EmmaFrost Reviews

Cold Mountain (2003)

This is just like Gone with the Wind...

[19 January 2004]

...but with poor/middle class people rather than the rich. In fact, I think they made a couple of references in the film about how the Civil War/Secession was less about southern pride and more about plantation owners wanting to keep their feudal way of life. We definitely get the sense that "war is hell" as evidenced by the trauma faced by the residents of Cold Mountain (along with Natalie Portman's character), but I would have liked the idea of "a war to keep the rich man's slaves," and the concept of Southerners who really didn't give a damn about "the glorious cause" to have really come to the fore.

I wonder if Charles Frazier (or Anthony Minghella for that matter) reads Flannery O'Connor because some of the most shocking images/scenarios in this movie not related to the war itself seem lifted right out of the imagination of the great Southern Gothic: a libidinous preacher, a cadre of grotesque-looking whores with a little boy among them, and a blind peanut vendor spouting words of wisdom.

Even though I highly enjoyed myself, I'm not 100% satisfied. It's a powerful film, sure, but it's not a great film. The ending was too soap opera-ish (a love child? puh-lease). Nicole Kidman and Jude Law didn't stand out as much as they should have. I've seen Jude have more fire in his eyes in other films. Vivian Leigh expressed so much more emotion and raw energy in one look, one raised eyebrow than in all of Nicole's breathy supplications throughout the story. Renee Zellwegger stood out so much more, as did Brendan Gleeson, Ethan Suplee, and Philip Seymore Hoffman. Hell, even Jack White had greater character development and he was in only 10 or so minutes of the film, tops.

Underworld (2003)

So bad it's spiffy!

[20 September 2003]

I'm kinda irked by the fact that I paid 10 bucks to see this movie (I'm a destitute undergrad in one of America's most expensive universities), but given that I've never laughed so hard in my life, I think I'll let that slide.

Did no one see this movie after it was shot? As in, while it was being edited? The whole thing feels as if it was put together by a man both deaf and blind. The plot is seriously contrived, at times downright confusing, and the acting is deliciously bad. Antonio Banderas in "Assassins" bad. Vincent Perez in "Queen of the Damned" bad. Hayden Christenssen in anything-he's-ever-done bad. I certainly got Episode II flashbacks watching poor Kate Beckinsale going at it ala Natalie Portman. They should definitely start a support group.

And speaking of Attack of the Clones, the artiste who penned Kate and Scott's romance in this movie makes George Lucas sound like Shakespeare (and that's *definitely* saying something). Scott's (or rather the screenwriter's) idea of a come-hither utterance to his beloved sounded like the kind of thing a child would say if it needed a diaper change. 'Course, it's kinda hard to tell who exactly is at fault here: the writer, or Scott Speedman, whose SAG card should be turned into confetti and subsequently burned.

The movie does have its moments. The fight sequences were good, and the costumes, sets, and cinematography were hella tight. And this is definitely the kind of movie I would rent, or play a drinking game to ("take one shot if the actors start taking themselves waay too seriously," "take two shots every time Euro-Trash-y villain comes on-screen").

All in all, I had a pretty good time. At least I got to see the trailers for Kill Bill and Resident Evil: Apocalypse.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

They should have let the Hughes Brothers direct/produce this one

[13 July 2003]

I've never read Alan Moore's "From Hell," but I consider the on-screen version to be one of the best films ever made. From what I've been told, this is due to a faithful adaption of Moore's story on the part of the Hughes Brothers.

I've never read Alan Moore's "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," but I know alot of people who love it. I found the film to be so-so, and at times utterly ridiculous (a car chase in Venice? the air-craft-carrier-sized Nautilus passing under the Bridge of Sighs without breaking it into smithereens? Puh-lease...), and the same people who swear by Alan Moore's stories tell me that "LXG" is a far cry from the graphic novel they all know and love.

The moral here? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. They made Mina Murray (yes, *Murray*, in the comic she divorced her husband and uses her maiden name) a vampire because the idiotic (and might I add male) producers don't understand that a woman can be compelling, strong, and resourceful without the aid of superpowers. They brought in Allan Quatermain as the leader of the League because they don't believe that a woman can be an effective leader (Mina leads the League in the comics). And they brought in Tom Sawyer because of the assumption that Americans won't watch anything that doesn't have an American in it. Not to mention the utter disregard of such time-honored film-making concepts as "plot" and "storyline." Why on earth would the PTB of this film feel the need to do this? Could we as an audience have stooped so low in our tastes and expectations? I leave the answer to these questions up to you.

Just about the only thing they got right from the comic was Captain Nemo, and the only "improvement" I liked was Dorian Grey (cuz Stuart "Lestat" Townsend is so very nice to look at, especially in that Savile Row suit), though I was a bit upset that Grey's bisexuality was downplayed. So the next time an Alan Moore creation is ushered into a studio with the hopes of getting made, make sure it lands on the Hughes Brother's desk.