Whoopi-Goldberg Movie Reviews

My biggest complaint is that it lapses back into the sexist roles so common in kids videos. True, there is a feminist moment when Rudolph says to another buck (referring to his doe-friend, Zoe) "she's not a trophy. You shouldn't treat her like one!" But other than that, we're back to the damsel in distress story line. It might be picking nits to note that the reindeer in this movie look more like whitetail deer than true reindeer (this is common in christmas books and videos). Unfortunately, this confusion between deer and reindeer winds up giving us a sleigh that is pulled by an all-male team with antlers while the antler-less females stand by and admire them. Anybody who's actually seen reindeer knows that both the males and females have antlers. I would have prefered it if my little girl were watching a sleigh pulled by a pack of reindeer of both sexes. (Why couldn't Vixen, Dancer, and Dasher be girls?)

So, in the world of flawed kids videos, this one's not too bad, but with a little more thought, they could really have done better.

P.S. As with most videos, this one's not appropriate for kids under 5 (too much good-evil, scary stuff).

I think the reviewer who thought Kermit wasn't acting like himself didn't get the point that "that was the point". Kermit wasn't himself...He was severely depressed...that's why he wished he'd never been born! Anyway, the parodies of other Christmas movies and specials ( like "Rudolph" and "The Grinch") scattered throughout the film really kept the pace up and the laughs rolling!! All in all it was a very funny and also sweet take on "It's a wonderful life" and Christmas specials in general. A must have for any Muppet fan and Christmas special afficiando!

By the way, the books are also available here at Amazon, so you ought to do yourself a favor and pick them up, too.

Tons of profanity, absurd plot twists, and an easily-descerned plot make for a fun farce that is guaranteed to make you laugh.

By the way, the books are also available here at Amazon, so you ought to do yourself a favor and pick them up, too.

Tons of profanity, absurd plot twists, and an easily-descerned plot make for a fun farce that is guaranteed to make you laugh.

By the way, the books are also available here at Amazon, so you ought to do yourself a favor and pick them up, too.

Tons of profanity, absurd plot twists, and an easily-descerned plot make for a fun farce that is guaranteed to make you laugh.

The storyline is kind of fun until Monkeybone knocks out Brendan Frasier and takes his ticket out of Downtown. Then it actually has a conflict we've all seen before, and its only too predictable about what the result will be. The humor is lost and some times I raised an eyebrow and wondered whether or not I was supposed to laugh, while some other parts were just plain weird. Monkeybone isn't funny at all, and I wanted some one to light the little bugger on fire.

The only reason I gave this two stars was the inclusion of Miss Kitty and Chris Kataan in this movie. Otherwise...it just stinks.

The film is often called messy, and it is indeed. While Stu is trapped in a mysterious world between death and life, it becomes clear. A stop-motion animation monkey Stu created pops up there alive (and with a voice of one talented actor, regular of Coen Brothers films), and makes a havoc in this alternate world. Very irritating monkey, but somehow he offers a help to send Stu back to life. But, it's just the beginning.

As you see soon after the opening credit, this monkey is a symbol of Stu's repressed sexual desire, and, well, those words "monkey" and "bone" are sometimes used as slang with very sexual connotation. But the studio doesn't persue this theme too much, so kids may watch this without worrying the parents. However, at the same time, because of this attitude and other reasons, the film is too timid for those who want to laugh heartily.

Yes, some scenes are funny. Chris Kattan playing the part of a "Organ Doner" is hilarious, being literally a "dead man walking," but you have to wait more than one hour. Wait is worth, but the film is, I thought, buried in its costly-looking production designs. They are really good, I assure you, and the director is Henry Selick, the one responsible for the magnificient "The Nightmare Before Christmas." Fraser and Fonda both talented players look uncomfortable, not knowing what to do with the two-dementional characters and tepid gags. Still, for its interesting designs and funny Kattan, it is worth watching though I don't say you should do it in a hurry.

But, unlike many people, I realize that this list was not meant to be the definitive opinion on our greatest movies, like how the Oscars aren't always right on what's the best of each year. Rather, this list serves as an introduction to cinema. But shouldn't an introduction include all the basics? For example, the silent era is practically forgotten with only four films (Three Charlie Chaplin and D.W Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation") being selected. Where is Buster Keaton's "The General", Griffith's "Intolerance" and King Vidor's "The Crowd" or "The Big Parade"? How about F.W Murnau's "Sunrise" or Erich Von Stroheim's "Greed"? If at least some of these had been voted for, I would be willing to ignore most other shortcomings.

Many great directors and some of their greatest works were represented. Among these were Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg, Billy Wilder, Stanley Kubrick, David Lean, Martin Scorsese, Orson Welles, William Wyler, John Ford, Frank Capra and Francis Ford Coppola. However, some of these masters' best works aren't on the list. For example, where is Hitchcock's "Notorious", Welles' "Touch of Evil", Kubrick's "Paths of Glory", Wilder's "The Lost Weekend" and Ford's "The Quiet Man"? These seemed, to me, to be shoo ins. And there are many other directors who aren't even on the list. Besides the aforementioned Keaton and Vidor, where's Preston Sturges and Ernst Lubitsch? And though Howard Hawks' "Bringing Up Baby" did make the cut, I thought "Red River" or "The Big Sleep" would as well.

Other people have also pointed out the inclusion of "British" films on the list such as "The Bridge on the River Kwai" and "A Clockwork Orange". While these movies were made in outside the U.S and by British filmmakers, they were released by major U.S film studios and often starred American actors or received financing by American producers. The fact that the list also represents "English language films" meant these movies were more then eligible.

The AFI also surprised with other choices, but these were welcome ones. I call this the 'Good Unexpected Category'. An example is "Yankee Doodle Dandy" (#100), a hugely entertaining musical with one of James Cagney's best roles (His favorite I believe). But I did not think enough voters had seen it or would have selected it in their top ten. Same with "The Manchurian Candidate" (#67) and "Mutiny on the Bounty" (#86). And I was convinced that none of the voters would have touched "Clockwork Orange" with a ten foot stick, much less give it enough votes to land at #46.

So, I have admitted that the AFI was not completely full of controversy. For they made many great, already spoken for selections and still proved to be full of surprises.

As I stated in the introduction, a list such as this and the others that the AFI made since (The greatest screen legends, comedies, thrillers and romances) have lead into nationwide debates and viewing or reviewing of the movies. I was among those who started looking towards the classics by checking this list out. I originally thought "Citizen Kane" would be a dumb, boring movie. So much for what I knew. With its brilliance, ground breaking film techniques (Which only seem dated because we have lived in its influence) and tremendous entertainment value, I now consider it one of my favorites and proudly own the DVD. Among the others I have seen that I liked include Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, On the Waterfront, The Third Man, Chinatown, Double Indemnity, Singing in the Rain and 2001: A Space Odyssey.

And, if the movie strikes us, we start to explore others that are part of its genre and/or were made by the same director or actors, like I have with Stanley Kubrick and Humphrey Bogart. I'm also a closet Musical and Film Noir fan as a result of "Singing in the Rain" and "The Maltese Falcon". If this program's purpose was to encourage that, rather than form a definite record of the greatest movies, then mission accomplished. Just one more thing: If there is a movie on this program you haven't seen yet, you should consider skipping that section for there are likely to be spoilers that might ruin your enjoyment.

Dustin, dahling. What gives? Feeling a little remorse over all the babes you've poked and discarded like so many pieces of tissue? Get over yourself, Dustie, nobody's buying the sensitive, in touch w/ your feminine side routine. You're like the rest of us w/ XY chromosomes, you can't control the hormones and you know it.

Only film critics seem to like Citizen Kane. Who gives a rat's hiney that deep focus photography was used and that Orson Welles dug out floors to get those shots where we could see his crotch?
Casablanca also hasn't aged well. The shot of the plane flying over head and the background when Rick and Ilsa are driving are embarrassing. The Godfather is the greatest movie ever made...

I don't necessarily agree with some of the films listed. I don't think that Platoon is the best Vietnam movie, although it's a great movie. I think that Full Metal Jacket is better. Does Unforgiven belong on the list? I don't think so, but the discussion is the part of the fun.

I just think that AFI has given us the means to discuss and reflect upon what a great movie is. And, let's be honest, are there only 100 great ones? I doubt that the American Film institute would ever acknowledge that!