Will_Scarlet Reviews

A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)

Too much Carrey.

[7/10 · 18 February 2005]

"This film's perfection is only added to by presence of the great Jim Carrey. His screen time gives a movie, made from a series of perfect books, a perfect movie." I am sorry to say that this is NOT the sort of review you are going to be reading. The following review, dear reader, is somewhat critical of this movie, and of its leading actor, as well as the book series on which this film is based. So if, by any chance, you are the sort of person who enjoys reviews in which every aspect of this film, particularly the books it is based on and Jim Carrey, I am sure there are plenty of other reviews on this page that say just that. The film ulll-timately suffers the same problem numerous films about children suffer: the attention is simply in the wrong place. At least the Harry Potter films focused solely on the youngsters. Here, however, the young actors are, alas, only second. The majority of screen-time seems to be given to Jim Carrey, who, as in many of his films, hogs the spotlight, a phrase which here means "tries again and again to be the center of attention." By the time the end-credits roll on, I could not shake the feeling that these three endearing children have not quite invented, read, or bitten to their full potential, and a great many possibilities are lost in that way, which is extremely unfair for such talented actors as these three. It is extremely strange, now that I think about it, that Jim Carrey should be considered for this role. The Count Olaf of the books was comic, to be sure, but certainly not in the way Jim Carrey portrays him. The humor came solely from the character's wickedness. I don't know if you've ever noticed this, but villains in films or books can be very funny without even throwing a joke. For instance in The Wizard of Oz, the Wicked Witch of the West is a perfectly horrible woman, who still, to this day, causes audiences to burst into sadistic laughter. And like her, Count Olaf of the books is simply fun to hate. In the case of Jim Carrey's Olaf, however, it is entirely comic. Though I will admit he acts as well as usual, and any audience will have more than a few laughs over his jokes, he exudes no menace, no sense of terror or real wickedness, even when he slaps a young boy's face for no good reason. Even he, at times, seems unsure if he is playing a straight villain, or a humorous take on a villain. This is even worse for a young audience than many people would say a straight villain is. The story of the abused child is still a popular one among children. To this day, when I read such a book, like "James and the Giant Peach," my heart goes out to the child when contrasted with the despicable adult, just as when I was young. But it was hard to feel for these children when they are in the clutches of such a funny man. Still, one cannot help but smirk at the fact that Mr. Carrey is playing what he actually is-an incredibly hammy actor. Jim Carrey behind us, let us take a moment to consider the rest of this movie. The three young people, as I said, are very talented. After a humorous, but somewhat unnecessary saccharine opening, the film truly takes off. Meryl Streep steals every one of her scenes as Aunt Josephine, even though she has less screen-time than the children. I did not truly care for the books. Well written and humorous though they were, I felt there was little point to them, and they soon became repetitive and somewhat predictable-the children find another guardian, Olaf finds them in another disguise, they foil him, he escapes, and they must move on because he disposed of their guardian in some way, with the author repeatedly apologizing for the sadness of the story. Occasionally, a point comes, but not too often. The film, however, does make a point. The point comes in the form of a letter at the end, followed the Narrator, well-played by Jude Law, concluding by telling us of the extraordinary will to carry on through an unjust world in which there is "always something." That is truly where the heart of the story lies, in the fact that these children, with only their skills and cooperation, feel they can make it. And in this respect, I am glad to say, Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events, is one of the most charming films I have yet to see.

Blood in the Face (1991)

Come face to face with evil.

[10/10 · 3 July 2004]

The worst evil, my English teacher told me shortly after September 11, comes into play when the evildoer believes it to be good. So it is in this bone-chilling documentary on the racist opinion. Michael Moore appears in this, but this is very different from documentaries like 'Bowling for Columbine,' or 'The Corporation.' This film makes no effort to distract with narration from the horror of seeing the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan, the Neo Nazis, the Aryan Resistance fighters, and hearing them speak, uninterrupted by the interviewers. There is no relieving support for the lovers of all races from the liberals behind the cameras. We are left to gather our own thoughts, and what remains of our opinion, the filmmakers leave to us as well, almost as a test to the strength of our principles, and ultimately, our minds. That is what makes this film drive its point so effectively. You will not be able to blink when you see this film. The people who speak will make your flesh crawl. We stare these people in the face and hear them speak their piece, in an almost spell-binding way, and their words almost seem hypnotic. The most horrific part is when some of their words start to make a bizarre sense, which makes this film all the more frightening. It is only when we think of all they HAVE done, as opposed to what they say, that we see these people for what they truly are. One elderly racist here puts it perfectly, ironically, that our actions define us. Even more ironically, he could hardly remember the quote correctly. With that kept in mind, only with that, are we able to hold on, and not be sucked in. At the beginning, we see people just like anyone we'd meet in our neighborhood, happy families with adorable children. Then, we hear them speak, we hear the hate that festers under the politics, the religion, the ethical issues these people bring up to try and hide it. And when the film delves deeper into the radicalism of their theories, these people begin to look more and more sinister. In the end, for me, it was not the speakers I felt sympathy for, for as they say, they will die before they see their ideals take effect. But seeing ordinary children deprived of the rich and wonderful experience of interacting with people of all kinds is one of the most tragic things I have seen. I see the innocence that begins in all humans, and the comparison of racist ideals to Johnny Appleseed's seeds seems almost tragic, as well as fearful. It is terrifying to remember just how many of them there are, and how they will multiply as they say. But, you must think, will they? In a society where it is impossible to 'shield' a child from interracial contact, it seems unlikely it will last in future generations. What is more, even without narration, the film is still able to expose the hypocrisy and outright bigotry that lies at the root of it all. The film's greatest brilliance comes from the fact that narration is not necessary to expose that, provided you keep the truth in mind. To this end, the footage of the Holocaust, used briefly, is almost relieving, seeing Jewish children herded into boxcars, and remembering the tyranny and ruthlessness of Hitler, and the men these people worship. So keep that truth close to you throughout this film as if it were your mother embracing you, and you will see the truth without the filmmaker's help. It is difficult to know the true extent of these people's hatred, but the film still establishes the truth of who they are. They come from past generations. They are old, dying out. One thing you must also keep close is the truth of what democracy stands for: Freedom for all races, colors, creeds, and types. Freedom to succeed where you want if you try. And above all, freedom to learn the truth. These people will never learn that blacks can be intelligent, can be as good as them, because they refuse to try. They insist on seeing the world, pardon the expression, in terms of black and white. The thing that comes to my mind, in seeing this movie, at the end, is a quote from Stephen Sondheim and John Weidman's brilliant musical, Assassins. 'There are those who love regretting, there are those who like extremes, there are those who thrive on chaos and despair. There are those who keep forgetting how the country's built on dreams. But they forgot about the country, so it's now forgotten them.'

