edjavega Reviews

George Lucas in Love (1999)

"Oww! My hand!"

[1 September 2008]

Forget SPACEBALLS. This short film may be the most truly inventive and genuinely funny and witty spoof of STAR WARS (and Shakespeare IN LOVE!) you will ever see.

(Spoilers) For example, in just one 30 second or so clip where the film student George Lucas goes from his dorm to visit his teacher, we "learn" where he got his inspiration for Han Solo and Chewbacca, for the "Evil Empire", for C3PO and R2D2, for Yoda, and even the music from the Mos Eisely cantina! That's sheer genius.

It also doesn't look like a cheaply made production, what with such fine sets and acting from the principals. The inspiration for "Leia" is also a lovely actress, whatever happened to her? (Lysa Jakub) The only problem in fact with the film is that it is just 8 minutes long. You really want it to go on and on as it is literally a laugh every second.

As for why my comment subject is named that way, you just have to see this!

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Why all the hate? Is it because we've grown up? This is still a fun movie!

[7/10 · 26 May 2008]

Reading all the comments here, it looks like this is one of the worst films ever made, and it's absolute rubbish, Shia's character is Jar Jar Binks, etc.

But it's earning a ton of money, and the rankings (7.6) are high, so what does that tell you? That compared to the haters, MOST people came to his movie expecting a fun adventure movie and got it.

Look, the Indiana Jones movies aren't flawless. Even in the previous movies, you had to suspend belief (people melting? someone surviving a fall from a plane just on a craft? a Knight living more than 1,000 years?) and just enjoy the action scenes - and you have them here! Mutt swinging on the vines is real corny but the car chase through the jungle, complete with sword fight, fisticuffs, giant ants, etc. - they are what you can expect from an Indiana Jones movie. And Cate Blanchett is a SUPER villain, Harrison somehow makes it all believable for him to still be an action star at 60 plus, and it's great to see Marion Ravenwood again.

STAR WARS I was a major major disappointment, but this one is NOT. We have wanted to see Harrison Ford suit up as Indy again, and here he has a good cast with him, and yet we bash the movie because it isn't RAIDERS? Nothing can be as much fun as the first Indy Jones movie. But this one is still MUCH MUCH better than any adventure movie out there for the past several years.

Just watch it with an open mind. Don't expect miracles, but fun entertainment for 2 hours and you will get it.

La Traviata (1967)

Anna Moffo was the ideal Violetta

[9/10 · 11 September 2007]

Opera films generally remember and praise the excellent 1982 film version of LA TrAVIATA directed by Franco Zefirelli and starring Plácido Domingo and Teresa Stratas, but few know about this version from the 50's to early 70's.

And it's such a pity as this version features perhaps the best Violetta Valery ever in the stunningly beautiful and talented Anna Moffo, an Italian-American soprano who made her mark in the 60's to early 70's.

The late Moffo's rare combination of beautiful voice, great musical instincts, topnotch acting and gorgeous movie star looks truly made her ideal for this role of all roles for sopranos. In scenes like the Brindisi drinking song sequence, she practically IS Violetta, as composer Guiseppe Verdi must have imagined her! This version obviously does not have the ostentatious and sumptuous look of Zefirelli's version, but the costumes and sets are realistic all the same. The tenor Franco Bonisolli and baritone Gino Bechi are also good in their roles of Alfredo and Germont, though admittedly not as great as the fabulous Plácido Domingo or the veteran Cornell McNeill.

But it is Moffo who is clearly the reason to watch this film. We don't have a filmed version of a Callas performance, and Stratas in the Zefirelli movie looked and acted well, but her singing in that film was unfortunately not up to par for this important role, as she was supposed to have been not in top vocal health when she recorded the music.

Yes, there havebeen legendary sopranos like Renata Tebaldi, Joan Sutherland, Beverley Sills, Monsterrat Caballé, etc. who may have given great musical performances as Violetta, but they were not the actresses that Moffois, to say nothing of Moffo's obvious advantage in being visually believable as a beautiful woman who was the toast of Paris.

The exciting Anna Netrebko is a rising star now, but musically, I still think Moffo (and many other sopranos) are superior.

For the total package, and a performance available on film, this version features the best Violetta of all.

The Crossing (2000 TV Movie)

Good history lesson

[28 January 2006]

This TV movie is a good history lesson about a very desperate time for the former colonies trying to assert their independence post-July 4, 1776. Everyone - foreigners included like me - knows of the Delaware crossing chiefly through that famous painting. But how many know that Washington crossed the Delaware three times? That many of the soldiers fighting for the British army were German Hessian mercenaries? Or that Washington's troops were so close to being disbanded?

One thing I observed though. You really have to see this movie without having seen "Dumb and Dumber" recently beforehand. Jeff Daniels is super in the role, but watching him as Washington, I couldn't help but remember that this was the same guy whom I earlier saw had his tongue get stuck in ice at a ski ledge and had severe diarrhea problems in a previous slapstick comedy with Jim Carrey. A bit unseemly for someone playing the Father of the Nation!

All in all, this is certainly worth your time.

The Little Prince (1974)

Beautiful title theme

[7/10 · 14 December 2005]

This movie might be best appreciated by those who have read the book firsthand and want to see the characters live in the flesh. While this film follows the story very closely, and features good performers (including Bob Fosse and Gene Wilder), it would be difficult for a newcomer to appreciate just how magical this classic fable is if he/she only watches this movie without reading the book. I suppose it would have come out better as an animated feature.

Still, the movie definitely has its merits. The kid playing the Little Prince does very well - why didn't he have a successful career after this? And the music is very beautiful at parts. I don't know why some say it is not up to the standards of Lerner and Leowe. The title theme (such a haunting melody) and "I never met a Rose" - both sung by the Pilot - are beautiful, and the happy song sung by the Little Prince and the Fox as they come close and dance together is charming and jaunty.

7 out of 10.

Christopher Columbus (1985)

By far the best film on Columbus

[13 December 2005]

I saw this in late 1985 on TV and was pleasantly surprised by its very high quality and by the presence of so many recognizable names and faces (Faye Dunaway, Gabriel Byrne, Rosanno Brazzi, Raf Vallone, Eli Wallach, Max von Sydow, Oliver Reed, Virna Lisi, Nicol Williamson, Elpidia Carrillo,etc.) in the supporting cast.

In 1992 there were these two films on Columbus and neither holds a candle to this superb TV miniseries. They are almost a travesty to the great achievement of the Genoese explorer. This TV movie on the other hand properly does him justice.

Gabriel Byrne as Columbus and Faye Dunaway as Queen Isabela of Spain give memorable performances. It was good that this series did not imply that there was a romance or romantic attraction between the two, unlike in the two 1992 films, as that has never been established for sure by historians.

The script is also balanced in that it shows important facets about the story and the period: Colombus' drive and determination against all odds; Spanish religious zeal after the expulsion of the Moors; the vision of the Spanish monarchs in supporting Colombus when the Portuguese King did not; the courage of the seamen who sailed with Colombus, but also, their cruelty to the Indians who were just defending their land; Columbus' skills as a seaman but ineptness as an administrator; the beauty of both Renaissance Europe and pre-Columbian America. It's all here.

This is clearly a high-budget affair, with its expensive sets and costumes. And remember, this was in the days before CG, so the ships you see here are real.

The music is also inspiring and for opera fans, you get the bonus of hearing the great Plácido Domingo sing Italian-language lyrics to the main theme at the end credits.

THIS TV FILM SHOULD BE MORE POPULAR THAN IT IS!

Gunpowder, Treason & Plot (2004 TV Movie)

Protestant vs. Catholic = West vs. fundamentalist terrorism?!

