![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I know I said I wasn't pleased with the first season of TORCHWOOD and that I probably wont be watching the second season. But then a preview of it got shown on BBC and it piqued my interest so I acquired the first episode and it wasn't half bad. But I still think Gwen is pretty stupid. She's going to marry the guy she was with but decieving in the first season but is now in love with Captain Jack.... and he's in love with her too. But can't totally admit it because he knows she is getting married with that other guy. But despite that it seems this season may be better than the last... maybe.... I'll let you know later. =P
I watched the first two episodes of The Sarah Connor Chronicles. I wasn't sure about it after the debacle that was the Blade series. But after watching it for a while I started to get into the it a bit. I would like to see more. But I was more sure about than I am sure about the new Knight Rider, the trailer for that looks stupid to me.
I'm looking forward to seeing more of both those series.. plus of course continuing Doctor Who in the spring.
I watched Beowulf at the dollar movies but I wasn't happy with the story and I left the theater feeling negative. I realize not all stories are happy stories though... and it was probably the point of the film that Heros aren't always heroic and they are fallible human beings. But it wasn't only that I didn't think Beowulf himself was one iota of a bit likable as a person... all he had going for him was looks (mostly his body) and brawn. He never stood a chance against Angelina Jolie like all the other men who faced her in the story. They may be strong in body but they are weak of spirit\mind. I could also tell the Queen was depressed because her husbands where always weak, idiotic drunkards... and the other women where just sluttish a lot of the time.
It's an interesting thought though that the dragons and other monsters who are attacking the castles are simply the offspring of the King coming back to bite him in the butt. It kind of makes you think of the classic knight slays the dragon story a little differently... and the males back then might treat women like property and they don't do anything to discourage it but the heros\kings ultimately get "pwned" by a female... I agree also with what they say in wikipedia when they say: Philosophy professor Stephen T. Asma argues that,
“Zemeckis's more tender-minded film version suggests that the people who cast out Grendel are the real monsters. The monster, according to this charity paradigm, is just misunderstood rather than evil. The blame for Grendel's violence is shifted to the humans, who sinned against him earlier and brought the vengeance upon themselves. The only real monsters, in this tradition, are pride and prejudice. In the film, Grendel is even visually altered after his injury to look like an innocent, albeit scaly, little child. In the original Beowulf, the monsters are outcasts because they're bad (just as Cain, their progenitor, was outcast because he killed his brother), but in the new liberal Beowulf the monsters are bad because they're outcasts [...] Contrary to the original Beowulf, the new film wants us to understand and humanize our monsters."
Although I didn't feel like the movie was tender in tone except for when they showed the dead grendel like a pitiful small child. It also wasn't very heroic when Beowulf killed him. Sure he may have terrorized the kingdom but the story sort of painted the picture that a lot of them especially the king had earned that. That and I felt like it was more like, oh gee you just killed misunderstood village secret outcast, go you... not.
and,
"The film changes the very nature of its hero. He becomes vulnerable and flawed, and he loses much of his nobility. The minute he starts lying, he becomes less interesting."
I watched the first two episodes of The Sarah Connor Chronicles. I wasn't sure about it after the debacle that was the Blade series. But after watching it for a while I started to get into the it a bit. I would like to see more. But I was more sure about than I am sure about the new Knight Rider, the trailer for that looks stupid to me.
I'm looking forward to seeing more of both those series.. plus of course continuing Doctor Who in the spring.
I watched Beowulf at the dollar movies but I wasn't happy with the story and I left the theater feeling negative. I realize not all stories are happy stories though... and it was probably the point of the film that Heros aren't always heroic and they are fallible human beings. But it wasn't only that I didn't think Beowulf himself was one iota of a bit likable as a person... all he had going for him was looks (mostly his body) and brawn. He never stood a chance against Angelina Jolie like all the other men who faced her in the story. They may be strong in body but they are weak of spirit\mind. I could also tell the Queen was depressed because her husbands where always weak, idiotic drunkards... and the other women where just sluttish a lot of the time.
It's an interesting thought though that the dragons and other monsters who are attacking the castles are simply the offspring of the King coming back to bite him in the butt. It kind of makes you think of the classic knight slays the dragon story a little differently... and the males back then might treat women like property and they don't do anything to discourage it but the heros\kings ultimately get "pwned" by a female... I agree also with what they say in wikipedia when they say: Philosophy professor Stephen T. Asma argues that,
“Zemeckis's more tender-minded film version suggests that the people who cast out Grendel are the real monsters. The monster, according to this charity paradigm, is just misunderstood rather than evil. The blame for Grendel's violence is shifted to the humans, who sinned against him earlier and brought the vengeance upon themselves. The only real monsters, in this tradition, are pride and prejudice. In the film, Grendel is even visually altered after his injury to look like an innocent, albeit scaly, little child. In the original Beowulf, the monsters are outcasts because they're bad (just as Cain, their progenitor, was outcast because he killed his brother), but in the new liberal Beowulf the monsters are bad because they're outcasts [...] Contrary to the original Beowulf, the new film wants us to understand and humanize our monsters."
Although I didn't feel like the movie was tender in tone except for when they showed the dead grendel like a pitiful small child. It also wasn't very heroic when Beowulf killed him. Sure he may have terrorized the kingdom but the story sort of painted the picture that a lot of them especially the king had earned that. That and I felt like it was more like, oh gee you just killed misunderstood village secret outcast, go you... not.
and,
"The film changes the very nature of its hero. He becomes vulnerable and flawed, and he loses much of his nobility. The minute he starts lying, he becomes less interesting."
