Change Your Image
BoyWiththeGreenHair
Reviews
Maleficent (2014)
Wicked meets Mommie Dearest, with "Frozen" flavor
"Sleeping Beauty," like "Fantasia," would take several decades to "catch on" with audiences. It took decades to materialize, stunted first by WWII, and then by Walt Disney's venturing into other projects (ex. Wonderful World of Disney, Disneyland, Live Action, etc.). The final product would be a box office bomb, in the long run gaining no favors with Walt Disney who would look back on the project with negative memories. How ironic that one of the top moneymakers of the summer is a takeoff of this initially ill-received classic. The lingering question, however, is "does Maleficent measure up to the original material?" Short answer, no.
I'll preface this by saying, "I know, it isn't supposed to be a remake of the animated film." I'm also aware of the fact that Angelina Jolie allegedly agreed to the production at the behest of her son, and so any serious or considerably "dark" adaptation was unlikely from the start, and my initial expectation wasn't high. What really marked a change in my expectation was upon learning that Linda Woolverton was brought on board as the screenwriter. With this knowledge I came to expect more than just "a blockbuster," but rather a sophisticated piece of storytelling with both a thought-provoking message and first-class dialogue. And, don't get me wrong, at first I wasn't disappointed. The opening lines are sheer poetry. As such, I was willing to hold my nose and tolerate the opening image of a "toddler Maleficent." The establishment of Maleficent's back-story at least isn't unbearable, but is mildly interesting, in all its absurdity. But, by the time the story kicks into high gear, they've lost me, and I get the impression I wasn't alone. Woolverton and the other filmmakers on board are seriously asking us to believe, in a matter of speaking, that Maleficent is basically some Sorority girl Stefan slept with in College, before subjecting her to a panty raid that made his reputation and traumatized her, leading her to cyber-stalk him and his daughter for decades.
The segue from Maleficent's backstory into the main action is on its own rife with some bizarre changes that are clumsy enough for a writer with Woolverton's level of experience to know not to make them. You wonder why the third fairy's incantation "gift" to the Princess is cut off at all, if Maleficent is only going to soften the curse for the King, herself.
We're also asked to believe that if it hadn't been for Maleficent, the constant squabbling and inability to cooperate between the three fairies would have literally doomed the child from the start; a sign of disrespect to the original story.
Aurora might get all the merchandising, and Phillip might awaken her from her sleep, but the heroes of the film are without a doubt the fairies. They're the ones who make the sacrifices, act on their own initiative, and take the risks in the film, surpassing even Mulan for spunk. And, so to reduce them to mere caricatures; bumbling female counterparts to the Three Stooges whose recklessness endangers the life of the princess, is a gigantic middle finger to the original source. Ironically the most enjoyable moments in the film come from the comic relief provided Staunton, Manville, and Temple. These actresses seem to have an understanding that this "retelling," as Wolverton puts it, isn't to be taken seriously. They see the humor in the material and exploit it for all its worth with astute effectiveness.
The direction King Stefan has been taken in is an interesting one which should have been explored with more depth. His performance, on its own merit, is seasoned and well done. The fault lies squarely on the writers' laziness to depict him as a one-note character whose obsession blinds him to all else. His decline into madness is entirely unconvincing; too abrupt and sudden to be accepted by the audience, even if it is meant to be a deterioration of sixteen years. By the end Copley has been reduced to overacting to the point where his menace is as comical as the fairies' bickering.
Elle Fanning is entirely wrong for the part of Aurora. Aurora is perhaps the original film's most valued asset. She moves like a princess, she sings like a princess, and she carries herself like a princess, even if she doesn't know she is one. Elle Fanning comes off as confused, bored, and uninspired, almost literally wandering in and out of scenes with little rhyme or reason. If at least, the "Fairy Godmother" line was funny the first time, cute the second, but for the umpteenth time, pretty tired. This is the third Disney film, to my knowledge, which takes a shot at the "love at first sight" concept through the failure of the "handsome prince" to awaken the Princess with "true love's first kiss," the other two being "Frozen" and "Enchanted." This is getting to be more than formulaic. I get it; "love at first sight" is unrealistic. But, its representative of a time when courtly love was a fixture in Western society, when marriage was a political tool. "Love at first sight" is no longer promoted in society at large, and therefore the satire falls flat as a result. Woolverton twice questions as to whether we, the audience, know the story of Sleeping Beauty as well as we think we do. But, by the film's end, I can only wonder how well Woolverton herself knows the story.
The Diary of Anne Frank (1959)
"Looking for an Actress Who Hasn't Found Out That Special Secret About Herself"
George Stevens' 1959 Classic, 'The Diary of Anne Frank,' is unique among the array of Holocaust pictures made over the years. Not only was it the first major, big-budget production to touch upon the subject (except for perhaps 'The Great Dictator,' which did not approach the subject directly), but it is directed from the point of view of a man trying to come to terms with the unspeakable horrors he was unprepared for upon the day of the liberation of the Nazi Concentration Camps. It is told from the point of view of a man who witnessed the aftermath of genocide, but who still sought to believe that there was still good in the world.
Stevens could have taken many approaches to making this film, but he chose to approach it with optimism, a decision derided, it seems, from all sides. Most recently, books such as Francine Prose's 'Anne Frank: The Book, The Life, The Afterlife' and Carol Ann Lee's 'Hidden Life of Otto Frank,' have taken negative approaches to the film, as if the film's sole purpose had been to discredit and vandalize the Anne Frank story. They cite with dismay the footage of Millie Perkins in Auschwitz that trial audiences found distasteful, as proof of the film's inadequacy, never mind the fact that such footage, if it exists at all, cannot be viewed today.
To address this point, let me remind those concerned that the war had ended not even fifteen years before the film went into production. Many Holocaust survivors were beginning to start new lives for themselves, including Otto Frank and his new wife. To think that the filming of the camp scenes would not have rekindled memories of such horror is simply unrealistic. And, although Otto Frank would neither see the play nor the film, were he to have seen it, why would he have wished to see a reenactment of his daughter's humiliation, degradation, and eventual death? Never mind the fact that they could never have filmed on-location at this time, and that there could not possibly have been a soundstage large enough to capture the daunting horror of Auschwitz and Bergen Belsen.
Rather, over fifty years later, after the Holocaust had been successfully explored in other mediums, after the full impact of the Nazi atrocities were realized, and after an appropriate amount of Post-War time, the world was ready for the camp scenes, which were heartbreakingly conveyed in 'Anne Frank - The Whole Story.' Like Jean Marie Falconetti in 'Passion of Joan of Arc,' Hannah Taylor Gordon would agree to have her head shaven, to illustrate the suffering of an innocent, young heroine, which brings me to my next point.. the choice of Millie Perkins as Anne.
The most widely ridiculed part of this film, Millie Perkins never seems to get a break. To contrast her with Gordon may perhaps be unfair, and Perkins herself would be liable to conced that Gordon's is superior, if only given the nature of her performance, which may be one of the finest ever recorded on film. The difference between Millie and Hannah would seem to be that while Millie was playing Anne Frank and playing her very well, Hannah seems to have become Anne for a brief period of time and lends her soul to the part, as if they were linked for a moment.
But, nevertheless, Millie stands on her own. Stevens' choice was widely criticized, and still is, for his choice of an American girl, but the search itself was authentic as could be. "We're looking for an actress who hasn't found out that special secret about herself yet," Stevens declared at the press conference. To view her old screentest, why Millie was chosen is not obvious at first, but to look closer, she exhibits a quirkiness, fascination with small things, and detailed memory that was associated with Anne Frank. Perkins had not yet seemed to have discovered her "special secret." But, perhaps the reason for an American girl to portray her was the need to drive home the point to the American audiences, who, unlike Europeans, had largely been unaffected by the realization of the Nazi atrocities. No doubt they felt for the victims, but could not identify with them.
