ILNews

Hammerle On … 'Mr. Peabody & Sherman,' '300: Rise of an Empire'

Robert Hammerle
March 26, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

bob hammerle movie reviewsMr. Peabody & Sherman”

Like many kids growing up in the 1950s, I fell madly in love with the cartoon show featuring Rocky and Bullwinkle. Lasting from 1959 through 1964, creator Jay Ward brought us some memorable characters with Dudley Do-Right and his girlfriend, Nell; their enemy Snidely Whiplash and the conniving Natasha and Boris Badenov. However, my champions have always been Mr. Peabody and his adopted son, Sherman.

I am delighted to say that director Rob Minkoff’s film “Mr. Peabody & Sherman” captures that everlasting spirit. Sure, it suffers from being a bit foolish, but the movie forces the viewer to relive key moments in human history as well as confronting the meaning of being a good father.hammerle-peabody.jpg

As I watched Mr. Peabody defend his status as a dog who has adopted a human child, I couldn’t help but think of the criticism thrust at homosexuals in today’s world. Much like Mr. Peabody, you see decent people attacked for being unworthy parents. The film provides a meaningful reminder as to why we need to think deeply about living in a state where so-called political leaders are championing a ban on gay marriage.

In addition, we see Sherman being maligned by fellow students at school because of the status of his father. Just like he suffered being called a dog because his father was one, you could only imagine the vitriol thrown at the children of gay parents.

However, the meaning of the film is left for the viewer to comprehend as you watch Mr. Peabody, Sherman and a prejudiced young student named Penny Peterson travel in the WABAC Machine to visit prior civilizations. They tangle with King Tut, duel with Robespierre during the French Revolution, join the Greeks in the Trojan Horse as they prepare to demolish Troy and give advice to Leonardo da Vinci as he tries to get his morose model to smile while painting the Mona Lisa.

All of this is as educational as it is entertaining. Some of the moments are genuinely funny, one centering on Marie Antoinette indulging in her love of cake.

The movie reaches an enjoyable denouement as Mr. Peabody’s world begins to unravel as his WABAC Machine malfunctions, creating a time warp that brings many of the above members of a bygone era into the present world. Many manic encounters follow, including Robespierre’s fascination with a stun gun. Also, watch for a screamingly laughable moment when former President Bill Clinton appears, defending Mr. Peabody’s unfortunate biting of a sinister female welfare investigator with the immortal words, “I’ve done worse.”

Many actors do a fine job contributing their voices to the principal characters, most notably Allison Janney, Steve Carell and Ty Burrell as Mr. Peabody. Thanks to them, the film reaffirms the simple fact that all young boys need a father, something that is terribly lacking today in major metropolitan areas across our country.

If kids have no dad, society has to respond. Any suggestions?

300: Rise of an Empire”

Hollywood has an abysmal history when it comes to action films and the portrayal of women. More often than not, they are little more than attractive, provocatively attired victims in need of help. I truly like both Natalie Portman and Emma Stone, but think of their roles in the recent “Thor” and “Spiderman” movies.

However, director Noam Murro has brought us an intriguing exception to that rule with “300: Rise of an Empire.” Eva Green plays Artemisia, the leader of the Persian naval fleet, and she is a nasty villainess who you will love to hate. Lacking an ounce of compassion as she seeks to destroy a rebellious Greece, wait ‘til you see her seductively kiss the lips of a captive’s head she has just severed.

Like its predecessor “300” (2006), this is a film that you should try to see in 3-D at an IMAX theater. Filmed at times in slow motion, they center on a continual flow of battles where people are brutally killed with blood flying at the screen. Like them or not, they are clearly not for the weak of heart.

Taking place at the same time as the 300 Spartans fell to the Persian God King Xerxes in the Battle of Thermopylae, Persia seeks to get even for the killing of Xerxes’ father by a Greek hero. While Artemisia does the king’s bidding, she is the only person on earth tempestuous enough to insult him.

Sullivan Stapleton plays Themistocles, the Greek naval commander seeking to unite his country. Severely outnumbered by the Persian Fleet, any hope of success depends on convincing the Spartan queen to join the cause. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done, as Queen Gorgo, played with passion by Lena Headey, is still mourning the death of her husband, Leonidas, at Thermopylae.hammerle-300.jpg

While the movie is like a painting brought aggressively to life, it is Artemisia’s attempt to seduce Themistocles that commands your attention. The scene where they meet during a truce at sea portrays both opponents perfectly, particularly when they end up having violent sex. Their lovemaking is a visually stunning scene simulating a public execution.

Green is at all times a sight for sore eyes. Much as she did as the distraught vampire who pursued Johnny Depp in the underrated “Dark Shadows” (2012), she basically gives an adversary two choices: Marry me or die. She will soon appear in the sequel “Sin City: A Dame to Kill For,” and I can’t wait to see what happens to the poor soul who makes the mistake of loving her.

Without giving away the ending, our two antagonists meet in a climatic naval battle. In one of the most historically brilliant lines uttered by a completely unforgiving woman, Artemisia, armed with two swords, sneers at Themistocles as they stand face-to-face, “You fight much harder than you f _ _ _!”

Artemisia was not a woman you would dare bring home to meet mommy.•

__________

Robert Hammerle practices criminal law in Indianapolis. When he is not in the courtroom or working diligently in his Pennsylvania Street office, Bob can likely be found at one of his favorite movie theaters watching and preparing to review the latest films. To read more of his reviews, visit www.bigmouthbobs.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT