brainybrailler

I remember seeing the trailer for the movie and thought it looked good - I enjoyed movies like that back then, and who wouldn't want to see an animated story about Arthurian legend? The plot seemed interesting, the animation looked decent, and the songs sounded good (a few characters had very few spoken syllables in the preview and for those that did, when the songs meant for a certain character played with an American vocalist, you couldn't see their lips moving so never suspected a mismatch). I did see a few negative review s for it before I watched it, but I reasoned those people might not be into animated children's musicals. When I did see it, I was horrified. I'm sure my complaints will have been voiced before, but there are 2 things I enjoyed about this: the beginning 5 minutes, and the soundtrack. The film starts out making it seem like it'll be OK: the animation is decent and we meet the main character who seems like a strong heroine actually as old as the founding of CAmelot (it's the 10th anniversary) who wants to become one of King Arthur's defenders like her father. He goes off to Camelot with some delightful music of drums, upbeat flute, and a foreign-chanting choir and a short but good song plays which does move things along when Arthur joins in. Sadly, from the second the all-too-obvious (ugly, more angularly-drawn, ever-scowling) antagonist breaks in and actually says "Enough with the sing-a-long", I winced at the fact that the writers chose to make it a musical when the characters mocked the singing of a song that actually had a point. It quickly went downhill from there: Arthur speaks and his British accent does not match his American singing one, the threat from the villain met by defense from the heroine's father seems somehow abrupt so forced, and, after several years have passed and the present story begins, the same problem is noted for every character when his or her singing voice precedes or follows dialog, only to contrast it sharply. Any thoughts that Kayley will make a decent heroine go out the window when she proclaims she wishes not to work on her family's farm and eventually marry but become a knight rescuing damsels in distress...but does not know what a "damsel" is. The villain Ruber, who killed Kayley's father all those years ago, manages to send a griffin to steal Excalibur but it's lost in flight, and barges into her family's home ordering the family of Arthur's late friend escort him to Camelot, threatening Kayley as a hostage. He has a potion which turns living beings into machine-appendage-bearing evil versions of themselves (including the chicken who never spoke but was obviously a misfit among his kind before this), which is just foolish; it's always stupid when the villain proclaims they're evil. Kayley manages to escape the monsters into an enchanted forest so she can warn Arthur, but is unfamiliar with the dangers so is rescued by a blind man named Garrett who lives there so knows how to deal with them. I was legally blind so was pleased to see both a heroine and a blind hero. There's just one problem...they're both unlikable. Garrett, who has unknowingly fallen in with Merlin's pet falcon who can further help him sense things, is introduced as a rude, cold, self-pitying man, while Kayley continues to be a foolish, sometimes even complaining person who is of no help, rescuing Garrett once - after her whining to him results in his being unable to hear enemies' approach in time to prevent his getting shot. Garrett does grow on me since he proves capable, justifiably frustrated by her and the annoying two-headed, misfit, peaceful dragon they encounter along the way. I really though I'd enjoy these characters - even the dragon seemed humorous in ads, but after seeing the movie I felt sure the actors had wasted their talents, especially the big names (Don Rickles and Eric Idle as the dragon). The only characters that have any dignity are, thankfully, Arthur and Merlin...but, sadly, they have next to no screen-time. There are a few good scenes here, but they're all so brief that they aren't worth seeing the movie for: Garrett revealing he knew Kayley's father and the relationship they had that gave him hope after he tragically lost his sight, Merlin encouraging an injured Arthur to have faith in his people in the mission he couldn't go out, the otherwise pointless and annoying talking chicken tentatively asking whether dragon a la king is better than a famous recipe similar to that, the humorous wild ride of Garrett being forced to drive a carriage. Other than these, I would recommend this movie to no one. Though the songs do seem to have purposes, they're undermined by characters pointing out afterward they wish to have no more singing, and except for the actors who do their own singing, the voices are grossly unmatched. The scene ending the climax was baffling, particularly how one person did not get required help as everyone else seemed to, and I rolled my eyes when one person got a reward for a job NOT well done. I was surprised when I learned what book they based it off of, and realize it must have been difficultfor them to take ideas for such a dark plot and turn them into a kids' movie. But they certainly succeeded in taking its bare bones of a heroine and a blind hero in Arthurian times and making an animated movie out of it...if only it made sense or was funny instead of never taking itself seriously. My advice: just listen to the soundtrack where the songs are quite good on their own without contradictions by the writers or the singing characters' actors, and watch the first 5 minutes then imagine the film will proceed as you'd expect and wish.

This was one of the more interesting episodes of the New Twilight Zone that lasted a whole half hour, but especially since this was an original work. Imagine that you enter a bar with Ken Medema (oh, all right, if you don't know who he is, he's a blind inspirationalist singer/pianist who's a genius at improvising songs based on stories heard on the spot since 1973) performing on his instrument, when he suddenly plays a song that accurately describes your relationship at home - not just generally, but to every detail. If you're wondering what to do to reconcile with your other half, he'll run through the myriad of possibilities you've already examined. If you're unsure how to gently say the relationship is at a standstill and you desperately want out, he'll go through what you've considered saying but will also mention the reasons you can't say them, how long you've been together. And, if like Jack Haines (Ben Murphy), you've overheard a phone conversation and arrive intending to shoot the man your wife is meeting, the night's blind guitarist will sing a song to his wife (though he doesn't specify that) of a decade, saying he regrets the emotions he feels and choice he feels led to based on what he overheard on the telephone. After, he approaches Jack by name and asks him how he liked the song. Jack is even more bewildered when he explains that he knew specifically about Jack's situation and that was why he sang it, and desperately advises him to recant his decision. Jack encourages him to leave him and confront another, but the guitarist explains the reason he was called to the bar apparently was Jack - when he lost his eyesight, he gained the gift of realizing strong enough thoughts and also to become a skilled musician, partly for those people...which is why he knows nothing of Jack's wife or the man she'll meet, and not just because they haven't arrived yet. Jack doubts the man is blind, but snatching off the dark lenses he wears, he learns he is. This is a really amazing story, definitely memorable. The battle of wits between the two main characters is clever and well-done, the acting is great, and the last few scenes - the action scene which had an unexpected result which I won't spoil, the way the blind guitarist kept showing up, what was learned about Jack's best friend afterward, and the last ability the songs are revealed to hold was incredible. My congratulations to the writer on this gem. I wish there were more like it - in almost every way possible, it reminds me of what a title reading The Twilight Zone should contain.

This a good episode of The New Twilight Zone that actually includes interesting ideas and clever stories (I note both of them are based on short stories). "Examination Day" is set in the future, year unknown but at a point where they have cake candles that light themselves, huge TV-looking "phones" that double as numerous other entertaining machines and distributed only to those of a certain age...and the Examination Day, a point where 12-year-olds must undergo a government-required IQ test. The kid is this story, Dickie Jordan (David Mendenhall) is just celebrating his own 12th birthday and is a smart kid, so is calm, even eager to take the test that he has seen friends pass easily and knows he will excel at based on his school grades. His parents (Christopher Allport and Elizabeth Norment), on the other hand, say he shouldn't have used his birthday wish on getting a good score, and while their reason includes that they believe he's capable and he should have no need to worry, it's pretty obvious they are worried. I won't give anything away in the ending, but I will say this - there's a point where we get a glimpse of what's to come as far ass why the test is such a heavy subject: that evening (or another?) his parents ask Dickie whether he'd prefer to watch TV all night. By today's standards, we'd be pleased he'd say he'd rather read and not just because there's nothing worth watching...but why would his family ask this? The flavor of what's encouraged and discouraged in the future reminded me a bit of the atmosphere from Harrison Bergenon (which I hear hasn't received a great adaptation to the screen). I only wish they could've provided an opening and closing narration to make this theme as powerful as The Obsolete Man was. I found it to be better than the short story it was based on. I haven't read the one that "A Message from Charity" was based on, but would like to since it was interesting - a 16-year-ld boy, Peter (Robert Duncan McNeill) is suffering a fever from unclean water, that has always been common in his Massachusetts hometown...but he is able to see through the eyes of a young Puritan woman suffering the same type of fever, Charity Payne, (Kerry Noonann) who also finds herself able to experience what goes on around him. They both recover, especially since it's common for that to happen in 1985, but the connection doesn't go away. Charity is curious about the sights and sounds she records of 1985 and they each enjoy each other's company, especially Peter, who has promoted grades in school enough to always have felt isolated from other students, even at the college he's been staying in one place at. Things take an unexpected turn, though, when Charity reveals some of these experiences to a friend who take her claims that the 13 colonies will breach from England as a sign of bewitchment, added to the fact that she was spared death from the fever (not so common in 1700). The two try to learn a way to save her. The ending is sad but has an interesting final moment that makes it touching. Both segments of this episode include a lot of pain but both times, through a lesson/warning that sounds like something Rod Sterling would've cooked up and entertainment, make cheerful watching as reminders that friendship, love, and wisdom do a great deal. Probably 3/4 of this has no theme, but somehow I think it all would have been approved by Sterling's crew.