An Obvious Disney Hero Journey, Hercules Disappoints!

The Good: Decent voice acting
The Bad: Predictable plot, Obvious Disney conceits, Light on character development/complexities, Largely unmemorable songs
The Basics: One of the less memorable Disney films, Hercules is not at all enduring or very interesting at all.


My wife is a big Disney fan and she has helped give me an appreciation of the animated films that are largely for children. Hercules is not one that she has gotten me to appreciate. In fact, Hercules is one of the more disappointing Disney films with some wildly erratic animation. While it might not be the worst film, it lacks notable music or consistently good animation. It has a somewhat stylized form of animation, as opposed to realistic proportions and a realistic sense of physics to the universe.

Hercules retells the story of the classic Greek hero, in a Disney way. Unfortunately, the whole “Disney thing” is alive and well in Hercules. In addition to the usual comic relief sidekicks (in this case Phil – short for Philoctetes – and Pegasus), Hercules has comic relief dimwitted adversaries Pain and Panic who help to kill the momentum of the film.

Set in ancient Greece, the gods overthrow the Titans and take to Olympus. There, Zeus and Hera have a son, Hercules. Zeus’s brother, Hades, is deeply jealous of the boy and he learns that Hercules is the only thing that will stop him from releasing the Titans from their prison in eighteen years. Being a big picture guy, Hades enlists his minions, Pain and Panic, to get rid of Hercules. Unable to kill him, they drop him on Earth where he is adopted by two humans.

As a teenager, Hercules is told by Zeus who he is and to train as a hero, he is joined by Phil and Pegasus to learn to be powerful and responsible. Hercules is waylaid by Megara, a woman he rescues from Nessus, though she is not truly a damsel in distress. A pawn for Hades, Meg gets Hercules to perform heroic tasks, which make him a celebrity and put him in the crosshairs of Hades. With Hades planning to dispose of Hercules, Phil and Meg try to save Hercules, even as the hero loses his godlike powers!

Hercules is presented as a pretty unremarkable hero in Hercules. He is not particularly cute or inspiring and his fame quickly goes to his head. Meg is, initially, an interesting Disney Princess who seems to be more than just a simple damsel in distress. Unfortunately, even Meg’s initial sarcasm and inner strength turn into needing a man to rescue her and that is disappointing.

Danny DeVito provides a decent vocal performance as Phil, but the role is not one of his funniest or even more interesting parts. Similarly, Bobcat Goldthwait and Matthew Frewer play off one another well to embody Pain and Panic, though they are remarkably monolithic supporting villains and screw-ups. Both actors deserve better.

Hercules marks one of the first truly significant voiceover roles for James Woods and his portrayal of the villainous Hades. Woods is hilarious and expressive and Hades steals the show frequently from the other characters. In fact, Woods’s jokes and deliveries make him the most interesting character to watch, even when he is evil.

Even James Woods, though, cannot make Hercules worth watching or adding to one’s permanent collection.

For other Disney animated films, please visit my reviews of:
Wreck-It Ralph
Brave
Tangled
Toy Story 3
A Christmas Carol
Up
Ponyo
The Princess And The Frog
Bolt
WALL-E
The Incredibles
Lilo & Stitch
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
Monsters, Inc.
Mulan
The Lion King
Beauty And The Beast
The Little Mermaid
Lady And The Tramp
The Sword In The Stone
Sleeping Beauty
Fantasia

3.5/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Classics Of Science Fiction That Hold Up: Planet Of The Apes Is Philosophical And Smart!

The Good: Good concept, Clever, Decent acting, Engaging philosophy
The Bad: Some of the special effects, Pacing,
The Basics: An engaging story, Planet Of The Apes holds up as a story of religious oppression, more than just a novelty science fiction film with an oft-quoted reversal ending!


Last night, I decided to watch the original 1968 film Planet Of The Apes and it was the first time since I was a young teenager that I had actually endeavored to watch the movie. Ironically, in the intervening years, I enjoyed Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes (reviewed here!) and avoided the Tim Burton remake of the classic film. For all the times I have seen works that allude to the final moments of Planet Of The Apes, I was actually surprised that I had never before noted that Planet Of The Apes was co-written by Rod Serling. With its classic reversal at the end of the film, I suppose it should not have surprised me.

With Serling involved, it is almost no surprise that Planet Of The Apes is far less a make-up oriented novelty action-adventure film and far more a philosophical film with a strong moral. A play on classic evolution theory, Planet Of The Apes evolves from a classic science fiction premise into a rousing treatise on the conflict between science and faith before reverting into a novelty science fiction ending that is entirely familiar to fans of Serling’s The Twilight Zone!

In 2673, a NASA ship commanded by George Taylor, completes its mission and heads for Earth. Its four-person crew in suspended animation, the ship crashes in the water of a planet in Earth year 3978. The lone female on the ship, Stewart, is dead, her suspended animation chamber having cracked and the body desiccated. Taylor, Landon, and Dodge, flee their sinking craft and begin to explore the arid world they find themselves on. In search of food and water, before their three days worth of food is exhausted, the trio of astronauts finds small plants, then trees, then a waterfall. While swimming, the astronaut’s clothes are stolen and the men follow the thieves to a small agrarian settlement. There, they are captured by horse-riding apes. Taylor is shot in the neck and is rendered temporarily mute.

While being looked over by the doctor apes and with the sociologist Zira speaking near him, Taylor struggles to communicate. When his throat heals and he is able to talk, Taylor confounds Zira and he sparks a religious schism in simian society. Under the orthodox religious views of Dr. Zaius, who runs the Ministry Of Science, Zira and her fiancé, Cornelius, are put on trial for heresy for promoting the belief that Taylor is sentient and the equal of the simians. As the war between the religious views and hard science progresses, Taylor and his simian allies flee to an archaeological dig that may contain the proof they need to illustrate that the humans on the planet are not simply mute animals!

Planet Of The Apes is a classic science fiction movie in many ways, by which I mean that it is slow as dirt for a good portion of the movie. For a film called Planet Of The Apes, the actors in ape costumes take their sweet ass time to appear (32 minutes into the film is when the first clearly-visible ape makes their appearance). But on the positive side, after establishing a clear sense of place and mood, Planet Of The Apes evolves into something smart and appropriately cerebral. Like most of the best science fiction, and certainly like the science fiction from the era this was produced – most notably Star Trek (reviewed here!), Planet Of The Apes is not at all about gun battles, special effects or even a surreal setting. The fantastic setting of the world with the talking apes is only a backdrop for a expose on the way religion hijacks science.

Dr. Zaius is a compelling villain because he is the voice for orthodoxy and conformity. With a realistic motivation like that, he seems a lot less manic and desperate than George Taylor. Planet Of The Apes is a dressed up argument for evolution, progress, and the importance of promoting freedom as opposed to supporting the elements of power and control.

But, it is dressed up and the dressing and mood is dated. Opening with Taylor’s musings on what Earth might be like, given that 700 years have passed while he and his crew have been in space, Planet Of The Apes is dated in its fears and cultural ideologies. Released in 1968, Planet Of The Apes reflects a strong fear of nuclear war (much like Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes explored a fear of biological and genetic warfare/manipulation) and a contempt for the older generation (Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes had an anti-corporate thread in it). The ideas are interesting, though the vehemence that Taylor uses when expressing the themes is a bit dated.

Also dated are the ape and chimpanzee costumes that populate most of Planet Of The Apes. The apes look good, but when they speak, it is painfully obvious that the viewer is watching humans in latex masks. The sets look good, though, and the costumes are also noteworthy for how well they help create the time and place the film is set. The other special effect, the music, is painfully obvious and very much a product of the times.

Charlton Heston and Maurice Evans dominate the performances in Planet Of The Apes as Taylor and Dr. Zaius. Heston is manic and Evans plays Zaius very cool, making the pair classic foils and they play off one another exceptionally well.

For other classic science fiction films/film franchises, please check out my reviews of:
The Star Wars Saga
The Alien Quadrilogy
The Terminator

7/10

Check out how this film stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page for a listing of films from best to worst!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Michael Moore Phones In A Documentary: Bowling For Columbine

The Good: Some valid points to be made
The Bad: Moore fails to make them as well as he could
The Basics: In a surprisingly emotional documentary, Michael Moore explores the issue of gun violence with little zest and less solutions.


Despite not having seen Sicko yet, I'm a fan of Michael Moore's documentaries. I loved his short-lived show TV Nation (why isn't that on DVD yet?!), was moved by the magnificent Fahrenheit 9/11 (reviewed here!) and even thought the points made in Roger & Me were well made and well-executed. So, when I sat down to watch Bowling For Columbine on DVD, I expected to be informed, entertained and intrigued. By the end of the two hour documentary, I felt none of those things.

Following the killings at Columbine High School, Michael Moore goes on a journey to find out what happened and explore the role firearms play in the American experience. He explores the culture of the United States that forced adults on welfare into the workforce into jobs that often involve hours of travel, the effect that has on the American family and the tragedies that occasionally result from a lack of supervision when children get into parent's firearms. He explores the role of the NRA in fighting any form of gun control and he takes a victim of a gun crime to the K-Mart corporate office to try to return the bullets still lodged within the youth.

The most positive aspect of the film Bowling For Columbine is that latter bit. By pushing the corporate office with their return policy, Moore and the student affect a real change; K-Mart alters their corporate policy on ammunition sales. As an advocate for responsible gun ownership and reasonable gun control, I see this as a positive effect of the film.

The film also does an effective job of breaking the links between violent crimes and the usual scapegoats. Moore sits down with Marilyn Manson, who was blamed by pundits as one of the causes of the Columbine shootings. Moore effectively diffuses any sense that the linkage between Manson and the shootings is anything substantial.

But Bowling For Columbine falls drastically short of doing anything but preaching to the choir. While hunting down Roger Smith in Roger & Me worked well, harassing Charlton Heston about a little girl's murder seemed more obnoxious than anything. Heston's section near the very end of the film is interesting and when Moore does not get his desired response from the actor, Heston ends the interview and walks off. Moore simply leaves the photograph of the dead girl at Heston's house and it plays poorly; it's sentimentalism that is getting in the way of Moore's valid points and arguments.

Sadly, this documentary is also the highest in emotionalism and least authoritarian in the voice of reason or factualism. Moore too often plays for the emotional reaction from the audience (i.e. hunting down Dick Clark) as opposed to appealing to a rational sense of logic. Completely absent from the argument is the idea that most gun owners cling to; that gun ownership is more a matter of freedom and keeping the government at a distance than actually owning a firearm. In short, it's more the principle than the actual act.

But Bowling For Columbine is also absent any real and effective solutions. The question has always been; if the NRA is what's truly holding up responsible gun control (like keeping semiautomatic weapons or assault rifles off the streets or out of the gun shops), why doesn't every gun control activist simply join the NRA, vote in a President who will fight for that? It's not like the NRA is some secret society, so whoever is leading it is somewhat malleable based on the needs and desires of the constituents. Moore is a member of the NRA, why doesn't he use his documentary to launch a campaign for NRA President? It seems obvious; get all those moms from Rosie O'Donnell's "Million Mom March" to register for the NRA and vote Moore president, bam! You've got a gun control advocate sitting on the largest gun lobby money in the country.

Bowling For Columbine also neglects far too many of the personal responsibility arguments associated with gun control. The vast majority of guns in the United States are not used for crime and the vast majority of guns involved in crimes are not the ones legally purchased. Sure, it's funny to see Michael Moore head up to Canada and walk into people's house's because they don't lock their doors in suburban Toronto, but it does not honestly explore the gun culture or the issue of gun crime in the United States.

And yes, it is alarming to see the statistics of gun violence in the United States and it is certainly worthy of the time and attention of a documentary, especially of the caliber that Moore has proven he can do. The problem with Bowling For Columbine is that the points are not well made, it does not adequately explore the illegal gun trade in the United States and it does not offer genuine solutions to the problem. More than anything, Bowling For Columbine stirs up the waters on the issue and leaves the viewer in the murk.

On DVD there were few bonuses, mostly extended scenes and it did not add anything sufficient to the film. No, this is one where Michael Moore takes a swing and misses. Fortunately, it's a rarity for him.

For other documentaries, please check out my reviews of:
Lost In La Mancha
Roger & Me
Why We Fight


5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Biblical Best Picture Ben-Hur Makes For A Thorough DVD.

