Movies: Song of the South

My husband has been telling me about this movie since we first started collecting Disney movies to play on our VCR. (We buy DVDs these days, but rarely get Disney movies anymore.) He had seen Song of the South on TV on “The Wonderful World of Disney”; I hadn’t even heard of it. (There were many movies I had never heard of – he says I was culturally deprived.)

As each classic Disney movie came out on video, we waited for Song of the South to hit the shelves. But it never happened; finally we realized it just wasn’t going to be released. There are all kinds of rumors about why it isn’t going to be released – or alternatively, that it is going to be released (always next year or the year after). The reasons for not releasing it have to do with the racial stereotypes it portrays, and apparently it has been controversial in this regard since its initial box office release.

My husband decries this sort of political correctness, pointing out that the black people in the movie are portrayed very positively. I’ve read similar opinions on websites regarding the movie. I also read one comment, from an “Anonymous African-American” who guesses that all such comments were written by white people, who have no idea why the racial stereotypes in the movie are so offensive. Unfortunately, this person doesn’t try to explain why they are.

Finally, today, I got to watch the movie. My husband has been downloading lots of TV shows and movies from the internet, and burning them to DVD. Apparently Disney had no problem releasing Song of the South in other countries, where the racial history of our own country does not provoke such controversy. These have been turned into bootleg versions of the movie, and Disney has (at least according to wikipedia) chosen not to take any legal action.

As this seems to be the only way to see the movie, and Disney evidently is more concerned about not officially releasing the movie than preventing it from being distributed, I was happy enough to sit down with my sons to finally watch it (my husband had to sleep before going to work for the night). My younger son was bored through the initial live-action sequences, but started enjoying it once some animation appeared.

Movies: Abe and the Amazing Promise

I used to buy every Veggie Tales video as soon as it came out, but disappointment with some of the more recent ones, combined with family financial difficulties, made me reluctant even to spend money renting the newest one. (Well, almost the newest one – I just went to bigidea.com and discovered that Minnesota Cuke and the Search for Noah’s Umbrella just came out but I haven’t seen it in the store yet.)

It occurred to me this weekend, when I picked up Al from his class in the KidzTown area at church, that the KidzTown Public Library just might have Abe and the Amazing Promise. Sure enough, there it was, so I checked it out, and tonight Al and I watched it. He laughed a lot, and commented afterward that its lesson on patience is one he needs to remember. So I have to conclude it’s a good show.

Watching it, though, I couldn’t help thinking that it just wasn’t the same as some of the earlier Veggie Tales shows I enjoyed so much. King George and the Ducky is a family favorite, along with Where Is God When I’m S-Scared? and Are You My Neighbor? I really like Sumo of the Opera, but most of the other recent ones just miss somehow with me.

I’ve read speculation that it has to do with Big Idea having been bought by a larger company. I’ve wondered if the creative minds behind the series have used up their best ideas, and continue to churn out shows because that’s “what they do” even when the inspiration just isn’t there. But I read a customer review at amazon.com that points in a different direction.

Abe and the Amazing Promise is apparently “the first full-length episode directed by John Wahba. … Wahba’s emphasis seems to be more focused on bringing to life a film that plays to a child’s sense of imagination and humor, rather than engaging in the asides and in-jokes for adults that adult fans are used to finding sprinkled throughout the VeggieTales series.” Other reviews commented on the lack of wittiness that Veggie Tales fans have come to expect.

It’s hard to say whether this change in direction will work long-term or not. One reason for Big Idea’s big success was that parents enjoyed watching the videos with their kids. Parents do get movies just for their kids sometimes, but if they’re like me, they’re less likely to stick with a series that they don’t enjoy themselves unless the kids beg for it. And since Veggie Tales isn’t advertised all over the place where kids will see it (at least not where my kid sees it), they won’t even know a new video is out, let alone ask for it.

By the end of the DVD, I have to admit it was beginning to grow on me. Most of the songs – even the silly song – seemed far from memorable, but as I headed up to the kitchen I found the last one running through my head. And the second story (unlike most Veggie Tales videos I can think of, the Bible story came first and a purely fictional story was the longer one) really was quite creative, and I think also effective, in getting its point across (about taking the time to do a job right).

Now I just have to be patient until the church library gets a copy of Minnesota Cuke and the Search for Noah’s Umbrella…

Movies: The Golden Compass

I wasn’t going to spend money on renting this movie, let alone having bought a ticket to see it in the theater, but when I saw it in the library I decided it would be a good Friday night movie. As with so many movie adaptations of books, it’s hard to decide whether it would be better to have read the book or not before seeing the movie.

On the one hand, the movie moves very quickly (I agree with those viewers who complain it feels rushed), and someone who hasn’t read the book may be wondering who all the characters are and what is going on. But having read the book and enjoyed it, I felt that too much had been left out.

As one viewer comments at imdb.com, what is left out isn’t characters or events (though of course even in that regard not everything is included), but the evolving understanding of the nature of Pullman’s alternate universe.In the book, the reader only gradually learns the importance of the daemons; in the movie a narrator explains them in the very opening scene. In the book, Lyra struggles over time to understand the alethiometer; here she succeeds on the first try.

Very little time is spent on the nature of the Magisterium, and the one reference to “the Authority” is so oblique that I missed it until my older son pointed it out later. It is clear that Truth is important, but the deceptive nature of the Magisterium is downplayed. I understand that the moviemakers were concerned about potential viewers being turned off by an anti-religious message, but concepts such as truth and free will are central to the book and its sequels.

I’ve argued a few times on worldmagblog with those who object to Pullman’s trilogy for its objectionable portrayal of God. My view is that Pullman’s books don’t depict God at all, only a pathetic caricature of God. Anyone who thinks that God is anything like Pullman’s portrayal of “the Authority” needs to know that such a creature (because in Pullman’s universe the Authority is the first created being, not the Creator himself) – and the people who try to enforce obedience to it – are just as despicable as Pullman makes them appear.

But that’s not the God I worship. And there is nothing in the book – and certainly not in the movie – to undermine faith in God as He really is. (And I’ll be the first to recognize that “how He really is” is way beyond our understanding.) I would happily side with Lyra and her friends against the evils of the Magisterium.

In any case, this appears to be a good but hardly great fantasy movie. The daemons (talking animals, in appearance and behavior) look very real much of the time. Nicole Kidman makes Mrs. Coulter appear both very elegant and very sinister. The scenery in the far north is spectacular. It just all went by too quickly and with too little real depth to the characters and themes.

Movies: Night at the Museum 2

Al and I spent the morning at the zoo and the afternoon at the museum, and there we had a great time watching Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian on the giant IMAX screen (with my husband and older son, who met us there). I really hadn’t wanted there to be a sequel, as it was hard to see how they could do as well as the first movie, but they did.

I can see from the comments at imdb.com that my opinion is hardly shared by all or even most. There are some viewers who think it’s even better than the first, but many who think this is just a poorly reheated batch of leftovers. The sequel is admittedly more into spectacle and witty conversation than character and motivation, but if you enjoy it for what it is rather than what it is not, it really is great fun. (One viewer titled his review “Dumb-dumb but fun-fun,” which is good summing up – as well as a reference easily recognizable by anyone who has seen either movie.)

There’s not much of a plot, so I wouldn’t be giving much away to describe it, but it also is hardly worth telling without being able to watch it unfold. It has some pretty big holes: how in the world did Larry become a successful businessman in just a few years? where did the fuel come from for the rocket and airplanes? who cleaned up the mess at the end? just to name a few.

But I was too busy enjoying the movie to mind that. Some people complain that it’s cluttered with too many characters, too much action, scriptwriters with more ideas than sense trying to throw everything in that could possibly be entertaining, until it’s nothing but a senseless succession of scenes. I enjoyed the fast-moving action, however, and found the quick but clever snippets highly entertaining.

Movies: The Pink Panther 2

I thought we needed some humor (after learning that my husband did not get the job he interviewed for), so I rented The Pink Panther 2. We’ve watched, and enjoyed the original Pink Panther movies starring Peter Sellers, as well as the Steve Martin remake in 2006. I’m not much into slapstick, but the movies are reasonably entertaining.

I see that many of the comments at imdb.com deal with the comparison of Sellers’ version of Clouseau with that of Martin. Many people fault Martin’s depiction of the bumbling police inspector simply for not being true to the way Sellers created and played the character. By that standard, the newer movies would have to be considered inferior. But as at least one viewer pointed out, Martin has said that he is not trying to duplicate Sellers’ work.

The fact that people who have not seen Sellers’ movies generally do like these newer ones is an indication that Martin’s Clouseau is in fact good, just different. Of course, one could also argue that people who have not seen Sellers’ superior performance are satisfied with Martin because they are judging him by too low a standard. A great deal of what passes for good entertainment today is seen as mediocre by those with the good fortune to have seen what was produced in preceding generations.

For myself, I won’t even try to make a judgment in that regard. Both are good, both are entertaining, and neither is exactly high art. I do like Martin’s greater show of what is in his heart regarding his secretary. On the other hand, I found the addition of Lily Tomlin’s character to instruct Clouseau regarding political correctness an unnecessary (though somewhat amusing) distraction from the main story.

It is mostly predictable, except for the outcome of the relationship between Clouseau and Nicole (the secretary). But that’s fine; suspense is hardly the point of a comedy. And it accomplished its purpose, which was to provide plenty of laughs and entertain the whole family.

Movies: Stargate: Continuum

Unlike Stargate: The Ark of Truth, Stargate: Continuum is a very satisfying way to wrap up the whole Stargate SG-1 storyline. It’s hard  to put into words exactly what makes it better than The Ark of Truth, but as my son put it (and I read at least one review that says the same thing), this one feels like a movie, while the other felt like just an extended episode.

One thing I definitely liked was that it brought back characters from earlier in the series, such as Jack O’Neill and General Hammond. It also had plenty of humor – the dry, understated sort that always made watching SG-1 such a pleasure. And particularly pleasing to me, this movie revolves around the idea of time travel.

It’s not the first time SG-1 went back in time. The two episodes when they did so previously, 1969 and Moebius, are among my favorites. But the plot this time is far from a repeat of either of those. Vala is seen in quite a new role, as the Gao’uld-possessed Katesh (there were plenty of references to her having been Katesh, but I don’t remember seeing Katesh on screen before). Daniel Jackson tries to talk to the version of himself in another timeline. Samantha Carter has to deal with being a famous astronaut – who happens to have died, heroically, four years earlier.

I’m not sure I would agree with those who say you don’t need to have watched Stargate SG-1 to appreciate this movie (would you understand Sam’s reaction to Jack’s death? would you understand what is going on with Vala as Katesh? how much would you really care whether the “original” timeline is restored?), as a Stargate fan I certainly enjoyed it a lot.

There are of course the usual paradoxes involved in time travel. Cam Mitchell has to deal with a form of the “grandfather paradox” quite literally, as preventing the disaster that changed history so drastically will also prevent his own grandfather’s death. There are some minor questions left unanswered, at the end, because history still has been altered very slightly. But as with the earlier Moebius episode, apparently the restored timeline is “close enough.”

Classic movies: West Side Story

After watching this DVD last night, I wasn’t sure I wanted to post any kind of review. The ending is so sad and so bleak, and just thinking about it seemed likely to start the tears flowing again. But after a good night’s sleep I can think about it a bit more objectively.

This had long been on my mental list of classic films I ought to see someday. When I am actually looking for a movie to rent, however, I’m looking for entertainment – usually something a bit more escapist, with comedy and or adventure but not such serious themes as permeate West Side Story.

My older son rented it (if you can call it a “rental” when it’s free, that is – Family Video gives free rentals for A’s on report cards), and as I had never seen it I decided I should watch it. I’ve always liked some of the musical numbers – we played “Maria” and “Tonight” in my high school orchestra, and besides being beautiful music they were easier to play than some other contemporary music, such as by Aaron Copland.

I had a general idea of the story, both from having read it growing up and knowing that it was based on Romeo and Juliet. The ending was hardly a surprise, therefore, but being so affected by it was. I don’t remember how old I was when I read the book (i.e. the script, in book format) – perhaps too young to really understand it. I remember reading Romeo and Juliet in ninth grade and finding it boring, and thinking how foolish the two teenagers were to throw away their lives that way.

Perhaps it is because I have more experience of love and of loss in relationships that I now find it so moving. Perhaps it is the difference between reading words on a page and seeing them brought to life by talented actors. Perhaps it is because West Side Story succeeded so well on so many levels (as evidenced by its numerous Academy Awards).

Movies: Garfield’s Pet Force

I don’t remember where we bought the first of Jim Davis’ Pet Force books, but once we read that we had to find and buy the rest. I had never cared for Garfield, and couldn’t understand the appeal of the comics, but Garfield and his friends as superheroes are funny.

When I saw the DVD of Garfield’s Pet Force at Wal-Mart today, I decided the movie would be a perfect rental for a holiday weekend. (So I went put it back on the shelf and went to Blockbuster to rent it.) It’s hard to find a movie that the whole family can enjoy, with plenty of action but not scary, and humor that all ages can appreciate. This one worked very well.

Garfield fans who aren’t Pet Force fans probably wouldn’t appreciate it much. Looking at customer reviews of one of the other CGI Garfield movies released in the last couple years, a user complained that these new Garfield movies just don’t work at all. You can’t take the Garfield from the comics with all his obnoxious habits and attitudes, and combine him with the cartoon style appealing to and suitable for young children, and have something anyone will appreciate. (Well, my younger son might – he likes anything to do with Garfield, whether he understands the humor or not.)

The movie is – like most adaptations from books – different in significant ways. Whether or not you like the movie, you could still enjoy the books. If I had to choose between books and movie, I’d take the books. But the movie is good, just in a different way. This is no doubt in large part because Jim Davis was both the writer and executive producer for the movie himself. He uses the same basic premise as the books, and most of the same characters, but goes off in new directions.

Two paws up!

Movies: Chronos

If you don’t like art museums or concert halls, you probably won’t enjoy this movie. While it is categorized as a documentary, it is more of a music video – except that the music is to support the visual images rather than the other way around. There are no words, and no apparent message. As with much non-verbal art, it is left to the viewer to discern its meaning – or simply to enjoy the aesthetic experience.

It does start out very slowly, and I was afraid I was going to be rather bored. I like the views of the Grand Canyon (I imagine it must have been spectacular when originally showed on an IMAX screen) and the movement of clouds across the sky, but eventually you want to see some kind of action. I had mistakenly thought, from the subtitle, “A Visual and Musical Journey Through Time,” that there would be a progression from prehistory to the present. Scenes of Stonehenge reinforced this notion – but then suddenly I was viewing traffic in a modern city, its alternating rhythms enhanced by the time-lapse photography.

The juxtaposition of these two types of scenes was memorable, however. First there is the leisurely movement of light and dark across ancient, unmoving objects, so slow as to be nearly imperceptible at times. In contrast the frantic rush of cars from one block to the next, only to stop, start, stop, over and over, highlights the difference in the way the passing of a given increment of time is so different depending on the context.

Then there were unpeopled landscapes again, though this time the moving camera gave the scene more of a dynamic rather than static feel. The music continued its eerie patterns, neither the relaxing classical or “nature” music I had expected, nor developing in concert with the scenery to any apparent destination. I commented to my 9-year-old (who was initially bored but ended up watching the entire movie with me, occasionally trying to guess the locations depicted on the screen) that the music reminded me of the sort used in a movie to build up tension toward a climax. But it didn’t go anywhere, except on and one.

Finally we did begin to see more signs of human civilization, not in the presence of people but of buildings and artwork they had left behind. I particularly liked the scene where the tide rushes up (interesting to see the tide come in with time compressed in this way) toward the lonely monastery of Mont- Saint-Michel in Normandy (I had to look up this identification later in the bonus materials). The camera takes us inside, but it is as quiet and solitary as the ocean, and as it must have been for the monks who lived there in ages past.

Movies: The Legend of Zorro

Somehow we missed watching this movie when it first came out on DVD. Last night we remedied that. I only vaguely remembered its predecessor, The Mask of Zorro, but when my husband and son watched a preview of the sequel on the internet, I overheard enough to want to watch it also. And unlike most critics and viewers, I actually liked the sequel better.

The Mask of Zorro is described in one comment as “sexy and swashbuckling,” while this sequel is too tame, too “family-oriented.” I guess I’m very family-oriented, because it is that aspect of the movie that most appeals to me. There’s plenty of swashbuckling, but the relationship between Alejandro and Elena is strained by his failure to keep a promise to give up being Zorro. He also has hidden this identity from his son Joaquin, who is becoming a little Zorro and is deeply disappointed in his father’s failure to fight back at injustice.

Perhaps that’s why most superheroes aren’t family men. How can you fight bad guys while you’re busy raising a family? How can you keep your family safe when bad guys know you are vulnerable to loss in that regard? How does a superhero’s wife deal with knowing the danger her husband is not only getting into but deliberately choosing to face? How does a child deal with the contrast between the father’s public and secret identity?

The Legend of Zorro explores all that, while involving all three de la Vegas – separately, so the others do not know of it – in foiling some nefarious plot (the details only come out very near the end). It takes a great many liberties with history, primarily by ignoring the decade gap between California becoming a state and the formation of the Confederate States of America. But as implausible as the story is, it’s a lot of fun to watch.