Reviews

My name is Rich Drezen, and before I go any further, yes. I am related to the show's creator. She is my sister. She didn't ask me to write this. She did not ask me to praise the show. She didn't ask me to work on the show, even though I'm a professional cartoonist. I'm glad. The team that was put together knocked it out of the park.

I fell in love with the show even before seeing what the characters looked like or knowing what the premise was. Annie Murphy alone was worth the price of admission, and although she's well known for her role of Alexis Rose in Schitt's Creek, her voice explores the dynamic of a spoiled rich kid with such dimension that I grew to believe in what the character stood for immediately.

Every single one of the supporting cast is a home run. John Cho especially gives a dynamite performance as Bandit, Petey's recurring frenemy. Amy Hill and Christine Baranski are icing on the cake as Mae Mae and Petey's mom respectively.

Having known my sister her entire life, you'd think I'd know everything there is to know about her, and you'd be wrong. Knowing my sister's sensibilities about the world she sees with her eyes, this show has allowed me to get to know my sister in ways that go beyond conversation. I'm not even referring to personal stuff, I'm referring to observations about people, values, traditions, and other quirks about this crazy world we live in. In the pilot episode: Ed, Edd and Eddy fans may appreciate Petey's boyfriend, Brian, who is actually a wooden board.

The team assembled for this show has succeeded, I feel, in creating a show for everyone. While admittedly it is bittersweet that this show premiered during the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes, it's encouraging that creativity is alive and well and thriving. I am hopeful that the strikers get a much better deal than that they've been dealt. That notwithstanding, go watch the show and form your own opinions.

I finally watched this tonight, I had been wanting to for a while, I just wasn't in the mood at the time...was trying to do more work for my animated series...this movie just blew me away. I can't say enough about how great the writing was, along with the animation, but that's a given when you have Bruce Timm and company working for you.

If I talked about the Phantasm, I'd be giving away the ending, so enough about that. Kevin Conroy has always provided Batman with a perfect voice. There is a particular weight to his performance here that I believe makes it one of his best performance as Batman. Some examples of this are; when he's being chased by the SWAT team and removes his cape and cowl to serve as a decoy COMPROMISING HIS IDENTITY (gasp), when he pleads before his parents' grave, and when Andrea returns the ring.

I can't think of anything I didn't like about this movie, which these days for me is a rarity. I'd recommend this movie to everyone, but more specifically animation students.

I would reminisce like most people I know and ask "where have all the good cartoons gone?", and I do, but regardless, the good cartoons were made, and this was one of them! For one thing, it was an original idea. It did use characters from previous Disney endeavors (Launchpad) which I think enhanced it. The villains were a riot! They were in a class by themselves! I remember having a Megavolt action figure, I don't remember what happened to him, but when I found out he was voiced by Dan Castellanetta (Homer Simpson), I really, really wanted that action figure back! Bushroot is cool, the Liquidator rocks!! Splatter Phoenix was an inspiration for a character in my animation series I'm developing, Taurus Bulba was a jerk (and a great one), but my favorite (and probably yours too) was Negaduck! Negaduck is the only Disney villain (or character, for that matter) to ever wield a chainsaw. Everyone needs to see this cartoon. I can't continue to write about it without spoiling anything or reminiscing about how I used to get yelled at in first grade for telling my teacher that I invited these characters to school to join us for lunch. Ah...those were the days!

I just finished watching it and I enjoyed it a lot. The animation is superb for a non-Disney film (after all, Disney is pretty hard to top), the characters are very interesting, though some could have been developed just a little bit further. The music is pretty good, I mean, it's the Sherman Brothers! The only problem I have with this film is the dialogue, which at times is GOD AWFUL. With the other elements of this film such as the story, characters, art direction, being as strong as they are, I can forgive the poorly written dialogue. This was a co-production between the US & Japan after all, so there was bound to be problems with the translation (Godzilla movies anyone?). Of all the characters, I found Flip to be the best. Mickey Rooney was perfectly cast in the part. I don't know if he was involved during the film's original production or just for the US redub, but he brings a great deal of wit and charm to the character. Altogether, this is a great film and I recommend it very highly, especially for budding animators. There's a lot in this film to get inspiration from.

This is very hard to find, but I found it! Most of the characters have matured in design since Super Mario Bros. the game, released just one year earlier. It seems safe for me to say that with some exceptions, Bowser and Luigi (only because of his color scheme), the characters' designs and personalities are very well developed. Princess Peach is dead on.

The story flows nicely throughout, I happen to be someone who thinks that Mario is very hard to write stories for because the games' storyline as a whole is weak and has no cinematic potential. In this case I was treated to a pretty solid story and some weird and sometimes unfitting J-pop.

If you're not a die-hard Mario fan, this probably isn't for you. Once you finish watching it, you're gonna want to break out your old NES.

This is one of the most entertaining television programs I've ever seen, and also one of the best. My father was born two days before the show first aired (9/19/1952, my dad was born 9/17), and watched it all through his boyhood in between collecting the comics and listening to the re-runs of the radio show. He called me upstairs about a year ago to see an episode, of all things, the pilot, and I sat down with him and treated myself to a page out of history. Although the show was filmed on a shoe-string budget and a rather tight schedule, it is important to see how the show's level of storytelling is firmly responsible for it's success.

George Reeves IS Superman. The Best. His Clark Kent is straight out of the comics both past and present, and it's interesting to see how much he added to both characters, especially with his sharp tenor voice, and razor-sharp smile. Phyllis Coates IS Lois Lane. She's sharp, she's impulsive, she's unbelievably sexy, and it's a shame she didn't return for the second season. Noel Neill is a milder version of Lois which is mirrored by the Fleischer's version. She's sneaky, she's smart, and she always gets her story. Being that she played Lois in both of the Kirk Alyn serials of 1948 & 1950 (which I have yet to see thanks to Warner Bros. marketing scams) she knows what she's doing, but I don't think her Lois really comes out until the 3rd season. From there on in, she's solid. Who could ask for a better Jimmy Olsen than the one played by Jack Larson? If anyone can, they better keep it to themselves! Larson is perfect in the role and shows that he did his research of both the character and how an office boy's days usually run. It's also cool to hear his reminiscences of his tenure on the show on the DVDs. John Hamilton plays Perry White the way any newspaper editor ought to be played; with vim and verve and razor sharp toughness. His reporters would not dare miss a deadline in this case! My favorite supporting cast member however has got to be Inspector Bill Henderson as played by Robert Shayne. WHAT A VOICE! Here's a cop that really knows his stuff and keeps a stiff upper lip in the most confusing of circumstances, such as in the episodes "The Mystery of The Broken Statues", "Blackmail", "Clark Kent, Outlaw", just to name a few. Every actor that plays a policeman of some kind should look to Robert Shayne for inspiration because of the way he portrays Inspector Henderson.

Those of you who have yet to treat yourselves to this miracle of entertainment, DO SO NOW! It's still in print and available, so grab a set and enjoy. I know I did! I have the first four seasons to prove it, and can't wait for the last two. HURRY UP WARNER BROS.!!!

This picture is absolutely fantastic. I just saw it two nights ago when I was clearing out my room and felt in the mood for a sea epic. It's funny how someone like me, who doesn't even know how to swim (and doesn't plan to), indulges himself with every sea picture he sees. Chuck Farrell proves a worthy choice for the lead; a dreamer, seeking adventure on the high seas. Esther Ralston, even though I'm anti-blonde, is gorgeous as his supporting heroine. The portion of the cast that MADE the picture however was Wallace Beery and George Bancroft. They were awesome characters and the fight scenes between them were hilarious. I will NOT reveal anymore important plot elements, see the picture for yourself and enjoy. Just make sure to bring a towel, you're bound to get drenched with excitement.

Gary Cooper delivers, with a formidable supporting cast, an excellent performance which struck a cord with audiences who had seen it way back when. Victor Fleming adds life and mobility to the camera that many directors were struggling to find through the cramped constraints of the early talking picture. Fleming knew that disc recording wasn't going to make it in the movies for much longer and decided to use the improved Western Electric sound-on-film system. $425,000 later, it proved a decision he was glad he had made. Mary Brian is gorgeous as the loved but lonely heroine from Vermont, stranded and alone in a world so wide open and unpredictable that Coop's presence (after much deliberation) proves warm and protective. Richard Arlen, who was billed way above Coop in "Wings" (1927) makes a fine supporting character in the role of Steve, a cocky cattle rustler thirsting for adventure in all the wrong places, much different from David Armstrong, the character he portrays in "Wings". This proves his ability to adapt to different roles, which is to me, a film-maker myself, one of the most important qualities an actor can possess. Such is the case of Walter Huston, who doesn't even LOOK or SOUND like Walter Huston here. Of all the actors in the picture, I think his performance is probably the best; his make-up, his voice, his devilish smile make him a formidable adversary for our man Coop. This picture deserves a DVD release for more reasons than I care to list, if only to lend itself to a new generation of an audience. If you happen to find it in any format, I hope you shall agree with me on at least giving it a DVD release.

