Bastian Balthazar Bux Reviews

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

A creative, colorful, and very fun letdown.

[6/10 · 17 July 2005]

I was looking forward to this movie most of anybody. I'd followed it from pre-production. All of my favorite critics loved it, and I was told by matineed friends that I would love it. And by God I wanted to love it.

I struggled. Every time something happened that struck me the wrong way, I pretended I didn't really notice. But unfortunately, those things added up quickly.

I couldn't shake the feeling that I couldn't make a stand on whether or not I thought Charlie was a good movie. I feel like I can't say it's a bad movie, because there are too many wonderful pieces and moments to save it from that judgment. But I can't say it's a good movie either, because it fails on so many levels.

Take the inclusion of Willy Wonka's father, for instance. A character not in the book, Burton's decision to make Wonka a man troubled by his estranged paternal relationship only added a level of cheesiness that seriously hindered the film's capacity to intrigue us. Wonka is a character of mystery, he is the great recluse of our time--a character who revels in childish inanity but is also gifted with extraordinary genius (he has made the impossible possible). To explain his character so simply and Hallmarky (he just needed Daddy to love him!) completely betrays what he is supposed to represent. Wonka doesn't have these Freudian issues--he is the embodiment of creative glee.

Secondly, take the EXclusion of the fizzy-lifting drink theft. Besides reducing the chocolate factory to essentially four explored rooms (one for each naughty child), it robs the humanity from Charlie and his grandfather. They are fallible! The point is that they are well-intentioned. Their mistake serves to show us both that there is no perfection and that intentions make the man.

As I just said, the chocolate factory itself was seriously dampened. It seems that here Burton and Co. spent endless time designing the four disaster rooms, and merely created weak filler for the rest.

And last but certainly not least is the CGI. Not just cartoonish, the CGI in this film was completely distracting. Maybe it's just me, but I can't stand the look of the stuff. In Star Wars it bothers me too, but I'm willing to accept it because the entire world is computer-generated. However, to have a room filled with fantastic tangible gadgets and then insert a PlayStation 2 quality blueberry girl is distracting and lazy. Burton used to be a wizard with visual effects. Take the makeup in Edward Scissorhands, the monsters in Beetlejuice, the villains and gadgets in Batman, even the gore effects in his last great movie, Sleepy Hollow. Willy Wonka's factory should appear cartoonish and bizarre, yes, but not impossible. By using CGI instead of creative effects, we are being told that it is in fact IMPOSSIBLE for these things to exist in real life. They have to be fabricated, drawn in.

Of course, the film has its great moments. The adaptation of the book is faithful, right down to the Oompa Loompa lyrics. Charlie's house is slanted, and I was happy to see the story of the Sultan come to the screen. Depp's Wonka is seriously flawed (I just think it's not an appropriate incarnation of Dahl's character), but he does pull off the occasional moment of maniacal genius. The children are much more realistic in this day and age, children I recognized from my life. And Burton's exaggerated color schemes are brilliant, his characters properly caricatured, his comedic timing perfected. Freddie Highmore is an amazing little boy actor.

I really wanted to LOVE this movie. And I will see it again. But right now I must maintain it was neither good nor bad, it just wasn't Dahl. It opted to replace his black satirical warmth with an obvious warmth. It too often went for the obvious joke when the opportunity arose. And between its magnificent pieces it did something no Dahl adaptation should ever do--it got boring.

Just to clarify, I didn't hate it. I just didn't like it very much. I'm sure a lot of people are going to love this movie, but I for one couldn't lie to myself. I'd love to pretend that it was dark, that it was diabolically ingenious, that it was smart, that it was amazing. And you know what? If little kids go see this and are completely awed then Tim Burton has done his job. It just wasn't for me. And I couldn't convince myself it was, no matter how much I wanted to.

B- A creative, colorful, and very fun letdown.

Ray (I) (2004)

a dull, sloppy, and manipulative film

[4/10 · 9 July 2005]

First of all, I think that anyone who has seen this film can agree that Jamie Foxx's performance as the late great Ray Charles is stunning. Foxx has captured the musician's nuances and flaws to the Nth degree, and has crafted here a truly memorable and passionate performance.

If only the movie itself were good enough to hold him.

Taylor Hackford's Ray instead is a shoddy thrown together mess. Transitions between scenes are inconsistent (and not even to the level of experimental, they simply don't work), his scenes are far too short, and he takes what should have been meditative character study and turns it into hyped-up melodrama. The worst part may be, however, that the film itself doesn't even vindicate its subject.

Throughout the movie we are shown a man who makes tons of wrong decisions. (MINOR SPOILERS FOLLOW) He cheats on his wife, he ditches the small-time studio that got him famous, he betrays and swindles his friends, and he descends into a life of depravity with drugs. At the end of the movie, after a climax of his detoxification, Charles has still been cruel to his friends and colleagues, he makes no effort to apologize, and his wife is still racked with pain from his years of infidelity and drug abuse. But rather than let the movie end painfully and introspectively on these character's plights, or even take more time and show a retribution in denouement to give the film justification to end on an uplifting note, the film simply ends with this message: Ray Charles sold more than _____ million records in his career, he has fans all over the world. (END MINOR SPOILERS) Could there be a more shallow way to sum up a tortured artist's life? After 2 hours of meditation on exactly what was WRONG with Ray Charles, Hackford expects us to cheer him on as an old man simply because he, yes, made a lot of money. He was a commercial success.

The few parts of the film that attempt to cover up this sham are simply emotional manipulative. Ray's flashbacks to his mother are a messy and propagandist way, at best, of portraying Charles' inner dilemma.

'Ray' is a film that SHOULD'VE been about a man who pioneered a revolution in modern music. If it was made to be celebratory, it should have celebrated a melodic genius' accomplishments. And to some extent, 'Ray' did this. But Hackford's choice to include Charles' personal strife in the movie too was directly averse to any sort of celebration. Yes, we needed to see these things in order to understand the man behind the music. Yes, we needed to understand his flaws to understand his life. But the movie stumbled over these aspirations.

'Ray' is a movie that aims to be uplifting, and even does a good job of giving the semblance that it is uplifting. But it is not uplifting from an objective point-of-view, and worst of all, it is not human. To portray a human is to portray a flawed and complex creature. 'Ray' portrays this up to the point where the ending comes. And then it decides no, we need to make our audience feel happy. And so it betrays the entire spirit of not only Ray Charles' life, but his often mournful, spiritual, and HUMAN music. Just to let us know that in the end, he was a commercial success.

So that we enjoy watching it, and make IT a commercial success.

The Elephant Man (1980)

a perfect film

[6 November 2004]

If one was to turn on David Lynch's The Elephant Man midway through, without knowing what it was, one might be startled at the appearance of the main character. One might even be tempted to make fun of the character. But if one was to watch the film from the beginning, one's sympathy with John Merrick (John Hurt), 'The Elephant Man,' would be strong enough to deny that the former situation was ever a possibility. Lynch does not allow his audience to glimpse Merrick sans mask until his appearance has been built up substantially. When we the audience are at our zenith of anticipation, we see him-no dramatic music, no slow motion; a simple cut and he's there. There he is. And it's no big deal.

This is the beauty of Lynch's direction. We are led through our morbid curiosity at the same rate the characters in the film are. We develop alongside them. More specifically, we develop alongside Frederick Treeves, played with an astounding sublimity of emotion by Anthony Hopkins. Next to Treeves we pity Merrick, respect him, pity him again, and then ask ourselves with him, 'is he just a spectacle to me? Am I a bad person?'

Lynch certainly doesn't let us bypass this question easily. Are we bad people for being intrigued or are we good people for pitying? Certainly there is a mix of intrigue and pity with every character who first meets John, and we are not excluded. However, as with almost every character who truly comes to know John and confer with him, we learn to respect him as a human being and not as a spectacle. Nonetheless, this issue never finds close in the film, nor do I feel it ever can be closed in actual life. Hopkin's Treeves is never fully sated in how he feels about this dilemma, and so, neither can we be.

Technically, The Elephant Man is a beautifully shot film. In crisp black and white, the film recalls the cinematic technique of American cinema circa the 1930's. The scenes dissolve into one another; there is no brisk editing. The lighting is kept low-key during dark scenes, balanced during daytime scenes-this is standard film-making of the era. The one digression from this form are the distinctly Lynchian surrealities-pseudo-dream-sequences of commendably original imagery that break up the film and serve as distinct mood-setters for the audience. These are, for the most part, fairly intimidating sidenotes. We as an audience are caught off-guard because in these tangents we are not identifying with Treeves, we are put instead into Merrick's shoes. It is unsettling.

