vogueman

This has got to be one of the worst films I've ever seen that was made with legitimately talented people. I can't believe that there were actually people who liked it. But, as I've always insisted, our sense of humor is the most individualistic sense we've got. No matter how closely any two people might agree in taste, there will inevitably be something that one finds funny and the other doesn't. So just because I found it tasteless and heavy-handed, that doesn't mean that there won't be viewers who will find it hilarious.

This is the best adaptation of a classic children's book I've seen in a very long time. Nearly everything in this film is just right. Of all the live-action films that Walt Disney produced in his lifetime, one he was very proud of was the 1960 POLLYANNA, and TUCK EVERLASTING reminded me of POLLYANNA in several key aspects. Like POLLYANNA, TUCK has a meticulous attention to period details (it takes place in 1914). Also like POLLYANNA, it has some high-powered acting talent in peripheral roles, with the main focus of the story on younger, less well-known actors. The cinematography is beautiful, with a rich interplay of light and shadow, and to best appreciate this aspect, you should try to see it in a theater with the brightest picture available. Like another classic children's book (CHARLOTTE'S WEB) TUCK EVERLASTING explores philosophical concepts of life and death and eternity that most adult films, much less children's films, ever touch on. I hope that TUCK doesn't end up comparable to POLLYANNA in one key area: lack of box-office success. Walt was extremely disappointed when, despite the loving attention he garnished on the film, audiences for the most part stayed away. TUCK EVERLASTING deserves to be a huge success. Hollywood has come under frequent criticism for not making enough family-friendly films, but it seems that when a rich, intelligent film does come out, it's ignored. I hope and pray that this one won't be.

I don't know why this film has been getting such bad buzz. It's the standard "wise-cracking protagonist on the run from the mob, trying to get to the bottom of things" plot, no more hackneyed than any number of other films which audiences have responded favorably to. It's got an amiable performance from Eddie Murphy, plus amusing support from Randy Quaid, Luis Guzman, and John Cleese. And, even though they're given little to do, it's good to see Peter Boyle, Burt Young and Pam Grier working. I though the cluttered design of the film, which reminded me a bit of Matt Groening's "Futurama", was well done, and I was pleasantly surprised that the design team and special effects team got most, but not all, of the sci-fi-geek details right (they still included an audible explosion in a vacuum). All in all, it's not a great movie, maybe not even a good one, but it's certainly not a bad one.