Change Your Image
geode
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again (2018)
Frothy, bubbly, and fun...
I had been hoping that this sequel would give Pierce Brosnan a chance to sing again. I was not disappointed, he does a nice rendition of part of "SOS"...a decade ago I was the only one I knew to defend Pierce's singing in the first movie, but his version of the same song is much better ten years later.
It is rare that a sequel lives up to an original movie, and even rarer that a sequel is actually better. This is superior in just about every way. Yes, I guess now that the term "prequel" is in common use, this movie is both a "sequel" and a "prequel" at the same time.
The director seems to have taken a leaf out of the philosophy of the principal character, Donna, and "thrown caution to the wind" allowing the whole thing to romp with exuberance that borders on becoming silly or a parody, but he keeps a firm hand guiding it so it never crosses that line. Instead it stays frothy, bubbly and fun. The "over the top" approach can be richly entertaining if it is defty held in control. Think of Johnny Depp in "Pirates of the Caribbean" or John Wayne in "True Grit" ...this works here.
Not only is the direction vastly superior to the first movie, so is the editing. This shows up splendidly in song sequences, with "One of Us" as a duet early in the film being a stunning standout. This is one of the lesser known gems in the ABBA song catalog.
It is better scripted than the original, with the songs integrated better with the plot. It seemed far less forced. OK, the "Waterloo" scene is a definite stretch, but once again the over the top approach to the number is enjoyable and entertaining. Having Richard Curtis onboard must have helped quite a bit, he is a master with comedic material that still has bite.
I knew that Meryl Streep was billed in the cast as well as Cher, and Cher appeared in the trailer, but as the movie neared its end neither had appeared. It was worth the wait. Cher does an excellent cover of "Fernando" with Andy Garcia, and Meryl a poignant duet with Amanda Seyfried, mother and daughter reaching the end of plot arcs that have paralled each other. Meryl's performance in the first movie was the only one she ever rendered with which I was disappointed, but she nails it here. I think the director of the first movie is at least partly responsible for the results on screen that didn't impress me. Phyllida Lloyd may have done a fine job with the stage production, but I didn't think she understood film very well.
Lily James has the largest part, and has a pleasing voice. If I have any critical comment about her it might be that she is a little too pretty to play the younger version of Meryl Streep's character Donna.
There is a beautifully large production number of "Super Trooper" under the credits at the end and there is a funny post-credits scene that virtually everyone in the audience saw, which is unusual. It takes skill to hold an audience to that point, especially these days.
This is what a musical is supposed to be like, something to lift the spirits.
About the only negative for me was not giving Christine Baranski a solo. I thought her scene with one in the first film was the best in that movie. I also would have let Pierce finish his song, he was doing just fine with it.
I have not yet read a word about this in reviews. I know people that tend to adore the first movie, and it will be interesting to hear what they think about it in a comparison. I can't be this wrong. There must be critics that also think this is an improvement on the first movie. But I have to admit that although I had expected to like the original, I was very disppointed in it as it did not meet expectations. This sequel exceeded them.
I recommend this one for those who like musicals. For those that do not like musicals this will probably not be your cup of tea and will seem mindlessly silly.
If you see it keep an eye out for Benny and Björn, the two male members of ABBA. They both have very quick cameos.
Jigeum mannareo gabmida (2018)
The Japanese Original is Superior in Every Regard
As with many other movies that are remade because the original worked so well, this remake fails to meet expectations. If I had encountered this Korean version first I most likely would have liked it better, but since this was not the case it was impossible to not do a comparison in my mind as I watched it and found it quite wanting. The Japanese version is superior in every regard, acting, direction, cinematography, and the writing.
Although several minutes longer than the original, this version has a simplified story line and really doesn't develop any secondary characters much except a new one, an over-the-top comic uncle. Actually, although there were a few comic moments in the original they came about naturally and were at times subtle. This was especially the case in the comparison of the accounts of the leading characters when they encountered each other at school. In this new one the comedy is anything but subtle and is at times essentially slapstick. The young Woo-jin character is made so much a clumsy nerd that in some scenes he belongs more in a Three Stooges comedy. In the original his social awkwardness stems more from his coping with illness. His illness is central to the plot, but with the exception of a moment or two in this new version, the illness seems barely present at all leaving motivations that drive decisions illogical and not natural.
The secondary characters such as the wise doctor, a caring co-worker, a baker, and the teacher at school all added considerable richness in the Japanese film that is sorely lacking in this one.
I am tempted to say that the director is inept, but I think perhaps it is more fair to say that his approach in this movie is awkward and lacking in style. He doesn't manage to introduce much depth to the story or characters so ultimately his version is far less touching than the original. A key scene at the end of the rainy season is now barely there, but was an emotional highlight in the Japanese film.
The characters are far more believable in the first film, the remake failing to come close in comparison. I think the actors, director, and screenwriter share blame for this. In particular I found Ye-jin Son's performance flat and not conveying the emotional core necessary to make her character's choices make sense and carry impact. I am tempted to think she was only cast because of her being cute and having a stunning figure.
The Japanese film took advantage of interesting location shooting, in a field of sunflowers and at a local festival. The cultural touches added richness and provided a nice backdrop to the scenes, adding visual interest as well. The Korean version is shot in a "matter of fact" style they could be in virtually any number of places.
In conclusion the original is far better nuanced, making it far more believable, involving, and touching. In watching this new one I found a tear or two coming to my eyes, but realized these were coming due to remembering the same scene in the original film, not the one I was watching.
For those who have not seen either movie I would suggest seeking out the Japanese version first. For those who liked the Korean version I strongly recommend watching the first version as it most likely will deliver what was liked in this one, but in an even greater measure.
This Is It (2009)
The concert would have been great
I hadn't really planned to see this show today, but a dental appointment was timed such that I ate lunch in a mall here in Bangkok and wandered by the multiplex upstairs after eating. The second showing of the day was to start in ten minutes, so I bought a ticket. There had been advance-booking for the last couple of weeks, with a chart showing the available seats for each show. A week ago the showings had two or three seats booked at best for any show. For the showing I attended there were twenty-five people in a five hundred seat house. I looked at a poster on my way in and realized this was the first day of release, so this was a disappointing turnout.
I don't know what material was available from the tapes of rehearsals, but the film as a whole is often a bit of a patch-work quilt, sometimes feeling somewhat like the pieces are a bit mismatched. In some numbers there are frequent cuts back and forth from at least three different occasions, as shown by Michael wearing different wardrobe. Also adding to this effect is the fact that some shots were captured in high-definition, others in standard video which are inter-cut for the same songs. The audio on the other hand is pretty seamless and of high quality throughout. Sometimes a song sequence is interrupted to show a behind the scenes conference on how to proceed. Many songs are not included in their entirety, apparently to allow for such background material to be included instead. Much of the show seemed like an extended "making of" extra to a main event.
Again, I do not know what material was available, but if most songs were recorded in their entirety, I think I would have preferred to see an attempt to show what the final concert would have been like, without so many interruptions. If I had directed it, I would have done a few minutes of the behind the show material first and then attempt a concert experience. For instance, there is a sequence done in B&W with MJ interacting in a crime movie facing a menacing Humphrey Bogart after watching Rita Hayworth sing. But this segment is interrupted multiple times with color shots done on stage, some with the associated song, some not. I was disappointed not to be able to see the way the B&W segment would have played in concert. I am guessing it would have been in one continuous piece.
As it is, I can see where the concert would have been a real treat. I worked as a stage hand for a Jackson Five concert over thirty-seven years ago, and it was well done but far less elaborate. Michael's voice and dancing still appeared to be in top form to me despite all the intervening years, and the set design and lighting was elaborate and effective. Perhaps the show was edited as it is to allow us to see him as a perfectionist at work, but someone who had rapport with his cast and crew. His interaction with the cute blonde lady guitarist is a high-light. He comes across as a normal, down to earth person, albeit one that is incredibly talented.
I felt a little sad at times while watching this show because he seemed so vital and fit that it is still hard to accept that he is gone. Perhaps he really could have played fifty play-dates in London without faltering. Considering how vigorous the numbers are, this would have been another great achievement for him.
Treasure Planet (2002)
My least favorite Disney animated film
A friend of mine actually was an animator that worked upon this film, and I went to see it hoping to like it even though the concept of adapting "Treasure Island" into a sci-fi motif worried me. What I was not expecting was to dislike almost everything in the production except some of the animation, and that I would elect it as my all-time least favorite Disney animated feature. I think it is obvious why most people wisely avoided this film (causing a rare write-down of profits by the studio).
Basically the film seemed to be pointless and rather boring. It sort of idles along and not much really ever happens. I felt myself squirming in my seat and pondering the dumb elements that simply don't work as I waited anxiously for the film to end. Using a tall-masted design for spaceships, where people can roam on the decks with no fear of breathing....having characters that are of different species becoming romantically involved...yuuch !
But then when it should have gotten better, towards the end, we are introduced to a Martin Short voiced character that is even more irritating and obnoxious than Jar Jar Binks. What in the world was the thinking behind the inclusion of this character ? A monster named Flatula that makes fart-like sounds ? Brilliant !
The sad thing is that the massive losses from releasing this over-priced production led to Disney killing all plans for 2D animation. Using 2D animation is not the problem here, it is the rather ill-advised concept and the awful script that was used.
Roy Orbison and Friends: A Black and White Night (1988)
Would have been even better with the sound in sync...
This is a great concert with the uniquely great Roy Orbison near the end of his life and career. I like the atmosphere that the Black & White filming gives this compared to the usual video look. I love the guest stars playing and singing with Roy. But the DVD copy I have feels surrealistic, for the audio is way out of sync. I bought this in Bangkok, and since nobody else has mentioned this problem, I hope that it is confined to copies sold in Asia. You watch Roy's lips finish whole worlds before the audio is there...the hands are completely free of guitars when a chord is finally heard.
I have encountered this sort of thing before, the signature laserdisc of "Jason and the Argonauts" had audio way out of sync also, and you would think this would have caught before release.....but then the DVD came out with the same problem years later. I fear that all versions of this DVD are also the same......anybody else notice this ?
Edit: OK, here it is six years after I left some comments and I find that 8 out of 9 people have dumped on what I wrote. I would guess the problem these people had was my mention of a technical glitch in the audio synchronization with my copy. It is really bad, and this is a legitimate copy. I thought this was a relevant warning for people to watch out for, but I guess not considering the response. Pardon me for trying to help.
China: The Panda Adventure (2001)
Enjoyable, well-photographed film
I found this film moving and enjoyable, more than some of the more "documentary" style IMAX films. In the late 80's I saw an OMNIMAX film in celebration of Singapore's 25th anniversary as a nation. Parts of it were done in a narrative style, with a scene of the Japanese invasion of the island in WW II particularly immediate, perhaps being as realistic and "involving" as any scene I have ever seen in a war movie. It felt as if the invading soldiers were all around me, and I could almost feel real danger. I have longed for more films that had actual characters interacting with each other using dialogue ever since, done in the more traditional style instead of a documentary style with only narration.
"Wings of Courage" impressed me by using real actors, a notable director, and a standard dramatic approach to a story with real conflict. I found the same to be true with "China: The Panda Adventure" which has a plucky heroine, Ruth Harkness (Maria Bello, who is especially good) a stalwart and loyal hero, Quentin Young, and a plot and story line developed with fabulous vistas of China as a backdrop. The acting was overall quite good in my opinion. The usual goals of an IMAX film were met, to transport the viewer to places not often seen, and to do so with the incredible sharpness the format brings to a giant screen. Heck, the 2-D films almost look three-dimensional with all the apparent depth this format affords even without 3-D. There is still the tendency to compromise between a huge screen film to show scenic wonders, and a real drama with realistic interplay. The film does not always succeed with the later.
One user has made some harsh comments, such as that it has "awkward, wavy camera movements and the blurry, distorted projection", that it made me wonder if we were seeing the same film. I fear that he saw this in a theater that was improperly set up, or with the equipment out of order, for I did not see anything even remotely fitting his description. A key word here probably is "blurry", for a properly projected IMAX film will never deserve that comment. I also have to wonder if he was stuck in the first row or two, the only situation where "distorted" could apply, the back few rows are by far the best seats.
***** WARNING, POSSIBLE SPOILERS IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH ********
The same viewer complaining about the technical aspects of the film was also critical of the scripting of the film. I don't think he was paying enough attention for the heroine is seen transporting only one panda out of China, and we do not see it locked in a "tiny cage", in fact we only see this baby panda in an open basket or in her own arms. Also, if one is following the plot, this panda was orphaned by the hunter, Dakar Johnston, and in terms of the problem usually present with this situation, it would have been left to die, whether in its own habitat or not, if not rescued by the heroine, Ruth Harkness. Additionally, the pandas were not considered an endangered species in 1936, the year in which the film is set. Perhaps this is the main point of the film, as narration over the end credits explains that by taking the panda to America, these creatures became better known to the entire world and ultimately protected. It is also explained that even "the bad hunter", Johnston, learns the error of his ways and stops hunting the pandas as a result. Do you really think The World Wildlife Fund would be in favor of a tale showing panda poaching as heroic ? Well, they are a co-producer of the film and I would guess also had a part in writing.
I found the cinematography to be generally gorgeous, with the lighting in the night scenes at the beginning especially interesting. It helped invoke the period in which the film was set (mid-30's). As usual, the exteriors with rushing river rapids and towering mist-shrouded peaks show the advantages of shooting such scenes in IMAX. Why is it that only in IMAX films do we actually hear dialogue with directionality, instead of the typical stage-center approach used now in almost all features ? In the 50's and 60's it was standard practice to pan the characters voices to place them in the proper place in the scene. This IMAX film uses this approach, even placing a voice in the right rear surround speakers when the character is placed there.
On the negative side, because this is a short film the characters do tend to be a bit stereotypical, without complete development. Perhaps Johnston ("the hard-hearted hunter") being the character in which this aspect is most noticeable.
The Truth About Charlie (2002)
This makes the dogs sit up and say "bow wow" !!!
Fortunately I saw this pathetic production as free inflight "entertainment" and none of my money will go as a "vote" towards any sort of approval. Forget comparisons to the delightful "Charade", this film would be a total dud even if it had been released as a brand new entry. The word inept can be applied to almost every aspect. The script is so muddled that it is hard to really know what is going on at times, and boring when the plot does emerge. The acting generally matches the script, and the direction is worse. Intrusive and obnoxious camera moves are everywhere, and make it impossible to enjoy any of the location shooting. The "stars" have absolutely no "star power" or charisma, so why show their inadequacies in so many tight close-ups ? The choice of Mark Wahlburg is the worst miscast since Sofia Coppola in The Godfather Part III. Tim Robbin's amateurish imitation of Walter Matthau's speech inflections is at least an attempt at a performance, but laughable if meant to be taken seriously. It comes off like a Saturday Night Live parody. The music is completely forgettable and does nothing to supplement the film. I have never missed Henry Mancini more than while watching this mess of sight and sound.
And be honest, how many movies slither to such an anti-climatic climax as this one does ? ...with the added irony that this is a re-make of a film with one of the better endings in film history ?
"Charade" is a film that works on every level, this film does not work at all. It is interesting that the same plot could yield such vastly different results. I give it 1 out of 10, only because there is no "zero" option. This is one of the 100 worst films I have ever seen.
This film makes the dogs sit up and say "bow wow"...
Never a Bride (1969)
Credibility Gap
Even though religion is not mentioned, this LDS film shows all the earmarks of the philosophy present among Mormon Church and Brigham Young University leaders at the time of its production. The contrast of the pretty, but misguided leading character with her frumpy cousin with a heart of gold points out a good moral lesson, but lacks credibility.
Although not identified as such, our "pert" protagonist seems to have all the characteristics of a Brigham Young University coed, and one of these would have been very unlikely to find a guy who is essentially a "stable hand" at a dude ranch to be much of a catch (even if he was kinda cute). She is after all seeking to find fulfillment through marriage, and the selection of her cousin's under-achieving boyfriend would not fit in with the avaricious nature typical of such coeds of that era (possibly still the case 34 years later ?). Unfortunately this is my generation, and typically the focus of BYU women was on what major a guy was studying and its future earning potential, and when he would be ready to graduate and start making some big bucks. The gates of the university read "Enter to learn / Go forth to serve" but many translated this with the more typical attitude of the students, "Enter to learn / Go forth to earn"...
And what of the corresponding BYU males ? Well, they would say that having a wife with a "sweet spirit" was great, but why marry one with a "condemned tabernacle"....so much for the cousin's chance of prevailing, considering her looks.
But then again maybe these were "normal" people and not like the actors of this film....BYU coeds.
Snoopy Come Home (1972)
Another Part of the Charles M. Schultz Legacy
I was a 21 year old working as a projectionist in a neighborhood theater when this film was released and I had the opportunity to help get it up on the screen. This seemed like such a nice and enjoyable gem back then, with some scenes as breezy as a summer's day and others with a somewhat darker but thoughtful tone (themes of rejection and the sadness of separation). It was an early " buddy movie" shown pointedly in the cross-country journey that Snoopy takes with Woodstock. Some scenes are reminiscent of a Hope and Crosby "road" picture. There is a delightful song sung by Shelby Flint in the film....she would later sing another in the first rate animated film, The Rescuers. I actually tracked down a couple of her albums as a result. I don't have children, but I still think this is a delightful film and I have my own personal video copy. Good for all ages.