Ironclad

The Magna Carta is an important document. This is pretty much all that we learn and retain from our middle and high school years. But why was it important? This is something that movies, books, and TV shows rarely go into. Ironclad is one of the exceptions to this rule.

In Ironclad, we learn that the Magna Carta was a document signed by the dastardly King John of England, of Robin Hood fame. In it, he made official the rule that kings, while still retaining immense power, could not exercise arbitrary power over their subjects. You couldn't get taxed for shits and giggles. You couldn't be ordered to run a lap around Great Britain just because the king woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Instead, it was made clear that the king's duty was to uphold the law of the land; you could be punished or controlled only insofar as you broke the rules. Granted, this still allowed a great deal of leeway, but it reduced the legitimacy and likelihood of petulant rulers exerting dictator-like power without justification.

.

Ironclad begins by showing us King John signing the Magna Carta under duress. King John's a rotten bastard, so the only way the barons of England can get him to sign the document is by holding him at swordpoint. After this, the barons renew their oaths of fealty and loyalty to the crown. Being a freaking nutcase, King John waits until everyone leaves him alone and goes back to their castles. Then he brings in an army of Danish mercenaries, tells everyone that the Magna Carta was a meaningless paper only good for wiping his ass with, and then goes positively berserk all over the countryside.

.

Pictured: King John losing his shit

Specifically, Ironclad shows us the siege of the castle Rochester, a strategic lynchpin that commands the southwest part of England. We follow a member of the Knights Templar, Thomas Marshall, basically a supremely badass knight of the cross who fights against King John in order to secure the rights granted to men through God. Swiftly realizing that castle Rochester must be held from King John at all costs until French reinforcements arrive, Marshall gathers a highly bizarre and eclectic mix of crazy medieval bastards who gleefully spend the entire movie killing hundreds of King's John army as they slowly seize the fortress. Think Kingdom of Heaven meets The Alamo meets Seven Samurai, and you'll have a pretty good idea of what this movie has to offer.

.

Dramatis Personae

For a movie I randomly discovered on Netflix, Ironclad has a LOT of recognizable actors in it. James Purefoy (the Knight Templar) was Mark Antony in HBO's Rome. Paul Giamatti is King John. Brian Cox is the head baron. Charles Dance (Game of Thrones' Tywin Lannister) is a sympathetic archbishop. Derek Jacobi (Gladiator, Underworld: Evolution) is lord of castle Rochester. And more! It made me quite surprised that I'd never heard of this movie prior, and that I'd never seen a trailer of it before.

An amusing, and perhaps disappointing, facet of the film, though, is that the cast doesn't really need to act that much. This is an action movie first and foremost; most of Ironclad is essentially a drawn out siege battle that serves to show off a gigantic and realistic medieval warfare reenactment. But, in a sense, it works out perfectly. The incredible choreography and authenticity of the gritty combat takes up half the film, allowing the quieter moments to be dominated by the talented actors everywhere. But, really, we know the truth. You just know that they all accepted the roles so that they could dress up in chainmail and whack at each other with stunt swords.

.

Knight, Outlaws, and Monarch

What about the characters? Thomas Marshall, Knight Templar, is convincingly aggressive and withdrawn. This is not somebody you want to run into in some alleyway. His devotion to the philosophy of the Knight Templar is clearly defined and is shown to give him immense drive. This is part of what makes one of his character developments so funny. See, the lady of the castle is married to a man who is far older than her; she hasn't gotten laid for quite some time. Thus, the moment the Knight Templar arrives, she is constantly after him, despite clear indications from Marshall that it would interfere with his focus if he forswore his vows. Nonetheless, she just does not lay off. Consequently, a good part of the movie is this sideplot that involves her trying really hard to get in his pants. There's even a scene where he lets her touch his sword despite his obvious reluctance. Freudian subtext much? Needless to say, this is one part of the movie which kind of failed to engage me seriously. It was just too hilarious to watch and, after a while, you actually start feeling sorry for the Knight Templar. It was that bad!

Aside from that, the rest of Marshall's merry band of killers is such a silly mix of nutjobs that they're always entertaining to watch. You've got the horny stealthy psycho guy. You've got the fat guy who apparently spends all of his time laughing madly while he kills people. You've got the Legolas stand-in. A couple others. Then there's the squire kid. Seriously, where'd they get this guy? He looks like Elijah Wood's clone. Anyways, he spends most of the movie as the intellectual college guy out of his depth; he quotes Latin and provides a firm defense of why they should be fighting for the Magna Carta and what it is while simultaneously being the combat newbie and nearly getting himself killed a lot. But, in his defense, he never comes off as annoying. And he undeniably serves as the heart of the team. Go Frodo.

Finally there's the big players. Brian Cox's Baron Albany is great, though holy shit; I've never seen a more gruesome death in any movie ever. Derek Jacobi is suitably lordly. Paul Giamatti's King John, however... He's in a league of his own. Paul Giamatti manages to make us feel for the King while simultaneously loathing him. His outburst of a monologue on the absolute power of kings was epic. Loving the role, Paul Giamatti decides to play King John as if he must have a CRAZY temper tantrum every ten minutes or else someone has to die (and does!). It's priceless, stunning to watch, and worth the price of admission alone.

.

Conclusion

All in all, Ironclad was awesome. But let me clarify something: my tone throughout this review, while humorous, should not be taken to mean that this movie is some comedic medieval satire. By contrast, this movie is gory as all hell, ridiculously dark at times, and is one of those war films where just about everyone is dead by the end of it. You can guess that by watching a trailer and reading a plot summary, so that's no huge spoiler. They hold castle Rochester at all costs, creating a Dark Ages bloodbath worthy of Kill Bill.

This is a guy movie through and through. If any of this appeals to you, go for it. And, though the Magna Carta is a highly important plot point within Ironclad, don't expect this to be an effective history lesson on it. It just isn't that kind of movie. What it is is an old-fashioned brutal fight with a purpose, reminiscent of Braveheart, Gladiator, and more.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Once upon a time, there was a game called The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. Based upon some fantasy books I'd never heard of, Morrowind offered my younger self hours of exploration, surprise, and entertainment. It's hard to overstate how much I look back fondly on that game. Morrowind offered a unique world full of things I've never seen before. Gigantic mushroom trees, flowing volcanoes, flora and fauna beyond count... This game was a mixture of weird and absolutely real. What impressed me most of all, though, were all of the things you could do. You didn't have to explore the myriad caves, dungeons, temples, and forgotten ruins of the world; you could choose whether you wanted to help the Mage's Guild, the thieves, the different noble Houses of the land, random strangers needing help, or more. What's more, the game was steeped with an immense history that added weight and wonder to everything you did. Hundreds of books, rare and common, were scattered throughout the land for you to read and collect as you desired. The primary quest involved a foe whose story was steeped in the mythology of the world itself. You, yourself, were the central part of a prophecy referenced by important characters, lore, and architecture within the game. Everything in the game contributed powerfully to the sense that the entirety of the world was yours to explore, control, and experience.

.

After countless hours with Morrowind, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion came along. And, sadly, Oblivion was more disappointing. While it continued the trend of giving you a massive landscape to play around with, its tone was more bland. Where Morrowind had such bizarre structures as buildings made out of the backs of giant crabs, Oblivion took a more stereotypical tack with the goal of reaching a broader audience. We were introduced to a more generic fantasy setting with horses, stone houses, elven armor, forests, and more. It didn't feel as original and, what's more, the dialogue, background story, and quests were dumbed down. Our character, instead of being involved in some dense epic where the good and bad sides aren't exactly clear, goes through a painfully simple save-the-world quest without ambiguity. Everything felt less. Oblivion still was a serviceable game; it just didn't feel all that special.

Then The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim arrived.

.

Sojourn to the Icy North

Do you remember that first moment reading about the Wall in A Game of Thrones? Do you remember seeing the immensity of it for the very first time in the TV series, manned by tiny Night's Watch figures small as ants, looming over a frozen wilderness? Now imagine that first moment as a child when you discovered the wonder of snow. Remember it falling on your open palm? Remember feeling the small surge of cold water against your tongue as you opened your mouth to the whiteness of the sky?

Skyrim seizes on these feelings and holds you spellbound. On one side, you have the forbidding awe that comes from traveling and exploring a land that you have never truly seen and do not fully understand. On the other, you have that sense of fascination and glee that is both new and familiar. You get the sense that this game, vast and dangerous as it is, is full of such surprising things that you can (and probably will) spend days inside of it. You'll keep on searching every nook and cranny. You'll see the top of a mountain and dare yourself to look out over the world from the peak of it. It's hard to capture into words precisely what it is about Skyrim that keeps you thinking about and coming back to it.

.

From Barrow to Ruin

In terms of the setting, Skyrim brings to the plate a world worthy of Morrowind. It's funny; I look at them as equals, yet Morrowind offered something that Skyrim did not. See, as I mentioned earlier, Morrowind's world was wholly unique. Mushroom forests surrounded a spectral fence enclosing the ruins of an ancient civilization within a dormant volcano. It's hard to make that shit up, and it has next to no bearing on anything I've seen before in a fictional world. By contrast, the setting of Skyrim, while definitely interesting, is clearly based on our idealized notions of ancient Scandinavian tribes and clans. The Nords are a thinly veiled pastiche of the Vikings of the real world. They worship pagan gods. They believe that, upon dying, their spirits will go to a warrior's rest (much like the Valhalla of our Norse mythology). Their weapons, their architecture, their combative spirit... Everything about Skyrim and the people that live within it usher in a memory of Earth's north European medieval past, from the ribald songs of warrior poets to the sharpened iron axes of raids and wars to come.

