The 2nd Annual GEeK Awards are finally here! After many long delays, all 15 awards are now listed! Check out all the winners here!
Now that the awards have been posted I plan on getting back to writing reviews on a regular basis. I've watched a lot of movies already in 2009, so get ready for a plethora of reviews!
It’s not high art but it’s not low-brow cinema either. Home Alone is one of those rare family comedies that hits all its marks and doesn’t leave you with an aftertaste of cheese.
John Hughes, one of the most successful film scribes in the 1980s turns away from coming-of-age tales fraught with teen angst and sets his sights on family dynamics as told through the eyes of a youngest child in a large family. Through the young Macaulay Culkin, Hughes and director Chris Columbus provide a raucous tale of a little boy left by himself by accident while the rest of his family head to France for Christmas.
Overlooked by his frantic family, young Kevin McCallister has to cope with being the “man of the house” and fending for himself. It’s bad enough that he’s scared of the basement and his neighbor but a pair of bumbling cat burglars has set their sights on his home as well. Out of options, Kevin must defend his home against the invaders.
Very little of what happens in Home Alone is believable, let alone plausible. I mean, how many eight-year-olds do you know that would take on two dangerous men over calling the cops? Also, how many people would fall for the traps that Harry and Marv (Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern) do? Lastly, how many parents would get all the way to the airport and get on the plane before realizing one of their kids is missing?
A cynic would have very harsh things to say about the foolhardiness of Kevin, the idiocy of Harry and Marv, the parenting skills of the McCallisters and the lack of a bond between Kevin and his numerous siblings. The rest of us take the film for what it is- a ridiculously escalated version of something that happens more frequently than most parents would like to admit. I myself was accidentally left at home alone once as a child (though merely for a matter of a few hours) and I’m sure that I am not the only one who can say this.
Home Alone is the kind of film where you can turn your brain off for the most part and just have fun. Many viewers will find themselves getting in touch with their inner child once more as Kevin wanders around in a world full of adults. Using a child as young as Macaulay Culkin was at the time is critical to the film’s success. No one would believe a child younger than eight capable of the things Kevin gets into. Using a teenager would also not have worked because, by that age, a child should know better and just call the cops.
Using a young child works because it enables the filmmakers to hit two powerful demographics. Younger children will be able to identify with Kevin’s sense of wonder at the world of adults. Moms and dads will be able to relate to the panic and worry that fill Kevin’s parents as they try to get home to their son. Everyone meets in the middle for some quirky, slapstick fun. If you really want to overanalyze things, then the slapstick crosses the line of believability numerous times and shouldn’t be so funny. But if you just sit back and enjoy the ride, you’ll be in stitches.
Home Alone does not try to be believable in every way. The filmmakers are keenly aware of how absurd and unlikely their film is and they milk it for all it is worth. The fun is expertly supplemented throughout the film with brief lessons for Kevin and his parents on what it means to be a family. This blend of comedy and moral lesson is a tough feat to pull off without compromising the humor at the wrong moment. Instead, this film is memorable for both its hilarity and its tale about a family in need of some serious mending.
A modern Christmas classic, Home Alone stands out among the myriad of cheesy family holiday tales, many of which came after its release and failed to replicate the harmony of laughs and lessons. If you don’t watch this film every year then you’re missing out.
The indie darling of 2007, Juno captures the horrifying awkwardness that comes with a teenage pregnancy. Critics all over the map gushed with praise for this film and it is understandable why many enjoyed it. There is a lot of good stuff to be found here. Balancing the drama of teen pregnancy with honest humor, Juno is a one-of-a-kind film.
Juno is a sixteen-year-old high school student in Minnesota who discovers that she’s pregnant after having sex with her best friend, Paulie Bleeker. They didn’t do it out of passion or love for each other though. A combination of boredom and curiosity led them to creating a child that is the center of this story. Juno first considers having an abortion but gets cold feet at the last second. Settling on giving up the baby for adoption, Juno and her friend Leah discover a potential couple in the Pennysaver ads.
Now, I don’t know much about adoption procedures but I have a hard to believing that finding adoptive parents through classified ads is a common, or even advisable, practice. But this is just one of the many quirky attributes and goings-on within Juno. The couple she finds seems nice enough and they’re even around an awful lot to chat with the mother of their soon-to-be child. Mark and Vanessa look like a really well put together couple on the surface but, as Juno grows to know the couple more over the course of her pregnancy, issues rise to the surface.
Juno’s family is another story. Her father and step-mother are just as quirky as she is but they react to her pregnancy in an almost too-good-to-be-true manner. They’re there to support her, which is good but the fact that they weren’t overly fazed by Juno’s announcement struck me as odd. But oddness abounds in this film. Some will find it endearing while others may think it unrealistic and not know what to make of it all. Paulie is the kind of socially awkward but well-meaning nerdy guy that would most likely have a hard time getting a date. Thankfully, he’s got a cute, indie rock-listening friend who was equally bored and curious one night.
While the writing may get a little overly clever and borderline Gilmore Girls-ish at times, Juno never completely overdoes it. The script manages to retain just the right amount of awkwardness to keep all the wit and snark in check. Relationships are always in flux, sometimes tested and other times just strained as Juno’s delivery date draws closer. It almost seems as if Juno develops a crush on her baby’s adoptive father, a part of the film that is extremely awkward to watch, but nothing inappropriate happens, which comes as a major relief.
In the end, Juno has a lot of heart. This is, along with its witty script, is what made this independent film such a success with critics and audiences. While Juno’s experience certainly is not the norm for teenage pregnancies, it presents the issue with an honesty and maturity that makes it more accessible to a wider audience. It’s not just a teen-pregnancy film or a coming-of-age film. Juno is a unique hybrid of comedy, family drama and several other genres that help to make a memorable picture.
After the success of the X-Men and Spider-Man franchises, Marvel Comics brings one of its most beloved comic book heroes to the big screen. It melds the original spirit of the comic with current events and a few updates. Mixing high-flying action, wit and an anti-war message is a tall undertaking but Iron Man manages to pull it off in just the right bright and loud package that comic book fanboys and summer movie audiences require.
Billionaire playboy Tony Stark is on top of the world. He is a brilliant inventor and head of the most profitable weapons manufacturer on the planet. He is a wry, sarcastic son of a gun and loves his liquor. However, after he is attacked and held prisoner by a terrorist cell after a weapons demonstration in the Middle East, Stark suffers a crisis of conscience. After building a robotic suit to facilitate his escape, he destroys his captors and finds his way home.
Stark holds a press conference and proclaims that his company will no longer manufacture weapons, having been on the receiving end of their awesome wrath. The decision is balked at and blocked by the company’s board of directors, as there is very good money to be made from war. Stark then focuses his efforts on creating another version of the suit, intending to use it to do good in the world. The arrival of a mysterious new hero doesn’t go unnoticed though. Questions swirl around Stark as his personal relationships and business associates create equally unique turmoil in his life.
Robert Downey Jr. brings Tony Stark to life and makes him believable, not only as the womanizing playboy but the redemptive soul looking to help others as well. I think the casting of Downey was a brilliant move because he is one of only a handful of actors who could pull off the redemptive arc of Stark’s story. The Tony Stark we meet in the beginning of the film is very similar to Downey’s behavior during the late 90s. He battled addiction and came out on the other side a changed man. Having lived through such a dramatic transformation surely helped him get inside the mind of Tony Stark. Any time an actor can bring personal experience to their character, the performance is strengthened in ways other actors can only dream of.
While Robert Downey Jr. truly brings the film to life, the supporting cast of Iron Man helps keep everything in check. Gwyneth Paltrow’s Pepper Potts creates a believable personal assistant who has all but had enough of her boss’s antics. She is frustrated but she loves the man, probably the only reason she still stands by his side. Jeff Bridges portrays Obadiah Stane, the quintessential heartless businessman. He is more concerned about making money and keeping the stock holders happy. During the second half of the film, it is revealed just how far he would go to protect his two main interests.
Other supporting characters include a straight-laced military man, mysterious representatives of a secret organization called S.H.I.E.L.D., and various other members of the populo minutiae. The key to the film’s success is that none of these supporting characters share in Stark’s wit and sarcasm. They react to it and often times work against it, which is key. It helps isolate Stark as the central character but also with himself. Everyone was tired of his antics before his turnaround and, after it, most have a hard time believing it is genuine. Stark really does stand alone against the odds.
In many ways, Iron Man is Marvel Comics answer to Batman. Both involve wealthy tycoons masquerading as superheroes, using their personal fortunes and resources to do so. Both are very much mortal and the only thing that makes them "super" is their devotion to their cause. Each contains a world of colorful characters, both good and bad. The big difference is that, while Batman’s Bruce Wayne is a fairly straight-shooting man seeking a mix of redemption and revenge for something he blames himself for (the death of his parents), Tony Stark doesn’t wear his nobility on his sleeve. Stark has a warmer and more approachable personality and has no inner demons haunting him. Iron Man is something of the average Joe’s Batman; a guy who would save your life, make fun of your hairstyle and then toss back a few beers with you.
This makes Iron Man all the more likable but there were aspects of the film that just didn’t do it for me. It’s very clear that the filmmakers intended this to be the start of a movie franchise and not just a one-shot superhero flick. This forces Iron Man to spend an awful lot of time introducing us to the world of Tony Stark and the characters that inhabit it. Some of these people will become more important down the line but they have to be introduced early in order for grander plans to pay off. This is the unfortunate truth about many origin story films. Time must be taken to bring you up to speed slowly and then pay off all that build up in the second half.
For some, the payoff Iron Man delivers will be sufficient. For me, it was enough to be enjoyable but I was hoping for more. Critics and fans alike enjoyed the film and it’s easy to see why. The action scenes are fun and high-energy, the computer effects look really good for the most part and the hero doesn’t go around speaking in robotic platitudes about doing the right thing. Maybe it’s because I was never into comic books and there wasn’t an Iron Man Saturday morning cartoon to watch when I was a kid, but the film failed to grab and engage me like other superhero flicks have. As good as it is, I don’t feel compelled to watch it again.
Exhilarating but not breathtaking, Iron Man left me feeling like there was more beneath the surface than the filmmakers could bring out the first time around. It’s not necessarily a bad thing but it makes for an awkward introduction. I think that the next installment of the franchise is going to be better for having gotten all the origin stuff out of the way. That’s seems to be how these things work nowadays.
Nineteen years after he rode off into the sunset, Indiana Jones returns to the big screen once more, for better or for worse. Older, slower, greyer and less agile, Jones is still keeping with his professor-by-day-adventurer-on-the-weekends antics. It’s not as easy as it used to be, but he’s still got plenty of sass, spirit and grit to dish out to those who stand in his way.
As a longtime fan of the series, I was always going to enjoy this film. It’s Indiana Jones we’re talking about here. The real question is how much I was going to enjoy it. The answer is “just enough.” At the very least, an Indiana Jones film needs to be bright, loud, exciting and humorous. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull accomplishes this well enough but it meets only the bare minimum of those requirements. When the best thing you can say about an Indiana Jones film is that it’s an Indiana Jones film, something’s gone wrong.
Kingdom suffers some of the same problems that plagued Temple of Doom. First, the artifact driving the events of the film isn’t one many people are familiar with. Crystal skulls, though now mostly dismissed, were once objects of great mystery. The film ups the ante and gives them supernatural capabilities, which is why the bad guys are out for them.
The villains in this film are, much like Temple of Doom, somewhat underwhelming. While the Soviet Union was certainly scary back in the day, it’s hard to be intimidated by them as villains because we know how the Cold War turned out. The Cold War itself was a big anticlimax in the end, so the Soviet threat in this film was much of the same. Maybe it's because the Nazis actually did something with their military might. Granted, it’s also an Indiana Jones movie, so you know the bad guys won’t win. The other problem with the villains is that there really isn’t much character development behind them. They’re there, they’re bad, and they’re there often enough to reinforce that they’re bad.
Also similar to Temple of Doom, there is less globe-trotting and more action sequences that hog up too much of the spotlight and are over the top. Part of the fun of Indy flicks is seeing lots of exotic locations. Here, we’re treated to two American locations and the Amazon. It’s not quite enough diversity for my liking. The long chase and fight sequence in the Amazon rain forest overstays its welcome and becomes increasingly absurd the longer it plays out. The opening scene has its share of flaws as well, which is a shame because the opening scene always helps set the tone for the rest of the film. After Indiana Jones hides himself inside a lead-lined fridge to protect himself from a nuclear blast, my expectations were sufficiently lowered for the remaining 100 or so minutes.
The big action sequences bring out one of the problems inherent to Kingdom itself. Being the modern age, stunts are now bigger and flashier, often using lots of CGI to pull off the most dangerous parts. While an attempt is made to have the stars perform many of their own stunts, there is a noticeable amount of CGI present. These kinds of effects weren’t around for the first three installments, so the abundance of effects shots in this film is jarring at times. Sometimes it felt like they were trying to do too much while combining real actors and digital effects, making the CGI work very obvious and not up to par.
The writing is probably the weakest in the entire series. There’s plenty of wit and wisdom being thrown around but there are also times when it seems like the actors weren’t really sure what to do with their lines. Lucas helped with the screenplay and after the uninspired dialogue of the Star Wars prequels, it’s no wonder his mediocre writing skills show through.
Another thing that irritated me a little was all the references to Indy’s age. Harrison Ford himself requested there be more references to Indy’s age and fading abilities throughout the film but it became something of a running gag that didn’t sit well with me. Perhaps it’s because, subconsciously, we find something very wrong about seeing out heroes get older. The first three Indiana Jones films were made over a nine-year period when Harrison Ford was young and vibrant. Ford hasn’t lost his any of his charm and grit but seeing wrinkles and grey hair on our beloved hero is sobering. Heroes are supposed to be timeless, making James Bond’s continual reinvention every so often seem all the smarter. Such a recasting would have been inconceivable, so credit must be given for making the most out of what the filmmakers had available to them.
In the end, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is one part reunion (seeing the return of Marion Ravenwood) and one part continuation of the action-adventure saga. Thankfully, it does not appear as if George Lucas and Steven Spielberg intended to use the film as a launching pad for spinoffs focusing on young star Shia LaBeouf. While the door doesn’t entirely shut on the possibility of yet another sequel, the film ends on a note that could signify the end of the Indy era.
I think that most fans of Indiana Jones never really wanted there to be a fourth movie. Instead, I think that many of us were simply in love with the idea that there could be a fourth movie. Upon receiving Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I think there are a number of us who wish we could give it back, myself included. It’s the weakest in the series and may undermine some of the magic of the original three but it is another dose of Indiana Jones, which can’t possibly be a bad thing.
A made-for-TV movie featuring some of the most popular young stars of the day, Babes in Toyland is a modern take on the Victor Herbert operetta. Featuring very few of the original songs, this movie is a very loose adaptation of the original stage production, tweaked in various ways to make it work for the small screen. Unfortunately, the end result is an uninspired mess that misses the mark on many levels.
TV movies are held to a slightly different set of standards but they are still considered movies to me. Movies made for the small screen always have low budgets and the visual effects and props usually suffer. I try to take this sort of thing into account when I watch a made-for-TV movie. Still, in terms of what was possible back in 1986, Babes in Toyland is weak.
Drew Barrymore stars as Lisa Piper, a girl who has very little time for toys because she has to help pitch in for her family. One night, she is riding home with her sister and the boy her sister likes when a blizzard strikes and their car goes off the road. Lisa is transported into the magical world of Toyland, where toys are life size and characters from Mother Goose’s fairy tales populate the village.
The problem is that things are oversimplified in Toyland. I’m not sure if that’s the point or not though, as I have not seen the stage production or any of the prior film adaptations of it. But to me, it seems silly and campy for the 11-year-old lead to come up with all the best ideas, leaving the adults to smile and say “Ooooh!” like a bunch of simpletons. I can see how it might appeal to kids, which is certainly what they were going for, but it still rubs me the wrong way.
The effects are bad, even by TV movie standards, and the costumes are all a little too much. The cast either overacts or under-acts, leaving the finished product feeling like a bipolar mishmash of camp and boredom. The characters in Toyland are exaggerated versions of their counterparts in the real world as well.
What I took away from Babes in Toyland most of all was how similar it is to The Wizard of Oz. As it would turn out, the operetta was written in response to the success of a stage production of The Wizard of Oz. It replicated the same basic premise but changed things enough to avoid any accusations of plagiarism. With this in mind, it’s hard to imagine any version of Babes in Toyland rating too exceptionally high.
While the original story is a bit of a rip-off itself, the 1986 version of Babes in Toyland feels like an uninspired modernization of something that was probably much better. Still, it’s a TV movie. Had this been a major release, I would have torn it to pieces with my rating scale. Since it was a small screen affair, I’ll be nice.
After the dark-toned journey of Temple of Doom, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg bring the beloved Indiana Jones back into the light for one last hurrah. Featuring plenty of girls, guns and globetrotting, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade pulls out all the stops and recreates most of the magic that captivated audiences in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Trilogies are oftentimes fickle things. The original is almost always the best, the second installment usually disappoints to a degree (though there are exceptions), and the third chapter can go either way. This film closes out the Indiana Jones trilogy in the best way possible- returning to its roots.
Last Crusade recaptures the light-hearted heroic swagger of old adventure serials that made Raiders of the Lost Ark so fun. Indy’s got his sass back and Harrison Ford oozes charm from start to finish. The Nazis are back as the chief antagonists, seeking an artifact with great power. Said artifact is the fabled Holy Grail; something that Western audiences can easily wrap their heads around. To cap it all off, Indy travels to several gorgeous foreign locales, including Venice, Berlin and Petra (serving as the exterior of the fictional resting place of the Grail).
There are enough differences to prevent this film from feeling too formulaic though. The opening segment once again shows Indy chasing after an artifact but it occurs in Indy’s youth. This opening segment serves a dual function- it shows how Indy first got into high-stakes artifact chasing adventures and it also sets up his relationship with his father, who plays an important part in the film. The addition of Henry Jones is a welcome breath of fresh air as well. Instead of flirting with a woman or bossing around a kid, Indy has met his equal in his father. Sean Connery and Harrison Ford have brilliant chemistry on the screen.
While I normally get annoyed when father-son conflict resolution is injected into an otherwise good plot, I didn’t mind it one bit during this film. Indy’s issues with his father are legitimate but handled with enough light-heartedness that it never becomes the kind of thing you roll your eyes at. Their bonding never seems forced, which makes it more effective, I think.
One of the problems with Temple of Doom was that its action sequences sometimes went a bit too far over the top. Perhaps this was to make up for the dark tone. Fortunately nothing in Last Crusade approaches the level of silliness as the mine cart chase or the airplane/raft escape. The action pieces are spectacular but don’t steal the show. The focus remains the characters that we love to root for.
Some of the special effects in this film show their age quite a bit but they were pretty good when the film first came out. Sometimes this is a hard issue to see around, particularly with older movies where the bluescreen work is painfully obvious. Having grown up with movies from the 80s and 90s though, it is pretty easy for me to gauge the quality of the effects based on my knowledge of other films from the same era. So Last Crusade does pretty well in that department, despite looking silly 20 years later.
Reviews for Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade were somewhat mixed when it was released but it has been embraced by fans of the original. Not everyone prefers this third installment to Temple of Doom but most of us Indy fans do. I’m a sucker for this film. In some ways it is more fun than Raiders but, when you get right down to it, the original set the tone for the series. This film saw the Indy series seemingly finish on a high note that lasted for 19 years. Last Crusade redeems the series from Temple’s bleakness by borrowing just enough of what Raiders did right with a helping of originality mixed in.
Hearkening back to the lush backgrounds and detailed animations of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Pinocchio, Walt Disney and his crew of animators take audiences into the beauty of the great outdoors for their fifth full-length feature. With a trio of lovable characters, playful music and the innocence of nature, Bambi caps off Disney’s early years with one last triumph.
It’s important to note that after the release of Bambi, Walt Disney lost a fair portion of his animators to work for the US government during World War II creating pro-Ally films. During the war years and the rest of the 1940s Disney animated films were noticeably different in substance and style. In some ways, this makes Bambi something of a last hurrah from the Disney dream team, though they weren’t aware of their impending break up at the time.
This film is remarkable for its attention to detail in the movements of its animal characters. Disney pulled out all the stops to get his animators in front of live deer in order to help the anthropomorphic lead retain realistic movement. Great attention was paid to the flora of Bambi’s world as well. Photographs from the forests of the northeast US helped ensure that the textures and color pallets of the great outdoors were replicated as much as possible. The education instilled during research and development would help Walt Disney animated films for years to come and helped secure them as leaders of the animated film medium even through their hardest times.
Another great success of Bambi is how trim the story is. Even though it is longer than Dumbo, it doesn’t get sidetracked into musical numbers that look good but slow the story down. The pacing is set just right as Bambi learns the ways of the forest from his mother and grows into adolescence and adulthood. He meets fun new friends in Thumper and Flower and even finds himself captivated with a playful doe.
The innocence of Bambi and the forest he lives in does not last for long though. Man enters the picture, the ultimate antagonist to nature. While Man’s role as the enemy of the forest is a bit exaggerated it’s not anywhere near overdone to the point of pulling you out of the story. I myself am pro-hunting but Bambi is hardly an anti-hunting film. It is a tale of lost innocence told through the eyes of an animal. Nature itself is not a sufficient antagonist so Man has to step in to shake things up a bit.
Bambi is a terrific film for all ages. Children can laugh and bounce along with Bambi and his friends while older viewers can marvel at the rich animation and attention to detail. It’s beautiful both in animation and in the story it tells. Important life lessons are imparted upon its characters that are easy for children to understand. It’s not preachy, oversimplified or kiddish.
Bambi is a step up from Dumbo but it doesn’t quite reach the heights achieved by Snow White or Pinocchio. All the same, it is a wonderful film that is worth seeing again and again.
Switching from suburbia to the big city is just one of the many changes present in Poltergeist III, the final chapter in what quickly became a sputtering horror series. While there is a trend that suggests the final installment of a series is often times the worst, I found this film to be an exception to the rule.
While this film fails to capture the magic and chills of the original Poltergeist, the filmmakers did enough right to make me enjoy this film more than Poltergeist II: The Other Side. There are still plenty of problems holding the film back, most important of which is the fact that this is once again a direct sequel that retcons the ending of the second installment.
At the end of Poltergeist II, the evil Reverend Kane was defeated by the Freeling family and was sent on to the other side. Poltergeist III ignores that little fact and has the religious kook of a spook coming back for more. Instead of tormenting the entire family again, which would have been annoyingly redundant, little Carol Anne has been sent to live with her aunt and uncle in a Chicago high-rise. No explanation is given for why the Freelings decided to ditch their daughter but it probably had something to do with the fact that none of the other actors wanted anything to do with another Poltergeist film. A weak cover is made that Carol Ann is going to a school for special children in Chicago (because, clearly, no such schools exist closer to her parents) and her aunt and uncle seem oblivious to any of the horrors their relatives have faced over the last few years.
The spirit of Kane manages to follow Carol Ann and begins appearing to her everywhere. Her school psychologist doesn’t think Kane is real and believes she is making it all up because it gets her the attention she craves. Meanwhile, Tangina somehow realizes Carol Anne is in trouble and begins trekking across the country to help her. It all boils down to a series of attacks and a final battle against Kane’s spirit.
While the story itself has plenty of pitfalls, I think most of that comes from trying to force the story to fit into the Poltergeist mold. Poltergeist II had the same problem- the story was interesting enough to have worked as an indirect sequel. While moviegoers aren’t always so hot on indirect sequels, sometimes they work out well. The concept of an evil spirit haunting a high-rise in the middle of a big city is pretty neat, though hardly original enough to make a good movie. It’s the small things that count.
One of the little touches that I really enjoyed was the tricky mirror work through the latter half of the film. When Kane finally takes full control of the building, he can manipulate people’s reflections, doing his dirty work for him. Some very unique camera techniques are used to make it appear that someone is in the mirrors in the hallway but not in the hallway itself. Also, double static shots and a lot of editing are used to make it appears as if the people in the hall are heading one way and their reflections the other. This bit of technical trickery is one of the big reasons that I prefer III to II. While maybe not innovative, it is certainly a step in a different direction from the standard lot of predictable scares that flooded II.
But technical trickery aside, the film really doesn’t deliver like it should. Very few chills and thrills are to be found and the script desperately needs rewriting in places. Carol Anne isn’t a compelling enough character to carry the film and the supporting players aren’t up to the task either. The battle between psychology and the supernatural was awkward at best and felt forced and borderline silly at times.
Poltergeist III has more raw potential than II did but most of that potential was held back (once again) by not allowing this film to develop as its own supernatural thriller instead of as another Poltergeist sequel. Had it been given the chance to develop outside of its forced foundation, this film could have had a completely different title, completely different characters and a much more satisfying aftertaste.
Using a cast of virtual unknowns and a sneak attack marketing strategy, creative mastermind J.J. Abrams and his team of industry friends put together a non-stop thrill ride of a film, the production of which is every bit as impressive as the final result. Abrams and company successfully bring horror and disaster films into the 21st Century with a YouTube generation treatment that is far more than just Godzilla meets The Blair Witch Project.
The whole point of the film is to create the sensation that you are watching a horrific disaster caught on videotape. This is accomplished through the use of hand held digital cameras, quick cuts replicating when the camera gets turned off, and overlapping footage, indicating that whoever is doing the filming is doing so over top of something that was previously recorded. The advent of high-quality digital film making made this movie possible, allowing for numerous special effects to be inserted without compromising the grainy, low-tech look of the film. It certainly won’t fool people into believing what happens in Cloverfield is real (unlike Blair Witch), but that wasn’t one of the film’s goals anyway.
Cloverfield begins with Rob (Michael Stahl-David) filming Beth (Odette Yustman) as she wakes up in bed with him. They had previously been nothing more than close friends but have seemed to have crossed that line. The film then cuts to approximately one month later, where Rob’s brother, Jason (Mike Vogel), and his girlfriend Lily (Jessica Lucas) are planning his surprise going-away party. Rob has taken a position in Japan and is going to be leaving his friends and New York City the next morning.
The camera is given to a friend named Hud (T. J. Miller), who is tasked with taping various attendees well-wishers for Rob in his in job. Through the course of the party we learn that Hud is accidentally taping over footage that Rob holds very dear to him, as he and Beth had a falling out since sleeping together but Rob still has feelings for her. Before too long though, things go haywire. An earthquake seems to hit the city but not is all as it seems. Party goers flock to the balconies and rooftops and they witness explosions blocks away. People fill the streets with a mix of curiosity and wonder which quickly turns into fear and panic as the mysterious source of danger heads their way.
For the remainder of the film, we follow Rob and his friends as they try to escape Manhattan on foot with their lives. Hot on their tail is some bizarre monster that is tearing the city apart. The protagonists encounter the monster both indirectly and directly at times while also running into the US Army, which is sent into the city to combat the creature. The camerawork and the pacing all help create a very tense hour or so of terror-fueled trekking unlike anything seen before on the big screen.
A great deal is done right in this film. The use of young actors with few credits to their names was essential for Cloverfield to succeed. Had any recognizable TV or film star been cast in this movie audiences would have perceived it as more about that person’s involvement than anything else. Instead, the filmmakers focus solely on the story they want to tell and don’t hire anyone that’s going to be a distraction to their film. While not all of the young talent in this film will go on to superstardom (few have been attached to anything that stands out yet), they all do a fantastic job of capturing realistic terror and fear of living through this kind of event.
Another smart move was to show as little of the monster as possible. Instead of showing us in-your-face style destruction at the hands of the monsters like in Godzilla flicks, the filmmakers give us the before and after. The monster is almost never directly on top of our protagonists. Instead, it oftentimes comes just close enough to dish out the right amount of chills and creep the audience out. This less-is-more strategy is always the way to go. It worked for classics like Jaws and Alien and it works here too.
The only thing I wasn’t so crazy about was Rob’s half-foolish decision to head back into the heart of Manhattan to rescue Beth. This was an obvious necessity for the filmmakers, as it prolongs the film and exposes Rob and his friends to even more carnage but I thought it was a more than a little silly. Beth isn’t even his girlfriend but he’s willing to risk his life for her? Maybe I’m just that cynical but I have a hard time believing that I would go romping through danger-filled street for someone that I’m merely sweet on. At the same time, it is probably equally absurd for Rob’s friends to tag along with him. But without his friends, there would be no one documenting it all.
Despite these few lingering questions that came to mind as the credits rolled, Cloverfield has a lot going for it. It is a great merger between style and substance and its entertaining as well. It’s also a bold and unconventional way to tell a story on the big screen. I can’t see this kind of film making becoming too prevalent because few stories outside of monster and disaster flicks would really accommodate it. Even if used under those circumstances, comparisons to this film would be inevitable. This positions Cloverfield to be remembered as either a unique experiment in cinema story-telling or a ground-breaking original that may be replicated but not duplicated. Either way, Cloverfield wins in a big way.
Based on the successful novel by Philippa Gregory, The Other Boleyn Girl is a tale of lust, treachery, power and obsession surrounding two sisters and the King of England. Though some define the story as a romanticized account of the love triangle between Anne Boleyn, her sister Mary and King Henry VIII, there is hardly anything romantic (in the modern sense) about it at all.
When King Henry VIII’s wife fails to deliver him a male heir to the throne, England’s leader grows restless and begins looking elsewhere to father a future king. Thomas Boleyn, a nobleman and brother-in-law to the Duke of Norfolk hatches a plan to move himself up in the world by positioning his daughter, Anne (Natalie Portman), to catch the King’s eye while he visits the Boleyn estate. Anne has reservations about being a mistress but gives in to the pressure from her father and uncle.
The plan goes awry when the King (Eric Bana) is injured while hunting and gets nursed back to health by Anne’s older sister, Mary (Scarlett Johansson), who is already married. The King invites Mary to his castle and sends her husband away to separate them. Reluctant at first, Mary falls in love with King Henry and begins to cherish the potentially powerful position she finds herself in. She becomes pregnant, which is somewhat scandalous, as King Henry is still bound to his wife by Catholic marriage.
When Mary experiences complications and nearly miscarries, Anne is sent to care for her sister, who is now bed-ridden until the baby can be born. Holding a grudge against Mary for several things in their past, Anne begins to seduce Henry, taunting him with her body but resisting his lustful advances. She drives Henry mad with her demands but he gives in to Anne and banishes Mary from the castle (even after she bears him a healthy son) and breaks England from the Catholic Church so he can divorce his wife and wed Anne.
History tells us the rest of the story- Anne can’t produce a male heir so Henry has her tried and executed, moving on to his latest woman of choice. Certainly not a happy ending but it’s fitting because very little of this film is happy to begin with.
The Other Boleyn Girl will likely be hit or miss with audiences. If you like speculative fiction about historical figures, then this might be up your alley. If you’re not into British history or convoluted love triangles, then I would advise you to pass. This movie is also very bleak and very much a downer, so stay away if you can’t handle a less-than-happy ending.
The biggest problem plaguing this film is the lack of a protagonist. There’s no hero to this story, not even a tragic one. Both of the Boleyn girls resort to despicable behavior, either by giving in to the King’s raw lust or by trying to sabotage the other’s success in raising their family’s political capital. Morals are compromised all over the board and barely anyone blinks an eye while they do it. The only person who I could feel sympathetic for at all during this film was Elizabeth Boleyn, mother of Anne and Mary. She could not stand what her husband and brother were attempting to do just to raise their stake in life. In the end she is a broken and sad woman, the true victim.
It’s hard to say who is worse in this film. King Henry is a dubious, arrogant husk of a man, drunk on power and lust. Thomas Boleyn is a wretched father who is willing to sacrifice the dignity of not one but two of his daughters in order to increase his standing and “honor” in the world. And, at times, both of the Boleyn girls themselves are just as bad, either as a smug mistress or a shrewish temptress. Both have tasted power and want to hold on to it. If not for some resolution between the girls at the film’s end, this would be a four-way tie for the worst character involved.
Without a proper protagonist to invest in, I found myself reacting to the events of the film instead of absorbing them. No scene better emphasizes this point than the rape scene. Anne has finally gotten Henry to give in to all of her demands and tries to halt his advances still but he is so filled with lust and rage that he ends Anne’s little games and rapes her. The scene is brutal but I didn’t feel sorry for Anne. Instead, I was shocked and appalled by how far these characters had spiraled downward.
In some ways, The Other Boleyn Girl is like a train wreck in slow motion. It’s not that it’s a bad film. It’s just that the story it tells progressively gets worse and worse and leaves you at the bottom of a well of despair. The cinematography, sets and costumes were all pretty good but this heavy-handed piece of historical fiction knocked the wind out of me. Not in a good way either.
At their worst, comedic troupe Monty Python was still able to draw awkward chuckles. At their best, they were capable of the kind of unparalleled comedic genius that fills this film from start to finish. While there are those who frown upon Monty Python’s silly antics and those who simply do not get dry, British humor, I believe that it is impossible for a sane and living person to watch this film and not laugh at least one time.
There is very little that I can say about this film that hasn’t already been said. Monty Python were masters of just about everything to do with comedy- timing, sight gags, wit, play on words and use of props. Every ounce of their creative brilliance is on display in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Most amazingly is the fact that this film, with all its memorable scenes, quotes and gags, is only an hour and a half long.
That’s right- the Black Knight, the French, the Three-Headed Knight, the Keeper of the Bridge of Death, the Knights Who Say Ni and the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog come at you faster than most films that pass for comedies these days. To me, this makes the film even more impressive. To dissect and depict as much of the Arthurian legend as they do and craft such an epic adventure tale with such inherent silliness boggles my mind. I could have sworn the film was two hours long but I stand corrected.
I first watched this film as a part of a high school English class. We read parts of the Arthur legend and watched this film at the end of the unit. My teacher claimed that Monty Python actually treated the Arthurian legend source material quite well (all silliness aside of course) and that they didn’t give into any of the romanticism that has plagued films about Arthur and Camelot ever since.
Graham Chapman is delightful as the serious-minded King Arthur. He presents a very earnest character who genuinely seeks to fulfill the epic task that has been given to him by God. He just happens to be surrounded by and encounters a bunch of nitwits. The rest of the Python players fill in nicely as Arthur’s Knights of the Round Table, lending their own comedic specialties to their diverse characters. In true Python fashion, all the lads don multiple costumes and portray nearly all of the notable supporting characters. The bond these men shared from working on their television show for three years prior to the making of this film enhances their on-screen chemistry in ways that no casting director-selected set of funny men ever will.
I simply have to stop here. There’s just nothing I can say to do justice to this film. It is one of the most popular, quotable and beloved films of all time. Monty Python and the Holy Grail is by far one of the funniest films ever made. Watch and enjoy (but watch out for bunnies).
Set one year before Raiders of the Lost Ark (making this George Lucas first actual foray into prequels), Indiana Jones finds himself dodging bullets and assassins while trying to rescue enslaved children at the same time. It’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it. Fortunately, Indy is up for the task. Unfortunately, Temple of Doom fails to relive the glory of its predecessor. While certainly no failure by any means, this film does disappoint on a number of levels.
It is impossible to avoid comparing Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom to Raiders of the Lost Ark. Both films are built around the same motifs, emulating and exploiting the character elements of old time adventure serials. The trouble lies in the fact that Raiders emulated and exploited those elements so perfectly and Temple changes the formula ever so slightly to avoid redundancy. These changes are not all for the better though.
Indy’s companions (for it is difficult to consider them true sidekicks) now consist of a smart-mouthed Chinese boy named Short Round and an airhead night club singer named Willie, who is along for the ride because Indy didn’t have ample enough time to ditch her while trying to escape from Shanghai with his life. Short Round injects some youthful humor into the mix, which is good considering the darker tone of the film, but Willie is more or less annoying from the start and fails to grow on you much. But she is a necessary component to the story and provides romantic tension and sight gags where needed.
The quest Indy embarks on this time around is not one of his own choosing. After escaping a plane crash in the Himalayas, Indy and his friends float down river to India where some locals beg him to find their stolen children, believed to be enslaved by a Thuggee cult in a nearby palace, and a sacred stone that protected their village. Saving the children is noble but the stone is a bit too foreign for most viewers to get a handle on. Despite Indy’s explanations about ancient Sankara stones and their supposed powers, the archeological side of the story isn’t as gripping. Western audiences can wrap their minds around the Ark of the Covenant but magical Indian rocks are a stretch. It also doesn’t help that Indy isn’t as passionate about this quest as he was in Raiders.
A lack of many geographical set pieces also holds the film back slightly. Raiders saw Indy traveling all over the globe, hitting virtually every single continent. Temple only offers us a glimpse of Asia. While this is the most forgivable change to the Indy formula, it is also one of the most noticeable. Very few iconic locations are used and the oft-lampooned Indy-map sequence doesn’t really pick up much mileage this time around.
The most noticeable change is the darker tone of the film. While Indy’s tongue-in-cheek attitude and cocky swagger still pervades, Temple of Doom touches on some dark territory. Cults, enslavement of children and human sacrifice have a way of sobering an audience up. Instead of sitting on the edge of your seat with excitement, this film will have you sitting more against the back of the chair with a look of half excitement and half concern on your face.
I think the biggest reason that Temple isn’t adored as much is because Indy, the unflappable hero who can do no wrong, turns to the dark side. Though only brief, Indy’s conversion to the forces of evil is unsettling. The archetypal hero can have his dark moments but to be shown as fully corruptible? That crosses the line for me and I’m sure it’s the same with many fans.
Now it’s time to get positive! I understand the reason for many of these changes. Had Temple of Doom stuck with the formula laid out in Raiders it would have felt like a cheap copy of the original. Short Round and Willie were added to balance out the darkness in the story (it’s easy to see why Indy doesn’t stick with her after the film but one does have to wonder what happened to Short Round). The globetrotting was scaled back because the story required it. Lucas and Spielberg recognized that certain elements that had made Raiders such a blast had to be cut out because they didn’t fit into the story they were trying to tell. Making sacrifices for the sake of the story is admirable and I respect Lucas and Spielberg for that. It’s just unfortunate that the story they told isn’t quite as gripping.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is still a rollicking good time. There’s plenty of action and adventure to get your heart racing and adrenaline pumping. Once again, Spielberg pulls out all the stops in crafting fantastic action sequences (dated though they may look now) that are still a thrill ride to watch. Yes, this sequel/prequel isn’t quite as good as the original but hey- this is still Indiana Jones we’re talking about.
This is the film that broke Martin Scorsese into the big time and helped launch the careers of Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel. Its gritty realism and hip cultural awareness was lauded upon its release and it continues to be held in high regards in terms of its originality and historical importance. Sadly, I am unable to give Mean Streets the credit it is due.
Harvey Keitel stars as Charlie, an Italian-American Catholic who is trying to respectably work his way up the ranks in the local Mafia establishment while also trying to atone for his sins by trying to help his off-kilter and borderline sociopathic friend Johnny Boy clean up his act. For Charlie, its purgatory on Earth, as Johnny Boy’s antics grow wilder and more destructive, both outwardly and inwardly. Though saving Johnny Boy from himself is the ideal, Charlie would settle for saving Johnny Boy from Michael a local loan shark tired of being jerked around one too many times by the kid.
Mean Streets is filled with masterful touches. The dialogue is witty but realistic, never sounding false or overdone for one second. Some characters attempt to speak in a dignified manner while others like Johnny Boy keep their vocabulary pleasantly in the low-brow gutter they live in. At the end of the day, they’re all street rats; local bums jostling for position at the bottom of the totem pole. The only difference is who has respect and who doesn’t.
The film is shot on a very intimate scale. Gritty camerawork makes it feel more like a documentary than a film at times. The use of slow motion and voice-overs bring an added flair to an already stylish film. Scorsese provides the voice for Charlie’s conscience and inner-monologue, often times providing a wry outlook on things while Charlie outwardly seems to be having a good time. It helps accentuate Charlie’s inner conflict.
I can’t talk about this film without mentioning the stellar soundtrack, apparently provided almost entirely from Scorsese’s personal record collection. My generation fell in love with Quentin Tarantino’s eclectic and inspired musical selections for his films but there is a difference. While Tarantino includes music that few have heard before for the sake of keeping things interesting, Scorsese includes a stellar mix of popular and secondhand tunes that elevates the hipness, coolness and attitude of his characters to new heights.
While directors like Francis Ford Coppola portrayed organized crime on grand white collar levels, Scorsese focused on the gritty small time hustlers, pushers and loan sharks that make crime dangerous on a day to day level. It’s a far more believable, yet jagged pill to swallow. Instead of stylized violence, allegory and inference, Mean Streets is brutally honest and upfront about everything, no matter how graphic and disturbing it may be. This is why the film was hailed as an American original.
This all sounds like it’s leading to a glowing review and a high rating, right? Well, not exactly. Here’s why- ever since Mean Streets and Scorsese’s ensuing work, this kind of gritty realism and exposure to big city crime on its lowest levels has become the norm. Nowadays a film is almost expected to be brutally honest and realistic if it is to be taken seriously. People in my generation, myself included, have been exposed to this kind of stuff our whole lives and we take it more or less for granted.
After doing some research on Mean Streets, I understand the film’s importance in cinema history and can instantly spot its influence on dozens of motion pictures, but I can’t quite feel the marvel of its originality while watching it. It’s the same problem I encountered while watching films like Frankenstein and Rear Window. I’ve been exposed to so many references, allusions, parodies and spoofs of their themes and concepts in my lifetime that I can’t capture the originality of it all while watching it. It’s as if my film-going experiences have spoiled me from latching on to something truly great.
While I appreciate Scorsese’s breakthrough for all the impact and influence it has had on all the films I watched growing up, and while I understand the cultural and historic importance of the film, Mean Streets is one of the ones that got away; an otherwise great film falling victim to my sometimes-jaded generation.
Filled with lush settings, costumes and cinematography, Kevin Costner’s directorial debut is an absolute eye-pleaser. Turning Western film conventions on their heads, Dances with Wolves’ subtleties and melancholy tones won over audiences and Oscar voters alike, making it one of the best and most successful anti-Westerns of all time.
I use the term anti-Western because the film defies most of the generalizations and stereotypes that had become the norm in “cowboy and Indian” flicks. Gone is the notion that the white man is good and virtuous in his move westward. Likewise, the archetypal angry Indian savage has been thrown out the window. This is not to say that the roles have been reversed, because they haven’t. Instead, Costner aims to depict both parties objectively, as genuine human beings with parallel virtues and flaws.
The South Dakota setting is the first step in the right direction. Instead of filming in the barren desolation of Monument Valley, Dances with Wolves tells its tale on the rugged prairies of the Great Plains. While you wouldn’t think that hill after hill would be much to look at, the vastness is quite gripping. For parts of the film, Costner’s only screen partners are the hills and the sky that eventually bends down to meet them. It is the essence of both wonder and vulnerability.
Costner plays Lt. John Dunbar, a man whose suicidal antics on the Civil War battlefield gets him labeled a hero and earns him a ticket to whatever outpost he likes. He chooses one of the most remote outposts on the western frontier. He finds it abandoned and in disarray. As the only tenant, he does his best to get the fort up to snuff. As he waits for the reinforcements that may never come, Dunbar has frequent visits by a curious wolf and tense encounters with the native Sioux Indian tribe.
Dunbar ultimately finds ways to ease the tension between himself and the Sioux and they form a mutual respect for each other. As his relationship with the Sioux builds, Dunbar finds himself more and more disenfranchised with the ways of the supposedly civilized white man and finds himself sympathetic to the Sioux cause. He finds friendship, dignity, love and inner peace with the natives and is forced to choose sides when US troops finally make their way to his fort, delivering harsh doses of Westward Expansion to anyone standing in their way.
The concept of “going native” was not new with this film but the process is head and shoulders above the rest because Costner allows plenty of time for Dunbar’s transformation to take place. At three hours long, Dances with Wolves is a sprawling tale. Without that kind of length, the story would have been shortchanged and Dunbar’s shift in allegiances would have seemed rushed.
While a three hour run time may have been necessary for the story to seem plausible, the film is not without its share of dull moments. The voice-overs and cinematography really help capture Dunbar’s isolation but there are times in the film when I felt more desperate for something to happen than Dunbar. It is very difficult for one person to be the focus of a film for a great length of time. Costner’s dry, matter-of-fact tone in the voice-overs doesn’t help much when you begin to feel less engaged by the film’s central character. A few years ago, Costner released a director’s cut version of the film that added an additional hour to the film’s run time. While the film is a real treat and a triumph at three hours, I fear that four hours would begin to try my patience.
This film makes sense as an Oscar winner for Best Picture. While many movie fans like to scoff and say that Goodfellas was more deserving, you have to understand how the Academy works. Dances with Wolves is sympathetic and empathetic with a downtrodden people. It helps to right some of the wrongs done to Native Americans over the years in cinema and television and challenges our notions of what is right, both historically and sociologically. Costner has crafted a thinking man’s Western that strives to be anything but a Western. That in and of itself makes Dances with Wolves a fantastic film to watch.
All too often, a successful film makes enough money and generates enough buzz that Hollywood can’t help but create a sequel. Not all sequels are bad but most are inevitably inferior to the original for one reason or another. The chief reason that Poltergeist II: The Other Side fails to find success is the original Poltergeist itself.
The original film was a breath of fresh air from the rising trend in splatter films and graphic horror. It used common yet creative scenarios to make the hairs on the back of our necks stand up. It was the fear of the seemingly normal that fueled the first film. Most importantly, the original was such a tight and complete film that it left no room for a sequel. The Freelings saved their daughter, found out why their house was haunted and got the heck out of Dodge.
This film does what should have been unthinkable- it undoes all the closure of the original and supplants it with reasoning that’s far harder to swallow (a tactic know as retroactive continuity or rectconning). The filmmakers are basically saying, “Remember that nice, neat ending in the original? Well there’s more!” Unfortunately, less is almost always more.
Before, the reason for the haunting had been because the Freeling homestead was built over a cemetery where only the headstones had been moved. Now the story is that a religious cult committed mass suicide in a cave under the house and their souls are still trying to cross over. The youngest Freeling, Carol Anne, is special and those lost souls need her to be led to the other side. The spirit of the cult leader, Kane, will stop at nothing to have her.
