Pop Culture Round Up: August 23 - 29

Kitties need to rock, too.

It claims it was published on the 21st, but I am certain I have read this somewhere before.

Everyone wants Jay Baruchel now, too. Well, everyone except 24 Heures Montréal. They saw some "Ray Baruchel" kid in Tropic Thunder.*

Hey, remember when Italian cinema was experiencing a Renaissance that we didn't know it needed? Now we apparently need to worry if it will last.

Ha! I can't wait to see how crazy hateful this might turn out.

And equally funny (fake) Sorkin news.

WTF, Sara? The Women, Ghost Town, and Lakeview Terrace all look fucking terrible.

This was not as exciting as I wanted it to be. Dan's with some new chick? Whatever.

"You will note: there is a rampant high tide of colonisation." I have noticed that, actually!

Lamenting silence.

I originally misinterpreted this subtitle to mean convention as in rule or method instead of convention as in meeting, so I was like, "What, using parliamentary rules of debate?"

Why does Orlando Bloom feature so heavily in this trailer? Is there a person alive who associates him with that city in particular?

I did think that this rumour might be "totally awesome," for about half a second.

Sadly, none of these are Ms. Hauser, Veronica's angry, theiving, racist Health teacher. Or Professor Landry, her adulterous, murderous criminology professor. Or Mr. Rook, her molesting Ancient History teacher. Wow, there weren't a lot of good teachers on that show.

Funny, recent Woody Allen.

Gear up for fall with NY Mag's Fall Movie Preview.

OMG, this is totally true.

Find out what made the cut as "the scariest disaster movie of the decade." Hint: it's got polar bears!

Cattle and deer have a sixth sense! Beware!

Having read the AV Club's Fall TV Preview, I can safely name of number of new shows I plan to check out: 3. And I'm expecting two of those to suck.

Jennie and Shannen hate the new 90210? Check it out for yourself. They kind of do.

That's all great and good if you live in the US. When will Hulu be available here?

I'm pretty sure we're just stuck on anyone who can successfully live outside the law.

How mean does it make me to find this ever-so-slightly amusing?

Well, yeah, Kiefer. Also, spoilers!

Bye, Dan! I'll miss you, and I'm sorry I didn't read the Vulture back when you made that video because it is killer.

Rob's Amazing Poem Generator** came up with a Feria Films poem:

Feria Films It’includes plenty of news makes everything better
than the studio is
redundant.As a sexy vampire?Labels:
baruchel, PC posted by
aunt Patricia Clarkson to watch
all about to
this about the
images will never live With monks. Okay, Another beef
that I wonder if
this
and
it is. old, Hag
Entertainment Weekly Kids with heart to
scenes,
drama
I was being
made unless
someone tosses his indie tone poems which
help I love. of a spoiler
heavy interview.

*Print only, apparently. Couldn't seem to find this online.
**This makes me want to generate a poem for pretty much every review now.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

Story: Will (Orlando Bloom), Elizabeth (Keira Knightley), Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), and crew team up with Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris) and Singapore pirate Captain Sao Feng (Chow-Yun Fat) to find the world's end and rescue Jack (Johnny Depp), so he can help put a stop to Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander) and Davy Jones' (Bill Nighy) reign of terror.

Even though the pre-credits sequence aimed at "political" and ended up hitting "reminiscent of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves*" and even though The Hater has proclaimed the movie/franchise unbearable, I am here to tell you that it is the opposite of unbearable. This third installment is downright . . . tolerable! It's occasionally enjoyable! Sometimes good!

What? If you may recall, the second one was awful. Anything better than insufferable is an marked improvement.

*Which rocks, so they've got that going for them.

Mind you, the movie's far from perfect. The movie's really Elizabeth heavy. Listen, writers Ted Elliott and Ted Rossio, you cannot convince me that absolutely everyone is hot for Knightley. She's got no shape to her. Her hair was slightly better this time around (bad dye job, better styling), but her unflattering lipstick remained in place. Also, still not much going on in the acting department for this one. Her big rousing speech? Had me rolling my eyes. Her credulity straining interest in Jack (still, again, some more)? Impossible. It's the same problem every time: Knightley over-reaches. The best way to approach most of her scenes would be with subtlety and nuance, and she blows them nearly every time. It's odd because her scenes with Bloomers work really well (they have a sweet, understated chemistry), and her desire for adventure comes across clearly. Putting the focus on her only emphasizes how under-prepared Knightley is to carry the bulk of the movie.

Will and Elizabeth are apparently not talking when the movies opens, although the first scene with both confirms their love for and fidelity to one another. Elizabeth is in some danger or vaguely sexually threatened? Cut to Will clenching. Elizabeth does something smart/clever/inspirational? Cut to Will looking all kinds of turned on. Hee. Bloomers gives a great reaction shot. Yes, young Bloomers remains one of the greatest enigmas Elfin April has ever faced. When he's silent, when it's simple, Bloomers hits the mark. Anything more complex, and he tends to veer off course. It makes him the perfect candidate for these sort of movies, actually, as they run straight. Maybe typecasting wouldn't be such a shame for him after all.

As for Depp, what's left to be said? He's fey, and we all love it. His hair was still more dready and less braidy, but I can live with that so long as I can watch that scene with Keith Richards as Captain Teague over and over again. Elliott and Rossio, however, need to cool it a bit with their love of Jack. You'll see what I mean.

Also: Cutler is totally hot for Jack (admit it, you saw it, too). Rush appears to be having a ball. Norrington got boring again after putting back on the powdered wig. The one-eyed man and his scraggly haired companion finally get names. Stellan Skarsgård steals every scene he's in, breaking hearts along the way. This FAQ makes the post-final-credits sequence confusing.

In all my writing on the subject, I have failed to mention Hans Zimmer's delightful score. It's catchy in a way that you don't mind having in your head for days, allowing you to recall the best parts of the high seas adventure and dump the rest.

Despite the fact that it's too long and way too heavy on elements and sub-plots best left to the fishes, it's still a far more palatable entry than the second. If it were to end here, I think it's something we could all look back on and smile. Not a bad way to lose an afternoon. B+

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

I went to see PotC: At World's End yesterday, but I don't want to write about it until I get my thoughts about the middle child down. It's RE-view time.

The movie remains long and largely boring, but it works better if you break it up into chunks, like I did. A finger on the fast-forward button would also do the trick. Mostly, I'd skip a lot of the stuff on the island, a lot of stuff with Elizabeth, and some of the Cutler/Governor Swann stuff. I love Tom Hollander in the role, but so much of what he does is just set-up for the next movie. You'd do just as well to wait and catch up then.

As for the island stuff, it's kind of funny the first time around, but it loses it's charm on subsequent viewings, and it feels more like filler than genuine dramatic tension (will they save Jack? Gee, I don't know!)

Oh, Elizabeth. You know, when it came to the first movie, Bend it like Beckham, and Love Actually, I would I have said that I liked Knightley alright. She's not spectacular, but she's serviceable when she's not over-reaching. Plus, as I have long said, she's got a pretty face. But here? Why the focus on Elizabeth? She's childish a lot of the time, and her "attraction" to Jack is possibly the most unbelievable part of the entire movie (of the many I could choose). Her signature line, "Oh, Jack," with a little sigh at the end? Plays like he's her screw-up older brother. If it's supposed to be a more carnal interest, it doesn't show.

To be honest, I don't buy the attraction going either way. Depp can play anything at any time in any way and make me a believer, but the sub-plot groans under the weight of the tacked-on tension. It's upsetting but expected that Jack trade Will's life for his own. But try to steal his lady? Never. Jack knows he could never come back from that. Mind you, all of this speculating is possible because Depp plays the most fully fleshed character on the screen at any given point.

No matter which chunk I was watching, I was consistently impressed with Will's character development. No, seriously. Will is the central character, the tie that binds the mainland lives of Elizabeth, the Governor, and Norrington (Davenport is so foxy when he's a rogue) to the sea-faring world of the pirates, and the movies' moral centre. When he lights that sword on fire? I found myself thinking, "Will's ingenious." During that amazing, best set piece of the movie, water wheel fight? I hoped Will would come out on top. Bloomers bugs in a lot of ways a lot of the time, but here? He's quick on his feet, and I can get behind that.

It's still too long, too exposition-y, too reliant on call backs instead of new material, but it didn't turn me off of going to see the final (?) installment. That's saying something. Not a lot, but something. I'm sticking with my original grade. C+

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Story: On their wedding day, Will (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth (Keira Knightley) are arrested for their parts in Capitan Jack Sparrow's (Johnny Depp) escape. Will makes a deal Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander) : a pardon for Jack's compass. Elizabeth and Will, however, end up part of Jack's scheme to cheat Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) out of the 100 years service Jack owes Jones.

I don't know how I am going to write this post without giving at least one thing away, so I think you are just going to have to accept that. Work with it. Frankly, I'm doing you a favour.

Way, way back in 2003, when Melanie, Kelsa, and I hit the theatre to check out Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl on a whim, it was great. Nothing but fun was had. As a result, I was pleased when I heard a trilogy was in the works.

Unlike what 2004 would like us to believe, sequels don't match what came first. They tend to blow, and this outing was no exception.

To be honest, I don't see the point of a sequel. Profit-wise, it makes sense. The first proved that pirates were no longer box office Kryptonite (heh), provided some youngsters with star turns, and earned Johnny Depp his first Oscar nomination. Why not do it again?

But story-wise, everything was wrapped up in the first outing: the curse was reversed, Jack got his boat back, Will got Elizabeth. There was nothing else to tell. So, the team behind the first movie would have to come up with an entirely new problem for our heroes and heroine. Additionally, they needed to stretch the new situation over two movies in order to complete the trilogy. It sounds hard, but it's not nearly as difficult as Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio (co-writers) would have you believe.

For one, make sense. Obviously an undead crew cursed by Aztec gold or a squid-man that rules the sea requires a certain suspension of disbelief. I get that. My favourite TV show, pretty much ever? Was about a petite blonde that hunted vampires. Trust me, I get suspension of disbelief. But when you go the fantasy route, you still have to stick with the rules that you invented for your world. I found the Bootstrap Bill (Stellan Skarsgard) stuff hard to follow the first time around (and I just watched it for the second time a week ago today as a refresher for yesterday), and this movie made it even worse. I mean, you know, nice for Will to get to finally meet his dad and all that, but what?

Also, am I really supposed to believe that everything we went through "six months ago" didn't occur to firmly convince me of Will and Elizabeth's love and loyalty to one another? Now I'm to buy the idea that Elizabeth might want Jack instead? My eye! For reasons beyond all human understanding, Knightley cannot manage to act attracted to Depp for even a split second. How hard could that possibly be? I thought she was more likely to jump Norrington (Jack Davenport, who is back and a fox) at any given moment than have a go with Jack. And you know what Knightley's performance did suggest? That Elizabeth loves Will. So why all the hoopla? Why the tacked-on drama? Why didn't anyone hit her in the face this time around?

Speaking of Knightley and her face, it's no secret that I am not her number one fan. Something I have acknowledged for years, however, is the fact that she has a beautiful face. No, really, I can't stand her, but those are some pretty cheekbones. I know they had the Domino hair to work with, but I think the hair and make-up people must absolutely hate her. She looked terrible - the colour and cut of the hair was unflattering, the lip colour was all kinds of wrong, the eye make up looked like a seven year old had smeared it on with a melted crayon. First movie? Pretty. Second movie? Dog.

Speaking of a face like Knightley's, Bloomers's looked leaner this time around. No matter what those people at Slate or The Tyee have to say, these movies are ones in which I genuinely like Bloomers -- he makes a good sidekick, a good devoted, idealistic young lover, and a good 17th (guessing) century pirate/blacksmith. Seriously, these styles suit him. And -- for those who want to see this sort of thing -- the shirt even comes off at one point. You're welcome.

I'm not going to go into how good Depp consistently is in this role. It's like he was born to play a perpetually drunk, morally ambiguous fortune hunter. Although, one thing, why was his hair more dread-y this time around? They couldn't find the wig or extensions or whatever from last time?

Why did PotC:TCotBP work? It was intelligent, funny, a dash scary, tightly paced, and, above all, it kept the action moving. Exposition is a necessary evil, but it doesn't have to feel like pulling teeth. This movie was a million years long, boring for spans of eons, only funny when it made callbacks to the original, and avoided sense like the plague. And skeletons are scarier than anthropomorphic fish with bizarre accents. All in all, it had a bad case of The Matrix Reloaded, a sequel so awful that I didn't bother with the third installment.

If you could cut out, oh, say, 60 of the 150 minutes, it might have been fun, greasing the wheels until the final movie in 2007. It's not that this movie is that all that bad - director Gore Verbinski has a great handle on action set pieces and slapstick set up. It's just that it so thoroughly undoes the good work of the first that it makes you hate it. C+

Oh, what the hell: Why is Barbossa back at the end? WHYYYYY?! I hate that ending. HATE. It basically complete re-writes the first movie, and, if he doesn't tell us what's up in the first 15 minutes of the third movie, I am going to kick some ass.

And, while we're here, why is the monkey immortal? See?! See what I mean with the no sense and the general unravelling of the first plot?

Finally Figured it Out: A rumination on a certain possibly transgendered harbinger of Armageddon

Emily sent me this article from Slate's Summer Movie Week (an idea which excites me to no end). I immediately fired back that I already read the same thing in The Tyee two years ago.

I can't say I disagree with either one, which basically state, as Chris Rock did at the 2005 Oscars, "If you can't get Russell Crowe, just don't make your stupid epic." Don't get Brad Pitt or Colin Ferrel or, for the love of peace, Orlando Bloom. I'll give Clive Owen a pass because I don't blame him for that mild disaster, and I stand by my belief that Bloomers was at least serviceable as Paris, Eric Bana rocked the hizzouse as Hector, and Gerard Butler is a jack of all trades. It has something to do with a certain fleshy masculinity that allows these actors to transcend time and space.

It was also bizarre that the common link in these articles was Bloomers, as I had been thinking of him recently.* I was having yet another conversation with myself along the lines of, "Have I been him or her an unfairly bum rap?" See, I have been listening to Elton John's "My Father's Gun" a lot lately, which put me in mind of that scene in Elizabethtown where all his relatives are standing around trying to tell Drew what a great man his father was and how much they are going to miss him, and all Drew is doing is standing over his father's coffin, changing the angle of his head, and puzzling out what the look on his father's face is supposed to be. When he finally hits upon it, "whimsical," he sort of lets out this sigh of bittersweet relief. It's well done, to be honest. There's a lot in that movie that isn't nearly as well done (I could begin and end my whole case by asking why Claire was interested in Drew to begin with), but that part is nice.

And that's my problem with Bloomers. Most of the time he's just plain bad, all miscast and adolescent and scant, but sometimes, just sometimes, he's pretty good. So I thought back to when I liked him, if at all, and the answer was Pirates of the Caribbean. In a movie where I detest 2/3 of the stars, it's a wonder that I like it so much. Perhaps Depp is just so good that he rubs wonderfulness off on everyone else, but I think it's a little more than that. I think the problem with Bloomers is that, right now, he's Heath Ledger circa 2001.

Ledger just kind of appeared in 10 Things I Hate About You and magically elevated the movie from flash-in-the-pan to something more lasting. The other stars of that minor hit? David Krumholtz has got his TV show, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is carving out a nice indie scene It-Boy career, and the rest of them stagnated or disappeared outright. But, boy, were people all over Ledger. Soon he was Mel Gibson's tragically heroic son, and then - poof! - a leading man in his own right. Not just leading, in fact, since the whole poster was his face. And that movie went? Nowhere. Because it blew.

In the very same year, he also had a very affecting turn as Billy Bob Thornton's suicidal son, but he was in the movie for maybe twenty minutes, and everyone else was busy focusing on other things.

So Ledger's career goes down the crapper pretty much the instant it starts, and, to be honest with you, I thought that was the end of him. But then Ang Lee decided gay cowboys and New Yorker short stories would translate well to film, and the rest of that story is bound to go down in film history.

And that's the problem with Bloomers, too, I think. Or, rather, that's Bloomers' problem. He's doing this leading man stuff because people think he should be, but he shouldn't. He's just not leading man material. And maybe he could be, but right now he's young and inexperienced and it shows. And maybe, just maybe, if he sort of steps back and gives it time, he could stumble into his very own Brokeback.

Or he could blow even worse than he already does. Too early to tell.

But, yes, Slate and The Tyee, no one is Russell Crowe. Perhaps you should give another guy a chance before you get too caught up in your self-congratulatory criticism, though.

*Yes, for the record, I sit around thinking about movie stars and their careers. Piss off. You do it, too.

Oh, Bloomers

There's no love lost between Orlando Bloom and I, to say the least. I think very little of him as an actor and even less of him as an individual human being with feelings, except, of course, to further my theory that Orlando Bloom is a) a woman, b) possibly Keira Knightley, and c) a sign of the Apocalypse. I'd go into the whole thing, but it involves 16th century paintings and Virginia Woolf novels, and I doubt you'd appreciate the genius anyhow.

And yet, somehow, I feel compelled to follow his career. Worse yet, I seem to know an inordinate amount about "his" personal life. So when this story came to my attention, do you know what I did? Laughed. Laughed hysterical and repeatedly, as though I cannot return to the story without laughing again. It all seems so improbable and wrong, and, yet . . . hilarious. And that picture? Not only does one of those people look like he is on spring break and the other like she has been locked away from daylight for the last century, but it looks like Bloomers has thrown his mug up in the lens, unaware of the frightened woodland creature next to him.

So thanks for that, Bloomers. And while I'm in a rare grateful mode, let's all give thanks to those programming geniuses over at the TVtropolis network (formerly Prime). Everyday after work I can enjoy Beverly Hills 90210. Today Dylan threw a vase and a fit on his first date with Brenda, and soon she will have a lump on her breast and a pregnancy scare, and later she and Kelly will become frenemies, but she'll save Kelly when Kelly nearly dies from her diet pill addiction. Oh, I love this show.

Elizabethtown (2005)

Hypothesis: Drew Baylor's (Orlando Bloom) eight year attempt to design the perfect athletic shoe has turned into a fiasco - not only does it fail with in the public, it's actually recalled. He goes home to kill himself, but he is interrupted by his cellphone. His sister (Judy Greer) informs him that his father died while visiting family in Elizabethtown, Kentucky and charges him with collecting the body. On the way there, he meets a plucky flight attendant, Claire (Kirsten Dunst), who takes an instant shine to him, although he tries to put her off. In a desperate moment, he calls Claire, and they develop a bond.

And that's only the first act! Funny how much can happen so quickly, no? Well, you could define it as the first and second, but then you would have to account for at least four acts.

Isn't hypothesis the best word for the premise of a Cameron Crowe (writer/director, naturally) vehicle? My qualitative methods class defines a hypothesis as a proposed, possible explanation for phenomena, and it seems like the launch point for Crowe's always semi-autobiographical tales. Doesn't it feel like he's searching for and identifying patterns of human behavior?

Early in the film, Drew VOs (that's voice over, folks) that you come to a certain point in your life where you decide that everything really is black or white. That's kind of how you watch the film. Every scene, every line reading, every shot either works or it does. There can be plenty of nuance, but there are no greys.

It's hard to say that you love this movie when it's so deeply and pathetically flawed. Crowe has a preternatural understanding of small town Southern American life, and his movie flawlessly showcases his natural, effecting, and endearing love of America and rock 'n' roll. The soundtrack itself (Elton John, anyone? Tom Petty?) is the kind of mixed tape you make for someone who already loves you, but you still want to impress. What he does best, better than most writers and directors out there today, is lovingly display the disillusionment that fills the lives of twentysomethings. There are times when it seems that there is nothing worse in the world than graduating from college because what's out there is this . . . abyss.

During their marathon phone conversation, in a shot that you've seen in every TV spot, when Claire asks, "Do you ever feel like you're fooling everyone?", and Drew sighs, "You have no idea," I don't think there's a person alive who doesn't know exactly how Drew feels.

Despite her oversized flight uniform, I doubt I've seen better performance from Dunst (minus, of course, her early childhood successes that are second to none - seriously, have you seen Interview With a Vampire? Have you?). Her flirty, flighty (no pun intended) attitude is balanced by mystery that appears written into her genetic code; Claire is incapable of not holding back. She possesses the soft purr of a sex kitten not yet come into her own under that glorious umbrella. Not to downplay what I have enjoyed so much in the past, but she goes beyond the innocent and worldly ingenue usually portrayed by Natalie Portman in such movies.

Bloom and Dunst have just enough chemistry to keep me interested but not enough to get me to care. The real failure there is - prepare yourself for no shock - Bloom. While he's definitely star material, and he's already a matinee idol despite his exceedingly far apart nipples and possibly misplaced nose, he doesn't yet have the talent to bring the requisite complexity to the Crowe lead role. Crowe men represent this off-kilter combination of confidence and serious lack of self-esteem: he is certain that he's a great catch, and he has no idea how to convince the lady in question of that fact. With the right actor, this formula excels, allowing logorrhea to be seen as charming rather than excruciating. Bloom simply isn't at that level.

His best work - when the movie's at its best - occurs when Bloom falls silent, and the soundtrack is allowed to take over. Bloom somehow manages to project that quintessential embarrassingly raw emotion (e.g., rejoicing over a returned phone call, dancing in the woods, or carefully constructing a machine for his "dark date with destiny") that Crowe frames beautifully when Bloom isn't weighed down with dialogue. Outside of that, he tugs at the occasional heartstring and wrings a laugh or two from the audience, but it's never enough to sell the overall package.

Cameron, you need to abandon these pretty pin-ups, and return to something more substantial.

Bloom's shortcomings aside, it's the incredible misuse of the amazing Susan Sarandon that constitutes the movie's biggest mistake. Although I would normally delight in a widow learning to love life after her loss, it would be more meaningful if I had the opportunity to witness a single moment of grief instead of the shrewish selfishness we are put through. Don't get me wrong - Sarandon brings dignity and depth to the role that wasn't written to contain those attributes. Perhaps Hollie Baylor finding laughter and joy again would be more palatable if it didn't occur are her husband's funeral.

In fact, in true black and white fashion, I pronounced said scene the worst thing I've seen in a movie. Ever. And I've seen a lot.

I also announced that Greer was the best thing to happen to movies in the last ten years, and Emily countered with my beloved Mark Ruffalo. Of course, that would make the movie they appear in together the pinnacle of all things in the last ten years, and that's just not right, so we must have both miscalculated.

In the end, this sort-of The Apartment in reverse is wonderful and wrong. There are perfect moments and not enough of them. Crowe hasn't quite found the pattern yet. Not a complete fiasco, not yet a success. B+

Also, a list I fully support. Is someone at EW reading this blog or what?

P.S. To someone who shall go unnamed and unlinked (she wouldn't want you reading this anyway), who said something about me in a recent post: Thank you. It means more to me than you know.

Ned Kelly (2003)

Summary: The (mostly) true story of an Irishman in the Australian outback, Ned Kelly (Heath Ledger), whose legend grows and grows long after he dies. The film follows the events of nearly ten years of exploits with his gang comprised on his brother, Dan (Laurence Kinlan); his brother’s best friend, Steven Hart (Phil Barantini); and Ned’s best friend, Joe Byrne (Orlando Bloom).

See, despite the fact that he robbed banks and killed people. Ned Kelly is regarded as something of a national hero. Although, it is a nation of criminals, so we can’t be surprised, can we?

But honestly, in every telling, there is the sense that Kelly was generally wrongfully accused and simply found his own way to stand up to the injustices of the system that oppressed him.

That certainly is the sense that John M. McDonagh’s screenplay based on Robert Drewe’s novel, Our Sunshine. He makes Ned not necessarily a charismatic leader but a man driven by the passion of his beliefs. It is that, not words or actions, that truly draw people to him.

Gregor Jordan directs the story from much the same angle. He very rarely lingers on any one detail for too long, except for a misguided attempt at a romantic subplot involving a wasted Naomi Watts. I failed to see the point of it or her in the movie.

Ledger and Bloom. How many would have guessed that a) there would exist a fairly serious historical drama starring two teen heart-throbs or b) that I would watch it.

Well, it does, and I did. So there.

And I liked it. They’ve both got it, the real goods, but they neither seem to know how to channel it or where to go next.

