The Goonies is an entire generation's favourite film. Shame it's not very good

When I started at university more years ago than I care to remember, one of the time-honoured ways of breaking the ice, after comparing what A-levels you'd done and where you'd been on your gap year, was discussing the films that you'd grown up watching as a child. For my generation, this meant pictures released largely in the Eighties and the early Nineties.
Sometimes these were age-appropriate – Star Wars and Indiana Jones and the like – and sometimes they were not. (I was astonished at how many people had seen Halloween and Nightmare On Elm Street at very young and impressionable ages.) Yet one picture, above all, stood out. Everyone had seen – and apparently loved – The Goonies.
When the Richard Donner -directed family adventure film was first released 40 years ago, it came out to an appropriate amount of hype and expectation. Although Donner was a well-regarded journeyman director who was best known for making the first Superman film – which is amusingly homaged in one scene – and would go on to be responsible for all the Lethal Weapon films, it was mainly promoted, and regarded, as a Steven Spielberg film.
Although Spielberg is only credited as executive producer and originator of the film's story, his fingerprints are all over the finished picture and so many have considered it (along with Tobe Hooper's Poltergeist) an honorary entry into that director's distinguished canon.
It was a decent box office hit on release, grossing $125 million on a budget of $19 million. Granted, this was not nearly as much as the other Spielberg-produced blockbusters of the decade – Gremlins made $213 million, Back To The Future a staggering $389 million – but it was intended predominantly as a children's film and promoted and marketed as such.
It had no well-known actors in it – although several of the young cast would go on to become stars, including Josh Brolin and Sean Astin – and was not based on an existing book or television series, nor was it a sequel to anything else. Reviews were kind but hardly laudatory, and under normal circumstances it would have been fondly regarded but something of an also-ran.
Instead, The Goonies has continued to lead an ongoing existence as one of the most beloved films of its decade, if not all time. A 2009 poll suggested that it was the Eighties picture that most fans wanted to see remade (followed by Labyrinth and Top Gun), and in 2017, it enjoyed the honour of being selected by the Library of Congress for the National Film Registry as 'culturally, aesthetically or historically significant.'
It has had numerous pop culture allusions – most recently in Deadpool 2, when the antagonist Cable (played by Goonies star Josh Brolin) is sardonically referred to as 'One-Eyed Willie', the name of the legendary pirate from the picture – and the band the Fratellis named themselves after the film's bumbling villains. In February this year, after years of speculation, a sequel was announced, to be scripted by Potsy Ponciroli and produced by Steven Spielberg once again. One of its stars, Corey Feldman, recently commented: 'All I can say is, get us all together. Everybody is looking good. Sean's looking good. Josh is looking good. We're all looking good still, and we're all alive. Goonies never say die…There's hope.'
But The Goonies has already been remade, really, in the form of the JJ Abrams film Super 8, the Netflix hit Stranger Things, or the recent Star Wars series Skeleton Crew, which sent four tykes across the galaxy in search of adventure.
It is, in other words, an acknowledged and much-loved classic of cinema. So why, then, did a recent rewatch of The Goonies, to mark its 40th anniversary, leave me feeling not so much disappointed as indifferent, and bemused by the adulation that it continues to receive?
There's nothing wrong with the picture as such, bar a mediocre sound design that means that it's often impossible to hear the dialogue of the various children shouting at one another. But it's also merely a serviceable, unchallenging piece of entertainment that seems bland and uninspired when compared to the other Spielberg-produced pictures from the same period. It nods towards the tedium of suburban life and how its youthful denizens look for adventure, but then does little with its own concept.
It is not hard to see why it became a cult picture for audiences that grew up on it at an impressionable age, and hope that their own children would thrill to it, too. But in an era where we have far more sophisticated family viewing – The Wild Robot, Paddington 2 and Wonka, to name but three, come to mind – it may be time to accept that the nostalgic love that many bear for The Goonies is not based on any especial merits that the film has, but for their own childhood.
And this is where a rather wider issue comes to hand. There are many films from the Eighties which have acquired a dubious degree of nostalgic affection over the past few decades despite not being very good. Sometimes, there is an ill-fated attempt to embrace this by remaking them; for instance, the dreadful 1984 Commies-invade-America action film Red Dawn was turned into an equally dreadful 2012 picture, proving that it was a poor idea in the first and second place alike.
On other occasions, you have insanely belated sequels that manage to jettison most of what was charming or interesting about the picture in the first place. Beverly Hills Cop took cinema by storm when it came out in 1984 and made a fortune. By the time that the fourth in the series, Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F, was released last year, the kind of teenagers who had thrilled to the exploits of Eddie Murphy in the first picture would now be in their mid-50s, if not older.
Sometimes, Eighties pictures are simply terrible, and have been misremembered as being better than they are because of the kind of tiresomely ironic nostalgia that sees people turn up at cinemas to shout out dialogue from mediocre movies while dressed up as the characters. Revisiting St Elmo's Fire recently, I realised that a dreadful, self-important and navel-gazing picture has been given undue attention partly because of a cast who (in some cases, at least) went onto better and greater things, but partly also because someone, somewhere decided that the film was worthy of memorialising with a high-profile documentary about its actors. It does not make the original film better, but what it does is to continue its prominence in popular culture.
Actors are as prone to this kind of false memory syndrome as fans, too. When the Tom Cruise racing drama Days of Thunder came out in 1990, it was swiftly (and rightly) dismissed as a failed attempt to remake Top Gun with fast cars. Now, however, Cruise has decided that, rather than a boring and overwrought piece of flash, the picture is an underrated masterpiece that merits its own sequel, three and a half decades later. He is wrong, but like many of his other pictures from this period, there is a yawning gulf between the quality of the original film and the false memory that its admirers have of it. (What next, Far and Away 2?)
There are genuinely great films from the Eighties and early Nineties that heartily deserve their cult status, and stand up extremely well today, from the Indiana Jones films and Back to the Future to Blade Runner and Ferris Bueller's Day Off. All of these are eminently rewatchable and worthy of all the plaudits that they have received, and continue to receive, because of their wit, originality and chutzpah.
Yet even here, there has been an unwelcome tendency to besmirch the legacy – there was absolutely no need for the dire, Spielberg-less Dial of Destiny ever to exist – and persistent rumours about forthcoming remakes, spin-offs and the like just show what a dire state contemporary Hollywood is in when it comes to intellectual property.
If and when The Goonies gets a sequel, no doubt it will send a whole new generation back to the original. They may well be underwhelmed by it. But this will not stop the first tranche of its fans believing – despite the obvious evidence to the contrary – that it is a great picture. For them, that is all that matters. As Thomas Wolfe so famously wrote, 'you can never go home again'. Perhaps rewatching this silly, loud and endearingly goofy film is as close as many of its fans will ever get to going home once more themselves.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Reuters

