I Hate Rocky IV And So Should You

The Rocky franchise is my favorite creation in Hollywood. We take our Rocky movies seriously in the HWAV household. We have movie posters of Rocky and Rocky Balboa framed and displayed in various rooms. Our daughter's middle name is Adrian. I even made my wife watch the films to see her reaction before the topic of marriage could even be seriously discussed (I knew she was a keeper when she watched Rocky II on her own, then proclaimed it "her favorite"). Behind all of the love and admiration for the series, there is one thing keeping it from being considered true perfection: Rocky IV. When I meet a person who instantly refers to Rocky IV as their favorite movie in the series, I know that the rest of the conversation isn't going to be pleasant. I've had more than my fair share of arguments with people about why this movie sucks, and they all end the same: "Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." Since I'm tired of having this conversation with people I thought it would make a great "end all" article. So once and for all, let's examine exactly why Rocky IV is the black sheep of an otherwise perfect franchise.

Let's start with the obvious: the opening sequence. Instead of the title rolling across the screen with Bill Conti's Fanfare for Rocky playing, we're forced to watch as an American boxing glove and a Russian boxing glove smash together explosively. This is a hint and a half for your ass that you are about to watch something very different, and not in a good way. They also use Eye of the Tiger for the opening, which is a great song...that was used to open Rocky III. Speaking of Bill Conti, he is nowhere to be found in this movie. His iconic Gonna Fly Now isn't featured once. At the time the film was made, Stallone and Conti had a dispute, and the movie definitely suffers for it.

The plot of the film is probably the aspect most out of character for the series. Russia wants to get in on the world of boxing, so they bring in Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren) for an exhibition fight. Attempting to prove that he is still relevant to the world, Apollo Creed accepts the challenge. During the fight, he is killed and Rocky sets out to train and take Drago down. The way I describe it to people is by saying, "picture a Rocky movie starring John Rambo." I get that this movie was made in the 80s and it was popular to showcase our feud with Russia, but Stallone had done that with Rambo: First Blood II and would do it again in Rambo III.

It's during the middle of the film that Stallone apparently decided to ignore who his characters were in previous entries when writing Rocky IV. The voice of reason and motivator for Rock is his wife Adrian, but in Rocky IV, she's the one telling him that going against Drago is impossible and that he "can't win." Not only is this out of character, but it completely negates the "believe in yourself" speech from Rocky III, but hey who cares about character continuity, right?

By the end of the movie, Rocky manages to win the hearts and minds of the people in Russia. He gives a cheesy speech about how if he can change his opinion on the Russians, and vice versa, then the world can change. That's right; Rocky Balboa just ended the Cold War singlehandedly. So when all is said and done and the smoke clears, you'd think Rocky would mention the reason for all of this (i.e. his friend Apollo), but no, no he doesn't. The movie forgets why it even exists by the time the credits roll.

The Rocky series has never been about boxing. It has always been about character, relationships and personal struggles. The series has always boiled down to Adrian, as she is the key to the series. Even Rocky Balboa, a movie that Talia Shire wasn't even in, had Adrian's imprint all over it. Rocky IV is about boxing, revenge, and having so much money that you can buy a robot. If the film has any saving grace, there would be only two things that come to mind: Rocky IV has a great training sequence in which Rocky is among the elements in Russia. Climbing a mountain, running in the snow, and growing a beard (anyone who hasn't done these 3 things cannot call themselves a man). The only other redeeming quality the film offers is the iconic picture of a battered Rocky Balboa draped in the American flag. Other than that, Rocky IV will always be the movie that my wife makes excuses on why she can't watch, and I end up envying her for it.

But Who Is Gonna Play Ash?

For those of you not familiar with Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead movies, let me bring you up to speed. The first film, The Evil Dead, is a by-the-numbers horror flick about a group of friends who take a vacation at a cabin in the woods. Skip it (you will not miss any key story elements as the opening of ED2 is a quasi-remake). The real fun begins in Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn and continues in Army of Darkness. This is the series that brought us Ash, the shit-talking’ hero with a chainsaw strapped to his arm. Ever wonder where Nuke Nukem gets his hilarious one-liners? They are lifted straight from this series, among others. This is a film series recommended to people who love over the top horror movies that don't take themselves seriously. If you love any of the following things, then this series is for you:

tree rape (you heard me)

possessed body parts

gallons of green, purple and red blood

physical comedy ala The Three Stooges

unexplained continuity changes from movie to movie

skeletons playing bagpipes

Army of Darkness was released in 1992, and ever since that time fans of the series have been wondering, "what’s next?"

Since 1992, the series has gone from cult classic to main stream in many ways. Bruce Campbell will forever be associated with Ash. He’s played him in 3 movies, 3 video games and the character has been featured in many, many comic book spin-offs. Ash even routinely shows up the NECA toy line as well. It can be argued that this character has gotten more and more popular as time has gone on, which is impressive considering we're just about two decades removed from the last movie.


So why hasn’t he returned to the screen at all? It has almost happened a couple of times. Before Sam Raimi hit it big with the Spider-Man movie series, there were talks of moving ahead with another sequel (for legal reasons it would have been Army of Darkness II). Bruce Campbell shares that it would have been based on the alternate ending (because what is an Evil Dead movie without skewed continuity?) and featured Ash fighting machines in the future. This was quickly scrapped and not much else was heard until August 15, 2003. I still remember that day because it was the day that Freddy vs. Jason hit theaters. It was tracking well at the box office, so naturally a sequel was being touted. Not just a FvJ 2, but a Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash. Without getting into the long history of how that came about, it fell apart when Sam Raimi stated that he wasn’t comfortable allowing someone else to have creative control over a character that he may want to use again once day. Fair enough I say. He’s all but confirming another sequel. Fast forward to 2007 – 2009 in which Raimi begins dropping hints that he and his brother have begun laying the foundation of another sequel.

Finally, in 2011, we have the official news that there will be another Evil Dead movie! Sam Raimi is producing, Fede Alvarez is directing and Diablo Cody is putting the finishing touches on the script! That’s right; The Evil Dead is coming – wait. The Evil Dead? As in…A REMAKE?! Surely this is a mistake as Bruce Campbell is coming back as Ash, right? A cameo? Not as Ash? Really? What a terrible, terrible idea. Hey Sam Raimi, let’s ask New Line how well the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street did. Well received? No? It essentially killed the franchise when you left out Robert Englund? Surely they wouldn’t leave out Ash, who IS the franchise. What’s that? It’s about a new generation of kids? Ugh. I can’t wait for this movie to bomb at the box office. Not only were we screwed out of this, but Raimi essentially screwed us out of a fun popcorn sequel to FvJ.

The people defending this have all basically said the same thing: "Look, if you want a new Evil Dead movie, then this is the way to go." That’s the same bullshit line they used when remaking Nightmare on Elm Street. How about instead of giving the fans what they want, you leave it alone? I’m guessing that Bruce Campbell is thrilled that he won’t be back as Ash. Everywhere this guy goes, he gets asked about a new Evil Dead movie. Some friends and I saw him speak about one of his other films a few years back and he immediately wanted that question out of the way. I’m sure this remake solidifies the fact that he’ll never have to talk about it again. I’m getting a real "Bill Murray & GB3" vibe here, and it sucks.

At one point one has to wonder if Ash will even be included, and if so, who will play him? This is a role that Bruce Campbell made famous, so would anyone accept a new actor in the role? This question was answered as of September 15, 2011 when it was reported by Campbell himself, "No Ash character currently. ED remake is a re-telling. All bets are off & all involved love the new approach." Everyone but the fans, Bruce. Remember when I told you to skip the first film? The remake sounds just like it, so guess what I recommend you do here, too?

Very few remakes have a chance of living up to the original (in this case sequels), and even fewer can hack it when they exclude what everyone loves about the original.

A Genre Worth Finding

The horror genre has been a favorite of mine ever since I was a little kid. I still remember watching Tales From the Crypt on HBO before I was old enough, or seeing Childs Play, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4-7 and even Leprechaun (don't judge me) while they were still in the theater. As I got older, it became increasingly difficult to identify what was considered scary. In fact, it is different for everyone. I’ll never forget being at the Greenback Cinedomes and seeing the movie poster for The Blair Witch Project. I can still remember the blurb from Peter Travers at the top of the poster: "Scary as hell." Now that's what I'm talking about! I remember begging my mom to take me on opening day. I was beyond excited, which was intensified when I saw the usher handing out "barf bags" to people (due to motion sickness). Up to that point, I'd never seen a movie like it. The fact that this was shot with a hand held camera only made it all the more real. I never saw a "trailer" in the conventional sense. When BWP was advertised on television, it was treated as a real event and that these people were truly missing. Nothing like that had ever been done, to my knowledge. I still love everything about BWP and had hoped that one day other films would follow in the "found footage" format.

Today we're literally flooded with this subgenre of horror. This is largely, if not exclusively, due to Paranormal Activity. When The Blair Witch Project was first released, it spawned a lot of spoof movies instead of imitations. When Paranormal Activity became the most profitable film of all time in 2009, other studios wanted in. It didn't take long before other people figured out that a low budget "found footage" movie could produce a lot more in returns. When lightning struck twice with Paranormal Activity 2 the DVD market was flooded with other similar titles.

What I want to do is look at some of those titles and help people to avoid some of the really terrible ones that are floating around out there, as well as point out what appears to be some solid upcoming films.

Let's start with the bad. I reviewed George Romero's Diary of the Dead a few years ago and was utterly disappointed by just how terrible it was. Romero, having learned nothing, followed it up with Survival of the Dead, which again utilizes a hand held format. I love this subgenre, but when the opening narration explains that "music was added for effect, and to scare you," it isn't looking good. Another film making the festival rounds right now is Atrocious, a film that essentially can be described by looking no further than the title. This Spanish-made film has been geeting decent reviews, and has been hailed for being "terrifying." I managed to see this one, and even at a running time of a little over an hour, it was awful. The basic premise is that a family vacations together on the countryside and is found dead just days later. The movie follows the children as they investigate a local urban legend about a ghost that will guide you out of the forrest if you ever find yourself lost. Not only is this urban legend barely touched upon, but it actually has nothing to do with the actual plot twist or "carnage" that ends the film.



Of course for every few dozen horrible movies you sit through, you manage to find a couple of gems. Noroi: The Curse could be the crowning jewel of J-Horror. I consider the final moments of that film to be some of the scariest I have ever seen. Another great import is the Rec series. Rec plays out like the Spanish 28 Days Later with a virus infecting an apartment complex. The survivors must fight their way out, blah blah blah. Once you make it to Rec 2 (and I highly recommend that you do) you learn that it is nothing like 28 Days Later and nothing like what you imagined it would be. The two most recent films I've seen are definitely worth noting. Grave Encounters begins extremely cheesy and gives the impression that this is going nowhere fast. Think Ghost Hunters meets House on Haunted Hill. The wife and I were quite surprised at how effective this movie was. One thing that creeps me out in these movies is face distortion. Noroi uses it, and Grave Encounters uses it. If you don't know what I mean, take a gander at this.

The other film that I think deserves credit on so many levels is The Tunnel. The film raised money from online donations so that it could be released and downloaded for free. I recommend going to the official website (http://www.thetunnelmovie.net/) and watching it. This "found footage" movie takes a documentary approach with the survivors retelling the events of an investigation into abandoned tunnels underneath Sydney. I don't want to give away too much because the less you know the better, but be warned it is quite effective.

Of course it is always uncertain whether movies like this will be any good, but some of the upcoming released I am keeping a close eye on. Paranormal Activity 3 is a given for me, and I won't go into too much detail on it because it'll be the focus of a future article. Other films I encourage people to watch out for are Unaware, Evidence, Rec 3: Genesis & Rec 4: Apocolypse, as well as Oren Peli's Area 51.

Conan the Letdown

Let me start by saying that I am a huge Robert E. Howard fan. I love his characters, his horror stories, his connection to the Cthulhu mythos and his descriptive writing style. His work on paper is nothing short of amazing, but when his creative properties make the leap to the big screen they are butchered. That isn’t to say that some of the media is bad, but they certainly aren’t of the REH variety. The original Conan the Barbarian, made in 1982, is still one of my all time favorite movies. It barely resembled the character, but it was one of the most well made movies I have ever seen. Since that time we’ve gotten the atrocious Conan the Destroyer, and generic (but still enjoyable) Solomon Kane. Back when Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to run for Governor, he decided to do so in place of making King Conan: Crown of Iron (a script which eluded me for a decade, but I finally found a copy and loved it). At that point my hope of seeing Conan again was crushed. So imagine how excited I was in 2007 when it was announced that Nu Image/Millennium Films purchased the rights and planned to make a faithful adaptation of the source material. Would it be more REH than Destroyer? Well after 4 years of waiting I’m here to explain why Conan might be better suited to stay on the page.

First of all, Conan is a bad motherfucker. “Hither came Conan, the Cimmerian, black-haired, sullen-eyed, sword in hand, a thief, a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandaled feet.” Whether it be the black giants from “The Pool of the Black One” or Belit from “Queen of the Black Coast,” nobody stands a chance in war or love. We’re talking about a guy who uses his brain, and not some half-wit with a sword. Where was this in the reboot of Conan the Barbarian? As I sat in the almost empty theater, I kept wondering that. I saw a glimmer of hope every now and again with lines lifted straight from page (“I live, I love, I slay, and I am content” or “I will tear apart the mountains to find you. I will follow you to Hell”). Unfortunately, these moments were too far and few between. When they did happen, it was awesome. For example, in one of the earlier scenes in was mentioned that Conan ascended the Tower of the Elephant and slayed Yara. I was hoping for more of these little nods to REH, but they rarely ever came.


Beyond that, it was a pretty uneven experience, but did it have to be? I mean come on, how hard is it to screw up a movie based on Conan? Did director Marcus Nispel have any clue as to how much source material was already written and waiting to be adapted? Apparently not because in the end he decided to make a movie that rehashes the old “revenge for murdering my parents storyline” that John Milius already tackled in 1982 when he made the first (and superior) adaptation. A storyline which isn’t even from the books, by the way. What do we care where Conan comes from? So we're stuck with a movie about Conan and his friends, which is odd because in the books he doesn't need any, going after a cut and paste villain. What a shame.

For some people, Arnold Schwarzenegger has always embodied what Conan should look like. For me, it is a mixed bag. I think Arnold is great in the role, but it had been so long that I knew what this franchise needed was a fresh start. People needed to forget about Arnold in the same way people need to get over Christopher Reeve as Superman. When Jason Momoa was cast, I was in the dark because I had never seen his stint on Stargate Atlantis. He was eventually cast as Drogo on Game of Thrones, and it is here that he won me over as Conan. The character of Drogo is similar to Conan in a lot of ways, so it was a great role to show fans what he had in store. Too bad none of that was brought to the table when filming Conan. Now I’m willing to place the blame on both Nispel and Momoa here. Nispel explained the character as “more like Sean Connery’s version of James Bond.” In a way, this is true. Conan has always been a charismatic, likeable character who is also capable of very dangerous things. What ultimately ends of happening is that Momoa plays it too lighthearted in certain places. He’s not angry enough. Not by a long shot. He didn’t command the attention and respect of people in the way that the character does. The only thing he really got right was the look of Conan and his love for war. I could easily buy into this guy as the Cimmerian King.

Finally, the new adaptation had nothing iconic about it. Sure, the original had Arnold, but he wasn’t the icon back in 82 that he is now. Arnold was practically a new face who had appeared in Pumping Iron and little else. I remember the original movie for so many reasons: the soundtrack by Basil Poldouris that I still listen to today (as I write this actually), the design of the swords by Ron Cobb, the narrative by Mako that fueled the movie, and of course my personal favorite, Ben Davidson’s enraged “You…” dialogue. What did new Conan have? A forgettable soundtrack, recycled and generic sword designs, the biggest WTF moment when I realized that Morgan Freeman was the narrator, and throw away dialogue (the good dialogue was written in the 30s by REH).

Conan the Barbarian opened to mostly negative reviews and a terrible box office take. This is for the best as I for one don’t want to sit through another Conan the Destroyer of a sequel, which is to say watered down, poorly directed and marketed for children. I wanted to like this movie so much, and I was so excited going in, that it didn’t really sink in for a few days that I still don’t have a definitive version of one of the best characters ever written. It took just shy of 30 years to get this far, so I’m not holding my breath for something faithful anytime soon. If anyone looking to see the new movie, I’d say don’t bother. I recommend picking up any story by Robert E. Howard instead. “Queen of the Black Coast” is a great starting point and is often pointed to as one of the greatest stories that Howard ever wrote.

HWAV Is Back!

It's been three and a half years since I have written anything for this site, and I have to admit that I missed it. I'm back (until HWAV 3.0 in 2015) and with a pretty good looking site design courtesy of my wife, Allison.

I may not have kept up with writing, but I can promise you that I've kept up with my bitching. Look for a lot of articles to hit sooner than later as I offer up my views on:

-The "Evil Dead" reboot. Really, Sam Raimi? You won't allow Bruce Campbell to star in "Freddy vs Jason vs Ash," nor will you use the character in the sequel that everyone wants to see. Really? Let's remake "First Blood" without using Rambo and see how well that goes over.

-Bill Murray and Ghostbusters 3. Is he in? Is he out? He dislikes GB2, but he's wearing the gear for the Scream Awards.

-Looking through previous articles, I was pretty high on the "Saw" franchise. I plan to write about the franchise killing "Saw 3D" and how "Paranormal Activity" took its place.

-2012 is probably the biggest year for movies of all time (and possibly the last...X-Files invasion, anyone?). Look for me to tackle as many of them as I can.

-I watch as many "found footage" films, for better or worse, and will share with you my frustration in a film like "Atrocious" getting rave reviews when it was simply...atrocious <---see what I did there?

In the meantime, take a moment and check out some of my older posts and feel free to comment and let me know that you'll be reading.

-Steve