Sunday, April 29, 2012

THE PIRATES! - scalawags, booty, fisticuffs and... Darwin... oh my

Nick Park (Wallace & Gromit, Chicken Run) it isn't but close enough to be thoroughly enjoyable, entertaining and... educational? Awesome for kids and most adults I should think.

Claymation is a wonder to behold on the big screen. Stop motion in the cinema has been with us, arguably, since Muybridge's horses from 1878. It ceases to fascinate me when you think that what you are viewing on screen is 24 still pictures a second and wallah! apparent motion. Somebody is moving the clay, ever so delicately, thousands of times to get the result you see.

The captain pirate of his crew is down on his luck retrieving booty. He wants to be pirate of the year and so sets off to acquire the most gold. After many failed attempts, he lands on none other than the HMS Beagle, Darwin's ship. The captain has a dodo which he believes to be a parrot. Darwin of course notices this and suggests they go to London to show it off to the Royal Society. The queen gets involved who hates pirates and tries to get the extinct dodo bird from the captain to eat with her rich friends. Many evolutionary jokes ensue and skullduggery run amok. Interestingly, in real life, Darwin was in fact part of the Gourmet or Glutton society which did partake in the eating of odd animals.

Kids will be happy and enjoy the fantasy of pirating and adults can appreciate the beautiful animation and subtext of evolution. I'm not sure I like that they made Darwin out to be a bit sinister which could stay with some children but for some it may be their first introduction and how perfect for an array of interesting questions. Nonetheless, the illusory child prodigy of Willis O'Brien, Ray Harryhausen, would be proud of the visual effects in this pirate adventure.

Recommended Viewing: Wallace & Gromit (2005) - Chicken Run - Jason and the Argonauts

              Bob Scale: Objective: 7.0   -   Subjective: 7.6
             MetaCritic: 73
 Rotten Tomatoes: 87
                      IMDB: 7.1


The Five Year Engagement comes to us from Nicholas Stoller who also directed Get Him To The Greek and Forgetting Sarah Marshall. It feels appropriate that this type of dramedy would come next.

This film had me in spurts of laughter and genuine empathy. I think the story infrastructure is quite well done and alludes to some really interesting points that many relationships may suffer from today's world of two careers within one family unit. Superficially, however, TFYE is quite banal and cliché. The humor feels forced and doesn't quite flow naturally most of the time. I like Jason Segel, but like his previous film, Jeff Who Lives At Home, TFYE has a need to throw in vulgar humor when it would stand better to just elaborate on the drama at hand with more subtle comedy. 

TFYE brings to light some important issues that might very well not be solvable until your already caught up in them but should be thought of with more foresight and competency, if possible, while in the beginning of the short lived (unfortunately) love sick inception. It's not even near the merit of Bridesmaids, but don't let that prevent you from seeing it. There are a number of fun cameos thrown in for good measure and notice how hair style really changes the entire vibe of the character (rightly or wrongly). At one point Emily Blunt looks exactly like Zooey Deschanel. 

Recommended Viewing: Bridesmaids - Muriel's Wedding - Father Of The Bride (1991) (1950)

              Bob Scale: Objective: 6.5   -   Subjective: 6.9
             MetaCritic: 61
 Rotten Tomatoes: 64
                      IMDB: 6.9

THE RAVEN - woe is me

Edgar Allen Poe's, The Raven, is a masterpiece of supernatural eerie prose, or possibly a work of trickery or facsimile but the film leaves no dubious wonder - a forgettable spectacle to be sure.

Poe, a compelling character without question, was a sensationalist writer for multiple publishing houses and newspapers. He was loathed by a number of eminent writers in his day - Emerson, Longfellow and Yeats no less - most certainly due to the questionable content and prudery of the day among other things. The general populace followed suit and rather lapped it up like Marquis De Sade or dismissed the work as unwholesome entertainment. He was broke most of his life, married his 13 year old cousin at 26, and died a mysterious death one morning after reputedly repeating the same word, "Reynolds."

Like any film of this caliber, it too is sensationalism realized - The Raven tells a greusome murder tale and provides many thrills and chills. The Raven borrows facts from the historical character they are distorting and comes up with a mongoloid of sorts. It's a dark movie, nary a light in the set pieces, and thus feelings of woe are sure to incubate in your nether regions. Cusack is good as Poe, but watch out for some very poorly acted dialogue scenes. I must admit I don't much care for this kind of movie but even if I did I would not count this as one of the better blood offerings. 

