Change Your Image
mothygamer
Would like to get involved in 'the industry', but probably don't have the passion to make it my life's work.
Reviews
Conan the Barbarian (2011)
Some good, some bad, lots of influences
It has been a while since I've read any Robert E. Howard or L. Sprague de Camp Conan stories. Author-I've-met-and-had-conversations-with Richard A. Knaak has been contracted to write some very recent Conan novels, but I haven't bothered to pick them up. I like the character of Conan, but there is something very immature about rooting for a barbarian-type to strike out against the "civilized" world; that is one type of fantasy story.
Another is the revenge fantasy, and that is what director Marcus Nispel gives audiences with his 2011 version of Conan the Barbarian. Where John Milius' 1982 version was a pitch-perfect example of how to tell an epic story – perhaps in a more subdued and grounded manner than can work today – Nispel blends the imagery and pacing from several more recent films (some of them good), making this effort feel a little like a high budget mash-up. Milius's Conan was a conflicted soul driven in equal parts by his own greed, his loyalty to his companions, and a need to come to terms with his father's death. In contrast, Nispel has a Conan who spends the first 22 minutes as a little boy – an extended sequence that did not work for me – then another 15 or so as a rampaging pirate for freedom before he gets on track to seek revenge.
Visually, the film is parts Russell Mulcahy's Highlander (1986), TV's Xena (1995-2001; largely in the costuming, but also in some of the action sequences and Conan as a freedom loving pirate), Nispel's own Pathfinder (2004), Mel Gibson's Braveheart (1995), Stephen Sommers' The Mummy (1999), and a fine helping of scenic vistas reminiscent of someone trying to ape Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-03). The comic book style blood added to the otherwise serviceable action sequences didn't help, but that was still much better than the acrobatic (Xena?) sand spawned creatures (The Mummy?) and a fight sequence that does nothing for the movie. A fair amount of what Nispel cobble together works, even in the hodge-podge style he adopts, but enough of it was jarring to me to keep me from getting into the story.
Not that there is much to Conan's part of the story. Much of the film is dedicated to Stephen Lang's Kalar Zym (if his dress wasn't enough to let me view Lang as a stand-in for an '80s Clancy Brown, they went and named his character Zym) and his daughter with an Electra Complex. None of it is interesting – not in terms of plot or action. Rachel Nichols appears to be in a completely different movie – and I am just going to assume there was a body double for a certain scene so that it remains like she isn't really in the movie – her character a maguffin and a foil to show that Conan isn't just a murderous, brooding thug.
There will be people who will really like this movie. I guess, like with the relaunch of Star Trek (2009), it helps to not have much vested in the canon of the characters and their universe. However, I didn't think there was much in the way of fun to be had with this Conan the Barbarian. Nispel stretched scenes longer than they need to be, and adopts a Peter Jackson approach – from King Kong (2005) – if some is good, the more is more, and much more must then, finally, be better. It didn't work then, and it doesn't now. This is how Conan should look, so kudos for that.
Jason Momoa occasionally looks very much like Conan (more than Schwarzenegger ever did), and he may evolve into a pretty good action star. He isn't what is wrong with the movie. Treating Picts as though they are some type of human-goblin hybrid is what's wrong with it. Not finding a proper balance between cartoonish, camp, and gritty action is what's wrong with it. And not trimming about 15 minutes worth of filler because somebody thought the filler looked good is what's wrong with it.
If I were unfamiliar with the original Conan the Barbarian (1982), I might view this as a C+ effort. Compared to Kull the Conqueror (1997), I would rate it a B-. But when viewed in the entirety of Howard's (and various other authors) material and how well it had been handled in the past, I have to put this at the C/C- level. I didn't enjoy it, and there were parts that really grated on me (like having a second expository voice over to start the second act), but I can't view it as a disaster. This is one I think most viewers can wait for on DVD/Blu-ray or to come to premium cable.
Fright Night (2011)
One good performance can't make this a good movie
It took me a while to see the original Fright Night (1985). I had one of those mothers who tried to impose her own uneasiness with the horror genre on her children. Actually, she held crazy beliefs like that KISS stood for Knights in Satan's Service and Rush (the Canadian prog-rock band) meant Ruling Under Satan's House and is still afraid to watch the movie Jaws (1975). I'm pretty sure the first time I saw Fright Night '85 it was on cable television. I soon went out and and rented it – and its inferior sequel – and found a movie I really liked. It had the right amount of camp and humor, but it was the slow build to the horror element that made it, to me, a classic.
