Login

Caer Rialis · 03-31-2008, 04:18 PM

That?s right. It?s time for

Semi-Regular Movie Reviews with Caer Rialis!!!!!!

So I was out of town last week for a few days, visiting family and friends. Now, as it goes, one night we decided to just stay in and rent a movie. While I was busy putting my son to sleep, reading him stories, making sure he was okay sleeping in a strange room, my wife and a bunch of other ladies went out to select the film. Hey, no problem. I figured they would rent a chick flick, you know, something romantic, like 300, Braveheart or Ice Pirates. A little love story wrapped around short battle sequences and daring-do. At least then I wouldn?t feel like I was being choked by estrogen, like when she watches Lifetime or Oxygen.

Oy, was I wrong. The movie they selected was The Jane Austen Book Club. Now, don?t get me wrong. I?ve had to read some Jane Austen (in college, to impress a girl) and I realize that women have this deep and abiding fascination with her work. One can only take a quick check of Internet Movie Database to see that. From 1938 to 2008, there have been some forty-four different films based on her novels. Let?s take a look

1. Sense and Sensibilidad (2008)

2. "Lost in Austen" (2008) (mini) TV mini-series

3. Miss Austen Regrets (2008) (TV)

4. "Sense and Sensibility" (2008) (mini) TV mini-series

5. Persuasion (2007) (TV)

6. Northanger Abbey (2007) (TV)

7. Mansfield Park (2007) (TV)

8. Becoming Jane (2007)

9. Pride & Prejudice (2005)

10. Bride & Prejudice (2004)

11. Pride and Prejudice (2003)

12. The Real Jane Austen (2002) (TV)

13. Kandukondain Kandukondain (2000) (novel "Sense and Sensibility")

14. Mansfield Park (1999)

15. "Wishbone" (2 episodes, 1995-1998)

- Pup Fiction (1998) TV episode

- Furst Impressions (1995) TV episode

16. Emma (1996)

17. Emma (1996)

18. Sense and Sensibility (1995)

19. "Pride and Prejudice" (1995) (mini) TV mini-series

20. Persuasion (1995) (TV)

21. Sensibility and Sense (1990) (TV)

22. Northanger Abbey (1986) (TV)

23. "Mansfield Park" (1983) (mini) TV mini-series

24. Sense and Sensibility (1981) (TV)

25. Jane Austen in Manhattan (1980) (libretto Sir Charles Grandison) (text Sir Charles Grandison, or The Happy Man)

26. "Pride and Prejudice" (1980) (mini) TV mini-series

27. "Emma" (1972) (mini) TV mini-series

28. "Novela" (4 episodes, 1966-1972)

- Persuasi?n (1972) TV episode

- La abad?a de Northanger (1968) TV episode

- Emma (1967) TV episode

- Orgullo y prejuicio (1966) TV episode

29. "Persuasion" (1971) (mini) TV mini-series

30. Sense and Sensibility (1971) (TV)

31. "Pride and Prejudice" (1967) TV series

32. "Vier dochters Bennet, De" (1961) (mini) TV mini-series (novel "Pride & Prejudice")

33. "Persuasion" (1960) (mini) TV mini-series

34. "Camera Three" (1 episode, 1960) - Emma (1960) TV episode

35. Emma (1960) (TV)

36. "Pride and Prejudice" (1958) TV series

37. "Orgoglio e pregiudizio" (1957) (mini) TV mini-series

38. "Matinee Theatre" (1 episode, 1956) - Pride and Prejudice (1956) TV episode

39. "Kraft Television Theatre" (1 episode, 1954) - Emma (1954) TV episode (writer)

40. "Pride and Prejudice" (1952) (mini) TV mini-series (writer)

41. "The Philco Television Playhouse" (2 episodes, 1949-1950)

42. Emma (1948) (TV)

43. Pride and Prejudice (1940)

44. Pride and Prejudice (1938) (TV) (book)

Dear God, that?s 11 different versions of Pride and Prejudice(including two movies between 2003 and 2005), seven of Sense and Sensibility, two versions of Emma in one year, and works done in Bollywood. It says something for the fascination of an author who, for all intents and purposes, was writing late 18th-early 19th century romance novels. Now I?m not making a comment on romance novels, which, after all, are best sellers and can be churned out quickly as all you need to do is change the setting, change some names, toss in some kind of dilemma and, WHAMMO!!! you have a brand spanking new novel. No, what I?m concerned about is not only the unrealistic views of romance devised by Ms. Austen, which were formatted under the guise of a class-based ideal of love and romance which held up the English rentier and capitalist classes at the expense of the farming and laboring classes, but also the fact we tend to ignore the works of other female authors from this time period like George Sand.

But I digress. The Jane Austen Book Club tells the story of a group of women who, gosh, form a book club where they read, get this, the novels of Jane Austen. It seems that the character played by Amy Brenneman (I swear to you, I couldn?t get names straight in this film, except for two: Allegra and Prudie. What is it with naming children after pharmaceuticals? Who names their kid, ?Allegra?? What, do they have another daughter, Viagra and sons named Cipro and Paxil? And Prudie. Okay, her mother is a weird former flower-child who never really gave up being a flower child and she names her child ?Prudence?. Who does that???) has just broken up with her husband (played by Jimmy Smits). To cheer her up, her good friend Maria Bello organizes a book club. Now me, I?d question the choice of Jane Austen. Romance novels to cheer up a woman who?s about to enter a messy divorce. Holy Mine Field, Batman! As the movie progresses, the same idea befalls each of the major characters, but, hey, they?re part of the club, so you do what the club calls for. Now, the club decides that they will read one Austen novel a month, and will read six novels, the complete Austen Canon.

Only now trouble arises: there are only five members of the club and they desperately need a sixth. Enter some guy, played by some actor I can?t name. Now, this guy fits one of the three main male archetypes in chick movies (and, from what I understand, the male characters from Austen novels: Hapless twit, Incredible cad, Rugged brute). He?s the hapless twit, of course, who, as a Science Fiction fan, came to the first meeting with a massive tome, the Complete Works of Jane Austen, and thought that the novels had to be read in order, as they must be a series. This leads us to one of the subplots of the film: the way in which Austen fans literally mock any and all works of Science Fiction. In fact, the guy tries to get the Maria Bello character to read works of female sci-fi authors like Ursula LeGuin and Andre Norton throughout the film, much as I tried with my college girlfriend. Yeah, I had to read Austen, Woolf, Dickinson, and Marion Zimmer Bradley, but no way would she even crack the spine of Lord of the Rings. It was much the same here.

Of course hapless guy is brought in in a mad attempt by Maria Bello to fix him up with the Brenneman character. And, since this is an homage to Austen, he?s clueless and really interested in the Bello character. The women in the club mock him without end especially when he spends one discussion looking at the character Allegra?s chest. They all think it?s funny, but her tight t-shirt did read ?Teen Lesbian Alliance.? I mean, what, he?s not going to look? Ladies, please, think about it. One: He?s a guy. Two: she was thrusting it out, sitting near him. Three: he?s a guy. Four: the shirt had a message. I know myself, when I see some slogan written on a t-shirt, I try to read it. When it?s some witty thing like, ?Why can?t you look at my face instead of these?? I want to reply, ?Your face has nothing written on it.?; and five: he?s a guy.

There were some interesting scenes and dialogue in the film. My favorite is when Bello exclaims ?Austen isn?t girly? to which I cracked up and exclaimed ?She?s the epitome of girly!? Which earned me absolutely zero points with my wife and her friends. There?s also Allegra Aside from that, we can simply see that each of the five women all become enmeshed in an Austen like fugue state: Bello and Sci-fi nerd, Brenneman and her yearned for her cheating husband, Allegra and her love affairs with numerous women, Prudie and her near affair with one of her high school students (okay, I?m stumped. I?m a teacher and can?t for the life of me understand fascination with this idea. My students lack the emotional and intellectual maturity I have always looked for. Why Hollywood seems to think adolescents are emotionally and intellectually mature enough is a mystery beyond understanding), and the older lady and her looking for love in all the wrong places.

In the end, it wasn?t a bad way to pass a night. I can think of worse, like trying to pass a kidney stone, root canal, and being the victim of water-boarding. It would have been better if I had a book to read like, oh, Heinlein?s Starship Troopers or Stranger in a Strange World. Heck, LeGuin?s Left Hand of Darkness would have rocked

Caer Rialis · 05-31-2008, 01:22 AM

Welcome back, faithful viewers to

Semi-Regular Movie Reviews with Caer Rialis!!!!!!

Over the last few days my son has watched the original Star Wars trilogy for the first time. What can I say? He?s not that old and I figured he should wait until his old man could watch them with him. Now, I myself saw the original Star Wars (the one now called Episode IV: A New Hope) way back when it was first released, in a single screen theater (this was in the day before multiplexes) where an organist played before the movie started (Yes, folks, I?m a relic from bygone days), and loved it. I still, despite some of the problems found in the original trilogy, prefer these films to the three wastes of celluloid from earlier in this decade, but that?s a matter of taste.

However, watching the original series with my son, helping him through the scary parts and explaining that it was all pretend, I saw what, to me, were glaring inconsistencies when taken in conjunction with the second trilogy. This bothered me.

I don?t accept the argument that it?s just science fiction. Some, and I do mean some, science fiction is quite awesome in its plotlines, acting, effects, and costuming. I don?t accept the fact that Lucas can have changed the story a bit to suit new themes and new conditions in the 21st century that he did not dream of in the late 20th century. This is, quite frankly, a bunch of bunk. In my humble opinion, Lucas could very well have fashioned the second trilogy (Phantom Menace (1999), Attack of the Clones (2002) and, quite possibly the worst third film of a trilogy since Godfather III, Revenge of the Sith and avoided inconsistencies with the original trilogy Star Wars (1977), Empire Strikes Back (1981), and Return of the Jedi aka, Let?s toss up a bunch of cutesy teddy bears so this film can be as hokey as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1983) .

For example, in the second trilogy we learn that there are only two Sith at one time. Fair enough. I mean, if I were this ultimate evil sorcerer dude bent on galactic domination, the last thing I?d want to do is to train a bunch of other evil sorcerer dudes with ultimate power fantasies. It?s job security, baby. Let?s face it, Sith Lords weren?t allowed to retire, taking their pension and heading off to the beaches of Rigel II with Bones and Kirk. They have to throw down with the punk kids they had trained. Yet, in Jedi what does Vader try to convince his boss, the master in the Sith duality, to do: try to turn Luke Skywalker as he?d be a powerful ally. Okay, maybe I?m, missing something, but the Emperor, Darth Vader, and Luke Skywalker add up to three, not two (unless the Empire is into the new foggy math thing which is getting the current occupant of the White House in trouble economically. Who is Luke going to be an ally to? I mean, surely both Vader and the Emperor couldn?t be thinking, ?Yeah, boy, now I can use Skywalker to take you out and no way are you planning the same thing.? They both can?t be that stupid.

A second nagging inconsistency is C-3PO and R2-D2. Now, those androids, like Vader, are the only characters to appear in all six Star Wars movies. I suppose its for continuity, a continuity we really don?t need. This raised questions on multiple levels. First, since the action of the six movies must take place over a 40 year period or so, their programs would need such an overhaul it isn?t pretty. My own home PC is from 2003 and I?m already pricing new ones as its been obsolete since 2001. Shouldn?t we have seen a C-3PO 2.7 somewhere along the line? Perhaps a version that?s not so whiny?

The second level is the lack of recognition. In Menace, we learn that Anakin Skywalker designed and programmed C-3PO. Great. Kids need a hobby, especially if they are slaves to a grotesque bag of flesh like Jabba the Hutt. Yet somehow, in the 20 years or so in between Sith and New Hope, all three individuals (C-3PO, R2-D, and Darth Vader fail to recognize one another. Okay, maybe the ?droids had their memories wiped when they became versions 3.1 and 4.2 respectively, but Vader? He?s a flippin? Sith Lord with the powers of the Force at his disposal. Now, how cool would it have been if either ?droid told Luke Skywalker, ?Hey, boss, we knew Vader when he was a kid. Yeah, we knew he was a Skywalker, like you. In fact after his Ma was offed by the Sand People, he was the only Skywalker.? Maybe Luke would have put two and two together before Pop cut off his hand in Empire. Maybe. However, as seen in my review of Revenge of the Sith, the Jedi are pretty clueless.

Finally, we have the identity of Princess Leia Organa, the biological daughter of Darth Vader. All right. I can buy it. After all, Padme Amidala got as fast as she could from her husband when he was revealed to be a blood thirsty mass murderer of children. I can imagine it wouldn?t be hard to get out of the that one. If anything, he?d probably be a pretty nasty father to the kids when they were growing up. I can see it now:

?Luke, if you don?t put your toys away, I?m gonna use the Force to wing them at you until you?re bleeding.?

"No, we are going to watch Monday Night Football. I don't care if you have the remote, I got the Force."

"You wil eat your peas, Leia. I slaughtered all the young Jedi. Don't think I can't make you eat your peas."

But, and here is the same problem I had with the whole no one knowing she was having twins anyway in Sith, the Jedi and the Sith are attuned with that whole life energy known as the Force (as they are all imbued with midichlorians. Thank you, L. Ron Hubbard Tongue

). Now, in all the time Leia was in his clutches on Death Star version 1.0, Darth Vader never a. saw a resemblance to his dead wife, his mother, anyone? and b. never sensed anything from the Force on her? Shoot, when Luke was zipping down that channel, with all of 0 minutes of fighter craft time under his flying belt, Vader sensed that the Force was strong in him. What, was there nothing from the sister? Talk about sibling rivalry. Sure, Leia could lord over Luke her status as royalty, but he could say ?Well, can you freakin? lift an X-wing from a swamp with one hand? Can you? Can you? Case closed, bay-bee!?

So, yes, there have been inconsistencies in the first trilogy when one looks at them after watching the second trilogy. I guess the lesson here is: George Lucas hasn?t got a clue when it comes to continuity in his own story.

Thank you and let?s look forward to the next review when I point out the glaring fault in the Terminator trilogy.

Caer Rialis · 06-12-2010, 02:00 PM

Thank you, thank you and we are back again.

Semi-Regular Movie Reviews with Caer Rialis!!!!!!

As many of you know, it?s rare that I get to go to the show to see a movie that is not animated or includes talking animals. Last night, though, though the serendipitous use of grandparents, my wife and I were able to go see a movie made without either of the above. We chose to watch Ridley Scott?s Robin Hood, which is now running in the second-run films near us.

I should warn people that I am awful with watching movies set in a particular historical period. It?s me. It really is. I like to have some attention to historical fact in movies like these. Ask any of my students. On the extremely rare times I show a feature film in class, I am so busy tearing up the inaccuracies, the kids actually ask me to stop so they can enjoy the film. Faugh! They need to know that Hollywood makes some glaring whoppers. And don?t get me started on the Patriot, people.

Anyway, Robin Hood tells the story of how Robin becomes an outlaw. It doesn?t tell the tale of how he and his merry men ran circles around the Sheriff of Nottingham, Guy of Gisbourne, or the local abbot. Instead it begins with Robin as an archer in the crusading army of Richard the Lion-Hearted on his way back from the Crusades. Deserting from the army, Robin does manage to foil a plot to assassinate the king (as Richard was already dead, that plot was sort of redundant) but manages to secure Richard?s crowned helmet to bring home to London and Prince John. Robin used the armor and weapons of a knight killed in that assassination attempt, Robert of Loxley and masquerades as the man, with the connivance of Loxley?s father, Walter, and, grudgingly, Loxley?s wife, Marian. Meanwhile Philip the Fair of France plots with an English nobleman to spark civil war in England so France can move in and take over. Robin, of course, foils that plot, brings back the idea of a Magna Carta which his own father proposed, oh, let?s say 30 years earlier when Henry II was king, and helps to drive off the French invading force. That, however, earns him the life of an outlaw from an incredibly thick King John Lackland.

The acting was superb in this film. Russell Crowe did a great job as Robin, and Max von Sydow was excellent as Walter Loxley. Cate Blanchett, of course, is an incomparable actress as Marian (Since she was a married woman, I?m dropping the Maid part, okay). Costuming was exceptional. The designers really did well in putting together the costumes of each and every actor and actress, even the wild boys of the Greenwood. Set design was likewise well done. There were castles of course, but most people lived in crude, wattle and daub houses, and even many of the fortresses were simple mote and Baillie keeps, or even wooden palisades.

The plot, however, was well, well, well below average. I watch films and I expect plots to have a certain flow. Watch a film based on a particularly well known character, whose story has been portrayed in numerous films, television shows, and books, and there are things you expect as well. There?s very little swashbuckling in this film. You really only see this at the siege of Chalus-Chabrol and that?s in the first twenty minutes of the film. There?s only one outlaw raid, when Robin and his men capture a wagon load of grain being sent to York from Nottingham. Other than that, it?s all high politics and Robin trying to get along with his ?wife? Marian.

But it?s the rest of the plot that makes absolutely no sense. Richard left England broke. He spent vast sums of money on his crusade and the ransom to get him back from the Holy Roman Emperor was 2-3 times the annual income of England, so, needless to say, John has to raise some cash. His Marshall, played by William hurt, recommends taking out loans. His traitorous friend, Godfrey, who is in the employ of Philip the fair of France, recommends taking 200 men and sacking the castles of England?s northern barons. Which do you think was picked? Yep, going out and antagonizing your barons. Let?s ignore that you?re wiping out future revenue streams (because when the 200 men Godfrey brings come along, they really don?t stop at looting and burning. They put towns and castles to the sword). You?re also cutting off support from all your powerful nobles. Barnstable, Lincoln, York, all are destroyed. There?s this great scene where Godfrey invades the cathedral at York and puts the priests there to the sword. Everyone, please, repeat this ?Excommunication.? Seriously, in the 1200?s, you don?t go willy-nilly sacking cathedrals and expect not to get excommunicated. Look at what happened to John?s pop when he made the comment ?Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?? That didn?t go over too well with the Pope, see.

This sets the stage for a revolt of the northern barons, which is what the French wanted. If John?s fighting a civil war in the north, the French can sail across the English Channel and invade. Let?s ignore the fact that England owns more land in France than in England. Aquitaine, Brittany, Poitou, Gascony, Maine, Nantes, Mortain. Shoot, attack there! It?s a heck of a lot cheaper than sailing across the Channel. Robin shows up at a meeting between John and his barons and brings out his old man?s idea of a charter of rights which the barons all agreed to thirty years earlier. John says, all right, let?s go kill the French, and they?re off to the White Horse of Westbury, which isn?t really near the sea at all, as far as I can tell.

The French begin to land, having rowed across the Channel in pinnaces and boats which, frankly, reminded me too much of the Higgins boats used during the Normandy invasion in 1944. Seriously, they rowed across the Channel in these. Here I was thinking Higgins boats were develop din the 1940s, but, what the heck. It?s all in good show, right? Bleeeeech. But, hey, let?s ignore the fact that rowing across the Channel is foolhardy anyway, and in armor and in a glorified rowboat, woooo-boy. The English archers stand on the cliffs and rain arrows down on the French in an eerie scene reminiscent of Agincourt, some 200yeas later, and English knights ride pell-mell to assault the French at the beach. Carnage ensues, Robin kills Godfrey and gets the girl. Oh, yeah, then John renounces the Magna Carta, burning it before his barons (Who, remarkably, at the end of the film did not launch an immediate civil war) and declares Robin and outlaw. Wow, that John was a real turd.

The storyline to me was full of disconnect, was incredibly illogical, and really did more to confuse than to explain. I do realize that there are some of the Right today who are trying to make this movie out to be some kind of tea party manifesto, but, really, if this is all they have, that?s one dumb manifesto.

Robin Hood. Don?t pay full price for this film. It?s really not worth it. See it on a big screen at a second run theater if you want to see it. You?ll thank me for that, my friends. Instead, watch the recently ended BBC series titled Robin hood or read either the Stephen Lawhead trilogy (Hood, Scarlet and Tuck) or the even better books by Parke Godwin Sherwood and Robin and the King.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me