Reviews

Waaaaaaaaaaaay back in the early 1990's, when Jeffrey Katzenberg was still a top exec at Disney, he had one of his less successful ideas -- to bring back the break-into-song musical. So, as the story goes, he selected three scripts that were about to go into production and gave them to Disney Music Maestro Alan Menken and asked him which of the scripts could be turned into a musical.

And that's how NEWSIES was born.

It's a great story, too, being a fictionalized account of the newsboy strike in New York at the turn of the century. It follows the exploits of a ragtag band of teenage boys, including Cowboy (Christian Bale), who dreams of becoming a ranch hand in Santa Fe, and David & Les (David Moscow & Luke Edwards), brothers who take up selling newspapers when their father is injured on the job.

Conflict arises when Joseph Pulitzer (Robert Duval) gets greedy and raises the price of his newspapers to the newsboys, but not to the public. The outraged "newsies" decide to go on strike, which eventually galvanizes all the working children in the city to stand up for themselves.

It's a fun film, with Duval playing his villain to the hilt, but Ann-Margret is wasted in her role as a showgirl (both of her musical numbers are badly edited down to just snippets of song). Bale is the real wonder here, though, singing and dancing with surprising aplomb. The songs overall are quite good, but a couple of them are hard to distinguish from each other. My favorites are the opening number, "Carrying the Banner," and the rousing "The World Will Know." It seems odd, though, that Duval doesn't get a musical number of his own, considering in Disney's animated musicals the villains usually get the best songs ("Poor Unfortunate Souls" or "Be Prepared" anyone?).

It's a shame that the film didn't do better financially, since as a result of its dismal box office Disney declined to ever make another like it. First time director Kenny Ortega, who also choreographed (he was known for his choreography of DIRTY DANCING), directed one more feature after this, the underrated Bette Midler flick HOCUS POCUS; since that film also failed to find an audience, he hasn't directed a movie since. And that's a shame; he has a very distinctive kinetic style that served both films well.

Seek out a copy of NEWSIES, and go for the widescreen version. You won't be disappointed!

Millions of years ago (or thousands, depending on your religious beliefs) a squirrel-rat forced an acorn into a crack in the ice, causing an avalanche that kicked off the Ice Age.

At least, that's what this silly diversion of a movie would have you believe.

And the comic relief provided by that squirrel-rat character (known as Scrat) as he repeatedly tries to find a hiding place for that acorn is the highlight of an otherwise uneven but sporadically funny, though at times mean-spirited family movie.

After the Ice Age hits, herds of prehistoric mammals start migrating towards warmer temperatures. A sloth named Sid (voiced by a lisping John Leguizamo) gets left behind by his family (not surprising, considering how annoying this odd-looking little creature is) and takes up with a brooding woolly mammoth named Manfred (Ray Romano).

Meanwhile, a pack of sabre-tooth tigers led by the evil Soto (Goran Visnjic) attacks a tribe of primitive humans. One human mother manages to get away with her baby, but is chased down by Soto's second-in-command Diego (Dennis Leary). Soto commands Diego to bring the baby back at all costs.

And wouldn't you know, the baby is found by Sid and Manfred, who decide to guard him and get him back to his family.

Essentially a road movie without cars, the rest of the plot follows the adventures of Sid, Manfred and Diego in their trek across the tundra played mostly for laughs. Which is why the occasional lapses into dramatic territory (such as the revelation of what happened to Manfred's family, and the rather violent end that comes to one of the villains) seem to come in from another movie altogether.

The animation is good, but noticeably inferior to the similarly plotted MONSTER'S INC; but then I don't think they were going for realism here. All of the characters look like three-dimensional cartoons.

Overall, it's a passable time-killer with a few good laughs, and a storyline that's just predictable enough to keep you comfortable.

Sort of like a comfy old coat that's been worn a few too many times.

Waaaaaaaaaay back in the early 1990's, when Jeffrey Katzenberg was still the Prime Minister of all things Disney, he had one of his less successful ideas - to bring back the break-into-song musical. So, as the story goes, he selected three scripts that were about to go into production and gave them to Disney Music Maestro Alan Menken (who was still floating on his accolades for all the animated films he had scored) and asked him which of the scripts could be turned into a musical.

And that's how NEWSIES was born.

It's a great story, too, being a fictionalized account of the newsboy strike in New York at the turn of the century. It follows the exploits of a ragtag band of teenage boys, including Cowboy (Christian Bale), who dreams of becoming a ranch hand in Santa Fe, and David & Les (David Moscow & Luke Edwards), brothers who take up selling newspapers when their father is injured on the job.

Conflict arises when Joseph Pulitzer (Robert Duval) gets greedy & raises the price of his newspapers to the newsboys, but not to the public. The outraged `newsies' decide to go on strike, which eventually galvanizes all the working children in the city to stand up for themselves.

It's a fun film, with Duval playing his villain to the hilt, but Ann-Margret is wasted in her role as a showgirl (both of her musical numbers are badly edited down to just snippets of song). Bale is the real wonder here, though, singing and dancing with surprising aplomb. The songs overall are quite good, but a couple of them are hard to distinguish from each other. My favorites are the opening number, `Carrying the Banner,' and the rousing `The World Will Know.' It seems odd, though, that Duval doesn't get a musical number of his own, considering in Disney's animated musicals the villains usually get the best songs (`Poor Unfortunate Souls' or `Be Prepared' anyone?)

It's a shame that the film didn't do better financially, since as a result of its dismal box office Disney declined to ever make another like it. First-time director Kenny Ortega, who also choreographed (he was known for his choreography of DIRTY DANCING), directed one more feature after this, the underrated Bette Midler flick HOCUS POCUS; since that film also failed to find an audience, he hasn't directed a movie since. And that's a shame; he has a very distinctive kinetic style that served both films well.

Seek out a copy of NEWSIES, and go for the widescreen version. You won't be disappointed!

It's nice to know that occasionally, Hollywood CAN do it right.

No doubt about it, THE RING is one of the scariest, most intense horror films I have ever seen. And that's amazing, considering I'd already seen the original Japanese movie it's based on, RINGU, and pretty much knew what was going to happen all through the film and was still on the edge of my seat. The screenplay by Ehren Kruger manages to faithfully retell the original film's story but add just enough new twists to keep you guessing.

The story follows reporter Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) on the trail of an urban legend about a cursed videotape. Apparently, as soon as you finish watching the tape, your telephone rings and a whispered voice tells you that you have seven days to live; and at the end of seven days, you die. Rachel is drawn into the mystery of the tape when her sixteen-year-old cousin drops dead, apparently a victim of the curse.

Pretty soon Rachel finds the tape itself, and, being the reporter she is, she watches it and, sure enough the phone rings... and suddenly she believes.

It's incredible how much more suspenseful this film is than the original, considering that it follows the same basic outline. One way it does this is by adding new texture to each scene; what was eerie in the first film is absolutely frightening in this one. And director Gore Verbinski's visual style keeps the tension building, with an almost total lack of humor (which is interesting in and of itself, considering all of his previous films have been comedies).

To sum it all up, this is an amazing film you do NOT want to watch alone!

I had heard a lot about this movie around the time the American remake was about to be released, and mostly what I heard was how it was the scariest movie you'd ever see and that people were known to have passed out watching it, and other such nonsense.

It's never been released theatrically or on video here in the U.S., so I didn't think I'd get the chance to see it until I found a VCD copy on an online auction website. So of course I bid a ridiculously high offer and won the auction, and about two weeks letter I had a copy in my eager little hands.

Well let me tell you, I was disappointed.

Probably just a case of too much hype, and also probably because the English subtitles were so badly translated every character spoke like Jar Jar Binks. But I really couldn't see what all the fuss was about, and on top of that I had trouble following the story (again probably the fault of the subtitles).

The plot is basically about a pretty reporter named Reiko on the trail of an urban legend about a cursed videotape that kills its viewers exactly seven days after they watch it. She is drawn into the investigation by the death of her cousin, who apparently watched the video and paid the price. Reiko doesn't believe in the curse until she finds the videotape and watches it herself, and realizes she has seven days to figure out how to break the curse or die.

The film does have its moments, and it builds suspense fairly well for a while, but eventually you realize nothing much is happening. The initial scariness of recognizing that Reiko may very well be sealing her own doom eventually evaporates. The last two thirds of the film is a rather slow-moving detective story as she tries to track down the origins of the tape and figure out how to keep from dying. But there is at least a shocking ending that makes the wait worthwhile.

All in all it's still worth seeking out a copy if you can find it (but don't make my mistake and pay too much for it!)

Robert Louis Stephenson's `Treasure Island' has always been one of my favorite classic stories. The tale of a teenage boy thrust into the adventure of a lifetime features pirates, swordfights, an ocean voyage, betrayals, and buried treasure among many other classic adventure-story ingredients – what's not to love?

It's been filmed countless times before, in many various incarnations, including one with the Muppets and an animated version starring the Monkees' Davy Jones; so what new way can be thought up to retell this hundred-year-old story for twenty-first century audiences?

Set it in space, of course; a brilliant idea that pays off handsomely.

To be fair, TREASURE PLANET is not the first film to set the story among the stars; that distinction belongs to the 1987 Italian live-action TV Mini-series TREASURE ISLAND IN OUTER SPACE. But that version has scarcely been seen outside of Europe, and I seriously doubt that it could hold a candle to the stunning visuals seen here.

And the key word here is VISUALS. This is arguably the most visually stunning animated film to come out of the powerhouse Disney animation factory, EVER. The canvas on which they paint here is wide and broad, and full of breathtaking color and beauty. Pirate ships with solar sails soar across a canopy of stars, and behemoths that look like whales trumpet along beside them. Alien beings both friendly and fierce populate the universe, and futuristic machinery stands side-by-side with nineteenth century technology. I've never seen anything quite like it.

Oh, and there is a story here as well; amazingly, it is quite faithful to the source material in both outline and details, only deviating from the text where necessary to transplant the action from the oceans of nineteenth century Earth to the planets and solar systems of the future.

It centers around Jim Hawkins, a fatherless boy constantly getting into trouble with the law for his rambunctious, extreme-sports ways, who gets the chance to prove himself when a dying pirate leaves him a treasure map with his dying breath. In short order he finds himself cabin boy on a stargoing vessel bound for the legendary Treasure of a Thousand Worlds; along the way path is blocked by pirates and collapsing stars and other perils of interstellar travel.

If I have any complaint at all with the film it would be that it sticks a little TOO close to the novel, some of the nineteenth century ideals just don't ring true in the futuristic setting; but that's easily forgivable compared to the wondrous images this magic film offers.

I was a little leary when I heard that the Muppets were doing a TV remake of "It's a Wonderful Life." I mean, let's face it, that story has been done to death, and I wasn't even that much of a fan of the original movie.

But I have been a fan of the Muppets since I was a toddler watching "Sesame Street" so I was willing to give it a shot. And I have to say, I was at first somewhat disappointed.

The first half of the movie drags quite a bit. The jokes just weren't very funny. But then they kick into their musical number "Moulin Scrooge" and it's uphill from there. The "Moulin Scrooge" number was hysterical, not only spoofing the "Moulin Rouge" costumes & sets, but the camera angles and the kinetic style of the music (at one point Miss Piggy orders everyone to stop singing different songs at the same time because she can't remember which one she's singing).

The second half is vintage Muppet zaniness, and well worth sitting through the first hour to get to it. And just as the original "Wonderful Life" tugs at your heartstrings, I guarantee you'll get a lump in your throat when Kermit discovers what a difference he made in the world and to his Muppet friends.

Highly recommended for Muppet fans!

`Man of La Mancha' is one of the most misunderstood and wrongfully maligned movies ever made. It's frequently criticized for the casting of non-singing actors in the three lead roles (Peter O'Toole, Sofia Loren and James Coco) and for its outlandish set design and staging.

Well I have to say, get over it people! I simply love this movie. It's a wonderful story about the triumph of the human spirit, intelligently written and performed by a great cast. The script and music are of such high calibre they can transcend the limited vocal range of the performers, who are all excellent actors and bring genuine depth of character and range to their roles.

I am not even going to address the remarks of some literary purists who are decrying the liberties the film takes with Miguel de Cervantes' epic `Don Quixote,' except to say that this is NOT an adaptation of that classic book, it is an adaptation of a Broadway musical that itself was only loosely based on it. To compare the movie to the novel would be comparing apples and oranges; they are two entirely different species.

That said, both the play and the film are a brilliant intertwining of the Quixote story and the life of its author Cervantes (O'Toole). The story begins with Cervantes arrested by the Spanish Inquisition on charges of heresy, and thrown into the large common room of a dank prison full of the refuse of Spanish society. The other inmates hold a mock trial, and in his defense Cervantes enlists the aid of his stage manager (Coco) and the inmates themselves in performing his tale of Don Quixote.

The scenery shifts back and forth between the prison common room and the many locations of the Quixote story as the tale unfolds. In the stage version this was conveyed only by the actors, and the scenery never changed from the prison cell allowing the audience's imaginations to fill in the blanks; on screen when Cervantes and his cast perform their play, we are transported to the desert plans & the other locations of the tale. This is one of the film's biggest targets for criticism; many feel that it betrays the intent of the original work.

But really, this is the difference between film and live theater. On film, you can't set the whole thing in a dungeon and expect the audience to imagine other locales. Film is a visual medium. The setting works in live theater because live theater is a more intimate, shared experience that can't be duplicated on film. Producers spend years trying to figure out ways to translate this type of theater piece to a film project. I think that `Man of La Mancha' visualizes its inherent theatricality very well.

And finally, as to the singing voices, what is everyone complaining about? The show's score is not difficult to sing, and the three leads do admirably well since none are singers. None of the songs are butchered, and at least the producers did not stoop to dubbing their voices (probably learning their lesson from their one exception, the atrociously bad dubbing of Ian Richardson as the Rabbi). O'Toole does an emotional cover of the film's signature ballad `The Impossible Dream' and Loren delivers her songs with a light touch. These are very different from the operatic voices of the Broadway performers, but it works. And as anyone who has ever worked in community theater knows, it's a far far better thing to cast actors who can at least carry a tune than to cast singers who can't act.

So in conclusion, if people would actually watch the movie and let themselves be carried away by its spell, all of the criticism just seems pointless.

Enjoy!

I have always said that some plays by their very nature just can't be translated to film, and this one is a prime example.

As a play, this is a very funny farcical satire of the Catholic church, with a razor wit and a central character who is so shockingly unreal we have to root for her even when she starts murdering her parishioners (one of whom made the fatal mistake of admitting he had not sinned since his last confession, so she feels she is sending him straight to heaven).

That's just one example of how far outside of reality the play goes, and in the make believe world of the theater, it works. However, that kind of heightened reality rarely works on film, and it certainly doesn't here.

Director Marshall Brickman has assembled a fine cast who do great work, but by presenting all this absurdity in a realistic fashion the comedy becomes tragedy and you are left with an empty feeling in the pit of your stomach.

Seek out a production of the stage play instead, you won't be disappointed.