21 reviews
"How could you not like this?" is the title of arumbold's review. It was the question I started to ask myself halfway through episode one. When I was still asking the same question, and finding that I did not, alas, love it, somewhere in episode three, I had to admit that not only did I not love it, I didn't truly even like it so very much. I agree with another review title, by Julie-30, "There's a good reason that A&E never showed this again". It's wonderful to look at, and admittedly a more complete rendering of the novel, but that's not the same as "more faithful". The novel was fun. It was wise and witty and humane and, to use the author's own framing, a delicious repast with many courses, offering a wide variety and so generous a serving as not to be devoured at one sitting, for fear of failing to savour the dish being served up at each course.
I was and am a big fan of the Albert Finney 1963 release. It was also wonderful to look at. And it served up sufficient portions of the author's wit and wisdom, but it was one more thing in particular. It was fun! If it isn't fun, it isn't Fielding's Tom Jones!
Let me get some praise on record before I go further. Unlike some reviewers, I thought that Samantha Morton's Sophia Western was one of this versions' very few spot-on performances. I mean it as no insult when I point out the similarity of her Sophia to Susannah York's. It seems clear that she studied her predecessor, and took some lessons from her, but she did not merely copy that performance. She had, if anything, a more believable take on the mix of innocence, charm, and hot temper, and all the appeal of a determined, self-reliant young woman.
Another standout was Frances de la Tour's Aunt Western. Dame Edith Evans in the 1963 film may have provided some useful pointers, if de la Tour studied her in that way, but without mimicking Dame Evans, de la Tour gave us an Aunt Western that certainly matched my memory of the character in the novel. I will have to study to be certain of this, but I cold swear that her pronunciation when she calls her brother Squire Western "a boor" (his reply: boar? I am no boar!) is identical to that word's pronunciation in not only phonetics but in the musicality of it. Pitch perfect, so to speak. If it wasn't a copy of Dame Evans, it was a perfect alternate delivery.
Most of the rest of the cast turned in solid, serviceable performances. I did not find Max Beesley convincing as the good-natured, high-spirited lad of good, if occasionally faltering, intentions. I would characterize his performance as having competently done evrythig he was asked to do. I just don't think enough attention was paid to the asking. He does nothing that earns our affection particularly.
Also, I agree largely with another reviewer's (keith-moyes-656-481891) opinion that the author floating in and out of the story was a distraction, rather than an addition.
I do not agree with this reviewer's view of the novel at all. He remembers it as a long, rambling, picaresque story. Okay. Long, certainly, but I am never happy when I see that I am already down to the last 50 pages. I want more. Picaresque? Unquestionably. There are rogues and adventurers everywhere! Rambling? Not a bit of it. Fielding stops and expands on whatever point he please, as and when he pleases, but his offerings are the additional spice and herbs that make each course better than merely what was described in the "menu". By the way, the repeated appearances of Fielding in the movie do not at all mirror the "appearances" of the author in the novel. In the novel, he presents himself, a writer, taking his lead from the "honest victualer", who must present to the passersby a menu describing what is to be served up and so entice the passerby into staying to be served. In this light, he "appears" at the beginning of each chapter, telling us what is to be found in the coming "course". That is not at all what is done with Fielding in this production. He is a distraction, more of a buffoon, and was unfortunately a wasted opportunity that could have reflected the original approach to everyone's benefit.
I do not mean to suggest that nothing is pleasant or fun in this one. It's wonderful to look at. Most performances are solid. A few are standouts. The events and situations themselves are amusing in their nature. I never insist that another production of the same story apishly copy the one I adore. There are many good ways to go at any story. However, when I found myself in episode two realizing that I had been interested but not amused yet, it was the beginning of the end. I had not laughed out loud except at a couple of moments from Sophia or her Aunt. It simply wasn't enough to sustain my interest. Somewhere in the middle of episode three I bid the 1997 crew a warm farewell and left them to company of a different audience.
The cast had done their jobs, as asked, no one asked them to have fun at their jobs. I would say that the result was that the audience was served a full course of competently made but rarely interesting dishes.
I was and am a big fan of the Albert Finney 1963 release. It was also wonderful to look at. And it served up sufficient portions of the author's wit and wisdom, but it was one more thing in particular. It was fun! If it isn't fun, it isn't Fielding's Tom Jones!
Let me get some praise on record before I go further. Unlike some reviewers, I thought that Samantha Morton's Sophia Western was one of this versions' very few spot-on performances. I mean it as no insult when I point out the similarity of her Sophia to Susannah York's. It seems clear that she studied her predecessor, and took some lessons from her, but she did not merely copy that performance. She had, if anything, a more believable take on the mix of innocence, charm, and hot temper, and all the appeal of a determined, self-reliant young woman.
Another standout was Frances de la Tour's Aunt Western. Dame Edith Evans in the 1963 film may have provided some useful pointers, if de la Tour studied her in that way, but without mimicking Dame Evans, de la Tour gave us an Aunt Western that certainly matched my memory of the character in the novel. I will have to study to be certain of this, but I cold swear that her pronunciation when she calls her brother Squire Western "a boor" (his reply: boar? I am no boar!) is identical to that word's pronunciation in not only phonetics but in the musicality of it. Pitch perfect, so to speak. If it wasn't a copy of Dame Evans, it was a perfect alternate delivery.
Most of the rest of the cast turned in solid, serviceable performances. I did not find Max Beesley convincing as the good-natured, high-spirited lad of good, if occasionally faltering, intentions. I would characterize his performance as having competently done evrythig he was asked to do. I just don't think enough attention was paid to the asking. He does nothing that earns our affection particularly.
Also, I agree largely with another reviewer's (keith-moyes-656-481891) opinion that the author floating in and out of the story was a distraction, rather than an addition.
I do not agree with this reviewer's view of the novel at all. He remembers it as a long, rambling, picaresque story. Okay. Long, certainly, but I am never happy when I see that I am already down to the last 50 pages. I want more. Picaresque? Unquestionably. There are rogues and adventurers everywhere! Rambling? Not a bit of it. Fielding stops and expands on whatever point he please, as and when he pleases, but his offerings are the additional spice and herbs that make each course better than merely what was described in the "menu". By the way, the repeated appearances of Fielding in the movie do not at all mirror the "appearances" of the author in the novel. In the novel, he presents himself, a writer, taking his lead from the "honest victualer", who must present to the passersby a menu describing what is to be served up and so entice the passerby into staying to be served. In this light, he "appears" at the beginning of each chapter, telling us what is to be found in the coming "course". That is not at all what is done with Fielding in this production. He is a distraction, more of a buffoon, and was unfortunately a wasted opportunity that could have reflected the original approach to everyone's benefit.
I do not mean to suggest that nothing is pleasant or fun in this one. It's wonderful to look at. Most performances are solid. A few are standouts. The events and situations themselves are amusing in their nature. I never insist that another production of the same story apishly copy the one I adore. There are many good ways to go at any story. However, when I found myself in episode two realizing that I had been interested but not amused yet, it was the beginning of the end. I had not laughed out loud except at a couple of moments from Sophia or her Aunt. It simply wasn't enough to sustain my interest. Somewhere in the middle of episode three I bid the 1997 crew a warm farewell and left them to company of a different audience.
The cast had done their jobs, as asked, no one asked them to have fun at their jobs. I would say that the result was that the audience was served a full course of competently made but rarely interesting dishes.
Of the dozen or so shorts shown at the festival last night (8/11/2023) this is the one I came home talking about. It got the biggest audience response and the hardiest applause. Let's get one thing clear: I'm rating this out of the small universe of short films with which I'm familiar. At festivals like this one, many of them are more like finger exercises at the piano - directors/writers/crew proving that they can establish a moment, light it, shoot it, edit it, add sound to it, and put something on the screen that looks like it should be in a feature film. We Forgot could certainly be a sequence in a feature film, but it stands on its own entirely, and in my opinion shows what you can pull off if you have an idea - even a goofy idea - and believe in it enough to go at it with conviction. That's what we saw in We Forgot.
I have to accept that there is a bit of a spoiler out already in Coventry's review, spelling out cure, cute, cake, curse and so on as the labels on the syringes. The gag is that only the C and E are visible, and we are shown very quickly (that's a key element) that the labels are all different, and unpredictable. We get invested pretty fast in figuring out what the label was from the result of the injection.
Think about close-up magic. Someone does something right in front of you, and you know it's a trick, and you get caught up in trying to see it, since it's right there, a foot or two away from your eyes. And if the magician is good, skillful, and best of all clever, then you are left surprised, amused and completely entertained, knowing that you were looking right at the action and missed the trick. That's very much what happens in We Forgot.
It's "only" a short, so it's not realy worth going any further into this, and it would be difficult to do without more spoilers. There's only a few minutes of action to deal with after all.
The two guys are somewhat dimwits. That's a fair characterization. The accusation that the premise is not presented well is way, way off. This short was one of the few that, although it could be in a longer film, stood solidly on its own, with a beginning, a middle and an end. It's the first one we all talked about when we convened outside the screening room.
I stepped in to review this because I thought the rating of 3 stars was a gross injustice. I'm on the record with my 8 now, and if you get a chance to see this, go see it. By the way, the success of the trick depends on some very successful editing and pacing in the middle section, so don't overlook that there is considerable skill on display here.
Enjoy.
