The Hunchblog of Notre Dame

17Aug 2015

2012 version of The Man who Laughs

by jess

This version is so unremarkable. Nothing about this movie stands out in way that is appealing. It is one of the most tepid movies I have ever seen. It’s so bland and that is slightly amazing. Typically movies have something about that makes them standout even if its negative point but this is so under-whemling, that at 25 minutes I felt we should have been at the thrity minute mark and nothing happened.

Marc-AndrÃ© Grondin as Gywnplaine and Emmanuelle Seigner as Josiana

The plot does follow the book, though it has it differences. Like Barky just seems to want to keeps his position, Josiana is aged and is Gywnplaine’s cousin (I think) and they do sleep together which causes Dea’s depression and suicide by arsenic. Homo does very little and he not really a plot point like in the book. The movie puts a lot of focus one the performances of Gywnplaine, Ursus and Dea. Gywnplaine tries to quell his love for Dea not because of the blindness but because of their sister/brother being raised together relationship. Barky doesn’t send Ursus and Dea away in fact he brings to Gywnplaine and Dea hears Josiana and Gywnplaine going at it. Also no David and the Queen wasn’t present or seem to care about screwing over Josiana. That is all the differences I care to recall.

So how is this movie unremarkable. Well first off the acting. If these people were acting they either were directed terribly or they didn’t care. I also thought the casting on Dea and Josiana were way off. Dea is supposed to be a celestial ethereally young lady and do not get me wrong, the lady they cast is lovely but she had the wrong type for the role. She seemed earthy and natural. Mary Philbin was better cast. I hate to even say this but the lady who played Josiana was too old. I thought Josiana was supposed to be like Esmeralda, careful and full of life. This women just seemed like a bored housewife. It was a decision the filmmaker made that I neither get nor like though she was the best actress so there is the tradeoff.

Marc-AndrÃ© Grondin as Gywnplaine and Christa ThÃ©ret as Dea

The we have the colors, or rather lack of them. This movie likes grey, black and white. So the acting is dull and boring and so is the color palette. I won’t say that movies can’t have this style but you need to make it visually interesting and its not. The shots are pretty basic and when it tries to have an interesting shot it just seem like uninspired.

Marc-AndrÃ© Grondin as Gywnplaine

The costumes were also boring but what is really was flat, Gywnplaine’s make-up. It literally looked like they just drew on red paint to make his smile. This make him humanized but it looks so lazy. I can’t see why people would find it fascinating the same way as the 1928 version.

Also the music was inappropriate. At ending where Dea and Gywnplaine die the music during the credits is like super happy and carnival-esque. It was like a slap in the face.

At least Homo was a wolf but that is the only positive thing.

One more thing, I don’t want to give the impression that I know a ton about art history on a whole but at one point in the movie Barky brought out portraits of Gywnplaine’s parents. The first one was of his mother and it was a John Singer Sargent Portrait of the Duchess of Sutherland. Lovely portrait but it took me right out of the movie.

Do not recommend this version. Just watch the 1928 version.

Follow thehunchblog

13Aug 2015

Snow White and the Thor Review; I know it’s Huntsmen

by jess

Snow White and the Huntsmen

It takes a lot for me to stop watching a movie midway through but Snow White and the Huntsmen I stopped watching about forty minutes in the first time I watched it and it was the right decision, I never regretted it. But for you people and this blog I bravely watched the whole thing, and it was act of bravely never known before in this world because this movie is beyond stupid.

Kristen Stewart as Snow White

Snow White basic tale, Queen wants a kid that has skin as white as snow, lips as red as blood and hair as black as ebony. Spoiler alert this Snow White has none of that. Queen dies and King gets remarried to an evil woman named Ravenna. Ravenna kills the king on their wedding night and successfully pulls a coup but she breaks the first rule of a coup and leaves the heir to the throne alive because of royal blood, hey lady that is why you should have killed her. And instead of like manipulating the young child through Stockholm syndrome or candy she locks Snow White up. All Hail Ravenna, our Royal Dummy.

Ravenna is a terrible queen as even nature doesn’t like her and she steals youth and beauty from young girls. One fine day her magic gong on the wall, erm I mean mirrior? No, it’s a gong and it tells her that Snow White is now prettier than her because of some bullshit called “Fairest Blood.” This “Fair Blood” is the ONLY thing that can kill Ravenna (oh that name is dumb) but it can save her if she can eats Snow White’s heart. Ravenna sends her brother, Finn to get Show White. Snow White gives Finn the slip and escapes thanks to magical bird and she is shown the way out via sewers which leads to the sea and from there it a jump off the cliff (twilight style) and then she finds a horse. She then goes into the Dark Forest, a place that no has ever gets out a live except when they do. Ravenna enlists the help of a Huntsmen whose name is listed as Eric but because it’s way too tempting and I lack maturity I’m going to call him Thor. Anyway Thor is a drunk widower who has survived the Dark Forest and Ravenna tells Thor she can bring back his dead wife if he brings back Snow White. However Thor sides with Snow White when Finn tells him that Ravenna can’t bring people back from the dead. I should also mention that Snow White lost her horse, Artax-style but it’s in no way as sad as Artax, oh Artax…. I cry every time I think you.

So Thor and Snow White give Finn and pals the slip and run into a fishing village but prior to that Thor gives Snow White a combat lesson that will be important later on because the screenwriter once learn about set-ups and pay-off and doggone-it he is going to prove that this is a good script with basic screenwriting 101, for the record I never took Screenwriting 101 (Donate to theHunchblog so I can take it and i can be even more snarky to screenwriters who are more successful than me. ) So at the fishing village there are no men because Ravenna took them and the women are all scared because Ravenna won’t take their beauty if they have imperfections, OMFG Movie are you serious? I hate you but I will get back to that later. Anyway Thor tries to leave even though he promised to get Snow White to her pals the Duke and his son. But Finn attacks and Thor and Snow White leave.

They then meet the eight dwarfs and the Blind one recognizes that Snow White has the blood. They then go into a Hayou Miyazaki movie, I’m not shitting you at all and they learn that magical fairy possessed those birds that helped Snow White and some magical deer lets Snow White touch him which means something like Snow White is like the embodiment of purity or something. This was also set-up with a random monster encounter earlier where Snow White subdues a troll with a stare much like in Twilight.

Anyway Finn attacks and one of the dwarfs die and you by god are supposed to care but you the audience doesn’t because he had like one scene where Snow White dances with him. I think Finn might have died then too.

So they make it to the duke’s place and Snow White reunite with William, the duke’s son who I guess Snow White and him had like a childhood sweetheart type of thing. If I can be honest I like half paying a attention at this point. Ravenna then takes the form of William and poisons Snow White via the apple but opts for Villain mistake number 2 and talks instead of killing or TAKING HER HEART. Thor gives us some monologue about how Snow White reminds him of his dead wife, I guess because they are both dead and then he kisses her and voila that is good enough and Snow White is better. Then it’s a Braveheart style speech. Snow White dons armor and leads and army and she uses the dwarfs to go through the poo to open the gates. She then takes on Ravenna and Snow White sucks but she uses that block move that Thor taught her and she kills Ravenna. Snow White is crowned and love-triangle is never resolved, hoo-fucking-ray.

Charlize Theron as Queen Ravenna

Let’s start with SOME positives, Ravenna’s costumes are cool and the CG work isn’t that bad, could be worse. And there is a Florence and the Machine song at the end. It’s sad when a credit song is the best thing about a movie. I also thought that moss covered turtle was cute but it had no place in this movie, so it doesn’t count as a positive.

Charlize Theron as Queen Ravenna & Kristen Stewart as Snow White

Now here is the real question, where do you start with this movie? I kind of respect what this movie TRIED to do, a new take on Snow White but why do all the new takes on fairy-tales just fail so much? Pretty much everthing about this movie is stupid, expect Ravenna’s wardrobe.

So let’s just start with the elephant in the movie, though an elephant would have help this movie, but no I mean the casting. A lot of people complain that the suspension of disbelief was too much to believe that Kristen Stewart was prettier than Charlize Theron.

In all fairness to Stewart, who is pretty I get that wasn’t the point of the fairest of all thing. It had to with blood and inner beauty because let’s face it, Ravenna was not a nice person. But Snow White doesn’t really exhibit any inner beauty as in she doesn’t do things that exceptionally nice, so as a way out and as mean of not REALLY giving Snow White any characterization, she has special “fairest” blood that is given no explanation to how it works. The movie hints that is has something to do with royal blood but it doesn’t really matter, it’s a movie mechanic that makes Snow White a character without having to do much.

Kristen Stewart as Snow White

But there is another problem, the film wants Snow White to be an active player that has leadership skills and is a good fighter. This is Bull-Shit. Snow White literally does nothing for most of the movie but then she takes the vanguard and people just listen to her and her only experiences of the way out and the block are enough to save the day at the end? There is the real suspension of disbelief. Basically the TWO things she learns are enough. But I have another issue, Snow White is static character, she doesn’t really grow or change. I guess The Huntsmen does but after the kiss he is useless to the story and his only change is that he gets nicer towards Snow White, not a big arc. So if the point of this movie is to have a more kick-ass Snow White the movie only succeeds because the script lets her and it’s not the character doing much.

Kristen Stewart as Snow White & Chris Hemsworth as The Huntsmen

It’s apparent that the script and the characters all sucks and the Snow White elements are REALLY shoe-horned in but how was the acting? Well there is a range from underacting to OVER acting. Everyone but Charlize Theron underacts to the point of sleep, I mean aside from K-stew’s weak british-ish accent she is sleep-walking. Theron is just crazy. But really they got paid anyway.

Charlize Theron as Queen Ravenna

Speaking of Ravenna, I now have to mention her motive and the script’s perception of beauty. I would like to point out that this script was written by a man and while I don’t think men are incapable of writing female characters or having an understanding of beauty this guy does not.

Ravenna’s main motivation is staying forever young because old age sucks. I think the idea is that beauty is power and Ravenna’s self-identify is linked to her beauty, so she consumes youth and beauty. However the movie acts on the belief that beauty is just the surface for Ravenna and when women mare that beauty they are no good to her. But for a movie that promotes beauty as being something that is inner even if it blood, it seems off. I don’t know maybe that was the point but for a woman who sucks the youth out of girl I don’t see why a few scars would be a deterrent. And let’s not forget she was after Snow White’s blood, I mean she kept her alive because of her royal blood and scars keep away from women?

Kristen Stewart as Snow White

Before I end, I want to just mention SnowWhite’s main costume. First off, it looked ill-fitting for Stewart like it wore her. Second I know the costume designer Colleen Atwood, said something to effect that it was armor-like in that it has metal elements but it would have helped Snow White’s character and given her a sense of development if she was given that article of clothing or found it somewhere along her journey. Like she starts as prisoner wearing like a shift or something that makes her look weak and helpless and then she works up to the metal element and then the full armor to complete her leadership transformation. It would have given her a character development without really developing her as a character. But no, we have believe that Ravenna gave a prisoner nice and rather warm looking clothing.

Also why didn’t Ravenna ever consume Snow White’s youth prior to the events of the movie? I mean when she ate girls’ outer beauty they were still alive just old looking, apparently to the screenwriter old women aren’t beautiful, jerk-off. I mean she could have gotten Snow White’s beauty and then ate her heart when the magic gong told her about movie’s plot. I hate this movie, everyone is a dummy, there isn’t a REAL smart character in this film.

Charlize Theron as Queen Ravenna

Snow White & the Huntsman is a chaotic yet tedious mess of movie that wants to offer a kick-ass take charge Snow White but gives her no sense of character or interest. It’s no wonder that this movie’s advertisement went with the Evil queen as the marketable figure, though that is more because of the scandal of Stewart sleeping with the director than the movie but Ravenna is a the more interesting character.

Also how did the director of this movie gets to direct Ghost in the Shell? Gah, that makes me mad!

Time for Clues;
Clue 1 and Clue 2

Follow thehunchblog

12Aug 2015

Hypothetical Casting for Phoebus; Chris Pine

by jess

Chris Pine

Recently Chris Pine was suggested for Phoebus but I think I have seen this suggestion before. Phoebus is an interesting character for films to adapt, he can be the smug jerk or a hero , do so casting for the role is based on what the script calls for, though to be fair you can say that about any character in Hunchback. Pine however would be a good choice for either need, he can be heroic or a jerk.

Chris Pine as James. T Kirk from Star Trek

Pine has been in a few popular movies, most notably as James T Kirk in the Star Trek reboot. He was also Prince Charming in Into the Woods and a smarmy jerk in that Princess Diary sequel. It’s pretty fair to say that if Pine were casting he probably would follow suit and his Phoebus would be an arrogant yet likable jerk. Maybe not a hero but more likable than book Phoebus but that does take very much.

Chris Pine

How is Pine for looks. The only thing we really know about Phoebus is he is handsome in a resplendent way with a mustache, most version just make him handsome in a fashionable way. Pine has no complainers in the look department but his fairer features would be a nice contrast to Esmeralda’s darker one so yes Pine looks the part.

Chris Pine

Chris Pine seems like the perfect choice for Phoebus but what do you think?

Follow thehunchblog

11Aug 2015

Songs of Notre Dame de Paris Part 14

by jess

Dieu que le monde est injustice (God made the world unfair)

Garou as Quasimodo

Dieu que le monde est injuste is heartbreaking. Quasimodo sings as a lament that Esmeralda doesn’t love him the same way she loves Phoebus. It’s more than strictly he’s ugly and Phoebus is handsome it’s more about rich and poor. Quasimodo is ugly and poor and Phoebus is handsome rich lord, they are as unequal as two people can get.

Quasimodo doesn’t blame Esmeralda for her preference, he blames god as God made the world unfair. He then asks who God and Jesus prefer the rich or the poor though the implication is that Quasimodo believes it’s the rich who don’t have the some heart and are not as faithful. Might be a unfair but since the two representations of the nobles in the show are Fleur-de-Lys who wants a poor girls to die because she is jealous and Phoebus a two-timing slut, Quasimodo might have the right of it.

Most Quasimodos sell this song with sad anger though I think Garou just nails this song wit the right amount of angst.

Vivre (To Live)

Helene Segara as Esmeralda performing Vivre

Vivre is a gorgeous song and I throw that word around a lot but it really is beautiful. Esmeralda sings this song as a yearning for unconditional love. Love without barriers or social status. Esmeralda wants love and believes in its power The lyrics have a lovely flow and Helene Segara gives a lot of emotional power to this song.

The main irony of this song is that Quasimodo wants to give her that kind of love but she can’t see it. It’s a little unclear if at the point in the musical she still longs for Phoebus as she never say him specifically and this musical isn’t shy about using names.

Vivre is Esmeralda’s growth song, she wants to live in a world where love belongs to everyone and if she has to die for that she would. And since she talking about loving in a more unconditional way and that as a hope for all humanity, I think it more than her singing with Phoebus in mind. I do wonder that if Esmeralda and Quasimodo had more time together Esmeralda could have loved him. I don’t think book Esmeralda could have without some more maturity but this Esmeralda I think could have.

Both of the songs are great foils for each other and flow wonderfully into each other which makes the next song very jarring.

Get the whole GLORIOUS ALBUM HERE

Follow thehunchblog

10Aug 2015

1966 Version of The Man who Laughs

by jess

Full Disclosure, I couldn’t actually watch this movie, I tried but the trailer told me everything I could ever need know about this version and then someone on IMDB gave the specifics.

The Who Laughs 1966 Poster

This version seems precious.

You can watch the trailer here, http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/466045/Man-Who-Laughs-The-Original-Trailer-.html

Where do I even start? What were the screenwriter and the director smoking with this movie? First, The Man who Laughs is not an Adventure Novel. Oh, that just brought a smile to my face.

I mean what is this movie? There is nothing of the novel to be seen in this trailer but my god is this not the best one minute and thirty nine seconds? I feel like the movie’s craziness just leeches off the screen.

Apparently someone did see it according to a post of IMDB and here some core differences, so SPOILERS;

-Dea’s mother didn’t die and travels around with Dea, Ursus and Gwynplaine. And here I thought they cut Ursus as he didn’t seem to be in the trailer. (This is a weird change but it seems harmless, misses a point but whatever.)
-Gwynplaine is the royal court executioner and not a mountebank. Though he says cool lines and such before he axes people. (But still why? It’s just No, that is stupid.)
-Gwynplaine and Josiana sleep together (That is BS but we’ll see this change again.)
-Apparently Barkilphedro and soldiers gang rape Dea. (That is just awful, F-U movie, you ruined it. You had this stupidity that was darling and now it’s all gone. I hate you.)
-Gwynplaine keeps his title and gets sugery to correct his deformity and Dea’s eyes get magically fix. (This movie should be destroyed!)
–source

Well it seems like this movie had some idea of a story they wanted to make, some Royal Court intrigue but they needed a source for characters so they attached the Man who Laughs. This movie seems like a Fan-Fiction.

If it wasn’t for the some BIG plot changes like Dea and the very stupid happy ending it would seem like hilariously naive version but it seems more waste of the original source material and I didn’t even like the original source material but this movie seems like crap-poo, no wonder you can’t watch it.

Also it takes place in Italy instead of England and it’s the Borgias. So wrong place and time. That doesn’t bother me, just saying. Though I did like the Showtime show of The Borgias.

Follow thehunchblog

06Aug 2015

La Belle et la Bete 2014 Review; Who Wants a love story when we got Backstory and an Epic Fight Scene!

by jess

La Belle et la Bete

I don’t want to blame The Lord of the Rings for ruining fairy-tale movies but I think Lord of the Rings is ruining fairy-tale movies as they now have to be EPIC! Case in point, this movie. The 2014 version of La Belle et la Bete seems to be a remake of the 1946 movie, which I have gone on record as saying I love, however this 2014 French movie is not a remake, it’s a more of a weird re-imagining that seems to be telling a Beauty and the Beast tale but it doesn’t really want to.

Vincent Cassel as the Beast and Lèa Seydoux as Belle

Before I tell you the plot here is a game to keep in mind, try and pinpoint the exact moment when this story decides it would rather be a totally different movie, it’s not hard.

It starts off pretty much same as the 1946 version except this version is told as a story to children, gee movie I wonder who could be telling this tale and who these kids are, it’s not obvious at all. Belle’s family is being forced to move to the country as they’re poor now. Belle is the youngest child and her mother died giving birth to her. In the country, Belle is enjoying the new life but when her father hears the one of his boats survived the storm that sunk the other two ships. Her father asks what she wants back from his trip and she says a rose.

The father doesn’t get his shipment of goods and is instead attacked by some thugs who his son owes money to or something (Just get used to these thugs guys, they are the villains). Belle’s father escapes but gets lost and lands in an enchanted domain complete with enchanted castle. In the castle he is given a lots of gifts for his family but when he takes a rose, the Beast tells him to go home and say good-bye to him family and then to come back to die and if he doesn’t come back the beast will kill the whole family. Belle feels responsible and goes to the beast to die in her father’s place.

The Beast gives her lots of gifts and free roam of the castle which is enchanted with these weird dog-like creatures that are like servants. The Beast tells Belle that her curfew is seven o’clock and he asks if she is in love with him, which she is not.

Belle is then sent weird dreams about a Prince and his wife. The Prince likes to hunt and that makes his wife uneasy. The wife asks the prince to stop hunting deer, a golden deer specifically and he agrees if she gives him an heir. Belle gets more of these dreams throughout the movie.

Belle and the Beast have somewhat an uneasy relationship but Belle tries to get a visit to her family but the Beast doesn’t want to let her go. Belle offers a dance in exchange for a visit, so they dance but the Beast doesn’t give Belle her wish so she bails. The Beast chases after her and pounces on her on some ice and she crashes down through. He brings her back to the castle and heals her with some magic water. When she comes to he agrees to left her visit for family for a day and if she doesn’t return he will die. Before though he gives her some magic water in necklace form.

Belle returns and her brothers and they see her riches and bargains with the thugs for whatever treasure for the family’s safety. Belle heals her father with the magic water. Belle gets a final dream (she had like two of these prior.) In one dream prior we learn that the Prince’s wife was pregnant. In the final dream the Prince is hunting and finds the golden deer and shots it. The Golden Deer turns out to be his wife who was nymph of the forest. In a rage for killing his daughter the God of the Forest turns him into a beast and you know how this works, only love can break the curse.

We then get a fight with the thugs. Belle races to help and begs the Beast not to kill the lead thug guy but he mortally wounds the Beast with the golden arrow that he killed his wife with (there was a statue that you see a few times). As the Beast is dying, there are like giants that come out and thorns and they like kill all the bad thugs. Belle and her brothers get the Beast to the magical water and presto he’s fine. Belle ends her tales and the kids go to sleep but OMFG, the kids are her and beast’s children this whole time and they live in the house in the country with Belle’s dad, WHA? I’m SO SHOCKED! N~~o, not really.~~

LÃ©a Seydoux as Belle La Belle et la Bete 2014 picture image

Lèa Seydoux as Belle

Despite my plot summery, which I will admit I don’t have a super grand recollection of this movie, that final confrontation lasts a while and REALLY doesn’t make any sense but a lot about this movie doesn’t make much sense.

Ok, let’s just start with the positives, that is typically a good place to start usually, in most cases.

The movie on a whole looked good. The costumes are the de-facto high point. They are pretty and somewhat imaginative. I like her red coral and her white gowns the best. The setting was pretty. They made the castle overrun with flowers which made it more enchanting. However the CGS, oh god the CGIs were awful. Sorry, I know I was going with positives and I go right to a bad point but you have to understand they were bad. The Beast looked really bad.

I guess another good point was the acting, it didn’t suck that much. I mean it could have been bad though the character had little personality so there wasn’t that much to ask for so it’s a moot point.

Vincent Cassel as the Beast and Lèa Seydoux as Belle

So now we come to it, the movie and the story. Apparently this movie actually had good reviews that said it kept ” the original spirit of the story.” No, no it didn’t. This movie was like watching a director trying to mimic Peter Jackson and Tim Burton making a Beauty and the Beast movie sans the point of the story. Even the score sounded like a Danny Elfman knock-off which wasn’t that bad but it was super apparent.

Vincent Cassel as the Beast and Lèa Seydoux as Belle

This movie’s main issue is that it wants to be BIG and EPIC, there is an epic fight with giants and magic and it wants to have a interesting backstory for the Beast and you know what, that is fine, that’s a great idea BUT that epicness come at the expense of BEAUTY AND THE GODAMN BEAST! I do not buy for one instant that these two fell in love. I don’t see it. There isn’t one scene that indicates a love story. There was a scene where they were marginally nice to each other but is that love? Apparently is it because next time they see each other they are in love and voila spell is broken.

I’ll get more to the spell in a second because I have problems with that as well as the backstory. But because this movie wanted to have like a mysterious backstory it takes away interactions with the the two leads and as a result I have no clue for the characters. They didn’t develop or fall in love with each other and that is the spirit of the original story, love and it’s not even remotely present in this movie.

Vincent Cassel as the Beast in Human form

So because this movie made a decision to have an intricate backstory, how is it? Well It’s like we’re in a whole different movie and it kind begs the question why bother?

Maybe I’m wrong but I thought the POINT of the Beast is that because he was beast he lacked the capacity to relate to people on an intimate level BUT here he was MARRIED? Am I supposed to believe that he didn’t know how to deal with a woman?

So unlike other Beasts that are either jerks or walking a thin line between animal and humanity, this beast is a jerk to Belle because he killed his wife accidentally? You know he wasn’t acting like he did, In fact with the whole backstory I thought that the beast was the Prince’s son the whole time because the Beast was acting like an immature brat the whole movie and not like a suave guy who is mourning his beloved wife. I mean the twist was good but MY GOODNESS it was stupid. And why would the Forest God turn him into a Beast to find love when it was in payment for killing his daughter? That makes zero sense as a revenge punishment. Why give him an out that leads to happiness? At least other spells were trying to teach him a lesson, I don’t see the point of this one at all.

And why did the God turn him into a Beast and then seem to help him in fight at the end? Why? It didn’t make sense, was it because of the nymph’s love? I know she was the one sending Belle the dreams but why? See doesn’t see like the backstory and the fight belong in a different movie!

Vincent Cassel as the Beast and Lèa Seydoux as Belle

I will give 2014 La Belle et la Bete a little credit, it gave the story atmosphere and pretty costumes but what it gave it more than lacked; it lacked sense, characters, and the romance of beauty and the beast.

Time for Clues;
Clue 1 & Clue 2

Thoughts from 2022 – Wow was I mean in this review. I mean, yeah, the CGI were not that great and there was a muddling in the backstory but it wasn’t as bad I recalled or this review made it seem.

I was watching it because I working more costume pages on Hubpages, and the costumes in this movie are gorgeous and a rewatch was in order. Rewatching this movie I think I developed a theory as to why the romance was sparse but also why it was epic, magical and lyrical. It goes back to the framing device, a children story, perhaps Belle embellished the tale to make her meeting her husband into more of a fairy take for her children. The doll that the tadums (the dogs) gave her pointed that this story being true but maybe she just added it story for the children’s benefit. Or maybe not but the whole narrative as children story makes the films decisions feel more intentional AND having a child like sensibility is asked of the viewer at the start of the 1946 version so it’s not too much of a stretch. Anyway it’s not a bad movie, it’s fine.

Follow thehunchblog

05Aug 2015

Conqueror of Shamballaâ€™s depiction of Romani

by jess

Noah Dancing

I have been meaning to mention this movie for a long time, Conqueror of Shamballa which is based on the original Fullmetal Alchemist series (not to be confused with Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood which is different though both series are great in their ways.)

Anyway the reason I bring up Conqueror of Shamballa is because it has one of the most sensitive depiction of Romani I have see in a movie. Of course when I first saw the movie I haven’t finished watching Fullmetal Alchemist so the context of the real world and the fantasy world was lost on me. However the movie does refer to them as Roma and I believe they sing in the Roma language, I could be wrong (I really know next to nothing on Romani).

This isn’t the only depiction of Roma in Anime/Manga;
-There is a rumor that Sailor Moon creator Naoko Takeuchi stated that Sailor Pluto was Romani.
-In Blood+ it is speculated that Hagi is Romani.
-In Cowboy Bebop, Faye Valentine claims to be Romani, though this is dispelled in flashbacks,
-In Kaze to Ki no Uta, Serge Battour is the son of a Viscount and a Romani woman.

Conqueror of Shamballa does make one of the character, Noah explicitly a Romani.Follow thehunchblog

04Aug 2015

Songs of Notre Dame de Paris Part 13

by jess

Lune (Moon)

Gingoire lune Notre Dame de Paris picture image

Gingoire and the moon

Lune is a gorgeous song. If you don’t believe that a Gringoire performer can sing then this knocks it out the park.

Gringoire sings this song as part of his storyteller role and it about the dangers and the all consuming nature of love. Gringoire asks the moon to bear witness to Quasimodo who suffers from love.

There is so much power and pathos in this song. The melody is delicate and melancholic. It’s perfect!

Je te laisse un sifflet (I leave you a whistle)

Garou as Quasimodo and Helene Segara as Esmeralda

Two words; Chekov’s Gun! If you introduced a prop, you better damn use it or why bother. This song is the biggest misstep in the show. In this song Quasimodo gives Esmeralda a whistle much like in the book however she never uses it in the show and it is never used ever.

I sort of HAVE to assume that the production cut at least one song cut that would have made this song make sense because the transition between Vivre and The Attack on Notre Dame is very jarring and most of the songs in the show have a bridge song is a transition.

The production should fixed this song up so that there was no whistle mentioned because it’s stupid. I mean it’s one line that could have been fix as the most of the songs is rather sing-song and Quasimodo just gives Esmeralda the load down of the cathedral. But even with that line about the useless whistle, I have no problem saying that this is the most forgettable song in the musical by far.

2022 Edit- Hi, I’m editing a 7 year old post. With regards to Je te laisse un siffle, I changed the wording from worse to just forgettable. I really doubt this anyone favorite song but “worse” seemed harsh for a small transition song.

But I was thinking that the production could use the a whistle or a sound effect right before Esmeralda is hanged or maybe as Phoebus sentences her and this would alert Quasimodo to try to help her by means of asking Frollo to stop it. I don’t know though the show is over two decades old so why would they why changing it now as this only really bothers me sometimes like when I watch the show in its entirety as I don’t listen to this song otherwise.

Get the whole GLORIOUS ALBUM HERE
 Follow thehunchblog

03Aug 2015

1928 version of The Man who Laughs

by jess

Conrad Veidt as Gwynplaine and Mary Philbin as Dea

I just finished watching the 1928 The Man Who Laughs. Maybe it’s that I have a low attention span for silent films based on books I don’t really like or maybe it was because I have been on a crazy Modern Family watching binge, either way this movie was work to finish.

I will admit I was a little interested in seeing this movie as Mary Philbin, who was in Phantom, Conrad Veidt who I just saw in another movie recently where he plays a Frolloesque character and Brandon Hurst who played Frollo in the 1923 version. Here Hurst plays the villain again, man he is type-cast as Hugoian villains. So I didn’t not want to watch it but then it started…

Like the book the plot just goes Zoom-By. I still didn’t really get a feeling for any of the characters, in fact we lost Homo’s sensitivity and Ursus’ grumpiness but we didn’t get long histories of the peerage system OR that snow storm as sea scene, so take you pick at which one was better.

Conrad Veidt as Gwynplaine and Olga V. Baklanova as Josiana

Really, the only good thing about this movie is Veidt’s facial or rather eye emotions. The look of Gwynplaine it so otherworldly that is the only thing memorable about anything along with Veidt’s acting. The other people aren’t bad but there isn’t much to go on really.

The ending was a mixed bag too. The lovers live and that is fine, I actually think the ending didn’t make much sense in the book, Hugo just wanted a tragic ending so it was trite but before they can get to the happy ending there is a big dumb chase because silent movies love big dumb chases at the end, ask Phantom of the Opera. And if that wasn’t bad or dumb enough Homo kills Barky. It doesn’t really matter, Barky was a lame villain anyway but still he could have just drown which would have been at least a call back to the book. Also Homo was a dog not a wolf, that isn’t a complaint just a fact, was more likely easier on the production.

Now here are some weird things;

-The lady who played Josiana, Olga V. Baklanova, looked like Madonna, the singer…. good thing they didn’t remake this movie in Madonna’s heyday. Josiana also got a monkey,. Apparently Baklanova’s resemblance to Madonna has been noted by modern critic…… and people on IMBD but if you have eyes you can see it too, it not subtle.
-I don’t know what the heck they did to David’s character. I thought he was suppose to be sophisticated but he acted so derpy in this movie. Was he meant to be a flop?
-This movie is ALL over the place with its costumes and set pieces timeframe. Like it said 17th century (pretty sure), at the start but the costumes range from the 1700s to late Victorian to the 1920’s. They had no idea of what period this story takes place in. But you know that didn’t REALLY bother me but you know what did a little bit, the amusement park rides. This movie has a rides at the 17th century fair. This just looked so out of place.
-as of 2015 there hasn’t been an American remake of this movie and the 1928 movie it is the ONLY American version.
-This version is the basis for the Joker’s look, not a weird thing just awesome…

Basically with the this version of the book the best thing you can say is the make-up and the acting were decent but the rest of it felt moldy. I wish the characters were better developed but then we wouldn’t have gotten that chase scene…….. can’t win…….it’s either a snow storm or a chase.Follow thehunchblog

30Jul 2015

Enchanted Review: Shame on you if you missed all the Disney in-jokes

by jess

Enchanted

The first time I ever saw the 2007 movie Enchanted, I was on a plane going from Quebec City to Montreal. I’m not sure why they offered in-flight entertainment for a thirty minute flight but I watched like ten or so minutes and I enjoyed it enough to rent it when I got home, ahh the days of rental places. Enchanted is an entertaining enough movie yes but does its message of real life vs fantasy get muddle in Disney-ideals and its own tropes? Let’s find out but the answer is yes.

Amy Adams as Giselle with Patrick Dempsey as Robert

Fair Maiden Giselle, one day meets Prince Edward and they promptly decide to get married the next day, why rush a good thing, right? However Edward’s stepmother Queen Narissa doesn’t want Edward to get married as it would diminish her power so on the wedding dat Narissa pushes Giselle down a fountian waterfall spring thing to a place where happy ever after don’t exist, Manhattan, and not like third world country no, fucking Time Square is where happy ever after don’t exist, like that’s the joke?

Anyway Giselle has a rude awaking but meets Robert and Morgan, father and daughter. Robert doesn’t want Morgan to idealize Princesses and Morgan does. Robert feels this way because Morgan’s mom left for reason. They take Giselle back to their apartment which causes a little fiction with Robert’s girlfriend Nancy. Giselle uses her fairy-Princess super powers to help people with love but Robert teaches Giselle about dating and forming attachments through getting to know a person.

While that is happing Narissa’s henchman, Nathaniel is trying to kill Giselle by poison apple method, Giselle’s chipmunk pal, Pip is trying to help Giselle not to die and Edward is searching for Giselle. Then when Nathaniel fails and Edward finds Giselle, Narissa comes into the fray as she had been previously communicating with Nathaniel through water.

So they all go to a ball where Giselle dons a modern gown. Giselle and Robert dance but then Narissa has Giselle eat a poison apple, Edward’s kiss fails to break the spell but Robert’s does and Nancy and Edward are okay with that. Narissa however turns into a dragon to kill everyone and drags Robert and Giselle up to the roof where Giselle slays her pretty darn easily. So Nancy and Edward go back to the fairy-tale world and get married, Nathaniel and Pip write tell-all-books and Giselle starts a fashion-line because she was good at sewing and I guess her and Robert get married maybe and she become a nice stepmother. Subversive!

Okay before I get into this movie I HAVE to say, with a Queen Stepmother trying to gain control by killing her step-son’s love (who happens to be dealing with a world that is not her own) to maintain her power and she uses water magic, this reminds of a a manga I like, it was almost distracting.

Amy Adams as Giselle

Enchanted does some nice things with subverting the Disney tropes however it undermines itself too. First off, yes, Giselle doesn’t just marry her “true love” she gets to know him and the true love thing is grown and somewhat cultivated in a way. Giselle is given more self-awareness however I doubt that Giselle would ever have a problem with Edward as the fairy-tale world or Andalasia as in it’s very existent is being ignorant of problems unless you’re a bad guy. So Giselle is the positive but as other side of that coin is Nancy.

Nancy Tremaine (voice by Idina Menzel) and Prince Edward (voiced by James Marsden) getting married in Andalasia

Nancy just throws a whole wretch into what the movie was trying to say, life isn’t like a fairy-tale except if you drop everything in your life and run off with a guy you haven’t know for a day and marry him. Seriously, Nancy and Edward get married at the end? Why? Because the screenwriters wanted them to have a happy ending after being dumped? Are we REALLY to believe a woman, who seems like she has a pretty good life would run off with some guy she JUST met and exchange maybe like handful of sentence? Sure, we didn’t REALLY get to know Nancy all that well but she didn’t seem the type who would abandon everything for some guy who spoke somewhat romantically and she REALLY didn’t seem too broken up about Robert leaving her away.

The screenwriters kinda wrote themselves into a corner because either Nancy had to be the fairy-tale princess and leave her world behind or Edward would have needed to stay in New York City which means, Edward would have needed an arc which he did not get. If the movie wasn’t so entertaining this would be a bigger issue since the movie wanted to parody this kind of thing and work against it but it’s ok for side characters to marry people they don’t know, just not the main characters.

Amy Adams as Giselle with James Marsden as Prince Edward and with Patrick Dempsey as Robert and Rachel Covey as Morgan

Aside form that the movie is really well done. The acting is really good and everyone seems like they are having fun with their roles. I do think Susan Sarandon as Narissa is miscast but she is not that bad. I really enjoy James Marsden as Edward but I’m an unabashed 30 Rock fan so anything that reminds me of that is a-ok. And Amy Adams lives the role of Giselle, she was pretty perfect.

Amy Adams as Giselle performing That’s How you Know

The technicals in this movie were fun too. The animation is fluid and clean and it wasn’t done by Disney how is that for the ultimate irony. The live-action parts are nicely shot and have a fun and playfulness.

I have to love the costumes except for one, the one that disappointed me down to my very soul, that Tahari gown Giselle wore at the ball. I don’t know why films do this, but if there is a costume ball the main characters will ignore it and wear a regular dress. They did it in the 2004 Phantom of Opera and I will NEVER forgive them. I mean the dress is pretty, it is just number one, it’s too simple for the venue, if they had a more Oscar style evening gown, something with a wow-factor I could see it. And number two this dress is like going from zero to 360 for Giselle. I guess the point of Giselle’s costumes is that they get more modern the longer she is in the real work but come on movie, that Tahari gown was in no way the next step for her fashion evolution. I say no. Otherwise the costumes were great.

The musical numbers are a lot of fun. The big number, “That’s how you know” is bright and colorful and big. It reminds me of the pretty women number in Kal ho naa ho which is fun number.

I think the only number that wasn’t that great was the Ballroom dance, though maybe I just don’t like that scene, that darn dress and the final fight meh. Also why didn’t Narissa get a a villain songs, seriously we get three freaking songs about love and romance but no Villain songs. (is it just me or did Giselle understand dating more than Robert with all the things she listed in That’s How you know?)

Susan Sarandon as Queen Narissa

Okay, speaking of Narissa, what was her plan and how did the whole power thing work? First off, problem one, her motivation was to keep the prince single so she could remain queen? So why didn’t she just kill the prince instead of going after his bride? It’s just a stall. Then her motivation changes to just being evil because even though at that point it was established that Giselle wasn’t into Edward, so why did she bother and she was one weak fucking dragon. I would THINK it would take more than a sword wound to prevent her from flying and I dunno, burning people? I think they were referencing Sleeping Beauty but they fairies gave the prince buffs to his sword or whatever.

Second, how does succession work in Andalasia? Does the Queen maintain her power after the king is dead? But then why is Edward a prince and Narissa a queen? Shouldn’t Edward be King? Do you have to be married in Andalasia to get a King/Queen title? Is Edward’s father still alive? Why don’t Disney villain ever just try to manipulate the royals instead of being the ruler? Like Narissa could have wrapped Giselle around her figure and been a shadow ruler. What kind of power did Narissa hold anyway? Did she share it with Edward? Or what she acting regent till he married? Then why didn’t she kill him and pull a coup? How does is work??? It’s not important to the story but it’s the villain’s motivation, I dunno maybe a song could have cleared it up, or she could have been a better evil villain to make me forget this kind of stuff, she is as menacing as tin foil. Also her costume looked more sci-fi than fantasy, more leading a legion of spiders than queen of place called Andalasia.

Amy Adams as Giselle with Pip

Despite its flaws, and boy does it have them, Enchanted is a fun and entertaining movie that does a nice job of parodying and paying homage to Disney tropes all while totally buying into them.

Time for Clues, Clue 1 & Clue 2

One of those clues makes me laugh, try and guess which one and the next movie.

Follow thehunchblog

« Previous 1 … 54 55 56 57 58 … 172 Next »

Post Navigation