I think most of this film’s reviewers have all got it wrong.

Yes, Robin Williams’ comedic genius is marvelously on display. Yes, the animators who kept up with Williams’ rapid-fire antics and those who animated the adorable magic carpet all deserve the mountains of praise they received. Yes, Princess Jasmine was anachronistic (not portrayed accurately according to the times and traditions of the film). But was it a ‘will the boy get the girl’ film? I don’t think so.

Aladdin, himself, asks the greatest question of the story: Will anyone ever see that I’m so much more than just some street rat?

The answer is given by the sultan at the end of the film: Today, you have demonstrated your worth. Aladdin was even qualified to be sultan!

What positive traits did Aladdin demonstrate that set him apart from the other characters in the story? Perseverance, gentleness, compassion, patience, kindness, ingenuity, common sense, gratitude, loyalty, sincerity, and acknowledgment of the worth of other people in both lower and higher classes than himself. And—once his question had been answered and someone had seen he was more than just a street rat—he responded with modesty, humility, and joy.

Okay, yes, he was a liar and a thief. There would be no story without that. All good stories take the hero on a progression, usually a successful progression through something they must learn to win the prize at story’s end (in this case the prize being Princess Jasmine).

Aladdin’s progression started with thieving for physical survival. By story’s end he had learned the importance of honesty and integrity, even when he knew it might cost him the girl he loved. “The diamond in the rough” had begun to be polished—and isn’t that something we all long for?


Related Reviews:
Animated movies
WALL-E (2008)
Cars (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Washington Post
The Austin Chronicle



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: animated, film, Linda Larkin, movie view, Robin Williams, Scot Weinger

Kenneth Branagh’s murder mystery is a high-concept movie that fails to deliver the goods. Mike Church (Branagh) who takes on the cause of Grace (Emma Thompson). Grace is troubled by thoughts of a woman named Margaret at the hands of her jealous husband Roman. As Church and Grace go to Franklin Madson (Derek Jacobi), who knows hypnotism, to get to the bottom of Grace’s nightmares.

After this point I am going to speak plainly and reveal the end of the film. I recommend avoiding the film, but if you wish to see it anyway, stop reading.

The intent of the film is to offer a tightly wound mystery involving reincarnation and revenge. The big twist is that Church and Grace were married in a previously life as Margaret and Roman. As an added twist their genders were swapped out following their reincarnation so Church was Margaret and Grace was Roman – so, in a previous life Grace murdered Church. The whole affair is quite thick. While screenwriter Scott Frank doe a good job of unraveling this convoluted plot, he does so at the expense of character development. Mike Church, in particular is a rather thin character without much depth. Frank gives Church the business of quitting smoking, that’s about does it as far as character goes. Branagh miscasts himself in the role of Church. While he does well as Roman Strauss, his Mike Church is flat. For starters, Branagh’s American accent is far from flawless and he seems a little lost for things to do. He’s awkward in the role. His Church seems far too squirrely and not nearly coarse enough to be a believable private investigator. Emma Thompson offers a good performance as Grace and is given a little more to work with by the script. Supporting the couple Jacobi, Robin Williams and Andy Garcia each give their stock performances. Jacobi is stuffy, Williams is the enlightened funny man and Garcia is brutish charmer. There’s no performance here that stands out. I believe this primarily because each of these actors bring more to the table than the script does. They’re left fumbling through underwritten scenes instead of building up the kind of performances one would expect from such a strong cast.

The names in this script are so hokey. Church and Grace are the leads? In the past they were Roman and Margaret. So Branagh is playing Roman and Church = Roman Church and Thompson is Margaret and Grace – Margaret means pearl (pearl of wisdom) = wisdom and Grace? You have the murderous son who’s last name just happens to me Madson – Mad Son. Am I making too much out of the names? Probably not. This is the kind of thing screenwriters will do all the time. Instead of creating names that fit the character they will often make the names symbolic or have some double meaning. The problem with doing this is that what makes sense when the writer pens the script may not make sense by the time the entire production crew gets done getting their filthy uncreative mitts all over the piece. Either way, the names in this script are way too obtuse and silly.


Worldview: The central concept is interesting since it unintentionally outlines the inherent flaw in the idea of karma. The characters committed sins in the past and they’re condemned to repair those sins in the present. The sins of today create the reality of tomorrow. It is a never ending and ultimately pointless endeavor. No one is perfect so no one can escape the cycle of karma. This is where Christ comes in for us Christians. You can believe in karma all you want but there is only one way out, Christ. Since he died for our sins and redeems us this constant karmic repair work is complete. This Ying and Yang nonsense is for dopes. Saddle up with Christ and get out of the loop.


Related Reviews:
Robin Williams movies
The Final Cut (2004)
The World According to Garp (1982)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Siskel & Ebert
Rotten Tomatoes

Labels: Andy Garcia, Derek Jacobi, Emma Thompson, film, Kenneth Branagh, movie review, Robin Williams

I originally saw this movie before becoming a Christian and even thought it was screwed up back then. Looking at this with open eyes, it’s more of a cartoonish version of the afterlife than I remembered. Robin Williams is Chris who travels from Heaven into Hell to retrieve his wife who, consumed with grief has committed suicide. There’s so many theological issues littered throughout this New Age junk pile I’m not sure it’s possible to account for them all. This movie shows us the perfect post-modern version of Heaven – it’s all about me. The afterlife is the way you perceive it, you make your own Heaven or your own Hell. In Heaven you see things the way you want, to make you most happy. People are seen in the way that makes them most happy. God plays little if no role, we don’t have any relationship to him beyond what we choose, and on and on – me, me, me, more me now. Director Vincent Ward pulls out some interesting visuals but when dealing with the aspects of the afterlife clever set design doesn’t cut it.


Related Reviews:
Robin Williams movies
The Fisher King (1991)
The World According to Garp (1982)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Film Threat
ScreenIt

Labels: Cuba Gooding Jr, film, Max von Sydow, movie review, Robin Williams

Short Review: It’s a little like Lean on Me but with WASPs.


To quote my Geddy Lee Lovin’ Brother-in-Law, “I like that Robin Williams movie, y’know, the one where he plays the enlightened funny man.”

Robin Williams, like cancer screenings, is not a funny thing to behold. With a resume that is impossible to read aloud without groaning insistently, Williams has remarkably little to offer for all of his years of service almost entertaining the public. This film may be the best one of his career. This is primarily because the film does a wonderful job working around Williams’ penchant for upstaging his own material.

This is not a great film, but it is a pleasant watch. It is very manipulative, pushy and it makes absolutely no sense when its logic is pressed even slightly. Despite its flaws its message that life is fleeting, use your time wisely and live life to the fullest, is delivered in a comfy package. John Keating (Williams) is an enlightened funny man…er, English teacher who offers inspiring classes to the sons of the rich and powerful. Keating uplifts the boys even though the rigid, social order of the school intends to squelch the life of out them. Even though screenwriter Tom Schulmans’ (8 Heads in a Duffel Bag) script is often more coercive than a presidential election ad, there are moments of note that make this worth viewing at least once.


Related Reviews:
Night at the Museum (2006)
The Final Cut (2004)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Siskel & Ebert
eFilmCritic

Labels: Ethan Hawke, film, movie review, Robert Sean Leonard, Robin Williams

In the world of film geeks, Terry Gilliam who can do no wrong. The truth is that he is one of the most self indulgent directors to ever step behind a camera. I consider him to be the Coen Brothers without the sense of irony. Often his works reveal him to be more of a gifted designer than insightful director. This movie about a talk show host attempting to redeem his past is hollow but nicely shot. The performance by Robin Williams as an emotionally challenged transient is way over the top. Opposite this is Jeff Bridges portraying the host. He offers a good performance but is drowned out by the overreaching Williams. Pass on this one.


Related Reviews:
Terry Gilliam Films:
The Brothers Grimm (2005)
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988)
Brazil (1985)


Other Critic's Reviews:
WiderScreeenings.com
Hollywood Bitch Slap

Labels: film, Jeff Bridges, movie review, Robin Williams, Terry Gilliam