Leave a Comment | Posted by Gavin on August 18, 2011
Conan the Barbarian
Posted in: Action, Fantasy Adventure
Why do you think some studio executives were sitting around and said to each other, “Do you remember Conan the Barbarian?” ”The one from 1982 with Arnold Swarzenegger and James Earl Jones?” said the other. ”Yeah. We should remake that,” exclaimed the other. I have no answer to that because the it wasn’t good 29 years ago and it’s not good now.
The 2011 version doesn’t star anyone of impressive stature like the original. This time the titular character is played by Jason Momoa (Stargate: Atlantis, HBO’s Game of Thrones) and he’s joined by the go-to baddie Stephen Lang (Avatar, Gettysburg), the gorgeous Rose McGowan (Scream, Grindhouse) and fanboy favorite Ron Pearlman (Hellboy, Season of the Witch) in a small opening act role. The new version is also more expensive, slicker, more violent and, of course, in 3D. None of that helps make the film better than its campy predecessor.
Both films are based on the comic book that not many are fans of and follows a similar plot. Conan is a barbarian…naturally…who gets involved with a woman in his quest to revenge his father’s death. Although the film is written by four different people, it’s the major reason why it didn’t perform to quality. Even director Marcus Nispel attempted to polish this turd up as best he could. He’s the guy that Hollywood seems to call on whenever they’re in need of a bloody revamp of an old classic. He’s already had a noble attempt with a remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and a embarrassingly awful showing in his remake of Friday the 13th. Although Nispel appeared to have been given gobs of money, elaborate sets, spectacular costumes and car-blanche on the violence, the script didn’t allow for much of any kind of enjoyment.
That’s not to say that some of the action sequences aren’t fine enough to chomp through on some popcorn. In fact, in a summer that’s been filled with subpar action films, this one ranks up there among the top half. But a watered down script and a brainless, mumbling performance from its star is enough for you to be bored and impatient until someone gets massacred again.
It’s really too bad that Momoa is such a bad actor because everyone else gives a decent, campy performance that’s right on par with what we’ve grown to expect from them. McGowan adds another devious diva to her resume in what is a vastly underrated caliber of performer. Not only is she beautiful, even when she has half her hairline shaved down, but seems to have so much fun in being bad. Her interaction with Lang’s father-killing villain is fun but only in their nonverbal chemistry. Whenever they open their mouths to spew the terrible dialogue that was provided for them it’s a letdown.
Aside from some fun 3D effects (including the first 3D sex scene) and exciting, big-budget action, Conan the Barbarian is a disappointment even when you expect it to be disappointing. Besides shelling out the $10 per ticket for the movie, it makes you feel even more foolish for leaving the theater missing the awful, incoherent acting of Swarzenegger…and that’s a barbaric thought.
Conan the Barbarian (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: C-

107.9 The End




Alice in Wonderland is the new film from director Tim Burton. Tim Burton is a very funny director in the way that he’s reached levels of cult-like status and I’m not quite sure why. There is this stigma about him that his movies are always amazing, weird and fantastic; that couldn’t be more wrong. Burton gives us one good movie for every bad movie. For every Big Fish, Pee Wee’s Big Adventure, Batman or Ed Wood he’s also given us Sleepy Hollow, Batman Returns, Charlie & the Chocolate Factory and Planet of the Apes. There was a lot of hype around Alice in Wonderland, which made me cautious to see it. The good news is that it didn’t disappoint. In fact it surpassed what I was expecting. The problem the film is going to run into is the mass confusion from everyone who doesn’t know that it’s NOT the original Alice in Wonderland story; it’s the sequel. In fact, by not naming the film Return to Wonderland or Alice 2 or maybe even the title of the actual sequel Through the Looking Glass, they’re going to create lots of disenchanted people who were expecting to see the classic Disney film but in dazzling live-action 3D. You won’t…not really. What you’ll see instead is a pretty creative story about Alice’s return to Wonderland to clean up the mess that has happened since her last visit. This involves a storyline and action that is FAR from the traditional story. In fact maybe a better title for this would be Alice in Narnia, since it’s much closer to those stories than Wonderland. But it’s not all bad news. Johnny Depp gives a great performance as The Mad Hatter, Helena Boham Carter is adequate as The Red Queen and the voice over work from great British actors is well casted and fun. I especially liked seeing the insane Crispin Glover (Back to the Future, Charlie’s Angels) in this as a version of The Knave of Hearts that is nothing like the character from the book. Mia Wasikowska (Defiance) plays Alice in an incredibly luke-warm, disenfranchised performance. She’s so blank and vacant in this film that I almost wondering if Burton instructed her to be so since she thinks it’s a dream. Either way, it doesn’t work and bothered me to have a lead that apathetic. One aspect about the film that I really liked was how it was almost a film version of the Alice sequel, Through the Looking Glass. Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter has a creepy split personality that comes out where he mumbles the Jabberwocky poem in a macabre Scottish accent. This is a nod to author Lewis Carroll himself, who wrote the poem and included parts of it in the sequel. This adds a tone of foreboding to the film that feels odd at first but I enjoyed. I thought that was an interesting touch and what they did with it to make it more exciting and action-packed was well executed for the most part. Alice in Wonderland is far from perfect and relies on gimicky 3D techniques that should be reserved for theme parks, but it’s fine enough to go in Tim Burton’s good column. That must mean that what he does next will suck.
Apparently this is the first movie in a gothic book series for teens called “Cirque du Freak.” The series has its fans but I can’t imagine it being very popular since I never even heard of it before. I’m not sure if the book jumped on the vampire bandwagon or it preceded it, but the movie clearly was made to strike while the fanged-iron is hot. The story is about a young boy who becomes (you guessed it) assistant to a vampire who travels with a Freak Show after he reluctantly sucked (ha) into a world of feuding ghouls. Imagine “Harry Potter” meets “Twilight” only with a lot more silliness. Acting veteran John C. Reilly stars as the vampire Larten Crepsley. I love Reilly and think he never gets the credit he deserves. He’s proved his dramatic chops (“The Hours”), his comedic chops (“Walk Hard”) and even his musical ones (“Chicago”) but never gets the accolades. In “The Vampire’s Assistant” he doesn’t get to use much of any of those chops though. This film has such a horrible script that it doesn’t give the actors a chance to do much of anything with it; even with great performers peppered in like Salma Hayek, Willem Dafoe, and Ken Watanabe. But even if the script was penned by Shakespeare himself, the star of the film who’s a newcomer named Chris Massoglia, would still find a way to make it look like high school theater. I’m not sure who’s nephew, son or friend’s cousin he is, but how he landed this gig is a mystery to me. He is absolutely terrible! He plays through the different scenes that involve action, comedy, horror, drama and suspense with the same dumbfounded, wallpaper face that makes you think you’re being punked by sitting through a movie with him as the star. But I did think the same thing of Daniel Radcliffe when I saw him in the first “Harry Potter” movie though and he got better. I do hope that this movie does well enough to earn the sequels it has planned. The story and characters are engaging, dark, funny and odd. It’s the kind of movie that I would’ve loved as a 13-year-old. I’m interested in what comes next and I want to see how it all plays out. This first film in the episodic story is all set up and no conclusion, but is different enough to at least keep me watching to see where it goes from here. (Of course I could read the books, but who wants to do that.) It intrigues with questions but doesn’t answer any. In a way I’m glad that it’s not super great or ultra compelling because that would just be torture to have to wait for the next one. So in that respect I’m thankful, but taking what I imagine is a very engrossing, fun gothic teen tale and watering it down to this, I am not.
Director Spike Jonze is a really weird guy. He’s done movies like “Being John Malkovich” and music videos for Weezer, Beastie Boys and Fatboy Slim. His latest is “Where the Wild Things Are” and has been struggling to get this movie made for years. He was a huge fan of the Maurice Sendak children’s story, as was I. He wanted to make sure this beloved story was done justice and done right. I’m really sorry to say that if he thinks it was done justice and right then I wish the project was never made. One of the biggest fears that I have when I hear a children’s book is being made into a feature film is that they’re going to add so much to the story that what you loved as a kid is merely a shell of what it’s become. Not only did that happen here, but what I loved as a kid was recognizable ONLY by the visuals on the screen. Jonze and co-writer, David Eggers, managed to take a children’s story and craft a deeply confusing and manically emotional story out of what was originally an 8 sentence storybook. Now I don’t think that that’s a bad idea, but boy did they miss the mark. I saw this with my fiance who has a Masters in analyzing literature and extracting meaning from stories and she didn’t get it. I didn’t get it either. And boy will your kids not get it. It’s rated “PG” but don’t let that fool you – this is not a kid’s movie. Not because it’s too scary or violent (which it actually might be for some) but because it’s dull, slow and WAY over the heads of kids. And that’s fine with me, but it’s way over the heads of adults too. There’s no resolution, nothing is learned and characters have no arcs or motives. So disappointing since I really wanted to like this movie. Not just because I loved the book as a kid, but also because the trailers released for it almost brought me to tears. The only positive thing I can say about the movie is that Jonze’s ability to translate his imagination to things you can actually see is amazing. The sets are incredible and the use of such diverse landscapes of nature and phases of the sun gave the movie a real organic feel that helped you buy into the fantasy. But the costumes are the crown jewel. Newcomer Max Records (who plays “Max”) is acting beyond his years and to do it to 12′ high, fuzzy costumes with CGI faces is even more impressive. The voice work of Paul Dano (“There Will Be Blood”), Catherine O’Hara (“Orange County”) and James Gandolfini (“The Sopranos”) is so convincing, you’d think it was them in make-up (even though Gandolfini just plays the bipolar Tony Soprano all over again, only this time he’s fuzzy and adorable.) However those are the only positive things I can say about this boring, plodding movie that is too childish for adults, too adult for children and too odd for everyone. But oh well, at least I tried to end on a happy note, which is more than I can say for the film.
This was the first “Potter” movie I saw where I had the entire book read before I saw the movie. That makes my enjoyment of the Harry Potter world much more enjoyable but it does make it harder to watch the movies from a critical view. I really will attempt to review this movie as JUST A MOVIE and not based off of my captivation of the books. The director of this one (the last one, and the last two also) is David Yates. I was not a fan of his, but anyone who comes after accomplished director of the 3rd one, Alfonso Cuaron, must understand that it’s not easy to improve on his work. However, he does a wonderful job of directing this one. It gives me hope for the last two (the last book is split into two movies). He has really made a worthy effort to keep the angles and shots in this movie complex and dazzling, while also matching the colors and editing with the bleak story and maturity of the characters. Speaking of the characters, the entire cast returns for this one with the addition of Jim Broadbent, who is brilliant as Prof. Slughorne, and Jessie Cave as the lovestruck, Lavender Brown. They blend right in with the rest of the cast as if they’ve been there all along, but both easily steal the show with their brand of humor, which there was plenty of! This might be the first “Potter” film that made me laugh out loud at genuinely funny performances. But I wonder if trying to put too much of that into the movie made them take their eye off the ball by focusing on more of the character-driven adolescent nuances than the mystery and adventure surrounding the ending of the film. That’s my only complaint with this movie. They took out, what I consider to be, key scenes that explain Harry and Dumbledore’s quest. Those scenes would have kept the movie darker and mysterious, while satisfying fans’ thirst for glimpses into Voldemort’s past. Damnit! I couldn’t do it. I tried not to, but I’m reviewing it as a movie from a book instead of JUST A MOVIE. Ignorance might be bliss when seeing these because if you don’t know a scene exists, you’ll never miss it when it’s taken out. As a fan of JUST THE MOVIE, it is the best in what is arguably shaping up to be one of the greatest movie series of all time. As a fan of the movies based on books that I love, it’s a wonderful and heartbreaking setup to what I hope will be the climax ending we all hope it should be…it just could’ve had a little more.