Movie Review: Conan the Barbarian

Conan the Barbarian (2011) 

Directed by Marcus Nispel 

Written by Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer, Sean Hood 

Starring Jason Mamoa, Rachel Nichols, Stephen Lang, Leo Howard, Ron Perlman

Release Date August 19th, 2011

Published August 19th, 2011 

In all honesty, I expected to hate Conan the Barbarian. Critics aren’t supposed to be prejudiced against a movie but director Marcus Nispel doesn’t have a great track record. Nispel’s Friday the 13th and Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes are exercises in brutality and I’m not talking about what he puts his characters through, but what he puts the audience through with his ham-fisted, overly stylized, blood and guts approach that treats characters as bags of meat that exist only to be split open like piñatas.

Don’t misunderstand, there are plenty of meat-bags in Conan the Barbarian waiting to be split open like so many pigs at a slaughterhouse, but somehow, one of the writers actually snuck a modicum of character development into the film and the yeoman work of the casting director found a few shockingly talented actors who miraculously manage to act amidst Nispel’s fetishistic bloodlust.

Jason Momoa plays Conan the Barbarian, a man born as a warrior; literally. He was born in the middle of a battle, cut from his dying mother’s womb amidst a clash of swords and the separating of limbs from bodies. Raised by his barbarian daddy, expertly played by that charming lunkhead Ron Perlman, Conan develops into a warrior at a very young age.

14 year old Leo Howard plays young Conan and the kid is a star. It was Howard as young Conan exhibiting badass skill in taking down a small horde of bad guys and carrying their severed heads back to his father as a trophy that won me over. When young Conan is forced to witness an atrocity against his family at the hands of the ruthless, power hungry Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang), Howard brings fierce intensity to Conan rather than the simple tears and fears of a child.

Jumping ahead a decade or so we find Conan as a warrior pirate sailing the scummy sea sides in search of any sign of Khalar Zym and the chance to avenge his family. When his chance arrives, following a siege by Zym and his nutty sorceress daughter, Marique (Rose McGowan), at a formerly peaceful mountainside monastery, Conan doesn’t let the opportunity pass, even if it means using an innocent beauty, Tamara (Rachel Nichols) as bait.

Jason Momoa, I’m told, is quite compelling on HBO’s Game of Thrones where his Khal Drogo is a silent yet imposing killer. In Conan the Barbarian however, Jason Momoa is shown up big time by the young Conan the Barbarian, Leo Howard. Howard is the star, Momoa merely carries on the compelling character that the kid creates. Momoa’s leaden line delivery nearly undoes the hard work Leo Howard put into making Conan so compelling. Thankfully, what Momoa failed at as an actor he makes up for as a physical presence and sword swinging apparatus.

I could sit here and hammer Conan the Barbarian for its blatant misogyny and massive lapses in logic but that would ignore the fact that I knew what Conan the Barbarian was before I saw it. I went into Conan the Barbarian aware that the film was going to treat women as sex objects and damsels in distress and I knew not to expect a heavy dose of brains other than those that spilled out of the cracked skulls of many CGI extras.

It seems unsportsmanlike to call out Conan the Barbarian for living down to expectations. And what would be more unsportsmanlike would be to deny that once you put aside the preconceived notions of Conan the Barbarian, the film is surprisingly compelling, even gripping in its blood and guts way.

Is Conan the Barbarian a little daffy at times? Absolutely, but it is also surprisingly involving and exciting. Do I welcome a Conan the Barbarian sequel? No, I don’t need to see this character ever again but for a one off, blood and guts, 3D epic, Conan the Barbarian is shockingly fun and surprisingly worth the 3D ticket price.

Movie Review Pathfinder

Pathfinder (2007)

Directed by Marcus Nispel 

Written by Laeta Kalogridis

Starring Karl Urban, Moon Bloodgood, Russell Means, Clancy Brown

Release Date April 13th, 2007

Published April 14th, 2007 

The movie Pathfinder exists as an example of director Marcus Nispel's love of ultra-violence. Nispel, who last directed 2003's Texas Chainsaw Massacre re-imagining, has an affinity for violence that is quite curious considering his career prior to making feature films. Nispel is a former music video director who did fine work for artists like George Michael, Janet Jackson, Amy Grant and Billy Joel.

From that resume one could deduce that Marcus was desperate for a shot of manly ultra-violence. Thus we get Pathfinder, an exceptionally well shot bit of blood and guts action that forgets that there is more to filmmaking than just how cool you can make a severed head look as it floats through the air or how red the arterial splash is coming from a victims jugular.

Karl Urban stars in Pathfinder as 'the ghost'. Born a Viking, he rejected his plundering parents and was later discovered by a kindly Indian woman who took him in and raised him as her own. Now a man, Ghost, as his people call him must defend his new family against his old family. The vikings have returned to the new world to finish what they started. They wish to conquer this land and kill anyone who gets in the way.

That is the set up for Pathfinder, the payoff is some serious, hardcore violence and cruelty weighed down by some seriously bad acting and boring exposition. Director Marcus Nispel, working from a script by Laeta Kalogridis, sets up boring characters as placeholders for good and evil. The Indians are a kind, happy, sharing community. The vikings are savage, destructive meanies. And never shall nuance be introduced.

The film threatens, only momentarily, a social commentary on how America was founded on the blood of Indians who were robbed of their land and killed mercilessly if they refused to give it up. However, director Nispel doesn't have the patience for subtext and instead crafts a series of dull expository scenes as buffers between the astonishing bits of violence.

I must say that as bad as most of Pathfinder is, the violence as directed by Nispel and captured by cinematographer Daniel C. Pearl is exceptional. Though I could do without the hamfisted slow-mo's and mind numbing score, the violence of the sword play, the ax cuts and arrow blasts is eye catching and in a better film could have been really amazing. As it is, it's only a technical marvel.

Where Nispel fails in Pathfinder is the same place he failed with his take on Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It's a failure to realize that the most compelling violence comes when we care about the outcome. The cardboard cutouts of good and evil that Nispel delivers in Texas Chainsaw Massacre and now in Pathfinder are incapable of involving an audience emotionally in whether they live or die.

Mystery Science Theater fans and lovers of bad movies everywhere will likely find much to enjoy about Pathfinder. With its Indian homilies and stereotypical noble savage portrayals the film is a vaguely racist hoot. Vaguely racist only because the Indians here are the good guys. Nevertheless, their onscreen portrayal in Pathfinder is only a politically correct step above the Wackowi tribe from TV's F-Troop.

Oh, if only the Indians in the movie were the only unintentional humor of Pathfinder. But no, wait till you see the first ever fight scene on sleds. Yes, sleds. Not real plastic and rope sleds like you had when you were a kid but rather a prehistoric sort of sled made from a Viking shield by our hero and used to blast down the side of a mountain like an X-Games athlete in a Mountain Dew commercial.

Then there is star Karl Urban who I swear is not this bad an actor. I know I have seen better, more compelling work from Mr. Urban, I just can't think of it right now. In Pathfinder Urban exists only to show off six pack abs and a tight backside covered only in a loincloth. Why would this be important to a movie that no woman in her right mind would ever watch intentionally? I have no idea, but there he is in all his oiled up glory.

Urban mumbles his every line of dialogue as if it were incidental to his performance. Who knows, maybe it was only incidental. There really isn't much for Urban or any of the characters to say in Pathfinder. As I said earlier, the film is merely a vehicle for director Marcus Nispel to display his love of spraying blood, flying heads and dismembered guts.

In that sense, Pathfinder is a modest success. The violence is extraordinary and eye popping, literally in the case of one ugly viking. It's the stuff in between the violence, the long, interminable interludes of Indian stereotypes and viking growling that makes a mess of the film.

