The Cat's Meow -
Fictionalized account of the murder of Thomas Ince by William Randolph Hearst on his boat and the beginnings of the cover-up. The story itself was recounted in the film RKO 281 that I reviewed before. My main interest in this film was some of the casting. Particularly Eddie Izzard as Charlie Chaplin. But for the most part I found the acting mostly meh. Cary Elwes did a decent job of Thomas Ince and Jennifer Tilly was ok as Louella Parsons. Joanna Lumley was good as Elinor Glyn. But Kirsten Dunst did not play a good Marion Davies (neither did Melanie Griffith for that matter, no one has done a good job as Marion Davies). I preferred James Cromwells W.R Hearst to Edward Herrmann's. And then there is Eddie Izzard.
I really like Eddie Izzard. I have all his comedy albums and they kill me. I think he's fucking hysterical. But...but...he did a piss poor job as Chaplin. For surprising reasons. He gave a very naturalistic performance of Chaplin, which for the vast majority of people would be good. But not for Chaplin. All the archival footage and documentaries of Chaplin I have seen indicate he was a very prim and proper person in his demeanor. Very uptight and prone to speaking with flowery language. I.e. not very natural. Maybe I'm in a minority of not liking Izzards performance because I actually am well versed with Chaplin, but I was not happy. It was odd casting choice and I wanted to see how it played out. It didn't.
The film, for the most part, is pretty inoffensive. It's just kind of there.
Grade: C
Spirited Away -
Some people consider this Miyazaki's masterpiece. I disagree. Don't get me wrong, I loved this film and I thought it was brilliant. I just don't think it's as good as Princess Mononoke. And the main difference is in the characterization. The characters in Princess Mononoke were so fully rounded, so developed, they felt real. I loved, I absolutely loved, how there weren't any real villians in that film. Oh sure, the woman gunmaker was killing forest gods, but she took in and took care of lepers. She wasn't evil, it was just a clash of societies. That was missing in Spirited Away. The crone was evil, her twin sister was good. It was all black and white and I didn't like that, mainly because I know Miyazaki can do better. As such, I think one of the most interesting characters was No Face. Sure, he acted evil when he got inside the bathhouse, but as Sen points out, he just goes crazy, he's not really bad. In a different situation he's quite kind.
And some of the plot points were iffy. The twin sister? The sudden realization of who Haku is? Too convenient.
But that's pretty much the only flaws there. The animation was nothing short of breathtaking. There were times I sat there just looking at the backgrounds. I mean, there were steps, just plain old steps, but they were painted with 4 different shades of green. Every single shot was like a painting, full of beautiful color and delicate intricacy. You just don't see that in animation. That level of care. It was gorgeous to behold.
Grade: A
Escape from L.A. -
The sequel to the cult film Escape from New York. I've seen the original. Even reviewed it here. As I said it doesn't do much for me, but I can appreciate it on a certain level. It was a nice combination of kitsch and cult. Escape from LA? It's bad. Very very bad. It has a lot of the kitsch, but none of the cult. It was not made with any grace, or class, or care. The production values were crap, the special effects were embarassing even for 1996. The plot was a combination of rehashing the originals sets with incomprehensible bullshit. The action setpieces were either bland and boring, or so rediculous to make me want to spit. I literally said, out loud, several times "what the fuck?" The social commentary, necessary for any film of this genre, was more than heavyhanded. The oppressive theocracy, the Beverly Hills doctor, the agent. A sledgehammer would've been more subtle.
I'm astonished they got the cast they did. I recognized nearly everyone in the opening credits. Stacy Keach, Michelle Forbes, Bruce Campbell, Pam Grier, Valeria Golino. Steve Buscemi. Peter Fonda? Peter fucking Fonda. Who had probably the worst role in the film.
Much like the first film, it did manage to redeem itself a little at the end with a stunning bit of nihilism on the part of Snake. I liked that. Didn't like anything else.
Grade: F
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
"Who watches the watchmen?"
I wanted to get my thoughts down on Watchmen, as it's sort of been a thing with me lately. Some of you may find my comments heretical. Tough.
I'm sure people are aware of the furor the movie created. All the hullabaloo of trying to get it made, how it's been in pre-production for 20 years, various people taking stabs it it, who owns the rights to make it and so forth. It was news in the movie-centric circles which I tend to inhabit, so I became aware of the project. I also became aware of it from the various GP people, who know both comic books and literature, which this "graphic novel" seems to straddle. With the approach of the film, I wanted to become familiar with the material, so I determined to read the comic book first. Fortunately for me, my mothers boyfriend sent me a care-package with a copy included; he knew my mother wanted to see the film with me when I came up for Easter.
