Movie Review, CS Lewis: The Most Reluctant Convert

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” C.S. Lewis

Clive Staples Lewis. A profound Christian writer from Nania with its pure symbolism to The Screwtape Letters to Mere Christianity.  To this day his wisdom and faith is still quoted. It's crazy to believe that Lewis was once an atheist.  But he was.

C.S. Lewis lost his belief in God due to experiences in his youth.  Keeping his lack of faith to himself, Lewis simply went through the motions.  Religious rights and passages performed, silence within, all the while his hypocritical actions eating at him little by little.  As he grew his lack of faith was challenged.  Lewis also dabbled in the occult and what he witnessed as warning scared him away after the exploration.

In CS Lewis: The Most Reluctant Convert we learn about Lewis's faith struggle.  See him grow and challenged.  See him eventually accept wholeheartedly.  

This movie is based both on the one-man-show by the same name and "Surprised by Joy".  The man who acted as Lewis in the play, Max McLean, reprises his role for this film.  He's brilliant.  The movie is part narration and part action, seamlessly going between the two.  There's a trailer for the stage play if you want to see tiny clips, as it gives a window into his performance.  McLean breaks the fourth wall, taking us on Lewis's journey, speaking to us his thoughts and struggles.  When he stares at the camera we're pulled in.  For moments I forgot he wasn't Lewis.

The movie is 1h 25m, though I don't know if that includes the documentary that's shown before the start of the film.  I think it might, as the documentary felt to be at least 20 minutes (wasn't looking at the time), and the actual film felt short.  Being just over an hour seems about right.  I love behind the scene stuff, but as this documentary played I just wanted to see the movie.  Maybe the documentary should have been shown afterwards.  I just wanted more.  Frankly I didn't want to movie to end.

One thing, though, I wish there were more scenes showing the friendship between C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien.  Is there a movie that shows just that?  Tolkien is one of the motivators for Lewis to question his lack of faith.

C.S. Lewis is just so inspiring.

“There are far, far better things ahead than any we leave behind.” C.S. Lewis

The movie is still shown in limited release in a few theaters.

 

Monday Movie Classics: The Goonies (1985)

A little while back I was having a conversation with a neighbor who is around my age.  She was going on about The Goonies, and how it was one of her favorite movies.  I never heard of it, and for some reason my brain said "Gremlins."  Why did she like Gremlins so much?  That movie freaked me out as a kid.  It just didn't make any sense.  "And I really like the adventure," she said, "and the treasure hunt."  By this point I was just baffled.  We were having two different conversations, and instead of clarifying the mental mishap, I nodded my head and walked away.

A little time passed and I was reading the new American Girl Courtney books, based in 1986, and again The Goonies kept getting mentioned.  Then I started noticing memes.  Articles here and there popping up.  "Where are they now," and so forth.  Sean Astin was in it?  Wow he's young.

It just came to a point that I had to finally see it.  This apparent quintessential 1980's film I somehow missed and knew nothing about.  

The Goonies is on HBO MAX.  Convenient.  No excuse, it was time.  Last week I turned it on, opening credits roll, and the sudden realization:  Wait, this is a Steven Spielberg movie?!! Okay, how did I not know about this film?  And I just looked on IMDb... Chris Columbus wrote the screenplay, and I'm done.

The movie wasn't at all what I expected.  I thought it would just be some pie in the sky sentimental tale about a group of boys in the 1980's, kinda like The Sandlot.  Instead it was an adventure, mystery story with a little bit of everything.  

The movie starts with the general "meet all the cast doing character defining cast things," so we know what we're dealing with and get a good primer.  The story picks up when all the young characters venture into Mikey's (Sean Astin) attic, where they look through all his Dad's stuff: Pirate paraphernalia, paintings, artifices, and a treasure map.  There's a lore, a legend, of a hidden treasure near their town, that no one has found.  And since Mikey's family is about to lose their home, and he's really depressed and wants one last, good adventure, he's determined to find the lost gold and gems. 

The small group joins on the adventure, later including Mikey's brother Brand (Josh Brolin), and a couple of girls, all the while thwarting some criminals in the process, and the whole thing turns into a race against time.  Solving mysteries and avoiding booby traps. 

Through the movie I kept getting Indiana Jones/Hook vibes.

In the end I'm kinda shocked I never heard of The Goonies, and it's nice to finally know what it's all about.  It's just a fun little adventure flick.  And now I need to re-watch Gremlins, because my memories are so morphed on the subject.  How did I confuse the two?!

Sarah

Classic Movie Monday: The Court Jester (1955)

Hawkins: I've got it! I've got it! The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true! Right? 

Griselda: Right. But there's been a change: they broke the chalice from the palace!

Hawkins: They *broke* the chalice from the palace?

Griselda: And replaced it with a flagon.

Hawkins: A flagon...?

Griselda: With the figure of a dragon.

Hawkins: Flagon with a dragon.

Griselda: Right.

Hawkins: But did you put the pellet with the poison in the vessel with the pestle?

Griselda: No! The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon! The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true!

Hawkins: The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon; the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.

Griselda: Just remember that.

What a silly movie!

So many great moments and scenes and songs!

I remember watching The Court Jester as a kid, but the memory of the movie is fragmented at best, and I don't even know if I watched all of it without wondering off here and there, missing stuff.  I didn't even remember that fact that the movie is a musical.  

Melvin Frank and Norman Panama wrote, directed, and produced The Court Jester in 1955, starring Danny Kaye, Glynis Johns, Basil Rathbone, Angela Lansbury and Cecil Parker. It's so amazing seeing Glynis Johns (Mary Poppins and While you were Sleeping) and Angela Lansbury (She's done so much) so young, and playing such fun roles.

The movie itself centers around Hawkins (Danny Kaye), who is an entertainer turned court spy, helping to restore the rightful king to the throne.  Who is this king? A baby!  Who has the purple pimpernel tattoo to his bottom.  One of the movie's running gags is the fact that in order to prove the baby is the rightful heir, the baby's butt must be shown, quickly prompting those who see to kneel and bow their heads in respect, to a... baby's bottom.  Glynis Johns is Maid Jean, a rebel captain.  Angela Lansbury is Gwendolyn, the princess of England, so desperate for love that's she's cool with Hawkins being tricked into loving her. 

While watching The Court Jester I wondered if this was The Princess Bride of its time.  A medieval story full of clever one liners and silly tongue twisters.  There's plenty to quote.  The music is nice, too.  Comedy overflowing.  And a little Scarlet Pimpernel action from Hawkins as well.

I remember loving this movie as a kid, and now that I've seen it again I understand why.  It's just a really great movie.

Sarah

Monday Movie Roundup: Free Guy, Reminiscence, Cinderella (2021), and Shang-Chi

Not a classic Monday, but I've seen some movies recently, and thought I'd share some opinions.  There may or may not be spoilers.  These are quick fires.  Probably because it's after midnight, and I decided this could be a fun way to change up my reviews.  I'm watching a few classic movies this week to get ahead.  This whole "roundup" post probably won't happen all that often.  We'll see.

Free Guy

What a fun movie!  Perfect escapism.  Basic story about a video game where an NPC (none playable character) becomes self-aware, and all the problems and or opportunities this may cause.  There's a little Wreck it Ralph flare in it, but the story is original.  I laughed the whole way through, and haven't enjoyed going to the movies this much in a long time.  What a fun diversion, one I'll happily see many times in the future.

Reminiscence

It's got Hugh Jackman, but overall I struggled watching this film.  Just got bored!  It's the first time I wanted to turn off the movie and return to it later, if I remembered to do so.  The premise is interesting:  A future where people can re-enter dreams, living in them as if they're real.  Overall, though, the plot felt convoluted.  I didn't connect to any of the characters.  Ultimately I didn't care what happened to any of them, which is good because the ending was frustrating.  The dialogue felt stilted, feeling like it was trying to be both detective story and western.  Overall it just felt like I was watching a really bad science-fiction novella that shouldn't be published. 

Cinderella (2021)

Don't fix what ain't broke.  Honestly I did enjoy watching this new version of Cinderella.  It meant well in parts.  Like the twist on the Step-mother and sisters.  As soon as I saw the new sister of the prince I literally paused the movie, recited out loud what the changed plot would be, and then watched all my predictions come true.  Magic.  The movie is woke.  Honestly, Ever After, the always amazing remake I re-watch often, and saw in the theater 5 times, was a little woke for it's time, but that movie was clever.  I mean, Leonardo da Vinci as the fairy god mother?  True genius.  Nothing will ever compare.

Shang-Chi

The latest Marvel studios, MCU, film.  Wasn't sure what to think of this movie going into the theater.  Avoided all spoilers, which was a trick.  Worried it might not be good after it got overshadowed by all the Spider Man excitement.  I really enjoyed Shang-Chi!  I mean, it's a martial arts super hero movie, so it's a win right there.  I like the plot, loved the characters, and just got lost in it all.  The underlying story about family was nice as well.  

And that's all for now.  I should look at the movie release schedule, as I'm not entirely sure what's all coming out.  There's probably some heavy hitters finally coming to screen after all the schedule push backs.  

Sarah

Classic Movie Monday: Yours, Mine and Ours (1968)

This is the review I kept meaning to write, only couldn't after doing some research, and subsequently I've struggled doing any other review as I got it in my head that this should be written and finished first.  Only then could I move on.

"Yours, Mine and Ours," from 1968, is innocent enough.  The movie stars Lucille Ball and Henry Fonda.  A family film with all the right motifs.  Two families joining into one, and all the problems this entails.  But this wasn't just any family, these were two large families. Helen North with her eight children and Frank Beardsley with his ten.  Two more came later to make up 20 children.  There are antics between the children.  Situations between Helen and Frank as they managed dating, work (Helen as a nurse and Frank in the Navy), and family raising.  

I enjoyed watching Lucille Ball play a character quite different than her "I Love Lucy" persona.  There's still punch lines, but overall more realistic and serious at times.

While the movie progressed I thought that if this story was based on a real family, it would be courted by the likes of TLC, quickly made into reality television.

After some research it's a good thing reality television didn't exist in the 1960's.

Helen North Beardsley released a book called "Who Gets the Drumstick?" though the book stays quaint and loving.  I haven't read it, but it appears to resemble what's in the movie.  The film's Wikipedia page lists differences between book and movie.

The controversy in my head began after I read the article "A Hollywood tale of happiness rocketed a Carmel family to fame. But one son says reality was more of a horror story."  The interview is with Tom North, the 11th child, and he spells out a different scene.  He describes abuse and heartache.  Violence by Frank Beardsley, Helen marrying him to save his children.  It's a very different story, one that is hard to read.  The Beardsley children deny it, siding with their father. 

It's hard to know what to believe.  Movie's tend to not stick with facts, glorifying and exaggerating for storytelling sake.  Was Helen's sweet biography the true story?  Tom North's interview?  Or the Beardsley children protecting the memory of their father?

All that aside, "Yours, Mine and Ours" is a sweet, inspiration movie.  I'm glad to have not known the background story before seeing it, so now I fear I may have ruined it for others.  Only you can decide what you believe.

