Showing posts with label movie reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie reviews. Show all posts

Sunday, July 14, 2019

Movie Review: Coraline


Hello Adventurers.

I saw Coraline a little while ago and felt that I should make a review for it. This is not the movie I said I would review in this post, and I do hope to post a review for those two movies soon (because I did enjoy those two movies.)


Anyway I felt I needed to warn Coraline book fans that the movie is nothing like the book:

                                                   Coraline (2009) 

(image from Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coraline_(film)#/media/File:Coraline_poster.jpg) 
      Rated: PG

Spoiler free review: 
Be Careful What You Wish For, since this movie is sadly disappointing. 

If you like the book Coraline, you may not like the movie Coraline. The movie does not follow the scenes in the book accurately, changed the pacing and puts events out of order. A lot was cut out and they even brought in a character that really wasn't needed at all, named Wyborn (nicknamed by Coraline "Why Were You Born?" and "Wybie" by his grandmother). I felt like he was an unnecessary part of the plot. The directors justified this character addition that created a back and forth dialogue rather internal monologue by saying that having Coraline talk to herself wouldn't have been as interesting.

I disagree, because in the book she doesn't always talk to herself, she talks to the cat and the neighbors. Plus I would have loved to see what the screen writers could come up with to create a vision of what was going on inside her head and see her internal monologue. Also, near the end of the movie, Wybie did something that Coraline was supposed to do, for some weird reason. To me it felt as if the directors were saying Coraline wasn't strong enough to do it on her own, which to me felt a little sexist.

By cutting a lot out of the book, unfortunately the movie became more like a folk tale as opposed to what I felt it had been before, which was more of a gothic story with little elements of horror in it. By explaining things that were left unexplained in the book, they remove the story from the gothic genre.

In addition Coraline's character felt a little off and not completely like herself to me, because the movie character was sarcastically bored and unimaginative. As for the other characters–Miss Spink, Miss Forcible, and Mr. Bobo (renamed Mr. Bobinsky in the movie)–they all felt a little off to me, sadly. They didn't seem as if they could be real people as they had been portrayed in the book. It felt as if the directors had made them cartoonish for the movie, which wasn't necessary. Also, in my opinion they made the character of the Other Mother too powerful.

Also If you are an sensitive parent or child. I should warn you that there is a nude scene, but the scene is portraying the two paintings The Birth of Venus by Sandro Botticelli and Ulysses and The Sirens by Herbert James Draper. However, you could argue that the directors could have chosen paintings with no nudity in them. I was okay with it, because they were portraying paintings of scenes from Greek Mythology.

Even if you don't like the movie, the soundtrack is really good, and I would recommend listening to it.

My rating: 

The movie was not as scary as the book. The directors did not portray the book well. I also felt they didn't need to add in a boy character. I gave the movie two stars for the music and the animation, but in itself Coraline (the movie version) is a bad portrayal of a good story. I added 1/2  star for the Shakespearian and Greek Mythology elements of the movie.

Spoiler-full review: 

My thoughts on things that were edited out of the movie and things that were added in: 

Sadly, they cut the rats' song in Coraline's dream out of the movie.  I had been listening to the beautifully eerie end-credits music, I assumed that the rats' song would in the movie. Unfortunately, I was very wrong. Thankfully I did find the Coraline broadway musical recording, which had a version of the song in it, which sounded suitably eerie:

Song of the Rats 

You can also listen to it here

The movie also replaced the evil rats, which were running around Coraline's house in both worlds in the book, with cute mice. The mice later turned out to be rats in disguise, but this confuses the story. The rats in the book were the initial clue that something was off with the other world, since the Other Mother treated them like pets.


(Image from wiki, https://coraline.fandom.com/wiki/Wyborn_Lovat?file=Wybie_Lovat.png)

The addition of Wybie created problems, because he added information which introduced gaping plot holes into the movie. For example, he said that his grandmother didn't rent out the Pink Castle to couples with children. So then why did she allow Coraline and her parents to live there?
Also I was annoyed about the whole Wybie "stalker" plot, which wasn't even part of the original story. Unlike the addition of Tauriel in The Hobbit, I felt that Wybie's addition to the story was unnecessary and annoying since he, as opposed to Coraline, defeated the Other Mother in the end (even if Coraline helped a little). It felt like the directors were saying the lead female character couldn't defeat the Other Mother on her own and needed a male character's help to do so. In the book Coraline set up a doll tea party around the well, and caught the Other Mother's hand in the well. In the movie this scene was replaced with an action packed fight scene between Coraline, Wybie and the Other Mother's hand where Wybie does most of the work. Also, I did not like that the stalking narrative thread with Wybie was romanticizing stalking. In the movie Coraline said, "thank you for stalking me" after Wybie rescued her. This felt wrong to me for the directors to do that, since I don't want anyone to think stalking is a good thing, or that a stalker can rescue them from something dangerous, because a stalker is themselves dangerous.

(Image from Rotten Tomatoes, https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/coraline#&gid=1&pid=h-32137) 

I was not particularly fond of Coraline's attitude in the movie or her blue hair. In the book she felt less like a rebelling teenager or troubled child, and more like a child who wanted her parents attention and was sad that she had lost it, because her parents were busy. The scene where Coraline walks around the new house is both in the book and the movie. I was annoyed and thought it could have portrayed  a little better in the movie, though I did like when she accidentally pressed a light switch that said "don't push."

The directors also modified the scene where the ghost children got there souls back. They called them "eyes" for some reason in the movie, which doesn't make sense because if they are eyes why is there only one of them?

(Image from wiki, https://coraline.fandom.com/wiki/Wyborn_Lovat?file=EE024AAC-E8AF-4AFD-934D-67A177DAC44E.jpeg)

Despite this change, all of the ghost children are shown to be wearing halos and wings, instead of the picnic scene in the book where Coraline is eating with them. The book does not tell where exactly the ghost children are going, however, in the movie they make it clear that it is Heaven. I believe the book left this purposefully ambiguous, but you are supposed to assume it is the Afterlife (without specifying a religion). The book version, I feel is nicer for readers in general.

Creating doll spies in the movie, I felt was really unnecessary. In the book and the movie the Other Mother had the rats to spy on Coraline, so why does she need dolls? The"evil dolls" were never a part of the original. This is a significant change, because in the book Coraline used dolls to defeat the Other Mother with her doll tea party.

(Image from Rotten Tomatoes, https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/coraline#&gid=1&pid=h-25517)


In the movie Miss Spink and Miss Forcible are creepily flat. They felt like sweet old ladies in the book, and in the movie they didn't have much that was human about them. For example, adding the taxidermy dogs dressed in angel costumes was depressing and didn't have to happen in the movie. This change was taken a step further when one of the movie characters' still living dogs almost dies and they sew an angel costume for him in preparation. In the book the dog was simply injured by the Other Mother's hand and went to the vet for it. Miss Forcible and Miss Spink were worried about their dog, but were not saying "oh well, he might die" and planning to stuff him. To let readers and movie watchers know, the dogs in both versions survive.


(Image from Rotten Tomatoes, https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/coraline#&gid=1&pid=h-30699) 

The movie also made "the old man upstairs" a little too cartoony in character. He was very flat and didn't feel as if he could be a real human. He was eccentric in the book, but in the movie they take it way too far, after all he was doing acrobats on the roof!  And I don't think his cartoonish feel had to do with the animation, an animated character can be realistic, even if they are hand-drawn or made out of clay.

In the book Coraline crosses into the other world despite the warnings. In the movie Coraline is given the warnings way too late, since she had already gone through the door. Why warn her about not going through the door when she already had?

The Other Mother was given way too much power in the movie, since she could shape-shift into Coraline's mother without button eyes. In the book she could only turn into Coraline's mother with button eyes or mimic her voice. Because of this flaw, it would be hard to tell if Coraline on her own could have defeated the Other Mother in the movie version. Where as in the book, it's easy to tell that Coraline defeated her and due to the Other Mother's weaknesses, we, as the reader, have hope that Coraline can do it.

The movie also made the challenge of finding her parents much more complicated.  Coraline's mantel (the real mantel, that is) in the book version did not have snow globes on it, only the Other Mother's house had a mantel with one single snow globe on it. By having many snow globes in the movie, it makes it less clear how Coraline would have been able to guess so easily where her parents were. And therefore, it adds to the difficulty for her to defeat the Other Mother on her own.

There's so much the movie got wrong, that it's really hard to include all of it in one single blog post. One significant detail that was changed, was the way in which Coraline's parents left the snow globe, which I think fundamentally changes the gothic feel of the story. In the book Coraline's parents suddenly reappear when she is asleep, there wasn't any snow on them and Coraline wakes up and begins to believe she had been dreaming. This leads the reader to suspect for a minute that Coraline's adventure could have all been a dream...but the Other Mother's hand showing up later in the book reveals that it was not. In the movie, her parents leave the snow globe immediately when Coraline is still awake, and she tells them there is still snow on them, which they don't seem to notice. This seemingly small plot change removes the mystery from the book.

My final comment on the movie's flaws, is about the ending "scene." It just didn't quite make sense. I thought at first the image was of the mice (aka rats) putting the Other Mother's hand back together implying that the directors would make a sequel or that the Other Mother was not fully defeated. As a reader of the book, who enjoyed the satisfying ending, that would make you feel rather depressed. But I wasn't really sure what the movie's intent was? Instead, I think it would have been nice to see the real mouse circus (that was in the book) as opposed to an ending scene that didn't make sense.

Things I liked: 

One thing I liked was the soundtrack it was really beautifully eerie. I had listened to it before I watched the movie, which had made my expectations for it rather high. I was hoping that the movie story would match up with the soundtrack...but unfortunately it didn't.

I liked the animation. I was looking forward to watching it, but unfortunately they didn't use it to convey an eerie feeling of the book or the soundtrack.

I especially liked the animation and characteristics of the dogs. I wished they had focused on the dog characters (both the other world and real world dogs) more, without the whole "is the dog going to die?" portion of the movie that they made even more stressful than it was in the book. I wish they had made Miss Spink and Miss Forcible walk their dogs like they had in the book, and had Coraline talk to the dogs in the theatre in the other world more, as she did in the book. But I did like that the dog kept the angel costume in the end and was alright, it was kind of cute!

Another thing I liked was that there were a few Shakespearian elements to the movie, such as Miss Spink's and Miss Forcible's posters on their walls of the past plays they had done. There were also posters and other references to the local Shakespeare festival in Coraline's town. Even the boy in the uniform store shouted "...my kingdom for a horse!" (Quoted from a scene from Richard the Third.)

I actually liked the scene where reviewers warned there was nudity. I know there have been complaints about this scene. (I researched a little before watching the movie, you see.) But the  reason I liked it was because they were mimicking two paintings the Birth of Venus by Sandro Botticelli and Ulysses and the Sirens by Herbert James Draper. The scenery they created for that scene reminded me a little of an opera in a way. However, I understand parents' concerns, since some parents don't want their children to see nude paintings or nude people.

I also liked the other world's garden scene actually. I felt that the animation in it was pretty cool (but perhaps a little too light hearted for the other world) and the fact that a portrait of Coraline showed up in the garden was pretty neat. And the real garden scene, where Coraline and her neighbors are planting flowers felt nice. It showed that her relationship changed with her parents and her neighbors. Coraline befriending her neighbors in the book happened in a more subtle way, but the movie's version was a good change.

And despite all the huge changes to the story, I felt as if the cat remained the same. Though some of the cat's lines were cut for some reason probably for time, I liked the cat's character.

*End of spoilers* 
I rate it: 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you read the book Coraline, if so did you like the movie as well as the book? Do you think it portrayed the story well or not? 

-Quinley

P.S. Despite the fact that the fact that they didn't do Coraline accurately. There is one Neil Gaiman book that a different director did well:

(Screen shot taken from Rotten Tomatoes, https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/good_omens/s01)


Thursday, December 13, 2018

Movie Review: The Phantom of The Opera (2004)




This movie was very fun to watch especially since I knew most of the songs in it. (Such as Think of Me, All I Ask of You, and Phantom of The Opera.) I do compare the movie to the book in the movie review.

This movie is rated: PG-13 

Thoughts about the plot (and accuracy to the book)
**This may contain spoilers for the original book and the movie: read with caution**  

The movie opened with an auction, which I have to say was a pretty neat way to start the story.
In the book the story opens with people investigating what happened at the opera, and the movie did an interesting twist and went back and forth between the present (which was in black and white) and the past (which was in color).

Another change to the original story is that Christine did not pass out on stage after singing Think of Me (in the book she sang a different song). As a result Raoul didn't show up on stage to ask if she remembered him (since he was the boy who caught her scarf when she was little).
Instead he came to her dressing room and talked to her.  To me it felt kinder to the character Raoul to do that, rather than to have Christine laugh at him, because she "doesn't" remember him. Both versions of the scene managed to communicate Raoul's and Christine's relationship. The audience in both could see that they truly loved each other. I believe both scenes effectively illustrated that Christine was protecting Raoul from the Phantom. 

Compared to the book, however, the movie is not a mystery. It immediately shows what happened to Christine Daaé, you actually know her story as the movie progresses, there is a kind of mystery when she walks through a mirror (which is revealed cleverly to be a stage mirror). And in the movie the audience sees the Phantom's lair, which is revealed much earlier in the movie than it is in the book. In a way the movie is retelling the story from the point of view of Christine (in the book the story is told by Raoul).

The movie is a musical, which slightly changes the story of The Phantom of The Opera, so it was not entirely true to the book. One scene that stood out to me which was particularly different was the moment when the chandelier was supposed to fall when the diva started croaking. They did have it fall at the end, but they had a different reason why it had to fall. Another important difference was the murder of Joesph Bouquet, which they moved later in the movie after the song, Poor Fool He Makes Me Laugh. 

As for the Phantom (also known as Erik), I felt that he was a hard character to feel sorry for in both versions. Since he murdered people in cold blood, wouldn't let Christine out of his sight, wouldn't let her do anything like getting married or be with other men. (Which is what happened in the book.)
He proved himself to be cold hearted, and if he didn't get what he wanted he would lash out at the stage hands, singers, and Raoul. Though one thing I found neat was that the movie actually talked about his past. Erik's past is also talked about in the book from the Persian's point of view, he talks about Erik being displayed in fairs and to royalty as "the living corpse." Erik also mentions that his own mother would not kiss him because he was so ugly.

I enjoyed the added information in the movie about how Erik actually got to the opera, it was definitely worth having in the movie. As for the "romance" of Christine and Erik (which isn't really a romance, it's more of him trying to stalk and control her) there wasn't really a lot of it in the movie, at all. At points she did try to runaway from him, and there are several lines where she states she is afraid of him such as in the song, Why Have You Brought Me Here? / Raoul I've Been There, which shows that she doesn't want to be controlled by Erik anymore. The only "romance" that there is between Christine and Erik is the scene in, the Point of No Return, where she does kiss Erik. However, she does this to help with Raoul's plan to defeat the Phantom (Raoul does seem a litte shocked that she would do that, however, there are two reasons for his shock: It is the Victorian time period, so it could scar Christine's reputation to kiss a man she isn't married to (however, she did also kiss Raoul, so perhaps that proves that Christine doesn't care about what society thinks of her), and Raoul probably didn't think she would go as far with their plan as to kiss the Phantom). Perhaps Christine felt sorry for the Phantom. Another thing that distinguished the Phantom's relationship with Christine from Raoul's, was that Erik would give her a rose with a black ribbon tied around it, while Raoul gave Christine a ring. Raoul, being a gentleman, would have had enough money to buy a ring, while the Phantom didn't have any money and he can only get Christine a rose (although he then takes the ring that Raoul gave her, and gives to her as "present" from himself). In the movie Christine drops the rose, while in the book she loses the ring in the book. It is an interesting choice, because  she doesn't panic when she drops the rose, but in the book she panics when she loses the ring.

One cool thing that I remember that the Phantom had in his lair, was a miniature version of the Opera House, that he had set up for certain acts of the opera Christine was singing (mostly the ones with Christine in them). Nearing the end of the movie, I thought it was neat, that Raoul was in a group with some of the other characters thinking of a plan to stop the Phantom, while in the book he is just with one other person.

Nearing the end point of the movie when they had the chandelier fall, it causes a fire, which didn't happen in the book.  In the book the chandelier falls, and kills someone and doesn't cause a fire. The whole sequence of the fire was very stressful. I won't give out the details of it entirely, but there was a character missing from this sequence, the Persian, who accompanies Raoul in the book when he is trying to rescue Christine. One interesting thing in the movie was that there was no torture chamber in that scene, which was described in the book as being forest-like, though I suppose the place where Raoul managed to find himself after trying to run after the Phantom is somewhat like the torture chamber, however, it appears much earlier and during the Masquerade scene.

As for the ending, it is sad. It shows Christine's grave years after Raoul's and Christine's marriage. That she seemed to die early, was the saddest part of the movie I thought. But one of the most interesting parts of that scene was that a rose with a black ribbon tied around it was left at her grave...which might mean that the Phantom is still alive. However, I am not going to connect Christine's death with the musical, Love Never Dies, or suggest that the Phantom may still be alive. Even though this movie is a musical based on a book, I see it as a stand alone story. 




The Scenery and Costumes 

The Costumes: the costumes in this movie were awesome,
especially Raoul's and Christine's.
(image from Rotten Tomatoes, https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/phantom_of_the_opera#&gid=1&pid=h-3270) 
This dress I have to say is one of my most favorite dresses that shows up in the film.
(image from Rotten Tomatoes, https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/phantom_of_the_opera#&gid=1&pid=h-23274 )
Raoul's outfit looks so comfortable.
(image from Rotten Tomatoes, https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/phantom_of_the_opera#&gid=1&pid=h-28900)

                     I love Christine's dress, and Raoul's jacket in this scene from the movie.
(image from Rotten Tomatoes https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/phantom_of_the_opera#&gid=1&pid=h-36642) 
(I'm not very fond of the Phantom's clothes, though the fact that he has two interchangeable masks is kind of cool.) However, I do love the ruffles on Christine's dress.

As for the scenery in the opera house, it was very well done (it probably took them a long time to make it). 

The Music 
The music from this movie definitely had an operatic feel to it, which added to its awesomeness. Here are some of my favorite songs from the movie (in no particular order): 



                                                       Think of Me 

                                         You can also listen to it here 
                                      I like the elements of opera music they have in this song 
                                      (though it's not in Italian). 

                                   
                                       That's All I Ask of You 



You can also listen to it here 
I love Christine's and Raoul's duet. 


Phantom of the Opera 


                                      You can also listen to it here
                                     I knew this song, even before I found the movie
                                (or the musical) and I thought it was interesting.


                                                              Overture 
  You can also listen to it here
Even though this just instrumental (and you can't exactly sing along to it), 
this is one of my favorite songs from the movie. 




Overall rating for this movie: 

Despite some inaccurate scenes, the movie was awesome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Have you seen this movie? If you have what did you think of it? 

Love,
Quinley 

Friday, December 1, 2017

Movie reviews: Family Friendly The Legend of Sleepy Hollow Movies




Hi Everyone,
So...you're probably wondering why I am posting this when it is not Halloween or October.
Well, last October I posted a short story series called  The Legend of Sleepy Hollow: The New School Master?  (You can read them, Here, here, and here), which was a fan fiction of Washington Irving's The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. The setting of the story was after Ichabod vanished, but not too long after. Anyway, I have found that the one movie about The Legend of Sleepy Hollow that I hear everyone talking about, when I try to bring up the original story, is the horror movie Sleepy Hollow. It is R rated, which disturbs me, because well, I don't feel like the audience is getting the real story.  So... I did a review of (family friendly) Legend of Sleepy Hollow movies:


                        Tall tales and Legends: 
             The Legend of Sleepy Hollow
(Image from Amazon, https://www.amazon.com/Shelley-Duvalls-Tall-Tales-Legends/dp/B000A0D1LU/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 )

     
Rated:
Not Rated (Amazon didn't have a rating for it, but I think it is rated G) 

This is my favorite version of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, because it is quite accurate and yet hilarious at the same time. They had some really good jokes in there, and I thought they got Ichabod's character right. In the movie, the character, Ichabod, is good at some things that in other versions that I have seen, he is not so...good at. They also showed his superstitions and fear of ghosts. 

Katrina's personality was also done well. The movie portrays her as a character, who causes disagreements between Ichabod and Brom (since she is toying with Brom in some ways). Brom's personality was also in keeping with the original story (at least in my mind). He was pictured as a tough, and rather mischievous person (like in the book). And in this version we also have two added characters who aren't in the original book (which I like because I wrote a fan fiction). Katrina's uncle and Katrina's nephew (who is young and one of Ichabod's pupils (students) are fun additions. 

I also have to say they do a good job of showing Ichabod's love of food (of course I won't tell you how they do it, it would spoil the movie). The chase scene at the end between Ichabod and the headless horseman lasted a few minutes, but they left out the symbolic tree. Despite this omission, I think they did a good job of turning the original story into a movie. 

Note: This is a somewhat old movie (not too old, it is in color), so the visual quality might be a little poor. 

I rate the movie: 



                         


               The Legend of 
               Sleepy Hollow


(Image from Amazon, https://www.amazon.com/Legend-Sleepy-Hollow-anglais/dp/B000083EGD/ref=sr_1_9?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1511981534&sr=1-9&keywords=the+legend+of+sleepy+hollow ) 

           
Rated: PG

This was the first one that I watched, and it is also one of my favorites. 

The movie opens with a good, mysterious entrance by the storytellers. There is thunder and lightning in an old inn, which I liked. Depending on the retelling of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Ichabod is either portrayed as tone deaf or a really good singer, and in this version he is tone deaf. In some versions (including Disney's) Ichabod may want Katrina just for her fortune, not because he likes her. In this movie that is shown as the reason Ichabod wants to marry Katrina. 

Brom was interesting in this version. I think the film maker for some reason is on Brom's side, but I think they should have been on Ichabod's side.  At the beginning the character didn't quite remind me of Brom Bones fully (but that's just me). He was slightly mischievous, but didn't really show the Brom I was hoping to see. Unlike the original story, Katrina Van Tassel actually played a big role in this version. She had a goal (besides wanting to marry either Ichabod or Brom...) she wanted to visit the world and go to places other than Sleepy Hollow.

I did not feel like the ending was accurate, because the film tells you what happened to Ichabod, instead of leaving it unanswered (Like in the book). But other than that, it was a good Legend of Sleepy Hollow adaptation.

  I rate the movie: 



        Wishbone in The Legend of 
        Sleepy Hollow

     
(Image from Amazon, https://www.amazon.com/Wishbone-Legend-Sleepy-Hollow-VHS/dp/1571322272/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1511981119&sr=1-1&keywords=wishbone+in+the+legend+of+sleepy+hollow ) 



       Rated: Not Rated (once again, Amazon didn't give a rating, but I think it's G) 

      This one isn't really a movie, it is an episode of the TV series Wishbone, but it was a really good episode (and also a favorite of mine). And the retelling is mostly accurate, although there things they left out, most notably the fact that Gunpowder the horse was not included. And at the beginning the episode did get the date wrong. The Legend of Sleepy Hollow was published in 1820 not 1819. However, Wishbone did a really good job with The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, especially with Ichabod's character.  

There are necessary changes to the story, due to the fact that Ichabod (AKA Wishbone) is a dog actor. For instance Ichabod doesn't dance with Katrina Van Tassel (which Ichabod did do in the book). But otherwise they try to make the story as accurate as possible, including scenes like Brom messing up Ichabod's school house. They also portray Ichabod's love of food in the story (Wishbone did a hilarious job of showing that). Brom in this version doesn't believe in ghosts (or so he says...), but otherwise his character is in keeping with the book. Katrina was portrayed well, too. I like that in this version Katrina was as interested in ghost stories as Ichabod (Wishbone) was. The chase scene was also pretty accurate (of course minus Gunpowder the horse, who Ichabod Crane rode in the original story, as I mention above).

Overall. Wishbone did a good job bringing The Legend of Sleepy Hollow to the small screen.                    


I rate the movie: 



              The Adventures of Ichabod & Mr.Toad
      


(Image from Amazon, https://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Ichabod-Toad-Bing-Crosby/dp/B00K7BCWEE/ref=pd_sim_74_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=8KS0P38DBEQN50XFZBTJ )


           Rated:

I am only reviewing The Legend of Sleepy Hollow half of this movie...(I promise if I review The Wind in the Willows movies, I will review the first half). 
               
The movie started out a little too bright and happy looking, not really the mysterious and slightly spooky Sleepy Hollow I picture as described in the story. And being typical of Disney, they made into a musical. The songs had a kind of a "Beauty and the Beast feel"  or "Cinderella feel" to them, especially the one about Ichabod. That song reminded me of "Belle," the song at the very beginning of Beauty and the Beast. 
          
Visually, the movie was very funny, a cartoony kind of funny, and more visually funny than the making jokes kind of funny. Aside from the musical and cartoon aspects the movie was mostly accurate. This was really the only Disney movie that I can think of, that tried to remain true to the original story (which I like, and appreciate from Disney, for once).
The writers didn't make any dramatic changes, and they did include details like the dog that howls whenever Ichabod sings. However, they left out Brom messing up Ichabod's school house. In this version Brom only finds out that Ichabod is superstitious near the end of the movie (when in every other version of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, I have seen, Brom knows from the beginning). 

In a Cartoony kind of way, they show how Ichabod and Brom interact and argue. Surprisingly, Katrina is a non-speaking character, who doesn't sing or talk (I do like that in some versions Katrina actually has a role in the story, instead of being just a speechless, everybody-loves-you, sort of character). Most of the movie was narration, so, there wasn't much talking for the characters, it was singing mostly. 

The end scene was actually pretty accurate. The tree is mentioned, and the headless horseman chases Ichabod (in a little bit of a cartoony way...), and the movie captures the uncertainty of what happened to Ichabod in the original story. 


But if you are looking for a serious Legend of Sleepy Hollow movie, then I would reccomend some of other movies listed above. Overall, Disney actually didn't ignore the original story, and got it right for once. I think this is a good Legend of Sleepy Hollow adaptation. I rated it three stars, because they missed a few important details that were important to the story in the Washington Irving's The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.    
            
I rate this movie: 

         --------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Have you seen or heard of these The Legend of Sleepy Hollow Movies? 
               Or are you interested in them?
    Also, do you know of any other family friendly Legend of Sleepy Hollow movies, besides the ones I mentioned? 

Love
 -Quinley 

          P.S. There is a lyric in a holiday song: "Scary ghost stories and tales of the glories" so this post might have been posted at the right time. 

P.P.S. I will respond to the comments from my previous posts as soon as I can.   
    
Note: This review is not sponsored whatsoever by the film companies who made these movies or by Disney. It is a personal review on my opinions of these Legend of Sleepy Hollow movies.