Armand
for message, for performance, for Patrick Swayze and for the young Joseph Mazzello. sentimental, nice, seductive. soup for soul. one of films for romantics, useful, again and again, for remind the role of miracles. and for enjoy. sure, a film for a kind of public. no surprise. but, in same measure, one of films who, without be great or unique, is a good escape from reality and comfortable way to discover the life on a different angle. a film about a meeting. and about love. about magic. and about hope. about trust. almost a fairy tale in American spirit.interesting for a form of self definition. because, like every magic, it is more than a show.
elshikh4
E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) made not only great money, but also great effect on the 1980s movies. Short Circuit (1986), Too Much (1987), Mac and Me (1988) are some of the frank examples. Then, Three Wishes came in 1995 as if a late and loose remake of E.T. Review carefully with me : A kid with no father, just a struggling mother. The quiet, if not dead, suburban, where nothing unusual happens. The strange, yet kind, visitor. The miracles ensue. The friendship with that "alien". The refusal of the other people for that friendship and that "alien". The visitor's visit ends. And there is a little bicycle chase at the end too ! Three Wishes has many good points. Director Martha Coolidge created such a pretty tender image and pace. Nearly every moment in the movie is beautifully sentimental. I loved the dreamy, rather miraculous, moments of the younger brother (with the bizarre creature, or while the flying sequence). Also, these tremendous shots for the too similar, too equal, houses of that huge suburban of a city; which portrayed the need for something different, proved that anything different would be naturally unique, and assured the difficulty of its continuation in a "canned human" factory like this (at one shot it sounded more like a big cemetery). And it's not perfect without leading the cast cleverly. It's where I can safely say; that no one in the movie acted in any bad way.Patrick Swayze was one of the unluckiest stars of Hollywood. I didn't understand that man's problem. He had charisma, talent, and couple of hits (the first two are enough to achieve immortality !), though at one point he unexplainably disappeared from Hollywood's map. Maybe his choices were wrong, and Hollywood didn't have mercy on him. I don't exactly know. All what I know, that we lost him long before his death out of cancer in 2009. Here, Swayze showed us why he was one of a kind, with super performance of a man wanted to be himself, even if that meant being different than all who were around him. He was deeply wounded, delicate, wise, and romantic; namely every lonely woman's dream of a drifter. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (I've always believed it's an ugly name) is one of the best actresses of her generation. She can give the right performance every time, evoking a lot of feelings inside you, with genius concentration and truthful eyes. Even Joseph Mazzello was more than fine, his tears were memorably genuine and touching.Now, cut to the no good points. Simply, I lay all the movie's faults at the script's door. It made annoyingly realistic fantasy. It truly lacks imaginary details, or – in best cases – is stingy when it comes to fantasy. If Swayze was a good ghost, then what could be his powers and miracles ? (only he has a handwriting that nobody sees ??!!). Sure his dog makes way better and more impressive ghost ! So, whether the goal was making that dog the lead character, or making Swayze the most realistic ghost ever; it weakened the movie, and betrayed its premise. Furthermore, the movie gets muddled near its end. Was she in love with he ? What did he learn out of his journey ? And the lesson of "Be satisfied with what you have, whatever that is" doesn't fit with the extremely happy end, where all the wishes are fulfilled (How to become content with what you have, while I give you freely all what you haven't !). And as far as this script errs, I believe that the conversations between the lead and the younger brother were the weakest. Clearly this script was too slack to write an appropriate bedtime story to be told !So that's why the movie feels boring or too long. Because all the time you're waiting for a fantasy to happen, and nothing happens. And you're waiting for the story's meanings to unfold, and nothing unfolds, at least in a way harmonizes with this story. In fact, the best moral this movie led to is the importance of individualism, especially in a society with one form for everything and everyone (so 1955 isn't chosen pointlessly). And instead of E.T., the extra-terrestrial who wants to go home, this round we have an early hippie, who doesn't want to go home, or believe in homes in the first place.Despite being a smooth piece of cinema, Three Wishes is empty for most of the time. Its tagline says "If you really believe, magic will find you.", well, I do believe, but the problem is that this movie doesn't have enough "magic" !
oldsenior
I picked this up at Walgreens for $4.00 *. I was taken! Again we have a movie with lots of talented people but, with a disappointing story. The climax (and we're looking for the final revealing moment)or coup de grace was probably the biggest or dumbest ending to a movie. If The young son realized this wish and the mother realized her wish, why could'nt the oldest son realize his wish (I know he did'nt wish anything, and that it was wished for him)? I mean the wish should have been self evident. And was Jack (Swayze)the White Sox pitcher or not and what was the story behind the last revelation about Jack supposed to mean? Maybe I was sleeping (Zzzzzz)and not the movie? Long, boring with a story not fully realized.
