pkuras Reviews

Charlotte's Web (2006)

Beautifully done, very true to the story

[9/10 · 16 December 2006]

I was prepared for almost anything going into this movie, knowing that so many filmmakers who adapt classic stories think it is their duty to "update" the story, or feel the need to add a lot of comic relief.

Thankfully, Winick did not succumb to these temptations. Instead, he offers a delightfully filmed version of the story, with CG effects so realistic and subtle that they detract from the live action base not even a little bit.

This movie is very true to the original story, and the comic relief was, in my opinion, not at all overbearing. I got a lot of genuine laughs out of the movie, and, at 40, that's saying something for a G-rated movie aimed at families with small children.

The movie has an old-fashioned but familiar feel to it. It seems to represent the America we all think we remember, and want to see when we visit the country. It seems in many ways timeless, without feeling Disney-esquire. I'm sure this is what the filmmakers were going for, and they hit it right on the nose.

I thought the casting was excellent, for the most part. Though Agnes Moorehead (from the original animated version) absolutely bowls Oprah Winfrey over as the goose, and Julia Roberts' voice was maybe a bit too matter-of-fact for Charlotte. Debbie Reynolds' extra-sweet voice did, I think, a just-so-slightly better job in the original. That aside, Miss Fanning is perfect as Fern, and Siobhan Fallon could not play the incredulous Mrs. Zuckerman one iota better.

I think E.B. White would be pleased. This is as honest a representation of his wonderful story as anyone could hope for.

If you have small kids, read them the book, and then go see the movie.

If you read the book as a kid, and still smile when you think about it, then go see it yourself.

Highly recommended.

The Nativity Story (2006)

Ugh! Boring and Poorly Told Story. Just read the Bible.

[2/10 · 3 December 2006]

Well, the scenery was nice, but I felt like I was watching a Christmas card. This movie un-self-consciously puts every Christmas Card and black velvet painting cliché right there on the screen (so as not to upset those who expect nothing less, I'm sure).

Herod, as awful a guy as I'm sure he was, was given far too much screen time, and the Magi - don't get me started on the Magi.

For characters whose number, names and exact professions are not offered in any Gospel, the Magi are way, way overplayed. These guys were bit players in the original Christmas story. In this version, they are not only stars with almost equal billing as the real main characters, they are put in the Disneyesque role of comic relief. And their lab looks like Dumbledore's office in Harry Potter.

And not only do we get the "correct" number of Magi (three), we are offered their traditional names and conventional costumes. Presumably, the production designer didn't want to work too hard to put these guys on the screen - others have spent centuries figuring out what they should look like - why mess with success? Just crib the look from any nearby painting, Christmas card or Christmas story cartoon, and you're done.

Overall, this thing seems to be trying too hard to satisfy a presumed expectation of visual fidelity with the conventional Nativity story imagery, and to avoid offending anyone. The result is a slow, plodding story, with one-dimensional characters and no drama, even the drama we expect.

Don't bother. Read the Gospel version of the story. Spend a few minutes imagining what Mary and Joseph must have *really* gone through, and tell your own story. It'll be far better.