First line under Arnold´s name says "An avenger made of steel". Author of this poster is Czech painter Zdenek Vlach, and among his works on this website, there is possible to find other fantasy posters, e.g. Excalibur.
neděle 16. října 2011
WHY IT TOOK 16 YEARS TO STOP HATING "WILLOW"
It looked pretty much like a retarded offspring coming of a gang bang of Indiana Jones, Lord of the Rings (books only at that time) and Star Wars. I almost expected Val Kilmer´s character to draw a lightsaber and a whip.
Story looked pretty lame - from today´s point of view. "Written by someone, to whom LOTR was told long time ago by stoned drunk" should be in opening credits. Yes - a child instead of a ring, a protector of this child, who comes from dwarf-like nation of calm farmers, riders in black in pursuit...
There was almost not a single thing in this movie, which is not a direct citation of something else - starting with Greek mythology, ending with Star Wars. It almost looked like an artificial movie from year 2185, made (as a homework) by eight years old pupil using "Movie WYSIWYG Creator version 2.05".
Look at this:
Mandatory things every movie written by George Lucas must have:
1. Surplus of useless comical characters (who doesn´t believe it, watch Phantom Menace - it´s gonna make you believe)
2. Someone stepping on feces (yeah, George, what would it take to explain to you, that this was not funny since the era of silent movies?)
There are no doubt other signs common for GL movies, but I considered these two sufficient.
Now it looks that this movie is a piece of crap, isn´t it right?
BUT...
Although I´m still a bit shocked by IMDB rating of Willow (currently 7.1), after I watched it for second time few days ago, I must admit:
IT´S NOT THAT BAD !!!
AND WHY?
1. The story is definitely not a jewel of screenwriting, but it is OK. It has main good and evil characters, even the characters who experience a personality changes. The way Sorsha falls in love with Madmartigan is still pretty lame (kinda reminds me the masterpiece of movie seduction, Goldfinger, where James Bond turns Pussy Galore from lesbian to heterosexual in matter of minutes), but the rest is OK.
2. The characters - I still hate those two brownies, played by Kevin Pollak and Rick Overton. They are too much "R2-D2,C3PO-ish" for my taste. Also characters like this degrade an adult-looking fantasy to fantasy for children, and that´s what I hate most in fantasy movies. Is it really OK to have a fracking retarded comical characters in a movie, where at the same time are lines of cages full of rotting human remains besides the roads and an old lady is savaged to the death by wolves? I don´t think so... But rest of characters are good, and I finally realised, what I didn´t like 15 years ago, when I was filled with emotions from JRRT and Robert E. Howard´s books - they are acting like ordinary people, not heroes. That´s what I like now, that´s why I fell in love with Game of Thrones before I finished watching its pilot. Madmartigan is not Aragorn, Madmartigan is insanely annoying thief who is blessed with ability to use a sword. Isn´t he lovely? Maybe one of the best Val Kilmer´s performances, no doubt (and it´s NOT a sarcasm).
3. Special effects - I´m silent like a grave. This movie is from 1988. There´s nothing more to say.
4. Production design - to shoot a movie like this today, for roughly 35 millions dollars is not possible. For those money in eghties, you get a movie, where you can´t afford Ben Hur-like crowd scenes (and final battle sort of suffers from that), but you have to be crafty. And snow-covered mountain sets of Willow are magical.
5. NO fracking galaxy far, far away... - yes, I am grateful for that, that in Willow is not a reference of space at all. Because I still shake (with laughter and horror simultaneously), when I remember the film Krull (AGAIN - how THIS piece of crap could receive current 5.8 IMDB rating is beyond my comprehension - watching it again would cause damage bayond any help to my brain cells). In the finale of this film, there is a statement that child of the main hero will "rule the galaxy". In a medieval-like world with magic instruments, sorcerers and cyclopses, it´s really a bold claim.
So thank you, people who wrote Willow, fo not mentioning any fracking galaxy.
6. I just pushed "Like" button on a Facebook page of Willow. Is that enough?
Finally, enjoy a little "geek-art", which I found adorable:
pátek 16. září 2011
WHAT A MOVIE IT COULD HAVE BEEN - LORD OF THE RINGS DIRECTED BY QUENTIN TARANTINO
Some eight or ten years ago, in a movie magazine called Premiere (Czech Republic version, of course), which was cancelled two years ago, there was a series of funny articles called "WHAT A MOVIE IT COULD HAVE BEEN". It always involved some famous movie directed by a totally different director. Resulting films were masterpieces like "Harry the Godfather, directed by Francis Ford Coppola" etc. One of the best articles in this series was LOTR, directed by Quentin Tarantino. So, what follows IS NOT from my head, however I cannot say who the author is. I went through all my surviving issues of Premiere several times with no luck of finding this article at all. So this is just what I was able to remember - and also a proof what kind of things am I able to keep in my head for a long period of time.
Gandalf, played by James Gandolfini, did his time in disreputably known prison Orthank. While celebrating his parole with former cellmates Frodo and Bilbo, brothers Veggins, they discover that one ring Frodo has, is actually the One Ring.
"Now, things are going to happen, I mean, fracking things are going to happen," says Gandalf.
So they call Tom Bombadil.
"I´m Tom Bombadil. I solve problems."
There´s definitely some plot twists between these two paragraphs, but sorry, it´s long gone from my memory.
After several incidents, the only surviving characters of the story are Tom Bombadil and Galadriel, who is high after use of elvish drug brandywine. When they are leaving on a pony, doped up Galadriel asks:
"Whose horse is this ?"
"It´s a pony, baby."
"So, whose pony is this?"
"Frodo´s."
"And who is Frodo?"
"Frodo is dead, baby, Frodo is dead."
Gandalf, played by James Gandolfini, did his time in disreputably known prison Orthank. While celebrating his parole with former cellmates Frodo and Bilbo, brothers Veggins, they discover that one ring Frodo has, is actually the One Ring.
"Now, things are going to happen, I mean, fracking things are going to happen," says Gandalf.
So they call Tom Bombadil.
"I´m Tom Bombadil. I solve problems."
There´s definitely some plot twists between these two paragraphs, but sorry, it´s long gone from my memory.
After several incidents, the only surviving characters of the story are Tom Bombadil and Galadriel, who is high after use of elvish drug brandywine. When they are leaving on a pony, doped up Galadriel asks:
"Whose horse is this ?"
"It´s a pony, baby."
"So, whose pony is this?"
"Frodo´s."
"And who is Frodo?"
"Frodo is dead, baby, Frodo is dead."
THE END.
Why new Conan the Barbarian movie DOES NOT suck?
Well, most of you probably know it yet: the new Conan the Barbarian (CtB) movie, starring Stargate Atlantis and Game of Thrones star Jason Momoa in title role debuted fourth in its opening weekend and after that, it just fell down like a stone, followed by vultures, sorry, movie reviewers, who feasted on its fresh corpse, mocking billions of alleged mistakes.
Simply said, epic fail(roughly 48 million of grosses so far, when the production budget was 90, plus usual additional millions for advertisment).
All these "reviewing" people I´d like to ask one, simple question:
I must admit, that I feared that what I described will happen since Marcus Nispel was announced as a director of a movie. But now, I must repent.
Of course, Nispel will never shoot anything like balls-ripping stories of Gladiator or Lord of the Rings.
Of course, there are some weak moments in the movie.
Production design is awesome - CtB looks like much more expensive movie. I have little objection against props, at the ending of "child" part young Conan swings the broadsword as easy as his adult version, which changes the "Riddle of Steel" to the "Riddle of Plastic". But anywhere else in the movie, you really see what were those millions of dollars spent for. And the CGI is very good, there are no unnecessary monsters etc., maybe just in the beginning when village of the Cimmerians is attacked, there are entire armies of tens of thousands of raiders to be seen on the slopes around the village and it´s little bit too much.
Fighting scenes are very good - I little bit expected something what Kull the Conqueror showed us, but fighting scenes choreography in CtB trample this older flick to the dust. I even dare a heretical thought: Jason Momoa´s fencing skill matches Arnold´s.
More "Howardian" story - I mean, that this new CtB contains more of an atmosphere of original R.E.Howard´s stories than the older movie of the same name, despite the fact that Milius´s CtB ripped off more direct elements from REH´s stories. In Nispel´s CtB you find it all - Acheron, old gods, resurrection of the dead witch, giant serpent-like monster, huge barbarian brutes that Conan has to kill, and demonic adversaries.
I also admit, that the scene with freeing the slaves was pretty lame, and I get scared that Kull the Conqueror copy (that obsessive need for freeing the slaves was pretty annoying in that movie) is shaping up.
Jason Momoa IS Conan. Period. I mean, I loved Arnold as Conan, and I still do. But objections against Jason Momoa are the same which were against George Lazenby when he took the role of 007 (well, not a best example, I admit), Daniel Craig by taking the same role or Chris Pine as new captain Kirk. "No one can replace Arnold" statement sits on a gigantic pile of crappy arguments. Do we really want just two movies about Conan to be ever made? And I don´t get that statement, that Jason Momoa has no charisma of Arnold or doesn´t look like Northerner. First, Jason already played a barbarian, do you remember Game of Thrones? And he KILLED IT. Second, his portrayal of young Conan is flawless, his Cimmerian is fierce, passionate, arrogant and crafty, as Conan should be.
Arnold had a warrior face that no doubt helped him to achieve seven Mr.Olympia titles. He always looked like natural born fighter. But Jason has it also, in a different way. Arnold always moved on screen as a bodybuilder, Jason has an agility which corresponds with Howard´s description. Cimmerian was never described by Howard as scandinavian-like redhead, but REH never forgot to mention his bronze colored skin. It doesn´t matter if Conan is played by Hawaii born actor, then.
Did anyone saw Red Sonja or Willow? New CtB is a masterpiece in comparison with these two. And both of these films were meant to be hits (well, Willow actually kinda was, but reasons for it eternally elude me, as why the hell it has 7.1 points on IMDB).
New Conan the Barbarian definitelly is NOT a movie that is going to be remembered as milestone in fantasy genre, but it is worth seeing. It´s 113 minutes of pure adventure. And who needs to get more from a fantasy?
What´s my resume on cause of CtB´s lack of success? Late summer release of an R-rated movie, name of the director that scared off viewers and, of course, reviewers, who didn´t understand that this isn´t a social drama movie with political overlap. Good job, mates!
Simply said, epic fail(roughly 48 million of grosses so far, when the production budget was 90, plus usual additional millions for advertisment).
All these "reviewing" people I´d like to ask one, simple question:
ARE YOU ON FRACKING DRUGS?
I must admit, that I feared that what I described will happen since Marcus Nispel was announced as a director of a movie. But now, I must repent.
Of course, Nispel will never shoot anything like balls-ripping stories of Gladiator or Lord of the Rings.
Of course, there are some weak moments in the movie.
BUT
Production design is awesome - CtB looks like much more expensive movie. I have little objection against props, at the ending of "child" part young Conan swings the broadsword as easy as his adult version, which changes the "Riddle of Steel" to the "Riddle of Plastic". But anywhere else in the movie, you really see what were those millions of dollars spent for. And the CGI is very good, there are no unnecessary monsters etc., maybe just in the beginning when village of the Cimmerians is attacked, there are entire armies of tens of thousands of raiders to be seen on the slopes around the village and it´s little bit too much.
Fighting scenes are very good - I little bit expected something what Kull the Conqueror showed us, but fighting scenes choreography in CtB trample this older flick to the dust. I even dare a heretical thought: Jason Momoa´s fencing skill matches Arnold´s.
More "Howardian" story - I mean, that this new CtB contains more of an atmosphere of original R.E.Howard´s stories than the older movie of the same name, despite the fact that Milius´s CtB ripped off more direct elements from REH´s stories. In Nispel´s CtB you find it all - Acheron, old gods, resurrection of the dead witch, giant serpent-like monster, huge barbarian brutes that Conan has to kill, and demonic adversaries.
I also admit, that the scene with freeing the slaves was pretty lame, and I get scared that Kull the Conqueror copy (that obsessive need for freeing the slaves was pretty annoying in that movie) is shaping up.
Jason Momoa IS Conan. Period. I mean, I loved Arnold as Conan, and I still do. But objections against Jason Momoa are the same which were against George Lazenby when he took the role of 007 (well, not a best example, I admit), Daniel Craig by taking the same role or Chris Pine as new captain Kirk. "No one can replace Arnold" statement sits on a gigantic pile of crappy arguments. Do we really want just two movies about Conan to be ever made? And I don´t get that statement, that Jason Momoa has no charisma of Arnold or doesn´t look like Northerner. First, Jason already played a barbarian, do you remember Game of Thrones? And he KILLED IT. Second, his portrayal of young Conan is flawless, his Cimmerian is fierce, passionate, arrogant and crafty, as Conan should be.
Arnold had a warrior face that no doubt helped him to achieve seven Mr.Olympia titles. He always looked like natural born fighter. But Jason has it also, in a different way. Arnold always moved on screen as a bodybuilder, Jason has an agility which corresponds with Howard´s description. Cimmerian was never described by Howard as scandinavian-like redhead, but REH never forgot to mention his bronze colored skin. It doesn´t matter if Conan is played by Hawaii born actor, then.
Did anyone saw Red Sonja or Willow? New CtB is a masterpiece in comparison with these two. And both of these films were meant to be hits (well, Willow actually kinda was, but reasons for it eternally elude me, as why the hell it has 7.1 points on IMDB).
New Conan the Barbarian definitelly is NOT a movie that is going to be remembered as milestone in fantasy genre, but it is worth seeing. It´s 113 minutes of pure adventure. And who needs to get more from a fantasy?
What´s my resume on cause of CtB´s lack of success? Late summer release of an R-rated movie, name of the director that scared off viewers and, of course, reviewers, who didn´t understand that this isn´t a social drama movie with political overlap. Good job, mates!
2 dear reviewers: I, unlike you, most likely, already saw CtB in a cinema, am planning to go see it for second time and definitely will buy DVD and Blu-ray. That´s all i wanna say for the end of my totally disinterested article.
Radooz
čtvrtek 15. září 2011
10 IMPORTANT THINGS YOU MUST DO TO RUIN A POTENTIALLY HIT FANTASY MOVIE
Here is a list of 10 essential things every movie creator must keep in mind to produce crap of a fantasy movie dressed as AAA movie.
1. Story must start with an attack on a hero´s village. Does it need any comment? Can anything be more original?
2. Pretty obvious, linked with number one: revenge as a main plot of story is an amazingly, incredibly original idea.
3. NEVER EVER hire an experienced director who is in addition a fan of genre. B-list (or even C-list directors) recommended! See how many quality films made the director of "Eragon" (especially AFTER Eragon, yeah!): http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0266777/#Director
4. Never use blood in fighting sequences. Use of razor sharp blades, arrows and spears in a same shot with red liquid? Don´t be ridiculous! People bleed only when they want to, didn´t you know?
5. It´s essential that the props (costumes, weapons etc.) look like toys. See how annoying is the realism of real-like swords in Conan the Barbarian(1982), Excalibur(1981) or LOTR movies?
6. You will definitely need a child or a teenager as a main character or narrator of the story. Ladyhawke(1985) could have been a cult dark fantasy movie (if it would have been told from old monk´s POW), but Matthew Broderick´s retarded "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" expression turned it into a masterpiece of a "neither adult, nor for children" hermaphrodite flicks.
7. No matter if it belongs to the plot, you have to add freeing the slaves to the story. Yeah, even here on Earth slave labor was the basis of ancient economy and we remember Spartacus´s rebellion not because what he achieved but because the whole thing was so unusual at that times, but who cares? I mean, in a fantasy story, depicting ancient-like world, where slavery is so normal, that no one can imagine a world without it, the story´s hero wouldn´t normally care about slaves and their destiny. But again - who cares?
8. If you have to save some money from the budget, you definitely can save by NOT training the actors for combat scenes. Nothing can damage the final look of the movie more than fighting scenes that look like child´s fight.
9. When producers or director of the movie are fantasy fans, it´s likely that they are going to create a movie to remember. However, if you acquired rights to a kick ass fantasy story and pass it to, let´s say, Michael Bay, you can get as a result movie, where during the siege of the medieval town, NYC cabs are flying in the air.
10. Always use shitty CGI. Do you remember, how good do Cylons in new BSG series look like? That´s NOT the kind of CGI you wanna use, when it comes to bury a fantasy movie. "Knights of Bloodsteel"(2009, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1264363/) is more your speed. Essential thing is, to use CGI whenever possible, even if it is ridiculous and unnecessary. Steven Spielberg could possibly shoot a fantasy movie about two people wandering in the woods, with no CGI at all, which would become a smash hit, but why do it the same way, when you can augment your story with 1995 EGA graphic looking goblins whose moves would make captain Jack Sparrow jealous. Compare "Beowulf and Grendel"(2005) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402057/, and "Grendel"(TV 2007) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0845463/. First, with no CGI at all, and second, with CGI monsters (AND crappy storyline, dialogues etc.).
Your comments will indicate, how big SARCASM sign will I have to use in future.
1. Story must start with an attack on a hero´s village. Does it need any comment? Can anything be more original?
2. Pretty obvious, linked with number one: revenge as a main plot of story is an amazingly, incredibly original idea.
3. NEVER EVER hire an experienced director who is in addition a fan of genre. B-list (or even C-list directors) recommended! See how many quality films made the director of "Eragon" (especially AFTER Eragon, yeah!): http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0266777/#Director
4. Never use blood in fighting sequences. Use of razor sharp blades, arrows and spears in a same shot with red liquid? Don´t be ridiculous! People bleed only when they want to, didn´t you know?
5. It´s essential that the props (costumes, weapons etc.) look like toys. See how annoying is the realism of real-like swords in Conan the Barbarian(1982), Excalibur(1981) or LOTR movies?
6. You will definitely need a child or a teenager as a main character or narrator of the story. Ladyhawke(1985) could have been a cult dark fantasy movie (if it would have been told from old monk´s POW), but Matthew Broderick´s retarded "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" expression turned it into a masterpiece of a "neither adult, nor for children" hermaphrodite flicks.
7. No matter if it belongs to the plot, you have to add freeing the slaves to the story. Yeah, even here on Earth slave labor was the basis of ancient economy and we remember Spartacus´s rebellion not because what he achieved but because the whole thing was so unusual at that times, but who cares? I mean, in a fantasy story, depicting ancient-like world, where slavery is so normal, that no one can imagine a world without it, the story´s hero wouldn´t normally care about slaves and their destiny. But again - who cares?
8. If you have to save some money from the budget, you definitely can save by NOT training the actors for combat scenes. Nothing can damage the final look of the movie more than fighting scenes that look like child´s fight.
9. When producers or director of the movie are fantasy fans, it´s likely that they are going to create a movie to remember. However, if you acquired rights to a kick ass fantasy story and pass it to, let´s say, Michael Bay, you can get as a result movie, where during the siege of the medieval town, NYC cabs are flying in the air.
10. Always use shitty CGI. Do you remember, how good do Cylons in new BSG series look like? That´s NOT the kind of CGI you wanna use, when it comes to bury a fantasy movie. "Knights of Bloodsteel"(2009, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1264363/) is more your speed. Essential thing is, to use CGI whenever possible, even if it is ridiculous and unnecessary. Steven Spielberg could possibly shoot a fantasy movie about two people wandering in the woods, with no CGI at all, which would become a smash hit, but why do it the same way, when you can augment your story with 1995 EGA graphic looking goblins whose moves would make captain Jack Sparrow jealous. Compare "Beowulf and Grendel"(2005) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402057/, and "Grendel"(TV 2007) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0845463/. First, with no CGI at all, and second, with CGI monsters (AND crappy storyline, dialogues etc.).
Your comments will indicate, how big SARCASM sign will I have to use in future.
Přihlásit se k odběru:
Příspěvky (Atom)