Change Your Image
Laura_Kyle
Reviews
The Prince & Me (2004)
It's a fairytale, what more can I say?
As transparent as it is absurd, "The Prince and Me" is nothing more than a regurgitation of the classic royalty-or-famous-person-meets--unsuspecting-commoner-and-they-fall-in-love- and-live-happily-ever-after fairytale that has been passed down from generation to generation. But thanks to the charms of the established young actress, Julia Stiles, and the new up and coming Brit, Luke Mably, mixed with the somehow amusing screenplay by the writers of the soon to come Kate Hudson picture "Raising Helen", "The Prince and Me," succeeds in its genre.
Set in Wisconsin, Paige Morgan (Julia Stiles) is a driven pre-med student who is determined not to be weighed down by a careless romance, and Prince Edward (Luke Mably) of Denmark is the restless king to be who is avoiding royal responsibility to be a rebellious college kid in the States. Despite his odd, self absorbed manner, and trailing assistant, nobody seems to guess his true identity, and Paige believes he is a foreign exchange student. The magnetism between Stiles and Mably cannot be denied, and when their two opposite characters attract, there are definitely fireworks. The cat and mouse chase exposition is much more interesting than the over the top finale, but it helps develop the story so you are still paying attention at the end.
And of course, Paige teaches Eddie about love and work ethic, while Eddie teaches Paige about poetry and the pains and pleasures of wealth and privilege. This dull, predictable, and recycled premise has been used many a time because with the right stars and right lighting, it easily reminds the audience of the innocence, joy, and surprises that are found in love. And that is truly the greatest story ever told, so why not tell it over and over and over and over again? Thus, an enjoyable cinema experience is practically guaranteed if you put the idea in capable hands.
Modest humor and sincere characters bring the story to life. The glimpse into Denmark royalty is intriguing and believable, and the film's characters are impossible to dislike. Stiles and Mably give equally thorough performances and I wouldn't mind seeing them pair up again for a more thought-provoking project.
Since the dialogue was satisfying, it is surprising the script at large wasn't a bit more realistic or original. But I assume that wasn't the aim, and am in a forgiving mood today.
In fact, I am glad that "The Prince and Me" didn't attempt to venture into more dramatic territory, for that would be unnecessary, and merely pretentious. Director Martha Coolige knows what "The Prince and Me" is and she doesn't try to make it anything more, so it stays on track with an obvious and clear goal in mind.
"The Prince and Me" won't change or challenge you, but it just may uplift you for the movie's duration plus two or three, maybe even five, minutes afterward, so why not pay the five to eight bucks? But if you seek more than temporary well wrapped candy, hunker in on the two leads or just avoid the picture completely.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Inspiring
Perhaps one of the most controversial films, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," hit the theatres, after months of intense criticism from skeptics across the globe. Accusations of anti-Semitism and an inaccurate, or at least biased, depiction of Jesus Christ's crucifixion have somewhat tainted the audience's minds. However, I am sure that most moviegoers will be able to discern the opinions of the liberal media from the truth.
"The Passion of the Christ" is a superb film, by the film standards of a Christian or secularist. Grueling and violent, yet completely appropriate, Gibson successfully makes "Passion" more of an experience, than a movie. Beginning in the garden of Olives where Jesus awaits those who are to arrest him, a pensive tone, which is present throughout the rest of the film, is immediately set. There is almost a sense of dread in these first minutes. Jesus is taken into the city of Jerusalem and condemned by the Jewish Sanhedrin and the Roman Emperor, Pontius Pilate.
Unrelenting brutality mixed with a somewhat meditative mood guide "The Passion." Jim Caviezel and the supporting cast are quite impressive, not even the least bit unbelievable as the Aramaic and Latin speakers they portray. The cinematography is flawless, and the music is very purposeful in creating the solemn, suspenseful, and moving atmosphere.
It is understandable for people to question Gibson's interpretation of Pilate as a reluctant persecutor of Jesus. Yes, there are definitely some historical aspects about the movie and artistic liberties that should be discussed. But to imply that because Gibson's version of Christ's death may vary from other versions, he is an anti-Semite, is a bold thing to do. The Jewish Sanhedrin are ruthless, but nonetheless, human. They are fearful that a man who calls himself the Messiah may undermine their authority. But Jesus is Jewish. The most compassionate characters in this film are Jewish, and so are the most hateful. This shows how we are all sinners, and yet all capable of being like Jesus. Pontius Pilate is depicted as somewhat of a tragic character, rather than a cold-blooded executioner, but the Roman soldiers under him are probably the most animalistic and cruel of all. Still Pontius Pilate was the most cowardice, sensing Jesus' innocence and still condemning him to death. Unlike the Sanhedrin, Pilate is viewed as wanting to wash himself of Jesus' blood, yet he is the power that condemned Christ. From this perspective, Pilate is even more culpable then the blood thirsty crowd, for he goes against what he feels is the truth, whereas the Sanhedrin and the Jews are convinced of Jesus' blasphemy and are willing to take credit for his crucifixion. Ultimately, all the characters, especially Jesus' first betrayer, Judas Iscariot, are blinded by sin. And Jesus dies on the cross to redeem all people of all sin. He is the perfect and worthy sacrifice. His own chosen people condemned him, and his own chosen people are saved by His grace. Throughout "The Passion" Jesus' message of loving your neighbor as yourself is implemented and near the end he speaks some of the most famous words of all time, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."
King Herod's share of the film is definitely interesting. And Gibson's vision of Satan is chilling and intriguing, and not always easy to figure out... as is much of the symbolism in "The Passion." Another aspect of this film, which I really liked, was how women were represented as the most loyal in aiding Jesus during His last hours.
Some have felt that the movie was not complete enough, only delving into Jesus last hours, rather than visiting his ministry. However, due to flashbacks, Jesus' teachings and experiences are shown with reasonable depth. Even to one unfamiliar with bible, the story is fairly clear, but despite this, Gibson's task was to illustrate the tremendous sacrifice Jesus made. That was the theme of the film. At about two hours and ten minutes, it surprises me that people believe Gibson neglected too much.
It puzzles me how people who understand art are so quick to defend its candid expression against people who misunderstand it but are not ready to do that with a movie like this. Because "The Passion" has the potential to be misinterpreted, they say it shouldn't be shown. But other movies that they praise so highly are usually the ones that are the most shocking and confusing, most complex. But you make a movie about Jesus that is just like this, and it is in ill taste.
Obviously, for a Christian, "The Passion" is going to have a more personal effect but even so, I would hope all reasonable people will see the film for what it is, and not for what certain critics want to make it into. It is the filmmakers behind this picture's testimony and to attach claims of hateful intentions on their part is very irresponsible and malicious. As a piece of art it is commendable, and as a Christian effort to show Jesus' promise of hope, love and faith, it is triumphant.
Big Fish (2003)
good catch
Fact and fiction are beautifully blurred as a son tries to reconcile the past of his dying father. Growing up with his father, Edward Bloom's elaborate story telling, his son, Will, is tired of the fantasy and yearning for the truth. One by one, the so-called tall tales of Edward's life come to life in a dazzling and often strange portrait created by the amazingly imaginative director, Tim Burton. Will tries to uncover the facts behind the myths, and in the process discovers that perhaps the similarities between the facts and myths are what is important, not necessarily the differences.
While aesthetically pleasing and emotionally touching (as well as surprisingly funny), Burton does not compromise originality or honesty. I applaud Burton for his invigorating insight into the human spirit and for his stimulating, novel depiction of age-old subject matter. From "Fish's" specific ideas of the power of legend and immortality to its broader ideas of human relationships and understanding, it is a masterful accomplishment with alluring mystique!
And with awe-striking cinematography, flawless effects, an absolutely spectacular cast (which I'm sorry to say, I have not stressed enough), and one of my favorite composers (Danny Elfman - who has teamed up with Burton before) -- this "Fish" was certainly not destined to sink.
There are a few qualms. Although I adored Elfman's score, I thought the music could have backed off a little, and perhaps some of the events (script wise) could have actually been done with a tad bit more originality and congruency.
Though seemingly unusual, even the unaware audience members will find themselves relating to "Big Fish."
Do not dwell upon how reality is different than fiction; on the contrary celebrate how fiction is a reflection of reality. I don't think anybody could have said it better than Picasso: "Everything you can imagine is real."