Conan: Khal Drogo speaks english

What: Conan the Barbarian

Who: Khal Drogo, Rachel Nichols, Stephen Land, Rose McGowan

When: August 19

Mastermind: Marcus Nispel

Before I start the review I'd like to share with you something I've discovered: Jason Momoa does not act. I wish I could tell you if he's a good actor or a bad actor but I can't because HE DOES NOT ACT. He never plays a character, he just shows up and does the only thing he knows how to do: he's himself. There is no Khal Drogo, no Conan, there is only Jason Momoa being Jason Momoa. He'll play barbarians until the day he dies because, well, look at him, he IS a barbarian, a modern barbarian, but a barbarian nonetheless.

I see you are skeptical. Don't believe me? Well, I've got proof.

Non english speaking barbarian

 English speaking barbarian

Futuristic barbarian

Hipster barbarian

Suited up barbarian

Now do you believe me? He's a barbarian. For cheese's sake, look at his eyebrows, the man has scars in strategic places! His surname is Momoa! He named his son Nakoa-Wolf, he has to be a barbarian (well, at least that's what I choose to believe in so shut up).

Well, anyway, Conan: the barbarian is a very silly film and should never, under any circumstance, be taken seriously. The plot is very meh and the lead female character is unspeakably annoying. The evil witch lady with the giant forehead was way more interesting than her. I would've been very happy if Tamara (that's the silly girl's name, I had to google it) really did end up being sacrificed (bad ass witch mothers are usually more interesting than blue-eyed (?) bimbos). 

The only sex scene in the film is very unfortunate. For some reason they feel the need to abandon their cosy pirate ship and have sex in a barn by sea full of hay and... diseases. Conan is also a regular Don Juan: he loves, then leaves. The film ends with Tamara and Conan saying goodbye, she couldn't possibly join him in his adventures even though she showed natural sword fighting skills because OH WAIT I HAVE NO IDEA.

And then there's the villain, the usual bad guy who kills the young hero's family and destroys his village thus providing him with the anger and motivation he needs to be a bad ass when he grows up. Also, following tradition, the bad guy has an opportunity to kill Jason (no Conan for you, you can't trick me) but he doesn't beacuse then the film would be 30 minutes long.

Rating: Meh (rather silly) 

It's thunder, bitches

What: Thor

When: May 6th

Who: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins

Mastermind: Kenneth Branagh

I love superhero movies. Give me a masked dude in tights, a freak accident and a pretty girl and I'm all set. I really can't remember a superhero film I didn't like. I liked the Green Hornet, all the X-men movies and V for Vendetta is probably my favourite film of all time (OF ALL TIME). Thor is no different, I loved Thor. It's nice and shinny, it has great special effects and a plot that's not completely retarded (I really like it when plots aren't retarded). Anyway, I had really high expectations for this film mainly because it was directed by Kenneth Branagh and, as we all know, he's an Irish pie filled with creamy Shakespearean awesomeness.

"A superhero movie, you say? Directed by Kenneth Branagh? Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit! Where do I sign?!"

Thankfully, Thor didn't disappoint. It's a really enjoyable movie. However, I have a few problems with the characters. I might love superhero films but I usually end up rooting for the villains.

Let me tell you about Thor. Thor is a big burly sort of fella who's not very smart and likes to smash stuff with his sidekick Mjolnir, the cosmic hammer. Naturally, Thor is blond, generically attractive and somewhat annoying. I believe he's the male equivalent of those ditsy and surgically enhanced girls who ride their pink scooters all around town with their freakishly small dogs and their overpriced handbags. The lights are on but nobody's home.

Anyway, Thor also has a brother named Loki who's not blond and appears to have a personality who turns out to be adopted (completely different gene pools... I should have known). Loki ends up playing the villain and if he had managed to scatter Thor's particles all across the universe using one of his worm-hole type thingies I would've been one happy camper.

Natalie Portman's character is also pretty sad. For someone who's supposed to be super smart she has no survival instincts whatsoever. Who, in the name of everythig that is holy, finds a crazy dude in the desert claming he came from space and decides to keep him? Women... that's who...

Rating: Oh yay!

Alice in freaking Wonderland

What: Alice in Wonderland



Who: Johnny Depp (well, obviously), Helena Bonham Carter, Mia Wasikowska, Anne Hathaway and Alan Rickman



When: February 25





It's like a bad acid trip.





There, I said it.





Rating: Meh+

Revenge of the Smurfs

(I know, I know, the whole "smurf joke" is getting old. Well, too bad, I LIKE IT)



What: Avatar (in 3-D, not that's very relevant)


Who: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldaña, Michelle Rodriguez, Sigourney Weaver, Joel David Moore (oh, he's pretty).


When: December 18th ... ish


Jeez... Avatar is getting everyone's panties in a knot, isn't it? People are going crazy for the bloody thing and, frankly, I don't get it. It's going to become a GINORMOUS blockbuster just like Titanic (crappy crappy crappy, just the thought of it makes me want to go into a coma) and I found it rather boring. Sure, it's shiny (really shiny, if you haven't seen it prepare yourself for ultimate shininess!), I'll give you that but apart from having amazing special effects it really isn't all that. I like to describe it as a big bright blue yawn.

Seriously, it's the oldest story in the world: paraplegic human boy meets alien chick, human boy and alien chick fall and love and have sexy time under a talking tree, human boy saves alien chick's planet from being blown up and everyone lives happily ever after... tah dah! Choose a Disney movie, throw in a few blue people and a wheel chair and BOOM you've got Avatar!
About the whole 3-D experience...yeeahh... I didn't care for it. Sure, it was fun... for the first 10 minutes but after that...bleh. They (the evil cinema people) charged me a few extra pounds for that?! A few, occasional, floating specks of...well... cosmic shmut?! (it has to be italicized because I'm not even sure that's a real word) No thank you, I like my boys submissive, my steak well done and my movies flat! (no giant Sam Worthington head popping out of the screen for me, you can keep it).

The film is incredibly predictable, it's just a really big pile of everything cliche. You know what I would like to see in Avatar? Joel David Moore's character get some. I'm serious, I'm not just saying this because I think he's...well...rather good looking but because I would really like to see a geeky character in a motion picture getting laid (well, at least a geeky character that is not played by Michael Cera). Yeah, instead of a brutish marine I would really enjoy watching a skinny scientist save the day (or, at least, get the girl). I'm telling you, hunky marines don't get very far, it's really skinny socially awkward scientists that make the world move forward.

And, do you know what a rather intelligent individual said about Avatar on Rotten Tomatoes?! Well, let me be the one to tell you! He said, and I quote: "(Avatar) Alternates between a slurry Marc Franz impressionism and the most elaborate Thundercats episode ever made." I could not agree more.

Maybe I'm being mean. It was a good time, mildly entertaining and all but...meh... I don't know, I guess I got my hopes up. I was expecting to give it an "insanely-good-movie-that-changed-my-life" but it fell short. But, hey, the movie was very successful! You know what that means? It means there's going to be not one but two sequels! Imagine that... two even shinier sequels I can trash...

With that being said, you know what's Avatar's rating on Rotten Tomatoes? 82%! (What kind of crack house are they running over there?!)

Rating: Meh +