A lot has been said here about the quality of this production, and I have to agree that it sounds good, presents itself reasonably well, and is amusing. I dislike the sers
Reviews
12 Reviews
The Mikado
(1992 TV Movie)
Let me get this straight. This is a real D'oyly Carte production, isn't it?
27 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Cloud Atlas
(2012)
Remarkable!
2 June 2017
Since I first saw this movie about two weeks ago, it has rapidly become one of my favorite movies: beautiful, eye-popping, stirring and magical. We have watched it four times since then, and will undoubtedly watch it again. It is sad and funny, with a surprisingly nice ending. By all means, get yourself a copy and fall in love.
Demetrius and the Gladiators
(1954)
History is Bunk !
14 January 2010
It's a pretty good story, actually, this sequel to "The Robe". As entertainment, it has plenty to offer. As history, however, it falls flat on its face. The only accuracy in the story of Caligula is that he was assassinated by one of his own guards. He is also played so outrageously hammy that it is hard to take him seriously. Caligula also wasn't the slightest bit concerned with Christians or Jews, and in real life largely ignored them. His successor, Claudius, played here as a fine old Roman gentleman who wished the Christians well at the end, in fact found them and the Jews both to be a bother, and showed them the doors of Rome at every opportunity. (Please note: with the one politically motivated action of Nero, real persecution of Christians did not occur until much later, under the Emperor Diocletian) And let's not forget the Empress Messalina, probably the most notorious loose woman in Roman history, who comes across here as just a cheating wife. But then - hey, I'm a history buff. The point is that despite these little problems, it is still a good movie, and Victor Mature is perfect as the toughened gladiator. It's a classic and still a favorite
The Legend of Sleepy Hollow
(1980 TV Movie)
Good Fun in Sleepy Hollow
11 July 2009
I've been a Sleepy Hollow affectionado ever since i saw the animated Disney classic as a kid, and I suppose I've seen pretty much every version from TV, movies, and cartoons since the 1950's. In many ways, the Disney one is still my favorite. I loved the Tim Burton film with Johnny Depp, but something about it wasn't right. In a world where Biblical names were commonplace, "Ichabod" is a most unflattering name, meaning "the glory has departed" - but Ichabod Crane, originally NOT the nicest of men, has become a hero over the years. Depp's Ichabod was too handsome and brave, and there were no NYC police in 1799, let alone forensics specialists. And so Jeff Goldblum remains probably the best-cast Ichabod Crane of all time. He has a look similar to the Disney one, but he has a much more pleasant manner, Burton's film, is ghostly and mysterious and well done. The subplot with a brutish Brom Bones (wasn't Bram the hunky one?) and a girl friend (NOT Katrina)ain't that great - but the overall film is very enjoyable, and seems to have quite a fan following. A good Halloween tale for all ages.
Weekend at Bernie's II
(1993)
Not quite zombie humor, but close...
9 July 2009
Not a lot of people liked this movie, but just as many people did! It is a sequel to an improbable comedy that I would have thought impossible, but they actually pulled it off, and it is funnier that the original. Of course it is tasteless, silly, and ridiculous. It is a one-gag comedy that milks the one gag for all it is worth, like Chuck Jones did with Fearless Freep. A salute must of course be given to Terry Kiser, the real star of the film, who flops and sags and dances his way through these two preposterous movies. Playing a corpse is always an admirable skill, especially a corpse hauled all over the stage or screen. Kiser does it brilliantly. If you aren't offended by this kind of humor, go see it.
The Curse of King Tut's Tomb
(2006 TV Movie)
Indiana Jones ... Naaaah...
7 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not sure how to describe this very long sci-fi fantasy. It rips off everything: The Mummy, Stargate, a dash of Star Wars, and of course a huge helping of Indiana Jones. It even has a Satanic secret society of super-villains whose whole "raison d'etre" is to take over the world and rule it with the usual iron fist. Casper Van Dein is clearly playing a younger Indiana Jones, complete with a professorship, a brown fedora, and a whip. Although the date of the setting implies he's a younger, alternate Indy in another, more fantastical universe, he doesn't quite cut it. Unfortunately for him, he's not Harrison Ford. He's not even Brendon Frasier, that other Indy-like action hero of archaeology and ancient legends. One cliché after another, not a single original concept. And at the same time, I found myself enjoying it enough to sit through all three hours of it. It is just escapist fantasy, and there's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes a little nonsense doesn't hurt.
Merlin's Apprentice
(2006)
I don't think is the same Merlin.
5 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Once upon a time, there was a stirring and delightful movie named "Merlin", which gave us yet another perspective of the Arthurian legends, from the viewpoint of the wizard Merlin. It was great fun.
Then there was a so-called sequel, called "Merlin's Apprentice". This film, in fact, has a lot more to do with Lloyd Alexander's stories of the "Prydain Chronicles" than it has to do with either Merlin or Arthur. And as a sequel, it is appalling. A proper sequel would tie directly into a previous movie, and this one simply doesn't. "Merlin" has its own story and as such the sequel should have stayed true to it. I could have believed it a lot more easily if, in the last scenes of the movie, I had seen a white-haired, bearded old wizard in the background telling tales to the kiddies. Fans of the original know what I am talking about.
It was not what I'd call a bad film, because it was interesting and at times amusing, but it still felt all wrong. And the star of the film often seemed to be the Pig. I liked the Pig.
Then there was a so-called sequel, called "Merlin's Apprentice". This film, in fact, has a lot more to do with Lloyd Alexander's stories of the "Prydain Chronicles" than it has to do with either Merlin or Arthur. And as a sequel, it is appalling. A proper sequel would tie directly into a previous movie, and this one simply doesn't. "Merlin" has its own story and as such the sequel should have stayed true to it. I could have believed it a lot more easily if, in the last scenes of the movie, I had seen a white-haired, bearded old wizard in the background telling tales to the kiddies. Fans of the original know what I am talking about.
It was not what I'd call a bad film, because it was interesting and at times amusing, but it still felt all wrong. And the star of the film often seemed to be the Pig. I liked the Pig.
The People's Choice
(1955–1958)
Cleo, I loved you.
20 May 2009
I was a little girl when I watched this program. Like many sitcoms from this period, it knew how to be cute and clever without falling back on tired innuendos. I remember that I enjoyed it, and I even remembered the names of the main characters, but most of all, I was in love with Cleo. She was cuddly and adorable and just gorgeous. I would love to see them again, but I've heard rumors that many of the episodes have been lost. I hope this is not true. My dad actually got me a Basset Hound puppy. We called him Leo, and he was a great dog who I still remember very fondly, especially since he was the last thing my dad ever gave me before his sudden, untimely death. It was also my introduction to Jackie Cooper, best known as a child actor until this point.
Keeping Up With the Joneses
26 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed this film. I enjoy all of the Indiana Jones films. I even Temple of Doom, which has long been my favorite for reasons unknown, though Raisers and Crusade are probably "better" films.
And so it is with Crystal Skull. It is full of clichés, like all other Indy films, and full of self-parody and fantastically impossible stunts. It may not be Raisers of Crusade, but it is still Indy and though it made me feel old watching it, it was comfortable to watch for the following reasons: 1. Indy teaches in a tiny classroom, but on a large campus. This is the first time we actually get to see it. Indy's house looks more comfortable and "lived in" than it did in the earlier films, which adds nice realism and passage of time.
2. Loose threads are tied together with old characters. We learn that Henry Sr. and Marcus Brodie have passed on, and that Abner Ravenwood, Oxley, Brodie and Stanforth were all part of the University archaeological faculty. One must ask if adventurous digs and escapades is what they did on summer breaks. Realism and fantasy do co-exist.
3. Indy has aged well. He is clearly in his 60's, and he is more settled in his scenes, leaving most of the hard stuff to Mutt. I found myself not only feeling old, but noticing how much Indy was starting to look, sound, and act like his father. This was a nice touch, actually, and I was pleased to see that he and Marion finally tied the knot. Nice final scene - the semi-magical hat blows mysteriously through the church door and blows toward Mutt, but it is Indy who picks it up and wears it, with a look on his face that says, "Someday, kid - but not yet." The only thing that really bothered me about the film was the supporting cast of Soviets. I can understand the ease in which they broke into the testing site because it had been deliberately cleared of all but gate guards. What I couldn't understand was Soviets in stolen vehicles chasing madly after Indy and Mutt all across the University Campus. I know, I know...that's a movie cliché in itself: Gangs of Bad Guys always chase and shot at the hero in very public places, but it is a pet peeve of mine.
And so it is with Crystal Skull. It is full of clichés, like all other Indy films, and full of self-parody and fantastically impossible stunts. It may not be Raisers of Crusade, but it is still Indy and though it made me feel old watching it, it was comfortable to watch for the following reasons: 1. Indy teaches in a tiny classroom, but on a large campus. This is the first time we actually get to see it. Indy's house looks more comfortable and "lived in" than it did in the earlier films, which adds nice realism and passage of time.
2. Loose threads are tied together with old characters. We learn that Henry Sr. and Marcus Brodie have passed on, and that Abner Ravenwood, Oxley, Brodie and Stanforth were all part of the University archaeological faculty. One must ask if adventurous digs and escapades is what they did on summer breaks. Realism and fantasy do co-exist.
3. Indy has aged well. He is clearly in his 60's, and he is more settled in his scenes, leaving most of the hard stuff to Mutt. I found myself not only feeling old, but noticing how much Indy was starting to look, sound, and act like his father. This was a nice touch, actually, and I was pleased to see that he and Marion finally tied the knot. Nice final scene - the semi-magical hat blows mysteriously through the church door and blows toward Mutt, but it is Indy who picks it up and wears it, with a look on his face that says, "Someday, kid - but not yet." The only thing that really bothered me about the film was the supporting cast of Soviets. I can understand the ease in which they broke into the testing site because it had been deliberately cleared of all but gate guards. What I couldn't understand was Soviets in stolen vehicles chasing madly after Indy and Mutt all across the University Campus. I know, I know...that's a movie cliché in itself: Gangs of Bad Guys always chase and shot at the hero in very public places, but it is a pet peeve of mine.
Song of Norway
(1970)
Pretty, but...
25 June 2008
I saw this one when I was in high school. I had been warned ahead of time, but I liked classical music, including Grieg, and ignored the warnings. I remember several things about it that really sum the film up, in my opinion.
1. The photography was stunning. Snow, fjords, and Norwegian towns and scenery were really pretty, as were the folk costumes.
2. Grieg's music was nice to listen to, though as in all films about composers, they only give samplings.
Those are the good parts. The bad parts were what sank the boat. There wasn't much of a story. Greig's life wasn't as exciting as many other composers lives, and a lot was padded to keep the story going for 2 or 3 hours. I remember a lot of overacting as well. But the worst part of all was the directing. Forever emblazoned upon my memory is the hideously clichéd scene where Grieg, his wife, and someone else spread their arms and run across a green field, stop on a hillock, and spin around to face the audience. Then they do the same thing again - and again! If that's not enough to make you give up, then nothing is.
1. The photography was stunning. Snow, fjords, and Norwegian towns and scenery were really pretty, as were the folk costumes.
2. Grieg's music was nice to listen to, though as in all films about composers, they only give samplings.
Those are the good parts. The bad parts were what sank the boat. There wasn't much of a story. Greig's life wasn't as exciting as many other composers lives, and a lot was padded to keep the story going for 2 or 3 hours. I remember a lot of overacting as well. But the worst part of all was the directing. Forever emblazoned upon my memory is the hideously clichéd scene where Grieg, his wife, and someone else spread their arms and run across a green field, stop on a hillock, and spin around to face the audience. Then they do the same thing again - and again! If that's not enough to make you give up, then nothing is.
Where Do We Go from Here?
(1945)
Cute, Disneyesque film
4 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
If you haven't seen this obscure little charmer, you should seek it out. It is the story of a bumbling, wartime Sad Sack (Fred MacMurray) who is listed 4-F each time he attempts to join any branch of the military. He finds a magic lamp which of course contains a genie (Gene Sheldon), but the genie is even more bumbling than MacMurray is, sending him across time to serve in all the wrong times and places than the one he wants. It is cute, cheerful, and pure fluff, and you can't help but like it. The plots is much like a Disney film, particularly since the two stars (MacMurray and Sheldon) both made numerous Disney films in the 50's and 60's, although not together. Needless to say, it all ends well for everyone, and the viewer goes away feeling pretty good.