Rewind back to March 2, 1933; the Depression, unemployment, misery. However you find a dime left of your paycheck to go to the movies so that you can escape the day's hard times. If you went to see "King Kong", chances are you would've been blown away, just like I was. I had seen this picture for the first time when I was 4 years old, but did not see it in it's entirety until I was 20 years old. It is a landmark in the cinema not only for it's special effects, but for the versatility of those effects in telling the story. Robert Armstrong is solid in his performance as Carl Denham, a character to whom many people say embodies co-director Merian C. Cooper. Fay Wray is great, but I still think her best role is in "Mystery of the Wax Museum", produced the same year as "Kong". O'Brien's treatment of the Kong character is beautifully handled. Definitely a big advancement from 1925's "The Lost World" if at least for the fact of how well done the jungle sequences were done (minus the spider pit sequence, which sadly remains lost, DAMN CENSORS!). There's really nothing more I can say about this wonderfully entertaining motion picture that hasn't already been said by almost every film critic in the past 70+ years. But I will say that this is the far superior version to the 1976 Jessica Lange tank job that dares to share it's name with this classic. Can't wait to see what Peter Jackson's Kong has in store for us!

I've seen two of Doug's five talkies, this and "The Private Life of Don Juan" (1934). This one was the better of the two, at least in my opinion. I bought it in one of those 50-musicals pack by Mill Creek Entertainment which transfered it from a very high quality VHS master (thinking of it as a 16 mm transfer would be going a little too low because the quality of the picture was great but the sound was very brushy but audible) from a 66 minute cut (the most common version) and while I was watching it, I listened closely in on Doug's rather high-pitched voice, which sounded much better in this picture than in "PLODJ" and at times his performance was gut-bustingly hilarious. I'm referring to a scene where he gets drunk, and starts leaping around the room, climbing up walls, and tackling other hotel guests when they break in to see what all the commotion's about. Had Doug stuck around a little while longer, made more pictures like this one, and not have been so resilient to the constraint of sound (which was slightly improving) he would have been a much better known celebrity even today. I mean, yeah, he was better known for his athletics in the Zorro films, "The Black Pirate", and "Robin Hood" (among others), but even after the days of silent pictures were over, I still think he gave it his best effort when he moved to talkies, as little as he did.

One year before Jean Harlow caught the eyes of two war-embittered soldiers in "Hell's Angels" (1930), this gigantic, vivacious, masterfully scored drama hit theaters. It was the most expensive film of the early sound era up to that time. Thanks to TCM and numerous film archives who pitched in for the restoration, we are now able to treasure it further for future generations to behold. Mike Curtiz was a tyranical perfectionist and put everything he had into this picture as he did with every such as "Casablanca" (1942), "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938), "Mystery of The Wax Museum" (1933), etc. There is always

something big in his pictures, whether it cost $2 or $2,000,000 to produce, his imaginative genius and careful observation make his end results all the more astonishing. One of the even greater things about this picture is it's score. God bless Louis Silvers for writing it. Silvers also conducted the same Vitaphone orchestra that scored "The Jazz Singer" (1927) which also sported some pretty awesome tunes. The love theme is definitely one to behold. The cast is very nicely cast. George O'Brien makes a nice talkie transition with his suave and cunning voice that makes him sound 5 years younger. Noah Beery's voice was even better; deep, deceptive, conniving. Dolores Costello?

She's alright, nothing eye-candyish about her but, she's alright. Altogether, this picture is one that I believe needs more frequent distribution because of how important it was in it's time as a form of entertainment, but now for a play in modern-day morality. A must for everyone!

It took me about 2 years to find this movie, and all the time I spent trying to find it was well worth it, but not nearly worth as much as watching this film. Whether or not you like silent films doesn't matter the least bit. One way or another this picture will blow you away. If you've seen the 1925 Ben-Hur then you already have some idea as to what "big" is. But when or if you ever see this picture, you take out some of the gigantic sets and throw in multi-layered sequences, frequent, rapid cuts, rapid tracking shots and the stunning trypytch climax, you would've never thought you knew just how "big" something big could be. Though this film runs more than 3 hours it doesn't really drag, but stick with it anyway because if you let your fascination for the cinematography distract you too much you might miss what the last intertitle said. See this movie! If you can ever find it (because it is incredibly rare) then buy it or rent it, go home, make sure your schedule's clear, and watch and enjoy. You will not be disappointed.

As all Lon Chaney fans know, this was Lon's first talkie, and what a talkie it was. The dialogue was a little rusty at times (mostly from the midget), but the presence of Chaney added much more excitement because it was probably the first time that the public had ever heard him speak (his lifestyle was very secluded and he was a fairly private person, so it's possible that his biggest fans of the time only saw him on-screen, never in public). He had a very good voice, although if he had lived long enough to play Dracula, I'm not sure if I could picture that. I can see him in costume, but not with the kind of voice he had. It seems very symbolic in a way. He had not spoken by word of mouth in the 153 pictures he did before this one, but each performance he had had a new face with a new voice and/or message each time (thus the title "man of a thousand faces"!). When he made this picture, however, the only real "voice" and "face" he had left, was his own voice! It was better than I expected. Chaney plays the same kind of character he did in pictures like "The Penalty" (1920) and, "The Ace of Hearts" (1921); a violent minded individual who is willing to go to any lengths for what he believes in or for love, even if it means doom for others around or working for him or for himself. There is much tension between the characters, but not as much as everyone seems to have with Tweedle-Dee. A circus midget is one thing (I have nothing against them), a circus midget with an attitude is another. JEEZE! The main reason why I like this picture so much is that it is an important record of a screen legend who was ready to step up, did, and succeeded immensely. It is also a reminder that you can never underestimate an actor, especially Lon Chaney. If you challenge an actor to do something you think they can't do, 9 out of 10 times, they will do it, do it well, show you up, and get RICH! PLENTY RICH!

I bought this yesterday on DVD and watched it immediately upon getting home. I liked the concept of the picture, but I got lost a few times in between certain title cards. It's a movie that you would have to see more than once to understand because if you don't pay close attention to it throughout the whole picture, you'll be completely lost. This is true about many German expressionist films, and as primitive as this is in expressionist cinema, it counts. The print on the DVD from Alpha video a little dark, but decent. This is a 1913 motion picture we're talking' here! And a feature film at that. If you like an organ music setting for silent films, then you will be pleased with how this film was assembled for DVD. As far as the story goes, it's got an interesting concept; you have a normal guy at a prep school, some magician comes along and puts a spell on him, and then all of a sudden the guy's being chased by his own reflection! I don't know whether or not it was done with a split screen format or not because, again, this film was made in an age where very little is known about such early feature films. But it's only 41 minutes long, and if I can sit through it, anyone can.

Just bought the DVD yesterday and the first thing that came from my mind (and mouth) was "WOW!" I'll be perfectly honest, for a moment, I forgot the film was made in 1938. God bless the WB for restoring this unforgettable masterpiece (now all them guys gotta do is release special editions of the early sound era like, DON JUAN (1926), THE JAZZ SINGER (1927), and some lesser known works like, LIGHTS OF NEW YORK (1928), SHOW OF SHOWS (1929), and ON WITH THE SHOW (1929)[re-colorized]). If you're a big fan of this movie, and are thinking about adding this to your collection, only buy it on DVD. Don't have a DVD player? GET ONE! AND QUIT BEING STUBBORN ABOUT WIDESCREEN VERSIONS OF FILMS (even though this ain't no widescreen film)! The story is strong and holds up almost all throughout the film with very little drag, not like early Technicolor adventure films which focussed primarily on love-triangles (or if you've seen the picture, THE VIKING (1928) a quadrangle [as it seems]) and has very quick scenes of fighting towards the end. If you sit down to watch this film, even just to see the first ten minutes (just for the sake of seeing the first ten minutes) you will go further, and then before you know it, you're an hour into the picture! This is a fun film for anyone of any age. So watch and enjoy!

I hope God doesn't smite me for the line above, but the effect is somewhat obvious. But as obvious as the Jello used for the Red Sea parting is, it cannot take away from how great this film really is. Now don't get me wrong, the 1956 version is unbelievable itself, but while looking at this one you get a sense of DeMille trying to tell us something about ourselves, our way of life, and of course, what we are doing wrong. The prologue itself is extremely quick. That could be because I saw the '56 version prior to this one. The rest of the story drags a little bit, but not too much, don't get me wrong this is a long movie (the package reads 146 minutes, it's really 136), but if you have the time you could make it through in one sitting. I'd recommend renting this movie (only if you can find it though) because it really is worth watching it and seeing how we are today and how we can make ourselves better by doing certain things a certain way. I can't put it in to words though, only this film can. It's an intriguing motion picture experience to behold. 8/10

This is my favorite Cecil B. DeMille picture and it rightfully deserves it's title. The cast is well cast. Heston makes a fine circus manager and a perfect "don't take nothing from nobody" type of guy when it comes to dealing with local gamblers. Cornell Wilde is perfect as the typical heart-throb of a trapezist. Betty Hutton is good as the daring young star fighting for the center ring. Last, but certainly not the least, James Stewart is wonderful as the lonely clown with a terrifying secret (I will not give it away!!! See the movie!!!). Cecil was a man of tremendous persona with a hunger for showcasing spectacle by means of careful, intense, and thorough research. He achieves amazing success in portraying (to the best of his ability of the times) the most realistic circus acts without the use of raw footage, and covering the stories behind the characters involved. The thing that really moves everything along though, is the musical score. Two words on that GOOD GOD!!! The music will make you want to go to the circus, even if you didn't like this picture. For those of you who didn't like this picture, why not go to the circus instead? You may be entertained to the point that you'll end up silencing your bad reviews. I'm not saying you have top like this picture, but if you haven't seen it yet, and it's because of the certain bad reviews it got from some people, you're really going to miss something.

The opening sequence of the picture is quite a sight to see, the way it was edited, the positioning of the sets and actors featured in the opening, and to top it all off, a few short clips from Ziegfeld's best known music from his best known music numbers (including "A Pretty Girl is like a Melody"). The rest is for all of you to see. It is available from Alpha Video and maybe a few public-domain distributors (do not expect to find it on DVD, it is a fairly rare film and I was lucky to get mine). The scenes that were shot in Technicolor are somewhat visible if you squint real, real hard. This is a 75 year old picture we're talking about here, it's amazing how much footage of Technicolor has survived since then, because there is so little of it. I originally purchased this picture to see what it's Technicolor sequences look like. I was very suprised though with how it turned out to be. Whoever did the choreography for this picture was a genius because the dancing is very well done. Adding it to your collection (whether or not you chose to do so) will certainly be worth your money.

I saw this picture last night (4/12/04) and I've never looked back. I've seen and I own just about every existing biblical motion picture, "Ben-Hur" (1925 & 1959), "Quo Vadis" (1951), "King of Kings" (1927 & 1961), "The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ" (1905), "From the Manger to the Cross" (1912), all the gigantics, all the spectacle, all the drama, all the emotion, but nothing like this have I ever seen. Overall I loved this picture, I think it is a magnificent film, it is a landmark in cinema history as far as I'm concerned. That landmark may be that it reached out to the human heart, grabbed it, squeezed it, squeezed it harder, and harder, and crushed it, then built it back up again. The violence in this film is a major part of the movie (although not the focus) but in terms of "how much", I say, "it could have been much worse". Mel Gibson, in my opinion, chose to use so much violence not for kicks (and if anybody thinks that, I think you're just plain sick) but to get through to people that this really happened, it WAS this bad, it was so bad it was terrible, it was so terrible it was worse. If you've seen pictures like "Scarface" (1983), "Goodfellas" (1990), "Casino" (1995), or "Schindler's List" (1993), without even flinching and you're complaining about the amount of violence in this picture, you have absolutely nothing to complain about because violence is violence regardless of how much of it there is. Also for all those people that like to start riots, this film is in no way anti-semitic. No one was stereotyped and why should they be? Everyone in the film had different personalities, voices, actions, all despite the same beliefs. Other than that, this film is authentic, dialogue and all, the sets were nicely done, the story was well presented and sequenced, and it leaves you thinking a bunch of things; think before you commit an act of violence, it is not about how someone dies but what they accomplished in life before they died and what they left behind, and most importantly, it could, in fact, be the truth. WE did not kill Christ. People long ago did it, who ever was there did it and/or let it happen. This is a tremendous film, and I highly recommend it because it will touch you (in your heart) somehow, someway. If you just believe all the bad reviews in the newspapers, not only will you never see this picture, but you'll never know what it REALLY says TO YOU.

This film is, no doubt, a timeless triumph of the silent cinema. I first saw it three years ago and have seen it at least 30 times since then. I've only looked back to see that I have it in my collection...but not on DVD! These studios need to start thinking back to the days in which movies as good as these were made and stop producing so much garbage that they think will make tons of money without considering whether it's done right or not. This film taught me just how important gesture and body language can be in the acting world, whether it be on film or on stage. I know just how "in-character" an actor is just by looking at their face, their eyes, and how they're written in the script. Don't get me wrong, people can overact and underact in certain parts, but if you do anything without considering your character's expression or mood, regardless of whether or not your voice is unbearable to hear, you will never see success past the sound of crickets hiding in the audience. The industry knew that sound was coming. Most didn't accept this truth, but they knew it alright! "Wings" reminds those who've seen it, as with most classics of the silent cinema, that ACTIONS SPEAK A MUCH GREATER VOLUME THAN THE SPOKEN WORD. I've said all I need to say, and now I'll let this picture speak for itself.

This is one of the most unusual early films I've seen. But the color kept my interest in this. I expected it to be more than just a single scene, since Pathe had just come off producing the monumental feature- film "Le Vie et la Passion de Jesus-Christ" (1905). But I was satisfied with how it turned out, because "Life and Passion" was still probably being paid off. See it for it's artsy nature and it's somewhat surrealist nature. One thing I'd like to know though is how the heck they accomplished those special effects. Especially when the beetle is floating around in some egg-shaped sphere around her oppressor, the sorcerer.

This is the second Ramon Novarro picture I've seen (the first being 1925's "Ben-Hur") and it is every bit enjoyable as the last picture I saw with him. Ralph Graves delivered a great performance but I somehow had mistaken him for Burt Lancaster (?!?!?!?!). No joke, I thought he really looked like a young Lancaster (which he couldn't have been since Burt was only 15 when this picture was made). Though it is mainly an adventure film, parts of it are really funny. The funniest moment is when Novarro dives his plane toward his friend on the ground and nearly runs him over. Anita Page was a year younger than me (I'm 19) when she took this part, and as small as her part was, she deserved the upmost praise for her early, but dazzling performance. The synchronized music track is phenomeonal considering that it was produced in 1928. To whoever scored this picture, you're not only a genius, but you made this picture work!

80 years is a loooooong time. I can't believe MGM's really been around that long. But when it came to making this picture, they were off to a great start. Getting Lon Chaney from Universal was a very wise choice (it'd be hard to see someone else in the part he played), the supporting cast which included Norma Shearer (future Best Actress Oscar winner), John Gilbert (future star of "The Big Parade" (1925) and "Queen Christina" (1933)), as well as notable character actors Tully Marshall and Ford Sterling, it is nothing short of splendid. Lon Chaney's deep, gripping facial expressions, especially in his scenes with rival Baron Regnard (played by Marc McDermott) are the most expressive I've ever seen on film. TCM aired a print with a synchronized music & effects track (which sounds as if it was recorded maybe in the 1960's or 1970's) on Oct. 30th, 2003, and I was so enthralled with how it looked that I taped it and now have it in my collection. If you ever happen to come accross this movie, watch it! You will not be dissapointed. Because MGM means great movies, doesn't it?

This is not exactly what you'd expect to see in an average film from 1905. First off, the length, which was utterly bizzare for it's time (44 minutes) made it worthy of the title of a "feature-length-film", of which it was the first, at least as far as we know. Moving on, the nativity scenes were extremely well done. I actually did a stop motion animated version of my own using this film as a template. Also by watching this film I finally learned how to do a few photographic dissolves, although the filmmakers of this one did a much better job on te dissolves, fades, etc. than I ever would. This film also offers a glimpse at the elaborate Pathe hand-coloring process in it's early stages of development. It also proved that you can certainly do a lot with only four colors. It took three years to make this picture, now God only knows how long it will take to uncover a list of the cast. But even without it, this is the best telling of the story of Christ I have ever seen.