Acolyte-2 Reviews

The Lion King (2019)

Visually fantastic. Emotionally flat.

[5/10 · 29 July 2019]

There are significant pluses to be noted about this film. Visually, it's gorgeous. Renders of the characters and locations are virtually perfect, and it's easy to see why people persist in describing this as a live action remake when it's nothing of the sort. There's a lot to look at here, and for that reason I'm not sorry I saw it.

Animal characters are given the behaviors of the real things without the anthropomorphism of the original film, even if some are geographically misplaced. The decision to make the hyena clan clearly matriarchal was a good one along these lines, and made a secondary line of conflict available which was sadly under-exploited. Another good decision was to much more clearly identify the disaster that overcame the pridelands under the hyenas as ecological due to over-hunting, with the conflict between Mufasa and Scar due in part to Scar's resentment over Mufasa's restraint and dedication to ecological balance.

But there are so many problems. The direction was dull. Much of the time it felt as if they were simply going through the motions rather than presenting the story to stand on its own as dramatically as possible. Many have complained about the characters' expressionlessness. To me that's simply a consequence of choosing to render them realistically and not a bad thing per se. Emotion COULD have instead been conveyed by liberal use of body language, perhaps with a little exaggeration such as a human actor might use for greater audience impact. But this was not done for the most part. Only when they approach the climax do they begin to explore the full range of what they might have done throughout. The voice acting was, with a few notable exceptions, uninspired and often sounded rushed. I put this down to direction more than anything else, since I know what some of these actors are capable of. The decision to retain James Earl Jones for Mufasa was, perhaps, not well thought-out. He's now almost 90 years old, and sounds like it. While still impressive, his voice lacks the overpowering dynamism and range of his prime that made his original portrayal of Mufasa so memorable.

I like some of the new directions of the script, but some of the decisions both large and small made me scratch my head. As noted above, a potentially tense secondary rivalry was hardly brought out. We saw it only at the climax. It's understandable that some of the more cartoonish action of the original was reblocked, but the new version was not always successful and sometimes came across as a lazy shortcut to the next scene. Young Simba was given a tag line "I got this!" meant to show off his brash overconfidence. We don't hear it again after the death of Mufasa, but why should it not return when adult Simba recovers his proper identity? Why was "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" performed in broad daylight?

All in all, a wasted opportunity.

Columbo: Lovely But Lethal (1973) Season 3, Episode 1

Lethally flawed

[4/10 · 20 December 2015]

It's one of the standard plot points of a Columbo mystery that either the clue which points him to the murderer in the first place, or the final clue which gives Columbo the evidence he needs to set up a final confrontation with the murderer leading to an arrest, is some minor thing out of place or unusual about the murder scene.

In this one, the clue we knew was going to trip up the murderer was a mysterious itch on the hands of both the murderer and Columbo. They focused on it so much we were obviously supposed to notice it, and it indeed turned out to be related to the final clue: That both had come into contact with urushiol, the irritant in poison ivy, and this could have happened from contact with nothing else but either something at the murder scene or the missing MacGuffin because poison ivy doesn't grow in Southern California.

However, a different plant from the same family, poison oak, not only DOES grows in Southern California, but can be difficult to avoid anywhere wild plants grow. (Urban residents often don't recognize it when they see it.) And the dermatitis you get from poison ivy and poison oak are absolutely indistinguishable -- as you would expect, since it's caused by exactly the same chemical. When Columbo sees an expert about his itch, he's told it can only be poison ivy. But no one in Southern California would even begin to suspect poison ivy. They'd say it was poison oak, period.

It's a nonsense clue, and a horrible failure by the writer to do even remotely adequate research.

If there was much comedy to this episode or if the acting were amazingly good it might be possible to overlook this issue, but unfortunately neither were the case. The result is well below average for Columbo.

Kimba the White Lion (1965–1967)

Groundbreaking Anime

[5 September 2003]

I recall seeing this as a child in the 60s and early 70s in black and white, and was a bit surprised to discover that it was actually a color series. (We only had a black and white TV at the time, as it happens...) This was beyond the resources of the production company, (which had earlier brought us Gigantor and Astroboy) so they partnered with NBC in the US for both financing and expertise in color animation. NBC also had considerable input into the direction of the story, some of it contrary to what the Japanese write wanted to do. The result was highly successful in both the US and Japan. A sequel, "Jungle Emperor Leo", which featured an adult Kimba (renamed Leo) with a less upbeat tone and more realistic violence, was declined by NBC and was not as popular in Japan as the original.

