Reviews

"The Black Cauldron" certainly doesn't fall into the genre of animated Disney family favorite, but instead feels much like the more grim and complicated fantasy films that were made in the eighties. Does it stack up to such films as "Return To Oz" and "The Dark Crystal"? Well, although not as complex as the aformentioned, this film is not without its charm.

The story of Taran, the pig-keeper's journey from gawky boy to gawky boy-hero apparently works better as told through the course of five books, and indeed it is the plot that feels put together, with a lot cut out of it for it's slim 1:20 running time. Also suffering because of the short time is any character development, or a reason why the charcter of Dallben (an old minstrel) are in the film at all. However, this film still has a lot going for it.

The film has a wonderful pacing to it with some fantastic action scenes. It is adventurous and fun. An engaing film for any fantasy fan. What really makes the film though is it's terrifying and dastardly villain, The Horned King. He is basically a Skeletor knock off with absolutely no sense of humor. He looks like he stepped right out of an Iron Maden album cover, and that is a monumental good thing. The true threat felt by the presence of this decidedly un-Disney character keeps the tension of the film high.

It is this contrast, between the unconventionally ghoulish villans (definatly enspirered by Bakshi's animated adaptation of "Lord of the Rings") and the stock Disney characters makes the audience care more-so for the cutesy characters than usual. This is especially true for the cutsey character of Gurgi, who is much more tollerable than almost all other Disney sidekicks and especially more tollerable than a certain J*r J*r B*nks that we have all been over exposed to lately.

So I would recommend "The Black Cauldron", it's a fun and well animated adventure film. Compleatly scary and strange for Disney to make, but still very very good for other reasons nonetheless.

Woody Allen's film The Purple Rose of Cairo is a highly entertaining film that plays with its established reality in a way that is highly engaging.

Mia Farrow's portrayal of Celia is the actress at her best. She is vulnerable and engaging: a perfect heroine for this kind of story. Jeff Daniels balances the two roles he plays well, the contrast between the innocent and naive Tom Baxter and the multifaceted Gil Shepherd is interesting. The reality that Woody Allen plays with is surprisingly believable. The denizens of Hollywood react in a way that is realistic to their creations coming to life: they try to cover their tracks. Allen doesn't attempt to wrap his conclusion up either. The ending is appropriately ambiguous. It finishes with the line between fiction and reality clearly, upsettingly stated.

All of these assets are not what makes The Purple Rose of Cairo such a triumph. What does is Allen's sociological analysis of the state of the United States during the Depression. His creation of the film within a film "The Purple Rose of Cairo" is meticulously planned. He has created an alternate universe that is at a sharp contrast with the actual conditions of the United States during the thirties. All the characters in this fake film are incredibly affluent. They can afford glamorous globetrotting escapades. The Hollywood piece is completely unrepresentative of the hardships of the American people. It is pure escapism. Not many films have been made that are about the way that entertainment affected the Americans living during Great Depression, but (like Celia in the film) many people's only escape from the drudgery of their lives was through their entertainment. Woody Allen makes this statement in such an accessible and digestible film; he is opening up the eyes of the average movie patron to Allen's message relaying the power of film to change ordinary people's lives. Celia is influenced to take control of her own destiny after she is treated humanely by Tom. She realizes that she does not have to be in her negative relationship with the awful Monk. Although Allen makes this point in an extreme fashion by creating a fantastical situation for Celia to grow and interact in, the message he is emoting is very down to earth.

The other extraordinary topic that Allen brings up in his film is the relationship between the artist and their creations. Gil Shepherd is not a bad person, just thrust into incredibly abnormal circumstances. His attempt to get his character that he created back into the film brings him closer to Celia in the process and a love triangle ensues. Metaphorically, Allen is simply relating a problem that many artists (including, probably himself) have faced. This is the problem of admires and potential suitors mistaking the artist for the character they have created. Often, Allen has been mistaken with the strong onscreen persona that has been created. His "Little Schlemiel" may be more appealing to women than Allen himself. This is also the problem that Gil Shepherd faces. Celia in one scene states "I just met a man wonderful new man. He's fictional but you can't have everything." She clearly likes the fictional Tom better than the real Gil. Allen asks: "Do all of Tom's best qualities actually stem from Gil's portrayal of him?" It also makes us ask questions about what we actually admire in fictional characters: the way they are written, or the way they are played by the actors who breathe them life.

The Purple Rose of Cairo is deceptive in its entertainment value. Beneath a highly engaging and funny plot are many interesting questions about a sociology of an era and the relationship between the artist and his art. It comes highly recommended for a fun, and thoughtful time.

In Allen's Annie Hall, he reveals his full potential as a filmmaker. This is Allen's true breakthrough film. Although still very humorous, Allen deals with issues of human interaction and relationships in Annie Hall that were not explored in his earlier works. This has lead to creating a delightfully well-conceived and intelligent look at the lives of two people. Annie Hall (Diane Keaton) is a young, Midwestern woman who meets Alvy Singer (Woody Allen), a neurotic Jewish standup comic. They are almost instantly smitten, and they fall in love. What follows is a very non-linear film about their relationship and feelings for each other.

If one attempted to deconstruct Annie Hall's plot structure it would cause the film to not make sense. It jumps hyperactively around in time and location and allows its narrator (Alvy Singer) to indulge in anecdotes that can sometimes feel detrimental to the driving plot point of the film: his relationship with Annie. However, these comical asides all seem to link together as the film progresses and give us a clearer picture of Allen's overall statements on relationships. The fact that Woody Allen is able to maintain the narrative complexity of Annie Hall while keeping the audience perfectly oriented is only one of the things about Annie Hall that make it so impressive. Another aspect of it that is very satisfying and worth noting is the vivid cinematography by Gordon Willis. He captures the sophistication of New York city by using a lighting concept similar to the one he used in The Godfather. In fact, most of the visual elements of the film are very strong, including the art direction by Mel Bourne and clothing designed by fashion designer Ralph Lauren. All of these elements converge to create a new and interesting New York look, that is at once authentic and slightly off kilter enough for this quirky comedy. Of course, art direction and costume design wouldn't make this film worth watching if the performances in Annie Hall were poor. Luckily enough for us, they're the opposite. The interplay between Keaton and Allen crackles on the screen. Their charisma is a joy to watch. Although Woody Allen is just playing another version of his "New Yorker neurotic Jew" character that we have seen in other films, Diane Keaton really sinks her acting chops into the title role. Her Annie goes through an evident intellectual transformation that Keaton pulls off very convincingly. Allen is always funny as his neurotic persona and this is no exception.

The rest of the acting in the film is convincing and enjoyable. Allen has worked with his casting director Juliet Taylor in order to find incredibly entertaining and talented people for even the most minute of roles. Some standout supporting characters include Carol Kane as Alison, one of Alvy's ex-girlfriends, and Christopher Walken in a brilliant comedic turn as Annie's brother Duane Hall. His five minutes in the film is worth the price of admission alone.

I couldn't really find anything wrong with Annie Hall. All of its various facets converge to create a very entertaining film. I always find Woody Allen's bickering "Little Schlemiel" anti-hero of a persona to be fascinating. Finally, in this film he gives this little guy something really interesting to do. We really get to enter Singer's neuroses in a way that is complexly satisfying and may remind us of ourselves and how we relate to others. The audience is also never allowed to forget how infused these characters' lives are with sadness and comedy. There are some bitterly funny scenes in Annie Hall that are startlingly reminiscent of our modern day reality. Most of the audience can't help but identify. For a thought provoking and highly entertaining video rental Annie Hall can't be beat. It's the most intelligent movie comedy of it's decade.

To be honest I was not as surprised as others were by the quality of this film. Wes Craven's better horror movies have always featured believable and strong protagonists. For example, Sydney from the "Scream" series and Nancy from the "Elm Street" films.

Streep's character is just another protagonist along the same lines. The fact that she is battling personal hardship and the socio-economic factors that her students must contend with instead of a scary monster is very refreshing. Craven proves with "Music of the Heart" that he is up to the challenge of directing a non-horror film. The movie is engaging and very entertaining.

Zero Patience is provocative, engaging and indeed, an important film. It is an accessible way to be introduced to many issues regarding AIDS. However, this musical is never very engaging. The main fault of this is the music itself, which is dated and irking.

The plot and characters of Zero Patience are involving enough. Too bad the rhythm of the film keeps getting interrupted by musical numbers that don't really seem to fit and are not very entertaining. These pieces fall flat in terms of conception and seem to want to be campier than they actually are.

In summary: it's an important movie about AIDS that was sloppily conceived.

I honestly don't understand what was going through Scott Alexander and Larry Kawazinky's heads when they wrote and directed this piece of drivel. The plot is convoluted as are the characters. Very little is funny other than scene stealing Danny DeVito. What is funny is brilliant, but there is very little if anything to recomend this film.

I expect more from these guys. The two of them brought us the screenplays for such thought provoking and emotional films as Ed Wood, The People Vs Larry Flynt and Man on the Moon. This is one disapointing directorial debut.

This new version of an old classic isn't horrible. It's just not that good. We are given some new scenes in the classic horror film which are directed by John Russo, a stellar screenwriter, but an only semi-competent director.

The prologue is fun for fans who have already seen the original film. Establishing an origin for the cemetary zombie is really really cool. However, for new viewers of the film, it ruins the first terrifying aspect of the original film. The fact that Johnny says to Barbara "They're coming to get you, Barbara" and then the Hinzman zombie really is one of "them" is lost in this version, which is a shame. That sequence was terrifying in the original NOTLD.

The new scenes at Beakman's diner are the best new sequences in the film. They fit with the original and are a fun addition. It is great to trace the path of a bunch of zombies from the diner that Ben encountered them in to the house in the woods.

By far the worst and most blasphemous addition to the film is the epilogue. We are treated to a scene that is supposed to be "1 year after" NOTLD. A terrifying aspect of the original version is that the authorities do not have this horrific plague under control, and that this night we have witnessed is the first night of the end of the world. By setting this scene a year later, we feel cheated, and the entire murky resolution of the original film is cheapened and ruined. Are horror fans also to belive that Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead, which should fit in after this movie's chronology, didn't happen? I'm not ready to do that myself.

As for the score, it is allright but would fit better if all of the other pieces of music were removed from the film. Having some of the library music remain in the movie is too much of a contrast with the synthesizer heavy new score.

On the whole some aspects of the new movie are fun, but Russo and co. could have done better.

John Waters has given us a genuinely enjoyable film. This certainly isn't without its shocking Waters-esque moments, but it is tamer than his older culty stuff, such as "Pink Flamingoes". "Pecker" harkens back to John's early mainstream stage in that it reminds the viewer of the same kind of humor that was evident in "Polyester". Overall, a really fun comedy with some great moments!