Day 220 - 8/8/09 - Movie #216
BEFORE: In 1985, when "Return of the Jedi" was released on VHS, I was 16 years old, holding down my first job, and I paid $80, the full purchase price, for a copy. In those days, they released videotapes with high prices to encourage people to rent the movies instead of buying them, and in 6 months to a year, the price would drop to encourage sales. But I couldn't wait, I simply HAD to see the film at home on my VCR, again and again. Similarly, I picked up this DVD last week at the comic-shop as an impulse buy, and I would have paid just about any price that was on the sticker.
For you see, I've only been waiting for this movie since 1989 - 20 years since I first read the Watchmen graphic novel and thought, "Gee, that would make a great movie!" But I'm a patient man. I watched as great screenwriters and directors attempted to make this movie (I even have a copy of the Sam Hamm-penned screenplay that was pitched to Terry Gilliam) and as they failed, I realized that filmmaking had to evolve to the point where every last pixel on the screen had to be tamed in order for this to be done properly. Also, the right man (Zack Snyder) had to come along and pull the sword from the stone. So I'm a patient man who simply can not wait another day to watch this movie. So, no pressure...
THE PLOT: In an alternate 1985 where former superheroes exist, the murder of a colleague sends active vigilante Rorschach into his own sprawling investigation, uncovering something that could completely change the course of history as we know it.
AFTER: Brilliant source material, perfect casting, and impressive non-linear editing (carried over from the comic-book flashbacks) Just like the graphic novel, but with sound and music added - as an adaptation should be. In this alternate 1985 superheroes are real, the U.S. won the Vietnam War, and Nixon is in his fourth term as President. The story explores the dark side of costumed crime-fighting - the secrets, the lies, the conspiracies. The hyper-violence of vigilante justice, the kinkiness of costumed sex, and the threat of nuclear war hanging over everyone's heads. Then there are the small ironies - the man who can control time and space, but can't understand human emotions; the psycho-killer hero framed for murder, put in prison with many criminals that he arrested; the world's smartest man, seemingly unable to prevent the looming disaster (or is he?)
It's all dark, violent, and GORGEOUS. There are action sequences that bend and stretch time, evoking the best of Stanley Kubrick and Sam Raimi combined. There was one important change made to the ending, which readers of the comic book will recognize instantly - but I actually thought that the movie's ending was an improvement, and not just because it was the only part of the film that I couldn't predict. People sometimes forget that there was a several-month delay between issues 11 and 12 of the original comic, and fans were eagerly awaiting the story's climax - only to be summarily confused and challenged by the final result.
My one complaint, and it's a minor one, is that the soundtrack choices seem a little obvious - some songs like "All Along the Watchtower" and "Desolation Row" were referenced in the original comic, so to readers of the book, they're no-brainers. But setting a 1960's/70's montage to "The Times They Are A-Changin'" is a bit simplistic, and "The Sound of Silence" and "99 Luftballoons" have been used in so darn many movies, they've lost their power. But the use of Phillip Glass music (from "Koyaanisqatsi") during the Dr. Manhattan origin sequence was absolutely inspired.
Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach is the standout among the main cast - that voice, like someone gargling broken glass! - but I also liked Carla Gugino as the first Silk Spectre, and Patrick Wilson was spot-on as Nite-Owl II, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan just scary-good as the Comedian (a tough mix of hero and scumbag). And I also want to point out two well-cast supporting roles - Matt Frewer as Moloch, and Danny Woodburn (Mickey from "Seinfeld") as the small crime-boss Big Figure.
For anyone who might disapprove of the omission of the comic-within-a-comic "Tales of the Black Freighter" (which was released separately as an animated DVD), which was highly symbolic of the events going on in the main storyline, I suppose something had to be sacrificed to bring the movie in under 3 hours. (I watched the Director's Cut, which was 186 minutes) Fear not, for I heard that this Christmas they will release a 5-disc DVD set where the pirate/castaway storyline is re-edited into the main one. That could be interesting - to see how it affects the flow of the main superhero storyline...
So I stayed up until 6 am on a Saturday morning watching this DVD, and when it was done, I was both exhilarated and exhausted, and damn if I didn't want to start over and watch it all again! I can think of no higher praise.
RATING: 10 out of 10 flamethrowers (only because I can't give it an 11...)