However, what makes this so engrossing is that, even though Skyrim provides an environment that we have some familiarity with, it is also a fantasy setting and era of history that not many games, movies, books, or TV shows have put much focus on. Even though it isn't unique, we still feel like we have a great deal to discover about it. Thus, even as you can logically predict that the most powerful warrior chieftain will be buried in the back by all of the loot within a Nord barrow, you still feel wonderment and caution when poking around the place.

.

Backstory

One aspect of these games that is important to me (that might not be important to anyone else) is the existence of a strong and deep backstory. The reason why Morrowind was so incredible to me and maintained such lasting power was the fact that, due to the referencing of past events and the expansive histories behind factions and powers, I felt like there was always something more to discover behind it all. Tolkien knew the power of this when he wrote Lord of the Rings; you don't even have to explain precisely what has happened or could happen with events tertiary to the story, you just have to hint that they're there. The easiest way to conceptualize this is to picture a glacier. You get to see and experience the tip of the iceberg. But everything below the surface is what really fires the imagination and makes you yearn for more.

Skyrim does this admirably. With every city you visit, multitudes of quests have you investigate this or that ancient tomb or longstanding disturbance. When exploring the countryside and the mountains, you are able to find crypts and ruins that speak to events that happened there in ages past. Hundreds of books are littered throughout the game and, whether you read them or no, they contribute to the construction of a powerfully thick mythology that makes you feel like you're in a living, breathing, and evolving world.

.

Plots in Parallel

One odd thing about Skyrim, though, is its plot. It isn't bad, by any means; in it you are the prophesied Dragonborn destined to save the world from an armageddon of resurgent dragons. It is the predictable mix of epic tale and power fantasy perfect for a sweeping video game. My confusion arose from the other plot going on.

You begin the game as a man or woman being sent to the executioner's block. On the way, you discover that Skyrim is in the thick of a civil war. On one side, we have the Empire: the ruling administration over the Nords of the land. On the other hand, we have the revolutionaries of Ulfric Stormcloak: a charismatic rebel who thinks that the Nords would do better as an independent nation. You are about to be executed because the Empire thinks that you're associated with the rebels and doesn't know what else to do with you. Yet suddenly, by the powers of deus ex machina, you are inadvertently saved by the attack of the first dragon the world has seen for hundreds of years. You are then set off on your quest of discovering what your relationship is with the dragons of the world.

.

This pretty much sums up the problem. For whatever reason, Skyrim decided to go with two major story arcs and then sideline one without warning. I get the feeling that this wasn't originally the plan. The Civil War plot permeates every city and most every conversation in the world of Skyrim. Though it could have been simplistic and two-dimensional, it is actually fleshed out to the point where it is genuinely difficult to choose between which side to support. The Empire believes that it must bide its time in the short term and concede to the excesses of an outside power, only so that it may wait and muster arms until it can realistically oppose said power. By contrast, the Stormcloaks believe that surrender, even feigned, is a betrayal of the Nordic morality system and way of life. They view the Imperials as interlopers and stand behind their desire to defend their home, even to the death. It's a tricky balance. It boils down to compromises vs absolutes. Secularism vs faith. There is no right answer and, no matter who you side with, you're destined to make some decisions along the way that make you realize that maybe the other side was the better choice.

Yet I have to point out that this dilemma, prevalent as it is, has next to nothing to do with the 'main' plot. It's like the developers looked it over, at a plot spanning the entirety of the game's geography, and was like, “Screw this. We need some dragons!” Granted, dragons are pretty damn awesome, but it's interesting to note that the Dragon plot isn't nearly as multifaceted as the Civil War plot. Your enemy is pretty clear and stereotypically evil in the Dragon plot. The lines are nowhere near as defined in the Civil War. Altogether, the confusing and mixed importance set to the two different plots added a discordant note to an otherwise flawlessly decorated masterpiece. It was akin to reading a fantastic book and then getting dragged out of it because you noticed a particularly nonsensical and glaring typo.

.

Conclusion

I could talk about the gameplay, but I don't get quite so much out of talking about such factors. In brief, Skyrim's gameplay improves upon the excellent examples set by its fellow Elder Scrolls predecessors. My only complaint is that your followers still act retarded and the melee weapon system still makes it feel like you're flailing about wildly most of the time. These are small complaints and nowhere near enough to detract from playing the game, but they are definitely worth noting as areas to improve upon in the inevitable Elder Scrolls VI.

All in all, this is one of the best games I've ever played. Given that this game has received its fair share of love and praise over the past year or so of being out, this probably comes as no surprise. It offers a playing experience with an astonishing amount of depth. It boasts a world that never ceases to amaze. And it offers so much to do within it that it truly boggles the mind.

One Day

I've a weird fascination for romance stories and romantic comedies. I say weird because, as a guy, it isn't considered socially acceptable. Guys are supposed to be nonchalant, perpetually tough, and unwilling to show emotion. To do otherwise would be to fail what is expected of us. I see the draw of that image, just as I simultaneously reject it.

I like romances because they delve into the psychology of people at their most vulnerable. We've all felt the feelings before: lust, infatuation, insecurity, a yearning for more. Through romantic stories we are able to view the complicated nature of how we, as humans, embrace companionship or reject it. Is love real or imagined? Is there such a thing as 'the One', or does life hold many different possible partners, none of which are perfect or ideal? Are people really meant to spend their life with just one person? How does idyllic love measure up against the hard reality of seeing your partner once again leave hair all over the soap in the shower?

I was introduced to One Day through the movie. The movie version, to me, was a horrific superficial mess. I can honestly say that it was one of the most depressing and annoying romantic dramas I've ever seen. It featured a girl meeting a guy. The girl is obsessed with the guy; the guy is a flippant, self-absorbed prick. I spent most of the movie with my jaw hitting the floor, unable to understand what she saw in him. Two thirds of the way through, I turned it off. I just couldn't see anything there. I witnessed a selfish man fall to pieces, a doe-eyed woman following him all the while. I hated it. It was shallow. I was given no reason to care about these people, characters who seemed to be going out of their way to implode without reason, longing after each other without rationale.

Something was missing.

A Better Day

Then my girlfriend read it. Lo and behold, the novel seemed to have redeeming value. She shook it cutely in my face, said that I'd love it, said that I should read it. I was resistant, though, for quite a while. I presented my reasons for hating the characters. I explained why it was stupid for Emma to like Dexter at all. I pointed out how, if the movie was that godawful, how could the book do much better? But my girlfriend's responses threw me for a loop. It seemed like there was more depth, more reason, behind the actions of the characters than I had thought. They (*gasp*) had motivations beyond the surface level.

Really, I should have caved earlier. It seems ridiculously obvious. Of course the book would say more about the characters and the events of the story than the movie ever could. I just hated it so much. Perhaps it was Jim Sturgess. I don't know what it is about that actor, but I always get to a point where I really want to slap him, no matter what movie he's starring in. Alternatively, it could have been the cynical nature of the plot and what happens in it. No matter the reason, I tried it. And, while I can't say I loved every minute of it, reading it was infinitely more rewarding than I had expected it to be.

.

Premise

In brief, what makes One Day unique is its choice of how to tell the story. We can already assume that 'one day' these two, Emma and Dexter, will get together. But, instead of proceeding exactly chronologically like we might expect, David Nicholls only shows us where Emma and Dexter are at on the same day every year. The first chapter starts on July 15^th, 1988. The next chapter is July 15^th, 1989. This continues right up to the end of the novel. Thus every chapter skips an entire year of their lives.

This is both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, this choice allows us to see these two people change over a great deal of time. It allows us to skip over a lot of unimportant details. And it gives us a snapshot of important moments in their lives, allowing us to see their victories, worries, and uncertainties from their early twenties to their forties. On the other hand, there are times where I felt like I had to make a leap of faith. Having a full year happen from one chapter to the next occasionally made it feel like I had missed too much. There are a few times where I was completely floored by how differently one of the characters was acting from one moment to the next. Granted, a lot can obviously happen in a year but, sometimes, it felt like I had no warning that something would occur.

Tortured Souls

But regardless of the premise, what made One Day really engrossing was the characters and what they go through. I feel like it is normal for authors to cultivate characters who are more admirable than the average person, people who we can aspire to become. But, in Dexter and Emma, David Nicholls creates two people that are so flawed, so human, that you pity them. It made me want to strike out and realize my dreams and desires because, for the greater part of the book, these two characters are completely unable to. Even at their happiest, they question whether there should be something better. They think of childhood dreams or the live-life-to-the-fullest philosophy of their college years, look at their present, and find it wanting.

Essentially, this book serves to slam the reader repeatedly with aggravatingly nasty and real existential questions. What happens if you discover that your lifelong passion isn't going to work out? What if the person you're with isn't the one you want? What if you just aren't ready to be a mother or father? What do you do if you continue disappointing your friends or family? What if you are too tempted to do something that you shouldn't? What if who you are is unrecognizable from who you think you should be? The questions go on and on and never relent. What results is a romantic story that is as poignant as it is realistic. It is subject to the caprices and unpredictability of life. And we see the ups and downs of their romance with others and each other, full of heightened passion at one moment and then merely comfortable and content the next.

.

Dexter and Emma

I'm trying to avoid spoilers, but I did want to touch on what makes the characters of Dexter and Emma so interesting to read about.

Dexter is a player. He's self-absorbed, happy-go-lucky, and always at his most charming. Constantly flirtatious, constantly pushing the limits, Dexter is the epitome of the social butterfly. This is a guy who you look at and think, “He must get all the ladies.” He does. He's got a zest for life that everyone wants to be a part of. His sheer confidence is hard not to admire.

However, he is also completely unable to figure out what to do long term. He lives in the moment to such an extent that he's unable to compensate for actual goals. Part of him thinks he shouldn't have to, that such a laissez faire attitude is so encouraged and embraced by society that he should be able to live like that forever. Part of him resents his parents, who believe that Dexter should be able to just decide on a career path and make it happen. Another part of him fears that he just doesn't have what it takes to be as successful in life like everyone else.

Emma, by contrast, models herself on being a productive, intelligent, and active woman in life. She's bookish and well-read. She makes constant references to classic literature and defines herself on her creativity and smarts. She's the woman you look at and think, “She has it all together.” She's capable, funny, self-deprecating, witty, and loving. She has heart and spirit, and the determination to use both, be it in her friendships or in the public sphere.

However, she is also hard on herself to the point of being a mess. Her self-image isn't there, and it's hard for her to think of herself as beautiful. Similarly, though Emma has the vigor for it, she doesn't believe that she is an interesting person. Her standards for herself are so high that she dooms herself to failure. She also lacks the confidence that she needs in order to be more assertive, both professionally and personally. She's shy and, when she fails to live up to where she wants to be, she attacks herself with such fury that she comes off as morose.

Compatible?

One question that I found myself asking continually throughout the novel was whether Emma and Dexter are good for each other. On the surface level, it's like asking if the smart creative quiet girl in the corner is a suitable match for the partyer prom king popular guy. It's a simplification but, just looking at the two, it's hard to pick out what they see in each other.

But, when you delve in further, there's more to it. I found myself thinking of two puzzle pieces. As mentioned just before, Dexter yearns for a solidity and responsibility that he can never seem to reach. Emma craves confidence, the freedom to recognize that she's beautiful, and a desire to be able to let go and have fun. In a sense, they fit together perfectly. Dexter is able to give Emma the release and wild adventure that she wants, just as Emma is able to give Dexter the focus and drive that he needs to succeed. Perhaps it is as simple as that. Opposites attract and, by offering one something that the other doesn't have, they complete each other.

Yet the novel doesn't leave it at that. It is one of the strengths of the book that it offers such depth and analysis of the characters and their relationship; we are never able to walk away and definitively say that, “Yes! Of course they're perfect together!” Though Dexter and Emma seem to complement each other well, they also aggravate the shit out of each other. Dexter lacks the drive to stay on top of current events or act responsibly, which Emma can't stand. On the flip side, Dexter is continually frustrated by Emma's inability to act with spontaneity or impulse. It teases at the quintessential relationship question: is it better to be with someone like you or somebody completely unique from you?

.

Conclusion

It's hard to say that I loved One Day. A good deal of it is goddamn depressing; it hits on the existential life questions with such bluntness and frequency that it's hard not to lash out at it and turn on a Disney movie. I self identify as someone who is passionately optimistic about life, and this book is written by someone who just isn't on that level. Yet that is not to say that it is all a downer. The chemistry and banter between Emma and Dexter is often invigorating and exciting. Similarly, though the ending is bittersweet, it does express hope for the future. Finally, I naturally was very much absorbed in the questions raised about the psychology of people in relationships and how relationships work. The teasing, the touch and go, the expectations and frustrations... This novel is extremely effective at nailing just about every phase of infatuation, love, break-up, and more. It is not the type of book that is about riding off together in the sunset, but it still captures enough sweetness about how we love each other for me to appreciate it for what it is. A story of two people, how their lives become embroiled together, and what happens when they dare to try their hand at loving each other. For that, it is worth the read.

The War of Wars: The Great European Conflict

In movies, there has always been an enormous passion for period pieces. Pride and Prejudice. Elizabeth. The Count of Monte Cristo. Gone With the Wind. The Great Gatsby. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. What all of these films have in common is a romantic recreation of the past and what it was like to live in them. Yes, most of these movies don't shy away from some points where we see how nasty it could be to be around in these periods but, without exception, we are asked to follow characters who are most able to enjoy their surroundings and the benefits of their time. In Elizabeth, we witness the travails of a princess who will become queen. In Master and Commander, we follow the friendship between a distinguished ship's captain and a skilled doctor. In Pride and Prejudice, we watch an upper class girl try to avoid arranged marriage in order to marry a man that she can respect and love. First world problems much?

The point is that we have a fascination with the past, one that is particularly focused the people with the most freedom in their respective eras. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. But, as a whole, we love reading stories of those who have the immediate power to change their surroundings. We are fascinated with times foreign yet familiar to our own, awestruck that these periods once existed. This isn't fiction; it's real. And, while we may focus on the stories of characters and events that are fictional within these eras, it does not take away from the truth that these dramas could have happened, and that the settings were once vivid reality.

.

