Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Princess of Thieves (2001) (TV)

Whenever Spencer informs me that I'll spend my evening watching a movie alone, I purposely go for those few flicks that I know he doesn't really want to watch anyway in an attempt to set some sort of standard for optimal viewing over a long period of time. Anyloser, this is was the cozy choice for last night and I thought I would share what little I gleaned from this inspirational 88 minute feature. It didn't have to be only 88 minutes, that's for sure. If they had just left those 15 crucial seconds on the end of each scene instead of lopping them off like the head of some ill-fated small mammal, maybe it would have been longer. And more cohesive and professional for that matter. But no, they had to make it seem like a...dun dun dun....TV movie! There was no indication that this was TV movie when I slipped it in (mine was even a stupid demo tape with that rolling script that didn't manage to detract in the least from the constant parade of brown and green), and I don't even think the props or cinematography gave it away (they filmed everything on location at some retro Romanian castles and their surrounding grounds; that plus horses and lots of [more easily recognizable than traditional] forest colored robes pretty much set the scene). It was just that stupid scene lop. Damn you premature editor; go home to your sad sad wife! According to most of the comments I've read, people really liked this movie, although it may be for sadder reasons than naught. One D.C. dotty who has truly rampant reviewing experience (shitty straight to DVD movies such as Persuasion, Masterpiece Theater, and Mansfield Park) sums up perversely over-protective parents everywhere with her words of wisdom:

"For those of you worried about content, this is a very family-friendly movie: there is some mild romantic tension & a time when a woman dressed as a man ends up atop another man for a few seconds (clothes on, they were fighting), there is some killing/death (nothing too drastic or bloody shown) and there is mild violence as people fight. Beyond this, there is little to object to..."

Oh Regeny Ball, self-proclaimed period film aficionado, the lack of those things (especially a pedophilic glimpse of 16-year old Keira Knightley fanny [sad to say, she looks exactly the same 7 years later = creepy]) is exactly what I'm objecting to. More classless critics bombast this beauty for a complete and utter lack of historical accuracy. But tell me, why are people looking for historical accuracy watching movies at all, let alone non-boring Disney ones? Everyone knows that Pocahontas totally got fucked over and lions can't talk! One other thing. Why does Keira insist on being in all these fucking time pieces? I mean, yes, she has a great profile for giant hair and stodgy dresses, as well as a British accent, but...oh. I guess I pretty much answered that one myself. Despite all of the criticism...

I deem it: "A film to be watched when courting motivational movements, (tiny) girl power and historically blasphemous politics."

No comments: