david_wennberg

Hollywood loves its schlock, and certainly the confusing success of the Star Wars prequels shows that movie audiences love it too. Well, I don't. So I hated the Star Wars prequels and I hated Night at the Museum! Unlike the Star Wars prequels, Night at the Museum does have a few cute or funny moments most of which seem to have the peculiar air of being unintentional, if that makes sense. But moments do not make a good movie, and Night at the Museum is not a good movie. The threadbare plot doesn't even hint at itself until more then half-way into the picture, the writers and director are clearly too concerned with the gimmicky set-up and way too impressed with Ben Stiller's wide-eyed psychotic brand of humor, which was exhausted in the Meet the Parents films. The older Stiller gets the less funny his shtick becomes… once perhaps there was a fresh, almost droll quality to his deer-in-the-headlights psychosis… but now he looks more like an escapee from the homicidal wing of the local insane asylum then the bumbling idiot audiences adored once upon a time. And there is something to his antics that makes me cringe, kind of like the way parents are uneasy with that one particular uncle around the kids. A feeling further cringe-inducing since this is considered a family film. The recent schlock flicks, the Star Wars prequels and this one, seem to be some sort of homage to the schlock of the 1980s such as Masters of the Universe and Garbage Pail Kids: The Movie. Unlike those fond days of low-key crap cinema, movie studios are throwing money at the schlock of today to up the special effects (a gimmick that gets a lot of dumb asses in the Cineplex seats) and in the advertising as well. Promotion is everything you see, in case you didn't already know that from the example that is Beyonce. If you promote a stupid movie just right, you are guaranteed a blockbuster, just as the producers of Congo and Armageddon already knew. So Night at the Museum is a hit, a sad day indeed.

Well, they certainly can't all be Lord of the Rings now can they? Peter Jackson singlehandedly resurrected a genre that had never truly been given its just rewards. Fantasy had always been a b-genre that no one was interested in making because to be brutally honest most of the entries were terrible. Then Harry Potter exploded onto the world and proved that it indeed had a widespread audience. Chris Columbus was not the right man for the job of directing the first two installments of Harry Potter, his vision just was lacking and his commercial aspirations too blind to give the series what it so desperately needed… an artist! That's why Prisoner of Azkaban was so brilliant, the director is an artist! But no one was prepared for the artistic genus and awe-inspiring brilliance of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings! The world embraced the Rings series for good reason. There had simply been nothing like them and they were magnificently done in every way! Well, not to be outdone by other studios, Disney was quick to procure another beloved fantasy classic, Narnia and get it out there as fast as possible. The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe proved that even in spite of its budget, hype and nearly sightless martyrdom (not to mention the outrageous hypocrisy of its Christian fan basis, but that's another story), Narnia lacked heart and that can not be balanced by a big budget or a director experienced only in virtual craftsmanship and writers who simply couldn't handle the job.

Likewise, Eragon lacks the heart and craftsmanship of Lord of the Rings but much more is missing.

The archetypes are all in place… the unassuming, pure and innocent peasant turned hero who is locked in a tyrannical world lorded over by the fathomlessly evil king and his malevolent little minions, the beautiful maiden and of course wonderful and fantastical mythical creatures. Yes, it is true that it's all been done before, but what elevates such novel standards is the heart and soul of the story! The creation is incredibly important and certainly the players must be deeply committed to the telling of the tale. What should have been an epic journey of self-discovery became nothing more then a shadow of what it could have been, a shadow of what the book was! Where Lord of the Rings is and I frankly think will always be that which by all other fantasy films will be judged, Eragon is a throwback to the type of film that killed the genre to begin with. Oh the special effects are glorious to behold, and certainly we have a handsome hero to root for but with bad writing and poor directing the vision just wasn't there! It takes a truly visionary director to bring worlds to life that existed long ago, the future or only in myth… when a mediocre man is given the job most suited for an artist the result is Eragon. First-time director Stefen Fangmeier was either completely out of his depths or immensely intimidated by the weight of the project and without any doubt the industrial arrogance and artistically devoid producers and indeed the studio. The truth of the matter is that most of the time movies are not made for artistic purposes… family fare, action flicks and comedies are prime examples of films that require no artistic vision at all. But studios and producers wrongly believe that all movies can be successful without artistic vision, and that is simply not true! Fantasy is an artistic genre and without a true artist at the helm, we get a cheap Nickelodeon version of Lord of the Rings. When the job of truly brilliant writers who can condense successfully a massive tome down to a coherent, honest and faithful adaptation with heart and substance is given to a visionless neophyte as well the result is beyond disappointing. Eragon could have been a great addition to the genre, but as is it is nothing special and quite frankly, like Narnia, nothing worth remembering.

This is easily one of the worst movies of all time, a true moron's delight to be honest. This series has always been implausible but this one is numbingly, eye-rollingly far-fetched. The actions scenes are cartoonish at best, laughably retarded at least! This is just one more vehicle for Cruise to astound the world with his amazing lack of talent, unnerving lack of charisma and fading good looks. He is a shameless egomaniacal diva who takes himself way too seriously. He thinks that glaring into the camera while flexing his jaw muscles or smirking like some high school jock picking on the class nerd is acting. The cold truth is that he wouldn't know how to act his way out of a paper bag and this film is a prime example of his monotonous "acting" abilities. Surrounding himself with better, more dignified actors only succeeds in exacerbating this sad fact. Electing a fan as director was a foolish move as scene after scene plays like a school-girl love letter to closet case Cruise, lingering close ups while decked out in physique enhancing wardrobes come across like those tedious scenes in soft-core erotica that are supposed to pass for exposition. Hell, even scenes where he is bloodied and bruised or being beaten play like psychotic gay porn… he's always intended to look his best in every frame… testament to the careless lust of his female audience and the innate yet suppressed homo-tendencies of his male fans who must secretly fantasize about being in just such situations on some juvenile level. Director J.J. Abrams is just such a fan, he's crafted a horrible boyhood fantasy flick here filled with outrageously unbelievable action, nearly non-existent character development with even less elucidation. Marvel at the sheer stupidity and have no doubt why this was the box office disappointment that it was.