Who Watches the Watchmen (2009)
There has been much discussion on the most recent comic book movie called The Watchmen, most of it on the internet. The fans of the original graphic novel seem to love the movie while people unfamiliar with the source material tend to think it’s a bit over cooked. In the hopes of being an impartial critic I would like to present you with an excerpt from an actual discussion that happened over at www.troubleticketcomic.com. The guy who runs that site is a friend of mine as well as a huge Watchman fan, I on the other hand am not.
Trouble Ticket Comic’s view:
“Saying “I saw Watchmen this weekend” doesn’t contain the emotion I wish to convey. So I’ll try again… I went to the movies this weekend and felt moved by an amazing piece of artwork. From the first thirty seconds to the infamous last quotes, Watchmen never left me wanting. Based on the Alan Moore’s (NY Times best selling) graphic novel, the creators of the Watchmen film paid great tribute to one of the best comics inked… Everything from costumes to set design seemed as if they were taken directly from the comics panels and just mapped in 3D. Watching the movie, at any time, I felt as if I were actually in the decade being portrayed…from the campy, loose fitting garb of the early 40’s to late 50’s superheroes, to the new age of tight fitting body armor, leather, and spandex, and the largely unavoidable yet strangely non eye threatening blue “package” provided by Dr. Manhattan…
Go in expecting to see a three hour exploration into human nature, at its core, and what good and evil can really accomplished in the hearts of men, and Gods…(As for)Alan Moore and his decision to remove his name from the film in protest of it’s adaptation from the novel… Alan Moore is a pretentious (expletive). I said it! ...(As a side note) It seems that the box office (sales) for Watchmen have dropped 60% from the opening weekend to the second, and I hope that this trend does not continue.”
The Armchair Critic’s response:
“Alan Moore wanted his name removed from the film because it isn't that great. His work was not intended to show how a great comic can become an awesome movie. He wanted to bring to the attention of the world that some things can be told only through the medium of comics that cannot be equaled in either movies, or novels.
Understand that I am not a Watchmen fanboi as clearly some people are. More power to them for getting the movie they feel they deserved, and want. It is theirs forever, and no one can take it away from them. But the reason the film has had such a drop in sales from opening week till now though is because the majority of movie goers are not fan boys and the story does not translate well to a general audiences not familiar with the source material and even some who are.
Yes, I get the morality conflict the story describes; yes, I get the alternate reality parallels. But I did not think that this story is a source of some grand philosophy, or even one that is very original. It’s a comic book story for adults but the philosophy behind it is no more astounding than that of prejudice in the X-Men or responsibility and power in Spider-Man. Personally I thought the Watchmen movie was somewhat full of itself, excessively long with too much time spent spoon feeding the audience to understand what they are watching. Either give people credit for being able to read between the lines or give up completely and become a pure action movie. I know I told my friends to wait for the DVD release.
Friday the 13th part 12
Michael Bay is back with another reboot, remake, do-over, up-date or whatever you want to call it to a classic horror franchise. A few years ago he rebooted the Texas Chainsaw Massacre story line and introduced a whole new generation to Leatherface. Now he has helped bring the new Friday the 13th film to theaters and with it he has tried to bring the classic feel of Jason to a generation that only knows Freddy vs. Jason and Jason X (Jason in Space) which are hardly in the spirit of the first six films.
As a whole the new Friday the 13th movie does a good job updating the look and feel of a Jason movie. The progression of Jason is there, a quick review of the original film is there and of course the different styles of kills are there, some for gore and some just for comedic value. The film mostly keeps with the subtext of the original Jason films such as if you do drugs or have sex you are probably going to wind up dead. This was always below the surface in slasher films of the 80’s due to the spread of the HIV virus at that time. But that’s another article “Horror Films: Their Metaphorical Social Commentary on the HIV” or something like that. I’ll write that when I get around to winning my Pulitzer.
For as much praise as I’m giving Friday the 13th I did have a few qualms with it. Don’t get me wrong this is a good slasher flick and I’m glad that we’re finally getting some decent horror movies to go check out. (Even if they are all remakes) But the Michael Bay style in this movie was very reminiscent of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre reboot he did previously. The lighting and the filters all gave a feel that reminded me more of that remake than the original Jason movies. Also, Jason flicks were always about camping or a cabin in the woods something of that nature. But, when I left the theater after watching this movie I wasn’t scared of going out into the woods like the first films would have made me. I was more annoyed with stuck-up rich people and their expensive lake houses.
Maybe it’s a pet peeve of mine but the title also makes me twinge a little bit. You remake a franchise film and give it the exact same title as the original movie. But in your remake you only briefly reference the original film? That doesn’t make sense to me, I thought maybe it was because this was the 13th film in the series and that sort of made it clever. But it is not the 13th Jason movie it’s only the 12th, so why use the original 13th film name? Did they forget that Jason wasn’t actually in the first film? He’s doesn’t even get a hockey mask until the third movie. But all minor flaws aside (and pet peeves) this is a solid slasher flick that I would recommend any horror fan should go see. It’s not hard to watch like The Last House on the Left, but it won’t haunt you as long either. It’s a fast paced evil carnival ride that will have you jumping out of your seat one moment, then cracking a devilish grin the next. So as far as horror movies go I give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
All-In bet on Wall-E
The past few months have had many great movies with “The Dark Knight” probably the most talked about. But as good as that flick is, the latest and, I believe, greatest Pixar movie “Wall-E” is almost equally as good. Imagine, if you can, a world that has been taken over by large corporations selling low cost junk (i.e. Wal-Mart). This creates a wasteful society as everything is so cheap and disposable that trash soon starts to take up as much space on earth as people do. So all the humans (if you’re an optimist) decide to take a few years off and go on a luxury cruise in space where they are waited on hand and foot by serving robots while other robots are cleaning up the mess we made here on Earth. As the centuries pass, the humans forget about Earth and why they left. All of the robots stuck cleaning our planet begin breaking down until eventually there is only one left: Wall-E the loveable robot still doing his daily chores. Political aspects aside, this is just a great movie. The characters are fun, the CGI is amazing, and the subtext is great to talk about on the drive home. Pixar’s films in the past (“Toy Story”, “Finding Nemo” and “The Incredibles”) are all great films and although “Wall-E” may not have the reviewability of “Finding Nemo”, I believe it to be the superior movie for both story telling and artistry. While people debate whether or not Heath Ledger will get an Oscar for “The Dark Knight”, I will guarantee this gem will win for Best Animated Film. Mike’s tagline quote for “Wall-E”: “The artistry of ‘Wall-E’ is on par with that of ‘Fantasia’. The bar has been raised and most other animated movies will now seem like Saturday morning cartoons.”
Wall-E: 5 Stars
The Dark Knight
Here it is. The most hyped, most anticipated movie sequel I can think of in my life time. Well of my mature life, I’m not counting the first decade or so of my existence when I was hyped up about many movies like Ace Ventura 2, Ghostbusters 2, or Fiffel Goes West. The Dark Knight or maybe more commonly known as Batman Begins 2, or Batman 7 if you’re keeping count is a GREAT movie. Is it the GREATEST movie ever? Probably not, but the fan boys will argue that it very well could be, and the fact that there is an argument at all should tell you this is a movie you need to go see. Without getting into the whole deep discussion about the meaning behind the plot: escalation, morality, honor, chaos, and civilized behavior in general, I’m going to give you the broad strokes of what helps make this a great film. Heath Ledgers version of the joker is completely retooled than that of Nicolson’s, he’s dark and sinister and totally awesome. He plays the role so well that you lose the actor, and so Ledgers death will not distract because you forget he’s the one behind the clown. Will Ledger win the Oscar for this role? I don’t know, but I can tell you he’s definitely earned a nomination and as of right now I’d say he’s won it because there’s not much else to compete with yet. It is a shame though, that people will always question if he’s getting it because of his death, or his talent. I will let you decide. Bale is probably the best batman we’ve had, not because he looks better in the costume than Keaton (or West) but because he plays both roles well, that of Batman and that of Bruce Wayne. Katie Holmes’ character is rebooted with Maggie Gyllenhaal but don’t worry you wont have to watch her very much. The entire ensemble cast all have their moments in this film though. When it’s over you won’t be let down that they didn’t show someone enough: Ledger, Oldman, Freeman, Bale, Eckhart, and Cain each gets their time to shine. Perhaps because of this fact the movie is fairly long, but it’s not Lord of the Rings “dear god when will this end” type of long. The Dark Knight has more of an “I hope it keeps going because I want to see more” feel to it as you sit for the nearly 3 hour movie. Probably the greatest praise I can give The Dark Knight is this: It had 8 months of hype saying it is awesome, and when I left the theater I was not disappointed, and in fact went to see it again a week later. So go check The Dark Knight out. However, if you’re not a fan of the Bat I would suggest you go see Wall-E. I watched this movie as well in past week and have to admit it was almost right there with The Dark Knight as equally entertaining. So there you go, two must see movie reviews in the same month, I need a vacation. See you in august.
The Dark Knight: 5-Stars
Wall-E: 5-Stars
Kung-Fu Panda
Kung-Fu Panda is a fun, energetic, family film on par with the best of Disney. DreamWorks has raised the bar yet again for CGI animated movies, and the new standard is beautiful to watch. Po the panda is chosen (perhaps by accident) to become the dragon warrior and the sole savior of the village where he lives from the fresh escaped out of jail Tiglian. The voice acting is excellent but perhaps a little typical of the actors portraying the characters. The all star cast consisting of Jack Black (Panda), Angelina Jolie (Tiger), Lucy Lu (Snake), Jackie Chan (Monkey), David Cross (Crane), Dustin Hoffman, and that guy from Knocked Up as a cricket is fun but a bit disappointing since there’s lack of dialog for each individual character. If you haven’t noticed each character of the Furious Five represents the animal of the fighting style they use. While the movie is a little short, as well as predictable, it’s still a whole lot of fun while it last. The action and fight sequences are some of the best I’ve ever seen in an animated cartoon especially the escape, and the bridge fight. However, the film is only held back from greatness by its lack of ambition. This could have been an animated epic, which there are so few of, but it fell short with simplistic plot twist and a credit roll that comes about 10 minutes too early. Still a good flick, worth watching especially if you have some little ones or a younger sibling you need to take to a movie you will both be thoroughly entertained.
Righteous Flop
Ok, I’m just going to come right out and say that “Righteous Kill” is not a good movie. The “Pacino / De Niro” gimmick only takes you so far in the film and the rest is crippled by bad plot line and bad direction. The generic story, cheap cut scenes, flashbacks, voiceovers, and a “twist” that I called from the first preview I saw three months ago all combine into just a dull drab generic cop movie. If you are that desperate to watch Pacino and De Niro in the same film go watch “Heat” or “Godfather II” because “Righteous Kill” will take away from their perceived greatness. While this isn’t the worst we’ve seen from the two stars it’s certainly not the best. This film is to De Niro and Pacino what “Snakes on a Plane” was to Samuel L. Jackson, a generic movie where the famous actor gives the audience an entire film of their most generic type-cast role. Of course “Righteous Kill” takes itself seriously unlike “Snakes” which knew it was a gimmick movie and could make fun of itself. People will probably end up watching this movie at some point or another just because the appeal of Bob and Al is too much to pass up. Just know that train of thought is exactly what this movie was counting on to turn a profit. This is a made for TV movie that is only shown in theaters because of its two lead actors.
2 out of 5 stars
I am Legend
This movie is not legendary. The film is based on the book by the same title which was written in 1954 by Richard Matheson (which is a great short read). Matheson also penned some other well know tales which became excellent movies including Stir of Echoes, and What Dreams May Come. His writings were also inspiration in many Stephen King novels (The Stand), as well as the first survival horror films such as “Night of the Living Dead”. This later became over done and saturated the market with its many sequels and spin-offs such as “28 Days Later”, and “Silent Hill”.
“I am Legend” shows the world in the near future where scientist have recently created a virus altered cure for cancer. After thousands are cured with this revolutionary drug, the virus-cure mutates and eventually leaves the scientist Robert Nevell (Will Smith) as possibly the last man on earth and immune to the virus. The plot follows his life as the only remaining human in New York and his search for a cure to save the remaining infected populace which remains in a vampiric state.
This survivalist horror film makes several good moves that gave it the potential to be a great film. It’s not a bloody gore-fest of a zombie movie that is a mainstay these days, and that’s a good thing, it counter-acts the lack of blood with an edgy and unnerving feel throughout the entire film, especially being set in an abandoned Manhattan. The acting is excellent, and Will Smith’s portrayal of being totally alone is on par with Tom Hanks in “Cast Away”. The plot line however is another hollywood-ized version of a great book into a mediocre movie. The book in its entire 150 pages has more depth and is cleverly written to make one think of their moral stand point, and how our view of humanity may skew our perception of who the real monster is. The book is full of irony and makes a very interesting dark tragedy.
The film kept the same dark feel of the book, but someone decided that all the underlying plot and depth which makes one actually use some brainpower and think about what this story is saying, is unnecessary. So the viewer is left with a movie which starts out strong and slowly dissolves into the same played out special effect heavy, heroic man takes on legions of infected zombie vampires all while trying to save the world action flick. There are subtle hints that someone may have actually read the book before making the movie, but they are easily passed over, and not very prominent.
I have no doubt that the reviews of this movie will be somewhat divided. Those who have never read the book (or a book for that matter) will probably love it, and add it to their DVD collection next to “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”. The other group mostly those who have read the book or who like depth, consistency, and a clever plotline can wait to rent it. All in all, “I am Legend” is entertaining and has Will Smith in it, that being said, it will not go down as legend and will be in danger of becoming just another zombie movie. If you are still interested you should go by the DVDs of “The Last Man on Earth” (1964, Vincent Price), or “The Omega Man” (1971, Charlton Heston). They are movies based on the same book, and aren’t as tainted. I give it 3 out of 5 stars.
1 star = Don’t bother
2 star = 2a.m. and nothing else on TV
3 star = Wait and rent it.
4 star = Go see it or buy the DVD.
5 star = Go to the theater now, download when get you home, and buy the DVD when comes out.
Beowulf
The oldest and best known epic the world over is shown in the most technically advanced movie to date. The film is fully computer generated and claims more than 300 camera angles, but is this a good thing?
The movie Beowulf directed by Robert Zemeckis (Cast Away, Back to the Future) is the story of a 5th Century village besieged by the monster Grendel (Cripsin Glover). The village king Hrothgar(Anthony Hopkins) sends out word for a hero to come save them from this monster, and Beowulf (Ray Winstone, The Departed) answers the call. Beyond that the plot line is driven forward by Grendel’s Mothers (Angelina Jolie) striking a deal with the hero Beowulf and the fall out of such a bargain.
The film is entirely CGI animation. Which some would hail as the future of the movie industry, and if this be a stepping stone towards that future, it is a slippery one at best. I myself do not put much stock in the over use of CGI, but being that this film has no live action at all, there isn’t the choppy switch to computer graphics that ruined films such as the sequels to the Matrix. But where is the fun in Angelina Jolie’s nude scene when it’s animated?
The film itself does have some merit; it is a well told story and one that will most certainly be the highlight of electronic stores everywhere showing off the excellent quality of their High Definition televisions. However, while watching the film you can’t help but think of it as either a children’s movie, such as Robert Zemeckis’ first foray into the realm of CGI “The Polar Express” or as a very long cut scene from some video game.
The landscapes throughout the film are beautiful, realistic but on a scale only made possible by CGI, and this works well in film. Some of the action scenes are awe-inspiring with special effects that could not have been made any other way. However, these excellent scenes are intermitted by the less detailed ones that did not have the same amount of care attached to them, and in these less detailed scenes the viewer is ripped out of whatever immersion into the film they had. These scenes are noticeable by the lack of skin texture and Gumby like movement of the characters.
I believe the answer to how Hollywood should use such advancement in technology as CGI effects is that they should be spliced into a film where the audience does not even know they are there, for effects that are not possible in real life. There is no need to CGI basic things which can be done in live action, it takes away from the movie as a whole by breaking the focus of the viewer who is trying to escape into the world that they see on the screen (I’m looking at you fake wolves from “The Day After Tomarrow”). When a movie can cut from live action to computer graphics and back again so smoothly the viewer never breaks focus we will truly have some amazing films to watch, but not yet.
To answer the main question that any movie goer should have “is this movie worth watching”. I’d say yes, but there are some conditions which I would add to make it a better experience. Those would be to either go and see this film in some large I-MAX theater where they give you the 3-D glasses to really get the full effect (3D versions of the film come with glasses which aren’t quite as cheesy as the old red and blue ones, and does add an interesting effect) or wait until the DVD comes out and make sure you watch it on some fancy HDTV with all the settings maxed out. You will be impressed, but it won’t make the list of top movies in anyone’s mind over the age of fifteen. I give it 2.5 stars out of 5.
10 Thousand Reasons Not To See 10,000BC
On this the one year anniversary of the paper I will review a movie 10,000 years in the making. One would think that would be enough time to create a decent film or at lease do some research about the period your film is set, apparently not.
Roland Zimmerich puts the finishing touches on his career with 10,000BC. You can watch his film by film downfall starting out strong with “Independence Day” a great movie enjoyed by all. Then “The Day After Tomorrow” came out and let down movie goers, but was still watchable at 2o’clock in the morning. But, now it would seem its time to say goodbye to Roland because this will be the nail in his coffin.
The pitch to the studio probably went something like this. “I got this idea for a movie. A tribe of cavemen at the end of the Ice Age are mammoth hunters. They are all white with dreadlocks, and speak broken english. At some point, the only good looking cave woman, and some others from the tribe are captured and put into slavery by the Egyptians, and the tribal leader goes to get them back while fighting crazy bird things, and Sabertooth Tigers. We’ll make a fortune!”
Egypt strangely enough is within walking distance from Europe in 10,000BC. Also, interesting to note is that in this film there is a large Egyptian city pyramids and all that is about 4,000 years too early, since in the real 10,000BC people had just learned to make boats, and the first human settlement wasn’t for another 4,000 years 6,000 till they started on the pyramids. But I digress, aside from the huge leaps in evolution contrary to the historical record, the film is chalk full of friendly saber-tooth tigers, large wooly mammoths, even a giant ostrich fight just for good measure.
I give it 15 years, before this movie comes back as a campy cult classic. But wait till then before you watch it on late night cable. Also, please don’t let your children see it even though it is only rated PG-13 I fear that their view of history will be forever skewed. The animated movie Ice Age is honestly more historically accurate than this with the same CGI mammoth and sabertooth tiger. This movie could only be better if it was worse. If there was a plane flying through the sky in the background, or a cell phone tower caught in the distance, it would add to the camp and make it almost charming like an Ed Wood movie but its not there, I looked. If you don’t agree email and let me know, but as of now I give it 1 star out of 5.
