jimjo1216
Joined Oct 2005
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews231
jimjo1216's rating
"1001 Arabian Nights" marks the first foray into feature-length films for both Mister Magoo and UPA. The result is somewhat lackluster, as Magoo is given a supporting role in his own big debut. The movie is a retelling of the classic Arabian Nights tale of Aladdin and his magic lamp, complete with beautiful princess, evil sorcerer, genie, and flying carpet. Magoo is added as Aladdin's uncle, a father figure urging his nephew to get married. The familiar plot doesn't need Magoo to help it along, although he bumbles into a few key scenes. The film is hardly a showcase for Magoo, yet it's not a very compelling animated fantasy, either.
The movie seems to lack inspiration, and never really justifies its existence. Why was this movie made? Was it primarily a vehicle for UPA's biggest star, Mister Magoo? Or was it a vision of a fairy tale classic that was begging to be brought to the screen? In the end, it doesn't seem like either. The story is weak and padded with tepid gags. The songs, such as they are, are weak. UPA's signature stylized aesthetic doesn't quite shine through, and the limited animation does the film no favors. Magoo winds up playing second-fiddle to the generic romantic leads (a scenario which calls to mind the treatment of the Marx Bros. in their movies at MGM), not to mention the hammy villain. "1001 Arabian Nights" falls short as a feature-length Magoo adventure, but the Arabian Nights tale is a little too dull to stand on its own without him. (So what was driving this movie to get made?)
UPA decided to keep the "attractive" human leads (Aladdin and the princess) less stylized and cartoony than the characters around them (possibly to ground the romantic drama at the heart of the plot). But the more "natural" character designs feel out of place in the stylized cartoony world, and the animated characters seem almost as wooden as their voice acting. (Live-action stars Dwayne Hickman and Kathryn Grant were brought in to voice the characters.) Aladdin is particularly bland; at least Princess Yasminda is given some exotic flair.
The movie is not bad, though. Just a bit underwhelming. It's diverting enough as an animated fairy tale, innocuous enough for the whole family to enjoy. There are flashes of UPA's signature visual flair, mostly in the opening credits and in the backgrounds. Fans of Disney's "Aladdin" (1992) will find it interesting to note the parallels between the two films, which are quite similar in plot. (Maybe Disney animators had been inspired by this film on some level, or maybe each film is just a faithful depiction of the original story.)
The most interesting character in the film is Hans Conried's Wicked Wazir, a colorful comedic villain whose schemes are somehow always foiled by Magoo (oblivious as always). Conried almost single-handedly breathes life into the film with his performance (think his Captain Hook in Disney's "Peter Pan", but kookier). No one does comic exasperation like Hans Conried. Along with Jim Backus as Magoo, the voice cast also features veteran vocal performers Alan Reed (Fred Flintstone) as the sultan and the prolific Daws Butler (Yogi Bear, "Fractured Fairy Tales", etc.) as the rugmaker and the royal accountant.
The movie seems to lack inspiration, and never really justifies its existence. Why was this movie made? Was it primarily a vehicle for UPA's biggest star, Mister Magoo? Or was it a vision of a fairy tale classic that was begging to be brought to the screen? In the end, it doesn't seem like either. The story is weak and padded with tepid gags. The songs, such as they are, are weak. UPA's signature stylized aesthetic doesn't quite shine through, and the limited animation does the film no favors. Magoo winds up playing second-fiddle to the generic romantic leads (a scenario which calls to mind the treatment of the Marx Bros. in their movies at MGM), not to mention the hammy villain. "1001 Arabian Nights" falls short as a feature-length Magoo adventure, but the Arabian Nights tale is a little too dull to stand on its own without him. (So what was driving this movie to get made?)
UPA decided to keep the "attractive" human leads (Aladdin and the princess) less stylized and cartoony than the characters around them (possibly to ground the romantic drama at the heart of the plot). But the more "natural" character designs feel out of place in the stylized cartoony world, and the animated characters seem almost as wooden as their voice acting. (Live-action stars Dwayne Hickman and Kathryn Grant were brought in to voice the characters.) Aladdin is particularly bland; at least Princess Yasminda is given some exotic flair.
The movie is not bad, though. Just a bit underwhelming. It's diverting enough as an animated fairy tale, innocuous enough for the whole family to enjoy. There are flashes of UPA's signature visual flair, mostly in the opening credits and in the backgrounds. Fans of Disney's "Aladdin" (1992) will find it interesting to note the parallels between the two films, which are quite similar in plot. (Maybe Disney animators had been inspired by this film on some level, or maybe each film is just a faithful depiction of the original story.)
The most interesting character in the film is Hans Conried's Wicked Wazir, a colorful comedic villain whose schemes are somehow always foiled by Magoo (oblivious as always). Conried almost single-handedly breathes life into the film with his performance (think his Captain Hook in Disney's "Peter Pan", but kookier). No one does comic exasperation like Hans Conried. Along with Jim Backus as Magoo, the voice cast also features veteran vocal performers Alan Reed (Fred Flintstone) as the sultan and the prolific Daws Butler (Yogi Bear, "Fractured Fairy Tales", etc.) as the rugmaker and the royal accountant.
What a drag.
Curious film buffs may be interested in seeing Doris Day in a dramatic suspense film, outside the comfort zone of the musicals and romantic comedies for which she's most famous. But JULIE (1956) is an endlessly infuriating film, and an endurance test for even the most enthusiastic classic movie fan. It's the longest 1h 39min movie I've ever seen. Two minutes into the film I knew it was awful, and I began itching for it to end.
The beginning of the movie is terrible, with the thick marital melodrama and Doris Day's vague voiceover exposition. Dullsville, and a real chore to sit through. There is no mystery to the film. In the first scene we see that one of the characters is a dangerous psychopath, and soon thereafter an even more horrible secret is revealed. Viewers may be expecting some red herrings, or may guess about shocking twists, but the plot is completely straightforward. The movie becomes one frustrating, drawn-out suspense sequence after another, as Doris Day tries to escape her husband. The second half is a little more interesting, once the police get involved. Somehow the entire third act (a surprisingly large chunk of the movie) takes place on an airplane. The sequence is compelling at times, exasperating at others, and it never seems to want to end.
The story (by director Andrew L. Stone) seems to be constructed as an analysis of worst-case scenarios, and it's always upping the ante. How do you escape the watchful eye of the sociopath you married? How do you keep him from tracking you down? What do you do when you can't prove a murder? What can you do when there are no legal steps to take, and the police don't believe you, or can't help you regardless? Can you get away? Can you stay hidden? What happens when he finds you? What if the police can't warn you in time? What if you're on a plane? What if something happens to the pilot?
Frank Lovejoy as the San Francisco police lieutenant is the only character who talks sense. He knows his way around a homicide, and he recognizes the danger Day may be in, even if there's little that law enforcement can do at the time. When the situation escalates, he's the voice of reason, knowing the consequences that certain behavior may have in delicate scenarios involving dangerous psychopaths. He does everything he can, takes every precaution, although his efforts are sometimes foiled by rotten timing.
Stone's script aims for a certain deglamorized, Murphy's Law realism. It highlights the real-world frustrations one might face in extraordinary circumstances. Nothing is neat and tidy; nothing is easy. Police are bound by laws, for instance, and can't open a murder case on the whim of some woman with no evidence to prove it. A wounded man may not be noticed by the one person who could help him. The telephone operator may be the only resource available for piecing together key information in a time of desperate urgency. Sometimes phone calls are put on hold. Sometimes the elevator takes too long. Sometimes people take the stairs. Sometimes the sociopath has a gun. The characters are not written as cinema heroes; they are everyday people bound, more or less, by real-world constraints, who must be resourceful.
Like the detective's reasoned response to the threat of danger, the final flight emergency is interesting in its apparent real-world detail. Flight instruments and radar and landing protocols are touched upon in a way that is fascinating to those who don't know much about flying planes. Again, it adds to that sense of practical realism, telling a Hollywood-sized tale grounded in the nuts and bolts of everyday life.
But the torturous suspense sequences, where every little thing goes wrong and the maniac villain keeps coming and coming, wear on the nerves and only add to the awfulness of the first part of the movie, which by the end feels a lifetime away. Louis Jourdan is instantly detestable and completely devoid of any sympathetic qualities or charisma. Barry Sullivan does an admirable job as a sort of white knight. Lovejoy is solid as Lt. Pringle. Day's character is under considerable emotional strain, but remains courageous against a stacked deck. Ultimately, JULIE is a dire film played straight by its cast, resulting in a marathon trudge through eye-roll-inducing scenes. (Don't try to land an airplane with your eyes closed.) Luckily Doris Day appeared in other dramatic and suspenseful films, so viewers can skip this one.
Curious film buffs may be interested in seeing Doris Day in a dramatic suspense film, outside the comfort zone of the musicals and romantic comedies for which she's most famous. But JULIE (1956) is an endlessly infuriating film, and an endurance test for even the most enthusiastic classic movie fan. It's the longest 1h 39min movie I've ever seen. Two minutes into the film I knew it was awful, and I began itching for it to end.
The beginning of the movie is terrible, with the thick marital melodrama and Doris Day's vague voiceover exposition. Dullsville, and a real chore to sit through. There is no mystery to the film. In the first scene we see that one of the characters is a dangerous psychopath, and soon thereafter an even more horrible secret is revealed. Viewers may be expecting some red herrings, or may guess about shocking twists, but the plot is completely straightforward. The movie becomes one frustrating, drawn-out suspense sequence after another, as Doris Day tries to escape her husband. The second half is a little more interesting, once the police get involved. Somehow the entire third act (a surprisingly large chunk of the movie) takes place on an airplane. The sequence is compelling at times, exasperating at others, and it never seems to want to end.
The story (by director Andrew L. Stone) seems to be constructed as an analysis of worst-case scenarios, and it's always upping the ante. How do you escape the watchful eye of the sociopath you married? How do you keep him from tracking you down? What do you do when you can't prove a murder? What can you do when there are no legal steps to take, and the police don't believe you, or can't help you regardless? Can you get away? Can you stay hidden? What happens when he finds you? What if the police can't warn you in time? What if you're on a plane? What if something happens to the pilot?
Frank Lovejoy as the San Francisco police lieutenant is the only character who talks sense. He knows his way around a homicide, and he recognizes the danger Day may be in, even if there's little that law enforcement can do at the time. When the situation escalates, he's the voice of reason, knowing the consequences that certain behavior may have in delicate scenarios involving dangerous psychopaths. He does everything he can, takes every precaution, although his efforts are sometimes foiled by rotten timing.
Stone's script aims for a certain deglamorized, Murphy's Law realism. It highlights the real-world frustrations one might face in extraordinary circumstances. Nothing is neat and tidy; nothing is easy. Police are bound by laws, for instance, and can't open a murder case on the whim of some woman with no evidence to prove it. A wounded man may not be noticed by the one person who could help him. The telephone operator may be the only resource available for piecing together key information in a time of desperate urgency. Sometimes phone calls are put on hold. Sometimes the elevator takes too long. Sometimes people take the stairs. Sometimes the sociopath has a gun. The characters are not written as cinema heroes; they are everyday people bound, more or less, by real-world constraints, who must be resourceful.
Like the detective's reasoned response to the threat of danger, the final flight emergency is interesting in its apparent real-world detail. Flight instruments and radar and landing protocols are touched upon in a way that is fascinating to those who don't know much about flying planes. Again, it adds to that sense of practical realism, telling a Hollywood-sized tale grounded in the nuts and bolts of everyday life.
But the torturous suspense sequences, where every little thing goes wrong and the maniac villain keeps coming and coming, wear on the nerves and only add to the awfulness of the first part of the movie, which by the end feels a lifetime away. Louis Jourdan is instantly detestable and completely devoid of any sympathetic qualities or charisma. Barry Sullivan does an admirable job as a sort of white knight. Lovejoy is solid as Lt. Pringle. Day's character is under considerable emotional strain, but remains courageous against a stacked deck. Ultimately, JULIE is a dire film played straight by its cast, resulting in a marathon trudge through eye-roll-inducing scenes. (Don't try to land an airplane with your eyes closed.) Luckily Doris Day appeared in other dramatic and suspenseful films, so viewers can skip this one.
What sets this film apart from other TV-quality holiday rom-coms is that it remembers that it is a comedy, and isn't bogged down by sappy, saccharine moments. (No children making Christmas wishes, no ruminations about fate or true love, no holiday miracles.) The movie plays out its silly plot with sort of a furrowed brow and a sly smirk. In the tradition of decades of great romantic comedies, the love story evolves from a combative and competitive relationship: a first-time wedding planner tries to manage her cousin's high-class nuptials without a hitch, while the bride's private eye ex digs up dirt on the groom.
The success of this film is owed largely to the winning performance of its lead, Jocelyn Hudon, who is charming and natural. She gives her character an edge of believable awkwardness that is endearing and suitably contemporary. She's a young entrepreneur who's in a little over her head, but she's strong-willed and doing the best she can. (Her inner monologue colors the narrative through voice-over and private text messages.) Stephen Huszar is an effective foil as the laid-back, confidently goofy private investigator-slash-restauranteur (his sleuthing is more of a side hustle).
The Christmas setting is purely incidental, as this story is all about the upcoming wedding. But the snow and holiday decor make for nice set dressing. There are dramatic turns along the way, but the movie is primarily a lighthearted and quirky affair, and an enjoyable diversion.
The success of this film is owed largely to the winning performance of its lead, Jocelyn Hudon, who is charming and natural. She gives her character an edge of believable awkwardness that is endearing and suitably contemporary. She's a young entrepreneur who's in a little over her head, but she's strong-willed and doing the best she can. (Her inner monologue colors the narrative through voice-over and private text messages.) Stephen Huszar is an effective foil as the laid-back, confidently goofy private investigator-slash-restauranteur (his sleuthing is more of a side hustle).
The Christmas setting is purely incidental, as this story is all about the upcoming wedding. But the snow and holiday decor make for nice set dressing. There are dramatic turns along the way, but the movie is primarily a lighthearted and quirky affair, and an enjoyable diversion.