Spice World (1997)

Considering they were the biggest British music phenomenon to take the world by storm since The Beatles, it shouldn’t surprise us that the Spice Girls were commoditized the way they were.  That being said, there really is no excuse for this mess of a film.  It’s obvious that the filmmakers want to emulate A Hard Day’s Night, but it doesn’t take long for the Spice Girls’ tour bus to run into a heaping pile of ‘what the heck just happened?’

The Spice Girls are prepping for a performance at the Royal Albert Hall but the grind of touring wears on them.  They are relentlessly pursued by tabloid snakes, wannabe documentarians, and Hollywood producers looking to cash in on the group’s popularity.  All they want (all they really, really want) to do is get some fresh air and spend time with their pregnant friend.  When their manager tries to prevent them from doing so, the Girls take off, putting their performance at the Hall in limbo.

It’s a shame that concert films weren’t in vogue in 1997 like they are now.  Ninety minutes of actual tour footage and backstage antics would have been far more insightful and interesting.  Instead, we get a rambling day-in-the-life saga full of screwball comedy clichés that wore out their welcome sometime back during the Ford Administration.  The framework is a total rip-off of A Hard Day’s Night (band is stressed, one or more members take off, scramble to get them together for the show) but at least The Beatles had charm. 

In Spice World, audiences are served a lukewarm story that depicts the Spice Girls more or less how everyone but their fans saw them- plastic nitwits who sing corny ballads about 90s ‘girl power.’  As with The Beatles, it is clear that, despite whatever stage presence they may have, none of the Spice Girls can act.  Lines are stiffly and awkwardly read, not delivered.  There is nothing personal or introspective about the script and we cannot even feel sympathy for the girls because no one feels bad for celebrities anymore.

As an American, I can’t help but wonder if Brits got more out of this film than all other nations.  All the random cameos and attempts at cheeky British humor fall flat for us because it’s not done well.  Do Brits appreciate it simply because they tried to tap into some obligatory Brit humor, or do they resent the Spice Girls all the more because it was a calculated attempt to score points with the home team?

These are some of the deepest questions you can expect to draw from this outright train wreck of a film.  Its Generation ADD target audience will soak up the randomness and Crayola-factory-gone-nuclear color pallet, thinking the Spice Girls are so clever.  Fans always forgive, but I am not a fan.  And I will certainly never forgive anyone involved in making this movie.  Run from this one.  Run from it as fast as you can.

RATING: 1 out of 5

The Lion King (1994)

Save for a pit stop into the European-esque setting of Beauty and the Beast, Disney continues its use of exotic locales for its animated films. Set in the wilderness of the African grasslands, The Lion King features a tonal shift back towards the dramatic while still maintaining much of the flash and sizzle that early entries to the Disney Renaissance brought to the table. The end result may not go down as smooth for some but this film is undeniable as a spectacle to behold.

A multitude of animals from the Pride Lands gathers to celebrate the birth of a new prince, a lion cub named Simba. The rambunctious cub is watched with glee by many but disdained by his uncle, Scar. The devious villain executes a plot that leaves Simba’s father dead while convincing the young prince that it is his fault. Simba avoids death at the hand of Scar’s minions but runs away in self-imposed exile, full of grief over his father’s death. As Simba grows up, he must confront his fears, question what he came to accept as the truth, and return to his homeland to face his uncle once more.

Disney really shoots for the stars here. The Lion King features some heavyweight dramatic elements, a top-notch crew handling the soundtrack, and some of the best animal animation since Bambi. It all pays off pretty well, but seeing it for the first time in many years leaves me thinking this film is just a wee bit overrated.

Much of the animation is glorious. The colors and textures weaved throughout the foreground and background environments expertly present the African plains. The filmmakers gave Disney’s crew of animators a tall task in creating animal characters that actually move like the real animals do. While I am sure that there are a handful of inaccuracies and inconsistencies here and there, the attention to detail is evident and maintained my suspension of disbelief.

As with other Disney movies of the era, the few instances of CGI-traditional animation fusion (including parts of the signature wildebeest stampede) just don’t do it for me. After mentioning this a few reviews in a row, I have to wonder if this comes from modern CGI animation spoiling us with its realism or if I would have actually noticed and complained about this hybrid style had I been an adult seeing it when it initially came out. Special effects never look as good at home as they do on a large theater screen. That is just a fact.

The music and songs of The Lion King are the stuff of legend. As with Aladdin, there are actually only five songs in the original version of the film (they added a new ditty to the special edition version that I watched but I’m able to look past it). Unlike its predecessor, four of the five songs are terrific and continue to be popular to this day. It’s hard to imagine anything less with such talent involved (Elton John- music, Tim Rice-lyrics, Hans Zimmer- conductor). Only Scar’s tune, “Be Prepared,” lacks staying power, but how many villain songs actually have much popularity with the kids anyway?

Believe it or not, I find the most fault with the characters and the story of this film. Once again, Disney’s dastardly villain is effeminate. Why does Scar, who looks and occasionally acts fierce, have to slink around like the female lions and utter whiny sarcasm with a British accent? Scar and Jafar seem cut from the same cloth- powerful villains watered down with what could be mistaken for stereotypical homosexual qualities and mannerisms. To top it off, his musical number is full of Nazi imagery (goose-stepping hyenas anyone?), which makes the characters as a whole feel somehow disjointed and confusing.

Speaking of the hyenas, I found them to be very creepy; I imagine many small children being terrified of them then and now. They aren’t the only supporting characters that get it wrong for me either. Timon and Pumba, joyfully raucous as they are, flood their scenes with non-contextual humor that doesn’t fit with either the African setting or the serious tone of the rest of the film. Had The Lion King gone for broke with the funny throughout (a la Aladdin), their antics wouldn’t have been as detrimental to my overall rating. When the rest of your film smacks heavily of Hamlet, it’s nice to have some comic relief. But these two go a little overboard at times, as if their existence is to entertain and engage those kids who might be bored with the rest of the film’s adult overtones.

There is a lot going on in this film, which sometimes can be disastrous. Fortunately for Disney and audiences alike, The Lion King walks its tightrope with deft precision. Several pitfalls and traps lie throughout its 88-minute runtime, but it never gets too carried away in its seriousness or its silliness. I can’t fault anyone for thinking this is one of Disney’s greatest films but I will certainly disagree with them. It functions well enough as an epic animated spectacle but, if you look closely, you can see where the gloss and glamour run a little thin.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Casablanca** (1942)

It seems like every time that I watch this film I understand its popularity more and more. This was one of what I call the Original Eleven- one of the 11 films that I watched in my freshman comp & speech class in college that started my whole movie rating obsession. I did not care for it one bit when I first saw it in the autumn of 2002. Over time, I have come to terms with much of this film, but I still have a few issues with it.

Some films from Casablanca’s era are ridiculously dialogue heavy. I used to wonder if this was a common trait for older films but I found that to not necessarily be the case as I have watched more and more films from the early days of Hollywood. Casablanca certainly fits the mold of reel-to-reel lightning-fast conversation. The conversations between Rick, Ilsa, Victor, and Captain Renault are full of exposition, wit, and a flurry of emotions.

At times, these conversations literally pull you from one point to the next, giving you very little time to digest what is actually being said. If you are fine with taking the film as it comes, then you probably see nothing wrong with any of its content. The more you think about the film afterwards, however, the more you realize its plot elements fall apart in some ways. It’s only an hour and forty minutes long, so there is plenty of room to slow the dialogue down and tighten up a few of the details.

The music of Casablanca is terrific and the acting is very good, but there isn’t much that I found technically exciting about this film. There are a lot of static shots of people talking to each other or cuts back and forth between the faces. I can recall one scene in Rick’s where the use of shadow is quite good but very little else stands out as a unique or memorable shot. There is also a pretty glaring continuity error during the famous airport scene- Major Strasser’s epaulettes appear and disappear between cuts. Oops!

Overall, I get why people love Casablanca. It is full of romanticism, heroism, and idealism set against the dark days of World War II. The cookie cutter bad guys are so mean that it’s hard not to cheer on those who oppose them. I see it as an above-average film with a cult following. I think part of the appeal is generational, as it provided a distraction from the grim realities of World War II when it was released and it was a model for idealism and earnestness for Baby Boomers growing up with its occasional re-release in theaters. I am not part of either generation, so I can easily look past it to find the better films of the era.

Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Second Rating: 3 out of 5

New Rating: 3.5 out of 5