Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Completely spoiled by miscasting.
14 August 2008
I finally got hold of a DVD copy of this production and was agog with curiosity, since I had read so many people praising it to the skies, particularly Angela Lansbury's portrayal of Mrs. Lovett. I saw the Tim Burton movie a few months ago and thought it over the top and overly bloody; thankfully this version is not so horrifying gory but it suffers dramatically in too many other ways for it to be in the least satisfying to me.

To begin with, the casting. George Hearn is adequate and at least shows some expression (as opposed to Johnny Depp's unending wooden face in the movie). Angela Lansbury is, quite simply, annoying. At least she has enough power in her voice to get the point across as opposed to Helena Bonham Carter's piping and expressionless little girl's voice, but subtlety seems to be only a word in the dictionary to Ms. Lansbury. One cannot be drawn into the story when one of the main characters spends her entire time mugging and winking in a "look, Ma, I'm acting!" fashion and being far too aware of the audience. This is not something that is typical of stage productions, heaven knows--I have been a regular attendee of many productions at the Stratford Festial for many years and stage actors do NOT behave in that fashion as a rule (at least those who want to continue to find regular employment do not!)...

Betsy Joslyn. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Did anybody besides me notice that she can't sing this role even vaguely appropriately? And her playing George Hearn's daughter is just creepy, considering that she was married to him at the time. Isn't she supposed to be a sweet little sixteen-year-old? Yes, I realize that this is what acting is all about, but not once did she convince me that she was any younger than about thirty-five, and the phrase "mutton dressed as lamb" seems to have been coined just for her. Her butchering of "Green Finch And Linnet Bird" had me gnashing my teeth and ready to turn off the DVD player at once. That song was done so well in Tim Burton's movie, and this was a sad shock. The song requires the vocal range of Julie Andrews in the 1960's and a purity of voice that is only comparable to that of a boy soprano. Any vibrato at all kills it dead, and Ms. Joslyn spent the entire time warbling so hard that I thought she was about to fall off of her ladder because she was trembling so much from the effort at sustaining coloratura notes with a voice that is a mezzo at best. Let us pass over the spectacle of her vibrating at least a quarter tone flat on at least three of the higher notes... This is quite simply not a coloratura role and perhaps a discerning director should have told her that--but the fact that she was married to the star might possibly have tied the director's hands.

Cris Groenendaal was adequate, but again obviously far too old for the role and there is zero chemistry between him and Ms. Joslyn, which makes the whole subplot fall completely flat. I am reminded a little of past stage productions of Wagner's Ring cycle where, due to the vocal power required for the singers to bellow over the sound of a full Wagnerian orchestra they would have to cast based upon ability to penetrate vocally as opposed to any appearance or acting ability or even a good voice, which is why you have the caricature of the massive mountainous Viking-horned Brunehilde with a triple chin and a beard, when the libretto calls for an ethereal beauty who is eternally young and bewitching. The casting of the "juvenile" leads is exactly like that--if you close your eyes you can almost believe in Mr. Groenendaal's Anthony, but as soon as you look at the screen the illusion is shattered. (And at NO time can you ever believe in Ms. Joslyn's Johanna...) For me, the rest of the production was completely lost because of three out of the four major characters were so obviously miscast. I cannot give a proper review of anything else because they were so distracting that they spoiled the rest of the production. I really can't understand why people rave about this badly-shot and self-conscious filming of a stage play. Surely there's more to camera work in the theatre than just plunking a camera down in the front row? If I want that, I'll go to a decent play, preferably at the Stratford Festival, where at least they work together for the production and aren't constantly mugging for the camera. I give it three stars only because the quality of the production apart from the antics of Lansbury and Joslyn seems adequate if not spectacular.

