3 Idiotas [2017]

MPAA (PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing


3 Idiotas [2017] (directed by Carlos Bolado, adaptation by Carlos Abascal along with Carlos Bolado, Cory Brusseau and Martha Higareda) is a cheerful and often quite excellent / insightful Mexican adaptation of a phenomenally successful Indian college/coming-of-age movie 3 Idiots [2009].

Interestingly enough, I've reviewed two of director Carlos Bolado's previous films Tlatelolco, Verano de 68 [2013] and The Forgotten (orig. Olvidados) [2014], both far more serious films than the current one, clearly a comedy.  Yet, since the director here chose to take-on the making an adaptation of a film that deservingly carries significant currency in contemporary World Cinema, it indicates that Bolado continues to have his sights pointed, rightly, high.

Note here as well that I was led to 3 Idiots [2009] by Readers here when I began my (first) Indian Film Tour last year and loved it and have recommended it to ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE since as a remarkably insightful film with regards to India (and young adult Indians) today.

So how did current director / script-writers do in adapting this film about contemporary Indian engineering students to engineering students in (Monterrey) Mexico today?

Well essentially the same characters are presented in the Mexican adaptation as in the Indian original, with the original film's insight -- that not everybody who makes it to a prestigious Engineering school should really be there -- left intact as well.  But there were a number of changes, some brilliant, and at least one that I could have done without (an unfortunate addition of "potty humor" with regards to one of the characters that served little purpose other than diminishing the final product).

Still, the Mexican adaptation has its moments of brilliance as well, notably in its portrayal of one of the "idiots" in the film, Felipe (played by Cristian Vazquez).  Felipe is portrayed as coming from a very poor family from the Mexican countryside.  In the Indian original, Felipe's character came from a "streets of Calcutta poor family," where each time he came home, his mother would always remind him THAT THE FORTUNES OF THE ENTIRE FAMILY HINGED ON HIS SUCCESS IN SCHOOL, and motivated by such crushing guilt, he tried his best, but ... In contrast, in the Mexican adaptation, while Felipe's family was also portrayed as quite poor, and he certainly did not want to disappoint them, the family was portrayed as being far happier and just PROUD AS CAN BE to have "a son of their own" having "made it all the way to a Monterrey Engineering school."  In both cases, Felipe's character was really not cut out to be an engineering student, but I found the Mexican adaptation's portrayal of his family quite insightful: the Mexican family was just happy to see "one of their own" already "kinda succeed" while the Indian original's family really, really put pressure on him to continue (though they were also more desperate than the Mexican family) even when it was becoming clear that he was "over his head" at the Engineering school.

The other characters, Beto here (played by German Vadlez) who was studying Engineering only to please his parents, Isidro here (played by Vadhir Derbez) who was studying Engineering only because he expected to make a lot of money afterwards, and Pancho here (played by Alfonso Dosal) who was the actual engineering prodigy who all his life loved tinking with things to come to understand how / why they work and how to make them work better, are taken straight out of Indian original, as is the stern Engineering dean (played here by Enrique Singer) who had his reasons (interestingly different if  poignant in the Mexican adaptation from that of the Indian original) for being so stern, and the Dean's daughter Mariana here (played by Martha Higareda) who becomes something of a love interest in both Indian and Mexican versions of the story.

All in all, I found the Mexican version of the story to work quite well.  I just do wish that the film had toned down or even completely eliminated the unfortunate "potty humor" surrounding Isidro's character.  It was quite unnecessary and seriously diminished the film.  Still putting aside that drawback, the adaptation was really quite fun.

Readers if you do see the film, stay through its closing credits, because the film ends with a lovely, and once again cheerful / fun Mexican homage to a Bollywood ending ;-)

So overall a pretty good job!


