Films, Doom and Babies
Feb. 6th, 2003 11:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lathanyThis morning my Mortal Kombat DVD arrived from Black Star. Amazon have been out of favour ever since the Xmas present mess; unfortunately Black Star only do DVD and video so I will probably have to return to Amazon at some point for reading material and CDs.
We will probably watch it over the weekend. Had it arrived yesterday morning we would have seen it last night, instead of Whatever It Takes. Whatever It Takes is one of a (cheap) set of three videos which I was tempted to buy because it included Cruel Intentions (the last of the set was She's All That).
I was interested in Cruel Intentions because I studied a translation of Les Liaisons Dangereuses as part of my last-but-one OU course (I have seen the Close/Malkovich film but not the Bening/Firth one). I had heard that the Geller/Phillippe film was a praised adaptation, so I was interested to see it. I think it is remarkably faithful to Laclos' original ideas (which lead to him being practically outcast by society - poor man). The main difference being that Annette is not the wimp that Madame De Tourvel is and the consequences of that change the ending for that character.
She's all That is a Freddie Prinze Jr film, probably most notable for Sarah Michelle Geller's uncredited appearance (and if you blink, you miss her). The main storyline (ugly ducking becomes beautiful swan) has been done before. Better. But it was watchable enough.
Whatever It Takes was actually rather better than we expected. The "little" film of the three (no big names), it came a comfortable second in watchability. The main storyline (a Roxanne one) has been done before, but the side-lines were all nicely thought out and much more original. The stuff with the statue was just great. Although I would certainly never have gone to see it at the cinema or bought it for itself.
Anyway, enough "High School" films already. Mortal Kombat is, IMO, the best of all the fighting game adaptations. OK, the plot is marginal and some of the characters fail to convince. However it stuck to the cinematics (and humour) of the original games and some of the martial artists are genuine. Much better than that Street Fighter rubbish where they avoided the cinematics side (except for Bison), then wondered why they were left with such a mediocre film. Plus Christopher Lambert as Rayden is just really nice. It also has a decent soundtrack which I have occasionally heard used in roleplaying games.
Doom-wise, I have reached Icon of Sin (level 30). And have had no success completing it. I have now cheated and used the invincible mode to help line up where I should be firing rockets from, but I doubt I will finish anytime soon.
The babies, meanwhile, have found new ways of messing up the lounge. Ryan can take the lid off the tub of bricks and Beatrice is getting more mobile by the day. Fortunately she is currently more interested in trying to stand than trying to crawl, but the day when I have to chase two of them round the room is not far away.
We will probably watch it over the weekend. Had it arrived yesterday morning we would have seen it last night, instead of Whatever It Takes. Whatever It Takes is one of a (cheap) set of three videos which I was tempted to buy because it included Cruel Intentions (the last of the set was She's All That).
I was interested in Cruel Intentions because I studied a translation of Les Liaisons Dangereuses as part of my last-but-one OU course (I have seen the Close/Malkovich film but not the Bening/Firth one). I had heard that the Geller/Phillippe film was a praised adaptation, so I was interested to see it. I think it is remarkably faithful to Laclos' original ideas (which lead to him being practically outcast by society - poor man). The main difference being that Annette is not the wimp that Madame De Tourvel is and the consequences of that change the ending for that character.
She's all That is a Freddie Prinze Jr film, probably most notable for Sarah Michelle Geller's uncredited appearance (and if you blink, you miss her). The main storyline (ugly ducking becomes beautiful swan) has been done before. Better. But it was watchable enough.
Whatever It Takes was actually rather better than we expected. The "little" film of the three (no big names), it came a comfortable second in watchability. The main storyline (a Roxanne one) has been done before, but the side-lines were all nicely thought out and much more original. The stuff with the statue was just great. Although I would certainly never have gone to see it at the cinema or bought it for itself.
