People who dislike this film miss the point of it, I think. It isn't a modern wry take on a children's movie, it is a children's story. But, if you just forget the idea that a kids movie should have jokes aimed at the adults, it's surprisingly good. Natalie Portman shows great acting chops, and is a great foil for Dustin Hoffman. The script and the cinematography is excellent, without any noticeable lags. And much of the story works very well on an adult level; ultimately we all have to find our spark; ultimately we all have to leave, at some point. I have used this film as an assignment for students in Careers class, because it helps them realize that the things that prepare us for one career over another are often very subtle and easy to miss. Much like this film, itself.
Reviews
12 Reviews
A Christmas Carol
(1951)
Simply the best
19 December 2010
I have not let a Christmas pass without watching this film in 47 years. It is, simply, the definitive cinematic adaptation of Dicken's best loved tale. Yes, some things were added, in the Ghost of Christmas Past scenes, to flesh out Scrooge's motivation, but the additions are very much consistent with what Dickens told us. It's also true that the wonderful line about fools being buried with a stick of holly through their hearts is left out. While I love the line, and listen for it in every other adaptation (it requires a certain verve to deliver correctly), I think the excision is both deliberate, and advised. The line does not fit the character of Scrooge as portrayed in this adaptation.
The actors, all of them, do a commendable job. Kathleen Harrison's Mrs Dilber and Michael Hordern's Marley pretty much define the roles but it is Alastair Sim who dominates, as he should. It is an amazing performance, rich with nuance. Of all the other Scrooges, only George C. Scott comes close to being Sim's equal.
I love the black & white; the whole film reminds me of illustrated Victorian books, which I take it, was the intent of the Director (Brian Hurst) and the Art Director (Ralph Brinton). I wish the younger generation found it easier to appreciate B&W film because, although I often share this gem with my classes, they rarely get it.
The actors, all of them, do a commendable job. Kathleen Harrison's Mrs Dilber and Michael Hordern's Marley pretty much define the roles but it is Alastair Sim who dominates, as he should. It is an amazing performance, rich with nuance. Of all the other Scrooges, only George C. Scott comes close to being Sim's equal.
I love the black & white; the whole film reminds me of illustrated Victorian books, which I take it, was the intent of the Director (Brian Hurst) and the Art Director (Ralph Brinton). I wish the younger generation found it easier to appreciate B&W film because, although I often share this gem with my classes, they rarely get it.
Peace on Earth
(1939)
This stayed with me for years
28 August 2009
I saw this cartoon exactly once, when I was about 8. Even as a child, I found it compelling; the radarscope battle scenes still show up in my dreams from time to time. As with many childhood memories, one wonders if it will have the same impact when you see it again, as an adult. Well, having fortunately stumbled upon this by accident on the internet, I was pleased to find it did wear well. Of course, knowing as I do now, that this was made in 1939, I can see it as one of the high moments of American Isolationist sentiment and thus, a mistake. But, setting that aside, it is well-intentioned and eloquent. The usually saccharine Hugh Harman rises above his oeuvre here; the squirrels and bunnies have aren't merely cute. The framing device at the begging and end, if typically cute, is arguably necessary; Harman gets the balance right. The remake of this cartoon -- 1955's "Good Will to Men" manages to miss the balance, and just does not have the same impact. "Peace on Earth" was voted one of the Fifty Greatest Cartoons of All Time in 1994. It is said that this cartoon was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, perhaps an apocryphal tale, but one that indicates the significance of "Peace on Earth" really well.
The Hunt for Gollum
(2009)
A very interesting experience
9 May 2009
Most of the time I would avoid something like "The Hunt for Gollum" but, I have to say, this was quite enjoyable and well done. The cinematography is very reminiscent of that found in Jackson's adaptation of the Trilogy. This is both a strength and a weakness; Jackson had a tendency to let a moody shot of some forsaken moor, or a sweeping vista of snow-capped mountains pad-out the running time of his film, and I feel the same thing happens here. On the other hand, with a minuscule budget, and much less experience or support, Frazer, Phillips, Ritchie and Stie manage to create similar shots that are not simply copies.
The problem for me -- and I had the same problem with Jackson's work -- is that these shots don't make-up for the lack characterization. If I hadn't seen the Lord of the Rings, or read it, would I have much idea who Strider is? Gandalf appears without much explanation, although his disappearance is, at least, explained. Things are a bit better with Gollum, although it is hard to relate to a voice from inside a sack. (I appreciate the reasons why this was done, but could it have been handled differently?) I think the actors in this could have handled more characterization -- their efforts are really quite above that found in most student and amateur films.
The voice-over is, simply, a bad idea, because it is such a non-cinematographic solution. If you are *showing* a story, then why assume it is necessary to *tell* the audience what it is seeing? If exposition is necessary (And I usually dispute that it is) then it is better to create a short dialog exchange, rather than the disembodied voice. Now, the creators of this film are merely echoing something that Hollywood has been doing far too much of late but, since this film is early in their careers, in needs to be said. Don't do it again!
I gave this film 7/10 stars, which is what I would rate Jackson's as well. With an amount that probably would not have covered the catering for a week on the Lord of the Rings, they have created a work that is similarly enjoyable and similarly breathtaking. All in all, well done.
The problem for me -- and I had the same problem with Jackson's work -- is that these shots don't make-up for the lack characterization. If I hadn't seen the Lord of the Rings, or read it, would I have much idea who Strider is? Gandalf appears without much explanation, although his disappearance is, at least, explained. Things are a bit better with Gollum, although it is hard to relate to a voice from inside a sack. (I appreciate the reasons why this was done, but could it have been handled differently?) I think the actors in this could have handled more characterization -- their efforts are really quite above that found in most student and amateur films.
The voice-over is, simply, a bad idea, because it is such a non-cinematographic solution. If you are *showing* a story, then why assume it is necessary to *tell* the audience what it is seeing? If exposition is necessary (And I usually dispute that it is) then it is better to create a short dialog exchange, rather than the disembodied voice. Now, the creators of this film are merely echoing something that Hollywood has been doing far too much of late but, since this film is early in their careers, in needs to be said. Don't do it again!
I gave this film 7/10 stars, which is what I would rate Jackson's as well. With an amount that probably would not have covered the catering for a week on the Lord of the Rings, they have created a work that is similarly enjoyable and similarly breathtaking. All in all, well done.
Josie and the Pussycats
(2001)
What's not to like?
9 May 2008
This movie manages to be several things simultaneously. It's something of a traditional "rock" movie (will The Pussycats make it to the big concert on time, and in one piece?), it is a perky little film about the importance of friendship, it's a spoof, and its is a rather clever indictment of media manipulation and product placement. Rachel Leigh Cook gives an endearing performance as Josie McCoy; Tara Reid gives a great performance as the ditsy but sweet drummer Melody, and Rosario Dawson is quite solid, although the script doesn't give her too much to work with. On a serious level, the film is beautifully post-modern, as can be seen in Allan Cumming's frequent breaching of the fourth wall, and in the rather brilliant line from Missi Pyle's character, Alexandra, who comments that she is in the movie because she's in the comic book. The pace is quite hectic, something even the characters are aware of ("Does it strike anyone else as funny that all this has happened in a week?").
The Ring
(2002)
Just didn't get it
3 March 2008
Well, obviously quite a few people love this film, but I'm not sure why. I found the whole "cursed video" laughable, and was never able to figure out why a girl who was kept in a barn and drowned in a well would choose a videotape as her vehicle of revenge. For that matter, exactly how creepy is a wet 12 year old with stringy hair supposed to be? The point of killing random strangers seemed a bit strained as well. Overall, I found the cinematography disappointing and the acting never rose to the level of mildly convincing. Perhaps many of these elements made more sense in the context of the Japanese movie -- Ringu -- on which "The Ring is based; I have no idea, since nothing I saw in this movie would make me want to watch the original.
The Adventures of Long John Silver
(1956–1957)
Fine work
2 February 2008
While the series is pretty dated, and occasionally politically incorrect, it is an exuberant romp. Robert Newton's performance has always struck me as the definitive interpretation of the role. The production values for 1950s TV were actually pretty good. The script writing is fairly good, and the stories weather well. Some episodes are truly excellent,for example "Execution Dock" which contains a great, extended, surreal dream sequence that has rarely been equaled. I recently obtained a copy of the DVD set for my children (8 and 6) to watch, and they are entranced. I found that interesting, since their only previous exposure to the "pirate" sub-genre had been the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise, but the lack of special effects, and Johnny Depp silliness didn't not seem to cause any problem.
Casablanca
(1942)
An actor's movie...and one of the best!
29 November 2006
If there was ever a movie that proved the old saw, "there are no small parts, only small actors," this is it. While I usually feel that directors are responsible for the greatness of films, not actors, this is certainly a case to test that rule. The more than capable cast give, almost to a one, riveting performances; consider how, in a very few minutes of screen time, Peter Lorre, or Sydney Greenstreet, capture not only our attention, but the essence of the shady, disreputable characters they play. There is an ocean of sublime performance in Lorre's deliver of the "You despise me, don't you?" line; hams like Costner, Cruise and die Caprio should be forced to watch him over and over, until they get it right.
Or consider Conrad Veidt (Major Strasser), who in life had fled from the Nazis, and despised them, but gave far more than a caricature or stock performance as an evil Prussian; watch how he probes Rick in the scene in the Café Americain and read the conflict in his eyes as he gives a truly nuanced read to lines that could have flopped in the hands of a lesser actor.
And then there is S.Z. Sakall's performance as the head waiter, Carl; we sense that the actor had, in his mind, a full back story that is barely alluded to in the script, save for a single time when a waiter calls him "Professor". That is richness at a Tolkeinian level.
Of course, a good deal of the strength of this movie, and the characters in it, derives from the excellent script; but this script changed and developed as the film shoot progressed (a very famous story), and as the writing team changed, and changed again. It is the actors fleshing out the roles that made the story and the brilliant ending. Not to say that Director Micahel Curitz was just along for the ride, but he managed to capture art by seeing what would work, and where to go next an unusual kind of brilliance.
And, what can be said about the depth of Humphrey Bogart's or Ingrid Bergman's acting? Thank the gods of film that the roles were not given to Ronald Regan or Ann Sheridan; what a hash they would have made of this.
Competent camera work, lighting and set design show that it isn't a huge budget that makes a great picture; nor, at 102 minutes running time, can length be the key ingredient in a first class film. The self indulgent movie makers of today should take note why insist of inflicting bloated budgets on the industry, and bloated 3 hour ordeals on the public when so much more can be done with so much less?
Or consider Conrad Veidt (Major Strasser), who in life had fled from the Nazis, and despised them, but gave far more than a caricature or stock performance as an evil Prussian; watch how he probes Rick in the scene in the Café Americain and read the conflict in his eyes as he gives a truly nuanced read to lines that could have flopped in the hands of a lesser actor.
And then there is S.Z. Sakall's performance as the head waiter, Carl; we sense that the actor had, in his mind, a full back story that is barely alluded to in the script, save for a single time when a waiter calls him "Professor". That is richness at a Tolkeinian level.
Of course, a good deal of the strength of this movie, and the characters in it, derives from the excellent script; but this script changed and developed as the film shoot progressed (a very famous story), and as the writing team changed, and changed again. It is the actors fleshing out the roles that made the story and the brilliant ending. Not to say that Director Micahel Curitz was just along for the ride, but he managed to capture art by seeing what would work, and where to go next an unusual kind of brilliance.
And, what can be said about the depth of Humphrey Bogart's or Ingrid Bergman's acting? Thank the gods of film that the roles were not given to Ronald Regan or Ann Sheridan; what a hash they would have made of this.
Competent camera work, lighting and set design show that it isn't a huge budget that makes a great picture; nor, at 102 minutes running time, can length be the key ingredient in a first class film. The self indulgent movie makers of today should take note why insist of inflicting bloated budgets on the industry, and bloated 3 hour ordeals on the public when so much more can be done with so much less?
Milo 55160
(2004)
Quite brilliant
21 March 2006
Death has been getting it's cinematic millage in, lately. The popularity of TV shows such as "Six Feet Under" and "Dead Like Me" have shown that the topic has legs for the entertainment industry. "Milo 55160" is David Ostry's short entry into the field, and has a quirky, bemused quality that makes it highly appealing.
Patrick McKenna plays Milo 55160, Death's "worker of the month" and, seemingly, a shoe-in for "worker of the year." He is a grey, monotone bureaucrat in a twenty-first century, outsourced, organization. He shuffles some papers, asks a few questions, and stamps the forms of the newly dead with no more than a "Welcome to Heaven" to usher them into the afterlife.
One day, he encounters a problem not covered by the rulebook -- a Newly Dead boy named Will, who has brought a red yo-yo with him. (We all know, without being told, that "you can't take it with you," but Milo is flummoxed.)
Summoned to the office of one Hedges, the Angel of Death, Milo is told he should just take the yo-yo off the boy, and sever his last tie to Earth. But Milo, who has never missed anything about life, suddenly has qualms about his job.
Perhaps the denouement is a little predictable, but the competent journeyman cast handles it well. The directing is tight, and the art direction quite brilliantly handled. Very worthwhile viewing.
Patrick McKenna plays Milo 55160, Death's "worker of the month" and, seemingly, a shoe-in for "worker of the year." He is a grey, monotone bureaucrat in a twenty-first century, outsourced, organization. He shuffles some papers, asks a few questions, and stamps the forms of the newly dead with no more than a "Welcome to Heaven" to usher them into the afterlife.
One day, he encounters a problem not covered by the rulebook -- a Newly Dead boy named Will, who has brought a red yo-yo with him. (We all know, without being told, that "you can't take it with you," but Milo is flummoxed.)
Summoned to the office of one Hedges, the Angel of Death, Milo is told he should just take the yo-yo off the boy, and sever his last tie to Earth. But Milo, who has never missed anything about life, suddenly has qualms about his job.
Perhaps the denouement is a little predictable, but the competent journeyman cast handles it well. The directing is tight, and the art direction quite brilliantly handled. Very worthwhile viewing.
The Things I Cannot Change
(1967)
At once beautiful and ethically questionable
30 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Although this was one of Tanya Ballantyne's first films (I believe it was her second) she exhibits a great command of the aesthetic; she has a sense of anticipation that allows her to capture the Bailey children at exactly the right moment, revealing their beauty, grace, potential, and doomed existence all at once. Her interviews with the parents are interesting, but less well done, likely due to their self-consciousness.
Her editing is interesting, particularly the transitions from one sequence to the next where, characteristically, she begins the sound of the new sequence 5 or 10 seconds before the final visuals of the last sequence end. This linking device works well, connecting what would otherwise be only vaguely related fragments of film into a coherent narrative. Perhaps the most famous of these transitions occurs when Gertrude Bailey is being given a prenatal check-up and the sound of Kenneth Bailey fighting on the street with a man who owes him a few dollars begins over the final frames of the examination.
While I would have preferred a less gray tonality of the film, that likely has to do with the circumstances under which it was made (in Bailey's apartment and around their neighbourhood, during what appears to be a Montreal autumn.) In the Grade 12 film class I teach, I used this film as a means to introduce the topic of the ethics of film making to students. Ballantyne has been thoroughly and properly criticized for her treatment and exploitation of the Baileys, but this issue is not limited to her; such charges are raised against film-makers and journalists with regularity. The exposure of so many young children (the eldest of the 10 kids was only 12 at the time the film was made, and the youngest was born (on camera) during filming) to so much public ridicule and humiliation is a particularly nasty thing...even this age of Maury Povich and Jerry Springer.
Still, although "The Things I Cannot Change" ruined the Baileys' lives, it did inspire the landmark Challenge for Change series of documentaries by the NFB. And it arguably opened the eyes of many Canadians, in a decade of seemingly limitless prosperity and progress, to the problems of intractable poverty. All in all, this film is worth seeing if you have the chance, and worth getting if you are interested in the documentary film as a genre.
Her editing is interesting, particularly the transitions from one sequence to the next where, characteristically, she begins the sound of the new sequence 5 or 10 seconds before the final visuals of the last sequence end. This linking device works well, connecting what would otherwise be only vaguely related fragments of film into a coherent narrative. Perhaps the most famous of these transitions occurs when Gertrude Bailey is being given a prenatal check-up and the sound of Kenneth Bailey fighting on the street with a man who owes him a few dollars begins over the final frames of the examination.
While I would have preferred a less gray tonality of the film, that likely has to do with the circumstances under which it was made (in Bailey's apartment and around their neighbourhood, during what appears to be a Montreal autumn.) In the Grade 12 film class I teach, I used this film as a means to introduce the topic of the ethics of film making to students. Ballantyne has been thoroughly and properly criticized for her treatment and exploitation of the Baileys, but this issue is not limited to her; such charges are raised against film-makers and journalists with regularity. The exposure of so many young children (the eldest of the 10 kids was only 12 at the time the film was made, and the youngest was born (on camera) during filming) to so much public ridicule and humiliation is a particularly nasty thing...even this age of Maury Povich and Jerry Springer.
Still, although "The Things I Cannot Change" ruined the Baileys' lives, it did inspire the landmark Challenge for Change series of documentaries by the NFB. And it arguably opened the eyes of many Canadians, in a decade of seemingly limitless prosperity and progress, to the problems of intractable poverty. All in all, this film is worth seeing if you have the chance, and worth getting if you are interested in the documentary film as a genre.
Toys
(1967)
Still one of the most remarkably powerful films
3 November 2005
I first saw "Toys" in 1966 or maybe 1967; I was 8 or 9, and very fond of my original G.I. Joes (the toy of the title). I can still recall the frisson created by the flame-thrower scene, and the power of the whole film. I saw the film again about 7 or 8 years later, as part of a film studies class, and I was still in awe of the power of the piece. Today, teaching film and video to high school students, I use "Toys" as part of a unit on war films; students still react.
The most remarkable thing is how short this short is. I fully expected, as an adult, for it to be in 15 - 20 minute range; it is a mere 8 minutes. Every second of the film is pregnant with potential; Grant Monroe did not waste a single shot in this NFB classic. The stop-action animation is very good -- right up there with some of the classic stop-action material of the 60s, and surprisingly "life like" considering the fixed facial expression of G.I. Joes, and their limited hand positions.
I give this film one of the highest ratings I have ever given, and I feel it earns every single star.
The most remarkable thing is how short this short is. I fully expected, as an adult, for it to be in 15 - 20 minute range; it is a mere 8 minutes. Every second of the film is pregnant with potential; Grant Monroe did not waste a single shot in this NFB classic. The stop-action animation is very good -- right up there with some of the classic stop-action material of the 60s, and surprisingly "life like" considering the fixed facial expression of G.I. Joes, and their limited hand positions.
I give this film one of the highest ratings I have ever given, and I feel it earns every single star.
The Public Eye
(1992)
An under-rated film
30 April 2005
Joe Pesci plays the role of Leon "The Great Bernzini" Bernstein with accomplishment, as a kind of grubby, middle-aged everyman. Barbara Hershey, 44 when she made this movie, makes the screen sizzle by her mere presence as Kay Levitz. Pesci probably should have gotten an Oscar nomination for this performance, which is understated, sincere, and totally convincing. Some of the bit actors turn in good, solid performances with only a line or two.
The movie itself is heavy handed in spots, but director Franklin has written a number of movies and has a good ear for dialog. The mood of the piece is beautifully created and handled; camera work, lighting and music creating a real experience. The use of black and white sequences and inter-cutting of still photography is wonderfully handled. Maybe only a photographer can really appreciate the way Bernzini looks at the world as a photograph waiting to happen. People who are not willing to surrender to the experience of a movie will have less of a reaction to it.
The story is classic film noir, and more remarkable for being based on true events; blending together the great photographer Weegee (many of his photographs are actually used in the movie) and a gas-coupon scandal from the early days of American involvement in WWII. But, having said that, one misses the haunting quality this film conveys.
The movie itself is heavy handed in spots, but director Franklin has written a number of movies and has a good ear for dialog. The mood of the piece is beautifully created and handled; camera work, lighting and music creating a real experience. The use of black and white sequences and inter-cutting of still photography is wonderfully handled. Maybe only a photographer can really appreciate the way Bernzini looks at the world as a photograph waiting to happen. People who are not willing to surrender to the experience of a movie will have less of a reaction to it.
The story is classic film noir, and more remarkable for being based on true events; blending together the great photographer Weegee (many of his photographs are actually used in the movie) and a gas-coupon scandal from the early days of American involvement in WWII. But, having said that, one misses the haunting quality this film conveys.
Tell Your Friends