Christopher_Reid
Joined Jan 2007
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.
Ratings1.3K
Christopher_Reid's rating
Reviews288
Christopher_Reid's rating
I feel pretty mixed about this one. Overall, I thought it was pretty bad. The story is terrible, compared to the 1996 movie, and it just feels far less fun, consistent or meaningful.
The music isn't as terrible as a lot of other modern musicals, but it doesn't feel all that special either, compared to countless movie classics like Mary Poppins, The Wizard of Oz, the Disney movies, The Sound of Music, etc. Songwriting is a largely lost art and the standards have dropped. Tim Minchin is not bad at funny songs and has talent, but he's not on the level of the people who wrote hundreds of songs in the early 20th century (Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, Jerome Kern, etc.).
The acting is mixed. The main girl is fine but not as cute or charming as the girl from 1996. Emma Thompson is a good actress but doesn't fit the role that well. I'm tempted to say she's too nice. Sure, the character's nasty, but I know Emma's not like that. It's in her eyes. The actress from 1996 was much scarier (and overweight).
The black woman (Lashana Lynch) is one of the worst actresses in modern cinema, in my opinion. I can't stand her acting. All of it is over-the-top, all the time. But every part is one note. She's either very happy or very sad or very scared. Her character never appears to think, presumable because the actress also never thinks. None of the choices make sense to me. Again, while I didn't think the 1996 Matilda was any kind of masterpiece, I can distinctly remember the teacher from that movie and strong emotions she evoked, the empathy and kindness she had for Matilda. That movie felt much more real while this one feels over-produced and contrived.
One highlight is some of the dancing. Especially one of the last numbers at the school. Some of the shots actually look really good. The camera moving down school hallways, kids dancing with tonnes of energy, jumping towards the character, really good choreography, a decent beat and groove to the music - those parts worked. But some of the editing was still unnecessarily frenetic and the movie itself doesn't look that nice overall. So you have about 2-3 minutes of gangster dancing, really energetic exciting stuff, which isn't enough to save the movie.
Had this movie been a little prettier to look at, less "realistic" and more focused nice looking sets and costumes (the way a musical should be), had songs which were just a bit more beautiful and memorable, replaced one or two actors, and better executed it's story (which is a decent story), it could have been really good. Maybe even a modern classic. But alas, it has only a few glimmers of potential and mostly falls flat. It doesn't earn the big moments it tries for.
The music isn't as terrible as a lot of other modern musicals, but it doesn't feel all that special either, compared to countless movie classics like Mary Poppins, The Wizard of Oz, the Disney movies, The Sound of Music, etc. Songwriting is a largely lost art and the standards have dropped. Tim Minchin is not bad at funny songs and has talent, but he's not on the level of the people who wrote hundreds of songs in the early 20th century (Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, Jerome Kern, etc.).
The acting is mixed. The main girl is fine but not as cute or charming as the girl from 1996. Emma Thompson is a good actress but doesn't fit the role that well. I'm tempted to say she's too nice. Sure, the character's nasty, but I know Emma's not like that. It's in her eyes. The actress from 1996 was much scarier (and overweight).
The black woman (Lashana Lynch) is one of the worst actresses in modern cinema, in my opinion. I can't stand her acting. All of it is over-the-top, all the time. But every part is one note. She's either very happy or very sad or very scared. Her character never appears to think, presumable because the actress also never thinks. None of the choices make sense to me. Again, while I didn't think the 1996 Matilda was any kind of masterpiece, I can distinctly remember the teacher from that movie and strong emotions she evoked, the empathy and kindness she had for Matilda. That movie felt much more real while this one feels over-produced and contrived.
One highlight is some of the dancing. Especially one of the last numbers at the school. Some of the shots actually look really good. The camera moving down school hallways, kids dancing with tonnes of energy, jumping towards the character, really good choreography, a decent beat and groove to the music - those parts worked. But some of the editing was still unnecessarily frenetic and the movie itself doesn't look that nice overall. So you have about 2-3 minutes of gangster dancing, really energetic exciting stuff, which isn't enough to save the movie.
Had this movie been a little prettier to look at, less "realistic" and more focused nice looking sets and costumes (the way a musical should be), had songs which were just a bit more beautiful and memorable, replaced one or two actors, and better executed it's story (which is a decent story), it could have been really good. Maybe even a modern classic. But alas, it has only a few glimmers of potential and mostly falls flat. It doesn't earn the big moments it tries for.
I have very mixed feelings about this movie. Maybe I need more time to process it. But also, maybe I should trust my instincts and state my conclusion: the movie itself is very mixed and ambiguous. It has good and bad qualities. I fear some people adore it for the very reasons I find it disappointing.
Let's start with the acting. The acting is very good. You have Robin Williams in his prime in a relatively serious role, a young Ethan Hawke, various young actors who are very convincing and emotive in their roles. This is the main strength of the movie and why it stays with you. I cared about the characters and what they were going through. I saw a lot in their eyes. The movie takes its time and really lingers on their facial expressions. The characters go through stressful experiences and we get a lot of emotions and things to process.
Having said that, the messaging of the movie is quite mixed and possibly too simplistic, sugar-coated or even irresponsible. Let's take the main phrase Carpe Diem, meaning Seize the Day. It is inspiring, certainly. But inspiration to do what, exactly? To jump off a bridge? As cliched as that example is, we use it for a reason. Teenagers hardly need the encouragement to "seize the day". Maybe that means trying drugs, stealing, cheating, defying parents. It's very risky advice.
That's part of my problem with the movie. I'm a teacher myself. If only I had students as focused as the ones in this movie. So quiet and attentive. Seldom does that happen. Clearly it's set at some kind of elite, private school. But that should be valued. Let's not shun discipline, tradition, study, etc. Those values exist for a reason.
So while I do like Robin Williams a lot as the teacher, he's very funny, charismatic, energetic, etc. The thing is, we don't see him teach much specific stuff. And the other teachers are treated as stiff, 1-dimensional villains. What, because they teach in a strict, conventional way? Doesn't that work though? Are the parents paying for their kids to learn maths, literature, history, etc., or so their kids develop a lot of self-esteem, maybe an overload of self-esteem, and try new things, even risky and dangerous things? Or to develop unrealistic dreams and goals which take away from critical study time?
I suppose the movie technically keeps this open for us to draw our own conclusions, but it could have used more nuance. We see Williams clarify that there's a difference between being brave and stupid but only once and we rarely see how the other teachers do things. The movie seems to treat all rules and discipline as bad. The boys smoke. Is that good for them? Is that a part of seizing the day?
At worst, the movie seems to support vague, general hedonism, carelessness, don't bother with study or hard work, just be loud and obnoxious. It reminds me of young political activists who disrupt people from studying maths, science, engineering and other hard subjects, in favour of the latest chants and slogans for some political movement.
Had the movie delved into the distinction between rules, conventions, habits, etc., which are necessary to learn and build a good society, vs. Rules which shut down minds and take away freedom, that would have been more insightful. But we get little analysis of that difference.
The movie starts to veer in one direction towards the end and I found this a bit limiting and frustrating. The other subplots were quite interesting but they take a backseat. The trope of the overcontrolling father vs. The son desperate for freedom to do other things, like acting, is a bit tiresome. And the lack of nuance is frustrating. For example, the son is getting straight A's. Surely even the most stubborn father could allow him some freedom at that point. I think that would make a reasonable compromise. As long as your marks meet a certain standard, you're allowed to do X, Y and Z.
I do have to admit, as soon as I saw the play the son was in, I laughed and thought I actually might side with the father. He looks like a tree. He's wearing leaves. The costume looks ridiculous. And the Shakespearian dialogue feels silly as well. You really do start to see the dad's point of view. While I'm half-joking, it feels like a weird choice on the part of the filmmakers. If the boy's passion is acting, at least let him perform something that looks dignified and professional. It looks very amateurish in the movie which undermines the seriousness it's meant to carry.
I also disliked what felt like cliches throughout the movie. The way Robin Williams has the full attention of his class and has these beautiful moments with them. It feels artificial and false. While I joke a lot with students, sometimes give little speeches, make them laugh or put them on the spot, there's also a lot of very dry explanations and repeated examples and hard work. There is firm feedback.
Again, to be clear, I liked Williams' character and his warmth and way of treating his students - the way he gains their respect - but I didn't like that the movie treated all of his lessons like bizarre, wonderful life-changing adventures. That's how you get egotistical political activists with their heads in the clouds. Sometimes, you need to come back to simple, concrete things. It could be anything from defining words to analysing poetry, giving feedback on student work, etc. Not constant magic lectures.
The movie feels like it ends too abruptly. Maybe this is an effective choice - part of why it stays with you. But maybe it's just lazy. I wanted to know what happens next. The lack of an answer is frustrating. And it's especially annoying when obvious points to me aren't brought up by any of the characters. For example, you can hate the father all you want, but isn't he paying for his son's education? How old is the son? If he wants to do acting, can't he do that later? Can he work and save up money?
Again, if his marks are good, why not let him spend his free time however he wants? And, as I've emphasised, why not break down why rules exist in the first place? How do we distinguish between brave choices to do bold, new things vs. Being a loud, self-centred jerk? What's the difference between a high quality, strict school with impeccable behaviour and results but happy students vs. A miserable school where students lose all humanity and become vessels for memorising bland facts and regurgitating the opinions fed to them? Where's the balance between patient, diligent hard work vs. Playing and exploring? The movie doesn't really offer much insight, merely implying that one extreme is bad, ignoring that the other extreme is perhaps even worse!
There's the concept of "thinking for yourself" and yet we rarely see anyone think. None of those key arguments are brought up. I'd settle for anyone thinking, teacher or student!
Anyway, this is still a good movie, just one which veers into sentimentality and a contrived, ambiguous message. It could have been really special. And it does certainly have impact. Robin Williams is very memorable. The students are memorable. There's much to be said for the bravery of standing up to authority. But the risk is that people don't know when or why to do that and some people will celebrate this as having the message of do whatever you want, eat the rich, knock over cars, set things on fire, kiss a girl without permission, etc. Not a message you want to risk conveying. Still, it was clearly thought-provoking for me. I just don't know if Peter Weir thought about this stuff.
Let's start with the acting. The acting is very good. You have Robin Williams in his prime in a relatively serious role, a young Ethan Hawke, various young actors who are very convincing and emotive in their roles. This is the main strength of the movie and why it stays with you. I cared about the characters and what they were going through. I saw a lot in their eyes. The movie takes its time and really lingers on their facial expressions. The characters go through stressful experiences and we get a lot of emotions and things to process.
Having said that, the messaging of the movie is quite mixed and possibly too simplistic, sugar-coated or even irresponsible. Let's take the main phrase Carpe Diem, meaning Seize the Day. It is inspiring, certainly. But inspiration to do what, exactly? To jump off a bridge? As cliched as that example is, we use it for a reason. Teenagers hardly need the encouragement to "seize the day". Maybe that means trying drugs, stealing, cheating, defying parents. It's very risky advice.
That's part of my problem with the movie. I'm a teacher myself. If only I had students as focused as the ones in this movie. So quiet and attentive. Seldom does that happen. Clearly it's set at some kind of elite, private school. But that should be valued. Let's not shun discipline, tradition, study, etc. Those values exist for a reason.
So while I do like Robin Williams a lot as the teacher, he's very funny, charismatic, energetic, etc. The thing is, we don't see him teach much specific stuff. And the other teachers are treated as stiff, 1-dimensional villains. What, because they teach in a strict, conventional way? Doesn't that work though? Are the parents paying for their kids to learn maths, literature, history, etc., or so their kids develop a lot of self-esteem, maybe an overload of self-esteem, and try new things, even risky and dangerous things? Or to develop unrealistic dreams and goals which take away from critical study time?
I suppose the movie technically keeps this open for us to draw our own conclusions, but it could have used more nuance. We see Williams clarify that there's a difference between being brave and stupid but only once and we rarely see how the other teachers do things. The movie seems to treat all rules and discipline as bad. The boys smoke. Is that good for them? Is that a part of seizing the day?
At worst, the movie seems to support vague, general hedonism, carelessness, don't bother with study or hard work, just be loud and obnoxious. It reminds me of young political activists who disrupt people from studying maths, science, engineering and other hard subjects, in favour of the latest chants and slogans for some political movement.
Had the movie delved into the distinction between rules, conventions, habits, etc., which are necessary to learn and build a good society, vs. Rules which shut down minds and take away freedom, that would have been more insightful. But we get little analysis of that difference.
The movie starts to veer in one direction towards the end and I found this a bit limiting and frustrating. The other subplots were quite interesting but they take a backseat. The trope of the overcontrolling father vs. The son desperate for freedom to do other things, like acting, is a bit tiresome. And the lack of nuance is frustrating. For example, the son is getting straight A's. Surely even the most stubborn father could allow him some freedom at that point. I think that would make a reasonable compromise. As long as your marks meet a certain standard, you're allowed to do X, Y and Z.
I do have to admit, as soon as I saw the play the son was in, I laughed and thought I actually might side with the father. He looks like a tree. He's wearing leaves. The costume looks ridiculous. And the Shakespearian dialogue feels silly as well. You really do start to see the dad's point of view. While I'm half-joking, it feels like a weird choice on the part of the filmmakers. If the boy's passion is acting, at least let him perform something that looks dignified and professional. It looks very amateurish in the movie which undermines the seriousness it's meant to carry.
I also disliked what felt like cliches throughout the movie. The way Robin Williams has the full attention of his class and has these beautiful moments with them. It feels artificial and false. While I joke a lot with students, sometimes give little speeches, make them laugh or put them on the spot, there's also a lot of very dry explanations and repeated examples and hard work. There is firm feedback.
Again, to be clear, I liked Williams' character and his warmth and way of treating his students - the way he gains their respect - but I didn't like that the movie treated all of his lessons like bizarre, wonderful life-changing adventures. That's how you get egotistical political activists with their heads in the clouds. Sometimes, you need to come back to simple, concrete things. It could be anything from defining words to analysing poetry, giving feedback on student work, etc. Not constant magic lectures.
The movie feels like it ends too abruptly. Maybe this is an effective choice - part of why it stays with you. But maybe it's just lazy. I wanted to know what happens next. The lack of an answer is frustrating. And it's especially annoying when obvious points to me aren't brought up by any of the characters. For example, you can hate the father all you want, but isn't he paying for his son's education? How old is the son? If he wants to do acting, can't he do that later? Can he work and save up money?
Again, if his marks are good, why not let him spend his free time however he wants? And, as I've emphasised, why not break down why rules exist in the first place? How do we distinguish between brave choices to do bold, new things vs. Being a loud, self-centred jerk? What's the difference between a high quality, strict school with impeccable behaviour and results but happy students vs. A miserable school where students lose all humanity and become vessels for memorising bland facts and regurgitating the opinions fed to them? Where's the balance between patient, diligent hard work vs. Playing and exploring? The movie doesn't really offer much insight, merely implying that one extreme is bad, ignoring that the other extreme is perhaps even worse!
There's the concept of "thinking for yourself" and yet we rarely see anyone think. None of those key arguments are brought up. I'd settle for anyone thinking, teacher or student!
Anyway, this is still a good movie, just one which veers into sentimentality and a contrived, ambiguous message. It could have been really special. And it does certainly have impact. Robin Williams is very memorable. The students are memorable. There's much to be said for the bravery of standing up to authority. But the risk is that people don't know when or why to do that and some people will celebrate this as having the message of do whatever you want, eat the rich, knock over cars, set things on fire, kiss a girl without permission, etc. Not a message you want to risk conveying. Still, it was clearly thought-provoking for me. I just don't know if Peter Weir thought about this stuff.
So, I watched this on the plane back home from Seattle and was very pleasantly surprised. I really think this movie is grossly underrated.
Yes, it's very simple and childish. But it has a lot of charm and warmth to it. I laughed a lot and really enjoyed the vibe it created. In particular, the kids and the dog are very cute and adorable. The way the little girl abruptly shouts "Liar!" and points is a perfect embodiment of the passionate adherence to the truth a lot of children have. They cannot stand by and hear lies, even from an adult.
The subplots work well, in my opinion, even if they don't lead that far. Seeing the older girl shy because she likes a boy and Beethoven helping her meet him was very nice. It's less about some long-term journey and more about the feeling in the moment. I thought it captured that feeling of young, unrequited love really well. The butterflies in the stomach, having a crush. Isn't that what movies are meant to do? Capture those feelings?
Charles Grodin is very likeable and funny as the dad. He's grumpy in a tame kind of way. Reluctantly going along with his lovely wife and children, despite all the mess and stress of the new dog. I feel like he plays it at the right level, not too over the top. Just simmering and frustrated but unable to deny the joy the dog brings to his family. Actually, maybe that's the point. He truly does hate the dog and all the problems it causes. But he loves his family just that little bit more, so you can see his conflict.
The villains are generic but entertaining. You enjoy seeing them defeated. I especially liked a brief argument between the parents near the end. Kind of angry and shocked but relieved and then forgiving, etc. It captures that chaotic assortment of emotions you probably would have after similar crazy events, better than most movies.
There are many familiar faces, such as Bonnie Hunt, David Duchovny, the wife from Everybody Loves Raymond and Stanley Tucci. They're all quite good. I just thought the movie worked really well. The music is charming and helps hold it together. It's the kind of movie for which I can overlook cliches and a lack of daring because it does the formula so nicely. This is ideal for kids, and I guess I'm still like a kid so I like it as well!
Yes, it's very simple and childish. But it has a lot of charm and warmth to it. I laughed a lot and really enjoyed the vibe it created. In particular, the kids and the dog are very cute and adorable. The way the little girl abruptly shouts "Liar!" and points is a perfect embodiment of the passionate adherence to the truth a lot of children have. They cannot stand by and hear lies, even from an adult.
The subplots work well, in my opinion, even if they don't lead that far. Seeing the older girl shy because she likes a boy and Beethoven helping her meet him was very nice. It's less about some long-term journey and more about the feeling in the moment. I thought it captured that feeling of young, unrequited love really well. The butterflies in the stomach, having a crush. Isn't that what movies are meant to do? Capture those feelings?
Charles Grodin is very likeable and funny as the dad. He's grumpy in a tame kind of way. Reluctantly going along with his lovely wife and children, despite all the mess and stress of the new dog. I feel like he plays it at the right level, not too over the top. Just simmering and frustrated but unable to deny the joy the dog brings to his family. Actually, maybe that's the point. He truly does hate the dog and all the problems it causes. But he loves his family just that little bit more, so you can see his conflict.
The villains are generic but entertaining. You enjoy seeing them defeated. I especially liked a brief argument between the parents near the end. Kind of angry and shocked but relieved and then forgiving, etc. It captures that chaotic assortment of emotions you probably would have after similar crazy events, better than most movies.
There are many familiar faces, such as Bonnie Hunt, David Duchovny, the wife from Everybody Loves Raymond and Stanley Tucci. They're all quite good. I just thought the movie worked really well. The music is charming and helps hold it together. It's the kind of movie for which I can overlook cliches and a lack of daring because it does the formula so nicely. This is ideal for kids, and I guess I'm still like a kid so I like it as well!
Recently taken polls
5 total polls taken
