Amon's Chopsticks
300: I didn't think they could remake The Eternal Jew
Thermopylae, the Spartans last stand at the hot gates defending their rights to enslave the Helots, force them to work the land, and send out youth death squads to commit murder on the ones that seems to be getting a bit too independent (how’s that for a run-on sentence?); nice work, very nice indeed. So I’ve read countless of forums and review on this film by Zack “metaphor-less” Snyder and based on the comic-book, or the cosmopolitan term graphic novel by Frank Miller. First and foremost, I love Frank Miller, if I had a first born, and he was into collecting first born; well, you know. So no questioning my love and admiration for Frank, undisputed since the first day I cracked open the mint binding of Frank Miller’s the Dark Knight Returns, you couldn’t convince me to curse his name. Like most public school kids who knew a lot about small arms and close to nothing about classical history; a question was thrust upon me three years back as I was checking out of a Home Depot store, making a purchase for a supplies for a now much regrettable small indie filmed I volunteered as a grip on (if you’re that interested, look up my name on IMDB – I know, exactly), What was the single most important battle in Western Civilization? A well educated and intelligent man would have really thought about it and had enough character to say “I don’t know” if that was the case, I was neither of those things, so I guessed my ass-off. They were not even educated guesses, as random as I can come up with movie titles starting with the word “The Battle…” After losing patients with my complete lack of investment in a half decent answer to his question; Thermopylae (and I’m sure he followed with “you idiot” to himself), even the minimum wage cashier nodded her head in agreement with my friend, “I’m afraid he right” she said. Yes, we needed that validation, I’m sure. Cut to: Parking Lot, he continues on to tell me the story of the 300 Spartans and King Leonidas sacrifice against the massive Persian army of Xerxes. How we would all be speaking Persian now if the Spartans did not slow down the Xerxes enough for the Athenians to prepare for the Persian. Since we get our laws, some of the language, culture, anal-sex, from the Greeks, we would have none of that if Xerxes descended on the capital. True. But besides from being misinformed, I’m terribly stubborn and like to check things out for myself. He’s right. However, there are certain undisputable facts, mixed with some exaggeration en mass. So I found out what I could. Last summer, during my knowledge accumulating (whom am I kidding, surfing the net for movie news), I found out they are turning 300 into a movie. Great! Love Frank, know a lot about Thermopylae. A small note, incase you haven’t noticed by now, between the months of February and May is known widely in Hollywood circles as a dumping ground; too early for Oscars (they will never remember you), and people are thawing with the winter weather, outdoor activities increases, no one wants to spend two hours in a cozy theater; hence the high quality of materials that get a pre-memorial day hit. Look at the history, look at what is released in the spring, films that either cost nothing to make, or filled with nameless actors as if they were giving out fake names, movies that have sat on the shelf for years that even Joel Silver wouldn’t touch even if you pour pounds of cocaine on the print. So I was a bit suspicious at their motive for releasing 300 during dead time. What was pretext are now the past, and the gambled work against the back drop of political clashes that parallels the film. A typical Hollywood film provokes some love, some hate, and some gray areas. Not 300. The consensus is, love it and the other side calls you a Nazi sympathizer; hate it, and the other side says you are unpatriotic and are against freedom, Frank Miller’s interpretation of Spartan freedom. It’s noteworthy to point out that Frank was inspired not so much by the actual events at Thermopylae, but rather the 1962 film 300 Spartans (once again, bunch of Brits playing Greeks and Spartans; and not a very good movie at that, but while I reserve judgment on Frank’s muses, you do have to take into account that 300 is based on a graphic novel, and is very sympathetic towards the Spartan, nothing short of pathos reminiscent of Jet Li’s last scene in Hero. Which brings me to the point that the context of this story is nothing more than Frank’s adolescent psyche hero worship; and there’s not really anything malice or indifferent about that; (here comes that big BUT) but, Zacky boy, in my opinion, was a poor choice to direct mainly attributed to the fact that he does not know how to control his story. Visually stunning, but ultimately meaningless, made solely for the frat-boy, by a frat-man I’m sure. This movie is so full of ambiguousness where they should be clear and clear on things they should have been a bit more ambiguous it leaves me flat; walking out angry, but not so sure what I am angry about. Similar to the first time I saw the Eternal Jew. A very well done prapagandoc, but sick to my stomach to think that people believe this. Speaking of Indiana Jones's arch enemies, was it not Hitler who said "the bigger the lie, the more it will be believed." I think it sums up this film and the people's reaction nicely. Another Nazi side note, to stir up morale and fighting spirit, the German propaganda machine of WWII used the story of the 300 Spartans to "uplift" the troops to kill for Deutschland. Not that the allies were completely innocent of pure propaganda themselves, everybody is guilty on this subject, but within it's lascivious context, the Nazi believed that the Spartans are the descendants of the original Aryans, Atlantians, so in their mind, is not so far fetched to believe a lie that is so preposterous. Only small lies are doomed to fail, so take note all of you boys and girls out there, if you have to lie anyway, make it monstrous, like this film. Everything about this film is highly argumentative on both side, everything is flexible and manipulate-able; so it is pointless for me to list all the fact versus myth and story telling. I offer no solutions if you are looking one, only if by some odd logic that 300 can be considered as a sequel to Zacky’s first flick, the remake of Dawn of the Dead, which in all fairness was an entertaining movie, but also lacked the social commentary of the original, not that I think all too highly of George Romero, but it was at least something more than just a zombie movie; however, not the remake, and definitely not 300. I don’t want to attribute that to incompetence on Zacky’s part, but it seems to be very anti-scholastic endeavor, almost purposely; hence a frat-boy flick directed by a frat-man.
Labels: Film Flim
A Poll about a Pole
Hey you! Yeah you! Should I send this letter to Ebert, Roeper and the Chicago Sun-Times? Let me know…yes you…let me know what you think! Leave me a comment. Yes or No? Hurry, the more time you waste, we lose another misguided film enthusiasts to this moron each and every minute. Stop the madness! Unlike them, your opinions matters to us!
Labels: Critics Get Bent
You can learn a lot from Dummies Part 2
Some of the biggest blunders of the last century: Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union, the Design of the Spruce Goose, Monica Lewinsky’s decision to work late one night, Donald Trump’s hair cut, Howard the Duck and Lucas’s decision to return to directing, and Ebert settling with Richard Roeper. In the words of Ebert quoting Jean Luc Godard quoting himself in the book JLG on JLG, when you criticize a movie, the best way is the make the criticism into a small movie in itself. Apprently this was one of a very few times Ebert decided not to follow this advise. I didn’t think much of it at the time about Siskel’s replacement; a seat was open, have to fill it, but no one said you had to put crap there. OK, OK, that’s a little immature. Let’s break it down, Ebert knows what he’s talking about, typically, he will back up his opinions with certain facts, anecdotes, journalistic intuition, etc. to sell you his ideas and opinions. Roeper’s favorite movie is Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Not that this high school comedy by the great 80’s teen comedy master (also from Chicago) John Hughes is a bad movie, but if you express your opinion on anything so strongly, with great passion and enthusiasm; even if that opinion seems ridiculously benign or non-objective, you could still earn some cred and respect from peers in your industry and colleague. The whole film industry atomizes itself around this idea of acceptance and pats-on-the-back, there are no rooms for claims of self-important criticism which only translate to nothing more than opinions express out of indulgence; and what monkey on this earth can’t do the same through the act of public masturbation? I don’t care if you choose the Toxic Avenger over Lawrence of Arabia as your favorite movie of all time; but when that opinion is questioned, defend Toxic Avenger like the plane was going down. Though it is only a matter of opinion, be it my opinion, I believe Roeper’s reviews are soulless, dispassionate, lacking insight, lacking character and validity to ever be considered or regarded as a “well expressed opinion of a film expert.” So picture my disbelieve as I watch the Oscar’s red carpet and saw an uncomfortable RR trying his best to be witty and relevant with passing celebrities; how truly sad I was to see people of little substance being interviewed by a callus statue carpet ornament, and here I am, getting a poor review of how my past year and a half in the retail shoe business have been lack luster. Maybe Roeper and I should swap, but even then, I don’t hate my current boss that much. And folks, that’s why I hate Richard Roeper, and you should too. Its fun, go on, say something bad about him, you’ll feel a lot better toward that movie you liked and he thrashed. Dear friends, I end with Love and Squalor.
Labels: Critics Get Bent
You can learn a lot from Dummies Part 1
So I got my review at my day job yesterday, not a very good review, shockingly bad actually, my utter lack of maturely and professionalism has lead me to due nothing more than a revenge review on movie critics, mainly Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-times. This issue has been sitting in front of me like a juicy porter stake since I saw him at this year’s Oscars, filling in for Roger Ebert (there’s a fat joke in there somewhere, but I’m sure he’s heard it all, so I’ll move on). A bit “his story” lesson about me. I grew up Northwest Indiana; affectionately refer to as “the Region” by the rest of Indiana. We were heavily influenced by Chicago that I still don’t understand why we just don’t separate from Indiana and latch onto Chicago anyway; Hammond, Indiana to be exact. To me, even at a young age, films and movies were as important as a priority as eating or going to the bathroom. Not really understand English to well when I first arrived in the spring of 1980, I would watch a lot of PBS, you know, all those learning shows; ZOOM (with their stripe shirts signing that lyrically bankrupted song of their’s), 3-2-1 Contact, Electric Company (mainly for the Spiderman segment, because it was cool), and not so much Sesame Street (felt it was a bit too childish for me, yeah, I was too mature at the age of 8 for Sesame Street, go figure), so I came across this show with this rather large guy and a tall skinny balding guy arguing and talking about something and showing movie clips in between. At first, I just thought it was cool to see movie clips on TV (it was the early 80s, give me a break, not a lot to do for an 8 year-old); as I progressed with my English, it started to make sense that they are talking about different aspects of the movie, criticizing it [how cool is that job?], so I watch the show more and more, which at the time was called Sneak Previews with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, with the thumbs up-and-down thing. Then they moved from PBS to WGN (channel 9 Chicago) then changed to At the Movies. Their old show on PBS was given to two of the most idiotic film critics ever to set eyes on films (look for their own little review soon), I’ll leave their names of the list for now. Back to S&E, then they moved again to CBS (Channel 2, Chicago) this time simply, Siskel and Ebert, far enough. And once again, they left their legacy with WGN to, even more incompetent critics, Rex Reed and Bill Harris (somebody owes somebody a favor?). Oh, I can’t wait to talk about Reed and Harris, how they gave such a poor and offensive review of Platoon, saying and I quote (I still remember to this day), “the American people just don’t want to hear anymore about Vietnam, we are tired of it, let it go.” I ran out with friend and we snuck into Platoon that very weekend after seeing Nightmare on Elm Street 3. Then a few weeks later, Platoon getting a lot of praises and awards, they had a special episode devoted to how great Platoon was. It does not take a mature mind to recall all the credibility I had for these gods who get paid for writing and talking about their opinions on movies they’ve seen. This is fact, not made up; you are welcome to research for yourself. ACT II, for the most part, S&E were fair, and they made good arguments; some films I disagreed when I was young, then revisited them when I was a bit older and understood more, and then I agreed with them wholeheartedly, e.g. their reviews of Top Gun; flying jets, Kelly McGellis, things blowing up, young Meg Ryan, songs by Kenny Loggins, with the exception the latter, this was gold to an 11 year-old boy (of course I discovered the homoerotic subtext in my later years, but let not digress), but S&E thought the romantic interlude between Cruise and McGillis was labored and pointless. When you like a movie, and you like a critic, you almost which that they too would share the same opinion as you. They didn’t go for Top Gun; but in a form of Johnny come lately, seeing the movie again later in College, completely agree, so these guys actually know what they are talking about, I guess they don’t just give out Pulitzers to anybody. OK. Credibility is high. Then I saw Beyond the Valley of the Dolls…then…Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens (both are written by Ebert…let me ask the readers this, What do you want me to say? I wouldn’t say my respect for the guy dipped, come on, it was directed by Russ “big boobs” Myers (need I remind you again, I was still a relatively young man). Suffice to say that I continue to try and catch their show and reviews every chance I got, even down in West Lafayette Indiana. Then came the 2nd half of the 90s when I moved back home and into the big city. Things didn’t seems to make sense so much; thumbs-up on Speed 2? Thumbs-down on Air Force One? Up for another Jan de Bont flick The Haunting, down for Fight Club. What going on?! ACT III, it was unfortunate for Siskel, personally I felt that I share a personal relationship with these two guys watching them as I was growing and enjoying their, sometimes stagy but fun, verbal fights; though I really thing there was a better movie than Babe 2: Pig in the City for the 1998 year, you gave it the #1 movie of 98, so be it, given your condition and credibility, you’re allowed; besides, Ebert had Dark City, also a good movie, but nothing better that year? I could have sworn different. So Siskel past away, and for a while the chair across the aisle was being filled by unattractive people flanked by unmitigated opinions. No one was smart enough or strong enough to slug it out with the big man, with endless knowledge of movies and Pulitzer under the belt (which he never seizes to remind people), no one really stepped up. Enter Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times.
Labels: Critics Get Bent
Coming Soon: Why we all hate Roeper
Boredom and a complete malcontent for moronic critics with paper thin cred has provoked me to retaliate against the injustice to films, stupidity incarnate; Richard Roeper. Also featuring: Roger Ebert you’re on thin ice; Pulitzer – Schamolitzer, even I, one of the biggest Godard fans in the world don’t drop JLG’s name every chance I get. They should have a system to re-evaluate your worthiness to retain the Pulitzer after you decided to hire Roeper, at the very least, recommended you for a psych evaluation. Look for this and many other exciting critiques on critics in the not too distant future.
Labels: Sneak Previews (grabbing my crotch) THIS.
