Mary Poppins (1964)

Oh God… I know I’m getting flak for this one…

Mary Poppins. What the hell is this movie such a beloved Children’s classic? IMDB rates it with a 7.7 out of 10. Rotten Tomatoes gives it 100%!?!?!?

Ugh…

Okay, so here’s the deal, there are very few Disney movies that I’m willing to speak negatively about. Even some of the worse ones like Pocahantas or Song of the South, are movies I will watch and watch again. Despite the incredible $$ to buy it legally, Song of the South is an excellent film.

But Mary Poppins is one of those few. Why? Because it’s depressing! The movie really seems to be a series of mini-adventures that the characters go through. From the laughing uncle, to Bert’s street drawings, to the father’s transformation. There is certainly nothing wrong with that, in fact it gives the movie an almost epic feel… however, have you noticed that most of the mini-adventures end on a downer? I’m not kidding, the movie is depressing. The drawings Bert worked hard on get washed away, the father has no time/tolerance for his children, the mother is too busy being an activist (hippie), the servants are mean to each other… and what the hell is up with the guys on top of the building pretending to be on a ship?

This is one thing that has always bugged me, did this guy fight in World War 2 and take a blow to the head or something? I mean he seems to be a sort of minor nuisance throughout the movie until the scene with the Chimney Sweeps. At this point… for some unknown reason the Captain get’s paranoid at all the dancing sweeps and… FIRES A CANNON AT THEM!?!? WTF!? Someone let this guy have a cannon… in a country where the police aren’t even allowed to carry guns… really!? How is he not getting arrested? How has he not been committed???

That’s my other problem with the movie… very very little is explained. There is little to no back story, no character development,  no exposition, nothing! What the hell is Mary Poppins? Is she a witch, some kind of angel, or something else? How does Bert know Mary? What made their father such a jerk? Where does Mary get her powers? Why does the letter get to Mary? What causes the old man at the end and the laughing guy to float on the ceiling? WHO THE HELL GAVE THE MENTALLY DISTURBED NEIGHBORHOOD CAPTAIN A #@%$ING CANNON!?!?

Then we get down to the worst possible part of this movie… Feed the Birds… uh… you know what? I don’t even want to talk about this. It’s sad, wicked sad. In a movie that seems to be ridden with downers, this one scene is like the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the movie. That’s all I’m going to say about it for the sake of sanity.

Moving on… (mercifully)

There are days when I really don’t like giving a movie a bad review. I am well aware of how beloved this movie is. Julie Andrews gives a powerhouse performance and her singing is at it’s peak. Supporting cast members Dick Van Dyke, and the legendary David Tomlinson (one of my childhood favorites), are also quite good. But in the end, if the story isn’t good… all the great acting and musical numbers in the world can’t save it.

For all the positives, and as much as I hate to say it, this is a bad movie. A total lack of character development and back story is bad enough. But then the primary story is just one run of depression or another. Yes the animated scene is quite enjoyable, but even that ends on a downer. Shockingly enough, even with all the misery this movie delivers, it somehow still manages to end on a high note.

I honestly would have preferred it if it ended on a downer. I mean Old Yeller was a depressing Disney movie that scarred many children, but at least it went all the way with what it was doing.  So look, I know I’m in the minority on this one, but Mary Poppins is definitely near the bottom of the barrel of Disney movies for me. It’s depressing, it’s an emotional cluster eff, and you wind up leaving with so many unanswered questions.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058331/

The Sorcerer’s Apprentice (2010)

I don’t honestly know about this one. It’s a Disney live-action re-imagining of a segment from the classic Fantasia…. and… yeah. That’s it really.

Okay, that’s a little unfair. To be honest, I know I should hate this movie. The main character is annoying as hell, the plot is simple, and the main villain… has almost no development. There is also very little in the way of exposition past the opening screen. Most people would say that’s a good thing, but there are some times when things really need to be explained in a movie. They didn’t really do that here. But to be honest… I DON’T HATE THIS MOVIE! I could watch this movie over and over. It’s a guilty pleasure that I’m not really all that guilty about.

Let’s dive in…

So the movie starts off during the time of… well I guess King Arthur as it deals with Merlin and his three apprentices Baltazar, Horvath, and Veronica. So Merlin get’s betrayed by Madam Mim… I’m sorry I mean Mihn… I’m sorry… how many different names does this rival sorceress go through during the legend? So her name in this retelling is Morgana. Although I’m pretty certain that’s the Borg queen…

Ah well, anyway, Merlin is betrayed and murdered and Veronica sacrifices herself to trap Morgana in her body and then in… a nesting doll… okay… Lesbian overtone? Since it’s the borg queen we’re talking about here, I’m not exploring that joke.

So Baltazar and Horvath have spells cast on them to prevent them from aging while they look for the Prime Merlinian… which according to legend is the one person who can defeat Morgana permanently…. This person is apparently somehow Merlin’s descendant. It’s one of those pesky things that they don’t explain very well.

So it turns out that Horvath as been in league with Morgana from the start and apparently Horvath has been recruiting people to be Morganians while Baltazar goes around looking for this Prime Merlinian. But he also captures Morganians as he travels… why he doesn’t just kill them is beyond me, but again, it’s not explained. He eventually even catches Horvath… again, why not just kill him!?

Ugh… anyway, years pass and we get to the 90s when this kid named Dave wanders into an antique shop run by Baltazar. He’s identified by Merlin’s dragon ring as the Prime Merlinian. At this point, Dave accidentally allows Horvath to escape and Baltazar has to fight him. The fight lasts all of two seconds and both Horvath and Baltazar are imprisoned in a magic jug for 10 years.

Dave is emotionally scarred by the event and grows up a nerd and a reject. But he’s very smart and finds that quantum physics  comes easy to him… whereas I’m not even sure I spelled the name right! So he meets up with a childhood friend right around the same time that Horvath and Baltazar escape the jug, Horvath tracks down Dave and… okay this is actually a little funny. He reveals himself to Dave by giving him a C on a report he did in Elementary school that was dropped when Horvath was imprisoned in the jug.

So long story short, Baltazar rescues Dave, Dave has to find a way to balance being geeky and rekindling a friendship with Becky, his childhood friend, while dealing with Baltazar consisted insufferable training. The best part of this is when Batlazar get’s mad about Dave skipping out on his training, he doesn’t yell at Dave, he just makes his life a living hell in front of Becky by saying he’s going out to pick up some anti-itch cream for Dave. That had me laughing.

Meanwhile Horvath goes to a contact… who or what this contact is, how he knows about magic, and what his significance is… AGAIN never explained. But this burger flipper tells him to look up a guy Drake who is a Morganian who has made a name for himself as a performing magician. This character is comic relief When Baltazar or Dave aren’t.

So long story short, Dave get’s the girl. Together, Dave and Baltazar defeat all the Morganians except for Horvath who releases Morgana. Dave is able to defeat her by finally realizing his true power and… one would argue a little anti-climacticly defeats her while saving Baltazar’s long-lost love, Veronica.

So Dave get’s the girl, the world is safe, Baltazar is reunited with his love, Morgana is dead, and Horvath… has disappeared. We don’t see why, how, or when he escapes, or why he doesn’t help Morgana, but he does… so thank you, add that to the list of unexplained events!!!

Okay, so now that I’ve properly thrashed this movie, you’re probably wondering why I like it. Well aside from the plot holes you could sail a ship through, a lack of exposition and an annoying lead who looks like he was rejected from the Big Bang Theory… it was actually a pretty fun movie. You really need expand your threshold of disbelief and allow a few things to go unexplained, but if you can do that, it’s very enjoyable.

Nicolas Cage is his usual demented yet charming self as he portrays Baltazar. One thing I will say about Nicolas Cage… when he’s acting, you can tell when he really likes a role. In many roles, he’s just a stage presence, but when it comes to things like Ghost Rider and this, you can tell he gives it his all and instead of playing a character, plays himself as if it were Nicolas Cage as the Ghost Rider, or Nicolas Cage as a sorcerer, and that’s very difficult to do well.

Alfred Molina played the arch rival in this movie, Horvath. I will say this about him, as a bad guy, he’s a lot of fun. He went from being relatively unknown to being thrust into the spotlight as both the bad guy in the Da Vinci Code and Spiderman 2. Honestly, when I watch this movie, I watch it for Horvath. I just love how he reacts to people and how he handles life with a sort of nonchalance.  Which you can see in my FAVORITE scene, listed below:

Toby Kebbell as Drake is another fun character, and more proof that you really can’t take this movie too seriously. It was meant to be a fun time with action, adventure, magic, and a lot of laughs.

But I think the scene that really won everyone over was the major nod to Fantasia by the inclusion of the famous broom scene:

So in the end, it’s a good movie, one I highly recommend. I loved it, and I think anyone else will too. It does have a few problems, but it’s Disney, you’re not meant to take it too seriously, and in a world of bad remakes, sequels, and re-imaginings, this was a breath of fresh, creative air. So this movie get’s my stamp of approval. Give it a watch and enjoy the lunacy!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0963966/

Jesus Christ Superstar (1973)

I was admittedly very excited to see this one. I’d heard all sorts of things about it being an awesome musical with some great numbers and an awesome story arc.

I hate to say this… I was extremely disappointed, and I mean extremely….
Let’s begin…

So the music opens up somewhere in the desert with a bunch of performers getting off their tour bus and setting up for the production. To anyone just sitting down to this movie having never seen a production of this musical before… if you’re reaction isn’t ‘Okay, wtf is going on here?’ You’re a better man than me. Well they get started and to be honest… I don’t know… there really isn’t much to say here.

Ted Neeley and Carl Anderson as Jesus and Judas definitely stole… what there actually was to steal from this show. Both of their voices were powerful and you could see they were putting a lot into this… it’s really too bad they seemed to be the only ones who were.

So this movie is basically about the trial, crucifixion, and death of Jesus. Okay… definitely a workable premise for a music. But I guess my first problem is that the sets were not well done. This to me looked like opening night at a pre-broadway performance of a play where the sets are somewhat shoddy, the actors are still finding their places, and the producer is backstage  biting his nails, hoping it will be a big hit. For a stage production, this is acceptable, but this was a fairly high budget movie we’re talking about! Cheaping out on the sets is not a good way of going about it. Oh and don’t you dare try to tell me that they were done that way to be artistic, because of that’s the case, then a case of severe pretense can also  be added to this movie’s rap sheet!

Take that situation out to the desert and basically throw the set over more modern buildings, and not in a way that they had the modern stuff. Just do it in a way so that it’s barely covering anything and you should be golden. That’s what this was. In fact the only costume I found believable was Jesus himself. His robes looked believable, but that was about it. The other’s were gaudy, unrealistic, and… not even aesthetically pleasing. I mean if you’re trying to be preteni… artistic, that’s fine, but first you have to make what you’re doing appealing. So you’ve got crappy sets, crappy costumes, substandard musical numbers… so with all this in mind, can the one aspect we haven’t gone through yet save this play; the story? Sadly… no.

This is where I really get irked. The story of Christ’s crucifixion and death is literally referred to as “The Greatest Story Ever Told.” Whether you’re christian or not it is a compelling story of self-sacrifice and salvation. How could anyone screw that up? Sadly, this play found the way. Jesus Christ Superstar decided to take the sort of anti-hero approach to this one. Jesus is portrayed as a primadonna more interested in his own fame than the work he was doing while Judas was more portrayed as the voice of reason.
A good example of this is when Mary washes Jesus feet with perfume and oil. In the original story, Judas wanted her to sell that oil. He said he wanted her to do this because the money from the perfumes could have been given to the poor. The reality was that he was a thief who planned on taking the money for himself. But Jesus rebuked him and allowed her to anoint him.
This story paints it more as Judas saying that she should sell it to be charitable and the reason Jesus wants it to be done is because he’s the son of God and he deserves luxury, etc. etc…

Yeah you know something, aside from the blasphemous aspect of this… this might actually be an interesting twist on the original story if #1. It wasn’t reminiscent of the ramblings of every anti-christian or atheist punk out there, and #2 Every hard rock band out there hadn’t already done this to death! So yeah, the people who made Jesus Christ Superstar better hope that God either has a sense of humor or doesn’t exist… otherwise, they may be getting a Divine ass beating.

So the story ends with Jesus dead and Judas basically making fun of him in hell. It does not deal with Jesus ascending to Heaven or being resurrected. We’re basically left to either draw our own conclusions or believe that he stayed in Hell. Great…

So in the end, this play really didn’t turn out to be anything more than the normal ramblings from kids in college who wore all black, didn’t wear shoes, or wash their hair. It was very disappointing and I could go without another showing. Feel free to disagree, but that’s really all I took from this.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070239/

Top Ten Movies I Hate The Most…

So I’ve been getting a few people asking things like ‘What movies do you hate the most,” or “What’s your top 5.” Well today I’m going to answer that. The top ten movies I hate the most and why.
Everyone please note that I carefully worded this. These are not the top ten worst movies of all time, simply the ones I hate the most. I won’t do a top ten list of the worst movies of all time because quite frankly, that’s way too subjective. This is strictly opinion on my part.

So don’t get all up in arms if you don’t agree. Regardless of the fact that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

10. The Phantom Menace

I thought about putting this movie higher on the list than this. But to be honest, I couldn’t 1. Like it or not (or whether or not you acknowledge it’s existence like most self-respecting Star Wars fans have chosen not to) it is still a Star Wars movie… Yes I know it introduced Shaft Jedi, and Jar Jar Binks… but it does have some fairly nice sets and the fight scenes are very impressive as well. That said, some have argued that it suffers from the Star Wars stigma, but even if you were to look at the movie in a subjective light without acknowledging the Star Wars title. It’s still a fairly weak story with annoying characters.

9. Chicago

I know a lot of people loved this movie and the play it’s based on. But to be honest, I never got why. It’s about an adulterous whore who is willing to do anything to achieve her goals, including perjury  murder, conning, and the a fore mentioned adultery. Believe it or not, had this move (and the play) ended with the lead character either looking back on her life, realizing what she’d done, and either committing suicide or being forced to face all the people she hurt to get to the top, it would have been a much more powerful story and on my good graces.
But no, ladies, cheat on your husband, murder a guy, lie under oath, steal your ex’s money, fake a pregnancy, and hang out with other murders. It’s a fool-proof way to get ahead in this world.

8. Fox and the Hound

Yes… there is a Disney movie in this review… a couple in fact. The big problem I have here is that this is more a nature vs. nurture and a refusal to conform to predetermined roles in society study in the form of an animated film. I found the songs lack luster, the characters for the most part forgettable, and the end both dismal and unrealistic. So take from that what you will.

7. Beethoven

Sigh… I hated this movie as a child and I still do. My brother and sister always wanted to watch it and it drove me crazy. The story is stupid, the characters are ridiculous, and the child acting in this movie is the absolute worst I’ve ever seen. It’s no wonder these kids did virtually nothing after the first two movies. It also heralded the downturn of the fairly well-known actor Charles Grodin from the late 60s – mid 90s. A year after doing Beethoven’s second he would pretty much fade into obscurity only to resurface in 2012 in a few minor roles.

6 Pinocchio

Yup… the other Disney movie on this list. This one always rubbed me the wrong way. I didn’t like it when I was little and I still don’t. It’s an unpleasant rendition of the classic tale that honestly leaves way too many questions unanswered:
What happened to the 4 villains of the story? Did they suffer nasty ends or were they still abusing puppets and abducting people.
Why did kids turn into donkeys on Pleasure Island?
What happened to those kids?
Among many more. In the end… I can’t even sit through this one. It just leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth.

5. The Vow

Oh God… you know what? No! There are just too many reasons I hate this movie. Go read my review on it here:
https://charactercritic.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/the-vow-2012/
Knock yourself out.

4. The Butterfly effect

Yes, I know I already reviewed this one too, but it still stands as one of the few movies I have walked out of and one of the two I actually asked for my money back on. It’s beyond unpleasant, unnecessarily sickening (and I’m not even talking about gory), and the story really isn’t that great either. It’s an interesting concept in that many of us would like to go back in time and change things that happened but…  sigh… The story falls flat on it’s face.

3. The Faculty

I know, I’ve been eerily silent on this one and that’s how it’s pretty much going to stay. This movie is bad. This is a classic example of how idiot directors with some pretty bad rap sheets themselves view teenagers. Yeah we’re not all out to kick the crap out of anyone who so much as bumps into us or hump everything in sight! Moving on!

2, 9 months

As if I need to get into much detail. This used to occupy the #1 spot and did so for many years. It’s boring, the lead character is a complete douchebag, and this whole movie wreaks of something that should have been shown on lifetime with the rest of their male vilification campaign. It is a terrible movie with the worst cast imaginable… Hugh Grant, Julianne Moore, Tom Arnold, Jeff Goldblum and a cameo by sometimes funny man Robin Williams.
Skip this movie… please!!!!

1. District 9

And so we’ve arrived… the worst of the worst….
If you were to look up grotesque or unpleasant, in the dictionary, you’d find this movie under the definition. It’s partially shot in the ‘found footage’ style, and feels more like a parody than an actual movie.
The biggest crime this movie commits is that it’s misleading. It was advertised as being better than Star Wars, and being the next big Sci-Fi craze, when in reality it was little more than a docudrama and… political satire about a subject I couldn’t care less about: Apartheid in South Africa.
Seriously, I could not care less and had I known that, I never would have spent the $10 to see the movie. If the oppressed people were to rise up tomorrow and kill off the remaining colonial descendants there, I would applaud for 5 minutes and then go back to one of my books.
This is a classic example of what happens when you give a soapbox directed too much attention!

The Lord of the Rings (1978)

No, I’m not doing the Peter Jackson version, so don’t get your panties in a bind saying that I got the date wrong.

There were a few other renditions of Tolkien’s masterpiece that came before the large budget production. Perhaps the best of the bunch being the version done by Ralph Bakshi in 1978, and that’s what we’re covering today.

This movie at the time was considered a box office flop, but since then has developed quite a following. Though all of geekdome seem to be polarized about this one… people seem to either really love it or absolutely loath it. Me personally? Being a fan of the original J.R.R. Tolkien books, I have to say, I loved it. Yes, it does have it’s fair share of problems and utilizes perhaps way to much of a very… let’s call it controversial art-form known as rotoscope. This seems to be what really turns people off to movies like this and Heavy Metal, but if you can get past it, it’s actually not a bad movie.

The story is somewhat choppy, but keep in mind, Bakshi had two hours to cover at much of Lord of the Rings as he could. So he pretty much got through the Two Towers and stopped right as Return of the King began. Because of this, several scenes from the book were chopped out, the passage of time is a little iffy and if you so much as look away for 5 minutes, you’ll be almost completely lost when you come back.

Many of the Characters are extremely cartoony… Gandalf, Samwies, and Legolas being the biggest culprits. But at the same time, the movie has some incredible characters too. I personally love the Aragorn in this version over the Peter Jackson one. He’s far tougher, far more adventurous and you can really see the leader in him (The only real downside is he bares a striking resemblance to the bad guy from No Country For Old Men). Whereas the live action version with Vigo Mortensen is constantly questioning himself, constantly bringing up his past, and while definitely more compassionate, he keeps needing to be built up Arawen (no appearance in Bakshi btw).

One of the major pluses of this movie was definitely the use of John Hurt, who I covered in a lot more detail in my Black Cauldron review. He has one of those unmistakable voices where you know it’s him, but you accept it in almost any role he plays regardless of how old or young they are.  He could probably pull off a female role under the right circumstances.

So as I’ve pretty much given this movie only a moderate review thus far, you’re probably wondering why I like it so much and have even added it to my own collection… well to be honest, I was sort of indifferent to it until Helm’s Deep came up. Yes, this one scene sold me on the movie.

Yeah, this one scene sold me. Te first time I saw it and heard the orcs chanting as they came over the ridge, chills went down my spine. I found this scene a lot more well done than the Jackson version. For one, at first, you can barely see what the orcs look like. Granted when you finally do, the first thing that should pop into your head is ‘WOW I guess the sandpeople did come back in greater numbers.’

All joking aside, the chant doesn’t stop throughout the entire fight and almost gives it the sense of a dark musical number. To me, this was extremely powerful and really sold me on what Bakshi was trying to do here.

So is it perfect? God no… the rotoscoped animation does get to me sometimes, and the characters can be a bit loony. But it tells the story well-enough, and you can see some inspiration for the blockbuster hit of our generation, so it does deserve some credit there. Though at times, it does feel like someone took the cliff-notes version of Lord of the Rings and turned it into the movie.

So in rare form for me, I love this movie, but will I recommend it? …. No. I know what the geek community is like and given how divided they are, it’s probably not a good idea. Watch it if you want, it’s definitely worth it, just know it has its own set of issues.

BTW… did you know that there was a board game inspired by this movie?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077869/

Troy (2004)

This movie and I have a somewhat… sordid past. Initially I was supposed to see it 0n an invitation to a premier (pre-release) showing at the Loews in Boston. But it turns out the theater overbooked and then made fun of the people who didn’t read the microscopic writing that they had sold more tickets than seats. So we left, and I have NEVER been back to that Loews (now AMC) since.

To be clear…
AMC Boston

175 Tremont St  Boston, MA 02111 (617) 423-5801

Feel free to avoid, their customer relations suck. Bitter? You betcha.

The second time I went to the theater to see it, we got 10 minutes in and… we had to leave the theater. I’m going to leave it at that, I don’t feel like and really don’t remember too well why we had to leave. So that’s two.

Eventually I had to settle for renting it on DVD… and let me tell you, it annoyed me. Plus the fact that the movie had caused me so much frustration in just seeing it and that I had actually wasted nerves on it, pissed me off even more!!!
Let me start off by saying I have read three different versions of Homer’s Iliad on which this… movie is based, and I loved all three versions. That said… Troy didn’t do a very good job at all.

There have been several different renditions of the Iliad that have made their way to the screen, and for some strange reason, most of them paint the Trojans as innocent, peace-loving people throughout all of this, and Troy is no exception.  Let me try to run through the differences…

Achilles:
Iliad: A somewhat immature thrill seeking warrior king, more interested in his own legend than he is his survival. When Agamemnon steals his slave, he sits back on his ship for years watching the Aegeans die under the constant storm of arrows from the Trojan walls. It’s not until Agamemnon returns his slave and his cousin dies that Achilles agrees to fight again.  He eventually dies by Paris’ poison arrow through his heel. Achilles is immortal in this story and his heel is his only weakness. This was also well-before the Trojan horse incident.

Troy: Well… I’ll give Brad Pitt credit, he did portray Achilles well. That said, unlike in the Iliad, it took Achilles only a few days to return to the fight. I should note that the battle with Achilles is more intense in this version, but I”ll get to that later. Here, Achilles survives to make it inside the city looking for his slave. He is in the Trojan horse and dies right at the end in his slave’s arms.

Hector:
Iliad: Somewhat cowardice as he runs away from Achilles on the battlefield. Doesn’t put up much of a fight, and seems to spend more time boasting about his skills. His view of Paris as his brother is more rightly suspicious and indifferent.

Troy: He’s pretty much an Adonis… this man could have tried out for Jesus. He accepts Paris, loves him, defends him, etc. In the end, he gives Achilles the best fight he’s ever had and dies honorably.

Helen:
Iliad: Helen of Sparta doesn’t really make much of an appearance in any of the stories. I think she came up 4 times in the Iliad. She’s really indifferent to Paris, who was promised her by Aphrodite (we’ll deal with this later, remember it). In fact, there is credible speculation that she was abducted and raped by Paris. She seems to regret being taken to Troy both for the loss of life and the weakness and cowardess of her husband.

Troy: The woman in this one seems desperate to by at Paris’ side. She seems indifferent to Paris’ weaknesses and really doesn’t seem affected much by the loss of life… yeah great. Well… at least physically she was portrayed well.

Agamemnon:
No… he was pretty much the same ambitious cunning SOB in both. The only difference is the manner of his death. Shakespeare covers him dying at the hands of his wife after he sacrificed their daughter… In Troy, he’s killed by the slave he tried to retake.

Menelaus:
Iliad: The Iliad barely covers him early on, other than his marriage to Helen was arranged. He is a loyal companion and friend to Odysseus and his son. He calls on his brother Agamemnon to help him reclaim his wife and spends half the story hell-bent on killing her… only to not be able to do it when she flashes him. He shows mercy on her and brings her back to Sparta to live out her days.

Troy: This is when I knew I would hate this movie. He’s portrayed by Harry Potter’s Alistair Moody and is made out to be a lot older than most envisioned him. Yes he was older than Helen, but I don’t think by that much! He’s shown to be a ruthless drunken tyrant who cares for nothing but personal honor. He even plans a subversion with his Brother so that they can take the city. The worst part is, unlike in the Iliad where he actually returns from the war, in Troy, Achilles kills him very early on! WHAT THE HELL!!!

Paris:
And I saved the worst for last, and there are many reasons for this… This is the guy girls went batty over and was portrayed by Orlando Bloom. He was made out to be a lovable, memorable character that every girl would want… UUUUUUGHGGGGHHGGHHHHH!!!!!
I could probably write an entire review on this character alone… but let’s get into at least a little bit…

Iliad: Where do I begin with this guy? His rap-sheet includes abduction, adultery, rape, cowardice, betrayal, hedonism, accepting bribes (mainly the already married Helen as a reward if Paris picks Aphrodite as the most beautiful Goddess), and… well I don’t think there is a word for it, but he forces three of the most powerful and respected female goddess, yeah you heard me right GODDESSES to bare all so he can judge them on their looks. (Don’t believe me? Reread the story and see the pic below.) He runs away from battle and chooses to shoot Achilles when his back is turned, favoring an archer’s post over that of a warrior’s like his brother. Achilles is suspect of him, and really he is only in Troy because of King Priam’s good graces. Still want to sleep with him ladies???

Troy: This story still paints him as a bit of a coward, but an honorable one who is both loving and nurturing to his new wife. He survives the sacking of Troy, which doesn’t happen in the Iliad.

There are other inconsistencies with characters and I could waste a lot more time going over them but why bother? Visually, this was a good movie. The scenes and CGI were beautiful, the costumes were impressive and the characters were overall likable. But anyone who is a fan of the original work will become disillusioned with it pretty quickly as most remnants of the original story are brushed away… which explains why they never made the Sequel, given that they killed off characters that were necessary for the Odyssey to happen!

So watch this movie with no preconceptions and try not to harp on the inconsistencies and you’ll enjoy it… or you could read the damn book and get much more out of it. But hey, that’s up to you.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332452/synopsis

Rambo III (1988)

I didn’t think I’d be reviewing this movie. On the surface it’s an odd action flick that is way past it’s time. But looking back on everything that has happened since this film came out, kind of brought it forward and prompted me to do this review.

So the movie is about a Vietnam War vet who seems like he’s finally come to terms with everything that happened before and during the first movie. Having found piece by using his incredible abilities to help build a monastery. Good for him. Though you can also see that he’s still haunted by what happened in Rambo two as he still wears his… 10 minute romance’s amulet.

So believe it or not, I actually didn’t mind this movie when I first saw it. Keeping in mind I first saw it when I was 10. But now looking back on it… err… it’s really become Taboo in light of events that happened 12 years ago, and given everything I’ve learned about history since then.

So let’s get started, shall we?

For starters, you see Rambo approached by Col. Trautman, his old commander, asking for help. They were planning an undercover op into Afghanistan to resupply the mujaheddin… and I’m going to stop right there.

FIRST PROBLEM:  This movie… they make it look like the Russians were brutal killers who went into villages and gunned down innocent civilians. This was not the case. There is old war propaganda on the side of the US exposing this, but none of it has ever been substantiated. The reality is that the Soviets supplied the Northern Alliance under the leadership of Rashid Dostum with armaments, money, and so on. The soviets had forged an alliance with the people of Northern Afghanistan, otherwise known as Uzbeks. Under this regime, women were allowed to go to school, people were safe, and they had a fair amount of freedom… compare that to how people in Afghanistan fared in the 90s.

SECOND PROBLEM: While we supplied funds and some weapons to Pakistan to fund the mujaheddin’s entrance into Afghanistan, there is no evidence what so ever that any Americans, other than reporters, were ever on the ground there. The stories that our CIA operatives ever trained Osama Bin Laden and his ilk are completely fabricated.

So Rambo refuses to help Trautman, who goes in by himself and get’s himself captured by the Russians. Rambo is informed of this by another Government official who then agrees to ‘unofficially’ get Rambo into Afghanistan to rescue him.

Rambo makes his way to Afghanistan where he meets up with the Mujaheddin, and enlists their aid. They appear peaceful and very helpful to this American who is helping them fight.

THIRD PROBLEM: The mujaheddin has NEVER been tolerant of any Americans on the ground. In fact, eye-witness accounts retell a tale of Osama Bin Laden and others like him calling for American journalists on the ground at this point to be shot. In their minds, Americans fighting Soviets was like, “Oh great… the infidels are fighting the zealots!”

Alright… so Rambo goes in, blows some s*** up, and rescues Trautman, as well as other prisoners being held by the Russians. Then in typical Rambo fashion, he wages a one-man war against the Soviets. Eventually the mujaheddin comes to his aid. So of course Rambo wins the day and the movie ends with Rambo and Trautman riding off into the sunset… even though in real life, they probably would have been shot.

You know, the ironic part about all this is that the Soviets didn’t really spend much time on the ground in Afghanistan. So the people Rambo would have actually been fighting, had this movie done it’s homework as opposed to being a Cold War propaganda film, would have been Rashid Dostum and the Uzbeks… you know, the people who turned into America’s allies after 9/11 when the US woke up to what was really going on in that area.

So the movie closes out with the final message: “This film is dedicated to the gallant people of Afghanistan.”

… ugh….

So this movie was fairly well-received at that time… mostly because the public was a lot more ignorant of what was going on and far more trusting of the lamestream media engine.

Today… this movie is fairly infamous. In reality both Trautman and Rambo probably would be placed on a watch list and kept under close surveillance. Is it a bad film… no? No not really, I mean it’s a decent action flick. It keeps you on the edge of your seat and you cheer when… it kills me to say this… ‘the good guys’ win… I think my soul just threw up.

So take it for what it is; a late 80s anti-communist propaganda film against the Soviet Union. The movie is intended to make anyone who stand against the Soviet war machine honorable decent people while making the Russians look like horrible ogres… you could argue that in many cases this was true if you look back on the history of people like Josef Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, and the issues with Chechnya etc. But here… I don’t know. Like I said, look at the history, realize that this movie is a work of fiction to bolster the image of the United States at that time, and you should be able to sit through it.

Me? I doubt I’ll be able to watch it again. My anal retentive attention to historical detail would cause me to have a coronary pointing out everything wrong with it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095956/

The Duchess (2008)

Why am I even reviewing this one? I saw it about a year ago and it sucked! So why do I feel the need to review it?

Oh… because apparently we BOUGHT it and it’s been collecting dust in our DVD case… great…

Okay well… The Duchess was in theaters in 2008… why I had no memory what so ever of it being there is beyond me. It looked like a straight to DVD movie when I picked it up. It’s only really notable cast member is Natalie Portman… er… I mean Kiera Knightly, you know, the OTHER handmaiden.

If you’re still reading this after the Phantom Menace reference, my condolences, because things do not improve much at all. The movie takes place in 18th Century Devonshire and details the plight of women, even upper class ones back then. It really gives you an idea of just how life was for them and why there were a lot of suicides and spousal murders back then.

As an amateur historian and classic nitpicker, I will say that as far as historical accuracy goes, this movie has it. The costumes, the set locations, and the traditions are all there. Whoever wrote this clearly did their homework, which is something you rarely see in Hollywood these days.

But that is where my praise for this movie ends… IT’S SO BORING!!! I don’t know how I stayed awake through the whole thing as I have slept through better movies than this without a problem, but this movies was both dark, depressing, and dismal. You enter the movie with a young lady in waiting being courted by a noticeably older duke. At first, she feels like she just found her golden ticket… not so much. Common themes in this movie include rape, infidelity, domestic violence, and, for lack of a better term, domestic tyranny.

We see the duchess’ husband cheat on her, and then her cheat on him. She tries to forge a deal that she will remain married to him and allow him to continue his affair only if she is allowed to do the same. Her husband, realizing that this is an empty threat tells her to end her affair, and that if she tries to divorce him, she will never see their kids again.

So if all the other themes didn’t get you… perhaps someone holding their own children hostage will. So dismally long story short… even after being abused and raped, her own mother sides with her husband and convinces her to stay married to the guy saying that divorce would leave her a penniless pauper. She stays with him until she dies at which point the duke marries his whore… and… that’s it.

Really there isn’t much to this movie besides the historical accuracy and women’s rights issues that go into this. It’s a sad movie, but it’s also a striking movie in that things like this did actually happen back then. But on the downside, there was no real conflict, no issue that wasn’t resolved by the man telling her how things were going to work. In the end the whole thing sort of felt like a documentary instead of a movie and I guess that’s where I got lost. There is little to no satisfaction to be had and in the end, you’re thanking God as the credits role.

… so if you need something to bore the hell out of you for 2 hours, this movie is definitely at the top of that list. Otherwise, I’d say look elsewhere, there are definitely better historical flicks out there.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0864761/

The Black Cauldron (1985)

I admit myself on the fence about this movie because… while I’m well aware of the fact that this movie is generally regarded as the worst of Disney’s animated films… I actually love this movie.

Yes I know that it took a beating at the box office, that rotten tomatoes gave it 55% rotten, it made $4 million less than it’s production cost, and it took Disney a decade to release it for home viewing but really, I don’t get it.

Yes the movie was dark, but that was part of its charm. The movie was edgy and not really intended for the younger audiences. It was an experiment in an area where The Hunchback would go years later… ironically to a much greater extreme.

In many ways it pays homage to an almost Tolkienesque world. If you watch Lord of the Rings and then watch The Black Cauldron, you’ll see the similarities. The story surrounds an assistant pig keeper who wants to be a great warrior… yet loses the pig he’s supposed to be protecting 5 minutes into being out on his own… kind of a record, don’t you think?

The other characters include a Princess… of what I’m not sure as it’s never really established, although the bad guy says she’s a maid so let’s assume it’s the princess of the broom closet, a minstrel whose harp breaks whenever he lies, and Golem… er… Gurgi. Yeah, Gurgi… A… oh who am I kidding, it’s a freaken furry version of Golem!

The bad guy in the movie is the slow-moving and eerily majestic Horned King. This guy scared the pants off me when I was a child. He had no eyes for most of the movie, you couldn’t tell if he were human or some kind of undead demonic entity. It also helped that he was portrayed by John Hurt, arguably one of the most legendary voice actors of all time.  He has an annoying henchman, Creeper, played by Phil Fondacaro. Don’t know who that is? Me either, all I know is he played an Ewok in Star Wars, which probably explains why his voice reminds me of Warwick Davis.

Anyway, the story at first seems to surround Hedwig the Pig and this young keeper… although the pig get’s removed from the story pretty quickly despite being a major plot device. The pig keeper wants to be a warrior and finds a magical sword to beat his enemies. It quickly becomes his most prized possession… even though we don’t really get into the how and why of it’s enchanting, simply that it’s a legendary sword. But I guess that doesn’t matter much as it disappears as quickly as it came when the keeper trades it to three witches to get to the Black Cauldron.

So long story short, the pig keeper meets up with Golem, the phony princess, and an off-key minstrel. They set out to find the Black Cauldron, succeed, and proving what a great hero he is, he sacrifices himself heroically to destroy the Cauldron… yeah right. Try again, Gurgi (Golem) sacrifices himself to prevent his only friend from doing it. Apparently feeding the Cauldron souls intensifies its hunger and it begins to suck in anything close by.

The pig keeper goes to see if he can save Gurgi, but is confronted by the Horned King. Despite all of the Horned King’s powers, his majestic movements, and his evil tone, he proves to be no match for… … … … The pig keeper kicking him in the stomach. Really? Probably the only major character who is at all interesting gets defeated by being kicked in the stomach!?!? COME ON! THIS IS DISNEY WE”RE TALKING ABOUT!!!!

