The home stretch of the Disney Vault has arrived, and by the end of this month I’ll be putting this series into its own Disney Vault.  We’re not there yet – three more movies to go – and this week’s feature presentation is a return to the company’s foundations.  The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh was a hit for Disney in 1977 and created a cast of enduring characters who remain highly popular in the parks.  I reviewed the film back in March and enjoyed it as a package of various Pooh shorts; a more enjoyable experience than Disney’s original “package” films.  Thirty-four years later Disney returned to the Hundred Acre Wood, and the experience is still enjoyable but bittersweet.

Pooh and his friends spend their days finding honey, Eeyore’s tail, and evading a monster known only as “Backson.”

Winnie the Pooh is the third Disney sequel created in-house, alongside Fantasia 2000 and Rescuers Down Under, and with those in consideration this is the epitome of Disney sequels.  Furthermore, while Pooh and his gang have continued their adventures on DVD and theatrically, this is the only Pooh sequel Disney recognizes within the canon because it was created by the Walt Disney Animation Studios.  (Past efforts were created by DisneyToon Studios.)  As a standalone feature, Winnie the Pooh is near identical to Many Adventures; both have various subplots weaved in, and each involves Pooh’s quest for honey and Eeyore losing his tail.  Where this feature differs is in weaving the subplots seamlessly into one continuous narrative.  This is a movie as opposed to three cartoons placed together on one video.

The hurdle to get over is that of time.  Thirty-four years has elapsed since the original film, and sadly several of the original voice actors are no longer with us.  The voice I noticed the biggest difference with was Piglet as John Fiedler‘s voice is so distinctive.  Travis Oates has the basic stammering and high-pitched squeak of Piglet, but he lacks the whispery tone of Fieldler.  John Cleese is our narrator this go-round, and Craig Ferguson plays Owl (one of two modern acting choices in here; the one I was okay with).  The element I just couldn’t embrace was the musical score.  I recall Many Adventures having music, but Winnie the Pooh is a musical with production numbers.  The various songs, most memorably “The Tummy Song,” are catchy and capture the similar whimsy of old Pooh standards like the title track.  It’s worth mentioning that the new songs are penned by Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez, who are being praised for their work on Frozen.  However, Zooey Deschanel also sings a few songs, including “Winnie the Pooh,” and if you find her singing irksome, it’ll rankle you everytime you hear her voice.  Bringing in Deschanel comes off like an attempt to get hipsters who find her brand of “adorkable” acoustics sweet, but it just jars you out of the movie.

The various stories all come together in a sweet package, although at only an hour and five minutes, there’s little memorability because it’s so breezy.  Winnie the Pooh is a solid entry in the Pooh franchise, although my eyebrows remained raised about it receiving a theatrical release.  It hearkens back to the company’s roots, and coming off Tangled it’s another mark of quality and paying tribute to what came before.

Ronnie Rating:

NEXT WEEK: We enter the world of video games with Wreck-It Ralph

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion will be donated to this site!  Thanks!

Winnie the Pooh (Three-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo + Digital Copy)

It’s here!  The second to last review in the Disney Vault is here, and it’s a bit of a downer because Wreck-It Ralph isn’t necessarily astounding.  After the massive Tangled and the subdued, but charming, Winnie the Pooh, Wreck-It Ralph is a bombastic ode to video games and finding life’s purpose.  The issue is the bipolar division of the movie into a meta-take on games, the conception of “retro,” and dare I say existentialism turns into a cutesy movies about racing and candy with an annoying side character blown up to leading star status.

Wreck-It Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly) is a video game villain for the game, Fix-It Felix, Jr. (voiced by Jack McBrayer).  In thirty years Ralph hasn’t been invited in for shindigs or cake with his fellow game neighbors, and just wishes he was the good guy.  He comes up with a plan to leave his game and win a hero’s medal somewhere else, culminating in disaster for his game and others who believe he’s gone “Turbo.”

Wreck-It Ralph’s failure is in hewing closely to Disney‘s recent belief that there are movies for girls and movies for boys.  We touched on it with the drama in Tangled’s history with changing the title and adding a male protagonist to appeal to males.  Wreck-It Ralph is pronounced in its desire to appeal to both genders, causing an unbalanced and semi-satisfying movie.  When the movie focuses on Ralph and the video game world, it’s an immersive and creative experience.  The various video game “cameos” are ingenious and appeal to casual gamers of either gender.  Just because you don’t know who Qbert is doesn’t mean you won’t know who Sonic the Hedgehog is.  The various games act as neighborhoods with all transportation taking them to Game Central Station.

The first thirty minutes deals with Ralph’s way of life, the way the town is constructed, and the issues inherent in being a bad guy.  When all the villains converge at a villain support meeting, the audience bonds with Ralph; he’s a man who can’t escape what’s been coded into him because society refuses to believe he can be anything else.  In fact, you end up hating the residents of his game town more than anything.  It’s unspecific whether this is a problem strictly in the town of Fix-It Felix, or if it’s everywhere (a brief Mortal Kombat sequence in the beginning shows the hero/villain pair going out for a drink), but they treat Ralph like garbage; he literally lives in a dump.  Oddly enough, Wreck-It Ralph gets political commentary within the world of Fix-It Felix.  The various well-to-do Nicelanders live in an expensive high-rise where Felix (who has inherited a magic hammer, and his heroic abilities, from his father) is celebrated.  Cut to Ralph, a guy whose worked hard everyday but is continually labeled by society and told he cannot do anything to make his position in life better, and you have the entire political world of 2012 in a Disney movie!

Had Wreck-It Ralph followed this track: following Ralph as a hero who seeks to prove he’s more than this imposed identity, the movie could have been intelligent for kids and adults.  Unfortunately, this is unceremoniously dumped once Ralph enters the candy-coated world of Sugar Rush.  At this point, the rest of the movie focuses on cloyingly adorable Vanellope Von Schweetz (voiced by Sarah Silverman).  Your enjoyment of the movie lives or dies on your enjoyment of Silverman’s character and the noticeably dumbed down world of Sugar Rush.  The social commentary is there with the character of King Candy (voiced by Alan Tudyk), but it’s a contradiction of everything Wreck-It Ralph establishes in the opening.  Since the story is confined to Sugar Rush for the remaining hour, gone is the intricate world established in Game Central Station.  The only creativity is playing “Guess The Junk Food” throughout Sugar Rush, although a few of the moments are cute; the Oreos mimicking the sentries from Wizard of Oz (“Or-e-o.  Oreo”) and the “devil dogs” being Hostess Devil Dogs.

Sarah Silverman doesn’t grate on me compared to others, although she is an acquired taste.  Vanellope is certainly cute, and Silverman has a few mean-spirited wisecracks, but how many jokes can be mined from poop and underpants.  Her entire character is the annoying five-year-old who giggles over the word “doody.”  With Pixar being at the forefront of understanding kids aren’t stupid, Disney utilizing juvenile humor like this is a decline.  There’s no laughs found unless you’re five which immediately distances you from events and there’s little reason for Vanellope to be a character who can make a remark about “fat folds” and then spend two minutes joking about poop.  Disney’s always known to keep their cutesy characters as sidekicks, but once Vanellope arrives Ralph becomes the sidekick in his own film!  It’s hard to understand Disney’s dumping of their titled character, but I wonder if they’re going under the belief Vanellope will attract little girls.  If so, the use of bathroom humor immediately negates that (if we’re following this logic, little girls don’t like poop).

The second and third half of the movie should be retitled “Vanellope and Wreck-It Ralph;” it’d be more accurate.  Ralph, Fix-It Felix, Jr. and the tough-talking Calhoun (voiced by Jane Lynch) are where Wreck-It Ralph excels.  Unfortunately, the script genders the movie to appeal to both genders, and ends up hobbling the narrative working so well prior.  Wreck-It Ralph is an enjoyable movie, but you’ll forget it immediately after watching it.

Ronnie Rating:

NEXT WEEK: The final Disney animated movie, Frozen

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion will be donated to this site!  Thanks!

Wreck-It Ralph (Two-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo)

It’s difficult to review truly beloved films since there’s little new you can bring to the table short of saying its amazing.  For today’s review, let’s go funny.  There’s a few things I’ve always wanted to discuss about The Wizard of Oz; mainly things bothering me about it.  So with that, I present this review of The Wizard of Oz.  Keep in mind, I love this movie, but that doesn’t mean it’s infallible.

I will give my general thoughts about this movie before diving in.  I adore The Wizard of Oz; it’s unique, and I doubt we’ll ever see another one of its kind again.  The Wizard of Oz is one of those rare films that has the ability to transport you to an entirely new place, and you believe in it wholeheartedly.  There have been mystical or fantastical places in film since its inception, but The Wizard of Oz makes you believe Oz exists. When Dorothy opens the door of her house and enters the Technicolor world of Oz, it feels more real than Kansas.  Kansas is a lonely photograph complete with sepia tone (which I love over the typical black and white), but Oz is the vibrant heart of a mystical world found only in your dreams.  As an adult, you’re able to notice the mastery of the set design.  The construction of the set feels obvious, and yet you wouldn’t mind walking around in it.  Judy Garland inhabits the liminal space between being a child, but not childish.  I always notice when a young adult is trying too hard to be a child, but Garland never makes you feel that.  It’s a class act, and no amount of description can convey how fantastic it is.

With that being said, let’s discuss some things.  First off, Dorothy should have died within the first twenty minutes!  When that twister comes (by the way, the movie Twister has given me a bad habit of capitalizing the word all the time), and knocks out Dorothy’s window, bonking her on the head, she should have died from blunt force trauma let alone traveling, in a tornado, in a house built from planks!  I blame Toto for all this.  I know he’s cute and all, but that dog is either a diabolical mastermind, or the biggest douchebag in the world.  First, he bites Almira Gulch (Margaret Hamilton) and gets taken away.  He comes back, and causes Dorothy to run away where she should have died in said twister.  The dog gets stepped on and taken away about eight more times, forcing Dorothy to defend him.  Then at the end, he jumps out of the hot air balloon so that Dorothy has to stay in Oz!  I want a movie told about Toto’s logic because this dog does not have Dorothy’s best interests.

Going back to once Dorothy landing in Oz itself, I’m confused about the governmental structure.  It’s revealed there’s three witches (of the North, East, and West.  Guess they redistributed the South) who all seem to control some undefined territory?  Or maybe they’re like Mafia enforcers who patrol various areas and move in on each others property?  (I guess then they’d be like gangs/drug cartels.)  If that’s the case, wouldn’t Oz be in a constant state of civil war?  Glinda (Billie Burke) supposedly has a lot of power, and yet she refers Dorothy out to the Wizard who controls all of Oz.  So, do the witches act as mayors?  I’m wondering if Sam Riami’s Oz the Great and Powerful will answer any of these questions (Addendum: Not really).  And why was the Witch of the East skulking around Munchkinland in the first place?  It’s obvious the Munchkins weren’t aware of her presence – unless we’re supposed to believe they were hiding from her.  And how stupid was the Witch of the East that she didn’t see a massive house coming?  I mean Munchkinland looks to be as big as my house.  Once Dorothy actually gets to the Emerald City we see all the one-percenters living the high life (who else could they be?).  As the song “The Very Old Land of Oz” says: “they get up at noon, get to work at one, take an hour for lunch, and at two they’re done!”  So does their economy run purely on the odd stranger that’s allowed to have their hair primped? (Keep in mind, visitors have to get clearance from the guard.)  Is that why the Munchkins are terrorized daily, because they don’t make enough money?

