The Leverton Review

 I have so many thoughts about Young Sheldon that I am probably not going to be able to write them all here. In the early seasons, it manages to be much funnier than the Big Bang Theory, but the later seasons have a problem that I will talk about in a moment. Obviously, it is a prequel to The Big Bang Theory, but did you know it's also a spiritual remake of Malcolm in the Middle? If you've forgotten that show, it's about the titular character Malcolm, who is a gifted child. And because he is a gifted child, he's put in the advanced class, which ruins his social life. The show only ever shows him do one thing that a normal person could not do, and it's more of a parlour trick than any sort of sign of intelligence. This seems to me to be realistic in its depiction of kids who are "gifted". The character of Sheldon, on the other hand, is shown to be supernaturally intelligent, with an ability to understand a wide range of topics that are connected to maths an...

 Let me preface this by saying I do not enjoy musicals at all. But despite this, this film has some of the catchiest songs ever produced by Disney. The musical numbers are great. The film has this kinetic madness to it which is great to watch. I never read any of the Mary Poppins books, but I have to say that this is a great adaptation of them, so clearly captures their spirit. There is a plot, but it justifiably takes a back seat to the madness and wonder of Mary Poppins. And the character of Mary Poppins is just wonderful, even apart from her magical abilities. The father character asks her for an explanation, and she replies I never explain anything. The combination of animation and live action is wonderfully done. The cast is excellent, including the child actors they cast to play the children. While I enjoyed many live action Disney films, this is undoubtedly the best.

This film is a mixed bag. It has some excellent aspects, but it does tend to drag a bit, and it is a muddle of accents. It is set in the highlands of Scotland during a very complicated time, and does not do a very good job of explaining this complicated political situation. While it probably looked vibrant when it was first put out, today it looks very muddy and boring, like they were filming at the end of February or the beginning of November. There are two parts which are quite funny, the first is when Rob is trying to ask for someone's hand in marriage and his future father-in-law is loudly playing with the reed of a bagpipe. The second is that the new German King of England George the first needed a translator and spoke in a very thick German accent, and spoke in German to highlanders who happened to understand German. It's often compared to the last film about Rob Roy they made, in the early 90s, while I have seen that film, I do not remember it very well, so I can't r...

 Gus is a very strange film. It's about a donkey that starts to play professional football. It was released in 1976, and really feels like it was released in 1976. It's got a wonderful cast, but they are not given anything to work with. I've never understood these films where animals play professional sports because obviously they wouldn't be able to do that even if it's not against the rules. And setting aside the whole question of whether it's against the rules or not, it's just not funny for me. Films where animals can talk, and they express their feelings and emotions, a sports playing animal, seems a little bit too much of a stretch for me. I'm sure there's somebody out there who really loves these kinds of movies because they keep getting made. Not sure if this was the first movie of its type, but certainly it was not the last.

 It's weird to watch this movie decades after the movies it was spoofing were popular. The sum of the jokes are still quite funny, but a lot of them rely on homophobia and gross out humor. The plot is just a pastiche of plots from horror movies that came out around the same time. Although, to say that this movie made more of an impression on me than the extreme franchise actually did, so I guess in that sense it was a successful parody. There are also bits of physical comedy that are really funny, but it's a kind of movie where you don't really need to be paying attention, and then you can come back and laugh for a little bit and then ignore it for a little bit as well.

 Dean Jones stars in this live action Disney movie from the 1960s which would be a lot better but is tarnished by some inexcusable racism. The plot is pretty simple, a man doesn't like dachshunds, prefers Great Danes, and finally he has a Great Dane puppy of his own. The puppy grows up and causes a lot of mischief, not always his fault. Sometimes it's the fault of his sisters, who despite growing up together seem to have an intense hatred for him. At other times it's the fault of his human owners who do not have any situational awareness whatsoever or their guests who seem to panic at the idea of a large dog existing. The film has a great kinetic energy, and it's sort of a time capsule of 1960s exuberance. Then it is marred by having an unnecessary racist pair of characters who are Japanese, speak in a stereotypical accent and who think a large dog is in fact a lion. I think these scenes are not necessary to the film and could be removed without actually losing anything...

 I'm sure this movie was entertaining when it came out, but it is badly outdated. The special effects are hilariously bad, and worse, there are only two jokes in the entire movie. The first joke is an extended joke about how flubber works, and the second one is an admittedly funny one at the expense of Congress. But this is one of those films where you are supposed to root for the main character because they are the main character even though they have no other redeeming qualities whatsoever. The film is entitled The absent-minded, but he's only absent-minded to one particular thing, which is getting married. He's already missed his wedding twice. I don't care how absent-minded you're not going to miss your own wedding, even if people have to wait for you, you'll still be there unless you have decided not to get married. This is a Disney film you can skip.

 For a live-action Disney film from the 1960s, it's not bad. There are some genuinely funny moments, and the parents of the twins have a chemistry that's hard to miss. However, the idea of the film is so crazy. Why would any parent decide to split up identical twins and not tell them that they have a twin? I understand that people getting divorced was sort of a new thing when this movie came out, but no parent would think that that would be a good idea. And even if you decided to handle it that way, what is the point in never telling the child you kept that they have a sister? It's an utterly bizarre plot device. And it's never even commented upon in the movie, they act like this is the most natural thing in the world to have happened. And it's not like the rest of the family didn't know what happened to the sisters. The only ones that didn't know that there were two of them were the sisters themselves. They're never mad about it, it's very unrealist...

 This is a film that is unabashedly aimed at the young at heart. You might think that that statement should be obvious with all Disney films, but alas, it is not. The plot seems to be taken straight out of a fairy tale, an evil witch wants to hurt children and must be stopped at all costs, causing a great quest. The puppies are cute, Cruella is one of the evilest witches put on screen by Disney animators, which is surprising as she appears to have no magical powers at all. Although the way her smoke stays in the air with a green kind of evil hue is wonderfully animated. Disney also does a wonderful job of animating the way that Roger smokes his pipe with disdain. The background of the film is also animated in a delightful way. There's so much baroque detail in the scenes of London that it harkens back to the detail of Pinocchio. That's surprising because the previous animated Disney film, Sleeping Beauty while gorgeously animated, had been a box office disappointment, so the co...

 In North American English, there are two words, a movie and a film. A movie is something that has been produced by a studio with the sole purpose of entertainment, any artistic merits it may have are purely coincidental. A film is something that is produced as an artistic enterprise, where to win an award or because the producers of the film believe in the project. I watch a lot of movies, and sometimes they rise to the level of film. It's been a while since I went out of my way to watch a film, but this is certainly a film. It can't be judged by the standards of a movie which is made purely for entertainment. Cronenberg, the director, said that this film is all about aging and losing your loved ones, but I think that is a surprisingly simplistic explanation. To me, the film is about sexual desire, and how our bodies will betray us. A lot of people at the time saw this film as a commentary on the AIDS crisis that was developing, and while that may not have been the director...

 If you are wondering why vaping became so popular, you should check out this documentary series. The answer to that question is a combination of an altruistic mission to try to get people to stop smoking and one of the biggest social experiments of a generation. Honestly, probably multiple generations. The style of the documentary is a bit questionable, there are gratuitous scenes of animation interspliced with talking head interviews and one lady who seems to be far too enthusiastic about many of her talking points, include teenage deaths and the ultimate futility of life as a member of gen Z. I think its message is an important one. I personally Wonder what the results of this experiment will be in 20, 30 or 50 years will we see an entire generation of people wiped out by cancer? Or will consuming nicotine and high amounts have no adverse effects? These are important questions, it seems insane to consider that in the rush for technological innovation no one at that company asked...

 The Secret of sitcoms is that the main characters are by definition horrible people. You probably wouldn't be friends with people who constantly put you down, unless you are a sadist. The only way the audience can ignore this is if you perform these jokes in front of a live audience as in friends or add a laugh track as in the Big Bang Theory. One direction you can go is to totally embrace the horribleness of your main characters, like in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Another route you can take is to come up with some sort of conceit that allows your characters to be a bit more human, for example in the Good Place, or in Brooklyn 99. Or you can make your characters not human at all - if they're vampires, it makes sense that they're horrible people. The show is full of wickedly funny moments, and scenes of genuine heart. There are two scenes that display the brilliance of this show for me. The first is from the first season where the vampires are fighting some were...

 I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this film. I have a project to try to watch all the Disney films, so far my favorite has been Cinderella, but I have to say that this film is a bit more enjoyable. There's only one part that slightly mars the overall experience and dates the film, but I'll talk about that in a moment. The animation of the characters allows them to have more personality than in a lot of the Disney animated films of the time. The background also has a depth that is lacking from other contemporary Disney productions. The color of the animation works well and give a charm to the whole thing. It's just a charming movie. The reactions of Mowgli to what happens, and his last scene of the film, just shows the heart of it. Of course, Balloo nearly steals the whole movie by being such an exuberant character, but he is balanced out by other personalities, most notably Bhagira and Shere Khan. Another great thing about the film is that it is a great adaptation of a...

 This movie is simultaneously a satire of what Americans think about Europe, and at the same time a realistic depiction of what Americans think about Europe. I've been to Bratislava, and it is nowhere as ugly as the movie depicts. This is a classic teen sex comedy of the sort that doesn't really get made any more. On watching it in 2023, a few thoughts come to mind. That 2004 is a really long time ago in pop culture. The main character falls in love with someone he's never met and only exchanged emails with, he has printed out all of his emails with this person. That's something that I remember doing, but I can't imagine anyone nowadays communicating that way by email or deciding that a conversation was worth printing out on paper. The other thing, and it's a strange thing to focus on, but I did notice it during the film, is how thin eyebrows were at that time. It was a fashion for women to barely have any eyebrows. It looks kind of creepy. Speaking of creepy, I...

