Studio Morye Reviews Reviews

Chaplin (1992)

A mixed review

[27 August 2001]

Richard Attenborough's 1992 film CHAPLIN is not a great movie. It is a rather normal biographical film with high ambitions and a few signs of brilliance scattered throughout it. First of all, let me say that Robert Downey Jr. is marvelous as the Little Tramp. At first, it seemed an unlike choice; he didn't especially LOOK the part. But he really captures Chaplin's spirit and his energy and his attitudes. While it is certainly a biased portrayal in his favor (or, rather, it makes J. Edgar Hoover out to be a complete villain, whereas real life was a smidge more complicated than that), one cannot help but find themselves somewhat endeared by Chaplin in this film regardless of his affairs. That too was another problem with the film; its focus shifted from one thing in his life to another, as if to cover all the bases.

There are some authentically great scenes in this film; his first public appearance as an entertainer, his sending his mother to the asylum (the duration of the scenes regarding his youth are eerily atmospheric and good) and his first real comedy on a tugboat in England as a teenager.

The rest of the scenes that really stick out predominantly in my mind are the ones about his films; Dan Aykroyd appears a few times as Mack Sennett, and the sequences in his studio in which Charlie becomes the Little Tramp and proves himself to be who he says he is are astounding. The film really loses its pace when it tries to cover everything about his personal life, and indeed some mention of these things is obligatory in a biographical film about Charlie Chaplin. But what really stands out about the man is not the man, rather, the films. It's almost as though CHAPLIN were made by a few filmmakers trying to serve a different individual purpose in their direction. The performances are magnificent; Downey as said, Aykroyd, Kevin Kline as Douglas Fairbanks.. a few cameos are made as well.

Downey, and the really great scenes, make this film worth watching. Without those things, I don't know what we'd have as a result.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

The best film of 2001, already.

[29 June 2001]

I just got back from watching "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" at the local theatre. This movie, more than any other, has been anticipated by me an on almost obsessive level. My patience payed off, however.

At numerous times throughout the piece, I thought of A.I. as being similar with Edward Scissorhands; we have this unorthodox creature, both robotic, who hurts people accidentally, by nature (though this isn't as common in AI as it is in Edward Scissorhands), who is marveled upon at the same time. Spielberg's tendency to express warmth and sympathy both emmiting from his characters as well as drawing it out of the audience towards them is kept at a surprisingly out-of-character held-back pace, no doubt wanting to keep the film in its intended Kubrick vein (the late Stanley Kubrick of DR. STRANGELOVE and 2001: A SPACE ODDYSEY fame was originally set to write and direct this piece based on a short story by Brian Aldiss, but passed it on to Spielberg in the late 90s so he could work on EYES WIDE SHUT but still keep an eye on the project. He died in 1999.) but at the same time, eager to get back into the norm. He answers one of the film's questions in his own way: Is it possible to feel emotion towards an artificially intelligent being?

The answer is yes. As we watch David Swinton, the robotic protagonist, amaze, terrify and perplex those around him, we do in fact feel genuine sympathy towards him. Watching this film inspired such thoughts as this: Perhaps all characters in film that is ficticious are like sentient beings, and each one serves a purpose.

Our story, more or less, is this: The year is 2027, and the ice caps have begun to melt, washing New York City (among others) away to ruin. A couple working for a firm that creates robots designed to function in individual purposes. Examples: Some (Jude Law's character of Gigolo Joe) are designed to perform sexual tasks for their human overlords, some are made to cook, drive cars, etc. David's purpose, making him the first of his kind, is to both give and ellicit genuine emotion. There is one flaw in his programming, however, and it is this: When a certain sequence of seven particular words is said, and he is able to clearly understand them, his emotional bond for the reader is turned on. Once activated, it's not possible to turn it back off, so the robot must be destroyed if problematic. The couple, Monica and Henry Swinton, have a boy of their own - a biological one - but for the past five years, he's been cryogenically frozen with an illness unstated to the audience. David is initiated into their home, albeit reluctantly, and things are good. Martin, their son, is cured and released from his deep sleep, however, and the two boys must share a household. Martin practices malicious tricks on David, convincing him that "mommy" will love him if he does them. In one of them, he convinces their mother to read Carlo Collodi's original PINOCCHIO to the boys, which is much more morbid and dark than just about any cinematic adaptation of the story. When Monica has to abandon David in the forest, too weak-willed to send him to the destruction facility because of a mishap involving him and Martin and a swimming pool, David is alone, and presented with the harsh reality of the real world. With only Teddy, an old artificially intelligent "supertoy" (a talking, walking, thinking stuffed bear) to comfort him, he sees a flesh fair, where robots are rounded up and tortured, among other things, and then he meets Joe, and the two of them try to find the Blue Fairy (she who brings Pinocchio to live, and eventually turns him into a real boy) so that she can give David the characteristics of a real child, so Monica will love him as much as she loves Martin. Their search is mutual primarily because Joe seems to think this Blue Fairy is another potential female client of his. Their search leads them to Rouge city, and then who knows where else? The film steps over the boundaries both emotional, intellectual and regarding the story itself in ways you can't possibly imagine.

AI, like it or hate it, is easily worth anything ten dollars or under. The visual effects are astounding, but subtle. They are not the reason for seeing it, nor do they think they are, like those in some films (PEARL HARBOR). A good deal of the filmgoing majority will hate this film. A good deal will love it, and a good deal will feel like they've been intellectually transcended. It is not a film for children, and some parts of it will send chills down your spine with their surrealism and intensity. But the trip is worth it, regardless of how you view the ending. Your thoughts, assume you open up to the films you see in the least and don't absorb them like a completely routine meal with nothing new to offer, will most certainly be stimulated after you leave this movie. Spielberg's screenplay is strong as are the performances, but it's hard to swallow the medicine sometimes. Is it with flaws? Most certainly. Some scenes are astoundingly unpleasant, and numerous times you will think you have reached the end when it is not so. Spielberg has done it again, with Kubrick's fading, desensitized and alltogether more intensely intellectual genius guiding him. It's the best film of the summer, I can tell, and quite possibly the year.

Shrek (2001)

Cynical, sarcastic, crude.... wonderful?

[29 June 2001]

Of course, the above are merely scratching the surface of any accurate description of Shrek. The film is stunning visually, and the humor is like that of the Warner Brothers or Jay Ward - delightful spoofs.

Now, don't take me wrong. I love certain Disney productions, most of which were made in the 40s (Pinocchio, Bambi, Dumbo, Fantasia). But the studio's talent for storytelling has faded and is encroached on more and more every year by the demand to provide stunning visuals over the true essence of good cinema: stories. Shrek, as unlikely a candidate as it struck me as before seeing it, has these things. The animation, although entirely computer generated (anyone else intimidated by the fact that the most enjoyable American animated films of the past few years have all been CGI?) is realistic and believable, but what really knocked my socks off was the appeal Shrek has that can be channeled both to adults and children, and yes, adolescents like myself. Some of the gags are more fun than others, such as the sharp wit of the dialogue being more enjoyable to me than the title character wiping his posterior with a page from a book, but this only demonstrates the film's ability to articulate its audience's interests.

Our characters are rather simple, really: A pessimistic, lonesome (but in denial) ogre voiced by Mike Myers who lives out in a swamp, an obscenely talkative donkey voiced by Eddie Murphy, a diminutive, egotistical, one-dimensional lord of the kingdom of Duloc named Farquaad and an isolated-until-freed-by-Shrek-princess named Fiona with an overly melodramatic way of handling things, a minor attitude problem, and the ability to kill birds with her terribly high singing ala Snow White but simply not so.

Farquaad's rounding up fairy-tale critters to make room and they subsequently run for haven in Shrek's swamp. We meet, along the way, the three bears, the three blind mice, the three pigs, the wolf in grandmother's clothes, the fairy Godmother, Peter Pan, Pinocchio, the Magic Mirror (who provides Farquaad with his choices for a future wife ala the Dating Game), the Gingerbread Man, The seven dwarves and countless others (look out for a hilarious musical number by someone named "Monsieur Hood" as he tries to woo Fiona with his merry men). The film's production unit obviously spent more time on the main four characters than others - some of the lesser characters and background people look without much in the line of experession or detail, but this is a forgivable sin in the animation industry given how much crap is released annually with character designs devoid of any style whatsover.

The choice of music, mainly Smashmouth and the Monkees, in some way or another, isn't too fitting, but it's also forgivable. Abandoning such superficialities as character designs, choice of music and detail in animation, I repeat, we have a good story with good dialogue and uproarious humor here. One of the best films of the year unquestionably.

Now, why can't we figure out how to make traditionally animated films that are as much fun as SHREK or the TOY STORY films on a regular basis?

Simon Birch (1998)

A Hallmark card of a movie

[25 April 2001]

"Simon Birch" is an extremely mixed film, and I see it as something of a Hallmark card, among the ranks of "Stepmom", "Bicentennial Man" and the like. The characters (with the exception of the title character, who is perverse and at the same time, sweet) are all one-dimensional cardboard cutouts with personalities pointed directly in one direction. They're either perfect, or they're evil (Simon's parents, the priest). I liked Oliver Platt's character, particularly the scene with the armidillo "It's not so bad, once you get used to it". I don't exactly know why, but I thought there was some genuine warmth in that scene as well as SOME others. But the movie is too delightfully coincidental; lovable protagonist born with disability. Everything horrible happens to him. He ends up saving the day. Well, that's nice, but it's not like real life. This aims too hard to be a sex comedy, a drama, a family movie and a film about people. It had a good message and some great scenes, but overall it lacked the initial realism and emotion ACQUIRED (not forced upon the viewer) that most of the world's greatest films have. And I can see the director of this piece wanting to create one of them. But the overall feeling is that this piece is unaware of what it exactly wants to be as opposed to what it IS. The result is a displeasing mixture of forced sentiment (sap, even) and perverse comedy.

Mary Poppins (1964)

Practically Pointless

[21 April 2001]

This is a brutal dosage of cinematic novacane, wrapped in a sugared-down package with absolutely no wit, originality, plot or intelligence. It's just a repetitious force-fed festival for the easily amused, or possibly those unwilling to pick up a book. In P.L. Travers' original texts; the humor is transferred unsuccessfully into a series of brutally corny production numbers; dancing penguins that look pasted onto the celluloid, Dick Van Dyke's terrifyingly pathetic performance as a chimney-sweep and "Chim-Chimeney-Chim-Chimeney-Chim-Chim-Charoo" is truly one of satan's instruments. This is easily one of the worst films I have ever seen.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

Good. Great, maybe. But overrated.

[18 April 2001]

CTHD is a good, competent film. It has good special effects and a good script. The cinematography is amazing. The performances are very good. But.. why is it #9 on the top 250 list at IMDB, while "Patton" sits way back. It's a martial arts film with poetic overtones.. just because the American public is allowed a glimpse into another culture's world of film (typically too lazy to track something foreign down unless it's highly reccomended or publicly released) it doesn't make it top 10 material. CTHD is probably one of the greatest films of all time. But it's overrated. This is definitely worth seeing, but it has some flaws (a 20-minute, episodic flashback, for example) and they never really explain the whole flying thing, which has some Chinese-religious backgrounds, which may confuse viewers. The point is, this is a good, solid film. It's just not all it's cracked up to be.

The Matrix (1999)

Overlong music video or existential pondering?

[4 April 2001]

THE MATRIX has great special effects and a good script. No joke. Where on earth people got the impression that it was #39 of the top 250 greatest films of all time (while E.T. sits near the end, rotting) is beyond me. It's just a bad movie. It attempts to be intelligent and existential, but it constantly wavers between action-adventure and intelligent film. Only people like Spielberg, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, etc, have managed this successfully. This movie's theories are generally typical, teen-angst pieces of "what am I?". The special effects and production values don't save the movie.

Hook (1991)

Underrated, with bad spots

[10/10 · 31 March 2001]

Spielberg's "Hook" is often critized as being too childish. Why? Some may say the same thing about Jurassic Park. "Hook" is a film with some glaring bad spots - John Williams' occasionally irritating score, Julia Roberts' Tinkerbell (and even worse, the minor romance between she and Peter) and a few bits of Hallmark-ian dialogue are basically all I can think of. Let's start at the beginning.

Peter Banning, middle-aged lawyer extraordinare, doesn't do a whole lot with his kids. He misses his son Jack's big baseball game, but makes it to daughter Maggie's play. He frequently has to answer his cell phone. On a trip to England, the children are kidnapped by someone claiming to be the literary villain Captain Hook. Peter's adoptive grandmother tells him that the Peter Pan books are all true and that he IS Peter Pan, after leaving Neverland. Unbelieving this, he is confronted by Tinkerbell while drinking and taken off to Neverland to save his children.

Dustin Hoffman and Bob Hoskins steal the show as Captain Hook and his assistant Smee in some truly hilarious scenes, including one in which Hook decides to kill himself. The sets, costumes, and dialogue (with some exception, mostly revolving around the Banning children) are good, and the crocodile with the big clock in his mouth is truly, well, cool.

Robin Williams looks outrageous in tights, but fortunately, the writers poke fun at themselves. The lost boys are much better portrayed than Disney did and the atmosphere is very piratey (even though in some scenes the viewer feels like they're trapped in a Disney amusement park). It has some real poignancy and then some mock hallmark sentimentality. Williams' score blasts throughout what seems to be the entire picture, which does, in fact, get irritating. Overall: 7.5 out of ten.

The Jungle Book (1967)

This is NOT Kipling.

[26 March 2001]

Disney's "The Jungle Book" was an epic dissapointment for me. I love animation and am normally very pleased with the studio's films (I find now that they get about one right per decade). But "The Jungle Book" is a complete contradiction of the original text. I love the voices selected for the characters, no question, and the animation is superb. The introduction perfectly catches the book's feel, with the narrative by Bagheera. The characters are well balanced (although I must declare that I really do find Phil Harris to be funny).. What could possibly go wrong? Well, the story is that Disney instructed the supervisors of this film NOT to read the book while making the film. It shows. The plot is without the complications of the book, the characters make brief appearances (Kaa, Hathi, etc..) and then vanish. Maybe I'm just upset because they left out Ming the Bat. I don't know. They also decided to turn it into a pseudo-jazz musical.. I don't know about that either. I just prefer the book. There's too much sugar in the Disney version, the songs aren't GREAT, and the two human characters are irritating little prigs. I dunno about this movie, maybe I'd have more fun with it if I hadn't read the book. Pinocchio was anything BUT Collodi, but that's a good thing. This is just plain wrong.

The Film Fan (1939)

A Porky classic

[20 March 2001]

In Bob Clampett's semi-autobiographical cartoon short "The Film Fan", Porky Pig is sent out by his mother to get a bottle of milk and a loaf of bread. Thrilled when he sees a sign at the theatre labeled "Kids Admitted Free", he rushes in. The gags in this one are a little bit repetitive, using puns, caricatures and spoofs of popular films of the time. The best part is at the end, when Mrs. Pig calls the theatre and the manager steps in front of the screen and says "If there is a little boy here who was supposed to get groceries for his mother, he'd better go home right away!" And, of course, every young patron of the theatre immediately dashes home. A great cartoon.

Ran (1985)

Nigh-perfection

[10/10 · 21 February 2001]

I have always been a lover of Japanese cinema but it rarely went beyond anything frivolous like GODZILLA or certain Anime (Princess Mononoke is not frivolous). But in August, 2000, I awoke early in the morning. Armed with a bowl of cereal and a newspaper, I looked over the showtimes to see which theatres were showing "Godzilla 2000". Something else caught my eye, though. It was a tiny little box with the words "Akira Kurosawa's RAN, 15th anniversary". I had heard the name "Kurosawa" before and as a filmmaker to-be, I was very interested. But I had never seen any of his films.

Well, to cut a long story short, I was sitting in the Egyptian theatre with my father during the evening the next day. And it was brilliant. It had humor, it had drama, it had heart-wrenchingly detailed and exceedingly horrifying scenes of epic violence. This is truly the work of a genius, and when one takes into consideration that the widower Kurosawa was almost blind and 75 when he made RAN we cannot help but bow down to the mighty power of Japan's premier filmmaker.

The story of King Lear set into Feudal Japanese times, RAN takes a leap in all terms. It has three-dimensional characters, unpredictable plot twists, highly meticulous scene setups and brilliant dialogue. For fear of giving anything away, I won't say much more. Just watch this movie if you get a chance. You'll not regret it.

Pinocchio (1940)

Wonderful

[10/10 · 17 February 2001]

Last night I watched Pinocchio, Disney's second feature-length film and in my opinion one of the studio's best features. Based on the 19th century book by Carlo Collodi, but not half as unpleasant, Pinocchio combines winning animation with great humor and excitement. There are songs, but they're never like the huge production numbers that last four minutes and feature the voice of some up-and-coming princess of pop (who'll be gone in a year) that the studio later adopted with the applicable exception of When you Wish Upon a Star. My favorite song is "Little Wooden Head" which is featured in the beginning and is a truly wonderful scene as Gepetto and Figaro play happily with the new puppet.

The movie takes a sadistic, cruel, heartless little wooden boy (Collodi's character) and turns him into an interesting, 3-dimensional kid with a good heart but who is weak-willed and doesn't always listen to reason. The animation makes brilliant use of the multiplane camera, featuring a sprawling opening sequence in which the viewer practically sees the entire village at night. The characters are colorful and fun (I especially love Honest John Foulfellow and his sidekick Gideon) and the story has never a dull moment. This film is a reminder of the sort of efforts Disney put int o their films; the man himself had a great storytelling passion that was lost in later works (Alice in Wonderland, 101 Dalmatians). Pinocchio was never as famous as some of the others, and this is unfortunate because it is his masterpiece.