Recommended Viewing: The Fall of the House Of Usher (1928) - The Black Cat - Frankenstein 

              Bob Scale: Objective: 5.5   -   Subjective: 5.0
             MetaCritic: 45
 Rotten Tomatoes: 22
                      IMDB: 6.8

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

BULLY - to bully or not to bully

Let me begin by saying that you must forgive my verbose digressions but I feel they are necessary for thinking through this film. 
Bully, not to be confused with Larry Clark’s shocking exhibition, is an interesting film, though not quite a great one. Many documentaries, or I should say, all, are biased in some way toward a particular subject or ideology that is put forth. The moment a shot is edited with another shot, it has been shaped to project the filmmakers point of view. Truly, even when a camera is turned on and framed on a specific subject, your pov is exhibited - you have already decided what to leave in or out of a particular shot. The addition of sound effects and music, oddly, adds to the illusion of faux reality. 
Cinéma Vérité is a form of filmmaking, known for realism, that devises long takes, few cuts and employs little enhanced sound effects or music tweaking or none at all. Rarely are these films really interesting, let alone entertaining, with the exception of the Maysles Brother’s Grey Gardens and Salesman to name a few. There may be an extreme exception with an experimental film like Andy Warhol's Empire, which is a 24 hour static shot of the Empire State Building but even this so called film is unrealistic because nobody sane stares at an object for a full day, unflinching. Still, it seems highly improbable to be completely objective towards an ideal or story in it's entirety, especially if you happen to be passionate about the subject matter like the ostensible Michael Moore purports. I believe Bully suffers from too much subjective interference in this way.  Consider one example in the beginning of the film when Alex, the boy with glasses, is about to board the bus. The director chooses to add consistent heavy breathing on the soundtrack, nearly imperceptible to most, but subconsciously insists on making the situation more intense than in reality. I don’t appreciate manipulation in this way. 
The film tugged at my heart and my tear ducts during numerous scenes. It was designed that way. You really do feel bad for many of the bullied students - who wouldn't? For reasons I shall soon illuminate, the mawkish sentiment was really too one sided. 
I don't have children and for that reason I think my reasoning will seem to be from a cold Darwinian point of view, regardless, I think my view will be closer to the truth if you bear with me. Boys will be boys is a familiar aphorism that everyone knows. In the film it is  used in the pejorative sense, which is to say that this is a phrase that many utter when they have no intention of solving the real issue of a certain conflict or they deem the contention to be a product brought on by the natural order of things - a Darwinian viewpoint to some degree. 
I can only speak for the USA, (and really only a small part of it), we as Americans are bullies, and have been for quite some time. We take what we want and occasionally remain apathetic toward whom we hurt in the process. I am speaking in a political point of view here and am very much generalizing and also not taking into account that we may not do such things with intentional malice but I think most would concede that America has a bullying epithet attached to its name. For now, we are still the "greatest country in the world" and I'm sure it would have been difficult to get there without some type of intimidation. I say all this because I think that this slight condescension toward others, self aggrandizement,  and superior attitude is somewhat ingrained in us as a people and therefore, (maybe it is time for a change), many people tend to overlook bullying and may even secretly think it's a good and healthy product of adolescence.  
I believe that some bullying is probably not all bad. I will explain two cases from within the film. One boy, who was bullied for a long period of time, finally stood up for himself and clocked the bully. You may not, and probably should not condone violence, but in this case it was probably warranted to some degree and was most likely beneficial to both parties. Another boy was a bully himself - unfortunately this is the only time we hear an account from a bully - he changed over time because he could see the harm he was doing to others. No one informed him of this - it came to him naturally or rather came from his innate sense of morality and goodness that most of us contain. This was an important life lesson for this young boy and I'm sure will have a positive impact for most of his adult life. 
I was a victim of bullying myself for a better part of 1st and 2nd grades. I was short and strange to others I suspect. I was the kid who was shoved head first into garbage cans and left to rot with feet dangling out! I was the non confrontational type, rather modest and shy with a near sanguine attitude toward suffering in this way, mostly due to my literalist fundamental Christian upbringing. I find it interesting that we as humans tend to hate weakness and pity. Some, after reading the previous sentences might immediately be turned off and feel disquieted by further reading because many only want to spend their time participating in activities or with people that are strong in character. If all knew I was a weakling, I would certainly have fewer friends. This is understandable - we as a nation love winners, not losers and we all have a penchant to survive. You may be more apt to survive if you surround yourself with people of strength of mind and spirit. Is this right - should I invoke the words of David Hume? Just because something is a certain way does not mean it ought to be that way. I never confronted the teasers or bullies with negative emotions or expletives and so the bullying continued for a long time. Nevertheless, the meanness stopped and I became best friends with all the gangstas from elementary school, at least until 6th grade was over. I'm sure many will have had a similar experience being a bully or being bullied and are really no worse or even better off for it.  This is not to say that there is a line to not be crossed, and that is were some difficult situations come into they fray.  
It is hard to take a child at their word. They are young and may be exaggerating or suffering from social, physical or mental problems. If you were a principle and a child came to you with a complaint against a fellow student, you would be right to remain skeptical. The principle in this film was portrayed as an unfeeling idiot and maybe in some situations she was rather apathetic but she probably has crazy kids and upset parents that visit her everyday with ridiculous problems and over exaggerated experiences. That should be taken into account. This is when a documentary can feel quite skewed in approach. Needless to repeat, the movie is very one sided and only let's you home in on the sob stories of young helpless victims with some very unfortunate, and I would guess, rare instances of suicide from mental bullying anguish. There is no time given in the documentary for the bullies, which I'm sure would be every bit as tragic. 
All this said, what can be done? Bullying is a tough nut to crack. When does it go from boys will be boys to all out pure evil teasing and physical harm? I think adults need to be more aware of what is happening around them in schools and be on the lookout for kids that are likely to suffer. It should be obvious and sadly true that we as humans favor the beautiful almost always. A kid with an uneven and hair lipped face with acne and 4 eyes should be a target watch! Human beauty is rather objective, I'd say most would agree on who the most attractive people in the room are, so it should be easy to spot potential candidates for the bullies. This still does not really solve anything. I think the most effective solvent for eradicating the harmful bullying behavior would be as follows: Call an auditorium meeting, tell kids that anyone who thinks they are a victim of any physical or mental abuse should speak out immediately. Explain what this means and that communication is key. Further say that if a person threatens to hurt you if you tell on them that that is even further reason for quick action. Make punishments severe for offenders. Not suspension, which is fun, but something far more detrimental in the immediate future. You have to curb the bullying in some way - the rallying from the film may get some people to take more notice and may even get some people to help stand up for those of us that were weaker in spirit at that age but it is really not a pragmatic solution to this problem. This may be hard to hear but your child is no more special than anyone else's. Tragedy is part of life on this planet. Just because there are a few tragic cases of bullying in the extreme, that does not mean that everyone and everything should change to suit your grief. We as humans tend to only react after tragedy has struck, which is not a great system by any means, we would do better to think more in the preventative. Luckily we are the only mammal who has this gift of prescience.  
There is far more to be said on this topic and therefore I welcome any comments for further discourse. 

Recommended Viewing: Salesman - The Cove - Bigger, Stronger, Faster

              Bob Scale: Objective: 6.5   -   Subjective: 6.8
             MetaCritic: 74
 Rotten Tomatoes: 87
                      IMDB: 6.8

Saturday, April 14, 2012

LOCKOUT - a vacuous continuum of fiery stellar dreck

Luc Besson is a genius filmmaker and a completely inept, blundering producer. Besson has directed such masterworks as the The Big Blue, Leon and Angel-A as well as produced over 100 ill-fated movies, many of which he also wrote. Several of these are quite awful (Unleashed, District 13: Ultimatum, Revolver) with a few exceptions (Taken, High Tension). Still, I love his passion for the future and his odd idiosyncrasies for design and cinematography. 

I will make a quick note - I believe in the auteur theory 100%. If you didn't have that one special persona like Kubrick or Kurosawa behind the film, it would seemingly not be close to the artistic level the resulting movie they produce attains. This though, is not to say that the other 100's of people that work on a film are not immensely important - they are - and sometimes on near equal status with the director, like for instance, possibly Bergman and Nykvist or Kar Wai and Doyle. So, in-so-much that this is true, when I use a director's name, I am singling him out as a single artist but still wish to acknowledge the team behind him. So I use one name, Besson, to represent Luc Besson as an individual and generally the team of greatly talented people that work for and with him.

Lockout, to get back to it, is a terrible film produced by Luc Besson. It has action, outer space, a hot president's daughter, deranged sociopaths, explosions and even comedy - sounds promising for the guy in all of us - but alas, Lockout suffers from terrible writing, delivery, acting, special effects, distorted reality, direction, editing etc etc. 

In one scene, Guy Pearce escapes from a hotel room and hops on a motorcycle from the future - the effects honestly look like a video game - kinda cool special effects but not really. At one point Pearce and Maggie Grace go from falling though Low Earth Orbit (outer effing space) in space suits, to tumbling into earth's atmosphere all the way down to the highway, faster than a speeding bullet apparently, to land safely somehow, not burning up over a 200+ mile decent. The lack of ingenuity in space gadgets and and cell phones of the future fails to meet the mark. Yet they want us to believe that one of the first things, we as people of the world, will build in the next 70 years of space exploration, is a hellish prison in the sky which would probably cost trillions (for only 500 inmates by the way) and spacesuits that look the same as contemporaneous ones but somehow the cloth spacesuits!! don't burn up in the atmosphere?! Please treat the future with more respect. Go back to high school and put this celluloid on the bunsen burner. 

Recommended Viewing: The Big Blue - The 5th Element - Sunshine (2007)

              Bob Scale: Objective: 4.5   -   Subjective: 5.0
             MetaCritic: 47
 Rotten Tomatoes: 29
                      IMDB: 6.8

THE THREE STOOGES - slapstick for whippersnappers

Moe is not really what I need. I need Moe smart comedy and less Farrelly Brothers irreverent rubbish.  The modern refresh of The Three Stooges was slightly better than I expected from the preview. I pretty well knew what I was getting into but I try and do my best never to prejudge before I view a film myself. 

Stooges is slapstick gone haywire as it should, I guess, gleefully purloined from the original series and movies. Similar gags and sound effects are updated, which is most likely why it feels banal and cheap, for modern audiences. At least we have some Larry David nun impersonations for a few laughs.

Stooges is a hard remake to even attempt, which would suggest to me - why bother? You will never really be able to capture the magic of the originals because you don't have the hilarious actors from whence it all came. It would be like trying to redo Laurel and Hardy or Buster Keaton pictures - you could make them but they will always come up short. I think people just don't like characters they love, to die, or stay within the history from which they emerged. You don't need a remake to boost youthful interest in these grand oldies, they stand well enough on their own footing. Certain films have pulled of remakes from times long past but they are usually autobiographical, like Richard Attenborough's, Chaplin, with Robert Downey Jr. in the lead as the titular hero of all film comedy. Even that film had it's trouble.

Kids under 10 will enjoy this and for the most part it is child appropriate, especially if you want your kids poking their friends eyes out, smashing their heads into doors and a host of other gratifying acts of violence, oh but wait they warn against this practice at the films end. lol

Recommended Viewing: Clifford - Who Framed Roger Rabbit? - Howard The Duck (yes, it's great)

              Bob Scale: Objective: 5.5   -   Subjective: 5.5
             MetaCritic: 54
 Rotten Tomatoes: 45
                      IMDB: 5.9

Friday, April 13, 2012

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS - evil dead resurrected

I think MC Escher would have lent his design talent towards this film. It had many twists, turns, ups, downs, all in a jumbled mess of near incoherence in addition to a plethora of nonsensical phantasmagoria. And that is precisely what makes this movie a small treasure of sorts.

Joss Whedon, writer of Toy Story and director of the upcoming Avengers, penned this bizarro tale. The story is quite epic in scale and in my opinion, could have truly shined so much more as a TV series. There were just too many good ideas on display here to be conflated in under two hours. I really believe this could have been the next Lost if allotted the proper amount of time and energy.

Despite the fun time at the movies feel that The Cabin In The Woods certainly provides, it comes up short as a solid work of art. Most people know that comedy and horror find an interesting and rather advantageous balance in the best of the horror genre. In Cabin, the horror seems to underwhelm and the comedy seems to overwhelm, which is to say, I believe the right balance was not struck. I really admire what Whedon and others tried to do here, it was high camp obviously inspired by Sam Raimi's Evil Dead, parts 2 and 3.  I will be in the minority here but I found the first Evil Dead to be the most effective and overall the best of the three because it emphasized the horror and not the comedy. Don't get me wrong, I love the comic bits when they feel right but not when they feel forced and take you out of the experience. The pothead (comic relief character) was good but not great with delivery and that, i think, could have been easily fixed with better direction.

A movie to see in the theater with friends for sure, I have no doubt that most will have a good time but critics and fans alike need to quit calling movies smart just because they seem to be clever and original. The Cabin In The Woods has a long way to go to reach the heights of say - The Shining.

Recommended Viewing: Evil Dead - Cube - Drag Me To Hell

              Bob Scale: Objective: 7.0   -   Subjective: 7.5
             MetaCritic: 73
 Rotten Tomatoes: 92
                      IMDB: 7.6

Saturday, April 7, 2012

THE RAID: REDEMPTION - action to die for

Wow - where the hell did this movie come from? Indonesia, directed by a Welsh Brit? Bah! 

Greatest story ever? No. Does that matter in this particular film - I would argue against Ebert, No. This is a film made for bloody awesome action! It blows District 13 out of the water and many others like it. The Raid makes no pretense at anything other than what it delivers.

I suspect even the easily bored American audience will barely notice it's in a foreign language. The Raid gets moving right from the start and doesn't ever really let up. Cops enter building full of drug runners - cops try and take the building with no killing - that doesn't work - shooting begins - everyone is killing everyone - ammo runs thin - crazy one on one well choreographed, well shot, great hand to hand combat. I could actually see what was going on! Fun Fun Fun

I've seen literally hundreds upon hundreds of action flicks - what really separates this one from the current pack of mostly attempted action is that the fighting/martial arts that takes place looks and feels incredibly, and I dare say, is entirely realistic. No wires, no impossible moves, some blood gratuity perhaps but quite honest in approach, overall. The Raid is graphic and sinister and has an unflinching attitude towards violence - I cringed and shouted aloud multiple times. Whew, I glad I made it through this one.

Recommended Viewing: Drive (1997) - The Matrix - The Legend of Drunken Master (1994)

              Bob Scale: Objective: 7.5   -   Subjective: 8.0
             MetaCritic: 73
 Rotten Tomatoes: 85
                      IMDB: 8.4

AMERICAN REUNION - a pie in the face

Better than American Wedding but, alas, not much to hope for in the realm of great comedy. I thought there may have been a glimmer of hope from the first scene but, American Pie, in it's official 4th installment which has been 13 years in the making couldn't quite deliver the goods.

I imagine a true fan of the original will find much to like about this film. They bring back nearly all the original characters to great effect even if only for terse cameos. The actors can all still act and the comedy is still present in their delivery. 

This is a raunch-com and contains all the expected gross out gags and expletive use but the insertion of extended graphic nudity is somewhat rare and if I may be allowed a minor infraction, rather gratifying, save the diaphanous penis. 

My complaints are geared toward the direction of many scenes. Stifler is a comedic gem of a character and if used properly in context, could be a great synergistic asset, yet, nearly all the settings that employ the Stifmeister are dull and poorly delivered. He is given many chances to shine but comes up short - I find this happens occasionally with repetitive characters. You think you can throw them in poor sequences and have them couch atrociously offensive phases and everyone will die laughing - many in the sold out show I was in, could only conjure a snicker. This is what the whole film felt like for me, a poorly structured rehashed rush with nothing new or interesting, minus a diminutive number of genuinely hilarious scenes. Nevertheless, as evidenced by the egregious IMDB rating, many will see and probably enjoy this fluff and will also most likely forget it as they walk back to their vehicle. Be sure and stay for the final scene though, it's a show stopper!

Recommended Viewing: Animal House - Wedding Crashers - Kentucky Fried Movie

              Bob Scale: Objective: 5.0   -   Subjective: 5.7
             MetaCritic: 51
 Rotten Tomatoes: 44
                      IMDB: 7.5

Sunday, April 1, 2012

SALMON FISHING IN THE YEMEN - i'll have the samak please

Oh Lasse, what have you done here! You have crafted a film that is beautifully romantic and plausibly realistic and yet so unforgivably full of terrible cliches that I want my money back.

I liked the romance of the story quite a lot. The scientist and the office girl meet and have no mutual attraction and no special intentions. In fact they are both involved in other relationships which is made painfully clear at the start. This initial a-fortuitous encounter becomes a relationship that blossoms into fluorescence with great yearning from the audience. I suspect from the trailer that you would expect a rather normal romance between man and woman but that becomes clearly more complicated especially when you discover they are both entangled with someone else. I wonder if trailers intentionally deceive so that that shocks of this nature are more pronounced? Yes they do!

The way the romantic leads unfold their personalities is the stuff of good cinema, engaging and tear inducing. Lasse Hallstrom has made no less than six romantic dramadies and knows how and when to pull the heart strings. Is this a first rate romantic movie with a few laughs? YES. Is this a film in which we should place our ideals? A definitive - NO.

Take Ewan McGregor's character -  a stuffy scientist that has no emotions. What?! Being a lover of science myself I take slight offense to this badgering idea that all science and scientists offer are hard facts regardless of humanity. Science can be rigid but it is also wonderful, fascinating and mind-blowing - not emotionless in the least! I also despised the insertion of the Arab who keeps telling the scientist to have faith which is such a terrible jab at science itself. Science is based on that which is the opposite of faith - fact - or in so much that we have observable evidence and experimental data. Faith is believing with no evidence at all, so trying to prove that the scientist has faith through a silly anecdote is horrendously appalling. 

The Kristin Scott Thomas character is also a shameful representation of a PR person. I know from working in the music industry that PR reps have tendencies in this way - uncaring and inconsiderate - but since this movie exploits cliche after cliche of niches of public figures, I find it important to say that the writer or director's ulterior motives are on disgusting display here. The Prime Minister is also represented as a complete buffoon which is funny but after all the unwelcome effronteries, this just becomes another annoyance. To conclude, i really liked the film as a pure cineast and lover of idealistic romance but as a thinking person, I loathed every bit of it. I kept imagining what Richard Dawkins might say if he watched this film...

Recommended Viewing: The Hoax - Beginners - Random Hearts

              Bob Scale: Objective: 7.0   -   Subjective: 6.8
             MetaCritic: 60
 Rotten Tomatoes: 68
                      IMDB: 7.2

MIRROR MIRROR - disney on crack

Tarsem (director extraordinaire) strikes me as an interesting man. His direction, though odd as it is, strikes me, for lack of a better phrase, puffed up. He changed his original nom de plume from the somewhat pretentious Tarsem to Tarsem Singh Dhandwar. I mention this because only very few famous people get away with one name advertising and they have almost always put in a great deal of time in the entertainment world like Madonna, Cher and Prince. For the sake of brevity I will still refer to him as Tarsem

The Cell, his first film, and most certainly his best, captured the wonderful imagination of his mind to a degree of near perfection. All the sets and costumes were wonderfully odd and bizarrely intriguing as well as the story, despite starring the then unfunny Vince Vaughn and the songstress J. Lo. Each subsequent film has gone too far and belittled his visual genius. He is a bit like Guillermo Del Toro who is a visual director of the same strange and wonderful, who sometimes suffers from the same fate. 

Tarsem's epic disaster, The Fall, would be my case in point. It began beautifully and digressed into the fatuous and tired. The costumes were just plain awful. I liken him to Julie Taymor who seems to have the same problem. They have great visual sense but at the same time have a need for someone to come in and restrain them a bit. This doesn't normally happen, so we get great concept movies with some great scenes and we also get the god awful scenes in juxtaposition. This sometimes makes me even more irate than watching just a plain bad film because it's like watching Kubrick pair up with Uwe Boll.

All that being said, Mirror Mirror was a delightful children's story. It reminded me of Rodger and Hammerstein's live action Cinderella from 1965. This movie is a playful take on the Snow White story with just the right amount of Tarsem's self-aggrandizement. Lily Collins was surprisingly good as Snow White and my hats off to Armie Hammer (great name) who I think could go quite far. Julia Roberts was a nice choice to play the evil queen but I suspect Charlize Theron will destroy her. I must emphasize that Mirror Mirror is for kids and does not really seem to appeal even to the teen demographic, which was disappointing, but still a lovely picture for ankle biters. I'll be waiting for the other Snow White tale this year only to pull this one out again when I have small children.

Recommended Viewing: Cinderella (1965) - Sleeping Beauty - Ever After

              Bob Scale: Objective: 6.0   -   Subjective: 6.5
             MetaCritic: 47
 Rotten Tomatoes: 50
                      IMDB: 5.7