The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit Trailers

Wow, so two movies that I'm super excited about just released their trailers. So far, seems like they won't disappoint. Interesting that both trailers feature songs being sung a capella by characters in the movie. Whatever, just enjoy:

Prince Caspian

If I had to describe my reaction to this movie in one word, it would be: Disappointed.

There's plenty to like about the movie and it is entertaining, but I just was not impressed. I imagine that if I weren't such a big fan of the book and didn't have such high expectations, then maybe I would have enjoyed it more. But as it stands, I really was just disappointed. (SPOILERS to follow, do not read ahead if you haven't seen the movie)

The first thing that seemed obvious to me was that these kids aren't very good actors. To be fair, I think it was probably poorly written dialogue rather than bad acting, but it felt forced and unbelievable. However, I could have lived with sub-par acting. After all, Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe didn't have spectacular acting, and I liked that one. It's not like you go see this movie for a chance to watch Oscar talent on the big screen.

I think the most disappointing thing for me was in the way the movie separated itself from the book. Characters and their relationships were changed (for the WORSE), and for no apparent reason (except maybe to add unnecessary drama).

I guess I'll just make a list of the things that pretty much ruined the movie for me. In order, here they are:


5) Doctor Cornelius. The doctor's role is greatly diminished, which was a huge disappointment to me, because he's such a great character. They literally could have just taken him out of this movie and it wouldn't have changed much. That's just poo, cause he's awesome in the book.


4) Battle of Beruna. I liked this battle scene the first ten times I saw it. How many times do we have to see large catapulting contraptions demolishing the undermanned hero? I admit that I liked the sinking earth trap, although it's a pretty ridiculous idea that would never really work.

The fighting trees were stupid too. Ents have been done before. They're supposed to be the nymphs and dryads who are more like giants with leafy arms. Why change this to something we've seen before? I didn't like the river god either, but at least the rushing water didn't turn into horses. And I was really hoping to see Bacchus make an appearance in this movie (he's actually the one who frees the river god). Another good scene wasted.


3) The Castle Siege. I admit that this was a good action scene, for the most part. But I don't understand how it helped develop the (original) story in the least. Sure, it helped to ruin Caspian's character, by pitting him against King Peter (which never happens in the book).

And I can guarantee you that if an army of minotaurs and centaurs came storming in, the people would die of fright. In the book, there is a real sense that the Telmarines FEAR Old Narnia. They had no idea that these creatures still existed. Every soldier would have peed his pants and dropped his sword. This scene just should not have been thrown in. It doesn't make sense and adds nothing to the story (at least as the story was originally written).


2) Reepicheep. Reepicheep is by far one of the most popular characters in all of Narnia. This movie did a terrible job of developing who he is. He was turned into some sort of caricature of himself. The scene at the end where he loses his tail is one of the best scenes in the book, but it was almost an afterthought in the movie. I bet if I hadn't read the book, the significance of that moment would be totally lost. Such a shame.

I hated that they threw in the "You're a mouse!" bit before he killed someone with one swipe to the nose. There are freaking griffins and goat-men running around, and you're going to be surprised at a mouse? And it was retarded having him single-handedly taking down grown men. That never happens in the book, and was just a joke in the movie.

And please tell me why they added the scene with the cat being tied up in the castle? AAAAAHHH! So stupid! "Ooh, look, it's the mouse's natural enemy: the castle cat. Come on guys, there's always enough time for a chivalrous mouse to find some rope somewhere and tie up a sleeping cat." Ugh.


1) Prince Caspian. I can't believe how much they botched up the title character. Mostly, it was because of his relationships with the other characters.

Let's start with Caspian and Miraz. So Caspian learns that Miraz killed his father, and runs through the castle (a-la Inigo Montoya), so he can avenge his father. In the book, he never seeks this vengeance (it doesn't fit his character). Rather surprisingly, he cannot bring himself kill good ol' Uncle Miraz. Shocker. That first scene was so dramatic, we get to see it again at the end of the movie. I really thought he was going to kill him that time, though.

Then there's Caspian and the Old Narnians. In the book, he's already gained their favor and is leading their army against King Miraz. He makes decisions and has character and leadership. It's only after their army is outmatched and as a last resort that he blows Susan's horn, and then the help comes. In the movie, there's none of that. Help comes almost by accident (because he doesn't even know what the horn is), and because he fell off his horse (being chased by Telmarines who somehow found the courage to follow him into a forest that is known to be haunted and hasn't been entered for centuries).

Then we have Caspian and King Peter. Darn that know-it-all King Peter, with his hair brained raid schemes. I have no idea why they felt the need to have some kind of bitter rivalry between these two kings. From what I remember, this isn't the case in the book and definitely not to the extent it was portrayed in this movie. That was almost as ridiculous as...

Caspian and Queen Susan. Seriously? I mean, seriously? Somebody explain this to me. If everything else in the movie was exactly like the book and was made perfectly, this would still have ruined it for me. So fake, so unbelievable, so unnecessary. Complete with the terrible "let's make money off of the music industry as well with our top 20 love ballad" at the end. I just laughed my way through every one of these "love" scenes. I don't see how anyone could have enjoyed the movie while having to endure this ridiculous addition. Stupidest. Decision. Ever.



This post turned out way longer than I expected. I could keep going, but I guess the point is, I just didn't see the need or the purpose of going so far away from the context of the book. If you need filler material for the movie, you have 1500 years of undocumented history that would make for awesome back-story (like the opening scene in the first LOTR trilogy). Why not go back and show the Telmarines first coming to Narnia and sending the Narnians into hiding? There's so much there you could use, which wouldn't change the original story.

Having said all that, if you don't really care about the books and how closely the movie follows them, you'll probably like this movie. It's entertaining with decent effects and definitely worth watching. But if you're a big fan of the books and character development and solid plot lines, you're probably going to be disappointed.

Pan's Labyrinth: An Apology

Pan's Labyrinth is a great movie. If you haven't seen it, don't read any further as this post contains SPOILERS.

Right. So Brian wrote a little post on movies he saw and mentioned how he loved Pan's Labyrinth. I agree with him, but (like him) have also noticed that many people were disturbed by the movie, or just didn't like it. I am here to propose a defense of the movie, to the best of my abilities.

First of all, I'm not going to talk about the acting, cinematography, directing, and all that normal stuff. It was all really really great and everyone seems to agree on that point.

The first thing I'm going to talk about is maybe the most important character in the movie: The Faun.


I'm not going to go into the mythology of fauns or Pan, but you must have an understanding of that mythology to understand this character. When Ofelia first meets the faun, she asks him who he is. His response is important:

"Me? I've had so many names. Old names that only the wind and the trees can pronounce. I am the mountain, the forest and the earth. I am... I am a faun."

The faun represents nature. Not good or evil. The faun is used to present tasks to Ofelia, not to be a friend or redemptive figure. It is important to remember that the faun must remain ambiguous. If he were purely good, it would be too easy for Ofelia to trust him. Her actions would have no meaning and she wouldn't have to think for herself. The same is true if he were purely evil. The same would be true in this world, if things were unquestionably good or evil. Our actions would have no meaning. Make sense? And the faun is freaking awesome.

The first scene I want to point out is Ofelia's second task with the Pale Man.


This scene is important because it's the first time Ofelia disobeys the faun's instructions. The important thing to note, is that she disobeys twice: first, when choosing the door and then when eating the grapes. When she chooses the door, she ends up being right. When she eats the fruit, she brings about death. So, even though she disobeys both times, her disobedience doesn't bring the same outcome. It is important for Ofelia to learn to trust herself, regardless of the results. And the Pale Man is freaking awesome. (This info can be found in the director's commentary, which I highly recommend)

An interesting emphasis on that theme can be found in the doctor's last words:

"But captain, to obey - just like that - for obedience's sake... without questioning... That's something only people like you do."

The next thing that is often discussed is whether or not this world of Ofelia's is real or just imaginary.


I always want to believe it is real, in every fantasy story I read (e.g. Narnia) and I was happy to hear that the director agreed with me. Some people argue that every scene where the fantasy world interacts with reality can be explained through reality. For instance, the mandrake root that she uses can be seen in the kitchen. Or the fairy really is just an insect. However, there is no explanation for how she got into the captain's quarters in order to steal the baby. Not only that, but the captain finds and crushes the chalk. So, that scene is a pretty strong argument for the reality of the fantasy world.

Along with that (and this will be my last point since this is getting so long), this fantasy world obviously helps Ofelia cope with the reality around her. The same thing happens to the audience; as we watch more and more graphic violence surrounding the true evil in this movie (Captain Vidal), we beg for more scenes from the fantasy world. Many people argue that religion is just our way of coping with and explaining our reality. This fairy tale was Ofelia's religion.

In the end of the movie, she reaches her heaven. She trusts herself to know what is right- even though it risks losing everything she has dreamed and believed in. Many religious people do things for the sake of their religion, without questioning whether or not it is a good thing. I think that's the point of this movie (or at least an interesting topic that arises as a result). Ofelia is willing to die, because she knows it's the right thing to do. In the end, she finds that this is what was necessary; not blind obedience.

I could say a lot more about this movie, but I'm running out time and this post is long enough. Perhaps more will come out of the comments. I didn't have time to even touch on the non-fantasy aspects of the movie. Anyways, please leave a comment if you agree/disagree with anything, or if you have any thing else you want to talk about from the movie. I'm interested to hear more.

Rambo 4: John Rambo!

I don't have time to write much today, and reaaly there's not much you can say about the news that there will be a Rambo 4. AWESOME! I'm sure I won't pay $8 to see it, but that doesn't mean I'm not excited. Anyways, there's not much out there on it yet, but it's supposed to be released in 2008. Cool. I love Rambo movies.

John Rambo

Finally, a Movie About Ping-Pong!

It's about time. I will see this movie, just for the ping-pong clips. Looks decently funny. Check it out here.

Let's Go Out to the Lobby and Get Ourselves a Snack: Why We Call a Cow, "Hamburger"

Yesterday I went to see the movie "Stranger than Fiction" with the wife and parents. It's an awesome movie, very smart and well written. However, the funniest thing about the whole experience occured before the movie even started.

We ordered four beverages and two popcorns. Our drinks were enormous. I could taste the Sprite-syrup in my 64 ounce jug/cup, and it gave me a sugar high that I haven't had since I was like thirteen.

Then we got our popcorn, which was caked in butter. It wasn't dripping with butter though, which made me wonder how long it had been sitting in the bin. Then we came up to the most amazing thing I've seen in a long time. It was a "popcorn station" for people to add fixins to their popcorn. The highlight of this feature was a large pump that released "popcorn topping." I'll come back to that misnomer later.

Just before I could say, "Who in God's green earth would add more fat to this greasy bag of flavored air?" my father walked over to the popcorn station and proceeded to soak his greasy bag with yellow popcorn topping. You might think I was disgusted and revolted and tried to remind my dad that his life was at stake here. You would be wrong. Instead I ventured over and tried some of this topping myself.

Well, it turns out that it was just butter. So I ask myself, why not just call it butter? Why does it have to be popcorn topping? Then I realized that this is just a natural step to disguising things, so we don't have to admit what we're eating. For example, cow meat is called "hamburger." Pig flesh is called "bacon." Baby calf is called "veal." Dog meat is called "Chinese." It's natural that we begin calling butter, "popcorn topping."

As a side note, I think it would be smart if at these "popcorn stations" they actually started providing flavored butter for our popcorn. Like cinnamon butter and types of fruity butter and caramel. I could probably start a movie theater and run away with business just because my theater offered real flavored popcorn topping.

I also found this YouTube video of that old intermission video they used to play. I remember seeing it at drive-in movies. Not sure if they used it way back in the day at the real theaters. It has that hot dog that does tricks for the bun, then jumps into the bun. I have memories of that, man. Kind of disturbing, but funny. (see the 1:08 mark)