The Great Outdoors

• Directed by Howard Deutch
• June 17, 1988

A man and his family going camping find their trip interrupted by his obnoxious brother-in-law.

I’m old enough to remember when The Great Outdoors came out. It’s always been one of those films that lingered in my mind mostly because there were few names bigger in cinematic comedy than Dan Aykroyd and John Candy. That pairing alone promised something special.

This movie dives right into the humor. In short order, Chester ‘Chet’ Ripley (John Candy) and his family arrive at their wooded destination followed immediately (I do mean ‘immediately’) by Roman Craig (Dan Aykroyd) and his family. I never knew Annette Bening was in this as Roman’s wife Connie! Film debut for her BTW.

Bening would’ve been an ill fit if her character had more to do but she’s so in the background you can forget that Annette Bening is in the movie. The same goes for Chet’s wife Connie played by Stephanie Faracy. Neither should have been featured players but they needed enough to do that you knew they existed. 

It’s a film about opposite personalities clashing with most of the jokes derived from there. Roman is the brother-in-law of Chet who decides to attach himself to Chet’s family vacation which is very blue-collar. Chet and his wife Connie are into it, but the kids probably would be okay doing anything else.

I am totally confused on who is related to who. Chet and Roman have no biological connection but no idea beyond that without the help of extraneous material. The script by John Hughes does a really bad job of doing that. Same with nationality. Are they all Canadians living in the US or a mix or what? Chet lives in Chicago for certain. Some might call that minor but if the characters bring it up enough it stops being minor. This could become quite the rabbit hole to go down.

Chet is nice and tolerant to a fault. Roman is not a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. Roman just has no idea how much of a jerk he can be. And that’s where the meat of the story comes in. Chet learns to be a little more tolerant of his brother-in-law. Roman becomes much more aware of his faults and learns how to be honest. He does have a dishonesty streak but not one that makes him a bad guy. Just a wrong guy.

Teen coming of age stories were common in the 80s. The ones that are still memorable are few and far between. The Great Outdoors writer John Hughes inserted a subplot with Roman’s oldest child Buck (Chris Young) trying to romance a local girl named Cammie (Lucy Deakins) but it is a go-nowhere story. Either Hughes didn’t have enough script to make a movie or somebody decided it was necessary to draw in the teen crowd as well. Never did it connect with anything else in the movie. Not even with Chet’s attempts to bond with Buck. All that would have been needed was Chet offering some fatherly advice.

I’m not against any kind of joke, but it better be a good one and by that I mean make me laugh. Or maybe it’s because I now know John Candy was sensitive about his weight and conversely tried to eat his feelings as they say. I bring this up because this movie’s most famous joke is one that all that not only uses Candy’s weight but takes a swipe at the great American vacation tradition of a tourist trap restaurant with a food item specifically designed not to be consumable by most of humanity.

The Old ‘96er is a 96-ounce steak that if ate in a single sitting earns a free meal. What should or could be quite funny feels like it’s a lot of buildup and minimal pay off. I’m not sure what they could’ve done that was unique but there’s plenty of tried-and-true ways to go that would’ve generated a funny gross out moment or just a simple laugh and none of that was used here.

Even so The Great Outdoors generates a few audible laughs but mostly smiles and mild chuckles. Not every comedy needs to be a belly buster but they need to actually be humorous. Pratfalls and general physical humor are much what is used.

I certainly appreciate sillier comedies than this. The Great Outdoors gets a little cartoonish when it intersects with some raccoons, but it doesn’t go straight into cartoonish or absurdity like it probably could with Aykroyd and Candy at the height of their fame and skill. If anybody at the time this movie came out could’ve sold something that tossed reality aside it was those two.

Because of keeping things grounded, it’s not too special other than the presence of Candy and Aykroyd who elevate what is otherwise pretty basic material. Candy is a relatable everyman while Akroyd is ideal as a character you should find annoying but instead kinda like.

The Great Outdoors is a good comedy. Not the greatest of them but what makes it special is the featuring of two legends in a single film. If it were anybody else it would be a skip.