Aladdin vs. Rocketman

Unlike the rest of the world, we have decided not to compare Rocketman to Bohemian Rhapsody. Because literally everyone has already done it. To be perfectly honest, we found Rocketman to be a much better movie than Bohemian Rhapsody because it attempts to use the medium of film to its fullest. If you want true to life, make a documentary. Films are by definition fiction. Both Aladdin and Rocketman are musicals and we find it more enjoyable to compare within a genre. In addition, we went to see Aladdin and Rocketman in the same week.

Aladdin

Pros: The cast had potential, they seemed to have good chemistry. With a better script and direction the cast alone could have made it work. Some of the comedy bits were actually functional. The costume design was eye-catching.

Cons: Musicals are really not Guy Ritchie's forte, or epic storytelling for that matter (see the disaster that is King Arthur). He's much better at the tongue-in-cheek comedy. Talking of musicals, why did it have to be a musical? Repeating something that has already been done is not inspiring. It's exactly the same complaint we have of the Beauty & the Beast remake. The beginning immediately threw us off. There are no character introductions. If you're making a stand-alone film, it doesn't matter if it's a re-telling or based on previously known source material, you need character introductions. You cannot go in with the assumption that the audience already knows these people. It's a cardinal sin in storytelling. That is unforgivably lazy writing/directing. The film is quite cluttered. Pretty much every frame is full of something, even when it needn't be. So your eyes never get a moment of rest and that makes it difficult for you to tell what to focus in on the screen. Oh, and good job making Jafar incredibly boring. The animated Jafar is one of Disney's most enjoyable villains. 

The original narrative theme (of being trapped) wasn't there and they hadn't bothered to replace it with something else. The scene where Aladdin was even more of an asshole than in the animation (the one where he fights with Genie), and then suddenly without any internal or external prompting changes his mind is just lazy. That scene epitomizes the languidness of this film. Furthermore, we're not big on the arrangements of the songs.  A Whole New World in particular was quite dreadful. All in all, the movie's pretty lackluster and unremarkable. And that in itself is a disadvantage. This remake is a basic example of current film trends. Everything needs to be explained and the message must be hammered in, because obviously the audience would never get it otherwise. Why bother using visual means, when you can simply say it?

Rocketman

 Disclaimer: We might be a bit biased, because we fucking love Elton John.



 Pros:  Casting was even better than we imagined. We forgive Bryce Dallas Howard's accent since she at least plays the character convincingly. Storytelling happens mainly through visual means. They have given new meanings to the songs by presenting a different context, hence the songs actually function as musical pieces that further the story or tell you something about the characters. The story's not all over the place, it focuses on the few themes chosen for the movie. We do love an unreliable narrator, which Elton basically is. The costume design is downright divinely inspired. They made surprisingly good and competent arrangements of the songs. 

Visually much more balanced than Aladdin. When the frames were cluttered, that was purposeful to express something storytelling wise. Even when the frame was full, you knew where your focus should be drawn.We didn't want a documentary, so we were happy to see a film that used the medium as intended and created a fantasy that might as well be an Elton John song itself. We like personal, intimate and character driven stories. So obviously that's  a pro for us.

Cons: A few cheesy moments here and there. Between the climax and I'm Still Standing the ending felt a little drawn out. On a couple occasions it might sound like someone singing Elton John in a karaoke (when it's not the lead actor). 

General: It's pretty obvious that we think there is no contest on which was a better movie. Essentially, Aladdin feels like the Disney cash grab and is perfectly mediocre to boot. Rocketman is super accessible and commercial (despite the useless R rating, it was rated 12 in Finland). Yet it has passion for the craft, a little artistic flair and creativity that is now almost extinct in commercial mainstream films.

Disney, retrospectively

Tarzan (1999)

Tarzan is one of our guilty pleasure movies. Mainly because of Phil Collins' 90's cheesiness. This will be our last retrospectively, since this is the very last Disney film we saw as kids and also, the first Disney film we ever saw in theatres. This is one of the few Disney films where both the original dub and the Finnish dub work for us. 

