scooterberwyn

To compare the ITV British SOUND OF MUSIC LIVE! production to the beloved (but still flawed) 1965 film is utter nonsense. It's like comparing apples and oranges, because they are two different media. Resources were available for the film that the stage production couldn't hope to utilize. More to the point, how does it compare to the NBC-TV 2013 Live production that starred Carrie Underwood?

The answer is that it's miles better! The production is excellent, and while I disagree with a few things (such as replacing "An Ordinary Couple" with "Something Good" and abridging a couple of the songs; hence the two stars off a ten-star rating), watching it was generally time very well spent. The cast was youthful and appealing, and - more to the point - everyone could actually act! The sugary sweetness of the show was, by-and-large, swept away.

The music was well-paced, and although I missed the original orchestrations, the ones used did no harm and didn't sound out of place. I have to admit that I hated the American version when it aired. Most fatally, Carrie Underwood, simply couldn't act, and the scenes dragged. No such problem here. I missed this when it was first broadcast by PBS in 2018, so I'm very happy that I happened to catch it last night.

An enthusiastic thumbs-up!.

I have see "Mary Poppins Returns" twice now, and I enjoyed it even more the second time than I did the first time! Many little details that eluded me on first viewing were there for me to see as plain as day the next time.

When Disney gets it right, they really nail it, and this one they hit out of the ballpark. I really wasn't expecting much the first time, but boy, was I wrong! Emily Blunt was the perfect choice for Mary Poppins. Her characterization hews much more closely to the books than that of Julie Andrews in the original 1964 film. Still, she allows her warmth to shine through at the most opportune times. Lin-Manuel Miranda is very personable and charming as the lamplighter.

I don't understand those who say that the film has no plot and that the songs are terrible. The second time I attended, I took a friend and his daughter, and at the end of the film, the daughter came out of the theater humming some of the songs. The plot isn't profound, but let's face it, people, this isn't supposed to be "War and Peace"! It's no worse a plot than that of the first film.

The filmmakers have paid homage to the 1964 film in dozens of unobtrusive little ways, but it may take several viewings before you catch them all, from small directorial touches to bits of dialogue to parts of the background score.

Well done, Disney!

Make no mistake, I loved the first Mamma Mia (was it really ten years ago?). It was big, goofy, empty, feel-good fluff with great songs from the ABBA catalogue. When I heard about the sequel, I was really concerned that I would be disappointed. Using lesser-known Abba songs? Meryl Streep absent for most of the film? How could it possibly succeed?

Well, it has succeeded, and brilliantly. The story has more depth to it, exploring how Donna arrived at the point where we met her in the first film. Sophie is busy getting the hotel ready for a grand re-opening, aided by Sam because her husband, Sky, is away on business. The characters really come to life, and Lily James and the youthful Tanya and Rose capture the looks and the vocal cadences of their older counterparts beautifully.

There's a lot of comedy in this film, but also a lot of heart. During a scene near the end, almost the entire audience in our theater were sobbing because it was so incredibly touching. But it wasn't depressing, far from it.

Make sure you stay until the end of the final credits to see another funny scene. Bravo to everyone involved in the making of this thoroughly enjoyable, joyous experience.

I love "The Pied Piper." Although born in New York City, Monty Woolley strikes just the right note as a British tourist in Europe who gets roped into shepherding several French children, most of whose parents have been killed in the World War II, to safety in England or America. Woolley was nominated for a Best Actor Academy Award for this film, and the film itself was nominated for Best Picture also. The supporting cast, including Anne Baxter, Roddy McDowell, and Otto Preminger, are likewise superb.

It boggles my mind that this award-nominated film is not available on video is any form. Why is 20th Century Fox ignoring this worthy film while so many others of lesser quality are released? Heck, I'd even take it in the Fox Cinema Archives series, if nothing else.

Just got home from seeing HOME in 3D. After reading a lot of the reviews here, I was expecting it to be much better than it was. It started slowly, and the characters and plot never really engaged my partner and me. I guess the best way to describe it is "cute".

Oh was well-voiced by Jim Parsons, but the character got on my nerves after a while, like a persistently bratty child. The others in the cast were ciphers, nothing more. Even Steve Martin was wasted in his role.

The animation was colorful and the 3D effects were unobtrusive, but there was nothing eye-popping about the 3D or the plot. In short, I was very disappointed. Several reviews reference Disney and Pixar as comparisons. I will too. Compared to most of those studios' releases, this film lacked soul and failed to touch my heart.

I doubt that I'll be adding this film to my collection when it's released on video.

This is, without doubt, one of the funniest and most heartwarming films that I expect to see in my life. A true "Family" film, it should appeal to children of all ages as well as to adults who are still children at heart.

The cast is perfection, and the director has been truly inspired. The extra touches in both sight and sound that he brings to the film are brilliant - but I shan't specify what they are, for fear of spoiling the surprises.

The film walks a fine line being cute at times, but it never becomes cloying or overly sweet. Paddington lives. I quickly forgot that he was a CGI and simply accepted him as another part of the cast.

Even if you have no children to take with you, you should see this film.

When I think "Sondheim musical" I do not include "West Side Story" or "Gypsy" even though he had a hand in them. But when one thinks of those films, it's the choreography (in the former) and the music (in the latter) that come to mind. No, the true "Sondheim musical" genre begins with "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum" and continues (with a detour for "Do I Hear a Waltz?") to the present day.

Precious few of Sondheim's shows have made the transition to film. Aside from the previously-mentioned "Forum" we have "A Little Night Music" and "Sweeney Todd," all of which have major flaws. I don't include filmed stage productions such as "Passion" and "Sweeney Todd" as these are sui generis. Alas, "Anyone Can Whistle," "Company," "Follies," Merrily We Roll Along," "Pacific Overtures," and "Assassins" have never been given full film treatments.

When I heard that Disney was producing the film "Into the Woods" I was very apprehensive, fearing that the studio would sanitize it beyond all recognition. Thankfully, that is not the case. Disney and Rob Marshall have gathered a creditable cast of genuine singing actors. Yes, a few minor changes to the stage show have been made and a couple of songs have been changed or omitted, but considering Hollywood's track record with adaptations of Broadway musicals, the film is very faithful to the source material.

Emily Blunt is rapidly becoming my favorite current film actress. Here she is the heart and soul of the story, along with the, to me, hitherto unnoticed James Corden. Meryl Streep is her usual sterling self as the witch. Bernadette Peters set a high standard on stage, but Streep makes the role her own. Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen are marvelous in their "Agony" duet, each out-posturing the other in macho bravado. Tracey Ullman was a very pleasant surprise as the mother of Jack, ably played by Daniel Huttlestone. Lilla Crawford is fine, although she's a bit too young to put across the sexual awakening that Little Red Riding Hood experiences after encountering the Big Bad Wolf (an all-too-briefly seen Johnny Depp). Perhaps that may have been part of the Disney-fication of the show.

It's truly gratifying to have seen such a magnificent treatment of what may be becoming Sondheim's most popular musical. I loved it!

I had never heard of this film until I saw it recently on Turner Classic Movies as part or a Ramon Novarro salute. What a charming story! It's quite similar to THE STUDENT PRINCE, but with different songs. "The Night Is Young" and "When I Grow Too Old To Dream" are the two standouts in the musical score, and they are delivered charmingly - several times - by Novarro and his leading lady, the beautiful Evelyn Laye.

Before viewing this film, I had just seen Jeannette MacDonald opposite Novarro in THE CAT AND THE FIDDLE. Next to the more famous American soprano, Miss Laye is a breath of fresh air - much less affected and more spontaneous in her acting, with an equally beautifully soprano voice. Perhaps because she is British, her enunciation is far superior to MacDonald's, and the voice is far less shrill in its upper register. Her chemistry with Novarro is wonderfully natural.

I don't mean to slight Ramon Novarro. He is, by turns, romantic, playful, wistful, and noble as the situation requires. He has a pleasant singing voice, and he acquits himself quite well in this bittersweet operetta.

When one adds in some of the excellent MGM supporting players - Una Merkel, Edward Everett Horton, Henry Stephenson, and Herman Bing - and a relatively thankless role for an as yet still supporting Rosalind Russell, it's a winning formula for passing close to an hour and a half.

The story is pure fluff, but what delightful fluff! I would really love to find this on DVD to add to my collection.