Anastasia (1997)

Got MUCH more credit than it deserved.

[5/10 · 28 April 2004]

I have studied the subject of the fate of the Russian Royal family for years, and quite frankly, I am surprised the current Russian govt. didn't sue FOX for this movie! The long list of historical lies includes 1) The Romanovs celebrated the 300th anniversary of the dynasty in 1913, and they did NOT throw a ball. 2)

Anastasia was 16 in the year the movie starts in. 3) The Tsar abdicated before the Revolution even happened, and went through a long imprisonement period

before he was secretly executed. 4) Rasputin was murdered long before the

revolution. But to give such a lie as to say that Anastasia WAS found, THAT is inexcusable. Why FOX would remake the 1950's film is nothing short of baffling. They attempt to turn it into another silly children's quest movie. And they even fail at that! Rasputin, instead of being ominous or mysterious is presented

instead as a bungling nincompoop, and not ONE bit of terror comes from him.

Bartok, while he gets some laughs, is mostly just annoying. The visual

choreography is overdone and derivative, especially the "Final Battle." The

action is overplayed, but the animation is spectacular. The train wreck sequence is extremely exciting, and one sequence actually IS scary: The nightmare scene. However it is the idea that is scary, not the character behind it. The dialogue is witty and well written, Meg Ryan, Angela Lansbury, Kelsey Grammar and John

Cusack give great performances, and the Ahrens/Flaherty score is stellar. But this movie is extremely dissapointing, to say the least.

Peter Pan (2003)

The "Grown-Up" Peter Pan

[6/10 · 27 April 2004]

Of the many versions of "Peter Pan" onscreen, three standout

most prominently: First, Steven Spielberg's comical epic "Hook."

Second, the classic animated Disney version. And third, the late,

great Mary Martin's CBS television musical. Which of these three is

closest to this new version? Well, it borrows, putting it mildly, many

scenes and aspects of the Disney film. It is fairly faithful to the

book, like Mary Martin's version. But it is probably closest to "Hook."

This Peter Pan focuses a little more on the dark and serious side

of the book, and brings out the book's themes of self-denial,

fantasy, and the gifts of both innocence, and maturity. This is

handled very well here, but may make this movie dissapointing to

those expecting something more like the lighthearted earlier

versions. The most powerful scene of this movie, to me, is Peter

watching Wendy's mother weeping over her child. In grim childish

stubbornness, Peter whispers "We can't both have her, Lady." and

shuts the window. The narration and dialogue capture a great deal

of the style of the original text, and there are still plenty of laughs.

For the most part, the acting is charming. Wendy and Captain

Hook give the best performances. Peter himself, however,

somehow fails to capture the essence of his character, and his

attitude seems a bit too...."Americanized" for this crisply British

film. The weakest point in the film is the last battle. The dialogue in

between is quick and witty, but the actions themselves are too

exaggerated, too overdone, and distracting. So, for that matter, are

the special effects. Visually dazzling, bringing back memories of a

children's picture book passed down by my grandmother,

Neverland is truly the fantasy world promised. But when the action

sequences take over, the movie is too much "action." The

Crocodile, for instance, is too menacing, so Hook's cowering does

not appear comic, as it is meant to be, and we miss some great

character possibilities in him that way. Alas, for its many great

elements, this film is not truly memorable. Perhaps we have too

much of an idea of what a Peter Pan film should be. But I think that

if there could be a film with the light-heartedness of the Disney and

CBS versions, and simultaneously the seriousness of the overall

message, we would have ourselves a perfect "Peter Pan."

Home on the Range (2004)

Nothing special. Just really enjoyable.

[7/10 · 27 April 2004]

In my opinion the reason that many movie-goers will be dissappointed by this film is because they would expect something more of the last Disney film to be animated in the traditional way. Instead, they are only given a reasonably enjoyable film. So if you want to enjoy it, don't get your hopes up that this will be something of the calibre of Beauty and the Beast of The Lion King. You may be pleasantly surprised. What makes the movie most enjoyable is its characterization, and the actors and actresses behind the characters. The jokes brought on by Roseanne Barr's crass in-your-face humor are refreshingly adult and witty, and Roseanne proves to be a capable comedienne. She can be wildly funny one moment, and remarkably sad in the next. Dame Judi Dench's presence as a cartoon cow is puzzling, but she brings out her character's dryer, more contained sense of humor perfectly. Some of her physical characteristics are even visible in her character's face. Cuba Gooding Jr. is perhaps the only truly unexciting thing about this movie. His character's presence does not slow it down, but the character itsself is handled all wrong. For one thing, the African-American element is overdone to the point where it becomes irritating, and, sadly, it seems to be one of the only things defining his character. Jennifer Tilly, however, after her unnusual, but remarkable performance as the mystic Madame Leota in "The Haunted Mansion," returns to her typically innocent slightly "ditzy" type of character. My personal favorite, however, is the villain, who may very well be Disney's most original villain. Though this movie is enjoyable, there is not much of a sense that this will be lost as CGI takes over. The animation of the surreal American West is beautifully captured here, and characters are visually presented in the square single-toned colors of the Disney shorts of the '50s. But, despite this, an interesting cast of characters, and a score by Disney music veteran Alan Menken, the context of this movie stops it from being truly memorable. 7/10, with points for originality.

Yellow Submarine (1968)

Very weird, but lots of fun.

[10/10 · 15 March 2004]

How to describe this movie, in a word? "Psychedelic!" The performance of

classic Beatle songs like "Eleanor Rigby," "Nowhere Man," "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds," "All You Need is Love," "When I'm Sixty-Four," and "Sgt. Pepper's

Lonely Hearts Club Band," as well as the famous title tune, bring this madcap journey through the subconscious to incredible life. The addition of four new songs bring back memories for me of those long summer car trips listening to

the Fab Four on tape. The magical world of Pepperland, land of music and

beauty, is that precious happy state of mind we all try to reach. The future of all that is good is threatened, however, by the invasion of the Blue Meanies, a race of happiness-hating beings, representing that depression that threatens our

own peace. And who can save the world of happiness from the slings and

arrows of sadness? Why, John, Paul, George and Ringo, of course! This

beautifully metaphorical movie brings the Beatles out of the hoakiness of Help and Hard Day's Night while keeping the Marx Bros. style of the Beatles' comedic talents: Ringo, the simple, woe-is-me comic relief, George, the detached,

mystical hippy style meditator, John, the intelligent, smirking boy, and Paul, the happy-go-lucky stage-performer. The addition of the little "Nowhere Man" is a welcome addition, representing the silliness of the continuing search for

knowledge while isolating oneself from the rest of the world. I, for one, was surprised to find that these were not the actual Beatles' voices speaking. They sound so much like them! But, fear not! The Fab Four show up in person to bid us goodbye, and telling us to keep singing to chase away our everpresent blue meanies! So, just don't think that these aren't the real Beatles speaking, they are wonderful with their crisp, refreshing British humor in the style of such geniuses as Lewis Carrol and Oscar Wilde. And finally, the animation! So fantastic,

surreal and colorful you can't get it all the first time you see it! If you are a Beatles fan, see this movie!

Thumbelina (1994)

A fine adaptation of the Andersen Faery Tale.

[7/10 · 10 March 2004]

One fine thing about watching a movie based on a story you know

(when the movie is faithful to the story) is being able to know when

something is going to happen before it does, but not because

you've seen the movie. When it is based on something as short

and simple as a faery tale, it is fun to see how the movie deals

with it differently than the original source. This movie has all the

charm and verve of an old-fashioned Broadway show, much of its

charm coming from Manilow's songs. He could have been much

more appreciated had he been born a few decades earlier and

worked on Broadway. His songs are pure old-fashioned Broadway, which means they don't usually have too much new

meaning to them, they are just fun and pretty and very VERY catchy. It is only when he tries to make a MODERN score and write songs

to be performed like pop-song that he becomes pathetic. Sadly,

this leaves him only open to fine children's movies like these. One

rare happening in adapting stories to movies is that the writers are

able to keep the storyline and add new depth too it to keep the

spirit of the Faery Tale alive, but also for older watchers. For one

thing, give the Prince an earlier meeting with the girl to make it

more complex, (and not have him admit he's a Prince at first

makes it seem honest) and give the Prince a more rebellious

personality than making him the upper class figure regularly seen

in story books. The animation and much of the vocal scores help

make the scenes touching and funny when they should be. But

again, the movie's main strong point is its score, and the

spectacular cast of stars (Jodi Benson, Gilbert Gottfreid, Barbara

Cook, Charo, and the spectacular Carol Channing [Hello Dolly

herself!]) and some sadly lesser known celebrities. The only

complaints to be made are the scripts several weak moments

toward the end, when the sadness on the hero and heroine's parts

seem a bit overdone, as do some of the 'heroic' scenes involving

the prince. His heroism gives no feeling that he has accomplished

a lot to get his heart's desire. But still, this movie manages to bring

out the spirit you can rarely see in the original story, and if you see

it just to enjoy it, which is what you are meant, you may just be

impressed by what Don Bluth could do before he started

completely losing his touch.

Finian's Rainbow (1968)

Farewell to Freddy in style.

[10/10 · 5 March 2004]

In the oh-so-great Fred Astaire's last musical movie, he wears no top hat, white tie or tails, but one step and you know he's Fred Astaire. His last proves to be one of his most memorable roles, playing the crafty Irishman in the heartland of the American south, amid the bigoted senators, gospel sharecroppers and

burying a pot of Leprechaun gold. Astaire's Irish accent is remarkably well- handled, and he plays the role much like Gene Wilder's portrayal of Willy

Wonka, or Dick Van Dyke's portrayal of Bert, the Chimney-sweep. The songs do

not work with his voice as well as they should, but it's still a delight to see him dance, especially working with Hermes Pan, his old partner choreographer from his old films of the Golden days. As the top part of the movie, he runs a close race against Petula Clark as his daughter, and Tommy Steele as Og, the

Leprechaun becoming a mortal man. Petula Clark may not look the part, and

may not be as youthful as Sharon should be, but she is a marvelous actress,

and sings the songs beautifully, and why her opening rendition of "Look to the Rainbow" is not included in the soundtrack is still a mystery to me. Steele may appear overbearing at times, but his performance is extremely well done, and

he sings and dances "When I'm Not Near the Girl I Love (I Love the Girl I'm

Near)" with all the charm and grace of a young Gene Kelly. Veteran character

actor Keenan Wynn is also good as the racist senator turned black by a

mistaken wish, and his "mint julep" skit is just priceless. Barbara Hancock is a spectacular dancer, and her mute innocence makes her a marvelous character,

straight out of Truman Capote. Yip Harburg, the genius behind "Over the

Rainbow" and "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime" gives us a marvelous

depression-era score of negro work-songs and black gospel choirs, mixed

surprisingly well with the Irish ballads and drinking songs of Sharon and Finian. It is plain to see that this is Copolla, of "Godfather" fame's first film, because he is plainly trying to find his style. But he directs the anti-racist story very well, which brings us to another point: the story is a remarkably liberal take on the

segregationist southern politics that still existed in the 60s. So watch this movie, and see a legend doing one of his best and most unusual roles yet! And see it for everything else too, if you can. 7/10.

Lilo & Stitch (2002)

Suprisingly moving.

[10/10 · 3 March 2004]

It's hard to say what this movie is: A crazy sci-fi story, or a serious family drama, or both? The trailers showed it as one, big, crazed sci-fi epic, but I was amazed at how much this movie touched me. Opening at an intergalactic tribunal over

Jumba Jookiba, an alien scientist jailed for creating a living weapon of mass destruction, and developing into a high-speed star-trek type chase as the

experiment escapes to Earth, the movie segues into the introduction of a little Hawaiian girl named Lilo, who is clearly not a typical five or six year old. She makes sacrifices to a fish she believes controls the weather, reads books about voodoo, posts pictures of obese tourists on her walls, and adores Elvis, and her older sister is clearly struggling to raise a child like her since the death of their parents. The relationship between the two sisters is handled remarkably well, and is a welcome change in a Disney movie. Having the writers drop "Stitch,"

the destructively deranged alien experiment into this family seems like too big of a risk. But the story's appeal does not come from the comedy of this family

dealing with Stitch's antics, but from the effect the family has on Stitch. He is very much like the Frankenstein monster, knowing he is unnaturally created, and

feeling he lacks what the rest of the world has, and doubtful, knowing he is built to destroy, that he can fit in. His lonely night scene, in which he cries into the night "I'm lost," is just as moving as any scene from Dumbo, Bambi, or Mary

Poppins. Chris Sanders, writer and director for the movie, makes Stitch a

remarkably sympathetic character, aside from the physical and verbal comedy,

in which his voice is the joke as much as Donald Duck's. David Odgen Stiers,

under Eastern European accent, does the honors for Jumba, while Kevin

MacDonald, imitating Jerry Lewis' vocal styles, is a hilarious Pleakley, the erratic expert on Earth. Also excellent is Ving Rhames as the Man-in-Black turned

Social Worker, "Cobra" Bubbles, going back to his "Pulp Fiction" stylings. The real credit, however, goes to Daveigh Chase for her in depth, eccentrically

innocent portrayal of Lilo. Finally, the film's Hawaiian setting is well done, helping to break away from the stereotypes that have existed for years. The

rendition of "Aloha Oe," which has become a hoaky Hawaiian stereotype for

years, reminds us that it is a song of goodbye. The watercolor backgrounds give the movie a delightful old-fashioned feel, contrasting almost comically with the new-age themes. Do the two stories mix well? Does the movie move too quickly

from scene to scene? Who cares! Don't think about that while you watch, and

this movie will capture your heart! Movies that do that don't have to make sense all the time.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

You have to admit, it is remarkable...

[5/10 · 2 March 2004]

After hearing this movie hyped since the summer, I was naturally

eager to see this film for myself and gather my own opinion. I was

worried after hearing one student at school say it was "enough to

make any ki*e convert." After seeing it, first, I will say, it is certainly

not anti-semitic. Gibson clearly goes out of his way to make this

clear. However, it can be expected, given his ultra-conservative

views on religion, that he will take the Gospels literally. This film

does just that, and therein it fails to impress me. For me, the best

film portrayal of Jesus is Jesus Christ Superstar's Jesus, who is

shown as naturally afraid, doubtful, and even angry at his destiny.

Here, however, is another cardboard portrayal of him, prosletyzing,

saying "I am the way, no man gets to heaven but through me."

Besides this, Passion focuses too much on the violence. It is

certainly realistic, according to the times, so to show Jesus this

way is almost like saying he is no different from countless others.

Though the violence works well at bringing out the sadness of the

story, after half an hour, it seems almost as if Gibson is forcing the

message down our throats. More importantly, Passion focuses too

little on Jesus' teachings and peaceful messaging. It shows a

little, but this, and, in fact, much of the film's dialogue, is lost in a

sea of blood. I suppose you have to be religious to truly appreciate

this movie, and what it shows. But I think other movies about

Christ, King of Kings, Greatest Story Ever Told, Last Temptation of

Christ, Messiah, all showed little violence, because it was not

needed. Jesus' suffering was supposed to have been symbolic,

taking the entirety of mankind's sins onto himself. To reduce the

suffering to something physical and literal is to take away from that

message. Not to say this film is not well done. It beautifully shows

the relationship between Mary and her son, and has many moving

scenes: Mary running to comfort Jesus, Simon carrying the cross,

the denial of Peter, and many more. The languages give it an

authentic feel, as does the marvelous Jewish score. Even the

cinematography is well done, though the slow-motion is a bit too

prevalent. Also excellent is Gibson's use of Satanic imagery,

showing the Devil as a woman carrying a baby with an old man's

face. Judas' suicide, in which he is plagued by demons in the form

of children, and the motíf of a lamb's carcass, with maggots

forming a grin, is well-done, but Judas, when he should be the

opposite, is a minor character, and Peter, Mary Magdalene, and

John are all lost as characters. The main credit goes to James

Cavaziel and Maia Morgenstern as Jesus and Mary, respectively,

as actors. The main complaint about this movie is it brings nothing

new to the story of Jesus. To make a movie focusing largely on his

pain, instead of the reasons why, and the people involved, is hard

to do, and makes the film a bit too black-and-white for today's

standards. The movie is really no different from other "Christian"

movies, excepting that it is more violent, which, most people would

say, is NOT a compliment. I suppose you could consider this a cult

film, since it will likely appeal to extremely religious sorts who are

not too conservative over graphic violence. The theatre I went too

was packed with such types, many actually sobbing in many

scenes. Others, I was sad to see, brought their children (they'll be

traumatized), hoping to "bring a little of the Christian love to them."

