"Hercules" Is No "Conan," but Hey, What Is?

Hercules

"Rahhh! I challenge you to take this even remotely seriously!"

Hercules brings Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s career full circle in a way.  Johnson’s first starring role was in The Scorpion King, another film about an ancient warrior.  The Scorpion King was less than impressive, and Johnson’s film career didn’t really take off until he started piggy-backing onto existing franchises (G.I. Joe, Fast Five) in recent years.  Now he’s back to headlining a story about a mythic hero, and the results are…well, all right.

Hercules has been receiving a surprising pass from most of the nation’s critics (as of this writing, it was at 61% on Rotten Tomatoes) mainly because a lot of people collectively decided to lower their expectations, which usually doesn’t happen with critics.  Perhaps it’s easy to lighten up on this film because it makes fun of the idea of a myth, allowing it to be much more fun than that other crappy Hercules movie that was deadly serious.  Also, Dwayne Johnson simply looks out of place.  He looks silly with the long hair, beard, and warrior getup.  He is utterly unbelievable when he’s removed from a modern setting.  Finally, Brett Ratner directed it, and everyone has accepted that he makes mindless, kind-of fun movies.

I’m with the critics who gave this a pass.  I enjoy Dwayne Johnson’s persona, and it was refreshing to see them mess with the myth rather than try to replicate it.  The characters stop short of winking at the audience, but everyone appears to be having fun and/or picking up an easy paycheck (I’m looking at you, John Hurt and Ian McShane).  It’s easy to laugh along with the cast at the lighter moments.  More importantly, it allows you to laugh at some of the ridiculous physical moments as well (The Rock throwing a horse comes to mind).  Overall, it made the film worth a watch. 

Although I am giving this film a pass, that doesn’t mean I didn’t have some major issues with it.  As I was watching, it occurred to me that this was Dwayne Johnson’s attempt to make a Conan the Barbarian film a la Schwarzenegger.  Hercules in this film is simply a mercenary, much like Conan, who has to help a king.  Along the way he learns about being a hero and blah, blah, blah.  Hercules isn’t truly worthy of comparison to that film because of a few key mistakes.  It’s not dark enough.  If the film decides to abandon the myth, then they should plant the film firmly in reality.  Instead, Hercules seems to be all powerful through sheer luck.  He never gets in battle formation and simply hangs out in front of the army, clubbing whoever walks near him.  Even though he teaches warfare in the film, he showcases no knowledge aside from “Smash bad guys!”  All of this would be fine if the action was brutal, but it’s all bloodlessly cartoonish and a bit boring.  Director Ratner could have easily fixed this by showcasing how strong Hercules is, mythic or not.  Don’t show a quick shot of him swinging a club followed by a faceless goon collapsing.  Add some oomph to it!  When Hercules hits someone with that club, it should be impressive, but he appears to be no better than any of the other warriors onscreen. 

I’m breaking my own rule of critique by focusing so much of my negativity on a comparison to a similar film, but it’s hard not to when there was true potential here.  That other Hercules movie (the one with a guy named Lutz in it) had no promise and thankfully disappeared quickly.  (In fact, I think this film made a joke about the title of the film at one point, though I’m not sure if that was coincidental or intentional.)  I’m still waiting for The Rock to fulfill his Schwarzenegger destiny, and this was the latest chance for him to do so.  I guess I just need to accept that the age of Schwarzenegger & co. has passed, and it is never coming back (perhaps this is best evidenced in the increasingly silly interactions of those stars in The Expendables franchise).  It’s probably more likely that The Rock will simply join that franchise than headline his own great action film.  Oh well, I can always go back and re-watch those vastly superior films from the ‘80s and '90s.

Of course, all of this might just be me showing my age.  Perhaps a younger audience will watch this and respond to it the same way I responded to Conan the Barbarian the first time I saw it.  I sure hope not, though.  Regardless, Hercules isn’t an awful movie or anything.  It’s forgettable, light fun with a cast much more impressive than it deserves.  You won’t want your money back when it’s over, but you will forget you saw it by the end of the year. 

Hercules receives a:

"Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides"

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides - Directed by Rob Marshall, written by Ted Elliott & Terry Rossio, starring Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Ian McShane, and Geoffrey Rush - Rated PG-13

Mermaids with fangs? (Shaking head...)

Captain Jack Sparrow is back and this time he’s not weighed down by Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom; this time Captain Jack is the star, for better or worse. On Stranger Tides attempts to be a simpler tale than the last two Pirates sequels but ends up being just as busy, twice as goofy, and half as entertaining.

Tides has Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp in his comfort zone) searching for the Fountain of Youth. Even though this film has left out Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann, Jack still has plenty of cohorts…and enemies. Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) is the main familiar face. New to the series are Angelica (Penelope Cruz) and Blackbeard (Ian McShane). And thrown in for good measure are some voodoo zombies, a clergyman, a Spanish armada, and mermaids. They all tie together somehow but the point is that it is all a bit too much.

The clergyman and the mermaids are the biggest problem with the film. It’s as if the screenwriters started writing the script without two young lovers in it then chickened out and added a couple of replacement characters for Will and Elizabeth, so any chance of the film being much different from the others went out the window. What’s worse is that these two new additions are much less compelling than Will and Elizabeth. The film would be much better off without them.

Tides would also benefit from the exclusion of the mermaids in general. The Pirates series has always had some goofy supernatural elements to it, but having multiple scenes in which grown men shudder in fear at the thought of mermaids was just too stupid. Not to mention the mermaids themselves which turn out to be…vampires? Vampires with some kind of whips? It’s never really explained just what they are and who cares anyway? They should’ve never been in the film to begin with.

Including Blackbeard and Angelica in Tides was more than enough new blood for the series. Blackbeard even brings in the added supernatural element of voodoo, which is another reason why the mermaids were unnecessary. Instead, the bloated script doesn’t have enough time to really explain anything about Blackbeard and his voodoo tendencies or just what is so magical about his sword or his ship. Ian McShane does what he can with the character, but at times even he looked confused about who or what he was. With that historic character and the casting, the addition of Blackbeard turned out to be a huge disappointment. The film focuses on all the wrong things.

The movie isn’t without its fun, though. Depp is still entertaining as Jack Sparrow. Since this is his fourth time playing the pirate there are no surprises here, but if you’ve enjoyed him before you’ll enjoy him again. Rush is as great as ever as Barbossa, though the film woefully misuses him. The movie would’ve been much better if the entire film had been about Sparrow and Barbossa teaming up. It’s been done in the series before, but so what? Depp and Rush are much more entertaining onscreen together than some no-name, whiny clergyman and a nearly mute mermaid.

The look of the film is one of the brighter points. This is a big budget movie and you can see the money on the screen, which is always a good thing. As far as the action goes, it’s serviceable but nothing too memorable. The 3-D, aside from a few sword pointing moments, was pointless and not at all worth the extra money.

On Stranger Tides is an overlong, goofy mess that could’ve used some serious rewriting and editing. It’s not a complete disaster or anything, but it is definitely a missed opportunity to reinvent the series overall. Many people had been disappointed with the sequels, with some going so far as to skip the third one because the plot had become so convoluted. (I enjoyed the sequels, though I can understand the problems some had with them.) Tides is certainly easier to follow than those films, but that doesn’t mean it’s automatically better. The story is simple but there are too many players. The new Pirates film isn’t a colossal waste of time, but it definitely isn’t as fun as it should be. A film featuring Jack Sparrow cannot afford to be this dull and bloated. You won’t be sorry if you just wait to rent this one.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

That stuff with Richard Griffiths as King George was almost unbearable.

Why make Barbossa part of the British Navy? Geoffrey Rush has the greatest pirate laugh and they relegate him to the straight man role of the film. Let the guy be the over the top pirate he was meant to be.

Stephen Graham had a few funny moments as one of the new comic-relief pirates.

