mharrsch-1 Reviews

The Last Legion (2007)

Weak Lead..Weak Director..Weak Screenplay

[5/10 · 20 August 2007]

Well, I saw The Last Legion on Saturday afternoon and must admit, even though I wasn't expecting a lot, it was still a bit of a disappointment. Although it was supposedly based on Manfredi's book, the screenwriter used only the beginning and the end and skipped all of the hair raising journey across Gaul and narrow escapes from Wulfila. Kevin McKidd's screen intensity as Wulfila outshone almost everyone else and instead of capitalizing on it, the director chose to limit his screen time and spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on the PG-13 adolescent fencing between Aurelius and the woman warrior, Mira.

I'm afraid I also found Colin Firth less than charismatic and his performance rather lackluster. The young man that played Romulus Augustulus, Thomas Sangster, was good and those piercing eyes should serve him well if he should make acting a long term career choice. I see he already has quite a start on a filmography even at his young age.

Although a little low key at times, Ben Kingsley did a good job as Ambrosinus/Merlin and could join the ranks of Liam Neeson and Ian McKellen as a believable "wise mentor" figure. Indian actress Aishwarya Rai was beautiful and quite physically energetic despite the confines of a PG-13 script. It's just too bad she didn't have someone to play opposite that could engender more screen chemistry.

I'm disappointed that Alexander Siddig, another fine actor as evidenced by his turn in Syriana, was given practically a cameo role as the Byzantine ambassador who was quickly dispatched after revealing that the emperor of the East had chosen to recognize Odoacer rather than give refuge to the boy Romulus. And, John Hannah was totally miscast as complicit Senator Nestor. In fact, a friend of mine said she wondered if his death scene was supposed to be humorous! As for director, Doug Lefler, he'd better not give up his day job as a storyboard artist.

Alexander (2004)

Stone stumbles over Alexander

[7/10 · 14 December 2004]

When "Gladiator" stirred a latent interest in films about the ancient world I was so hopeful we would finally be able to enjoy some exciting cinema about my favorite time period. I have not been totally disappointed. USA Television network has given us Attila, Caesar, and Helen of Troy - not without flaws but solid efforts. Wolfgang Peterson's "Troy" did not resemble the Iliad I had studied but I appreciated the performances of Eric Bana and Brad Pitt. Brukheimer's "King Arthur" could have used more experienced epic direction but was loosely based on historical accounts of Sarmatian auxiliaries and their commanders in late Roman Britain and I liked the grittier result to the fairy tale legends of my childhood. Then I heard about Oliver Stone's production of "Alexander" and I was sure we would have a film of the caliber of "Ben Hur". Unfortunately, Stone managed to take what should have been a ready-made screenplay and solid performances by Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer, and Colin Farrel and imparted as much insight into the character and charisma of the world's most famous conqueror and military genius as the images of shadowy figures thrashing about in the blinding dust of Stone's Gaugamela.

His opening sequence with Anthony Hopkins, as Ptolemy I, droning on about his memories of Alexander was more protracted than a prologue to a History Channel documentary. In fact, I heard a man behind me mutter something like "I came to watch a movie not the History Channel!"

Stone's next major error was to omit any scenes of Philip's military prowess. "The Lion of Macedon" was as much a military genius as his celebrated son but Stone leaves us with little more than an impression he was a drunken lout. The omission of the battle of Charonea was nothing short of a blunder since it epitomized the sharing of military experience between father and son with Philip masterminding the battle and Alexander, a mere 18-years old, leading the cavalry in a critical maneuver to assure the victory. Stone handles Alexander's tutelage by Aristotle clumsily as well. Instead of focusing on Alexander's insatiable curiosity about the world around him and how Aristotle nurtured his intellect, we see a brief scene where Aristotle is essentially defending Alexander's friendship with Hephaistion to a sneering Cassander. During Alexander's brief lifetime, Alexander maintained his relationship with his tutor for years, sending examples of plants and animals from the lands he conquered back to Aristotle for study.

Then to skip both the battles of the Granicus River and Issus totally left me aghast. I think the most damaging omission was the battle of Issus. It is at Issus that Alexander first confronts Darius himself and Darius flees from the Macedonian onslaught, leaving his wife and daughters to Alexander's mercy. When Stone depicts Darius running from Alexander at Gaugamela it is done in such a way that the audience doesn't perceive it to be a lack of personal courage but just an escape, especially without the knowledge that Darius had broken and run from Alexander before.

Furthermore, Gaugamela was not executed in a way that illuminated Alexander's strategy and daring. Stone should have watched "Alexander: The Art of War" produced by the Discovery Channel for better insight.

Stone treats us to only one last battle scene in India at the Hydapses River. Again, it looks more like a running jungle battle vis-a-vis Vietnam than a carefully strategized battle where Alexander had to execute a tenuous river crossing below the expected battle site to draw some of King Porus' forces away from the center and enable Alexander's infantry to be effective.

As for the near mortal wound, Alexander was wounded at the siege of Malia, a fortified town on the way back to the Indian Ocean. He dashed over the ramparts of the town before his main force could catch up to him and he wound up cut off and, with three other companions, cornered and fighting for his life. Two of his companions were killed and a severely wounded Alexander is protected by the last remaining companion bearing the shield Alexander had supposedly taken from the grave of Achilles at Troy - another missed cinematic opportunity!

As for Alexander's bisexuality, I objected to Stone's portrayal of Hephaistion as an eye-linered catamite walking around in billowing robes. Hephaistion was as skilled a warrior as Alexander and a successful commander in his own right. Maybe Stone could not bring himself to accept a deep relationship between two very masculine men.

Now, I can only hope that the vehicle starring Leonardo diCaprio is produced or HBO gives Alexander the treatment he deserves with a blockbuster miniseries like "Band of Brothers".

Mystic River (2003)

Disjointed Mystic River disappoints

[2 August 2004]

I watched Mystic River on Pay-per-view this weekend. Since I highly respect Clint Eastwood's directing activities, I was looking forward to this film quite a bit, especially in view of the Oscar nominations it received and awards that it won. However, I found the film somewhat disjointed. Since the name of the film is "Mystic River" perhaps it could have had a more coherent flow if Eastwood had used the theme of the river to stitch together the different events in the lives of the main characters. For example, when the young boy was abducted, use the river as his means of escape. Later, have the river disgorge the body of Ray Harris after the Sean Penn character is released from prison. Place the discovery of Sean's daughter's body near the river. Likewise, have the river connected to Dave Boyle's activities. (I'm trying hard not to write a spoiler).

As it was, I thought it was misleading to portray the Sean Penn character as having only a little brush with the law as a young man. His relationship to the Savage brothers indicated a much darker character than that. There was no background story of the problems the Tim Robbins character had suffered throughout his adult life as a result of his childhood molestation. The relationship between the three main characters was not close so the emotional impact of the conclusion was blunted and rather muddled. Robbins and Penn were both good in their roles but I would not place either of their performances in the "best actor" category. I know Hollywood is, for some reason, down on Tom Cruise as an actor, but he definitely portrayed more emotional range in "The Last Samurai" than anyone in Mystic River.

Helen of Troy (2003)

Although more love story than epic, miniseries still entertaining.

[13 July 2004]

Overall I found the program entertaining and noticed there was an attempt to at least follow some of the events in mythology. I didn't remember Theseus being killed by Pollux (and my web research confirmed my suspicion). I also didn't remember Paris being abandoned and raised by a shepherd but I checked on that and it is part of the myth.

There are several things that do detract from a reasonably well-made story. Achilles is nearly a non-character and totally out of character with the other members of the cast. (That shaved head just looks totally wrong and the scriptwriter has not given the actor any lines to work with either) I noticed on the USA website that he isn't even mentioned as a main character. Of course by downplaying Achilles, USA was able to side-step the Patroklas issue. Paris is also portrayed as being able to defeat Hector in hand-to-hand combat. Hector's character should be fleshed out and epitomize honor and courage but in this program he is definitely taking a back seat to Paris.

On the positive side, Rufus Sewell is excellent as Agammenon. He commands such screen presence that he virtually steals the scenes in which he appears. Matthew Marsden is doing a good job as Paris too. Sienna Guillory is putting a lot of effort into her part as Helen and I enjoyed the brief but amiable appearance of Stellan Skarsgard as Theseus. Emilia Fox is also suitably otherwordly as Cassandra.

Although it had some intense battle scenes (I notice that the director attempted to recreate the "Saving Private Ryan" effect with the whizzing arrows and water level landing scenes) I felt the storyline lost a great deal without the morality lessons of Achilles, Patroklas and Hector's aristeias. Achilles was just a vicious brute. Since there was no grief for Patroklas, his dragging of Hectors body behind his chariot had no particular significance except to make him look like he was just vainglorius. (Alexander the Great would have never idolized a person like that!) Of course, in real Greek mythology, Agammenon brought Cassandra back to Mycenae as a slave.

Slight spoiler ahead:

There is no mention of any rape of his brother's wife Helen. I assume this scene was intended to thoroughly villify Agammenon since the entire program seemed focused on him as the antagonist. I also did a double take when Clytemnestra showed up in Troy. I guess the director was running out of time so they didn't have time to have Agammenon sail back to Greece to be murdered in his bath. I also found the Paris-Menelaus duel strange. In the Iliad, Menelaus supposedly wounded Paris so grievously that Paris had to be rescued by Aphrodite. Having Menelaus show clemency was confusing. I guess it was intended to show Menelaus was not so bad after all. I couldn't reconcile this view of Menelaus, though, with the fact that he apparently allowed Agammenon to take over his wife as was shown in the bath murder scene with Clytemnestra.

The hubris of the Greek sack of Troy was also not shown. Priam was killed but not at the household altar. Cassandra was not shown raped in the temple of Athena by Aios the Lesser. (although according to this website, Cassandra may not have been raped after all.

Queen Hecuba was murdered rather than enslaved and of course there was no mention of Andromache and little Astyanax.

All in all, however, it was much more interesting to watch than Junkyard Wars!

The Last Samurai (2003)

Outstanding Performances and Excellent Cinematography Highlight Cruise Film.

[13 July 2004]

For me, one of the most outstanding films this past year was "The Last Samurai". Tom Cruise was excellent as the disillusioned civil war hero whose personal courage erupted so naturally on the battlefield despite his obvious hatred for the carnage that is always the result of such a desperate struggle.

Ken Wantanabe was simply majestic as the Samurai war lord and a worthy successor to the popularity of the late Toshiro Mifune. Shin Koyamada was very moving in his performance, particularly the sequence where he is humiliated by the government soldiers and his hair is cut off. And I couldn't help but find the young boy who came to love Algren as charming as my own grandson, who is half Japanese.

I also enjoyed the cinematography and CGI, especially the scene when Algren's ship is entering Tokyo bay of the late 19th century. I also empathized with the samurais' struggle to prevent the loss of their way of life. Omura's singleminded greed seemed to reflect the dark influence of capitalism on a culture emerging from centuries of social tradition.

Critics complained about the cheesy ending but at least it softened the conclusion of the film for those people, like my husband, a Vietnam Vet who suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, who find a "downer" ending depressing.

King Arthur (2004)

Dark Arthur compelling but suffers from bad film editing

[8 July 2004]

Well, I took off work early yesterday so I could see Bruckheimer's new "King Arthur" on opening day. I liked this new darker version of Arthur and his knights although I felt the film suffered from some bad film editing trying to fit it into a shorter time slot than it deserved. I think there should have been a more in-depth introduction of characters and examples of experiences that resulted in their bonding as a combat unit and brotherhood that occurred over time as they served together. The film opens with Lancelot being "drafted" and taken from his Sarmatian family as a youth. Then the film jumps ahead 15 years and Arthur and his battle-hardened cavalry are seen riding to the rescue of a bishop traveling to a fort along Hadrian's wall. There is an obvious bond between the men but the viewer is not given any background for this close bond or the legendary exploits that others in the film refer to.

In "Gladiator", Ridley Scott illustrates the relationship between Maximus and his men in the opening sequence. You can almost read Maximus' thoughts as he fingers the wheat, smiles at the bird, then his face hardens as he thinks about the battle to come. He passes down the line of his troops, sharing quips, patting armor, obviously respected by his troops as a leader who has shared their lot. He and Quintus discuss the placement of the catapults, clearly establishing Quintus as the second in command and, when Quintus expresses concern about Maximus' safety, demonstrating he is obviously bonded to Maximus as well.

Arthur's director, Antoine Fuqua, leaves the audience guessing about the knights and their relationships to themselves and Arthur. A special relationship between Lancelot and Arthur is slightly inferred but not demonstrated well enough to bring the appropriate level of pathos to the final scenes. Several times throughout the film, Fuqua seems to almost pause the action for a "Kodak" moment. The pauses are so noticeable that I felt they interrupted the flow of the narrative although I must admit I didn't mind at all having a long look at Clive Owen in his Roman attire.

Slight spoiler ahead:

I also thought the sequence where Arthur discovers a Roman noble's bodyguards bricking up a dungeon where Guinevere is being starved to death by monks for her pagan ways while everyone else is fleeing to escape the Saxons (whose drums are heard loudly in the background) a bit contrived. I think it would have been more natural for Arthur and Guinevere to have come into conflict on opposing sides, with Arthur a witness to her warrior skills, then have Arthur get to know her on a personal level when the two sides join to fight the Saxons. As it is, Guinevere is near death when Arthur rescues her. She recovers rather quickly, then is hardly challenged when she announces she is staying with the knights in their delaying action on the frozen lake. Again, I felt there was some insightful film footage that ended up on the cutting room floor. Even so, Guinevere is in a feminine flowing gown during that battle. Later when the Saxons attack the fort, a Guinevere covered with tattoos and sporting a skimpy leather bikini charges into battle and the knights hardly notice the difference.

Of course, I was also a little taken aback that Stellan Skarsgard, my sweet Theseus from the Helen of Troy miniseries, could be such a hardened, merciless warrior. He played the part well, however.

Overall, however, I liked this version of the Arthur legend better than the fairy tale world of Sir Thomas Mallory. The characters were much more human and believable in their vices and disillusionment that surely were experienced by many Britons during this period of cataclysmic upheaval.

Troy (2004)

Troy may be inspired by Homer's Iliad but definitely not based on it.

[17 May 2004]

Here are some of the Pros of the new film:

Patroclus is present and is at least dealt with as a beloved cousin.

The story focuses on Achilles, Hector, and Agamemnon with sufficient homage paid to the questions of duty, honor, and glory rather than the love between Paris and Helen.

The cinematography and special effects were good but, IMHO, not really superior to those used in the USA miniseries "Helen of Troy".

There was much more focus on Hector as a loving husband and father as well as skilled warrior and Andromache and Astyanax were nicely represented although I would have treasured a scene of Hector accidentally frightening Asytanax by appearing in his gore-covered armor as related by Homer.

Achilles was far superior to the bald, mindless brute portrayed in USA's "Helen of Troy". Even though I personally feared that Brad Pitt was not my mental visualization of Achilles, he actually portrayed a conflicted hero quite well. Eric Bana's screen presence as Hector was also equally riveting (as one of the other film critics pointed out). I liked the actor who portrayed Hector in the miniseries but his part was deliberately overshadowed by the focus on Paris.

Here are some of the cons as I perceive them:

The screenplay had eliminated almost all reference to the role of the divine in the events portrayed. There was no judgment of Paris. The gods did not rescue Paris by obscuring him with fog during his duel with Menelaus. Most of all, sadly, there was no flame-wreathed Achilles standing and shouting out his grief for Patroclus. The only "paranormal" reference that I remember was Hector's admission that he had seen his fate in a dream.

Although the Iliad does not mention Agamemnon's sacrifice of Iphigenia, that is one of the events told in the collective Trojan War myths that was included in USA's "Helen of Troy" that I found quite poignant and that provided much more depth to the character of Agammenon portrayed by Rufus Sewell. I thought Brian Cox's Agamemnon was rather one dimensional – simply the personification of an individual totally corrupted by power.

I also preferred James Callis' personification of Menelaus to hold more humanity than the brutish warrior portrayed by Brendan Gleeson.

Cassandra and her torment about forseeing the destruction of Troy was totally omitted. I thought this aspect of the story was incorporated quite effectively in the TV miniseries.

Since Iphigenia was omitted, a vengeful Clytemnestra was also omitted. Again, the TV miniseries provided a more dramatic resolution than this movie.

Aeneas was portrayed as a youth. In Homer, Aeneas was second only to Hector in Trojan military prowess. The boy in this movie doesn't even look old enough to have taken part in the fighting and how he was managing to pack his aged father on his back is a mystery to me. He was also too young to be leading a son, old enough to be walking unassisted (Ascanius).

Small spoiler ahead.

The movie makers decided to kill Ajax, in this film just window dressing - a huge man slinging a huge hammer around, in one of the battle scenes instead of portraying his suicide after the sack of Troy, committed because he was not awarded Achilles armor. There has been a lot of discussion about Sean Bean as Odysseus starring in a sequel. This negates the possibility of incorporating any emotional meeting between an unforgiving Ajax and Odysseus in the underworld.

I still enjoyed myself and simply hope that some day someone in Hollywood will have the common sense to film the classic in its original form.