filmbuff-05706
Joined Jun 2020
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews277
filmbuff-05706's rating
I watched plenty of Disney movies growing up- ones like Toy Story, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and Dumbo were a select few that I watched frequently as a child, and often with my sister.
I saw Peter Pan often too, not as often as those just named, but definitely time and again. I liked it, but it wasn't a "favorite" if that makes sense. Now I'm turning 27 next month, and as a person on the autism spectrum who is preparing to live on their own, I saw it in a whole new light, and I regard it much more as an adult man.
Peter Pan is a magical flying boy that the Darling kids- Wendy, John, and Michael- believe in. Wendy tells her younger brothers stories of Peter Pan fighting the evil Captain Hook.
When their father wants Wendy to grow up, Peter Pan comes through their window and offers them a chance to go to Neverland, a place where kids never have to grow up. That all sounds fun, so they agree to go, while having to face Hook for themselves.
Peter Pan has some wonderful voice work, most notably Bobby Driscoll as Peter Pan (before his voice deepened, he did live action Disney works like Treasure Island), Kathryn Beamount as Wendy (right after voicing Alice In Wonderland), and most delightfully- Hans Confried voices Mr. Darling and Captain Hook.
A neat thing about Peter Pan productions- whether it be on stage or onscreen, it is common for Mr. Darling and Hook have the same actor- this is because Peter Pan represents a lack of growing up, and Hook symbolizes a hatred of remembering childhood innocence.
Hans Confried does in fact give a delightful performance as Hook, the way he says lines about wanting to avenge Peter Pan for feeding his hand to a crocodile, to his crippling fear of the crocodile, to some of the most devilish things that he does (in his first scene, he casually shoots one of his pirates for being annoying), Hans's interpretation of Hook is very entertaining.
One final thing on Hook- his fight with Peter Pan lasts about 6 minutes, and it's one of the most riveting hero vs. Villain fights I have ever seen, I'm not even kidding.
Peter Pan also has some good songs- You Can Fly! Is the most known, but my favorite is Following The Leader. There's also a song about the importance of having a mother, and a couple other tunes.
I just watched it on Blu-ray, and there was an option to watch it with the lyrics onscreen. There were a couple of songs in which lyrics did not appear, one being What Makes The Red Man Red- an insensitive song about Indians (in fact, earlier, they were called Injuns and other insensitive words.)
Peter Pan does get a bit of heat for how Native Americans were portrayed- in fact the red on them has been toned down in recent releases, and while the stereotyping is definitely nothing to praise, you have to also consider how different society's views were 72 years ago versus now.
They are inexcusable, but they are something to be learned from rather than hidden. It's also easy to overlook when you are looking for a fun movie rather than something to complain about from a cartoon made 3/4 of a century ago.
I said earlier that this movie hits more as an adult. As someone who currently worries about living independently, watching Peter Pan for the first time in about a decade was a great comfort. Watching it reminded me that while growing up is scary, it's necessary, but remembering the pleasures of childhood is okay too.
Walt Disney may have made Peter Pan for kids and families, but seeing it again as an adult, I can't help but wonder if his end goal was for people like me...people like Wendy who fear growing up, and still have an inner child. I felt that watching it this time, and it gave me great comfort.
If this is so, I owe Walt my deepest gratitude. Reportedly, Walt was not satisfied with the end product, but to him regardless, I say thanks from the bottom of my heart. Peter Pan is not only one of the finest works of Walt's animated canon, but it speaks to the child in heart more so than it does to the child in age.
I saw Peter Pan often too, not as often as those just named, but definitely time and again. I liked it, but it wasn't a "favorite" if that makes sense. Now I'm turning 27 next month, and as a person on the autism spectrum who is preparing to live on their own, I saw it in a whole new light, and I regard it much more as an adult man.
Peter Pan is a magical flying boy that the Darling kids- Wendy, John, and Michael- believe in. Wendy tells her younger brothers stories of Peter Pan fighting the evil Captain Hook.
