I heard a lot of people complain about how bad of a film adaptation to this beloved story and classic ballet was, and while I'm not too surprised about the film being a bad cinematic adaptation to the story and ballet that we know and love considering that I had to review some really bad ones in the past, I was curious in seeing the film for how bad it is. Before I begin discussing the plot, there are two things I want to get out of the way. First of all, I will not be reviewing the 3-D effects since I only saw the non-3-D DVD release of the movie. And the second and last thing that I need to mention is unlike my previous reviews that are related to the story and ballet, this is going to be one of those rare times where I won’t be reviewing it into sections since this version hardly follows the formula or classic story at all, which already is a bad sign (the stupid Nutcracker computer animated film that rips-off "Veggie Tales" is more traditional with telling this story than this film does). With that out of the way; ON WITH THE REVIEW!
Set in Vienna during the 1920s, a little girl named Mary (Elle Fanning) and her Brother Max (Aaron Michael Drozin) spend Christmas Eve with their Uncle
Starting off with the human characters, as well as our main character Mary, they're seriously very boring and underdeveloped characters that are given very wooden performances. I know Elle Fanning can act and can even prove that she can try to make use out of the little things she's given to do as she's being directed to give a dull performance like in "Maleficent" for example; but in this film, she's hardly given anything to do and the little she does do in this film is still as empty as her acting in this film. The scene when she reacts to her Nutcracker coming to life, rather than simply being amazed or (more appropriately) freaked out by it, she looks bored and disinterested when she finds out that her beloved Nutcracker has come to life. Actually, the character Mary is never given time to admire the Nutcracker before being upset when her brother breaks it, where the scene itself is not only unemotionally dull, but her reactions towards her Brother breaking the Nutcracker's jaw seems out of left field. Even after the scene, she hardly shows any love for her Nutcracker before it comes to life. When it comes to showing enchantment, fear, or any other emotion throughout her journey, she unfortunately still lacks any emotional investment to the things around her as she pretty much carries the same blank look on her face throughout the movie. Even when we do see her smile, she still looks bored by everything around her.
What I found interesting in this take of the Nutcracker is instead of Mary going on the journey by herself, her brother at one point goes on the journey with her, as he's being manipulated by the Rat King to join him so he can break as many toys as he wants, as Max soon comes to realize the errors of his habit and tries to better himself. I was opened to this idea because in the many adaptations I've seen when the brother breaks the Nutcracker's jaw it never seems to go anywhere, when here it does! However, what makes this concept fail is the actor playing Max is not only as bland as Fanning (who also doesn't find himself amazed or shocked by a talking Nutcracker either), but his story arc felt so rushed and downplayed in the movie that it almost felt pointless and unneeded, especially since his change of heart doesn't feel emotionally effective. There's also another forced subplot of Mary's Father (Richard E. Grant) being the generic practical authority figure in Mary's life who has lost his sense of child like wonder, that's just as painfully rushed and lacking of emotion as Max's subplot.
The biggest issue that I had with the human characters was the casting of Nathan Lane as Uncle Albert. To me the idea of casting Nathan Lane as a friendly and magical but yet strange and mysterious man seemed like the absolute wrong person to cast, since every film I see him in, he's always playing his comical and at times selfish Nathan Lane self. When I saw his performance in the film, not only was Nathan Lane just playing Nathan Lane, but what they did to the character is atrocious. Instead of Nathan Lane just simply being the kid's Nathan Lane Uncle, the people behind the film went to the extremes of making Lane's character heavily resemble Albert Einstein by giving him the hair, the clothes, the accent, having his name actually being Albert, and just when you think it doesn't get any more painfully obvious that Nathan Lane's character is supposed to resemble Albert Einstein, he even writes Einstein’s famous relativity equation on the chalkboard E=MC2! What the hell is the point of replacing Uncle Drosselmeyer with this Albert Einstein like Uncle?! It makes as much sense as seeing Merlin the Magician and the Greek God Vulcan working for Santa Claus! Even without comparing this weird choice to the character of Drosselmeyer, it's still a stupid decision out of the norm it is! Plus Nathan Lane looks and acts ridiculous in that costume. He looks like he's wearing a really bad Halloween costume of Einstein as he speaks in a really phony German accent. On top of it, while Nathan Lane isn't nearly as lifeless as the rest of the cast, he still lacks the whimsical mysterious charm that the character is supposed to have, as he trades it all in for a bad goofy Einstein impersonation that's not at all funny or fun to watch! I seriously can't believe the film went down to such a low before its 10 minute mark.
