ArchStanton1862

I honestly didn't think that Spielberg had another crowd-pleasing actioner left in him. For the last decade or so his focus has been on more realistic period dramas and character pieces. His attempts at grand action spectacle (the underrated Tintin aside) were underwhelming. But who knew he had this left in him?

This film is an absolute blast. It seamlessly combines reality and animation into one big, exciting adventure. I'm still not completely sure how it pulled it off. I was absolutely amazed at how seamlessly the film merged animation with reality (I'd say only perhaps 1/3 of the film takes place in the "real" world) and gave the obviously digital environments emotional and kinetic weight. That's a very hard balance to pull off and this movie doesn't even raise a sweat. In fact, some of the best scenes revolve around the absurd mix of online and real existence. Pretty much every scene in Sorrento's soulless corporate HQ is a riot because of the seriousness with which they take their involvement in this silly online world, made even more ridiculous by the motions they all make in their VR suits as they react to unseen perils like well-dressed mimes.

I have no doubt that this film will receive a lot of flak for its reliance on pop culture artifacts. And there's some truth to the criticism. The best scene in the movie is when one of the characters waits in an almost meditative trance during the fight scene until he cries out "form of a gundam" in Japanese and awesomeness ensues. Would this scene work as well if it hadn't been a recognizable brand? No question it wouldn't. And that goes for an infinite array of references, from the Iron Giant to the Delorean to an absolutely perfect Overlook Hotel to Chucky ("Oh God, it's f*%@ing Chucky" has got to be the second greatest line in the movie).

But to say that this is nothing but leaching off others' success is unfair. The references are there for a reason. This is a Geek movie, and for geeks this sort of referencing is how they approach the universe. It'd seem odd if there were no open pop culture references in a free-for-all online world. More to the point, the film has a lot to say about online culture and the isolating effect it has on people. The film isn't all pretty colors and film references, it deals with issues like how real the connections we form online actually are, the ever-decreasing distance between fantasy and reality, the importance of community involvement, and all sorts of identity issues that arise when we can hide behind avatars. Not that I'd call the film overly deep or anything, but it's certainly more than just a collection of pop culture references thrown together with minimal plot.

The characters are all good fun. Parzival and his mate Aech are just like a lot of friends I know online, although Parzival's shallowness gives him a good obstacle to overcome. Art3mis is a bit more driven and has goals that take her further than just being the best at a video game. Parzival has a major cyber-crush on her, which is something of a problem. Daito and Shoto are somewhat more distant online rivals. All of them have great moments, but most come after their true selves get revealed around 2/3 of the way through the film. Some of them are very surprising (don't look at the cast list) and they are all funny together. Krennic's director Sorrento is a great villain. He's so full of himself and contemptuous that his appearance in-game as a muscular brute in a business suit dealing with mystical things he cares nothing about is a blast. And when he's cornered he can be hilariously practical. His online minion i-R0k is also priceless, the sort of super badass dude living in his mom's basement that you can only find in video games. Mark Rylance steals every scene he's in as the vaguely Wozniakian creator of the game. He's a rather sad figure, one who could never handle reality with such aplomb as he does the world he designed. I was surprsed to see Simon Pegg as his co-founder, a somewhat wasted role but nicel different from his more usual fare.

And I really really didn't think Spielberg could pull this off. It's hard to write a love letter to your favorite films when you're the creator rather than consumer. I'd have been more comfortable with some younger director who grew up on these films. I mean, his works aside I can't recall Spielberg ever displaying much interest in video games or Japanese pop culture (post-Kurosawa at least). Yet this film depends on its immense love of such elements. Perhaps a lot of it comes from the screenplay by the novel's author and Kal Penn, two people eminently qualified to pull this off. But it could never have succeeded without the passion of the maestro himself, and succeed it does. I went in with low expectations and had an absolute blast. But more importantly: I understood that reference.

This wasn't a great film. Clearly it was trying to be, but somewhere along the way they forgot to figure out what they were trying to say. Is it an anti-war film? Is it pro-war? Is it about man's inhumanity to man? Is it just supposed to be good fun? Having the answer to all that be ambiguous might make it seem like this film is taking a more realistic approach but it doesn't feel realistic, just lazy. I honestly don't think they ever thought about what kind of message they were trying to convey. And that's why despite having a few decent battle scenes and an interesting setting it never really seems to catch your attention.

The plot of the film is pretty basic. The Aussie light horse is in Palestine fighting the Turks. Sooner or later there's going to be a major cavalry charge, but there's no real anticipation for it. Most of the film is the soldiers dealing with each other, engaging in minor skirmishes, and other stereotypical soldier stuff. There's also the painfully stereotypical nurse love interest, who falls for the hero instantly despite not knowing him and having hundreds of other soldiers to choose from. Most of the rest of the incidents, while generic war film tropes, work significantly better. There's a soldier who isn't able to kill people who's crisis is generally handled well. The new guy introduced into the tried and tested unit is another. The film is taken up with these and there are more hits than misses in this regard. The big battle at the end of the film is the battle of Beersheba, the last successful cavalry charge. A subject like this seems perfect for a gung-ho war film about the high point of the ANZAC cavalry forces to counter the anti-war approach of Gallipoli, but as I said before the film never really settles on what it wants to say.

One nice thing about it is the relatively low amount of Pommy-bashing. There is a bit of conflict with the obligatory stiff-necked and humorless British officer, but they also feature a scene where the British soldiers cheer the Aussies on to the embarrassment of the men who are looking for a fight. Furthermore my favorite character in the film is a British intelligence officer. He's every bit the cold and aloof officer you'd expect, but he's smarter than the rest and actually plays up the Aussie perceptions of him to good effect in one hilarious scene. The rest of the characters are somewhat hard to distinguish so this man stands out the more.

A few more minor problems with this film: the scenery which is supposed to be in Israel is really obviously southern Australia. All deserts do not look alike, and Beersheba isn't nearly as deserty looking as they seem to think. The other minor problem that occasionally becomes a major problem is the choice of how to portray the enemy. Both the Turks and the Germans speak perfect English. Since this is World War I and the uniforms aren't as distinctive or imprinted in common memory this occasionally makes it difficult to tell which guys are the good guys. Especially when they're not facing the camera. They don't have many scenes, but that just makes it harder to tell when the film has switched focus to the villains. Also, the final charge goes on forever. I was reminded of Monty Python and the Holy Grail when Lancelot keeps running up the hill never getting closer.

Overall not a bad film. I know I've gone on about the negative points, but that's just because they are the most notable things about this movie and some of them would be so easy to fix. Most of the film is decent enough. Certainly it's worth watching if you're interested in the time or just like war films or Aussie movies in general. I certainly can't think of another film that spends so long with the cavalry. Just don't go in expecting a masterpiece.

Loosely translated as Assault on Rome this is the second part of a duology that takes place in Italy during the Justinianic era. It's been 50 years since Rome fell to the Goths and now their rule is slipping. King Theodoric is dead and his two daughters fight for the throne. The slimy Cethegus plots for the rise of Rome while the Byzantines aim to reconquer Italy. It all sounds confusing but they make up for that by ignoring it and focusing it on a cheap romance. It's really too bad because all the compelling parts come from the twisted machinations.

Since this is the second film I can reveal some spoilers from the first one. Actually, just one big spoiler. So stop reading now if you don't want the surprise ruined. The spoiler is the way in which they treat Belisarius. They make him out to be a kind of big bully instead of Justinian's penultimate general. They have him utterly outmaneuvered by everybody, including Wittigis who defeats him in hand to hand combat outside Rome. And then he dies. And at that point I just wondered why they even bothered trying to fit this into history at all. For those not in the know, Belisarius did NOT die in Rome. Or in battle. Or anywhere close to that time. He died of old age about thirty years after the movie. The ahistorical killing off of a minor character (which he really is in this movie) years before his time would not be so bad, except that Belisarius shouldn't be a minor character to begin with. He was the one leading the Byzantine forces in Italy. He conquered the nation only to be recalled through fear of treachery. So by changing it they remove all connection with reality. This is just after he arrives in Italy too so it really does change everything. It would be like having Caesar die in battle before he marches on Rome and then expecting the audience to take it seriously. This has become a fantasy film set in a world that (loosely) resembles ancient Rome. Nothing more.

It's really rather annoying to be disappointed after working so hard to find this film. It's impossible to get ahold of. Worse, it actually IS impossible to find it in English. There aren't any English subs available for it either. Which is rather funny since at least some of the actors were filming it in English. They had Orson Welles and Honor Blackman in it, and the lead actor is British. So unless your German is good you're not watching anything. But you're not really missing anything either. I suppose it all balances itself out.

Fan Service and zombies. That's all this show is. So I suppose that any review has to cover both of them. Ladies first I guess.

The opening titles alone has a dozen crotch and boob shots. None of them serve any purpose. Throughout the show you are constantly plastered with this given the slightest opportunity. Or even when they have to create an opportunity. The number of dialogue scenes where the camera slowly goes down to focus on their panties averages out to at least two an episode. Probably more. The worst episode by far is episode six. In it the girls all bath together, with predictable fondling and lesbianism, while the two guys sit in the other room and talk about guns. That's the whole episode right there. Oh, except for the fact that all the girls try to sleep with the main guy. I'm assuming that they got drunk somewhere in there because they all act it after the bath. Either it's just assumed or that's just how this guy thinks girls act when they let their crazy feminine emotions out.