For fans of hardcore violence and rock hard abs; Pathfinder is like a low grade 300. Not as compelling or well made as that Zak Snyder's blockbuster, but similar in its aims. The violence is extraordinary and honestly very well rendered by director Marcus Nispel. And star Karl Urban would be right at home on that Spartan battlefield with his shaved chest oiled up and ready for battle.

Pathfinder is a bad movie with great violence which leaves me at a loss. I can't recommend the film and yet I'm modestly impressed with some of it.

Movie Review Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Remake)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

Directed by Marcus Nispel 

Written by Scott Kosar 

Starring Jennifer Biel, Jonathan Tucker, Mike Vogel, Eric Balfour, R. Lee Ermey

Release Date October 17th, 2003 

Published October 15th, 2003 

When I heard they were remaking Texas Chainsaw Massacre, my first thought was, why? It's already been remade a number of times under a number of different titles. Take House of 1000 Corpses, clearly a complete rip-off of Chainsaw, save for the actual use of a chainsaw. How about the backwoods hicks of Wrong Turn, clearly modeled after Leatherface and his lunatic family? Its low budget look and guerilla shooting style have influenced nearly every horror film released in its wake.

Of course, the number of bad sequels that have provided variations on the original characters are in themselves merely re-imaginings of the first film. A remake would have to first justify itself with a reason to do it. The new Texas Chainsaw Massacre fails that test, never once providing a reason why it needs to exist.

It's the same setup as the 1974 original, a group of comely teenagers trekking their way through backwoods Texas on their way to who knows where, there is a vague allusion to a concert in this new version. Jessica Biel of TV's 7th Heaven plays the re-imagined role originally played by Marylin Burns, renamed Erin for the remake. Her friends are Kemper (Eric Balfour), Pepper (Erica Leerhsen), Andy (Mike Vogel) and Morgan (Jonathan Tucker). 

The kids nearly rundown a teenage girl along the desolate highway, wandering too nowhere. They pick her up and she begins babbling about someone being dead and grave warnings about the direction they are driving. Before she can explain anything more, she meets an ugly end at her own hands, it's actually the film's most effectively gory visual. It's all downhill from there, however.

With the dead girl in the backseat, the traumatized teens stop off in Travis County to find help. What they find however is a sadistic, twisted sheriff (R. Lee Ermey) and his equally sadistic and twisted family, including the murderous chainsaw wielding Leatherface (Eric Bryarniarski) who eats teenagers for breakfast... and lunch and dinner as well.

It's been a while since I've seen Tobe Hooper's original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but I can recall it being far more effective than Director Marcus Nispel's slight, slick re-imagining. There was a visceral quality to the original that is greatly lacking in this remake. It's a quality that Nispel tries to make up for by beating the audience senseless with a chase sequence that lasts what seems like hours. The stylized music video slickness is completely at odds with the original film.

The higher production values of the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I gather, are supposedly the justification for the remake. As if trying to answer the unasked question of "What might Tobe Hooper have done with a bigger budget for the original?” Who cares what he might have done, what he did with his miniscule budget is part of the film’s appeal? The low production value and Daniel Pearl's minimalist cinematography are part of horror legend. Pearl returns for the remake and does seem to revel in his newfound technical freedom. However, improving on the look of the original isn't anything anyone asked to see.

The young actors give a good account of themselves in their underwritten victim roles, especially Biel who may have found her niche as a scream queen on par with Jaime Lee Curtis. However, she needs to find herself an original franchise to make her mark in the genre. Somewhere there is a new horror franchise ready to change the genre and directors like Marcus Nispel could better spend their time discovering that new franchise rather than applying modern polish to horror classics like Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Movie Review Friday the 13th (Remake)

Friday the 13th (2009) 

Directed by Marcus Nispel 

Written by Damian Shannon, Michael Swift 

Starring Jared Padalecki, Danielle Panabaker, Amanda Righetti, Travis Van Winkle, Aaron Yoo

Release Date February 13th, 2009 

Published February 13th, 2009 

I get why horror movies are popular. Who doesn't love a good scare. The horror masters of the 70's and 80's used gore and nudity to tantalize our lower brain and piled a little suspense on top to keep us completely engaged. The mixture created an era in the genre that cannot be matched and is long over. The modern horror film has devolved from the standards of the classics. The modern obsession with torture and 'realism' has turned a lowbrow genre into a frightening reflection of a devolving society. If the latest addition to the torture porn genre, Friday the 13th the remake, is what modern horror audiences want, god help us all.

The latest 're-imagining' from the ugly sad minds of producer Michael Bay and director Marcus Nispel, the new Friday the 13th takes gory pleasure in creating characters so loathsome that they challenge one not to root for the maniac murderer. Some might call that daring, I just call it disturbing. A group of College kids take off into the woods surrounding Camp Crystal lake in search of a large crop of marijuana. Once they set camp for the night they engage in behaviors that invite the oddly puritanical psychopath Jason Voorhees.

Though ostensibly Jason kills because of his mommy issues, she was killed by camp counselors after she killed a number of them, evidence seems to indicate that Jason kills out of some misguided moralistic crusade against sexual promiscuity and illicit drug and alcohol consumption. Jason's first victim here is a pothead. The next two victims are in the midst of a sexual encounter. The next two? Thinking about sex and slightly inebriated. Once this first group is dispatched another group arrives at a lake side cabin not far from Ol' camp Crystal Lake.

Once again, drugs, alcohol and sex are prominent. On top of the illicit activities, each of these characters are supreme jackasses. Obnoxious, overbearing jerks, especially their douche-bag host played by Travis Van Winkle. Van Winkle's Trent is king douche-bag and not rooting for Jason to take his head right off his douche-bag shoulders is a herculean effort. Thus we get Jason Voorhees' moral crusader. Righting the wrongs of the heedless, consumptive and hedonistic youth. It's a bizarro land of right and wrong, good and evil, that delights in torture and murder while attempting to justify the killing in a wildly odd moralistic fashion.

Like a crazed bible thumper, Jason seeks eye for eye vengeance for the death of his mother and, though he never seems to know it, the film makers drive him to go all old testament on his sinning victims. Jason as a vengeful god is a truly bizarre conceit. The same instinct that drives Jason to punish is the same that seems to draw an audience to witness the slaughter. There is a distinct "Christians and lions" feel to modern horror. As the Romans merely witnessed bloody slaughters we are invited to do so with a slightly more dramatic distance. Actors being killed with special effects is a far cry from real people being slaughtered, but the instinct to enjoy it is the same and almost as disturbing.

Indeed, the modern horror maker does want you to enjoy the slaughter, lingering as they do on the faux suffering and imitated degradation. And therein lies my issue, dear reader. Just what could drive someone to enjoy even the demonstration of degradation, torture and humiliation? Horror, back in the day, crafted super human cartoons who were always killable and always the bad guy, no matter how charismatic or iconic they became. You may have gone to the theater because of Michael Myers or Jason or Freddy but the rooting interest was always in seeing them overcome by their victims.

Today, I cannot figure out what the appeal or purpose of modern horror is. For the life of me, why anyone would want to watch the loathsome characters of Friday the 13th or their ugly disturbing deaths is beyond me. There is simply nothing appealing here and the compromising of good and evil, the seeming attempts to make Jason, ugh, sympathetic, are stomach turning. Friday the 13th exists in a moral vacuum. There is no good or evil, just the demonstration of death and some faux twisted puritanism masquerading as ironic aside. Of couse, these aren't real moral crusaders their are naked breasts and soft-core porn quality sex on display in this very R-rated movie. Thus, Jason's unlikely moral crusade is without a doubt expected to be humorous.

It's not humorous. There is nothing humorous and nothing even remotely appealing about this ugly, stupid, vile little movie.