Despite all of this, you can hardly help but leave this movie feeling

impressed, for this is still a remarkable experience, and a superb

effort from a great Hollywood talent.

American Playhouse: Into the Woods (1991) Season 10, Episode 1

What happens after "Happily ever after?"

[10/10 · 2 March 2004]

One of the great Stephen Sondheim's last great musicals combines four favorite fairy tales to make one classical epic: "Cinderella," "Jack & The Beanstalk," "Little Red Riding-Hood," and "Rapunzel." A fifth story is, of course, needed to bind them together, which comes here in the story of a poor baker and his wife who wish for a child, and to get it, strike a bargain with a witch to fetch the ingredients for a potion: "The cow as white as milk, the cape as red as blood, the hair as yellow as corn, and the slippers as pure as gold." The baker rescues

Red Riding-Hood from the wolf and is rewarded with her cloak, and then sells

the beans to Jack for his cow, while his wife plucks a hair from Rapunzel in her tower, and relieves Cinderella of her last shoe, since she is having trouble

escaping in one high-heeled slipper. Over the first act, we see the stories unfold just as we know them from our childhood, ending with "Happily ever after." In the second act, however, the characters' continuing stories are shown as not as

happy as we thought. Cinderella and Rapunzel's princes have lost their hearts' desires in the having of them, and start chasing after Sleeping Beauty and Snow White. Red Riding-Hood has become obsessed with killing wolves, and

defending herself. Rapunzel, simultaneously missing her Witch-mother and

hating her, has moments of hysteria. As for the Baker, he feels insecure as a father, and his wife wishes their house were bigger. And the Giant's wife comes down another beanstalk to get revenge on Jack for murdering her husband.

Disaster strikes when, in desparation, the characters sacrifice the Narrator to the Giant, and thus destroy the person keeping the stories in order. Chaos ensues as the black and white so well divided before flow together. Heroes lie, Witches are right, Giants are good, heroes die. But still, the characters are able to stay together and defeat the giant and resolve their stories on their own. The moral of the story is simple: Learn from the stories, but don't live by them, as sung by the legendary Bernadette Peters as the Witch. She proves amazingly good at

playing the hideous old crone, and later becomes more of a Gothic beauty,

more suited to her beautiful voice and fantastic acting skills (Last Midnight, who would have thought a waltz could be so chilling?) The rest of the original

Broadway cast is also fabulous. Danielle Ferland is delightful as Red Riding- Hood, a Shirley Temple with a delightful mean streak. Robert Westenberg

makes the Prince funny and sad, and as the Wolf, brings out the lustful

undertones of the character, and Chip Zien and Joanna Gleason evoke

memories of Desi and Lucy as the married couple, while Kim Crosby is a

surprisingly independent Cinderella. All the cast sings one of Sondheim's

strongest scores, and brings the musical into the range of 10/10.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

You have to admit, it's remarkable...

[5/10 · 1 March 2004]

After hearing the coming of this movie hyped almost as much as the second

coming of Christ, and all of the controversy, I was eager to see it myself, if not just to gather my own opinion, especially after hearing one student at school say it was "enough to make any K*ke convert. To start off, I can safely say, this movie is definately NOT anti-semitic. Mel Gibson certainly goes out of his way to avoid it. And the movie is certainly authentically Jewish. The marvelous score sounds beautifully ancient Hebrew, with traces of what would become the Jewish folk- dances of later, and the costumes perfectly capture the fashions of the time, while the language makes the story seem all the more real. James Caviezel and Maia Morgenstern give marvellous performances as Mary and Jesus, and their

scenes together are among the most moving I have ever seen. The use of

classic Satanic imagery is also fascinating, seeing Judas tortured by his own demons, shown here as demonic children. But this movie is best remembered

for its violence. Things like this probably did happen to a lot of people at the time, and Jesus' words make it moving, but after an hour of watching it, it seems like Gibson is forcing it down your throat. The film DOES proselytize, saying indirectly that Jesus' is the one true faith. At the end, the violence only seems overdone, and the rest of the cast has little to do apart from stand horrified at the sight of Jesus' torture. Other films on the subject, King of Kings, The Greatest Story Ever Told, The Messiah, etc, don't show the violence so graphically,

because they don't need to. Jesus' suffering is supposed to be a more symbolic one, since he is taking all of man's sins onto himself at once. In this case, you wonder what the point of this movie is. I suppose you must be really religious to appreciate this movie, or understand your Bible, and thus be able to keep

everything else in your head, and in that sense, this is a cult movie. Many

people at the theatre I saw this must have been (many started sobbing at points) and sadly, many parents will probably bring their kids (they'll be traumatized!) But Gibson shows very little of Jesus' teachings and messages, and focuses too much on the violence (and uses slow-mo too much). The main complaint about

this movie is that it brings nothing new to the story of Jesus, gives no new depth to his character. The only thing that makes it different from other "Christian" movies is that it's more violent, and most people would agree, that is defineatly NOT a compliment.

Jesus Christ Superstar (1973)

Andrew Lloyd Webber's signature piece!