This is symptomatic of the treatment of the girls in general throughout the series. All of the girls (with one exception) offer nothing but an opportunity to show off their bodies. There are four main girls. I can't be bothered to remember their names so I'll just identify them by their hair color. Pink is a total b*tch. She says she's a genius at every possible opportunity although she never demonstrates any proof of it (many of her 'facts' are wrong and the ones that are right she cannot possibly know), and she enjoys belittling people for it. The blond girl is a complete bimbo. She's the school nurse but she has giant breasts and the IQ of a five year old. She never speaks except to whine or fawn all over the main character who is I might point out, actually an underage student. I suspect she works at a high school for a very specific reason... Brown hair is also obnoxious and likes to go on about how great the guy's friend that he had to kill was. At one point she's thrown from a car and she just lies there for at least 3-4 hours (it goes from midday to sunset) while everyone else protects her. She's not hurt or anything, she just gets up and walks it off. Naturally she's the main love interest. The last girl is purple haired and she's the only semi-good one. She's a master with swords and genuinely loves killing zombies. Her competence and professionalism do not prevent her from being used as yet another sex doll for them to display. It is made quite clear that even the competent girl can do nothing without a guy to lead her. More than that the girls cannot think for themselves and constantly put everyone's lives in danger because of their uncontrolled emotions and lusts. It really is a disgustingly misogynistic and exploitative show.

So now the zombies. Zombies are cool right? How can they mess them up? Well first off they never call them zombies. They seem to think this makes them realistic somehow. Secondly they bind them with stupid rules and then constantly break them. These zombies are cannot see, smell or touch. The only sense they have is hearing. Sounds interesting right? So naturally they'll be quiet and sneak around to prevent the zombies from hearing them. Except they don't. They run around screaming with zombies all around and then one of them will bump into a pole, or drop a bat, or the wind in the trees will make noise and suddenly the zombies are everywhere. I want you to think hard about that last one. The wind in the trees attracted the zombies. THE WIND IN THE FRIGGIN' TREES!!!!!! So having established by the second episode that zombies need sound to hunt they then proceed to ignore it until it is convenient to the show for them to be in danger. How can there be any actual sense of danger when they ignore their own rules when it's convenient?

The two guys are there too. That's really all that can be said of them. The main guy is basically how the author views the perfect guy to be. He has no real flaws and is fawned over to an obscene degree by all the women. The other guy is a fat nerd and a gun buff. He's probably the most interesting character there since he's extremely competent at one thing and enjoys it immensely. Naturally he's treated with nothing but contempt by all the girls who nothing if not superficial.

So, the good things... ... ... I'm drawing a blank here. I suppose that technically it's an impressive film. The animation is quite good and the character designs aren't that bad. The main theme's pretty catchy too. Apart from that zip. Zilch. Nada. This show has no redeeming features whatsoever.

It is a sad day when I actually prefer a Nicholas Cage movie over a Sean Bean one. While Season of the Witch was a terrible movie it at least offered some mindless amusement. This movie is all darkness and dreary posturing. It offers no entertainment value and provides no interesting concept to compensate for it.

The basic plot of the film is pretty simple. It's England in the time of the Black Death. A monk (Eddie Redmayne) travels with a group of knights to investigate a village that is unaffected by plague. The leader of the knights (Sean Bean) believes that the plague is held away because of sorcery and that the town is occupied by pagans. Wouldn't you know it he's right. That is essentially the entire plot of the film minus the ending. As you can see there's very little for the film to do. Most of the first half of the film is spent traveling and the second is spent with the cast in a pit of water being tortured. Neither situation is very compelling. As you might imagine this gives the film severe and fatal pacing issues since they spend most of their time doing the same thing.

The lead of this film has all the wooden dullness of a 1960s B-Movie action star with none of the interest that such a role provides. He suffered from this same problem in The Pillars of the Earth which at least had the benefit of having him as a secondary character who was supposed to be mysterious (ie: wooden). There is a reason that all this film's marketing pretends that Sean Bean is the main character but even he phones in a dull and uninteresting performance. I never found myself caring about him at all. Tim McInnery is positively irritating as the leader of the village where they find themselves. He does nothing but smirk and look superior. Do you suppose he's a villain? It also brings to mind an unfortunate comparison with Captain Darling. The rest of the cast is unmemorable save for David Warner who has so minor a role as the abbot that I have to wonder why they bothered casting him at all.

The main theme of the film seems to be religious fanaticism and it is handled with all the subtlety of, well, religious fanaticism. The Christian characters are unlikeable for their zealotry but the film never really goes into their personalities outside of that. The pagan characters are even worse since they spend their time murdering people and sneering unpleasantly. The film also fails to deal with what they actually believe, something that's kind of important for a movie about medieval pagans. So is the point that fanaticism is a deadly evil? If so it chooses an odd way of going about it. The film seems to suggest that actually, Christian fanaticism is OK. It's just others that aren't. While that sounds like Christian propaganda (and insulting propaganda given how many people were burned at the stake for pagan beliefs) the film fails to make the Christians likable either. While normally I'd be applauding having all the characters as a shade of grey the film sets up the pagans as so evil that there really isn't any question of which side you should be on. So instead of good vs. evil you get evil vs. worse evil. While I suppose that could still work in more talented hands the people behind this movie are not capable of pulling it off. That sort of film would require pathos, something completely lacking in this film. Grey characters must be made interesting or cool to compensate for the lack of sympathy an audience will feel for them. These are all generic and dull. We might accept dull characters if they represent similar beliefs to our own but to be both unsympathetic and uninteresting is a sure way to lose the audience's interest.

Several of the ideas in this film are actually disgusting. The better ones are just silly. One of the latter ones includes the idea that only Christians have the plague. This is after it wiped out large parts of China, Mongolia, and the Middle East. An example of the former is that at the film's end they treat the plague like a noble, purifying force. By the end of the movie it seems to be suggesting that the Inquisition was justified and has one of the characters torturing innocent women and burning them at the stake. Yes, the ending is supposed to be dark but there is a certain point where it just goes beyond being dark and becomes bad taste. A bad taste is exactly what this movie left in my mouth and I strongly advise you to avoid it too. Lacking compelling or sympathetic characters it turns to shock value to leave an impression and while it certainly achieved that for me it didn't do so in the way it intended. Even so I suspect I'll have forgotten all about it in a month or so.

But the movie's biggest sin isn't really any of that. It's just tediously, deadly dull. A great disappointment.

The true problem with this film is that it locks onto an interesting topic and then squanders it by repeating the same case over and over. It compounds this problem by thinking itself deep. The basic question is whether the conductor deserves to be allowed to continue his work given that he was famous under the Nazis. The answer to that is clearly 'yes' and at no point in the film do they accuse him of doing anything that could be considered a crime. Even if he had been close to Hitler that wouldn't have been a crime unless he did something with it. And it's quite clear he didn't even like the man so what's the point? There is no point at which any of the evidence, or indeed the accusations, have any real bite. His only crime was in not taking a stand against Hitler. How can it be a crime to not get yourself killed? It's just silliness. It seems to be trying to rope all Germans into this question. How could they do nothing to stop this man? Yet it never goes into that question except superficially. The only two characters of any significance are the Major and the musician and both of them represent opposite and boring extremes. Skarsgard comes off the best since his character feels completely noble and pure which puts off the Major only slightly more than it puts off me. He doesn't seem to be a particularly good man, but no law has ever been able to legislate that all people must be good. It is at least an interesting performance. Keitel goes over the top and makes the Major utterly unsympathetic in a boring way. He does nothing but bully people and the only interesting thing about it is how he seems so shocked when people don't think the same way he does. It seems like they were going for an emotion vs. reason, rage vs. acceptance, low-class vs. culture thing, but all the themes are left undeveloped and unexplored. A real shame because the premise shows potential.

This episode is literally about the fall of Rome. Not the fall of the empire mind you. That continued on for another 60 years in the west and thousand in the east. This is the sack of Rome by the Goth Alaric. A major event in Roman history which I'm quite sure has never been filmed before. This is really what the series should be doing, exploring the bits of Roman history that no one else covers. The best episodes are the ones that aren't retreading the tired old emperors and generals.

I'm not sure why, but after three episodes they bring the freeze-frame introductions again. Maybe the same crew was involved. They make Alaric out to be far too nice. Somehow having nice-guy Romans is politically incorrect, but nice-guy barbarians are just fine. The situation has been simplified almost beyond recognition. The real Alaric was an amoral general who was out for himself. The men surrounding him were all soldiers. He was not king of all the Goths, he was king of one group of Goths. A very successful king, but king of a sub-group nonetheless. They weren't simple farmers and families out looking for land. Certainly he wanted land to live on, but they were warriors and they were expected to fight in exchange for it. And Alaric and Stilicho weren't all chummy like they're shown here. Stilicho led several campaigns against Alaric in an effort to drive him off Roman lands. When he did offer him land it wasn't a benign gesture. It was an exchange for military service. Alaric would serve Stilicho and Stilicho would pay them by settling them on land. Also, the uprising against the barbarians wasn't just some mindless, bigoted gesture against foreigners (although it was stupid), it was a reaction about the number of barbarians being used in the army. Currently about 1/3 of the Western army was barbarian, a dangerous situation when Rome needed to use its army to defend itself against those very people. At any rate, they capture his reluctance to sack Rome and his failed negotiations with Honorius just right. Basically, all the facts are right, they've just got the context wrong.

It's still a fairly entertaining episode. And it is always nice to see the barbarian invasions on screen. The only other time I've seen that is in Attila. It just seems like it could have done more.

The best thing that can be said about these next two episodes is that they recreate the props and sets superbly. There are very few movies that take place in this time (I can't think of any except Agora and a cheap peplum from the '60s) and so it's very nice to see these costumes being lived in. The appearance of Rome and the army changed drastically from the Republic and early Empire which what is always being shown on screen. The clothing became more ornate and the armor just... different. It actually looks a lot more medieval than Roman at times. So if nothing else, it is wonderful to see this world recreated for once. Pretty accurately too, although the budget means that some of the ornate costumes look cheaper than they should. This episode has some great battle scenes too. We get to see the Battle of the Milvian Bridge on screen. Even though the number of extras is pretty low (and they tend to reuse marching scenes from previous episodes, they get some good use out of them.

This episode isn't too bad. Apart from the usual docudrama problems it works fairly well. It's about Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor. As such it deals with a lot of religious issues that are of necessity simplified. Constantine often gets a bad rap nowadays. I think that it's probably more to do with what he represents than who he was. He wasn't really any better or worse than any of his fellow emperors but people expect men with Christian ideals to live up to them more and those who aren't religious dislike him for making Christianity the dominant religion in Europe. This episode falls into that trap too, giving a great deal of fuss over Constantine's killing of his rival emperors and their children. True, one of them was his nephew but plenty of Emperors felt the need to wipe out their close relatives due to the threat they posed. Constantine killed his own son for that matter, though they don't cover that in here. On the whole though, it's actually a fairly sympathetic portrayal of Constantine. He's portrayed as power-hungry and untrustworthy but that's emperors for you. You don't get to be the most powerful man in Rome by being a nice guy. He certainly comes off no worse than his rivals, only smarter. He is portrayed as being sincerely religious and generally moody and reserved. I'm not sure I'd consider that accurate in either particular, but it does give him some personality. This episode pays a lot of attention to the women in his life too. Not sure why they chose Constantine for that but it doesn't work too badly. I do wish that they'd chosen an actor who looked a little bit more like Constantine though. He has one of the most recognizable heads of all the Roman Emperors, but they didn't even match his haircut.

This one focuses on a lesser known moment in Roman history: the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus. Gracchus was a reformer who wanted to help the poor, limit the land owned by senators, and increase his own power in the process. Tiberius was the first of the radical tribunes who bypassed the Senate in his efforts, which led to popular politicians courting the common people, and eventually to the fall of the Republic. So it's really hard to overstate the importance of this moment in Roman history. I think that this was my favorite of the bunch. It was paced well, had some good performances, and was from an era never shown before. Particular praise goes out to James D'Arcy who gives a wonderful performance in the lead. His Tiberius manages to be both idealistic and ambitious and not a little reckless. You see why this man would be a danger to the entrenched nobility. This episode is pretty much a one-man show but it features good supporting performances by David Warner, Geraldine James and Tom Bell, who I've never heard of but does a great job as Nasica, whose every look is ominous. He looks like a snake. I've never seen a more suspiciously evil looking person. There is enough dialogue in this episode that the vice over narration is almost unnecessary except for the beginning and end. In fact, it shows up only sporadically throughout and seems to be a measure of the quality of these episodes that the best ones have the least narration.

The best thing about this episode is that the main character is quite a complicated one. The question of whether he's an idealist doing what he does for the benefit of the people or an ambitious politician furthering his own ends is never made clear. While it does seem to land more on the side of idealist it makes quite clear that he is not unaware of the benefits to be gained from his actions. While the leaders of the Senate are portrayed as mere stock villains, considering their actions it seems completely justified. They overreacted badly and brought down violence and unrest upon themselves. David Warner as the extremely conflicted father-in-law Senator is the exception. He wants much of what Tiberius wants but he refuses to go to the extremes that Tiberius is willing to. The only real problem with this episode is that they cut out Tiberius' brother completely. Gaius Gracchus did the same thing a decade later, with even more success. While they don't have to portray that, it seems sad that Tiberius is presented as being an only child. They should at least have acknowledged that he had a brother. It would have tied up the ending rather better since one of the main themes is ambition and the desire to live up to and improve on the accomplishments of your family. What better way to show that than to see his brother trying to live up to his ideals?

Here's where things start getting good. These next two feel like they were done by different people, and they probably were. The stories are less sensationalized and they let the actions speak for themselves a bit more. No more radical lunatics and gay dilettantes. This one focuses on the Jewish Rebellion beginning under the reign of Nero. The main characters are the future emperors Vespasian and Titus, and the Jewish historian Josephus. The real Josephus was a bit of a snake which can make the simplistic good guy-ness of this Josephus a bit annoying, but if you haven't read his works you're probably not going to be aware of how slimy he is. I didn't care much for him (at least part of that was the acting) but others might, although he's about as Jewish as the Queen is. Even if you don't like him this story focuses more on the Romans than the Jews. Seeing them attempt to portray Vespasian as he was is very nice. The guy was basically a country boy without much refinement. The acting is nothing impressive, but its certainly competent and Vespasian and his son come off both well and fairly accurately. The battle scenes are pretty good for the budget and it's nice to see these events on film regardless of scale. It was an interesting time no doubt about it.

If you're interested in this period you should also check out the TV Miniseries Masada. It covers the events right after this and is extremely entertaining.

This episode starts with a bang, obviously intentionally. It's a lowlife part of Rome with a bunch of people walking around and a street corner musician making fun of the emperor. Then one of the men pulls his hood off and it's Nero himself (identified by text), in a really cheap looking wig. For shock value it works quite well. The only problem is that it never shows up again later. Why was he out trolling around the city in that getup? Why did he start a fight? Why was he laughing maniacally while getting beat up? These are all questions that you should be asking yourself after seeing this clip, and they'll never be answered. Unless you consider 'he's nuts' to be an answer. Essentially the most interesting scene in the movie comes in the beginning and it's never explained or alluded to later.

