Conan vs. Fright Night vs. The '80's

2.5 HELL YEAH's out of 5

This weekend I had a double feature of Conan and Fright Night. Since both of these movies are remakes or re imaginings of the originals I thought I would wait to see the originals on TV first. I was right and they both were played during the week running up to the weekend releases. For as dated as both movies are the originals were actually pretty good.

Now on to the new one.
I'm writing both of these reviews together because both actually failed in the same areas.

First, you really need to either stick with the original concept to the "T" or really diverge from the original. Conan did the best at diverging from the original. Where as Fright Night tried but ultimately was a poor rehash of the original.

I'll start with Conan since I just left the theater and it's still fresh. When I saw the preview for Conan some 6 or 7 months ago with Jason Mammoa at Conan, my first thought was, "this is going to be crap". We'll it wasn't crap but is wasn't Conan either. To be fair there are versions of Conan where he isn't just a blood thirsty barbarian...but this is what the film is called. Conan the Barbarian. In other book versions he is a pirate, a captain, a general, warrior, thief, etc...A real jack of all trades. From the very beginning this film was very "10,000 BC". I didn't care for that film or Mammoa. This Conan has a feel good streak in it and it completely contrasts with what I believe a Conan film should be. Ron Pearlman plays Conan's father and is giving a speech about how the Cimmerian's are warrior's and when they feel heat, it's the fire in their blood during battle, and when they feel cold it's the cold of their steel , etc...but still there is this underlining "feel good kindness" that just doesn't belong. In the original you don't really have a sense of where Conan was from but that's OK. because that was irrelevant at the time. What it did right was transform an abducted boy into a "barbarian" fighter, who learned the ways of the sword through necessity for survival.

Conan from 2011 is CGI ridden and in 3D which I saw in 2D and glad didn't spend more money for the 3D version. the '80's Conan effects were a bit dated BUT you felt the story more strongly. Today's Conan feels more like a cartoon, or some "Hercules" TV series spinoff. Mammoa plays Conan with a snarl and raised eyebrows with a rough growl in his voice but really never delivers. His physique is fine but not what one thinks about as "Conan". he's tall and muscular but NOT the biggest dog on the block, which is what one views Conan as in the books. Both Conan films never get the eyes right. I would love to see someone do a Conan movie where they get the black hair and blue eyes. This is a signature Cimmerian trait, that to me set's them apart from others in the the world.

The acting in the film was pretty weak, however Rose McGowan seemed to be pretty good. Other than that it felt like a SyFy tv movie as far as acting was concerned. What this film could have learned from the original is less is more. Less dialogue would have improved this film greatly. More focus on back story would have moved this film forward, instead it's just a bunch of edits and fights clipped together. Overall this was still an entertaining film for what it was. Would I see it again in theater...no, but I would watch it on free TV. unfortunately there are scenes that will ensure this film never sees the TV screens on network or cable. Again, advantage original Conan. The original Conan Captured the look and feel of a Barbarian and the worked he came from and lived in. This new film attempts to sensationalize a character for profit, and make a caricature of the cult hero. Not the worst movie in the world by far but not one that should have been made part of the Conan series.

Now on to Fright Night...
Much like the original this is a horror/comedy. Anton Yelchin is in my opinion going to be a big star. I loved him in Terminator Salvation and Star Trek. He was a little flat in this film, and played each scene the same. It really felt like all the scenes were set up weeks apart and shot in about an hour. Like watching HS theater.
Colin Ferrel played Jerry Dandridge. He didn't really do the character justice either. He played the cunning and seducing vampire with a gloomy edge that felt bored. Where as in the original Jerry was played like a regular guy. Sophisticated, well mannered, and likable. The guy from Super Bad that played Evil Ed was also a bit of a let down. He had really some of the only funny moments of the film, next to the the guy that plays Peter Vincent. The new Vincent was actually pretty good and funny...but ultimately not as good as the original.
ish.

The biggest draw back of the film is it's length and lack of character development. There is a whole 10-15 min chase scene that could have been scrapped in favor for character development. Ultimately you don't feel for the characters for the relationships that are built.

There are a few nostalgic references, like "you're so cool Brewster" and we see the original Jerry Dandridge... and a few other things that unless you are a real fan of the first you may not get.
Bottom line this was an ok film that will NOT be the cult fan favorite that the original was. The original is a classic from the '80's that will hopefully live on. I hope this film is forgotten in the next few weeks...which I'm sure it will be,

Advantage - '80's originals

Rise of The Planet of The Apes (2011)

4 HELL YEAH's out of 5

Rarely does a film that tries to impose human traits on to and animal succeed. Usually it becomes too cartoony, or silly, or just over the top bad. "Apes" does this does this seamlessly. With an even hand in direction you see both the primal animalistic instincts and behaviors gradually turn into higher thinking calculated moves. Apes is cleaver, and brilliantly done.

The CGI is the best part of the film. There are a few parts that do seem less than real but very few. Form the most part you feel like you are looking at real life chimps and other apes. Once the intelligence kicks in you literally see the emotions the actor is portraying come through the CGI almost perfectly. You truly do forget the CGI exists.

The on screen actors for the most part stay out of the way which is good. I can't stand James Franco in anything he has done. His dead behind the eyes, bland acting leaves his character one of the weakest parts of the movie. Adrian Brody would have been good for Franco's role. John Lythgoe on the other hand plays a wonderful character who has Alzheimer's. Most of the other characters are bit roles and stereotypical with now real consequence. The main focus is and should be the Chimps, especially Caesar.

Not really related to the film from several years ago and not really similar to the original...this film will appeal to new audiences. There are references to the original films, like clothes worn and a female chimp. There is even the ubiquitous "damn dirty ape" line that seems to find it's way into every "Apes" film.

There are a few WTF moments in the movie. Somehow a few dozen Apes turns into 100+. They all also seem to all have super intelligence even though they were not "exposed". I also didn't get why Franco's character didn't tell the Animal control guy about Caesars intelligence and how he's different.

The end of this film leaves a lot of questions, like how will the humans survive? How will the Apes take over?  They did a great job at setting up for a sequel without overtly doing it.
The film is not just a loud nonstop action sequence. There is a story and heart here. I found myself really engaged in the movie and feeling for the chimps. The action does rise and climaxes well. The best thing they did was not go over the top too much.

May not be for the whole family but over 12 should be fine. I enjoyed it.