When their father wants Wendy to grow up, Peter Pan comes through their window and offers them a chance to go to Neverland, a place where kids never have to grow up. That all sounds fun, so they agree to go, while having to face Hook for themselves.
Peter Pan has some wonderful voice work, most notably Bobby Driscoll as Peter Pan (before his voice deepened, he did live action Disney works like Treasure Island), Kathryn Beamount as Wendy (right after voicing Alice In Wonderland), and most delightfully- Hans Confried voices Mr. Darling and Captain Hook.
A neat thing about Peter Pan productions- whether it be on stage or onscreen, it is common for Mr. Darling and Hook have the same actor- this is because Peter Pan represents a lack of growing up, and Hook symbolizes a hatred of remembering childhood innocence.
Hans Confried does in fact give a delightful performance as Hook, the way he says lines about wanting to avenge Peter Pan for feeding his hand to a crocodile, to his crippling fear of the crocodile, to some of the most devilish things that he does (in his first scene, he casually shoots one of his pirates for being annoying), Hans's interpretation of Hook is very entertaining.
One final thing on Hook- his fight with Peter Pan lasts about 6 minutes, and it's one of the most riveting hero vs. Villain fights I have ever seen, I'm not even kidding.
Peter Pan also has some good songs- You Can Fly! Is the most known, but my favorite is Following The Leader. There's also a song about the importance of having a mother, and a couple other tunes.
I just watched it on Blu-ray, and there was an option to watch it with the lyrics onscreen. There were a couple of songs in which lyrics did not appear, one being What Makes The Red Man Red- an insensitive song about Indians (in fact, earlier, they were called Injuns and other insensitive words.)
Peter Pan does get a bit of heat for how Native Americans were portrayed- in fact the red on them has been toned down in recent releases, and while the stereotyping is definitely nothing to praise, you have to also consider how different society's views were 72 years ago versus now.
They are inexcusable, but they are something to be learned from rather than hidden. It's also easy to overlook when you are looking for a fun movie rather than something to complain about from a cartoon made 3/4 of a century ago.
I said earlier that this movie hits more as an adult. As someone who currently worries about living independently, watching Peter Pan for the first time in about a decade was a great comfort. Watching it reminded me that while growing up is scary, it's necessary, but remembering the pleasures of childhood is okay too.
Walt Disney may have made Peter Pan for kids and families, but seeing it again as an adult, I can't help but wonder if his end goal was for people like me...people like Wendy who fear growing up, and still have an inner child. I felt that watching it this time, and it gave me great comfort.
If this is so, I owe Walt my deepest gratitude. Reportedly, Walt was not satisfied with the end product, but to him regardless, I say thanks from the bottom of my heart. Peter Pan is not only one of the finest works of Walt's animated canon, but it speaks to the child in heart more so than it does to the child in age.
The year 1973 saw the release of 3 Jesus-themed musical films- Jesus Christ Superstar, a blasphemous take on Jesus calling Him "just a man", who dies on the cross but is not clearly resurrected. There is also Godspell, which takes The Gospel of Matthew to New York City.
The Gospel Road is the 3rd of these, and without a doubt the best. Settings aside its low budget, it is a masterpiece, and one of the finest Jesus movies ever made.
The movie is narrated by Johnny Cash, who also co-wrote the film and co-produced it with his wife, June Carter. He also filmed it in the Holy Land, and we see water turned to wine in the actual land of Cana, Jesus's baptism in the actual Jordan River, and so forth.
As you have likely gathered, this is the story of Jesus as told by Johnny Cash. He takes us through the baptism of Jesus, tells us of some of His miracles, His teachings (Cash even stands on a hill and humbly prays The Lord's Prayer at one point), and ultimately His death and resurrection.
Most of the cast are unknowns, but 3 actors, apart from Johnny, stand out. His wife June Carter plays Mary Magdelene. (Johnny comments at one point on how beautiful Mary must have been, while the camera lingers over her face.) Director Robert Elfstorm plays Jesus (Cash speaks all of His words, Elfstorm just acts it out), and Elfstorm's son appears as a younger Jesus in the beginning of the film.
The Biblical accuracy is very well done, with very little license taken, and many quotes coming from The Gospels. I say this with one nit-pick- like in The Jesus Film, which wasn't made for another 6 years- a literal dove appears on Jesus at His baptism, when Matthew 3:16 says that the Spirit of God descended LIKE a dove.
Most of the movie is sung by Cash, and of course the singing is excellent. He opens the movie with a song entitled "Gospel Road", where he sings about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John writing about Jesus.
Many of the songs are just lines in Scripture. (Again, the Biblical accuracy is very praiseworthy here.) For example, in one scene, Jesus heals a blind man, and Johnny Cash sings:
"I see men as trees walking, I see men as trees walking, I see men as trees walking, I'm beginning to see!"
There is one thing that Cash does with the crucifixion scene that is also unique, in which Jesus is shown on the cross on Golgotha, and then we see Him in the same state in America, with cars passing by Jesus. This creative shot reminds us that Jesus's sacrifice and rising again is for all time, for all people. It gave me chills to look at.
There are some nit-picks that I have- for example, the camera work and some of the acting (like from John The Baptist) could be better, but any flaw I have is overshadowed by the film's brilliance.
If you love The Man In Black or Biblical films, I would consider this to be a must see, or at least one with highest recommendation. You don't have to be a Christian to see the heart that Johnny Cash put into this film. Even an atheist could praise the Lord after seeing this wonderful movie!
(This review is a remake of one written on my old page on 12/31/19.)
Note on the DVD: If you watch the movie with subtitles on, know that even though about 90% of the movie is sung, only the spoken words will appear on screen. Songs are introduced with something like: "Johnny Cash sings Gospel", with a note on if the song is continuing or ending. That kind of defeats the purpose of subtitles, but here we are.
The Gospel Road is the 3rd of these, and without a doubt the best. Settings aside its low budget, it is a masterpiece, and one of the finest Jesus movies ever made.
The movie is narrated by Johnny Cash, who also co-wrote the film and co-produced it with his wife, June Carter. He also filmed it in the Holy Land, and we see water turned to wine in the actual land of Cana, Jesus's baptism in the actual Jordan River, and so forth.
As you have likely gathered, this is the story of Jesus as told by Johnny Cash. He takes us through the baptism of Jesus, tells us of some of His miracles, His teachings (Cash even stands on a hill and humbly prays The Lord's Prayer at one point), and ultimately His death and resurrection.
Most of the cast are unknowns, but 3 actors, apart from Johnny, stand out. His wife June Carter plays Mary Magdelene. (Johnny comments at one point on how beautiful Mary must have been, while the camera lingers over her face.) Director Robert Elfstorm plays Jesus (Cash speaks all of His words, Elfstorm just acts it out), and Elfstorm's son appears as a younger Jesus in the beginning of the film.
The Biblical accuracy is very well done, with very little license taken, and many quotes coming from The Gospels. I say this with one nit-pick- like in The Jesus Film, which wasn't made for another 6 years- a literal dove appears on Jesus at His baptism, when Matthew 3:16 says that the Spirit of God descended LIKE a dove.
Most of the movie is sung by Cash, and of course the singing is excellent. He opens the movie with a song entitled "Gospel Road", where he sings about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John writing about Jesus.
Many of the songs are just lines in Scripture. (Again, the Biblical accuracy is very praiseworthy here.) For example, in one scene, Jesus heals a blind man, and Johnny Cash sings:
"I see men as trees walking, I see men as trees walking, I see men as trees walking, I'm beginning to see!"
There is one thing that Cash does with the crucifixion scene that is also unique, in which Jesus is shown on the cross on Golgotha, and then we see Him in the same state in America, with cars passing by Jesus. This creative shot reminds us that Jesus's sacrifice and rising again is for all time, for all people. It gave me chills to look at.
There are some nit-picks that I have- for example, the camera work and some of the acting (like from John The Baptist) could be better, but any flaw I have is overshadowed by the film's brilliance.
If you love The Man In Black or Biblical films, I would consider this to be a must see, or at least one with highest recommendation. You don't have to be a Christian to see the heart that Johnny Cash put into this film. Even an atheist could praise the Lord after seeing this wonderful movie!
(This review is a remake of one written on my old page on 12/31/19.)
Note on the DVD: If you watch the movie with subtitles on, know that even though about 90% of the movie is sung, only the spoken words will appear on screen. Songs are introduced with something like: "Johnny Cash sings Gospel", with a note on if the song is continuing or ending. That kind of defeats the purpose of subtitles, but here we are.
If I mention a movie called Lord of the Rings, you will likely envision the Peter Jackson films that were released from 2001-2003. Those are excellent movies, and some of the best fantasy films ever made for sure.
However, Ralph Bakshi, known for making animated films for a more mature audience, made this Lord of the Rings film in 1978, and while it's not quite as great as Peter Jackson's films, this is still an extraordinary undertaking. Ralph Bakshi's vision is a masterpiece all on its own.
The story is just like the Peter Jackson films, and the books by J. R. R. Tolkien. It follows Frodo, a hobbit who receives the One Ring that must be taken to Mordor to be destroyed, lest it end up in the hands of an evil entity like Sauron or even the Smeagol called Gollum. With brave friends at his side, he battles and strives to complete his quest.
Well, "complete" is a strong word. The Lord of the Rings is a trilogy, and this film only adapts the first 2 books in it- The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. Long story short, this was a result of budget issues and studio disagreements. While this film does not tie all its bows, judging it as what it is, an adaptation of Fellowship and Towers, it is still a grand achievement in animation.
(Rankin-Bass, the duo who made Christmas specials like Rudolph and Frosty, worked together to finish the trilogy with The Return of the King as a TV movie, which aired in 1980 on ABC. That said, the movie is technically an "unrelated project".)
While I have not read the books, I have seen the Peter Jackson films, and much of the movie had similar scenes and that helped me to follow the plot. The character designs are unique and it's easy to distinguish Frodo from Sam from Aragorn, etc. Personally, Gollum and the rotoscoped orcs were my favorite designs.
I also loved Gollum's deep voice. While not raspy like Andy Serkis's interpretation, he did have a deep British-like voice that still gave me chills at the sound of "precious" being spoken.
Speaking of voices, there are some high-profile celebrities involved, such as John Hurt from Alien as Aragorn, and Anthony Daniels as Legolas, he also voiced C3PO in Star Wars. (Most other ones would have minor TV and movie roles compared to these.)
More on the animation- the design is a combination of hand drawn (in the style of Bakshi's films like Fritz The Cat) and rotoscope, combining live action motion capture and animation. Such styles resulted in many visual astonishments- some already mentioned, like the characters, but also background designs and costumes and such.
The movie even opens with the story of the One Ring's creation in a silhouette form that I played twice, I was in such awe of it. This was my favorite part of the movie, and I found it to be the best designed aspect aside from the characters.
I do have some nit-picky quibbles, like the unwrapped ending, some slight slow pacing (at 2 hours and 13 minutes, it's pretty long for an animated film), and mild comparisons to the live action films. Also, Saruman is sometimes called Aruman for some reason. Such nit-picks ARE mostly a result of the aforementioned comparison to the Peter Jackson films. When judging this on its own, a single film that predates the iconic trilogy by about 23 years, these flaws go away.
I'd also like to mention very quickly that the PG rating is based on the MPAA's system in 1978, about 6 years before the PG-13 rating was invented. This is largely due to some minor shots of bloodshed that shouldn't traumatize young viewers too much.
Although the film may be too dark (and not to mention too long at 2 hours and 13 minutes) for some kids who watch PG movies today like Frozen or Moana, I wouldn't outright discourage children from seeing it, but please note that this might not be for all young kids, and "parental guidance" may actually require high suggestions here.
While comparisons to the Peter Jackson films are kind of unavoidable here, those who can set them aside (or have never seen them), and those who can accept that The Return of the King is not adapted in this movie are in for a visual and thematic storytelling treat. I found myself enthralled in it when not nit-picking it, and when the film was over, I grew to appreciate it more and see the movie for what it was.
With its grand animation, storytelling, and all the craftsmanship in-between, The Lord of the Rings is a wonderful adaptation of Tolkien's story, regardless of it being incomplete. When it was all over, I knew that I had seen something very special as a final project. It is one of the best animated movies I have ever seen.
However, Ralph Bakshi, known for making animated films for a more mature audience, made this Lord of the Rings film in 1978, and while it's not quite as great as Peter Jackson's films, this is still an extraordinary undertaking. Ralph Bakshi's vision is a masterpiece all on its own.
The story is just like the Peter Jackson films, and the books by J. R. R. Tolkien. It follows Frodo, a hobbit who receives the One Ring that must be taken to Mordor to be destroyed, lest it end up in the hands of an evil entity like Sauron or even the Smeagol called Gollum. With brave friends at his side, he battles and strives to complete his quest.
Well, "complete" is a strong word. The Lord of the Rings is a trilogy, and this film only adapts the first 2 books in it- The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. Long story short, this was a result of budget issues and studio disagreements. While this film does not tie all its bows, judging it as what it is, an adaptation of Fellowship and Towers, it is still a grand achievement in animation.
(Rankin-Bass, the duo who made Christmas specials like Rudolph and Frosty, worked together to finish the trilogy with The Return of the King as a TV movie, which aired in 1980 on ABC. That said, the movie is technically an "unrelated project".)
While I have not read the books, I have seen the Peter Jackson films, and much of the movie had similar scenes and that helped me to follow the plot. The character designs are unique and it's easy to distinguish Frodo from Sam from Aragorn, etc. Personally, Gollum and the rotoscoped orcs were my favorite designs.
I also loved Gollum's deep voice. While not raspy like Andy Serkis's interpretation, he did have a deep British-like voice that still gave me chills at the sound of "precious" being spoken.
Speaking of voices, there are some high-profile celebrities involved, such as John Hurt from Alien as Aragorn, and Anthony Daniels as Legolas, he also voiced C3PO in Star Wars. (Most other ones would have minor TV and movie roles compared to these.)
More on the animation- the design is a combination of hand drawn (in the style of Bakshi's films like Fritz The Cat) and rotoscope, combining live action motion capture and animation. Such styles resulted in many visual astonishments- some already mentioned, like the characters, but also background designs and costumes and such.
The movie even opens with the story of the One Ring's creation in a silhouette form that I played twice, I was in such awe of it. This was my favorite part of the movie, and I found it to be the best designed aspect aside from the characters.
I do have some nit-picky quibbles, like the unwrapped ending, some slight slow pacing (at 2 hours and 13 minutes, it's pretty long for an animated film), and mild comparisons to the live action films. Also, Saruman is sometimes called Aruman for some reason. Such nit-picks ARE mostly a result of the aforementioned comparison to the Peter Jackson films. When judging this on its own, a single film that predates the iconic trilogy by about 23 years, these flaws go away.
I'd also like to mention very quickly that the PG rating is based on the MPAA's system in 1978, about 6 years before the PG-13 rating was invented. This is largely due to some minor shots of bloodshed that shouldn't traumatize young viewers too much.
Although the film may be too dark (and not to mention too long at 2 hours and 13 minutes) for some kids who watch PG movies today like Frozen or Moana, I wouldn't outright discourage children from seeing it, but please note that this might not be for all young kids, and "parental guidance" may actually require high suggestions here.
While comparisons to the Peter Jackson films are kind of unavoidable here, those who can set them aside (or have never seen them), and those who can accept that The Return of the King is not adapted in this movie are in for a visual and thematic storytelling treat. I found myself enthralled in it when not nit-picking it, and when the film was over, I grew to appreciate it more and see the movie for what it was.
With its grand animation, storytelling, and all the craftsmanship in-between, The Lord of the Rings is a wonderful adaptation of Tolkien's story, regardless of it being incomplete. When it was all over, I knew that I had seen something very special as a final project. It is one of the best animated movies I have ever seen.