The Gospel According to St. Matthew (Pier Paolo Pasolini, 1964): B
Widely considered among movie experts as the best film on Jesus' life, and I can sort of see why: The b&w cinematography is beautiful, and Posolini makes a number of unusual yet successful choices in presenting what would otherwise be straightforward gospel story. (Best unusual choice: Having the first 10 minutes of the film -- up through Joseph's angelvisit -- being nearly entirely silent. Worst unusual choice: Having Mary age about 60 years in the time it takes Jesus to age 30.) However, that the necessary didacticism of the Gospels is kinda antithetical to the nature of cinema, and thus using the Gospel of Matthew as a screenplay, without some really creative editing (such as what Gibson did, although admittedly he wasn't any more successful), is never going to lead to artistic greatness. (Allegorical tales of the Gospel, such as the Dardennes' The Son, are an entirely different matter.) Also, I've never seen a cinematic Jesus that's this unlikely to generate passion for Him; when He calls Simon Peter and Andrew and they come a-runnin' to follow, the first thought to cross my mind was, "Why?" If you average Gibson's Passion representation and Pasolini's entirely bloodless (I kid you not) one, you're probably pretty close to the truth.
---
The Lion King 1½ (Bradley Raymond, 1964): B
Better than at least half of the "legitimate" Disney 2D releases over the past decade (Treasure Planet, Atlantis, Hercules, and Pocahontas, if nothing else), 1½ follows the Warner-Brothers-esque path paved by The Emperor's New Groove and delivers a sequel that's two parts Bugs and Daffy (if on more friendly terms), and one part Mystery Science Theater 2000. (I kid you not on the latter: Timon and Pumbaa break in on occasion and comment on the film. In silhouette.) The closer 1½ stays to this WB formula, the more successful it remains, and (as in Groove, and as in the somewhat-similar Shrek, for that matter) it's only the requisite Disney happy-ending and lesson-learning elements that drag it down (here, the much of storyline with Timon's family). A bit too much recycled material from the original for my taste, but that’s the downside of self-referentialism, I suppose.
i sincerely do not know what you are doing here. are you lost? were you
looking for your delicate calico cat, and did you follow her up two flights of stairs
to this room? she is not here. she was here, yes. we gave her a warm bowl of milk, we talked with her about campaign finance reform for a time, and then she bid us good day. i believe she was
going to the post office two blocks down, but i don't quite recall.
for surely you did
not find your way from prinsiana, the least traveled site on
the internet. if you did, though, perhaps you are looking for humor. perhaps you are looking for profundity. perhaps you are looking for answers.
i'm sorry, but you shall go naught-for-three.
