I'd say if I hadn't seen any other comic book movies for the last 10 years, this movie would be awesome. Not to say I didn't like it. Far from it. But it does suffer just because comic book movies are in no short supply these days. With the Avengers and all the movies tied in to that, it's a little harder for something like Spider-Man. Not because it's a bad movie, but because it focuses on a smaller scale than the other Marvel movies out there. But if it didn't, it wouldn't be Spider-Man.
Before I fanboy out about Spider-Man, let's talk about the movie.
The acting is amazing. The cast I'd say is slumming it being in a comic book movie. There's academy award winners in this! Jamie Foxx brought an amazing amount of life into Electro. I didn't know which direction they were going to go with him, but they managed to take something as silly as "turned into a giant energy battery by falling into a vat of mutated electric eels" into something I could at least take seriously enough to keep watching. Emma Stone. That's all I have to say. I'm in love with Emma Stone. She's brilliant. She conveys emotions with even the slightest of gestures. Future actors of the world, take notes. Andrew Garfield is the perfect casting choice for Spider-Man. He has a great face that really exudes pain. When he's emotionally tortured, it's written all over his face. He even throws in a New York accent when he gets worked up. Sally Field. She should be starring in dramas about the first female President of the United States. She's totally slumming it to be in a cheesy comic book movie. The only problem I had was the way they wasted Paul Giamatti. The guy was barely in the movie! But luckily with the teaser at the end of this one, I'm guessing we'll see more of him in Amazing Spider-Man 3.
The story is what it is. It's Spider-Man. It's a comic book movie. Because there are so many of them out there these days, this one doesn't stand out to me. It's not better or worse than other Marvel movies. It does get cutesy on more than one occasion. The little kid in the Spider-man costume was just dumb.
I can't say there was anything wrong with it. I really liked it. It's just a victim of there being better comic book movies out there. I'd say Captain America 2 was just a better movie overall than this one. And that is still out in theaters. Maybe this should've been released in June.
Honestly I really liked the movie. But I can't say it was even the best comic book movie I've seen this month. But it's still worth seeing.
So now let me gush about Spider-Man for a few paragraphs:
What sets Spider-Man apart from other Marvel heroes is that his victories come with a very high and very personal cost. Look at some of the other heroes in the Marvel Universe that are featured in movies lately. Ironman, Captain America, Thor, and The Hulk. Of these characters, which of them have ever lost? I don't mean like lose a fight or something like that. I'm talking about failure. A situation that turns the sentiment against the hero. Where he failed to save someone and that person died. And that death haunts the hero for the rest of his life. It's very common in comics to bring people back from the dead. The most striking example I can give right now is Bucky Barnes from Captain America. In the first Captain America movie, Bucky died. But in the second movie he got better. In the movies Thor has never had to mourn the loss of a comrade or love interest. Neither has Iron Man. The only one that can come close to it would be the Hulk and even then it's stretching it because he pushes people away so the monster within doesn't accidentally kill them.
With Spider-Man it's different. Spider-Man is a working Joe. He isn't a soldier with the support of an army behind him. He isn't a multi-billionaire playboy. He's definitely not a God. His problems are smaller scale. He worries about making ends meet. He worries about his family. He has to deal with a newspaper that has it out for him no matter what he does. And if that wasn't bad enough, he has to find a way to balance his love life with the problems of the city. He doesn't have the luxury of sitting around wondering what Harry Osborne's latest evil scheme is going to be. He has homework and the rent is due.
Also Spider-Man is a product of New York City. While other heroes are from there of course, he's still an average guy from the city. He can't go off and deal with some giant threat over in Malawi or whatever. He's in New York and New York has enough freak shows like Electro and the Green Goblin running around.
And Spider-Man's victories come with a huge burden. He has people die around him. He can't save everybody no matter how hard he tries. He has self-doubt. He sometimes wonders if he's doing more harm than good. He has to sacrifice having friends and family in order to be the hero. Even the best of us would crack under that kind of stress.
I really like Spider-Man. Even if the comics get a little on the weird side.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Friday, March 28, 2014
Captain America The Winter Soldier Review: See you at the end of the line.
This is an awesome movie. Some of the fight scenes are really good. It's still a lot of close up shaky cam fighting, but they are so brilliantly choreographed that it makes up for a few headaches. One of my favorites was early on in the movie between Captain America and Georges Batroc. The whole thing amounted to a cameo by UFC mega-star Georges St.-Pierre but it is a perfect example of just how skilled and physical St.-Pierre really is.
The story itself I struggle to find a way to talk about. Because it's one of those things that if I say too much, it will give away the whole thing. I'm even having a hard time coming up with a witty title for this article!
I'll try to be generic: someone wants to attack S.H.I.E.L.D. and they hired Winter Soldier to do the job. That really is about as generic I can be without going into spoilers.
If I had any criticism for this movie it would be that it was too much story. This felt to me like it could've been two movies. A lot happens. A lot. I wish I could talk about it, but I just can't.
But this is what I mean by a smart action movie. Forget that it's a comic movie for a while, this movie touches on some very strong themes that need to be discussed. For example, how far are we willing to go for security? How far is too far? What would we do if we ever went too far? Could we ever go back? These are not easy questions and should be discussed.
Once again the acting was just brilliant. When a minor character like Brock Rumlow makes an impact on a jaded movie freak like me, you know they did something awesome. Rumlow is played by Frank Grillo and he was wonderful. The only person I felt delivered a better performance was Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce. I don't know how much of his soul he sold to have such ungodly acting talent, but it was a steal.
