Change Your Image
terephiel
Reviews
Oliver Twist (2005)
An OK version, but definitely could've been better.
I saw Roman Polanski's adaptation of "Oliver Twist" when it came to theaters, albeit due to its limited US release, I was lucky to discover it was even playing at all. My mother had to drive herself, my younger sister, and I all the way to Chattanooga to do so. I went into the theater with eagerness and excitement, but came out perplexed and unimpressed. I've been a fan of "Oliver Twist" since I saw the famed 1968 film "Oliver!" as a boy. It prompted me to read the novel as an eight year old, but when I took an Accelerated Reading test, I was stupid and decided to base my answers off the 1997 Disney version instead. One can guess where that got me.
When watching this, I was initially questioning why Polanski chose to leave out the classic scene of Oliver's mother Agnes Fleming making her way through the town of Mudfog while expecting her child, eventually being taken to the workhouse where she gives birth and dies. The director apparently chose to take out any of the novel's title subplots. That part, Edward "Monks" Leeford and his entire plot with Fagin to disinherit Oliver, and so on -- all removed. That's probably my main issue with this film in general. Those subplots are important and essential parts to the novel itself. As one user here noted, just as one doesn't remove parts of a Mozart symphony, neither does one pick and choose Dickens. The 1968 musical didn't show Agnes's part, but it was eluded on and we got to see a picture of her. It would've been better for Polanski to have taken the foolish route other directors have done and made Oliver Mr. Brownlow's grandson than not putting anything about the boy's origins at all.
As also noted by the same user, if Oliver hadn't resembled the portrait of Agnes (again, not shown in any way in this film) and was the son of Brownlow's best friend Edwin Leeford, then why on earth would Brownlow have adopted him? His good looks? His nice clothes? His humble social status? Sorry, but it's just not believable. I'm sure there were plenty of other children, boy or girl, who were just as nice looking and tenderhearted as Oliver. If Brownlow adopted every pity case he ever came on, then I'm sure his house would've been overflowing with hoards of little street urchins. Aside from the nonsense and disbelief created by the deletion of "Oliver Twist"'s subplots, this particular film's storyline just seemed to copy that of other versions. Like the versions by David Lean, Carol Reed, and Disney, Sykes grabs Oliver and takes him hostage on the roof before accidentally hanging himself. That doesn't happen in the original story. Heck, the boy wasn't even *there* when the event happened. I've not really seen any Polanski films aside from this, but I know he could've done better.
The sets were OK and the choice of actors were decent, but again, Polanski could've made some improvements. Jamie Foreman just didn't have the evilness and malevolence of Bill Sykes that I thought he should've had. His predecessors Robert Newton, Oliver Reed, and Andy Serkis certainly did. Harry Eden was OK for the Artful Dodger, I suppose. I'd rather he'd have been around Oliver's age as he was in the book, but I've never really been as picky about the portrayed age of Dodger and Charlie Bates as many others are. Barney Clark, well...he was just too old for the title role. He portrayed the character fine, but he neither looked nor sounded like a nine year old boy. Richard Charles was eleven in the 1982 version by Clive Donner, but he looked and sounded much younger than he really was, so it was alright. If Polanski had chosen to make his own adaptation in 2003 or 2004, then I'd be more accepting of Clark because he fit the part of a younger character at those ages. A 12, almost 13 year old, though? No. The other characters were perfect.
The soundtrack was one of the few positive highlights about "Oliver Twist." They're well composed and very enjoyable to listen to. All in all, this wasn't too bad of a film, but it could've been so much better. As another user noted somewhere else, too, if "Oliver Twist" were to be remade into a faithful telling of the book with the quality picture, sets, etc. this film had, then it'd be the most perfect version ever made. I wouldn't necessarily not recommend Polanski's adaptation to someone, but there are others I'd certainly do so before this one any day. If you want a quality version, go for the 1948 version by David Lean or the 1999 TV series by Alan Bleasdale. They're certainly not perfect, but they're far more faithful in general to the original novel and are certainly never boring like this one gets. The 1985 TV series by Alexander Baron isn't bad either, but the picture quality is horrible and Ben Rodska is literally the most hideous and terribly accented Oliver you'll ever see.
Dylan Dog: Dead of Night (2010)
Not a bad movie at all!
First off, I've never read the "Dylan Dog" comic series, so I can't comment on the film's faithfulness to them. Then again, I've never liked reading comics or manga, anyway. Still, I thought this was really great. I find all the negative reviews funny. It's like people have nothing to do nowadays but complain about the most trivial things. My brother told me not to see this because of said reviews, but I don't care what other people think. I make my own judgements when it comes to the film industry. It's like everyone thought "Tangled" (2010) is the best thing Disney has made since "The Little Mermaid" (1989) or "Beauty and the Beast" (1991), yet I thought everything about it sucked except for the animation and *some* of the music.
Anyway, the acting in this is very well done. My favorite character was Dylan's zombie assistant/partner Marcus, who was played by none other than the talented Sam Huntington. I'm probably biased in that department because Sam also plays Josh on Syfy's "Being Human," my absolute favorite show next to "Destination Truth" and "Fact or Faked." My other main reason for seeing this was for the werewolves, as I'm a big werewolf fan. They weren't really as kick-butt as I'd hoped them to be, but they were decent. They reminded me a lot of that film "Skinwalkers" (2007). The head werewolf Gabriel's son (I don't remember his name) was probably the best done in this. He reminded me a lot of Jonas Talbot from the former.
The humor in "Dylan Dog" was also really good, especially scenes with Marcus. My twin sister, who I got to go see this with me, and I cracked up several times throughout. I thought Dylan's love interest, Elizabeth, was really old looking for her age, though. It may just be her prominent cheek bones, I guess. Even though I hate vampires except for Aidan on Syfy's "Being Human," I thought the makeup for them here was nice. The film's final special effects with the battle between Dylan and co. against Elizabeth and the demon didn't look all that up to par though, especially when compared to other films. It reminded me a lot of the cheesy CGI that Syfy tends to use in their self-made films. It's because of that that I'm not giving this a full 10/10 stars. Even so, I definitely recommend this film to any fan of the Gothic/horror genre and for them to keep an open mind. Haters will be haters, I guess, but really, "Dylan Dog" isn't as bad as people are making it out to be.
Being Human (2011)
HOWLing good!
This series in absolutely fantastic. The plots are creative and suspenseful; there's usually always a cliffhanger that makes me want to desperately know what's going to happen next. They're also very emotional, especially with regards to Aidan. I'm a twenty-two year old man, yet when he cried, I broke down and cried with him. He's experienced so much loss and turmoil in his life, it's heartbreaking. I think staking Bernie and Rebecca were probably the worst, since I personally believe they reminded Aidan of the wife and son he left behind.
The characters are intriguing and well developed. My favorite character is Josh; then again, I'd take werewolves over vampires any day. The awkwardness and goofiness he displays are hilarious, yet he's also serious and outside his werewolf form, is kind and gentle in almost every way. I also LOVE the werewolf design. Despite what most people think, it's apparently a mix of makeup and CGI, not just the latter. That's good, considering Syfy isn't exactly known for quality special effects. I think the company is finally getting the message that they need to step up on them a bit.
My only disappointment with the series was that Josh's love interest, Nora, got scratched. Unlike many people, I do NOT want to see her become a werewolf like Nina Pickering did in the BBC version. The idea of a human/werewolf romance is something that's rarely, if ever, done outside of books, especially the TWITlight series. I think it'd be almost like a "Beauty and the Beast" type thing, which would be really interesting to see done. Werewolf/werewolf and vampire/werewolf romances are so overdone, it's ridiculous. I guess I can only hope that a werewolf's scratch in the US version won't affect a human unless the werewolf is fully transformed. I'll have to wait and see, I guess.
Even if my hopes end up being dashed, I'll still make every effort to never miss an episode. It's the best thing Syfy has going for it right now, alongside Destination Truth and Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files. I wish 2012 would get here soon!
Family Guy: Not All Dogs Go to Heaven (2009)
WAY over the line on this one.
I'm going to say right off that I'm a "born again" Christian, a Southern Baptist to be more specific. I'm not a very religious one, however, so no one think I'm one of those over religious hacks who gives Christianity a bad name.
I've been an avid fan of "Family Guy" since it first premiered on "Adult Swim" several years ago. I think myself to have a "mature" sense of humor, so all the sex jokes and what not don't really bother me. Seth MacFarlane's constant hypocrisy and bigotry are what do. Do I care he's an atheist? Sure. Do I care he's a left-winged liberal? Sure. Do I get up in the faces of people like him about it? Absolutely not! God gave people the freedom to choose how they want to believe, so if MacFarlane wants to be an atheist, that's his thing.
The constant mockery of organized religion and conservatism is very offensive, not just in regards to Christianity, but other religions as well. As others have pointed out, MacFarlane certainly gives the impression that he thinks his way of believing is better than others, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. He makes this quite apparent with the Jesus jokes, Jew jokes, etc. This particular episode, along with "Partial Terms of Endearment," totally crossed the line. I mean, I knew MacFarlane was hateful, but never would I have imagined him as a monster.
Meg clearly wasn't strong enough in her beliefs to stand up against Brian's temptation. I figure this is probably what MacFarlane himself does, picking out viewers like Meg and trying to sway them over to his atheist agenda. How come he only seems to mock Christianity and Judaism? Why not, let's say, make fun of Islam, too? I bet if MacFarlane put Mohammed in an episode, there'd be an uproar from the Muslim community. How come he'll make fun of people like George Bush and Sarah Palin, yet he won't poke at Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi? If he's going to make a mockery of others' beliefs and ideals, then he should do the same with his. It just comes to show you how much of a coward he truly is.
Does he have the right to express his beliefs? Again, sure. However, it certainly doesn't give him the right to be an ass about it.
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)
Absolutely spectacular!
I saw this film earlier this week and was undoubtedly impressed, just as I'd knew I'd be. The last two Narnia films were great, and this one is no different. The acting is fantastic, especially how newcomer Will Poulter perfectly portrays the character of Eustace Scrubb. The special effects are beautiful, and the storyline is as suspenseful and thrilling as that of the original novel. The ending was quite saddening, seeing as several main characters will no longer be seen except in possible future cameos, but then again, that's how the novel goes.
I must disagree with the comments that say this is horrible in 3-D. It really serves to enhance the experience, and I felt as if I was actually in the story itself. Of course, you don't *have* to see it in 3-D if you don't want to or can't afford it; however, if you can, I'd definitely recommend it. Overall, I think "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" is by far the best film that has come out this year. I hope it makes Disney realize what they lost by having given up on the franchise. It's wonderful to see it knock the abortion known as "Tangled" down in the box office, since Disney ruined it with the title, character, and storyline changes.
I'm sure if C. S. Lewis were alive today, he'd be very proud of this and the other two Narnia films. It's a definite must-see for all ages and I'm hopeful that adaptations of the novels will continue.
Tangled (2010)
A classic tale butchered like Rapunzel's hair.
When I first heard that Disney was working on an adaptation of "Rapunzel," I was undoubtedly excited. The classic Brothers Grimm tale has always been among my favorite stories, right next to "Hansel and Gretel," "Prince Swan," and "Brother and Sister." I was even more enthusiastic when I heard that it was going to be the most beautiful film Disney had ever made. During its "Rapunzel: Unbraided" phase, I started becoming apprehensive, clearly fearing (as most others did) that the film was going to be a Dreamworks rip-off.
My fears eventually died down and turned to joy once again when it was retitled "Rapunzel" and had the traditional leads of Rapunzel and Prince Bastion. An online interview with one of the animators I read spoke of how Bastion was the classic prince from the fairy tale who had a basset hound that pranced around his heels. More concept artwork emerged, making me count down the days until "Rapunzel" finally premiered. I didn't know until much later that Glen Keane suffered a heart attack and passed direction of the film to Nathan Greno and Byron Howard. When they changed the title to "Tangled" and changed the prince's name to "Prince Flynn," my feelings wavered a bit, but then I told myself that the changes weren't *that* bad. It was only when they changed Flynn to a common thief named "Flynn Rider" whose personality was a blatant rip-off of Prince Naveen's ("The Princess and the Frog") did I became angry and apprehensive more than ever before.
The marketing did nothing to bolster my confidence in the film, nor did it do so for anyone else. I spoke strong opinions of my utter hatred for "Tangled," but was accused multiple times of judging it before I'd seen it. I went into "Tangled" with a grudgingly open mind and came out as disappointed as I always knew I'd be. The animation was beautiful, but it wasn't the "moving oil painting" look we'd been promised. I'm also sure other studios could replicate the same look if they wanted to. A lot of the music was just as beautiful, but Rapunzel's opening song "When Will My Life Begin?" reminded me of an 80s sitcom for some reason, as well as something out of "Shrek." As long as I'm mentioning "Shrek," the second reprisal of said song was eerily similar to the Princess Fiona and bird scene from the first "Shrek" film. The only good songs "Tangled" had going for it were "Kingdom Dance" (a lively medieval tune) and "I See the Light" (reminiscent of "A Whole New World" from "Aladdin").
I didn't laugh at any point because I found the film's humor to be corny and like that of "Shrek." Calling the tavern "The Snuggly Duckling?" What kind of name is that? The only characters I found I could like were Rapunzel and her chameleon sidekick, Pascal (I finally found out where his name came from, which I thought was very clever). He's the most adorable sidekick to date. Maximus looked like a mash between the horse from "The Road to El Dorado," Samson ("Sleeping Beauty"), and Achilles ("The Hunchback of Notre Dame"). He also acted like Scooby Doo with his sniffing along the ground like a dog. The idea of a "cop horse" was also not funny. Mother Gothel looked like a cross between Janet Jackson and Cher, actually creeping me out. Obviously, my biggest complaint was that Flynn was changed from a prince into a thief. The character of Rapunzel's prince is among my favorite in the Brothers Grimm stories, and it ticked me off that they lowered him to such a pitiful and unoriginal character.
Disney can deny it all they want, but they made the changes they did because they didn't think boys would want to watch another "Princess" film. Since when did they care what we guys thought? Everything out today is either "Disney Princess" or "Disney Fairies." If they *really* cared about attracting a male audience, they should have worked on that "Disney Heroes" line they had going years ago, or make a film based solely on a male protagonist or a gender-neutral film. They shouldn't have used a beautiful fairy tale like "Rapunzel" to do it. And while I'm on the subject, where's the boys' merchandise? I haven't seen a single male-oriented "Tangled" toy on the shelves yet! I can only give "Tangled" two stars out of ten: one star for good animation, the other for good music. Everything else just ruined this once promising film. If it'd remained more faithful to the original story, then I'm sure this could very well have been Disney's crowning achievement. Their final product can hardly be compared to such classics like "The Little Mermaid" and "Beauty and the Beast." If anything, it's more like "Shrek" or "How to Train Your Dragon." My hopes have shifted to the company's newest fairy tale film, "Brave," which I hope will make up for what "Tangled" lacks. I feel sorry for those who can't see this film for the travesty it really is (which is apparently pretty much everyone).
Hachi: A Dog's Tale (2009)
The most touching film ever!
First off, I have to say that I already knew the real story of Hachiko before watching this film. Reading about it though didn't have the same effect on me as actually watching it for the first time on the Hallmark Channel yesterday. The acting was excellent, the storyline was excellent, and the three dogs that portray Hachiko (Chico, Layla, and Forrest) were absolutely precious. I'm a twenty-one year old man who's always been rather emotional (it doesn't make any man less of one), and not surprisingly, I was bawling like a newborn baby by the end.
Hachiko's death and ascension into Heaven with Parker was truly the saddest part of this film for me. I literally can't stop crying and even as I type this, I'm sobbing. Hachiko's undying loyalty and devotion show us what love truly is. I think if I'd known him, I would've stayed right there with him. I'm quite sure that Parker's grandson and his own Hachiko will share the very same bond their predecessors did. No film has ever moved me so much like this one did, and I recommend it to anyone and everyone. I believe as the human soul lives on after death, so does the animal. I'm sure I'll see my own pets in Heaven with me after I die, and I'm sure Hachiko is there, too.
Oliver Twist (1985)
Both wonderful and flawed at the same time.
First, I have to say that I'm very impressed with how close to the book this version is. Nearly every detail is exact, which will more than satisfy Dickens purists. This is the only version I know that even includes the other Maylies! Many performances are memorable, including Eric Porter's Fagin, Julian Firth's Noah Claypole, and Miriam Margoyles' Widow Corny. Godfrey James also plays the cruelest Mr. Bumble I've ever seen.
Despite the many strengths, however, this version also has its flaws. Though few liberties were taken, they're quite obvious. The first and foremost is the portrayal of Oliver himself. Scott Funnell is a very adorable Oliver, nice looking and playing the character with the same angelic passiveness the character had in the book. Funnell is definitely my favorite Oliver, next to Sam Smith and John Howard Davies of course.
In this version, Oliver's age has been drastically changed. Instead of leaving the baby farm on his ninth birthday, he's eight; when working for the Sowerberrys, he's thirteen as opposed to ten. I understand the whole child labor laws back then, but he's even older than the character was at the end of the book (twelve)! Ben Rodska bears absolutely no resemblance to Funnell or Lysette Anthony (who played both Agnes and Rose), and on top of that, is absolutely hideous. Last time I checked, Oliver wasn't red haired, freckled, and speaking in a Cockney accent like Dodger or Claypole would. I also don't believe Oliver would be drinking wine of his own free will, as he is when staying with Mr. Brownlow. If I remember correctly, the only time he did in the book was when he was being forced to rob the Maylies, and though he didn't want to drink it, Sikes and Crackit forced him.
There's also the matter of the film quality. It's rather poor, though being from the eighties, it isn't all bad. Personally, I the film should have been shot like a movie, even though it's not one. As someone else has said before, if one were to remake this today with professional sets and the liberties removed, it'd be the greatest Oliver Twist adaptation of all time. All in all, this particular series wasn't half bad. Even so, despite their own liberties, Alan Bleasdale and David Lean's versions will always be my favorites.