Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters Review...sorta

If you can review a film after watching 15 minutes, 20 max.

What was wrong?  Gods know.....  It's not like it didn't have potential.  There's quirky bits and quasi anachronisms:  repeating crossbows, rifle bored revolvers centuries before the Napoleonic wars, a geeky fan boy making a comic of our heroes on parchment...  Played right, in the right hands, this would have been a fun, action packed, adventure/horror romp.  Instead it was a plodding...something.  Revenge film?   Medieval sorta super hero Avengers?

It opens with a variation of the story we're familiar with, the kids being dumped in the woods  by the apparently heartless dad.(It will not surprise me if this is a twist all la he did it to protect them or some such, if I'd had the fortitude to watch to the end), After surviving their encounter and dispatching the witch, we fast forward, with the help of nifty woodcut inspired animation, to the present where Hans and Gret are all grown up ass kicking witch killers.

Let's be clear to pagan folk, in exactly the way the move wasn't:  the witches aren't actually human.  Even though they all appear to be female, and for reasons never quite explained, want to kidnap/kill human children.  They aren't aliens.  They are evil faerie folk, which would have some legendary basis.   It doesn't appear the writers know what they are, or haven't told the audience in the first 15 minutes, not even when G and H are explaining things to the mayor(deputy mayor?) who hired them.  This is usually where the info dump comes.  So there's just this  random threat of nasty looking women(demons?), with magical powers who can't think of anything to do with them except kidnap/kill/eat kids.  Uh huh.     

And they're all hideous.  The one woman G and H rescue from being mistaken for a witch and about to be executed by mob, is, of course, pretty.  Hmmm.  Not picking that one up....

I wasn't looking for the depth of the Lord of the Rings here.  A light engaging action film would have been fine.  But even shallow films need to emotionally connect with the audience.  Except for the misguided amateurs who got slaughtered, I wasn't connecting with anyone.   H?  Nothing wrong with him, just a bit wooden.  G? Nothing wrong with her; again just a bit wooden, though not as much as H.  That could have been fine if that was their public faces and we got a more intimate view of them in private:  how their anger at being abandoned affected them, their personal goals, etc.  Neither appear to have children, a bit odd given the time period, human nature and the lack of contraceptives. 
In fact that's probably the most glaring omission in a film whose plot is about these heroes who save kids from witches: where are the children?  Any children?  The tearful reunions of the rescued? In the crowd scenes?  

I watched the movie 5 minutes longer than I wanted to, trying to figure out why it was so bad.  And the answer is it has the emotional range of a turnip.   What they are fighting, how they are fighting is presented, maybe over presented.  What they are fighting for  isn't:  safe communities, a country and people they care for, the honor, gratitude, and yes, money, or the masses.  A couple of panoramic vistas of where they were:  tall alpine mountains of Grimm legend in the background would have done wonders for setting the tone and giving the experience depth even without changing the characters as written.

Alas.  Maybe they couldn't afford it.  All I wanted was a  light film to pass the time while I ate dinner.  I wasn't planning to write a review.   At least I didn't pay for it.

Once Upon a Time: The Cricket Game Review

I always know when people lie...
but the writers forgot so this might get messy...

I've been enjoying Once Upon a Time since I discovered a reference to it via my interest in Fables.

Initially I was wroth..

."Who are these people what dare to make a TV series about Fairytale Characters in the Real World and not adapt Fables to the screen?  Grr...I suspect dishonorable motives!"

Which might still be true on the part of the executives, but I've been won over by the producers and writers who swear up and down they knew nothing of Willingham's work.  I could believe this--I've written things for years cloistered from the fan community.  However I reserve judgement about the executives who I have a hard time believing would take a chance on a fantasy property without knowing there is a fanbase for this theme AND knowing who built it.  So thank you Willingham for making Once Upon A Time possible as a TV series.

SPOILERS.

The series centers on character from well known fairytales: Snow White, The Evil Queen(Regina), Red Ridding Hood, Rumpelstiltskin, Beauty(Belle), Prince Charming and others.  Because Regina has never gotten over Snow White beating her out  in the Fairytale Fairest of Them All Competition--plus Snow accidentally getting Regina's BF killed when she was a kid, oops--Regina finally has her revenge by destroying the Homelands(Willingham's phraseology) and sending everyone to A World Without Magic aka a World with No Happy Endings, aka a picturesque  fictitious town on the east coast called  Storybrook.  It's not too miserable(Regina has to live there), except no one knows who they are with the exception of Regina, and we later find Rumpelstiltskin(Mr. Gold). Everyone happily lives as muggles, except Henry, Regina's adopted son who knows the Truth and sets out to find his real mum, Emma Swan,  a bailbond/bounty hunter who has the ability to know when someone is lying.  Henry is also convinced she is the Hero who will save the town.  This forms the story arc of the first series which is well done.  I eagerly looked forward to the second Season.

The second season started out solid, picking up after everyone remembers who they are.  Karma's a bitch, chickens come home to roost, and new developments arise.  Then the series takes a risk with Regina pulling an Angel , seeking redemption.  This can be tedious in the hands of the best writers.  Unwatchable in the hands of incompetent or naive writers.  Even Joss Whedon and Co, writing Angel and Buffy in my opinion averaged okay with the redemption themes.   And Regina doesn't have Angel's excuse of actually being a different person(Angelus) from the one who did all those horrid things.

There is a way to deal with this, properly deal with it: Regina can say she wants to be Good, but she has to allow people will suspect her motives.  Furthermore, she must allow some people will take years before they believe it, and, even if it's true, some people will NEVER forgive her.  And she has to have the sober humility to accept that they have a right to do that and she will have to live with it for the rest of her life.

This is how it is is reality, but is almost never done in TV.   Writers, producers or someone in the process is uncomfortable with Good characters failing to forgive all but the worst monsters. Hollywood culture has some very wooly thinking going on.  Or perhaps they're uncomfortable with hard truths in a contemporary setting.  I saw this in Buffy the year(Fifth Season) they pulled out of their asses that 'the Slayer never kills humans'.

Bollox.  (Warning fan mini rant ahead)

Patrice, the assassin from the Order of Taraka was killed in the fracas with Kendra the Slayer.

Buffy kicked numerous Knights of Byzantium of the top of the caravan, and they were nominally good guys!  What do you think is going to happen to someone falling off the top of a moving caravan, weighed down with armor, with no helmet?  The Slayer never kills humans except accidentally?  Didn't they give Faith a ton of grief about that?   And it's completely contradicted by the story of Sonnenblume, the slayer who operated during Nazi Germany.  The Slayer only kills humans if they're Nazis?

The probable real reason 'the Slayer never kills humans' bollox was invented is the culture was uncomfortable writing stories where a  contemporary young woman could use lethal force on humans and not be accountable by the legal system.  This wouldn't have been a problem in a historical setting.  It also wouldn't have been a problem if the hero was a young man.   Human's were turned into mincemeat all the time in Highlander..in the modern world.   It was like some executive was trying to reframe our experience of Buffy, make the powerful young woman culturally "safer".

These are the same people(in the industry generally, not the Buffy producers) who I'm now to trust with an emotionally believable redemption of the Evil Queen, when so far all they've given us is, "I want to be good to impress Henry."  Excuse me while I reserve judgment.

Back to this Once Upon a Time episode...I don't suspect cowardly executive meddling so much as sloppy writing.  Everything was going okay...the redemption theme was handled unevenly(close ups of hurt Regina...please.  She was the EVIL Queen.  Grin and bear it or leave gracefully, woman)..and now someone has handed the writers the idiot ball...

MORE SPOILERS

I'll try to be brief.  There was a murder.  The viewer knows it's Cora, Regina's Mommy Dearest, shaping up to be this season's Big Bad.  Because Cora is a twisted bitch, she kills disguised as Regina hoping to frame her and drive her back into mummy's arms.   So far , fine.  When Regina is questioned by the sheriff, Emma, who has the ability to know when someone is lying.  But Emma doesn't use this talent, instead relying on Regina's reactions, which are spot on for an innocent person.

But that's not the point.  Regina is on social "probation"; considering her past, it is unreasonable to rely on her reactions which could be faked.   So just using Emma's lie detector superpower, we can KNOW Regina is innocent and everything else is a frame.   But the writers forgot EMMA KNOWS WHEN PEOPLE ARE LYING.  It's on her abc page people:

http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/once-upon-a-time/bios/emma-swan

Emma Swan

Played by Jennifer Morrison

Emma 101
- Daughter of Snow White and Prince Charming

- Biological mother of Henry

- Broke The Dark Curse

- Skeptical; knows when people lie

This was  a plot point early in season two between Emma and Hook.  Even AV Club..whose views I don't always agree with, but are generally astute observers... let this slide in their review:

Ruby tells Emma about the day before and Regina is brought into custody, but while Snow and Charming are certain of Regina’s guilt, Emma believes her when she says she’s innocent. Surely there’s some kind of truth spell they could use on Regina to find out if she’s lying, but magic is only used when it’s convenient on this show.

Italics mine.  They don't need a truth spell.  They have Emma, who's inherent power is knowing if someone's lying.  The writers or production crew got inexcusably sloppy.  And I will not spin some fanwank benefit of the doubt rubbish to help them save face.

I was holding out to the end of the EP, hoping for a twist, but only more idiot balls:  Regina reactively defends herself against a binding spell, and that's PROOF she's not serious about quitting magic.  Uh huh.  And I suppose picking up a bottle in a bar brawl is PROOF you've been drinking.  Okay, not the best metaphor(a person quitting drinking is unlikely to be in a bar)... but what was she supposed to do?  She can't turn off two decades of magical combat training overnight.

Sloppy writing can be the sign of impending doom.  If someone isn't watching continuity, someone isn't giving the show the resources it needs to succeed.  I will still watch it and hope for the best, but do so with my expectations lowered.

The Hobbit: The Unexpectedly Good Film

 B+  or Exceeds Expectations

I had some doubts.  Skimmed a couple of reviews from "the very good but" to meh variety.  Friends of mine have sworn it off in protest..at least until it hits the second run beer theatres.  I shared their doubts that one book should be stretched to three movies.  But I gave Jackson the benefit of the doubt since he was approaching it as a prelude to the War of the Ring.  Because in another lifetime I felt I was the biggest Tolkien geek on the planet.

How big?  I know dug up the names of the two blue wizards,( Alatar and Pallando) back in the early '90's when you had to comb through The Unfinished Tales and the Lost Tales for such rare gems of geek knowledge no one else outside fandom would care about.  So, being familiar with the events concurrent with "There and Back Again",  I don't think Jackson's reasoning behind "stretching" the book into three movies is flawed.  "The Hobbit" is part of the War of the Ring, a cold war before Sauron revealed himself.  That's why Gandalf was always haring off, trusting the dwarves to their own devices for weeks at a time.  He had to work with the White Council and deal with the Sorcerer, who turned out to be Sauron testing the waters, and this is happening at the time of Bilbo's adventure.

But I also respect the criticisms; The Hobbit could have been a perfectly serviceable single movie, following the story as written.  Expanding it was a risk, it could have easily have become bloated and unwatchable.  I am happy to report it is neither and I'm finding myself enjoying it in some ways more than the LOTR trilogy films.  Of course, it's not over yet.  Two more films to go.  I confess, after rereading the Hobbit recently, I can understand getting two films from the material;  three I'm dubious about but let's hope all's well that end's better!

Spoilers Imminent:  You have been Warned

I was prepared for a substandard film and just surrendered myself to the idea I would enjoy it even if annoying liberties had been taken with the source material, a la Faramir tempted by the Ring(I still find that bit hard to watch in The Two Towers).  As it was the only truly silly bit is the rabbit sled (don't ask).

Highlights:

Radagast: inspired performance by Sylvester McCoy(that funny noise is a Type 40 taking off.  He is a VERY great wizard.)

Saruman: Christopher Lee's performance as the arrogant condescending Istari POS is always enjoyable, especially chuntering under his breath about what a disgrace Radagast is to the Order.
Galadriel telling him to STFU(you know, nicely) is equally enjoyable.  Lee is a big Tolkien geek himself and will correct your Middle Earth grammar at a drop of a hat BTW.

Gollum: our favorite Middle Earth nutcase returns.  Serkis is clearly having fun.

Smaug: taking a page from the first Jaws movie, Jackson only shows us hints of Smaug:  thundering feet, an eye, and of course FIRE.  It's more effective and conveying Smaug's size and terror than showing him full size.

Wargs: finally done properly.  Sorry, the wargs in the LOTR films looked like hyenas or sabertoothed tigers without the teeth.  Or half wolf bear things.  Seriously, wtf?

Thranduil:  OutFrackingStanding.  Especially on an Irish Elk(Megaloceros giganteus).  So cool, words escape me so I'll let a pic do the trick:

Not in source material but too cool to care

Thranduil is cast well, not just as a hot elf, but as Legolas' daddy:

Dwarves: the biggest and most ambivalent surprise personally .   Remember Gimli from the first films?  Of course you do:

Gimli was perfect as a dwarf.  He matched the source material and fan expectations:stout, stocky, strong, long beard, craggy features.  The dwarves in The Hobbit film...vary.   Half of them fit this description.   Another couple are acceptable variations.  But  Fili, and Kili (and to a lesser extent Thorin Oakenshield) are downright elven svelt, even pretty..nay I say hot... for dwarves:

Dwarves

Thorin Oakenshield

Who does hot dwarves? Seriously, Thorin looks like a burly Aragon, compare:

Aragorn

And the weird thing is...this isn't bothering me.  Or effecting how I imagine the dwarves in the book(still with long beards, etc).  It's like a religious experience: I can enjoy the book and film as two separate things and they're not getting in each others way.

This might not work for everyone, but it's working for me, and I eagerly await the next installment.

Music: Outstanding. Was pleased to hear the main LOTR theme used to set the film's mood.  I was mildly anxious someone would do something weird and recompose the entire theme, breaking the musical continuity.  I'm pleased to report my fears were unfounded.

Finally note: most showings are in 3D.  I saw it in 2D, like a normal person.   From discussions with people, it's possible 3D, while being excellent as an FX enhancer, is getting in the way of feeling the story.  And there is a good story here.

If you chose to see The Hobbit, happy adventuring.

Favorite Film Quotes:

[In Bagend]

Gandalf to Bilbo: “The world is not in your books and maps, it's out there."

[Rivendell ]

 Galadiel: Why the Hafling?
 Gandalf:  Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love.

Galu!

Chinese Tax Dollars at work.....

Too funny for words:

Sex Doll Saved From Drowning By 18 Cops

The doll could not be reached for comment.

The phrase "inflated body count' took on new meaning for 18 cops in China's Shandong Province who worked together to save a sex doll they thought was a drowning woman.

The incident happened July 11 when officers responded to a report that there was a lady in distress in one of the province's rivers. The crew worked frantically for nearly an hour to rescue the woman, according to Digital Journal, and in the process, attracted a crowd of about 1,000 curious, excited and anxious spectators to the scene.
It took more than 40 minutes before the officers were able to recover the pleasure toy.
After confirming that they had indeed run around in a panic for nearly an hour over trying to rescue someone’s blow-up girlfriend, the police presented it to the anxious crowd, who quickly covered their children’s eyes and walked away, according to RocketNews24.com
No word on how the sex doll got in the river in the first place, but the Times of India reports that Shandong is an important center for producing sex toys in China and supplies them across the globe.

 Comments vary from the obvious, the brilliant and the tasteless,  dominated by a combination of all three:

HufferDave87

Give me the facts, then I'll decide...

56 Fans

04:14 PM on 07/24/2012

I find it incredibly amusing that these people took their children with them to see what was most likely a dead body being fished out of the water, but once it turned out to be a blowup sex doll (which, not to mention, isn't exactly anatomically correct explicit anyway), they THEN felt the need to cover their children's eyes.

Sableknows

Button Pusher

374 Fans

04:57 PM on 07/24/2012

She was obviously well loved. Rest in pieces. 

 

 

NTodd

69 Fans

05:08 PM on 07/24/2012

I think "saved" is the wrong word...look at her condition! 

 

 

HUFFPOST SUPER USER

JAV06

61 Fans

07:10 PM on 07/24/2012

they'll have to put her down..... 

 

 

HUFFPOST SUPER USER

rocknhula

Not all who wonder are lost

183 Fans

03:36 PM on 07/24/2012

Hey! This sets the stage for a whole new reality show, "Chinese Keystone Cops." 

 

 

HUFFPOST SUPER USER

southboundcowboy

Think for your self.

72 Fans

03:26 PM on 07/24/2012

All Chinese police officer's are now required to carry tire patch kits. LOL 

 

 

Mike in San Pedro

209 Fans

03:16 PM on 07/24/2012

From the looks of it, the doll didn't survive, but her companion is recovering in a psychiatric facility.

SkyOfBlue1

10 Fans

02:18 PM on 07/24/2012

Why isn't the doll Chinese? 

 

 

i the ys

eternity takes no time at all

659 Fans

02:50 PM on 07/24/2012

It's for export. 

 

BBlaw16

It just. Doesn't. Matter.

48 Fans

02:55 PM on 07/24/2012

Clearly a kidnapped sex slave from the Americas. 

And then someone gets serious:

 

hculliton

Match bearings and shoot!

471 Fans

02:14 PM on 07/24/2012

For all the folks laughing, if the police, fire dept, ect, respond to an emergency call for a person drowning, as a father, I really want them giving 110% every time. Even if it turns out to be a blow-up doll. The fools in this story aren't the rescuers.

 

 He's right.  They should give 110% because you never know...it could have been a person.  Or a dog. Or a dolphin.  Or a tire. Or a plastic bag.

Seriously, though one of the "rescuers" could have died.   But they didn't.  And it's still freaking funny.   I was up all night laughing at comments.  

This wasn't the first wacky misunderstanding in China this week.  Villagers went the extra mile to "save" a "rare mushroom", with hilarious results.

Harry Freaking Potter on the bus...

It was last Tuesday.  Or possibly Wednesday.  One of those days with "day" in it.  I'm riding the bus to a friend's house whilst behind me I'm being regaled by a couple of college nerds talking about everything under the sun.

They're vocal, but oddly not intrusive; much of it is quite interesting: their classes, their favorite this and that, books, movies, whatever.   It's a bit like conversational white nosie.

Then I hear the word Gryphindor Gryffindor.  Which I apparently forgot how to spell.

She's explaining to him that "these are Gryffindor colors".   Being a Potter nerd, my ears perk up to follow the conversation closer as she explains her reference.

Then he does it.  He says the Unclean Word.   The Blasphemy:

"Oh yeah, I'm not really into that Harry Potter, Twilight kinda stuff."

I stiffen.  Unbeknowest to me, the woman sitting next to me, who I've never met in my life, stiffens as well.  As the young woman politely but firmly corrects her companion about confusing Harry Potter and Twilight, the woman and I turn as one to face the Blasphemer and echo the rebuke:

"Harry Potter has nothing to do with Twilight."

A hearty laugh was had by all.  

True story; exact details may be lost to memory...apologies in advance to all involved.

The casual reader might suspect I'm unimpressed with Twilight...they would be correct.

Young men vs. Old men in the locker room...

A gym buddy told me about this hilarious cartoon; not hard to find online:

Young men swear this is true! 

From: http://coltmonday.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/old-guys-vs-young-guys-in-the-gym-locker-room/