The Magic Flute (1975)

My first opera. My second Bergman. My level of excitement could not be contained. Here it was - a German opera performed by Swedish actors in their native tongue. This was more than just a simple opera, it was a multicultural bonanza. Bergman has taken a story, honestly, that I would have easily fallen asleep to otherwise, and created a visual treat that takes you from your couch, to one of the audience members, and finally deep into the scenery itself, as if you were one of the characters and not just a spectator. This is not just a fantastic film to enjoy for Bergman's direction, but also his keen sense of visuals, teasing your eyes with keen art direction. This is a fabulous production. He swerves within the boundaries of both watching this film as a play and as a feature film. Sure, it was released on TV first, but obviously it means that Bergman doesn't have to lower his standards. Impressive to see what a vastly known opera, the concept of working on a stage, and building characters via song can vastly change a normal musical into something worth viewing again and again.

There was something powerful about watching this. Not only has Criterion done another great job with packaging the bonus material, but this is such an important film that it needs to be collected by both film aficionados as well as those who have enjoyed Mozart's original opera. The Magic Flute is a film that will impress anyone that can dedicate the two plus hours to it. It challenges you to both the intensity of the human condition, but also to that of how dedicated Bergman is as a director. Instead of just having singing characters throughout, he sets this up as a staged performance, as if I were there watching it for the first time myself. The overture flashes faces from the audience, allowing you to be accustomed to your surroundings, while his constant flashing towards one particular girl in the audience deepens the idea that this is a fairy tale. There is a youthful spirit to this story. There are elements of the mystical - there are elements to the unknown - there is true love among turmoil. If not for modern dumbness, The Magic Flute could easily rival that of anything Disney has created through the course of his life. Sure, there are darkened elements to this, there is the idea of suicide, there are potentially spooky animals - but there is a point to it all. The theme is love, love conquers all - that despite the unknown - love is always present. How could children not respond to this idea?

I would love to learn more about our "father" and "mother" characters. The ones that ultimately send our heroines on their quest. That final scene - where the flute is guiding through the scorching fire of "hell" was amazing. It is these visuals, the idea that Bergman worked on and off the stage instilled the idea that this was more than just a film. One of my favorite moments in this adaptation is when we go to intermission and we see our characters ... um ... out of character, and interacting within our world. It is this random dimension that Bergman creates, the idea that there is another life outside of the stage (one could argue that our knowledge of the stage is another dimension). This is what creates multiple viewings. He takes this small world, the idea of the acting happening on a stage and intermingles within it scenes off the stage (or so we think) - and finally brings us back onto the stage. It is more than impressive to see the master at work.

The music is fabulous. The only negative comment that rejects the full positive rating is the length. It did feel at certain scenes that it lasted longer than needed. Iwas happy with the final cut, but without Bergman's visuals to excite the eyes, it just becomes bland. The Magic Flute works because of Bergman's vision. See this movie if you would like to understand Bergman's passion coupled with his obvious genius of creativity.

Found in my "Movie Award" book - this is the last of the "M"s. I am headed toward the "T"s now - wish me luck. For The Magic Flute I am going to give it a green mark with blue stars. I could watch this film again alone (not sure I could convince friends to watch), if only to catch more of what Bergman meant for me to see.

Criterion Spine #71

The Tragedy of Macbeth (1971)

I really wanted to like this film. There was so much that I wanted to enjoy. First, it was Roman Polanski, who somehow can take a story - one told thousands of times - and make it his own, probably the best seen in a long time - but there were just small nuances that I had instant issues with Macbeth. Not wanting to jump directly into what soured this film experience for me, I would like to begin by saying that Polanski did it with energy, passion, and the darkness that many forget surround our now famous bard. With bold colors, vigorous characters, and blood (oh the blood) - he kept me glued for two and a half hours of Shakespeare. This is a difficult task, the only other director to have this effect on me and that was Julie Taymor, and her film Titus. Finishing this film, sitting down and thinking about what I just watched, I wasn't impressed with Macbeth the package. Fine acting, amazing direction and cinematography, but just not as exciting of a story. Slowly this impressive Polanski film slipped from the cannon of greatness and found its way deep into the heart of "bleh".

This is a difficult argument for me to have right now. In one sense I loved the vision that Polanski had with this film. As mentioned above, technically this is a bold adaptation - using violence and realism to tell this impending story of doom - yet I just cannot stand behind it. I cannot say to myself that "I loved Polanski's Macbeth" and I wish I could tell you why. Perhaps a portion of it is the time frame, the use of old English (always difficult for me to comprehend) or just the lack of excitement that I have for "Macbeth" in general. The story, Shakespeare's story, isn't that great. While I like the idea of fate, I hated that Macbeth just walked right into it. I hated that he didn't have any logic of his own, that he had to revisit the sisters to find the further truth. I was annoyed with Macbeth the character, not the actor. Jon Finch did a great job capturing his insanity - as did Francesca Annis as Lady Macbeth, but it wasn't the performances. It was the naked witches. There was just something about this story that I couldn't watch again.

I liked the way Polanski framed this story. I like that perhaps Lady Macbeth was crazy prior to the incident. I like that he showed a bear fighting a dog, a bit overly symbolic, but important none the less. It was important to see this - the beauty of the night sky, the darkness of the blood, the grunge that these Kings lived in - it was important to see this. It was important to see the violence, despite what happened to Polanski years earlier. This a film to see Polanski's inner being. This is a film if you needed to question his sanity - you would. Yet, it isn't perfect ... and I cannot tell you why. I didn't enjoy the old English - perhaps that is a bigger chunk of an issue - and I didn't enjoy the secondary characters who seemed less enthralled by being in this film. Now I am just grabbing at anything.

Did everyone realize that this was a Playboy production? I am still in shock, but hey - art is art.

So, with a very random blog entry (probably one that I will revisit later with a true understanding of why this film and I didn't agree) I come to a close. Found in my "Movie Award" book - Polanski's Macbeth isn't going to get anything higher than a pink mark. I am very glad that I watched it - despite the fact that it made me feel like I was watching it in my High School English class (another nugget as to why I didn't like it - too many bad High School film memories) - but I cannot reccommend it to friends or family. Wait. For a film class I would show it to demonstrate Polanski's ability, but nothing else.

Watch this film in HD - or upconvert it. The visuals are to die for - yet again - like a broken record - this story is not. Arg. I am done.

Magnolia (1999)

Best Film of 1999.

I am not sure if I highlighted that enough, but here it is - my fortieth viewing of this film, and it continues to send goosebumps up my spine.  Not only does Paul Thomas Anderson prove that he has the ability to tackle an enormous cast, but also an emotional punch worthy of any Oscar winning director.  HOW HAS THIS MAN NOT WON AN OSCAR yet?  Important questions, his films consistently receive strong raves from critics, and are always nominated, but never seem to get their full rewards.  Anderson's ability far exceeds that which we have seen in a long time, the only current director out there to rival that of Anderson would be Charlie Kaufman - and the two of them elaborating together - WOWSERS.  Enough with the possible, let's talk about this film - Magnolia.  

From the opening narration, until that faint smile at the end, Paul Thomas Anderson successfully transforms a three-hour drama into something of an event.  From a singing cast, to raining frogs, to the brutal honest of daily living - he pulls you into these people's lives - allowing you to live there for one short night - and learn everything possible about them.  This is more than just your typical Pulp Fiction-esque film, this is more than just famous people catching the "ahh" from the audience, this is a venue for great actors to demonstrate their ability.  Julianne Moore, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, William H. Macy, John C. Reilly, the ever changing Tom Cruise, and even the late Jason Robards give us something to consider, ponder, and enjoy.  What about Melora Walters, best known from her role in "Big Love" gives a stand-alone performance in this feature.  Anderson takes these actors, gives them freedom, and produces greatness.  Yet, the acting is only one leg of this amazing table.  From a directing standpoint, there is so much for the eyes to enjoy.  Anderson's control of the camera, allowing you to nearly be another character as you fly through the hallways and into their faces.  This is a character driven film, but it also heavily depends on how our fearless leader chooses to guide us through - and Anderson does it with the greatest of ease.  He never quite gives us the full piece of the pie - thus we are always salivating for more.

Arguably the most forgotten film over the ages, Magnolia boasted a new range of actors that are currently HUGE names in the business and in Hollywood.  These are actors that win awards, demonstrate raw talent, and continually impress.  If you need a point of reference, see what Paul Thomas Anderson did for Daniel Day Lewis - need I say more.  See what Paul Thomas Anderson did for Adam Sandler (a role that surprised us all) - and what he has done for countless others.  He is a bold fresh director that isn't afraid to take risks and push the envelope.  This was a three hour film, but it only felt like an hour and a half.  I could have watched another three with PT behind the wheel.  I reference this film to the ability shown in "Angels in America" - if that mini-series was a feature film - it would have won awards.  If Magnolia would be released today, everyone - not just Tom Cruise, would win awards.  It would sweep in all categories.  It would win music, actor, actress, supporting actor, supporting actress, director and film (and probably some technical ones as well - he did use frogs people) - but it was released in 1999 and our cinematic world wasn't ready quite yet for this.  We were still reeling after Pulp Fiction and all the similar films to surround it. 

My FILM CLUB group watched this film, and there was somebody in the group that stood up proudly and gave this film a 9 - a rating she has never done before.  This is a film that will touch the hearts of anyone that is willing to dedicate the time.  It is more than just a film  -- it is an experience.  An experience of sight, sound, smells, and touch.  What a powerful film this proved to be.  To end this crazy rant - let me say - look for all the Exodus 8:2 references seen and unseen - it will change this movie from a single view to a HUGE repeatable cinematic journey.

I decided to watch this film when I found it in my film book "Movie Awards" and I couldn't have been happier.  This was the perfect film for right now - and I cannot wait to watch it again.  A definate buy on blu-ray when released - this now ranks among my top films ever.  Paul Thomas Anderson - you made a believer out of me.  Simply put - a green mark with blue stars.  Easy.

Madame X (1966)

So, this film tricked me twice. I would hate to be the one to say this, but I thought when I rented this film that it was going to be the 1920s version directed by Lionel Barrymore. Alas, I was completely off. Not only was it as colorful as the 1960s could be, but it also starred the incredible Lana Turner (embarrassingly it was my first Turner experience) as the scorned woman frightened of a life without love. I did say that this film tricked me twice, and here was the other - I didn't see what was going to happen to Turner's Holly Parker in the end, but I hated trying to get there. For me, her entire ride dirctly from the wealthy into the gutters of Mexico, just came as one shock to the next, but again, I hated the effort put in to get there. This is a paradox of a film. I thought that the premise was strong, the casting was even better, but I think I needed a timeline to help me. It seems to all occur over a weekend, which doesn't help this story at all. So, it tricked me. It tricked me into watching it all - and it tricked me by being the wrong film ... alas, I think that last part may have been a user issue.

Madame X. What a interesting film. First, let me say, I am eager to watch Lana Turner (eerily equal to a modern day Kathleen Turner) in more films. She was the only stand-out in a film full of cardboard characters. She teared at the right times, she drank heavily throughout, and she was insecure in everything except her children. She loved her children, which made for great viewing to see that internal struggle, but she seemed to passive about everything else. That is where my problems began with this film. While Turner was great in the role, the role was a bit obscure to the screen. I didn't understand why she ran when Ricardo Montalban fell down the stairs. He was abusive and aggressive, and the world would have bought that. By running, she created a film - and I didn't understand why. When did absinthe suddenly become her best friend? How did she get to Mexico? Perhaps these were answered within the film, but they were missed by me. The entire ending, taking place in NYC, was absurd. There was no evil surrounding the mother figure. She was dark, insistent on her son's life, but from the beginning I was never sure why she didn't support Turner's Holly Parker. Aside from the story issues, there wasn't much else to hate about this film - it was dark and grueling at parts when I didn't think this film was going to head in a certain direction. It shocked me. It was 1966 - I didn't think a film like this would go that dark - but then it seemed to have that redeeming ending that just didn't fit.

Lana Turner. Did anyone else happen to see the way she grew into poverty? Her teeth changed, her eyes grew older, she became less attractive as the days progressed, and that was wild to see. I think what I am trying to say is that Lana Turner impressed me. Having been a virgin to her films, it was a surprise to see how dark she would develop her character - but the rest was just fluff. Director David Rich had something with Turner, but I just don't know if the rest fell into place. Montalban seemed ill fit for his role. That is the catch with this film. You want to see Turner, she pulls you in deeper than imagined, but the film itself - the story, the scenes, the emotion - just doesn't grab you. It is a good story, just not a great one.

Alas, I would love to say that I found this in my "Movie Awards" book, but I picked the wrong film on NETFLIX. So, this is a limbo film, but excited that I watched it. Give me more Lana Turner anyday. Could she be the original "cougar"? Time will tell. Alas, Madame X as a whole was not the film I was hoping for - so to even out the two worlds - this is going to get a pink mark. Watchable once - would even watch it forced, but I will not own this in my collection.

The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)

There is nobody like Orson Welles. The man can even end a film with this looming microphone swinging in the distance, and it seems more like art than what is released today. My favorite director/actor, Welles proved once and again that what lurks in the shadows are men, and their spirits are more sinister than anything a horror film could produce. Being an avid fan of Citizen Kane, I wanted to experience more - and that is where The Magnificent Ambersons comes into play. Surprisingly, I didn't even know anything about the drama behind this film. I wasn't privy to the knowledge that the studio burned most of Welles' 113 minute long cut, and instead kept with this 88-minute version ... which ... in my eyes ... is still a powerful film. I didn't know he didn't have much say over the final results, and instead, was left with a choppy, studio-driven version that left a soured note in his eye. Oh, the drama. Yet, here it is - found on VHS for now, this was a powerful film about the turn of the century, the introduction to modern technology, and the depression of the status quo. Oddly, created in 1942, this film seems more relevant today - with the current economic distress - and making the overall experience a powerful Welles outing.

I would first like to say that any film that focuses on a central character getting his "come-uppances", is already going to receive high marks. Secondly, narration by Welles himself - guess I asked for a second scoop of cinematic pleasure. The only downside was that Welles should have played the role of George. I completely understand that he didn't want another Kane looming in the distance, but he obviously pulled a Woody Allen trick, where he wasn't the lead role, but had the actor take his mannerisms. Ergo, he was in the film. With that small element aside, the narration did add a rather strong voice to this film. Giving us an everyman's town, a place not unlike where we all live now, with the wealthy experiencing the same issues many of us see daily. That is what pulled my strings the most with The Magnificent Ambersons was Welles' ability to pull such an ordinary event into the view of this wealthy family. We see these things happen all the time with average couples in film, so it was a distinction to see it happen to the wealthy Ambersons. This story is simple, and I am eager to read Booth Tarkington's version as well, just to see what Welles left out. I want to get to know these characters more - and the book should bring that to me.

To end, I loved this film for more than just the actors and the narration. I loved the introduction of the automobile into the story. I loved how the ending (albeit choppy) pulled in more than just a dramatic closure, it spoke to audience about fears, modern advances, and the uncertainty of life. It transformed this film about the turn of the century into a film that could be watched today - nearly 67 years later - and find current relevances. It is more than just a story about a family. This is a story about the future, about depression, about love, and about children. It is about small town America - it is about the changing world - it is about Welles' deep dark soul. This isn't a happy film. In fact, it is rather full of gloom and doom, but it is 100% Welles (or at least the parts not taken out). I loved the cinematography, the looming dark scenes coupled with Welles shadow angles. It was brilliant - from beginning to end, this is not the film you expect when you sit down. This isn't a love story. This is a life story.

Easter - 2009 - a great bottle of wine needed to set the tone for a screening of this film. Unable to find a cheap version of the Criterion laserdisc, I settled on VHS from the local library. This was not the colorized version (thankfully). Found in my "Movie Awards Book" - I am actually stepping out of line here, but I was so excited about seeing this film I couldn't wait. There is no question in my mind, this film is getting two blue stars with one green mark. It will be watched again and again. I could study this film and its little details.

Thank you Orson Welles for such a successful follow-up.

Jaws (1975)

So, I just finished watching Jaws for the millionth time - but to be honest - I believe this was the first time I ever watched it on DVD, the Collector's Edition - possibly the way that Spielberg wanted us to see this masterpiece - and I am as giddy as a school boy. Never has a film quite scared me, inspired me, and gave me hope for cinema as this singular feature did. Sure, there are plenty of cult films out there, in fact, there are plenty of films that I could watch again and again and again - yet this one just seemed to stand on its own two feet. The entire sequence where Hooper and Quint exchange war stories, and Quint takes the cake sent goosebumps down my arms. It is just as powerful today as it was in 1975 when this film was released. Spielberg has this incredible talent to take they story of a shark eating people and transform it into this deeply rooted human experience. The stark is what pulls investors in, then he pushes it further and extremely universal.


As I watched this in my PSIII, the colors seemed to be more vibrant, more intense, and detail oriented. An element desperately missing in the Friday night TV version - this also made for a stronger cinematic journey. Jaws to me, demonstrates two amazing events - the ability that Spielberg has to create stories, and the fact that you can have a genuine "monster" movie that shows you the creature - yet the fear still shivers down your spine. That shark is a frightening beast. Perhaps this also shows the timeless nature of this film. One could sit down and watch Jaws now, ten years down the road, or even 100 years with young children, grandchildren, and so forth and it just doesn't feel dated. The sense of community in Amity, the lack of modernization in hunting shark, Quint the pirate, and those now infamous words, "We're gonna need a bigger boat" just resonate without the lag of time. Watching this film, now in the early stages of 35 years old, it doesn't feel like it has aged a bit - and the beautiful photography - those starch images of Amity, the blue water being engulfed in red, and the crisp nature of grey on that beautiful great white stunningly maintains its value.

I would also like to applaud Spielberg on his choice of casting. Richard Dreyfuss, looking at him today, is a powerful comic relief character, yet somehow can pull in that jagged humor to create a challenging character. His reaction to Quint's story on the boat is phenomenal. Spielberg gives him the yard to create, and he does it gracefully and intensely. Also, the role of the "everyman" played by Roy Scheider, whose lack of shark knowledge empowers his urge to just keep the local citizens alive. He reacts in ways that I believe I would in such a disastrous situation. Then, as if the grandfather we always wanted arrives, there is Quint. There is a great deleted scene in which he sings behind a boy playing an instrument, which should have been included with the film, because it just shows the insanity of this character. His determination to fight this shark that is in the same class as the ones who killed the men on his boat. Then, when you least expect it, this film becomes less of a small town fighting this great white shark, and transforms into Quint just seeking revenge. His madness has overtaken him.

If you cannot guess already, I finished this film and was ready to watch it again. I was ready to begin to begin my journey into Amity all over again. I wanted to meet Quint all over again. This is such a solid film from beginning to end that it needs repeat viewing. I do not recommend the TV version, as this DVD - in your Blu player will do perfect. One needs to experience the sounds, colors, and intensity that surrounds this film. It is, from beginning to end, perfect.

Found in my "Defining Moments in Movies" book - it is no question in my mind - this film is getting the green mark with blue stars. I cannot wait to watch it again.

In closing, you need to watch that scene in the boat where the three men are comparing wounds. It is just one of those rare moments in cinema where the guard is down and the true raw emotion comes forward.

The Jazz Singer (1927)

So, here it is, just like they said it would be. America's first "talkie" film. The singular motion picture that brought in a new era of cinematic wonder. The spoken word captured on screen and shared with mass audiences. It was, and still is, a sight to be heard. Alas, the ultimate question you must ask yourself when discussing such a historic moment - like The Jazz Singer - does it still remain a pivotal film? One cannot argue that it was the film that introduced the silent era into the golden age of sound, but watching this film today - does it still carry the gumption that it once had? Watched during FILM CLUB #61, our group had a large discussion on all surrounding elements of this film - diving deep into the idea of black face, the idea that perhaps this is a "partial talkie" and the tense controversy that dominates the last half of this film. It was a bitter conversation versus those that loved the representation of this film, and those that were stressed about Al Jolson's mid-film crisis.


I happened to be one of those latter ones. The Jazz Singer is an important film, there is no need to argue that here. I know what this film represents, but from a cinematic, enjoy the movie-experience standpoint, this wasn't a great chapter. I remember Britain's first "talkie" that Hitchcock did - Blackmail that involved both character development and excitement (in the form of a who-dun-it), and with The Jazz Singer there wasn't any of this. Again, I wasn't expecting a shootout at the corral, but I did want to spend some time getting to know Jack Robin (or Jakie Rabinowitz) and his internal family struggle. Ok, ok - so this was made in the 1920s, where films were in an experimental stage, I shouldn't put it in the same playing field as today's standards. Yet, in a way - I am not. All I wanted from The Jazz Singer was more development into who Jack was. I wanted to see his struggle when he ran from his parents, I wanted to see his drive to become the best singer out there, and I wanted to see the joy/tribulation of when his family is finally reunited. This could happen within 88 minutes, but alas, it didn't. Instead, we are forced to watch a wishy-washy Mary Dale (May McAvoy) push Jolson in and out of a world that he loves. Then, we spend nearly 40 minutes and two similar arguments back to back trying to get Jack to make the honest decision. Does he do it? Is the 1920s a happy ending?


I don't think I need to answer that question for you to understand that people arrived at the movies during this era to escape, and this film is a prime example of that "escapism". Our group was mixed on this film when we watched it, there were no solid scores, as we all felt there were faults with this feature. I mainly couldn't justify having a film in which we know more about the secondary characters than we do the main ones. Jack could have been a powerful character - he could have been a staple in this genre, but the idea of a first "talkie" and his infamous ad-libbed line of "You ain't seen nothing yet" overshadowed his character. Why did we have to spend 20 years away - couldn't we as audience members follow him? One member in our group mentioned that the relevance of that era are so out of touch from today's modern climate that you can't help but be bored with this film. I somewhat agree, there were no risks taken with this film, and the final (albeit long) climax at the end will leave you more tense than relieved, but there is something still about following your dream and the desires of parents. I couldn't stand behind our main character like I could in Hitch's Blackmail because I couldn't see his strengths, sure he could sing - but did you see the way he looked at his mother?!?

Yipes.

Without going into such a long intro/overture, this film was found in my "Defining Moments in Film" book. I was very happy that I had to see a film like that in my lifetime, but alas, I don't think I would watch it again. If I were with friends and someone decided to put it on, I would sit through it - but I would not add this to my collection. Al Jolson is very scary with his eyes and baby corn teeth. FREAKY!

So, in final thoughts - The Jazz Singer gets the indecisive pink mark in my book. Good, but not great. Historic, but not challenging.

Jason and the Argonauts (1963)

Jason and the Argonauts is a film about imagination. It is one of those films that I wish I could have seen as a child - it would have been more than just images on a film reel, it was have been pure excitement, coupled with action, and furthered by adventure. This singular film is special effects at its birth and we have none other than the infamous Ray Harryhousen to say "thanks" to. Using the background of Greek mythology, director Don Chaffey subtly sends us on a breathtaking journey to the end of the world, into the world of a hydra, and in search of a golden fleece - truly the elements that create stories and legends. It is a fantasy about revenge, circumstance, hope, honor, and dedication. It is about Jason, a leader among men, that will stop at nothing to fulfill his destiny. Along the way, Titans show up, Hercules plunders, and we soon discover what magic belongs to the teeth of a hydra. This has been the second time I have watched this feature within the last six months, and like a good wine - it obviously continues to do better with age.



What makes Jason and the Argonauts more than just a Sunday feature on PBS is the creativity of Ray Harryhousen, marked with the compelling story of Jason and his band of Argonauts. The use of mythology is also a landmark, because it suspends the power of belief and takes us directly into the world of early civilization. The idea of pre-destiny and the somewhat forgotten cause/effect remains a powerful tool in Chaffey's cannon of opportunity with this film. A character makes a decision, the Gods (in this case Zeus) foretells the truth, and in the end - even though some believe they are headed off that one path - it eventually leads them to their final destination. Sounds confusing - right?!? I just love this concept that we, as humans, in this story were already headed in one direction without any changes - Jason was fated to get that fleece, and upset the balance of power. Impressive - and mind boggling all at the same time.

Harryhousen is most impressive in this film because he creates a world where his stop-motion figures have their own lives, their own emotions, and are more than just puppets or figurines - they are the backbone to this story. His ideas can be seen in cinema for decades to come, most memorably those infamous skeletons in Army of Darkness (an Evil Dead franchise film). But, the raw emotion that these inanimate character show is impressive. When Talos, a giant iron statue who has been brought to life, grabs his throat because Jason has caused him to bleed out - you can see the emotion through the missing eye sockets. It is more than impressive, it is a powerful representation of art pre-CGI. The fact that Harryhousen could do this, by simply moving statues in a certain way, proves that his work not only laid the groundwork for any film today, but could be better. A bit of a rant here, but as CGI becomes more of a crutch than a tool to advance the story of a film, I miss this style of animation. It involved blood, sweat, and tears, and sans computer - one can see the hard work and dedication that went into this project.

As I continue to drool over this film, I must admit - I love Jason and the Argonauts for anyone questioning my passion. I love the feel of this film, the blend of realism and religion, the hints of Bergman and modern cinema, this singular film has it all. Again, if only I had seen this film as a child it perhaps would have inspired me to expand my passion of cinema. None the less, if I ever have a child OR if one of my nieces comes to visit - this is the film of choice. I could watch this film again - right now. Gosh darn it - maybe I will ...

Found in my "Defining Moments in Film" book, there is no question what this film receives. It gets a green mark with blue stars, a new personal favorite and a staple for anyone wondering where our modern CGI derived from. Do not mock the future unless you fully comprehend the past.