The Bookshelf Project: Mona Lisa Smile

One of the few movies my sister and I agree on.  Also a desperate guilty pleasure… I watch this a lot when I feel collegiate.

Julia Roberts is an Art History teacher at the uber conservative Women’s College, Wellesley.  Odd, in that she’s a bohemian liberal feminist from California, but she wanted to teach the smartest young women in the country.  Unfortnately, they’re all obesessed with getting married instead of getting real jobs.  Hey, it’s not their fault, it’s 1953 in this movie.

I was raised to think that being a feminist is the most bad-assed thing ever, so seeing this movie when it first came out was a big deal for me.  I was twelve or thirteen and took my closest tween frenemie with me to see it in theaters.

Is it so wrong that I actually like this movie?  Can’t remember what the reviews were like when it came out, maybe a dull “Meh” reaction?  I liked it; I still do.  It’s like watching a romance comedy with a brain or a Female Friendship Movie with a wide range of characters.  Let’s face it, the performances in it ain’t bad: As the prim good girl in the rushed marriage, Kirsten Dunst.  As her best friend with an open mind, Julia Stiles.  Maggie Gyllenhaal probably gives the most powerful performance of the lot, with her character divided between her unreconciled relationship with an Italian professor, her divorced parents, and her status as the poor girl surrounded by the rich at school.

It is casual when need’s be, but vaguely cerebral about the question, “What makes art art?”  Naturally, we as the audience, are led to agree with Katherine Ann Watson (Roberts) that the new avant garde styles are just as worthy to be taught in the classroom as the Italian Masters.  Other issues take into account the role of women in a changing society, especially when a Modern Woman’s goals come in conflict with their man’s expectations.

Roarin’ Racecars: Easy Virtue

One of those movies where the orchestration between casting, scenery, costuming, and soundtrack was absolutely perfect.

I had some fun at the movies this week.  Easy Virtue is British Wit, but also Brideshead Revisited-lite, for your consideration.

John (Ben Barnes) is bringing home his American wife, Larita (Jessica Biel) for the first time after their affairs and such on the Cote d’Azur.  The Matriarchal area (Kristin Scott Thomas) of his family is greatly displeased with his floozy and spends the rest of the film trying to convince them to get a divorce.  What adds a dramatic layer is the Whittaker father, Jim (Colin Firth) who deftly proclaims himself as part of the Lost Generation from World War I and who never wanted to return to the family estate.  While the rest of the family is putting Larita in the deep freeze, she hits it off with Jim who understands what the outsider position in that family really means.

The whole thing screams “BRITISH!” from the rooftops, from the setting to the British Wit dialogue.  I don’t know why, but the Butler character, who is hilarious in dry humor, also seems very British to me.  Dry humored butler character… anyone see where I’m coming from with this?

The entirety of the film is about stagnation versus change during the tumultous 1920s.  While Larita and Jim represent changing attitudes and moralities, the rest of the Whittaker family represent the old norms, going as far back as using marriage to save the family lands.  This comes to a climax at a New Year’s Ball and a sensual tango between Larita and Jim.

I think my only problem during the film was that I got distracted by myself.  Drinking coffee during a movie is not the best of ideas, the caffeine leaving me scatterbrained.  Whenever another member of the audience did anything, my attention shifted.  So here’s a lesson, ladies and gents: Caffeine and focus during a movie are not mutual acquaintances.

In terms of cast, I really liked everyone.  Except for Ben Barnes as the clueless Whittaker son/recent groom.  I don’t know why, but his performance was kind of take it or leave it, most likely just the fault of his character.  I came for Colin Firth, but was really impressed by Jessica Biel.  She gives a great perfomance throughout the film, funny and tragic in all of the right points.

One Last Note:

Love the motorcycle scene during the Hunt.

The Musketeer

What’s this? Why I do believe it is a stupid action movie that has wormed its way into my heart.

“The Musketeer” (2001)
Directed by Peter Hyams
Starring: Justin Chambers, Catherine Deneuve, Mena Suvari, Stephen Rea, Tim Roth

My dang DVD-buying addiction struck up again the other day after Second Job (I’m a hostess at an Asian restaurant two nights out of the week) when I went to drop off the car at my brother’s work.

What can I say about “The Musketeer” and not sound horribly snarky about it?
…
Ah well. Long live the snark. It really is a stupid action movie and should be taken as such. It was not designed to be the next Cannes winner, but I still feel like they could have worked a little harder producing a decent script.

Or have different actors deliver the lines– this criticism is directed mainly at Justin Chambers (Our D’Artagnan, messieurs and mesdames) and Mena Suvari (the Love Interest. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that her performance wasn’t her fault, but rather the poorly written quality of her character).

There are a literal shitload of movies out there based on “The Three Musketeers” by Alexandre Dumas, so what makes this one special? Kick ass fight scenes. They were choreographed by Xin-Xin Xiong of the Wire Fu style, which is damn entertaining to watch in 17th century costumes. Other than that, it’s a loose interpretation of the novel. Very loose. So loose that I could suggest that Dumas-pere was rolling in his grave while they were filming it, but that seems rude.

Let’s say, for a second, that this movie is like a new boyfriend. I’ve just been introduced to this movie, we’ve only just made it through the first date. Now, while I feel like he’s a fun guy, he’s a little dim around the edges, but still manages to get to my heart in a clumsy-cute sort of way.

You know, women out there, what kind of guy I’m talking about.

That’s what this movie was like. While there were scenes that made me cringe or laugh, I felt like the movie was almost laughing at itself. It knew it wasn’t the grandest of historical pieces or the most accurate of film adaptations. It was just fun, enjoying the ride while it could.
…
(Oh this is kind of lulzy, I just realized that all of the blurbs they used on the DVD case are about the action sequences. Well, they are the highlight of the movie).

I just want to say: Catherine Deneuve and Tim Roth. YOU COULD HAVE TRIED HARDER! I get the sinking suspicion that Mr. Roth was having fun being a cartoon crazy villain in this role, but Ms. Deneuve, you were the frickin’ Queen of France. You could have DONE something with that!

For a good bitch whine moan, just focus on the script.  Oh Lord, that script.  I don’t think there was any once of logic inserted into that thing.  For example, D’Artagnan and Love Interest decide to do the Sex about an hour after they narrowly avoided Supervillain Le Febre (Roth).  There’s… really no reason for it plotwise, other than for Le Febre to find them unarmed.  Just clumsy scenes like that take me out of the story.  It wouldn’t be that big of a problem if it was the one scene, but half of “The Musketeer” feels like that.  Everything is roughly shod together, from the tenous relationship between D’Artagnan and the musketeers to the scenes that are supposed to drive the plot.

Clumsy, Lazy, but dammit, it was fun.  A cheer goes up for crazy fight scenes everywhere.

Three for Three: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

Read the book.  See the Play.  Watch the Movie.

Pic from Rachel.

I really love this play, and attached to that, the movie.

I saw the movie first, sometime last year: In the middle of my discovery of the works of Gary Oldman, I found the IMDb page for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.  Now remember, dear readers: I do not have netflix.  The one time that my family did have netflix, I was too young to really comprehend the point of blogging, besides ranting about stuff that you want to keep private, that society wants you to keep private, but you rant about it on a public space anyway.

So, I went to Blockbuster.  Blockbuster has never really been high on my list of good feelings places until recently (because, y’know, cheap DVDs…).  When I walked in, I couldn’t find it so I went up to the cashier and asked “Do you have R+GaD?”

And he said, “No, but it’s a great movie!”

Sadface.  Now, I put it out of my mind for awhile, but the youtube clips were really good and my friend Lucy is all excited about it from when she saw it in her Philosophy class. 

On a shopping trip, we arrrive at Suncoast and I get the idea “Hey, what about…”

So I ask the cashier, “Do you have R+GaD?”

And he said, “No, but it’s a great movie!”

I’m just about to leave in utter defeat when he says, “Wait, I can order it for you!”

This would be the first time I would buy a movie without seeing it first.  And although I was a little worried, I did not really care.  I wanted to see this movie that much.  The thing of it is, it was a really good purchase and the Suncoast guys are really nice, so ordering was a piece of cake.

I get home, pop the DVD in, and just sit on the corner of the couch cushion for awhile.

The first twenty minutes, maybe less, are not all that impressive, since it’s just Tim Roth and Gary Oldman wandering through some woods hypothesizing on God knows what.  And just as I was suspecting that I had made a bad purchase, Plot descends!

I really love this movie right now.  I went out and read the play and lent the movie out to friends or we watched it together on movie days and nights.  It’s so much fun to see someone really like the movie all at once, actually get it straight off the bat.  Or even if they don’t, at least being able to see them piece the bits together.

I loved the play while reading it– couldn’t stop talking about it for ages.  Bought it when I had the money.  Used the text for art projects or random quotes.

Then this past summer, I finally saw it performed by an amateur group.  And I couldn’t help but think, “Y’know, this is really the way to watch the play as a play.  If you want the cut and dry, absolutely perfect version, watch the movie.”  As the play that it was, with much more expression and random arrangements, hyper Rosencrantz and Guildenstern played by women, a Player who looked and acted a lot like Heath Ledger’s Joker, it was a fresh view.

So, here’s Three for Three, read and reviewed.

The Legend of 1900

Let’s face it, I’m a sucker for new fairy tales.

I almost put “modern” fairy tales, but that put me too much in mind of Ella Enchanted, and that is exactly what The Legend of 1900 is not.

What it is, is a fantasy of the twentieth century.  Something that feels like it could never happen afterwards, in an almost dreamlike state of mind.  While watching the film, however, it feels real enough, true enough to be able to touch the human soul.

The story is framed by a desolate man entering a music shop to sell the most important thing in the world to him.  Max Tooney (Pruitt Taylor Vince)  tells the shopkeeper his stories about Danny Boodman T.D. Lemon 1900 (Tim Roth) while on the luxury cruise liner S.S. Virginian.

1900, whose name comes from 1) the coal-man who found him, 2) the box of the product he was found in, and 3) the year he was found, was left behind in a fancy ballroom, the child of immigrants from steerage who had the hopes that he would be adopted by kind, first-class passengers.  That’s what I think about when I watch this movie a lot.  There’s a focus on the immigrant’s journey in this film.  The motif of a person who has “America written on his eyes” is repeated throughout.  These are the people who take chances to start a new life, complete with all the risks it entails, a perfect contrast to someone who lives his life on a boat.

1900 is a musical genius from the first moment he sees the ship’s piano, when he’s eight or so, and after the death of his adoptive father.  The story picks up again with Max, circa 1927, an era of beautiful music and beautiful fashion, joining the ship’s band.  He meets 1900 when he gets sea sick his first night, with the boat rocking back and forth.  It’s surreal to see, suddenly this calm man in a suit with tails walk straight across those topsy-turvy floors, then suggest to play the grand piano without it’s brakes on.

The musical fairy tale begins with that scene.  Okay, in stories like this, there are always back stories, and we get it, but those really aren’t important compared to seeing the mythical character finally grown up, doing what he does best.  This is one of my favorite scenes in the movie, when it’s just the piano playing in a dreamy landscape of a turn-of-the-century cruise ship.

Like the best fairy tales, this is really an inward journey for 1900.  Yes, he’s good, known as “The Greatest” when performing.  From Max, he is faced with that option of leaving the ship and setting foot on land for once, always being pushed to changing his lifestyle.  There’s never any real motivation until one immigrant presents to him the idea of the Voice of the Ocean.  Something 1900 has never heard, even though he’s always spent his life at sea.

I might love this movie.  It’s a bit early to tell, as I only saw it for the first time a week ago now.  In some parts it lags, but the ending wraps it all together, gilding the entire experience into one giant Wow moment.  This is a bedtime story for adults, a relaxation of the rules of fairy tales for a story that hits lives harder.

The Maestro for the Religious: Copying Beethoven

The best I can say about this film is that it had some excellent shots. But, well…

How can I word this?  There are a certain number of things wrong with this film.  1) Jilted camera angles and movements.  2) Overacting on the part of 2/3 of the cast. 3) A Been-There, Done-That Storyline.

If I tried really hard, I’m sure I could make the list grow, but the film really isn’t worth my time.

The story is Anna Holtz, a charming 23-year-old musician-to-be who has been sent from her conservatory to do some work under Beethoven.  Of course, Beethoven in a rude brute who no one understands, except for OMG Anna!  How tremendously convenient that the only person who can understand Beethoven came in time to be his copyist before the Ninth Symphony is performed on Sunday.

In between being snarled at and having zen conversations about music and God, Karl, B’s nephew, drops by and is a rude, spoiled brat looking for some money to waste gambling.  Of course, even though he looks like some heroin addict, Karl is actually a very sympathetic character, because he doesn’t want to play the piano!  O, woe is he for having an uncle who adores him like a son.  Then he runs away, to return to further his weasely ways.

Anna is staying at her great aunt’s convent while she’s in Vienna and is encouraged to drop her silly dreams of becoming a composer, because girls can’t become composers, silly.  Her aunt, the Mother Superior, tells her that dreams are dangerous, but beautiful, and that she once had the dream to study under Salieri.  Let me tell you, that explains a lot about Anna’s aunt and her taste in music.

So, Vienna is agog at Beethoven and his 2-hour long symphony and the fact that he wants to conduct (But he’s deaf! Vienna shouts).  And Martin Bauer, the beau of Anna, is the most annoying person in this entire movie.  He is an engineer of the future and has really, really awful lines about building bridges to the future.  As far as I can throw him, he’s all that’s bad about the industrial era in a nut shell for this movie.

But Anna, o she loves him.  She thinks.  Well, the chemistry ain’t that great, but it’s a helluva lot better than that shit from the Star Wars prequels, is all I can say.  While Martin works on his bridge, he has a tangent about how no one listens to Beethoven anymore, blah di blah.

Then, the symphony!  Only Karl’s not there, so Beethoven can’t compose.  Not unless Anna’s onstage with him, composing from the orchestra.  So they do and it takes up a lot of time.  Probably the best use of time in this entire film, but only for the music.  There’s a montage in here that will make an epiliptic seizure and a lot of close ups of Beethoven cutting to Anna cutting to Beethoven cutting to Chorus cutting to Beethoven cutting to audience cutting to orchestra cutting to Anna cutting to Beethoven cutting to WTF Karl?  Who looks even more like a heroin addict now than every before!  Then he disappears and everything is apparently resolved in that area of the world.  Meanwhile, the standing ovation scene is a complete rip off from Immortal Beloved.

After the Ninth Symphony scene, everything is about God from here on out.  Beethoven whines to Anna about God, Anna says nothing.  Beethoven is the Zen Master of Music: The Language of God.  Anna tries her hand at composing.  Beethoven works on his new Quartets.  Anna questions God because Beethoven makes fun of her composition.  Mother Superior tells her that she would be safe in the convent, away from all of that dirty, dirty Viennese trash and deaf composers.  Then Beethoven begs for forgiveness and we’re back on the religious track!  Yippee.

Martin presents his bridge design for a contest and Beethoven just comes by and smashes it with his cane.  The design was the basic iron bridge design, nothing really special anyway.  Anna and Martin break up, because they can’t really stand eachother.  Anna turns to Beethoven for yelling matches and… more talk about God.  Then he asks her to bathe him. (You think I’m joking, but I’m not).

No one understands Beethoven’s new quartets, which is a pity because they’re rather nice.  Then he collapses and Anna nurses him back to health.  He goes to sleep and when he wakes up, he has a new idea for a song.  Anna dictates while he sits in bed, and this scene totally isn’t a rip off of Amadeus, why do you ask?

One final conversation about God and Music and END MOVIE!

Copying Beethoven has a maturity level somewhere under Beethoven Lives Upstairs.  I can’t even sit lose myself to the pretty landscape or to the costumes because Vienna is portrayed as bland and dismal while the costumes are drab in greys and browns, except for an occassional blue.  The direction isn’t my taste when it comes to a historical film.  Lots of cuts and jags and Seizure-inducing montages.  The film isn’t about Beethoven really, or about his music.  It’s about Anna, which wouldn’t be so bad if she wasn’t such a Mary Sue.  She’s entirely too boring, even in her costumes.

The easiest portrayal I can say is that this is Beethoven for the Religious, or for those who want to create an idea of Beethoven as being religious.  Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t.  In the books I’ve read, he’s neither one way nor the other, but spiritually searching, always.  To some, I’m sure this speaks volumes, but I look more towards other aspects of a historical figure’s character.  With Beethoven, I want to see the Romanticism through him or the tortured individual, but Copying Beethoven delivered neither.

A Delicious Metaphor

My mom took me out to this Asian Fusion restaurant over the weekend, and I realized that the menu serves as a pretty good guide to the movies I’ve watched recently.

 

Chicken Won-Tons: The Navigator: A Mediaeval Odyessy (1988)

            A little, unexpected Indie film (much like our won-tons, which didn’t have anything in them besides dry chicken.  Dry chicken does not a won-ton make).  Apparently, this was the Indie Darling of the ‘80s: it won Fantafestival, Fantasporto, a whole string of Australian Film Institute awards, and was nominated for a Golden Palm at Cannes.

            At a small Scottish village in 1347, there lives Griffon, a boy who can see into the future.  His brother, Connor, has recently returned and informs the town council equivalent that the plague has arrived, and Griffon has a vision about their solution: They must tunnel through the earth to arrive at a great city and place a cross on the highest cathedral’s spire.  Seems feasible when you live in a mining town.

            About six of them go into the mine and start tunneling with their mediaeval “drill” and when they see light, they have arrived at Twentieth Century New Zealand.  Which would confuse anyone, I’m sure, but they handle it marvelously.

            I love seeing the characters react to modern day events, like crossing a highway.  Everything is related back to their quest or to religion.  There’s a great scene when Griffon breaks into an appliance shop and he’s staring at a wall of televisions, all showing these truly bizarre images that keep switching every few seconds.  It’s a fun watch when the night is waning and you can’t get to sleep.  Like watching a fairy tale with some modern depth.

Manchurian Shrimp: The Host (2006)

            This was my mom’s dish.  I tried some, but didn’t like it.  There was this really complicated mixture of flavors in it and it was really spicy.  In this sense, it was a lot like The Host, a Korean Horror-Family Drama.  (To be honest, at first thought I figured these go together because the shrimp were butterflied and looked like the monster).

            The full amalgamation of the movie baffles at first.  It seems like too much to include, but c’est la vie.  It opens up by introducing the monster’s origins (stupid decisions with formaldehyde at an American military base), but cuts to the family, a man (Gang-du) with his daughter (Hyun-seo) living with his father (Papa Park) and helping to run the family snack shack.  The family comes together through the illegitimate daughter, who is adored on all sides by her father, grandfather, uncle (drunk, unemployed college graduate, Nam-il), and aunt (National archery competitor, Nam-joo).  Their drama escalates with the first of the monster attacks, which drags Hyun-seo into the river after gobbling up a few dozen other people.

            Sometimes the family interactions feel like I’m watching a dark comedy.  They weep pathetically for the lost Hyun-seo, then fall down with journalists taking their picture in some comedic pose.  They can’t help but bicker and fight while their being quarantined at the hospital (the greatest concern after the attack was the potential ‘virus’ spread by contact with the creature).  Late at night in quarantine, Gang-du gets a phone call from his daughter.  She’s alive!  But trapped in the sewer by the monster.  And thus begins phase two: the rescue.

            There’s social commentary in this, on the relationship between family members and America’s involvement with other countries (after deciding that the Korean government wasn’t handling the situation, they come in with “Agent Yellow”).  The combination of seeing the characters in a larger than life problem, combined with a sweeping score that emphasizes the emotional tension perfectly, The Host is an extremely powerful film.

Deep Fried Lamb Peking: Captain from Castile (1947)

            I was surprised in the flavor and texture that I had with my Lamb, but I was also surprised by this movie.  It is a stepping stone from the old epics to modern cinema, even back in 1947.

            It’s a very involved storyline, from the opening to the conflict that leads our hero Pedro de Vargas to the New World, under the command of Cortez.  I watched it day-by-day style, so for awhile I felt like they were just throwing together plot points so that Hollywood could produce another swashbuckling adventure flick.

            That’s not the case.  Remove one character flaw, it destroys the plot.  Change one moment in time, the ending wouldn’t make sense.  There’s still this 1940s feel to it, either coming from the costumes, sets, or style of acting, but there is that script with the modern feel to it. 

Mongolian Beef: Mongol (2007)

            Mongol.  The dish I never had (but I greatly enjoyed the film).  This is the story of Genghis Khan, first emperor of the largest land empire ever in existence.  According to The Industry Rumors, there are two more sequels to follow, in order to span his entire life.  So far, this was the beginning.

            Temudjin, son of a rather powerful Khan, is taken by his father to pick out his bride (family bonding abounds in this menu, it would seem).  His choice is the best Mongolian bride ever, apparently.  More importantly, she picked him.  That equality follows them through their whole relationship.

            When Temudjin’s father dies, his family is thrown out of their clan while the powers that be fight over the vacuum left in the death’s wake.  There, Temudjin starts to be filled with righteous fury and makes a blood brother in Jamukha, who is also looking towards becoming a great khan.

            The story goes on like this: Temudjin grows up, marries his girl, and jumps through hoops in order to become the hero-leader that he lives up to.  The filmmakers felt it necessary to include his family life a great deal in this opening and the violence takes a step down.  Overall, it is very engaging, both as an action movie and as a biopic.  The culture is well explained visually and through voiceover, mostly by watching Temudjin go through religious rituals and laying out his plans of government. 

            Everyone I talk to always likes to mention how international the cast and crew are, or they criticize it.  I think they’re missing the point: yeah, it’s fun to notice stuff like that, but it’s more important to acknowledge the film separate.  It is supposed to stand as a whole when we watch it, as a work of art or a person.  It’s not supposed to be analyzed for where it came from, but then again, we do that with people and art a lot too.

Fortune Cookie: The Duchess (2008)

            The Duchess is fun to watch while watching, but once the credits roll my mind went to “What?  I just watched a movie?  But… what happened?”  The plot is so slow and languidly formed that I felt more like I was watching a fashion show than an actual movie.  And I had such high hopes… ah, well.  The costumes were pretty, expectantly, and I have greater respect for Keira Knightly as an actress.  She had to really stretch her emotions for this one.

            I feel now that I should have gotten more from watching the film—there are these high-strung emotional moments when you’re horrified or at least sympathetic to her situation.  The problem was that I wasn’t all that sympathetic:  I was horrified from my own perspective first, but I was never really rooting for her to conquer her husband or escape from that lifestyle. 

            I discussed this movie with my friend who saw it with me, and she got the same opinion out of it: A lot happened, but it doesn’t feel like much at all.  I’ve seen this story before, I’ve heard it in history class every year since sixth grade.  A woman is only as good as the children she bears, and in that society she didn’t have the capacity to rebel.

            Well, whatever.  Rebel away, or at least make the attempt.  Please, just do something so that I don’t forget you after the credits roll and the taste of crispy cookie has left my mouth.

Hero

This reminded me greatly of The Fall, but I also have a feeling that if I had seen Hero first, the situation would have been reversed.

This was another Movie Class film.  So far, the only good movies I’ve seen this school year have been in my HIstory through Film class, more out of my busy life (etc etc blahdiblah) than the fact that currently, I haven’t been able to figure out how the DVD player works anymore.  This will be remedied in haste.

Digression over!  Hero blew me away visually, but over a three day period, I wasn’t really interested in it until the end of the second day.  It starts out with Nameless (Jet Li) coming for an audience with Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi (Daoming Chen) because he defeated the three greatest assassins of the land- Sky, Flying Snow, and Broken Sword- and the emperor wants to hear the story.

The use of color and the scenery of China astonds me when I watched it, but this is a Wuxia movie.  Rather, it is a kungfu movie with lots of dialogue about honor, emotions, the way of the sword, etc.  For a movie so indepth about emotions, the first third or so is very cold.  I recognize that it is, at this point, Nameless talking to the Emperor followed by a flashback of Nameless’s fight with Sky, but it still struck me.  Later on, there’s greater use of the emotional palate as it were, through the relationship of Broken Sword and Flying Snow.

There are various stories told in Hero, which is another comparison I notice with it and The Fall.  Both films look at stories, their motivations and their consequences.  In The Fall, the motive is to use a child, but the story ends up reflecting the lives of the main characters and the people who surround them.  In Hero, it is more the abuse of story-telling.  Well, alright, not so much an abuse.  Rather, how a character can manipulate a story (Nameless’s original story), how this manipulation is found out, the assumption of the real story that follows (The Emperor creates his own idea of the truth), then the Truth itself (where Nameless reveals the actual plot, mostly with aid from Broken Sword’s personal story interlaced).

I get the feeling that this is the kind of film you either love or hate, and I’m rather neutral.  Now that I know that it is not just a kung fu movie, but a Wuxia story, I have respect for it.  I just don’t think it’s my thing.  Costumes and scenery aside, for once, while I think on this topic of actually liking this movie.