If one allows themselves to become so absorbed in the fate of these characters that every time a Gestapo siren wails in the background, their heart pounds as theirs would, and to refocus one's attention on the child-like Millie trying to lighten the situation, one can appreciate the depth of her levity, only to be brought back to earth with the realization of what her fate will be. We are supposed to believe that whatever happened to the real Anne will happen to her. We may find this Anne annoying, whiny, or brattish, but never so deserving of the cruelty she would encounter in her last seven months. Perhaps Stevens understood this.
Cinderella (1950)
The one that started it all, again....
The year of 1950 gave us three, perhaps four, great American movie classics. Mankiewicz's 'All About Eve,' Wilder's 'Sunset Boulevard,' and, yes, Disney's 'Cinderella.' There is also Huston's excellent, gritty 'Asphault Jungle,' a landmark in American Film Noir, but it cannot reach the cataclysmic heights attained by these three upon their individual releases. And while the remarkably similar, and yet strikingly different, former two films have received their accolades time and again from critics, there seems to be a hesitance to give this classic its dues. After all, its a "children's picture." What many don't seem to understand, however, is this film's significance. They don't seem to realize that although 'Snow White' "started it all" in 1937, without 'Cinderella,' the American public would not have 'The Little Mermaid,' 'Aladdin,' 'Anastasia,' 'The Lion King,' 'Monsters Inc.' or any other animated blockbuster cherished today made after 1950. Walt Disney, at the end of his financial rope, took one of his biggest gambles in producing this project "about a girl in trouble," and it paid off, making it "cool," once again, to go to see a feature length animated film. He was, in turn, able to produce the subsequent animated classics of the 1950s and 60s, and, perhaps, his live action ones as well.
Most remarkable is the way every aspect of this film seems to flow together without interruption or flaw. This is a film that combines the romantic, almost neoclassic technique to be found in 'Snow White' with the more picaresque, bubbly quality of 'Pinnocio.' The Nine Old Men, each with his own distinct style of animation, were able to find a healthy medium so that their characters, different in appearance and mannerisms as they were, could all coexist on the same plane. To watch the Siskel and Ebert review of this film, in which both men have differing views on why this film is great, Ebert preferring the cartoon antics of The King & Duke, the Mice, the Stepsisters, and Lucifer, and Siskel partial to the magnificent realist approach taken to stepmother Lady Tremaine's design, is a testament to the film's versatility.
Music, both song and instrumental, is as crucial to this film as it was to 'Bambi,' 'Dumbo,' or, even, 'Fantasia.' Instrumentally, it heightens the film's drama (ex. the dress tearing scene characterizing the sister's hate and Cinderella's confused heartbreak) and suspense (ex. the retrieving of the key from the stepmother's pocket). In terms of song, the team took risks and endeavors not attempted before, most famously with the 'Sing Sweet Nightingale' number, with the blending of Illene Wood's voices. More importantly, I find it an injustice that neither 'A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes,' nor 'Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo' were selected by the Academy to win the Oscar, surely either of these are more timeless than the song that was selected.
The film's main point of criticism has always been its heroine. Soft and genteel, she is regularly dismissed as uninteresting and of not asset to the film. However, although Cinderella sports remarkably American qualities and values for a humble, French servant girl, she exhibits a sort of intelligence, perseverence, and creativity not to be found in Snow White, or, later on, Aurora. Cinderella's gutsy persona, that she was a rebel, was a source of pride for Walt Disney during and after the film's production. In the film's lead, we see the fabric that would lead to the creation of future model heroines; inquisitive Ariel, learned & feisty Belle, and heroic Mulan. If anything, it is the Prince Charming character who is objectified, and Disney's Golden Age can only sport Prince Phillip, and perhaps the Tramp or Bambi, as an interesting leading man.
'Cinderella,' as a whole, has much to offer, not just as an animated film but as quality entertainment, just as timeless and worthwhile as 'All About Eve' or 'Sunset Boulevard.'
Saved by the Bell (1989)
Saved By the Bell (Cringe Inducingly Unfunny)
I find it rather surprising how many positive reviews Saved by the Bell has received, overall, as I had been under the assumption that the show was almost universally hated. I've never really cared for the program; even as a child I could not quite understand the public's love of it. Watching the show as a kid, I was under the impression that the six main characters "ran" Bayside High School, with the faculty wrapped around their fingers. I never found the material to be that funny and I would raise an eyebrow at some of the plots' lack of realism. Returning to this show as an adult, I am no less baffled.
Please do not misunderstand, as I am all for nineties nostalgia. I grew up in that era. It only strikes me as odd that this program has survived into syndication along with its unsuccessful spin-off, while other worthy programs, such as 'Life With Louie,' 'California Dreams,' or 'Wonder Years' seem to have fallen by the wayside, occasionally revived but ultimately forgotten. I don't associate 'Saved By the Bell' with the good days of the nineties, as many others apparently do.
All I can really see is a show that appears to have been hurriedly put together without much thought with substandard performances by mediocre actors. Jokes delivered are often dead-pan and one-liners too often seem uncreative or not natural enough in their delivery. Compare the cast of SBTB's stilted performing with the almost flawless comedic work presented in the first two seasons of Nickelodeon's 'All That.' I don't doubt for a second that Josh Server, Kel Mitchell, and Lori Beth Demburg could wipe the television screen with Mark Paul Gosslar, Dustin Diamond, or Mario Lopez any day of the TV schedule's week, with the exact same material. OT, 'All That' is what I think of when I think of "nineties nostalgia," not 'Saved By the Bell.'
But, its not just the actors or the dialogue... the whole show seems so removed from real life that it is hard to accept it as quality entertainment. I understand that television sitcoms need not be too concerned with being "realistic" as, say, 'Law and Order,' but how are we supposed to relate to characters who are but stereotypical caricatures of high school clique-members? They are almost always compelled to "do the right thing," without ever questioning their actions. I am all for moralistic episodes, but in real life, when a kid finds a used "joint" in their school high school restroom, its no big deal and most likely they'll go on with their lives and stay the heck away from drugs, unlike Zack and Slater, who vow to hunt down the poor soul with the gall to smoke pot in their vicinity. None of the characters are relatable, nor does there seem to ever be a reasonable explanation for their actions.
For a person with severe depression or a person who is suffering great personal loss, 'Saved By the Bell' is a show for you, just like 'Full House' or 'Who's the Boss' is a show for you. It is light and not occupied with the harsh realities of the real world. But, for anyone else, I am surprised that the stilted performance by the actors and the frightening removal from reality has not set more viewers to changing the station, as I continuously find myself compelled to do.
The Sound of Music (1965)
Ambitious and Pretentious, but not half as complex as it seems to fancy itself
I really expected a lot from this film... I really did. I remember the jovial excitement popping the DVD in on Christmas Eve to view, from what I had heard, to be Rogers & Hammerstein's Crowning Achievement. And, why should I have been led to think otherwise, when surveying all the evidence to be seen before me? Its immense popularity and following, the seemingly countless honors bestowed upon the film by AFI & the Acadamy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, the endless use of the songs in every medium of entertainment (be it homage or parody), etc. And, I admit, I recall being mesmerized by the amazing shot zooming across the breathtaking Austrian Mountains swooping in on an enthusiastic and lovely Julie Andrews. Just as grand as what I had been told to expect. However, as the film progressed, I sensed more than a couple things wrong with it that made it more than difficult to watch all the way through.
Ultimately, "The Sound of Music" has difficulty asking itself the universal question that all great films do. Why does this story need to be told? Other alleged "great" musicals, such as "West Side Story", "Wizard of Oz", "King & I", "Mary Poppins", heck even "Grease" are chief conveyors of how this can be done right and effectively. They are actually "about" something, and they make the viewers know it. "Sound of Music" seems content to simply sit back and settle for the typical "follow your heart" message. Even then, that hardly holds any weight at all by the end of the film, considering the decisions made by the Von Trapp family on behalf of themselves and their own safety, and no one else's.
Everything wonderful about this film, it seems, stems from its success as a musical on Broadway and not from anything special in the film itself. The acting is wooden, the choreography unoriginal, the voice dubbing obvious and sloppy, the songs added for the film hardly memorable or containing the same kick as the ones written with Hammerstein's help (although, "I Have Confidence in Me" gets stuck in one's head quite easily). The cinematography is, admittedly, quite beautiful, but appearance isn't everything, you know. Looking under that thin layer of sparkling cinematography is nothing special or particularly complex, especially compared to "The King & I", which has often drawn comparasin and which usually ends up taking a backseat to "Sound" in the "greatness" department for some odd reason.
I would ultimately be content calling this a "good" film and accentuating all of its wonderful qualities if it did not already enjoy a massive following for those very reasons. It is not a horrible film, I am not calling it one. I am calling it overrated and certainly not one of the "greatest films" ever made.
Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Miraculous, nothing short of captivating, breathtaking, and a masterpiece.
This is possibly the greatest animated film ever made. That's right, the greatest. Although, more artistically adept Anime fans may detest and although 'The Lion King' is traditionally realized as the quintessential animated film, 'Beauty and the Beast', in the indiscriminate animated realm, may very possibly be one of the most important animated films, Disney, Animated, or otherwise, ranking alongside the likes of 'Snow White', 'Toy Story', and 'Fantasia'.
First of all, let's talk about the cinematography. I declare there is not a single shot in this film that does not impress me. Prior to this film's completion, Rescuers Down Under had enjoyed the distinction of being the first full length animated feature in CGI. But, Beauty is the film that perfected it. Even with all of the animated films that have come since the release of Beauty, I am struck by the polished clarity of the animation in that the background and its objects remain completely in focus in proportion to the objects in the forefront, as critics are still astounded today that young Charles Foster Kane playing in the snow is able to remain in focus through a window in proportion to Agnes Moorhead in 'Citizen Kane.' Likewise, look at Belle and the Beast's snowball fight in 'Something There' while the objects converse. Belle and the Beast, from a distance, can be clearly viewed as easily as can the objects. When Maurice runs down the staircase of the cottage before the angry mob, the camera flies down following him, and yet Belle and Monsieur D'Arque remain completely visible. Remarkable shots like these can be found throughout the film, such as the Swooping Ballroom Ceiling Scene, the wolf chase, and the Beast's transformation sequence.
It is understandable that Walt Disney gave up on his treatment of 'Beauty,' just as it is understandable that the makers of this film almost gave up on its completion. The story does not scream success (a beautiful girl passively sacrificing her life for her father and falling in love with a cursed beast). And, yet it is a testament to the power of storytelling that this film is as entertaining as it is, for a film without a straightout villain or hero. From the start, we are taken from a haunted castle, paranormal in its scope, to a simple French village bustling with activity, and the film never loses its power.
The film's only legitimate weakness is its instrumental score. Following the fantastic score of 'Mermaid' and preceding the wonderful score to 'Aladdin' and the riveting score to 'The Lion King,' the score to 'Beauty' holds few surprises, for the most part.
Otherwise, this is a film devoid of weakness and, more importantly, scandal (like most of the other "Renaissance" films). And whatever I could say about the film's wonderful and groundbreaking songs, characters, scenery, and detail has likely already been said. All I can do is recommend this as highly as any great film I have ever seen.