The Meteoric Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte

Though I'm here reviewing a book and not a movie, that introduction is perfect for describing the tone and power of The War of Wars: The Great European Conflict 1793-1815. This book is a history, a grand drama of a twelve year war, a massive tome capable of knocking out any nearby housecat. It's about an era that, for some reason, we never really see in movies. Whenever I've shown this book to people asking about what I'm reading, the result is immediate disinterest and surprise that anyone would read such a gargantuan book about a long past conflict. And yet, despite all of these negative factors, I'm here to tell you one thing:

This book fucking rocks.

The War of Wars imbues its time period with vigorous life. Have you ever wondered how it feels to be a frigate captain at sea? This book is filled with the grandeur of a life in the navy, storming the crests of high waves in pursuit of the enemy. Have you ever wondered what it's like to be a diplomat in Paris? There's so much political intrigue and shenanigans in this book that it is beyond compare. At every stage, we are given a retelling of events from the French Revolution to Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, from the cat-and-mouse naval chases of the Caribbean to the epic battle of Waterloo; all fully factual, all possessed with a page-turning narrative worthy of an award-winning novel. After reading this book, I was frankly astonished that I've never seen a movie about the Napoleonic Wars before. How have filmmakers missed this? This era is filled with such drama, heroism, and conflict that it's preposterous that it has not yet been immortalized in modern film.

.

Dynamic Personalities

But if there's one thing that makes this book great, it is the way the author brings the personalities of the various figures into life. As hinted in my introduction, this book focuses primarily on the statesmen, commanders, and leaders of the period. Yet, despite a vast cast of characters stretched across dozens of years, I never got lost. Just about every man and woman is memorable. What's more, we are given a balanced view of them. It is very easy for historians to get caught up in the near-mythic brilliance of Napoleon, but Robert Harvey manages to hit both his highs and his lows. We are able to appreciate Napoleon's genius intensity, his quest for recognition, and determination to succeed. Yet we are similarly able to witness his lack of self-control and uncontrollable megalomania. Through this we get a multifaceted perspective of Napoleon and many, many other 'great people' besides. Even with those that the author obviously admires (such as Pitt the Younger and Thomas Cochrane), we are shown their failings, petulance, insecurities, and more. This serves to create an incredibly deep and interesting cast of characters, unforgettable figures set amidst the dramatic backdrop of Europe's first truly global war.

.

Critique

The first thing one should know going into this, though, is that it is a general history meant to be enjoyed by those who aren't fussy professors. Essentially, it is (in my opinion) a well-balanced story of the Napoleonic War brought to life but, if you're seeking more specifics about this or that conflict, then it's best to look for a more focused book. You'll get a superb overview of every single stage of the war here, but you might come away wanting more. Perhaps the best way to put it is that this is a great introduction to the Napoleonic War for anyone who hasn't read of it before, a Napoleonic War 101 course, if you will. For me, that was perfect. But for anyone looking for a deep exploration of this or that battle or conflict, it might be best to look elsewhere.

Aside from that, I'd point out that some of the land battles and naval engagements were kind of hard to follow. But, really, this is totally my own fault. There are a great deal of detailed maps at the beginning of the book and, sloth that I am, I found myself far too lazy to flip back to the front in order to visualize what I was reading on the page. Regardless, I never felt completely lost.

My last critique is that, like I pointed out at the beginning, this history falls into the period piece trap of focusing largely on the 'big' 'important' upper class figures of the time. Unlike, say, the histories of Max Hastings, we only occasionally get the perspective of the average citizen or soldier of the time. This may damage its credibility as a truly effective history. But I can honestly say that I just didn't care. I was having too much fun. And at no time in this book did I feel like I was wasting my time or getting too incomplete of a picture.

.

Conclusion

Thus it is that, in order to shower praise upon a history with an exciting and sweeping narrative that is perhaps a tad light on substance, I've created a review that only sings lustrous praises and calls attention to dazzling adventures. I didn't call much attention to the specific figures, I didn't really talk about the incredible events, I didn't assess the immensely interesting effect the Napoleonic War had on the world, ramifications that we still feel to this very day. Perhaps I'll have to write a follow-up to do that.

But for now just be assured that, if you've ever had any passing interest in learning about this era of history, this is the book to start your journey with. I can't emphasize enough how excited this book makes me about teaching history and calling attention to the spectacular events that have happened in the past. And that's worth sharing.

Rock of Ages

Rock of Ages is a movie that takes all those songs you heard in the 80's and makes a musical out of them.

That's pretty much it.

.

.

.

Oh, you're still here? Okay!

.

Criticism

Rock of Ages was alright. Theoretically, one could get excited about the prospect of a variety of famed movie actors taking the stage and bellowing forth golden oldies. Awesome actors plus awesome songs? What can go wrong! The problem is that this sounds better on paper than it does in reality. Just like communism.

In Rock of Ages, the plot is loosely tied around an ensemble cast of characters. Primary among these are two young lovebirds with utterly forgettable names played by Julianna Hough and Diego Boneta. And then there's Tom Cruise's rock legend, Stacee Jax. Aside from these main three, we have the two owners of a nightclub (played by Alec Baldwin and Russell Brand) going through trouble keeping it open. We have Malin Akerman's Rolling Stone reporter who interviews Jax. We've Catherine Zeta-Jones' religious conservative protesting the rock prevalent throughout the movie. And some other people who I really don't care to talk about.

The fact of the matter is that the story is almost completely irrelevant and nobody cares. Part of this is that this is intended as a loosely wrapped cinematic spectacle and homage to 80's brilliance. That goal is fine. The other part of this is that, by and large, the acting and how the songs are presented are just not as epic or interesting as one would hope for.

.

They Didn't Hit Us With Their Best Shot

Overall, this is a case of young actors being completely overshadowed by the older. Diego Boneta is completely uninteresting; his singing just isn't memorable. Julianne Hough is certainly attractive, but I just couldn't get over her voice. Imagine a kitten on helium being forced to sing. It's impossible, but it effectively portrays how aggravating her singing can get. Further adding to the flames of indifference is the fact that their story arc is almost completely bland. Young girl moves to the city, falls in love, they briefly separate due to some incredibly stupid misunderstanding, then fall in love again. Augh! It isn't well written, it's cheesy, and it is beyond rescue. Most of the songs I didn't like fall into their hands and made it even more difficult for me to appreciate the film as a whole.

By contrast, the older actors are far more entertaining. We don't really care about their respective stories, but they're a riot. Although I had immense foreboding over Tom Cruise portraying a rock star, his scenes tend to be the most amusing to watch. This is a level of deranged ridiculousness that made me think of Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean. All of the other older actors get really into it as well. But the problem is that, with rare exceptions, these people just aren't singers. We look to musicals to provide interesting and new twists and takes on songs, or to create entirely ones. I came out of this with zero desire to buy the soundtrack.

It doesn't help that the direction of the film just isn't there. I say that because surely there was some better way to make these classic oldies more exciting to watch. Instead, it seems we're barraged with one after another, as if they believed that causing some sort of 80's mental meltdown would translate into greatness. On the contrary, there were only two songs that I liked the delivery of (“Harden My Heart” and “I Want to Know What Love Is”). Everything else was simply okay. What was it? The choreography? The singers? The threadbare plot? IT JUST ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

.

Conclusion

Now, I won't say that this was an awful movie. I watched it to the end and thought it was alright. But it isn't what you are expecting and what you want. The magic just isn't quite there. The older actors give it their best and are pretty entertaining. But not enough to make this anything more than a passable and forgettable dip into the sea of what makes 80's songs so damn fun to sing at karaoke.

The Best and Worst Break up Films

by DionysusPsyche

The Best

1. 500 Days of Summer
   This is one of the films where having an anonymous voiceover doesn't feel out of place. Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer (Zoey Deschanel) have different ideas about love and dating, but when Summer breaks Tom's heart, he relives the past year in an attempt and find out what went wrong.
   
   Why it's Great
   The film does an excellent job of not making either character "the bad guy." It shows you that both these people are awesome, and their chemistry is just alive. The film is fun, and even when it's sad, it's still really good.
2. Forgetting Sarah Marshall
   Peter (Jason Segel) tries to put his past girlfriend (whom he works with) behind him by going on vacation. Unfortunately, Sarah (Kristin Bell) has picked the same location.
   
   Why it's Great
   Everyone sooner or later has to deal with seeing their ex with someone else, but sometimes it feels like when we try to escape them the most is when we're forced to resolve the person we thought was The One. The often vulgar humor clashing with Pete's morose mood and frequent crying is amusing, but Jason Segel's character being a composer makes it even better, because it makes us remember how awesome we are. Pete gets to put his dream at the forefront, which helps us say goodbye to all the Sarah Marshalls that don't deserve us.
3. High Fidelity
   Based on the book by Nick Hornby, this is John Cusack as his best as Rob Gordon who goes back through all the lists of women (like he would any album) that he's loved and how they've broken his heart.
   
   Why it's Great
   This is the mother of all break up films, which dissects each major relationship resolving why Rob shouldn't get back together with any of them, and how it's actually his fault that he screwed up the only one that could have worked. Plus, Rob yells at his ex, "Charlie! You fucking bitch! Let's work out." A sentiment that I'm sure a few of us are familiar with.
4. Better Off Dead
   Lane Myers (yes, Cusack again) decides to kill himself after his girlfriend, Beth (Amanda Wyss), breaks up with him for stereotypical jerky jock.
   
   Why it's Great
   It shows teenagers lamenting their love lives in prototypical dramatic fashion of saying that life just isn't worth it unless you're with the girl you're obsessing about. The under appreciated actor that plays Booger from Revenge of the Nerds is in it. There are competitive racing scenes. Ridiculously awesome and weird one-liners. Take your pick.
5. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
   Joel (Jim Carrey) goes to a specialty brain surgery clinic where he undergoes a procedure to wipe his girlfriend from his mind.
   
   Why it's Great
   My favorite role for Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet, this tells a story in reverse. Erasing the person you love from your mind is a pretty nifty way to get rid of them...until you decide that maybe it was the heat of the anger and you love them, even if you're not together.

The Worst

1. Closer
   Based on a play, this film uncovers the depressing double life of cheating and examining whether or not the person you're with actually loves you.
   
   Why it Sucks
   This film actually might make you feel better about your relationship. It's an interesting story, but it really brings out the worst in human beings which is not what you need right now, especially since you're already probably doubting the past.
2. The Break-Up
   In order to keep their apartment, a couple's (Jennifer Anniston and Vince Vaughn) break up gets worse and worse.
   
   Why it Sucks
   This film pretended to be a comedy so audiences would want to watch us. Yet, it shows us everything we hate about break-ups and then some weird unrealistic terrible additional things this couple does to each other.
3. The Shape of Things
   Quiet, nerdy Adam (Paul Rudd) is entranced by art student with big ideas, Evelyn (Rachel Weisz). Yet their bizarre relationship threatens Adam's friendships with his best friends.
   
   Why it Sucks
   While at times boring and weird, this film actually does not suck. Still, you shouldn't watch it right after a break up. It makes you go back and re-examine your old relationships in a way you should only do long after you've distanced yourself from them.
4. SwingersI have never liked this movie. It magnifies everything I hate about the single life, the single person mentality (especially in the '90's), and the vulnerability that one goes through.
5. Now You Know
   This is about the calling off of an engagement. However, this film is extremely pessimistic about relationships and marriage in general. It was the first film I tried to watch after a break up, and I still can't go back and watch it. It's also not a very good movie.

Hachi: A Dog's Tale (2009)

by DionysusPsyche

Based on a true story, Hachi is a puppy who finds Professor Parker Wilson (Richard Gere) at a train station on his way home. Parker is determined to find the owner, then to find the dog a home, but ends up falling in love with him and forging a bond that can only exist between humans and dogs.

Initially, I had read this book in the children's section of the library, so learning it had been turned into a movie adaptation was a treat. Some of the things that attracted me to this story are that Hachi is played by a real dog, one that doesn't talk animatronically, and isn't surrounded by some ludicrous story about a dog's adventures. The film is primarily seen from Hachi's eyes, and when it does is tells the story of true loyalty, love beyond comprehension, and how we should never, ever forget someone we have lost even as the years go by.

The message is good, although as a pet owner, I have qualms with some of the technicalities of the film. Spoilers beyond this point.

Grievances and Errors: Responsibility
The film was clearly intended for children audiences, and I realize that this is not a tutorial to owning a dog, but the person who wrote the screenplay for this was misinformed.

Although we see Parker working with Hachi and their friendship is strong, people should not have their pets off leash in public places with or without training. It is dangerous to both the dog and other people. What if the dog gets hit by a car? Attacks someone or a cat or child? Gets issued a fine for not showing tags of vaccinations? No one seems overly paranoid that Hachi could meet someone frightened of big dogs or that the Humane Society would see a stray dog and snatch him up or that Hachi would be adopted by someone else. "Oh, it's just Hachi. He knows exactly what he's doing." Um, what?

Hachi is mainly an outside dog in the film, which bothers me on a personal level, but what bothers me more is the fact that they live in the Bay Area in California and seem to get a TON of snow. I kept forgetting they lived there, because of all the snow they got. Now, Hachi is a dog made for cold weather, but if weather is getting that extreme, he should be inside when it gets to be too cold or too hot. Yet, when the dog is skunked he is allowed to be inside, which makes NO sense whatsoever.

I've worked with a lot of people in the animal training and veterinary field, and these are big no-no's. It also gives the wrong message to uneducated pet owners or potential ones that owning a dog is easy. Hachi is a large dog who never pees, gets sick, eats (except for his constant hot dog diet) or requires any maintenance other than being adored by his owners. These all play into my next point.

The original story took place in the 20's and 30's, and I was sad that the adaptation was done in present day. I think it would have had more authenticity, and I wouldn't have had the same complaints.


On the bright side, there is a scene where Parker inquires to the Humane Society only to be told that they are full and cannot accept any new additions. This is completely true, and the movie does serve as a more heartfelt and fuzzy message than the commercials done by Sarah McLaughlin. There are a lot of homeless animals, a lot of unaltered dogs and cats that have more litters every year only to find there are not enough humans to go around for them.


Conclusion
Despite my annoyances about the film, it is a family friendly film, so as long as some of the oversights are pointed out to children and adults alike, I see this as a sweet way to spend time with family. As usual, I get paranoid at the idea that humans view pet ownership as a flippant thing and not a real responsibility, but this is probably true of tons of children's movies, and I just haven't seen enough of them recently.