3 Short Paragraphs: Gods of Egypt

2016, Alex Proyas (The Crow) -- download

I already started the conversation of this movie when I rewatched Clash of the Titans. Gods of Egypt was pretty much the product of safe, studio executive machinations --- if the former made a good amount of money, based on Greek myths, then this one should as well. But it didn't. Not only did the whitewash controversy taint the release of the movie, but it also did terribly at the box office. Proyas should be a solid choice for a mythological, CGI spectacle, but it didn't help this time. Even being a fan of his, I am not sure what I entirely think of it -- it has hints of Proyas, but somehow seems outside his usual realm. Entirely too much studio oversight is what I once again blame.

We are given the lands of Egypt during the reign of the Gods. The opening sequence and monologue almost had me feeling this was another planet, or alternate dimension, where Egypt is the centre of the world. Perhaps this is the equivalent realm for cosmic gods, like Asgard was for Thor and the gang from the Marvel movies? The Gods rule, benevolently but firmly. They are 10' tall creatures of magic with blood of gold. They are not all powerful, but piddly little humans do not stand a chance against them. Gerard Butler, playing Set the warmonger, murders King Osiris (Bryan Brown; holey crap where has he been?) during the coronation of Horus (Jaime Lannister) his playboy son. Mixed into the intrigue are humans, street thief Bex and his love Zaya (last seen as Cheetoh, ahem Cheedo the Fragile, in Mad Max: Fury Road).  Bex sets out to convince the maimed Horus (Set takes his eyes; which become magical artifacts upon extraction) to stand up to his brother and save Egypt.

I didn't dislike this movie. It heavily, and intentionally, smacks of my other swords & sandals movies from The Shelf in light tone with comedic notes. It looks incredible, the transforming Gods becoming grand magical creatures with starting powers. It is most definitely not our planet. In fact, father god Ra rides his boat on the river of the cosmos above a disk shaped world. All in all, awe striking and fantastical but it lacked a certain, Proyas something. Perhaps it was too light? Perhaps it was too bright? Horus is the main character but not relatable, and Bex as the token human is so bland he's forgettable. Another viewing will be required before it joins The Shelf.

Rewatch: Clash of the Titans

2010, Louis Leterrier (The Incredible Hulk) -- bluray

Another one from The Shelf. I needed some swords & sandals. I needed some mythology.

So, it is the story of half-god Perseus told through the eyes of a remake of a classic stop motion animation movie from the 80s. The original is a D&D standard, encouraging people to fight skeletons and appending robot owls to every wizard's arm. I believe it was the last of the swords & sandals staples of the late 70s, ala the Sinbad or Biblical stories. I am not surprised they remade it. I am surprised there was less discussion on the casting back then.

I get it, the ubiquitous Internet lends itself to louder outrage. And the smallest of voices can be loud if shared in the right venue. But when you compare the roars against Gods of Egypt to the relative quiet around this movie that was only six years ago, it's kind of odd. I suspect a weird aspect of white privilege is that we only really notice something as being wrong, if it's obviously wrong. We see Greeks, and Mediterraneans in general, as white, so it's OK if the mains in the movie are played by Australians (Sam Worthington), Irish (Liam Neeson), and English (Ralph Fiennes, Gemma Arterton). Alex Davalos sounds like she has a Greek name, but she isn't. No Greeks in the cast. I would love to see reviews of the movie from Greece. I have a feeling they have been rolling their eyes for decades of movies.

Meanwhile Egyptians are most definitively brown, at least in our eyes. There are probably plenty of light skinned Egyptians out there, but when you have their gods represented by Gerard Butler and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, it stands out as silly and offensive. To us. Us in North America. To me. It's just glaringly wrong. Again, I wonder what Egyptians have to say. How do they feel about the movie and how do they feel about the white west being offended on their behalf? I am going to see the movie, as it is Alex Proyas, and I do suspect that they separate the gods (white, golden hued, really tall) from their people in the movie but that has its own level of offensiveness.

But for now, this movie.

It's a fun movie! Perseus loses his family to the squabbles between the Gods and the humans who are deciding they don't want to be forced to worship anymore. And then he is dragged into the squabble after Hades reveals to all that Perseus is half-god himself. First he knew of it and now he's wandering off with a bunch of bitter soldiers to ask the Stygian Witches how to kill the Kraken. You see, if Argos doesn't sacrifice their princess to Hades, he will unleash (ahem, release) the Kraken on the city. If the humans won't worship the gods, they will at least fear them. Meanwhile, Hades has his own machinations going on, as he is pissed at his older brother Zeus.

The Adventuring Party wanders off through forests and deserts, with enough low level red armours (yah, mixing my pop culture metaphors) to be killed by wandering monsters, leaving the main characters (including Mads Mikkelsen and Liam Cunningham) and their immortal NPC guide (Gemma Arterton) to defeat the Gorgon, i.e. Medusa. With head in hand, Perseus flies on Pegasus back to Argos to defeat the Kraken and win the love of his dad and the people. As I said, D&D standard.

The core of the plot of this movie is that the gods need the humans, the humans don't need the gods. Without prayers, the power of the gods diminishes. Perseus and his family were just collateral damage but the reveal of his own godhood has made him petulant and bitter. Seriously dude, you are a tougher fishermen than all those veteran soldiers. It's in your blood. Accept the help of Zeus, who feels a little forced into this action by the goading of his brother, and use the magic sword. Do  the deed, impress the locals and then move on. It won't make you as power drunk as the gods, just give you an edge up on the monsters. But it takes until the end of the movie, and the death of EVERYONE in the party, for him to realize this and defeat the bad guy.

After that he has no issue accepting help, especially when it's the return of the girl of his dreams. And for once, the movie is NOT about him getting the princess.

Strap On Those Sandals

300: Rise of An Empire -- 2014, Zoam Murro -- download
Hercules -- 2014, Brett Ratner  (Red Dragon, X-Men: Last Stand) -- download

No, this isn't the beginning of yet another new recurring segment on We Disagree. Just a way to blend the commentary on two somewhat related movies, i.e. they are both of ancient Greek persuasion. Unless Kent agrees to a series review of all the Sinbad movies, there won't be enough fodder for a new category.

Well, maybe if we do Spartacus, in honour of our visit to the Kubrick exhibit.

300: Rise of an Empire is the side-quel for the Zack Snyder, Frank Miller graphic novel become green screen movie. It happens roughly at the same time as the first movie, but following different characters. This time, not owing its style to recreation of comic panels, it opens up more. The movie connects the first's Battle of Thermopylae to the battle at Marathon, where our main character Themistocles slays the King of Persia but spares his son, Xerxes. It is that event that leads to the fantastical nature of the Persian army that invades Greece ten years later, i.e. Xerxes becoming a god king.

When I mentioned not really having an internal vision of how Persia should be portrayed in fantasy fiction, this movie didn't really help. This is typical of the brown skinned exotic Evil Empire approach. But there is history, so its forgivable, I guess. What isn't history is the backstory they give to Xerxes, the god king of the Persians. Tall, golden and basically hairless, the man walks into a magic bath bearded and normal sized, but emerges as a cross between a diva and a giant. This sort of flies in the face of what the first movie wanted to portray, that he was mortal, after all. Magical transmogrification for appearances only?

His right hand man, er, woman is Artemisia, a Greek who hates Greece and is played by Eva Green channeling her usual scary, sexy goth. Not that I am complaining. She is capable, manipulative and is portrayed as the intelligence behind the whole invasion, with Xerxes as just a pretty golden puppet, albeit 10 feet high.

This is a movie for those who enjoyed the first one and for anyone who has watched the Spartacus: Boobs & Blood TV series. Every battle scene is slow-mo, digital blood spraying every which way, good guys cutting down bad guys with dramatic swipes of their swords, ignoring the armor of the Persians while they fight in speedos. But rather than just men with spears and swords, they toss in a sea battle, ships crunching against each other with a dramatic battle where numerous boats are stuck together and the Greeks and Persians fight from deck to deck. Still not sure why a horse as considered a secret weapon when they could not have predicted the configuration of the tangled decks. These movies are all about cool factor in battle with little sense behind them.

The movie was fun, stylish, well shot (decent CGI) and dramatically acted (I will always enjoy watch Eva Green hamming it up, as long as its not Camelot) but generally forgettable.

I know very little of the graphic novel Hercules is based on. Despite my pirate access to all and every comic, the lack of visits to comic shops has diminished my awareness of the hot titles.  Maybe it wasn't so hot, as the lack of Googlish data says something.  Anyways, I was not aware of it being a comic before the trailers of the movie came out, and I was not aware of the type of movie it was, based on the trailers.

The trailers do a disservice to this movie. They depict a typical, expected adaptation of the Hercules myth, showing his greatest feats, i.e. his Labours. But the movie is not so. This is Hercules, the man behind the myths, picking up years later as he leads a group of mercenaries who bank on his reputation. Whether real or myth, the name sells. Enemies and the rulers of Greek city states believe he did all the feats of heroism by himself, not knowing that this D&D party of variously skilled adventurers helped him accomplish it all. That is what this movie is about.

Even without the myth, Hercules is a dominant warrior, hired for good reason. The movie brings him to Thrace, in eastern Greece, to help a king go up against ruthless rebels. The king needs his army trained and the rebels vanquished. Hercules is not so sure about sending more young men to their deaths, but he wants the coin, so his men and he can retire. Things never go as planned in these movies, as betrayals pile up and Herc must decide who he really is.

