Change Your Image
tangoyank
Reviews
Welcome to Pooh Corner (1983)
Unique Kids' Show
Just to add a few comments to what's already been written...
I, too, really loved this show when I was a kid. It aired on The Disney Channel back in the days when the entire channel was built around Disney characters (now it seems aimed at young teenagers and tries to compete with Nickelodeon).
This show used full-bodied costumes with animatronic heads for all of the Pooh characters except Roo (who was sometimes a sophisticated puppet, and at other times was played by a dwarf in a small body costume).
The show did not use traditional sets in most cases but instead was filmed against blue-screen. However, unlike most mid-80s use of blue screen technology, this actually looked quite realistic and did not have the awkward or fake look that most blue-screen of the era exhibited. This show had a companion show called "Dumbo's Circus" that was made a few years later and used the same technology very effectively (that show had Dumbo and a bunch of new characters that were never seen outside this series).
The show had an interesting structure. Each episode opened with an older-British-guy host (not Sebastian Cabot, though) who would begin reading from a Pooh story book and then you would go into the story.
The main story lasted about 20 minutes, and then there were two more segments. The first was a music video for one of about ten or so songs they used over and over. The last segment was usually some sort of game, educational segment, or craft demonstration with one of the Pooh characters would speak directly to the camera and interact with the voice-over of the narrator. This was supposed to be a "practical" segment that taught something kids could learn and use, as opposed to just entertainment. Then there was a very catchy closing song that was used every day (the lyrics went something like "Toodle-oo, So Long, and Goodbye," and it was the best kids' closing song I can think of besides "The Song That Doesn't End" from Shari Lewis and Lamb Chop).
Unlike most of the other Disney-produced Pooh shows, this one had original stories that did not come directly from the A. A. Milne books. It was really well-written and could entertain adults as well as children. It was not a baby-ish show. There were numerous holiday-themed episodes - I have specific memories of watching this show on Christmas morning.
This show is really unique, original, and timeless. It has a visual sense unlike anything I've seen before or since (except it's sister show "Dumbo's Circus"). I'm not sure why Disney doesn't use this technology anymore becuase it doesn't look dated at all. What was so impressive about this show's look was that the colors were so vibrant and sparkled so brightly. As others have suggested, I wish Disney would re-run it or at least put it out on DVD.
Gangs of New York (2002)
One of the worst Best Picture nominees ever
This movie is a sad failure, as it's obvious how badly Scorsese wanted to tell a story about this time period and how much hard work he put into the details. But the movie ultimately fails because of a very thin story overwhelmed by artifice - and two unfortunate casting choices.
I think it was Scorsese who has said that the majority of a director's job lies in casting the right actors. If that is true, the movie is doomed by the choices of DiCaprio and Diaz in two of the lead roles.
I like Diaz and think she's a charming, effervescent, and sexy screen presence. But she has a very modern appearance, demeanor, and spirit, and she just does not work in this role.
As for DiCaprio, regardless of whatever acting talent he may possess, he cannot overcome his own physicality. DiCaprio has the face and body of a young teenage boy, and although he is getting close to 30 now, his appearance has not aged much since "What's Eating Gilbert Grape." He hasn't yet developed an adult man's beard growth and still has a chubby, cherubic face (with a whisker here and there above his lip and on his chin). And although his teenage fans are many, DiCaprio just can't convey true adult masculinity, virility, or sexual tension. His appearance works well in, say, "Catch Me If You Can," where the role is that of a teenager masquerading as an adult.
But in this movie, we are asked to accept him as a tough, vengeful, full-grown man who is able to murder Daniel Day-Lewis's legendary upperclass thug Bill the Butcher. It's so preposterous a notion that the actual act is obscured by smoke in the climactic scene (though we do see an aftermath shot of DiCaprio with a dirty face and scruffy red hair, looking much like Chucky from "Child's Play"). This is no fault of DiCaprio's, really - it's just a monumental act of miscasting. Just as a reasonable audience could not accept, say, DeNiro as an overweight black woman or Streep as a high school cheerleader, DiCaprio simply does not have the physical appearance to be convincing in this role.
Day-Lewis, however, is not miscast, and gives an amazing performance, although his modern-cliche-sounding Noo Yawk accent was at times distracting and over-the-top. Imagine how different this movie could have been with, say, Colin Farrel or Heath Ledger or Ewan McGregor paired with, perhaps, Kate Winslet or Helena Bonham-Carter.
But what bothered me most about this movie is that, even aside from the casting misfires, I was never able to suspend my disbelief. Everything about the movie seems artificial, even the sets and costumes; I assume they are authentic in appearance but seemed like something out of a Dickens PBS/BBC movie. This movie cost about $100 million, I've read, and the production values do look expensive. But they still didn't seem believable to me. I was always aware, perhaps becuase of the meagerness of the story being told, that I was watching footage shot on a elaborately-constructed Cinecitti backlot.
There wasn't a single frame of this movie in which I was not acutely aware that these were actors in costumes, on sets built in Italy, and that Scorsese was standing just off camera telling everyone exactly what they should do.
I suppose this is an interesting, neglected time period in history, and not a bad idea for a movie setting. Yet a setting is not enough - the movie needed a compelling story. All the work and money has gone into these background elements (expensive sets, costumes, actors, and special effects) without having anything very interesting in the story department. The movie would have been much more successful artistically if it had cheap costumes, shabby sets, unknown actors - but with an actual story that could hold our interest.
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
Good, but it's Style over Substance (no pun intended)
Most of the reviews here have been, in my opinion, excessive with the praise. This is a good movie, but not a great one. Does this movie really get inside the mind of what it feels like to be a drug addict? Yes. Does this movie have some inventive, perhaps even pioneering, camera work? Yes. But does this movie really tell a story? Uh...no, can't give you that one.
I won't rehash the plot, but of the four characters, Ellen Burtsyn's was the only one with something resembling a story, and even hers is more of a stream-of-consciousness meditation on addiction. A very stylish and pounding stream-of-consciousness, but a stream-of-consciousness nonetheless. She wants to be on a game show, which never pans out, and in preparation for her TV appearance, she gets hooked on diet pills and goes nuts. The other three characters--well, they just wallow in their addiction until they are either in jail, turning tricks, or having limbs amputated.
Jared Leto's performance is passable, but he's really a bland actor out of his league with this material. Connelly and Wayans come off better, if only because their characters (at least in the movie version) are two-dimentional at best; the quality of the supporting performances mostly lie in their ability to convey the hunger of addiction in closeups and extreme closeups. Burstyn is certainly impressive, but after seeing this, I'm glad Julia Roberts won the Oscar instead (I can just hear the hardcore film buffs hissing at that).
As for the direction...well, yeah, it definitely makes you feel something, and it's not pleasant (but, of course, that's precisely the point). For conveying the feeling of addiction, I give this film lots of credit. Yet, the eye candy camera work only covers up the lack of depth in the story.
That being said, I'm reviewing this movie in comparison to conventional narrative films. I would be inclined to classify Requiem for a Dream in a slightly different category--rather than a narrative film, this is more of an experiment in visualizing the subjective experience of drug addiction. On that level, it's a perfect success. But the movie's more like one of those simulation amusement park rides--the theme being drug addiction, and it's a REALLY scary ride--and a satisfying STORY it is not.
Dancer in the Dark (2000)
original but illogical
Bjork gives a surprisingly good performance and Deneuve is the most beautiful 57-year-old on the planet. I took the musical numbers as loving satire on the absurdity of the genre. It's certainly an original picture, but...the melodrama makes no sense in the logic of the universe we live in. (Spoiler Alert: read no further if you haven't seen the movie). Why doesn't Selma keep her cash in the bank where, obviously, it can't be stolen? Why would Selma put a "down payment" on her son's operation? Better yet, why wouldn't the doctor have offered to work something out with Selma if it meant saving her son's sight? Why would Selma refuse appeals on her death sentence? (yeah, yeah, it's all poetic that she doesn't but it belies "human behavior"--the title of a Bjork song). Why would't her lawyer file her appeal without the money if he knew it could save her life? (answer: the movie waned to villify the lawyer). Why was the $2000 for the boy's eye operation the only available funds in the entire area? Besides all of these logical fallacies, I just didn't buy the shooting scene--just did not ring true with what we know of human behavior. That scene, I suppose, is the crux of the picture.
This is certainly a very original movie, in terms of style. However, the last fourth is so convoluted and so foreign to everything we know about the way people behave, that the intended three-hankie ending was unmoving for me. If so much of the behavior of Selma belies the logic of so much of what we know about human behavior, then it's not hard to remain unmoved by the tragedy that befalls her.
Cecil B. Demented (2000)
Not up to Waters's usual "standards"
This movie is OK, but for a big Waters fan like myself, it's a disappointment. I liked the concept--satirizing the overimportance movies are given as "art" by many these days. In that sense, it's a great subject for Waters since his style has always been to obliterate cinematic conventions. However, the execution isn't comparable to Waters's best movies ("Desperate Living," "Pink Flamingos," "Polyester," "Hairspray," and "Serial Mom"). For me, the movie has a clustrophobic feel--way too many scenes set in Demented's Warholian movie "factory." The supporting characters aren't as sharp as they usually are in a Waters movie--nothing to compare to The Egg Lady, Queen Carlotta, Cuddles, or even Little Chrissy from "Pecker." I suppose the funniest character in this movie is Pam, the militant-lesbian cinematographer, but few (e.g., a satanist filmmaker) are original or funny. Griffith is OK parodying herself, but I never found Dorff to be engaging or funny in this role (he takes himself way too seriously and never shows any hint of vulnerability or humor). One good gag, though, seen in the trailer, has Dorff lustily licking the Panorama camera--obsessive love for cinema, indeed! This movie is OK for a video rental for Waters fans or those who think cinema is taken WAY too seriously these days, but I have to admit this is really below par from what I've come to expect from John Waters in the humor department.
Margaret Cho: I'm the One That I Want (2000)
More than a stand-up comedy special
The idea of concert films has always stuck me as a bit odd. What's the point of paying to see a MOVIE when really you're just seeing a stand-up routine or concert like something you'd see on HBO--since the "live, in person" aspect is missing, what's the point? Aren't movies all about seeing something you couldn't see in a play or on a TV show? I still haven't resolved this cinematic question for myself, but I can tell you that this movie is more entertaining than 99% of what Hollywood studios produce. I defy anyone to see this movie and not have a great, gut-busting time (prudes excepted, perhaps). So much of what's been written about this film says that it's essentially just about her experience with her failed sitcom, but, in fact, that's just one of several set pieces of the film. The best bits have to do with Cho's mother (her imitation is both hilarious and a bit touching), and Cho spends a lot of time on gay-related bits (many of which are genuinely funny). But what I discovered about Cho through this movie was that one of her greatest strengths--what sets her apart from her peers--are her facial expressions, which are versatile and always dead-on. Many times, the punchline is not a snappy line, but rather, Cho's dead-on facial expression. Finally, I knew why, at least in this case, a concert film format was appropriate: unless you had front row seats to the show, there's no way most audience members at the live show could enjoy Cho 100%, but the movie camera allows us to see her every facial movement (before erupting in laughter). Unlike an HBO comedy special, this film does have a serious emotional throughline--that being Cho's quest to accept herself and be happy. The comedy gets raunchy but is always funny; the entertainment value of this film--made on the most simple terms--far surpasses that of most movies made today. Highly recommended. (p.s. when I saw the film in Los Angeles, Cho was on hand at the theater to take tickets herself; she is deservedly very proud of this movie).
Autumn in New York (2000)
Definite chick flick, but not as bad as you've heard
I saw this movie because I'm a huge Winona Ryder fan. I thought the movie was not great but not terrible either. Some people may not like the May-December aspect of it (Gere's character has a daughter older than Ryder), but the issue is certainly not ignored by the film and is a major theme. Some of the dialogue is sappy, on-the-nose, and cliched, but with this type of movie, that sort of thing is expected and acceptable. Like many love stories, I wasn't convinced of why these two got together anyway. Gere is depicted as a chronic womanizer, and Ryder apparently wants ANY romance because of her terminal heart condition. Ryder's character was underwritten (what does she do for a living? apparently, she strings beads and makes hats) and at 28, Winona is having a harder and harder time pulling off a uber-naive role like this. If you like tearjerker romances, or are a fan of Ryder or Gere, you could do worse, although this is certainly no "Love Story" or "Steel Magnolias." (Winona trivia: this is the second time she's played a character named Charlotte; the first was ten years ago in "Mermaids.")
The Eyes of Tammy Faye (2000)
Hilarious and Fascinating Documentary
One of the most entertaining movies I've seen this year. Tammy Faye is a fascinating person, and the movie really allows you to see the real person under all the makeup. She is a truly interesting woman, and the movie shows her, warts-and-all, without being condescending to her love of Christ. On top of that, the movie does a great job at telling the story of the rise and fall of PTL from Tammy Faye's perspective. The filmmakers did a great job in finding and selecting hilarious and often bizarre clips from the annals of the CBN and PTL archives (one particularly funny bit shows Tammy Faye belting out a hymn while riding a camel, another where she wanders off the set of a live TV show to admire the fake beach scenery). One minor criticism is the filmmakers' overzealous attempts to tie Tammy Faye to the gay community, which seemed like a forced attempt to justify her "camp" value. For me, the most heartbreaking scene in the movie is when Tammy Faye is shown pitching ideas for TV shows to a secular producer--her ideas, though uncommercial, are genuine and it's touching to see them rejected on camera. The movie also gives us a sense of Tammy Faye's need to perform for the camera; in one sequence, she plans to confront a journalist who wrote an unflattering book about the PTL scandal, and by the end, Tammy is all too happy to autograph the very book that has caused her so much pain. Ultimately, I found Tammy Faye to be a sincere and optimistic woman who has both a neverending desire for stardom and and a neverending capacity to forgive.
Coyote Ugly (2000)
Trailer is deceiving
I was disappointed in this movie. Based on the trailer, I expected it to be a sort of "Cocktail" for girls. I was hoping this movie would have a lot of the electric booze-pouring scenes from the trailer, but if you've seen the trailer, you've seen about all there is to see (except for a pretty good wet t-shirt sequence). Unfortunately, though, the movie spends a lot of time with Piper Perabo's character whining about her songwriting career and a totally unnecessary, by-the-numbers romance with the type of movie character I like to call an "Accent Boy" (i.e., apparently, his whole charm lies in his foreign accent, here, Australian; see also Ben Chaplin in "The Truth About Cats and Dogs"). I found the romance scenes boring, and the other bar girls' characters underdeveloped. I thought this movie would be about a bar (e.g. "Cheers"), but it's really just another insecure-girl-goes-to-NYC-to-make-it-big story. You've seen this story before, and if you've seen the trailer, you've seen the good stuff already.
Thelma & Louise (1991)
One of the very best of the 1990s
This is an absolutely perfect screenplay. I predict that in 50 years or so, this will be viewed as one of the all-time best. As a man, I probably cannot identify personally with the feminist issues the movie raises, but the storyline is amazing from every standpoint. Scott's direction is superb, the performances are flawless, etc. This is a movie that will stand the test of time, and it's hard to believe that the Academy chose "The Prince of Tides" over this film as a Best Picture nominee (thank goodness it won for Original Screenplay). The only thing I would change in the entire film is Scott's choice of the happy-moments montage over the closing credits. Although some people may dislike the ending, it's the only possible ending and it's so sobering that the montage distracts from its impact. For a detailed analysis of this film, I'd suggest Syd Field's book "Four Screenplays." Like "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" and "Bonnie and Clyde," this is a true American classic.