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."

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:

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.