San Franciscan Reviews

Ghostbusters (1984)

I just don't know... how do I put this?...

[31 July 2004]

This feels awkward... how do I explain this?

Let me see if I can explain my reaction to this movie the best I can.

This movie came out when I was in my early teens. I first saw the commercial for it on television, and my obnoxious older brother was there pointing out every detail in the commercial and cackling wildly over it. I thought it looked intriguing and wanted to see it, but I couldn't figure out why my brother was going berzerk splitting a side over the commercial (he ROARED the moment they showed the now-famous Ghostbusters logo and shrilled, "Isn't that logo HILARIOUS???" I liked the logo, but I didn't think it funny).

Unfortunately, the movie came out at a time when I was expected to buy all my own stuff since I had a paper route. And that particular time period I was busy raising up money for a new stereo. So as a result, I was disappointed when the movie left town before I had gotten to see it. And I had sighed, "WOW, for a huge hit movie, THAT was sure gone fast."

For the next year or two, I was forced to endure everybody else's comments about how hilarious and wonderful this movie was. But whenever I asked what had happened in it, they never answered me. All I got was, "You've just GOT to see it, words don't do it justice, it's HILARIOUS and it's SO COOL!"

Well, during that time I had learned a few of the basics, such as the uniforms and the gadget packs their wore, but that was about it since nobody answered my questions. Fortunately, the movie was being brought back for a brief run in movie theatres before they released it to home video (back then, movies didn't get automatically released on to video a few months after theatrical release the way they are today--you had to wait a few years and then MAYBE if you were lucky it would be). I got all anxious to see it, raised a bit of money once I had gotten finished paying for everything else I had needed to take care of that month--and it was gone from the theatres again! Another groan of frustration from me. I thought, "Why can't the local movie house at LEAST keep it here for a MONTH or so???"

But then, FINALLY--around early 1987, I think--GHOSTBUSTERS was finally released to home video among a huge flurry of hype. And a friend of mine had managed to rent it one night while I was sleeping over at his house. So I finally managed to see GHOSTBUSTERS for the very first time--

--and I went "Huh?"

I just sat there with the most puzzled feeling and going, "This is it??"

I just don't know how to describe it. By the time I had finally gotten to see it, I was all prepared for that really "cool", "hilarious" movie everyone was telling me about... and I didn't get one. Instead, I sat through it bored and bewildered. I don't know, somehow I had just expected it to be... very, different. I don't know how, just different, not like the movie I ended up seeing.

I really, really, REALLY wanted to like this movie. I truly did. God knows I tried. I bought the soundtrack and everything afterward, trying to get myself to be as nuts about this movie as everybody else I knew was. But I just couldn't get into it at all.

A few months later my older brother rented GHOSTBUSTERS and my whole family sat and watched. I, along with my parents, just sat there confused. But my older brother, on the other hand... well, to give you an idea, during the one scene when you briefly see a Ghostbuster hopping along on one foot with his eyes closed, my brother was just rolling all over the floor and squealing with delight. "Isn't that just THE most HILARIOUS thing you ever SAW?????" he shrieked. The rest of us just sat there trying to figure out what all the fuss was about.

It wasn't until years later that I think I finally managed to figure out my huge disappointment with this film. I was not familiar with Hollywood names save for one or two, and I had always just taken movies at face value. It wasn't until much later that I had begun to be familiar with that one particular Ghostbuster who had been doing the foot-hopping that my brother was crowing about, an actor named Bill Murray. This was the first movie is he I had ever seen.

I hate to say this, but around 1992 or so after seeing many more of his output, I have come to the conclusion that I simply do not care for Bill Murray. I have never found him funny, on the contrary he bores me to pieces. In the future, I would end up just not enjoying a single, solitary motion picture of his--Bill Murray is apparently just not my type of performer. Only the spectacular LOST IN TRANSLATION ended up winning a huge place in my heart, not because I thought him funny but because I thought his character was genuinely touching and sublimely acted--and that was twenty years after the fact.

I find it interesting that, later on, I found the first season of the cartoon based on this film (THE REAL GHOSTBUSTERS, so named as to distinguish it from another "Ghostbusters"-entitled cartoon released at the same time by Filmation) much more involving and entertaining than the actual movie itself.

These days, I can watch it on occasion, but I just watch it on a whim whenever it happens to be on. I haven't actually gone out and rented it myself to this day. My personal feelings are that I probably needed to see it as soon as it was released along with everyone else as opposed to after the rest of the world and putting up with all the hype--I think in my case my expectations ended up being raised so high that I ended up suffering "Phantom Menace" syndrome for this title. That's a shame, too, as I thought this should be a movie I would automatically love. I have the feeling not getting to see it fresh simply killed it for me and I just didn't get it because I didn't get to experience it along with everyone else properly. I still sigh in disappointment whenever I watch it, as even now when I see it on I try so hard to like it...

I really, really, REALLY want to like this movie as much as everyone else does, but so far I have yet to get above "just okay". Maybe someday I'll finally love it as much as everyone else seems to, though.

Soylent Green (1973)

I *ALMOST* had the chance to experience this movie fresh...

[1 March 2004]

I have never watched SNL. I don't watch a lot of television. So when I discovered this title just two nights ago at an American Family Video store, I had never heard of it. Little did I suspect that the whole rest of the world apparently did. I read the back of it, it sounded interesting and the video box promised a surprise ending. Let's check it out, I said to myself, just out of curiosity.

So imagine my anger and disgust when as soon as I've paid for it, the young clerk working there--as he was handing it to me after paying for it, no less--in one eight-word-long sentence, suddenly and completely without warning BLURBS OUT THE SECRET ENDING!

I was shocked and angry and told him I wanted my money back. I got a refund and still rented it, only this time I rented it elsewhere. But even so, I was very very angry and upset.

So as you can imagine I couldn't help feeling like the entire viewing experience of SOYLENT GREEN was tainted for me while watching it. I wish I knew what it was like to experience it for the first time without knowing the ending first. Now I'll never know.

But anyway, as I quickly describe the plot, *I* will *NOT* give anything away. I promise. I don't care how well-known this ending is, I'm not taking any chances for anyone. I'm not even going to say SPOILERS AHEAD because I refuse to even discuss the ending. I'm not going to risk accidentally giving away the ending to anyone in my position the way that clerk did.

It's the year 2022 and the world is massively overpopulated. Resources are exhausted, food is scare, and New York City alone is swarming with 40 million people--half of them out of work. Enter Thorne (Charlton Heston), a freelance detective hired to investigate the murder of a rich citizen. That's all I'll say, I promise.

The crowds scenes were pretty disappointing to me personally, as I had been lured into renting this movie from its striking cover art depicting a city of immense crowds being scooped away. We don't get to see any really huge, epic-looking scenes like that here the way we did is, say, the cheapie TV movie THE DAY AFTER. I found that to be a personal disappointment. Also, the dumptrucks weren't as massive of as threatening-looking as they are in said illustration. But even so, the idea of humans lives being so cheap and useless is still creepy and upsetting.

The movie no longer really holds the power to scare, though. Back when I was a child in the 70s, people were fearful of overpopulation. Who could have known that then that something equally as bad would appear--that legalized abortion would come to pass and that this heinous act would put a sharp DROP on the population by being used as a cruel form of birth control, showing a cheapness on human life which in its own way is every bit as creepy as what we are witnessing here in this movie? But even so, the movie still addresses important concepts and the importance of responsibility.

One of the things this film reminded me of personally is how well many of us really have it. Even when stressed with bills and debt, running water, canned food, electricity and such are a luxury compared to living conditions of other people in many areas of the world. We should be genuinely grateful and appreciative of what we have.

And I loved the friendship portrayed between Throne and his mentor Sol, which is heartbreaking and touching, especially during a grand finale scene set to music by Beethoven (familiar to fans of FANTASIA) that stung my eyes with tears.

I'm sure I would have been even more drawn into this story and its climax, IF A CERTAIN AIRHEADED VIDEO STORE CLERK HADN'T GONE AND SPOILED THE ENTIRE ENDING FOR ME. But even so, I'm glad I saw it all the same.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Well okaaaaay... it was kind of fun to watch, I guess...

[7 November 2003]

This isn't exactly what I had expected.

As I believe I have stated in my review for THE MATRIX RELOADED, I'm not a huge Matrix fan. I thought the series was interesting and entertaining to toy with, though. And once you got into them, both of the first movies were really a lot of fun. And this is the only one of the three I bothered to see in theatres.

I have the feeling that MATRIX fans are going to be really annoyed with this one. Certainly the crowd I saw it with was rowdy and hyped up when they walked in and took their seats; but they all left in stiff silence.

Warning: spoilers ahead.

Now don't get me wrong, I didn't dislike this movie. I'm glad I saw it, it was interesting to see how the Brothers W chose to end it. And I was really enjoying the first half of the movie during all those scenes taking place within the Matrix, which are done with both action and humour. Plus, the whole idea of programs that could love and care for others on a human level was fascinating and I was anxious to see it developed later in the film (unfortunately, it never is). I loved every bit they came up with in the Matrix world and hoped for more.

But the moment we all got into the real world scenes (which were inevitable after all; we did know right from the beginning that they have to face the machines in a big one-on-one eventually), certain questions started nagging at me. While a part of me was getting after myself for questioning all this stuff and thinking, "Hey, it's just a sci-fi film! Why bother puzzling over this stuff?", I nevertheless couldn't help wondering:

* Where is the rest of the fleet? All throughout THE MATRIX RELOADED, we kept getting informed about how important it was to have "every single available ship" ready for when Zion would come under attack. So where are they all?

* Why are the humans using giant mechanical robot bodies to fight back at the machines instead of a more humanized way? Well, I suppose it makes sense to give them fair-and-square abilities to pit them against the machines, and I think that's also the reason why we kept getting shots of common shells being used, but still...

* If a single shell can take out a huge guargantuan enemy machine, then why has the war lasted so long?

* Why do the mechanical robot arms the humans use have simple oversized machine guns in them when the humans also have those deadly blue-laser-firing devices we've seen in both the first movie and this one? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply have those lasers installed instead since they're obviously so effective? Or arming everybody with them? Or were there simply not enough to go around?

Well, I could go on and on, but eventually after a while I simply stopped caring and just struggled to enjoy the movie on its own level. And it is enjoyable, its plusses outweigh its minuses in my mind.

But by the time we reach the end, I had a ton of whoppers entering my mind throughout the oddly inconclusive finale! Simply put, this film ended up creating far more questions than it answered. Here are a handful of them:

* At the end of the movie we are told the "others" who "chose to" are allowed to go free. Is this in reference to the programs escaping to the Matrix? Or the humans? Or BOTH?

* Have all the humans been freed, leaving the Matrix a haven for escaping human-acting programs to escape to and live in?

* If the humans have not been freed, how are they given the choice? I mean, is someone going to bother explaining to them the whole situation so they can choose or what?

And much, much more.

You see what I mean? I think the point I'm getting at here is that this movie isn't really interested in presenting us with answers so much as it is with piling on even more questions. That would have been fine if the first two movies didn't seem so determined to promise us a definite resolution by the trilogy's end. But in this case, I see this ending as the result of only one of two possibilities: either the Brothers W had simply painted themselves into a corner until it was apparent that *NO* resolution was going to tie up all the loose ends they had introduced by now, or they were simply so determined to leave the door open for additional sequels and franchises like books, comics, etc. that they tossed their audience out the window in favour of addon (and thus more moneymaking) possibilities.

In either case, it's obvious the Brothers W apparently just do not want their series to end and are determined to keep it going because they like it too much.

I should note that the big centerpiece battle against the machines is extremely wearing on the senses. Simply put, the scene as a whole simply does not "read" properly--that's a term we in the industry use to refer to how naturally the human eye is capable of perceiving what is supposed to be happening on the screen. In this case, it's physically impossible to follow everything upon a first-time viewing simply because it's simply all too much at once. COOL WORLD was so visually overwhelming and loud that people in the audience literally felt exhausted, got headaches and starting saying aloud that they wish they had some aspirin: the big battle scene here makes COOL WORLD feel like a cakewalk. Other filmmakers such as George Lucas are not only capable of choreographing their battles much more logically in terms of being able to be followed, but they also have the good sense to cut back and forth between various battles so that one scene doesn't grow wearing from dragging on and on too long. Unfortunately, the Brothers W turn out to be lousy editors in this sense, and they allow the whole bit to be so busy, so loud, so blurry, so confusing and so flat out and out grey-black-blue-aqua that I kept squinting at the screen the way I do when driving through a bad snowstorm. It was horrendous, and it comes close to making the movie self-destruct.

Now on a more positive note, the movie does inject very human situations and elements into the previously-already-established characters that make the film feel more believable than the usual sci-fi outing. Characters dying and such are elements to be expected, but Neo's being permanently BLINDED was not! This is not usually the sort of thing you see happen in movie trilogies, a well-known character being blinded for life in something like a sci-fi romp usually just isn't done because it's all too disturbing to the audience: something like sight is a precious thing, and it violently jerks the audience back to reality as such an element not only immediately reminds them of how eyesight loss can happen to anyone, but also of those out there who are physically unable to watch movies at all. But even though I'm not so sure it was a good idea to have such an ingredient here, give the Brothers W a good strong mark here for taking a risk in trying to up the drama and challenge for our protagonist.

In the end, I had had a good time watching the movie. But I felt empty and disappointed due to all of the previously-mentioned points. It had felt like you were listening to a teenager reading aloud a "Choose Your Own Adventure Book" you already knew by heart--and you knew that they had just managed to choose the most thoroughly blah ending in the entire "ending" selection when you knew there were so many cooler ones out there they could have picked instead.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

It's not easy being green!

[19 October 2003]

I didn't exactly rush out to see this one because I had been hearing a ton of bad things about it. The fact that I learned that it was being done as two sequels in a row during the same year BACK TO THE FUTURE style--complete with a trailer at the end of the second sequel for the upcoming third one--didn't exactly boost my confidence. So I waited for it to come out on home video. I was an admirer of the first MATRIX movie without being a fan, so the speak, and hoped that the second one wouldn't be just some lousy tack-on.

Fortunately, THE MATRIX RELOADED isn't the disaster I feared it would be. Instead of feeling like a "second movie", it simply feels like a continuation of the same one the way THE LORD OF THE RINGS does, and that's precisely the way I like it. Sure it's absolutely preposterous at points and has even more unintentionally hysterical lines than the first one (remember the following line from THE MATRIX? "Never send a man to do a machine's job"? LOL!), but that doesn't mean it's not fun.

MATRIX fans would scream foul if I gave away even a smattering of what goes on here away. And I really don't need to; if you've seen the first movie you know the sort of thing to expect. So I'll focus on the stuff I liked and didn't like instead.

I wasn't surprised when I learned that the brothers who created THE MATRIX were previously comic book creators--the MATRIX movies are all directed and written like moving comic books, right down to the in-the-air studies and goofy dialogue. The only thing missing during the actions scenes are the "POW!" "BAM!" action words appearing on screen which I keep expecting to see. These movies are quite possibly the most pure comic-book-feel films out there on the market, as near as I can tell. The direction and feel of them is fascinating to watch, and the frequent slow-motion stops actually *help* you follow the action better that you otherwise might--they add more power and emphasis. THE MATRIX RELOADED, if it's at all possible, is even more enthusiastic than the first one was--and it has the right to be since it's gotten all the story setup out of the way with the first film and now can simply relax and add on from there with this one.

The dialogue, as I mentioned, can be downright ridiculous. Morpheus gives what's supposed to be an inspirational speech to a huge crowd that ends up being hilarious as opposed to dramatic, and I can't help but wonder how that poor actor managed to recite that twaddle in that pitch of voice without breaking down in hysterics. And consider the following actual lines from this movie:

"You!" "Me. Me, me, me." "Me, too!"

Now honestly; can you imagine someone actually being PAID to write those lines?! :)

The action sequences are all superbly staged. I'm not one to go ga-ga over special effects action sequences and it takes a lot to impress me in this day and age when computers and effects can give us anything at all effectwise, but the breathtaking freeway bit *really* impressed me! I also have the sneaky suspicion that the MATRIX creators may be fans of the Disney/Squaresoft PS2 title KINGDOM HEARTS, as THE MATRIX RELOADED even features a battle with a staircased entryway that looks like it's straight out of the Hollow Bastion area where you first fight Riku, only the room is a yellowish-green tint as opposed to royal blue.

And speaking of the tint, there's one visual choice here that drives me nuts about this movie. The original movie kept the virtual "real" world realistic. In this one, everything in the "real" world is shot through a green lens. And I do mean EVERYTHING: even the black on the cop cars is greenish-tinted! Now I know it's an artistic visual choice to remind us that this is supposed to be just all computer graphics and all since the trademark "glyph graphics" are bright green, but I personally find that, being an artist, it distracts me from the "real" world parts and makes them a lot less convincing and involving than they were in THE MATRIX. I keep thinking I'm looking at the Emerald City out of THE WIZ as opposed to a "real" virtual world the way I did in the first movie. It's all so green. Everything green. So green as to almost look plastic-ish, the major guiding art directing rule in those portions is... just... all... GREEN. It's an artistic choice! It's an obsessive compulsive disorder! It's a movie for St. Patrick's Day! It's ALL OF THE ABOVE! ;)

Certain questions do come to mind though, even during the action scenes. Such as the twins who are able to suddenly move through substances, which is both an advantage and a hinderance to them (which is ingenious on behalf of the script). One of them appears within a cop car and duing a fight has his arm tied down by a seat belt by Morpheus, which of course begs the question, why didn't the twin simply "morph" his way out of the seat belt? Same with the twin who gets his arm caught in the door. That part doesn't make much sense to me. Other than that though, incidentally, the twins do everything but hiss: they're amusing to watch.

THE MATRIX RELOADED is like a videogame, but it's sure a fun rollercoaster to watch--certainly better than other "rollercoaster" movies like JURASSIC PARK and the like. It has a fascinating backstory to it, and I think that accounts for its success; it works beautifully as an oddly-comforting metaphor for the world we live in, a world where people feel trapped in a reality they are constantly striving to perfect, correct or even ignore.

I've seen several press statements proclaiming this movie to be in the same league as TRON. Nonsense. TRON was a very special movie, the type that only gets made once in a lifetime and approached the idea of a computer world with a staggering poetry, beauty and wistful depth to it that moved the heart and soul as well as the eye. You walked out of the theatre feeling shaken and somehow transformed. That film was groundbreaking, original and a spectacular experience... it still is. THE MATRIX will leave your mind spinning with its weird idea of the real world not really being real and its overall strangeness to toy with, and yes that is a lot of fun, but even that doesn't compare to the loveliness that is TRON. The two are simply not in the same league. TRON is the deeper movie and far more successful in using computers to express the humanity within us all. THE MATRIX is most definitely an action flick designed to provide thrills and gasps as opposed to revelations and emotions.

As a story, THE MATRIX does a good job of reminding us of various things important to existance, especially as it grabs at Biblical references left and right, but even so it still only offers so much. So don't go in expecting anything but a fun mindbending videogame and you'll enjoy yourself. Like THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, it's a film that's fun to mentally toy with, a Rubik's cube for the senses. And it's certainly nowhere near the disaster that I've read a lot of press statements to find it to be. I enjoyed it, and I think you might too.

Monkeybone (2001)

EEK!

[26 September 2003]

Ack! It was HIDEOUS! It was a NIGHTMARE! It was INHUMANE! It was TORTURE!

Well okay, maybe it wasn't THAT bad, but it sure was terrible. I never thought that any motion picture out there taking a "cartoonist traveling into another world to meet his own creation" concept could screw it up worse than COOL WORLD.

Surprise!

MONKEYBONE is so thoroughly wretched and messy that it makes COOL WORLD look like Shakespeare. It makes the flawed-but-still-delightful WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT look like The Bible!

How bad was it? I couldn't finish it! There are only a few movies that made me want to wretch and scream, "AUGH! TURN IT OFF!!!" This was one of them. After thirty minutes or so, I just couldn't take it anymore. I mean seriously, it's ***that*** bad!

But there is *one* interesting little inclusion here; in one scene, we see one of our protagonist's "actual paintings" before he went to cartoons. This is in actuality a painting by surrealist painter Mark Ryden, who's also known for having painted various album covers including Michael Jackson's DANGEROUS as well as doing the conceptual art design for the PC videogame 9: THE LAST RESORT, among many other things. The featured painting here is Ryden at his most nightmarish and exaggerated along those lines. Unfortunately, it was also the only thing in the movie I was finding interesting.

Avoid, avoid, avoid!

Moonraker (1979)

(*...chortle, chortle...*)

[21 September 2003]

WARNING: Spoilers ahead. And possibly uncontrollable laughter as well. No, I'm not being sarcastic, just wanted to warn everybody. I'm serious.

I'm only just now checking out the James Bond flicks for the first time, and so far find them to be a mixed bag ranging from the fun to the spectacular to the boring to the incredibly stupid. But there was a moment while watching MOONRAKER when I realized that not only was I watching the stupidest of the Bond films, but that I was watching one of the most incredibly stupid scenes ever filmed in movie history I've encountered to date! (And as I am someone who loves to watch a ***lot*** of bad and stupid movies from PLAN 9 all the way through the MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATRE 3000 collection and way, way beyond, that's saying something!)

In that one moment which had me laughing hysterically so hard that I swear I fell OUT of my chair and was rolling about on my living room floor clutches my sides because I could have sworn they had just split wide open while I was gasping for air as much as I could manage for fear I would suffocate on the hilarity of it all, the following happens within approximately two or three minutes of screen time:

While on a gondola through Venice, James Bond suddenly presses a hidden button on it, causing a steering wheel to pop out and a motor to drop down into the water and suddenly the gondola thinks its a speedboat zooming through the canals at top speed, at one point plowing through another gondola consisting of a pair of lovers romantically smooching it up, causing the second struck gondola to be sliced neatly in two separating its passengers from the gondolier, and the gondolier is all frustrated and annoyed as he struggles to keep from sinking while the lovers drift away in their own still-afloat half of the ruined gondola still smooching it up and completely oblivious to everything that has just occurred, and suddenly as it approaches St. Mark's Square James's gondola grows a hovercraft device on the bottom of it and zooms through a crowd of people, and we see everyone around doing double takes and having cartoonish reactions to this ridiculous sight including a pigeon (!!!) doing a double-take and a dog narrowing his eyes in bewilderment...

So help me, I SWEAR to you people, I am not making this up. I have a powerful reputation with all those who know and befriend me for being painfully honest about absolutely everything you might care to discuss with me. I would never dream of making this weirdness up. I'm a professional cartoonist, for pete's sake, and even *I* would never dream of creating a sequence like this, certainly not in a 007 flick! I've seen silliness in Bond movies before, but I have never, EVER seen anything THIS ridiculous! And it's all the more funny in that you are actually laughing AT the film as opposed to WITH it as was obviously intended.

Well, so much for being the secretive, inconscpictuous, professional top spy.

MOONRAKER is a movie in deep, deep trouble. This has, of course, become a notorious addition to the Bond franchise, an embarrassing mass of dunceness that raked in the cash for some weird reason while also simultaneously causing Bond fans everywhere to run gagging from the theatres. Don't ask me why it made as much as I hear it did; your guess is as good as mine. It is so goofy in so many different ways that I'm surprised it didn't kill the franchise off in one fair swoop upon its release! Its acting is terrible, its overall finale plot and effects manage to remind me just a tad too much of THE BLACK HOLE, only worse (and again, that's saying something!), to the point where I was checking the ending credits to see if Maximillian Shell was also playing this villainous character as well as the other one because both villains struck me as being too much the same for their own good. If you thought the black strings on the "floating" robots in THE BLACK HOLE were sloppy, wait until you see the effects done here in the space scenes! Or heck, even some of the earthbound ones like the rubber snake!

Now we all know that James Bond movies on a usual basis have all the believability and depth of your average superhero comic book, but this movie goes beyond comic book level into the realm of the flat out cartoonish. Specifically, Warner Bros. territory. And while Jaws was previously terrifying in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, here he's just completely daft both in conception and convincingness. By the time you see Jaws survive the cable car crash you'll realize that all those reviews you've read of MOONRAKER comparing him here to Wile E. Coyote were right on target. And any pretense of the movie's having one foot in reality at all, or even just one toe, goes flying madly out the window. The characters persistently do stupid things; the more-intelligent audience thinks of doing obvious alternatives way before anyone in the movie constantly ignores them. For example, at one point while Bond and Miss Goodhead (yes, it's another one of those entendre female monikers for a Bond girl) are in a cable car Jaws bites one of the cables which somehow causes Bond to topple. Which of course poses the obvious question: if Jaws thought of biting the cables, why not simply bite a-l-l of them and send the entire cable car with Bond plummeting to its doom as opposed to jumping into another car and racing down after him? The movie is full of stupid things like this. I can't begin to tell you how little sense it makes.

One other things I wish to note: after seeing him in action against all the other Bonds, I have come to the conclusion with this movie that I simply do not like Roger Moore. I think the guy is simply too old-looking for the role and doesn't have either the personality or pizazz to play Bond. Connery and Bosnan are both so much better that they put this guy to shame.

Another interesting note: careful examination of the ending credits for THE SPY WHO LOVED ME will prove just how quickly rushed MOONRAKER really is. The announcement for the next movie doesn't say "MOONRAKER"--instead, it announces "FOR YOUR EYES ONLY"! Of course, I later learned that FYEO was the originally-planned next installment but that it was decided at the last minute to make MOONRAKER to cash in on the STAR WARS/SCI-FI craze that had just appeared. This explains the sloppy script and effects. I personally would have enjoyed seeing what would have happened if this movie was carefully planned out and had a better Bond actor instead of what we got.

All of this and much more has been pointed out by critics, rabid fans and pretty much everybody else who sees it, but that somehow didn't affect MOONRAKER's performance at the box office. But these days, I have to admit it has one interstellar virtue: it's sure fun to put on during a party! With the right audience, MOONRAKER is one campy hoot.

Skatetown U.S.A. (1979)

It's nowhere near the masterpiece Xanadu is, but it's still campy fun nevertheless.

[12 September 2003]

I never did understand why most audiences didn't go for XANADU. That movie had a huge cult following upon its theatrical release; while being considered a box office dud, it had the sort of presence that granted it an instant cult classic among musicals. I know tons and tons of people who love both the movie and the soundtrack dearly, and I've noticed that they are all the same personality I am--namely, folks who are starry-eyed by nature, have a strong sense of poetic beauty and grew up with before-Eisner Walt Disney movies.

Story has it that SKATETOWN, U.S.A. was deliberately pushed back a couple of years or so the moment word got out that XANADU was in the works, for apparently the makers of this flick didn't want to chance XANADU's destroying it. They needn't have worried. This thing didn't have a chance to begin with. SKATETOWN is far, far, FAR inferior to the wonderful and delightful XANADU. It doesn't begin to even hold a candle to XANADU, which lives up to its title.

And yet, SKATETOWN, U.S.A. is campy fun in its own way, a time capsule from the disco era that brings back memories despite obvious flaws in direction, choppy editing that insists on slashing the footage of some genuinely spectacular skating stunts before you can fully enjoy them, and a story that is nonexistant at best.

The music makes this movie, hands down. It has a wonderful theme song and original songs as well as a whole slew of disco staples that are now truly timeless classics. And of course all the skating is a blast. And gotta love that goofball D.J. with his sparkle afro!

There's one thing that seriously ruins my enjoyment of this film though. An annoying overweight worker at the snack bar who has a thing for hot dogs. This guy is just... seriously, he's disgusting! He's so gross and lacking in personal hygiene and basic cleanliness that... well, would *YOU* buy food from this guy? I swear, I lose all appetite (especially for hot dogs) upon seeing this guy in action. I'll be sitting there enjoying a wonderful skate dance set to gorgeous music, only to have the camera suddenly cut away to this jerk's gross antics. Edit him OUT entirely and this film would be much, much better and more carefree.

Oh, and you haven't lived until you hear this flick's answer to the question "You saved my life... Why?"

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

Ahhh, what a heartbreakingly beautiful touchstone in my life...

[8 August 2003]

This movie means so much to me.

WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT was an extremely important event in my personal lifetime.

I was one of those who had seen in-development clips of the original ROGER RABBIT movie on The Disney Channel back in 1984 (which looked totally different in many ways), and I had thought for the longest time that it had been left for dead until it was rescued by Robert "Back The The Future" Zemeckis (I deliberately write his name that way because that is exactly how the press printed his name every time they mentioned him during this movie's run, so much so that I was making jokes with friends about how Zemeckis must have recently made "Back To The Future" his legal middle names. But I digress).

This movie came out just before I was ready to turn twenty years old that September. And as I watch it now, I still love it every bit as much as I did back then, only now it also brings tears to my eyes due to its representation to me at the time.

1988. We cartoonists growing up were all being mocked and told we had no futures ahead of us. I was being called by my peers an "animation hippie". I had grown up studying to enter the animation industry and had dreams of joining Disney to use the power of the animated cartoon to spread positive vibes and happiness around the world just as Walt used to do, and maybe even save lives. And I had spent all my youth and later my teen years feverishly studying animation and teaching myself technique, preparing myself for the big moment. I had been talking my entire life about how one day there would be a revolution in the animation industry; Hollywood's marketing eggheads would finally be overthrown, animation would one day once again belong to the people. We in the animation industry would finally have the freedom and respect as everyone else did throughout the world in our same field; we would overcome and make animation ours again, unshackling it from the hands of the greedy bosses and worms of Hollywood.

I genuinely and honestly believed that.

And for me, ROGER RABBIT made 1988 my 1968 animation-wise. I sat there with my long-haired, tye-dyed idealism clutching my projects and beloved cartoon icons of the past to my heart as I had cheered ROGER RABBIT on and watched it steamroll Hollywood into being forced to take animation seriously as all-ages entertainment. I saw it countless times in the theatres. Again and again and again. This was it, I had been telling friends. This was the beginning of The Revolution! WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT was my Woodstock, the huge party promising the turning point of historical culture forever and the official beginning of hoped-for dreams for change and happiness.

I was so naive and innocent back then.

Well, as we all know and as I discovered when I finally made my first sojourn to Hollywood, ROGER RABBIT did make it officially cool to love animation again in this country with all ages, but Hollywood... characteristically... refused to relinquish control to the animators as I had predicted. Instead, they allowed a "carefully marketed" version of "hip" new cartoons to merely cash in on the new craze. And they ran it into the ground. Now they are doing the same thing with computer animation, stupidly believing that it's the technology making hit films and not the scripts. Same old, same old. And I ended up learning a hard lesson about how Hollywood leeches art for profit, how only individuals like Walt can truly cause revolutions. And to add insult to injury, we would later get our own knock-to-reality disaster as another attempt at a "Roger Rabbit" move hideously trashed and ended up accidentally mocking that hope in the way that The Rolling Stones' Altamont attempt had with Woodstock, in the form of Ralph Bakshi's COOL WORLD.

But even so, despite its being a disappointment as a now-shattered idealism in my life and it's now representing what *could* have been (and now just to me either, I must add!), I still love this film to pieces. The technology is beautiful and it's so enjoyable that it actually breaks my heart even further to admit what I'm about to say. And that is that while it's such a wonderful film to me both personally and artistically, it is technically also a very lousy one.

Even since I saw it for the first time, several things nagged at me right from the beginning. Fortunately, the movie was still so fun that I was able to overlook them. But here are the things which bothered me:

First of all, I'm afraid that Richard Williams just isn't one of my favourite directors and I honestly wish they had gotten someone else to do it. His draftsmanship is simply too elastic and too undisciplined for the animation to read properly or have genuine physical appeal on screen. As a result the characters all have an unlikeable "rubbery" look that I find unattractive.

Second, I'm still irked at the decision to try to design the characters "painstakingly" to appear the way they did draft-wise back during the era where this film takes place (especially when they aren't consistent about it with all the characters, or sometimes even the same character in different scenes!). I personally would have picked a more modern-era like the 60s or 70s (the book itself took place in modern times) so as to assure better character design appeal, but the marketers were so desperate to make the film timeless that they didn't want to take chances.

Third, the draftsmanship of many of the classic characters is simply awful. As a review of a "Roger Rabbit" catalogue book once sold at that time put it, Williams couldn't draw a lot of these characters "to save his soul". How true. Many look passable enough, but they are ultimately undone by the director's own personal drawing style.

And fourth--and this is probably my biggest complaint--the story. It shows lots of interaction with cartoon characters physically, but there is barely *ANY* emotional or personal interaction with them! The true ideas of humans encountering cartoon characters are blunted as a result as Zemeckis simply waters it all down to a simple piece of "laughter is so important to us all!" tripe, and I have yet to see anyone make a serious attempt to have genuinely deep, personal emotional interaction between toons and people (something I've worked at with all my own stories and ideas throughout my life... am I the only artist out there who sees possibilities in this concept? I used to think everyone else did too, but now I seriously wonder). I keep hoping that someday someone besides myself will be able to make the attempt on the big screen and do it convincingly.

But those four things aside, I still love this movie. How can I not? It's not just a spectacular piece of work, it also meant something huge to me personally. And now these days it will forever after serve as a huge touchstone in my own personal life regarding a specific moment in time which... interestingly enough, just like the original Woodstock festival itself... was lost two years or so after "the big victorious hurrah"and sold out. And in the end, again like Woodstock, nothing was changed except for the worse. And it literally brings tears to my eyes to watch it today on a ***BEAUTIFULLY***-restored DVD double set in widescreen and re-feel that one special time in my life when animation in this country had finally reached the summit of victory... and we who were just on the brink of taking the nosedive into the animation industry were all celebrating while walking home after watching ROGER RABBIT for the first time with our hearts high in the sunset... and the future belonged to us...

Captain EO (1986)

BRING IT BACK!!!!!!!

[6 July 2003]

It is truly some sort of horrendous cultural crime that this ultracool Michael Jackson film was yanked out of the Magic Eye theatres from Disney Parks around the world and replaced with the completely stupid "Honey, I Shrunk The Audience"!

The music is HOT! Michael Jackson is GREAT in it! The characters are fun, it has a great message AND its effects are gorgeous! Heck, MY COUSIN DEBBIE LEE CARRINGTON IS IN IT!!!

But Disney yanked it out of the parks due to the infamous and ridiculous accusations against Michael which I will not go into here (and of which I still strongly believe him to be completely innocent of) due to cowardice.

It deserves a re-release, and its fantastic theme song--one of the best things Michael ever wrote and performed--remains unreleased as well. COME ON, DISNEY!!! Have a little GUTS, RELEASE IT! (But what am I saying?! They're still too cowardly to re-release Song Of The South...!!!)

Runaway Brain (1995)

WHOA.......

[2 July 2003]

When I actually had the chance to see this bizarre cartoon, I had one immediate reaction:

WHOA.

It's difficult to describe my reaction to this one apart from that one word. It's usually easy to comment on things I've seen, especially since I have a rep for stating my most precise, honest feelings on any subject you'd care to hand me and making myself perfectly clear. But this is one of the rare things I've ever seen which has put me at a complete loss for words.

The cartoon is easily the weirdest Mickey Mouse cartoon ever made, and it made me feel strange for the longest time after seeing it with my reaction of, "What on earth was THAT?!!"

There's one thing about it which I *can* state, however; my peers in the animation industry and I have loved making jokes about this short featuring the "real" Walt Disney Mickey Mouse being turned into the Michael Eisner Mickey Mouse!

Ghost Ship (2002)

If only that ship and its effects were in another movie.

[18 June 2003]

I don't care for horror movies.

Well, okay, I'm a *huge* fan of the BLAIR WITCH movies, but that's because they are delightful little mind-benders. Even so, BW2 would have been better without the blood and junk that BW1 so wisely left out.

A lot of people asked me, "Craig, why on earth did you watch GHOST SHIP? That's not your type of movie at all!" True. Very true. I'm squeamish and sensitive. I'd rather curl up with PETER PAN or TITANIC any day. But there's a big reason why I was intrigued enough to watch this one: I've got the ocean in my blood (it comes from my father's side of the family). And the idea of exploring a previously-vanished ocean liner to discover its mysteries and secrets was irresistable to me.

If only it had a strong plot and the overall careful handling of BW1, this movie could have been remarkable given its premise. Instead, GHOST SHIP makes the mistake of dumping lots and lots and LOTS of disgusting visuals on us that make us want to throw up but nothing else. I won't even begin to go into the overall direction and acting here. And why give away a humongous plot detail at the very beginning of the movie, thus destroying the suspense?

But there is one thing I *do* love about GHOST SHIP: the ***real*** star here is the ship itself. And no, I'm not talking about the ghosts and gross-outs here, I'm talking about the art direction and the special effects involving such things as a ballroom that recreates itself and things rapidly growing along the walls. Indeed, investigating the ship itself is the only fun part of the movie. It looks genuinely awe-inspiring with all the majesty and forlorn sadness that you would expect a long lost vessel to carry emotionally. The liner is strange and wonderful, and the whole film looks like a huge amount of effort and money went into creating the whole atmosphere with loving care.

Too bad the movie itself is so dreadful. The ship begs for better company: if only it had been featured in another movie with a quietly disturbing, even sad and mournful, story of dread and unease that toyed with your mind and emotions instead of your stomach, we would have gotten a remarkable film to enjoy. Instead, the film we've got is a lousy mess. I can't recommend GHOST SHIP for its story or anything else, certainly not. But if you want to enjoy the ocean liner's atmosphere, on the other hand, it's a hot fudge sundae.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)

Strange.

[9 June 2003]

I remember back when I went to see HUNCHBACK on its opening day. And as I had sat there through the entire opening all the way to where the title flashes up on the screen, I could feel my face staring in shock. My eyes were wide and my jaw was hanging open as I stared with a feeling like I had just been socked in the gut.

It had been a mixture of awe, surprise and horror. I was overwhelmed. While one half of me admired the craft and care that had gone into the film, the other was going, "Eisner, what have you DONE??!" (I hear that this film was Eisner's pet project?)

HUNCHBACK is a weird film. Easily the darkest animated feature Disney has ever produced, it somehow manages to be both awe-inspiring and repelling, entertaining and unwatchable, daring and calculated, appealing and unappealing all at the same time. Oh yeah, and just to add to the list of contradictions, it also manages to be PG while being officially rated "G".

Do I like the film? Not really. Do I hate it? Not really.

That's what's so strange about it, the way it inspires such feelings. I'll try to go over them one at a time:

"Both awe-inspiring and repelling": There's no denying the artistry here. The visuals, direction, animation and storytelling are all well-done and also for the first time in The New Disney's history we see a fully-successful nararration character (the wonderful Clopin, my personal favourite). But at the same time, the film is so dark and "mature" that it appears that Disney has finally pushed its luck and the audience's traditional trust too far. After POCAHONTAS, which had already tarnished Disney's name, this film was simply too much for parents to take. For pete's sake, I've heard all about how even the animators themselves were nervous about this film (I'll get to the nervousness in a minute), and can one blame them? So by the phrase I mention, I mean that it is at once both a wonderfully-crafted work and at the same time so anti-Disney that Disney lovers everywhere will be repelled.

"Both entertaining and unwatchable": Sure, there are things to enjoy in this movie. Judge Frollo is an amazingly cold villain, Esmerelda glows with a humanity that outshines her overly-done "sexy" looks, and there are some great lines throughout ("Look at that DISGUSTING display!" "YES, SIR!"). And there's even a couple of songs I like here. But at the same time, the movie makes you oddly uncomfortable as you watch Disney take a daring dive off a cliff into previously unexplored territory, such as the S&M suggestions made by Frollo and all his horrific (and extremely sickening) salivating over Esmerelda. While it can be argued that Disney deserves credit for trying to "up" the animation palette, it's like watching a live high-wire balancing act: it appears to be more of an act of daring than of good judgement. Which leads me to...

"Both daring and calculated": Simply put, the movie wants to sweeten its subject matter for a family audience but at the same time it lacks the nerve to cut completely loose from its famous roots. As a result, the film gets incredibly muddled. (For example, there's a garagoyle-sung ode to love here that is completely uncalled for and upsets the movie's dark rhythm: it dances in with a hat and cane in a desperate attempt to soothe the audience by reminding them that they are watching a film from the same folks who brought them BEAUTY AND THE BEAST). And speaking of BEAST, something about this film's overall conception smells of a desperate attempt to go BEAST one step further in an attempt to earn another Best Picture nomination. It's like someone said, "Let's see, BEAST got nominated but didn't win, we need something that will have better chances, something that will make Oscar sit up and take notice. I know! How about this one?" While Disney's tackling this story is a bold move, their handling of it is not. And the artists' own self-consciousness and understandable nervousness shows through the seams here as you see them desperately trying to "cover their tracks" as they go along, simultaneously trying to give Disney fans what they want and to create a mature film for adults. But I don't blame them: this is one story which should have been left enough alone, in my opinion. And I'm certainly glad that *I* don't have this under my belt.

"Both appealing and unappealing": This probably speaks for itself. The film is appealing in the sense of its trying to present a new stab at Disney entertainment, but at the same time THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME is hardly the sort of story that will get families packed into the theatre, Disney name or no. So it floats in a sort of unappealing otherworld, not dark enough to satisfy the original tale's fans but not fun enough to appeal to Disney admirers.

And finally...

"PG while being officially rated "G": This speaks for itself. I'll just quote my elderly mother, who blindly bought this on the day of its release for the foster children she was taking care of simply because of her lifelong blind trust in the Disney name: "This is NOT a 'G'-rated movie! How can they get AWAY with it??!" After watching it the one time, she literally threw it in the garbage.

A strange film indeed. I'm not going to judge, though. I'll just say that I hope the Disney team (and Eisner in particular) all learn from the experience of this film and we'll just leave it at that.

(NOTE: I just realized that I'm composing this review on Donald Duck's official birthday date. It seems to bring to light yet another bizarre contradiction: the old Donald Duck cartoons and this film. What a clash. Somehow, the irony of this realization seems to fit in with everything I was just commenting on very well.)

Pocahontas (I) (1995)

The worst theatrically-meant animated Disney piece ever. And I have (literally) seen everything Disney has ever animated.

[8 June 2003]

There are not enough words in the English language (or any other language, for that matter) to properly sum up this movie's awfulness. As a professional in the animation industry, I am appalled by this film and its complete lousiness (not to mention wildly stupid and inexcusable historical inaccuracy) to the point of silence. So instead of the usual carefully-written commentary, I'll sum it up in one word simply because that one word is the best way I can think of to sum up POCAHONTAS in cooperation of all of the IMDb's review guidelines:



Avoid.



That's it. Really. I'm serious. No huge comments from me, suffice it to say that everything negative you've ever heard about this disaster is true. Little wonder that it alone has come so darn close to sinking the entire Disney animation department and its performance track record. From here on out, The New Disney would struggle to keep the audience that it had always taken for granted.

I think I hear poor Walt spinning in his grave.

Aladdin (1992)

Umm... no, thank you.

[8 June 2003]

This movie was being hyped up the wazoo in all the newspapers in its day by critics all proclaiming that it deserved to do better than BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. Why they all thought that, I honestly had (and still have) no idea.

I wanted to enjoy this movie. I really did. But when it came out in theatres, I found it only merely passable as "Saturday morning cartoon" entertainment and haven't been able to enjoy it since.

After doing such huge leaps of art and faith which finally reached a powerful zenith with BEAST, which deserved to win Best Picture that year and was every bit as deserving of all its praise... what does The New Disney do next? An "over the top" cartoony film, a movie given over almost entirely to Robin Williams, and also... in all honesty... the beginning of the end.

I had at first thought that this movie would be a brief "detour" for the studio in terms of comedic and artistic style, but everything in this movie has been rehashed by Disney so many times in an attempt to copy its success to the point of on-the-nose-predictable formula that it's safe to say ALADDIN completely destroyed the Disney tradition of lyrically beautiful animated films from the mouse house for good. We would never get another BEAUTY AND THE BEAST ever again.

Want to feel alone in the world? Try saying you are unimpressed with ALADDIN. Try saying you don't like its songs. Try saying you think its animation looks cheap and unappealing. Try pointing out that there's no point to the nararrator at the film's beginning if he's never brought back to wrap things up. And, the biggest offense of all, try saying that you were un-wowed by Robin Williams' performance here despite the fact that you had usually enjoyed his work up to this point.

I didn't care for all of Genie's modern-day references in a story that I had loved dearly as a child. I didn't like the self-conscious humour of everything else in it, either. And I also didn't like the sloppy inconsistencies in the art direction regarding the character designs.

Now to be fair, maybe my disappointment had to do with the fact that The Denver Post's reviewer actually gave away the entire dramatic climactic surprise of this movie with the phrase "My favourite part is..." (I later wrote in a complaint to him at the paper saying, "Thanks a heap for giving away the whole surprise ending in one sentence"). That might have taken all the tension out of the finale and such for me. That may be, but, given my reaction to the rest of the movie as a whole, I doubt it.

I'm sorry, don't mean to step on anyone's toes, but I honestly just don't care for it that much.

The New Mickey Mouse Club (1977–1979)

Doesn't ANYONE out there miss this show as much as *I* do???????

[7 June 2003]

Ever since I was born, my parents bottle-fed me Disney because they trusted Walt's company and its legacy.

Ahhh, the 70s, a wonderful time to be growing up before reaching one's teens and a lovely time to be a Disney-adoring child.

And, of course, while watching "The Wonderful World of Disney" every week and every single Disney movie that ever came to theatres, I also got to experience reruns of the original Mickey Mouse Club. And while I enjoyed that, I was even *MORE* enthralled by the NEW Mickey Mouse Club that premiered in 1977. And I was the only child I knew of who loved it. No one else my age seemed to be much interested in Disney, and all my peers were advancing much more quickly than I was (by contrast, I would remain a child-at-heart for the rest of my life).

I've read that this show is considered a "conspictuous failure", in the words of Leonard Maltin. I don't care. I loved it, and I loyally followed it after the reruns of the original MMC were stopped and enjoyed it all the more because I adored its funky disco soundtrack.

Does anybody else out there miss this show as much as I do? Did you all forget it? The cool songs? Like the ultra-cool new version of the theme that was so much fun? Or how "Surprise Day" was announced with Mickey's discovering a magic surprise box? Or when on "Let's Go Day" we got to watch a magic flying ship pick up the mouseketeers wherever they were to whisk them off on adventure? Or (my biggest favourite) the ones where we would see the mousketeers at Disneyland disembarking from the monorail space train while singing "Showtime", easily one of the catchiest and grooviest little tunes Disney has ever written for kids besides the "Mickey Mouse Disco" album?

WHAT? You forgot all THAT???

How DISLOYAL of you! ;)

Seriously, I think it's a genuine shame that this show didn't become a hit as its failure only put the emerging problems associated with kids-growing-up-too-quickly in proper perspective. "Disney" was the epitome of uncool back then, and you were mocked in grade school if you saw anything below a "PG" rating (one of the worst side effects of the new ratings system). But to those of us who remain faithful mouseketeers, it truly was a Disney "family" in its own way.

This series even had a special shown one night in which the gang got to travel to Walt Disney World for a big performance, and Nina ran off because she had felt unwanted, clutching her stuffed Winnie The Pooh to her chest (and before she was found, the REAL Winnie The Pooh comforted her). This special broadcast had felt like a *real* event, and I just... well, I just couldn't believe that nobody else I knew of was interested in it.

But I still love it. I even have its official soundtrack album and still play it on occasion, for Pete's sake! And maybe, juuust maybe, maybe The New Disney will relent and release its episodes on home video in some form or other.

Sure, just like Mickey is going to stop appearing in that Disneyland balloon man's bunch of balloons at the end of the "Showtime" day episodes.

And if this 1977 Mickey Mouse Club falls to the wayside in the old cherished Disney vaults, does it still make a sound for anyone today besides me?

Thunk.

A true "lost treasure" children's program.

Thunk.

A Goofy Movie (1995)

I have an extremely Goofy love/hate affair with this movie.

[28 May 2003]

An odd movie, this one.

Unlike the original staff of the traditional Walt Disney studios, I have never had *any* doubts that Goofy, my fave rave of all of Disney's comical "funny animal" characters, could carry an entire movie. I knew he could do it; he just needed a chance.

"A Goofy Movie" turns out to be something of a mixed bag, and as a result there are things I love about the movie and things I can't stand about it. I don't consider it a successful piece, really, but neither do I consider it a disaster.

The plot is very simple and revolves around an easily-relatable-by-the-audience misunderstanding: due to details I won't take the time to go into here due to their being too numerous and too revealing, Goofy becomes convinced that Max is on the verge of becoming a juvenile delinquent while Max is convinced that being Goofy's son is a major threat to his chances of having a normal life. As a result, they end up taking a cross-country vacation as unresolved tensions pile up until the inevitable.

As far as the plot goes, it actually works much better than paid critics would have you believe. The reason for this is because the tension's pressure cooker is depicted so superbly. Despite the gags, the tension succeeds in piling up worse and worse and WORSE to the point where you can't really relax watching the film. At one particular moment near the climax in which Max points out which way to go on a particular freeway intersection at the very last minute, you can cut the atmosphere with a knife. I mean, it is *awful*. But awful in a "good, convincing" way for the plot, if you know what I mean, not "written terribly" awful. You have to experience it for yourself to see what I mean.

The movie is carried reasonably, and believes in its own concept enough to work. It also has surprisingly good songs. And it's heartfelt even if, like all of Disney's most recent input, it seems to merely walk up to the edge of the heartfelt emotions it's reaching for instead of bravely walking over the edge to grasp them and going for the gusto (the same problem that currently plagues such Disney projects as "the Proud Family" and "The Emperor's New Groove"). Goofy's appeal helps here, of course, and certainly helps carry the movie over the things in it I personally don't care for.

Now as for what I didn't like: there's a bit character here, a friend of Max's (I can never remember his name) who wears glasses and has a thing for cheese. I personally find his cheese antics so disgusting and repulsive that he single-handedly succeeds in sinking nearly the entire movie for me! He remains one of the main reasons why I won't actually *buy* this movie because he just makes me queasy with every appearance. Not only that, but this is the first animated film I've ever seen which actually succeeds in making pizza look gross to the point of being nauseating (a la "Pizza The Hut" from SPACEBALLS) and it's *really* saying something in my case, since I'm a *HUGE* pizza-lover, when I remark that I wouldn't touch pizza for a long time after seeing this flick.

The animation is done smoothly and well-coordinated for the most part even though it was all farmed out instead of being done in-house. The draftsmanship, however, is simply atrocious. The animators here simply "go through the motions" with Goofy and the rest of the characters without making that little special effort to make them more visually appealing; the limbs, for example, are simply drawn as "black hoses" in Goofy's case instead of any attempt to add definition or figure, and they move like unjointed rubber instead of with the famous Disney "Illusion of Life". In fact, A GOOFY MOVIE demonstrates well how carelessness in the draftsmanship can threaten to sabotage an animated film (by comparison, the Australian-based animation of Goofy on HOUSE OF MOUSE demonstrates draftsmanship constructed with genuine love and care: it puts A GOOFY MOVIE to shame).

Still, despite these quibbles, I do like the movie alright and rent it on occasion (once every few months or so) and enjoy it simply because Goofy's appeal and certain pluses in it outweigh the minuses enough for me to see it once in a while. I personally find AN EXTREMELY GOOFY MOVIE an improvement even though its draftsmanship isn't too much better. A GOOFY MOVIE isn't the sort of quality Goofy project I've come to expect from classic Disney, not by a long shot, but it's do.

The Proud Family (2001–2005)

Far too trendy and behind-the-times for its own good.

[27 May 2003]

The New Disney continues to get more and more calculated with its material by the minute.

Honestly, the only new animated television show they've managed to produce during the past several years that is genuinely good is "House of Mouse". Other than that, the "marketeers" and ridiculous focus groups are getting more and more out of hand. Now to be fair, this is pretty much the case with all of Hollywood and not just the current Disney studio: the current contempt for audiences is producing more pap here in the United States than ever before. I keep hoping that maybe things will eventually turn back around, but the marketers in this country have simply too firm a vice-grip on creators.

But unfortunately, Disney's new animated stuff is also showing just how calculated and out-of-touch the studio really is, as "The Proud Family" is a show which looks, feels and is written like something out of the eighties instead of something current.

Despite its good intentions, there is precious little to be said for this show, which comprises of a ton of wildly cubist limited/abstract designs that were all the rage back during the eighties and were already greviously worn out way back when "Hammerman" and "A Pup Named Scooby Doo" had ripped them off from Bakshi's "Mighty Mouse: The New Adventures", and major major references to trend-following and clothing styles also out of said long-past era, each and every single one of them audience-appeal-programmed to the max. Adding to the problem is the fact that all of the voice acting is wildly overplayed in the "Just The Ten Of Us" mode; only "Sugar Mama" provides any respite. Now and again, the plots will actually begin to write something remarkably tender for a show so determined to be cool, but unfortunately Disney smothers everything with too much political correctness (and by that, I mean a strong "Let's not show TOO MUCH emotion between friends here, otherwise it will be uncool and nerdy!" bias) before you can savour the show's sentiments for very long.

I actually found the TV station's advertising for the show far more entertaining that the show itself. One ad which featured a brief interview with the voice for "Sugar Mama", for example, is a delight and fun to watch all on its own.

All in all, though, "The Proud Family" is about nothing more than the current Disney quest for trend-following, audience-hopes and lots of money money money. Virtually every laugh, every gag, every loud shriek of "Party over HERE!" and jagged design line and abstract character creation and rap music guest seems calculated to induce tweens everywhere to stare in rapture and go, "HOOOO, YEAH!" ...and to spend more money on Proud Family merchandising and videotapes. In other words, "The Proud Family" is "Rainbow Brite" with funky illusions to style and a hip-hop soundtrack.

Cool World (1992)

The messiest, sloppiest animated film ever made?

[12 May 2003]

I wish to state that I don't mean my review title to be sarcastic. I have a tough time being "cruel" to a movie like this because I was informed beforehand of Bakshi's well-meaning intentions here. I'm not a Bakshi fan, but I appreciate what he has been attempting to do even if I personally don't care for the content of his movies.

While Bakshi certainly has a reputation for creating films that have outraged, offended and (with certain audiences) entertained, he is also known by those who have met him for being someone who indeed genuinely cares about people, wants to use his medium to show how messed up our modern society is and how folks can triumph over the worst of difficulties while trapped within it. The only problem is that he has a tough time communicating with others, both personally and through his films. Somewhere beneath all the X-ratings and reputation, there is indeed (believe it or not) a very caring, sensitive man.

Believe it or not, he had thought of COOL WORLD as a statement speaking out on the dangers of casual sex (his proclamation, not mine). He's trying to point out just how dangerous such actions can be so as to caution his audience about bodily responsibility. And, he had hoped, might even help save lives.

The problem is that his movie is simply a mess. I've been informed all about the insiders' stories regarding what went wrong with this production (apparently there was even at least a couple of extra hours of this movie made!!), including the fact that its storyline was made up as Bakshi went along (a habit he has, I'm told, with all of his films).

The technical flaws, acting and everything else here are by now legendary to the public, so (even though it's certainly not a favourite title of mine) I'm going to instead point out four things I *did* actually enjoy about the movie.

(1) Conceptual designer Barry Jackson's background designs and paintings are absolutely brilliant. People familiar with my own work already know that I've spent a lifetime drawing stuff similar to this sort of "twisted background" style, so I in particular was fascinated and impressed by Jackson's amazing work even if it was emotionally the exact opposite of the sort of atmospheres I create. I actually took the time back in 1992 to call him up and compliment him personally on his material in COOL WORLD; it's that impressive. But VERY dark as it appears in this film, which is as a city imagined in the troubled and desperate mind of a jailed cartoonist.

(2) I enjoy most of the music on the soundtrack: Mark Isham's score is to die for, and many of the songs here are a lot of fun, especially David Bowie's title piece that plays over the ending credits and The Thompson Twins' "Play With Me" which blares over the opening. (An interesting piece of musical trivia here: there is a song called "Mindless" which only credits itself as "Written by Mindless", "Performed by Mindless" and "Produced by Mindless". I wonder who it really is...? Spooky...)

(3) Holli Would is a thoroughly detestable character; many say she has no personality, but that isn't the case. She has one, alright... a selfish, cruel, insensitive personality that doesn't care about anybody or anything else (much less the results of her own actions) as long as she gets her own way. She may be physically more beautiful technically than Jessica Rabbit, but Jessica is by far the more wonderful "ideal woman" of the two in terms of her true blue intentions and personality. So it probably comes as no surprise that there is *ONE* scene in the whole film which *IS* funny; it's at the very end, after the Spike of Power is plugged back where it belongs. For a split second, we see Holli do in shock the most hilariously unflattering take you have EVER seen! Watching her be put through such a hysterical piece of animation after her being so selfish and design-perfect throughout the rest of the film is a delight. ...and finally,

(4) Yes, it is a sloppy film. And so far, I'm convinced it's the messiest film of it's type I've ever seen. But at least it had good intentions, which does place it a mark above other movies out there which were simply offensive dreck without any intentions at all. I may not enjoy the movie and never will, but I do personally forgive Bakshi this film because I know he was trying to say something important for others' sake.

The Stepford Wives (1975)

Still absolutely remarkable after all these years.

[30 April 2003]

THE STEPFORD WIVES is an absolute classic of its type, and there is a reason why this amazing movie has managed to earn such a powerful place in popular culture and even slang terms. It presents an idea that has to be experienced fresh, without any previous knowledge of its concept and ideas, in order to be fully appreciated by first-time viewers.

I was lucky enough to have had that opportunity years ago.

If by some equally lucky chance you personally have no idea what this movie's concept is about and are completely innocent of it, let me pass on some helpful advice; read no further than this paragraph. The movie may seem to have a snail's pace, hokey acting and a dull layout but trust me, see it through to the end. Don't stop watching it whatever you do until it finishes. I'll just say that I envy your getting to experience this film for the very first time... I wish I could be in your shoes again.

***SPOILERS AHEAD: All those who haven't seen or heard about this movie should stop reading here***

Okay, those people will be SO lucky to get to experience this sharp fable for the very first time fresh, as it was intended. I have found it classified under several different categories in different videostores; "sci-fi", "horror", "thriller", "drama", and yes, "classic". The truth is that it fits into all those categories. But however you want to personally classify it, THE STEPFORD WIVES is a powerful movie with a powerful message to share.

The movie nearly threatens to bore you to death at first as it lulls you into a fake feeling of comfort while it slowly starts dropping clues as to what is happening in the creepy little town of Stepford. After seeing it all the way through to its shocking conclusion, one can see that all the "bad acting" was deliberate and just how carefully crafted this mini-masterpiece really is.

The performances are actually all top notch once you realize how the acting was "supposed to be" in the end. Joanne and her friends are all so well-portrayed and superbly acted that you find yourself rooting for them even when you don't realize at first just how serious their plight really is. And the dark portrayal of the character "Diz" (I USED to think *I* made that name up first! ACK!) is powerful, and made all the more insultingly evil when it turns out he used to work for Disneyland; like Pinocchio's "Stromboli" character, the connection of using the technology of such a happy and innocently beautiful place for such an evil purpose makes us loathe him all the more (one gets the impression that Diz was FIRED from Disneyland for being such a selfish and cruel snake).

This movie has often been described as a Women's Lib statement. And, of course, it can definitely be taken that way. But it actually works on a far deeper level than that. There are two levels to it at once: it attacks the obnoxious stereotype of men out there who believe that all women should be slaves to mechanically do their bidding, AND it also savagely attacks the equally obnoxious stereotype of women out there who believe that all men are the selfish, heartless jerks that they are in this movie.

And as extra "plus" points, the movie even makes huge proclamations about the importance of being true to yourself and not being forced to go along with blind conformity. The women are forced against their will to eventually become "bland conformists" void of personality, a strong statement of just how awful it would be if everyone was alike and how it is everyone's individuality that makes them so wonderful and special. This idea is further enforced by Joanne's obnoxious but weak husband; he goes along with the whole idea due to peer pressure, and all the while attempts to drink the pain away with tears in his eyes because he doesn't want to do it but is nevertheless too much of a coward to say "no" due to his desperately wanting to fit in with the "In" crowd (and that's a statement that EVERYONE can and does understand).

This movie is a wonderful reminder of how it is our humanity and our individual personalities as people that make living so special. Many films have made that point, of course, but not many out there have managed to do so with the powerful "slap in the face" whallop of THE STEPFORD WIVES, an important film that still rings true in a world where people's special and individual qualities are becoming more and more ignored.

Peter Pan 2: Return to Never Land (2002)

An insult to the original.

[24 March 2003]

I wanted to believe that this one was better quality than the other DTV Disney sequels (the only one out there actually being good being SIMBA'S PRIDE, but it's hard to go wrong when you do a cartoon version of ROMEO AND JULIET). I mean, seriously, I did. I wanted to give this one a chance. I mean, it had to have *something* going for it, right? Otherwise why would it be put into theatres first instead of going directly to video as was originally intended?

Oh man, what a disappointment. I mean, this one is BAD. Seriously bad. Thankfully, it's not *so* bad as to destroy my lifelong love affair with the original masterpiece--but it's bad enough, believe me.

While the original soared with wonder, magic and and enthusiasm for living (it still does--go back and watch it again), this one is filled with a harsh cynicism and coldness that kills any hopes for establishing the proper mood, right down to the WWII beginning.

And while the possibilities of Wendy's daughter Jane not believing in Peter Pan and going anyway are interesting, it's not handled well here at all. First of all--unlike the original--Jane, the main character, is the movie's main problem. A BIG one. She's the sort of child I knew while still in school and loved... to avoid dealing with. Being "reluctant to believe" is one thing, but THIS character is simply so snobbish, so stubborn and has such a swelled head even when confronting her mother's stories all face to face, you just want to slap her. Having a war going on and promising her father to "take car of" her family is no excuse: she came across as being so conceited as to take the statement literally to the point of believing herself the ruler of all she saw. She's SO convinced of her own importance and self-worth that I kept seriously thinking to myself how much someone should give that girl a spanking. Even when she does finally believe, it all happens with her personally insisting on being THE all-important person of the day and the center of all attention. What a brat.

I realized the genius of the original story and Walt's loving hands as they handled it; the original PETER PAN worked because it lived out a fantasy everyone would want to experience. Turn it inside out by making the main character a grump who doesn't appreciate her adventure in the least and you kill the entire concept, not to mention enthusiasm.

Oh yeah, and the fact that there's potty humour in this film and a complete lack of visual beauty and charm hurts, too. Did I mention that the soundtrack is absolutely flavourless and lacking any personality? The original one inspires genuine awe and tears; this one just sits there and annoys.

All that said, there is indeed only one genuinely moving scene in the whole film: the joyful and touching moment when Peter and Wendy meet again face to face. I was delighted to log on to IMDB later on and discover that paid critics all had the same impression. Unfortunately, it's too little too late. That scene is in the last five minutes of the film before it closes with the most inappropriate Ending Credits sequence you could possibly imagine.

SPOILER:

For those who would like to know what those last five minutes are, in case you want to see them: it's almost worth renting the movie just to watch this one bit alone. Basically, Peter sees Wendy, comments with surprise that she's changed, and Wendy shows him that she's only changed on the OUTside but never on the inside, making it a heartwarming reunion for Pan, Wendy and Tinkerbell. You have to see the sequence to truly appreciate it as my words don't do it justice. It's far more gentle and affectionate than the ending of the original book, just as you would have expected Walt to handle such a scene if he had ever chosen to make it. If only the rest of the film was as lovely.

The Black Hole (1979)

Curiously strange "B-movie" feel to it...

[8 March 2003]

I heard about this one after it had already flopped, after the bad word on it had spread and after it had gone to the earliest forms of home video. When I did actually see it, it was at the birthday party of a sci-fi enthusiast I knew back then. I felt sorry for him: there was a really spoiled brat who had also gotten invited who had seen the flick before (who was ironically named Vincent!), and when what was going to play was announced this brat actually announced in the rudest voice you ever heard, "You're supposed to ENTERTAIN us, not BORE us to death!!!"

I kept politely quiet, and watched the movie with an open mind. It puzzled me, of course: and I got to get a lot of closer looks when The then-new Disney Channel reran it several times one particular month. I watched it a LOT during that period desperately trying to make sense out of it. As a result, I know the movie nearly by heart.

To show that I don't want to be mean here, I want to attempt pointing out some good things about this movie since I've seen dozens upon dozens of sarcastic reviews from the press trashing it. Sure it's not the ultra-cool TRON, which had everybody and myself flocking like crazy to the theatre several times over to see it, but looking back on it now THE BLACK HOLE isn't terrible--it's just pretty bad. There are a few things here and there which fascinate, and even a few moments that inspire genuine awe.

Strings suspending a "floating" robot aside, the movie tends to look gorgeous in so many ways. I've always been fascinating by how they made the actual black hole itself look. And the Cygnus ship looks amazing. Indeed, there are a ton of impressive visuals here to go ga-ga over and an overall STAR TREK feel despite the 20,000 LEAGUES-style script. It also has a pretty good soundtrack to boot.

There's something curious about the film, though... it appears to have a deliberately "retro" B-movie look and feel to it. Despite the special effects, it makes you think of all this old 50s and 60s sci-fi bits right down to the opening credits and the heroes' costumes. Now that's not a bad thing these days, but back then--when STAR WARS was fresh out in the theatres swatting away the older sci-fi cliches that this movie sports--this was a serious mistake. People wanted the new flavour that STAR WARS was sporting, not something like this that was a step backward in style. If this film had been made ten years perviously, I think it would have appealed a lot more. Also, it's awfully slow compared to other sci-fi films, which adds to the problem.

*SPOILER*

Much has been said about the ending, and throughout my entire life I keep getting told that it's supposed to be heaven and hell. I'm still confused as to whether this is the case. The first portion certainly does suggest hell with all the fire and flames everywhere and a really weird visual involving what appears to be a line of cloaked people being "checked in" by some weird waving *thing* off in the distance at the line's head (I kept watching for that shot over and over back then to try to figure out what was at the head of the line without luck. Maybe the DVD might make the image clearer). The second portion, though, is merely a silvery corridor of some kind during which you see some weird featherish thing flying off into the distance. Someone told me, "That's an angel!" I said, "No it's not, it looks more like a weird featherish thing!!!" ;) Whatever, I still can't make it out.

Also, the whole bit regarding Maximillian Shell and the robot doing whatever the heck they were supposed to be doing doesn't make any sense to me either, but that sequence really freaked me out when I was young: these days as an adult I'm used to it, but I *still* can't figure it out. Seriously, at first it looks like they're making out, especially with the way the music sounds in the background (and I'm not attempting to be sarcastic when I say that--I mean it). What was all that, anyway?

Those are the details which I would love to examine in the original script if I only had it.

If this all sounds unbelievable twisted, you're right. THE BLACK HOLE is stunningly strange. But it's more interesting than it has been given credit for. It's one major problem throughout the ages has to do with the fact that it was considered at the time Disney's answer to STAR WARS, and so everybody was anxiously waiting to see if Disney was about to "fight back", so to speak. That detail will always hang over this movie in the eyes of its viewers. But it is interesting to see, even if only once or twice. Just pretend that the movie was made around 1967 or so and you'll be fine. ;)

Ringu (1998)

Well, what do you know? The original DID make it here after all!

[5 March 2003]

After getting lots of flak about the Hollywoodized version of THE RING that audiences saw, Dreamworks makes amends by releasing the original RINGU with subtitles.

I didn't even think I had a choice until I went to my local video store and the clerk pointed out that they had *both* versions. Delighted, I immediately picked the original (I haven't seen the American version yet) because... well, hey, I wanted the real thing. I don't like it when Hollywood remakes perfectly good movies "for me" to supposedly "devour" better: I want to see it in its pure and unbastardized form.

I liked watching RINGU and found it quietly unsettling. I have the feeling that this is the sort of movie that is going to eventually work its way under my skin within the next few days because it's taking me a while to sort out emotionally what I experienced after watching it.

The only difficulty I had watching it has nothing to do with the movie, which is really well done; it only had something to do with me. I suppose it's because I'm an artist and I've always thought oriental decorations and style beautiful, but I have had the opportunity to watch so few live-action Japanese movies that when I do, I tend to be so enchanted by all the things that are common to oriental culture but otherwise seem pretty and unique to my western eyes... things like paper doors, Japanese writing, lanterns, cushions on the floor and the like... that I keep going "Wow, that looks so cool" to the point of getting somewhat distracted from the main story at hand. That was the case here, as I loved the way this movie was filmed and was so busy enjoying all the decorations and such of everyday modern Japanese life that I kept smiling with the feeling of a happily travelling tourist. I had to keep mentally slapping myself to remember that I was watching a spooky story. ;) But that certainly isn't the film's fault.

And so it is, and a very uniquely oriental one at that. The way the images and tale are handled, it's not just creepy. It's also sad, angry, hurt and hreatbreaking as well. I found one particular scene involving our heroine (please forgive me, I just can't remember the proper spelling of her name at the moment) deep in a well to be both unsettling and incredibly touching and compassionate at the same time, the sort of thing you just don't normally see coming from Hollywood these days.

I wouldn't really call this a "horror" movie, I'd use the term "psychological puzzle thriller". I'm not sure if I would watch it again since the surprise has been spoiled... but then again, I just might. After all, I got the pants scared off me by THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and now I love rewatching it because I loved "playing games" mentally with its content. So that just might be the case here, too.

I don't know if I want to watch the US version, I'm afraid it might spoil it for me. If I do, I'll comment on it. But for now, I just want to bask in this special little accomplishment.

The Big Wash (1948)

My absolute favourite classic Goofy cartoon.

[2 March 2003]

They don't make cartoons like this anymore.

As a future cartoon designer growing up, I had always found the original Goofy cartoons to be a mixed bag, and that was because the studio "experimented" with him so much that it drove me crazy. They'd give him human-shaped feet (my biggest complaint, it looks like an eyesore and I found it much too visually distracting), yank off his ears, move his trademark teeth together as beaver-style teeth and at one point even changed his personality and stole his loveable voice away from him! This is especially noticeable during the '50s when the character that resulted, in my opinion, simply wasn't the same character I loved who appeared in his early screen appearances.

But THE BIG WASH is the one that I refer to as The Perfect Goofy Cartoon.

By this point, Disney had their animation craft down to a science with a pleasing "gloss" look that they had perfected around the time of THE ADVENTURES OF ICHABOD AND MR. TOAD and would later grace all their feature length films from DUMBO on until the advent of the Xerox camera (who gave them their later "sketchy" look). That highly professional level of quality graces this one, too.

Goofy looks absolutely perfect in this one with gorgeous draftsmanship and expression, and the cartoon seems to express everything I love about Disney cartoons in particular: both cute and funny, light, enjoyable and even has a wildly catchy song that I wish they'd re-released on CD sometime. Also, Goofy's voice--if it's possible--has never sounded cuter or more expressive than here (I *LOVE* how he sounds here when being tickled by that trunk! Just listen to that giggle). This is one of those Goofy cartoons that give you an excellent idea of his overall personality as opposed to just a couple of its facets, something I love and have seen in a single cartoon only a few times otherwise.

After all these years, I am still as an adult absolutely in love with this short and rushed out to get "The Complete Goofy" on DVD the moment I heard it contained THE BIG WASH. And the moment I got it, I went slightly berzerk that evening playing this clip again and again since I knew I didn't have to worry about the DVD burning out.

It goes without saying that I can go crazy on just one cartoon, but hey, I'm a professional cartoonist for pete's sake. ;) But even if you aren't, how could you possibly resist this one's charm? It's one of the cartoons that helped majorly in putting Goofy on the map of history and into the hearts of millions.

A Disney Channel Christmas!!!! (1983 TV Movie)

Even though it's all archives, it's lovely.

[26 February 2003]

I've also seen this footage put together with extra cartoons and film clips to create a longer special that came out in 1983 called "A Disney Channel Christmas" (remember, this was during a time when animation was still terribly expensive, especially the high-quality Victorian style that Disney specialized in). Here, it's about 45 minutes as opposed to the 90 minute special I saw and had been broadcast on television before then. But in any form, its still priceless.

It's hard to come across this sort of modesty and friendliness in Christmas entertainment these days. All of which goes to show that one doesn't need a lot of flash and commercialism to get a rise out of an audience when it comes to a program like this one; all it takes is honest warmth and heart.

This is the sort of Disney television special that simply doesn't get made anymore: an anthology consisting of touching moments from famous Disney animated films as well as cartoon shorts with back-then new animation between them all to give the presentation as a whole holiday structure.

Okay, now that I've described the technical part of it, let me describe the emotional: I can't help but be touched by it. It's hard to imagine segments like Peter Pan's famous "You Can Fly!" song, presented here as a Christmas card, *not* being appropriate to the holiday season due to the sheer loveliness of the original piece. And it's always fun to watch cartoons such as Goofy attempting to demonstrate how to ski. But for me, the best moment is when after all of this, the special wraps itself in cozy innocence in the end by having Jiminy Cricket sing the famous "When You Wish Upon A Star" as a Christmas carol with Disney characters gathering around to blissfully melt together in a moment which somehow strikes both nostalgia and holiday spirit in such a way that it gives you the sort of feeling you get when filled with peace and joy looking out the window at the stars while at ease by a friendly fireplace. I love it.

The climax brought tears to my eyes back then each time I saw it: it still does now.

Graffiti Bridge (1990)

Yes, it's a mess, but I do like watching it on occasion.

[24 February 2003]

Okay, okay, it's a mess, but it makes me feel good and I like watching it, okay? ;)

It's not bias, you understand: I am willing to admit that it's just as muddled as anyone else. And it took at least three viewings for me to understand what it was attempting to say. But I finally got the basic idea, and somehow it comforts me.

I'll try to explain since so many have grown confused by it in hopes of helping understanding.

The basic plot: Prince and Morris Day are co-owners of a club called Glam Slam. Prince represents good with flaws, Morris Day represents evil with potential good. It's a battle of good vs. evil for Glam Slam. Prince at first attempts to win with a wildly sexual song (after quite a few wildly sexual songs), but fails to do any good. But finally, he realizes that love and God's grace is the real way and wins with a heartfelt spiritual ballad called "Still Would Stand All Time". And he embraces Morris Day, who realizes the error of his ways, and everyone lives happily ever after.

Seriously, that's the basic idea. It's botched in its attempt, but that's what Prince was attempting to do: make a musical pop parable. And somehow, even with all its muddled attempts, the movie makes me smile and feel good about myself, the world and life in general. So to that end, I'm pleased to own it.

It's a mess and easily the weakest of the movies Prince made, and I don't watch it as much as his other ones by a long shot, but its good intentions and cheerful tone somehow entertain me. So hey, I like it, and I can think of a lot of other crummy films out there which I would diss any day to watch this instead.