WATCHMEN

Like the graphic novel, Watchmen is overflowing with details. The sheer faithfulness to the original story is, without a doubt, the best thing to happen to the movie adaptation. Sure some scenes were cut and the ending...
[+] Read Full Review

WATCHMEN

Like the graphic novel, Watchmen is overflowing with details. The sheer faithfulness to the original story is, without a doubt, the best thing to happen to the movie adaptation. Sure some scenes were cut and the ending severely altered, but catching the details doubled what would have been without reading the book. It is not on the same level as the original story, but it does do justice, and certainly could have been much, much worse.

Watchmen begins with the murder of the Comedian, a vigilante connected with the government. Rorschach (the inkblot mask) investigates the murder, and comes to the conclusion that someone is “picking off costumed heroes�. He alerts Nite Owl II, who’s crime fighting becomes rekindled by a relationship with Silk Spectre II. Dr. Manhattan, who won the Vietnam War for the U.S. and is emotionally deprived by conscious choice, departs Earth as a result of turmoil in his relationship with Silk Spectre II. Somewhere in there, the Doomsday clock, which charts the tension between the U.S. and the USSR is set at five minutes to midnight.

As said before, the best part of Watchmen is the details. The same will go with the book, which I have read twice. Nearly everything is faithful to the source material; pictures, dialogue, and even costumes on extras are exactly the same. Even in the first scene, especially the sidewalk to up-the-building-window transition, the angle and objects shown in each frame are close to identical to the pages in the graphic novel. My knowledge of directing has grown somewhat since my last review, and as a result I see somewhat more. According to Understanding Movies, viewers often “read� a frame from left to right, much like a book. I noticed that motion can start from the left and go to the right, so one sees a person moving towards the right and is somewhat surprised by the entrance of someone on the left side of the screen. That may be basic, but to me it is a clever way to translate a character’s feelings to viewers on a close to subconscious level. On the contrary, one sex scene in particular was filmed and acted so badly that it was like watching a pornographic film or something of the like. The “climax� of the scene was funny, but the level of graphic content was completely unnecessary.

The visuals are stunning, and the violence brutal

Violence is a key part of bringing out the flaws in the heroes of Watchmen. Rorschach is especially brutal. If capital punishment were on a ballot, he would vote for it without question. I wouldn’t say gore is important, but potent. Blood makes the violence human (literally and not literally) and calls on the viewers to plead for the pain to be brief. In Watchmen, the gore moves from being an accent to becoming the signature, and creates a gladiator like entertainment feeling from the guts n’ blood. Violence is often called sickening when it is not supposed to be, and in this movie, it should be but becomes comical instead. I do think seeing a guy’s arms sawed off once can be kinda cool. Watching Dr. Manhattan splatter people around the screen, over and over, is not.

Zack Snyder is wiz behind the camera. Not all of his pals in front of it are. Billy Crudup and Jackie Earle Haley give painful (in a good way!) performances. Dr. Manhattan’s (Crudup’s) lack of emotion is both what it is and deeply sad. He does not value life, despite his gift of living after his lab accident that led to his current state. The mix of monotony and detachment makes for one messed up Superman. Haley’s Rorschach is brutal, alone, and angry beyond belief. The growly speech that eventually builds up to a confused rage is extremely potent when creating Rorschach. On the other hand, Malin Ackerman as Silk Spectre II and more or less Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl II are closer to the other side of the spectrum. Their predicament is like a short person standing next to a tall person; the short one seems shorter and the tall one seems taller. Even with that in mind, some things cannot be let go off. The previously mentioned sex scene was weak. The worst was when Malin Ackerman absolutely dropped the ball during what could have been the best line in the film. Some things could have been better, but the way the story works and the manner it is presented in created some tough situations for all of the actors.



Another valuable part of Watchmen was the special effects. The technology required for Dr. Manhattan and the resulting output is incredible. The Owlship and Rorschach’s mask both look awesome, especially the always-changing inkblots. Some minor instances are behind the times, but overall, the computer animation combines with the colors and directing to create a stunning picture (again, literally and not literally). Almost taking a back seat, the score and timely 80’s music collaborates with the scenes in a beautiful way. Like other parts of the Watchmen (holy crap this is repetitive), one Jimi Hendrix song does not fit its context. The rest, from Simon and Garfunkel to Bob Dylan, makes whole the era draped around the characters.

Watchmen certainly succeeds in many places, but stumbles in others. Flaws are flaws; some can be covered and some can’t. In the end, the best words for Watchmen would be “an experience�. The visuals are incredible. The attention to details from the source material and overall faithfulness is striking. The acting brings life into already living characters, and the music pulls the full context of the time together. I have seen better, and I have seen worse. What I have not seen is a movie that is so in touch with its original material. Nor have I seen so much potency from visuals themselves. I know that there is room for improvement, but if the clay is hardly moldable and something greater than mediocre comes out…Well, let me say this: Watch the Watchmen. But read it first.

Gran Torino

When I think of Clint Eastwood, I see an old, hurt, and eventually decaying man. Million Dollar Baby gave me that picture. I guess you could say that I am experiencing Déjà vu, because Gran...
[+] Read Full Review

Gran Torino

When I think of Clint Eastwood, I see an old, hurt, and eventually decaying man. Million Dollar Baby gave me that picture. I guess you could say that I am experiencing Déjà vu, because Gran Torino seems to be an echo of that same character psyche (though I have not seen Million Dollar Baby for a while, I do hope I am right in this). However, this echo is by no means fading. Sure he is playing the same character. Practice does make perfect, and boy does that saying come into play here.

The acting, closely seconded by great lines, is what makes Gran Torino. Going into the theater I expected drama from the start (there is plenty to go around, do not be worried), but was caught off guard to be laughing quite a bit. The humor is mostly creative names for Walt’s Hmong neighbors, and other memorable qoutes that make Clint Eastwood a big potty mouth. His constant frustration and deep emotional pain is ultimately what makes this happen. So far this may sound like a bit of a laugh festival (which it kind of is, I guess), but I will rudely interrupt you to state that my heart was thumping throughout the movie. My mind was going too; foreshadowing literally states the climax in vague terms. I almost feel like the movie was not serious enough. Gangbangers do play into the plot, but for large portions of the movie, jokes about manhood lighten things up---dangerously close to too much. Intensity does come about, mostly from plots that temporarily take a back seat. The dialogue adds to both sides of the equation. I would laugh and get excited for some ass kicking simultaneously, making for some temporary joy and lacking some lasting satisfaction.

From what I gather in whiffs and random articles in magazines and the internet, Clint Eastwood is known for thrusting terrific lines through gritted teeth. This happens plenty of times (old? Not really). There are many bodacious lines, all of them executed with that familiar “Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.� kind of BAMFness. I know I haven’t mentioned the plot at all, but the acting and writing fits perfectly into the context of an already great story. By the end of the movie, the heart that is deep within Walt is visible, through event and symbol. It is ironic that throughout the movie, Walt can maintain everything in his house except himself. Maybe that is his conscience decision, or maybe not. I heard somewhere that lots of great stories have ambiguous endings.

Gran Torino, probably like driving the car itself, never gets boring. A teeny tiny breath of predictable air is cleverly inserted into the movie (actually, it cancels itself out!), leaving space for thought as well as taking up a bit. Without a doubt Clint Eastwood is the carrier of this film. The other young actors deserve their time on screen, especially the witty Sue. I can’t help but feel like the other actors deserve less shadow cast on them, but at the same time feel grateful that they did not carry the film themselves. What Gran Torino does best, is really what Clint Eastwood does best: Entertain with a badass lead, regardless of age (which makes it all the sweeter). As I grow up and eventually grow old, the image that will come to mind when I summon my memories of Clint Eastwood will be this: Old guy, fearsome acting, and dirty insults. I love it already.

MILK

Right off the bat, I knew that Sean Penn’s performance would be excellent. The first few minutes of the film after the credits show so much promise for the rest of the movie that it is hard not to like from that point on....
[+] Read Full Review

MILK

Right off the bat, I knew that Sean Penn’s performance would be excellent. The first few minutes of the film after the credits show so much promise for the rest of the movie that it is hard not to like from that point on. Even the pre-credits footage of raids on gay bars and a woman announcing Harvey Milk and San Francisco mayor Moscone’s assassinations do not hinder the excitement. Milk begins with Harvey Milk’s first encounter with Smith, who becomes his boyfriend. The two move to San Francisco into what will eventually become the highly gay neighborhood known as the Castro. Milk and Smith start the Castro Camera despite discrimination from other shop owners. Milk runs for office in 1973 and loses, but persists for two more elections in an attempt to obtain gay civil rights and a spot on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. While you know from the start that Milk will be killed, the movie does a great job of not letting you know which of the possible characters will murder him.

Hands down, Sean Penn is the star of the show. His acting is so precise; it is obvious that poring over the character and much rehearsal has been done. Whenever he talks, his arms seem to not know what to do, and his outgoing and light personality fit the gay stereotype all too well. His body language and smiley demeanor create a character that people tend to joke about, but there is know way this performance can be a laughing matter. Milk’s charisma made a gaping hole by the time he was assassinated, and left me in a state of shock. The acting is hard not to like, since almost all of the main characters are recognizable faces and already have steady careers under their belts. Emile Hirsch, James Franco, and Josh Brolin all have unique and critical roles in that film. Brolin does his conservative Catholic with so much anger and hidden hate that it is almost hard to enjoy his acting.

The content of the movie does become uncomfortable at times to watch. I found the love scenes Milk to have some hidden beauty in them. An emotional score accompanies most of the movie and always peaks during these scenes, thus creating all the more joy out of an otherwise made fun of concept. The somewhat shaky close ups deliver something close to a combination of eeriness and romance that cannot be ignored. Sure the scenes were awkward for me to watch, but I kept saying to myself and feeling “This is art!� Gus Van Stant’s direction in these scenes and throughout the rest of the movie is good as far as I can tell (I am not knowledgeable enough to fully describe what I feel or even to feel all of what I should, but I sense some good things). The whole air of the movie made me leave the theater in that great “I want to change the world!� feeling, which I thought was temporary. I found myself wanting to talk about Milk frequently, because it had such a profound affect on me. Five days later I remember enough details to be writing a review, which I find pretty good. The whole film shines and will undoubtedly be celebrating Oscar nominations in a few weeks. I can see Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Screenplay, Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Score being on ads in papers next month.

Milk is consistently entertaining and honestly beautiful. I find it hard to name very many movies that bring about such an arty and hopeful feeling (although I am only 15). The movie seems to be in the same ballpark as Forrest Gump. The charm, acting, and humor seem similar but the amount of dollar success will not. In that regard, I encourage you to see the movie by paying for it in some way. $8 is worth the price, even in times like these. I don’t think I have seen a better movie this year (yes, I just put down Batman…). The sheer pleasure of watching for the sake of art is all one needs as an excuse to see Milk. Please, please see this movie. Diamonds are very hard to find in haystacks.
5/5

IRON MAN

Summer movies. The explosions. The huge scale. The ‘amazing’ acting. The beautiful woman, or handsome man. The disappointments. Sadly, all of these apply to Iron Man.

The trouble begins soon off...
[+] Read Full Review

IRON MAN

Summer movies. The explosions. The huge scale. The ‘amazing’ acting. The beautiful woman, or handsome man. The disappointments. Sadly, all of these apply to Iron Man.

The trouble begins soon off when the “That’s why I don’t know this guy� acting comes in. If anyone has so much as a line, I was saying to myself “I can’t watch!� for all the wrong reasons. Thank god for Robert Downey Jr.’s slick hot shot acting, because without him, this movie would have been much worse. All of the performances seem standard or less, like students showing up for a presentation without knowing the topic. I feel like I am watching a low budget Sci-Fi Channel movie that is more funny than serious, in reference to the acting.

Along with the O.K. performances is a plot as predictable as the latest Disney movie. Tony Stark, the CEO of Stark Industries, is a playboy-hotshot-look-at-me-I-scored-the-touchdown-for-the-millionth-time type of guy. He has so much money that he can afford fully talking and voice commanded robots, as well as planes that can turn into little dance clubs in flight. The movie starts with him being kidnapped, and then puts a leash on the action that the movie will eventually rely on. It goes back 36 hours to give a whiff of Stark’s life, then returns to the previously shown story. It turns out that terrorists who use and love his weapons kidnap him. They want him to build a super missile. Of course, he doesn’t comply and constructs an Iron Man prototype, escaping the terrorists and eventually “revealing� the true nature of his company. Pass the Campbell’s CANNED Soup.

Iron Man is PG-13, and that means the most appreciative audience should be 13 or older, right? Sure. But what happens when the best parts of the movie are all eye candy and action? How about when those parts “happen� again and again? So much of Iron Man relies on the nearly too frequent explosions and gunfire. It’s like the non-action is there just to give some balance so critics don’t call it a purely action movie. But it is, because the cookie cutter plot rarely compensates. John Favreau gives the viewer time to digest the story, yet he also gives the audience the time to think ahead and in too much detail. During all of this, I can’t decide where this movie is trying to go. Political messages “hidden� throughout, action flick, lets-try-to-please-everyone-by-doing-all-of-the-above, or the Starwars I-III special effects orgy? Iron Man succeeds in the Starwars category, because the special effects are still great no matter how many times they are used. Political messages are inserted, too (Big red targets are painted on to help the viewer. Just in case).

Don’t worry; there is good lying in the jumble. Robert Downey Jr.’s acting carries much of the film, though it does result in a little too much. The special effects rock; there is pleasure in watching Stark construct his suit. There are also some parts like a cool science video: Stark breaking the sound barrier, and him shooting terrorists using some sort of mini missile shooting device. Towards the end of the movie intense scenes are somehow there, and they even feel genuine. Trust me, I really wanted to like this movie.

I know that this has all been a rant, but there is still more. When scenes want to be truly awesome, they need great music, right? Well, Iron Man’s cheesy and definitely not loud enough music pulls the movie down during action sequences. It is a very tricky business doing this music. A canned feeling is not wanted, though you also want the viewer to hear the song and the noises from the movie at the same time. Not many times can a balance be done using rock, so the choice of music genre was really the problem. Most studios that have enough money will have music composed from an orchestra, or at least borrow some from someone else. That’s just one place where Iron Man is mediocre. The fundamental errors result in one hell of a disappointment. I hope John Favreau doesn’t forget all of the missed opportunities next time, too. I hope to god that the sequel is like The Dark Knight: Better.