I am not even sure why I rented Asterix & Obelix: Mission Cleopatra, I had so little hopes for it after the dreadful first live-action Asterix film. But I'm glad I did, for it turned out to be a terrific film.
For one thing it has Monica Bellucci as Cleopatra. She is just a gorgeous woman, and the really skimpy outfits she wears in this movie make me think it was not aimed at a kids audience! It's actually surprisingly sexy, and she is not the only really pretty woman in the film either.
For another thing it is very funny, not just keeping many of the original jokes from the graphic novel, but also introducing many new ones, surprisingly successful.
And last but not least, the film looks fantastic. This is not your father's French movie, this is a big budget feature, and it looks like it. The set designs, the landscapes, the costumes, everything is pure eye candy. I'm not kidding.Warmly recommended.
(If you get the DVD with two versions, watch the original French version, the English-language one has 20 minutes cut from it, and is not well dubbed.)
If you are very interested in technical data about specific DVDs, I found this entry on this astounding site.
15 comments:
"the English-language one has 20 minutes cut from it."
Why on Earth would they do that???
Never mind, it's not by asking an intelligent person that I'll get the answer!
I recently saw in bookstores english versions of the adventures of Tintin, another french comic classic. (I think Spielberg is planning a movie.) I noticed that the first album, Tintin in Congo, is absent from the english series. I'm betting it's because the naive, colonial era clichés on Africans, were deemed un-PC for the U.S. public. And yet, it IS censorship of a classic. Voltaire was antisemitic, which was deemed a social quality in his times. Sartre was a smoker (lately, there was a debate in France after his cigarette was digitally erased from a poster). Von Braun was an SS nazi who helped send the Americans on the moon. (A fact parodied in the movie Dr Strangelove.)
Everything wasn't a source for pride in our past. But hiding it is hypocrisy. I'm still not through coming to terms with some details of the social misconceptions I assimilated in my Seventies childhood. Only Knowledge and Truth bring freedom. Ignorance is a dangerous and very sneaky weakness. It becomes even worse when it's deliberate. "You can bring the horse to the water, but..."
The Asterix series makes a LOT of fun of Cesar's Romans. And yet, the citizens of today's Rome love to read it! They even joke at the acronym SPQR of Cesar's armies, re-explaining it as "Sono Pazzi Questi Romani" (Obelix's catch-phrase, "These Romans are crazy".)
Belgium acknowledges the period when they colonized Africa, and admit their errings. Why does it bother the USA so much?
I was quite young when I read Tintin in Congo. But I remember there was no deliberate portrayal of Blacks as bad guys. Just some naive clichés of a young Belgian cartoonist. It's History, a testimony of how people used to think before WW2.
Eolake, what are the scenes cut from Mission Cleopatra's english version? I'm very curious.
"Belgium acknowledges the period when they colonized Africa, and admit their errings. Why does it bother the USA so much?"
Well, Belgium seems to be over its imperialistic tendencies, so I guess they are more relaxed about it.
Re the cuts, I found this on Amazon:
"This follow-up to Asterix and Obelix Take On Caesar/Asterix et Obelix Contre Cesar is easily the most successful attempt to get the books mixture of slapstick, anachronisms and highbrow classical humorous asides to the screen, mixing classical references (such as a great Raft of the Medusa sight gag or the Sphinx's broken nose inspiring Depardieu's Obelix to quote Cyrano de Bergerac), alongside more modern pop-culture references - mobile phones, Star Wars and even The Benny Hill Show. It's also incredibly spectacular and lavishly designed, putting many recent epics to shame. Some of the subtitles, however, leave a little to be desired, with joke names such as Matthieukassovix changed to Lennykravix for Anglophone consumption (very jarring when you can still hear the originals), but that's a minor complaint compared to the Miramax cut also included here. Not all of it works, but it's still great fun.
Despite paying a reputed $45m for both films, in a classic case of buyer's remorse Miramax completely re-edited the film (at least 21 minutes gone) and crudely dubbed it into English. Maybe Harvey Weinstein mistook it for a Hong Kong movie. Whereas Asterix et Obelix Contre Cesar was lovingly dubbed into English from a particularly good translation script by Terry Jones but otherwise left unaltered, that sort of thing really isn't the Miramax way. The results ain't good.
Aside from the voices for Gerard Depardieu and Monica Bellucci just seeming very, very wrong, a lot of the classical references are gone (the Raft of the Medusa and Cyrano gags among them), the pirates are reduced to a single sequence, alongside anything that seems too French or might slow the picture down, with the result that the first 20 minutes are now a real slog. Several punchlines to sequences are missing, Depardieu's part has been trimmed (his part was already fairly small because of his serious health problems during the shoot: the US version has been partially digitally regraded to change the unhealthy pallor of his face in the original!), and as usual with dubbing, because literal translations into English don't fit properly, lines are either rushed so much they're not funny anymore or the dialogue has been changed completely. A couple of these changes are admittedly funny, like one character dreaming of a world in which he could move his lips in French and hear the words in English, so it's not quite a total disaster, but very disappointing.
Still, Pathe's UK DVD gives you the choice of both versions in excellent transfers, even if it is at the cost of any extras (the French DVD was a lavish two-disc set, but without English subtitles). But you'd definitely be better off sticking to the uncut subtitled French version even if you're buying it for the kids - tell them think of it as a reading a book with moving pictures!"
(lately, there was a debate in France after his cigarette was digitally erased from a poster)
here in america they are trying prohibition with tobacco but ain't gonna happen.......people will continue to smoke whether or not others approve.
people are really dumb. (some that is) the thing is you can't force anybody to do something agaisn't their will, they must want to change things in their own minds.
That is exactly so.
Pascal, they deleted a cigarette... in FRANCE? I thought that's the country where everybody smokes anywhere?
"I thought that's the country where everybody smokes anywhere?"
Nope. That's a thing of the past.
Because of public health issues, they're coming down hard on second-hand smoking, tobacco in public places and at work, and basically deterring smokers with higher taxes every year.
It so happens that with the French health system, tobacco-induced diseases directly cost the State. "It ain't cool to smoke no more".
I'm all for the mentality shift, but not the hypocrisy toward the past. Feels like P.C. tyranny and thought police.
Yeah.
The ban against nazi paraphernalia is probably a total wash too.
Like Bowie wrote: "Draw the blinds on yesterday, and it's all so much scarier"
David Bowie It's No Game (Part 1) Lyrics
Silhouettes and shadows watch the revolution
No more free steps to heaven
Just walkie-talkie - heaven or hearth
Just big heads and drums - full speed and pagan
And it's no game
I am borred from the event
I really don't understand the situation
So where's the moral
People have their fingers broken
To be insulted by these fascists it's so degrading
And it's no game
Documentaries on refugees, couples 'gainst the target
Throw a rock against the road, and it breaks into pieces
Draw the blinds on yesterday, and it's all so much scarier
Put a bullet in my brain, and it makes all the papers
And it's no game
Children round the world, put camel shit on the walls
They're making carpets on treadmills, or garbage sorting
And it's no game
Feels like P.C. tyranny and thought police.
Yup. Sure is. 1984 is coming.
"It ain't cool to smoke no more".
Doesn't matter. People ARE going to continue to smoke regardless of what any government says.
The ban against nazi paraphernalia is probably a total wash too.
Yup. You can't hide the past. Governments are mentally ill if they think they can.
I'm all for the mentality shift.
I'm not because too many people still enjoy smoking and will continue to do so regardless. America stopped tv ads in the late 60's about cigarettes but it didn't matter, smoking continues and so does advertising.
It's like telling people they can't have booze anymore. Ain't happening. They can cry all they want but people WILL continue to SMOKE and DRINK PERIOD. End of story.
Mr N.,
Eradication of smoking is very likely utopic. But it's regularly decreasing in France. People nearly always start because "it's cool to smoke". And I'm glad THIS stereotype is markedly shifting.
Smoking is a drug addiction, the tobacco companies made very sure it would be so (check www.thetruth.com). Some smokers will continue by choice. Many wish to quit, but they have an openly admitted addiction problem. "I'd love to quit, but I can't." This is what I'm decidedly against.
As an indication, a neutral medical report on substance addiction in France yielded three categories:
1-The most severe. Very intense substance dependance, extremely difficult to end. This includes (among others) heroin, crack, and severe alcoholism. (You know what kind of alcoholism I'm referring to.)
2-Less extreme, more moderate, but very real. Difficult to quit, yet possible even with no outside help sometimes. Tobacco was included in this, and several "official" drugs I forget.
3-Debatable addiction. Unsure whether there is any chemical dependance or it is mostly psychological. (For instance, there is a kind of "addiction" to cola sodas, but the craving is purely psychological. Withdrawal will cause no physical symptoms per se.) There was only one "official" drug in this category : cannabis. Hash, weed, grass, however you like to call it.
The very interesting scientific and objective conclusion is this : smoking pot may very well affect your behavior intensely, but as far as addictions go, this illegal drug is markedly more inocuous than permitted and advertized tobacco.
Which doesn't mean, naturally, that it does no bodily damage from toxic effects. I'm just documenting the addiction phenomenon here. A grave problem in itself.
So, basically, smoking is an addiction legalized by the system. How many "occasional" smokers do you know, compared to, say, occasional drinkers (one or two glasses a month tops, for me), or pot users?
The debate over prohibition is a very real, serious and rich one. But it's a global subject. The difference between regular drinking or smoking, and "hard drug" abuse is merely a question of degrees... and often very blurry.
I ask you : sex is harmless by nature, and yet its public display is illegal. You can't make love to your wife on the bus, for instance.
So, why is it that having a fix of nicotine, which is forced upon others not only visually but chemically too, should be a toxic practice permitted in proximity and presence of others?
I'm not for prohibiting smoking. Just let people who want it do it exclusively in private. And I don't mean just in their own home : their children are affected too.
My preschool nephew spends half his time at his mother's family's place. There are some heavy smoking relatives there. When he returns from there, the poor kid reeks of tobacco smoke. And for the last few weeks, he's been near constantly sick from upper respiratory tract infections. So, he's sick, and yet these "softcore criminals" impose on him the breathing of an atmosphere loaded with respiratory irritants! They are selfishly harming him. Tell me, do you find this okay? I say this is definitely crossing the line of personal freedom. And less the "small step" than the "giant leap" kind.
I've already mentioned that I have a chocolate craving which I like to call "my own addiction". But I don't do it in public. I can leave home for the day, and wait until my return to have a bar. Suppose eating chocolate ALWAYS meant having some all over your mouth, and giving a disgusting sight. Compare this to the smell of tobacco. I would readily fight for my right to eat chocolate, and that of others to smoke if they WANT to. But not to intoxicate others!!!
I would welcome smokers in my house (and already have). Provided they don't smoke while they are here. It distirbs my body. I would just as readily refrain from eating ham when visiting jewish friends, or drinking wine in front of muslims. Both things I sometimes do in private.
I've spent months in intensive care services. I can tell you this for an absolute fact : the most frequent factor that sets whether a patient under respiratory assistance will make it or not, is whether they smoke. It is a catastrophe on the lungs. I've seen it. Smoking is a mass-murderer.
Nobody in France is "prohibiting" smoking. They're just making it illegal to impose it on unwilling others, and increasing efforts to encourage people to freely quit. Which many are thankful for. Every year, with the raise in tobacco taxes, more people quit because it is an expensive vice. And recently, medical support to help them quit has been made entirely free.
For those who choose to quit.
I've always wondered, myself, about the relevance of those US laws that force a person (usually a celebrity?) to choose between a drug rehab program and going to jail. It's all a matter of degree! Drug use is harmful, but only on oneself, unless you start acting erratically. Why does the law have a saying if a person uses dope? (Granted, the same legal standard is applied for alcohol addiction...)
I am watching The West Wing (again) on DVD, and there was just an episode where the surgeon general dared to suggest in public that pot was no worse than alcohol. Huge PR problems from that.
It puzzles me how some drugs have people so much up in arms, and some not at all, it does not seem to have any correlation to harm.
"So, he's sick, and yet these "softcore criminals" impose on him the breathing of an atmosphere loaded with respiratory irritants! They are selfishly harming him. Tell me, do you find this okay?"
Not in the least.
Some years ago in Denmark, I got irritated that I couldn't find a space in my favorite restaurant one day which was not smokey. So I wrote a letter to the leading debate page/newspaper, and a couple of months later the biggest TV station started a big series about smoking.
I think it's about prevalence. If 40% of the public enjoyed torturing puppies, it would be hard to outlaw it.
What about if 40% of the public was furiously AGAINST torturing puppies?
I'm thinking, for instance, about the anti-abortionists (who sometimes... kill doctors!). If most of the people have either an opinion or its opposite, the weather's soon going to heat up! And even get stormy...
Yup, and there you have humanity in a nutshell.
Six billion blokes in a nutshell...
No wonder they're a tad agitated in there!
Even canned sardines have more room.
I don't think that there is anything wrong to put a beautiful woman with skimpy outfits in any kind of movie. Instead of thinking it to be 'moving out of the topic', it might instead make the movie more entertaining and pleasing.
Post a Comment