Retconning always cheapens a story because it takes what you thought you knew to be true and throws it out the window. Philosophers might not mind it but it’s quite irksome to moviegoers. It doesn’t take away the power and impact of the original Poltergeist but it certainly makes the sequel harder to accept and get into.
I think the biggest problem is that the film tries to force a potentially interesting plot onto the same family. There was such a sense of relief and triumph for the Freelings at the end of the first film that everything happening now just seems excessive and unfair. How much paranormal abuse does one family have to be subjected to? The events that unfold could have easily occurred to a new family and it could have been so much more than it turned out to be.
Other problems that plague the film are either omissions or forced inclusions. Dana Freeling, the eldest child, is absent without any explanation (though the actress who played her died shortly after the release of the first film). Carol Anne’s grandmother is introduced to reveal the young girl’s specialness and act as a sort of catalyst for things to come. There is also an awkward Native American element to the film that is never fully explained. Taylor, a shaman, has some kind of connection to Kane and can help open a portal into the first part of the other side, where Kane and his followers are stuck. Neither of these things get explained at all. Finally, when the Freelings travel into the other side to save Carol Anne the effects are anything but special, even for 1986.
Put simply, Poltergeist II: The Other Side strikes me as an interesting idea with plenty of potential. Had the story not been forced to fit around the Freeling family, that potential may have been realized. Poltergeist did not need a direct sequel and Poltergeist II did not need to be a direct sequel.
Released amidst the recent onslaught of contemporary movie musicals, Across the Universe tells a tale of love, political unrest and war during the 1960s set to the music of The Beatles. As The Beatles’ popularity is still strong as ever and considering the success of movies such as Moulin Rouge!, that use a menagerie of contemporary tunes to fuel its story, Across the Universe undoubtedly seemed to be not only a safe bet but a good idea as well. Unfortunately, the film never manages to escape the realm of just a “good idea.”
If any group deserves to have their songs used in the form of a musical production, it’s The Beatles. Their career and discography are expansive to say the least. With all their sounds and styles, you could use their music in several different genres of musicals. It’s all a matter of how it’s executed. Writer-director Julie Taymor came up with a good idea but failed in the execution.
Song and dance numbers in musicals are meant to be fun and entertaining, which is mostly true for Across the Universe, but they are also supposed to help move the story along. That’s not the case here. Instead, the use of The Beatles’ songs is the main selling point, leaving the actual story and plot as an aside, calling upon it momentarily to help move us into the next rendition of a Beatles classic.
The plot itself is quite generic- a young man from England moves to America in the 1960s in the hopes of making something of himself. He falls in love with a girl and they get caught up in the turmoil of the times, encountering a variety of colorful characters along the way. Some call it a tried-and-true formula but it feels more tiredly formulaic than anything else. Case in point- the use of the Vietnam War as an antagonistic backdrop. Vietnam has been used so many times in so many films that it has almost lost its value as an antagonist. And the use of it as a shallow allusion to modern military struggles has only become tacky for me.
The characters are another of the film’s problems. All of them are flat, filling out one kind of gross generalization or archetype or another. Other characters are stand-ins for cultural icons like Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. Very few, if any, characters have any depth, which makes them hard to appreciate or get behind. The actors all do a very good job of singing The Beatles’ tunes but that only gets you so far.
While I appreciate the use of several songs that are not among the most oft-heard Beatles tunes on the radio, I feel slightly robbed at the same time. Tunes like “Oh! Darling,” “Blue Jay Way,” and “I’ve Just Seen a Face” are inspired choices and help satisfy people like me, who enjoy The Beatles’ entire catalogue, but with the songs being the main focus of the film, why not go for broke and include all the classics? Where’s “Love Me Do,” “Help!” and “A Hard Day’s Night”? I’m sure they could have been slipped in there somewhere.
Perhaps to make up for some of the songs left out of the production, or perhaps just to be extra cheeky, many of the characters are named after people in Beatles songs. You’ve got Sadie, Jude, Lucy, JoJo, Maxwell, Desmond, Molly, Dr. Robert, Mr. Kite and even Prudence! But nowhere to be found is Eleanor Rigby, Father McKenzie, or Sgt. Pepper. At first it’s somewhat amusing but then the references just keep coming and it gets tired in a hurry.
The other issue I had with the film was with some of the ways the song lyrics were re-interpreted to fit the story. I didn’t have a problem with a teenage lesbian singing “I Want to Hold Your Hand” while watching the head cheerleader do her thing but when Uncle Sam starts singing “I Want You” in the draft office and soldiers carrying the Statue of Liberty through Vietnamese rice patties crying out “She’s so heavy!,” I can’t help but roll my eyes. The few times Taymor tries to use the songs to help the story we get groan-worthy literal segments like this.
All in all, Across the Universe is a good idea. It really is. But to make it work, you would need to relegate the Beatles songs to the role of a supporting player, something Taymor seems unwilling to do. Instead of crafting a love story and capturing the romance and drama of the 60s, all Across the Universe manages to be is a Beatles sing-a-long that doubles as an anti-war film.
Telling the tale of a self-conscious little elephant who’s just trying to fit in, Dumbo incorporates a lot of positive messages into its lean 64-minute run time. While certainly one of the shortest of Disney’s animated motion pictures, Dumbo still packs a good punch and is enjoyable for children and adults alike. While it may not be as stylistically impressive as Snow White, Pinocchio or Fantasia, it remains a Disney classic.
Mrs. Jumbo, a circus elephant has been waiting for a baby to call her own. One night, the stork brings her a bundle of joy. Only the little guy has a huge set of ears. This causes the Mrs. Jumbo’s peers to shun little Dumbo. They tease him and so do circus goers, which drives Mrs. Jumbo into a rage. She is put in isolation and kept away from her son, who faces a life of ridicule far from the loving embrace of his mother.
Little Dumbo is the only elephant in the circus unafraid of mice. He befriends Timothy, which pays off big. Timothy sees the cruelty Dumbo faces daily and decides to help the youngster find his self worth. They set off on an adventure that wins Dumbo the respect of all and the freedom of his mother.
There’s a lot of good stuff in Dumbo. It tells a positive story of a young, insecure child overcoming adversity. Born with a perceived flaw, Dumbo learns that what others see as different is really just part of what makes him himself. He learns to shrug off detractors and mockers and finds meaning in his life through this “flaw.” While children aren’t going to be able to make a living off of big ears, the right message is being sent- “don’t let anyone tell you there is something wrong with you.” Just because he’s different doesn’t make him deficient.
Also, good morals are on display with his mother. While rampaging through the circus isn’t such a good thing to do, her love for her son is unending and she is willing to do anything to make sure he feels safe and secure.
Dumbo’s relationship with Timothy and the crows are also positive. While they acknowledge Dumbo’s unique features with some surprise, they treat him as just another person. They don’t treat him like he’s handicapped; they show him respect as an individual and encourage him to find value in himself. The crows have come to be considered racist and stereotypical characterizations of black people, which I can understand, but the fact remains that they were some of the only genuine and supportive characters in the film.
This was Disney’s fourth full-length animated film. It seems that after three lush films with impeccable detail (Snow White, Pinocchio and Fantasia), Disney was going for a more laid back approach with Dumbo. In many ways it works. Too much detail would have become very distracting during the circus bits. Seeing vague outlines of spectators was perfectly fine. There wouldn’t have been any need to put any extra detail there.
That being said, I can’t help but compare the animation of Dumbo to Disney’s previous efforts. The story structure and moralistic qualities are every bit as there as its predecessors but the difference in animation came as quite a jolt. The difference was intentional in order to maximize profits, which I can understand. It’s just a big change, especially after Fantasia’s achievements in artistic quality.
The story is great and the animation is pretty good too. The only other thing that surprised me was how short it was. Seeing as it’s been at least 20 years since I’ve seen this film, I shouldn’t be surprised. Everything was bigger and took longer when I was a kid. Dumbo deserves its reputation as an animated classic.
Enormous in scope and of breathtaking quality, it is no wonder that Wings was the first film to claim the award of Best Picture at the first ever Academy Awards. In fact, Wings all but sums up excellence in a motion picture. The direction and cinematography are among the best I’ve ever seen. Perhaps the only thing holding this film back is the fact that it’s a silent film.
This doesn’t mean that I have anything against silent films. In fact, the epic silent film Metropolis holds my highest possible rating. I think the problem lies in the silent film acting technique. Unlike Metropolis, there is a fair amount of facial overacting in Wings. It was essential at the time to express the emotions of the characters involved but nowadays it has a tendency to come across as a little hammy.
This minor issue aside, I was completely sucked into this film. Following two young men from a small town, Wings takes you on a trip through military training and into the air amidst the dogfights of World War I. Jack and David both compete for the affection of a young girl in their town but get called off to war. Through their training, Jack and David become best friends and end up fighting aerial battles against the German air force in France. Meanwhile, Mary, a girl from their hometown who is secretly smitten with Jack, joins the Armed Forces as an ambulance driver and desperately attempts to track Jack down amidst the chaos of war.
It’s romantic, it’s violent, and it’s a story that still resonates today. Hearing about young men going off to war and watching some of them return in a casket is something we are all too familiar with. Unlike some war films, Wings doesn’t romanticize the concept of war. In fact, it demonizes war as something that destroys the bonds of friendship and tears families apart on the home front. In some ways, Wings is an anti-war film. The message is short and comes in the final reel but its presence is undeniable.
What impressed me the most with this film is the use of aerial footage. There’s no camera trickery here when the main characters are shown in the cockpits of their planes. The actors all learned how to fly in order to capture the utmost realism of the dogfight sequences. Wider shots, showing the planes as they tumble and turn to gain advantage on their adversaries are beautifully captured on film. It just boggles my mind that director William A. Wellman was able to turn these ideas into visualizations. Only Metropolis and Gone With the Wind match the epic scope of this film.
As one of the costliest films ever made at the time, Wings wowed me with its attention to detail and uncompromising vision. The technical demands of this film must have been a logistical nightmare. But it’s a living, breathing film at the same time. It wasn’t held back or made stale by all of the details. The story is both heartwarming and heartbreaking. To pull the creative, technical, emotional and artistic aspects together so well makes Wings one of those rare films that truly is complete in every way.
I wasn’t as caught up in the romantic aspects of the film as original audiences may have been but I haven’t been moved by too many love stories, period. Wings mixes cinematic marvel with technical achievement and throws a splash of high-octane drama in to boot. As one of the few World War I movies I have ever heard of, let alone seen, I think it’s a shame that this film has all but been forgotten about except when movie historians talk about the Oscars.
This film is a classic and deserves more respect and attention than it has been getting in recent years. If you can handle silent films, then I highly recommend Wings to you.
It’s not high art but it’s not low-brow cinema either. Home Alone is one of those rare family comedies that hits all its marks and doesn’t leave you with an aftertaste of cheese.
WARNING: Mild spoilers ahead
After the success of the X-Men and Spider-Man franchises, Marvel Comics brings one of its most beloved comic book heroes to the big screen. It melds the original spirit of the comic with current events and a few updates. Mixing high-flying action, wit and an anti-war message is a tall undertaking but Iron Man manages to pull it off in just the right bright and loud package that comic book fanboys and summer movie audiences require.
Nineteen years after he rode off into the sunset, Indiana Jones returns to the big screen once more, for better or for worse. Older, slower, greyer and less agile, Jones is still keeping with his professor-by-day-adventurer-on-the-weekends antics. It’s not as easy as it used to be, but he’s still got plenty of sass, spirit and grit to dish out to those who stand in his way.
A made-for-TV movie featuring some of the most popular young stars of the day, Babes in Toyland is a modern take on the Victor Herbert operetta. Featuring very few of the original songs, this movie is a very loose adaptation of the original stage production, tweaked in various ways to make it work for the small screen. Unfortunately, the end result is an uninspired mess that misses the mark on many levels.
After the dark-toned journey of Temple of Doom, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg bring the beloved Indiana Jones back into the light for one last hurrah. Featuring plenty of girls, guns and globetrotting, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade pulls out all the stops and recreates most of the magic that captivated audiences in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Hearkening back to the lush backgrounds and detailed animations of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Pinocchio, Walt Disney and his crew of animators take audiences into the beauty of the great outdoors for their fifth full-length feature. With a trio of lovable characters, playful music and the innocence of nature, Bambi caps off Disney’s early years with one last triumph.
Switching from suburbia to the big city is just one of the many changes present in Poltergeist III, the final chapter in what quickly became a sputtering horror series. While there is a trend that suggests the final installment of a series is often times the worst, I found this film to be an exception to the rule.
Using a cast of virtual unknowns and a sneak attack marketing strategy, creative mastermind J.J. Abrams and his team of industry friends put together a non-stop thrill ride of a film, the production of which is every bit as impressive as the final result. Abrams and company successfully bring horror and disaster films into the 21st Century with a YouTube generation treatment that is far more than just Godzilla meets The Blair Witch Project.
WARNING: Major Spoilers Ahead!
At their worst, comedic troupe Monty Python was still able to draw awkward chuckles. At their best, they were capable of the kind of unparalleled comedic genius that fills this film from start to finish. While there are those who frown upon Monty Python’s silly antics and those who simply do not get dry, British humor, I believe that it is impossible for a sane and living person to watch this film and not laugh at least one time.
Set one year before Raiders of the Lost Ark (making this George Lucas first actual foray into prequels), Indiana Jones finds himself dodging bullets and assassins while trying to rescue enslaved children at the same time. It’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it. Fortunately, Indy is up for the task. Unfortunately, Temple of Doom fails to relive the glory of its predecessor. While certainly no failure by any means, this film does disappoint on a number of levels. 
This is the film that broke Martin Scorsese into the big time and helped launch the careers of Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel. Its gritty realism and hip cultural awareness was lauded upon its release and it continues to be held in high regards in terms of its originality and historical importance. Sadly, I am unable to give Mean Streets the credit it is due.
Filled with lush settings, costumes and cinematography, Kevin Costner’s directorial debut is an absolute eye-pleaser. Turning Western film conventions on their heads, Dances with Wolves’ subtleties and melancholy tones won over audiences and Oscar voters alike, making it one of the best and most successful anti-Westerns of all time.
All too often, a successful film makes enough money and generates enough buzz that Hollywood can’t help but create a sequel. Not all sequels are bad but most are inevitably inferior to the original for one reason or another. The chief reason that Poltergeist II: The Other Side fails to find success is the original Poltergeist itself.
Released amidst the recent onslaught of contemporary movie musicals, Across the Universe tells a tale of love, political unrest and war during the 1960s set to the music of The Beatles. As The Beatles’ popularity is still strong as ever and considering the success of movies such as Moulin Rouge!, that use a menagerie of contemporary tunes to fuel its story, Across the Universe undoubtedly seemed to be not only a safe bet but a good idea as well. Unfortunately, the film never manages to escape the realm of just a “good idea.”
Telling the tale of a self-conscious little elephant who’s just trying to fit in, Dumbo incorporates a lot of positive messages into its lean 64-minute run time. While certainly one of the shortest of Disney’s animated motion pictures, Dumbo still packs a good punch and is enjoyable for children and adults alike. While it may not be as stylistically impressive as Snow White, Pinocchio or Fantasia, it remains a Disney classic.
Enormous in scope and of breathtaking quality, it is no wonder that Wings was the first film to claim the award of Best Picture at the first ever Academy Awards. In fact, Wings all but sums up excellence in a motion picture. The direction and cinematography are among the best I’ve ever seen. Perhaps the only thing holding this film back is the fact that it’s a silent film.