The Good: Looks good, Timeless story, Amazing DVD presentation.
The Bad: All the blood looks quite fake
The Basics: With generally likable characters engaged in a search for family and revenge, Ben-Hur is a long movie with a surprisingly intimate focus on the title character.


As I make it through the final few films I have yet to see for my ambitious Best Picture Project (check it out by clicking here!), I find myself watching a number of older movies that I might not have otherwise watched. The real surprise for me in sitting down to watch some of them, though, has been the fact that I have seen some of them. As it turns out, "Ben-Hur," which I thought was going to be new-to-me is actually a film I had seen once before in syndication on an Easter in my childhood. In fact, the only thing that surprised me in the four-disc DVD presentation of Ben-Hur was that the mammoth film opened with seven minutes of nothing happening (no kidding, it's an overture with artwork from the Sistine Chapel and the MGM logo for the first seven minutes).

For those unfamiliar with Ben-Hur ("A Tale Of Christ"), the film is set in biblical times as something of a parallel story to the rise of Jesus Christ. While Jesus is off teaching and gathering support for his philosophy, Judah Ben-Hur encounters trials and tribulations in Rome with moments that are tangential to Christ's story. This film is based upon the bible as well as a novel by General Lew Wallace, but as always it is worth noting that this review is solely of the film, not the source material upon which it is based.

Twenty-six years after the birth of Christ, Messala is made the tribune of the Roman province of Judea. There, he calls upon his childhood friend Judah Ben-Hur to find out who the rabblerousers in the province are. Ben-Hur declines, despite their old friendship, and he returns home where he flirts with his slave's daughter, Esther. When the new Roman Governor arrives, a tile falls off the roof at Ben-Hur's estate, spooks the governor's horse and Ben-Hur and his family are arrested as traitors to the Roman Empire. After three years rowing as a slave on a Roman ship, Ben-Hur's ship encounters a Macedonian fleet and when his ship is destroyed, he saves the life of the ship's captain, the Consol Arrius. In saving his life, Ben-Hur earns a place as Arrius's slave, as opposed to a criminal outside his mercies.

After a year, adopted by Arrius, Ben-Hur returns to Judea, where Pontius Pilate replaces Messala as Governor. Messala, in the meantime, has become a champion in the Roman circuses as a chariot-racer and Ben-Hur is challenged to race against his old friend and win. Learning the fates of his sister, mother and Esther, Ben-Hur decides to race in the chariot races and defeat Messala and regain all he has lost.

Outside the setting and the occasional references to Judah being Jewish instead of Roman, Ben-Hur is a remarkably average character story of a man whose life is stripped away from him and he must work to take it back. Over the three hour, forty minutes of Ben-Hur, the scope and scale of the character work are sometimes distracted from, but essentially the movie stays focused on the title character. As a man of wealth and privilege, Judah's character arc is simple; all he has is stripped away and from his lowest point, he works to restore himself. The process of restoring himself to his prior state is a painstaking process and one that makes for an epic-feeling story, even if the scope is so much smaller than that.

Ben-Hur is focused on Judah Ben-Hur, with random moments that Jesus Christ appears and the characters around Judah stand in awe of him, even when he does something as simple as offer Ben-Hur water in defiance of the Roman soldiers. But Jesus is only a peripheral character for the bulk of the film, so those coming to this as "A Tale Of Christ" might be a bit disappointed, despite the little Christian-focus pamphlet that came in the four-disc version (which tries to emphasize the four scenes with Jesus out of the entire film - perhaps fifteen minutes out of the epic). Far more iconic from this film are elements like the chariot race that occupies the bulk of the second half of the movie.

To be fair, Ben-Hur's story is one that fits in well with the ideas of forgiveness and personal growth. It is Ben-Hur's anger that supposedly sustains him - though this is not evident through Charlton Heston's acting at the time, rather as Arrius, he reveals it in dialog with Messala - and after all he is put through, he ultimately must work to let go of his anger. But for those looking for a strong Christian message, Ben-Hur is a bit garbled. Judah Ben-Hur takes the time to turn the other cheek . . . while plotting revenge. And he has forgiveness for his enemies . . . after he has his revenge upon them. The point here is that Ben-Hur is not the ultimate Christian hero the viewer's guide that accompanies the four-disc set truly want him to be.

And while the story is a tale of a man pulling himself back up to the status he was wrongfully stripped of, there are many predictable elements that have the feeling of being contrived. The Ben-Hur and Esther love story is fair, but offers no conflict or strength for Ben-Hur's story. In other words, Esther doesn't challenge Ben-Hur to be a better man or to not seek revenge upon those who wronged him, nor does she actually help him get revenge. Because the romance has no effect on the character, it seems more Hollywood Standard - gratuitous - than actually integral or special to this story. Far more compelling than the love story is Ben-Hur's devoted hunt for his mother and sister (who contract leprosy while in a Roman prison).

Despite the character flaws or lack of development in the writing of the characters, Ben-Hur has appropriately great acting. Charlton Heston plays Judah Ben-Hur and he portrays the character as a natural leader and a man who has kindness and anger at and under the surface, respectively. Heston has on-screen gravitas in this role and it is one of the performances that gave him a reputation, rightly, as a dramatic powerhouse. The viewer feels the anguish of Ben-Hur when he is told his family is dead and Heston has a great physical presence as Ben-Hur. Indeed, some of the best moments of Heston's acting in this film come from the moments when Heston must perform solely with his eyes, casting powerful gazes and emoting without words.

On-screen, Heston has great on-screen chemistry with Haya Harareet, who plays Esther. Harareet is an average actress and she plays less well against Heston. Particularly bad is the moment Esther lies to Ben-Hur about the state of his family and there Harareet is utterly unconvincing. Fortunately, Heston is facing away from the camera, so if he winced at her portrayal of lying, it is not shown. Generally, the acting is good and even better is the casting. In fact, the attempt to cast people who could be passed off as Arab - as opposed to actors who are clearly American or European for a piece set in the Middle East - was so effective in some cases that I was surprised when I read the cast list (most notably that Ben-Hur's Sheik sponsor at the chariot race was played by Hugh Griffith).

On DVD, Ben-Hur is presented as a magnificent four-disc special edition. While the Best Picture winner is presented on the first two discs with a commentary track from a film historian and Charlton Heston, the third disc features the 1925 version of the same film (which was not even nominated for Best Picture, because the award did not even exist when it was made!). The fourth disc is a virtual orgy of featurettes for fans of "Ben-Hur. That final disc features two documentaries on how the movie was made, as well as newsreels that were played in theaters before the film. There is also an extensive photo gallery on the disc as well as the theatrical trailer. As one who has watched a lot of Best Picture winners, fans of Ben-Hur will be pleased that many of the presentations from the Academy Award ceremony are presented on this disc as well! This is a treasure trove of information for those who like the source material and film scholars especially will enjoy going through the various materials. There is a surprising amount of educational value to the documentaries and commentary tracks. Also in the four-disc set is a photo album and viewer's guide (intended to guide church groups and the like) and these offer even more value for those who like the movie.

Despite some simplistic elements - and the fact that the chariot race burns a chunk of time out of Ben-Hur longer than the podrace sequence occupied The Phantom Menace (reviewed here!) - Ben-Hur earns its status as a classic film with a timeless feel to it. In fact, the only enduring surprise for me is that the movie is not alluded to even more often.

For similar films, please check out my reviews of:
Priest
Gladiator
"Bread And Circuses"

8/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |

The Greatest Show On Earth Reminds One How Exciting The Circus May Be.

The Good: Decent capturing of the time and place of the circus in the 1950s
The Bad: Light on plot, character and acting, No DVD bonus features.
The Basics: Despite some technical problems, The Greatest Show On Earth was not entirely predictable, making this circus lovestory melodrama worth seeing.


My wife has been subjected to so many Best Picture Oscar-winning films lately that she more often refuses allowing me to screen them in the house these days. Because I've had a bad cold the last few days, or perhaps because I started working the part of her job that she has loathed for months, when we returned home today and showered, she did not put up a fight when I asked to watch one of my Best Picture winners. And it was about halfway through The Greatest Show On Earth that she turned to me and remarked, "This isn't the worst Best Picture we've watched."

She's right, but at the same time, I found myself far more lukewarm to the film than she did. This might be the first time she has liked one of the movies I've had on more than I have! The Greatest Show On Earth," the 1952 Best Picture Winner is an annoying melodrama mixed in with all of the spectacle of an actual Ringling Bros. - Barnum and Bailey Circus. For the record, the only circus-related film or program I can recall enjoying was Carnivale (reviewed here!) and that was not for the carnival/circus related aspects. For me, it reinforced the same idea that sports movies leave me with: it is better to be at the real thing than to watch it on television. One of the unsurprising Best Pictures where the film's director did not win Best Director at the same time, The Greatest Show On Earth has moments which use obvious bluescreen shots or are framed so the truth menace or spectacle are edited out.

As the circus season begins, the show's manager for the Ringling Bros. - Barnum and Bailey Circus, Brad, is fighting to keep the circus on tour for a full season. As the financers try to whittle the circus down to ten weeks hitting only the major cities, Brad hires the Spectacular Sebastian as a performer for the center ring. This upsets Holly, who was going to be the center ring performer for the first time ever, but buys the circus a full season's run. As Sebastian and Holly compete for the audience's attention, Brad is pleased because the show is in the black.

One of the clowns, Buttons, appears to be a man on the run and Brad has to break-up a mob connection that is scamming customers on the midway. Holly oscillates in her affections between Brad and Sebastian, with whom the bond over high-flying stunts is more than just competitive, and the show looks like it will be the best ever. But when an accident sidelines one of the headliners, the dynamic between the leads changes and Brad's heart comes up for grabs!

The Greatest Show On Earth is very much a 1950s film, reinforcing gender roles of the time and keeping alive the notion that the people then lived in a simpler time. The movie features voiceovers which annoyingly characterize (repeatedly) the circus as a war machine. As well, there is a very contrived notion to much of the movie. The love triangles - Sebastian, Holly and Brad and Brad, Angel, and Klaus - are melodramatic and seem added to the movie mostly to give a plot and narrative to the film. In other words, this is not just a movie showing off the circus, it has some education on the behind-the-scenes elements of the circus and the melodrama of people when they are not performing.

The plot and character elements, however, are intercut with long segments where all the movie is doing is illustrating just what goes on at the circus. For my wife, this was quite satisfying because she had never attended a full circus. For me, it became less impressive because I went to the circus several times as a child. However, while the spectacle of the circus is impressive in real life, it is less so on film. Editing and framing minimize the danger of some of the show's best stunts and as a result, the film actually falls short of capturing the full spectacle of the circus.

As well, director Cecil B. DeMille not only frames shots poorly, but edits the movie terribly. There are a ton of bad cuts, between poor bluescreen shots that have multiple cuts and choppy cuts, like when Klaus begins to beat someone with a bat. The Greatest Show On Earth is an odd mix of obvious and impressive. The character elements are often predictable in a 1950's sensibility. As a result, while some bad things happen to virtually all of the characters, there is a sense that things will work out. As well, the way women are treated is awful, not only by men but by the way they talk about themselves.

The odd element is that The Greatest Show On Earth is like a ridiculous war story. The melodramatic way the members of the circus rally in order to make sure the show goes on, it presented almost the exact same way classic war stories develop relationships between characters where buddy loyalty and the importance of the mission is prioritized above all else. And while in war scenarios where the actions of the platoon do have huge consequences that can be exceptionally important, the entertainment of the circus is far less immediate and important, no matter how one dresses it up.

Charlton Heston plays Brad. . . melodramatically, but adequately. Similarly, Betty Hutton (Holly), Cornel Wilde (Sebastian) and James Stewart (Buttons) give adequate performances, but nothing truly extraordinary. This is not a defect of the actors, but of the characters they play, who are more "types" than individuals. Buttons is a man with a past who seems kindly and good. Sebastian is a cocky performer and Holly is a lovestruck woman who just needs to pick a guy to love. None of these are terribly original or impressive, so the actors have very little to work with.

On DVD, The Greatest Show On Earth is presented with no bonus features or special programming.

While I would argue that this is hardly one of the best films of all time and it took a bit to make it more than just an extended advertisement for the circus, it was entertaining and it held my interest and my partner's interest for the duration. It is certainly worth seeing, especially for those who have never been fortunate to attend the real thing.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this is part of my Best Picture Project available here! Please check it out!]

For other classic movies, please check out:
Citizen Kane
Casablanca
Raiders Of The Lost Ark

6.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.




| | |