I have to accept that there is a bit of a spoiler out already in Coventry's review, spelling out cure, cute, cake, curse and so on as the labels on the syringes. The gag is that only the C and E are visible, and we are shown very quickly (that's a key element) that the labels are all different, and unpredictable. We get invested pretty fast in figuring out what the label was from the result of the injection.
Think about close-up magic. Someone does something right in front of you, and you know it's a trick, and you get caught up in trying to see it, since it's right there, a foot or two away from your eyes. And if the magician is good, skillful, and best of all clever, then you are left surprised, amused and completely entertained, knowing that you were looking right at the action and missed the trick. That's very much what happens in We Forgot.
It's "only" a short, so it's not realy worth going any further into this, and it would be difficult to do without more spoilers. There's only a few minutes of action to deal with after all.
The two guys are somewhat dimwits. That's a fair characterization. The accusation that the premise is not presented well is way, way off. This short was one of the few that, although it could be in a longer film, stood solidly on its own, with a beginning, a middle and an end. It's the first one we all talked about when we convened outside the screening room.
I stepped in to review this because I thought the rating of 3 stars was a gross injustice. I'm on the record with my 8 now, and if you get a chance to see this, go see it. By the way, the success of the trick depends on some very successful editing and pacing in the middle section, so don't overlook that there is considerable skill on display here.
Enjoy.
Here are some things this movie is not: It's not gory. It's not a constant assault on your ears. It's not a world-level apocalypse. It's not nonstop ghouls or ghosts or bonecrushing action. In short, it's not any of the things that put so many of our current movies so far over the top.
It occurred to me at the end that I was grateful to everyone involved. They made a very straightforward ghost story with some unexpectedly effective human scale movements and some very credible takes on parents who lose a child. It's not about losing the child. That's more complex and not supernatural. This is a ghost story built on top of the loss of a child, and that loss is well enough handled to provide some unexpected opportunities for the performers, especially Sarah Wayne Callies as Kristen, the mom.
I'm also grateful on another score: Someone apparently believed that Nicolas Cage could still be a competent actor in human scale role and took on the job of reining him in or whatever it took to get him to show and do the job.
It's just a good little ghost story. It's not brilliant, but it's clever enough. I was pleasantly surprised as things kept developing without great leaps or Earth-shattering revelations of staggering proportions. They found a good little premise. They built on it well enough to craft an entertaining hour and a half. And they just got on with it.
I'll side with everyone who said that it is not something you can call excellent. That's true. Sometimes, though, good enough is good enough. This is good enough to give it a watch and enjoy a movie which could have been a bit better, but of a kind and scale I wish they made more of these days.
In short: If a good old-fashioned ghost story will entertain you, you'll enjoy this. Everyone in cast and crew does a credible job, and no character does anything stupid. Thank you!
It occurred to me at the end that I was grateful to everyone involved. They made a very straightforward ghost story with some unexpectedly effective human scale movements and some very credible takes on parents who lose a child. It's not about losing the child. That's more complex and not supernatural. This is a ghost story built on top of the loss of a child, and that loss is well enough handled to provide some unexpected opportunities for the performers, especially Sarah Wayne Callies as Kristen, the mom.
I'm also grateful on another score: Someone apparently believed that Nicolas Cage could still be a competent actor in human scale role and took on the job of reining him in or whatever it took to get him to show and do the job.
It's just a good little ghost story. It's not brilliant, but it's clever enough. I was pleasantly surprised as things kept developing without great leaps or Earth-shattering revelations of staggering proportions. They found a good little premise. They built on it well enough to craft an entertaining hour and a half. And they just got on with it.
I'll side with everyone who said that it is not something you can call excellent. That's true. Sometimes, though, good enough is good enough. This is good enough to give it a watch and enjoy a movie which could have been a bit better, but of a kind and scale I wish they made more of these days.
In short: If a good old-fashioned ghost story will entertain you, you'll enjoy this. Everyone in cast and crew does a credible job, and no character does anything stupid. Thank you!
It may also inform you quite a bit. Some reviewers want to dismiss some of the info as "right wing conspiracy theory". I disagree.
More importantly, even if you do not believe that the tools have been used exactly as claimed, there is nothing that they claim is happening that CANNOT be done, and, as they point out, we have absolutely no method whatsoever, as users, to have any clue whether any of it is being done or not, and THAT is the problem.
You can dismiss the few points where you decide that they are "too conservative", and take the underlying possibilities as the real point.
And I suspect that they have barely scratched the surface.
More importantly, even if you do not believe that the tools have been used exactly as claimed, there is nothing that they claim is happening that CANNOT be done, and, as they point out, we have absolutely no method whatsoever, as users, to have any clue whether any of it is being done or not, and THAT is the problem.
You can dismiss the few points where you decide that they are "too conservative", and take the underlying possibilities as the real point.
And I suspect that they have barely scratched the surface.
