suessis Reviews

A Discovery of Witches (2018–2022)

A Very Rushed Version of the book

[7/10 · 3 November 2018]

I purposely waited until I had watched the whole first series before I commented largely because the first two or three episodes of every series are not enough to really gauge where a show is going. Now that I've seen it I rated this show as a 7 because I think it has a lot of potential and I am looking forward to more but the 1st season really went too fast. Certain elements of the story looked like they were thrown in there just to get them in. As someone who has read the books I was able to follow things pretty well but I'm not sure how a non-book reading audience has managed.

This is one of the most faithful adaptations to a book that I've ever seen. Still some key elements to the story were left out. I am hoping the show has reasons for this and we will find out in the next two seasons.

The show is beautifully shot and most of the writing is pretty good (make sure that Sarah Dollard writes most of the shows next time around. Her episodes were the best.) The special effects needed some work but they were serviceable.

Since Sundance has joined the mix of the financing please let that mean that there will be more episodes. This series DESPERATELY needed more time to tell the story. Another 2-3 episodes would have helped immensely with character building and believability. Here's hoping Bad Wolf has someone reading these comments and will look into that.

Beauty and the Beast (I) (2017)

A Wonderful Adaption

[8/10 · 19 March 2017]

I have been wondering while listening to the reviews of this latest version of Disney's Beauty and the Beast how many of the critics panning it are Millennials who were kids when this came out and have been spoiled by the era of CGI. I was an adult when that film came out but loved it anyway. The 1991 version was a leap forward in Animation with its use of computer produced art and the more intimate storytelling that was only seen before in moments of The Little Mermaid.

When they said Disney had turned it into Broadway Musical I wasn't surprised because that is essentially what this is. It's a Menken/Ashman (with some help from Tim Rice) musical of which the 1991 film was simply one version. Menken and Ashman both treated it that way and the film was all that better for it. If you look at it from that perspective the why of redoing it can be answered. Like any other well- loved musical doing it again with a different cast and director will always be something people will want to do. I think it's time to see this for a new generation.

This is a visually stunning film. The CGI of the Beast was only distracting in the beginning but once you got connected to the performance that Dan Stevens gives it no longer matters. Like the 1991 version the colors in this film are vivid and bold. The set decoration and costuming are lavish and beautiful. The character design of the household objects is amazingly detailed. The film hearkens back in some ways to musical extravaganzas of the 50s and the 60. The "Belle" sequence reminded me of the film version of the Oliver musical. The "Gaston" sequence had moments that reminded me of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and when Emma Watson sings "Belle (Reprise)" reminded me of Sound of Music. The end titles even had nod to the same genre.

The musical numbers were very well done particularly the rendition of the "Gaston". Of the new musical numbers "Evermore" and "How Does a Moment Last Forever" were beautiful and fit well into the new version. Emma Watson did a very good job as Belle. While her voice is not Broadway quality is sweet and charming. I think Autotune has been imagined on it because the media has told people it was there in the trailers. Dan Stevens as the Beast is very powerful and manages to give Beast life under all the CGI. The supporting cast (especially Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Ewan McGregor, and Emma Thompson) are all very good. The cast doing the voice parts also infuse life into their characters with their vocal performances. Despite his concerns about his French accent McGregor did a brilliant job with his role. Emma Thompson gave a pleasant rendition of "Beauty and the Beast".

While the film is reverent to the 1991 film it should be taken as its own entity. I highly recommend this film for family viewing. It is a beautiful, joyful experience.

The Social Network (2010)

A Great Movie but even better screenplay

[7/10 · 5 March 2014]

The real star of this film is the extraordinary screenplay written by Aaron Sorkin. The characters he creates here are dark, flawed, and the epitome of the worst of the 2000s culture that the target audience of the film sprang from. Fincher does a fabulous job of interpreting this and bringing it to life on the screen. His visual of the script is bold and vibrant, exactly what was called for by the script.

The problem with this film is that the performances aren't really that spectacular. They are good enough to carry the film but that's the best I can say for them. Armie Hammer as the Winklevoss twins was probably the weakest link of the bunch. He hammed it up big time and turned them into caricatures. I still haven't figured out why Jesse Eisenberg's performance was so applauded. The performance at times was two dimensional.

All in all this is a great film. Fincher has done better with "The Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons" but this was arguably one of the better films of the years.

Ghost Adventures (2008– )

I'm torn...

[7/10 · 14 November 2010]

between wanting to laugh at and being seriously intrigued by this show. When these guys really get into this I feel like I'm watching Bill and Ted's Excellent Ghost Hunting Adventure. "Dude! Dude! Did you hear that? Whoa!". I think that a lot of what goes on here is them (in particular Zac) reacting to their environment. Also the creative editing that is done afterward emphasizes a great deal. Despite that, there are moments when I feel they are actually making contact with the other side.

Since I can't be sure that anything is real here, I can only judge this on entertainment value. For that I can say it is truly entertaining. With the music, editing, and graphics used it's truly an awesome ride through the paranormal.

Emily of New Moon (1998–2003)

The Darker Vision

[7/10 · 12 November 2010]

After having enjoyed Kevin Sullivan's foray into the works of L.M. Montgomery, I was interested to see what Salter Street Films would do. The Emily series is the darker, more realistic vision of life Rural Prince Edward Island and much closer to the life Montgomery herself lead. While the series captures that darker element, there are moments of light and color that make the series charming and delightful. The performance of the regular actors in the series were all very well done. Stephen McHattie, who plays Cousin Joe, was especially a standout for me because I'm used to seeing him play heavies and bad guys. The actress playing the lead character is certainly well cast. She is almost a little too intense.

It would be interesting if the producers did an update movie with the same cast based on the last book in the Emily series. It would be a great closer for a series that didn't last too long.

Who Is Harry Nilsson (And Why Is Everybody Talkin' About Him?) (2010)

Worth the Wait...

[9/10 · 7 November 2010]

I heard about this film three years ago and have been waiting all this time to actually see it. It was worth the wait. I've been a Nilsson fan for years and this documentary really gave me a connection to who he was as a person and the life that he lived. It's a beautifully crafted work by someone who obviously loved Harry as much as all of his friend did. My hope is is that more people will see this documentary and realize what a talent that has been lost. His voice was amazing and the songs he wrote touch people and seems speak to the very essence of who we are as people. I remember hearing once that Ringo Starr was deeply affected by his passing. Through this film, I can see why.

The Switch (I) (2010)

Entertaining and Fun

[7/10 · 24 August 2010]

Jason Bateman should be doing a lot more films. He was marvelous in Arrested Development and he seems to have made the transition from child star to adult actor without a problem. So lets get him in more films so that we can really see what he can do.

This is a very clever and entertaining film very well acted by the cast which includes besides Aniston and Bateman, a return of Juliette Lewis and Jeff Goldblum. Both have very give great performances in supporting roles. I'd love to see more of both in other works.

I love watching the relationship between Wally and Sebastian unfold. The film is a joy to watch

In Search of the Trojan War (1985)

An Amazing Adventure

[8/10 · 15 August 2010]

Michael Wood does an outstanding job in this multi-part documentary of proving that there was some historical fact to the epic poetry of Homer. The research is meticulously done following every lead that is presented with amazing results. Wood takes us back and forth across the Aegean at a dizzying pace to uncover the truth and he does so with great thought and logic. Along the way, Wood introduces us to a world only scholars have really known with adventure, political intrigue, and epic war.

My only dismay is that it wasn't done 20 years later. How much greater the technology used to illustrate things would have been.

In Search of Myths and Heroes (2005– )

Myth Busting

[8/10 · 15 August 2010]

Joining Michael Wood as he explores myths and legends from Ancient Greece to Ancient Britain is like going personally with a time traveler on his journey. The discoveries that Wood makes are just as magical as the legends themselves. As he uncovers ancient traditions and long forgotten worlds we see his enthusiasm like a child on Christmas and it's infectious drawing us in as we learn the true stories of the places and people enshrined in myth.

"In Search of Myth and Legends" actually exceeded my expectation for an afternoon of entertainment, but as it carries the same charm as all of Wood's documentaries I shouldn't be surprised. I was sad to see that there was only 4 episodes.

For fans of Archeology and History, this is a must see.

A History of Scotland (2008–2009)

A Colorful Pagent of History

[8/10 · 30 July 2010]

For those of us who have an interest (or Scottish ancestry) and want to know about the history this series is a great entre. While everything may not be exactly according to fact it is enough so and presented in such a way that you are riveted to every moment of what's going on. In some cases there is a bit too much repetition of images but for the most part it's colorful and dynamic. Neil Oliver, as a native Scot and a history expert, is the perfect choice as a presenter. His delivery is in the fine tradition of Scottish story tellers and part of the reason to watch.

Definitely worth watching.

Bertie and Elizabeth (2002 TV Movie)

It's like watching the Reader's Digest Version

[6/10 · 23 July 2010]

This television film shows a lot promise despite the historical inaccuracies. It's problem is the fast paced progression through history that provides little opportunity for character exploration and more in depth look at how George VI become one of the best loved and most respected of English Kings. Otherwise, the performances are quite good and the writing in certain scenes is first rate. It's worth a look despite it's obvious flaws.

American Audiences might find the portrayal of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor a bit harsh after years of romantic conditioning but as Russell Baker notes in the segment that is shown after the film on the DVD it represents a more accurate picture of how those in the UK came to view Edward VIII.

Firefly (2002–2003)

A lot to like...but

[6/10 · 16 July 2010]

There is a lot to like about Firefly but there is also a lot to scratch your head about too. Firefly had a lot of potential to be a really great series but its flaws killed that potential. Firefly has strong main characters (particularly in the women), moments of great writing, and a richly detailed background history that should have made this show a classic. The problem is that richly detailed background history seems to have been ignored in favor of a campy old west theme that led to stale rehashes of plots from 50s and 60s TV westerns. I'm also left wondering where all the Asian characters are in a society that's supposed to have been an amalgam of Eastern and Western cultures. If the series could be done with subduing the old west clichés it would have been, in my book, top notch.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)

Not as impressed...

[7/10 · 1 July 2008]

I have been a fan of the Chronicles of Narnia since childhood and to me seeing these films on the screen is the realization of a childhood dream. I loved The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, but I'm not as impressed by this one.

The script makes two fundamental mistakes that make this a less satisfying film for those following the series. First, aging Caspian to more of an older teenager (17 or 18) as opposed to younger boy of about 14 as he is portrayed in the book. At the heart of this story is an innocent young lad asked to grow up before his time and take on a responsibility that he feels he is not ready for. Caspian is forced to ride the crest of a wave by virtue of who he is by birth, and in some respects by the end of the book you see a bit of resentment from him over this. This theme arcs into the next book, VDT, in which Caspian makes a voyage of self discovery under the guise of a real voyage three years later at 17 to find that he is capable and has the ability to be a great King. It's part of what makes VDT a compelling story.

The older Caspian in this film is less believable as a stalwart upstanding if naive young man simply for the fact that in that world, at the age, he would have already been invited into his uncle's court to play some role, and would have been exposed to palace intrigue and court treachery. His innocence is diminished due to this. Signs of this are apparent in the film by the fact that he already has some understanding of who is uncle and his associates really are. Where as in the book the fact that Miraz wanted to kill him came as a total shock, in the movie it doesn't seem quite that impossible to him. That shock propels him forward against his will into the more adult world of leadership, duty, and honor, and what drives his character through out the rest of the story. This is lost in this film translation.

The second mistake is not really building on things that happened in the first film. One of the things that was interesting about the books is the growth of the Edmund character over the course of LWW, PC, and VDT. A perfect storyline would have been him helping Caspian adjust to his change in circumstances by sharing the lessons that he's learned about duty, honor, and resentment. In turn, Edmund continues to grow more confident in himself because he's able to share this wisdom and see it work for someone else.

Focusing on the Peter character's resentment at being taken away from the world where he was the main man and forced to be once again a child then realizing that what he once had is truly gone is rather discordant in the work. It also created a few rather awkward scenes, in particular a battle that doesn't occur in the book and doesn't work all that well in the film.

It makes me wonder how VDT can really build on anything when the main points of PC have been lost.

The Greatest Game Ever Played (2005)

Impressed

[8/10 · 26 February 2007]

I was extraordinarily impressed by this film. It's one of the best sports films I've every seen. The visuals in this film are outstanding. I love the sequences in which the camera tracks the ball as it flies through the air or into the cup. The film moves well, offering both excitement and drama. The cinematography was fantastic.

The acting performances are great. I was surprised by young Shia LaBeouf.He does well in this role. Stephen Dillane is also good as the brooding Harry Vardon. Peter Firth, Justin Ashforth, and Elias Koteas offer able support. The film is gripping and entertaining and for the first time in my life actually made me want to watch a golf tournament.

Where the Truth Lies (2005)

Sorry don't buy it.

[6/10 · 22 May 2006]

I have been a fan of Egoyan's for a number of years since seeing "Speaking Parts" several years ago. I have been very impressed with him up until this point. This latest effort, however, is not up to his usual standards.

It contains a lot of the usual elements of an Egoyan film such as ubiquitous appearances by well known Canadian actors (ie Don McKellar, Garbrielle Rose, Maury Chaykin, Rachel Blanchard, and, of course, Egoyan's wife Arsinée Khanjian to name a few) and a dream like surreal quality with flashbacks and efforts to uncover the truth. It even has strong performances by several of the cast particularly Firth, Bacon, and David Heyman.

There is, however, one major flaw in this film and that is the BAD miscasting of Alison Lohman as the lead character. Because her performance is so unbelievable the film falls apart. Her character is supposed to be that of a hard bitten reporter who while young has been around the block a few times. Her performance, though, is that if a young breathy ingénue who looks like she's no more than 12. She even overacts a bit which doesn't help the believability factor. The "Alice" scene was so over the top it was almost embarrassing to watch. When Firth says his lines about wanting to have something over her and how she would be seen as corrupting "Alice" if word ever got out about what happened I wanted to laugh. "Alice" looked the same age or even older than Lohman. The lines fall flat in the face of that fact.

Hopefully, Egoyan will think long and hard about the casting of his next film. That and have a little talk with the set and costume designer if he's doing a period piece. Picking up on the cheesiest aspects of '70's culture turned me off almost as much as Lohman's performance.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

A Dream Come True

[10/10 · 11 December 2005]

At the age of ten, I was given the first three books of "The Chronicles of Narnia", and it began for me a life time love affair with the magical world CS Lewis. To me, Narnia was the perfect fantasy world, and I wanted to go there to escape the horrors of my childhood. It helped me get through some of the worst times in my life, and to this day if any one asks me what my favorite book is I will always answer, "All of The Chronicles of Narnia".

Today, I am 40 years old, and I have waited some people's lifetimes for the perfect film version of the book. I have found it in my recent viewing of Mr. Adamson's wonderful film. Everything that I ever imagined unfolded before me on the screen.

This book is a nearly faithful rendition of the beloved story with only minor deviations here and there. These deviations, however, make no difference to me in my enjoyment of this work.

The CGI special effects were astounding. The illusions of James McAvoy as a faun and Shane Rangi as a centaur are incredible. The totally GCI characters are truly impressive. If there is any fault here it is that, like Gollum in LOTR, they are almost too perfect.

The young actors who played the Pevensie children, while they may be strangers to filming in a CGI environment, I never once felt that they were not playing as they should to the CGI characters. They give wonderful performances, particularly Skandar Keynes and Georgie Henley. They are everything I imagined Edmund and Lucy to be.

Tilda Swinton as the White Witch is the perfect combination of ice and evil. The design of her castle is extraordinary. The costumes she wears are impressive. Her minions are perfectly ugly and evil.

The true spirit of CS Lewis' wonderful tale is here. While Lewis may have put Christian themes into this story the ones that he chose have universal appeal. The ideas of sacrifice, spiritual renewal or rebirth, and love of your fellow man are not the private privilege of Christianity. I consider myself an agnostic and have never considered this book to be Christian Propaganda. The film does not present the story that way either.

You can imagine then that I look forward to the filming by the team that produced this one to anymore volumes of the "Chronicles" that they choose to make.

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

A rush job

[7/10 · 10 December 2005]

I have been a fan of Jane Austin since seeing the BBC version of this film that was produced in 1980. Since then I have read all of her books and seen any film version of them that has been done. I'm afraid that my benchmark for any filmed version of "Pride and Prejudice" will always be the 1995 BBC production and this one suffers by comparison.

For those who have never read the book or seen the other productions you may not understand this but trying to fit it into 2 hours simply doesn't work. I feel as though I'm being rushed through the story and being allowed to see only the highlights. In some places, the missing pieces of the story make it is hard to understand characters' motivations.

The style of this film helps make the rush job more interesting. It is similar to the '95 Roger Michel version of "Persuasion" in that the England that we see on the screen is down to earth and very real. You can almost see the paint moldering in the elderly and somewhat decaying Longbourne. At times though, Wright does throw a little romance and mysticism into it with his use of color and light. The English landscape seems much more lush and green than one would have thought, and the glow of candles is warm and comforting.

Another interesting element is the intimate way in which we are invited into the lives of the Bennets through the use of camera work. In fact, it's almost a little too intimate for the fans of Austin and in some ways for the period as well. Some of the characters appear rumpled and disheveled and a good bit of the action takes place at convenient times for the girls to be found in their nightclothes. There is also a more relaxed attitude in relationships than it was usually acceptable to have at that time.

As for the performances, while most tend to be good, the majority of the performers bring nothing new to characters of the book. Tom Hollander is an exception to this in that his characterization of Collins puts a somewhat different spin on a character usually portrayed as bumbling and comically condescending. Hollander's Collins comes across as bland, arrogant, and practical to a fault. He sees the value of currying favor with the wealthy and believes that others of his class should follow his example.

On the flip side, Matthew MacFadyen's performance of Darcy left a little something to be desired. He lacks the classical brooding handsomeness that one associates with Darcy and his performance is sometimes awkward. Some of his problem might be the script in that it is sometimes hard to understand how he forms some of his opinions when you are not seeing everything that you should in the story.

All in all, this is not a bad film. It simply does not meet the standard that has been set for it.

Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)

An eloquent reminder

[9/10 · 26 November 2005]

One thing that impresses me about George Clooney as an actor who is also a director is his two films where clearly NOT created as a means of showcasing a monumental ego as Redford, Beatty, and Eastwood did. Clooney's characters in both films are there to both figuratively and literally support the lead character, in this case very convincingly portrayed by David Strathairn. That alone convinces me that the focus here was on making a truly great film, and that is exactly what old George has done.

He has assembled a wonderful cast. Besides Strathairn, Frank Langella gives a good performance as Bill Paley who is torn between siding with his boys in the newsroom and his job as the head of the network. Other actors like Robert Downey, Jr. lend able support.

Clooney's artistry makes us feel as though we are in the studio and the office with Murrow participating in these events as they unfold. The questions about whether everything as far as the set, the clothing, and other things here and there are completely historically accurate makes no difference. I was more interested in the action unfolding to notice or care about those things. His choices in film techniques do an excellent job setting the mood.

I thank Mr. Clooney for this eloquent reminder about what journalism should be.

Kismet (1955)

A Shadow of the Broadway Show.

[3/10 · 9 November 2005]

In the 1950's, my late father was a businessman who traveled to New York and took in Broadway shows whenever he could. One night, he went to the box office at the Ziegfield Theatre and managed to land himself a great seat for a hit musical. What happened that night would become a legend in my family. Dad fell in love with "Kismet" and for the rest of his life he would torture us by telling the story of the production and playing the original cast album (and the recording of the subsequent Lincoln Center revival) over and over and over and over...

As an adult now, I can appreciate this work. My father was deeply disappointed by this film version and now having seen it I can understand why. As the book of this musical is pure cotton candy fluff, the key to success with any production of this material is how the music is arranged and presented. The singers should be classically trained and the individual playing Hajj needs to be a strong actor with an ability to truly interpret the lyrics.

After having seen Keel in "Kiss Me Kate", I had high hopes before my viewing of this film that he would be able to pull it off. Unfortunately, he only proved that Alfred Drake owns this role in the same way that Richard Kiley will always be "The Man of LaMancha" and Yul Brynner the "King". Keel's portrayal of the character is at best second rate.

Part of his problem (and indeed the problem of other performers in the film) might be the less than adequate arrangements of the music as well as the mangling that was done of some the lyrics and the removal of whole songs. Noticablly missing is the classic "Was I Wasir?" the very clever if gruesome show stopper craftily performed in the original stage show by Henry Calvin.

What really is worth seeing (or perhaps it would be better to say worth hearing) are the sequences with Ann Blyth and Vic Damone who had some of the best voices in film at that time. Damone actually gives Richard Kiley (who was the Caliph in the original Broadway cast) a run for his money in with the performance of "The Night of my Nights". Blyth has a beautiful voice and gives a creditable performance in the face of a hard act to follow in Doretta Marrow, the B-Way Marsinah.

The hardest loss in this production is the beautiful cacophony of voices that was the hallmark of the Broadway show. Instead you get a canned studio chorus that was best left in the can.

I am sorry that the one film version of this delightful Arabian Night tale is such a disappointment.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Master of Dark Comedy Dahl collides with Twisted and Macabre Burton

[7/10 · 31 July 2005]

My first thought when I heard that Burton was going to be doing this film was that we were looking at a match made in heaven. The master of Dark Comedy Dahl and the twisted and macabre Burton collide on the screen with wonderful effects. Aside from a few weak moments here and there this film is wonderful. It has a style and a flair that is distinctly Burton, but remains true to the unique vision of Dahl. Comparisions between this and the other version are pointless. Each needs to stand on its own merits.

Johnny Depp's performance is not what I would have imagined for the candymaker, but he does a creditable job none the less. His co-stars are well cast, and I would like to see more of David Morris' work. It's hard to believe that he only began professional acting at age 79.

While I will always treasure the original film I can give credit where credit is due. I think that Burton should consider the idea of reviewing the collected works of Dahl for other possible films. I can't imagine that another filmmaker would do it better,

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971)

A wonderful memory

[9/10 · 31 July 2005]

I remember the first time that I saw this movie was at a drive in theater. My father spent most of the time outside the car with a friend of his drinking beer having never been a fan of fantasy and subsequently reported to my mother that the film was stupid.

I, of course, did not find it so. It is one of my most wonderful memories from childhood, and the sheer delight that I get from watching it remains when I watch it even today.

I read the "Charlie" books after this, but I have to confess it is the movie that sticks in my head. I will always see Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka and Jack Albertson as Grandpa Joe. I loved the song "Pure Imagination" and have used it to inspire myself from time to time through out my life. I think this film to a pleasant diversion that everyone should take.

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

Not Enough and Too Much...

[6/10 · 3 January 2005]

Reportedly, Schumacher wanted to audition Gerard Butler for the Phantom after he had seen him in "Dracula 2000". I'm not surprised. Gerard got many a libido going with his highly charged performance as the embodiment of dark animal lust. As The Phantom is a dark sexual character, The actor playing that role not only has to be able to convey that with his singing voice, but also with his acting performance. After having played Dracula Butler should be a shoo in, and he almost succeeds.

While I don't think that his voice is terrible, I also don't think that it's fabulous either. Sometimes his acting ability helps, but with the exception of "Point of No Return", I didn't feel that he quite achieved what he was looking for.

I have never seen the Broadway Production, but I have heard the cast album. I have to confess that when I listened to that I couldn't envision Crawford as the Phantom. I was thinking too much about the character he played in "Hello Dolly". I find it easier to see Butler in this role.

On the whole, I think this film is done too much like a Broadway musical. I preferred the way "Evita" was done. Smaller more intimate than the whole big stage production. I think if they had gone that route it would have been a much more effective film.

Van Helsing (2004)

Dark and well...Dark

[4/10 · 14 December 2004]

I learned early on in my enjoyment of Stephen Sommers' work that it is not to be taken seriously, but that you were to sit back and enjoy the ride. I did this with "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns" and certainly had a great time (The less said about "The Scorpion King" the better).

"Van Helsing", however, is an entirely different story. OK, I went into this not taking it seriously, but this film was beyond ridiculous at times. I am dying to know where the witty and energetic dialog of "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns" went. Except on the odd occasion, I can't find it in this script. Also, there are events in the film that seem totally implausible. (Such as - how could Frankenstein's monster have such an adult depth of understanding about the world and about who he is so quickly after his creation)

Besides that the actors in this movie sometimes ham it up to the max. Roxburgh in particular in his portrayal of Dracula was so over the top at some points that I wanted to smack him. There was also something about him that did not register quite as the sexy vampire that can lure women to their doom. Maybe it was that strange nose of his that kept drawing my attention in every scene he was in.

I would like to tell you that there was some great special effects in this film. There usually are in a Stephen Sommers film, but I couldn't see them given the fact that the screen was so dark half the time. There was very little color or light in this film, and it only added to my general feeling of dislike.

Mr. Sommers, I could tell by the ending that you were thinking "sequel" in your brain. May I suggest that you try a new idea instead.

Cheaper by the Dozen (2003)

Only something like the original

[18 April 2004]

There is some resemblance to the original movie in this film (as well as some elements borrowed from the sequel "Belles on their Toes"). The writers did include various ideas such as the move for the father's job, the family council, the father being offered the opportunity of his dreams, the father being a somewhat eccentric and unusual character, the mother being the calm one, etc. It also borrows just as much from sixties family comedies such as "Yours, Mine, and Ours" (i.e. the son that feels left out in the family group, the older brother who give "cool" advice to the younger ones, the kids trying to "sabotage" various events, etc.).

This version lacks something that the original one had. The original moved along with the pace of the changes in the family's life as normal life does. It also seemed to capture better the idea of trying to raise such a large group of children and the sacrifices and choices one has to make. There is also some semblance of what it is like to be a child in this family by keeping that focus on only one of the children, while still giving us glimpses of what the other ones are like.

The film, however, seemed to be more of a showcase for the comedic talents of Steven Martin than anything else. It also didn't move along in the same way that the original making the story somewhat unsatisfying.

Frank Gilbreth never lost the idea that his family was the most important thing where as Steve Martin's character has to be brought back into the fold. It is understandable that he would want something for himself, but to get him to the point where he sees his children as a burden and a liability is a problem. Thankfully in the end he comes back to being a part of his family, but the fact that he had to be causes the story to loose some of its charm.

The thing that made Frank and Ernestine Gilbreth want to write about their family was the joy that they knew in living in it despite the trials and tribulations. In this version of their story the joy seems to be lost and has to be recaptured. The director and writer are lucky enough that at least a little bit does.

Shades of Love: Sincerely, Violet (1987 Video)

The Stupidest Shade of Love

[11 April 2004]

Not only is the worst of The Shades of Love series, but it is also the stupidest. I actually felt embarassed for Patricia Phillips and Simon McCorindale.

Both of them are terrible in this. I'm willing to bet old Simon did it for the paycheck, and his performance shows it. I have never been fond of Patricia Phillips, and she does nothing to change my opinion of her here.

The writing is this is appalling. Some of the things that the writer has the characters doing are unbelievably ridiculous. The production values are also pretty bad. I feel sorry for everyone connected with this production as they must have been very embarassed themselves when this turkey came out. They can keep this Shade of Love in the vault.