maestro-20 Reviews

Les Misérables (2012)

A superb film version of the beloved musical

[9/10 · 15 December 2012]

If you don't like musicals or are not a fan of the through-sung style, skip this movie. I will only irritate you (much like bombastic action films torture me).

But if you're a fan of Les Miserables or musicals in general, then you're in for a treat.

Many people have criticized Tom Hooper's direction. For me, I just think these people have no idea what Hooper is doing, and do not realize the effects of his work (with the help of Danny Cohen's marvelous cinematography). The Dutch angles work very well, especially during the Lovely Ladies sequences -- Hooper skillfully created a surrealistic, nightmarish Paris for Fantine (and the audience), making us feel queasy and uncomfortable and horrified, in some ways, for Fantine. We have to realize that this is not a videotaped version of the stage play or concert. This is a movie. Hooper said that he wanted to create an extreme/heightened realism that is on the verge of being surrealistic. I for one applaud his choice and I think it works beautifully for the movie.

Same with the close-ups. They created the kind of intimacy you won't get on stage, and also provided the opportunities for the actors to do their work. The result is amazingly personal, intense. Obviously it works better for some actors than others (that's why we're thinking of giving Anne Hathaway the Oscar, not Amanda Seyfried), but over all, it's a great cinematic choice -- together with live recording... it's emotionally powerful.

I do have some gripes: certain hand-held camera shots could have been avoided or stabilized -- there is really no need for them. The barricade scenes can be somewhat chaotic and rushed. Unfortunately Hooper has to work in the confine of the musical structure, and the story is already almost 3 hours long. Also, they had to cut or shorten some songs to fit the time frame - to those who have seen the show 30 times, it could be unsettling.

The performances are excellent. Hugh Jackman carries most of the movie with dignity and amazing versatility. He may not be the best singer in the world to play Valjean, but he IS Valjean on screen -- his voice is characterized to fit Valjean perfectly. His "What Have I Done" is a revelation of what his song-and-dance man who is best known for Wolverine can do.

Anne Hathaway deserves all the accolades she is getting. Her "I Dream a Dream" will become the de facto performance for those who will play Fantine in the future.

Eddie Redmayne is a surprise -- I know the actor can act, but I had no idea that he could sing so well. And that he could sing and act at the same time with such grace and charm. It's not an easy thing to accomplish.

Samantha Barks and Aaron Tveit have done Les Miserables on stage before, and they are excellent in the film. Many stage actors can't transition to the screen, but these two have succeeded (with a lot hard work, no doubt).

Amanda Seyfried is one of the weakest links in the movie. She is, of course, lovely as the adult Cosette (Isabelle Allen is excellent as young Cosette), even though the part is underwritten (in the film or on stage). Her singing voice is okay, but not as strong as expected, and I find her performance somewhat one dimensional. But she and Redmayne have great chemistry together, and that's a good thing.

Russell Crowe also is the weak link. He is a good actor and I think he does his best with this role. But his rock-opera voice is jarringly different from the rest and he just stands out like a sore thumb. However, in the course of the movie he grew on me. In his final scenes I can see the great acting (it's all in the eyes, people!). So while I can't say he's the best Javert ever, I'll give him a pass.

The supporting cast and background actors are all excellent.

The production is rich and wonderful with great sets, great cinematography, great costumes.

Is it perfect? No. I haven't seen one single film this year that is "perfect." I don't think that exists. At the end of the day (pun intended), Les Miserables is all about the music, the characters, and the emotions, and this film delivers. I expect many award nominations for this film.

Tangled (2010)

Disney's back with their fairytale

[9/10 · 25 November 2010]

I was apprehensive, to say the least, when I went to see Tangled, after the disappointment that was Princess and the Frog. First, Disney's back with CGI animation, which hasn't really worked that great except, maybe to some extent, Bolt. Second, the trailers made it look really slapstick -- I'm rather wary of today's animation features that try too hard to be hip and fast-paced and silly.

I was pleasantly surprised. Sure, there were slapstick and broad humor sure to make little kiddos laugh. But I was surprised by the sophistication as well. The screwball comedy between the hero and heroine is very well done; adults can appreciate that. The sidekicks, in particular the Max and Pascal, are hilarious. The hero and heroine are very likable and not flat. And there's a sense of sadness/wistfulness throughout the whole show that the adults will understand.

But what really is great is the animation. This is Pixar-worthy great. In fact, after a while I forgot it was CGI (which tends to be a bit stiff and crude when it comes to character animation). The human characters have that hand-drawn quality even though they're CG. In fact, they're more expressive than the hand-drawn characters in Princess and the Frog. The backgrounds are gorgeous (I can count every blade of grass). And there's an iconic scene where the kingdom rouses from darkness to light with thousands of floating lanterns -- it really is magical. It reminds me of classics such as Beauty and the Beast and Sleeping Beauty.

Best of all, the movie is not just all laughs and slapstick. It has heart too. Even the minor characters such as the King and Queen -- you can feel the emotions. And the romance is believable and not cheesy.

Like I said, I was very pleasantly surprised. It's something that is worthy of Pixar, and I'm glad to see Disney back on their game. While Princess and the Frog was a missed opportunity, Tangled is almost perfect.

Resurrecting the Champ (2007)

This movie deserves more attention

[8/10 · 4 September 2007]

This movie deserves more attention that what it has now (and distribution). Samuel L. Jackson played against type and did a wonderful job. It was also Josh Hartnett's best performance. The story is thought-provoking, heart-warming, and interesting.

The writing is solid and the performances impressive across the board -- even the kid who played Hartnett's son was excellent. As a writer, I really appreciate the themes on telling the truth, fame, integrity, responsibilities, talent, etc. The father-son theme echoes throughout the entire film. Like Field of Dreams, this is a guy's chick flick. Take your husbands, sons or fathers and go see this movie.

Premonition (I) (2007)

Not great, but not bad either

[7/10 · 21 March 2007]

The plot was confusing to me at first, because I looked at it as a time travel story. I think a lot of people did not like it because they also thought of it as a time travel story, and the plot doesn't make sense -- it didn't to me at first either.

-- spoiler --

But after I realize what it really is -- hint: the title... PREMONITION -- I realized I got it all wrong, and now it makes sense. She's using her premonition -- what she sees in her future, to piece together all the information. For example, she sees the pills in her premonition of Saturday, where she was "committed" so in her real Tuesday, she visits the psychiatrist (who doesn't know her yet) to find out what's going on, so she can PREVENT the future she sees from happening. Saturday (or Thursday or Friday) never did happen the way she saw it.

Once you realize the difference between time travel (that Saturday actually happened) vs. premonition (it's the future she SEES), you will understand how it all makes sense.

Now, it doesn't mean the film is perfect. There are still enough consistency to confuse the audience. I think that's the problem with the filmmakers -- they didn't make it clear enough, so the plot gets a bit convoluted. I've heard there was a different ending, but they shot a new one for the release, and that may explain why some of the pieces don't quite fit.

As for the ending, I think it's fine. I expected something different but then I realized it was just my wishful thinking because of the direction the story took, but in hindsight, I think the filmmaker made a good choice of not giving in to a happy ending. However, I could also see that they could have gone a darker route (and they hinted at that). Perhaps that's the alternate ending everyone was talking about. But as is, I find the ending interesting, even though I didn't expect it. And it's not too sappy to make me barf.

To me, this mystery is sort of a philosophical meditation: What if you can change your life, even if you can't change the devastating event that happens? What are the most important things in your life? I think given the themes of the story, the ending is fitting.

Norbit (2007)

Not his best, but not his worst either

[5/10 · 13 February 2007]

Yes, the movie is racist and politically incorrect, but you know what? I think many people are offended because they miss the point. Brian Robbins and Eddie Murphy would be stupid to make a racist movie -- instead, they are making fun of it. Anyone who has seen a South Park episode would understand "satire" instead of calling it racist, homophobic, or whatever. I think that's what Eddie Murphy was trying to do here -- to poke fun at our own prejudices.

As a film, Norbit only succeeds halfway. It has some hilarious moments, but the film is unfocused and inconsistent. The script is bad, but I guess if you're used to comedies like Epic Movies, you'll be okay with bad comedy scripts. The stereotypes are so blatant and obvious that they are funny. When Mr. Wong (Murphy) said, "Of course I am racist!" he had a point. In a way, we are all prejudiced; we just don't want to admit to it.

Judging from the reaction of a packed theater on a Sunday night (blacks, whites, Asians, men, women, thin people, overweight people), I think people can have a good time with this one if they put aside their political correctness. It's just another crude, raunchy, silly comedy. And Eddie Murphy is funny as hell.

The Prestige (2006)

Good but not good enough

[7/10 · 24 October 2006]

The production is wonderful and the acting very good. Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale both do great work here, and Michael Caine is exceptional. Scarlett Johansson is good, too, but she is underused in this male-dominant film. There is a lot of twists and turns, but the problem is, they also give away a lot of clues, right from the beginning shots, so if you have paid attention (and who wouldn't, once you enter the theater knowing you're about to see a mystery/thriller about magic), halfway through you would know how the story is going to end and what is happening. That's the problem with the film. With every great magic trick, you can't tell how it's done even if you look very closely. It's not the case with this film -- it's predictable once you figure it out, and it's not difficult.

It's not to say it's not enjoyable. The crosscutting, non-linear time lines can be confusing at first, but the director is smart enough to leave you visual clues so once you find your marks, the technique is interesting, keeping the twists close to the vest for the audiences. But once again, they leave you enough clues that if you have paid attention, you will figure it out. David Bowie is fun to watch, though -- I didn't even recognize it was him (although I recognize Mr. Gollum). Another problem is that the film focuses on the rivalry and the oneupmanship, and it feels cold. Compared to the Illusionist, which I think is a superb romantic mystery, the story and ending of The Prestige are less than emotionally rewarding. It's like a nice magic trick -- it will leave you giddy, full of wonder and imagination, but ultimately empty emotionally.

Six Feet Under: Everyone's Waiting (2005) Season 5, Episode 12

Most Powerful Show Ever

[10/10 · 2 June 2006]

(SPOILER -- the following contains spoilers. If you have not seen the show or the final episode, please come back after you do.)

(First appeared on http://itheauthor.blogspot.com/2005/08/six-feet-under.html)

Never have I been so deeply moved, engrossed, and affected by a piece of entertainment. Sure, I have fallen in love with and touched by a book, a movie, a TV show, or a song before, but not like this. I cried like a baby at the end of Cinema Paradiso, but not like this. Not like having insomnia for four days. What is wrong with me?

I think Six Feet Under has struck a chord with so many people at such deep level because it is so REAL. And some people don't like the show also because it's too REAL for them. The Fishers and their friends and loved ones are so dysfunctional that we could all step back and say, "Gosh, I'm glad I am not like that." Then we catch ourselves, whether it's watching David lashing out on his partner Keith, or Nate cheating on his pregnant wife Brenda, or Ruth screaming at her husband George: Oh lord, we are just like them. We have our own dysfunctional moments, our own demons and torments, our own sicknesses. And they remind us of people we know. Thus the Fishers and Co. have become our family for the past 5 years.

Every episode presents some brilliant writing, full of metaphors, deep meanings and nuances. It's sad, depressing and funny at the same time. I'm always in awe with the writing. Then there's the acting. Six Feet Under has some of the most talented actors (Peter Krause as Nate, Michael C. Hall as David, Frances Conroy as Ruth, Lauren Ambrose as Claire, Rachel Griffith as Brenda, James Cromwell, Matthew St. Patrick, Kathy Bates, Patricia Clarkson... the list goes on and on and on) and some of the most amazing performances. Together, the organic writing and acting (and the artful production) make the show so real.

That's why the final episode hit me so hard. Because I believed in them and their trials and tribulations. The grief they went through. The joy they experienced. The love, loss and relationships they endured.

I think it's brilliant that they delivered the shocking and climatic death of Nate (a central character) 3 episodes before the finale, then let us see the grieving process unfold within the Fisher clan. For a show about death, they chose to show us life afterward.

And that's it. Part of the impact of the show is that it's really about life. About living.

The final 15 minutes and the montage as Claire drove through the desert hit me really hard. I watched, awestruck and breathless, as each major character met his or her demise. To me, it was like watching my family and friends die. It was like having gone to 6 or 7 funerals in 15 minutes. There's that finality. The goodbyes that are so hard to say.

But most impressively, they show us how they lived their lives. It reminds us of our own mortality, that we all die, eventually. Some suddenly and tragically, and some naturally. But we all die. It's how we live and love and take it all in and remember that is important.

"You can't take a picture of this. It's already gone." Indeed. What we have, really, are feelings and memories.

The final 15 minutes also reminds me of my own life, adventures, relationships, and losses. As Claire leaves for New York for her new life, I reflect on my own departures. How I said goodbye to my friends and family when I left for the US. The sense of loss and dread, mixed with excitement of the unknown future.

Sia's "Breathe Me" was a perfect soundtrack for the last 5 minutes. The haunting song gave the ending such incredibly emotional punch.

The song and these final images are branded vivid in my mind now. Can't shake them. And for four days I've been thinking about what I saw and heard, reflecting on my own life and losses. And I feel blessed.

I will keep thinking. And feeling. And loving. And living.

The final episode of Six Feet Under was the most powerful show I've ever seen and experienced.

Shall We Dance? (2004)

A lovely movie on his own

[20 October 2004]

Purists would harp on how the original Japanese version is better. It's probably true (I adore the original) but this movie stands on its own just fine. Thank you very much. I think there's merit to bringing this wonderful story to the American sensibility. Is it perfect? No (nor was the original, which was a little too slow for the American taste). But it's a great movie suitable for everyone in these cynical times. It's great fun for the entire family, and it doesn't hit you over the head with a 2x4. Great performances all around.

It's light. It's entertaining. And it puts a smile on your face. If anything, this may prompt people to go rent the original.

Maurice (1987)

Greatest love story -- straight or gay

[12 March 2004]

I must have watched the movie a few dozen times already and the ending always got me. It is a beautiful story about a English gentleman trying to find his way through life -- and trying to find love. The relationships between Maurce (James Wilby), Clive (Hugh Grant) and Scudder (Rupert Graves) are achingly real and touching. The slow-paced Edwardian drama culminates to a powerful ending that is both gratifying and sad. "Maurice" is one of the most "underrated" Merchant-Ivory films because of its subject matter, sitting mostly in the shadow of "A Room with a View." But I believe it is also one of their most accomplished, romantic and beautiful films of date.

Under the Tuscan Sun (2003)

Undeniably charming

[19 November 2003]

`Under the Tuscan Sun' has an undeniable charm in its cinematography, provincial locales, quirky characters and a radiant leading lady. The film can easily be labeled a `chick flick,' and in many ways, it is. It is also more than that.

Diane Lane is Frances Mayes, a San Francisco writer-book editor who escapes to Tuscany trying to rebuild her shattered life and, hopefully, find love. Based on Mayes' memoir of the same name, `Under the Tuscan Sun' chronicles a woman's journey through the aftermath of a heart-breaking divorce, and her search for the meanings of her life, including love. Urged by her best friend Patti, Frances takes a trip to Tuscany – a gay tour notwithstanding – falls in love with the region, and decides to purchase a decrepit but charming villa. New relationships blossom between the `American woman' and the curious townsfolk. Along come a few surprises, a love interest, challenges and more heartbreaks. Through it all, Frances learns something about herself and the people around her – what "family" means to her.

Directed by Audrey Wells and shot through the eyes of Cinematographer Geoffrey Simpson, the film is gorgeous to look at. So is Lane. Tuscany is as scrumptious as a hearty Italian meal. The clouds, birds, flowers, meadows, villages and wheat fields are so vivid that every scene looks like a moving postcard. Lane is effectively exquisite, even at the character's darkest hours, as a woman lost in her own misery.

It is not a film without flaws. At times, the character and story arcs border on cliché. At times, the dialogues and `life lessons' can become corny and on the nose. Frances is strong, yet somehow too naïve (for a jaded book editor), reserved and withdrawn, waiting for something to happen to her. Some of the characters seem somewhat one-dimensional. There are places where the editing could have helped in moving the plot along. Overall, however, the film is an affecting story with interesting, quirky characters and true relationships. It feels good. It is a nice date movie – something to watch while curling in a blanket, huddling a tub of popcorn, with someone you love. Something satisfying for the holiday season when the sky is bleak and the snow too deep. When you dream of the Tuscan sun.

Hulk (2003)

Great movie

[19 June 2003]

If you're expecting another Spiderman or X-men, then you will be disappointed. I applaud Ang Lee of trying to make this movie his own, and not copying the popcorn comic-book movie formula. Unlike Peter Parker, Bruce Banner/The Hulk is a tragic figure. The movie is dark, much like the great first Batman movie. The visuals are impressive. The new looks (split screens, transitions, etc.) are fresh. I don't understand how people can say the special effects are bad. Spiderman looked more fake than the Hulk (when Spidy was flying around town, you could clearly see he was CGI). The Hulk is beautiful to watch. Some of the scenes are so beautiful you cannot forget the images. My only gripe is that Ang Lee held back showing us more of Hulk.

I think the psychological drama adds to the movie. Sure it's dark and moody, and that may turn away a lot of audience who expects more fun.

Yes, if you expect another Spiderman, you will be disappointed. Otherwise, this could be the next level for comic-book movies.

The Hours (2002)

Best Movie this year...

[31 January 2003]

Best film I've seen this year -- and really really FAR superior than last year's A Beautiful Mind (what was the Academy thinking?)

The acting is marvelous (almost every actor did a great job). The editing is flawless. And the message heart felt.

Some say it's a depressing movie. I don't quite agree. I'm generally a very optimistic, happy person so I suppose I look at this movie as a movie about depression, mental illness and suicides but ultimately uplifting at the end. It's really about life, not death. As Virginia Woolf said so herself, sometimes someone has to die so that the others can appreciate living.

And appreciate living we will.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

An Epic

[30 December 2002]

For those who complain about the movie deviating from the book -- you obviously do not understand anything about writing AND movie making. And you do not understand the differences between the two media: books and films. You must be the same people who said "Gone With The Wind," one of the most beloved films of all time, sucks because it was different from the book...

This movie is magnificent. Some of my friends are not fantasy fans but they enjoyed the movie and would very much like to see ROTK. That must mean something. This movie is epic movie making at its best. The battle at Helms Deep is more incredible than anything we have seen so far -- not even Braveheart, which won the 1995 Best Picture. The performances are outstanding all around, and that is quite an achievement for an ensemble this size. The visuals are fantastic, albeit some minor flaws. And Gollum is one hell of a character -- truly groundbreaking.

It is not to say this movie is perfect. Nothing is. I for one couldn't quite get into the plot with the Ents (I guess it was a little too "Never Ending Story" for me). But this is definitely movie making at its best.

Maurice (1987)

One of first true, great gay films

[21 August 2002]

Based on E.M. Foster novel, this movie is typically Merchant-Ivory -- lush and romantic -- with a atypical plot. There are many great moments in the film: the budding friendship between Clive and Maurice; Maurice's first time with Scudder, etc. At the end, when Maurice found Scudder at the boathouse -- it was powerful, in contrast with the sad, tragic choice Clive made. This film is a must have in anyone's video library.

The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002)

Entertaining

[16 August 2002]

I happen to think that this movie is entertaining. Sure the jokes are juvenile, but if Austin Powers can do $millions of business with recycled jokes and bathroom humor, I can't see why Eddie Murphy, who's in great form here, can't score with this one (millions, after all, went and see the awful Nutty Professor II). I heard a lot of bad reviews, but I was pleasantly surprised that I totally enjoyed the movie.

It's basically a gangster comedy wrapped in a Sci-fi treatment. There are some genuinely eye-catching set pieces and amusing exchanges. The visuals are great. And Rosario Dawson and Eddie Murphy have genuine chemistry -- much more convincing than that between her and Will Smith in MIB2. Randy Quaid steals the show as the robot bodyguard though. After the disappointing MIB2 and Gold Member, Nash is quite a refreshing change of pace.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

This is one of the best Star Wars

[17 May 2002]

OK, Empire Strikes Back is still #1 for me. But this one is close; definitely better, in my book, than EP1 and Return of the Jedi. And I can't wait to see how EPIII (possibly the darkest of all six -- we know what must happen -- and who's going to die -- before Episode IV begins) unfolds.

The first time I saw it, I was really tired and so some of the scenes in the middle part (exposition) dragged a little, but it was still engrossing enough to keep me interested. And by the time the final battles started, it was a thrill ride all the way.

At first I was laughing with the rest of the theater audience at the corny dialogue (especially those between Anakin and Padme). But then I realized that's what Star Wars is all about. It's not NYPD Blue. This is a comic book, Sci-fi fantasy. If you have ever read a comic book, you will know that the dialogue actually fit very well. On my second viewing, they actually worked very well for me. The love story arc actually worked for the purpose. It's important to move it along, so we know that they fall madly in love (and that leads to Luke and Leia).

But we all know why we are there in the first place. It's the fantasy, the action, the mythology, the lightsabers, the Force, the machineries, the technologies, the scenery... and I believe EPII delivers. The final 40 minutes is exhilirating. I have to go back a second time to truly appreciate everything that is put on the screen (you're bound to miss a lot of details if you only see it once). The arena scenes are amazing -- a fine tribute to the original trilogy and the great Ray Harryhausen movies.

If George Lucas keeps this up, EPIII is going to kick ass.

Cinema Paradiso (1988)

Great movie

[19 April 2002]

I first saw Cinema Paradiso in 1992, recommended by someone who was an avid fan. I liked French films so I figure a nice little Italian film wouldn't hurt.... Oh was I wrong. It immediately became my all time favorite (next to another sentimental favorite: Close Encounter of the Third Kind). Since then, I have watched it many times, and each time I was moved just the same.

Granted, I am a sentimental fool, but I also resent overtly manipulative movies (e.g. Titanic). I know Cinema Paradiso is sentimental, and manipulative, but in a very nicely done way. The film worked for me at different levels. Sure, it's a lovely, simple story about innocence, growing up, first love, love, and loss. The poignant ending was simple yet extremely powerful, because it's built on the rest of the movie. I cried every time during the final frames...

I have seen the long version with extra footage. While I appreciate the explanation and some very nice moments, I do prefer the shorter "theatrical release" version because I think it's more powerful, especially not knowing "whatever happened to Elena"... I know from a story-telling standpoint, you want to tell the audience what really happened, but from a dramatic standpoint, I think the director made a great decision by leaving things out the way he did.

You will never know what ever happened to Elena, and that's the way it should be, I believe.

The movie specifically worked for me because I shared many experiences that Toto/Salvator had:

1. I love movies and grew up in movie houses (not cineplexes!! Movie magic is somehow lost in those tiny 40-seaters).

2. I left home when I was 18 and didn't go back until years later -- I truly appreciated the nostalgic aspect of the story

3. When I left I lost touch with my first girlfriend -- I never heard from her again, and as in the movie, I wonder whatever happened to her....

4. What Afredo told Toto: "Go and make a life for yourself, and never look back" That's what I did...

5. The relationship between Alfredo and Toto reminded me of the one between my father and me...

So you can see that this movie speaks to me in a very personal level.

The Sixth Sense (1999)

just great

[25 August 1999]

I usually don't like horror movies (with a few exceptions) but after I heard about the Sixth Sense I decided to see it. Once the movie started, I was completely absorbed in it... yeah, it was a bit "slow" if you're used to the MTV style wham-bang action/horror movies, but I consider this one great drama/suspense. The first thing that came to my mind was how good the dialogue was. So much subtext, and the characterization was just wonderful. This movie has the same feel of "Seven" and both have become my favorite Horrordrama, with similar endings that mesmerize me.

The acting is excellent! The plot can seem confusing at times but at the end, when you think about it, it makes sense.

Some people are bored by the "slow" pace but I think they miss the point. It's not an action/horror movie. It is more of a drama with strong message about people and family and love. Some people, upon knowing about a trick ending, tend to try too hard to "predict" it and when they do, it takes away the pure joy of seeing the movie and not expecting anything. they are too smart for their own good. It is like going to to beach and watch a sunset and get bored by it because you know all about it... you are missing out of the joy of discovering something, or merely experiencing it.

If you like a good story, good acting, and solid movie making, then the sixth sense is highly recommended.

Tarzan (1999)

Tarzan is great

[12 July 1999]

I must admit I love Disney's animation. It's funny how people were criticizing Disney for their "formulas" and then a few years later labeled them "classics".

I think it was a great thing that Disney would follow a quietly beautiful story of honor (Mulan) with a strong heroine with an energetic, kinetic, fast paced jungle fever with a strong hero. Sure, they are both "coming of age" sort of story, but at the same time quite different.

Why do I think Tarzan is among the best Disney movie? Because I think it has the emotional weight. The love and tenderness between Kala and Tarzan brought me to tears; which is no small feat because I seldom cried at the movies. And these are animation characters! The interaction between Tarzan and Jane is genuine and funny and sexy and romantic. The weak parts were the peripheral characters, such as Clayton -- but they moved the story along. Clayton wasn't really the BIG BAD GUY like Gaston or Hade, but rather he's part of the external conflict that heightened the internal conflict within Tarzan himself -- to find out who he was and realize who his family was.

After a while I just didn't remember I was watching a cartoon. The animation was so enticing and the characters so vivid I was completely absorbed in the story and the emotions. The kids in the theater were all mesmerized! There were hardly any dull moments even for the toddlers (unlike Mulan which was almost too "boring" for really young kids). The artwork is fantastic. The music is a nice touch to move the story along... it will grow on you once you listen to the soundtrack. You won't be able to stop humming "Two World One Family"

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

Pure Genius

[9/10 · 9 July 1999]

Some people might call it crude, vulgar, the core of the problems in our damned society, etc. etc. but that's exactly what this movie is making fun of. It's pure genius. It's absolutely the funniest movie I have seen in years. Behind the crude and "infantile" jokes and gags, there is a wonderful and heart-felt satire -- really makes you think. At one point or another, it manages to offend just about everyone in the world, but at the same time the message is loud and clear -- there are worse things then vulgar languages -- war, hatred, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, religious brainwashing, violence, ignorance, etc. etc. It's all there. We laugh at them, and then we realize we are living with them.

Aside from the social message (OK, maybe it's not as deep as we thought), the movie is just purely entertaining and hilarious (however, I do suggest you not let anyone under the age of 10 to see this) Making it a musical is just marvelous. The songs are catchy (I can't get "Uncle F**ka" and "Blame Canada" out of my head) and the way they parody the various musicals from "The Sound of Music" to "Les Miserables" to Disney cartoons (the opening sequence is a dead-on parody of that in "Beauty and the Beast") is simply delicious.

The movie is not without flaws, however, like everything else. The third act is a bit weak, especially when compared with the first and second. There were some dry spots and some jokes weren't really that funny by the end. And my personal gripe is that they showed Kenny's face at the end. I groaned. Please, one of the joy of seeing South Park is that we never know what Kenny looks or sounds like or says. So that kind of spoiled it for me. And the relationship between Saddam and Satan dragged on a bit too long. Just like any real relationship, I guess.

rating: *** 3/4 out of **** or A-