Mary Poppins Review

I think I'm one of the few people in the developed world who had never seen this movie.  So when it was offered on the big screen, I figured why not go see it.  I found out quickly that, even though I had never seen it, Mary Poppins obviously influenced my life significantly because I knew pretty much all of the songs.  That, in itself should reveal the quality of this film.

The movie, itself, is pretty stripped down.  There isn't much to it other than the song and dance numbers.  There is actually very little in the way of a plot or story or even character development.  The purpose is really to entertain (and to a lesser extent, tell a story) through song and dance and it does that very well.  It is a fantasy movie with a magic nanny and chimney sweep and a retired admiral firing a cannon from his roof twice a day, so it needs more than just basic special effects, sets and makeup to be done well.  Given that it was released almost fifty years ago, the effects and makeup are fantastic.

Finally, the best parts of the film are the performances from Dick van Dyke and Julie Andrews.  Both were more than solid and very convincing of the characters.  I have to give a stronger nod to van Dyke simply because his character actually has more significance to the movie than Andrews'.  Being a story about a magic nanny turning a family upside down should have more of a focus on the dynamic and friction between the head of the household and the nanny.  But there is actually very little of that other than the implied progression of the relationship.  But it doesn't really matter because, as I said, it's all basically about the song and dance.

See it.  The bottom line is that it is downright entertaining and fun.  Except for the song Feed the Birds.  The movie grinds to a screeching halt during that one.

The Wizard of Oz Review

I have been known on these reviews to be critical of movies that don't age well with their effects, stories, acting, etc.  So how do you review a movie that is widely considered one of the greatest ever made and has entertained generations since 1939?  Part of me is a bit critical because the sets are shallow with hand painted backdrops.  The acting is that over the top melodramatic style that was all Hollywood used back in the day.  The effects, while the best they had at the time, really are nothing spectacular.  But this is all looking through the eyes of someone watching the film about 75 years after it was made.  For its time, this was a very elaborate production and, to an extent, it still is.

While the sets are obviously in a sound stage, what they do use is very elaborate and very well done.  The costumes, with the exception of the lion, are spot on.  And the only reason the lion is a little too human is because they just couldn't do song and dance numbers if they tried to be more realistic.  But I think the aspect of this movie that has aged the best is the makeup.  The Tin Man, Scarecrow, and Wicked Witch all still look fairly lifelike even if it is basically just paint.

If you made this movie today, it would be done a lot differently.  Just compare it with Oz, the Great and Powerful and you'll see what I mean.  Both go into the same magical land with a lot of the same aspects.  The new one relies a lot on the visuals to bring its story to life.  The original relies on light-hearted songs and a strong moral to basically reach the same end.  And I think that's the best part of the whole thing.  The songs keep this movie timeless.  We're Off to See the Wizard and Ding Dong the Witch is Dead are ingrained into our culture.  And it doesn't stop with the production songs.  The score for this movie is perfect as well.  It sets the mood brilliantly in every scene.  Even now, I get chills when the witch sends her army of flying monkeys to capture Dorothy.

Even though it is 75 years old, this movie still entertains.  The songs are catchy and it has an upbeat pace throughout.  It is an absolute classic that every one should see.  See it.

The Producers Review

When you base a movie on a play that was originally based on a musical you get the same effect that Jimmy James on NewsRadio got when he wrote his memoirs, had them translated into Japanese and then translated back into English rather than just redoing the English version.  It's a good idea and has great source material but it becomes a shadow of what it could have been.

The problem with this remake of the Producers is that they tried to make it look like a play on the screen.  That was a huge mistake.  While both live plays and movies can entertain at the same level, they have to do it in different ways.  When the audience is there and you're doing everything live, you can do the over acting and looking off into the distance.  With a film, there's so much more that you can do with camera angles and such and if you try to recreate a play, it actually falls flat.  It's a shame because the Producers has fantastic comedic value and it was all wasted in the way they brought it to the big screen.

This is exasperated by the fact that they used the same two lead actors that they originally had on Broadway in Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick.  Both are fine actors on stage and screen but they seemed to have forgotten that they were moving from one medium to the other with the same story.  I didn't get the same vibe from the other actors because, for the most part, they were only coming in as film actors for this story.  In fact, Uma Thurman and Will Ferrell are much more screen friendly in this movie.

For sheer comedy, it's good.  The idea of a Hitler play is just so ludicrous and Mel Brooks is a master at making something like that funny.  But for the rest of the production value, it is poor.  Sadly, the comedy does not outweigh the poor production.  Don't see it.

Les Miserables Review

I'm not normally a fan of musicals.  I find that they often don't accurately represent the emotion that traditional acting can bring out in a story.  After all, songs usually rhyme and are more poetic.  That can make it more difficult to tell a story.  So, it's a pretty big deal when you can tell such a grand story almost exclusively through song.  (I wasn't overly familiar with the story.  I did have to read Jean Valjean in grade 8 and act out the candlestick stealing scene as a class project.  I also remember reading an adaptation in Mad Clobbers the Classics. But that's the extent - maybe I should pick up the Victor Hugo novel sometime.)

I wanted to see this not because it's a musical but because it has some very good actors and looked like a very grand production.  It doesn't disappoint.  There is a lot of emotion throughout the whole story.  I may have liked it better if it had just been a film based on the book rather than a film based on a stage musical that is based on a fairly epic book.  So I was a bit torn.  On the one hand, they can use music combined with majestic visuals to really bring out the emotion.  And music can create tone in a film better than even the best dialogue delivery.  On the other hand, in telling an epic story exclusively through song, they limit themselves to using lyrics and poetry.  How do you find a balance?

In Les Miserables, they do it by sacrificing some of the poetic aspects of song in favour of exposition.  There are times when the songs resemble Alanis Morissette at the height of her pretentiousness when her songs didn't have to have rhyme or follow any kind of rhythm.  But, even when it does that, the emotion added by the actors makes you ignore it completely and it almost becomes like spoken word rather than song.  A lot of this has to do with the fact that the songs were done live rather than overdubbed so it was like delivering traditional dialogue for the actors.  The result is one extremely powerful movie where you come out exhausted and entertained at the same time.

The breathtaking sets, superb costumes and makeup, and its heart-wrenching grip on the viewers' emotions make this a "must see it."

Dancer in the Dark Review

It had been a while since I had been to a movie night at Karl's.  When Shauna disclosed that she had chosen a musical that starred Bjork, I was kind of wishing I had waited another week.  But, as it turns out, this movie is very good.

It is a very tragic tale of Selma (Bjork), a Communist refugee in the 50s whose life is the polar opposite of her favourite movie genre, the musical.  It does a very good job of juxtaposing her ideal life with her actual life.  I originally thought that it would have made a fantastic tragedy without the musical numbers.  And I still think it would have been a very good movie.  However, when you add in the musical numbers in the manner that they did, it creates that much more depth and lets you see into Selma's mind so much better.  The songs (written by Bjork) have raw lyrics that evoke thoughts of being written by children.  But it's all the imagination of a simple person and not really meant to move the plot like a conventional musical.  The musical scenes come at times when Selma's life is falling apart.  This is the exact opposite of most musicals out there.  In fact, they even bring up the point that nothing bad ever happens in a musical.  The musical scenes in Dancer show you how Selma wants her world to be.  Lars von Trier shows this entire juxtaposition brilliantly by using vastly different camera work and lighting from the main scenes.

The acting in this film is very good too.  I was surprised because normally, musicians are pretty bad in films (even musicals).  I never thought I'd see the day where anything Bjork did made sense, but she does a fantastic job of playing the adorable innocent girl who cannot control her life spinning away from her.  There is not a point in this movie where you don't want to just jump into the screen and save Selma.  The supporting cast is very solid as well even if none of them can sing.  But it isn't about how they sing.  It's about how Selma wants them to be.  As an aside, I also especially liked how David Morse played the "back against the wall" character.  He's just so good at playing the guy you want to hate.

Definitely see it.  While it is long (2.25 hours), the last half hour or so is so powerful that it makes the wait worthwhile.