Name: JPRoscoe
Email:
Bio: Follow me on Twitter @JPRoscoe76! Loves all things pop-culture especially if it has a bit of a counter-culture twist. Plays video games (basically from the start when a neighbor brought home an Atari 2600), comic loving (for almost 30 years), and a true critic of movies. Enjoys the art house but also isn't afraid to let in one or two popular movies at the same time.
Posts by JPRoscoe:
The Banana Splits Movie (2019)
December 15th, 2019|
|
Movie Info
Movie Name: The Banana Splits Movie
Studio: Blue Ice Pictures
Genre(s): Horror/Comedy/Sci-Fi/Fantasy
Release Date(s): July 17, 2019 (San Diego Comic-Con)/August 27, 2019 (US)
MPAA Rating: R
The Banana Splits movie you’ve been demanding?
Something is wrong with the Banana Splits. When Snorky loving Harley (Finlay Wojtak-Hissong) gets tickets for his birthday to the live show at Taft Studios, his mother Beth (Dani Kind), his father Mitch (Steve Lund), brother Austin (Romeo Carere), and his new “friend” Zoe (Maria Nash) attend the show. Unfortunately, new programming has sent the robots on a rampage and word that the show is being cancelled could mean the Banana Splits must ensure the show must go on…one way or another!
Directed by Danishka Esterhazy, The Banana Splits Movie is a sci-fi horror comedy. The film is based on Hanna-Barbera Banana Splits TV series which aired from 1968 to 1970 on NBC. The series premiered at the San Diego Comic-Con and before being released for streaming and purchase. The film received mixed to positive reviews.
Though the show was already over years before I was born, I can remember watching (and loving) The Banana Splits. The series was a riff on the popular Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In (though in the film they reference The Monkees) and featured the characters telling jokes and dancing…it was all rather harmless. When the trailer for The Banana Splits Movie was released, it was unclear if it was seriously a film or a joke…and when it was confirmed as real, I had to see it.
Drooper says “Fire’s dangerous”
The movie is in a tricky spot. Mid-40s to 50-somethings will remember the Banana Splits, but the audience is a much younger target. The film kind of made the Banana Splits into more of a Blue’s Clues type show with a human host but maintaining the set type of production. The film’s decision to make it the story horror was a great decision in that it was original…something that many of these remakes aren’t. It also manages to do a decent (if not rather cliché) job of keeping the characters involved, separated, and free to be murdered.
The cast is rather ho-hum. The younger members of the cast actually seem to do a better job than the older cast. Steve Lund in particular does a horrible job “covering” that he’s a bad person (and feels like he’s delivering lines), and it isn’t believable that the family dynamic would have even lasted this long. Dani Kind likewise comes off as dense for keeping her husband around and the film attempts to turn her into an action mom by losing her blouse for a tank top. The kids (including Romeo Carere) are actually kind of likeable, and I do like Naledi Majola as Paige the Page…they feel a bit more natural.
Snorky vs. Bingo…the fight 50 years in the making!
The movie also struggles a bit on the visuals. For this high concept to work, I feel like it needs to be edgier. The movie doesn’t skimp on the shedding of blood, but the sets kind of feel like left over sets from Full Moon Entertainment movies…and not the better ones. It also couldn’t decide if the Banana Splits were supposed to act and move like robots or like actors in costumes.
The Banana Splits Movie certainly gets originality points (many believe it was originally meant to be the script for a live-action Five Nights at Freddy’s movie), and I’d love to see the Splits return. I wish that some more relaunches would take chances like this with their source material, but I also realize that taking a chance can mean alienating the original fans and not being able to attract new fans. It is a tricky balance, and The Banana Splits Movie makes it about 70% there. Tra-la-la, la-la-la-la, la-la-la, la-la-la-la!
Jabberwocky (1977)
December 14th, 2019|
|
Movie Info
Movie Name: Jabberwocky
Studio: Python Films
Genre(s): Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Action/Adventure/Comedy
Release Date(s): March 28, 1977 (UK)/April 15, 1977 (US)
MPAA Rating: PG
Someone needs to finish his supper…
Beware of the Jabberwocky, my son! Dennis Cooper (Michael Palin) is an apprentice with the hopes of winning the hand of his love Griselda Fishfinger (Annette Badland). When his fortune turns south, Dennis finds himself headed to the city in the hopes of gaining enough status to win the hand of Griselda by gaining the permission of her father Mr. Fishfinger (Warren Mitchell). Unfortunately, the land is being ravished by famine and a beast known as the Jabberwocky. King Bruno the Questionable (Max Wall) hopes to wed the princess (Deborah Fallender) to a prince…and he who slays the Jabberwocky might be the winner!
Written (with co-writing by Charles Alverson) and directed by Terry Gilliam, Jabberwocky is a fantasy adventure comedy. The film uses the poem “Jabberwocky” from the 1871 Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There by Lewis Carroll as the inspiration. The film was released to mixed reviews but gained a cult following over the years. The Criterion Collection released a remastered version of the film (Criterion #903).
A glorious day of battle
The Jabberwocky always scared me when I was little. The classic illustration by John Tenniel had this boney winged dragon-esque monster facing off against a small man with a giant sword…when combined with the nonsense of the poem, it kind of freaked me out as a kid. Jabberwocky was Gilliam’s first solo attempt at directing and I was initiated to his films rather early (I saw Time Bandits in the theater and loved/feared it). Gilliam is the perfect choice to get the tone and ideas of the poem into film form, but I do think that the film could have been smoothed out a bit.
The movie (like the poem) deals with a lot of nonsense. Dennis is dim. He desperately grasps a rotten potato as a sign of love from the woman that obviously doesn’t love him. He’s a complete antihero who fails at everything he does, yet he manages to end up on top…and still isn’t happy. There is a lot of stuff about class and the role of government (the Jabberwocky is actually good for the city’s economy by putting fear in the citizens who rush to churches, etc.). Unfortunately, the movie kind of drags in the path to the final confrontation with the Jabberwocky. The wordplay is fun, but I felt it needed a bit more get-up-and-go.
Michael Palin is always fun. As a member of Monty Python, he and Gilliam got the timing down needed to make the illogical logical. He bumbles his way through the movie with multiple chance encounters but his natural innocence and belief in his love carries the character a long way through is interactions with the various cast members. I also like Max Wall as the irritable and temperamental king who (accidentally) finds Palin could be his only hope.
The Jabberwocky really needs to learn how to fight better
The movie has the strange Monty Python look. Stunts are unrealistic with characters flying across the screen and violence is over the top with people being split in half and buckets of blood coating people. It fits the tone of the film. The final Jabberwocky monster is interesting, but I wish that there had been a bit clearer look at the monster since its design was rather interesting.
Jabberwocky is a fun movie that isn’t quite Monty Python, but also isn’t quite fantasy adventure. The comedy sometimes feels a bit off and the action and adventure always feels light. It doesn’t necessary work on all fronts in that case but usually the two factors work together well in the movie. I wish the movie had been a bit closer to Time Bandits in its style and feel and think that it could have been the extra boost it needed to get over the hump. Until then, beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch and enjoy an odd, twisted film.
Let the Right One In (2008)
December 14th, 2019|
|
Movie Info
Movie Name: Let the Right One In
Studio: Sandrew Metronome
Genre(s): Horror/Drama
Release Date(s): October 24, 2008
MPAA Rating: R
Can the undead and the living be friends?
A Swedish boy is bullied in the early 1980s and finds a friend in a new neighbor. Oskar (Kare Hedebrant) is about to learn that his new friend Eli (Lina Leandersonn) isn’t a normal girl…she might not even be a girl at all.
Directed by Tomas Alfredson, Let the Right One In (Låt den Rätte Komma In) is a Swedish vampire film. The film is based on the 2004 novel by John Ajvide Lindqvist. The movie was released to critical acclaim and quickly gained a cult following. The DVD and Blu-Ray release in the United States featured a different subtitle than the original film which drew complaints and an eventual re-release of both with the original subtitles.
Let the Right One In really was a great change to vampire movies. When movies like Twilight dominated the market, a strange and scary story with realistic kids really jumped out. Based on the 2004 novel by John Ajvide Lindqvist, the movie cut out some of the subplots of the novel and made it primarily about the relationship between the two kids.
No smoking in the hospital
The movie also bravely cast non-traditional looking “stars”. Hedebrant probably would have been bullied in school and Leandersonn has a strange quality to her as well. Both kids are scary, but a realistic scary. Oskar could be a kid that would go on a shooting rampage if Eli hadn’t entered his life. The bullies also seemed very real. They wouldn’t be intimidating to an adult but their pack mentality would scare someone like Oskar. The actors are helped by the strong script which is true to how kids (especially bullies) interact.
Let the Right One In also has this strange ethereal feel to it. Part of that is the beautiful cinematography but also there is just a strangeness to the film that works in its favor. The interaction between the characters is sometimes as cold as the environment. Much more is implied (like Oskar’s relationship with his father and what may have ended his parents marriage). The few moments when his mother connects with Oskar makes the ending all the more sadder.
This happens every time I play Marco Polo
It is hard to talk about Let the Right One In without mentioning the final scene which is just incredibly shot. The whole movie leads up to this final confrontation, and the final moments of the movie are a great payoff. You don’t really see it coming and once again, it is wonderfully shot.
Let the Right One In surprisingly was a decent success for a foreign film. By the time it was released in the United States, it had a lot of buzz and was already garnering tons of critical acclaim. That is why when it was remade in 2010 as Let Me In, there was a lot of backlash (it is too bad, because by itself, Let Me In isn’t awful, but not great compared to this). Be sure to watch a copy has the theatrical subtitles instead of the standard English subtitles which oversimplified the script.
Related Links:
House of Games (1987)
December 14th, 2019|
|
Movie Info
Movie Name: House of Games
Studio: Filmhaus
Genre(s): Drama
Release Date(s): October 11, 1987
MPAA Rating: R
Hey, lady….don’t hate the player, hate the game!
Psychiatrist Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) is successful but feels her life is empty. When she learns one of her clients owes money, she discovers a group of con men who like to play different cons. Led by a man named Mike (Joe Mantegna), Margaret finds herself drawn into their circle and feels alive. When a con goes wrong and a cop (J.T. Walsh) is involved, Margaret finds herself involved in a game that is bigger than she anticipated.
Written and directed by David Mamet, House of Games is a mystery thriller. The movie was Mamet’s feature length film he directed and was well received by critics. The Criterion Collection released a remastered version of the film (Criterion #399).
I stumbled upon House of Games from a friend who was purging his DVD collection. With decent taste, I picked up the movie from him. While Mamet spins a great tale, I sometimes have a difficulty with Mamet’s work…but it generally is solid.
Damn, girl…you crazy
The story is about grifters and the grift. I always enjoyed movies like The Grifters and films about long and short cons. Mamet is known for his rather wordy films and the movies often feel more like his stage plays than traditional films. House of Games is no different in that sense. In many ways, the story is predictable as a viewer, but Crouse’s character does provide a wild card in the story since she can be dissected and analyzed. The dialogue is often chunky, but the overall product is unique and original.
The acting in the movie is intentionally flat. The characters in many ways feel like they are just delivering lines and Lindsay Crouse is at the frontline of this. This actually works for the end of the film because her character is revealed to be a bit of a sociopath. She’s socially awkward and in many ways turns the tables on the slicker Joe Mantegna. The movie has a rich supporting cast with Ricky Jay, J.T. Walsh, William H. Macy, and Mike Nussbaum (many of these character are “frequent players” in the David Mamet catalogue).
Yeah…I like David Bowie…how did you guess?
The movie has a great noir feel. The characters inhabit this dark world of shadows and lies. The film reflects this in many ways and Mamet’s style is slick and vivid. It is a lot about the set-up in the movie and the movie goes between very day-to-day shots and stylized shots well.
Though I had a good idea of where House of Games was going, I still enjoyed the film. The writing was deft and skilled and this is a trend of Mamet who has crafted a lot of great works over the years. While Lindsay Crouse feels intentionally bland in the film, her character’s path is an interesting one and lends itself to multiple viewing…play the game and enjoy.
The Wolfpack (2015)
December 12th, 2019|
|
Movie Info
Movie Name: The Wolfpack
Studio: Kotva Films
Genre(s): Documentary
Release Date(s): January 25, 2015 (Sundance)/June 12, 2015 (US)
MPAA Rating: R
So….who was locked up in an apartment for most of there lives? Anyone? Anyone?
In an apartment on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, the Angulo family lives. The members of the large family are primarily recluses and the seven homeschooled children Bhagavan, Narayana, Govinda, Mukunda, Krisna, Jagadesh, and Visnu rarely permitted to leave the apartment with their controlling father Oscar. When the brothers begin venturing out of the apartment, they find themselves trying to fit into the world they have never been a part of…and they are loving the change.
Directed by Crystal Moselle, The Wolfpack is a documentary film. The movie premiered at Sundance and won a grand jury prize for documentaries. The film was relatively well received.
I heard about The Wolfpack before I saw it, and was kind of intrigued. I went into the film with a different impression of what it would be about, and while the film was interesting, I had hoped for more.
I’m sure the people in the apartments around them are really excited to see them lighting fires in the apartment…
The origins of the movie are from the filmmaker Crystal Moselle encountering the brothers in Manhattan. She then befriended them and began to record their life experiences. When Jennifer met the brothers, they had already began to explore the “outside” world. I also had been under the impression that they didn’t get out even as little as they did…I initially believed that they had been locked away without the ability to go or see the world. While they were pretty much imprisoned (there was a year that they didn’t leave the apartment at all), it wasn’t as restrained as I thought it would be.
Much of the drama is underplayed in the film. The apartment was raided at one point for the characters toy guns and there were accusations of child endangerment by CPS…but we really don’t get many answers on how that all turned out. We know that the kids were supposedly going to be ordered to go to public school, but it never seems to come to any fruition in the documentary.
Yeah…that’s right…I bought a movie ticket!!!
The whole family in general is odd. The kids don’t know how to interact with the “interloper” recording the family and the trips out are scary because the boys take on this mafia-esque look when they head out (I can see why they get stares and they are old enough that they probably can understand it too regardless if they’ve been shut in). There are some real questions about the father and his relationship with the mother in the movie (with accusations of abuse), and the mother is actually one of the more interesting characters (we see her talk to her mother on the phone for the first time in decades…and see real emotion from her). The film tries not to judge, but it is hard not to judge how the family is being forced to live.
The Wolfpack has aptly been compared to Grey Gardens. Both documentaries feature extremely broken people that are relatively unlikable because they have been so broken by their lives. You feel that the boys and their mother should be more progressive in getting out of the situation, but you also realize that compliance has been beaten into them over the years. Would they be “normal” (which I realize is a nominal term in reality) if they had been out in the public for all of their lives? Doubtful, but it does raise more questions about how social interaction changes and changes people throughout their lives. I’d love to see a follow-up to this documentary in ten years or so to see how the “pack” is doing in their new lives.
Oliver Twist (1948)
December 12th, 2019|
|
Movie Info
Movie Name: Oliver Twist
Studio: Cineguild
Genre(s): Drama
Release Date(s): June 22, 1948 (UK)
MPAA Rating: Not Rated
More please?
A baby is born to a dying mother and possesses no keys to his identity. Named Oliver Twist, the boy (John Howard Davies) grows up in an orphanage until he accidentally finds himself on a great adventure. Running away to London, Oliver is taken in by a thief named Fagin (Alec Guinness) and his batch of robber boys led by the Artful Dodger (Anthony Newley). Oliver meets a kind older man (Henry Stephenson) that could offer his chance at happiness and a home, but Fagin’s associate Bill Sykes (Robert Newton) and a mysterious man named Monks (Ralph Truman) have other plans for Oliver.
Directed by David Lean, Oliver Twist is a period drama. The film adapts the classic 1838 novel by Charles Dickens and was well received upon its release. The Criterion Collection released a remastered version of the film (Criterion #32).
Oliver Twist is a familiar story to everyone. It is full of iconic moments like Oliver asking for food and learning how to pick pockets, but often (like many Dickens stories), it is played for a lighter feel despite dark issues and themes…this Oliver Twist seems to revel in the darkness of the story.
Obi-wan…how could you?
The adaptation is a lot closer than other versions, but I often find the original version of the story kind of gets a little crowded. While Monks is important as a character, his involvement in the story generally overshadows the great villain in Bill Sykes (often Monks character is just eliminated), and the Monks character’s storyline kind of feels like an afterthought in comparison. Often Fagin is painted a little more sympathetically, but here Fagin and the kids (even Nancy at points) are just 100% users with no redeeming qualities…it is probably more on point, but many versions paint Fagin’s world as a mini-home for the kids who have none.
The cast is strong. It feels like the classic casting of the story with the waifish John Howard Davies in the unpopular (and often sidelined) lead of Oliver. Henry Stephenson is the perfect grandfather character (that isn’t the relationship in the original novel). Many versions of the story play up Anthony Newley’s Artful Dodger into a fun “best friend” character for Oliver, but here, Dodger takes a smaller role. Robert Newton is thoroughly sinister as Bill Sykes and even Alec Guinness’s Fagin is as mentioned cruel.
Nope…I’m a great guy…just misunderstood
Fagin provides the biggest problem in this version. While the sets and the locations look great, the decision to give Fagin a very stereotypical racist Jewish look is kind of distracting and unnecessary. The skill of Alec Guinness didn’t need the facial make-up to make him a “bad man”, and it just feels like anti-Semitism.
Oliver Twist is a solid adaptation of Dickens’ classic novel with a few problems (some of which are inherent to the novel). If you are a big fan of the musical, you might find this version a bit jarring since it is darker and retreating to the “fun” of Oliver! might be a little harder the next time…more, please!
Related Links:
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019)
December 12th, 2019|
|
Movie Info
Movie Name: Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark
Studio: CBS Films
Genre(s): Horror
Release Date(s): August 9, 2019
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Do you want to hear a story?
Stella (Zoe Colletti), Auggie (Gabriel Rush), and Chuck (Austin Zajur) head out for their Halloween tradition in Mill Valley, Pennsylvania in 1968. Seeking revenge on a bully named Tommy Milner (Austin Abrams), the trio meets Ramón Morales (Michael Garza) who helps them, and Ramón is about to learn that Mill Valley hides a secret in the ghost story of the town founders the Bellows. Stella’s discovery of Sarah Bellows’ book of scary stories leads to horrors being unleashed. Now, the clock is ticking as Stella and her friends must find the secret to Sarah Bellow’s stories before they all become victims.
Directed by André Øvredal, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is a horror thriller. The movie adapts tales from Alvin Schwartz’s books Scary Stories to tell in the Dark (1981), More Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (1984), and Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones (1991). The film was met with mixed reviews and a relatively strong box office return.
At least she has a pleasant smile
I would have loved the book Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, but I never read it as a kid. Instead, I read lots of other ghost stories and takes of monsters and creatures, but since the Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark stories are rather generic amalgams of popular tales, this movie feels familiar even without having read the book.
The problem with the movie is the story. It has to find a way to tell a lot of stories, and since it isn’t an anthology film, the movie needs a story that links the small stories together. The story linking the tales is a bit weak. The movie tries to give the characters depth, but they don’t seem that interesting and rather cliché. This combines with the stories and monsters which feel almost forced upon a teen-drama mystery surrounding Sarah Bellows.
The cast has potential, but since the story is less than awe inspiring, it is hard to tell if they are good or bad. No one is atrocious in their acting, but no one really excels either. Zoe Colletti plays the lead character with Michael Garza as her male lead co-star and it is nice to see more non-traditional leads in a film. Dean Norris (of Breaking Bad) feels underused as Zoe Colletti’s father…but there always could be a sequel.
The Jangly-Man is coming for you!
The movie’s big draw is the monsters presented in the film and they are well done. There is a classic scarecrow monster and the horror of a spider’s egg hatching under the skin, but the two impressive characters are the Jangly-Man and the Pale Woman. As mentioned above, these characters feel a bit shoehorned into the plot and since there isn’t much background on the characters within the books, they almost feel like random occurrences rather than full-fledged monsters.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark was a bit of a disappointment. It has a ton of potential for scares and Guillermo del Toro’s help in producing and crafting the story didn’t full develop. I wanted to like the movie more than I did, and I wanted it to really make the hairs on my neck stand up like a good ghost story…but the “dark” wasn’t dark enough and the horror just wasn’t as fun as it could have been.
Godzilla vs. Megalon (1973)
December 11th, 2019|
|
Movie Info
Movie Name: Godzilla vs. Megalon
Studio: Toho
Genre(s): Sci-Fi/Fantasy
Release Date(s): March 17, 1973
MPAA Rating: G
I”m glad Jet Jaguar is teaching Godzilla how to go on a job interview
The world of Seatopia has declared war upon the surface world. It has unleashed the god Megalon upon humanity. The world’s only hope could be a new robot named Jet Jaguar, but the Seatopians realize that they must capture a robot named Jet Jaguar and his creator Goro Ibuki (Katsuhiko Sasaki) first. With Jet Jaguar and Megalon, the world will fall to the Seatopians, but if Goro Ibuki, his young nephew Rokuro (Hiroyuki Kawase), and their friend Hiroshi Jinkawa (Yutaka Hayashi) can free Jet Jaguar with the unlikely ally of Godzilla, the world stands a chance…but the Seatopians might have another monster lurking in the wings.