31 minutes ago

• Reuters

Sean 'Diddy' Combs prosecutors show evidence of abuse and instances of consent

NEW YORK, June 23 (Reuters) - Prosecutors at Sean "Diddy" Combs' sex trafficking trial showed over the past six weeks ample evidence the hip-hop mogul physically abused his former girlfriends and directed them to have sex with paid male escorts, but Combs' defense is likely to highlight instances where the women participated willingly in making its own case to the jury, legal experts said. Prosecutors are expected to rest their case against Combs, who founded Bad Boy Records and is credited with popularizing hip-hop in American culture, on Monday in Manhattan federal court. The defense is expected to call witnesses of its own this week. Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty to two counts of sex trafficking as well as charges of racketeering conspiracy and transportation to engage in prostitution. The sex trafficking counts carry the highest potential prison sentence if convicted - a mandatory minimum of 15 years, and a possible life sentence. To convict Combs of sex trafficking, prosecutors must prove the sex acts were commercial in nature, and that Combs used force, threats, fraud or coercion to compel his girlfriends to take part. The defense argues that both former girlfriends, the rhythm and blues singer Casandra Ventura and a woman known in court by the pseudonym Jane, were willing participants in the sex acts. "There's got to be a linkage between the force, fraud and coercion and the participation in the sex act," said Sarah Krissoff, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan. "There is some murky testimony and evidence in there regarding that, and the defense is certainly going to hammer that." Prosecutors say that for nearly two decades, Combs forced two of his ex-girlfriends into ecstasy-fueled, days-long sexual performances, sometimes known as "Freak Offs" with male prostitutes in hotel rooms while he watched, masturbated and sometimes filmed. His defense lawyers do not deny that the sex acts took place, and acknowledge that Combs was abusive in domestic relationships. But during cross-examination of the government's witnesses, the defense brought jurors' attention to sexually explicit text messages in which the women expressed affection for Combs. Both women testified that they at times took part in the sexual performances to make Combs happy, and that they participated well after brutal beatings by Combs, who was also known during his career as Puff Daddy and P. Diddy. Defense lawyers will likely use that evidence to try to convince even a single juror that Ventura and Jane took part consensually, said Krissoff, now a partner at law firm Cozen O'Connor. To convict Combs on any of the five counts he faces, the 12-member panel must unanimously conclude that prosecutors proved their allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors argue the longevity of Ventura's and Jane's relationships with Combs does not mean they consented to take part in the sex acts. Both women testified that Combs beat them, threatened to cut off financial support, or publicly release explicit videos he had taken of them. Experts who said the testimony from forensic psychologist Dawn Hughes could be key in undermining the defense argument that Ventura and Jane took part in the "Freak Offs" consensually. Testifying as an expert witness on May 21, Hughes said victims of sexual violence can form a "trauma bond" with their perpetrators that can make it difficult for the victims to leave an abusive relationship. "Such compelling testimony from the victims, corroborated by the other evidence in the case of Combs' abuse and control, will be very difficult for the defense to try to overcome," said Stephen Reynolds, a former federal prosecutor and current partner at law firm Day Pitney.