Sarah

Classic Movie Monday: Guys and Dolls (1955)

Goodness... so this is a long time coming.  Classic Movie Mondays are back!!  Yippie. :P

So, I saw the stage musical on July 5th, and by the end of that week saw the movie.  Want to know what keeps circling my brain?  The stage musical.  It was so good!

That aside, for now, Guys and Dolls is a movie musical starring Marlon Brando, Jean Simmons, Frank Sinatra, and Vivian Blaine, based on the 1950's Broadway musical.  Essentially the musical is about gambling, New York, betting on horses, just making bets, period, and more gambling while battling love and romance, naturally.  

With the movie I loved Frank Sinatra's song, because he's got a sexy voice, but just about everything else I loved in the stage musical so much more.

The movie song, "Pet Me Poppa," was written for the movie, and dang it has issues.  So problematic. Women dressed like cats singing about being "petted."  Doesn't take much imagination.

Now I'm basing my comparisons with the Hale Center Theater Sandy version, so I don't know how much is scripted vs director interpretation, and how that matches with other theater performances.  But, for instance, two of the characters go to Havana, and the movie version took it so seriously, whereas the stage version I saw played up the comic timing with really great choreography.  It was just so much more enjoyable.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy the movie, it was a nice watch, but if I had a choice I'd head over hills choose seeing the stage musical again over the movie.

Hope you're having a great day.  Listening to the 1992 Guys and Dolls Broadway Cast Recording.  The music is so good.

 

Sarah

Classic Movie Monday: The Muppet Movie (1979)

"I know that it's easier to portray a world that's filled with cynicism and anger, where problems are solved with violence.  That's titillating. It's an easy out. What's a whole lot tougher is to offer alternatives, to present other ways conflicts can be resolved, and to show that you can have a positive impact on your world.  To do that, you have to put yourself out on a limb, take chances, and run the risk of being called a do-gooder." ~ Jim Henson

The Muppet Movie

1979

We all have random childhood memories.  I wasn't alive when The Muppet Movie came to theaters, but my parents had a record player, and my Dad had the original soundtrack on that giant vinyl.  For hours (well, it felt like hours, time is a strange thing for a kid), I would look at the movie pictures.  Those images are blurred now, but the feelings I felt while listening to those songs have never faded.

Kermit the Frog sitting on his log playing the banjo, when all of a sudden a Hollywood agent boats across the swamp (so many questions).  The Muppet Movie is the muppets origin story, and this is Kermit's home.  He wants to make millions of people happy, but is quite content hanging in his swamp and watching movies in the theater.  It's the talent agent that encourages him to leave his comfort zone.  What would have happened if that agent hadn't appeared?  Would Kermit have ever left his swamp?  How many lives would have remained unchanged?

The Muppet Movie is a journey and coming together of the muppets as a group of performers and friends.  The movie is also a reflection of how vitally important Kermit is as a character and person.  Everyone he meets has a dream, and as Kermit leaves to follow his dream, he encourages others to follow their dreams.  A pebble in a pond rippling and bouncing everything into motion.

As an adult there's a lot that now makes a lot more sense.  Nuanced jokes are more funny, though some jokes are dated with forgotten in time cultural references.  In the scene where Kermit first meets Fozzie, one of them says, in order to clear the busy bar, "drinks are on the house!" and then everyone in the room runs to the top of the building.  I remember asking my Dad why that was funny.  He explained, though I didn't get it then, even after the explanation, but now it's silly funny.  Then there's the visual gags.  During "Moving Right Along" Kermit and Fozzie, while at a fork in the road, they see an actual giant fork in the road.  Little things like that.

Heh, and then there's the things in The Muppet Movie that would probably never make it in a current film, like Kermit being chased down to star in frog leg ads.  Creepy.  But as a child that was Terrifying!  So it worked.

It has been years since I've seen The Muppet Movie, and it was just a joy watching the movie again.  A pleasurable trip down memory lane.  All the funny cameos that fit well with the plot.  Toe tapping songs.  Dang can Frank Oz sing high!  Creative puppetry that I still marvel at, such as Kermit riding a bike.

The Original Muppet Movie really is the best.  Some of the films that follow are good, but the original is simply brilliant.

Sarah

P.S. Saw this on a meme: "Whatever you do today, do it with the confidence of a 4 year old in a Batman t-shirt". 

 

Classic Movie Monday: My Fair Lady (1964) & Pygmalion (1938)

What is Pygmalion? It's a play by George Bernard Shaw, written in 1913, and inspired by Greek Mythology where "Pygmalion fell in love with one of his sculptures, which then came to life," according to Wikipedia.  Shaw capitalized on this idea by writing a play about a linguist being challenged to teach a flower seller from Piccadilly to speak properly, and then pass her off as upper class.

 

This play was very successful and inspired a movie by its original name in 1938 starring Leslie Howard (the Scarlet Pimpernel from a previous review) and Wendy Hiller, a stage musical called My Fair Lady in 1956 starring Julie Andrews and Rex Harrison, and then a film version of the musical in 1964 starring Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison returning to the role.

 

(Julie Andrews truly wanted to be in the My Fair Lady film, but wasn't cast due to not being famous enough, and then was cast in Mary Poppins in which she earned an Oscar, the same year My Fair Lady won a bunch of Oscars).

 

The first time I watched My Fair Lady was entrancing.  Instant love.  The story was fun, loved the music, and it was the first time I saw Hepburn on film.  Oh, I loved Hepburn so much in this role, and was disappointed to learn many years later that she didn't do any of her own singing, which was done by the incredibly talented, though sadly forgotten, Marni Nixon.  That's another story.  I still love Hepburn as Eliza.

