Change Your Image
pepper911
Reviews
The Joe Schmo Show (2003)
Surprisingly good
This show works on a few different levels. Because of it's nature, it's a clever parody of reality shows, an improv show, and a psuedo-sitcom all rolled into one. It's fun watching the talented actors set up situations and react to unexpected turn of events. And while their performances must be convincing for the show to work, you can see they're also having a blast mocking reality tv.
But what's best about this show is the nonactor: "Joe Schmo". He's simply a nice guy, nothing more nothing less. You can tell right away that the actors don't wish to hurt him or make a fool of him. They're all good people involved in an elaborate practical joke.
The gentle way the concept is played out is a breath of fresh air.
POSSIBLE SPOILER WARNING
Okay, I could be completely wrong on this account, but here's something I was wondering: Do you think that Joe Schmo is an actor too? Just imagine: at the end of the show, it isn't Joe who was duped, but it was all the actors who were fooled all along! It would be such a dramatic ending, I can only think it's probably true. It would also explain quite a few things I've seen so far.
Mission to Mars (2000)
Ain't on the page, ain't on the stage
This was God awful. I was really looking forward to some decent sci fi in the mainstream cinema (why I would do that is science fiction in itself) and I see the same story that's been told 1 million times in second rate sci fi books.
I'll give it this: the trailer looked good. The movie looks like it's got the springboard to tell a thought provoking story. And then... it takes an hour and a half to take you up to what the trailer already told you- with no new information (but with a lot of bad music) before a tacked on stolen ending.
The Return of the King (1980)
Entertaining... but oh what could have been
I think it's a difficult movie to review if you've read the book(s). Is the purpose of a review to judge the efforts of the creators, or is it to judge the entertainment quality of the movie? If it is the former I'd say that it gets a thumbs down. If it is the latter I'd say it gets a thumbs up.
You see, the reason why there are always two distinct lines of reviews of this movie is because (for us readers) this movie is not "our" Return of th e King! Some of the plots are the same (if simplified) but some of the characters, places, and chronology have been warped, and the rest have been changed all together. So you end up with only brief flashes of some of our friends in the movie, with most not appearing at all. It's as if you're seeing new characters brought in to Tolkien's world trying to "act" (and failing miserably) as our heroes and villains. But the movie STILL works enough to entertain. And isn't that a testiment to Tolkien?
By itself the movie entertains. However, if you read a review by one who has read Tolkien, of COURSE they are going to be offended. Take a look at the characters:
Gandalf: Since Rankin/Bass made this a direct sequel to the Hobbit they ran into a bit of trouble. Gandalf in the Hobbit does not equal Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings. They are two different characters. The Wizard of the child's story who "never minded explaining his cleverness more than once," who is "dreadfully afraid" of the wargs, who tricks Beorn into accepting thirteen unwanted dwarves into his house, and the like, needs nothing short of a total literary resurrection to become the messenger sent by the Valar to rally the West against Sauron. That Tolkien was able to accomplish such transmutation successfully bears witness to his possession of an almost incredible power of mind and art. And I think readers of Tolkien's complete Middle Earth works understand that The Hobbit is a rendering from Bilbo's journals and not an unbiased historical record.
In the meantime, Rankin/Bass is stuck with two different Gandalfs to deal with, and they make the change rather smoothly. The wizard tends to keep a serious tone in the movie while not looking like the pretentious, monotonous Prophet of Doom he appeared as in Bakshi's version. Nonetheless, his character seems to be greatly diminished in power and chooses to spend his freetime spectating battles on the Pelennor Fields from a safe area. You can't blame the Lord of the Nazgul for laughing at him when this particular wizard stands at the Gate of Minas Tirith and tells him to leave.
Pippin: I was looking for him, but all I saw was this hobbit with his name who never had any fear, and may have made a noble character, but not an interesting one.
Merry: Replaced by a guy obviously in need of a diet. (What has the King of Rohan been feeding this guy?) He has three lines in the movie where he tries to prove how heroic he is. And fails.
Frodo: Mostly we see an idealized version of a Hobbit hero. In fact, Frodo seems to be the same character as Bilbo. What happened to the reluctant hero in the books? This one seems to be less aware of Sauron's Eye and more aware instead of the camara- the latter prompting him to make speeches on his journey of the sort, "yes, Samwise, it may be hopeless. But STILL... we shall have to TRY. Because we are fighting evil. And Evil must never be allowed to win."
Samwise: In the novel Sam changes more than any other character in Lord of the Rings save Pippin. But even in the Return of the King Sam is still a clumsy, unsure of himself, ninnyhammer (as his Gaffer tells him). In this movie the guy playing him is SCARY. And mean. It's as if we're seeing Gollum's version of the story! This guy only shares one trait of the book's version: devotion to Mr. Frodo. In fact, when Frodo tells Sam that they will have to try to destroy evil, the ever-Christian (at least in this story) Samwise says, "Bless you, sir, for your bravery. I ask you Lord- give me the strength! Give me the strength to try once more! God help us!"
But wait- There's more! You thought just the characters were changed? Well we're not done yet. The places have changed, too!
Minas Tirith: I realize that a cartoon version of the city is never going to be that visual interesting. I also realize that no one seems to understand Tolkien's description of the city and even most paintings of the great fortress are inaccurate and less glorious than the "real" deal. But they REALLY screwed this one up. In fact, since they took Gandalf's lines straight from the book, he actually contradicts what you're seeing on screen in some of his descriptions. And we won't even talk about the White Tower and the non existing courtyard that supposedly surrounds it.
Towers of the Teeth: I didn't know they were barber poles. I must have missed that. I also didn't know that the Black Gate connected to each of them- and spans about 15 feet. It's like every structure in the movie: they've been simplified so much that they look like they're forts that I made when I was 10 or 11.
And like I said, amazingly enough it is still entertaining! It's just that I have to think of how much better it could have been had they understood any of the book.
And yes, there would still be limits on the story you could tell- I'm not saying that this animated version should have been vastly different in tone or scope. But I do think that some needless inaccuracy severely diminished that which could have been.