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

Spy Kids

Spy Kids

In 2001, Spy Kids was a complete and utter surprise to me. Writer-director Robert Rodriguez was known for his action movies and I was befuddled that the maker of Desperado was tackling a kid's movie. But he didn't just tackle it, he knocked it out of the park.

Kids live action films are often terrible. I know I am not the audience for them, but what happened to movies that the whole family could enjoy, including the parents? (Pixar has had the formula down from the very beginning; why weren't other studios taking notes?!?)

Maybe it just takes an outsider, like an action director, to get the job done right. Spy Kids is about two former spies Gregorio and Ingrid Cortez (Antonio Banderas and Carla Gugino) who go off on one more mission and get themselves kidnapped by an evil kid's television show producer and weapons dealer Flooj (Alan Cummings). Now it is up the Cortez' children, Juni and Carmen, to save the day and to do that, they must become Spy Kids! Complete with snazzy gadgets that would make James Bond jealous, they avoid the bad guys and slowly work their way to Flooj's castle. Along the way, we all learn about the importance of family (well, there has to be some sort of moral).

Sound goofy? It sure is, but Spy Kids shows that goofiness does not mean stupid. This is a smart and clever movie, inventive in its jokes and action set pieces. The acting is terrific - especially Alexa Vega and Daryl Sabara as Carmen and Juni. Where the hell did they find these kids?! They not only handle the action and dialogue convincingly, they also have a wicked sense of comic timing I would not have expected from actors that young. And unlike most movies about siblings, these two actually act like they're related - where you can go from arguing to playing to arguing to hitting to playing, all in the span of 30 seconds.

I was worried that the effectiveness of Spy Kids would be diminished by the increasingly over-the-top sequels. But luckily, this movie is just as clever as it was when I first watched it 10 years ago. I don't know what its place in movie history is going to be, but I certainly hope it lifts into the pantheon of children's classics. Its deserves it.

MVP: Clearly it was a casting coup to get Darryl Sabara and Alexa Vega. But I think I am going to have to give it to Alexa Vegas as Carmen, just because I think she had a harder role. Carmen is the annoying older sister, always forced to take care of an annoying brother she doesn't like very much. Her story arc into a family loving spy is terrific, particularly when she gets to share the scenes arguing with her grumpy uncle, Machete (Danny Trejo).

TRIVIA: The evil Thumb-Thumbs are based on drawings Robert Rodriguez did as a little kid.

BEST LINE: Gregorio: "He's emotional...uh, he's Latino."

Shrek Forever After

Shrek Forever After

Sometimes a sequel in a long-standing franchise is like the return of an old friend. But sometimes a sequel is like that friend who wears out his welcome and just kind of sticks around when everyone else has gone home and you just want to go to sleep. The third film in the Shrek franchise, Shrek the Third, was definitely that friend, and I definitely was not looking forward to the fourth movie. What if you fall asleep and you wake up and the friend is still there???? That is what I thought Shrek Forever After would be.

And yet, as the movie went on, something peculiar happened - I found myself laughing. There is nothing particularly original about Shrek Ever After. We've seen many of the jokes before, but they are well executed and made me smile.

The plot isn't even particularly original - it is basically an adaptation of It's a Wonderful Life. But that might be the film's strength. The franchise had written itself into a corner. It had ceased being a ironic take on Disney's consumerism, and had actually become a consumer empire in of itself. It had degraded from twisting the fairy tales of our youth to a ninety-minute pop culture reference full of other pop culture references. But by showing us a world where Shrek doesn't exist, the filmmakers are able at least temporarily hit the reset button. It is amusing to see what happened to all the famous characters of the past films. If Shrek had never walked out of his swamp, what would Donkey, Puss in Boots, and Ginger Bread Man (my favorite) be up to?

If the movie is not as clever as the first Shrek or have as many belly laughs as the second, at least it is never grating like the third. Overall, it's okay. Certainly nothing you need to rush out and see, but at least the movie rights the ship and gives the franchise a proper farewell. In the end, maybe Shrek Forever After is that friend that stays too long, but at least makes a good joke before he leaves. If the joke is good enough, sometimes that can make the whole ordeal worth it.

MVP: Once again, Antonio Banderas puts his castmates to shame and steals every scene he is in as Puss in Boots. As I am sure you saw from the commercials, in this alternate reality Puss has retired and has gotten enormously fat. This provides fodder for some of the best lines and sight gags in the film (like when Puss is too fat to clean himself). It also gives us our best line of the movie.

BEST LINE: Puss in Boots: "Feed me...if you dare!!!"

TRIVIA:
As the Head of Story at Dreamworks Animation, Walt Dohrn would perform all the character voices during storyboard meetings.  It seems that no one could do a Rumpelstiltskin anywhere near as entertaining as he could, so he was cast in the part!

Robin Hood (2010)

Robin Hood

To be fair, I was not expecting much from the new Robin Hood. Constant delays and continuous script rewrites were among the rumors coming down the pipeline. But what concerned me more was that every time word came of a script rewrite, the entire concept of the film sounded different. First, it was supposed to be the Robin Hood story from the Sheriff of Nottingham's point-of-view, then it was supposed to be some sort of Scarlet Pimpernel situation where Robin Hood and the Sheriff were the same person, and then it turned into this "realistic" prequel that the Sheriff is hardly even in. To me this just sounded like director Ridley Scott wasn't sure what story he wanted to tell. And that is a bad sign.

So it is no surprise that the story of how lowly English archer Robin Longstride became a national hero and then infamous outlaw is deeply flawed at the conceptual level. This is a movie in search of itself.

Which is not to say it is all bad. There is too much talent involved, and they strive valiantly to make the film work. The acting along the board is terrific. Russell Crowe is brooding, and a bit in Gladiator mode, but he carries the film admirably on his shoulders. He isn't Errol Flynn, but he certainly isn't Kevin Costner, either. And Crowe and Blanchett, as Maid Marian, have an easy and realistic chemistry. Mark Strong as the villainous Godfrey, Oscar Isaac as King John, and William Hurt as loyal English baron William Marshall, all deliver terrific performances. The art direction and cinematography are all great; once again Ridley Scott's greatest success is in creating another world that is entirely believeable and not 'Hollywood.'

So it really is a shame that the film does not gel together. The first 30 minutes is all over the place, terribly edited and paced. And then the moment at the end where (not a big spoiler here) Robin Hood actually becomes an outlaw seems entirely arbitrary and silly. Inbetween, there are a legion of half formed ideas, from the weird wild children living in the woods who look like extras from Zardoz to a major plot point about a certain character's father that appears for five minutes, says its really important, and then vanishes without any other mention.

It is possible that there is a director's cut lurking out there, just like Ridley Scott's previous epic Kingdom of Heaven. With the extra footage, that film went from mediocre to superb. But I don't know if the extra footage would help Robin Hood. The problems run too deep. Like I said in the beginning, I wasn't expecting much from the film. And unfortunately, I got exactly what I expected...

MVP: I have to give it to the production designers, art directors, and costume team. From the castles to the armor to the look and feel of the villages, this is a world that lives and breaths and feels real. Kudos.

BEST LINE: Can I pick a line so bad it's good? "I declare him to be an outLAWWWWWW!!!!!"

TRIVIA: Russell Crowe at 45 is the oldest actor to play Robin Hood. Which surprises me because Connery looked pretty darn old in Robin and Marion.

Shane

Shane

Let's cut to the chase. Shane should be horribly dated. It should be one of those movies that loses its impact because it has been copied so many times. I went in with this fear and almost saw it realized.

I sensed trouble brewing immediately. Just like we've seen a million times before, an evil rancher - in this movie his name is Ryker (Emile Meyer) - is trying to push all the farmers off his potential grazing grounds. And just as we've seen a million times before, a bunch of thugs are in the process of bullying a poor sharecropping family (Van Heflin as dad, Jean Arthur as mom, and Brandon DeWilde as the son) when silent and badass Shane (Alan Ladd) appears. The bad guys, terrified of Shane's badassness, run away. The immediate problem for me, even this early in the movie, was that Shane just wasn't bad ass. I was pretty sure that even I could take him in a fight - and considering how much of a wuss I am, that says something. What follows is a bunch of scenes we've seen in dozens of westerns, including bar fights, country dances, a gunfighter who tries to settle down, quick draws, and evil guns-for-hire (a young and menacing Jack Palance). Maybe Shane did a lot of this first, but we've seen it all now a hundred times over.

But as the movie progressed a funny thing started to happen. I got hooked. The acting is truly what won me over. Van Heflin's perfectly pitched and natural performance as the farmer Joe Starrett was the first thing I noticed. Then it was Palance's genuinely creepy bad guy who seemingly can't stop smiling even when he guns you down. And then I figured out Shane's secret. He doesn't need to act badass. He doesn't even want to be badass. He's a genuinely nice and polite person. But push him too far and there will be hell to pay. He's nowhere near as tough as later lone warriors as played by Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson or countless others, but I have a feeling he could kill them all without blinking. It's a subtle performance from the underrated Alan Ladd, and very real.

So it is safe to say that by the time the movie ended, I thought to myself, "Yeah, this IS a classic." We've seen it a dozen times before, but rarely has it been done better. The movie sneaks up on you and wins you over completely. I would definitely recommend it!

SPOILER: DON'T READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE!

One thing to discuss is whether or not Shane dies at the end of the film. I am of the firm belief that he does die. When the last shot of the movie is Shane's silhouette, stiffly slumped over a horse that is aimlessly walking across camera...I'm pretty sure the man is dead. Besides, Shane can't live. It defeats the purpose of the movie. His world is ending. Civilization and families are moving in, as represented by the Starretts. Shane does love this new world. He wants to be a part of it and much of the movie revolves around his attempts to join this more peaceful future. But in the end, its not his world. His world is the gun, blood, and ultimately death. And to me, that's what the movie is about. So sorry folks - Shane is dead!

OSCARS: Best Cinematography

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actor (Palance and DeWilde), Best Director (George Stevens), Best Picture, Best Screenplay

MVP: Alan Ladd puts in terrific work, but I'm actually going with Van Heflin. His performance is not dated in the least. He should be a noble and pompous ass, as written, but Van Heflin grounds the performance in reality and makes Starrett a man who ultimately just wants what is best for his family. You can't help but to look up to the guy. It's good work from an actor I never really paid attention to before. I'll be paying attention now...

TRIVIA: The memorable scene were Shane practices shooting in front of Brandon DeWilde took 119 takes to get right!

Romancing the Stone

Romancing the Stone

Ah, one of the classics of my youth. I hadn't seen this in at least 10 years, if not longer. I was definitely afraid that it wasn't going to hold up very well. Thankfully it does - for the most part.

Often unfairly dismissed as an Indiana Jones knockoff, Romancing the Stone was one of the big hits of 1984, helping launch the career of director Robert Zemeckis (who went on to direct Back to the Future next) and cement the status of Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner as major stars.

Joan Wilder (Kathleen Turner) is a lonely writer of romance novels who receives a mysterious map in the mail. This is followed immediately by a phone call by smugglers Ira (Zack Norman) and Ralph (Danny DeVito) who have kidnapped Joan's sister in Columbia. They will exchange her sister for the map. Next thing she knows, Joan is on a plane to South America, where she runs into bird smuggler and tough guy Jack T. Colton (Michael Douglas). Together, they bicker, argue, run away from bad guys, and try to solve the secrets of the map.

The big difference between Romancing the Stone and the Indiana Jones franchise is that this is a romantic adventure. There are love interests in the Indiana Jones movies, but ultimately the movie is just about him. The one time they do decide to have personal relationship develop throughout a movie, it is between Indy and his father, not a romantic interest. Romancing the Stone, on the other hand, is just as much about these two falling for each other as it is about maps and jewels and danger. It's ancestry is older than Indiana Jones; it probably has more in common with The African Queen.

But please don't misconstrue and think I'm saying Romancing the Stone is better than Indiana Jones. NO WAY. Indiana Jones is timeless. Anyone who thinks Romancing the Stone is timeless is smoking something. The biggest offender is the music score. I normally like Alan Silvestri (who went on to score all of Zemeckis' other movies, including Forrest Gump), but this is some synthesized garbage that was probably already out-of-fashion when the movie came out in 1984. Even the dramatic scenes cannot be taken seriously because of this terrible music - a good lesson that music really can make a huge difference.

But the film is entertaining enough and moves along at a good pace. That the movie works as well as it does is a testament to its two leads - Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner are terrific and have great chemistry. The two made three movies together, but they should have made more. They make quite a pair, whether they are fighting or flirting. It doesn't hurt that Turner looks stunning!

So anyways, is Romancing the Stone a classic? No, but it is a lighthearted and tight little piece of entertainment, bolstered by some great performances and hindered greatly by its 1980-ness.


MVP: Do I go for Michael Douglas' badass Jack T. Colton or for Kathleen Turner's beautiful novelist-in-danger. There's no contest. It's gotta be Kathleen Turner. She carries the whole movie on her shoulders, after all, and puts in better work than you would expect for a little adventure movie. She takes a character who is dependent and whiny, but somehow makes her still likable. I'm not ruining anything to say that her character arc is to eventually have her evolve into strong and independent woman by the end of the film, but Turner plots the course believably. We've all seen this same character arc in dozens of movies, and very few have pulled it off as well as Turner does here. She was awarded with a Golden Globe for her work, and I think it was well-deserved.

TRIVIA: I am willing to admit that maybe Romancing the Stone was greenlit by a studio because of Indiana Jones. But further proof that it is not a knockoff is that the script was written five years before Raiders of the Lost Ark. So there you go...

BEST LINE: Easy. I've been quoting this line my whole life!

Joan Wilder: What's your name?
Jack T. Colton: Jack T. Colton.
Joan Wilder: What's the "T" stand for?
Jack T. Colton: Trustworthy.

OSCAR NOMINATION: Best Editing