But Lynch has never been a director to flinch at unsettling prospects. We must watch Merrick beaten, abused, harassed, humiliated, and tormented. We may feel a surge of happiness when he finally stands up for himself, but by that point we still have to cope with what we've already, what he's already, experienced. I suppose that is the greatest and most devastating aspect of the film-empathy. Every moment is heartbreaking. Yet no matter how hard it gets, and how much better it then turns, there is always the threat of another jab. And those jabs only get more and more painful.

The Elephant Man is a perfect film. It is sorrowful but it apologizes not at all for it. It is a film about where our empathy stems from, a film that asks you to feel sorry but rebukes you for your blind pity. It asks you to respect Merrick, not cry for him. But you can't help crying. The Elephant Man is a film that treks you through despair and asks for your hope in the end. It asks you to hate humanity but to love the humane. It asks you to look at a man who appears sad and know that inside, he's okay.

The Stepford Wives (1975)

great suspense choked by its weak idealism

[4 May 2004]

The Stepford Wives is an undeniably well-made film, straight outta the miraculous-for-film '70s. In the midst of the feminism movement the film set the standard for what was to be a changing social moray. However, one wonders how much this film with a clear agenda is so dated.

The film seems to take no consideration into a balance of feministic principles. Rather than making positive strides in the way of feminism the film belittles its ideals: the main characters are free women, yes, but all they seem to do is complain and drink scotch. In their "awareness" meetings, all they seem to do is moan about how their husbands spend too much time on work and not them. To me, that's not a very feminist ideal. Furthermore, the film degrades its own message by simplifying it to an "all men are bad, all women are victims" dichotomy.

When the climactic scene of a so-called "feminist" film is a big-strong man chasing a helpless woman, I think something needs to be changed.

See The Stepford Wives for it's wonderful suspense buildup and intriguing premise, because it certainly is a good movie. But try not to think too much about the feminist aspect, because it will only disappoint and frustrate you.

Baise-moi (2000)

Absolutely hilarious film.

[6 July 2003]

Okay, let me be the first to say that I'm all for feminism--women need to be on an equal status as men. Let me also be the first to say that Baise Moi is one of the most offending films to feminism in a long time.

Two women are victimized by some sleazy men, and therefore decide to unleash their inner fury on the entire male population, not to mention a few unsuspecting women. And these two women are clearly very psychotic...society has pushed them to their bitter ends, they will strike back at the norms! Blah blah blah blah...

One man is killed because he wishes to wear a condom before intercourse...one man is killed because he accidentally supposes the man is interested in the gun, not the woman...one man is killed because he's wearing a business suit...all in brutal, painfully-corny slow motion capture which does nothing more than say, "Hey look, everyone, doesn't this blood look real? Can't this actor spit a whole lotta blood out of his mouth? Huh? Huh? Cool, right, guys?"

The film, which seems to be trying to portray some message of female sexual violence, really just succeeds in being one of the most purile, poorly-acted, immature movie creations of late. The witty dialouge that does exist is wasted on these actors, and, in the end, they do nothing more than come off as smirking porn-rejects...um...

It's sad that groups of college intellectuals are going to try to decipher this piece of junk, simply because it's an indie film...it's just a bad snuff-film, nothing more.

And what purpose does a close-up scene involving a girl menstruating in front of the camera prove exactly? That there's still some film frontier waiting to be crossed? Well, you shocked us all girls, nice job, terrible film.

Breaking new envelopes, setting the course of feminism back, and killing brain cells, ultimately, you'll be laughing more than anything. I mean, how is a man kicked to death for being a "condom dickhead" by two coked-up ex-prostitutes NOT ridiculous?

28 Days Later (2002)

A horror masterpiece, simply put.

[27 June 2003]

Congratulations to Danny Boyle on creating a zombie movie that is touching, thought-provoking, funny, aesthetic, and yes, very scary.

It is ironic, however, that the major conflict in "28 Days Later...", a so-called "zombie movie", is not between humans and zombies, but rather between humans and humans.

