La Reine Soleil (2007)

Film: La Reine Soleil (The Sun Queen)
Release: 2007, theatrical
Starring: Philippe Allard, Catherine Conet, Coralie Vanderlinden
Directed by: Philippe Leclerc
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: During the reign of Akhenaten, a young princess named Akhesa is a lively troublemaker that escapes the palace ever so often. However, a group of soldiers from the neighbouring nation of the Hittite empire is burning down small settlements in search of gold. Soon, a much larger conspiracy is revealed that will decide the fate of the Egyptian royal family.

Hans' thoughts:

In the period around 1350 BC - 1335 BC (there exists some dispute over the actual dating) Egypt experienced for a brief moment of time nationwide monotheism during the reign of Pharoah Akhenaten in the 18th dynasty. Akhenaten was a devoted follower of "Aten", the disc of the sun. It's not a period much talked about in popular media so the fact that there exists not only a novel about it, much less an animated movie intrigued me. It of course follows more closely the events concerning the crowning of Akhesa, who would take the now famous Tutankhamun as her consort. Normally when studios make these kinds of movies they take a lot of liberties with historical events, and yes this movie does too. However the film still manages to capture a lot of the tense politics during this time period and for what that's worth at least I will give it that. Well done.

It's when it comes to looking at the film from a cinematic perspective things start to get a little shaky. The main problem with the film is its pacing. Events will quickly fly by at one time and then another time the film awkwardly takes it time with keeping in shots that could've been told in hindsight or through imagery alone. Exchanges like "Will you see this person" "No I won't" "He will not see you" are just a strange addition to the film and it takes up time that the film should've used on its other big problem: characterization. There are not a lot of characters in this movie, but even so only the two main characters seem to have distinguishable personalities and goals. What is the motivation behind the villains actions? Why did the king decide to outlaw almost all the gods? Things are mostly explained in throw-away lines without any deeper explanation in the context of the actual movie.

It's a shame too really, because the film is absolutely drop dead gorgeous to look at. It features streamlined yet expressive character designs, it has a great use of its color palette and the animation is smooth as can be. The music is also very much in the background but it captures the spirit of the moments and you can tell that the creators of this picture was really into making this movie as pleasing to look at as possible. La Reine Soleil could've been a truly great animated movie if more attention was put into the pacing and storytelling of the piece. Unfortunately as it stands, it is a visual masterpiece with very little else to back it up.

Doctor Who: The Day of The Doctor (2013)

Film: Doctor Who: The Day of The Doctor
Release: 2013, Theatrical
Starring: Matt Smith, David Tennant, John Hurt
Directed by: Nick Hurran
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In 2013, A strange man in a blue box is brought to the royal british gallery to receive a letter written by Queen Elizabeth the 1st. In a time forgotten, another strange man in another blue box is contemplating a horrible sacrifice for the sake of the universe.

Hans' thoughts:

50 years running, the science fiction adventure series Doctor Who produced by BBC has made a roaring comeback after it's series revival starting in 2005. The Doctor, of course, is a timelord - a super-intelligent alien from an ancient race with remarkable life-spans and technology. Throughout his adventures he's fought countless of strange beings and universe threatening catastrophe, somehow being personally connected to planet Earth and always bringing along one or more human companions to show them the wonders of time and space. When a timelord dies, he regenerates and gains a completely new face - which is the core reason for why the show has run this long. Whenever an actor felt it was time to find new ventures, he could be replaced by someone else and as such The Doctor has become comparable to James Bond. Everybody has their favorite incarnation and companion, everybody has their favorite villain and adventure. Everybody has a 'first' Doctor. Personally I was very late to the party, not jumping on the series till the introduction of Matt Smith in the 11th incarnation. He's the current Doctor (slated to be replaced this Christmas by Peter Capaldi) and the movie revolves around him meeting the 10th incarnation played by David Tennant, and a previously unknown incarnation played by John Hurt. Having such a strong legacy, it's no wonder that this is probably one of the most anticipated events of 2013 - with the special even being screened in cinemas worldwide. So how does this actually hold up?

Because of the announcement that some of the classic Doctors would not make an appearance despite the movie being announced to have different incarnations meeting each other I went into this with some degree of wariness. Fortunately, I was legitimately surprised by how good some of the moments and how overall great this movie turned out to be. It is not often you have something that builds up a great amount of hype and actually manages to live up to expectations. I found all actors involved to do a great job, Matt Smith is tried and true as the Doctor and David Tennant was able to jump straight back into the role in spite of the time between now and his last appearance as the adventurous timelord. Newcomer is of course John Hurt, portraying an all new incarnation of the time-lord and playing a character with a lot of weight on his shoulder - who exactly he is, and where he fits in would be too much of a spoiler to disclose here but suffice it to say that he makes for a really good incarnation more than living up to the series. The one I feel did the best job of portraying The Doctor is Matt Smith, channeling this fun loving yet weary character much more strongly than the goofball adventurer of David Tennant but that also has to do with the difference between their characters (Yes, The Doctor is one character yet more at the same time). 

Companion-wise we have the return of Clara, played by Jenna Coleman. We have recently seen her introduced as "The impossible girl" and she does a very good job her, while I understand why she's included (this serves as special episode and fits into series continuity after the episode "The Name of The Doctor") she thankfully takes a backstep to let us have fun with the interaction between The Doctor and his other selves. We also have a return of Billie Piper in an unexpected appearance, she was announced to appear in the episode months ago but I don't think anyone would've expected her to show up in this version. Piper, I have to say, does a much better job in this than I feel she has done in any other of her appearances. I was never a fan of the Rose Tyler character so I was pleasantly surprised that she doesn't become the focal point of the story and has a much more reserved performance than the highly emotional Rose from her initial run on the series. The supporting cast, while sparingly utilized all do a very good job at portraying their individual characters but I feel the movie definitely would have benefited from instead using more established characters as opposed to introducing new ones - there are characters long time fans would quite frankly be baffled do not show up to assist our time-travelling heroes. However, there exists room to expand upon some of them in the future so I'm hoping they will make a return to more traditional episodes so we can actually get to know them. On the story side there exists a bit of a schism when it comes to kind of high stakes we're used to, while fans of the series will recognize The Time War as being a great event that very much defines the character there is not much in the way of urgency when it comes to the danger our characters face. While there are certainly shots of Daleks encountering civilians and causing distress the foes that dominate the film are the alien shapeshifters known as the Zygons, a minor monster race that has only appeared once or twice in an episode many years ago. 

I certainly like the creatures but one can't help but think that Daleks, or indeed any other more well-known Doctor Who villain would make much more of an appearance in this 50 years anniversary special. Cybermen, The Master or The Sontaran race is not included at all and you have to stop for a moment and wonder if, aside from the actual Time War event, any of these dangers couldn't have been handled by a single incarnation of The Doctor. The Day of The Doctor takes some time to get up and running but once it finally gets going there is fun and games all around, Tennant, Smith and Hurt have surprisingly good ping pong between them and, while sparingly used, the other actors of the movies all turn in a very good performance. I recommend this to fans only however, if you are only passingly acquainted with the series you will have a hard time keeping up with who's doing what and why their lines are significant, references to 50 years worth of sci-fi is spread throughout the movie so if you don't know who The Doctor is you'll likely be a tad confused. However, for fans this is a loving tribute to what has become an icon of the genre and one that I hope we will continue to follow for years to come.

An Adventure in Space and Time (2013)

Film: An Adventure in Space and Time
Release: 2013, TV
Starring: David Bradley, Jessica Raine, Sacha Dhawan
Directed by: Terry McDonough
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: The new head of drama at BBC Sidney Newman wants to implement science fiction in an empty 25 minute spot. To produce the new program he promotes his former assistant Verity Lambert, and the young indian Waris Hussein is put into the directors chair - both of them the first of their kind they face numerous challenges in an industry dominated by middle-aged male traditionalists.

Hans' thoughts:

Made to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who, the longest running science fiction on television, BBC has released this dramatised version of the events surrounding the creation of the program up to and including William Hartnell's departure from the series as the first Doctor. Starting in 1963, we're introduced to BBC as a highly traditionalist institution: Our main character is a young woman promoted to a leadership position at a time where such a thing was pretty much unheard of. If you've seen the 50's drama series Mad Men, you know what kind of environment I'm talking about. Middle-aged and Older men in leadership positions who scoff at anyone who doesn't belong to their own group. Her director for the series is the young Indian Waris Hussein, and together they pretty much represent the young generation that would become more and more commercially relevant in these years. Unfortunately the dramatic potential for their struggle to actually put out the series feels very lightly brushed over. It is touched upon that they would run into a number of problems, departments not taking them seriously, horrid shooting conditions and other such things but instead the movie shifts focus to the actor playing the Doctor and hurries to go over some key moments from the years where Hartnell would have the role. 

Fortunately they have a very strong actor actually portraying the late Hartnell in the form of David Bradley. Most people will remember Bradley from prominent role as the nasty janitor Argus Filch at Hogwarts in the Harry Potter films or his supporting cast role as the perverted Walder Frey in the HBO fantasy series Game of Thrones. Both are very off-putting characters and it only speaks to the man's talent how polarizing his portrayal of Hartnell is to the others. He shows definite, strong and believable range here not seen very often even among the most famous of actors. I expect even non-Doctor Who fans will find something to enjoy in his performance, because while the movie definitely plays on it's role as "The film we're watching until the 50th anniversary special" it also more than stands it's ground as being a well-written dokudrama about the major changes the sudden rise of awareness from companies on the teenagers and kids audiences would have on business practices and programmes. 

Being an insightful story about the creation of that wonderful alien in his big blue box aside, it is overall very well-done period drama for fans and non-fans alike. Everything shot on the set looks like you could have travelled back in time to the era it took place, and of course it has nods to some of the most iconic villains and aspects of the show. Between heartbreaking moments, really good acting and just a good story this is was a treat to watch all the way through.

The Adventures of Mark Twain (1985)

Film: The Adventures of Mark Twain
Release: 1985, Theatrical
Starring: James Whitmore, Michele Marianna, Gary Krug, Chris Ritchie
Directed by: Will Vinton
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn and Becky Thatcher become stowaways on a magical airship piloted by the famous American author Mark Twain who attempts to catch up with Halley's Comet.

Hans' thoughts:

Famous for it's bizarre imagery and concept, The Adventures of Mark Twain is based entirely on a quote by one of the most talented authors of the latter half of the 19th century. In it, we follow his most famous creations of Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn and Becky Thatcher as we're taken on a journey through both his works and his influence on American culture. When trying to describe exactly what this movie is, I keep coming back to the word "bizarre". The film takes place on a magical airship, Tom Sawyer wanting to take over the place because of his sense of adventure, Huck Finn being simple as ever doesn't really know what he wants and Becky just wants to go home. The pilot, Mark Twain, is in the last year of his life. For whatever reason, the creators decided that almost every line he speaks in the movie be a quote of the original author the character is based on, whether it's to push authenticity of the portrayal I can't say for sure, but the voice actor who plays him (James Whitmore) does so with much authority in his voice and with everything being well thought-out. The movie even opens with a reference to the quote that inspired it: 

I came in with Halley's Comet in 1835. It is coming again next year (1910), and I expect to go out with it. It will be the greatest disappointment of my life if I don't go out with Halley's Comet. The Almighty has said, no doubt: 'Now here are these two unaccountable freaks; they came in together, they must go out together. - Mark Twain, (1835 - 1910) 

Perhaps the most famous segment of the film is the adaptation of
the unfinished book "The Mysterious Stranger".

Curiously enough, the man actually got his wish and passed away the day following the passing of Halley's Comet. The film also makes little effort to conceal the actual political views of the historical figure, most of the writings adapted for the movie showcased his great disregard for organized religion. A member of the presbyterian church, he wasn't an atheist but he had written some pretty controversial works about the subject, three of which are in the movie. The most famous segment of the movie is one of these, an adaptation of a part of The Chronicles of Young Satan, one of the only finished chapters in "The Mysterious Stranger". It's famous for just how outlandish the tone of the scene is compared to the rest of the film - While most of the film is a mostly child friendly tale, this particular scene triggers 3 or 4 other short, but oddly depressing moments in the film. While I can certainly see the merit of exploring one of America's most famous authors, I have to say I highly question the decision to do so in an animated movie so far removed from reality rather than make it an actual biographical picture. The film is structured much like a package movie (ala Fun & Fancy Free). A main story arc following the kids and Twain, interrupted at times by these weird segments, or as in the case with two of his stories (Letters from Earth & The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County) retold in their entirety and narrated by James Whitmore. 

"The Diary of Adam & Eve (Letters from Earth) is
one of two Twain stories that's been recreated
in it's entirety throughout the film.

