Conan the Barbarian (2011) Review

Conan the Barbarian is a movie of contrivance and convenience. I went into the film with low expectations and lower hopes and somehow still managed to be dissatisfied.

Conan (Jason Mamoa) is basically your average slaughtering hero. He's tall, muscular and sports a rather camera-friendly scars. He is a "battle-born" (meaning his father performed an emergency Caesarean section on the battlefield) Cimmerian whose entire village was slaughtered, including his father (Ron Perlman), by a power-hungry warlord named Khaler Zym (Stephen Lang) and his daughter (Rose McGowan). Conan grows up and becomes a pirate that hunts the earth for Zym. Basically you don't really need to know anything else. Conan goes somewhere, kills a bunch of people, puts his sword in the ground and does it all over again.

The majority of the film is horribly incoherent. Characters are in one place and then suddenly they appear in another with no explanation of how they got there or managed to escape their earlier predicament. All the moments between the action scenes seem to be nothing more than filler before the next battle. While I'm at it, the battles are boring and ridiculous. When a character cuts through that thick leather armor a hundred and twenty eight ounces of blood plop out all at once no matter where the victims are cut. Well, every victim except Conan. . Oh and before I forget, I really want to be a warlord. They apparently get a really good dental plan.

One of the more out-of-place roles is Morgan Freeman as the narrator. His voice, while pleasant, just doesn't fit. It's the first thing you hear in the film and immediately takes you out of the film thereby forcing you to be uninvolved by everything that follows. The only saving grace for the movie is Ron Perlman but he's always interesting to watch.

Broadswords go a long way with me. Just not far enough.

★

The Reef (2010) Review

People tend to have a great apprehension of the ocean. The fear of the unknown or of what we can't see is far more substantial then what's right in front of us. The Reef is a film that exploits that fear in ways that are at times thrilling and tense and at other times stupid and boring.

Supposedly based on actual events (the only similar events I could find were from a man named Ray Boundy who was the sole survivor of an incident in 1983) The Reef is about a group of five friends who go sailing/snorkeling/fishing along the Great Barrier Reef. From one dull moment to another we follow them on a standard beautiful-people-in-beautiful-locations adventure. The group's small sailboat capsizes after colliding with the reef and four of them decide to take their chances and swim for a (hopefully) nearby island. Along their way there they begin to be stalked by a Great White Shark.

The film is written and directed by Andrew Traucki. It basically follows the same plot as his previous survival film, Black Water, but substitutes a shark in the place of a crocodile and a boat in the place of a tree. Sometimes in the film he does a good job of creating tension by extending the time before the characters either see the shark they know is there or before the shark attacks but once the shark does attack it turns into a jump-scare fest. He'd been better off focusing on the pressure that the characters have from being tired, dehydrated and traumatized by the death of their friends one by one.

The film ends right where it should have begun. The sole survivor makes it to a rock and we get the usual "So-and-so was found three days later. The other guy who stayed behind wasn't found". Something that would have been far more original and interesting is after she is found she recounts her ordeal in flashbacks. Then we could have seen how it might have affected her but instead we are simply left with a moment we've seen five hundred billion times before.
★1/2

Jurassic Park (1993) Review

Nearly twenty years before Jurassic Park was first released Steven Spielberg made Jaws. That film was a masterpiece. A stunning success measured by the overall failure of shark attack films since. The same is true of this film. In the hands of another filmmaker this could turn into your standard Saturday monster matinee but Spielberg's mastery of science-fiction and indeed film itself keeps that from happening.

Based upon the novel by Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park imagines a world where Dinosaurs are no longer extinct. On a remote island, a wealthy entrepreneur (Richard Attenborough) secretly creates a theme park featuring living Dinosaurs drawn from prehistoric DNA. Before opening the attraction to the public, he invites a top paleontologist (Sam Neill), a paleobotanist (Laura Dern), a mathematician/theorist (Jeff Goldblum), and his two eager grandchildren (Joseph Mazzello, Arianna Richards) to experience the park -- and help calm anxious investors. A money-hungry computer technician (Wayne Knight) tries to steal the Dinosaur embryos and forces systems all over the park to shut down causing the prehistoric creatures to break out who then wreak havoc.

Not only is it a visually brilliant film but it also is incredibly nice to listen to. I know what you're thinking. The screeching Dilophosaurus is nice to listen to? Trust me. If you were only listening to the film as it plays in your living room while you are in the kitchen it would still be exquisite. There is a nice blending to all the sounds in the film. The real stars of the film are the Dinosaurs. This is due to the work of Phil Tippett, Dennis Muren, Stan Winston and Michael Lantieri. Each of these men are vital to the effects being able to succeed. I still watch the film and have to wonder who was responsible for what shots of the Dinosaurs in the film.

The film is still the standard for any live-action film with dinosaurs running around. The phenomenal effects have not aged in the least. Maybe because people aren't used to seeing Dinosaurs so we aren't as quick to criticize but there is no point in denying that when people of think of Dinosaur films they think of Jurassic Park first and foremost. Indeed when someone tries to change the way Dinosaurs move or sound in a film we often reject it.

★★★1/2

Waking Sleeping Beauty (2009) Review

So many documentaries fail to actually do what the genre's name implies. Documentation. The filmmakers bring in their own preconceived notions and political beliefs and disguise them as facts. Waking Sleeping Beauty manages to document the truth in an enormously bittersweet style. A truth that can only be told by the people who were there. The truth was that, although it seemed like a paradise, from 1984-1994 the Disney Animation Studios was a difficult time. Management changes and egos nearly spelled the end of the studio but strangely enough it was also the most successful point in the history of the studio.

One thing I loved was the complete lack of talking heads. What do I mean by that? There is no new footage of people sitting in a chair talking to the camera. It's all archival footage and voiceovers. It's an immensely refreshing alternative style of documentaries. The director, Don Hahn succeeds in what he set out to do. Wonderfully the film is not about him. Besides the narration he appears briefly throughout the film. This is only to show the audience that he was there and is qualified to tell this story. You can tell that it's a very personal film for him.

There is a lot of great archive footage that the filmmakers managed to put together coherently. One of the best moments is a shot of executive Jeffrey Katzenberg waving off interviews on the red carpet premiere of The Lion King following an article that, much to Roy Disney's annoyance, proclaimed Katzenberg the guy who was saving Disney Animation. Another great point is during a game of Jeopardy where a minor revolt at the studio became a category after Peter Schneider decided to change the title of Basil of Baker Street to The Great Mouse Detective (Someone sent around a fake memo saying all the film titles would be changed).

As a major Disney animation fan who thought he knew a lot about the films and how they were made I was surprised by how much of the reality I didn't know. It was quite nice to see the people involved with that decade shown at times broken and others joyous. This documentary shows the miracle of creation. Certain points of the film are absolutely heartbreaking. One such moment is the discussion of Howard Ashman's death. Don Hahn's narration is brilliant and conveys just the right amount of emotion without being overly sappy.

★★★★

Muppet Treasure Island (1996) Review

Muppet Treasure Island is the best Muppet film to date. It has a perfect mixture of brilliant songs and a, dare I say, exquisite placing of the old characters in new roles and an incomparable performance by Tim Curry. Can you tell I like it yet? Just wait there's more.

Sort of like Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, Treasure Island (written by Robert Louis Stevenson) is a book that everyone knows the plot of. Even if they haven't read it. This film follows the same basic storyline with a few surprises. I don't want to accidently give away those surprises so I don't want to tell you which Muppet plays what character suffice it to say that The Great Gonzo and Rizzo The Rat play themselves.

It should come as no surprise the Muppet performers are superb. To a lot of people in the world these are living breathing characters. It's not enough to move the eyes evenly or match the mouth to the words. You have to inhabit the character. Performers like Dave Goelz and Steve Whitmire are better than most "real" actors in the world. The best human performance in the film is by Tim Curry who has been given his best role in years and his tactic is to out shine but not upstage the puppets. It's a thin line and he walks it beautifully.

The test of a really good song is one that I am willing to listen to over and over and over again. There is not a song in the film where I say, "glad that's over". Every song in the film is wonderfully written (and ahem massively singable). I can't pick a favorite song because they are all so unique from one another but all of them fit the soundtrack perfectly as a whole.

As I said this picture is the best Muppet film so far. Immensely entertaining and yet so simple and childlike. Jim Henson would be proud.

★★★★

Mulan (1998) Review

Let's face it. In the 1990's the bar on animation had been raised to its peak. With films like Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, Mulan had a lot to live up to and it doesn't. It's the weakest of the 90's Disney animated features.

Inspired by an early sixth century poem, Mulan tells the story of a free-spirited Chinese girl of the same name. Mulan (voiced by Ming-Na) is afraid that she will never bring her family honor so she decides to enter the army to battle the Huns lead by the supposedly evil Shan-Yu (Voiced by Miguel Ferrer). It's the only way that she can protect her father, a former soldier, from having to go. She cuts her hair and spends far too much of the film pretending to be a guy. She receives help from a shamed dragon (voiced by Eddie Murphy) who thinks that by helping her he can retake his place as a guardian over Mulan's family. To make a long story short Mulan manages to fight off the Hun army before being discovered.

This picture is really all over the place. There is no clear structure to the story nor does it have very interesting characters. I found Mulan to be rather whiny and selfish. She doesn't go to save her father. Just so she can be someone she likes looking at in the mirror. She's not sure what she really wants and so I don't feel any reason to root for her. Additionally I don't root for the bad guy because the filmmakers never bothered to explore what makes him tick. The only thing we hear is that he's mad about a wall being built.

The biggest issue I have with the film is the songs. There is no subtlety to them. The songwriters were trying to duplicate the Menken/Ashman collaborations so much that what they ended up with are songs that have no consistent form and don't really do anything to help the story or have the characters express what they can only express in song. I can't hum a single one of these songs.

The only thing that hints at a great film is the score. I distinguish the score from the songs as a way to further pan the songs in that they don't fit with the score as composed by one of the greatest composers in film history, Jerry Goldsmith. The animation is nice to look at but with the lack of structure and even less songs that I can get into, the film ends up being bogged down to a murky mess that did at one time have potential.

★★

More of a rant than ever before...

I lament for a time when films were praised based on their quality and not their popularity. Twilight wouldn't be believed to be the "best movies I've ever seen" and more people my age would be aware of Chaplin (who anyone who ever watches a film owes a debt to). Granted there are good films out there but you have to sift through fifteen bins of garbage before you even can find a film of higher quality. The ratio is not good.

All of the horror movies these days are either full of gore, sex, or people getting tortured physically. You know why? Because that's what is popular. That's the type of vulgar, impudent garbage the average filmgoer wants to see. Alfred Hitchcock never had to do that. He understood the subtleties needed for a horror film because he was a genius. Today you have the Eli Roth-like filmmakers who put torture and slashers on the screen and call it art.

Lately I have seen far too many stoner, gross-out comedies being made. They are not funny except to the subintelligent boils of the earth. Most are written as though there was an explosion at a used screenplay factory and then shoddily put together using fruit stripe gum. If you see a film by Mel Brooks you'd know he built jokes up properly. Now all I see are a lot of stupid punchlines

I have high standards. There isn't any way to sugarcoat it nor would I want to if there was a way. Perhaps my high standards are the reason I am so often disappointed. Who knows? Maybe if I didn't hold films to such a high standard I'd have been one of the fools who enjoyed Hangover Part II. That's why I proudly proclaim my standards because I know how great film can be. There is nothing I love more than going to the movies and I am never happier when I get to discuss films that I enjoyed. Therefore when I am not able to do that I am not happy.
So I say to many filmmakers of today, make me happy!

Perhaps this post was a bit mean spirited but, as Peter Finch said in Network, I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) Review

In 1968 damned dirty apes didn't take their filthy paws off Charlton Heston and a cultural phenomenon was born. It was an immediate success and spawned four sequels, two television series, a remake and a plethora of merchandise. I'm not going to bring about the differences between remakes and reboots because, let's face it, that's boring and arbitrary. Rise of the Planet of the Apes bears very little resemblance to the original Apes films and still manages to function on its own in a way that is surprisingly fresh and interesting so I decided to treat it as such.

Scientist Will Rodman (James Franco) lives and works in San Francisco. He's working on a chemical compound that is being tested on chimpanzees. This formula not only is increasing brain functionality, but Will thinks it will help his father's Alzheimer's (John Lithgow). When one chimp goes on a rampage during a share holders' meeting the project is forced to stop, Will and his co-worker Robert (Tyler Labine) must put down the test chimps. They soon realize the one chimp didn't have a bad reaction to the drug, but that she had a baby and was protecting her offspring. Will names the young chimp Caesar and takes him home and raises him. Caesar the chimp is showing signs of increased intelligence like his mother had shown. Caesar grows and grows and gets even smarter with Will at home. He's learned sign language and is much more intelligent than any other animal Will has worked with. Will decides to test his formula on his father and his father starts showing positive signs. He tells his boss what he did and the boss wants full research and experimenting done. When an incident takes Caesar away from Will, he must give up his beloved chimp and put him in an animal control center for monkey, chimps and apes. As Caesar finds difficulty to his new environment, he meets an orangutan who also knows sign language and they communicate on how to control things. Caesar soon finds himself the leader of the animals and decides he's had enough of the bad treatment by his human handlers (including Harry Potter's Tom Felton). Caesar is smart enough to come and go as he pleases and is able to get Will's latest chemical compound to increase the other animals' intelligence. Now that the primates are running the asylum, Caesar leads a rebellion. He gathers every ape and chimp there and then breaks into Will's work to free the other captives. As his rebellion grows and he gains more backers from the local zoo, Caesar leads his animal army to San Francisco's famed Golden Gate Bridge where it is animal vs. man for control of the future.

The technical wizards at Weta (would you trust anyone else to create motion capture?) have once again been able to create something rather extraordinary in the CGI. They have managed to mix said CGI and live-action seamlessly. One easily wonders where the human begins and the special effect ends. The apes have weight and happen to move much like they really would. One of the best performances in the film is that of a character that isn't really there. Andy Serkis plays Caesar with such a mesmerizing brilliance that we have to believe in Caesar and, surprisingly root for him to get what he wants by the end of the film even though what he wants is to kinda, sort of take over the world. Sure Caesar is a computer generated character but Serkis still created the basis for him and performed all his movements and were it not for the strict rules excluding computer-created characters from consideration I would expect Serkis to score a Best Supporting Actor Nomination.

The great effects and Serkis' performance don't help any of the human roles from being moderately boring and majorly underwritten, just as an example James Franco is just sort of there to show that not all humans are evil.

Even though some of the things that happen in the film are rather unrealistic (Chimpanzees are not 5'11" when standing upright) I was not bothered by them enough to be turned off the film.

★★★1/2

Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011) Review

As someone who hasn't ever really been drawn in by the whole Harry Potter craze I am actually delighted to report that I greatly enjoyed this one.

I don't know how to possibly elaborate on the plot beyond what ninety percent of the earth already knows. Certainly all the people who read this blog know the storyline so I'm not going to tell you about the plot. Besides, I just returned from short term disability and am feeling kind lazy so I'm just going to give my review.

The film is a highly satisfying conclusion for both fanatics as well as the casual observer. Every question one might have wondered previously is answered. Especially for the Potter-illiterate individuals like myself who haven't read the books. So for all six of you out there don't worry it makes sense. One of my biggest criticisms for the first part of the finale was that there was too much that I had to have explained by an expert. Anyway there are many good things about the film and, regrettably one bad thing. The best thing is the performance by Alan Rickman. As Severus Snape he is powerful, complex and most of all captivating. I found myself completely drawn in and moved by his performance in a way I did not expect. His first scene features him atop a tower looking out at the landscape. Talk about a face saying a thousand words. In that one shot everything about his character makes sense. This is furthered later on when we see a long montage covering events in the last seven films. This sequence is not as drawn out as it could have been but lingers just the right amount of time in the film.

There are other great things like the final battle between the good guys and the bad guys. I'm not sure what those magic beams were made of but they do look incredibly painful and the film was not unnecessarily loud or overrun with over the top visual effects. Michael Bay should take notes on how it's done.

My earlier statement about the one bad thing does not happen until the end. After the climax of the film we fade to black and then see a title saying "19 Years Later". All the kids are now in their thirties and have their own kids who they are sending off to school. This epilogue could have been axed and I would be able to give the film four stars but it's there and I can't. Everyone ends up with who you'd expect and have 1-3 children. This Disneyish-everybody-gets-what-they-wish-for-happy-ending cheapens the whole thing for me. It completely feels tacked on and in my opinion, insults the audience. I've been told that it's in the book but that doesn't mean it had to be in the movie. I would have been happy without it.

Still I am overall praising the film's brilliant use of sets, costumes, special effects and in particular Alan Rickman's performance.

★★★1/2