Greatest Epic Heroes of Myth and Folklore

I'm sick of superheroes. The heroes of mythology and ancient epic poems were essentially the superheroes of their times, but somehow are so much more interesting and heroic to me. A lot of their appeal comes in the fact that their origins are unclear; some of them are clearly fictitious, and others may have basis in fact. Nevertheless, this is a list of the greatest of them, indicating what land created their myth.

1. King Arthur (England)
2. Beowulf (England)
3. Hercules/Heracles (Greece)
4. Robin Hood (England)
5. Sinbad (Persia)
6. Odysseus (Greese)
7. Gilgamesh (Mesopotamia)
8. Aeneas (Rome)
9. Achilles (Greece)
10. Perseus (Greece)
11. Paul Bunyan (USA)
12. Kaurava (India)
13. Fionn mac Cumhaill (Ireland)
14. Theseus (Greece)
15. Chingachgook (USA)

The Best Movie of the Year That You Almost Certainly Haven't Seen

In a year of comic book blockbusters, sequels, and reboots that have been largely good, the best movie of the year may very well be a British film adapted from one of Shakespeare’s least memorable plays.

Coriolanus is not your average Shakespeare adaptation, and I don’t mean that just because it’s in a modern-day context. Just about all Shakespeare movies nowadays need to be in a modern or very stylistically visual style just to get people to watch them, which is a bit unfortunate. Nevertheless this is a no-holds-barred action movie, more or less. Its war scenes may evoke memories of a movie like The Hurt Locker or some of the very realistic scenes in Children of Men, and if you ask me, I’d say this was actually done better.

At the heart of this film is Ralph Fiennes. If you only know him for playing Voldemort, see some other movies, because this guy has been one of the world’s greatest actors since he broke out in Schindler’s List. Not only does he play the prideful and tragic General Martius, but he makes his directorial debut. One is reminded of the great actors of all time, with Laurence Olivier, Orson Welles, and Kenneth Branagh all starring and directing a few Shakespeare films.

What made this movie so entertaining for me is the story primarily, although the performances gave it much more depth. It’s the story of a great general who is an enemy of the people only to become a hero in his victory over Volscia, only to be banished from Rome after the people are reminded of his denying of their liberties. It’s a basic story, but General Martius has quite an amazing arc, and is able to be sympathetic, tragic, and despicable all at the same time, which I credit much to Mr. Fiennes’s performance.

Also featured in the film is the Volscian general, played by Gerard Butler. This was one of the best aspects of the film: the way it pitted the two main characters against each other as arch-enemies. They share a good deal of screen time together for opposing generals, and they aren’t even always villains, but it’s done well. It’s set up early and it pays off big in the end. Interesting to note, Gerard Butler’s first acting job came about fifteen years ago in a London play version of Coriolanus, so his familiarity and understanding of the work adds a lot here.

The film starts out really fast, the opening scene giving you all the background information you need that was no doubt delivered over multiple scenes in the play. While I’ve read about half of Shakespeare’s plays, I have not yet read this one and before seeing this movie, it was one of the last plays I was looking forward to reading. The middle portion of the film takes a break from the action as it looks more at the politics of Rome, setting up Martius’s banishment. This portion, while not as visually exciting as the first and last thirds of the movie, features some outstanding dramatic performances, particularly from Vanessa Redgrave, playing Fiennes’s mother. I’d say she’s a lock for the supporting actress Oscar, but with non-wide release films, I guess you never know.

While I’m not sure this is true, I’d like to say that if you’re not a Shakespeare fan, you would still like this movie. I’m thinking of the battle scenes and the hand-to-hand combat when I say this, of course, because I don’t think there’s anyway someone couldn’t enjoy that.

This movie was absolutely great, beautifully shot (with surprisingly effective shaky cam) and amazing performances. I saw this twice in two nights, which is something I never do, so that should say something about how provocative I found this film.

The Catcher in the Rye - An Undeserving Masterpiece

I just got done reading The Catcher in the Rye for my second time, and it’s safe to say I still hate it. Why then did I read it a second time? Well I had to give it another chance, considering how much praise it’s gotten. It’s been called one of the greatest American novels ever written and is considered one of the most influential.

But I’m here to debunk a few rumors about it. Now this is not “hating” on this book just to be a mere “hater,” and I’d like to point out that I don’t think J.D. Salinger, the book’s author is without talent. He’s one of the few great short story writers in our nation’s history, but I do believe his only novel is a pile of crap, more or less.

My biggest problem with this novel lies in its narration. It’s narrated by our antihero, Holden Caulfield, a confused, angry young man who uses the most obnoxious language possible. I realize this is Salinger’s way of emphasizing that Holden is not fully matured and still has things to learn from the world around him, its simplistic nature really takes me out of the story. What makes it even more annoying and improbable is that it’s written so poorly and it’s emphasized dozens of times that English is the only subject Holden is good at. Somehow this style is what has made it “speak to” the youth for over fifty years, but ironically it shows me that Salinger didn’t really understand how the youth thought, talked, or felt. When I complain about the style of Caulfield’s narration, what I mean is his repeated phrases. When he states something, he always repeats it by adding the word “really” to it. For example: “It was very ironical. It really was” in page 37. And believe me when I say it’s a hell of a lot more than that. He also describes multiple—too many things—as killing him. “Sensitive. That killed me.” – page 72. It gets very annoying and repetitive as well. He also nearly always uses the word “goddam” to describe things, or says “Chrissake” all the time. This kind of language made it controversial at the time, but it’s virtually swearing for the sake of swearing; there’s no point to it. Most of the time those words are used to describe things that he’s not even really frustrated over, making them utterly pointless. He also uses the word “old” to describe just about every character he comes across. Old Stradlatter, old Phoebe, etc. Again, it doesn’t make sense. It would make sense if it was used once to describe a person who he hadn’t seen in a long time, but he uses it to describe his sister when he’s frickin’ with her!

The next most glaring problem with this novel is the protagonist himself. Outside his simplistic narration, there really isn’t anything interesting or likable to his character. Now to write a compelling novel, you don’t need a likable protagonist, it’s true, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt. When I look at this issue I always think of probably the greatest novel ever written, James Joyce’s Ulysses. Leopold Bloom is a horribly flawed character and there are some things you grow to hate him over. And yet it works. Why? Because he feels real. He’s a realistic character and Joyce’s narrative probably delves into his character in more detail than any other character in the history of fiction. Another great example is Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol. At the beginning of the novel, Ebenezer Scrooge is the most despicable person ever to live, but since the story that Dickens is telling is interesting, the character changes and you grow to care about him. So if you don’t have a likable main character, my rushed conclusion is that you need either a realistic one or an interesting story. The Catcher in the Rye has neither. Salinger also tried the unreliable narrator thing, with Caulfield using the word “phony” all the time to describe everything he didn’t like, while later showing him to participate in these “phony” activities. However, nothing forces him to do these things and nothing comes of these activities.

But it does have an interesting story, you say. It’s about a young man trying to find himself. No, it’s not. That would imply that the character changes and learns things along the way. It’s revealed in the opening sentence that Caulfield doesn’t learn shit throughout the entire novel, seeing as how he’s written it in the future and everything is just looking back. He’s just as annoying and bitter in the beginning as he is in the end, whether or not he’s with his beloved sister. On top of that, I call the sincerity of that relationship even, because he frequently uses the words “goddam” and “chrissake” when dealing with her, perhaps implying that he’s frustrated, even though we are led to believe that’s the one genuine relationship he has. Again I’ll bring up Joyce as an example of how to write about a young man finding himself. A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man is a flawless example of this kind of story, since Stephen Dedalus goes through significant changes while remaining realistic the entire time. Is comparing Salinger to Joyce fair? Hell no, so I’ll give another example that’s a little more fair. Mark Twain wrote perhaps the signature young adult novel in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, a story that most Americans if not all are pretty familiar with. Huck Finn starts out pretty much the same as Holden Caulfield, but he changes; he’s not static at all. He changes to reflect his society. Not that Salinger didn’t try this; Holden is constantly contrasted with the society that he is a member of, with Pencey and all that jazz. It’s clear he doesn’t belong in the society that he’s been brought up in, but again, this is evident from the very beginning. We know virtually everything we need to know in this book in the first chapter.

The final chapter, which is only like a page and a half, tries to tack on some stupid message about keeping things to yourself and how that’s important, but it comes out of nowhere and has nothing to do with the previous 275 pages or whatever. He’s not in the situation he’s in because he told someone something; he’s in this situation because he doesn’t feel like trying in school because he’s more concerned about not being a phony than being smart or successful or competent. Again, maybe this is Salinger trying to get you to disagree with the unreliable narrator, but if that’s the case, what’s the point of this narrative? Nothing.

So in my conclusion I don’t just dislike this novel; I hate it. It’s easily the worst novel I’ve read that’s considered an all-time classic, worse than both Naked Lunch and Siddhartha combined. And that’s saying a lot. Naked Lunch was at least stylistically interesting, and not nearly as bland as this. And Siddhartha told an interesting story, albeit the characters weren’t realistic and the whole novel seemed like it should have been four times as long. I guess the only bright point is that this is under 300 pages. If this were the length of Ulysses or Les Miserables, I couldn’t have gotten through it once, let alone twice. That’s about it.

The Catcher in the Rye sucks. It really does.

The Dark Knight Rises Review!

The Dark Knight Rises is an amazing movie. Not that it’s like the best movie ever or anything, but it’s a thrilling and magnificent spectacle of  a film, and in some ways is better than its predecessor.

I’ll start off by saying I really didn’t like Batman Begins. The action scenes were unwatchable and the spraying gas to make people go insane plot is laughable. I really liked The Dark Knight, of course. This film is structurally and stylistically more like TDK, although it has a lot more to do plot-wise with Begins, with multiple mentions of Ra’s Al Ghul or whatever the hell Liam Neeson’s name is, and not one mention of the Joker. I’m not really pointing to this is a good or bad part, I’m just saying.

The film takes place 8 years after The Dark Knight and both Batman and Bruce Wayne are dormant. A mercenary named Bane is doing stuff and so is a burglar named Selina Kyle. I was kind of amazed by how bad the first few minutes were. The opening scene in the plane just didn’t work for some reason, and the film didn’t really pick up for a while. There were a lot of one-line cover-ups, the Harvey Dent Day scene in particular. The theme of the first twenty minutes or so appeared to be tell, don’t show. Luckily things picked up.

My favorite character in the movie was Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s dude, a young and good-natured police officer. The film really picks up when he’s introduced, and then we’re given time to learn more about Anne Hathaway and Tom Hardy’s weird voice. Overall I’d say the first half was kind of weak, but things got much better.

Bane runs an underground army that has plans to take over the city. The film is pretty vague about what Kyle has to do with this, letting the suspense build. Bruce Wayne’s transition back to Batman is a slow one, and one with genuine emotion, which is always nice to see. There’s a lot of emotion to this movie, and even more character development than the previous two films. Alfred and Wayne argue constantly over whether or not he should be Batman again, for instance.

There are some good action scenes in the first half and my favorite scene of the entire movie was probably Batman’s first appearance. It was following a stock exchange robbery and the reason why it worked so well (despite an out-of-left-field day to night transition) was because there had been action and crimes committed before that Batman did not come to. It made this one special. He’s of course wanted for the murder of Harvey Dent, so the police chase him and Bane gets away.

Bruce Wayne winds up losing just about everything and his relationship with Selina Kyle becomes more prominent in the film. She wants something that may or may not exist, and Wayne wants her to take him to Bane. He gets his wish and there’s our first Bane-Batman fight.

One thing I liked about this film is that Batman’s injuries seem to mean something, for once. In the previous film he wanted to have armor that protected him from dogs, but it was really not much more than a minor complaint he had. Here we see his pain and suffering and it has great effect on the film; he must overcome all this, gaining his strength from within all over again. It’s a good portion of the film, but to me, it’s far more interesting than the entire Batman Begins film, which was all about that.

While he’s recovering, all hell is turned loose on Gotham. It makes all of what the Joker did in The Dark Knight look like nothing more than a Sunday afternoon. Bane and his minions run the city, trapping the cops underground and keeping all outsiders out. This does unfortunately include the ridiculously stupid football scene, featuring for some reason the Pittsburgh Steelers as Gotham’s football team. The field blows up while Hines Ward returns a kick for a touchdown in what’s easily the worst scene of the film. I guess the only positive is that Ben Roethlisberger was killed and billions of women are now safe.

The police become an underground movement, more or less, which is one of the more interesting concepts of the film. It becomes like a futuristic dystopia film, and it’s fairly believable. It’s every bit as effective as The Dark Knight’s whole every cop but Jim Gordon is corrupt and working for the Joker universe.

This film made good use of its locations, as the previous two did in Chicago. Here, most of it was filmed in Pittsburgh, hence why the damn Steelers are playing in what is obviously Heinz Field. But since this is a much bigger film than the other two, it has plenty of shots of the skyline being more or less destroyed, what is obviously Manhattan. It all works well.

The final showdown once Batman is back reminded me a lot of the opening scene of Gangs of New York. It really didn’t disappoint, but then there was a twist that I didn’t really like. I know it’s keeping true to the comics and everything, but it felt like an excuse to throw in another climax, really. Like The Dark Knight, it has quite a lengthy climax that excites while it happens but leaves you kind of exhausted afterwards.

I’m not going to spoil anything, but I did notice a bunch of similarities to Charles Dickens’s novel A Tale of Two Cities. It’s not just that I’m a literature nerd; I’ve since read that it was a huge inspiration for the film. There’s a storming of a prison and release of its prisoners, there’s a character named Stryver, a bunch of characters who have a flawed view of justice, and the protagonist rising from a dark place to rescue those he cares about (not alcoholism this time, but that wouldn’t really work in a Batman movie).

So in conclusion, the movie was quite good, certainly a spectacle. It had its issues and I couldn’t help but notice that there wasn’t one moment that I totally loved. Yet when it was all done I thought it was a damn good movie. I’d give it a B+.

Moonrise Kingdom - A review

I'm going to come right out and say it: see Moonrise Kingdom; it's a great movie.

It's been praised by multiple critics as being the year's best, and it may very well be, thus far. It's a Wes Anderson film so it's naturally quirky, but also heartfelt, hilarious, and genuinely emotional.

This was actually my first Wes Anderson film and I wasn't sure what to expect. I knew it was supposed to be a good movie and all, but I wasn't sure if I could get over the whole whimsy thing. I hate quirkiness in general (if you know me well enough, you'll know Zooey Deschanel is my least favorite person on earth), but as long as it's not included for the sake of being quirky, it works. For instance, the themes involved here are young love and nostalgia, and the goofy sense of humor, without going over the top, serves the story well.

The story here takes place in a New England island in 1965, where a boy named Sam escapes from his khaki scout camp, and a girl, Suzy, escapes from her home. Their love extends back to about a year ago, where they briefly met each other and became penpals. The rest of the film is them living out in the wilderness and other memorable characters trying to find them. A policeman (Bruce Willis), the good-natured scoutmaster (Edward Norton), the lawyer parents of Suzy (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand). Even Social Services (Tilda Swinton) gets involved.

Now primarily this is a comedy film, and there are some great laugh-out-loud moments. It's really a character-driven story, and there are some great characters. I especially liked Edward Norton's character, and I found Bill Murray's performance to be great as well. But it's a serious film as well. It's actually a very interesting love story about how two somewhat emotionally-disturbed kids can find a relief from their troubles through love and nature. My favorite aspect of the film was how the two kids, flawed as their view of love may be, was far more pure than any of the adults'.

So I would definitely recommend it, though it's still not showing anywhere. It's both funny and heart-warming, and a shame that this is still awaiting a wide release as opposed to utter garbage like Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.

Bond Series - Part 2

Thunderball (1965)

Thunderball is another great Bond film, but it’s not quite as good as the two immediately preceding it. It’s a little over-the-top with its gadgets, including a jetpack, but it still has solid action and a compelling story.

SPECTRE is at it again, murdering people and stealing atomic bombs. Bond goes to the Bahamas after a great scene in a massage parlor of all places. There he meets the beautiful Domino Derval, SPECTRE agent Emilio Largo’s mistress. There’s some action, some shark attacks, etc.

The climax of the film is absolutely ridiculous but undeniably entertaining. It’s an underwater war with harpoons being shot through people.

Bond rating: 8/10

Bond girl (Domino Derval) rating: 7/10

Bond villain (Emilio Largo) rating: 8/10

Plot rating: 8/10

Action rating: 10/10

Song (“Thunderball” by Tom Jones) rating: 3/10

Overall rating: 7/10

You Only Live Twice (1967)

You Only Live Twice is a fairly large step-down for the franchise, though I wouldn’t call it bad. There are some excellent elements in the film that I love, but there are also some goofy moments.

As the title hints, James Bond fakes his own death, and then heads to Tokyo to investigate a missing spacecraft that the British believe was stolen by the Japanese. This is the first film in which we see Ernst Stavro Blofeld, and the look of him is great. Played by Donald Pleasence, he’s a bald and scar-faced man in a gray suit. He makes for the primary antagonist and an awfully good one.

What is completely random here is when Bond goes to a martial arts training facility. It seems so out of place in the series. It’s almost like you don’t really feel like you’re watching a James Bond movie with all these ridiculous things going on. To cap it off, the martial artists all attack Blofeld’s fortress (which looks great, by the way) at the end of the film with Bond. There is some decent action, but it all feels pretty fake.

Bond rating: 7/10

Bond girls (Aki and Kissy Suzuki) ratings: 5/10

Bond villain (Blofeld) rating: 10/10

Plot rating: 6/10

Action rating: 6/10

Song (“You Only Live Twice” by Nancy Sinatra): 6/10

Overall rating: 6/10

Bond Series - Part 1

JAMES BOND SERIES RECAP

I decided to rank elements out the film out of a maximum of 10. The Bond performance, main Bond girl, plot, action, song, and overall film will be graded.

Dr. No (1962)

The film that started it all starts with the famous theme song and someone who clearly isn’t Sean Connery shooting at the screen awkwardly. And then there’s an even more awkward scene, three supposedly blind people walking around with “3 Blind Mice” playing, and then assassinating some people.

So James Bond is on the case, and he travels to the Caribbean, meeting the beautiful Ursula Andress along the way.

This establishes what would become formula quite well. Exotic locations, a quest of discovery with a doomsday plot revealed, beautiful and mysterious women (preferably with double-entendre names), and Bond sidekicks being killed off. By no means is it the best in the series, as it’s kind of boring and modern audiences will find it far too slow. There are still some great moments, however. The Honey Rider reveal scene is a classic, and there are some great moments involving enemy assassins early on and in the middle of the film. Once Bond meets up with the main villain, Dr. No, the film gets a little weird.

My biggest argument against this film is that it has aged poorly. It’s slow, not too violent at all, and at the end of the day, it’s more or less a sci-fi film.

Bond rating: 10/10

Bond girl (Honey Rider) rating: 10/10

Bond villain (Dr. No) rating: 8/10

Plot rating: 6/10

Action rating: 4/10

Song (“James Bond Theme” by John Barry) rating: 10/10

Overall: 6/10

From Russia with Love (1963)

From Russia with Love is a big step up in the franchise. It’s fast paced and action packed, and also quite a serious film. It’s probably the most serious one before Casino Royale, not letting things like gadgets and one-liners get in the way. In fact, there’s only one gadget, and it’s hardly even one.

This film establishes SPECTRE and the unseen Ernst Stavro Blofeld as Bond’s arch-enemy, having them steal a cryptograph from the Soviets. Hideously ugly SPECTRE agent Rosa Klebb is in charge of killing Bond, exacting revenge for the events in the previous film. She hires assassin Red Grant (Robert Shaw) to get the job done.

There is some great action in this film. The fight on the Orient Express between Bond and Grant may very well be my favorite action sequence in the series, and there’s also a great boat chase, among others. It also brings the Bond Girl Tatiana Romanova into the mix as an object of love for Bond, as well as a sworn enemy, making for some good suspense and drama. Overall this is easily one of the best of the series.

Bond rating: 9/10

Bond girl (Tatiana Romanova) rating: 8/10

Bond villain (Red Grant) rating: 8/10

Plot rating: 9/10

Action rating: 9/10

Song (“From Russia with Love” by Matt Munro): 5/10

Overall: 8/10

Goldfinger (1964)

This is said by many to be the best of the series. Why? It’s got some great action, a memorable villain, Bond girl, and henchman, and it’s got gadgets without being too silly. Dr. No was silly without really trying to be, Russia was ultra-serious, and this finds the balance between the two.

At the heart of the story is Auric Goldfinger, a mysterious businessman with a passion for gold, and who seems to be behind the horrible gold-paint death of Jill Masterson. But it all begins with an action sequence to start the film that has nothing to do with the actual plot; this would continue in the series, and it’s rarely done better than this one.

Some of the best scenes come early. The golf scene between Bond and Goldfinger is surprisingly awesome, and introduces the henchman Oddjob beautifully. There’s also the series’ first great car chase, and a memorable scene of Bond meeting a pilot named Pussy Galore.

Once the plot kicks in, it’s revealed that Goldfinger wants to ruin the world’s economy by destroying Fort Knox. You could complain about it being cheesy, but for some reason, it really works for me, being one of the most compelling plots in the series. I think the biggest reason is the villain, played by Gert Frobe. He’s so interesting. And Connery is as good as ever.

The climax leads to a wonderful fight between Bond and Oddjob, which had been foreshadowed from almost the beginning. The post-climax part of the film is an exciting action sequence for sure, but suffers from outdated special effects.

Bond rating: 10/10

Bond girl (Pussy Galore) rating: 9/10

Bond villain (Auric Goldfinger) rating: 10/10

Plot rating: 10/10

Action rating: 9/10

Song (“Goldfinger” by Shirley Bassey): 10/10

Overall rating: 8/10