The Colour of Magic: The Film

This is the first episode of the film version of Terry Pratchett's book, The colour of Magic.























The story continues here.

Crazy action scene

Endhiran is an Indian Science Fiction movie. To find out more details of the film see this link.

Here is a summary of the film's plot:

The film's story revolves around a scientist's struggle to control his creation, an android robot whose programme was upgraded to give it the ability to comprehend and generate human emotions. The plan backfires as the robot falls in love with the scientist's fiancée and is further manipulated to bring destruction to the world when it lands in the hands of a rival scientist. How the robot is stopped from further destruction forms the rest of the plot.

The final action sequence (below) is truly amazing.

Over The Top Action Sequence

Yes, I too hope no horses were hurt in the filming of this, but it is still fantastic!

Film Review: Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Unlike the other Movie Reviews that I have written so far on this blog, this is not a review of a movie that we have seen recently, instead I was reminded of it when we recently saw Spamalot.

It is, of cause, a cult classic though I have always thought that it was a bit hit and miss. Some scenes were laugh-out-loud funny while other fell completely flat.


The first scene begins:

[wind]
[clop clop]
ARTHUR: Whoa there!
[clop clop]

GUARD #1: Halt! Who goes there?
ARTHUR: It is I, Arthur, son of Uther Pendragon, from the castle
of Camelot. King of the Britons, defeator of the Saxons, sovereign
of all England!
GUARD #1: Pull the other one!
ARTHUR: I am. And this my trusty servant Patsy.
We have ridden the length and breadth of the land in search of knights
who will join me in my court of Camelot. I must speak with your lord
and master.
GUARD #1: What, ridden on a horse?
ARTHUR: Yes!
GUARD #1: You're using coconuts!
ARTHUR: What?
GUARD #1: You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin'
'em together.
ARTHUR: So? We have ridden since the snows of winter covered this
land, through the kingdom of Mercea, through--
GUARD #1: Where'd you get the coconut?
ARTHUR: We found them.
GUARD #1: Found them? In Mercea? The coconut's tropical!
ARTHUR: What do you mean?
GUARD #1: Well, this is a temperate zone.
ARTHUR: The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin
or the plumber may seek warmer climes in winter yet these are not
strangers to our land.
GUARD #1: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
ARTHUR: Not at all, they could be carried.

The idea of the knights miming riding on horses while their servants made clip clop sounds with two halves of a coconut was fun and original. The scene continues with the guards discussing how swallows could have carried a coconut to England.

Immediately following is the following scene:

Bring out your dead!
CUSTOMER: Here's one -- nine pence.
DEAD PERSON: I'm not dead!
MORTICIAN: What?
CUSTOMER: Nothing -- here's your nine pence.
DEAD PERSON: I'm not dead!
MORTICIAN: Here -- he says he's not dead!
CUSTOMER: Yes, he is.
DEAD PERSON: I'm not!
MORTICIAN: He isn't.
CUSTOMER: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
DEAD PERSON: I'm getting better!
CUSTOMER: No, you're not -- you'll be stone dead in a moment.
MORTICIAN: Oh, I can't take him like that -- it's against regulations.
DEAD PERSON: I don't want to go in the cart!
CUSTOMER: Oh, don't be such a baby.
MORTICIAN: I can't take him...
DEAD PERSON: I feel fine!
CUSTOMER: Oh, do us a favor...
MORTICIAN: I can't.
CUSTOMER: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't
be long.
MORTICIAN: Naaah, I got to go on to Robinson's -- they've lost nine
today.
CUSTOMER: Well, when is your next round?
MORTICIAN: Thursday.
DEAD PERSON: I think I'll go for a walk.
CUSTOMER: You're not fooling anyone y'know. Look, isn't there
something you can do?
DEAD PERSON: I feel happy... I feel happy.
[whop]
CUSTOMER: Ah, thanks very much.
MORTICIAN: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
CUSTOMER: Right.
[clop clop]
MORTICIAN: Who's that then?
CUSTOMER: I don't know.
MORTICIAN: Must be a king.
CUSTOMER: Why?
MORTICIAN: He hasn't got shit all over him.

That is funny all the way through and I particularly like the ending.

The next scene, though, is my favourite:


[clop clop]
ARTHUR: Old woman!
DENNIS: Man!
ARTHUR: Old Man, sorry. What knight live in that castle over there?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven -- I'm not old!
ARTHUR: Well, I can't just call you `Man'.
DENNIS: Well, you could say `Dennis'.
ARTHUR: Well, I didn't know you were called `Dennis.'
DENNIS: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?
ARTHUR: I did say sorry about the `old woman,' but from the behind
you looked--
DENNIS: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior!
ARTHUR: Well, I AM king...
DENNIS: Oh king, eh, very nice. An' how'd you get that, eh? By
exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma
which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our society!
If there's ever going to be any progress--
WOMAN: Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here. Oh -- how d'you do?
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
Who's castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous
collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives
in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that,
eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me,
you saw it didn't you?

Next is the Black Knight where Arthur hacks off all of the limbs of the Black Knight and moves on the Black Knight says:

Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow
bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you.
I'll bite your legs off!

Next follows the Witch scene, that includes:

CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch, might we burn her?
CROWD: Burn her! Burn!
BEDEMIR: How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2: She looks like one.
BEDEMIR: Bring her forward.
WITCH: I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
BEDEMIR: But you are dressed as one.
WITCH: They dressed me up like this.
CROWD: No, we didn't... no.
WITCH: And this isn't my nose, it's a false one.
BEDEMIR: Well?
VILLAGER #1: Well, we did do the nose.
BEDEMIR: The nose?
VILLAGER #1: And the hat -- but she is a witch!
CROWD: Burn her! Witch! Witch! Burn her!
BEDEMIR: Did you dress her up like this?
CROWD: No, no... no ... yes. Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.
VILLAGER #1: She has got a wart.
BEDEMIR: What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEMIR: A newt?
VILLAGER #3: I got better.


Arthur receives his quest in a vision from God who is somewhat irritated:

GOD: Arthur! Arthur, King of the Britons! Oh, don't grovel! If
there's one thing I can't stand, it's people groveling.
ARTHUR: Sorry--
GOD: And don't apologize. Every time I try to talk to someone it's
"sorry this" and "forgive me that" and "I'm not worthy". What are you
doing now!?
ARTHUR: I'm averting my eyes, oh Lord.
GOD: Well, don't. It's like those miserable Psalms-- they're so
depressing. Now knock it off!
ARTHUR: Yes, Lord.
GOD: Right! Arthur, King of the Britons -- your Knights of the Round
Table shall have a task to make them an example in these dark times.
ARTHUR: Good idea, oh Lord!
GOD: 'Course it's a good idea! Behold! Arthur, this is the Holy
Grail. Look well, Arthur, for it is your sacred task to seek
this Grail. That is your purpose, Arthur -- the Quest for the
Holy Grail.

Arthur and his Knights are soon taunted by some Frenchmen in a castle, which includes the memorable:

GUARD: I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal
food trough whopper! I fart in your general direction! You mother
was a hamster and your father smelt of eldeberries.

For me it is all down hill from here. I really don't get the Knights that say Nee, Tim the Enchanter, the Bridge of Death or the Rabbit.

Irrespective of the flat bits there are so many highlights that the film remains one of the all time classics.

Movie Review: Pan's Labrynth

Pan's Labyrinth by Mexican director Guillermo Del Toro is set in Spain in 1944. Although Franco has won the Spanish Civil War there are still pockets of resistance by bands of republican loyalists. The heroine a 12 year old girl named Ofelia, played beautifully by Ivana Baquero, is traveling with her heavily pregnant mother, Carmen (Ariadna Gil), to meet her step-father, Captain Vidal (Sergi López). Vidal is in command of a small military base deep in the countryside.

Vidal's brutal and callous character is quickly revealed. He is only concerned for his wife because she is carrying his son. He cares nothing for Ofelia. When after he casually murders two local farmers, accusing them of being republican sympathizers, it is revealed that they probably were innocent of the charge he blames his underlings for the mistake. His pleasure in inflicting pain, is shown when he tortures a captured partisan.

Why did Carmen marry the sadistic Vidal. In her discussions with Ofelia she hints at her need for male companionship. Vidal might have seemed a good meal ticket. Whatever the reason it is clearly now a very poor choice. Of cause Carmen might not have been given a choice at all, vidal takes what he wants.

Ofelia is certainly dissatisfied with her mother's passivity. This is possibly a reason for her attraction to the house keeper, Mercedes (Maribel Verdú). Mercedes' brother is one of the partisans, and she gives them assistance and intelligence from the military post.

Another character placed in a difficult position is the doctor (Alex Angulo), who attends Carmen but also provides medical assistance to the partisans. The doctor places his life in jeopardy when he puts a tortured partisan out of his misery.

The brutality of war is underscored by the fact that at film's end most of the principals are dead. Even though the republican partisans win this battle, any viewer with a sense of history will realize that Franco will rule Spain for another three decades. If this was all to the film, then it would be an interesting though brutal evocation of the horrors of war. What raised this film beyond the merely interesting is the addition of a fantasy theme to the brutal realism.

From the fantasy perspective, Ofelia is not just a 12 year old child caught up in a violent world over which she has little control, she has a mythic significance and a world where she has some control and options. She is required to preform three tasks, and her guide and mentor in the fantasy world is an old and very tall Fawn. One issue flowing through the fantasy scenes is the trustworthiness of the Fawn. In most of the fantasy tales that I am familiar with the young hero (or heroine) is guided by an older human mentor; Gandalf and Aragon for Frodo; Dumbledor for Harry Potter; Belgarath and Polgara for Belgarion. We have a clear understanding of the motivations, morality and trustworthiness of the human mentors. The motivations and honesty of the non-human fawn are not clear. This is particularly empahsised when the real import of the last task is finally revealed.

How seriously should we treat the fantasy theme? There are some observations that support the view that we should treat the fantasy element seriously. It does bookend the film. The first sequence sets the scene for the mythic story line, and the last scene shows the resolution of the fantasy storyline. The fantasy creatures are very solid and lifelike, right down to the crunch as faries are eaten by the White Man. There is nothing cartoonish about the fawn, he has a real dishevelled appearance. Observations supporting the view that that the fantasy should not be taken seriously include: that Ofelia reads fantasy books so the fantasy might be just her refuge from the harsh reality that surrounds her and that her step-father cannot see the fawn when she it talking to it. In the end the answer to the question is unclear and ambiguous.

Often the best stories are not "tied up with a bow" but have an element of uncertainty. The grim reality of Spain in 1944 is unequivocal, but it is the ambiguity of Ofelia's fantasy that makes this film one of my favourites.

Movie Review: The Bourne Ultimatum

Margaret and I went to The Bourne Ultimatum on Sunday 16th September. This is the third film in the Bourne series, and probably the last. The main thrust of the film was Jason Bourne's attempt to discover who made him into a brutal assassin. In the previous movies he came to reject his brutal role, though in all the movies he continued to use the skills his training had given him to stay alive.

This is pure multiplex escapist entertainment, and as such is entertaining but not particularly memorable. If the mark of a great movie is to leave you thinking about the issues raised after you leave the the cinema, then this was not a great movie.

This is a very white hat / black hat story. The villains in the CIA who have set up the "Black Opps" assassination program which created Bourne are back without any shade of gray. The CIA operative who is trying to stop them is similarly unrelieved white. The program which equipped Bourne with such effective killing skills also seems to have given him other less likely skills, namely a fluency with language. Bourne speaks three languages fluently, four if you count English.

Bourne is shown solving many problems effectively, so that some unlikely achievements can be easily glossed over. He can open any locked door, and even enter a CIA controlled building effortlessly - though we are not shown how. He crosses national boundaries seamlessly unless he wants to be noticed. He can be blown up by a bomb or involved in a high speed car crash and walk away with a nary a scratch.

The cinematography is annoying. Virtually the whole film seems to have been photographed by a hand held camera. This works very well in the action scenes, increasing their realism and immediacy, but the camera bobbing around while two people sit quietly at a table holding a conversation is very annoying.

Irrespective of all of the criticisms, it is an entertaining multiplex thriller, if you don't think about it much.

Rating: 3 stars.

Movie Review: Amazing Grace

The film deals with the struggle in England at the end of the 18th Century and the beginning of the 19th Century to bring an end to the slave trade.

The film centres on William Wilberforce the leader of the anti-slavery movement.

It seems reasonably historically accurate. While watching it I wondered whether Wilberforce was such the fine human being that the film made him out to be. In general the answer is probably that he was in the context of his times and his social class. It is important to remember that the action in the film occurred 200 years ago and that Wilberforce could easily made into a too modern man. Wilberforce was not the modern liberal that we might easily imagine. He was involved in the "Society for the Suppression of Vice" whose concerns included: profanation of the Lord's Day and profane swearing; publication of blasphemous, licentious and obscene books and prints; keeping of disorderly public houses, brothels and gaming houses; illegal lotteries and cruelty to animals. He also supported the suppression of Trade Unions and although he was rightly horrified by the treatment of slaves he was not particularly interested in the lives of poverty and degradation of working people in his own country.


Wilberforce was a fine man, but I don't think he was the saint this movie makes him out to be.

Although Wilberforce always had an interest in religion, this was dramatically quickened by a tour of Europe in 1784. He personally desired to devote his life to God, but was counselled by many people that he could do more good in politics. He eventually made the choice of a political career but fiercely maintained his evangelical beliefs.

The timing of some elements of the film were confusing. The scene in the gambling club is a great piece of film as it dramatically raises the central issues: Wilberforce's religiosity, slavery and the venality of his opponents. The problem that I have with it is that he didn't go to gambling houses after his spiritual awakening, and that it is unlikely that he would sing "Amazing Grace" at the time when he happily participated in the activities of the gambling clubs. The two just don't go together.

The other timing / pacing problem that I have with the film is Wilberforce's romance with Barbara Ann Spooner. The film gave me the impression that there was some time between their first meeting and marriage. In fact they were married less that six weeks after meeting. In the film the first meeting and the marriage are separated by fairly long political flashbacks which disrupts the the presentation of their romance.

Ioan Gruffudd plays the lead role. Although Wilberforce's addiction to Laudnum is detailed, Gruffudd seems too tall and robust to portray Wilberforce. As Boswell (Johnson's biographer) noted after watching a Wilberforce speech: "I saw what seemed a mere shrimp mount upon the table; but as I listened, he grew, and grew, until the shrimp became a whale."

The film raises some issues that have a contemporary resonance. Wilberforce's opponents don't dispute his description of the miseries and inhumanities of the slave trade, instead they claim that he is economically irresponsible as income from the slave trade is an important part of British prosperity. This of cause is always the response of Conservatives to liberal reforms - "we can't afford it". As well, during the war against revolutionary France, the conservatives attacked abolitionists as unpatriotic. Conservatives in all ages happily play the national security card when their own interests are at stake.

This is a generally well made movie about an important theme.

Rating: 3¹/₂ stars.

Movie Review: Fracture

On Sunday (19th August) Margaret and I saw a film called "Fracture" It is a courtroom thriller, staring Ryan Gosling as an ambitious District Attorney and Anthony Hopkins as the accused murderer. The plot is well written with the DA realising too late that this apparently "open and shut" case will be much more difficult than he initially realised.

The performance by Gosling has been universally acclaimed, but there is debate on the quality of Hopkins acting. Some (eg David Strattan) claim that Hopkins' performance is "lazy, hitting all the right buttons". Others (such as Margaret Pomeranz) argue that Hopkins also gives a fine performance. I suspect that the source of these differences relates to the two different characters. Gosling is given a more meaty role, with a wide range of circumstances and emotions to portray. Hopkins' character is set up as controlling from the beginning. He decisively points out the source of a plane crash to his engineers in one of the opening scenes, and creates intricate machines with races for balls to roll along. As well the Hopkins character is confidently in control of events through most of the film. It is my view that Hopkins gives an excellent, understated performance of this controlling and manipulative character.

The weakest element of the film is Rosamund Pike's character who is to be the DA's new boss when he moves to private practice. Her character's role in the film seems only as a love interest for Gosling's character. Their relationship does not go anywhere.

Although the film is well plotted, there seems to me to be one unexplained hole. The murderer, (Hopkins character) requires a particular policeman to arrest him at his house for his plan to work. The film does not adequately explain why that cop was the one to arrest him.
Otherwise the resolution of the conundrum running through most of the film - the whereabouts of missing evidence - is handled cleverly.

If the hallmark of a successful movie is satisfaction as you leave the cinema and material for discussion later, then this movie
succeeds.

My rating: four stars.