I had some difficulties approaching the comic. I'll continue to use the word "comic" since I know some of this readership gets uppity at the use of "graphic novel". Personally, I don't care. But that's besides the point. The difficulty in approaching the comic came from two opposing sources. On the one hand, I had reports upon reports that this comic book was the greatest thing since Jesus invented sliced bread. Everyone said the comic was seminal work, that it had been named as one of Time magazine's top 100 novels of the twentieth century, and so forth. Even coming from those aforementioned friends was a universal lauding of the material. This obviously set up HUGE expectations, to which reality can hardly come close. On the other hand, I had recently read an interview with the author Alan Moore that showed him to be, in short, a complete and utter asshole. Granted, this doesn't preclude him from being a good writer, it's often the case assholes make good artists (sadly). But it did generally make me not want to like the comic, though another interview I read with the artist Dave Gibbons ameliorated that some, as he seems like a real nice guy. In addition to these problems are the fact that, simply, I'm not a comic book fan. I went through short period of it when I was young, about the time Spawn came out (I wonder if my Spawn #1 is worth anything?), but it didn't last. It's not my thing. It's not that they are an unworthy medium, certainly not. I just don't like them. The artwork itself was problematic as I preferred the more modern Todd Mcfarlane slick artistic style, whereas Watchmen was in an older style.
However, all problems aside, I read it. My thoughts? Did it live up to expectations? Certainly not, that would have been impossible. Was it the single most important piece of literature from the twentieth century? Not even close. Was it good? Yes, it was good. I liked it.
Now, I think there are two reasons that the comic wasn't as earth-shattering for me as it was for others. For one, it has aged. Obviously the story draws heavily on the Cold War sentiments of the time. At my age, I only caught the tail end of the Cold War; I have only vague memories of the time. To an even younger audience, I think that vibe would be completely lost. But this is only a minor criticism. The second is the major. What the comic does very well is to take superhero mythology and turn it on its head. As one reviewer called it, it "deconstructs" the superhero. As I mentioned before, I am not a comic book fan. Unlike my friends, I am not steeped in the comic book mythology. I couldn't tell you what character belongs in the DC universe versus the Marvel universe. I don't know all the different backstories for each hero. I couldn't tell you the lineage of artists. For those that live in those worlds, a realistic and critical analysis of what it actually would mean to be a costumed superhero could be earth-shattering. The story would force them to re-evaluate those mythologies they breath. For me, it's just an interesting angle. Would would the world really be like if it had superheroes? What would cause someone to actually be one? What would be the repercussions? These are fantastic questions, and worthy of discussion and meditation. But they don't destroy my thought structure. Because of my...ambivalence? Apathy? Personal preferences against the comic book medium, I've always been able to come at their individual mythologies from a more objective position. This has allowed me to A) call out when a particularly backstory or plot point was utterly ridiculous, which happens all to often, not surprising given that the stories are serialized over decades much like a soap opera, and B) often force me to defend Superman to modern audiences that favor Batman. Not that I don't like Batman, I think The Dark Knight was one of the best films in years simply for Heath Ledgers performance, but the Superman mythology is a fascinating one if viewed from the proper angle. And angle that never seems to make into the films, to my displeasure.
I can't comment too much on the artwork of the comic. As a non-purveyor of comics, I mainly read the text bubbles and only gloss over the art, though occasionally something will grab my eye. What about the writing? The writing was...odd. In some places it was actually quite bad, particularly in dialogue. There were some cringe-worthy exchanges. But then there were other places. I found the writing shone in the small pieces at the end of the chapters, the places where there were excerpts from Under the Hood or the essay from Dan Drieberg. Those pieces were amazingly written. Astoundingly written. They each had a different voice, one that corresponds well the person presenting it, properly researched when necessary, and often thought-provoking.
Anyways, I finished reading the comic shortly before Easter and found myself that weekend seeing the 10:20 showing of Watchmen with my mother. What is sad, what is truly sad, is that I am part of the 0.00000001% of the population willing to give this film a fair shake. Most of the people going to see it expect to see a typical comic book movie, ala Spiderman, and one thing is for certain, this is not a stereotypical comic book movie. Most of those moviegoers are aghast at how "graphic" it is (read: bloody and showing a penis). What they don't mention is how they are intimidated by the fact that the story is not simplistic. It is a mature story, a complicated story, and the film does not dumb down the plot. As my mother put it, you have to pay attention all the way through, or you are going to get lost. In this case, my reading the comic beforehand helped. But I like the fact that the film was not streamlined for a dumber audience. I like it when films challenge us.
While those mainstream moviegoers are the majority of the audience with a negative reaction, there is also the smaller but significant subpopulation of people that are familiar with the original comic and simply won't see the film, or see it but hate it out of their loyalty to the source material. Perhaps they don't even know the source material, but know that it's an adaptation and won't see it because of that. Which I think is a shame. I have no such aversion to adaptations. Is a movie ever as good as the book? Well, that depends on your definition of "good", but in a colloquial sense, no. It can never be. They are two entirely different kind of media. A book has an immense amount room that allows for subplots, characterization, huge story arcs. A movie, by the definition of the format, simply doesn't have the room to fit all that in. I realize that. But it doesn't mean the film adaptation is without merit. Once one realizes that films cannot have the same depth of content as books, one can still enjoy the film itself so long as it still meets the criteria of what one defines as a good movie. Is the story tight and interesting? Are the characterizations both realistic and fully-realized? Above all, are you entertained?
It is for these reasons that I say the Watchmen movie was a damn good movie, and it's a shame it has done as poorly as it has.
Does the film have everything from the comic? No, of course not, there isn't the room. But all the major points are hit, and as far as I can tell there are no major holes in the story. The major "change" to the plot at the end, is not only completely understandable, but it makes so much sense with the internal logic of the themes in the comic that I'm surprised they didn't go that direction in the first place. I'm being evasive about the major change because I don't want to tread into spoilers.
Are the characters realistic and fully realized? In my impression, they are even more realistic and realized in the film than in the comic. The portrayal of Dan Drieberg was incredibly well done. And I understood Jon's "revelation" much more from the viewing than the reading, which I had to do several times in the comic just to get it. The acting all around was great. Malin Ackerman did a great job as Laurie, the guy they got to play the Comedian hit the part just right, and the actor portraying Rorschach was just perfect. I can't even tell you why, except that he was just so Rorschach-y.
Was I entertained? Incredibly so. The 2 hour 43 minute runtime passed like a flash.
Not that the film doesn't have problems. Almost every film has problems. Two of the casting choices were questionable. The first being that of Veidt. They did some weird things with Veidt, such as trying to emphasize his potential homosexuality. Not that that is a problem, but in consequence they cast an actor that is a narrow-shouldered slip of a thing. In the comic Veidt is the perfect specimen of a male, broad-shouldered and ripped. The change did not do Veidt justice. The second was the casting for Sally Jupiter. They went with a younger woman so she could play the flashback sequences, and just did make up for the present day scenes. Not only was the makeup completely unbelievable, but her acting was also terrible. It was the most ham-fisted, horrible casting choice I think I have ever seen. When you talk about something pulling you out of your suspension of disbelief, this is it. There was also a minor change to the story involving Rorschach and the abductor that I feel was far too blunt. They should have left it the way it was originally.
Additionally, the movie was more "asskick-y" than the comic. Meaning, fight sequences were emphasized more. Not that this is a surprise. The film is billed as an action film and the director was Zack Snyder, the director of 300. But sometimes it seemed they were doing action for the sake of action. For instance, when Dan and Laurie get jumped in the alley. Now, that fight scene happens in the comic, but in the film it was a thing. It was in-depth and much more violent. Then there was the scene of those two fighting their way through a prison hallway. It was straight out of 300. I mean STRAIGHT out of 300. Not only was it shot in the same Zack Snyder style (slow motion movements followed by a fast-motion movement, rinse and repeat), but the action was the two combatants fighting from the left side of the screen to the right, working through a steady-stream of assailants. Does this sound familiar? Please Mr. Snyder, tell me you aren't a one-trick pony.
I should make mention of Dr. Manhattan. First off, kudos for not backing off the nudity aspect. I think that is an important part of his characterization and disconnection from humanity. But what I want to comment on is the visual aspect. It's hard to describe exactly what I mean, but Dr. Manhattans movements are almost mechanical. His head will jerk to a sudden stop, his lips will move but the rest of his face will remain perfectly still. Under most circumstances, this would bother me. I would say that's some rather disappointing special effects. But in this circumstance, it works. It really works. It serves as a visual reminder of how he is no longer human.
What this ungodly long blog post boils down to is this: I thought Watchmen was a damn good movie, and I think if you give it a chance, you will too. I await the DVD so I can add it to my collection post haste.
So who watches the watchmen? I do. Maybe you should too.
I wanted to get my thoughts down on Watchmen, as it's sort of been a thing with me lately. Some of you may find my comments heretical. Tough.
I'm sure people are aware of the furor the movie created. All the hullabaloo of trying to get it made, how it's been in pre-production for 20 years, various people taking stabs it it, who owns the rights to make it and so forth. It was news in the movie-centric circles which I tend to inhabit, so I became aware of the project. I also became aware of it from the various GP people, who know both comic books and literature, which this "graphic novel" seems to straddle. With the approach of the film, I wanted to become familiar with the material, so I determined to read the comic book first. Fortunately for me, my mothers boyfriend sent me a care-package with a copy included; he knew my mother wanted to see the film with me when I came up for Easter.
I had some difficulties approaching the comic. I'll continue to use the word "comic" since I know some of this readership gets uppity at the use of "graphic novel". Personally, I don't care. But that's besides the point. The difficulty in approaching the comic came from two opposing sources. On the one hand, I had reports upon reports that this comic book was the greatest thing since Jesus invented sliced bread. Everyone said the comic was seminal work, that it had been named as one of Time magazine's top 100 novels of the twentieth century, and so forth. Even coming from those aforementioned friends was a universal lauding of the material. This obviously set up HUGE expectations, to which reality can hardly come close. On the other hand, I had recently read an interview with the author Alan Moore that showed him to be, in short, a complete and utter asshole. Granted, this doesn't preclude him from being a good writer, it's often the case assholes make good artists (sadly). But it did generally make me not want to like the comic, though another interview I read with the artist Dave Gibbons ameliorated that some, as he seems like a real nice guy. In addition to these problems are the fact that, simply, I'm not a comic book fan. I went through short period of it when I was young, about the time Spawn came out (I wonder if my Spawn #1 is worth anything?), but it didn't last. It's not my thing. It's not that they are an unworthy medium, certainly not. I just don't like them. The artwork itself was problematic as I preferred the more modern Todd Mcfarlane slick artistic style, whereas Watchmen was in an older style.
However, all problems aside, I read it. My thoughts? Did it live up to expectations? Certainly not, that would have been impossible. Was it the single most important piece of literature from the twentieth century? Not even close. Was it good? Yes, it was good. I liked it.
Now, I think there are two reasons that the comic wasn't as earth-shattering for me as it was for others. For one, it has aged. Obviously the story draws heavily on the Cold War sentiments of the time. At my age, I only caught the tail end of the Cold War; I have only vague memories of the time. To an even younger audience, I think that vibe would be completely lost. But this is only a minor criticism. The second is the major. What the comic does very well is to take superhero mythology and turn it on its head. As one reviewer called it, it "deconstructs" the superhero. As I mentioned before, I am not a comic book fan. Unlike my friends, I am not steeped in the comic book mythology. I couldn't tell you what character belongs in the DC universe versus the Marvel universe. I don't know all the different backstories for each hero. I couldn't tell you the lineage of artists. For those that live in those worlds, a realistic and critical analysis of what it actually would mean to be a costumed superhero could be earth-shattering. The story would force them to re-evaluate those mythologies they breath. For me, it's just an interesting angle. Would would the world really be like if it had superheroes? What would cause someone to actually be one? What would be the repercussions? These are fantastic questions, and worthy of discussion and meditation. But they don't destroy my thought structure. Because of my...ambivalence? Apathy? Personal preferences against the comic book medium, I've always been able to come at their individual mythologies from a more objective position. This has allowed me to A) call out when a particularly backstory or plot point was utterly ridiculous, which happens all to often, not surprising given that the stories are serialized over decades much like a soap opera, and B) often force me to defend Superman to modern audiences that favor Batman. Not that I don't like Batman, I think The Dark Knight was one of the best films in years simply for Heath Ledgers performance, but the Superman mythology is a fascinating one if viewed from the proper angle. And angle that never seems to make into the films, to my displeasure.
I can't comment too much on the artwork of the comic. As a non-purveyor of comics, I mainly read the text bubbles and only gloss over the art, though occasionally something will grab my eye. What about the writing? The writing was...odd. In some places it was actually quite bad, particularly in dialogue. There were some cringe-worthy exchanges. But then there were other places. I found the writing shone in the small pieces at the end of the chapters, the places where there were excerpts from Under the Hood or the essay from Dan Drieberg. Those pieces were amazingly written. Astoundingly written. They each had a different voice, one that corresponds well the person presenting it, properly researched when necessary, and often thought-provoking.
Anyways, I finished reading the comic shortly before Easter and found myself that weekend seeing the 10:20 showing of Watchmen with my mother. What is sad, what is truly sad, is that I am part of the 0.00000001% of the population willing to give this film a fair shake. Most of the people going to see it expect to see a typical comic book movie, ala Spiderman, and one thing is for certain, this is not a stereotypical comic book movie. Most of those moviegoers are aghast at how "graphic" it is (read: bloody and showing a penis). What they don't mention is how they are intimidated by the fact that the story is not simplistic. It is a mature story, a complicated story, and the film does not dumb down the plot. As my mother put it, you have to pay attention all the way through, or you are going to get lost. In this case, my reading the comic beforehand helped. But I like the fact that the film was not streamlined for a dumber audience. I like it when films challenge us.
While those mainstream moviegoers are the majority of the audience with a negative reaction, there is also the smaller but significant subpopulation of people that are familiar with the original comic and simply won't see the film, or see it but hate it out of their loyalty to the source material. Perhaps they don't even know the source material, but know that it's an adaptation and won't see it because of that. Which I think is a shame. I have no such aversion to adaptations. Is a movie ever as good as the book? Well, that depends on your definition of "good", but in a colloquial sense, no. It can never be. They are two entirely different kind of media. A book has an immense amount room that allows for subplots, characterization, huge story arcs. A movie, by the definition of the format, simply doesn't have the room to fit all that in. I realize that. But it doesn't mean the film adaptation is without merit. Once one realizes that films cannot have the same depth of content as books, one can still enjoy the film itself so long as it still meets the criteria of what one defines as a good movie. Is the story tight and interesting? Are the characterizations both realistic and fully-realized? Above all, are you entertained?
It is for these reasons that I say the Watchmen movie was a damn good movie, and it's a shame it has done as poorly as it has.
Does the film have everything from the comic? No, of course not, there isn't the room. But all the major points are hit, and as far as I can tell there are no major holes in the story. The major "change" to the plot at the end, is not only completely understandable, but it makes so much sense with the internal logic of the themes in the comic that I'm surprised they didn't go that direction in the first place. I'm being evasive about the major change because I don't want to tread into spoilers.
Are the characters realistic and fully realized? In my impression, they are even more realistic and realized in the film than in the comic. The portrayal of Dan Drieberg was incredibly well done. And I understood Jon's "revelation" much more from the viewing than the reading, which I had to do several times in the comic just to get it. The acting all around was great. Malin Ackerman did a great job as Laurie, the guy they got to play the Comedian hit the part just right, and the actor portraying Rorschach was just perfect. I can't even tell you why, except that he was just so Rorschach-y.
Was I entertained? Incredibly so. The 2 hour 43 minute runtime passed like a flash.
Not that the film doesn't have problems. Almost every film has problems. Two of the casting choices were questionable. The first being that of Veidt. They did some weird things with Veidt, such as trying to emphasize his potential homosexuality. Not that that is a problem, but in consequence they cast an actor that is a narrow-shouldered slip of a thing. In the comic Veidt is the perfect specimen of a male, broad-shouldered and ripped. The change did not do Veidt justice. The second was the casting for Sally Jupiter. They went with a younger woman so she could play the flashback sequences, and just did make up for the present day scenes. Not only was the makeup completely unbelievable, but her acting was also terrible. It was the most ham-fisted, horrible casting choice I think I have ever seen. When you talk about something pulling you out of your suspension of disbelief, this is it. There was also a minor change to the story involving Rorschach and the abductor that I feel was far too blunt. They should have left it the way it was originally.
Additionally, the movie was more "asskick-y" than the comic. Meaning, fight sequences were emphasized more. Not that this is a surprise. The film is billed as an action film and the director was Zack Snyder, the director of 300. But sometimes it seemed they were doing action for the sake of action. For instance, when Dan and Laurie get jumped in the alley. Now, that fight scene happens in the comic, but in the film it was a thing. It was in-depth and much more violent. Then there was the scene of those two fighting their way through a prison hallway. It was straight out of 300. I mean STRAIGHT out of 300. Not only was it shot in the same Zack Snyder style (slow motion movements followed by a fast-motion movement, rinse and repeat), but the action was the two combatants fighting from the left side of the screen to the right, working through a steady-stream of assailants. Does this sound familiar? Please Mr. Snyder, tell me you aren't a one-trick pony.
I should make mention of Dr. Manhattan. First off, kudos for not backing off the nudity aspect. I think that is an important part of his characterization and disconnection from humanity. But what I want to comment on is the visual aspect. It's hard to describe exactly what I mean, but Dr. Manhattans movements are almost mechanical. His head will jerk to a sudden stop, his lips will move but the rest of his face will remain perfectly still. Under most circumstances, this would bother me. I would say that's some rather disappointing special effects. But in this circumstance, it works. It really works. It serves as a visual reminder of how he is no longer human.
What this ungodly long blog post boils down to is this: I thought Watchmen was a damn good movie, and I think if you give it a chance, you will too. I await the DVD so I can add it to my collection post haste.
So who watches the watchmen? I do. Maybe you should too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
