This movie provides one with plenty of everything they would want from it. The action scenes are fantastic. They have a truly epic and large feel that truly comes to life on a large screen (if you want to see this movie, don't wait until it comes out on streaming, this is much better in a cinema). The action moves at a fast paced but never feels rushed. Despite the large scale of these fight scenes, none of them stretch the realm of believability beyond what we are willing to accept in a film based on a true story. Yet this movie is not just pure action. It also has a real heart to it. The film is about a group of female warriors in Africa (a real group who existed from the 17th to the 19th century) fighting to protect their people. yet the main focus of this film is the leader of these women (Viola Davis) and her relationship with a younger new member (Thuso Mbedu). This is very well handled and there is great chemistry between the two whenever they share the screen. The relationship between the two is also not simple and the movie is never afraid to explore the complexities of this relationship. Yet even the scenes that are just about one of these characters and not the other are just as engaging. These are not just cookie-cutter action movie characters, and they feel very real to us over the course of the film. Their own personal arcs are also very emotionally engaging and powerful. This film also has wonderful messages that may be familiar but are still powerful. These messages are presented in the best way possible. The film never stops to preach to us, and the characters never simply state the lessons in the heavy-handed manner that so many movies with messages do. The messages just come naturally out of the story and no explanation is needed for the audience. This movie also has a great sense of humor and though it is not exactly a laugh fest, the jokes that are there are excellent.
This movie can feel quite familar though and it is often really easy to guess what is going to happen next. There are also more subplots than nessary and some of them can feel quite rushed. Still none of this can take away from how great everything else is.
This is an excellent movie and one that needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible.
Note: This film is only available to watch on the Disney+ streaming service.
Michael's Movie Grade: D
A bland remake of one of Disney's best films.
Even as a huge Disney fan, it is hard for me to even care about these remakes the studio keeps turning out these days. Pinocchio is not the worst of these remakes, but it still is not a good movie. Like all of these Disney remakes the worst parts of this film are the ones that directly follow the movie it is remaking. Some scenes are incredibly faithful and shot for shot copy the 1940 movie. There are two major problems with that. One is that the 1940 movie still exists and the other is that that movie was a cartoon. To do the same thing in live action or more realistic-looking animation (since many of the scenes feature a lot of CGI), just doesn't work the same. The I Have No Strings on Me musical number and the slapstick involving Honest John in Gideon simply pale in comparison to the 1940 movie because they don't work as well in this completely different style of filmmaking. This movie does change quite a bit though. Unfortunately none of these changes are that interesting. We get some new characters, but don't get to spend enough time with them for them to become interesting. The new songs simply are not very good and I can't see one of them sticking in your head after watching the film. Pleasure Island was changed quite a bit, but in a way that takes out all the creepiness and suspense of the 1940 film and replaces it with blandness. The more realistic designs of some of the characters such as Jimminy Cricket lack the charm or memorable-ness of the original designs. The humor here also doesn't work that well and there is a comedic scene that involves Pinocchio looking at a piece of poop. He smells it and wonders what it is and that is the whole joke. How that is supposed to be funny confuses me. This movie also completely wastes a great actor like Tom Hanks, but not giving him any opportunity to shine or do anything interesting.
I will say though that the film is competently made (well Robert Zemeckis is a great director) and some of the visuals look great. There is also such a charm to the film it is remaking that it can still retain a little of it.
The 1940 Pinocchio is a masterpiece and one of my favorite Disney films. It will live in the hearts of movie fans forever. This is a film that I will probably forget exists in a few months.
Easily the worst romantic comedy I've ever seen and quite possibly one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
The problems with this movie even reach into the basics of filmmaking. This movie even messes on up on the basic parts of filmmaking we take for granted when watching a film. The camera sometimes moves for no reason whatsoever and it simply keeps moving. This is not an action film, but a romantic comedy and there is no reason for so much movement. To make matters worse sometimes the film will even cut to an exterior shot in the middle of a conversation as if we were supposed to watch two characters talking and all the sudden wonder what the outside of the building, they are in looks like. The worst offender in this case is the soundtrack. Throughout the entire film the sound cuts out at the beginning of every scene. The music and sound effects will suddenly stop and the everything will be silent and then when a character starts talking all the sound the music and sound effects will too. This is beyond distracting and takes you out of the movie at the start of every scene. Mentioning the music, it is terrible in that it never actually matches the action on screen. It is also often too loud and drowns out the dialogue. The sound effects are often too loud as well in a way that takes you out of the movie.
This is not to say that better filmmaking could have made this film any good. The storyline feels like a clichéd sitcom plot stretched to feature length. This slim story is not even enough to pad out this 80minute movie (really short for a modern feature film). Because of this the film simply drags on for most of the runtime. The characters are pure cardboard cut outs and are little more than male and female stereotypes. Since the characters never feel real to us there is never a minute where anything that happens with them matters. This is also a romantic comedy, so there has to be some comedy. I wish that there didn't have to be any comedy. I never laughed once through the whole film. In fact, no one in the movie theater laughed once either. The comedy feels so forced and simply tries too hard. Much of the dialogue is also truly awful and sounds nothing like how people actually talk.
This film is not only bad, but it makes me feel like I was too harsh on many other movies I truly hated, because at least they weren't as horribly made as this.
As some of you know I have not been blogging the last little bit because I have been in Israel. As a Christian this was more than just a vacation for me. It was a strong spiritual experience. Over the course of this trip I got to truly see the Bible come to life. Stories that I have read all my life now have pictures in my mind to go with them. Now when I read the Bible it no longer seems like I am just reading a book but more like I am watching a movie in my head, the visuals become so real in my mind. Seeing the very real places where the Bible took place gave many of these stories an even more emotional power. This is the type of trip that makes a huge difference in any Christian's life and if you are a Christian I highly recommend you take such a trip.
For they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings like eagles. Isaiah 40:31
Hello my friends, I hope all is well with each and every one of you.
For almost two weeks I will be gone out of the country on a trip to Israel with my church. This is a trip I have been looking forward to for years and I am very excited to go. As a Christian, I am so excited to walk where Jesus walked and see where so many of the bible stories I grew up with actually took place. While I am on this trip, I will not be blogging, but as soon as I get back, I will be blogging regularly again.
While I am gone, here is a movie to keep you entertained.
Giod bless you all and see you at the movies.
And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Philippians 4:7
Studio: Essanay. Director: Charlie Chaplin. Writer: Charlie Chaplin. Cast: Charlie Chaplin, Edna Purviance. Leo White, Jack Henderson, John Rand, May White, Ben Turpin, Wesley Ruggles. Cinematographer: Harry Ensign.
In my opinion, A Burlesque on Carmen is one of Charlie Chaplin's most underrated films.
AS you can probably tell by the title, this film is a parody of Carmen (both the novella and the Cecil B. DeMille movie). Charlie stars as Darn Hosiery (instead of Don Jose), an honest guard, who is lead astray by the seductive gypsy Carmen (Edna Purviance, Chaplin's main female co-star at this time, starring in over 30 films with him).
Charlie had made this short and intended it to be a two-reel comedy. This two-reel version is a fast moving and funny short that also shows Charlie's growth as a filmmaker and how he could have been a serious actor. This version was screened briefly in December of 1915 for critics. The Essanay Studio quickly withdrew the film not long afterwards. When Charlie left the Essanay studio, he had left behind cut footage from this movie. The studio decided to take this footage and create a four-reel version of the picture, so that they could still make money off the Charlie Chaplin name. This version of the movie would not only use footage cut out from Chaplin's version but also new footage featuring cross-eyed comedian Ben Turpin. Charlie hated this new version stating, "I was so impressed with [Cecil B. DeMille’s movie version of] Carmen that I made a two-reel burlesque of it, my last film with Essanay. After I had left, they put in all the cut-outs and extended it to four reels, which prostrated me and sent me to bed for two days. Although this was a dishonest act, it rendered a service for thereafter I had it stipulated in ever contract that there should be no mutilating, extending or interfering with my finished work." Charlie even tried to sue over this but lost the case.
Unfortunately, after this four-reel version was released the studio found little use for the two-reel version. For decades no one was able to see what Chaplin's version might have been like. Because of this many movie fans, have dismissed this film due to the messiness of the longer version. However in 1999, film preservationist David Shepard worked to help create the closest thing to Charlie's original intent. Shepard would say about restoring this movie, "The version I prepared in 1999 attempts to reconstruct the two-reel version of A Burlesque on Carmen, based upon an affidavit from the lawsuit provided by the Chaplin archives in which Charlie details his intended two-reel version. It was impossible to be guided exactly by Chaplin’s testimony. Some of Chaplin’s original shots were removed in the process of editing the four-reel expansion, which now seems to survive only with reissue intertitles from 1928. A few 1916 shots are retained for continuity in this version and most of the intertitles derive from DeMille, but we hope it captures Chaplin’s intention. For those familiar with DeMille’s production, the two-reel A Burlesque on Carmen is actually one of the better Essanay-Chaplin comedies."
The Moving Picture World, 1920
Moving Picture News, 1920
Motion Picture News, 1919
While the Ben Turpin material added for the four-reel version is terrible (and I am saying this as someone who normally likes Ben Turpin), everything featuring Charlie Chaplin is truly wonderful.
At the time he made this film, Charlie Chaplin had not yet evolved into the artist, who would comedy and drama. Nor had he shed off the type of pure slapstick that he had done at Keystone a year earlier. Here is Charlie Chaplin the pure slapstick comedian who would kick someone in the pants just because he could. Yet that does not mean that the humor here is crude or primitive. By this time, he had refined the execution of this humor to near perfection. Each gag is timed perfectly and delivered in such a way to give the greatest comedic effect. Because of this, even with how much I love Charlie's Keystone films, I must admit these very similar jokes are definitely funnier here.
As this film parodies a very elaborate movie, it required more elaborate filmmaking than the average slapstick comedy short. As such this short not only shows Charlie's growth as a comedian but also as a filmmaker. Never before had Charlie made a film that looked as wonderful as this. The attention to detail and the more sophisticated filmmaking makes this truly stand out among the other films he made for Essany. If you find a good restoration of this short, you can see how wonderful this film truly looks. Anyone familiar with the Cecil B. DeMille film will especially love the care that went into capturing the feel of that movie for this parody. While much of the elaborate look of this film comes from the material the short is parodying, this short feels like a look ahead at the even more elaborate and daring feature films, Charlie would later make.
Below are two versions of this wonderful film. The first is closer to Charlie's original plan for the film and the second features the Ben Turpin subplot.