I bought the series on DVD a little while ago, so I was able to refresh my memory of this delightful series. Kimba is a white lion cub, son of great Caesar the white lion, king of the jungle. He has a goal, that all the jungle animals should live in peace. Inspired by human civilization, he convinces all the carnivores to adopt vegetarian ways and strives to single-handedly (pawedly?) bring about an agricultural revolution and cooperative living among the animals. Although he encounters significant animal resistance, his greatest challenges come from encounters with humans.

This works well, despite some awkwardness in the initial episodes, including a visit to Paris that's glaringly out of place. It helps that Kimba's the cutest little thing that ever beat up an adult rhinoceros. The theme music is addictive and unforgettable.

Significantly, some characters, general themes, and specific scenes were heavily "borrowed" by Disney for "The Lion King". This is discussed in the DVD interview with Fred Ladd, the NBC executive responsible for bringing Kimba to the US. The wise old baboon advisor, the enemy adult lion with the scar across one eye and the comic relief hyena henchmen, and the excitable avian companion are all present. Individual scenes include Kimba looking at his reflection in a pool and wondering how he compares to his father, visions of Kimba's parents in the clouds and stars, and a difficult trek across a desert. The moment in Mufasa's death scene where Simba comforts himself by snuggling next to the body is an echo of Kimba habit of curling up upon his father's pelt (recovered from the hunter who shot him) for comfort in moments of distress or self-doubt. "Simba", the Swahili word for lion, was a name considered for Kimba but rejected during series development. The theme of the exiled lion cub returning to regain the kingship from a vicious usurper was no doubt also inspired by Kimba. This is not to say that "The Lion King" isn't a fine piece of storytelling or excellent animation. It is, and needless to say the animation is far superior to that in Kimba. But the source of many of the ideas for "The Lion King" ought to be of interest to anyone who enjoyed that movie. This is rarely brought mentioned outside a fairly limited anime fan community.

Double Dragon (1994)

Cheese on Toast

[5/10 · 19 August 2003]

Oh, for crying out loud. This was a fun little movie with lots of good action in it that never takes itself too seriously. For what it was intended to be, it can't possibly rate this low. Was it honestly worse than "Highlander 2", with its big budget and big-name stars? Or "Glen or Glenda", a shining example of deep cinematic ineptitude? I don't think so!

VeggieTales: King George and the Ducky (2000 Video)

A more serious VeggieTale

[28 May 2003]

Many spoilers herein, but I'm intending this more as a parents' guide rather than a review as such.

It's never said explicitly that I noticed, but "King George and the Ducky" is loosely based on 2 Samuel 11:1-12:13. The remainder of the Biblical account, 2 Samuel 12:14-25, is excluded since, unlike King David, George suffers no lasting consequences for his sin. As Bible adaptations go in VeggieTales, this one's far more subtle than the earlier "Rack, Shack and Benny", "Dave and the Giant Pickle", or "Josh and the Big Wall" as one may well expect: The nature of David's sin is not really suitable for a children's video and is not immediately applicable to their own situations. Here, it's handled in the context of selfishness.

King George is played by Larry the Cucumber. Uriah the Hittite is transformed into Junior Asparagus' "Thomas"; David's general Joab becomes "Cedric", played by Scallion #1; Nathan the Prophet becomes Pa Grape as "Melvin"; and the eponymous ducky, a tub toy, is the stand-in for Bathsheba. Bob the Tomato returns after a hiatus as "Louis", King George's prime minister, who has no Biblical equivalent but makes a useful foil for King George.

This is a lighthearted story rather than one that's outright funny. It's not actually bad: it's well written enough, the graphics represent a quantum leap over earlier efforts, and the songs are entertaining and catchy. I won't bother to detail which elements from the Bible story are presented more or less intact; anyone familiar with it can pick them out easily enough. Some things are altered so as to be not so disturbing to children. For example, wars in this story are fought with pies rather than more lethal weapons, and Thomas therefore suffers nothing worse than a temporary -- and easily cured -- loss of sanity.

King George is enamored of his bathtub and, in particular, his rubber ducky to the point of neglecting state affairs and the progress of the ongoing Pie Wars. But one day he sees Thomas taking a bath on his balcony, and is overcome with desire for *his* ducky despite the fact that he has a whole cabinet full of very nice duckies available to him. Over Louis' objections he drafts Thomas and orders Cedric to place him alone on the front lines. While he's gone, George and Louis stage a nighttime raid on Thomas' house and make off with his ducky. That very night Thomas returns. Cedric reports that he single-handedly held off the enemy's advance, but the trauma has shattered his mind. As George privately rejoices over not having to account for the missing ducky, Melvin arrives to bring him to face his sin. King George repents, cures Thomas with a soak in his royal bathtub, and asks everyone's forgiveness.

