il Giardino Romantico

Without the slightest knowledge of the historical background to the Tudor era, one could easily be satisfied by this extremely difficult production.  Yet, having steeped myself in the history of this particular era, and after having perused the novel upon which the film was based, the film adaptation has aroused a mixture of extreme feelings towards it.  I love it, and I despise it, both at the same time.


As merely a movie, the plot is flat and has no unity of time and character.  It jumps from being speedy and rash, then slows down at incoherent timings.  One must sympathize with the filmmakers, however, since the movie is overreaching.  Like Anne Boleyn, it attempts to achieve something that is seemingly impossible.  Years and years of character development and full listings of crucial social and political changes are packed into this microscopic two-hour film.  Phillipa Gregory, author of The Other Boleyn Girl, had an advantage, for there is no limit to how long a novel must be.  Thus she could easily fit anything into the book and ramble on for as long as she wishes to.  The incoherence of time is the one most devastating flaw of this film.

Excalibur is the epitome of all films adapted from the legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.  The reason for this is first and foremost because it is a film adaptation of the notable fifteenth century Le Morte d’Artur by Sir Thomas Malroy. Other reasons for deeming this adaptation as a top-notch King Arthur movie include the impeccable cast, the perfect choice of music, and the fact that the essence of all different versions of Arthur legends are plausibly packed into one.


The film begins by depicting the climax and soon-to-follow downfall of Arthur’s father, Uthur.  Merlin, who assisted Uthur in fulfilling his lustful desire with magic, claims Arthur and puts him under the care of Sir Ector after Uthur dies.  Before his death, Uthur casts Excalibur, the sword bestowed to him by the Lady in the Lake, into a stone, proclaiming that whoever can pull the sword out from the stone, will be King.  Years later, Sir Ector and his son Kay come to a jousting tournament with their squire, Arthur.  While Kay prepares for his turn, Arthur runs to get his sword for him.  Believing that it had been stolen, he decides to pull the sword out from the stone near the campgrounds, without realizing the significance of his action.

The motivation for the production of this film is least comprehensible.  Every Queen in history had their magnificent and glorious legends to share.  Queen Elizabeth is the best example of a glorious and victorious queen in European history.  Even the story of our magnificent Dowager Empress, Tsu-hsi, left her Chinese descendants extraordinary tales and legends.  When it comes to Marie Antoinette, most of us can only recall her notorious reply to the problem of her people not having enough bread: 'Let them eat cake.'  Indeed, what kind of queen would jeopardize her own credibility and image to her people by making such a witless reply?


The film set out to justify her apathy towards politics and her people by blaming it on the pressure that was force upon her to bear a child to secure the political status of her Austrian royalties.  It would be imprudent to forgive her after the viewing of this film.  Quite on the contrary, it would be quite logical to find yourself despising her even more than ever.


Despite the anti-monarch cabalistic ideas that one may hold, one might still find the story of these royalties fascinating due to their contributions to the people or their kingdom.  Even the stories of tyrants can be found intriguing because of their long-term contribution to history and their respective culture.  Marie Antoinette, however, made no contribution to her people whatsoever.  One simply cannot put themselves in the position of respecting such a futile queen.

Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter has horrified the theaters once again with their brilliant performance.  Under the direction of Tim Burton, this has become yet another grotesquely dark, yet ever-so entertaining blockbuster.  The cast is simply impeccable.  Each one of them, even the less experienced ones, fit into their roles so perfectly as if they were especially 'tailored' for this one film.  Although I had anticipated some singing, I did not realize it was a musical before walking into the theater.  However, it was quite enjoyable, for I would rather listen to actors sing than watch singers attempting to act.


The plot is repulsively morbid.  It is gruesomely violent, but fortunately, justice still prevails.  Or does it?  The never-ending battle of good versus evil is an overt theme.  Revenge poisons the mind, heart, and soul of an innocent man who had been punished for some deed he did not commit.  Evil walks about freely, unconfined.  Contaminated by his vengeful determination, the man becomes insane and, eventually, a bloodless murderer.


Who is evil?  The woman who knowingly keeps the truth to herself so as to keep the man of her dreams to herself?  Or the judge who abuses his power to fulfill his own lascivious desire?  What about the judge's henchmen who is also the accomplice to all his no-so-justful deeds?  Indeed, they all are.  We all are.  Fortunately, there exists some good.  And all that is evil falls in the end.

It was not meant to be filmed.  Yet the producers could not resist the temptation since the prequel brought in so much profit.  Whatever the motive might be, as long as it does not affect the final product, they may be exempt from any sort of accusation.


Helen Mirren and Ed Harris joins the original cast, Nicholas Cage, Diane Kruger, Justin Bartha, and Jon Voight in this sequel to the blockbuster film National Treasure.  Replete with esoteric knowledge and conspiracy theories, the film once again succeeds in fabricating these details into one large fiction.  Without any rudimentary knowledge in these areas, one might easily dismiss everything in the film as the result of some very creative imagination.


What is the intention of this Walt Disney production?  Is this just another money sucking entertainment, just as the Pirate of the Caribbean franchise had been?  Or is there a deeper meaning to this?  Being one of the world's largest entertainment enterprises, Disney, no doubt, has its sources for secrets of all ilk.  If this assumption is, indeed, true, then one might ask: why share it with the world?  And why now?  The answer is not elusive for those who have already done their own research in the esoteric realm.  The circle of the realm is widening.  With Internet access so ready at hand, even the average Joe could easily find information that the local library does not offer.  If Disney continues to keep everything a secret and continue to make films about pretty-faced princesses and meaningless children's animations or romance movies, they would soon be out of business.

Elizabeth: the Golden Age did not exceed the satisfaction I had initially anticipated.  However, that is merely due to the fact that its prequel had reach a level of satisfaction beyond belief.  It is, nonetheless, an adequately well researched and organized film.  Despite the distortion of some minor details, which is inevitable for all movies of such type, the major historical figures and events remain intact.  It was well researched in the historical aspect and the casting only increased its quality.

Cate Blanchett [Queen Elizabeth] has already proved to the cinematic world how she is capable of reviving this legendary queen. Her elegance, distinct beauty, dignity, but also her uncertainty, pressure obtained, and longing for an innocent life that she is doomed to never again live, are all accurately portrayed by this versatile, award-nominated actress.

Playing alongside Blanchett is Clive Owen as Sir Walter Raleigh.  I would have condemned the movie if they had turned Raleigh into one of Q Elizabeth’s romantic trophy.  Fortunately, Owen proves himself capable of fitting right into the role.  Whatever there is left to say should be directed towards the filmmakers.

For those who may have thought the scene interesting, according to actually historical accounts, Raleigh did introduce potato and tobacco from the New World into the continent.  He did name the land he had found ‘Virginia’.  He had been imprisoned a couple of times under different charges, one of them being secretly marrying her majesty’s ladies-in-waiting.  However, Owen’s Raleigh did not portray what historical records claim Raleigh to be.  He was said to have a violent temper and that he is always extravagantly dressed.  In the film, we are being led to believe that he is somewhat of a romantic idealist, offering philosophical advice to the Queen, and not once was he shown to have his temper erupt like a volcano.  From his style of fashion, he also seemed to be more of a vagabond Bohemian style dresser, completely opposite of what history says about him.

Reading the trilogy, before watching the movie adaptation, was the right move.  During the reading, I knew that this was going to be a movie the general public would find hard to appreciate.  I was right.  I overheard people saying how mediocre the movie was, and that they were definitely NOT going to watch the sequel.  Was it that bad?


Well, considering the fact that this movie is the essential doorway to its sequels, it obviously had to meticulously include everything that would allow the audience to comprehend the plot, all the way to the third movie.  It is extremely difficult because the problem this trilogy faced, was the fact that the books had not been around for too long.  Not many have heard of the trilogy before they came across the trailers, including me.  It is dangerous to adapt a contemporary literature of this caliber into a movie.  The timing is wrong.  If the audience did not like the movie, they would never give the trilogy a chance.