Hey everyone, TheCinemaChick here and it's time for my second review of the night. I just finished with "Something Borrowed" and will now move on to "Priest".
First off, I didn't really want to see this movie to begin with. The vampire craze is coming to a close and I guess the writers wanted to capitalize on it one last time. I will give "Priest" credit by saying it was one of the better modern vampire films out there. There was no tortured soul in love with the sociopath human who is incapable of shutting her mouth (AKA The Twilight series. Stay tuned for my rant on that later.)
The movie starts with a flashback of the priests invading a hive of vampires. Yeah...not sure why there is a hive but lets roll with it. We are then taken to modern (or future) day. The main cities have been walled in to protect humans from the vampire menace. The church is more like a giant monopoly, dictating what people do and how they will do it. There are even video confessionals lined up along the street.
Now, there are some homes outside of the cities called outposts. It's dangerous to live in them but some people choose to. Apparently Stephen Moyer decided it was a good idea, along with his wife and "daughter". More on why I phrase it that way later. They are attacked and Lucy, the "daughter", is kidnapped.
Paul Bettany plays Priest...who only goes by that name...and is confronted by Hicks, who is a sheriff. Hicks tells Priest about Lucy and they head off on an adventure. This is where the movie gets long. They travel from place to place looking for the vampires and for me, the action never got going. It never got to a point where it was exciting. The film would lead up to something that could be potentially great then failed.
And at some point, Priest admits that Lucy is his daughter and that Stephen Moyer has been playing along with the lie for years. What the hell? And the way he admits it is so casual its like he doesn't really even care about the situation. Priest is more concerned with killing the vampires than his family. The acting was terrible, not just mediocre but terrible.
The plot was straightforward, but once again it tried to do too many things are once. We have the main plot going, but also a love story between Hicks and Lucy, then a sad attempt at a love story between Priest and Priestess which never evolves at all. And while we're on the topic of failure, what the hell was up with the setting? Is this futuristic or set in a Western? Also, why is NO ONE bothered by the clearly late 30s man being with the 18 year old girl? Does no one else find that a little unsettling? Why was the opening monolgue animated? Why did the ending leave it open for a possible sequel? Will Paul Bettany ever find a role in a movie that doesn't suck? Why does Cam Gigandet pick such horrible roles? Who thought it would be a good idea to show this in 3D?
*pauses to regain composure*
As you can see, I didn't like this movie. I only saw it because it was Butterfly's birthday and it was his pick. He liked it, as did our mutual companion Just Joe. At least I think Just Joe liked it.
TheCinemaChick, what did you like about this movie...if anything?
Karl Urban as the villain. Seriously, that's it.
Well, I'm TheCinemaChick and I'm going to rest my brain and prepare to write a movie I actually did somewhat enjoy.
Next on my series of three...Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides.
No comments:
Post a Comment