This episode follows the whole 'Nero was nuts' theory. It's been done to death and it would be nice to see them give a different take on the man, but as it goes it is a fun story. It is also the perfect opportunity for an actor to ham it up. They got Martin Sheen for Nero, probably the best actor in this and just before his career really took off. If you're looking for a subtle and restrained performance, then this isn't your day. But be honest, who'd want to see a subtle and restrained Nero? The man embodied excess in all its forms. And Sheen goes for it putting all his crazy on display. That said, this does take a more nuanced view of Nero than a lot of other fictional takes. Nero is vindicated of the accusations of fiddling while Rome burned. He's shown to be desperate to help and willing to use his own houses to help. In fact, that's the beginning of his madness. He goes so overboard trying to rebuild Rome that he convinces himself he's a god.

This episode would seem to be the signature one of the series. They put more obvious money into it than the others with a few nice vistas of Nero's building projects and an entirely pointless gladiatorial bout. I'm not kidding when I say it's pointless. It's a dialogue scene and anything that they had to say there could have been said in a room somewhere without it making a damn bit of difference. It is a fun episode, though again it suffers from the cheesy and oversimplified situations of the last one. Subtlety is not the strength of this show. Nero would seem to fit perfectly. There are a few pacing issues, and the supporting characters aren't great (again to insert my historical prejudice, I hate Seneca. The guy was even more of a hypocrite than most philosophers, yet he comes off as a wise old man. Probably won't bother anyone else) except for Tigellinus. I like how they make the man seem almost noble as he goes around killing people for their money. After all, he is loyal to his emperor until even he can see that the man is utterly off his nut. So overall, an OK episode. It would have been far less interesting if it wasn't for Michael Sheen's manic performance, and frankly it could have used a bit more of that.

This movie is a deeply disappointing one because it feels like it could have been great and yet it barely achieves mediocre. The acting is great, lead by Viggo Mortenson as the title character. Apparently his accent is off and he sounds strange to Spanish speakers, but since I don't know any Spanish it didn't affect me one way or the other. The cinematography is superb, reminding me of nothing so much as the Spanish renaissance paintings that it seems to be imitating. Occasionally this leads to overly staged scenes, such as the surrender of Breda where everyone poses as they did in Velasquez's famous painting, but more often it achieves a rare level of beauty. The story, or what little I can make of it, is solid if dense. Essentially, the movie gets everything perfect except one thing. The script.

I understand that they were adapting a series of novels but did they have to combine them all into one film? Couldn't they have spread them out some? Even if they never finished the series they could have gotten a few solid pictures out of doing that. As it is the film is a jumbled mess. You never get to understand any of the characters as they simply react to things in ways that don't make sense. Why did Inigo decide to kill his lover's uncle? Why did Alatriste change his mind about marrying his? They don't explain either of these things, and those questions are just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps someone who read the books will know these answers but you shouldn't have to read the books to understand the movie. Characters come and go without any reasons or motivations. Alatriste meets someone who he seems to get along with, and then later he seems to truly hate him for no reason. Incidentally, there are too many characters to keep track of. Especially since everyone looks alike in those beards.

The other major problem with the writing is in the way events are connected. Scenes follow each other rapidly that have no connection with each other. Again, this all comes from trying to include too much. They jump from Flanders to Madrid, then back to Flanders, then Madrid (But ten years later), then somewhere on the coast, and finally back in Flanders again. At the end of the movie the two main characters are civilians in Madrid and then it suddenly cuts to them in military uniforms with a subtitle reading "Battle of Rocroi, 1643." No explanation is given either to how they got there or why that battle mattered at all. In fact, there is never any context given throughout the film. You get the impression through dialog that Spain's empire is failing but you never understand why or how. Again, Spanish students might know all of this like the back of their hand but nobody who hasn't studied this period will understand any of it. In short, this movie is near perfect except for an absolutely rotten script that ruins everything.

The chief reason to see this film is for Rachel Weisz's performance as Hypatia the philosopher. She is the main character and she gives an excellent performance. Whenever she is on screen you are riveted to the screen. Her excitement at discovery, her endless desire to learn, her ability to figure out the mysteries of the universe are fascinating and she makes them feel exciting even though we know it all already. Unfortunately, when ever she is off-screen there is nothing to hold our interest until she returns. The rest of the plot is a really blunt, unsubtle message about the dangers of religious zealotry blatantly inserted onto Hypatia's story to give it some sort of relevance. The sheer lack of subtlety and intelligence behind this message is annoying. The Christians are all bigoted, mindless, intolerant fools, and the pagans are not much better. Hypatia by contrast is presented as an atheist, which she certainly wasn't, and the only reasonable person left. I have never liked having ideas forced down my throat and this movie does that extremely roughly.

