Pacific Rim

 Finally!  A Summer movie that motivated me to get on my butt and blog!  In a Summer when the apocalypse is commonplace (off the top of my head, we're talking about Oblivion, After Earth, World War Z, and This is the End, although I am sure there are others) I have to admit that I was still unnaturally excited for Pacific Rim, which promised little aside from destruction --- destruction provided by giant robots fighting giant monsters, which brings with it awesomeness at almost a cellular level.  That was not the only reason I was excited, though.  This was another chance for director Guillermo del Toro to show once again why he is one of the greatest visual directors making movies today.  And then I saw the trailer and started asking questions.

Did Idris Elba just give Bill Pullman's speech from Independence Day?  Do we have to watch two people in spacesuits perform a synchronized dance instead of watching robots punching monsters in the junk?  Is Charlie Hunnam going to be a muscular version of Sam Witwicky from the Transformers trilogy?  If you need to know, basically, not really, and blessedly no, respectively.

Also, I can't be the only one who recognizes the old Fox Sunday football robots, right?

Pacific Rim opens with a voice-over from Raleigh (Charlie Hunnam) bringing the audience up to speed.  In the near future, a dimensional rift opens in the Pacific Ocean and huge alien monsters come through.  These monsters are reminiscent of Japanese monsters movies, like Godzilla and Gamera, so they are called Kaiju, after that film subclass.

As you might expect, the Kaiju did some major damage, so the World Governments decided to team up and create the Jaeger program.  Jaegers are gigantic fighting robots that are piloted by two humans, who share some sort of Vulcan mind meld in order to pilot their metal beast.  For a while, the Jaegers worked.  Category 1 and 2 Kaiju --- that's a rating system based on their size --- were easy pickings for these awesome anime mechs/rock 'em sock 'em robots.

If a punch to the face is badass, how much more amazing is a ROBOT punch to a MONSTER face?

In fact, our narrator, Raleigh was a Jaeger pilot with his brother.  Unfortunately, they happened to be the first Jaeger to meet with a Category 3 Kaiju, and the brother was killed in action.  Years have passed and the Jaeger program is on hard times.  Their funding has been cut in favor of building large walls around major cities.

...which works out well

It is at this point that the Jaeger commander (Idris Elba) re-recruits Raleigh to join up with the much-depleted Jaeger corps.  Thanks to his crack science team (composed of Charlie Day and Burn Gorman), he thinks there is a slim chance of being able to close the dimensional portal in a crazy, suicidal offensive maneuver.  He needs Raleigh because he only has four Jaegers left, and Raleigh is the only living person who has ever piloted one of the models.  But who will be his soul-mate co-pilot?

To find out, they endure several Dance Dance Revolution trials --- in spaaaace!

I always take the time to discuss the acting in the movies I review, but is that really necessary with Pacific Rim?  It's really not, but I found the acting to be a pleasant surprise in a film that could have gotten away with a lot less in that area.  Admittedly, Charlie Hunnam didn't "wow" in this role, thanks to a combination of dull dialogue and serving as a plot device.  He wasn't bad, but he sure was bland.  Idris Elba, on the other hand, did some of his best movie work to date (his television work is still far better, though); his character was kind of a mish-mash of other end-of-the-world authority figures, but Elba was still able to make the part a little interesting.  Rinko Kikuchi was okay as Raleigh's partner; it can be tough making an introvert interesting in an action flick, but she was all right.  I was pleasantly surprised by Charlie Day, if only because this is the furthest he has gone from his role on It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

SCIENCE!

He was charming and fun, and I would love to see him stretch his acting chops more in the future.  Burn Gorman wasn't as big of a surprise, but his portrayal of a scientist brought to mind Peter Lorre for reasons I cannot articulate, and that's probably not a bad thing.  Ron Perlman, unsurprisingly, had a small part in Pacific Rim, since he and del Toro are such good buddies.  Perlman's work here reminds us that he's not that good of an actor, just a good sport, willing to put on any makeup necessary to look cool.

Above: Perlman and two other actors.  Get it?  He's ugly.

Rounding out the cast, Clifton Collins Jr. and Max Martini were perfectly acceptable in small, decently likable parts.  Robert Kazinsky was obnoxious as the Jaeger equivalent of Iceman from Top Gun.  That may be the point of his character, but Val Kilmer sure was cooler.

How do they expect to play beach volleyball and high-five wearing that?

Most of the time, when I discuss movie direction, I focus on the camera work and the actor performances.  For Pacific Rim, though, so much of the movie was CGI that I am taking a different approach.  I really enjoy the work of director/co- writer Guillermo del Toro, if only from a visual standpoint, but I like what he did with the humans in this film. 

He scared them.

They could have easily been an afterthought, or worse --- an irritant, like those awful Witwickys.  Instead, del Toro introduced a reasonable amount of drama and character beats to a story that is essentially "punch monster in the face" for 85 pages.

Don't forget the four pages of "science-y doodads"

I was actually impressed that the story wasn't as predictable as I had assumed it would be; there was no unnecessary love story and the obvious choice for a sacrificial character was ignored.  Visually, this film was stunning.  The amount of detail that went into the set, robot, and monster designs was astounding.

Del Toro clearly put a lot of his efforts into the look and feel of this film, and it showed.  This felt like a plausible world, where giant robots had been fighting and breaking and being repaired for over a decade.  The script isn't very clever and del Toro still has not managed to really nail interpersonal scenes, but his work with broad visual concepts is impressive and exciting.

"Robots and monsters fighting in space" exciting?  Yes.  A thousand times, yes.

What is it about Pacific Rim that excited me, where others failed?  There have been so many movies lately that have shown vast urban environments being absolutely wrecked --- what makes this any different than, say, Man of Steel?  I think the biggest difference is in scale.  Because the robots and monsters are so gigantic, the camera is pulled far enough away for audiences to really notice and appreciate everything being smashed to bits.  That scale also seems to imply and accept large numbers of civilian casualties in a way that is expected and not ignored.  It isn't just that, though; several battles take place in the ocean and are still a blast to watch. 

I didn't get "action fatigue" watching Pacific Rim because it was fun and each battle did something else spectacular and over-the-top.  There was also enough wanton destruction to spread it fairly evenly over the entire film.  This isn't a back-loaded action movie where the cool stuff is all at the end --- some of the coolest scenes come during the opening voice-over.  If I am going to be perfectly honest, Pacific Rim scratches an itch I have had since childhood.  I played with Transformers and Voltron and build huge Lego things for them to smash.  While I have seen a lot (almost too much) CGI destruction of late, this is a film that captures the fun of playing with toys that are clearly scaled differently than everything else in your toy box.  Is Pacific Rim derivative?  Well, yes.  At its core, this is a classic kaiju movie done right, combined with combat mechs that animes seem to love so much and a large enough budget to make everything look good.  This movie owes a lot to many sources, but this is clearly a movie that loves what it is imitating, and even improves on its influences.  In a Summer of sequels, reboots, and outright flops, Pacific Rim stands out for being something I will be able to watch over and over, regardless of sobriety.

Drive

It is easy for the casual film fan to dismiss Drive without seeing it.  A character, identified only as The Driver in the credits, moonlights as a getaway driver for criminals.  The star is Ryan Gosling, a heartthrob just starting to come into his own with three extremely successful movies in 2011, as well as the subject of one of the internet's more peculiar obsessions.  Hot actor + getaway driving = An ode to Burt Reynolds, right?  At the very least, Drive sounds like it should be a Fast and the Furious-type movie.  Heads up, people: if you walk into Drive with those sort of expectations, you will be thoroughly confused and maybe even upset.

An actual reaction to Drive

Here's the expectations you should have with Drive: it stars an actor that has (so far) avoided dumb action or pretty boy roles, directed by a man known for making weird movies with fantastic lead actor performances.  Fair enough?

Drive opens with The Driver (Gosling) ready to take part in a heist.  He doesn't help with the crime, he doesn't carry a gun, he doesn't talk to the people he's driving --- he drives.  And he's the best at what he does.  When he's not acting as a wheelman, The Driver is still driving.  He's a part-time movie stuntman that works in a garage and cruises Los Angeles to relax.  He doesn't say much, though.  He just stares and waits for awkward pauses to fill most of his conversations whenever he can.  Thanks to a little luck, The Driver winds up befriending his neighbor, Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her son, Benicio. 

Hey girl.  Miming masturbation with a water bottle in a hallway?  Classy.

Their friendship is quiet and a little awkward, but ultimately chaste.  A week later, Irene's jailbird husband, Standard (Oscar Isaac), is released from prison and comes home.  Now, you might assume that the aggressive Standard is going to become the antagonist at this point, because he is clearly suspicious of The Driver.  But no.  The newly freed Standard apparently owes a lot of money to some violent people for protecting him in prison; his wife and son will pay the price if he doesn't commit a particular robbery soon.  The Driver can't have that, so he offers to do what he does best: drive.  Not because it's a job, not because he wants to, but because he needs to protect Irene and Benicio, and it soon becomes apparent just how far he is willing to go for a few moments of kindness.

There are many things that make Drive stand out from most films, but what caught my attention first was the intentionally minimalist portrayal of The Driver.  He barely speaks, and when he does, his responses are typically odd.  He is fairly free of personality and emotions.  And yet, The Driver is so impossibly calm that you start to anticipate the moment where he just explodes. 

And that definitely happens

Ryan Gosling turns in a strong, silent-type performance that is reminiscent of Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name.  The only difference is that Eastwood's Man was obviously dangerous at all times (and that makes him cool) and Gosling's Driver is cool with danger bubbling underneath.  I was very impressed with Gosling.  It's always nice to see acting with subtle layers and to play such an impassive role (at times, his face was almost a Michael Myers mask of blankness) and then flip a switch to being so passionate --- and do that convincingly --- was a pleasure to watch.

...and stare at, and with.

Carey Mulligan was very sweet as Irene, and I thought she did a pretty good job.  It was a timid role, and those can come across as wimpy or clingy, but I liked how well she balanced Gosling's character.  Oscar Isaac is good at playing heels, and he's as unlikable as ever here.  Christina Hendricks looked naturally busty and a little trashy; I wasn't too impressed by her acting, but she is a key part in one of the most jaw-dropping moments in the film.  Bryan Cranston shows up to play a small part; I like Cranston and understand how hard it must be to find good film roles that fit him, but I think he's better than the half-dozen supporting roles he churned out this year.  I was happy to see Ron Perlman playing a character that was not placed in the Middle Ages.  Perlman's not a fantastic actor, but his ugly mug and gruff voice make any character plausibly tough.  My favorite performance in Drive, though, definitely belonged to Albert Brooks.  I normally hate Brooks, but he was absolutely fantastic here.  I would have liked his work from the first half of the movie alone, but his soothing, reasonable voice contrasted so beautifully with his actions in the second half that I was simply blown away.  You wouldn't think it, but his character wound up being more frightening than Perlman's.

...but not as frightening as Driver's mask

That Drive has so little dialogue should come as no surprise to fans of director Nicolas Winding Refn.  His last film, Valhalla Rising, featured a lead actor with zero lines and no attempts to communicate.  The stunning use of the soundtrack (so warm...so lush...so...oddly 80s) also fits in with his established modus operandi.  In fact, most of what you notice of the direction in Drive has shown up, from time to time, in Refn's admittedly difficult filmography.  What makes his work here so impressive is that Refn managed to make a compelling story with confusing but plausible emotions without ditching his distinctive style. 

The camera work was good, the way the shots were framed was gorgeous, the lighting was effective, and his direction of Gosling was great.  Refn's best work on Drive, though, was in how effectively he builds tension.  The car chases in this movie are not just excuses to show crashes or goofy stunts; they are intelligently played chess matches, with all the deliberation that implies.  The scenes where The Driver is waiting --- for someone to get into his car, for a helicopter to pass, whatever --- were the most taut moments I saw on film this year.  The silence on screen was so intense that The Driver's gloves were audibly distracting, and when gunshots shatter the silence, well...that was awesome.

Still, you can definitely make some good arguments that Drive was over-hyped by critics this year.  The pacing is unusual and awkward.  The main character is barely relatable as a human for most of the movie.  He wears an awesome, but ridiculously recognizable jacket at all times; the jacket is never ditched, even after its is covered in blood, and the scorpion stitching is never explained.

Like Driver is going to explain anything to you

In fact, a lot of things are left out of Drive.  When Irene gets the news that Standard is being released from prison, Refn cuts away so the audience doesn't hear the news.  Obviously, we find out moments later, but little choices like that can add up to annoy an audience.  The violence is abrupt and excessive; aside from some truly gruesome moments, Drive also contains the best head-splattering gunshot I have seen outside of a Tom Savini movie.  And yet, some of the deaths were surprisingly played down.  Film critic types can also point out similarities to other filmmakers, with the most apt comparison being to Jean-Pierre Melville.

I get all of those complaints.  I really do.  But they don't matter.  Drive doesn't ape anyone's style, it is the logical result of many years of Nicolas Winding Refn's film evolution, and it is easily his most entertaining and accessible film.  I loved the pacing and the awkwardness and the ridiculousness of The Driver; his character is, in many ways, absolutely unbelievable, but I loved his style.  Drive sets the audience up to expect one type of movie, but quickly switches gears (see what I did there?) to provide almost the antithesis of the typical car chase film --- and then the shit hits the fan and The Driver starts hitting people, again upsetting expectations.  This is definitely the best movie-as-art film I have seen from the past few years, and it just happens to be one of the coolest, too.  The only thing keeping it from a ten in my book is the fact that I've only seen it once so far.

Conan the Barbarian (2011)

That tagline feels unfinished.  Shouldn't it read "Enter an Age Undreamed of, Unless You Saw the Original Movie or the Sequel"?  I mean, really, how different will this Conan be from Schwarzenegger's?  Both have muscular dudes, swords, and sorcery, right?  Okay, then.  At least the filmmakers acknowledge that this is a franchise reboot/remake; it is titled Conan the Barbarian and avoids an obnoxious sequel-ready subtitle, like Conan and the Blood of Acheron or Conan and the Curse of the Black Pearl.  I rented this movie directly after Sucker Punch because I needed a dumb action movie that would have no problems with being a dumb action movie.  Thankfully, Conan the Barbarian delivered in that regard.

I feel obligated to point out that the titular character of this film pronounces his name similar to that of Conan O'Brien (CO-nin).  I'm sure that's the preferred pronunciation of the character's creator, Robert E. Howard, but I've always associated the name with Arnold Schwarzenegger's barely English pronunciation (CO-NAAN).  That, of course, is completely irrelevant.  For some reason, though, I cared enough about it to watch a few old-school movie trailers to make sure my ears weren't playing tricks on me.  Apparently, I will research things that absolutely nobody else cares about.

Like so many remakes, Conan the Barbarian gives us the origin of the titular character.  It doesn't begin there, though.  A prologue explains that many years ago, the sorcerers of Acheron made a mask from the bones of kings, fueled it with their own pure-blooded daughters, and bestowed unimaginable power upon the wearer of the mask; the "dark gods" gave the wearer of this bone chapeau enough power to conquer the world.  And yet...barbarian tribes defeated this godling.  Huh.  Maybe the power of the mask was to conquer the civilized world?  Whatever.  The heads of the barbarian tribes broke the mask into parts and each tribe guarded a different part.  Thousands of years later, Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang) comes a-calling and a-killing all the barbarian tribes, gathering up the mask's pieces.  The last tribe in his way are the Cimmerians, led by Corin (Ron Perlman).

Great casting!  Perlman was born to play barbarians and cavemen

Zym's army slaughters the barbarians and finds the last piece of the mask.  They leave only one Cimmerian alive --- Conan, Corin's son --- because they like his spunk.  With the mask complete, Zym doubtlessly conquers the world...

Maybe the mask can hide his male-pattern baldness

...Or not.  Twenty years later, Zym is a powerful king, but he has apparently been missing pure Acheron blood to fuel his bone-mask powers.  Meanwhile, Conan (Jason Momoa) has grown into a strapping lad with a fondness for killing powerful people and showing off his pecs. 

Only weaklings armor their chests

Conan has never stopped looking for the man who slaughtered his tribe.  Thankfully, this film doesn't focus on his twenty-odd years of fruitless searching.  Instead, we catch up with him as he recognizes a Zym underling and starts working his way up the food chain, so he can finally battle Zym and avenge his father.  Sure, the fate of the world rests in the balance and Conan has to prevent the last remaining pure-blood Acheron descendant  from falling into Zym's hands, but the important thing is that Conan is out to kill Zym.

The acting in Conan the Barbarian is about what you should expect from a movie about barbarians.  It's not great, but the dialogue and script are simple enough for that not to matter.  I thought Jason Momoa was pretty good as Conan; he showed a little bit of wit and mischief, but otherwise stuck to simple phrases and grunting.  How does he stack up against Schwarzenegger?  Well...it's not a big downgrade from Ahhnuld.  Momoa isn't as brutish, but he's also not as stupid; personally, I liked Momoa as Conan.

Arm armor and a sarong: as clothed as Conan gets

Stephen Lang wasn't a shallow, two-dimensional villain --- which was a surprise --- but he never really felt like a top-villain, so I was a little disappointed there.  Rose McGowan was suitably unsettling as Zym's creepy and incestuous daughter, which makes this my favorite McGowan role in over a decade.

What an unfortunate family hairline

Rachel Nichols plays the essential missing piece/love interest, and she was only mildly annoying; this is one of those characters that throws modern feminism into a movie set in a might-makes-right era, and that part of her character simply did not fit the film at all.

Also weird: she was clean and attractive

I thought Ron Perlman was pretty solid as Conan's father; he can sleepwalk his way through brutal fatherly roles like this and still be competent.  Saïd Taghmaoui played a fairly obnoxious ally to Conan; I would almost characterize him as a Rob Schneider to Momoa's Stallone, but he really isn't that terrible.  Nonso Anozie played Conan's pirate buddy, who apparently contributed next to nothing whenever fighting was involved.  Oh, and that is Morgan Freeman narrating.  Apparently, he got tired of penguins this year.

Not surprisingly, Conan the Barbarian is not a thinking man's movie.  At least the title hints at that fact.  The plot is pretty predictable, and there are many plot holes.  Perhaps the most irritating is the concept of a demigod getting defeated by barbarians, but Zym can exterminate them without the mask.  The plot is also suspiciously convenient.  Conan rescues a random dude, who turns out to be the one person who can sneak him into Zym's castle, Conan accidentally recues the one peson on Earth Zym needs to fulfill his evil plans, etc.  The story isn't bad, but it sure isn't very interesting.  I would also argue that the filmmakers misjudged their audience when they (essentially) made this Conan the Barbarian Begins.  Does anyone really care why Conan is slaughtering bad guys?  I don't think so.  They should have gone the Inigo Montoya route and simply cut out the opening fifteen minutes and just had Conan explain that he was hunting down the man who killed his father.  That would have taken maybe two minutes and spared us the adventures of Lil' Conan. 

But those are simply story choices.  Director Marcus Nispel is known for his horrible remakes of establishes franchises, but I have to admit that I liked most of his choices here.  The acting is certainly nothing special and the story was not exactly epic.  Nispel did manage to craft a sword and sorcery movie that delivered on the swords and the sorcery.  The action scenes were pretty solid, the special effects were pretty good --- especially the sand creatures --- and I thought the overall tone felt right for a Conan movie.

It's not racist to call them "sand people" if that's a literal description

I also enjoyed the amount of gratuitous nudity.  While not necessary at all, few dumb action movies suffer from a proliferation of naked breasts.  If you look at Conan the Barbarian as its own film and not a remake, you see a perfectly serviceable action movie, although nothing fantastic.  The lead actor is fairly charismatic, but a better script could have made him more enjoyably rough around the edges.  As a remake, though, this Conan suffers by comparison.  This Conan doesn't punch out a horse for humor.  This Conan's motto is "I live, I love, I slay, and I am content."  That sounds pretty cool, until you remember what the original Conan said was best in life: "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."  Choice A is a nice one, but Choice B is simply bad-ass!  This remake doesn't quite match the humor or coolness of the original, but it doesn't dishonor its predecessor, either.  I wouldn't mind seeing another Momoa Conan, although I highly doubt that will happen.

This film gets a little extra credit for having Conan (predictably) save his love interest and then drop her off at the end of the movie, essentially saying "Later, I've got things to do and people to kill."

Season of the Witch

I was going to pass over Season of the Witch --- mostly because it looked horrid --- but I saw Chris Gore's quick review of it and my interest was piqued by the words "zombie monks."  Admittedly, that is not a phrase that is often accompanied by "the Academy Award-winning performance of," but Nicolas Cage fighting zombie monks should have been hilarious.  Not hilarious enough, as it turns out.

When, exactly, is Witching Season?  Right after duck season?  Actually, the Season of the Witch takes place during the Crusades of the mid-1300s.  Behmen (Nicolas Cage) and Felson (Ron Perlman) are bad-ass knights that love to slaughter heretics.  We know this because the two basically tell the camera in so many words.  You'll have to take their word for it, since the large action sequences aren't very convincing.

I find it hard to believe that anyone reached age 60 in the Crusades, much less a knight

After killing in the name of (DA-DA!  DUM!) God for many years, Behmen and Felson decided to quit the team after they invaded a castle and found themselves slaughtering defenseless women and children.  The resident war-priest guy argued that there's no crying in baseball the Crusades, but nobody kept the pair from walking slowly off into the sunset.  The end.  Ha!  If only!  Behmen and Felson walk back to Behmen's hometown in Germany, only to find the area stricken with dead and bloated plague bodies.

Co-starring Christopher Lee's plague corpse!

Knowing that Crusades-quitters are outlaws, the pair enter the nearest city with the intent of buying horses to take them to Felson's hometown; ever-careful to not be identified, Behmen wears a mask over his face (which doesn't attract attention at all) and Felson wears a hood (except when he doesn't).  Despite these precautions, the men are identified as Crusades-quitters when Behmen allows a clumsy child to handle the only thing in his possession that would identify him as a Crusades-quitter. 

"Okay, maybe I should have thought that one through."

The pair get locked up in a dungeon and await their inevitable hanging for treason.  Or is it inevitable?  The town has captured a young girl that they claim is a witch.  Obviously, a witch being in the same place the plague is means that the witch cursed the land.  Just as obviously, the witch needs to be immediately killed taken to a remote colony of monks, who will put her on trial for witchcraft.  The town is a little short on brave men that can travel across the dangerous German landscape unscathed, so Behmen and Felson get a chance to clear their names.  Of course, it's not that simple.  Witchcrafted wolves and dangerous bridges stand in their way, but Behmen, Felson, the supposed witch, and a few others are off to monkland!

"I've reason to believe we both will be received in Monkland"

Sounds like an acting tour de force, eh?  Yeah, well...this was never going to be a great film, so I went into this with low expectations.  Ron Perlman was decently likable.  Robert Sheehan was kind of annoying as the d'Artagnon of the witch-escorting-party, but he's not so bad that you'll remember his performance the next day.  Claire Foy had a terrible character to play, but she still wasn't very good.  On the plus side, she is about the only person in the cast who looked dirty enough to be in the 14th century.

Surprisingly clean hair, though

Stephen Graham was mediocre in a small supporting role and Stephen Campell Moore was similarly bland as the witch-escort's resident priest.  I was kind of disappointed by their performances, because I have enjoyed them in bit parts in the past; I guess I was hoping that some British charm would help make this movie more entertaining. 

Stephen Campbell Moore witnessing Nicolas Cage overacting for the first time

But that was not to be.  This movie stars Nicolas Cage, and far from his best work.  I have seen Cage do good work in the past, and I have seen him be flamboyantly (and entertainingly) silly.  This is the other Nicolas Cage, the one who thinks he's in a serious movie.  It's not that he's terrible.  I thought he matched the tone of the film just fine; that's only a problem when the movie's tone is shitty.  I've seen him act worse, but Season of the Witch really could have used a less subdued and more ridiculously overacting Nic Cage.

"You want me to overact more?"  I know, I know.

The fact of the matter is that Season of the Witch is about as fun to watch as watching plague blister pus dry.  Why is that?  Director Dominic Sena is no stranger to stupid movies, but at least he usually has the sense to be completely goofy or have Halle Berry take her top off to distract audiences.  This movie is just dull.  The battle scenes in the beginning were tepid, the horror angle never really pays off, and there is no suspense.  This isn't the most incompetent directing job I have ever seen, but it is an impressive blend of disappointing special effects, a lousy script, cheesy acting and boring plot.

...And then there are the frequent story and visual parallels between Season of the Witch and Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal.  If absolutely nothing else, I will say that Sena was bold to invite comparison between this mess and a classic film.  "Bold" isn't always a smart choice, though.  Witch takes a lot of cosmetic similarities --- two men return from the Crudades (disillusioned) to a plague-ridden homeland, the men form a traveling group in the woods, there is a potentially wrongly accused witch being transported through the woods in a wooden cage, etc. --- and tries to twist its premise into an action/fantasy film.  It could have worked (somewhat) with a better script or better special effects, but the constant reminders of a better film just make Season of the Witch seem that much worse.  On the other hand, it was pretty freaking hilarious to see just how heavy-handed the parallels were.

There is something worth noting about this film, but I have to warn you...SPOILER ALERT: Season of the Witch has no witches in it.  Ha!  HA!  That's almost funny enough to make up for the rest of the film.  That's right, the supposed witch is really a demon.  What a twist!  And that's worse because...um...well, it's the first time demons are mentioned in the story, so...I'm not sure.  The witchy-demon does animate monk corpses to fight our heroes, which is awesome in theory.  In practice, the special effects and lack of suspense or horror ruined that seemingly foolproof plot element.  Oh, well.  While that is remarkably stupid, it's not enough to make up for the rest of the movie.  It is good enough for one star, though, and I did enjoy one of the death scenes and I laughed whenever it compared itself to The Seventh Seal.  It's not much, but you take what you can get from witches.

Here's a live recording from Liars, from their witch-themed album, They Were Wrong, So We Drowned.