How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (2019)

Although I wasn't crazy about How to Train Your Dragon 2 —don't get me wrong, I didn't hate it, it just didn't live up to How to Train Your Dragon, in my opinion— I was still looking forward to seeing How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World as it is the final chapter of the trilogy. 

In this final entry, Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel) and the other Vikings continue to rescue captured dragons and bring them to Berk. Hiccup's efforts to free the dragons, however, has made him a target for other warlords and Vikings, and pretty soon he and his people are forced to face an infamous dragon hunter (F. Murray Abraham) who uses a female Light Fury as bait to capture Toothless and plans on turning him against his friends. 

The plot is really interesting at first but unfortunately, as it develops, there are so many plot holes and inconsistencies with the previous films, that it's difficult to enjoy it. It doesn't help either that the story never reaches the depth and complexity of the first film, at times it so boring and dull, I lost completely my interest, and it's flat on emotions and drama. 

The characters, on the other hand, are nicely done. Not only they are still very likeable and therefore you care about them, but they have given more depth and development, especially the supporting characters who no longer have only a single trait to differentiate one from another —it's too bad most of these characters don't add anything to the story. The villain, unfortunately, is quite a disappointment as he's never as menacing and smart as he's said to be. The voice cast does a pretty good job though, even F. Murray Abraham who plays the weak villain.

The humour is also a bit of a letdown. While there still are some funny moments and jokes, most of the film's comedy is one-liners and jokes able to entertain only a kid. Sure, the film targets kids, but the filmmakers should have taken more into consideration the adults that watch the movie along with the kids.

Universal Pictures

The best aspect of How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World, as well as the only aspect of the film that doesn't even come close at being a disappointment, is the animation. Just like its predecessors, this third film of the series looks stunning —from facial expressions to movements to textures, the animation is top notch.

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

I have mixed feelings about Joel Schumacher as I loved Phone Booth and Tigerland, but I hated Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Ergo, although Katy said very nice things about it in her Against the Crowd blogathon entry, I didn't know what to expect from The Phantom of the Opera.

The film tells the story of a disfigured man known only as the Phantom (Gerard Butler) who lives beneath the Paris Opera House. He falls deeply in love with Christine Daae (Emmy Rossum), a talented and young chorus singer, and starts tutoring her while terrorizing the rest of the opera house and demanding leading roles to be always given to her. When Christine meets back up with her childhood friend, Viscount Raoul de Chagny (Patrick Wilson), and they fall in love, the Phantom, insane with jealousy, kidnaps her.

I never saw the original stage musical nor read the French novel upon which it's based on so I wasn't very familiar with the story whose execution turned out to be a huge disappointment. I don't know who is to be blamed for it, but it doesn't make a lot of sense, especially the ending --if the opera house burned down, how come there's no sign of a fire at the beginning of the film as it start in 1919 and then goes back to 1870?--, it is cheesy and predictable, simply not compelling enough to keep me interested. It is pretty much a boring love triangle story with a little bit of insanity.

I found the characters to be just as uncompelling. They are just a bunch of stereotypes with no depth, not even a personality --Minnie Driver's Carlotta, the opera house diva, is the only with some and she was fun-ish to watch. There isn't a single sympathetic character and because of that, I didn't care about any of them at all.

And the performances, oh boy they are bad. Emmy Rossum has such a lovely singing voice and her acting isn't terrible as she manages to convey the character's fragility, but she is not entirely believable as she often does things that don't make a lot of sense --surely, the blame is on Schumacher. Gerard Butler is absolutely terrible. His singing sounds like that from a drunk on karaoke night --he should have taken some singing lessons; his acting is bad as always. Patrick Wilson's performance is nothing short of bland. Miranda Richardson as Madame Giry is the only who gives a decent performance and for some unknown reason, the only with a French accent. Dear Schumacher, if you do accents, then everyone has them, not only one person.

Warner Bros. Pictures, Odyssey Entertainment

However, Schumacher's The Phantom of the Opera isn't a complete misfire. The songs, although some feel forced and the lip sync is off, are pretty good, both lyric and singing wise, and I really appreciate that the cast, with the only exception of Minnie Driver, does their own singing. 

At last, the visual aspect is nothing short of great. The cinematography is unique and charming. The colours are vibrant and the use of colour and black and white is interesting --the present, 1919, is in black an white; the past, 1870, is in colour. And the sets, scenery and costumes are gorgeous.

