Hamlet (1948)

Hamlet

As it is perhaps the most acclaimed Shakespeare adaptation of all time, starring the greatest Shakespearean actor of all time in what some would argue is the best play of all time, you would think that Laurence Olivier's Hamlet would be higher on my list of awesome movies. Unfortunately, I found it to be a rather mixed bag.

The main problem is that I just don't like the old style of Shakespeare acting. I find it to be stagy and showy and fake. I just can't believe in the characters because they are too busy prancing across the stage saying, "Look at ME, I am doing SHAKESpeare." I prefer the approach where the language is spoken as if people are actually saying it. So maybe I am not a fair judge for this movie, because I am biased from the start.

I have to give Olivier props, though. He tries to update the play and make it more cinematic and palatable for those who don't understand the poetry. He experiments with extreme camera angles, chiarrascoro lighting, and some genuinely spooky use of fog machines for the Ghost scene. Olivier the director is far more interesting than Olivier the actor. A good example of this can be seen in another Olivier directorial innovation. Instead of having the actors speak their monologues out loud, he has them 'think' the monologues...almost like narration. Unfortunately, it is a good idea gone bad and allows for some spectacular overacting as Oliver's face contorts in exaggerated expressions to match the emotion of his monologue. Sooo cheeeeesssyyyy....

Overall the acting is okay, I guess. Better than I thought considering I don't like this style. Sometimes Olivier is excellent (the confrontation with his mother) and sometimes he is terrible (the silly line reading of "the play's the thing," which comes complete with a ballet twirl). The rest of the cast is mixed. Felix Alymer is well cast as the befuddled (or is he?) royal adviser Polonius, and a young Peter Cushing (Grand Moff Tarkin in Star Wars) is quite funny as the foppish Osric. But Basil Sidney is a stiff Claudius and Jean Simmons - an actress I normally quite like a lot - is a terrible, histrionic, overacting Ophelia. And she got an Oscar nomination for this?!

On the other hand, I can objectively see why this won Best Picture in 1948. It may be dated now, but the movie must have seemed innovative at the time - a valiant and successful attempt to make Shakespeare more accessible. This blew the socks off the audiences half a century ago. But it doesn't age well. And it is far from the definitive Shakespearean adaptation that it is made out to be. And I prefer Olivier's non-Shakespearean work. And while I'm at it, I prefer the play Julius Caesar to Hamlet anyway!

SPECIAL NOTE: I feel like I need to make a special comment on the Hamlet-Gertrude relationship in this adaptation. There is a school of thought that thinks there is some sort of incestuous thing going on with Hamlet and his mother. I am in the other school of thought - that this is silly talk. As Freud and psychoanalysis became all the rage at the turn of the century, critics started applying these ideas to the classics. Olivier effectively incorporated this idea into his movie. He has every right to do so; it is interesting to see different interpretations of stories and I support that. But unfortunately the film's success meant that for 50 years this was the only interpretation (it was even part of Mel Gibson's Hamlet in 1990!). Thankfully, Kenneth Branagh ended the run with his 1996 version, but even then some critics were hollering, "hey, where's the incest?! This isn't a faithful adaptation!" Frankly, I think Shakespeare would have been stunned to know that this Freudian malarky had become such a part of his play. It's just not there in the text. I don't buy it...

MVP: Olivier the director makes some interesting choices with the movie. Some of the innovations have lost their impact (such as the monologues as narration), but at the time they must have been stunning. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt...

TRIVIA: This was the first non-American film to win the Best Picture Oscar.

OSCARS: Best Picture, Best Actor (Olivier), Costume Design, Best Art Direction.

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: for Best Supporting Actress (Simmons; lost to Claire Trevor in Key Largo), Best Director (Olivier; lost to John Huston, Treasure of Sierra Madre), and Best Music (lost to The Red Shoes).

BEST LINE: This is Hamlet and there are too many great lines! Can't do it...

The Adventures of Robin Hood

The Adventures of Robin Hood

Simply put, lightning in a bottle. There have been many film adaptations of the Robin Hood story, going back to the silent movies all the way up to the recent Ridley Scott-Russell Crowe misfire, but none have come close to equaling 1938's Adventures of Robin Hood (with the possible exception of the Disney film, which was pretty spectacular!).

The film represents the Warner Brothers studio teams at their peak, with superb costumes, sets, cinematography (blinding bright Technicolor!), superior directing from Michael Curtiz (Casablanca) and featuring actors who still best represent the characters even today. Basil Rathbone as Guy of Gisbourne, Eugene Pallette as Friar Tuck, Oliver DeHavilland as Maid Marian, and of course, Errol Flynn as Robin Hood are all terrific. The movie is an old-fashioned, rabble-rousing adventure and needs to be seen.

I do have quibbles with the movie, but they are mostly small. It is certainly dated - especially when Robin Hood and his Merry Man all clasp their fists to their hips and laugh uproariously to the heavens - maybe in the 30s, audiences were laughing with the Merry Men. Nowadays, I am just a little embarrassed for them and my wife was actually scared for their sanity.

The movie is also very episodic, one little mini-story after another after another, and like most movies of this nature, some episodes are better than others. For example, I could live without Robin's first encounter with Guy of Gisbourne; I just don't buy it. But for every one that doesn't work, there are three that are good fun.

And what terrific moments we have in this movie - Robin meeting Friar Tuck, the archery contest, Robin's first visit to Nottingham Castle, and even the Robin and Maid Marian loves scenes!  Usually in movies like this, the love scenes are a chore to sit through, while we wait for the next fight scene, but they never overstay their welcome here. The film's age actually serves to the love scenes' benefit, as the old school chivalry and tenderness capture the romanticism of the legend perfectly. This is knightly love; we don't need realism, damn it. And props to the lovely DeHavilland, who proves again that she was the perfect foil for Flynn's boyish charm.

I have to give special props to the sword fight, too. The climactic Guy vs. Robin duel is terrific and is still as thrilling today as it was then. It is the grandfather of awesome sword fights, and needs to be respected as such!

One last note. While watching Robin Hood, I think I realized where the other adaptations have gone wrong. If you want to try and make a realistic adaptation, I'm all for the attempt. It could be an interesting experiment. But just because you are being realistic doesn't mean you can forget one important fact about Robin Hood, perhaps the most important fact in terms of how he should be played: Robin Hood loves being an outlaw. Sure, he robs from the rich, gives to the poor, fights for England, yada yada, but you can't shake the feeling that to Flynn, Robin Hood's adventures are all a grand lark. This is FUN. And that joy is as integral to Robin's character as his bow and arrow. The fox in the Disney Robin Hood understood that. I don't think Connery, Bergen, Costner, or Crowe did. And ultimately, that is probably why their Robin Hoods don't work, and why Flynn's will never be equaled.

MVP: For all those reasons stated above, it has to be Errol Flynn. His presence is what turns the film from entertainment into an iconic classic.

TRIVIA: So with Flynn locked in everyone's mind, can you imagine that he almost didn't get the role? Originally James Cagney was supposed to play Robin Hood. Huh? I can't see it. As cool as Cagney is, can you see this guy as Robin Hood? Yikes.









BEST LINE: Maid Marian: "You speak treason!!" Robin Hood: "Fluently."

OSCARS: Art Direction, Editing, and Score.

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture (lost to You Can't Take it With You)

Ip Man

Ip Man (2008)

Why hasn't Donnie Yen made it big in America yet? He flirted with Hollywood in Highlander: Endgame, Blade 2, and Shanghai Knights, but never really made a breakthrough. It's a shame, because he is every bit as awesome as Jet Li and Jackie Chan. I've seen him kick butt in a number of movies, but never quite as much as he does in Ip Man.

Based VERY loosely on the story of the real martial arts master Ip Man (who eventually went on to train Bruce Lee in his twilight years), the movie is broken into two halves. The first half deals with the wealthy Ip Man's high standing in the community and the rogue kung fu bandits who roll into town looking for a fight. The second half takes place during the Japanese occupation in World War 2. Now destitute, Ip Man struggles to find work so that his family can eat and finds himself fighting in the arena with a Japanese general. The story isn't particularly original - its not ruining anything to say that we are waiting the whole movie for the humble and restrained Ip Man to unleash his inner badassery - and when he finally unleashes...WOW. A few of these fights are for the ages, and certainly the most enjoyable martial arts fighting I've seen since the first Ong Bak.

But I don't want to build any high expectations or pre-conceived notions - I have to make clear that this is not strictly a fight movie. This is a drama with some great fighting in it, but it is a drama first. The closest movie I can compare it to is Jet Li's Fearless from a few years ago - which was a solid movie, but this one is definitely better!

There are a few goofy things in the film, including one of the most ridiculous moments of Chinese propaganda I've ever seen, but I definitely recommend the film. Check it out!!! You won't regret it.

MVP: No doubt. Donnie Yen handles with his role with grace and power - he never acts like a badass. He doesn't need to. He just is. I've enjoyed his work in other movies, but I have only skimmed the surface. I think it is time for a Donnie Yen marathon!

BEST LINE: "Mom says you better start fighting before he tears apart the whole house."

TRIVIA: Did you know China won World War 2 by itself? I didn't. That's certainly what Ip Man's epilogue implies. Clearly my history classes misinformed me!

More Musings on Troy

More Musings on Troy

First off - spoiler alert!

So there are a few other items I wanted to discuss from Wolfgang Peterson's Troy from 2004. As I wrote my review earlier, the movie was a disappointment overall. When it worked, it was quite good. Unfortunately, there were just as many moments that did not work, and many of them are major problems.

There have been many criticisms leveled against Troy, some deserved and some not. I would like to defend the movie against some of these unfair criticisms.

1) The Gods are the most important part of The Iliad. Where the heck are the Gods in this movie?

The first misconception is that Troy is even an adaptation of Homer's The Iliad. It isn't. You could never make a movie of The Iliad because it only tells a tiny fraction of the Trojan War, a period of just a few weeks during the vast 10-year long conflict. The war doesn't begin in the Iliad. Troy doesn't fall in the Iliad. There is no Trojan Horse in the Iliad. Achilles is not famously killed with the arrow in the heel in the Iliad. The Iliad is ONLY the story of the events that directly lead to the epic Hector vs. Achilles duel. That's it. So let me clear that up right away.

People argue that without the gods, the whole story of the Trojan War is meaningless. To which I have to ask - why? The gods are important to the myth of the Trojan War, but that is not the story that Troy is trying to tell. Troy is trying to tell a plausible story that over thousands of years could have become the myth. I do agree that the involvement of the gods is important to the myth itself and does provide some wonderful thought-provoking themes about the nature of free will and what it means to be a human being. All very interesting material, but hardly necessary. What is essential to this tale is love - Achilles and Patrocles, Hector and Andromache, and especially that of Helen and Paris, who choose love over politics and bring about the destruction of a civilization because of it. Pride is also an essential theme. Hubris, the blind and haughty pride that has brought down many a hero and villain is on full display in both the myth and the movie. It is Agamemnon's hubris that insults and isolates Achilles so he refuses to fight, it is Troy's hubris that they can never lose a battle that leads to their downfall. That is much more important to the core story.

So why are the gods needed? Someday someone will adapt the myth into a film, and realize its impossible because the scenes in Olympus don't work in a film medium. It would be an hour of debating free will. Interesting to read. Boring to watch. I'd rather watch the war itself, thank you very much.

2) The acting stinks!

Overall, I have to disagree again. Critics singled out Eric Bana, Peter O'Toole, and Sean Bean as giving good performances, but every one else was a target. There are some weaker performances in the movie, I will admit that (for example, Saffron Burrows, whose acting in this movie consists of various combinations of weeping and shaking). But I want to defend the rest of the cast. Brendan Gleeson and Brian Cox are overacting as villainous brothers Menelaus and Agamemnon, but who cares? These are larger than life characters and they need to be played large. Personally, I enjoyed watching the two of them trying to chew apart every scene they were in. Orlando Bloom caught a lot of heat for a moony, whiny and annoying performance, but wait a minute - is that fair? Paris is moony, whiny and annoying. The fact that you hate Paris in this movie just means Orlando Bloom was doing his job effectively. And how about Brad Pitt as Achilles? Critics called his performance the epitome of Hollywood pretty boy miscasting. But I actually think that is what you need in this role. Achilles doesn't need to be a good actor; he needs old school Hollywood charisma. I don't care if he's one dimensional. I just want him to be charismatic chiseled weapon of destruction. Brad Pitt brings that to the movie. If his dialogue delivery is a little flat in a few scenes, he looks and moves every inch like Achilles. And in every scene with Brad Pitt, your eyes are naturally drawn to him. That is what you need in Achilles. He is the greatest warrior in all of literature.

I've been hearing these two criticisms unfairly leveled against Troy for years, so I just wanted to speak up in the film's defense. But I don't want to defend the film too much as it has some very big problems. Like below:

1) There is only so much you should change the legend!

If you are adapting an old tale, re-envisioning or updating it, there are certain things that can and cannot be changed. If you want to kill certain characters who are supposed to live, or visa versa, that's okay. I'm not a stickler for the details. But Troy goes too far. The city of Troy falls. Paris dies. Helen goes back to Greece. That's the whole point. The story of Paris and Helen cannot end well  They are responsible for the destruction of their city and the deaths of thousands of their people. They simply can not live happily ever after. So when Paris and Helen escape to the mountains, are we supposed to be happy for them while the city is burned and pillaged? What the hell?

The confusing thing is that they even set up Paris' death nicely. Before running into the city to save his cousin, Paris hands a young boy named Aeneas the Sword of Troy, saying so long as a Trojan holds this sword, her people will have a future. Since in the legend, Aeneas went on to lead the Trojan survivors to Italy and that his descendants founded Rome, I thought this was a cool little bit. But when Paris survives and escapes with everyone else, I had to wonder what was the point of the whole Aeneas scene? Now its just random and pointless.

2) Helen

She is partially responsible for starting the war, after all. But after the first half of the film, where all she does is mope, she largely vanishes. Nobody liked Helen in this movie, and a lot of people blamed Diane Kruger's acting. I think she is just badly written and not given anything to do. Playing the most beautiful woman in history is an impossible task in of itself. But add that to filmmakers who don't really know what to do with you after the opening act...poor Kruger was being set up as a target from the very beginning! What a wasted opportunity to play up the guilt, the horror that this conflict is her fault. They could and should have done something with that. They only hint at it once, in a beautifully done moment before Hector goes off to fight Achilles. Helen waits for him by the gate, weeping, because she knows that the best man in the city was about to be killed protecting her. It's a good moment, and the movie needed more of that.

3) Death of Patroclus

This is such a stupid moment! When Hector kills Patroclus, both armies stop fighting (as if all 10,000 men could have known this duel was happening) and get all depressed because the young man was killed. "That's enough killing for one day" and they all go home. What?? First of all, Patroclus isn't that young and was certainly not any younger than half the other people getting slaughtered in the movie. We didn't stop fighting for any of those guys. I think the writers just didn't know how to end the scene. They wrote themselves into a corner and had to think of a way to end the fight before the Trojans won the battle. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but this scene is STUPID!

4) Patroclus and Achilles

Speaking of Patroclus, I think they missed a big opportunity. Patroclus was Achilles' friend, not his cousin. There is even some subtext that he is Achilles' lover. I think the studios got afraid because they didn't want their sexy leading man to be gay. What safer way to do that than turn his best friend/lover into his cousin? But how much more interesting would the scenes in Achilles' camp have been if they had kept that part of the story intact? What an interesting love triangle. Achilles falls in love with the Trojan priestess, Briseis, and rejects the war and prepares to return home. In doing this, he is not just rejecting his old life as a warrior but is rejecting the loved one who represents that life: Patroclus. In the movie, Patroclus is just some whiny kid who is bummed out because he never gets to fight. Wouldn't it be better if he sees Briseis as what she is, as a rival and a threat? Suddenly, Patroclus being killed by Hector takes on more meaning. It ignites Achilles, who unleashes his vengeance on the battlefield. Such fury makes more sense if it is the love of your life who has just been killed. I'm not saying that the filmmakers needed to go Brokeback Mountain in ancient Greece. If the studios were worried, they could have kept this subtle. But I think this decision to make Patroclus a cousin just smacks of marketing fears. Pity. I think they missed an opportunity for good drama!

Okay, my ramblings are over. Thanks for indulging! New review next time - the terrific Chinese film, Ip Man!

Troy: Director's Cut

Troy: Director's Cut

As a child, my mind was lost in myths, legends and history. I spent hours devouring the stories of Alexander the Great, King Arthur, and the Trojan War, my imagination completely captured. Unfortunately, in 2004, Hollywood managed to take all three of my childhood dreams and send them crashing back down to Earth. (I speak of Alexander, King Arthur, and Troy). Of the three, Troy was probably the best. When it worked, it truly did work. There are moments that really are grand epic fun. But when it was bad...oh, boy, was it bad. The worst part was that it just seemed sloppy. Strange shots, bad editing, and questionable plot decisions ruined what could have been a solid film.

But has the new Troy: Director's Cut solved these problems? Yes and no. Make no mistake - this is not Kingdom of Heaven, where the director's cut turned the film from an interesting failure to one of the best films of the year. The major problems with Troy remain. Some of the acting is goofy, characterizations are often lazy and one-dimensional, and all the major plotting problems are still there.

But make no mistake, those problems are not as noticeable because the film has gone through quite an upgrade. This film is longer than the theatrical version, but it actually feels shorter! That is because of subtle changes that director Wolfgang Peterson made, shifting the pacing of the film, fixing any sloppiness and providing a full color adjustment that makes the film much more vibrant and beautiful to look at. The theatrical cut dragged in a lot of places and its problems were glaring. The Director's Cut moves along so smoothly that the problems don't bother me quite so much. The added scenes add some necessary and welcome character development, especially for Sean Bean's wonderful Odysseus.

In almost every way, the Director's Cut is better. My one complaint is about the music, which most people won't notice. But since I love film scores, I have to complain! The score for Troy was a last minute replacement by James Horner (Braveheart) and he wrote, recorded and mixed the entire score in 13 days. Which is pretty impressive, even if the score isn't great. But it at least got the job done efficiently. But Peterson has stripped Horner's score almost entirely from the film. The one piece he did like, he re-uses about seventeen thousand times. Then he sprinkles in music from other movies like Planet of the Apes and Starship Troopers. The rest of the music, playing wall-to-wall during dialogue scenes that don't even need music sound like a chimp farting out notes on a Yamaha synthesizer. It is TERRIBLE! And horribly distracting to me. But hey, I admit it, I might be psycho about this kind of thing. So take this with a grain of salt...

Other than that, the Director's Cut is a definite improvement over the theatrical version. If you liked the movie before, you will probably love it now. If you thought it was okay, you might like it just a little bit more. But if you hated it, this version won't do anything to change your mind. To me, it is an improved, but still not great movie. It still doesn't live up to my childhood dreams, but at least it isn't destroying them. So that's my sum-up.

P.S. I have also written a review of James Horner's score to Troy. Check it out by going to SoundtrackDB!

MVP: Gotta give it to Sean Bean. I just really enjoyed the heck out of his performance as Odysseus. And he succeeds in giving life to this iconic character with not a lot to work with. I actually want them to make a sequel because I would love to see Sean Bean in The Odyssey, tackling sirens and sea monsters!

TRIVIA: Brad Pitt (who played Achilles) injured himself during the production of the film. Ironically, he injured his achilles tendon.

BEST LINE: (minor spoiler?) Priam: I loved my boy from the moment he opened his eyes until the moment you closed them."  On paper, this doesn't sound like much of a line, but you need to see its moving delivery!

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Costume Design