The Pagemaster (1994)

As a film-watcher, an amateur film viewer, The Pagemaster was an utter disappointment. The animation was genuine, but ultimately dated. The acting was mediocre at best, and the voice work on our animated books seemed like open-mike night at the local karaoke bar. Needless to say, it didn't care the pomp and circumstance that it once did. The unique half-animation, half-live action that seemed borrowed from Who Framed Roger Rabbit? once impressed the child within me, but now just fell short of reaching any goal. With that said, the bookseller in me - the person that I am nearly 90+ hours a week, felt that The Pagemaster should be require viewing at our local library or within our store at least annually. The message within the film, the concept of taking books out, of becoming someone that is trapped within you, that Horror, Fantasy, and Adventure is all you need in life, that books can become your best friends - is a message that I can stand behind. Despite the horrid production, the sentiment behind this film is something that no Kindle will ever be able to duplicate.

As I write about this film, thinking about the terrible scenes intermixed with actual cult classic books (and impeccable lines like "You really are a classic..."), a glow in my heart begins to come out. Could I suggest this film to friends and family? Maybe. Do I want my nieces to watch this and get excited about books? Absolutely. Could I suggest it to children that come in the store? After much thought, pushing the film guy to the side within, I came to the answer "yes". The Pagemaster's voice overpowered its visual flimsiness. Let me be clear, the actual voices within this film is not what I am standing next to, actually far from it, Whoopi Goldberg, Patrick Stewart, Frank Welker, and even Leonard Nemoy just failed at whatever they were attempting to accomplish with their given scripts. Their work felt like it was done separately, in different rooms, and horribly edited together. Case in point, the ending scene where Horror cries. It was awkward and unprofessional to watch. The voice I am referring to is the idea of books. As we move into a year where the hottest gizmo will be a "whatver"-reader, this inspires you to pick up a heavy book, to support your local library, to not forget what it is like to fall asleep in your tree house with a great read. That is the importance of this film. That is why, despite everything I believe, I am supporting this film.

I have made my points clear about this film. If you are expecting anything to do with entertainment, you may not want to pick this up. BUT, if you want to see Mac Culkin have Atlas Shrugged fall on him as he icon-ically picks pulls it off himself ... IF you find yourself grinning at that image ... than this may be a film to just experience once. The characters are literally one-dimensional and the story is bland and predictable, but the love of books - the passion behind a product that will allow you to escape to literally everywhere, is there. It is a sword in the rough towards the world of the electronic reader - and at this day and age, I am willing to accept anything. Our store fights and wins the battle everyday, but for other smaller stores, that have to close to their community, this is a film that should be given to all of them. The fight is there - keep the passion alive.

Overall, beyond my rants and raves - The Pagemaster will be added to the collection, for both message and nostalgia of what I do on a daily basis. I will suggest this film to friends and especially parents looking for that family-friendly film for movie night. BUT, I am not going any higher than a pink score. I don't know if I will watch it again, but I am happy that I saw this at this time in my life. Like books, this movie called out during a great time, and while it is a mismatched film, the message is clear as dawn. Watch The Pagemaster, or revisit it again, and see why books need to remain a staple within our lives and the lives of our children's children. Keep the message of The Pagemaster alive.

Pagan Moon (1932); Parade of the Award Nominees (1932); Parade of the Wooden Soldiers (1933)

Sorry about the hodgepodge of photos for this, it was the best I could find for such old cartoons. Well, I would say it is a new month and so we have a new book of films, but that doesn't quite correspond to what is happening here. I did have a new book, but instead of new films, I was invited to watch three short animated features from the early 30s. Each unique in their own way, each re-imagined today, each perfect for children, but each just mediocre at best. For this one-of-a-kind entry, I am putting these all together because I watched them together randomly via the internet. Each were on average about five minutes long, so I put them together. For those few die hard readers, enjoy the change of format, for anyone new - well, just enjoy!

Pagan Moon (1931): Oddly, the biggest point of trivia with this musical number using large toothed fish and a pre-King Kong was that it was the same animation from another "Merry Melodies" short entitled Congo Jazz. I wasn't sure if I should be offended or cheated by this re-use, but none the less, this was an interesting music video that employed our little yukalaylee player into high trees and deep into the ocean as he chases after not only his instrument, but also another dancer in Hawaii (almost said jungle there ... whoops). Short, sweet, and too the point - Pagan Moon doesn't really add anything new, but was a fun black and white short to pass the time.

Parade of the Award Nominees (1932): Basically, this was one of those shorts that was never supposed to be released, but was created for one of the Oscar ceremonies to showcase those who were up for the award. It was interesting to watch for two reasons, 1) I didn't realize they did this in the 30s, I knew it was a modern technique used today, but I was not aware of its history and 2) this was the first short where Mickey Mouse was in color. That is pretty wild. Lasting only 3-minutes and using the same background over and over again, nothing much impressive about this except the color use.

Parade of the Wooden Soldiers (1933): My first Betty Boop cartoon and the first of these three with any depth at all (and the only story). A doll version of Betty Boop is created and dropped off in a toy shop who comes to life and becomes the vixen of the wooden soldiers in the shop. The toys come to life - via Toy Story - and for the first several minutes it is all about the toy soldiers attempting to get Boop's attention, but then a large stuffed ape comes to life and suddenly we are reliving the King Kong film all over again. Ending rather bleakly (as all the toys become used toys), it was the most fun of the three and one that I could watch again. Semi-steamy, sex-filled, black and white cartoons always seem to impress me.

Found in my "The Essential Monster Movie Guide", these three individually were unique, but overall just mediocre at best. The first two stories were non-existent, and the final just couldn't hold up the rest. While I could watch the Betty Boop one again, it wouldn't be on the top of my list. I wish my nieces would watch Boop, and perhaps I need to get them interested. Other than that, these probably will be forgotten (except for the trivia) within the month. I am going to give these a pink mark. Enjoyable, but not ones that I could watch again and again.

Julien Donkey-Boy (1999)

In one of the special features of this film, director and writer Harmony Korine states that since the birth of cinema over 100-years ago, that film should be constantly evolving - that the stories become increasingly complex, the way films are shot become more intense, and the quality continues to grow. Yet, he believes in that same thought that films have only gone backwards. There is no complexity anymore to the stories, that creating a film in Hollywood today is too simple. Words that I completely agree with as I watch millions of our dollars poured into ideas and executions that have been done over and over again only to change the face on the poster. Yet, does Julien Donkey-Boy progress this evolution? Being a fan-of-sorts of Korine since his work with Kids and the utterly horrific (yet powerful) Gummo, I wasn't sure what would happen with this lesser received biography of a man from Korine's life. Korine, who uses some of the same actors over and over again, appealed and received a Dogme 95 certificate for this work - making the camera jittery, the editing rough, and the story a bit shambly. Creating the ultimate question, did Harmony Korine actually pay homage to his Uncle or merely raise his middle finger to Hollywood, denouncing storytelling for the John Waters' Pink Flamingo trick of shock over substance? A question that could loom throughout this review.

To start I must clear the air by saying that I liked what Korine had to say. To remove the glamor of schizophrenia that too often plagues Hollywood's glossy world, Korine took a bold step and trapped reality at its core. The character of Julien is detailed. Ewan Bremner, best known as Spud in Trainspotting, captures the true essence of Julien. I believed his character, and the disease that he struggles with. With that said, he was the only one that carried this film. Korine's story about this entire dysfunctional family begins and ends with Bremner. Korine's muse, Chloe Sevigny and Korine's mentor Werner Herzog just fill space as the film attempts to fill over an hour and a half. Each of these two characters add nothing complex to the story, they just are there to add to the "weird" element that Korine has employed to counter the need for a plot. He builds so much emotion around Julien by actually giving him screen time, that when we are merely handed screaming scenes and flash-photography moments for the rest, it just fails to give us that entire family dynamic. That is where Julien Donkey-Boy fails. I can respect it for being a low-budget art film that peels away the gloss of schizophrenia, but it just doesn't carry or excite you for the full two hours like Kids and Gummo were able to do.

Direction is what ultimately brings this film crashing down. Using digital instead of film is a powerful tool, and that isn't to say that some of the scenes (like that in the church and the finale under the sheets) aren't amazingly well shot and emotional, but Korine over-does it. From the beginning, you are left with less-visual, meaning the blurriness of what Korine believes is the Dogme 95 principle. With these blurry scenes, we just miss so much. The over-lighting, the graininess, and the real-life placement, honestly, is needed more in Hollywood today - but for Julien Donkey-Boy it just didn't work. We missed crucial elements that could not be rediscovered. Herzog's character being one of them. The lacking depth of Sevigny's role is another. The world where Julien resides outside of his home is another in an already over-stacked Jenga game ready to topple. I wanted to appreciate Korine's vision, but after twenty-minutes of the hand-held camera work being more prominent than characters, it honestly just fell short.

Found in my "Defining Moments in Movies" book, this ends my recent string of films. I must admit, I loved most of what I saw as well as those great "Re-watch" moments that took place prior. I am eager for the next as I think I will be able to enjoy my first short. None the less, Julien was not the film to end on. It was an attempt, but overall a failure. I cannot suggest this Korine to friends or family, nor can I watch it again. Gummo - yes. Kids - yes. Julien Donkey-Boy - no. This is getting a yellow highlight with black line, never to be watched again. Sorry Harmony, I know you can do better.

Jules and Jim (1962)

For those first time viewers of Jules and Jim, may I offer these simple words. Finish the film. Occasionally with French New Wave there is a desire just to "test the waters", compare to the untouchable Breathless, or to assume that the characters are already defined within the first twenty minutes. Again, finish this film. Jules and Jim begins like any other film of this genre, a technique used decades after this release, used today, and will be used over-and-over by Hollywood in the not-to-distant-future. Two men fall for the same, unconventional woman. Simple. Jules and Jim are best friends, but when they meet Catherine (played unflinchingly by Jeanne Moreau), their world divides. While some will argue that the two become stronger friends via Catherine, as I watched it - I witnessed a strain on the emotions of friendship between these two distant comrades. Not to sound repetitive, but as you watch until the end - that final Truffaut moment - it strengthens this point entirely.

Following our friends troubles during the war and their attempt to attach to society after, we immediately feel sympathy for both. Like the third "stooge", we feel as if we are a part of this relationship. Personally, I could feel the emotion as Jules wrote during the war, I could see the struggle of comfortable love as our triangle becomes entwined, and the tension of Catherine (not by her character but by her actions towards Jules and Jim) kept me glued to the edge of the couch. You believe that you understand the love between each one, but it isn't until that final moment that the "gasp" can be let go and the truth, as dark as it may seem, is revealed. Oskar Werner as Jules was compassionate. He fell into the life he was handed, unsure of the stress and dedication he could take, Werner strongly adapted to Truffaut's film. He was the heart of this movie. Werner is the one that we, the average soul, can relate to. Jim, played by Henri Serre, is the polar opposite. An undying friend to Jules, he closely relates to that of Catherine, which makes us quietly root for him as their passion for each other grows. There is a scene where Jim is sick, but Catherine wants him to come. Truffaut uses the lag of letters being sent to build tension until each arrive, then - when the moment arrives - is just fizzles out. A fourth is added, and sympathy for Jules comes forward, Jim will obviously do something to win her back, and Catherine will be - well, just Catherine.

Catherine is the wild card of this film. What begins as just a free-spirited woman slowly transforms into (from a male perspective) this power hungry, emotionally insecure, wish-washy woman. The feelings toward Catherine go from compassion, excitement, anger, confusion, and finally jaw-dropping wonder. When Catherine tells Jim that she has been unfaithful because of something he wrote in his letter, thus making their actions equal, then we see the type of woman that Catherine has become. We also see the type of pain she can cause to everyone around her as Jim stays up all night after this comment. The fact that we, as an audience, don't even know if the child is Jules weighs on the back of your mind throughout this film. Catherine is the dark cloud in this friendship, and I cannot tell if Truffaut is speaking about women in general, or about an instance from his life. Either way, as we loom closer towards the ending, Catherine becomes unraveled, and the crushing nature of this relationship is revealed.

Found in my "Defining Moments in Movies" book, this nearly wraps up this letter. I have one more film which I am semi-excited about viewing and will see how it matches to other Dogma 95 productions that I have seen. I think the greatest film from this selection has been Jules and Jim, it was the unexpected film. Nervous about having another Breathless encounter (a film I didn't love, but perhaps a rewatch is needed), this blew me out of the water. Needless to say, I am now a big Jules and Jim fan, and have a stronger appreciation for the Werner - Truffaut blend (my only other experience was Fahrenheit 451, which was mediocre at best). This film is getting a green mark with blue stars. I cannot wait to watch it again as well as gift to friends and family. This is a movie that I can appreciate over and over again!

Johnny Guitar (1954)

Joan Crawford is intense. Either as a kept mother or a saloon-owning entrepreneur, her glass-deer-in-headlights-look will either frighten you or keep you on the edge of your seat. Add to this glassy stare the claustrophobic feel of Nicholas Ray's direction (see his work in Bigger Than Life), and you have the benchmark non-Western Johnny Guitar. Crawford owned the rights to the story, wanted another middle-aged woman to take the secondary lead, but left angry when a younger woman was cast. This anger, either intentional by Ray or merely fate, solidified Crawford as a diva, BUT also added to the needed on-screen tension. To call Johnny Guitar a Western would be odd, because it lacks everything that underlines mainstream Westerns. Yet, it is. It is outlaws, it has bar brawls, it has nicknames, it has women, it has whiskey, it has gunfights, it has a hanging, and it has you rooting for the underdog. It has the elements, BUT again, is this a Western?

For those that love Joan Crawford, this is the role you have been waiting for. More man than woman, she controls every element of the screen. Even if she is in the background and other characters are developing plot, one cannot help but get lost in those big glass eyes, wondering what Crawford is thinking and understanding that she is capable of anything. She is the loose cannon in this film, and there is no telling what spark will set her off. Could it be the lacking noise coming from the roulette wheel? Or is that she merely wants to make a simple withdraw from the bank? Whatever the case may be, Johnny Guitar is impressive to watch because Crawford leads like Wayne would in any of his roles. Secondly, this is a film about women, a direction most Westerns put in the background. This entire movie is about two women and their need for power and the heart of one outlaw (who, in fact, isn't really an outlaw). The plot moves because these two independent women will not budge in their idea of place. Johnny Guitar surprised me because I was never sure what was going to happen next. Where was Crawford's mind? Why is she so angry? Is there real love here or merely a strong business plan? As the railroad approaches, our cast's dreams unravel, and the corrupt nature of scorned women becomes the dynamite to this story.

Yet, Johnny Guitar wasn't a favorite, while I had some favorite scenes in the film (the shot Ray sets up where Crawford is playing the piano as the local town mob bursts into her saloon is phenomenal), and I liked the roles of the women in a male dominated genre, overall, I just felt like Johnny Guitar suffered from having too much. The script was too witty. It is one of those films where the lines, the witty dialogue is fun at first, but within twenty minutes of this language it gets tedious. The banter becomes less original and more repetitive. I personally just got bored with it. Also, Johnny Guitar is a troubling title, while Peggy Lee's song is a great element to the film it isn't the theme song nor do we hear it until the very end. Our character of Johnny Guitar is also only a minor character, albeit the lead minor character, but seems randomly dropped in to fill in the gaps of the plot. There is one point of the film where he is missing for twenty minutes, yet the plot continues to progress. Was Johnny Guitar the most appropriate title? With miscast characters//actors, a missing soundtrack, and an emotionless (albeit uber intense) scene to scene, Johnny Guitar just had more going against it than for it. Crawford was the woman in a man's world, and wasn't afraid to get out of her burning dress and into a more comfortable pantsuit.

In a film lacking good guys (this is a movie purely about the evil with an evil), Johnny Guitar had more potential than you could imagine. The direction was outstanding, I eagerly await the opportunity to see Nicholas Ray's vision in another genres. What this film lacks is specifics. The writing seemed overwhelming and the characters seemed misused. Crawford's intensity was grand, and the way Ray uses that to tell the final chapter of a bigger story is impressive, but the secondary players just sat around and absorbed instead of being involved. In the end, Johnny Guitar just falls short. I hate to say that because I felt a bit of love to Ray's direction, but I just don't think that this lasts the test of time. With a shrug, I am giving this a pink mark - alas, not to be watched again, but at least suggested to friends and semi-family. Pro-women unite, this may be the western for you! Found in my "Defining Moments in Movies", the line "I'm a stranger here myself" from Johnny Guitar became Ray's life motto.

I wish I could muster a bigger "wow".