   



















Characters

Tarzan: He's much more engaging when he's a kid. Once he turns into an adult he becomes kinda boring. There's not much focus on Tarzan's character arc, which can make the character less interesting. 
Jane: The best thing about this whole movie. She is one of the funniest Disney women ever (and better yet, funny on purpose). Much like Meg, her character arc is ultimately about the guy - though like in Meg's case, where one could argue that her character arc was to learn to trust people again, Jane's arc could also be interpreted differently. It could be seen that Jane has to make a decision between being part of a community where she could be authentically herself (and devote herself to science in practice) or choosing conventional life in "civilized society".  
Kala: The most important minor character in Tarzan's life. She is kind and understanding of her son and pretty much a classic good mother figure. She does have some personality since she defies her mate and leader of the pack, but is also afraid of the humans and their weapons.
Terk & Tantor: Once again, we have a great comedic duo and they are, with Jane, our favourite part of the film. 
Minor characters: Jane's dad is great. Especially his moustache. Kerchak is an okay sort-of-antagonist-who-turns-into-a-father-figure. Clayton is not the best villain (but better than Ratcliffe, because let's face it, anybody's more menacing than that doofus). His death scene is pretty impressive, though.  

 









Story

Pretty mediocre. It's simple and doesn't try to be too ambitious. Many elements are lifted from Disney's other Africa film, The Lion King. This movie also handles the environmentalism vs. industrialism issue better than Pocahontas. It is less sappy in its preachiness and you actually like the characters involved. Choosing to live as part of nature instead of destroying or exploiting it, is a more coherent message than whatever Pocahontas was trying to push.

Miscellaneous

The animation is absolutely gorgeous. Tarzan is one of the best looking Disney films we've seen. The colours are sharp and the background lush. That Phil Collins, though. The songs are incredibly vague and tell you nothing about the characters, but at least they do further the story (which is something that is largely lost in modern Disney films). We shamefully admit, one of the songs is a total guilty pleasure as well. The score is nothing special, but unlike in (most) modern Disney outings, it does use the songs as a basis for the instrumentals.  

     

Pick of the month

Notorious (1946, Alfred Hitchcock)

This is one of the best Hitchcock movies we've seen. It became our favourite Hollywood production from Hitchcock, even surpassing Rear Window. Mainly because the female character is so fucking awesome. It has everything that one would expect from a Hitchcock film - edge-of-your-seat suspense, thrilling crime and mystery, great chemistry between the lead actors and of course, some good old-fashioned sexism (you really can't have a Hitchcock film without that one). It's shot superbly, every frame knows what its doing, the lighting is great and both characters have meaningful character arcs. This is a great example of the phenomenon where an older film has a much more complex, interesting and thusly more independent female character than a lot of modern cinema's women. And it's from Hitchcock, the arch-sexist, for crying out loud!  Also, this  movie completely convinced us that Cary Grant can do so much more than just comedy. We thoroughly recommend this for anyone who loves cinema and appreciates good film-making.

The bitches are back

A while ago we did a list of men who defy some traditions of masculinity. So, obviously we wanted to write a counterpart. Why use the term "bitch"? Because a lot of these women would be called that (and whore or a slut). Plus, we are owning that word. If they used that kind of a vulgar term in our religion, that's definitely what we'd be. Same rules apply, the less traditionally feminine traits a character has coupled with how much we like the character, the higher they'll be. Again, just like we wrote in the other post, we consider gendered characteristics to be arbitrarily assigned. We are humanists, first and foremost, and that is how we look at gender as well. Though unlike in the men's list where every character was sympathetic and a good guy, you will notice that here many of these women can be quite assholish (we still love 'em though!). It is apparently harder for the entertainment industry to create sympathetic females who buck the traditional norms of gender than it is for male characters. Nothing new under the sun, we guess.


1. Mildred from 3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. First of all, her look - those overalls and that scarf on her head that makes her look like a gang member. She looks more like a factory worker than some shop clerk. She's rude, straightforward and incredibly foul-mouthed. The only make-up she has is film make-up that every actor has to have on a movie. She's definitely not your everyday loving mother - she clearly loves her kids, but is not portrayed as some paragon of motherhood. Like male characters of her kind, she's afforded sympathy, though you might not condone her actions. 

      













2. Dee from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. She is the funniest woman on TV we've ever seen. She is just as gross, vile and awful as the rest of the gang. Sometimes, even more so. A lot of the credit goes to the actor, who clearly has developed Dee's character into something awesome. She was pretty much given free reign to come up with crazy shit for her character.  Dee is no beacon of virtue or the straight shooter or the nagger that the female characters in these kinds of shows are often relegated to. The best about her is that she pretends to have all this feminine charm, but knows that she possesses none of it. 