[10/10 · 22 January 2004]

This film represents all that Andrew Lloyd Webber is capable of: taking an old and complex subject and using a stellar rock score to look at it from a modern perspective. How strange it is that the most powerful epic of Christ's life should turn out to be this rock opera. This is probably because the main characters are expressed in modern terms of thinking. The best aspect of this film may be its portrayal of Judas Iscariot. Many films have tried to find a reason why Judas betrayed his master and mentor for thirty pieces of silver. However, all of them have been pretty much making up their own stories: Judas wanted to get Jesus

to use his powers against the Romans, Judas wanted to save his family. All

these have been just very big guesses. However, this film is probably the

closest to the truth about Judas. His reason is a more psychological one. He is simply worried that Jesus' teachings will get him arrested by the Romans, and that they will be turned into propaganda, like they are today. He is also just doubtful that Jesus is the Messiah (wouldn't you be if someone told you?) Jesus himself is portrayed as a dedicated spiritual leader, and his followers are looked at largely from his and Judas' perspective. The scene with Simon Zealotes, with followers throwing themselves at Jesus' feet in the dust is meant to make them look almost pathetically worshipping this man. To Jesus, his own Apostles are like children, pestering him about what his plans are for the future. Then, of course, there is the film's portrayal of Mary Magdalene as Jesus' lover. As she rubs ointment on Jesus' feet, you can sense the deep passion moving between

them. Jesus is human, and must, therefore, love. The priests and pharisees are shown as worried about Jesus' influence, fearing it will turn into a revolution, and Pontius Pilate is shown as a faithful politician, trying to do what is right, but pulled away from it by the people demanding Jesus' death. Just the title of this movie is enough to put some people away from it. But the title makes Jesus more modern, because, probably to people at the time, Jesus

seemed like just a passing fad. Maybe this was what Jesus thought too. In this respect, Jesus may have had doubts about whether he could really make any

difference, and if he would be remembered, or if his followers were really just hungry for the next big thing. The film's setting in the Israeli ruins gives the film an almost surreal look, which is furthered by the design of the film, a stark mixture of ancient and modern, which is so well done it is sometimes hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. This serves to point out the similarities between then and now. The film's greatest point moves through the score and the cast. Carl Anderson makes Judas almost unplayable by anyone else. Ted Neeley, while his voice

may not be perfect, has an amazing delivery, and brings new depth to Jesus

with his rendition of "Gethsemane." Yvonne Elliman is remarkably soulful as

Mary Magdalene, and Bob Bingham's low, gravelly bass voice cuts chillingly

through the more serious scenes, helped along by Kurt Yahjigan's falsetto as

Annas. Barry Dennen is a remarkable Pilate, and Josh Mostel makes King

Herod, the Jewish puppet ruler, look remarkably petty and foolish, yet funny in his ragtime burlesque style song. The film also contains Andrew Lloyd Webber's richest score, especially at the end, bringing out the suffering of Jesus. The sound distorts the soldiers laughter, mixing with the vultures crying, and the cross creaking, the hammer pounding in the nails, and the rattle of dice as they gamble for Jesus' clothes, and the sobbing of Mary Magdalene. Jesus voice

remains normal, and his death ends the film, making this, in my opinion, the

most powerful and moving and maybe most accurate version of the Passion.

Watership Down (1978)

British Animation at its Best: Life From The Rabbit's Point of View

[10/10 · 13 January 2004]

Seriously, has anyone ever thought of what life is really like from the rabbit's POV? It's probably horrifying! Almost everything is open danger. The rabbits

here are not portrayed as victims, but as tragic heroes. The theme of this book and movie is the acceptance of their place in life, and continuing to live as nature intends them. British animation has never been appreciated as much as American or

Japanese or even Russian animation, with the possible exception of the

Wallace and Gromit films. Here, however, British animation reaches its peak.

You might want to watch this film for the background animation, from the scenic beauty of the English countryside, painted in stunning watercolor and graphite, to the eerily surreal quality of Fiver's visions and the night scenes, and starting with the first scene dealing with the Rabbit's idea of the Creation, animated seemingly in the style of the Celtic engravings of ancient Britain. Or the

character animation, the startlingly real quality of the Rabbit's movements. But there is more to this film than the animation. Helped along with a stellar British cast (excepting the legendary Zero Mostel as the crazy Yiddish accented seagull, Kehaar), the movie delivers its message with incredible power. With

Richard Briars as the dream-haunted Fiver, John Hurt himself as the leaderly

Hazel, and Michael Graham Cox as the tough-as-nails Bigwig, the characters

are well developed and appreciated. Is this the best of British animation? Of what I've seen of it, yes. This film's memorable moments go on and on. The warm sense of brotherly love displayed

by Hazel and Fiver, the nightmarish display of the warren's destruction, the

raucous voice of Kehaar, the final battle between Bigwig and General

Woundwort, the witch-like voice of the Cat, and the incredibly powerful

sequence of Hazel's death, this movie is pure English, and all you British-film lovers must see this and gather your own opinion.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (1982 TV Movie)

Edward Gory & Charles Dickens meet "Les Mis," meet Stephen Sondheim.

[10/10 · 15 December 2003]

