Change Your Image
ali_besharatian
Reviews
The Physician (2013)
Inaccurate, flashy, lavishly produced, and ridiculously stupid.
Not only is this film historically inaccurate, but it is also terribly unlikely, childish and ridiculously stupid. It tells the story of an uneducated English barber, who (with no knowledge of Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, and more importantly, no knowledge of philosophy, mathematics, medicine, etc. and perhaps a total illiterate), disguised as a Jew, travels to Isfahan to seek medicine training from the greatest physician of the world, Avicenna.
Up to this point, the movie is a total work of fiction (except that Avicenna was actually the greatest physician of the time and Isfahan was a center of civilization), and highly unlikely, but not quite stupid yet. The shameless stupidity starts when this young man (again, with no knowledge of Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, philosophy, mathematics, medicine, etc.) attends Avicenna's classes without any problem, and in few months(!) starts guiding Avicenna in treating different diseases! He even helps Avicenna to realize that plague is transmitted by rats! Seriously?! The greatest physician/philosopher (and a polymath) of the 11th century, whose books were taught at most European universities as late as 1650, does not know something in medicine (of course no shame), but an uneducated barbarian lad does discover confidently! Great!
More ridiculously, this lad (who has come from a time England was full of superstitions and religious dogma) is shown advising the great philosopher to grow up of his religious dogma(!) and dissect corpses for medical purposes!
He even takes a 20th century "human rights activist" tone when saying this "let's dissect" advice to Avicenna!
Were the creators of this movie high on something?!
Perhaps they were, because they later show that this barbarian dissects a corpse, performs a colon surgery(!) on (and upon the order of) a drunk(!) Shah who goes to war with the Seljuks right after the surgery!
And during these all great "scientific" discoveries that the barbarian does, the great Avicenna appears no more than an assistant!
There is also a very "cheap" parallel love-sex story, as well as quite a few 21st-century(!) urban-Persian conversations going on in the background
The historical inaccuracy is not the main thing annoying me here: It is rather the stupidity and unlikeliness that annoys me the most. This movie is as ridiculously stupid as if it was telling a story in which Sir Isaac Newton has a Mongolian student who speaks with him in Mongolian, and shows him the true scientific method, helps him develop calculus and ultimately spreads Newton's science around the world, while escaping with his Jewish lover during the "Napoleonic" wars! Probably some Ali-Baba also appears during the "Napoleonic" wars too! Ah, yes, and Newton commits suicide when he realizes his library is flooded by the Vikings! (as in the movie Avicenna commits suicide, in more of a nihilistic 20th century gesture, when he realizes the Seljuks set his library on fire)
No, the historical true Avicenna did not commit suicide. He did not have any English students. He did not die in Isfahan, nor around the time that Isfahan was defeated by the Seljuks. Moreover, no one around that era was able to teach Avicenna how to do medicine. No one was able to perform a colon surgery during that time (still, even in 21st century, no patient is able to fight in a war right after a colon surgery), and finally, English was not among the spoken languages in 11th century Persia
. If the creators of this movie really wanted to produce such a childish fairy-tail, why did they even bother themselves using the name (and abusing the reputation) of a real historical figure?! They could have introduced some bogus character in a fictional country that well matched their boring fairy-tail.
Besides the historical inaccuracy and childish unlikeliness, I do not see any artistic achievement in the movie either: just lavish production, resulting in an unnecessarily long/boring movie (that reveals nothing about Avicenna's youth/life/achievements), and flashy scenes, bad clichéd acting, depicting inaccurate architectures, clothing, races, faces, etc. Quite a blockbuster garbage that stupidly tries to tell us very unlikely lies about the history and life of (one of) the greatest physician of all time.
The Adventures of Tintin (2011)
One wouldn't be able to destroy Tintin's spirit better than this...
I'd never expect a Blockbuster movie to be worth of paying any attention beyond entertainment, but this one was even below my expectations for what one would call "entertaining". And of course it was not even close to what Herge had created. With tons of computers, 3D technology and over $100 million, Spielberg failed to achieve what Herge simply did with a pen and paper. As a great Tintin fan, I now feel terribly offended (both for what I just watched and for the fact that Spielberg also calls himself a fan) and as a passionate film goer, I just feel sorry for how art is the last thing that's noticed in mainstream American cinema.
I Borrowed Spielberg's (yes, it's not Herge's) Tintin from Netflix (I insisted not to pay for it, because of all bad things I'd heard about it) and watched it out of curiosity (just curiosity - to see why other Tintin fans didn't like it), and found it even below my expectations. Everything is terribly superficial here, as the original story and characters have been destroyed and turned into some lame boring and dull Hollywood crap. In a word, the original work's spirit is completely lost here: Tintin is about mystery, reality (I stress on this: Tintin is one of the few comic book characters that feels real) and humanity, but Spielberg's interpretation is all about some stupid and unreal action and some annoying 3D techniques, plus, a camera that moves and moves and rotates around the characters over and over! I had a feeling that I'm in a thrill ride, and wanted to puke couple of times. It's interesting that Herge's hand-drawn characters look more real than Spielberg's superficial CGI characters. And if those camera moves and actions don't excite you, there's really nothing beyond, as characters, events and story are all superficial and about action. No wonder why in couple of months, no one talks about the movie anymore, while Herge's work is still fresh after decades.
Score: 1/10