And this is what makes the film so damn good--it embraces the primal paradox of humanity--we are the only species that both requires company of others to healthily survive AND actively kills each other so often. The film, if anything, is a meditation on that paradox. Characters need each other to perservere, yet destroy each other nonetheless. Danny Boyle, as he has with his previous works (Trainspotting, The Beach) is asking us, "How low can morality sink when survival is on the line?" He demonstrates this using the zombie-infection as a backdrop story, people killing people to keep themselves alive. Through the film characters grow and develop, in sometimes very violent means, and this development climaxes in a bloody apex that reminisces Straw Dogs.

But lets not forget, amidst all the violent philosophy, this IS a zombie movie, and it succeeds quite admirably in being a scary one at that, without ever seeming over-the-top or tongue-in-cheek. The zombies are pretty scary in themselves, but in these post-SARS times, the idea of such a readily-transmittable disease is much more unnerving ("Then there were reports of it in France and New York").

Kudos to those actors involved in the production as well--these people deserve to be seen in more films.

Overall, "28 Days Later..." is a chilling and intelligent horror movie, but moreso, it is a Biblical parable, it is an intense study of the evils and the glories of humanity when it is tested, it is the most impressive work of horror that this world NEEDS to see in these times. Yes its about zombies, but no, its about so much more.

True Romance (1993)

Truly Quite Romantic

[9 January 2003]

True Romance is one of those movies that could be easily mistaken for being just another pointless violent action movie. What separates it is the love story at its core.

Penned by master-of-dialog Quentin Tarantino, True Romance is witty, touching, and quite badass. The movie's plot is character-based, so the situations change around our main characters, played to key by Slater and Arquette.

Speaking of actors, this movie has one of the best-assembled ensemble casts I've ever seen, and they all play their characters to the bone. Christopher Walken is the mobster "antichrist", Oldman is the violent psychopath, Pitt's a stoner, Hopper's a retired cop with just a bit of fire left in his blood. Together, they're both entertaining to watch, and have great chemistry (the Walken/Hopper scene is classic).

Overall very funny, violent, and Tarantino, True Romance also succeeds in being a genuinely good love story, that, despite all that blood, is really quite touching.

Gangs of New York (2002)

I Left the Theatre

[27 December 2002]

To begin, let me say I'm a tremendous fan of Mr. Scorcese's work, and personally consider him one of the best directors of all directors. However, when reviewing Gangs, one must forget he directed it, and look at it not as HIS WORK, but as a movie of its own. We can't be yes-men just because he's a great auteur.

Yes, you read my title correctly. I and two fellow film-buff friends left this movie a little after halfway through. Looking at our watches, we decided we couldn't stand another hour and twenty minutes of this film.

The film is overly graphic when it doesn't need to be, and seems to abandon its strong goals to tell a father-son story to be hip and edgy. Scorcese has always been a little edgy, and I think producer Weinstein may have had some say in the MTV-esqe cutting of this, a period drama(?). Toward the beginning, there's a crucial battle scene between the two warring "tribes" of an unruly section of New York. In this fight, the lens is splattered with blood, the carpeted snow can be seen curling up, and at times, people are cut without bleeding. Despite these mistakes, the battle is simply needlessly graphic, and almost campy. During one moment in which a long-nailed shrewish woman dives on a man, only to surface holding a bloody ear, my friend (unaware of Scorcese) said, "[This director's] a Peter Jackson wannabe," recalling Jackson's earlier work, Dead Alive (1992), the "goriest horror flick ever made". And while I admonished him for his ignorance, he had a point. The movie almost was a callback to Australian camp horror flicks.

And what about the pointless, graphic nudity? Being a 17-year-old male, I am definitely not adverse to naked women, but there's a time and a place in films. I turned to my friends during a particularly violent part and said sarcastically, "What this movie needs is some gratuitous nudity." Voila! Two minutes later, we were given a scene in a brothel, complete with dozens of topless women. During the scene, no dialog really suggested that this scene needed to take place in said location, but it did. Eh, it probably has a point I'm missing, right?

Overall, give me your criticisms and your flak. After all, I only saw about half of the movie. What do I know? Maybe this ultraviolent, bland, techno-music sporting period piece is worthy of some Oscar nods. But honestly, mixing together Eyes Wide Shut, A Clockwork Orange, and Braveheart with a revenge story seems kind of horrid.

FINAL RATING: 5 / 10

P.S. Scorcese references his student film "A Close Shave" with the opening shot of a man shaving. Thought this might interest some.

