Radio Flyer (1992) Reviews

• Seriously interesting slice of bittersweet magic realism

  fertilecelluloid2006-02-02

  This bittersweet slice of magic realism had a checkered production history (director/writer replaced) and tanked at the box office, but it's a helluva film. Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazzello are pre-teen brothers whose flaky mom (Lorraine Bracco) shacks up with a mean-spirited alcoholic (Adam Baldwin). During his drinking bouts, Baldwin physically abuses Mazzello and manipulates him into remaining silent about his situation. But when Wood cottons on to what's happening, the boys put their heads together and hatch a fantastique solution to Mazzello's devastating dilemma. I love films that mix fantasy and dark reality. They are rarely successful financially ("Lawn Dogs" is a similar example), but they are usually original and intriguing. The drunk Baldwin is shot from a low, child's perspective and his head is deliberately lopped off below the top of frame. This device allows us to judge him purely by his actions and as a totally physicalized beast. Both Wood and Mazzello are excellent, and they pull us effortlessly into their dark, frightening world. The "radio flyer" of the title is a small red wagon kids transport their belongings in. Here it transports a dream. Seriously interesting stuff.

• A powerful, touching, misunderstood film

  bymarkclark.com2002-12-10

  This film was directed by Richard Donner, of SUPERMAN and LETHAL WEAPON fame, but it couldn't be more different than those films. It's a quiet, poetic film about two young boys (Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazzallo), one of whom is being brutally abused by their stepfather (whose face is never seen). The film was a commercial flop, and it received terrible reviews on its initial release, but I think that was because most critics (and audiences) didn't understand the movie. It features an unreliable narrator (played by Tom Hanks) and several Fellini-like breaks from reality. Most critics harped on the film's finale as a weak point, but I think it actually works beautifully, if you approach it with the proper understanding. SPOILER WARNING!!! I don't think you can take the finale (wherein the younger brother flies away in his rickety homemade airplane) at face value. This seems to be another break from reality (like the sequences with the buffalo). Either this is a fantasy way for the Tom Hanks character to deal with his brother's death or, more likely, there really weren't two brothers at all. The older brother invented the younger brother, who is contstantly abused, as a coping mechanism for dealing with the fact that he HIMSELF was being abused by "The King." The older brother survives and the younger brother "dies" when the abuse finally stops. Or something. In any case, the ending cannot be taken literally. And it's not really that important that we fully understand exactly what happened. What matters is that we understand the emotional and developmental effect these events had on the Hanks character. END OF SPOILERS... Back in the day, I was one of the very few critics who gave this film a positive review, and I'm glad I did. I found it emotionally gripping and, at points, almost too realistic to watch comfortably. It captures the joy of boyhood and -- although I wouldn't know from personal experience, thank God -- seems to capture the terror of abuse just as accurately. A very powerful, rewarding film. Highly recommended.

• great acting by two young actors in heavy film with cryptic ending

  abbotand2007-12-22

  Even people who dislike the film, usually because they find the ending confused, should appreciate the strong acting of Elijah Wood & Joseph Mazello who played the two young leads in this movie. Spoiler WARNING: At a literal level, the ending makes no sense. People who think the ending makes some sense at other levels are divided between those who 1) think the younger brother was killed by the step-father either the one time Mike (the older boy) was away dealing with the neighborhood gang, or flew off the wishing spot in his wagon to escape the situation through death & those 2) who think the younger brother is imaginary & his flying off in the wagon transformed into a flying machine signals his overcoming the abusive situation. I favor 2). It makes a lot of sense in terms of the way many children deal with abusive situations. It is not uncommon for an abused child to split his or her psyche & project the abused self into something else; a stuffed animal, even an imaginary friend. This way, it makes a lot more sense that it is always the younger boy who is abused & never Mike. In reality, it is unlikely for one of two brothers to get all the abuse, although that does happen. Also, it is Bobby, the younger brother who is also the encouraging one, the one who insists that they can overcome the situation. Also, the death of a real-life sibling through abuse would have been too shattering for an adult with this in his history to transform into as upbeat a fantasy ending as this.

• Imagination is the Key

  danldhatu2001-05-25

  WARNING-SPOILERS! Having looked over the other user comments, I find myself puzzled as to why nobody seems to have come up with a most obvious interpretation of this movie's ending. There are, after all, some clues that so much of this story is only in Mike's imagination. And yet people go on about how the ending is "unrealistic." Well, DUH-UH! (Major Spoiler and my own take on it.) Bobby DOESN'T REALLY EXIST! He never did! He is Mike's IMAGINARY PLAYMATE! It so happens that Mike must let his imaginary playmate go right at the same time that the King is arrested, and so the two events come together in Mike's mind. Well, that's my two cent's worth.

• classic

  zootsuit982005-03-26

  In reply to "State of Confusion" The dogs injuries do seem to disappear rather abruptly, but that may have only been an error in continuity. But, as for the kids trying to build a plane out of junk, it's just a simple matter of imagination. These are two very young kids who have extremely active imaginations and they must rely on those imaginations to keep themselves from being exposed to the reality of the level of abuse that goes on in their home from their stepfather. As for the stepfather, it's very interesting that the director chose to no show his face. That makes him seem more monstrous. If you show his face, then that character becomes a person and not just this "monster" who is terrorizing the childhood of these two innocent children. By showing only the concequences of his abuse and not focusing scenes on the abuse itself, the children then become the main focus of the movie. This film has no loose ends, but runs just as a father's tale to his children would. It has embelleshments. This is a fine American classic.