My Bonus Double Feature Has Arrived!

Welcome to my Bonus Double Feature! Just to let you know, there will be spoilers within this post. If you want to read the introduction, here’s the link:

An Introduction to My Bonus Double Feature

The Secret Garden 1949 poster
The Secret Garden poster created by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Loew’s Inc. Image found at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Secret_Garden_FilmPoster.jpeg
  1. In what way is the adaptation like the book?

1949: There were several similarities to the book in the 1949 adaptation of The Secret Garden. One of them was the incorporation of the wind. In the book, the sounds of Colin’s cries blend with the sounds of the wind. Mary quickly picks out the cries from the wind and notices that something isn’t right. In the movie, this aspect sounded just like how it was described in the book. If one wasn’t paying attention, they would assume that the cries were a part of the wind. The other element was the path to Colin’s room. Mary, in the book, enters different rooms and passageways in order to find the source of the crying. In the movie, when Mary attempts to find out where the crying comes from, she travels through various rooms and hallways, which take her to Colin’s bedroom door. While this trip takes place in a shorter amount of time, the visuals of the different places in the house shows just how intertwined Misselthwaite Manor really is.

 

1987: More similarities were found in this adaptation than in the 1949 version. The one that I was pleasantly surprised by was Mary’s characteristics. Despite Gennie James’ inability to carry a British accent, she made up for this by embodying the spirit and persona of her character. Through her emotions, actions, and behavior, Gennie brought the likability and unlikability that Mary Lennox is known for. Two examples are when Mary was more upset about losing her doll over her parents and when she became friends with the robin. While we’re on the subject of this friendship, Mary forms a relationship with a robin that is also very fond of Ben Weatherstaff. By befriending the robin, in both the book and movie, Mary’s transformation from self-centered child to selfless individual begins. As for the character transformations, they were developed very well in the source material and the adaptation. Even though the movie was drawn out, it showed that the transformations of characters like Mary, Colin, and Mr. Craven happened over the course of several months. It also showed that these transformations take time and patience.

 

1993: Similar to the 1987 film, the characteristics of Mary are pretty close to how the character was written in the book. But in this adaptation, the characteristics of almost all the characters seemed like it reflected the book very well. In the 1993 movie, Kate Maberly’s performance was the best portrayal of Mary Lennox! Not only was she able to carry a British accent throughout the entire film, but she also did a really good job at bringing a balance of emotions to her role. During the scene where Martha accidently offends Mary, the angry emotions that Kate brought to her character reminded me of how the character would have behaved in the book. Another good example is when Dickon and Mary are in the secret garden, while they are singing “Mistress Mary Quite Contrary”. Even though she’s happy to be spending time with Dickon, she’s reminded of the painful memories when she arrived in England. Speaking of Dickon, Andrew Knott’s portrayal of this character was the best out of all three adaptations I’ve seen! He did a fantastic job pulling off a Yorkshire accent and brought a sense of likability to his role. The scene where Dickon and Mary meet for the first time is a good example of this.

 

As I just mentioned, Dickon and Mary sing “Mistress Mary Quite Contrary” in the 1993 movie. This song plays a small role in the book. At the beginning of the story, the song is sung to Mary in a manner of teasing. When the story goes on, she reflects on the song’s meaning and questions her outlook on life. Another aspect of the movie that reflected the book was the interior designs of Misselthwaite Manor. Mary’s and Colin’s room are a great example, as tapestry can be seen on the walls. This is an important detail to mention because tapestry was described in the novel.

 

  1. Was there anything in the adaptation that was different from the book?

1949: In the 1949 adaptation, there were just as many differences from the book as there were similarities. One notable difference is how emotional Mary Lennox is. In the film, Mary bursts into tears when she finds out that her parents have died. This is not the reaction that Mary has in the book, as she wouldn’t care what happens to her parents because of her poor relationship with them. Speaking of relationships, Mary’s relationship with Ben Weatherstaff is quite different in the film. Mary, as well as Colin and Dickon, don’t like Ben. They not only keep their distance from him, but they also don’t allow him to enter their garden. In the book, however, Ben becomes the children’s ally. He provides them with plenty of information about the secret garden, such as why it’s closed off from the rest of the gardens. The children even invite him into the garden on a few occasions. Finally, how Mary and Dickon meet is also different in the movie. Mary meets Dickon before she’s even aware that a secret garden exists. In the book, Mary meets Dickon after she’s entered the secret garden. She meets him because he’s purchased some flower seeds for her.