The ending's a little pat, but I suppose that's more suitable for the target audience. The lasting consequences suffered by King David and his house would have lent a far more serious tone to the video; it would not have been possible to present this material lightly. Although there are few out-and-out laughs to be had here, there's a lot of subtle humor that's easy to miss if you're not paying close attention. The ending number where King George celebrates the lesson he learned is much less impressive than the song King David actually composed on this occasion, but that's not too surprising: Psalm 51 is perhaps the most beautiful expression of repentance to ever have been written. All in all, this is an enjoyable and effective presentation on the 10th Commandment.

There's an opening short by Jimmy and Jerry Gourd on the same subject, and I have to wonder if this is a bit of self-parody of some of the earlier, more ham-handed VeggieTales such as "God Wants Me to Forgive *Them*?" The Silly Song, "Endangered Love", is absolutely hilarious, but may go over the heads of younger viewers.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Now that's more like it.

[10/10 · 28 October 2002]

The summary above relates to Lord of the Rings, The (1978) which I detested. Peter Jackson did a superb job bringing Tolkien's Middle-earth to the screen. However, I think it's current high rating is seriously premature. This movie cannot stand on its own. Like the book, it's a single continuous narrative split into three parts for reasons of length. Any ending such as it has will not be seen until Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The (2003) arrives in theaters. Right now it's a work-in-progress. Evaluating it should wait until the entire story is finished.

No one who has been a devotee of the book as long as I have can resist comparing the movie against it even though that's not really a valid thing to do across media. So here it goes below. There are POSSIBLE SPOILERS, although they're so highly contextual you probably won't understand them unless you've already seen the movie, so they shouldn't give away much. I don't think I give away any major plot points.

What was done right:

• Rivendell was beatuiful. I used to want a castle someday; now I want the "Last Homely House" as Jackson showed it to me.

• Bree was very well done. Many probably disagree with me about this, but if there wasn't enough time to develop Butterbur as a character, Bree is best shown as a rough-and-tumble waymeet along a road traveled by a large number of highly questionable characters. This is very much like any place so situated would be.

• Hobbiton. Gorgeous.

• Casting, for the most part. An exception is noted below. Frodo really should have had brown eyes, but Elijah Wood did a *far* better job than I had anticipated, so it didn't matter.

• The Council of Elrond. Impossible to shoot as the book has it, but it provided a stark demonstration of the Ring's true power. A highly skillful adaptation.

• The Mirror of Galadriel. Perhaps the sfx were overdone at a crucial moment, but at least the deep moral import of her choice was preserved and that was the important thing. Hollywood usually glosses over moral issues, or at least the kind of moral issues important to someone like Tolkien.

• The Balrog. Very frightening and demonic of course, but there's something else. There's a running debate in Tolkien-related newsgroups and BBS as to whether or not it had wings, as Tolkien's own description is very ambiguous. Jackson succeeded in being just as ambiguous visually, thus pleasing (or displeasing) both camps equally. I nearly laughed out loud in the theater when I realized what he'd done.

• Having cut out all the other supporting characters to simplify the script, the method of Gandalf's rescue was perfectly in character.

• We see a brief shot of Minas Tirith. Beautiful.

And anything else not mentioned below.

What was done wrong:

• The time compression at the beginning. Seventeen years were supposed to have passed between the Party and Gandalf's revelation of the true nature of the Ring. Instead it looked like a year or two at most, and this introduces a plothole. Bilbo's sudden aging was attributed to his putting the Ring aside, but why wasn't Gollum, who'd possessed the Ring for centuries, similarly affected?

• Arwen's expanded role and Aragorn's mangled motivation. I thought Liv Ullman was just not up to this part. It was expanded at the expense of Aragorn's, Elrond's, and Gandalf's, and she would had to have been extraordinary to satisfy offended book fans. She wasn't. A line was given to Elrond that inexplicably removes a strong motivation for Aragorn to fulfill his heritage, whereas in the book it was a condition that he himself imposed before he would consent to their relationship. Since it would have enhanced both the romance and the adventure, why not leave it as it was?

• Moria. The entire complex was supposed to have been a thriving city in the past, so what's with the impossibly steep staircases and the unrailed bridges over yawning abysses? It couldn't possibly have functioned. Even populated by Dwarves they would have lost a dozen or so pedestrians a day, and it dilutes the effect of the *one* unrailed bridge over a yawning abyss (part of Moria's defenses) near the exit.