Although, to be honest, I find it hard to believe that that many people want to shag Bloom. Maybe if I was still 12 and preferred feminine men, but, frankly, this movie pushes that image a bit too far.

Who would have guessed that I would talk about such a film on my birthday. Did anyone see this coming? Anyone?

Troy (2004)

Premise: Wow, the story of the fall of Troy. Who doesn’t know this? I’ll give it a try. Paris (Orlando Bloom), Prince of Troy, has a steamy affair with Helen (newcomer Diane Kruger), Queen of Sparta, who run away to Troy together. His older brother and heir to the throne, Prince Hector (Eric Bana), chooses to protect his brother even though it will mean war for his country. The King of Sparta, Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson), vows revenge and enlists the help of his brother, Agamemnon (Brian Cox), king of Mycenae. Agamemnon gathers together all the rulers and warriors of ancient Greece, including the wily king of Ithaca, Odysseus (Sean Bean), and the vainglorious Achilles (Brad Pitt).

Or, as Professor Bloedow would say, “Sing, Goddess, of the wrath of the son of Peleus [Achilles].”

Welcome to summer blockbuster season! Yes, it starts in May now. It has since Gladiator opened May 5, 2000.

I’ll tell you in advance that I have been avoiding reading other reviews of this movie until I could form my own opinion and get it out to you. Thus, if something seems familiar in this review, I’m sure it’s possible that other critics have the same opinion as me.

You know that I am a sucker for sweeping epics and historical fiction, so, of course, I was desperate to see Troy from the moment I first read about it. My anxiety and desperation were quickly dispelled by the grandeur and passion of this film.

It isn’t, however, Homer’s The Illiad. Yes, it is the basis, the source of the story, but it is not what you will find there. This film is distinctly Wolfgang Peterson’s (director) and David Benioff’s (writer) Troy.

Peterson is a master in the art of the epic storytelling (e.g. Das Boot and The Perfect Storm). There is a sumptuous magnificence to every shot, as though he breathes life itself into the film. He paces his actors out to strengthen their performances with every line. Truly, truly, he loves making movies.

Benioff’s only previous screenplay is Spike Lee’s 25th Hour. If you have seen that, then you know what I am about to say. 2 words: character development. No single character ends up where s/he began, and Benioff takes you through every single, often painstaking, step. It’s just . . . wow. He did strip the story of its mythological layer, which I will admit I missed, but he included one detail that meant the world to me. At one point, Paris’s thigh is sliced in battle. Mythologically, the cut of the thigh of a male leader symbolizes the death of a nation. That was perfect. Absolutely perfect.

Some may argue that Pitt’s Achilles is a bit two dimensional, maybe even a little on the low brow side, but I thought he was spot on. Spot on to the vain, obsessive Achilles that Homer had originally envisioned. And the scene that he shares with the luminous and talented Julie Christie as Achilles’ mother, Thetis, is so telling. And watching the relationship between him and Briseis (Rose Byrne) was hot. They were fantastic together.

When it comes to Bana, can I just say that I want to marry him now? His Hector is so loving and heroic, so compassionate and fierce. Before I thought of Hector only as a warrior and a prince, but now he seems so complex and real to me.

As for Bloom, his star is on the rise. His first battle sends him into a humiliating retreat in front of Helen, and Bloom laps it up. He might, however, want to lay off the summer blockbuster/epic films. At the young age of 27, and only 14 films to his credit, the last thing he needs is to have ‘typecast’ stamped on his forehead.

Costumes, hair, and make-up were also impressive. The women’s dresses did up with two little clips on each shoulder, showing careful research. Those little details mean a lot to me.

James Horner’s score was, well, typical James Horner. A bit over the top at some points, and not at the calibre of Braveheart, but impressive nonetheless.

Oh! And Peter O’Toole as Priam, King of Troy! He was amazing. His love made me cry.

In case it comes up, it’s Men-uh-LAY-us, not Men-uh-LAOWSE. He’s not a country in south-east Asia, people.

I realize that this review is a little on the long side, but I think I’ve mentioned everything I wanted to mention. Go see it! Go see it today – don’t wait for the DVD.