TheAgitator.com
Awful Movies
Sunday, August 11th, 2002Gene seems to think I’m far too laudatory for a site called “The Agitator.” That is, I only blog about stuff that’s good. OK. Here, then, three bad movies I’ve seen in the past month or so:
“The Contender”: Preachy. Self-righteous. Wholly unbelievable (All Movie hints that the ridiculous plot may in fact be satire. I think that’s giving it too much credit). Joan Allen got an Oscar nomination for her role as a fill-in vice presidential nominee with a smutty sexual history. She didn’t deserve it. Jeff Bridges is decent as the president. Everyone else is awful. I’d guess Hollywood was too blinded by the movie’s pro-private life, pro-sexual peccadillos message to see that it’s a really crappy piece of filmmaking. And that’s coming from someone who generally agrees with the message.
“Gosford Park”: Huge disappointment. After my anticipation was built up by rave reviews, I ended up turning the damn thing off 50 minutes in. This is a movie for people who make movies. It isn’t a movie for people who watch them. I’m also annoyed by movies with accents so thick, I spend so much mental energy translating the dialogue, I forget what’s going on with the plot. It’s a “whodunnit” where the murder doesn’t take place until the movie’s halfway over. I guess we’re supposed to marvel at the dichotomy of lifestyles, mores, and values of the aristocracy versus those of the serving class. I just got bored. Maybe I’m too lowbrow to enjoy a movie with this kind of sophistication.
“Lord of the Rings”: Not awful. But really overrated. I constantly had to suspend disbelief. How come Gandalf can use magic to save his butt at some points in the movie, but not at others? Also, too long. And wouldn’t the barefoot thing get dangerous on some of the terrain they had to traverse? How come they never cut their feet? Guess I’m not much of a sci-fi buff.
Having been raised by an anglophile I enjoyed Gosford Park much more than anyone else I know, but I do agree that it was about two-thirds longer than necessary.
My major tip for enjoying the movie (and any other British movie with accents too thick to follow) is to turn on the subtitles. It makes all the difference in the world. Yet another reason why dvds are superior.
Bashing Lord of the Rings? Now this I won’t allow. It’s a fantasy movie; suspension of disbelief is the whole point. As for the barefoot thing, hobbits are supposed to have extra thick soles. Or at least, that’s what I remember from the books. Yes, it was a bit long, but any movie that can spontaneously elicit applause from an entire theater at the same point every single time (and no, I won’t say how many times I saw it in the theater. Let’s just say too many.) is something special in my opinion.
Not Sci-Fi, fantasy. Perhaps the distinction is tiny.
Gandalf was always reserved in the use of his power. In fact, I don’t know that (with the exception of the fireworks display for the hobbits) he ever used magic unless faced with an adversary that demanded it. He usually used his seemingly endless supply of wisdom and knowledge.
Hobbits had extra-tough feet, as Dahlia points out. Heck, a lot of the world’s population goes on all it’s journey’s barefoot – and hobbits have tougher feet than humans.
Gandalf’s imprisonment and fall makes more sense in the book. While powerful as wizards go, his power really isn’t that impressive in the gonzo Dungeons&Dragons sense. Mainly his magic is subtler – spells to open recalcitrant doors (which fail, at the gates of Moria), little fire-starting tricks, and the like. Nothing like the Saruman vs. Gandalf battle occurs in the book. Mostly he gets by on being wise and well-educated. And at the point of his “fall into shadow”, in the book, he was already magically exhausted by a previous encounter with the Balrog.
More than you ever cared to know, I’m sure :-)
If you haven’t read LOTR, parts of the movie won’t make too much sense. Of course, parts of LOTR (the book) are obscure until you’ve read Tolkien’s other works. LOTR is much like an iceberg – a small visible part of Tolkien’s world.
As someone who has read LOTR multiple times, I can say that overall I was pleased with the movie. Certain parts were pointless (Liv Tyler may look good in leather, swinging a sword, but it distorts the story), and certain cuts I could quibble with, but I think it is probably the best realisation of the books that will be seen. The extensive use of magic by Gandalf (and Saruman) is not supported by the text – it was an explanatory device of Mr. Jackson, that apparently raised more questions than it answered.
I might suggest that you look into the science-fiction / fantasy genre. The best honest-to-god storytelling I’ve run into for a while is sf&f. For Machiavellian politics at wand- & sword-point, I’d reccommend either Melanie Rawn’s ‘Dragon Prince’ series, or Geo. R. R. Martin’s ‘Song of Ice and Fire.’ For excellent near-future sci-fi, try Michael Flynn’s ‘Firestar’ series. All of these contain some excellent story-telling and word-smithery.
xenical online Xen-770009122-345566
viagra online ViaT8898111-01-01-22
jonny