Hypatia has often been seen as a martyr to science which is really a shame since the history doesn't support that. In this movie she is basically presented as an atheist who doesn't believe in any of the gods which is just flat-out wrong. She was a Neoplatonist and what the Neoplatonists were known for was their incorporation of religion in their philosophy. The supposed atheism of philosophers is a myth that should really be discredited by now, and the Neoplatonists actually had miracles and spiritual elements in their teachings. That isn't to say that they had no scientific interests, but they incorporated them into a wider religious context. To have Hypatia speak out against religion in general was just wrong.

The Christian zealotry in this movie is extreme to the point of being utterly unbelievable and insulting. They burn all of the books in the Library of Alexandria because they are pagan filth. The actual event that took place at this time was the burning down of a pagan temple and it's library of religious texts. The Christians never touched the library. For that matter they never intentionally destroyed scientific or philosophical works, its just that the Dark Ages wasn't really the sort of time when they had much use for those tracts which led to many of them being lost. Turning her death into a primitive reaction to education is also bull. She was killed by a Christian mob it is true, but it was over a political conflict, not a religious one. The Christian elite was as highly educated as the pagan elite before them and this wasn't seen as contradictory.

Still, what's good about this movie is Hypatia. She is presented with intelligence and grace and comes across as an extremely likable person. Unfortunately the film is intent on removing her personality and making her merely a symbol. It is to the film's greater credit that in this, it fails.

When this film gets it right it really gets it right. And when it goes wrong... I'd say that a full 3/4s of the film is great. I can even isolate the bad bit. It's everything that has to do with the romance. Everything that you need to know about it is said in the first five minutes but it drags on for about 30. I'd recommend skipping that section if you can. It does nothing except explain his exile. It should have been a minor plot point quickly thrust aside. Fortunately, the period from about 0-30 and 1:00-2:19 (The End) is excellent.

There are a number of excellent performances in this film, and an equal number of terrible ones. Just like everything else in this movie the acting is either perfect or terrible. Peter Ustinov as the slimy one-eyed slave Kaptah is perfect. It is one of his best performances, up there with his role in Spartacus. Victor Mature as the ambitious Horemheb is also perfect. Again, one of his best roles. Jean Simmons is wasted as Merit, the perfect girl in love with our hero John Carradine gives a nice supporting role as a philosophical grave robber; and Michael Wilding is excellent as Akhnaton, the idealistic pharaoh who tries to bring peace and monotheism to Egypt only to see it fall apart due to his unwillingness to fight. Now for the bad. Edmund Purdom as Sinuhe is sadly miscast. This is doubly unfortunate as he is the main character. The entire film revolves around him. He actually does rather good as the disillusioned exile and the wise old man. This is because of his sorely limited range. He doesn't seem able to put any passion into his words. This is especially apparent during the love scenes which are beyond awkward. He spends the last half of the film as an old man, a performance at which he is decent enough at. He does have the perfect voice for the character. The less said about Bella Darvi as Nefer, the treacherous Babylonian woman, the better.

The costuming and sets are magnificent. This is the only film that I know of that attempts to depict life in Egypt that isn't overshadowed by Jews or Romans. The film takes place in the 14th Century B.C. which is before even Exodus. The only monotheists are the pharaoh Akhenaten and his followers. There is the same strong element of religious zeal that can be found in most epics, but it is done differently and it only shows up at the very end. An interesting note: by having Akhenaten followed by Horemheb as pharaoh, the film completely skips over the most famous pharaoh of all: Tutankhamen. Seems kind of a strange thing to do when using that name could increase awareness of the film.

Be warned: this is a 1950s epic film. If you don't like that type of thing then don't expect this one to be different. It is different, but it is still an epic. I appreciate this film, and I appreciate what it did and what it tried to do. This is a film that should be better remembered than it is.

I don't know why this show made such a biased attempt to portray the Hittites. Certainly they weren't a perfect people, but the way that they presented this was just wrong. Example: "They found images of the Hittites themselves, and others that revealed their obsession with warfare, and with death." Certainly a loaded statement, and hardly one designed to endear them to an audience who have never heard of them before. It's not as if they were more warlike than their neighbors. Another example "The Hittites planned and executed a strategy to become a great superpower." They make them seem nothing more than Machiavellian schemers intent on world domination. The references to their willingness to execute a man for almost any offense were verging on an outright lie. Certainly in their early empire the laws were more brutal, but by the time of their expansion (which is the period covered after all) they had reduced the number executable offenses significantly. For the era they lived in they could actually be considered to have an enlightened legal system. Executions were replaced by fines for all but the most serious offenses. No eye for an eye in the Hittite law book.

