Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

How do you make a full-length film out of a book that’s only 10 sentences long? This is just one of the many questions that initially surrounded Where the Wild Things Are. For the millions of people who grew up reading Maurice Sendak’s classic children’s book there was plenty of skepticism that the film could be done right. After an electrifying trailer showed the world that making the land of the Wild Things real was possible, expectations shot off the charts. This pre-release hype greatly contributed to the undoing of this charming and captivating film.

Like nearly everyone else leaving the theater, I found myself puzzled by Where the Wild Things Are. Director Spike Jonze absolutely delivers the goods when it comes to the world of Max and his monstrous friends but he catches us all off guard with his in-between-the-lines details. Much of the film’s mood and tone were not what I was expecting at all. Just about everyone who sees this film will probably tell you the same thing.

Max is a lonely little boy. His single mother works hard to provide for Max and his sister but Max’s wild imagination leaves him longing for attention. His antics escalate until his mother finally snaps at him. Terrified, Max runs away and, after discovering a small boat in a pond, sets sail for parts unknown. He comes across an island inhabited by intimidating creatures. At first the creatures want to eat the intruder but Max tells them he is a great king and will bring harmony to their land. The Wild Things, longing for stability and leadership embrace Max as their new leader.

The Wild Things themselves are fantastically created. Rather than using entirely CGI creations, Jonze and his team of filmmakers used Jim Henson’s Creature Workshop to create full-scale costumes to bring these beings to life. Minimal CGI is used to add realism to the creatures’ faces, allowing them to look and interact like real beings. Jonze’s dedication to this aspect of the production is what allows the film to evoke the magic of Sendak’s story. This is how the Wild Things needed to be brought to life. Anything less would have been unforgivable.

As the wild rumpus carries on, Max finds himself both fascinated with each of the Wild Things and bogged down by their many needs and desires. Instead of just fun-loving beasts living easy-going lives, the Wild Things struggle with insecurity, jealousy and fear just like Max. As their king, it’s Max’s job to assure them that things are alright and keep them as happy as possible. Max is unable to walk the tightrope though and ends up favoring some of the Wild Things more than others and is unable to make up for his shortcomings. Realizing that his relationship with the Wild Things has become an almost mirror image of his relationship with his mother, Max understands that he’s not mature enough to try and play the parent and leaves for home.

This is all odd stuff for what is billed as a ‘children’s movie.’ There are no perfect beings in this world. Instead of fluffy, happy creatures, the Wild Things are every bit as human as the rest of us. This aspect of the Wild Things isn’t found in the book, leaving many viewers to look this development as a bad thing. I suggest just the opposite- the decision to make the Wild Things round characters makes the movie worth seeing. Max is not the only one afforded the opportunity to grow in this film and there is a lesson that growth has to be fostered by someone willing and able to do it. The subtle message here that just because someone is willing to take on such a task does not mean they are able to.

Many will complain that Where the Wild Things Are is too dark, complex and depressing for children. I have to wonder if this movie was even made for children at all. Jonze stated in an interview that this was a movie about childhood, not a children’s movie and I wholeheartedly agree. Children these days may still read and love Sendak’s book but this film was made for the millions of adults who grew up with it. Jonze gives us a chance to look back at childhood and acknowledge that it wasn’t all happy memories. In many ways, this film celebrates the importance of parenting. If nothing else, we should all come away from this film feeling grateful toward our parents (or whoever raised us) for doing their best for us.

Newcomer Max Records is terrific as Max and not just because he bears the same name. When he puts on the wolf costume, it is never a question that Records is Max, not an actor playing him. He also does a fantastic job of interacting with the puppeteers inhabiting the Wild Things’ costumes. Without the voice actors delivering their lines, Records does a wonderful job keeping the illusion alive and never lets on that he’s not really interacting with these creatures.

There are only a few times where the visual effects fail to dazzle the eyes but that’s okay. The fact that the world of the Wild Things is brought to life like it is makes up for just about any shortcomings you can find. The sets and locations are visually stunning and perfectly realized. Spike Jonze delivers a world that looks and feels like a real place, enveloping us in wonder.

Where the Wild Things Are is not quite what anyone was expecting. Then again, what exactly is to be expected of a full-length adaptation of a 10-sentence book? What we’re given is an emotionally honest look at childhood that, if you think about it, ought to make us feel a little uncomfortable. Welcome to the deconstruction of the myth of childhood. Your first reaction may be to reject this film but, given a mature mind and enough post-film thinking, you’ll be able to appreciate it for what it is and then some.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Twilight (2008)

Based on the hit series of teen romance novels, Twilight takes centuries of vampire lore and turns it on its head. Catering to teens with no concept of what love really is, young women who love the idea of being in love and lustful cougars who like to eye up attractive teenage boys, Twilight rises above what could have otherwise been a train wreck of epic proportions. I am by no means, however, suggesting that this film is any good.

Awkward, quasi-emo 17-year-old Bella Swan has to move in with her father while her mother’s new husband pursues a minor league baseball career in Florida. Bella moves from the sun and heat of Arizona to the perpetually cloudy town of Forks, Washington. At her new high school, Bella is big news as the new kid and she meets a variety of interesting people. She is fascinated by the odd-ball Cullen family, especially Edward. This interest is not exactly reciprocated though, as Edward seems repulsed by Forks’ newest resident.

After a few days absence, Edward returns to school and apologizes to Bella for making such a bad first impression. Like any good teenage girl, this causes Bella to swoon with infatuation for this mysterious boy sitting next to her in science class. His behavior changes almost daily between friendly and distant and from nonchalant to hovering, further confusing our poor girl. After Edward miraculously saves her life, Bella starts putting the pieces together and realizes that Edward and his family are vampires.

The fact that everyone and their uncle already knows that Twilight is about a girl falling in love with a vampire makes the first hour feel like wasted time. Fans of the book series will enjoy watching Bella’s discovery play out but, thanks to the trailers and legions of female fans raving about the books, there is little in the way of suspense or interest for the uninitiated. We already know this revelation is coming, so waiting an hour for it is frustrating.

The pace lags on for another half-hour as Bella is awkwardly introduced to Edward’s family, all of whom have sworn off drinking human blood to survive, and the two officially become something of a couple. Finally, after 90 minutes of awkward moments, lip biting, hormonal pining and stiffly delivered dialogue, something actually happens. Bella joins the Cullens for a laughable game of vampire baseball and their game is intruded upon by a trio of wandering vampires who prefer the traditional way of feeding. One of these vampires notices Bella’s scent and becomes obsessed with feeding upon her. The Cullens ward him off initially but they know that this ‘tracker’ vampire won’t stop until he drinks Bella dry.

The last quarter of the film is a blur of the Cullens trying to hide Bella, Bella being tricked out of hiding, Bella being captured by the baddie vampire and a fang-filled throw-down at the end. It’s almost enough to give you whiplash but not nearly enough to make up for the plodding pace of the first three quarters of the film.

Twilight was produced on a relatively modest budget of $37 million. Most of this budget seems to have been spent on post-production digital grading to suck most of the saturation and brightness out of the film. Everything but the greens in the forest looks unnaturally pale and bleak, the fakeness of which will drive hardcore cinephiles nuts all movie long. It seems that very little of the budget was spent on visual effects because most of the scenes involving Edward running super-fast or climbing trees with the greatest of ease will make you laugh out loud if you aren’t obsessed with the story.

The cast is made up of relative unknowns, which does help the film stay grounded as opposed to one major star being the focus. In this way, Twilight is able to use the story to draw in its audience. This is laudable in that the marketing department is forced to sell the story instead of the faces on the screen but it also does little to draw interest from anyone who hasn’t read the books.

I want to say that the actors do the best with the material they are given here. I really do. I’m just not sure I believe that. Most of the cast has never had a meaty role in their career and it shows. On top of this dearth of serous experience is a terrible script. I have yet to read the Twilight books, so I have to assume that the script is a major step down in quality. Otherwise I will have to wonder how author Stephenie Meyer ever got published.

Some of Meyer’s twists on vampire lore are interesting while others make no sense at all. The fact that the author only did cursory research into the characteristics of vampires is evident. Giving each vampire a different individual ability is a smart mechanism that allows each of the Cullen family to serve a purpose beyond being pale and intimidating. The notion of sparkly skin in the sunlight and certain humans having intoxicating scents, however, are the kind of ridiculous drivel that belongs in pulpy romance novels.

One lingering issue I have with the film is what draws our Romeo and Juliet together. Bella seems drawn to Edward largely because of his James Dean-eqsue attitude, his ability to protect her from a never-ending streak of clumsiness and stupid decisions, and simply because he is dangerous. Edward is drawn to Bella solely because her scent is like his ‘own brand of heroin.’ So basically, Edward wants to suck Bella’s blood and that turns her on. Edward seems to be settling for palling around with her since he has sworn off feeding on humans. Doesn’t anyone else find it the least bit odd that this vampire romance has almost nothing to do with love?

In the end, Twilight is a hit-or-miss kind of movie. Fans of the book series will be enthralled to see it all play out before their eyes. Some newcomers to the series may enjoy it while others will shrug their shoulders and move on. Girls and women will dig it but guys will likely be turned off by the ridiculous amounts of pining, spinning camera work, moody guitar music and teen angst designed to make you think these star-crossed lovers are every bit as important as the needlessly wordy script suggests.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Make Mine Music (1946)

Still strapped for cash and a full team of animators due to World War two, Disney cranked out this, yet another ‘package film.’ Instead of a common theme uniting the individual shorts, Make Mine Music returns to the Fantasia formula- an artful combination of animation and music. Despite bringing in a few big names to contribute to this anthology, the results are pretty mixed.

The original version of Make Mine Music began with a piece called ‘The Martins and the Coys,’ a Western-themed tale of two feuding families thrown for a loop when a boy from one family and a girl from the other fall in love with each other. I had to look this short up online, however, because all home video releases have removed this short because of its comedic use of gunplay that is no longer appropriate for children. Thanks a lot, political correctness.

Instead of a fun and lively opener, the version of Make Mine Music that I watched began with the dreadfully slow ‘Blue Bayou,’ a short that was originally supposed to be part of Fantasia. It’s simply a look at the animal and plant life of a bayou in the early evening. While the animation is beautiful, the pace is a downer. This makes for a very poor first impression and may hamper your ability to let yourself get into the rest of the film.

The first half of the film goes back and forth between slow pieces and upbeat shorts, creating an awkward see-saw effect. The second short on home video is ‘All the Cats Join In.’ Featuring the music of Benny Goodman, this short provides the spark missing from ‘Blue Bayou.’ A pencil draws the action as we’re seeing it, a clever twist to the animation, as cartoon teenagers get carried away by the new popular music of the era.

‘Without You’ is next, featuring a slow ballad sung by Andy Russell. Very little about this short is remarkable, save some of the shadows matching the music. The animated tale of ‘Casey at the Bat’ brings a little life back into the mix. Ernest Thayer’s classic poem is read and plays out with some pretty polished animation. Things drop back down a notch with ‘Two Silhouettes,’ which features an early example of rotoscoping, animating over footage of live-action events. Two ballet dancers appear as animated silhouettes while they dance to a tune sung by Dinah Shore and ‘interact’ with other animated elements on the screen. It’s a neat process but the pace kills momentum.

The final four shorts end Make Mine Music on a good note. ‘Peter and the Wolf’ offers a glimpse of the animation style that would become the norm for Disney in the next few years. ‘After You’ve Gone’ brings Benny Goodman back for a rousing mash-up between music and animated versions of the instruments being played. ‘Johnny Fedora’ and ‘The Whale Who Wanted to Sing at the Met’ are both cute little tales (though 'Whale' ends on a bit of a downer for a film targeted at children) that feature colorful animation and some good music.

While Disney may not have been deliberately trying to repeat the success of Fantasia with this film, comparison to the earlier masterpiece is inevitable. Make Mine Music features a number of interesting shorts but the order in which they play out could have been arranged better. The loss of ‘The Martins and the Coys’ is a major blow because the film starts off slow. This might cause viewers to lose interest almost immediately, which was almost the case with me.

Despite plenty of good shorts and some clever blending of animation and music, Make Mine Music doesn’t really try anything bold or groundbreaking. Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros tried a few new things but the anthology formula feels like it’s played out this time around. It’s a pretty good product in the end but it almost need to be another Fantasia to really matter. Sadly, it’s no Fantasia.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

The Mummy (1999)

This intellectually harmless summer popcorn flick is a real pleaser. Featuring an attractive cast of rising stars, plenty of flashy break-neck paced action, and mostly decent special effects, The Mummy is sure to entertain you with two hours of loud, silly fun.

The film begins in ancient Egypt. The lover of Pharaoh Seti I has been canoodling with the high court priest Imhotep. It doesn’t take long for the Pharaoh to figure this out but he is killed by the two lovers before he can wield his authority over them. Imhotep gets away but his lover is captured by the guards and executed. Imhotep attempts to resurrect his lover but is caught in the process and has a curse laid upon him- he is buried alive with a swarm of flesh-eating scarabs and cursed to immortality, thereby suffering in agony for eternity.

Fast forward to the 1920s- Egyptologist Evelyn Carnahan (Rachel Weisz) is searching for Hamunaptra, the fabled city of the dead. With the help of a rough-and-tumble American named Rick O’Connell (Brendan Fraser), they lead an expedition to find the city. At the same time though, another band of explorers are out to find the lost city and exploit it for material gain.

Both teams reach the city at the same time but are confronted by a group of Arabs sworn to protect the city from intruders. They warn of a curse on the city and that any disturbing this place risks unleashing Imhotep from his grave. The consequences, he assures them, would be dire. Naturally, everyone ignores the warnings. Evelyn’s team discovers the Book of the Dead and stumble upon the tomb of Imhotep while the other team loots other sections of the city, including the jarred remains of Imhotep’s lover.

Evelyn’s curiosity about the book of the dead leads to trouble. After reading a few passages at night, she accidently awakens Imhotep, who is none too pleased to be disturbed, let alone have his lover’s tomb ransacked. Imhotep breaks free from his bonds and tracks Evelyn and Rick down in Cairo, killing anyone who stands in his way. At this point, the film becomes a race against time to survive Imhotep’s onslaughts and to find a way to kill the mummy forever.

Many will view The Mummy as Indiana Jones lite. Frankly, this is probably the best mindset to have going into the film. If you are expecting anything more serious than a popcorn adventure flick, you will be disappointed. The cheeky humor and abundance of convenient escapes and bright ideas plays out like the old 30s serials the filmmakers were trying to replicate. It doesn’t capture the spirit of those old movies like Indiana Jones does but that’s not really the point.

Brendan Fraser was the right choice for Rick. The character doesn’t take things or himself very seriously and Fraser strikes me as someone who can’t be taken too seriously. Maybe it’s his boyish face or maybe it’s the films he has done in the past, but the name Brendan Fraser evokes thoughts of 'goofy action' rather than 'action hero.' Fraser rises to the occasion during some of The Mummy’s most intense scenes though. He never overacts or forces his lines, keeping the film rolling at a merry pace with its tongue planted firmly in cheek when need be.

While Rachel Weisz is used mostly as a pretty face and a damsel in distress, she gets enough opportunities to act toe-to-toe with her male counterparts and even gets to kick a little butt. The rest of the cast live up to expectations, especially Arnold Vosloo as Imhotep. His ice cold stares and relishing of destruction make him a great villain.

The Mummy boasts several interesting set pieces and plenty of action for the summer movie crowd. Most of the stunts and special effects look pretty good for 1999 but the filmmakers go a little overboard on the CGI towards the end. It doesn’t come as such a surprise though because the amount of effects escalates right along with the action.

Some viewers will think The Mummy is a bit too dumb and simple but these people are missing the point. This film is designed to be a little bit of brainless fun, not the second-coming of Indiana Jones. Unlike Indy, there is very little historical information to be learned from this film. It’s all mostly made up, which will disappoint history buffs but let’s remember that people don’t watch Brendan Fraser flicks to learn much of anything.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Legends of the Fall (1994)

Family drama, romance, war and an examination of masculinity all thrive in this beautifully shot film by Edward Zwick. Featuring a talented cast, beautiful location filming and plenty of meaty, makes-you-think subject matter, Legends of the Fall is a film that every man should see and one that every woman might be able to enjoy as well.

After becoming disillusioned with the US government, Colonel William Ludlow (Anthony Hopkins) moves his family to the frontier lands of Montana. His wife chooses to return to the East Coast after the harsh winters are too much for her, leaving Ludlow to raise his three sons with the help of a few Native American farmhands. As the boys grow up, it is clear that they are all wired differently. Alfred (Aidan Quinn) is the cautious rule follower, Tristan (Brad Pitt) the wild and macho boy, and Samuel (Henry Thomas) is smart but naïve.

Samuel goes to college and returns one day with a beautiful fiancée, Susannah (Julia Ormond). Both Alfred and Tristan are smitten with the lovely lady but Susannah is more taken by Tristan’s machismo than Alfred’s business savvy. Caught up in the whirlwind of war, all three brothers join the Canadian Expeditionary Force to fight the Germans in World War I. Samuel dies in combat, leading Tristan to go on a testosterone and rage-fueled rampage behind enemy lines. While this scenario is mostly outrageous, it serves to solidify Tristan’s wild man persona.

Alfred and Tristan return home, where Alfred proposes to Susannah and promises that his business prospects offer a good and stable life for the two of them. Susannah declines and falls into the arms of Tristan instead. This drives the brothers apart on multiple levels. First, Alfred is merely jealous for losing Susannah’s affections. Second, he is fed up with his brother’s irresponsible way of life and chastises Tristan for not be stable husband material. This falling out ends with Alfred swearing off his family and leaving the estate to pursue business ventures in Helena.

Plagued by guilt for one brother’s death and the other’s abandonment of the family, Tristan takes off to wrestle with his demons in the wild. For years, he travels the globe and struggles to reconcile with all that he has done and could not do. Susannah struggles to cope without Tristan and gives in to Alfred’s proposals. All is well and good until Tristan returns. Susannah’s feelings for the wild man come rushing back, Alfred still has nothing but spite for his brother and Tristan’s attempt to form a normal life comes crashing down around him.

Despite all of the beautiful scenery and solid cinematography, Legends of the Fall never really grips you the way it wants to. While the drama is quite good (though it does border on soapy territory on more than one occasion), the overall effect of the film is that of watching events unfold rather than experiencing these events with the characters. Perhaps this is because Tristan is too perfectly untamable and Alfred is too perfectly constructed as a proper man. Not until the film’s final minutes do we see any serious change in these characters’ tones.

Despite this sizable shortcoming, Legends of the Fall is a great reflection on masculinity. Alfred and Tristan’s outlooks are polar opposites and their discussions and observations give you a lot to think about. There has to be a middle ground somewhere between Tristan’s nature boy and Alfred’s spineless profiteer but this rare blend of boldness and sensibleness still eludes us to this day. I can’t tell if that should come as comfort to men who struggle to find this balance or if it will only serve to frustrate us further to know that this battle to be the best man possible hasn’t been at a stalemate for centuries.

The acting in this film helps hold the story together at time. Brad Pitt goes all out to capture the essence of Tristan, Aidan Quinn is sharp as a tack as Alfred, and Anthony Hopkins is enjoyable as ever as the distressed and later curmudgeonly father. If not for their dedication and spot-on performances, this film could have easily been dismissed as prairie romance pulp.

While there are many parts of the story that aren’t likely to be remembered long after the final reel, Legends of the Fall is a captivating tale. Sit back and marvel at the scenery and get your brain ready for a post-film discussion about what it takes to be a “real man.”

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Capote* (2005)

Every year there are a handful of films produced in Hollywood that can be summed up in two words: Oscar bait. In 2005, Capote was one of these films. This biopic, starring the ever wonderful Phillip Seymour Hoffman, is the kind of artful, cold and moody drama that the Academy loves to lift up despite a lack of general popularity at the cineplex.

The story focuses on Truman Capote, an eccentric, homosexual writer, who is at the height of his popularity as the film opens. Capote has just written Breakfast at Tiffany’s and the literary world is in love with him. After reading a short article in The New York Times about a Kansas family’s brutal murder, Capote offers to write an account of the tragedy and the impact it has had on the small community.

At first, covering the story yields little more than the expected somber tones from shocked neighbors and relatives. But Capote and his traveling companion, the soon-to-be-famous Harper Lee, are caught in a whirlwind of events and storylines when the killers are found and arrested. Capote moves in to further flesh out his story by trying to communicate with the killers. He eventually resorts to bribery in order to get past the staunch Mid-West police who otherwise aren’t fond of the quirky little writer.

Along the way, Capote’s reporting turns into a larger project- the novel In Cold Blood that would eventually usher in a new genre of true crime literature. As his ambitions grow larger, so do his sacrifices. Capote becomes transfixed by one of the killers to the point of developing mixed feelings of sympathy and attraction for him. Capote’s struggle to play both sides of the fence causes him serious anguish and would plague him for much of the rest of his life.

If you like biopics, this might be right up your alley. Capote captures a lot the elements that define a great biopic. Phillip Seymour Hoffman devotes himself completely to affecting the vocalizations and mannerisms of Truman Capote. Hoffman has made a career out of perfectly realized supporting characters and it is about time that he is given a meaty leading role. The only possible point of contention with Hoffman’s performance is that he is noticeably heavier than Truman Capote ever was. If you don’t do your research on the movie’s subject though, you’d never know, so this is amenable.

Capote is very much old-school Hollywood drama. There is very little action to speak of in the nearly two-hour film. Instead, we get a slow, methodical building process, layer after intricate layer as we watch Capote become consumed by ambition and get torn apart by his final realizations on the case and his work. The limited color pallet used in costuming and set dressings sets an appropriately bleak tone. Very little inventive camerawork is employed, keeping things straight on and never losing sight of the film’s focus.

Between these two aspects, Capote is a final product that feels more like something to be seen than something to be enjoyed. True crime lovers may just eat it all up and fans of Truman Capote’s work will likely want to see the film for its biographical content. As for the rest of us, well, we’re not exactly left in the dark. Capote is a very well made film that has a lot going for it. Most of these highlights are things that cinephiles will latch onto and the kinds of things that Academy member look for come Oscar season.

Having little to know knowledge of Truman Capote or his legacy before seeing this film may have held me back a little in fully grasping why this film was as important as it was. This did not, however, take away from my ability to recognize good filmmaking, which is exactly what this film is.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

I Am Legend (2007)

Based on a classic sci-fi novel that has been adapted to film a handful of times already, I Am Legend gives Will Smith the opportunity to be the sole attraction in a motion picture. A vaccine that, at first, cures cancer turns out to have ugly side-effects and converts human beings into pale, gollum-esque monsters. If this sounds to you like Cast Away with zombies, you’re not entirely wrong.

While the infection spreads across Manhattan, the US military takes drastic steps and isolates the urban island from the rest of the world in hopes of containing the creatures. Trapped amidst the chaos is Dr. Robert Neville (Smith), a brilliant virologist, who comes to be the last normal human in a decaying metropolis. Neville is somehow immune to the disease and has been searching for a cure for three years.

With his pet dog as his only companion (and possibly his last bastion of sanity), Neville struggles to survive with limited resources while bracing himself at night for periodic attacks with wandering packs of the nocturnal creatures. A series of slowly-unfolding but shocking events rock Neville’s world and he finds himself fighting desperately for his life.

Will Smith performs admirably as the fixture of the film but he lacks the right kind of presence it takes to lead a one-man show. I can’t explain it any better than that. Tom Hanks had it in Cast Away and Kevin Costner had it in Dances with Wolves but Will Smith just isn’t a stand-alone kind of actor. He does the best he can but I think his comedy past makes it hard to embrace him is such a grimly serious role.

The apocalyptic scenario and the eerie vision of an almost unpopulated Manhattan are chilling and good for a few thrills. The trouble lies in thinking about what you are seeing. The devil is in the details, as they say, and when you examine the details, things begin to fall apart. Some things, like Neville’s fortunate supply of non-perishable food is passable given the three year time frame. Other things, like the fact that he is still able to use gasoline that hasn’t been treated through three years of summers and winters, all but shatter your suspension of disbelief.

Had the pace of the film been quicker and more action-oriented, the filmmakers would have succeeded better in pulling the wool over our eyes. But we are treated to a number of scenes where Neville works away in his quiet isolation, giving us time to examine the details of his world. When the action does ratchet up though, Smith rises to the occasion and puts all his effort into portraying fear and desperation. This is where he succeeds most. Not as a driven scientist trying to find a cure; not as a man hopeful for companionship; but as a man scared witless about the terror that surrounds him.

Portions of this film are too reliant on special effects, mostly the scenes involving the man-monsters that have taken over. Apocalyptic disaster films don’t always need cunning digital trickery to succeed (case in point- 28 Days Later) but, after so many films of this nature over the years, I Am Legend was wise to try to differentiate itself somehow. It just surprises me that a film with a $150 million budget could have some abysmal effects like the zombie-dog attack scene.

The creatures themselves are not very satisfying and troubled me all film. How exactly did this virus cause them all to become pale, hairless creatures that barely look human at all? Despite all the science thrown at us when Neville is looking for a cure, there is no suitable answer for why the masses of infected have devolved so much. Partway through the film we are led to believe that there is more to these hive-minded simpletons than meets the eye but nothing ever comes from this kernel of promise.

The ending of the film is interesting and creates a different spin on the title than the source material. However, this ending is wildly different from how the book ends and is not nearly as satisfying. It just goes to show you that some things should not be tampered with. Evidently, an alternate ending was shot that was somewhat more in line with the book. Having read the details of this alternate ending, I can tell you that I would have preferred it to what the filmmakers give us.

On the whole, I Am Legend is a pretty decent watch. It will give you goose bumps and entertain you for sure. If you think about the film too much afterward though, some of the magic wears off. With the state of Hollywood productions these days, this is almost to be expected but that really isn’t a valid excuse.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

The Three Caballeros (1944)

Not having gotten enough Latin American flavor from Saludos Amigos, Walt Disney keeps his next animated anthology film South of the border. Donald Duck receives a box full of surprises from his friends in Central and South America. These gifts entertain both Donald and the audience for 70 minutes of good fun and a little dash of impressive animation.

First, Donald opens a film projector and watched a guide to some of the regions unique birds. This includes the tale of Pablo the Penguin, who ditches Antarctica in search of the Galapagos, and the zany Aracuan. The film then segues into the charming tale of a Uruguayan boy’s discovery of a flying donkey. It’s all cute and fun and provides Disney’s animators with ample opportunities to blend their work with the orchestration.

Donald’s next present is a book about Brazil. The book opens to feature José Carioca, the fanciful parrot introduced in Saludos Amgios. Donald is magically transported inside the book to Bahia, Brazil. There, the two friends take in the local culture, colors and music. This portion of the film also includes some clever fusions of our animated characters interacting with flesh-and-blood people dancing through the streets.

After exiting the book, Donald and José open the final present, a crate from Mexico. After a fanciful music number, we are introduced to Panchito Pistoles, a gun-slinging rooster who whisks his friends off for even more Latin flavor on a magic serape ride. There’s a little more culture and a lot more music and blending of live action and animation. In Acapulco, Donald becomes smitten with beach-going gals and the nightlife of Mexico City.

The film closes with a very surreal mishmash of animated weirdness brought on by the kiss of a lovely lady. Some of it makes no sense and just seems like the animators and musicians teaming up to have a little bit of random fun. Some of it is amusing but other parts are just weird.

On the whole, The Three Caballeros doesn’t compare to Fantasia in terms of audacity and ingenuity but it does have its merits. Instead of turning out like a revamped Saludos Amigos, Caballeros does bring some new tricks along with it. The live action-animation fusion gives the film some purpose but the culture and traditions on display hardly hold up now. Maybe when Mexico and South America were less known and more exotic to Americans this film was something to talk about. That really isn’t the case anymore, so this film isn’t as likely to thrill modern audiences.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

The Ten Commandments* (1956)

This is one of those classic films that speak for itself. Cecil B. DeMille’s sprawling epic is a masterpiece and its reputation continues to assert that fact. The Ten Commandments is the be-all and end-all of Bible epics and will almost certainly remain a permanent fixture of Easter season television programming in America.

As evidenced in DeMille’s 1923 incarnation of the Exodus story, the man knows how to bring the Bible to life. This film was made at a great time for the Hollywood studio system. Using large studio settings and some outdoor location shoots (though very little was actually shot in Egypt), audiences are treated to a seemingly real and habitable ancient Egypt. Couple this with a supporting cast of over 10,000 people and even more animals and you get a lush kaleidoscope of colors and bodies that simply can’t be beat.

Acting titans Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner square off as Moses and the Pharaoh of Egypt. While several major creative liberties were taken in crafting the script for this film, it wouldn’t have been the same without these alterations. Both men are adept at striking just the right pose to fuel their commanding presences. Several of the film’s actresses showcase their abilities in portraying strong women in what is largely a male-dominated story about a very patriarchal era. Anne Baxter is seductive and alluring as Nefertiri, making her an equally dangerous force for Moses to reckon with.

While more than a few of the special effects look hokey and horribly dated by today’s standards, one has to remember that these were pretty dazzling for 1956. Many admirers of the film have grown accustomed to shrugging off these visual shortcomings with a smile while others embrace them as part of the original magnificence of the piece.

The legacy that The Ten Commandments carries with it is simply impressive. While other Bible epics were produced in the 50s and 60s, only Ben Hur has stood the test of time alongside this film, though The Ten Commandments is, without question, more popular. It contains some indefinable element that never fails to grab audiences with every viewing, despite running over three and a half hours in length.

At this point I have literally run out of things to say for this film. It is a film that you must experience for yourself. Once you do, you’ll get it. Yes, it looks cheesy now and makes religious scholars and historians cringe but this is one inspiring and jaw-dropping epic that continues to win over the masses.

RATING: 4 out of 5

The Ten Commandments (1923)

No, this is not the Charlton Heston epic you are thinking of. In fact, unless you are a film nut, you are probably among the majority of people who don’t even know this film exists. Instead of Cecil B. DeMille’s three-and-a-half hour Technicolor masterpiece, this is Cecil B. DeMille’s two-and-a-half hour black and white silent film masterpiece.

Unlike the eventual remake, this version of The Ten Commandments is not just about the life of Moses. Not quite split into equal parts, the first portion of the film covers Moses’ deliverance of the Hebrew people from Egypt. This part is full of lush visuals, including the use of California’s Nipomo Dunes to recreate Egyptian wastelands. While rudimentary by today’s standards, DeMille’s use of molded Jell-O to create the parting of the Red Sea must have been fantastic at the time. I was even impressed with some of the layering, blending and editing techniques employed to pull off this ambitious picture.

The second, longer portion of the film is a modern day morality tale (well, modern for the 1920s). Two brothers grow up in a strictly moral home, with their mother ingraining the importance of following the Ten Commandments. As the boys grow up, only one sticks to the Commandments, leading to a modest living as a carpenter. The other boy rejects the Commandments and becomes very rich and powerful but morally bankrupt. The brothers keep in touch over the years and their philosophies continue to be at odds until the film’s tragic final minutes.

The first half of the film is much more impressive in terms of scope, design and technique. This will likely cause viewers to be bored by the second half’s emphasis on story over style but there are points of interest in DeMille’s morality tale. While the mother clings to the angry God of the Old Testament, her Bible-abiding son chooses to emphasize the New Testament teachings of a loving and forgiving God. This difference in biblical interpretation between the generations intrigues me because it shows that those varying views of God were both running as strong in the early 20th Century as they are today. It’s interesting to realize that neither side has won out in the last 100 years.

Part of the fun of watching DeMille’s first go at The Ten Commandments is seeing which elements of the Egypt story he retained and expanded upon in his 1956 remake. While technological advancements would help DeMille fully realize his vision years later (and make a ton of money at the same time), there is no denying that the craftsmanship on display in this film is brilliant.

Nowadays, silent films aren’t exciting for moviegoers and the morals of the 1920s will seem dated, if not humorous, but The Ten Commandments was an early indicator of what the new medium of film could become.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5