Reviews

"Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" is a movie about seven degenerate mountain men who claim seven women for their personal property. That's it, really. Oh there are some pretty songs along the way, but the movie really has no more substance than that.

I imagine that in the 50's, this theme of powerful men who sing really pretty treating women like property was considered the pinnacle of romance and drama. Now that the 50's are over though, this theme is utterly repulsive and antagonistic to most women and to most men with daughters. If you consider women to be more than men's property, I would advise you to steer clear of this dated tripe.

I saw this film in a college drama class. I had enjoyed "Eraserhead," "Zardoz" and "Spirit of the Beehive," and I thought this movie would be in the same vein; ambiguous and thought provoking. I was wrong. "Out/Deadly Drifter" is so incredibly boring it kept me from thinking anything besides "how can I sneak out without jeopardizing my grade." It was unquestionably the worst movie I have seen in my life.

The plot (and I use the term loosely) involves a young radical who has decided he wants out of the movement he has devoted himself to. To this end, he embarks on a cross country journey and strange things happen to him. A detailed discussion of what these strange things are would be pointless. Reading about them is not the same as seeing them, and they form no cohesive idea to write about.

The faults with this movie are plentiful. Unlike, say, "Eraserhead" hardly anyone can empathize with the hero of "Out." What is the movement he is fleeing? Why did he join? Why is he leaving now? Answering just one of these questions might have helped. If the hero could not have been made sympathetic, he could at least have been interesting. Instead, he is simply a cardboard cutout being led through events by a pretentious director.

Many directors will use interesting visuals to liven a slow film. "Out" is too cheap a production to provide that. Danny Glover's presence only makes the latter fact more peculiar; did the director think people would flock to see the film just for Danny Glover's presence? If you need an illustration of how bad this movie is, look on the covers. The VHS version shows Glover holding a gun, suggesting that "Out" is a action picture. The DVD version asks "was it a government conspiracy" as if "Out" were an X-files type thriller. "Out" is in fact neither of these, and the distributors efforts to fool would-be viewers is pathetic!

This is especially true when you consider that movies like "Out" will always have defenders (usually people who have never read "The Emperor's New Clothes"). Defenders may sneer at those who don't "get it," ignoring the fact that leprosy is hard to get too. "Ambiguous" is not a synonym for "good," and "Out" proves that point in spades.

The one thing Hollywood never gets tired of is celebrating how "fabulous" it is. "That's Entertainment" is a documentary focusing on one aspect of this fabulousness; old musicals. It was a great idea, ruined by good old Hollywood ego.

The Hollywood musicals ran the gamut from "artistic triumph" to "real dog." "That's Entertainment" makes no distinction between the two extremes. One minute you could be watching "Singin' in the Rain" and the next you are watching a clip from "Words and Music." "Words and Music" was a critical disaster. Star Mickey Rooney called it, "A terrible turkey" in his autobiography, yet here it presented as, well, fabulous. They even show the self-contained Lena Horne solo, which could be excised for Southern audiences (what, fabulous Hollywood pander to an audience? 'Fraid so, but they would never admit it here).

In another scene we get a clip of Clark Gable singing "Puttin' on the Ritz." It is the only time in his career that Gable didn't look to be in complete control in front of the camera. In fact, he looks to be in genuine pain. No acknowledgement here that making him do this was stupid though, no, it was fabulous.

the clips are introduced by the stars of the musicals, and also Liza "Have I mentioned in the past five minutes that Judy Garland was my mother?" Minelli. One of the things they all mention is how much they love their fellow performers. Since they are obviously reading from cue cards, their declarations seem insincere.

What's more, we get no behind the scenes info. No discussions of how scenes were staged, how casting decisions were made, what directing a musical was like, nothing. Perhaps they feel that this kind of talk would take away the "magic." Instead, this glaring omission makes it all seem anti-intellectual.

My conclusion is this; "That's Entertainment" is like last years' Oscar night. Hollywood celebrates itself, and tells you that you should too. This time, I couldn't.

I will not involve myself in the debate over the socio-political implications of "Amos n' Andy." My opinion will not change anyone else's mind, and no one will change mine by using the term "racist." I feel the latter term is thrown around so much today that it has lost almost all meaning.

The "Amos n' Andy" radio show held legions of fans for decades. The TV show is fondly remembered by tens of thousands who were lucky enough to see it. The reason for this is simple; they made people laugh. This movie, however, is a very poor example of the character's work.

The main thrust of the plot is an uninteresting love triangle between a wealthy heiress, her jerk of a rich boyfriend and an old flame who has lost his wealth and is seeking to reclaim it. Although the movie is a comedy, none of these three characters are in any way funny. Amos n' Andy are secondary characters in the story. This is the first blow to the story. Amos, Andy and the Kingfish carried their own stories for years, why should they play second fiddle to people we care nothing about? To make it worse, Amos n' Andy's involvement in the plot is painfully contrived. The plots of the radio and TV shows were smooth and sensible (for a comedy). They worked because they did not have to be forced. The plot of this movie, by contrast, seemed forced every step of the way.

Copies of the Amos n' Andy radio and TV shows are available for sale. If one is willing to track them down they will provide a clear picture of why the characters were so successful. This movie, by contrast, should be left to those who feel the need to own everything with the Amos n' Andy name on it.

Popeye may have been the most formulaic series in cartoon history, but some noteworthy episodes managed to buck the formula. In most of these cartoons, Popeye is put up against not a threat to life or love, but simply a nuisance. The most common source of irritation in these cases was a "funny animal," a small creature no match for Popeye physically, but unremittingly mischievous. Most of these "funny animal" cartoon were pretty bad, but a few stand out, "Insect to Injury" in particular.

The cartoon opens with Popeye putting the finishing touches on his new house. No sooner is it completed when it is threatened by a army of termites. Popeye is righteously alarmed, but counters the threat creatively and intelligently (in cartoon logic at least). And yet, the termites outwit him time and again, building a genuine sense of drama until the conclusion.

Overall, this story is character driven. Popeye's struggle is quite reasonable, and one cannot help but feel for him. His reactions are amusingly extreme, but never panicked, so he never becomes annoying. The termites, for their part, are genuinely menacing, a sense created by their too-clever to-be-real ways of fighting back. They are further enhanced by the simple (but very effective) theme music that follows them.

"Insect to Injury" is a very different kind of Popeye cartoon. None of the usual supporting characters are there, and the threat is a very different one from those Popeye usually faced. Often, attempts to change the series formula did not work, but in this case, it worked well.

If there was ever a movie that did not need to be re-made, it was "The Producers." Still, the creatively bankrupt Broadway (i.e. Hollywood's eastern franchise) decided to take pandering to a new level, releasing "The Producers: The Musical," along with "Big: The Musical," "Titanic: The Musical" and "The Lion King: The Musical" (can't wait for "Rambo: The Musical" myself). It was such a hit, that a movie, based on the play was inevitable. Hey, it worked for "Little Shop of Horros" right? Nathan Lane stars as a Broadway producer, with Mathew Broderick as his accountant/henchman. Together they cook up a scheme to raise a fortune from backers, put on the worst play in history, allow it to close after one night and pocket the money they didn't spend. The scheme runs awry though when the play turns out to be "so bad it's good" (no such luck for this movie though). The plot has the potential to be wonderfully humorous, but sadly, this movie is not.

First, you have Broderick, doing his shy nerd thing from "Biloxi Blues," and you have Lane doing, well, Lane, a loud whiny fat man (Hey Lane, Joe Besser called, he wants his shtick back). Neither is appealing enough that you want to see them succeed, or repulsive enough that you want to see them get their comeuppance. In short, we don't care what happens to them. Uma Thurman plays a would-be actress who is included as a subject for a romantic rivalry. Unfortunately, that subplot is under-developed, making her presence superfluous.

Second, there is the music. Each song is wrapped around a big, show stopping dance number. Unfortunately, the music is generally dull, and the frequent show-stopping makes an already tedious movie drag on painfully.

Third, there is the humor, or rather, there isn't. Most of Lane's jokes revolve around his seducing old women for money. It's vulgar and inane, but not funny. Broderick does slightly better as a neurotic nerd, but hardly great. The play's director and crew are stereotypically camp gay men for the audience to laugh at, if that sort of thing weren't old hat. Overall, I think I smiled twice, hence the two stars.

In short, "The Producers: The Movie Based on the Play" gets no points for comic or musical accomplishment. And please, don't tell me that the play was brilliant because a lot of people saw it. A lot of people watched "The A-Team" too. Wait a minute, "The A-Team: The Muscial!" Get Broadway on the phone, I've just had a great idea!

but "Cinderella" gets my vote, not only for the worst of Disney's princess movies, but for the worst movie the company made during Walt's lifetime. The music is genuinely pretty, and the story deserves to be called "classic." What fails in this movie are the characters, particularly the title character, who could only be called "the heroine" in the loosest sense of the term.

After a brief prologue, the audience is introduced to Cinderella. She is waking up in the morning and singing "A Dream is A wish Your Heart Makes." This establishes her as an idealist (and thus deserving of our sympathy). Unfortunately, the script gives us no clue as to what she is dreaming about. Freedom from her servant role? The respect of her step-family? Someone to talk to besides mice and birds? In one song (cut from the movie but presented in the special features section of the latest DVD) Cinderella relates her wish that there could be many of her so she could do her work more efficiently. You go girlfriend! In short, Cinderella is a very bland character. She passively accepts her step-family's abuse, escaping into her unspoken dreams for relief. She only asserts herself once by reminding her stepmother that she is still a member of the family. For this, she is given permission to go the ball if she completes her housework and finds something to wear, a token gesture that is clearly absurd to everyone except, of course, Cinderella. Can anyone see Belle or Jasmine being such a doormat? If Cinderella is dull, her male counterpart is nothing short of lifeless. The Prince in Cinderella gets no dialog and almost no screen time. We are given no indication if he is a good man, if he respects Cinderella or anything. All we know is 1) he is a prince and 2) he dances well. Heck, even the prince from "Snow White" got to sing a romantic song at least. Not only does this lack of development make the romance less interesting, it makes Cinderella look like either a social climber or an idiot, weakening her already tenuous appeal.

Perhaps realizing how dull the main characters were, the animators chose to give excessive screen time to the movie's comic relief, Cinderella's friends, the mice. Granted, these characters are amusing. Even so, when the comic relief steals the show from the principals, well, let's just say your story has some problems.

Dinsey loves to proclaim all its animated features as "masterpieces." While many of them are, there are some that do not deserve this appellate in any way. Cinderella is a prime example of this fact.

Like many kids of the early 70's, I used to watch the PBS trinity. Sesame Street taught us about letters and numbers while The Electric Company taught us about reading. Mr. Rogers had the hardest job of all though; he taught us about feelings, socialization and the adult world.

Everything about the show was crafted to be warm and friendly without being boring or patronizing. Mr. Roger's tools were puppets, videos and original music, all of which were used to great effect. Even so, the show was about how people feel and relate, and for that it needed a Human element. Mr. Rogers and his neighbors were that element, and they were expert teachers.

As the focal-point of the show ("star" just doesn't seem right), Mr. Rogers always spoke directly to the camera, as if speaking directly to the children who were watching. His manner was always calm and inviting, unlike a certain purple dinosaur whose hyperactive manner almost demands that you like him. More importantly, Mr. Rogers always conveyed an air of dignity. Contrast that with many modern shows that tend to portray adults as fools. That may be good for a cheap laugh, but kids know that adults are in charge. Who wants a fool to be in charge? Kids shows will come and go, but there will never be another Mr. Rogers. He didn't want to sell the kids things, he didn't expect them to be "cool," and he didn't want to replace their parents. he just wanted to be their neighbor.