The Tudors [Series-Review]

Are you interested in a historical drama? Maybe you are looking for political intrigue or a social commentary? Perhaps you're looking for sex and partial nudity.  Yeah, that last one seems to sell this series for a lot of perve...people. That's right... people.

For me, I began watching The Tudors for the simple historical aspect of it. As well as the attention to detail in set design and costuming- what can I say, I'm a theatrical conoseur. It all just jumps off the page of history in all its variant hues and textures. I can appreciate that.

Created by Michael Hirst and staring a cavalcade of actors including Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Henry Cavill,, Natalie Dormer, Peter O'Toole and Maria Doyle Kennedy (to name a few). The show was on air for 4 seasons on Showtime and had somewhat of a rotating door of talent. I mean we are talking about a time and setting where average life expectancy was 40's and 50's. That coupled with the bloodlust of government officials with personal agendas and you understand why a handful of characters made it from season to season. (That's as close as I get to a spoiler, I promise)

The story follows English King Henry the eighth as he sought to marry women who could give him a male heir to the throne. Those of you familiar with history know that this pursuit lasted for quite some time. This show details that pursuit. (That's as close as I get to a spoiler, I promise)

After watching the first episode I began feeling for certain characters and developed certain expectations. Expectations in a historical drama are readily disappointing. I mean, history books can only be open to so much interpretation. They already written. When a person is recorded as dying, there isn't wiggle room to accommodate interpretation. He dead. This was especially true as I watched on into the second season. (That's as close as I get to a spoiler, I promise) Being a fan of history and the richness it can offer us, I knew about certain things. Some I anticipated, but others I wished that I had somehow been confused or mistaken about my memory of history. The other thing I felt was that the portrayal of Henry the VIII, was accurate, and made me dislike the character. His relatability and likability faded as the series continued. He was a whinny, tantrum throwing, horn ball so and so who abused his power every opportunity given him. It's usually not a good sign when you are praying for the main character assassination in the 4th episode of a 4 year series.

Technically speaking, the acting was top notch. However, the CG palace shots at the beginning of most season 1 episodes lacked a certain air of realism. Couldn't pin point it but something was a miss. Then there was the boobs. No, I don't mean silly folk who do dumb things. I mean actual boobs. There was at least one shot of woman's breasts in every episode.  I haven't seen that many racks since I was shopping for shelving at Ikea. Not complaining necessarily,  I just think that the angle and intent could have been more tasteful and not so "soft porn". I guess that why the channel is called SHOWTIME.

Ultimately, I am captivated by the series, so far, and am still watching it. So don't ruin it for me.
4 out of 5 stars- (likely to change- once I've completed the series)

Patrik, Age 1.5 [Review]

The adoption process is difficult for everyone who decides to undertake it. The longing to start a family. The waiting for a call. The anticipation of what will your baby/child look like. The reviewing of paperwork. The integration of a child into your live(s). All these ideas are expounded upon and develop into a heartfelt story about a family to be. The conflict rises out of the fact the couple looking to adopt are gay and the "child" they were given is a 15 year old homophobic delinquent. The other conflict for me is that they spoke Swedish. Small in comparison to the movie as a whole, but still I cherished the subtitles all the more.

Directed by Ella Lemhagen, and staring Gustaf Sarsgard, Torkel Petersson, and Tom Ljungman(Swedish names if ever I heard any), we are thrown into the happy life trying to be built in the Swedish suburbs. The picturesque white picket fence and the quaint dwellings with manicured lawns aren't just the American dream. After dealing with some minor harassment from adoption officials they are told they have no babies for them to adopt and are sent away dejected. However, they later receive a letter saying that there is one boy who can be adopted: Patrik, Age 1.5. Ecstatic, they finish preparations to his room and await their would be son. In walks Patrik, a juvenile delinquent whose last choice is live with "homos" (even if he has to live on the streets) It is later revealed that a typographical error occurred (1.5 rather than 15- just incase you couldn't figure that out), by this point the couple have reluctantly welcomed the boy into their home, after removing all the knives, and having put considerable strain on their relationship.

The characters are brilliantly acted and are relatable as well as "real". That is, you feel for them and develop certain expectations and are put through an emotional roller coaster of sorts before being given some form of resolution. It is also the type of film that makes you examine your own personal opinions on life issues such as homosexuality and adoption. The only distraction for me was the choice in set design/decoration. The walls were covered in wallpaper with a busy pattern. It showed up on film and made me want to look at it rather that the actors and the Swedish subtitles being shown at the bottom of the page. Maybe busy wallpaper is big in gay Swedish households, who knows?

Likewise distracting were a few scenes that seemed like they were occurring in front of a green screen. This was true with the "jogging" scenes. The actor(s) jogging appeared very boldly colored compared to his background but as he ran I think it became more aware it was a lighting/costume choice.

Ultimately, I enjoyed this movie (though, I wished they could have dubbed some English speaking actors voices). My attention was diverted a lot since I had to read the subtitles, but it became more effortless, I suppose, as the movies continued. I would give this film 4.5 stars out of 5. No, I'm not homophobic, I am just lazy and didn't feel like reading during a movie. :)

Fantastic Flesh: The Art of Makeup Efx [Review]

Zombies, aliens, and monsters -oh, my!

Oh the world of special effects makeup. You can be aged, look younger, look dead or diseased, you can even look like the opposite sex. Not to mention the gruesome effects that can be made by latex and prosthetics. I appreciate the process, but still cant will myself to watch gory movies (as discussed in my review of Tales of the Crypt: Ritual). This is very interesting considering I am an aspiring special effects makeup artist (among other things) with an aversion to gore.

This documentary into the industry of special effects was directed by Kevin VanHook. It details the great effects and techniques as well as the artists who created them. Movies such as Planet of the Apes, Chronicles of Narnia, Lord of the Rings, The Exercist, and Scream and the special effects makeup that contributed to their success is discussed. Quentin Terentino discusses the importance of special effects in his movies, most notably the Kill Bill films. Other directors and writers discuss their inspiration and reliance of makeup effects.

The style of the film is documentary and so doesn't depend on a specific formula of story telling or filming. The interviewees are faced off center and are looking away from the camera, but beyond they the style of story telling is pretty haphazard.  That is, they discuss a variety of films and styles with out drawing a correlation or connection on from the other.

I would ultimately give it 2.75 stars out of 5. I would have liked there to have been more of a method to the movies discussed. I also thought that it would have been beneficial to do a make up efx reel in high speed. Kind of like what a lot of makeover shows do. Instead, we were shown stills from movies or clips of the actual movie and not the application of the special effects makeup. It's like filming a comedy where no one laughs. At some point the mark was missed.

High Anxiety [Review]

Imagine birds flying ominously overhead in large droves, seeing the shadow of  a man beyond your shower curtain, feeling like you are being watched, trying to understand peculiar people secluded with you, are all concepts that have made Albert Hitchcock's classic films memorable and terrifying.  Mel Brooks, comedic writer, actor, director, and producer, delivers a delightfully funny parody of many Hitchcock classics in the film High Anxiety. Starring Harvey Korman, Madeline Kahn, Cloris Leachman, and Mel Brooks himself, Brooks directs the satirical genius of this film.

The premise for the film is centered on a psychiatrist who is deathly afraid of heights. He finds himself in route to an institute full of mysterious people and patients to manage after the demise of the former manager. He later meets the daughter of one of the patients and is told of a diabolical plot (insert dramatic music). He must unravel the mystery and save his patient before it is too late (re-insert dramatic music). He must do it all while dodging pigeon droppings (insert anti-climactic music).

Brooks style of parody pays homage to the master of terror while still promoting the ridiculous plot development of the movie. The characters are stereotypical of Hitchcock films but each have their own interesting Mel Brooks quirk. Cloris Leachman's character, for instance, is a strict 'by the books nurse' with an affinity for bondage.

Technically the movie lends itself the the shot sytles of Hitchcock while even poking fun at them. An example of this is when the camera slowly zooms into the dining area where all the characters are talking. When I say "zooms into" that is exactly what happens, the glass window shatters and the camera pulls back.

Ultimately, the movie was a fun roast of Hitchcock. If you are easily offended, or are a hardcore Hitchcock enthusiast, you might not enjoy the movie for what it is (aja: a Parody). However, if you are a fan of Mel Brooks witty satirical style of storytelling- you will most likely enjoy this film.