Daily Mail​

39 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

The real killer shark that inspired Jaws: How deaths of four swimmers in two weeks in 1916 sparked hysteria - but like in Steven Spielberg's iconic film the beaches stayed OPEN

A historian has shed new light on the terrifying real-life shark attacks which inspired Jaws in a new book. Terror took hold in the summer of 1916 as five swimmers were attacked in just two weeks along the New Jersey shore on America's east coast. Four bathers were killed and a fifth critically injured in the attacks which sparked nationwide hysteria. Such was the paranoia that a swimmer who got into difficulty drowned as no one would jump in to save him for fear of being devoured. Just like in Steven Spielberg 's classic film Jaws, which came out 50 years ago, rewards were offered to shark hunters to catch the man-eater. Dynamite was laid in an attempt to kill sharks in the water and protective steel netting was laid in sea at some beaches to keep sharks at bay. There were even examples of blundering mayors and officials refusing to close the beaches for fear of damaging their town's reputation. Even after the spate of attacks, 10 local mayors issued a joint statement saying they disagreed with closing beaches as it had provoked 'hurt without cause' to the resort business. In the film version Chief Brody, played by Roy Scheider, referenced the New Jersey shark attacks by urging Mayor Vaughn to shut the beaches, saying: 'It's gonna happen again. It happened before! The Jersey beach! 1916! Five people chewed up on the surf!' Historian Rachel Lee Perez has worked with local historians to re-analyse the 1916 attacks for her book, The Real Jaws - The Attacks That Inspired The Movies. She lists striking parallels between the real-life events of New Jersey in 1916 and Spielberg's Oscar winning film. The 'Jersey Man Eater's' first attack took place on July 1, 1916 at Beach Haven on Long Island, off New Jersey's southern coast. Charles Vansant, 23, was on holiday to the area with his family and went for a quick swim in the Atlantic while his dog played on the beach. Shortly after entering the water, he started shouting. Onlookers thought he was calling his dog but they were actually cries of anguish as a shark had devoured his left thigh. A lifeguard rescued him from the water but he had been stripped of his flesh and bled to death. However, the fatal incident was swept under the carpet by the tourism industry amid fears it would put off wealthy visitors from coming that summer. Holidaymakers were encouraged to keep swimming in the waters and on July 6, Swiss bell captain Charles Bruder, 27, was the second person to be attacked. He was swimming 130 yards from the shore at the resort town of Spring Lake when a shark bit his abdomen and severed his legs, his blood turning the water red. His mutilated body was brought ashore causing onlookers to faint in horror. On July 12, three attacks took place in Matawan Creek near the town of Keyport. An 8ft shark was spotted in the creek by sea captain Thomas Cottrell who raised the alarm. But complacent town rangers dismissed him and at 2pm it pounced while a group of local boys played in the creek. Like a scene out of the horror film, the dorsal fin suddenly appeared and the boys swam for their lives. Lester Stillwell was pulled underwater and local businessman Watson Fisher, who had jumped in to try and save him, was also killed by the shark. The fifth and final victim, Joseph Dunn, 14, was attacked 30 minutes after the fatal attacks on Stillwell and Fisher. The shark bit his left leg, stripping it of flesh, but Dunn was rescued by his brother and friend after a vicious tug-of-war battle. Dunn told the press that he felt his leg going down the shark's throat and added: 'I believe it would have swallowed me.' He was rushed to hospital and recovered from his injuries. By now, the attacks were given blanket coverage in the US press as readers became gripped with morbid fascination. The attacks stopped after taxidermist Michaek Schleisser caught and killed an 8ft long, 325lb great white shark while fishing in Raritan Bay, near to Matawan Creek, on July 14. He mounted the young shark, which had ingested human remains, in the window of a Manhattan shop on Broadway. Spielberg's film was based on the 1974 novel of the same name by American author Peter Benchley. The book also referenced the 1916 attacks, and there are several parallels between the fictional story and what actually happened. Ms Perez said: 'As a historian, I have always been interested in dark and obscure history. 'The 1916 shark attacks, in particular, intrigued me because they represent little-known history that continues to have a large impact on modern-day society 'If Benchley never acknowledged attribution to the 1916 shark attacks, Spielberg never denied it. 'In fact, a line was worked into the movie in which a character begs the mayor to shut down the beaches for fear that history will repeat itself. 'This isn't the only reference that Jaws has to the 1916 attacks. 'In Benchley's book, the shark kills four people, exactly as it was in 1916. 'In Benchley's book, the mayor initially disregards the attacks for fear that negative press and attention may discourage tourists from vacationing along their beaches, exactly as it was in Beach Haven in 1916. 'In Benchley's book, the shark attacks take place in a small, beachfront resort town, exactly as it was along the Jersey coast in 1916. 'And, in Benchley's book, the townspeople decided to initiate a mass shark hunt following the attacks, exactly as it was in 1916. 'It is difficult to accept that Benchley was not, even minimally, inspired by the 1916 shark attacks. 'The number of attacks, the location of the attacks, the nature of the attacks, and the way in which city officials responded to the attacks appear to coincide almost directly with the 1916 New Jersey shark attacks. 'In conversations I had with New Jersey historians while researching this book, I was told of first-hand accounts in which Benchley confessed to friends that the 1916 New Jersey attacks had indeed been key inspiration for his novel.' 'It was the 1916 shark attacks that would establish our modern-day misconstrued perception of sharks as evil, man-eating monsters, and would later inspire the film Jaws, which would perpetuate the same harmful narrative.' Jaws, starring Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss and Robert Shaw, was a huge commercial success and won three Academy Awards.

The Sun

43 minutes ago

• The Sun

WWE legend Jim Ross, 73, releases health update after undergoing colon cancer surgery

JIM ROSS is feeling "blessed" after undergoing a successful operation for his colon cancer. The wrestling commentator last month revealed he had been diagnosed with cancer for a second time. 1 But he is feeling positive after a meeting with his surgeon, who is optimistic after performing an operation on Ross. The former WWE commentator revealed he was "scared to death" after his diagnosis - but is now feeling blessed thanks to a successful surgery. Ross, 73, said on the Grilling J.R. Podcast: 'I had a meeting with my surgeon earlier this week. 'He's very happy, which makes me very happy. So, I'm sore from the surgery. My abdomen is real sore, but I've endured worse, and so I'm feeling pretty good actually. 'Progress is good. I believe they got all the cancer, which is great. So, I'm very blessed in that regard. I was scared to death for a while. "I have to be honest with you. It's that mysterious thing that you don't know how — did they get everything they needed to get? Are we okay? "But I have a real good surgeon. He's taken care of me… I'm very blessed in that regard.' Ross already has his sights set on returning to the commentary booth for AEW Wrestling. He continued: "I hope to make it to Texas. My plan is to be there. So, we'll have to kind of wait and see. "I'd love to show up and do a match or two. That'd be cool. So, we'll see. "I don't wanna get too ambitious but, my plan is to be there and to participate. I wanna play. I want to get back in the game somehow, some way and contribute to the success of AEW."