 

1987: While watching this adaptation of The Secret Garden, I noticed fewer differences compared to the 1949 version. Like the 1949 film, the initial meeting of Mary and Dickon happens at a different part of the story. In this movie, Mary meets Dickon before she’s found the secret garden, yet she is aware that it exists. At the beginning and end of the movie, the audience sees that the story is told through the reflections of a grown-up Mary Lennox. Since the book only focused on Mary’s story from when she was a child, this was a creative choice that Hallmark Hall of Fame made. Unlike the book, Mary and Colin are not cousins. I’m not going to reveal the reason for this creative decision because I don’t want to spoil the movie for anyone who hasn’t seen this version. But this choice wasn’t as much of an issue as I thought it could be. Plus, it works within this particular story!

 

1993: Toward the beginning of the film, Mary loses her parents to an earthquake. This is different from the book, as she loses her parents to sickness. The location of the secret garden’s key is also different from the source material. In the movie, Mary finds this key in her aunt’s jewelry box instead of in the dirt. Another difference I noticed was the characteristics of Mrs. Medlock. This character, in the book, was stern but caring. Mrs. Medlock, in the movie, was much stricter. She’s not only against the idea of Mary and Colin spending time together, but she’s also mean to the other members of the staff. I’m not sure if this creative decision was made to include a conflict or to highlight the acting strengths of Maggie Smith.

 

  1. Did you find anything in the movie that you felt improved upon the material more than the book?

1949: While the majority of the film is presented in black-and-white, the only scenes that were featured in color were those that took place in the garden. Frances Hodgson Burnett was very descriptive when writing about the garden. But you can only describe so much without giving someone a visual. The way the garden is presented in this adaptation helps bring the text to life.

 

1987: In a few parts of the film, the element of suspense was incorporated. One good example was when Mary meets Colin for the first time. The build-up to that moment was staged really well, using as little lighting as possible and featuring things like lightening and scary looking statues. Because of these elements coming together, it was better executed in the movie than in the book.

 

1993: During the 1993 adaptation, a transition happens between winter and spring/summer. This transition isn’t just seen through the exterior background. The cinematography and color of wardrobe are other visuals that indicate the changing seasons. An explanation of how Mary and Colin are related is included in this script. According to this adaptation, Mary’s mother was the twin sister of Colin’s mother. No explanations to how Mary and Colin are related were given in the book. All that’s known is that they’re cousins and Mr. Craven is Mary’s uncle.

20190906_190444[1]
This is yet another Hallmark Hall of Fame movie that I purchased. However, I bought it because I wanted to give an honest opinion for this double feature. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.
  1. Is there anything from the book that improved upon the material more than the movie?

1949: In the book, the garden itself is written as if it were its own character. Because of this, the garden creates a ripple effect on the characters and their lives. In the movie, however, the garden is treated like a Macguffin. It’s not featured in the film for very long and the progression of the characters happens pretty quickly. We also don’t see the process of the garden’s revival.

 

1987: When I was thinking about this Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation, I found it difficult to find anything that the book did better than the movie. This is because the adaptation was pretty close to the source material. It gives people who have read the book, like myself, a reason to find it satisfying.

 

1993: Even though she plays a really small role in the book, Susan Sowerby, Martha and Dickon’s mom, shares her wisdom and advice throughout the story. These things have a small, but significant influence over the events of the plot. Because Susan was nowhere to be found in this film, this part of the story was eliminated from the script.

 

  1. Because each adaptation was released in a different decade, do you feel that the movie itself was affected by the time period in which it was released? If so, how?

1949: MGM’s The Wizard of Oz was one of the first movies to experiment with color imaging. Since the movie was a success for the studio, they were more than willing to incorporate color imaging into their future films. The Secret Garden was released ten years after The Wizard of Oz, so it makes sense that they reserved the color imaging for the titular secret garden. What’s interesting is how little color imaging is included in the movie. It’s only seen on three occasions, after the garden has been fully revived.

 

1987: There’s three key things that I think had an influence on this version of The Secret Garden. The first is the 1949 movie. Because this particular film had an equal amount of similarities and differences, it encouraged the creative team behind the Hallmark Hall of Fame project to make a more faithful adaptation. The second key ingredient was the trend where content in ‘80s children’s/family-friendly entertainment was darker and “creepier”. Since Hallmark Hall of Fame’s The Secret Garden was released in 1987, it provided an alternative for those who wanted to move away from the aforementioned trend. The last thing is the concept of home entertainment and video rental stores. One of the most well-known video rental businesses, Blockbuster, opened its doors in 1985, just two years before Hallmark Hall of Fame’s adaptation was released. Since then, the idea of renting or purchasing films has played a huge role in the world of cinema. I’m not sure when Hallmark starting allowing their movies to be sold for home entertainment. But their version of The Secret Garden has been available on VHS and DVD.

