble’, a lot of Murray’s dialogue is more than likely going to fly over the heads of young viewers. But when you’re older, you’re going to understand it a lot more. This film came out a month before the PG-13 rating was introduced by the MPAA, and while it isn’t as ‘violent’ or ‘disturbing’ as something like ‘Temple of Doom’ or ‘Poltergeist’, this film is still a prime example of how back then filmmakers could get away with a lot more stuff in PG films than they do nowadays. I mean when you really think about it, this is a very bizarre premise but this film joyfully goes with it resulting in a highly entertaining film with a great cast, excellent writing, and fun visuals. Simply put, when there’s something strange in your neighborhood, you know who to call.

Rating: 5/5!

GHOSTBUSTERS 2 (1989)

Like with pretty much almost every sequel that has ever come out, ‘Ghostbusters 2’ is generally considered by many to be ‘inferior’ to the first film and while I do agree that it isn’t as good as the first film, keep in mind how great of a film this one is supposed to follow up on; talk about an incredibly tough act to follow. So with that said, why is this one not as good as its predecessor? According to the Rotten Tomatoes consensus, it is because it ‘lacks the charm, wit, and energy’ that the first film had. However, I don’t entirely agree with that statement. Because while I can sort of see what they’re getting at, I don’t think that the film is entirely devoid of those aforementioned qualities… far from it, in fact. The cast still has phenomenal camaraderie, there are still plenty of lines that are highly quotable (‘Sometimes, s*** happens, someone has to deal with it, and who you gonna call?’), and there are still some pretty fun visuals, like during the finale when the Ghostbusters travel through the city of New York while piloting the Statue of Liberty. It’s true that maybe the film doesn’t have the exact same amount of charm, wit, and energy as its predecessor had but still, it’s not like it’s not there. It still very much feels like a ‘Ghostbusters’ film through and through.

Really, the main problem with the film is something that occurs with a lot of sequels; it rehashes a lot of the same beats from the first film in terms of its plot like how the Ghostbusters at one point have to visit the mayor when they get into trouble with the law or how they start off having to work to become popular again with the citizens in New York as this film takes place five years after the events of the first film as their popularity has started to dwindle. I do kind of like the idea of the Ghostbusters having to get back into the swing of things having been out of the business for a while but overall there’s not much in this film that is different from the first film save for it having different plot-points, like the River of Slime, the main villain Vigo, and for introducing Dana Barrett’s baby as a plot-point. Regardless of this, I still think that ‘Ghostbusters II’ is actually a pretty underrated sequel. Sure, it’s still not as good as the original, mainly because it copies a lot from that film. Still, I disagree with the notion that it is completely devoid of the ‘charm, wit, and energy’ that made the first film so great because it’s still here, just maybe not as much as in the first film. However, I do feel that this film deserves a second chance because it still a very entertaining film even if it doesn’t fully live up to the status of its predecessor.

Rating: 3.5/5

Before I end this post, if you ever have the chance, I recommend you check out the location tour video, ‘Follow that Marshmallow: A Ghostbusters Tour’ produced by James Rolfe AKA The Angry Video Game Nerd. It’s a really nice location video showcasing a lot of the locations in New York that were featured in both movies and it’s pretty cool to see that the filmmakers made a real effort to be as geographically correct as possible. What I mean is that a lot of the locations in the film aren’t too far apart from one another meaning that the routes that the characters take in the film are accurate to the real-life layout of New York. I’ll provide the link to the video below for your viewing pleasure.

(http://cinemassacre.com/2010/04/26/follow-that-marshmallow-a-ghostbusters-tour/)