Change Your Image
b_chalmer
Reviews
King Arthur (2004)
Gladiator Rehashed
King Arthur, a well known legend, well loved by many people, apparently was a real Roman/ Britan. In the tail end of the Roman Empire he was an honorable soldier and commander to a bunch of 'knights' on the British Isle. These 'knights' were not really part of the Roman Empire, but were forced to serve for fifteen years as soldiers for it because of a truce made by their ruler.
This is all fine and dandy until the Romans, who are besieged on all sides at this point in History, decide to abandon Britain to the Woads and the Saxons, who are invading from the north. Good, history so far is not quite out of joint. Only there's a problem, actually many, the first noticeable glitch in this Legend without the myth backing it up is the noble ideals which Arthur is fighting for sound an awful lot like the ones Maximus espoused in Gladiator. Only in this movie there's really no one there for Arthur to fight against. The Woads care a lot more for having their land back and the Saxon's are really there for the pillaging. What's a man with a plan to do? Pretend the Saxons are the real bad guys and stay on and fight.
Because he's such a wonderful commander Arthur manages to keep his seven men with him too and they stay to fight. Great. Unfortunately without the myth to give the idea of this movie a backbone it seems to wallow in battle scenes and little else. Lancelot and Arthur give each other meaningful glances and Guinevere sort of gives Arthur his point, but not the movie.
They wanted to make a movie about King Arthur and remove the magical aspect of the myth and instead forge a new one out of interestingly made up history. They missed, and the one thing that I truly regret is the lack of research. This movie could have worked had someone in the production looked into weaponry and name meanings. If Arthurs knights were supposed to come from all the same place, what are they doing with such diverse names from all over Europe. They want to remove the Legend, then change the names to make them more characteristic of the age at least.
Lastly, it would have made more sense if there were a story to go with the idea, plot's would have been good too. The next time someone decides to do this to a legend they better figure out why before going ahead and writing it. Looking for a good flick with ideals? Watch Gladiator.
Earthsea (2004)
Could have been better.
Like most of the Sci Fi channel offerings, they hyped it with the impressive cast and interesting commercial spots. Intrigued and with a memory of the original version of Ursula LeGuine's TV movie The Lathe of Heaven I sat down to watch. I admit that I didn't read the books before sitting down to watch the mini-series. Perhaps this may have helped. As it is I will go with the plot the TV gave me. Ged, the young wizard, is head strong and full of pride. He knows he's destined to bigger and better things than a mere village black smith. Things happen, he goes off to learn how to become the great wizard everyone he meets tells him he's destined to be. Having grown up with a steady diet of fantasy and sci fi as a kid, the first thing that jarred me the main character didn't speak with an accent. Now, this doesn't matter to the overall story, but it was a bit disconcerting, and therefore led to a diminished suspension of disbelief. The other issue was the CGI graphics could have come out of a badly made video game, and lost the sense of wonder they should have had. Several years ago some of the same people who produced this produced Dune. Dune had a high budget, and was well realized, but the graphics in that were only slightly better than what Earthsea had to offer. What saved Dune, and held back Earthsea was the acting and directing. Both stories are great fantasies, but only one was well realized. Shawn Ashmore, the actor who played Ged in Earthsea, unfortunately seemed to be phoning in the beginning of the story. He didn't really want to be an impetuous youth, and wasn't truly believable until he managed to get away from the village. Everything was too muzzy when people were outside and every time somebody uttered the name of the planet they lived on, you felt as though they too were trying to convince themselves. This does not lead to a well told story. There are some nice parts and interesting ideas, but everything is told too quickly. It felt like there were missing plot points and time passed, but was rather invisible to the people living there. If the series had been better directed then my guess is there would have been far more believable and less loose ends. If it's a well directed and well acted sci fi yarn go for Dune, and if it's fantasy then Merlin, or better yet, read Earthsea and find the images in your own head. I know I will.
Van Helsing (2004)
It's Another Sommers Film
Van Helsing is the latest installment of Steven Sommers. It is not about curses or mummies, but has the same general hokiness and camp that I expect from the movies he's directed so far. Partially the delivery and feeling is due to the actors. The movie wouldn't have worked if they'd taken it seriously. The whole point of movies such as this are the delivery of the lines, and how well it's written, if it doesn't make you giggle or at least smile, then the movie hasn't done it's job. Van Helsing is not the best Steven Sommers has done, but for the most part it delivers.
Reviewers said there were too many special effects, too many sequences devoted to action. The answer is yes, there are too many. This movie tends to suffer from "I have too much money to burn through let's use it all." One of the charms of The Mummy was the fact that there was one threat and the good guys had to deal with it. Special effects were used only for when the mummy was rebuilding itself and the minions fighting Brendan Fraser's character. The rest of the movie properly had a love story with the action.
Sommers should have left it at that with Van Helsing. The characters are interesting, he brings up good mystery with Van Helsing by giving him a past he doesn't know. But just as we might get too interested, the movie is over-run with too many plots. And, though I hate to say this, too much action.
I enjoy action sequences as much as the next, but I like to see some better reason for them. The point of action is to be paced well, like all good things there must be some respite for the watcher as well as the character. Is there a reason why he does what he does? Or a love story in Van Helsing? Definitely there are hints of attraction, but that's pretty much as far as it goes for the guy. Why? because he can never catch a break when fighting bad guys.
Overall the acting is well done, what there is of it, with overtones from the other films that each of the actors have been in. There are also the inevitable echoes of The Mummy, especially whenever Kevin J. O'Connor is on screen.
So, should you see this movie? Yes it's a wonderful thing for an otherwise empty night, and if you're an old horror movie fan, or just love Young Frankenstein, then you'll love the opening sequence. Done in black and white it provides a tone, where, if you're not careful, you might reminisce about for the rest of the show.
Krippendorf's Tribe (1998)
Cute
I remember when this movie came out, it didn't do very well in the theaters, mostly because it is a comedy that points out peoples stupidity for what it truly is. Krippendorf's Tribe is about an anthropologist who broke down after his wife died. He comes back into the lecture circuit, somewhat forced back because the bills are mounting up and he receives a grant to continue his research on the native tribes of New Guinea. There's only one problem, since his breakdown, he hasn't been to New Guinea to study any tribes. So, in order to stay afloat, what does he do? He invents one.
This, of course, leads to the various ins and outs of how to keep the public, and those who gave him the grant, fooled. Those are the common plot points, used in almost any comedy. You need a given situation, then you need the foils. What makes a good comedy from a bad one is the timing and the delivery.
Richard Dreyfuss is wonderful in his delivery and there are some funny scenes. There is nothing in the movie that really makes you laugh out loud, but there are some wonderful anticipatory parts which make you love when the ax does fall.
The movie is different in terms of its lack of slapstick, but I don't think that's the main point. What it seems to pointing out is not that this one family is kept together by a lie, but that people will believe anything as long as it's presented with the right credentials. That, and those who give you the money are trying to keep their heads as much as the next.
If you have nothing else to do with your time then I suggest you see this movie, otherwise it can wait until a rainy day, or perhaps when you need a good giggle after you've had your wisdom teeth out.
If you're looking for a movie to watch Richard Dreyfuss, try Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, it was better written.
Unbreakable (2000)
A Masterful Story
Each part of this film is thoughfully layed out against the background allowing for the story to be told, not through words but through the scenes and the actions themselves. Much like a comicbook with its little squares.
As in comicbooks sometimes you don't need the dialogue for the story to be told. Here the story is told through the movment of the camera, people only speak when it is required that they do so. Here the story tells itself, and in that shows us that Mr. Shyamalan has become even better at storytelling, although he has yet to find the perfect way to end, perhaps he might try just letting it be. These characters, people, end too soon the lives they begin to learn. It came sudden, too fast to focus on the rest. When the rest of the movie was slow and deliberate the end cut it short, as if he were impatient to really get the point across. Those people who said that this movie was a downturn from The Sixth Sense should watch Unbreakable again and see what they missed the first time. The Sixth Sense can only be seen once as a film, the second time it's a movie. Unbreakable will always be a film, because the ending is known, it's the characters you want to watch, not the action.