Last week I went to the cinema to watch what I thought was going to be one of the best movies of 2014: Noah. At the end, I was very disappointed. Aronofsky turned the original story - which spoke about redemption and the purification of a fallen world - into a tale of a man who becomes addicted to the task of saving the innocent, that is, the animals, and simply refuses to save mankind, whether they're worthy or not. Sensationalist scenes of animal and human slaughter were also a big part of the movie, and they made me feel sick and unworthy of God's mercy. If that's what the director was going for - making everyone feel horrible just because we're human -, than, by all means, mission accomplished!
     But what bothered me the most was the story of the fallen angels, who are called "the Watchers" in the movie. While they added a sensitive and sensible tone to the story and "showed a probable way of how the Ark was built", their whole story is wrong!
     You see, being a Catholic, I was taught that the first fallen angel was none other than Lucifer. But, since I haven't read the Holy Bible yet, I decided to learn a little more about this and other fallen angels.
     The texts tell us that Lucifer was the left, creative, hand of God, created in a perfect state (Ezekiel 28:12,15). And he remained perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him (verse 15b), when they say “Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor.” Lucifer apparently became so impressed with his own beauty, intelligence, power, and position that he began to desire for himself the honor and glory that belonged to God alone. The sin that corrupted Lucifer was self-generated pride. Apparently, this represents the actual beginning of sin in the universe—preceding the fall of the human Adam by an indeterminate time. Sin originated in the free will of Lucifer in which—with full understanding of the issues involved—he chose to rebel against the Creator. Than, this mighty angelic being was rightfully judged by God: “I threw you to the earth” (Ezekiel 28:18).
     In the movie, though, the fallen angels supposedly chose to fall, because they took pity on Adam and Eve and, because of that, God punished them turning their beautiful and perfect light forms into stone. [SPOILER ALERT] In the end, when the flood is beginning and humans are desperate to get in the Ark, the Watchers kill them and, because of it, they're forgiven by the Creator and allowed to return to the Heavens. That's a complete mess, if you ask me. But that's just my opinion. Did you watch Noah? If so, what did you think about it? Tell me in the comments!

~Ally

     Back when I watched "Hellboy II: the Golden Army" for the first time, I became enchanted by Prince Nuada and his fellow elves, despite the fact that he was a destructive megalomaniac who acted very strangely around his twin sister (spoilers?). Well, surfing around the internet these days I found some interesting facts about another Nuada, who might have served as inspiration for the movie character. So let's get to know him!
     An Irish mythology, Nuada or Nuadha, known by the epithet Airgetlám (meaning "silver hand/arm"), was the first king of the Tuatha Dé Danann. He is cognate with the Gaulish and British god Nodens. His Welsh equivalent is Nudd or Lludd Llaw Eraint.
     Nuada was king of the Tuatha Dé Danann for seven years before they came to Ireland. They made contact with the Fir Bolg, the then-inhabitants of the island, and Nuada sought from them half of the island for the Tuatha Dé, which their king rejected. Both peoples made ready for war, and in an act of chivalry allowed their numbers and arms to be inspected by the opposing side to allow for a truly fair battle. During this first great battle at Mag Tuired, Nuada lost an arm in combat with the Fir Bolg champion Sreng. Nuada's ally, Aengaba of Norway, then fought Sreng, sustaining a mortal wound, while the Dagda protected Nuada. Fifty of the Dagda's soldiers carried Nuada from the field. The Tuatha Dé gained the upper hand in the battle, but Sreng later returned to challenge Nuada to single combat. Nuada accepted, on the condition that Sreng fought with one arm tied up. Sreng refused, but by this point the battle was won and the Fir Bolg all but vanquished. The Tuatha Dé then decided to offer Sreng one quarter of Ireland for his people instead of the one half offered before the battle, and he chose Connacht.
    Having lost his arm, Nuada was no longer eligible for kingship due to the Tuatha Dé tradition that their king must be physically perfect, and he was replaced as king by Bres, a half-Fomorian prince renowned for his beauty and intellect. The Fomorians were mythological enemies of the people of Ireland, often equated with the mythological "opposing force" such as the Greek Titans to the Olympians, and during Bres's reign they imposed great tribute on the Tuatha Dé, who became disgruntled with their new king's oppressive rule and lack of hospitality. By this time Nuada had his lost arm replaced by a working silver one by the physician Dian Cecht and the wright Creidhne (and later with a new arm of flesh and blood by Dian Cecht's son Miach). Bres was removed from the kingship, having ruled for seven years, and Nuada was restored. He ruled for twenty more years.
   Bres, aided by the Fomorian Balor of the Evil Eye, attempted to retake the kingship by force, and war and continued oppression followed. When the youthful and vigorous Lugh joined Nuada's court, the king realised the multi-talented youth could lead the Tuatha Dé against the Fomorians, and stood down in his favour. The second Battle of Mag Tuired followed. Nuada was killed and beheaded in battle by Balor, but Lugh avenged him by killing Balor and led the Tuatha Dé to victory.
     Nuada's great sword was one of the Four Treasures of the Tuatha Dé Danann, brought from one of their four great cities

~Ally

     Back in the days when I was a wee teenager, one of my favorite movies was Drew Barrymore's "Ever After". I loved how they portrayed Cinderella - in that story, Danielle - as a strong witted and independent young woman (even though there's that typical love story that nowadays makes me go "blergh, so cliche"), who adored books as much as I did - and still do -, and didn't rely only in her shoes to get a Prince.
     Anyway, there's a special scene in the movie (pictured above) where she cleverly tricks the gypsies to rescue Prince Henry. Little did I know that it was based on a folk story, which might be real, and that took place in Weinsberg, Germany, in the year 1140, according to Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm.
     When King Conrad III defeated the Duke of Welf and placed Weinsberg under siege, the wives of the besieged castle negotiated a surrender which granted them the right to leave with whatever they could carry on their shoulders. The king allowed them that much. Leaving everything else aside, each woman took her own husband on her shoulders and carried him out. When the king's people saw what was happening, many of them said that that was not what had been meant and wanted to put a stop to it. But the king laughed and accepted the women's clever trick. "A king" he said, "should always stand by his word."
     To read about how Middle Age women showed their intelligence - and how badasses they could be - amuses me very much indeed.

~Ally

     ... Kind of a bummer. That is, if you're a big fan of the book. Don't get me wrong, the movie is visually amazing and I loved it, but it got me wondering at the end if it was really worth to split Bilbo's story in three movies. If I had only seen this second part, I would say "hell no!" But the first one, "An Unexpected Journey" was so good that it's hard to make my mind about it.

                                                                                            .:.   SPOILER ALERT!!   .:.

     It just gave me the overall impression that the whole plot of this chapter was "sausage filling", as we say here in Brazil. Ok, Mirkwood and its spiders were awesome - though a little problemactic for arachnophobes like me -, and Thranduil is spectacularly... Overwhelming, to be polite. And I adored Tauriel (please don't crucify me for that!): she's a killing machine, flirty, funny and so sure of herself! It was very interesting to see how a younger and not so important - she's not from the "elvish royalty", but she IS the captain of the guard of Mirkwood! - she-elf would behave. I cheer for her and Legolas [gosh, such a fan girl!]!
     But the dwarves took too long to reach Erebor! And what about leaving 4 of the company behind? Soooooo not right, Mr. Peter Jackson! And Beorn's part was too short! And Gandalf... Well, he just felt a little lost after he leaves the dwarves (again) and finds... Well, none other than Sauron. That was too much for me. And where the hell is the Necromancer Radagast spoke so much about?! Is Sauron the Necromancer?! Dude, now I'm confused!
     And poor Bilbo... His expressions and performance with Smaug were awesome, but I thought he was so quiet during the whole movie that it made me sad! Nevertheless, I'll watch it again tomorrow and perhaps I'll change my mind about it!
     Anyway, watch the movie and tell me what you think!

~Ally

     I saw this expression today on the movie "Brave" and kept wondering what does it mean... Turns out it means something like "oh my!" or "goodness gracious me!" So, if you needed a new bewilderment or exasperation exclamation, there you go. Time to practice my Scottish accent!

~Ally

      The search for self-knowledge and happiness are the subject of this awesome Brazilian movie. It's fully available on YouTube (above). Watch. Enjoy. It certainly enlightened my day!

~Ally

     Whenever I feel uninspired or unhappy, I turn to William Wallace and his fellow Scottish compatriots to cheer me up. However, some time ago, I heard that there were several historical mistakes and anachronisms in the movie. Time to figure out what are they!
     First of all, Wallace never had a romance with Isabel from France (portrayed by Sophie Marceau), since she only arrived in England three years after Wallace's death. And Longshanks - that was Edward the first's real nickname, along with Hammer of the Scots - wasn't dying when William was executed. He actually died in the battle of Burgh-a-Sands (Cumberland) in 1307, near the Scottish frontier, on his way to another campaign against Wallace's friend Robert Bruce.
     Finally, it is most unlikely that Wallace was just a commoner. It is said that he spoke several languages and was a cultured man - as it was shown in the movie -, but that makes historians believe that he and his wife Murron (who, by the way, was no secret bride) were part of Ellerslie's aristocracy.

~Ally

     Epitaphs are, at least for me, a nice way of leaving a message for your beloved ones to remember you. At least a cooler way than just saying when you were born and when you died. But when did this become a custom?
     Allegedly, it was the Romans who began making inscriptions upon tombstones and graves - for them, it was a way of burying, along with the corpse, his/her virtues (which back then were considered to be the personal vanities and values worth of being copied by others). It was also a great way to register a person's deeds, since fame was directly associated with virtue, according to the ancient historian Tacitus.
   Romans would even discuss their future epitaphs while having fun with their friends! Although they were very supersticious people, it wasn't considered a bad omen to talk about this kind of subject during parties. And there were all kinds of inscriptions: some recomended people to enjoy life as much as they could... While others cursed their enemies, wishing them several plagues from hell. Nice.

~Ally

      Such a great tune from Ed Sheeran, I couldn't not post it here. Enjoy while we wait for the movie!

~Ally

      This morning I watched my first Marx Brothers movie: "Monkey Business" (1931)! Despite the silliness that accompanies them in a lot of the movie, I had a great time. The next one from them on my list is "Duck Soup".
      They were originally a Vaudeville (I wrote about it just yesterday, remember?) family comic act from New York, and enjoyed success in Broadway and feature films from 1905 to 1949. The funniest ones were the older brothers: Chico, Harpo and Groucho. Each one developed an unique shtick or stage persona. Chico butchered the English language with his fake clumsy Italian accent, which gave rise to many unintended jokes. Harpo was a silent comedian and used his habilities to entertain the croud without speaking (he used a horn sometimes, and its nearly duck sound also helped the gags). Groucho, with his charactheristic eyebros, eyeglasses and mustache, made sarcastic and hilarious jokes about anything and everything. Zeppo, the younger brother, wasn't so funny and usually played straight roles, but historians say that he could imitate his brothers perfectly. He only appeared in the brothers' first five films. There was also another brother, Gummo, who didn't appear in any of the movies and is also remembered as not being so funny either.
      If you'd like to know more about the entire family, visit their official site!

~Ally