Anyway, enough "High School" films already. Mortal Kombat is, IMO, the best of all the fighting game adaptations. OK, the plot is marginal and some of the characters fail to convince. However it stuck to the cinematics (and humour) of the original games and some of the martial artists are genuine. Much better than that Street Fighter rubbish where they avoided the cinematics side (except for Bison), then wondered why they were left with such a mediocre film. Plus Christopher Lambert as Rayden is just really nice. It also has a decent soundtrack which I have occasionally heard used in roleplaying games.
Doom-wise, I have reached Icon of Sin (level 30). And have had no success completing it. I have now cheated and used the invincible mode to help line up where I should be firing rockets from, but I doubt I will finish anytime soon.
The babies, meanwhile, have found new ways of messing up the lounge. Ryan can take the lid off the tub of bricks and Beatrice is getting more mobile by the day. Fortunately she is currently more interested in trying to stand than trying to crawl, but the day when I have to chase two of them round the room is not far away.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-02-06 05:11 am (UTC)The only thing I liked about it was that it included a touch of lesbianism, which was present in the book but not in the Close/Malkovich film. Although they did it really crudely.
Unfortunately I suspect any validity that I could have claimed as a critic is about to be destroyed by what I'm about to say...
I loved Streetfighter! I thought it was infintely superior to Mortal Combat, which I hated. It probably doesn't help that I hated Mortal Combat the game as well, but I thought the actresses in particular were so unconvincing as to be offensive in MCtM: they looked like the director had roped in a couple of models who would snap if you actually tried to put them in a headlock. Whereas whatsername-that's-now-in-ER was quite good as Chun Li, I thought.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-06 05:45 am (UTC)Although it is only Merteuil who essentially faces consequences from societal constrictions in the original - half the point was that Valmont could openly do things which were not acceptable for women. I felt that Cruel Intentions continued the comparison because Valmont (Sebastian) could keep his image just as openly, but that Merteuil (Kathryn) had to hide hers. Still. Despite this now being late 20th Century.
Also, they seemed to miss the fact that the Marquise and Vicomte hadn't been just casual shag partners (whatever they pretended) but had actually, secretly, loved each other.
I thought they did get that. Which is why Kathryn gets mad enough to have her step brother beaten up towards the end. She realised that Annette had successfully redirected his affections.
On to fighting stuff...
but I thought the actresses in particular were so unconvincing as to be offensive in MCtM
Pardon ? Street Fighter has Kylie in it ! Who looks far too fragile and tiny to convincingly beat up *anyone*. Although I agree that Chun Li was OK.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-06 07:16 am (UTC)But it seemed to me that Kathryn only bothered concealing her true nature because the plot required it. The Marquise would have been utterly, utterly screwed had the truth come out about her (as of course she was, in the end), but the worst Kathryn would have got was some disapproval from her teachers and the more pious members of her school, but a great big rock and roll reputation from everybody else. Let's face it, the most popular kids in most American High Schools are promiscuous bitchy drug-adled cheerleaders, if other movies are any indication.
I thought they did get that. Which is why Kathryn gets mad enough to have her step brother beaten up towards the end. She realised that Annette had successfully redirected his affections.
See, that came across to me as nothing more than vindictiveness and being a bad loser. And there was certainly no indication that whatsisname ever loved her. They barely even knew each other.
I think the thing that I most disliked about CI was that in DL the characters were sophisticated, intelligent, worldy and worldweary, subtle and charming, which in CI they were shallow, bratty and crude. And since to me DL is all about the characters, CI just seems like a totally different story.
Pardon ? Street Fighter has Kylie in it ! Who looks far too fragile and tiny to convincingly beat up *anyone*. Although I agree that Chun Li was OK.
A fair point, but at least she wasn't an huge breasted Barbie-a-like.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-06 07:43 am (UTC)Although the former stuff is more likely to be what she cared about. She was interested in being given responsibility (eg. by Cecile's mother) hence her position (wasn't it head girl ?) which seemed to come from the teachers. She's like that in the book as well - considered a valued member of society by those in responsible positions (whilst Valmont was never quite that - the two usually found their prey in slightly different circles).
And since to me DL is all about the characters, CI just seems like a totally different story.
*grin*
This reminds me of our roleplaying discussion. To me, DL is mainly about manipulation (which I suppose is closer to plot).
no subject
Date: 2003-02-06 08:00 am (UTC)To me, DL is mainly about manipulation
If I remember correctly, though, didn't CI change the motives behind the "I cannot help it. It is not my fault" speech? Which is rather the crux of all the manipulation.
Two things there
Date: 2003-02-06 08:11 am (UTC)Secondly - I meant that it is a book *about* manipulation and for me much of it is the effects and consequences of manipulating other people. Consequently, changing the actual manipulation makes no difference to me. Removing it is the thing that would have made the difference (or ignoring the effects and consequences).
Re: Two things there
Date: 2003-02-06 08:58 am (UTC)The duel is wrong, too. According to De Laclos, Valmont was killed because of what he'd done (or rather, because Captain whatshisface found out about it). In CI, he was essentially killed by accident.
OK, so he wouldn't have been there if not for the preceding plot, and maybe as far as Hollywood is concerned that means his death was the price of his actions. For me, though, that doesn't really work. There's too much of the hand of God in it - Liaisons Dangereuses was about what people might do to you, not about how environmental hazards can strike down wrongdoers.
CI kept the fact that Valmot more-or-less allowed his death to happen, because he did have some kind of standards. This is interesting because it distinguishes him from Merteuil...
Re: Two things there
Date: 2003-02-07 12:57 am (UTC)I'm not sure I'd put it quite like that - I'd say it had more to do with regret than standards, with his love for Tourvel, which made him regret hurting her. It's true that he wouldn't have behaved like that before he met her, and that Mertueil didn't behave like that over him, but then Merteuil wouldn't have pined away for love of him, or if she had she wouldn't have let him see it, and vice versa. His 'standards' are very new found and have more to do with pain than morals, pain caused by seeing someone he cared about openly hurt because of him, as opposed to what he'd seen before, which was people he despised openly hurting, and someone he loved presenting an invulnerable front and partly defensive games.
Or so I think. (thinking) Does that make any sense?
Re: Two things there
Date: 2003-02-07 01:00 pm (UTC)Yes, I think I agree with that. His standards may not have had the strongest of foundations, but it's interesting that something did develop over the course of the plot. Enough to suggest that perhaps his lies were true and de Tourvel could have "saved" him.
Re: Two things there
Date: 2003-02-07 01:15 pm (UTC)Re: Two things there
Date: 2003-02-07 01:24 pm (UTC)Well, maybe not because she didn't have the strength or the skill to manage it. But he was of course severely narked when Mertueil explained that "I cannot help it, it is not my fault" wasn't something he was going to be able to come back from. If he'd realised sooner, he wouldn't have done it. This suggests to me that if Mertueil hadn't pulled out the big guns, de Tourvel might have had enough of a hold on him to persuade him out of other kinds of behaviour that he wouldn't have thought twice about before he met her. Maybe not, but I think that at least the possibility is left open.
Re: Two things there
Date: 2003-02-07 03:06 pm (UTC)Or maybe I'm just twisted to like to think it so. :)
no subject
Date: 2003-02-06 02:03 pm (UTC)One of the things I liked about DL was the fact that Valmont is, in every situation, only grudgingly respected, and you never, ever see him in the company of men of his own class. His behaviour has, in a sense, made him pariah already, but as a man of some substance he can get by on that.
As was already pointed out, though, I did a very long rant on this movie before. If anyone's interested, I'll post it again when I get home.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-06 02:51 pm (UTC)One of the things I liked about DL was the fact that Valmont is, in every situation, only grudgingly respected,
Although "grudgingly respected" is a far cry from "destroyed". This is what I meant when I wrote Valmont could openly do things which were not acceptable for women. Would Mertueil have behaved like Valmont had there been equality of the sexes ? Perhaps not - Mertueil took pleasure in being whiter than white, in fooling everyone. In contrast, Valmont was far more concerned as to whether he appeared dependant upon a woman (ie. appeared to be foolishly in love) than he was about his social status. And Mertueil used this fact to devastating advantage.
I did a very long rant on this movie before. If anyone's interested, I'll post it again
It is my journal - please go ahead.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-06 03:49 pm (UTC)In contrast, Valmont was far more concerned as to whether he appeared dependant upon a woman (ie. appeared to be foolishly in love) than he was about his social status
Perhaps rather more than this, Valmont had based both his social status (such as it was) and the top level of his relationship with Mertueil around his persona as a sophisticated degenerate and a predator. In the latter case there were a few cracks in that persona, but in neither case could he afford the damage that would be done if he were believed to be dependant on a woman's affections.
Hence his pleasure in the contradiction between this persona, and the opposite which he presents to de Tourvel. And hence also his consternation when things get out of hand.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-07 12:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-07 01:16 pm (UTC)I love you
Madam! Such sentiments are neither flattering nor desirable to a gentleman in my position. If you cannot control your feelings, it is my great regret that our friendship must end.
Or words to that effect.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-07 01:49 am (UTC)Even this is too simplistic. Valmont's social status varied greatly - he was accepted by Madame de Rosemonde (his aunt) and he successfully turns Tourvel's opinion around even after the warnings from Madame de Volanges.
Valmont practised a slightly more relaxed form of deception than Mertueil. He made sure that it was impossible to actually pin proofs to his actions but he did not go as far as to try and appear innocent. What he presents to Tourvel is a "reformed" Valmont. One who went too far in the past but now behaves more properly.
Hence his pleasure in the contradiction
Indeed.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-07 01:08 pm (UTC)That's true. Pehaps both women's beliefs concerning him were influenced by what they wanted to believe? His aunt maybe felt that he couldn't be as bad as all that (although I don't remember what she had to say on the subject so I'm not sure on this), but certainly de Tourvel very much wanted him to be the kind of man with whom she could associate. Partly because she genuinely wanted to reform him, and partly because she wanted to, erm, associate with him...
no subject
Date: 2003-02-07 03:13 pm (UTC)I would agree. A lovely piece of writing that, self-deception from two "uncorrupted" characters amidst all the deceptions from the "corrupted" characters.
Not entirely true
Date: 2003-02-07 03:56 pm (UTC)This is simply because Valmont has already lost an awful lot of what status his former lover still has. Being accepted to tea by a few society women does not connote status for Valmont, and at least in the Malkovich version he's never accorded any respect (nor indeed, speaks to) any of the men of his class. These people can be reasonably expected to shun him. This isn't perhaps as damaging to him as it would be to Merteuil, but it's not as if his known activities have had no effect on him.
He could still manage enough social grace to find lovers, true, which is what Merteuil finally loses. And as I mentioned elsewhere, one reason I disliked CI is that in that movie it was completely the opposite: no one ever shows disapproval of Gellar's 'sluttishness', whereas Phillipe gets raked over the coals every scene for it.
Re: Not entirely true
Date: 2003-02-08 01:21 am (UTC)He is invited along to Emile's wedding feast by her husband (letter XLVII). Also Tourvel's husband (whom she writes to) never suggests she leaves the chateau because of him.
There is evidence that he rarely (never) seeks the company of men (but then, he is not interested in them). There is also evidence that those he cuckolded do not like him. However, I am not convinced that there is evidence that he is never accorded respect by the men of his class (in fact - isn't there a passage where one of M's other lovers tries to match him ?).
but it's not as if his known activities have had no effect on him
True enough - although I do say this. However, there is no "banished from society" effect as M suffers at the end.
Re: Not entirely true
Date: 2003-02-08 10:57 pm (UTC)Re: Not entirely true
Date: 2003-02-09 01:11 am (UTC)Re: Not entirely true
Date: 2003-02-09 01:29 am (UTC):(
Re: Not entirely true
Date: 2003-02-09 01:32 am (UTC)Then you could buy a French version later - should you feel the need. ;-)
Re: Not entirely true
Date: 2003-02-09 01:36 am (UTC)Man, I miss you guys. Wish I had time to come and see you in London. Maybe in the time between leaving my job and leaving the UK...
Leaving the UK
Date: 2003-02-09 01:43 am (UTC)Re: Leaving the UK
Date: 2003-02-09 01:48 am (UTC)Tony
no subject
Date: 2003-02-07 12:48 am (UTC)But I'd like to hear your rant.
Well, you've heard the rant before...
Date: 2003-02-07 03:38 pm (UTC)(Since there's no way it would fit in a comment tag)
Re: Well, you've heard the rant before...
Date: 2003-02-08 02:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-06 02:14 pm (UTC)Indeed, I remember that this was one of my primary annoyances with the movie, which I had very, very high hopes for. It was supposed to be set in upper-crust East Coast America, with the kind of rules and mores which are necessary to support the plot. But instead it's got a very tacky California finish. The sole voices of parental, adult, or respectable authority are a racist nitwit and a pandering psychologist.
Nah, sorry, the movie just lacked class. Whereas I actually enjoyed She's All That for having overcome my expectations of the trite at certain points: he's a jock, but not stupid; he's not an artist, but does OK when pressured... it suffers from the main problem of all Pygmalion movies, though, in that Laney Boggs being the least-attractive girl in school is a bit of a stretch.
Agreement, and a Pygmalion rant
Date: 2003-02-06 02:58 pm (UTC)I suspect that the criticism is justified, but I know next to nothing about upper-crust East Coast America.
Laney Boggs being the least-attractive girl in school is a bit of a stretch
Yep. Some day, someone will do the "Pygmalion" thing right. Possibly.
And on that subject... Pygmalion is *never* performed accurately. Even in the versions called "Pygmalion". She's not supposed to marry Higgins, she's supposed to beat him at his own game.
*sigh*
Re: Agreement, and a Pygmalion rant
Date: 2003-02-07 03:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-07 01:00 am (UTC)SF vs. MK
Now OK, all right-thinking folks accept that the Street Fighter series are fine games whilst all incarnations of Mortal Kombat blow goats. However, that's no excuse for endorsement of the Street Fighter movie, which is surely one of the worst piles of excrement ever to hit a cinema screen (and be wiped off with bleach).
The MK movie isn't without its faults, but it's got many good fight scenes, a great soundtrack and is faithful to the wonderfully OTT plots of the games.
Street Fighter completely butchered the games, had no good fight scenes (despite recruiting the oh-so-wrong JC Van Damme to play Guile) and was desperately short on special effects. No fireballs ? Bison's Psycho Power done on a budget of $11.99 ? Terrible ! Terrible !
And OK, so MK had unsuitable female actors (particularly Sonia Blade), but that's surely no worse that the excruciating Kylie Minogue as Cammy ? She's completely wrong physically, looks nothing like her facially (Kylie's a dog, to start with) and isn't even agile never mind actually being able to fight. So Chun Li was better ? Well yes, but she gets a crap part and still has no fight scenes. Oh - and Cammy's supposed to work for Bison.
Re: SF vs. MK
Date: 2003-02-06 07:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-07 01:41 am (UTC)Hurray for Bea!
Date: 2003-02-06 05:43 am (UTC)Re: Hurray for Bea!
Date: 2003-02-06 05:57 am (UTC)Over my dead body. Sadly, I think they're working on that bit right now.
Re: Hurray for Bea!
Date: 2003-02-06 02:37 pm (UTC)Though one has to point out that being a boxer and a BNP politician would break both parent's hearts, if not for the politics, then her father's for the sports fascination. :)
Icon of Sin
Date: 2003-02-06 06:17 am (UTC)It might be kind of cheating, but it was the only way that I could do that level...
Re: Icon of Sin
Date: 2003-02-06 06:35 am (UTC)As to movies - you lived with Alistair and his MK video for a number of years - surely you qualify as an expert by now ?