DRACULA 2000

TYPICAL REVIEW

"There is ... very little that this film does right, and I can identify nothing to justify its existence." - James Berardinelli, REELVIEWS

THE PLOT

Well, as you might guess from the film’s title, it’s the year 2000, and Dracula gets set loose by a bunch of thieves who find his coffin in a vault which they believed would contain priceless works of art. Since there is no art in the place, the thieves decide to take the coffin instead. How do such stupid people come by the money to afford the high-tech equipment these goons are toting around? Anyway, once free, Dracula proceeds to bite some people, who bite some other people, and so on. C’mon, it’s a vampire movie, what else did you expect. Along the way, we're treated to some obligatory Buffy-style kung-fu vampire slaying, a laughable mid-air sex scene with pop singer Vitamin C (You know, sometimes, when you're discussing these movies, you just have to pause and stare in wonder at what you've just written.), and some convoluted reworkings of characters from Bram Stoker's novel. It all ends badly.

THE POINT

Sometimes, if you stick it out through one of these movies, you might find that there’s actually an interesting idea buried in amongst the bad dialogue, undeveloped characters and stunning lack of logic.

What’s interesting in this film is that Dracula is not identified as the ancient European bad-guy Vlad the Impaler, but is instead (get ready) Judas Iscariot. That’s right, in this movie, after betraying Jesus and choosing suicide rather than seeking forgiveness; Judas receives the horrible curse of becoming the first vampire. (Don’t bother trying to find this incident in the Bible, it isn’t there.)

It’s a pretty clever take on the vampire myth and offers a unique explanation on why many of the vampire legends are so Christian centered. The undead are a mockery of true resurrection. The blood-sucking is a mockery of Communion. Vampires are weakened by Christian symbols such as the Cross, holy water, and silver (Judas’ 30 piece payoff, remember). And even though the movie doesn’t go there, you could even include the vampire’s dislike of garlic because Anne Emmerich, the lady who wrote one of Mel Gibson's favorites, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, claims that the meat at the Last Supper was seasoned with it. (I’ll accept my award for most outstanding useless trivia now, thank you.)

That’s all fun, but what really makes this movie interesting is when you put it in the context of a gospel reading like the scene in Matthew 18. This is the oft repeated story where Peter approaches Jesus and asks him, “Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive? As many as seven times?” Jesus answers, “I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times."

I was reminded of this passage after our heroine Mary, a cashier at the local Virgin Records Megastore (Get it? Good. Please direct all groans and complaints to the screenwriter.), manages to lure Dracula/Judas into a trap. Rather than immediately destroy the vampire, she offers him another choice. Why not just ask Jesus for forgiveness?

To his credit, Gerard Butler, the guy playing Judas, actually pulls off a decent bit of acting at this point as he considers the idea. Unfortunately, since there were already even worse sequels in the works (Does everything really NEED to be a trilogy these days?), Judas concludes that his sin was too horrible to be forgiven and must be set out to roast in the sunlight until the next movie.

The mistake that the Judas character in the film makes is, sadly, a very common one. It’s the inability to accept forgiveness once it’s offered. The realization of just how deeply we’ve hurt some of the people in our lives can often lead some of us to think there is no chance for reconciliation. Hearing someone say it just isn’t enough sometimes.

It’s a subtle trap, really; another kind of false pride. Listen, if you find yourself feeling like the worst of the worst, just read the Bible and take a look at some of the rouges gallery presented in its pages.

• Jacob – liar, thief – father of the twelve tribes of Israel
• King David – murderer, adulterer – called a man after God’s heart
• St. Paul – genocidal fanatic – wrote two-thirds of the New Testament

With a little forgiveness, those three ended up doing okay for themselves. And even if you have those guys beat, (frightening, but doubtful) you should step back and realize that when you don’t accept forgiveness, you are judging your own soul, and that’s God’s job, not yours. Accept the forgiveness Jesus offers, then go out do the same for someone else.

As the ever-questionable (but dead-right in this case) Wikipedia so neatly puts it in its article on this topic, “Forgiveness may be necessary for civilization, since without it, all wrongs would demand revenge, which may themselves be taken as wrongs requiring revenge, resulting in a spiraling escalation of retaliation, leading ultimately to utter destruction.” In its purest form, forgiveness is the elimination of a debt that could never be repaid. Jesus gave it to us, and for the good of our personal relationships, for the whole world really, we have to give it for each other, and to ourselves.

THE STINGER

It’s possible to forgive someone without re-establishing a relationship with them. As Bishop Joseph Ekuwen once said, "When someone offends you and makes an apology, you forgive them but keep them at an arms distance. You refuse to re-admit the other into your life. When you do this, reconciliation is missing." If we’re really trying to imitate God, then that means we can’t just forgive someone, we’re expected to reconcile with them. If they’re truly repentant, we’re expected in some way to try and bring them back into our lives. How 'freakin' hard is that?