StrongRex Reviews

The Music Man (1962)

This Movie Wasted Their Shirley Jones

[5/10 · 22 July 2022]

They had Shirley Jones right there, one of the loveliest 1950s and 60s screen actresses with a gorgeous soprano voice to boot. She will always be my favorite Laurey from Oklahoma and she is one reason for me to visit the 1950s should time travel ever become possible and available. With Marian Paroo's high soprano octaves, this on paper sounded like perfect casting.

So why, oh why did they screw it up? Why in the world did they lower her songs by at least an octave? As a result of them doing so, every time I watch this movie and listen to Shirley Jones singing her parts, she sounds really dull and boring. Even worse than that, they cut My White Knight and replaced it with a really bland, completely unmemorable song written for the movie, and there was no reason for them to do that. I've seen Oklahoma many times and listened to the music, and Shirley Jones is not only one of my favorite performers in that movie, but I know for a fact she could've sung that high without any issues. Just listen to the way she sings Many A New Day and People Will Say We're In Love from Oklahoma. She definitely could've sung Marian's songs in their original key, and she would've knocked My White Knight out of the park for sure. There was no reason to think she couldn't, and there was no reason for them to make those lame changes.

(Oh and speaking of them cutting My White Knight and replacing it with a boring, unmemorable song, here is something actually really infuriating. Upon rewatching this movie recently, they actually included a portion of My White Knight in the middle of that said boring, unmemorable song, drawing attention to the fact that they could've just kept My White Knight instead of writing that whole other song and they chose not to. And like I suspected, Shirley Jones DID hit the high notes comfortably and perfectly, also drawing attention to the fact that she could've done the same with all the other songs, so there was no need at all to tamper with their range for the movie.)

I know there are many people who dislike the remake with Matthew Broderick, but I'm sorry guys. They used Kristin Chenoweth in the remake way better than they used Shirley Jones here, and it's one of the reasons I prefer the remake because Kristin just SELLS it as Marian. And Barbara Cook, I could listen to her ALL DAY. It makes me extremely sad that I can't say the same for Shirley Jones because I freaking love her to death otherwise.

Just...why, movie? You wasted your Shirley Jones. You had her right there and you let her go to waste. I don't think I'll ever be able to forgive you for that - in fact, Music Man is one of my favorite stage shows but this is probably the number one reason I don't care for this movie.

Oliver! (1968)

2 1/2 Hours of Corny, Sugary, Happy-Go-Lucky Filler

[2/10 · 17 July 2022]

Wow, what a way to adapt a complex, serious, melancholy, dark, sinister story and have absolutely no respect for the source material or your audience's intelligence. I wouldn't consider Oliver Twist to be one of my favorite works of literature (it is a classic that I respect), but even I'm looking at this adaptation and wondering, "what the hell were they thinking"?

Whenever you're adapting anything, it goes without saying that you got to keep the tone consistent and faithful to the source material. They did not do this here. I imagine that with a story like Oliver Twist, it's a difficult job deciding what to cut and what to leave into the story for running time purposes, so I would think that whoever is tasked with the job would keep whatever is essential to keep the story moving, developing the characters, and not wasting the audience's time.

But what do the writers do? They inject corny musical dance numbers that have nothing to do with the story or characters ("Consider Yourself" being the absolute worst example of this, especially since the ensemble had no business participating in the song that had nothing to do with them, and all they did was skip around and look like imbeciles). Not only are they way too upbeat, but they drag on for way too long and it takes forever for us to get back to the story. It took about 35 to 40 minutes for us to meet Fagin in this movie, whereas it should've been more like 20. The rest of Act I and a good chunk of Act II is just like this - chock-full of pointless, happy-go-lucky song and dance numbers that add nothing to the story and tell us nothing about the characters, (There is one song dedicated to perseverating on the fact that the boys like Nancy, and another one that beats us over the head with the fact that Fagin misses his boys when they go pick pocketing and they keep telling him "we'll be back soon") and make the story drag for way too long. As a result, certain important characters are cut and certain essential plot elements are either cut or left completely unresolved, all because they wanted to inject as many corny Broadway style song-and-dance numbers as they could. All style with very little substance.

That is a tragedy considering this is Oliver Twist we are talking about. Dark musicals have been made before and they've done very well, like Sweeney Todd, so they totally could've done this with Oliver Twist. What adds insult to injury is Fagin and Artful Dodger walking off into the sunset, Oliver not finding anything out about his family, and "Consider Yourself" playing over the end credits despite the fact that again, it does NOT fit the tone of Oliver Twist at all.

If you're a musical/literature lover, skip this one.

Tom and Huck (1995)

Quite possibly the worst version of Twain's classic

[2/10 · 14 July 2018]

Oh, where to begin with this movie. I'll start with some of the good: Eric Schweig was perfectly cast as the murderous, intimidating, menacing Injun Joe. If I could create my own Tom Sawyer classic movie, I'd recast him. Same with Michael McShane as Muff Potter. Jonathan Taylor Thomas sounds like the perfect Tom Sawyer on paper; he does have a history of playing rambunctious, trouble-making boys, and he has a special place in my heart as Simba from The Lion King, my favorite Disney movie. But here...he's just alright. He doesn't have as much of the edge that made Tom Sawyer such a fascinating, dynamic character. Most of the blame for that goes to the writers though; I'm sure Thomas would have done much better had he been given better material to work with. Everyone else was sorely miscast (i.e Huckleberry Finn, Becky Thatcher, Aunt Polly, Widow Douglas, Joe Harper, etc.), and the characters who did have decent casting (Judge Thatcher, Ben Rogers, Mr. Dobbins, etc.) didn't stand out very much.

No attempt was made to create the atmosphere of Tom Sawyer (the dialect, the plot, the setting, the characters, etc.) Every boy, including Tom Sawyer, went barefoot in the book, but in the movie they all wore shoes. This may not seem like a big deal, but it's part of the edge Tom Sawyer and his friends have in the book; they're not afraid to get down and dirty in the adventures they have, and the boys who do wear shoes in the book are looked down upon as sissies.

In the novel, Tom Sawyer gets whooped at least twice. In this version, he doesn't even get it once.

Huckleberry Finn in the books was carefree, laid-back, and is satisfied with his independent lifestyle. Although he is despised by every "respectable" adult in St. Petersburg, he's envied and friends with most of the children, and he doesn't feel sorry for himself. Brad Renfro's Huck is snide, irritable, sarcastic, and even somewhat of a bully, nothing at all like Twain's Huck. This Huck DOES feel sorry for himself, and often takes his frustrations out on Tom.

Becky Thatcher in the book is a bit too demure and puts on airs. But she isn't a bitch. In the book, Tom gets back into her good graces by taking the hit for her (literally) and their relationship grows even stronger in the cave scene. In the movie, she's portrayed as a bitch plain and simple; in fact she holds a continuous grudge against Tom throughout the movie, which makes their bonding in the cave scene really forced. Not to mention that Rachael Leigh Cook as Becky Thatcher is probably the worst case of miscasting in this movie; she was way too old and was a good two heads taller than Jonathan Taylor Thomas.

Disney could have made their own version of Tom Sawyer great, especially with Jonathan Taylor Thomas as the lead. What a wasted, missed opportunity.

Maleficent (2014)

This is NOT Maleficent

[1/10 · 1 June 2014]

I was genuinely excited to hear that Disney was going to make a film about Maleficent, my favorite Disney villain of all time. I was interested in knowing the 'why' behind her actions in Sleeping Beauty, since we never really got to see that. I will say that the cinematography is amazing. I will also say that while Angelina Jolie was not my first choice, she had the look, her costume was spot-on, and there are moments where you can see where she is at least trying to play this role correctly (and really, who could replace Eleanor Audley?). But one thing I've noticed over the past 10-15 years is that animation and design seem to be their main focus, rather than story or character development. In the movie, Maleficent's back story was incredibly rushed. So much for going into depth on why Maleficent is the way she is.

This movie does not explain why Maleficent is the way she is. Disney is showing us a completely different character while giving her the same name as Disney's most iconic villain. Now they're trying to say that Maleficent is a misunderstood character who becomes evil. But that never happens. She becomes angry and bitter, but not evil. Maleficent in this movie is not even a misunderstood, sympathetic character. She is a total victim who never becomes evil at all.

Oh, she does do one evil thing; she does still curse King Stefan's baby out of revenge. And she has second thoughts about it two seconds afterward. See? Not evil at all. And while I'm at it, I should mention my distaste for the way she cursed Aurora: Disney completely lowered the stakes by having Maleficent utter the words "sleep-like death" and be the one to offer the cure of True Love's kiss. No! It's MERRYWEATHER that counters the DEATH curse in order to save Aurora's life! Oh, Maleficent may say later that she doesn't believe True Love exists, but that's a matter of opinion isn't it? Again, LOWERS THE STAKES.

And what was Linda Woolverton thinking when she took King Stefan and the three fairies completely out of character and gives them a complete 180 in order to make Maleficent look good? If you're going to show us the point of view of a famous villain, it's okay to give them layers and gray areas in order to make them more interesting and multi- dimensional, even to show they weren't always evil. But NOT to say they were never evil at all; that just completely defeats the point of the character! Same with the good guys; they may have their own flaws, show that they have their own prejudices, or that everything they did wasn't perfect. But NOT to say "the good guys were really EVIL OR STUPID!"

The fairies, Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather (I refuse to call them by their new names) are NOTHING like they were in Sleeping Beauty, and this is a big deal. In Sleeping Beauty, say what you will about their flaws but their ultimate motivation was keeping Aurora SAFE. At least they tried, even if they failed! Maleficent (2014) portrays them as nothing more than stupid buffoons who only care about saving their own skins. Aurora was just a means to an end for them; they have no relationship with her like they do in the original. The movie also took away their own personalities, so they are no different from each other. I can't even keep track of which fairy has which name! Watching them on screen with everything they say or do was as cringe worthy as I expected it to be.

King Stefan has to be one of worst written villains I have seen in a while. He has no real motivation for what he does; we see him as having nothing in the beginning, and then the movie glosses over his relationship with Maleficent in order to "get to the good part" where he steals her wings in order to be king. After that, he wages war on Maleficent for cursing his daughter, and yet he only looks at Aurora as afterthought property. Why is he even after Maleficent then? What else has she done to him other than cursing his daughter?

Elle Fanning as Aurora was very impressive. I do think she gave the character more of a personality that was lacking in the original, and she stole the film in every scene she was in. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough to save the movie, nor were Maleficent's interactions with Diaval, as enjoyable as they were.

And of course, Maleficent does not turn into a dragon in this movie. I have to ask; why, Disney? You knew how loved of a villain Maleficent is, and her being a dragon is one of the many reasons why. Also, we live in an age where technology and special effects are abundant; you didn't use the opportunity to see how your most iconic villain looks as a dragon when done with live-action CGI? Why would you waste a perfectly good opportunity like that? Besides the fact that Maleficent is not evil in this film, she also is very wimpy and pathetic. She can't do ANYTHING. When we see her fight an army at the beginning, all she does is fly around and slap a few soldiers with her wings. The tree monsters did most of her fighting for her. In Sleeping Beauty, she could transport herself to another place in a matter of seconds, she could shoot lightning from her staff, and she could transform into another form other than her own. She didn't do any of that in this movie.

Just like with Alice in Wonderland, Disney wasted a perfectly good opportunity to effectively adapt their animated work to the live-action screen. Maleficent may not be the absolute worst movie I've seen, but it's definitely in my bottom list now.

Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness (2011–2016)

Proving to be a disappointment

[3/10 · 13 November 2011]

I started out liking the show, but the more episodes come out the worse it gets. This show has not lived up to its potential and it is very saddening. The humor has started to drag and the story lines are proving to be repetitive and lame. Po makes a mistake or does something stupid, everyone gets mad at him, and he learns a lesson until the next episode. Those types of story lines are fine, but after a while it gets old. There is too much comedy in the show and not enough drama and seriousness. What I loved about the King Fu Panda movies was that they had enough of a balance of both that made them not only funny, but capable of having a story that draws you in. Legends of Awesomeness has mediocre storytelling at best.

Everyone is in character except for Po, who is proving to be dumber and more childish than he was in the movies. I liked that you can't tell the difference between the movie actors for the main characters and their voice actors in this series. Mick Wingert sounds exactly like Jack Black, which would be awesome if they kept Po more in character. In the first movie, Po was a silly fanboy but he began to grow out of that stage. In the Kung Fu Panda holiday special, he is loyal and has a much better grip on his responsibility as the Dragon Warrior, and in Kung Fu Panda 2 he is much more loyal and mature and a very determined warrior.

In Legends of Awesomeness he is not like this. He always behaves like a spoiled, stupid little boy, and at times even acts mean. Some episodes do get his gentleness and compassion down very well, but not very many. He even gets jealous of the attention a new kung fu student gets in one episode and resorts to lying about Shifu's intentions for him, ending up hurting and traumatizing the poor kid! That is not Po in the slightest, and it infuriated me to watch that scene.

I had hoped the writers would realize the potential a franchise like Kung Fu Panda has in many areas, but so far it doesn't look like they do. One of the things they are doing is using the same villains over and over. That wouldn't be so bad if the villains were actual threats, but they're so lame! Fung is stupid and annoying, and he is the most overused villain in the show. He was fine in the first two episodes he was in, but now he is just irritating. Taotie was fine in his first episode too, but now I find him more annoying than Fung. Everything he does makes me cringe, and I find it a relief that he's in a lot fewer episodes than Fung. As far as Hundun is concerned, all I have to say is: ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!? He's absolutely pathetic!

The only villain I actually found to be a menacing threat so far is the owl in Good Po vs. Bad Po. So far, she is the only effective villain on the show. There have also been some major contradictions, particularly about Chorh-Gom and Tai Lung. Chorh-Gom prison had only been used for Tai Lung, and after he destroyed the prison it would have disgraced and condemned. It would not have been repaired and reused for other prisoners.

I know we are still in the first season, but if these writers don't step up to the plate and deliver stronger effort on this show, Kung Fu Panda as a whole will lose its opportunity to truly be the best it can be. I find it really sad that I have found fanfics of Kung Fu Panda that were much better written, had much better stories, and even better villains than the stuff these writers come up with. Perhaps they should take a lesson from these fanfiction writers.

Marley & Me (2008)

As a dog lover who has done research, this movie insults me

[1/10 · 5 January 2011]

I didn't really see the point this movie was trying to make. In fact, I consider it to be flat-out awful. I've noticed that one of the most common reasons that people give for not liking this film is that it is not a "family" or "kids" movie because the dog dies and that is traumatizing for kids and parents who let their kids see it are irresponsible and downright terrible. But for me, if anything's objectionable about this film, it's that Marley's owners make no attempt to control him and that the film plays an unruly dog for laughs. Lack of training and control, to me, is a much worse message to be sending to children than a dog's death, which happens to all of them (as well as to humans, I hear).

I get that Marley was an ornery puppy from the beginning but the reason why he was such an out-of-control dog was because his owners let it get that way because they made NO effort to train him from puppyhood, or any real effort to do anything about his behavior as a grown dog. Training a puppy to be obedient and submissive to you is essential if you want a good housepet, and that couple was just irresponsible. Not to mention that Labrador Retrievers can be the most obedient dogs around, so that should say something.

There is nothing cute or amusing about a dog out of control, and the owner who refuses to take that control. Labs are excellent dogs and respond well to their owners, but Marley's owners didn't seem to have a clue as to how to train him. Or they'd start to train him, then give up and let him rule the household. I haven't read the book, and I suspect the filmmakers took a lot of license to make Marley more animated, but the type of behavior of the yellow Lab in this movie is not typical, or acceptable in my book.