Probably the best thing one can do is buy the soundtrack of the film and a cast recording of this play, and then combine the two to make a bearable whole. That's what I'm going to do, and try to forget that I ever bothered to rent this wholly unremarkable production.
3 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
WALL·E (2008)
7/10
Worth watching, especially for the short!!
11 August 2008
I just came back from seeing WALL-E with my 9-year-old son. I walked out of that theatre feeling as though I'd been hit over the head with an anvil. The message is about as subtle as a kick in the crotch, but it needs to be said and I'm just a little tired of some of the diatribes I've read that are masquerading as "reviews". People--it's a movie, and meant to be entertaining. If you personally are not entertained, that does not make it a bad movie, just not one that is right for you. And if the message strikes a little close to home and makes you uncomfortable, then maybe it's time to get off your backside and do something constructive about it, hmmmm? I go to the theater about three times a year at most--I end up renting most films from the shop because I don't like being pummeled with the noise that seems necessary on the big screen because people will not stop yakking away at the theatre. I really enjoyed the experience of watching WALL-E, and found myself laughing out loud repeatedly--and I enjoyed it far more than I did either the over-hyped DARK KNIGHT or INDIANA JONES AND THE LATEST PILE OF MONEY, both of which gave me sick headaches by the time I left the theatre.

My summary says it all. I just about peed my pants while watching PRESTO, the short. As always, PIXAR is at its best when it's working with cartoon shorts. I haven't laughed so hard since the first time I saw FOR THE BIRDS, the short attached to MONSTERS INC.. It's a great homage to the style of Warner Brothers (you'll understand when you see it; the feel of it is pure Bugs Bunny) and if the only way I'll be able to own it one day is to buy the disc for WALL-E, I consider that a bargain.

Oh, and for the record, my son, diagnosed ADHD (and currently not medicated), adored the movie, even the long stretch at the beginning when people's biggest complaint seems to be that "nothing happens". He was riveted to the screen the whole time. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon and claiming that this movie is some kind of cinematic masterpiece, but I felt that it was definitely worth the price of admission--and that's saying a great deal these days. Go to enjoy the quality of the animation, to be reminded of HELLO, DOLLY! (I'd forgotten about that movie--I really must rent it soon!), and, yes, to take away a message that perhaps it's time to be just a little more aware of what we're doing to our environment and where this might lead us. Rather than make excuses and attacking the message behind the movie, it might behoove us more to stop and ponder, if only for a moment, where we will be going.
11 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Could have been so much better with so little effort.
5 September 2005
The DVD for this movie had been on my want list for quite some time; my loving and perceptive husband found it for me and gave it as a birthday gift. I cannot be entirely rational about critiquing it because no matter how many times I attempt to view it objectively my emotions take over and it turns into psychotherapy. It says much for its power that this still happens upon repeated viewings.

For the record, for those of you who own or have access to the DVD version, I feel that the alternate ending is vastly superior to the one that ended up with the cinematic release. It has the advantage of being less Hollywood "touchy-feely" and much more meaningful and logical in a broad karmic sense. With the alternate ending, for instance, one gets much more of a sense of the children as individuals in their own rights as opposed to being bound into their only importance as part of the scripted family unit. The wheel continues to turn, affecting all of them, which is something that the alternate ending drives home and it is completely missing from the cinematic ending. I wish that they had made the braver decision rather than going for schmaltz. It's the only downside to the movie, but it is a marked source of dissatisfaction to me personally.

(Perhaps this is a case where the extras you get on a DVD aren't worth it? I might have been content with never knowing the other possibility, who's to say?)
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Heavens, it wasn't THAT bad!
17 May 2004
I've been reading the comments page in a somewhat bemused fashion. It seems to be divided between people who don't like the movie because it's not enough like the original graphic novel and people who don't like it because they've never heard of half of the characters that are members of the League. The latter seems to me to be an unutterably silly reason for disliking a film. Does nobody read the classics anymore? Nobody reads Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle? I find that difficult to believe. As to the former--not enough like the graphic novel, in other words--just how in the heck can a screenwriter accommodate the dark and twisted visions of Alan Moore in a two-hour Hollywood movie, anyway?

I don't believe that one can compare anything written by Alan Moore to what ends up on the screen being ostensibly "based on the graphic novel". (The same applies to FROM HELL, which is another one most people pan, and one which I think is under-appreciated even though the style is breathtaking. I don't even want to think about the reaction that will ensue once THE WATCHMEN comes out!)

What seems to have been missed by most people is that this movie is about style as opposed to substance. It's based on a graphic novel. That's a fancy way of saying it's based on a comic book. On that level, the film succeeds admirably. The characters are archetypes of their literary forbears. They aren't supposed to be, strictly speaking, human. Of course the plot is grandiose, impractical, and over-the-top. Hello? Aren't most comic books like that? Good heavens, isn't most of STAR WARS?

I don't claim that this is a masterpiece. I do claim that's it's fun to watch if one approaches it with a willing suspension of disbelief. For a couple of bucks shelled out at the DVD rental shop, it takes one to a different world for close to two hours. On that level, it's worth a rental. It's also worth a rental, once one watches the movie, to listen to the commentary from various actors and to realize just how well these so-called "unknowns" do assorted accents that aren't even close to their own. Plus the golfing anecdotes are amusing. (And I don't even like golfing.)

This ain't CASABLANCA. Nor is it TITANIC, for which I eternally thank the gods. (Now, THERE was an overhyped piece of inaccurate trash that pretended to be history, but I digress.) But it's kind of fun, anyway, as long as one doesn't take it too seriously.
419 out of 507 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
From Hell (2001)
8/10
Darkly stylish--not based on reality.
17 May 2004
The best thing about an enduring mystery is that people can feel free to take all sorts of liberties with the facts and create interesting "what if" scenarios. FROM HELL is a perfect example. For the record, the theory behind the killings is pretty much right out of JACK THE RIPPER: THE FINAL SOLUTION by Stephen Knight, and it's been pretty well discredited since it first came out twenty years ago, even though it makes a hell of an entertaining piece of fiction.

I completely discount any criticisms of the movie where people say "it didn't happen that way". Of course it didn't; that's why this is a fictional film and not a documentary. It's very loosely based on the Alan Moore graphic novel, and about all it retains of it is the Duke of Clarence theory and the stylish look of the architecture. It's enough to make the film beautiful to watch.

Yes, I know that four of the five victims of Jack the Ripper were women in their late 40's, which on the streets of Victorian London would mean that they would resemble crones in their late 60's or early 70's. Just try to make that fly past a Hollywood studio boss; the casting at least had women who looked fairly human rather than like fallen glamour girls. I've read a couple of comments disparaging the accents. Actually, Cockney accents were the norm in the street because people tried to blend in and often weren't eager to advertise Scottish or Irish origins.

I call special attention to the performance of Jason Flemyng in the role of Netley, the coachman, arguably the most fascinating and believable character in the whole production. Most of his best scenes ended up on the cutting room floor, unfortunately, and yet he still manages to pull the movie together into a cohesive whole just by his presence. (It must have been a heck of a fun role to play!) As well, Sir Ian Holm deserves special mention for stepping in when the original choice for his role, Sir Nigel Hawthorne, tragically became ill and died just before the film went into production. I have never seen Sir Ian in any role that I didn't find completely believable, and that ranges all the way from KING LEAR to his role in ALIEN, for heaven's sake.

My interest in the whole Jack the Ripper case has been reawakened thanks to this movie, and I'm trying to hunt down a copy of Alan Moore's graphic novel (which is very difficult to find). No, it's not even close to an approximation of what really happened; nobody will ever know the truth, Patricia Cornwell's arrogant claims notwithstanding. It's still worth renting, if only for the beautifully ominous score and the fascinating transformation of Prague into Victorian London. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
91 out of 117 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lifeforce (1985)
5/10
So bad that it almost becomes great.
20 March 2004
I hate to admit it, but I really love this movie, although on every level it really is horrible! The moments of incredibly bad acting (does Steve Railsback HAVE to scream like a maniac in every part he plays? Is it a part of his contract?), cheesy effects (oh, yeah, gotta love those animated corpses...), completely senseless "scientific" explanations and gratuitous nudity... Okay, so the last point is a plus rather than a minus, because Mathilda May has to have been the most beautiful-looking woman on the planet when this film was made, but it's just a little bit obvious that she's serving as a distraction from the rest of the movie rather than an enhancement to it.

You know what? I really don't care. I've watched this movie repeatedly, especially when I've had a few, and I never fail to enjoy it thoroughly, although not perhaps in the way its creators intended. I mean, where else can you see Frank Finlay pontificate in such a wonderful take-off of the original mad scientist? And for screaming, Patrick Stewart sure gives Steve Railsback a run for his money. (That's saying a great deal, believe me!) Let us not forget some other fantastically talented actors whose facial expressions seem to indicate that they can't believe they've been trapped in this low-budget purgatory--Aubrey Morris, Michael Gothard, Jerome Willis, and, of course, the incredible Peter Firth. Oh, Lord, how I love it!

If you're after a movie that doesn't make you think at all but has wonderful eye-candy value (if you appreciate female beauty, anyway), this is the one for you. Slightly better now that all of the original scenes have been re-instated--so many more opportunities for howling with laughter. It just screams "B movie!" but somehow it is so much more fun. Oh, dear, now I have to go and watch it again!
61 out of 101 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Go see it!
27 February 2004
I've been getting a little tired of the computer-enhanced extravaganzas that have been flung at viewers over the past few years. You know what I'm talking about--the movies that are short on plot, acting or both which are bolstered up by loud FX and revolutionary digital animation so that it becomes "special effects in search of a picture". I'm delighted to say that CALENDAR GIRLS has nothing of the kind. It's all about the plot, all about the women involved, and all about laughing so hard you cry--or maybe about being able to forget tears in deep laughter, if only for a moment.

The acting is superb. One hardly needs to mention Helen Mirren. I read one comment that pans her Yorkshire accent; well, I attended it with an Englishwoman who is very familiar with such an accent and she specifically told me that her accent never slipped, so I've no idea where that comment came from.

Having been involved with the world of cancer treatment recently (fortunately with a happier outcome for my mother, a survivor of breast cancer) this movie strikes close to home. It's completely accurate; it's not pretty and it's often degrading, no matter how much the oncological staff tries to make it easier. The movie is also accurate in the kind of sentiments it expresses about cancer. People who have been touched by that filthy disease will do ANYTHING to fight it. (I sat on a spin bike for twenty-four consecutive hours in aid of breast cancer less than two weeks ago, so I do know what I'm talking about.) Yes, a few liberties with the real story have been taken. So what? The result is a coherent progression that is more interested in human beings than plot details. And isn't that what it should be about?

I've heard this dismissed as a movie for "older people". I'm proud to be of that number--after all, at the age of thirty-five I'm ten years out of the target demographic at which Hollywood films are aimed. If by "older people" they mean people who want a movie to be about something important as opposed to the latest spectacular light show, I'm glad to be of that number. I'd recommend this to anyone who's interested in a movie that is both hysterically funny and deeply touching. It has re-inspired me in the battle against cancer, and if it does that to anyone else, it will have made a worthwhile difference.
67 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Doctor Who (1996 TV Movie)
Oh, dear.
28 July 2003
The summary says it all: Oh, dear.

I don't particularly like it when Hollywood attempts to "glamourize" an existing phenomenon in order to rope in lots and lots of new viewers (to make money, of course, what other reason can there be?) but I've grown to accept the fact that it's an established part of the entertainment business. I approached this movie with what I hoped was an open mind, and I was even slightly intrigued by the first five minutes or so of the movie...

This changed, of course, when suddenly stuff started blowing up, pointless FX started popping up all over the place, and the scriptwriters apparently forgot that they were writing for DOCTOR WHO and seemed to think that they were employed by Chris Carter and the X-FILES, as they started a direct rip-off of the black oil creature, which is suddenly all that's left of the Master. (That this flies in the face of all previous background established by a show that had run for over twenty-five years is only to be expected; after all, it was only a cheesy little British sci-fi show and everyone KNOWS that Hollywood knows best, after all!) I was left with my mouth hanging open, aghast at the mess to which I was being subjected.

Paul McGann tried. God, how he tried. I can almost see him as the Doctor if I squint. This has nothing to do with the man's acting ability, which is superb, nor does it have to do with his comparatively young age--he was about the same age as Peter Davison was when he took over the role, after all. I just could not believe in a Doctor who was playing second fiddle to a completely new and fictitious TARDIS--say, last time I looked, wasn't the Eye of Harmony something to do with Rassilon back on Gallifrey?

Let us mercifully pass over the spectacle of the Doctor's first on-screen kiss--except to say that if he was never tempted by some of the companions in his past (particularly Romana, who at least was of the same species!) then why the heck would he be tempted by some jittery Earth woman who didn't particularly like him?

Please, o scriptwriter, if you're going to use characters and equipment that have been established over a quarter of a century, does it not make sense to have some passing familiarity with what you are writing? Or am I being ridiculous?

Never mind. At least I still have access to all of the videos of the classic episodes. Be sure that this travesty is one that I have zero interest in acquiring. If you're a fan of the television series, avoid this movie or spend the duration of it weeping for the mess they've made of DOCTOR WHO. If you've never seen the series and are a big fan of on-screen stuff that is really special effects in search of a movie, well, this will be right up your alley. Just don't subject a true fan to this nightmare, please.
35 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Insomnia (1997)
9/10
I never knew light could be so disturbing.
31 January 2003
Usually, when a director wants to set a dark mood, he or she relies on shadows and gloom in the camera frame. Here the exact opposite has been achieved through the perpetual midnight sun which throws the descent of Jonas Engstrom into madness all too clearly. At first the effect is subtle, but as the picture continues and there is never any nightfall one begins to feel the same bone-deep weariness and lethargy experienced by the protagonist. I watched it for the first time late at night and it completely threw me off my sleep cycle for the night. Most powerful.

I speak neither Swedish nor Norwegian, but I didn't find the subtitles a hindrance at all--indeed, I much prefer subtitles to dubbing every time. I found that I had to work harder to notice everything that was happening on screen, which was a welcome change from the constant "eye candy" that seems to be the norm coming out of the movie business these days. All of the performances were understated yet brilliant, especially, of course, that of Stellan Skarsgard. I was particularly intrigued by the opening title sequence, showing the murder through the eyes of the murderer in a disjointed and confused sped-up manner, and this point of view is a foreshadowing of how both Engstrom and the viewer will feel by the end of the picture.

I have not seen the remake yet, and I'm not sure that I want to do so. The Hollywood movie business never seems to know when to leave well enough alone. I'll be able to make a better recommendation when or if I get around to the remake.
74 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Worth the price of admission.
2 December 2002
Warning to those who are avid fans of J.K. Rowling--I LOATHE the Harry Potter books. Yes, I have read them. I find her writing to be more than a little plagiaristic of the style of C.S. Lewis, but without the skill that he employed. That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed both this and the first movie. Frankly, I don't care if the scriptwriters left this bit or that bit out; it is simply impossible for all parts of any novel to be completely included in a film without turning it into an epic of a minimum of seven hours, which is ridiculous. That is the nature of a film; much over two-and-a-half hours and the theatres are only going to be able to show a limited number of screenings, which will, of necessity, limit the profit to be made on the film--and the bottom line of any film project is "How much of a profit will it make?". (And, of course, how many people are going to be able to sit through it without multiple bathroom breaks? I had to run out myself once, cursing, just when they were about to "follow the spiders"...)

I found the casting to be clever and appropriate; of special note is, of course, the late Richard Harris as Dumbledore (and I wonder if they will make the obvious choice to replace him in the next movie with Max von Sydow, who could be made to look and sound exactly the same?) as well as the return of Robbie Coltrane and Alan Rickman. Both of these actors can actually act, as opposed to simply being screen personalities. The visual effects are stunning, although just a little too obviously digital in more than a few cases. The story is easily followed, which is more than I could say for the original books. The pacing was almost perfect; I only looked at my watch twice--my measure for a movie in which I am immersed. Both times occurred, I might add, when I was distracted by Rupert Grint's voice obviously cracking--they're going to have to do something about the fact that their stars are definitely more than a few miles down the road of adolescence.

This movie, of course, is raking in the cash. Deservedly so; it's not by any stretch of the imagination a movie of any deep and lasting meaning, but it gives good value for one's entertainment dollar, and at the scandalous prices that movie admissions are reaching now, that is certainly a ringing endorsement. It was able to take me away from the insanity of a stressful holiday season, and for that reason alone I was completely satisfied. See if it can do the same for you.
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed