Change Your Image
weaselgirl_rk4ever
Reviews
The Little Princess (1939)
A sappy-happy film
This watery film bears little resemblance to the classic novel. If you are a fan of the books, don't watch this movie! The strident pacing and absorbing characterization of the original novel is diluted into a "star vehicle" film for Shirley Temple. As a childhood Shirley Temple fan who has seen many of her films, I have to say that this is definitely one of my least favorites. In this film, Sara is depicted as a perfect, pretty, charming girl who, despite her miserable situation, remains perky and hopeful. Gone is Sara's magical, mysterious nature with her queer ideas and mystical fairy tales. Now she's an ordinary pretty girl; if the movie was made today, she would be played as a prep. Also, little Lottie is noticeably absent, and instead, there's a pointless plot line about Sara's tutor. And where did the pointless cameo with Queen Victoria come from? All in all, the movie turns out to be another happy-pretty-perky children's flick. I recommend watching Alfonso Cuaron's sumptuous film version which, while the ending is different, still maintains the magical mystery of the original novel.
Peter Pan (2000)
A brilliantly captured Broadway show
I was two and a half years old when my parents taped the Mary Martin version of Peter Pan. I adored it. "Tender Shepherd" was my lullaby when I was a child. Needless to say, when I discovered A&E had filmed the Broadway revival, I was excited but skeptical. How could it compare to my favorite childhood movie? It more than compared. It even exceeded. The Cathy Rigby Peter Pan takes what Mary Martin did to the next level. The movie is filmed directly from the Broadway performance and has a lively adrenaline rush that is absent from the Mary Martin version, which was filmed on a soundstage. The casting is brilliant. Elisa Sagardia- whom I was lucky enough to see when the show came on tour this summer- is a beautiful and spunky Wendy. Smee and Hook work together perfectly and are absolutely hilarious. Tiger Lily is athletic, believable as an Indian princess, and one of the greatest dancers I've seen in a long time. And of course, Cathy Rigby. She stepped into a very difficult role to fill- after all, Mary Martin was one of the greatest Broadway actresses, and Peter was one of her signature roles. But Cathy makes the role entirely her own, giving a new approach to the famous character. The cockney accent and athleticism never gives the audience reason to doubt that Peter is, and really is, the Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up. As a rabid Peter Pan fanatic. I found this version to be as beautiful, as lavish, and as suited for the child at heart as Sir J.M. Barrie intended. Ten stars.
The Scarecrow (2000)
Happily Surprised
I'm an animation fanatic, and so when I saw that Cartoon Network was airing The Scarecrow, I thought it looked interesting. So I watched it. I have to say that it was very good. Most of the smaller animation studios eke out films that are barely decent, but this film was surprisingly good. The animation was extremely smooth and the colors vibrant, while the voices were excellent. (Except for the fairy in the beginning; I found the prologue to be a little annoying on her part.) The dance sequence at the competition was brilliantly executed. The music was done by Kurt Bestor, who did one of my favorite movies, Rigoletto. There was, of course, several hokey things done "for the kiddies" that were just dumb, like Chezwick's "Melvin" deal. But I found the movie to be for the most part excellent.