Silent Hill (2006)

I'm about to blow all ya'lls damn minds. You ready for this? Secure your butts firmly for the following statement: There do exist in the world good video game movies.

I know, it's crazy to contemplate but they're out there. Much like a field mouse hiding in tall grass from the sight of a circling hawk, they are shy creatures that don't pop their heads out often. Those are the good ones, anyway. The bad ones are like lemmings running off a cliff - numerous and stupid.

After the shellacking Paul W. S. Anderson gave the "Resident Evil" franchise by leaving an upper-decker starring Milla Jovovich in its bathroom, there seemed little to hope for with an adaptation of the other big survival horror video game franchise, "Silent Hill." I mean, what were we supposed to expect? Were we really supposed to believe that a French filmmaker was going to take a heavily cerebral game littered with nightmarish abominations against which there was no hope in fighting and make it into a movie that showcased helplessness and used the darkness in the human soul as the main antagonist in something that was truly terrifying? Why on earth would we think that?

Our expectations for these are at rock bottom because Paul W. S. Anderson thinks Alice needs to Matrix-kick a skinless dog. Because that's what I think of when I think "Resident Evil."

For that reason, I would not be at all surprised if you've never seen "Silent Hill." Trust me, I understand. I thought it looked like crap too. But even at the time it turned out to be a satisfyingly dark, twisted and disturbing film which I liked a good bit, and it's only gotten better over time as more and more video game movies have come out to remind us how rare it is to get one that's barely competent, let alone actually good.

"Silent Hill" is not an average video game adaptation, as there is less of an emphasis on action and more story and atmosphere going on. The few action sequences to be found are essentially made up of the characters running away from whatever is after them, as it's pretty near impossible to combat the more demonic residents of Silent Hill. And that's a perfectly logical choice to have, as it would have made far less sense for any of the characters to perform any kung-fu on Pyramid Head. And naturally, this makes the demons far more scary than a random zombie charging only to get its head blown off in a fountain of black CGI blood. Zombies get taken out all the time. The monsters here can't be. Which sounds scarier? Remember, kids, this is supposed to be a horror film.

Explaining the story of "Silent Hill" is a little bit of a challenge. After all it's based on a Japanese made video game. The stories to those never make any damn sense anyway, although this one is a little less obtuse than, say, your average "Final Fantasy" entry since VII. The main idea is that in a town called "Silent Hill," a horrible thing was done to a little girl by a group of religious fanatics. Because of that, the town burned, and the girl was split (?) into two halves - one containing all her generous amounts of rage (Alessa), and the other containing everything left in Alessa that was good and innocent, Sharon. Now, some 10 years later, the unknowing Sharon is being pulled towards Silent Hill so that Alessa can fulfill her revenge on the fanatics who still live in a kind of limbo in the town, almost like another plane of existence created by Alessa's rage.

Creating another realm of reality with your anger. That's pretty pissed off.

The religious metaphors are all over the place in this movie, so much so that I can't help but assume that most of the film is likely meant to be an allegory such as "Dante's Inferno." The imagery would certainly fit, and I know that there is a lot of symbolism to be found in the games themselves, which fans have speculated on much over the years. I started feeling like maybe the whole thing was a hidden allegory for stillbirth or the death of a child or something. Maybe it's a coincidence that there was a lot having to do with death coming out of someone's body, and maybe it's a coincidence that there's a lot of hospital imagery and even demonic nurses and undead child-monsters. And maybe it's also a coincidence that Radha Mitchell spends the whole movie running around looking for her lost daughter. But I'm not so sure.

Having only played the games for an hour or so (I was unable to get used to the controls), I can't vouch for the accuracy of the translation from game to movie. But from what I've seen of the games, this is probably one of the most accurate adaptations you can find as far as tone and atmosphere goes. The camera is also used in a fashion that is incredibly similar to the games, and it's actually quite noticeable that the filmmakers took great pains to get the little details just right.

Hellooooooo nurse! Wait, no. No "Hello nurse" for those ladies.

The camerawork is really something that deserves mentioning because I've never seen a video game movie pull off the unique look of a game so well. This is so important when it comes to franchises like "Silent Hill" that use the camera to add to the tension, as it blocks points of view on occasion to let us see anything except what's directly ahead. The most obvious shots among those include when Radha Mitchell is first running along the dark streets of Silent Hill after the dark "other world" appears. This whole sequence plays out much like watching someone playing the game, all the way down to Radha's running. It's fantastically well done and really sells the look of the movie.

In addition to the camerawork are some truly horrific gore effects that had me doing a double take and saying "Well, I've never seen THAT done before." And while I've seen gorier films in reality, it's a smart enough movie, and director Christophe Gans is a smart enough filmmaker to know that sometimes subtlety is the more effective path, and leaves some of the more gruesome moments either slightly hidden or cut so quickly that your eye can't absorb it fully, and leaves it more up to your imagination.

But sometimes, you just have to show someone's face in a big close-up as they get burned at the stake in real time.

My favorite segment of the entire film is a sequence that is shot like an old, scratched up 8 mm film. It shows what happened to Alessa as she narrates over it, and it's quiet, artsy, and chilling all at the same time. It's the best highlight to show off how stylistic "Silent Hill" is, how beautiful it can be in it's horror, and how serious it's taking itself as not just a "video game movie," but a film. I guess that's what you get when you hire French directors.

So the story is solid if a bit obfuscated at times, the creature effects are disturbing and effective, the gore is shocking but tasteful, the setting is oddly beautiful, and the suspense is pins-and-needles. The only thing that is left to mention is the cast, populated by some of my favorite actors like Radha Mitchell and Sean Bean, who are both always very good. And my favorite creepy girl Jodelle Ferland plays the parts of Shannon, Alessa and what is essentially the Devil. Jodelle's role is somewhat ironic considering that six years later she'd basically be reprising her role as Alessa when she played the witch in "ParaNorman." That's pretty funny.

How are you so good, Jodelle? You're like, 12 here.

The female driven supporting cast is also quite good. It includes a bunch of actresses I haven't really seen in much else, but I liked them a lot. Laurie Holden's tough cop who helps Radha Mitchell in her quest was a strong physical presence, and has one of the most powerful and disturbing scenes in the film. Deborah Unger was really creepy as Alessa's birth-mother, who is now I guess the crazy cat-lady de jour of Silent Hill.  There was also Tanya Allen as Anna, an ill-fated resident of Silent Hill who is almost innocent in her intolerance and bigotry, and I found her to be oddly cute despite her being filthy and kind of twitchy. And finally we have Alice Krige as the cult leader, a fantastic villain in a town full of demons, somehow managing to be more evil than the thing tearing people's skin off. And it took me forever to realize that she was the Borg Queen in "Star Trek: First Contact." Guess I didn't recognize her with hair.

Seriously. There are things that spit acid out of a hole in their chest, and you're the one who's scaring me.

One of the most interesting aspects that I mentioned before is that the real "villain" in this film is the darkness inside people themselves. Like the aforementioned allegorical aspects of the story, the demons in the town seem to be more like projections of the evil that the townsfolk have crafted themselves, only to have to be unleashed and turned upon them. And as they hide in their sanctuary from the evil they created through their cruelty and fanaticism, it's clear this is a battle they can never win, and they are all lost souls forever trapped in a purgatory of their own making. And Radha Mitchell has to plunge into this Hell to save her daughter and herself, which in itself may be wholly impossible.

It's easy to go into a movie like "Silent Hill" with a lot of skepticism. But this is a deceptively good film when you can get past the fact that it's a video game movie. In the genre it occupies it can hold its head high as an artsy, beautifully disgusting piece of work that does its job admirably. And it was also nice to see a movie based on a game wrap itself up nicely as opposed to leaving it open with an unsatisfying ending just to make sure they can make a half-assed sequel later.

Wait a minute. What's next on my list?

 AW, SON OF A -

Before getting to that mess, check out the trailer for the much better movie.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Silent Hill" may be one of the objectively best video game adaptations ever made. It's moody, it's shocking, it's actually scary, and it even looks like the game it was based on. Don't let the genre scare you off. This is one that I really like.

Top Gun: An IMAX 3D Experience (1986)

Maybe it was all the cocaine going around, but the 80's were pretty sweet. The music rocked, the movies were awesomely cheesy, our TV shows were actually decent, and you only needed to own 3 video games because the average one was so stupid hard that it took until you were 15 to finally beat it. The only thing that was a major misstep was the hair. I personally sported a rat-tail growing up. Nobody ever had the heart to tell me it looked stupid. On the plus side I had an impressive collection of slap bracelets and a sweet dinosaur lunchbox, so my style wasn't a complete wash.

But yes, the movies. Oh the movies were glorious fun back then. And one of the best films of the 80's, and probably the one that better than any other captures the spirit of what movies were like back then, was "Top Gun." It's got everything: Balls-to-the-wall action, fun characters, a synth-heavy soundtrack over montages cut with music video editing, a cheesy predictable romance destined to work because the plot demands it to, the Soviets being villains, and mild to moderate homo-eroticism. This is all classic 80's stuff. And it is freaking awesome.

Unfortunately it also seems to be slowly becoming a product lost in time. I don't meet too many people younger than myself who have even seen it, let alone who are fans of it. Maybe it's just one of those movies that you have to have grown up with to fully appreciate. Actually, I can see somebody who, say, grew up in the 2000's to not "get it" in the same way as many of us children of the 80's do. They've got their own movies they grew up with, which have gotten a lot different since 1986. They may see "Top Gun" as silly and cheesy, or hear a Casio keyboard and immediately become confused since they've never heard one of those things used in any music they listen to.

But we know what's up. Yes, it's true that "Top Gun" may indeed be silly and cheesy, but it's also one of the most manly, macho movies ever made. It's almost like director Tony Scott was able to capture not only the spirit, but the pure essence of the high-five in film format, and seeing it is like a dude's right of passage into manhood. At least it was back in my day. And frankly, if you don't get that, I feel bad for you. It's kind of like beer pong and football. It's just something a dude does.

"Top Gun" revolutionized the conceptual framework of the thumbs up.

It had been a while since I'd last seen "Top Gun," actually. So when a friend let me know that it was being re-released in 3D IMAX, I was all over it. I'm not a fan of 3D, in general, but if there was one movie I'd love to see in 3D, it's "Top Gun." And to my surprise it ended up being the best 3D experience I've ever had. Despite being a conversion nearly 30 years after the fact, this actually looks like it was always intended for 3D. And those are just for random shots. That's not even mentioning the dogfights, which actually made me dizzy in a good way. Add to that the sound that was nearly loud enough to crush the solar plexus, and "Top Gun" really becomes a whole new monster when seen on the big screen, let alone in 3D.

"Top Gun," for those of you who are unaware, is about Lt. Pete "Maverick" Mitchell (Tom Cruise). He's an F-14 pilot who is the prototypical loose-cannon who doesn't play by the rules, and only manages to not get himself killed because he's just that good. After the former #1 pilot in his unit quits after a harrowing encounter with Russian MIGs, Maverick and his co-pilot Goose (Anthony Edwards) are sent in his place to Top Gun, a combat training school for the best of the best.

Once he's there, Maverick makes it a point to show off, as his arrogant nature makes him likely to do. However, it becomes clear pretty quickly that his crap won't fly here (no pun intended), and much of the film is about him finding out just how dangerous he really is to both himself and others, and how little he really knows. In other words, it's a story about a guy getting his head out of his ass. Kind of. Whether or not he learns a whole heck of a lot is up to debate (he doesn't), but that's the idea.

In between all that is a fairly standard and predictable love story with Charlie (Kelly McGillis), one of the instructors at Top Gun. Heaven forbid we have an action movie without a romantic sub-plot. And yes, it's by far the weakest aspect of the film. It takes up about half an hour of screen time before they finally have sex, the movie gets it out of its system, and we move on to what we all came here to see in the first place: fighter jets in our fighter jet movie.

What the balls is this?! I went to this fighter-pilot movie to see awkward flirting!

The flying scenes in "Top Gun" are among the best air combat footage I can think of. The flying scenes are beautiful, with the fighter planes zipping around both desert and ocean. There are some pretty intense dogfights, too, particularly the ending fight as Iceman (Val Kilmer) is forced to survive an entire squadron of MIGs on his tail until Maverick can arrive to help.

The only issue I have with the action in "Top Gun" is that because the camera is typically kept pretty close to the aircraft, occasionally it's a little confusing as to what maneuver was just done. There's not a great sense of position sometimes, and some wider shots and slower editing might have helped out a bit. But I guess that comes from having to actually film something in real life as opposed to creating it in a computer. It's an acceptable tradeoff.

When talking about "Top Gun" it's impossible to not get on the topic of the cast within the first few sentences of the conversation. Those sentences typically contain the words "Goose" "was" and "awesome" within them. And it's true that even though Tom Cruise was made a certified super-star because of this film, oddly enough he's usually the last person to get brought up in the discussion besides someone remarking "I don't like Tom Cruise." And it's easy to see why he's overlooked a bit considering the caliber of the supporting cast.

I can't help but realize, looking back on it now, that Tom Cruise was not that good of an actor back then. He has gotten so much better over the years that it's scary. The action scenes he does fine in but any time he has to romance Kelly McGillis he just comes across as creepy and borderline rapist. What else am I supposed to think when he follows her into the women's room? Charming? That's the character and not him, but I just don't think Cruise sells it. Maybe it's that stupid-ass grin that's permanently attached to his face whenever he has a scene with her.

Dude always looks like he just remembered a really funny joke. Is that a dating strategy? Is that something the ladies like?

I can't blame Tom Cruise too much though. He didn't have much to work with next to Kelly McGillis, who I plain don't like. I've seen more unlikeable blonde love interests in films (re: Willie in "Temple of Doom") but McGillis has the charisma of a bagel slicer. On the plus side she's not a nagging harpy. Or at least when she is one, she has an excuse, being Maverick's teacher and all. When she's busting his chops it's mostly for show, since she can't let it be known she's got a thing for one of her students. (Isn't that creepy when you think about it?)

And then there's Anthony Edwards as Goose. He's one of the best characters from any film in the 80's, and watching again I realize that I'd forgotten how awesome he is. He's such a likable character that you can't help but smile every time he opens his mouth, and when he does open his mouth it's usually the best lines in the film. And as irreverent as he can come across as, he's the anchor that keeps Maverick on the ground, and probably alive. And it's that facade of him being the joker who's always smiling that makes scenes when he's being straight and serious with Maverick that much more dramatic.

"I've been 3 feet away from a MIG this many times."

Goose is also notable for being the only character from an 80's film capable of inspiring more manly "something in my eye" tears than either Littlefoot's Mother or Artax. Every damn time I still get sad. Those of you who've never seen "Top Gun" don't know. But I know everyone else will join me...

This one's for Goose, ya'll.

Even though Val Kilmer didn't want to do "Top Gun," and was forced into it via contract, Iceman is probably the most legendary character from the film after Goose. I love Val Kilmer, and this is one of my favorite performances he's ever given. What's interesting about Iceman is that for the purposes of this film, he's the villain. Or at least, you're meant to be rooting against him so that Maverick can win. But when all is said and done, Iceman is a decent guy, and is probably the better pilot in the sense that between him and Maverick it's a question of smarts vs. improvisation. Iceman is prog-rock and Maverick is jazz. And Maverick my have a certain animal cunning, but Iceman possesses The Ice Chomp.

I still have no idea what this means. But it's awesome.

It would be remiss not to also mention Tom Skerritt and B-movie royalty Michael Ironside as the instructors Viper and Jester. They give a bit of gravity to the zany shenanigans of some of the lighter moments, and some of the weaker acting moments by the young Tom Cruise. And it almost seems to me that Skerritt is slightly miscast, simply because he's too good of an actor for some of the more cliched dialogue they have him say. In particular his speech about what happened to Maverick's father never struck me as well written. And you would think communication would be a strong aspect of this film.

Pictured above - Communication.

So many middle fingers in this film. Oh, and Tim Robbins is Merlin. Not everyone knows that. Good FYI.

So that's the movie. It's a classic, but the best part of the experience, and it is an experience, of seeing "Top Gun" on a big screen was that I was picking out all these things I had never seen before, despite having seen it more times than I can remember. For instance, did you know that Maverick wears cowboy boots? I had no idea until he was standing 30 feet tall in front of me. There's a sense of vertigo and real push and pull with the motion of the aircraft that you just don't get from a normal viewing on your TV screen. It's really like an entirely different film. And while it was an expensive ticket, it was well worth it. Well, mostly worth it. $15 is still too damn much to pay for a movie. I could have bought the DVD twice for that. And I already own it.

Then again, when the lights when down, the Paramount logo came up, and the first peel of the bell signaling the epic-beyond-comprehension opening theme sounded loud enough to shake the seat I'm sitting in, and the words "TOP GUN" appeared as big as a house...I must admit to getting shivers. And that made it kind of worth it. I am a geek.

And I do quote the damn thing all the time. Might as well watch it in IMAX.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Top Gun" may not be the best written film, and Tom Cruise wasn't the actor he is now, and it does hit a snag every damn time the love story gets in the way of our manly fun, but it's still a hell of a movie, one of the defining things of my childhood. It's a feel-good, somewhat cheesy adventure that puts a smile on my face. I love "Top Gun," and seeing it on the big screen was jaw-dropping. They need to do that more often.

Conan the Barbarian (2011)

So I've talked about Conan. The original one, that is. And while my plan was to do "Conan The Destroyer" next, unfortunately for me (or fortunately, depending on how apt you are to get excited over the prospect of watching a PG rated Conan movie) the duel-sided Conan DVD I have which has "The Destroyer" on side B seems to be so utterly ashamed of itself that it refused to play in any player I had. I tried it in 4 different machines capable of playing a movie. Nothing. This thing did not want to admit that it contained "Conan The Destroyer" among its 1's and 0's.

What was I to do? I wanted to watch some Barbarian action, even if it sucked. I was just in that kind of mood. I own "Red Sonja," but I didn't want to jump from the first to the third film. That's just incompatible with my OCD. Besides, that's technically not even a Conan movie, even though it's totally a Conan movie.

Ah, but there's another Conan movie out there, isn't there? It was Blockbuster to the rescue as I headed out to get my fix of the latest installment in the journeys of everyone's favorite monosyllabic Crom devotee. That's right, today we're doing a remake.

The 2011 remake of "Conan The Barbarian" was met with, let's be gentle here, horrible reception. The general consensus was that it was a brainless, soulless, silly affair that faffed about while smearing itself with blood and entrails only to pause randomly to grunt and throw feces at the camera like the uncivilized neanderthal it was. On the plus side it scored better reviews than "Pathfinder." So there's that.

"What? Conan never welded two swords. This movie sucks."

Does it really deserve all that hate? Well, to be honest it's not a very good movie. I'm not going to say that it's something that I'd make a point to own. Maybe if it was part of a package deal or in the $2.99 clearance bin or something I'd consider it. And that's got to be the Blu-Ray for $2.99, not the DVD. It's one of those movies that I'll probably get the strange urge to watch every 5 years, then I'd do so and be set for another half decade. This is not a film that has any special place in my heart.

On the other hand, it wasn't nearly as bad as you'd imagine given all the negativity. Was it silly? Oh yes. Was it stupid? You bet. Was it anywhere near the level of quality as the original film? Not a chance in blue hell. But I have to be honest and admit that I have seen worse sword and sorcery movies, and FAR worse remakes/reboots. That may sound like very scant praise, and perhaps it is, but I thought that the 2011 "Conan The Barbarian" was not without some merit.

Here's the thing. When it comes to what this film is all about, it's very clear what the intention was from the very start. It's about a big hulking shirtless man killing stuff in fountains of blood. After that fact is established, the question must then become "Does it do that well?" And the answer to that is "Yes, it's pretty good at killing stuff in fountains of blood." And Conan is sufficiently shirtless throughout the majority of the film. So there we go. It's not about anything more than big, hairy, swinging...

