cinemaddicts.org Blog

One of my favorite childhood movies was Excalibur, an over-the-top portrayal of the life of King Arthur and his trusty semi-magic weapon, the sword Excalibur. For the early adolescent that I was, the movie’s combination of gratuitous, full-armor sex and sword/sorcery underpinnings made for an enjoyable afternoon at the movies. I remembered those initial impressions while watching the 2007 release of The Last Legion.

The Last Legion tells the mythical story of the recovery of Excalibur from the Tomb of Julius Caesar and its transportation across the waning Roman Empire to the last stronghold of Roman government in Britain. The story centers around a young, newly-elected Roman Emperor, named Romulus Augustus, who is overthrown during the invasion of Rome by the Gauls. Romulus, played by newcomer Thomas Sangster, decides to flee to the last extant Roman legion, garrisoned in Britain. Romulus is assisted by wooden soldier Aurelius, played with zombie-like boredom by Colin Firth; and an oddly un-magical Ambrosinus, played with uncharacteristic clumsiness by Ben Kingsley.

Along the path they are joined by alluring but dangerous Mira (Bollywood sensation Aishwarya Rai), and repeatedly attacked by Wulfila (Kevin McKidd tinted orange by makeup to cover his British pallor) and other assorted but variously underwhelming characters playing antagonists with Gaul-ling ineptness. It was as though all of George Lucas’ Star Wars:A New Hope Stormtroopers were suddenly transported to ancient Rome and placed in leather leggings–except this time they don’t have the helmets to blame for really bad accuracy. . . .

This movie tries to be much more than it is. It tries to be a heroic and legendary tale of inspiration, courage and heroism. Instead, it feels old, musty and faintly disturbing; like the accidental discovery of a pair of your grandmother’s underwear in the attic.

I will give the movie credit for bringing to light the intriguing Aishwarya Rai. She has entrancing eyes and carries herself well by the side of veteran actors Kingsley and Firth. However, because of restrictions on displays of affection shown on film between Indian actors and actresses in Bollywood, the finally it’s happening love scene between Aurelius and Mira has all the excitement of watching an old man play the accordion (scene spoiler: no kiss). Heck, in Excalibur we had a couple having passionate sex in armor. Although I’m sure the metal may have pinched a little it was still kind of fun to watch.

Watching this movie feels kind of like hearing a relative’s war story from WWII. Initially it seems like it should be both interesting and exciting but in the end you end up staying until it’s over simply because it would be rude to stand up and walk out.

Nice idea. Promising cast. Hot female soldier. Ultimate sense of uncomfortable disappointment.

I give it **Jessicas out of four, making it fit for a rental or sneak-in but not for a full or matinee price. . . .

EK

Those of us raised on Star Wars remember the original Battlestar Galactica when it came out on television in the late 70’s/early 80’s. It was a transparent attempt to capitalize on the phenomenal success of Star Wars by creating an effects-based television series. In spite of this apparent flaw, it was an enjoyable series. After a few seasons on television the series was deemed too expensive to continue, and it was eventually cancelled.

The Sci-Fi channel picked the plot up again in 2003, developing a miniseries for television to re-invigorate the franchise. The new writer-directors decided to make several fundamental changes to the original plot. The first was to remove any camp from the storyline. This is NOT your father’s Battlestar Galactica. This story is down-and-dirty, violent, sexy, tragic and overall fundamentally human.

The premise is the same. Earth is the thirteenth colony of humankind. The other 12 colonies are technologically advanced, but not in a way that makes them seem far distant from our own. Many years ago, the colonies developed artificial intelligence in the form of Cylons, which acted as metallic servants for the human population. These servants eventually rebelled and were defeated by the humans. At the beginning of the story they maintain an armistice with the humans.

However, in the interim, the Cylons have not been idle. They develop new models that are cybernetic organisms virtually indistinguishable from humans (except that amongst the 12 models, all lines are identical). These models have been sent amongst the human population to act as spies and to carry out acts of sabotage. In several cases, the humanoid Cylons may not even know that they are Cylons.

Eventually the Cylons return to kill the human population and do so by a combination of technological advancement and deceit. Even humanity’s greatest weapon platforms, the aircraft-carrier-like Battlestars, are almost completely destroyed by the initial attack. However, one aging Battlestar, the Galactica, has antiquated computer systems and Vipers (small dogfighting spacecraft) which allows it to survive along with a large number of civilian starships. This is the framework upon which the show is set.

In addition to the new humanoid Cylons, there have been many other changes to the original concept. For starters, the arrogant ladies’ man Starbuck from the original series was replaced with an aggressive, scarred woman who was as much of a rabble-rouser as the original Dirk Benedict. Boomer was likewise altered, becoming an asian-american female. Many new characters were added, and some (like Boxy and the strange robotic dog-thing) have been mercifully deleted.

The effects have been likewise updated from the original bluescreen technique. Action sequences are fast-paced and laced with snap-zooms and imperfect tracking making many of them seem more like documentary footage than computer-generated effects. This helps lend a sense of gritty realism to the show.

Overall, the new series is a shining beacon showing what can be done in today’s television. In many respects, this series is the best television science fiction in years.

(****Jessicas out of 4)

I will admit to being dragged to this movie against my will.

On entering the theater, my wife uttered the phrase that can doom almost any movie, “It’s a really good chick flick.”

My blood, almost literally, ran cold. Maybe it was the air conditioning, but in a world of choices like Superbad and The Bourne Supremacy, the idea of sitting through two hours of Two Against Nature or Fried Green Tomatoes had me a bit concerned.

Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised. For those of you chick-flick-phobic men out there I have two things to say. First, this script was adapted from a book by Neil Gaiman, writer of underground comic The Sandman and the fantasy book, Neverwhere. The second is that Stardust is one of those strange movies that seems to straddle the sweet spot between Mars and Venus in much the same way as the classic The Princess Bride.

The story is original. Tristan (Charlie Cox) is a young man naive in both the ways of love and the ways of the world. He is courting a flirtatious, self-centered Victoria (played with aplomb by Sienna Miller). Tristan vows to demonstrate his love for Victoria by bringing her a piece of a comet, in return for which she agrees to accept his hand in marriage. He then sets off to find the comet.

The comet turns out to be a young girl, Yvaine (Claire Danes), who is knocked from the sky by a ruby amulet. Tristan finds Yvaine and initially cajoles her to travel with him back to Victoria so that he can claim his prize. They slowly make their way through the magical countryside.

Three witches also seek the young comet. Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer) is alternately frightening and seductive as the leader of the witches, who seek the magical power contained within the heart of a fallen star to sustain their youth and beauty. Lamia provides an alternate narrative thread as she makes her malevolent way through the countryside in pursuit of the comet and her protector.

Magical adventures follow the twin quests, including an encounter with rather effete pirate captain Robert De Niro, an obnoxious lightning merchant (Ricky Gervais on leave from BBC’s The Office), a dying and mischievous king (Peter O’Toole) and many others. These characters form a somewhat disjointed but nonetheless fun series of encounters.

The climactic resolution is entertaining and exciting. Although I will not be giving away much to say that Tristan ends up with the woman of his dreams, the twists and turns on the way are fun and build the anticipation, like quality foreplay.

Overall, Stardust, like its creative godparent The Princess Bride, will leave you with a feeling of gentle, romantic longing and a sense of having participated in a broad adventure. Take your significant other, you’ll both enjoy it.

***1/2 Jessicas out of four.

EK

As more comics and graphic novels are adapted for the big screen, it is inevitable that there will be successes and failures. Unlike the simplistic and ridiculous Fantastic 4 movies (although Jessica Alba can make even the most toxic movie palatable), 300 falls into the former rather than the latter group.

300 takes us back to a stylized past which feels and looks much like the Frank Miller comic from which it was adapted. It tells the heroic story of a group of 300 Spartan soldiers who fought ferociously to defend Greece against the Persian armies led by king Xerxes.

It begins with a brief but colorful history lesson about the manner by which young men were raised in ancient Sparta. Taught from infancy to fight, the boys are placed in increasingly difficult circumstances with the intention of creating a race of warriors (during one memorable sequence, King Leonidas asks an Athenian soldier what his profession is. The man replies, “I am a potter.” Leonides then turns to his fellow Spartans and asks them what their profession is, to which they reply, “War. . . .”).

Once war is declared, Leonidas takes 300 of the bravest Spartan soldiers to attack the Persians. The men decide to make a stand in a narrow pass near the coast, channeling the Persian soldiers into the corridor where they can fight man-to-man without allowing the Spartans to be surrounded.

What follows is a series of confrontations between increasingly difficult Persian foes, most of which are bested. The warfare is a spectacular mix of fast and slow motion fighting, with showers of crimson blood arcing through the air and severed limbs flying hither and yon. The battle sequences are graphic but well choreographed and exciting; sort of like a gladiatorial form of the WWF (without the requisite pile-driver).

For those of you who are not familiar with ancient Greek history, I will not spoil the ending. Suffice it to say that the Persians get what is coming to them, although not in the manner that you expect. Although Miller has taken considerable liberties with the story, the essence is still intact. War is about heart, training and dedication rather than a simple game of numbers.

There are only two problems with the execution of this movie. The first is the narrator, who fills much of the beginning and end of the movie with heavy-handed descriptions of how the acts of King Leonidas paved the road toward modernity by separating the theocratic government of Persia from the (relatively) democratic government of Sparta. Although this may be true, the narrator is supposed to have been a contemporary of King Leonidas, making such analysis a bit premature and artificial.

My second criticism centers around the wooden characters in the story. Although true to the writing in the original graphic novel, the characters appear to be somewhat one-dimensional in this movie. That is not to say that they aren’t interesting and heroic, simply that there is little depth to them.

With its atmospheric backgrounds, engaging battles and interesting storyline, 300 is a testosterone-fest not to be missed by anyone with a Y-chromosone. It’ll make you want to put on a pair of sandals, do a half a million crunches, and find a narrow hallway to defend to the death. I give it ***1/2 Jessicas (out of four).

EK

I have been a connoisseur of science fiction for many years. As a result of this fixation, I have been able to observe closely the transitions in movie special effects over the last 30 years. I have come to believe that while special effects are an essential part of every movie, they can be and often are overused.

I grew up in an era when special effects were complicated and expensive. When the original Star Wars was created, the special effects team had to literally invent an entirely new way of filming special effects with a motor-driven camera that could smoothly fly through the small props that were the surface of the Death Star. This technique, combined with refinements on the older blue-screen and stop-motion systems, allowed special effects wizard John Dykstra to help create a movie unlike any other.

This robust collection of techniques became the standard for the following 10 years of movie-making, producing such classics as; Tron, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Clash of the Titans, and the television show Battlestar Galactica.

Two of the biggest limitations of these techniques were time and money. Each effect-laden sequence took many hours of pre-, during and post-production by a team of special effects workers. When the average movie cost between 7 and 30 million to produce, the number of effects that a filmmaker could include in a movie was small.

There were still excesses, however. One new effect that was tried with only limited success during this period was 3-D movie making. The b-movie Jaws 3-D is an example of this. In that movie, the special effects team took every opportunity to show the audience how great 3-D movies were. Thus the screen was variously filled with limbs floating in mid air, aircraft swooping past, and sharks lunging toward the camera. I remember one particularly obnoxious scene transition where the camera slowly zoomed in upon the corner of a Japanese tea-house roof, allowing the dragon-styled edge to “poke out of the screen.” In truth, this overuse of the effect ruined it, by making the audience aware of the effect, and in essence, destroying any suspension of disbelief.

Suspension of disbelief was again possible, however, with the advent of computer-generated effects. This transition was heralded by movies such as The Last Starfighter but is exemplified by the movie Jurassic Park. I can still remember thinking “oh my God,” during the sequence with the rabid velociraptors attacking the kids in a cafeteria. The computer-generated effects seemed almost seamless in execution, and I, like many others, had the sudden feeling that a fundamental paradigm shift in movie making had occurred.

Fast-forward to the present day.

The year is now 2007, and the last several years have been filled with computer-generated effects ranging from fantastic to way over-the-top. Movies such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy have pushed the boundaries of what is possible with movie effects, and it is truly amazing. However, to quote the script from Spider Man, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Just because you can have an F-35 fighter in VTOL configuration flying around a city in the finale of your movie, doesn’t mean that you SHOULD (with an obvious nod to this Summer’s Live Free or Die Hard).

A simple rule of thumb; if the audience can tell that it is a special effect, it should probably not be used.

As an example of special effects used well, watch Children of Men again. There are several sequences in that movie that have embedded seamless effects in the storyline. If you didn’t know any better, you’d think they were real and that you were watching documentary footage, rather than special effects. That is the power available to today’s filmmakers.

I encourage all filmmakers to keep in mind that special effects exist to help the plot and improve the audience’s ability to suspend disbelief. If the effect draws attention to itself as an effect, it has not accomplished either of these goals.

EK