The Hunchback of Notre Dame- 3 Stars

DVD front cover

The Hunchback of Notre Dame is one of Disney's most remarkable films in that it actually has an intelligent social criticism within it. This makes it a particularly bitter disappointment that the standard entertainment that Disney offers in this film is below par.

The film is based (very) loosely on the book 'Notre Dame de Paris' by Victor Hugo. A basic plot summary is that Quasimodo (Tom Hulce), the hunchback bell ringer of Notre Dame, falls in love with a beautiful gypsy girl called Esmeralda (Demi Moore) who sees past his ugly exterior to the gentle heart within. However, Quasimodo's mentor, Judge Claude Frollo, has also fallen for the girl and intends to use whatever sinister means he has available to him in order to make her his own or ensure no-one can 'have' her.

Esmeralda and Frollo, the villain that makes the film
worth watching

Now the film does have a lot of standard-Disney to it- the theme of not judging people by their exterior (like the 'diamond in the rough' thing from Aladdin), talking inanimate objects in the form of Quasimodo's gargoyle friends (like the Candlestick and Clock in Beauty and the Beast) and the classic musical form. However, where the film really surpasses all of the other Disney films is in its villain, Judge Claude Frollo. In the book, Frollo is actually the Archdeacon of Notre Dame (i.e. a priest). He has repressed any sexual urges in order to remain true to the celibacy of the priesthood and has instead become 'married' to learning. However, when he sees Esmeralda, all his uncontrollable passion comes out causing him to pursue her to the point of destruction. Disney executives declared this too controversial and demanded that the directors change the character from a priest to a judge. This was done but, in order to remain true to the book, the directors visually linked the character to the clergy by having him wear crucifixes and other such religious imagery. This reflects the theme of the book that the unnatural repression of men's passions and urges is a bad idea because it leads to that person's feelings spilling out uncontrollably at a later date. Has Disney ever made such a psychologically profound point before? I mean, it's not rocket science, but, when put in the context as a social criticism of the catholic church for its emphasis on repression, this is surely more cutting a theme than the standard 'don't judge a book by its cover' one which runs through every Disney film (including this one).

On top of this the film makers added another aspect to Frollo which isn't even in the book. Frollo has a real hatred of gypsies comparing them to 'vermin'. This causes him great confusion when he falls for Esmeralda, exposing his hypocrisy and the idiocy of judging someone purely by their race. In this way Frollo can be compared to Goeth from Schindler's List or Epps from 12 Years a Slave- both fall in love with someone who they consider sub-human (the Jews in Schindler's List and the slaves in 12 Years a Slave). However, I would argue that Frollo is a more complex character than either of Goeth or Epps because whilst Epps and Goeth purely fall for 'their' woman out of lust or another such thing, Frollo's desire is born out of his sexual repression due to the restrictions of the church. In this way, the film not only criticises emotional repression in religion but also racism in a similar tone to that of serious, Academy Award winning films.

Quasimodo- the Hunchback of Notre Dame

However, this darker and more complex villain sacrifices the traditional Disney fun for intelligence. This darkness also seeps through into the rest of the film resulting in a film that is still trying to retain a sense of light-heartedness and entertainment (as seen through the traditional Disney sidekicks and musical numbers) whilst people are being tortured and Frollo sets about burning people's houses down. Also, this choice of a darker villain means we don't have the traditional sassy and entertaining Disney villain like Gaston from Beauty and the Beast or Ursula from The Little Mermaid.

Separately from this, I would also say that some of the voice acting in The Hunchback of Notre Dame is worse than in other Disney films with some character's not always sounding convincing. The plot also suffers from a lack of coherent structure and good pacing resulting in an uneven film with a less compelling climax. The songs in the film are also less memorable than in its predecessors and there is very little actually funny comic relief. The result is a misshapen film- which is ironic really considering that the protagonist, Quasimodo, is named after his own mishapenness.

So, in conclusion, The Hunchback of Notre is too dark to be for kids and the intelligence of the film will mostly go straight over their heads. An intriguing but ultimately not very successful Disney musical.

Ratings: Entertainment: 5 Technical: 4 Intelligence: 5= 14/20 ***










imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjE1MDk2MzUxM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNzc1NTE5._V1_SY317_CR5,0,214,317_AL_.jpg
http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6500000/Quasimodo-the-hunchback-of-notre-dame-6584706-350-181.jpg
http://abitofsterevisited.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/frollo-esmera.jpg

The Seven Samurai- 5 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

Akira 'Asian of the Century' Kurosawa's epic film The Seven Samurai is fully deserving of its legendary status. The fact that this is considered one of the greatest films of all time yet isn't, at least in my opinion, Kurosawa's best film, tells you of the the high standards held by the master of Japanese cinema.

The Seven Samurai is about a village who, when threatened by bandits, hire samurai to defend them. You may be able to guess the number of the samurai yourself... The leader of this group is Kambei, an experienced Ronin (a samurai without a lord). He is accompanied by the young Katsushiro, the experienced archer Gorobei, his former lieutenant Shichiroji, a friendly but unskilled samurai called Heihachi and an expert sword master named Kyuzo. Accompanying them is Kikuchiyo, a former farmer turned warrior, who is unpredictable but also a valuable fighter.

The film is slow by modern definitions (it is three hours long). However, this makes it easier to separate the film into three acts. The first act involves the banding together of the samurai, the second the preparations for the defense of the village and the third the climatic battle. This basic structure has influenced innumerable films from westerns to superheroes. The recent Marvel film The Avengers Assemble shows many parallels with it- the getting together of the heroes, the squabbling in the middle and then the final battle at the end. Basically, The Seven Samurai has influenced every kind of hero-grouping film ever.

Akira Kurosawa- writer and director of The Seven Samurai

But a film's worth isn't just measured by influence. So how good actually is The Seven Samurai? The answer is brilliant. Despite the slow start I was thoroughly engaged throughout by the interaction between the characters and Kurosawa's astonishing direction. This film may be in black and white but it is beautiful with its lovely shots of feudal Japan. Kurosawa also uses camera trickery on the level of Kubrick to film scenes. By using multiple cameras he managed to capture several different perspectives of just one scene. Although this is now common practise, back in 1954 this was pretty rare.

Toshiro Mifune as Kikuchiyo

 However, what makes this film great is the way the characters interact and respond to each other. The clash between the samurai and the villagers is fascinating in its exploration of social hierarchy and what we westerners would recognise as something similar to the feudal system. We see the inexorable links with which social classes are joined. The villagers need the samurai to protect them from the bandits and the samurai need the villagers to provide them with food so they don't starve. Therefore, the film seems to ask why are the samurai more valued and higher in the class system than the farmers? The argument for this would be that anyone can be a farmer and only a select few can be great warriors. However, this argument has two flaws as exposed by the film. On the samurai side, not all of them are in fact great warriors. For example, Heihachi is brought along purely to keep morale up and his lack of any skill is often a joke amongst the samurai. Conversely, Kikuchiyo is a great warrior but was born a farmer's son. He often acts as the bridge between social classes reprimanding both of them for their ignorance of the other. This is shown on two occasions. Firstly, when the samurai arrive at the village they receive a cold welcome as the villagers are afraid that they will take their daughters. Kikuchiyo then raises the alarm, warning everyone that the bandits are coming. This is a trick but it makes the villagers realise that they need the samurai. Contrastingly, when the samurai find out that the villagers have previously killed other samurai, Kikuchiyo shouts them down for ignoring the hardships of the villagers (one of which is harassment by samurai). In this way he acts as a guide towards the fusion of the two classes into a stronger community capable of fighting off the bandits.

Takashi Shimura as Kambei

Despite this positive message however- that we all need each other and it is only when we come together that we can overcome conflict- the film finishes on a less hopeful note. After the bandits have been beaten off, the remaining samurai stand by the graves of their comrades. The villagers begin to shun them again. This is seen when the girl that the young samurai, Katsushiro, has been courting, blanks him and he is left alone, bewildered. In the end, the age of the samurai went and pretty much all of Kurosawa's films have some kind of concern with that theme. In this film, it is that after the bandits are defeated there is no longer any need for the samurai yet the samurai still need the peasants to provide them with food. The system is inherently flawed. Kambei recognises this, reflecting that it is in fact the farmers who are the true victors.

The acting in this film is very good, most notably Takashi Shimura as Kambei (he was a Kurosawa regular, starring in 21 of his 30 films) and Toshiro Mifune as Kikuchiyo (another Kurosawa regular and one of the greatest Japanese actors ever). The contrast with which the actors play these two main characters is one of the brilliant aspects of the film of the film- the ever passionate Kikuchiyo against the passive, stoic Kambei.

So in conclusion, this film is perhaps the most influential action film of all time. It is a must for any people interested in either film or Japanese culture. Action fans may also enjoy although, as I have warned, it is very long (and possibly slow).

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 5= 19/20 *****










http://jdmcpherson.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/shimada-for-upload.jpg
http://www.albany.edu/writers-inst/graphics/7samurai2.jpg
http://www.shibuiswords.com/sevensamurai_files/09.jpg
http://www.film4.com/media/images/Channel4/Film4/_five%20minute%20guide%20and%20interview%20portraits/akira-kurosawa-main-image.jpg

Frozen- 4 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

There are various different verdicts on Frozen. Some people think it is 'the bestest film ever' (mostly 6 year old girls), some people think it's good but by no means brilliant and others think it is the most overrated film of 2013.This post is going to be a little different than the others as instead of doing a straightforward review I will instead analyse how a fairly good but by no means outstanding film has managed to become the highest grossing animated film ever and the fifth highest grossing film of all time. I will compare it to other Disney films in attempt to explore why Frozen has proved so much more popular than other similar Disney films such as Tangled or Beauty and the Beast.

For those few of you who haven't seen Frozen the basic plot is that the princess/queen of Arendelle, Elsa (Idina Menzel), has magic ice powers which she can't control which results in her accidentally causing an eternal winter on the kingdom. Her sister Anna (Kristen Bell) then sets out to go and find her joined by a nutcase mountain man, Kristoff (Jonathon Groff) who talks to his reindeer Sven and a talking snowman called Olaf (Josh Gad).

First of all- what makes a film successful? Well the main factors are plot, character and whether it looks good or not. To back this up I invite you to take a look at the list of highest grossing films of all time- 1st is Avatar, 2nd Titanic, 3rd the Avengers and 4th the final Harry Potter. What are the major reasons for the success of these films? Well let's go through the list again-
 1) Avatar- people got caught up in the wonderful looking world and all the amazing images, they wanted to revisit the world of Pandora time after time- special effects
 2) Titanic- the love story was the major reason for success here, with millions (not sure if that's an exaggeration or not) of teenage girls going to see the tragic young lovers again, and again...and again- characters
 3) The Avengers- characters. That's got to be obvious right? People went to go and see their favourite comic book heroes form an epic team. The plot was nothing special and neither were the effects but people went to see it because of the characters and the interaction between them- characters
 4) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2- as the climax and resolution of the Harry Potter franchise I would argue that it was the plot that brought people to see this film as they wanted to know the ending to the saga. There is an argument for characters but then why did the other films in the series make less money despite having the same characters- especially as the final film was more action than character orientated as compared to, say, the Half Blood Prince- plot

Elsa performing Let it Go- the award winning music
 is another reason for the film's success

Frozen was made on a budget of $150 million budget by a major, specialist-animation studio so of course it is going to pass the technical aspect with flying colours and truly, it does look amazing (just look at the snow). But as so many films now look amazing there must be something else in Frozen other than its look that makes it so popular. A film must have truly special special effects to make it successful based solely upon that (*cough* Avatar and Gravity *cough*) In fact the secret to making a successful film is by getting people to want to see it over and over again. You hear stories about people who fell so in love with the world in Avatar that they went to see about 100 different times. A survey of several different viewings of Frozen found that over 50% of viewers had already seen Frozen once and that about a third had already seen it twice. So what is it about Frozen that makes people want to see it over and over again? To my mind there are two reasons- the characters and the story.

 In my opinion it is the characters that have made Frozen as successful as it is. The winning combination that they have found is actually a fairly standard Disney formula with a slight twist. Let's break it down into individual characters shall we:

Anna- quirky, pretty standard female hero. Feels trapped in the palace and wants to escape/'open up the gates'. There is nothing very original about her and she can be compared to several other classic Disney movie feminine heroes- Belle from Beauty and the Beast (wants to escape her boring provincial life), Jasmine from Aladdin (wants to escape her palace) and Ariel from the Little Mermaid (wants to leave the sea to explore the land/find her handsome prince) to name a few famous ones. However, despite her lack of originality she is likable and appeals to a wide audience from little girls to parents watching with their kids.

Elsa- Elsa is the more intriguing character here and certainly the most original. Whilst Anna, Kristoff and Olaf have all been done before Elsa is the first majorly conflicted and possibly depressed Disney princess. She appeals not only to a teenage audience who can relate to her struggle of being misunderstood but also to adults who may enjoy the increased complexity of the character. Oh and to little kids because of her cool ice powers (get the joke? 'cool ice powers' yeah okay I won't become a comedian any time soon).

Kristoff- typical male hunk. Relationship with Anna is almost a cut and paste job of Rapunzel and Flynn from Tangled. Does anyone like really love this character? I don't think so... Basically he isn't the reason this film was so loved.

'I'm Olaf and I like warm hugs'
- Olaf the talking Snowman

Olaf- Okay I have a bit of a confession to make- I like Olaf and I find him funny. Right now I've got that out of the way I can say how completely unoriginal he is and how his presence is basically there to sell cuddly Olaf toys (apparently they're very good for warm hugs). That said, in Josh Gad Disney have found a star. Without his voice acting I think Olaf would be unbearably annoying and that seriously could have tipped the film into the category of bad and irritating quite quickly. Seriously, Olaf was a big risk because if he had become annoying rather than cute the whole film could have been ruined (a little like Jar Jar Binks from Star Wars). So Olaf's cuteness is certainly a major factor in this film and, although the talking sidekick has been done before, Olaf is funny and puts a nice spin on it.

Prince Hans- Okay so to write about this character I'm going to have to spoil the ending so if you're one of the few people left on the planet who haven't seen Frozen and may possibly want to, skip to the next paragraph. SPOILER ALERT. So Hans turns out to be the movie's bad guy. I love this twist because it really satirises the whole 'love at first sight' crap which Disney have been churning out since the dawn of time. But is it a popular decision? I think it is for two reasons. Firstly, the shock of the twist makes the audience go 'dayum, I did not see that coming' That reaction should usually draw the audience more into the film- unpredictability is a good thing. Secondly, I think most people would agree with me about the love at first sight thing. When I first watched I was like 'no that's so stupid' when they both agreed to get married after like a day. The fact that Anna develops a convincing relationship with Kristoff is ultimately a more realistic and satisfying than a love at first sight thing. People can relate to it more. I don't know- maybe I'm just being an old cynic but I liked the way they rubbished the whole 'love at first sight' thing.

Elsa and Anna- is sisterhood the key
to this film's success?

So I've gone through the characters one by one but I still haven't touched what I believe is the biggest factor in the film's success. Pretty much every Disney film ever has two core relationships within the film, one major and one minor. Usually the major one is a romance between the lead and a love interest. The other is usually a friend or family member. A good example of this is Aladdin. The main relationship is the one between Aladdin and Jasmine and the minor one Aladdin and the Genie. Other examples include Beauty and the Beast (Belle/Beast, Belle/her father), The Little Mermaid (Ariel/Prince Eric, Ariel/her father) and The Hunchback of Notre Damme (Esmerelda/Quasimodo, Esmerelda/Phoebus). Tangled already broke this pattern slightly by having the minor relationship, that of Rapunzel and her mother, a negative one (Rapunzel's 'mother' is actually the film's antagonist). In Frozen the formula is switched round. Instead of the romantic interest being the major relationship in the film it becomes the relationship between the two sisters. Not only does this break the usual Disney formula but it also is quite unique in that there are very few major sibling relationships in Disney films. This sibling relationship is also appealing to a whole range of people, from angsty teens to excited toddlers. I would say, therefore, that the way the relationships are presented, as well as the characters, are a major factor in the film's success.

Moving onto the plot- I feel this part of the film is probably its weakest. It feels a little contrived, especially the conclusion. I cringed unbearably at the end when Elsa says 'Love thaws, of course love!'. Really? Now when I pointed this out to my mum, her response was 'Well it's a Disney movie- of course it's going to be cheesey'. Well to that dear mother I have 2 responses (as always): firstly, as we've already seen throughout the film, the Disney formula has been twisted and manipulated in so many different ways that saying it's a Disney film is a fairly void expression now. Secondly, there are actually Disney films out there which don't have cringe inducing endings, like Tangled or Beauty and the Beast (on that note can I just point out the fantastic screen writing in Tangled: in the scene where she is reunited with her parents there is no dialogue. That is brilliant. We don't need her parents to say 'I've missed you' or whatever to understand that they've missed her. It treats the audience with respect and doesn't come out with any cringe inducing dialogue. Well done Tangled).

Why was Frozen more successful than Tangled?

Anyway back to Frozen (sorry I got sidetracked). My other problem with the ending of the film is that it's so predictable. Like everyone could guess Anna was going to save Elsa and that would be the act of true love. This makes for unsatisfying viewing, or does for me anyway. Disney has a mixed track record with this. On the one hand, at the end of Beauty and the Beast, it's so completely predictable that Beast will survive (spoilers soz). But in Aladdin, who could predict the way that Jafar would be defeated until it was happening? So with that in mind I think that nulls the 'but it's a Disney thing to be predictable' argument because as we can see that is not always the case. Besides, this movie has already shown that it wants to be a little outside the box with its antagonist (don't want to spoil anything but those who have watched it will know what I mean).

So, in conclusion, it is the relatable nature of the characters, combined with the shift in focus from romance to sisterhood that has made Frozen so successful. Oh yeah and a certain cute snowman might have something to do with it as well...

I will rate the film despite not really analysing how good it is in a critical sense-

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 3= 17/20 ****

Note: I have given it intelligence 3 relative to a Disney film. I just think that it does reuse some similar themes from other Disney films (feeling trapped, love etc) it does put its own spin on them and Elsa's character is one of the most unique and complex characters Disney has created in a long time.







http://www.hdwallpapers.in/walls/tangled_movie-wide.jpg
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140307132052/disney/images/a/ac/Disney-Frozen-Elsa-Let-it-Go.jpg
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/a9/60/28/a96028505647be9e88bbcd9358e1d222.jpg
http://www.comingsoon.net/nextraimages/frozen-poster-small.jpg
http://www.drawingforkids.org/images/159853-frozen-frozen-elsa-and-anna-poster.jpg

2001: A Space Odyssey- 5 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

2001: A Space Odyssey is a film like no other. It has no readily discernible plot, the characters keep changing and it deals with a period of time stretching from the dawn of man to a futuristic sci-fi world. However, it not only succeeds in its aim to transcend normal film making but does in the process become one of the greatest films of all time. For 2001: A Space Odyssey is not a story but more of a visual journey centered on humanity and our progression from apes to humans capable of going into space to 'Ubermensch' as the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche put it in his book 'Thus Spoke Zarathrustra' (interestingly, the famous theme from the film is a piece of music named after Nietzsche's book- this is not a coincidence)

On the most basic narrative level 2001: A Space Odyssey can be broke down into 3 acts. The first is the Dawn of Man and details the early humans 'discovering' tools. The second contains the 'present' day humans discovery of a strange monolith and subsequent mission to Jupiter to try and unearth more about this mysterious object. The final act, and perhaps the strangest, shows the final stage of human evolution and the birthing of a 'starchild'.

The Godlike Starchild hovering above earth

However, even this apparently narrative structure portrays the theme of human evolution from ape to human to Ubermensch or Starchild. So what is director and co writer Stanley Kubrick actually trying to say here about evolution or is he just being completely pretentious? Well the linking theme between these acts is always the mysterious monolith. It appears at the beginning of the film during the dawn of man and appears to trigger the apes usage of tools. Then, in the second act it appears twice- firstly on the moon and secondly orbiting Jupiter. The second time it appears it opens a sort of portal to another world to which astronaut David Bowman is transported. The final time it appears is beside the death bed of Bowman as he dies and is replaced by a superior being. Each time the monolith is present a significant change happens in the course of human evolution. I would go further than this and say that in fact it is the cause of human evolution. In this way the monolith represents God, in Kubrick's own words, 'in his (God's) most purely scientific form'. i.e. God is but the agent for human development and evolution. When we take into consideration the Nietzsche-an philosophy that runs through the film this idea becomes even more interesting. Obviously Nietzsche's philosophy all revolves around the lack of existence of a God. Therefore what the monolith represents instead is mankind's idea of God. God is no longer his own existential being- he becomes an idea in the human mind, a way of explaining change. This idea is continued at the ending of the film when the Starchild is shown looking down on earth. It's superiority and air of transcendence mirrors that of God. I believe the message here is that God exists in the human mind and he is the next stage of our evolution. It is a scientific view of him drawing upon philosophical ideas from both Nietzsche and Feuerbach.

Hal 9000- man or machine?

Human evolution is also explored through the computer called Hal 9000. Hal is an AI unit that has reached the capacity of emotion that makes him seem human. The question now is to whether he is actually a real being or not- a question to which Dr Bowman responds that he 'doesn't know'. Hal certainly behaves like a human, more so in fact than the actual humans on the ship. He makes a mistake, is paranoid and is scared. The scene at the end where Hal begs Bowman not to unplug him and sings him the song 'Daisy' is the saddest and most emotional moment in the whole film. The juxtaposition of the humour of the monotone voice saying 'take a stress pill' with the genuine emotion in the lines 'Dave I'm scared' and 'I'm afraid. Stop Dave.' makes the scene even sadder. In the end though, Hal's existence is necessary for the next stage of human evolution to happen. The humans are completely apathetic throughout the film e.g. Bowman viewing a birthday message from his family with no discernable emotion. It is only when the results of Hal's mistake (the mistake caused by Hal's own worry about the mission) that the humans actually take any action and fight for their survival. This fight, or survival of the fittest, results in the appearance of the monolith allowing human evolution to be taken to the next stage. Hal also represents the theme discussed in the previous paragraph of mankind becoming a Godlike being- just as God create humans, the humans have created their own sentient being.

The Dawn of Man: one of the most famous scenes in movie history

Technically speaking, this film is utterly majestic. It's a Kubrick so of course there are countless numbers of clever shots (with the aging scene being the most obvious of them) but the simple breathtaking space visuals are spectacularly beautiful, especially when combined with the classical music which compromises the score. The satellites almost do a dance to the music, spinning and turning in time. It truly is absolutely stunning. The performances are also all solid although there it must have been difficult for the actors because the film rarely focuses on any one character for a sustained period of time with the exception of Bowman. The fact that this film looks better than the original Star Wars yet was made a little less than a decade before shows how little this film has aged. Seriously, these are some great effects. Better than most of the CGI crap nowadays at least...

Well I think it's fair to say I loved this film. It is now tying with Apocalypse Now for my best film but I am going to watch it again because it certainly seems like the kind of film that needs to be watched more than once. I would recommend this film to any sci-fi or film lovers because of the spectacular space visuals, influence on pretty much every subsequent sci-fi film ever and just the fact that it is so influential a film. Also anyone philosophically inclined or who likes a film that makes them think hard will enjoy this film. Do not expect a light hearted space adventure or anything like that though.

Ratings: Entertainment: 10 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 5= 20/20 *****

Note: this film is not perhaps what most people would class as entertainment. However, it does have a certain gripping quality to it and I certainly found it difficult to look away hence the 10.









http://www.amovieaweek.com/images/starchild.jpg
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef0128757dcd4d970c-pi
imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNDYyMDgxNDQ5Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjc1ODg3OA@@._V1_SY500_SX375_AL_.jpg
http://www.shardcore.org/shardpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/the-dawn-of-man.jpg