…

Bah.  Meanwhile, I shall analyze the title: Once can assume that the “Hero” is Nameless, because, as the ending credits informs us “He was buried as a hero,” but there are other characters who are put in a rather heroic light.  Firstly, the Emperor himself, who I’m sure we all learned about as a tyrant of Ancient China.  This is how he first appears in the film, then later revealed to be a complicated man with a strong goal of uniting China and making it into a great empire, no matter the consequences. 

Secondly, there is Broken Sword, who is shown to be a rather Zen character who understands the Emperor’s goals.  This is symbolically reflected through his sacrifice of his relationship with Flying Snow, then visually with a very large piece of calligraphy for the twentieth variation of the character “Sword.”  Actually, while analyzing the character in a way that would make English teachers across the country swoon, the emperor gives a rather beautiful solioquy about the Zen of the ideals expressed in Broken Sword’s character. 

Broken Sword is, I think, the ideal character in this movie.  His character changes through relationships and his motivations for his actions change from hate and anger to love, which makes him a rather likeable guy in my book.  This ideal affects Nameless and the Emperor, and that is vocally expressed and expressed in actions.  It’s not just some symbol to ponder forever and ever, which I think works better in this situation.

…

I do like this film, I’ve decided.  I respect it’s artistic qualities and the Honor Code means of expressing them.  This didn’t blow me away like other films have, maybe because it’s more distant.  This film takes place in an era I can hardly relate too and in a country who is more driven towards community relationships than to the relationships of the individual.  In which case, I call Culture Clash.

King Arthur: Sorta Historically Accurate

King Arthur (2004)

Director: Antoine Fuqua

This movie was really fun to watch, which surprised me.  On principle, I hate most movies that have Keira Knightly running around being waifish in them, but this is one of the few exceptions. (Pirates I, by the way, is the other).  She’s really just that one character that could make a good movie sour, but in this one, she worked.  The other characters, who were much more fun to watch on screen include the Knights!:

More than that, the Knights of the Round Table were perfectly picked, in my opinion. (brief note: I do not own any of these pictures, but I got most of them from the Guardian.co.uk film website.)

There’s Lancelot, the Pretty, Skeezy Playboy of the group:

Galahad, the youngest:

Gawain, the Hairiest:

Bors, the One with a Lot of Bastard Children:

Dagonet, the One Who is Secretly a Softie:

Tristan, the one who is Clearly NOT a Softie:

All Led by Clive Own Arturius Catus/ Arthur:

 And oh, were their Ninja- Knight Movies to die for… What with their inability to Die for the first half of the movie. 

The Basic premise is that Arthur is a half-Roman, half-Briton commander of the troops at this base in Hadrian’s Wall.  His troops are made up of Sarmatians who fight for the Romans for 15 years before being allowed to go home, and this is their last mission. 

Until party-pooper Bishop Germanius comes by and tells them that they have to go out and save some Roman Family in the North (where they shouldn’t even be, because the point of Hadrian’s wall was that the Roman’s couldn’t deal with the Scottish and decided to just block them off from the rest of Britain).

So off they go, because the knights follow Arthur relentlessly.  Somewhere along the line, the enemy changes from the Woads (native Britons/Scots) to the invading Saxons, who are led by what looks like the ex-Lead Guitarist in a metal band and his skin head son.

There’s a lot of “Freedom!” in here, which reminds me too much of Braveheart and… really, a lot of the movies I’ve been watching.  And in this case it’s really sad because this is at the brink of the Dark Ages– there is not going to be much freedom going around in these parts for over a thousands years.

It makes for a good historical action movie, and I like seeing how someone imagines how a legend starts out.  Clive Owen… is Clive Owen, and right now I can’t really say anymore on that subject.  He made a good, yet angsty, King Arthur.  His relationship with Lancelot is even angstier, it would seem, than how he reacts to his past.  What I thought was nice, and this is probably just a personal thing, was that even though he was an Extreme Christian, he never makes any move or mention to convert the Knights because… that was important, in some way, to their Sarmatian- Horse Warrior heritage.

And the knights?  Are freakin’ ninjas, without being ninjas.  Which I like.   There’s also some (albeit, some) character developpment, and humor, which is nice to see in intense action films.  It wasn’t overdone, the humor, it was just placed at the right moment when you need someone to say something, and it might as well be funny.

I wouldn’t recommend this to someone looking for some serious romance.  Between Arthur and Guinevere, it looks really tacked on.  I seriously debated whether she was having sex with Arthur or Lancelot in that one sex scene, because it seems like she hung around Lancelot more anyway.  Watch it if you like gritty, historical battle scenes, says me.  The joys of those is that it’s a lot more sensitized to what you’re doing to the guy– it’s all hand to hand combat really, whereas watching a war movie that takes place now or in the 20th century, you’re just watching people shoot or bomb eachother to bits and it’s a lot less effective.

This was also another History Through Film movies, so we discussed why it’s historically accurate/inaccurate and learned about the Picts/Woads, Romans, and Saxons.  Mostly it’s inaccurate because they just smushed a bunch of events happening to England in the sixth century into a one week period of time… then some of the weapons (this is all rather boring unless you’re a history nut, sorry).  Such as, the crossbow would not be used at that period of time nor by the English (it was a French invention).  Then Tristan’s and Lancelot’s swords are inaccurate, but for different reasons.  There’s some other stuff, and I either mentioned it earlier or just don’t care at this point to look it up again.

The point is: I do like this movie.  It’s amusing and intense and I don’t really give a damn about the historical debates surrounding it because yeah, it’s pseudo-accurate.  I don’t care.  I like watching the blood splatter the camera while Lancelot uses his two swords as scissors to behead Some Pict and Tristan arrowing a dude five miles away in a tree that wouldn’t have lived in England at that period.  It’s just a fun, bloody, period piece, and I respect it as such.

One of Those “I Watch it For the Hot Guy” Movies: Attila the Hun

Sooo…. Attila the Hun.  Made by the USA channel to showcase Gerard Butler, as I understand.  Or rather, as I want to understand it.

Taken, with respect, from http://images.teamsugar.com/files/users/2/20158/14_2007/sjm_s_attila_gb03.jpg

As Andrew the Actor pointed out to me, it really is a terrible movie.  Terrible, but I enjoy it because… hot guy!  Hot guy in a wig that both makes me want to touch it and cut it all off at the same time.  I think this might have just knocked Phantom of the Opera down from it’s pillar of Guilty Pleasure movies because

Hot Gerry WIth a Sword beats Singing Deformed Gerry (and… the whole Joel Schumacher thing taints Phantom for me anyway, when I really come down to it).

Clearly, this is not the blood-craving tyrant who looks rather Mongolian that Google wants us to believe.  This is the Good Guy Attila, the Destiny Chosen Attila, the Attila who fell in love with a woman who can kill just as much as he can and who has red hair!

That is what they make the biggest deal of in this movie.  The woman with the red hair, who chose Attila over his fugly brother because… well, when two of the most powerful men in the tribe are fighting over you, go for the handsome and nice one.

The basic story isn’t really raped from history, just Attila actually going to Rome.  (And, as my History teacher would say, “They cut out the best part!” Apparently Attila didn’t sack Rome because the Pope talked to him and… no one knows what they said to each other because neither would talk about it after that.  So.  There you go.  I didn’t finish this, so I don’t really know how it ends.  Most likely in bloody vengeance).

As the film portrays it, Attila is wooed to Rome and it’s hot baths by Aetius, the Roman general who hates the Queen Mother, What’s Her Face, more than her useless son Valentinian III.  Afterall, it’s much simpler to control somone who’s an idiot.  But even before the sojourn to Rome’s hottest baths and princesses, Attila has this God complex and is convinced that it’s his destiny to rule the Huns.

Which it is.  But from where I left off, I felt like the movie was making some statement about misplaced trust and arrogance, and blah blah blah.  This entertained me because I was having a bad week and need a shitty, arrogant, pretty-boy’s in it movie to let my mind seep away so that I didn’t have to think about college application essays for a brief period of time each day.

HELL, I tell you!  But most of you probably already know that.  And… I digress. This is the “Please Entertain Me Scruffy Gerard Butler Movie” that cures what ails you (unless you actually like quality cinema).

If anyone out there has seen this and knows the ending, please enlighten me, ‘kay thanks.