1997 Hunchback Frollo, Nosferatu’s love child

by
Richard Harris as Frollo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Richard Harris as Frollo

 

The Frollo in the 1997 version of Hunchback is odd to say the least. He is a weird mash of the 1939 version’s obsession with fear of the modernity and vampire-monk. Really it’s hard to get over the look of him but that is the least of his problems.

Richard Harris as Frollo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Richard Harris as Frollo

 

Let’s start with the root of Frollo, his obsession and this is the bad part of this depiction. Frollo in this version is struggling with getting rid of printing presses to keep the ease of access on acquiring knowledge down. Frollo is accused of trying to suppress knowledge but he loves knowledge. His feeling is that if knowledge is easy to get it, it cheapens it, so down with printed books. The one he is struggling against is the king’s minister whom Frollo kills instead of Phoebus.  Frollo’s obsession for Esmeralda seem to  spawn from his inability to get the king of his side about the printing press.

Richard Harris as Frollo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Richard Harris as Frollo

 

Frollo’s obsession is split and this and this is the problem. Frollo in this version is way more into the printing press than getting Esmeralda. He only seem to press the issue with Esmeralda because his resolve is being tested and he  is weak. This robs everything from Frollo’s drama.  It not interesting to watch this split obsession, Frollo obsession should be all consuming. Perhaps weakness begets weakness but Frollo’s character suffers a lot for it. His obsession for Esmeralda feels like an afterthought  than a major plot point.

 

Richard Harris as Frollo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Richard Harris as Frollo

 

I think Richard Harris does a fair job with the material but any passion or energy he could have given to Frollo is not there. It’s not like not there but the most I show was him taking baout knowledge. I think i idea was to keep Frollo repressed with Esmeralda but when he says he was mad and crazy for for her but we never seem those emotion it cheapens the performance, the dialogue and the story.

 

Richard Harris as Frollo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Richard Harris as Frollo

 

Then we have his looks. This Frollo is very different, he looks like Nosferatu. It’s very austere even for Frollo. The look  is really distracting because he is suppose to look old, he is not suppose to look like a vampire from 1922.

Richard Harris as Frollo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Richard Harris as Frollo

 

I know Richard Harris was a good actor and Frollo should be a great character to play but this depiction of Frollo has passion for the wrong aspect and the character is a confused mess.

Next Time Gringoire

Edward Atterton as Gringoire, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Edward Atterton as Gringoire

What’s in a Name? Pierre Gringoire

by
Bruno Pelletier as Gringoire in Notre Dame de Paris picture image

Bruno Pelletier as Gringoire in Notre Dame de Paris

Pierre Gringoire was based on a real person. The Real-life Gringoire was born in 1475 and died 1538 and was an accomplished playwright and writer.

Pierre is French for stone. It is derived from the Greek word Petros meaning stone or rock. It is a form of Peter. Pierre is a very very common French name. It’s interesting to note that towards the end of the novel Gringoire becomes interested in Architecture and  stone.

Then we have Gringoire. As  we know Gringoire was based on a real person, we also know that it is a real surname.  The meaning is a little hard to pin down. It would seem that the name Gringoire comes out of the ancient greek name Gregorein, which means watchful or awake.   The spelling variations are Gregoir, Gregoire, Greguer, Gregure, De Gregoire, Degregoire, De Gregoir, Degreoire and more. The name was first found in Guyenne. Their family seat is held in the village and estate of Gregoire in the department of Lot-et-Garonne in tarn in the South of France.

I think in giving Gringoire a normal name it significance him as the normal guy.

 

Atlantis; Milo’s Return Review; You can’t make a movie bomb without Oregano

by

Since I have never seen Atlantis; the Lost Empire, let me go watch that before I get to Atlantis; Milo’s Return. I’ll be back!

(95 Minutes later)

Ok, that was dull. I hate the white man burden trope.

Atlantis; Milo's Return picture image

Atlantis; Milo’s Return

Anyway, let me go watch Atlantis; Milo’s Return now.

(75 Minutes later)

Cries……… that was awful……..Why does this company put out some much utter crap. This one is painful, viscerally painful. I want to vomit and crawl my eyes out during this one’s running time.

Obby Atlantis; Milo's Return picture image

Obby

Ok, ok , Okay, let’s start with a positive because I have One, Obby, the Lava Dog. Obby is cute and fun. Fuck the rest of the characters, the movies or story plot should have focused on Obby. I would rather watch Obby sleep for 75 minutes than this shit fest.

Atlantis; Milo's Return Gang picture image

The Atlantis Gang

This movie, like so many of the other crappy Disney sequels, has three stories. All three are boring and very TV. Now when I say it’s TV, I mean it as insult but let’s face it, these direct to video movies are worst than most TV episodes so what can you do.

Atlantis; Milo's Return gang running from a snowman picture image

The Gang running from a snowman

The plot is that stuff is happening, so the gang goes to Atlantis to get Milo to investigate. Kida follows thinking that the stuff could be Atlantean weapons. The first one is the Kraken (which they pronounce annoyingly wrong), second is sand coyotes or something, and the third is Atlantean spear in the hands of a Norse God wannabe.

In the end Atlantis raises from the sea, killing hundreds of Marine life and ruining a very fragile ecosystem. I hope you’re happy.

Kida Atlantis; Milo's Return picture image

Kida

I will say that the three stories do build off of eachother. They are not wholly separate stories. However the stories are forgettable and there is no real character development. Since there is no growth in characters these are TV episodes.

Obby and Milo Atlantis; Milo's Return picture imahe

Obby and Milo

One of the big thing that annoyed was in the first movie Milo is played by Michael J. Fox who has a very identifiable voice which was distracting. Fox did not reprise his role so to hear not-Fox was even more distracting. Not-Fox was played by James Arnold Taylor whose infamous laugh from a major video game I was hoping to hear if only to dull the pain of this movie.

The gang Atlantis; Milo's Return picture image

The Atlantis Gang

As is standard with Disney sequels, the animation is usually much, much worse. Now Atlantis didn’t have the greatest animation in the world but Milo’s Return felt visually cheaper. The colors were dull and everything felt lifeless. It is not fun to look at.

Milo, Obby, Kida Atlantis; Milo's Return picture image

Milo, Obby and Kida

I quite literally have nothing more to say on Atlantis; Milo’s Return. It’s a feast of garbage. Most of my notes on this movie were like this “dumb dumb dumbd umbd imbd idm dumdndumbdumdbumdbdumdbdu” – my actual notes.

I really wished Milo hadn’t returned, it would have spared the world of this shit.

1997 Quasimodo; Sweet, Sad and Boring

by
Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo

The 1997 version of Quasimodo is very much a throwback to Charles Laughton’s depiction in the 1939 version. There are some differences to the character but the focus of this Quasimodo is very much sympathetic and heavy on the pathos.

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo

Quasimodo in this version is softer and sweeter than in the past versions. There is no darkness to him, even Disney Quasimodo was darker than this version. He is the only Quasimodo not to be a part of the kidnap attempt instead was trying to help. He is also the only Quasimodo to be an intellectual, having read every book in the Notre Dame’s library. His sad sweetness mingled with his intelligence makes him likable.

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo

Mandy Patinkin also does a great job at portraying Quasimodo. He gives a great physical performance as well as an emotional one. In particular I love his walk.

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo

Despite his likeability, he’s little boring. He’s too generically nice. If he had an edge or had arc it would have made him interesting but in taking way him kidnapping Esmeralda it ruins the pillory scene and robs Quasimodo of his arc of trusting Frollo 100%.

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo,

This Quasimodo could have been great, the performance was great but the interest of the character was made void but him being too nice and sweet.

Next time; Frollo

Richard Harris as Frollo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Richard Harris as Frollo

What’s in a Name? Phoebus de Chateaupers

by
watercolor of Phoebus and Esmeralda picture image

watercolor of Phoebus and Esmeralda

By the novel’s own admission, Phoebus’ name comes from the Greek God Phoebus Apollo. Apollo was the god of many things including light, prophecy, poetry, music and healing. While Apollo’s name roots are uncertain, Phoebus means light in Greek. Phoebus’ name reflects Esmeralda’s love the sun and brightness. Phoebus himself is a darker character than his bright name suggests as he likes to engage in deceit and debauchery.

As an added little bonus, Parnassius phoebus is a species Swallowtail butterflies found in Eurasia and North America.

Then their his surname de Chateaupers, This is a real surname but it’s meaning is near impossible to ascertain. The “de” is common in French Surnames, it means “of.” It is often given to high ranking families. Chateaupers came be broken down to Chateau meaning “castle” and “pers” which could mean person. So his name could mean person of the castle. Perhaps it reflects his family being stewards for the Chateau family or steward in a castle. After all Phoebus wasn’t of a high noble family which why he has to marry Fleur de Lys.

101 Dalmatians II; Patch’s London Adventure Review; Why can’t they talk to the other animals like in the first film?

by
101 Dalmatians II; Patch's London Adventure picture image

101 Dalmatians II; Patch’s London Adventure

101 Dalmatians II; Patch’s London Adventure is by all counts a dumb movie but it has its moments of being entertaining, which surprised me. What brought it down was the general mean-spiritedness.

Patch and Thunderblot, 101 Dalmatians II; Patch's London Adventure picture image

Patch and Thunderbolt

The plot goes, that in midst of moving to the  farm, Patch is feeling less than unique. On moving day, Patch gets left behind and decides to see his idol, TV actor dog, Thunderbolt who is holding auditions. Thunderbolt is told by his sidekick, Lightning, that they mean to kill him off in the show, which is a lie.

Thunderbolt decides to perform good deeds in real life so he can keep his job. He enlists Patch’s help because Patch knows all the episodes. Then Cruella DeVille enters the picture and get captivated by an artist who paints spots. She commissions him to paint her a painting but isn’t happy so she decides to kidnap the Dalmatians again. Patch and Thunderbolt then have to save the day and Patch learns he is special.

 

101 Dalmatians II; Patch's London Adventure picture image

Patch

Going into this movie, I thought it would be akin to Scamp’s adventure but it wasn’t. Patch learns a lesson that is different from the original movie. His lesson and growth is understandable, he’s puppy and has 98 siblings.

 

Puppies Driving, 101 Dalmatians II; Patch's London Adventure picture image

Puppies Driving

Speaking of the 98 other Puppies, they are just plain mean little things. The reason why is to get the audience on Patch’s side, if he is the underdog then we care about him. But they made the other puppies too mean. Jasper and Horace were mean too throwing Nanny down a well, that is sick.

 

Lars and his art, 101 Dalmatians II; Patch's London Adventure picture image

Lars and his art

 

Then we have Cruella and the art subplot. I will say as someone who minored in art history, I loved this subplot. I thought it was hilarious.  However, it’s a little more than stupid. Thy whole thing  was a set-up for the puppies to hid  against a canvas.

Cruella DeVille, 101 Dalmatians II; Patch's London Adventure picture image

Cruella DeVille

 

Also I didn’t really like the two antagonist angle.  First we have insane Cruella, who seems shoehorned in here. And then we have Lighting, Thunderbolt’s sidekick, who wants to be the star of the show. I will forgive it, as it does come together at the end but Cruella was shoehorned in.

Horace and Jasper grabbing Rolly, 101 Dalmatians II; Patch's London Adventure picture image

Horace and Jasper grabbing Rolly

 

Stylistically,  this movie is very different than the original but at least it not a rehash or copy of the first. However, they shamelessly reuse things from the first movie. They reuse the Twilight bark, the car chase and Pongo counting, the TV obsession, Cruella etc.

These things maybe be shameless but one thing they rehashed is wrong. Patch mentions that the spot in front of the TV is his spot but it was actually Lucky’s spot in the original.

 

101 Dalmatians II; Patch's London Adventure picture image

Patch

Which makes me ask the question, why Patch as the star puppy when Lucky was focused on much more in the original? Think about it, Lucky  was the first puppy we saw in the original, he is more obsessed with TV and he had more lines than Patch. Patch had his moments but they were fewer. Of course, all his moments involved Thunderbolt so maybe that was it.

 

101 Dalmatians II; Patch's London Adventure picture image

Patch

101 Dalmatians II; Patch’s London Adventure isn’t all bad, it’s dumb and has some icky meanness but it’s fine as far as these sequels go. I dare say it was adequate.  And It had PUPPIES!!!!!!!!

Frozen Review (Spoilers)

by
Frozen picture image
Frozen

Back in August 2013, I did a post mainly centered on Frozen and its lack of style when compared to the 2-D drawn movies. Frozen hit theaters Thanksgiving 2013 to a lot of praise. But is that praise deserving or are people just blinded by the snow?

The answer, is yes, it is deserving of praise. Frozen despite its first trailer, which was bad, is a very an entertaining and engaging movie.

 

Anna Frozen picture image
Anna

Let’s just get the style and the look of the movie out of the way. Yes, it looks like Tangled, hell Rapunzel and Flynn had cameos and Anna and Elsa look like Rapunzel. While it is annoying that the 3-D Disney movies have little variation in the female looks and not the men, I can justify this. Perhaps their royal families married and they are cousins or something, I would buy that. But please Disney try some new female looks the same face with freckles are getting old. Maybe go different place in this 3-D world, like Spain that would be fun.

 

Elsa Frozen picture image
Elsa

The characters, are all great especially Elsa. Elsa is no doubt the most complex character Disney has come with. I read that she started at the antagonist  but the song “Let it go” forced them to rework her character and gave us the sister angle. She is so complex that she great to watch. The other characters are all good. I was surprised by Olaf. After that trailer I wanted to hate him but the voice actor, Josh Gad, made him work in a charming way. I adored Sven. Anna is a bit annoying at time but she didn’t bother me.

 

Anna and Olaf Frozen picture image
Anna,  Olaf and Kristoff

If you read my other Frozen post  you would get the impression that I’m down on 3-D Disney movies in favor of 2-D animation ones. That is a little true, Tangled was not enhanced by being in 3-D it could have been in 2-D easy by not Frozen. The snow and the ice looked beautiful in the 3-D rendering and that was the point. There should  be some reason for the medium. It seemed like Tangled was the experiment and Frozen was the pay-off.

 

Elsa and Anna frozen picture image
Elsa and Anna

I like how Disney is playing with their own tropes, Elsa telling Anna she can’t marry some she just met, Hans being the bad guy (he’s a bit like Gaston in that way) and true love being between sisters.  It’s really refreshing and playful.  Fun question, because Hans is the villain, does that make the romance song, Love is an open door, the villain song?  Talk about playing with  your tropes!

 

Trolls Frozen picture image
The Trolls

The movie is not without it’s problems, Hans was weak and dumb about political maneuvers, but the reveal was great, the deus ex machina ship at the end, the flow of the plot is clunky in places, it has a little bit of pan-scandinavian confusion  and I found the troll weak. The clunky parts are forgivable and Disney has never been one for 100%  cultural authenticity so that is forgivable too. The design of the Trolls were boring and franky they don’t look look like they belong to this movie. They could have more fun with the designs. The only good thing about them was Olaf’s reaction. It would have been amazing if they had been inspired by the Moomins but then again I love the Moomins, so bias. The trolls are small issue it just wish there was more too them then moss cover rocks.

 

Elsa, Frozen
Elsa

All in all Frozen was a great Disney movie. It had all the facets that make a Disney movie,  memorable songs, characters and animation, and Let it Go had all these things. All the things Disney has been lacking recently . Could Frozen mark the next Golden Age? Only the next few movie will tell and hopefully they will be just as good as Frozen.

The 1997 Verion of Esmeralda; Sexy and Dull

by

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda,

I do not hate Salma Hayek, I loved her in Frida, and I think she is a decent to good actress. The problem with Hayek is she is often typecast as the feisty independent women and because of that it’s very hard to separate Hayek from her depiction of Esmeralda.

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda and Edward Atterton as Gringoire, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda and Edward Atterton as Gringoire

Esmeralda in the 1997 version is dull. She is nice, sexy, caring and likes her independence but there is not a lot to her. Generally, most Esmeraldas have little to work with other than being kind and beautiful.

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda

Hayek’s Esmeralda does get a bit of social justice but it comes from guilt over Quasimodo getting punished because of her, which is a bit of an issue. In this version, Esmeralda is only briefly put off by Quasimodo’s looks and Quasimodo does not try to kidnap her, in fact he tries to help and Esmeralda know this. When Esmeralda tries to help Quasimodo by appealing to the king for his release, her giving him water is like a consolation to make it up to him. It’s not that she was moved by a whim. It lacks the sweetness that has in other versions where Esmeralda is clearly the one who the wrong was done to.

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda

By all counts Hayek is a really good casting choice. Hayek has really good exotic look which for an Esmeralda who is a full-Romani is really good. She was on the upper edge of being a little too old to play Esmeralda but the film doesn’t really talk about her youth or naivety too much so it’s not a big issue.

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda,

Really, she should have been the perfect Esmeralda. her performance is not her fault as she had little to work with. She has no arc and has nothing to do outside of being nice and dancing suggestively.

Next Time Quasimodo

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo, The Hunchback 1997 picture image

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo