by Brian Kesler
Damn this movie. Damn it straight to hell. Damn every last bit of insufferable dialogue falling from the wooden lips of every last marionette on the ugly, calamitous screen. Damn its director and damn the screenwriters for raping the cold corpse of Alexandre Dumas and laughing as they do so.
First, why do we need another 'The Three Musketeers?' Because it's a recognizable name that will draw in the crowds as long as it's advertised with words like "As You've Never Seen It Before!" which euphemistically means "Not the classic you grew up with." There is enough new material here that, with a few plot changes, we could call this an "original" idea. Why can't we do that? I've said this before, but that's what best-selling novelists do. They take inspiration from classic novels, plays, poems, etc. all the time, introducing new ideas and removing some indicative plot-points, passing it off as their own. I would much rather prefer that. I really would. There's an entirely new plot development here involving flying pirate ships. Why can't we make this a pirate movie? Change the cardinal to the King's adviser, remove two of the musketeers (they're pointless here), remove the whole bit about the necklace, etc. Add a treasure hidden in the sky, maybe. Make it a race between France and England to find it. Steampunk the whole thing, rather than bits and pieces. With those few changes you suddenly have an "original" story that simply takes inspiration from the Dumas serial and doesn't make us defensive of the poorly departed writer.
Second, if I have to listen to characters talk, I'd like for them to say something interesting. Crazy suggestion, I know, but when I hear the maniacal, guffawing villain say something like, "Well, well, well ..." or "What do we have here?" or any other such banal shibboleth, it makes my eyes swell and my jaw drop and my voice screech piercingly until I'm like Roger Rabbit during a drinking binge. I hate talking head movies. Why is there so much dialogue when half of it is utterly useless and the other half is forced? I'm just watching a bunch of heads flapping.
Third: Action, special effects, set design, costume design, quick editing ... None of that fools me into thinking this movie is imaginative in any way. Crashing a flying pirate ship into the Notre Dame de Paris and proceeding to a poorly choreographed sword fight on the rooftop, given the characters, story, and situation, is not imaginative. It's thinking outside the box, sure. But, sometimes the box is a good place to be.
Anderson likes to be show-offy with his camera and with the action, which weakens the film. It draws attention away from the story. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the presence of the director. Look at Stanley Kubrick, or Orson Welles. What's the first thing you think of when I say Kubrick? Wide-angle lenses being used on close-up shots. He is a show-offy director and has the gall to invade the story for a little bit of, "Hey, this is a movie, you know, and I chose this camera angle to make you go, 'Wow, sweet camera angle.'" Whatever, I'm all for that. But, when it's all that and nothing of anything else ... what's the point? At least 'A Clockwork Orange' had a central character with something witty to say. At least 'The Shining' was an involving psychological study. At least '2001: A Space Odyssey,' through its lack of great characters, had a philosophical objective. Come on! This is a plot driven film. Pace it. It has the same sequence of events as the novel, yet it seems completely disorganized. That's called bad editing.
This movie is trying to be so many things at once. Think 'The Matrix,' mixed with 'Raiders of the Lost Ark,' mixed with 'Mission Impossible,' mixed with 'Pirates of the Caribbean,' and this is it. It's like combining a whole bunch of colors and ending up with a shitty brown-green. And whatever happened to great sword fights? I'll tell you what happened: 'The Phantom Menace.' Yup, ever since that outrageously over-choreographed duel between Maul, Obi-Wan, and Quigon, sword dueling in movies has been about flashy moves that show obvious choreography. The two greatest sword fights of all time are the climax in 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' with Errol Flynn and Basil Rathborne, and the Darth Vader/Luke Skywalker laser-duel in 'The Empire Strikes Back.' Both examples work so well, not because of the choreography, but because we've invested ourselves in these characters. There's a sense of urgency, because these villains are more than an equal match for our protagonist. They don't utilize quick cutting. In fact, they both have long shots, many of them slow-panning. 'The Empire Strikes Back' doesn't even have a score in this sequence. The tension is built entirely on the actors' performances: their eyes, their body language, their emotional commitment. That is what makes a great sword fight. Not this shit.
No comments:
Post a Comment