The Gnat: Fly on the Wall Reviews

→ in
Tools    





Thanks Gnut looking forward to the new Narnia film
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha



Lost in never never land
Excalibur

This film is a fairly impressive retelling of the Arthurian legend. It manages to stay true to the source and it manages to be quite entertaining. Excalibur isn't without its flaws, but for a retelling of a fairly complex Arthurian legend, it does a good job.

The strongest part about the film is the detail it doesn't spare when creating the Arthurian legend. It doesn't just focus on one part (as some legend films are want to do) but instead literally encompasses the complete life of Arthur from his birth through his death and all the steps inbetween. And even of the separate aspects of the story, it rarely glosses over anything. It goes into detail with the love and accusation between Lancelot and Guenevere and the fall out from that. The quest for the grail could have been condenced down a lot as well, but it wasn't. And for this film it works out nicely.

The acting in this film was hit or miss. There was some strong talent such as Helen Mirren playing Morgana or Liam Neeson playing Gawain, where as some of the larger lead roles, like Lancelot were a little bit off. The biggest issue is that sometimes the actors had to force the accent, and it was pretty obvious when that was occuring. The best role though was Merlin played by Nicol Williamson. The character of Merlin is made to be a little bit odder then most retellings would do, and Williamson does a good job of catching all the interecacies of the character.

Visually this film is solid as well. There are a fair number of shots that are quite grand. It does suffer a little bit in a few of the battle scenes from poor direction, but for the most part it isn't the issue. The main time that I noticed the visuals being extremely poor was when Arthur and Lancelot meet for the first time and then fight. It is a technique that is used a lot now where it is a tight shot, but in this case the shots aren't lined up correctly so instead of adding intensity to the action, because you know what is going on in detail and the actions appear to be quicker, it ends up just being confusing.

The audio in this film was also suspect from time to time. They had various reoccuring themes that generally worked out well, but it was also a little overdone. The themes that they would use for certain emotions were cliche and often over powered what was going on on the screen. There were a few times where it was the case though that the music did basically cause shivers because it accented the scene very well. Also, the dialog didn't always seem to adjust with the camera, so that a character in the distance didn't sound like they were in the distance.

Overall this is a very good retelling. It doesn't spare detail, and while it might seem to drag a little bit from time to time, it is because of the detail that it separates itself from other films that try and adapt the Arthurian legend. Definitely a film that is worth seeing, but you do need to set aside a little time for it as it isn't a short film.

Overall Grade: B+

Story: A
Acting: B-
Audio/Visual: B-
__________________
"As I was walking up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away."
-From Identity



Lost in never never land
Deathstalker

This film goes along with the current "theme" of films that I've been seeing in that it is a somewhat odd film that is set around the middle ages. It follows the typical line of evil ruler in the kingdom and the young hero has to over throw them, but it does so in an entertaining manner, so the common story doesn't detract from the film itself.

The story, as I've commented is a pretty typical one as you look at the basic outline of the plot. The evil ruler, the young hero both try for the mystical powers that control the kingdom, and it ends as you'd typically expect it to end. What works well in the film is the absurdity of the film when it fills in the details making the story. The various deformed characters and the pig-man are just some of the few ways that they make it odd. Add in the sidekick character and the odd and entertaining scene in the king court (which looks basically like a dungeon), there are plenty of memorable parts to the film.

As I've hinted at, the characters are rather unique for the most part in the film. This doesn't mean that they are well acted. There are some of them that aren't that bad, but they generally end up blending together into a bunch of roles that aren't really all that differentiated from the other roles in the film. And improved acting really wouldn't have improved this film as its strength was how odd it made its characters look and the story.

This film definitely comes across as a cult classic. It has some fairly iconic characters, cheesy (but effective) one-liners, and a fairly absurd fleshing out of a typical plot. It won't ever be considered a great film, but if you like the '80's (and '70's) B list films where you know that half the time they made the film just to be a little odd, then you should enjoy this film.

Overall Grade: B

Story: B+
Acting: C
Audio/Visual: C+



Lost in never never land
Sheena

Don't ask me how I thought this would be a good movie. Well, in all honesty, I wasn't expecting it to be a good movie, but I was expecting it to be a cult classic type of movie, and it disappointed at that. It had an absurd plot, a fair amount of cheesy dialog and violence, and it had poor acting, but without them all working in harmony, it isn't a cult classic type of film. In this film, they seemed to be working more against one another then with one another making a basically unbearable film.

The worst part of the film was the acting. Typically you expect a lot of cheesy acting, which was the case, but you expect it from all the acting. In this film, the lead actress (playing the title character Sheena) was brutal. Tanya Roberts appeared not to be able to act her way out of a wet paper bag, so to speak. She was stiff and emotionless throughout the whole film giving her dialog like she was reading a script as compared to actually speaking them as her character. It was simply brutal to watch, and the decent side kick male character (side kick to the male lead) who was good and funny couldn't even come close to redeeming the film.

The story itself was decently entertaining. A place kicker from the NFL trying to take over some sacred land of a tribe in order to get their "riches" and he has to do so by taking out the leader who is standing in his way, only to have his plan get foiled by a girl who was raised by the tribes shaman and a reporter from the U.S. doing a story on the place kicker and the countries leader. You really can't get much more absurd then that, as it is just an odd mish-mash of everything. And it works decently well, for the most part, but Tanya Roberts again detracts from the story as her character grates at the very center of the film.

Overall if it wasn't for Tanya Roberts this likely would have been a decent film, but because of her, it was a brutal film. It just doesn't flow with her character and terrible acting breaking down the film into a very poor mess. She continues to play the same character on "That 70's Show" as Midge, but the role is specifically written for her to play that character, so it works that she is a little stiff, stupid seeming, and wooden.

Overall Grade: D

Story: C+
Acting: F
Audio/Visual: C



Lost in never never land
Independence Day

I know, I should have watched something called "Memorial Day" over this past weekend, but I didn't have it available to watch . In all honesty though, this was the first time that I've seen this movie the whole way through. I've seen most of it scattered over various viewings on TV or catching little bits of it at other places, but as a whole, I liked it better then the bits I'd tried to piece together.

The story is pretty entertaining. Aliens attacking earth are always fun to see, and of course kicking the Alien butt is also fun to see happen. It isn't going to have a ton of depth, which it doesn't, but it is entertaining to watch, which is what a big budget film like it is meant to be (not to say that big budget films can't have more depth, it is just the generally with the amount that is put, of the budget, into explosions and fights, there isn't much left over for plot). A few parts did bug me, characters more so then anything else, but it was fun and entertaining, a better done then most, mindless romp that is enjoyable when one has a fair amount of time to burn and doesn't want to think.

The acting in this film was tolerable. Box office gold, Will Smith, does a good job in his role. He, like normal, is entertaining and very charismatic on screen. The rest of the cast are solid as well, but generally cast in their typical roles. Will Smith is the butt kicker, Jeff Goldblum is the nerdy character, and the rest sort of fall into line as well. They act very predictably, but like I said in the second paragraph, good acting and character development aren't the important things for a film like this one, it is more about explosions and giant CGI space ships. So stereotypical characters really don't hurt this film, they are instead just good means to move the plot along.

Visually this film is impressive, it has to be with it being a large budget film. But big explosions and bigger alien ships are always fun to see up on the screen, and these are done impressively. Even the aliens work out quite nicely. That is what really makes this film, the fact that you can sit back and get caught up in the magnitude of everything, because everything in the film is done on such a large scale.

Overall this is a good, mindless, big-budget action/adventure film, and it is made better then a lot of them are. It is pretty long, so it isn't one of those mindless films you can just pop in on a whim and sit down and watch, because it will eat up a lot of ones day, that is the biggest knock against it though for the type of film that it is.

Overall Grade: B

Story: B
Acting: B-
Audio/Visual: A-



Lost in never never land
Doomsday

Niel Marshall's homage to the 80's adventure cult classic films works out extremely well as it pays its respects to the great films like Escape from L.A. and Mad Max. It also brings in the cult classic style of films like Deathstalker which is interesting to see combined in a single film. It is a very enjoyable film, and it respects the movies that it is supposed to be paying respect to by following closely in the mold of the cult classic films.

The most common knock that I've heard about this film, which I don't think is a fair knock, is that it isn't extremely original. But I don't think that it needs to be, or should be, in order to try and do what it is supposed to do. It is a film made in homage to the cult classic action/adventure type of film, so when it borrows the storyline of previous films (to some extent) or borrows character types or scene types from other films, it shouldn't be looked at as a bad thing, as it is doing so out of respect. It also blends so much more then the other films do, as it borrows from all of the films, that it has to be original. Knights in shining armor as well as new Mercedes-Benz cars, that is an interesting blend of things, and it is blended together well. It is also nice that they don't completely try and join everything together in one giant mess, but they keep the various parts of the stories separate, for the most part, and while there is some cross over because of character connection, it doesn't confuse anything that the film is trying to do.

Visually this film is entertaining as well. All of the different type of scenes (from the Escape from L.A. colluseum type of scene to an almost Gladiator type of scene) this film shows all of them well. They didn't skimp on the scenes, which is a good thing, as they are entertaining. They also didn't skimp on gore, but that is really a trademark thing for a lot of the B type of movie (see something like Blacksheep (2006)), so while that might end up disturbing some, it is really something that has been a part of the genre for a long time.

The acting is solid in the film. The female lead (Rhona Mitra) does a good job in her role, which is entertaining. She is fun to watch flying around screen beating up the bad guys. And while her character isn't a Snake Plisskin type of character, where she is also bad, her character does come across with a lot of similarities. The rest of the cast are solid. Malcolm McDowell is in a limited role in the film, but he is strong in his role and is definitely entertaining when he gets his very limited screen time. Craig Conway is also strong in his role (in the Escape from L.A. parts as compared to McDowell's Medival parts) and he plays his very absurd, over the top character extremely well.

Overall this is a film that has to be looked at as an homage to the cult classic action adventure films of the 80's. People are going to say that it copies a lot, but that is out of respect, not out of lack of material, because it copies from so many sources (and really not a ton from a lot of the sources) that there shouldn't be another way to read it. Definitely entertaining, and if you like the cult classic action adventure film, you will enjoy this.

Overall Grade: B+

Story: B
Acting: B
Audio/Visual: B+



Lost in never never land
Jumper

I've been a little wary of this film because it had Hayden Christensen as the lead character in the film, but this might be the first role I somewhat like him in. The story leaves some to the imagination, but I like that fact as I don't always appreciate the typical "Hollywood" style of film where they spend so much time explaining everything.

This film, like Doomsday, has always had a reoccuring knock with the story, and that is that they don't explain everything (in the case of this film, not Doomsday). But I don't think that really should be an issue, I think it is more of an issue with the viewers if they aren't willing to let their minds fill in the rest of the story and feel like they need to be spoon fed everything. The story does have some holes to it, but that is more from missing details then from actually storyline issues. They could have tied it all together, explained more how the ability to jump works, or gone into more detail about how the conflict between the Paladins and Jumpers started, but that wasn't the point of the film. The point of the film was the struggle, currently, between the Paladins and the Jumpers and how Hayden Christensen's character and that of Samuel L. Jackson would fight in their conflict. And I think it does a decent job of doing this. My biggest complaint about the story was that the use of Rachel Bilson's character, Millie, is done is such a way that it is a means to an end. One final thing that I like about the story is the fact that it doesn't make anyone out as being good. Christensen's character does give off a vibe that he is better at the end, but he abuses his ability as a jumper, which is nice, because that seems to be more realistic then most movies would portray it. Most films would have Christensen's character be completely repentant after the first wrong doing, but this has a more realistic feel to it, for such an unrealistic movie.

The acting is decent in this film. Jackson plays a pretty typical character, and Christensen, as I've said is better then normal. People knock Bilson's character and acting, for a good reason, but I don't think, like some I've read, have suggested, that it is because she is a terrible actress, it is more so that she is given a terrible role, as I said, she is the means to an end in order to bring to a head the conflict between Jackson and Christensen. They really don't develop her character at all, so she seems shallow and has a lot of pretty bad lines, because there isn't any development.

The visuals in this film are good. They utilize a lot of different locations quite well, and utilize them in an entertaining manner. This is another part that people complain about, the fact that the number of locations are limited, but I actually like this (and it is actually explained why it is limited in the film). They don't have the various jumper jumping all over the place because they can't, they have to "know" or have seen the location to which they are jumping. This makes it a better film in some ways as it doesn't make the jumpers all powerful (even though they are pretty powerful even with that limitation).

Overall this is probably a guilty pleasure film for me. I like the combination of action/adventure and sci-fi that this film has, and I really wish that I could jump around places like they do in the film. But I think this film is better then it is generally made out to be and it gets an unfair shake because viewers don't want to have to use their imaginations at all to fill in the details.

Overall Grade: B

Acting: B-
Story: B+
Audio/Visual: B+



Lost in never never land
V for Vendetta

This is really a well made film, it has solid acting, wonderful dialog, and generally works well on every level. It has an interesting message as well, so it isn't purely an action film, but it has that added level of depth.

The story is what sets this film appart from a lot of other films. The whole idea of a government screwing over its people isn't all that different and has actually be done a ton of times before, but the character of V is unique and refreshing as to how he views the government and how he reacts against them. Again, taking out the leaders isn't all that unique, it has happened a lot before, but V's manners are very different from the typical "hero" who goes in guns blazing and shots down all the bad guys. Add in the brilliant dialog in this film (and some very good twists) and it separates itself from the other films about corrupt goverments. The monolog that V gives early in the film is one of the best set of lines ever in a film. I know of a lot of other great lines, but just the delivery and the beautiful reuse of the same letter to start words (why can't I think of the correct term, it is on the tip of my tongue) is simply brilliant.

The acting in this film is also very good. Natalie Portman gives a strong performance as Evey, and Hugo Weaving gives a very good performance as V. The rest of the supporting cast is very solid as well. Stephen Rea, John Hurt, and Tim Piggott-Smith all do great jobs in their pretty big supporting roles. Without them the film definitely would have been a whole lot weaker, but Hugo Weaving really steals the show. Portman's character is strong as well, but it is clearly second fiddle to V.

Visually this film is impressive. They have some huge scenes (such as the Londoners at the end of the film) that are very impressive to see, but it is also very strong in scenes in confined spaces. They is one series of scenes, where Evey is imprisoned, which are done very well, as they are in a very confined space. And there is a domino scene that is was actually set up, using 22,000 dominoes that is also impressive. Those scenes along with one well done fight sequences (which appears to have influences from The Matrix and Equillibrium in it) was impresive as well.

Overall this is a very good film. It isn't a film that I feel the need to watch often, but I enjoy it when I do see it as it does bring so many aspects of the film together in a very strong way.

Overall Grade: B+

Story: A
Acting: A-
Audio/Visual: A-



Lost in never never land
Strange Wilderness

This Happy Madison production comedy has its hits and misses, but it hits a few of its jokes out of the park. Unfortunately it has marked periods of down time where it sort of waddles through its plot in hopes of reaching something that people will enjoy besides the comedy. It also, unfortunately, drags on some of the jokes a little bit longer then they needed to go.

Humor is a pretty hard thing to get right in a film, and very few films can take jokes and run them non-stop through a film, Strange Wilderness isn't an exception to this trend. It did hit a few jokes, most notably a shark joke at the end and one about a guys name, that I won't give away, but it also just ran some jokes way to long. There were a couple of reoccurring jokes, most notably with a handbuzzer that just ran on and on and was brought up multiple times. That joke, along with one about a turkey didn't work nearly as well as they were hoping that they would. They also had some pretty big lulls in the humor. They tried to keep it going, but they would hit a break and then the first joke after the break would generally end up being one of the jokes that fell flat.

The actual story for this film was pretty decent in that it had solid story idea in the search for bigfoot and something that was able to made into a comedy pretty easily. It has a natural progression and it doesn't seem like they are often trying to force the jokes into the story, but instead the story seems to flow with the jokes. With that said, they really didn't do a ton with the story, it progresses as one would expect, and that was about it.

The acting in this film was below average. Steve Zahn does a good job in the lead role, and Ashley Scott also does a solid job in the film. The issue comes in with some of the secondary characters. Jonah Hill, who normally does a solid job in a comedy role, does a very poor job most of the time with his character. A few times we see the Jonah Hill that is fun to watch on screen, but otherwise it is just brutal. Justin Long is also pretty brutal in his role, he doesn't play well in many of the jokes and seems like more of an extra character that the film could have, and should have, done without.

Overall this is a decent comedy film, when it hits a joke, it hits a homerun with it, but it misses badly on some jokes and doesn't have enough jokes to fill its time. But if you want a solid pointless comedy film, this one defnitely meets that requirement.

Overall Grade: C

Story: B
Acting: D
Audio/Visual: C-



I can't recall if I'd said thanks to you for your reviews before. I always read them when I see you've put a new one up. Thanks



Lost in never never land
Starsky and Hutch

This comedy film fails to deliver for the most part, it has a moment or two, but all the "talent" in the film plays their predetermined role for every film, leaving the viewer without much to enjoy. It is a been there, seen that type of movie.

The story itself is simply average, taking down a big drug ring happens decently often in films, and this one doesn't play out much differently. I guess it could be called a little different, because it is a comedy, but then again, it misses on all its comedic aspects, so I don't really know if it is any different.

The acting in the film is pretty bad. It is simply the likes of Owen Wilson, Ben Stiller, and Vince Vaughn being Owen Wilson, Ben Stiller, and Vince Vaughn, if they had any diversity in their roles ever, that would maybe help the film. The best character in the film is Huggy Bear, played by Snoop Dogg, just because of the fact it is Snoop Dogg, so it is humorous in and of itself. Otherwise, the comedic actors really don't add any comedy to the film.

Overall this is a poor excuse to try and make yet another comedy film with Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, and Vince Vaughn (or some combination there of) in it. I'd like to think that they could go and diversify their acting a little more, but I really don't know if that is the case. For all my ripping on it, it is still an average comedy, which means as a film it is below average, but it does have a moment or two in it.

Overall Grade: D+

Story: D-
Acting: C-
Audio/Visual: D



Lost in never never land
Kung Fu Hustle

This Stephen Chow comedy kicks, fights, and prat falls its way through a lot of jokes and comes out being extremely strong. He hits big time with the absurdity of the story and the action, and it comes together so nicely, that it is a wonderful ride to watch.

Typically in a foreign language film (or naturally a foreign language film) you don't have to have the voice dubbed over, as the fact that the voices are off with the movement of the mouth is just annoying, in this case, watching it either with sub titles or dubbed into English works just fine, as it is so absurd, and the action is a lot of fun to watch, that the fact that the mouths don't always match up with the words being said doesn't matter at all.

The story, like I've hinted at, is pretty absurd. It is made more absurd with the odd action that goes on along with it, but trying to understand what the story is saying, especially at the end, is fairly interesting. This story is meant to be watched for the absurdity and entertainment value of the action and the characters, so if there is some meaning that is meant to be shown at the end and you don't get it, it doesn't ruin the movie at all.

Visually the action is good as well, it is fairly cartoonish at some points in time, especially with characters falling from heights and hitting the ground, but the style works perfectly for the film. It doesn't have to look completely realistic to be entertaining. The absurdity of the action, and the style of it, probably makes it stronger as a comedy anyways.

Overall this is a very fun film. It won't get critical acclaim, but it is a good comedy that is a film that I would be able to watch often. For a mix of "martial arts" and comedy, I highly recommend this film.

Overall Grade: B+
Story: B-
Acting: C+
Audio/Visual: A-



Lost in never never land
Highlander

Well, Will Ferrell was wrong, it isn't the greatest movie ever made, but it is a pretty solid cult classic film, once you get past the annoying accent of the main character. It is good for a few laughs, and it makes you think (I'll explain the question later).

The story is pretty absurd, a battle royale, so to speak, of immortals with power being given to the survivor, and they all congregate in New York of all places. No guns, as decapitation is the only way to kill them, so they have giant broad swords, or a slim extremely nice katana. And there is one man, bred purely for fighting, who happens to be an immortal. He is the greatest changer in the battles, and if he wins, everything goes to hell.

The acting in the film was so-so. Sean Connery was in it, and his character was completely absurd, and it was possibly the best character in the film. Even though the bad guys character is pretty good as well. But Connery's character is so over the top. Highlander, himself, was actually a pretty pedestrian character, there wasn't anything all that eccentric about thim, which there certainly was about the others. And the accent takes some getting used to, I'm not sure if they tried to make it non-descript as he had been around for so long, but it basically was a mish-mash of all accents and it sounds pretty bad.

Finally, the question of the film, how does Queen ended up doing the soundtrack for so many cult classic films? First Flash Gordon and then Highlander. Now, I do appreciate the scoring, it was hilarious at some points in the film, and it is always fun to listen to Queen, but how do they manage to pull it off?

Overall this is a cult classic film, if you go into it expecting it to be more, you will be disappointed, and for some it might not be the greatest cult classic film out there, but for those who appreciate that sort of film, they should enjoy it.

Overall Grade: B-

Story: B
Acting: C
Audio/Visual: B



Lost in never never land
Meet the Spartans

There are some movies that are good parodies (Mel Brooks & Roman Polanski), and there are others that are terrible, this one falls under the terrible category. There was very little that was funny about it, and most of the pop culture references have been so over done by this point in time that it did even cause me to grin.

The story is generally that of the film 300 with about 3,000 pop culture and other film references thrown in. And I wasn't a huge fan of 300, but this film made it look like the greatest film ever made. They parodied it pretty closely, but half of the jokes they put in were done with terrible time, another half weren't funny, and about three were slightly humorous, but in an eighty minute movie, three jokes won't make a movie.

Then add in the acting, which was very bad as well. It actually wsn't terrible (even though Carmen Electra was in it, and she was terrible) but it was just mainly the fact that the film was so stupid and un-funny that the actors who did a decent job really didn't matter. Also, the celebrity impressions that were done were extremely bad. A few of them were good, like Dane Cook, but the American Idol impressions were so extremely far off they I don't know why they would have even though of getting those people to do the impressions.

Overall don't watch this film, there is nothing good about it, with the exception of the final song and dance that they do, but you can youtube that, if you really want to, it is only somewhat funny, and save youself about 80 minutes of what would otherwise be wasted time.

Overall Grade: D-

Story: F
Acting: C-
Audio/Visual: D+



Lost in never never land
Kicking & Screaming

This Will Ferrell film doesn't living kicking the floor in laughter and screaming for more. It leaves you with his normal few good jokes, a bunch of dead air, and no real memorable lasting impression. The story wasn't anything new, and the character that Will Ferrell plays is basically his normal character.

This story of the film revolves around a son who wants to make his father proud of him, and it is also the underdog story and a story about the importance of winning as compared to having fun doing what you are doing. So it combines two over done story lines, and over done character by Will Ferrell and a fairly pedestrian celebrity cameo by Mike Ditka to create a very average comedy film. To add along with this, it also is a kids movie, so any of the raunchy humor that could make this better the Ferrell can do pretty well isn't in here, because it can't be.

The acting in the film is pretty average as well. Will Ferrell's performance is lack luster, Robert Duvall as his father is very stereotypical for that role. Mike Ditka does the best job and all he has to do is be Mike Ditka. The rest of the cast are kids (primarily), and it is hard to judge their acting. It isn't terrible, but it isn't great on their behalf, a few of them are good, and a lot of them are pretty bad.

Overall this is a comedy that is worth avoiding. It takes too many cliches and combines them into one giant cliche that really doesn't matter in the long run. Sure, it has a nice message, but there are a lot of films out there with both of those messages that are much stronger films and don't have Will Ferrell screaming and acting like an idiot in them.

Overall Grade: C-

Acting: D+
Story: C-
Audio/Visual: C-



Welcome to the human race...
In response to the Highlander review...

1) Yes, his accent was intended to be a mixture of foreign accents. I didn't find it that bad until I heard other people complaining about it. Guess I was just too wrapped up in the film to care.

2) Queen are that good a band. Plain and simple.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.



Lost in never never land
Conan the Barbarian

This odd film actually was enjoyable to watch, even with Arnold as the lead in the film. It doesn't always take itself seriously (or maybe that is just Arnold's accent) and it has some solid action and adventure to it. And the villain, Thulsa Doom, is a great villain for a film.

The story itself isn't anything spectacular, it is the basic revenge story, but it is entertainingly done with a lot of odd characters to run into in the film. Add in the fact that it touches a little bit on some of the masters of war and some into philosophy, it actually is an decent character story (and if it wasn't Arnold that the story was about, then it might have been even better). But it was still a fun adventure story, and the fact that it did have a little bit of depth, if a person wanted to look at it, was a bonus. It really doesn't try and develop that depth all that much, but it is there if someone wanted to take the time and see it.

The characters are very good as well. The people who Conan falls in with are generally quite odd, especially the fellow male theif and the mage. They were definitely odd characters, and while they weren't extremely great characters, combining them with Conan was a good idea. Arnold just can't be taken too seriously because of his accent. Thulsa Doom was a good character as well. Not really a great acting job, but his facial expressions just made him into a very strong villain.

Visually this is a pretty typical 80's film, there isn't anything great about the visuals, but they aren't too bad either. Nothing comes across as fake or over the top visually, so it is solid in that aspect. Add in a good scoring behind it, and it makes for a rather enjoyable film. It isn't extremely strong in either aspect, in my opinion, but they don't detract from the film, which is something that I've seen several films run into before.

Overall this is some good entertainment, and while you could read more into it if you wanted to, I wouldn't recommend doing so. This is mainly because it is so hard to take Arnold seriously because of his wonderful accent, and the film doesn't even take itself seriously the whole time because of the facial expressions that Arnold gives.

Overall Grade: B

Acting: C+
Story: B+
Audio/Visual: C+



In response to the Highlander review...

1) Yes, his accent was intended to be a mixture of foreign accents.
I read an interview where he said that it is own accent, he was brought up in a few countries and collected a bit of each country.

2) Queen are that good a band. Plain and simple.



Welcome to the human race...
I read an interview and he said that it is own accent because he was brought up in a few countries and collect a bit of each country.
Makes sense. Still heard they needed a dialogue coach, but I think that was more for his English dialogue than an accent.