Another thing I really enjoy about the Captain America films is that there's so much more attention given to the other S.H.I.E.L.D. agents. We get to see a lot more of Agent Maria Hill in time. There's also a lot of Black Widow to go around. With movies like Iron Man or Thor, the story is usually much more centered on the hero. With Captain America, they really go that extra mile to say that the hero isn't Captain America but instead is Steve Rogers. Cap might be a super soldier, but he's still the same good and decent man. He's still an every man. It's why I like him so much.
This is a must see.
The story itself I struggle to find a way to talk about. Because it's one of those things that if I say too much, it will give away the whole thing. I'm even having a hard time coming up with a witty title for this article!
I'll try to be generic: someone wants to attack S.H.I.E.L.D. and they hired Winter Soldier to do the job. That really is about as generic I can be without going into spoilers.
If I had any criticism for this movie it would be that it was too much story. This felt to me like it could've been two movies. A lot happens. A lot. I wish I could talk about it, but I just can't.
But this is what I mean by a smart action movie. Forget that it's a comic movie for a while, this movie touches on some very strong themes that need to be discussed. For example, how far are we willing to go for security? How far is too far? What would we do if we ever went too far? Could we ever go back? These are not easy questions and should be discussed.
Once again the acting was just brilliant. When a minor character like Brock Rumlow makes an impact on a jaded movie freak like me, you know they did something awesome. Rumlow is played by Frank Grillo and he was wonderful. The only person I felt delivered a better performance was Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce. I don't know how much of his soul he sold to have such ungodly acting talent, but it was a steal.
Another thing I really enjoy about the Captain America films is that there's so much more attention given to the other S.H.I.E.L.D. agents. We get to see a lot more of Agent Maria Hill in time. There's also a lot of Black Widow to go around. With movies like Iron Man or Thor, the story is usually much more centered on the hero. With Captain America, they really go that extra mile to say that the hero isn't Captain America but instead is Steve Rogers. Cap might be a super soldier, but he's still the same good and decent man. He's still an every man. It's why I like him so much.
This is a must see.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Noah Review: Uhm... What's going on?
When I first heard about this movie, Christian fundamentalists were freaking out about it because it wasn't "biblically accurate". I was all set to write this nice comparative essay about the biblical Noah's Ark story compared to this one and even pepper in some of my own thoughts on how we shouldn't take the Bible quite so literally. After all it's the message that is the most important and not looking at it as 100% literal history. That's before I saw just how awful the movie itself was!
Let me get the positives out of the way. Because I am about to tear this movie a new one from a cinematic and storytelling point of view. The acting is pretty strong, the story (changed from the original *rock monsters*) works but has it's flaws, and it still manages to stay true to the biblical message. Kinda.
Before someone sees the movie and gets up me about calling them "rock monsters", I know they are angels imprisoned in rocks so they aren't technically "rock monsters". To that I say, they are rock monsters. They are rocks. They have glowing eyes. They walk. They talk. They are rock monsters. There's biblical inaccuracies and then there's adding rock monsters.
This is an awful movie. From a cinematic point of view, this movie is a disaster. The CG effects are laughable. And there's more than one time I wanted to run screaming from the theater F bombs akimbo because of just how crappy the movie looked and it's never ending search for ways to give me a seizure! The shaky cam is bad enough. I've said it before and I guess it bears repeating: if your actors can't do action scenes, don't hire them to be in an action movie! F***ing speed lines don't make for good cinema! I'm not kidding. The camera work is so bad, there are speed lines. Like we're watching a bad '80s cartoon from Japan! We live in a world of High Definition cameras. There is no reason for anyone to have to strain to see what the hell is going on! Directors... you aren't being artsy. You aren't adding energy to a tense situation at this point. You are just pissing me off. But then add in the strobe lighting effects and that's when I knew someone was on drugs. But it gets worse. There's at least two separate instances of this really weird slide show effect. It's like watching one of those flip up books that looks like something is moving. Only done really fast and for about 2 minutes. This movie just hurts to look at it. I had to really fight to stay in my seat.
I really expected much better. The director is Darren Aronofsky! This is the guy that did The Wrestler, Black Swan, and Pi. These are three far better movies and deserve to be watched. This on the other hand needs to be in the bargain bin at a Walmart somewhere because it's unwatchable. I'm not saying it's a bad story and bad acting. I'm saying the way it was filmed is unwatchable.
The story on the other hand was really good. They changed the story a lot. *cough rock monsters cough* But not all the changes are ones that I don't like. The big theme of the story was that humans had become too evil to be worth salvaging in the eyes of God. Well... what does that mean?
Here the movie goes to extraordinary lengths to show you. Cain played by Ray Winstone was perfect. No not Cain from the Cain and Abel story but Cain's descendant. And if ever there was someone that sums up the hubris of mankind, it's this guy. He took the idea of "man is made in God's image" and "God gave man dominion over the land" and took it to the most literal extreme. If we are made in God's image, that means we are special. We are better. Because we are better it's okay to subjugate the world and have it bow down to our will. Humans are above the laws of nature because we are in God's image. Nature should worship us. Human will is stronger than anything on Earth. So anything we do on this Earth is fine. We can take what we want and destroy whatever we want. No consequences.
It's deceptively evil, isn't it?
Then this movie starts to go a little bit weird.
Consistent. Tone. If you want this to be a fantastical tale where flowers bloom from a drop of rain, stick with that. If you want this to be a more grounded and dark version of the story, go with that. You can't have both. I don't think there's room in a serious story for rock monsters and humans eviscerating livestock with their hands and teeth. Why should I take the movie seriously? Well, that way I can feel the conflict and drama when Noah tries to kill his twin granddaughters in their mother's arms.
Uhm...Wait... What?
Yeah. I forgot to mention how this Noah is a complete nut job. Because you know saving the world by the command of God wasn't enough drama for this movie. No. Let's make Noah a genocidal psychopath. Basically he sees the evils of mankind where the people are selling women off to be raped in exchange for animals to eat.
Excuse me a minute. I think I lost my mind again.
Oh and FYI if the horrid cinematography and seizure inducing scenes weren't enough reason to not see this movie in IMAX and/or 3D, Russel Crowe's drunken naked man ass should be the cherry on top.
Yeah big spoilers. He doesn't kill his twin granddaughters and humanity flourishes. But this is what I'm talking about in the jumps in logic we are expected to make in this story. It's one thing to say that he needed his sons to help build the arc. Except they never help. The rock monsters build it. Humans just kinda help a little. They don't have to go and get the animals because God brings them all there. So, exactly what did God need with Noah's family again? And then there's Noah deciding that humanity just sucks and everyone should all just go to hell. Literally. So much so that he's already planned out the future for mankind and that is that he and his wife will die, his kids will bury them, and then they will die and the world will just go on without humans on it. So, why get on the boat? Why let your family on the boat? Why not kill your family and yourself once you're on the boat? It would've saved you from listening to the banshee like screaming from the entire world drowning!
It's an awful movie. Some scenes are really good so it's not like this movie isn't fixable. But towards the end it goes straight into Hollywood action movie cliche. How could Cain stow away on the boat for the entire voyage and not have someone accidentally stumble upon him. I know it's a big boat, but it's still a boat. He's killing the animals trying to gain their power. A guy like Cain isn't exactly Mr. Subtle. They only have Shem's wife get pregnant and have children in the span of AT BEST five months. Just so we can have the killing babies scene. (Can't believe I had to write that)
This needed some serious re-writes. Wait for rental or something.
Let me get the positives out of the way. Because I am about to tear this movie a new one from a cinematic and storytelling point of view. The acting is pretty strong, the story (changed from the original *rock monsters*) works but has it's flaws, and it still manages to stay true to the biblical message. Kinda.
Before someone sees the movie and gets up me about calling them "rock monsters", I know they are angels imprisoned in rocks so they aren't technically "rock monsters". To that I say, they are rock monsters. They are rocks. They have glowing eyes. They walk. They talk. They are rock monsters. There's biblical inaccuracies and then there's adding rock monsters.
This is an awful movie. From a cinematic point of view, this movie is a disaster. The CG effects are laughable. And there's more than one time I wanted to run screaming from the theater F bombs akimbo because of just how crappy the movie looked and it's never ending search for ways to give me a seizure! The shaky cam is bad enough. I've said it before and I guess it bears repeating: if your actors can't do action scenes, don't hire them to be in an action movie! F***ing speed lines don't make for good cinema! I'm not kidding. The camera work is so bad, there are speed lines. Like we're watching a bad '80s cartoon from Japan! We live in a world of High Definition cameras. There is no reason for anyone to have to strain to see what the hell is going on! Directors... you aren't being artsy. You aren't adding energy to a tense situation at this point. You are just pissing me off. But then add in the strobe lighting effects and that's when I knew someone was on drugs. But it gets worse. There's at least two separate instances of this really weird slide show effect. It's like watching one of those flip up books that looks like something is moving. Only done really fast and for about 2 minutes. This movie just hurts to look at it. I had to really fight to stay in my seat.
I really expected much better. The director is Darren Aronofsky! This is the guy that did The Wrestler, Black Swan, and Pi. These are three far better movies and deserve to be watched. This on the other hand needs to be in the bargain bin at a Walmart somewhere because it's unwatchable. I'm not saying it's a bad story and bad acting. I'm saying the way it was filmed is unwatchable.
The story on the other hand was really good. They changed the story a lot. *cough rock monsters cough* But not all the changes are ones that I don't like. The big theme of the story was that humans had become too evil to be worth salvaging in the eyes of God. Well... what does that mean?
Here the movie goes to extraordinary lengths to show you. Cain played by Ray Winstone was perfect. No not Cain from the Cain and Abel story but Cain's descendant. And if ever there was someone that sums up the hubris of mankind, it's this guy. He took the idea of "man is made in God's image" and "God gave man dominion over the land" and took it to the most literal extreme. If we are made in God's image, that means we are special. We are better. Because we are better it's okay to subjugate the world and have it bow down to our will. Humans are above the laws of nature because we are in God's image. Nature should worship us. Human will is stronger than anything on Earth. So anything we do on this Earth is fine. We can take what we want and destroy whatever we want. No consequences.
It's deceptively evil, isn't it?
Then this movie starts to go a little bit weird.
Consistent. Tone. If you want this to be a fantastical tale where flowers bloom from a drop of rain, stick with that. If you want this to be a more grounded and dark version of the story, go with that. You can't have both. I don't think there's room in a serious story for rock monsters and humans eviscerating livestock with their hands and teeth. Why should I take the movie seriously? Well, that way I can feel the conflict and drama when Noah tries to kill his twin granddaughters in their mother's arms.
Uhm...Wait... What?
Yeah. I forgot to mention how this Noah is a complete nut job. Because you know saving the world by the command of God wasn't enough drama for this movie. No. Let's make Noah a genocidal psychopath. Basically he sees the evils of mankind where the people are selling women off to be raped in exchange for animals to eat.
Excuse me a minute. I think I lost my mind again.
Oh and FYI if the horrid cinematography and seizure inducing scenes weren't enough reason to not see this movie in IMAX and/or 3D, Russel Crowe's drunken naked man ass should be the cherry on top.
Yeah big spoilers. He doesn't kill his twin granddaughters and humanity flourishes. But this is what I'm talking about in the jumps in logic we are expected to make in this story. It's one thing to say that he needed his sons to help build the arc. Except they never help. The rock monsters build it. Humans just kinda help a little. They don't have to go and get the animals because God brings them all there. So, exactly what did God need with Noah's family again? And then there's Noah deciding that humanity just sucks and everyone should all just go to hell. Literally. So much so that he's already planned out the future for mankind and that is that he and his wife will die, his kids will bury them, and then they will die and the world will just go on without humans on it. So, why get on the boat? Why let your family on the boat? Why not kill your family and yourself once you're on the boat? It would've saved you from listening to the banshee like screaming from the entire world drowning!
It's an awful movie. Some scenes are really good so it's not like this movie isn't fixable. But towards the end it goes straight into Hollywood action movie cliche. How could Cain stow away on the boat for the entire voyage and not have someone accidentally stumble upon him. I know it's a big boat, but it's still a boat. He's killing the animals trying to gain their power. A guy like Cain isn't exactly Mr. Subtle. They only have Shem's wife get pregnant and have children in the span of AT BEST five months. Just so we can have the killing babies scene. (Can't believe I had to write that)
This needed some serious re-writes. Wait for rental or something.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
300 Rise of an Empire Review: It's for the Dude/Bro in us all.
I really don't have much to say about it. It's ok. It's just ok. Other than one scene that I will talk about, there's nothing remarkable about it. It's just like the first 300 movie. They even added stock footage from 300. It's just ok. The acting was goofy, over the top, melodramatic, and silly as hell; but so was the rest of the movie so it's ok! The same can be said for the action scenes! It fits the overall tone of the movie as an over the top, macho celebration of all things manly so it's ok.
This movie is about as historically accurate as Birth of a Nation. But I'll get to that at the end. I'll talk about the movie first and then bore whomever wants to know about ancient history.
The one scene that stands out to me at all is the sex scene between Themistocles and Artemista. There they struck a nerve with me and no not just because Eva Green has the body of a goddess. I really liked that scene because it was violent and sensual. It mixed elements of love, hate, desire, greed, ambition, and politics. It all came out like Cleopatra seducing Marc Antony. And it was that love/hate relationship that came out in the climax of the movie that saved it from what would've been a very forgettable movie.
Stylistically, there's not much to say. It's exactly like 300. Gruesome and over the top. But there is a problem; at least from my point of view. If you disagree with me on this, that's fine. I'm not going to argue the point any... but I hate rape scenes. I especially hate rape scenes that involve children. I don't want to see it. I don't want to think about kiddie rape. Everyone has a line as far as what is acceptable and unacceptable in terms of what can be portrayed in a movie. For me, it's rape. Realities of the ugliness of rape aside, why have rape in this movie? Why have rape in any movie? Because rape is one of those things that is so basic and so repulsive to any civilized human being, that the presence of it in a movie is a cheap way to establish someone as a villain. Rape is an animalistic act. When we see a guy... usually a guy... rape a woman (sometimes a man but far less common aka Deliverance), it's hard for us to ever like that person because we don't see that person as a human anymore. That person is now an animal. He acts as an animal, therefore he is just an animal. That character is now a way for us to feel morally superior and death is too good for him. And on the other side, it's a cheap way to build sympathy for a character. This woman Artemista had her family raped and murdered in front of her. Then she as a kid was taken as a sex slave, and eventually discarded. It's cheap sympathy for a character that is a mustache twirling villain. She is so one note it's hard to really have any defining characteristic to her. She kills and she hates Greeks because Greeks killed her parents and brutalized her. Rape is added to make the audience uncomfortable and get some cheap heat. I don't like it. It's unnecessary and quite frankly I think it's lazy writing.
The movie review part I'll end here. Basically it's ok. It's a stupid action/popcorn movie. There are better movies and there are worse in that genre. If you enjoyed 300, you'll probably enjoy this.
**Here I start a long-winded history of the ancient world. If you don't care, there's no need to read further**
This part I plan to talk about the history of the events presented in the movie. Basically the Battle of Salamis. See, I'm a history guy. I got my bachelor's degree in history. I've studied this stuff. I hesitate to say I know more about the Greek/Persian war than the average American, but I did study this in college. I'm guessing most Americans never studied ancient Greek history in high school, and if they did, it was just the highlights. What rubs me the wrong way is the political messaging of this movie. The whole idea of, "they hate us for our freedom" is such a simplistic view that I have to talk about it. Especially when they got the history of this particular conflict so horribly wrong. But this is a movie website so one need not read further to learn any more about the movie. This is just my ranting on what I can only call the dude/bro revisionist history.
The Battle of Salamis was a huge turning point in the Greco-Persian war. Basically, this was the battle that forced Xerxes out of Greece. There were other battles and I'm not saying this one battle ended the war, but much like Gettysburg changed the tide of the American Civil War, Salamis was such a victory for Greece. The biggest problem Persia had was for a long time it's greatest strength, the numbers. They had too many ships. Where the battle took place was too small. The Persian army crowded their side of the field and couldn't maneuver. Greece just swept in and took them out.
The best historian we have to talk about this battle comes from Herodotus. And that's one of the biggest problems as well. Herodotus is the father of modern history. He's the one that started the idea of having corroborated fact as history and not just oral tradition. Back in the day, history was basically decided by the winner. Whoever won the battle, they get to say what happened. And guess what? Most of them portrayed themselves as glorious warriors fighting off a monster of an enemy. Mostly because it made themselves look good, and it was good political propaganda. Herodotus cared about why the conflict happened. He wanted to know what built up to the conflict and not focus so much on the glory of who won. So, why is this a bad thing? Well, first off Herodotus was born in modern day Turkey. About 4 years after the battle took place. He had to go by documents to figure out what happened and as I said, historical records back then were about as useful as a bicycle to a fish. While this was still recent history to him, he was writing his history roughly as about the same time as when the war was wrapping up.
Herodotus was a controversial figure in his own time. Fellow historians criticized his work basically for not being propaganda. Another well-known and highly regarded historian named Plutarch even called him a barbarian lover because he didn't praise the glory of Greece enough.
So, what caused this war in the first place? The Ionian Revolt. Despite what this movie wants you to think, Darius wasn't a mindless sadist. Nor was Xerxes for that matter. Darius I wasn't some iron handed dictator. In fact he had a hell of a time holding the empire together at all. The Ionian Revolt started in 499BC and ended 493BC. And, if I can be simplistic for brevity's sake, basically it boiled down to the local governor in that area being threatened with removal from office so he incites a revolt against the king. Long, bloody story short, Darius I manages to stop the revolt and instead of having some grand inquisition, he generally acts in a fair manner. There weren't any serious consequences, there weren't any mountains of dead bodies. Yes there were executions, but nothing like what you see in the movie. I take offense because Darius did do a lot to bring order to the region. He decreed that instead of bloodshed, all arguments would now be settled by arbitration. It's basically the code of laws that we in the 21st century enjoy today. If someone wrongs you, you sue, and an impartial judge settles the matter. But because the local governor in a bit of propaganda of his own tried to declare Ionia a democracy and a free city-state, that led to Athens supporting the revolt and now there's conflict between Persia and Athens.
And NO. Darius was not killed at the Battle of Marathon. He died 3 years later because he got sick. Because there was yet another uprising. This time it was in Egypt. And another in Babylon. Like I said. The guy had a hell of a time keeping the "mighty" Persian empire in one piece. Darius got sick and died at age 36. Then in comes Xerxes I.
So long history lesson summary: Xerxes led a war against Greece after he quashed rebellions in Egypt and Babylon because Athens chose to side with the rebels in Ionia. But even that standing, Sparta was the city Xerxes targeted. Not Athens. And I know there's reports about Xerxes burning Athens. But really that's hard to say if that actually happened or not. Some say it was propaganda, some say it was an accident and then blamed on the Persians, some others say it was just rumor meant to incite more hatred. I don't know. Nobody really knows.
Another reason Xerxes left Greece was because yet another revolt started in Babylon. Plus, he had become tired of war. He wanted to build things in his country. He built infrastructure. He built the Gate of All Nations which still more or less stands in modern day Iran. It was a project started by his father Darius that he felt would honor his father's legacy.
Xerxes himself never thought of himself as a God. He was a Zoroastrian. Basically, he believed there were only 2 Gods. One of good and one of evil. In the movie they try to claim that it was Artamista that put Xerxes on the throne. No, actually the transition from Darius to Xerxes was actually very painless. He was the eldest son of Darius. His mother was Atossa, Darius' wife and she was a descendant of Cyrus the Great. Cyrus being the guy that built the Persian Empire by defeating the Babylonians.
So, yeah. I'm just about tired of calling BS on this movie historically but I probably could continue. I think I made my point though.
This movie is about as historically accurate as Birth of a Nation. But I'll get to that at the end. I'll talk about the movie first and then bore whomever wants to know about ancient history.
The one scene that stands out to me at all is the sex scene between Themistocles and Artemista. There they struck a nerve with me and no not just because Eva Green has the body of a goddess. I really liked that scene because it was violent and sensual. It mixed elements of love, hate, desire, greed, ambition, and politics. It all came out like Cleopatra seducing Marc Antony. And it was that love/hate relationship that came out in the climax of the movie that saved it from what would've been a very forgettable movie.
Stylistically, there's not much to say. It's exactly like 300. Gruesome and over the top. But there is a problem; at least from my point of view. If you disagree with me on this, that's fine. I'm not going to argue the point any... but I hate rape scenes. I especially hate rape scenes that involve children. I don't want to see it. I don't want to think about kiddie rape. Everyone has a line as far as what is acceptable and unacceptable in terms of what can be portrayed in a movie. For me, it's rape. Realities of the ugliness of rape aside, why have rape in this movie? Why have rape in any movie? Because rape is one of those things that is so basic and so repulsive to any civilized human being, that the presence of it in a movie is a cheap way to establish someone as a villain. Rape is an animalistic act. When we see a guy... usually a guy... rape a woman (sometimes a man but far less common aka Deliverance), it's hard for us to ever like that person because we don't see that person as a human anymore. That person is now an animal. He acts as an animal, therefore he is just an animal. That character is now a way for us to feel morally superior and death is too good for him. And on the other side, it's a cheap way to build sympathy for a character. This woman Artemista had her family raped and murdered in front of her. Then she as a kid was taken as a sex slave, and eventually discarded. It's cheap sympathy for a character that is a mustache twirling villain. She is so one note it's hard to really have any defining characteristic to her. She kills and she hates Greeks because Greeks killed her parents and brutalized her. Rape is added to make the audience uncomfortable and get some cheap heat. I don't like it. It's unnecessary and quite frankly I think it's lazy writing.
The movie review part I'll end here. Basically it's ok. It's a stupid action/popcorn movie. There are better movies and there are worse in that genre. If you enjoyed 300, you'll probably enjoy this.
**Here I start a long-winded history of the ancient world. If you don't care, there's no need to read further**
This part I plan to talk about the history of the events presented in the movie. Basically the Battle of Salamis. See, I'm a history guy. I got my bachelor's degree in history. I've studied this stuff. I hesitate to say I know more about the Greek/Persian war than the average American, but I did study this in college. I'm guessing most Americans never studied ancient Greek history in high school, and if they did, it was just the highlights. What rubs me the wrong way is the political messaging of this movie. The whole idea of, "they hate us for our freedom" is such a simplistic view that I have to talk about it. Especially when they got the history of this particular conflict so horribly wrong. But this is a movie website so one need not read further to learn any more about the movie. This is just my ranting on what I can only call the dude/bro revisionist history.
The Battle of Salamis was a huge turning point in the Greco-Persian war. Basically, this was the battle that forced Xerxes out of Greece. There were other battles and I'm not saying this one battle ended the war, but much like Gettysburg changed the tide of the American Civil War, Salamis was such a victory for Greece. The biggest problem Persia had was for a long time it's greatest strength, the numbers. They had too many ships. Where the battle took place was too small. The Persian army crowded their side of the field and couldn't maneuver. Greece just swept in and took them out.
The best historian we have to talk about this battle comes from Herodotus. And that's one of the biggest problems as well. Herodotus is the father of modern history. He's the one that started the idea of having corroborated fact as history and not just oral tradition. Back in the day, history was basically decided by the winner. Whoever won the battle, they get to say what happened. And guess what? Most of them portrayed themselves as glorious warriors fighting off a monster of an enemy. Mostly because it made themselves look good, and it was good political propaganda. Herodotus cared about why the conflict happened. He wanted to know what built up to the conflict and not focus so much on the glory of who won. So, why is this a bad thing? Well, first off Herodotus was born in modern day Turkey. About 4 years after the battle took place. He had to go by documents to figure out what happened and as I said, historical records back then were about as useful as a bicycle to a fish. While this was still recent history to him, he was writing his history roughly as about the same time as when the war was wrapping up.
Herodotus was a controversial figure in his own time. Fellow historians criticized his work basically for not being propaganda. Another well-known and highly regarded historian named Plutarch even called him a barbarian lover because he didn't praise the glory of Greece enough.
So, what caused this war in the first place? The Ionian Revolt. Despite what this movie wants you to think, Darius wasn't a mindless sadist. Nor was Xerxes for that matter. Darius I wasn't some iron handed dictator. In fact he had a hell of a time holding the empire together at all. The Ionian Revolt started in 499BC and ended 493BC. And, if I can be simplistic for brevity's sake, basically it boiled down to the local governor in that area being threatened with removal from office so he incites a revolt against the king. Long, bloody story short, Darius I manages to stop the revolt and instead of having some grand inquisition, he generally acts in a fair manner. There weren't any serious consequences, there weren't any mountains of dead bodies. Yes there were executions, but nothing like what you see in the movie. I take offense because Darius did do a lot to bring order to the region. He decreed that instead of bloodshed, all arguments would now be settled by arbitration. It's basically the code of laws that we in the 21st century enjoy today. If someone wrongs you, you sue, and an impartial judge settles the matter. But because the local governor in a bit of propaganda of his own tried to declare Ionia a democracy and a free city-state, that led to Athens supporting the revolt and now there's conflict between Persia and Athens.
And NO. Darius was not killed at the Battle of Marathon. He died 3 years later because he got sick. Because there was yet another uprising. This time it was in Egypt. And another in Babylon. Like I said. The guy had a hell of a time keeping the "mighty" Persian empire in one piece. Darius got sick and died at age 36. Then in comes Xerxes I.
So long history lesson summary: Xerxes led a war against Greece after he quashed rebellions in Egypt and Babylon because Athens chose to side with the rebels in Ionia. But even that standing, Sparta was the city Xerxes targeted. Not Athens. And I know there's reports about Xerxes burning Athens. But really that's hard to say if that actually happened or not. Some say it was propaganda, some say it was an accident and then blamed on the Persians, some others say it was just rumor meant to incite more hatred. I don't know. Nobody really knows.
Another reason Xerxes left Greece was because yet another revolt started in Babylon. Plus, he had become tired of war. He wanted to build things in his country. He built infrastructure. He built the Gate of All Nations which still more or less stands in modern day Iran. It was a project started by his father Darius that he felt would honor his father's legacy.
Xerxes himself never thought of himself as a God. He was a Zoroastrian. Basically, he believed there were only 2 Gods. One of good and one of evil. In the movie they try to claim that it was Artamista that put Xerxes on the throne. No, actually the transition from Darius to Xerxes was actually very painless. He was the eldest son of Darius. His mother was Atossa, Darius' wife and she was a descendant of Cyrus the Great. Cyrus being the guy that built the Persian Empire by defeating the Babylonians.
So, yeah. I'm just about tired of calling BS on this movie historically but I probably could continue. I think I made my point though.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Robocop Review: Dead or Alive You're Coming With Me
Okay people. This is a remake. Here's the thing about remakes. They are just a no-win situation. If you do a completely faithful remake of a old classic, you're accused of having no creativity. If you make changes to same said classic, you're bastardizing the original for the sake of making money.
Most of the time I hate remakes. I don't see the need. I just feel like it's a cash grab. However there are times where a remake is actually much better than the original source material. One of my favorite movies is John Carpenter's The Thing. That was a remake of The Thing From Another World. The Thing was very different from The Thing From Another World but it didn't betray the original movie and go hog wild. Same can be said for Sleepless in Seattle which was a loose remake of An Affair To Remember. That seems to be the key when it comes to remakes: change some details, but be true to the spirit of the original. That's my review of Robocop. The details have changed, sometimes quite a bit, but it stays true to the spirit of the original.
The original Robocop movie was a very interesting film. It was a brutal movie but it was also a dark comedy with some very amusing scenes. And on top of that it was also a social commentary about the over reach of corporate America suppressing Constitutional freedom in a city overrun with crime. Not only that, but you have Robocop himself where he starts out as a straight arrow cop gunned down in a drug bust, put inside a robot, had his humanity suppressed, and it's a fight against the machine inside him, and the corporate machine strangling Detroit.
This movie is largely the same. At least in terms of the broad strokes. There were plenty of details changed. Most of them I initially didn't like, but I saw the movie and I understand why they made them. I'd love to talk about them, but so many of them go into spoiler territory so I can't.
But I will talk about the new look of Robocop. This was the change I hated just on it's face. He didn't look like Robocop anymore. He looked like Tron from Tron Legacy. I absolutely hated it. He looked like a robot ninja and not a Robocop. But they actually address that! There's a great scene where they are discussing it and they initially have the original Robocop suit. Then as a marketing decision they want it to look sexier, and more like a hot rod. More "tactical" was the term they used. And I'm okay with it. Because the whole message of the movie is a satire of how corporations work and make decisions based on marketing!
If I had any negatives to say is that the building scenes take way too long and once Robocop hits the streets it tends to hit the fast forward button on the action. The ending is a little rushed. And then there are twists and reveals that come completely out of nowhere. Those strike me as out of necessity because the movie is 2 hours long and it looks like a lot of the plot was cut to meet the run time. It has me curious what the working script looked like. I want to know what was cut.
I think it's a great movie and a great remake. It's worth watching for any superhero movie fans. It's not as bloody or as edgy as the original with the mature language or the dark humor, but it does manage to stay true to the narrative. Go see it.
Most of the time I hate remakes. I don't see the need. I just feel like it's a cash grab. However there are times where a remake is actually much better than the original source material. One of my favorite movies is John Carpenter's The Thing. That was a remake of The Thing From Another World. The Thing was very different from The Thing From Another World but it didn't betray the original movie and go hog wild. Same can be said for Sleepless in Seattle which was a loose remake of An Affair To Remember. That seems to be the key when it comes to remakes: change some details, but be true to the spirit of the original. That's my review of Robocop. The details have changed, sometimes quite a bit, but it stays true to the spirit of the original.
The original Robocop movie was a very interesting film. It was a brutal movie but it was also a dark comedy with some very amusing scenes. And on top of that it was also a social commentary about the over reach of corporate America suppressing Constitutional freedom in a city overrun with crime. Not only that, but you have Robocop himself where he starts out as a straight arrow cop gunned down in a drug bust, put inside a robot, had his humanity suppressed, and it's a fight against the machine inside him, and the corporate machine strangling Detroit.
This movie is largely the same. At least in terms of the broad strokes. There were plenty of details changed. Most of them I initially didn't like, but I saw the movie and I understand why they made them. I'd love to talk about them, but so many of them go into spoiler territory so I can't.
But I will talk about the new look of Robocop. This was the change I hated just on it's face. He didn't look like Robocop anymore. He looked like Tron from Tron Legacy. I absolutely hated it. He looked like a robot ninja and not a Robocop. But they actually address that! There's a great scene where they are discussing it and they initially have the original Robocop suit. Then as a marketing decision they want it to look sexier, and more like a hot rod. More "tactical" was the term they used. And I'm okay with it. Because the whole message of the movie is a satire of how corporations work and make decisions based on marketing!
If I had any negatives to say is that the building scenes take way too long and once Robocop hits the streets it tends to hit the fast forward button on the action. The ending is a little rushed. And then there are twists and reveals that come completely out of nowhere. Those strike me as out of necessity because the movie is 2 hours long and it looks like a lot of the plot was cut to meet the run time. It has me curious what the working script looked like. I want to know what was cut.
I think it's a great movie and a great remake. It's worth watching for any superhero movie fans. It's not as bloody or as edgy as the original with the mature language or the dark humor, but it does manage to stay true to the narrative. Go see it.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Wolf of Wall Street Review: Fire it up! Fire it up!
Hilarious movie. This movie can only be described as a comedy. It's a comedy of excess. But it's also written as a tragedy. We follow the life, success, and eventual downfall of Wall Street stock broker Jordan Belfort played by Leo DiCaprio.
From the beginning we see this world as being a little off. We see these people with far more money than they know what to do with, and instead of being the "high society" types most professional people like this are portrayed as, instead they are sophomoric, crude, and generally unpleasant. But man do they have a good time. There's sex and drugs everywhere you look. And they revel in it.
The story almost becomes secondary to the debauchery. But the story is specifically about Jordan. His less than humble beginnings, to the far more humble beginnings, to becoming a weird mix of Gordon Gekko and Larry Flynt. So what does a shady salesman do when he is broke, he skirts the law and makes huge amounts of money. And there's your conflict. The FBI and the SCC are out to get him and in the meantime he's doing enough drugs to kill a small city. Like I said, the hilarity of excess.
And yes there are some really hilarious moments in this movie. Most of them have to do with DiCaprio stoned off his butt, but still they were really funny.
The sex scenes in this movie on the other hand I think went too far at times. I mean it got clinical. I think if they added another sex scene or another scene of Jonah Hill jerking off, this could've also qualified as porn. So, allow the youngsters to view at your own risk. LOTS of sex. Full frontal. LOTS!
While on Jordan's journey from titan of Wall Street, we also see him go from that financial titan to Tony Robbins, to one scene he acted like Tiger Woods. I won't spoil any more but yeah, worth seeing.
Honestly, I had a great time watching. It's a long movie. It's 3 hours and there was that one fake out ending that led into the 3rd act, but a marvelous job by a star studded cast and one of the greatest directors alive today, Martin Scorsese.
From the beginning we see this world as being a little off. We see these people with far more money than they know what to do with, and instead of being the "high society" types most professional people like this are portrayed as, instead they are sophomoric, crude, and generally unpleasant. But man do they have a good time. There's sex and drugs everywhere you look. And they revel in it.
The story almost becomes secondary to the debauchery. But the story is specifically about Jordan. His less than humble beginnings, to the far more humble beginnings, to becoming a weird mix of Gordon Gekko and Larry Flynt. So what does a shady salesman do when he is broke, he skirts the law and makes huge amounts of money. And there's your conflict. The FBI and the SCC are out to get him and in the meantime he's doing enough drugs to kill a small city. Like I said, the hilarity of excess.
And yes there are some really hilarious moments in this movie. Most of them have to do with DiCaprio stoned off his butt, but still they were really funny.
The sex scenes in this movie on the other hand I think went too far at times. I mean it got clinical. I think if they added another sex scene or another scene of Jonah Hill jerking off, this could've also qualified as porn. So, allow the youngsters to view at your own risk. LOTS of sex. Full frontal. LOTS!
While on Jordan's journey from titan of Wall Street, we also see him go from that financial titan to Tony Robbins, to one scene he acted like Tiger Woods. I won't spoil any more but yeah, worth seeing.
Honestly, I had a great time watching. It's a long movie. It's 3 hours and there was that one fake out ending that led into the 3rd act, but a marvelous job by a star studded cast and one of the greatest directors alive today, Martin Scorsese.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Top Five Best Movies I saw: 2013
Now that I've ripped this crop of movies a new one, how about I check out some of the movies that didn't want me to run screaming into the night. Seriously, when a movie like Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters is in serious contention for my top five, that is saying something.
5) The Wolverine: Honestly, I didn't like it all that much, but it did have some elements in it that worked. The action was well paced and Hugh Jackman as always is good as Wolverine. It's scary how long he's played that one character. The parts I didn't like were mostly the rushed elements and the not so subtle foreshadowing. Overall, a good popcorn movie and sets us up for the next X-Men movie.
4) Red 2: Just a fun time. Really, what else can I say about it? If you liked the first one, you'll probably like this one. Bruce Willis is funny and can still kick a little ass when he needs to. For me, Helen Miren is the show stealer. There's something about a grannie assassin that gives me a chuckle. Plus she's a really good actress.
3) Iron Man 3: Again just a fun comic book movie. I'd say they put a little too much into it. Some of the story elements should've been saved for future sequels. And what are you doing with the Mandarin? My only saving thought was that they actually use the real Mandarin at some point. If not, then this movie would drop on my list significantly.
2) 42: It's the Jackie Robinson story. I love Jackie. I love baseball. I love history. It's a totally biased opinion but hey, that's why you read. But if I were to be honest, I'd say it's a poor imitation of The Jackie Robinson Story because if for no other reason it stars the real Jackie Robinson! Both movies are pretty good and this one didn't hurt my feelings. It's worth checking out.
1) The Hunger Games: Catching Fire: I loved this movie. The ending was a bit abrupt but it is such a great ride and I am happy to be on board. It really touches on some very interesting ideas and never seems to overstay it's welcome. It goes deeper into the political intrigue of the story as a whole and in doing so gives this whole world some life. I said it before, if these movies were purely about 'the games' I don't think I would be a fan. The Hunger Games gives the audience so much more if only we take the time to reflect upon it. I can't wait for the conclusion.
5) The Wolverine: Honestly, I didn't like it all that much, but it did have some elements in it that worked. The action was well paced and Hugh Jackman as always is good as Wolverine. It's scary how long he's played that one character. The parts I didn't like were mostly the rushed elements and the not so subtle foreshadowing. Overall, a good popcorn movie and sets us up for the next X-Men movie.
4) Red 2: Just a fun time. Really, what else can I say about it? If you liked the first one, you'll probably like this one. Bruce Willis is funny and can still kick a little ass when he needs to. For me, Helen Miren is the show stealer. There's something about a grannie assassin that gives me a chuckle. Plus she's a really good actress.
3) Iron Man 3: Again just a fun comic book movie. I'd say they put a little too much into it. Some of the story elements should've been saved for future sequels. And what are you doing with the Mandarin? My only saving thought was that they actually use the real Mandarin at some point. If not, then this movie would drop on my list significantly.
2) 42: It's the Jackie Robinson story. I love Jackie. I love baseball. I love history. It's a totally biased opinion but hey, that's why you read. But if I were to be honest, I'd say it's a poor imitation of The Jackie Robinson Story because if for no other reason it stars the real Jackie Robinson! Both movies are pretty good and this one didn't hurt my feelings. It's worth checking out.
1) The Hunger Games: Catching Fire: I loved this movie. The ending was a bit abrupt but it is such a great ride and I am happy to be on board. It really touches on some very interesting ideas and never seems to overstay it's welcome. It goes deeper into the political intrigue of the story as a whole and in doing so gives this whole world some life. I said it before, if these movies were purely about 'the games' I don't think I would be a fan. The Hunger Games gives the audience so much more if only we take the time to reflect upon it. I can't wait for the conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)