 

1993: Two important aspects affected the creation of this specific adaptation. The first one is the previous adaptations of The Secret Garden. This particular version of the story was the first theatrical adaptation since the 1949 film. The Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation was close enough to the source material where readers would be satisfied. Taking these films into consideration, the creative team behind the 1993 movie tried to make a movie that felt cinematic and respected the source material. The second thing is the climate that existed in children’s/family-friendly entertainment in the early ‘90s. During this time, the Disney Renaissance was in the early stages. The box office was also receiving films with Don Bluth’s signature animation style. In the live-action department, films like My Girl and Beethoven were released from their respective studios. The early ‘90s provided variety to children’s/family-friendly entertainment. Since this version of The Secret Garden was released in 1993, the film contributed to the aforementioned climate.

 

  1. If an adaptation of The Secret Garden were made today, how would it be different from the other adaptations?

I think that if The Secret Garden received another adaptation, that film’s creative team would probably try to have the story take place in “modern” times. If this decision were made, the simplistic nature that comes from a historical fiction narrative would be taken away. Another possible change would be the incorporation of an environmental message. This would be unnecessary because the purpose of the secret garden has nothing to do the environment. The garden is included in the story to present the idea of becoming a better person when putting the needs of others before one’s own.

 

  1. What aspect from the movie or book do you think has stood the test of time?

The messages and themes within this story have been relatable and cherished for many years. As I already mentioned, one idea that can be found in both the source material and any adaptation is how putting the needs of others before one’s own can help someone become a better person. Because the protagonist of this story is a child, the narrative evokes reflection on a time when a person’s life could be care-free. It also reminds the audience of how anything is possible when we set our minds on something.

20190906_190452[1]
While I have seen this version of The Secret Garden before, this was my first time watching it as an adaptation. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.
Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen

An Introduction to My Bonus Double Feature

Back in May, my post called “A Bucky Fan’s Response to one of Looper’s Avengers: Endgame related videos” became my 200th published post! Whenever I publish a hundred posts, I coordinate a double feature where I try to answer a thought-provoking question through the viewing of two similar films. But, around the time when I published my aforementioned post, I discovered that I would soon reach the milestone of 100 published reviews. So, I postponed my Double Feature until that milestone was reached. It was achieved in July when I published my review of Christmas Camp! However, that post was published just before I embarked on an out-of-town trip. So, I postponed my Double Feature until after the trip. But August became my busiest month, as I participated in four blogathons. Because of that, the Double Feature had to be pushed back again. Now that I have set aside some time to coordinate my Double Feature, I can finally announce that it will be published this week! Since I’m celebrating two milestones, I will be writing about three films.

20190904_161300[1]
I am fully aware of the irony that comes with reading The Secret Garden from the Hallmark Gift Books collection before watching the Hallmark Hall of Fame adaptation. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.
If you ask anyone what the best adaptation of The Secret Garden is, most of them will tell you that it’s the Hallmark Hall of Fame version from 1987. For years, I have heard this statement from many people on the internet. In fact, when I asked a search engine which adaptation of The Secret Garden was the best one, the Hallmark Hall of Fame version was the film that came up as the answer. But is this movie really the best adaptation? That’s what I wanted to find out for myself! The most well-known versions of The Secret Garden that I will be watching are the 1949 release, the Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation, and the 1993 project. I read The Secret Garden prior to watching these films, so I could gain a better understanding of how similar or different each adaptation is from the source material. Because I’m going to talk about three versions of the same story, I will ask myself fewer questions than I did for my Halloween Double Feature. I will also not be giving these films any score ratings because I’m judging them as adaptations. There will be no pre-movie thoughts, questions, or predictions this time because I know what the movies are about before I’ve seen them.

 

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen

Take 3: Little Nellie Kelly Review

I know that it’s been two weeks since I last wrote a movie review. Because I was out of town around that time, I chose to reschedule several of my planned blog posts to later dates. But, when it comes to posts relating to blogathons, I always try my best to be a blogger of my word and publish my lists, reviews, or editorials within the blogathon time-frame. When I signed up for the 2nd Annual Broadway Bound Blogathon, I knew, right away, that I would be reviewing the film, Little Nellie Kelly. Before this review, I had never seen or heard of this movie. Plus, the synopsis on Turner Classic Movies’ (TCM’s) website said that this film is about “the daughter of Irish immigrants patches up differences between her father and grandfather and rises to the top on Broadway”. Because I knew that Judy Garland was the star of this production, I figured that I would, at least, find some enjoyment in this movie. Was my prediction correct? Was there enjoyment to be found in Little Nellie Kelly? Please keep reading if you want to find the answer!

Little Nellie Kelly poster
Little Nellie Kelly poster created by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Image found at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poster_-_Little_Nellie_Kelly_03.jpg

Things I liked about the film:

  • The acting: Something I’ve noticed about Judy’s films (specifically the ones that I’ve seen) is that she surrounds herself with a talented cast. This is no different for Little Nellie Kelly. Charles Winninger’s portrayal of Michael Noonan was such a pleasant surprise! He brought so much emotion to his performance that it ended up being effective. Judy’s performance was also great to watch! Her emotions and musicality helped her portrayal of Nellie Kelly be as strong as it was. I also liked George Murphy’s performance as Jerry Kelly! His acting talents helped carry this film alongside his co-stars.

 

  • The comedy: In Little Nellie Kelly, there were comedic moments that I truly found to be hilarious. One scene has Nellie telling her father that she’s going to get married to Jerry. As soon as her father hears this, he unexpectedly spits out his coffee and makes a big mess. This moment made me laugh out loud! As I watched the film, I noticed that the majority of these comedic moments were caused by Charles’ character, Michael. Because of this particular actor’s quality of talent, it made the film’s comedy stick the landing.

 

  • Some of the montages: There were two montages in Little Nellie Kelly that I really liked. The first one was when Jerry, Nellie, and Michael go through the process of becoming citizens of the United States. When it comes to cinematic stories about people immigrating to the United States, this aspect of the narrative is rarely explored. The second montage I liked showed the process of Jerry becoming a police officer. In film, when a character chooses to be a police officer, they are usually shown either before or after they accept the job. Like the first montage, this process is not always featured in cinematic narratives. Even though these montages didn’t last very long, I’m glad they were included in this story.
2nd Annual Broadway Bound Blogathon banner
The 2nd Annual Broadway Bound Blogathon banner created by Rebecca from Taking Up Room. Image found at https://takinguproom.wordpress.com/2019/03/07/announcing-the-second-annual-broadway-bound-blogathon/.

What I didn’t like about the film:

  • An inability to hold an accent: Because some of the characters are from Ireland, hearing accents from them is to be expected. While Charles Winninger did a good job when it came to carrying the accent, I felt that Judy and George’s ability to carry an Irish accent wasn’t as strong. When I watched Little Nellie Kelly, I never heard Jerry talk with an Irish accent. Meanwhile, the only time Nellie spoke with an Irish accent was when she sang “A Pretty Girl Milking Her Cow”. Because of Judy and George’s inability to carry an accent, this prevented a sense of continuity to exist amongst the characters.

 

  • A limited amount of musical numbers and comedy: Even though I liked the comedy in this film, there were very few comedic moments to be found. Throughout this one hour and thirty-eight minute picture, there were more dramatic moments than comedic ones. In this movie, there were a total of about four to five musical numbers. That’s a lot less than I was expecting. The film’s opening credits said that Little Nellie Kelly was based on a “musical comedy”. But, if anything, this project felt more like a “dramedy” (a combination of comedy and drama), with an emphasis on drama.

 

  • Judy Garland portraying Nellie Kelly Sr. and Jr.: In the movie, Judy portrays two characters; Nellie Kelly and her daughter. While different hairstyles helped, a little bit, to differentiate between the two characters, this creative decision still baffled me. I understand that MGM wanted to utilize Judy’s talent as much as possible. However, I still think that Judy should have portrayed only one character. Because this movie is called Little Nellie Kelly, Judy could have portrayed the daughter, while another, slightly older actress could have portrayed Nellie Kelly Sr. That way, Judy could have still been the leading star of the movie, while the other actress could also receive a significant amount of recognition.
233200-P2SBE6-483
St. Patrick’s Day image created by Freepik at freepik.com. <a href=’https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/st-patrick-s-day-background_1640464.htm’>Designed by Freepik</a>. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/background”>Background vector created by Freepik</a>. Image found at freepik.com. 

