Change Your Image
emma_crawfordgreene
Reviews
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)
Finally Certain Voices and Views Being Heard
First of all, I'm shocked that so many people are so quick to cast down this movie, but with no real merit for it other than calling the documentary "propaganda", "lies", "fiction", ".. a false documentary with an agenda", etc. But what I find ironic is that those very same arguments could be said of other documentaries and film/television specials that, (Dare, I say it), support evolution? Anyway, getting back to the original review - I really am glad to see a documentary of this calibre out in the public domain. Its about time that someone has finally stood up for those of us, who like me, do believe there are alternatives to believing in the "theory" of evolution and its subsequent teachings, which have permiated almost every aspect of human life nowadays.
When I was little, I always found both believing in a being that was really in charge of the world and its inhabitants (and ways) and the theory of evolution and its "findings" challenging to say the least. In my old schools, if you even tentively suggested that anything in regards to evolution were perhaps incorrect, you were either failed or you were expelled for not doing "the work". Its especially ironic, when you had been studying both subjects and really gave an objective and diplomatic answer. Needless to say, I had to go through countless schools before I found one that was willing to accept looking into the the possibility of "Intelligent Design" - regardless of religion. So in that regard, I can testify that that behaviour does exist nowadays in a lot of schools and colleges for that matter.
Overall, I found the documentary to be very well informed with a lot of material to back up its claims and it had a good balance in being objective about both theories. Unlike other numerous documentaries which are very quick to cast down any other theories than the one that they are making their case for. And they say that this documentary has an agenda? I wonder about the others then that are pro-evolution, what their agenda is.
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
A Revision of a Former Review
There have been many film adaptations of Gaston Leroux's novel ""The Phantom of the Opera" over the years in various different forms. Some make it more faithful to the original novel (aka Lon Chaney) and others couldn't be further from it (William Finely).
This version is based not on the book; but Andrew Lloyd Webber's 1986 version of the book. In contrast to Andrew Lloyd Webber's previous film version of "Evita" (in reality, he has put some of his actual stage versions on film, including "Phantom". Sadly most of the films, with the exception of "Cats" and "Joseph", are not releasable to the public) - which was more in the spirit of its stage counterpart, this one couldn't be further from its stage counterpart, let alone the book.
Most of the film's faults should be accredited to the show's composer himself, Andrew Lloyd Webber and Joel Schumacher, who it must be said, was one of the worst possible choices to direct this film. Why Andrew Lloyd Webber chose him, after many numerous Hollywood directors (some who indeed would have made the film like the stage version) wanted to do it, I shall never know. But what is evident is how painfully aware the faults shine throne in the film and severely undermine the spirit of the stage show.
Previously his big "blockbuster" film was his adaption of the Tim Burton "Batman" film and sequel was considered the flop of all the film adaptations of the "Batman" story. Sadly "Batman Forever" echoed "Phantom2004" with its overdone, too colorful, gay looking atmosphere - in filming, costuming, script, casting, and also film editing.
Also, although true Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage version of "Phantom" is highly romantic, it is also balanced with the correct amounts of mystery, horror, and comedy (surprisingly enough), at least in the early productions it was. But as the years progressed the stage show went through a lot of change and subsequently was tarted up more - which from my view is wrong.
It must be stated that the actors cast as the characters (although many miscast in their roles) are not horrible by themselves. Not in the slightest.
Gerard Butler for one, whom after seeing in the films he did prior to "Phantom" (which, from my opinion, are his best, and I mean that sincerely); "Dear Frankie", "Attila", "The Cherry Orchard", "Mrs. Brown" (although a small part, he nonetheless captures the screen once you see him, but at the same time does not override his other cast members) to name but a few, shows he is an amazing actor with a lot more realism than many modern day film actors do today. This is to his credit.
But sadly, when miscast in a part (and let's face it, even the best of actors, either in stage or film have this same problem): it plays up the film's problems not good points. However, I will say this in regards to Gerard Butler's performance, and I don't blame him for the acting or the costume he wore (again I repeat, that is due to the fault of Joel Schumacher), although perhaps he could have made Erik less more an overly romantic figure and tried to play up the horror and drama more. But in a master star turn, Gerard also has a few bright spots that echo his predecessors in the role of Erik. His changing Carlotta's throat medicine and the scene of him guiding Christine down on a horse hearkens back to Lon Chaney, in the scene when Erik kills Buquet, in an eerie resemblance, is an exact copy of Robert Englund (this is probably, as well as possibly the FL, is where Gerard tries to play up the drama. Thankfully!), and even his phrasing (not singing) in "Music of the Night" is equal to Michael Crawford's performance.
However his singing was a real handicap in the film. Although he indeed brought passion and great depth of feeling to the role (of which he should be praised for also), his singing technique was unrefined and untrained, in regards to Patrick Wilson (who is a Broadway stage actor) who played Raoul. But it should be noted that his voice, although unrefined and "raw", does indeed have great potential.
Personally in my view, had the film been remade as a modern day adaption (like "The Phantom Lover") and had the director been different and he was a bit older and more trained singing wise; he would easily be in the big leagues of the more infamous Phantoms that critics and public love (Lon Chaney, Charles Dance, Claude Raines, and yes Michael Crawford) alike.
Again many have already seen this film and love it: which is their right to voice their opinion. But as for me; if you take into account that this is hardly at all like the stage version, let alone the spirit of the piece (people will disagree but then they do so to many other film adaptations of musicals); then the film has to be given a rating of 3.
Indeed this film, although hailed as popular, blockbuster; it must be noted is one of the worst adaptations of a stage musical ever. And that is the sad truth of it, even if people deny it.
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
An Old Favourite; But Not Pathetic Version of L. Frank Baum's Story
Now don't get me wrong; I grew up watching this movie - and I quite enjoyed it then. Problem is - after seeing it again today, two important factors are quite clear about this version of the film.
The first main one is that, in regards to the original "Oz" books by L. Frank Baum, this one is a disgrace to them, at least by today's standards. For its time - in the 1930's - it was the first adaption of the film on screen in sound and color. There was a previous silent version, which - like its modern predecessor "Return to Oz" 1985 were more in line with L. Frank Baum's book, which was indeed a mile stone in regards to film.
But the problem is many of the details, and I am not going to nitpick about costumes as really that was, most likely, the only thing they could do. Ironically, like in the silent version, they opted for live people to perform the characters such as the Tin Man, Scarecrow, the Cowardly Lion. It must be taken in due consideration that this film should not be classified a drama film, as this IS a musical version of Frank Baum's story.
I have no idea how people would react if there was a completely faithful adaption to the books. Because the truth is L. Frank Baum's real books are very dark in a lot of places. For example - in the scene where Dorothy is a prisoner in the Witch's castle, the Tin Man, Lion, and Scarecrow are already captured and unable to help Dorothy. She becomes literally the Witch's slave and does cleaning for her, until, to cut the story short, she throws water over the witch and she melts. Another aspect was that Dorothy's shoes were not ruby; but silver.
When people see this film today; they think this is how it is in the books and that Dorothy will be all happy in Kanasas and marry 'Hunk'. Which couldn't be further from the truth.
In the second version, Dorothy comes back (and the storyline) more or less follows the sequel "Return to Oz" (although it too is more of a combination of two of the latter 'Oz' books).
Also there is noticed a lack of reality about the 1939 film. Again I do take into account that at the time, perhaps they could have done better and as far as technology this is what was good for then. But as of now; when you see it today - it is abhorrently... almost the word queer comes to mind. Exactly.
It is too colorful; too idealized; its too wishy washy. There is again no sense of reality at all about it. I mean, it makes sense when you read the books (if you ever did wish to read them; which I must say the books are incredible).
But the second big factor was, for one, the problem with Judy Garland. Although this made her a star, and indeed the song "Somewhere over the Rainbow" belongs to her in a way (not merely because she created it, but because she brought sound and life to the character) - it was because the truth is in the book Dorothy is really 9 years old.
True - they did start off wanting to use Shirley Temple (which in hindsight probably would have been the best choice in regards to age); but as for heavy singing and the makeup and stunts, it was probably a good choice to use Judy. Although she was 17. Another problem factor was the relationship with the Scarecrow and Dorothy. In the book and also in "Return to Oz"; they regard each other as friends and the relationship is quite clear. However in this - they made it romanticized. Which was wrong. To put it bluntly - especially in light that Dorothy is supposed to be a little girl, not a teenager.
Today there should be a remake of this film, in my opinion. More in line with the original books - because now we have the capability to do more realism with the characters and yet still be faithful to L. Frank Baum's work.
People are so married to this version that most reject its predecessor which, like the 1938 one, is a milestone in regards to how they can do an 'Oz' remake. Also people reject the cartoon versions (there was an animated film version of "The Wizard of Oz" (not live action) which was perhaps the most faithful of all the films, although I believe it was a TV film - not exactly a film film.
So for all the reasons today - if you really want to see an adaption (to this date) that is faithful to Baum's books - get "Return to Oz" or the animated version.
Barnum! (1986)
Michael Crawford Hits the Big Top with a Phenomenal Smash!!
I SO LOVE this show!! I was on the edge of my seat watching it, even though it was on tape and DVD at my own home! I felt like I was there, hearing him, seeing him, the laughing the dancing, all of it was just two hours of enchantment. Michael Crawford (better known to the world as the Original Erik in Andrew Lloyd Webber's "The Phantom of the Opera") plays the role of P.T. Barnum to perfection!! He really does... at least in my humble opinion. Michael plays the role with gutso, pinache, and of course a voice to knock a person unconscious for hours! He really has a knack for musicals and this displays him having as much fun playing the role, as we do. I must tip my hat to Mr. Crawford! Well done Michael!!! BRAVO!!! BRAVO!!!
The rest of the cast are scrumptious including Eileen Batye as Chairy Barnum, Christina Collier (known for her role as Christine Daae in Ken Hill's Phantom of the Opera) as Jenny Lind, and the rest of the cast... I can go on and on!! They really gave 190% that night and I am so pleased to have this on video!! It truly is a treasure!! Perfect for children and adults alike!!
I HIGHLY recommend this to anyone who loves musicals or... if you just love Michael Crawford, get this performance!! It IS worth it!!
JOIN THE CIRCUS!!!!
Return to Oz (1985)
This film shows the "REAL" Oz and is Pure Fantastical Fun! This film deserves a GREAT amount of Praise!
I first saw this film when I was a baby in 1986, (the film came out when I was born) and I had always loved Wizard of Oz, but this film beats the other film a million times over. The film is pure magic and is highly underrated nowadays for the special effects and costumes and scenes and script and of course the actors (bless their hearts).
The film has everything you could want in a movie, with the exception of romance. But it still has everything, family fun, mystery, suspence, tragedy, horror, comedy, and so much more. I cannot say enough praise to such a beautiful film such as this.
I must applaud the cast and crew for their tremendous hard work that they did and I myself, if I met them, would bless them for all their good work in this. Truly this film shows the Other side of Oz, the one people don't often know about.
This film taking place after Dorothy returns to Oz has so many new characters that boggle the mind and fascinate you no end. Tik-Tok, Jack the Pumpkin-head, Princess Mombi, the Wheelers, the Gump, and of course the evil Knome King. Seriously I would find it astonishing if people found this film offensive, cause it seriously isn't and is a masterpiece of film artistry and scope. The musical score as well matches perfectly with the acting and the film itself, I mean it leaves you in suspence, terror, happiness, saddness, I mean it has it all in spades this film.
I would like to say that I sincerely enjoyed this film and like Miss Fairuza Balk said, this film could never be duplicated without the same effects and dedication as the actors and crew did in this film. This film is untouchable it is truly a magnificent film and is among my favourites.
So from the bottom of my heart to all of the cast, crew, and the special effects people, I will say God Bless you for giving so much joy and entertainment to me and to children and old alike. You truly did the Best Job EVER!! BRAVO!! May God Watch Over You, Guide, Lead, and Love you!
Indeed There is no more stranger and more fantastic place than OZ!
Return to Oz (1985)
This film shows the "REAL" Oz and is Pure Fantastical Fun! This film deserves a GREAT amount of Praise!
I first saw this film when I was a baby in 1986, (the film came out when I was born) and I had always loved Wizard of Oz, but this film beats the other film a million times over. The film is pure magic and is highly underrated nowadays for the special effects and costumes and scenes and script and of course the actors (bless their hearts).
The film has everything you could want in a movie, with the exception of romance. But it still has everything, family fun, mystery, suspence, tragedy, horror, comedy, and so much more. I cannot say enough praise to such a beautiful film such as this.
I must applaud the cast and crew for their tremendous hard work that they did and I myself, if I met them, would bless them for all their good work in this. Truly this film shows the Other side of Oz, the one people don't often know about.
This film taking place after Dorothy returns to Oz has so many new characters that boggle the mind and fascinate you no end. Tik-Tok, Jack the Pumpkin-head, Princess Mombi, the Wheelers, the Gump, and of course the evil Knome King. Seriously I would find it astonishing if people found this film offensive, cause it seriously isn't and is a masterpiece of film artistry and scope. The musical score as well matches perfectly with the acting and the film itself, I mean it leaves you in suspence, terror, happiness, saddness, I mean it has it all in spades this film.
I would like to say that I sincerely enjoyed this film and like Miss Fairuza Balk said, this film could never be duplicated without the same effects and dedication as the actors and crew did in this film. This film is untouchable it is truly a magnificent film and is among my favourites.
So from the bottom of my heart to all of the cast, crew, and the special effects people, I will say God Bless you for giving so much joy and entertainment to me and to children and old alike. You truly did the Best Job EVER!! BRAVO!! May God Watch Over You, Guide, Lead, and Love you!
Indeed There is no more stranger and more fantastic place than OZ!
London After Midnight (1927)
It was interesting to see Lon in this film!
I have been a fan of Lon Chaney since I first saw clips of him in The Phantom of the Opera (1925) on the TV show Muppet Babies and since I have become a huge fan of Phantom of the Opera, I also became a fan of Chaney. I have seen only three of his films, The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923), The Phantom of the Opera (1925/29), and He Who Gets Slapped (1925). And I must say when I heard of London After Midnight I was intensely interested in this film purely cause of Lon being in it (being a strict Roman Catholic and not loving horror films) and I thought I'd see it. I saw the documentary on Lon and I quite enjoyed it. Truly he was the master of makeup, but his most terrifying makeup is this role as the Vampire/Inspector Burke. I heard the reviews on it and though they all agreed his makeup was terrific and his acting well done, the film was a bomb. So when TCM played the Restoration of the film using photos, I jumped for it. And I must say, I didn't enjoy it as much as I did Phantom and Hunchback. But indeed the makeup IS terrific and the most frightening out of any vampire makeup I have ever seen. Primitive stuff and he managed to turn his rugged good looking face into a truly horrific thing. I also enjoyed Marceline Day in the film, she was quite beautiful and is said to be a wonderful actress (she has recently passed on). But Lon is the star and I must say as poor as the film is, Lon did as usual a fantastic job. And wouldn't you believe it?? His own box which he created all his monsters and characters with (his makeup box) is at the end of the film. I found that rather touching in a way. But other than those things the film is too erratic and fantastic and hardly makes sense. But it is a good film in that Chaney created yet another fantastic makeup, but other than that, the film itself, despite Chaney and Day, was a bomb. But it was interesting to see Lon in this film and I still watch it as a reference that I saw it. But I truly think this is not his better films.
Once Upon a Forest (1993)
I think this film is one of the best animated films EVER!
I first saw this film cause I am great admirer of Mr. Michael Crawford and his work and I wanted to see how he did in this animated film. He was just phenomenal (as he usually is ;-) but I was also touched by the sweetness of the film and the characters. The other performers in the film were just as good and deserving of their roles as Mr. Crawford was. I thought the story had more heart and kindness in it than any of the animated movies I had seen such as "Shrek", "Fantasia", "Finding Nemo" and so on. This was an original story and I loved it. I was in suspense watching it, I couldn't leave the room I was so engrossed in it.
From the bottom of my heart to those people that designed and directed the film, and to the actors and to Mr. Crawford - BRAVO!! ENCORE!!
Emma
The Elephant Man (1980)
This movie is sheer perfection!!
I absolutely adore this film. The actors, the director, the camera men and everyone did their utmost best to make this film and they succeeded 110%.
Anthony Hopkins is marvellous as Sir Frederick Treves. He clearly shows his concern and friendship for the misshapen John (Joseph) Merrick. The scene were he defends John against the evil porter is magnificent.
Freddie Jones (who plays the evil circus owner) is marvellous! Clearly brilliant acting.
But the praise mostly should go to the man himself, John Hurt. He's brilliant and shows us the real John Merrick as he would have been. And his acting brought me to tears the whole time.
This movie is magnificent and I am shocked it didn't win any Oscars, cause it should have!
Bravo! And well done to the actors and director and the people behind the scenes!
I rate this 10 but if I could, I'd give it a 12!
The Phantom of the Opera (1925)
UTTER PERFECTION!!!
This is the BEST silent movie of all time, despite what everyone says!
Lon Chaney gives the most brilliant performance of Erik, the Phantom of the Opera to this date. The way he conveys his passion and emotions are amazing! He truly was a master of his craft and I believe had he never did the role, the movie and story would never be known.
Mary Philbin is magnificent as Christine Daae, with her gorgeous looks, petite nature, and fine acting. People say they fault her acting but she was only acting the way what was available at that time. And she was magnificent.
The only thing I found fault with was how the movie was portrayed and how it ended. Originally Erik got his kiss and died of a broken heart, redeemed and Christine realizes she loves Erik. But in this they make him out to be a monster and deserving to be punished brutally. That of course is not true and was never true in the Original story.
But nonetheless the movie is magnificent! I love it all! This I rate a perfect 10 and if I could I'd rate it a 20! The actors and director did their best and I loved it. Its a pity no one will add the originally filmed ending where Erik gets his kiss, probably cause it was destroyed as soon as it was cut but who knows.
May Lon Chaney and Mary Philbin and the rest of the cast, with the exception of Miss Carla Laemmle, may they rest in peace!
Bravi!