Dawn of the Geeks

Troy is the anti-Big Fish. When the writers were asked whether they’d like to hear their father’s version of events or what actually happened they chose the latter. Which is why it’s getting very mixed reviews. There’s a reason the Iliad has been around for over 2000 years. And it’s not because it tells a bland story about a bunch of men fighting over a woman. In fact, this movie doesn’t even make it about Helen. It’s about King Agamemnon’s quest to rule all of Greece. Achilles’ father is known and died long ago. The only real mention of the gods is by the priest and he’s just trying to decifer signs and is always wrong. Achilles’ trashes Apollo’s temple and his men kill some unarmed priests and nothing happens. The movie makers not only stripped out any and all mythology but went out of their way to show just how non existent the gods are. At the end of course Achille’s gets shot in the ankle with an arrow and then quite a few more times. He pulls out all of the arrows except the one in his ankle. Others then find him dead and alone. The obvious point the writers were making was “this is how the legend came about.” It looks like he was killed by the arrow in his ankle so quickly that he couldn’t pull it out. It look as though all the shots to the chest didn’t phase him but the one in the ankle did him in.

I mention it’s not even about Helen. There’s a huge ancient debate about what possesed Helen to go with Paris. You can read about it in The Labyrith in the paper titled “Blame Helen.” In this movie Paris is just a hottie that all the women want. She simply fell in love with him. There was no fight with the gods. BORING. The King of Greece just takes the opportunity to get his men to sack Troy by pretending it’s about her. This actually took 10 years. In the movie, there’s no sense of time. Certainly nobody aged 10 years.

The Iliad will be a classic tale for who knows how long. This movie is going to be forgotten quickly. There are worse tellings of the story but that doesn’t help this telling any. It’s unique in that it tries to strip out the mythology and tell the story “like it actually happened.” But there’s a reason people turn stories into legends and myths. It’s to spice them up. To see the hand of God at work. To get a better understanding of life. Greek myths are tales of heros and life lessons. There is nothing to learn from this movie. Braveheart which had no mythology and is an excellent movie so it’s really no excuse for Troy to be as bland as it is just because it removed all the Greek toppings.

While it is a decently entertaining movie, compared to the Iliad it’s just junk. Unfortunatly, “King Arthur” is doing the same thing. It’s stripping out the myths and just telling the story “like it happened.” Nobody wants to hear about the way it was, Conkite. That’s why it’s turned into a legend and a myth. It’s more valuable and entertaining that way. If I had to guess, I’d say this is Hollywood’s answer to “The Passion.” Instead of embracing the written accounts as they’re written, it’s time to go atheist on the stories. The result is a more desolate ruin than Greece is today.

Wow. I’ve seen a number of “geek to chic” movies and they all have the same moral lesson: you have to look good to be accepted. There are two movies that don’t have that terrible object lesson that every ugly duckling is just waiting to be a swan to be loved by all: The Breakfast Club and Loser. And now Shrek and Shrek 2. Loser is pretty dull but in the end everybody stays just the way they are and they’re happy. Same with The Breakfast Club except better written and paced. Shrek sticks it to the classic fairy tale story and does it with a lot of humor and great pacing. Shrek 2 continues the tradition but deals with how the parents react to Shrek and Fiona. There are a lot of twistings to the fairy tales we all know and the net result is a fun enjoyable movie.

With vampires, werewolves, Frankestein’s monster and hot vampiresses, and a hot leading lady one would assume that this movie can’t possibly go wrong. Oh, but it does. We’re introduced to Anna Valerious very early on. Van Helsing kills Mr Hyde and some extra calls him a murderer. Is he a murderer or a hero? Who can know? So he goes and talks to a priest from an order that doesn’t exist because they’re secret and is notified that he needs to go out and take out Dracula. On a screen is shown a picture of Anna and Van Helsing can’t stop stareing at it. And neither can the camera. About half way through the shot you’re going “we get it, he’s going to hook up with her.” This is a 2 and a half hour movie because the director tries to be dramatic where there is no drama in scenes such as this. After we learn Van Helsing is going to be taking on vampires he meets a friar who’s job for the movie is to be the comic relief. But he really isn’t needed in that area. This friar has invented many things and one of them is what looks like a grenade and it emmits the light of many suns or something. When asked what it’s for he responds, “I don’t know. I know what it does but I don’t know what it’s for.” In story telling there’s this thing called forshadowing where hints are given about what will happen later in the story. For those who missed it, this is a vampire hunting expedition and this supposed genious doesn’t know what a portable sun is good for.

For most of the movie there’s supposed to be a relationship brewing between Van Helsing and Anna however, there is no character developement and nobody cares. The movies attempts to make the characters deep. Is Van Helsing a murderer or a hero? Where did he come from? Oooh. There is all of one scene in the movie where Anna tries to open up to Helsing. He’s talking about going to the sea and she responds “I’ve never been to the sea.” The entire audience burst out laughing. Hugh Jackson himself looked like he’s about ready to lose it. And three hours later the director finally decides to move on with the story. He tried so hard to make somebody care about these people and it just doesn’t happen. The writers did actually write in quite a bit of humor into this movie. Unfortunatly there are many things that are funny that weren’t supposed to be. There’s even a sub plot between Anna and her brother which is supposed to make us care but most of the time it’s either not registering or just funny.

Aside from the fact that the story was terribly constructed, there are long periods of no real background music. But when there is music, it just blares. And it’s not even that good. All the dialog is set at a reasonable volume but as soon as some music hits, it just blares as though the director is expecting the audience to rock out to someone’s attempt at classic music mixed with a bit of rock. To top off this terrible movie, the ending brings out visions of The Lion King. I don’t know what they were thinking. The only thing this movie has going for it is the humor and special effects. If you want a movie with an interesting story forget it. This is the kind of movie you go to only because you want to hang out with friends and just want some easy entertainment.