The 13th Warrior

The 13th Warrior (John McTiernan and Michael Crichton, 1999)

Click here for the basics

Rating: Q=5, P=5 / Average OJ

Scale 1=2, Scale 2=3, Scale 3=3, Scale 4=2

Medieval, Fantasy, Vikings, Epic

I've been really getting into historical fiction stories set during the Crusades, mostly due to reading Robert E. Howard short stories (Lord of Samarcand, etc.) I found it interesting that there are only a few films actually about the Crusades, though many films are set during the Crusades. 13th Warrior came up, though it doesn't mention or even allude to the Crusades. No matter, it's still a good film.

This is a more fantasy than historical fiction, but it does have elements that immerse you in a specific place and time, like all good adventure/journey stories. The acting is great because the characters are great--especially all the Viking warriors. There are some bloody, gruesome scenes and moments of peril (I can't watch underwater escapes, I've discovered). If you like action/adventures, you'll like this.

--Don't understand the ratings? Click here

1917

1917 (Sam Mendes, 2019)

Click here for the basics

Rating: Q=8, P=6 / Can't Get Enough

Scale 1=4, Scale 2=4, Scale 3=4, Scale 4=2

WWI, Drama, Action, Psychological

What a feat, Sam Mendes. This film blew me a way--the story, the setting, and especially the intricate artistry and camera work. The way one long shot (seemingly) makes the viewer feel is incredible. And for me it was frightening. It has the effect of making you feel truly immersed in the action and, in this case, that is the war. When the characters are in the trenches, we are in the trenches. When they are walking or swimming over dead bodies, we are too. The point-of-view shots are so much more intense, the silence is that much more devastating. This film and its story and its characters don't get a break. We go with them on their journey and it is all adrenaline and panic and courage. One of the best war films I've seen.

--Don't understand the ratings? Click here

SPECIAL: The Best Batman

My husband loves comic books and comic book movies, especially those involving Batman. While I had seen many of the Batman movies before, I felt compelled to re-watch some and determine my favorite. 

First, here is the chronological list of all the Batman movies (just the ones where he is a focus):

Batman: The Movie (1966)

Batman (1989)

Batman Returns (1992)

Batman Forever (1995)

Batman & Robin (1998)

Batman Begins (2005)

The Dark Knight (2008)

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

I have not included the films in the D.C. Extended Universe (Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice and Justice League) because I haven't seen them and these feel like different films that are equally about Superman or other heroes. I included the 1966 Batman movie but only because it is a stand-alone film. Since it is mostly an extension of the TV show, I've decided not to discuss it in the following sections.

Which actor played Batman best?

Ultimately, I would have to say I like Christian Bale's performances the most. We'll see whether I like Robert Pattinson's version to come in The Batman.

This is a difficult question because Batman is the rather undynamic, surface-level character behind Bruce Wayne. So, frankly, he is...boring. As Batman, all the actors are fairly similar. Michael Keaton's version is fairly quiet, Val Kilmer and George Clooney are both way too talkative and too theatrical, and Christian Bale is more stoic, but generally he is played as all actions and few words. Now, Bruce Wayne...that's a different question.

Which actor played Bruce Wayne best?

Again, I prefer Christian Bale, but mostly because he has far more depth and back-story in Christopher Nolan's trilogy. And Bale is a far better actor, in my opinion. I like to feel connected to characters and so the more I can feel and understand his emotions or drives, the better. Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne is charming, but so little screen time is devoted to him. I don't like Val Kilmer's Bruce Wayne because he is blunt and arrogant. Do you really think that talking to a psychiatrist about your repressed past with a totally expressionless face and voice will make us like you? Umm, no. The whispery, monotone delivery...ugh. And George Clooney is just...cringe-worthy.

Which actor played The Joker best?

This is a good question. While I love Heath Ledger's Joker for all his nuanced insanity, Jack Nicholson's Joker is evil and scary and hilarious. Neither has a lot of depth (compared to Joaquin's later performance in Joker) but that works just fine in a comic book story. Ledger's Joker feels more real and, therefore, more disturbing. Nicholson's Joker is goofy and cartoonish, like the comics, and this can come off as disturbing, too, but in a completely different way. I'm split on this one. I like them both.

Which villain is my favorite?

Joker? Penguin? Two Face? Riddler? Bane? Catwoman? Scarecrow?

Heath Ledger's Joker usually gets the most attention, and it is well-deserved attention. The Joker is the villain of choice for most of the films. Penguin is absurd, gross, and weird. Tommy Lee Jones's Two-Face is really just a stupider version of Joker. Riddler is eccentric and mad but I like him and am excited to see what Paul Dano does with this character in The Batman. I really loved Tom Hardy's portrayal of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. The whole story in that film is intriguing and the mystery weaving throughout the trilogy works well. I don't care for Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer's version irritates me and Anne Hathaway's is OK). Scarecrow is disturbing and fun, but I'm bias because of how much I love Cillian Murphy. Poison Ivy and Bane are totally ridiculous. But even though Dr. Freeze has some seriously terrible lines and bizarre henchmen (the gang, really?), I do like the character. It could have been much better portrayed.

SO, I guess I will pick Tom Hardy's Bane.

Love Interest?

Vicki Vale? Selina (1 and 2)? Dr. Chase? The random Julie? Poison Ivy? Rachel (1 and 2)? Miranda?

I honestly think that the romance and love interests do nothing for the stories. The Rachel Dawes idea that Christopher Nolan added to his trilogy provides some explanations for Bruce Wayne's behaviors and gives him some more depth, but not much. And it isn't important. Bruce's real motivations come from the murder of his parents. I also find Rachel irritating, especially Katie Holmes' version. Marion Cotillard's Miranda is intriguing but that's because she doesn't really want Bruce, she is playing him. Same with Selina. Like I said, I don't care for Catwoman, so the romantic story involving her just doesn't do it for me. Dr. Chase is really just about sex. It will forever bother me that she is supposed to be smart and wise and yet can't figure out that Bruce is Batman. The random Julie? What is the point of her? And Poison Ivy? Ugh. Vicki Vale is the best character and the best played--by Kim Basinger--so I pick her. But I think a Batman story without a love interest would be much better.

Which film is my favorite?

After rating them all and considering the roles, I choose Batman Begins. Since my favorite part of any Batman film is Bruce Wayne, this makes sense, since he has a lot of screen time and there is a lot of character and relationship development. Despite Katie Holmes. If you consider all three of Nolan's films as one film, though, they are by far the best.

--Don't understand the ratings? Click here

Wolf Children

Wolf Children (Mamoru Hosoda, 2012)

Click here for the basics

Rating: AQ=7, AP=10 / Meant to Be

Scale O=4, Scale P=3, Scale Q=4, Scale R=3, Scale S=3

Animation, Japan, Fantasy, Coming of Age, Identity

What a beautiful story about motherhood, identity, and growing up. Every frame of animation is beautiful, especially the gorgeous scenes of rural, mountainous Japan. And the symbolism of wolf children who have two "sides" their their identity, two sides that only conflict because of society is brilliant to reflect on. Who am I? How must I adapt? Who can I confide in? The mother, Hana, is so loveable and tries so hard. I cried multiple times. Great film.

--Don't understand the ratings? Click here

Clash of the Titans (1981 and 2010)

Clash of the Titans (Desmond Davis, 1981)

Click here for the basics

Rating: Q=5, P=4 / Average OJ

Scale 1=3, Scale 2=2, Scale 3=2, Scale 4=2

Greek Mythology, Action, Fantasy, Epic

This classic myth told with the special effects of the legendary Ray Harryhausen is a fun film to watch, even at nearly 40 years old. Yes, the effects are crude compared to today's standards, but the story has that fantastic nostalgic atmosphere thanks to deliberate pacing and lingering moments. This one feels like an epic from another era. And it has an all-star cast with Laurence Olivier as Zeus. I enjoyed the escape.

Clash of the Titans (Louis Leterrier, 2010)

Click here for the basics

Rating: Q=4, P=3 / Thanks But No Thanks

Scale 1=3, Scale 2=1, Scale 3=2, Scale 4=1

Greek Mythology, Action, Fantasy, Epic

This new version is a typical 21st century action film. Unfortunately. This blockbuster pales in comparison to the 1981 version of the myth, most notably because of the acting and writing. They are both just plain uninteresting. The special effects are impressive at times, but the story lacks charm. I never felt connected to Perseus's plight and didn't really understand what was going on or why things were happening most of the time. In my opinion, this can be skipped.

--Don't understand the ratings? Click here

Wrath of the Titans

Wrath of the Titans (Jonathan Liebesman 2012)

Click here for the basics

Rating: Q=4, P=2 / Thanks But No Thanks

Scale 1=3, Scale 2=1, Scale 3=1, Scale 4=1

Greek mythology, Action, Fantasy, Epic

There is a reason I usually stay away from blockbuster action films: they aren't very good. But I do love Greek mythology and enjoy escaping into an adventure, so I watch them occasionally. Wrath of the Titans, to me, is a poorly executed story that relies WAY too heavily on special effects and CGI creatures. And it's too bad, really, because the Tartarus scenes are really impressive (and frightening) and there are great roles played by great actors...who of course didn't get even a decent script to work with. This film is full of troupes and cliches but it wasn't a complete waste of time--I did still enjoy entering the mythological universe.

--Don't understand the ratings? Click here