 This was a very entertaining movie. If you liked the first John Wick movie, you will love this movie. Bob Odenkirk plays the role of an older, but no less effective, assassin wonderfully. The fight scenes are over the top and yet somewhat more realistic than in John Wick. It does a great job of character development. I just read that the same production company is behind Nobody and John Wick, and that makes sense, but personally I preferred this to John Wick. It just seemed a bit more realistic to me. I guess I liked the family aspect of it more.

 Apart from the casual racism of the Disney Studios, there is nothing particularly wrong with this film, I just found it boring. The animation is not great by any means, but it does manage to evoke the charm of Paris. The plot is one that makes sense if you are 6 years old, but if you are older than that, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. There's an old lady, who has a cat and that cat's three kittens. She doesn't have anyone else in her life, and so she decides that she's going to give her money to her cats. Of course, cats can't manage money themselves, so in reality she's giving her money to her Butler. So her Butler would be responsible for managing the finances of the estate after the lady's death. And after the cats deaths, everything goes to the butler. So you can manage the money while the cats are alive, and then after they die the money is all yours to do whatever you want with. But the butler hears this and decides that the cats must be go...

 I'm Canadian and I have been to the United Kingdom once. For the most part it was a pleasant visit, apart from one immigration officer who seemed certain that I was about to work illegally in his beautiful country, which was strange because I was only there to visit as a tourist for a literal weekend. One thing that struck me is how similar the two countries are, Canada, United Kingdom, and yet how vastly different they are. There's the same fast food restaurants and people somewhat speak the same language, but the mentality is quite different and things that are famous internationally are not necessarily the things that people in those countries care about the most. The case of Jill Dando is a good example of this. The documentary makes a comparison between her and lady Diana. In Canada knows who lady die was, I doubt many people would have heard about Jill Dando and her case. The documentary does a good job of explaining the basic facts of the case, and you get the feeling t...

 It's hard to watch this and not feel a great sadness for the victims. I had never heard of la Luz del Mundo before, but the story is very similar to other abusive religions. The difference is that this one is older than most cults, surviving three generations of leaders, for example Scientology is only in its second generation of leadership, and much younger than more established faiths like Catholicism. The younger abusive religions are able to abuse people because they create this idea that's wrapped up in a charismatic leadership and an idea that they can do no wrong, whereas the older religion's use the power of Institutions to hide the perverted individuals that abuse faith. This is a dark story which should be a warning to any one that leaves their child in the care of an institution that they trust.

 Disney fooled me and I thought that this was a theatrical production, so I watched it. This is actually a made for TV from the 1960s. But honestly, it doesn't differ much from their live-action of the time. There's a vague historical aspect, a lot of British actors, and a very out of place American accent. The story more or less sticks to the plot of The Mark Twain original, but it is done with more of a divine right of kings Flair. It is clear that the poor boy would make a better King, is making a better King, but he gives it all up when the real king returns from his adventures. It would have been a much better film if the boy had decided, i'm the king now take this Ruffian and throw them in the tower. The real King dies at the age of 15 which the film barely hits at, although they do suggest that his sister Mary was a fanatic. Although Elizabeth the first, barely mentioned and that's probably because this film was made during the early years of the reign of Elizabe...

 This film is very good at dissecting the intricacies of the Indonesian legal system and add laying there its flaws. While the Indonesian legal system is certainly unique within the world, it seems that this case is problematic for the reason that many other cases in the world are problematic - media attention. Sometimes I wonder if it would be a better system when you were accused, charged, tried of a crime in secret. That way if you were innocent no one would ever know that you had been accused of a crime, and if you are guilty then your trial has more of a chance to be a fair one without the glare of the media. Of course that system also would probably lead to abuses of power as well. This is an interesting documentary that plays more like a sensationalistic film.

 I have never seen this film before, but I certainly know the story. How can one grow up in North America and not know the story of old Yeller? If you take out the long introduction song and the end credit songs, this would be a movie which would stand up today. And those two things are, opinion, its only flaws. The writing is quite well done, and the directing is excellent. The film centers around a pair of brothers' bond with a dog. In a lot of Disney films, child acting is rather wooden and idealized, but not in this film. Ellis, the younger brother, acts like a whiny younger brother and often doesn't understand the border between reality and imagination. But the family realizes that he seems to be a sensitive soul and are understanding about this. The older brother, Travis, is trying to replace an absent father but is thrown into a circumstance which is beyond his emotional maturity. There's a great scene after Travis has buried the dog where he's talking to his fat...

 Modern audiences might not understand how groundbreaking this film actually was. That's because the combination of live action and animation kind of looks off to our eyes that are accustomed to computer generated animation. But it was revolutionary at the time and single-handed ushered in a new era of success for Disney. While the character of Roger the Rabbit is certainly annoying, the film holds up as a weird experimental film noir. Jessica rabbit's line I'm not bad, I was just drawn that way is a classic. And there are some classic moments of terror. It does a very good job of allowing the audience to suspend their disbelief. If you have never watched this film before, and you like animation, or you like film noir, this is a really delightful combination of the two.