deepspace93 Reviews

The Butterfly Effect (2004)

US Theatrical Cut Surprisingly Better than Director's

[8/10 · 18 February 2007]

As a rule, I end up liking Director's cuts of films better than Theatrical cuts, but this film makes my exception list to that rule.

First off, forget what the critics say about this film; especially if you enjoy films that deal with concepts of time. Sure you could pass it off as another hash of the old time-paradox syndrome, but this story takes it to a whole new level. It really delves into the repercussions that can happen when you play with time. Not only can it have your intended consequences, but the ripples can have many unintended consequences that can be disastrous.

Now, here're the key differences between the cuts and what makes the Theatrical cut better:

WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!!

***************WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW THIS LINE*****************

WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!!

In the Theatrical cut, which I watched first, Evan Treborn (played surprisingly well by Ashton Kutcher), finally saves face by making sure that his childhood girlfriend moves away and never gets to know him. This finally sets things right and enables Evan to have both purpose and peace in his life.

In the Director's cut however, a brand new storyline is introduced early on in the film. A scene is added where Evan and his mother visit a palm-reader and Evan is told that he has no life-line--that he was never meant to exist. This eventually leads him to kill himself while still in his mother's womb to set things right.

For me, I have a hard time accepting this theory that's introduced in the Director's cut. I can't accept that someone wasn't meant to exist. I am morally and ethically compelled to believe that we all have a purpose. This is why I can't support the Director's cut, but instead offer full credit to the Theatrical cut.

Peter Pan (2003)

Great film, just a couple of minor gripes

[8/10 · 16 May 2004]

I personally thought this was a pretty good film. I wouldn't say it was any outstanding epic, nor do I expect it to be. But for being a fine family film, based on the classic children's tale of Peter Pan, I thought it was great. It was all I expected and more.

The acting wasn't top of the line but it was certainly several steps above the norm for family movies.

What was outstanding were the effects and the flying and the sword-fighting.

All-in-all an above average family film. I do just have two little gripes with the film:

The first is the fact that Jeremy Sumpter didn't even attempt an English accent. He was about the only non-British actor in the movie, and it showed. Especially since the film even establishes that his character was from England before he went to Neverland, and all the many decades he was meant to have been in Neverland he was always around other people with British accents, and every time he left Neverland he always went to London, where he would have heard the British accent again, so why on Earth would Peter Pan talk with an American accent? There are after all dialogue coaches that can teach accents and it would have just helped to complete the magic of the movie.

My second gripe is the narration. I felt that most of the time the narration was redundant, explaining things which I think even the younger audience members could grasp from the visual presented. I feel that overall the narration takes away from the magic of the story by explaining scenes which are either visual enough or actions that should be left to the imagination of the viewer in some cases. There were some scenes where it particularly offended me by telling me how I should be interpreting a particular scene. Putting a book to film already destroys some of the viewer's ability to imagine scenes of the story, but adding a narration to explain what's already visually evident destroys even more.

Looking past these gripes the film is still quite spectacular for its genre and I do recommend it.

The Adventures of Huck Finn (1993)

Fine performances all around

[6 February 2003]

I may be a little ignorant when it comes to comparing this film against other versions or the book, as I have only seen this version as well as Disney's take on the other Mark Twain work, Tom Sawyer (Tom & Huck - 1995); and I personally feel that Disney did a better job with this story than they did with the Tom Sawyer story.

A lot of people seem to have mixed feelings about the performances in the film, particularly Elijah Wood's performance as the title character. Having not read the book or seen other versions of the film, I think that Elijah Wood did an outstanding job. He brought a certain "joie du vivre" to the part. His age allowed him (and the writers) to pull off both childhood innocence and mischievousness; and find a balance between the two.

Courtney B. Vance does a fine job as Jim, playing the part with real determination to gain his freedom and real loyalty to Huck despite a few conflicts in their friendship. He also brings a certain innocence to his character. He expertly portrays a real sense of wisdom, despite his character's lack of education.

Jason Robards is simply wonderful in everything he plays. This is no exception. Along with Robbie Coltrane, the two deliver wonderful comedic performances as The King and The Duke. Ron Perlman is also wonderfully scary is Pap Finn.

This film is great for kids 9 through 99 (younger kids might find certain scenes a little too frightening).

The Adventures of Pinocchio (1996)

Good movie, but target audience seems unclear.

[7/10 · 30 May 2000]

This is certainly a well done movie, with an all-star cast. However, the intended target audience of this film is unclear. While little kids, who know of Pinocchio from story books and the Disney Animated Classic, are sure to enjoy the outstanding animation of the puppet, will most likely be frightened by many of the other scenes. Older kids, teenagers, and many adults often consider themselves too old for the story of Pinocchio; with a few exceptions.

There's also a couple other scenes in the film which make it objectionable for younger children. One scene makes repeated use of the word "jack-a**"; while referring to donkeys, as in the original story, the word seems a little over used for a film that has a "G" rating in Canada (not sure of the US rating). Another objectionable scene is at the end when "real boy" Pinocchio, tells a lie to two of the films villains, knowing that his nose won't grow anymore. To me this counter-acts the lesson to be learned by having his nose grow when he lies in the first place.

Over all the film is still really well done, and very touching (provoking tear-ducts in places). The acting is excellent and the direction seems good. The script on the whole seems good, apart from the few objectionable scenes, which make me wonder what the film's target audience is meant to be; as opposed the recent Disney musical version, titled "Geppetto", which was definitely family-oriented.

The Wonderful World of Disney: Geppetto (2000) Season 3, Episode 12

Thoroughly enjoyable.

[10/10 · 7 May 2000]

I have to say that I really enjoyed this movie, and thought it was much better than the Jonathan Taylor Thomas version. While the JTT one had better special FX, this one had much better direction and script-writing. Also the fact that it was a musical made it all that much more enjoyable. Brent Spiner (Star Trek TNG's Data) was wonderful as Stromboli. And Rene Auberjonois (Star Trek DS9's Odo) was magnificent as Buonragazzo. I highly recommend this film, and will probably buy it on video.