Wanting to Watch a Family Friendly Movie? 101 Dalmatians Will Hit the Spot.

What’s black and white and was watched all over? No, not a riddle. The answer? A delightful film that people of all ages can enjoy about Dalmatian puppies.

101 Dalmatians is a Disney live-action remake of the 1961 animated film by the same name. Both are based on the book The 101 Dalmatians by Dodie Smith. The script is written by John Hughes, writer for Home Alone and The Breakfast Club. In the 1996 remake, directed by Stephen Herek, Anita, a fashion designer played by Joely Richardson and Roger, played by Jeff Daniels, meet and fall in love, thanks to the help of their shared interest: their pet dalmatians, Perdita and Pongo. The two dogs have puppies; meanwhile, Cruella de Vil, Anita’s evil boss, will stop at nothing to get dalmatian fur to bring Anita’s designs inspired by her dog to life.  This family-friendly adventure/comedy film is appropriate for kids and adults alike. The movie is rated G.

While the characters were not new, they were reinvented in great ways. In particular, Roger’s reinvention as a video game designer was a fresh new take to update the movie; in the animated film, he was a songwriter. Anita’s character as a fashion designer was nice, although it didn’t particularly stand out to me; I did find that the revision to her character helped the storyline move along more smoothly than it did in the animated film, when Cruella de Vil was a former schoolmate of Anita, instead of Anita’s employer.  Cruella de Vil stands out among villains because I wouldn’t normally think of an iconic movie villain as being someone who wants puppy fur, but her character is just evil enough for children to see her as evil without being terrified of the film, and also evil enough for adults to recognize her as a terrible person. 

The dialogue between the characters sometimes seemed a little too quippy and quick to be lifelike at times, but I liked that because the dialogue seemed to mirror the quip of cartoons. The movie was a perfect balance between everything I love about the quirkiness of cartoons and believability. No character seemed out of place, and all of the conflicts, from the sadness the characters faced when losing their dogs, to the struggle to get their dogs back, made sense within the story. I felt happy when Anita and Roger were in love, and upset with Cruella and her minions for wanting to steal the puppies for clothes, even when they seemed like caricatures of villains. Even the dogs made sounds that seemed to give them personalities of their own.

Jeff Daniels as Roger and Joely Richardson as Anita had wonderful chemistry together. Glenn Close was entertaining and eccentric, but really encapsulated the evil nature that Cruella de Vil was meant to have.

The film moved quickly from shot to shot, which is nice for younger audiences or viewers who get distracted in long, drawn-out scenes. The cinematography shifted from scenes with darker, cooler coloring when evil characters were present, to bright, warm colors in the absence of evil characters.

The most impressive scene in the film was when the puppies were trying to escape from the men who stole them, and they slid down a pipe. At that point, the puppies were created through CGI, but it took me a minute to even realize it. I thought the immediate shift from the animation to actual living puppies was almost unnoticeable and clever. 

The music, from the very of the beginning of the film, added to every scene. The score in the first scene made me feel like I was going on an adventure– and the movie really does take you on one. 

The movie was open and shut, with not a lot of lessons to be learned, but I enjoyed watching a film that I could be entertained by and follow without having to be in too much deep thought.  I watched this movie as a child, when I was probably four or five years old. I’ve rewatched a lot of movies over the years that I saw as a child, and I’ve been disappointed by how cheesy they are when I see them again, years down the line. 101 Dalmatians was one of the exceptions. I was enthralled from beginning to end, and wouldn’t mind sitting down and watching it with a friend.

The year 101 Dalmatians hit theaters, it earned $136 million dollars domestically, and $320 million dollars around the world. You’ll be hard-pressed to find the film on DVD in stores, since it was discontinued as a stand-alone DVD in 1996. You may still be able to track it down online, but it sells for a whopping $40.00 if you buy it used on Amazon, so iTunes might be your best bet. If you do get your hands on a DVD, the bonus features are a trailer of the film and an “Additional Titles” menu that recommends four preceding titles. 

I couldn’t spot a single thing I would want to change about this movie if I had the chance. It’s really held up over time,  and is aesthetically pleasing, and memorable– in the best possible way. A+! 

 

JFK Was Not One Brief Shining Moment– It Was Long, Boring, and Somewhat Historically Inaccurate

Are you one to question the facts that you’re told? Do you hypothesize conspiracies? Are you fascinated by major historical events?

You may enjoy the drama JFK, starring Kevin Costner, a New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison investigating John F. Kennedy’s assassination and questioning whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald worked alone. The movie uses inappropriate language and themes unsuitable and disturbing for younger audiences, making it appropriate for teens and adults. It is rated R.

The storyline and the fact that the movie is a drama sheds light on the historical context as the main character asks questions about what happened to JFK. Khrushchev and Fidel Castro’s historical relation to JFK were explored, and major events, like the Bay of Pigs, for instance, came into play, as well.

If you aren’t interested in conspiracy theories, this movie isn’t for you. The movie was plot-driven, and Garrison was used as a tool to explore the plot, which was based on Stone’s personal and unconventional beliefs. I wasn’t personally phased by the conspiracy concept.

The cast interacted well with each other and the acting was very believable. Kevin Costner in particular was a particular compelling character. I really felt like he was invested in the Kennedy assassination. He faced conflict with his family. They were struggling to understand how he would prioritize his investigation over them, and Garrison’s views presented him with pushback from his own staff as well.

The cinematography was average. I did appreciate, however, how the movie would incorporate video from the news in the 60s in the movie. It really helped to emphasize the time frame. There was one scene where I could see the boom mic in a mirror, though, and that bothered me.

The movie got famous quotes wrong and wasn’t chronological and correct in all of its aspects. In some scenes, people can be seen wearing clothes that weren’t popular until the 80s. In the Gettysburg address, Lincoln uses the phrase “of the people, by the people, for the people;” When Garrison referenced the phrase, he quoted it incorrectly, saying “of the people, for the people, by the people.” Also, a person commented on JFK’s assassination and said that Camelot was in “smithereens,” but the Camelot comparison wasn’t invented until a week after JFK’s assassination in an interview with Jackie Kennedy by Theodore White for Life Magazine. While I don’t take issue with people interpreting facts differently, I did have issues with historical inaccuracy.

Other movies where people have conducted investigations for answers, like Truth, Spotlight, and The Case for Christ have all accomplished their goals and made decent movies without dragging on for a whole 3 ½ hours. JFK was unnecessarily long, which made it boring.  

The movie wasn’t awful, but for me, it didn’t work. I’ve seen other movies done in a similar fashion that have been half as long and have been more historically accurate. I was ready for the film to be over halfway through. C+

Tweet: 

JFK Was Not One Brief Shining Moment– It Was Long, Boring, and Somewhat Historically Inaccurate. Read the full review here: http://bit.ly/2jcKzbc

Sing Street Wasn’t Music to my Ears

You know what makes me sing the blues?

Sing Street, a 2016 comedy, coming-of-age, backstage musical, directed by John Carney. Carney pulled experiences from his childhood for the movie. The PG-13 film had innuendo and language, making it appropriate for teenagers and adults.

The story starts in Dublin in 1985, and focuses on teenager Conor Lawlor (Ferdia Walsh-Peelo), an aspiring songwriter. Conor asks an aspiring teenage model, Raphina (Lucy Boynton), to be in his band’s music video; the problem was Conor didn’t have a band. Would the main character get the girl and would his thrown-together band find success?

The original music was written in the style of the 80s. The film captured difficulties of the songwriting process, which added realism. The music was catchy, and not in an influenza kind of way, with tunes like “Drive It Like You Stole It.” Conor drew inspiration from his life. For example, he was inspired by Raphina, and wrote a song called “The Riddle of the Model.” The film also featured music by popular 80s musicians, like Duran Duran and Hall & Oates, for instance.

Connor faced conflict against the school administration, a bully, and his parents who are divorcing. He also struggled with his identity, as is common for coming-of-age films. The same went for Raphina. Connor’s brother struggles with having to push his dreams aside for his family.

The predictable acting made characters seem like caricatures.

*Spoiler Alert*

Guy goes after girl. Girl dates creep. Guy and girl have chemistry. Girl chooses the creep, but ends up changing her mind and goes after the good guy who she actually likes. How romantic and unexpected. *rolls eyes*

*End Spoiler Alert*

The actors didn’t have on-screen chemistry. Raphina seemed aloof, and Conor seemed more caught up in music than he did in her, which was strange since the reason he started a band was because of her.

Brendan, Conor’s brother (Jack Reynor),  didn’t get enough screen time. He was outspoken, but cared about his family. He had dreams and was self-sacrificial. If he had more screen time, the film might have had more depth.  

The set was like stepping in a time machine. Conor’s family gathering around the TV watching music videos, which were innovative at the time, captured the era. The teenagers’ music videos looked like cheesy 80s music videos. The costuming wasn’t over-the-top 80s, as some movies seem to go for the most extreme examples from a decade as they can.

I wasn’t blown away by lighting, except for one scene.

*Spoiler alert*

The band was filming a music video at school, and Connor was imagining the ideal music video being filmed and how everyone loved his band. Then the scene switches back to reality. During the imagined part, the lights flash on Conor as though he’s a celebrity. When it switches back to reality, which was not at all what he pictured, the lighting is more dull and pale.

*End Spoiler alert*

The film didn’t seem to have a deep meaning and wasn’t particularly entertaining. The plot didn’t have enough rising action or a good climax. It was one-dimensional. The only character that I cared about was Conor’s brother. The plot was weak and overdone. Some scenes, like one of the mothers turning on a sex toy, seemed bizarre and out-of-place.

If Sing Street had more of a build-up-climax-resolution kind of setup, if the characters weren’t flat, or if the acting was better, I might’ve been impressed. All-in-all, though, Sing Street was an interesting idea, but for a musical, it wasn’t note-worthy. B-.

10/11/17

Jenna Shackelford

Rear Window: A Review

What does it mean to be a neighbor?

This question permeated Rear Window, a 1954 Alfred Hitchcock film about photographer L.B. Jeffries, played by James Stewart, is both a modern hero and an incomplete hero,  confined to a wheelchair, with nothing to do until his cast is removed except for looking out the rear window of his apartment building, observing the neighbors daily lives. He is worried that his girlfriend, Lisa Freemont, played by Grace Kelly, wouldn’t be a suitable wife, since she is accustomed to a high-society lifestyle she wouldn’t be able to maintain if she traveled with him for work. When Jeffries thinks a crime took place in a neighbor’s apartment, he tries to bring justice to the situation with his binoculars, photography equipment, and the help of whoever will listen. Rated PG, the film is suspenseful but not violent; it would be appropriate for pre-teens and up, but may be disturbing for younger viewers.

*spoiler alert*

The inciting incident in the film is when Jeffries is observing his neighbors, and sees Thornwall, a salesman who often quarreled with his bedridden, sick wife, leave and return to his apartment several times with his sample case at 3 A.M. When his wife is not in the apartment the next day, Jeffries believes that Thornwall murdered her.

*end spoiler alert*

This “monster-in-the-house” thriller finds Jeffries and Lisa thrusting themselves into inner turmoil and danger as they attempt to bring the crime they believe to have been committed to light; they are scared that their neighbor will figure out they are watching him, their search for answers will be ruined, or both. The film is primarily plot-driven, although the characters still play a large role in driving the story. The climax of the film is when Lisa becomes more invested in the mystery, as does Stella, played by Thelma Ritter, a woman who is helping care for Jeffries while he recovers; consequently, they put themselves in harm’s way to find incriminating evidence against the neighbor.

The voyeuristic storyline, which leads the audience to peer into the lives of the neighbors with Jeffries, is intriguing. The characters in each surrounding apartment were interesting, and they developed throughout the film. Unfortunately, after the climax, the film slowed down immensely. The resolution and denouement were mediocre because they felt rushed. There was so much build-up to get to the resolution that it fell flat.  The story question of whether or not the criminal would be caught was resolved, but the resolution seemed like a last-minute idea– like it was slapped on just to end the movie.

Part of what made the film interesting was the questions it made me ask. There were times when Jeffries and his girlfriend were so consumed by the crime that they wanted to prove that they seemed completely uninterested in other important things going on in their neighbor’s lives.

*spoiler alert*

Some of these things include seeing a neighbor nearly kill herself with a handful of pills and abusive behavior within apartments.

*end spoiler alert*

The movie made me ask what it meant to be a neighbor as well as when one should be a neighbor and at what cost, and whether or not a person should pick and choose when he acts like a neighbor.  

Jeffries and Lisa faced conflict against another character that they barely spoke to. The conflict between Jeffries and Lisa in their romantic relationship was fascinating because they cared for each other deeply, but were still facing challenges. These conflicts cause the characters to both develop into round characters.

The acting was decent in the film all the way around, but Grace Kelly, in particular, stood out. Her witty remarks in the film seemed entirely natural, and when she felt pain as a character, it seemed genuine. While all of the acting seemed good, Grace Kelly’s character seemed most authentic and dynamic.

The film seemed real. I could see myself in each of the main characters, and a little of people I know in each character. I could even see myself in some of the characters– the neighbors– that you don’t even hear speak. I appreciated that the story focused on characters behind closed doors, but with open windows. Never once did the cameras venture out of the apartments and courtyard and into workplaces or public settings.  The egregious slowness during part of the film and the so-so resolution and denouement affected how I viewed it overall, but the relatability and the humanity in the film set it apart from mediocre, run-of-the-mill thrillers.  B+.

Jenna Shackelford

9/20/17