Change Your Image
MJM5226
Reviews
Finding Neverland (2004)
J.M. Barrie gets Disneyized (*SPOILERS*)
I finally saw this movie yesterday, after nearly a year of waiting on tenterhooks for it to come out. I went into the theatre with 3 mindsets: Watching for entertainment value, for film-making value, and for historical (in)accuracy.
And I am sad to report that I was quite disappointed on all 3 fronts. :-P
There's not much left to say about the historical inaccuracies. They do make it clear before the "action" begins by flashing a big "Inspired By True Events" disclaimer up on the screen. But those "true events" are quite few and far between. Yes, there was a Scottish bloke named J.M. Barrie who wrote 'Peter Pan'. Yes, he knew a woman named Sylvia and her sons. Yes, he was married to a woman named Mary who later left him. That's about as accurate as this film gets. If I list all the events in this film as compared to what REALLY happened, we'll be here all day. But perhaps it was more of a handicap on my part to be so infinitely familiar with Barrie's life story, which is why I tried to relegate that stuff to my subconscious as much as possible.
The issues of entertainment value and film-making kinda go hand-in-hand. On the whole, this film was verrrryyyy awkwardly and slowly paced and disjointed. It was even downright BORING in several spots. It was as if this film did not know what it was trying to say, and therefore I had no idea what it was trying to say either! Was it an homage to a great writer and his genius? Or was it an homage to the spirit of Peter Pan and Neverland? It was neither, sadly. It was mass confusion, is what it was.
One of the biggest Rule-of-Thumbs which they teach you in theatre and film is this: If you introduce a convention, you MUST stick with it and be consistent! 'FN' introduced a convention of trying to blend fantasy with real life, but it did not quite work and it was not utilized enough to make it convincing. It seemed almost hacky. It was not until the end when I saw the movie become what I had so hoped for it -----
Because Sylvia is sick and missed opening night of 'Peter Pan', JMB (who had promised to take her to Neverland one day) brings 'Peter Pan' to her installing some crude set pieces and actors from the actual show into her drawing room. After Peter Pan stands before the Davies family and entreats of them to clap for Tinker Bell (which they do, of course), the back wall behind Peter lifts away and reveals a fantastic Neverlandscape before them all, filled with fairies, Indians, pirates, and all sorts of animals prancing merrily about. JMB leans in toward Sylvia's ear and whispers 'That is Neverland.' At this point, you are not sure whether this is real (that JMB has somehow turned the Davies front yard into a fantasy playground) or if it is all in their imagination; that JMB has at last led them all to 'find Neverland.' THIS is what the WHOLE movie should have been, IMO. As an homage to both Barrie and the spirit of Peter Pan, the movie would have been so much more effective if it had blurred the lines between fantasy and reality much, much more (something Barrie was brilliant at doing). Yes, there are the few scenes where Barrie is playing with the boys and we are treated to a mish-mash of jump cuts from Real Life and the Fantasy World they have created, but these interludes were (a) too few, and (b) not effective in the way they kept reminding you that it was NOT real. That's not only an insult to the audience's intelligence, but it also isn't HALF as fun! ;-)
As far as the acting goes, I will be frank ---- screw Johnny Depp, and screw Kate Winslet and all the others....Freddie Highmore (Peter Davies) is the ONLY one who should be getting Oscar buzz. This little kid was PHENOMENAL!! He blew all those other 'veterans' completely out of the water. It's worth it to see the film just for him alone.
It was also perhaps to my disadvantage (although I don't like to think of it so) that the day before seeing 'FN', I had watched the entire 3 parts of the 1978 BBC miniseries 'The Lost Boys', another JMB biopic where Barrie is played by Ian Holm and based on Andrew Birkin's biography of him. And I tell ya, this film was the book brought to life EXACTLY! Everything was Excruciatingly accurate, and the actors all embodied their characters so perfectly that I really thought I was watching a documentary! And after it was all over, I thought to myself 'How can I POSSIBLY go and watch 'Finding Neverland' now??' LOL! Well, I did anyway, and IMO, 'TLB' was lightyears more superior to 'FN' in every way. If you have the means to get your hands on this series, PLEASE DO! It is to 'Finding Neverland' what P.J. Hogan's 'Peter Pan' is to Disney's 'Peter Pan'! ;-D
Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990)
Ridiculous
I find it amazing that Joseph Stefano, who wrote the screenplay, seemed to have forgotten EVERYTHING he wrote in the original Psycho screenplay in 1960.
Yes, this movie is interesting by itself. But no self-respecting Psycho-phile such as myself would ever find it satisfying, and it makes me cringe when I hear people say it's their "favorite sequel." It's full of so many plotholes and inconsistencies that the filmmakers oughta be stabbed in the shower!!
First of all, when did Mother Bates become this voluptuous vixen?? Weren't we led to believe in the original movie (and it's 2 subsequent sequels) that Mother was a crotchety old woman? Even in Psycho III, Norman defends her "actions" by saying, "She's just an old lady -- a sick old lady." Oh? Olivia Hussey sure looks pretty young and virile to me!
At the beginning, Norman says his father died when he was six. WRONG! In the original, he said he was five. Are we to assume he is/was lying? Then he goes on to explain that his father died from bee stings. Oh, is THAT how Norman's aunt "killed him in a jealous rage" as was revealed in Psycho III? Both explanations are pretty silly anyway.
In the original, Norman tells Marion that his mother's boyfriend (later revealed as "Chet" in this movie) talked her into building the motel. But in Part IV, the motel is already up and doing great business by the time Chet shows up!!!
And where the heck did the bathroom and closet in Mother's room come from??
And if Norman was really trying to "be" his mother, why did he put on the ugly old granny wig they buried her in?? According to this movie, his fondest memory of her was her "light-years long" brown hair!
Helloooo??? Mr. Stefano, were you SLEEPING when you wrote this screenplay?? Did you not even bother to go back and look over the original before you started?? Did you not think anyone would NOTICE??
Just a dumb, dumb, dumb movie. Once again, as he has done so many times before, Anthony Perkins single-handedly saves it from being *totally* unwatchable.
Green Mansions (1959)
Unfair treatment of an underrated beauty
I have heard so much horse-hockey about "miscasting" in this movie, but let's face it, folks -- If this film had been the screen debut for both of its stars, no one would have had anything bad to say! But because Tony Perkins, at that point deemed the "thinking woman's James Dean", plays a dashing Venezuelan fugitive, and Audrey Hepburn, America's favorite bubbly glamour girl, plays an impish rainforest dweller, everyone is quick to scream, "LUDICROUS!"
I suggest to anyone watching this film for the first time NOT to read the credits. Just watch the movie as a stand-alone entity, brimming with gorgeous scenery and 2 very fine and apt performances. The tall, olive-skinned, and handsome Perkins pulls off his end of the deal nicely. And Audrey's delicate features and well-established grace make her quite convincing in her role as Rima the Bird Girl. Yes, there is some much-needed chemistry between the 2 that's missing, but you must remember, this movie was directed by Ms. Hepburn's husband! :-o
Peter Pan (2003)
The best (and truest) version I have ever seen!
Okay, I am going to say it: This trumps even the Disney version. THERE!
This is by far the best visual interpretation of the story I have yet seen. For many reasons. First off, Peter Pan is FINALLY being played by an actual boy! YIPPEEE!!
The first real exposure I had to this story was at the tender age of 7, when, while skimming through a Disney cartoon coloring book, I came across a drawing of Wendy attempting to give Peter a kiss. How deliciously scandalous! I was instantly intrigued, and after reading the book and seeing the movie, I soon realized, even at such an innocent age, that this was not your ordinary fairy tale. Indeed, for all the talk about children staying young forever, this story sure does touch heavily upon many grown-up situations. I have often insisted that the story of Peter Pan is NOT for kids! (But perhaps they realize this too, and that is why they have been entranced by it for almost a century....It's as close to adult material as their parents will allow!)
Thank you thank you THANK YOU, Mr. Hogan, for seeing this as well and not being afraid to tackle it. I understand that child labor laws have long kept boys from playing the title role, but I'd be willing to bet that there was/is also an underlying desire to suppress the sensual themes explored in the original story by having the safety of a female playing Pan. As Roger Ebert so aptly put it, "The sensuality is there, and the other versions have pretended it was not." (I agree, although the Disney version walked that fine line very delicately, what with the playing up of Peter's "rock star" appeal to basically every female he came across, including the mermaids and Tiger Lily....the latter, in this film version, becoming a belle for John instead.)
Another intertesting choice in this film was the decision to make Captain Hook a rather attractive in that oh-so forbidden way (which is subtley hinted at in the book). It was an effective choice though, as we are able to fully understand Wendy's moral dilemma when she is faced with the decision of staying underground with the emotionally detatched Peter or to become a pirate alongside the fascinating Hook, whom she describes as "a man of feelings."
To all the critics out there who have flown into such a tizzy about this movie being so "overtly sexual," alls I hafta to say is Please seek a therapist, because you obviously have some unresolved Freudian issues that you are taking out on this film. This is 2003, not 1903.
The only place where I felt this film could improve was in the character (or lack thereof really) of Tinkerbell. Unlike the stage and cartoon versions, she is given little exploration and is basically a pint-sized "deus ex machina," swooping into the storyline whenever it needs a crucial plot point. (Indeed, this is rather how she was portrayed in the book also....perhaps Hogan was just sticking to the original story here.)
But on the whole, I would have to rate this film just a hair under Perfect. Every character was portrayed suberbly...there was not a weak player in the bunch. The effects were a bit cheesey, but fortunately the filmmakers did not soley rely on them for the entertainment value. There were so many golden moments in this movie it is hard to pinpoint just which one is my favorite. The whole hour and 45 minutes is just an absolute treasure. :-)