Game of Thrones

I usually avoid writing about series ... actually since quite some time I don't really have what to write about because I don't have the time to watch any. But to get back to my first sentence, the reason for I'm avoiding writing about series is that I don't know how "valid" my writing will be on the next season. So, if I write, I prefer doing it after the series end. And after the series end, it usually happens that I'm not anymore so .. thrilled about what I was watching therefore .. I'm not writing. Obviously there are some exceptions, like "Farscape" for instance. So, even if it doesn't really get on par with "Farscape" ( but for me actually nothing gets at that level which was set and fixed long ago :) ), I said to risk this time and to say some stuff about "Game of Thrones" because the first season seemed very promising.

Except "Stardust" it doesn't come into my mind now anything from the bunch of fantasies made after "Lord of the Rings" to be above a certain level. So, even if we're talking about a series here, considering the lack of good movies on this area, I'm gonna allow myself to consider "Game of Thrones" the 2nd fantasy that worth mentioning from the ones that premiered after LotR. Anyway, each of the three is a different genre in the end. LotR can be categorized as the classic type (especially considering the importance in the literature of the genre). "Stardust" is a little jewel by Neil Gaiman that managed to combine lots of stuff in the same movie in a fantasy setting and managed to get it coherent, watchable and appropriate and appealing for almost any age and any person. "Game of Thrones" is, at least after the first season, more like a medieval thriller than a fantasy. Even if you know that you have sufficient elements of fantasy somewhere, they're not that visible .. and it's mostly because you don't really have the "magic factor" ( apparently it will be more in the next seasons ). You can actually consider it like some middle age setting, in a context where some ruling clans are involved with or without their own will in a bunch of intrigues having an apparent final point in getting the throne of the land. And to this setting is added also a supernatural threat from the far north which will come .. and will come .. and will come .. and (spoiler) in the first season it doesn't come anymore, but it's still one of the elements that beside the rest keeps your eyes bound to the screen.

It's complicated to tell more from the subject, I don't really think it's a good idea, because all the charm is almost in the twists and turns that are going on through the series. And as a difference from many other series where when a new subplot is introduced in the action is pretty much because the screenwriters didn't have a clue about where the story goes when they started writing and they have to come up with a new idea, here everything fits together perfectly. Of course, the main reason for this is the fact that we don't have an original scenario. It's an adaptation after the first volume of the (up till now) four written by George R. R. Martin. Well, I won't exaggerate however in praising it because it's definitely not the best scenario I've seen, in the sense that it does have lots of cliches but these are usually covered by let's say the "heat of the moment" = if the action really catches your attention, you won't observe many of them. And usually it does catch your attention.

The production level is excellent despite the fact that you won't see much effects as you would expect from a fantasy. The cast doesn't have many big names in it, but it is quite good as it is, and I would say even more - that it's one of the best series casts I've ever seen. Even if I didn't read the book, if somebody would ask me now to pick one actor for one of the roles I wouldn't hesitate to pick the same one I've seen, even for the smallest parts. Visually is nice due to the location variety, of the set decoration, etc, but I wouldn't say that's really a masterpiece. As sound however I enjoyed it a lot ( or maybe it's the impression made by the intro tune, even so .. :) ).

What else to say ... To make a comparison to other production released by HBO I would pick "Rome". You have pretty much the same level of violence, sex, action and all the other stuff that makes it almost rated R. But besides these you also have a subject that keeps you eager and waiting to watch the next episode which doesn't happen to many series. Unfortunately the second season will be released not earlier than the next year :) ... And as I don't really know if it will keep the same level (although the last episode of the first definitely shows some promise) I'm not going to give a rating, but if it would be to recommend a series released this year to be watched this would be definitely "Game of Thrones" ;)

Carlos (2010)

I thought I should write about a TV mini-series this week, since I didn't talk about anything on this production area on my blog. Especially considering this is pretty much everything I've seen in the last two weeks. And on top of that, I had quite high expectations from it, because it has a Golden Globe, was quite appreciated at Cannes and scored also 94 on Metacritic.

The movie has three parts, following the life of Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, mostly known on the name in the title, from the time he joined the Front of the Liberation of Palestine in the beginning of the '70s up to his capture in '94. Despite the fact that each part starts with a sort of a disclaimer that can make you think that pretty much all you'll gonna see is fiction, I think this is probably caused by legal issues due to the fact that the only accusations proven in court are two crimes, and for some of the rest there is still a trial going on. So, even if the movie has a certain degree of "story enrichment", I could say that has a lot of value from a documentary point of view. It's like a sort of mini-history of terrorism of the '70s - '90s period of the areas in the world where Carlos activated. One fact that's interesting is that unlike other productions, what you see here is handled quite neutrally. This is if you take it as a whole, because considering the little pieces you have of course the drama part that can add to the emotional factor. But it doesn't add that much, and finally, you can't say that you have a movie trying to put the main character neither in a negative nor positive light. It's like I said, neutral - you have strictly the facts, and from these you can create your own impression. On one side I could appreciate this but overall for me it was a bit "dry" as general feeling.

Getting to the actors + the technical part, the lead role played by Edgar Ramirez, covering 20 years of Carlos' life would've been Oscar material if this was a big screen production. For those 20 years, the movie travels through most of the '70s - '80s Europe and the Arab countries of the the same period trying to keep an authentic look. The are lines in at leas seven languages (you have English, Arab, French, Spanish, German, Hungarian and Russian). What I did like and I didn't like in the same time is the cinematography, editing and sound part. I liked these (especially the editing) because they manage to keep you focused to the action, thing that isn't that easy taking into account the length of the movie. I didn't like them because (leaving apart some scenes) generally these give the same "dry" atmosphere that works for a documentary but not so much for a movie in general ... (well, maybe it's a matter of taste).

I think the final rating I'll give is a bit lower than the actual movie value, but like said above it might be just a matter of taste, coming mostly from the overall movie production value than from it's action or subject. I would recommend it as movie that should be seen, at least for the part written "between the lines" to put it like this (considering that in the years depicted there was also IRA, ETA, and other groups activity going on) ... meaning that the "global terrorist threat" (to use a standard cliche) is indisputably smaller today, despite all the fuss after 9/11, than it was in the '70s-'80s (well, maybe it depends also on the continent you're talking about).

Rating: 3 out of 5

The Tempest (2010)

Considering the lack of sleep I have at this hour, I said it would be a good idea to hurry a bit with the entry for this week. I was skeptical about watching "The Tempest" part because of the IMDb rating and part because long long ago I had an attempt at reading "The Tempest" by Shakespeare which failed due to loss of interest after a few pages. Well, that was long long long ago ...

First of all the movie is clearly not for everybody and more than that it's probably better to be either very fresh or dead tired when you see it. If you ever had the opportunity to see a Shakespeare adaptation that was close to the original writing and it bored you or it was close to drive you nuts due to the topic of the phrases, you should probably avoid "The Tempest". From the vague memories I have left since I read the beginning of the play I can say that the movie doesn't jump very far from the original (despite the fact that the main character is Prospera instead of Prospero). Usually (especially if you're not a native speaker and it's your first contact with a play) the Shakespearean English needs a slight delay to be able to "connect" one line with another one and to get a meaning. In the current case you don't have this time space very often, the movie being quite alert and also a bit chaotic in displaying the action I might say (although I must admit that the alert part has its benefits in this case ...). I didn't see any other movies directed by Julie Taymor, but from what I've read on a few boards it seems this style is quite specific to her, and also this is the main reason for what I was suggesting in the starting of the paragraph as a proper condition/mood for watching the movie.

Anyway, there is a good part about the movie. Actually I might say a very good part ... although it probably depends on each ones taste. Visually, for me at least, the movie was superb and I can include here all the parts contributing to this area: cinematography, VFX, art direction, etc (may just the editing not so much). So to be even more clear about this, all what I mentioned above was at a level sufficiently high for me to matter more than the subject, which doesn't happen very often (as it's probably clear I'm not very into Shakespeare .. with some exceptions). There is also the soundtrack (Elliot Goldenthal) that deserves to be mentioned, which might seem a bit weird/forced at some moments but I think that's actually the part that makes you feel that it's there.

All in all, I'll stick to a personal opinion that Shakespeare is infinitely more appropriate for the original target = theater, then for a movie. There is a different level of perception in case of a live representation. Anyway, due to the context of the play, "The Tempest" is somehow a bit of a exception having a large visual potential, and as I said it above this version nails it quite good.

Rating: 3 out of 5

2nd Part of Summer-Fall 2011 Movie Preview

I really should focus on other stuff these days, so without any other introduction I'll slip directly into the fall preview, more exactly starting with part of the September movie line-up. Actually, to add some more extra days for the summer I said myself that it would be a good idea to begin with a "light" movie, so to speak. If last year we had (during the same time if I remember correctly) "Piranha 3D" (which I didn't see), this year we'll have something which seems to get quite close to the same "guilty pleasure light summer horror" to summarize it all. Well, this time it's with bigger fish :) .. freshwater ... sharks: "Shark Night 3D":

Raising up the level from light to hard, even though it's not anymore a horror but a thriller, also in September we'll have a remake after a 1971 movie - "Straw Dogs". The original directed by Sam Peckinpah and starring Dustin Hoffman in the lead role, as far as I know was sort of a controversial picture at the time, still being considered to have some pretty rough scenes. Which seems to be also the case for the new one as the trailer shows it:

I told myself to risk a bit and also put a pure action movie in the list, although I really have a feeling that specifically for this case I should repeat that the current blog entry is just a preview and not a recommendation (read more between the lines). Anyway .. at least the story (as much as it's shown) seems to have some potential for this genre. More about "Abduction" remains to be seen at the end of September:

For October, I'll start with "Take Shelter", which seems to be a drama having a slight resemblance as a general feeling with "Frailty" (for who knows about it), less the crime thriller part. What's sure for the moment is that the rating on IMDb, coming from the prescreenings, it's quite huge ...

Something I didn't think I'll ever see (and actually I don't know if I have the intention to see besides the trailer) is "The Three Musketeers" ... in 3D. Without any other comments:

As it's probably already clear enough from above, starting from October I already have the usual problem that appears when I write this kind of entries - there aren't many trailers out for what's upcoming :) So, due to the lack of material, I'll end the month with a teaser that doesn't say much and neither shows any high promises (besides this it's also for a horror :-p). One more thing, the director, Kevin Smith, he might be known to some people for some comedies (I'm not a fan, so I won't spend time to give any extended CV) - so the teaser for "Red State" presented by himself:

Due to the facts mentioned already above I have only one title for November. And as I couldn't completely skip the animation sector, this one is "Puss in Boots" = the "Shrek" spin-off, of course from DreamWorks. Just a teaser for now:

Back next time with the normal weekly movie entry ;)