The Hunter (2011)

I remember hearing about "The Hunter" back in 2011. I knew nothing about it at all, except for the fact that it starred Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill. And really, do you need more than that? I know I don't. Sam Neill has been a favorite of mine ever since "Jurassic Park," but once I saw him claw his eyes out of his skull in "Event Horizon" I was a die-hard fan. And Willem Dafoe is just a legend. I would watch a 90 minute film of him eating waffles. I have no idea what in the world you could do what that, but with Dafoe it'd be intense as hell.

So of course "The Hunter" never showed up in any theater that I was aware of, and it kind of just disappeared from my thoughts until recently when I saw it on the wall of my local Blockbuster. Score. That means my choice that night was easy.

After finally getting around to seeing this film, however, I find myself at a bit of a loss. Granted I went into this film without any preconceived notions besides the fact that two actors I really like are in it, but at the same time this wasn't at all what I was expecting. I went in expecting perhaps a thriller, maybe with Dafoe and Neill tracking and hunting each other, which would have been pretty awesome. Instead "The Hunter" is more one man's introspective journey as he rediscovers a bit of his humanity while working to destroy something that is pure, primal and rare - almost a reflection of himself.

So there's not going to be any knife fights between these two, then?

Well, okay I guess. It's not what I was expecting but that doesn't make it bad. And looking at it from an overall impression, I'd say "The Hunter" is an interesting, well crafted film, if a bit light on some crucial character development which ends up hurting the narrative somewhat. But it's still engaging and absolutely well acted, in addition to being very pretty to look at.

Martin (Willem Dafoe) is a mercenary who is hired by a bio-tech company to go to Tasmania and track down and gather the genetic material of the Tasmanian tiger, an animal long thought extinct. However, rumors abound of a lone tiger, and Martin doesn't much care about the creature besides getting a paycheck out of killing it. He poses as a researcher from a university and stays at the house of woman named Lucy (Frances O'Connor) and her children, Sass (Morgana Davies) and Bike (Finn Woodlock).

Sam Neill is Jack, a local man who guides Martin up into the wilderness before leaving him to do his own thing, since Martin doesn't like company, especially when what he's doing would not only get him arrested, but probably lynched by the local environmentalists who are in the midst of protesting all kinds of things. He also looks after Lucy and her family a bit, since her husband went out hunting months ago and never returned.

Martin runs into difficulties pretty quickly including the tiger being a very elusive quarry, no electricity for his equipment back at the house, local jerks smearing his car with poo, and Lucy being hopped up on pills to the point where she can't take care of the kids. It's during the second act that the hunting takes a bit of a back seat and we instead delve deeper into Martin's relationship with Lucy and her family. While initially Martin is respectful but cold and distant, the kids instantly take a liking to him, and eventually the walls start to come down a bit and he starts to grow attached.

"Sass, why does it say "Surrogate Father" over my bedroom door?"

From that point on the main drama of "The Hunter" becomes whether or not Martin is still willing or able to go through with killing the tiger after finding a reason to care. And after some ominous connections are discovered between himself and the missing father, the tiger itself has become less of a creature and more of a symbol for the things in his life that are missing. How can a man be expected to kill that?

As one would expect from an adaptation of a novel into a film, which this is, there is a bunch of symbolism throughout "The Hunter" if you wanted to put your film school pants on and pour yourself a glass of moscato and get all snooty. But that also ends up being the film's biggest handicap - which is that Martin's character is never really fleshed out enough to drive home those pivotal moments of development.

The problem is that Martin doesn't do a whole lot of talking, which makes perfect sense. He's out in the woods by himself for a lot of the film, so he doesn't have anyone to talk to. And Dafoe plays the part incredibly well, but there's not a good gauge on where he is as a character at any particular moment. I'm sure there's plenty of interior monologue in the book which is revealing, but here it's more like a guessing game as to his state of mind.

 

He's thinking of all those bright flowering young men at Khe Sanh, Langdok, and Hill 364. It's going to be a travesty.

This is never more apparent than at the end of the film, when he's forced to make the ultimate choice that the whole story has been leading up to. And when the choice is made it was more confusing as opposed to cathartic as to why he did what he did. Although it makes (some) sense when you think about it, it's still not incredibly satisfying, particularly after the film had dropped a HUGE bomb a little ways into the third act which nearly made the whole affair seem pointless. It's seriously a soul crushing moment, and is a slap in the face for many reasons.

Distracting from all the missing bits of character is the absolutely stunning landscape of Tasmania. There are few places more interesting to look at than Australia, Tasmania, and New Zealand, and "The Hunter" looks on occasion like we've stepped onto some sets from "Lord of The Rings," only it's dark and brooding with far less excitement. But it's beautiful, none the less. And director Daniel Nettheim sure knows where to point the camera.

"Oolroyt then, Meesta Maht'n. This 'ere's the ployce. Beest speetin' cliff in Tasmoynia."

Lastly I'll call out the cast once again for some as usual excellent acting from Dafoe and Neill, although Neill is playing a far more relaxed character than I'm used to seeing him as. It was neat hearing him get to talk with his normal accent, though. Frances O'Connor was heartbreaking and loveable in addition to being really, really hot, and young Morgana Davies was one of the best kid actors I've seen in a while. I'll be on the lookout for her in the future, as I think she's got a solid career ahead of her.

So I didn't get any knife fights between Dafoe and Neill, but I still got something that was fairly competent and reasonably entertaining, if mostly because of the cast. I guess that's a fair use of my time. Is it overly harsh of me to really have wanted that knife fight, though?

The movie is nowhere near as intense as the trailer makes it out to be.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Hunter" is a deliberately paced drama that takes its time to build up tension and suspense, to varying degrees of success. It feels a bit abbreviated in terms of character development, and smacks of typical "The book was better" syndrome. A genuinely horrifying shock in the last act rescues it from being too plodding, at the cost of leaving the audience with something like a hollow feeling by the time the credits roll. But is it bad? No, despite that it's still worth a look.

The Boondock Saints (1999)

One day when I was attending Central Michigan University, way back circa 2002, a friend of mine from down the hall came to my dorm room. In his hand was a burned DVD. He holds it up and asks me, "Dude, Pat, I have this movie called "The Boondock Saints." Ever seen it?" I told him I had not even heard of it. I see a small sparkle appear in his eyes as a smile creeps across his face. He then tells me, "You have got to see it. We're watching it right now." So we did.

I think that's the experience most people had with "The Boondock Saints." After essentially going straight-to-DVD, as the only initial theatrical release it got was on 5 screens for one week, the film garnered a pretty big fan following based entirely on word of mouth. Eventually being a part of that fandom would lead to a somewhat embarrassing predicament as 14 year-olds and Hot Topic kind of ruined it for everyone else by going the "Scarface" route and putting the Saints on everything because it makes whoever is wearing it totally hardcore and gangster. But if we step away from that there's still a pretty good movie to be found underneath all that marketing, teen wangst, black trenchcoats, and people flaunting their 7% Irish heritage by getting Celtic tattoos and wearing a "Boondock Saints" hoodie.

"The Boondock Saints" is about Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy (Norman Reedus) MacManus, two deeply religious Irish brothers who, after running afoul of the Russian mob after an innocent bar fight, decide it is their duty to destroy the evil in Boston by shooting it in the head. Of course they decide it's ordained by God that they do so, which makes it all okay. Using their mob errand boy friend, Rocco (David Della Rocco) as a walking Rolodex of people to kill, they start cleaning up the streets of every high and low level mobster they can get their hands on, all while the Boston police and FBI agent Paul Smecker (Willam Dafoe) play catch up and try to figure out just who in the hell is killing all these criminals.

The hits carried out by the MacManus brothers are always told in flashbacks as Smecker and the cops investigate the crime scenes, attempting to piece together the events that went on. These get more elaborate as the film goes on, leading to the final one which finds the film at its most artsy, showing Smecker actually walking through the shootings, narrating as the scene plays out around him in slow motion like he's not even there. And it really highlights how smart Smecker is, but also how easily he can make mistakes - like 1 guy with 6 guns turning into 6 guys with guns. While it may be a touch too much on occasion, overall I found it to be an interesting narrative device.

Umm...symbolism? Because he was in "Platoon?"

That's not what people remember about "The Boondock Saints," though. What they remember, and rightly so, is how funny it is. While it's true that at its core this is a pretty dark film which explores the nature of killing under the guise of religious righteousness, and does so without giving any clear-cut answers as to whether or not what our heroes are doing is right (although I think the way it's written implies the movie thinks it is), nobody is going to be thinking too much about all that deep stuff when the cast is so damn funny and likeable.

Flanery and Reedus are absolutely charming as the brothers, and have an amazing chemistry with each other. Their boyish jubilance over their new job would be disturbing if they weren't so funny. And as Smecker points out, their action-movie inspired tactics are so ridiculous and unprofessional that the only reason they succeed is because it IS so far out there that it's got a chance. And whether or not you count their survival on luck or divine intervention, you can't help but like these guys. Even if they are crazy.

It's okay. The voices in our heads told us we should do this. (Our heroes!)

I could just go down the cast list and say "They were awesome" to be honest. David Della Rocco is the only person more likable than the MacManus', and is most people's favorite character for a good reason, as he's hysterical. Rocco is one of the best loveable schmuck characters I can remember from recent film history, and he's played with such passion and gusto that whenever he's on screen the film gets this energy that's undeniable.

But to be perfectly honest, I really think it's Willem Dafoe who runs away with this movie. Even from a story standpoint it's just as much Smecker's story as the brother's. We are following him for a good chunk of the movie, sometimes more often than the MacManus', and by the end he's really functioning as the soul of the film. He's smart enough to figure these guys out, and he's probably good enough to stop them if he wanted to, but he has to ask himself if that's what he really wants to do. And being arguably the best actor in the cast, his performance is fiery, humorous, and tortured all at the same time.

Did I mention you get to see Willem Dafoe in drag? It is amazing.

I also love Bob Marley as the resident dunder-head Detective Greenly, and even freaking Ron Jeremy was incredibly memorable. They, along with the rest of the cast turn what could have been a very average crime thriller and turn it into a very, very funny movie. Oddly enough the one guy who isn't funny at all, and in fact is the only character played completely dead serious, is the the most prolific comedic actor of the bunch, Billy Connolly.

Speaking of humor, "The Boondock Saints" is one of the most endlessly quotable films I've ever seen. Unfortunately, much like "The Big Lewbowski," the film is laced with so much profanity that it's difficult to do so in public. But whether it's Greenly assuring his fellow cops that he will do no f@#kin' bagel fetching, or Rocco asking "Is it dead?" there are so many golden lines throughout that the whole film becomes something like a sing-along.

Alright, all together now: "Well, name ONE THING you're gonna need the rope for!" Now stop. That's annoying.

I've heard this film criticized often by people who label it as an immature, unfunny, over-stylized rehash of every vigilante justice movie ever made, and as such is a terrible film. I've never understood the seething hatred this movie brings out of some people. while I understand the argument as to it being unoriginal and low-brow at times. It's just as stylized as any other modern action movie that uses slow-motion on occasion, which doesn't make it bad since the slow-motion is well done, and humor is subjective. I find "The Boondock Saints" to be hilarious, personally, but I can understand someone thinking otherwise. I have a hunch that it's more that they can't stand the fanbase that worships it, which I totally get because I'm not a huge fan of them either. But it's not fair to take it out on the movie.

Some complain about the slow-motion, and there may admittedly be an abuse of it going on, but seeing as it stays consistent in its use it never really bothered me, and it started to become almost another character. Besides, had the fights not been in slow motion they would have taken 7 seconds and been so confusing and hectic it'd be indecipherable. And I'll take clear, easily comprehended slow-motion over confusing shaky-cam any damn day of the week. And that's a fact. Bitch about it all you want, but at least you know what just happened.

Like I said earlier, I really don't understand why this movie has so many detractors unless they're just out to tear apart a cult movie for no other reason other than not liking the audience for it. I guess you could get yourself in a tizzy over the message of vigilantism, but I don't think the movie is taking itself seriously enough to really look at it that closely. It's supposed to be a really fun time. Which it is.

Just looking at Rocco's face makes me smile.

Now as to the long delayed sequel, that's a conversation for another day...

Check out the trailer for "The Boondock Saints." It's awesomely cheesy and belongs in the early 90's!

THE BOTTOM LINE - I love "The Boondock Saints," even though the hip thing for me to do, as a self-stylized amateur critic is to write it off. Everyone else did. But I like what I like, and this movie puts a smile on my face, and if you've never seen it and aren't turned off by prodigious amounts of profanity and some rather dark humor, I'd highly recommend you give it a shot.

John Carter (2012)

Am I the only person who found it impossible to not say John Carter's name like Arnold Schwarzenegger? You know, cause it's really close to "John Conner?" Didn't you ever look at the poster and think "John Conna! Cum wit me if you vant to live!" Or maybe you actually saw the movie and when John Carter gets transported you maybe thought to yourself "Nygaah! Git you ass to Mah's!"

Nobody? Ok then. Disregard that last paragraph.

"John Carter" is of course famous for failing. Along with "Battleship," this film was the first of two huge financial disasters for Disney in 2012. Both of these films had budgets that could have fed a small country for a few months, and both of them tanked like a horse in Skyrim. (/nerdjoke) It's pretty clear why "Battleship" went under, even though I thought it wasn't that bad. I think the main problem was that people couldn't get past the fact that the genesis of it was a board game. It wasn't great, but it wasn't as awful as people made it out to be.

With "John Carter" it was the advertising. This has been a note of record, and I'm pretty sure plenty of people in that department got fired. And rightly so. The trailer for "John Carter" was a big, jumbled mess that didn't tell us anything about the movie we were supposed to be excited about. I thought it looked like it was trying to tackle too many ideas, and I had no idea what anything was or what was going on at all. It was a terrible trailer and advertising campaign. And it was so quietly shuffled out of theaters, head hung low, that I never got a chance to see it.

So I finally got to see "John Carter" and I have to say, I'm really glad I didn't blow $9.50 on it. Had I seen this in theaters I would have been ticked off. Or maybe not ticked off but tired and bored. I didn't give two craps about this movie. And it's not because it was overly bad, which it wasn't, but because it just was so bland and unmemorable. That's a weird thing to say about a movie as admittedly visually stunning as "John Carter" is, but it's true. "Bland" is the only word to describe it, not because there is any notable lack of tradecraft, but because it's just so unbelievably stock.

It's really sad when you can see stuff like this in a movie and say "It's been done."

The story concerns an American Civil War soldier who, through some technology never really explained, is transported to Mars (Oh, I'm sorry. Barsoom. More on THAT later, because THAT didn't get old). Thrust into the middle of a conflict between two countries on the planet, he leads an uprising to stop the war. Or something like that. I know it involves these 4-armed bug type creatures for some reason, and there are these pale dudes who are kind of like gods but not. Oh, and there's a princess.

See, this is what I'm talking about. I saw this movie yesterday and I've already forgotten nearly everything about it. I can't even remember a single character's name besides John Carter, and I only remember him because his name is on the freaking box art. I had no clue what was going on, but at the same time, I knew everything that was about to happen, because the story is so paint-by-numbers.

I know that "A Princess of Mars" by Edgar Rice Burroughs is a classic sci-fi story that has been the inspiration for a lot of films. I've never read it, and nobody I know has ever read it, true, but I'm aware that it exists. The fact that it is a story that other films have lifted heavily from does give it a pass on being derivative. After all, we can't blame an old story for being influential. But that doesn't mean that it will be fresh and exciting when we've seen this story a hundred times before. It will be boring. Like "John Carter" was.

It's a shame, but when a story has been mined so much that nearly everything about it has become a trope or cliche, that's going to be boring as hell and annoying to sit through despite how pretty you make it look. It's not the story's fault, but that's the way it is. Fortunately, Hollywood doesn't do that too much.

OH WAIT.

There were two other things that irked me about "John Carter." Or at least, these were the things in the movie that were memorable enough for me to remember that I didn't like.

The first was the cast. Taylor Kitsch as John Carter was...how to put this nicely...bad. He was bad. Between this and "Battleship" (Headlining two earth-shattering bombs in a row. Ouch.) I'm not sure he's going to have much of a career. And based on his performance as John Carter, which essentially consisted of him squinting and grunting while seeming like he was distracted by the football game on the TV in the next room, I can't say that I'll be too sad to see him go. It's not a good thing when Channing Tatum has more charisma than you do, I'm just saying.

Lynn Collins as the token Princess was also quite irritating. It's not that she did a bad job necessarily (she was better than Taylor Kitsch, anyway) but I can't stand her character. It's that same "I'm a Princess who is tough and strong and totally a strong role model but ugggh I have to run away from everything and get somebody else to fight my battles for me" crap that you always see. Also, she's another one of those chicks with a "kind of" accent. It's kind of there. Enough to where she can't pronounce "John Carter" properly. It's "Jawn Cah-tah." I hate that accent. Oh, and she whispers a lot. Why does every Princess do that? She's like Liv Tyler in "Lord of The Rings." You just want to chapter skip through her scenes.

On the plus side Willem Dafoe is in this movie. That's cool.

Oh wait. You don't see him? That's crap.

The second thing was that the culture of Mars, oh sorry, BARSOOM, is shoved in our faces pretty hardcore. That's not a problem by itself necessarily, after all it lends credibility, but geez give us some time to adjust. You want to know why I don't remember anybody's name? It's because they are all these crazy alien names that are impossible to remember, and many of them sound the same. I swear there was one word that was used to address like 4 different people. It sounded like "Rejjick" or something, and it was really confusing for me because I was thinking that was the name of Willem Dafoe's character, and then all of a sudden that's what they're calling Ciarán Hinds! About halfway though the movie I realized that it must mean "king" or "leader" or "Your Majesty" or something. Could have used that info earlier, guys. Or here's a thought: "Don't do that."

I think that maybe if "John Carter" was a TV series this alien culture could have been more gracefully introduced as to not be so jarring and disorientating, but we are thrown on Mars (oh sorry, BARSOOM) at about the 15 minute mark, and are there until about the last 10 minutes. That's about an hour and a forty five minutes that we are dunked headfirst into this culture with all the subtlety of a freight train. That's not nearly enough time to adjust to the amount of stuff they throw at us.

 For reference, as the credits roll on "John Carter," Gandalf hadn't even fought the Balrog yet in the Director's Cut. And there's two movies left. #doingitright

You know, I just realized something. I can perfectly sum up how confusing "John Carter" is: I don't even know if the people on Mars were originally from Earth. I don't even know if the aliens are aliens. That's pretty bad.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "John Carter" isn't a bad film, but I just didn't care. It was a stupendously boring and confusing cluster of stuff being thrown at me in front of a bunch of pretty CGI. Don't waste your time. Skip it.