The Return of Princess Fred
9 January 2006
I fell in love with this cute musical back in the 1960's when it was originally aired on TV in black & white, and loved it again ten years later when it was re-aired in color with only minor cast changes. To the many fans of this beloved play, it is impossible not to compare this new Disney version with the originals.
There is much to like. The look of it is wonderful, complete with a Disneyesque rose-framed window at the end, and a castle full of beautiful, anachronistic rooms, and stained-glass windows with a slightly sinister edge to them. Prince Dauntless and the King are likable, sympathetic, engaging people who you root for, and Sir Harry (the knight) and his Lady Larken are both charming and pretty.
Inevitably, though, as in all previous made-for-TV versions, certain changes in dialog and action have been made, and several songs are absent. I was a little sorry to see the jester's role so reduced (he had a fine song in the original play and the earliest TV version), but I did find it amusing that the Wizard, usually played as the Queen's lover,is this time only an effeminate court sycophant. The G-rating might have been more appropriate had Harry and Larken been secretly married as they were in the 1960's version, which actually makes more sense considering they have defied a marriage law. Otherwise, Larken's pregnancy would simply be an embarrassment instead of a crime. It would also be more suitable for the children watching this film, which after all is a prime-time Christmas offering.
But I saved for last the two starring ladies. Carol Burnett should have been brilliant as the Queen, and in moments her brilliance does come through. But she needed the outrageous brassiness that Jane White once gave the role, and it wasn't quite there. Still, no one else today should play the Queen, if only for the legacy. Carol Burnett forever!
I am not at all sure about Tracy Ullman as Princess Fred, though. She was not bad, she just wasn't great. Fred needs to be so much larger than life. She's not just another princess, she's the kind of princess children love because she's a princess they can hope to be like - not the perfect and pretty ladies like Snow White, Aurora, or Cinderella. Ullman is fun, she's cute, but she does not dominate the screen in the same ways that once made Carol Burnett a star. In those days, the bedroom scene was a broadly hilarious climax to a charmingly funny musical. In this production it is amusing, but little more. And for that alone,I was greatly disappointed.
Yet in spite of these problems, it was a most enjoyable film. I am surprised that Disney has not tried to market it in their "princess series", but time will tell. It is a nice film that looks good and feels good, and to the generations who do not know the older versions, this one should be very satisfying.
There is much to like. The look of it is wonderful, complete with a Disneyesque rose-framed window at the end, and a castle full of beautiful, anachronistic rooms, and stained-glass windows with a slightly sinister edge to them. Prince Dauntless and the King are likable, sympathetic, engaging people who you root for, and Sir Harry (the knight) and his Lady Larken are both charming and pretty.
Inevitably, though, as in all previous made-for-TV versions, certain changes in dialog and action have been made, and several songs are absent. I was a little sorry to see the jester's role so reduced (he had a fine song in the original play and the earliest TV version), but I did find it amusing that the Wizard, usually played as the Queen's lover,is this time only an effeminate court sycophant. The G-rating might have been more appropriate had Harry and Larken been secretly married as they were in the 1960's version, which actually makes more sense considering they have defied a marriage law. Otherwise, Larken's pregnancy would simply be an embarrassment instead of a crime. It would also be more suitable for the children watching this film, which after all is a prime-time Christmas offering.
But I saved for last the two starring ladies. Carol Burnett should have been brilliant as the Queen, and in moments her brilliance does come through. But she needed the outrageous brassiness that Jane White once gave the role, and it wasn't quite there. Still, no one else today should play the Queen, if only for the legacy. Carol Burnett forever!
I am not at all sure about Tracy Ullman as Princess Fred, though. She was not bad, she just wasn't great. Fred needs to be so much larger than life. She's not just another princess, she's the kind of princess children love because she's a princess they can hope to be like - not the perfect and pretty ladies like Snow White, Aurora, or Cinderella. Ullman is fun, she's cute, but she does not dominate the screen in the same ways that once made Carol Burnett a star. In those days, the bedroom scene was a broadly hilarious climax to a charmingly funny musical. In this production it is amusing, but little more. And for that alone,I was greatly disappointed.
Yet in spite of these problems, it was a most enjoyable film. I am surprised that Disney has not tried to market it in their "princess series", but time will tell. It is a nice film that looks good and feels good, and to the generations who do not know the older versions, this one should be very satisfying.
Tell Your Friends