In addition to the many observations and offerings of high praise, all completely deserved, I will only add that it is as well a love story. I have no way of knowing how accurate is the presentation of the relationship between Winston and Clemmie, but it is certainly convincing to me. It does not overshadow the historical elements. It simply puts the relationship into the picture in balanced, credible, and ultimately very touching fashion.
I plan at the first opportunity, to quote Churchill to my wife, as he thanked his: For being rash enough to marry me, foolish enough to stay with me, and... for loving me in a way... I though I'd never be loved.
I don't mean to suggest that the love story takes over. Everything about the political developments is fully and well shown. All the praise for the script, the casting, the performances, the production - all richly deserved. Take notes. There are lessons for us today in what Churchill had to fight against. "The people are lost in a pacifistic dream. If people are dreaming, they are asleep."
One last detail: The story does show Winston, as many comment, "warts and all". Wonderfully, it neither softens nor magnifies them, as far as I can tell. Shown without gloss, and without exaggeration, they contribute, along with all the other elements of his character, to a fully human portrayal.
As others also said, roses all around.
I plan at the first opportunity, to quote Churchill to my wife, as he thanked his: For being rash enough to marry me, foolish enough to stay with me, and... for loving me in a way... I though I'd never be loved.
I don't mean to suggest that the love story takes over. Everything about the political developments is fully and well shown. All the praise for the script, the casting, the performances, the production - all richly deserved. Take notes. There are lessons for us today in what Churchill had to fight against. "The people are lost in a pacifistic dream. If people are dreaming, they are asleep."
One last detail: The story does show Winston, as many comment, "warts and all". Wonderfully, it neither softens nor magnifies them, as far as I can tell. Shown without gloss, and without exaggeration, they contribute, along with all the other elements of his character, to a fully human portrayal.
As others also said, roses all around.
I was surprised that across a dozen reviews I did not find a single mention of the 1936 film of the H. G. Wells story starring Roland Young. Absolutely Anything is amusing. There are some good laughs. However, it has all the flaws outlined in detailed by other reviewers (no chemistry between leads, mostly set in an apartment, lots of overlooked potential, etc).
I was immediately struck by the similarity in premise to the far better The Man Who Could Work Miracles. It's dated, of course, and the effects are of the period, but the story is both more ambitious and funnier where it attempts comedy.
If you just love Simon Pegg, which I do, by all means see this, for completeness I suppose. (What's really, truly shocking is how completely unfunny the segments with the Python alumnae are, with the possible exception of the wonderful resolution that comes from Dennis, the dog, and that's not funny because of the Python people, but because of the just desserts served up. Nod's as good as a wink. I can say no more.)
After you see Anything, go directly to watch The Man Who Could Work Miracles and enjoy Roland Young's mousey character as he gives in to temptation, as a human being really might.
I was immediately struck by the similarity in premise to the far better The Man Who Could Work Miracles. It's dated, of course, and the effects are of the period, but the story is both more ambitious and funnier where it attempts comedy.
If you just love Simon Pegg, which I do, by all means see this, for completeness I suppose. (What's really, truly shocking is how completely unfunny the segments with the Python alumnae are, with the possible exception of the wonderful resolution that comes from Dennis, the dog, and that's not funny because of the Python people, but because of the just desserts served up. Nod's as good as a wink. I can say no more.)
After you see Anything, go directly to watch The Man Who Could Work Miracles and enjoy Roland Young's mousey character as he gives in to temptation, as a human being really might.
I stumbled into this by not changing channels after watching another movie. I was engaged within 5 minutes by the not-quite-formula everything - dialog, setup, even acting. I don't want oversell it. It's competent and interesting, partly for surprisingly good dialog occasionally, for a "western". I would call it a skillful addition to the short list of actually adult westerns. It could reasonably be called a skillful addition to the short list of actually adult westerns.
There's an exchange that serves as a good example of how the movie succeeds. At one point Mary Wells (Grahame) and Clay Phillips (Sterling) get to the moment that any film buff knows must come, where she confronts him about his attitude towards her past, we get this exchange:
MARY: Well, why don't you just say it.
CLAY: Okay, it's said.
There's a lot of that, economy of dialog and action where lesser writers would drag in familiar stuff from the standard inventory.
Other reviewers have analyzed plenty that's good. I mainly wanted to toss in another high rating for it.
There's an exchange that serves as a good example of how the movie succeeds. At one point Mary Wells (Grahame) and Clay Phillips (Sterling) get to the moment that any film buff knows must come, where she confronts him about his attitude towards her past, we get this exchange:
MARY: Well, why don't you just say it.
CLAY: Okay, it's said.
There's a lot of that, economy of dialog and action where lesser writers would drag in familiar stuff from the standard inventory.
Other reviewers have analyzed plenty that's good. I mainly wanted to toss in another high rating for it.
I have little to add to the other reviews that have pointed out the lamentable fact of this film's undeserved obscurity. It's a bit hard to describe or categorize because it is such a relaxed combination of light to oddball comedy plus a first rate mystery being pursued by an uncommon sleuth (Terry-Thomas in top form) and his American "sidekick" (Alex Nicol doing a competent job with an unconventional assignment as an actor).
It is common to say that they don't make 'em like this any more. In this film's case it's also true that they never made so very many like this at all. I won't pretend that it's brilliant, though Terry-Thomas's performance probably qualifies, but it is the obvious product of a clear vision, a strong hand at the helm, and a very able crew. Once it started it kept me amused and engaged constantly.
What fun! If you have any affection for British comedy or light mystery, do not miss it
It is common to say that they don't make 'em like this any more. In this film's case it's also true that they never made so very many like this at all. I won't pretend that it's brilliant, though Terry-Thomas's performance probably qualifies, but it is the obvious product of a clear vision, a strong hand at the helm, and a very able crew. Once it started it kept me amused and engaged constantly.
What fun! If you have any affection for British comedy or light mystery, do not miss it
As a big fan of West Wing (in spite of its heavy doses of Democratic propaganda), I recognized very soon where we were in this movie, and was happy to see West Wing alums Rob Lowe and Richard Schiff together. I thought a couple other faces might have been familiar from there, too, but nothing happened to make me care enough to go check. This is more like a fan-made "next episode" of something similar to the West Wing than like a well-developed movie project, though that's slightly more on the writing and directing end than on the acting and technical end. It isn't actually awful, but it certainly isn't that good. There's no heavy lifting to do, and perhaps as a result all of the performances seem fine but nothing rises above "fine". Nothing here challenges the performers or the director, or us, and so they, and we, just settle in for a pleasant ride.
There's no particular reason to see Knife Fight, but if you like the type of story (look at the awful things we do in election politics!) you may want to see it just for completeness. There's also no particular reason to avoid Knife Fight. Nothing in it is truly bad. However, now I wish I had just watched the far superior Ides of March (2011) again instead. Ides is an excellent modern look at the same topic also well treated in Robert Redford's The Candidate (1972). Knife Fight is not in the same league as either of those, but it is playing the same game.
If Candidate and Ides are the bookends, then Knife Fight is one of the books they hold up. I suppose that just as we have murder and romance stories written for beach reading, there could be political movies for beach watching, and this would be a fine entry there.
There's more that could be said, but honestly, how much time do you spend analyzing your beach novels?
There's no particular reason to see Knife Fight, but if you like the type of story (look at the awful things we do in election politics!) you may want to see it just for completeness. There's also no particular reason to avoid Knife Fight. Nothing in it is truly bad. However, now I wish I had just watched the far superior Ides of March (2011) again instead. Ides is an excellent modern look at the same topic also well treated in Robert Redford's The Candidate (1972). Knife Fight is not in the same league as either of those, but it is playing the same game.
If Candidate and Ides are the bookends, then Knife Fight is one of the books they hold up. I suppose that just as we have murder and romance stories written for beach reading, there could be political movies for beach watching, and this would be a fine entry there.
There's more that could be said, but honestly, how much time do you spend analyzing your beach novels?
I'm not exactly sure why I finished watching it. It's not quite as terrible as some of the reviews insist, but it's never much above slightly amusing. I found Thomas Jane sort of fun, with his Chris-Lambert-but-not-quite-as-strange look. He actually did a little work here and there and was pleasant. Grumblings about John Cusack's job are somewhat on the money. It occurs to me that there were really only two actual laugh-out-loud moments for me, and I' not giving them away, just in case you watch it. Too bad. It was loosely assembled from a collection of sort of funny possibilities. If you have some spare time to watch it for completeness, you won't regret it really, but that's about as much of a recommendation as I can drum up. Too bad.
Wolf is entertaining enough, and Leonardo does another bang-up job, but the movie is also a good example of Hollywood turning out a movie that technically shows the hazards of excess but in the process revels in the excess to such a degree that you have to push aside the 95% of the film that revels in sex, drugs and greed to notice that, oh, yeah, lives are wrecked in the process. If you didn't come out of this thinking that some drugs and some gang sex are the next thing to try, then you are a thinking person and a conscious, active viewer. Congratulations.
I would say instead of seeing this, see Boiler Room and watch Giovanni Ribisi, Vin Diesel, Nia Long, Nicky Katt, Scott Caan, Ben Affleck, and Jim Young perform Writer/Director Ben Younger's far better movie. To be fair, Wolf contains several admirable performances, but that doesn't make up for the self-indulgent movie they wound up in.
Boiler Room actually contains a few characters you might care for. (I didn't really care much what happened to anyone in Wolf, except the victims, who are entirely off-screen.) It is a tighter film by far, indicating excesses without offering them up as the main dish. Tightly written, well acted, simple and honest.
If you will only see one of these two, see Boiler Room. If you must see both, see Boiler Room first so that you can see how Wolf pales by comparison as you watch it.
I would say instead of seeing this, see Boiler Room and watch Giovanni Ribisi, Vin Diesel, Nia Long, Nicky Katt, Scott Caan, Ben Affleck, and Jim Young perform Writer/Director Ben Younger's far better movie. To be fair, Wolf contains several admirable performances, but that doesn't make up for the self-indulgent movie they wound up in.
Boiler Room actually contains a few characters you might care for. (I didn't really care much what happened to anyone in Wolf, except the victims, who are entirely off-screen.) It is a tighter film by far, indicating excesses without offering them up as the main dish. Tightly written, well acted, simple and honest.
If you will only see one of these two, see Boiler Room. If you must see both, see Boiler Room first so that you can see how Wolf pales by comparison as you watch it.
I danced a million miles to his music. I drifted away from keeping up with him sometime right after Thriller. I still enjoyed the occasional hit from time to time. I felt for him and lamented the loss of the man, hidden behind layer after layer of fame, of surgery, of inexplicable behaviors.
I was happy to tutor my 10-year-old son along in separating the gifted performer from the very (in my opinion) tortured man.
All of which I say by way of setting up this: The film was a delightful and touching complete surprise. Like some of the other reviewers, I cried almost immediately. I don't know if it was gratitude over seeing the artist as a human being up close after so long, or thinking what a lovely final memory to present to the public, after years of on screen or front-page weirdness.
Watching this gifted performer, this gentle man, I mourned the loss all over again.
My boy could not contain himself during Billie Jean, and went down front, to one side, to dance along with him. Even so, I think that maybe at 62 I enjoyed the film at least 6.2 times as much as he did.
If you ever enjoyed MJ's performances, but, like many of us, you had moved away from him for completely obvious and understandable reasons, I say : See this documentary. Watch a gifted performer doing the hard work with people at the top of their field all around him.
Now even more than before, come to think of it, after seeing this, I ask, "With everyone tossing out 'We love you too Michael' so often, was there no one who would stand up to him and say 'Michael you cannot live like this'. Sad, very sad. It turned out to be literally true.
Nonetheless, I cannot think of a kinder, more humanizing, more enjoyable (the music of course is great as is the dancing) last view of the man.
Rest in peace, Michael. It is our family's prayer for you.
I was happy to tutor my 10-year-old son along in separating the gifted performer from the very (in my opinion) tortured man.
All of which I say by way of setting up this: The film was a delightful and touching complete surprise. Like some of the other reviewers, I cried almost immediately. I don't know if it was gratitude over seeing the artist as a human being up close after so long, or thinking what a lovely final memory to present to the public, after years of on screen or front-page weirdness.
Watching this gifted performer, this gentle man, I mourned the loss all over again.
My boy could not contain himself during Billie Jean, and went down front, to one side, to dance along with him. Even so, I think that maybe at 62 I enjoyed the film at least 6.2 times as much as he did.
If you ever enjoyed MJ's performances, but, like many of us, you had moved away from him for completely obvious and understandable reasons, I say : See this documentary. Watch a gifted performer doing the hard work with people at the top of their field all around him.
Now even more than before, come to think of it, after seeing this, I ask, "With everyone tossing out 'We love you too Michael' so often, was there no one who would stand up to him and say 'Michael you cannot live like this'. Sad, very sad. It turned out to be literally true.
Nonetheless, I cannot think of a kinder, more humanizing, more enjoyable (the music of course is great as is the dancing) last view of the man.
Rest in peace, Michael. It is our family's prayer for you.
Its advocates have spoken pretty well here, so I won't add much except to say that I was happy to vote it 10 to counterbalance the grossly undeserved low ratings. In fact, it's more like 8.5 or 9, so stretching to 10 didn't hurt at all, for fairness.
I don't remember how I wound up seeing the film (in a theater, no less!), but I distinctly remember how I felt coming out: "Stallone wrote THIS! And he DIRECTED!?!?!?!? Boy, this guy's GOOD!"
I liked Arthur Rose's comments in another comment, probably above mine, that Stallone had probably been persuaded that this was a bad film. I suspect he's right, and it may be why he never took on another project as worthwhile as this one. It's a fine story of very believable people in tough circumstances, and not all the resolutions are Hollywood-approved. There are people in here with actual moral problems. And they have consequences.
I think it's hard for some people to watch exactly because it is about very believable people. It's one thing to see the cartoonish figures in our modern action films betray each other left and right. It's quite different to see a brother manipulate and betray his own brother in a way that is not slick, or glamorous, or anything but slimy.
