Priest

Bettany, what happened! This guy was pretty respectable, I guess, but not entirely stellar by any means. I guess that's why, after puttering around a bit an actor - not unlike Paul Bettany - is forced to star in what could be a potential explosion of blockbuster franchise insanity. Certainly: the potential is there. Priest is so obviously setting itself up for a franchise that the actors must see dollar signs floating in front of them as they skim the script. Certainly: nobody read the script.

As my friend pointed out, movies today are built with plot holes and mechanisms (such as incomplete endings) to set themselves up for sequels. Back in my day (listen to that, eh) a movie would be released, and it stood alone. Movies like Predator and The Matrix never intended for sequels; they wrapped themselves up nicely and everyone moved on. If a movie was crazy successful, the fine folks would get together five or six years later and produce a proper sequel (although they would mostly be garbage...mostly). Now, a movie comes out and they've already started the sequel; if not filming in, then actually planning and casting. Actors are signed on for multiple sequels as part of their first contract. Everybody is involved, and what we end up with as a product of this unwholesome regime is schlock like Priest.

Expectations were non-existent yet this movie still disappointed me. So why did we go see it? There were a myriad of better choices at the multiplex: Pirates, Hangover II, to name a couple. But sometimes you are just looking for something else, and sometimes you hold off on the a-list films to go see them with other people. Sometimes it's a combination of both with a hint of needing to see something "light" and perhaps more importantly, short. This movie clocks in under 90 minutes like an animated film, which is nice when you are recovering from many hours of travel and a nasty sunburn. What makes it even better is that you and your friend are the only two in the theatre: your own private screening. That is, until one minute before the projector lights up, but hey, the dream was realized for a moment at least.

I can't even get into the details of the plot; apparently this is based on a series of graphic novels and the fanboys are absolutely livid about this adapation I can't blame them. I've seen enough comic book movies to recognize when Hollywood is taking liberties and injecting their own crap. The weird motorcycles? The train?! In this Equilibrium/Blade Runner inspired city, nobody thought to check or destroy the old rail lines. Not only that, but in the wasteland - which reminds me of how a Fallout 3 Capitol Wasteland would appear on film - the rail didn't degrade to a point where it's unusable. All that's fine, but I couldn't believe the climax of the film was taking place on top of and alongside a speeding train. I'm pretty sure the comics focused more closely on cool hats, knife combat and the undead. Indeed, I read somewhere that the title character himself is undead, which was clearly not explained in this movie. Perhaps they are saving that reveal for one of the inevitable sequels.

The craziest aspect of seeing this movie was that not once after the show, where we dissect the movie in excited, quickened speech, did we mention the 3D. Purely out of convenient timing we went to the show wearing those funky glasses, and of course, it added nothing. I noticed a couple of scenes that looked very polished and impressed me, but clearly the third dimension added nothing to the experience. Perhaps we are desensitized to it, but 3D is not exciting anymore; on the other hand, it may just take the right movie showcasing the "new" tech to make it memorable and worthwhile.