Posted in essay, movie reviews

Women of History: Boudica

When I decided to start a blog series about women from history, Boudica jumped out at me.  Not because she was my favorite historical woman, or because she had some major play in history.  She just did.  So for no reason whatsoever other than ‘because’, she’ll be my first post subject.

Boudica was a British Queen, back during the Roman Empire.  At that point England (And Great Britian as a whole) was made up of different tribes.  She was part of the Iceni Tribe which lived in what is now modern day Norfolk.

Boudica (also spelled Boadicea, Boudicea, and called Budding in Welsh) was born around 25 AD  She was married to Prasutagus, who was the elected ruler or King of the Iceni.  Prasutagus had a agreeable relationship with the Roman Empire, enough so that when he died he left his kingdom to both his daughters and the Empire.  This of course caused problems.

The Romans had left the Iceni and the other British tribes for the most part alone since Ceaser visited a century before.  However, around 43 AD, Emperor Claudius decided to invade, and this time take control.  The Tribes eventually had to submit, but instead of leaving them alone for the most part, Claudius left behind his soldiers on the island.  Some of the native population continued to rebel, but successive governors of the island sent by rome made things more and more difficult for the Iceni and their neighbors. At one point they no longer had the ability to have any weapons that could be used for rebellion (hunting weapons were still allowed to a point).  When Claudius died, his successor Nero had them build a temple in Camulodunum for him, which required the Celtic Icenic to worship their invader. They were also forced to pay for it.  Not having the funds to do so, they ended up borrowing money from rich Romans.  

Boudica’s eventual rebellion was motivated by different things, depending on what source you were told.  Most of the tales of Boudica were Roman, as there was no written celtic history at the time.  However, the Romans who wrote about the Queen of the Iceni had different ideas of what motivated her.  According to some, her motivations were due to oppression.  The Romans, such as Seneca, who had leant money to the Britions called those loans in with force. The Governers took more and more of the freedoms the Celtic populations enjoyed to keep them under control.  THis included destruction of their holy lands, which sadly would not be the last time this would happen in history. This got worse when her husband, who had on friendly terms with the Roman Empire, died.  Rome decided to take complete control rather then share with the man’s daughters.

Other accounts have more dramatic reasons.  According to Tacitus, Boudica was flogged for resisting her estate being taken over by the local leader and her daughters raped.  Given that there is no account from the side of the Celtics, or Boudica herself, its hard to know for sure what really happened to her or her people that caused her to decide to seize leadership and rebel.

In around 60-61 AD, Boudica lead Celtic rebels in full rebellion against the Roman invaders.  She attacked, and destroyed several cities.  One of which was the City of London, which still bears traces of the attack where Boudica’s army burned the city down. Other cities included Verulamium, and Camulodunum (Colchester). According to Dio, she was vicious in her retribution, killing those who remained in the cities.  She had a larger army, with an estimate of 230 thousand.   However in the end the Roman leader Suetonius was victorious and returned Britain to Roman control.  His troops were better trained and better armed, and in the end that seemed to win the day.

Boudica died soon afterwards, with even her death in dispute.  In some accounts she ended it by poison, others she died of an illness.  She was given a costly funeral by her tribesman.  Despite the loss, she was still greatly respected by most accounts.  I suppose in a way its amazing that she managed to not only gain the respect of her fellow celts, but enough respect from the Romans that they told stories about her.  They won, they could have told any story they wanted.  Made her out to be some demon, but they didn’t.

I suppose it confused them.  The Romans weren’t particularly equalitarian when it came to gender. Most of the heroines of their tales were either godesses or foriegn Queens.  Boudica, Dido, Cleopatra.    Women who defyed the Roman idea of Womanhood.

Today it doesn’t seem that far fetched that a group of fighters would go into battle for their Queen.  Its happened many times before.  Boudica left in imprint on the history of Great Britain, not just as a Queen.  She became a symbol of resistance.  She became a subject of Art, and inspiration during the Victorian Age.







Further Reading:

Boudica – Wikipedia

Boudica: Celtic War Queen who challenged Rome

Boudica:

Posted in American History, history, movie reviews, space history

Apollo 13 – Film and History

I wrote this yesterday with the intent of posting it, but various life things happened that means it gets pushed off till today.  So here’s the belated Article:

As I have stated in several posts, my favorite movie is Apollo 13. It is the dramatization of the real life story of the Apollo 13 Lunar mission that went horribly wrong in April of 1970.  Today while reading my email, I got a list of today’s historical events, and it reminded me that today in 1970, they finally made it back to earth.  So I decided to write about the Apollo 13 mission and the movie in general.

The movie is mostly accurate, with a few details changed for dramatic (well, movie dramatic) effect.  However, the writers and producers of the film were interested in making it as close as possible. After all, sitting in a space ship hoping you’d get home after the oxygen tank explodes is a pretty interesting story.

Apollo 13 was the 8th manned mission in the Apollo series.  Apollo 1 had ended tragically in 1967.   It took a two year review, and several changes to the Apollo spacecraft before they were manned again.  Apollo missions 2-6 were unmanned tests of the spacecraft, after it had been decided that the Apollo 1 identity would not be moved to the new mission.  Therefore, the first Apollo mission that was manned and made it to space was Apollo 7, which orbited the earth.  Apollo 8 went a step further and orbited the moon itself.  This mission also had James Lovell involved, who was also involved in 13.  Apollo 9 and 10 practiced lunar landing procedures.  And Apollo 11, which is perhaps the most famous of American space flights, took us to the Moon.

Apollo 13 took off on April 11, 1970, a little over 3 years after Apollo 1, and only 9 months after Apollo 11.  It was manned by James Lovell (Commander), Jack Swigert (Command Module Pilot) and Fred Haise (Lunar Module Pilot).  The Apollo capsule was only large enough to fit three men, unlike the later Space Shuttle craft.  Through a small connecting tunnel, they connected to the Lunar Module (also known as the LEM – Lunar Excursion Module) which would become the life raft that kept these three men alive during the four days it took to get home.

On April 13, 1970 shortly after recording a television transmission the three astronauts felt a jolt and soon realised that their spacecraft was venting out into space.  I’ve included a link below to the wikipedia page, where there is a audio recording of the famous “houston we have a problem” report.   What had occured is when Jack Swigert went to do a routine stirring of the tanks to keep the liquid fuel/oxygen from freezing, the temperture gauge in the oxygen tank was broken.  It overheated the tank, and the tank exploded.  This was due to a issue that developed during pre-launch checks which was not realised until after a review board looked at all the evidence.

They spent the next four days in the LEM, using the oxygen tanks and fuel tanks that would have sent them to the moon to keep themselves alive and target their way back home.  This had been a contingenoucy plan developed previously but this was the first time it was ever attempted, and various problems surfaced during the four days that the astronauts and the men in Mission control had to solve.

The film dramatizes some of it, changing up some of the words said by the astronauts and introducing a few scenes that were never documented by anyone to fill out some of the characters reactions.  But overall the film is fairly accurate for a biopic.  They even used archive footage of a launch to use with CGI to create the launch scene in the movie, and used actually low gravity in some of the scenes where you see them float for more of a real effect.   So while its definately a movie, not a documentary, it is pretty well done.

The film was nominated for Best Picture in 1994, but lost to Braveheart.  It did win Best Editing, and Best Sound.  It is one of my favorite movies still, over 20 years after it was released.  You can stream it on Amazon, it is available for both purchase and rental.  It used to be on Hulu but right now I can’t find it to confirm.

The film was based on James Lovell’s novel called Lost Moon which was renamed Apollo 13 when the film came out.  It’s a great read as well, especially if you are interested about the space program.  It not only covers the Apollo 13 mission, but Lovell’s earlier missions and interactions with other astronauts.

I also recommend the Tom Hanks mini-series From the Earth to the Moon.  It is a great dramatization of the real events of the Space Program and also has some great actors in it.

Apollo 13 Wikipedia

Apollo 13 – NASA Website

Apollo 13 Film Wikipedia

To The Earth From The Moon

 

Posted in film, movie reviews

Movie Review: Pacific Rim

Title: Pacific Rim

Release Date:  2013

Directed by:  Guillermo del Toro

Written by:  Guillermo del Toro, Travis Beacham

Starring:  Charlie Hunnam, Diego Klattenhoff, Idris Elba, Rinko Kikuchi, Charlie Day, Burn Gorman and Max Martini (among many others)

My Grade: A-

This movie was recommended to me by several people as a good movie.  I’m actually writing this part before I watch it, hence the weird tenses compared to what I will write after I watch it.  Supposedly this movie has good gender dynamics, as well as a diverse cast and a good story.  I’m hoping to find all of that.  Although I must admit by looking at the casting list on IMDB, its looking fairly non-diverse, particularly on Gender.  SO far I’m only seeing 8 female actors mostly in minor character parts, unless someone has a gender neutral name and no picture.  Only two actually seem to have named parts.  But we shall see.  IMDB can be a bit deceiving at times.

On the bright side, it also has IDris Elba and Ron Perlman who are always worth seeing.  Now onto watching the movie (A DVD.  Alas, no blu-ray yet.)

(…intermission music…)

So in the end, I really enjoyed it.  The lighting was dark in some areas, which might have been my TV set, but it made it hard to really see what the Kaiju looked like.  However the concept was pretty good.  The basic backstory of the movie is that along the Pacific Rim (also known as the Ring of Fire due to the tectonic plate activity) there opens up a breach between two dimensions.  Ours, and that of the Kaiju.  They start attacking us and in an attempt to fight them off we decide to build giant robots.  Only it doesn’t always work, because if it did we wouldn’t have a movie.

Charlie Hunnam plays the main character, Raleigh Becket, who is a Jaeger (the robot) pilot.  The robots need 2 pilots and he used to pilot with his brother but his brother died and he ended up in Alaska building a wall.  Idris Alba plays the head dude of the Jager program Pentecost and basically drags Raleigh back to the robots in a last ditch effort to save the program.

Rinko Kikuchi plays the female lead (and sadly only one of two named female characters, all other female characters are background and barely have lines if any at all) Mako Mori.  She is Pentecost’s adoptive daughter and the person Raleigh decides should be his new partner.

Charlie Day – who I spent half the movie calling Sam Rockwell Jr – plays  Newton Geiszler, a biologist who works on understanding the Kaiju.  He is accompanied by Burn Gorman, who plays Hermann Gottlieb who is basically a Nerdy Owen Harper who managed to retain the anger.

Ron Perlman plays a Blackmarket dealer who basically profits off the corpses of Kaiju.

The cast was fantastic, and I really liked the fact that they made a point to incorporate different nationalities into the story.  Not all of the characters are American – actually most of them aren’t.  It didn’t shy away from having characters speak in accents or their native languages.  They choose actual asian/asian decent actors to play asian characters for the most part which is sadly not always the case in Hollywood.

The story was pretty good as well, though I wish there had been more time with the various Jaeger pilots other than Raleigh, Mako and Chuck.  There is so much to this world unexplored, which should be interesting to see when the sequel comes out.  Perhaps we can get more exploration of the Alternate universe Pacific Rim created.

So essentially my only issue with this movie that I can think of while writing this review is the lack of female characters outside the leads.

 

Posted in film, movie reviews, Uncategorized

Film Review: GhostBusters (2016)

A long time ago, I believe I watched the original Ghostbusters film, but to be honest it has been so long ago that I barely remembered it. Going into watching this version of the story I was wondering if it was going to be a different verse, or a continuation or otherwise how it would relate to the original.  The answer was its a whole different universe from the originals, but the actors who were in the original who were still living all make some brief appearances in the film.

I found it hilarious at times, and some random actors showed up that I wasn’t expecting like CHarles Dance (aka Tywin Lannister) and Ed Begley jr who plays another Ed Jr..  Chris Hemsworth’s Kevin was also a hilarious take on the dumb secretary trope.  The cast as a whole was excellent, and the cameos of the original actors were interesting. The longest appearance was by Bill Murray who plays a critic of the ghostbusters who thinks they are making it all up.

For the most part I enjoyed it, though there were one or two times a joke went on too long, and the credits were over done a little.   Also the theme music appeared more in the trailer then perhaps it did in the actual movie.  The soundtrack in general was a little less then what I was expecting.

Considering one of the larger complains I heard prior to watching was that the cast was all female, I don’t think gender had an any effect on the quality of this film.  The cast did an excellent job

So my grade for this movie is a B+.  I’m definately planning on adding it to my collection at some point and I do hope that they get the sequel that they wanted.

Posted in movie reviews

Movie Review: Suicide Squad

So my friends and I got together last week and ended up watching two movies, Suicide Squad and Ghostbusters.  I’ll be reviewing Ghostbusters in my next post.  Obviously I’m late the reviewing of these two, having gotten them as rentals rather then seen in the theater, but they are new to me, so I figured it counted.

Suicide Squad is a DC Comics based film.  The premise is that Amanda Walker puts together a band of villains to save the country.  It both turns out well and very much not well at the same time.  None of the villains are there by choice, but rather leverage Walker has.  They barely tolerate one another.  However they are bonded in their dislike of Walker and Flagg, the only non-villain on the team.  However, when The Enchantress betrays Flagg and Walker, they find themselves on the same side.  Of sorts.

I went into watching this film with no real comic book know how.  My only prior exposure to Suicide Squad is through Smallville which had Flagg, Deadshot and that’s pretty much it as far as characters that appear in this movie.  Completely different as well from what appeared in this movie.  I was also somewhat familar with Harley Quinn just from having a bunch of comic book fans as best friends.

Overall the movie was alright, although I suspect it is better if you are a comic book fan and have the sentimentality towards various characters.  The only real issue I had was the abundance of the Joker who basic plot had no real need to be in the movie.  And he’s probably my least favorite version of the character.  I saw why they had him in there, in Harley’s backstory, but his continual presence seemed like they had actual footage so why not use it rather than something necessary.

Some of the CGI seemed a little awkward at parts yet great in others.

I’m going to give this film a B-.  Talented cast, but more of a film if you actually had a interest in DC comics before this.

 

Posted in book vs Movie, film, movie reviews

Movie Review: Anna Karenina

Title: Anna Karenina
Release Date: 2012
Rating:
Staring:  Keira Knightley, Jude Law, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Kelly MacDonald, Domhall Gleensen, Alicia Vikander, and Matthew Macfadyen

My Rating C.

My Review:

Alright, I knew going in that this was going to be a weird movie.  Its Tolstoy.  The man doesn’t do simple happy ever afters.  I’m not entirely sure he does happily ever afters at all.  Plus I had read a few bits of the book before watching the movie.  I’m determined to go back and actually read the whole thing.  If I can read Game of Thrones, which is 900 pages long, I think I can stretch a little further and read Anna Karenina.

Anyway, why did I give this film a C.  Well, the casting was full of people I like (Matthew MacDadyen, Alicia Vikander, and Kiera Knightly especially), so I can’t complain about the acting.  The costuming was excellant No, I just thought the staging was weird.

And by staging I mean the whole movie is built like its the mutant child of a stage play and a film.  Sometimes you feel like you have the full screen depth of a movie, and sometimes you felt like you were watching a recording of a play.  Which I suppose could be seen as an inventive way of making this all out to be some theme about how society is play on image.

It just threw me off really.  I think if they had started it that way, and perhaps ended it that way it would have been sufficent, but they kept routing it through the whole movie.

Also I found I cared very little for Anna and Vronksky,  Wishing there was more of Stiva and his family, or Levin & Kitty more then there was Anna.  I’m not sure how much of that is because of the source material or the script itself.

Posted in book vs Movie, film, movie reviews

Movie Review: Pride & Prejudice & Zombies

Title:  Pride & Prejudice & Zombies (2016)
Rating: PG-13

My Rating:  ….Ambigious.

You see,this movie is both bad, and good.  Its got some great chemistry between actors, and some of the alterations of characters due to the circumstances are really interesting.  It also has the occasionally good line.  I adore Matt Smith’s Collins, and Lena Hedly’s Lady Catherine makes you less likely to dispise the woman.  Charles Dance plays Mr. Bennet.  I knew Lily James as Ella, from the Live-Action Cinderella but didn’t realise she was Elizabeth untill I read the credits.  It also has some faces I’m unfamilar with like Sam Rielly and the rest of the cast I haven’t already mentioned.  I will say while his Darcy isn’t what I usually picture Darcy being, it fits within the scope of this film and he and Lily James work well off of one another.  It also gives some of the characters usually passed over in the original novel (Namely Mary Bennet) a chance to be shown a little more.

On the other hand some of the dialogue is very very cheesey and at times awkward (Example:  When Darcy, watching Elizabeth kick Zombie ass, realises that she’s not that bad looking after all, and starts explaining this to Bingley whose basically “Dude, Zombies.”). It also brings the hard question – If women are being trained for battle, why is it so off set with the sexism of the day?  Shouldn’t it have changed some of it?  Some of the interjection of the original material by Austen is a bit awkward.

So its hard to grade this movie.  I will say I enjoyed it, and I’ll probably purchase it eventually.  It really doesn’t make me want to read the novel (The one the film was based on, not the original P&P, which I have read).However, its the type of Zombie movie I enjoy.  The kind where there is a mix of genre (Action & Adventure, but also comedy and a touch of romance) and there are some surprising twists.

Posted in film, movie reviews, Uncategorized

Movie Review: Antman

Title: Ant-Man (2015)
Rating:PG-13

My Grade:  A

So I finally got a chance to watch Antman this past week.  I’ve been meaning to see it for awhile now, but never got to it.  Paul Rudd, as usual when I watch his movies, is great.  The movie in general isn’t bad, and the casting seems excellant.  I remember there being some concern from comic fans about elements of the story (mainly Hope’s mother) but as someone whose never read an Ant-man comic, I am unaware of what those concerns are and if they materialised in the film.

While there is nothing really about the movie that sticks out to me as the-best-thing-ever  (apart from some hilarious one-liners by supporting cast and a Thomas the Tank-engine cameo), nothing really stands out as particularly bad either.  I look forward to the next movie, which might contain a little less explaining of what is going on.

Spoilers below:

Continue reading “Movie Review: Antman”

Posted in film, movie reviews

Movie Review: X-Men: Apocalypse

Title:  X-Men: Apocalypse (Third in the First Class series).
Rating: PG-13

My grade: B-

I enjoyed the movie, though I don’t think it quite lived up to the hype they tried to build for it.  Apcoalypse himself came off really as that creeper who won’t say no for an answer combinded with a televangelist.  Alex Summers appears, but I thought he was dead, so clearly a rewatch of the first movie is in need.

I did enjoy the cast, who I think did a great job with what they were given.

I’m going to put the rest under a read more because it will contain spoilers.

Continue reading “Movie Review: X-Men: Apocalypse”

Posted in film, history, movie reviews

Movie Review: Lady Jane (1986)

So I got netflix in the mail (Yes, I still use the DVD service) and it happened to be a movie with Helena Bonham Carter and Cary Elwes in it.  Always a good reason to watch a movie.  As I watched I also recognised a few actors I liked, although some I still refer to as their character from whatever I saw them in before.  Patrick Stewart was a surprise, playing Lord Grey,  Jane’s father.

From what I read on Wiki (doing a quick check of facts, nothing too indepth) the movie is an overly romanticsed story.  Jane may be the closest to her actual person, but Guilford is changed to be more the sweeping romantic hero.

As you can guess from a cast that has the three actors I mentioned, the acting was good.  The settings were also good, and so were most of the costumes (although some of Jane’s early costumes were not appealing on her, but alas that happens to us all).  Its just that the actual script is not so good.

For example, their idea of a intro conversation to a love scene is to talk about the differences in Prostantism and Catholicism.  Kind of a weird topic to inspire kissing.

And there is this scene where these two are going around making wishes, about how they want things to be better for the poor and the hungry and breaking their dishes to confirm the wish was sent.  I spent most of the time going “Don’t do that, someone’s going to end up bleeding and your servants are going to have to clean all that up and then what will you have to drink out of?”

While the two leads try to make it work and do seem to have some chemistry the awkwardness of the script and the real life storyline seem to fight them the entire way and it just seems…awkward.

So my final grade is a B-.  I managed to sit through it without pausing it it too much, and I didn’t even start to skip scenes till nearly the end. It just had too many awkward scenes.  Also I have found I can do without the word popary.