neroville

I picked this DVD up at Comic-Con, because I saw that Chris Sarandon was in it, and I've always been a fan of his. I had no idea what awaited me when I popped it into the DVD player, but I loved it! "The Chosen One" is a quirky, delightful animated feature with a relaxed, offbeat sense of humor that compliments its sincerity.

The plot- involving the adventures of a dweeby everyguy named Lou who discovers his superpowers, and encounters temptation in the form of Lucifer (Tim Curry)- is familiar, but it's not bland or formulaic. The everyguy hero is a doofus, but he's smart; his sidekicks are endearing, and the story takes a number of unexpected twists and turns. The voice acting is especially fine. Tim Curry makes a terrific Lucifer, both dapper and ominous, and Chris Sarandon is hilarious- and nearly unrecognizable- in the role of Zebulon Kirk, Lou's ancient roommate. As for the animation, I loved the character designs- I found them adorable- and the whole look of the movie was refreshingly non-CGI'ed. "The Chosen One" manages to be both entertaining and thought-provoking. I highly recommend it!

This Scholastic video version of Kathryn Lasky's "Elizabeth I: Red Rose of the House of Tudor" is not so great, but it's short enough, and it's less obnoxious than, say, an episode of Dragonball Z. The plot mainly consists of kiddie Elizabeth writing in her diary, suffering the torments of her half-sister Mary (who is yet again portrayed as having black hair- when actually her hair was as red as Elizabeth's), and trying to keep her good stepmom Queen Catherine from becoming Beheaded Wife #3. It's all pleasantly ludicrous, and the costumes are nicer than you'd expect for a straight-to-video production. But one wonders- were *any* English child actors available to Scholastic Inc.? It seems that they chose the American child actors who were least able fake a convincing English accent; Tamara Hope's accent wanders all over the place, from upper Wisconsin to Cockney a la Dick van Dyke. But it's all harmless enough, I suppose, and worthwhile enough for a twelve-year-old with a Tudor obsession to check out from the library. (But the book is much better.)

I really wanted to like this movie; I really did. I figured that since I have always loved "The Wizard of Oz," "Forbidden Planet," and "Samson and Delilah," that "Thief" would appeal to me. After all, I figured, it would combine the best of the art direction and fantasy of "Wizard" with the otherworldliness of "Planet," along with the lush Hollywood exoticism of "Samson and Delilah." Unfortunately, this was not the case. I am sorry to say that all of those previously mentioned movies are much better than "Thief of Bagdad."

For starters, I was particularly disappointed in the story- it seemed to jump all over the place, and there was a lack of any really convincing character arcs for the leads. Sabu, who is adorable and energetic as always, made for an appealing hero, but we didn't really see enough of him- instead, we saw more of the insipid romantic leads, John Justin and June Duprez, who are only stunning in their absolute inability to emote. Conrad Veidt made a good villain, but I wanted to know a little more about why he was doing what he was doing. Granted, in "The Wizard of Oz," the Wicked Witch of the West is not given a detailed backstory, but Dorothy's house landed on top of her sister, which is a very good reason for the Witch to be after Dorothy! Unlike the Wicked Witch, I did not ever feel that Conrad Veidt's character was ever a real threat or menace. Perhaps it is because in "Thief" the characters are given precious little personality and motivation; also, there seems to be little continuity in the colorful incidents that occur. For example, one moment Abu, Sabu's character, has smashed the magical all-seeing eye- the next moment he is being bowed to by a bunch of elderly sultans in white. Huh? Did I miss something? Now, I understand that this is supposed to be a fairy tale, but even in fantasy worlds, things are supposed to make sense within the context of that world. Again, "The Wizard of Oz" is a good example of an early fantasy movie with excellent continuity and world-building.

The movie, on the whole, was very pretty to look at, and the sets, crowd scenes and matte paintings were spectacular. However, I must say that I found the color scheme of the film to be very irritating- everything seemed to be in shades of pastels, mostly pale pink and baby blue, as if it were one of those old "My Little Pony" commercials. I understand this is a matter of personal taste, since in movies I tend to prefer vivid colors. However, whenever I read the "Arabian Nights," I always pictured a very rich color palette, with scarlets, blues, golds, and desert browns. Maybe it's just me, but a pastel palette doesn't seem to go with the very nature of the stories "Thief" is claiming to represent.

In any case, I am glad that I have finally seen "Thief of Bagdad," but I would not see it again. Perhaps it's something that I needed to see when I was little to make any impression on me. All in all, I personally found it to be too mannered, precious and dull to sufficiently convey the earthiness, vigor and gusto of the original "Arabian Nights."