Critique: Minotaur

Theo is one of the youths taken to be given to the minotaur in the labyrinth.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

There were many elements that were clearly thought through really well.

The baby minotaur was done well. It didn’t look like a human with a bovine head mushed together but it looked like one coherent being.

The narrating was perfect. Often narrations in films feel odd and unnecessary but in this film it definitely felt essential.

The minotaur symbol was well-designed. The quality was such that I’d only expect it with a big budget company.

The royals breathe in fumes via a bull skull. That’s such a creative idea.

The king has a nose ring, like a bull. Nice touch.

 

Sometimes there were moments that were puzzling.

Only eight youths from the village were taken. I thought maybe the other youths (to bring it up to twelve boys and girls each, as per legend) would be taken from other villages but no such luck. Realistically, twenty-four characters in the labyrinth together would have been too much.

The princess licks the bottom of the sacrifices’ noses. An odd detail but not problematic. Why wouldn’t a royal have a bizarre foible?

The Minoans hardly wear any clothing. Is this a heat thing? A hedonistic lifestyle thing? A we-need-to-make-some-characters-look-sexy thing?

One child hissed like a snake when aggravated. Why? Who decided that was a good idea?

The pronunciation of ‘minotaur’ is weird in this film. The first bit is said in the American way (minnuh) but the second bit is said in the British way (tor). Either pick the American (minnuh-taar) or British (my-nuh-tor).

The princess wears white clothes yet they turn brown after she goes in the water. The water doesn’t appear dirty enough to do that.

 

Being the star of the production, details about the minotaur were very important to get right. Unfortunately they weren’t.

            The minotaur looks like a bull with a skull head. That’s great. But when it’s born, it’s a human baby with a bull head. How, when and why did the human body become a bull body? If there were some kind of metamorphosis, it should have been at least mentioned.

            There is a lack of size consistency. The most glaring example is when the minotaur dies, appearing much, much smaller in death than it did in life. Maybe what was being animated was Theo’s perception of the minotaur. However, if this were the case, Theo would have to say something like, ‘It’s so much smaller in death’. As there was no acknowledgement of Theo’s perspective, it can’t be assumed.

 

Goodness there were so many problems with this film.

            All the screaming in this film was unrealistic. Whether that’s down to bad acting, bad directed or both I’ll never know.

When Theo’s hit in the bottom of the neck by a blow dart, his hand shoots to the side of his neck… nowhere near the dart’s actual location.

One girl keeps on screaming when she’s put in the labyrinth. She knows the minotaur is there so why do anything to advertise your presence?

The soldiers wore masks with horns. This was a nice idea until you realise the horns were from antelopes, not bovines. (Minotaurs are part-bull which is a male bovine.)

There is a locked door between the palace and the labyrinth. How can that keep the minotaur in the labyrinth? Also, the door’s not guarded, so anyone could come and open the door and let out a homicidal monster.

There are skeletons in the labyrinth. But how could it have stripped bones with those teeth and no hands? Rats, maybe, but considering the whole plot is the minotaur trying to eat the humans, we can safely assume the film makers were indicating the minotaur stripped those humans of flesh.

Instead of running to a hiding place that he knew existed, Danu lets the minotaur get him. Why? It’s clear everyone had time to hide so no distraction (like Danu being caught) was needed.

Gas suddenly appeared everywhere in the labyrinth, exactly when it was needed to attack the minotaur. How convenient!

Theo uses the minotaur’s broken horn to kill it. In this process, he was pressed tightly against the wall by the minotaur. He then pulls the broken horn free of the wound but in reality he wouldn’t have had the room to pull the horn free.

 

This film definitely isn’t one of the greats. There were so many issues that I’m dumbfounded they weren’t noticed. But there were some brilliant, creative ideas that deserve to be celebrated. Hopefully this film served as a stepping stone to better things.

 

Critique: Once

 This film was an interesting experience.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

The filming was jittery and not stable whatsoever, especially at the beginning. Perhaps it was filmed on a home camera? People can only work within their budget so this was more unfortunate than problematic.

 

The characterisation of the female lead character

The main female lead kept on pushing the male lead about the girl he wrote a song for. She only just met him yet she not only wants to get personal but to broach a topic he clearly doesn’t want to speak about? That’s not normal behaviour. Plus she keeps on pushing for him to get back with his ex, even though it’s clearly over. Her behaviour is not believable.

The female lead plays a piano piece for the male lead. It was nothing special yet he makes this big show about being impressed. Either his standards are low or he’s blinded by his desire to bang her.

She’s Czech and she hasn’t picked up an Irish accent in its entirety. That’s fine and linguistically makes sense. Words that are noticeable Irish are ones with ‘th’ that become ‘t’ like in ‘thousand’ and ‘father’. Yet oddly she doesn’t pronounce all her ‘th’ like this (for example, she doesn’t pronounce ‘three’ as ‘tree’). This part doesn’t quite make sense.

 

There were two standout moments.

The female lead says, “Mum, speak English,” and the mother replies, “No, thank you.” That made me howl.

When the male lead puts on a suit, he asks how he looks and the old store manager says (with a straight face) “You look gorgeous.”

 

I only watched this film because my friend was a background character. If me watching this film didn’t make her happy, I would be a bit more peeved I didn’t spend my time doing something else. I think, however, this film would resonate with aspiring musicians and film makers.

 

Critique: Pete’s Dragon (2016 Film)

*****SPOILERS*****

 

There’s nothing I would do to change this film. The acting, animation, speech and plot were all brilliant. It was internally consistent. It’s by no means my favourite film (obviously as an adult I’m not its intended audience) but it is the best film I’ve seen. For me of all people to not want to change or criticise anything is odd in the extreme.

 

The dragon’s shape was interesting. Its snout was shorter and blunter than the typical image of a dragon. The fact that it was furred was so interesting, as opposed to scales. Plus its capacity to camouflage itself like a chameleon, even going invisible, was an interesting aside.

 

At the end you think it’s goodbye for Pete and the dragon but then you see them reuniting when the human family goes to the mountains and the dragon appears with his own family. That was really gratifying.

Critique: Newsies (Film)

This musical was rather interesting. It’s about ‘newsies’ (paper boys) fighting for better pay based on real events in New York. This action is led by Jack and David. This is achieved through protests and the publication of the ‘Newsies Banner’, a paper printed by newsies themselves.

 

There was an abundance of humour that didn’t detract from the seriousness of the plot. A character on crutches complains that there are so many ‘fake cripples’ that the real ones are struggling. Someone can’t count to twenty with their shoes on.

 

Three areas in particular just didn’t work.

David is a classical good boy. Yet he trespasses a lot. It didn’t fit his character.

Jack’s romance seems completely unnecessary to the story. The only positive is that, otherwise, there is a complete lack of female characters in the story. But I don’t think that justifies an unnecessary plot point. Romance can add to a story but only when done correctly, in a way sympathetic to the plot.

One boy throws a bunch of Newsies Banners in the air so they scatter, landing on the floor and looking like litter. This makes for a good shot. But people don’t generally pick stuff up off the floor though, especially if it looks like litter. Thus throwing papers in the air is ineffective for the plot.

 

Four areas were thought provoking.

All the ‘er’ sounds come out as ‘oi’. From a linguistic viewpoint that’s fascinating. I’ve heard it before but I can never find out which New York accent to which it belongs.

Even though it looks like Jack betrays his fellow newsies, Jack agrees to work for the paper to keep the newsies out of jailed. I don’t understand why he doesn’t explain the situation, particularly to David: it’s clear the newsies would understand. Instead Jack just insults David, another action that makes no sense. I’m not criticising this as a plot point because it’s realistic behaviour, but it’s confusing realistic behaviour that I fail to understand.

The ‘Once and For All’ song was very moving. The rest of the soundtrack was mediocre at best yet this song hit the nail on the head. One line in particular stayed with me: ‘This is for the kids who shine shoes without having shoes of their own.’ It’s just so sad that so many people around the world provide a service for others when they can’t afford the thing being serviced.

One protest sign says, ‘We aynt slaves’. Now, I know that it should be spelt ‘ain’t’. however, ‘aynt’ makes a lot more sense grammatically. Apostrophes are either for possession or contraction, neither of which apply to ‘ain’t’. The ‘correct’ spelling of ‘ain’t’ is, in fact, grammatically incorrect.

 

The synopsis didn’t do anything for me but I’d been looking for a new musical to watch for a while. I was pleasantly surprised, even if it didn’t wow me.