They referred to their paranoia and constant state of fear without mentioning the fact that their homeland was permanently open to invasion. The Hittite homeland was invaded numerous times throughout their rule and the producers make them sound paranoid and neurotic! Jumping at shadows for no apparent reason. Honestly, this show teaches nothing honest about the Hittite culture. The Hittites weren't nice people but they were no worse than their neighbors. The Egyptians used to collect the penises of their dead enemies to get an accurate count of casualties, the Assyrians ruled through sheer terror, and the Hebrews made a habit of slaughtering every inhabitant of sacked cities, something that was barbaric even then. They refer to the level of control that the king held over every aspect of his subject's lives, but they failed to mention that the Mycenaeans cared so much for the same things that their archives contained nothing but tax records. You would never guess that the Hittites main contribution was in the art of diplomacy.

Where this documentary does show it's worth is in the recreations. They must have had a reasonable budget because some of the scenes are amazing. The city of Hattusas comes to life in a way that is impossible without computer graphics. The information about the discovery of the civilization (Which, to be fair, is what they focus on) is extremely interesting. And some of the on location photography is incredible. So if you're interested is seeing how this ancient civilization was discovered, or you want to see the civilization recreated, then this is for you. Just don't go away thinking that you understand the Hittites any better.

First off the book Johnny Tremain is both one of the greatest children stories and one of the greatest revolutionary war novels ever written. Published during the Second World War it has never gone out of print since and rightly so. As source material it is perfectly suited to be given a movie adaption. And when the movie sticks to following the book it is rather entertaining in a 1950s Disney sort of way.

The first half hour is close enough to the book to entertain the fans. The character of Johnny has been changed from arrogant and cocky to pure and innocent in the best tradition of Disney films which can hardly come as a surprise but to expect anything else out of a kid's movie is to be let down. The second half hour loses the mood but keeps near the plot. The Boston Tea Party is entertaining although the singing after it is unforgivably Disney. But by the last half hour the book is thrown to the winds as we see the war first hand. Something about seeing laughing children dancing around the countryside shooting at redcoats struck me as kind of disturbing for a Disney film. Obviously war was a great adventure that people could enjoy in a typical '50s fashion where nobody but the bad guys got hurt and everyone could share a nice drink afterward. Oh, and somebody who is supposed to die, whose death gives the entire book meaning, doesn't. That would be too dark for a Disney film.

Now if I thought that any of those additions were beneficial to the movie I couldn't really complain but none of them worked. The first battle was alright but the psychotic killing kids having fun was just awful. The producers probably couldn't see why this might be considered 'creepy'. The acting from the lead is awful and he doesn't seem to have been in anything else afterward. The guy playing Rab seemed to bring a little of the distant charm described in the book but the script doesn't give him more than one or two moments. Walter Sande as Paul Revere was good as were a few of the founding fathers but nothing to write home about.

On the plus side the sets are marvelous. I've never seen colonial Boston come to life so well since, largely due to an absence of Revolutionary War films. The Battle of Lexington is moderately well done rather obviously leaving open the question of who fired first. And the first half hour entertains. So in conclusion: good book, good sets, bad everything else. Remake anyone?

This review contains no spoilers. Suffice to say there is nothing to be spoiled. This movie has no plot. A number of things happen but they don't seem to do so for any particular purpose. The characters have no personalities and occasionally show up or vanish without explanation. One character who I am informed is a major player in the book cannot have more than five lines in the whole movie. Another shows up for less than a minute with no explanation. Any complexities that may be present in the book (Not many apparently) are removed leaving only a jumbled mess.

The major selling point of this film is the effects, and here they have a minor success. The dragon is portrayed beautifully. While there's nothing as impressive as Lord of the Rings (You knew I'd have to mention it somewhere) the effects are certainly passable. The final battle is awful and confusing but it does look good. There are even one or two epic looking shots which do credit to the filming location. (Hungary I think) Those are the only good aspects of the movie. Despite the money spent on effects there doesn't seem to have been any spent on costumes and sets. All the sets look alike. As far as I know they might all be the same one dressed differently and with varied lighting. And the costumes seemed scraped together from previous low budget fantasy films. One of the characters seems to be wearing blue jeans and rubber boots and one of my friends swears he saw the Nike symbol. The prosthetics are equally terrible with no really original or engaging villains. The orc equivalents are just painted men, I only know one character is an elf because my friend told me, and the main villain looks different each time he appears. That last one may be intentional but darned if I know why. I know nobody goes to see a movie for the costumes but it really seems slipshod, as if they don't even care and they just want our money.

The acting is appalling. I believe I normally like every actor in the movie except for the ones I'd never seen before but everyone seemed to be hamming it up. Robert Carlyle was so bad he wasn't even funny. Jeremy Irons is a personal favorite and he rises above the script to make his character merely mediocre. And John Malcovich makes me laugh every time he opens his mouth. He's not the only one. My personal favorite exchange is this one: "You are not strong enough to heal him." The boy looks painfully at the dying character who out of nowhere says "That's the spirit." This was said with full dramatic flair like a performance of Shakespeare. I haven't laughed so hard since Borat. I should clarify that I am something of a connoisseur of bad movies. Films that make Ed Wood look professional hold no fear for me and I did enjoy this film for the cheesy dialog and frequent unintentional humor. But it is not for the unpracticed. You have been warned.