ducksoupme Reviews

Alice in Wonderland (1933)

Yawn But Not Forgotten

[2/10 · 27 April 2024]

As a child I enjoyed the 1933 ALICE IN WONDERLAND. As an adult, not. Went back tonight to see which one of me was right. I'm afraid it was the adult. Despite the almost relentless novelty, it's relentlessly tedious; the longest hour and and a quarter you're likely to experience outside of HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS. I think this is because it all feels so perfunctory and forced and phoney and disconnected from any level of emotion.

And here's something that's never been uncovered, that I became certain of tonight: Most of the much-vaunted Hollywood cameo players are NOT EVEN IN THE FILM. W. C. Fields as Humpty Dumpty? It's a voice-over. I know his face. That ain't his face. Allison Skipworth as The Duchess? Same thing -- in fact, I think it's a guy under the make-up. The faces NOT completely buried under make-up, like Gary Cooper and Edna Mae Oliver, are the real deal. The others? I'm not buying it. I wish we could get some real historical research on this that would clear it up.

Raggedy Man (1981)

Too many flaws in what could have been a gem

[4/10 · 20 March 2024]

Great period atmosphere, great performances from the leads, but I would say NOT a great script nor even a good one, particularly. I would have enjoyed a straight drama about these characters in this situation -- without all the melodramatic Southern Gothic horse manure that they ladled on with a trowel. This could have been and should have been a sensitive character study; instead, they made it into an up-market exploitation movie. And why is Sam Shepard (mostly hidden under costume, shadow and fright make-up) wasted in the thankless, non-speaking title role? Anybody could have played that part. He must have needed the money.

Easy Money (1936)

A Better than average B programmer

[3/10 · 8 March 2024]

Onslow Stevens and the rest of the cast play this one straight and serious, without overdoing it; at the same time, the camera work shows that more than the usual amount of care went into the production of this uncomplicated and sometimes silly B picture. As other reviewers have noted, it starts well and then slowly runs out of steam over the length of its runtime, barring only one inventive death plot. Stevens was not a great actor, but he could be credible in the most outlandish situations that Hollywood could throw at him, as he proved time and time again in pictures like THE VANISHING SHADOW and HOUSE OF DRACULA, and that's what he does here. You could do worse for a Late Show movie . . . But, yeah, you could also do much better.

Howard the Duck (1986)

A Perfect Storm

[3/10 · 29 February 2024]

There's a certain kind of hype and logrolling for movies both good and bad. You have to learn to think for yourself.

HOWARD THE DUCK is not a successful movie. It's also not "the worst movie ever made" -- by a long, LONG way.

Mainly, it's just disappointing. I came to it as a fan of Steve Gerber's original HOWARD THE DUCK comic book -- which itself was sometimes guilty of excesses. The movie was so disappointing to me because in some ways they came close to getting it right. But everything good in the picture is more than torpedoed by what's bad about it.

First of all -- the Duck himself. Howard should have been an animatronic puppet of the sort that the Henson Studio specialized in. He should have been voiced by Frank Oz. Instead, he's a series of midgets in a really crappy, ugly costume, voiced by the wrong actor for the job.

Second, its attempts at "adult" humor are actually sophomoric, adolescent and tasteless.

Third -- all the social and cultural and topical satire is Gone.

The SHAPE of the story is right, the characters are close enough to being right, but the devil is in the details, and the details are all wrong. It's a misfire that didn't have to be a misfire.

But to call it the worst movie ever made? That's just an exaggeration and reverse hype. You HAVE seen other movies, right?

Poor Things (2023)

Read the novel

[2/10 · 27 February 2024]

POOR THINGS is possibly Scots author Alasdair Gray's best book, and a personal favorite of mine; but some novels should never be filmed -- and while I admire the ambition of anyone daring to take on Gray, I would say that the book is unfilmable and probably should have stayed that way. It especially should never have been filmed by the modern Disney company, or with an American cast. It is a novel set in historical Scotland. The film seems to have been shifted to some postmodern Steampunk fantasy land, which itself robs the story of its roots. Stupid changes and contemporary mannerisms abound. Mark Ruffalo is singularly unqualified to be allowed anywhere near an Alasdair Gray story. The gore and sex have been unnecessarily ramped up: this is Alasdair Grey injected with heroin, or crossed with David Lynch. "Excess" is the word -- a problem shared by all contemporary films and filmmakers. To quote just one stupid scene from the trailer: "Ow." Pass on the movie: read the BOOK instead.

Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure (1976)

A masterpiece of Animation, Warts and All

[9/10 · 27 December 2023]

It isn't a perfect movie: there are lulls and valleys, there are too many songs, and all the songs go on for a verse longer than they should. But nobody else was doing animation this brilliant for at least twenty years prior, and no one has equalled it since. Two of its sequences should be counted among the best animation ever put on film, bar none. And even when it drags -- it's never less than charming.

It is a travesty that that it's never had a proper release to home video. And a tragedy that it's not known or remembered by many. Do yourself a favor: Go to the Internet Archive and download their HD, partially restored, widescreen print. Save it, preserve it, show it to your friends.

Young Sherlock Holmes (1985)

A hot stinking pile of dung . . .

[1/10 · 16 December 2023]

. . . from the puerile "mind" (and I use that word loosely) of the monumentally untalented Chris Columbus -- who not coincidentally made the worst HARRY POTTER films from the two Potter novels that should have been easiest to film. Columbus seemingly discovered the modern era of stupidity in his work, and this is no exception. A title card informs us right up front that the picture is not actually based on anything Conan Doyle ever wrote, thereby confirming that Columbus thinks we're as moronic as he is. Barry Levinson is a good director who was utterly defeated by the moronic script . . . He should have known better than to come anywhere near this train wreck -- he should stayed in Baltimore. Some good and talented actors are also wasted here -- among the adult cast that is. The youthful leads have all the appeal of sawdust. Dear Hollywood: some characters do not NEED an "origin" story, not even a GOOD one -- and this is Decidedly Not Good.