Change Your Image
AngelOfPolitik
Reviews
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)
Hmph, I Enjoyed It
What can I say? Despite everyone hating this film, I'm in the minority of those who like it. Well, I am a fan of classic literature (And Captain Nemo in particular.) so I was immediately attracted to this film. And even though I had mixed expectations, I actually didn't feel like I wasted my time.
Yes, the film isn't much like the comic book. Well, it would be hard to adapt the comic as faithfully as possible into a film and to adhere to a PG-13 rating, now wouldn't it be? Besides, I've seen worse mutilations of the source material. Take any recent adaptation of a work of Jules Verne and this will look faithful. And unlike most total mutilations, this actually worked, at least for me.
I must say, the casting was good. Sean Connery did a superb job, and with him on the cast, it can;t be that bad. I can only say that Naseeruddin Shah, while for once correctly portraying Captain Nemo as an Indian, had to have done the worst acting in the film. But I've seen worse, still. The special effects weren't the worst I've seen, except for the Nautilus. Not to mention they totally hashed the design of the Nautilus, to my disappointment. It would be just as easy to stick to the comics or to Verne's original design (If the tentacles would be too hard to render), right? The plot, while thin, was not the worst I've seen. While this film may have been more of a special effects and action showcase, I am easily amused by effects and action. But they didn't need to have Tom Sawyer. Coming from a user who's as American as they get, he seemed unneeded and filler, probably only to attract teenage girls.
While the film had it's errors and plot holes and other things (Really, they fail to explain how Dorian is immortal and Hyde is the hulk, when he was a short young man in R. L. Stevenson's works. And how Nemo got serious martial arts skills and more crew than we can count.) I just had to turn my mind off, and maybe turn it on and have fun pointing them out. But there are a few complaints I have seen in reviews that I should clear up:
Number one goes along the lines of "Captain Nemo is British! Why is he Indian in this?!" Ironically, this film got it right. He is Indian. I advise you read The Mysterious Island or even part two of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and not trust Hollywood and James Mason on Nemo's nationality next time.
Another was "This is the league of extraordinary gentlemen! Why is there a woman?!" I do realize Hollywood likes to insert random female characters in movies based off classic literature, but Mina was in the comics, and part of the league, and with a major role. Calling this "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and One Lady" would be stupid IMHO.
The one that irks me the most is the complaints about fast cars, submarines, tanks and other cool technology in 1899, when they were years in the making. Here's something; it's an ALTERNATE UNIVERSE! This is where all fiction is real, where you can have fast cars and large submarines before the 20th century. You must hate Jules Verne then, and his literary fantasies way ahead of his time. Besides, I have read in another review that the comic had anachronistic technology as well.
Another minor complaint by one reviewer said that the Invisible Man was almost inaudible, but I could understand him clearly. And my hearing is horrifically faulty for your information.
While this isn't a flaw, reviewers are saying that you must be under twelve or mentally retarded to enjoy this film. When I saw this, I was over twelve and, like now, had above average intelligence. And my younger brother didn't like it as much as me, to throw some irony at your statement.
So this wasn't a masterpiece. Nor would I watch it over and over and over again, but if you are in the mood for action, adventure, or Sean Connery, this is a pretty good choice.
Around the World in 80 Days (2004)
The Directors Should Be Sorry
I did have very low expectations for this film. I knew that it was not going to be very faithful to the Jules Verne novel, which was actually very good and one of my favorite books. I would re-read it just for the enjoyment. But that is not the point.
The point is, my brother said that this movie was showing on Disney Channel. While not many really liked this film, I heard a few reviews saying it was a cute movie. Well, I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt and watch it. Besides, it is always fun pointing out all the ways they bastardize a novel in a movie adaptation.
I could barely watch 30 minutes this atrocity.
Well directors, screenwriters and other misc. producers, must I remind you of all the points you missed? First of all, Phileas Fogg was not an inventor. He was just a rich, lonely, uptight gentleman who decided to travel the world in eighty days for the mere honor of being the man who could travel the world in eighty days, not for the privilege of being able to still invent failures.
Second of all, Passepartout was FRENCH. He was a jack-of-all-trades who was looking for a job, I guess to make some money. He was never a bank robber or Chinese or hiding from anyone.
Third of all, you totally bastardized Phileas' love interest. In the novel, his love interest was an Indian noblewoman/princess (I'm honestly not too sure.) who was rescued from being sacrificed against her will. In this movie, she is changed into Monique, a French lady who aspires to be a painter.
So it is interesting how they made the French servant Asian and the Asian (Or whatever you prefer to call people of the Indian subcontinent) love interest/heroine French. Way to rape my second favorite novel.
And no, this was not funny. I did not laugh at any part of the bits I saw. Really. Bastardizing my favorite novel is not funny.
Oh, and to add something, in another review for this movie, it was stated that the director said that Jules Verne would have loved this version. You know what I think? I would personally like to apologize to my favorite author for all his works being hashed and thrown out the back window by Hollywood. Especially this.
Way to go Walden Media. Burn in hell.
MythBusters (2003)
Science Redefined
I had seen ads for the Mythbusters around 2005, but I didn't start watching it until September or October 2006.
The only thing I was wondering, why didn't I watch this before! This show is hosted by these two guys who are complete opposites. Jamie is the dry, sometimes sarcastic, no nonsense guy who has to stand the other host, Adam, who is energetic and always getting into trouble just to get a good laugh.
And once they got season two, they added a few other people to the Mythbusting team, dubbed "The Junior Mythbusters" or more recently "The Build Team". When they first started, it consisted of three members: Kari Byron, an artist, Tory Belleci, a former employee of Jamie, and Scottie Chapman, the proclaimed "Mistress of Metal".
But Scottie then left the team for reasons unknown and they had to hire someone else. That someone else was Grant Imahara, a robotics expert and former model maker for films. I was quite satisfied with their decision. Not that I hate Scottie, but Grant, he just adds to the show, in some way.
So for every episode, they put myths to the test. And they always have to have explosive results, which makes the show enjoyable.
And to wrap this up, I think the Mythbusters did great job in making a show that actually appeals to people. All other attempts makes science boring. These guys redefine science...
Ratatouille (2007)
A Must See
Where do I start with this? When I first saw promos for this movie, I was thinking "Another rat movie!" After Flushed Away, rat movies just seemed, well, bad. But after the good words from the critics, I warmed up to the idea, but was skeptical.
So with my dad, I saw the movie, and boy, were my first thoughts wrong! The animation was spectacular. Some recent CGI films are just plain crud (I want to keep my review clean) in their animation. But this movie, each little bit of the animation was so professionally done. The food looked good enough to eat and the views of Paris were perfect! The acting was great too. Patton Oswalt did a spectacular job with Remy and Peter O'Toole as Anton Ego was one good decision! As for the rest of actors, they did a good job too! It's just that Patton Oswalt and Peter O'Toole stood out the most.
So, um, see this movie! It is great, spectacular, off the wall, needs better reviews, you get it.
You Spoof Discovery (2007)
Discovery Shows Its Comedic Side
I have a tendency to like shows with good comedy, and I think this was one of them. Discovery wanted to loosen up a bit and decided to have America make fun of their shows, and you'd get $500 if Discovery thought it was crazy enough.
The first spoofs/parodies were the best in my opinion, mostly ones for Mythbusters and Future Weapons. Future Weapons had an awesome one called "Rejected Future Weapons", where the host made up a bunch of unrealistic and pointless (though hilarious) weapons, ending with the host being shot up in a jet pack, resulting in explosion. (Mike Rowe admitted that Discovery doesn't edit out explosions, they play them back in slow motion). The Mythbusters ones poked fun at the butter side down myth, Adam's hyperactive self and Jamie's dullness. (Adam and Jamie were both portrayed as dull in "Tesla's DETH Ray", which I had given a thumb's up to) Cash Cab was also funny, but the videos were very typical; host asks impossible questions and dumps them out. But I like the Cash Cab, so I laughed a bit.
Okay, you get me, I really liked this comedy attempt, which is one of the few attempts that actually worked.