(no subject)

[trinityvixen]

Dude, this was a totally busy weekend!

1) Pirates of Penzance: If you can afford or find a ticket for their remaining shows, SEE THIS OPERETTA. No, seriously. You will never see a better, funnier production. The comic timing is to die for. I don't remember Pirates ever being so hysterically funny. My face hurt from smiling and giggling all night long. Brilliance. Sheer brilliance.

I did a production of Pirates as my senior class play, and I was playing the whole thing along in my head, and most of it was there still, which was a surprise. I would happily see this production every year and never get tired of it. I dunno why, but Gilbert and Sullivan don't seem to be a big draw, and this might not come back, hence the excited pimpage. There's nothing specific I can say because I just end up flailing over how much I loved this production. If you can, see it!

2) The Queen: It's weird to say the most sympathetic person in the whole film was Prince Charles, but that's true. Helen Mirren's a godsend as Elizabeth II, but while her genius saves E2 from being a totally unsympathetic character, she still kept enough prissy stuck-up-ed-ness to the Queen that she isn't all that likeable for all that she's understandable. The guy playing Tony Blair was amazing, too, but Blair--and this hurts, as those of you privy to my pervy Blair love know--was a total ass.

Charles, though, he sort of got the idea. Elizabeth wasn't wrong to say that the crazed outpouring of grief over Diana's death was REDONKULOUS and that the beast shouldn't have been fed, but she was wrong to completely ignore the crazy, too. Charles was the only one walking the compromise line, which must have been pretty hard given the fact of who it was who'd died and left the country in such a state. Really interesting interpretation of events all around.

3) TMNT: Not bad, but not great. Surpassingly average, i would say. You like it if you liked the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles ever, and the kids in the audience seemed to like it a lot, too. Otherwise, eh? So-so? Some of the jokes were spot-on and damned funny, but the funniest line was not intentional. The narration in the beginning was Beneath Laurence Fishburne's Dignity(TM), and had a lot of work to do setting up the Turtles. To the film's credit, they didn't explain how the turtles got to be other than in the narration at the beginning, so no re-telling of the origin story, thank Bob.

Otherwise, it was very angsty, and the animation was very...bootleg Pixar, I think is the way I'd phrase it. It aimed high, but it was distractingly stylized (April O'Neill's arms could be used as toothpicks; Casey Jones' chin could out Hapsburg Charles II). The one scene that was almost scarily realistic in the animation featured rain, which should have been more difficult to pull off, but was the most well done (when I say realistic, I mean if this were a live-action movie, you could have put Leonardo and Raphael in that scene alongside real people and they'd look almost as if they belonged there).

Average. Not blown away, not really worth my time to revisit (not enough Donatello!), though it did make me want to watch the live-action movies again. Well, not Secret of the Ooze, but the first and third one. Those were fun.

And, finally, 4) 300: I saw this with darkling1, feiran, moonlightalice, and wellgull and I know for a fact that at least the first three all fell asleep in the theater during the movie (moonlightalice more than once). Beyond the fact that I don't get how that's even possible (the only time I ever fell asleep in a movie was Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and that was because I'd had a few, and booze makes me crash), I honestly don't think the movie was boring or awful enough to merit such disinterest.

I guess it helps that my expectations were not high. I wanted something pretty (dear God, was it ever), a bit of stylized action (which it had aplenty), and a bunch of beefcakes in tiny loincloths (check and check). The story is compelling for all that there are liberties taken with the sorce material (and, hey, that's very in keeping with the Greek tradition of blowing shit out of proportion, so that's fine with me because no one is going to take this as a historical re-enactment or anything), and did I mention the loincloths? I believe I did.

No, really, why the hell was this panned so badly? It didn't exactly move charging through every scene, but it wasn't overlong for what needed to be accomplished in the background while the Spartans went off to fight. It's a solidly B-movie, with about that level of characterization and depth, which is fine with me. The pretty more than makes up for it, and the bit players did well with what they had. I particularly liked Michael Fassbender's character, who was actually insane (as opposed to Gerard Butler's character who was noble-but-appearing-nutty-in-the-face-of-certain-doom). He had the sort of Legolas/Gimli thing going on with the other young guy, and I mean that in the gay, gay way besides the teasing friend way. I enjoyed him. I like the crazy (this is obvious: my favorite character on Heroes is Sylar right now).

But really? That bad? Fall asleep, look-at-Trinity-like-a-nutcase-for-not-disliking-it bad? I really don't get it. It wasn't atrocious enough to hate, and it entertained for two hours well enough. I wouldn't probably sit through it again, but then there's lots of movies that were just okay that I wouldn't watch twice (TMNT, having seen it the same day, I can safely say is probably one of them).

Shorter TV: Pirates is made of win, SEE IT. The Queen is made of frowning and groaning in the good way. TMNT is fifty-fifty shlock and nostalgia. 300: less awful than advertised and terribly pretty.

And now, I actually do some work!

Comments

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

You're missing the huge point here, being that it's a comic book. I think if you were more familiar with comics you would understand the movie a lot better, and realize that while your points about history are true, they're totally irrelevant to this film.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

I do understand that it was a comic book; that's why I pinned the blame on Frank Miller, and not 300's screenwriters -- he took a good story and made it a lame one. I mean basically I'm saying I agree with darkling1 that the movie was very true to its (bad) source material, I'm just laying out why I feel that way.

Maybe you're saying that the comic medium requires that these kind of story changes be made?

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

I wasn't clear enough about this: my problems with the movie were not about the movie. I mean, from the movie-making perspective, it was great: the visuals were excellent, the action intense, the settings all very atmospheric. It's a lovely movie to look at (and I don't mean because of the boobies) -- those factors within the director's control were handled quite deftly.

The issue is with the storyline, which is really the fault of the source material. The things outside the director's control, like the plot and the speeches, are where the movie suffers; there isn't the strong writing and theme to back up the director's good work. I think this is because Frank Miller threw away a good story to tell a bad one instead. That's why it kind of comes across as LotR without the plot. Think of the scene where the Elves show up to strengthen the siege of Helm's Deep, and the scene where Gandalf arrives to lift it--those have me in tears, every time. I get shivers down my spine just thinking about it, because it is a majestic, noble sacrifice. That's what this story (in comic book form, movie form, whatever) could have been, but wasn't, because the real-life noble motivations were cut and replaced with an unthinkingly suicidal code of combat and a king with a chip on his shoulder. And I'd say that the flaws with the story are also probably why the movie is getting panned so hard--not for the movie, but for the story.

One wonders why Frank Miller made those decisions, given the reputation of the work he did with Batman.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I think, for the sake of comics, where there are really only so many characters you can put into it and remind people that they exist over a short graphic novel, that the simplification of the attacking force to being only the Spartans was okay. The motivation for them to go--to inspire the rest of the Grecian states to rebel as well versus the historical cover of the Greek retreat and regroup--was stronger historically, I grant you that, but it's not...well, this is going to sound bad, but it's not very American, and I think Frank Miller was writing to his audience.

Let me clarify: I was talking with some friends about the fact that the United States lacks a mythology. We are a country founded at a specific time, late enough in history for it to be chronicled, etc, so someone suggested this left us without myths or mythic heroes like older countries have. I argued that, in fact, we have a very potent mythology, that of the underdog. We like to believe that the underdog is always right and will always triumph. He/she might not win, per se, but they will "triumph" at least in the moral superiority sense. The triumph of the out-gunned, out-numbered, unbelieved hero is the quintessential American myth.

So, Miller, writing as an American steeped in this mythos and for an American audience, would be coming from this perspective, hence the need for the underdog--the Spartans, here, who clearly lost the battle--to have some sort of noble victory nonetheless. Having the complex interplay of the nation-states of Greece at the time come into it...that is way more Moore's territory than Miller's. Miller just isn't skilled enough to interweave that level of political interplay (Miller of the whoreswhoreswhores ability), and he simplified his focus. Hell, the film improved the political stuff by having there be some debate about the need for this action--from what I understand, all the scenes of Sparta without members of Leonidas' band were entirely added by the director and screenwriters.

So, basically, given Miller's limitations and the limitations of the medium, I understand why some of the simplifications were made, but I agree with you in principle that the historical narrative is much more compelling. I just don't think it would translate as well to film (the same way Faramir being able to refuse the Ring didn't).

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Also? The director? I'm glad you noticed he wasn't as bad as the source material. The director is actually pretty good. And, if I can, I'll show you/lend you Dawn of the Dead some time because that film was amazing--not only for a genre piece, but just in general. I totally trust him with The Watchmen, and that's an amazing thing that could get easily fucked up by a terrible adaptor.