lchris9

This modern retelling of Shakespeare's Othello, set in an elite boarding school, has some promising moments but ultimately falls apart.

First of all, the setting and characters of O simply aren't equal to the film's high-minded intent. In the original play, Othello was a general. The Odin of the film is a high school basketball star. In today's society, it may not seem incredible to consider school athletics of earth-shattering importance, but to me it's a bit of a stretch. No one in O has any sense of perspective, the notion that maybe basketball isn't the most important thing in the world. This is made worse by Martin Sheen as the sterotypically fanatical coach. The racial element of O doesn't work either, and I'm sure some black viewers were offended by the ease with which the psychotically envious Hugo fools the naive Odin. To me Hugo seemed like a surly underachiever, not likely to have the intelligence or ambition to pull off such elaborate schemes. Speaking of which, the plot of O is overly complex. The way Hugo plots Odin's downfall is simply too elaborate and makes us aware that the script is trying too hard to fit a model (the original Othello).

Finally, the film collapses completely during the final fifteen mintutes. Apparently, O was delayed due to the events at Columbine. They needn't have worried, as the violence at the conclusion of O is so overblown it seems amateurish. I seriously doubt if this film has the power to motivate real-life violence (at least one thing in its favor). At the very end, Odin gives a speech that sounds like a monologue in a drama class. Then we're subjected to opera in the background and further portentous musings on the part of Hugo.

The characters in Bully are right out of Larry Clarke's earlier film, Kids. They all walk around with blank stares, spend the whole day smoking dope, having casual sex and playing video games. The cast of Bully is all very good at playing these one-dimensional characters, but this only goes so far. I found it impossible to get emotionally involved in the story, as there is no one who is even remotely sympathetic. The "bully" of the movie's title is a sadistic creep who pretty much deserves what he gets; the perpetrators are idiotic almost beyond belief. The parents of the teenagers are stereotypical movie parents, utterly clueless to what their offspring are up to. We may be living in a time of cultural decline, but Bully manages to exaggerate this to the point of absurdity. It's unintentionally (I assume) funny at times, which detracts from the shock value that Clarke seems to be striving for. The camera is constantly seeking the most unflattering poses; these teens seem to walk around dead-eyed with mouths half open all the time. The characters are barely able to speak in complete sentences. Bully is apparently based on a true story. It's a safe assumption that the teenagers who committed the actual crime were not exactly high functioning members of society. However, it's a kind of cop-out to suggest, as Bully does, that they are all drooling morons. It almost takes away any sense that they could be held responsible for their actions. Bully is like watching a live version of Beavis and Butthead, or maybe Southpark. The problem is, it seems intended as serious social commentary.

I happened to catch this 1985 film on cable. I'd never heard of it before, and found only a few reviews for it on the movie review query engine. That's a shame, because this is one of the most original of the swords/knights/princesses genre movies I've seen. Technically, it's not a medieval tale, as it's set in the 16th Century, but with the exception of some innovative period weapons, including an exploding barrel with a long fuse that sometimes goes off at the wrong time, the atmosphere is very much out of the dark ages. While the costumes, scenery and plot (a gang of betrayed soldiers seek revenge and kidnap a princess) are fairly typical, the subtlety of the characters and the moral ambiguity of the story are very atypical of Hollywood films. For one thing, it's very difficult to say who the bad guys are. The gang of kidnappers, led by Rutger Hauer, is churlish and brutal. Yet, they were badly mistreated at the beginning of the movie, so it's hard not to retain some sympathy for them. The princess, played by Jennifer Jason Leigh, is a similarly ambiguous character. She's loved by both Hauer and his enemy (played by Tom Burlinson) and she may or may not love one or both of them in return. Overall, what makes Flesh and Blood original is the fact that it doesn't romanticize the past. Life is portrayed as extremely harsh; people rape, kill and torture with impunity, and the threat of the plague lurks everywhere. It's a good antidote for anyone who, after watching one of the King Arthur movies, wishes they were a sword-wielding knight.