adventure – Page 8 – Late to the Theater

‘I Wanted to Like This and Couldn’t’ Entry: Prince of Persia

I just don’t see Gyllenhaal as a serviceable action hero, at least not the way he’s presented here. I can certainly see him as the type who is called to action, but he’s being sold as Han Solo, when he’s more of a Luke Skywalker. I want to see him start at awkward and sensitive before he’s doing parkour all over the ziggurats. Going from pencil pushing geeks and Donnie Darko to THIS with no gears in between doesn’t sell me. I need to see some kind of progression; maybe by the end of the film he can be bouncing off walls and running across parked horses, but let’s start out in first before trying the interstate, shall we?

Y’all know me.

Y’all know my failing tends to be a certain willingness to overextend credit to films that might not deserve it, and to turn a blind eye to the failings of something otherwise mediocre in order to celebrate the effort of the filmmakers’ having done anything at all.

But man.

From Pencil Pusher to Prince of Persia! — Someone at Empire magazine was kind enough to make this graphic. Which is good because even a white arrow is beyond my photoshop skills.

Partly, this entry is to prove that yes, no matter how hot the lead of a film is, I am still capable of disliking said film. Maybe I need to convince myself of that more than anyone else; at any rate, here we go.

When I first heard about the movie based on the game, I was a little excited. I hadn’t personally played the game, but was familiar with it as Nathan had played through most of the series. I wasn’t particularly looking forward to it, but was mildly curious.

The photos coming out, of an uncharacteristically buff and cut Jake Gyllenhaal, were strange at first. “Huh. That’s odd. But also. . . yeah!” I fully admit that it was his hotness that got me interested in the movie.

The trailers didn’t inspire confidence, but I realized recently how little stock I put into trailers; I think of them as the worst way to judge a movie, because of how many times in the past I have been surprised by the end product. After viewing the trailers, I didn’t think much of Iron Man or Pirates of the Caribbean, or many other films that turned out not just to be enjoyable, but bonafide blockbusters. Other movies’ trailers got me hugely excited, only to let me down. Someday I’ll post my thought process behind that, but not today.

Still, I decided to give it a shot.

I think the biggest failing for me was the character of Dastan, and when your title character is weak, well, there’s not too many places to go from there.

I like Gyllenhaal with some weight to him. I like his shaggy hair, and I thought his stuntwork was decent. But I don’t believe him as a rough and rowdy man of the people, or as a willing action hero. He also has no arc to speak of; he starts out the movie in the same place that he ends it. Dastan, being a street child adopted by the king, already knows how to take care of himself and losing his status as a Prince doesn’t feel like he’s lost anything. Sure, responsibilities of leadership and the people would be better off with him leading and whatnot, but that never even felt like a real threat. Sure, a tyrant is a tyrant, but the idea of rule under one of the other, unworthy characters was never made concrete to me. Wanting to solve his father’s murder is kind of interesting, but he never really goes beyond that.

After way too much exposition, we are introduced to Dastan in the equivalent of an ancient world Fight Club; we are expected to view him as ‘one of the boys!’ because even though he’s a Prince, he still goes and hangs out with the men. Which is idiotic, because (and yes, I know this is a video game) in a world like that, even a fairytale world based on a historical one, there are rules. And one rule is, no matter how cool you think a Prince is, you can’t get in a fight with him. For one thing, he’s not really in charge, the King is. And if the King has a problem with you beating his kid, no matter who started it or if it’s all in fun, then you will be executed. Period. For another, he’s wealthy and well-fed; his soldiers and underlings probably aren’t, and haven’t had his training or conditioning. And yeah, he came from the street and all, but after the fight, he’ll pick himself up and go home to his palace. No matter how you slice it, it still comes across as a rich boy slumming.

Why not introduce him as someone more informed by reality? Picture it: a street child, he’s used to starving, being exposed to the elements, and the uncertain world of an orphan on his own; given the chance to be wealthy, why wouldn’t he be delighted to lie around the palace on pile of money and slave girls? Maybe the King even regrets his decision to elevate Dastan, seeing what a life of luxury has made him, but is bound by his oath and certain that if given the chance, his lazy, libertine son would rise to the occasion. That makes his fall from grace at least worth something to Dastan, and when he realizes he doesn’t need that to be happy or that he had a chance to do something as king and help the people after being reminded of their plight, the character has something more to do. And positing that ‘It’s a kid’s movie’ doesn’t work, because there are plenty of kid’s movies with more complex character arcs. For Christ’s sake, if Gemma Arterton is going to spend the whole movie nagging him, at least give her something to nag him about.

The other problem is that I just don’t see Gyllenhaal as a serviceable action hero, at least not the way he’s presented here. I can certainly see him as the type who is called to action, but he’s being sold as Han Solo, when he’s more of a Luke Skywalker. I want to see him start at awkward and sensitive before he’s doing parkour all over the ziggurats. Going from pencil pushing geeks and Donnie Darko to THIS with no gears in between doesn’t sell me. I need to see some kind of progression; maybe by the end of the film he can be bouncing off walls and running across parked horses, but let’s start out in first before trying the interstate, shall we?

Almost the entire time I was watching the movie I was conflicted. ‘But he’s so hot. . . but character development!. . . but his eyes are dreamy. . . but Ben Kingsley WASTED!. . .but pretty hair. . . but Gemma Arterton has the onscreen charisma of beige paint and should be leaving an orange oilslick from all that bronzer!. . . sighhhhh. . .

It almost feels as though everyone is aware of Gyllenhaal’s hotness but himself. I wonder what he thought about the physical change? Anything? Did it even register, or was it just part of a job? It was almost creepy how his change was presented in the marketing for the movie, almost in a ‘You won’t believe your eyes!’ kind of way.

“SEE! him beat up guys instead of write angsty poetry! SEE! him hurt people instead of their feelings! SEE! him trembling with wrath and power rather than emotion! In theaters now! Give your mom and sister a thrill, and then go read Maxim’s article about how he got (kind of) swole and believe that it too can happen to you if you do enough curls!”

Attempted Rational vs. Irrational Entry: Thor

In all, see Thor. See Thor run, see Thor fight. It’s definitely worth seeing on the big screen, although I didn’t spring for 3D because I am cheap and because what’s the point of seeing Thor in fake 3D if I cannot reach out and molest him from my theater seat, but at least I have my imagination. Oh yes.

There. A perfectly legitimate and rational theatrical review.

Yup, loved it.

And I already know what you’re going to say, and I promise that YES, this will actually be a film review and not a sweaty, giggly, ‘omghe’ssocuteMUSCLESANDPRETTYHAIR!!!’ entry. I shall be completely objective in my review.

: “Oh no! Your shirt is ruined! TAKE OFF YOUR CLOTHES RIGHT NOW.”

As a film, I found Thor to be as enjoyable as Iron Man, the film to which it is inevitably being compared, as both characters will be in The Avengers movie coming out next year.

I left the theater having a few questions (or hopes) for the upcoming Avengers film.

1. Will Thor be as big a hit as Iron Man? I think there’s a distinct possibility of this. Granted, Thor’s opening day moneywise wasn’t as big as Iron Man, but the overseas gross is already huge, and Chris Hemsworth himself ~~is made of magic and sinew~~ comes with a LOT less baggage than Robert Downey Jr. Even though RDJ is ~~hot~~ a megastar himself right now, a lot of people didn’t care for the politicized, stylized, look of Iron Man as a film overall, and RDJ’s personal history, weirdly enough, turns a lot of people off. I loved Thor, it was well done and seemed to be a big hit. I don’t know if word of mouth will carry Thor as much as Iron Man did, but I found the movies to be equally good in terms of execution and writing; and I personally liked Thor’s ~~cartoonish muscles and pretty hair~~ character more ~~and would do things to him~~. I do think Iron Man was more accessible as a character, though ~~because he came off as kind of a whore which is also hot~~. Also, Iron Man was informed a great deal by the political situation in the middle east, which of course is going to tug American heartstrings a little more.

1a. If that is the case and Thor is considered as big as Iron Man, will their plot be central to the Avengers movie? I know NOTHING about The Avengers. Marvel was never really my world, because I didn’t read too many comic books as a kid. Anyhoodle, I would dearly like to see a movie where Iron Man and Thor must join forces, possibly after ~~a long bout of making out~~ an ego clash. Think about it, Thor shows up and literally steals Stark’s thunder; for someone intelligent, who has spent years perfecting a design that just about gets him to the level that Thor is at naturally, that would be galling. At the least, I’d like to see ~~a slow motion naked wrestling match~~ a bit of tension between them. It wouldn’t be out of character for them to clash, given their respective backgrounds–after all, even though Thor matured by the end of his story, what you basically have are two Golden Boys in the same room.

I’ve seen little criticism of Thor that seemed genuine, and not sour grapes, being spouted from people who didn’t already have an agenda, or just flat out didnt’ understand the movie. I found the character development compelling; after all, Thor’s a golden boy, he’s never failed or be denied anything. The tantrum he throws when denied the kingship is evidence of this. He also isn’t the brains of Asgard, and is easily manipulated by Loki.

I want to say that Loki came off as much more interesting as a character, but only because ~~I would consider him an appetizer and cover him in cream~~ I recognize the Shakespearean tropes at work. He’s a runty guy with a thin face, a bookish type growing up in a culture that values might. At the very least, his fashion sense is at odds with the rest of Asgard; he favors darker colors to the Asgardians reds and golds. The obvious setup pays off, though, through Hiddleston’s performance. He does not realize his own penchant for duplicity at first, probably only considering himself an opportunist at worst, but once he does, glories in it. And his scheming is born from the worst source of evil: plain old good intentions.

Did I know the good guy was going to win? Certainly. But nobody goes into a James Bond film wondering if this is the one where he finally catches a headshot; we go to see the thrills, stunts, pretty people and places. We don’t care where we’re going, we’re along for the ride, and for a film with as many classic tropes as Thor had going on, it’s a joy to see it succeed. Kenneth Branagh uses a light touch when needed, but also knows exactly when to break out the firehose.

Chris Hemsworth is definitely the right guy for the job; his combination of physicality and easygoing charm carry him through a few scenes that would otherwise have been weak, and his performance as blustery, overconfident Thor feels natural and not forced. He’s a guy who’s been on top ~~see? I can restrain myself~~ for most of his life, so of course he would think he was the cat’s pajamas in every situation. And when it comes to fighting, he really is.

On PZ Myers’s blog, he criticized the film for not spending enough time developing Thor’s character between the ‘I’m a golden boy!’ and ‘I’m humbled!’ points on his character arc. I didn’t see that at all. What I saw was someone who, once they had failed, was almost relieved to be free of responsibility. And it’s not like he didn’t have some bad moments; one minute he’s flying around using Mjolnir as everything from a helicopter to a club and smashing things to bits, and the next he’s tied to a hospital bed with that most nefarious of evil weapons, plastic zip-ties, and getting hit by Natalie Portman’s jeep. Who wouldn’t be freaked and humbled by that? Thor’s not a brains guy, as I said; the whole source of his overconfidence is his ~~CARTOONISH HOT BODY AND PRETTY SMILE~~ strength. Couple that with Mjolnir not recognizing him, and it’s no wonder he can suddenly empathize.

I found that kind of inspiring, the idea that empathy and gentleness are not things that must be learned, but that they are inherent to humanity (or whatever the space vikings are) and sometimes waiting to be expressed in the right moment. Sure, he needs some practice, which he gets in the form of guidance from Stellan Skarsgard. (BTW, **KIND OF SPOILER BUT NOT REALLY** there’s a scene where Skarsgard, playing Erik Solveig, claims he and Thor got drunk and got into a fight; reading between the lines, I’m sure he THOUGHT he was in a fight, and that Thor was kind enough to let him get in a few hits before letting the boilermakers they were drinking end the matter). **END OF NOT REALLY SPOILER** I could also be filling in some blanks myself, and there really was some lazy storytelling, but to be fair, if you’re comparing Thor and Stark’s character ars, well one of those two starts out a MUCH bigger asshole than the other. Just saying.

I also have to say I really liked the fight scenes. When Thor is in Godmode, he’s literally awesome. But when he’s a man, his fighting is useless against a new kind of foe: hospital orderlies and thorazine. I hate in movies when someone goes through psyche ward orderlies like they’re made out of cotton candy– those are the people who do this shit for a living, and don’t mess around. Sure, he fights his way to Mjolnir later, but he’s figured himself out; the old methods he used are just as efficient against humans as they are against frost giants.

In all, see Thor. See Thor run, see Thor fight. It’s definitely worth seeing on the big screen, although I didn’t spring for 3D because I am cheap ~~and because what’s the point of seeing Thor in fake 3D if I cannot reach out and molest him from my theater seat, but at least I have my imagination. Oh yes~~.

There. A perfectly legitimate and rational theatrical review.

Florida Film Festival Entry: The Troll Hunter

I think The Troll Hunter could be this year’s ‘Let the Right One In.’ It’s creative, the effects are great, and it’s got that foreign feel while still being accessible enough to the average filmgoer. If it had more English segments it would be this year’s District 9, but alas, many people still hate readin’ at the movin’ pitchur show.

: Kinda reminds me of Shadow of the Colossus.

Hey y’all!

I don’t have time for a really meticulous, in-depth review today, but I wanted to get these thoughts down while I had time.

Last night, we saw The Troll Hunter at the Florida Film Festival. It’s a Norwegian film, in the style of faux-documentary (it’s NOT a mockumentary, because a mockumentary contains elements of parody, and this is NOT a parody). Sort of like a Blair Witch situation, where there’s a bunch of material and investigators are trying to figure out what happened, etc.

A group of students from Volda College are following a man suspected by hunters of being a bear poacher. The hunters are annoyed because the state carefully maintains the bear population, and so they are angry that someone’s gone rogue and is poaching all the good bears.

The students follow the man, named Hans, into the woods one night after being repeatedly rebuffed by him. When they see what he’s up to, they beg him to allow them to document his work. He’s an agent with the Norwegian Troll Security Service, which is part wildlife conservation effort and part nuisance response. Basically, trolls have always been around, and the government has made concerted efforts to cover them up while keeping them alive.

The premise is pretty simple, and most of what you’d expect to see in this kind of documentary happens; we get a viewpoint of a very complex person who does a dangerous job, there is danger and excitement, and some pretty goddamn boss special effects.

It’s definitely a thrilling ride, but upon reflection, now that I’ve had my troll-heated blood cooled, I can see where some critics gave it a medium-to-positive review. I won’t go into spoilers, but there are definitely some weak spots that you just dont’ notice while all the action is unfolding.

I hope it does really well though, I found it thoroughly entertaining and interesting.

Toenail Painting, Giggling, Talking About Boys Entry: Charlie’s Angels

There just aren’t enough high-level movies where women respect each other and get along. For Christ’s sake, we comprise HALF the world population, getting along with each other and learning not to compete for some dude’s attention shouldn’t be this hard. For reals.

In 2000, just a few hours past the dawn of the new millennium, American culture stood on a cusp, though it did not know it.

The late 90’s saw a wave of postmodern feminism (yes, this is going to be one of THOSE posts) that I look back on with nostalgia. We had Buffy. We had Scully. We had Tank Girl. We had L7 and Poe, Veruca Salt and other snarly girl bands.

We had females DOING things, speaking their minds, making mistakes, trying and failing; granted, it wasn’t perfect, but it was stumbling, staggering, and shuffling towards that equality that feminists of the previous 100 years had dreamed of.

Charlie’s Angels was an exponent of that time, almost more so than the subsequent Kill Bill movies, and here’s why:

Charlie’s Angels, for all the glitter nail polish, high heels, explosions, and bouncing boobs, acknowledged the ridiculousness of the action genre by allowing women to take part in it the same way that men did. Plain and simple, it showed that women could be as witless in movies as their male counterparts.

For example: take any action movie that preceded it, and look at the cliches. The bad guys are terrible shots, go down with one punch, may be blown up but are never hurt in a way that humanizes them (ie broken limbs, etc.), attack one at a time, posture, but are less competent than your average frycook.

The good guys never miss, can do ridiculous stunts, have 12-foot vertical leaps, can punch through concrete, and have encyclopedic knowledge of Earth and all its contents. Most importantly, they never look bad: with one exception (played for laughs) their hair and makeup is always perfect. Just like in the boys’ movies, where the protagonist can be shot at, beaten up, fall out of a helicopter into a volcano, fight their way through a herd of buffalo and look elegantly rumpled, so too the girls of Charlie’s Angels are always sleek and poised. After a couple kung fu go-rounds with the baddies, the most disheveled they get is that ‘just been fucked’ look.

And really–for a tom boy girlified enough to like the accoutrements of beauty and fashion, what better movie is there than Charlie’s Angels? The main characters are capable, intelligent, and violent when necessary. It’s just plain awesome.

Of course, for anyone even marginally aware, the last decade has seen a bizarre return to 1955’s gender roles. Commercials would have you believe that women need men to do math and open the pickle jar, and that men are barely civilized savages who only wear pants and use utensils if women are around to nag them into it. Plain and simple, it’s bullshit.

I know women who are so slovenly in their household affairs you’d consider calling the health department, and men so neat and tidy (gay AND straight) you could perform brain surgery anywhere in their home without fear of contagion. I know women with no social skills, men afraid of snakes, women who lift weights, men who wax, women who hate children, and men who daydream about changing that first diaper. When people begin sentences with ‘Well, girls are naturally. . .’ or ‘Little boys always. . .’ my hackles begin to raise and a host of anecdotal evidence lines up for reference in my mind.

Unless you are speaking about biology, gender doesn’t matter a whole lot to the individual; but it matters to the masses, and this is where enculturation comes in. Think of the boys’ and girls’ toy aisles in the store: teaching males to be ‘boys’ and females to be ‘girls’ begins at a very young age, even before children are mobile. Hell, it practically begins in the womb, with people showering pink and blue gifts on people.

But I digress. I was talking about how much fun Charlie’s Angels is.

Because I like watching movies where women DO things rather than ARE things. The Angels, although directed by the ever-unseen Charlie, are more proactive in the investigation, following threads and formulating theories (however convoluted they might be) to the final showdown with the bad guy.

En Garde! — Very pointy. From the sword, to the eyebrows, to the nose, very pointy.

The other thrill that Charlie’s Angels presented the world was Crispin Glover’s return to mainstream cinema.

I was sitting in the theater, agonizing over why the Creepy Thin Man was so familiar, when my friend leaned over and informed me that it was none other than George McFly, from Back to the Future.

“But that’s impossible,” I thought. “That movie came out like 20 years ago and he looks about 25!”

He was about 35, actually. Which, since I am not too far away from that myself, doesn’t seem that huge a difference. But still. A well-kept 35, to be sure.

Man, I had a crush on him for like 2 years after that.

Anyhoodle, Charlie’s Angels was followed by the slightly less fun Full Throttle, which was only lessened by the enormous expectation set up by the first fun-filled film.

I think the most fun thing about Charlie’s Angels is the simple camaraderie of the 3 lead actresses. No backbiting, no veiled criticisms of each other, no snark; literally just 3 people who get along very well but for a few quirks and function as a well-oiled machine.

LOL See whut I did ther? — VERY well-oiled!

Animazing Amation: The Secret of Kells

12-year-old Brendan is the nephew of the Abbot at the Kells Abbey; his Uncle, Cellach, is obsessed with building a wall around the abbey that will protect the town and people from the Northmen (Vikings) who’ve been rampaging their way across Europe and drawing ever closer. Brendan is a sheltered boy, forbidden from leaving the abbey or handling a quill, and his duties are largely to work onthe wall and assist the other brothers. Though the abbey has a scriptorium, and Cellach himself once a celebrated illuminator (illuminators worked both to beautify the words of the Bible and just make them readable for the illiterate), little work has been done since he became obsessed with building the wall.

Complicating Cellach’s attempts to keep Brendan on-task is the arrival of Brother Aidan, a rock-star level illuminator whose works are legendary, carries the famous work of St.Colomba, and who distracts Brendan from his duties on the wall. Realizing the boy’s curiosity won’t be sated otherwise, Aidan encourages him to begin making his own decision, and even convinces him to leave the abbey and search the forest for an important nut used in the making of green ink.

Aishling and Brendan, sitting in a tree. . . — No matter where the scene is set, everything looks this rich and detailed

The Secret of Kells, like many films, barely registered on the theatrical radar before it was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. It lost to Up!, but the fact that it rose through the arthouse ranks at all to be nominated, since it’s a story about a young boy who lives in an abbey in the 9th century, is entirely due to the beauty of the artwork and the fascinating story. It really should have won, since in an age of CG movies it holds its own among them while being largely-hand drawn, with some CG embellishments.

Although an understanding of the importance of medieval illumination is helpful, it is not necessary to enjoy the story.

Basically, without places like the abbey, we wouldn’t have many of the classical works of history; scriptoriums acted like libraries and publishing houses, both keeping books safe in their vast collections and copying them for transport to other abbeys, or just reproducing books that were on the verge of crumbling away. They might have been working from a manuscript written by Julius Caesar or Plato, and that was 800 years old. Without that one dude sitting on his chair and working, we wouldn’t have the writings of Marcus Aurelius, Solon, Herodotus, Aristophanes, Heron. And that’s just the Western stuff; they had books from Arabic theosophers and historians, too. Abbeys were literally the last bastion between intellectual chaos and order. If you’re interested in learning more about medieval abbeys and what they did, you might read (or just watch the movie) Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose; it’s the consummate film of the last 40 years dealing with medieval life.

When Brendan ventures into the forest he meets Ashling, a faery, who watches over the forest and basically lives alone. Wild and untrusting of adults, she takes a liking to Aidan and shows him the wonders of her forest. His talk of the book excites and fascinates her.

The book itself is just awesome, when you finally get to see it. The real Book of Kells was an illuminated Gospel manuscript that contained the four gospels, and is considered one of Ireland’s great treasures. When people joke about how the Irish saved civilization, one of the things they’re talking about is the preservation of the book from the raids of the vikings. No one knows how it survived, and the film explores a fanciful possibility. Beyond the importance it represented to Christianity, its preservation at all costs by the people who believe in it is a moving and inspiring tale, which shows the dedication and courage of humans in the face of a rapacious foe. Think about it: this is a time period where few people had enough to eat, or even clothes to keep them warm, yet they’re willing to sacrifice their lives for something they may not have even been able to read.

The only thing about the movie, I thought, was that Ashling didn’t feel as well-written as some of the other characters. She is non-human, part of the older world of Ireland, and yet she helps Brendan and puts herself in danger to do so. Why would she do that? What has he done to earn her trust? I am totally reading more into this than I should, but since the movie has no other female characters I can’t help but wonder what little girls watching the film (it’s pretty safe for kids, there’s some scary imagery from the Vikings but it’s a lot less creepy than say, Coraline) might take away from it. Again, the little boy’s agency is more important than anything that the little girl might have going on. She does control the wolves of the forest, a badass pack who are stylized in red and black, but otherwise she doesn’t seem to connect the dots between the advent of Christianity and the extinction of her own people. I am totally reading too much into this and am the first to say so.

Here’s the trailer; everything the critics say is true.

If you’re looking for something for your kids to watch, and you’re a cool parent who wants to broaden your child’s worldview a little, you cannot go wrong with Kells. It might not be too good for very small children, since it’s dialogue-heavy at times, but you know your child’s attention span better than anyone.

The Secret of Kells is available on Instant Watch.