Dragons: Delights, and Disappointments

I admit it. I saw Eragon opening night.
Now, I'll warn you that I'm having trouble separating the film's three tasks: cinema, adaptation, beginning of a trilogy. My review, therefore, might be a bit muddled. (I'll also warn you that I'm writing this review like you've read the book and seen the movie. If you've done neither or both, and intend to within the memorable future, stop reading.)

To appreciate this movie, you really have to view it as what it is: the first installment in a trilogy. That's not news, but it's important to remember.

As a movie, Eragon succeeds. Especially as a dragon movie--no, the beginning of a dragon movie trilogy. If you take it as an entertaining fantasy flick, you won't be disappointed. It doesn't carry the emotional or cinematic punch of, say, Fellowship of the Ring, but it's a fun ride.

Now, as an adaptation, Eragon falters. It doesn't beat around any bushes--it gets straight to the heart of the story. Unfortunately, in doing so, it avoids most of the story's heart. Indeed, this is certainly the briefest epic I've seen. If LOTR was too long, Eragon is much too short. There is a lot of cramming, condensing, and cutting in the story. I didn't like the book, but Paolini had his strengths--scenery (What happened to the city under the volcano--the giant, carved crystal rose in its center? As far as that goes, what happened to the dwarves?), philosophy (Alright, the religion is more in Eldest than Eragon, but the stuff about language and magic and the bond between dragons and their riders is barely discussed.), politics (The Varden vs. Esmerelda issues isn't even mentioned in passing.), battle scenes (Wait, what battle? Was there a battle in this movie?), and minor characters (Eh...the Twins? Angela and her cat? And how about those dwarves, who look remarkably human? Roran & Katrina? The people of Carvahall? Even Murtagh [a fairly substantial character] gets about five minutes of screen time.)--all of which were basically ignored in this film. In fact, most of this movie centers around three characters--Eragon, Brom, and Sapphira, with a little bit of Arya thrown in for romance. Ed Speelers, who plays Eragon, was well cast; he does his character justice. Jeremy Irons does an injustly brilliant portrayal of Brom; indeed, he is arguably the movie's strongest asset, although does do a fine job as Eragon. Which is vital, since he'll actually be in the other two movies. Honestly, Sapphira doesn't get as much attention as she should for this being a dragon movie.

There's a lot of distance edited from the plotline. There are a lot of substantial changes. I don't remember the details of the book, but there's plenty swept over. So this isn't really an adaptation. This a dragon movie.

Speaking of which, it really is a fun ride, if you can ignore the fact that it isn't the book. There are some engaging scenes, and the showdown between Eragon with Saphira and Durza with his Balrog-like "dark magic" employs some impressive effects. The acting is done well, if there are few characters who are given the opportunity to do so.

Eragon is, before all else, the first of three chapters. Three chapters about a boy and his dragon, and the world they save. (Well, we assume they will save it in Empire [which I think should be called End. C'mon, it starts with an E and everything...]. We don't actually know. Which begs the question, [which could be asked of, say, the Harry Potter series, as well]: How do you write a film based on a story that isn't finished? Meh. Overconfident Hollywood.) This is an interpretation of that story more than it is an adaptaion. Fox basically boils the book down to its bones, adds a little spice, and calls it soup. And it's decent soup...just don't expect pasta.

Lights, Camera, Action! (Plot Not Included)

Finally saw Dead Man's Chest last night. Unimpressive, oppressively long. The first two hours rather bored me, actually, although the last half hour was engaging.
What this production severely lacked was a steady direction. Like Jack's fickle compass, it couldn't decide which direction to point. Yes, I realize those were supposed to be twists in the plot. What the writers missed was that you have to be going somewhere before you can go somewhere else. This was a film of too much action and a lot of good ideas, none of which were given enough time to breathe (or beat, as the case may be)...not that I suggest the next flick be any longer.
I thoroughly enjoyed the three-sided sword fight (yes, it was ridiculously unrealistic, but that's what made it so fun) and the entire scene on the island where Davey Jones' heart was buried; the witch lady; the re-emergence of not-Colonel Norrington; the second kraken battle; the "un-dead monkey" and "Where's the thump-thump?" lines delivered superbly by Mr. Depp (who's performance wore a bit thin in a few spots; but then I suppose it would be difficult to reprise an icon).
Obviously, the hatch was left wide open, and there is much potential for the final installment of Pirates. I just hope the writers remembered that you have to have a plot before twisting it.
Editor's Note: As I was double checking that Norrington was, in fact, a colonol in the first movie, I came across this review, which I mostly agree with, though I would still consider Dead Man's Chest to be "worth a look", if only for the special effects and the final scene(s). If I find a better link when I have time, I'll post it.

"The Last Bland"

If you're considering going to see X-Men 3--well, go. Go expecting to see a special effects show with some familiar characters worked in, and you'll leave contented. But don't go anticipating a great story.

(I should first point out I was ten minutes late and missed the opening scenes which were, reportedly, some key flashbacks. I pretty much know what happened, so I don't think it will scew my judgement too far, but just in case...)

Discussing The Last Stand with my friend, Vanessa, one fault kept reappearing: pacing. Everything happens too fast:

Character A is introduced, then dies or is de-mutated.
Character B is introduced, dies or demutates.
Character C is introduced...Wait, what happened to Character A, again? Who is this Character C? And why do I care?

There's little cohesion, little reason given why we should care about these peop--er, mutants, other than we liked them in the previous two installments. I found myself not really caring about the characters who died, and even less about those who survived.

The hit-and-run pacing left no room for any emotional connection. Vanessa and I went to a nearly full-capacity screening, and the audience, except the guy next to me, was flat the entire time. No one cringed when characters were hurt. No one laughed at the lines that were supposed to make us laugh. It was an audience of zombies. And while no one outright booed at the end, there certainly wasn't any applause. Never before have I been to a movie--especially opening weekend, sure to draw hardcore fans; and a holiday weekend, to boot--where no one seemed to be enjoying themselves. In fact, the only member of this audience who gave any indication of being alive was the older guy sitting next to me, who was refreshingly impressed by the special effects, and endearingly vocal. He was the kind of guy who either ruins a movie experience, or improves it. And this time, he definitely improved it, dropping the only memorable lines from my experience with understated sincerity:

"Holy guacamoly."
"Uh-oh."
"He really shouldn't have done that. She's gonna be pissed now."

This guy was a stark contrast to the rest of the zomb--audience, who seemed to have taken a vow of silence, only broken after what everyone assumed to be the final scene, disappointed grumblings of "another stupid ending," "there's more?," "hold on, it's still going." *said with tired exasperation* Never have I seen such a blank, cold reception.

The Last Stand impersonally ties up some loose ends, douses us with some special effects, and ends the X-Men "trilogy" collectively, but not individually. I left the theater wishing for a fourth installment. (And although this is supposedly a closed franchise, the last scene, with the chess piece, did leave open the possibility. I think it was supposed to be the Hope For Tomorrow, The Story Continues thing. It was my favorite scene, by the way.) See, this wasn't a movie made for the sake of the story, or the characters, or the audience. It was a movie made for making money. And made money it has. And (I know, I know, I paid my $5, too) that's disappointing, because it doesn't really deserve to be the blockbuster it has become.

Do I regret going? No. It was, in its way, a fun summer flick--or would have been, if I hadn't been hoping for more--and it does have its moments, be them sparse. But I do regret this is the end of X-Men cinematically, because it wasn't nearly as good as it could--and should--have been.

(All that said, it's not as bad as it could have been. This review gives a fair analysis, but--while there aren't any direct spoilers--I don't recommend reading it before seeing the flick.)

Predjudice & The Mask

I was a bit skeptical of Pride & Predjudice, as I went into it, thinking the story couldn't be told properly in 2 & 1/2 hours. It was played out so well in the 1995 BBC version--all 6 hours of it--that it didn't seem possible to measure up. And, well, it couldn't.
That said, it was a good movie, a good rendition. I liked Keira Knightly's interpretation of the story's heroine; it was quite different--more effusive, much louder, less subtle--than Jennifer Ehle, but there was not time for subtlety in the time span. Knightly made a memorable performance in a relatively short time, a performance, in my opinion, equal to Jennifer Ehle's. Most of the characters, in fact, were equal to the performances which I am familiar with, the exceptions being Charlotte, who was much more likable and distinguishable, and Mr. Bennet, who was much less likable.
What I liked about this adaptation was how real and clamorous and unrefined it made 19th Century England, especially the Bennet family's home life. The girls weren't always sitting primly & properly, sewing or knitting or talking of the weather; there were moments of near lounging, a stark contrast to the usual portayal of Austens' world. The dances were raucous; the dancers, verciferous.
All the petticoats and tophats and tea-cups and ribbons were there, yet so was a very earthy backdrop. My only complaint was the dialogue, which was rather hurried and thus, difficult to follow. Otherwise, kudos to the filmmakers for making Austen's lengthy, detailed story accessible to the less, eh, patient viewer.

In other news of Kate's movie-viewing, I finally watched The Mask of Zorro, which was nothing like I thought it would be, but good nonetheless. I was told by a quiz once that I am more like Zorro than any other legendary super or natural hero; the movie didn't explain that much, but I would never dare to breach the Internet-human covenant by doubting the veracity of what it tells me, of course.

I am hoping to blog more this week; I have two posts up my mental sleeve, but haven't had time to apply that thought as of yet. Until next time, adieu.

Ah, Narnia...

Well, I saw The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe over the weekend, and....it's everything it should be.
Yes, it's a kid's movie, and the scenes meant to be suspensful were a little lame to this mature sage of a 16-year-old. But it should be a kid's movie, and I know I would have been spell-bound just a couple of years ago.
As usual, I can't pointedly observe what I liked about the film, but my opinion on the few things I disliked are whelming my mind. So, with no further ado, my observations/complaints are as follows:
The film tries a bit too hard to be epic. A subtler approach, in my opinion, would have worked better. That was one thing that drew me to the 1989 BBC version (even with the costumed-human beavers and drawn animation creatures)--it wasn't overdone. They let the story just sort of flow, and it was all the more enchanting because of its subtlety. Of course, Disney promoted Wardrobe as an action-adventure flick, so I was expecting as much.
The White Witch is rather strange. Her hair and odd, hunch-back-forming gowns really perturbed my friends and I, and we didn't find her to be all that beautiful, as she is described in the books. She's also exudes a rather elusive sensuality, though nothing younger kids would pick up on.
Eck, speaking of sensual vibes, am I the only one who was weirded out by the Lucy-Tumnus (who were both perfectly casted, btw) relationship? There was almost this romantic undertone that really creeped me out. She's, like, what--6 years old? I'm probably just reading too much into it--which I tend to do--and no one else mentioned it, but I could see Disney deciding that if they make A Horse and His Boy, they could bring in a romance between the two. Eck. It's still waaay to early to bring that in.
(We now interrupt your regular program for a mid-post disclaimer--
I think I analyze too much--WAY too much. Which is why this post is beginning to rival my review of Eragon in length. Well, maybe not quite that long...)
The movie follows the book fairly closely, with just a few minor changes and one added suspense scene. The one difference I found to be of any import was Aslan. He wasn't the regal, awe-inspiring God-figure Lewis portrayed him as. I'm not all that into allegories and wasn't expecting a dogmatically Christian film, but the story lost some of its effectiveness with Aslan being more "chummy" (as one friend put it) than kinglike. It was hard to understand why the children were so attached to him after just a day or so of knowing him. There simply wasn't anything compelling about this supposedly princely lion.
This also spilled over to his sacrifice, which was less poignant than it should have been. Yes, it's noble for any one to die in the place of someone else, but the concept of a majestic king meekly dying for his servant is more powerful. It was an especially defined change considering the rest of the film, conspicuously the battle scenes, tried so hard to attain grandeur, while Aslan's death--which was kind of the core of the story--was somewhat barren.
Still, cheers to Disney for sticking to the book. Though there was an underlying fecklessness to Aslan, Wardrobe was nonetheless charming. I was amused by all the mythical creatures they included, some of which, like tauroses, I don't remember from the book. I look forward to seeing the rest of Narnia on the big screen.

Batman Begins

Watched this movie on Halloween. It was a fun flick; not amazing, but not too bad. My only critique (and I haven't seen the other Batman movies to compare and contrast it with) is that it seemed like they were trying too hard for the Spiderman-2 emotionally moving and didactic affect, and it didn't really work. Oh, and I couldn't erase the image of Tom Cruise attacking a couch every time Kate Holmes came had screen time. Still, the story was interesting, particularly the psychological aspect, and it was well-acted. I'd say it's worth renting.