So the kick apparently throws the Horned King off-balance and he get’s rather grievously sucked into the Cauldron. Somehow evil spirits cancel out the Black Cauldron’s power and turns it into a normal ugly cauldron. Well the witches come back and want the cauldron… for some reason… so they offer the pig keeper his sword back. The keeper declines the sword and asks for his friend Gurgi back.

The witches make the deal and Gurgi turns out to still be alive. The group walks off into the distance going home… wherever home is. The enemy is defeated and all is well. Now would someone please explain to me what the hell happened!?

I guess you could say that this is my major problem with this film, despite how dark and edgy it is… and how awesome the Horned King is… it really doesn’t explain anything in great detail. There is little to no backstory of why the magical pig has its powers, what the Horned King is, what the sword is,  why the harp breaks when the minstrel lies, where the supposed princess comes from… the list goes on.

But with all of it’s flaws, I actually love this movie and count it with my collection. Why? Because like I said, it goes places most Disney movies before, and for a long time after, refused to go. It was dark, nightmarish, and based on Llyod Alexander’s incredibly dark tale of the same name. While the book is infinitely superior, if you read it, you would then be asking yourself, “Why would Disney even bother to try making this into a movie? What depraved lunatic came up with that idea?”

So in the end, does the movie have its flaws? Absolutely. Is it a bad movie? I don’t think so. At the very least, it’s an interesting peak at the direction Disney would later on be taking it’s movies. Give it a watch, I doubt you’ll be disappointed… but I promise nothing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088814/

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

I have to say, for such a significant movie, this one didn’t have a lot of fanfare. At least nowhere near the Lord of the Rings movies did and I never understood why. Were there midnight showings? Of course, you can’t let the geekdome down. But their was very little media coverage, no real attention given, and let’s face it, the enthusiasm was gone.

This is especially vexing if you go back in time fifteen years and look at the fanfare surrounding the Phantom Menace. The hysteria surrounding the upcoming release of a new Star Wars was… well let’s just say it wasn’t cognizant of just how awful the movie was.

I can honestly say as a fan of J.R.R. Tolkien, a person who has read through his books (and old english translations are not easy mind you), and a person who has created his own fantasy/folklore series to the point where I even created an Elvish language of my own, verb conjugations and all, I went nuts when I heard about Lord of the Rings. I went even more crazy when the 5 hour versions were released… and yes I own the Ralf Bakshi Lord of the Rotoscope. But give me some credit, I don’t own the Rakin/Bass versions of anything.

Well let me just say this, after watching The Hobbit… I can see why the fanfare was gone. Let’s face it, it’s no Fellowship of the Ring, and it’s definitely no Return of the King… Two Towers? Oh don’t get me started!

On the surface, there was nothing particularly wrong with the movie. The story was good, the characters were believable. I was thrilled to see Radagast FINALLY get some credit in the Jackson version of Middle Earth… he was completely written out of Lord of the Rings. The problem is when you make a movie in a series that already has a lot of fanfare, you’re really under a lot of pressure to get it right. Geeks may be the most loyal crowd out there, but they are far from the most forgiving.

So you have the beautiful sets, you have returning stars like Cate Blanchett (my favorite), Christopher Lee, and even cameos of the Hobbits from Lord of the Rings. With all that put together, you must be asking yourself why I have a negative tone in this review.

Well to be honest… I didn’t hate this movie or even dislike it. I did like it, but I found it disappointing. It’s not the huge blockbuster hit I was hoping for and while good, it won’t be remembered as anything more than a footnote when compared to the original trilogy. The main reason for this being that it felt rushed!

At just under three hours long, it’s the shortest of the movies thus far. Where movies like the Fellowship of the Ring and Return of the King gave you time to soak up the scenery and become immersed in what was going on, The Hobbit almost seems like Jackson had the attitude that, “Okay they’ve seen the sets before, we don’t need to go spending extra time showing them this all over again.”

This may not be the case, and perhaps it’s more because the Hobbit is a long book and there is a lot to talk about, but as we all already know, he has three movies to flesh it all out. There is no reason to rush anything. So unlike Lord of the Rings where you got time to enjoy the green groves of Hobbiton or the majestic set of Rivendale, you were sped onward very quickly. You were really rushed to the ending and it felt like very little was accomplished in the way of their journey.

The other major concern with this movie is that one of its major stars Ian Mckellen, didn’t really successfully hide his age very well. Yes a good part of Lord of the Rings was that it established that Gandalf was an old man, and even made him dealing with the onset of senility comical in some ways. However, Gandalf’s voice in this movie seemed much more raspy and he definitely seemed like at times he was struggling. That said, I can’t find fault here, people get older, there is no way around it. Though someone could make that case that maybe it would have made more sense to make The Hobbit first, but I’ll let someone else take up that sword.

So in conclusion, is The Hobbit a bad movie? BY NO MEANS! It’s a beautiful tribute  to the original story written by J.R.R. Tolkien. Is it as good as Lord of the Rings? Eh… no way… But once I put my expectations from Lord of the Rings aside and actually watched this movie with the mindset that it was supposed to come first, I did actually enjoy it very much. So yeah, don’t set the standard too high, just sit back and take it for what it is, and I guarantee you that this movie will make its way into any geek’s nitpicking heart.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/