While certainly a weird choice, Animation-wise is actually where the movie truly shines. There's not a lot of things that can beat well-done claymation and this film shows exactly why. The fluid nature of the material is used to very good effect throughout the film in several moments amd I actually question whether some of these shots would've packed quite the same punch had they been done with traditional animation or live-action actors. I'm also a big fan of the artstyle of the piece, something about the weird atmosphere it creates in the movie just kept my interest throughout. Strange looking locations, odd creatures and just plain imaginative imagery is probably the films defining points. However there is a problem when it comes to some of the human characters, while all the caricatures are fun and interesting to look at, I could not help not being simply creeped out by the, at times, soulless plain look of Tom Sawyer and Becky Thatcher in the film. They just look like living dolls at times and are so out of place compared to the rest of the characters and creatures in the film that they really become polarizing to everything else that's going on.

Voice acting in the film is average at best, while Whitmore does a well-enough job at making Twain seem like a larger than life figure most of the other voice actors are well, passable. I really liked the performance of Michele Marianna as Satan in the Mysterious Stranger segment, but we mostly hear her in the role of Becky Thatcher and there she's just unnoticeable. The voice actors of Tom Sawyer of Huck Finn both do a very stiff performance as their characters, as none of their lines feels natural or filled with any sort of emotion at all. They're just your average "kid voices" in the movie. This is a big problem, as Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn are actually the two characters besides Twain himself who has the most lines - meaning a good chunk of audiences will probably be bored by large parts of the movie. The soundtrack is, mostly talking and sound effects. There is almost no music in it and it kinda takes away from some of the more dramatic moments - on the other hand, they serve to make the bizarre moments really have a thick and intriguing atmosphere.

A weird look at an outspoken author, The Adventures of Mark Twain still serves to give a glimpse of insight into a very well-spoken man and his career. I probably could've picked several other historical figures more fit for an animated childrens movie but for what it's worth the amount of ambition behind the piece certainly served to shine through the faults and hold my interest as well as spark my interest in knowing more about the author. If this was the original intention of the film then I would say "Mission Accomplished!". 

Miller's Crossing (1990)

Film: Miller's Crossing
Release: 1990, Theatrical
Starring: Gabriel Byrne, Marcia Gay Harden, John Turturro
Directed by: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
IMDB page: link opens in a new window
Description: The advisor to a prohibition-era crime lord becomes the only person holding back an all out war between the competing families.

Hans' thoughts:

1919-1933, the consumption and dealing of alcohol is prohibited throughout the United States of America. Ironically, the men and women who were involved in creating the now notorious underground bars and smuggling passages has since then become national folk heroes. Like so many other movies, there is "Miller's Crossing" - a straight up crime drama following men with more vices than can be counted on a hand. Our hero is Tom Reagan, a classic mobster with ties to an Irish crime family that runs the city he lives in. He's considered one of the top advisors, second only to the boss himself. It's said that he's "always got the angle" on what is going on around town. Of course that isn't as true as it would first seem. While our main character certainly seems self-confident and always on top of things (played excellently by Gabriel Byrne) it quickly becomes apparent to the audience that he might have bitten off more than he can chew. He's a character that's been seen before, reminiscent of main characters from detective noir films. He's very much a "man's man", keeping his stoic demeanor in the face of a life threatening situation and always with a quick line to throw at others. This is also where we see one of the main qualities of the Coen bros., if I had to pick only one thing they do well it would be their way with words. 

Now a short admission is in order, I have not seen all that many Coen Bros. movies. This is not because I dislike their movies or because they only dabble in genre's that fall outside my personal preference. No, instead it simply wasn't in the cards. Watching this movie, I can certainly see what I've been missing out on. Between memorable characters, funny lines and just plain beautifully done shots I cannot believe I didn't wise up to these guys sooner. Gangster movies set in this era is one of my favorite sub-genres. I love the way they talked, the look of most of these films with the pinstripe suits and the tommy guns, and I just love how folksy the silent respect between even notorious crime lords were - according to these kinds of movies at least. If you were hoping for a super realistic look at prohibition-era crime syndicates, this isn't the place to look. This very much rehashes the tropes of the genre. This isn't to say that that's necessarily a bad thing, in fact I'd say this is one of the best crime syndicate movies out there. Our main character of Tom Reagan is also a bit more relatable than that of The Godfathers' Michael Corleone. I say "main character" and not "hero", because while Tom certainly tries to prevent a war in the criminal underworld, there is not much in the way of good deeds in his repertoire. The man has a end game, and it seems like he may be a bit more ambitious than he first lets on. What exactly he's actually up to during all this is of course up to you to find out by watching the movie.

Our other characters are pretty good as well, there is no one in the film that I would characterize as the "main villain". None of these people are good guys and everybody is in for themselves in the end. The actors all do a terrific job, but I wouldn't feel right if I didn't mention the very minor but memorable appearance of Steve Buscemi as the nervous fast talking Mink. He talks so fast in the one scene he shows up in that it was actually kinda hard to follow what he was saying, though I am pretty sure I got the general idea. As for our female lead, I'm sad to say there is not much to her. She seems like your average 30's femme fatale who does bad things to get along in a man's world. This is not to say that she's not interesting at all but she does come off as a tad too generic and one-off, which is sad when you think about how good the writing is in almost all other areas.

Jon Polito as Johnny Caspar

Our two crime bosses in the movie are played by Jon Polito and Albert Finney. We don't get much face-time with Finney as most of the movie takes place in the Polito camp, but what we see is pretty good. Finney's character gets one of the movie's few action scenes and it is very well done, from the sound work to how well the events are strung together Finney really makes an impression, like Buscemi, in spite of how little we actually see of him. Polito plays a much larger role in the movie, and for what it's worth I found him funny as the character of the up and coming boss Johnny Caspar. Though I have to say for whatever reason, and this might be the comic guy in me speaking, I couldn't stop picturing him as a new take on the Batman villain The Penguin. His methods are very akin to the character and had it not been for Polito's character being a lot more dignified it would have been an almost perfect live-action adaptation. I very much doubt that the Coen bros. had the Gotham City crime boss in mind when they wrote the character, but I just feel I have to put it out there.

The plot of the movie is, unpredictable to say the least. Every time I thought I knew in what direction the movie was going a new event comes in and changes the goals of our main character, if only temporarily. One moment the movie seems like it heading in a Romeo & Juliet-esque direction and the next everything is about something completely different. Unlike the main character of Tom Reagan, the audience is never let in on him "knowing all the angles". He seems to be able to predict most of the events that are coming long before they do and when he's actually surprised - so is the audience right along with him. You never know what the characters are going to do because unlike so many other movies you are never let in on their secret plans or their actual motivations. Things happen just as they would in the real world and it seems at times like we are right there observing it from a safe distance. We're also left completely in the dark about certain things, what is the name of the city? What is the last name of one of our crime bosses? What exactly is the balance of power in the city? We're never told that because we don't need to - focus is kept quietly on following things from the eyes of our main character and nothing is mentioned without it sounding natural in dialogue. From the Fox logo, the very first sound we hear is that of ice cubes in a whisky glass and from then on we are shown a tale of a life in the criminal underworld during the prohibition. 

Casablanca (1942)

Film: Casablanca
Release: 1942, Theatrical
Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid
Directed by: Michael Curtiz
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In the early 1940's, hundreds of Europeans fled to North Africa to catch the plane to Lisbon, where they could fly to America and escape the horrors of the second world war. The last stop on the route to Lisbon is unoccupied French Morocco. Our story takes place in Casablanca, where a man's café plays host to neutral ground.

Hans' thoughts:

One of the most quoted movies of all time, the story of Casablanca is one of love, loss, and self-sacrifice for the greater good. We meet our reluctant hero in the city of Casablanca, in this time a place where money talks - and not much else. As large as the scope of the movie is, illustrating major points about the second world war, most of it takes place in a café not much bigger than a tv-set of today. Most of the score of the film is therefore diegetic, being played beautifully by an onscreen band and pianist. Historically, the movie presents the viewpoints of people who lived with hearing news about the war every day, and curiously in that regard, Casablanca was invaded around the time the movie was made and released.

Part of the appeal of Casablanca is the cozy center of Rick's Café, the main turning point of the movie. Outside in the rest of the world, everything is hell breaking loose but the café is like the little place where the people of it's day could find safe haven, regardless of politics. Our reluctant hero Rick, played by Humphrey Bogart, is the owner of the café. He has certain principles and he tries his best to be neutral in every regard - even women. As far as the hero's journey goes, Rick certainly seems to go through a couple of the steps. When he is given the opportunity to fix his crisis, it is with much reluctance and by the point of no return he has completely pulled up his roots from everything he once knew. It's not all dark though, as much as Rick is a struggling character he also has a certain charm about him, this is because of the writing style of the Epstein bros., who gave the movie a slight comedic angle making Rick and his peers masters of sarcasm.

The female lead of the story, played by the lovely Ingrid Bergman, is a woman who has had the naiveté of her youth stolen from her much too soon, and the complete mess that is the relationship between her and Rick is one of the major driving forces behind the tale. She's confused about every decision she takes, but loyalty is a major quality of hers to say the least. As for the way the movie is shot, it plays it safe. This was originally made as dime-a-dozen romance movie so it wasn't an ambitious project by anyone involved. However, somehow they have managed to make the back-drop shot method still work compared to modern movies. In case you're not aware, the back-drop method is the way of having actors in front of a projected video working as a backdrop. It's a simplistic method but it gets the job done and the lack of color certainly helps in terms of not making the change in quality too jarring.

Casablanca is a timeless tale, as much as it is based around the ongoing war few can not admit to relating to the drama in a good old fashioned triangle-romance. What makes it interesting is that it might as well have ended much differently, which would have made the story trivial and without much substance, however a mix between the nature of the age it was made, combined with changing the writers 4 times have made the movie more of a "best of all worlds" mixed bag. The movie has goofy recognizable characters, a simple plot, but at the same time it also allows itself to try and fully explore all the elements of the story. From the battle between two music numbers in the bar, to the ambitious flashback to the lovers' time in paris to the off-the-wall endning about sacrificing your own happiness for something much greater then yourself - this story tells a tale of a man who lost his way and found it again. Humphrey Bogart played the man Rick in such a way that he is today the prototype for the reluctant but good at it's core hero. Much like Han Solo or Indiana Jones would be in the 70's and 80's or Eddie Valiant would be in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?.

While the movie was not shot very ambitiously, the same can not be said for the lighting. Throughout the movie, Director Mark Curtiz has chosen to play a lot on Shadows, making the movie a study in Negative space, much like the Noir genre and the Sin City comic books would be inspired by later. Indeed, one could make the argument that the lighting of Casablanca, combined with Rick's charm would be a prototype of modern iterations of superheroes. 

Brave (2012)

Film: Brave
Release: 2012, Theatrical
Starring: Kelly Macdonald, Billy Connolly, Emma Thompson
Directed by: Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman, Steve Purcell
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In the scottish highlands, the princess Merida is more a warrior than a scholar, when she is set up for marriage, Merida runs off into the woods.

Hans' thoughts:

The beauty about Pixar movies is that a lot of the time, they can take a very simple story and give it a cornucopia of layers. Sure, the message may be pretty close to the surface, but it's never the focus of the story. Even the most 'preachy' one, Wall-E, is more of a cute little love story between robots than the environmental message it eventually becomes at least 15 minutes into the movie. Sometimes though, it can be nice with just a fairy tale that's well told and in that regard this movie definitely delivers. 

Brave takes place in Scotland, and all throughout the movie you have this beautiful forest esthetic. The music is for the most part celtic, making the movie a joy to just look at, the character designs are simple yet recognizable and the bright red hair of Merida and her little brothers make the movie really colorful even in it's darkest moments. 

When this movie came out, I noticed it got a lot of flak because people had expected more, this is the first Pixar movie with primarily female main characters and I suspect the lack of a larger message behind the movie is what frustrated some audiences. Pixar has spoiled us with deep movies over the years, so something as simple as this is out of the ordinary. Stick with it though, as it is both funny and heartwarming in it's simplicity. 

Sometimes, with enough icing, the simplest of cakes can be as tasteful as the complicated ones and this is such an occasion. It may not be the deepest of cartoons, but it is wonderfully animated, and with a pretty cute story to boot.

Asterix versus Caesar (1985)

Film: Asterix Versus Caesar
Release: 1985, Theatrical
Starring: Roger Carel, Pierre Tornade, Serge Sauvion
Directed by: Gaëtan Brizzi, Paul Brizzi
Previous in the series: The Twelve Tasks of Asterix
Next in the series: Asterix in Britain
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: When an overly ambitious recruit in the Roman Legion kidnaps the chief's niece and her fiancé, Asterix & Obelix are sent on an adventure to bring them back

Hans' thoughts:

In most of the Asterix movies, the roman empire is presented as sort of stock villains, being an all encompassing force that either controls or works with the main villain of the story. This is one of the stories where the Romans are actually the main event, being a constant source of peril throughout the story. 

Asterix Versus Caesar is actually an adaptation of two Asterix books, Asterix the Legionary and Asterix the Gladiator. The story takes most from Asterix the Legionary (though tweaking it), as the kidnapped ones in this case are Panacea and Tragicomix. In the original story, Tragicomix was actually drafted for the Roman army and sent to Africa, whereas the whole kidnapping part comes from Asterix The Gladiator, where the Romans kidnap the bard Cacofonix. Why they decided to mix these two particular stories together I don't know, other than the whole rescue mission angle the stories actually don't have all that much in common.

While this movie certainly doesn't do the source material any favors, rest assured that it's definitely a fun movie. The wít and charm of the comics are attempted here, with varying but mostly positive results. I also have to admit that this is the only Asterix movie I've seen where Caesar actually seems threatening. He's a threat in the other stories to be sure, but unlike most other stories he's not used that much for comedic effect. In this movie, the lack of presence during most of the movie, the idle threats followed by chuckles and the fact that he's got a pet panther running around just made him into such a sinister looming figure.

Overall though, this movie could have been so much better than it turned out to be considering the strong source material. A lot of the smiles of the comics are gone, as the movie has been given the "adult treatment" trying to make the audience take the movie more serious than they probably should. The best comparison I can come up with is the extreme change of tone between the two last Sam Raimi Spider-man Films. It's just too focused on a sense of drama that, in reality, doesn't have a place in this series. There are scenes where we follow the captives, and most of the time you will want the movie to go back to Asterix and Obelix instead of seeing Tragicomix being a stoic hero. There's a reason his name is what it is.

After this movie, Asterix would go back to have more focus on the comedic aspect of the series, the next in line being Asterix in Britain. As an experiment, this is a nice little movie but I have to admit that the fact that none of the other animated Asterix movies tried to focus on the "drama" that the series had a pinch of potential for makes me happy. It's hard to bash this movie, but I feel that most of that comes from the nostalgic value this has for me.

All in all this is one of the weaker Asterix movies, though still leagues ahead of some of the worst. If you don't really have a fondness for Asterix, you can give this a pass without missing out in much.

Spartacus (1960)

Film: Spartacus
Release: 1960, Theatrical
Starring: Kirk Douglas, Laurence Olivier, Jean Simmons, Charles Laughton, Peter Ustinov, John Gavin and Tony Curtis
Directed by: Stanley Kubrick
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In 73 BC, the slave Spartacus is bought by the owner of a gladiator school. However, when a slave starts revolting during a battle in the ring, Spartacus becomes inspired to lead one of the most legendary uprisings in ancient history.

Hans' thoughts:

When Kirk Douglas was denied the role of Ben-Hur, he decided to spit in the faces of the team behind it with his own ancient era epic: Spartacus! Made in a time where Hollywood movies where not only long, one of their main selling points was sheer spectacle this colossus of a movie must've been one of the most expensive movies of it's day. No surprise then, that Douglas hired a young (at the time) unknown director to steer the movie. I'm of course talking about Stanley Kubrick: A man whose directing style would later become one of the most recognizable in the industry. In this movie however, he is kept very much on a leash and he later moved to have his name struck from the movie - though his efforts never bore fruit. Indeed, his name has title billing on my personal copy of it.

Spartacus is a beast of a movie, 3 hours and 17 minutes in length (including overture, intermission and entr'acte) it is quite the overtaking for modern audiences to actually decide to sit down and watch this thing. One might ask if it was entirely necessary to not make the aforementioned three things merely an option rather than the standard on the blu-ray release. But I digress. Actually, in spite of the movie's very long running time, it seems well spent. There's not a single scene that I would've removed.

Watching modern movies for the most part, it's astonishing how much care and detail was put into movies at the time. The sets are HUGE, and much care was put into details that most people probably didn't even see. Things such as making the sets actually look like they were made out of marble. A lot of credit also goes to the outdoor locations, as the beautiful settings combine with an incredible number of walk-ons in costumes makes you wonder about how much patience the director of photography and his crew must've had to pull this off. 

Speaking of photography, it is very refreshing to see the amount of color this movie has. Where as many movies today rely on filters and lighting to help actors convey the emotions to the audience, this movie leaves all the work to the actors signifying (perhaps not on purpose) that the world around doesn't turn dark and gray just because you happen to feel bad. Instead, we have a great bombastic score to help with the connotation on the visuals of the movie. 

Acting wise we have a lot of big names running about. Kirk Douglas as the stalwart Spartacus does a good job to show a man who has seen mostly darkness in his life but nevertheless is able to gather the strength to fight back. Honestly, the movie does a very good job of portraying the legend of Spartacus, bittersweet as it may be. Also, you should probably refrain from using this movie for history studying, as it is less than accurate. Indeed, while most of the names for the characters are taken from real people, they lived at different points in time. Marcus Licinius Crassus died in the 50's BC whereas Gracchus, his rival in the senate in the movie, had died much sooner in the 120's BC. Meaning the two men never met in reality. 

Speaking of Gracchus, I'd like to highlight Charles Laughton as MVP of the movie. Playing an awarely corrupt, yet reserved senator. He knows he has a lot of vices, but doesn't hide by the main villains claim of ultimate patriotism. Instead wanting to enjoy the pleasures in life, while doing his job unambiguously. 

The weakest actor in the movie, though still very talented in her own right was Jean Simmons as Varinia, the female lead. This is mostly due to her giving completely into the damsel in distress persona. Not trying to add a little fire to a character who was probably written that way in the screenplay. I know that you can't do much against a screenplay and a director, but certain deliveries of lines could've been tweaked in favor of the characters apparent independence. 

Overall I'll say that I was very impressed with this movie, However the long running time and the bittersweet tone of the movie combined with a slow build-up may bore modern audiences used to a more fast-paced version of entertainment. For the rest of us I say: Dedicate an afternoon to this movie, you will likely be entertained. Perhaps a bit richer for the experience.

The Conspirator (2010)

Film: The Conspirator
Release: 2010, Theatrical
Starring: James McAvoy, Robin Wright, Kevin Kline
Directed by: Robert Redford
IMDB page: Link opens in a new window
Description: In 1865, The young attorney Frederick Aiken is given his first case - defending one of the accused conspirators of the murder of Abraham Lincoln, and a plot to kill his vice-president and the secretary of state.

Hans' thoughts:

These last few years, the Civil War and every subject surrounding it has been a popular thing to put on the silver screen. Among others were three separate Lincoln biography movies (two of which were purely fantasy), a cowboy revenge movie about slavery, and this. This movie quickly sets a somber tone, the first ten minutes are the conspirators to kill the president being rounded up, and an reenactment of the death of John Wilkes Booth in a burning barn (yes, that actually happened). Our main characters are the young attorney Frederick Aiken, just returned from fighting in the civil war as a captain on the side of the Union and Mary Surratt, the only female accused.

In a way, this movie reminded me of The Exorcism of Emily Rose. It had the same basic premise, a critical attorney is made to defend an accused that seems guilty by any stretch of their imagination but becomes more and more turned to believe the client is innocent while both parties learn something about themselves in the process. The movie even had Tom Wilkinson running around, making the connection even harder to abstain from. Actually, recalling every movie I've seen about attorneys, this was pretty formulaic.

The tone of the movie, as well as the injustices the characters face makes it hard not to make the connection between the events of the movie and the aftermath of 9/11, with a lot of civil liberties being set aside for the sake of revenge in war times and the atmosphere that was in the air in the time. Indeed, the kind of atmosphere that shows up after every massive tragic event. People make up their minds about the ones involved, demonizing everything without knowing the complete picture. A subject matter the Danish movie The Hunt also tackled recently albeit in a much darker and emotionally draining way. This is of course, free association. But the connection definitely feels accurate.

However, by the standards of these types of movies this was executed perfectly. It presented the historical events that was the movie's subject matter in a simple but compelling way, teaching about the reality of the case. If a bit preachy at certain points. The movie is just historically accurate enough to not suck out the entertainment value of the film. I'd wager a lot of people could get curious about the events after watching this movie - so in that regard, it does it's job. As I said though, the movie can get a bit preachy at points, making the other side of the case seem almost cartoonishly evil at points. This movie has a message to tell, and at times it can get a bit desperate to make sure we get the point.