Was it just me or did it seem like it took forever for Jack Sparrow to finally end up on a boat. A movie with "Pirates" in the title should stick to the ocean as much as possible.

"44 Inch Chest"

44 Inch Chest - Directed by Malcolm Venville, written by Louis Mellis and David Scinto, starring Ray Winstone, John Hurt, Ian McShane, Stephen Dillane, and Tom Wilkinson - Rated R (Available on Blu-ray and DVD)

This movie had some real potential, but it ended up forgettable.

When I first read about this film I was nearly salivating: the cast was unbelievable and it was written by the writers behind Sexy Beast. Did it live up to my expectations? Not really. This is not to say that 44 Inch Chest is a terrible movie, it's just not what I was expecting.

The film is about Colin Diamond, a recently cuckolded man who, with four of his friends, has to decide whether or not to kill his wife's new lover. I suppose I should have known this wasn't going to be Sexy Beast part two from this setup alone. This film is much more pyschological (though Sexy Beast does have some psychological elements). This may be considered a SPOILER, but it turns out that this is one of those films where you're not sure what it real and what isn't. Personally, I always go with the straightforward explanation. If something happens on screen, then it really did happen...unless there is a strong suggestion that reality is a bit off. There are scenes that are definitely in Colin's head in this one, but I think it's up to the viewer if the rest of the film is.

The reason it's possible to interpret the film in different ways is because Colin is an absolute mess. The film introduces this very well. The opening scene slowly shows the aftermath of a fight in Colin's living room. The camera works its way through the destruction as "Without You" by Harry Nilsson plays. The camera comes to a stop on Ray Winstone laying on the ground, a blank stare on his face. Then Colin is collected by his friends, who then kidnap his wife's lover, and place him inside an armoir (or chest, if you will) in what looks like some kind of safe house. The set up is very Hitchcockian and has a play-like quality to it as well. That may be why I can see the more psychological side.

In or outside of Colin's head, whichever you prefer, there are other characters and they play off of each other quite well. Tom Wilkinson seems to be the voice of reason in the group. Stephen Dillane plays a slightly untrustworthy friend (the weakest character of the group in my opinion). Ian McShane is the calm, charismatic, and lucky member of the group. And John Hurt is the cranky elder who expects bold action from Colin.

John Hurt is definitely the best part of the film. I could listen to his outbursts for an entire film. His back and forth with every character is hilarious. McShane is right there with him, though. He plays cool as good as anyone. His story of winning a sizable amount at a casino is my favorite scene in the film. Wilkinson does a fine job, but as the voice of reason, he doesn't get anything interesting to say or do, which is very unfortunate. I would go so far to say that he is wasted in this film.

Winstone is very convincing in this. He plays an emotionally destroyed man to perfection. It's not just outbursts and fake sobbing. It's in the facial expressions. You can see the anguish in his eyes in every scene. The film hinges on his performance and he carries it well.

The problem here is that the story is a bit boring. I guess the writers thought of this as well because the film is filled with anecdotes. It seems every character gets their own little side story to tell. That's fine, and the stories are interesting, but the problem is that the character developing side stories were far more entertaining than the main plot. I wish this film was just about the day to day workings of this group. I don't call them a gang because I'm not sure if they are a gang. It is obvious they have a history together, but a history of what? And Colin, aside from being a distraught husband, has no discernible characteristics. He's a very boring character.

As strange as it may sound, I wish this film had been more like a typical, unoriginal gangster movie. Make it about a heist or something. It can still be a character driven film without the adultery plot. Maybe that takes away the possibility of a theory or two about the movie but so be it. I don't think that this movie earns a dissection.

So the film tries to be deep. Some viewers may buy into it, but I didn't. With this cast the film really should have had a lighter tone or a sharper focus on a more interesting character. Instead, it's a passable effort with a very good moment or two. I'll be recommending Sexy Beast to people for the rest of my life, I'll probably forget what 44 Inch Chest was about by the end of the year.