Drive

Drive

Do you know the old fable about the scorpion and the frog?  The scorpion comes to a river and asks the frog if he will ferry him across on his back.  Despite the fact that scorpions are dangerous, the frog agrees.  So the scorpion hops on the frog's back and the two begin to go across the river.  Halfway across, the scorpion stings the frog, paralyzing him.  Sinking, the frog cries out, "why did you do that?  Now we'll both die!"  And the scorpion just replies, "It's my nature."

I mention this because the fable of the scorpion and the frog has a deep thematic tie to Drive, one of the best movies of last year.  And no, the fable does not ruin anything about the movie, so don't think I spoiled anything.  I would never do that to you!  But I do think knowing the fable increases your enjoyment of the film and allows you to see it on another level.

Our frog is the unnamed character played by Ryan Gosling (The Ides of March).  In the credits, he is called the Driver, so we'll call him that, too.  During the day, he is a movie stunt driver and a mechanic at a garage owned by Shannon (Bryan Cranston, Breaking Bad).  In his spare time, he is a getaway driver for bank robbers and gangsters.  He is the frog ferrying these bad men to safety.  And as if there were any doubt about the symbolism, he also wears a jacket that literally has a scorpion on its back.

There is a difference between Driver and the frog in the fable.  When the scorpion tries to sting Driver, he fights back.  And damn, can he fight.  When one of the heists goes horribly wrong, Driver finds himself a target of local gangsters Bernie and Nino, played by Albert Brooks (Finding Nemo) and Ron Perlman (Hellboy).  But he's not gonna go down easy, and things are gonna get bloody.

But don't let this description fool you.  Drive is not an action film.  The violent scenes, though gruesome, are few and far between.  This is more of a character study of the Driver.  More time is spent on his relationship with his neighbor, Irene, played gracefully by Carey Mulligan (An Education).  But even these scenes are slow - the Driver and Irene spend more time looking at each other and smiling than they do talking.  And it's actually kind of sweet.

I do not want to imply that this slow pace is a negative thing.  It's not.  But I do think people should be warned before getting into it - this isn't The Fast and The Furious.  The pace works for the mostly silent character of the Driver and is an important element of the film.  If they had sped the pace up, then it probably would not have worked as well as it did.

While I want to make sure people know what they are getting into, let me be clear when I say Drive was one of the better films of 2011.  Superb direction, writing, and acting all combine to make one helluva movie.  I consider this one of the big snubs of the 2011 Oscars.  How the poorly reviewed Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close got nominated and Drive didn't...sigh, I don't get it.

MVP:

Ryan Gosling, easily.  In three different movies in 2011 (Drive, The Ides of March and Crazy Stupid Love) and with three very different performances, Gosling showed how truly versatile he really is.  With his smaller frame and cherub face, Gosling didn't really seem like a badass to me, but he totally owns this performance and is a truly powerful force of violence when he is unleashed.  But his performance is even more remarkable because it is mostly silent.  He has so few lines, and focuses on his body language and eyes to sell the emotion.  It's great work, making him an easy MVP.

BEST LINE:

Driver: You tell me where we start, where we're going, where we're going afterwards.  I give you a five minute window.  Anything happens in that five minutes, I'm yours.  No matter what.  Anything happens a minute either side of that and you're on your own.  I don't sit in the car while you're running it down.  I don't carry a gun.  I drive.

TRIVIA:

Drive was originally going to star Hugh Jackman and be directed by Neil Marshall (Centurion).  That would have been interesting, but probably would have been more of a straight action movie.  It certainly would have not have hit the cult classic status that Drive has already claimed.



 

Conan the Barbarian (2011)

My expectations were not high for the new Conan the Barbarian, but I was going to give it a fair fight.  It isn't right for me to compare it to the original Arnold Schwarzenegger film, which despite its problems, remains a fantasy powerhouse that still holds up today.  I could only take this film on its own merits.  But I had my doubts.  For one thing, director Marcus Nispel is not my favorite, having directed Pathfinder, which ranks high on my Top Ten Worst Films I've Ever Seen in the Theater List.  I don't even have an official list, but if I did, I know Pathfinder would be on it.

Not a remake so much as a new take on Robert E. Howard's original stories, Conan the Barbarian stars Jason Momoa (so tough as the Khal Drogo in Game of Thrones) as the ruthless warrior destined to be a king.  As a child, Conan's village is destroyed by the warlord Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang, Avatar) and his weird sorceress daughter Marique (Rose McGowan, Scream), who are searching for the shards of a magical helmet.  Once re-assembled, this helmet will allow its wearer to be all-powerful.  The shards have been spread out between all the barbarian tribes, so Khalar goes about his business of killing them all, including Conan's father (Ron Perlman, Hellboy).  Conan swears vengeance and grows up perfecting his skills as a warrior, ready at any moment to exact his avenging toll on Khalar Zym.

So what does the movie get right?  Surprisingly, more than I thought.  The movie looks pretty cool, with some nice sets and costumes.  The movie, filmed in Bulgaria, looks like a Conan movie should look.  And some of the acting is actually pretty decent, especially from Momoa, Lang and Rachel Nichols, who plays Tamara, Conan's love interest.  Momoa himself may not be Arnold, but he is a perfectly acceptable Conan.  He plays the part with real relish and panache.  And Lang looks like he is having a lot of fun as Khalar Zym, and makes for a good, entertaining villain.

A shame about the rest of the movie then!  I knew something was wrong from the very first moment when the voiceover narrator introduces the barbarous world of Conan and the narrator's voice belongs to...Morgan Freeman.  Yeah, you read that right.  Because when I want to hear about armies of ruthless barbarians raping and pillaging their way across an ancient landscape, the first voice I think of is Morgan Freeman's.

What were they thinking?

Some spoilers here, but do you actually care?  'What were they thinking' is that is the primary question in the movie.  Nispel is improving as a director and there are moments in the movie that work.  But whenever Conan the Barbarian threatens to become halfway decent, something bizarre happens and I say, "what were they thinking?!?!"  When the bad guys sneak onto Conan's boat during the dead of night, how come they are fighting in broad daylight in the next shot?  What were they thinking?  Later, Conan and his lady love leave the boat for some smoosh smoosh time on the rocky shoreline.  After said smooth smoosh time (in a little hut that happens to magically appear on the rocky shoreline, by the way), Tamara gets up and goes to the return to the boat.  Well, apparently, a massive forest has also magically sprouted between the hut and the shore.  Even though the hut was ON THE SHORE.  What were they thinking?!  How about Khalar Zym's secret weapon, the all-powerful helmet that does nothing but be heavy and make it hard for him to walk around.  It is pathetically useless.  What were they thinking?!

The main problem lies with the script.  There is some creativity buried in there, such as when Conan fights the sand warriors, but for the most part, it is a major rotten egg.  The storyline is badly constructed and the lines are pretty lame, such as Conan's life mantra: "I live.  I love.  I slay.  And I am content."  Ugh.

And I have to talk about the music.  I know I said I wouldn't compare the new Conan to the original, but with the music I have no choice.  The original Conan the Barbarian by Basil Poledouris is one of the most brilliant scores in film history.  That's a bold statement, but I am standing by it.  Full of power and passion, evoking the masters Alfred Newman and Miklos Rozca, Conan the Barbarian stands with Gone with the Wind, Star Wars, Jaws, Ben Hur, and all the other iconic titans of film scores.  What Steve Jablonsky creates for the new Conan is the epitome of blah; it is so blah that I can't remember anything about it.  I would prefer bad to completely unmemorable.  Nothing against Jablonsky, who did admirable work for Transformers and especially The Island, but he was in way over his head here.  Maybe it isn't fair for me to complain about this.  Maybe I'm just picky because I like film music.  I'll stop now.  Moving on.

Hm, actually there is only one more thing to say - apparently, the studio targeted the wrong audience for this movie.  When I saw it, I was expecting to see a lot of young teenage boys, eager for a chance to see some blood and nudity.  There were indeed a few teens in the audience.  But they were outnumbered by another constituency that I was shocked to see - middle aged women!  There were seriously more middle aged women in the theater for Conan than when I went to see The Help, all of them swooning at a buff Jason Momoa who does oblige them with a gratuitous butt shot.  This was all very strange to me.

That was a tangent there.  Sorry about that, but the tangent was more entertaining then the movie itself. It is time to reboot this franchise again.  You don't even have to go back to the drawing board.  Keep Momoa and art team, dump Nispel, Jablonsky, and definitely the writing staff.  Just re-arrange some pieces and try again.  You might come up with something worth watching.

TRIVIA: 
Brett Ratner was the original director, but dropped out.  I'm not the biggest fan of Ratner, but he has made some entertaining movies (the first Rush Hour) and he would have been an improvement.  Still, for the next Conan, they should really go after someone tough and ruthless.  Neil Marshall (Centurion) or Nicola Winding Refn (Valhalla Rising) would both be good choices.

MVP:
I'm actually not going for Momoa, but for Stephen Lang as Khalar Zym.  Momoa is a good Conan, but he can't rise beyond the ridiculous dialogue.  But Lang owns his scenes.  Recognizing the stupidity of what he is saying, he makes the right choice and goes all out.  It's a lot of fun watching him chew the scenery into chunks.  He breaths some life into the otherwise lifeless proceedings.  He even almost saves the worst scene in the whole movie, when Marique tries to seduce him.  Lang pushes her off and the look of disgust on his face is awesome - not only is he horrified at his daughter's depravity but in his own bad decision of being in this movie.  Maybe that's not what he was going for, but that's what I got out of it.  And it was cool.  Go Stephen Lang!

BEST LINE:
I am going to reverse this into the best worst line.  Time to bring back the "I live.  I love. I slay.  And I am content."  It makes me laugh.  It certainly doesn't have the badass ring of what is best to Arnold's Conan: "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women."  Ah, good times.

And speaking of the lamentations of the women, have you guys seen Conan the Musical?  If not, you need to.  Check it out!!!

Outlander

Outlander

With a pretty strong internet fan following, Outlander has interested me for the last few years, but I never got around to seeing it. Admittedly, when I saw the preview, I thought it looked a bit hokey, like one of those silly movies you see on the SyFy Network. But no, the internet clamored, it isn't like that at all!! The special effects may not be great, because the budget was so small, but this is a well-acted and well-constructed bit of genre-bending fun. So influenced by these reviews, I finally sat down and excitedly dug in to watch some alien-Viking fun.

You know what? My initial gut feeling was right. Outlander is not good. It's not good at all. Other than some nifty ideas, this movie is a huge dud. Why is this getting so much love???

The idea, at least, is solid. Jim Caviezal (The Passion of the Christ) plays Kainan, an alien who crashes on Earth in the 8th Century, during the time of the Vikings. He didn't crash alone. A monster named the Moorwen was on the ship, as well. A creative-looking creature, the Moorwen is a large, slimy reptilian being that glows red or blue when it is getting ready to attack. The Moorwen is way too powerful for this primitive society, and now the Vikings must team up with Kainan to somehow find a way to hunt the creature down.

The idea is intriguing, a mix of 13th Warrior and Predator. And the cast is promising, including John Hurt (Alien) and Ron Perlman (Hellboy) as rival Viking leaders, Jack Huston (Broadwalk Empire) as a Viking prince and Sophia Myles (Tristan and Isolde) as a tough, sword-wielding princess.

But the cast is pretty much wasted. In fact, I don't even know why Ron Perlman took the part...

SPOILER ALERT! Why do you hire someone as cool as Perlman for such a waste of a role?!? He's in the movie for all of three minutes before his head goes pop. What was the point of casting him?! SPOILER OVER!

Back to the movie. I'm not going to complain about the special effects. They had no budget and did the best they could. They actually have a lot of fun with the glowing Moorwen and mask their limited resources fairly well. Kudos to them. But I can complain about a weak script full of unfulfilled ideas. I can complain about poorly staged action that is confusingly edited (that battle scene between the Viking armies makes no sense). I can complain about the disappointing acting from actors I generally like. I can complain that this movie is held in fairly high regard, which baffles me to no end. And I can definitely complain about losing two hours of my life that would have been better spent playing Borderlands with my buddy or staring at a wall doing nothing. It's all very confusing to me, and annoying. Avoid Outlander.

BEST LINE:

Kainan: "This thing has carved out a territory and you're in it!"

MVP:

Tough call with this cast. Caviezel alternates from being inspired to listless, depending on the scene and what he is asked to do. Hurt does add some prestige to the proceedings, but is mostly wasted. Perlman is pointless. And Sophia Myles probably puts in the best overall performance, but is weighted down by too many lady warrior cliches that just can't be overcome. That leaves me with Jack Huston, grandson of legendary director John Huston. Though just a side character, Jack Huston's Wulfric might actually be the only character who has a true narrative arc. Next in line to the Viking throne, he is equal parts dashing, arrogant, foolish and inspiring. At the film's start, he seems pegged as a bad guy, a stubborn rival to Kainan, and eventually a tasty meal to the Moorwen. But the character shifts at a certain point, as he learns more about the threat facing his village while also learning what it takes to be a leader. The movie unfortunately does not explore this theme, but I could see this sense of dawning comprehension in Huston's face. It's a nice performance and the one that lingers when the movie ends.

TRIVIA:

This is actually cool. Apparently, this is the first movie to actually use the ancient Norse language. This is the alien language that Kainan speaks in the beginning of the film, before his weird eyeball/downloadable translator thing teaches him how to speak English. Director Howard McCain hired an Icelandic professor to translate parts of the script and help the actors speak the language. Caviezal especially gets some props for speaking the language so fluently. But as we've seen in the past, he's good at that sort of thing!