I'm surprised at how much, all of a sudden, I want to find the film and see it again. See it without the preconceptions that prevent otherwise sensible persons from giving Stallone his due. If you can enjoy an intelligent story about real human beings, you will respect this film.
I don't remember how I wound up seeing the film (in a theater, no less!), but I distinctly remember how I felt coming out: "Stallone wrote THIS! And he DIRECTED!?!?!?!? Boy, this guy's GOOD!"
I liked Arthur Rose's comments in another comment, probably above mine, that Stallone had probably been persuaded that this was a bad film. I suspect he's right, and it may be why he never took on another project as worthwhile as this one. It's a fine story of very believable people in tough circumstances, and not all the resolutions are Hollywood-approved. There are people in here with actual moral problems. And they have consequences.
I think it's hard for some people to watch exactly because it is about very believable people. It's one thing to see the cartoonish figures in our modern action films betray each other left and right. It's quite different to see a brother manipulate and betray his own brother in a way that is not slick, or glamorous, or anything but slimy.
I'm surprised at how much, all of a sudden, I want to find the film and see it again. See it without the preconceptions that prevent otherwise sensible persons from giving Stallone his due. If you can enjoy an intelligent story about real human beings, you will respect this film.
The special effects that let Gulliver be a giant in Lilliput and a mite in Brobdingnag are by the reigning genius of the day, Ray Harryhausen, but writer/director Jack Sher's 1960 film wisely uses them only in the service of the story. They have held up quite well, in part because they were used with restraint to begin with and they do nothing to interrupt or distract from the story and its points. (A minor exception could be the fight with a giant animated crocodile that must have been damn fun for the effects team, but even it is kept within reason.)
Is this a film for children or a film for adults? The too-easy answer is that it is obviously a children's version: There is none of the trumped-up insanity element that the dreary-but-great-looking 1996 TV movie shoe-horned in for cheap drama. Neither is there the despair or genuine misanthropy of the book.
Only Lilliput and Brobdingnag are visited. (No Laputa, Balnibari, Luggnag, Glubbdubdrib, Japan, or Houyhnhnms. The third world is Gulliver's own normal-sized world.) Gulliver puts out the fire in Lilliput by spitting wine. (In the book, the wine has been processed by Gulliver's bladder before he douses the fire with it.) Many characters, though not all, are all done in a cartoonish way clearly aimed at children. The travels are framed within the added-on love story of Gulliver and his fiancée Elizabeth.
These are good choices. Children are inherently interested in the size contrasts. (It must add something to the experience that first they identify with the Lilliputians but later identify with Gulliver.) Spitting the wine is good enough. The cartoonish-ness makes the characters less threatening than they could have been. The love story is light and easy to follow, and promotes marriage.
There are even a couple of musical numbers, one a love song that Gulliver sings. The Bernard Herrmann score is a fine complement to the film, as you would expect from the composer of music for the original Psycho, Citizen Kane, Magnificent Ambersons, Ghost and Mrs. Muir, Day the Earth Stood Still, Alfred Hitchcock Presents (tv), Have Gun Will Travel (tv), Perry Mason (tv), Twilight Zone, Cape Fear (1962), Taxi Driver, and on and on and on.
But Sher's script and direction have preserved some important points and spirit from the book: The gratitude of princes is short-lived. The causes of war can be shockingly petty. Vanity and unreason among the powerful make truth an early casualty in the pursuit of power. The various unpleasant characters (and the few nice ones) actually reflect things inside all of us. If it's okay for an adult to be reminded of these things in a playful way (certainly more playful than the original), then this film will amuse and inform that adult.
And what are Gulliver and Elizabeth doing when their ball-field sized marriage license falls over them like a tent, and King Brob, peeking under it, is moved to say, "You're right dear. I'd better marry them at once."
Ultimately, it has to go down in the books as a children's film, but surely an uncommon one: an intelligent adaptation, if abridged and lighthearted, of a great classic, that stands on its own for entertainment and, if you like, can whet your child's appetite for the book when that time arrives.
Like the tacked-on love story, there is a tacked-on ending that suggests that the whole thing might have been a dream. I originally found this annoying.
These days, watching with my little girl, I find that I'm glad for the admittedly sore-thumb reminder that the value of the story is not in whether those characters do or don't exist, but in what the story says about what is within us. As with all such points in the film, you'll have to talk with your child a bit to be sure that it comes across, but what a pleasure - to find a film that sparks such a discussion with your child.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
Other works by Jack Sher:
-------------------------------------------------------- Writer - filmography -------------------------------------------------------- Female Artillery (1972) (TV) (story) Goodbye, Raggedy Ann (1971) (TV) Move Over, Darling (1963) Critic's Choice (1963) Love in a Goldfish Bowl (1961) Paris Blues (1961) 3 Worlds of Gulliver, The (1960) ... aka Worlds of Gulliver, The (1960) Wild and the Innocent, The (1959) Kathy O' (1958) (also story) Joe Butterfly (1957) Four Girls in Town (1956) Walk the Proud Land (1956) ... aka Apache Agent (1956) World in My Corner (1956) (also story) Kid from Left Field, The (1953) Off Limits (1953) ... aka Military Policemen (1953) (UK) Shane (1953) (additional dialogue) My Favorite Spy (1951)
-------------------------------------------------------- Director - filmography -------------------------------------------------------- Love in a Goldfish Bowl (1961) 3 Worlds of Gulliver, The (1960) ... aka Worlds of Gulliver, The (1960) Wild and the Innocent, The (1959) Kathy O' (1958) Four Girls in Town (1956)
(with thanks to The Internet Movie Database http://www.imdb.com)
Is this a film for children or a film for adults? The too-easy answer is that it is obviously a children's version: There is none of the trumped-up insanity element that the dreary-but-great-looking 1996 TV movie shoe-horned in for cheap drama. Neither is there the despair or genuine misanthropy of the book.
Only Lilliput and Brobdingnag are visited. (No Laputa, Balnibari, Luggnag, Glubbdubdrib, Japan, or Houyhnhnms. The third world is Gulliver's own normal-sized world.) Gulliver puts out the fire in Lilliput by spitting wine. (In the book, the wine has been processed by Gulliver's bladder before he douses the fire with it.) Many characters, though not all, are all done in a cartoonish way clearly aimed at children. The travels are framed within the added-on love story of Gulliver and his fiancée Elizabeth.
These are good choices. Children are inherently interested in the size contrasts. (It must add something to the experience that first they identify with the Lilliputians but later identify with Gulliver.) Spitting the wine is good enough. The cartoonish-ness makes the characters less threatening than they could have been. The love story is light and easy to follow, and promotes marriage.
There are even a couple of musical numbers, one a love song that Gulliver sings. The Bernard Herrmann score is a fine complement to the film, as you would expect from the composer of music for the original Psycho, Citizen Kane, Magnificent Ambersons, Ghost and Mrs. Muir, Day the Earth Stood Still, Alfred Hitchcock Presents (tv), Have Gun Will Travel (tv), Perry Mason (tv), Twilight Zone, Cape Fear (1962), Taxi Driver, and on and on and on.
But Sher's script and direction have preserved some important points and spirit from the book: The gratitude of princes is short-lived. The causes of war can be shockingly petty. Vanity and unreason among the powerful make truth an early casualty in the pursuit of power. The various unpleasant characters (and the few nice ones) actually reflect things inside all of us. If it's okay for an adult to be reminded of these things in a playful way (certainly more playful than the original), then this film will amuse and inform that adult.
And what are Gulliver and Elizabeth doing when their ball-field sized marriage license falls over them like a tent, and King Brob, peeking under it, is moved to say, "You're right dear. I'd better marry them at once."
Ultimately, it has to go down in the books as a children's film, but surely an uncommon one: an intelligent adaptation, if abridged and lighthearted, of a great classic, that stands on its own for entertainment and, if you like, can whet your child's appetite for the book when that time arrives.
Like the tacked-on love story, there is a tacked-on ending that suggests that the whole thing might have been a dream. I originally found this annoying.
These days, watching with my little girl, I find that I'm glad for the admittedly sore-thumb reminder that the value of the story is not in whether those characters do or don't exist, but in what the story says about what is within us. As with all such points in the film, you'll have to talk with your child a bit to be sure that it comes across, but what a pleasure - to find a film that sparks such a discussion with your child.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
Other works by Jack Sher:
-------------------------------------------------------- Writer - filmography -------------------------------------------------------- Female Artillery (1972) (TV) (story) Goodbye, Raggedy Ann (1971) (TV) Move Over, Darling (1963) Critic's Choice (1963) Love in a Goldfish Bowl (1961) Paris Blues (1961) 3 Worlds of Gulliver, The (1960) ... aka Worlds of Gulliver, The (1960) Wild and the Innocent, The (1959) Kathy O' (1958) (also story) Joe Butterfly (1957) Four Girls in Town (1956) Walk the Proud Land (1956) ... aka Apache Agent (1956) World in My Corner (1956) (also story) Kid from Left Field, The (1953) Off Limits (1953) ... aka Military Policemen (1953) (UK) Shane (1953) (additional dialogue) My Favorite Spy (1951)
-------------------------------------------------------- Director - filmography -------------------------------------------------------- Love in a Goldfish Bowl (1961) 3 Worlds of Gulliver, The (1960) ... aka Worlds of Gulliver, The (1960) Wild and the Innocent, The (1959) Kathy O' (1958) Four Girls in Town (1956)
(with thanks to The Internet Movie Database http://www.imdb.com)