Change Your Image
algenicus002
Reviews
Robotech (1985)
Steering away from nostalgia, I now can't bear watching it
OK, so Mr. Agrama's company (which is involved in some dubious business with former Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi) produced a horrendous mish-mash by a Mr. Carl Macek.
What is this horrendous mish-mash I'm talking about? Well, Macek took three entirely unrelated Japanese sci-fi animated series (namely, Macross, Southern Cross and Mospeada), added TONS of dialogue - believing firmly that the American audience is too dumb to understand the narrative and artistic virtue of silence - , edited the whole lot heavily for violent content, added some metaphysical mumbo jumbo, dubbed it using some of the worst voice actors this side of acting Hell (Reba West's singing was - and still is - unbearable and a total outrage, especially compared to Mrs. Mari Iijima)... And the result was an 85-episode series with hundreds of continuity problems and plot holes.
Of course, the mecha were cool to look at (especially those in the "Macross Saga") and the plot parts that remained unscathed were good. But whatever was good about Robotech was not the result of Macek's work or the "voice talents" he recruited. It was because of the toils and efforts of the (uncredited - why? would I be too bold to accuse HG of plagiarism here?) Japanese creators. Those of us who eventually got wind of the real deal and compared the originals to Robotech now wish we had never been exposed to Robotech. The originals are so much better, naturally, and make a lot more sense.
Robotech, however, DID something worthwhile: it prompted legendary anime creator Leiji Matsumoto to start a campaign for the protection of Japanese anime creators' intellectual property from such unauthorized and uncalled-for reworkings that talentless people like Carl Macek produce.
Alexander (2004)
Boring, boring, boring - oh, and inaccurate, too.
I had the rather unfortunate idea of watching this movie last night. Of course, knowing the absolute monstrosity that "Troy" was, I did not expect to see something even remotely faithful to the events as given to us by reliable historical sources such as Plutarch, but rather a noisy Hollywood fanfare for the common man... Or at least what the American showbiz thinks the common man is.
Oliver Stone's "Alexander" proved to be even less than that. I received the first shock when I saw Antony Hopkins as the narrator. Common sense says that the first step you can take to ruin your movie is to use a narrator. The second step is to overuse the narrator (as Carl Macek did in the horrendous "Robotech") and start shredding the audience's nerves. However, old Ptolemy was not the movie's worst part. In fact, he seemed to be its only redeeming factor!
Why am I saying this? First of all, the scenario was weaker than a dried-up twig, distorting Alexander's formative years, then omitting another formative period (which included, among other significant events, his entrance to Egypt, where his apotheosis took place; oh, I forgot: Egypt prohibited the producers to film there after reading the script). And the rest was one endless sequence of decadent oriental parties with tons of homosexual innuendoes, in a blatant marketing attempt to caress the ears of the gay community. Oh yes, and two badly-directed battle scenes... So much for the super-duper-production.
The only actor who stood up to the value of his profession and to his name was, predictably, Mr. Hopkins. The rest never rose above the murky waters of the trite dialogues, which only had two modes: either an incessant, drunken yelling or a hush-hush talk between the two "lovebirds", as the scriptwriter so stupidly presented Alexander and Hephaistion (although it is twice mentioned by Plutarch that Alexander despised homosexuality... But who cares about history when marketing needs the gay community?). This quickly tired the audience and destroyed all of Stone's hopes to achieve the so desired by directors suspension of disbelief.
Mrs. Jolie's screams could serve well, had she been a guest in Jerry Springer's show. Pity that physical beauty is not enough. Colin Farrell simply does not have the talent to play such a multi-faceted character as Alexander. Val Kilmer's Philip was, well, convincing for what Kyle and Kalogridis wasted precious ink and paper-producing trees to "create".
As for the props and scenery, they were outrageous. First of all, even old Italian low-budget mythology-inspired films had more elegance than this horrid, putrid mess that looked too much like an elementary school theatrical show. And why was it that, in the panoramic views of Babylon, the viewer could easily see modern cities in the background? Not to mention the usage of Greek and Greek-looking alphabet to write English texts on the scrolls! Obviously someone is desperately lacking in inspiration, I see...
Don't waste your money, people.
Troy (2004)
Not for serious cinephiles
Oh dear, where do I start with this one? I watched it yesterday and it was so bad, its producers should pay viewers to sit down and fill the theaters.
Let's start with how it measures up to Homer's epic. It doesn't. It portrays events in a totally different manner, unrelated to the Iliad.
Second, let's go to historical accuracy. It is commonly accepted that the Trojan war happened circa 1200 BC, although the archaeological evidence and the astronomical information given by Homer point to about two thousand years earlier.
During those times, Greece's cultural phase was the Minoan/Mycenean. The wall paintings in the Minoan and Mycenean palaces and the archaeological findings show us exactly what armor, shields and weaponry were used back then by Greeks. Instead, in the film we see slightly modified versions of weaponry of the Classical period. The same goes with naval vessels. Myceneans, Spartans, Minoans etc. did NOT have triremes. But I digress... Hollywood isn't about historical accuracy; it's about selling a spectacle, no matter if it's utter trash.
Let's go to acting. The only half-decent acting in this film was done by Peter O' Toole; the rest were abysmal.
Character descriptions and depictions? That's a laugh.
In short, anyone who respects cinema and views it as an ART and not as a shallow pastime for uneducated plebes should avoid this film.