The story of Sweeney Todd evokes memories of the work of classic writers like Charles Dickens, and more contemporary writers like Edward Gory. As a musical, it naturally becomes more like the musical Les Miserables. Both deal with the grim effects of poverty in the Industrial Revolution, and the breakdown of organized society. But this musical is different from Les Mis in one very important aspect: Stephen Sondheim, the songwriter who can adapt to any style. To be sure, he's had his successes and failures, but one thing about his shows you can always count on: They will be something unique. Who would have thought someone would write a musical about a barber who slits people's throats and makes them into meat pies? Sondheim did, and he did it marvelously. The entire show is set in a factory, to suggest the ever-present catastrophic effects of the misery of those at the bottom of society, and this serves the needs of the show perfectly. The catwalks and railings are moved throughout to suggest streets and walkways and bridges. Techniques are borrowed from Kabuki and Noh, with the visual stagehands and set changes. Then, to top it all off, cast the great Angela Lansbury as the gruesomely practical and humorous Mrs. Lovett, and George Hearn, with his operatic baritone voice, as the murderous Todd, and you've got yourself a stellar musical vehicle. The rest of the cast moves smoothly through the clichés of the love story perfectly, except for Johanna and Pirelli, who sound a bit too forced. If the Johanna and Pirelli from the Broadway show could be here, it would be perfect. Hearn acts while he sings more than Len Cariou on the OBC album, and the accents don't sound as forced here. Through it all Sondheim's score never fails to underline the dark seriousness of the story. As I said, he can adapt to any style. In Follies he imitates the '30s '40s style of showtunes, in Pacific Overtures he captures the subtle art of Asian music, Into the Woods knocks off the 32 bar Disney style songs, and Assassins covers a history of American music. Here, however, he does wonders in making his score distinctly English, from parlour songs to operatic duets and soliloquies to society waltzes to Gilbert/Sullivan style patter. And yet still, the show remains deadly serious, even though it provokes more laughs than any musical comedy. In it still, is a grim warning on the evils of taking revenge. Here is where this movie makes a mistake, in cutting the Judge's solo in which he flagellates himself out of guilt for his crimes. Without it, the Judge is just a conventional villain, and this movie's point is that there are no straight villains. Both Todd and the Judge learn, too late, the horrors of having to accept responsibility for their actions, and Todd loses everything in his obsession. This is well brought out by the chilling reprise of the grim yet rollicking Ballad of Sweeney Todd, ending the show with Todd and Lovett rising from the grave to tell us that the end is the same: in a world full of Sweeneys, vengeance begets only vengeance. "Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd. He served a dark and a vengeful God. To seek revenge may lead to Hell, but everyone does it, and seldom as well as Sweeney, as Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street."

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

Fails to impress, in spite of a marvelous cast, stunning special effects, and promising writers.

[6/10 · 1 December 2003]

The best thing about this movie would be its cast. Sean Connery is wonderful as Allan Quatermain, as is Neseeruddin Shah as Nemo, in spite of the fact that his character does very little in relation to the story. Jason Flemyng as Jekyll/ Hyde works out their battling duel natures to perfection, and Tony Curran is

hilarious as the Invisible Man. Credit is also due to Peta Wilson, Stuart

Townsend, and Richard Roxburgh. The movie's weak point is it's script. The

story is passable, truly in the style of the detective/sci-fi novels of the Victorian era. But the dialogue in between is melodramatic and overdone. Not that it

doesn't have its moments. The writers have great promise, they write Curran's humorous parts perfectly, and are rather good at handling dramatic moments.

Perhaps they are just inexperienced with action movies. The weakest point of the script is the final battle sequence, during which Quatermain, suddenly, out of nowhere, from no evidence previously mentioned or revealed in the film,

reveals that 'M' is "James Moriarty, the Napoleon of Crime!" and Moriarty, in the movie's worst line, says, "That name died at Reichenbach Falls, and I was

reborn!" It makes little, if any sense. Another puzzling matter is Dorian Gray and Mina Harker. It seems the director of the Blade movies can't resist adding

vampires to this! Mina is too much Blade to remind you at all of Dracula's victim, and her explanation of the Dracula adventure destroys some of her character's potential. Dorian Gray is also overdone, a little too Matrix, and if Mina has only been immortal since Dracula bit her, how would she know Dorian Gray from

"way back?" The effects are visually dazzling, though a little overdone. You do get feelings of what this movie could have been, and it could have been

amazing, had it followed the book more closely. Despite a fine cast, great

effects, and a script that has its moments, the movie is fairly mediocre. 6/10.

42nd Street (1933)

The Movie had a better script, but the play had better musical numbers.

[7/10 · 1 December 2003]

A person like me, who loves musicals, has to have great respect for this movie, since it's basically the start of a classic story: the star is sick, someone has to take her place. It's clear why they wanted to make a play out of this movie. Two reasons: One, it's a classic story about show business, and two, it definitely has the potential to be better. The show makes this story more light hearted by

adding more characters and more good humor. The movie is a little more witty in its script, but little real humor. The show also adds a few more great songs, by the same writer. Not that the lack of humor slows down the movie. The acting is well done, especially Julian Marsh and Peggy Sawyer. The movie's only real

weak points are its musical numbers. While the songs are great, the

choreography is overdone a little. Busby Berkely, while his work is visually dazzling, has little imagination. What would the point be of making such grand formations that can only be seen overhead, when a Broadway audience can't

see overhead? Besides, there is little real dancing, like in the play. The play's stunning dances cannot compare to the gingerbread, museum display quality of

Busby Berkely's work. Really, there is no 'art,' in the dances, just something to look at. Another problem is that numbers meant to be comic, like Shuffle Off to Buffalo, are done as if they were merely sentimental, which takes away from the general 'risqué' tone of the song. At least it shows the Depression more

accurately than most films of the period. All in all, the movie is a good effort, but might have done just the same if it had been about a dramatic play than a

musical. But then, you have to love this movie, for if it weren't for it, we would never have had a quality Broadway production come from it.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

How the Grinch Stole the show!

[6/10 · 21 November 2003]

I agree completely, this film looks extremely overblown, and it is.

Though the sets and costumes are visually amazing, they go by too fast too be truly appreciated, and there is the feeling that it is too much crammed into too little. Besides this, the supporting cast have very little to do, and the presence of Anthony Hopkins as the narrator is rather puzzling. Besides that, several weak story points are added, for instance, like the romance between the Grinch and Martha May seems completely superfluous. However, if you want to see this movie, see for Jim Carrey, who steals the show as the title role. He is simply hilarious! He does, however, run a close race against Cindy Lou Who, who is unbelievably cute.