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Friday, August 7, 2009
Punisher: War Zone
Day 219 - 8/7/09 - Movie #215
BEFORE: Might as well...
THE PLOT: After hunting down and killing hundreds of violent criminals, Frank Castle, aka The Punisher, faces his most deadly foe yet: Jigsaw.
AFTER: It's the third try at making a good Punisher movie (and the third actor to play Frank Castle) and finally they've written in a bunch of the other characters from the comic books, like Det. Martin Soap, Maginty (a black Irish thug) and Wayne Knight as Microchip - genius casting there! I suppose the 2nd movie did have one character from the comics - The Russian, a giant fighter incapable of feeling pain. But this movie introduces Jigsaw, the Punisher's main comic-book nemesis. I didn't like Jigsaw's origin here, though - how his face got all cut up was a little too similar to what happened to Jack Nicholson's Joker in the 1st Batman movie.
I guess if the Jigsaw's like the Joker, then maybe the Punisher is a lot like Batman, except he doesn't wear a mask, and Batman doesn't use guns or kill. Both use the highest-tech weaponry, both are in top physical form, and both seem to have an endless supply of funds (though Batman inherited his, Punisher takes his funding from the criminals he wipes out).
I don't know where they filmed this movie, but it sure wasn't in New York - the subway trains look all wrong, and there's a stop on "Fifth Avenue/13th St." on the A, C, E and L lines. Huh? Shouldn't that be 8th Avenue and 14th St.? (aha, Wikipedia says this was shot in Montreal...) Plus, no one seems to be able to do a very good NY accent... But all in all, I thought this was very faithful to the source material - maybe a bit too violent for my tastes, but the kids today don't mind a little splatter...
Let's hope that if another Punisher film is made, they use Barracuda as the villain...
RATING: 7 out of 10 grenades
BEFORE: Might as well...
THE PLOT: After hunting down and killing hundreds of violent criminals, Frank Castle, aka The Punisher, faces his most deadly foe yet: Jigsaw.
AFTER: It's the third try at making a good Punisher movie (and the third actor to play Frank Castle) and finally they've written in a bunch of the other characters from the comic books, like Det. Martin Soap, Maginty (a black Irish thug) and Wayne Knight as Microchip - genius casting there! I suppose the 2nd movie did have one character from the comics - The Russian, a giant fighter incapable of feeling pain. But this movie introduces Jigsaw, the Punisher's main comic-book nemesis. I didn't like Jigsaw's origin here, though - how his face got all cut up was a little too similar to what happened to Jack Nicholson's Joker in the 1st Batman movie.
I guess if the Jigsaw's like the Joker, then maybe the Punisher is a lot like Batman, except he doesn't wear a mask, and Batman doesn't use guns or kill. Both use the highest-tech weaponry, both are in top physical form, and both seem to have an endless supply of funds (though Batman inherited his, Punisher takes his funding from the criminals he wipes out).
I don't know where they filmed this movie, but it sure wasn't in New York - the subway trains look all wrong, and there's a stop on "Fifth Avenue/13th St." on the A, C, E and L lines. Huh? Shouldn't that be 8th Avenue and 14th St.? (aha, Wikipedia says this was shot in Montreal...) Plus, no one seems to be able to do a very good NY accent... But all in all, I thought this was very faithful to the source material - maybe a bit too violent for my tastes, but the kids today don't mind a little splatter...
Let's hope that if another Punisher film is made, they use Barracuda as the villain...
RATING: 7 out of 10 grenades
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Punisher (1989)
Day 218 - 8/6/09 - Movie #214
BEFORE: OK, back to comic-book vigilantes. I've seen the second Punisher movie, the one with Thomas Jane and John Travolta, but not this one, starring Dolph Lundgren (aka Ivan Drago from "Rocky IV"). True story - in 2002, when we were flying down to Florida for our honeymoon cruise, I found myself sitting next to actor Ed Burns on the plane. I noticed he was reading a script for a Punisher movie - at the time, comic-book movies were starting to really catch on, and I figured he was looking to get involved in one. Rather than talk to him directly, after my wife fell asleep I pulled out a couple comic books and started reading, which led to Ed Burns asking me questions about comics - he wanted to know which heroes I liked, which books were popular, and so forth. He'd been a reader of Marvel Comics when he was a kid, but didn't know too much outside of Spider-Man and the Silver Surfer. I referenced the Punisher script he was reading, and mentioned that a Punisher movie had been made before in 1989, which he was surprised to learn. So I'm guessing that when he got off the plane, he looked up this movie, and that was probably the end of his interest in the franchise.
THE PLOT: Frank Castle is an ex-cop who lives in the sewers and acts as judge, jury, and executioner to the city's criminals in retaliation for the unpunished murders of his wife and kids. Frank's ex-partner Jake finally catches up with the vigilante as he tries to stop the Japanese mob, which is trying to take over the city's mafia operation.
AFTER: Yeah, this movie was definitely made on the cheap in the late 80's - it makes "Lethal Weapon" look like "Gone With the Wind"... Lundgren is a man of few words, but that sort of fits with the Punisher's character. The movie is short on plot and dialogue, but not on explosions, and in terms of action, it does manage to capture the spirit of the comic-book, which is usually just simple shoot-em-ups. (OK, sometimes knives are used...)
Louis Gossett Jr. plays Frank's old partner, Jake Berkowitz (funny, he doesn't look Jewish...), and character actor Jeroen Krabbe plays the head mobster. Production values are very poor, the editing is sloppy, the plot is simplistic, and it seems like a vast majority of the dialogue was added later in post, probably in an attempt to make some sense out of the footage that was shot.
The only positive thing is that it does portray Castle's determination, and in that sense is true to the character. If Punisher needs a bus, he steals a bus. If he needs to blow up a building, it gets blowed up. It's pretty simple stuff, but so is the source material.
RATING: 3 out of 10 samurai swords
BEFORE: OK, back to comic-book vigilantes. I've seen the second Punisher movie, the one with Thomas Jane and John Travolta, but not this one, starring Dolph Lundgren (aka Ivan Drago from "Rocky IV"). True story - in 2002, when we were flying down to Florida for our honeymoon cruise, I found myself sitting next to actor Ed Burns on the plane. I noticed he was reading a script for a Punisher movie - at the time, comic-book movies were starting to really catch on, and I figured he was looking to get involved in one. Rather than talk to him directly, after my wife fell asleep I pulled out a couple comic books and started reading, which led to Ed Burns asking me questions about comics - he wanted to know which heroes I liked, which books were popular, and so forth. He'd been a reader of Marvel Comics when he was a kid, but didn't know too much outside of Spider-Man and the Silver Surfer. I referenced the Punisher script he was reading, and mentioned that a Punisher movie had been made before in 1989, which he was surprised to learn. So I'm guessing that when he got off the plane, he looked up this movie, and that was probably the end of his interest in the franchise.
THE PLOT: Frank Castle is an ex-cop who lives in the sewers and acts as judge, jury, and executioner to the city's criminals in retaliation for the unpunished murders of his wife and kids. Frank's ex-partner Jake finally catches up with the vigilante as he tries to stop the Japanese mob, which is trying to take over the city's mafia operation.
AFTER: Yeah, this movie was definitely made on the cheap in the late 80's - it makes "Lethal Weapon" look like "Gone With the Wind"... Lundgren is a man of few words, but that sort of fits with the Punisher's character. The movie is short on plot and dialogue, but not on explosions, and in terms of action, it does manage to capture the spirit of the comic-book, which is usually just simple shoot-em-ups. (OK, sometimes knives are used...)
Louis Gossett Jr. plays Frank's old partner, Jake Berkowitz (funny, he doesn't look Jewish...), and character actor Jeroen Krabbe plays the head mobster. Production values are very poor, the editing is sloppy, the plot is simplistic, and it seems like a vast majority of the dialogue was added later in post, probably in an attempt to make some sense out of the footage that was shot.
The only positive thing is that it does portray Castle's determination, and in that sense is true to the character. If Punisher needs a bus, he steals a bus. If he needs to blow up a building, it gets blowed up. It's pretty simple stuff, but so is the source material.
RATING: 3 out of 10 samurai swords
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The Professional
Day 217 - 8/5/09 - Movie #213
BEFORE: No, it's not based on a comic book. But this seems to have turned into "Terrorist and Vigilantes" week - and I felt this movie would make sense here, with back-to-back Natalie Portman films.
THE PLOT: Professional assassin Leon reluctantly takes care of 12-year-old Mathilda, a neighbor whose parents are killed, and teaches her his trade.
AFTER: Ms. Portman seems to have a knack for hanging out with a bad crowd - if it's not a Dark Lord of the Sith, she's associating with terrorists and hit men. This was her first major film role, and she plays the savviest pre-teen this side of Jodie Foster in "Taxi Driver". Jean Reno plays Leon, the expert hitman, and I wish they'd shown more of his "jobs", because they're the highlight of the film.
It's a strange pairing - Matilda teaches Leon to read and connect emotionally, and he teaches her how to clean and fire guns. Gary Oldman steals the film though (as he usually does...) by playing a corrupt DEA agent who pops pills before taking someone out.
RATING: 6 out of 10 milk cartons
BEFORE: No, it's not based on a comic book. But this seems to have turned into "Terrorist and Vigilantes" week - and I felt this movie would make sense here, with back-to-back Natalie Portman films.
THE PLOT: Professional assassin Leon reluctantly takes care of 12-year-old Mathilda, a neighbor whose parents are killed, and teaches her his trade.
AFTER: Ms. Portman seems to have a knack for hanging out with a bad crowd - if it's not a Dark Lord of the Sith, she's associating with terrorists and hit men. This was her first major film role, and she plays the savviest pre-teen this side of Jodie Foster in "Taxi Driver". Jean Reno plays Leon, the expert hitman, and I wish they'd shown more of his "jobs", because they're the highlight of the film.
It's a strange pairing - Matilda teaches Leon to read and connect emotionally, and he teaches her how to clean and fire guns. Gary Oldman steals the film though (as he usually does...) by playing a corrupt DEA agent who pops pills before taking someone out.
RATING: 6 out of 10 milk cartons
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
V For Vendetta
Day 216 - 8/4/09 - Movie #212
BEFORE: From assassins to terrorists, and another movie based on a comic book, written by Alan Moore for DC/Vertigo. As an extra coincidental bonus, this movie came up in a trivia round last night, a video round that featured clips of explosions from various films...
THE PLOT: A shadowy freedom fighter known only as "V" uses terrorist tactics to fight against his totalitarian society. Upon rescuing a girl from the secret police, he also finds his best chance at having an ally.
AFTER: This is a tale set in a dystopian-future England - one that has suffered war, plague and terrorism, and whose government has clamped down on citizens' rights in order to protect the populace. A rogue terrorist named V (who might be the subject of government experiments to combat or even create a plague) revives the spirit of Guy Fawkes, blows up government buildings and kidnaps a British-accented Natalie Portman. (wouldn't you?) I found it hard to fully understand his motivations (maybe that's a hard thing to depict) since his theories are full of conspiracies.
There's a part of the film in the middle that I'm just not buying - it suggests that you can make someone stronger by breaking their spirit, that you've got to be cruel to be kind - and vice versa, I suppose. That's no real justification for psychological torture - if V tortures someone, even to prove a point, how is he any better than the secret police in the system that he's fighting? I can see similarities to the other works of Alan Moore, particularly the way the "Watchmen" comic is structured (I'll be watching that film later this week...) but just because someone says that a bunch of events are connected, it doesn't mean that they actually are part of a conspiracy.
There are some important points here about gay rights, human rights, and oppressive governments, but unfortunately they're wrapped up in a terrorist manifesto, which is hard for some people to take. The film had the bad fortune to be scheduled for release in the U.K. shortly after some real-life London bombings in 2005...
RATING: 7 out of 10 angry mobs (it's really a 6, but I bumped it up after some thrilling action sequences late in the film)
BEFORE: From assassins to terrorists, and another movie based on a comic book, written by Alan Moore for DC/Vertigo. As an extra coincidental bonus, this movie came up in a trivia round last night, a video round that featured clips of explosions from various films...
THE PLOT: A shadowy freedom fighter known only as "V" uses terrorist tactics to fight against his totalitarian society. Upon rescuing a girl from the secret police, he also finds his best chance at having an ally.
AFTER: This is a tale set in a dystopian-future England - one that has suffered war, plague and terrorism, and whose government has clamped down on citizens' rights in order to protect the populace. A rogue terrorist named V (who might be the subject of government experiments to combat or even create a plague) revives the spirit of Guy Fawkes, blows up government buildings and kidnaps a British-accented Natalie Portman. (wouldn't you?) I found it hard to fully understand his motivations (maybe that's a hard thing to depict) since his theories are full of conspiracies.
There's a part of the film in the middle that I'm just not buying - it suggests that you can make someone stronger by breaking their spirit, that you've got to be cruel to be kind - and vice versa, I suppose. That's no real justification for psychological torture - if V tortures someone, even to prove a point, how is he any better than the secret police in the system that he's fighting? I can see similarities to the other works of Alan Moore, particularly the way the "Watchmen" comic is structured (I'll be watching that film later this week...) but just because someone says that a bunch of events are connected, it doesn't mean that they actually are part of a conspiracy.
There are some important points here about gay rights, human rights, and oppressive governments, but unfortunately they're wrapped up in a terrorist manifesto, which is hard for some people to take. The film had the bad fortune to be scheduled for release in the U.K. shortly after some real-life London bombings in 2005...
RATING: 7 out of 10 angry mobs (it's really a 6, but I bumped it up after some thrilling action sequences late in the film)
Monday, August 3, 2009
Wanted
Day 215 - 8/3/09 - Movie #211
BEFORE: Back-to-back Angelina Jolie films, making the transition to comic-book movies. Yes, this counts, it was based on a comic book. I assure you, there is a method (sort of) to my madness. Unfortunately, the volume on my recording is really low - thanks to Time Warner Cable's new Mystro DVR software, I think. (Did I mention that I hate Mystro?) I used to be able to control the DVR's audio output volume - now, not so much. Anyway, I'll try to judge the movie and not my low-volume recording of same.
THE PLOT: A frustrated office worker learns that he is the son of a professional assassin, and that he shares his father's superhuman killing abilities.
AFTER: Well, that was a slice of awesome! I may not be an expert on action movies, but I know what I like! Damn, this film STARTS with over-the-top action scenes, then says, "Well, how high can we go from here?"
I was right to use this film to transition out of fantasy movies - make no mistake, this is a fantasy film, as realistic as, well, a comic book. There's an attempt to tap the fantasy node on the male brain, by showing an office drone who gets visited by Angelina Jolie, and recruited into a secret society of assassins, who train him (in the style of "Karate Kid") to unlock his ability to slow down time (in the style of "The Matrix") to pull off some impossible, jaw-dropping stunts. Plus, who among us hasn't dreamed of telling off their boss, or smacking their most annoying co-worker in the face with a keyboard?
Since in real life hitmen can't "curve" the path of a bullet, or shoot the wings off of flies, the exaggerated action here is the equivalent of pornography, when compared to real-world sex. Is this a new genre - action porn? There are so many OMG! or WTF? moments in the stunts and special FX, like bullets colliding in mid-air, or when Jolie scoops up our hero in a spinning-out car, that this should give the Mythbusters guys enough material for a whole season's worth of shows - I know they covered a couple of these things already, but I bet they've just scratched the surface.
RATING: 9 out of 10 jars of peanut butter (let the flaming and second-guessing begin...)
BEFORE: Back-to-back Angelina Jolie films, making the transition to comic-book movies. Yes, this counts, it was based on a comic book. I assure you, there is a method (sort of) to my madness. Unfortunately, the volume on my recording is really low - thanks to Time Warner Cable's new Mystro DVR software, I think. (Did I mention that I hate Mystro?) I used to be able to control the DVR's audio output volume - now, not so much. Anyway, I'll try to judge the movie and not my low-volume recording of same.
THE PLOT: A frustrated office worker learns that he is the son of a professional assassin, and that he shares his father's superhuman killing abilities.
AFTER: Well, that was a slice of awesome! I may not be an expert on action movies, but I know what I like! Damn, this film STARTS with over-the-top action scenes, then says, "Well, how high can we go from here?"
I was right to use this film to transition out of fantasy movies - make no mistake, this is a fantasy film, as realistic as, well, a comic book. There's an attempt to tap the fantasy node on the male brain, by showing an office drone who gets visited by Angelina Jolie, and recruited into a secret society of assassins, who train him (in the style of "Karate Kid") to unlock his ability to slow down time (in the style of "The Matrix") to pull off some impossible, jaw-dropping stunts. Plus, who among us hasn't dreamed of telling off their boss, or smacking their most annoying co-worker in the face with a keyboard?
Since in real life hitmen can't "curve" the path of a bullet, or shoot the wings off of flies, the exaggerated action here is the equivalent of pornography, when compared to real-world sex. Is this a new genre - action porn? There are so many OMG! or WTF? moments in the stunts and special FX, like bullets colliding in mid-air, or when Jolie scoops up our hero in a spinning-out car, that this should give the Mythbusters guys enough material for a whole season's worth of shows - I know they covered a couple of these things already, but I bet they've just scratched the surface.
RATING: 9 out of 10 jars of peanut butter (let the flaming and second-guessing begin...)
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Beowulf (2007)
Day 214 - 8/2/09 - Movie #210
BEFORE: This is the all-CGI version from a year or two ago. There are classic storylines, then there are classic STORIES. In fact, this is based on one of the first stories ever, it's only like 1,000 years old! For once I don't have to worry about giving away plot details as the plot is just - man fights monster, right?
THE PLOT: The warrior Beowulf must fight and defeat the monster Grendel who is terrorizing towns, and later, Grendel's mother, who begins killing out of revenge.
AFTER: Not only one of the first stories, one of the first examples of three-act plot structure, based on Beowulf's three battles - vs. Grendel, Grendel's mother, and then later in life, a dragon. But there's a twist here which is sort of soap-opera like, and adds a whole new dimension to the fight with the dragon.
I noticed that Neil Gaiman co-wrote the screenplay - I'm very curious now to find out about the deviations from the original Beowulf storyline, and whose idea they were. Of course, classic stories change over time, and reflect the times in which they're told - one example of this is having Grendel's mother appear not as a monstrous beast, but as a hot, naked, Angelina Jolie, covered in liquid gold. Well, do you think that when the devil appears to you, it's going to look like a horrible dragon, or a beast with horns and a spiked tail? No, that's not how the devil works - the devil will appear to you in a very seductive form, like a hot, naked Angelina Jolie, covered in liquid gold!
In the first part of the story, as the kingdom is being attacked by Grendel, we come to suspect that there might be more to King Hrothgar's story than he's let on - what's his connection to Grendel, and for that matter, Grendel's mother? Why is the beast attacking the kingdom, anyway? None of this matters to Beowulf, of course - he came to town to slay monsters and drink mead, and he's all out of mead...
Beowulf prefers a fair fight - Grendel doesn't have a sword, so he can't use one. Grendel doesn't wear clothing, so Beowulf strips down. This sets up a great fight sequence - you can see Beowulf holding back while he studies the way that Grendel kills his men. He's learning his opponent's strengths and weaknesses, and figuring out a way to defeat him! In addition to showing monster-fighting in the buff, the movie is filled with phallic references - when he encounters the hot nakedness of Grendel's mother, she literally melts his sword. And later when fighting the dragon, Beowulf's sword is just a few inches too short - does he have something to prove, or what?
The CGI animation is slightly better than what was seen in "Shrek 3" - but the action is a non-stop thrill ride, with the best dragon-battle sequence I've seen all week...
RATING: 7 out of 10 serving-wenches
BEFORE: This is the all-CGI version from a year or two ago. There are classic storylines, then there are classic STORIES. In fact, this is based on one of the first stories ever, it's only like 1,000 years old! For once I don't have to worry about giving away plot details as the plot is just - man fights monster, right?
THE PLOT: The warrior Beowulf must fight and defeat the monster Grendel who is terrorizing towns, and later, Grendel's mother, who begins killing out of revenge.
AFTER: Not only one of the first stories, one of the first examples of three-act plot structure, based on Beowulf's three battles - vs. Grendel, Grendel's mother, and then later in life, a dragon. But there's a twist here which is sort of soap-opera like, and adds a whole new dimension to the fight with the dragon.
I noticed that Neil Gaiman co-wrote the screenplay - I'm very curious now to find out about the deviations from the original Beowulf storyline, and whose idea they were. Of course, classic stories change over time, and reflect the times in which they're told - one example of this is having Grendel's mother appear not as a monstrous beast, but as a hot, naked, Angelina Jolie, covered in liquid gold. Well, do you think that when the devil appears to you, it's going to look like a horrible dragon, or a beast with horns and a spiked tail? No, that's not how the devil works - the devil will appear to you in a very seductive form, like a hot, naked Angelina Jolie, covered in liquid gold!
In the first part of the story, as the kingdom is being attacked by Grendel, we come to suspect that there might be more to King Hrothgar's story than he's let on - what's his connection to Grendel, and for that matter, Grendel's mother? Why is the beast attacking the kingdom, anyway? None of this matters to Beowulf, of course - he came to town to slay monsters and drink mead, and he's all out of mead...
Beowulf prefers a fair fight - Grendel doesn't have a sword, so he can't use one. Grendel doesn't wear clothing, so Beowulf strips down. This sets up a great fight sequence - you can see Beowulf holding back while he studies the way that Grendel kills his men. He's learning his opponent's strengths and weaknesses, and figuring out a way to defeat him! In addition to showing monster-fighting in the buff, the movie is filled with phallic references - when he encounters the hot nakedness of Grendel's mother, she literally melts his sword. And later when fighting the dragon, Beowulf's sword is just a few inches too short - does he have something to prove, or what?
The CGI animation is slightly better than what was seen in "Shrek 3" - but the action is a non-stop thrill ride, with the best dragon-battle sequence I've seen all week...
RATING: 7 out of 10 serving-wenches
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
Day 213 - 8/1/09 - Movie #209
BEFORE: I have news of a devastating loss - Time Warner Cable here in New York has replaced their "Passport" DVR software with something called "Mystro" - and as a result I've lost the ability to search for movies by an actor or director's name. This will make it tougher to track down those last two Hitchcock films, and my planned Clint Eastwood festival will now have to be scaled back. However, I now have access to more Movies On Demand channels, at $1.99 each (take that, $5.99 DVD store!) so I've been buying and recording like a madman, keeping my list of movies to watch hovering above 400 - thus ensuring that this project will continue, at least until the end of 2010.
The "Narnia" series of books was one of my favorites when I was a kid - I can remember when "Prince Caspian" was considered the 5th book in the series, not the 2nd - and I didn't realize at the time that it was sort of a "gateway drug" to harder fare like "The Lord of the Rings"! I watched the first movie last year, so now finally I'm following up.
THE PLOT: The Pevensie siblings return to Narnia, where they are enlisted to once again help ward off an evil king and restore the rightful heir to the land's throne, Prince Caspian.
AFTER: Since I didn't recall most of the exact details from the book (it's been a long time...) I can't rate the movie's faithfulness to the source material - but it was certainly action-packed, and just like in "Golden Compass", the best scenes were the fight scenes and the talking animals. Liam Neeson once again voices the lion Aslan, Peter Dinklage and Warwick Davis co-star as dwarves, and Eddie Izzard voices a sword-fighting mouse.
Much has been written over the years about the Christian symbolism in the Narnia books, and I can sort of see that here - the kingdom of Narnia is endangered by the apparent loss of its lion/god - what sort of god remains absent and watches from afar, as people fight and struggle and suffer?
RATING: 8 out of 10 centaurs
BEFORE: I have news of a devastating loss - Time Warner Cable here in New York has replaced their "Passport" DVR software with something called "Mystro" - and as a result I've lost the ability to search for movies by an actor or director's name. This will make it tougher to track down those last two Hitchcock films, and my planned Clint Eastwood festival will now have to be scaled back. However, I now have access to more Movies On Demand channels, at $1.99 each (take that, $5.99 DVD store!) so I've been buying and recording like a madman, keeping my list of movies to watch hovering above 400 - thus ensuring that this project will continue, at least until the end of 2010.
The "Narnia" series of books was one of my favorites when I was a kid - I can remember when "Prince Caspian" was considered the 5th book in the series, not the 2nd - and I didn't realize at the time that it was sort of a "gateway drug" to harder fare like "The Lord of the Rings"! I watched the first movie last year, so now finally I'm following up.
THE PLOT: The Pevensie siblings return to Narnia, where they are enlisted to once again help ward off an evil king and restore the rightful heir to the land's throne, Prince Caspian.
AFTER: Since I didn't recall most of the exact details from the book (it's been a long time...) I can't rate the movie's faithfulness to the source material - but it was certainly action-packed, and just like in "Golden Compass", the best scenes were the fight scenes and the talking animals. Liam Neeson once again voices the lion Aslan, Peter Dinklage and Warwick Davis co-star as dwarves, and Eddie Izzard voices a sword-fighting mouse.
Much has been written over the years about the Christian symbolism in the Narnia books, and I can sort of see that here - the kingdom of Narnia is endangered by the apparent loss of its lion/god - what sort of god remains absent and watches from afar, as people fight and struggle and suffer?
RATING: 8 out of 10 centaurs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
