Down With Love: A Review

DOWN WITH LOVE

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Tony Randall.

Down With Love is sold as an homage to the Rock Hudson/Doris Day "no sex sex comedies", and while the film has certain elements of the Hudson/Day films in it, I think it focused more on the style than on the substance of said Hudson/Day films.

Barbara Novak (Renee Zellweger) has just published her feminist manifesto Down With Love, arguing that women should focus on career over marriage and have sex without love. Finding no help from stuffy male publishers, her agent Vikki (Sarah Paulson) suggests an interview with dashing man's man, ladies' man and man about town Catcher Block (Ewan McGregor), as swinging a Lothario as ever walked the Earth. Catcher is the star journalist of Know Magazine (the magazine for men in the know), but Cather is nowhere near interested in Ms. Novak's theology on sexual equality. 

His disdain is so great that he stands her up three times, each time for a stewardess he beds. Much to Know Magazine's editor Peter McManus' (David Hyde Pierce) exasperation (who harbors secret passions for Vikki), Catcher is nowhere to be found. Despite this snub, Down With Love is a massive success, initially delighting Barbara's publisher Theodore Banner or TB (Tony Randall). Its success, however, is now affecting Catcher's sex life, so he cooks up a scheme to seduce Barbara by getting her to fall in love with him. Once she is under his spell, he'll write a damning expose on her.

To do this, Catcher creates an alternate persona: Captain Zip Martin, astronaut unaware of who Barbara is. Barbara appears to be taken in by this rouse, but soon it becomes a case of who's zooming who as Barbara has a few tricks up her own lavish couturier. However, as in all romantic comedies, our foursome find that love can conquer all, as Catcher and Barbara sing Here's To Love.

It's a curious thing that Rock Hudson and Doris Day are seen as the quintessential romantic screen duo when they in fact made only three films together: Pillow Talk, Lover Come Back and Send Me No Flowers. More curious is that despite what Down With Love may suggest, in only two of their three pairings did they play rivals (Send Me No Flowers had their characters married to each other already, deviating from the formula). 

Down With Love is, or at least appears to be, perfectly open about how it thinks the formula for the Hudson/Day films worked: successful career woman meets sexual heel and they loath each other instantly, until through circumstances and mistaken identities the most mismatched couple find passion and romance. While Eve Ahlert and Dennis Drake's screenplay has certain elements that use said formula, the film is actually all style and little to no substance. Down With Love drowns in its own self-conscious and aware manner that it ends up not as an homage or even parody of the Hudson/Day films but almost a desecration of them.

The Hudson/Day films were exaggerated, farcical perhaps but never idiotic. The sexual tension was built around, in part, the double entendres and sly suggestions going on. Down With Love, for better or worse, is more overt while attempting to masquerade as innocent but naughty fun. The split screen scene that Down With Love riffs from Pillow Talk is a case in point. 

For those who haven't seen Pillow Talk, a split screen was used to suggest that our leads were playing footsie in their separate bathtubs, whereas in Down With Love we see Catcher and Barbara appear to be simulating oral sex. While the former was suggestive and playful, the latter was almost vulgar, idiotic and nasty.

A major issue with Down With Love is that the script and director Peyton Reed focused more on the aesthetics than on the substance. The film in its costumes, sets and score is overt in its wild over-the-top manner. It, in short, refuses to take any of this seriously, mistaking open insincerity for humor. Down With Love is more about an homage to the late fifties style than to the Hudson/Day films themselves. Everything we see makes clear that Down With Love isn't going to even try to ground any of this in any sort of reality. Fully aware of itself, it thinks it can (like Catcher) get away with surface charm. Instead, by being so open about its exaggeration, Down With Love misses the charm of the Hudson/Day films.

The performances equal the broad nature of Down With Love. To her credit Zellweger does capture some of Day's facial manners, particularly the look of exasperation at situations. She also has a wonderful monologue where she reveals her motivations that is a strong piece of acting. However, she is not matched by McGregor, who swings into the parody of a parody of the Rock Hudson role with an almost too-cartoonish ferocity. Far too cocky for even what ends up as less a tribute and more an almost meanspirited spoof, McGregor's Catcher ends up quite repulsive. Moreover, you don't see how the romance blossomed between Catcher and Barbara. 

However, you do see McGregor shirtless three times, so if that piques your interest, there it is.

As a side note, we see Judy Garland in archival footage singing Down with Love (billed as being from The Ed Sullivan Show but in reality from her eponymous show). Zellweger would, in a curious turn, end up playing Garland in the biopic Judy.

With Rock Hudson sadly dead from AIDS and Doris Day in happy retirement, it falls upon Tony Randall to serve as the only original piece from the three Hudson/Day films to tie it to Down With Love. His role in the Hudson/Day films was always that of the third wheel, the neurotic, slightly befuddled best friend forever trying to help or get something from either or both of the main characters. His role of the publisher who ends up cursing his main success is a sad waste of Randall's talent. He was so unimportant to the film it might just as well have been a cameo, and it's a puzzle as to why he couldn't play a larger role.

Much better were Pierce and Paulson. Pierce manages to balance being an homage to the Tony Randall-type role while making it his own. Paulson too balanced being exaggerated without making Vikki look stupid.

To be fair Down With Love has at least one highlight: the closing song Here's To Love. It has a nice swinging style and unlike the film itself it's cute and witty. "I hear the march that's calling for us/We'll walk down the aisle to an angels' chorus/I'll be your Rock if you'll be my Doris" go the lyrics. You have to tip your hat for a song that rhymes "chorus" with "Doris".

Down With Love is too self-aware to be the Rock Hudson/Doris Day homage it wants to be. It's cutesy but it's better to go for some Pillow Talk than to be Down With Love.     

DECISION: C-

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003). A Review

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: 

THE RETURN OF THE KING

Editor's Note: This review is of the theatrical version.

And thus this massive Rings cycle conclude with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. The concluding part of The Lord of the Rings trilogy was richly rewarded come Oscar-time, winning eleven Academy Awards out of eleven nominations. As such, it not only tied the record for most Oscar wins with Ben-Hur and Titanic, but holds the record for the biggest sweep in Academy history.

Exactly how much its 11-for-11 record is due to the film itself versus that it was the last chance to reward this epic series is a subject of debate. Now, more than fifteen years after it concluded a massive epic, we can look on The Return of the King with a slightly clearer eye. The Return of the King is a massive film that perhaps throws in more than it can carry, but one that moves quite fast for its running time and concludes things on a strong note.

Keeping to the story established in The Fellowship of the Ring and continuing in The Two Towers, The Return of the King follows two intertwined stories. The first is the continuing journey of hobbits Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) and Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin) into the forbidding land of Mordor to destroy The One Ring, a powerful object that will allow its former owner Sauron to rule over all Middle-Earth and plunge it in darkness and evil. They must go into Mordor for the One Ring can be destroyed only by being thrown into the fires of Mt. Doom. Guiding them is the creature known as Gollum (Andy Serkis), whose loyalty is dubious at best, with Sam thoroughly opposed and Frodo more accepting of.

The second story involves the actual war of conquest Sauron is fighting against Men. Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), heir to Gondor's throne, calls upon Denethor, Stewart of Gondor (John Noble) to join with neighboring Rohan to fight against Sauron's forces. Denethor, however, is a bit bonkers at the moment: mourning his son Boromir and having little interest in his other son Faramir (David Wenham), sending him on a suicide mission then despairing over both Faramir's apparent death and the massive army besieging his city.

As the massive armies fight, two little hobbits and their conflicted guide push further on, facing many dangers including a crazed Gollum, set on retaking his 'Precious' from Frodo. Things culminate in massive battles involving an Army of the Dead, massive creatures, a warrior Princess defeating the Witch-King himself, and at long last the quest completed.

Now with Middle-Earth firmly in the Age of Men our four Hobbits return to their home in The Shire, though for at least one of them and his Uncle Bilbo (Ian Holm), one last journey awaits into the West.

I remember going to see The Return of the King in theaters and the reaction was enthusiastic, at least until the first 'ending'. By perhaps the time the hobbits got back to the Shire and the film seemed to not know if it would end, the audience turned hostile, with members shouting for it to be over. Perhaps in retrospect we see how director Peter Jackson, along with his co-screenwriters Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens, could not find a way to formally and finally end this massive concluding chapter of this massive trilogy. Just as one thought the film ended, something else popped up again and again, and the audience by this point was exhausted.

As I look back on The Return of the King, I thought that perhaps it could have been shorter and perhaps more blasphemous, both it and The Two Towers could have been shorter. This came to me when we had a brief visit to the ruins of Isengard, which played a large role in The Two Towers but added nothing in The Return of the King. It's as if by now Jackson really wanted to put in as much as possible and didn't know when to stop.

As a side note, the creeping bloatedness of The Hobbit trilogy prequels released a decade later seem to have a precedent in The Return of the King.


However, to its credit The Return of the King did an excellent job pushing the stories forward and an especially excellent job in pacing. The film moves quite well to where you barely notice how long it is, at least until after the fall of Sauron where it finally started lurching from one thing to another.

As another side note, the audience I saw The Return of the King burst out laughing when Arargon started his hymn, as if the King belting out a musical number was just too much to take.

The performances are exceptional. High credit goes to Serkis as the damned Gollum, with the film even giving him a chance to appear on-camera versus motion-capture. In his performance Serkis gave his character a mix of horror and pathos, where one felt sorrow for and anger at him. Wood had to carry so much on his shoulders as the main character, and in Return of the King he comes into his own. His Frodo is a haunted figure, driven nearly insane by both The One Ring and the arduous journey.

Frodo's darkness as portrayed by Wood is brilliantly countered by Astin's portrayal of the ever-loyal Samwise. He despairs but never gives into despair and hopelessness, maintaining a sense of hope however dim, in this painful journey.

It's both a good and bad thing that the rest of the cast from both Fellowship of the Ring and Two Towers keeps to how they started out. Credit should be given to Billy Boyd, Dominic Monaghan and Miranda Otto as Pippin, Merry and Eowyn respectively. Each had their 'warrior' moment where he/she showcased courage under fire. Mortensen too had bravura moments whenever he rallied armies living and dead to his cause.

However, Ian McKellen as the wizard Gandalf, Orlando Bloom as Elf warrior Legolas and John Rhys-Davies as Dwarf warrior Gimli basically did as they have before: either spout off words of wisdom or keep some running tab of kills. To be fair I did enjoy the softening of relations between Legolas and Gimli to where they were genuine friends versus adversaries due to their separate ethnicities for lack of a better term.

I think now that part of my issue with Return of the King, on seeing it again, revolves around a certain repetitiveness that stems from The Two Towers. Both Two Towers and Return of the King have leaders on thrones mourning their dead sons. Both Two Towers and Return of the King have massive battles as their centerpieces, with battering rams and storming hordes. Return of the King even has two characters who appear dead but are not (Faramir and Frodo).

And then there are the various 'endings', a major point of criticism then and now. One friend wisecracked that the Academy gave Return of the King an Oscar for each ending it had, and one of the film's major flaws is that it kept going long after the war was over. It didn't seem to know how to end, so it kept ending, throwing in one apparent conclusion after another until audiences grew frustrated. This series of unfortunate finales hampers the film.

However, on a visual and emotional level, with the craftsmanship and performances elevating it, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is an epic and exceptional, if albeit excessively lengthy, conclusion to one of the grandest epics in cinema.

DECISION: A-

2004 Best Picture Winner: Million Dollar Baby

Hulk (2003): A Review

HULK

A Heaping Helping Hulk of Horror...

Marvel seems to have the Golden Touch in adapting their characters to the big screen.  You have your Iron-Man, Captain America, even Thor. 

In all of the renaissance of comic book adaptations in their vested glory, however, there is the long-forgotten figure of The Hulk. 

The first feature film based on our un-jolly green giant is notorious for being the rare comic book adaptation reviled by the fans.  Hulk was a film I had avoided for some time now, but at long last, I finally sat down and watched all 138 minutes of it. 

The stories are true: Hulk is bad.

The reasons why Hulk is not just a failure but a fiasco are many.  Hulk, however, is a fascinatingly flawed film that leaves one puzzled as to how a film featuring the angriest of the Marvel canon could be so quiet.

Dr. Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) is a brilliant geneticist with a dark family past: his father David, a scientist himself, performed experiments on himself to prove his ideas on DNA modification and its potential uses for warfare.  David has disappeared from Bruce's life, and Bruce struggles with his legacy.

He also struggles with Dr. Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly), his former love and now colleague.  They want to create something for good: using Gamma rays to bring healing to injured people.  A malfunction causes a mass amount of Gamma rays to explode from the machine, the exposure which should have killed Bruce...but he remains mysteriously alive and well.

A mysterious figure appears at the lab too, and it isn't the snarling Major Glenn Talbot (Josh Lucas).  It's the long-lost David Banner (Nick Nolte), who wants to recreate his mad science experiments with Bruce as his guinea pig.  Bruce, however, has by now slipped into the alter persona of The Hulk, who cannot control himself when he becomes angry. David threatens Betty, and it's only The Hulk who can save her, even if he has no memory of what he is afterwards.

Seeing the wreckage at Ross', her father General Ross (Sam Elliot), orders Banner's arrest.  Both Talbot and David want to use Bruce for their own nefarious schemes.   Bruce, however, escapes the secret base he's being held at and creates a rampage through the Southwest desert until reaching San Francisco. It's decided that both Bruce and David Banner are too dangerous to be controlled, and need to be killed.  A final climatic battle between them leads to perhaps Bruce's death...though One Year Later, in the jungles of South America we find Bruce, telling them, "You wouldn't like me when I'm angry" in Spanish.

Hulk is pre-Marvel Cinematic Universe, long before critics and fans began lapping up every comic book-based character and spinning franchises around them.  It is the unspoken, unholy child in this comic book film world, that dark secret fans attempt to hide away in the attic (at least those who are aware of its existence).  Hulk is a horror of a film: a film that doesn't realize how hilariously awful it is, lost in its own sense of brilliance and homage to see how jumbled it all is.

It's easy to blame director Ang Lee, to say that because of his Asian background he had a hard time understanding the source material.  Lee can be blamed for letting his actors give some simply awful performances, some that are so cringe-inducing.  I have great respect for Eric Bana.  I even have respect for Jennifer Connelly, but their scenes together show two people who apparently are not acquainted with human emotions.

Both of them recite bad lines (courtesy of John Turman, Michael France, and James Schamus) that few actors, even the best ones, could make sound like they came from actual people.  However, their delivery is so flat, so dull, so utterly, utterly lifeless that they end up coming across as either drugged or dead. 

A particularly bad moment is when David, in disguise, tells Betty about what happened to the janitor after the first Hulk rampage.  "Benny's dead.  I'm the new guy," he tells Betty, but there's not a hint of emotion from Betty.  She's just been told that someone she knows is dead, and her reaction is to have no reaction, to behave as if she were told the chicken sandwich is cold. 

It's not just Connelly that has no sense of emotion, it's just about everyone.  Well, except perhaps for Lucas, who hams it up almost as a way to counter Bana and Connelly's thorough lack of emotion. 

Not that this helps, because the performances are done in by Lee's very bizarre decision to recreate visually the look of a comic book.  That in and of itself isn't a horrible idea, but it's done so often and sometimes at the worst possible time.  When Talbot is killed in an explosion, we get one of those panel-like shots and Lucas' most unintentionally hilarious face.

The decision to have a comic book-type look to Hulk in their panel shots makes it look like we are seeing alternate takes of the same scene.  Soon you start trying to focus which take to pay attention to and it becomes maddening.  It's as if Lee couldn't decide what shots to use, so he said, 'Let's use ALL of them'!

Again and again we are treated to things like this, and even stranger scenes.  I think we get flashbacks within flashbacks and Bruce's dreams and/or transformations that take on a weird, psychedelic, even esoteric, quasi-mystical turn. 

Certain elements were hilarious (Hulk vs. demon dogs, slipping into King Kong territory), and some make situations worse (Danny Elfman throwing big music in what I figure was an effort to make things better).

Hulk has a ridiculous story, universally bad performances, irritating multi-split screens, and nothing to make someone want to watch more stories about this Hulk.  When one character says, "You want to go home now?", I think that was Hulk giving the audience a hint.    

DECISION: F

Charlie: The Life and Art of Charles Chaplin. A Review (Review #661)

CHARLIE: THE LIFE AND ART OF CHARLES CHAPLIN

Genius At Work...

I think it's been established that Charles Chaplin was a true comedic genius.  His Little Tramp character is beyond iconic.  He is one of the few silent film stars who has transcended cinema and remains part of popular culture.  Charlie: The Life and Art of Charles Chaplin, delves into his creative and personal life.  A bit dry at times, it is still an interesting look at his creative process and one any film or Chaplin buff would enjoy.

Richard Schickel, film historian and reviewer, wrote and directed the documentary, narrated by Sydney Pollack.  Schickel's love for the subject is there in the film, as it covers with both film clips and interviews ranging from film historians to directors like Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese along with Robert Downey, Jr., (who earned an Oscar nomination for his performance in Chaplin).  The film Limelight seems to be the guide for our journey, as it seems to be the whole of Chaplin's career: his early days on the London stage, his fear of audiences rejecting him for any number of reasons (being too passé, too sentimental, old-fashioned), his melancholy beneath the mirth.

We see his triumphs and his tragedies, along with the problems that both surrounded him and which he caused himself.  His predilection for younger women was a source of great controversy (his last wife, Oona O'Neil, daughter of the playwright Eugene O'Neil, was 18 to Chaplin's 53 when they married, causing an international scandal and a break between father and daughter).  Still, Oona was the last of what the film calls his 'three great loves', the first being a frequent co-star, Edna Purviance, the second being his third wife, Paulette Goddard. 

We do get some interesting insights from the interviewees.  Allen, for example, did not find the famous 'globe dance' in The Great Dictator amusing, and while if memory serves correct he never overtly states it the fact that as a Jew this spoof of Hitler might be too clownish for the horrors Hitler committed. We also get some insight as to how some of the great films, such as The Gold Rush, were made, and how a film praised by critics that he directed but did not star in, A Woman of Paris, failed.  We also get some coverage into another film, Monsieur Verdeux, which was a dark, dark comedy about a man who murders his wives and equates that with the wholesale slaughter of people through war. 

However, as informative as Charlie is, I found it a bit dry at times.  At one point I struggled to stay awake.  I think it has to do with the fact that Schickel is a bit too much of a fan.  Rather than take a more impartial or critical eye at Chaplin, Schickel is satisfied to let others talk about how great Chaplin was.  He certainly was that, for I am one of his fans (though personally, I love Lloyd and am more a Keaton person myself).  However, Schickel kind of skims over the failures of A King in New York and A Countess From Hong Kong, failures due both to his worldview and filmmaking style (which by the time they were made were too far rooted to the past).  The documentary is respectful of A Woman of Paris, but waxes rhapsodic about Chaplin's cameo in the film.

That should give on an idea of how Charlie sees Chaplin. 

Charlie also doesn't give enough time to how the political leanings of Chaplin, which were not in step with the times, affected his career both personally and creatively.  Finally, it is only again, when we go back to Limelight, that we even touch on any kind of rivalry between Chaplin and one of his silent film counterparts, his Limelight co-star Buster Keaton. 

Charlie: The Life and Art of Charles Chaplin, will be enjoyed by those who love Chaplin and is a great primer for this genius.  A bit dry and a bit tedious at times, it still is worth looking into to get an idea about what makes Charles Chaplin one of the greats. 

DECISION: B-

Peter Pan (2003): A Review

PETER PAN (2003)

The Boy Flies at Last...

Now, it has taken a half-century to get a new version of Peter Pan, and this one is historic if only for one thing: it is the first time that a boy has played the part of Peter Pan in a live-action adaptation.  This shouldn't be a shock given that viewers today are probably not as familiar with the tradition of having women play Peter and thus, would reject a film version that had a girl playing a boy as ridiculous.  The film itself is a much darker version of the Peter Pan myth, not just visually but story-wise.  However, there is enough charm and sweetness within Peter Pan that it soars high, enchanting the viewer while adding curiously adult elements in the story.

Wendy (Rachel Hurd-Wood) regales her brothers John (Harry Newell) and Michael (Freddie Popplewell) with stories of pirates, and of how Cinderella fights them.  They especially love the tale of Captain Hook and his war against Peter Pan.  Unbeknown to the Darling children, there's been an eavesdropper to these stories: one Peter Pan himself (Jeremy Sumpter).  Mr. and Mrs. Darling (Jason Isaacs and Olivia Williams) have no problem with the tales or with having a dog as a nanny.  In fact, they appear to be a happy family.  However, Aunt Millicent (Lynn Redgrave) thinks this is all wrong for them: Wendy should be training to be a woman, and Mr. Darling has to get out of his shell to rise socially.

After Wendy (and Nana) inadvertently humiliate Mr. Darling at the bank he works at as a clerk, he banishes Nana to the garden and decides to hand Wendy over to Aunt Millicent.  Peter is horrified by the idea that Wendy would be made to grow up (and he would lose stories to tell the Lost Boys).  After revealing himself to Wendy (who helps sew his shadow back), he invites her to go with him to Neverland.  His fairy Tinker Bell (Ludivine Sagnier) does not like this idea at all, but Wendy is thrilled to follow Peter.  Wendy gives Peter a kiss (actually, a thimble given she turns shy), but is about to give Peter a thimble (just reverse the previous parenthesis), Tink forces her way in.

Wendy, John, and Michael fly off to Never Land, their parents missing their departure but Mrs. Darling keeping vigil at the open door.  While there, we meet the villainous Captain Hook (Isaacs again), and his first mate, Smee (Richard Briers).  Hook still yearns for revenge against Pan for cutting off his hand and feeding it to the crocodiles.  After Tink attempts to have the Lost Boys shoot Wendy down, Peter dismisses her.  There is a rescue of John and Michael who've been taken by Hook, as has Native American Princess Tiger Lily (Carsen Gray), who has taken a shine to John. 

Both Peter and Wendy have unspoken feelings for each other, the first stirrings of love, but Peter will have nothing to do with them.  Wendy, realizing she is forgetting her mother, convinces her brothers and the Lost Boys to return.  However, a deceived Tinker Bell reveals Peter's hideout to Hook, who puts poison in his "medicine".  Tink escapes to stop him drinking it, but at a high cost.

The Darling children and the Lost Boys are threatened with death by Hook, and Peter comes to the rescue with a revived Tink.  They battle, Peter is triumphant, and he leads the ship back to London, and the Darling home.  Mr. and Mrs. Darling adopt the Lost Boys, and Aunt Millicent also takes one of the Lost Boys who had gotten lost.   Wendy, now accepting that she MUST grow up, bids a farewell to Peter, who WOULD NOT grow up, but with a hint that he will return...to hear more stories.

Given the source material, it really is difficult to screw up Peter Pan (both the silent and the animated versions of the story are well done).  Director P. J. Hogan (who wrote the screenplay with Michael Goldenberg), likewise stayed close to the J. M. Barrie story, and the few big alterations (such as the addition of Aunt Millicent) didn't detract from the story.  Instead, having Lynn Redgrave in the film adds a delightful comedic touch to where we don't mind the inclusion. 

Peter Pan is curious in that it is both a fantasy film where children can get lost in the marvel of Never Land (the journey from London to Never Land in particular is beautifully rendered), but which also touches on the burgeoning of romantic, even sexual stirrings among the leads.  It isn't overt, but given that both Peter and Wendy look like they are about to enter their teenage years (Sumpter was fourteen, Hurd-Wood thirteen when Peter Pan was made), it isn't beyond the imagination that Peter Pan, in a restrained and non-sensational manner, touches on something that has either been oblique or not addressed: the idea of a romance between Peter and Wendy.

We can see this when Wendy offers a confused, almost frightened Peter a "thimble" (the fact that we see Peter puckering up before Tink literally drags Wendy away suggests Peter had some idea of where the thimble was going).  We also see it in the dialogue.  When Peter sees that Wendy is alive, just stunned, from being shot down, we see that the acorn he had given her in exchange for her "kiss" (thimble), he says, "My kiss saved her", and one of the Lost Boys comments that a kiss is a powerful thing.  The scene where Peter and Wendy are literally dancing on air is shot very romantically, with the music being quite lush as well.  We even see it in how the Lost Boys address them: as Father and Mother. 

The most direct reflection of the the joys and pains of love come at the final battle between Peter and Hook.  Peter can fly by thinking happy thoughts, but we see how Hook can, again, literally, bring him down by pointing to a world where Wendy has forgotten Peter, replaced by something called "husband".  As he is about to be killed, Wendy stops Hook, asking as a last request to give Peter her "thimble".  Obviously, he thinks it's a literal thimble, but WE know better. 

We even get the addressing the theme of how love, even desire (unexplained and confusing as it may be to children) can be a powerful force when Princess Tiger Lily gives John a long kiss full on the lips.  John begins to blush (exaggeratedly, granted), and gets the physical strength to raise the gate and make their escape. 

Again, I'm at pains to explain that there is nothing salacious in how these themes are introduced in Peter Pan, and it may all pass over children's heads.  However, the suggestion that Peter and Wendy are falling in love, or at least understanding that their connection is more than mere friendship, is observable.

"It's only make-believe that you and I are..." Peter tells her in the middle of their dance.  At first, this unfinished statement is open to all sorts of interpretation, but it slowly becomes clear he means that they are father and mother to the Lost Boys, which in itself is loaded with subtle undertones of marriage and all the things that can come with it. 

In Peter Pan, everything works and comes together beautifully.  Sumpter gives a tender performance, one that shifts from the cockiness one expects from Peter Pan to being a fearful boy, fearful of growing up, of what that entails, and of losing Wendy.  From the innocence he expresses when he puts out his hand when Wendy tells him she wants to 'give' Peter a kiss to the sadness he has at the thought of losing her to adulthood shows an extraordinary range.  When he says he DOES believe in fairies, we believe he believes, and even we get caught up in seeing Tinker Bell come back. 

Likewise, the wide-eyed innocence of Hurd-Wood to her fear of being made a woman and her desire to be an action heroine are so well performed.  Seeing her reaction change from sneering at the idea that her father is brave to understanding that in his way, he is brave, is a heartfelt and beautiful performance.

The best performance in Peter Pan, however, is clearly Isaacs'.  People should see this film before they see him as Lucius Malfoy in any of the Harry Potter films.  He has to play two roles: Mr. Darling and Captain Hook.  This sticks close to the theatrical tradition of Pan, but the transformation is so remarkable that the failure to have given Isaacs a Best Supporting Actor nomination surprises me (I think a case of a children's film, moderately successful, played against him).   As Mr. Darling, he is all delightfully bumbling and insecure, terrified of trying to make "small talk".  Once he switches to Captain Hook, we see a frightful, menacing, dangerous arch-enemy.  This Captain Hook is no one's fool or buffoon.  Instead, he is a dangerous person, one who does not shrink from killing anyone who gets in his way.  The film stays mostly in one place (London or Never Land) but on one occasion we jump from Point A to Point B.  Here, we see the full range of Isaacs, and cannot believe that it is the same person.

Even the smaller parts, from Williams' loving portrayal of the wise, gentle, caring mother, to Redgrave's comic moments as the fussy Aunt Millicent, down to Briers' light Mr. Smee, and all the Lost Boys, are a sheer delight, each performance pitch-perfect.  I would be remiss to leave out Sagnier's Tinker Bell: in her expressive face we see the jealousy, the hurt, the anger, the joy, and the regrets the fairy has.  It is pantomime, and may come off as slightly exaggerated, but Tink is suppose to be a highly emotional creature. 

It's as if everyone brought their A-Game to Peter Pan.  The sword fights between Sumpter and Isaacs are so well done we fully accept that Peter can fly (credit not only goes to the actors and the fencing trainers but to the special effects that were never showy but still filled with wonderment).  The art direction, from the Darling home to the various parts of Never Land (ranging from Peter's tree hideout to Captain Hook's ship) are both beautiful to look at and appear so real and naturalistic.  Donald McAlpine's cinematography is also filled with gentle beauty.  The moonlight bathes everything in gentle blue, the final fight scene with a menacing red sunset, and the rescue at the Black Castle appropriately dark. 

The biggest surprise in the music.  Peter Pan has a beautiful score, romantic, comedic, and menacing.  What's so astounding about it is that the composer is James Newton Howard (someone who by and large makes some of the most hideous music around: cases in point--The Green Hornet, Green Lantern, Water for Elephants, Defiance, The Village, and the simply horrid The Last Airbender).  I am someone who gives credit where credit is due, and the score to Peter Pan is a beautifully rendered one.  I still think Howard is a lousy composer, but I figure the law of averages dictated that he had to get at least ONE right.

Peter Pan is a delightful film on so many levels.  It can be seen as a simple children's adventure story.  It can be seen as an allegory about the promise and perils of growing up.  It is a film for children, and one for adults; there are enchanting and tender moments in it, moments of comedy, danger, and even romance.  In short, Peter Pan is both whimsical and melancholy, a celebration of the spirit of adventure and a lament for the loss of childhood we all must partake in. 

It is true: both Peter Pan and Peter Pan will never grow up or grow old. 

Oh the cleverness of him.

DECISION: A-

Finding Nemo: A Review (Review #98)

FINDING NEMO

It's a curious thing that I until now had not seen Finding Nemo. I had been on The Seas with Nemo & Friends ride at EPCOT, and had seen Finding Nemo: The Musical at Disney's Animal Kingdom, but had not seen the film they are based on. Therefore, when I went into Finding Nemo, I could argue that I had a basic understanding of the story. In spite of all that (as a side note: I highly recommend the musical at Animal Kingdom even if you haven't seen the film--it's wonderfully made), the movie instantly captures you with unique characters, a charming story, and simply amazing cinematography.

Marlin (Albert Brooks), a clownfish has one son, Nemo (Alexander Gould). As a result of tragedy, Marlin is hyperprotective of his only child. Nemo, who has one fin shorter than the other, is not happy about his father's constant smothering, so he decides to go out into the open ocean. Before either of them know what happens, Nemo is taken by a scuba diver. Marlin attempts to follow them, but eventually loses them.

Marlin soon hooks up (no pun intended) with Dory (Ellen DeGeneres), a Regal Blue Tang fish with a jolly personality and short-term memory loss who has seen which direction the boat took but then can't remember why Marlin is following her. At this juncture, Finding Nemo tells two stories; one story is with Marlin and Dory travelling the ocean, where they encounter vegetarian sharks Bruce (Barry Humphries, aka Dame Edna) and Anchor the hammerhead (Eric Bana), a jellyfish forest, surfer sea turtles Crush (Andrew Stanton, who also co-wrote and directed the film) and son Squirt (Nicholas Bird), and idiot seagulls (who can only cry out, "Mine! Mine!" whenever they see anything).

The other story is Nemo in an Australian dentist's office, where he meets the other members of the fish tank: the leader Gill (Willem Dafoe), Bloat, an anxious pufferfish (Brad Garrett), the mothering starfish Peaches (Allison Janney), and Deb (Vicki Lewis), who believes her reflection is an identical sister named Flo. Eventually, both father and son find each other after many dangers and realize just how important they are to each other.

Finding Nemo first has to be complimented on some simply beautiful imagery. The animation is some of the most sublime I've seen, and the ocean looks so incredibly realistic. This is a credit to all the animators at Pixar, who have created a fantastic and realistic-looking world.

The second brilliant thing about the film is the story, co-written by Stanton, Bob Peterson, and David Reynolds. The story is one that can be enjoyed on many levels, from the most basic of an adventure story to a deeper level, one that touches on the role of parents and children. Parents, if one believes the story, have to eventually let go and let their children take risks in exploring the world outside their home. Different parenting methods are brought into sharp focus when Marlin, the hyperprotective anxious father, meets the totally laid back Crush. Both are accurate in the real world: sea turtles lay the eggs and the hatchlings have to crawl out from the beach to the ocean to make it back to their families. The story shifts from merely a father searching for his son to that of a father understanding that he has to trust his child to make his own decisions.

Co-directors Stanton and Lee Unkrick manage to keep a steady pace, balancing both stories without short-changing either. The moments of comedy (mostly supplied by Dory) are balanced against real moments of tension and even sadness. Marlin and Dory's journey through the jellyfish moments (again, beautifully filmed) is filled with suspense as to whether both or either will make it out alive. Just when you think you see the end result, you get a big surprise that makes you actually cheer.

There are also tense moments when Nemo attempts to escape out of the fish tank and they are balanced with the comedy of joining the tank's 'tribe' by going through THE RING OF FIRE.

A side note: I digress to say that my favorite characters were the turtles. With their surfer speak and laid-back personas, I thought they were totally cool, like, totally. One can't be blamed if one starts speaking like them once they finish the film.

The side note does go into another brilliant thing in Finding Nemo: each group has their distinct personalities. This gives the characters a wide range of emotions to draw on (no pun intended), from the simple minds of the seagulls (the chase between them and the pelican Nigel, voiced by Geoffrey Rush, especially thrilling), to the sweetness of Dory, to the sincerity of the vegetarian sharks, and the ultra-cool turtles, to the anxiety but deep love of Marlin, all create real characters with real emotions that transend animation.

Finding Nemo is a rich film: in imagery, in story-telling, and in heart. The conflicts between fathers and sons, and the love between them, has rarely been expressed with such beauty and sincerity. Parents and children will relate to this magnificent story. Finding Nemo is well worth the search, a real fish story in that it is true to the human condition.

DECISION: A+