Change Your Image
miteafrodite
Reviews
Emancipation (2022)
Brilliantly done
I was blown away by every aspect of this film. All performances in it were amazing, but Will Smith's was definitely Oscar-worthy. The unusual look of the film makes it feel like you're watching a motion picture version of Mathew Brady's photography. The lack of color was a unique way to present the story. The subtle hints of color up to halfway through seemed like his world was gradually coming to life around him as Peter moved toward his goal, but I was probably reading too much into that, as the . I never thought that another Civil War period film could top the Oscar-winning "Glory!", an emotionally moving film filled with stellar performances, but this one does. Like "Glory!", it successfully conveys the horrors of war without battles overshadowing the characters' struggles and hardships, and it keeps to historical accuracy. The story was riveting from start to finish. I can't say enough about this film without spoilers. Just see it.
Wizards and Warriors (1983)
Sadly went the way of 'The Charmings' - two sorely missed sitcoms!
Its a shame that this sitcom gem was lost to us due to constant preempting. I've never thought the rating system was all that fair. They should not include moments when prime time shows fall victim to breaking world newscasts, presidential addresses, special mini-series broadcasts, and holiday specials...its just not an accurate assessment of a show's viewer base. That said, maybe some reviewers are right that the audience wasn't 'there' yet, as the D&D gaming crowd was still mostly a little young to fall into the demographic they were shooting for...but I certainly loved it! And pay no heed to the comments of 'Oh Dear, Oh Dear'...that person obviously had no idea that the show wasn't there as a serious attempt to promote D&D to the masses...it was a COMEDY...a silly, camped-up comedy (like "Men In Tights' was to the Robin Hood franchise). And a good one at that! Julia Duffy was so memorable and funny as the spoiled, self-absorbed Princess Ariel that when she re prised that type of role as Stephanie on the 'Newhart', for the first season she was on that show I just saw her as The Princess...and that alone kept me watching 'Newhart'! I was never much a Jeff Conway fan, but the show gave me a better appreciation for him. And the villain stole the scene (or at least what part of it he could pry away from Duffy) every time he took the screen. I always thought his name was Derek Blackpool..to me that seems funnier somehow than Dirk (maybe because it rhymes with Eric?). Perhaps after a couple of decades of having seen it, its like Dark Shadows...you remember it as scarier (or in this case, funnier) than it actually was (and we'll sadly never know now how good it could have been), but I would love to go back and watch it again. I don't recall if it had a laugh track, but I don't think it would have needed one if it is indeed as funny as I recall. I was sad to see it go, and like another poster, didn't realize it was gone until it didn't come back. As a baby-boomer, I'd like to see more pop-culture related sitcoms like this revived rather than more waste-of-time reality shows.
Apocalypto (2006)
Hysterical Historians
If only folks could set aside their soapbox on Mel's racist rant for just a moment and look at this film objectively...after all, he may be the director, but it WAS a collaborative effort of many many talented people (William Wallace may have been able to shoot fire bolts from his 'ars', but I doubt even Mel Gibson could pull a fully-completed blockbuster epic from his).
That said, I have read soooo many tirades...um...reviews from historians and experts on Mayan culture just blasting Mel Gibson for his lack of authenticity, nitpicking on what he left out or got wrong so much that they overlook the things he may have actually got right. Yes, he blurred the line between Mayans, Toltecs, Aztecs, etc...and yes, he may have monkeyed with the historical timeline by a few centuries (okay...by millenia in some cases), but this film was not intended to give us an overall view of Mayan civilization from conception to demise anymore than "Braveheart" was an overall view of centuries of English/Scottish history. He took more than a few liberties with that film's historical content as well, but it was not meant to be History Channel fare...it was a Hollywood story of love, sacrifice, and inspiration. It was a visual feast, and even with its inaccuracies, is probably one of the most 'realistic' medieval films to date...and had some damned fine acting that could move you to both laughter and tears in the same scene. "Apocalypto" is just that. A story of love, sacrifice (um...I mean that figuratively), and inspiration on an epic scale....and did I mention a visual feast with damned fine acting? (The actors may be 'unknown' now, but they won't be for long!)