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Wonder Woman [2017]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (A.J. Bastien) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review


Wonder Woman [2017] (directed by Patty Jenkins, screenplay by Allan Heinberg, story by Zack Snyder, Allan Heinberg and Jason Fuchs based on the DC Comics [wikip] Wonder Woman [DC] [wikip] characters created by William Moulton Marston [wikip] [IMDb]) formally rolls-out this quite significant character in the DC Comics Universe [wikip] [DC] to moviegoers of this generation worldwide.  Viewers will find similarities between the Wonder Woman [wikip] [DC] [IMDb] character (played here quite marvelously by Gal Gadot) and both the Thor and Captain America characters of the Marvel Comics Universe [wikip] [MC].

The story of Wonder Woman's origins begins on an idyllic island on the Aegean Sea populated _entirely_ by women warriors named Amazons who in this story were said to have been created by the Greek God Zeus to protect humanity from the evil machinations of the Greek God of War Ares.  The island was kept hidden from humanity by a dense outlying circle of mist that was so thick that virtually no human found it worth-while to try to penetrate it.

And so it was that the future Wonder Woman, named Diana, grew-up on this mythological "garrison island" populated, again, _entirely by these women warriors_ The Amazons who did not age but rather trained for a War that could but did not necessarily need to ever happen.

A fair question becomes: Where were the men? ;-).  The fair response was: They _weren't needed_.  These were mythological warriors after all, created directly by Zeus.  Indeed, even Diana, we learn was created _out of clay_ (kinda like Adam in the Genesis story [2:7] ;-), by her mother Hippolyta [wikip] [IMDb] (played in the film by Connie Nelson) and Zeus breathed life into her.  Indeed, a good part of the film involved a rather interesting query into the necessity / nature of sexual / gender relations...

Well, one blissful, sunny day (like any other day), the now young-adult Diana (played by this point by Gal Gadot) looking out toward the sea / horizon spotted what would be a World War I era German plane that _penetrated_ the all but impenetrable ring of fog / mist that circled the island, the plane crashing into to the sea.  The jumps then into the water to save the pilot dragging him to shore.  As she does so, she (and the other Amazons) spot a a sizable World War I era landing party pursuing on the water said downed pilot.  A battle between the platoon of German soldiers (armed with World War I era rifles) and the Amazons (armed with the bows/arrows and spears / daggers of Classical Greece) ensues.  In the end, the Amazons because of superior numbers win...

Who was the pilot of the German plane and why were German marines pursuing him?  Well it turns out that the pilot was actually an American, named Steve Trevor (played by Chris Pine) who was escaping from a Turkish / German base on the Mediterranean with plans regarding a ghastly chemical weapon that the Turks / Germans (allies during WW I) were developing that they hoped would turn the course of the War in, then, its final stages.

The young Diana, hearing Steve Trevor describe the war becomes convinced that this War MUST HAVE BEEN INSTIGATED (and LED) by the Evil God Ares, and DISAPPOINTED that the "older / wiser" AMAZONS remained _unconvinced_ (that Ares ! was behind this War), SHE departs with Trevor to find / fight this Evil Monster.  Much ensues ...

Among that which ensues, Diana, coming to be called by her human compatriots as "Wonder Woman" as her adventures progress, discovers that World War I  was a war that _really couldn't be blamed_ ON ONE GUY:  She's convinced at one point that the German General Ludendorf (played in the film by Danny Huston) an actual notorious German WW I era general (who in actual history after WW I had connections to Adolf Hitler) was Ares incarnate.  Yet, she discovers that "things were a bit more complicated than that" -- crimes as large as Wars _can't_ really be blamed SIMPLY on "one or another person."

So Wonder Woman's story here offers Viewers A LOT TO THINK ABOUT.

In the first place, with regard to gender and sexual relations, Viewers are invited (repeatedly) in this film to reflect on relative necessity of sexual relationships to make one happy.  After all, Diana grew-up on an island inhabited entirely by women ... Even more profoundly, the film offers Viewers an opportunity to reflect on the nature of happiness to begin with:  Is "happiness" to be simply equated with "pleasure" (If so, then simply putting _everyone_ on a morphine or heroin drip, would suffice to make "everybody happy...") or is it more than that?

Here I'd interject that while in this film Diana seems to suggest to Trevor that the Amazons on her Island simply found happiness by learning to "pleasure themselves," that in the Christian conception of Dante's Divine Comedy, the Amazons of this story would have then found themselves in the Third Circle of Hell -- In the First Circle would have been those righteous pagans who simply never knew God.  In the Second Circle were the Lustful ho decided to look for their ultimate happiness not in God but simply in another.  In the Third Circle were the Gluttons who realized that they didn't even need another to be Happy.  In the Fourth Circle were the Greedy who realized that there was "only a limited amount of Happiness out there" and sought then to "hoard happiness" or otherwise steal it from others, and finally in the Firth Circle were the Despondant who realized that "Happiness was simply unattainable" and were divided into two groups, the Angry near the surface of this group who were still upset about this and the Sullen who brooded below not seeing even a point in complaining about the lack of Happiness ("it just does not exist.")

In any case, the film offers Viewers with the possibility of reflecting on the Nature of Happiness: What actually makes us happy (again, is it simply feeling, hence something that can be produced simply by taking a drug of one sort or another, or it is _more than that_)?

Second, the film invites us to reflect on the Nature of Evil (a fairly significant preoccupation of the original makers of DC Comics).  Can one really blame Evils such as Wars on individuals?   THIS IS AN IDLE CONCERN TODAY as many people (certainly on the Traditional Left) are increasingly viewing current U.S. President Donald Trump as being "Hitlerian" in tendency.

Yet this film would argue that Evil is more complicated than that: That one CAN'T BLAME EVIL on SIMPLY ONE PERSON.  "Ludendorf" it turns out wasn't simply "the one to blame" for the carnage of WW I ... it was far more complicated than that.  Even Turner, who was fighting "Ludendorf" was telling Diana: "Perhaps we're ALL to blame for this War..."

Anyway, this is _not_ "a dumb film," and IMHO is certainly best DC Comics [wikip] [DC] based film since The Dark Knight [2008].  So by and large .... A REALLY GOOD JOB.



<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Lowriders [2016]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB ()  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (R. Abele) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review


Lowriders [2016] (directed by Ricardo de Montreuil, screenplay by Cheo Hodari Coker, Elgin James, Joshua Beirne-Golden, Justin Tipping), the inaugural feature of the production company Telemundo Films, is a well written / well acted / excellently cast, gritty if also then _somewhat cliched_ urban (Mexican American) family drama that will remind Viewers of the Rocky [1976-2012] films and cop-shows like Hill Street Blues [1981-1987] / NYPD Blue [1993-2005].  

Yet A KEY (and _fascinating_) DIFFERENCE between these films / television series and the current film is that while the Rocky films (excellent, yet _also_ thoroughly cliched , as they were) focused on individual achievement / overcoming-of-obstacles and perhaps on _friendships_ between the various characters in the story, and the cop-shows suggested above perhaps portrayed "The Force" or "The Unit" as de facto "Family" for the various characters, THE CURRENT FILM REALLY IS ABOUT THE STRUGGLES OF "AN ACTUAL" MEXICAN AMERICAN FAMILY living in the Boyle Heights neighborhood of East L.A.

Another interesting difference between this film and others that would tread on similar territory -- one could think here of Boyz in the Hood [1991], or more recently Straight Outta Compton [2015],  -- is that while taking the perspective "of civilians" (none of the members of this family were Police Officers, though both of the teenage / young adult sons found themselves at various times in trouble with the law), the POLICE HERE WERE _NOT_ PORTRAYED BADLY (OR EVEN PREDOMINANTLY WHITE) IN THE FILM.  Instead, the Police were seen as simply _doing their job_.  Indeed, the strong father, "Pops" (played wonderfully / AND QUITE REALISTICALLY by Demián Bichir), with his own struggles -- alcohol, tragic loss of his first wife -- clearly wanted to raise both his boys right.  And _clearly_ didn't want his kids ending-up in jail.

Indeed, there is A MAGNIFICENT (and UTTERLY REALISTIC) SCENE still fairly early in the film when the story's central protagonist / narrator Danny (played by Gabriel Chavarria), a young "tagger" (well "street" BUT LETS BE HONEST largely _graffiti_ "artist") gets, inevitably, caught by the Police along with his friend Jesús er Chuy (played again wonderfully by Tony Revolori) for, well, tagging, and ... it's Chuy who calls Danny's dad, "Pops" to bail them out.  THE SCENE (largely SILENT) with clearly angry but even more _disappointed_ "Pops" driving the two boys home ... from the two boys' night in jail ... IS SIMPLY PRICELESS.

And then there's "Pops'" second wife (Danny's step-mother) Gloria (played to SERIOUS BREAK-OUT ROLE HEIGHTS by Eva Longoria -- honestly she probably won't get nominated for this role, because it's still too small for that, but LONGORIA CERTAINLY PROVES THAT SHE PLAY TRULY SERIOUS ROLES, indeed HIT THEM OUT OF THE PARK).  It's Gloria who's holding the family and its individual members together.  She knows her husband.  She knows his sons.  And SHE'S got a daughter too from a first marriage -- who's preparing for a Quinceañera ;-).  The family's on a volcanic razor's edge -- it can collapse / go broke _in so many ways_.  And yet, IT'S GLORIA _keeping them from falling off the edge_ ALL OF THEM -- including "Pops'" harder older son Francisco / "Ghost" (played by Theo Rossi) who ALREADY DID do some HARD TIME in jail (for car theft -- for the parts).

It's one heck of a story!

Now wait, isn't this story supposed to be "about cars", "lowriders" to be exact?  YES, but they are both almost _beside the point_ AND the film's FUNDAMENTAL METAPHOR.

This is a film about a family / community that are living (under PRESSURE) REALLY CLOSE TO THE GROUND.  And yet it is ALSO a family / community that is both PROUD and HAS REASON TO BE PROUD.  Pops like a lot of other Hispanics is an auto-mechanic.  During the day, he fixes _other people's cars_.  BUT IN OFF HOURS HE WORKS ON / BUILDS HIS OWN -- BEAUTIFUL CARS, SOUPED-UP CARS, CARS THAT MAKE A STATEMENT.

And it's actually a similar matter with the Quinceñera that Gloria's preparing her daughter for: A _lot_ of Anglos simply don't understand Quinceañeras seeing them as an exorbitant "waste of money."  But Quinces are so much more than "just the dress / party" -- they are above all A FAMILY AFFAIR, then ALSO A RELIGIOUS AFFAIR (generally they are held in Church, and often enough, the mothers send _the whole court_ of teenagers, both the girls and boys, to Confession in the days before the Quince is celebrated), and FINALLY THEY ARE A SOURCE OF PRIDE saying to the world (and to themselves): "We may not be rich, but we will CELEBRATE THE RICHNESS THAT WE HAVE in _our young people_ in our families."  INDEED in MANY Mexican-American families Time is remembered in terms of the Big Gatherings / Fiestas that are held -- Baptisms, First Communions, Quinces, Weddings, and fainlly Big Anniversaries / Birthdays: "Remember Anita's Quince.  Grandma was still alive then, and so was Uncle Jorge..."

The cars here are the same.  They are extravagant, but they are beautiful, and they are remembered in the family / community for a long long time, and SOME ... even become LEGENDARY.

One awesome film!


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Baywatch [2017]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  RogerEbert.com (1 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (C-)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Yamato) review
RogerEbert.com (G. Kenny) review
AVClub (S. O'Neal) review


Baywatch [2017] (directed by Seth Gordon, screenplay by Damian Shannon and Mark Swift, story by Jay Scherick, David Ronn, Thomas Lennon and Robert Ben Garant, based on the series by Michael Berk, Douglas Schwartz and Gregory J. Bonann) is certainly appropriately R-rated -- for both the gleefully free-flowing use of the F-word ("oh go ... yourself") as well as at least one scene, probably involving a prosthetic, that nevertheless makes it utterly inappropriate for "the little ones" (though I don't think it speaks much of the "maturity" of Viewers legitimately "old enough" to see the film).   That said, this is a legitimately enjoyable movie that THAT KNOWS WHAT IT IS: a gleeful (and still gentle / kind) send-up of the "beautiful people" subculture that existed (and perhaps still exists) on our sunnier shores.

For anybody who takes this film seriously clearly didn't get it.  And yet it's nice.  (My Beach Boys' fave "Wouldn't it be Nice? [YouTube]" even makes the soundtrack ;-)

I'd certainly ENJOY being as built as ever-smiling Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (playing the role of "chief lifeguard" Mitch Buchannon. David Hasselhoff, who played the character in the original series, makes a couple of cameos) or for that matter Zach Efron (playing an initially "way too into himself" / a-hole of an "Olympian" named Matt Brody -- could he be based on New England Patriot QB Tom Brady?), who may have been initially "arrogant" but, well, HAD, legitimately, "much to be arrogant about ..." ;-).

Then the women, are, of course, good-to-great looking -- Sports Illustrated model Kelly Rohrback plays Pamela Anderson's role of CJ Parker.

But then there's AN ETHOS present in the film that IMHO _certainly redeems it_.  The overwhelming message of the film is "Your looks, and EVEN YOUR TALENTS are WORTH NOTHING if you don't put them into the service of WORKING TOGETHER to authentically help / save others / BUILD UP THE COMMUNITY."  And honestly, I think THAT IS GREAT.

So honestly, I was very nicely surprised.  Yes, this is an R-rated movie (for the reasons I give above).  Yet, there are worse films, with certainly _much worse massaging_ that have been made.

So GOOD JOB FOLKS, surprisingly GOOD JOB!


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales [2017]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RogerEbert.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales [2017] (directed by Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, screenplay by Jeff Nathanson, story by Jeff Nathanson and Terry Rossio, based on characters created by Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio, Stuart Beattie and Jay Wolpert) while not the best of the series is certainly NOT the worst.  I'd put it at number 2 or 3, with the best entré in the series being the surprisingly good first installment (after the whole franchise is based on a Disneyland Theme Park ride) with the current film probably tied for second in terms of humor / entertainment value with the second installment.

Indeed, with the exception of a single (if extended) unfortunate joke (below), I spent most of my time during the movie wondering "Ah, to be a seven year old again" ;-). This is because the various gags / situations seemed gleefully geared to that exactly age group.  How else to appreciate jokes that began with: "Did you hear the one about the skeleton who went into a bar and ordered ..." (I'm not going to finish the joke ... IMHO the punch line alone is worth the price of admission to the movie ;-) or the ZOMBIE SHARKS !!! (OMG ... HOW UNBELIEVABLY COOL IS THAT :-) -- Sharknado meets the Walking Dead ;-).

The single unfortunate joke in question involved one of the main characters in the film, a 20-something young woman named Carina Smyth (played wonderfully by Kaya Scodelario) constantly accused of being "a witch" (Why a witch?, because she seemed way too smart and _self-educated_ for a young woman of her time) who kept repeating "I'm _not_ a witch, I'm an astronomer" (Why an astronomer?  Well, she was looking for her dad, who had left her as a 5-6 year-old at a portside orphanage somewhere in Britain with small ruby crystal hand and a small diary filled with star-maps presumably for navigation).  Well, there was a point in the film where protecting a fairly impressive time-piece from the dirty hands of dumb, inebriated pirates, she declared: "I'm not only an astronomer but also a horologist," (knowing something about time would have been very important for navigation back in that day...) to which, confused, one of the (male) pirates responded, "I think my mother was one too, but I don't think she was as proud of it as you," and the rest of the pirates including the always-amiable if also ever-confused Jack Sparrow (played, of course, by Johnny Depp) continued with then with a series increasingly stupid / sophomoric, "horology" jokes.  Yes, it was clear that Sparrow's pirate friends were a bunch of drunk / goofball morons.  Yes, it was Clear as Day they didn't know what they were talking about.  But a not a few Parents may wince, to the glee of their 5-6-7-8 year old charges, just waiting to ask their parents: "What's an horologist?"  ("Someone who studied the characteristics of Time (back in the 18th century) my child" -- and you'd be right ... but ... of course, somehow the title seems "dirtier" than that ;-)

But if you can get past that dumb joke (indeed a bunched-up series of jokes) the film is honestly a joy, both poking fun at the various characters and ... tying loose ends together: Obviously, somebody from the original cast was Carina's father... And there was another character Henry (played by Brenton Thwaites) who was also trying to do something for his long "lost at sea" dad ... Finally both Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly make (necessarily older) in-character cameo appearances in the film, as does Goeffrey Rush, who actually has a more extensive role in this film.

So over all, I have to say that I really quite enjoyed this 2 hour excursion into "5-6-7-8 year old land." I do wish that the above mentioned joke was not part of the film, but the other jokes / gags were more than worth the price of admission.  So over all very good job Maties! Very good job ;-)


< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >

Alien: Covenant [2017]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L)  RogerEbert.com (4 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller-Seitz) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Alien: Covenant [2017] (directed by Ridley Scott, screenplay by John Logan and Dante Harper, story by Jack Paglen and Michael Green based on characters by Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett) continues a continues the franchise's 40-or-so year quite fascinating, often monstrously "detached" and at times flagrantly subversive _critique_ of what would seem at least initially to be unassailable: Life, Reproduction, here in this film Creation (the act of creating) in general.

Okay, one could begin by stating that Life and its Growth / Expansion is by definition Good.  Well, from its very beginning, the Alien series proposes a counter-example:

What of a REALLY UGLY / VIRULENT (at some point, any/all sense of "beauty" becomes "inefficient") organism -- a giant, fanged, acidic-saliva dripping, beetle-like monster with a lizard/scorpion-like tail (used as both a weapon and as a means of propulsion) -- whose ONLY DRIVE appears to be to SURVIVE, THRIVE and REPLICATE (MAKE MORE OF) ITSELF (following all manner of stunningly hideous if ever efficient pathways -- from eggs to spores, from sexual to asexual, from carnivorous to parasitic).

Indeed, Ridley Scott's Alien monster is like a hideous "Swiss Army Knife" of Survival a living embodiment of the "Genesis Torpedo" that the Klingons were so afraid of in Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock [1984] (to mix alternative sci-fi universes).

The question that the current, eighth in the series, Alien movie seeks to address is: Who would create such a monstrous monster?  The answer given in this film is clever and as has been always the case in the Alien series, not _entirely_ subversive of traditional (Christian) religion.

As generally the case with the Alien series, a quite thought-provoking if also "jump-from-your-seats" Sci-Fi horror film.


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword [2017]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RogerEbert.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (1 3/4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (M. Zoller Seitz) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword [2017] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Guy Ritchie along with Joby Harold and Lionel Wigram, story by Joby Harold and David Dobkin) while perhaps "okay" as _simply_ ANOTHER "sword-and-sorcery adventure film" with poor King Arthur's "brand name" _pasted_  to it to "up sales," those of us who've spent a fair amount of time in our younger days actually researching (as teenagers / young adults do, or used to do...) the Arthurian Legends will find this current cinematic concoction anywhere from disappointing to outright offensive.

Yet, the opening scene of the film literally "throws down the gantlet" to Viewers (who've just paid $10-15 to see the film...): Arthur's father, Uther Pendragon [wikip] [IMDb] (played in this film by Eric Bana), is seen leading the defense of his LOTR-esque hillside citadel of Camelot [wikip] before an onslaught of GIANT / FEARSOME (200-300 foot tall) BATTLE ELEPHANTS (!!??) conjured up by the (in-this-film largely unseen but...) Evil Mage / Arthurian nemesis Mordred [wikip] [IMDb] (played in the film apparently by Rob Knighton).   

