Potential Blasphemy

Rating: Null/10 (27 April 2004)

I am currently having a hard time with many so-called "classics." First with 'Jaws' I noticed the sloppy editing. Then, with 'Double Indemnity', I observed how Barbara Stanwyck has no sex appeal and only Robinson did anything right.
This is your only spoiler warning...
Here I was particularly disappointed. This is not the layered work of 'Alice', though it is a dream, but rather it's an ancestor to 'Terminator 2.' Just as 'T2' is totally constructed around action, this revolves around music...and it isn't even good listening.
With "classics," the common phrase I hear in circles is "good for its day." In case they didn't notice: this is 2004, not 1939. There's a 65-year difference and, excuse me while I build a time machine, this does not hold up. If viewers are so hung up on nostalgia for times they didn't experience, what can be said of the future of film?
As with 'Star Wars' we have a totally political battle or, more accurately, a musical 'Lord of the Rings', how ironic. Worst of all, there is no surrealism of a dream world, only the artificial sights (and sounds) of the munchkins and Emerald City. Shallow stage musicals were never so celebrated as here.
I lived in Kansas for two years and, by golly, the rest of the world loves rubbing this in their faces. The population there either loves or hates this, no middle ground.
One thing was done right: Judy. Despite our consistent wondering of how a 17-year-old could be so daft, we love her. That's at least one element that the follow-up didn't understand. Other than that, shallow frames with flying primates.
Final Analysis = = Cinematic Dud