Servusamanu.com

I finally got around to seeing Kingdom of Heaven. (The director’s cut, for those keeping score.)

And, well, what is there to say? It wasn’t awful by any means, although it suffered greatly from the usual Hollywood tropes.

Balain of Ibalin, played by quiet, distinctly not-medieval Orlando Bloom, is a blacksmith in France. His previously unknown father shows up to take him on a crusader adventure to Jersusalem around the era of the 2nd Crusade. At first he declines, but his brother prods him about his dead wife. After throwing the priest into the fire he finds Liam Neeson and begins his hero quest into the bowls of crusader Europe.

Liam Neeson kept the beginning from being too boring and he hass had enough practice being the mentor (Cough, Batman, Cough) that it carried admirably. The whole ‘Ibalin needs forgiveness’ theme got old quick and tends to fall apart as soon as you have a knight hacking people apart, but trying to protect the muslims. Either he’s a crusader killing for glory and heaven or he’s not. Only in Hollywood is the perfect knight a butcher and a race-blind saint.

Jeremy Irons, always a pleasure to watch, didn’t get a lot of face time, but he had the honor of introducing the political and social issues, which they managed to depict more astutely than expected. Baldwin the King of Jerusalem has leprosy, there’s a tenuous peace between the Christians and the Muslims, the knights templars led by Guy of Lusignan (Marton Csokas) and Raynald of Chatillon (Brendan Gleeson) are causing problems. The doubtful and adolescent heir of Princess Sibylla (the ever gorgeous Eva Green), puts the whole kingdom in a precarious state of near chaos.

Enter Orlando Bloom, now as a crusader champion. He takes command of his father’s estate (Liam Neeson), managsto miraculously turn it into a thriving barony complete with small children playing in the newly dug irrigation ditches. Apparently everyone else who lived there for thousands of years forgot how to dig a well.

The ending is held together by the historical politics, which make for a rousing tale of crusader glory, Saladin’s respectful and pious heroics, and the turbulance of the household. Unfortunately, instead of letting the story tell itself, good ol Balin has to make everyone a knight and save Jerusalem. He negotiates a safe end to the crusader kingdom and finds inner peace, but only after slaying twice the population of Antioch in a final siege that stands as an admirable battle scene, but a rather silly note in Ibalin’s story.

The whole things wraps together with Balain going back home to france with Eva Green (apparently, he’s not wanted for murder anymore?) and shrugging off King Richard the Lionhearted who gets a cameo.

Overall I enjoyed the movie. I’m well aware that it is getting on four years old now, but it hadn’t passed by me yet. Seeing Jerusalem in its crusader glory was worth the wait and it is certainly a very pretty movie. They even managed to court the political nuances of the age without dropping too much.

My only complaint is the main character. If they’d stayed true to the time, Ibalin would have been a heroic knight and soldier, and even courteous with the muslim factions, but not nearly as tolerant and ‘modern’ as they made him. His return home would have been as an exhausted crusader warrior, not as a newly absolved lover ready to start a new life. The speeches about finding forgiveness in the holy land fell pretty flat and were entirely unnecessary. The drama of the age and of the personalities was more than enough to tell a good story. Throwing in the usual Hollywood niceties of the hero getting the girl, learning a lesson, and living happily ever after just dumbs down the whole affair.

Still, it’s a good flick. The director’s cut was three hours, so a bit long, but it has an intermission. Worth watching on DVD if you’re bored and want to see the crusaders on film.

Close…so close! They were so close to getting Star Trek right. I saw it on Friday and I liked it, but I didn’t love it and in some ways I’m terribly disappointed. I’m going to try to veer away from any huge spoilers, but I’ll drop a few things so be aware.

First, let me say that they got the casting right. I suspected they’d botch it from the beginning with either hammy overactors or simply irresponsible clones of the originals. Instead, they pretty much nailed it. Zachary Quinto channeled Leonard Nimoy’s original stoic, austere Spock and managed to humanize the character just enough. He was perfect. Chris Pines managed a slightly more action oriented, but equally charming / obnoxious Captain Kirk. He captured the swagger and brashness to a T. The other characters did almost as well. Karl Urban, as ‘Bones’ McCoy, kept the doctor as the cranky elder voice. Simon Pegg, was a bit too hectic maybe, but an admirable Montgomery Scott. The front two, Sulu and Chekov, were my least favorite castings, (played by John Cho and Anton Yelchin respectively) Both fulfilled their roles as crewmen, but in the case of Sulu, added too little personality, and for Chekov, perhaps too much, but neither overplayed their roles.

The most interesting casting was Zoe Saldana as Uhuru, the communications officer. She fills in admirably as the communications officer and also as Spock’s love interest. Spock’s never had a love interest, but it works well, especially since it is the one thing that Kirk loses at. It makes Spock not just the nerdy overachiever, but also as a capable, competitive opposition to Kirk. It worked very well.

The casting was top-notch and the setting was just as good. The updated Enterprise referenced the old one. No one would have suspected it was anything but the Enterprise, it had all the old beeps and whistles, but the updated look: smooth viewscreens, CGI space shots, and slightly more official looking uniforms fit much better than the old set certainly would have. The other settings, aside from an oddly grungy Romulan spaceship, which I’ll be discussing in a bit, were similarly perfect. Starfleet Academy looked like it should, the planets had that futuristic, distant quality, and Vulcan, an ancient, austere, but scientific planet, was perfect. The special effects were, predictably, top notch and well done.

Like I said, it was so close. The only problem was the plot. And not even the entire plot. The movie follows, along one thread, the interactions between Kirk and Spock becoming friends and leaders of the Enterprise. A cold wariness and general dislike evolves into a strong friendship. Kirk’s rashness is just a bit tempered; Spock’s unintentional cruelty is forced out of him. Bones is there being grumpy, Chekov comedic, Sulu weird, etc. The crew comes together in perfect fashion to save the day. It worked.

The overall plot, however, showed far less discretion. An old Ambassador Spock tries to stop a supernova and winds up going back in time along with a disgruntled Romulan space miner, altering history. Kirk’s father gets killed (which is actually a decent touch) as the Romulan arrives in the new timeline. Twenty five years later, a rebellious Kirk joins Starfleet. He joins the Enterprise which responds to a Romulan on Vulcan. They arrive to find the Space Miner destroy Vulcan, (but only after a ridiculous fight scene on a giant drill bit). The rest of the story has Kirk meet the Old Spock and give him advice on dealing with the New Spock so that the crew can come together to prevent the Romulan from destroying Earth. I’m going through this quickly because it doesn’t make all that much sense. Black Holes == Time Travel, is really the key thing to take away. In the end, New Spock and Old Spock are both alive and living in a new universe with a destroyed Vulcan. Presumably the other universe still exists? Maybe not? It’s not explained and I guess it doesn’t really matter.

Except…that other universe would be the one that everyone has spent the last forty years living in during each of the various series and movies. That seems so very depressing and so insulting really. They wanted to reboot the series…great! They could have made a new Star Trek set on a different starship during the same time as the original Enterprise, or anywhere/when else. They never needed to erase the previous timeline for the new one.

Aside from being a hokey plot device, the time travel was just so completely unnecessary (and scientifically dubious in a series that tries to maintain at least a veneer of respectability). The real story was the growing friendship between the various crewmen. The overall plot just needed enough action and danger to give the crew a reason to bond and nearly any story could have done that. Something simple would have sufficed: an older Ambassador Spock is traveling to a resigning of the neutral zone treaty between the Romulans, Klingons, and Federation. Along the way he tells a younger Ambassador the story of the first time he helped sign the treaty. Then the movie would flash back to the crew going through Starfleet and coming together as they battle some rogue Romulan who is trying to sabotage the peace proceedings. Is it the most exciting story? Not by any stretch. Does it allow for enough action to be exciting, stay true to the generally peaceful mission of the Federation, and give the crew a danger to confront? Yes, I’d say that it does and, most of all, it doesn’t throw the rest of the long and stories Star Trek Universe into complete disarray.

If you like (but don’t love) Star Trek, you should probably see it. It’s certainly better than the last handful of Star Trek movies that have come out and, well, it’s not a half bad take on the whole universe. I’m cranky because they’re making changes to MY universe, but they actually did a good job. The casting alone must have just been a nightmare. They worked hard to get that much right so there was obviously an honest attempt at honoring and expanding the world. I wish they could have gone in a slightly different direction (and I still think time travel is 99% lame), but it was fun to watch the old crew get together, at least one more time. For ‘Trekkies’, I suspect the movie is as disillusioning as the new trio of Star Wars movies were for that bunch of fans, but for everyone else, it’s a pretty decent movie.

Into the Wild Movie Poster

What would drive a man to live in the wilderness of Alaska without a map and compass? What would drive a man to hitchhike around the country when a comfortable life awaits at home? What would drive a man to change his name, donate his money, and destroy all contact with this old family? What would this man learn and experience? What would this man find on his journey?

And what happens to those left behind? Is he selfish for leaving everything behind, foolish for abandoning his old life and especially for trekking into the wilderness unprepared? Is he adventurous and bold for the attempt? Is it running away or finding something new? Is the journey worth the inevitably tragic destination? What of society? What of nature?

Between the plotline, the philosophy, the hints of Thoreau and Jack London, and the sheer eccentricity, there’s also a reality. In 1990 Christopher McCandless, soon self-renamed Alexander SuperTramp, left Emory College after graduation, changed his name, and disappeared without a word to anyone. Two years later he was dead of starvation in the Alaska wilderness after a journey from the American southwest, to Dakota, to California, and Alaska. It took four years for the book, Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer, and another eleven for the movie to be released. All in all over seven times the length of the original journey.

The movie is a journey, interweaving Christopher’s past and troubled childhood, his writing, the great beauty of the locales he traveled, shots of the family in mourning and shock. It shows the many people who helped the young tramp through his journey, each touched by the trip, but all knowing how it would end. It explores his quest to escape the world, or perhaps embrace it even more. It shows his triumphant march into the Alaska and the painful collapse as nature takes one more victim in its unforgiving grasp.

It is a gorgeous movie and a moving story, enjoyable throughout. The acting is strong, the cinematography lyrical. Whether he was heroic or moronic will be left to each his own, but Christopher made his decisions in his own particular way and likely wouldn’t have cared either way what was thought of it. The worst that can be said is he wrote a story of his own. The worst that can be said of the movie isn’t it didn’t capture it well enough. With all the beauty, the tragedy, the whimsy, the heartbreak, the great sense of exploration and wonder, and the deep sense of loss and regret, I have no complaint.

Watchmen, for those who have some managed to ignore the reviews or trailers, is the recently released movie adaption of Alan Moore’s (Of V for Vendetta fame among other things) graphic novel. It’s been heralded as one of the first, best, and most sophistcated graphic novels, which brought the medium, intellectually, into the adult world and the literary world.

My own review: It’s good. It’s really good. I enjoyed it thoroughly. It’s as faithful to the source material as it could be. Fair warning, it’s a violent and graphic film, perhaps even a bit excessive at times, but its logical. I wish it could have been shorter, but it was no overlong and I eagerly await the director’s cut which restores a lot of the filmed, but edited scenes. It’s intelligent for a super hero film and, despite a number of the reviews, its a worthy recreation of the book, not just in its accuracy, (the ending changes being a bit more believable by my consideration), but also in its tone and method of delivery. Watchmen the novel is almost entirely flashbacks. The movies own judicious use of flashbacks (the credit title sequence in particular) was a nearly perfect adaptation.

For anyone looking for something a bit more, here are what some other people thought.

Movie Reviews:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090304/REVIEWS/903049997

http://blog.spout.com/2009/03/04/watchmen-review/

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/movies/06Watc.html

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/03/12/kevin-smith-and-the-filmcast-review-watchmen-filmcast-ep-41/

http://movies.ign.com/articles/959/959494p1.html

Graphic Novel Reviews:

http://comics.ign.com/articles/666/666025p1.html

http://januarymagazine.com/artcult/watchmen.html

Frost/Nixon came out roughly two months ago, but it’s taken me this long to see it. It wasn’t for a lack of trying; Frost/Nixon was a limited release and not shown in any theatres within an hour of me. I managed to catch a viewing recently, and even that was an awkward affair.

I haven’t written a review on Servusamanu since November. I’ve had plenty of material, but I wanted to concentrate on articles directly relating to writing. Reviews just don’t fall into that category.

Frost/Nixon deserves the award, partially out of good timing. I got into a mood to do something a little bit different from my recent string of story submissions. It also happens to be an example of what movies aren’t very often these days: dialogue based.

Theatre, and Frost/Nixon began life as a play, has always revolved around dialogue. I suppose a few especially daring plays might use stunt men for every performance and there are hundreds of singing/dancing shows, but the standard dramatic play doesn’t have many tools outside of dialogue to work with.

Movies, of course, seem to be driven more by CGI technology and stunt work than by the simple premise that ‘the emotional interaction between people is the height of drama.’ Frost/Nixon manages to do this especially well.

The name refers to was a series of interviews between David Frost and Richard Nixon in 1977. In the final dramatic interview Nixon admitted, however reluctantly, a degree of culpability and regret for the Watergate scandal. It was an important interview and certainly an interesting one, but historically speaking it would hardly be counted as one of the great events in history. It didn’t change the world of broadcasting, it didn’t sink Nixon’s reputation any lower than it already was, David Frost, while respected and famous, did not take over the world. It was momentous, but only a little bit so.

Not so, in the movie. It could be the single most important event in the 20th century for all anyone knows. The movie could have failed very easily in that regard. They could have hyped it too much and made it a farce or left it alone and bored the reader. However, I bought it. I bought into the premise and enjoyed the next two hours. The movies takes the form of scenes of event taking place, with ‘interviews’ spliced in giving commentary to the events taking place. This format lends authority and consequence. The fact that the characters care, even in the interviews they are giving an unknown number of years later, makes the history important.

A number of critics have taken umbrage at the importance given to these events in the movie, but…it’s fiction. I felt drawn in and it had nothing to do with fireworks or love scenes or car chases. The dialogue was used effectively to set up background, taken the viewer through the event, and, most importantly, make the consequences important. They used dialogue to its fullest capacity and it worked brilliantly. (It didn’t hurt that Frank Langella, and the other actors as well, are all top-notch.) For an example of how this same attempt can be done poorly, see ‘Bobby’. That movie uses a similar style, but despite the fact that movie’s central event was genuinely important (The assassination of Robert Kennedy), I found myself not especially caring about any of the characters.

I haven’t kept up on the DVD release of anything, but if anyone cares to see Frost/Nixon it should be out on DVD soon, if it isn’t already. Sadly, the original theatre run has already ended.