When they DID start training Marley, or trying to, he was already so set in his unruly ways that not even the obedience trainer could do anything. That's why it is essential to train a dog as a puppy, especially if it's going to grow up to be a big dog. It showed in the later second half of the movie that Marley began to calm down as the couple began to have children, and as an old dog he was pretty laid back until he died of old age. Some people might call me heartless for saying this, but I didn't really know what to make of that scene. I mean, it's always sad when someone loses a pet, but it didn't totally excuse or take away the fact that the dog was boisterous to the point where he put himself and others in danger and not to mention damaging their reputation. And his owners were majorly at fault for this BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T TRAIN HIM AS A PUPPY. They didn't do any research on how to raise a dog, they just picked him out because he was the cheapest. They had no idea what they were doing, and they suffered the consequences of his behavior due to their incompetence.

Granted, each dog has his/her own personality. As a puppy, Marley was doing what a puppy normally does, such as chewing up furniture. But if his owners had been more responsible, I have no doubt he would have turned out a whole lot better. I actually found "Marley & Me" more of a horror show than a comedy, and I found it hard to feel sorrow at the end of the film because Marley was in no way a sympathetic character. Dogs die every day, including many more adorable and lovable than Marley. In fact, my beloved Golden Retriever died at a young age 15 years ago, and there are times I still feel depressed because I miss her. And much more recently, I had to put down my Chihuahua six months ago due to him being severely mauled, yet I was able to watch this film without shedding a tear because Marley was more of an irritant than a friend. It is often said that there are no bad dogs, only bad people. I don't know if that's entirely accurate, but if any dog can be trained to be man's best friend, it is the Lab. The couple in the movie "Marley & Me" shirked their duties at crucial stages in Marley's life, and if this is how Josh Grogan raised his dog ... well, let's just say it would embarrass me to write a book about it. I hope to seek out Grogan's book eventually, though judging from this film, it would probably just upset me.

I hope this doesn't sound overly harsh, but part of being a pet owner is being a responsible citizen and not hoisting your burden on others. Dogs are social creatures, and they thrive when they are integrated into your family and your community, not when they terrorize them.

In conclusion, Marley & Me basically slaps respectful dog owners in the face by condoning irresponsible pet care. There is no point in the movie where the couple learns that what they did with Marley was irresponsible, or acknowledge that they should have done some research before getting the dog. I'm a huge animal lover, and I especially love dogs. I've made it a point to research breeds and how to take care of dogs since I was in grade school. And as a dog lover and someone helping to take care of dogs at the local animal shelter, this movie insults me.

High School Musical (2006 TV Movie)

How in the WORLD did this get so popular??

[1/10 · 10 September 2008]

High School Musical is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. It is by far the most trite, nauseatingly unrealistic entry in the musical losers' club yet, with absolutely no substance. The film's "positive message" that you should follow your dreams regardless of what others think is not only recycled from other Disney films, but also deprived of any true meaning it may have had by the fact that the characters in this atrocity never do anything that risky in pursuit of their dreams.

The plot of "High School Musical" seems like something which Disney scavengers dragged out of a literary landfill. Jock Troy meets smart-yet-hot Gabriella at a karaoke party, where the two act as singing partners. The magical experience of singing off-key to a bland pop soundtrack is apparently romantic enough to induce the two teens to exchange phone numbers.

Flash forward to the start of school at East High. Troy, who is the captain of the East High Wildcats Basketball Team, is stunned to discover that Gabriella's parents have moved to his hometown and have enrolled her at his high school, making them classmates (Gee, I wonder what movie this setup reminds me of?!?). Also, Gabriella is an intelligent math geek who is somehow magically free of any nerdy characteristics whatsoever and her gift for academics serves to be nothing more than a plot convenience.

We then meet the annoying, obnoxious Sharpay and her ambiguously gay brother Ryan (because all male actors are gay), the co-presidents of the Drama club. When Gabriella and Troy show up to audition for the musical and somehow magically get call-backs despite the fact that neither one can sing on key, Sharpay and Ryan suddenly feel the need to sabotage the possibility of both Troy and Gabriella ever showing up for auditions again.

And then there is the "Stick to the Status Quo" scene. So help me, this is the most horribly done, infuriating, I-wanted-to-throw-my-shoe at-the-TV scene I have ever watched in any movie. This was the scene that propelled me from thinking "this movie is awful" to "this movie pisses me the hell off." No one - and I mean NO ONE - acts like this in real life! No one cares if you're a jock and want to audition for a play, or do anything besides play sports. In my high school, not only did they not care but getting involved in multiple activities was encouraged!

To make a long, convoluted story short: after Troy and Gabriella's stereotypical friends sabotage their relationship, said friends come back and mysteriously feel remorse, after Sharpay and Ryan go through an extremely drawn-out scheme to keep Troy and Gabriella away from the callbacks, which fails in perhaps the most blatantly unrealistic plot twist of the musical, Troy and Gabriella are given the lead roles in the school musical despite their utter lack of talent/experience/seniority - ALL of which would conspire to keep them from such luck in a REAL high school!

Zac Efron was laughably bad. Efron lacked the swagger, the brashness, the arrogance and the blatant lack of sensitivity frequently displayed by basketball stars and besides, he's only 5'10''. That's too short for any legitimate basketball star. If you put Zac Efron on a real court, he'd be asking the players "how's the weather up there?"

Vanessa Anne Hudgens was the true victim of this film's low quality. Her performance (both vocally and acting-wise) was half-decent, though it suffered from the same curse as Natalie Portman's in "Star Wars." That is, the script and music were so terrible that it's a wonder she could keep a straight face performing either. Meanwhile, Ashley Tisdale managed to be suitably irritating as Sharpay not because of any real talent on her part, but rather because of her LACK of real talent. She won't be making the list of best musical villains anytime soon with that performance.

People who hate this movie often cite the "unrealistic singing" as the worst part of the movie. I disagree. If you write a musical about high school life, music quality notwithstanding, it goes without saying that you'd most likely write a musical number involving jocks at sports practice. No, the worst part of High School Musical is the musical's depiction of high school life. My biggest problem with East High is its idealistic social dynamics. This problem manifests itself in three ways:

1. Everybody is nice (with the possible exception of Sharpay): In any high school, you will find that this is patently untrue. High school is quite possibly the most Machiavellian, socially difficult portion of anybody's educational career. I will give an example and contrast that with reality. Example: Gabriella and Troy start to develop a crush on each other. In the world of High School Musical, nobody looks down on this and the two get to sing as many love duets as they want. In the real world, Troy's status on the basketball court would have made him such a chick magnet that a "nerd" like Gabriella would have virtually no chance with him. And even if she did manage to secure his attention, every jealous girl in the school would spread malicious rumors about her behind her back until she had to break up with Troy just so people wouldn't mutter "Slut" under their breath whenever she walked past.

2. Nobody kisses in this movie: this is one of the film's most absurd elements. In real life, Troy and Gabriella would have made out by the end of the film, if not had victory sex to celebrate triumph over Ryan and Sharpay.

3. This ties in with the clichéd mess of the whole movie. The bitch simply does not act buddy-buddy with the protagonists unless they have a trick up their sleeve. If there is no ulterior motive, then there is a major plot hole as to why Sharpay automatically turned nice, especially after Troy and Gabriella just upstaged her!

In conclusion, High School Musical may not have been the first bad movie the Disney Channel has produced, but it's definitely contributed to the downfall that is still current today. This film has no redeeming qualities to it at all. What's even worse than this travesty's existence itself is the fact that it spawned two more sequels AND a spin off, and made millions upon millions of dollars from merchandise. If I ever had the opportunity to make this movie into a never-was and never-will-be, I would take it in a heartbeat.