Priest (2011)
2/4
Starring: Paul Bettany, Cam Gigandet, Karl Urban, Maggie Q,
Christopher Plummer
Rated PG-13 for Intense Sequences of Violence and Action, Disturbing Images and Brief Strong Language
I’m kind of at a loss as to why “Priest” was released in May
as opposed to January or February, one of Hollywood’s “dumping” months. It certainly has the qualities that would
keep it in good company amongst the films the studios no longer have any hope
for: a plot that’s as complex as a pitch to a producer, a lack of characters
worth caring about, almost no excitement…yet somehow the producers thought it
was fit to stand against the likes of “Thor.”
How did they think this would come out on top (or even break even? Beats me.
Priest (Bettany) is one of the warriors who defended the
human race against the vampires in The War.
But now that the vampires have been exiled, he’s left useless. The Church rules all, and when vampires
capture his niece, they forbid him to go after her. He goes anyway, and tagging along is a guy
named Hicks (Gigandet), who loves her.
Here are the good things about this movie: the setting is
unique. It’s a gothic steampunk western,
and although with a little more imagination, it could have been eyepopping, it
is nonetheless intriguing. Additionally,
Paul Bettany proves that he can be a better badass than Russell Crowe when he
has a bad script (ironically, this is the second religiously-themed
action/horror flick that Bettany has starred in and was directed by Scott
Charles Stewart. I’ll admit that this is
marginally better than “Legion,” however).
Karl Urban and especially Christopher Plummer are good in small roles.
The bad: this is one of those movies that would have been
better with an R-rating. With all the
slicing and dicing and vampire attacks that go on here, more blood and gore
would have given it a sharper edge. As
it is, it looks more emaciated than it actually is. I guess we’ll have to wait for the unrated
DVD. There is some blood (which begs the
question why the MPAA gave this film the coveted PG-13 rating since any sign of
blood is automatically an R rated film, but then again, no one understands that
self-important piece of crap). Also, Cam
Gigandet is flat as Hicks. Although he
appears to be one of the way too many acting challenged studs that populate the
movies these days, based on his performance here, I think that with the right
director and the right script, he could do okay.
The worst: the script.
There is nothing there. No character development, a juvenile
storyline and absolutely no substance.
There’s nothing to pull us into the story, and that means boredom. And it doesn’t help matters that the
cinematography is terrible. Or the fact
that the film takes itself way to
seriously.
The bottom line is that this movie is a waste of time and
money.
Comments
Post a Comment