This movie is super cute! Chock full of cameos, it's frolicking fun reminiscent of the Muppets of my youth.
As the evil Kermit doppelganger Constantine escapes a Siberian prison, Kermit blows up at Miss Piggy for planning their wedding when he hasn't even proposed! So we have a foreshadowed moment here. Even Ricky Gervais's Dominic Badguy (it's French) was a foreshadowed character. We all knew that he was up to no good even before he talked to Constantine. I will try not to go into too much detail about the plot but I think we all know what it is from the trailers. It was well written and entertaining, which is what it should be for a kids movie. There's a love story (okay the usual love story Kermit and Miss Piggy), there's action to include explosions (which Constantine has a proclivity for) and music! How can you not love a musical number with the likes of Celine Dion? (She played Miss Piggy's piggy fairy godmother.) If you want to see a family movie during Spring Break go see this movie! You'll love it as much as your kids will!
0 Comments
The Cherry Orchard was written by Anton Chekhov in 1904. It was a play much loved by the Russian government because it was believed to be what the government, at the time, was preaching, the lower class replacing the ailing upper class. By ailing it is meant that the wealthy upper class was slowly losing out to the increasing lower class. This is seen here when Madame returns penniless to Russia to sell off the last thing she has to her name, the cherry orchard.
However there is more to this play than what the government wanted the populace to take away. Chekhov meant for this to be a comedy and surely it could have been but the humor seems to be lost in translation. Upon reading The Cherry Orchard one may get the impression that it is a tragedy. Truly it is if it is looked at from the point of the rich. Madame has a series of tragedies that befall her in her poor choices in men. But where is the comedy as we know it? Could the comedy be in some of the characters like Trofimov, Epihodov, or Yasha? Perhaps in Charlotta, the governess? Sometimes comedy is obvious like the slapstick of Larry, Moe, and Curly or the Keystone Kops. Sometimes comedy is less obvious like the dark humor of Ophelia's psychological breakdown which is indirectly caused by Hamlet. Can we compare Chekhov's humor to that of Shakespeare? We can compare the humor to any humor we want to. Flannery O'Connor comes to mind in the category of dark humor. A lot can be said for “lost in translation” and this is not referring to the movie. The Cherry Orchard was originally written in Russian. GAEV: The train was two hours late. What do you think of that? Is that the way to do things? CHARLOTTA: [To PISHTCHIK.] My dog eats nuts, too. PISHTCHIK: [Wonderingly.] Fancy that! (2094) The lines uttered by Charlotta to Pishtchik as they arrive home to the estate seem nonsensical but maybe Chekhov meant for them to be comic relief in a tense situation. Without consulting another translation one cannot be certain if the translation by Constance Garnett is off. However, Ms. Garnett is one of the best translators of Chekhov's work. Perhaps the humor can be translated back into the play by seeing it rather than reading it. The comedy may also be interpreted by the reader. Each person has their own sense of humor. Finding no humor in this play even after discussion with other individuals and revealing Chekhov's intent with the dialogue, it still lacks the outright humor most audiences are used to. We need to see this comedy or this play remains a tragedy no matter how we examine the lines. Madame Ranevsky is a tragic character, if a little melodramatic. She comes into the nursery in tears. She gives money to a poor man and carries on after in guilt for her household starving yet she gives away money. But is she funny? Perhaps we can find humor in her over large motions and the unawareness of her situation. But wait, could the comedy be in Lopahin and his purchase of the cherry orchard? He does buy the one place that symbolizes repression and poverty to him. However, there could be a bit of humor here: LOPAHIN: Then you’re going to Moscow now? TROFIMOV: Yes. I shall see them as far as the town, and to-morrow I shall go on to Moscow. LOPAHIN: Yes, I daresay, the professors aren’t giving any lectures, they’re waiting for your arrival. TROFIMOV: That’s none of your business. (2122.) But, it seems more of a snide exchange than humor. The humor that Chekhov may have intended is that of Madame Ranevsky upon learning of the identity of the purchaser. She sinks “into a chair and is weeping bitterly” (2120.) No, this still isn’t the humor that the masses look for. Most read this play as a tragedy because of the lack of obvious comedy. Chekhov is, in popular opinion, one of the greatest authors of the 20th century. He was good at dark characters and odd and quarky behaviors. He may have had humor somewhere but in The Cherry Orchard, his brand of humor is lost. Work Cited Chekhov, Anton. The Cherry Orchard. The Norton Introduction to Literature. Ed. Alison Booth and Kelly J. Mays. Tenth. New York: Norton, 2010. 2092-2128. Print. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977) starring Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Harrison Ford (Han Solo), Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia), Peter Cushing (Grand Moff Tarkin), the late Sir Alec Guinness (Ben Kenobi), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Kenny Baker (R2D2), Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca), David Prose (Darth Vader), and James Earl Jones (the voice of Darth Vader). Written and directed by George Lucas.
Back to the Future (1987) starring Michael J. Fox (Marty McFly), Christopher Lloyd (Doc Brown), Lea Thompson (Lorraine Baines), and Crispin Glover (George McFly). Written by Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale. Directed by Robert Zemeckis. ANH is a story about the Rebel Alliance fighting against the Empire of Lord Palpatine. It really is a coming of age story, not just about the Rebels. Luke Skywalker wants to leave his home and join his friends. But things go awry when his Uncle Owen buys two droids from the Jawas. Luke chases down R2D2 and encounters the Tusken Raiders (a.k.a. Sand People). He is rescued by Ben Kenobi. After the brutal murder of Luke’s aunt and uncle by Stormtroopers, Ben whisks him, and the droids, off to find the Alliance and Princess Leia. A lightsaber duel, a battle or two later and we get to the final bits, the destruction of the Death Star and the medal ceremony. BTTF is time travel! Yay! How much more sci-fi can you get? Doc Brown uses a Delorean to put his flux capacitor in. He is hunted down and shot by terrorists (he stole their plutonium which is the only thing that can power the flux capacitor and allow the Delorean to time travel). Marty was still in the car and to save himself he traveled back to 1955, the day Doc Brown first thought of the flux capacitor. Marty accidentally meets his parents and puts his own life in peril. His mother falls for him instead of his father. She pursues him as Marty tries to give his father the courage to stand up to the bully Biff and ask Marty’s mother Lorraine to the enchantment under the sea dance where they seal Marty’s future with a kiss. Common elements in ANH that are found in science fiction: space (the final frontier!), futuristic (even though it is set “a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away), starships, and the Force. While the Force is not science-y it’s mystic and mystic powers have been creeping into science fiction in the last few years. Common elements in BTTF that are found in science fiction: time travel and technology. Or rather advanced technology. Just because a flux capacitor is theoretical (and highly improbable for Doc Brown’s purpose) doesn’t mean we can’t consider it advanced technology. Both films are coming of age stories. The wonderful thing about them is the coming of age happens over the course of three films rather than one. We see the change in Luke from impatient teen to the only Jedi Master in the galaxy. Marty, the change isn’t so drastic. He goes from being a hothead that would stand and fight just because someone calls him “chicken” to using his head and not taking the insult to heart. This is where the similarities end. The differences are huge! BTTF and ANH have completely different settings. BTTF is set here on earth in a more present time, 1987. ANH is in an undetermined time period and an unknown galaxy. One is time travel and one is an epic space opera. Both have vastly different genre elements “The Canterbury Tales – The Knight’s Tale”
This is not the Heath Ledger movie but we can see where the movie got its premise. The wrong guy wants the right girl, poof, there’s your story. It is very difficult to read in the original Middle English. “The Canterbury Tales” has been “translated” and made “easier to read” often. So often that my Kindle had pages of versions! This book shares that translation honor with “The Song of Solomon”. “The Knight’s Tale” flows like poetry with sentences that end in rhyme, granted this “translation” may not be quite right but here’s an example from one of the last few passages: “ ‘This ought to weigh with you, it seems to me, For mercy ought to dominate mere right.’ Then said he thus to Palamon the knight: ‘I think there needs but little sermoning To make you give consent, now, to this thing. Come near, and take your lady by the hand.’ Between them, then, was tied that nuptial band, Which is called matrimony or marriage, By all the council and the baronage. And thus, in all bliss and with melody, Has Palamon now wedded Emily.” “The Song of Solomon” (Or the original Hebrew name “The Song of Songs”.) I question why this bit is even in the Bible. It seems little to do with a Holy Book and more to do with lusting after a lover than God. The version, (and who knew there were so many variations!) I read was from the Holman Christian Standard Bible. It was plain in speech and simple to understand. However, it is implied that King Solomon wrote this whole section. In the HCSB it has broken down whether a female or a male wrote that section. There is some thought that this book of the Bible is allegorical. Was it meant that way? There is also other opinion that it could be a drama of some kind. We won’t ever truly know what this book is supposed to be. The style of writing is very different from anything in “The Canterbury Tales”. There is no rhyming to speak of. It is argued that this book is poetic in nature, yet it’s a tale of love like “The Knight’s Tale”. This tale is a start to finish relationship. Some of the verses take on a very sexual nature. One that springs to mind is chapter 5:2 –4. “(2) I sleep, but my heart is awake. A sound! My love is knocking! Open to me, my sister, my darling, my dove, my perfect one. For my head is drenched with dew, my hair with droplets of the night. (3) I have taken off my clothing. How can I put it back on? I have washed my feet. How can I get them dirty? (4) My love thrust his hand through the opening and my feelings were stirred for him.” The two stories were quite obviously written several centuries apart. But the overall theme is the same. They speak of love. In the time “The Song of Solomon” was written feelings between men were expressed differently. They were more affectionate to each other. Perhaps not as affectionate as the above verses may suggest but, if King Solomon did indeed write this passage why would it have been changed? Is it maybe the skewed version that a man can not love another man that Christians have? I find it hard to believe that if we are to buy that “The Song of Songs” was written by King Solomon that he would have written about anyone but himself. The next passage is chapter 1:1-4: “Solomon’s Finest Song. (2) Oh, that he would kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is more delightful than wine. (3) The fragrance of your perfume is intoxicating; your name is perfume poured out. No wonder young women adore you. (4) Take me with you – let us hurry. Oh, that the king would bring me to his chambers. We will rejoice and be glad for you; we will praise your love more than wine. It is only right that they adore you.” The preceding passage does imply that someone other than King Solomon is speaking. Is that what the author intended? I doubt we will ever really know the answer to that question. “The Canterbury Tales” seem to have been written as poetry. But to whom was it intended for? It seems that in the time it was written, the late 1300’s, it would have been meant to entertain nobility. Nobility tended to be more educated and therefore literate. Why did Chaucer write this massive work as poetry? It suggests that it may have been popular at the time. Due to the nature of how “The Canterbury Tales” was passed on, in handwritten manuscript, it is fragmented. There is no sure way to know what order the tales are supposed to go in or if they are all there. It reinforces what we all take for granted …technology. Chaucer didn’t have the printing press to help preserve his work. “The Song of Solomon” was also hand written. Again, we take the printing press for granted. Neither the Middle Ages nor in the time of the Old Testament did they have that most modern invention. “The Song of Solomon” could really have been written by anyone. Solomon himself or someone wishing to be noticed by the public. “The Canterbury Tales” we know was written by Geoffrey Chaucer. Yet we don’t really know the reason behind why either work was created. Nor do we know the intended audiences. Something both works have in common. The societies in which these works were created were very different. “The Song of Solomon” is obviously very open about sexuality and how it was perceived at the time. It’s a love story but when it talks about being unclothed, kissing and how the lover’s touch ignites feelings … all things that lead to sexuality. “The Canterbury Tales”, however, are very chaste in how love is presented. At the time love is fighting for the woman that you desire; showing that you are capable of providing for her; proving you can protect her. It is demonstrated when Theseus stops the duel between Arcita and Palamon. He allows each man to gather an army to come back and then fight for Emily. It is, after all, the age of chivalry. So, they return after the allotted time. Emily, Palamon, and Arcita all pray to different gods to get what they desire. In the end Palamon ends up on death’s bed but gets Emily anyway. Yet he is seemingly snatched from the fiery jaws of death or perhaps he was never really going to die. All things we don’t know just by reading the story. Man, I would love to chat with Chaucer about that! “The Song of Songs” has none of the defending her honor stuff. It’s straight forward about the love between two people. No ‘Come back after you have gathered a hundred men willing to fight for you’ stuff. There was a certain sense of honor in this time period but it wasn’t about warfare. It was about really loving the person you were with. If indeed King Solomon wrote this book about how he felt … then it is not a tale but a truth. Again, a factoid we will never really know. Séance anyone? “I am a wall and my breasts like towers. So in his eyes I have become like one who finds peace.” The Song of Songs 8:10. In my search for better understanding of both works I used a variety of sources. Sadly, the only free sources I found were Wikipedia. I did not quote anything from them but used them to better understand the texts and the time periods. Any similarities to “The Canterbury Tales” and “The Song of Solomon” are all contested. I’ve read that “The Song of Solomon” reads as erotica. Again, if it is, why would it be included in a Holy Book? Could be that’s how they did things back in the day. With writings from those time periods we will never know the purpose or the intent behind them. This critic has heard much about the Grimm brothers Red Riding Hood, why it hasn't been touched by Hollywood is beyond me. You usually have the candy coated Red is the heroine version. Finally, we see the real and rough cut, or the director's cut if you will, as they intended all that time ago. We have the wolf on stage running to Grandma's to beat Red. He does and the SFX are quite gruesome, the screams are so real. This crew has done their homework and it makes you wonder how they did it. I see no sort of trickery.
The costuming is also quite stunning, Riding Hood’s cape is a richly, satin lined red velvet that looks blood red as it moves under the lights. Now, as wolf wipes the blood off his lips and dons Granny's nightgown, Red comes bouncing up the path. He slides into her bed with just seconds to spare as Red knocks on the door. A low howl emits from the stage and something isn't right. The wolf looks... Well, Red, being Red, enters her grandmother's home. She calls for her and again a low howl. But the director is a genius! Red doesn't even utter a word and the wolf jumps up and gobbles her up. Oh my, this... This is real! The wolf is looking around for another meal. He hops down. Where is the huntsman? Wait, I have a knife in my bag. I dig around and pull it out, hooking it into my belt. But he's already eaten someone on the first row and the orchestra has scattered. This was apparently not planned. Oh this is so terrible! Everyone is running and screaming! "Calm down everyone!" I shout but it is no use panic has taken hold. A candelabra has been knocked from the stage into the now empty orchestra pit. The wolf is not looking in my direction so I run to retrieve it. I heft it. It is much heavier than it looks. I swing it a couple of times, the wolf has his back to me, and I have found the balance to my weapon. I run up the aisle and whack the wolf. He is preoccupied with his next victim. I whack him again for good measure and he falls. The young girl under him is screaming and crying. I yank on her repeatedly and at last free her. She runs away, typical. I roll the wolf over and wonder if it really is like the story. Will I find a whole Granny and Red and where is that bloody huntsman? I figure it's worth a shot. I pull my knife from my belt and slam it to the hilt through bone and sinew. It's not very neat but dammit I'm not a doctor, I just played one on TV once. Sure enough, a spry granny and Red spring out! How is that possible? But who am I to question the powers that be? We lost 15 to that vicious attack. Wolf didn't eat them but he tore them to a bloody pulp! (This story was for an Honors Seminar course. I had to imitate a theatre review of Red Riding Hood. Hope you like it!) I Am Legend stars Will Smith (LTC Robert Neville), Alice Braga (Anna), and Charlie Tahan (Ethan). Francis Lawrence directed. This film marks the debut of Willow Smith as an actress. Never, ever use a virus to cure anything.
The first few minutes of the movie are all there is to Act I, we get Emma Thompson’s uncredited character talking about curing cancer; then we get three years later and someone running a Mustang through the very overgrown and deserted streets of a city. If we are to look at it like a book, it’s more of a prologue. Right about here is where we get the first flash back and part of the story behind why the streets of New York are deserted. The second turning point is well into Act II when Sam gets bitten by the infected dogs and Robert has to kill her. He breaks and finally loses himself. He goes on a vengeance fueled rampage killing the infected. That’s about where we have the next turning point. He’s rescued by another survivor. Act III begins here. Anna talks about God’s plan and Robert hears the infected coming. Robert realizes that Anna is indeed the one that is meant to be the courier of the cure. The climax is reached here. He ends up blowing himself up as well as his lab to give Anna and Ethan the chance to live. Anna and Ethan do make it to the colony of survivors in Vermont. Some of the best shots in the movie are the medium shots of the action. It gives a feel of actually being there and the immediate sense of urgency. All of the shots are spectacular. The over the shoulder shot when Robert and Sam are hunting the deer was great. Gives good perspective of how it feels to hunt. The long shot of Robert pulling up to his house which is actually several yards away was another good shot. The low camera angles when Robert is moving around the house make it seem to be from a child’s view, which works. I think the low angles also add more of a dramatic element. The lighting in the lab was excellent. There was a lot of directional lighting in the interior scenes. In the videos store we get a shot that includes Robert but he’s not the focus of the shot. The mannequin to his left is the object of the shot. A majority of the transitions are cuts. The one exception, Robert loses consciousness while hanging upside down. The scene fades out, the next fades in and it’s gone from day to almost dusk. The scoring was great as well. The effects were outstanding, especially when the infected grabbed onto Robert and followed him out of the window. The beating the head on the concrete was excellent. They used people for the infected yet, there are just some things we can’t ask actors to do. I don’t think it could have been done any better. The costuming was excellent. The infected were appropriately grubby. Good consistency with Robert’s clothes from scene to scene. Even though this was released in 2007, the effects are still believable. What are the Deathly Hallows besides a clever way to distract Harry and
company? (Imagine a deep drawling voice of a grandfather beginning a fairy tale.) The legend goes … no, sorry, not really. The Deathly Hallows consist of three objects that will allow the owner to cheat death: the Resurrection Stone, the Cloak of Invisibility, and the Elder Wand. Daniel Radcliffe and company appear in the final installment of the “Harry Potter” saga. How closely does this movie follow the beloved final book in the epic series from J.K. Rowling? In my opinion, as a fan, pretty darn close! With a few discrepancies, mostly minor, director David Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves did a fantastic job of sticking to the book. Beginning with Voldemort’s theft of Dumbledore’s Elder Wand (The final element of the Deathly Hallows, remember that, it’s important later!) and the gentle reminder of Dobby’s death at the end of part one, and giving us the epic battle at Hogwarts* when all hell breaks loose. This film did not disappoint; however, there were some minor flaws that the discerning “Harry Potter” connoisseur would spot. The first minor flaw we saw was at the Shell Cottage. Shell Cottage is the home of the eldest Weasley, Bill and his new wife Fleur. (They were married in part one!) It is also a safe destination for the Order of the Phoenix. No discussion of Griphook, the sword and what to do. This is a good thing. It would have disrupted the flow of action in the movie. So, yay for this flaw! Gingotts* didn’t go right if you’re a purist. The ride through the vault area felt condensed. If you’re a purist and you watch this movie, you’ll notice that Ron casts the “Imperious” curse* rather than Harry. This bugged me a lot more than it should have. It was line reassignment that was unnecessary. In the book, Harry has the idea to ride the dragon to safety. However, in a clever line reassignment, Hermione has the idea. It made Hermione a stronger female lead. But, the Gringotts scene turned out better than the audience could have hoped for! All of Harry’s visions in the movie cover what couldn’t be used from the book. This worked well to help keep the pace of the film. It also helped explain the depth of the connection between Harry and Voldemort* for those that have not read the book. The final moments of everyone’s least favorite professor happen in the wrong location. Yet, it was rather moving. We finally see Snape* issue a few kind words to Harry, “You have your mother’s eyes.” He also demands that Harry take his tears. Uhm, okay. It should have been gray strands of memory rather than tears. If you’ve not read the books, here’s where we learn a few things about Lily Evans Potter* as well as Severus Snape. Snape should have died in the Shrieking Shack*. But hey, who wanted to see the Whomping Willow* on screen again anyway? “The Battle of Hogwarts” will be talked about for years to come! Well, it would be in Harry Potter’s world. Okay, who am I kidding? Potterphiles* will be talking about how much detail was cut, and whether or not they liked it or loved it. However, the rest of us will be talking about how HP8 beat the pants off The Twilight Saga: Eclipse for midnight showings. It raked in $43.5 million in just a few hours. That takes in all the midnight showings across the country. That’s right. Just in the US alone. The figures are staggering when we take into consideration the rest of the world! Way to go Harry! As for me, I will be going over that epic battle in my head until it’s out on DVD. The battle didn’t play out on the big screen as it did in the book. We didn’t witness Percy shielding the body of Fred as the fighting raged on. Instead, we see this afterwards in the Great Hall, which functions as the infirmary. We see an abbreviated battle. Again, it works. The battle in the book occasionally lagged. But, J.K. Rowling crams in so many details that it doesn’t translate well. If we had gotten it exactly like the book, it would have dragged the movie’s pace. Another win for Mister Kloves! The final pieces I will make my comments on are the separation of Voldemort from Harry, or Harry’s “death” and the death of Voldemort. Come on, if you’re surprised that Voldemort dies then you’ll be surprised that there won’t be any more movies! There were several sniffles spotting the midnight showing as Harry realizes he has to die. Now, we were expecting it right? Well, those of us that bothered to pick up the book anyway. Great execution on the part of Mister Yates and Mister Kloves. One hitch though… invisibility cloak*. Where was the invisibility cloak and why did the director and screenwriter make Hagrid hold Harry? He should’ve been on the ground. I was curious to see how the invisible Harry attacked Voldemort. But, thanks, they cut that out. The final battle between Harry and Voldemort was better than I expected. The strength behind Harry’s spell shows the power he had without that tiny part of Voldemort inside. He beat him by sheer determination. Oh, and Neville helped, I suppose, when he killed Nagini, Voldemort’s last horcrux* and ginormous snake. The shock on Voldemort’s face was exactly like what I, and I think countless others, imagined it would be. “What? A boy defeated me? And not even a Pureblood!” At least I imagine that was what went through his mind. This is where I will leave you. There is a bit more but I want you to enjoy the movie as I did. For the love of all things Potter, one Muggle* to another, live long and prosper. Oh, wait! That’s Star Trek! *Here is your “Harry Potter” glossary (From harrypotter.scholastic.com) Gringotts – The wizard bank in London, with vaults far below the streets, run by goblins. Hogsmeade – The only completely magical village in Britain. Hogsmeade is not far from Hogwarts and has an array of wonderful shops including Honeyduke’s sweet shop, the Three Broomsticks pub and Zonko's joke shop. Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry – The best school of its kind in the world. Hogwarts is in a secret location somewhere in the North of Britan The four greatest witches and wizards of the age founded Hogwarts more than a thousand years ago: Godric Gryffindor, Helga Hufflepuff, Rowena Ravenclaw and Salazar Slytherin. They built a remote castle, far away so that witches and wizards could train in safety. Pupils attend from age eleven for seven years of rigorous training in the art of witchcraft and wizardry. There are a hundred and forty-two staircases at Hogwarts and everything keeps moving around, so things are not always in the same place. Horcrux – An object in which a person has concealed part of their soul. Imperius Curse – Spell to control another person completely, using the incantation “Imperio.” One of the three Unforgivable Curses, it can be resisted only with great mental effort. Invisibility Cloak – Magic cloak granting the wearer invisibility. Muggle – Person totally without magical powers. Muggles live in ignorance of the world of wizards and witches. (I encourage anyone to look this word up online, UrbanDictionary.com and Dicitionary.com) Potter, Lily – Harry's mother, born to Muggles but married a wizard. Lily is the sister of Petunia Dursley who is decidedly un-wizardly. Shrieking Shack – Supposed to be the most haunted building in Britain. Situated in the town of Hogsmeade. Snape, Severus – Potions master at Hogwarts. He is tall and thin with sallow skin, greasy black hair and a hooked nose. He hates Harry Potter. Head of Slytherin house. Voldemort, Lord – Evil Wizard greatly feared by wizarding folk. His dark reputation is such that his name is hardly ever spoken out loud. Most wizards will only refer to him as He-Who-Must Not-Be-Named or You-Know-Who. Disappeared from view after the death of James and Lily Potter, following a battle that left Harry an orphan and bearing a lightning scar on his forehead. (Also known as Tom Riddle) Whomping Willow – Large tree in the grounds of Hogwarts that hits anything that comes too close. NOT FROM SCHOLASTIC – Potterphiles – The media name for fans of Harry Potter, whether it is the book series or the movies. I’d rather like to think that it’s a term of affection given the fans. Sadly, I couldn’t find the outlet that first used this term! Written and directed by Norwegian filmmaker Tommy Wirkola, (his last project was Hellfjord, a Norwegian TV comedy), this lovely little picture earned its R rating. With Jeremy Renner as Hansel, Gemma Arterton as Gretel and Femke Janssen as Muriel, these stars are all familiar with CGI effects. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is full of action packed ass kicking sequences, blood, guts and swearing.
Wirkola’s plot starts with the story most everyone has heard growing up. A little boy and girl are left the forest. They wind their way through said forest and stumble upon a house made of candy. The children are let inside, captured and the witch holds them captive. The witch feeds young Hansel (played by Cedric Eich) candy to fatten him up. Young Gretel (played by Alea Sophia Boudodimos) cleverly picks up a nail, picks the padlock on her chains and the brother and sister begin their lives as witch hunters. Fast forward “many years later” and Hansel and Gretel have made a name for themselves tracking and killing witches. But you have to wonder how the witch didn’t kill Gretel all those years ago in the battle for freedom. The duo arrive in town, at the request of the mayor, just in time to save a young woman from being burned. Children have gone missing. The town thinks this woman is the witch. Hansel saves her, Gretel breaks Sheriff Berringer’s (played by Peter Stormare) nose and they pow-wow with the mayor. They are in the pub where they meet Ben (played by Thomas Mann) and receive a message from the Grand Dark Witch. One of the sheriff’s men returns and explodes. “The curse of Hunger for All Crawling Things. I fucking hate that one,” Gretel says as the entrails hang, and blood drips, off her. Hansel has used young Ben as a shield. They go hunting, catch a witch, try to save a girl and Hansel and Gretel get separated. Gretel is set upon by Sheriff Berringer and more of his men. She is rescued by a troll named Edward. When she asks why he helped her he replies, “Trolls serve witches.” The brother and sister learn what really happened to their parents after meeting up in the forest where the movie starts. With the help of Mina (played by Pihla Viitala), the young woman Hansel saved, Hansel is able to locate and free his sister after she is captured by Muriel. But stop here I will! Spoilers. But one of the best lines from the movie ends it. Gretel, “I hate to break it to you, it’s not going to be an open casket.” When Hansel comes upon the witch’s house that started the whole ordeal he utters the line, “Whatever you do don’t eat the fuckin’ candy.” It is possibly one of the best lines in the movie that was previewed in the red tail trailer making rounds on the internet when this handy thing was “Unrated.” Besides the swearing, which there are a lot of f-bombs, it seemed like a novice filmmaker just randomly stuffing them in. Not to mention the brief nude scene, more later on that. The plot was fairly sturdy but there were spots that could have been a little better. The pub could have been so much more than it was. There was potential for comedic scenes but it wasn’t used and for a comedy writer, what a missed opportunity. Jeremy Renner’s performance was really good. He took a pounding in the action sequences and for the age difference between the leads, well, you’d never know he’s hit the big 4-0. Gemma Arterton’s Gretel was a great performance. There was chemistry between them but not sexual chemistry. The casting decisions there worked well. The choice for Mina however, was a bit lacking. She did a good job in her role but there was no chemistry between Mina and Hansel, not like there was with Renner’s Hawkeye and Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow in The Avengers. Although it takes a certain type of female to match Renner, Rachel Weisz didn’t have the chemistry required for the break neck action, and supposed sexual tension, in The Bourne Legacy. But then, the story was about revenge, which Hansel tells us “revenge is good but it won’t bring [their] parents back” and not love. But a random implied sex scene that lacked anything but awkwardness helped earn this movie it’s R rating. If you want a good blood and guts shoot’em up with leather, corsets and plenty of steampunk then this is an excellent movie to see! This poem is included in a collection of poems entitled Late Wife in section three “Late Wife: Letters to Kent.” Claudia Emerson is a Pulitzer Prize winning poet for this collection. This collection focuses on a woman leaving one marriage and finding another with a man that has lost his wife to lung cancer.
“Driving Glove” is an elegy. An elegy, I admit I had to look up. We didn’t cover it in class. It’s a mournful, melancholy, or plaintive poem, especially a funeral song or a lament for the dead. It’s not set up in stanzas nor does it have a rhyme scheme. The rhythm and meter of this poem is trochaic pentameter. An elegy can, however, have its own meter but it doesn’t appear here. The imagery of the glove is quite literal. Ms. Emerson gives a great description of a glove long forgotten that is also well worn. “It still remembered her hand, the creases where her fingers had bent to hold the wheel, the turn of her palm, smaller than mine.” (870) It’s obvious from the poem that some tragedy befell the owner of the glove but the reader doesn’t get to know what it is. This poem is not lyric but narrative. It’s telling the reader about something that happened to the speaker after returning from a shopping trip. The speaker describes the junk in the trunk that her husband obviously had yet to remove from his loss. The speaker even mentions that the glove is a reminder of that loss. “There was nothing else to do but return it – let it drift, sink, slow as a leaf through water to rest on the bottom where I have not forgotten it remains—persistent in its loss.” (870) The only simile is seen in the previous quote, comparing the glove returning to the bottom of the trunk to a leaf through water to the bottom of a puddle or other small body of water, although a body of water is never truly mentioned in the poem. It is my belief that this poem represents small reminders of a past life, one that didn’t include the speaker. It seems to me that she is sad that this woman is a persistent reminder by small things in this new life. Some of the junk in the trunk: ragged maps, possibly from long ago road trips and a broken umbrella, perhaps her favorite. The husband has also retained his late wife’s car that his new wife is now using. Does he not want to let go of his late wife? Is that the reason behind all the junk in the trunk that allows this driving glove to shuffle to the surface? Along with the sadness I sense a little bit of pain from the speaker. It’s as if she hurts with all the old reminders there are in the trunk of her car, even though the car was not hers to begin with. The junk in the trunk makes me visualize a hoarder’s stash; the layers and layers of junk that they hold on to. I don’t think this is what the author intended. I think she intended to let us see the unspoken pain of the little reminders. The speaker is not the first wife of this man and the tragic loss of his love is there in the little things, the ragged maps, the broken umbrella and the driving glove, still in the shape of her hand. We can almost feel that little twinge as the glove is described, a kind of disconnected affection. In conclusion, this poem is an elegy from a collection of elegies and that collection won the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry in 2005. It has meter consisting of trochaic pentameter and is about the pain and loss of a beloved wife, the one that came before our speaker. Work Cited Emerson, Claudia. "Driving Glove." The Norton Introduction to Literature. Ed. Alison Booth and Kelly J. Mays. Tenth. New York: Norton, 2010. 870. Print. Melvyn James Kaminsky was born 26 June 1926 to Maximilian and Kitty (Brookman), the youngest of four children. Maximilian, a Jewish immigrant from Danzig, died suddenly when Mel was just two years old, leaving his mother Kitty to work ten hours a day in the garment district to provide for her family. She also had to bring extra work home at night to make ends meet until Mel’s brothers were old enough to work. By the time Mel was 14 he had learned to use comedy to help him cope with being small in stature in the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) slums where they lived. He learned the drums and began playing gigs for pocket change. He went to college for only a year before the Army drafted him; Mel became a member of the early edition of explosive ordinance disposal and participated in the Battle of the Bulge.
After the war Mel worked the borscht circuit but another Kaminsky, no relation, worked that circuit and, after a case of mistaken identity, Mel took the professional name Brooks. His first shot at stand-up comedy came when he filled in one night for an ill comedian. He began his acting career in Redbank, New Jersey, worked in radio and held the position of social director at Grossinger’s in the Catskills. In 1949 he was asked to write material for NBC’s Broadway Review by his friend Sid Caeser. Sid paid Mel out of his own pocket. Mel also worked on Your Show of Shows with other writers like Woody Allen, Carl Reiner and Neil Simon. After several years of kicking around in New York, Carl Reiner went to Hollywood and Mel Brooks followed. The year was 1960. The same year they made an LP of their “Two Thousand Year Old Man” interview and it sold over a million copies. Among Mel’s many achievements to date is the NBC show Get Smart, the movies The Producers, Blazing Saddles, To Be or Not to Be, Spaceballs, and Robin Hood: Men In Tights. And who knew that Mel Brooks had a fan in George Lucas, who reportedly loves Spaceballs despite Star Wars being the subject of Mel’s satire. Mel Brooks always pushes the satire envelope. In Blazing Saddles the greedy white man pits himself against a “dumb” black man that is made sheriff in the hopes that he will end up dead and the town will fall apart so the land can be snatched up. Wait, a black sheriff in the Old West? Yeah, Brooks went there. It’s a situation, no matter how you slant history, that would never have happened. Black Bart almost had himself a spin off TV show but it didn’t happen for some silly reason or another, such a shame, it would have been hilarious! Cleavon Little played the part of Bart very well using the stereotype of black men at that time to his advantage to save the town. Robin Hood: Men in Tights poked fun at another big 1990’s film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. It had another hallmark of a Mel Brooks film, besides being hysterical, it had the must have a Jewish character, Rabbi Tuckman. Obviously a great stand in for Robin Hood lore’s Friar Tuck. This movie went to the point of lampooning the 1938 Errol Flynn version by putting all the men in tights that matched. Sometimes in the odd detail that the funny is found like in Maid Marion’s Everlast chastity belt and the “key” Robin has. After all, Robin of Loxley and Marion of Bagel were made for each other. See what Brooks has done here? Sometimes it may come down to the names of characters. But the funny is there. In another film Spaceballs we have a seemingly Jewish styled character in Yogurt. He’s the stereotypical “Jew” concerned with the money magic of merchandizing! Yet, the audience only sees the spoof on Yoda, the Force, lightsabers and the Wizard of Oz. One thing that really makes this film successful is that there is an underlying love story. Not Prince Valium and Princess Vespa but Lonestar and Vespa. It’s funny because they spend the whole movie not broaching the subject of attraction and when Lonestar finds out he’s an “honest to God prince”, Vespa chooses him rather than the “pill” Valium. Pizza the Hut, voiced by Dom DeLuise, is also pretty funny One thing that Mel Brooks does is to make sure the audience knows that what they are seeing is just a movie is play to the camera. He has the character look right at the camera, something that Cary Elwes’ Robin of Loxley does often in the presence of Prince John (Richard Lewis) or the Sheriff of Rottingham (Roger Rees). Whether it’s a raised eye brow or a line delivered the audience knows! The crowd at the end of …Men in Tights exclaims “A black sheriff?” To which Ahchoo promptly replies, “Why not? It worked in Blazing Saddles!” The young kid running through the forest screaming that the sheriff’s men were giving chase screams right into the camera and again after Robin trounces them, saving the young man. Mel Brooks is not afraid! All he wants to do is entertain the masses and he does it well with the help of some friends. He has repeat offenders in his movies. (I think the only other current Hollywood director that has a noticeable favorite is Tim Burton!) Amy Yasbeck is featured twice. A right favorite, appearing in three Brooks films, is Dick Van Patton. But perhaps the one actor that was cast the most in Brooks’ films was none other than comedy great, Dom DeLuise appearing in six movies. Cloris Lechman and Gene Wilder also make the list of repeat offenders to work with Brooks. A funny story about Gene Wilder and Young Frankenstein, Wilder worked with Brooks on the script and starred in the film under the condition that Brooks not make a cameo in it. That happens to be a great movie too. Bibliography "AVClub.com." n.d. 10 March 2013. <http://www.avclub.com/articles/mel-brooks-on-how-to-play-hitler-and-how-he-almost,89843/>. "EBSCOhost.com." n.d. 2013. <http://0-web.ebscohost.com.iii-server.ualr.edu/ehost/detail?sid=42a219c6-a0ca-43fd-81e0-286ea133190d%40sessionmgr111&vid=4&bk=1&hid=120&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=brb&AN=203033188>. Mel Brooks. n.d. 10 March 2013. <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000316/?ref_=sr_1>. |
AuthorCollege graduate, Army vet, single mom, Husky mom, Movie lover, writer Archives
August 2022
Categories
All
|