I love movie musicals - especially when they're done by the Freed unit at MGM. With ANNIE GET YOUR GUN, MGM stayed a lot closer to the source Broadway musical than they usually did. Due to Irving Berlin's sagacious business acumen, there are no major song excisions or substitutions by lesser song writers (Roger Edens, anyone?).

As most people know, the role of Annie Oakley was originally assigned to Judy Garland, but when she called out sick, she was unceremoniously fired. Replacing her is Betty Hutton on loan from Paramount Studios. Unfortunately, Hutton mugs and poses and emotes with a frantic, manic energy that I find exhausting to watch. Her Annie Oakley would have fit right in to her film "The Perils of Pauline" portrayal of Pearl White.

The rest of the cast is exemplary, with Howard Keel as a handsome, virile Frank Butler. But Betty's shenanigans make her scenes almost painful to watch. The only reason I rate the film as highly as I do is that it's a reasonably faithful rendition of a classic Broadway musical.

For the first time I have seen the film A MAJORITY OF ONE. I also have been reading some of the reviews here on IMDb. So many of them harp on the fact that Alec Guinness was cast as the Japanese businessman who falls in love with Rosalind Russell's lonely Jewish widow. For that matter, some take exception to the casting of the Catholic Miss Russell as Mrs. Jacoby.

It's called acting, people! Mr. Guinness and Miss Russell certainly convinced me that they were these people - an elderly lonely Jewish widow and an equally elderly lonely Japanese widower who meet and, although from very different cultures, find a common ground.

This was a beautifully performed and profoundly moving story. I don't know how I've managed to never see it before. It left me feeling all warm and fuzzy inside. I will certainly be adding this film to my collection.

I remember seeing this film when it was first released. I absolutely hated it - too slow-moving, and the male romantic lead was a cipher. Even the songs were manipulated to the point that I could barely stand to listen to them. Tommy Steele was far too frenetic as Og, the leprechaun. Its saving graces were Fred Astaire, Petula Clark (although she seemed too old in the role of Sharon), and Keenan Wynn. I've avoided it like the plague ever since.

Tonight, thanks to Turner Classic Movies, I finally watched it again. And you know what? It's a lot better than I remembered. I don't know what has caused the turnabout in my opinion, except perhaps the lack of quality of most of the musical films that have come along since FINIAN'S RAINBOW in 1968. It still has a few longueurs, but generally it's very enjoyable. Even Tommy Steele isn't too bad. Don Francks is still dramatically stiff, but he's better than I remembered, and he sings well. And oh, those songs! It's a shame that "Necessity" was cut, but otherwise, what a string of melody - How are Things in Glocca Morra, Old Devil Moon, When I'm not Near the Girl I Love, and more.

Thank you, TCM, for giving me a second chance with this film!

I went with friends to see JOYFUL NOISE, the film starring Queen Latifah and Dolly Parton. What can I say about it?

Predictable? Yep.

Formulaic? For the most part.

Manipulative? Definitely! One particular segment had me sobbing in my seat.

But the music rocked. The film also had unexpected flashes of humor that were laugh-out-loud funny. Though it wasn't a masterpiece (for one thing, editing was sloppy in places), I enjoyed it and thought it was well worth seeing.

I've tried. I've really tried. But the charms of this so-called "screwball comedy" still elude me after four viewings over the years. Don't get me wrong; I love both Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant, but just not in this film. The humor, if one can call it that, is forced, and the physical comedy is painfully unfunny. Grant plays his role far too broadly, and Hepburn is at her most strident. Viewing it tonight on TCM, I actually fell asleep in the middle of the film!

Such feeble laughs as there are come from the supporting cast, including Charlie Ruggles, May Robson, and Barry Fitzgerald. But their efforts can't save the film. Sorry, but the movie-goers when it was originally released got it right. Don't waste your time with this one.

I have to laugh when I read comments complaining about how the film plays fast and loose with the plot of the book. (Helloooo... Wizard of Oz, anyone? Compare THAT classic film to the book, and you'll be appalled at the liberties that the screenwriters took!) What may work on paper doesn't always play well on the screen.

I admit that I haven't read the books. But I've seem all three films, and Voyage of the Dawn Treader is a great, wonderfully fun adventure fantasy film. The characters are consistent with the first two films, and the plot is - for a fantasy film - coherent and believable. I liked it much more than the second film, Prince Caspian, which I felt was the weakest in the series.

Be prepared for some very intense action that may scare the wee ones. The 3D effects are unobtrusive, giving a feeling of depth to the film, but with not a lot of "in your face" effects.

To sum up, a fun family film. You should see it.

I had expected great things of this film. The costumes and sets are rich and sumptuous. All the actors are excellent. Emily Blunt makes an appealing Victoria. The mise-en-scene is certainly easy on the eyes.

BUT ... The pacing of the plot is just s-o-o-o slow, like those oh-so-earnest BBC television adaptations of great novels. Perhaps if I had seen it on television in installments, I would have enjoyed it more.

In addition, there is too much jumping around from England to the continent and back, as if the scriptwriters couldn't settle on what sort of story to tell. Perhaps they were trying for a personal story set against a backdrop of political intrigue, but I'm sorry, it didn't work for me. I found it confusing and difficult to follow. I'll pass on acquiring this one when it's released on DVD.

The title of my review sums it up.

THE LADY IN ERMINE certainly has its moments, but it can't decide if it wants to be a romance or a comedy. Parts of it are very funny indeed and had me laughing out loud, while others seem to fall as flat as a lead balloon.

Douglas Fairbanks Jr. is handsome and dashing, as usual, providing a much needed surge of energy when he is on screen, but Betty Grable seems uncomfortable in her double role. She's far more enjoyable to watch as the ancestor than she is as the descendant. The opportunity for her to display her most valuable assets (her legs) is limited.

20th Century Fox has surrounded the two leads with good character actors from its stable, including Cesar Romero showing some versatility, Walter Abel in two roles, and Harry Davenport as the likable old retainer. Reginald Gardiner is wasted as Alberto.

It's a shame that the songs are so ordinary and mostly forgettable. Was this the best Fox, the studio that brought us STATE FAIR, could do? All in all, you're not missing much if you don't see it, but it's a pleasantly diverting way to pass an hour and thirty minutes.

As my partner and I waited to go into the theater where MAMMA MIA was playing, the previous show's audience was just coming out. Everyone seemed to be smiling and laughing. I really didn't know what to expect from this film, not having been a big fan of ABBA in its heyday and not having seen the stage musical. Suffice it to say that for sheer escapism and fun, this film is easily the most entertaining movie I've seen in a very long time.

I can't imagine the film being more perfectly cast than it is. Meryl Streep never ceases to amaze me. Is there no end to this woman's talent? Everyone in the film gives the illusion (if illusion it is) of having the time of their life. Even though one or two of the songs didn't really fit the context of the scene in which they were presented, they were catchy and tuneful.

As we came out of the theater, the entire audience seemed to be smiling and laughing. It's that kind of movie.

GO!

I saw this movie last night in a theater filled with school children. I knew the basic outline of the story, but not the details.

Abigail Breslin really carried this film. Plucky and brave, without being too cute, she was an excellent protagonist. Jodie Foster was incredibly funny. Her Alexandra Rover never descended into caricature, as I was afraid that it might. Gerard Butler was properly macho as the storybook hero, looking for all the world like Indiana Jones, and very believable as Nim's father. The animals who were Nim's friends were adorable.

So how could it have been better? Well, I have to admit to being a bit let down by what seemed to me to be a very rushed ending. I expected the film to explore the gradual bonding of Nim and Alexandra in more depth. It seemed that Alexandra arrived on the island, then Nim felt betrayed and angry, and then all of a sudden they were best buddies, and then - Bam!! - the credits were rolling. Oh, and how on earth did Nim's father manage to make a sailboat from the remnants of his boat? Where did he find the cloth for the sail? How did he assemble it in the storm?

The school children in the audience seemed to love it. I was glad to have seen it, but I expected more.

I saw this film this afternoon with my partner. I agree with other posters that the opening modern day scene in the pub, setting up the narrator, felt forced and false. Otherwise, what a wonderful film this was! It's a real "coming of age" story of an introverted young boy, missing his dad (off to war) terribly, and the events that help him come out of his shell and begin to interact with others. The CGI water horse was totally convincing, from newborn baby just out of the egg to full-blown adulthood. It really had a personality. The actors were convincing in their roles, too. My partner and I were brought almost to tears, in a good way, by some scenes. The ending, which I will not reveal, brought the tale full circle beautifully. If not for the jarring narrator scenes, I would have rated this film higher than I did.

My partner and I saw "Enchanted" this afternoon. He was not enthusiastic about going to see it, but because I wanted to, he tagged along. What a delightful film this is! Everyone in the cast is practically perfect. The more familiar one is with Disney animated classics, the funnier the film will be. I couldn't help laughing out loud at many of the digs and references to earlier films. What really makes the film work is that it has that elusive quality, "Heart." My only observation is that many may consider this simply a children's film. The final conflict between the prince's stepmother and Giselle had a few of the children in the theater in tears, it was so intense. For those aged 12 or older, it's an excellent film. Both of us were enchanted by "Enchanted."

First of all, I must confess that I haven't seen the original Chevalier film on which "On the Riviera" is based. However, Fox recycled the plot before this film for "That Night in Rio" with Don Ameche, Alice Faye, and Carmen Miranda in the Danny Kaye, Gene Tierney, and Corinne Calvet roles. I think "Rio" is far superior to "Riviera." The plot is much better paced, less frantic and frenetic (although that may simply be the difference between Ameche and Kaye as performers). For me, a little Kaye "shtick" goes a long way, and the more he uses it, the less amused I get. In this film, he lays it on with a trowel. Fox dipped into the well once too often. The only saving grace is the lustrous Tierney in luscious color.

I've read a lot of differing opinions about "Stardust," from raves to pans. One of my co-workers won't go see it because some of her friends have told her that it takes liberties with the book that they felt were unacceptable. She says that she may see it when it's released on DVD. I'm sorry, but I don't understand people who don't like movies because they don't follow the book exactly. They're two different mediums, for Pete's sake! What may read well on the written page may not play well on the big screen. After all, is "The Wizard of Oz" less of a classic because it didn't adhere scrupulously to L. Frank Baum's original book? Is Walt Disney's "Bambi" less moving because it took liberties with Felix Salten's tale?

There! I've gotten THAT off my chest!

My partner and I both thoroughly enjoyed "Stardust." It has action, adventure, humor, and magic. It starts off a bit slowly, but once it gets going, it's great fun. And unlike other fantasy films of recent years, this one is self-contained. The end of the movie is the end of the story. Michelle Pfeiffer seems to take delight in portraying evil women these days (viz. "Hairspray" and now "Stardust") and she's wonderful. Peter O'Toole is fine as the old king. Robert DiNiro is absolutely hysterical in his role as Captain Shakespeare. The rest of the cast couldn't be bettered. All the threads of the story wrap themselves up very nicely in the finale. We definitely will be acquiring this one on DVD when it's released.

I remember when I first saw this in a movie theater. It was a bad print, and the film obviously had broken in a couple of places, as the song "IF" started mid-sentence. The VHS tape, while probably not perfect, has the virtue of being unbroken. I have not yet seen the recent DVD release, but I probably will purchase it.

Diana Rigg and Chloe Franks are the best reasons to see the film, but the others really aren't as awful as some people make them out to be. A good friend of mine was on the set in Vienna, and he told me dozens of horror stories about the filming, one of which was that it was cold and rainy during the scenes in the Vienna Woods, so Elizabeth Taylor caught a bronchial infection which stubbornly hung on during the rest of the filming, as she was not able to get the rest she needed. The company financing the film absolutely insisted that it not run over 120 minutes. Thus, some numbers were cut in the editing process.

It's a shame that we can't have an edition that includes the songs that ended up on the cutting room floor. It's by no means perfect, but it's a lot better than the film musicals of "Mame" and "Man of La Mancha," in my opinion.

I went to see Charlotte's Web last night with a friend who had not read the book nor seen the 1972 animated film. My friend is not the emotional type, and he frequently makes fun of me when I cry at a particularly sad or romantic moment in a film. I glanced over at him last night near the end, and he was actually dabbing his eyes. I had already brought out the tissues and was using them in abundance, so I handed him one, which he happily accepted.

We both thought this was an excellent film, with a plot line that was more faithful to its source than most film adaptations are. The fact that it was NOT a musical was a big point in my preference for this version over the earlier film. The film was perfectly cast, both with the live actors and the voices of the animals.

I'll be making this part of my DVD library as soon as it's released on video. Strongly recommended for both children and adults.