My overall impression:

I like Little Nellie Kelly for what it is. There are elements to the film that make it enjoyable, such as the musical numbers and the acting. However, I found this movie to be somewhat misleading. As I said in the introduction, this synopsis said that the protagonist “rises to the top on Broadway”. Not only was this location never mentioned in the film, but Nellie never aspired to be an entertainer. What makes this even more frustrating is how few musical numbers there were and how little comedy there was in the film despite it being called a “musical comedy” in the opening credits. From what I’ve heard, this movie is based on a pre-existing Broadway musical. Because I have never seen the stage version of this story, it’s difficult for me to say if the movie was anything like the play. This kind of reminds me of how I felt about Edward, My Son. Both of these films were based on plays and made me felt like I was misled. I can’t fault the creative teams behind these movies too much, since their job was to adapt their respective plays to the screen. However, a good amount of honesty should have been included into each film’s synopsis.

 

Overall score: 7.2 out of 10

 

Have you seen any of Judy Garland’s movies? If so, which one is your favorite? Let me know in the comment section!

 

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen

Take 3: Meet Me in St. Louis Review + 75 Follower Thank You

Last week, 18 Cinema Lane received 75 followers! Before I start this review, I’d like to take a moment to thank all of my followers for making this achievement possible. Without you, my blog would never have received this milestone (especially in this short amount of time). So, like I’ve done in the past, I will now review a film that was released 75 years ago (in 1944). Because I’ve only seen bits and pieces of Meet Me in St. Louis, I’ve chosen this movie to celebrate this accomplishment! When I picked this movie to review, I realized that the only films of Judy Garland’s that I had ever seen were The Wizard of Oz and A Child is Waiting. This gave me a good excuse to not only watch a movie that I had never seen in its entirety, but to also explore Judy’s filmography! Now, let’s finally start this review for Meet Me in St. Louis!

Meet Me in St. Louis poster
Meet Me in St. Louis poster created by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Loew’s, Inc. Image found at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meet_Me_in_St._Louis_poster.jpg

Things I liked about the film:

  • The acting: The cast was very talented in Meet Me in St. Louis! To me, the two strongest performers in this film were Judy Garland and Margaret O’Brien! Like in The Wizard of Oz and A Child is Waiting, Judy has both the musical and acting talents to carry a significant weight of the film. Judy also has good on-screen chemistry with Tom Drake, who portrays John Truett in the film. Margaret O’Brien’s portrayal of “Tootie” Smith was one of the strongest elements of this film! During the scene where “Tootie” is so upset about moving to New York that she destroys the snowpeople outside, Margaret’s performance was so emotionally powerful. In fact, her performance was so emotionally powerful, that it was an affective way to make the audience feel sorry for the character. Both Judy’s and Margaret’s performance complimented the performances of the other actors as well.

 

  • The music: I really liked the music in this film! The collection of songs was a good balance of light-hearted and emotional material. Judy’s musical performances were a treat to see, as they were all delightful and enjoyable! My favorite musical number in this movie was when Judy and Margaret performed “Under the Bamboo Tree”. This performance was so joyful and added to the light-hearted nature of the film. When it comes to more emotional performances, I really liked Judy’s rendition of “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas”. Her version of the song was emotional enough to affectively reflect the mood of what’s going on in the film. It’s sad, as it addresses reflecting on times gone by, and it’s hopeful, as it talks about appreciating the things you have in your life. This assortment of songs made seeing this movie an enjoyable experience!

 

  • The sets: All of the sets in Meet Me in St. Louis were impressive! I’m not sure if the Smith family home is a real-life house or a house built on a studio lot. However, the facility itself was absolutely gorgeous! Everything in this house looked and felt like a home from the early 1900s. I also liked how the ballroom looked in the scene where Esther, Rose, Lon, and Grandpa attend the annual Christmas ball. The way the Christmas tree was placed in the greenroom was so pretty. The Christmas tree’s placement was also a good way to effectively pull off a surprise within the story!
2097039
St. Louis, Missouri sticker image created by Freepik at freepik.com. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/label”>Label vector created by freepik – http://www.freepik.com</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

What I didn’t like about the film:

  • A weak first segment: From a story-telling perspective, I thought the story during the “Summer 1903” segment was the weakest element of the movie. Within the first twenty minutes, the primary story focused on whether Rose would become engaged via a long-distance telephone call. Because the first few minutes of a film is, usually, reserved for providing exposition, I don’t think Rose’s story was an effective way to start this movie. It is as if the screenwriters expected their audience to automatically care about a character whom they just met. For me, the overall narrative wasn’t interesting until the “Fall 1903” segment began.

 

  • Too many characters: Even though Meet Me in St. Louis had a talented cast, I feel there were too many characters associated with this story. In this movie, the overall narrative seemed to serve only a few of the characters. The individuals that benefited the most from this narrative were Esther, Rose, “Tootie”, John Truett, and Mr. & Mrs. Smith. The rest of the characters either feel like they’re there for the sake of being there or like they weren’t given enough screen-time.

 

  • The limited presence of the World’s Fair: Throughout this movie, the World’s Fair is referenced by several characters on several different occasions. It’s even mentioned in the opening song, “Meet Me in St. Louis, Louis”. However, the World’s Fair itself was only featured within the last twenty minutes. Even in those few moments, the World’s Fair isn’t incorporated into the story enough to make me, as an audience member, feel satisfied. If anything, the World’s Fair in Meet Me in St. Louis was just a glorified extra.
Note_lines_horizontal1
String of musical notes image created by Freepik at freepik.com. <a href=’https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/pentagram-vector_710290.htm’>Designed by Freepik</a> <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/background”>Backgroundvector created by Freepik</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

My overall impression:

Meet Me in St. Louis is a good film! The music is entertaining and the story is interesting enough to keep the audience invested. As I mentioned in my review, the acting is what helped keep this movie going. While Judy and Margaret were the two strongest performers in this movie, the rest of the cast was also talented. Yes, this film did have its flaws. However, there was a good amount of content that made the experience of watching this movie enjoyable. I’m glad I chose this movie to review for my 75 follower dedication post because it allows me to explore the filmography of both Judy Garland and Margaret O’Brien! It also gave me a good excuse to watch a film that I had never seen in its entirety.

 

Overall score: 7.5-7.6 out of 10

 

What are your thoughts on my review? Are you looking forward to seeing which movies I review in future blog follower dedication posts? Leave your thoughts in the comment section!

 

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen

Take 3: Edward, My Son Review + 70 Follower Thank You

Two weeks ago, 18 Cinema Lane received 70 followers! The reason why I waited this long to publish my 70 follower dedication post is to decide whether I should review Edward, My Son or The Secret Garden. I ended up choosing Edward, My Son because I haven’t heard many people talk about the film. In fact, I had never heard of this movie until this month. When I chose to review Edward, My Son, I discovered that it was based on a play. I also learned that it was about a father who wanted to protect the well-being and assets of his son. Curious about how this father was going to complete his mission, I became very intrigued by this story. With that, it’s now time for me to review my 14th movie in this series, Edward, My Son!

Edward, My Son poster
Edward, My Son poster created by MGM-British and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Image found at http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/73917/Edward-My-Son/#.

Things I liked about the film:

  • The acting: I thought Edward, My Son had a good cast! Spencer Tracy’s and Deborah Kerr’s performance was one of the most memorable parts of this film! Both of them brought the emotional intensity and versatility that helped their portrayals of Arnold and Evelyn Boult be as strong as they were. All of their emotions appeared very natural, providing depth to their characters and to any given scene. Mervyn Johns’ performance in Edward, My Son was such a pleasant surprise! He convincingly portrayed the terrified nature of his character, Harry Simpkin. Even though this character was not on-screen very often, Mervyn found a way to make this character as memorable as possible.

 

  • The evolution of Arnold and Evelyn Boult: Throughout the film, Arnold and Evelyn Boult evolve as individuals. This process started because of the actions and choices of Arnold. As time goes on, Evelyn changes as a person, being negatively affected by Arnold’s decisions. The way that Arnold and Evelyn evolve over the course of the film was very effective. This was because of how well-written and well-acted these characters were. Arnold and Evelyn’s evolution also effectively showed how time was passing in the story.

 

  • The staging of the sets: Before watching Edward, My Son, I found out this movie was based on a play. When I saw the film, all of the sets reminded me of scenes that could be found within a play. In Edward, My Son, there is no action and very few transitions between locations. The story itself doesn’t seem too complex. These factors helped this play make a smooth transition to the screen. The only thing about this movie that felt cinematic was any time Arnold spoke directly to the audience.
153616-OU5Z8X-115
Birthday party set-up image created by Freepik at freepik.com. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/food”>Food photo created by freepik – http://www.freepik.com</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

What I didn’t like about the film:

  • An Absence of Edward: Even though this movie is titled Edward, My Son, Edward never makes an on-screen appearance. In fact, Edward is only incorporated into the film through the dialogue of other characters. Because of this creative choice, it treats Edward and his story like an afterthought. Instead, the primary plot focuses on Edward’s father’s rise to power and fortune. The creative team behind this film did not show and tell their audience about Edward. They never give them the opportunity to get to know and connect with him as a character. Since the audience was not given this chance, the things that happen in Edward’s personal life don’t feel emotionally effective.

 

  • A longer run-time: Edward, My Son is almost two hours. This caused the story to feel a bit drawn out. It also made the film end about 10 to 20 minutes too late. Personally, I think Edward, My Son should have been at least an hour and ten minutes. If this were the case, then the story could have been a bit more condensed.

 

  • An uncompelling story: As I’ve already said, the primary plot of Edward, My Son is about Arnold’s, Edward’s father’s, rise to power and fortune. Since I was more interested in learning about Edward, I didn’t really think Arnold’s story was compelling. Watching Arnold progress from a caring father and husband with good intentions to a self-centered, power hungry man was a little bit interesting. However, it wasn’t interesting enough to make me, as an audience member, satisfied. Had the movie showed the points of view of both Arnold and Edward, I think it would have added intrigue to the overall narrative.
Jewels sparkle in the golden wedding rings lying on the leather
Fancy jewelry image created by Freepic.diller at freepik.com. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/wedding”>Wedding photo created by freepic.diller – http://www.freepik.com</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

My overall impression:

Edward, My Son was an ok film. It definitely had the pieces to be a good, quality project. However, the biggest issue I had with Edward, My Son was the lack of Edward. Even though Edward is not an on-stage character in the play, I didn’t like how Edward did not appear in the movie. The film focused more on Arnold and the changes he experiences over the course of twenty-three years. Therefore, the title should have been more reflective of the overall narrative. In my opinion, I think that Edward should have been an on-screen character. We not only could have gotten to know him, we also could have seen how his father’s choices affected him. It also would have been a great opportunity for an actor to either start their career or help their career grow. I’m guessing there were several actors, at the time, who would have wanted to accept a role in a movie like this. If Edward was an on-screen character, it could have helped an actor achieve a “standing ovation” that they had probably worked very hard to earn. Sadly, this opportunity was not available because of the creative choices that were made for this film. That is the one thing I will take away after watching Edward, My Son. Thank you so much to all my 70 followers! Your support of this blog really means a lot to me!

 

Overall score: 6 out of 10

 

What did you think of my review? Is there a movie from 1949 that is your favorite? Please tell me in the comment section!

 

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen

Take 3: All Dogs Go to Heaven 2 Review

I’m not going to lie, I don’t have a movie in my life that I would consider “so bad it’s good”. But, because of my involvement in the So Bad It’s Good Blogathon from Taking Up Room, I wanted to find that film that I could finally call “so bad it’s good”. For this review, I could have chosen a film that has a reputation for being “so bad it’s good”. However, just because other people say that a movie is “so bad it’s good” doesn’t necessarily mean I would feel the same way about that movie. So, I approached the topic with this mindset: find a movie that might be less-than-stellar but has qualities about it that are redeemable. When I thought about a film that could fit these criteria, my first thought was a Don Bluth film that hasn’t been well remembered. One of my favorite movies is Anastasia from 1997. Don Bluth’s animation style is one of the things that make that movie so memorable. But I know that not all of Don Bluth’s films were created equally. With that said, I have chosen All Dogs Go to Heaven 2 as my pick for this blogathon! Since I’ve only seen half of the first film and bit and pieces of its sequel, I coordinated a double feature so I could figure out if All Dogs Go to Heaven 2 is “so bad it’s good”. Even though it had some flaws, I thought that All Dogs Go to Heaven was a good film. It also gave me some perspective as to what I could or could not expect from All Dogs Go to Heaven’s successor. Now that I have revealed which movie I’m reviewing, it’s time to see if All Dogs Go to Heaven 2 is truly “so bad it’s good”!

All Dogs Go to Heaven 2 poster
All Dogs Go to Heaven 2 poster created by MGM/UA Family Entertainment, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Animation, and MGM/UA Distribution Co. Image found at https://mgm.com/#/our-titles/47/All-Dogs-Go-To-Heaven-2.

Things I liked about the film:

  • The animation: Even though Don Bluth was not involved in the production of All Dogs Go to Heaven 2, I still liked the animation within the film. Like in the first movie, there was a good balance between dark and bright colors. A good example of this is during the movie’s climax, when the darkness of the prison is balanced out with the bright red of the villain and the bright pink that came from Heaven. I also thought that the quality of the animation was sharper than in the first film. Even though the animation was good in All Dogs Go to Heaven, it was softer in terms of the lines and shape of characters, buildings, and landscapes. In the sequel, this softer style of animation was just reserved for landscapes.

 

  • Revisiting the characters of Charlie and Itchy: When it comes to sequels, one of the best parts is seeing familiar faces from the previous film. A highlight of All Dogs Go to Heaven 2 was having Charlie and Itchy return from the first movie! Their involvement in the sequel’s story helped provide some continuity between the two films. It was also nice to see both of these characters receive more character development. While in San Francisco, Charlie shares a memory of his youth with a new character named David. Not only did David learn more about his friend, the audience got to learn more about Charlie. Moments like this help characters like Charlie and Itchy gain more likability.

 

  • The villain: As I was watching All Dogs Go to Heaven, I noticed that one of the flaws of the film was Carface. While he was a good villain, Carface wasn’t as strong of a villain as the movie wanted him to be. He seemed to show up in the film only for plot convenience, which made him not as big of a threat to the protagonists as he could have been. In All Dogs Go to Heaven 2, the villain was a cat named Red. To me, this villain was scarier than Carface, even upstaging Carface’s villainy. No matter if Red was on or off-screen, the sense of dread and doom was always there. Even his transformations in the film were pretty terrifying. This helped make Red an even bigger threat to Charlie, Itchy, and their friends.
110502-OO11BG-704
Dog collection image created by Freepik at freepik.com. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/dog”>Dog vector created by freepik – http://www.freepik.com</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

What I didn’t like about the film:

  • No references to the first movie: Something that I look for in a sequel is how the story connects to its predecessor. Unfortunately, All Dogs Go to Heaven 2 didn’t really make an effort to address the events of the first film. One example of this is the absence of Anne-Marie. In the previous movie, Anne-Marie played a significant role within the overall story. Her friendship with Charlie and Itchy was depicted as being very meaningful. But in the sequel, when Itchy joins Charlie in Heaven, Charlie does not ask about Anne-Marie’s whereabouts. Because these important details were ignored, it almost seemed like everything that happened in the first movie meant nothing.

 

  • A rehashed story: The overall narrative of All Dogs Go to Heaven 2 felt like it copied some of the key plot points from the first film. David’s involvement in the sequel is a good example of this. Similar to Anne-Marie, David spends the majority of the film by himself. Charlie not only befriends the child protagonist in both films, he also helps them find their family. At one point in their respective films, Anne-Marie and David get taken by Carface. These coincidences made this story feel like it wasn’t as creative as it could have been.

 

  • The main plot being an afterthought: In All Dogs Go to Heaven 2, the primary plot was about Charlie and Itchy going back to Earth in order to retrieve Gabriel’s Horn. But as I watched the film, it seemed like the story focused more on the whereabouts of David than returning Gabriel’s Horn back to Heaven. The audience doesn’t see the consequences of not having Gabriel’s Horn until the climax of the film. After the initial loss of Gabriel’s Horn, it doesn’t show up in the film again until the half-way point. While this part of the story was an interesting way to continue the overall narrative, it felt like more emphasis was placed on recapturing the magic of the first film.
So Bad It's Good Blogathon banner
The So Bad It’s Good Blogathon banner created by Rebecca from Taking Up Room. Image found at https://takinguproom.wordpress.com/2018/11/15/announcing-the-so-bad-its-good-blogathon/

My overall impression:

As a movie, I thought All Dogs Go to Heaven 2 was just ok. As a sequel, this movie felt very unnecessary. Instead of complimenting or adding to the previous chapter, All Dogs Go to Heaven 2 almost rejected everything that came before it. All Dogs Go to Heaven ended on such a good, definitive note. This made for a memorable and enjoyable stand-alone film. As I mentioned earlier, the sequel made the events in the first movie feel like they meant nothing. However, I do think that the creative team behind All Dogs Go to Heaven 2 had their hearts in the right place. We did get to see Charlie and Itchy again, as well as being introduced to new characters. The animation was good and so were the songs. While I wouldn’t call the sequel “so bad it’s good”, I don’t think it’s as enjoyable as the previous film.

 

Overall score: 6 out of 10

 

What are your thoughts on my review? Which movie do you think is “so bad it’s good”? Share your thoughts in the comment section!

 

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen