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!!!

Morning Glory (2010)

Morning Glory

So somewhere in Morning Glory is a good movie, an entertaining comedy about a dying morning TV show called "Daybreak," which is last in the ratings and desperate for attention.  The two hosts of the show, Colleen Peck (Diane Keaton) and Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford) hate each other, and the hyperactive new producer Becky Fuller (Rachel McAdams) is frantically trying to keep the castle from crumbling.  I saw that movie, and I thought it was pretty good and gave me some good belly laughs.  Unfortunately, that movie is only about fifteen minutes long and is buried inside the real Morning Glory, which is a big ol' bust.

I'm not sure where to start.  I suppose the first problem is that Morning Glory makes the hyperactive producer the focus of the story.  This type of character is funny as support, but as a main character, the anxiousness gets old, and fast.  And that is doubly disappointing because the producer is played by Rachel McAdams.  For those of you who don't know me, I am a big McAdams fan: her luminous presence stole the show in Wedding Crashers, she propelled Red Eye into a genuine suspenseful winner, and she even made The Notebook watchable!  But she is misused here, and the movie's cardinal sin is that they found a way to make McAdams unlikable.  She is over anxious, talks way too much and way too fast and is constantly running around around like a headless chicken.  Characters in the film are annoyed by her spunk, and I think audiences were, too.  I know I was.  The movie is then further burdened by a gratuitous romance for Becky, a cliched subplot that adds nothing to the story and just drags on the movie like an anchor.

Why the romantic subplot is even in the film is beyond me.  It's certainly not the relationship that director Roger Michell (Notting Hill) is interested in.  He is more concerned with Becky's struggles with Pomeroy, a grumpy news anchor who cares more about hard journalism than the frothy junk morning shows often churn out.  This is a bit more interesting, and does provide some nice moments for McAdams and Ford.  But it still feels emotionally tacked on.  And it is certainly not where the fun is.

The fun is in those broadcasts.  Colleen Peck is game and willing to do anything to get the ratings up, whether it is kissing frogs or fighting someone in a sumo wrestler costume.  She hates the arrogant Pomeroy who takes everything so seriously.  At a certain point, they just stop the pretense and start openly insulting each other on the air - all while smiling professionally for the cameras.  This is fantastic stuff, and Harrison Ford and Diane Keaton play wonderfully off each other.  This is where the movie should have focused.  That would have been one great romantic comedy.

Instead, Keaton is wasted.  She is given some good material in the first half and then just disappears as an afterthought in the second half of the film.  That an actress of her talent and stature is relegated to an afterthought is deeply annoying to me.  Keaton isn't alone.  Patrick Wilson is wasted.  Jeff Goldblum is wasted.  When it comes down to it, even Harrison Ford and Rachel McAdams are wasted.  The whole movie is a missed opportunity and that is a big bummer for me.  This could have been, should have been terrific.

MVP: I guess I will give it to Harrison Ford.  People have generally ragged on Ford's comedies, and with movies like Six Days, Seven Nights, I can understand why.  But I think that has more to do with his choices as opposed to his ability.  Ford is a solid comedian, with a good sense of timing and a great growl.  When a joke works in Morning Glory, it is generally because Ford is involved somehow.  Granted, he was given the opportunity to shine, while the script pushes Keaton out of the spotlight, but I don't think that should take away from his performance.  For one thing, his deadpan reactions to the insanity happening on 'Daybreak' are priceless.  He deserves the MVP for those double takes alone!

TRIVIA: Don Roy King, plays the director of "Daybreak," and Robert Caminiti, who plays the assistant director, are the real director and assistant director on Saturday Night Live.  I thought that was kind of nifty.

BEST LINE: Mike Pomeroy: "I won't say the word, 'fluffy.'"

Last Stand at Saber River

Last Stand on Saber River

When his big screen career began to flounder in the 1990s with movies like Mr. Baseball and the underrated Quigley Down Under, Tom Selleck returned in television, a domain he once dominated as Magnum P.I.  He's made several TV films since then, but I would argue that his most memorable were a series of Westerns, including Crossfire Trail and Monte Walsh.  The first of these Westerns was Last Stand at Saber River, based on a book by Elmore Leonard and featuring a solid cast with Selleck, Suzy Amis (Titanic), David Carradine (Kill Bill), Keith Carradine (Nashville), Harry Carey, Jr. (The Searchers), and a very young Haley Joel Osment (The Sixth Sense).

Paul Cable (Selleck) returns home from the Civil War to a world that thought him long dead.  If he was hoping to return home to a blissful family life, he was sadly mistaken.  His wife, Martha (Amis) resents him for leaving and is extremely bitter from having lost her baby to fever - all her pent-up anger is thrown in Cable's direction.  To make matters worse, Cable's family ranch is overrun by the Kidston family, including sensible Vern (Keith Carradine), the belligerent Duane (David Carradine) and refined Lorraine (Tracey Needham).  As if all this wasn't annoying enough, Confederate sympathizer Edward Janroe (David Dukes) is smuggling new and fancy rifles to the Confederacy and keeps hassling Cable to help him.

This all sounds like an interesting premise, but the film never lives up to its potential.  Unlike Crossfire Trail (reviewed here), Saber River never really feels like anything other than a little TV movie, with blah blah writing and blah blah directing and for the most part even blah blah acting.  Nothing is really developed as it should be.  The Kidstons are set up to be interesting antagonists - Vern isn't bad - he's just trying to run a business, and Duane is just a little crazy in the head.  But we hardly get to see Vern and Duane; instead we are treated to a random subplot about Lorraine trying to seduce Cable, a story thread that is dead on arrival and just a waste of time and logic.  And Edward Janroe is such an annoying and unlikable character that I'm surprised he wasn't shot in the first 5 minutes.  Ugh.

And I was surprised by the end - minor spoilers here - even though Cable has been shot in the gut during the climactic fight, he and his wife share their feelings and reconcile.  I'm fine with that.  But then Martha makes some subtle comment about the bedroom and the two walk into the house as the film fades to black, I assume for some makeup sex.  Didn't he get shot?!?!?  Why aren't you going to a doctor??!??!?!

Sigh.  Anyway.  So does the film get anything right?  Of course, it does.  Though most of the acting isn't that great, we do have a small collection of good performances in here, with Selleck leading the pack.  He may not be Wayne or Eastwood, but he makes for a great cowboy.  I also enjoyed Amis and both Carradines, especially David.  I also like how the film handles the Civil War.  Westerns are full of former Confederate heroes who now get a second chance at those 'Yankee bastards.'  I rarely see it other way around and I'm not sure why that is.  At first, I thought that was where Last Stand at Saber River was going, especially since Duane is a former Union officer.  But that is not what happens.  Part of Cable's guilt is not that he lost years away from his family because of the war; it's that he sacrificed so much for nothing because deep down, he knows he was fighting on the wrong side.  And the script and Selleck's performance is very subtle on this point.  It's intriguingly done.

But that's not a reason to see a whole movie.  If you love Tom Selleck or Westerns, then check it out.  For everyone else, I would definitely avoid it.

MVP:
Even though he is hardly in the movie, I have to say David Carradine.  He makes an impression in a very small amount of screen time.  Duane Kidston is an interesting character.  Drummed out of the Union army, he is still obsessed with it - he always wears his uniform and even grows a beard that resembles Ulysses S. Grant's famous facial hair.  Supposedly, he is sadistic, but his bark is really worse than his bite.  They could have done so much more with this character and with Carradine.  It is one of the film's biggest wasted opportunities. But I'll still give him MVP for his potential...

BEST LINE:
Cable: "I know one thing, I don't wanna live with a woman who don't like me.  Think on it."

Chocolate (2008)

Chocolate

What the heck did I just watch?  And why am I so happy about it??  I think Chocolate is probably a good litmus test for the action genre.  How much of an action fan are you, truly?  Can you forgive bad acting and confusing plotting if the action itself is good?  Because Chocolate will test you - oh, it will test you...

I will say this, the beginning of the movie makes no sense.  Minor spoilers here, so be warned.  In what is supposed to be a prologue, but feels like it lasts an eternity, Chocolate begins with two star-crossed lovers - the lovers being a Japanese gangster and a Thai gangster, who I think is also the lover of the Thai mob boss (though they never tell us that).  When the Thai mob boss discovers the affair, he drives to the Japanese territory, shoots up all the henchmen and then instead of shooting the lover he shoots himself in the foot, gives the lover a "let that be a lesson to you" scowl, and then leaves.  Why the hell did he shoot himself in the foot?  Was he trying to be metaphorical?

The prologue's stupidity continues, the Japanese gangster returns to his homeland and the Thai woman gives birth to Zen, an autistic little girl who does nothing but eat M&Ms and watch kung fu all day.  But here is where the movie gets interesting.  The mom gets cancer and Zen decides to visit mom's old gangster pals and get some money for her medical expenses.  They of course refuse.  And Zen, whose autism has allowed her to learn the kung fu she has seen on TV (naturally) starts kicking ass.

And WOW, does she kick ass.  JeeJa Yanin is a true discovery.  She may not win any Oscars, but her acting is certainly acceptable, and when given permission to open a can of whupass, she brings the most charisma I've seen on screen in a long, long time.  She isn't just technically good at the moves, but she also inserts her character into the kicks and punches.

The film was directed by Prachya Pinkaew, who also directed Tony Jaa's breakthrough hit, Ong Bak.  He has tried to be more artistic in his storytelling this time around, especially with the dreamlike beginning, but I have to say he failed pretty spectacularly at that.  But here is the question that I put to you, and the reason why Chocolate is such a good litmus test.  Does it matter?  Do you care that the bad guy's motivations make no sense?  Does it matter that we never really understand why the Thai gang includes a special hit squad of bad ass drag queens?

Generally, I don't care how good the action is.  If a movie stinks, it stinks.  End of story.  But there is always a line, a boundary where the action is so good, that I don't care about anything else.  For me, Chocolate crossed the line into blissful kickassery.  I don't care about the story or anything else.  I just saw a henchmen get kicked off a roof by an autistic 15-year old girl and watched as he plummeted four stories and hit the ground.  And I can't wait to see it again!

MVP: 
JeeJa Yanin.  There is no doubt.  She may not be an technically proficient or as daring as Tony Jaa, but she is oodles of more charisma.  I could watch her fight all day!

TRIVIA: 
A few critics complained that a few fights were ripoffs of famous Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee bouts.  This was actually on purpose (as if Yanin screeching like Lee in that one fight wasn't proof enough).   The original plan was to split screen this fights, and show the Chan and Lee fights on the left side while Yanin fought on the right side - just so we could see how perfectly she was mimicking their technique.  It's a neat idea, and would have reinforced how she learned to fight from TV, but unfortunately the producers couldn't afford the licensing fees.  Bummer.

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!

Ten Commandments

Ten Commandments

What is the first movie you remember? For my generation, it was probably something like Star Wars, Willy Wonka, or one of the Disney cartoons. Is it weird that the first movie I remember is Ten Commandments? This probably explains my love of epics from a very early age, and also my tendency to be, err, over-dramatic from time to time. But seriously, my earliest cinematic memories are of this film and its epic grandeur. But I had not seen the film in at least 15 years, so when the Blu Ray arrived, I was a bit worried. Even in my memory, I could look back and see how cheesy the movie was in some places, how ridiculous, and over-the-top. I was a bit worried about confirming all that when I re-watched the movie, and potentially ruining a childhood memory.

Having now watched it again, I can confirm that The Ten Commandments is indeed cheesy, ridiculous, and over-the-top. And yet, in spite of that - or maybe because of it - The Ten Commandments works. It is actually deserving of both its reputations, as one of cinema's greatest epics, and also has one of the greatest cheesy films ever. It is rare that the film succeeds at both so brilliantly.

