I'll say it again: this movie was totally lame. Kids will like it, sure, but adults...doubtful. The whole thing was basically a rehash of the original, which is to be expected, since they pretty much explored the whole concept in the first movie, but still, did they have to completely rehash the entire movie? I mean, everything is re-done from the Little Mermaid. The worst part of it is Morgana "Ursula's crazy sister" who appears out of nowhere and threatens Melody, which is ridiculous since Triton is there with his magic trident. Why didn't Triton do anything about it? Because the plot required him to do nothing. I could go on, but I won't. The whole thing is a shameless attempt to rake in more money from the Little Mermaid, and was obviously thrown together without any thought, because they knew it would sell. Overall it is a terrible waste of time.
Reviews
21 Reviews
The Sword of Doom
(1966)
request for further comments (major spoilers!)
11 September 2000
Warning: Spoilers
I just recently saw the movie 'Sword of Doom', and was fascinated by it. Not only does it have intense acting, and moody direction, but I loved the swordfights, they were awesome. After reading other commentars on it, I was wondering what other thoughts were on the bizarre ending. I was thoroughly engaged in the story, when suddenly and inexplicably, the movie ended on a dark, violent freeze frame. This jarring, "what the frag?" type of ending has bugged me for days. But, since then, it has only served to intrigue me more about what the director was trying to do by ending the movie so differently.
I mean, after all, we are led to believe that Ryonosuke will be fighting either Mifune's character or the brother of the man he kills at the beginning of the movie, when both of these plot lines are dropped, and Ryonosuke goes berserk and starts killing everything that moves! Despite the fact that the ending is so abrupt, I find it hard to believe, judging from the rest of the movie, that this was anything but intentional. I was hoping anyone might have more thoughts they would like to share concerning this fascinating samurai movie.
Cheers,
Erik Goodwyn: edgoodwyn@yahoo.com, or just post a private message on imdb.com
I mean, after all, we are led to believe that Ryonosuke will be fighting either Mifune's character or the brother of the man he kills at the beginning of the movie, when both of these plot lines are dropped, and Ryonosuke goes berserk and starts killing everything that moves! Despite the fact that the ending is so abrupt, I find it hard to believe, judging from the rest of the movie, that this was anything but intentional. I was hoping anyone might have more thoughts they would like to share concerning this fascinating samurai movie.
Cheers,
Erik Goodwyn: edgoodwyn@yahoo.com, or just post a private message on imdb.com
Mission to Mars
(2000)
A lowbrow 2001 (positive, spoilers)
27 March 2000
Warning: Spoilers
What is the deal? Why is everyone trashing this movie? It's fun, exciting, has some awesome effects, geez what is the problem?
This movie has taken a lot of flak concerning the dialogue and character development...is this why we watch sci-fi movies? NO. I really enjoyed this movie. Yes, there were some scientific boo-boos, like the rotating M&Ms (catch the inside joke with the title there?...guess not), and the stuff about DNA was...less than perfect, but who cares?
All in all, I found the characters were likeable and the plot and dialogue were fine. Heck, 2001 didn't even have characters, plot or dialogue! Mission to Mars has many similarities to 2001, the spacecraft design, the 'voice print identification' (DePalma's nod to Kubrick), and the alien encounters. In a nutshell, 2001 was more cerebral and amazing. Mission to Mars was quite a bit less amazing, but lots more fun.
Movie highlights were the zero-g dancing, the meteor shower crisis, and above all the above mars spacewalk: all were totally awesome. The camera work emphasises the vertigo of space very effectively in all these scenes and add to the sense of wonder (of which this movie has lots).
I only found the ending to be a bit weak. It was serviceable, but lacked the gumption to go over the edge and show us something really wild. I was hoping for more here, if there were more, I think this movie would be great instead of just good.
But overall, it good old-fashioned sc-ifi fun, relax and enjoy it--and for goodness sake lighten up!
This movie has taken a lot of flak concerning the dialogue and character development...is this why we watch sci-fi movies? NO. I really enjoyed this movie. Yes, there were some scientific boo-boos, like the rotating M&Ms (catch the inside joke with the title there?...guess not), and the stuff about DNA was...less than perfect, but who cares?
All in all, I found the characters were likeable and the plot and dialogue were fine. Heck, 2001 didn't even have characters, plot or dialogue! Mission to Mars has many similarities to 2001, the spacecraft design, the 'voice print identification' (DePalma's nod to Kubrick), and the alien encounters. In a nutshell, 2001 was more cerebral and amazing. Mission to Mars was quite a bit less amazing, but lots more fun.
Movie highlights were the zero-g dancing, the meteor shower crisis, and above all the above mars spacewalk: all were totally awesome. The camera work emphasises the vertigo of space very effectively in all these scenes and add to the sense of wonder (of which this movie has lots).
I only found the ending to be a bit weak. It was serviceable, but lacked the gumption to go over the edge and show us something really wild. I was hoping for more here, if there were more, I think this movie would be great instead of just good.
But overall, it good old-fashioned sc-ifi fun, relax and enjoy it--and for goodness sake lighten up!
2001: A Space Odyssey
(1968)
very positive (spoilers)
2 March 2000
Warning: Spoilers
One of the things that makes 2001 so interesting is the total lack of movies out there even remotely like it. So many people complain that it is incomprehensible, dull, or pretentious. The problem is that 2001 is all of these things if you watch it like you watch any other movie.
People are used to plot, character, and dramatic urgency being spoon fed to them, and so 2001 fails in all of these areas. In fact, it really has no plot, no interesting characters (except HAL), and no drama in the conventional sense. But this is the movies unique strength, and what a strength it is.
The key to enjoying 2001 (and I don't mean understanding it, I mean enjoying it) is to let go of these needs and simply experience it. 2001 isn't about characters and their petty concerns, and it isn't about dramatic dialogue (there isn't any dialogue hardly). Instead, 2001 is about contemplation. It asks--no demands, that we sit back and think about things most people don't think about (indeed that most people don't want to bother thinking about).
It asks questions like what is our place in the universe? Where do we go from here? Who are we? How is our development related to our tools--and the use of violence? Most of all it tries to invoke the sheer awe that the universe inspires, but to appreciate it, you must think about it.
2001 is not incomprehensible. It answers all of these questions--but not in a conventional way. Rather than give pat resolutions or quasi-religious sermons, it asks that you feel the answer, rather than express it in words.
Many people dislike the fact that 2001 has such a baffling ending. But the ending isn't really all that baffling--it is just difficult to describe in words. The awesome mystery of the universe, the movie asserts, is more likely beyond our ability to completely understand. Kubrick understood this, and so presented the entire movie using the least amount of dialogue he could, hoping that the viewers would follow the visual journey, and experience it on a more visceral, primal level than intellectual, even abstract narrative could ever provide.
2001 is a unique masterpiece. You don't watch it. You experience it.
People are used to plot, character, and dramatic urgency being spoon fed to them, and so 2001 fails in all of these areas. In fact, it really has no plot, no interesting characters (except HAL), and no drama in the conventional sense. But this is the movies unique strength, and what a strength it is.
The key to enjoying 2001 (and I don't mean understanding it, I mean enjoying it) is to let go of these needs and simply experience it. 2001 isn't about characters and their petty concerns, and it isn't about dramatic dialogue (there isn't any dialogue hardly). Instead, 2001 is about contemplation. It asks--no demands, that we sit back and think about things most people don't think about (indeed that most people don't want to bother thinking about).
It asks questions like what is our place in the universe? Where do we go from here? Who are we? How is our development related to our tools--and the use of violence? Most of all it tries to invoke the sheer awe that the universe inspires, but to appreciate it, you must think about it.
2001 is not incomprehensible. It answers all of these questions--but not in a conventional way. Rather than give pat resolutions or quasi-religious sermons, it asks that you feel the answer, rather than express it in words.
Many people dislike the fact that 2001 has such a baffling ending. But the ending isn't really all that baffling--it is just difficult to describe in words. The awesome mystery of the universe, the movie asserts, is more likely beyond our ability to completely understand. Kubrick understood this, and so presented the entire movie using the least amount of dialogue he could, hoping that the viewers would follow the visual journey, and experience it on a more visceral, primal level than intellectual, even abstract narrative could ever provide.
2001 is a unique masterpiece. You don't watch it. You experience it.
The 13th Warrior
(1999)
Positive, spoilers
1 February 2000
Warning: Spoilers
Awesome. Those who grumbled about the 13th warrior, such as many movie critics, kept me from seeing it on the big screen, and now I regret it. Having seen the gorgeous DVD edition, I was very impressed with this movie. What I don't understand is why so many people didn't like it.
But for now, anyway, I can snag the DVD and enjoy '13th warrior'. Only the beginning is a little rocky. As usual, a lot of plot has been condensed heavily--only McTeirnon decided to do it all at the beginning. I haven't read Crichton's 'Eaters of the Dead' (thank goodness they changed the title), but you can tell a lot of "book-to-movie" plot trimming went on. Once the Arab Ahmed and his barbaric buddies get to the task of dealing with the Wendol, however, the plot pace becomes more even, and you get a great adventure.
In case you are one of the few who didn't know, this story is a retelling of the old english poem Beowulf.
Critics moaned about the over-simple plot a lot. But considering the source material (which was VERY simplistic, but nonetheless exciting), I think Crichton did a fine job. He reinvented Grendel and his mother, and added a band of viking warriors, and an arab scholar to make the story more realistic. Not that that was necessary, but it gives everything a grittier feel.
Once you realize that Ahmed is not actually the 'hero' of the film, and you recognize the obvious inspiration from Kurosawa's Seven Samurai film, I think you will probably enjoy the movie tremendously, but I warn you there are a lot of things this movie doesn't have: It doesn't have any silly barbarian queens running around in cleavage revealing armor. It doesn't have a muscle bound hero that spouts cute one-liners. It doesn't have any modern sounding dialogue or obvious anachronisms, and it doesn't have any campy humor. It doesn't have a lot of 'hip' actors playing themselves in costume, in fact most of the actors are unknowns, adding to their authenticity.
What it does have is some utterly beautiful set pieces, and some heart stopping battles. The fights are bloody, but like Braveheart, the camera does not linger on the carnage very long. It has some cool undercurrents dealing with themes of fear, the nature of heroism, and some thoughts toward the harsh, brutal life of the Norsemen.
But for now, anyway, I can snag the DVD and enjoy '13th warrior'. Only the beginning is a little rocky. As usual, a lot of plot has been condensed heavily--only McTeirnon decided to do it all at the beginning. I haven't read Crichton's 'Eaters of the Dead' (thank goodness they changed the title), but you can tell a lot of "book-to-movie" plot trimming went on. Once the Arab Ahmed and his barbaric buddies get to the task of dealing with the Wendol, however, the plot pace becomes more even, and you get a great adventure.
In case you are one of the few who didn't know, this story is a retelling of the old english poem Beowulf.
Critics moaned about the over-simple plot a lot. But considering the source material (which was VERY simplistic, but nonetheless exciting), I think Crichton did a fine job. He reinvented Grendel and his mother, and added a band of viking warriors, and an arab scholar to make the story more realistic. Not that that was necessary, but it gives everything a grittier feel.
Once you realize that Ahmed is not actually the 'hero' of the film, and you recognize the obvious inspiration from Kurosawa's Seven Samurai film, I think you will probably enjoy the movie tremendously, but I warn you there are a lot of things this movie doesn't have: It doesn't have any silly barbarian queens running around in cleavage revealing armor. It doesn't have a muscle bound hero that spouts cute one-liners. It doesn't have any modern sounding dialogue or obvious anachronisms, and it doesn't have any campy humor. It doesn't have a lot of 'hip' actors playing themselves in costume, in fact most of the actors are unknowns, adding to their authenticity.
What it does have is some utterly beautiful set pieces, and some heart stopping battles. The fights are bloody, but like Braveheart, the camera does not linger on the carnage very long. It has some cool undercurrents dealing with themes of fear, the nature of heroism, and some thoughts toward the harsh, brutal life of the Norsemen.
Joan of Arc
(1999)
why don't they make more movies like this!?
16 August 1999
This is great stuff. Like everyone else, I loved Leelee as Joan. She is a very good young actor. The story is well done, much better than most big budget movies (that usually end up as just dreck aimed at idiots). The acting is good, the script is great, etc, etc--what I really loved about it was the period detail. Awesome. These guys have full plate armor that makes the guys in 'Excalibur' seem underdressed! Gotta love that. If only for the battle of Orleans, this movie is worth a look. Such intensity in a battle is so rarely matched, and they did it without overexcessive gore and blood, so I can let my kids watch it without flinching (too much). This is good, because a story like this, tragic as it is, is important for everyone to hear. Not only that, the story is TRUE. I'm sure some liberties were taken in this version, but it doesn't matter, the heart of the story is about idealism in the face of bitter cynicism. Joan brings hope and victory with her vision, and for her effort is betrayed and murdered in a gruesome fashion. But she never backed down, never withdrew her convictions, and never succumbed to doubt or self pity. We should all think about that--especially in today's world of sarcasm and scorn. I'm not very religious, but this story inspires me nonetheless. And...I love midieval battle scenes with plate armor and huge swords :)
What criticisms?
26 May 1999
Here are all the things wrong with this movie: It's too kiddified, Jar jar is annoying, there's too much FX, there's no story, the acting is bad, etc, etc, etc. All of these criticisms are stupid.
Hollywood would do well to watch this movie (repeatedly) and TAKE NOTES. Instead of giving us hundreds of 'hip', brainless action movies, schmaltzy 'character dramas' and other endless tripe, they should watch the Phantom Menace and see what real imaginative filmmaking is all about.
They are far too concerned with adding just enough pointless sex and blood splattering gore to avoid the 'awful' PG rating that would otherwise label their movie a 'kids' movie (since when did PG mean 'children's movie'? I thought it meant parental guidance suggested. On that thought, why do G movies have this label?) Dialogue? You want to talk about dialogue? What about all the gen-x, hip, smartass dialogue that spouts ad infinitum out of every other movie out there? The dialogue in Star Wars isn't Shakespeare, but it is at least free from cynicism and (half) witty euphemisms.
Call me defensive, but Star Wars transcends everyday films. Why? Because it is art.
That's right, CGI effects or not, the atmosphere and mood setting in this movie are georgeous art. I don't care if it is accomplished with computers or not. What's the problem? Computers are tools, like canvas and paint, and Star Wars oozes visual magic and loving attention to every detail in every single frame from start to finish. Lucas is a master of mood and visual tone.
And the music! Operatic, dense, flowing and beautiful. The choral piece at the end invites us into a pagan world of mysticism and magic ritual, to the scene of laser sword hyper-fighting that dazzles the mind.
If you don't know this by now, Star Wars is at it's heart a silent movie. The music is much more important, the visual spectacle carries the story, and the sounds and melodies surround you with the mood. That is why so many people don't understand them. It isn't about dialogue, or even characters and story. But we love the story, because it is as old as myth, and we love the characters, because we experience the magical worlds and imaginary vistas through their eyes. They don't have to be interesting, they ARE us.
If you don't understand that, you don't understand Star Wars. It is unlike anything Hollywood can conceive, since all they are interested in doing is cranking out cheap copies loaded with trendy mega-stars. It pales in comparison to this richly weaved tapestry of imagination. I don't care what anyone says, Star Wars is a masterpiece.
Hollywood would do well to watch this movie (repeatedly) and TAKE NOTES. Instead of giving us hundreds of 'hip', brainless action movies, schmaltzy 'character dramas' and other endless tripe, they should watch the Phantom Menace and see what real imaginative filmmaking is all about.
They are far too concerned with adding just enough pointless sex and blood splattering gore to avoid the 'awful' PG rating that would otherwise label their movie a 'kids' movie (since when did PG mean 'children's movie'? I thought it meant parental guidance suggested. On that thought, why do G movies have this label?) Dialogue? You want to talk about dialogue? What about all the gen-x, hip, smartass dialogue that spouts ad infinitum out of every other movie out there? The dialogue in Star Wars isn't Shakespeare, but it is at least free from cynicism and (half) witty euphemisms.
Call me defensive, but Star Wars transcends everyday films. Why? Because it is art.
That's right, CGI effects or not, the atmosphere and mood setting in this movie are georgeous art. I don't care if it is accomplished with computers or not. What's the problem? Computers are tools, like canvas and paint, and Star Wars oozes visual magic and loving attention to every detail in every single frame from start to finish. Lucas is a master of mood and visual tone.
And the music! Operatic, dense, flowing and beautiful. The choral piece at the end invites us into a pagan world of mysticism and magic ritual, to the scene of laser sword hyper-fighting that dazzles the mind.
If you don't know this by now, Star Wars is at it's heart a silent movie. The music is much more important, the visual spectacle carries the story, and the sounds and melodies surround you with the mood. That is why so many people don't understand them. It isn't about dialogue, or even characters and story. But we love the story, because it is as old as myth, and we love the characters, because we experience the magical worlds and imaginary vistas through their eyes. They don't have to be interesting, they ARE us.
If you don't understand that, you don't understand Star Wars. It is unlike anything Hollywood can conceive, since all they are interested in doing is cranking out cheap copies loaded with trendy mega-stars. It pales in comparison to this richly weaved tapestry of imagination. I don't care what anyone says, Star Wars is a masterpiece.
Welcome back to a galaxy far, far away
20 May 1999
You'll find that all of the criticisms about TPM are recycled from the criticisms of the old trilogy, or at least of Return of the Jedi.
Trust me, the story isn't as simple as it seems. I think that people were so dazzled by the effects (which are impressive), they weren't paying attention to the acting, or the story, both of which are very good. Are they as good as the imagery? No, but they never were!
Besides, Star Wars isn't so much about characters, as it is about legends. Don't believe the criticisms, it is really a great movie, and it fits in perfectly with the others.
One special note: You've heard about the podrace and the duel (both of which are unbelievably amazing) but watch the queen in the senate chamber. She is so sad at seeing the Republic as it crumbles away, it will tear you're heart out--as will another scene, when young Anakin (perfectly portrayed by Jake Loyd as a child genius with a secretive soul) must part with his mother. Unforgettable.
"I had a dream I was a Jedi..."
Welcome back to Star Wars...Episode II, III, we wait eagerly.
Trust me, the story isn't as simple as it seems. I think that people were so dazzled by the effects (which are impressive), they weren't paying attention to the acting, or the story, both of which are very good. Are they as good as the imagery? No, but they never were!
Besides, Star Wars isn't so much about characters, as it is about legends. Don't believe the criticisms, it is really a great movie, and it fits in perfectly with the others.
One special note: You've heard about the podrace and the duel (both of which are unbelievably amazing) but watch the queen in the senate chamber. She is so sad at seeing the Republic as it crumbles away, it will tear you're heart out--as will another scene, when young Anakin (perfectly portrayed by Jake Loyd as a child genius with a secretive soul) must part with his mother. Unforgettable.
"I had a dream I was a Jedi..."
Welcome back to Star Wars...Episode II, III, we wait eagerly.
The Mask of Zorro
(1998)
Ever heard of overkill?
12 March 1999
More is not always better! This is a fabulously fun, exciting, hilarious movie, but it just goes on forever. There are just too many swordfights, daring rescues, and nonstop action, at the end, it's just overkill. I mean, I like action, swordfights, and high speed action, but this movie (especially at the end) had me saying 'OK, OK, now let's kill the bad guys and get this over with!'. I never thought I would say that a movie had too many swordfights in it, honestly. But just count how many times someone has their sword pointed at someone else's neck, so that they can deliver some Dramatic Dialogue, only to have that person escape to continue the fighting on and on and on... You would lose count. Heck, the hero even swordfights the heroine! I mean, it's excessive!
But despite all that, Mask of Zorro is still lots of fun. Some better editing would have been nice, but other than that, it's very good. Just don't be surprised if after you see it, you find yourself thinking 'well it's about time!'
But despite all that, Mask of Zorro is still lots of fun. Some better editing would have been nice, but other than that, it's very good. Just don't be surprised if after you see it, you find yourself thinking 'well it's about time!'
Utterly bizarre
12 March 1999
This is the weirdest, most absolutely inane movie I have ever seen. Fortunately for me, I love this type of humor, but not everyone likes it. The Holy Grail is loaded with tongue-in-cheek, irony, sarcasm, total silliness, and everything else you can think of, including the most quotable script ever.
This is Monty Python, either you get it or you don't. I love it--but you must not EVER take any of it seriously. You have to look at everything that happens in it with the same zaniness that they present it with. Holy hand grenades, mighty wizards named 'Tim', coconut-clacking lackies, moose credits, fake swedish, non-sequitors, all thrown at you with out any sense of coherence or plot--and all just for the sake of being crazy! If you can't appreciate everything being parodied so blatantly, you won't like it.
But if you like humor taken to the most ludicrous level possible, like me, you will.
This is Monty Python, either you get it or you don't. I love it--but you must not EVER take any of it seriously. You have to look at everything that happens in it with the same zaniness that they present it with. Holy hand grenades, mighty wizards named 'Tim', coconut-clacking lackies, moose credits, fake swedish, non-sequitors, all thrown at you with out any sense of coherence or plot--and all just for the sake of being crazy! If you can't appreciate everything being parodied so blatantly, you won't like it.
But if you like humor taken to the most ludicrous level possible, like me, you will.
First Knight
(1995)
much better than given credit
11 March 1999
The problem with First Knight is that it is old-fashioned. It lacks cynicism and irony. As you can see from many of the other comments, it was not well received by many. Why? I'm not sure, really. I loved it tremendously. It isn't for King Arthur purists who think that 'Le Morte D' Arthur' is the ONLY version of the Arthurian legend out there (as if legends can have only one version!). First Knight is a visually beautiful, sentimental, and well crafted romantic adventure, told from the point of view of Lancelot, in this version a wandering sellsword.
If you are looking for the mysticism, the magic and the tragedy of Camelot...you'll be disappointed. This is a more optimistic telling of the tale. It is also more streamlined. There is no lady of the lake, no Merlin, no Excalibur, and no Morgana. If you want to see all that, go and rent Boorman's Excalibur (1981), also a very good Arthurian legend, but very different from First Knight. It is a much darker and more savage rendition of the tale, and the ending is also more grim and brooding.
Here, you have only Arthur, Lancelot, Guenevere, and a villain who is essentially Mordred, known as Malagant (they even refer to him as a prince). It focuses on the love triangle and the final battles between Arthur and Malagant, which lightens the burden of storytelling considerably from Excalibur, which can be quite thick with plot at times (not that this is bad, it's just different). I found myself not really missing all the magic and myth of the story, and enjoying First Knight for its strength: it is romantic, intelligent, and energetic. The performances are all good (though the men are a bit old), and the music is simply gorgeous.
If you don't mind that the legend has been toned down, but only to focus on a tighter storyline with fewer characters to encumber it, you will like First Knight. If you have a problem with big movie star names playing ancient characters (Gere distracted many with his performance, but I felt he did a great job), or if you don't like deviations from the 'real' legend of Camelot, you probably won't enjoy this adventure/doomed romance for what it is.
If you are looking for the mysticism, the magic and the tragedy of Camelot...you'll be disappointed. This is a more optimistic telling of the tale. It is also more streamlined. There is no lady of the lake, no Merlin, no Excalibur, and no Morgana. If you want to see all that, go and rent Boorman's Excalibur (1981), also a very good Arthurian legend, but very different from First Knight. It is a much darker and more savage rendition of the tale, and the ending is also more grim and brooding.
Here, you have only Arthur, Lancelot, Guenevere, and a villain who is essentially Mordred, known as Malagant (they even refer to him as a prince). It focuses on the love triangle and the final battles between Arthur and Malagant, which lightens the burden of storytelling considerably from Excalibur, which can be quite thick with plot at times (not that this is bad, it's just different). I found myself not really missing all the magic and myth of the story, and enjoying First Knight for its strength: it is romantic, intelligent, and energetic. The performances are all good (though the men are a bit old), and the music is simply gorgeous.
If you don't mind that the legend has been toned down, but only to focus on a tighter storyline with fewer characters to encumber it, you will like First Knight. If you have a problem with big movie star names playing ancient characters (Gere distracted many with his performance, but I felt he did a great job), or if you don't like deviations from the 'real' legend of Camelot, you probably won't enjoy this adventure/doomed romance for what it is.
Godzilla
(I) (1998)
Mindless fun
25 February 1999
The plot is inane, the characters are cardboard, the humor falls flat. So? It has a huge lizard that leaves twisted wreckage in its wake! Just skip all the parts without Godzilla in them, and you have a great special effects extravaganza. Never mind the movie rips off Jaws, Jurassic Park, and a bunch of other movies. So what? This movie makes no excuses, it is just silly FX-driven entertainment. Kids love it. Check it out on DVD and surround, and feel Godzilla stomping around NYC. BTW Godzilla never breathes fire in this movie. Watch the scene where he breathes on a car that explodes. His breath carries the flames, but he never actually breathes fire.
George of the Jungle
(1997)
Hilarious!
22 February 1999
What a zany, goofy, good time of a movie. Obviously, judging by the other comments, this type of humor is a matter of taste. But if you like inane humor, you'll love this flick. The plot is...well it's idiotic, but nobody really cares, that is the great thing. This is not a situation comedy! It has lots of tongue-in-cheek humor, slapstick, and of course, the infamous fake trees (this is a comedy...remember?). The narrator is the funniest character in the whole movie--he scolds the characters, adds smart-ass remarks and talks to the audience, reassuring them that "nobody dies in this story...they just get really big boo-boos!" If you are the type of person who just likes a big laugh, and aren't too worried about what kind of elephant Shep is, you will like this one.
DragonHeart
(1996)
pretty good...
22 February 1999
Like others, I rate Dragonheart far above most mindless summer blockbusters, loaded with hip witticisms and sarcastic heroes. Dragonheart is not cynical at all, and is lots of fun for kids of all ages (why is this movie PG13?). If you're looking for a really ferocious dragon, Draco isn't it. Draco is much more human than most movie dragons (if you want a scary dragon, watch Dragonslayer), but he is very realistic. In fact, the scenes without him tend to drag, but Dennis Quaid's Bowen is strong as the disillusioned knight. If you are looking for a deep plot, you won't find it, but that's no big deal. Dragonheart is more about adventure and dragons than about plot twists and in depth characterizations. Edelman's music is great for the most part, especially in the final scenes, which I think are the best in the movie. Check it out.
Willow
(1988)
mixed feelings
22 February 1999
I don't know about this movie. I mean, I like it--sort of. There are some great things about it, and there are some annoying things. For one, the plot. It's like Snow White meets the Story of Moses meets the Lord of the Rings. I mean derivativeness has its place, but this is just too derivative. It has all the elements of a great fantasy (great battles, weird monsters, interesting characters, great journeys) except one: a sense of awe and wonder. I was just never convinced that that baby (who we see entirely too much of) could save the world, or that all the mumbo jumbo about ancient witches and monsters was real to the characters. The brownies quickly wear out their welcome, though they never become outright annoying. They just become redundant. General Kale is given little to do other than ride around looking mean, and he is obviously a poor man's Darth Vader (Lucas referring to himself, I guess). Bavmorda is more irritating than terrifying, and the story really went off in too many directions, lacking urgency and focus. OK, with that said, I can now say what I liked about the movie. First, it was pretty funny. There are a lot of humorous moments, especially with Mad Martigan. The FX are very good (of course, from ILM) and there are many very good little actors (like Warwick Davis) in Willow. The scenery is great, and even though the plot goes off on tangents, you are always left guessing as to what will happen next (if you just forget the inevitable showdown between Good and Evil). So all-in-all, I liked it, but I think it could have been much better. Still, there are precious few good fantasy movies around, so I still would have to give this one a 'thumbs up.'
First Knight
(1995)
...But it will age well
18 February 1999
With so many negative reviews on this movie, I feel obligated to defend it. I enjoyed it. I don't care what anyone says, Sean Connery looks great as King Arthur; no one can deny that. And Julia Ormond, despite some corny dialogue, is still pretty convincing as Guinevere. Gere plays a fine swashbuckling Lancelot, american accent or not (why does this annoy everyone so much?) giving the legendary warrior a very human edge. Gere is a subtle actor, you have to look closely to see the emotion he is portraying, but it IS there. And another thing, don't compare this movie to Excalibur. It just isn't fair. The two movies are attempting totally different things. Second, forget about the references to King Arthur and Lancelot, and just enjoy this movie for what it is: a highly romanticized medieval adventure with exciting battles, swinging swords, plate armor, and melodramatic romance. Sheesh, lighten up, people!
Excalibur
(1981)
A spellbinding fantasy
18 February 1999
I must disagree with a previous comment. I actually enjoyed the PG version more. This movie was made at a time when being graphic with violence and sex was considered 'en vogue' and frankly in this movie it only serves to distract because of it's excessiveness. There is so much more to this movie, but all anyone seems to remember is the gore and the rape in plate mail. Boorman tried too hard to provide stark images to contrast the beauty of Camelot. Excalibur doesn't need it, it provides the contrast anyway. With that said, this is a great film. It is heavy with poetic themes, and music of Wagner and Orff are used perfectly with the imagery--unforgettable. The performances are occasionally overdone, but this is because most of the actors Boorman used were used to the theater, so this is forgivable. The whole movie is emotionally charged and intense from beginning to end, not one moment is wasted. But even more, it is complex and intellectually challenging. Various themes and parallels exist in the story, too many to list: The Dragon, the Celtic idea of the King and the Land, Merlin and Excalibur, the rise of Christianity. This movie bears more resemblance to the pre-Christian myths of the Celtic god Artur than to the later Christianizations of these stories, which demoted him to a king. In fact Christianity was given very little attention in the story, which I think was a good move, giving the story a more primordial feel. Overall, I enjoyed this movie very much (sans all the unnecessary gore/sex that so many people can't seem to live without) and will watch it again and again.
Ladyhawke
(1985)
very enjoyable fantasy
17 February 1999
Yea, the music is sometimes annoying, but ignore it. The photography in this movie is no less than stunning. Stotarrio's use of color filtration and gorgeous Italian wilderness will knock your socks off, but don't watch this movie unless you have it on DVD. The acting is adequate, and the plot is a little thin, but the costumes are good, and the overall premise of the story is fun. Broderick has some funny moments, and the direction is very solid. Check it out (on DVD!)
Alexander the Great
(1956)
A philosophical epic
10 February 1999
I have always been fascinated by the short and violent life of Alexander of Macedonia, which of course makes me biased in reviewing this film. It has been said of this film that Robert Rossen, who produced, wrote and directed this film, was aiming for a masterpiece but failed honorably. While this is true in a way, I still enjoyed it more than that. This movie is not fast in pace, and the direction is not perfect either, but it feels authentic. I'm sure that not everything portrayed is true to history (does anyone really care?), but it is convincing, and the acting is solid. Richard Burton is a very good Alexander, and he adds a lot of subtle edges to this enigmatic figure from history (just ignore the silly blond wig...) All in all, Alexander the Great is a good film, perhaps too ambitious, and even though it is not very accessible to viewers not familiar with the territory, it is still quite dramatic, convincing and enjoyable if you like historical epics. And even though the film doesn't ask you to care too much about the characters, it is still an interesting, intellectual, and high minded story you probably will not forget. If you keep in mind that it is the events of history that are really on display here, and not so much the individual players, you may enjoy it as I did.
Dragonslayer
(1981)
Almost forgotten classic fantasy tale
3 February 1999
Forget about Draco, this dragon is downright SCARY, and has a seriously bad attitude. Even though the effects are somewhat dated, Dragonslayer is still a great movie for those who like dark fairy tales. The pacing is not fast, and the direction is brooding and gloomy, but Dragonslayer still manages to draw you into it. Ralph Richardson steals the show with as the Bizarre Ulrich, the master wizard, and Peter MacNichol does a good job as the bold, not quite master apprentice who does his best given the wild circumstances he is given. There is a lot of plot here, more than really necessary, and the movie could have used a quicker pace, but these are minor flaws to an otherwise great adventure movie with a VERY menacing dragon, wonderfully grim and foreboding scenery and an ambiguous ending that makes you think. Too bad this movie did poorly at the box office (pitted against Raiders of the Lost Ark and Superman II, it stood little chance). But altogether a good example of what fantasy movies can be, if they have the courage.
Captures the imagination
3 February 1999
Probably everyone has heard of the Star Wars movies. They stand out as pieces of mythology, classic film lore, and technical wizardry. Star Wars set the standard in Sci/Fi movies and special effects have been a huge part of movie making ever since. Simply put, Star Wars is a masterpiece, made with meticulous attention to detail by a reclusive but highly knowledgeable film maker known for experimenting. Star Wars speaks to the child in all of us, that naive spirit of adventure, of Good versus Evil, that pure idealism that surrounds us with feelings of awe and wonder. It's a great work of imagination, of tribute to the classics of the past, of legends, heroes, magic and wide open fantasy. George Lucas was right when he said that modern audiences longed for a mythology all their own, and he delivers with his epic story, aimed at kids of ages 8 to 80, with a grand sweep. I love these movies.
Tell Your Friends