• Gimli. John Rhys-Davies has a wonderfully mobile face and a marvellous voice. Both were buried under so much latex and fake hair as to be useless. The actor was completely wasted here to the detriment of the character.

• Blond elves? Who says?

• Saruman's expanded role during the mountain crossing. The Fellowship was defeated by a malevolent nature spirit responding to Sauron's growing will, *not* a cranky wizard several hundred miles away acting at that moment for no reason we can perceive.

Mostly, this is just the kind of nitpicky stuff a geek like me would pick up on. If you've never read the book, it won't bother you at all. No one who has not read the book who saw this movie that I asked even noticed, and all enjoyed it immensely. Go see it.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

Gag me with a phaser!

[24 October 2002]

This is a comment on the theatrical release and not the more recent "director's cut" which I haven't seen. But I don't see how this could have been turned into a watchable movie without major surgery, and even then the scars would show.

I was addicted to the original series (in reruns) as a kid, and went to see this in its initial release full of anticipation. So the movie opens, there are establishing shots of San Francisco and Starfleet Headquarters, and we follow a single ground transport into said Headquarters. The camera focuses dramatically on the doors. They slide open, and there, for the first time in almost ten years is Captain -- no, *Admiral* -- James T. Kirk!

-- With a hideous new toupee that looks as if a tribble has taken up permanent residence on his head.

-- Wearing what looks for all the world like a glorified dental assistant's uniform

-- And I'll swear to this day he had a girdle on underneath.

Well, that set the tone just perfectly, didn't it?

The rest of the movie similarly disappointed. Sure the new ship model looked great, but after the first hour or so (well, that's what it felt like anyway) of loving closeups I really wanted to get started with the story, which at that point in the story had yet to materialize in any real way. On board, you find the entire crew has taken up careers as dental assistants, with '70s hairstyles even more disturbing than the modified '60s hairstyles of the series. I include Persis Khambatta's shaved head among the frights. When the story finally does get going, it turns out to be a rehash of the second-season episode "Changeling" but with a much larger budget. This explains the glacial pacing I suppose; they had to stretch out one hour's worth of story into a two hour movie. (The extraordinarily lengthy establishing shots of the Enterprise must have been a highly convenient way to burn off some minutes.)

I was left with the sick feeling that the quality of the original series was largely due to its budget limitations, and that what I had just seen was the sort of boring tripe that would have been routine if only they'd had the money for it. If that's the case, then thank goodness for penny-pinching networks and impecunious studios. The rest of the movies frankly appear to confirm this. Only every other one seems to approach the original in quality, and number 5 sank into such an abyss of mewling idiocy as to put me off the movie series entirely.

All in all, an inauspicious start to a mediocre oeuvre. I haven't seen it again in over 20 years, and I don't intend to.

Deathstalker II (1987)

So what's to analyze?

[9/10 · 9 October 2002]

This is easily the best of the Deathstalker movies. John Terlesky isn't the musclebound hulk that Rick Hill was, and certainly not the musclebound hulk in the Boris Vallejo painting they used for the poster, but he doesn't have to be. This is a Deathstalker who knows perfectly well that he's in a campy, B-grade sword-and-sorcery flick, and is determined to have as much fun with it as he can. He takes nothing seriously, and almost everything is done with a wink at the audience. He wonders aloud at one point where the cliche Spikey Trap O'Death is, and when the spikes immediately pop out of the walls he just rolls his eyes, says, "Son of a bitch!", and deals with it.

John Lazar as the villain Jarek knows it too. He's gleefully, manaically evil, but when he learns his adversary's moniker he can barely suppress the giggle as he repeats, incredulously, "Deathstalker?!"

Monique Gabrielle takes her parts seriously, and it's just as well. She's the one who's always in need of a rescue, and I suppose that *someone* has to put up a show of genuine peril. She also fills out admirably the part that's absolutely essential in films of this quality: she supplies the main set of on-screen boobs. It wouldn't be a proper B-grade sword-and-sorcery flick without them.

Sit back, have a beer or 5, and enjoy Deathstalker II. Laugh; you're supposed to. And stick around through the end credits for the outtakes. Those are funny too.

A Christmas Carol (1984 TV Movie)

A splendid interpretation

[8 October 2002]

Despite capturing the look and atmosphere of Victorian England almost perfectly, there were a few changes put in to make the story more relevant to a modern audience. No one is afraid of moneylenders anymore, so Scrooge is made into a commodities trader instead, one who corners the market in grain, exacts a fearful price for it, and will not ship "until I have the cash in hand!" This is a modern financial villain. And of course the arrival of the ghosts is made more strictly sequential; as it's done in the story it's just plain confusing in a dramatic presentation.

I loved the performances. George C. Scott is the most wicked Scrooge at the beginning, and the most sincerely repentant at the end, that I have seen. The gradual wearing down of his resistance is more subtle than most portrayals of Scrooge, as if a dike is developing hairline cracks that are barely noticeable, but which weaken it sufficiently so that the final blow from the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come appears to knock it all down at once and the water comes rushing in. He enjoys his moment of euphoric giddiness when he awakens Christmas morning, but it doesn't last, and is instead replaced with a deeper, more thoughtful happiness. We can well believe that this is a man determined to turn his life around and not just giving in to the moment.

The other performers were just as good. David Warner as Bob Cratchit was absolutely perfect. His sorrow over Tiny Tim is heartwrenching. Tiny Tim himself, played by Anthony Walters, is so consumptive-looking you expect him to keel over at any moment. He really does look, and act, like a small boy in seriously declining health. The ghosts are perfect. Edward Woodward as the Ghost of Christmas Present is particularly memorable. He towers over Scrooge, his voice booms full of mirth, and sometimes judgment.

Of all the movie versions of this film that are available, this is the only one of which I own a copy. It's good.

Hawk the Slayer (1980)

So bad it's good

[4 October 2002]

If you're the sort who likes to do a roll-your-own kind of MST3K movie night -- and let's be honest, it's *much* more fun to come up with your own wiseass comments anyway -- then this film is on your must-see list. There's so much wrong with it that I hardly know where to begin. It'll help to categorize.

-- The acting. Yoikes! There's some genuine skill involved in the portrayal of two or three of the characters, and there's some fun chemistry between Bernard Bresslaw as Gort the giant and Peter O'Farrell as Baldin the dwarf, but other than that this is all Golden Turkey material. John Terry in the title role could have been outacted by a dead cat, and Jack Palance as the villain is so over-the-top that he's ridiculous instead of menacing. (He's also supposed to be John Terry's brother despite being about 40 years too old to pull it off.) Everyone who tries to sound mysterious or wise comes off as stoned instead. Maybe they were.

-- The script. There's not so much a plot as a series of contrivances that serve as an excuse for the actors to deliver their lines and the fight scenes. I think they used up their studio's entire Plot Contrivance Quota for both 1979 *and* 1980, which must have been a real hardship because it would have left them unable to film any of the teenage sex comedies that were so popular back then.

-- The special effects. AAAAAGH! The Giant Executive Desk Toy that's supposed to be a magical teleporter! The cheesy glowing rocks! The hyperactive fog machines! The film loops! The... the... AIEEEEEEEEE! The horror!

Bottom line is if you take this film as seriously as it presents itself, you'll hate it. But for a rollicking fun evening of derisive mockery, you'll have trouble finding a better. Unless you go out and get an Ator movie or something.

Breaking the Code (1996 TV Movie)

Brilliant performance

[13 September 2002]

A moving depiction of the life of genius Alan Turing, the mathematician who broke Nazi Germany's Enigma code during WWII and who provided much of the theoretical foundation of modern computer science. Jacobi masterfully portrays Turing in all phases of his life, from his troubled days as a student to his career as codebreaker at Bletchley Park, and to his later suicide after having been hounded to the point of despair by an ungrateful and mistrustful government over his homosexuality.

If this film has a flaw at all, it's that Jacobi is physically unlike Turing in every way; there's absolutely no point of resemblance. But his performance is so absorbing that you don't really notice until it's all over with.

I, Claudius (1976)

Not much more for me to say

[13 September 2002]

I'd like to refer you to Paul Emmons' excellent comment as definitive. For the series in general I have nothing to add to it. I'm only posting to point up the most brilliant technical performance I've ever seen: Brian Blessed as the dying Augustus. I'll not go into too much detail so as to avoid spoiling it, but for me that scene is an absolute tour de force. I was drawn in completely.

Key West (1993)

Magical

[4 September 2002]

When the Fox network was just starting out, they weren't afraid to take chances with unusual material and this is the best example. From the first episode, it was natural to see a resemblance to the contemporaneous "Northern Exposure" (1990), with Seamus as the fish-out-of water corresponding to Dr. Joel Fleischman. But then you hit Episode 3, "The Great Unknown", and you know things aren't going to be the same. This is the unlikeliest thing in the world: Magical Realism successfully translated to an American television program. It will probably never be accomplished again. This series richly deserves to be made available on tape or DVD.

Davis Rules (1991–1992)

A Gem

[4 September 2002]

Warm, real, and original with absolutely hilarious ad-libs from Jonathan Winters, this show was far too good to last on commercial TV. Even the kids here held up their end of the acting superbly, never descending into the stilted, unnatural cuteness or irritating smart-mouth brattiness that's too common everywhere else. Not a single regrettable episode. I enjoyed it immensely.

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

Not bad, but Lord, it wasn't *that* good!

[5/10 · 4 September 2002]

The inspiration was the space opera serials of the '30s to the '50s and numerous other sources, with the result that this movie is almost startlingly unoriginal. The script was not great. The acting was achingly uneven, from the brilliance of Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing to the awkward mouthings of Mark Hamill. The special effects were amazing only in their ubiquitousness; the techniques used were venerable -- and have been considerably "spiced up" in the currently available video editions. Yeah, it was lots of fun, but beyond that it had no meaning or enduring value. So what inspired the fanatic following enjoyed by the Star Wars franchise?

According to George Lucas, he was guided by the work of mythologist Joseph Campbell, who was able to distill from the world's folklore the foundational elements of myth. These are principles and images that resonate; our response is almost biologically hardwired. Using Campbell for a blueprint, Lucas constructed a modern retelling of the hero's journey. In this he didn't do a bad job, because the resonances are certainly there. This I think is key. It fools into thinking we are seeing a great story, because its structure causes us to react to it as we would to any number of other great stories. But the story cannot fill this structure. The mythological resonances blind us to the gaping plotholes, the shallow characterizations, the poor acting, and that godawful dialogue.

A really harsh critique of this film is required not because it deserves it by any absolute measure -- indeed, under other circumstances it would really be too lightweight to merit the attention -- because against all reason it has become a standard by which all other movies of its genre are judged. There are far better candidates for that role than this.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Miserable adaptation of a great story

[19 August 2002]

The actors were flawless, and in some cases brilliant. There are no special effects that were underdone, or done poorly. The sets are perfect. One might quibble about the costuming, but that's a minor concern and only in some cases; for the most part everyone is dressed as one might expect. So what's my complaint?

This is obviously the product of a director and writers who did not feel they had a free hand to adapt this story to its medium. Everything that took up more than a few pages in the book seemed to rate at least a mention here, but very often having mentioned them they're dropped without a backward glance. Some events are portrayed that have no real bearing on the story as abridged, taking up footage that could have been used for better development of some of the minor characters. For reasons of space, most of the satire and humor is dropped entirely in favor of the occasional slapstick comic relief, such as the running gag about Seamus blowing himself up in the Charms class.

Where's Dumbledore's wit, his sparkle, and his eccentricity? He's deep and sagacious, which is to say he's a stock wizard with no characteristics that distinguish him from dozens of others, and is completely lacking in the weirdness that made him so charming in the book. Where's Neville Longbottom's character development? He goes from losing his toad to getting paralyzed by Hermione with nothing in between. Rather than being given such short shrift, he should have been dropped from this movie entirely and saved for those moments later on where he'll be indispensable. Why even bother to include Norbert if you're not going to do anything with that subplot? Here it serves the sole purpose of being the cause for detention in the Forbidden Forest, but with all the other illicit doings of Harry & Co. some other pretext for could have been found. Surely they could have at least hinted at other Quidditch matches than the one that was actually portrayed; as it is, it stands alone and has no bearing on anything else that happens. I suppose they had to show it as it becomes very important in the later books, but it would have been better to work it into the plot somehow. These are just examples; I could name many more instances where the adaptation was very poorly done.

But worst of all is there are times when this movie is boring. How Columbus managed *that* with the material at his disposal is pretty amazing. The only reason I can come up with for it is that he felt constrained, either by the author of the book or the fan community, to ensure that certain elements from the book appeared in the movie whether or not they made sense cinematically. He would have served the audience better with more boldness in departing from the book where necessary, instead of adhering to it where it made no sense to do so.

Tron (1982)

A strange world...

[3/10 · 26 January 2001]

In Tron you enter a strange new world. A world where you communicate with computers by typing sentences in English. A world where all computers in the world are connected to each other. A world where audit records of file operations are preserved indelibly forever. A world where one might reasonably expect a programmer who produces a single successful product to be given control of a company in return. A world where a computer evidently built over a period of 20 years or more is not an obsolete pile of scrap metal. A world where users of a time-sharing system aren't screaming bloody murder at the operators when they can't log on or access their data.

And then there's the setting *inside* the computer. Yeesh!

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Not entirely disappointing

[7/10 · 15 June 1999]

I had heard such scathing criticism of ST:TPM that I went into the theater with dramatically lowered expectations. As a result, aspects of the movie that were well done appeared to be moments of genius; parts that were merely not disappointing exceeded my expectations, and the abysmal crap was no more than I had anticipated. I therefore feel that I can offer some objective criticism.

THE GOOD:

The costume designer deserves an Academy Award, and will probably get one. Exquisite work.

They don't give Oscars for Spacecraft Design, but the responsible party ought to get one anyway. They took care to contrast the graceful lines of the Queen's ship with the stark, utilitarian lines of the Empire ships in Eps. 4-6. Beautiful work.

Stunning visuals. The Gungan city was astonishing. Trantor -- oops, I mean Coruscant -- was everything it should have been. The Naboo capital was gorgeous.

The actors. I know that the performances were criticized negatively by some, but I thought the parts were played quite competently given the conditions. It is very difficult to look convincing playing against another character that isn't really there, against a set that mostly isn't there either, and with such badly written lines.

The aliens. Although I dislike CG actors on principle, I have to admit that they were well done. The state of the art has come a long way since TIN TOY.

The fights. The best choreographed fight sequences in any Star Wars movie, and near the top of the heap in general.

The music. How can you go wrong with John Williams?

THE BAD:

I'll start with the biggie: the script. George Lucas flubbed it big time. Would it really have been that much trouble to write a second draft? There were few original lines - most of them seem to have been cribbed from dozens of other movies in various genres, and one could almost recite them along with the actors even before the first hearing. There was no discernable plot. The drawing together of the various subplots and the careful orchestration of dramatic tension into a single exultant climax, so competently rendered in the original Star Wars, is absent. Instead: a lot happens, and rather breathlessly at that.

One of the most annoying kinks in the script is the "little kid saves the day" motif. This motif, overused by Star Trek: The Next Generation in the person of Wesley Crusher, made Wesley the most hated character in the series for devoted fans around the globe. Fortunately for Anakin, we have Jar-Jar Binks to draw off our rancor - and here I may have discovered the true purpose of that character. A little of him goes a long way, and while he's amusing enough, he's nowhere near as amusing as Lucas seems to think.

The Details: There were some sloppy moments. I won't detail them all, but they were evident to anyone paying attention, mostly related to continuity and props.

The CG: As I said earlier, I'm opposed to it on principle. But some of it could have been better done with a little more effort. Jar-Jar's pratfalls seemed to occur on a planet with about three times the gravity as the planet everyone else was on. Boss Nass' spittle flew out in exactly the same pattern every time he shook his jowls - an obvious corner cut. There were other examples of this sort of thing.

Racial Sterotypes. The obviously Asian-looking (and sounding) Federation representatives, often speaking lines that could have come out of Japanese characters in a WWII movie. The somewhat Chicano-looking Sebulba. The Rasta Gungans. There may have been others I missed. And I'm not even going to talk about the religious caricatures.

Midchlorians: Oh, give me a break!

On balance, worth the price of admission - I saw it at a matinee. But certainly not the work of genius it had been promoted to be, or that the fans expected.

Blackadder II (1986)

We are amused

[27 April 1999]

The entire Black Adder series is worthwhile, but as a volunteer worker at a local Renaissance Faire, it is Black Adder II that particularly resonates. The more you know of history, the funnier this series gets. Excellent writing and gonzo performances all around.

Mind you, it would have been ten times better had the star been Lord Flasheart, but you can't have everything.

The Lord of the Rings (1978)

It is not possible to adequately express the utter badness of this film

[1/10 · 14 April 1999]

This film was awful. It completely failed to convey the story, the charm, the depth, or the emotional content of the books. It dropped key scenes, compressed others, tore others out of their proper contexts, and mangled the rest. The animation varied in quality from exquisite to miserable with nothing in between. It perpetrated a vast fraud on the Tolkien-reading, moviegoing public because the promotional material never mentioned that only half the story was to be given. If a copy of this film somehow came into my possession, I would rip it to shreds, chop it with an axe and dance upon the pieces, howling imprecations all the while, before consigning the remnant to the flames. An extraordinary work of literature, which informed my youth, molded my ideals, inspired my sense of aesthetics, and comforted me in distress, has been distorted into a thing of ugliness and loathing. I despise it.

Hamlet (1990)

Not all that bad, really

[22 March 1999]

Having been thoroughly put off by the effete Hamlets of the old school, it was a relief to see him portrayed as an actual medieval Danish prince for a change. His natural inclinations ought to make him a man of action, and his indecisiveness ought to be uncharacteristic; and this is how Mel Gibson portrays him. The rest of the cast easily measures up. Glenn Close in particular is superb as Gertrude. This brings up the film's major flaw, though: She does not look old enough to be Gibson's mother.

Bambi Meets Godzilla (1969)

A cast of thousands

[10/10 · 10 February 1999]

A sweeping epic of monumental proportions, "Bambi Meets Godzilla" combines a lyrical script, stellar performances by the entire cast, the most outstanding special effects available at the time and a score which is a classic in its own right to produce a spectacle that is as memorable as it is lengthy. Not many movies can command an audience's attention for as long as "Bambi Meets Godzilla", but here the performances are so engaging, and the visuals so stunning, that it feels as if the movie is over almost before it has begun. Even so, it is just barely sufficient to contain the entire sweep of the grand drama it has embraced. Truly a magnum opus in every sense of the word.

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

Extraordinarily disappointing

[3/10 · 7 January 1999]

I am having some trouble fathoming others' positive opinions of this movie. I disagree with almost everything being said about it.

The movie was not historically accurate, as many claim. I could cite numerous anachronisms, but the two most glaring were Azeem's spyglass (yes, the Moslem culture was more scientifically advanced than Western Europe, having absorbed some of the science of the Christian East which they conquered, but the spyglass was not among their achieevments), and the "Celts" called in by the Sheriff of Nottingham for the invasion of the settlement in the forest. (The term "Celt" would have been unknown to the Sheriff, and Celts of that appearance were almost 1000 years out of date.)

The acting was indeed superb, but with one fatal exception. It is absolutely vital in a Robin Hood movie that the title role be played by an actor capable of handling it. It was quite beyond Kevin Costner. Robin Hood needs to be bigger than life, a hero, able to project a personality that one could believe able to inspire enthusiastic support and unquestioned loyalty. Costner managed none of these things. I'm not talking about the accent - see Kenneth Branagh's "Much Ado About Nothing" to see varying accents handled properly. I'm talking about a low-key, self effacing portrayal of a character that ought to be writ large. It spoiled a fine effort by an otherwise splendid cast.

The script contained other stupidities, which I lack the time and space to describe now. For a corrective, I recommend the contemporaneous Robin Hood movie starring Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurmann, available on video in the US.

The Sword and the Sorcerer (1982)

Worth seeing in spite of itself

[9/10 · 16 September 1998]

Despite one of the silliest plot devices/props ever conceived (a triple -bladed sword that fires its two spare blades at the touch of a button) this is one of the most enjoyable movies of the genre. While taking itself seriously as a narrative, it never fails to point up the comic potential in the various situations that the characters find themselves in. For examplem the hero, Talon, while being pursued by the palace guard, crashes through a window and finds himself sprawled in the middle of the topless harem. What to do, what to do...

It'a also a good movie for playing "Pick the person who became famous later. " Some of them are nearly unrecognizable in the costumes or makeup. Keep an eye on the credits.

A note before the end credits suggested a sequel. It's too bad it was never made.

Quest of the Delta Knights (1993 Video)

Possibly the worst sword & sorcery movie ever made

[1/10 · 6 September 1998]

I am a great fan of bad S&S. I have seen the Ator movies. I have seen the Deathstalker movies. I have seen The Sword & the Sorcerer. This one beats them all. How it ever acquired a rating of more than one star is beyond me. The intentional comedy all falls flat. What humor is present can be found in the poor execution, laughable script, ridiculous props, and the shaky grasp of history.

At the time the movie was made, I was working at the Northern California Renaissance Pleasure Faire, which was used as a shooting location. Filming occurred on weekdays, when the Faire is closed. If you look real closely at the half-timbered construction on some of the buildings in the village scenes, you can tell that it's just white painted plywood with brown 1x4s nailed on the front. They're all just closed-up crafts booths (the one in the panhandling scenes sells pewter) and environmental acting areas.

Some of the Faire actors were employed as extras. I know of one case where an extra was used to simulate a speaking role, by dubbing a voice in while his back was turned. This added greatly to the humor value for me personally, since the dubbed voice sounded nothing at all like the extra. It is also quite possibly in violation of AFTRA rules, but given the quality of the rest of the movie, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that it was a non-union production.