Change Your Image
collie-12
Reviews
Maleficent (2014)
1959's Sleeping Beauty is much better
I did not find it to be "the worst film ever" as I have seen others here call it, but it certainly was a disappointment. I wondered how many of the people writing negative reviews here, calling the film feminist and anti-male were men. I, however, am NOT a man, and I even always considered myself a bit of a feminist, but I still did not like this film.
First—It's not that I hate old tales turned upside down—not if they are done with skill. There is a great essay by Ruth Dorgan titled "Jack the Giantmugger" which turns Jack and the Beanstalk inside-out. But she does it WITHOUT changing any of the story's facts; she just gives them a new perspective. "Maleficent" (2014) does not. In the far better Disney film "Sleeping Beauty" (1959), it is the third fairy who softens Maleficent's curse turning the death sentence into only a long sleep. In ALL previous versions it is the last good fairy who steps forward to undo as much of the curse as possible. That is a major plot point—one this new film disregards! Here it is Maleficent herself who says the girl shall sleep until awakened by true love's kiss—which if you get the foreshadowing of the gift young Stefan gave Maleficent, you know is an ironic 'catch-22.' Now let's cut to the "true love's kiss" bit. That IS Disney's line, by the way. It's not in either Grimm or Perrault's versions. They merely say a king's son will awaken her after 100 years; there was no mention of "true love" as a condition. (For the record, Grimms' Snow White wakes when the apple becomes dislodged when the prince orders her casket moved—sorry folks, but there's no first love's kiss in that one either.) Now I liked the film "Frozen" because it seemed fresh and original. Concerning that movie's twist, I did not see it coming. This time I saw it coming from a mile away. It was no-longer fresh; it was predictable. And far worse than being merely predictable, it seemed heavy-handed and downright preachy. While I do not believe a woman needs a man to make her complete, Disney does seem to be trying awfully hard lately to drill into young girls' heads that they should not dream about their handsome prince, or at any rate certainly don't count on him to save you. I don't know; maybe that is a good lesson for young girls to learn after all, but must they be taught it at the expense of ruining your own masterpiece? Why do you want to negate your own masterpiece, Disney? "Frozen" is a new story. "Maleficent," however, boldly claims to be a retelling of Sleeping Beauty which dares to say that this is the 'true' version and we should disregard the old story we once thought was true. That struck me as very impudent.
I also did not like how this film totally destroyed characters I had known and loved from the 1959 version—namely the three good fairies: Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather. They were sweet and funny, lovable and endearing. These fairies were mere twits. I think they were supposed to be funny, but I did not find them so. I found them to be silly, annoying, selfish, and extremely disappointing.
Thirdly from a purely artistic point-of-view, this film is inferior to the 1959 version. The 1959 version was hand-drawn. This is just more of the same old CGI jazz one sees everywhere these days. It is becoming very boring. But what is more important is the time and detail that went into the 1959 film. Eyvind Earle's elaborate backgrounds—inspired by medieval paintings—took seven to ten times as long to draw as the cells for other Disney cartoon features. The drawing alone was so painstakingly done that it took 5 years! And the '59 music was magnificent—and why shouldn't it be since the composer was no other than Peter Ilyich Tchaikosky?
Lastly, what's in a name? Well, Maleficent's name means "harmfully malicious" or "causing evil" according to dictionary.com, and its origin dates back to the late 1600s. It's Latin; Disney did not invent it. The word is closely akin to such words as malevolent, malice, malicious—you get the picture, don't you? If she suppose to start out so nice and only turned evil after being betrayed by one she trusted, why was she called Maleficent from the beginning? I know no one cares about etymology these days, but really they should.
Now in all fairness to the film, it wasn't all bad. I rather like Jolie's performance. When Aurora tells her she knows who she is, that she's her fairy godmother, Jolie's reaction was perfect. She's both appalled and slightly amused by it—little does she realize at the time that she has indeed become just that. And it was nice how Jolie gradually came to love the child she originally hated. Some of the negative criticism I read here was uncalled for as well: while Stefan's character could use a lot more development, Stefan does have an understandable motivation to betray Maleficent—he wants to be king. Heck, he told us that the first time we met him. His evilness does not come out of nowhere, and he is not 100% heartless. His first intention was to kill her which he could not bring himself to do. I thought his stealing her wings was his trying to be as kind as possible—considering his greedy lust for power. Incidentally, I thought this Stefan would have been more at home in Game of Thrones than Sleeping Beauty. And yes, I suppose this act could be regarded as a type of rape, as some people here have written, but that is reaching a bit now, isn't it?
Villains can be fun and fascinating. Why make one of the greatest Disney villains ever into the film's hero?
The Iron Mask (1929)
Wonderful! (Especially the re-release with Jr's narration)
Let me begin by stating that I am reviewing the 1952 re-release version with Douglas Fairbanks, Jr's narration (written, I might add, by Richard Llewellyn of "How Green Was My Valley" fame). Fairbanks the younger's delivery of Llewellyn's words is shear poetry! I know this version has been cut and usually I prefer films as they were originally intended, but in this case I'll make an exception since DFJ's narration really makes the film for me. (Still, it would be nice to see how the original "talkie" bits sounded in the elder Fairbank's voice. I might have to catch the restored original too.) Aside from the joy of listening to DFJ's beautiful voice bring his father's work to life for me, I must say I really enjoyed the picture itself. I've seen both the 1939 version with Louis Hayward and the 1977 version with Richard Chamberlain, and while both of those are very good, this one might be the best of the three. Thanks to Fairbanks, Sr. of course it probably has the best action sequences, but the over all acting is also quite wonderful. I must say I was especially impressed with William Blakewell in the duel role of the twins, Nigel De Brulier as Richelieu, and Ullrich Haupt as the villain De Rochefort. This was Fairbanks' final silent film, and his acting here is at its best. He makes a perfect D'Artagnan! The sets and costumes are also magnificent here! Fairbanks pretty much wrote the script too--even though he disguised that fact somewhat by using his middle names in the credits. The credits read story by Elton Thomas; Fairbanks' full birth name was Douglas Elton Thomas Ullman. Maybe he figured that having his name in the credits as both star and producer was enough. And although the storyline varies in many important ways in the Haywood version 10 years later, in other ways it follows Fairbanks' ending quite closely. (It's been years since I saw the 1977 version, but I think its plot is not as close. I do remember it had some marvelous acting in it, but considering it starred Richard Chamberlain, Sir Ralph Richardson, Louis Jourdan, and Patrick McGoohan, how could it not?) Anyway back to the 1929 version--I've seen more than my share of Three Musketeers films and this is one of the best!
Zero Hour! (1957)
Does Not Deserve the Bad Rap "Airplane!" Viewers Give It
OK, I know this is a minority report, but this film deserves to be taken seriously and enjoyed on its own merits. I hate that the makers of the spoof "Airplane!" have apparently ruined this film for most viewers. If you like the more famous parody, which I do not by the way, I suppose it is hard to keep from comparing this film to its spoof--and that is a pity since this film is actually pretty good for a tense little B-picture. And no, it is not full of clichés because although it seems clichéd now, it was actually pretty fresh at the time it was made. While it's not the first of the airplane disaster genre--actually that honour might go to "Five Came Back" (1939)--and it very well could have been trying to cash-in on the A-list "The High and the Mighty" (1954), it certainly predates all the big "Airport" movies of the 1970s which at some point did become clichéd. Any way, this film is not inherently funny--neither intentionally nor non-intentionally. True, it doesn't even come close to being the greatest film ever made, but it is a nice little suspense film and deserves to be taken seriously in that respect.
Terror in the Sky (1971)
If you like Roddy, you'll like this film
I'm not sure if what I'm going to say here might be considered a spoiler or not, so I'm not taking any chances. I won't reveal the ending or anything like that, but I will reveal a lot of Roddy's bits here.
I caught the last 20 minutes of "Zero Hour!" tonight on TCM and that made me want to see THIS version again, for this film is the first remake of Zero Hour! (I won't mention the more famous remake/spoof here). I first saw "Terror in the Sky" on the late show back in the mid-80s and I liked it. Of course the main reason I liked it, the main reason I watched it, in fact, was that I'm a big Roddy McDowall fan. For a made-for-TV movie, the film itself is pretty good overall, I recall, but what made it for me was Roddy.
Of course the main plot of this film is that the only person on-board, not suffering from food poisoning, who knows how to fly and can safely land them, is now, due to a bad past experience, afraid to pilot a plane. That person in played by Doug McClure. But in this version, he is not the only person on-board with a fear of flying. Roddy as the doctor is also not fond of flying, to put it mildly. I'm not a big fan of flying myself so I could relate to his character's fear. I'm not sure, but I think that character trait of the doctor is unique to this version. One reviewer here said that Roddy's emotions in this film are "silence and rage." I guess that is true, but I'd also add "fear," "forced composure," and "unexpected bravery" to the list. His character is introduced to us, if I remember correctly, as looking out the window, watching the prop engines rev-up, and commenting to McClure that he suspected they did that so if anything was going to fall off the plane, it would happen on the ground instead of in the air. McClure then says something technical that reassures Roddy that flying is safe, or at least that the pilots know what they're doing. From that little exchange, we learn that Roddy is nervous about flying and that McClure has some knowledge of how one flies a plane. So when Roddy soon after realizes both pilots are suffering from food poisoning, he does two things that in retrospect save EVERYONE on the ill-fated plane: first, he is able to put his own, now rather justified, terror of flying aside in order to medically treat the others, and more importantly, he is the one who realizes, because of their earlier exchange, that McClure is holding out on them and knows how to fly a plane. He then pretty much forces McClure into the cockpit. From that point on, the focus is mainly on McClure and Nettleton, and Roddy has little to do. In the first half of the picture, however, Roddy really shines.
The Andromeda Strain (1971)
Cast of Unknowns???
I see a lot of reviewers here claim this movie has no well-known actors in it. I beg to differ. David Wayne is quite well known! He was a VERY WELL KNOWN actor of stage, screen and TV. True, he was more of a supporting character actor than a leading man, but he was a BIG character actor despite his rather short stature. He is magnificent in the film "Adams Rib" with Tracy and Hepburn! He made several other important films too such as "The Portrait of Jenny" "How to Marry a Millionaire" and "The Tender Trap". More importantly he WON TWO Tony Awards for his work on Broadway. As a matter of fact, he won the very first Tony for Best Supporting Actor in a Musical (for Finain's Rainbow) in 1947 and later in 1954 he won the Tony for Best Actor (for Teahouse of the August Moon) --in the role later played on film by Marlon Brando. He also played the original Ensign Pulver in "Mr Roberts" on Broadway. He did lots of TV work before making this film as well, including playing The Mad Hatter on the Batman series. He could do both comedy and drama equally well plus he could sing and dance. He was hardly unknown. In fact, he was the reason I watched this film. I turned on the TV, which I usually keep set to TCM, but I was about to switch over to a news channel when I heard Wayne's voice and decided to watch the film just because he was in it. Now I admit the film was quite good for many, many reasons besides Wayne. It was suspenseful, intelligently written, and it had a good cast all round. I would have enjoyed the movie even without Wayne, but I doubt I would have watched it in the first place if Wayne's role in it had not caught my attention.
War Horse (2011)
I Loved This Film--It's an Old School Three-Handkerchief Picture (But I Guess It's Not for Everyone)
I saw this film on Christmas night, and I loved it; the friend I was with, not so much. Perhaps I loved it so because I love animals and animal stories, and this film is sort of an equine version of "Lassie Come Home" in some ways. I am also an Anglophile, and I have an interest in things dealing with the First World War as well. My friend again, not so much. In addition, I like long films. If I'm going to pay $9.50 to see a film, I want to get my money's worth; therefore, I didn't mind the fact that it ran nearly two and one half hours. I am not sure what my friend felt about the length because he didn't say and I didn't ask.
I'll be the first to admit this film is very sentimental—but once again, that's alright by me. It was certainly lacking a great deal in the witty dialog department. My friend and I both like clever dialog, so that might have contributed to my friend's less than enthusiastic response. But witty dialog would have been out of place in this film, so lack of it is not a fault really. The film also offered very little comic relief, but that too would have been out of place in this film and so, in retrospect, is not a fault. Still, I can understand these criticisms.
There are a couple points where I definitely take issue with my friend's criticism, however. He found the acting to be bad. I quite the contrary! I found all the actors incredibly believable and moving! He also said the film was predictable. While that might be true of the over-all tone perhaps, I thought the film provided quite a few little surprises that I never would have predicted. I will not reveal any of them here because I don't want to give spoilers that might keep potential viewers from reading this review. That said, I consider myself pretty good at recognizing formulaic plot devices so if I was surprised in places, I feel it safe to say most viewers will be too.
The story literally kept me on the edge of my seat for a great deal of the picture—especially the last third of it. I found the cinematography to be quite beautiful with its green fields of Devon and its dark silhouettes set against magnificent orange skies. The costumes were also very well done, very historically correct. I likewise enjoyed John Williams' score. And although there is quite a lot of violence and death in this film—after all it is set in the First World War so what would you expect?—the violence is very discrete and tastefully done. You don't see anyone's guts spilling out before your eyes—no blood and gore. Personally that's a plus for me. It also makes the film quite suitable for viewers as young as nine or ten. Those younger than that will most likely fail to understand much of the film, but I'd hazard a guess that girls between the ages of ten and twenty, especially those who like horses, will like this film. I really could find no fault with it whatsoever. I do hate to sound sexist here, but I think this film might appeal more to women in general however. That's not to say men won't enjoy this film, but as a woman myself, I'm simply guessing that it will appeal more to women. Of course, that could probably be said of horses in general.
I should also add that I'm a big fan of old movies from the 30s and 40s, so I like the fact that this film copies their style in so many ways. I see other reviewers here have compared it to "Gone with the Wind", "All Quiet On the Western Front" and the works of John Ford; and that's fine with me. It's great to be able to enjoy a new movie for the same reasons I enjoy the classics.
Will I ten years from now include this picture among my all-time favorites? Probably not. Would I want to watch it again? Definitely yes! Is it a great film? Many viewers will probably say yes. Is it a good film? I don't see how anyone could say no. Would I recommend it to others? If you like animals stories and or sentimental dramas, emphatically yes! If not—well I'd still recommend you give it a try only be warned you might not 'love' this picture. Still you might like it.
Adventure in Iraq (1943)
Dumbed-Down Green Goddess
Paul Cavanagh's performance is enjoyable, but that is really all that makes this film watch-able. It is merely a dumbed-down version of William Archer's play "The Green Goddess"--previously filmed as an early talkie in 1930 and a few years before that as a silent in 1923, both versions starring George Arliss in the Cavanagh role. The story has been slightly updated and the setting has been moved from the fictional mountain nation of Rukh, just north of India, to Iraq (albeit a rather fictional version of Iraq--say what you will of Iraqis, but they are not devil worshipers). In my opinion, this version loses much of the originals' elegance even though it uses much of the play's dialog word for word. The American protagonists in this version are much more brash and far less noble than their English counterparts of the original. I found the Lux Radio version of "The Green Goddess" to be far superior to this WWII rip-off.
The Green Berets (1968)
I actually liked it
First off let me say that politically I consider myself a moderate. These days I tend to lean a bit to the left, but I still like a good John Wayne film. I'm a bit too young to remember Vietnam, I LOVE old movies, of ALL genres, from the 1920s through the 1960s, and have spent over three quarters of my life studying film. Oh, I'm also female which probably influences my opinions here. That said, I just finished watching this film on TCM an hour ago and reading pages of reviews here, both pro and con. I thought the film was a good adventure film with a good cast. Louis B. Mayer once said, "If a story makes me cry, I know it's good." Going by that standard, The Green Berets is a good film. Maybe I'm just sentimental, but Hutton's death and the ending with little boy looking for him brought tears to my eyes. Actually the scene where the kid's dog died brought tears to my eyes--not the dog's death exactly, but the bit between Hutton and the boy where Hutton says to the boy that the dog was all he had in the world and the boy replies, "And you." I also liked the bits with David Janssen and the little girl. I thought that Hutton, Janssen, Aldo Ray, Raymond St Jacques, and George Takei all did a nice job. And on the lighter side, I liked the line "Provo's Privy--it does sing."