 

My Fair Lady follows closely with Shaw's vision, though with grander settings and music.  Eliza is still the flower girl turned lady, but there's a horse race and other delightful sets, both grand and simple musical numbers ("Wouldn't It Be Loverly?", "Just You Wait", "The Rain in Spain", and "I Could Have Danced All Night", etc, are all favorites), and wonderful costuming. 

 

A couple weeks ago My Fair Lady was on TCM, and I sat for the whole of it, and it was wonderful until the end.  Eliza coming back to Higgins, and Higgins smugly asking for his slippers.  The built up left me cold, and how is it, after all these viewings, did I not realize how unhealthy this relationship was going to be?  If you've seen the movie you know how egotistical, lack of empathy, and needing to control Higgins is.  By the end you learn how dependent Higgins has become with Eliza.  He seems to want her not because he loves her, but because he needs her in a superficial way.  She seems happy to oblige, though Eliza could have ran off with Freddie.  

 

Talking about Freddie, the other guy.  When he sings "On the Street Where She Lives" is quite romantic.  Though the way he fawns and waits for her is problematic, and a little annoying.

 

I was wondering how the 1938 movie depicts the story, being closer to the original stage version, and it sadly has the same ending... with the call for slippers.  And Freddy is an absolute dolt!!!!!  Oh, he's stupid.  At least in My Fair Lady he seems to be respectable and honestly in that telling Eliza should have ended up with him instead of the demanding, take credit for everything Higgins. 

 

(If you want to watch Pygmalion it's on HBO Max.  It is enjoyable, apart from the ending.)

 

Eliza should not have ended up with Higgins, and apparently Shaw agreed!!  It is a hugely troublesome relationship, that is if Higgins never learned to truly love Eliza, which we never get to see.  It seems "Pygmalion fell in love with one of his sculptures, which then came to life," only I greatly doubt that Higgins truly loves Eliza.

 

This is from Wikipedia, though no source was given. "Shaw fought against a Higgins-Eliza happy-end pairing as late as 1938. He sent the 1938 film version's producer, Gabriel Pascal, a concluding sequence which he felt offered a fair compromise: a tender farewell scene between Higgins and Eliza, followed by one showing Freddy and Eliza happy in their greengrocery-flower shop. Only at the sneak preview did he learn that Pascal had finessed the question of Eliza's future with a slightly ambiguous final scene in which Eliza returns to the house of a sadly musing Higgins and self-mockingly quotes her previous self announcing, "I washed my face and hands before I come, I did"."

 

Oh I would love to see the My Fair Lady version of Freddy, not the super dolt version, with Eliza in a flower shop.  Wouldn't that be Marvelous??!!!  That's the ending the show should have had.  It would have been better for all the characters.

 

A girl can dream...

 

Sarah

Classic Movie Monday: How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying (1967)

AKA...

How To BS Your Way to the Top!

How did I not know this was a movie?

The first time I saw How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying was at a humble community theater production as a kid.  It was fun, the music was great, and that elevator song was an instant favorite.  I've seen a couple stage productions of it since, but had no idea it was a movie until it popped up while browsing Amazon.

For those unaware, How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, quite a mouthful, is a 1967 movie directed by David Swift (who also did The Parent Trap and Pollyanna), starring Robert Morse, based on the 1961 stage musical (which won both a Pulitzer and a few Tony's) and originally staged by Bob Fosse (also starring Robert Morse), which is based on the 1952 book. 

The story is about "Ponty" Finch, a sky-rise window washer who stumbles upon the book How to Succeed in Business (etc) at a newspaper stand, and immediately begins to read and follow its advice.  He joins a large corporation as a mail room worker, and soon enough the book's advice gives Finch (That's F-I-N-C-H) an incredible edge, and he literally begins climbing the corporate ladder within days. 

It's strange watching this movie as an adult with no clear memory of the changes from stage to screen, or even if the theater may have "softened" some things.  How to Succeed (etc) is PG-13.  It's definitely more adult.  It's not the family friendly My Fair Lady or Sound of Music of my youth.  This movie is a little edgy, playing up on corporate 1960 stereotypes, full of satire.  I kept thinking that there's no way this movie would be made today, as it's a product of it's time.  

This is the sort of movie that shouldn't be remade, simply because it's perfect as it is.  A 1960's satire made in the 60's.  Perfectly cast with fun songs that are well performed.  The colors bright and costuming fun.  It just works.  

So, the movie was fun, I laughed, and now I've got "Been a Long Day" stuck in my head.

Sarah

Classic Movie Monday: The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934)

“They seek him here, they seek him there
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere
Is he in heaven or is he in... hell?
That demned elusive Pimpernel” 

~ Baroness Orczy, The Scarlet Pimpernel

In a time of Revolution the French were sending the innocent to Madame Guillotine, all while cheering and knitting.  Each death resulted in a new cheer while blood stained the streets.  Chilling.  But according to the cheerers those being killed well deserved it.  They had it coming...

The Scarlet Pimpernel, written by Baroness Orczy, was originally a play and was performed in 1903.  The play was an incredible success, and the novel was published in 1905.  The 1934 film, starring Leslie Howard, is based on the play and novel.  

Who doesn't know about The Scarlet Pimpernel!!??  There's been a series of plays, movie adaptations, a radio drama, and a musical, plus a large series of books.  The Pimpernel is a superhero, masquerading under numerous facades to carry out daring rescues.  His mission?  Save as many as he can from death, mounting crazy plans through a large network of connections and a personal league. In real life no one suspects him, including his wife, as he's foppish, disconnected, while throwing himself into fashion and portraying himself as a nincompoop.

I first fell in love with the 1982 movie starring Anthony Andrew, Jane Seymour, and Ian McKellen.  It's fabulous, and that led me to read the novel and see the Broadway travel production of the musical in LA in the late 90's, seeing Douglas Sills, who originated the role on Broadway, perform as Sir Percy Blakeney during his last week in the role.  It was a Thursday matinee, and there was actually a technical malfunction during the song Into the Fire.  The show was paused for about 10 minutes, and Douglas came out to talk to the audience.  It was just so cool and unforgettable.  Needless to say I'm a fan of the story at large.

Even though I'm a fan of the Pimpernel story, I didn't know there was a 1934 movie, but after finding it on Amazon Prime it was worth the gander.  This is a fun version, superbly acted.  Leslie Howard as the Pimpernel is perfect.  If you're a fan of the Pimpernel story or simply like swashbuckling fun, The Scarlet Pimpernel is worth the watch.  All versions are recommended.

Sarah

Classic Movie Monday: The Last Starfighter (1984)

The Last Starfighter, which came out in 1984, probably wouldn't be considered by many to be a classic movie.  It's classic to me because, according to my Dad, it was the first movie I ever saw at the theater.  Granted I was only two, it was a drive in, and I kept climbing over the seats, front and back again, so I don't remember a thing.  But I do remember seeing The Last Starfighter as a kid when a little older, and it does hold a special place in childhood memory.

For those who may not be familiar with The Last Starfighter, it begins in a trailer park in California, and at a small convenient store sits an arcade game, Starfighter, which was meant for Las Vegas, but was delivered to this humble place by mistake.  Alex often plays this game, when he's not helping his Mom, helping those in the trailer park, or hanging out with friends.  He just wants to leave his home and go to a major college, instead of the city college his friends will attend.  Alex then gets a letter telling him his loan request was rejected, losing hope for the future, and simply confused.

One evening as Alex plays Starfighter he's about to beat the high score, and it becomes a community event.  Everyone from the trailer park gathers around, shouting and cheering, and when he does beat the game there's a huge celebration.  It's just amazing he was able to focus with all those people around him.  Well, turns out the game was merely a training tool to find those on Earth who can become Starfighters.  There's a galactic war about, Earth unaware, and suddenly Alex is flown to space to face his destiny.  

The Last Starfighter is campy fun.  It's silly!  Highly predictable.  There's a point where the movie seems to drag on a little.  And goodness, those special effects did not age well!!  The computer graphics, which was cutting edge in 84, looks really cheap now, but I can suspend belief.  (It's a testament to Star Wars and the use of practical effects).  There are things that are in that movie that wouldn't make it into a children's film today, such as the little bits by Alex's little brother who reads Playboy.  

In the end The Last Starfighter is endearing, good ol' nostalgic fun, and so 80's.

 Sarah

Classic Movie Monday: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

After all these years it's amazing how "Someday My Prince Will Come" and "Heigh Ho" are songs that are still sung, loved, and easily recognized, and they're 83 years old.  

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is the first movie I remember going to the theater to see.  It's not the first movie I actually saw, which I'll write about next week (it's a sci-fi 80's flick that mainly nerds know about and didn't really go mainstream ;0), but Snow White was the movie that cemented the enchantment of going to a theater.

Before the Disney vault rotated movies for home video release, they showed movies in theaters every 7-10 years.  In 1987 Snow White was fully restored for it's 50th anniversary and was shown in theaters.  My parents took me to this theater in Santa Barbara that was on State Street, fully decked out in grand theatrical fashion.  Somewhere in the back of my mind, through random fractured images, I still remember the theater and being in awe.  It was beautiful.  And I remember loving the movie.  

Walt Disney's first theatrical animated feature film is the stuff of legends, groundbreaking in every way.  If you want to read a detailed history of the film, the Fandom Disney Wiki page and Wikipedia has great articles.

It's wonderful that, even for a movie made in 1937, kids still love Snow White today, even with the modern advancements in animation technology and techniques.  The Disney parks help keep Snow White and her Seven Dwarfs alive with rides, princess meet and greets, and songs during shows.  Though, fun fact, the Disneyland ride has had a makeover.  The original "Snow White's Scary Adventure" has been remade into "Snow White's Enchanted Wish".  Some people may be sad over this, but I'm actually excited to see the changes.  The original ride really is kinda sad with an abrupt ending!  

Happy, happy memories from a beloved classic that will always be amazing.

Sarah

Classic Movie Monday: Roman Holiday (1953)

Roman Holiday (1953)

Starring: Audrey Hepburn & Gregory Peck

The Film

The plot of Roman Holiday comes across a little cliche in this modern era, mainly because the tropes displayed have been overplayed.  Hard working Princess dreams of common life, escapes, meets a dashing young man, and they have a grand ol' time.  The Prince and the Pauper by Mark Twain, published in 1881, is about identical strangers trading spaces--another now overworked plot--so the idea of royalty escaping to normality is an idea romanticized throughout time.

Roman Holiday was filmed entirely in Rome, and all the city's highlights are captured in this gem of a time capsule: A glance over Trevi Fountain, walking around the Roman Forum, stop at the Colosseum, and gelato on the Spanish Steps.  It's strange to think that this movie was filmed less than a decade after the end of the second World War, and the scene about the Wall of Wishes brings a somber reality to this time period.  Life after grand tragedy moves on, things change, but remembrances remain.

Some fun facts.  Gregory Peck was the main star when Roman Holiday started production and he was going to get top billing, but as filming took place Gregory wanted Audrey Hepburn to share top billing.  Such a rarity in those days.  In the scene with the Mouth of Truth, that wall with an open mouthed face, Gregory told the director he was going to pretend his hand was cut off after sticking it in, but he didn't tell Audrey.  Her reaction and scream was so natural because she wasn't acting in that moment, though Audrey is a wonderful actress and won an Oscar, Golden Globe, and BAFTA for this role as Princess Ann.

Personal Thoughts

Roman Holiday first came to my attention when I was 14.  After having surgery I was kept overnight for observation and looking after at the hospital, and my Mom bought the VHS.  She and the nurse watched the movie as I drifted in and out of consciousness, hardly remembering a thing.  It wasn't for another couple years until I pulled the tape out and had another go, and found it quite charming.

Having just re-watched the movie, being older and having visited Rome, Roman Holiday means so much more now.  When younger the ending bothered me, as it's more bitter sweet.  Now I see it as it is, realistic.  No nonsensical Hallmark ending.  The last several minutes of the movie intense, and I felt all the emotions, quiet love, the pain.

If you want to see a fun romantic comedy, timeless, great, Roman Holiday is worth the watch.  (Heh, after I just spoiled the ending... oops).

Sarah

Bringing Back the PPPPA, Classic Movie Monday Style

Okay, not quite.  It's a PPPPA of one.  But what is this PPPPA you may be asking?  It's a little club my friends and I created back in High School, and it stood for the Poor Pathetic People of Porterville Association.  It's as awesome as it sounds...

So what did we do?  Well, while other teens were driving the 30+ minutes to the nearest mall, going on fantastic dates, and other really cool stuff, my friends and I would go to Hollywood Video and rent a movie.  (Did we ever go to Blockbuster?!?!  Guess Hollywood Vid was more convenient?  Was Blockbuster already gone?  Why can't I remember?  Dang empty crevices of my mind.)  But we didn't rent just any video, we rented classics and old movies, and in some cases the stranger the better.

Old campy sci-fi.  Once we watched a fantastic random musical that I wish I remembered the name of.  It was great.  Hitchcock's Vertigo.  We rented a silent movie this one time, determined to read every slide with words.  It was fun for the first 30 minutes, until it got old, and I swear that movie was like 3 hours.

So for my PPPPA nostalgia, instead of having a group of people over to watch movies, which sounds fantastic right now, I'm going to seek out to watch old movies and then talk about them.  For "reasons" I've decided not to review new movie releases anymore, and instead write about the old stuff.  It will be fun watching and exploring the classics, and silly campy stuff as well.  Old movies that are new to me, as there's so much I haven't seen, and old favorites I would like to revisit. 

Sarah

 

The Call of the Wild, movie review

Rating: C

The Call of the Wild, a novel by Jack London, is the tale of Buck, a large spoiled dog in California, stolen and sold to the North wilderness during the Yukon gold rush.  Alaska and Canada are shown in great beauty, and ultimately this movie, inspired by the book, is a love letter to the wildness of nature, both in ourselves and the natural environment.

Granted, I haven't read the book, just read a synopsis on Wikipedia.  For lovers of the book there are changes.  It seems the book itself is much harsher.  More bleak.  Cruelty more cruel.  The movie is more child friendly.  The villain at the end of the movie actually dies midway through the book, taking the place of the Native Americans.  In the book Thornton, played by Harrison Ford, is a true gold seeker, another change for the movie.

This is a dogs tale, and we see Buck's character arc from carefree dog in Santa Clara Valley, played up for laughs, to leader of the pack.  Scenes change.  Characters come and go.  Buck is the constant through this movie.

Now to address the elephant in the room.  The CGI dogs.  The animals are all animated.  Buck is essentially a lifelike cartoon character, complete with exaggerated emotional character animation.  This is a plus and a minus.  Taking out real animals takes out the realism, the risk, the wildness.  CGI animals are naturally easier to work with, as unpredictable animal behaviors are eliminated for ultimate control.  And you don't have to worry about PETA or other groups.  Buck becoming an animated character humanizes him, which is the opposite of The Call of the Wild movie's theme.  Though, have to admit, I did find myself crying a little at times, touched by Buck the character.

If you like animal/nature movies, you might like The Call of the Wild, but I'm okay seeing it only once.

MPAA: Rated PG for some violence, peril, thematic elements and mild language.

Sonic the Hedgehog, movie review

Rating: B+

"With great power comes great responsibility!" To quote the wrong fandom.  Sonic is a being with great power, and in the wrong hands his power can cause much harm.  Running speedily around an alien world, Sonic assumes he runs so fast no one can suspect him or pin him down.  But he is discovered, and when a friend sacrifices them self for Sonic's escape, he uses golden rings to travel between Worlds, going from one to the next to hide, and then leaving once discovered.  Sonic finds himself on Earth in a small town, hiding in a cave full of Earthly treasures, reading The Flash comics, and spying on the towns citizens.  Apart yet separate.  He enjoys watching Doughnut Lord, aka Tom Wachowski, played by James Marsden, who Sonic regards as family, though they've never met.  Then Sonic, in a state of frustration, recklessly exposes his power sending the U.S. government and Dr. Ivo Robotnik, played by Jim Carrey, after him.

When the first trailer for Sonic The Hedgehog was released there was a huge outcry from longtime Sonic fans, fans of the game and show in which Sonic is based, over Sonic's CGI character animation.  In all honestly, his design was horrendous.  I won't post a photo here, but the images and trailer are easy to track down.  So what did the studio and director do?  They actually listened to the fans, pushed back the movie's release date, and reanimated Sonic.  For this very reason I went to see Sonic on Saturday, to support a movie that cared what the fans think, who spent money to make it right.

Was their effort in redesigning and then spending money to fix Sonic worth it?  Yes!!!  A thousand times yes.

Was going to see the movie a waste of time?  No, not at all, though I'm a sucker for good family entertainment.  Sonic the Hedgehog is a fun family film with a 90's nostalgic feel.  The movie is modern, but this is the sort of movie that would have delighted audiences twenty years ago when fun family movies were all the rage.  Jim Carrey, who plays the villain, helps with his over the top antics and personality, hearkening to his best loved films in years past, delighting a new crop of youth with his zaniness.

Sonic is a delightful ball of blue, blurry fluff.  Funny, too, with a cute sense of humor.

The whole movie is enjoyable.  Yeah, it's not perfect.  Not groundbreaking.  The middle bit lags a little.  But overall it's a good, escape the World flick, perfect for family audiences wanting something to bring the kiddies to for lighthearted entertainment.

To end this review I'll quote my Mom as she left the theater, "I enjoyed that movie a whole lot more than I thought I would."

MPAA: Rated PG for action, some violence, rude humor and brief mild language.

Knives Out, movie review

Rating: B

Growing up Clue was one of my favorite board games.  It was a race between family and friends on who can solve the murder mystery in as few rounds as possible.  Later in high school I was introduced to the Clue movie in all its kookiness.  Knives Out is a murder mystery full of suspense and subtle humor.  A Clue for modern audiences with Agatha Christie style fun.

The patriarch of the family Harlan Thrombey, played by Christopher Plummer, is found dead, the holder of a great fortune.  His family gather like vultures, eager to pick out leftovers, hoping to benefit from a great inheritance.  When it is discovered that Marta, Harlan's nurse, played by Ana de Armas, who isn't a member of the family, is the sole recipient of the inheritance, mayhem and chaos ensues within the family.  It is up to detective Benoit Blanc, played by Daniel Craig, to sort everything out.

Knives out is written and directed by Rian Johnson, who also wrote Star Wars: The Last Jedi.  Don't really want to get into it as I've already blogged about my Star Wars grievances, but I almost boycotted Knives Out over the fact, still upset over what happened with Luke Skywalker.  The thought kept going through my mind while watching this new murder mystery, trying to separate Johnson's previous work with this new film.  Hold it towards its own merits.  Honestly, I ended up liking Knives Out.

The less I say the better, as the plot is wrapped up in guessing, and the more I reveal the less fun you'll have watching this movie.  Usually I'm pretty good at guessing where such movie mysteries will end up, there's still some fun twists and turns throughout this movie filled with quirky characters.

When it comes down to it I did have fun.  My brother Steven and Dad were talking a few days ago, going over their favorite parts and excited that Knives Out is soon coming to DVD/Blu-ray. 

And honestly I've just ran out of things to say, because I hate spoiling things, and I just don't feel like being flowery with words.  If you haven't seen it yet and love mysteries, you'll enjoy it.  Johnson put out a good movie, so I'll give him kudos.  Credit where credit is due.  And with that I bid adieu.

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for thematic elements including brief violence, some strong language, sexual references, and drug material.

Little Women, 2019, movie review

Rating: B

Louisa May Alcott's tale of the four March sisters--Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy--has been visually delighting audiences for over a century.  The first adaptation was a British silent film made in 1917, though it is now lost, but thankfully a silent film featuring Alcott's real home in Concord Massachusetts was filmed in 1918.  Many films has followed since, including the 1949 version I remember watching as a kid with Elizabeth Taylor as Amy.

2018 alone had both a three episode mini series that played on PBS and a limited modern version that came to select screens.  Though, guiltily, my favorite version is the 1978 television series because it has both William Shatner and John de Lancie, James T Kirk and Q on Star Trek, and as a Trek fan it's just so amusing.  There's also a Japanese anime series called Tales of Little Women, which is currently on Amazon Prime with four seasons, and now I need to watch that.

As I write this I'm watching the PBS version, also on Amazon Prime, because I haven't seen it, and it keeps distracting me.  Also, as I prepared for this review I listened to a 19h 37m Audible book read by Barbara Caruso, having never read the original story, and it took a few weeks to get through, which is why this review is late.

This latest incarnation is nice.

And at the moment feeling redundant.

How many retellings do we really need?  Is this version worth a watch?  I mean, it's not like we don't have options.  The 1994 version is also well loved.

Greta Gerwig has made a beautifully shot film.  A few weeks ago I read an article about how this new version is novel simply for combining the past and present through flashbacks.  Obviously they didn't watch the 2018 modern version that employed the same technique with more success.  This 2019 time-period version gets convoluted with all the time jumps, causing confusion at times, specifically during the scene where Beth gets sick.  Knowing the story is a must with differentiating between past and present in parts.  Whereas the modern 2018 version makes the time jumps much more obvious.  Overall the 2019 version is more successful as a film, the modern 2018 version is cheesy with an overly irate Jo with nice sentiments, but in choosing between the two the 2019 version is superior.

Another aspect of this newer version is the treatment of Amy, softening her, where she is usually shown as a complete brat.  Switching between past and present helps.  We see her mature older self early on, her connection with Laurie, verses a concentration on her bratty younger self.  In the book she really is a brat.  But it was interesting listening to the book, because the Amy character really grows during the course of the two novels (Little Women and Good Wives is typically connected as one).  Seeing Amy get a proper treatment is nice.  And honestly, after listening to the book, more so than this new movie, I don't fault Amy at all for getting the European trip.  Jo was such a jerk during that time that she was her own worse enemy.

One of the major issues I have with this movie is the ending, as we get two endings.  Switching between past and present wasn't enough.  By the time the two time lines catch up, we then get the duel ending.  The ending Jo must write to appease the publisher verses the ending Alcott originally wanted for the novel.  It's confusing.  I picked up on the change and verified this movie's ending online, and then talked to my Mom and Sister-in-law about it, both of whom had no idea and thought the publisher ending is the true ending in combination with the other ending.  As far as they are concerned Jo and the Professor still get married, because the movie's ending is so unclear they can decide for themselves what the ending means, therefore eradicating the new ending Greta wanted to portray.  Both can be true, as by the ending we're used to jumping around.

I can get nit-picky about some other things, but will leave it at that.  The acting is strong.  Saoirse Ronan is a great Jo March.  And now that I've made it through the book I want to re-watch this movie to compare more thoroughly book verses film.  And I want to watch all the other versions, including the anime, but honestly who has the time for all that?  Just getting a hold of all the versions would be difficult.  But it would be interesting to compare all the adaptations.

MPAA: Rated PG for thematic elements and brief smoking.

P.S. I'm halfway through the PBS Masterpiece version, and Angela Lansbury is simply the best Aunt March.  She's such a delight.

Weathering With You, movie review

Rating: C+

Hodaka is a boy on the run, escaping life on a small island for the large city of Tokyo, and since he's a minor there's only so many places he can hide without attracting notice from the police.  It also doesn't help that he finds a gun right outside a club.  Meanwhile Hina is a girl with her own set of troubles, and it is while her Mom is in the hospital that she runs outside, following a ray of light, and stops the rain.  It's been raining in Tokyo.  Nonstop.  All everyone wants is a little sunshine.  Hina discovers she's the sunshine girl, able to bring light to a drenched world.

Weathering With You is the latest movie by writer and director Makoto Shinkai.  He became well known a few years ago with Your Name, though other beautiful works of his precede this anime.  Shinkai has a unique style.  He's able to captor nature elements in such an elegant way that no other animation holds a candle.  His ability to animate and stylize water alone is iconic and extraordinary.  It's one of his artistic signatures.

Shinkai's latest movie is a visual work of art.  Seeing different sides and landmarks of Tokyo was a joy, giving me heart-pangs for another visit.  Someday.  And it's so nice seeing two-dimensional hand drawn animation thriving, though Weathering With You has 3D animation here and there, but there's a life and emotion that can be better shown with drawing verses computers.  Just think of the two versions of Lion King.  Realism is nice, but there's so much more heart in a 2D character plane.  In Weathering With You nature becomes its own character.

Where Weathering With You lacks, and where Your Name was capital, is with the story itself.  The pacing is slow at times.  The plot loose.  It's good when movies breathe, but there was a little too much breath.  Though there are aspects of this movie I did like, and some of the messaging interesting, ultimately I found it rather sad.  There's a spot towards the end where I think it's supposed to be tragic, but members of the audience laughed, and I said with an undertone, "Are you kidding me?"  And then I felt removed, questioning characters, questioning mythos, and wondering what ever happened, long term, to the other maidens.

Weathering With You is a nice movie, and it is worth a watch for anime fans.  Would I recommend this for everyone?  Maybe.  All forms of animation needs to be supported, especially the dying art of hand-drawn.  But if I was to recommend Your Name or Weathering With You, I'd recommend Your Name.

Rated PG-13 for suggestive material, some violence and language.

Jumanji: The Next Level, mini movie review

Rating: B-

Right now everyone is talking about Star Wars as it comes out tonight.  Personally I'm bracing for overwhelming disappointment, not wanting to see my childhood favorite franchise stomped all over in a disgraceful disrespectful way, so I wanted to see something fun.  Lighthearted.  A complete removal from the world, and in this way Jumanji: The Next Level succeeds.  

This latest Jumanji starts off with our previous senior high school students navigating the world of young adulthood.  Everyone is fine.  Everyone loving life beyond the game they survived.  Everyone except Spencer who's struggling in New York.  The idea of going back into a game he nearly died in would be a welcome departure.  He returns home to find he needs to share a bedroom with his grandpa who's recovering from surgery.  Spencer misses the person he was in the game.  Misses the power.  Misses the connection he had with his friends.  In a desperate move he finds the destroyed game console and begins to repair it, and in the process all his friends with a couple new individuals find themselves once again in Jumanji, some more thrilled, or less thereof, than others.

What I loved about the last movie, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, was how fresh it was.  Taking Jumanji from a board game to a video game was cool, the transition fun, silly, and innovative.  In this latest installment we get more of the same.  The movie is still fun and silly, but now it feels formulaic with some new twists, the story not as tight.  The stakes don't feel as high for some reason. 

I love the themes of family and friends with this latest Jumanji.  Bringing in Danny DeVito and Danny Glover as Eddie and Milo was fun, showing friendship from a new angle, and another way to bring ridiculousness to the game.

Junamji: The Next Level is a good family film, though I enjoyed the previous films a lot more overall. Some of the "deaths" felt thrown in for the sake of removing "lives," and because of this carelessness, and a certain repetitiveness of plot, I felt wanting by the end of this film.  Though, if you watch the end, they set up a possible new sequel that could bring freshness to the next movie, if there is one.  I wouldn't mind seeing more Jumanji in the future.

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for adventure action, suggestive content and some language.