Logic1

Yes, I know it's an unpopular opinion. But TMNT3 is easily my favorite.

The first movie was classic. The script seamlessly blended several disparate plots from the comic books and created an enormously fun movie that appealed to children yet still had depth. In particular the theme of a father's relationship with his son(s) was well developed.

The second movie? Now I'm a huge TMNT fan. And I know some people saw some redeeming features in TMNT2. Not me. Even as a kid. There was nothin'. The plot was lame, the writing lamer. A major theme seemed only half-developed. Donatello agonizes over their 'creation' being an accident, feeling there must be more to their origin than what they've been told. Obviously this was a set-up for the TGRI company to be (like the TCRIs in the comics) revealed as aliens. This never develops, leaving the movie feeling half-baked (or less).

But the third! Why do I love it so? I'm not sure. There are superficial things to support it. The one thing TMNT2 got right (replacing the dreadful Judith Hoag with the lovely Paige Turco) is repeated here, and (yay!) Elias Koteas return as Casey Jones. In addition, it was great to hear Corey Feldman doing Donny's voice again.

But mostly, I just love the plot. The whole return to feudal Japan, the ancient legends of Kappas, the Casey Jones lookalike, the hockey-loving time-traveling Japanese guards... It all works for me.

It might not work for you. It doesn't for a lot of people. And that's okay. This isn't a work of art. You don't have to have taste to like or dislike it. But for me, this is one of my favorite movies to watch.

Give me three!

In writing this, I suddenly realize it is impossible not to mention the novel, so let us get that out of the way quickly, yes?

Schiff's screenplay is very, very close to the source novel. But somehow the film ends up very different. One could not expect any adaptation (though I admit to not having seen Kubrick's '60s version) to contain all the layers of the novel. So Adrian Lyne goes for just one - the tragedy.

True, the Humbert here loses all of the craftiness of his literary counterpart. He is still deceitful, but seems caught up in events, almost betraying himself with every lie. Although the events of the movie are almost identical in every way to Nabokov's novel, the movie's tone becomes completely different.

Now that I have (very *very* briefly) said that, I must point out that I do not consider this a flaw in any way. True, the movie is based on the novel. But if it were exactly the same, what would be the point in any adaptation at all? You'd be as well reading the book.

So, quickly now (I hate long comments on IMDB), I will attempt to encapsulate my favorite things about this movie:

Lyne's attention to detail. Not just small things from the novel (Quilty's aliases in hotel books, for example, or Mrs Opposite) but just little things. Lo spinning in her chair at the soda place. Numerous authentic 40s items, lovingly recreated (despite the novel's Humbert's derisive attitude to much of American consumerism). Just a myriad of small details that could alone sustain this movie for dozens of viewings.

The acting. Irons (as has been much discussed) is so perfectly tragic (again, unlike Nabokov's Humbert - but so what?) and sympathetic, even in his depravity. Swain is superb (though a little poor as 17 year old, pregnant Dolly), a real find.

The directing. Especially the way Lyne transforms Nabokov's shadowy Quilty to the screen. Brilliant!

The music. So beautiful (especially the opening tune, with its occasional discordant note).

The comedy. Small things. Sedatives for "a cow". Charlotte's adoration of "the French tongue". "Is she keeping you up?" Some wonderful lines!

As a side note, I had not read Nabokov's novel when I saw this first. I loved it to death. Now, having read Nabokov's novel (perhaps the best thing I have ever read incidentally) I am even more impressed with Lyne's (and, of course, screenwriter Schiff's) movie. Not just it's faithful recreations, but its departures. Surely the ability to recreate the letter of the source novel so accurately, and yet defy the tone so dramatically, must be a talent worthy of some praise?

I thought it was pretty good. Better than almost all Outer Limits episodes for example (except ones like 'Inconstant Moon') though not quite as good as something like 'Deep Rising' (which I'm *not* holding up as a shining example of movie-making BTW, just comparing).

All in all, enjoyable though, yes, somewhat cliched and the monster was a little disappointing. Liked the King Menelaus and his Minotaur Maze references though.