The actual ruby slippers are a pre-Hitchcock MacGuffin if ever I’ve seen one.  Aside from getting Dorothy home they don’t do jack.  Sure, they supposedly protect Dorothy from the Wicked Witch, but I don’t trust anything that Glinda says (I’ll get to her in a minute).  Since the Witch doesn’t do anything violent to Dorothy herself we don’t get a chance to test that theory.  And the ruby slippers are either the best kept secret of Oz, or everyone’s stupid.  Glinda says she doesn’t know why the Wicked Witch of the West wants them, “they must be very powerful, or she wouldn’t them so bad.”  How does Glinda not know their power, yet she goes and reminds the Witch that Dorothy has them on?!  Thanks a heap Glinda, if you had kept your fat piehole shut Dorothy could have made it to Oz without any problems.  I think you wanted her to irritate the Witch to get her off your back!  ”Hey Dorothy this is the Wicked Witch of the West.  Oh, my God, look at Dorothy’s ruby slippers that were once your dead, rotting sister’s.  Aren’t they awesome?”  I mean I know Gregory Maguire’s Wicked explains all this, but seriously.

This brings me to Glinda herself; the sadistic “Good” Witch of the North.  Not only does Glinda sic the Wicked Witch on Dorothy, she really rubs salt in the wounds when she tells Dorothy “the sooner you get out of Oz altogether, the safer you’ll sleep.”  Really, because she’d be sleeping fine if you hadn’t mentioned the damn shoes.  Or better yet, at any moment you could have told Dorothy “click your heels, say ‘there’s no place like home’ and I don’t have to look at your face!”  I know she tells Dorothy at the end “you wouldn’t have believed me.  She needed to learn it for herself.”  First, I haven’t believed anything you’ve said since you mentioned you didn’t know the slippers power.  Two, what kind of logic is that?  I think Glinda wanted the Wicked Witch off her back after that whole dead sister thing, and used Dorothy as a scapegoat to get a paid vacation.  When Dorothy passes out in the poppy field Glinda doesn’t even show up!  She waves her wand from some magic bubble in the sky.  Again, she could have boomed out like the voice of God “click your damn heels.”  I think Dorothy would have been justified in telling Glinda “I was almost killed several times, my dog was threatened, I was roofied by poppies, and the Wizard is a fraud, and THE ENTIRE TIME THE SHINY FOOTWEAR WAS A ONE-WAY TICKET HOME.  Die!!!”  Dorothy’s killed before, she could have taken Glinda out for sure.  And that’s another thing; how many times can you “accidentally” kill people before you’re a plain murderer?  The Wizard isn’t much help either.  He belittles education, and doesn’t give them diddly squat.

What is the moral of The Wizard of Oz when it’s all said and done?  Live at home with your family until they die of course!  Seriously, after that trip to Oz you think Dorothy’s ever leaving home?  She says at the end she isn’t.  Dorothy probably lived with Aunt Em and Uncle Henry till they died, never married, never had kids, and probably turned into the female Norman Bates.  She probably laid in bed, next to their corpses, whispering “there’s no place like home.”  Thanks Hollywood, you made a sweet little girl a stark raving psycho.  Oh and the movie also says you can survive a twister by just laying on your bed next to an open window.  And hey, how did Professor Marvel know where Dorothy lived?  Dude’s a creeper!

Again, this review has been written in jest.  I love The Wizard of Oz, but that doesn’t mean it can’t get a friendly ribbing.  Please don’t send me angry comments unless you’re aware I’m joking.

Ronnie Rating:

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion will be donated to this site!  Thanks! 

Rent It

The Wizard of Oz

Buy It on DVD

The Wizard of Oz (Two-Disc 70th Anniversary Edition)

Buy It On Blu-Ray

The Wizard of Oz (70th Anniversary Edition) [Blu-ray]

Christmas is right around the corner, and yet I’m buying stuff for myself.  What better way to kill two birds with one stone than to review The Sound of Music and the 45th Anniversary box set?  I got a fantastic deal on this at Costco, and I’ve always wanted one of these heavy box sets, but the prices haven’t been too affordable (I’m looking at you Singin’ in the Rain).  The Sound of Music is a flawless movie in my book, and yet this Collector’s Edition goes one step further by providing a slew of additional collectibles on top of the film.  I recommend this to the hard-core Sound of Music fan, or those who enjoy owning more than the Blu-Ray disc.

The Sound of Music follows a flighty nun named Maria (Julie Andrews) who becomes the governess to the seven Von Trapp children.

The Movie

Whether you’ve seen the film or not, you know the basic synopsis of The Sound of Music.  The film has become a Christmas staple on television, maybe because of the nuns, the spirit of hope, or the music, but it definitely warms the cockles of one’s heart.  The film opens with beautiful expansive shots of Salzburg  highlighting the on-location nature of the film as well as the expansive sets.  Released in 1965, The Sound of Music embraces CinemaScope, as well as the road show release method popular at the time.  It’s a lengthy movie, clocking five minutes shy of three hours, and there are slow parts but not enough to break the fun.

There are two distinct halves to the movie; the first hour is comprised of Maria interacting with the Von Trapp children, turning their world upside down, and making them embrace fun.  Maria is emphasized as a free spirit (she sings “without permission”) saddled with teaching seven children.  I definitely understand her frustration!  Andrews soars as Maria, and this is my second favorite role of hers.  She’s bubbly and a fantastic mother figure throughout.  I actually saw this for the first time last year (I know!), and was  surprised to see Christopher Plummer as the Von Trapp patriarch.  He’s astounding, and easy on the eyes, I must say.  He’s gruff and domineering in the opening half, but it’s always evident that he loves his children.  It’s no secret Plummer’s singing voice was dubbed, but the performance of “Edleweiss” is my favorite song in the film.  The acting of the children is mixed, running from good to fair.  Charmain Carr, who plays the eldest, Liesl, is a superior dancer but a fair actress.  I love the choreography of “Sixteen Going on Seventeen,” but when Carr’s not dancing she looks to be reading her lines like a movie of the week.  The other children have their own individual moments to shine (except for the boys).

The second half is a jarring segue into the rest of the movie as the tone darkens.  The Nazis have been present in the movie throughout, but by the two and a half hour mark their presence is unavoidable. The problem is the Von Trapps never appear in any true danger.  Yes, the Nazis are waiting outside their house for them when they plan on escaping (I have to wonder how many other families were able to make it out since the entire Nazi fleet of Salzburg was stationed outside the Von Trapp home), and there’s a tense stand-off in the abbey, but it fails to amount to anything.  The film presents such a light tone throughout the two hours you’re never given any indication the film will end badly.  And immediately after the stand-off you see them trekking through the mountains in harmony.  I’m not saying I wanted the Von Trapp’s to end up in a concentration camp or something, but the two halves don’t gel; they live happily ever after.

The Box Set

The 45th Anniversary Edition comes with the DVD, the Blu-Ray, and a CD containing the soundtrack.  I don’t have the soundtrack to this movie, so it was nice to have a legitimate copy I can import to my iPod.  The Blu-Ray is amazing with full sound that can be too loud at times.  The colors are lush and vibrant due to it’s CinemaScope filming.  I did notice in moments where everyone was outside, the skin tones had a glare, but it doesn’t happen often.

The film is light on bonus material.  There are commentaries with Julie Andrews, Christopher Plummer, and director Robert Wise that I haven’t sat through yet, but I look forward to it.  The big selling point, weirdly enough, is Your Favorite Things: An Interactive Celebration.  It’s a series of different “modes” to watch the film in; making Music: A Journey in Images shows never before seen images in the corner while the film plays, the Sing-Along Experience (lyrics of songs run along the bottom), Many a Thing to Know (Pop-Up Video-esque feature involving trivia on the movie and the real Von Trapps), and Where Was It Filmed, a quiz testing your knowledge of the movie.  You can even go to individual scenes and see what modes are offered.  It’s a fun novelty to watch once, but it has little replay value unless you’re watching with a group.  There’s also a feature called Music Machine, playing all the musical sequences alone, as well as Sing-Along Mode.  I didn’t understand why Sing-Along Mode is its own feature when it’s the same thing as the Sing-Along Experience in Your Favorite Things.

As for the box set itself, I am in love!  The entire set comes in a large box which flips up like a  keepsake box with My Favorite Things emblazoned along the top.  Each box has a number attached to correspond with the total copies sold.  It also comes with a sheer certificate of authenticity.  Inside the box, along with the DVD/Blu-Ray, is a packet of photos entitled Snapshots from Salzburg.  They’re mock postcards showing images from the film with fun sayings like “Greetings from Salzburg” on the front.  They’re another fun novelty item.  There’s also a booklet providing a plot summary of the movie with more images.  I wasn’t exactly sure what it was, but it’s nice to have if you miss something in the film, or want to quickly read what happens.  On top of all that is a book called “A Few Of Our Favorite Things” detailing the real Von Trapp family, the origins of the Broadway musical, the adaptation to film, and filming in Salzburg.  It’s an informative book with beautiful images of the family, the original Broadway cast, and behind the scenes photos.  The best reason to buy this, in my opinion, is the porcelain (it felt like it) music box inside.  It says My Favorite Things on the top and plays the song “My Favorite Things.”  I really like music boxes and felt this was a nice present.

The Sound of Music is a delightful film, although I know the runtime and the cheerful ending can put some people off.  If you’re a die-hard fan I highly recommend getting the 45th Anniversary Box Set.  It’s affordable at the moment, and for what you get, there’s a few “favorite things” to add to your collection.

Ronnie Rating

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion is donated to this site!  Thanks!

The Sound of Music (45th Anniversary Blu-ray/DVD Combo Limited Edition)

                                                                   Originally published December 17th, 2011
As I try to catch up on these final days of Christmas we get to a fork in the road with Ron Howard‘s 2000 remake of How the Grinch Stole Christmas.  I have pretty poor timing since the Nostalgia Critic just recently devoted a hilarious episode to this movie, so I’ll probably be re-hashing a lot of his points.  Suffice to say this movie is weak, really weak!  The acting is so over-the-top, the story is trounced on, and at times it feels like Ron Howard put several elements into a bag, shook it up and pulled out bits to throw in at random.  I know a lot of people love this movie, but I found myself constantly rolling my eyes and just saying “the original is better,” which it is.

The town of Whoville has lost the meaning of Christmas, and little Cindy Lou Who (Taylor Momsen) is desperate to find it.  In doing so, she stumbles on the evil  Grinch (Jim Carrey) who lives atop Mt. Crumpit and hates Christmas, especially the Whos.  When Cindy Lou tries to get the Grinch involved in Christmas things are a disaster, and in his revenge the Grinch decides to steal the Whos presents and ruin their holiday.

Mind you, up until yesterday I’d never seen the movie nor had an interest in doing so.  In looking for a slew of movies I could enjoy during these 25 Days that I’d overlooked, I gave this a chance, and it didn’t work out.  The only commendable quality is the makeup effects, created by the legendary Rick Baker, and the set design.  I live in California and have visited the Universal Studios a lot and have been lucky to see the Whoville set.  Watching the movie I can appreciate the sets a bit more because the detail is intricate. The world of the Whos is whimsical, and just a bit weird.

The biggest problem with this movie is the script attributed to Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman.  In the original film/book, the Whos were benevolent and loved Christmas for the sense of community and love that could be found.  Here, they’re materialistic douchebags who are just as mean as the Grinch.  Who are we left to root for when both sets of characters are asshats?  It’s established in the narration (by Anthony Hopkins marking the downhill slope this movie would take) that the Whos “really like Christmas” but there’s a difference between loving the holidays and wanting to buy a bunch of crap, and the Whos seems to fall into the latter.  Everyone’s running and scrambling for gifts, and out of the mouths of babes, only Cindy Lou is looking for “the true meaning” of Christmas.  Hell, they even give her a song to sing on the subject which is out-of-place and one of two moments that had me ask “did this start out as a musical in the scripting phase?”  I love Momsen’s music, but her song in this movie is pointless, on par with the song in Hook, and Momsen’s voice is whiny and painful, nice to know she’s grown into it.  I believe the scene showing how Who babies are born culminating in a joke where a Who says “Hey honey, our baby’s here.  He looks just like your boss” shows we aren’t doing jack to stick to the original.

On to the Grinch himself; Carrey excels when it comes to making faces and, again, Baker’s makeup effects really highlight every facial gesture, but Carrey REALLY overdoes it.  His accent is less Boris Karloff, more Sean Connery, and his rants involve him going through a slew of voices while throwing himself around.  At times he’s less funny and more mental patient scary.   He’s a jerk, sure, but the movie tries so hard to give his character the proverbial cake and eat it, too.  In a flashback, you discover the Grinch as a baby, looking how I’d expect a live action version of Shrek’s babies mixed with Quatto from Total Recall would look, and we learn the Who children make fun of him.  So when he steals the gifts and is labeled the devil we’re supposed to feel sorry for him, I get that.  But then why should I give a shit about the Whos at the end when they’re all a bunch of materialistic asses?  The Grinch gives a fantastic speech about how the Whos want everything, but in a matter of time it ends up in the garbage; yet are we not supposed to sympathize with him till he discovers the meaning of Christmas?  His speech pretty much calls out the Whos about not appreciating Christmas, so shouldn’t THEY be the ones struggling to redeem themselves?

That’s the problem with this remake, the original had the story contained in a tight run time so you have clearly delineated characters who were good and evil.  Here, because we have a bloated hour and forty minute run time, Howard stretches everything out and in doing so makes both casts of characters total douches.  When the Whos sing “Welcome Christmas” after the Grinch steals their gifts you never feel like they’ve learned anything, they sing because they’re either shamed or have nothing better to do.  It’s the Grinch who learns the true meaning of Christmas, but he’s still surrounded by a town who are only happy they have their gifts back.  This should have been titled “How the Grinch Brought the Meaning of Christmas to a Group of Unappreciative Snowflake Squatters.”  I won’t be watching this next year, and hopefully I’ll be able to quickly forget a time when I watched this at all.

Ronnie Rating:

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion is donated to this site!  Thanks!

Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas (Widescreen Edition)

Sorry for the delay with our last Journeys in the Disney Vault review, but Disney (and myself) saved the best for last.  After my lukewarm reception to the last few Disney films, and my give and take review of Tangled, Disney finally breaks they mold they’ve been chipping away at since 2000.  Frozen reconfigures the princess narrative and gives girls a level of inspiration never witnessed in a Disney movie before.  Coupled with the long-delayed first directing/screenwriting credit for a female (yes, it took all the way up to 2013 for Disney to give a woman a directing opportunity; the last time a woman was credited with a Disney script was Beauty and the Beast!), Frozen is a pitch-perfect movie Disney fans are going to hail for decades to come, alongside the greatest works of the Disney Renaissance.  With the close of this series I’m happy we’re ending on an epic high note.

Sisters Ana (voiced by Kristen Bell) and Elsa (voiced by Idina Menzel) were once as close as could be, but when Elsa’s inability to control her powers of ice and snow almost end up costing Ana her life, the two sisters are separated for decades.  When their parents die, Elsa becomes queen of the kingdom of Arendelle, but her powers get the best of her and she’s treated like a monster.  When she runs off into the mountains, Ana must team up with an ice seller named Kristof (voiced by Jonathan Groff) to bring Elsa back and lift the permanent winter which has descended on Arendelle.

Considering the movie has only been out for a week, I’ll give the spoiler warning right now, in case you want to enter the movie fresh.

Disney’s efforts to appeal to a changing demographic of children has been well-documented in these reviews, and before it involved relying on CGI in lieu of storytelling or memorable characters.  With that road being a dead-end, Frozen goes back to the basics of Disney animation: story, characters, and music.  All three beautifully blend together to tell the heartfelt tale Disney has been searching for over the last decade.  The film is loosely based on Hans Christian Anderson’s The Snow Queen, which Disney has attempted to adapt since the 1940s.  For various reasons the story never came together, with Michael Eisner kickstarting the idea at the beginning of the 2000s and losing animator Glen Keane over frustration at the project failing to materialize.

Frozen takes the basic tenet of Anderson’s tale – Elsa can control ice and snow and is the queen of Arendelle – and turns it into a story about sisterhood.  The script, written by Jennifer Lee, is self-aware of Disney’s past conventions with the princess genre and seeks to shatter every one.  Once Elsa becomes queen there’s a large coronation where the gates of Arendelle, having been closed for years due to Elsa’s powers, are opened.  As part of the event, Ana meets Prince Hans (voiced by Santino Fontana) and after a darling meet cute song called “Love is an Open Door,” the two decide to wed.  Okay, standard Disney mechanics at work, but cue Elsa who asks Ana why she would want to marry someone she’s just met!  We saw this question raised in Disney’s live-action, Enchanted, but this is the first Disney animated tale which emphasizes it’s okay to wait to get to know a person before jumping into marriage.  The modern perspective continues with the act of true love needed to break the spell at the end – generally reserved for true love’s kiss – coming through Ana sacrificing herself for Elsa.

Frozen isn’t a romance, but a story about sisterhood.  The opening frames quickly and succinctly introduce our two princesses as young girls who loved spending time with each other.  Elsa feels guilty over her accidental harming of Ana, and at her parents urging decides to break her sisterly relationship to prevent her sister additional harm.  The hilarious and bittersweet song “Do You Want to Build a Snowman” establishes the years passing, and further estrangement of the two sisters.  Once Elsa leaves the kingdom to seek her own identity (performed via the show-stopping “Let It Go”), Ana goes on her own journey to reunite with her sister.  Frozen isn’t a sweeping love story, but a journey of self-discovery and establishing an identity within a world defined by male patriarchy.  I’m hoping to go into a longer essay about this subject for another site (and when it’s written I’ll be sure to include a link), but Frozen tells a story young girls should be taught: that finding love is an organic experience and never trump the bonds of family and female friendship.

Aside from the story, Disney also succeeds in the voice cast and music.  Too often in the last decade Disney has relied on A-list names to sell their movies, and while the names of the cast are well-known to Broadway and television fans, they’re not household names nor does their voice work easily identify them.  Menzel had a non-singing role in Enchanted, but as Elsa she’s vulnerable and determined to live a life free of control.  Her key song, “Let It Go” and her duet with Kristen Bell are beautiful and each woman has a vocal range unheard of in past songs; sorry, Mandy Moore, but you can tell a Broadway star.  Jonathan Groff, also a Broadway vet is fun as the stalwart Kristof, although I was surprised he isn’t given a more significant song to sing.  Santino Fontana is a breath of fresh air as the duplicitous Hans and his vocal range is great, while Josh Gad is hilarious as Olaf.  Speaking of Gad, I was hesitant about this movie because of his cutesy snowman, but thankfully the script knows how to integrate him within the core narrative while never distracting from the plot between the human figures.  The only nitpick I have is with the reindeer sidekick, Sven.  He’s far too similar to the horse from Tangled, right down to both acting like dogs (just use a dog character if you can’t animate anything else).

There are other similarities to Tangled, but thankfully the movie’s plot is unique enough so they don’t feel derivative.  There’s been a bit of controversy over male animators having trouble animating the “complex” female face, and both Elsa and Ana are almost carbon copies of Rapunzel; Menzel, Bell, and Fontana all auditioned for Tangled.  The kingdom of Arendelle also bears eerie similarities to the kingdom in Tangled, although any comparisons could be due to the new land in Disneyland (a bit of product placement, perhaps?).

As a whole, Frozen is the best Disney animated film to come out in decades.  Tangled was good, but heavily flawed and mired in the outdated mode of Disney fairy-tales.  Frozen is the movie strong enough to propel Disney animation into the next twenty years with its emphasis on female independence.  Of course, the presence of Jennifer Lee as co-director and screenwriter cannot be ignored.  Female perspective must be present in all aspects of feature filmmaking, simply to provide differing points of view and Frozen proves how sorely that’s needed in mainstream cinema.  I’m aching to see this a second time, and I urge you to take your kids out to see this in theaters!

Ronnie Rating:

NEXT WEEK: We close the Disney Vault with some final words and a conclusion of this animated journey.

Originally published December 17th, 2012

The Bishop’s Wife was my big discovery last Christmas after a viewing on TCM.  I’m a Cary Grant fan, and thankfully one of the box sets of his films came with this included!  The Bishop’s Wife is a sweet, inspirational film about faith and believing in miracles.  I’d much rather people watch this than the remake which Whitney Houston and Denzel Washington did about ten years ago; I refuse to watch it, by the way.  On that note, the remake came out around the same time as the remake of Miracle on 34th Street.  What was up with the ’90s remaking ’40s Christmas films?  Anyway, I digress.

Henry Brougham (David Niven) is a bishop trying to build a new cathedral.  When he prays for guidance an angel named Dudley (Cary Grant) comes down to bestow help.  Henry is so wrapped up in impressing the people who can pay to build his project that he neglects his daughter and wife, Julia (Loretta Young).  As Dudley tries to help Henry, he becomes increasingly smitten with Julia and starts sabotaging the bishop.

This film could have become very contrived or mean-spirited once Dudley starts falling for Julia, but it never extends that far.  The story follows the adage that “the grass is greener on the other side.”  Henry wants people to respect him, yet he ignores those who love him unconditionally.  Dudley himself is seeing the love and compassion given to him, and wants a piece of it despite knowing he can’t have it.  I believe they answered this question in the atrocious City of Angels but I won’t go there.  Either way it’s another “meaning of Christmas” film told with charm and heart.  The film thrives while Grant’s on-screen.  He’s not cocky or overly charming, he’s sweet.  He tells stories to Henry’s daughter, and helps Julia see that there’s a world outside being the bishop’s wife.  If anything, this movie says it’s harder to be a part of a bishop’s family as opposed to being the bishop himself.

Dudley performs several miracles throughout the film, including saving people’s lives, yet he can’t seem to get Henry to stop and smell the roses.  David Niven is great as the overly stressed and nervous Henry.  He’s got great comedic timing with Grant, and there’s some amazing one liners between the two.  My favorite is when Dudley starts rifling through Henry’s mail.  Henry asks, “Are you expecting a letter?”  Dudley replies “Well you never know.  If I did get one, the stamp would certainly be worth saving.”  The two have great tone in this exchange and you can tell Henry is becoming increasingly annoyed with how Dudley ingratiates himself into Henry’s life.  Another favorite line of mine, one that continues the meta elements of the movie is when Professor Wutheridge (Monty Wooley) telling Dudley, “God bless you.”  Dudley says, “Thank you!  I’ll pass that recommendation along.”  By the climax, Henry’s wife, daughter, and maid wish Dudley was around as opposed to him!

By the film’s conclusion everyone gets what they want, and learns to appreciate each other more, all because of an angel; a literal deus ex machina!  This is the best Christmas movie out there, and I know I’ll find some who disagree!  Voice your disapproval in the comments!

Ronnie Rating:

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion will be donated to this site!  Thanks! 

Rent It

The Bishop’s Wife (1947)

Order It

Bishop’s Wife

This review originally ran December 10th, 2012.  Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town is my favorite Rankin-Bass production that has fun songs, and a memorable villain!  

Tonight’s film is a television movie, but it’s an iconic Christmas film which holds a place in most people’s hearts.  It’s the Rankin-Bass 1970 movie Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town.  Let me preface this by saying Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town is my favorite of the Rankin-Bass movies (my second is the little loved Rudolph’s Shiny New Year).  I saw Rudolph again last year and it’s not my favorite, but I know a ton of people who love it, just not me.  Anyway, Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town boasts the best villain, Burgermeister Meisterburger, tells a tight story about the origins of Santa, and dabbles in the 1970s trippiness we all know and love.

Narrated by postal carrier S.D. (Fred Astaire), the movie tells how Santa Claus (voiced by Mickey Rooney) became the man he is.  It answers questions like why he wears a red suit, what’s the connection to Kris Kringle, and other questions commonly asked about the man in the red suit.  Along the way, Kris/Santa gives toys to the bland residents of Sombertown, and melts the cold heart of the Winter Warlock (voiced by Keenan Wynn).

I have to ask how many people have seen the atrocious Justin Bieber music video for the song “Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town?”   I don’t know what hurts me more: the horrific CGI or the redoing of such an iconic song.  I recommend everyone watch this 1970 movie just to hear the song the way it was intended to be performed, by the iconic Fred Astaire.  The movie is only a TV film, clocking in at 50 minutes, but you go on quite the journey in that amount of time.  Your enjoyment of the film boils down to your level of nostalgia for the Rankin-Bass movies.  I remember this as a kid and have made it a tradition every year.  There’s something about the way the film answers the questions of the children and provides great answers for everything, like how Kris Kringle was Santa’s adopted name when he was found by a gaggle of elves all with rhyming names (Tingle, Wingle, etc).  Most of the story involves how he became an outlaw by the evil mayor of Sombertown, Burgermeister Meisterburger (voiced by Paul Frees), who outlaws toys.

Burgermeister is my favorite Rankin-Bass character!  The booming voice of Paul Frees is so intimidating, yet he has such a Napoleon complex about him.  When Kris gives him a yo-yo, it’s not until his second-in-command tells him “Sir, you’re breaking your own law” that he gets angry.  Burgermeister is the little kid who doesn’t get what he wants; the naughty child that Santa would probably give a lump of coal to. Other characters, like the Winter Warlock, also learn to get past their anger and discover the joys of giving.

I can’t deny the movie is highly dated.  There’s some trippy sequences, the animation is pretty laughable (the scene of Kris trapped in the Winter Warlock’s trees for instance.  His facial features look like he’s having a seizure).  For the most part, I’m still awed this movie was made with puppets, but the lack of mouth movement is pretty primitive.  Some of the songs, especially the ones sung by Rooney and Robie Lester as Jessica seem like the result of a lot of marijuana and aren’t as memorable as “Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town” or “First Toymaker to the King.”  Also, anyone looking for religious acknowledgement in this film will be sorely disappointed.  There is no mention of Jesus or anything related to him.  The movie makes a point of saying the first Christmas tree was invented for Kris and Jessica’s wedding, and Kris picks December 25th because it’s the best day for love, or something to that effect.  Now, I enjoy an absence of a religious message in most works, and it is a kids movie so it doesn’t want to preach, but I figured a passing reference or something would be included.

Despite how dated the technology and story is, there’s something sweet and nostalgic about Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town.  I have fond memories of this as a kid and continue to watch it.  The songs are good, the characters are sweet, and Burgermeister is the best dictator in all the land!  If you’re a Rankin-Bass fan you probably have seen this dozens of times but if you haven’t, seek it out on the numerous channels that will play it this season.

Ronnie Rating:

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion will be donated to this site!  Thanks!

Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town

Originally published December 4th, 2012

I decided to watch all three film adaptations of Little Women as a subset of my 25 Days of Christmas.  I’ve seen them all separately, but this will be the first time I watch them in a small time-span allowing me to note similarities and differences in tone and presentation.  I’ve seen the 1994 version just a month or so ago, so in this first review I’ll mention things in comparison to that film as it’s been over two years since I saw the 1933 version.  With that being said, I enjoyed this Mervyn LeRoy adaptation like I did the first time I saw it.  The only drawback is June Allyson as Jo, but the rest of the cast is fantastic; particularly Margaret O’Brien, Elizabeth Taylor and Janet Leigh.

The four March sisters struggle in 1860s Massachusetts after their father goes to war.  Tomboy Jo (Allyson) yearns to write, and finds herself discovering a new friend in Laurie (Peter Lawford).  Her sisters Meg (Leigh) and Amy (Taylor) seek material comforts, while little Beth (O’Brien) wishes to do good in the world.

Little Women never fails to warm the cockles of my heart.  I can watch it anytime of the year and it’s good, although I find myself watching the 1994 version the most.  The 1949 version feels the most like a Christmas film, from the opening credits in cross-stitch to the snow-covered paths of the sets.  More than the earlier and later versions, this feels like a Christmas classic in love with the simple things, like giving and family.  The focus on one location, the March house, but also Jo’s house in New York, is evocative of director Mervyn LeRoy.  I’ve seen several of his films, and they feel like stage plays, this one included. If you’ve seen any version of Little Women the plot remains the same, leaving the characters to sink or swim.  For the most part, the characters are the best here than in the 1994 or 1933 version (I reserve the right to change that opinion once I revisit the 1933 version).

You have a mix of up-and-comers in Leigh and Taylor, mingling with film veterans like Mary Astor in this version.  In the interest of getting Margaret O’Brien in the cast, the fundamental change to the source material is in making Beth the youngest.  This is a key change, transforming the entire tone of the movie because (and this isn’t a spoiler considering Little Women is such a classic, but you’ve been warned anyway) by having Beth die it’s the death of innocence.  Little Women itself is a novel of struggle and self-sacrifice which feels harsher here because O’Brien is so young.  O’Brien was only 12-years-old in this film, but she walks the line between wise beyond her years and precocious child.  I think a lot of what rises Beth above the angel of innocence is in O’Brien’s performance.  Her facial expressions are perfect for every situation in a way you don’t witness in most child stars.  She has such serious concentration while playing the piano during Jo’s play that you can’t help but laugh.  Later, when she gets the piano as a gift she becomes utterly dazed in her expression and tone-of-voice that it’s funny, but also extremely moving that she’s stupefied to discover someone would be so kind to her.  How can you not be kind to this child?  She’s the master of getting the audience to tear up, especially during her final scene with Jo.  I defy you not to tear up during the video below

The 1949 version of LittleWomen, more than any other, gets me to love characters I normally hated.  I don’t care for Beth particularly, but Margaret O’Brien made me love her.  Similarly, I’ve never been able to stand the character of Amy!  A lot of that has to do with how despicable they make her in the 1994 version. In this version, I found myself laughing heartily, and finding out Elizabeth Taylor could be quite the comedienne.  In the original book, and in the 1994 version (I believe it’s the same in the ’33 one as well), Amy is the youngest.  Making Amy the second youngest worked in this film’s favor because Amy isn’t as much of a petulant child as she is in the 1994 one.  Taylor was 17 when she made this and between the blonde hair and garish make-up, she stands out.  The Technicolor makes the make-up look fake on Taylor, especially since the other actresses have modest to none.  It’s funny to watch Taylor play Amy since the character is in love with having a lavish lifestyle, and thinks she’s above others (she wears a clothes pin on her nose to make it pert).  Art imitating life.  The first half of the film, when the March sisters are going about their routine, allows for Taylor to show her comedy best.  I especially laughed at her doing Jo’s play complete with crazy expressions.  A running joke has Amy eating all the time which I can identify with!  A lot of humor comes from those scenes, like the one with the popovers and the Hummel children (“one for you, one for you, and one for me”).

Janet Leigh is also utterly gorgeous as Meg in this interpretation.  She’s the oldest of the group, although June Allyson looks significantly older.  A difference between this one and the 1994 interpretation is Meg actually gets a story!  The romance between her and John Brooke (Richard Wyler) is developed well, although it all seems controlled by Jo who doesn’t want Meg to leave.  Other differences I noted: Jo mentions her desire to be a boy as it won’t limit her dream.  In the 1994 film Jo mention being a boy, but they feminize her more to compensate.  Beth survives scarlet fever without Marmee’s help.  I’m assuming they changed that one to promote motherly love, and the need for the  family being the best medicine.  I also loved how this version doesn’t create any animosity between Jo and Amy.

In the 1994 version the love triangle between Amy, Jo, and Laurie is messy and incredibly selfish.  There’s no selfish motives out of any of the characters in here.  Jo and Laurie love each other, but Jo doesn’t want to get married.  Laurie isn’t in love with the March family because they allow him to escape his staid existence; he loves them as his own family, Jo especially.  When Laurie and Amy do marry, it’s out of love and Jo understands; there’s no need for competition between the sisters.  At the end of the day they still love each other, and I think that’s a brilliant message to pass down to young women.  I enjoyed Peter Lawford as Laurie, but he felt a bit stiff at times.

The only problem I had with this version is June Allyson.  For starters, she’s 32 playing fifteen.  That’s quite a leap considering Janet Leigh was 22!  Allyson looks far too old in the part, especially when she’s contrasted with the younger girls, and the Technicolor only highlights her age.  She also seems to be playing the character the same way Katherine Hepburn did in the 1933 one.  There’s nothing about the way Allyson plays the role of Jo that made me feel she embodied it.  I kept saying “she plays a good Katherine Hepburn.”  When the film veers into Jo’s adventures in New York I found myself tuning out because Allyson isn’t particularly interesting.

Overall, I enjoy the 1949 version of Little Women, and I would consider buying it to place it right next to the 1994 one.  I love O’Brien, Leigh, and Taylor far more in this version than in any of the others.  It’s a solid blend of humor and heart that never feels too sweet, or too tragic.

Ronnie Rating:

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion will be donated to this site!  Thanks! 

Rent It

Little Women (1949)

Buy It

Little Women (IMPORT,ALL REGION)

Originally published December 2nd, 2011

This is an odd one to group with Marilyn movies as she’s literally in it for a minute (I’d say less but I didn’t time it).  O. Henry’s Full House an anthology film of adapted stories from the works of O. Henry.  It’s certainly not worth watching for Marilyn, but there are a few redeeming stories out of the bunch.  The film also blends perfectly into my 25 Days of Christmas movies as the last segment is a Christmas film (and a pretty popular story to boot).

The film tells five stories based on O. Henry’s novels, all introduced by the writer John Steinbeck (I can officially put a name to a face).  The five stories are as follows: “The Cop and the Anthem” follows a homeless man (Charles Laughton) who tries, and fails, to get arrested so he can spend the harsh winter in prison.  “The Clarion Call” tells the story of officer, Barney Woods (Dale Robertson) trying to catch a murderer who happens to be his once best friend (Richard Widmark).  “The Last Leaf” follows a depressed young girl (Anne Baxter) who proclaims she’ll die when the last leaf falls off the tree outside her window. “The Ransom of Red Chief” follows two bumbling kidnappers (Fred Allen and Oscar Levant) who kidnap an unruly little boy who the town doesn’t want back.  “The Gift of the Magi” follows a young couple in love (Farley Granger and Jeanne Crain) who are looking for the perfect Christmas gift for the other.

Overall there were two I enjoyed: “The Ransom of Red Chief” and “The Gift of the Magi.”  It’s not that the other three stories were bad – okay one had me really bored (“The Clarion Call”) and the other made me want to beat someone (“The Last Leaf”) – I just didn’t expect an anthology film, especially one with so little Marilyn late in her career.  Considering the films we’ve discussed thus far it’s ridiculous how prominently she’s billed yet how little time she warrants.  I’m tempted to write a letter to the people who sold me this box set because she’s not even a character worthy of a name; IMDB lists her simply as “Streetwalker.”

That leads us to the first story “The Cop and the Anthem.”  Laughton is solid as a homeless man trying to find a place to survive the winter, thinking prison is the best option.  The time period the story takes place in isn’t specified, but you can find its connection to the Depression and World War II.  Soapy is a man who seems highly educated, is extremely polite and could be a millionaire if he wants, yet something prevents him.  I’m a huge fan of Laughton’s directorial debut The Night of the Hunter, but here you’re led to believe he’s a poor bum despite his booming voice and eloquent speech.  I’d say he’s one of the “forgotten men” of 30s films, rich men who have given it all up to live a life of homeless freedom.  He does get his act together just in time to be arrested.  It’s ironic, but I’m wondering what the statement is meant to be?  If you wait too long to make something of yourself you’ll be stuck forever wandering?  Or is it a commentary on the prison system, we let crime go unpunished and never give criminals a chance to truly redeem themselves?  I’d be interested to hear thoughts on the subject.  All in all, it was an interesting story but it went on a bit too long. Marilyn shows up as a “streetwalker” who Soapy tries to harass.  Her character’s all for it, leading me to believe she’s meant to be a prostitute.  Again, so many elements not explained and this segment just went on forever.

The one that comes off the longest is “The Clarion Call.”  Richard Widmark returns after my lambasting of him in Don’t Bother to Knock…playing another dick I wanted to hit with a bat!  He plays criminal Johnny Kernan, who’s hunted down by his once best friend, Barney Woods (Dale Robertson).  It’s  directed by Henry Hathaway who would go on to direct Marilyn in Niagara, as well as direct a slew of John Wayne westerns. This segment is reminiscent of a Western with an obvious good and bad guy meeting up for a gunfight by the end.  Widmark is annoying with his screechy voice looking like a cheap gangster and you know he’s bad when he beats on a woman, throws her kitten at her, and so on…laying it on a bit thick there, but hey, it’s Western-esque.  Robertson is just bland as good guy Barney; his deep voice and delivery seem stilted.  The problem is the segment makes a Western within a gangster era and there’s no seamless blending of the two genres.  This one also went on forever with Barney trying to solve the mystery, find Kernan, talk to him, realize he owes him, payes him back, fights with him again, it just went on.

“The Last Leaf” is melodrama at it’s most ridiculous.  We see two other actresses with Marilyn connections in this story.  Anne Baxter played Eve Harrington in All About Eve, while Jean Peters would go on to act in Niagara (directed by Henry Hathaway).  Joanna (Baxter) is seduced by an actor and gets pneumonia.  She says she’s going to die when the last leaf falls, leaving her sister, Susan (Peters) to worry.  There’s also the tormented artist Behrman (Gregory Ratoff) trying to paint something worthwhile.  The problem lies in how weepy and melodramatic this is.  I know it’s a mark of the times, but Joanna just whines and lays in bed, constantly harping on how she’s going to die.  She makes Susan jump through hoops until the very end when Joanna is miraculously cured and realizes it was all in her head.  Call me a cynic, but if the dying was all in her head and she snaps out of it, wouldn’t you punch her?  She makes everyone worry, only to pop up and say, “Well the leaf didn’t fall, I’m all better now!”  I’d at least send her to the nuthouse for an evaluation.  The lingering of Joanna makes this also limp into home.

“The Ransom of Red Chief” is the funniest story, inspiring everything from Dennis the Menace to Ruthless People.  The story of two bumbling kidnappers taking the most annoying kid is cliché, but the comedic writing is flawless.  From the first scene you’re led to believe Bill and Sam have stumbled on the stupidest people in the world, rife with stereotypes about people from the South.  When they kidnap little J.B. (Lee Aaker) his parents witness the whole thing.  The mother says in a deadpan voice “They’re putting a bag over J.B.’s head and putting him in the automobile.”  No one moves to do anything and even once J.B.’s parents get the ransom note they don’t care.  This kid is such a handful, the town is said to be celebrating because they’re so happy.  I’m not a fan of kids, but I loved Aaker as J.B. aka Red Chief.  From his little blond head of hair and the way he talked, everything was comedic.  The way the grown men cower because “they had a difference of opinion” culminating in J.B. stuffing a hot potato down their back is hilarious.  The writing is sharp and witty making this one of the segments I could watch again.

The Gift of the Magi is a story everyone knows and has been done to death in popular culture.  My personal favorite is The Rugrats Christmas special presenting Phil and Lil doing a Gift of the Magi swap. Anyway, having seen this story done before it wasn’t surprising.  The acting was solid, with Jeanne Crain being the best as the woman willing to give up her hair for a man.  I’m still not sure how I feel about Farley Granger as an actor.  I’ve seen him in Strangers on a Train and thought he was okay, but nothing special. “The Gift of the Magi” didn’t change my mind on him.  He was good, but again nothing special.

I’d say if you’re checking this out on a whim, don’t watch it for Marilyn.  Watch “The Ransom of Red Chief” and laugh heartily.  “The Gift of the Magi” is also great to watch around Christmas, which is why I picked it as my introduction to 25 Days of Christmas.

Ronnie Rating:

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion is donated to this site!  Thanks!

O Henry’s Full House

This review originally ran on December 20th, 2011.  My thoughts on the film itself haven’t changed, and have only grown. Natalie Wood continues to astound me, and the film has such love embedded in it.

How can I say I’m a film fan, and actually write reviews for a living, if I’ve only just now watched the original Miracle on 34th Street?!  I honestly have no excuse for this error in judgement, and the sad thing is I’ve seen the 1994 remake which is….lackluster to be kind (it’s Christmas).  I’ve heard tell that this is a classic and by golly it is!  The movie is  sweet, heartwarming, and filled with some of the best performances ever committed to celluloid.  Don’t be like me and make this year first year viewing it, watch it immediately and be awed by the joy found in a child believing in Santa!

Eight-year-old Susan Walker (Natalie Wood) has been told by her staunch mother Doris (Maureen O’Hara) that there is no such thing as fairy tales, or Santa Claus.  When Doris hires a strange man to fill in for Santa during the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade it turns into a permanent position as Santa…but the man (Edmund Gwenn) believes he truly is Kris Kringle.  When a smarmy psychiatrist (Porter Hall) wants Santa committed, an idealistic attorney named Fred Gailey (John Payne), decides to take on the case and prove Macy’s Santa is the real deal!

What can be said about this movie that hasn’t already been said by the greatest critics out there?  This is a gem!  I’m a huge fan of Wood and O’Hara and I’m still slapping myself in the head that I have only just watched this film.  I’ve always had it on my Netflix, but never had the impetus to watch it (for shame, I know).  This is a timeless classic about two cynical people learning the magic of Santa.  It also follows said Santa as he tries to prove to the world of cynical adults that there is still magic and belief not limited just to children.  Gwenn, appropriately, won an Oscar for his role in this, coming out after the horrors of WWII. Gwenn plays the role of Santa with heart, warmth, and a fun whimsy that can’t be recreated (even though Richard Attenborough did try).  When he’s teaching Susan to be a monkey, you believe it; not just because he has phenomenal chemistry with Wood, but because he believes it.

Wood herself steals the show as Susan.  There’s a striking difference in watching her play a child trying to be wise beyond her years, and similar characters played by the likes of Dakota Fanning.  Where Fanning and others are like automatons, Wood is a child trying not to believe in childish things.  She doesn’t want to grow up fast, but she doesn’t want to believe in elements which won’t pan out, like seeing her father.  O’Hara also plays a character who doesn’t believe in magic because she’s still coping with her divorce.  The fact she’s a divorcee in 1947 I’m sure was extremely shocking; both characters are attempting to mask their vulnerability and a simple belief in Santa could derail all that.

The Blu-Ray release could be better, but it’s a must for fans who want to see the film in the best possible way.  The disc only contains the black and white version, which I think is the only way to watch this.  I could see fans who are a bit disappointed this set isn’t complete, though, by not having the color version included.  The blacks are lush and the whites are striking, but the bonus features are obviously not formatted to Blu so flesh tones of the actors in the AMC documentary look shiny and garish at times.  The features are light, but give a nice overview to the film’s creation.  Maureen O’Hara herself provides DVD commentary on the film, but she goes long stretches without talking and praises the actors a lot.  It’s always great to watch a classic film with a legendary actor who was a part, but it feels like O’Hara is uncomfortable recording, or has little to add to it.  AMC Backstory: Miracle on 34th Street is a 22-minute feature (originally aired on AMC) detailing the conception of the film, the casting, the filming of the parade, etc.  It’s a solid look at the movie with a lot of the actors discussing it.  Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade: Floating in History is a truncated copy of the AMC Backstory feature, looking at the parade filming tacked onto the real Macy’s Parade.  Fox Movietone News: Hollywood Spotlight is an archive newsbrief featuring speeches from the actors when they went to the Academy Awards.  It has little rewatch value, but it is fun to hear Edmund Gwenn say “Now I know there’s a Santa Claus” after winning an Oscar for the role.  The poster gallery has nine posters from the film’s marketing, and the five minute promo short  for the film provides an interesting look at the difficulties of marketing a Christmas film in the summertime.

The movie has both humor and drama, and all boils down to questioning whether seeing is believing?  I’m not afraid to admit by the end when Susan gets her wish, I was ready to squeeze out a few tears.  The acting is just so astounding that it has to be seen in order to truly appreciate it.  The Blu-Ray is fantastic, albeit lean on features, but it’s all about the movie isn’t it?  This is in my Christmas film collection ASAP and I recommend it go into yours!

Ronnie Rating:

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion will be donated to this site!  Thanks! 

Buy On DVD

Miracle on 34th Street (Special Edition)

Buy On Blu-Ray

Miracle on 34th Street [Blu-ray]

This review originally ran December 25th, 2011.  This is still a must-watch as many times as you can.

I recently watched the Ron Howard remake for this month a few days back and was horrified by what had been done to this great special.  Thankfully, rewatching this has made me all but forget that horrible movie!  I don’t have any best/worst of the month since I’d seen most of these movies previously, but I’d say Ron Howard’s Grinch was the worst thing I’ve seen.

This 1966 film tells how the evil Grinch (voiced by Boris Karloff) hates the Whos down in Whoville who love Christmas.  He comes up with a plan to steal all the Whos Christmas stuff, but eventually comes to realize that maybe “Christmas means a little bit more” than gifts.

Much like the remake of the Grinch, albeit in a more negative light, what can be said about this film that hasn’t already been said in countless reviews?  There’s something so dastardly heartwarming about this movie, if that’s even a phrase.  The Grinch is expertly voiced by Frankenstein’s monster himself, Boris Karloff, and is evil all the way around.  When he turns his head 360 degrees, you know he’s pretty damn evil.  On top of that, he’s mean to the cutest dog in the world, Max!  I was sad Max wasn’t utilized in the remake because Max steals the show in this brief cartoon.  The scene of the Grinch going down the mountain and realizing Max isn’t controlling the sleigh but is inside, waving to him no less, never fails to crack me up!

I heavily criticized Ron Howard’s remake for missing the point of what this special seeks to reveal.  The Whos are benevolent, sweet people who love the togetherness of Christmas, not the material benefits.  When the Grinch steals their presents it’s because he’s the one who assumes it’s all about materials.  Yet, when the group gathers around the Christmas tree and sings “Welcome Christmas” it’s because Christmas is about community and sharing to them!  Where Ron Howard turns the Whos into unlikable jerks, this cements Christmas as a time of family, and if the Grinch opens himself up to love, he can be a part of it too!

On top of that, the animation is still flawless for a movie made in 1966, and the song, “You’re a Mean One, Mr. Grinch” is a classic for a reason.  It’s also been the ringtone for my father this Christmas season, just to let you lovely readers into my personal life for a moment.

Ronnie Rating:

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion will be donated to this site!  Thanks! 

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (Deluxe Edition)

Originally published May 6th, 2013

Meet Me in St. Louis came highly recommended due to its place as a musical classic, and because it’s got the downright angelic Margaret O’Brien who I praised heavily in my Christmas review of Little Women.  So, as I tend to do with blogathons, I used my contribution to cross a recommendation off my list.  I won’t sugarcoat it: I have A LOT of crow to eat….read on.

In the year 1904, the year of the St. Louis World’s Fair, the Smith family get lessons in life and love.

The plot of Meet Me in St. Louis is a lot to unpack, and yet it’s all wrapped around one prime location for the two-hour runtime, so apologies for the brief plot synopsis.  It’s a well-acknowledged fact that I don’t care for the work of Vincente Minnelli.  Generally, I find his visuals and slavish devotion to abrupt song and dance numbers makes for an overrated experience; story comes third to songs/dances and visuals.  However, I absolutely fell in love with Meet Me in St. Louis!  I won’t say I love Minnelli (it’ll take a few more movies), but I laughed and cried like a baby.  His nostalgic reverence for the turn-of-the-century is lovingly depicted in this sentimental drama with an emotional punch you don’t see coming (at least I didn’t see it).  Since the plot, based on a series of books by Sally Benson spans several months there’s no time to superfluity, of which I find Minnelli is the master of.  At a little under two hours, time flies by.

Some brief history to emphasize why Meet Me in St. Louis is the seminal movie musical it is: It ushered in the golden era of movie musicals under producer-lyricist Arthur Freed.  It ended up being the second most successful film for MGM behind Gone With the Wind.  This was Minnelli’s third film, which I also believe is to his advantage as he couldn’t get wrapped up in finding a consistent style or series of tropes (again, something I find to be in all his subsequent works).  This also marked a turning point for Judy Garland‘s career, being her first major success post-Wizard of Oz (she was playing 17 at the age of 22).

Meet Me in St. Louis is commonly considered a Christmas movie, and while there is a Christmas segment I probably wouldn’t add this to my Christmas movie list (although I’m running it as part of my Christmas series).  The connection comes from the romanticized version of living the movie presents.  Released in 1944, the movie provided hope and a return to normality for many at the time.  The passing of the seasons are represented by filigree tintype cards that are lovely and present a sentimental look at the world we yearn to return to.  From there, the plot follows the Smith family and becomes an ensemble piece.  As a whole, the story comprises the basic progression of not only the Smith’s, but technology and the formulation of a city; a key piece of the movie is the St. Louis World’s fair, and the invention of the telephone.  The world is presented through rose-colored glasses and it makes for a lovely adventure.  The principle twist involves the family moving to New York.  Its significance wouldn’t have been lost on 1940s viewers; the move from a large, urban, metropolitan area, the loss of innocence, the end of an era, and the loss of an uncomplicated way of life.

The acting is excellent, and each member of the family truly feel like they’ve known each other forever.  I didn’t see actors, but a family experiencing life’s trials and tribulations – much of which is in Benson’s original novels.  Judy Garland is the star of the group, playing Esther Smith, and she’s riddled with complexity.  She’s introduced acting snobby, warning her older sister Rose (Lucille Bremer) that she needs to get married soon because she “isn’t getting any younger.”  While Esther worries about her sister, she yearns to find love herself, specifically with the boy-next door, John Truett (Tom Drake).  Garland’s the mistress of the starry-eyed expression and when she’s pouring her heart out, searching for magic in love, you believe it just like you did when she wanted to go over the rainbow.  Her first song, about the eponymous boy, is an ode for neglected girls everywhere and the emotions are heightened by close-ups showing the secret feelings she can’t express.  (Minnelli employs the camera to convey emotion, which he loses in subsequent films when it’s about dance sequences.)  Garland’s voice is beautiful, obviously, and pervades your soul.  Her rendition of “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” puts me in tears, and with the added visual of her singing and baby Margaret O’Brien sobbing, I was a mess!

Rose and Esther’s love stories aren’t ham-fisted or cloying, but swirled into the drama of the rest of the group.  When Rose says there’s more to life than boys, you don’t believe her, but the movie never hammers home the fact that Rose is running on borrowed time.  Lucille Bremer plays Rose as a flighty girl who doesn’t realize she is.  In fact, her long-distance relationship with Warren Sheffield (Robert Sully) emphasizes the technological advances of the telephone and hilariously shows how unreliable it was for romance.  Being the eldest, she’s also the one to dispense advice to the others, such as telling Esther men “don’t want the bloom rubbed off.”  While the audience is aware a woman’s virginity is highly prized, I was surprised the script doesn’t hammer that home next to Rose’s age; talk about progress!

If Garland hadn’t already roped me in, I was utterly transfixed by the precocious Margaret O’Brien.  I adored her as Beth in Little Women, but that was nothing compared to her as Tootie Smith.  For one, she’s looks like a little angel dropped down from Heaven, cute enough to eat with a spoon!  Also, she witnesses all the events and experiences with fresh eyes, similar to the audience.  A child growing up in that era has a wholly different perspective of events than an adult, and that comes through excellently.  I loved the character traits she’s given, including a macabre sense of humor and a love of death.  She’s also a smartass, telling Rose Warren hasn’t called because “he found another girl.”  She’s the type of five-year-old I wanted to be, or at least have as a best friend.  The two best scenes she’s given are at Halloween and Christmas.  The former has her going to perform a prank on a neighbor she doesn’t like – the neighbors are all aware of the pranks and simply ask the children to return whatever they “steal” – and the camera mimics her POV, tracking her at the same height.  As she gets to the door, the look of fear on her face gets bigger (and hilariously adorable) as she approaches the house, lit from below to increase the terror.  When she finally gets to the door and throws the flour on the neighbor, running away screaming, she’s relieved and happy to be declared “the bravest of them all!” Every experience Tootie is given mimics the universal reality of childhood itself.  The second scene returns us to that Christmas sequence with Garland singing.  If Garland’s song doesn’t make you bawl, the innocent face of O’Brien weeping will melt your heart (or prove you never had one to begin with).  Frustrated and feeling small, Tootie runs outside and decapitates her snowman family, blending and perverting her love of death.  It’s a powerful sequence, watching this small girl act out her rage, another moment of a character having to hide their true feelings, and it’s traumatizing watching this little girl be in such pain.  It’s a comfort watching Esther care for the little girl, and shows how heart-felt their sisterly bond is.

Of course, with all the excellent characters (including the aforementioned Mary Astor, Marjorie Main, Harry Davenport, and Leon Ames), I almost forgot the songs.  Other than the Christmas tune, I enjoyed “The Trolley Song,” if only because it’s indelibly linked with Garland.  I feared that after the first song, which had characters spontaneously singing and dancing, musical sequences would spring from nothing, but everything is organic and natural.

Meet Me in St. Louis is a perfect movie, and the first first-time viewing of 2013 to garner a five-star review!  I implore everyone to watch this and buy it.  I was fortunate to see this on Blu-Ray and it’s one of the best transfers I’ve witnessed.  The colors are rich and vibrant and it goes along with this jolly movie!

Ronnie Rating:

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion will be donated to this site!  Thanks!

Rent It

Meet Me In St. Louis

Buy It On DVD

Meet Me In St. Louis (Two-Disc Special Edition)

Buy It On Blu-Ray (Highly recommended)

Meet Me in St. Louis [Blu-ray Book]

This review originally ran December 23rd, 2011.  I still adore this Christmas special!

As we get ever closer to Christmas Day we’re hitting the best Christmas films to watch.  This isn’t a film per se, it’s a television special, but it’s iconic to Christmas.  It’s the 1965 special, A Charlie Brown Christmas, one of the greatest specials devoted to a character having an existential Christmas crisis.  I love this movie, but I also love to make fun of how serious it takes the material for a special devoted to children.

Charlie Brown (voiced by Peter Robbins) wants to know what Christmas is all about.  In directing a Christmas play he sees all his friends are only interested in the material side of the holiday: money and presents.  With a lonely tree in tow, Charlie Brown tries to figure out the true meaning of Christmas.

This is another in a long line of “trying to find the meaning of Christmas” movies only explored through the eyes of children.  Charlie Brown is morose, much like most of the Peanuts movies, because like most children his friends are interested in presents.  The abrasive Lucy (voiced by Tracy Stratford) tells him he has a fear of everything.  I love how seriously these kids talk and they’re like 8.  Charlie Brown essentially brings everyone down with his “What’s Christmas all about” angle, but then again the rest of the kids are douchebags too.  They don’t think Charlie Brown can do anything, which is kinda true, he can’t even kick a football; but when he brings home a lonely little tree they ask him why he’s still living.

The best part is Snoopy, whose actually a bit of a player in this special.  He enters his doghouse in a Christmas contest and gets to dance on top of Schroeder‘s piano!  On top of that, you have one of the most memorable Christmas scores by Vince Guaraldi and some of the best dance sequences committed to television (my personal favorite is the kid who keeps turning his head back and forth).

Since the special’s only about twenty minutes there’s not really a lot to discuss.  I love this special no matter how harshly I rag on it and Linus‘ speech is still sweet, and I’m only mildly religious.  But I stand by the fact that Charlie Brown’s the original Debbie Downer!

Ronnie Rating:

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion will be donated to this site!  Thanks! 

A Charlie Brown Christmas (Remastered Deluxe Edition)

I once called Danny Kaye a discount Donald O’Connor, but now I’m wondering if Donald O’Connor isn’t a discount Danny Kaye.  Unfortunately, the linguistic gymnastics of my opening line are nothing compared to the verbal tongue-twisters Kaye is known for, and none more so than in The Court Jester.  I was ambivalent about my response to the film, but the more I think about it my enjoyment increases.  Almost sixty years later, and The Court Jester retains its humor.  Just be sure to remember “The pellet with the poison’s in the flagon with the dragon; the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.”

The rightful king of England, a baby bearing the birthmark of the purple pimpernel, is hiding in the forest for fear of being killed by the false King Roderick (Cecil Parker).  Hubert Hawkins (Kaye) is a carnival worker tasked with infiltrating the court to restore the rightful king along with the captain of the insurgency, Jean (Glynis Johns).  The only way the duo can restore power is to get close the king, and to do so Hubert ends up masquerading as a world-renowned jester leading to a host of complications ranging from an assassination plot to foiling the love of Princess Gwendolyn (Angela Lansbury).

The Court Jester takes aim at the various costume dramas of the period and acts as a send-up of sorts.  The opening song introducing the Black Fox is punctuated by the discovery that Kaye isn’t the Black Fox, but the lowly babysitter of the infant king responsible for flashing the baby’s bare-bottomed birthmark; it’s a job he feels a woman would be better suited for.  Another well-done twist is making the captain of the outlaws, the right hand of the Black Fox, a female.  Lady Jean is one of the better female maidens of this genre, despite her instantly falling for Hubert with little provocation.  This is the first time I’ve watched Glynis Johns in her youth and not only is she gorgeous, but has an easy wit and tenacity to her.  Lady Jean isn’t a weak heroine, nor is she purely a straight man.  Her and Kaye’s rapport is electric and leads to the strongest comedic moment (for me, at least) involving the two acting as grandfather and daughter with Hubert acting deaf and Jean acting mute.  Her mock sign language is amazing, and even funnier because you believe Hubert understands what it means.

Kaye is a man of many talents and they’re all on display.  His comedic timing is impeccable, his dancing is astounding, but that’s nothing compared to his work with turn of phrase.  There’s a reason the one-liners from this movie have endured and it’s because of the casual way Kaye turns complex tongue-twisters into regular speech.  The infamous “flagon with the dragon” sequence is hilarious because of how confusing it is, but spellbinding to hear Kaye and Mildred Natwick as Griselda (“Gri-who-lda?”) effortlessly sail through the lines.  The punchline is Hubert’s exasperation with it all, only to have Jean effortlessly remind Hubert of where the poison is; he responds, “Well then you fight him.”

The comedy blends with the narrative without coming off as silly or cheap.  The remaining male cast members include action/suspense regulars including the accomplished Basil Rathbone, John Carradine, and Michael Pate all providing the necessary normality to prevent the plot from diving into absurdity.  Kaye himself also understands the need for derring-do in the climatic sword fight which feels natural to him.  And one can’t ignore the leading ladies, Johns and Lansbury.  Each woman provides her own source of humor, and while I’ve already detailed Johns’ accomplishments let’s not ignore Lansbury.  Princess Gwendolyn is a princess practically driven mad by stories of true love.  So when she’s due for an arranged marriage she threatens her nursemaid, Griselda, to find her a man or else they’ll both be forced to die.  It’s a sly bit of self-awareness which works because of how serious Lansbury treats the character.

The Court Jester could become a silly piece of fluff, but ends up being a hilarious send-up of outlaw movies coupled with an amazing performance by Kaye and Johns.  I didn’t expect to love the movie nearly as much as I did, but it’s a new favorite.

Ronnie Rating:

Amazon is a bit too expensive, so your dollars are better spent buying Warner Archive’s two-pack featuring this and The Five Pennies.  You can order directly from Warner Archive.

The Five Pennies conjures up comparisons to similar musical biopics such as Night and Day or Young Man With a Horn; the latter, especially, due to its emphasis on horns.  I enjoyed this far more than the previous two entries, but The Five Pennies suffers from the same issues plaguing all musical biopics between 1940-1960, a melodramatic script unable to balance the music with personal drama.  In this case, our protagonist’s relationship with his daughter could lead somewhere if the characters didn’t vacillate between unlikeable and straight-up confused.

Loring “Red” Nichols (Kaye) is a phenomenal cornet player, but his love for hot Dixieland jazz puts him at odds with regular band conductors.  He breaks out on his own and ends up mentoring several fantastic jazz musicians of the period.  However, his daughter comes down with polio, leaving Loring to decide whether music is more important than family.

After the adoration and praise I heaped upon The Court Jester I wasn’t expecting anything on the same level.  The Five Pennies isn’t as bad as other musical biopics of the period, but it shouldn’t be placed on a double bill with The Court Jester.  The character of Red Nichols lacks any definition or special characterization to separate him from the countless other musicians or composers receiving their own biopics.  He enters the scene as a big fish in the small-town of Ogden, Utah who makes good by going to the big city.  Success rapidly finds him with little effort, and he finds a wife after spending a few hours with her, before inevitable tragedy strikes.  You witness this same premise, albeit with a few pieces switched around or different characters bearing said tragedy, in other musical biopics and the movie would be exactly the same.  It’s a generic set-up reminding you of countless other movies, many of which aren’t particularly good.

Kaye is what’s memorable about this cookie-cutter movie and a lot of it works because of Kaye’s exuberance.  Surprisingly, his shtick is downplayed throughout a good portion of the film and generally reserved to the first act.  A running gag involves the myriad ways a song is played in different stereotype ethnicities, allowing Kaye to let loose with his brand of hullabaloo.  After that, the movie settles into a domestic routine that’s about as engaging as a bad marriage.

Again, similar to other musical biopics the juxtaposition of music and marriage is a poor mix.  If the marriage isn’t rife with infidelity or other salaciousness aspects then the music angle has to make up for it.  In the case of The Five Pennies, both sides are family friendly and thus rather boring.  Barbara Bel Geddes is the picture of perfection as Loring’s bubbly wife, Willa.  She acts how the script dictates, supportive throughout but confused as to whether she wants a husband or musician.  It’s also hard to sympathize with her cries of Loring being gone so much when her daughter spends a bit of time crying over her absence.  Kaye and Bel Geddes have chemistry, but it isn’t particularly romantic because it’s blah.

The real chemistry is between Kaye and the little girl playing his daughter.  Dorothy Nichols is played by Susan Gordon between the ages of 6 and 8, and Tuesday Weld – in her film début – from 14 onwards.  The crux of the movie’s runtime after the first hour (this is a 117-minute film) follows Loring as he gives up music to take a normal job in order to care for his polio-stricken daughter.  Yes, illnesses like this were terrible and audiences find it hard to understand the issues inherent in an illness that’s generally eradicated in countries with vaccines.  However, the character of Dorothy is written as a little brat after her illness, and illness or not but a brat is hard to care about.  Gordon plays the character as a small girl one minute and then a wizened child-adult the next.  She refuses to go to bed, guilts her father into letting her stay up, and makes him take her to a jazz club at 3am, only to get indignant about his visits to the hospital once she’s sick.

Her actions are understandable, to a point.  Her parents send her to boarding school to travel and make music so her hostility is defined, but her mother went too!  All Dorothy’s antagonism goes to Loring, and other people notice her sour personality; a scene where Loring cheers up a hospital ward of polio-stricken kids is darling but punctuated by one of the kids commenting if being a jerk runs in the family because Dorothy is so rude.  The problem is two-fold: One, the kid is written unlikeably and Gordon’s petulant acting aids in this.  Two, the script never gives catharsis between father and daughter so it’s questionable if Loring understands why his daughter’s mad.  Once Dorothy grows into Tuesday Weld the relationship comes to a heart-warming conclusion, but it leads up to more asinine moments with the girl, including her going on about failing to remember anything about her life between the ages of six and eight!

Kaye’s chemistry with both actresses playing his daughter is darling, and he’s the sole reason to watch The Five Pennies.  The music is good, particularly “Lullaby in Ragtime,” although the title song is overplayed.  The script is treacle and in line with countless other movies of the era.  If it’s on it’s worth a gander, or if you want The Court Jester from Warner Archive this comes with.

Ronnie Rating:

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion is donated to this site!  Thanks!

Danny Kaye Double Feature

The last in my series of reviews on the three adaptations of Little Women is the 1933 George Cukor version.  This one is widely considered the de facto interpretation of Louisa May Alcott’s novel, and watching it after seeing the ’49 version I realized that the latter is simply a remake of this one!  With that being said, I found the 1949 version better overall; maybe because I enjoyed the cast more.  Here, everyone seems to be stilted and stretching the line between overwrought melodrama and true emotion.  As much as I love Katharine Hepburn, I don’t believe this is her best role.  She seems too interested in using a deep voice and making strange facial expressions.  This version is good, as all the adaptations are, but I think the 1949 version comes out as my personal favorite.

The March sisters struggle to make ends meet as their father fights in the Civil War.  As trials and tribulations come into their lives they’re able to overcome due to their familial bonds.

If I watched this in chronological order the 1949 version would be judged differently since it’s film a remake of this one.  Scenes from Cukor’s version are recreated almost verbatim in LeRoy’s film, like Amy (Joan Bennett) recounting her telling off of a teacher to her classmates, and Jo’s (Katharine Hepburn) maid reading her stories.  Isn’t it funny, Joan Bennett played Amy in this, as did Elizabeth Taylor in the 1949 version, and both played mother/daughter in the Father of the Bride series?  I digress.  In watching the later version first and then watching this, I lost interest at several points because several of these scenes repeated.  (Overall, I found watching three versions of the same story pressing on the endurance level which aided in the feeling of repetition.)  The changes I noted between the ’49 and ’94 versions are still here.  Gone is the animosity between Amy and Jo; in fact Amy comes off more pious than Taylor did.  I’d also say this version changes the girls into three-dimensional beings and not pious saints as they come off in other versions.  An alteration I noticed immediately is it’s Marmee (Spring Byington) who asks the girls to give up their breakfast to the Hummels.  In the later versions it’s Beth’s goodness which causes the girls to take their food over.  Marmee’s declaration turns it into an organic decision, as opposed to a shameful one;  the girls love their mother and do it out of the goodness in their hearts as opposed to their saintly sister guilt tripping them.

The acting is fine, but I had a hard time believing any of the March sisters were young girls.  Katharine Hepburn was 26, Joan Bennett 23, Frances Dee was 24, and Jean Parker was 18.  It could be the way they’re made up in quasi-silent film makeup, but everyone looked far too old, especially Bennett and Parker.  It could also be how overwrought the acting is, from Parker especially.  I’ve never seen Jean Parker in any other films, but she is just dull as Beth (no one has touched Margaret O’Brien’s portrayal in my opinion).  She seems stuck in a silent film with her dramatic swooning and “woe is me” attitude which comes with the character but comes off as overkill.  Where the other actresses’ acting is modern for the time period, Parker is mired in an earlier era.  Bennett is adorable as Amy, and it’s funny to watch her dresses balloon due to her pregnancy at the time.  Frances Dee is sweet but ultimately forgettable as Meg.

That leaves the incomparable Katharine Hepburn in the role of Jo.  She’s far better than June Allyson from the ’49 version, mostly because Allyson is simply playing Hepburn.  The problem is Hepburn becomes too campy in the middle of the film.  Sure she’s wily, sly and fun in the beginning; she is the embodiment of Jo March, there’s no doubt.  She also plays the stereotypical version of Katharine Hepburn, too.  Towards the middle of the film, her deep voice that she takes on becomes irksome, and combined with her jutting teeth and other expressions she makes, it appears like she’s playing a vaudeville character and not Jo March.  She abruptly drops these elements when she’s talking, which makes the whole thing even more of an acting tic than a character trait.  She’s paired with the blandest Laurie I’ve ever seen, played by Douglass Montgomery.  Montgomery has been compared to Leslie Howard which is sensible since both are pure white bread.  He also evokes acting from the silent era, especially with his constant looking up at the sky.  He lacks chemistry with Hepburn, and it’s bizarre how they make Hepburn masculine when placed against him.  Dare I say it’s a bit of homoeroticism?

The chemistry between the girls is good which is always a must when telling this tale.  The best scene is the sequence involving the March sisters putting on a play, a scene that plays longer in this interpretation than it did in the 1949 version.  The girls all act over the top, again hearkening back to the silent era.  The backstage business of the group is hilarious with Jo throwing Amy backstage and complaining about Amy’s faint feeling fake, from there a wall falls down as Jo tries to scale it.  It encapsulates the changing feel of movies to me, going from painted backdrops to more lush sets which is ironic considering this film is predominately filmed in interior spaces.

As I previously mentioned, the best version of Little Women would contain pieces from all three versions.  I like Hepburn in this as well as Cukor’s desire to push the girls away from acting saint-like.  I love the acting from the 1949 version, particularly Margaret O’Brien and Liz Taylor and it’s theatrical whimsy  And the 1994 version introduces a feminist slant as well as a modern filmmaking aesthetic like on-site locations.  All three would make the ultimate Little Women.  In regards to this one specifically, I liked it but didn’t love it.  The acting  walks the line between the genuine acting of the later period, and the overwrought drama of the silents.  Hepburn is good, but has a tendency to become overblown.

Ronnie Rating:

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion will be donated to this site!  Thanks! 

Rent It

Little Women (1933)

Buy It

Little Women

Classic film fans are mourning the loss of star Shirley Temple today.  In her honor, I’m reposting one of my favorite movies starring her, with additional reviews of her work coming in March.  

The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer is worth remaking today, and by the same token it’s witnessed in every film made in Hollywood currently.  The tale of an older man being forced to date a teenage girl could easily slip into dark and disturbing territory, but with loveable leading man Cary Grant and perpetual ray of sunshine Shirley Temple in the roles, you’ll find yourself laughing at the predicament.  This is the second pairing of Myrna Loy with Grant, and while their romance is the “acceptable” one, it doesn’t have nearly the comic effervescence of Grant and Temple, leaving the audience to wonder if this May-December romance could work out.

Richard Nugent (Grant) is a womanizing playboy whose landed himself in the courtroom of Judge Margaret Turner (Loy).  When Margaret’s little sister, Susan (Temple) falls for Nugent there’s a simple solution: force Nugent to date the girl in order to help her get over her attraction!

A film with this premise should have the makings of a cautionary tale.  Just imagine the ads: “A young girl, like a moth to a flame, compelled to love a man old enough to be her father.”  It was unplanned, but that Cary Grant joke from Gidget Goes to Rome perfectly encapsulates this film (read the original review if you missed it).  The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer explores the unrealistic expectations of young girls, and the idea that an older man may be attractive but there’s little emotional connection in that sort of relationship.  Someone might want to clue in the rest of Hollywood because nowadays it’s not surprising to cast a forty-something actor against a twenty-something leading lady.  The May-December romance may be condemned in this movie, but it’s enforced and encouraged in the system that creates moving pictures.  The script by Sidney Sheldon is frivolous enough, along with the leads, that you’ll forget the disturbing implications inherent within the plot; there’s also quite a few sequences where Richard explains to Susan the nature of her infatuation, and isn’t shy about stating they have nothing in common.  Richard never takes advantage of Susan, nor does her encourage her to prove her inexperience (à la Kahuna in Gidget…yes, another Gidget reference).  While Richard does play along to a point, it’s more to bother Margaret and get out of the relationship entirely.

Of course, this leads into questions of the Electra complex, which Sheldon’s script believes is alive and well.  Margaret’s quasi-boyfriend, Tommy (Rudy Vallee), and her Uncle believe Susan’s rebelliousness stems from the lack of a father figure.  Thus, the entire relationship between Susan and Richard takes on a psychological attempt to find a father.  Unfortunately, the notion isn’t dispelled by the end, as Susan abruptly turns about-face and gives up Richard at the insistence of her uncle.  Why didn’t he threaten her with a spanking – which he does – at the beginning?  It leaves a bitter taste in the mouth as well as a sour note for the climax.

Thankfully, the performances are the cream of the crop.  It must be so unbelievable that Myrna Loy (42 at the time) would have a 17-year-old daughter, so the script places her as the sister to Temple; here’s another moment where the film plays with conventions of age, reinforcing the desire for a sexy (and young) leading lady.  Loy plays the straight man against the wacky hijinks of Grant and Temple.  In Mr. Blandings, Loy and Grant were a no-frills couple hunting the American Dream; here they’re the pinnacles of law and order (Loy) butting heads with spontaneity and frivolousness (Grant).  It’s a different dynamic than Blandings, but Loy never comes off as comfortable in the guise of a tough, no-fun woman.  There’s an absence of fun scenes or moments to shine for Loy; she’s bland, and relegated to being so.  Grant is the colorful one in the bunch and this is his movie.  He’s the knight in shining armor to both Temple and Loy (envisioned by both ladies in a dream sequence that, again, is similar to the house fantasy from Mr. Blandings), and comes with a non-threatening sexuality that makes the uncomfortable plot palatable; not to mention he gets the best lines: “I told that to 500 little girls!” Attorney: “Let’s not get into that.”  When Grant takes the reins and decides to start acting like a teenager he’s setting himself up for a similar role in Monkey Business.  He does it better here, with a cockeyed fedora and his refrain of “You remind me of a man…”  Temple is the requisite bobby-soxer, and doesn’t necessarily contribute much other than wide-eyed naïvety and name recognition.  It’s shocking to consider that Temple, the embodiment of perpetual childhood was already married with children when she made this!

I always enjoy watching The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer.  It’s absurd plot reveals real issues with relationships, albeit in a hilarious manner.  Grant is having fun opposite an authoritarian Loy and the innocent Temple.  Remember those innocent days when a grown man could be forced to date an underage girl?  Well, see it here!

Ronnie Rating:

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion will be donated to this site!  Thanks!

The Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer

Comedy Wednesday continues after a week’s absence with Michael Curtiz’s 1938 action/adventure romp, The Adventures of Robin Hood.  My professor appears to have good taste because this was also suggested to me a year or so ago by blog reader, Chip!  The Adventures of Robin Hood is a rollicking tale of derring-do, all anchored by the devilish smile and personality of Mr. Errol Flynn.

The nefarious Prince John (Claude Rains) is plotting to overthrow his absent brother, Richard.  Thankfully, loveable bandits living in Sherwood Forest, led by the charismatic Robin Hood (Flynn) set out to stop Prince John.  Along the way, the beautiful Maid Marian (Olivia De Havilland) is seduced by Hood’s wily ways.

I reviewed Captain Blood awhile back, and though specific memories of the film are hazy I recall enjoying it more than I expected to.  Action/adventure movies are tedious to me, predominately because they often devolve into repetition; narrative, romance, swashbuckle, swashbuckle, repeat.  Thankfully, The Adventures of Robin Hood remains jubilant and bouncy enough that it changes up the formula when necessary.  If anything, this is a solid companion piece to The Court Jester, which vaguely lampoons Flynn’s film.

The basic setup remains intact: Robin Hood steals from the rich in order to overthrow the duplicitous Prince John.  The acting across the board is serious with a dash of camp quality to prevent naysayers from attacking its flaws.  The hammiest of the group is Claude Rains, playing Prince John as effeminate and fey, a far cry from his classic turns as Captain Renaud or Alexander Sebastian.  His Prince Valiant haircut is worth a glimpse as well.  Olivia De Havilland is necessarily sweet and virginal.  Maid Marian’s never been the most independent minded female in literature, so you can’t expect too much from the actress.  However, I maintain De Havilland’s role in Captain Blood gives her additional agency, and movies would give ladies more in future features like The Black Swan.

Of course,  the bonny face of Errol Flynn steals the show.  Flynn was a master of athleticism and virility in his action/adventure pictures, and it’s easy to fall in love with his “wicked, wicked ways.”  Robin Hood is a rather two-dimensional character who stands for truth, justice, and the English way which Flynn leaves audiences believing.  His masterful sword fight opposite Basil Rathbone will produce beads of sweat on your forehead and stands up as one of the greatest movie fights in history….with the addition of swords!

The Adventures of Robin Hood is pure escapism!  It’s hard to find a movie within the last several decades which embraces frivolity like this one.  Flynn is a wonder and Claude Rains is fun playing against the type which would define him in later years.  If you’re traipsing through the forest and hear a clarion call, it just might be that rouge of Sherwood.

Ronnie Rating:

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion is donated to this site!  Thanks!

Adventures of Robin Hood

I’m a little late to the party; I hadn’t seen To Kill a Mockingbird before.  I read the book in high school, but missed the day we watched the film in class.  Honestly, I’m the world’s biggest idiot because I was missing out on a beautiful, tear-jerking piece of cinematic excellence.  Progressive for the time, To Kill a Mockingbird presents a 1960s message on prejudice, violence, and tolerance that’s one of the best I’ve seen (and Peck had done social commentary films prior to).  Told from the mature POV of an adult, but featuring a cast of child stars that’s unparalleled, To Kill a Mockingbird is a movie the entire family needs to experience.

In the Depression-era South, lawyer and family man Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck) defends suspected murderer, Tom Robinson (Brock Peters).  As the racism and hatred of the South builds up against Atticus, his two children come to understand racial intolerance.

Child stars, and films aimed at children, generally regard them as stupid; To Kill a Mockingbird gets down to a kid’s level (one reason why this was played during TCM’s Essentials, Jr.).  The opening credits are told through a child’s drawings, with a black crayon clashing with white paper.  As the credits continue, Scout’s tokens build the black and white world that the adults of the town live in: marbles, a black bird drawn on white paper.  The narrator (voiced by Kim Stanley) is able to recall her childhood with nostalgic adult eyes: “The day was 24-hours long, but seemed longer.”  She’s nostalgic, but able to understand the things that children value during that time period; things that haven’t changed in subsequent generations.  The child actors create individual identities and inhabit their roles like a second skin.  Dil (John Megna) and Scout (Mary Badham) are adept at this.  The children live their own fairy tale that ends up dovetailing and foreshadowing similar events in the adult world.  They start to tell myths involving town “freak,” Boo Radley, but you’re only receiving one side of the story as they are; it’s the one side they believe with all their hearts is true, same as it is for the adults.  Dil’s Aunt Stephanie (Alice Ghostley) doesn’t help matters, as she exaggerates to maximize the horrific nature of the story.

The dream world of the children ends up attacked and contradicted by the volatile adult world.  The children, again all played expertly, never magically transform into wise adult-children as you would expect in films today.  They understand there’s injustice in the world, but can’t understand why things are that way.  It’s analogous to the topic of gender; Scout dresses like a tomboy, and once school stars she’s forced to taste adulthood by wearing a dress.  The dress creates gender, and alerts Scout to the fact that she’s different from the boys.  She can’t understand why she is different, and comes to learn that being female brings with it the need to dress feminine and be subservient; Scout doesn’t learn this on her own, society forces it upon her.  It’s the same way the children learn about race and racism.  There’s no legitimate reason why Tom Robinson is different; his skin is different and thus he’s different.  When the children have to disband the lynch mob in order to save their father and Tom, it’s a testament to their maturity that they can remain calm and pull it off.  While they’re able to enjoy the fruits of childhood, they are given a harsh lesson in the true way the world works.

Gregory Peck, are there words to describe the level of amazing he is in this film?  The strongest element within To Kill a Mockingbird is his relationship with his children.  If I didn’t know beforehand that the children were actors I could believe them to be his own children because that’s how strong his connection is.  He knows his children better than anyone and Peck take full advantage of stage business to convey the routine he has with his kids.  He isn’t afraid to  give them a swat for being disrespectful, but it comes with love.  Conversely, his children come to learn how little they know of their father (don’t all children believe their parents didn’t have a life till they came along?).  When they’re told Atticus is the best shot in the county, it’s a shock to them; the fact alone, on top of the new-found knowledge that Atticus understands the employment of violence.  Peck, and the entire movie, refuses to talk down to children.  Peck is eloquent and blunt in explaining broad topics like racism to his kids, but he always makes sure they understand as best possible.  There’s several essays written about Atticus Finch as a Lincoln-esque figure, and I believe they’re on to something.

The script reveals events economically – the watch sequence where Atticus’ wife’s death is revealed being a perfect example.  The uncertainty of life is revealed as needed.  The trial sequence is where the acting, script, everything comes together to create a bombastic and indelible film.  Brock Peters as Tom Robinson is a revelation and I need to look into his work further.  When he’s placed on the witness stand, he’s visibly uncomfortable detailing his story and comes off just as traumatized as the victim.  Atticus’ final summation is low-key, independent of theatrics as can happen in closing arguments.  The ending is an upset, because the justice system fails Tom Robinson and Atticus has to fight the good fight despite thankless human irrationality and injustice.  The utter defeat in Atticus – “We had more than a good chance” – will upset you.  The children are also given a harsh lesson that the world is unfair.

The final few minutes of the film are utterly beautiful, from Scout’s eventual meeting with Boo Radley (Robert Duvall in his début role) to the children walking through a wood filled with Gothic imagery.  Duvall, especially, brings out tears by saying nothing.  He becomes a flesh and blood character, the monster who proves to be a guardian angel.  Scout’s final moments with Atticus are a beautiful father/daughter moment that pulled on my heart.  The two characters see eye to eye (literally, once Atticus picks up his daughter).  In the short amount of time she’s found her own “mockingbird” and will fight to protect it.  The ending sequence becomes the perfect encapsulation of safety and love that every child craves, and every adult seeks to have again.

To Kill a Mockingbird is the great American movie and deserves all the praise it gets.  Enough said.

Ronnie Rating:

Interested in purchasing today’s film?  If you use the handy link below a small portion will be donated to this site!  Thanks!

To Kill a Mockingbird (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy)