Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Klaus (2019)
9/10
May be destined to be another Christmas classic
25 June 2022
I think most of this surprisingly delightful (I love discovering those) film's virtues have been well-covered below, but let's hear a shout for the beautifully and carefully executed/crafted "retro-imaginitive" two-dimensional animation style, which fits the film perfectly (" . . . Those greys REALLY pop, don'tcha know?" LOL!).

In today's animation world - which has been perfected to the point of animators actually having to restrain themselves from making them look "too photo-real" - it's a breath of fresh air to see animation that actually looks animated. The Aspen Trees with their metaphorical birdhouses blowing around are especially striking. You don't usually "see" wind gusts in modern animation (too Foghorn Leghorn, I suppose).

Is it me, or did Disney/Pixar do us all a favor by raising the bar for "feature animation" so high?
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997–2003)
9/10
Arguably Joss Whedon's masterpiece
24 March 2022
This is one of the VERY few TV series we actually made a point of watching (and arranging schedules around - remember, this was 20 years ago), and we loved every minute of it. I won't waste time - I'm sure everyone here knows the setup.

Perfectly cast, well written, with seriously subversive undertones (the whole "high school as hell full of monsters" metaphor was way ahead of its time), this show is a perfect example of how - if you're clever enough - you can make a smart, sophisticated show about almost anything. In fact, every time I hear about some show that sounds silly on its face, I think of Buffy and reserve judgment.

And I had the biggest crush on Charisma Carpenter . . .
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Summer of 8 (2016)
4/10
Couldn't quite put my finger on it . . .
8 August 2019
Luckily, someone else did when they said the film is like a (admittedly beautifully photographed and designed - although that really just adds to the artificiality) feature-length Beach Boys ode to youth, but it portrays an 'awareness' that real young people don't grasp until long after that time has passed." That pretty much sums it up. Reminded me of something I heard once: "Enjoy the power and beauty of your youth - oh, never mind . . . you won't appreciate the power and beauty of youth until yours is gone." And yes, these are late-20-somethings (one of whom was Miss Teen USA - you know, just like in your high school clique) playing 17 year-olds. But to be fair - they usually are. Nice try, but it's been done. Better.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One of the more stunning feature directorial debuts in film history . . .
16 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Legendary director Mike Nichols certainly started with a "bang." Thank God he didn't end up like so many others - with one "firecracker" followed by a long, sad series of fizzles. But to understand what an achievement WAOVW is, one must keep in mind the context. Firstly, you have arguably the two most famous (infamous?) people on Earth, who were demanding and receiving unheard of (for the time) remuneration and treatment for their efforts - and living the lifestyle said remuneration provided (they lunched with the Duke and Duchess of Windsor during production) - as the stars. Elizabeth didn't have to be on set until 10 a.m., and her aging makeup took 2.5 hours. By the time that was finished, it was lunchtime, so filming didn't begin until 1 or 2 p.m. most days. I heard Mike NIchols say in an interview once, "What are you going to do? Your stars are so big, they're dining with royalty. That's not the sort of person you can pull aside and chastise for being late like Lindsay Lohan or someone." Also, Burton's lifestyle was catching up with him, and his health was not the greatest (he couldn't work every day), not to mention the quasi-Victorian "code" movies of the time were expected to follow, and you have a recipe for what could have been a disaster.

This film is often called a "landmark" for its frank depiction of theretofore taboo subjects like serious alcoholism, spousal abuse, mental illness, abortion, adultery, infertility, overt sexuality, etc. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, this was the first film to carry an age limit "rating," and was also provided the genesis of what would become the MPAA and its rating system. How this got past the studio's "guardians of decency" in 1966, I'll never know.

Luckily, Elizabeth really wanted this to work, and held their end together long enough for them to deliver what was their finest hour together. The first time I saw this, I was shocked by Liz's performance (among other things). She is on record as having said, "I never had an acting lesson in my life; everything I've done, I've just created on the spot." I don't know what was in that "spot," but it certainly served her well here.

I won't go into the story arc, as I'm sure everyone here knows it by now, but let's just say that the 32 year-old (!) Liz shed ALL vanity to play 50 year-old floozy Martha (when Nichols first told her what weight she needed to be, she said, "Thank God . . . I don't have to diet"). And it worked. Right from the start. My favorite line comes early in the film, as she's describing the Bette Davis picture she's quoting from . . . "What a dumPPPP!" and in the middle of her description, she pauses perfectly, puts her hand on her hip, looks at mousy Burton, and says, "She's discontent." Pretty much "set the scene" for what follows right there.

There has been some criticism that George Segal was not the best choice for Nick, but apparently all the "big" actors turned down the role because of its nature: 2.5 hours of humiliation and torture at the hands of George - which the ambitious Nick feels he has no choice but to sit there and take. By today's standards, it might be a bit extreme, but as I said, you have to keep context in mind (and apparently, there are still people who play these types of "parlor games," BION).

Bottom line: if you've not seen this, do so immediately. Once you've recovered from the first viewing, watch it again, and you'll be amazed at the subtle but stinging wit throughout. Honey to George: "They dance like they've danced before." George: "It's a common dance, monkey nipples . . . they're both very familiar with it." Honey: "I don't know what you mean." George looks at her with disbelief, opens his mouth to say something, and then you can see his brain thinking, "Oh, what's the use?" so he closes his mouth and turns his head. All in all, there are enough layers and meat here for many viewings and discussions.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good Times (1974–1979)
8/10
WAY ahead of its time . . . whether people knew it or not
15 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
It's funny to me every time I read about a "modern" TV show/movie/etc. about racial/gender/class issues being "groundbreaking," because Norman Lear was doing some pretty brave "groundbreaking" as far back as the early 70's. "All in the Family" was arguably the greatest, most "realistic" (in TV terms) family sitcom EVER to grace TV (followed closely by "Roseanne"). As if AITF wasn't enough, "Maude" and her ahead- of-her-time politics spun out of that universe, as did "Good Times," which was the first sitcom to really show the gritty reality of lower- class American life since "The Honeymooners." Yes, there were stereotypes . . . yes, there was manipulative "button-pushing," yes, there was lots of "jive talking,'" but like Roseanne, at the heart of all that bravado was a family that REALLY loved and supported each other, and were trying desperately to reach that "American dream." Of course, it was usually futile, mainly because they wanted to keep the shows going, but ironically, it actually reflected the reality of the times . . . which is that unfortunately, that dream is just out of reach for many. But "Good Times" was so well-cast, well-acted, and well-staged (like a very good play), we could overlook its faults . . . because we cared about the characters. Esther Rolle and John Amos had great chemistry together, and the kids were also perfectly cast. I remember hearing things on this show that I had never heard before, like VD, teen pregnancy, the poor resorting to eating dog to survive, the constant struggle of the father figure to provide for his family . . . it just goes on and on. Things that we middle-class white Americans had NO idea of. And that opening - that HAS to be one of the greatest opening montages of images and theme music EVER (The Sopranos comes to mind as a contender). They just don't make 'em like that anymore. Although things began to slip once John Amos left (in one of those "I'm moving on to bigger and better things" mistakes that TV actors often make . . . assuming that a hit TV show is a sure road to super stardom, never to be heard from again except in minor, supporting bits), it was still one of the best of the 70's. So whenever you hear somebody talk about a "groundbreaking" TV show/movie, keep in mind that that ground was "broken" long ago . . .
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Carol Burnett Show (1967–1978)
9/10
lbliss314 is right . . . "Must See TV" WAY before NBC thought of it . . .
15 March 2015
lbliss314 - I just read a short interview with Carol Burnett in which she discussed the unbelievable amount of work that went into this legendary show, and the utter impossibility of doing something like this on a weekly basis today. The cast of 6-ish, the full orchestra (Nelson Riddle, if I'm not mistaken), the 50 fabulous costumes per week (by, of course, Bob Mackie), the 6 - 8 sketches/numbers per week that had to be written, rehearsed, set to music, and performed live - WITH guest stars . . . it just went on and on and on. The bottom line: No, this could NOT be pulled off today - it would be prohibitively expensive, and require a small army of people. But boy, I'm so glad we had this time together. This came along during my childhood, so I had to beg to stay up late, too. When I was a child, I spent most Saturday nights with my grandparents, and I was trying to remember that fantastic Saturday night lineup. I remember Mary Tyler Moore throwing that beret in the air (of course, back then I had no idea the HUGE cultural shift that represented); I remember Bob Newhart walking past the "Picasso horse" in Chicago to work; and I remember Carol, but I couldn't put it all together. I knew this would be the place to come. You're right . . . CBS on Saturday Night was "Must See TV" WAY before NBC thought of it. I always wondered why Carol was never able to reignite that spark . . . it seemed like her "light" was dimmed before its time. I think the loss of Harvey Korman, together with Carol's personal "issues" (I seem to remember big trouble with her daughter, husband, AND parents . . . remember the "National Enquirer" debacle?) sent her into retirement way before her time. Like several others here said, I really wish they would collect the FULL show on DVD, not just edited-for-syndication snippets. But what a ride it was for 11 years . . . of course, everyone remembers "Went With the Wind" and "Mildred Fierce" (I can't even watch the original movies, because I think of Carol Burnett the entire time), "Missus Awhiggins" . . . and my personal favorite, "Mama and Eunice," which was just brilliant at times (esp. with guest stars like Ken Berry, Betty White, and Jim Neighbors). I remember an episode of Mama and Eunice where Eunice tried out for (and was cut from) a "reality TV" show, and it was as moving as anything "serious" on TV. This show worked on so many levels, it truly deserves the moniker "LEGENDARY."
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed