marygracelia22-926-448565

Almost thirty years ago from this day, most children were introduced to a brand new show on TV with the strange but cool-sounding name of 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles'. Few could have imagined the enduring popularity of this franchise at that time. As someone who loved the series when just a little kid, I want to track the history of this beloved show from the very first episode.

We all know about this show now, or at least heard about it. The four turtles, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, and Donatello, have all become household names. But what is the first episode of this beloved series all about? Is it any good? Written by David Wise and Patti Howeth, the first episode manages to do more than just introduce all the main characters like the turtles, Splinter, the Shredder, his ninjas and thugs, April O'Neil, and so on. It also manages to give a very good introduction to the humour and style of the show which made it the success it is today. There are all the pizza jokes and puns, for example, almost one after the other. Who can remember all of the different (and disgusting one might add) varieties of pizza that this show mentions? With all of this humour and its cartoonish style, it is obvious that this show doesn't take itself too seriously. This was essentially its secret and the formula to its enduring charm.

What also impressed me is how quotable this first episode is. Like when the turtles say they have learnt everything about humans and humanity from TV. Or how memorable some scenes are, like when the old woman tries to shoot the turtles when they emerge from the sewers into the city for the first time. There is only one big mistake, which may or may not have been intentional. At one point the Shredder floods a building where the turtles and April are in pursuit. Obviously, turtles can swim (a fact which they also acknowledge), which kind of negates this plan. But one can argue that what the Shredder really wanted to do was to block the entrance to the Technodrome so he can run away unnoticed.

Taking everything into consideration, the first episode in this franchise established the formula for the series we all know and love today. It is worthy of the name of the mighty Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the heroes in a half shell (turtle power!).

It does not require a lot of work to realize that this film is not generally held in high regard, among both film-goers and critics alike (its metascore here on IMDB is 19/100). For some reason, however, this is one of my favourite films from my childhood (I know, shocking isn't it), and I would like to share this reason with you and try to understand why other reviewers hate it so much.

I would like to begin by saying that I have never read a story by Dr Seuss, something I hope to amend very soon. A lot of reviewers have compared this film to the original story by this story, which may explain why they have criticized it so harshly. They say it doesn't capture the original's tone and spirit and is, therefore, meant only to capitalize on its name and popularity without any actual effort put into the film itself. I beg to differ for a number of reasons based on one fact, to what extent does an adaptation has to remain loyal to the original that inspired it? I would argue that an adaptation has no obligation to be loyal to the original and so any argument comparing the two should not be to the detriment of the adaptation. This is my first point. Some reviewers have also complained that it uses certain language which is not appropriate in a children's film or story, like "Son-of-a-b**** (bleep)!", "That chaps my a** (bleep)!" and "Dirty hoe... I'm sorry, baby. I love you!". Yet these words are bleeped out and in the case of the word 'hoe', which is not bleeped out, its meaning is certainly not implicit to a young viewer. This is not a reasonable argument for me, there were a lot of sexual innuendos in a lot of children's cartoons and TV series before and yet nobody bothered to complain. And anyway, let's be realistic, a child cannot understand these jokes in the first place.

Mike Myers is phenomenal as The Cat, I always find him to be absolutely hilarious and he really does try in this. The part where the kid hits him with the bat in the party when he is disguised as the Piñata always has me in stitches. I also love all the puns, some of which are ingenious and which I only understood after multiple viewings. An example is:

"The Cat: (showing his car) Here she is, the Super Luxurious Omnidirectional Whatchamajigger, or S-L-O-W for short.

Sally: S-L-O-W?

The Cat: Yeah, S.L.O.W. It's better than the last thing we had: Super Hydraulic Instantaneous Transporter.

Conrad: Oh, you mean...

The Cat: No! Quick! To the S.L.O.W.!"

The rest of the cast is equally as passionate, including the magnificent Alec Baldwin as Mr Lawrence. I like the two kids as Conrad (Spencer Breslin) and Sally (Dakota Fanning) as well, one should keep in mind their age when criticizing their acting (a fact which 'The Nostalgia Critic' on Youtube, for instance, does not take into consideration). I like the visuals and the unique style of this film, something which has never been reciprocated in quite the same manner. So why all this bad criticism? Even if this adaptation has been compared to the original story by Dr Seuss it is, i have already argued, unfair to compare the two. And those so-called critics claiming that this film is profit-oriented should take a look at my face and tell me which film isn't. I am one of the few to proudly claim that I love this film. There.

Don't pay attention to all these bad reviews, at least give a chance for yourself. You may argue that I'm blinded by nostalgia from my childhood but I'm never bored with this film ,even after multiple viewings. 'The Cat in the Hat' (2003) is as entertaining as it is stylistically unique, and is certainly worth a chance.

'The Star' is a delightful animated adaptation of the story of the Nativity of Jesus, aimed for younger children. It includes a lot of entertaining animal characters (some of which accompanied Jesus in the manger when he was born) and some songs to make it appealing to young and old alike. While not exactly Disney-standard, there a lot of redeeming qualities that differentiate 'The Star' from other uninspired adaptations.

This film follows the story of Bo, the ambitious donkey working for the town's miller who wants to be part of the Royal Caravan one day. One day he manages to escape with the help of his old friends, who at last recognizes the beauty of Bo's dreams. By focusing on Bo instead of Christ or the story as it is written in the Bible, I was initially afraid that this film was going to be out of focus. You might argue that it still is so it can amuse its very young target audience. But I believe that at in its heart this film is still about Christ, the film just uses Bo's story to give a fresh perspective on the narrative of the Nativity we all know so well.

This point is worth some emphasis. 'The Star' focuses more on Bo than on Christ, more on Herod's buff soldier who tries to hunt down Joseph and the pregnant Mary than Herod himself, more on the camels carrying The Three Wise Men on their journey following the Star to the place where the Messiah is born in Bethlehem than on the Three Wise Men themselves and so on. Yet, when taking into consideration its target audience of young children, most of them not older than 7 or 8 years, it wouldn't have made a lot of sense to portray the story of the Nativity as it truly was, with all of the persecution (of Christ by Herod) and bloodshed ("the massacre of the innocents") the real story has. If you want a loyal adaptation of the story of the Nativity for your children, unfortunately you have to look elsewhere, but if you want a lighthearted, fresh and new perspective this is as good as it gets.

A lot of comic relief is supplied by Bo's amusing and loyal friend, the pigeon Dave. The villain, as those familiar with the Bible should know, is Herod, voiced by Christopher Plummer. The voice acting, it must be said, is not outstanding, in the sense that none of them really stand out, not even Mariah Carey as the horse, Rebecca, or Oprah Winfrey as one of the Three Wise Men's camels, Deborah. Nevertheless, all of the voice actors manage to get the job done satisfactorily.

To conclude, I would like to add something about the film's religious theme and inspiration. Even if you're not a particularly religious person, you cannot fail to appreciate the epic grandeur and poetic beauty of the biblical account of the Nativity, such as the metaphoric and symbolic nature of the Star and the ironic facts that Jesus, the son of God, was born in a manger of all places and that Bo does end up working in a royal caravan by accompanying Joseph and Mary. The point the film wants to emphasize is that we are all following our own unique star, like Bo and Joseph and Mary, even if some of us don't know where it is leading us or going to lead us yet.

I would recommend 'The Star' which offers a fresh new perspective to the story we all know so well, obviously keeping in mind all of the liberties in takes. To their credit, the producers do try to preserve all of the Christian values and significance that are to be found in the biblical account of the Nativity (if not the Bible itself). And that's arguably the most important thing in an adaptation like this film.