Change Your Image
splitp-50714
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
David and Lisa (1962)
David and Lisa (1962)
General Notes: David and Lisa is a very solid film. I have a soft spot for films that portray people that are different, outsiders and/or are mentally ill. The film explores the topic of mental illness in a way that does not seem exploitative. Keir Dullea, best known for playing David Bowman in 2001: A Space Odyssey, stars as David Clemens. At the start of the film, David is taken to a residential treatment center/school by his overprotective mother. David is a highly intelligent young man who has an intense fear of being touched. He is cold, distant, and concentrates on his studies, avoiding most of the other students. He has a recurring dream in which he murders people by means of a giant clock.
Janet Margolin plays Lisa Brandt, a young girl with two distinct personalities. "Lisa" can only speak in rhymes, while "Muriel' cannot speak and communicates by writing. During the course of the movie, David befriends Lisa, and the two help each other with their disorders.
Positives: Keir Dullea is excellent in his portrayal of David. He shows an air of superiority, and yet is very insecure. He cries when no one is looking. Dullea does a great job in showing the two sides of David's personality. Janet Margolin also does a good job at showing her two personalities. Her transformation from "Lisa" and "Muriel" is fantastic. I looked up the actress' other film credits and there is not much there. A pity. I thought she showed a lot of promise as a young actress. The other strong performance was Howard da Silva as the headmaster/psychiatrist Dr. Alan Swinford. David's intelligence makes it a bit difficult to treat his illness; he can be very condescending and prone to angry tantrums. Dr. Swinford takes the verbal abuse and does not let it affect the compassion that he has for his student/patient. Da Silva does an amazing job of non-verbal acting in this movie. You can see that David's words hurt, but he does not take them to heart.
Negatives: The runaway scene at toward the end of the film does not seem to fit the rest of the movie. I think the tone was off and the photography was shaky, which was unlike the rest of the film. Other than that, there is not much to dislike about this movie.
Overall: Check out this highly-overlooked film. I give a very strong recommendation and rate it an 9.
In Search of the Castaways (1962)
In Search of the Castaways (1962)
Previous experience with this film: I went into this one blind. I like some of the old classic Disney films and had a crush on Hayley Mills when I was a kid, so my expectations were a bit higher than they should have been.
General Notes: In Search of the Castaways is not a great film. It is not a particularly good film, but if you are looking for basic, safe, family fare, this is your film. Mary Grant (Hayley Mills) and her younger brother Robert (Keith Hamshere) are two siblings in search of their missing sea captain father. With the help of French professor Jacques Paganel (Maurice Chevalier) and a stained note from in a bottle found inside the stomach of a shark; they scam their way onto the ship "Persevero" during a bon voyage party. That is when things start to get a bit unbelievable. Throughout the movie, the explorers endure many trials including an earthquake, an encounter with a giant condor, a flashflood and a tribe of cannibals. The storyline is over the top and the special effects are quite dated. The movie is based on a book by Jules Verne, Les Enfants du capitaine Grant or The Children of Captain Grant, published in 1873. Verne uses the travels of the expedition to describe plants, animals and geography of exotic places to his intended 19th century audience. Unfortunately, it does not translate very well to film.
Positives: About the only bright spot in this movie is Maurice Chevalier's portrayal of Professor Paganel. He is a very likable character and when he breaks out into song, (did I forget to mention that this movie has a couple of musical numbers), it doesn't appear forced; it seems as if it is something that his character would naturally do.
Negatives: This is a typical 1960s Disney family film so I am not going to hammer on it too hard. Yes, the plot is overdone. Yes, the special effects are laughable. My biggest gripe with the movie is that Hayley Mills is not given a lot to work with. She almost disappears in this film and that is a shame. One of the original taglines for this movie was "A Thousand Thrills and Hayley Mills". It really did not deliver.
Overall: This is a 1962 Disney family film. It is exactly what you would expect. There are no surprises in this one. I would recommend this movie to someone nostalgic for Disney. Maybe to seven to nine-year old's that might like some of the fantastic adventure elements of the film. I give it a tepid score of 5.
The Miracle Worker (1962)
The Miracle Worker (1962)
Previous experience with this film: I knew the basic premise of the story, and vaguely remember seeing part of the movie on television when I was about ten years old. At that time, a black and white movie about "some girl" did not hold my interest.
General Notes: The Miracle Worker, like many movies based on an encouraging true story, goes straight for the heartstrings. It has all of the elements of a movie that appears routinely on the Lifetime network. Character with disability. Check. People that do not understand said character with disability. Check. One person willing to defy normal conventions to help person with disability. Check. Overly dramatic score filled with sweeping strings. Check. However, this movie is saved by two things; the fine acting of Anne Bancroft, and this film's focus on the teaching methods used on Helen Keller.
Positives: Anne Bancroft's performance is nothing short of brilliant. She definitely earned her Oscar portraying the stubborn, strong-willed Annie Sullivan. Patty Duke as Helen Keller was good as well, although I am not sure is was Oscar-worthy. The two worked very well together on screen, particularly in the famous tantrum scene. Helen pinches, bites, pulls hair, slaps and throws silverware in defiance of her teacher. Anne Sullivan is trying overcome several years of a family letting a child tyrant do whatever she wants. Watching this scene is like watching the proverbial irresistible force meeting the immovable object. The movie focuses on Helen Keller's inability to understand that objects have names. Annie Sullivan shows Helen sign language, but for most of the movie, it doesn't mean anything. She is just repeating the finger patterns without comprehension. Throughout the film, you see Annie Sullivan's many struggles to reach her student. When Helen finally understands, it is quite rewarding.
Negatives: The lighting and camera-work. I am not sure why this was filmed in black and white. At times, the character's faces were framed in perfect silhouettes. At other times, the shadows were too large and distracting, as if the lights were placed in the wrong position. Also, the sweaty close-ups were a bit jarring as well. Not too much of a negative, but it was evident that was originally a play. Much of the dialogue seemed out of place for a film, but would work on the stage. Helen Keller's parents. Victor Jory seems to yell almost all of his lines. In fact, my notes state "Father – a bit yelly". Inga Swenson was a bit too melodramatic. In the opening scene of the movie, there is lots of screaming at the discovery of Helen's affliction. I didn't quite know what to make of it and was worried that the entire move was going to go down that path. I am glad it didn't.
Mixed: The use of superimposed images. At times it worked, but I think it was a bit overdone. The best one was a dream sequence early in the film. Anne was in the foreground and her dream was very fuzzy in the background. It was well done, but it seemed like a technique that would be at home in a movie made in the 1930s, not in 1962.
Overall: A solid feel-good movie that showcases two very fine actresses with great on screen chemistry. I would recommend this movie and give it a solid rating of 7.
Rogue One (2016)
Rogue One (2016)
General Notes: Rogue One was marketed as an action-war film that happens to take place in the Star Wars universe. That is what I was hoping for and for the most part, it delivered.
Positives: I enjoyed a few of the secondary characters. Imperial droid K-2SO stole every scene he was in. He was very snarky and played off the human characters very well. The interplay between blind warrior Chirrut Îmwe and mercenary Baze Malbus was also very well done. The third act of the film was excellent as it really did feel like a war movie. Rogue One is at its best when it is focused on the rebellion against the empire and not on fan service. More on that below. I do like the fact that the Disney took a chance and tried to make a different kind of Star Wars film. The tone is much darker and emphasizes the war aspect of Star Wars. However
Negatives: The character development was lacking. I watched Jyn Erso's story, but I really never liked her as a person. Felicity Jones' performance was flat and uninspiring. This is not what you want from your lead character when they are is supposed to inspire a reluctant rebel alliance. Captain Cassian Ando was basically an ass throughout the first half of the movie, and then he suddenly wasn't. His abrupt change in personality did not work for me. Another reason it was hard to relate to the characters, is the fact that it is almost impossible to identify anyone by name. While watching the movie, one of my favorite side characters was "the Asian-looking blind martial artist". It was never Chirrut Îmwe, which is a horrible name by the way. Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Lando Calrissian are memorable names and roll of the tongue rather easily. Chirrut Îmwe? Baze Malbus? How are you supposed to pronounce those? Plus, I do not ever remember the names being used in the film.
Mixed: I am somewhat torn on the use of Darth Vader in this movie. While it was nice to see him back on the screen, he was not critical to the story and he was a bit of a distraction. Part of the problem was his voice. Although he was again voiced by James Earl Jones, something did not seem quite right. In fact, after the movie, I had to check the Internet to make sure it was really him voicing Vader. This brings me to another problem I had with the movie, excessive and unnecessary fan service. A movie set in the Star Wars universe would be remiss if it did not include some things that we are familiar with. Lightsabers, AT-AT's, dogfights in space, Stormtroopers etc. are welcomed and are somewhat expected. However, Rogue One goes too far by including things that can be found in a more in-depth spoiler filled review. Lastly, I was surprised the in inconsistency of the special effects. There are times, especially early in the film, when the star destroyers look like unpainted models bought from a hobby shop. It just looked a bit unfinished. This was a $200-million-dollar movie. There is no excuse for that. There are few more comments I would like to make, but I do not want to spoil anything for those who have not seen the film.
Overall: Is Rogue One a bad movie? Absolutely not. Is it a good movie? Well
maybe. At the time of this writing, I am less than 24 hours away from seeing the film. My feelings on Rogue One may change over time and upon a second viewing. For the most part, I found the movie enjoyable, but it had too many flaws for me to give it high marks. I give it a rating of 6.