Going with the tradition of how I review film adaptations of "The Nutcracker", this review will indeed be put into segments.
MARIE'S GIFT
Ok, once the film began, I just noticed the first major problem with the movie. Instead of this movie looking like a movie with its cinematography, editing, and special effects; it's filmed and shot on an obvious theater stage with obvious theater sets which makes the film look like a Broadway play, rather than a film meant for the cinemas. If it was made for TV or straight to video its obvious stage look would be forgiven; however, since it's supposed to be an actual movie then it fails big time as one. Even the way the film itself is filmed looks like it was filmed as an ordinary theater production made for video, it never at all gets creative with its shots and edits. What was the point of filming an on stage ballet and marketing it off as an actual full length movie? There's really no point to it at all! The only scene we get in the first segment that you wouldn't see in the stage version is the opening credits as the camera passes by presents, but even that's not creative or cinematically cool, it looks like an opening for a Christmas Special that was made for TV.
I guess the main reason why this film was made for the cinema is because it stars Macaulay Culkin, which brings me to my second major problem with the movie. While Culkin's performance isn't terrible, it does seem obvious that he was put into the film as bait to attract younger crowds to see this movie, so that the film can make money. I'll go into more detail about what he does later on, but I will talk about his presence in this segment. Ok, while I know the actual ballet showed Drosselmyer's nephew during the party sequence that Marie's parents throw, in all honesty, I kind of felt that to be a really lame idea. I'm not a "Nutcracker" fan, but in most versions I've seen or read, "The Nutcracker" that Drosselmyer gives Clara/Marie (Yes, I'm totally unaware that other adaptations call the main character Marie, instead of Clara, which is indeed an error on my part during my "Nuttiest Nutcracker" review) is either a prince who has been turned into wood by the main villain Rat/Mouse Queen or King, who in the end reveals himself to be Drosselymyer's nephew making our character wonder if it was a dream or not; or it's just a Nutcracker that comes to life. While I can't fault the film for the nephew's early reveal since it was done in the actual ballet that the film is filming, I actually do hate how the ballet just shows the nephew right away instead of surprising us at the end that he was "The Nutcracker". In all fairness, the magical stuff could be a dream, but the play nor does the film ever indicate that nor do we see her waking-up. Even the narrator insists that the events are real by saying "Magical things always happen when Godfather Drosselymyer came to the house". So if the events are real, why is Drosselmyer's nephew suddenly turned into the Nutcracker that he gave to Marie!? Whether the events are real, or just a dream, to me it just seems stupid showing the nephew at the very beginning, which for me, should have been revealed in the last scene making you enchanted, while also wondering if the events were real or not.
As for the performers, they all act like the same type of performers that you'd see on a live stage ballet of the show. There's really nothing about their performances that are bad, but there's really nothing that stands out about the characters or the performances either. If I were seeing this live on stage, I would at least feel like I'm part of the fun and events that are taking place on the stage, as well as feeling a little close to the characters. However, since I'm looking at an obvious filmed version of the ballet, instead of watching an actual film to teleport me into a world that doesn't feel staged, I feel like that I might as well be watching this live on stage, as opposed to looking at it on a screen. Could there are at least be an audience applauding off-screen, it wouldn't save the film from failing as a cinematic film, but at least I could feel some kind of illusion of watching this film with a theater audience. The closest to a character standing out is Drosselmyer, but with that said, he's played more on creep factor, instead of the strange and yet so charming factor. He gets one moment that I found charming, and that's when he puts a handkerchief around the Nutcracker's broken jaw, but that's pretty much it. When he's giving presents to the kids or fixing a broken Nutcracker as he sneaks into Clara's living room, I still find a vibe that's so creepy and unsettling, that I hardly ever feel the charm that this character is supposed to have. The film is also narrated by Kevin Kline, who doesn't do a bad job, but is pretty forgettable and pointless since a ballet should speak for itself with the sets, and movements and gestures from the dancers. I'm not going to go into too much depth with the music or the dancing here, but aside from Drosselmyer's mechanical life size dolls, there's really nothing special about the choreography, its good, but nothing fantastic. Again, I would probably appreciate seeing it live on stage with an audience, but here, I found myself be bored to death, wishing that I could see it on stage, or at least seeing it being filmed on stage with an audience.
THE NUTCRACKER VS THE MOUSE KING
This is the part when Marie becomes small, and witnesses her Nutcracker coming to life as he fights the Mouse King. Again, everything still looks like it was shot on a theater stage, and the only thing we come close to that's cinematic is the close-up of Marie as she dreams about the nephew before waking up to go downstairs; and while it doesn't look staged, the way its shot looks like it was made for TV, and all we really see in the dream is the same clips that we saw before, instead of seeing it in a different dreamlike point of view. Things can't look theater staged enough when the Mouse King's army of mice are obvious actors in Mouse costumes, wearing silly over-sized Mouse masks that would only look plausible watching it live on stage. Even when Marie shrinks as the Tree rises up to indicate her size still looks like it was filmed on a stage. This is meant to be an actual movie right? Isn’t the goal for film supposed to make you feel like you traveled into another world that only the world of film can bring, instead of what your local theater can bring?
The crazy thing about this segment is it carries a few things that I couldn't help but find weird and yet laughable at the same time. Before The Mouse King appeared, I was expecting him to look like the other mice, only with a crown, cape, and maybe having angry looking eyes. Instead of that, we get an angry Mouse King with seven heads. While being faithful to the source material, it doesn't look scary, it looks silly beyond belief. I guess in show standards I'd be cool with it because how else are you going to make a seven headed Mouse King work for an on stage ballet, but in terms of a cinematic film, much like how this film is being put together, it doesn't work at all. The fight itself between The Nutcracker and The Mouse King is so short, that it hardly takes any time for this villain to be killed, despite having more than one head. The silliest moment out of everything in the whole movie that can be found in this segment is seeing Culkin in his Nutcracker form with long white hair and a beard. Every time I saw Culkin on screen with that look, I kept dying with laughter at how incredibly goofy he looks! Couldn't they just put a giant Nutcracker mask over Culkin instead, it just looks way too silly to take seriously or be enchanted by, even by stage standards it looks ridiculous. The only moment I found to be intentionally funny is when the Toy Soldiers fire cheese at the Mouse King's army and shoot them while they're eating the cheese, but since it's meant to be a cinematic film that doesn't try to be one, it fails.
THE MAGICAL KINGDOM RULED BY THE SUGAR PLUM FAIRY
The Nutcracker takes Marie to the Magical Kingdom that's ruled by the Sugar Plum Fairy, and for the rest of the film we watch the magical characters in the Kingdom dance on the same exact set (Aside from the Snow Forrest set when the characters first enter the Kingdom). And instead of being creative with the visuals, cinematography, editing, and effects since this a motion picture made movie, we just see people dancing while wearing costumes, making you wish you were seeing this live. While the costumes, choreography, and the traditional music written Tchaikovsky is nice, it's pretty boring in terms of cinema. As I watch these dance scenes, I kept finding myself in complete boredom wishing that I could see people dancing to this music live on stage, than having to sit through a film that doesn't take advantage towards the fact that it is a film.
Getting to my main criticism with casting Culkin as the Nutcracker, aside from revealing that he's Drosselmyer's nephew in the beginning (Again, that's the ballet's problem, not the film's) and that he looks unbelievably silly in his Nutcracker form, he does pretty much absolutely nothing in the film. He takes part in that short fight, and does a few ballet moves that aren't anything special (It looks more like he's playing charades), but for the most part he just stands there smiling as he watches everything. I know that's what the original play did, but when you cast an iconic child actor like Culkin, you expect him to do more than what he was given. Seriously his casting is without a doubt just there to attract the people enjoyed him in the "Home Alone" movies, and the pay-off of seeing Culkin in the title role is seriously disappointing.
In terms of making a cinematic version of George Balanchine's "The Nutcracker" with Culkin as your star, it's underwhelming. Don't get me wrong the music, choreography, and costumes (For the most part) are nice, but when you make a movie for cinema releases with a famous Hollywood child star, you expect more than what we were given. Why couldn't this film been made as a live TV special or a straight to video release both containing a live audience, it would be way more plausible than making an obviously filmed show into a movie? Just think about the possibilities of what this film could do if it didn't treat itself like a professional show being filmed on stage, you could do so much with this ballet in terms of cinematic visuals and effects, and the fact that this film chose to not treat itself like a movie nor give that much for Culkin to work with is really disappointing and a complete missed opportunity. I will admit that it's not a god awful film, or one of the worst films that I've ever seen, but it is still a downer and has none of the qualities to be regarded as an actual film.
RATING 2/5
No comments:
Post a Comment