 Chutzpah.

If you come at it from that perspective it's a perfectly serviceable, bloody distraction for an hour and a half. It's not going to fire up your imagination much or enchant you with the setting like the original did for me, but I look at it the same way I look at something starring Seagal or Dolph Lundgren. I'm in it strictly to see something badass happen. And this movie has Jason Mamoa killing a guy with a catapult. If I want a well written drama staring shirtless Jason Mamoa as a barbarian, I'll watch "Game of Thrones." But for now, I just want to see him kill something.

Not that he isn't a badass in "Game of Thrones," mind you.

Speaking of him, I was excited when Mamoa was announced as the new Conan, and I got pretty much exactly what I both wanted and expected from him. It's no secret that Jason is one of my favorite up-and-coming action movie gods, and there's fantastic intensity in everything he does. His turn as Conan was no different, as we got a guy who is just as physically intimidating as Schwarzenegger was. But whereas Arnold was more silent and stone-faced in his anger, Mamoa is very expressive and animated with his barbarian rage. And while that makes him a much different Conan than we're used to, honestly he's a lot of fun to watch.

I seriously liked this portrayal of Conan, and I don't understand anyone who can't get a charge out of scenes such as when Mamoa drives his huge sword into the back of a foe, twisting the blade with an audible, sickening crunch while staring unblinking into the eyes of his next enemy, promising that this is the fate that awaits him, all with a crazed, toothy grin on his face. Then he pulls out the sword, smears the blood on his face and swears a God-oath that if his enemy runs, he will follow him to the gates of Hell if need be. And then kill him.

Are you not entertained?!

That's what I wanted, and that's what I got. Conan kills a bunch of stuff. That's worth the hour and a half of my time. Now there were issues, which mostly had to do with the plot. This is no intricate web of a story, naturally, but even so there are a number of silly things that didn't make a whole lot of sense, and had the unfortunate side-effect of making the entire production come across as somewhat half-assed.

For starters, the villain's plan centers around a mask that gives him "The Power Over Death." That is pretty much a direct quote. He plans on using it to resurrect his dead Necromancer wife, and of course after that's done, they'll rule the world. Never mind the fact that it seems that his wife was very easily killed before, as she couldn't even save herself from being burned at the stake, so the amount of power she actually has to take over the world is debatable, but I digress. The bigger problem comes from the fact that it's never very clear what exactly the powers of this said mask are, but I can tell you for a fact that it's not nearly as impressive as it sounds.

Once he gets the mask up and running, one would assume he'd be unstoppable. At least I was assuming that since it's what was implied for the entirety of the movie up to the point when he does in fact succeed and obtain this "Power Over Death." But its not like he can just will someone back to life with the mask or become immortal, which is what you would assume would be the case. But no, you need a ceremony and a body and special doowops and all that jazz to bring someone back, and it's not so much "raising from the dead" as it is "possessing someone with the soul of that dead person." The mask's role just seems to be to allowing the ceremony to work. There's nothing that it actually does. It's like a key to a car - it allows the car to drive, but it's not doing much more than just sitting there. And as far as immortality goes, I assure you that he can be killed even with the mask on. Quite easily, actually.

On the plus side, at least the villains look dignified.

You see what I'm getting at? If you're going to make the villain scary due to an object that grants power, make the powers that the object grants actually scary. Make it so he can't be killed while he wears it. Make it so he can resurrect the dead with his mind. Make it so he's conjuring skeletons from the ground or something. Anything but what they did, which was nothing. In fact, he was more scary and intimidating in the movie before he got the mask fully functional. Like that one time he fought Conan in melee combat and won? He and his witch daughter were pulling out all kinds of crazy magical stuff during that fight and straight up kicked Conan's ass. Then at the end he gets this "Ultimate Power" and he's got nothing? What a crock.

You know, maybe they were going for the whole hubris angle, but somehow I doubt that's what was going on. I just think they didn't define their terms well enough, which made the whole point of the villain's plan seem questionable and confusing. And even though Stephen Lang as the villain was actually pretty fun since he was hamming it up to cosmic levels, he just wasn't a good baddie for Conan to take on. Particularly when compared to the original, with James Earl Jones' quiet dignity and actual power - something Lang possessed neither of.

There's also the issue of Conan's friends and followers being thrown at us with literally no introduction, seemingly with the expectation that we've known these guys for years and are deeply familiar with them and their backstories. This is untrue. I have no idea who these people are, and it's confusing and really tends to make me not care about any of them. On the other hand, Subotai and The Wizard and even Valeria in the original had just about as much depth. So they got me on that one. Plus the cast of good guys is honestly just a tiny bit better in the remake, I'm going to be honest.

Oh, and the original didn't have Ron Perlman as Conan's father. The remake one upped it there.

The strange thing is that out of all of the things that could have bugged me about the 2011 "Conan The Barbarian," it was the damn boat. That damn boat was the most awkward and confusing crap I've ever seen. Okay, okay, okay. What is the damn boat, you might be asking? I'll tell you what the damn boat is.

So Stephan Lang's got an army right? They're traveling around, bopping from place to place, getting all the things he needs to make the mask work. In this cadre of men and supplies are a bunch of elephants. Elephants to carry heavy things. Well, all the elephants are carrying just one heavy thing. Can you guess what this one heavy thing may be?

It's the damn boat.

Why is he carrying a boat across the land? It appears all he is doing is using it for a portable house. That's all he does: Sleep in it. I get the idea that he's a powerful warlord and decadence and all that good stuff, but do you really need a damn boat? That seems awfully overcomplicated. And the minute I saw it I said to myself "They had better use that to cross an ocean or have a battle on it or something." Well guess what? Never does that damn boat even touch the water in this movie. I don't even think it gets rained on. No action takes place on it. The only scenes that happen on the boat are conversations between Stephan Lang and his daughter. Conversations that could have occurred literally ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD BESIDES ON A DAMN BOAT.

Godamn it, that pissed me off.

Check out the trailer for the remake of "Conan The Barbarian." Avoid if you dislike fade in/outs.

THE BOTTOM LINE - The remake of "Conan The Barbarian" is not the horror show you may have heard, but it's critical that you don't expect too much out of it. I mean, it IS directed by the guy who did the "Friday the 13th" reboot. Expectations should be adjusted accordingly. The first twenty minutes with Conan as a child are really solid, and are the best part of the movie. Once Jason Momoa shows up it goes downhill pretty quick. It's not his fault, or anybody else in this movie's fault. They just didn't have much to work with. But hey, a lot of stuff dies. If that's all you need, you could do worse. At least it's rated R. (coughConanTheDestroyercough)

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!

Bullet To The Head (2013)

Oh I wanted "Bullet To The Head" to be good. You have no idea, guys. Well maybe you do. At least anybody who knows me will be able to make a pretty good guess as to my feelings towards another Stallone action flick. It's kind of like the Harlem Globetrotters taking on the Washington Generals. There's a pretty good chance that's only going one way. The Generals will lose, and I'm going to be pumped over a new Sylvester Stallone movie. It's just the way the world works.

And imagine my surprise upon discovering the added bonus that not only was Christian Slater going to be in it, but it also featured Jason Momoma as the main villain. Are you telling me that not only am I going to get to see Christian Slater in something not direct to DVD, but I'm also getting Khal Drogo out of the deal? How can this not be awesome?

The answer to that is not a simple one, but no matter how complicated or in depth I go into the fine details, there's really only one conclusion that will inevitably be arrived at: "Bullet To The Head" was not very good. In fact, I'm going to go right ahead and admit that as much as I wanted to like it, and as much as I checked my brain at the door, it actually sucked pretty bad. I can't tell you how sad that makes me.

Umm...symbolism?

In "Bullet To The Head" Stallone plays a hitman, Jimmy Bobo. Jimmy is also currently in the running for "Worst Action Hero Name Ever." After the standard "hit gone bad" happens and his partner gets killed, Bobo finds himself reluctantly working with a cop, Detective Kwon (Sung Kang). Kwon feels that there's a connection between the hit and the seemingly random killing, and after some crooked cops try and kill him, he's pretty sure there's more going on than what initially seems to be the case.

So what is going on? Crooked politicians. Crooked cops. Double crosses. Kidnapping of loved ones. Not playing by the books anymore. It's the standard load-out of standard action movie plots heavily featuring vendettas. Not that there's anything wrong with all that, mind you. But that stuff can be done well and it can be done poorly. "Bullet To The Head" does it poorly. The "why" is a little tougher to put my finger on, but I think in the end it all boils down to the unfortunate fact that it's just a boring movie.

Despite what the title of the movie would suggest, "Bullet To The Head" does not feature very much action. Or at least, not nearly as much as one would hope for or expect. There's a few too many scenes of Bobo and Kwon driving around town, having conversations about how much they don't like each other. Then they stop, Bobo gets out and does something rash, Kwon has a conniption-fit about how he's going to arrest him after all this is done, and then Bobo verbally subdues Kwon until he meekly gets back in the car. And I have to be honest, for an Asian person in an action flick, Kwon really doesn't do much of anything that awesome during the action scenes. That may be a stereotype, but you know I'm not lying when I say you would have been expecting it, too.

 "You just know he's gonna do something and it's gonna be good..."

This isn't one of Stallone's better roles, either. Jimmy Bobo is a character very much harkening back to the 80's, being a tough, wise-cracking ass kicker with an odd quirk (in this case being obsessed with a particular brand of whiskey nobody has ever heard of). But for some reason I just didn't feel anything towards him. It's not that Stallone is bad, in fact he's got a couple moments that are pretty solid, but Stallone's trademark low-key delivery doesn't work very well here.

What Stallone needed was some intensity, but Bobo never gets that mad about anything. Or at least he doesn't outwardly show it. He acts like he really doesn't care that much. And when the movie is as boring as it is, that doesn't help the audience care much either. I know Stallone can rage. I've seen him do it before. At least that would have been more entertaining since it would have given the impression he was having some fun. But as it is, Stallone's performance comes across more like a reluctant paycheck. The pointless, meandering voice-overs he has that pop up every once in a while to tell us crap we either already know or don't care about doesn't help matters much, either.

Don't do it, Sly! That's a really nice vest! I don't want to see it get ruined! It's giving the best performance in this scene!

The rest of the cast just kind of exists. Sung Kang as Kwon is kind of a mincing killjoy. Christian Slater shows up for a few scenes, acts drunk and then gets shot. I don't feel bad ruining that because the trailer did everything but show the bullet enter his brain. Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje chews scenery as the main baddy de jour, but it's difficult to be intimidated by a guy who has to use arm crutches to get around. Dude can barely move and we're supposed to be scared of him? Please.

The only guy in "Bullet To The Head" who looks like he's having fun, and indeed the only reason to watch this piece of crap is Jason Momoa. The amount of awesome contained in Momoa can't be measured on a human scale, and he's quickly becoming one of my favorite action guys. He turns in a performance which is the only thing you'll remember about this. The scowling intensity that's hiding behind those cold eyes is the sole bit of momentum carrying "Bullet To The Head" through to the end credits. I'm not going to say it's worth sitting through the 90 minutes that this movie takes up, but whenever he's on screen I can't deny that he's entertaining as hell.

Whenever he's not on screen, though...ugh.

In addition to being the only guy there who gives a rip, Jason Momoa also is featured in the best scene in the film - an axe fight between him and Stallone. The shear manliness emanating from that scene is enough to produce some excitement, but it's too little too late to save much of anything, and like the rest of the action in "Bullet To The Head," it's filmed so shakily and edited so choppy that it's pretty difficult to tell what in the blazes is going on.

Perhaps that's for the best, since I'm pretty sure any kind of clear view of the fight would most likely reveal that there's no possible way that Stallone could take out Jason Momoa nowadays. I don't care how post-steroid lumpy Stallone is. Even if Momoa's character was an accountant who'd never held a weapon in his life, I'd still put money on him in a fight. And here he's a Spec Ops Mercenary Killing Machine.

Sure, Sly. Pick up that axe and fight him without editing to save you. Let me know how that goes.

I'm actually having trouble remembering much more than that, to be honest. I saw this movie two days ago and I've already forgot most everything about it. Yeah, it's one of those movies. Bobo likes "Two Bullets Whiskey," Christian Slater gets shot, and there's an awesome axe fight at the end. Where the wrong guy wins. Whatever. I'm done. At least Arnold got a good movie in this year with "The Last Stand." And I tell you, "The Tomb" better be awesome, otherwise Stallone will be 0-2 for 2013. And that thought makes me sad.

This is something you'd see going direct to video. There's no possible reason this was a theatrical release besides the fact that it was Sylvester Stallone. It looks cheap, what little action it has is shaky and hard to follow, the plot is cliche to the point of boredom, and everyone but Jason Momoa simply looks like they don't care. This is something you'd see Van Damme or Nicolas Cage in. Not one of their good direct-to-video releases, either. One of the bad ones. More like something Ving Rhames or Val Kilmer would star in nowadays. Maybe even Seagal. Yeah, it's that bad.

Check out the trailer. It's not nearly as cool as it seems here, unfortunately.

THE BOTTOM LINE - A big disappointment. I've got mad love for Sly but this one hurt. When it's not simply boring it's simply dull as the action isn't good enough nor plentiful enough to warrant sitting through this forgettable mess. The only way I can recommend you watch it is to fast forward through any part without Jason Momoa. Then you've got a neat little 30 minute movie.

End of Watch (2012)

Not being a huge fan of either cop movies nor Jake Gyllenhaal, "End of Watch" was not something I was expecting to enjoy in any large capacity. There are often issues that arise with the standard cop drama that I find to be aggravating to my particular tastes. Most noteworthy of those issues is the fact I rarely understand anything that the characters are saying due to the indecipherable "cop speak" and phonebooks full of characters mentioned only once by name, all rattled off in rapid-fire succession in a scene of dense exposition, after which we're expected to have memorized each and every one of them. It works for some, but not myself. I'm just not a huge mark for the cop drama.

Imagine my surprise, then, when "End of Watch" not only wound up being an intensely enjoyable experience, but also wound up being one of the better films I saw from 2012. In fact, had I actually seen it in 2012, it very well might have made an appearance near the back half of my Top 10 of the year list. It would have been a tough decision, but "End of Watch" had the potential to replace "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" in the number 10 slot, as bad as I would feel not including it. In any case, "End of Watch" would have at least made an honorable mention.

But that's not to say that "End of Watch" was enjoyable in the same way "The Hobbit" was. Where "The Hobbit" was a fun time full of wonderment and adventure, "End of Watch" was an intense blast of violence and fear that looks at the underbelly of the dark side of humanity and the near nightmarish existence of those who have to deal with it every day with a light the intensity of an atomic explosion. It is brutally uncompromising, unrelentingly intense, and heartrendingly humanizing.

Guess you have to laugh or go crazy in this job.

"End of Watch" follows two LAPD cops, Brian (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Mike (Michael Peña) through their daily routine of being police officers in one of the most dangerous beats in America. Once they run afoul of a powerful drug cartel, they find themselves marked men on the streets, and the danger seems to increase on a daily basis until a climatic and stunning final confrontation.

This is all told from the viewpoint of Brian and anyone else holding a camera, since "End of Watch" is technically a "found footage" movie. This is both effective and detrimental to the film, for reasons I'll get into later, but for now let's talk about why it works so well for this story.

The main reason this works so well is for the same reason any decent found footage movie works well: it puts us in the mindset of the characters. When Brian is running down a dark alleyway in the middle of the night, the flashlight on the end of his gun the only source of illumination as he chases after a huge gang member, it's almost like a horror movie. And it's not hard to feel just a bit of how scared that cop must be. This is especially so after seeing that the huge gang member had a few minutes prior stabbed another cop in the eye and has currently absconded with another female officer to do who knows what to her.

Violence has a tendency to erupt at the drop of a hat. There's no telling whether or not that person they stop is going to calmly go along with the process, or if they're going to pull out a gun and start shooting. Either case is just as likely. And as we follow Brian and Mike through their daily routine, it's easy to get jumpy whenever they so much as talk to anyone. It got to the point that I would get nervous whenever Brian or Mike were being polite and relaxed with people because I suspected that something bad could happen, and they wouldn't be ready for it.

Michael Peña is currently pointing a gun at that guy. You'd be doing the same. Just in case.

In addition, the film also shows the gang members causing most of the trouble as they do their thing, and later as they plot Brian and Mike's demise. This is the only bit of story outside of the main character's point of view that we get, which means that we aren't as in the dark as we would be during a normal found footage film, which both eliminates the need for clunky or overly convenient exposition and also elevates the tension since we know what's coming. But at the same time this also brings to harsh light the biggest issue with the film, and the one hurdle that the audience will need to overcome to not be irritated.

This issue is always the biggest one for any found footage movie, and it is always a question consisting of two parts: Who is filming this, and why to do they continue to do it?

Brian is filming his daily routine as part of a class he's taking. In addition to a handheld video camera, he has a small one that he clips on to his shirt (which also gets incredible hi-def picture, picks up every sound despite nobody wearing a microphone, and has amazing storage capacity), so that makes sense. Most of the time he's using the handheld one, but whenever there's action going on it switches to the shirt camera, which has more of a first-person view. That all makes sense. Of course that's putting aside the legality of Brian openly filming all of this police procedure, which I'm not entirely sure of.

But here's where it gets kind of stupid. Why are the gangsters filming this stuff? I suppose I could see someone filming the occasion as they pile into a van and perform a drive-by shooting of a rival gang, but why would they still be filming during the shooting itself? Wouldn't their hands be kind of full? Why would the rival gang be conveniently filming a seemingly random, trivial conversation at that very moment the other gang drove by and shot them up? Why would they continue to film as bullets started flying? Why would the person being shot at just stand there out in the open, making sure the van with Mexicans firing AK-47s out of it was nicely in frame? Why would they shove a camera in the face of their fallen comrade screaming "Ey yo, B, you okay?! You okay, B?!" instead of actually helping them?

And if this is the kind of thing that jumps out at you, "End of Watch" also has a very strange thing going on that I like to call the "God Camera." Every once in a while the movie will reach a point where there's simply no possible way that they could justify anybody holding a camera for any reason, even for a found footage movie. Either everybody has a gun in their hand, or everybody there is all dead. Or both. So at that point, instead of getting either creative or insultingly stupid with it, the filmmakers seem to have simply decided "screw it" and had a camera just THERE, like you would see in any normal movie. While this does make the action more coherent, I had to ask two questions: "Who is filming this now?" and "If we're going to switch like that, why have the rest of it be found footage in the first place?"

Seriously. Who the hell is filming this shot?

If this is the kind of thing that bugs you, then "End of Watch" might be a little irritating. But despite that little unfortunate side effect of found footage movies, this movie was still an experience that knocked my socks off. The characters all felt so incredibly real, and Michael Peña in particular was simply stunning, but the entire cast deserves a lot of credit. And it's really important in a found footage movie that the acting be top notch naturalistic, or it's simply not going to work at all. By the time "End of Watch" was over, and the shocking ending hit me in the face before leaving with a seemingly random but oddly poignant final scene, there wasn't a moment where I hadn't bought these characters completely.

It may not do anything overly unique with the story, what with the shades-of-grey characters of both police and criminals who are mostly portrayed not as "good vs. evil" but simply as people caught in a savage, unforgiving world and doing what they can to survive. But how many variations on a police story can you really have anyway? What's important is how well it tells the story, and "End of Watch" tells its story extremely well. And it tells it while being intense and tragic as hell.

Check out the trailer for "End of Watch" (NSFW)

THE BOTTOM LINE - "End of Watch" is a gritty, intense, and dark film that doesn't pull too many punches with the violence or how real it comes across. Apart from some irritation with the point of view and how exactly we're seeing all this, it's one of the most powerful films that I've seen from 2012. Michael Peña should probably be up for some awards for it. Seriously, you should check this one out, guys, because it's really freaking good.