The French Connection (1971)

Slow, but worth it.

[19 September 2002]

The French Connection is number seventy on the AFI's list of top 100 movies, right before Forrest Gump. But why is it known as such a great film? Why did it win Best Picture at the 1971 Academy Awards? Why was it so important?

The French Connection was made in 1971, starring a then 41-year-old Gene Hackman in the lead, and directed by William Friedkin, who started his directing career with `Alfred Hitchcock Presents' in 1955. The film follows an aging but truculent `bad-boy' police officer Popeye Doyle and his slightly kinder partner (Roy Schneider) in their journey to bust a drug-smuggling ring of French origin. The movie itself is basically one big chase scene, following Popeye on his cat and mouse game of catch the crook.

The film has been classified as both an action and drama movie. Both are right, in their own way. The film at its core is a tense, slow-moving thriller, dramatic in its musical score and over-acted brutality. Scenes are left to their own devices, moving forth indeterminately, in a very drama-characteristic fashion. However, there's plenty of chasing and violence to satisfy an `action' classification. This action, however, is played so that it's less about the adrenaline rush (so common in today's big-budget action flicks), and more about that tense underlying heartbeat. The style of the film then, is a very paced and dingy chase scene. By today's post-Matrix standards, the film is slow. But in its own way, it's subterrainiously charged.

The camera is mastered by cinematographer Owen Roizman, whose previous film, Stop, is essentially unheard of, and who went on to make The Exorcist with Friedkin two years later. Shots are varied. There are handheld shots of the streets, coupled with static medium wide, along with crane shots, along with close-ups and wide shots. And even though the shots are extremely eclectic, one common theme shines through-realism. Every shot composed is just a little bit shaky, a little bit unclean. There's no truly innovative lighting used, simply that yellow coarse light that everything is eternally bathed in. It succeeds in making the movie that much more tangible to the eye. The mood created within is one of belief. You can believe the movie, because it's shot in such a rugged manner. The car scenes, filmed at night, use the same technique; red and white car lights with a subtlety lit car. It is clear that the film Taxi Driver, made 5 years later, contained car shots obviously influenced by the ones in The French Connection. Furthermore, actors' faces are lit without any superfluous shine or luster-they are simply real human faces, and are not hyped up. This influenced cinema in the way that it brings the mood and story above the actors' egos.

The editing, done by Gerald Greenberg, is, in the same manner, very real. Characteristic of films made pre-computer based editing, shots are held for longer periods of time, and not as many cuts are used. The editing is almost unnoticeable, because it seems to pass by so soft, especially during dialog. However, conversely, it cuts much more often (but never frantically) during action sequences, like the bar roust or the car chase under the train tracks. But still, drama is tensed out by holding shots long during action sequences, and it works. But this never comes to fault. The few times when quick cuts are needed, they are used, such as the train crash. In general though, the editing satisfies the mood of the film.

It is said that silence is golden, and in The French Connection, it seems to be just as valuable. While the tense, stringy score (by Don Ellis) is important to the film in some aspects, its not used very often, and instead, director Friedkin employs simple background noise. For instance, most of the scenes in the movie simply work with dialog and city noise. This all goes back to the pre-established mood: realism. The music is used only when it wont get in the way of the framework of the film. So therefore, background noise suffices wonderfully for most action and dialog scenes. Some of the music is setting-based as well, and so, comes from the movie's plot itself, and doesn't break the reality theme. Modern audiences might be surprised by the lack of `action-music', but car chases and fight scenes sans pumping bass are surprisingly welcome, and help the film, as well as add an aire of classiness.

Director William Friedkin is a director who knows what he wants out of a film. For The Exorcist, it is told he violently slapped an actor who wouldn't cry, and, with The French Connection, he establishes his premise, and lets the story tell itself. It is a different style of filmmaking. The French Connection is important to modern cinema not only because it taught modern directors the art of silence and visual suspense, but because it artfully embodies its theme. Its story, rough characters, locales, color, and pace all bleed a very dark, yet very familiar reality; one that has shaped nearly every cop movie since its making. While the film is at times hard to follow, simply because the story is left to its own devices so much (there are 15 minute periods of no dialog), but in the end, it succeeds admirably. While not the best film ever made,

The French Connection is a classic, and worthy of the honors it has received.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

Bond?

[21 July 2002]

I recently viewed OHMSS last night for the first time, and after viewing most of the other 007 movies within a week, I feel like I can adequately judge this movie.

LETS GET THIS OUT OF THE WAY-- 8/10

Okay, now we can begin.

THE GOOD POINTS: A great musical score. Lazenby plays Bond in a style that rivals Connery. Strong emotional content not seen in any other Bond film. Great chase scenes.

THE BAD POINTS: The action is sped up at times, and this spoils the feel. The dubbing is poor at times, and lines frequently cut each other or the music off. A little longish at times.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Lazenby succeeds at playing James Bond admirably, but he is by no means THE James Bond. The faults of the middle part of the movie are offset by the spectacular ending that is heartbreaking. See this Bond. It's one of the better ones, but not the best.

Halloween: Resurrection (2002)

Down with Fanboys!

[1/10 · 14 July 2002]

I cannot believe that over 60 percent of the people who voted on this film gave it 10 out of 10. Come on. I mean, did you actually watch the movie? It was a flaming piece of crap. I'm a Halloween fan as well, and this non-Carpenter commercial crap made me want to tear my arms off. It's just chalk full of *clever* one-liners and *amusing* deaths. I mean, it's got a rapper as a main character! MINOR SPOILER ALERT-- I almost left the theatre when Laurie Strode, main character for the last 7 movies!-- Jaime Lee Curtis!-- died in the first 15 minutes. What the hell?! END SPOILERS I had a friend with me who WAS terrified of Michael Myers. About halfway through he turned to me and said, "This is crap. He doesn't scare me anymore." So for the love of God, why do you cursed fanboys rate this so high just because you're afraid to acknowledge how bad it is? This movie BETTER NOT get on the top 250 list or I'm hunting you all down personally, Jay and Bob style.

Snack and Drink (2000)

Touching and well-done

[8/10 · 26 June 2002]

Snack and Drink is the a mini-documentary about a 13-year-old 6 foot tall autistic boy, and the processes he goes through when going to a local 7/11 to get some Nerds and a Double Gulp. Those who have scene the film Waking Life (2001) will immediately recognize the idiosyncratic animation-over-live-action technique employed in both films. The images are often humorous and often surreal, but, in the end, we are handed a neat little package that shows just one instance from a person's life we may not normally see. This experiment in expansion is further enhanced by the colorful and unconventional visuals. The boy is the main speaker, and his unrehearsed dialog can be funny and provoking. This short film is well worth the time of anyone who stumbles across it. And who can forget the darkly lingering last words, "Is it true you once tried to kill your brother?" before the ABC-123-like credits swarm the screen.

Snack and Drink (1999) can be found on the Waking Life (2001) DVD and on the resfest 2000 DVD.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

Worthless.

[1/10 · 9 May 2002]

In 1966 a great half hour of television was aired near Christmastime. It was the original How the Grinch Stole Christmas, and it was a warm and flaming work of art, in prose, poetry, and form. Two years ago it was remade into the most contrived film in a long time. One must give Howard's film the credit that it was well imagined--the landscapes were grand, the makeup was well-done (thank you Rick Baker), and Carrey was as eccentric as ever. But... The film failed horribly as a story. The cinematography was childish (not that one should expect grandiose cinematography in a family film). The plot was butchered, with the origin of the Grinch, a far-too-long delving into how the Grinch came about (a key party, no less), and a bad shave. This simply wasted time. The movie was too much like Space Jam. It took good characters and made them nothing more than billboards. Suess' storybook fantasy was bastardized, and Universal made millions. This is what is wrong with Hollywood. Go rent the original, you'll be doing the kids a favor.

The NeverEnding Story II: The Next Chapter (1990)

Essentially worthless.

[22 January 2002]

There are so many things wrong with this movie its hard to pinpoint. I myself am one of the biggest Neverending Story fans around, both of the book and the 1984 film. But while that film didn't stray from the book much, this movie simply takes characters and puts them in entirely new situations.

The aesthetic complaints I have about this movie are further. Bastian and Atreyu look completely different (I know the original actors had aged), Pyorncrachzark (Rock Biter) had a child, and shots from the original film were used for horse-riding sequences. The childlike empress is older as well. She can't age! This truly is a children's film, whereas the original was a truly beautiful movie. Shortly, avoid this movie and see the original again. Wambos can jump in the Nothing.