Every time someone, usually Iolaus the storyteller, reminds us of how great Hercules was, we get a flashback to his battle with a legendary creature. But we also get hints of the truth behind the hero. These CGI monster laden scenes are what the trailer was telling us to see, but the core of the movie is how Hercules himself can both rise above his mythos and those around can learn to depend on the man. His men (and woman!) trust him, but he must learn to trust himself.

Its a fun movie, where The Rock gets to try his hand at a tortured hero trope. I doubt it had the weight the graphic novel was supposed to have, but it did a decent job of portraying something other than a big screen adaptation of familiar, typical mythos movies.

Really, that is my usual fallback to describing these movies. I don't expect great, I don't even expect good, but if I have fun, then I am usually satisfied. This one fell short of being added to my Swords & ... collection, and I would never have the intention of adding the first one, but I could not not see them. I always see them. And yes, I am the guy who will see Seventh Son with Jeff Bridges, should they actually ever get around to releasing it.

Rewatch: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

2010, Mike Newell (Enchanted April, Donnie Brasco) -- Blu-ray

It was my birthday and I was still having coughing fits from the remaindered lung infection, so no guilting myself about rewatching something; I just needed some fun. Prince of Persia sits in my collection of fantasy movies that I enjoy again and again. The collection evolves with technology, with many of the VHS tapes of years past yet to be replaced. They are rarely considered good movies but they are ones I enjoy.

This is of the swords & sandals sub-genre but like most, is more straight fantasy movie than historically accurate. That said, in my mind, ancient Arabia and ancient Persia have always been merged. They all include the cliches of minarets, carpets, djinn and world conquering empires. It is possible I don't have any real pop culture references for Persia. Sinbad? Maybe. But it matters not because a Disney movie based on a video game, starring entirely western actors is not going to even try for accuracy.

I never played the game it is based on (The Sands of Time), the platformer from the PS2 era of gaming. OK, I might have started it, but in my core memory, its the original side-scroller game from the 90s that stands out. The running, jumping and pre-parkour of the game was astounding for its age. So, its not surprising that the recent games and movie make use of the running, jumping, swinging and dodging that so often dominate parkour centered action scenes. Personally, not enough was used in the movie but that would have required an entirely city based movie instead of one with sweeping desert travel scenes, as anyone would expect in swords & sandals.

Its a dumb, standard movie, in the style of many Disney adaptations. That the Pirates.... movies rose above that standard is amazing, while this one keeps to the low expectations. As I already said, we have western (i.e. white) actors playing Persians: Ronald Pickup as the Persian king, Ben Kingsley as his brother, Richard Coyle & Toby Kebbell as his sons and Jake Gyllenhaal as his adopted son, the Prince of Persia in question. And of course, Gemma Arterton as Princess Tamina. The amusing thing is that Gyllenhaal, as the street rabble kid who is adopted by the kind king, affects a London street accent to offset the BBC English of the other actors. I always wonder when British English became the de facto representation of people speaking "another language".

Ahh Gemma Arterton. In a world where "the list" actually applies, she would be on My List. She has an unearthly beauty in this movie, smooth skinned and perfectly toned, that fits the role she is playing as the fabled beauty of Alamut. Amusingly though, I often mix up her role in this movie with her role as Io in Clash of the Titans. So, not so defining a role. She is to be beautiful and antagonistic towards the Hero, and she does that well enough. I wonder if a movie, where the hero and heroine bicker like old crones for most of the running time, has ever ended with them just disliking each other, instead of eventually falling in love/lust?

If there is one thing I actively dislike about this movie, it is the whole comedic addition of Alfred Molina as Sheik Amar. With his complaints about taxes and his love for his racing ostriches, the whole addition annoyed me. Still does. But he provides some additional supporting characters for our hero to draw upon when needed, a trope commonly used in fantasy movies. I feel I should trace that one back to find an origin, and suspect it starts entirely outside the fantasy genre.

You would think that if I state that there is one thing I actively dislike, I would have at least one example I actively love, as I rewatch these movies over and over again. But no, nothing of note reaches out from this movie. Its more an overall collection of magic and swordplay, visual notes and costuming, that catches me. The background shots of Alamut are fantastic, so broad and sweeping and carrying actual distance. You can see the money in this movie, in large sets like the celebration after the fall of Alamut, which even in the worst of movies, always lends a bit of a thrill for me. I just like BIG scenes, full of details and background notes.

With this movie rewatched, I almost feel I have to rewatch Clash of the Titans if not because Gemma is in it, but also because these sit side by side in my mind, very similar in structure to me, if not a bit more serious toned.

One last comment. I believe, that if there was ever to be a movie adaptation of the Uncharted series of video games, Newell could do a good job. The humor of the games as well as the big action pieces are familiar to him.

3 Short Paragraphs: Wrath of the Titans

2012, Jonathan Liebesman (Darkness Falls, Battle Los Angeles) -- cinema

So, if you read the last review, you know the basic plot of this movie as well.  Someone (Hades this time) wants to release the Titans in order to destroy the world and it is up to our hero with the attention of the gods (Perseus this time; son of a god no less) to defeat them.  This one is the sequel to the moderately popular remake of the Clash of the Titans.  The original was one of the handful of formative D&D movies in my childhood stable.  At least one of my characters had a mechanical owl and all of us wanted a Pegasus. But this is not about a remake but a sequel to a remake but one that would fit well into my adult collection of "only if its cheap" collection of D&D formative movies.  Hell, just about any movie where the heroes fight with swords and CGI monsters are defeated enters that stable.

Again, I found this movie is quite enjoyable -- and I remember saying this about the first movie -- unless you pay attention to the dialogue. Oh Em Gee, what comes out of their mouths is so extraneous.  The plot (???) is incredibly focused so anything they say really doesn't matter, and it was almost as if the script writers knew that.  I felt like a typical action fanboy talking in my head (where they scream it out loud to the screen), "Blah blah blah, quit talking!!  Swing your sword !!"  The hero is dragged out of his "i don't need the gods even if one is my father" life and into the sibling battle between Hades and Zeus against their dad Chronos, the Titan they imprisoned in order to become the sole rulers of the world.  Their power has been waning ever since Perseus proved you don't really need the gods around so they need the prodigal son's help again.  Perseus has to trek to the bowels of Mount Tartarus to try and stop Hades from releasing grampa.  As you see in the trailers, he doesn't succeed so we get another titanic battle. Yes, you can groan at that comment.

Again, this one isn't remotely related to the mythos it supposedly bases itself on.  Again we get an insertion of a labyrinth (brilliant performance by Bill Nighy as Hephaestus) and a Minotaur.  Again, it doesn't really matter to the story.  At least Hephaestus had his buddies the cyclops, which was a nice touch.  Andromeda is back, but he saved her from being chained to a rock in the last one, so this time she is the powerful queen with an army at her back, an army setup to be slaughtered by the Titans.  I never got that part -- not only did the queen not evacuate the unfortunate village on the slopes of Tartarus nor did she turn her army around and RUN when Chronos is released.  Its not like a couple of thousand men the size of his little toe have a chance to defeat a mountain sized walking magma golem.  Meh, makes for a good battle scene I guess.  Like all hollywood sequels, we have to recreate a key scene from the original -- this time, Perseus swoops and dives as he flies Pegasus around Chronos, like a boss battle in the PS3 adaptation of the movie.  Or the trench run in Star Wars -- you choose your analogy.

3 Short Paragraphs: Immortals

2011, Tarsem Singh (The Cell) -- download

You probably know the director as just Tarsem, the visually stunning director who did The Cell all those years ago, and was then known for directing the video for R.E.M's Losing My Religion.  And now he just did Mirror, Mirror ?!?  Anywayz, his style is clearly his signature -- the color palate, the costuming and the set dressing are all incredible, works of art unto themselves.  But where does that fit into movie making?  Does it make good movie?  Is it just extraneous window dressing to mask bad or uninspired films? There is probably just not enough of a body of work to answer the question, but unto itself, with just this movie -- maybe.

Immortals is a snapshot of the greek myths, the story being that King Hyperion wants to free the Titans to have them destroy the world, in revenge for the loss of his family.  The Gods place Theseus, the slave with the heart of steel, in his way.  When you say "based on" in this context, you mean "not at all".  Theseus was the guy who killed the Minotaur but never wrangled with the Titans or Hyperion.  There is a minotaur in this movie but the connection is loose.  Amusingly, this movie has the basic plot as Wrath of the Titans where a reluctant hero is also forced to foil the freeing of the Titans from Tartarus.

You would think I didn't like the movie, but in fact, I enjoyed it immensely.  I am not hung up on purity of myth adaptations, enjoying them being redone for the sake of a good swords & sandals movie.  The use of Tarsem's visual style as well as his continued use of CGI to supplement the look just made me enjoy it more.  He is allowed to make things BIG and awe-inspiring.  This is over the top as a myth should be.  The battle scenes are horrific and stunning.  Mickey Rourke as Hyperion is creepy and dangerous, a solid villain.  There is magic, incredible and powerful!  The supporting cast, and by that I mean the actors all supported the look & feel, is settled in their roles and invested.  This was by no means a good movie but something to be enjoyed for what it is, a visual play for the eyes for fans of swords & fantasy battles.