Conan the Barbarian (1982)

After the disappointment I've suffered at the hands of recent action movies, I felt a need to go back and reconnect with something that was real. Something that was pure. Something that was almost innocent in its primal brutality. Of course I'm talking about Schwarzenegger. And this right here is the movie that put him on the map. 1982's "Conan the Barbarian" was the first hit of Arnold's career, although why "Hercules in New York" posters weren't on the wall of every kid in America in the late 70's I have no idea.

"Conan" is a fun movie, and when you're a nerd like me, there's something about it and movies like it that tend to spark something in the imagination. It doesn't matter that the story is as simple as pointing, grunting, and thrusting both swords and biceps at the screen. That's not why we signed on, although we appreciate the carnage. No, the reason we love it (or at least the reason I do) is because it transports us to another realm in a matter of fact, unflashy manner that doesn't draw too much attention to the fact that it's a fantasy world. It just is.

As much as I love stuff like "Lord of The Rings," there was some pretty out-there stuff, what with horses made from water and spirits of the dead overthrowing a battle in a ridiculous deus ex machina. With "Conan" it was down to earth to the point of being downright gritty, and while there was magic in this world it was much more subtle. The characters seemed more vulnerable, so the fighting had more dramatic impact. The fighting was also far more brutal, which also helps.

Ow.

Yes, it's unlikely that anybody is going to lay a hand on somebody the size of Schwarzenegger, but he actually gets his ass handed to him on a couple of occasions by the bad guys. This is mostly because, being a barbarian, he does some stupid things occasionally. For that reason it's easy to imagine him not being able to defeat Thulsa Doom. And keep in mind, Arnold was not a walking action movie cliche at this point, either. He could conceivably lose, since he's lost before. Can you really tell me with a straight face you ever had the slightest doubt that Aragorn wasn't going to be just fine? And I'm sure we all believed that Gandalf was really gone when he feel down the chasm of Khazad-Dûm.

And unlike Conan, Frodo never got crucified.

What strikes me about "Conan the Barbarian" upon watching it again was that I am amazed how effectively this movie conveys the story, simplistic as it may be, with barely any dialogue at all from our main character. They may sound like a slam but it's not. It's no secret that Arnold is not the best dramatic actor on his best days, especially in the beginning when he was still figuring out that whole "speaking English" thing. But you know what? Arnold is actually really good in this movie.

I'm not joking when I say that. He doesn't utter a single line until over 20 minutes into the film. And before those first lines (the legendary "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women") he had been lashed to a giant wheel for a decade, became a famous gladiator, and a mighty warrior. And all this without a line of dialogue from him. And through his facial expressions, Arnold is able to convey both the rage and emptiness he feels in all these hollow victories that give him no closure or peace.

Despite the break-neck pace of the narrative, which covers a very long time very quickly, I still have a firm grasp on who these people are, what they want, and what they're doing. True, it may be done so quickly and with so little dialogue that it may come off as clumsy at times, but it's still done effectively. I also get the feeling that most of the clumsiness may come from the fact that "Conan" was so influential that now it seems cliche.

(Funny caption unnecessary)

I think what makes "Conan" still hold up on its own is, again, the brutal violence it shows. This is some hard-hitting stuff going on, as we would rightly expect from a movie with the subtitle "The Barbarian." People are getting significantly destroyed here, and it's all done with practical effects and stunt-work. There's no CGI blood going on here, and while that may make it look less flashy, it makes it far more gritty, which is a huge plus.

There are a few other things I'd like to mention. The first is the absolutely phenomenal musical score by Basil Poledouris. Few things can match the power and epic testosterone-laden BALLS of the legendary opening theme to this film. It's among the greatest fantasy movie themes of all time, and I'm including "Star Wars" and "Lord of The Rings" here. If there were a soundtrack to wielding a sword as big as your leg, that's the one.

That or DragonForce.

I'm also a big fan of the cinematography in "Conan The Barbarian." Nearly every shot in this film is like looking at the front of a fantasy novel, or maybe an Amon Amarth album cover. Conan crucified to the Tree of Woe, the giant snake in the temple, Thulsa Doom addressing his disciples from the top of his palace, and young Conan's face as his mother's lifeless body falls at his side, her hand slipping from his grasp, all of these moments are just a few of the dozens upon dozens of gorgeous ones to be found here.

And as much as I remarked on the lack of dialogue from our main character, he and the rest of the cast have some very awesome lines when they open their mouths, and that's from the very beginning as Mako's famous booming narration promises to tell us of the days of high adventure. Many of the best lines come from James Earl Jones, which is not a surprise since he and Max von Sydow are the two most venerable actors in the movie, and unsurprisingly do the best job out of anyone there.

Jones' role as Thulsa Doom is chilling apart from an extremely unfortunate haircut. When he's explaining the Riddle of Steel to Conan (one of the best scenes in the movie, by the way) there's an inherent menace in his voice that makes it so he doesn't really have to do anything to make you afraid of him. His voice does all the work for him, especially when he's saying things like "Now they will learn why they fear the night."

Not enough villains have bangs.

Of course I'm always going to prefer Arnold's lines. And I know the thought of Arnold having a monologue is horrifying to most people, but the prayer he gives right before the big battle near the end is honestly very, very, very good. In any case, nearly every line Arnold has in this movie is an instant classic, and like many 80's Schwarzenegger films, it's endlessly quotable.

I can't be the only one who will randomly say "Crom laughs at your four winds!" to people in a heavy Austrian accent, can I?

There's not much negative I can say about this movie, actually. Yes, it does look a bit dated, and some of the acting, particularly from Sandahl Bergman as Conan's love interest Valeria, could have been better, but that really just adds to the charm of it. And besides, this movie featured among its cast a professional surfer (Gerry Lopez) and a body builder who barely spoke English in the lead role. You're not expecting Brando-level acting here. You really just need a couple heavy hitters to give some dignity to the proceedings and you're good to go, hence the presence of Jones and von Sydow. Although why the spirit of Valeria comes back as a Valkyrie at the end to help Conan I have no idea, since it's never foreshadowed, followed up on, nor explained in any way. That was weird.

Did someone slip you a Phoenix Down? Do ghosts always have the ability to fight in this world? What the hell is going on here?

So that's "Conan The Barbarian." It's one of the better sword and sorcery films out there, especially from the 80's. In fact it basically helped create the whole genre, and many films came after it which directly ripped it off, which unfortunately makes it seem a bit cliched after the fact. But it did what it did better than pretty much any of the movies that it inspired, which isn't difficult since most of those movies sucked really bad. For every "Beastmaster" there was about 27 movies like "Beastmaster 2" or anything starring Miles O'Keefe. Then again, those movies did provide us with fodder for one of the best MST3K episodes ever, "The Cave Dwellers." So add that to the list of reasons why "Conan The Barbarian" is awesome: It got ripped off a lot.

It also indirectly gave us Reb Brown! What? You never saw "Yor?"

Do you doubt the badassery of "Conan?" Check out the trailer!

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Conan The Barbarian" is a fun movie that holds up even though it does show its age at this point. For nerds and geeks though, this is one of the definitive fantasy movies, and it plays out much like one of the many games of high adventure we enjoy. I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a good action flick. THAT is Crom! Strong on his mountain!

Poltergeist (1982)

It's time to dust off a classic to give it another shot. I'd seen "Poltergeist" years before, and my reaction to it was rather lukewarm at best. So while once again finding absolutely nothing at the video store I was interested in seeing, I bopped on down to the horror section to find something I maybe had missed (unlikely), and "Poltergeist" caught my eye.

"Hey," I said to myself "I should watch that again. Maybe I just didn't appreciate it before. Maybe this time I'll like it, because I should like it, right? It's a classic."

Now believe it or not, there is precedent for this. The first time I saw "The Exorcist," I wasn't too impressed with the scariness of it, although I thought it was a good movie. On a second viewing a few months later, however, I found it to be almost unbearably frightening. I also enjoyed "Let The Right One In" far more on a second viewing as well, so it is possible for me to do a 180 on a film. On the other hand, I've also given second chances to "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "The Deer Hunter,"  among other classics, and I still hate those films. Sometimes I just plain don't like a movie, I guess.

So long story short, I still don't like "Poltergeist" that much. And it still wasn't scary, although the potential was there. On second viewing, I think I can determine that one of the big reasons I don't like it is because I'm not sure that "Poltergeist" knows what kind of movie it wants to be.

Ok, this scare is pretty good. I'll admit that...

Sure enough, it starts off really good. The opening scene is simply chilling and creepy as all hell, with the little girl, Carol Anne, coming downstairs in the middle of the night to talk to the spirits in the TV that only she can hear. I'm not going to lie, that scene sent shivers down my back. That's some messed up stuff.

Not too long after that, however, the movie really starts losing me because I felt like none of the characters are taking this seriously. It's almost like they're in a comedy or something with how nonchalant they are about things at times. The mother, Diane, played by the absolutely terrible JoBeth Williams, is of particular fault for this. "Oh yeah, our daughter got sucked into the TV and is being held captive by a thing called The Beast, but that doesn't mean I, as her mother, have to freak out about it."

After Carol Anne disappears, Diane really doesn't display too much terror or anguish or even willingness to do ANYTHING to get her back, at least not to the point where it becomes believable. And while that may be the fault of JoBeth's wretched acting, I also have to blame the script and its priorities in display real human emotion. I mean, I know plenty of mothers. Several of my best friends are mothers. The amount of fear that can result from something like a kid taking a bad spill is enough to set your average mother near the point of a stroke. That's not an indictment, that's just life. BE TRAUMATIZED ABOUT YOUR MISSING DAUGHTER.

Kevin Bacon IS JoBeth Williams as Sally Field in "Sybil 2: The Reckoning"

There are also comedic beats which, for me, utterly kill the mood of the film. Of particular note is a scene where Craig T. Nelson and JoBeth Williams try to ask their neighbors if they've seen anything strange going on. The amount of stammering and restarting of sentences in this scene is enough to make Bob Newhart say "Get on with it." I think it's supposed to be funny, but I honestly can't tell. They just set a pail next to that premise and milked it for all it was worth.

So basically yeah, I don't like the characters, mostly because I never connected with them because I never got the feeling that the actors ever knew exactly how their character was supposed to be feeling, and the emotions just jump all over the place from scene to scene to the point where it's really distracting. One moment they're terrified, and the next scene taking place not 5 minutes in movie time later, they're sitting back, having a drink and chuckling. It's not a very well paced film.

Speaking of pacing, another big thing that bugged me is that it feels like some scenes were misplaced. There are big set-pieces in the first act that in any other movie would usually be saved for the end. And while that does imply greater things to come, in the end it's kind of a let down.

For example, about 30 minutes into the movie, there's the scene where the son gets attacked by the tree out in their yard, which tries to eat him. He is snatched from near death by Craig T. Nelson (off camera, by the way), and the whole time I'm thinking that it's a scene belonging at the climax, for two reasons.

Tree tried to eat the kid. And NO ONE SPEAKS OF IT EVER.

First is the fact that everything after a TREE TRYING TO EAT YOU is pretty small potatoes. The famous scene with the clown doll is saved for the obligatory "4th Act" that "Alien" made mandatory for horror films, and while it is a pretty well done scene...come on. It's a doll. You can't top "Man-Eating Tree" with "clown doll." There is no possible reason that those scenes shouldn't have been switched.

The second reason is that after a TREE TRYING TO EAT YOU, why in the name of all that is holy would you stay in the house? Carol Anne's abduction happens at the same time as the tree attack, when everyone else is helping the son, but at the very least, GET YOUR REMAINING CHILD OUT. There's no reason for the son to stay. None at all. But there he remains for a good chunk of the film. For me, that just helped to highlight the fact that I never just the feeling that these people really knew what they were doing, and it was really distracting.

AND LEAVE THE DAMN HOUSE ALREADY!!!! THERE'S NO REASON FOR A 4TH ACT!!!

I also never understood the concept of "The Light," and what that was all about. The keep going back and forth between yelling at Carol Anne to stay away from the light and telling her to run towards it. I could tell that there was a very good reason that they were doing this, but since the movie never explains it to us, that whole dramatic tension is completely wasted.

Also, if you're going to enter another plain of existence...show it to us. The biggest cop-out of the film is the fact the we never see where they went when they entered the spirit world. I was expecting that dimension in "The Real Ghostbusters" where they kept all the spirits they captured with their proton packs! That would have been sweet.

I think the most disappointing thing though, more than anything else, is that I felt feeling that had I been the one writing the script, I could made it WAY more scary. And that's not some ambiguous statement. There were scenes in "Poltergeist" that while watching, I started to get on the edge of my seat in anticipation of something truly scary happening, because I saw it coming. Yet these scenes never did happen the way I thought they would. Every time I would say to myself, "Oh man, if they go where I think they're about to go, that's going to be wicked messed up." But it never happened.

Me? I could have made this movie SIIIIIIIIIIIICK. And it would have rocked.

Oh, but look who I found in a little cameo role! Check it out! Billy is digging a hole! Now he's got to find a way out of it!

Anyone who got that joke is AWESOME.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Poltergeist" is probably one of those movies that you had to be there for back in '82. Maybe then it would have been more effective. It defiantly has Spielberg's grubby hands all over it, which makes sense since he wrote and produced it (and reportedly all but directed it, too, instead of Toby Hooper), and for that reason there are plenty of striking visual moments, particularly a very effective scene with Craig T. Nelson outside a cemetery. However, the cheesiness of Spielberg taints what could have been a really terrifying film. It's a movie everyone should see, since it's important to the horror genre, but it's far from the best out there. I would actually recommend Tobe Hooper's masterpiece, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" over "Poltergeist" for something truly disturbing.