3. Major General Armstrong from Fullmetal Alchemist. She is here because we couldn't have Èowyn or Kushana on this list as they were intended. This would be a natural male character - a badass soldier, utterly loyal to her troops and completely ruthless. She will mow down anyone who gets in her way. She commands the absolute loyalty and trust of her men. She is also cold as a fucking stone and incredibly ambitious. Is it any wonder that she was our favourite character from the entire show? (Maybe we should write about our shameful anime past at some point...) 

  










4. Scarlett O'Hara from Gone with the Wind. The best thing about this mess of a story (which we still like) is Scarlett and her cold, selfish heart. We've talked about her on a previous list so we don't feel the need to expand her character here much more. The reason we consider her to be so unfeminine is because she is so calculating and uncaring. She can kill a guy in cold-blood without batting an eye. These qualities would make Scarlett in any other story a femme fatale. Instead as the female lead she's portrayed as a very sympathetic person, warts and all. 

5. Stella Gibson from The Fall. Okay, she's definitely someone one would not normally see as a lead in a series (not to mention making her a female character). She's very absorbed by her work, is in charge of the investigation, and is interestingly quite openly sexual character (many would call her a slut probably, but would you if it was a guy who acted the exact same way?) without the show either condemning her or revelling in the sexual imagery. Her appearance is quite feminine, which can be said about many of the women on this list, but her personality and characteristics depart very much from perceived "womanly behaviour".

   











6. Meryl from Trigun. Her appearance is deceiving. She has quite a lot in common with Leia - they both are naturally very reserved people when it comes to emotions or feelings, but have no problems voicing their opinion. If there is the opposite of irrational, then Meryl is that. She will think things through before acting and never does anything on a whim. She is also a complete workaholic. Men are often portrayed as driven when they're shown as workaholics whereas women who are workaholics or career-driven are often villainous (Fatal Attraction, anyone?) Meryl is incredibly sympathetic and one of the few female characters we've seen who manages to break some of these feminine stereotypes, yet remains kind and unselfish.

7. LaVona from I, Tonya. This is our only character who is in any way based on reality. But she was just so outrageously horrible a mother that we had to take her. She's the closest we have for someone who is cruel. Out of all on this list, she is the one you would probably have the least any kind of warm feelings for. She isn't really portrayed in a sympathetic light either, so that could count for the utter hideousness of her character.  We greatly enjoyed it, though. It is rare to see a woman who just revels in her horribleness and who thinks her being an awful person is totally fine and justified.

   











8. Furiosa from Mad Max: Fury Road. All that engine oil on her face (and the metal arm) placed her here. She's a great sharpshooter as well, and unlike a lot of female characters in action movies she gets just as dirty, bloody and wounded as the dudes while fighting (at points even more so). She really rocks that buzzcut too.

  

9. Lady Eboshi from Princess Mononoke. You knew it, at least one Miyazaki had to make it here. She's pretty awesome. Calm, collected and capable. Even the fucking emperor comes to beg for her aid. She keeps a cool head in any kind of confrontation and things rarely slip out of her control. Her being a leader of the town's men and actually going to war with them is impressive in its own right. Women don't go to war - that's men's turf. 

  










10. Selena from 28 Days Later. Another one we've had on a previous list (the same we had Scarlett on, so check that one out). Her only thought in the beginning of the movie is survival, which makes her uncaring and ruthless. She has a great character arc though - realizing that there is more to life than pure survivalism and that caring about other people is not a weakness. 

11. Jordan from Scrubs.  This woman is thoroughly cold and selfish. It's great. She (and her not-husband) is by far the best thing about this show. She avoids any kind of emotional vulnerability or listening to anyone else's feelings. Otherwise she uses the traditionally seen "feminine viles" to get what she wants, but her being emotionally stunted is commonly noted as a masculine trait. (Here we took a pic with text, because the text describes her pretty perfectly).

  














12. Kate from East of Eden. She was on our mothers - list, but why she's here, is because she didn't wanna be a mother in the first place. She also abandoned her kids and that's a big no no, especially for a female character. She isn't particularly sympathetic but it is possible to understand her, even if the film doesn't show her in a good light.