The difference between this movie, and the cartoon, is that this movie is set more from the point of view of the Grinch. In the cartoon, the Grinch is the villain, a grumpy old hermit who is jealous of the Whos and their happiness. The Whos, in the cartoon, are just simple, country townsfolk celebrating Christmas, and when the Grinch finds he cannot destroy Christmas, he knows he cannot make them suffer the absence he feels in his life, and finally understands the holiday spirit. In the movie, however, the Grinch is a slightly more modern take on his character. Actually, you can't blame him for wanting to do something about the Whos, who, in this movie, are a grim reflection of our society, and the crass consumerism and capitalism that yearly chokes the true meaning of the holiday spirit for material possessions. The Whos are so immersed in their own greed that it almost seems they deserve it when the Grinch drops the ball on them. The writers also make them seem as irritating and overly cheerful and loud as possible, with their gaudy decorations and foods, and creepy, sugar-coated style. Cindy Lou's reaction to this is our own, and she and the Grinch find the real meaning of the holiday. She and the Grinch are better seen as role models to today's holiday company, as a message not to lose ourselves in our own material greed that has become common to this holiday, but to instead remember what Christmas is. I think this holiday would get a much better reputation if people made it a routine to imagine a Christmas without presents or trimmings every year, just to keep that image in mind. But, if you don't want to be annoyed by the Whos, or blinded by the slightly overdone sets and costumes, watch it for Cindy Lou, or, if you don't like 'cute' movies like me, but like Jim Carrey's raunchy, slapstick, Marx Bros. style comedy, watch it for him.

Harvey (1950)

The stuff dreams are made of...

[10/10 · 21 November 2003]

(POSSIBLE SPOILERS) Harvey is, without a doubt, one of Jimmy Stewart's 'signature' pictures. He is just the traditional neighborhood nice-guy. As Elwood P. Dowd, though, his role is actually not so much what he was in his other films, but more of what he is to us. He actually plays a man who makes people feel better about themselves.

Just by spending some time with them, and exposing them to his purity and sweetness is such an experience for people that they feel better. To quote Elwood himself, `We came as strangers - soon we have friends. They come over. They sit with us. They drink with us. They talk to us. They tell us about the great big terrible things they've done and the great big wonderful things they're going to do. Their hopes, their regrets. Their loves, their hates. All very large, because nobody ever brings anything small into a bar.

Then I introduce them to Harvey, and he's bigger and grander than anything they can offer me. When they leave, they leave impressed.' Elwood's lepine friend, Harvey, is part of what keeps him so pure.

The movie's true brilliance lies in the fact that it never asks if Harvey is real, though it clearly hints that he is. The point is, whether he is real or not, the positive effect he has on people is real enough. Even when people are unaware of it, Harvey is doing something good for them. Marvin Wilson and Myrtle Mae would never have gotten together if Mr. Wilson hadn't been looking for Elwood, who was looking for Harvey. And the doctor and his assistant are so fascinated by Dowd that they look into him, and he brings them together. And when Veneeta realizes that getting rid of Harvey will cost her brother that pleasantness which everyone knows him for, she realizes that Harvey, real or not, must have some purpose. That is the whole point of this film: It is these little fantasies and dreams, grounded in childlike innocence, and sometimes bordering on craziness, that help us keep our innocence. This movie, with wonderful acting, hilarious misunderstanding and comedy-of-errors situations, and with touching romance and family love, is pure magic. Does magic exist? Of course! We just need reminding now and then. And this film gives it to us.

Brother Bear (2003)

Beauty, Eh?

[10/10 · 9 November 2003]

So many people seem to view Brother Bear as dull because it lacks originality (i.e. themes such as orphans, a quest, irritation that develops into friendship). I, however, feel that, while these themes have been seen before, this movie deals with these familiar themes in a very original way. The originality of the basic plot helps give the story its color and vitality, as well as the fine work that Joaquin Phoenix and Jeremy Suarez give Kenai and Koda. As far as animation goes, this film deserves a ten. Especially brilliant is the change in screening formats about a quarter through, besides the change of the color schemes. Also excellent is the character animation, both of the humans and animals, proving that a Disney film is very enjoyable when the animators use live models and do some extensive research. What interests me, however, is the accuracy with which the writers depict the Native Americans, in this case a combination of the Inuit and Pacific Northwest peoples (some people may feel this is politically incorrect, but keep in mind they have a common heritage, and the movie is set in the Ice Age, which would be before they branched off of each other). After doing extensive research into their culture, I find it is full of stories like this one, built along similar themes (transformation, bonding, fraternity, the relationship between man and nature, etc.). I have been keeping an eye on Disney for historical accuracy since they did 'Atlantis' (a German, an Italian, a Latino, a Russian, and Afro-American AND a Frenchman working together at the start of WWI?), and this time, I am glad to see, they have done their homework. As for the script, it has warmth, drive, energy, and plenty of humor. The songs by Phil Collins, while not as impressive as his score for 'Tarzan,' are nevertheless very enjoyable, particularly Tina Turner's solo at the beginning and the Bulgarian Women's Choir's chorus work in Inuit throughout the film. While this movie is certainly not for everyone, I think Disney fans, as well as fans of people like Phil Collins, Jeremy Suarez, and the Mackenzie Bros. will find this movie one of the best. While not all adults may enjoy it as much as their kids, the film has several very adult philosophical themes which, if adults listen, will give them cause to think. All in all, Brother Bear is a remarkable look at a vanishing culture (besides being a window into it for kids), and an exploration of more complex themes than some other Disney movies, something Disney seems to be doing more of (ie., the broken family theme in Lilo & Stitch, the them of honor in Mulan, and the theme of racism in Pocohontas and of religion in The Hunchback of Notre Dame). I, personally, hope Brother Bear will be successful, for while the professional critics may turn up their noses at it, I think the average viewer will find it quite enjoyable.

Again, this is just me speaking, but I deem this one worthy of a 10/10!