Directed by Jun Fukuda, Godzilla vs. Megalon (ゴジラ対メガロ or Gojira tai Megaro) is a science-fiction fantasy Japanese kaiju action film. Following Godzilla vs. Gigan in 1972, the film is the thirteenth film in the Godzilla franchise. The Criterion Collection released a remastered version of the film as part of the Godzilla: The Showa-Era Films, 1954-1975 boxset (Criterion #1000).
Jet Jaguar makes Megalon say “uncle”
Growing up, Godzilla was a staple…the more monsters the better! Not only does Godzilla vs. Megalon have the return of one of the best monsters (Gigan), but it also has the fun robot of Jet Jaguar (and the reason why is a little odd).
Godzilla vs. Gigan wasn’t going to be a Godzilla movie. The movie was originally going to star Jet Jaguar, but the producers felt that they needed Godzilla to get the story to be profitable. As a result, most of the movie is a Jet Jaguar story with Godzilla showing up briefly at the beginning and the end. It is typical Godzilla in its storytelling and plot however, and it seems to fit in well with the rest of the Godzilla films.
Godzilla is all about the monsters and not about the people, but the people often hold the core of the story. You have the typical scientist character in Katsuhiko Sasaki, but it is Hiroyuki Kawase who feels like the classic Godzilla character as the young short-shorts sidekick who “bonds” with the robot Jet Jaguar. I particularly like the American actor Robert Dunham who plays Emperor Antonio of the Seatopians…he is very un-kingly and looks like he could have been in Zardoz…or a bowling alley.
Ah Gigan…how I love you and your impractical design
Jet Jaguar is a lot of fun. He looks a lot like the popular Ultraman and seems to have most of the same abilities and powers. He’s got a goofy grin on his face and moves like a human instead of a robot. The movie also features the return of the great Gigan (though it doesn’t quite make sense why he is there).
Godzilla vs. Megalon is everything you want in a Godzilla, but it is a Godzilla movie at heart. If you like Godzilla, this one should be near the top of your list, but if you don’t like Godzilla, it isn’t going to turn you into a fan. If you watch it, you might be singing the Jet Jaguar song with them. Godzilla vs. Megalon is followed by Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla in 1974.
Preceded By:
A Christmas Carol (1951)
December 10th, 2019|
|
Movie Info
Movie Name: A Christmas Carol (Scrooge)
Studio: United Artists
Genre(s): Drama/Family/Seasonal
Release Date(s): October 31, 1951
MPAA Rating: Not Rated
Well if Cratchet hadn’t had 40 kids, maybe he’d be a bit more financially stable…just saying
Ebenezer Scrooge (Alastair Sim) is getting a second chance. Miserable, cranky, and angry at the world, Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his former partner Jacob Marley with a warning: change his life or walk the afterlife in chains forever. Now Scrooge is on a journey into his past with the Ghost of Christmas Past, the lives of those around him with the Ghost of Christmas Present, and a peek at the possible future with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. Will it be enough to get Scrooge to change his ways?
Directed by Brian Desmond Hurst, A Christmas Carol was originally released as Scrooge in the United Kingdom and often goes by that title. The film adapts the classic 1843 Charles Dickens novel and is often cited as one of the best film productions of the story. The film frequently airs during the holiday in steady rotation.
Regardless what version you watch Ignorance and Want are terrifying
Families always seem to adopt a version of A Christmas Carol, and many have adopted this version of Scrooge as the gold standard for the story. Our family did not really watch this version of Scrooge and frequently watched the musical Scrooge or later the 1984 George C. Scott adaptation. As a result, this version of A Christmas Carol sits oddly with me, though it is a solid adaptation of the classic story.
This version of the film has possibly the jerkiest “pre-Ghost” version of Scrooge. Sim really revels in the evil Scrooge, and it shines in every scene before Marley’s shows up. This is always tricky to have a character so evil go to good by the end of the film so the film smartly focuses on how Scrooge arrived at his current disposition by spending more time with the Ghost of Christmas Past (and adding scenes that were not from Charles Dickens’ story). You see the corruption building in Scrooge that warps his present day version.
Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, I feel like we should just hang out…get a beer or something so I can get to know you better
There is so much Ghost of Christmas Past that the film seems a bit uneven at times especially for viewers that know the story well. The Ghost of Christmas Present and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come feel like they fly by, but really include most of what is commonly seen in other versions of the film.
The film does have a nice look to it. Since it is in black & white (though lots of colorized versions exist), the movie has a coldness to it that works when Scrooge is evil, but of course when he switches tempo in the end, it is hard to warm up the film again despite Scrooge’s change in persona.
If you have to see one Christmas Carol, this version is not a bad choice though I still prefer other versions (that are honestly more true to the story). However, this Scrooge is a classic and worth adding to your regular holiday viewing. The movie is short, succinct, and loaded with everything you would expect from A Christmas Carol…and that is why the version endures. If you do not like it, Bah Humbug!
Related Links:
Mister Magoo’s Christmas Carol (1962)
An American Christmas Carol (1979)
Mickey’s Christmas Carol (1983)
The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)
A Flintstones Christmas Carol (1994)
Christmas Carol—The Movie (2001)
A Christmas Carol: The Musical (2004)
Bah, Humduck! A Looney Tunes Christmas (2006)
Disney’s A Christmas Carol (2009)
Orpheus (1950)
December 10th, 2019|
|
Movie Info
Movie Name: Orpheus
Studio: Andre Paulve Film
Genre(s): Drama/Sci-Fi/Fantasy
Release Date(s): March 1, 1950 (Cannes)/September 29, 1950 (France)/November 29, 1950 (US)
MPAA Rating: Not Rated
Death’s got the hots for Orpheus
Famed poet Orpheus (Jean Marais) becomes the target of Death (María Casares) who has fallen in love with him. Death makes her connection to Orpheus through her taking of a young poet named Cégeste (Édouard Dermit) and Orpheus becomes obsessed in the process. Orpheus’s wife Eurydice (Marie Déa) finds her husband distant, but Death’s assistant Heurtebise (François Périer) finds himself enamored with her. When Death decides to take Eurydice, rules are broken and the barrier between life and death is blurred.
Written and directed by Jean Cocteau, Orpheus (Orphée) is a retelling of the Greek myth of Orpheus. The film is considered part of Jean Cocteau’s Orphic Trilogy which included The Blood of a Poet (1930) and Testament of Orpheus (1960). The Criterion Collection released a remastered version of the film (Criterion #68).
I like Greek mythology and love how it is timeless. The ideas and concepts of the stories can be traced to modern tales, and Orpheus is just another take on this idea. Overall, I found the movie enjoyable though I do feel it could have been even better.
Hey….seriously…just hold up
The story changes up aspects of the Orpheus tale in general for the storytelling. The introduction of the love of Death and Heurtebise kind of flips the story onto them. Heurtebise loses Eurydice and Death loses Orpheus to immortalize him…Orpheus isn’t particularly likable and in the original tale he was the suffering one. He mourned his wife and then lost her again but not out frustration. I thought the movie gets a bit sitcom-y when it gets into the “I can’t look at her” part.
The cast is good but the story doesn’t help them. I feel María Casares is pretty compelling as Death and the most interesting of the characters. François Périer should have been a more interesting since he is just a servant who is experiencing love, but I still find his character a bit flat. Both Jean Marais and Marie Déa aren’t very interesting as they are written in the tale and I didn’t particularly care what happened to either of them.
Well…if I get fired as Death, I have a future as a comic book villain
The best part of Orpheus is the interesting visuals. The movie (obviously) is all practical effects and the most technical things they get into are rear-projection style imagery in some scenes. There are really interesting reverse photography imagery (which thematically plays with the time aspect of the story and the idea of going back), and many of the mirror scenes are done very creatively. Movies like Citizen Kane really pushed the edge of visuals and movies like Orpheus seemed to follow that up.
Orpheus is definitely worth seeing and my criticisms are kind of minor. While I do feel that pose some problems, I don’t feel that they ruin the film by any means. It just feels like it could be more defined and in that tightening, it could have been not just a good film but a great film. I will always enjoy Greek themed stories and movies, so Orpheus wins in that account…but definitely check it out for the visuals and consider the filming options at the time.
