Vampire Cage Match - Vote Now
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

Reel Thoughts

  • New Years Eve Movie Marathon: Not My Favorite Adaptation

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

    Peter Pan  (2003)

    I had never seen this version of Peter Pan, but since I just finished a five week run of the musical as assistant stage manager at the Grand Rapids Civic Theater, this seemed like a fitting cap to my movie marathon.  My expectations going into this film were probably higher than they should have been, and I blame that largely on my sister.  Somewhere along the line, she decided that she was a Peter Pan aficionado and believes that this version is the most accurate film retelling of J.M. Barrie's original story than any other.  She has quite a bit to say on the subject; to my chagrin, she's lambasted Hook in the past for being inaccurate, though, as I try to tell her, it can't possibly be labeled accurate or inaccurate since it is an imaginative study into what Peter Pan might be like if he grew up, a story that has not been written by Barrie or anyone else.  Yet, she praised this film highly, so I thought I would give it a look.

    I'm sorry to say that I was a bit disappointed by it.  It does draw scenes from the original story almost to a tee, but it took a lot of artistic license with it too, adding characters and creating scenes that never occurred in the book.  The dialogue was distilled to nothingness too.  I'm also not impressed with the performances, the worst one of which was offered by the boy playing Peter Pan.  He had a charming boyish face that conveyed mischevious expressions nicely, but his line delivery was poor.  Nor was I particularly impressed with John, Michael, or the Lost Boys.

    I was also not particularly impressed with Jason Isaacs' turn as Hook, though he had probably the best performance of the movie.  He just wasn't as menacing as I'd hoped he be, particularly since I've seen him as Lucius Malfoy and know he has the capability.

    What I will say for this movie is that it was visually stunning, thanks to some clever CGI renderings.  The flying looked fake, but the faeries were pretty, and the crocodile was a scary looking beast.

    I also liked Wendy; I thought she did a fine job.  As did Smee.  And James Newton Howard is rapidly becoming one of my favorite composers, for the score to this movie was wonderful.  Incidentally, he also scored Lady in the Water, the first movie in the marathon, and that score was impressive as well.

    Ultimately, though, I felt this movie was built up to a point where it did not meet my expectations.  Maybe it is the most accurate telling in film, but it still is not all that accurate.  In ratings, I'd have to give it a 6 for cute, because it was cute, and I was entertained, but it was a bit beyond shaky with all of the flaws I listed above.  Does it pass the test?  Unlikely.  I didn't like it enough to buy it, no matter how much I love Peter Pan.  I think I still prefer Hook because the performances were better, and the spirit was so clearly there. 

    I think that was the biggest flaw of all, in fact.  This movie seemed to focus on Peter Pan being alone rather than on the innocence of childhood and not wanting to grow up.  I mean, those latter emotions were there, but they seemed downplayed.  I don't know.  I just wasn't as impressed as I'd hoped to be; the movie was all in all a letdown.


  • New Years Eve Movie Marathon: Slow But Satisfying

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

    Key Largo  (1948)

    The second film I watched in my movie marathon was Key Largo, a Bogey/Bacall picture.  My mom got one of those collections of old movie stars/couples for Christmas, namely Bogey/Bacall.  I asked to watch one of these films, and she handed me this one.  She calls it a "hoot."

    I don't know if I would call it a hoot.  This picture is classic 40s noir, a drama with dark undercurrents.  I don't know if I altogether liked it.  The plot is simple.  Bogey plays a veteran named Frank McCloud who fought in the war with George, the husband of Nora (Bacall) and the son of Mr. Temple, played by Lionel Barrymore, who own a hotel in Key Largo.  Key Largo is one of the Florida keys.  He passes through looking for his purpose in life and giving these two details of George's heroic death, a heroism that he seems to want to aspire to but can't quite believe is possible for himself.  In the meantime, he discovers that a group of mobsters have taken over the hotel in anticipation of a shipment of counterfeit money.  The mobsters, including the exiled Johnny Rocco (Edward G. Robinson), are a mere nuisance at first until Key Largo is besieged by a hurricane.  All are marooned together, and tempers flare.

    I think first off, I missed any witty repartee between Bogey and Bacall.  This was strictly a drama without romance.  There were shared looks that sizzled but none of those crackling one-liner exchanges that characterized some of the other flicks.

    Claire Trevor won an Oscar for her supporting turn as Gaye, Rocco's booze-hound of a girlfriend.  She was easily my favorite part because her obsession with alcohol and drunken remarks provided the comic relief.

    Ultimately, this was a story about purpose and self-forgiveness, which oddly paralleled the previous movie I'd seen.  The trouble is, this story unfolded very slowly, and some of the scenes were highly verbose.  Rocco had lots of big speeches to make, and he seemed to have more lines than any other character. 

    This film was also about heroism and making a difference, even when you think you're in whatever it is for purely selfish reasons.  To that end, Frank has his day, so I felt satisfied at the end.  It took a long time to get there, though, and used quite a few speeches about the state of then-society to drive Frank's character to become involved.

    The film was pretty good, in the end, but it was not my favorite of the two stars nor was it my favorite noir nor was it a movie I could find myself watching again and again.  On the ratings scale, I give it an 8 for its minor flaws, but it does not pass the test.  I don't think I could watch it again, at least not unless it was part of a collection that I later purchased for myself, or that was given to me as a gift.  I would guess that the biggest allure of this movie, at the time anyway, was its tropical location.  I still rate The Big Sleep as my favorite of Bogey and Bacall.


  • New Years Eve Movie Marathon: Better Than Expected

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

    I finally saw this movie, the first of three films watched for my NYE movie marathon.  Hey, sometimes the ball dropping and the champagne and the socializing doesn't sit well with me.  I'm not one for the tradition of ringing in a new year (particularly when I didn't much care for the last one), so I made the best of it by watching three films I had never seen before.  Time well spent, I feel.

    Before I start talking about Lady in the Water, I would like to put out a couple of qualifiers.  First, I am a fan of M. Night Shyamalan and am proud to admit it.  He is one of my favorite directors.  I understand him and the way he thinks, which I've gleaned from his style of writing and the subjects he's explored in his films.  I appreciate that each and every one of his films is a many-layered, multi-textured study of the human condition and always more than it seems.  The Sixth Sense, for example, was as much about redemption and personal forgiveness as it was about a kid who sees dead people.  Unbreakable was as much about a man's quest to be comfortable in his own skin as it was about a man who is suddenly invulnerable.  Signs was as much about faith and belief as it was about an alien invasion.  The Village was as much about loss, coping, and the state of our society as it was about an archaic village haunted by fabricated monsters.  While some of Night's flicks are better than others, I like each in their own right.  This film was no exception.

    My second qualifier is that I was put off seeing this in the theater because the reviews seemed so universally bad.  Movie critics panned this movie almost across the board, and some lay people who saw it didn't get it and thought it was stupid.  So, even though I was still intrigued by the premise and sympathetic to the filmmaker, I was persuaded not to watch it at $8+ a pop.  As a result, my expectations were pretty low going in.

    While this is not Night's best film, it actually surpassed my expectations.  This fantasy myth was a departure for Night.  Sure, it had scary elements, such as fictional beasts called scrunts that reminded me an awful lot of the Gamork from the Neverending Story, but ultimately it was a modern fairy tale.  However, as with the films that precede it, Lady in the Water is about so much more a sea nymph called a narf who washes up in a tenement pool.  It's about purpose and living life, even if life deals you the worst.  It's about taking risks.  And it's about belief and faith as subtext.

    This movie was flawed.  First of all, apparently this film was based on a bedtime story that Night actually tells his children.  The originality of the story was a plus, but a minus was the disjointed unfolding of the plot.  We had to learn of the narf and her many helpers through this interesting Asian mother and daughter, and we learned it in pieces, awkwardly translated.  There were some comic relief moments, but it did not make sense that this mother guarded this fairy tale so closely.  It was the weakest plot point.

    Paul Giamatti was a gigantic plus (he is such a great actor and did well with this material), but I found it difficult to accept that he would believe so completely in the narf and all of the mythical elements so quickly.  I didn't understand how his grief led to glomming onto this fairy tale when no other evidence presented itself. 

    Night's role in this film, also, expanded.  Normally, he makes Hitchcock-like cameos in his film; this time, he had a full role and an important one at that.  For narfs only appear to particular humans, to guide them toward their true purpose.  Night played a writer whose words would lead to sweeping societal change.  It did smack a bit of ego if one were to read too far into it.  The plus was that he didn't overact.

    While these flaws are evident, I still enjoyed the movie for its spirit of hope and self-forgiveness and faith and common purpose and togetherness and personal triumph.  Bryce Dallas Howard is an excellent actress, and this was a good vehicle for her, as was the Village.  Bob Balaban had a hilarious supporting turn as a writer.  I ultimately understood the story and appreciated its message.

    Was it Night's best film?  No.  I think the critics and filmgoers might have been too harsh about it initially, though.  One thing you will always do upon watching a Night film is think.

    My rating: I'm giving a rare 7.5.  I don't think the film is shaky, but the flaws cannot be ignored, knocking it down a peg from very good.  It's somewhere in between; hence, the rating.  It passes the test, however.  I own all of Night's films and wouldn't mind owning this one and watching it again.  The pros far outweigh the cons in my opinion, and, frankly, I like the realistic feel of this fantasy.  I almost wish a narf would wash up near me.  Almost.


 


Advertisement