Don't expect that from the new version. Fright Night '11 takes the same basic premise, but has none of the fun with it. Marti Noxon – the Queen of Mean – transplants the Angelus character from the Buffy/Angel Whedonverse and hands the role to a more talented actor in Colin Farrell. Let me make this perfectly clear: if you are going to see this movie, Colin Farrell is the reason to go. He does truly embody the inhuman menace of the shark from Jaws, but is somewhat hampered by the direction and editing that occasionally sets him up as a vampiric Pepé Le Pew. Though largely robbed of any kind of a backstory or motivation beyond being a vampire – and what little we do get to learn about his kind mostly goes to waste – Farrell does his best to make this movie work.
The problem is that he isn't enough.
Anton Yelchin, an actor who has yet to impress me in any role I've seen him in, is the lackluster lead. We learn that he is the kind of man who would betray his friends and hang out with assholes in order to score a tasty girlfriend, but still nerdy enough to not be able to close the deal. Seemingly, a mere ten minutes – it may have been a little more or less – Yelchin's Charley Brewster is already aware (in a way) that vampires are real. That sucks all of the tension out of the ensuing scenes and helps get the leaden feeling of the movie going. Yelchin does have a couple of good scenes, but he – or director Craig Gillespie – doesn't know what to do with them.
Instead of giving an actor as good a role as they did with Roddy McDowell in the original, David Tennant (as Peter Vincent) is required to start off with what looks like a Ben Stiller impersonation of Johnny Depp in any of the Pirates movies. There is too much unpleasant self-loathing in this new Vincent to make him accessible. He is a pompous coward – which could have worked – that never really is given a chance for redemption; it is up Charley to do that, too.
Imogen Poots (as Amy) and Emily Montague (as Ginger) make for attractive and mildly compelling potential victims of the vampire. Both seem to have unreasonable faith in the Charley character, though this is a problem with the screenplay and not the acting. Much less effective are the other potential victims that wander about the film. Most are disagreeable and unlikeable, and in the case of Dave Franco seem to be too old to fit into the film's high school age group characters. Toni Collette (as Charley's mother, Jane) is largely wasted. She looks good and should be a calm, capable, strong woman that has given Charley his moral compass and conviction. Instead, she is quickly turned into just another potential victim and is removed from the third act in an unsatisfying way (though, to be fair, it does work in the overall story). Chris Sarandon makes an appearance – my one lone laugh of the night – as does Lisa Loeb (???).
The film looks bland and uninspired, and that isn't due to the special effects. The FX work, almost without exception. It is the sets and landscape that robs the movie of any sense of life. Watching a cookie-cutter, Las Vegas McMansion in an oddly isolated subdivision burn provokes no reaction from me, except that many built unwisely during the housing boom. There is no vibrancy to the movie, and that is a problem.
I cannot comment about the 3D. There was a problem with the projection during the previews, and while it was resolved to the point of where it wasn't just blurry, most of the effects that were in 3D never really popped. Some are obviously meant to, and if they do it will add more to the experience. Other than those flashy (and repetitive) sequences, there are only three or four shots that effectively make use of the technology (no, I am not counting the crossbow bolt shot seen in the previews). Gillespie does a great job with one particular shot in a swimming pool early on, then seems to degenerate into some level of amateurism with his shot selection. This is his first feature, and in retrospect, it looked as though he wasn't ready.
My suggestion is to watch the original Fright Night (1985) instead of the cynical, cold-hearted '11 Fright Night. The new one isn't horrible, but like a vampire, it has no life of its own. Colin Farrell is great in what he is allowed to do (I never thought I'd ever write a sentence like that), but the rest of the cast is subdued and improperly handled. This is a solid C effort, but I would have like to have seen a more accomplished director – and definitely no Noxon influence – for this movie.
The Good Shepherd (2006)
A Finely Disguised Mess
"The Good Shepherd" is a semi-engaging, but ultimately flawed film that cannot seem to find a way to make any point or to develop more than one of its characters. This is a shame, as the cast (particularly director/co-star De Niro, Billy Crudup, Timothy Hutton -- in a very abbreviated appearance, and Oleg Stefan) want to make this a meaningful film.
Instead, "The Good Shepherd" finds itself fumbling the story of Edward Wilson and his experiences from Yale in 1939 to working for the CIA in 1961. Without ever developing or realizing the world from which Wilson must have come -- the WASPish, old-money, perpetual holders of power, or giving any insight into the world into which Wilson later finds himself, De Niro instead takes nearly three hours to present a perpetually quiet (and perhaps shy) Wilson, portrayed awkwardly by Matt Damon, and little else. The most revealing and truthful (to the Wilson character) line comes in an almost throw-away scene later in the film, but even then De Niro fails to capitalize on it.
"The Good Shepherd" is well shot, and it demonstrates a high level of respect for both the eras (late 1930s-early 1960s) and to film conventions that help audiences identify with them (though De Niro handles the music selection for the film admirably). Throughout it, and ultimately more so at the end, "The Good Shepherd" simply has nothing to say.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Far from great
First, the winner of the "Samuel L. Jackson 'Phoning it In' Award" was not Mr. Jacskon for this film, it was Ms. Portman. But I think this has more to do with the general problem of the film: an awkward, disengaging (not just unengaging) script and a director who is a master on the technical aspects but just doesn't allow for any type of real interplay between the characters or for any rhythm in the dialog. While I do believe this is the most enjoyable of the second Trilogy, I am ever reminded that without a sense of "fun" or a stand-in for the rogue-ish charm of a Han Solo character, the characters seem stiff and whiny. Also, (the spoiler bit), I would have been happier with the characterization of Light v. Dark Sides if the Emperor and Vader were still shone to have "good" goals pursued with "evil" means because the Jedi way just wasn't getting it done. The point-of-view argument at the end should have been staged as two legitimate, contrasting philosophies. It instead played out as curt dialog between two characters who never really seemed to have any affection for one another.
Saved! (2004)
Three years in the making?
I don't want to offer forth unfair criticism, but this movie took three years to be made? I understand that there were some financing problems (which is far better than being unable to make a movie for years because of incompetency -- that's me), but if Brain Dannelly & Michael Urban had that much time with this story, I thought they would have handled it better. I understand the short shooting schedule & normal production woes, and I really did enjoy the film, but some things about it just rubbed me the wrong way, and after hearing the director's commentary, I was shocked to see how out of sync either I was or he is with his movie. Jesus appears to Mary while she is in danger of drowning in a pool. No, he actually appears to her, which I misunderstood to be a wish-fulfillment fantasy of Mary's. My bad. But Dannelly's "sympathetic" Christian, Patrick (played by Patrick Fugit) approaches Christianity from a very secular place ("It's all a gray area"), causing me to view him as just a normal guy interacting with the Fundamentalists at the school. And the term Christian in the movie only applies to Born-Again Christians, which, coming from a Fundamentalist Church, is not something I am familiar with. The story strays too far at times, and yet none of the characters seem fully served. I imagine this as a great idea for a season long HBO-type show, where Dean, Pastor Skip, and Hillary Faye could have been given the consideration only hinted at in the final project. Also, much of the professional criticism directed at this film had to do with its by-the-book approach, and I was amazed to hear that this was intentional. The movie was well cast and well acted, and I cannot argue the style of the movie, but perhaps a little more biting satire than off-the-shelf comedy would have made this a great movie rather than a good one. As for the idea of making a teen-movie about the hypocrisies of the world, that is all of them, right?
Kindred: The Embraced (1996)
The transition to the screen...
I was thrust into the world of "gaming" at five years old, and was playing Vampire: The Masquerade when this show debuted. I had high hopes for the show bringing the World of Darkness to the television screen.
As disappointed as I was with the show -- it excluded my favorite clan, it changed how vampires existed -- I still thought it had promise. Production costs limited the amount of nighttime sequences and the focus of the show being split between the vampires (and quite a few vampires at that) and Howell's police character kept the show from developing quickly or finding its "voice." Much of the memory of this show is a result of its association with the White Wolf RPG, but it is not all that different from other (later) FOX attempts at creating a non-traditional soap opera.
City Limits (1984)
And upon his head...
John Stockwell appeared to have a promising career ahead of him. He co-starred with Tom Cruise in the horrible "Losin' It," with a car in Stephen King's "Christine," and with a dinosaur in the quite forgetable "My Science Project." For whatever reason, he, James Earl Jones, Rae Dawn Chong, Kim Cattrall, and Robby Benson signed on to make this post-apocalyptic story. But he wears a (very fake) animal skull as a motorcycle helmet, and for that reason alone the first few minutes of the film are worth watching.