Now With More Than 3000 Reviews! Go Nuts - Read 'Em All!!

WELCOME! Use the search engines on this site (or your own off-site engine of choice) to gain easy access to the complete MAKSQUIBS Archive; over 2500 posts and counting. (New posts added every day or so.)

You can check on all our titles by typing the Title, Director, Actor or 'Keyword' of your choice in the Search Engine of your choice (include the phrase MAKSQUIBS) or just use the BLOGGER Search Box at the top left corner of the page.

Feel free to place comments directly on any of the film posts and to test your film knowledge with the CONTESTS scattered here & there. (Hey! No Googling allowed. They're pretty easy.)

Send E-mails to MAKSQUIBS@yahoo.com . (Let us know if the TRANSLATE WIDGET works!) Or use the Profile Page or Comments link for contact.

Thanks for stopping by.

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

THE BFG (2017)

What can you say? Not since HOOK/‘91? Maybe Steven Spielberg should stay away from London-based Kid Lit. This story of a dream-dealing giant who befriends a spunky orphan girl never gets off the ground. And Spielberg seems to know it, over-compensating with elaborate motion capture/CGI set pieces to cover up story & casting problems. The sort of empty technical tinkering we’ve come to expect from onetime Spielberg protegee Robert Zemeckis (POLAR EXPRESS’04; CHRISTMAS CAROL/’09), and what Martin Scorsese (of all people) defaulted to on the equally charmless, over-produced HUGO/’11. Things take a slight turn for the better in the third act when Penelope Wilton shows up, corgis in hand, as a decidedly practical Queen Eliz II. But far too late to make much of a difference. What a sad final credit for Melissa Mathison (E.T./’82; BLACK STALLION/’79) who adapted the Roald Dahl book.

WATCH THIS, NOT THAT: We direct your attention (once more) to Dahl’s scary, kid-friendly THE WITCHES/’90.

SCREWY THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Dahl’s book has a following, but does anyone think Big and Friendly come to mind when you see BFG? Granted, the film didn’t lose 100 mill on its title, but still . . .

No comments: