So while I was working on the Your Highness review, I made a concerted effort to think of every movie that falls into the "sword and sorcery" category that David Gordon Green's movie is paying homage / gentling mocking. If you saw the review, I narrowed it down to Conan the Barbarian (have seen) and Krull (have not seen). I also mentioned The Barbarian and the Princess because, if I remember correctly, the VHS has a four-breasted woman on the cover. It turns out that such a movie does not exist, because it's actually called The Warrior and the Sorceress. Again, I'm not really an expert on this subgenre.
While thinking carefully about it, I realized I could name a few other movies that I've seen part of, all of, or think I might have seen when I was younger. Here is a list with any thoughts that possibly come to mind with them.
Masters of the Universe - A He-Man movie has to count in some capacity. I've never seen Masters of the Universe, but it was playing in the background during a birthday party / sleepover I went to. That and A Nightmare on Elm Street, I think.
Circle of Iron - Hey! I actually reviewed this movie - it's a kung-fu, sword and sorcery, parable sort of thing, but there's lot of loincloths and warriors and stupid crap with David Carradine as a leopard dude.
Deathsport - So I watched the first thirty minutes of this Roger Corman produced ripoff of Roger Corman's Death Race 2000. Instead of cars, there are motorcycles, but first peasants ride around on horses and avoid mutants, and David Carradine is rocking a loincloth / cape combination but also shoots some kind of weird laser gun. Technically it's more "post-apocalyptic" but it reminded me of some of the dumber "sword and sorcery" shit.
Willow - I saw Willow when I was young, and even then it seemed like a pretty weak knock-off of Star Wars, but with witches and Warwick Davis and Val Kilmer. I seem to remember the whole two headed dragon growing out of some sort of sac grossed me out and I haven't watched it since.
Cave Dwellers - I saw it on MST3k.
The Scorpion King - from the director of A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 3: The Dream Warriors and the pro-wrestler-turned-crappy-cgi-effect formerly known as The Rock. This isn't even a guilty pleasure - I openly enjoy this silly movie that's part Conan the Barbarian, part Conan the Destroyer.
The Beastmaster - I'm not positive I ever saw all of Don Coscarelli's The Beastmaster. I'm not even really sure I've seen some of this movie, or at all. Maybe I just know what it is.
Dragonslayer - Like Willow, I saw Dragonslayer and it creeped me out in parts. Specifically the parts with Peter MacNicol.
Ladyhawke (?) - Forgive me, because I don't remember many swords. I guess there probably were, but mostly I remember Matthew Broderick from War Games and I remember not knowing who Rutger Hauer and Michelle Pfeiffer were.
The Lord of the Rings - These movies don't count, do they? I kept finding it on lists, along with Highlander and Excalibur, which I guess kinda technically count. Your Highness does borrow a few helicopter shots of our heroes on their journey, one of which reminded me of a similar shot used in the trailer for The Hobbit.
Jason and the Argonauts / The 7th Voyage of Sinbad / Clash of the Titans - The Ray Harryhausen triptych of movies I guess are unmistakably "sword and sorcery" or at least "sword and Greek mythology" films. I saw all of these as a kid (funny how I didn't see many of these films after age nine...) and the robot bird Simon in Your Highness is most definitely a nod to that stupid robotic owl in Clash of the Titans. I forgot its name and don't know that I need to know it. I'll pretend its name is Archimedes, which I'm pretty sure is the name of the owl in The Sword and the Stone.
The Black Cauldron - Speaking of Walt Disney, I never even considered this movie to qualify, but more than one list mentioned both The Sword and the Stone and The Black Cauldron. I saved The Black Cauldron for last because at least I have a story about this movie.
I saw The Black Cauldron when it opened in theatres and was apparently the one kid in the world that didn't think it was the nadir of Disney animation (see: Waking Sleeping Beauty). In fact, I couldn't wait to rent the VHS tape when it came out... which was funny, because it DIDN'T come out on videocassette. Not until I was in high school, as a matter of fact. Like Song of the South, The Black Cauldron simply vanished from the lips of anyone involved with The Walt Disney Corporation for the rest of the 1980s. It took the better part of a decade before anyone could watch it again. I still don't really get the "sword and sorcery" categorization, mostly because I always connect that subgenre with the desert, but I guess it does fit in.
Do you like how I mentioned two different Nightmare on Elm Street movies even though they are in no way topically related to these films?
So I guess there were more movies than I led you to believe yesterday, although I've seen maybe three of them in the last ten years in their entirety. Several of them I only saw once, when I was pretty young, and they didn't make much of an impression. That might explain why Your Highness was slightly perplexing to the Cap'n.
Showing posts with label Wizards Gone Wild. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wizards Gone Wild. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Monday, September 19, 2011
Blogorium Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two
Forgive me, but I'm late to the party. By now, anybody who was going to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two has already seen it or will be buying the film on DVD / Blu-Ray when it comes out... Christmas? I just checked and there's still no announcement, so let's go with that for now. I've heard two opinions with respect to the film: the film faithfully represents the second half of the novel, or that it narrows its focus in such a way that the final battle lacks the scope it should. Many characters get what amount to cameos (including a "blink-and-you'll-miss-it" Emma Thompson shot), and characters that were set up (like Grawp) are totally left out. On the other hand, the film is often astonishingly bleak, in keeping with where Harry, Ron, and Hermione find themselves at the end of the last film.
There doesn't seem to be much point in writing a plot recap, so I'll skip straight to my reaction. Lest ye wonder further, I really liked the film. I do understand the criticism of director David Yates and writer Steve Kloves' decision to focus solely on the trio of young wizards at the expense of a battle we've been waiting for these last four years. It was, in part, why fans were relieved when Warner Brothers split The Deathly Hallows into two films (a canny marketing strategy) - there was a sense that nothing crucial would be missing from the story, a problem that plagued various entries in different ways. The film begins, appropriately, to a grim and mournful march for students into Hogwarts. Escorted by Death Eaters, guarded by Dementors and overseen by the haunted visage of Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), this will not be the light hearted adventure that hid somewhere behind even the darkest entries into the series before. It opens The Deathly Hallows on a somber note of desperation - Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has The Elder Wand and is consolidating all of this power to the single purpose of killing Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe).
In the interest of keeping the film vaguely adventurous, Harry, Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) are still hunting for Horcruxes scattered by Voldemort, including a trip back into Gringotts bank with Griphook (Warwick Davis). The moment is amusing if for nothing else than seeing Helena Bonham Carter playing Bellatrix Lestrange as Hermione might imagine her, a performance that allows Carter to have some fun. My guess is that the extended magical mine cart ride existed largely to justify the 3-D, and it works well enough with out it but takes longer than it needs to. I'm inclined to give it a pass because when it's time to have actual stakes, people actually die and a dragon does what dragons ought to do, even in a "children's" movie*. From here on out, it's a direct line to Hogwarts and the final showdown between good and evil.
Before addressing the how's and why's of criticisms of The Battle of Hogwarts, allow me to take a moment to mention things I was very taken by in translation from novel to film: I really liked Abeforth Dumbledore (Ciarán Hinds), the jaded, resigned brother of Hogwarts' former headmaster. He was exactly the voice of reason the story lacked up to this point, even if his position is short-lived. The final revelation of Severus Snape was handled pitch-perfectly, and integrates itself into earlier films in such a way that explain lingering mysteries while wrapping up his narrative arc. Many characters get smaller moments to shine, including Molly Weasley (Julie Walters), Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis), Ollivander (John Hurt), Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith), and especially the Malfoy family (Tom Felton, Jason Isaacs, and Helen McCrory) who have the opportunity to display a level of depth absent from the first five Harry Potter films.
The film belongs by and large to Daniel Radcliffe and Ralph Fiennes, which is as it should be, but it does mean that there's a lot of Harry sneaking around while the battle rages around him. It leaves characters like Lupin, Tonks, the Weasley family, Flitwick, Professor Sprout, Fleur Delacour, Professor Trelawney, Madame Pomfrey, Luna Lovegood, and Kinglsey Shacklebolt reduced to fleeting glimpses as the violence intensifies, while Harry has a face-to-ghost moment with Helena Ravenclaw (Kelly MacDonald), a character heretofore unseen. While I'm not surprised to see James and Lily Potter in very small roles, there's scarcely a good reason to bring Gary Oldman back to play Sirius Black for what amounts to three minutes. The same can be said for Robbie Coltrane, who is absent for almost all of the film as Hagrid.
Part of the justifiable complaint about The Battle of Hogwarts is that Yates sets up an epic showdown, staying with Voldemort and the Death Eaters as they assault the school, cutting back to concerned professors, members of the Order of the Phoenix, and students as they prepare what meager defenses they have. The films have been building to this point, where two opposing forces must clash, and nearly all of it happens on the other side of a doorway from the main action. Yes, it is important to follow Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Yes, they need to destroy the final Horcrux (well, next to final), but Yates doesn't give audiences who have been waiting for this moment since Voldemort killed Cedric Diggory in cold blood much more than a "oh, that's going on over there." Yet we're supposed to feel the loss from cursory cut-away's to fallen characters. If you haven't read the book, have fun trying to figure out which Weasley brother is supposed to be dead, by the way.
Still, the final showdown between Potter and Voldemort is exactly as it should be, and is preceded by the second moment for Neville Longbottom that justifies his otherwise insignificant role in the film adaptations**, as well as the long payoff to the Malfoy subservience to the dark lord. On the other hand, if you haven't been paying close attention (or haven't seen The Half Blood Prince in a while), you might not grasp how Harry was able to defeat Voldemort, at least until he explains it at the end. The moment between Harry and Dumbledore in an in-between realm is touching, and the coda is strangely effective, even if the "older-age" makeup isn't wholly convincing.