For those who don't know the story: In Ancient Egypt, omens alert the priests that a prophet is coming who would someday free the Hebrew slaves of Goshen. Taking no chances, Pharoah orders all the Jewish newborns killed. One mother rescues her own son by setting him in a basket on the Nile, hoping he will float to safety. Fate brings his basket to the palace, where he is picked up by Pharoah's daughter (Nina Foch, Spartacus), who is conveniently infertile and decides to raise the baby as her own, naming him Moses. Moses (played as an adult by Charlton Heston from Ben Hur) is brought up as an Egyptian prince and even becomes a rival to Pharoah's son, Rameses (Yul Brynner, The King and I). He is certainly favored by the current Pharoah (Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Suspicion) and his ward Nefertiri (Anne Baxter, All About Eve), who likes to over-dramatically swoon whenever Moses' name is mentioned.

Of course, Moses discovers his true heritage and this leads him on his path to becoming the spokesman of God, leading him to confront the Egyptians for his people's freedom and acting as the conduit for all sorts of miracles, including the awe-inspiring parting of the Red Sea.

Named as one of AFI's Top Ten Epics, The Ten Commandments certainly lives up to the word. Everything about this movie is Big, with a capital B. The sets are expansive, the costumes glorious, the music score by Elmer Bernstein is massive, and there are over 10,000 extras in the film. Yeah, you read that right. 10,000! Like all epics, the running time is a bit on the long side, as well, but I think it is a testament to DeMille's direction that the film never really feels slow. He keeps things moving at a lively pace, especially in the first half.

When talking about what makes The Ten Commandments entertaining, you also can't underestimate the cheese factor. The cheese is just as epic as the rest of the movie. The most hilarious example for me is in the physical acting. DeMille instructed his actors to not act naturally, but to be very theatrical. And I am assuming he ordered them all to pose constantly. It is incredible to watch almost every line reading in the film accompanied by arms being crossed, an arching of the back, or a foot dramatically lifting onto a step. This would make a wonderful drinking game!

Even the piety is The Ten Commandments is cheesy. Most religious epics bog down when religion enters the picture - those scenes always become overly talky and deadly serious - perhaps because filmmakers were worried about upsetting parents. A good example of this is The Robe, which moves along at a good pace until Richard Burton sneaks into the woods and watches a church gathering that seems to go for seventeen hours. Then St. Peter joins the group and proceeds to give a speech that I think is about as long as the Bible itself. In contrast, the piety of The Ten Commandments is more of the over-the-top variety - when Moses parts the Red Sea, an old man yells, "God opens the sea with a blast of his nostrils!"

In fairness, not all the religious stuff is silly. Some of it is indeed serious, but DeMille keeps these moments focused, character-driven, and not overly preachy - which I think is a big reason why The Ten Commandments is still watched by everyone, while films like The Robe and Quo Vadis are only seen by fans of the genre. There is also a more subtle religious thread in the film - I got the impression that both Moses and Rameses are atheists in the beginning. There seems to be a bit of cynicism when faith is mentioned and a lot of lines include something like, "if there is a God." Most intriguing and ironic to me is that later in the film, it is the strength of Moses' newfound faith that eventually pushes Rameses to start believing in his own gods. That's interesting material, and deeper than I would have expected.

Not to say The Ten Commandments doesn't have its problems. Despite the fact that all the memorable scenes are in the second half of the film, I feel this is when the movie begins to break down, narratively. The first half is terrific, focusing on Moses' years as an Egyptian prince. As I mentioned before, the pace is smooth and moves along briskly, leading all the way to when Moses finds the Burning Bush. 

Then we have intermission. And then I'm not sure what happens. I think DeMille loses interest in showing a story. Instead, he fills in narrative gaps with badly written narration, that he delivers himself in flowery and over-the-top language. DeMille may be a fine director, but he should not be narrating. The bouncing around certainly hurts the all important confrontations between Moses and Pharaoh - Brynner and Heston exchange their lines with powerful gusto, but the plot at this point leaves me with so many questions that I am distracted from their awesome fury. There are some basic common sense questions: Why do the Egyptians keep letting this guy just waltz into the palace? Aren't there guards? After continuously embarrassing Pharaoh in front of his court and his son, don't you think they would stop letting him in? The most egregious example of this is when Pharaoh enters part of his palace to perform a religious rite and Moses is already in there, waiting for him, posing melodramatically. How the heck did he get there?!

The problem is there is no narrative flow. We just bounce from iconic moment to iconic moment to iconic moment. While these scenes in of themselves work really well, it kills the storyline. And having DeMille bridging the gap by saying, "and then Moses went up the mountain and the people freaked out and decided to build a golden calf" doesn't work. That's not drama. That's a Sunday School lecture.

What salvages the second half is the Epicness. The costumes, the cast of thousands, and especially the committed performances by a great cast all see us through the spotty storytelling and carry us triumphantly to the end.

All in all, The Ten Commandments may not be perfect, but my childhood memories are not damaged in the least. I now notice all the flaws in the film, but I also recognize what makes it great. I would recommend you revisit it. You will laugh because of the cheese, but you'll also be impressed by the sheer Epicness of it all. It is definitely one of the classics.

BEST LINE:

At some point, said by almost everyone in the film: "So let it be written. So let it be done."

MVP:

I know it should be DeMille or Heston, but I can't help it - Yul Brynner is my MVP. Even as a kid, I was amazed by the performance. He is a superb villain - cocky, powerful, devious. Most importantly, he never gets blown off the screen by Heston's righteous fury, which can be overwhelming. Rameses vs. Moses needs to be a confrontation of titans, two stubborn and powerful men who will not yield. That is where the drama comes from, and if Rameses had been any weaker, the film would not have worked.

There are also other reasons why Brynner gets the win. He does the best job of handling the hammy lines, for one thing. Every actor has at least one line that they can't save despite their best efforts (the best example being Baxter's "Moses, Moses, you stubborn, splendid, adorable fool!"). Since he needs to be petty and conniving, Brynner is saddled with a dozen of these lines and each one comes out believable and awesome. It's only later that you notice that, "hey, wait a minute, that doesn't sound right!" Combine that with the fact that Brynner also gets many of the movie's best lines, plus an excellent character arc that Brynner nails, and some of the movie's best costumes, and you have a clear MVP.

I know everyone points to The King and I or The Magnificent Seven as Brynner's best work, but they should revisit his role here - he really is one of epic cinema's awesome bad guys.

OSCARS: Best Special Effects

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Editing, Best Sound Recording.

TRIVIA:

Oh, where to begin? This movie is full of interesting trivia. I think a cool one might be that Audrey Hepburn almost played Nefertiri, but some studio exec thought she was too skinny for the part. I think this actually worked out for the best. I love Hepburn, but I think she probably would have played the role straight and Nefertiri needs to have a little crazy hamminess to her - something Baxter had a lot of fun with. I suppose the other problem would be that if Moses had rejected a Nefertiri played by the luminous Hepburn, the audience would have never forgiven him - making Moses the bad guy in his own movie!!! That's my two cents...

Crossfire Trail

Crossfire Trail

It might be time to give up in defeat. The Western is dead on movie screens. There was a time when dozens of Westerns came out every year, a time when every major actor had to have his turn at the genre. The Western was in many ways America's quintessential genre - no one else had them. It was our history, our West, our legends. For whatever reason, people stopped caring and Westerns stopped making money. Oh, there have been attempts over the years to get the genre moving again, but I can count the attempts on my two hands. In the last decade, I think only 3:10 to Yuma really did much business, though that is probably only because it starred Russell Crowe and a post-Batman Christian Bale.

Here's the strange thing. I do think there is still an audience for Westerns out there, despite what the studios think. And the network TNT apparently agreed as they pumped some real cash into making a series of highly acclaimed and well-received Westerns with Tom Selleck, Monte Walsh, Last Stand at Sabre River, and Crossfire Trail, which was my mom's favorite of the bunch. And I'll be honest - that is why I am reviewing Crossfire Trail first!

Based on a book by Louis L'amour, Crossfire Trail is the story of Rafe Covington (Tom Selleck) who promises a dying friend, Charles Rodney, that he will watch over his ranch and his wife back in Wyoming. As soon as he arrives at the ranch, it becomes clear that something hinky is going on. The ranch is abandoned, and everyone in town believes that Charles Rodney had died over a year earlier in a Sioux ambush. Seeing as how Charles died in Rafe's arms, on a boat off the coast of San Francisco, this all sounds mighty suspicious. After this intriguing initial setup, we then move over to a well-worn Western plot about the innocent widow (Virginia Madsen, Sideways), the ruthless gunslinger (Brad Johnson, Always) and the evil businessman (Mark Harmon, NCIS) who wants his hands on the valuable ranch.

Crossfire Trail proves that in capable hands - in this case, director Simon Wincer (Lonesome Dove) and star Selleck - even an oft-told story can still be entertaining when well executed. But sometimes it just gets to be a bit too much. Madsen is terrific as the widow Anne, but her budding romance with Rafe is not believable and only exists because that is what the plot demands. And the villains are just too cliche and one-sided, which is an special pity for Mark Harmon, a gifted actor who just can't save how his character is written. There are a few other minor complaints I have, including some cheesy moments involving other townspeople that just don't ring true - mostly characters again behaving not as they should, but in the way the plot demands. I also have to throw a special complaint to the makeup department because they saddled Wilford Brimley (Cocoon) with a huge wig that turns him into a rifle-firing combination of David Crosby and Santa Claus.

But that is getting the bad out of the way. There is a lot of good in the film. While the villains don't quite work, but Rafe's trio of allies, played by Brimley, Christian Kane (Leverage), and David O'Hara (Braveheart), are an entertaining bunch. And director Wincer has a good eye for the West and Crossfire Trail feels real and lived in. And he accomplishes the most important personal thing for me in Westerns - he gives me a good gunfight at the end!

And then there is Selleck. An underrated actor who unfortunately never hit the big time in feature films, Selleck might be one of the few performers who can pull off an old school Western tough guy today. He is very much acting in the mold of John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Randolph Scott, and if he is not as iconic as those actors, he is still rides and shoots with the best of them. He looks like he was born in the saddle. The western genre lifestyle suits him.

There is something else I like about Rafe and the way Selleck plays him. They ignore one of those "cardinal rules" of film school. Film school drives home the lesson that major characters need to have a story arc, they need to learn something or else why would anyone want to watch the movie? I generally agree with that statement, but sometimes these character arcs can hurt a movie when they are forced upon a character who doesn't need change. Do you think Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name had to learn anything or have any sort of wishy-washy personal awakening? Of course not, and if Sergio Leone had included that gibberish, then he would have ruined his amazing westerns (such as The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly). Like the Man with No Name, Rafe Covington doesn't need to learn anything. He knows who he is and what he can do. More importantly, the audience knows who he is and what he can do. And we don't want to see him learn anything. We just want him to go to town and kick some butt.

Overall, Crossfire Fire is an entertaining, old fashioned Western. It breaks no new ground, but then again, it doesn't really want to. And with Selleck leading the way, it is pretty entertaining. And given the film's success on TV, it should make the big studios wonder if there is an audience for Westerns after all.

MVP:

Tom Selleck, clearly. He may not ride as tall as the giants (Wayne, Eastwood, etc.), but he might be the closest and most believable Western actor we have today. And he carries this film through its rough patches and makes me want to watch his other TNT westerns.

I want to give a quick special honorable to Barry Corbin who plays the town's corrupt sheriff - he has the probably the funniest moment in the entire movie, during the final shootout. Granted, this is more of a MVP moment, but I think its worth mentioning.

BEST LINE:

Rock Mullanny: A Frenchman, a German, and an Irishman all walk into a bar. Each of them order a bottle of whiskey with a fly in each one. The Frenchman says, "Mon dieu, I cannot drink this!" So he gives it back. The German picks out the fly and drinks the whiskey anyway. The Irishman grabs the fly by the throat and says, "Spit it out! Spit it out!!"