Theo Cinema: ATLANTIS - THE LOST EMPIRE (WOEFULLY Bad)

[Monterey Jack]

[Paul MacLean]

I found The Nightmare Before Christmas endearing in its way when I first saw it -- but that was in 1993 and I'm not sure how I'd feel about it now.

Tim Burton has a unique style that's not everyone's taste. And I like his style (and Danny Elfman's scores for his films), but ironically, I have not liked most of his actual films. The one I like the best is actually Dark Shadows, though it wasn't among his most successful.

[AndyDursin]

I felt that way when it opened, and I WANTED to like it. I just don't lol. Honestly I find the whole thing boring beyond the art direction and animation.

Either way -- Joanne and Theo disliked it more than me!

Tim Burton has a unique style that's not everyone's taste. And I like his style (and Danny Elfman's scores for his films), but ironically, I have not liked most of his actual films. The one I like the best is actually Dark Shadows, though it wasn't among his most successful.

SLEEPY HOLLOW is my go-to "Burton movie" but I liked DARK SHADOWS as much as you did.

I'm willing to bet most people who buy the merch for this picture love the aesthetic and the atmosphere more than the actual movie. Seriously try watching it again and tell me what you think!

[AndyDursin]

SUPERMAN (TV VERSION)

Hey it's Christmas break so I broke out the LONG cut of "Superman" spread over 2 days. As much as the theatrical cut is and always be the definitive version to me, there are still lots of entertaining discarded bits and some superb shots in this "producer's cut" 187 min assembly for network TV. Theo enjoyed it and got into it even after he asked "can watch the ANIMATED show" when it first started.

The Blu-Ray contains some Fortress of Solitude dialogue I don't remember being in the ABC TV broadcast either, plus you get the full widescreen transfer too.

[Edmund Kattak]

SUPERMAN (TV VERSION)

Hey it's Christmas break so I broke out the LONG cut of "Superman" spread over 2 days. As much as the theatrical cut is and always be the definitive version to me, there are still lots of entertaining discarded bits and some superb shots in this "producer's cut" 187 min assembly for network TV. Theo enjoyed it and got into it even after he asked "can watch the ANIMATED show" when it first started.

The Blu-Ray contains some Fortress of Solitude dialogue I don't remember being in the ABC TV broadcast either, plus you get the full widescreen transfer too.

I snapped this up when it first came out. I think we talked about it, but do you remember if they re-edited the Main Title Credits especially for the BD or does the TV version also use the "original version" which then became the closing credits version of the theme?

[AndyDursin]

No that was Warner Home Video's meddling , thinking they were doing everyone a favor by putting the credits for the Blu-Ray in stereo. Except they used the wrong take and there's a terrible edit glitch in the middle of it too. The actual TV version has the same tracks as the movie.

[AndyDursin]

RUDY (1993)

Hadn't seen this one in many years and it held up just as well as I hoped. Theo really exploded a couple of times with excitement (especially when Rudy walked out into ND Stadium for the first time, he went "wooooooooooooow") so this was a good pick. Some of the lessons obviously might be over his head or needed reinforcement, but we talked about how hard Rudy worked to get into Notre Dame and solved problems by working and never giving up, so he understood what was going on (Joanne did explain how Rudy's brother stole his girlfriend lol).

As a film, this is right there with HOOSIERS as being one of the handful of truly great sports movies ever made, though it's obviously about a wider spectrum of messages than just success on the field. Just like that film, the use of real locations is a huge asset -- the movie feels and looks authentic. The game sequences were shot at the half of a real Notre Dame game, so the crowd is real, the field is real -- no CGI, no cardboard cut-outs, so to get that to work so well had to take an awful amount of planning. But the performances and the story are beautifully rendered -- Angelo Pizzo's script only takes a few dramatic liberties with what happened (90% accurate I think is what they described), Sean Astin is wonderful, and so are Charles S. Dutton and Ned Beatty too.

I've always wondered why Lili Taylor was in this movie -- she basically has only two scenes of any note, and this time I noticed she was there in the stands at the end, minus any dialogue or involvement -- my guess is her role was pared down in the editing room. I also never noticed Vince(nt) Vaughn before, here playing the obnoxious bench-ridden backup QB who later programs a late-game play that enables Rudy to finally get on the field (he must've met Jon Favreau here as they made SWINGERS a little while afterwards).

As for Jerry's music, it's clear he connected with this film and its subject just as he did for HOOSIERS. It's an undeniably moving score that strives for poignancy and achieves it -- unlike a lot of his '90s scores that were "soft" and a little saccharine over this time (like POWDER), this score enhances the characters and the overall drama. The football music is rousing -- and was stolen by Silvestri in FORREST GUMP not to mention countless ABC Saturday football themes -- and the last cue is brilliant and beautifully executed. It manages to put a firm emotional grasp on the viewer without coming off as overly sentimental.

This quasi-early-format Sony Blu-Ray actually holds up very well also: the transfer looks terrific and the soundtrack is richly mixed too.

[AndyDursin]

CAVEMAN (1981)

Well, we lasted 5 minutes -- until the scene where Ringo tries to basically "date rape" Barbara Bach by feeding her and her caveman boyfriend a sleep-inducing berry...after which he climbs on top of her while Lalo Schifrin parodies "10" with the use of Ravel's Bolero.

Back in 1981 this scene apparently was still acceptable enough so that some of the reviews claimed "the movie was best appreciated by kids" but that was enough for us!

[Monterey Jack]

Back in 1981 this scene apparently was still acceptable enough so that some of the reviews claimed "the movie was best appreciated by kids" but that was enough for us!

This is why I always used the phrase "80s PG" when my sister was showing formative films from our youth to her kids when they were younger, like the topless female shower scene minutes into Sixteen Candles.

Caveman is mostly inoffensive and funny in a lowbrow way, but yeaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh, that scene hasn't aged well at all. Shame, because if you excised it, the rest of the film is fine to show to young kids. As much as I grouse about over-sensitivity to "problematic" content in 80s cinema, sometimes there are very wincy moments in otherwise clean-cut movies. (like the "Fag!" line in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure)

[AndyDursin]

Thanks, I'll take your word for it and try it again at some point As we know it was a different time, though that bit really comes off as tasteless. I think that may have been one of the criticisms of it at the time, that it was basically slapstick juvenile humor that was mostly ok for kids but had some stuff in there that didn't belong etc.

[Monterey Jack]

Thanks, I'll take your word for it and try it again at some point As we know it was a different time, though that bit really comes off as tasteless. I think that may have been one of the criticisms of it at the time, that it was basically slapstick juvenile humor that was mostly ok for kids but had some stuff in there that didn't belong etc.

Nothing in the rest of the film is as tasteless as that, although it's pretty lowbrow. (plenty of ka-ka and fart and B.O. jokes) But hey...they're cavemen. Great Jim Danforth stop-motion effects, as well, and Lalo's percussive score is fun.

[AndyDursin]

THE PHANTOM MENACE
ATTACK OF THE CLONES

Now that Theo is finally getting interested in these (thanks to the Lego movies), we watched the first couple of prequels, both of which he was entertained by -- even if he had to ask "who are the good guys?" when talking about the mismash of the Clone Army, Count Dooku, Palpatine, Jango Fett, the droid army...who could blame him? Surely there had to be a better way of streamlining this story but Lucas kind of missed "the easy way" with the basic premise of these films. Either way they got the job done, and his reaction to Yoda's big fight at the end of CLONES was probably what Lucas had in mind when he came up with it ("wow, cool!!")

As for me, maybe it was because I was still tired from COVID but my basic reaction was: PHANTOM MENACE wasn't as satisfying as I thought, ATTACK OF THE CLONES -- while still basically as flawed as I recall -- wasn't quite as dreadful as the last time I saw it. At least, I'd much rather watch it over THE LAST JEDI (faint praise as it may be). PHANTOM MENACE has Williams' GREAT score but it's bogged down in too much "Trade Federation" boring exposition, and Liam Neeson is pretty sleepy in the lead, which is a disappointment. Ewan McGregor is much better in CLONES than he was in PHANTOM MENACE, and at least the movie dives right into the action. The pacing is probably better on the whole, but there are elements of the film that don't coalesce.

The real issue is Hayden Christensen, who's just terrible, and it's too bad because Natalie Portman looks great in the movie -- she just needed someone with chemistry opposite her. That, and some of Lucas' clunky dialogue which makes it worse. His delivery of "I killed them, the women...the children!" is just miserable. To think Lucas could've cast any good young actor in the part, and chose him? Seriously man...just terrible. Maybe we can get Christensen and Klinton "Legend of the Lone Ranger" Spillsbury to do a direct-to-video tagteam of failed franchise leads??

[mkaroly]

Lol...yeah, Hayden Christensen was awful in CLONES (though he was better in REVENGE). And you bring up a great point about Lucas' clunky dialogue. I have long held that CLONES suffers from awful writing (on Lucas' part) - like Spielberg, Lucas is unable to tell a good love story - he just can't do it. I found the love scenes and the budding romance between Amadala and Anakin to be cringy and silly. Some of that was writing and story arc, and some of it was Christensen. Gross.

[Monterey Jack]

Considering Christensen is coming back to the franchise for that upcoming Ahsoka Tano D+ series, it's going to be really interesting to see how he fares when not saddled with Lucas' leaden, vaguely autistic dialogue. Even a lot of the great actors associated with the Prequels (Liam Neeson, Sam Jackson, Natalie Portman) could not have come across as more stilted and awkward. Only Ewan McGregor really managed to showcase glimmers of wry humor and charisma (and I'm looking forward to his Obi-Wan D+ series). The Prequels, compared to the OT, showcased how important it was to have Lucas' vision funnelled through the viewpoint of other people, who could polish and refine his vivid imagination by giving the characters witty and lively dialogue. Lawrence Kasdan was a big part of the success of Empire and Return Of The Jedi, and even the original film had significant, uncredited dialogue polishes by the Temple Of Doom / Howard The Duck team of Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz. Lucas' dialogue in the Prequels always sounded like "placeholder" dialogue, something a screenwriter puts in just to have something there until they could come up with something better. At best, it was dull and ponderous. At worst, it was laugh-out-loud awkward (all of the Anakin/Padme "romantic" blather in Attack Of The Clones is amongst the worst of all SW dialogue exchanges ). Say what you will about the Disney sequel trilogy, at least those films were populated by charismatic actors who were given enjoyable, witty things to say to each other (at least, up until "They fly now?!" ).

[Edmund Kattak]

It's interesting because I thought Christensen was really good in SHATTERED GLASS as the reporter (based on a true story) who fabricated his stories while at THE ATLANTIC. However, George Lucas was never an "actor's director" but more of a storyteller/technician in his approach to his STAR WARS actors. He seemed to forget that he was working with actors in the prequels and more focused on the technical integration between the live action elements and the CGI. I think some characters/actors were worse off than others. Lucas seemed to write Christensen'sAnnakin (andthe subsequent performance of said writing) like he was already Darth Vader behind the mask. I don't necessarily fault Christensen, because Lucas' writing for him always seemed stiff, petulantly child-like at times, more noticeable in AOTC. This kind of writing seemed at odds with the romance story that he was trying to inject between Padme and Annakin. It almost seemed like Jake Lloyd's younger Annakin seemed to be on the same level of maturity that adult Annakin was - with very little nuance to indicate that he had actually grew into an adult. I think that translated into the performance. It feels like Annakin never grew up. When you read Lucas' script, you're hard-pressed to find evidence of this transformation from a child to an adult, but more like its focus in the transformation to Darth Vader - which seems underwhelming and stilted anyway, considering it should make for a fascinating story.

I just don't think there was much there for Christensen to latch onto - and bring out into a three-dimensional performance. At least with ROTS, there seemed to be more visual reactions from the actors that worked better, emotionally, than any of the clunky dialogue.