But I quibble too much. Are the some issues with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two? One could argue there are. Do they ultimately undermine the movie that is? I don't think so. I sense there's a longer cut out there somewhere, one that fills in many of the gaps in the second half of the film. As for the 3-D, I can't say that it would have helped the Room of Requirement of Gringotts any more than not having it hurt them, and the film works just fine in 2-D. I don't see the need to add gimmickry. The film is a fitting closing to the series, and considering that I nearly didn't come back after hating the first film, that says a lot to the Cap'n.
* Which Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One and Two are not. If you take young children to this film, you're an idiot. Good luck with those nightmares, geniuses. Audiences are meant to age WITH the books / films, not be plopped down in front of the most adult films of the series because you assume they're for children.
** Stripped from the films entirely was the suggestion in Order of the Phoenix that the prophecy may have been in reference to Neville and not Harry.
In the interest of keeping the film vaguely adventurous, Harry, Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) are still hunting for Horcruxes scattered by Voldemort, including a trip back into Gringotts bank with Griphook (Warwick Davis). The moment is amusing if for nothing else than seeing Helena Bonham Carter playing Bellatrix Lestrange as Hermione might imagine her, a performance that allows Carter to have some fun. My guess is that the extended magical mine cart ride existed largely to justify the 3-D, and it works well enough with out it but takes longer than it needs to. I'm inclined to give it a pass because when it's time to have actual stakes, people actually die and a dragon does what dragons ought to do, even in a "children's" movie*. From here on out, it's a direct line to Hogwarts and the final showdown between good and evil.
Before addressing the how's and why's of criticisms of The Battle of Hogwarts, allow me to take a moment to mention things I was very taken by in translation from novel to film: I really liked Abeforth Dumbledore (Ciarán Hinds), the jaded, resigned brother of Hogwarts' former headmaster. He was exactly the voice of reason the story lacked up to this point, even if his position is short-lived. The final revelation of Severus Snape was handled pitch-perfectly, and integrates itself into earlier films in such a way that explain lingering mysteries while wrapping up his narrative arc. Many characters get smaller moments to shine, including Molly Weasley (Julie Walters), Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis), Ollivander (John Hurt), Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith), and especially the Malfoy family (Tom Felton, Jason Isaacs, and Helen McCrory) who have the opportunity to display a level of depth absent from the first five Harry Potter films.
The film belongs by and large to Daniel Radcliffe and Ralph Fiennes, which is as it should be, but it does mean that there's a lot of Harry sneaking around while the battle rages around him. It leaves characters like Lupin, Tonks, the Weasley family, Flitwick, Professor Sprout, Fleur Delacour, Professor Trelawney, Madame Pomfrey, Luna Lovegood, and Kinglsey Shacklebolt reduced to fleeting glimpses as the violence intensifies, while Harry has a face-to-ghost moment with Helena Ravenclaw (Kelly MacDonald), a character heretofore unseen. While I'm not surprised to see James and Lily Potter in very small roles, there's scarcely a good reason to bring Gary Oldman back to play Sirius Black for what amounts to three minutes. The same can be said for Robbie Coltrane, who is absent for almost all of the film as Hagrid.
Part of the justifiable complaint about The Battle of Hogwarts is that Yates sets up an epic showdown, staying with Voldemort and the Death Eaters as they assault the school, cutting back to concerned professors, members of the Order of the Phoenix, and students as they prepare what meager defenses they have. The films have been building to this point, where two opposing forces must clash, and nearly all of it happens on the other side of a doorway from the main action. Yes, it is important to follow Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Yes, they need to destroy the final Horcrux (well, next to final), but Yates doesn't give audiences who have been waiting for this moment since Voldemort killed Cedric Diggory in cold blood much more than a "oh, that's going on over there." Yet we're supposed to feel the loss from cursory cut-away's to fallen characters. If you haven't read the book, have fun trying to figure out which Weasley brother is supposed to be dead, by the way.
Still, the final showdown between Potter and Voldemort is exactly as it should be, and is preceded by the second moment for Neville Longbottom that justifies his otherwise insignificant role in the film adaptations**, as well as the long payoff to the Malfoy subservience to the dark lord. On the other hand, if you haven't been paying close attention (or haven't seen The Half Blood Prince in a while), you might not grasp how Harry was able to defeat Voldemort, at least until he explains it at the end. The moment between Harry and Dumbledore in an in-between realm is touching, and the coda is strangely effective, even if the "older-age" makeup isn't wholly convincing.
But I quibble too much. Are the some issues with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two? One could argue there are. Do they ultimately undermine the movie that is? I don't think so. I sense there's a longer cut out there somewhere, one that fills in many of the gaps in the second half of the film. As for the 3-D, I can't say that it would have helped the Room of Requirement of Gringotts any more than not having it hurt them, and the film works just fine in 2-D. I don't see the need to add gimmickry. The film is a fitting closing to the series, and considering that I nearly didn't come back after hating the first film, that says a lot to the Cap'n.
* Which Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One and Two are not. If you take young children to this film, you're an idiot. Good luck with those nightmares, geniuses. Audiences are meant to age WITH the books / films, not be plopped down in front of the most adult films of the series because you assume they're for children.
** Stripped from the films entirely was the suggestion in Order of the Phoenix that the prophecy may have been in reference to Neville and not Harry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)