Like with "The Avengers" I'm reviewing this after almost everyone I know has already watched it, so I really don't feel I need to describe the plot in-depth and I can go into "spoilers" because again most anyone who reads this will probably have already seen the movie and thus it's not spoiling it for them. But by all means if you haven't watched the movie yet, please watch out for the spoilers.
So after about 33 years (almost my whole life!) we finally get a sequel to the original Star Wars trilogy. It only took $4 billion to buy George Lucas out and make this happen. Small price to pay, right? With so much at stake and so much hype, I was skeptical if the movie could really live up to it, but for the most part it does.
It seemed to me that what writers Michael Arndt, Lawrence Kasdan, and JJ Abrams (plus all the producers and such) did was to analyze the original trilogy and prequels and come up with the things fans liked and didn't like, which again they had 33 years of data for that. So we have a desert planet (not Tattooine, thank goodness) and a droid everyone is looking for because it contains valuable data. And that droid is found by a person who has never left the desert and dreams of great things. In this case it's a girl named Rey who scavenges wrecked Star Destroyers and Alliance ships for parts to sell for food and water rations. (Kind of wonder if those old ships wouldn't have some MRE-type things around even after 30-ish years but whatever.) And then we have the Millennium Falcon and Han Solo and Chewie showing up and the whole crew going to a seedy space port bar with cheesy music playing, only this one is run by a wise midget alien who is a thousand years old, sort of a yellow Yoda. And we have a lot of family drama, only this time it's mostly the Solos. And there's a super-weapon that blows up planets, though it's actually a planet itself. And the Rebels, er, Resistance has to launch a desperate raid to stop the super-weapon before it can blow up their base. (Like A New Hope, why don't they just get on their ships and run away? I mean you'd lose some stuff obviously but why stand around while the superweapon is bearing down on you?) Like Return of the Jedi, stopping the weapon involves disabling something on the ground. There's also breaking into the superweapon complex to stage a daring prison break. And a sage old character dies.
What you won't see are cutesy teddy bears, annoying little kids, and offensive racist stereotypes. Or pointless pod races for that matter. Or really awkward love scenes. Characters are mostly allowed to have emotions, though it seems Carrie Fisher took too much Botox or something for her face or voice to emote much except weariness. (Why did they keep her and not Han?)
Anyway, while everyone was wondering, "Where's Luke Skywalker," which is actually a plot central to the story, JJ Abrams and company managed to pull the wool over most of our eyes. Because Finn was shown with the blue lightsaber in all the trailers and posters, it was assumed he was the one who would become a Jedi. Nooope. Instead it's Rey, which makes sense since she has the Luke Skywalker backstory. And is she Luke's daughter? It seems very, very likely to me. I mean besides the backstory, she can call his lightsaber to her hand and use it like it was meant to her. She hasn't been off-world before and can almost instantly fly the Falcon and instinctively knows how to repair it--like her probably grandpa Anakin Skywalker. When you get down to it, though, it wouldn't make sense for her to be Leia's kid. Why would Han and Leia dump their daughter on Jakku and forget about her? I can see Luke doing that after his Jedi Academy got fucked up. With what happened to him, it might have seemed like a good idea to him to leave her on some backwater desert planet while he went off to search for the First Jedi Temple or whatever bullshit. Sure Jedi aren't supposed to get married or have kids, but that didn't stop Luke and Leia's daddy did it?
Of course part of this is wishful thinking on my part. One of my favorite characters of the "Expanded Universe" (the books and comics that came after the movies) was Mara Jade, a former apprentice of the Emperor who ended up with Luke's lightsaber and then eventually marrying him, having a son, and ultimately dying. It'd be nice to work at least a little of that into the "new" movie universe.
My favorite part of the movie was when Rey calls the lightsaber to her hand and ignites it, thereby officially embracing her destiny--especially when she kicked Kylo Ren's ass. Ren is one of the few things they got wrong. He was too much of a whiny brat, like Anakin in Episode II. We were all hankering for a badass Vader-type villain, but he doesn't really cut it. Maybe as he "completes his training" he'll be more badass. It does seem they're building towards a final clash between Rey and Ren, one embracing the light and the other embracing the dark. How much you wanna bet that Ren will kill Luke in Episode VIII? That would set up the stakes for Episode IX and that whole "balance of the Force" thing.
The only other major problem is they didn't really clarify the whole landscape. Who's the First Order? And the Republic? And the Resistance? From what I gathered it seems like the Republic would be the US and the Resistance is like when we armed the mujaheddin in Afghanistan or the Contras in Nicaragua; basically some ragtag group we prop up to do the dirty work for us.
Anyway, The movie succeeds in the most important aspects: 1) Wiping the bad taste of the prequels from our mouths and 2) Hook viewers for future installments. It was easily the best time I had at the movies all year.
(4/5 stars)
Showing posts with label 4 stars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 4 stars. Show all posts
Monday, December 21, 2015
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Seventh Seal
This goes in my "Classic Films You Should Watch." Even though it's in black-and-white and even though the dialog is in Swedish with English subtitles and even though there are no killer robots, spaceships, superheroes, zombies, or vampire romances.
This is the kind of movie I new I should probably watch like how I think I should probably read "War & Peace" or "Ulysses" at some point but the reason I don't is I figure it'll be boring and confusing. In this case, though, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the movie wasn't boring at all--despite that it's what I said in the first paragraph.
"The Seventh Seal" of the title comes from a Bible verse about the end of the world. Before the Seventh Seal is opened and the world destroyed the angels gather themselves for a half hour, giving the world a sort of respite. It's the same respite a Swedish knight finds when he returns home from the Crusades in the 14th Century. Not long after he and his squire arrive on the beach, the Grim Reaper shows up to collect the knight's soul. But the clever knight challenges Death to a game of chess, giving him a reprieve.
During a break in the game, the knight and his squire travel towards the knight's castle. They stop at a town that's been ravaged by the Black Death (bubonic plague) to the point that the scholar who convinced the knight to go on the Crusades has turned to stealing from the dead. A trio of actors show up at the town as well to perform, though they're upstaged by Flagellants, religious zealots who whip themselves as penance for the plague. When one of the actors runs off with the wife of the local blacksmith, his fellow actor is nearly killed by the blacksmith. The knight, blacksmith, and actors then all head to the knight's castle along with an unseen party: Death.
The movie searches for the meaning of life and death through the differing views of its characters. The knight is seeking some meaning to life and glimpse into what awaits him in the afterlife. His cynical squire figures that there is no heavenly reward waiting any of us. The actor takes a more upbeat view, thinking he sees angels and devils everywhere. As for the blacksmith, he's pretty oblivious to everything except his slutty wife.
As well the movie illustrates the insanity that breaks out in times of crisis. Besides the zealous Flagellants and thieving professor there's also a young girl being burned at the stake for suspicion of witchcraft. With death, insanity, and Death lurking everywhere, it's no wonder the knight has a hard time finding any reassurance about the presence of God.
This is an interesting and insightful look at the world and yet as I said at the beginning it's not boring either. I especially liked the squire character, whose cynicism and pragmatism is a great balance to his master. The actor, or fool might be the better term, is also an interesting character because he contrasts with the squire.
Overall, this is a great movie and if you're willing to actually watch a movie that will challenge you and make you think, rent this some time.
That is all.
My score: 100/100 (4 stars)
This is the kind of movie I new I should probably watch like how I think I should probably read "War & Peace" or "Ulysses" at some point but the reason I don't is I figure it'll be boring and confusing. In this case, though, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the movie wasn't boring at all--despite that it's what I said in the first paragraph.
"The Seventh Seal" of the title comes from a Bible verse about the end of the world. Before the Seventh Seal is opened and the world destroyed the angels gather themselves for a half hour, giving the world a sort of respite. It's the same respite a Swedish knight finds when he returns home from the Crusades in the 14th Century. Not long after he and his squire arrive on the beach, the Grim Reaper shows up to collect the knight's soul. But the clever knight challenges Death to a game of chess, giving him a reprieve.
During a break in the game, the knight and his squire travel towards the knight's castle. They stop at a town that's been ravaged by the Black Death (bubonic plague) to the point that the scholar who convinced the knight to go on the Crusades has turned to stealing from the dead. A trio of actors show up at the town as well to perform, though they're upstaged by Flagellants, religious zealots who whip themselves as penance for the plague. When one of the actors runs off with the wife of the local blacksmith, his fellow actor is nearly killed by the blacksmith. The knight, blacksmith, and actors then all head to the knight's castle along with an unseen party: Death.
The movie searches for the meaning of life and death through the differing views of its characters. The knight is seeking some meaning to life and glimpse into what awaits him in the afterlife. His cynical squire figures that there is no heavenly reward waiting any of us. The actor takes a more upbeat view, thinking he sees angels and devils everywhere. As for the blacksmith, he's pretty oblivious to everything except his slutty wife.
As well the movie illustrates the insanity that breaks out in times of crisis. Besides the zealous Flagellants and thieving professor there's also a young girl being burned at the stake for suspicion of witchcraft. With death, insanity, and Death lurking everywhere, it's no wonder the knight has a hard time finding any reassurance about the presence of God.
This is an interesting and insightful look at the world and yet as I said at the beginning it's not boring either. I especially liked the squire character, whose cynicism and pragmatism is a great balance to his master. The actor, or fool might be the better term, is also an interesting character because he contrasts with the squire.
Overall, this is a great movie and if you're willing to actually watch a movie that will challenge you and make you think, rent this some time.
That is all.
My score: 100/100 (4 stars)
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
500 Days of Summer
I might start ranting incoherently here, so be warned.
Anyway, it's rare when a movie moves me. This one did. It's the kind of experience where as you're watching it you kind of start nodding your head and saying to yourself, "Yeah, brother, I have been there." Because let's face it, most adults have had someone who hurt them emotionally at one time or another.
The narrator says at the beginning that "This is not a love story" and that's true. Most love stories just focus on the falling in love part. Cinderella meets Prince Charming they overcome an obstacle, have a few laughs, and ride off into the sunset. Other movies focus on the end of the relationship with the cheating, anger, recrimination, and ultimate separation. This movie focuses on the whole process from beginning to end, squeezing it into 500 days. (And that's not giving anything away because the movie follows a non-linear structure where we jump from beginning to end to middle and so forth.)
Basically to put it linearly, at Day 1 we have Tom Hanson (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) working at the New Hampshire Card Company, which as you might expect is located in Los Angeles, CA. During a meeting, Tom's boss is interrupted by his new assistant Summer (Zooey Deschanel) and just about instantly Tom is smitten.
The problem is that she doesn't seem all that interested in him. So for the first 25 or so days Tom goes through trying to get her attention to cursing her as a tease. Then comes a karaoke party after work where they both have a little too much to drink and sing some bad songs and finally things start taking off.
Except there's a problem. Of course there is! While Tom thinks he loves Summer, she's not wanting to make things too involved. Even after they sleep together, even after over 200 days together, she insists they're "just friends." Yeah, brother, I've been there. Sorry gals, but if a man's been inside you then either you're his girlfriend or his whore--which do you want to be? There is no such thing as casual sex or a f**k buddy, OK? Not in the real world. Not even in the movies! (See, I warned you.)
Well of course this leads to things unraveling. While she seems to get off relatively easy, Tom has a much more difficult time letting go. Really he spends about 200 days ultimately wallowing in misery and clinging to slim hopes of a reconciliation.
At least in my mind, this movie perfectly captures the whole relationship game. That's why it moved me, as I said in the beginning. I could so empathize with what Tom went through that I couldn't help but go back through my own memories. Thanks for opening old wounds! Yeah, brother, I've been there. Maybe not quite to this extent, but close enough. God willing I won't be there again, but the problem with the game of love is that you frequently go tilting at windmills. Or maybe it's more like the old lady at the slot machine who keeps pulling the lever 24 hours a day thinking THIS time will be the lucky one. And maybe it will be--ah, there's the rub. Those of us still in the game always cling to that hope, however slim it might be.
Before I get off too far on another rant, not everything in this movie worked for me. The overly precocious little sister Tom gets relationship advice from just grated on my nerves. That is one area where Tom and I clearly diverged, because my sisters are completely useless for relationship advice. (That's the subject of another rant.) It's not enough to ruin the movie for me, or even take off a half star.
Even if you have found your True Love or close enough to it, you can probably still relate to this story at one point in time. Most everyone has a Summer in their life. An evil, soul-snatching, heart-crushing...OK, I'll stop now.
BTW, during the movie it says that Summer quoted a song from Belle & Sebastian's "Boy With the Arab Strap" in her yearbook. Ironically I'd bought a couple of B&S albums this month. So I took that as a sign to go buy that ablum. Anything that prompts me to spend money definitely moved me.
That is all.
My score: 90/100 (4 stars)
Metacritic score: 76/100 (3 stars)
Anyway, it's rare when a movie moves me. This one did. It's the kind of experience where as you're watching it you kind of start nodding your head and saying to yourself, "Yeah, brother, I have been there." Because let's face it, most adults have had someone who hurt them emotionally at one time or another.
The narrator says at the beginning that "This is not a love story" and that's true. Most love stories just focus on the falling in love part. Cinderella meets Prince Charming they overcome an obstacle, have a few laughs, and ride off into the sunset. Other movies focus on the end of the relationship with the cheating, anger, recrimination, and ultimate separation. This movie focuses on the whole process from beginning to end, squeezing it into 500 days. (And that's not giving anything away because the movie follows a non-linear structure where we jump from beginning to end to middle and so forth.)
Basically to put it linearly, at Day 1 we have Tom Hanson (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) working at the New Hampshire Card Company, which as you might expect is located in Los Angeles, CA. During a meeting, Tom's boss is interrupted by his new assistant Summer (Zooey Deschanel) and just about instantly Tom is smitten.
The problem is that she doesn't seem all that interested in him. So for the first 25 or so days Tom goes through trying to get her attention to cursing her as a tease. Then comes a karaoke party after work where they both have a little too much to drink and sing some bad songs and finally things start taking off.
Except there's a problem. Of course there is! While Tom thinks he loves Summer, she's not wanting to make things too involved. Even after they sleep together, even after over 200 days together, she insists they're "just friends." Yeah, brother, I've been there. Sorry gals, but if a man's been inside you then either you're his girlfriend or his whore--which do you want to be? There is no such thing as casual sex or a f**k buddy, OK? Not in the real world. Not even in the movies! (See, I warned you.)
Well of course this leads to things unraveling. While she seems to get off relatively easy, Tom has a much more difficult time letting go. Really he spends about 200 days ultimately wallowing in misery and clinging to slim hopes of a reconciliation.
At least in my mind, this movie perfectly captures the whole relationship game. That's why it moved me, as I said in the beginning. I could so empathize with what Tom went through that I couldn't help but go back through my own memories. Thanks for opening old wounds! Yeah, brother, I've been there. Maybe not quite to this extent, but close enough. God willing I won't be there again, but the problem with the game of love is that you frequently go tilting at windmills. Or maybe it's more like the old lady at the slot machine who keeps pulling the lever 24 hours a day thinking THIS time will be the lucky one. And maybe it will be--ah, there's the rub. Those of us still in the game always cling to that hope, however slim it might be.
Before I get off too far on another rant, not everything in this movie worked for me. The overly precocious little sister Tom gets relationship advice from just grated on my nerves. That is one area where Tom and I clearly diverged, because my sisters are completely useless for relationship advice. (That's the subject of another rant.) It's not enough to ruin the movie for me, or even take off a half star.
Even if you have found your True Love or close enough to it, you can probably still relate to this story at one point in time. Most everyone has a Summer in their life. An evil, soul-snatching, heart-crushing...OK, I'll stop now.
BTW, during the movie it says that Summer quoted a song from Belle & Sebastian's "Boy With the Arab Strap" in her yearbook. Ironically I'd bought a couple of B&S albums this month. So I took that as a sign to go buy that ablum. Anything that prompts me to spend money definitely moved me.
That is all.
My score: 90/100 (4 stars)
Metacritic score: 76/100 (3 stars)
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Hurt Locker
I have to say this might be the first great fictional movie about the Iraq war. (Or Second Gulf War or whatever future generations will call it.) To this point I think most movies dealing with the war have focused more on soldiers coming home from it like the recent "Brothers." Unlike other war movies like "Platoon" that focused naturally on a platoon or "Saving Private Ryan" that focused on a squad of eight, "The Hurt Locker" narrows its focus down to just three men.
These three are Sergeant Will James, Sergeant JT Sanborn, and Specialist Owen Eldridge. They're a bomb disposal unit stationed mostly in Baghdad in 2004, or shortly after the "shock and awe" campaign wound down. James is not initially part of the unit, but is brought in when the former by-the-book team leader (a cameo by Guy Pearce) is killed by an insurgent bomb.
During his first mission with the team, it becomes clear that James is reckless when he sets off a smoke bomb for no reason, refuses to communicate with the rest of the team, and puts a gun to an Iraqi taxi driver's head. In another time and place this might have earned him some trouble, maybe even a court-martial but there's no denying that James is really good at his job. He's something of a virtuoso when it comes to bomb disposal.
And this presents a problem because James seeks out risk, often putting Sanborn and Owen in harm's way. At one point Sanborn seriously toys with the idea of triggering a bomb and calling it an accident. An ambush out in the desert involving some British soldiers (or perhaps mercenaries) brings the team together for some male bonding that's capped off by good old harmless wrestling. That's short-lived as James continues to take needless risk to endanger his unit.
I was riveted by this movie. It doesn't have the mythic pretensions of "Platoon" or the grandiosity of a "Saving Private Ryan" and the only known actors just make cameos. The gritty style and lack of known stars makes it seem more realistic. And the focus on three individuals means there's not much confusion about who's who or characters who contribute only one or two scenes. We don't necessarily get to know these characters in-depth but by the end we know enough about them and the struggles they face. And it does this without really preaching about the rightness or wrongness of the war so whether you agree with it or not there's nothing politically to set you off.
What's interesting to me is you can draw a parallel between this and another recent critically-acclaimed movie "Up in the Air." They both focus on characters who perform a job most people would find very undesirable. And both characters also have trouble connecting with people and giving up their unconventional way of life. Except I think you'd have to agree that Will James is far crazier since he constantly risks his life--and those of others--to do his job.
That is all.
My score: 100/100 (4 stars)
Metacritic score: 94/100 (4 stars)
These three are Sergeant Will James, Sergeant JT Sanborn, and Specialist Owen Eldridge. They're a bomb disposal unit stationed mostly in Baghdad in 2004, or shortly after the "shock and awe" campaign wound down. James is not initially part of the unit, but is brought in when the former by-the-book team leader (a cameo by Guy Pearce) is killed by an insurgent bomb.
During his first mission with the team, it becomes clear that James is reckless when he sets off a smoke bomb for no reason, refuses to communicate with the rest of the team, and puts a gun to an Iraqi taxi driver's head. In another time and place this might have earned him some trouble, maybe even a court-martial but there's no denying that James is really good at his job. He's something of a virtuoso when it comes to bomb disposal.
And this presents a problem because James seeks out risk, often putting Sanborn and Owen in harm's way. At one point Sanborn seriously toys with the idea of triggering a bomb and calling it an accident. An ambush out in the desert involving some British soldiers (or perhaps mercenaries) brings the team together for some male bonding that's capped off by good old harmless wrestling. That's short-lived as James continues to take needless risk to endanger his unit.
I was riveted by this movie. It doesn't have the mythic pretensions of "Platoon" or the grandiosity of a "Saving Private Ryan" and the only known actors just make cameos. The gritty style and lack of known stars makes it seem more realistic. And the focus on three individuals means there's not much confusion about who's who or characters who contribute only one or two scenes. We don't necessarily get to know these characters in-depth but by the end we know enough about them and the struggles they face. And it does this without really preaching about the rightness or wrongness of the war so whether you agree with it or not there's nothing politically to set you off.
What's interesting to me is you can draw a parallel between this and another recent critically-acclaimed movie "Up in the Air." They both focus on characters who perform a job most people would find very undesirable. And both characters also have trouble connecting with people and giving up their unconventional way of life. Except I think you'd have to agree that Will James is far crazier since he constantly risks his life--and those of others--to do his job.
That is all.
My score: 100/100 (4 stars)
Metacritic score: 94/100 (4 stars)
Thursday, January 14, 2010
District 9
I think it's safe to say "District 9" is everything "Avatar" isn't. Its still not Fellini or Bergman but a definite upgrade in terms of story. Really, if "Avatar" had been this good I'd have paid extra to see it in the 3D/IMAX.
Like "Avatar," "District 9" is the story of humans and aliens coming into contact with each other. While "Avatar" takes place on a distant world in the 22nd Century where humans are the aliens, "District 9" takes place on Earth in the present.
And while the Na'Vi are sleek and pretty, the aliens of "District 9," known as Prawns are something else entirely. As the name suggests they look like something you'd find at your local fish market or Long John Silver's or to describe them another way if you combined a shrimp and a grasshopper and made it about as tall as a human that's what you'd get. The Prawns are not philosophical, religious, or in touch with nature. They're essentially scavengers who subsist mostly on cat food.
In about 1982, the Prawn mother ship came to Earth, hovering to a stop over Johannesburg, South Africa of all places. When no one came out of the ship, a human team went in and found the Prawns pretty much living in their own filth. Though they were aboard a spaceship, it seemed the Prawns had no idea how to run it or fix it.
Fast forward to the present, where a ghetto known as District 9 has been set up outside Johannesburg. District 9 has become overcrowded and nearby residents are sick of the aliens (the irony here being that victims of apartheid are as intolerant of the Prawns as whites were of them) and so a new District 10 is being set up farther away. Rounding up the aliens is the job of the generically named Multi National United conglomerate.
Wikus van der Merwe is the man in charge of the operation, in part thanks to being the son-in-law of a company honcho. Wikus and some other company weasels, along with an armed escort, descend upon District 9 to serve eviction notices to the Prawns so everything is nice and legal. Except when Wikus barges into the shanty of a Prawn whose human name is Christopher Johnson he comes upon a strange tube that sprays him with some weird alien goo.
In no time Wikus starts coughing up a black substance and is taken to a hospital, where he finds that his left arm has become a Prawn arm! This draws interest from MNU (including Wikus's father-in-law) because the alien weapons found on the ship only work with alien DNA, but Wikus can use them with his alien arm. The company then naturally wants to experiment on him--and they're not going to take no for an answer.
When Wikus manages to escape, he goes on the run to the only place no one will look for him: District 9. He has to find some way to avoid being taken by MNU while searching for a way to change himself back that just might lie with Christopher Johnson and his son.
While "District 9" isn't exactly subtle with its message, it's not quite as shrill as "Avatar" either. As I pointed out earlier it's ironic people who have suffered from intolerance show the same intolerance to the Prawns. Then you have Wikus himself, who starts out as a doofus, a mid-level bureaucrat condescending to the aliens and later has his eyes opened not only by becoming half-Prawn but by seeing what his company has been up to. For the most part I thought Wikus stayed true to himself throughout most of the movie, never turning into Braveheart. He does at least get his chance to act heroic. Unknown actor Sharlto Copley does a good job of making Wikus seem more or less like a normal guy who's caught up in extraordinary events.
It's equally impressive that the movie is helmed by first-time director Neil Blomkamp. Instead of trying to dazzle us with effects, Blomkamp uses a documentary style through much of the film and maintains more of a gritty look that you probably wouldn't want to see in 3D. You also wouldn't want to see some of the stuff that earns the movie its R-rating--at least if you're not squeamish--like pulling out fingernails, teeth, and bits of skin as well as people exploding and a lot of F-bombs.
From a pure geek standpoint I have to add I thought the Prawn weapons were cooler than anything in "Avatar." You can see why the humans would want to get those to work since they kick ass, especially the mechanical suit thing. Though I wonder why humans can't just reverse-engineer at least some of the technology in the weapons. That they don't work with human DNA wouldn't seem to stop you from tearing one apart.
Overall because the Prawns aren't the noble savages of the Na'Vi and not all the characters seem out of central casting, "District 9" to me is a better quality product than "Avatar." If you haven't already, definitely check it out.
That is all.
My score: 100/100 (4 stars)
Metacritic score: 81/100 (3 stars)
Like "Avatar," "District 9" is the story of humans and aliens coming into contact with each other. While "Avatar" takes place on a distant world in the 22nd Century where humans are the aliens, "District 9" takes place on Earth in the present.
And while the Na'Vi are sleek and pretty, the aliens of "District 9," known as Prawns are something else entirely. As the name suggests they look like something you'd find at your local fish market or Long John Silver's or to describe them another way if you combined a shrimp and a grasshopper and made it about as tall as a human that's what you'd get. The Prawns are not philosophical, religious, or in touch with nature. They're essentially scavengers who subsist mostly on cat food.
In about 1982, the Prawn mother ship came to Earth, hovering to a stop over Johannesburg, South Africa of all places. When no one came out of the ship, a human team went in and found the Prawns pretty much living in their own filth. Though they were aboard a spaceship, it seemed the Prawns had no idea how to run it or fix it.
Fast forward to the present, where a ghetto known as District 9 has been set up outside Johannesburg. District 9 has become overcrowded and nearby residents are sick of the aliens (the irony here being that victims of apartheid are as intolerant of the Prawns as whites were of them) and so a new District 10 is being set up farther away. Rounding up the aliens is the job of the generically named Multi National United conglomerate.
Wikus van der Merwe is the man in charge of the operation, in part thanks to being the son-in-law of a company honcho. Wikus and some other company weasels, along with an armed escort, descend upon District 9 to serve eviction notices to the Prawns so everything is nice and legal. Except when Wikus barges into the shanty of a Prawn whose human name is Christopher Johnson he comes upon a strange tube that sprays him with some weird alien goo.
In no time Wikus starts coughing up a black substance and is taken to a hospital, where he finds that his left arm has become a Prawn arm! This draws interest from MNU (including Wikus's father-in-law) because the alien weapons found on the ship only work with alien DNA, but Wikus can use them with his alien arm. The company then naturally wants to experiment on him--and they're not going to take no for an answer.
When Wikus manages to escape, he goes on the run to the only place no one will look for him: District 9. He has to find some way to avoid being taken by MNU while searching for a way to change himself back that just might lie with Christopher Johnson and his son.
While "District 9" isn't exactly subtle with its message, it's not quite as shrill as "Avatar" either. As I pointed out earlier it's ironic people who have suffered from intolerance show the same intolerance to the Prawns. Then you have Wikus himself, who starts out as a doofus, a mid-level bureaucrat condescending to the aliens and later has his eyes opened not only by becoming half-Prawn but by seeing what his company has been up to. For the most part I thought Wikus stayed true to himself throughout most of the movie, never turning into Braveheart. He does at least get his chance to act heroic. Unknown actor Sharlto Copley does a good job of making Wikus seem more or less like a normal guy who's caught up in extraordinary events.
It's equally impressive that the movie is helmed by first-time director Neil Blomkamp. Instead of trying to dazzle us with effects, Blomkamp uses a documentary style through much of the film and maintains more of a gritty look that you probably wouldn't want to see in 3D. You also wouldn't want to see some of the stuff that earns the movie its R-rating--at least if you're not squeamish--like pulling out fingernails, teeth, and bits of skin as well as people exploding and a lot of F-bombs.
From a pure geek standpoint I have to add I thought the Prawn weapons were cooler than anything in "Avatar." You can see why the humans would want to get those to work since they kick ass, especially the mechanical suit thing. Though I wonder why humans can't just reverse-engineer at least some of the technology in the weapons. That they don't work with human DNA wouldn't seem to stop you from tearing one apart.
Overall because the Prawns aren't the noble savages of the Na'Vi and not all the characters seem out of central casting, "District 9" to me is a better quality product than "Avatar." If you haven't already, definitely check it out.
That is all.
My score: 100/100 (4 stars)
Metacritic score: 81/100 (3 stars)
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Doubt/Michael Clayton/Gran Torino/Up
"Doubt"
As a former Lutheran, I've never been a big fan of the Catholic church and "Doubt" certainly wasn't going to improve my opinion. It's 1964 in New York and Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) has recently come to the parish. His new school beliefs about embracing the parishioners leads him to come into conflict with the old school nun Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Meryl Streep). Caught in the middle is young Sister James (Amy Adams) who thinks Father Flynn is having an inappropriate relationship with the school's first black student. Did he or didn't he? That's the question but "Doubt" certainly leaves a lot of doubt about this.
I'm not one to usually comment on technical things like direction but some of the strange camera angles reminded me of the old "Batman" TV show, which is never a good thing and it really seemed to serve no purpose. As well, the surprise confession at the end seemed kind of forced to me.
My score: 50/100 (2 stars)
Metacritic Score: 68/100 (2.5 stars)
#
"Michael Clayton"
Someone has to do the dirty work, even in corporate law. Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is a big law firm's "fixer" or the guy who comes to your home after you've hit someone with your car or killed a hooker or something like that to spearhead damage control. Meanwhile, Michael is facing financial problems after his junkie brother botches a bar Michael invested in. Then things take a turn for the worse when a friend and fellow attorney Arthur (Tom Wilkinson) goes off his meds and freaks out in a meeting with clients in a case concerning an agrochemical conglomerate. As Michael involves himself in this situation, he finds that something stinks--and it's not the cow manure down on the farm.
Two things that bugged me is first the movie starts with a scene that in the film's chronology takes place near the end. Of course there's no way I as the viewer could realize this until later, which is really confusing and disconcerting. Also, the end depends upon one of the oldest cliches in film, the old villain confessing into a recording device. Otherwise it's a passable thriller, but not all that thrilling.
My score: 50/100 (2 stars)
Metacritic score: 82/100 (3 stars)
#
"Gran Torino"
When I saw the previews for this, the premise seemed ludicrous to me. An octogenarian Dirty Harry battling an Asian gang a quarter his age? Why don't they just steal his walker and push him down?
Of course it's not really Dirty Harry. Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski, a former Ford assembly line worker in a Detroit-area neighborhood that has gone to seed, like much of the city itself. Walt is recently widowed and has no one except his ingrate family who are basically waiting for him to die so they can sell off the house and take possession of the rest of his stuff like his cherry 1972 Gran Torino. But someone else tries to take it first--a young Hmong kid named Thao. A veteran of Korea, Walt doesn't like Asians much--or anyone really--but when a local gang picks on Thao and his family, Walt intervenes to help them.
This was a nice story of a jaded old coot bonding with a needy young man. How this comes about manages to seem believable. Even Walt confronting the much younger Asian and black kids in the neighborhood didn't seem as absurd as I'd feared when I first saw the previews. And the end really comes as a surprise, especially for those who remember Eastwood from the Dirty Harry pictures, though I'm not sure his plan would really work in real life.
BTW, an interesting fact is Eastwood was one of the first to take advantage of new tax credits to film in the actual Detroit area instead of trying to have Toronto or Vancouver sub as the Motor City.
My score: 75/100 (3 stars)
Metacritic score: 72/100 (3 stars)
#
"Up"
I keep waiting for the Pixar movie that's finally going to let me down. But they do it yet again with "Up." A sweet movie that still manages to tackle some grown up issues. The movie itself is completely implausible, but only an idiot expects what is ostensibly a kid's movie to be plausible.
In really the most touching part of the movie, it begins with a montage about how young Carl Fredricksen (voice of Ed Asner) comes to meet Ellie. They both worship adventurer Charles Muntz (voice of Christopher Plummer) who goes to South America in search of a rare bird back in the '30s. Carl and Ellie go from best friends to husband and wife and dream of someday joining Muntz in Paradise Falls. But someday never comes for Ellie. So on the verge of being thrown in a retirement home, Carl ties a bunch of balloons to his house and floats away. He has a stowaway in Wilderness Explorer Russell, who has no choice but to accompany Carl to Paradise Falls. When Carl finally gets to Paradise Falls and meets his idol, he discovers his hero has feet of clay.
As I said, this is a really sweet movie that is enjoyable for the kids without all the gross out fart gags prevalent in "Shrek" and other computer animated kids movies. At the same time it also deals with loss, love, and loneliness in a way that kids and adults can understand. Basically if you liked "Wall-E" then you'll like this too.
My score: 100/100 (4 stars)
Metacritic score: 88/100 (3.5 stars)
That is all.
As a former Lutheran, I've never been a big fan of the Catholic church and "Doubt" certainly wasn't going to improve my opinion. It's 1964 in New York and Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) has recently come to the parish. His new school beliefs about embracing the parishioners leads him to come into conflict with the old school nun Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Meryl Streep). Caught in the middle is young Sister James (Amy Adams) who thinks Father Flynn is having an inappropriate relationship with the school's first black student. Did he or didn't he? That's the question but "Doubt" certainly leaves a lot of doubt about this.
I'm not one to usually comment on technical things like direction but some of the strange camera angles reminded me of the old "Batman" TV show, which is never a good thing and it really seemed to serve no purpose. As well, the surprise confession at the end seemed kind of forced to me.
My score: 50/100 (2 stars)
Metacritic Score: 68/100 (2.5 stars)
#
"Michael Clayton"
Someone has to do the dirty work, even in corporate law. Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is a big law firm's "fixer" or the guy who comes to your home after you've hit someone with your car or killed a hooker or something like that to spearhead damage control. Meanwhile, Michael is facing financial problems after his junkie brother botches a bar Michael invested in. Then things take a turn for the worse when a friend and fellow attorney Arthur (Tom Wilkinson) goes off his meds and freaks out in a meeting with clients in a case concerning an agrochemical conglomerate. As Michael involves himself in this situation, he finds that something stinks--and it's not the cow manure down on the farm.
Two things that bugged me is first the movie starts with a scene that in the film's chronology takes place near the end. Of course there's no way I as the viewer could realize this until later, which is really confusing and disconcerting. Also, the end depends upon one of the oldest cliches in film, the old villain confessing into a recording device. Otherwise it's a passable thriller, but not all that thrilling.
My score: 50/100 (2 stars)
Metacritic score: 82/100 (3 stars)
#
"Gran Torino"
When I saw the previews for this, the premise seemed ludicrous to me. An octogenarian Dirty Harry battling an Asian gang a quarter his age? Why don't they just steal his walker and push him down?
Of course it's not really Dirty Harry. Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski, a former Ford assembly line worker in a Detroit-area neighborhood that has gone to seed, like much of the city itself. Walt is recently widowed and has no one except his ingrate family who are basically waiting for him to die so they can sell off the house and take possession of the rest of his stuff like his cherry 1972 Gran Torino. But someone else tries to take it first--a young Hmong kid named Thao. A veteran of Korea, Walt doesn't like Asians much--or anyone really--but when a local gang picks on Thao and his family, Walt intervenes to help them.
This was a nice story of a jaded old coot bonding with a needy young man. How this comes about manages to seem believable. Even Walt confronting the much younger Asian and black kids in the neighborhood didn't seem as absurd as I'd feared when I first saw the previews. And the end really comes as a surprise, especially for those who remember Eastwood from the Dirty Harry pictures, though I'm not sure his plan would really work in real life.
BTW, an interesting fact is Eastwood was one of the first to take advantage of new tax credits to film in the actual Detroit area instead of trying to have Toronto or Vancouver sub as the Motor City.
My score: 75/100 (3 stars)
Metacritic score: 72/100 (3 stars)
#
"Up"
I keep waiting for the Pixar movie that's finally going to let me down. But they do it yet again with "Up." A sweet movie that still manages to tackle some grown up issues. The movie itself is completely implausible, but only an idiot expects what is ostensibly a kid's movie to be plausible.
In really the most touching part of the movie, it begins with a montage about how young Carl Fredricksen (voice of Ed Asner) comes to meet Ellie. They both worship adventurer Charles Muntz (voice of Christopher Plummer) who goes to South America in search of a rare bird back in the '30s. Carl and Ellie go from best friends to husband and wife and dream of someday joining Muntz in Paradise Falls. But someday never comes for Ellie. So on the verge of being thrown in a retirement home, Carl ties a bunch of balloons to his house and floats away. He has a stowaway in Wilderness Explorer Russell, who has no choice but to accompany Carl to Paradise Falls. When Carl finally gets to Paradise Falls and meets his idol, he discovers his hero has feet of clay.
As I said, this is a really sweet movie that is enjoyable for the kids without all the gross out fart gags prevalent in "Shrek" and other computer animated kids movies. At the same time it also deals with loss, love, and loneliness in a way that kids and adults can understand. Basically if you liked "Wall-E" then you'll like this too.
My score: 100/100 (4 stars)
Metacritic score: 88/100 (3.5 stars)
That is all.
Monday, October 12, 2009
The Dark Knight (v1)
The Dark Knight
4/4 stars
Is WOW! sufficient? I can't remember the last time I went to a movie and was in utter disbelief at how far the filmmakers went. They pulled out all the stops and the sad thing is that I can't tell you about any of them without spoiling the movie, which you need to see, at least if you can stand a grim and gritty foray into crime and morality. And believe me, they don't call it "The DARK Knight" for nothing.
The complicated plot involves Batman about a year or so after the earlier "Batman Begins" taking down the mob with the help of police lieutenant Jim Gordon and new DA Harvey Dent who is known to Gothamites as the "White Knight" for his tough stance on crime and by the corrupt cops as "Two Face" for his time in Internal Affairs. By working together Batman, Gordon, and Dent put a stop to the mob--at least temporarily--but enbolden an even greater threat in the Joker. The Joker isn't your typical movie villain in pursuit of money or world domination; he wants chaos, pure and simple. And what follows is chaos that pushes everyone to (and past) the limit.
Though it is a bit overlong at 2 1/2 hours, this is still an absolutely tremendous film. It takes the groundwork laid by more serious superhero flicks like the 1989 Batman or "Spider-Man 2" and completely takes it up to the next level in terms of substance. If it weren't for the crazy costumes this wouldn't be much different than watching something like "The Godfather" or "Heat."
Heath Ledger plays the evil Joker and if you don't know, he killed himself in January. Anyway, his performance was awesome, blowing away the Jack Nicholson version, which is a feat. What I think helped this out is they didn't try to create an origin for the Joker. He simply shows up on the scene, creating havoc. What that means is there's nothing that allows us to gain a lot of sympathy or understanding of him, because we don't see that he was some kid picked on on the playground or some crazy Mafia thug. He's simply an evil force unleashed upon the world. Ledger of course gets most of the kudos, but the other actors all did their thing, or as much as they needed to do. Maggie Gyllenhaal was slightly less irritating than Katie Holmes, but how hard was that?
I'm sure this movie isn't for everyone. After the first time I watched it, I felt as if I had been psychologically bludgeoned with a sack of doorknobs. There is just so much happening and not a lot of it is very pleasant. I'd say you probably shouldn't take young kiddies because even though most of the violence isn't shown on screen and there's not a lot of blood, the Joker is pretty terrifying and another character ends up pretty gross-looking. More importantly, it's really not an easy movie to follow because there are so many interlocking moving parts. And if you want something "fun" you're better off watching "Hellboy II" or "The Incredible Hulk" because this isn't your old-fashioned dumb superhero movie as I've already said.
At the end of the day, the real question I have is: where do they go from here? How can you possibly top that? Well, you probably can't.
4/4 stars
Is WOW! sufficient? I can't remember the last time I went to a movie and was in utter disbelief at how far the filmmakers went. They pulled out all the stops and the sad thing is that I can't tell you about any of them without spoiling the movie, which you need to see, at least if you can stand a grim and gritty foray into crime and morality. And believe me, they don't call it "The DARK Knight" for nothing.
The complicated plot involves Batman about a year or so after the earlier "Batman Begins" taking down the mob with the help of police lieutenant Jim Gordon and new DA Harvey Dent who is known to Gothamites as the "White Knight" for his tough stance on crime and by the corrupt cops as "Two Face" for his time in Internal Affairs. By working together Batman, Gordon, and Dent put a stop to the mob--at least temporarily--but enbolden an even greater threat in the Joker. The Joker isn't your typical movie villain in pursuit of money or world domination; he wants chaos, pure and simple. And what follows is chaos that pushes everyone to (and past) the limit.
Though it is a bit overlong at 2 1/2 hours, this is still an absolutely tremendous film. It takes the groundwork laid by more serious superhero flicks like the 1989 Batman or "Spider-Man 2" and completely takes it up to the next level in terms of substance. If it weren't for the crazy costumes this wouldn't be much different than watching something like "The Godfather" or "Heat."
Heath Ledger plays the evil Joker and if you don't know, he killed himself in January. Anyway, his performance was awesome, blowing away the Jack Nicholson version, which is a feat. What I think helped this out is they didn't try to create an origin for the Joker. He simply shows up on the scene, creating havoc. What that means is there's nothing that allows us to gain a lot of sympathy or understanding of him, because we don't see that he was some kid picked on on the playground or some crazy Mafia thug. He's simply an evil force unleashed upon the world. Ledger of course gets most of the kudos, but the other actors all did their thing, or as much as they needed to do. Maggie Gyllenhaal was slightly less irritating than Katie Holmes, but how hard was that?
I'm sure this movie isn't for everyone. After the first time I watched it, I felt as if I had been psychologically bludgeoned with a sack of doorknobs. There is just so much happening and not a lot of it is very pleasant. I'd say you probably shouldn't take young kiddies because even though most of the violence isn't shown on screen and there's not a lot of blood, the Joker is pretty terrifying and another character ends up pretty gross-looking. More importantly, it's really not an easy movie to follow because there are so many interlocking moving parts. And if you want something "fun" you're better off watching "Hellboy II" or "The Incredible Hulk" because this isn't your old-fashioned dumb superhero movie as I've already said.
At the end of the day, the real question I have is: where do they go from here? How can you possibly top that? Well, you probably can't.
The Dark Knight (v2)
Does it violate some kind of reviewer's code to review a movie a second time within five months? Screw it. "The Dark Knight" finally came to the second-run theaters and since I hadn't seen it in three months and I had a day off, I thought I might as well go see it for a sixth time. (And if you think that's obsessive, my sister has seen it SEVEN times and is planning to go see it a couple more at her local second-run theater.)
Anyway, I like "The Dark Knight" for the same reason I like "The Empire Strikes Back" best of all the Star Wars movies: it's got everything a growing boy needs. Action, suspense, a little gore, a little humor, and yes even a little romance. Not to mention a kickass hero, an awesome villain, and plenty of things blowing up! (If they could have thrown in a lightsaber duel I would have been in movie Heaven.) If you're a guy--and I am, at least from the last time I used the bathroom--why the heck wouldn't you like this movie? If you're a woman and more inclined towards "Sex and the City" then not so much.
What I like best about the two Christopher Nolan films than the Burton/Schumacher ones is that Nolan put the Batman in the real world, more or less. (I mean as real as a world with a guy running around in a cape and cowl can be.) The Burton films were OK, but there was always that campy scenery so that the city always looked like a sound stage, not a real place. (This only became more pronounced in the so-so "Batman Forever" and dreadful "Batman & Robin.") Since the Nolan films were filmed largely in Chicago and you can see actual Chicago landmarks on the screen, you get more of a feeling that this is a real place with real people, some of whom just happen to dress funny.
Some people on Gather and other places have complained the movie isn't fun enough like, say, "Iron Man" but Batman isn't supposed to be fun. To borrow and paraphrase a quote from the movie, "This is a guy who goes out at night beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands." There's not a lot of fun in that. I applaud Nolan for taking the character seriously, unlike the old Adam West TV show. And if you want fun superhero movies there plenty of them out there.
Anyway, the movie isn't perfect of course, but it's still a great film in its own right. Watching it for the first time in three months I was more engrossed in it than probably the fourth or fifth times I saw it, even though I knew what was coming. I'm sure when this gets to DVD on December 9 I am going to wear out my DVD player watching it a seventh, eighth, etc. times.
If you don't know anything about the movie, here's the obligatory plot summary. A year after "Batman Begins" the Batman, Lt. Gordon, and new DA Harvey Dent are trying to take down the mob. In desperation the mob turns to the Joker, who unleashes a wave of terror on the poor people of Gotham City. Batman has to stop the Joker, but it sure as heck isn't going to be easy; there are a lot of casualties--including the Batman's soul!
So there you go. I also of course can't say enough about how awesome Heath Ledger's Joker is. He's smart and evil, just like I wish I was. Ha ha ha ha ha!
My score: still 4/4 stars
Anyway, I like "The Dark Knight" for the same reason I like "The Empire Strikes Back" best of all the Star Wars movies: it's got everything a growing boy needs. Action, suspense, a little gore, a little humor, and yes even a little romance. Not to mention a kickass hero, an awesome villain, and plenty of things blowing up! (If they could have thrown in a lightsaber duel I would have been in movie Heaven.) If you're a guy--and I am, at least from the last time I used the bathroom--why the heck wouldn't you like this movie? If you're a woman and more inclined towards "Sex and the City" then not so much.
What I like best about the two Christopher Nolan films than the Burton/Schumacher ones is that Nolan put the Batman in the real world, more or less. (I mean as real as a world with a guy running around in a cape and cowl can be.) The Burton films were OK, but there was always that campy scenery so that the city always looked like a sound stage, not a real place. (This only became more pronounced in the so-so "Batman Forever" and dreadful "Batman & Robin.") Since the Nolan films were filmed largely in Chicago and you can see actual Chicago landmarks on the screen, you get more of a feeling that this is a real place with real people, some of whom just happen to dress funny.
Some people on Gather and other places have complained the movie isn't fun enough like, say, "Iron Man" but Batman isn't supposed to be fun. To borrow and paraphrase a quote from the movie, "This is a guy who goes out at night beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands." There's not a lot of fun in that. I applaud Nolan for taking the character seriously, unlike the old Adam West TV show. And if you want fun superhero movies there plenty of them out there.
Anyway, the movie isn't perfect of course, but it's still a great film in its own right. Watching it for the first time in three months I was more engrossed in it than probably the fourth or fifth times I saw it, even though I knew what was coming. I'm sure when this gets to DVD on December 9 I am going to wear out my DVD player watching it a seventh, eighth, etc. times.
If you don't know anything about the movie, here's the obligatory plot summary. A year after "Batman Begins" the Batman, Lt. Gordon, and new DA Harvey Dent are trying to take down the mob. In desperation the mob turns to the Joker, who unleashes a wave of terror on the poor people of Gotham City. Batman has to stop the Joker, but it sure as heck isn't going to be easy; there are a lot of casualties--including the Batman's soul!
So there you go. I also of course can't say enough about how awesome Heath Ledger's Joker is. He's smart and evil, just like I wish I was. Ha ha ha ha ha!
My score: still 4/4 stars
Slumdog Millionaire
I’ve seen three of the Best Picture nominees for the Oscars: “Benjamin Button”, “Milk”, and “Slumdog Millionaire”. I probably won’t have time to see the others in time. At any rate, so far I like “Slumdog” the best of all. “Benjamin Button” is hollow emotionally and “Milk” is really good, but what I think “Slumdog” has going for it is your average moviegoer—ie, me—hasn’t seen anything like it this year.
Well, we’ve seen the basic principles of the movie though. A guy grows up in poverty, struggles, falls in love, and maybe finds happiness. What’s different here is that “Slumdog” is set in India. Jamal is a Muslim (a minority in India) who comes from the slums in Mumbai and works as a go-fer at one of those call centers you've probably called before. He rarely went to school, and when he did it was in a classroom the size of a broom closet stuffed with thirty other kids who have to share one book. Yet somehow Jamal is one question away from winning 20 million rupees on India’s version of “Who Wants to Be A Millionaire.”
The host of the show is so baffled by this development, that when the show breaks for the night, he turns Jamal over to the police, who proceed to torture him in an effort to make him confess how he’s cheating. Instead, Jamal tells the cops how he manages to answer each question—all except one about the flag of India where he used the audience lifeline to answer.
Through this story, we learn about Jamal’s background. His mother was killed in an anti-Muslim riot when he was very young. Afterwards, he and his older brother Salim lived as best they could through begging and petty crimes. (Note if you’re vacationing in India: don’t leave your shoes unattended or trust underage tour guides.) Early on there’s a third member of their crew, a girl named Latika. After she’s separated from the boys, Jamal wants nothing more than to be reunited with her.
There are some in India who complain the movie isn’t fair to their country, but to be fair, this story could have been set in any slum in the world and needed only a change of actors. The story itself is a universal tale of love and rags to riches, which is why a movie about Indian slums can translate to an American moviegoer. The game show element adds a unique way to frame the story, not to mention there’s the suspense like with any good game show of will he win the jackpot or not? I was figuratively on the edge of my seat with anticipation when Jamal answers the final question.
Maybe you think you wouldn’t enjoy this movie, but I think you will because it has all everything you need: romance, drama, suspense, and even a little gunplay. Not to mention a cheesy dance number at the end that’s guaranteed to get the song stuck in your head after you leave the theater. I have to say I left the theater feeling really good, at least for a few minutes. So if you want a fun and uplifting movie, I’d say to watch this one.
Is it the Best Picture of 2008? Well I don’t want to see it six times like another film, but of the ones nominated that I’ve seen, so far it’s the best.
That is all.
(My score: 4/4 stars)
(Metacritic score: 86/100)Watchmen
I can't remember the last time I wanted to stand up and applaud when the ending credits of a movie rolled. For some really bad movies I was ready to sigh with relief, but with "Watchmen" as the My Chemical Romance's hard rockin' cover of Dylan's "Desolation Row" came up for the credits I wanted to cheer. Maybe it's because the somewhat mixed reviews led me to wonder how well this adaptation of the comic by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons would turn out. By the end I was glad to see that this rendition of "Watchmen" is about the best fans--even those who came late to the party like me--could hope for. Sure there are those hard-core purists who are going to scream "Where is the squid?!" and "What about the 'Black Freighter' comic?!" but the realists among us should be happy enough.
Now if you're Joe/Jane Q. Public who has no idea what this movie is about, then I can't recommend it. Definitely if you thought "The Dark Knight" was too dreary or boring or that comics are for kids, then you don't want to see this. Because the genius of Moore's story was to show that beneath the masks and tights are REAL people with REAL problems, and the movie largely sticks to that, so even though there are fights and explosions, this isn't a cheery little tale by any means. And with a 162 minute run time it's hard for many people to pay attention that long.
Like the graphic novel, the movie is about an alternate 1985 where Nixon is on his fifth term--not his third like some news outlets keep saying; apparently they failed math and civics class--and the world is on the brink of Armageddon thanks to the US and USSR's large stockpile of nukes pointed at each other. In this universe, costumed heroes are very real, starting in about the '40s until they're outlawed in 1977. One of those heroes, The Comedian, is murdered when a shadowy attacker throws him out the window. Soon other heroes are neutralized, including the godlike Dr. Manhattan, who has largely been seen as the USA's ace in the hole against Soviet aggression. As the mystery unravels, we learn something far more diabolical is afoot.
There's not much for me to complain about with this movie. One thing is that they needed better impersonators for Nixon, Kissinger, and other real figures. If you compare this Nixon to "Frost/Nixon" the one in this movie seems a little silly, more like something from an SNL sketch. Also, the gore in the film is a little too much for me. We didn't really need to see bodies explode, bones protrude through skin, and Rorshach taking a bite out of a bad guy. What we really didn't need to see either was Dr. Manhattan's wang--especially not four of them!
I generally liked the casting for the movie. Jackie Earle Haley is tremendous as Rorshach, the sociopathic "hero" many would compare to Batman, though really he's more like Clint Eastwood in the Dirty Harry movies, except he wears a mask and doesn't use a gun. Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl II was also really good as the far more naive hero who gets a sort of perverse thrill out of heroing. Some critcs panned Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre II, but she's at least as good as Jessica Alba or Maggie Gylenhaal, which isn't saying a lot. Other than his wang--did they use the motion capture on that part too? Hurm...--Billy Crudup is good as Dr. Manhattan, the god being finding himself increasingly distant from humanity. My only complaint is Matthew Goode as "the world's smartest man" Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias. Especially in civilian clothes he looks so frail I wouldn't believe he could beat up my 92-year-old grandma let alone hardened criminals or other heroes. In his hero getup he looks better thanks I'm sure to lots of padding.
The movie is long, but I didn't check my watch more than once, which is always a good sign. But as I said, casual viewers I think would find it more of a drag than me. I hinted at the beginning that there is some change to the ending, which in large part was to simplify things to avoid tacking on another half hour or so. I don't like this ending quite as much in some ways, but it still works to get the same point across, which is that if you want world peace you just need a really good scapegoat.
Generally, as I said at the start, this was about the best fans could hope to get. It's unfortunate Alan Moore decided to throw a tantrum and keep his name off the film, because unlike "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" or "V for Vendetta" this one sticks to his work to a fault.
That is all.
My score: 4/4 stars
Metacritic score: 56
Free Enterprise
I got thinking of this movie after watching the "Star Trek" reboot, so I had to put in my DVD of it. You probably can't rent this movie anywhere because it's one of those little independent movies; I have no idea if it's on NetFlix either but you can find the DVD for sale on the Internet.
Anyway, "Free Enterprise" is the story of two Star Trek geeks who get the chance of a lifetime when they come upon Bill Shatner (playing himself) purusing porn in a local bookstore. In flashbacks we see how Bill appeared to both the impulsive Robert (Rafer Wiegel) and cool-headed Mark (Eric McCormack, who went on to "Will and Grace" fame) to alter the course of their lives.
In the years since both have moved to LA to work in the film industry--Robert works as a freelance editor on pictures like "Beach Babe Bimbo Fiesta" and Mark is pitching a movie called "Bradykiller" about a serial killer with a fascination with the Brady Bunch. As they befriend Bill, though both are facing personal challenges. Robert is constantly low on cash because of his Captain Kirk lifestyle of throwing caution to the wind with an endless parade of women. Meanwhile Mark is about to turn 30 and relationship-wise has nothing to show for it. And both have to cope with a bit of disillusionment when Bill unveils his wacky scheme to stage a musical of "Julius Caesar" with himself playing all the male roles. ("Wouldn't that mean you have to stab yourself in the back?" "Wouldn't be the first time.")
This film is great in presenting a more human side of "Trekkies." We usually think of "Star Trek" fans as four-eyed geeks living in their parents's basements, yapping on Internet message boards all the time, and this is certainly the image mainstream Hollywood likes to portray. "Free Enterprise" because it's an indie film and made BY Star Trek geeks, shows that they have the same problems as most everyone else. Like "Swingers" or "Clerks" it deals with relationships of young people while at the same time being hilarious. And did I mention Shatner rapping "Julius Caesar"? You can't miss that!
The only flaw is that some of the bits like when the guys stop at Toys "R" Us don't really go anywhere. Actually I think there is a remixed "director's cut" version released in 2005 that restores more of the original script and some of the deleted scenes to help remedy this problem.
That is all.
(My score: 4/4 stars)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)