The minute when I saw The Nutcracker, I couldn't tell you enough how thankful and lucky I was that I didn't see this film in 3-D because the Nutcracker looks unbelievably scary with its gigantic lifeless staring eyes and weird lip movements that looks like he wants to eat me. He looks like a mix between the Johnathan Taylor Thomas Pinocchio and the Canadians from "South Park" as if they lost their souls; it looks horrifying, especially when looking at it in the dark! To make matters worse, the voice that he carries is utterly annoying. Now I don't have anything against the actress voicing the Nutcracker since I do like watching her haunt the girl's bathroom in Harry Potter with that cute voice she has, and the actress herself does seem like a nice person in real-life; but to have her voice the scariest looking Nutcracker I've ever seen on film as she obnoxious with nothing funny or enchanting to say nor carrying out some kind of innocence that's cute and charming, it becomes extremely hard to tolerate. I mean good god, at least Michael Keaton in "Jack Frost" had a likable personality despite looking like a monstrous Snowman; this is just awful in both design and personality, and it pains me too considering that I do like the actress they got to voice him. Actually now that I think about it, why did they choose Henderson to voice The Nutcracker, why not have the actor Charlie Rowe who plays The Nutcracker as a Prince do the voice work as well considering that both forms are the same character with a different appearance. I'm not saying Rowe's performance is good since he's just as boring as everybody else in this film, but it would seem appropriate for him to voice the Nutcracker as well. In fact, I find it pretty distracting that both forms of the Nutcracker are played by different actors, since their voice and personality really differs from each other. As for the effects for the Nutcracker, with its soulless demon design aside, the CGI for it sucks. It doesn't look like he's there at all, nor do the actors act like he's there either. He looks like a computer animated cartoon character instead of a live walking and talking Nutcracker! And it's not just the Nutcracker's CGI effect alone that's terrible; all the other CGI effects look horrible as well. The most fake and hideous looking effects that come to mind is when the Rat King makes his mouth and teeth gigantic, which look like it was photo-shopped. The CGI Ice Skating ornaments that looks just as scary as The Nutcracker himself. And the scene when Mary is flying with dancing Snowflake people, where she looks like she's walking and standing on a stage as they green-screened around her to make it look like she's flying. By the way I forgot to mention that the Nutcrackers name is NC which to me seems like a cheesy and desperate attempt to try to make him appeal to the "hip and cool" young crowd.
The rest of the imaginary characters that Mary meets on her journey I must honestly say are just as interesting and fun as her and the rest of characters that I talked about. Julia Vysotskaya as the Snow Fairy lacks the same amount of enchantment as Lane does as Uncle Albert; the only difference is she's dull as a rock, while Lane is just being himself just without him being enteryaining as he usually is. The Snow Fairy also tries to teach Mary a lesson about the power of believing, that has hardly any thought put into it and plays out more as a loop hole to help The Nutcracker become a Prince, rather than being the heart and center of the story. The dolls in Albert's doll house that come alive who are a talking chimpanzee dressed in human clothes; a fat Clown; and an African boy that loves to play the drums, who are all supposed to be the film's comic relief, are nowhere near funny with their bland comedy and performances, along with the concept for the characters being very uninspiring. As for the villains, they're so uninteresting that honestly Jim Belushi's obnoxious and unfunny performance in the horrible CGI cartoon of "The Nutcracker" is more entertaining than them. Frances de la Tour as the Rat Queen just hangs around looking bored as she watches everything around her, rather than having a personality or actually doing something; and John Turturro as the Rat King tries to be fun and entertaining, but he comes off as fun to watch as the trio of dolls. The Make-Up that they put on them isn't cool or appealing either, it looks just as hideous as the Make-Up for the Whos in the live action take on "The Grinch".
Just when you think the film can't get any dumber or scarier than it already is, the film actually has allusions to the Holocaust by having an army of Rats that dress and March like Nazis; The Nutcracker's Kingdom resembles a city in Europe that has been invaded by Nazis (that doesn't look magical at all!); The Rat King plans of creating a master race by turning people into Rats (which is never addressed how he can do it) like Hitler's idea of having a world full of Blonde hair and blue eyes; people are being brutally forced to work in factories by a burning furnace or else, as toys everywhere are being taken away to be burnt, much like how Hitler treated the Jews; the Rat King has a rally that looks similar to one of Hitler's rallies; and to top it all off, there's a scene where kids are forced to throw there toys into one gigantic pile so that they can be burnt, just like when the Nazis had everybody burn books that weren't ideal to their ways. WHEN THE HELL DID THE NUTCRACKER BECOME A WORLD WAR 2 MOVIE! Now I've seen fantasy movies for kids that use allusions to Nazis and sometimes even the Holocaust before, but usually there would either be enough comedy and magical charm to balance out the dark stuff that relates to it; or is played out for comedy that's not to be taken that seriously; or in the very least tones down the dark level of intensity, which this film does neither. Granted, the Rat King does have a few comical moments that aren't funny, and it's not like the Rats are actually killing people, they're just burning lifeless toys to create a smoke cloud to protect them from the sun, but the film's look and feel is so dark and gloomy where the ridiculous stuff I just mention is still taken to a very serious and intense matter along with its in your face and direct references to Nazi's, that it becomes highly unpleasant to the point where even kids who don't know about the Nazi's wouldn’t want to get lost in the film's fantasy world for how depressing and lacking of magic it is. This film could almost pass as a serious War drama for how gritty and dramatic it treats itself! I don't even see the point in giving this adaptation an allusion to the Holocaust. In a good fantasy film for either kids or adults that involves a kid dealing with real life horrors and issues in their life where the fantasy world would metaphorically play out the character's real life fears in its own world, that would in the end help the character overcome their real life problems and fears; this film doesn't do that at all. There's no talk, mention, or so much as a hint about the Nazis in Mary's life what so ever, which makes the whole idea 100% stupid and pointless. Besides why include the Holocaust in a Nutcracker film anyway, it’s just as ridiculously stupid as replacing Drosselmeyer with Albert Einstein!
Another stupid and pointless choice that the film offers is having famous song writer Tim Rice write song lyrics for Tchaikovsky's beautiful and iconic music from the Ballet. I've seen the words being successfully put into beautiful instrumental pieces before, whether it's for romantic charm like the song "Once Upon A Dream" from "Disney's Sleeping Beauty" being in the tune of "The Garland Waltz" (which was also written by Tchaikovsky), or for comedy like Allan Sherman's song "Hello Muddah, Hello Fadduh" being set to the tune of Amilcare Ponchielli's "Dance of the Hours" for example. But much like how "The Star Wars Holiday Special" put cheap and corny lyrics to that awesome and kickass "Star Wars" theme, the idea of putting lyrics into Tchaikovsky's iconic music is just as insultingly cringe worthy. These songs aren't fun, cleverly written, emotional, or even entertaining; they're dull, boring, and sound like that Rice wrote these songs in his sleep while listening to Tchaikovsky's music, as the songs themselves feel awkwardly forced in the movie where they just come as out of nowhere as seeing Clara singing and dancing with her Nutcracker in "The Nutcracker Prince" or Cindy Lou singing "Where Are You Christmas" in the live action action telling of "The Grinch" with Jim Carrey, except that they are constant throughout the movie. On top of it, the songs come and go so quickly that they hardly stand out as song sequences. But since they are mercifully short, cheaply written, and dully performed they’re at least easily forgettable. As for you action fans out there who are expecting an exciting climax, you're going to hate this climax for how slow moving and unexciting it is which leads to easily one of the most anti-climatic defeats that I've ever seen in a movie. And yes the visuals for the climax are still colorless and the CGI effects are still crap!
I used to think that "The Nuttiest Nutcracker" was the worst adaptation of the "The Nutcracker", but after seeing this movie, I found myself being 100% wrong. That doesn't mean that "The Nuttiest Nutcracker" is good at all, its still an atrocious telling of the story that should have never existed, but in the very least it kept a kid friendly approach to its target audience, and looked bright and colorful; while this film on the other hand doesn't have any of that. The acting is awful. The magical and whimsical elements are extremely lacking. The songs are forgettable. The effects are terrible. Its look and overall tone is very dark and gloomy. It's way too scary and intense for kids. And to throw in a painfully forced out of place references to Einstein and the Holocaust makes me feel sick to my stomach the more I think about it. Until something much worse comes along, this film in my eyes is the worst adaptation of the story that should've remained untold!
RATING 0/5
No comments:
Post a Comment