"GIANT / FEARSOME (200-300 foot tall) BATTLE ELEPHANTS (!!??) attacking CAMELOT (!!??), HOW'D THEY EVER GET (T)HERE?"  Well, ever fainting Aunt 'Pittipat' Hamilton (of Gone With the Wind [1939] fame...) the Carthaginian general Hannibal _did_ invade Roman-era Italy from Carthaginian Spain in the Second Punic War by famously crossing the Alps with actual BATTLE ELEPHANTS some centuries earlier.  So the image isn't completely anachronistically insane.  But it is a real ... stretch ;-).

Yet this both AWESOME and APPALLING opening scene (which twists / conflates all kinds of actual historical bits, stories, and legends together) is THE KEY TO THE FILM.  If the Viewer can get past this opening scene (and not walk-out...) one will probably stay for the rest.  It should be clear however, that this (re)telling of Arthur's story is a _sovereign entity_, its inventors clearly not caring to be bound by past tellings of the story or form.

And so we see young / future King Arthur being sent down (Moses style ...) by small cast-away boat from (legendary) Camelot to ... Londonium (London's actual name in Romano-British times) after his parents are murdered by Uther's Evil / duplicious (Loki-like) brother Vortigern (played by Jude Law), where he's raised in a brothel and makes friends with a TOTALLY ANACHRONISTIC (but kinda cool) CHINESE (!!??) dockworker / martial-arts bad-a named ... George (played by Tom Wu).

Eventually the late-20 / 30-something Arthur (played by Charlie Hunnam) comes to recognize his calling to reclaim his destiny as the rightful heir to the THRONE OF "ENGLAND" (!!??) -- whatever questions historians have had in their various attempts to search for the "Historical Arthur" in Legend, ALL ARE CERTAIN that "Arthur" would have been a Romano-British leader WHO ACTUALLY FOUGHT AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS OF INCOMING ANGLO-SAXONS (!!), hence why the oldest versions of the Arthurian legends come from the WELSH (of Western Britain) and the BRETON REFUGEES who settled after the establishment of Anglo-Saxon dominance over much of Britain in what is today (FRENCH) BRITTANY -- and much, much (sword / sorcery fighting) ensues ... 

Catholic / Christian viewers would also find it surprising (to appalling...) to see the COMPLETE EXPUNGING of Christianity from the current story. This is despite the simple reality that Roman Britain was very much Christian by the time of the "historical Arthur" with clearly the continued / still recent presence of Celtic Paganism personified in the presence of wizard / druid Merlin in the  Arthurian Legends ... Indeed, the Romano-British St. Patrick [wikip] (!!) who evangelized Ireland would have arguably lived before or been a contemporary of the "historical Arthur." And then Sir Thomas Mallory's [wikip] late 1400s Le Morte d'Arthur [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn], which I read as a bright-eyed enthusiastic 20 year-old, is practically a Catholic / future High Church Anglican devotional piece.

This simultaneously dumbed-down / anything-goes (dare-one-say "Trumpian"...) approach to the Arthurian Legends makes for a rather _silly_ story that still, on the whole remains reasonably entertaining (if one is willing to accept the knee-jerk expunging of Christianity from the story, this despite the inclusion of just about _everything else_ from GIANT 200 FOOT TALL CONJURED UP WAR ELEPHANTS to WILDLY ANACHRONISTIC CHINESE MARTIAL-ARTS EXPERTS).

Perhaps the best way to understand the film is to see it as doing to the Arthurian legends what the recent Robert Downey Jr starring Sherlock Holmes films did to the original Sherlock Holmes canon and the recent Chris Pine starring Star Trek films did to the Gene Roddenberry originals.

And Dear Readers, if you don't see the above characterization as much of a compliment, well, you get my point and ... have been ... warned ;-/


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>