The Haunted Mansion - 2003

Lackluster attempt to capitalize on a Disney favorite. When real-estate agent Jim Evers (Murphy) visits an old mansion with his family, the ghostly owner (Parker) believes Sara Evers (Thomason) is his lost love. There was incredible potential with this film but the story itself was boring, predictable and slow moving, with very little suspense. We found ourselves rolling our eyes more than once. The attempts at humor fell completely flat and were actually grating. The miscasting of Eddie Murphy was probably their first mistake. His acting style was totally out of place for the story. Most of the performances were average, with possibly the exception of Nathaniel Parker of Inspector Lynley fame, and Terence Stamp as the butler. Surprisingly, the children were pretty irritating. One of Disney’s strengths has always been the children in their films, but both the characters themselves as well as the performances were unappealing. The films only redeeming qualities were some great special effects which would probably add 1/2 star. Not enough to save the film, however.  **

March of Penguins - 2004

Fascinating! This was an exceptional film on the cycle of the Emperor Penguin that will certainly become a classic in its genre. Although it really doesn’t have what you would refer to as a plot, this well written, thoughtful film still managed to have a beginning and an end, almost as if you were watching a family history. You certainly felt connected to the lives of these amazing creatures. The extraordinary cinematography captured the conditions of the Antarctica and you practically shivered along with the huddled penguins. The filming was so well done that I regret not having seen this on the big screen! Superbly narrated by Morgan Freeman, his mellow voice told the story without trying to become the star and/or focus of the film. Something narrators don’t always achieve. This is certainly a film not to be missed! *****

Mail Order Bride - 2008

Lackluster romantic drama. This very unbelievable story was painfully predictable with plenty of plot holes, and certainly lean on both romance AND drama. Performances were Ok but the chemistry between characters was practically non-existent. Nor were any of them very appealing, even the main characters! Made it hard to care one way or another about the outcome. The film included mild language and violence, which was definitely less than many films but also more than expected from a Hallmark film. Better choices out there. **

Facing the Giants - 2006

Struggling in both his personal and professional life, Coach Grant Taylor (Kendrick) turns to his Christian faith for guidance. This was an entertaining film with both strengths and weaknesses. Any movie produced by a small film company certainly faces many challenges, the least of which is the pool of actors to choose from. Performances ranged from just Ok to good, but for the most part were better than is often found in other films of this type. Filming was fairly good with some great football sequences that rival many bigger productions I've seen. Its biggest weakness, however, was probably the misconception you might gain from its main theme. Its focus, that our Heavenly Father will strengthen us during difficult times, was basically a good message. However, the film seems to promote the idea that if we'll just be good that all our dreams will come true. In my own life, I've certainly discovered trials do not magically disappear, even when I'm doing my very best to "be good". Surprisingly, sometimes those very trials became my greatest blessings because of what they teach me. On the other hand, almost every good miracle that happened in this film, I have either experienced myself or witnessed happening to someone I know: from the new truck, to the change in job status, to a pregnancy in the face of all medical facts to the contrary! I've just never seen that many miracles happen all to the same person! :-) Because I've certainly had my own miraculous wonders, I could look past the overzealous portrayal of these same types of events in the film. Perhaps the real message is simply that we can all turn to Him when times are tough to receive the strength we need. Even with its weaknesses we found the film enjoyable. ***

The Coward - 1915

Compelling film of a young man whose fear brands him a coward even in the eyes of his father. This was truly a remarkable film of the inner struggle this boy felt (and most of them were just boys) when presented with the realities of war. The story is a fairly simple one with little character development except for that of the father and the son. At only a little more than an hour, the story moves along quickly; perhaps a little too swiftly, but the impact of the story is still present. The film itself is color-toned black & white and includes very few title cards. Most of the story is told simply by the actions of the characters themselves. Certainly the moment the boy faces his inner demons strikes a chord in each of us and includes a perfect title card: "The blood of his fathers, the shadowy hands of past generations of fighting men shatter the fetters of cowardice, and the last of the house of Winslow stands forth unafraid." The ending is a little abrupt but typical of the silent era. Although not for everyone, this is a wonderful part of our cinematic history. I'm not aware of this film available separately but it can be found with a collection of silent films of the Civil War.  ****

Steamboat Bill, Jr. - 1928

Remarkable silent comedy with the incomparable Buster Keaton. When a burly riverboat captain (Torrence) meets his son (Keaton) for the first time, both are somewhat disappointed. As one of Keaton's last great silent films, this is definitely one of his finest. The comedy is outstanding with some truly funny scenes. Watching Buster trying on hats, sneaking off the riverboat or attempting to get his father out of jail will really have you chuckling. Plus, nearly a third of the story involves a cyclone and is filled with the classic physical stunt work which was Keaton’s specialty. This is really some of the most spectacular and funny stunts Keaton ever executed on film. While the buildings are being destroyed around him, Keaton is tumbled and dragged from one scene to the next, including the famous scene of a 2-story house slamming to the ground and Keaton appearing unscathed through the window. His choreography was incredible. Silent films are not for everyone, but this incredible film is certainly not to be missed.  *****

State of the Union - 1948

Intriguing classic film with the incomparable Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. After businessman Grant Matthews (Tracy) decides to run for president, his ideals begin to get shoved aside by those who are pushing his candidacy. Blinded by his own lofty goals, only his wife (Hepburn) seems to recognize what is happening. In spite of its age, much of the political climate of this film seemed relevant even today. In fact, you realize how little has changed. Performances were excellent with Tracy expertly portraying the idealistic Matthews, as well as a wonderful portrayal by Hepburn as his devoted wife. However, since the focus of this film is more of a political commentary, you will not find the witty dialog that usually accompanies a film with this pair. Excellent performances by the supporting cast, especially that of Angela Lansbury as the scheming newswoman. She definitely shines in this role! Filming is good and since directed by Capra, you will find some great patriotic speeches that help maintain the focus of the story. Definitely worth your time.  ***

The Gin Game - 2003

Dreadful story! This dark drama takes the viewer through the inner struggles of two elderly people as they share their lives during their gin games. As an actual fan of what I refer to as “intelligent drama”, I expected to enjoy this film but the story never came together for me and only managed to be depressing. The roles were masterfully portrayed by Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore, but their previous work shadows this film and made their roles seem a little unbelievable. As mentioned by others, the language was terrible and very much “in your face” – definitely more than the characters or the situation warranted. Ridiculously abrupt ending! Definitely better choices out there.  *

Born Free - 1966

Exceptional adaptation of the book by Joy Adamson. This extremely accurate film is based on the struggle of George and Joy Adamson (husband and wife) to return a lioness they had raised back into the wild. This heart-warming story will delight you from the very outset, and includes both humor and intense drama. Outstanding portrayal of the Adamsons by Bill Travers and Virginia McKenna. In fact, they deliver such believable performances, you will wonder if they are really ARE the Adamsons. Actually filmed in Africa, the cinematography is superb, both of the countryside and the lions. Whether or not you are into wildlife films, this is truly a classic and not to be missed!  ****

Rebecca - 1997

Interesting adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s famous novel. Maxim DeWinter (Dance) and his new wife (Fox) feel the shadow of his first wife, Rebecca, who died under unusual circumstances. This remake is actually a more accurate version than Hitchcock’s 1940 film. With its added length, it was able to include many details left out of the earlier shorter film. Even so, it still seemed to lack the mystical feel of either the book itself or its 1940 predecessor. It did stay true to the circumstances surrounding Rebecca’s death, which definitely had more of an impact on the characters than the changes made in the Hitchcock version. Performances were Ok but DeWinter (Dance) seemed much older than described in the book (age 41) which made the age difference between he and the young Mrs. DeWinter (Fox) feel almost uncomfortable. Nor did there seem to be any chemistry between them. Superb performance by Diana Rigg as the chilling Mrs. Danvers, however. Very creepy! Good cinematography and costuming that fit the period. Just an Ok remake, though, and not our favorite. ***

Rebecca - 1940

Chilling adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s famous novel. Maxim DeWinter (Olivier) and his new wife (Fontaine) feel the shadow of his first wife, Rebecca, who died under unusual circumstances. A master of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock created a mysterious film that keeps you riveted from beginning to end. Olivier gives an outstanding performance as the tortured DeWinter that pairs perfectly with the innocence portrayed by Fontaine as his new young wife. Great chemistry between them! As the chilling Mrs. Danvers, Judith Anderson will make you shudder! Incredible Black & White cinematography for which Hitchcock was so famous. One weakness, however, was the alteration from Du Maurier’s book concerning Rebecca’s death, which unfortunately lessened the impact of that event on the characters. Still, this is an outstanding and well done film that deserved the Oscar nominations it received. Definitely a favorite we've watched many times!  *****

Yours, Mine & Ours - 1968

Enjoyable movie based on the book written by Helen North (“Who Gets the Drumstick”) which tells of their real-life experiences after she met and married Frank Beardsley, joining their two families (18 children). Although not totally accurate, the movie does a great job of portraying many of the emotions and efforts of Helen and Frank to unite their families. The struggles they face are both humorous and touching. Lucille Ball and Henry Fonda have great on-screen chemistry and are very believable in their roles with a great supporting cast. The movie is full of humor and is especially enjoyable because it’s a more realistic portrayal of the situations a family of this size would encounter. Having read the book years ago, I fell in love with this movie and have enjoyed watching it many times. (If you are a fan of more believable humor rather than the slapstick variety, this is the version to watch rather than its recent remake.)  ****

Yours, Mine & Ours - 2005

OK movie remake of Helen (Russo) and Frank (Quaid) who marry, joining their families (18 children). We enjoyed this film but it needs to stand alone without comparisons to its predecessor. The 1968 version made an effort to keep closer to the true story on which it was based whereas this film kept only the barest outline. The characters and family situations bear little resemblance to the original. That said, this version of this large blended family is still fun if you enjoy the slapstick style of comedy. Both Russo and Quaid do a good job in their roles as do the kids, although both Helen’s character with its “free expression” and no discipline along with Frank’s “not a toe out line” attitude seemed a little over the top to me. The kids were polar opposites in personality as well which was also pretty unbelievable. Both problems, though, came more from the script than the acting. This story is not as believable as the original and has several holes. It is hard to accept that anyone who really loves their kids would marry without introducing the new “parent-to-be” to their children. Or that any parent wouldn’t be grounding their kids for life with some of the antics that go on during this film. Even so, if you set aside the believability factor, this is still an enjoyable family film.  ***

That Darn Cat - 1997

Pale remake of the Disney ’65 classic. When a watch appears  around the neck of her cat, Patti (Ricci) is convinced it belongs to a woman who has been kidnapped. Admittedly, the premise for this story was not very believable, and unlike its predecessor, this version never succeeded in making you feel otherwise. Although mostly a comedy, this one had little of the suspense of the earlier story, nor did you develop any sympathy for the victim as you did for the bank teller in the ’65 film. Performances were pretty flat. Ricci’s character was pretty unappealing and showed so little curiosity and/or interest in the “mystery” that it was hard to believe she would have contacted the FBI in the first place. The portrayal of the agent (Doug) assigned to the case went beyond incompetent to just plain ridiculous. (sigh) The parents were only so-so and even the CAT paled in comparison! The film also skipped any of the former intelligent physical humor of its predecessor and went straight to the slapstick style, resorting to plenty of gooey stuff, a crazy car chase and spectacular explosions. The only redeeming factor was Dean Jones, and although his inclusion was only minor, it was wonderful to see him again. Definitely wouldn’t watch again. **

That Darn Cat - 1965

Delightful Disney classic! After her cat shows up with a watch around its neck, Patti (Mills) is convinced it came from a recently kidnapped bank teller. When the FBI gets involved, one of their agents (Jones) sets up surveillance to follow the cat. This humorous story is well written with some witty dialog and comic situations. Great interactions between each of the main characters as well as the many supporting characters, from the nosy neighbors to the jealous boyfriend. Although mainly a comedy, there is also some good suspense. The kidnappers (Gorshin & Brand) are actually fairly chilling and you feel the fear of the bank teller. Performances were wonderful from everyone, including the cat! Especially loved the nosy neighbors, Lancaster and Demarest, who steal every scene they are in! It was also great fun, however brief, to see Ed Wynn as the jeweler. The filming was good and although the film included plenty of comic physical humor, this film managed to avoid the overdone silly slapstick of its ’97 remake. This is definitely a family favorite!  *****

Oklahoma - 1999

Outstanding musical with the remarkable music of Rodgers and Hammerstein, including the well known “O What a Beautiful Morning.” Differing from the earlier ’55 film, this was an actual stage production recorded on film. Since the staging is superb and each scene is easily definable, this was actually one of its strengths over its predecessor! Superb performances from Hugh Jackman, Josefina Gabrielle and Shuler Hensley in the lead roles. In fact, they easily lived up to, and sometimes surpassed, the wonderful performances in the ’55 film. Good performances from the supporting cast as well, with some incredible choreography. One definite strength was probably the main confrontation between Curly and Jud. It was pretty intense and was definitely a pivotal point in the story. Although this is not my favorite Rodgers & Hammerstein production, this one will definitely be watched again.  NOTE: Although fairly family friendly, this story does handle some adult topics.****

Oklahoma - 1955

Wonderful musical with the remarkable music of Rodgers and Hammerstein, including the well known “O What a Beautiful Morning.” Based off of a stage production, this film included many things that would have been impossible on stage: fields of corn, horses, burning haystack and buggy race, to name just a few. Excellent cinematography and choreography! Superb performances from Shirley Jones, Gordon MacRae and Rod Steiger in the lead roles. Good performances from the supporting cast as well, although I had a hard time accepting Eddie Albert in the role of the Persian peddler. One weakness was probably the main confrontation between Curly and Jud. It was pretty mild and over so quickly you hardly knew it had happened. Although this is not my favorite Rodgers & Hammerstein production, it is definitely one that has been watched many times.  NOTE: Although fairly family friendly, this story does handle some adult topics.****

Jane Eyre - From Silent Films to the Present

I'm unaware of any classic novel that can claim as many film, TV, stage or radio adaptations as that of Jane Eyre. Published in 1847, the story remains intriguing to readers and theater patrons even after more than 150 years. My research indicates the first film adaptation in America was a silent produced in 1910 followed by more than one adaptation over the next ten years. Unfortunately the availability of these old silent films is unknown (silentera.com).

Beginning with the first talking version in 1934, this story has undergone many different interpretations, some excellent while a few unfortunately missed the point of the book entirely. Several sources indicate more than 20 film and TV adaptations are credited to Bronte's incredible novel, both in and out of the US. In recent years it has even found its way onto the stage as a musical. I've had the opportunity to see a stage production and enjoyed every minute! With this years film release of yet another adaptation, it is apparent the story of Jane Eyre will be around for many years to come.

NOTE: There are many comprehensive lists of Jane Eyre productions on the internet including hubpages.com and eyreguide.bravehost.com.

Jane Eyre - 2011

Review to follow at a later date.

Jane Eyre - 1971

Jane Eyre - 1997

Disappointing! Although this adaptation follows the book as closely as any of the other big screen versions, it is the performances that are really its downfall. On the plus side, both Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton had the perfect "look" for their roles, both in age and appearance. Unfortunately, their portrayal of these famous characters fell far short of the mark. Rochester comes across as a big bully, actually yelling most of his lines, while Jane is completely missing the shy vulnerability interlaced with strength that so defined her character. Consequently, both characters are pretty unappealing. And if you aren't at least partially connected emotionally with Rochester and Jane, the film itself is also pretty unappealing.  **

Jane Eyre - 2006

Spectacular film! Exceptional Adaptation! Wonderful script! Beautiful cinematography! Superb acting! This is one of my all time favorite books and certainly my favorite movie adaptation of this book. This is Charlotte Bronte’s classic story of a poor governess who falls in love with her arrogant employer. Unfortunately, unknown to anyone, he is already married. When filming a book like Jane Eyre often so much has to be left out that the book is practically unrecognizable. Not so with this version. The length allows them to include a great deal that is usually cut. The two main actors, Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens, do an incredible job in their roles. While Stephens is the perfect mix of arrogant but handsome employer, Wilson portrays the perfect mix of the passion and vulnerability of Jane. They have wonderful chemistry on screen. Although there are several changes to the story, this one is definitely more true to the spirit of the book than many of its predecessors. Just be sure to set aside enough time to watch it straight through!  *****

Jane Eyre - 1983

Excellent BBC miniseries based on Charlotte Bronte’s well known novel. This is certainly a very faithful version of this romantic story with a well written script. In fact, the dialogue is frequently almost verbatim from the book. With the added length of a miniseries, this series was also able to include many of the scenes and characters cut from other versions of this story; a definite plus! Exceptional performances from both the main and  supporting cast, especially those of Timothy Dalton as the brooding Rochester and Zelah Clarke as the quiet and vulnerable Jane (although Dalton was perhaps too handsome for the role). :-)  The costuming was well done and in keeping with the era of time the novel took place, but the inside sets at Thornfield seemed a little overly decorated and were somewhat distracting. Regardless of any weaknesses, this is definitely one of the best versions available.    ****

Jane Eyre - 1949

Interesting CBS Studio One TV adaptation of this classic novel. At much less than an hour, it should come as no surprise to find this version extremely abbreviated. Eliminating her childhood completely, the film begins as Jane (Mary Sinclair) leaves Lowood School for Thornfield where she meets the mysterious Rochester (Charlton Heston). Their relationship has little time to develop in this shortened adaptation but the performances of Sinclair and Heston hint at the potential that existed if this had been a full-length film. The film is also completely missing the period Jane spent with her cousins after fleeing from Thornfield but it surprisingly manages to breech the gap to bring Jane and Rochester back together again. The filming is unfortunately shaky at best but to be expected for a TV film in the 40's. The sets and costumes are reminiscent of an old stage production but also in keeping with the era this was made. Although there is little time to become emotionally connected to the characters, this is still a wonderful part of the cinematic history of this story and worth at least one viewing.  **

Although not available on dvd, this Studio One adaptation can be viewed through internet archives of classic TV, complete with Westinghouse commercials! :-)

Jane Eyre - 1996

So-so adaptation of this classic novel. With a great deal of the novel eliminated or changed, much of the emotional impact of this story is almost non-existant. Although shortened, Jane’s early life is fairly well told. Unfortunately, this is such an important part of the plot that you are not left with a great deal of understanding into her character. Her life at Thornfield Hall is also abbreviated although what is left is smoothly told. The final part of the story after Jane flees from Mr. Rochester is simply butchered. Only the barest outline of the original novel remains and what is left is so changed and happens so quickly that the impact of this story is completely lost. The performances are Ok with a strong portrayal of the young Jane (Anna Paquin) but a weak and fairly emotionless portrayal when she is grown (Charlotte Gainsbourg). The brooding Mr. Rochester (William Hurt) seems almost dull and fairly emotionless, but in all fairness, the cuts in the story do not allow the character to fully develop. Worth watching but definitely not the best version.  **

Jane Eyre - 1973

Faithful adaptation of this classic novel. This is surprisingly one of the better adaptations done by BBC during this era. The acting is fairly good, especially from Cusack (Jane) and Jayston (Rochester), although Cusack appears a little old for the part of Jane. The script is detailed and develops each phase of Jane’s life which allows the viewer to identify with her many struggles: despair, hope, passion and joy. As with other BBC films during this time, it does have its weaknesses. The story moves too slowly and the costumes LOOK like costumes. The filming has poor lighting and is quite choppy which can be distracting. And Jane definitely needed help with her hair – the 70’s meets the 1800’s! (sigh) Still, with few adaptations even attempting to take on the details of this novel, this is one to see at least once.   ***

Jane Eyre - 1944

Mildly disappointing version of this classic story! This early B&W definitely had both its strengths and its weaknesses. Wonderful performances from Joan Fontaine as the adult Jane and Peggy Ann Garner as the young Jane. As Rochester, however, Orson Welles came across as too stiff and angry. In the novel he is written as a troubled and frustrated man but capable of passion, love and even humor. None of this came across in this version. The script had numerous flaws. Jane’s early life was somewhat rewritten and abbreviated. Since her adult life was a product of her childhood, these story additions and cuts made it necessary to have read the novel in order to understand Jane’s personal struggles. Her life at Thornfield Hall was fairly well written although abridged, but after she fled Thornfield the story was so completely altered that this vital third of her life is butchered almost beyond recognition. When Jane and Rochester are finally reunited, the impact of their time apart is completely lost. The B&W filming is excellent but the cave-like atmosphere of Thornfield seemed more suited to the brooding nature of “Wuthering Heights” than of “Jane Eyre”. In spite of the secrets and intrigue at Thornfield, running through the entire novel is an undercurrent of passion, hope and love. Not so during this film. Even the conclusion leaves the viewer with a darker feeling rather than the joy that is felt in the novel. Even with its weaknesses, if you are a fan of this story this is definitely one to see.   ***

Jane Eyre - 1934

This film is the first talking adaptation of this classic novel. At only an hour, it would be impossible to show a very detailed version of this story. Jane’s early life is compressed into 2 or 3 scenes and the rest of her life doesn’t fare much better. This isn’t unusual, though, considering the era this was filmed. Hollywood approached movies differently in the 30's and it is evident in this film. Only the barest outline of the actual story has been kept. The acting is only so-so but the main complaint comes from character changes rather than the acting itself. Rochester is a far cry from the brooding character in the book and Jane has very little personality at all. The print I watched was also in poor condition but considering its age of 75+ years it is not surprising. Even so, as one of the many cinematic versions of this well loved novel, it is worth your time.  **

Welcome!

Welcome to my movie reviews! 

I've always loved movies and can remember when the cost of a ticket was only 50 cents. A few years ago I began keeping lists about the movies I saw as well as writing down my thoughts about the filming, performances, etc. I guess this is my new and improved list! :-) I'm well aware opinions on movies are as varied as the people offering them but its always fun to share!

Now, enough talk! A movie awaits! :-)