Studio Morye Reviews

Richard Attenborough's 1992 film CHAPLIN is not a great movie. It is a rather normal biographical film with high ambitions and a few signs of brilliance scattered throughout it. First of all, let me say that Robert Downey Jr. is marvelous as the Little Tramp. At first, it seemed an unlike choice; he didn't especially LOOK the part. But he really captures Chaplin's spirit and his energy and his attitudes. While it is certainly a biased portrayal in his favor (or, rather, it makes J. Edgar Hoover out to be a complete villain, whereas real life was a smidge more complicated than that), one cannot help but find themselves somewhat endeared by Chaplin in this film regardless of his affairs. That too was another problem with the film; its focus shifted from one thing in his life to another, as if to cover all the bases.

There are some authentically great scenes in this film; his first public appearance as an entertainer, his sending his mother to the asylum (the duration of the scenes regarding his youth are eerily atmospheric and good) and his first real comedy on a tugboat in England as a teenager.

The rest of the scenes that really stick out predominantly in my mind are the ones about his films; Dan Aykroyd appears a few times as Mack Sennett, and the sequences in his studio in which Charlie becomes the Little Tramp and proves himself to be who he says he is are astounding. The film really loses its pace when it tries to cover everything about his personal life, and indeed some mention of these things is obligatory in a biographical film about Charlie Chaplin. But what really stands out about the man is not the man, rather, the films. It's almost as though CHAPLIN were made by a few filmmakers trying to serve a different individual purpose in their direction. The performances are magnificent; Downey as said, Aykroyd, Kevin Kline as Douglas Fairbanks.. a few cameos are made as well.

Downey, and the really great scenes, make this film worth watching. Without those things, I don't know what we'd have as a result.

Of course, the above are merely scratching the surface of any accurate description of Shrek. The film is stunning visually, and the humor is like that of the Warner Brothers or Jay Ward - delightful spoofs.

Now, don't take me wrong. I love certain Disney productions, most of which were made in the 40s (Pinocchio, Bambi, Dumbo, Fantasia). But the studio's talent for storytelling has faded and is encroached on more and more every year by the demand to provide stunning visuals over the true essence of good cinema: stories. Shrek, as unlikely a candidate as it struck me as before seeing it, has these things. The animation, although entirely computer generated (anyone else intimidated by the fact that the most enjoyable American animated films of the past few years have all been CGI?) is realistic and believable, but what really knocked my socks off was the appeal Shrek has that can be channeled both to adults and children, and yes, adolescents like myself. Some of the gags are more fun than others, such as the sharp wit of the dialogue being more enjoyable to me than the title character wiping his posterior with a page from a book, but this only demonstrates the film's ability to articulate its audience's interests.

Our characters are rather simple, really: A pessimistic, lonesome (but in denial) ogre voiced by Mike Myers who lives out in a swamp, an obscenely talkative donkey voiced by Eddie Murphy, a diminutive, egotistical, one-dimensional lord of the kingdom of Duloc named Farquaad and an isolated-until-freed-by-Shrek-princess named Fiona with an overly melodramatic way of handling things, a minor attitude problem, and the ability to kill birds with her terribly high singing ala Snow White but simply not so.

Farquaad's rounding up fairy-tale critters to make room and they subsequently run for haven in Shrek's swamp. We meet, along the way, the three bears, the three blind mice, the three pigs, the wolf in grandmother's clothes, the fairy Godmother, Peter Pan, Pinocchio, the Magic Mirror (who provides Farquaad with his choices for a future wife ala the Dating Game), the Gingerbread Man, The seven dwarves and countless others (look out for a hilarious musical number by someone named "Monsieur Hood" as he tries to woo Fiona with his merry men). The film's production unit obviously spent more time on the main four characters than others - some of the lesser characters and background people look without much in the line of experession or detail, but this is a forgivable sin in the animation industry given how much crap is released annually with character designs devoid of any style whatsover.

The choice of music, mainly Smashmouth and the Monkees, in some way or another, isn't too fitting, but it's also forgivable. Abandoning such superficialities as character designs, choice of music and detail in animation, I repeat, we have a good story with good dialogue and uproarious humor here. One of the best films of the year unquestionably.

Now, why can't we figure out how to make traditionally animated films that are as much fun as SHREK or the TOY STORY films on a regular basis?