Change Your Image
Liza-19
Reviews
Henry VIII and His Six Wives (1972)
Blink and you'll miss two wives
This was an attempt and condenscing a very long, 6 hour miniseries into 2 hours. They recast all except 2 of the actors, and glossed over most of the important parts of history. The miniseries was over-long, I'll grant you, but they didn't miss anything. This was... muddled.
There's no real rythm to this film, it's just fractures of Henry VIII's life as he's laying on his deathbed, but it all comes out disjointed and uneven. They didn't even cover Anne Boleyn's execution! I'm no Anne Boleyn fan, but even I'm wondering how they could skip that.
The only real shining star is Lynn Frederick as Catherine Howard. She's only got about 10 minutes of screentime (probably less) but she's on her game. Beautiful and young and foolish, she gives the first sympathetic and probably most realistic portrayal of Henry's 5th wife. She nearly stole the show, and would have if they'd given her more time.
Anne of Cleves was a sad attempt at comic relief and Katherine Parr was an afterthought. I would let this go, if the focus was really on Henry - but it wasn't really about him either. It was so disjointed and uneven that the final film makes very little sense. You have to know your Tudor history to even follow it, and even if you do, it's still a confusing film.
Faerie Tale Theatre: Grimm Party (1985)
More of a reunion show than an episode...
After several years of rumors on the internet, many fans wondered if this episode actually existed. It does, but after viewing it, you can understand why it is so easily forgotten.
Shelley Duvall (who created, produced, and starred in several episodes) is throwing a costume party for all of the actors who appeared in Faerie Tale Theatre. Her friend Teri Garr is helping her pick an outfit. The party gets underway and people like Dana Hill, Brock Peters, Jean Stapleton, and Paul Reubens are having a grand old time.
There are actors from the shows that have aired, as well as future episodes. Some of the actors wear costumes from their roles, others chose different fairy tale outfits (Bridgette Anderson was dressed as Alice in Wonderland, Dana Hill was a pink rabbit). Several of them are interviewed, and it does provide a little bit of insight to the creation of a brilliant show. Pam Dawber discusses how she got the role of the Little Mermaid, Paul Reubens (still in the height of his Pee-Wee Herman phase) discusses his interpretation of Pinocchio. Unfortunately, there are several actors who do not appear - Klaus Kinski, Mick Jagger, and Liza Minnelli being the three that jump to mind.
There is a tiny bit of a plot here: Shelley hits her head and dreams she is put on trial by the Brothers Grimm for doing justice to their stories. She has to defend herself,and does it by showing clips from several episodes. Really it's just an excuse to film the reunion party.
For those of us who are crazy FTT fans, this is one that you can't skip. It's just so unusual. But if you are only recently discovering the series, this is really just a fluffy addition to the new DVD set. It's okay, but not necessary to enjoy the rest of the show. Stick to the actual fairy tale adaptations, which were all fabulous.
Applause (1973)
It's not perfect, but it's a lot of fun!
I wanted to see this movie for years and finally found a copy this year. Well, the actual production left something to be desired. The sets seemed cramped, and the whole thing has kind of a thrown-together feeling to it, but that's easy enough to overlook. The musical was obviously a lot of fun to make and all of the actors seem to really be enjoying themselves.
Lauren Bacall shows her usual dramatic star-power, but (Tony Award or no Tony Award) the woman really can't sing. Fortunately, for her part at least, it really doesn't matter. She's a strong enough actress that she can put emotion behind the lyrics and it doesn't really matter if it matches the melody or not. Larry Hagman plays Bill - but he seems almost wasted, having very little to do until the end. Penny Fuller was a fairly good Eve, but she was definitely no Anne Baxter. Still, I doubt Anne Baxter could have sung as well as Fuller did. Her last number was very impressive.
The real surprise to me was English actress Debbie Bowen completely stopping the show with the title song "Applause." She nailed it. I never even knew she could sing, and she nearly steals the entire show with just that one number. Very impressive talent, too bad she seems to have disappeared from the entertainment world. She was the one to watch in this movie.
The rest of the supporting cast is mostly forgettable. The plot line is pretty faithful to "All About Eve" although the script does seem to nicey it up a little too much. Why did they get rid of one of the best characters in the movie - Addison DeWitt? George Sanders won the Oscar for that role, it was probably the most intelligent character in the whole story. For a long time the audience is kept sympathizing with Eve and hating Margo, which is not the way the story is supposed to go at all. The end is rather abrupt and doesn't really come across as satisfying. But the music alone is a great, great asset to this. It's worth watching if you can find it.
The Other Boleyn Girl (2003)
Don't expect the book, you'll be disappointed
The Other Boleyn Girl - not to be confused with the book it claims to be based upon. This movie is not even close to a faithful adaptation. I could understand them changing or elaborating on a few things. The book is not perfection, but it was well-written and became very popular. I could understand if the BBC wanted to make this a little more faithful to what actually happened, who Anne Boleyn really was - but it's not even close to being historically accurate either. It's just fluff. Mindless, made-up fluff. A real shame.
To begin with, the writer and director seemed to think it was a good idea to setup the story like it was a reality TV show. Seriously. They have the Boleyns sitting in front of the camera, confessing how they REALLY feel about what's happening in their lives. Anne Boleyn sits in a confessional (not the church kind, the Real World kind) and chooses what she wants to tell and what she wants to just sit and smile about. She looks stupid having to use such a modern cinematic device in a film set in the 1500s. It's "The Real World: Tudor England!"
Jodhi May is a very good actress and after 'The Aristocrats' and 'A Turn of the Screw' I was becoming a real fan of hers. But she should never have been cast as Anne. Actually I think she would have been a better Mary. Natascha McElhone was a poor choice. She's a good actress, sure, but she has very modern features and does not appear convincing in period costume. (Honestly, I spent the first half of the film trying to figure out if she was "that girl" from 'The Truman Show.' She was.) She's also too old to play the teen-aged Mary so for some unknown reason they made Mary the oldest of the sisters. It makes no sense, I know. It's like the BBC seemed to forget that these people actually lived. They're twisting the story around and making things up left and right. I feel ridiculous having to correct the BBC on historical inaccuracies, but REALLY!
Apart from the two sisters the rest of the cast was actually very well chosen. Steven Mackintosh struck me as a brilliant choice for George, and his casting was the real reason I decided to seek out this movie. Big mistake. He does a great job, sure, but he's hardly in this. How can anyone pretend they're adapting The Other Boleyn Girl and hardly mention George Boleyn? That's just absurd. Philip Glenister was another very good casting decision, but yet again, was hardly in the finished product.
The real problem with this is the script. There's just no getting around that. It's bad. It's really, really bad. It's too melodramatic and not engaging. Anne is portrayed as an air-head, Mary as the ringleader, and George as the follower. Mary's first husband is hardly mentioned, her relationship with the king is never explained - they simply do not tell the story Phillippa Gregory wrote. The whole thing comes across as a great big waste. I have no desire to see this thing a second time. I guess I'll just have to read the book again and hope that the Natalie Portman version due out next year will be much better.
*Note: As of this writing, the only way of obtaining this miniseries in the USA is on the last disc of the miniseries 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII.' That's a great miniseries but can cost $50 to $60 and that's way to much to spend if you're just looking for this piece of garbage.
Hollywoodland (2006)
It's not a good sign if after 2 hours you no longer care who killed the guy
Hollywoodland has one of the best premises of any modern movie right now. Those of us who are familiar with Hollywood history know all about the George Reeves suicide/murder mystery, and the thought of a film exploring the popular conspiracy theory sounds very intriguing. The reality is not as great as the idea. There's a definite element of Chinatown with the detective investigation. Brody seems to be doing a bad update of Nicholson's Jake Gittes. And with all the fading old Hollywood references it also seemed to try to be another Sunset Boulevard - but that didn't work either. The film is muddy.
Ben Affleck is a bright presence in the film. He is a surprising choice for George Reeves, as he really doesn't look much like him. But his mannerisms are dead on. He does a very good job and after awhile you do forget that it's Affleck, and are pulled into Reeves's world. He shows a real insight into why this man felt and acted the way he did. His apparent suicide stunned everyone and it's a mystery that's still never been fully explained. Dianne Lane was a very strong supporting character and she deserves just as much praise as Affleck. As Lane's husband Bob Hoskins had very little to do and his part may just as well have been a cameo.
The real disappointment was Adrien Brody. This is a guy that we know can act. He was brilliant in The Pianist, even turned in great performances in some less-than-wonderful films (The Village and King Kong come to mind). But what was he doing here? His character is completely uninteresting, never mind unsympathetic. I didn't care two cents about his relationship with his ex-wife and his son, I thought it was boring. I guess he was trying hard, but he never should have taken this role. It's completely unworthy of him. I suppose the casting directors thought a well-liked Oscar-winning actor would bring more depth to an ill-written role. Unfortunately it came across as a waste.
It's an interesting film for the first hour, then just loses steam. After two hours, I no longer cared how the guy died. The film presents three possible scenarios, all of which make sense. The third and last one is the most probable, and is a satisfying answer, but by that point I just wanted the dang thing over with. It's too bad because there were some real possibilities with this picture. Old Hollywood has so many fascinating stories it's just too bad that they let most of it slip through their fingers. They could have done more by adding some more of the famous stars Reeves worked with or some of the other scandals that were going on (they show Carole Landis's picture but say nothing about it). On its own this is an okay movie. It just could have been so much more.
Sense and Sensibility (1981)
Skip it. See the 1995 version.
Luckily we have the beautiful 1995 version to remind us that this is actually a wonderful story. You wouldn't know it from this. The actors are wooden, the costumes are lacking and the locations are dreary. The opening sequence with Elinor and Marianne sitting on some sort of demented cousin of a see-saw is just out and out creepy. None of the actors seem to have any interest and definitely no excitement with their roles. They're practically sleepwalking! The first problem with this is really in the script. The writers did not seem to find any of the humor in the book, and seemed to focus on all the wrong things. As has already been mentioned, the character of Margaret is completely left out. This isn't really a big deal, she is hardly in the book at all (kind of like Kitty in Pride & Prejudice - she's just there). But in her version, Emma Thompson really saw potential in the character of Margaret to add some cute one-liners and bring some comic relief. She expanded the character rather than deleting it, and it's easy to see which way worked better.
There's no comic relief in this version at all. No one's funny. No one's even interesting. This focuses too much on the Elinor/Edward factor and doesn't put any real energy in the Marianne/Willoughby/Brandon triangle - a real misfortune because I always found the latter plot line far more interesting.
Irene Richard does turn in an acceptable performance as Elinor. Tracey Childs is an okay Marianne, but definitely nothing exceptional. She loses major points when you compare her portrayal with Kate Winslet's Oscar-nominated one. Where Childs was quiet and accepting Winslet was all over the place with passion. To Childs's defense, let's note that she had the most wooden and irritating actors playing her suitors, while Winslet had the incredibly handsome Alan Rickman and Greg Wise.
All in all, this version just falls short in too many ways. See the remake, it's a shining example of how Austen *should* be done.
Tell It to the Judge (1949)
Bob Cummings steals the show
This is absolutely my favorite film of Robert Cummings. He's hysterical and lovable in every scene he is in. Bob plays a lawyer who is newly divorced from Rosalind Russell, and is determined to win her back. She on the other hand is determined to become a federal judge and wants nothing to do with him. A typical setup for the divorce-remorse films that came along in the 40s.
Then there's Gig Young as the rival for Russell's affection, Clem Bevans as Mr. Roogle (it rhymes with bugle) and Marie McDonald adding a funny twist as the witness who keeps stalking Bob. For the most part, the cast is on top of their game and has some great moments. However, be forewarned, this is not Rosalind Russell's best work by a long shot. Despite the fact that she's given some wonderful performances (Auntie Mame, Trouble With Angels, etc) she's not very strong here and this is one situation where I really think another actress should have been cast. (Too bad Carole Lombard was already gone - she would have been PERFECT.) Some time the twists go a bit too far and get rather tedious on repeat watchings, but this is the screwball genre - it's not supposed to be realistic. It's a fun movie that still makes me laugh no matter how many times I see it. What more can you ask for?
Love's Labour's Lost (2000)
How NOT to make a musical
I love Shakespeare and I love musicals. I really do. But putting them together is almost never a good idea (the one exception I can think of to this rule is West Side Story, which at least at the grace to disguise its origins).
Kenneth Branagh has always struck me as an extremely overrated director. He made a perfect adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing, but his Henry V and Hamlet were all about himself. He seems to suffer much from having no Emma Thompson to balance with.
This movie was a mistake from start to finish. To begin with, it's a bad play. Yes, even Shakespeare had his flops and this was one of them. It's already a complicated plot that makes little sense with a ton of characters that are impossible to keep straight. So what did Branagh say? Let's make a musical! Bad idea. If you're going to film a bad play at least leave Cole Porter out of it. The musical numbers don't fit at all and are incredibly overdone. They simply don't work. They don't add anything and really seem to take away any chance the film had of being taken seriously. It's just a bad movie.
Some people found it enjoyable, and I'm honestly mystified as to why. They may like seeing Cole Porter songs come to life, but they need to realize that a film should either be Hamlet or Moulin Rouge. It should never try to be both.
A Kiss Before Dying (1956)
Still not the book, but it was a good adaptation
Well, to begin with, nobody should try and turn a title like "A Kiss Before Dying" into a song. It's not a good idea. Within the first frames of the opening credits a film that could be a stylish bit of neo-noir is turned into 50s fluff. Too bad. Fortunately, the film makes up for the credits.
Filmed on location, this has some beautiful scenery and the cinematography alone is worth the price of the DVD. The story is pretty faithful to the book, which is one of my favorite of Ira Levin's. True, it's no Rosemary's Baby or Stepford Wives, but it's a good bubble-bath read. A little predictable, but I enjoyed it. The same can be said for this film. A little predictable, but enjoyable.
As a leading man Robert Wagner was a little green for this part. He didn't seem quite comfortable yet. A shame because he's become such a fine actor in later years. On the flip side we have Mary Astor playing his mother which just seems a very strange choice. Sure, Mary Astor's played a mother so many times - but to Robert Wagner? It just didn't work. Perhaps she's too intelligent-looking to be believable as the sweet, dull mom. She just comes across as wasted here.
The younger actresses here are both fantastic. We have the legendary Joanne Woodward playing Dorothy who does a beautiful job of making her character sadly sympathetic. Joanne was so young in this her accent still sticks out left and right, but that's not too distracting. For me the real surprise was Virigina Leith playing Ellen. I'd never heard of this actress before or since, but she turned in a surprisingly strong performance as the younger sister. My main gripe is that my favorite sister, Marian, is completely left out of the movie. Or to be more specific, they merged the older two sisters Marian and Ellen into one character. It's understandable - the film can only be so long - but irritating none the less.
I like the film as a whole, I just thought it would be better. What I do have to say is stay away from the 90s remake with Sean Young playing both Dorothy and Ellen. Now that was terrible.
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1999)
Surprisingly faithful adaptation
As a general rule, I normally don't post comments unless I have enough time to write a thorough review, and have given it much thought before hand. I'm sorry, but even though it's 2am, I can't bear to go to sleep and let the review before me just sit there. Obviously the reviewer before me seems to have no idea that the complicities that arise from the various plots go back to Shakespeare himself - and it is a great achievement by this film to manage to keep all the plates spinning and all the stories interesting.
I am amazed by this film. I am a life-long Shakespeare fan and it's great to see a faithful American production. The British/American cast all worked fantasically well together - Christian Bale, Anna Friel, Dominic West, and Calista Flockheart were all perfectly cast as the four lovers. The fairies and the actors both worked very well to frame the story - and the director has managed to keep it both visually unique and incredibly entertaining.
I'm not quite sure why they decided to change the location from Greece to Italy, but in an age where Kenneth Branagh is trying to make a 1940s musical out of Love's Labour's Lost, I say, the changes could be a lot worse. All in all, this is a very impressive adaptation. I'm just happy to see that Shakespeare hasn't lost his appeal to modern audiences.
Vanity Fair (2004)
a fabulous book, a totally useless movie
One of my favorite books of all time, Vanity Fair, had a splendid adaptation done recently. The characters were exactly as described, the music perfect to the theme, and everything all around perfect. Natasha Little was a standout. What's the problem? I'm not talking about THIS version.
I'm talking about the fabulous production put out by the BBC in 1998. This, coming out six years later was not only incredibly inferior, it's utterly useless.
Reese Witherspoon was just about the last person on the world to be cast as Becky Sharp. Becky was a cunning English social-climber who was always with her own agenda. Reese is a southern girl from the US who doesn't look or act the part for a moment. She is a good actress, I'll be the first to say it, but she should NEVER have been cast in this.
Gabriel Byrne was an interesting choice for Steyne, but they totally twisted his character around so much that it made no sense to him, let alone the audience.
What I absolutely find unforgivable is the treatment of Amelia and Dobbin (my two favorite characters from the book). Amelia was supposed to be beautiful and timid, and utterly brainwashed by her love for George. The actress that played her was tall and strong - physically a survivor and a force to be dealt with - in short, everything Amelia Sedley WASN'T. The great realization she makes in the end which was a wonderful scene in both the book and the BBC version falls completely flat - the actress barely shrugs at the news. And Spike from Notting Hill as Dobbin?!! Oh come on! I really don't know what the casting directors were thinking. I know they never read the book, that much is obvious. Did they not read the script either?
The adaptation was actually not that bad, there was simply nothing special about it. The dance sequence with Reese was a perfect example of how desperate the screenwriters were to come up with something different. They tried too hard. But if there hadn't been a version made in '98 that was so wonderful, this might not have looked so bad in comparison. The lines would have benefited from better direction and casting.
The film was shot on location in Bath, one of my favorite cities, which by the way, looks nothing like London. This is very much a film made by Americans of what they think old England was like.
There was some real talent and potential in this production, but the horrendous casting and overall nothingness of the production make this a total waste of time for me.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)
You either get it, or you don't
There are two types of people in this world: those who get The Rocky Horror Picture Show, and those who don't. I get it, and I love it. First time I ever saw it was on TV, and I was totally terrified. But I loved the music enough to watch it again - it wasn't until I was an avid fan of the movie that I went to a midnight showing, which is probably the most fun anyone can have with any movie. It's hard to explain Rocky Horror's appeal, because most of us who love it could never say why. We just do. For me, I think it's mostly the music. Richard O'Brien's songs are all great ("Science Fiction" being a personal favorite.)
People who criticize this film to no end are obviously just afraid of it. They're generally just too uptight to let loose and yell at a screen at midnight. No, it's not a great artistic achievement and it wasn't meant to be. It's meant to be what it is - a fun show with some great songs. If you get it, great I'll see you there - if you don't, oh well, your loss.
The Voyage of the Mimi (1984)
As far as educational TV goes...
I watched this entire series (yes, and the sequel) in middle school. Sure, we made fun of it - and that incredibly annoying theme song - (ten years later and just thinking about it still pierces my skull) but honestly, it wasn't that bad. It was, afterall, an hour-long escape from classwork. It was actually somewhat interesting, and all in all, I'm glad I saw it.
Something I have to mention: I first saw this in 1993 in my eighth-grade class. The guys all liked to make fun of the girls by saying "You have a crush on C.T.!" and even went so far as to prank call every girl in the class with the line "Hi, I'm Ben Affleck, and I want you to come with me on my next voyage of the Mimi!" Hey, who knew?
Maid in Manhattan (2002)
Dear Ralph, Natasha, and Bob - WHY?????
I can understand Jennifer Lopez being in this stupid piece of fluff that has no point, but why, oh WHY were the other actors in it? Three great British actors: Ralph Fiennes, Natasha Richardson, Bob Hoskins - I know they can do better than this! J-Lo was good in the Wedding Planner, but watching this movie made me realize what a lousy actress she really is. The story is one that's been told a hundred thousand times - and has been done a hundred thousand times better. There was nothing new here, no new ideas, not even a good laugh. They call it a romantic comedy, but it's not. It's J-Lo pouting for two hours. Ralph and Natasha try to throw in some comedic elements, but they're stuck with really unfunny lines (Natasha's "I've been dumped" speech for one). Bob Hoskins has the one good speech in the entire film, but even he can't save it. Why was he in it? Why? I don't think we'll ever know.
The Scarlet Pimpernel (1999)
Richard E. Grant is an inspired choice!
I'll confess, I've never read the books. I have however seen several productions of the play onstage and I prefer this beautiful miniseries by far. All of the productions I've seen before cast elderly men with cute lines but no charisma. The choice of Richard E. Grant for the Scarlet Pimpernel surprised me, but he did a wonderful job with it. I was very surprised by his performance, as I'd only ever known him as a supporting/character actor (like Twelfth Night and Gosford Park).
As a life-long Elizabeth McGovern fan, I can't help but love her. She's a fantastic actress, but whoever did her hair should be guillotined. For a really beautiful woman, they hid it well under ten pounds of brown wig. It sadly resulted in her looking much older than she actually is, but fortunately this isn't the case for the entire movie (at least at the end she gets a haircut!) But her striking features still shine through and her beautiful performance far outweighs that hairstyle. She also manages her accent very well (she's originally from Illinois) But, well, I watched the whole miniseries just for her, so I can't help but think she's the real star.
Ronan Vibert is another actor I've liked for a long time, and he did a fantastic job as Robespierre. Martin Shaw's Chauvelin got on my nerves a bit, but he's fine. The big surprise was sweet little Emilia Fox in the role of Minette. I'd never seen her play a villain before, and was pretty impressed by it. All in all, I really enjoyed this miniseries, and highly recommend it.
Parent Trap: Hawaiian Honeymoon (1989)
Not the greatest, but not that bad either
I'm not a big fan of this movie, but it's still nice to see Hayley Mills and Barry Bostwick in a continuation of Parent Trap III. Even I'll admit it, making a movie called "Parent Trap: Hawaiian Honeymoon" is pushing it a little - but to those who grew up loving Hayley Mills (like my father) and those who grew up loving Leanna Creel from Saved By the Bell (like me) this movie is worth a look at. Would have been nice if they'd gotten Tom Skirrett from "Parent Trap II" back... but, oh well. It's amusing, but probably only to those die-hard Parent Trap fans.
The Parent Trap II (1986)
Cute
I've always had a soft-spot for this movie. I can't remember a time when I didn't know the original "The Parent Trap." My father is so in love with Hayley Mills that I just barely escaped being named Hayley - in fact, if you want the truth - had my last name not also begun with an "H" it's very likely that it would be my name.
Anyway, growing up with a father who is THAT devoted to Hayley Mills, there's no way I could avoid watching this. I saw it the first time it came on in 1986, when I was four years old. No, it's not as good as the original, but I always liked it. It's really cute. The script is well-written. Yes, it borders on the ridiculous, but - HELLO - you want to tell me that "The Parent Trap" doesn't? Nah, they're both unlikely stories, held together by the wonderful Hayley Mills.
Tom Skirrett does a wonderful job, and as a child of the '80s, I can't help but mention the two young stars who actually do turn in wonderful performances. First there's little Brigette Andersen - a beautiful little girl (those of us who were kids in the '80s will remember her as Gretel from Faerie Tale Theatre) who sadly, passed away in 1997. And then there's sweet Carrie Kei Heim - who will always be best known to me as Cornelia in "Santa Claus." A spunky red-head who's surprisingly, a very good actress - even if she does look nothing like Hayley Mills. Well, despite its 1980s-made-for-TV-look (there's even a reference to Ralph Macchio - God save us!) I still love this movie, and I always will.
The Ring (1996)
This is such a guilty pleasure...
I just happened to catch this on TV - seeing the name Nastassja Kinski always makes me want to watch, but seeing the name Danielle Steel always makes me worry... There was nothing to worry about. This was a wonderful miniseries, brought to life by a good story and fabulous actors.
Nastassja Kinski is wonderful, and she is the perfect choice for Ariana. I'm sure the role rang very true for her, owing to the fact that her parents were this age in Berlin during World War II. In fact in the story, her brother flees the country afraid of being drafted into the Nazi army, and in real life Nastassja's father, (actor Klaus Kinski) WAS drafted into the German army. Nastassja brings real depth to the character and the casting director should thank their lucky stars that she accepted the role. The casting was wonderful the whole way around: Michael York, Jon Tenney, and Elizabeth Barondes are all fantastic.
The story is corny - but it's Danielle Steel, what do you expect? ;) But what I have to tell you is I sat down, meaning to check out the first ten minutes - and after five minutes I was completely hooked. By the end of the first episode I was shocked to see that I didn't know what the heck was going to happen, and that I actually cared! I was back there the next day, with my kleenex, and loved every minute of it.
There are a few things lacking in this miniseries. The actress that played Gerhard's wife just made me want to bang my head against a wall, and I thought that subplot carried on much longer than was necessary. Other than that though, this is a movie you will get involved in. The whole situation with Ariana's second husband is just heartbreaking, and frankly, I'm still upset about it!
I can't believe I'm admitting it, but this is a movie that you can really get into. Don't let the name Danielle Steel stop you from seeing an actually very good film. Great cast, great acting, a bit of a cheesy script, but such terrific performances that you don't care!
Rumpelstiltskin (1987)
It doesn't get much better than this!
After years and years of searching, I am so proud to say, I do finally own a copy of this wonderful fairy tale. As a child of the 1980s, this was my absolute favorite and I rented it time and time again from my town library, in fact I rented it so many times that the tape wore out... um... Honestly, I have no idea who did that!
I can't help but love this movie! I saw it for the first time when I was six years old and have been an Amy Irving fan ever since. As it turns out, her entire family was involved in this production. Her mom, Priscilla Pointer plays the queen (which she must have had a blast doing) her brother David Irving is the director (a very nice guy, I'm so lucky to have spoken with him personally) and her stepfather Robert Symonds plays the miller to perfection.
Long before I knew the Irving connection I loved this movie. I grew up watching all the Faerie Tale Theatres and the Cannon Movie Tales but this was my all-time favorite. I grew up singing "Queen of the Castle" and "Miller's Daughter" and nothing, no matter how great a cinematic achievement will ever compete with this in my mind.
I suppose those movies that were special to us when we were children will always be perfect in our minds despite their flaws. But, I don't care. Rumpelstiltskin has no flaws. It's a lovely story. Wonderfully acted, beautifully sung, and lovingly directed. I spent years and years searching for this film, enquiring at every movie store and every rental place I ever came across. I cannot begin to say how much this movie meant to me.
Now I am actually a film student myself. Although this is a children's film and I'm in my twenties, this is one movie that I'll watch my entire life. Thank you, Amy, David, Priscilla, and Robert for inspiring me so much! I grew up watching this movie, and as a film student I know that no matter how many times I see "Casablanca" or "Lawrence of Arabia" or even "Mulholland Dr" it's the movies that I watched when I was a child that will always hold a permanent place in my heart. So what if I did have a thing for John Moulder-Brown? So what if I saw every Amy Irving movie as a direct result of this? Say all you want about Citizen Kane, it's the movies like these that you watch devotedly when you're six years old that can get you hooked for life. How can you thank someone for giving you the love of movies and inspiring you in your future career? It is a children's film, but one that I will watch until I'm ninety.
The Sitter (1991)
A gripping thriller, but a flawed remake
I first caught this on television ten years ago and loved it - although in hindsight I was too young to watch it. It was a fantastic story, and very scary (especially if you're still at the age where you have babysitters!) Kim Myers turned in a wonderful performance as Nell. The character is definately a nut, but you do feel sorry for her. That's not an easy thing to pull off, and honestly the only other film I can think of that does accomplish this is Stephen King's Carrie. (Granted, Kim Myers is no Sissy Spacek, but she does a dang good job!)
I've noticed there are many reviewers here that ask the question "who would hire a babysitter that they've known for five minutes?" I'm sorry to have to say it, but several. I myself babysat all the time when I was in highschool, and often for complete strangers. I knew the children a lot better than I ever knew the parents, and the situation with Nell entering the hotel room for the first time is a scene that I've lived through hundreds of times. The parents, rushed to make an engagement see a clean-cut, respectable looking girl, and feel safe in entrusting their children to them. Talk about scary.
However, I have to say, this film does fall short from it's original. I didn't know this for years, but "The Sitter" is quite obviously a remake of Marilyn Monroe's "Don't Bother to Knock." As fond as I am of this version, I have to say Monroe's was ten times better. Richard Widmark and Anne Bancroft were fabulous supporting players and Marilyn gave a hugely understated performance. The supporting players in this fell short, and I thought the violence was overdone. This updated version is scary, but watch the original for a side of Monroe you've never seen.
Somewhere in Time (1980)
It's sooooo corny, but it's good anyway
This movie is such a guilty pleasure. As a hopeless romantic, I couldn't help but love this movie. Christopher Reeve is dashing, Jane Seymour is charming, and there are even special appearances by Christopher Plummer and (the best actress of all time) Teresa Wright! BUT - men beware - this is the definitive chick flick. As romantic as I am, and however many times I've seen Casablanca, I still have to admit that this script is as syrapy as you can get. The story can't get any cheesier, but it's helped along by great performances.
Being a Michigan native, I have first-hand experience with The Grand Hotel, Mackinac Island and the Somewhere in Time Fan Club. I have to say it, I've gone to midnight showings of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, but the Somewhere in Time fans are SCARY! They dress up in 1912 dresses, pretend they're Jane Seymour, and I even met a couple who named their children Richard and Elise. Folks, this is not normal! At least the RHPS fans know it's a joke and don't take it seriously. These Somewhere in Time fans... yikes!
But apart from the cult following (yes it most definately is a cult-classic) it is a good movie. Cheesy as anything, but good. Girls, keep a kleenex (or if you're a member of the fanclub - a handkerchief) ready! You will cry!
The Slipper and the Rose: The Story of Cinderella (1976)
Doesn't quite work
This is a beautiful retelling of the Cinderella story, with lovely costumes, imaginative sets, and great songs. The script was well written by the Sherman Brothers and Bryan Forbes - and all in all, this should have been a perfect movie. Somehow, it's not.
It's rather hard to find exactly where the problem lies in this movie, mostly because there are so many good points to this film. Richard Chamberlain looks as if he's having the time of his life with his role as the Prince, Margaret Lockwood is a commanding screen presence and obviously enjoyed her role as the Stepmother. (Sadly, it would be her last.) Michael Hordern is a riot as the king, and Christopher Gable is adorable as the companion at arms.
I hate to point a finger at sweet little Gemma Craven - but I really don't know where else to put the blame. She's a lovely young actress, sings and dances well, but she simply seems too young for the lead role. It's not necessarily her fault - it's quite a lot for a first-time actress to carry the entire weight of the film on her shoulders. She tries very hard, but she doesn't quite succeed. Her chemistry with Richard Chamberlain is a little off, and although he looks like he's never had so much fun - she can never quite seem to relax.
Overall I'd recommend the movie - especially to someone who loves fairy tales. It's beautifully photographed and lovingly directed. The Sherman Brothers did an amazing job with the score, and I think "Once I Was Loved," "Secret Kingdom" and "Tell Him Anything" are some of the best songs they've ever written - yes, even better than MARY POPPINS. So enjoy the movie, despite a few flaws, it's a ton of fun.
Thumbelina (1994)
I don't care that I'm all grown up! I love this movie!
So help me, this is the cutest thing I've ever seen! I just love this film. First time I saw it, I went with my 7 year old brother, and was determined to hate it - but, well, I just couldn't. It's soooo cute, and the songs are so good, and the story is so well told - it's just impossible not to like it.
The first thing that I really like about this film is that it (unlike, oh so many Disney films) is actually very loyal to the original fairy tale by H.C. Andersen. They've added a few things, and changed a few details, but all of the things they changed I had to agree with (hey, why not let Thumbelina and the Prince meet at the beginning? It makes more sense for them to already be in love. And what's wrong with making the Fieldmouse a girl? It's Carol Channing!) This is very true to the original story - so much more than Disney's THE LITTLE MERMAID (which was supposedly based off another H.C. Andersen tale - but you'd never guess it).
The animation is good, it's not the best, but it's fine. The real star of this film is the music. A beautiful score by Barry Manilow helped out by fabulous voice work. The wonderful Jodi Benson heads the cast (she was also the voice of Ariel in THE LITTLE MERMAID) and she is delightful as Thumbelina. I've been lucky enough to meet Ms. Benson and I have to say, she is just the sweetest person you could ever hope to know. She's got a wonderful, child-like speaking voice, and a glorious singing voice - just the perfect choice for the lead. She's joined in the cast by Gilbert Gottfried, Barbara Cook, Carol Channing, and (another voice talent from THE LITTLE MERMAID) Kenneth Mars.
This film is just beautifully done. It's faithful to the original, it's lovely to see, and has a marvelous soundtrack. I don't care that I'm all grown up - this is a movie I can't help but love.
Babes in Toyland (1961)
Always have loved it, always will
I can't remember a time when I didn't know this movie line by line. I completely grew up with it, singing all the songs and dancing all the dances (Seriously, I was pretty good at that Gypsy number!) Oh I've always seen the cheesy special effects -- even at five you can clearly see the trees are falling out of their costumes and Tommy Sands is in front of a projection screen -- but WHO CARES? I didn't let it bug me when I was little and it sure doesn't bug me now. It's a fairy tale, and it's so cute you just gotta forgive the little glitches.
The cast is wonderful. Of course there's Annette, and honestly people, who doesn't love Annette? She carries the whole movie on her shoulders, and does it well. Tommy Sands is alright, great voice but a bad sixties haircut. The real star of the show is Ray Bolger as Mr. Barnaby. I was so afraid of Mr. Barnaby as a kid, and Bolger is just perfect in the part. It took me a long time to realize that that was the same guy as the Scarecrow in THE WIZARD OF OZ! He's delightful and together with Ed Wynn, completely steals the show. This movie is a treat. To those who just want to point fingers at the fake sets, corny costumes and silly special effects, I say: GO AHEAD! You don't know what you're missing!
The Nutcracker Prince (1990)
Lovely Adaptation
It's about time E.T.A. Hoffman's tale of The Nutcracker and The Mouse King got a faithful adaptation. As one of the what, three people that have actually read the story - it's delightful to see the tale faithfully told, and told for children. In keeping with the tradition started with the Tchaikovsky ballet, it keeps the story light and suitable for children, without leaving out the main themes of the tale. The Hoffman story can be pretty gruesome at places, but this film manages to keep all the details (down to the Krakatuk nut!) in place, without taking away from the charm. They've managed to take some of the ugliest parts and present them comically - which is not an easy task. Good for them! A very good script, wonderful voicework (hey, I didn't know Megan Follows can sing) and just an overall sweet movie. Yes the animation isn't the greatest, but oh, who really cares? It's still a great movie.