Reviews

15 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
The Best Version, Despite Flaws
24 March 2024
I am a great fan of Alexandre Dumas, and I have seen most of the serious adaptations of this great work, and, in my opinion, the French version with Gerard Depardieu is way out in front. Other reviewers have charged it with three flaws ~ the scandalously abbreviated beginning, the obesity of M. Depardieu, and the frivolous "Walt Disney" ending. These are all quite valid criticisms. The body of Dantes, after 18 years languishing in a dungeon, living upon thin soup, supplemented with the occasional rat with which he might be able to augment his diet, should leave him with a body gaunt and emaciated, a pale ghost freshy risen from a tomb, as Dumas describes him, not the well fed body of a gourmand like Depardieu (who is otherwise a perfectly brilliant Monte Cristo). And of course, the ending is stupid ~ there is no way that Edmond Dantes can live happily ever after with his lost Mercedes.

The disappointingly brief introduction is also regrettable, but, in the effort to bring an epic of this magnitude and depth to life, choices must be made ~ you have to pick your battles. First off, we dismiss all efforts to present this tale for some hour and a half's amusement ~ it can't be done. The 1975 version is perhaps the best of a bad lot, but it ends up somewhere between Cliff's Notes and the Classic Comic of Monte Cristo. The only other serious version to consider for the top spot is the very excellent BBC version of 1964. The BBC version is really good, and it succeeds in presenting the back story of Dantes the sailor, his betrothed Mercedes, the conspirators Mondego, Danglars, and Caderousse, the Chateau d'If, and the Abbe Faria, but I kept wondering how they were going to cover the rest of the story after spending so much of their temporal capital upon this material. The answer, of course, is that the remainder of the plot was woefully abridged and condensed, with many sub-plots entirely omitted.

The directors of the French version of 1998, on the other hand, chose to sacrifice the cinematic potential of the early material in order to focus on the principle plot elements of Monte Cristo's reemergence from his premature grave. In fact, nice as the BBC treatment of the early material was, it didn't substantially affect the later plot elements. The French version, by foreshortening this early material, was able to display a richness of detail and color that none of the other versions could match. For example, the appearances of the Abbe Busoni and Lord Wilmore served essential plot functions, entirely omitted in the other versions. Then there is the amusing character of Bertuccio, always fastidious in the preparation of food, taken directly from the pages of Dumas, who was a famous gourmet and gourmand, author of The Grand Dictionary of Cuisine. And the way Monte Cristo destroys Caderousse by giving him a diamond worth 50,000 crowns is brilliant.

Then there is the cursory treatment of M. Morrel and son in most other versions. Perhaps most viewers (and reviewers) salivate over Monte Cristo as a tale of revenge, which it certainly is, but Dumas was very careful to include the reward of the virtuous as well as the punishment of the wicked. We hear how old Morrel supported the elder Dantes, the father of Edmond, after the natural support of the son was taken away. We even find that when a purse filled with money is miraculously given to Morrel just in time to avert bankruptcy, he recognizes the purse as the one in which he used to send money to old Dantes. This scene never fails to move me to tears.

Then, while Monte Cristo is roasting the wicked de Villefort over the coals with great satisfaction, all his plans are thrown into confusion by the love of the younger Morrel and Valentine de Villefort. He finally relents from his implacable vengeance and blesses their union, as he earlier spared the life of Albert de Morcerf, son of Mercedes and Fernand Mondego.

To understand why The Count of Monte Cristo is widely considered one of the greatest novels in all of literature, it is necessary, of course, to read the book. No brief adaptation for the screen could possible do justice to the genius of Alexandre Dumas, but this French version of 1998 is easily the best attempt. If anyone wishes to improve upon it, they had better be prepared to devote about sixteen hours of screen time to the effort.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dolphin Kick (2019)
9/10
Much better than reviewed
12 August 2023
Warning: Spoilers
The only time I bother to write a review is when my own estimation of a movie seems to be very different from the consensus. I suppose a lot of people read the reviews of this film and pass on by. Who wants to waste time on a movie rated at 4.4? But I thought it was a thoroughly delightful movie. For example, the scene where the boy just arrives at this glorious paradise and is walking along the dock with his nose buried in an iPad is alone worth the price of admission.

So there we are, whisked away to this tropical island paradise where a lost and lonely dolphin latches onto a couple of kids for some friendly social contact. Okay, if you want an intricate and brilliant plot, watch something like a Sherlock Holmes mystery with Jeremy Brett. But if you enjoy an easy going movie featuring a close emotional bond between human kids and a dolphin, this was a delight to watch. There was enough plot to keep me amused. Sure, there was a villain, but when the dolphin saves the life of the villain at the end, Walt Disney couldn't have done it any better. Of course, the dolphin makes it back to his pod finally, and I, for one, felt good about the whole thing. If your taste runs to non-stop anger and violence, there are plenty of movies rated at eight stars and above for your enjoyment, but I would rather spend my evening with the dolphins and the kids who love them.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Offal
2 January 2023
This is the first of the many adaptations of Nicholas Nickelby that I have seen, but it left such a horrible impression upon me, that I am looking for better versions - perhaps the 1947 version, or the 2001 version? All I know is that this 1977 version is really awful. Sometimes I wonder where the viewer ratings come from, or from what planet the directors might hail, that they inflict such atrocious performances upon an unsuspecting public.

Most of the leads are quite good - Nicholas and his sister and uncle are all reasonably well played, but it goes steeply downhill from there. Most parts are so ridiculously over-acted that it amounts to crude burlesque, something more along the lines of The Royal Nonesuch, from the performance of the King and the Duke in Huckleberry Finn, than any remotely serious drama.

The place of "honor" goes to Malcolm Reid, whose portrayal of Alfred Mantalini is just about the most nauseating performance I have ever seen on stage or screen. I could hardly hold my lunch down. How can anyone watch such drivel, let alone blithely award high ratings and positive reviews? But most of the other characters were almost as bad. I understand that you have to look at characters within their genre. I do not criticize Cheech and Chong or the Marx brothers for their antics, because that foolery is expected in their particular corner of cinematic expression, but for an adaptation of one of Charles Dickens' classic novels, I expect something a shade more elevated in tone. If you are going to see this disgusting display of cinematic offal anyway, don't forget to bring along a "convenience bag," just in case.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Disappointing
29 September 2022
The Island of Dr. Moreau is a very disturbing story, but the plot of the novel by H. G. Wells is even more disturbing. The premise of the book is that evolutionary advance is greatly accelerated by the experience of pain. For background, consider the "dumb blonde" stereotype - when a woman is exceptionally beautiful, everything is given to her on silver platters - she has no need to do anything but receive all of the good things offered to her on every hand, so she never has any need to develop any intelligence or talent. In contrast, a man who is unattractive, poor, and/or otherwise disadvantaged must constantly devise strategies for survival and growth, leading to sharper imaginative and cognitive skills.

In the novel by H. G. Wells, Dr. Moreau cuts to the chase by administering pain to animals directly (at the "House of Pain"), in an effort to produce an adaptive response. Of course, this is a disturbing and chilling premise, but as the basis for a story it is pretty powerful, and it renders the development of the plot sufficiently plausible as to disturb one's sleep (or cause one to go running to Mama in terror).

That, at least, was the original premise of the work by H. G. Wells, but the present production morphs that original premise into the combining of human genes with animals to create hybrid creatures. This film lacks all of the genius of H. G. Wells, and degenerates into an ordinary garden variety monster movie, targeted, presumably, at fourteen year old boys. Dumb movie producers think they know better than H. G. Wells, and the result is just frivolous junk.

Fortunately, for fans of H. G. Wells, there is another and very excellent version of the story, Island of Lost Souls, 1932, featuring a delightful performance by Charles Laughton who totally nails the role of the gentleman mad scientist. This is the real deal. In fact, it was so disturbing to many people that the movie was banned for years. Compared with this achievement, the 1996 effort looks really stupid.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Pretty Stupid
15 August 2022
My first thought was to give this foolish thing no stars at all. But then I considered that it's just a kids' movie, and can only be rated on that basis. I have to admit that if I were nine years old, or perhaps about seven, I would probably think this was a really neat movie. On the other hand, if I were looking for a movie for a nine year old, I would probably choose Charlotte's Web.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Tedious and Silly
23 May 2022
I don't understand what everyone else sees in this production. As a musical, it must stand or fall on the quality of the music, and I thought most of the music was uninspired and insipid. And then, portraying Jesus Christ as a beautiful blue-eyed blond man is bad enough, but then, side by side, to portray Judas Iscariot as a very dark Black man, seems a bit troubling. At least Carl Anderson, as Judas, was excellent, best of show, and even his songs were some of the best of the production, but the contrast of the beautiful blond hero and the Black villain is just too much. Honorable Mention to Yvonne Elliman as Mary Magdalene. Otherwise, all the song and dance was just tedious and silly. Take it all around, I prefer the Saint Matthew's Passion, by J. S. Bach, any day.
0 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Mighty (1998)
10/10
I really liked this movie.
21 May 2022
I really liked this movie. I have seen some unutterably junky movies that some viewers rate highly, some with mindless violence, hate, and anger, but this movie was a real gem and made me feel good. The two principle actors were just great, especially Kieran Culkin (Kevin), but also Elden Henson (Max) - it's hard to put much finesse into the role of a kid who is fat and dumb, but he got it just right. I enjoyed seeing the growing friendship between the two boys - at one point Kevin lays his head almost lovingly against Max's shoulder, but then pulls out of it. Altogether a very satisfying film.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Wasted Opportunity
18 May 2022
What a wasted opportunity! A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is my favorite Mark Twain story, and yet every version of it I can find is sillier than the last. This is a gross insult to the genius of Mark Twain. I know that no one reads books anymore, so the only way anyone these days might know of this wonderful story is through cinematic productions like this useless piece of trash. If some movie studio wants a real guaranteed hit, all they have to do is just hire some screen writers to actually read Mark Twain's original book, and bring a faithful realization of the Master's work to the screen. The story is vintage Mark Twain at the top of his game, and the cinematic potential is enormous. There is comedy, brilliant satire, adventure, pageantry, and abundant imagination enough to hit every button.

As for this poor effort, it is such a disappointment. Right off the bat, instead of the bright young page, "Clarence" (looking like a forked carrot - "Go along - you ain't more than a paragraph"), whom Hank adopts as his right-hand man, we have William Foot-in-a-paint-bucket Bendix as Sir Sagramore, and it just goes downhill from there.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Stunning Visuals
23 February 2022
The visual effects in this video are quite remarkable. It occurred to me that it could serve as the visual stimulus for a stunning LSD trip - just take 250 mcg of LSD, start this video, turn off the sound, and turn on a recording of Handel's Sonatas for Flute and Oboe with Frans Brüggen, and enjoy.

As to the message of the video, the director and narrator would be the first to agree that there is nothing new here - it is a restatement of the famous epiphany that has occurred to people of a spiritual temperament for thousands of years - that the ordinary perception of reality in terms of the duality of subject/object experience is an illusion; in fact, the entire cosmos is all One single living Being, in which all apparent dualities are resolved into a merger with the divine unity.

The problem with this message, however, is that it is easy to assume that this epiphany is True and Correct, while the ordinary perception of duality is all False and Wrong. But that is like a celebration of Yin (movement in toward the center) as the perfect answer to all problems, relegating Yang (the movement outward into novelty) as all Wrong, if not actually the Devil himself. On the contrary, any good Taoist would understand that both the Yin and Yang are complementary aspects of the divine experience, and enlightenment consists of an appropriate balance between them. In other words, yes, the consciousness of the Unity of all Being is true and correct, but the ordinary experience of the duality of subject and object is also true and correct. More precisely, both ideas are true; both ideas are not true; both ideas are both true and not true; both ideas are neither true nor not true. "Mystery upon mystery, the gateway of the manifold secrets." (- Tao Te Ching, by Lao Tzu)
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Horrible
11 February 2022
What a horrible movie ! It is all a non-stop glorification of violence and chaos. A long time ago I figured out that you could evaluate a period of time by its architecture or its music. You can also tell a period of time not only by the movies produced, but by the movies most admired by the viewing public. Musically, I compare the anger and violence of rap music to the cantatas of J. S. Bach, singing to the glory of God.

What I find so awful is not that this is such a bad movie, but that the viewers have seen fit to honor it with a rating of 9.0 ! In the same way, I am not surprised that a psychopath like Donald Trump becomes President of the United States - that's nothing - half of the world's leaders are psychopaths - what is truly horrible is that so many people in the United States continue to support the guy! None of this bodes well for the future of the planet. Give me The Sound of Music any day.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Underappreciated Gem
6 February 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I have read the other reviews, and most of them have it right - this is a hilarious and perfect jewel of a film that is unaccountably unknown and/or unappreciated by the movie viewer. But I was surprised that none of the reviewers mentioned what I thought was obvious - that the story was not a fantasy of Konrad's (Michael York) - it was a fantasy of the obnoxious little sister! Everything points to that - this is a little girl's ultimate fantasy with everything you can imagine. She even gets the handsome stranger in the end, complete with inheriting the castle (after her childless gay older brother). You know it cannot be Konrad's fantasy after he callously disposes of the beautiful daughter of the rich American - she is the only rival of the little girl, so she is just swept out of the way, after securing the American fortune for her family.

Very, very funny dark comedy, with great performances by all, especially Angela Lansbury and Michael York, and wonderful scenery of Bavaria - with eye candy for everyone, whatever your taste. Something for Everyone, indeed!

-
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
l'Eminence Rouge
15 November 2021
This is really a terrific movie, surprisingly underrated. To begin with, George Arliss is flawless and dazzling in the role of l'Eminence Rouge. I wish someone would someday make a serious Fu Manchu movie, faithfully bringing Sax Rohmer's creation to the screen, and I can only imagine George Arliss in the role of Fu Manchu. Cardinal Richelieu and Fu Manchu have a lot in common.

Even though Alexandre Dumas isn't credited for the story, all of the action comes straight out of Dumas.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Iron Mask (1929)
10/10
The Greatest Silent Film
15 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Some people won't watch an old Black and White movie - let alone silent. And yet here is a fabulously entertaining story, loaded with amusing touches, and even reasonably faithful to the story by Alexandre Dumas, and the lack of spoken dialog doesn't interfere with the enjoyment of this great movie at all. My version runs for an hour and forty minutes of riveting entertainment.

In the book, it is Aramis who is mainly responsible for the plot to replace the king with his twin brother. This is high treason, and a surprising evolution of character from the Aramis we knew in the old days of the musketeers. For the movie, they shifted the blame onto our old foe, the Comte de Rochefort, a more satisfying villain. In the books, "All for One and One for All" had come down to Aramis and Porthos on one side, with a plot to replace the king, while D'Artagnan and Athos are on the other side, in defense of the legitimate king. This is a shameful episode in the career of Aramis, who has now become the General of the Jesuits, and I am happy they shifted the blame onto de Rochefort for the movie.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Man in the Iron Mask (1977 TV Movie)
7/10
Good Fun, but not Dumas
13 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
The 1977 version of The Man in the Iron Mask is a totally delightful romp in almost every way. But one must, however, make the attempt to appreciate this cinematic spectacle without assuming that Alexandre Dumas had anything to do with the plot. Dumas would be turning over in his grave with chagrin to see his hero D'Artagnan plotting against his king! It was Aramis, the oily churchman (who by this time has been elected General of the Jesuits), not Colbert, who fomented the conspiracy. Aramis persuaded the honest but simple Porthos to help in the plot, but D'Artagnan was the most loyal servant of the king, and could never be a part of any such plot.

The secret of the second twin was a very closely held secret, with the mother, Anne of Austria, and D'Artagnan about the only surviving persons to know of the second twin. Somehow Aramis got wind of the brother's existence and began conniving his conspiracy. But in this version of the story, "everyone and his brother" (literally) seems to know all about the plot to replace the king. I say "second twin" because, of course, Louis was the first born, not, as suggested in this version of the story, the second. In this version of the story, the king is effectively replaced by his brother Philippe, and the movie ends with the true king of France gnashing his teeth in prison, his face covered in the iron mask. In the story by Dumas, the true king is restored, by the aid of D'Artagnan and Athos, while Aramis slinks away in disgrace.

It is bad enough that American movies portray kings as slapstick comedy, figuratively stumbling around with their foot in a paint bucket, but to a loyal Frenchman (and Dumas was always a staunch royalist) it would be appalling to see Louis XIV of France hauled off to end his days in a dungeon so that a "more suitable" king could take his place. But - forget about Dumas! The creators of this tale have produced a highly entertaining story, full of plenty of color and amusing incident.

By the way, the silent version of 1929 with Douglas Fairbanks (The Iron Mask) is much more faithful to Dumas, and is an excellent production in every way.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Delightful Movie Ruined
26 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
It is really a shame that this delightful movie is ruined by a fatal flaw. To be sure, Dr. Sawyer, the psychologist, is a slimy and disgusting piece of work, but when Kris Kringle is provoked by Dr. Sawyer, he whacks him on the skull with his cane! This act of violence is totally out of character with the Santa Claus I know. It pops the whole Christmas bubble of Santa Claus. I wouldn't want any children I know to be exposed to this violent "Santa Claus." The trial which followed was not about this assault, but about Kris Kringle's sanity, and his potential commitment to Belleview Hospital (the nut house). It is really too bad that this appalling act of violence has to ruin an otherwise wonderful movie. The redemption of little Susan (not to mention her mother) from her sterile attachment to the bleak world of reality to the unfolding awareness of the limitless vistas open to the imagination is wonderful. If only we could escape from this cruel world of ours and enter, if only briefly, into a world where we might begin to believe that this nice old man really is Santa Claus! But, no; Santa Claus would never deliberately strike a man on the skull with his cane - this can only be just another strange movie to give us unsettled dreams. It wasn't even essential to the plot - we might have had Dr. Sawyer, in his animosity toward Kris Kringle, stumble and fall to the floor and hit his head. He might then claim that Kris Kringle had pushed him, when the viewing audience could see perfectly well that Kris Kringle was not to blame for Sawyer's fall, and was unjustly accused. This would retain Kris Kringle's Santa Claus persona intact, and would add yet another blemish to the character of the slimy Dr. Sawyer.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed