Krud Reviews

The Music Man (2003 TV Movie)

Can't Disney leave Broadway alone?

[3/10 · 4 June 2003]

I have two issues with this movie... well, okay, more than two, but I'm only going to discuss two of them here.

First, my vote/opinion is skewed by the fact that I have a problem with Disney picking up the rights to established and beloved Broadway musicals, most of which already have beloved faithful movie adaptations, and "re-making" or "revisualizing" them. I think that if anything, these shows suffer from the glossy finish Disney applies to them. Someone complimented Disney on making "The Music Man" look more like a movie and less like a stage production. But the thing of it is, "The Music Man" is, was, and always shall be (in most people's hearts and minds) a stage production. The fact that the original movie, starring Robert Preston (in the role that not only made him famous, but the musical famous in return), was done in the style of a stage production is because that's how Meredith Wilson envisioned it. (Admittedly, even the 60's movie from Warner Bros. added some location pieces, but the overall tone was still that of a stage.)

But enough about that. (I, like many other fans, could argue far longer than anyone would care to hear.)

My biggest problem of all, however, is Matthew Broderick.

Now, I like Matthew Broderick, when he's in a role that suits him. This was not one of those roles. I was never at any moment convinced that he could be a charismatic, fly-by-night, slippery con-man. He was too "nice" and soft-spoken for that. While Preston had that fast-talking voice and a commanding presence people couldn't ignore, Broderick had more of a sedative effect that would not work on most people. On top of that, he had little emotion. It seemed as though Broderick had dusted off his Ferris Beuller persona and tried to apply it here, with less than stellar results.

Anyway, if you still don't know what my beef is, I challenge you to go to Borders, or Barnes & Noble, or somewhere that lets you scan music CD's and listen to segments; and compare the original Robert Preston soundtrack recording, followed with the Matthew Broderick version. I think you'll find that while the first one makes you want to see a parade, the second would be good for self-hypnosis.

Not to be confused with the "Think System".

State and Main (2000)

I'm torn...

[4/10 · 28 October 2002]

I gave this movie a 6 out of 10, but only because that's what my initial experience was of the movie. (Perhaps the movie is worth a 10, but my ability to enjoy it rates a 6, who knows.)

The only reason I'm being ambivalent, is because I've just read loads of comments from people who all but worship this movie, lauding it as the greatest thing since "Citizen Kane" (alright, so I'm exaggerating).

I think I got off on the wrong foot with this movie because I misunderstood what I was getting into. When I checked out the DVD, the cover (unlike the stoplight cover shown on this site, a more appropriate design I think), it showed all of the characters in what I felt was a rather dippy-looking ensemble portrait. From that and the tagline, I had the impression this was going to be a tour-de-farce on movie-making. And perhaps it was, on some level, but it was so subtle that it was hard to appreciate when watching at 10:00 at night.

Granted, I did "get" a lot of the allegedly wonderful jokes, including the duality of the movies, but the fact is this was largely a romance/morality play, which quite frankly is not what I thought I was getting when I picked this up.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Rebecca Pidgeon were definitely the stars of this show, despite the obvious attempts at ensemble casting.

*POSSIBLE SPOILER, BUT ONLY SLIGHTLY*

And here's a question: was there a point to the whole mayor and his wife bit? That seemed to go absolutely nowhere. Was it just a social commentary on how people clamor around people with status and money? If so, fine, but it cluttered the film.

When I finished this movie, I was frustrated. I was left wanting more; not because I loved what I'd seen and couldn't get enough, but because it felt incomplete to me.

Finally, Mamet is the master of subtlety (I loved "The Spanish Prisoner"), and it shows in his satire. I'll concede that there are probably some gems of humor buried in the dialogue were I to go back and give it another viewing. But movies shouldn't cater to the video-owning crowd; it should "work" on the first run. I still find tidbits in movies that I never caught before, and it's great when I find them. But that's usually in a movie that had plenty of "obvious" upfront material to keep me coming back for more. If I hadn't read the comments about needing a sharp ear and intelligence to fully appreciate the movie, I never would have known that was the case. I would have written it off as a half-bake movie, which it must not be since it has such a loyal following.

I think I might sit down and watch it again when I'm more awake and know what kind of movie is in store. At that point I may up my rating. But for now, I have to go with my own experience.

Rugrats in Paris (2000)

I laughed, I cried, I felt manipulated. Good job!

[7/10 · 27 November 2000]

If you only see one movie this year... hopefully this isn't it. It's a good movie (I gave it an 8 out of 10 though I was probably a bit generous), but there are better ones out there. However, if you're an adult with children, or you just want to take a break from "serious cinema" and go on a shallow emotional roller-coaster ride, this is your ticket. Geared primarily for kids and the adults they drag along with them, this will probably appeal to those who may have had a bad experience with other holiday releases (i.e., one featuring a certain revamped Dr. Seuss character who shall remain nameless.) It's definitely one of those movies that you've got to allow to be corny, cheesey, and oftentimes sappy in order to enjoy it. If none of this appeals to you, then you'd best avoid this movie, because it's full of it. Though it makes up for it by having its share of in-jokes, parodies, and subtle "wink over the kid's heads" humor that won't make sense to them for a decade or so. Was it an unnecessary sequel? Perhaps. But as far as unnecessary sequels go, this is one of the better ones I've seen recently.

[Warning: single fathers with children may have difficulty explaining to their kids afterward why they can't go mother-shopping in Paris too. (And no, that's not a spoiler, you're told that much in newspaper blurbs.)]

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

Chuck Jones, Boris Karloff, and other sadly missing influences.

[7/10 · 19 November 2000]

Since this is a Christmas movie, I'll be as kind as I can while still being honest.

I gave the movie a 6, but only because I felt the movie's production values off-set the disappointing adaptation.

I think that most people, regardless of how they felt about the movie after seeing it, would agree on one thing: Jim Carrey is very much his "usual self" (think Ace Ventura, Mask, Tony Clifton, and a half dozen vague impersonations). For those who are fans of Jim Carrey's manic over-the-top delivery, this is... fine. For those who aren't, it will undoubtedly ruin the experience for them.

Had I never seen the original "Grinch" book or cartoon, I most likely would have enjoyed this movie a lot more. Unfortunately, I've read/seen them several times throughout my life, making it very difficult to separate them from what I was viewing on-screen. Had I not been overly familiar with Jim Carrey's usual mannerisms, I would have been able to more easily lose myself in the Seuss-like environment. Unfortunately, I kept seeing the Grinch bursting into seemingly un-Grinchy comedy bits. (What did the "Ron Howard as director" sketch have to do with anything?)

Now, the good points: the scenery, while not exactly natural-looking, definitely had that curvey, distorted Seuss-like perspective, with the occasional dash of Chuck Jones-ian skewed angles as well. The makeup was incredible on everyone, the computer animation segments were impressive enough to fool most people, and Anthony Hopkin's narrative portions were the closest one could get to the original story.

--------------------- SPOILER WARNING: If you haven't seen the movie and you intend to, don't read the next paragraph. Skip to the paragraph after that one. Thank you.

--------------------- A few gripes: Could they have come up with a more disturbing method to have the Grinch's heart grow two sizes? It looked quite painful. Also, since when did the Grinch harbor Oscar the Grouch sensibilities? His lair resembled a cross between Blankman's secret headquarters, Oscar's trash can, and Pee-Wee's Playhouse. Max the dog, while well-trained, seemed a bit too much like Benji; and Cindy-Lou Who, who was "no more than two", is suddenly six or seven and more intelligent than the entire adult population. At times I felt like I was watching "Horton Hears A Hackneyed Cliche'": the mysterious orphan in a basket, the alienated child, the unrequitted love; at one point, I felt like I was watching Disney's "Hunchback Of Notre Dame," when they gave the Grinch an award and ultimately humiliated him in public, much to the dismay of the secret love interest. -----------------------------

For those of you who didn't read the spoiler, it's okay, I'm done ranting now. I went into the movie really wanting to like it - expecting to like it, in fact. I went away feeling a bit like Cindy-Lou Who did at one point in the film: Too much shallow sentimentality and glittery flash, not enough 'keeping it real'. It's a cute Christmas movie, and somewhere in it there's a moral, albeit a muddled one; but if you're looking for a faithful recreation of a cartoon classic, you might have better luck with "Popeye", "Inspector Gadget", and "Casper". (Then again, maybe not.)

Dinosaur (2000)

It's pretty, but is it art?

[5/10 · 29 May 2000]

Anyone who's into computers knows that impressive computer graphics do not necessarily equal quality entertainment. Apparently the folks at Disney haven't realized that. Yes, I enjoy realistic computer graphics, but if I want nothing but pure eye-candy I'll go see an IMAX movie. Fantasia 2000 had a great deal of impressive graphics uncluttered by plot, but most people knew that going in.

I for one hadn't even realized they were going to make the dinosaurs talk. (Or at least the herbivores... the carnivores seem to have been made less intelligent by default. Unfortunately I don't have time for a debate on the political agendas of the film.) I thought that perhaps Disney would do something akin to "Homeward Bound," where the talking would be implied by voiceovers. Instead we get a disturbing view of these photo-realistic creatures making facial expressions nature never intended... a decision that greatly lessened the believability for me. I agree with others who make the comparisons to "Land Before Time" and "A Bug's Life," though I must disagree with the "Tarzan" reference. At no point do we really get the impression that Aladar (the main character) has been raised by lemurs. In fact, if you removed the entire lemur element, you might even have a better movie. (Though the hair was oh-so-impressive... except anytime something causes you to notice how impressive it is, it's probably stealing the scene more than it should.)

Finally, I'd like to end my review by listing every major plot twist, surprise element, and original concept:

-----------

The Sixth Sense (1999)

An intelligent thriller? The mind boggles...

[9/10 · 6 August 1999]

I wasn't sure what to expect when I went to see this. The last time I saw Bruce Willis helping out an abnormal young boy was "Mercury Rising", and well, I wasn't that impressed.

This movie made me re-evaluate Bruce's acting ability. I now know that he has some. (Quite a lot, actually.) Everyone in this movie seems perfectly suited for their roles. The writing, directing, and orchestrations are all excellent. Why am I singling out incredibly vague points about this movie? Because it is one of those movies that cannot, and should not, be spoiled by anyone, reviewing or not. If anyone tries to tell you anything about this movie (other than that you should see it), cover your ears and yell, "I can't hear you, la-la-la!" You'll thank me later.

Though only PG-13, I'd be hard-pressed to recommend it to younger audiences. I'm an adult, but I may have a nightmare or two from this one. But trust me, it's worth the risk.

I give this a well-deserved 10. I smell an Oscar or three...

Deep Blue Sea (1999)

Jurassic Park meets Jaws meets Godzilla meets Flipper meets Scream...

[5/10 · 4 August 1999]

After seeing this movie, I understand why IMDB categorizes it as an Action/Horror/Sci-Fi/Thriller. However, I think they've missed a category, namely Comedy. I can't remember the last time I laughed out loud at a suspense-filled "man vs. mutant nature" movie... okay, I can remember. It was Godzilla. This, however, was nowhere near as painful. Though I reluctantly admit to enjoying this movie somewhat, that doesn't mean it was good. In fact, I liked it for the same reason that I like movies featured on "Mystery Science Theater 3000": it was so bad, it was funny. I would love to go into detail about why this is the case, but I wouldn't want to give away any of the plot, other than to say that "it's not wise to screw with Mother Nature". If this is scarier than Jaws, then I need to see Jaws again, as it must be hilarious. (L.L. Cool J was the best actor in this movie.)

Godzilla (I) (1998)

Despite their catch phrase, size didn't matter all that much.

[1/10 · 11 July 1999]

There are a number of things I could gripe about regarding this movie, but it's not worth my time. However, the biggest complain I have against this overblown remake is this: there is no sense of proportion.

Anyone with the slightest amount of observation skill will notice that throughout the movie, Godzilla seems to grow and shrink, depending on what the situation calls for. One moment he's frolicking in a subway tunnel, the next he's obliterating a skyscraper. It's as if they couldn't decide whether they were going for a T-Rex look or... well, Godzilla.

I'd say more, but I've already given the movie more attention than I'd care to.

(The scariest part of the movie? It leaves room for a sequel...)

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

Why "R" Stands for "Restricted"

[8/10 · 10 July 1999]

First off, I want to re-iterate what many people have already been saying, since I don't think it can be beat into the ground enough:

Attention Parents, Guardians, And Responsible Adults: DO NOT TAKE KIDS TO THIS MOVIE! I mean it. I'm not being prudish or censoring, I'm just warning you of dire consequences. There are phrases in this movie even I've never heard, and I thought I had heard them all.

I don't need to tell you the plot, or how funny it was, because a hundred reviews have already said as much. I remember what it was like to be a child, and I know that this movie, if they see it, will affect them permanently.

Having said that, I think it's also fair to note that this movie, in addition to being Adults Only, should have a minimum intelligence requirement, for two reasons. First of all, if you're not smart enough, you won't "get" the point of the movie. You'll only perceive it as a politically incorrect trashfest (which, in all fairness, it is) and nothing more. However, allow yourself the nerves of steel to get past the blue humor (or perhaps embrace it, if you dare), and pick up on the theme: parents are responsible for their children, not the rest of the world. There are worse things out there than "South Park" (probably), and it's up to parents-- ah, forget it.

There's the other group of people who will enjoy this simply for its shock value. They, too, are missing the point, though only slightly. Sure, vulgarity supposedly saves the day in the movie (I won't say how), but IT'S A JOKE. They're not trying to promote the "F" word (right?...), they're just trying to get people to see how trivial language can--

Okay, no more tangents. Bottom line: this is the best movie I've ever seen that I wouldn't recommend to just anyone. It requires a certain maturity level and/or world view to fully appreciate, one that many people don't have. Okay, sermon's over.

P.S. To use Mr. Mackey's vernacular "Holy poo, this movie kicks buns, Mmmkay?"

Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999)

Austin's mojo isn't the only thing missing from this weak sequel...

[3/10 · 18 June 1999]

It's been quite some time since I've seen a sequel that has given me a feeling of disappointment that must've been felt by Ivana Humpalot in the movie. Austin let me down in more ways than one. Not only were the jokes mostly recycled from the previous movie, but the timing was just slightly off, perhaps due to the "time machine" (mustn't forget the "quotation marks" now). I know this isn't supposed to be a top-notch film, but still -- I expected better from the mind of Myers. Here's hoping his next film leaves a better taste in my mouth, and fewer product placements. [Part Three: The Missing Movie Magic Mojo]

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

I liked the book, and thought I'd like the movie. I was wrong.

[2/10 · 20 January 1999]

While I enjoyed the slow, majestic score, I'm not rating Wagner here. There was a lot of build-up in the movie, but to what, I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps if I hadn't read the book, I would have been intrigued with the events as they were portrayed (HAL's voice was sufficiently unemotional yet menacing). Unfortunately, I did read it, and it seemed that the movie was just a preview of the novel. Throughout the movie I was intently focused on other things... call me jaded if you want, but the movie taught me one thing, and that is, see the movie first, then read the way it is supposed to be. Arthur C. Clark's story deserved better, in my unhumble opinion.