The Muppets (2011)

Title: The Muppets (2011)

Director: James Bobin

Cast: Jason Segel, Amy Adams, Chris Cooper

Review:

Of course The Film Connoisseur was going to review the new Muppet movie, I grew with these crazy characters, and by that I mean I watched the show on television back in the 70’s, when it was just about the coolest show on earth. The Muppets were really something back then, they even made it all the way to theaters, with three pretty darn good movies. The Muppet Movie (1979), The Great Muppet Caper (1981) and The Muppets Take Manhattan (1984). These first three movies were Muppet films orchestrated by the original creator of The Muppets, Jim Henson (and his right hand and partner in crime Frank Oz) and for that alone they are the ones that matter the most to me. These are the ones that really have that true ‘Muppet’ feeling to them; they had the most Jim Henson and Frank Oz in them. Every other Muppet film that’s come afterwards - with very few exceptions- hasn’t had that magic to them.  

I guess a lot of the magic behind The Muppets came from the folks doing the puppeteering. Jim Henson, Frank Oz, Dave Goelz…these were guys who puppeteered and voiced these characters for years and years! But then came the death of Jim Henson, and it’s as if The Muppets had lost their father, their creator. Brian Henson (Jim Henson’s son) took the reins of The Muppets for a while there. He directed a couple of the Muppet movies like A Muppet Christmas Carol (1992) and Muppet Treasure Island (1996), the last two good Muppet movies in my book. A Muppet Christmas Carol in my opinion had a lot of that Muppet magic infused into it. It was a Muppet movie that still ‘had it’, and honestly, it’s the one I watch the most, I love that one! Muppets from Space (1999) was alright, but nothing out of this world. And don’t even get me started on the abortion that was The Muppets’ Wizard of Oz (2005); that one was a real waste of celluloid, an embarrassment. Thing is that The Muppets now belong to Disney, who seem to be gobbling up every property they can pick up. Hell, even Marvel Comics is a Disney property these days! And now so are The Muppets. Would Disney treat The Muppets with the dignity and respect they deserve? Considering they are so beloved by people everywhere? How was this new Muppet movie?

With this new movie, what Disney was aiming to do was present The Muppets to a whole new generation of kids with a colorful, happy, shinny and new sing-a-long of a movie. At the same time, they went with the nostalgia factor and tried to please all those Muppet fans from around the world by making a film that pays respects to these beloved characters. And they did just that. This new Muppet movie is an explosion of happiness, I dare you not to have a smile on your face the whole time! The movie presents us with the idea that the world has forgotten about The Muppets who were once famous and had their own variety show on television. Their fame has waded and they’ve all gone on with their lives. Kermit has retired and lives alone in his mansion, Mrs. Piggy works for a fashion magazine in Paris, Gonzo has his toilet making company, Fozzy sings in a Muppets Cover Band, they’ve all forgotten who they used to be together and have moved on. But something is about to bring them together: a greedy businessman wants to buy The Muppet Studios so that he can destroy it and dig for oil. Fortunately, the contract states that if The Muppets can make 10 million on their own, then they can save the studio and not sell it to the greedy business guy! And so, the Muppets are off to resurrect their television show so they can make their 10 million dollars and save The Muppet Studios! Will they achieve their goal?

The biggest worry I had was that this new film wasn’t going to be special, that it wasn’t going to have that Muppet magic. To be honest, the movie did alright. I mean, it wasn’t completely magical, but it did manage to keep a smile on my face for most of its running time. They got one thing absolutely right, they made it into a musical, with people dancing and singing with a smile on their faces all the time. Everything is shinny and happy and colorful. Many of the classical characters are back, it’s so cool to see them again on the big screen! The story for this film is all about what the first Muppet movies were all about: putting on a show, entertaining people and making it in the big time! But would they be the same Muppets we’ve always loved? Would this new Disney version of The Muppets nail it? I’m feeling like they did. The whole gangs back, they might look slightly different in very small ways (Fuzzy the Bear for example) but it’s the same characters. The same style of humor, the same slapstick, self referencing, and breaking the fourth wall type of jokes we love to see in these movies.  

   

Funny thing about this new Muppet movie is that FOX recently asked the question “are liberals trying to brainwash our kids?” in reference to this new Muppet movie. Ha! Goes to show who’s really controlling the media. I thought the news reporters were supposed to be objective with their points of views? Yet right there, by asking that question they are taking a side and assuming that everyone in American has to be a conservative capitalist! These comments on FOX news are so nausea inducing, they see that a film is sending out a message against evil businessmen (of which there are many in this world) and immediately see it as a threat to their way of life. You know what FOX news? So what if this new Muppet movie is speaking against capitalism? Isn’t the United States of America a free country, with freedom of speech as part of its way of life? Yes? Okay then, what’s the big surprise? I guess conservatives are scared that liberals will spread the germ of communism through the United States…oOoOooOOoohh scary! Gimme a break! And you know what FOX news; of course liberals will speak against capitalism! That’s what liberals do, that’s why they are called liberals, because they want to be free and speak their minds! And of course its liberals making films, artists are going to be liberals by nature; so deal with it! They aren’t trying to brainwash anybodies minds, they are just saying what they feel, if you like it cool, if you don’t like it then don’t go and see the movie. Last time I checked, saying what you feel was still okay in this country. It still is isn’t? We still got freedom of speech? Or have they written some new law that prohibits people from speaking their minds? I guess FOX is going to have to criticize a whole bunch of other films that play with the same theme of the “evil, greedy businessman”, in fact why don’t you just go full on fascist and prohibit films such as these? Ban them? Or make the whole world boycott them by saying your comments on FOX….jeeez…Look final word on this is GREED is a great evil that’s eating up the world isn’t it?  And movies that speak against it are doing a fine job in my book, so hooray for this new Muppet movie and its capitalism bashing themes.

Last words on this movie…it had the magic and sense of humor that the original Muppets had. I loved how they focused the whole film on them trying to start up their show, because that’s what the Muppets were always about, the theater, performances, entertaining the masses. Though the story has been used in other films before. This new Muppet movie is similar to films like Breakin' 2 Electric Boogaloo (1984), Waynes World 2 (1993), and The Blues Brothers (1980), all films where the good guys have to put on a show to go up against the evil business man type. Yet, in spite of its generic story line, the film is very entertaining. Jason Segel and Amy Adams play their roles innocently enough, like to kids falling in love for the first time. They lead a real innocent kind of romance through out the movie. I felt like their story was tacked on, I don’t know if we really needed the whole Jason Seagel/Amy Adams story line about them wanting to get married and she feeling ignored by him. They could have left that whole plot line out and focused more on The Muppets and the show, and their problem. On these movies, humans were always secondary, almost like window dressing. But not on this one, they decided to give a little more importance this time around to the human characters. There’s a lot of cameos on this one, but some of them feel really wasted! A stand out cameo comes from Zack Galifianakis as a bum, and Jack Black as…himself. But other cameos seem like wasted opportunities. The new songs were catchy and fun, except for Chris Coopers rap song which just felt out of place. But ultimately, this was such a nostalgic film for me. I must admit I enjoyed it so much when they sang “The Rainbow Connection”, I got teary eyed, which I’m guessing was what the filmmakers where going for. To have the target audience reconnect and remember the old movies with this one, to awaken that feeling of familiarity with The Muppets. I gotta be honest, they kind of achieved it.    

Rating: 4 out of 5

Wizards (1977)

Title: Wizards (1977)

Director: Ralph Bakshi

Review:

Ralph Bakshi is a filmmaker who has always championed adult oriented animation. This is the guy behind such animated classics as Coonskin (1975), Fritz the Cat (1972), Heavy Traffic (1973), American Pop (1981), Fire and Ice (1983), and Cool World (1992), amongst many others. Some of you probably know him by his animated film version adaptation of Lord of the Rings (1978). But if you ask me, my favorite Ralph Bakshi film is still Fire and Ice, a sword and sorcery animated epic in which he worked in collaboration with legendary fantasy artist Frank Frazetta. Together they created a world filled with sorcerers, magic battles, dense jungles and flying creatures. With Wizards, Bakshi who was then known for making controversial and socially conscious films; was attempting something a bit different, a childrens film! Did he succeed? 

Necro 99, one of the many characters that inhabit the world of 'Wizards'

  

In the world of Wizards the world has been devastated by nuclear war, what is left is the remnants of humanity. All sorts of creatures have emerged after the apocalypse. There are mutants that have appeared as a result of exposure to radiation and for some reason, all manner of goblins and elves and fairies have emerged as well. The film mentions that these elves and fairies are the “true ancestors of humanity”. In Wizards, the world is divided into two factions: one side lives in peace and harmony with nature and the other side are warmongers led by an evil wizard called Blackwolf; a despotic ruler hell-bent on conquering the world with his army of robots, his tanks, and his guns. The real problem comes when Blackwolf discovers old Nazi propaganda films and begins using them to fuel his army with hatred. Once he’s worked them up into a frenzy, he sends them out to the world to do war and conquer lands for him! Can Avatar the good wizard stop his evil brother before he brings the entire land to ruins?

My only real gripe with some of Ralph Bakshi’s films is that they feel sloppy and disjointed. The animation has a rough feel to it; it gives the impression of being unfinished, unpolished and released onto the world in whatever state it happened to be in when they snatched the cells from the animators’ hands. On top of that, Bakshi was fond of rotoscoping, and he experimented by mixing this technique with the traditional animation. Though I’m sure he was experimenting, the result are extremely uneven. Sometimes the film looks like a Saturday morning cartoon; sometimes it looks like real people moving about. But then again, Bakshi was a firm believer in the idea that a films heart was more important than slickness. To him if the film had heart and pulled you in with its story and characters, than that mattered more to him than having a super slick looking film. And that’s exactly what you get with Bakshi’s Wizards. It’s not a perfectly made film, it has many flaws, but it sure has its heart in the right place.

Mr. Bakshi, smoking some inspiration?

This was a film that was made during the time of Vietnam and Nixon, so it's no surprise that the film has an anti-war message attached to it. Blackwolf is the main villain, and his only concern is having a bigger army fueled by hatred. He lives in an ugly, cold part of this post apocalyptic world; amongst the ruins left by a past civilization. The film has a nature vs. technology vibe going for it. We have the good guys living in a paradise, while the bad guys are unearthing ancient technology and using it for war. One scene that perfectly captures what this film is about is a random scene of a mother telling her child “There has been a war, and the land is lost” and the kid asks “Why can’t we fight and win mommy?” and the mother replies “Because they have weapons and technology, we just have love” Once again, governments and their police/military force is portrayed as evil, and this was back in 1977! If we look at many films today, governments and their militia are still portrayed in this way. But Bakshi has always been a rebel through and through, many of his films talk about going up against an evil despotic ruler. Bakshi has always been a filmmaker with a social conscience, and his films show that.

Bakshi has a background in Saturday morning animation, he worked in shows like Spider Man and Mighty Mouse, but he grew tired of that because he wanted to speak truthfully, and not lie to his audience. He wanted to draw black people (something that wasn’t allowed when he was working in Saturday morning cartoons) and he wanted characters talking like real people talk. So when the time came to do his own thing, Bakshi always tried to push the envelope. The result were films like Fritz the Cat “Im X-rated and I’m animated!” and Coonskin (1975) a highly controversial animated flick that addressed racial tension in the U.S. Coonskin was so controversial that screenings often times ended up in audiences running out of theaters because of protest attacks! Wizards is a good example of Bakshi trying to tone down his sexual and controversial side, but never quite succeeding. With Wizards Bakshi was attempting to make a family friendly, kids film. In my opinion, though he tried, he really didn’t succeed. This is one of those films where you don’t know if it was made for kids or adults, or what. For example, one of the films main characters, a fairy called Lenoir, flies around showing her nipples through out the whole film. Avatar, the ‘good’ wizard is always hitting on Lenoir and smoking a cigar. The film comments on the nature of politics and religion, themes that are way too heavy for children. So in my opinion, though he attempted a children’s film, he didn’t quite get there. I guess that’s why the characters look so cartoonish, when compared to films like Fire and Ice for example.

Ultimately, Wizards comes off as an acid trip made by hippies trying various hallucinogenic drugs during their creative process. It is a ballsy film, very experimental, trying all kinds of art in one single film; to me this is the main reason why the film feels disjointed. We get traditional animation, rotoscoping, drawings with no animation on them whatsoever, and we even get some footage of Hitler’s propagandas films in there! It’s a real jumbled mess of a movie! And speaking of Fire and Ice, after having seen Wizards it feels to me like Fire and Ice was simply Bakshi trying to remake Wizards, but with a bit more budget and a bit more quality infused into the whole proceedings. The animation in Fire and Ice is far superior, and has a more polished look than Wizards, yet it has many of the same plot points and situations. And speaking of influences, Bakshi was obviously a huge Lord of the Rings fan because you definitely get a Lord of the Rings vibe on Wizards. Lot’s of characters look like Hobbits, wizards look like Gandalf, and everyone is on a big old quest across a savage, danger filled land. In closing, Wizards is very much a Ralph Bakshi film: It’s rebellious in nature; its animation is rough around the edges and very old school. My only advice is if you can ignore its shortcomings, what you get is a film with lots of heart; just don’t expect a masterpiece.

Rating: 3 out of 5

The Cell (2000)

Title: The Cell (2000)

Director: Tarsem Singh Dhandwar

Cast: Jennifer Lopez, Vincent D’Onofrio, Vince Vaughn

Review:   

My first experiences with director Tarsem Singh’s unique visual imagery came by way of his music video for R.E.M.’s ‘Loosing My Religion’. Remember that one? Of course you do, the song has gone on to become a classic. It was a huge hit for R.E.M. and so was the video.  It won the award for Music Video of the Year at the 1991 MTV Video Music Video Awards. That video has always been one of my favorites, something about it’s visuals just stick to my mind like glue. The visual strengths of that video were enough to get him his first gig directing a feature length film, which is the film I will be reviewing today: The Cell. How did Tarsem’s first feature length film go?

Tarsem directs Jennifer Lopez

On The Cell we meet Child Psychologist Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez) she specializes in a new type of therapy that lets you venture into your patients mind. This experimental technology lets you walk through a mental patients mind until you find their inner child. Then all you have to do is earn their trust and try and convince them to return to sanity, which Catherine doesn’t always succeed in doing; most of the time her patients divert right back into their own twisted dementias. But she keeps on trying in hopes that she will one day reach and cure one of them. At the same time, the FBI has caught a serial killer who has gone catatonic! The killer is completely unconscious and unfortunately, he is the only one who knows the location of his latest victim; a girl who will die in a matter of hours if they don’t find a way to wake the killer up so he can tell them where she’s hidden. In comes Catherine and her mind entering technology. She is asked by the FBI to venture into the killers mind to see if she can extract the location of the victim so that they can save her in time. Will the killers subconscious mind cooperate with Catherine? Will Catherine gain enough of the killers trust to get him to tell her where the girl is located?

One thing I found interesting about this movie is that it starts where other films of this kind end. You know how thrillers are all about getting the killer, and finding him before he kills somebody else? Well on this one, they’ve already caught the killer in the first 20 minutes of the film, the rest of the film is about venturing into the killers mind. So it’s a fast paced film, it gets to the good stuff rather quickly which I thought was awesome. It didn’t feel formulaic. This movie functions in the same way that a Nightmare on Elm Street film does, but of course, without Mr. Kruegers famous one liners. And these aren’t dream worlds we are visiting, these are mindscapes. But same as in a Freddy movie, if you die in the mind, your mind makes it real enough that you die in the real world as well. The best part of this film comes of course when the characters hook up to the machine that transports them into a patient’s mind, that’s when Tarsem’s visual magic comes into place. Tarsem has always been a director (much like Terry Gilliam) whose films are extremely influenced by paintings. You watch The Cell and you will get glimpses of where exactly Tarsem gets his inspiration. I picked up some H.R. Giger in certain scenes and a little bit of Salvador Dahli in others. Some scenes were also inspired by the kind of artwork we could find in Tarot cards, and others have elements from paintings by Odd Nerdrum, a Norwegian surrealist.

Odd Nerdrum's  'Dawn' (above) and H.R. Giger's 'Schacht' (below) two paintings that influenced the filmmakers behind The Cell. 

I love directors who build their films around their love of art because most of the time it guarantees an interesting looking film, which is exactly what The Cell is, an extremely beautiful looking film. Nightmarish, horrifying, hallucinatory, yet so beautiful. I mean, this kind of director knows where to draw from, they don’t just create their images from thin air; they know and love art, and they know which great artists they can best filter their imaginations through. The Cell draws from so many different sources! From music videos that came before it, from paintings, from tarot cards, from other films; this is a film rich with its artistic influences.

For example, when we go into the psychopath’s mindscape, it’s a total trip that brought to mind moments from Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969) mixed with an H.R. Giger painting and the aforementioned R.E.M. video. The best part is that since the psycho is such a twisted individual (he likes to hang from hooks as he masturbates while watching his victims drowning) well, the visuals and situations that we see when we go into his mind, are truly disturbing. These are the scenes where Tarsem cuts loose with dream imagery and logic. From the moment where we go into the killers mind onward, everything is extremely symbolic and surreal. Ever wondered how a psychopath sees himself in his mind? What kind of a world does a psychopath go to when they sleep? Is a psychopaths mind a place you’d want to get lost in? These are the questions this film asks and also answers. It goes further than that and analyzes what makes a killer a killer. What happened through out the course of his life that led him to become a psychopath? 

   

We  get good performances all around, Jennifer Lopez as Catherine was appropriately angelic. She plays this lonely psychologist, she lives all alone in her cozy little apartment, and goes to sleep watching Rene Laloux’s Fantastic Planet (1973), by the way, Fantastic Planet is a film I always highly recommend, which means... give yourself a chance to check it out! There’s this scene where Catherine is getting ready to go to sleep, and just before she does, she lights up a joint and smokes it! I tell you there’s nothing more sensual than watching Jennifer Lopez smoking a joint in her undies, at least in this Film Connoisseur’s eyes! But on with my review…we also get Vincent D’Onofrio as the psychopath, and his performance is a frightening one. Strangest part is that even though he plays an extremely twisted individual, the film actually manages to get you to feel “sympathy for the devil”; for we learn that this psychopath’s upbringing was the stuff of nightmares! And finally, we get Vince Vaughn in one of those serious roles he used to do before he decided to do comedies almost exclusively. But aside from its cast, the real stars of the show are the visuals. Surprisingly, even though The Cell’s strengths lie in its visuals, the film is not style over substance; there is weight and symbolisms within Tarsem’s dreamy, stylish visuals. These aren’t images conjured up simply to look cool, nope, they all say something about the story and the characters.

In closing, this was a great start for Tarsem as a director. He went on to direct an elaborate Pepsi Cola commercial that showed Beyonce, Pink and Britney Spears as gladiators, and Enrique Iglesias as a despotic Emperor with Queen’s “We Will Rock You” playing in the background; I remember being impressed by that one, it had that look and feel of an extremely expensive multi million dollar commercial. After that he went with a film called The Fall (2006) which sadly failed to find its audience. I haven’t seen it, but my dear readers; you can expect a review for it in the next couple of days. His most recently released worked was the awesome Immortals (2011), which I recently gave a glowing five star review to. Up next for Tarsem is Mirror, Mirror (2012) a comedy/fantasy film that is based on ‘Snow White’ by The Brothers Grimm. I’m looking forward to that one. But it was The Cell that jumpstarted Tarsem’s career as a film director. It feels at time a little bit like David Fincher's Seven (1995), but with a sci-fi angle to it. In my eyes The Cell still remains one of Tarsem’s strongest films; after all these years it still managed to surprise and impress me!

Rating: 4 out of 5

Conan (2011)

Title: Conan (2011)

Director: Marcus Nispel

Cast: Jason Momoa, Ron Perlman, Rose McGowan

Review:

I saw this one in theaters during its original release but never bothered to review it because I was so immensely disappointed with it. I re-watched it yesterday at my brothers house just for the hell of it and I reassured myself that I hated it as much as I did when I watched it the first time, in fact, even more so. The good thing about this second viewing is that I finally got to zero in on the reasons why I hated this new Conan flick so much! In this Film Connoisseur’s eyes, this remake simply did not work. At least not when compared to the awesomeness of John Milius’s sword and sorcery classic. What exactly made this remake such an awful film? Why was it such a wasted opportunity? Read on my fellow readers…read on.

 This remake starts a little bit further back in Conan’s life than the original film. On this one we actually get to see Conan being “battle born”, which means he was ripped from his dying mothers womb right in the middle of a war, on the battle field, which was actually kind of a cool way to start the movie. The scene is an example of how nonsensical this film actually is. The filmmakers didn’t care to make sense out of anything; they only care about making things look cool and having Conan strike heroic poses. For example, during the opening sequence we meet Conan’s mother (an old hag of a mother when compared to the bombshell that played Conan’s mom on the original) fighting in the battlefield. During these scenes we learn that Simerian women are so tough that they fight even when they are in an advanced state of pregnancy! Now that’s what I call a tough momma! So anyway, she gets stabbed by an enemy in her pregnant belly, and we see that the sword misses Conan The Unborn Baby by inches! Then, Conan’s dad rips the baby out of his wife’s womb! Just seconds before she dies she whimpers “his name will be…Conan!” One of the few cool things about this remake is that Conan’s dad is played by Ron Perlman, which is always a plus on any fantasy/sci-fi/adventure film. So anyways, Ron Perlman screams at the heavens and then raises Conan The Newborn Baby up in the air, right in the middle of the battlefield! Never mind all the swords that are swinging or the arrows that are flying through the air, or the war that is going on around him…this baby must be dramatically raised in the air for all to see! Cue the Conan logo, in 3-D no less. And enjoy that 3-D logo, because in theaters, the 3-D was so poor for this film that it’s really all that you saw in 3-D, the freaking Conan logo.  

I kind of liked this opening for the film, meeting Conan before he is even born! Sadly, the movie crumbles into pieces from there on in. First up, this remake skips one of the coolest sequences from the original, the scene where we actually see Conan becoming the war hungry, head slashing, enemy crushing warrior that he is. You know that scene in the original in which we see Conan become a slave? These are the scenes where he is enslaved and trained to fight other warriors, for money. We see Conan receiving sword lessons, becoming a man, and finally being released by his master into the world, to be his own person. We see Conan venturing into the world for the first time, on his own, learning to survive in this cruel savage world. These scenes are so important because we see Conan becoming Conan The Barbarian, and we feel connected with the character because we’ve seen him grow, we’ve followed him through his metamorphosis. Well, on this new remake, they totally skipped this sequence! They go from Conan The Kid, to Conan The Adult without any sort of way to let us know that time has elapsed. And this really is one of this films biggest faults, there is no smoothness between transitions, the film doesn’t flow. It feels like a bunch of moments clumsily glued together. This has always been a problem I have with the films of Marcus Nispel, the editing on them is terrible. But the disappointments don’t stop there, read on my friends.

Strike a pose!

The thing I loved the most about the original Conan The Barbarian (1982), and this is the reason why it’s one of my favorite films EVER, is that it was a religion bashing film. Yeah, it had the balls to say that religion is a brainwashing institution, and that we don’t need it. The ones responsible for killing Conan’s parents are the leaders of a religious cult that is spreading through the land. The leader has such power over his followers that they will jump to their deaths if he commands it. The film shows how the mind of the parishioner is at the mercy of the religious leader. So strong is the grip of this religious man over people that even King Osric’s daughter is brainwashed into following Thulsa Doom’s cult. Thulsa Doom’s followers worship this mad man as if he was a holy man. He proclaims himself as their God, their father. He tells them that their world would be nothing without him. And what does Conan do with this religious leader? He chops his head off that’s what he does! He shows the parishioners that Thulsa Doom isn’t a God, and that he can die, just like the rest of us. And then he hurls Thulsa Doom’s head down the steps of the temple and burns it down to the ground! Conan even kills one of the snakes they worship! In the end, Thulsa Doom’s parishioners end up going home, finally free from his powerful grip over their minds. And did this new remake even comment on any of these themes? Nope. They focused more on the fights, the killing, the monsters and the special effects, not the why behind these things. It only cares about everything being in slow motion. Gone is the weight behind the message that the original had. This new remake is an empty shell of a movie with a dumb story behind it.

Yes we still have a crazy religious leader on this new one, but the thrust of the story is his desire to acquire a magical mask that will bring his evil witch of a wife back from the dead, that’s it. And you know what? They could have probably done a cool movie about that as well. Unfortunately, this is the kind of film that never lives up to its full potential. You feel it could have gone further with its ideas, but that it was such a rush job that it never really takes off. The ideas are half cooked, half assed and lazy. An example of this is this scene where Conan fights this giant creature with tentacles. Sounds like a promising scenario for Conan to fight a giant monster, a potentially cool sequence near the ending of the film right? Guess again! You never even get to see the monster, only its tentacles! How disappointing. At least on the original we get to see the giant snake that Conan fights!

How half assed are the ideas in this movie? Well, at one point Conan fights these sand creatures, we never know what the hell they are, but these have to be the lamest creatures that Conan has ever fought! All Conan has to do is slash them with his sword and poof! They crumble away! These lame-o creatures may look cool, but they were not a worthy adversary for Conan, who never seems to really be in any peril in this film! On the original film, Conan freaking dies! And demons come to take his soul to hell with them! He is placed on ‘the tree of woe’ to starve for killing one of Thulsa Dooms giant snakes! On this remake nothing touches Conan, there was no vulnerability to the character, no humanity to it. On the original you liked Conan for his weaknesses, he kicked ass, but he messed up as well. On this one he is an indestructible asshole.

New Conan (above)  Old Conan (below) 

    

Another thing I loved about the original film is that they shot in these exotic locations, everything looked real. Not so on this remake in which half of the film was shot on a sound stage, with green screen. I hate it when I can tell everything is a set, I never felt that way while watching the original film. Point is, the original film is a far superior film in every single way. Why? Because the talents behind it were truly talented individuals who gave a damn about making a good film that actually said something. Oliver Stone wrote the original film, but who wrote this new one? Somebody who didn’t know what would make a good Conan film, that’s who. And who directed it? They guy behind the god awful Pathfinder (2007), which was a terrible Conan rip off to begin with! Apparently, Marcus Nispel always wanted to make a Conan film, and when he’s finally given the chance to do it, he does this lazy, dumb, crap fest of a Conan film. Marcus Nispel didn’t know how to make a Conan film that felt believable, which is what John Milius did so well. The world we see on the 1982 film felt real to me; even though it also felt like a Frank Frazetta painting coming to life. This is a balance that very  few directors achieve; making the fantastic seem real. Milius and crew actually went out and shot the film on location; with real wind and earth beneath his actors feet! Not green screen and Styrofoam. Oliver Stone wrote a film with some weight to it, unfortunately this new film is just the empty calories version of a Conan film, a major disappointment and a lost opportunity. They had more money and technology than John Milius had back in 1982, yet they still couldn’t make a better film. Which proves only one thing: what matters is the talent you put behind the camera, not the size of the budget. For this remake, the producers simply chose the wrong crew, they proved themselves unworthy of attempting a Conan film.

Rating: 1 1/2 out of 5

Frank Frazetta's Conan 

A Clockwork Orange Film and Book Analysis

I know many of you out there have probably already seen this Stanley Kubrick classic, but I wanted to review this one because I recently got a chance to read Anthony Burgess’s novel and I thought I might talk a bit about how the novel compares to the film version. Also, even though both the novel and the film are immensely popular, I write this review in hopes that those of you who haven’t experienced them will give both versions of the story a chance. In the following article I go in depth about the story, and the themes it speaks about, so if you don’t want to read spoilers, skip it, but in all honesty I try not to give too much away. In other words: their be spoilers ahead, but you might find the article interesting none the less.

On A Clockwork Orange we meet Alex De Large and his gang of ‘Droogs’. They are all in their teens (Alex is 15 in the novel) and they enjoy going around town at night causing all sorts of trouble. They like to fight with rival gangs, break into people’s homes to terrorize them, rape women, steal cars, beat up old people…basically, anything that involves breaking the law. This motley crew of individuals likes to live by the beat of their own ultra violent drum. These guys want money? They take it! They need a car? They steal it! They want to have sex? They rape a woman! Alex and Co. don’t care for other human beings, they only think of themselves and satisfying their own needs. These kids are young and full of life, but they are cold hearted preachers of hatred. Worst part is that Alex and co. are perfectly happy living this way! Alex can have a day filled with all these vile actions and then go home, put on some classical music and just relax while listening to Beethoven's 9^th Symphony! Will their reign of terror ever stop? Will they ever learn to value human life or respect their fellow man?

Anthony Burgesses novel is an extremely well respected book, it’s been chosen by many critics, scholars and important magazines as one of the best novels to have been written in the English language; though Burgess himself considered A Clockwork Orange one of his “lesser works”. I can understand how an author can grow to dislike his own work, especially when it’s all anybody ever talks about. Imagine everywhere you went people only asked you about this one thing you did, of course it would get annoying. But aside from Burgess's personal perception of the novel, I think it’s a remarkable achievement of literature, and one of my favorite books. The message it puts across is such an important one, speaking to youth, letting them know how things work in the world when it comes to respecting other human beings. This idea of respecting each others because we all deserve it is a theme that pops up regularly in this story. For example, the story often pits the young vs. the old; it addresses the idea of how young people need to respect the elderly because someday we will all reach old age too and we will all want some respect and love from the young. Human beings are human beings no matter what age.

Alex and his gang, beating up an old man 

Another theme addressed is the right all humans should have to choose their own path in life, and that when the time comes to choose it, that it should be one filled with peace, love and respect for all life, to me this is really the central theme of the book: the respect all humans owe to each other, because really it’s the best way to live. Because what happens if we choose a violent, selfish path?  In the story, Alex chooses to continue his path of violence towards everything and so he ends up incarcerated and taken to the state prison for a crime he commits. While in jail, Alex begins to realize he has made a mistake. He discovers that jail is just too awful a place for him. So he volunteers for an experimental method called ‘The Ludovico Technique’. This technique is being tested out by scientists as a means to totally suppress violent tendencies in inmates. Kind of telling us : You don’t want to be good? Then we’ll make you be good! By Force!

The system finally catches up with Alex's violent tendencies

When the scientists begin to test their new technique on Alex, this offers us one of the most memorable images from the film: that of Alex’s eyes forcibly opened, screaming in horror as he is bombarded with violent image after violent image. By giving Alex an overdose of violence mixed with pain causing drugs, they aim to suppress his love for “the old ultra-violence”. But the question asked by this new technique is: should humans be forced into being good? Or should we choose to be good out of our own free will? What the novel and the story is really trying to tell us is this: be good, or the system will make sure you will be. In fact, the system has its ways to force you to learn humility, but it’s not something you might want! In many ways, the book is a warning as to the horrors of going to prison. A place where you will loose the freedom and the rights you have out in the ‘free world’. And ultimately, another fine message this story offers us is this: everything you do will come back to you. The idea that in this world, what you give is what you get. You give violence? Than you can expect to receive it in return; it’s the old idea that every action has a reaction.

The 'Ludovico Technique' in action

Ultimately, Alex learns his lesson. He learns to respect others. At first he is forced into doing this by The Ludovico Technique, but later in the story, the government realizes what a huge mistake they’ve made by trying to use this technique on the general population. In the story, society is horrified of the idea that we could loose our god given right of free will. So they reverse the technique. And the film ends on a rather dark note, with Alex saying “they cured me alright”. Bam! Fade to black. The film does hint that Alex is back to his old violence and music loving self, but every time I watch the film I am left with the doubt in my mind: was he really cured? Or did they mess him up for life? This is a very intriguing way to end the film and my hats down to Kubrick for ending it this way. In fact, Kubrick based his film on the American cut of the novel which ended exactly like that. You see when the time came to release this book in the United States; the final 21^st chapter was omitted. The publishers thought that the original ending on the novel was too happy; they wanted that shocking ending that slams the door on your face. And that’s cool and all, but in reality, this final chapter was so important! It really took the message home! But alas, Kubrick said that he’d based his script on the version of the book that didn’t have the 21^st chapter, and that he’d discovered there was an omitted chapter when he’d already finished the script for the film. He also mentioned that after reading the omitted chapter, he never really wanted to end the film that way anyways. But my fellow readers, when the time comes for you to read this novel, make sure you get the version that includes the final 21^st chapter, you won’t regret it.   

Now, aside from the omission of the 21^st chapter in the film, there are very few differences between the book and the film. Kubrick did an excellent job of translating this book. The themes are intact, practically every scene in the book made it into the film with very few moments being omitted. This is the kind of book that you read, and as you read it you can see the film playing in your mind, you can hear the lines spoken. I swear I heard Malcom McDowell’s voice every time I read the words “Your humble narrator”. In a world where book to film translations are often times disastrous, A Clockwork Orange is not. It is a faithful translation of the book every step of the way. Add to that Kubrick’s pitch perfect visuals and image compositions and you have yourselves a masterpiece. The film is a perfect marriage between images and music, with Kubrick making extensive use of classical music to effectively enhance many of the scenes. In other words: there’s a lot of Beethoven in this film! There are some tough moments to watch too, like the scene where Alex and his droogs break into a house and rape this woman as they make the husband watch. I guess it all serves as a way to nail the idea home that Alex and his pals are completely out of control and have total disregard for human life. It aint easy watching them doing these vile acts, specially as they sing "Singing in the Rain" while doing it. The horrifying part is that there are people like this in the world. People that never learned that the choice to be good to our fellow man should always come from within ourselves.  That same as a freshly squeezed orange can produce delicious orange juice, we are all capable of goodness and humility and that if  we don’t choose to be good on our own, then the system can turn us into mechanical versions of human beings, hence the title ‘A Clockwork Orange’. We don’t want to be Clockwork Oranges now do we?

Rating for the book and film alike: 5 out of 5   

Kubrick (left) and McDowell (right) taking a coffee break in between filming