[27 November 2005]

It was expected that this series would take an anti-Catholic tone, after all, it appears most of England had grown rabidly anti-Catholic (not without reason) at this time.

But in scenes where the Catholic plotters were planning to blow up the Parliament, it was a bit disturbing to have the script make the characters use terms such as "martyrs to the cause" and decide that, if innocent Catholic bystanders were to be killed by their plot, that was "alright", since they would be dying for the Church or something like that.

Personally, I don't think Fawkes and company thought in those lines, since they needed all the Catholics they could get, since they were in a minority in Britain. Were the producers making the Catholic plotters appear like something out of today's Al-Qaeda, to make the film more "familiar" to today's audiences?

The Protestants don't appear too angelic either. The ending sequence where King James I appeared totally mad or ruthless before Parliament, talking about unspeakable punishments for the plotters who only wanted "tolerance" - well, that sort of appeared like the producers were trying to get people to equate the King's behavior to Washington's response to 9/11 and come out thinking that the USA's reaction was quite over the top too. A political statement if there was one.

And where did they get it that James I may have been homosexual and had a hard time to have a "normal" relationship with his wife? The historical James I had 9 children by Queen Anne.

The point is, costume dramas have all the potential to be great dramas, without having to "adapt" the script to make the historical characters act and speak in a way that would make them look contemporary.

At any rate, it was interesting TV fare. *** out of *****

Serenade (1956)

The greatest tenor voice of all

[9/10 · 27 June 2004]

"Serenade" is one of the great Mario Lanza's more interesting films, taking on a heavier dramatic tone than his early fluff with MGM. There is true pathos and tragedy in some of the scenes, and you really feel for his character.

Spanish movie legend Sarita Montiel is quite fetching and likeable as his lady love, and for once, we see the American protagonist being saved by the love of a non-Anglo (older movies would always show the brunette as the femme fatale and the blonde girl back home as the virtuous one). Too bad she sings no songs in this movie, although the Mexico scenes are colorful and well-done.

But as usual, it is Mario's great voice which truly shines here. He sings more opera arias in this film than in any other movie of his (except possibly "The Great Caruso"). His combination of lyric sweetness, magnificent dramatic sound and ringing top notes, plus sheer versatility, is unmatched even by some of the greatest classically-trained singers, including Pavarotti and Domingo. And he is certainly better than today's pop opera darling Andrea Bocelli.

Vincent Prince and Joan Fontaine (still gorgeous here) bring their usual great support.

The final scene (at Joan Fontaine's party) actually has great dramatic tension although somewhat marred by a less than satisfying ending to the movie. Still very watchable.

Space Jam (1996)

Good harmless fun

[7/10 · 17 January 2004]

You'd think the easiest thing to do is play yourself in a movie. Yet the great Michael Jordan clearly seemed uncomfortable with his lines. Larry Bird and the other ball players (Patrick Ewing, Muggsy Bogues, Charles Barkely,etc.) seemed more at ease in front of the camera.

But Jordan sure can play ball. The basketball moments are what this film's about. MJ was at the height of his popularity and it was great for the kids to see their favorite looney tune characters interact with MJ and Bill Murray and the rest.

This is just a popcorn movie for kids, and those who like hoops will find it real entertaining.

Mad Love (2001)

Pilar López is stunningly beautiful

[8/10 · 4 January 2004]

The movie should be seen chiefly for its main actress, the beautiful and talented Pilar López de Ayala. She does the absolute best with what the script gives her.

This should be an entertaining and engrossing film, especially for those interested in Renaissance Europe, but it may be taking just too many liberties with the historical facts. It is highly doubtful that the real Juana became "mad" chiefly out of love for an unfaithful husband, who in this movie is not shown to be particularly interesting anyway. And if the real Juana was anywhere near as beautiful as the actress who plays her, I suppose the real Philip would not have been such a mean husband to her.

Aside from her husband, her father King Fernando of Aragón and most of the Castilian nobles are not depicted too favorably either.

Still, this movie is a good movie if you like costume drama, especially one with a southern European more than an English background.

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)

The most underrated of the Classic Trilogy

[10/10 · 27 October 2003]

Why is this installment so underrated now? When it first came out, a lot of fans (including Lucas' pal Spielberg himself) thought that it was actually the best of the trilogy and was just more satisfying than TESB. It certainly did NOT disappoint fans, and even made a serious run at toppling E.T. as the all-time #1 box office champion at the time.

But today folks usually harp that ANH was a more "innocent" film while TESB had "the greatest dramatic power." Well, if ROTJ was full of cheesy humor and weird creatures and seemed to be intended first and foremost as an entertainment for kids (inspiring lots of merchandise), then so was ANH, certainly. And there is nothing wrong in ROTJ providing this saga with the ultimate in happy endings, as everyone knew before ROTJ came out that it would be much like ANH in tone and dramatic mood - something mostly welcomed by fans after experiencing all the gloom and tragedy which this galactic fairy tale unveiled in TESB.

Anyhow, all the epic drama of TESB would be rendered totally meaningless if not for ROTJ providing us with the necessary closure, as we learn that (SPOILERS) Vader WAS in fact Luke's father as he had claimed; that the "other" was no other than Leia, who was actually Luke's sister; that her romance with Han therefore comes to a happy ending with his rescue and our realization that they were simply destined to be together; and that the Empire and the Dark Side would be destroyed not by Luke killing his own father but by Vader's own redemption.

And as for raw drama, the Luke-Vader-Palpatine confrontation and climax matches anything from the entire saga. The escape from Jabba's lair, the speed chase through the woods, the Forest Battle and the epic space battle (culminating in Lando and the Falcon's thrilling escape from the exploding Death Star) also rank among the most exhilarating action sequences in the entire trilogy.

And about those Ewoks: they were actually quite popular first time around, as they appeared in spin-off TV movies and an animated series. Fans should not obsess over them, as this movie is not actually centered on them contrary to what so many critics say. Point is, if ANH and TESB are listed among the fans' top 20 favorite movies, there is no reason why ROTJ shouldn't be there too. Its triumphant and exciting conclusion serves to complete the three-act epic and make it a truly matchless movie experience to be relished for all time.

Murder by Death (1976)

Just plain enjoyable

[9/10 · 26 October 2003]

One of the first movies I actually saw when the first Beta machines were coming out in the late 1970's. I couldn't stop watching it over and over, and still think it is one of the most enjoyable and well-made film comedies ever.

Except for Truman Capote's sometimes laughable attempts at acting, almost every moment of this comic masterpiece is just an utter joy to behold, with Sir Alec Guiness just stealing the show as a blind butler who has a splendid tour de force in his last scene, where he plays various characters one after the other in homage to how he did the same in his classic comedies of the 40's.

Funny too that Peter Falk as Sam Diamond NEVER gets anything right throughout the movie. The other "legendary" detectives all have their moments where they do make at least one brilliant deduction which turns out to be correct or at least make sense (with Peter Sellers' Charlie Chan ripoff guessing right more often than the others). On the other hand, Sam is just plain wrong all the time, and it is a wonder how he ever became known as a good detective.

At a mere 90 minutes or so, it is certainly worth watching. Highly recommended.

Ben-Hur (1959)

One of the greatest

[18 October 2003]

"Ben-Hur" is the kind of film which Hollywood will never produce again. For one thing, in today's spectacles, so much of the scenery and even crowd scenes would be CGI and not real sets or people.

Compare the pod race from "The Phantom Menace" with the chariot race in this film. The first one looked like a videogame, no real suspense or drama. But Ben-Hur vs. Messala for all the marbles was one of the greatest scenes in movie history.

I remember that for the 2000 Oscars, most of the pre-ceremony commentators were talking about how "Gladiator" might match "the record of 'Ben-Hur' with 11 Oscars." Well, it didn't. "Gladiator" was good, but "Ben-Hur" is one of the greatest films of all time.

Funny though that no one mentioned that the record was no longer really held by "Ben-Hur" alone, but was JOINTLY HELD by 1997's "Titanic" and the 1959 classic. It meant obviously that, while Hollywood people still thought so highly of Ben-Hur 40 years later so as to proudly state that it "held" the record for most Oscars, it seemed that by 2001, lots of folks were already cringing over how "Titanic" had actually been accorded so many awards as well in 1997.

The drama and the power of the storytelling will enthrall you even as the film runs 3 and a half hours. A great movie experience, one which should really be felt on the big screen or at least on widescreen TV.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Exciting, but there are many unanswered questions

[8/10 · 7 July 2002]

I was 13 when I first saw STAR WARS nearly 25 years ago, and yes, I became one of those huge "Star Wars changed my life" fans. My favorite character was and is Han Solo but really, it was the epic scope of the story and effects which converted me.

SPOILERS!

So I was kind of disappointed with PHANTOM MENACE, and was looking forward to a better film for Episode II. Especially after that glowing review by TIME, which even gave away the surprise, that Yoda was going to fight with a light sabre!

So I saw the film, and yes, it was better than Episode I (Jar Jar's reduced screen time sure helped), and I liked it. The romantic angle was kind of corny, though, and not nearly as well handled as the Han-Leia love story (one of my favorite things about the saga). But the movie was not plodding or boring at parts like EPISODE I. Lucas realizes that the real comedy should be provided from the original droids, not from Jar Jar!

The old reliable John Williams provides us another great musical score, and Cristopher Lee and Ewan McGregor are superb. I only wish there had been more of that Yoda battle scene with Count Dooku. I was so excited when I saw him unfurl his lightsabre, but the duel was so brief.

Still, there are SO MANY unanswered questions:

1. The droids C3PO and R2D2 are playing such big roles in this current trilogy too. C3PO was actually built by Anakin and his mother, and C3PO was Padme's droid.

SO HOW COME NO ONE RECOGNIZES THEM IN "A NEW HOPE"? Own and Beru Lars, Luke's uncle and aunt, make absolutely no reference to their having seen them before, when they bought them from the Jawas. They simply don't know them!

The old ObiWan tells Luke "I don't remember having owned a droid before" - was he that senile? Not only had he seen the two droids before, but as a young Jedi, he piloted a small ship with an R4 unit.

Most important of all, C3PO and R2D2 themselves do not remember Tattoine or the name Skywalker at all, or realize Vader's connection to Luke or Leia. They act in the classic trilogy as if none of the events in this current trilogy ever happened. If in Episode III we see them handed over to the Organa family in Alderaan to be given to Leia when she grows older, then these robots should be well aware of all the secrets of the story. But they are not. C3PO does not even know who Leia is other that she was a "passenger of ome importance" on their ship, in the beginning of the first STAR WARS.

2. When I saw the first trilogy and read the novels, I assumed that the Emperor and Darth Vader had never known of Yoda, and that they thought only Obi-Wan survived. In Return of the Jedi, Vader keeps saying "Obi-Wan has taught you well" - well, it is now clear that they knew that Yoda was the head of all Jedis, and yet somehow he escaped the annihilation of the Jedis and marooned himself on Dagobah.

3. If Boba is the clone of Jango, then he certainly knows who Anakin Saywalker/Darth Vader is, but in EMPIRE, he was just another bounty hunter ready for hire. Does Boba not hate all Jedis after how his "dad" was killed by one of them? Again, we swee how the continuity is a bit confusing. Boba in the revised EPISODE IV was just another bounty hunter under Jabba's employ.

3. We see in Episodes I and II concepts and characters like "Padawan learner" and "Queen/Senator Amidala of Naboo" which were never mentioned in the original trilogy. It really looks like George Lucas is making it the entire story as it goes along. (Many fans still ask, did he have Luke and Leia as siblings originally? Come on)

4. If the Clone Warriors are sort of the early prototype of what eventually became the Imperial Stormtroopers, then why are the Stormtroopers such lousy shots in Episodes IV to VI?! They keep missing point blank shots at Luke, Leia, Solo and then get clobbered by a bunch of Ewoks. Jeez.

5. It is revealed here that the Death Star plans were first prepared by Count Dooku's allies. But in A New Hope, it was clear that the Death Star was invented by the Imperial Fleet (a certain commander who gets strangled by Darth Vader). Also, Count Dooku is holding the plans for what looks like the SECOND Death Star (Episode VI) and not the first one blown up Luke in Episode IV. Continuity problems again! That scene (Dooku keeping the Death Star plans) was completely unnecessary for this movie.

5. It also seems that the technology (weapons, costumes. ships, etc.) of the present trilogy is far superior to that of the galaxy as we see it in the original trilogy, which occurs LATER. Of course, this time it is not Lucas' fault, really, cinema special ffects have improved since then. But still, you wonder if the Galaxy in Luke's time is the same Galaxy (only 20 years later) that we are seeing in the current trilogy. I mean, if R2D2 can fly, as he did in this movie, we never saw it in the classic trilogy.

Some fans may say I have to get a life and that these errors I am pointing out are nothing more than nitpicking. But they are not. I am a great fan of the saga, but I cannot just close my eyes and accept it that there are very serious plot and continuity issues coming out of our ears.

The title "Attack of the Clones" is bad enough. Maybe that is why they are using "EPISODE II" as the official title itself, to emphasize that this is a STAR WARS movie. Anyhow, the clones we saw in this film were DEFENDING the Republic (at least, that is what they seemed to be doing) and not "attacking." Otherwise, you could give the film the alternative title of "Yoda leads the Attack of the Clones" since he was the one who was commanding them on Geonosis.

George Lucas had better get his act together and come up with not only an exciting but also a clear and logical plotline for EPISODE III, one which would thrill us fans and also provide credible answers to these and other continuity issues that are being pointed out.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

A lot of firsts in this great movie, not just ...

[12 May 2002]

I am glad that most of the viewers agree that OHMSS is a very under-rated Bond movie, and in fact, might be considered the best Bond film by the "usual suspects" if it had starred Connery or Moore.

Actually, Lazenby did just fine, and as one reviewer pointed out, in the scene where Bond infiltrates Blofeld's lair disguised as en effeminate genealogy researcher, Connery would not have been able to pull that off convincingly. Lazenby did.

(THE Spoiler)

I first saw this film on TV in 1987, and I already knew what would happen in the movie since I had heard of it: Bond's being a widower was mentioned by

the Russian spy Triple X (?!) in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and Bond visits her grave at the beginning of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. I had also been told the ending by family members who had seen it decades before.

And so I wanted to meet the character of the countess whom Bond would really fall in love with and marry. And YES, SHE IS REALLY CHARMING and very PRECIOUS. Diana Rigg is one of my favorite actresses, but that is not why I say so: her character was REALLY a tender and smart woman, and while she may not pack as much sexual "oomph" as the other Bond girls (with all their silly names), of the over 20 Bond films, there is NO OTHER Bond girl that Bond could realistically have married. She was herself in love with him before she actually went to bed with him, which sets her apart from the other Bond girls, who in the first place were just adventures for him.

So Lazenby can always point out that, despite all the criticism against him, and that he only appeared in one Bond film, his film happened to be the most important Bond film as far as dramatic development!

I also notice some reviewers seem to think that the producers only decided to have Bond get married and become a widower on the same day, soley to make this film a "must see" for fans. The thought was supposedly to encourage fans to see the film for its dramatic ending, whether or not they liked it that a new actor was playing Bond.

However it bears mentioning that in the original Ian Fleming novel, Bond DOES get married in the end, only for his wife to die at the hands of Blofeld. Bond's words in the movie, while caressing the body of his dead wife, are actually lifted from the final lines of the book, which has the same exact sad ending as the film. So whether Bond had been played by Connery, Moore, or David Niven or Woody Allen, that would have been the ending of this Bond movie.

And there were OTHER great things and firsts about this movie, and NOT just that Bond got married and became a widower:

1. the excellent score and song "We Have All the Time in the World" by the great Satch Moe. Incidentally, this is the only title song in a Bond movie, as far as I know, whose words are actually UTTERED as part of the script of the movie! (unless you count "Goldfinger" and Connery's scribbling "From Russia with Love" in the picture of the Russian spy)

2. plenty of skiing sequences: a FIRST in a Bond film - you never saw Connery ski - and this would almost become a staple or standard in the later Bond films starring Roger Moore

3. the location shooting in Switzerland and Portugal - interesting depiction of Portuguese bullfighting (tourada) and Diana Rigg looked terrific in that Iberian horsewoman's outfit!

4. The motto or logo of the Bond family seal is revealed to be ORBIS NON SUFFICIT - which means, THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH!

5. We saw Q briefly in this movie, but we never saw him give and explain a new gadget to Bond. Bond in fact comments on that during his wedding day.

My all-time favorite Bond movies (in chronological order):

1. Goldfinger (nuff said) 2. You Only Live Twice (silly but fun) 3. On Her Majesty's Secret Service 4. The Spy Who Loved Me (Moore's best) 5. For Your Eyes Only (also underrated)

Timothy Dalton comes closest to the Bond character in the Ian Fleming novels (cold and humorless) while Pierce Brosnan is good. But somehow I cannot rank their movies among my favorites, though they were good. Maybe it just isn't as much fun without the Cold War angle anymore.

April Blossoms (1934)

highly recommendable for music lovers

[7/10 · 5 May 2002]

The movie is highly recommendable for those who like classical music, especially Schubert art songs. It should rank among the better movie biographies which were in vogue in the 30's to the 50's. The clichés and historical inaccuracies were kept to a minimum, and we get a large dose of glorious music.

Although I consider myself an opera fan, I had never actually heard the tenor Richard Tauber, who plays Schubert, before seeing the movie. Not only does he have a fine voice, but he is a charming actor and somehow, he does look like the historical Franz Schubert, or at least that is how they made him up in this film.

I do not know the original Sigmond Romberg music of the musical, but how can you go wrong with using authentic Schubert music?

Once again, highly worth seeing for classical music lovers, or those movie fans curious to see pre-World War II film musicals based on real characters.

The Scorpion King (2002)

Silly, but enough fun for 90 minutes

[1 May 2002]

I think all those who are savagely panning the movie should remember that no one denies that the producers only made the movie to take advantage of the attention given the Rock and his Scorpion King character from "The Mummy Returns" and that it was not really intended to be a movie classic.

In other words, it is not supposed to be "The Ten Commandments" or "Gladiator" or "Spartacus" or even "Indiana Jones" or any of those more serious epics or adventure films. Come on, what can we expect from this movie, the lead actor is a wrestler!

So this was just meant to be a silly fantasy film, and intentionally amusing for all its hoary clichés. Looking at the film from that perspective, I wasn't disappointed. It was mildly amusing entertainment for 90 minutes.

Obviously, we will be forgetting the movie altogether once Episode II or Spiderman is out. But for the meantime, we can laugh ourselves silly over this one. Those who would have wanted something like "Ben-Hur" should again remember its humbler origins as a Mummy spin-off and maybe they can even look at it as one of those "it's so bad it's actually good" type of movies.

Maybe one way to have made it even more entertaining would have been to put an in-joke and have the Rock wipe out some of his enemies with wrestler-type moves.

In short, I came to this movie not expecting anything more than silly fun, and that's what it was.