Three in one night. Now I'm rolling. Check below for 50 First Dates as well as for the long list of reviews to come. I'll be busy, so check back often.
The Wizard of Oz
Review by Jon Waterman
****
Dorothy lives in Kansas. If that’s not enough reason to want to escape (just kidding people of KS), a mean lady wants to take her cute little doggie away. That can’t happen. So, she packs her dog Toto in a basket and runs away. When her mind changes, so does the weather. She rushes home to beat the approaching tornado. Inside the house, she’s whisked away and transported to a fantastical land called Oz. Now, to return home, she’ll need the help of several new friends.
We all pretty much know the movie. It’s a musical that starts off in a sepia tone then switches to color once Oz is involved, then back to sepia. Along the way, Dorothy gathers new friends in the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion. Together they must find the Wizard of Oz who has the power to bring her back home.
The movie has a huge production value. The costumes and makeup needed for hundreds of characters (mostly munchkins – good citizens of Oz, flying monkeys – the wicked witch’s henchpets and the witch’s castle guards). All of that combined with the thorough suits designed for all the main characters equals one extravagant production. It seems overly ambitious in many respects, but it’s all worth it. I doubt something as adventurous as that would be approved today. Of course it doesn’t stop there. The special effects look great. The tornado moving in the background across the painted backdrop. The witch appearing and leaving magically behind a wall of flame. The set design looks incredible. I’m not only talking about the magical, decked out cities within Oz, but also the built sets and landscapes of Kansas. The farm in which the Gale family resides shows great detail as they try to avoid any stage look or feel. And despite the painted backgrounds (which I still prefer over contemporary green screen effects most of the time), they accomplish their goal.
In fact, the only stagy aspect of the movie is the acting. Acting in the thirties tended to be overdone and overly projected. It was a transitional period where actors were slowly learning to tone it down. But in this particular movie, the roles were played in full force. Making sure the dialogue was heard took precedence over how it was delivered. Just as long as the jokes had their zing and the songs made you listen, the rest was secondary.
And the songs do make you listen. Not only do they further the plot, but they’re fun and whimsical and easy for kids to learn. Since the film has become a childhood classic, that’s an important aspect to keep in mind. The musical is successful, because whenever a kid hears a song, they relate it to the movie and may want to see it again. The two become inseparable. This film also incorporates existing classical pieces at certain moments as well, which seems unusual today, but also sounds like a pretty good idea.
It’s a great children’s story full of great characters (good and evil). Parents can enjoy it with their kids. Adults can enjoy it on its own joyful merits. Filmmakers can enjoy it for its techniques and surprisingly dynamic and well framed cinematography. Most of us have seen it, but for those who haven’t…why not? It’s a classic for a reason. Sit back and enjoy the whirlwind. For those that know the film well, I ask you this. Where does the red brick road lead?
+++++++
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
Review by Jon Waterman
****
The hermit candy king is finally letting people see not only himself, but also his entire factory. The catch: you have to have one of 5 golden tickets found only in his own candy bars. The group of five children (accompanied by adults) all go inside to behold the wonders of the magical factory.
The movie is sort of divided into two halves. We follow the young London boy Charlie (played by Peter Ostrum in his only acting part) as he desperately searches for a ticket. He doesn’t have many chances as his family is too poor to even afford a second bed for four grandparents. His hope of finding the “most sought after prize in history” is dwindling as kids around the world unwrap millions of bars. The second half shows what happens inside the factory as the irresponsible kids are being weeded out, one by one. It makes for a nice contrast between the drab but cheerful outside world to the magical yet somewhat creepy factory. Let’s talk a bit more about each half, shall we?
The search for the golden tickets sets the mood for the whole movie. It makes the audience anxious to get inside and see what all the fuss is about. Luckily, Wonka doesn’t disappoint. The world is placed in such a fervor over these passes that they’ll do anything to find one. Some buy a box of bars in an auction. One woman refuses to pay kidnappers the candy ransom in hopes that she has a winner. The contest is what’s happening throughout the world and the news reflects that. The jokes are rather screwball, but also satirical and sketch like. The film also manages to weave in straight forward jokes as well. The mix is unlike most comedies of any era and the various comedic directions never step over each other. Like I said before, the scenery is drab and lifeless. The children keep a good attitude and are still very sing-songy. I guess they have to be, what with this being a musical and all.
The cheeriness and the faded backdrop are left behind when the final golden ticket is revealed. On we go to Wonka’s factory. Here we find an astonishing place full of brightly colored rooms and scenery like no other. The sharp contrast between the two settings brings to mind Dorothy opens her door in “The Wizard of Oz.” The only bland thing about this seemingly utopian location is the lighting which offers no depth or added character to the scenes. The boat ride seems to be the only planned out lighting set up. The color scheme isn’t the only thing that changes with the new surroundings. The mood turns more cynical and jaded. Wonka himself (played brilliantly by Gene Wilder) effectively quotes famous literature to support his eccentricities and the nuances of the happenings around him. Wilder’s matter of fact, yet enigmatic delivery is genius.
The structure of the two halves isn’t a new thing, but rarely does it work as well as it does here. Oddly, though, once we reach the second half, the conflict in the storyline rests more with all the other kids, rather than the main character. The alien like Oompa Loompas provide a lesson in song each time a child is removed which reinforces the anything can happen, surreal nature of the factory.
It’s a very unusual, very trippy movie. The quick pacing leaves no time to soak in anything that’s going on. The tour moves from one room to the next, showing off all the incredibly inventive devices and contraptions and confectionaries created. Everyone’s literally in awe of this secret world that Roald Dahl created. The music by Anthony Newley is fantastic. It’s catchy and fun and always appropriate. If you’ve never seen the movie, then you owe it to yourself. If the last time you saw it was when you were it kid, then give it another look, because it’ll be better than you imagine. This movie deserves a quality sequel. Not a remake.
+++++++++
Mystic River
Review by Jon Waterman
***
When they were kids, Dave, Jimmy and Sean were playing in the street. After finding wet cement to write their names in, they were stopped by two old men claiming to be cops. They took Dave away in a car and left the others. Dave finally escaped a few days later, but the trio never really talked to each other after that. Many years later, the three are reunited in unusual ways through the death of Jimmy’s oldest daughter.
Now remember, it was Dave that was taken away in the car. I found the strongest points of the film were in the story and with most of the acting. Sean Penn and Tim Robbins are scene stealers, but it’s easy to forgive them, because you can tell how involved they were with their characters. They don’t miss a beat. The eyes tell all. Robbins as older Dave (who was taken away in a car) with his wide eyes and piercing stares. Penn as older Jimmy with his narrowed, beady glances exuding a variety of emotions from pain and betrayal to confidence and determination all at one time. Bacon as older Sean is much more subdued and matter of fact, not letting anyone know what he’s thinking until he speaks. He puts his guard down only when he knows it will help him even more. The women do a fine job, but their characters are so underdeveloped that they verge on two-dimensionality (including the non-contributory side-story of Sean’s silent wife…ugh.).
Other than the lack of a female presence, the story works wonderfully. The murder mystery includes some good twists and new information throughout. The motives and personalities of the three leads blend and clash nicely, providing a sustained interest in what happens to all of them (including Dave…the kid who rode away with those strangers in the car). The story is mostly solid, but the script is pretty weak. The dialogue is sometimes pretty hokey and it tends to beat the point of the movie into your head. Remember when I told you about Dave? He’s the one who was taken in the car. Yeah. That got annoying, right? Well, imagine two and a half hours of that. Also, the ending was way too random. After the resolution, a series of pointless events occur. The parade seemed utterly useless to me and should have at least been mentioned somewhere prior. One of the characters does a total 180 on what we had seen and goes on some tirade that makes it sound like we’re being set up for a sequel. The whole mess could have been cut out and I wouldn’t have cared and probably would have loved the movie because of it.
On the plus side, director Clint Eastwood paints a lovely neo-noir portrait of Boston. The acting and story is such that you don’t feel the 140 something minute running time. On the negative side, director Clint Eastwood also provides the repetitious score, which does nothing more than add to the minor annoyances.
The movie had it’s problems and there is much room for improvement. However, it’s not a terrible film. It’s pretty good, but not great. It’s not all it’s hyped up to be. As a kid, Dave was taken away in a car by unknown men.
The Wizard of Oz
Review by Jon Waterman
****
Dorothy lives in Kansas. If that’s not enough reason to want to escape (just kidding people of KS), a mean lady wants to take her cute little doggie away. That can’t happen. So, she packs her dog Toto in a basket and runs away. When her mind changes, so does the weather. She rushes home to beat the approaching tornado. Inside the house, she’s whisked away and transported to a fantastical land called Oz. Now, to return home, she’ll need the help of several new friends.
We all pretty much know the movie. It’s a musical that starts off in a sepia tone then switches to color once Oz is involved, then back to sepia. Along the way, Dorothy gathers new friends in the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion. Together they must find the Wizard of Oz who has the power to bring her back home.
The movie has a huge production value. The costumes and makeup needed for hundreds of characters (mostly munchkins – good citizens of Oz, flying monkeys – the wicked witch’s henchpets and the witch’s castle guards). All of that combined with the thorough suits designed for all the main characters equals one extravagant production. It seems overly ambitious in many respects, but it’s all worth it. I doubt something as adventurous as that would be approved today. Of course it doesn’t stop there. The special effects look great. The tornado moving in the background across the painted backdrop. The witch appearing and leaving magically behind a wall of flame. The set design looks incredible. I’m not only talking about the magical, decked out cities within Oz, but also the built sets and landscapes of Kansas. The farm in which the Gale family resides shows great detail as they try to avoid any stage look or feel. And despite the painted backgrounds (which I still prefer over contemporary green screen effects most of the time), they accomplish their goal.
In fact, the only stagy aspect of the movie is the acting. Acting in the thirties tended to be overdone and overly projected. It was a transitional period where actors were slowly learning to tone it down. But in this particular movie, the roles were played in full force. Making sure the dialogue was heard took precedence over how it was delivered. Just as long as the jokes had their zing and the songs made you listen, the rest was secondary.
And the songs do make you listen. Not only do they further the plot, but they’re fun and whimsical and easy for kids to learn. Since the film has become a childhood classic, that’s an important aspect to keep in mind. The musical is successful, because whenever a kid hears a song, they relate it to the movie and may want to see it again. The two become inseparable. This film also incorporates existing classical pieces at certain moments as well, which seems unusual today, but also sounds like a pretty good idea.
It’s a great children’s story full of great characters (good and evil). Parents can enjoy it with their kids. Adults can enjoy it on its own joyful merits. Filmmakers can enjoy it for its techniques and surprisingly dynamic and well framed cinematography. Most of us have seen it, but for those who haven’t…why not? It’s a classic for a reason. Sit back and enjoy the whirlwind. For those that know the film well, I ask you this. Where does the red brick road lead?
+++++++
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
Review by Jon Waterman
****
The hermit candy king is finally letting people see not only himself, but also his entire factory. The catch: you have to have one of 5 golden tickets found only in his own candy bars. The group of five children (accompanied by adults) all go inside to behold the wonders of the magical factory.
The movie is sort of divided into two halves. We follow the young London boy Charlie (played by Peter Ostrum in his only acting part) as he desperately searches for a ticket. He doesn’t have many chances as his family is too poor to even afford a second bed for four grandparents. His hope of finding the “most sought after prize in history” is dwindling as kids around the world unwrap millions of bars. The second half shows what happens inside the factory as the irresponsible kids are being weeded out, one by one. It makes for a nice contrast between the drab but cheerful outside world to the magical yet somewhat creepy factory. Let’s talk a bit more about each half, shall we?
The search for the golden tickets sets the mood for the whole movie. It makes the audience anxious to get inside and see what all the fuss is about. Luckily, Wonka doesn’t disappoint. The world is placed in such a fervor over these passes that they’ll do anything to find one. Some buy a box of bars in an auction. One woman refuses to pay kidnappers the candy ransom in hopes that she has a winner. The contest is what’s happening throughout the world and the news reflects that. The jokes are rather screwball, but also satirical and sketch like. The film also manages to weave in straight forward jokes as well. The mix is unlike most comedies of any era and the various comedic directions never step over each other. Like I said before, the scenery is drab and lifeless. The children keep a good attitude and are still very sing-songy. I guess they have to be, what with this being a musical and all.
The cheeriness and the faded backdrop are left behind when the final golden ticket is revealed. On we go to Wonka’s factory. Here we find an astonishing place full of brightly colored rooms and scenery like no other. The sharp contrast between the two settings brings to mind Dorothy opens her door in “The Wizard of Oz.” The only bland thing about this seemingly utopian location is the lighting which offers no depth or added character to the scenes. The boat ride seems to be the only planned out lighting set up. The color scheme isn’t the only thing that changes with the new surroundings. The mood turns more cynical and jaded. Wonka himself (played brilliantly by Gene Wilder) effectively quotes famous literature to support his eccentricities and the nuances of the happenings around him. Wilder’s matter of fact, yet enigmatic delivery is genius.
The structure of the two halves isn’t a new thing, but rarely does it work as well as it does here. Oddly, though, once we reach the second half, the conflict in the storyline rests more with all the other kids, rather than the main character. The alien like Oompa Loompas provide a lesson in song each time a child is removed which reinforces the anything can happen, surreal nature of the factory.
It’s a very unusual, very trippy movie. The quick pacing leaves no time to soak in anything that’s going on. The tour moves from one room to the next, showing off all the incredibly inventive devices and contraptions and confectionaries created. Everyone’s literally in awe of this secret world that Roald Dahl created. The music by Anthony Newley is fantastic. It’s catchy and fun and always appropriate. If you’ve never seen the movie, then you owe it to yourself. If the last time you saw it was when you were it kid, then give it another look, because it’ll be better than you imagine. This movie deserves a quality sequel. Not a remake.
+++++++++
Mystic River
Review by Jon Waterman
***
When they were kids, Dave, Jimmy and Sean were playing in the street. After finding wet cement to write their names in, they were stopped by two old men claiming to be cops. They took Dave away in a car and left the others. Dave finally escaped a few days later, but the trio never really talked to each other after that. Many years later, the three are reunited in unusual ways through the death of Jimmy’s oldest daughter.
Now remember, it was Dave that was taken away in the car. I found the strongest points of the film were in the story and with most of the acting. Sean Penn and Tim Robbins are scene stealers, but it’s easy to forgive them, because you can tell how involved they were with their characters. They don’t miss a beat. The eyes tell all. Robbins as older Dave (who was taken away in a car) with his wide eyes and piercing stares. Penn as older Jimmy with his narrowed, beady glances exuding a variety of emotions from pain and betrayal to confidence and determination all at one time. Bacon as older Sean is much more subdued and matter of fact, not letting anyone know what he’s thinking until he speaks. He puts his guard down only when he knows it will help him even more. The women do a fine job, but their characters are so underdeveloped that they verge on two-dimensionality (including the non-contributory side-story of Sean’s silent wife…ugh.).
Other than the lack of a female presence, the story works wonderfully. The murder mystery includes some good twists and new information throughout. The motives and personalities of the three leads blend and clash nicely, providing a sustained interest in what happens to all of them (including Dave…the kid who rode away with those strangers in the car). The story is mostly solid, but the script is pretty weak. The dialogue is sometimes pretty hokey and it tends to beat the point of the movie into your head. Remember when I told you about Dave? He’s the one who was taken in the car. Yeah. That got annoying, right? Well, imagine two and a half hours of that. Also, the ending was way too random. After the resolution, a series of pointless events occur. The parade seemed utterly useless to me and should have at least been mentioned somewhere prior. One of the characters does a total 180 on what we had seen and goes on some tirade that makes it sound like we’re being set up for a sequel. The whole mess could have been cut out and I wouldn’t have cared and probably would have loved the movie because of it.
On the plus side, director Clint Eastwood paints a lovely neo-noir portrait of Boston. The acting and story is such that you don’t feel the 140 something minute running time. On the negative side, director Clint Eastwood also provides the repetitious score, which does nothing more than add to the minor annoyances.
The movie had it’s problems and there is much room for improvement. However, it’s not a terrible film. It’s pretty good, but not great. It’s not all it’s hyped up to be. As a kid, Dave was taken away in a car by unknown men.
<< Home