Change Your Image
oreoking
Reviews
The Wonderful World of Disney: Once Upon a Mattress (2005)
More Mis-directed than Mis-cast
When I first read of this production, with Carol Burnett as the Queen, I was very excited! I thought it would be fabulous. I was wrong.
In the first 5 minutes I knew my popcorn would go unfinished, having lost my appetite when "Many Moons Ago" was chopped to but a few phrases. But when the cast started throwing away every good line with total disregard to the well-written tempo intended, I needed to get my Cast Recording ready and fire up the phonograph to get this director's bad taste out of my ears. Another reviewer mentioned the "rule of threes" - threes are everywhere in the script, but I don't think the delivery of ANY one was correct in this version. From the dismissing of Princess #12 ("Goodbye, good luck, now get out") to the discussion of Winnifred's test before "Sensitivity" ("Sounds fair (beat), seems fair, (beat), but isn't fair.") every opportunity to spin verbal straw into gold (I know, wrong fairy tale) was wasted. Larkin's revelation of pregnancy to Harry was real let-down. No build-up at all. She might as well have passed him a note.
I didn't have a problem with any of the casting based on age or appearance - both can be overcome & overlooked with a good performance. But the writers/director didn't give the cast any help, so the weaker performers fell flat and the veterans just collected a paycheck.
Where was the Minstrel? For that matter, where were the Jester and the King? Oh, the roles were there, but reduced to bit parts. The knights in "Shy" got to do more just by saying "Hey, Nonny nonny nonny, NO." Maybe Meatloaf thinks two-out-of-three ain't bad, but in this case, it IS bad. And I bet the writers thought they were clever switching the impetus for "Normandy" from "where can a pregnant Larkin go to hide" offered by the Minstrel to "where can Larkin go on a honeymoon" offered by Harry. Lame. And the Wizard as the Nightingale was just stupid. Hibbert's contract must have insisted on a minimum of screen time and since they eliminated the scene where the Minstrel schmoozes the Wizard, they made up for it with a chicken costume.
I've gone on far too long, but better you spend a few extra minutes here than waste a few hours on this production. Now if you watch it anyway, you look for the things all these reviews have warned you about and make up your own mind.
Topsy-Turvy (1999)
Never mind the why and wherefores...
If you DON'T mind the "why and wherefores", this is a great film for Gilbert & Sullivan fans. I enjoyed this movie tremendously, at least what it showed. If you like G&S, which I DO, this movie gives you "tastes" of a few fun productions, even if it did show how similar and "stale" their Operettas had become at one point. So, too, the working relationship between the two collaborators was very interesting and well portrayed. The acting was exceptional.
But Writer/Director Leigh put in too many unanswered sidesteps and some enigmatic dialog, so the viewer, even after 2 hours and 40 minutes, was left wanting those answers. Not in a good way, like when you don't want the story to ever end, but in an unfulfilling way, like you missed something, even though it wasn't you who missed it, but the film. And the last 15 minutes of the movie raised more questions, as if the movie had another hour to explore the answers. Perhaps if Kevin Costner had been the director, it would have. (In that respect, I'm glad it was Mike Leigh at the helm.)
It's also interesting to note the film was uncomfortable to anyone a bit claustrophobic. The interiors were all tight and cramped, even the auditorium of the Savoy Theatre seemed dark and small. The few exteriors were dark alley ways with camera angles purposely avoiding showing any light at the end of the tunnel.
As I said, I enjoyed this movie, and initially, in the "after movie buzz", wondered why it didn't have a wider release, like other successful period pieces of late. But then, in retrospect, I conclude the movie, while wonderful in its imagery, and interesting in its history, is not really that well constructed, and does better as an "art film", attracting its audience in a more deliberate manner.