The Last Jedi: A year in reflection

After the original Star Wars - trilogy came out, I have not been interested in any of the sequel/prequels that have come out since. To be fair, I don't really see these movies as anything related to Star Wars, since Lucas pretty much cut the thread permanently for me between the originals and anything that came after them with his abominable prequels. The prequels that Lucas created feel more like bad fanfiction than actual, real movies (not to mention the special edition cuts which are basically fan edits of his original trilogy) and Disney's Force Awakens was basically a rehash of the first Star Wars film, only longer. And then we come to The Last Jedi, which I saw around this time last year. Critics loved it, audiences were highly polarized on it. There have been hundreds, if not thousands of film reviews of this movie, mostly either praising it or completely denouncing it. I thought I'd give my two cents on this largely bad, but so far the only Star Wars - film, outside the original three, that has in any way, shape or form interested me. Disclaimer: it's only Jenni writing this. After having watched and read a million Last Jedi reviews which pissed me off to no end, I decided to vent my frustration here.

The funny thing is, even though this is the only one that has piqued my interest since the originals, it also annoys me way more than any of the previous sequel/prequels, even the Lucas prequels. It has the longest run time of any Star Wars film and for me, definitely feels the most frustrating to get through, since there was the one aspect that engaged me, but the rest of it felt like total filler. The separate stories seem rather artificially connected and my god, the amount of pointless scenes that don't really lead anywhere. I grant you, Return of the Jedi's beginning doesn't really connect with the rest of the film in any way either, but in this one it takes up like half the movie. The whole "subversion for subversion's sake" made it hard for me to really care what happened in the story or with the characters and in the end, it didn't even go all the way with its subversion goal, thus ruining the only thing that did interest me. Also, not a single woman getting a character arc, while all the dudes got one (even if it is partly recycled from the previous outing), is something I've noticed in a lot of these films that claim to be "feminist" or "empowering to women". I can take one movie where the main character doesn't really change or learn anything, but when you have more than one in a series of films, it is unacceptable that the main player does not get a character arc and it is even more painful to me when that character is a woman.

What does make me kinda laugh, is the fact that exactly the part that some feminist critics denounced as toxic or problematic is the one thing I felt was genuine in the whole movie. That's right, the relationship between the hero and the villain was, for the 2/3rds of the film actually kind of intriguing. Knowing my fondness for fucked up things and relationships though, it shouldn't really be a surprise that I liked it. Mind you, I ain't talking about romance here. I am adamantly of the opinion that since Luke didn't need a love interest, why the hell would Rey need one? Feeling sympathy for an enemy who is not related to you is something I really haven't seen in any of the previous films, so it was at the very least a captivating thing to witness. Unfortunately for Rey, it was also the only thing that made her for the first time for me, a character. She has been dangerously thin on character since the first movie and this one only improved her a little, and only for 2/3rds of the film and really just when she was interacting with the villain. It is alarming to me that in the Last Jedi, the villain was truly the one character that elicited any sympathetic feelings from me. And not just sympathetic but relatable. I understand why he is the way he is and why he does horrible things. The point of no return for me was when Kylo tells Rey how Luke tried to kill him and Luke later confirms it. The fact that Kylo hadn't yet committed any sins apparently didn't matter. Plus you never see fucking anyone making amends to this guy. The context that the movie has given to Kylo Ren is that of an abused child, not a villain. No wonder Rey's connection to him is believable, since Rey is also an abandoned child. Preferring the villain is another trend I have noticed in many modern mainstream films or tv-series.  

Many critics, especially many who identified as feminists, hailed the Force Awakens as a good film and Rey a great character. I liked her the 1st third of the movie, when we actually saw a little of her yearning for her family, her loneliness and her fear of the power inside her. And then bam! Suddenly she's invincible. Now I ain't gonna pretend that Luke was the greatest character in the originals. He wasn't. But he at the very least had to train to learn to use the Force and he fails at points and quite spectacularly so in the movies. That adds a little more personality to him. Though, if I did care enough about these new movies (which I don't), I would have been furious about the changes they made to the original characters. Especially Leia. Leia was always supposed to be a jedi (according to the originals and even according to the expanded universe) and learn the ways of the Force like Luke did. Instead they gave her an empty title and took away her power. Her anger seems to have evaporated as well. After all, Carrie Fisher herself said that making Leia angry was the only way she knew to make her strong. There is an angry woman living inside me too, so I understand that reasoning very well. Leia barely does anything in both of these new films, whereas Han and Luke get stuff to do and character arcs to boot. Though, Han and Luke weren't well treated either in these new ones (Han bailing the minute shit got hard and Luke planning cold-blooded murder of his sleeping nephew). But since Leia was one of the most pivotal characters of my childhood, it did pain me to see her get the Éowyn treatment. So, if I cared, yeah, I would probably hate the Force Awakens as much as I do the Two Towers film version. 

But what really pisses me off is what they kept from the originals was the one thing I always held against them - not giving women character arcs. Your main character is supposedly a woman, so where the hell's her character arc? I also find it bizarre that although you can't call the originals feminist by any means from story perspective, Leia is a pretty decent feminist character. It has been hilarious though, to read some reviews that condemn The Last Jedi for "feminist propaganda" and on the other hand as "great feminist film", since my opinion is that past the surface the film is actually kind of sexist. As most people who know us, know that I was raised in quite a strict religion. The sexism that often took form there was benevolent sexism, ie. women are so much better than men, hence we can guard men's purity, inspire them to be better, be their moral guidance and just in general be perfect. And whaddya know, I find exactly these elements in the Last Jedi's female characters and its story. Women are the ones who are always right, know everything, are always justified in their behaviour and actions and learn nothing. It is actually baffling to me how this film can have so many women yet be so completely devoid of women's stories. All the stories in the movie are men's. Finn, Poe, Luke and Kylo are the ones with character arcs. They make mistakes, fail, change and learn something. Rey, Leia, Rose and Holdo have to content with being the moral centre for the men surrounding them. And they aren't really given space to develop their own character. Say what you will about Leia not having a character arc in the originals but at the very least she wasn't made to be the moral leader for the men. She did things according to her own judgement and followed her heart, just like the men around her did. And she had personality - she was serious, dutiful, witty, little sardonic and incredibly reserved. I cannot for the life of me list any defining personality traits of the women in the Last Jedi - all I can say is that they are powerful and morally quite absolute. So the women have power but no character while the men have both power and character. Where exactly is the feminism in this film?   

What annoys me in this movie is that it could have actually been good. The conflict and connection that was created between the main hero and villain was quite engaging. Rey was actually challenged in her beliefs and the villain turned out to be not so black-and-white. That is, until the last 3rd, but I'll get to that. Rey showed some actual human emotion when she interacted with Kylo - she got angry, had doubts and felt despair. She felt sympathy towards the villain and optimistically believed Kylo would turn, much like Luke in the originals. Her yearning for her family and belonging returned from the first movie. So did her fear of her power. But then by the end, the fact that she failed to turn Kylo and finding out her parents abandoned her doesn't seem to affect her all that much. She's the same hero she was by the end of the Force Awakens, nothing changed. Kylo, I'm sure, was meant to be some whiny entitled man-baby, but as it is, he is literally the only character that in any way interested me in the film. He has some anarchist ideas with the whole "let's tear all the old things down and forget the past". Pretty much all the adults in his life either abandoned him, lied to him, manipulated him or worse, thought to kill him and completely lost any hope of his redemption. So it is no wonder that he doesn't trust any of them or their ideas. He had to train to learn to use the Force, whereas his counterpart Rey could use it without any training at all. The explanation we are given for this is that Rey and Kylo are ying/yang - type of balance in the Force. But if they are equal in power, then why the fuck did one of them have to train and the other didn't? Some internal logic would be nice here. God, I really hate putting women on these pedestals; watching this movie felt like I was back in my church. Lazy writing justifying why a character is so powerful makes the character boring (same problem plagues the prequels with the whole "prophecy" thing). 

The story takes a complete nosedive in the 3rd act. The stuff between the hero and the villain has led to this ambiguity of light and dark side of the Force and realization that maybe the two sides need each other and do not necessarily have to be in conflict. Now that would have been something that I haven't seen in any Star Wars film, but for all the Last Jedi's subversiveness, in the end that is the one thing they didn't have the guts to subvert (granted, that whole 'the villain might have a point' is totally stolen from anime). By the 3rd act, the villain who they were making into a more of an anti-hero turns back into a cardboard evil guy and all the complexity they built collapses. It is amazing that the originals, which are very simplistic in the whole good and evil aspect, manage to be more subversive. All the old fogeys in the original trilogy turn out to be wrong, both the good guys and the bad. It is Vader who kills the Emperor, not Luke (who abandons violence as a way to win in the end). In the Last Jedi, it turns out that the old people are right - Luke and Leia are right in giving up on Kylo, Luke and Yoda are right in believing that Rey is the saviour of Resistance and Holdo is right in not telling Poe their plan. Rey also fails to get Kylo on her side, which proves Luke right. So basically the film implies to respect authority figures, 'cause they are in the right. That's a pretty conservative message considering that so many people on the internet lambasted the Last Jedi for being "liberal propaganda". Even the whole Finn and Rose segment that attempted to criticise the immoral third parties that only look for profit is something we've already seen. Jabba and his crew were, after all, gangsters who sold their goods to anyone who offered money. The whining about this film criticising capitalism is pretty ridiculous, though. There are other blockbuster films that have managed to criticise capitalism better. Aliens is one example - an evil corporation wants to get these creatures even if it means sacrificing all the humans on the planet, all to gain a profit. Ripley even comments to Burke that " I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage". And Aliens was made during the heyday of the Reagan/Thatcher - era. In Aliens though, the corporation is directly tied into the plot - all of the characters are going to the planet because of what the corporation started. In the Last Jedi, the whole casino sequence doesn't tie into the story, except as some overarching teaching about failure, I guess. Films that come from billion dollar corporations and criticise capitalism could be considered as some form of irony, though. Plus it is weird to see a Star Wars film making overt commentary to modern social and economic systems. 

All in all, the film's visuals do look amazing and the one aspect between the hero and villain was interesting. I do not hate and despise this film like I do the prequels. But both the originals and the prequels did have something the Force Awakens and the Last Jedi do not - coherence. The originals were about Luke's journey to adulthood, becoming a Jedi master and saving his father. One could also argue they depict guerrilla warfare against a dictatorship. The first Star Wars could be retconned to fit the second's and the third's story line. The prequels are about Anakin's fall from grace and how a democracy turns into a dictatorship (viable ideas, horrible execution). Whose story do the Force Awakens and The Last Jedi tell? Rey's? But Rey is not the one with a character arc in these movies, so they don't tell her story. Han has the character arc in the Force Awakens -  he confronts his son after running away from his responsibilities. In the Last Jedi, it's Finn, who basically repeats his character arc from the first movie and Poe, who is suddenly a dick (he was a decent guy in the first movie) who have character arcs here. Other two who have some kind of arcs are Kylo, who lets go of all his past but also regresses back into a villain, while Luke gets the redemption arc in this one. All dudes, who change and learn something. It would've been fairly effortless to write some growth for the women as well - for example, Rose could've learned that moral absolutism isn't necessarily always good, Holdo that sharing information could actually lessen the burden of being a leader and Rey could have carved her own path, realizing that both Kylo and Luke might be wrong and the two sides of the Force could work together. Isn't there some kind of middle ground between women being so goddamn perfect that they are practically devoid of personality and men being assholes in order for them to grow? Lastly, I think the Last Jedi tried to be too ambitious - it really wanted to be a movie in the A - class, not realizing that the originals have always been B-movies. Great B-movies, but B-movies nonetheless. Thus the fun, adventurous and even campy spirit of the originals is very much dampened in this film that takes itself a tad too seriously, even when it tries to jarringly stuff humour in places where it shouldn't (much like a Marvel superhero movie would). Rant over.  

The Return of the Forced Conflict

We'll still be discussing the extended cuts. It was probably pretty apparent that we hate the second one. This one we hate less. In some respect this has less problems than the second but on the other hand, some of the previous issues are made even worse.

Pros: Same as with the second movie. All the external aspects - such as music, set design, most actor choices, etc. The song for Houses of Healing is great and Lighting of the Beacons is a kickass theme. That's literally all we got.

Cons: Also as with the second one, the two main issues we have lie with the story and characters. So we have divided this once again into two parts. Thus, story first. Where the second film didn't have enough material and it dragged on, this one is cluttered and feels rushed, apart from the end(s). This is why linear storytelling does not work here; The Two Towers is empty while Return of the King has most of the action. The writers should have realized that if Shelob is cut and moved to the 3rd movie, then the beginning of Return is too full. Not to mention that they robbed the second one of a fabulous cliffhanger. And don't give us that "but then it doesn't have a proper ending hence isn't a competent film"-crap, the book did it, why couldn't the movie follow? If it was absolutely necessary, then why not end Towers in Cirith Ungol's stairs? That would've at least improved the pacing a little in both movies. Also, remove all the shit that wasn't in the book and stuff that wasn't needed. For example, Arwen's pointless visions (for shit that isn't in the book) and the million different endings (where deviation from the book would have been welcomed). 

On to the characters. Since we mentioned Arwen, let's continue with her. In Towers, she was a lovelorn teenager, here they've made her into some goddamn virginal purity figure. Yeah, there's magic and shit in this world but the whole shtick about evil killing Arwen because she's sooooo good and pure is beyond ridiculous. Also, kind of insulting. It's just really stupid writing. Arwen unfortunately got caught in the crossfire of "upping the ante". And she ain't the only victim of this fabricated superdrama.

We have to offer our commiserations to anyone who likes Gimli in the book here. He was allocated as a sidekick in Towers, but here he is utterly foolish. Thank God they kept his character arc, but that's about it. He's only a comedy sidekick here. Aragorn is better here than in the second movie. He's not quite as much of an asshole. Faramir was also surprisingly okay in this one. Apart from the remark that as a youth he was more into imagining slaying dragons than acquiring knowledge. As we've established, that ain't Faramir from the book.

And now to by far our biggest beefs with this film.  So this is where they really fucked up Èowyn's character. In Towers she was only a lovesick teenager, here she's also a frightened little child. Her defiance and cold-blooded warrior spirit is completely gone. Instead of giving an awesome and impassioned lecture to Aragorn about his benevolent sexism when he refuses to take her with them, we get "but I luuuuv youuu". Cringe. Plus, did the filmmakers really have to insult us further by making her all weepy-faced over some dude? Get the fuck outta here with that shit.

There are literally too many offences to choose from here. Probably the most egregious to us is the change in her motives. Partially because that eradicates her amazing character arc from the book. But also because it fundamentally alters her personality. She was cold and hard as steel and she went to fucking die in the war. She wanted the stuff that men were allowed and encouraged to seek - like ambition, power and glory. We'd say those are pretty extraordinary motives for a sympathetic female character, especially considering the book was published in the 50's. In the film all we get is "for our friends, Merry!" Kill us now. Now the dialogue they took from the book is in contradiction with her soft character in the movie (the whole speech she gives to Aragorn in the second movie about warrior's glory and dying on a sword). Reading the book for the first time as teenage girls the scene that was most impactful for us was made completely flat and meaningless in the film. Why reveal she's a woman BEFORE she faces the Witch King!?!?!??! That scene is one of the greatest twists of all time. It's even better than Vader's "no. I am your father". For fuck's sake, how incompetent are these writers?

To be honest, we actually disagree with the interpretation that Èowyn is domesticated in the novel. Read it closely. She only talks about peacemaking and turning from violence into making things grow. Not a mention about homemaking or raising kids or anything like that.  And she's quite bitter about the fact that her turning from war to diplomacy will be seen as a man taming her, simply because she gets married. Whereas in the movie Faramir is literally a consolation price for Éowyn, so turns out all she needed was a guy. We think it's awesome that in the book she redirects her ambition from warfare and violence towards diplomacy and peacemaking. That is very important for everyone, particularly young girls, to see, since in reality women in power seem to get there by being as shitty as the men before them. Éowyn shows that there's a better way to interact with the world than destroying it. Does it bleed through that we're humanists/pacifists? All of the complexity of Éowyn is non-existent in the film. They gave all the dudes character arcs (even Faramir who didn't have one in the book) and took away the arc of the ONLY significant woman in the whole story. Not chill at all.  

Moving on to the aspect that we hate most in all of media: the forced conflict. You didn't think it could get worse for Frodo and Sam from Towers, but Jesus Christ this was intolerable. Frodo is the heart and soul of the books and it is unforgivable where they went with his character, and Sam isn't far behind. Watch the documentaries, even the creators have trouble justifying the changes they made in Mount Doom. Mount Doom is the crown jewel of the shitturd that is Frodo's and Sam's story in the movie. Every single instance had to be laden with forced conflict simply to create drama. The writers have this misapprehension (which they even come clean about in the documentaries) that audiences won't be entertained without constant conflict onscreen. As with Éowyn, there are too many examples to choose from. 

This is where Sam's actions go from "huh?" to "what the fuck?!" He's outright violent to Gollum. They made both Frodo and Sam so unlikable here. Sam is a violent brute and Frodo is just there completely passive and easily manipulated by Gollum. The little personality Frodo had in the first movie has been eradicated here. The Ring porn finally reaches its climax when Frodo goes back for the Ring at Mount Doom. They took the rather sombre and tender moment from the book and americanized it into a "don't you die on me!" - cliche. We could spend days on end bitching about Towers and Return movie versions but we'll leave it here for the sake of our own sanity. 

  

Disney, retrospectively

Mulan (1998)

Right off the bat, this is Jonna's favourite Disney film so don't expect us to judge it too harshly. Both of us do think that this is amongst the best three movies of the renaissance period (obviously the other two are Beauty and the Beast and The Hunchback of Notre Dame). In addition, Disney's tone deafness about non-Western cultures is surprisingly subdued here.

Characters

Mulan: She's almost pig-headedly determined when it comes to things she cares about. She's clumsy in all the good ways, not the annoying "adorkable" stereotype way. She's not good at the girly shit 'cause she's just not into it and doesn't feel comfortable in that atmosphere. She was, after all, raised on a farm. Probably the best thing about her is that outside of Meg she's pretty much the only classic Disney female character with an arc. And her character arc is so much more rewarding than Meg's. Some feminists have taken issue with her lack of ambition. We, on the other hand, love that about her (Jonna in particular since that's her).
Mushu: Makes an amazing runner-up to Genie. Not even Timon&Pumba elicit as much love from us. He's hilarious, loyal and reckless, what else do you need from a sidekick? Again, the Finnish dub is just better. We get it, Eddie Murphy's great and all, but no. 
Fa Zhou: Mulan's father is definitely the most important male character in this one, because she literally goes to war to save him. Also, these are the three main characters because they all have character arcs. His love and acceptance are the most important things for Mulan and part of the film is about him learning to give those freely to her as she is. 
Shang: The saving grace for him, is that he has a little more personality than Eric. What brings a bit more depth to him is his storyline with his dad. There's not much of it though. He's literally Mulan's reward. Hey, for once it was the other way around! 
Minor characters: The gang is all great, Mulan's buds, the granny, the adviser, the cricket and horse and hell, even the fucking emperor. Everyone is brilliant.  Apart from the villain(s). They're depicted quite inhumanely as barbaric mongrels. We guess that's the racism part of the film. Nothing less from Disney. The leader at least has a quite intimidating design. Otherwise they're pretty forgettable.

















Story

Very simple and effective. Just as we like 'em. The themes of self-acceptance and family approval of you as a human being are universal and will never stop being relevant. Again, it's pointless to contend plotholes with us, like how the size of the army keeps changing. As our love of Star Wars shows, we actually think those gaffes and goofs are part of the enjoyment. There is nothing unnecessary here, all scenes exist for some purpose. It never drags and keeps you engaged throughout. 
The emotional thread that holds the whole film together is the relationship between Mulan and her father. The culmination of the film is not, as many would have it, the scene where Mulan saves the emperor and the whole of Beijing bowing down to her (that's fucking awesome too though), but the ending where her father kneels next to her to apologise and express full acceptance of her without conditions. Accolades and political power mean nothing to Mulan. Personal fulfilment and empowerment is what she's after. 
We don't really care for the politicising of this film. The Mike Pence stance is utterly ridiculous. However, we're not on the side of some feminist critique about how Mulan is domesticized because she doesn't take on the emperor's offer. We don't like the implication that women without ambition or desire for power let down the whole of womankind. Furthermore, it's probably already known how much we love our dad. Like he's the best fucking human being in existence. So it's not really inconceivable that we relate to a story about a daughter who would do anything for their father.

Miscellaneous

Jerry-fuckin'-Goldsmith, people! This is some of his best work in history and one of the most impressive film scores in any Disney animation. The man was a genius. The songs are "meh" but rather entertaining. And they're easy to listen, plus they don't occur every ten minutes. The animation isn't traditional Disney but that's what makes it original and distinctive.