I am so sick of reading reviews that point out Gibson's soooo-obvious racism towards indigenous peoples *************SPOILER ALERT********* by having ********* show up to supposedly save the savages from themselves. That is NOT what I got from that scene. The term 'apocalypto' is supposed to translate to 'new beginning' or 'revelation'...and Gibson says it himself in all his interviews that to have a new beginning to something you have to have an end to something else. I did not see, as some suggest, the portent of a mass (no pun intended) salvation of a bunch of noble savages, but rather, as the child prophet pointed out IN THE MOVIE (were you people even watching???), the end, the 'apocalypse', of their civilization. That no matter how things may have degenerated in their society, something WORSE was coming. Perhaps to be more accurate historically, the movie should have been about the Aztecs and not the Mayans, but I got the message just the same, the references to modern civilization's looming implosion/self-destruction. Historians may be disappointed by the cultural aspects the film left out, but the message in "Apocalypto" is not supposed to be how the Mayan culture prospered or how long it lasted, but how, like all other great and powerful civilizations (Europeans too), it eventually weakened and fell from within....and that has nothing to do with race. He could have made a film with the exact same message set in just about any ancient culture (even some more modern ones) that grew too big to support itself.
Many of the experts that question the authenticity of Mel's Mayans even admit themselves that there is not much info beyond what took place in the recorded history of urban areas...so how can you say there weren't forest people who've never seen a Mayan city 'just 20 kilometers away' (when's the last time any of us walked 20 kilometers?)? I'm sure they'd be surprised at the cluelessness of people in this decade that don't know, even with cars and television, what lies 20 clicks from their doorstep (unobscured by giant trees).
"Apocaplypto" is a beautifully crafted film. Yes its violent, yes its gory, but that doesn't detract from the story it tells. And it doesn't make me believe ALL Mayans were bloodthirsty savages bent on slavery (which existed in many many cultures throughout history) and gratuitous human sacrifice (hey, as distasteful as you find it, you can't deny they practiced it, but at least they did it for what they thought was a good reason), or colors my perception of modern-day Mayans (modern-day Scandanavians don't throw trussed up victims into bogs to appease tree gods)...anymore than I think it glorifies or justifies the concept of colonialism. And just because every single actor in the film wasn't of pure Mayan descent with ancient Mayan physical characteristics doesn't mean that Mel Gibson, or anyone that appreciates this film, personally feels that Native Americans are 'interchangeable'. I, as an average moviegoer, personally find THAT insinuation offensive.
Don't pay attention to the silly hype about racism, stereotyping, or Gibson's 'hidden agenda'. Appreciate this film for what it is. Like "Braveheart", its a beautiful yet realistic and gritty, exciting, nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat 2-hour time trip with spectacular scenery and award winning performances...whether it wins any or not. Its not a history lesson or a documentary, folks...its a visually stunning Hollywood epic of love, sacrifice, and inspiration...with some damned fine acting (and directing).
(Bottom line: I definitely got my $8 worth of entertainment. And I'd spend another $20 on the DVD.)
The Legend of Zorro (2005)
Zorro a bunch of Zzzzzzz's? Not so much!
I genuinely LIKED this movie.
In response to some of the previous reviews...
* The kid was not that annoying...he was fun, if not overly-acrobatic. Thats plausible, not genetically, but because he idolizes Zorro. Haven't you ever played superhero in the backyard? * Alejandro and Elana are SUPPOSED to be older, its been 10 years! (Don Diego was a far older Zorro in the first flick). * Yes there are glaring historical inaccuracies and they have all been mentioned, so I won't go into them and, yes, only history buffs would spot the inaccuracies...sadly, most Americans don't know squat about their own history. * Yes the horse is over the top with the comic relief...but I loved the direct homage to "Cat Ballou." Braving that much flame and leaping fantastically...hey, this is Zorro's horse! * Um...the English were the 'good guys' in "Master and Commander", not the 'bad guys'. England was at war with America (1812!) and the French were allied with America, hence the French were, correctly, the 'bad guys'. The homework was actually pretty darned flawless on that film. * Alejandro and Elena had a BOY at the end of "Mask of Zorro" ("Sleep well, my son.")...the baby girl was Elena at the beginning. If you didn't catch that, you missed a major plot point in BOTH films. * Zorro was always an action-packed serial film character...in fact, he IS an 'hispanic version of Batman.' Only family murdered, bent on revenge, trains himself to be a weapon against injustice using only his skill (no guns), masquerades as a wealthy gentleman/businessman, fights crime after dark all dressed in black, and uses gimmicks to strike fear into his enemies. * That was NOT supposed to be Abe Lincoln. That was a common look back then even before he became president, and that guy was too short! It was more likely the governor's aid.
That said...I did have a few production peeves...
* I was glad to see Tony Amendola return in the second film, but he didn't die in the first one as I recall...billing him as Don-Luiz-turned-priest/teacher would have actually made him funnier, rather than billing him as a completely different character. * I'm not Catholic but even I know divorce wouldn't happen like that. And re-marriage?!? Anullment,...maybe. * Cutting the new mask was a great touch, but badly done. The fabric was too short to wrap the way it did and the tears/cuts were too perfect...would have made more sense to have burned the holes with a cigar dropped by a bad guy. (Nitpicky, I know.) * The cartoon eyes on the horse were silly. He could have reacted more naturally...frantically backing up, tossing his head, maybe even backing up and falling into the other car. * Alejandro very obviously had very curly hair in the first film. Hair just doesn't go from naturally kinky to stick-straight even in 10 years time (but, hey, it did look sexy! ;-> ). * Taking the name De la Vega was a nice touch, but even in the guise of a Don, he was already known as Alejandro De Castillo, recently come from Spain. How could they explain the link to De la Vega who supposedly died in prison decades earlier without compromising Zorro's identity? Everyone knew Elena as Raphael Montero's daughter, not Diego's. Even the previous movie's credits list her as Elena Montero/Murietta. * I thought the racist comments and religious fanatic overtones of McGivens should have either been left out completely or the character's personality given more background to explain it. He made a great villain, but the lack of motive made it seem gratuitous. * Boy, the priestly life must be pretty healthy...it obviously took about 10 years off Fray Felipe. Couldn't they have just made him a different priest, handed down the secret of Zorro from the older one? * The polo match was funny, but in 1850 it was still customary to challenge a gentleman to a duel with sword or pistols. It would have been nice to see an extra sword fight in there...especially between a deadly villain and someone trying hard NOT to be Zorro for a day.
Things other reviewers failed to appreciate...
* This is an action movie...not Masterpiece Theatre. Its a good, light, entertaining swashbuckling popcorn movie in the same vein as "Pirates of the Caribbean"...suspend your disbelief at the door and enjoy the ride! Its an homage to the early serial movies...like "The Mummy" and "Indiana Jones", and just as enjoyable. * I completely got the plot. Were some people just catching the z's through this thing? How could you not get the plot? I can believe an Illuminate-style secret power trying to incite an early North/South conflict...made perfect sense to me. * The relationship stuff (except for the speedy 19th century Catholic divorce) was actually the best part to me. Hey, it worked for Mary Jane/Peter Parker in "Spiderman II". I thought it was great and the characters had more than enough depth for an action movie.
Bottom line...I paid full price to see this TWICE...not because I'm a Banderas, Zeta-Jones, or Sewell fan...I wanted to see an entertaining, good-old-fashioned swashbuckling adventure flick with nasty villains, great costumes, beautiful scenery, romantic tension, sword fighting, a little comic relief, and a climactic yet happy ending. There's nothing wrong with a family-friendly film. Isn't that what the old serials were all about?
PS: I gave it less than a perfect 10 because the writers didn't do their homework. It peeves me when a good movie is panned in reviews about historical inaccuracies when all it would take is a little Google to prevent it.