Username Password Remember me Forgot password?

Wanna join? Sign up

Find movies you'll love

CinemaRian Blog

The Jungle Book (1967, USA, Wolfgang Reitherman) **

1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]

Under discussion:

The Jungle Book (1967)

he Jungle Book will always hold a special place in my cinematic heart, as it's the first movie I ever saw in a theatre. Not on its original run, of course, but during a 1990 re-release, when I was six years old. I hadn't seen the movie since then and its remarkable how much of that early experience came back. I guess I have thing for remembering movies I see.

What I remember most about the movie was how I got creeped out by the python, Kaa (voice of Sterling Halloway). The snake has the ability to hypnotize anyone who looks into its eyes, and I was more frightened that the young protagonist, Mowgli (Bruce Reitherman) would forever fall asleep under his influence than be mauled to death by the movie's real antagonist, the tiger Shere Kahn (George Sanders). Not that I wasn't a little disturbed by Shere Kahn as well, but I remember congratulating myself for not getting too scared and running out of the theatre.

Had you asked me immediately after I saw the movie in 1990, I surely would have given The Jungle Book four stars (if I knew what a star rating was back then, of course). But it is a good movie if you're not six years old?

Well, maybe it's good at seven, eight, or nine, but beyond that the picture has limited value. For those who don't know, it's based on a series of short stories by super racist Rudyard Kipling about the feral child Mowgli, who is raised by wolves in the jungles of India. The wise panther Bagheera (Sebastian Cabot), recognizes that Mowgli must leave the jungle and return to his fellow humans if he is to escape the wrath of Shere Kahn, and he sets out with the boy on the journey to the man village.

The setup to the movie is quite well done. There is a real sense of really being the jungle at the character and animation is also strong. It seems the Ralph Bakshi was paying close attention here. But after awile the movie becomes essentially a road film, with one episode after another. The "star" of the film is supposed to be Baloo the bear (Phil Harris), but the character is just annoying. Once the movie abandoned its somewhat serious, naturalistic tone (reminiscent of Bambi) it has a lot of kid stuff in it, which gets grating, long with Baloo, pretty fast.

Okay, okay, it's a kids movie, but all of the great Disney films, from Pinocchio to Aladdin are great because they can be enjoyed by people of all ages. The Jungle Book is definitely not in the above films league. Although the animation is excellent, the characters are poorly written, the structure lazy, the songs forgettable. Unless you were me at six, and you just can't get that snake out of your head.

The Jungle Book (1967)

Posted Sunday, July 13, 2008 1:15 AM by CinemaRian | with 1 comments

Cria Cuervos (1975, Spain, Carlos Saura) ****

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Cria Cuervos (1975)

Awhile ago I reviewed an Iranian movie called Children of Heaven, and praised it because I felt it was one of the very few films that I had seen that really captured what it was like to be a child. Raise Ravens, a translation of the Spanish title Cria Cuervos, is a similar achievement, but more impressive and moving. More impressive because it evokes like no other film what it's like to be a very young child, and more moving because of the main character.

The protagonist of the picture is seven year old Ana (Ana Torent, from The Spirit of the Beehive). She is the middle of three sisters, and her father (Juan Sánchez Almendros)

an officer in Franco's army, has recently died of a heart attack. Her mother (Geraldine Chaplin) died of unexplained (at least, we are never told) earlier that year. Ana is from an aristocratic family, so she remains in her huge house and she and her sisters are cared for by her aunt Paulina (Mónica Randall), who moves in. Raise Ravens is a film about psychology, character and memory. There is not much of a story, because there doesn't need to be. It is not concerned about Ana getting from place to another as it is by simply showing her mind works, as she deals with the loss.

By all accounts, she was not very close to her father, but she dearly loved her mother, and Ana's mom often addresses the camera, leading the audience to ask what exactly we are seeing. As one critic as pointed out, the monologues from her mother could be from a memory, a ghost, or a fantasy. It doesn't matter, as there are scenes between Torent and Chaplin of such naturalness that can only be described a genuine.

Another theme of the film is how children of that age respond to death. As director Saura has pointed out, "Ana does not know death- only absence." She cannot understand the metaphysical implications of what has taken place, she merely knows that her mother was with them one day and gone the next.

And then there are the scenes about how children respond to a situation because they cannot understand the real ramifications. Ana hates her aunt because she feels that she is trying to replace her mother, whereas we in the audince know she is a good hearted woman who is doing her best. There is also a truly stunning scene between Ana and her dying grandmother (Mirta Miller), a stroke victim who dearly wants to die herself. The young child, out of complete altruism, offers to help her kill herself. Raise Ravens is among the great psychological films of screen. I would compare it to the best work of Ingmar Bergman, and a little bit of the promise of Edgar Allen Poe.

Cria Cuervos (1975)

Posted Sunday, July 13, 2008 1:15 AM by CinemaRian | with 0 comments

UHF (1989, USA, Jay Levey)

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

UHF (1989)

UHF can be better refereed to be what everyone thinks of it as- the Weird Al Yankovic movie, just as Glitter is the Mariah Carey movie. From its concept the entire film would be built around the talents of Yankovic, but a funny thing happens- someone else becomes the real star of the film, outshining Yankovic, who in an even stranger bit of Hollywood humility seems to be okay with that.

Yankovic has been a constant presence in music since the early 80's. He's the sort of artist you forget about until he comes back, but he always does. Yankovic's real talent is that he always seems to understand the state of popular culture at the moment and adapt himself to demonstrate its excess- whether it be the star pop of the 80's, the grunge of the early 90's, or now, gangsta rap.

However, as UHF demonstrates, Yankovic is, unfortunately, a gifted comedian but not a very good actor or screenwriter. He's fine when he's by himself, but when he has to interact with other performers he comes off as amateurish and fake. His script, co-written with director Jay Levey, is essentially a series of gags strung together by a thin (and I mean really thin) plot line.

Yankovic is always likeable- his persona is a geeky but nice guy and he's impossible not to like, but his character, George Newman, is so passive that's its hard to get caught up in his campaign to save his uncle's TV station, which is being threatened by the tycoon R. J. Fletcher (Kevin McCarthy).

The real star of the film is a pre-Kramer Michael Richards as Stanley Spadowski, a mentally challenged janitor who becomes a surprise sensation as the host of kid's show on the network. Richard's is funny every time he appears on screen and the humor of his character is pretty subversive. He has no idea what he's doing and, in one of his many funny bits, agrees to host the show only if he can continue as the custodian of the station, because he really loves mopping. Richards overshadows Yankovic in almost every scene that they share, and oddly, the star is impressivley humble enough to give the spotlight to someone else. The second half of the movie is dominated by Richards that at the end its kind of surprising that George has a significant role to play in the climax.

The movie has an endearing cheap look and lowbrow charm to it. There are long stretches where there are no laughs, which will suddenly be interrupted by truly hilarious scenes. UHF is a minor effort, but is amusing enough for a recommendation.

UHF (1989)

Posted Sunday, July 13, 2008 1:13 AM by CinemaRian | with 0 comments

Aria (1987, Various Countries and Directors) **

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Aria (1987)

Aria is a collection of ten short films by ten (mostly) major directors with one thing in common: they are all set to music from great opera. Despite the title, not all of the selections are arias. Because the specific titles of the shorts are not revealed until the end credits, I am going to identify them by director.

Nicholas Roeg, set to the music from Verdi's Un Ballo in Maschera: I am not a fan of Roeg's film, finding them all to be far too slowly paced, but this is probably his best work. It recounts the real-life an assassination attempt on the King of Albania in 1931. The picture looks very good, although the music doesn't totally fit with the subject matter.

Charles Sturridge, set to the music from Verdi's La Forza del Destino: Sturridge is the least well known director of the group. IMDB informs me most of his work is in British television, but he turns what it probably the best film of the set. Shot in black and white, this film recounts a group of kids who steal their parents car for a joyride. The end of the film is somewhat pointless, but the looks really great.

Jean-Luc Goddard, set to the music from Lully's Armide: I have to admit that either I didn't get this one or its just really stupid. Two hunky bodybuilders work out while two women take their clothes off and wipe the sweat off them. If it's supposed to be funny, it's not, and if it's a metaphor, I didn't get it. It almost like high class porn.

Julian Temple, set to the music of Verdi's Rigoletto: I guess Verdi is popular with this group of filmmakers. Temple's is the only film of the set that any substantive dialogue, and the opera is mostly used as background music. It tells the comic story of a husband and wife who cheat on each others, taking their lovers to the same place without realizing it. It's not that funny.

Bruce Beresford, set to the music of Korngold's Die Tote Stadt: Beresford's film is the shortest of the collection and one of the best. It's also the only one where the characters themselves actually sing. A man and a woman (Peter Birch and Elizabeth Hurley) sing to each other and have sex in 19^th century Belgium, but unlike the Goddard film it's quite tastefully done and beautifully shot. Some of lip synching is pretty bad, though.

Robert Altman, set to the music of Rameau's Abaris ou les Boréades: Altman's film is clearly visually influenced by Milos Foreman's Amadeus, but doesn't have much on that great picture. It recounts an opening night of the Rameau's opera in which upper class society has allowed inmates from an insane asylum to attend the opera. The inmates do "funny" stuff. Aside from the unfunny comedy, it's one of the least Altman-esq of all of the directors films and is among the most forgettable.

Franc Roddam, set to the music of Wagner's Tristan and Isolde: Two lovers (played by Bridget Fonda and James Mathers) drive through Vegas and then have sex in a hotel room. There is a surprise ending that comes out of nowhere. The short looks nice but is pointless.

Ken Russell, set to the music of Puccini's Turandot: Like Roeg, Russell is another filmmaker I am not a fan of, but this is one of his least annoying films, a series of dreamlike images, apparently about a rich woman who gets into a car crash. It's not successful a whole but some of his images are striking and the idea is a good one.

Derek Jarman, set to the music of Charpentier's Louise: Like Russell's film, the idea is better than the execution. Although the picture is abstract, I think it's about an old woman remembering when she was young (the young version is played by Tilda Swinton). Some of the visual are nice but it doesn't add up to much.

Bill Bryden, set to the music of Leoncavallo's I Pagliacci: Like Sturridge, Bryden was a relative unknown in the film world, and is known primarily for his stage direction (Aria was his first film and he's done only three more). John Hurt plays an actor who serenades a woman with the iconic aria from Pagliacci (the one with the clown) and then dies on stage. The lip synching is off and, like so many other films in the collection, the short is pointless.

Although a few of the films are moderately good (Sturridge's and Beresford's are the best) none of these are brilliant, must see pictures, and ultimately the sum of Aria doesn't add up to much. An added problem is that the opera lyrics (which are in Italian, French or German) are unsubtitled, meaning that we miss the significance of what is actually being sung. Like so many anthology films that bring together great talent, Aria is a disappointment.

Aria (1987)

Posted Sunday, July 13, 2008 1:12 AM by CinemaRian | with 0 comments

The Outsiders- The Complete Novel (1983, USA, Francis Ford Coppola) ****

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

The Outsiders (1983)

The Outsiders (1983)

The Outsiders has always been a strange anomaly in the career of Francis Ford Coppola. Shot on a low budget in an attempt by Coppola to make some quick cash after his financially disastrous megaflop One From the Heart, the movie always seemed strangely conflicted in its tone, and its supporting characters. The movie has a lot of supporting roles, but some of them seem to serve no purpose. Also, much of the film seemed to be payoff without set-up. You kind of sensed what was going on but didn't get the significance of it. Nevertheless, the movie was indeed a financial success and, like the novel by S.E. Hinton it's based on, became a staple the cinematic diet of teenagers. I was required to watch it in four different classes in junior high and high school.

Twenty five years after its release, Coppola has prepared a new version of the film with some major changes, and I have to say that, yes, this is one of the director's great works. Unlike the many numerous recuts of some films (such as Close Encounters of the Third Kind) the changes are not trivial. First, Coppola has re-inserted twenty-two minuets of footage removed after a bad preview, and none of this it was extra padding. The movie is helped immensely by a very long prologue cut from the original that introduces the tone and major themes of the film. The new footage also helps a lot with Emilio Estevez's character, Two-Bit, who wandered in and out of scenes in the original, serving no real purpose. Here, he is given a lot to do as a basically decent alternative to Dallas (Matt Dillon), as an older counselor to the movie's young protagonist, Ponyboy (C. Thomas Howell). There's also a longer ending, with more loose ends tied up, and several scenes that elaborate on the character's relationships. Altogether, the new footage changes what the movie is: the first version was essentially a plot film about teenagers in a gang, the new movie is about what it's like being a young man at that age. I related to Ponyboy in a way I never did in the original version.

The other big change is the music. In the commentary track, Coppola admits that the original score, written by his father Carmine, was not appropriate for the film. The director recognized at the time, but did not alter it because he did not want to argue with his father. Carmine's music is fine on its own, but the melodramatic orchestral cues, like something out of a 40's Warner Brothers melodrama, were sorley out place in a move built around psychological realism. Aside from the Stevie Wonder song over the credits and one cue by Carmine at the very end, all of the orchestral music has been replaced by period songs from the era. As Coppola states, a greater sense of atmosphere is provided by hearing what the characters themselves would have listened to. He also accurately notes that his father's score essentially told the audience what to think about the action, whereas the song score is Kubrickian in its detachment. It's brilliant.

So the new The Outsiders is a must see movie- it's what it should have been in 1983. It's a great, profound and emotional film. Rent it now, you elitist Socs!

Posted Sunday, July 13, 2008 1:11 AM by CinemaRian | with 0 comments

The Happening (2008, USA, M. Night Shyamalan) *

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

The Happening (2008)

I'm sorry, I can't help myself: what happens in this movie is lame. The Happening is an improvement over The Village and Lady in the Water, but I think we can all understand that's damningly faint praise. M. Night Shyamalan was once a director of promise, but all of his films, even his good ones, all suffer from the same flaw- they all are a lot dumber than they think they are.

Even his best film, Signs, is built around a premise that doesn't stand up to serious thought- as many have pointed out, why would aliens who can be killed by water choose to invade a planet that 2/3 water? And if they did, wouldn't they begin their conquest in the desert, not in Pennsylvania, where it rains a lot?

The director is best at establishing an eerie mood and tone to his films, which is often shattered when the characters begin to open their mouths, because his characterization and dialogue suck too (except in Signs, where it was okay). Really, Shyamalan would be a great director for the silent era, where his tone would not be interrupted by his dumb-ass ideas.

You can stop reading now if you want to don't want to know what The Happening is before you see the movie. Okay? The Happening is that people, beginning in New York's Central Park, begin to spontaneously commit suicide. New York City is evacuated, and high school science teacher Elliot Moore (Mark Walhberg) leaves with his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel). The two are having marital problems, as a guy named Joey (M. Night himself) keeps calling her. Their train hit's the end of the road in Pennsylvania, because the conductor has lost contact with everyone their, as its Happening their too. Elliot's friend Julian (John Leguizamo) leaves his daughter Jess (Ashyln Sanchez) to meet up with his wife in New Jersey. The Happening catches up with the group of travelers just Eliot figures out what's going on and I am not making this up. plants and trees are revolting against the environmental damage caused by humans, so their release a spore that causes people to kill themselves. Now, I am not a botanist, but I don't think it works like that.

The plants are set off by large groups of people, which why it stars in big cities. But, wait a minute, wouldn't you want to go to places where there were fewer plants, and therefore, fewer spores? Instead heading to rural areas everyone does, shouldn't they be going to the top of the Empire State Building?

Needless to say, Shyamalan didn't consider issues like that when writing this film. He also didn't consider that the hackneyed reconnection between husband and wife has been told a million times in films like this. He also didn't think that plants and tree's really aren't that scary, and the scenes of people killing themselves in ingenious way are more unintentionally funny. After you see a guy whose arms are chewed off by lions, another guy who lays in front of a riding lawnmower, and a woman who forces her face through a glass window (that had to be pretty weak glass) we get desensitized pretty quickly.

What I really wanted was a climax where Marky-Mark gets chased by Ent-like Sequoias, set to the music of Rush's "The Trees". Hey, it's as stupid as everything else.

The Happening (2008)

Posted Sunday, July 13, 2008 1:10 AM by CinemaRian | with 0 comments