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.

Captain America (2011)

4 HELL YEAH's out of 5

Captain America, MARVEL's newest comic book movie, is one of it's best. Definitely it's best this year.  Almost a period piece (1940's) the movie's style feels like it's been ripped out of a 1940's military recruitment film. It's safe to say that the style captured on film is perfect for the introduction of a 70 year old WWII comic book hero. Chris Evens plays a pretty good Capt. America, he has the look and demeanor for the character. Some of the Critics have been giving Evens a hard time due to his "B" List celebrity status, and vowing that all Comic lead actors should be Robert Downy Level actors...let's not forget that RDJ...was at rock bottom a film or 2 before Iron Man. Anyway...The acting was VERY GOOD in the film. Stanley Tucci was amazing in his role, then again he always is. Hugo Weaving IS THE RED SKULL!!! Like Mark Strong in Green Lantern, Weaving NAILED this character and was PERFECT. The CGI was phenomenal, and so was the Makeup. I don't know if the Red Skull was prosthetic or CGI but it was EXCELLENT.

Like most MARVEL movies there is a little hokiness, and perhaps it's a bit cartoony. Thor has this quality and fell a bit short as the "comic" elements didn't mesh well with the suspension of disbelief that the director was going for. Instead Capt. America embraces the cartoony, by styling the film so perfectly. LARGE walls of '40's computer mainframes, the absurdity of a woman running off to war in full make up, dressed to the 9's and looking fashionable....vs. fatigues. Then there is the whole, 1 man entering the enemy base with a giant american flag shield strapped to his back and no one seeing him. Add to this the contrast of regular vs "scifi" weaponry and technology, and it's the best of all worlds.  These things were on purpose and embraced the absurdity and it worked.

There really wasn't a point in the film that could have ruined it if it's too far fetched. They did come close with some of the dialogue but pulled back just in time. If we are keeping track DC vs. MARVEL this year so far...Marvel takes it with volume...GL was better than THOR but CA was better then GL (although I prefer GL....most will like CA more.) it's not really comparing apples to apples but it's what we have. NOW when Batman come out next year or so...Then we'll see how it should be done ALWAYS. For now, the formula of a little campy, a little gritty, and a lot fun is the best thing going today. Gotta Love It.

Spoiler:
After the credits roll...there is an AVENGERS MOVIE TRAILER...not the best ending gem...but not too back. THOR is sleevless and a bit pale...I wasn't a fan. I liked the armor sleeves.

Green Lantern (Emerald Knights)

5 HELL YEAH's out of 5

Emerald Knights is the second animated movie from DC featuring Green Lantern. This film isn't as much about Hal Jordan as it is about some other lanterns. Told continuously in six sub stories, this is by far one of the best comic/animated films to date by either Marvel or DC.

The art direction was great, the voice acting was superb, and the story was entertaining...this is what should have hit the theater...or something like it. We learn about the first Lantern, Kilowag, Abin Sur, Mogo, and others as the stories unfold seamlessly. These are the type of comic movies, or even TV series that could be watched forever.

Touted as "like Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight", which was pretty awesome in it's own right. The only flaw, if you want to call it that, is that the difference in art styles was tough to see. Supposedly, each story arch had different artists and genres, but other than slight differences they all looked the same. That being said they all looked great. IF you saw Batman: LDK then you know what they mean by different art styles, or perhaps HALO: Legends, or the Animatrix. Those were all shorts and each being distinctively different...where Emerald Knights is a continuous story. I suppose they couldn't go too far off the reservation with the art.

At every turn where the Live Action movie failed this anime succeeded brilliantly!!! I can't wait for more GL properties to me animated. The series is coming out this fall, but I'd really like to see a series of Darkest Night Stories.

TRANSFORMERS 3 (3D)

3.5 HELL YEAH's out of 5


First impressions...

LONG. LOUD. BETTER.
Ok so Transformers 3 (T3) is the longest of the the Transformers movies. Nearly 2h45m With previews it's almost a full 3. So if you have young children who get antsy...don't see this with them. If you are a pee-er, make sure you pee before it starts you won't want to miss any of it.

This time the it's the "humans" who have something to hide. Conspiracy theorists rejoice, the moon race was actually because of a crashed spaceship on the moon. A lot of good work and story was made to make this Story plot seem plausible, and it works. However, this film doesn't really tie any of the other two together, it's a stand alone...or continuation of what some call a "please forget what we did last time".

The CGI was excellent. The Autobot and Decepticons looked very cutting edge. Personally I am not a huge fan of how they were designed. I prefer the clean lines and shelled bodys from back in the day...from the first films they look "alien" which is good and fine...but at the same time have no personality. Which leads me to the biggest flaw of all 3 movies, no character development of any kind. They introduce different robots..Soundwave, Starscream, Shockwave, Laserbeak, and others but there is no real intro...who are these characters? Only the real fans know, and even so they are barely recognizable...Pity.

This film takes on a more human feel and story. There are more human characters introduced some funny (John Malkovich) and Ken Jeong (BRILLIANT as usual), some shady (Patrick Dempsey), to the new hot chick...who multiple times was said to be hotter and better than the last. I think fans will be split on the last one.

Visuals take over the last hour of this film. A full hour is given to CGI, explosions, and the battle for earth...If it wasn't an hour it sure felt like it, it was long. ALMOST too long. I think a few minutes could have been cut somewhere. BUT at the end it was just right and it kept my attention.

There were some stretches for comedy...most fell flat and seemed out of place. Like the 2 comic relief tiny robots, or "scrapers" with Irish or Scottish accents. The acting was OK this isn't Shakespeare I know...but Shia Lebouf can't seem to hit more than the loud smartass note. Everything out of his mouth is a sniping comment and at a 10. There is something to be said for tone.

Even with the lack of character development, poor acting, less than funny jokes, and longer than needed run time....this movie still entertained, and was pretty good. I can't say I want to see it again anytime soon, but I'm glad I did see it in theaters.

This was in 3D. I don't think that 3D made this film any better than if it were in 2D. Perhaps some shots of the Robots were better because of the added dimension, and a few others, but ultimately another 3D more "money please ploy".

GREEN LANTERN (2011 Movie)

3 HELL YEAH's out of 5



The Green Lantern has been around for more than 60 years but doesn't have the fan base of say a Batman or Superman. Often the most remembered of comic heroes however after being seen in comics, TV, or movies. (only 1 movie has been made with the Green Lantern)

A little History - The Green Lantern is basically a "Space Cop", whose job it is to protect their "sectors" of the universe. Hal Jordan, a test pilot was chosen to be the first human Green Lantern, when an alien craft crash lands on earth. The Alien dies and his ring seeks out a replacement wearer. The Power Ring works via the Power of WILL...which happens to be green. Other Powers also have colors associated with them...Yellow/fear, Red/Rage, Blue/Hope, etc... Ultimately the Green Lantern Mythos is one that spans the Universe, and has untold number of alien green lantern counterparts.

The Green Lantern Movie...starring Ryan Reynolds is flawed but still manages to capture some of the best parts of the Character.
What they did right:
First the casting was excellent. Mark Strong who plays Sinestro is PITCH PERFECT...in my option...HE IS SINESTRO. Reynolds GL is pretty good. This is a character that can go one of two ways...brash and cocky much like it was done in the film or brash but somewhat serious, which is what we see in the comics. Hal Jordan in the Comics is a bit of a Serious Paternal figure and not a jokester. They walked a line with the movie and did so very well.
Next, is the CGI. The CGI was excellent. I was a bit scared about the Suit when it was first previewed. BUT the finished product was RIGHT on. It looks organic, yet durable, and natural as if it was meant to be there. The Green Lantern planet OA is colorful and vibrant, and has an alien feel. Almost cartoony...but not too much. Instead you feel like a comic page has been brought to life. The other more alien lanterns are EXCELLENT. There are so many that fans will know who is who...others will just see awesome alien characters.
Lastly, the story or direction could have gone in one of two ways. Either keep everything on earth and encapsulate the story or have it span the universe in a LARGE scoping way. They chose to keep the story more grounded. I think this is fine as an introduction to a new character like the Green Lantern. However, they also included the necessary larger scope universal feel. As a viewer you do know that this guys world is so much bigger than just earth. Any sequels should definitely not revolve around earth.

What they did wrong:
I think the director didn't fully understand or get "comic book" movies or this character. He missed so many opportunities for that WOW factor, or the iconic imagery, and even fell a little short on the climax of the film. I did get goosebumps a few times but average viewer will not get what I got as a fan. This is really too bad.
Second, the strength of the character is also the weakness of this movie. Because the mythos is so large and expansive, keeping everything "earthbound" is lackluster. This also creates too much Ryan and Blake time on screen which is flat.
Next Editing is heavy handed. Some of the edits flash to other things going on and then back to earth again...it's better than nothing, and not hard to follow, but I would have liked more procedural context.
Lastly...when you have giant "world killer" monsters...you either nail or not...most movies do not, think Fantastic 4. Green Lantern hits a middle ground but doesn't nail it.

Overall this is a pretty good movie and I really hope the cost of making this one doesn't hurt future sequels. It was better than THOR, but nowhere near Batman, Iron Man, or a few other recent comic films. Still it's a good entry point. The next film (keeping my fingers crossed) should definitely be a UNIVERSE scope and deal with clashing lanterns corps (Green vs Yellow vs Red etc...)

I liked it, and recommend it. I didn't see it in 3D once I heard it was converted and not shot in 3D. I hate it when I hear that as usually the shots weren't setup for 3D and thus make a movie that's a waste of 3D money...both as a viewer and from a production point of view. I wonder how much money was spent on conversion?

Go see this film at a matinee or rent it...it's pretty good.