"The book is a film that takes place in the mind of the reader." ~ Paulo Coelho
Showing posts with label Adventure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Adventure. Show all posts

Sunday, September 20, 2026

An ode to fictional scenarios I would not likely survive // impossible missions feat. Rope. lots of rope.

While watching movies do you ever do things the characters are doing just to see if you could be part of the story, too? Things---within reason, and not things one shouldn't try at home---like simple tasks such as holding ones breath whenever the characters on screen have to hold their breath underwater?

(I would not survive being a Pirate in the Caribbean because it is SO DANG LONG at times).

Or do you ever contemplate how you could do the same things the characters are doing without any hesitations or experience required? I could walk across that rickety bridge if I came across it! I could dance along a yellow brick road to the capital city! I could jump off that cliff and safely into the water below!

Then there are the things that one realizes one can't do. 

It's one thing if monsters from space are coming to get you or you need to be a pro at archery to hit the target or have a magical power to save a kingdom. Not everyone deals with that. But there seems to be a certain level of things that all protagonists are expected to be able to deal with.

And one of those things is rope.

(Not that Rope. To all of you who I keep promising I'll write an actual post on Rope (1948), I apologize for the clickbait title. I just wanted to have Jimmy Stewart in my post.)

Most action/adventure protagonists seem to be able to hold on to a rope so they don't fall off a cliff, or to be able to climb a rope to get to where then need to be, or to pull on a rope and save other people.

Have you guys ever really noticed how many times rope is used in movies or books as just the thing people need? Have any of you thought about how convenient it is that all these characters are so strong??

(To be fair, Samwise Gamgee bemoans his lack of rope so I guess he knows what's up.)

Not me. I have no arm strength whatsoever. Or hand strength.

Maybe that's the problem.
(that's not quite true, though--I can nearly do a push-up, now!)

I like some more realistic failings in my characters. For example, in The Lego Ninjago Movie (2017),  everyone just expects that the good guys can throw and catch things but Lloyd can't because he never had a dad to play catch with (such a good backstory/conflict). And it comes up time and again so there's actually a scene where he's learning how to throw (Ack I love this movie)

I would need some extensive rope training if I were to be a protagonist. I don't have much hope for it because I have tried. Believe me. (I actually lived out that one scene in Mirror Mirror where people were cheering for me and it got less enthusiastic the more people saw that I can't hold on to ropes to save my life. Or anyone else's.)

 oh, if it's rope I am DEFINITELY letting go. I just can't! hold! on!

This is an appreciation post that I am not a main character or side character in a story as I would have plunged to my death from mishandling rope by now.

Disclaimer: This post isn't meant to be a downer at all! Just some humor as I'm very aware of my physical limitations. Again, appreciation that I live a very safe life!

I just watched Mission: Impossible (1996) recently which, I actually feel like I could've pulled off pretty well! I'm taller than Tom Cruise so maybe I wouldn't fit into the vents, but I don't think it would be that hard. As long as I'm strapped in, I could totally do that. I just couldn't do Krieger's job of holding the rope...

Presenting: Movies/TV shows/books with ridiculously hard rope scenes I should not try at home (or ever), and my chance of surviving them.


Dr. Who: Season 1 (Ninth Doctor season), episode 9: "The Empty Child"
Chance of survival: low

Aka the episdoe where Rose is hanging above London FOR EVER.

See that blimp? See that line coming from the blimp? See that shape at the end? That's Rose. And she's like that for AgEs. 

I haven't watched a ton of Dr. Who so I don't know if there are future (past? present?) scenarios that would be hard for me, but I do know that this was one of the first times where I consciously thought "I'd never survive that."

On one hand, I would've slipped off the rope before I got too far from the ground so I would've been fine, but if I'd somehow been determined enough to hold on for 5 seconds, I would've been dead.


Waistcoats and Weaponry by Gail Carriger 
Chance of survival: medium

Where in one scene Sophronia is just literally HANGING OUT forever off the top of an airship after an incident with a vampire has left her stranded and her friends even leave because she's so okay. Everything Sophronia does would be a challenge for me in this series, but that one particular moment right in the first chapter would be a death wish if I attempted it.

Technically her gadget is hanging from her wrist so she's got a bit of a safety net there where she's not going to let go and fall, but not enough for me to be able to be efficient in this scenario. Not enough for be to be able to CLIMB to the pilot's bubble much less just climb around the airship all the time. 

In a way it's kind of like how Spider-Man is attached to his "ropes" (webs), right? Or is he? Because how does he let go, then?

Actually, I'm not sure how that works. Let's move on to another bug-themed superhero example. 

There's a little loop for Ladybug to hold onto while she swings her yoyo around, so I probably wouldn't let go of it, but I'm still not convinced I would survive the swinging from building to building part. Yes, technically, if you have a Miraculous then you have super-abilities to go with it, but I still have a feeling I'll be like Ladybug in that one episode ("Reverser") where she loses her yoyo abilities.


Chance of survival: medium
"Throw me the rope" (nevermind, the no-arm-strength problem means I couldn't climb with or without the rope)

No way.

Nope.

Absolutely not.

I guess I'm getting stuck at the bottom of the Cliffs of Insanity. I usually play the role of Fezzik (aka the sidekick) in my day-to-day life, but even though I can swim more than just dog-paddle, he's got me beat here.

This is my attitude if the options are "use the rope" or "die." Maybe that's a false dichotomy, though...

But Chloe, I thought you said mortality (chance of survival) was medium? That's because it depends on who I am. If I have the role of Fezzik or Westley, no chance. But if I'm Buttercup or Vizzini and get others to carry me up a cliff and pull me out of the sand...my chances are looking better. I was told once that I looked like Buttercup so maybe I should lean into this.

Maybe it's fighting against gravity that's so hard for me. I can totally roll with anything where gravity is helping me.




Yeah, I think I would survive that.


Kiki's Delivery Service (1989): 
Chance of survival: low

I LOVE Ghibli but I don't like this movie. Maybe because of this scene as in the back of my mind I know I would die immediately.

Huh, this is the second example to have a blimp. Maybe I should just avoid blimps in my adventuring.



The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977): 
Chance of survival: high

This is technically string, but I would've let the balloon go before hanging from it. So in this case I would be safer than Pooh because I wouldn't bother the bees in the first place.

I could also always just do Christopher Robin's job of pretending that there is rain.

I'm realizing this out of context is probably wild.


Tarzan (1999)
Chance of survival: low 
Nope. I wouldn't even make it far enough to hug the vine.

He's not even looking as he grabs it! What! Even! I could never!

I'm not becoming the next Jane anytime soon because it may not be a deadly vine to other people but it is to me because I can't climb. 

One time I was in a psych class where we did things outside of our comfort zone and using a rope swing to swing and drop into a pool of water was one of our activities. Everyone else tried it and tried to encourage me but I just happily said I'd take videos of eveyrone else instead. Not because it's outside my comfort zone, it looks fun, I just know for a fact that I would die because I cannot hold a rope for more than 2 seconds. I have been banned from rope tows at ski resorts.

So deciding to just avoid at all costs is probably a good decision for me.

At least if I can't hold onto a vine to start with, I won't get wrapped up with one.

It's amazing these two survive everything. So if they can do it, maybe there's hope for me.


The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996): 
Chance of survival: low

A guy like Quasimodo is very different than a gal like me because I could not swing and save anybody. I would fall to the flames.

And I wouldn't be the only one . 

I can't find an image, but technically I don't think he's swinging in on a rope, I think it's a chain? But still, the point stands: chains are just as bad as ropes for me. There's the additional fear that if I stick my fingers between the links they'll get stuck until I'm hanging over a chasm and then I'll fall out.

If I was in charge of this rescue I would just add myself to the people who needed to be rescued.

Quasimodo being so strong makes sense when he does this all day. Maybe I need to go work the bells somewhere.
My delusional self thinks I could slide down parapets just fine, though.

I think I could do something with chains if I am hooked into them à la Padme in Attack of the Clones (2002), as I'm not going to fall by dropping the chain. Heights aren't a problem for me, my inability to grip anything is.

So I would not pick the lock and therefore be stranded on top and therefore die. Huh...maybe that's not the best either.


Tangled (2010): 
Chance of survival: low

Look at Rapunzel! She's beauty! She's grace! She'll swing all over the place!


Meanwhile, me:

Except I wouldn't even make it that far. This one isn't rope but it's making rope look like a benefit actually, because if I can't hold on to hemp then I certainly can't hold onto glossy hair.


Up (2009): 
Chance of survival: medium

Russell is trying to climb the hose here and is struggling which means I finally have a character I can relate to. I actually have a decent chance of surviving this because the nozzle on the end means I wouldn't slip off, I'd just be in stasis, neither climbing nor falling. Although, I weigh more than a 10 year-old, so the hose may crack and break. But, like Russell, none of that helps get me up to Mr. Fredrikson's house.

I just hope I don't encounter a blimp anytime soon...

Other people's mortality rates: ....high if I'm in charge of holding the hose.

(Seriously, guys, this is the third time I've come up with a blimp example and I wasn't even trying. If the story of the Hindenburg wasn't enough to keep me away from blimps, these case studies will definitely do the job. Avoid them if you're not good with rope).


Mary Poppins Returns (2018)
Chance of survival: high

Another balloon example...and now that I think about it, blimps are a type of balloon...

I was one of those kids who needs the balloon to be tied around my wrist because I would just accidentally let go. And I know it's magic and all so I'm probably not going to die, I'm just going to be Weatherall Wilkins. I guess I would choose the wrong balloon. But hey, if I can be bicycle guy and not have to hold it myself, then I'm good!



Chance of survival (book): low
Chance of survival (tv show): high
Miss you, Tim Curry </3

In the book Violet climbs a tower with a grappling hook which is very resourceful of her but also nope, I couldn't do it. She was strong from all that wood chopping and despite my also having chopped a little bit of wood in my lifetime, I would grab the rope and still die immediately and Count Olaf would win.

However! The tv show gives me a chance to live! Violent just has a little bit of a different invention.

No rope? Being strapped in? BEAUTIFUL. I need this for all these rope scenarios. 

These are the adaption changes that I am looking for in two works of art, so let's end on that high note.



What do I bring do an adventure? Can I swim or tread water? Check. 

Walk for miles? Check. 

Balance on beams? Check. 


Maybe not like that...

Hold on to rope? Absolutely not. I'm in awe of all these protagonists who are so capable when it comes to cables of all shapes and sizes.

I'm not in awe of you guys. Put the rope away, NOW, you psychopaths.

(I also have some trauma from rope, but in a fictional sense not a physical sense. From His Dark Materials, book 2, The Subtle Knife. It's not the knife that freaks me out, it's the rope. IYKYK.)

(Strangely enough, I'm not traumatized from the movie Rope (1948) at all, though. In fact, it hypes me up. In a cinematic masterpiece way and not a let's go murder people way, fyi.)


That's enough death-defying exploits for one day, so tell me what you guys think! How do you all think you would do in these circumstances? How good are you at being able to hold on to rope? What special skills do you have that would help you in adventures? Do you have a favorite training montage where a character gets better at a skill? Have you seen any of these movies? Have you ever ridden in a blimp?

Thanks for reading and stay safe!

Chloe the MovieCritic

Wednesday, June 10, 2026

Movie Review: Labyrinth (1986)

Hello, friends!

From time to time some of us probably think it would be great if we could wish all of our mundane problems away and instead go to a magical world where we are fighting against dark powers with a group of loyal friends. Since that's not possible, a good substitute is immersion through stories, so today I'm reviewing a film that transports the viewer to the world of the goblins, the world of the movie Labyrinth. 

A note about spoilers: This majority of this review is spoiler-free as I will not talk about the ending of the movie. I'll be talking about the characters and their dynamics but not what happens to them so feel free to read without fear of the secrets being spoiled. NOTE: As I get into the general thoughts section I'll talk about some events that are further along than I usually talk about (normally I don't go further than the inciting incident) but will still refrain from talking about the ending itself.

Labyrinth (1986)

Premise: Sarah is full of daydreams, but her dad and stepmom leave her to babysit her half-brother, Toby, when he just takes her things. She finds it absolutely unfair and when he won't stop crying she wishes that the king of the goblins would just take Toby away so she didn't have to worry about him. Turns out, her wish comes true as Jareth, the very king of the goblins himself, appears and does just that. Now Sarah has to find her way to his castle before time is up to get her baby brother back and come home, or else he'll belong to Jareth forever. The only problem is, to do that, she has the face the labyrinth where the rules are always changing and Jareth isn't above cheating to get what he wants. 

If only there was a worm to guide her...

Genre(s): Adventure, Family, Fantasy.

Length: approx. 101 minutes.

Age Range: This is rated PG. There's a bit of peril that might be too much for really little kids, but nothing gory ever happens so kids over 8 would probably be okay. The goblins can be a bit alarming but they're more bumbling than (think of Maleficent's minions in Sleeping Beauty (1959)) scary. Jareth is probably the eeriest thing in this world.

Crew: Directed by: Jim Henson. Produced by: Eric Rattray. Written by: Terry Jones, Dennis Lee, and Jim Henson. Music by: Trevor Jones and performed by David Bowie.

Starring: David Bowie and Jennifer Connelly, and a whole slew of voice actors and puppeteers! 

Personally, I'll always choose the blue option.

General thoughts:

Coming after Henson's earlier work The Dark Crystal (1982) (which I am now curious about to see if it's in the same world), this film is in the classic "girl goes to another world to learn about herself" canon, up there with The Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland, and Jim Henson himself didn't mind the comparison. However, this story didn't stop at garnering inspiration, but was substantial in influencing future stories in this niche micro-genre. Some other films that come to mind with a similar premise are:

  • Spirited Away (2001): spirits instead of goblins fill this world, but our main character still has a spiky-haired antagonist to face.
  • The Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland (1999): this may not count because it's a play on Alice in Wonderland already, but what it has in common with Labyrinth is puppets, so I think it's still of note. It also features something that is lost and claimed by the antagonist (in this case, it's a blanket instead of a baby).
  • Pan's Labyrinth (2006): I have yet to see the film itself, but have seen a couple presentations about it so I have a pretty good idea about the plot. My basis of comparison isn't just the title, but also the dynamic between a girl and her brother.

As far as I know none of those films have credited Labyrinth as an inspiration, they just stood out to me so this is my own un-researched hypothesis. What is known is that this film has a cult following and there have been discussions of a sequel since 2016. While there haven't been any updates since 2024, it was still thought to be sincere.

And besides, Mr. David Bowie is no longer with us and who else could play Jareth?

Though, it would be hard to follow this up because this film is so distinctively 80s, so something made 40 years later would invariably feel out of place and not even in the same world. It's hard to pinpoint a tone for this story as the stakes are high--Sarah's brother's life is in the balance!--yet then there are puppets, the occasional crass joke thrown in, and musical numbers.

Quick tangent: These songs are low-key insane. I get it, they couldn't bring in someone as famous in the music world as David Bowie and NOT have him sing, but at the same time it's not a musical? And David Bowie is the only one who is singing?? The muppets sing along sometiems, too, but Sarah never has a song which is what keeps this from feeling like a musical and more of a pop experiment. It just plays into Jareth being dramatic that he breaks out in song from time to time, usually just to sing things he could've just as easily said with a few words. I somehow have them stuck in my head even though I don't know what the words are.

Is that a magic 8 ball?

With that out of the way, back to defining the tone. As strange as it is for me now--and strange doesn't mean I don't like it!--it's not too far out there for the time frame, as it is believably in league with other 80s fantasy films, such as The NeverEnding Story (1984). I'd classify this as funky fantasy. That's not an official genre, but it's as close as I can get to describe it, as opposed to things like high fantasy or dark fantasy or...romantasy.

And that's what leads me to what I really want to talk about: I think this film inspired a generation of fans who also love romantasy (romance + fantasy), and explains so much about people being obsessed with the "romantasy" genre even if the film itself isn't part of it. 

For those of you who are not around the current book spheres, romantasy often involves characters from opposing sides (enemies-to-lovers) as the main couple, frequently including a brooding character who has for much of the story been seen as the villain/antagonist/or just plain dangerous. You'll notice that Romance isn't in the genres listed for this film, yet there's a scene where Jareth is up to his usual manipulation and is trying to make Sarah forget why she's there until time runs out, so he traps her in a time-loop and the common reading from the cult following is that this is romantic. 

I'm here to argue that it isn't and that the movie isn't trying to show that it is.

Sarah has been longing for an escape this whole time, and that's all Jareth is offering her, to be stuck in a time-loop forever. In this hazy escape world Sarah is clinging to things that have a sense of familiarity, not attraction. There are other options for escape given later and they are just as attractive options to Sarah as this scene, and so that's no indication of feelings on either side. The goblin king is never in love with Sarah, only ever trying to trick her. And she's never in love with him, just under the spell.   

I think that's more to do with the dress, if we're being honest.

Romantasy as a genre is fine on its own--let people read what they like!--but I think it's problematic if it's read into things that are not there. Remember: he's the villain and she's 16 years old. I think the film itself does not support that as we are constantly reminded of the true motivations (only a villain would nearly drop a baby so many times).

And who knows, maybe people don't see it this way; that's just the impression I had of this movie for years now before watching it and was impressed that it actually had such a hard line of just being manipulation and nothing more, and it's up to the characters to break free.

And while we're here, let's talk about the characters.

Preciousssssss

I really liked Sarah as our progatonist. At first she is somewhat petulant, whiney, and has her own idea of what is and isn't fair in life (the "I wonder what your basis for comparison" line is ICONIC), but like all great stories, her worldview changes and she becomes strong and kind. Her arc is about growing up, grief, and coming to appreciate those you have, not those you lost.

To continue the comparison to The Wizard of Oz, Hoggle, Ludo, and Sir Didymus remind me of The Scarecrow, The Tinwoodsman, and The Cowardly Lion. There is not an exact counterpart for each member of the trio, but instead all have parts of intelligence, compassion, and bravery.

I would also hold Ludo's hand.

Those characters are bold in their personalities but also in their appearance, thanks to the work done to bring them to life and I so appreciate the effort of all of those puppets. I mean, it's Jim Henson, so that's kind of his forte. To our modern eyes, some of the transitions aren't perfect, but that's part of the charm.

In addition to the puppets, I was constantly blown away by the set and the utter commitment of dusting everything in gold. I mean it, there's glitter on everything. I could not find a great picture to demonstrate this, so you just have to watch it to see how in-depth they go. This alone makes me think of it as not being as "dark fantasy" as it is often portrayed. Yes, there are dark moments, but there's also enough humor to keep things light. There's a light at the end of the tunnel, or at least, at the end of the Labyrinth.

Look at the sparkly walls!

For the blogathon:

This is my entry to the "Eddie's Year" Blogathon hosted by Sally Silverscreen at 18 Cinema Lane. This blogathon is celebrating the character Eddie Munson from Stranger Things and through that the year 1986, the year he would've graduated. I haven't watched Stranger Things, but Sally also opened this blogathon up to movies made in 1986 and when I saw Labyrinth back in February I sprung at the chance to talk about it. Last year around this time I reviewed The Breakfast Club (1985) for a blogathon celebrating movies from 1985, so this felt like the next logical step.

From what I understand about Eddie and the world of Stranger Things, Dungeons and Dragons is a part of it. This film feels very much like it could be in that world with the twists and turns and changing rules. If this were a Dungeons and Dragons set-up then Jareth feels like the Dungeon Master--one that nobody likes--as he changes the scenarios from minute to minute. I've never played D&D but would love to give it a go, so my character that I'll claim is either Hoggle or Sir Didymus. Pretty simple when anything comes up: Hoggle runs away from danger and Sir Didymus runs towards it. But as I talked about above, they have development of their own, too, so the story is never dull.

This review of mine is last minute, at the thirteenth hour, but thanks to Sally for hosting this! Readers, if you liked this article and want to revisit more of 1986, check out the other entries in the blogathon HERE.

13 is prime time.

Thank you for reading! Have you seen this movie? Do you think this fits into the romantasy genre? I'd love to discuss it with you in the comments! Who do you think of Hoggle, Ludo, and Sir Didymus is the best fit for each Wizard of Oz character I listed? What are other 80s fantasy films you enjoy? What should I know about Stranger Things?

Until next time,

Chloe the MovieCritic

"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, where you stop your story." -Orson Welles