Change Your Image
djurannikola
Reviews
Virgin Territory (2007)
Loving the movie for what it is
If you're looking for an artistic depth, or even a semi-entertaining thriller, the "Virgin Territory" is not the right title, but then, at least as I see it,measuring up to the movies of the type is not the movie's idea. This is to be watched for the sake of lighthearted fun, Friday-night romance with your partner with a glass of wine, and, in general, a tint of "letting it loose". To be sure, more often than not the humor is failed and forced but I felt entertained by the gratuitous rascally nature of the characters, especially the men, rather than by the very jokes. Hayden Christensen, for the story he dealt with, was amusing and charming, if at times kinda bored. I assume neither he nor I were sure whatever he was playing - a chivalrous, rowdy medieval hero, or a clownish, immature "Anti- Romeo" - but the overall air of buffoonery he exuded kept my attention.
Of course, the additional reason - for which I dare believe practically all of us (men) who watched the movie - is the erotica. There is a number of nude scenes in which the women (again, in an uninvited and absurd, but still all the more entertaining way) treat men with their bodily assets. Gensini's and Colloca's behinds were a hypnotizing watch, but I hated how the scene I consider to be the real gem of the movie's nudity, the one with Elisabetta Canalis (herself a professional nude model from back in 2003) lasts too short (we get to see the breast for like a 20th of a second, practically making the exposure redundant). Oh well, there's always the "pause" button...
So, yes, enjoy the movie for the sake of semi-funny but melodramatically fulfilling romance and kill-time soft-core porn (I have a random hypothesis the latter was, in the long run, the actual motive this movie was produced - hence the lackluster "comedy" and "thriller" departments).
King Kong (2005)
Brilliant movie,
I rather enjoyed the movie for what it is. I don't get what the fuss is about, nor the '7.3' grade? Kong is depicted much less as a monster (while 'monster movie' genre has to be as filled with grotesque fantasy creatures as possible, at least some of those creatures don't necessarily have to be monstrous 'on the inside' as well) and with more sentiments, invoked within him when he meets a gentle female human. Sure, humans (Denham and his crew) were presented as cruel and immoral, but it is also thanks to a human (Ann Darrow) that Kong went through a transformation from a mere monster to a gentle, caring guardian of nature and a martyr of the crew's predator-like villainy as well as of bourgeois, anthropocentric sensation-hungry New York society.
I didn't give it 10 stars firstly due to its exaggerated length, as I believe a relatively concise story, as in the case of Kong, can be told in less time. The Skull Island definitely had its irreplaceable moments of interest but I felt as if plenty of them were merely 'space-fillers'. In attempt to bring on as many exotic depictions of its mysterious fauna as possible, they occasionally didn't pay much attention to logic: e.g. a herd of, what, twenty or so Brontosauruses running from several Venatosauruses; three giant Vastatosauruses engage in a desperate fight with Kong to devour Ann who is hardly enough of a food to even one V-rex; Jimmy shoots the Wetas away from Driscoll but doesn't hit him with a single bullet... and I'd name a few more events, which I can't recall right now. The movie sometimes "boasts" with exoticism and knowledge on paleozoology when really it would have fared better if it exposed less of mere imagery of the Skull Island and more of story and logic.
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
An enjoyable drama of medieval chivalry, sacrifice and asceticism
Different from historical truth as it was, I thought it a likable movie. Its romantic element somewhat bugs me: Balian first yields to his "love"(I took it he kinda loved her, anyway) and passion to Sibylla, yet afterward refuses to reign alongside her because he sees it as dishonest to reach the crown and the woman he loves at the cost of the death of Guy - who is his fiercest enemy, a more vile one than Saladin, in fact. While I generally praised Balian for his exposed maturity, sacrifice and, restraint, I felt his sudden "saintly" image affected his relationship with other characters in a progressively dulling way: not only was I not sure what exactly he felt for Sibylla but what he felt for Guy and Saladin. I'd say there was a quaint connection between Balian and the late leper king whom he befriended (and whom I consider to be the most elegant, truly regal figure of the movie). While Baldwin IV still held Jerusalem, all other characters, including Balian, appeared appealing, vivid, and dynamic. His death indirectly made Balian's further behavior and actions desperately bland, as if Balian did his best to rely on himself after losing Baldwin's support, but with not much of a success. And, chivalrous as he previously proved to be, I still failed to understand why did the crowd of Jerusalem unanimously accept him as their new ruler.
The villains are conceived well enough, especially Guy, my only objection regarding his dubious aftermath when Balian bests him in a sword fight. I think his last appearance should have been the donkey-humiliation by the Saracens. Raynald of Chatillon did not come across as a charismatic villain. Gleeson is evidently as inspired as he could be, but perhaps it's the wrong choice of actor. The characters Gleeson portrays are usually all bumbling, boisterous, thuggish and unrefined. I imagined Raynald as a typically sly and cunning, "l'eminence grise" henchman who relies less on brute killings and more on intellectually designing and inspiring them. I also attributed the necessity of portraying Raynald as more sophisticated to the fact that he was the father of the Hungarian Queen Agnes (and, through her, an ancestor of a whole lot of European monarchs and nobles). Then again, I just may not be regarding medieval "non-romantically" enough.
The epilogue of the siege is fine. I actually thought Saladin made me like the assaulting Saracen party better than the defensive Jerusalem party. For one, Muslims are not portrayed as genocidal monsters (could it be the effect of the aura of an unusually benevolent Arab leader, Saladin, the opposite of an otherwise standard vile Arab leader?).
That said, Saladin's image, in a way, outshone Balian's for me. Balian simply fades away into obscurity with Sibylla (did she eventually become his wife, or what?), and then, all anew, follows King Richard into a new Jerusalem tour. I just never get it straight whether he is to be regarded in a warrior/ hero or a semi-saintly context. I definitely found him to be a worthy, exciting protagonist, but most of my confusion over the general theme of the movie was the result of his ambiguous character and prospects. In the long run, perhaps he was simply meant to combine both elements. However, I yet need to re-watch this movie once or a few other times more to judge how effective that fusion was.
Sleeping Beauty (2014)
I wouldn't judge it too harshly
I'm guessing Casper, having been excited with the experience of working at Mortal Kombat franchise for the first time, decided to make a semi-'Mortal Kombatish' movie, of which he thought it would kinda be appealing both to kids (the adolescents anyway) and the adults. That said, the movie might have even worked had it been made in the late 80's/ early to mid '90s period, but at this era, it's just all too outdated, shallow and one-dimensional. Plus, the teenage girl-like fairies, sleeping princesses and daffy impostor-princes on one side and the gory scenes of head-ripping on the other side... well, don't actually go hand in hand.
I also fail to get it why Casper every so often has to cast his family into the movies he chooses to play in. Catherine, with all the due respect for her pedigree, isn't much of an actress, neither is Grace. Maya's acting was the family's saving grace, as she managed to yield the genuine impression of a frightened, and depressed, yet wickedly cunning little character... but then, the overall sluggish and uninspired aura of the movie didn't help her qualities shine through. While I envision Maya as a potential successful actress, she needs to get herself out of the poor production cinema. Unlike her mother, she actually does, if only in a form of hope, make me believe she is up to the high-rated, classic productions. The Sleeping Beauty is but the beginning, and she is young enough to perfect her talents and career to the level she is worthy of.
Someone on the discussion board was wondering why Finn Jones accepted to do the role. Maybe the crew, who sensed in the preproduction the movie would suck, thought a high class young actor would come up as a saving grace, just as they though Michael York's narration would yield the story as thrilling or at least bearable.
Generally, an averagely endearing pastime of a movie, but hardly something to be remembered, either among the critics or the audience.