Reviews

I wanted to like this film, I really did, but alas the overall feel is very disappointing and a bit of a downer. CGI visuals are not enough to give a film charm and this film is lacking in what should have been a basically wonderful and charming story. When did OZ become this violent? Grant it, there are some lovely special effects and the movie is ambitious, but the overall execution is so loud, overbearing and uncomfortable to watch that all the "wonder" that should be in this story gets squashed out. Why must these "re-imagined" versions of classic tales play like violent video games? The second half of this film is one long jealous bitch fest with a JOHNNY GUITAR showdown between the women. Some criticism has been directed to James Franco as the Wizard, but his casting is actually one of the refreshing aspects. The actor has enough charm to carry a picture like this while Michelle Williams grasps her role nicely. Too bad the two best parts in the picture are mediocre. Mila Kunis as Theodora is the films biggest disappointment. Her witch looks and acts like a demon possessed, relying too heavily on the make-up for performance. Her character also begs logic. The Wizard danced with her once, yet this moment is what turns her heart to vengeance and ever lasting demonic rage. Rachel Weisz is pretty if not standard, but who could ever find that grotesque CGI monkey lovable? He was hard to look at. On the good side there a wonderful title sequence at the beginning and a lovely CGI porcelain doll that practically steals the picture. Definitely the sweetest aspect of a story that should have been filled with sweet moments rather than violent and dark ones. This is The Wizard of Oz, not OLIVER TWIST. Action sequences will remind you of the humor in Raimi's EVIL DEAD. Finally what the film really suffers from is a lackluster Danny Elfman score. Nothing new in his music. Your mind flushes it out as soon as it hears it. So much of it doesn't fit the scene it's arranged for.

This film is so beautifully crafted that it deserves to be recognized as one of the most inspiring and uplifting films ever made. You cannot watch The Other Side of the Mountain and possibly feel sorry for yourself. The film demands the viewer to find his or her own strength within no matter what his circumstances are. THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN was a surprise hit for Universal back in 1975. With no advanced publicity, the studio hurried it into movie theaters after a private screening at Universal that left all it's top executives in tears. I remember it as "the film that would not go away". Word of mouth spread about how effective and moving it was keeping The Other Side of the Mountain playing in various movie houses off and on for years. This new DVD transfer under the VAULT SERIES collection is GORGEOUS. The sound crisp and the widescreen colors intact. I think the film holds up better today than it did in 1975. It may not be a critics picture but The Other Side of the Mountain works in the way THE SOUND OF MUSIC works or TITANIC or even Douglas Sirk's IMITATION OF LIFE. Yes, it's glossy, but the story touches on all the elements that a person going through this experience would face in reality. Only the hardest of heart will not be moved. Without giving too much of the plot away, the main character is forced to deal with an accident that leaves her paralyzed from the shoulders down. There's the ineffective parents who can only give her love and little else. The best friend that reminds her of how bad everything is. The boyfriend who dumps her because he cannot come to terms with her handicap and then the man who re-enters her life to reconnect her with the spirit she thought she had lost. THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN is a movie about the individual, a loner on her own path and the struggles she must endure and overcome in order to find her true spirit. This film contains Beau Bridges best performance. The entire film rests on the shoulders of Marilyn Hassett who holds the film together triumphantly. It's a stirring performance that inspires hope, not pity. A lot of top notch supporting work her also, Dabney Coleman, Nan Martin, Belinda Montgomery and the wonderfully funny Dori Brenner. The effervescent score by Charles Fox is one of his best and enhances the beauty of David Walsh's stunning cinematography and the emotion of Larry Peerce's sensitive direction. This film should be in the library of every veterans hospital in this country, that's how important it is. Definitely deserves to be reevaluated. I recently showed this film to a friend from Lebanon and even though he figured out the ending before the film was over, he still ended up crying like a baby. And just for the record, NOBODY makes crying look more beautiful than Marilyn Hassett.

I got screwed tonight seeing the remake of TRUE GRIT. A truly AWFUL film. No remake is as bad as this one. The color was overly manipulated by computer. 99% of films today use that color manipulation to excess. You know it didn't look anything like that when they were filming. Bridges is and always has been an overrated actor. His performance is turgid, cartoonish and terribly affected. It's as if he mastered the redneck accent that sounded somewhat authentic for a line or two and then delivered it the same way for EVERY line on that very SAME note. His ENTIRE performance, like everyone's was done in monotone. The southern accents all on one note, no variations. Nobody TALKS like that. Certainly not in the late 1800's. It was if the actors were READING it ? The performance by Hailee Steinfeld sounds overly memorized and rehearsed. Very few, if any pauses within or between the dialogue. All the acting was ACTING. Nobody made their characters real or connected within themselves to bring them to life. It's as if they were repeating the same line over and over again. Then to make matters worse, they cast a handsome movie star in the role of villain Tom Chaney ?? I almost broke out laughing at the site of Brolin's ridiculous attempt at being a homeless outlaw. Another BIG fault of the script is it's failure to introduce Chaney at the beginning of the story, so when Mattie encounters the man who murdered her father later on down the road it's a shock to the audience. Introducing Chaney at the end of the movie has NO IMPACT or feeling of dread. Rather than authentic, the costumes were chic, designed to become trendy or to be photographed for a section in Vanity Fair or win an award at the fashion institute. Too much detail and expensive tailoring for these surroundings. The computer generated snakes may look believable to young children, but fail to look authentic to any trained eye.

One redeeming element about the film is that they allowed the character of LaBoeuf to live. Otherwise, no charm, no excitement, no sense of suspense and worse, no humor. Just a blatant remake rip off of a classic from start to finish.

The 1973 musical version of LOST HORIZON is a most wonderful endearing and campy musical. The 1973 musical remake of the James Hilton novel about mythical SHANGRI-LA! is a real special gem. Music by BURT BACHARACH and lyrics by HAL David. A strange mixture of straight drama, adventure and musical sequences. It has the distinction of being the only anti war musical fantasy ever filmed.

This film was a critical and financial disappointment in the United States, but made a lot of money overseas. Only in America did it fail. Highly different and unique in it's approach as a film musical, it deserves far better credit than it's given. As a story, LOST HORIZON is an incredible adventure and both the 1937 Frank Capra film and this 1973 musical are faithful adaptations of the James Hilton novel. What I like about the 1973 version is the freedom in which the musical numbers are presented. The film has a prestigious cast and a gifted director and cinematographer. This is a BURT BACHARACH Shangri-La and it's a wonderful place. Songs like THE WORLD IS A CIRCLE, SHARE THE JOY and LIVING TOGETHER, GROWING TOGETHER evoke a happiness that Hilton wrote about in his novel. Why shouldn't Shangri-La be a slightly goofy place? The two love songs, I MIGHT FRIGHTEN HER AWAY and the deleted I COME TO YOU are the sensitive spots in the picture. There's a peacefulness and soft spoken quality in both these songs that is very much keeping with the philosophy of the story. Moreover, THE THINGS I WILL NOT MISS is a good duet with a strong melody. It's a nice exchange of different types of perspective and who can fault with Olivia Hussey and Sally Kellerman stomping, singing and dancing on tables? They're a wonderful team and the number is well staged.

I always found it interesting in this story how the High Lama kidnaps someone from the outside world to take his place in Shangri-La. The character of the High Lama is a gentle soul but somewhat radical in his view of mankind as a whole. He has no hope for the world outside of Shangri-La. If this film were to be remade today, it would be interesting to see more emphasis put on the leading character, RICHARD ONWAY'S conflict with what he left behind in the outside world as opposed to what he's found in Shangri-La.

Of course, for the film to be believable, the character of RICHARD CONWAY must be presented as suffering amnesia at the end, like he was in the book. Neither film versions of LOST HORIZON were faithful to the novel in that regard. Did Conway find Shangri-La or was it imagined? Did they all die in the plane crash? Every man has his own idea of what his Shangri-La would be. The conflict with Conway wanting to believe in Shangri-La and returning to his old life in the outside world is powerful. I like the melancholy on the faces of Kellerman, Kennedy and Van as they watch their friends leave the mystical valley. Interesting how Conway doesn't want to leave paradise, but is being pressured out by his brother. Both versions of LOST HORIZON work in different ways, but both are successful in probing James Hiltons ideas of a hidden valley where money has no value and moderation is the rule. So in a sense it's anti capitalism in it's theme where as money and materialism is not the motivation. Human kindness, decency, compassion, courtesy, etiquette and living harmoniously with each other is the rule.

LOST HORIZON has a much stronger story than most musicals. It attempts to answer the basic fundamental questions of life and one can hardly fault it for not succeeding. One has to remember that LOST HORIZON in 1973 was post CABARET. It was no longer fashionable for characters to break out in song in a musical, much less to be dubbed by other singers. LOST HORIZON was an easy target for jaded critics. The expectations for it were high, almost unreasonable. There were two targets to be hit, the producer, ROSS HUNTER and BURT BACHARACH and the critics were out to get both of them. Ross Hunter had enjoyed decades of financial success as a producer and LOST HORIZON was his follow up film to his 1970 blockbuster AIRPORT That film was Universals biggest moneymaker up to that time and the success of that picture triggered a decade of disaster films. For years AIRPORT was the most watched film ever to be shown on television. It was nominated for 11 Academy Awards including Best Picture. At the time, Burt Bacharach and Hal David were the most successful songwriters in the country. The unabashed sentimentality of LOST HORIZON hardly had a chance in the wake of the breakdown of censorship in films like EASY RIDER, MIDNIGHT COWBOY and THE GODFATHER. Sex and violence was a new frontier in the late 60's and early 70's Audiences were flocking to films with content that they were not use to seeing on the screen. Lavish musicals were no longer well received no matter how well they were made. Today LOST HORIZON can be enjoyed and appreciated on several levels. It's the ultimate escapist film with a strong story, wonderful music, an expensive budget and some quirky humor. It's unconventional in the sense that the music is not introduced until 45 minutes into the film. It changes course mid way when the mystical valley is introduced and why not? LOST HORIZON '73 is a heavenly film that deserves rediscovering. A lost and legendary treasure deserving far better than it's reputation.

First, allow me to get this out of the way, I wanted to like this film. I did. I had prepared myself for gore and fun cheesy "comin' at ya" 3D effects and bad acting with unbelievable subplots and dialogue, but who could have anticipated the bland non existent story line or the 3D effects that went to the SIDE rather than straight at you? NOBODY and I mean not ONE person in the audience jumped at any of the 3D scare tricks. That should tell you something about this colossal bore of a movie. It's a career killer for an actor to be in a film like this. Yeah okay, Johnny Depp was in one in the beginning of his career, but can you name another actor who went on to have a career after doing a film like this? The naked girl under the bed in this movie? That's her film. Her career, finished. Same with the other actors in this lame brain rip off of a movie.

MY BLOODY VALENTINE doesn't even attempt to establish character, let alone plot. The guy comes back to reclaim his old girlfriend and sell the mine. That's it. End of plot. After everything we've learned about these type of slasher films why can't some new ingredients be added to them? An homage to Friday the 13th? Why? Another horror film with faces that your mind flushes away as soon as you see them. Characters that no one cares about. So what if they're murdered horribly, we can't even remember what they look like because they were barely in the movie 4 minutes before getting bumped off. An excuse just to ax another character to death gets so boring after the umpteenth time and all within the first 20 minutes. And of COURSE, the SUPER human serial killer that never gets seen by witnesses in a rather large town where every street is empty when a crisis occurs. Characters that walk toward the serial killers sounds rather than use a telephone instead. Never mind just turning your back and running in the opposite direction. A mind numbingly bad score that floods the soundtrack and prepares you for the scares long before they happen, so when the jumps do happen it's no surprise to anyone. A serial killer that is a rip off of all the bad slasher movie sequels you've ever sat through, but less want to remember.

We know what this is all for. To make a fast buck and hopefully trigger a chain of sequels. I doubt there will be a return to MY BLOODY VALENTINE. There's nothing original here to spawn a slew of sequels. The film introduces it's best 3D effect early on with an eye ball trick and then it's all "to the side" from there. The 3D effects go to the side, not right at you as they should and how they did in the classic and still the best 3D horror film ever made, HOUSE OF WAX with Vincent Price. That film had the intelligence to tease the audiences senses with 3D and demonstrating that 3D can give off chills and be fun at the same time. My Bloody Valentine does neither. A waste of money and a waste of an afternoon at the movies.

Like a lot of people familiar with some of the reviews, I had prepared myself for a flat remake full of catty women priding themselves on being put down artists. I didn't plan to see this movie. It was almost by default that I did. In fact, if it hadn't been playing around the corner at a second run movie theater (and at discount prices) I wouldn't have seen it. After all, I'm not a particular fan of anyone in the cast. Like a lot of people I thought, what are all these rich actresses doing remaking this dated story? I'm not a big fan of the original 1939 Cukor version either. Yeah, the comedy plays well on screen but in reality, no friendship could survive the way those women treated each another. The June Allison musical remake of the 50's is as gaudy and depressing as any movie ever made, so going in I already had a bias against this type of thing. LET IT BE KNOWN, no matter what you've heard about THE WOMEN 2008, it is DEFINITELY the best version of this story ever film.

I think the people disappointed in this new version are the ones hoping to see these characters as they were portrayed in the original. Women backstabbing, cat fighting and sabotaging each other while exchanging quick catty put down lines. Director Diane English has not remade THE WOMEN of 1939, she has re-imagined the material into a film that actually MEANS something. A transformation of the old material that is full of new characters that, for the most part, are every bit as memorable as the ones in the 1939 version. The only similarity they have with the original are the names. This movie surprised me.

If any story needed to be "re-imagined" for a present day audience, it's this one. I've never been a fan of Meg Ryan and I'm not a charitable audience in any movie, but Ryan completely won me over by the end of this film. These actresses know they're contending with a 1939 classic, but under the direction of English, they follow their own instincts and in doing so have redefined the characters and made them memorable and touching on their own. It's refreshing to see women on the screen presented this way. Grappling with decisions that will affect their lives, their families, their careers, their friendships and most importantly, their consciousness. Also refreshing is how English doesn't pander down to her audience. She gives us material that we have to rise up to. The characters are given decisions that we as an audience wonder what we would do in that situation. As a director, her pacing and edits are quick and assured. She knows the material and knows how she wants to present it.

What elevates this film above the 1939 and 1956 versions are the ideas presented in it. The nasty cattiness between the women has been replaced with more thought provoking ideas. Only the manicurist, played by Debi Mazar stays true to the 1939 character. The rest of the cast are basically new characters with the same names. Eva Mendes is a knock out and not as hateful as the Joan Crawford characterization.

Without question, the real surprise of this film is Annette Bening. English gives everyone a chance to shine in this film, but it is Annette Bening's character that gives the film it's center. If you're looking for a Rosaline Russell interpretation you're going to be disappointed. This is a new character and Bening makes her every bit as interesting and memorable as Russell made hers, only in a different way. I liked the way her character comes clean with Meg Ryan at the table about selling her out. I also liked the scene between Bening and her best friends daughter on the park bench. Equally as wonderful are the scenes of Bening pushing her ideas for the magazine on her reluctant associates and eventually selling her ideas out in order to save her job. I also thought it was smart on the part of English not to have a physical cat fight between these ladies. English winks at her audience by having Bening toss a banana at Meg Ryan and hitting her on the head, but only as a way of getting her attention. I also disagree the the criticisms of the way Bening looks in this film. She is nothing short of beautiful. Also wonderful is the casting of Candice Bergen as Meg Ryan's mother. The chemistry they display here seems an interesting extension of the mother and daughter roles they played in 1981's RICH AND FAMOUS. Jada Pinkett Smith is very likable and Carrie Fisher is memorable in her one scene. I could have done without the final baby sequence at the end of the picture and I had problems with the casting of Bette Midler. In all fairness, the audience in the screening I saw this movie in loved that baby delivery sequence, but I'm a guy and it kind of grossed me out. Bette Midler has become one of those actresses that thinks she can do no wrong in a movie, but whether it's the part as written or her acting, I was uncomfortable watching her. Her delivery of the "lamour, l'amour" line lands with a thud if you're familiar with the '39 original.

OK, so this film did not fair well at the box office, but look for it to strike a cord and become popular on television. The message of this movie being that one does not need to be in a relationship to feel complete. You can be complete on your own, whether you're a man or a woman.

I actually saw this poorly made exploitation instructional kiddie film on two occasions in elementary school. One time with the crime scene footage included and one time without. I was in the second grade in 1967 when Child Molester was shown in the school cafeteria for grades 2 through 7. The lunchroom was packed. Like a lot of films that where shown in the school auditorium (Disney's Pollyanna being one), students had to get permission from their parents by way of a signed permission slip in order to see the film. Back in 1967, I'm sure my mother (like a lot of parents) had no idea what they were signing when allowing their children to view this horrifically misguided cheap and irresponsible little film. In 1964, when this film was originally made, all public films were generally safe to view, certainly instructional and educational ones. At that time, even the MPAA rating system for theatrical films didn't exist. Educational films were shown frequently in school, but none with the content that this one had. Up to that time, as a 7 year old, I believed the world to be a wondrous safe place and the adults in it to be generally good and kind. This film changed all that.

At the end of the school day and in the lunchroom auditorium, a Police Officer introduced the film prior to it being shown and set us up for what we were about to see. The movie started out harmless enough. As a 7 year old I could easily identify with the little brown haired girl that the film focuses on. I didn't understand why we in the audience could "hear" the strangers voice, but were never allowed to actually see him, except from the waist down. The juxtaposition back and forth between worried adults at home and scenes of the little girls being lead and stalked through the woods were unsettling. I remember the giggles from other kids in the auditorium at the moment when the busybody noisy neighbor runs out of her front door and her boobs are bopping up and down. That scene was laughed and talked about for days. If the film seemed boring in spots, the scene when the film fades to black after the little girl screams in the pipe woke me up real fast. That scene was unsettling to this 7 year old, but nothing could have prepared me for the crime scene footage that came afterwards. Odd, because I remember those images coming on the screen and not knowing exactly what I was looking at? It was like I had to piece that image together. Suddenly an older boy behind me said, "those are the girls". Quickly, but like in slow motion, the reality of what I was looking at set in and I became very frightened and very disturbed The film ended and the Police Officer followed up with a reminder. I ran home from school as fast as I could and told my mother what I had seen. I talked and thought about nothing else for weeks. Those crime scene images would not leave my head. I slept on the edge of my parents bed for months. I was unable to sleep alone or be in a room by myself. My mother continually reminded me the importance of "thinking good thoughts" but to no avail. Before long, too many parents protested that this film was giving their children nightmares and the school quit their yearly run of it.

Over 40 years have passed since I've seen this crummy little film. For years I thought I would never see it again and now here it is in all it's campy and irresponsible glory. A film as bad as any film ever made, maybe even worse coming from the paranoid fear of adult filmmakers. Poorly made with narration that is both prejudice and homophobic. To a child, this film gives the impression that every grown up in the world is a potential murderer and child molester. The message of this film is that no child is safe in the world and that no adult can be trusted. Walk outside of your house, there will be a molester. Go to the movies, there will be a molester. Play in the school yard and there will be a molester. Your next door neighbor or anyone on the street could be a molester and they are everywhere in record numbers and parents, teachers and policemen are helpless to do anything. The burden is on the child to protect himself. Child Molester is probably the cruelest and most irresponsible instructional film ever made. It is one thing for the producers of Highway safety films to show teenagers the images of mangled dismembered bodies in auto accidents and quite another to show second graders images of murdered children. It was wrong and a cruel thing to instill fear into children by this means. Shame on all of them for their so called "good intentions". They took a part of wonder that is apart of childhood and instead replaced it with fear at too early of an age. There are other ways of conveying the information without scaring and traumatizing children. If I were to ever confront the producer of this film, I'd punch him right in the nose.

Without a doubt the Roman Polanski version of OLIVER TWIST is the greatest "straight" telling version of this story ever filmed. Yes, you will see glimpses of the David Lean version and the Carol Reed musical, but this film stands on it's own as a deeply moving interpretation of the Charles Dickens novel. While I was watching this film I couldn't help thinking how proud Dickens would have been if he were alive. Somewhere beyond he is smiling because Polanski captures the grand scope of the film and maintains its intimacy throughout. OLIVER TWIST moved me to tears.

What a master filmmaker Polanski is and how clever he was to choose OLIVER TWIST as a follow up film to THE PIANIST. You can feel his compassion for this story and its characters. It's hard to match the performance of Fagin given by Alec Guiness in the Lean version and especially Ron Moody in the Reed musical but Ben Kingsley is incredibly dimensional and moving in the role. He puts his own signature onto the part.

Jamie Foreman is the scariest Bill Sykes ever. Barney Clark as Oliver carries the picture on his instinctual little shoulders and is as moving in the role as Ben Kingsley is in his.

The art direction and cinematography are oil paintings in motion. Highly atmospheric and gorgeous to look at.

My only quibble with this version is that the Nancy isn't as compassionate as the the Nancy played by Shani Wallis in the film musical. Although never mentioned in the story there is no doubt about the profession of Nancy and Bet in this picture. Leanne Rowe is a very sexy Nancy and was a fine choice for the part. However, there isn't a scene in this film where Nancy comes into her own and wins the audience over in the way there is for the characters of Fagin, Oliver and the Artful Dodger. This is where Polanski needed to reach deep and establish but didn't . It's unfortunate too because Rowe is really good in the part. There just needed to be a definitive moment in the film where we as an audience fall in love with the character so as to make her death all the more disturbing.

The death of Nancy in the Carol Reed '68 version was a shocking and disturbing scene. The death scene in the Polanski version is handled similarly off camera so as to leave the image in the imagination of the viewer. But the murder doesn't have the shock value it should. I couldn't help thinking that the the image of the blood at the bottom of the door strangely symbolized the blood at the front door of the house where the murder of his wife Sharon Tate occurred. I also got the feeling that Polanski for this reason didn't want to have a graphic death for Nancy. It's as if he's had enough of murders (fictional or otherwise) for one lifetime. One can hardly blame him.

This is by far Clint Eastwoods darkest film and I'm don't mean just the color timing of the negative either. Nothing quite prepares you for the turn in which this film takes three quarters into the picture. From then on MILLION DOLLAR BABY becomes extremely difficult to watch. Several times during the course of the film I looked behind me to see people in the audience either squirming in their seats or covering their eyes.

What I find extraordinary about this picture is that Eastwood directed this powerful film while at the same time delivering the best performance of his career. Everyone is good in this with Eastwood and Freeman being the standouts.

The scene in the hospital room when the family visits the paralyzed Maggie is nothing short of riveting. The boxing scenes are handled straight forward, intelligently and aren't played for audience manipulation the way they are in movies like ROCKY.

However, for all it's realism there is a big gaping hole in the script. There is NO WAY Eastwood's character would have been allowed to walk into that hospital room at NIGHT without being stopped. A visitor just can't walk in and out of a patient's room anytime they feel like it. There are nurses, staff and office administrators monitoring a hospital 24 hours a day. Nobody has free access anytime they want. Visitors are always screened. Patients are monitored all night long and if they flatline in the middle of the night the signal is transfered to the hospital data base and detected immediately. There would have been someone rushing into that room. Eastwood just stands there looking at her.

That notwithstanding, the images in this movie will stay with you long after you've walked out of the theatre, so I suggest you see an afternoon screening. The sunshine will help off set the gloomy and gut wrenching aspects of the story. It's like a very dark THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN. The film doesn't lie to you.

Indeed, MILLION DOLLAR BABY does bring up questions of assisted suicide. And if you're the type of person who regularly entertains thoughts of taking your own life . . . this film will either turn you off to the idea completely or help to encourage you. It has the power of mercy written all over it.