Black Death

Black Death

Well, it is October again, which means I am returning to the wonderful world of horror films for a few weeks!  First on the list is the recent Black Death, a low budget horror film that came out of England last year.  The film never really found an audience here in the United States, though I am willing to bet that a wide theatrical release with a real marketing campaign would have helped.  It is a pity no studio got behind Black Death, but it is actually really quite good.

In the 1340s, the plague has descended over England, sweeping across the countryside and eventually killing 1/3 to 1/2 of the total population.  But there is one village out in the marshes that is unaffected by the plague.  No one knows why the village has been spared, but there are rumors of witchcraft and devil worship.  A group of religious warriors led by Ulric (Sean Bean, Lord of the Rings) is sent by the local bishop to investigate, guided by a young monk named Osmond (Eddie Redmayne, The Other Boleyn Girl).

First, let's talk about what's good.  I love the look of this movie.  I don't think I have seen the Middles Ages look quite so bleak and real.  Black Death does a fantastic job of depicting the bubonic plague, really showing how desperate and horrifying it was, and how it drove much of the country into paranoia and savagery.  I was impressed with this bleak setting, and would have liked to have seen even more of it.  I also really like the cast, which is uniformly great, and also includes Carice van Houten (Black Book) as Langiva, the leader of the village (and possibly a witch), Tim McInnerny (Black Adder), and a nice cameo from David Warner (Tron).

What I also like about the film is that while it is simple in story structure, there is actually a lot happening under the surface.  Now in the 21st Century, I don't think we can comprehend something as devastating as the Black Death.  Think about this - literally half the people you know dead all within the last year.  How would you react?  What would you think?  How paranoid would you be?  What if you're next?  Would such devastation drive you to religion or away from it?  These are questions that this movie asks by showing us how the warriors and the villagers react to the trying times.  Sometimes we feel like the villagers are right, sometimes we find ourselves agreeing with the warriors.  And this is probably the film's greatest strength, how it is adeptly shifts our sympathies from one side to the other, leaving us unsure of who to trust and who to root for.  It is a cleverly conceived by director Christopher Jones and writer Dario Poloni.

And I will be honest, I always preferred this style of horror film, which is more about atmosphere and the slow build, to the hack and slasher genres that most people watch today.  I would take a good Hammer Film over a Friday 13th movie any day of the week.  Black Death isn't even really scary at all, but it is eerie and unsettling, and probably has more of an impact as a result.

There are a few problems with the film, the biggest of which is an over-reliance on shaky cam.  I am tired of directors thinking that handheld cameras means the film will be more artsy.  Just hold the camera steady so I can see what's happening!!! The shaky cam (or what I call earthquake cam) gets annoying in the first third and then all but ruins the one major battle scene in the movie.  Thankfully, once Ulric and company arrive at the village, the camera work settles down a bit.

I also have some problems with the ending.  The climax bounces from some brilliant moments (most involving the kickass Sean Bean) and some highly questionable moments.  Then we are left with a coda, which while thematically is related, just seems tacked on for no other reason than to depress us.

But overall, this is a rock solid film with some great performances and atmosphere.  You should check it out!

BEST LINE:  
It's all in his delivery, but I like it when Wulfstan explains to the naive Osmond that: "A necromancer...is one who plucks the dead from the cold earth...and breaths new life into them."

MVP:
As much as I like Sean Bean, (and he does deliver the single coolest moment of the movie), I have to give the MVP to John Lynch, who plays the warrior Wulfstan.  Wulfstan was easily my favorite character.  Everyone else in the motley crew of warriors are either greedy, bloodthirsty, way too fanatical or full of wimpy angst. Wulfstan is a fighter, but he is a good man, probably the best man in the movie.  And as the crew traveled through the plague ravaged countryside and the bandit riddled forest, it was his fate that I was most concerned about.  Maybe that is a failing of the movie since I should have been more worried about Osmond and Ulric, but I prefer to view it as a testament to John Lynch's accessible performance.  Plus, he looks a bit like Scott Bakula in battle armor.  And that's kinda cool.

TRIVIA: 
Lena Headey (who also played Sean Bean's nemesis on Game of Thrones) was set to play Langiva, but was replaced by van Houten.

Monte Walsh (2003)

Monte Walsh

Obligation fulfilled!  As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, I promised my mother I would review the trio of Westerns Tom Selleck made for TNT in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  The result was a bit mixed.  Last Stand at Saber River really wasn't that great, though it certainly had its moments, while Crossfire Trail was much better, though still not a classic.  But what these Westerns revealed to me was that the genre is not dead.  The films were well-reviewed and performed quite well in the ratings, and proved that if you put some work into it, people still love a good ol' fashioned Western, especially if you put someone like Tom Selleck in the saddle.

And now we have the third and final film in the trio: Monte Walsh.  Monte Walsh is a cowboy at the turn of the century, but times are changing.  Civilization is coming to the Wild West.  Railroads are now the primary method of traveling.  More and more of the open range is being fenced in by corporations every year.  It is clear that the age of the cowboy is ending.  Will Monte Walsh be able to change with the times, or just end up as a dinosaur in a world of automobiles and Wild West Circuses?

At first, I was a bit disappointed by this movie because not much happens and it is depressing.  Maybe too bleak.  But as I settled into it, I realized this was unlike any other Western I've seen.  This isn't about everything you would expect a Western to be about.  This isn't even about 'progress' and 'civilization,' which we've seen in dozens of Westerns.  Monte Walsh is about how 'progress' affects those who lived and thrived in the earlier world.  Cowboys don't know how to do anything except cowboy.  But given that times are a'changing, there is no work.  A few of the best like Monte find work on a ranch, but most of these former giants of the range are reduced to wandering the horizon, endlessly looking for any sort of job.  This is a bleak, bleak movie and really shows what people can be reduced to in tough economic times, whether it is in the 1890s or today.  And as the film finished, I had to tip my hat to a production well done and to a point well made about the passing of an age, and all the coolness we lost when those days ended.

Monte Walsh is well directed by Simon Wincer, who also directed Crossfire Trail, as well as the classic TV miniseries Lonesome Dove.  His skilled hand at Westerns is clear, giving the movie a cinematic quality.  The cast is superb, with Tom Selleck ably supported by pros like Isabella Rosselini (Blue Velvet), Keith Carradine (Last Stand at Saber River), George Eads (CSI), William Devane (Payback), John Michael Higgins (Best in Show), as well as a great cast of character actors who put in great work.

The film isn't perfect.  I was a fan of George Eads' Shorty character, for example, but don't really like the way his storyline plays out. I understand why it happens, but I feel it all happens much too quickly to be believable.  You'll know what I mean when you see it.  I don't want to spoil anything.

But other than that, I found myself watching a minor classic.  I think Selleck should get back on the horse before he gets too old and make a few more of these.  He's one of the last actors we have who can convincingly be a real cowboy.

BEST LINE: 
Monte Walsh to a horse he is about to try and break in: "When we get through, all you're gonna want to do is take a nap, sit on the porch, and wait for all the mares to come calling."

MVP:
The MVP award goes to Isabella Rosselini, who plays Martine, a European stuck in the rundown Western town and Monte's true love.  Martine really is not a deep character on paper.  She basically just sits around, waiting for Monte to show up and then graciously understands when he leaves, which is kind of lame.  But something about Rosselini's performance brings true dimensionality to her.  She's not just a cardboard cutout, a stereotypical "suffering wife" of Hollywood who is accepting of her man's oddities because that is what the script demands.  Rosselini's Martine is an understanding woman because she knows she has no choice.  Monte is going to go wandering off to Canada no matter what.  But she is stuck in this dreary world, in which Monte is the only bright spot.  It's no wonder she lights up whenever he shows up.  But the pain of that decision is clear in her eyes.  It is subtle and beautiful work.  Add to this the fact that Rosselini's natural charisma and sensuality makes her more alive and sexy at 61 than most of the plastic babes half her age in movies today, and you have a clear MVP winner.  Go Isabella Rosselini!

TRIVIA:
Based on a book by Jack Schaffer, the guy who wrote the classic book, Shane.  (P.S. I review the movie of Shane right here.)

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!