Watchmen

Tonight I went to see Watchmen, the film adaptation of Alan Moore’s hugely acclaimed graphic novel (which I’m yet to read). I went in unsure of what to expect due to very mixed reviews. Some critics thought it was superb, others hated it. What follows is my most awkward review of this blog thus far.

Set in an alternative 1985 where super heroes haves been outlawed the film starts out with The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) being thrown to his death, followed by a rather fascinating title sequence, which sets up the basis for the story. Following this we are then introduced to the film’s main heroes Rorschach, Silk Spectre, Night Owl, Ozymandias and the all powerful DR. Manhattan.

The film is essential two things, first it is a film noir murder mystery with the outlawed Rorschach, who believes that someone is targeting costumed freaks. He spends the film searching for clues to uncover who the villain behind the murder is. Secondly it is the story of our heroes coping with essentially being a group of has-beens who now have no place in the world. We are also treated to a series of flashbacks revolving round the previous generation of heroes.

So what did I think of it? Well to be honest despite succeeding in some places the film really didn’t live up its potential and as writer Alan Moore claims it was rather ‘unfilmable’.
First things first; the plot. The plot had potential to be truly interesting and although it introduces a few interesting ideas (e.g a superheroes true place in society) it is largely incoherent and to be frankly honest all over the shop. The films structure is largely a mess (a la Quantum of Solace) and therefore fails to pull you into the story. Eventually we are lead to the films climax, which despite having an interesting subtext to it is executed in a very sloppy manner making the first 2 hours make even less sense whilst also over dosing on CGI. Leaving the viewer somewhat unfulfilled.

In terms of directing Zack Synder is essential an over active fan boy adapting his favourite comic. Like in his previous film 300 he completely over indulges on pointless slow motion, random musical decisions and over glamorised violence, making the action sequences less exciting. He is also being far too faithful to the comic book, so as to not disappoint the small amount of fan boys who have actually read the comic. This is the same mistake he made with 300 and the same mistake Chris Columbus made when he directed the first two Harry Potter films, desperate to fit in as much of the source material as humanly possible.

The film would have worked better had it been more loosely based around the novel as opposed to replicating it frame for frame. In fact maybe if instead of setting it in the 80’s it could have been adapted into a post 9/11 crime epic similar to what Chris Nolan did for the new Batman films.

The film does have it good points however. The cinematography here is absolutely stunning and some of the issues and ideas explored in this film make it a lot more interesting.

Character wise this film has a lot going for it, the character of Night Owl works well because he is portrayed as the every man of the film and the romantic subplot between him and Silk Spectre is fully convincing. Rorschach is also enjoyable to watch, he is portrayed as a chandler-esque film noir detective albeit one with a grudge against the harsh, ran down world that he protects.

The most interesting character however is Dr. Manhattan, the only hero in the film who appears to have genuine super powers. He is a man who has no understanding of human compassion and often questions their importance in the universe. It is not till the end of the film the he looks into Silk Spectre’s mind that he finally understands human compasion. Worth taking note is his superbly executed origin story, which is told in a flashback.

So there is my verdict on Watcmen, largely disappointing but with a hand full of good ideas that just about manage to keep it afloat. Not terrible but could have been so much better. The Phantom Menace of 2009.

Pseudo-intellectuals will love it and the sound track is impressive.

3 STARS

Gran Torino

Tonight I chose to see Gran Torino, a social commentary film written, directed by and starring Clint Eastwood in what will apparently be his acting swansong.

The film starts out with the now widowed Walt (Clint Eastwood) living at home by himself in what has become a rough Korean neighbourhood, full of crime, violence and gang culture much to Walt’s dismay as he once served in Vietnam and has had a racist stigma ever since. After Walt inadvertently save Thao, his young Korean next door neighbour from a gang of thugs he is crowned a reluctant neighbourhood hero. He soon develops an understanding for other cultures and start to teach Thao how to be a man eventually befriending him and letting him drive his 1972 Gran Torino (a car that represent an era long gone, an era when Eastwood was younger).

The thing that most appealed to me about this film was the opportunity to see Clint Eastwood acting again, this time now as a very old man and long since his heyday. Overall Eastwood nails the role, portraying Walt as a bitter, twisted, cynical, old misanthropist. A man who frowns upon the modern society, especially his good for nothing grand children and the ethnic gang culture that now plagues a once pleasant neighbourhood. Another thing notable about Clint's performance is how he manages to generates sympathy for the elderly showing how they are viewed by the younger generations as utterly dependant.

With Eastwood’s character the film successfully explore the issue of how war veterans perceive the ran down society they fought for, how they will always have to live with what they’ve been through and how they will never have a full understanding of other cultures due to this.

One thing worth pointing out is the abundance of racial slurs uttered largely by Eastwood Himself throughout. In the 2 hour running time he manages to offend blacks, Jews, Christians and most of all Chinese people. However this film succeed at making each and every slur slightly funny therefore causing no offence to any viewers. It is through the audiences understanding of Eastwood’s character that the film achieves this.

This film shares similarities with American History X (1998). Both films deal with racial intolerance and the effect that is has on society and like America History X this film end on a rather bleak note, which in all honesty may by quite shocking to an audience (in a good way).

I would highly recommend Gran Torino to someone looking to watch a film with more meaning to it, especially since the next few months will be filled with shoddy, pointless franchise cash ins (terminator 4 anyone?). Enjoy it whilst you can, this film is just like the radio advert says “It’s like Dirty Harry never went away”.

4 STARS

Bolt

For my next film this year I decided to go for something more light hearted and simple. I therefore chose Bolt. The computer animated film about a dog (John Travolta) who truly believes that he has super powers not realising all along that his life revolves around a simple television show and that he has no such powers. After Bolt accidently ends up in the real world and on the other side of America he teams up with a cat called ‘Mittens’ and a hamster called ‘Rhino’ to journey from New York to Hollywood to re-unite Bolt with his owner (Miley Cyrus).

When you boil this film down it is essentially a road movie in which along the way Bolt truly discovers his real self. One interesting thing about this film is that it applies a very interesting concept similar to that of 1998’s The Truman Show in which the main protagonist believes in a false reality, much to the amusement of many of the supporting character.

Overall this film is your typical animated adventure for children. It uses similar narrative techniques to such Pixar classic as Toy Story and Finding Nemo. However it never lives up to their ingenuity or freshness and the humour is also rather cliché (although at my viewing there was a middle aged woman in hysterics).

In all honesty the only reason I chose to watch this was because it is presented in 3D and I had never seen a 3D film before. This was quite an interesting way to watch the film, especially during more dynamic camera shots. However this particular film didn’t offer much extra for 3D viewers, in fact some of the most impressive shots featured in the trailers. The only other alternative was My Bloody Valentine but there was no hope in hell I was going to watch a cheap tacky teen horror out of choice.

Although I like the idea of 3D I fell that the films shown using it are more akin to fair ground attractions. One hopes however that George Lucas will finally get round to re-releasing his Star Wars saga in 3D (without pointless tinkering please George).

Overall Bolt was yet another solid example of animated cinema, one with a few interesting ideas.

3 STARS

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button

Last night I went to see The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I wasn’t sure what to expect from it due to mostly mixed but slightly edging towards positive reviews and a rather solid 71% on rottentomatoes.com. On one hand I was turned off by the soppy aspect of it and the fact that is was rather ‘conveniently’ released during award season like a worm on a hook. On the other hand I was interested because it is directed by David Fincher the man who brought us such masterpieces as the taut, intense Se7en and the mind boggling Fight Club.

The film start out at the end of the 1st world war in which Benjamin (Brad Pitt) is neglected at birth by his father due to the fact that he is born with the physical features of an 80 year old man. The film then tell the story through his life as he grows up but gradually begins to look younger. He soon meets Daisy (Cate Blanchett) of whom they fall in love with each other. All this is told in flashback from the present day as Blanchett lies on her death bed somewhere in her 80’s whilst her daughter reads through Benjamin’s dairy.

Performance wise this film is just as good as any other film I’ve seen this year so far. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett are both powerhouses portraying various different age groups perfectly, although as an old lady Blanchett is very incoherent. The film is also quite strong from a directing point of view, Fincher has proven himself capable of pulling off drama films, although his forte will always be masculine orientated thrillers.

This film has the ability to strike a chord with even the most hardened viewers pulling right at their heart strings and delivering a numerous amount of touching moments. Also notable is that the theme of death occurs on so many occasions.

Although I enjoyed this film I did feel it to be relatively flawed and quite plodding during some segments. For a period drama film there is a bit too much CGI blowing the illusion at times and making it feel all too synthetic (No thats not me having a pop at the special effects used to age Brad Pitt, that aspect of the CGI was seamless). I also felt it was trying too hard to be a so called ‘prestigious’ film. One scene involving Blanchett by a water fountain in a red dress trying to allure Pitt felt far to Bergmanesque for my liking that I nearly lost interest. It also felt a little... uh.. mushy wushy right down the piano music score. Is this the Titanic of 2009?

Overall I largely enjoyed this film, I felt it had a lot going for it in the drama stakes despite being a bit .....uh whats a 'politically correct' word for pompous?

This film was very moving It would be wrong for me to give this less than four stars. Overall I am very satisfied with my cinema going experience this year although there is now a part of me who wants to see something crap just so I have an excuse to write a negative review. Hotel for Dogs anyone?

4 STARS

(P.S. Do not cast Cate Blanchett and Tilda Swinton in the same film together, they look too much alike, it confuses the viewer, it’s unfair on them. It’s like when Michael Douglas and Martin Sheen were both cast in Wall Street. Just Don’t Do It!)

Frost/Nixon

The next film I decided to see was Frost/Nixon, a political thriller based on the real life 1977 interviews between David Frost and Richard Nixon concerning the Watergate scandal.

This film feature two lead performances, Michael Sheen as David Frost and Frank Langella as Richard ‘Millhouse’ Nixon. Both these men plays their real life subject to near perfection, Sheen (who also played Tony Blair in 2006’s The Queen) dots every I and crosses every T when it comes Frost’s little mannerism, voice and body language whilst Langella portrays stress and nervous tension appropriately.

A lot of attention has been lavished upon Langella for his portrayal but rest assured if there is one performance better than the other it is in fact Sheen. As a viewer I was really caught up in his story of pursuing an ideal and making it big. Also knowing that he is risking so much (as he did in real life) I was caught up in the tension of the situation every time a problem occurred.

There is a slight fictional aspect to this film however in which it implies that David Frost is an underdog, whereas in real life he had achieved a fair bit more and was reknown for helping the Monty Python crew lauch their career. A man who they even referenced in several sketches (python fans may notice Eric Idle's portrayal as a TV reporter in the infamous Hell's Grannies' sketch strikingly similar to Frost).

This film is not just a political thriller/biopic it is also a quest for one man to achieve a goal and face the obstacle along the way. It is also a duel between two titans both determined to outdo one another. This is where the film really strikes a chord with certain viewers. Basically this is The Lord of the rings or Star Wars, in political form, with use of words rather than swords or light sabers ....and based on real events.

There are a few minor problems, the film is slightly plodding at times, some of the humour is a little laboured (Nixon’s perspiration) and Ron Howard doesn’t bring a great deal amount to the directing front.

Overall I highly recommend this film. An interesting underdog story with a strong ensemble cast.

4 STARS

The Wrestler

The second film I saw this year proved to be just as delightful as the first. For those of you who haven’t seen The Wrestler I strongly recommend it.

The film tells the story of Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson, an aging wrestler who was once a huge success but now spend his years fighting in minor wrestling league to make end meet. After Randy suffers a heart attack he is told that he can no longer wrestle causing him to work in a supermarket for spare cash whilst at the same time trying to win the love of his once neglected daughter.

I think I can well and truly say that Mickey Rourke owns this film bringing a very human character to the screen. We can truly sympathise with a tortured soul who has lost everything important to him (partially through his own errors) and is remorseful and want it back. One particular powerful aspect of the story was of Rourke’s attempt to make amends with his daughter, the ultimate outcome leaving him truly remorseful.

I feel that this role strongly mirrors Rourke in real life a man who in his own words ‘fucked his career up’.

Worth noting also is Darren Aronovsky’s gritty directing style with its off-the-wall throwaway dialogue and documentary style camera work. One scene particularly impressive is a post match scene where Rourke and an opponent are tending to their wounds whilst we the audience are treated to flashbacks displaying how they got those said wounds. This is proper cringe worthy material.

The masterstroke for me however was the end scene involving Rourke in a comeback wrestling match. However this is different to your average wrestling/boxing match scene as it involves the lead character having a heart condition preventing his ability to fight. As a viewer I was absolutely caught up in the drama and suspense knowing that he may well die in this fight. Suddenly the screen fades to black, cue the end credits. The reason for this is that you’re not meant to know whether he survived or not. I felt that this was the perfect way to end the film because it left a sense of ambiguity.

Some people didn’t understand this and therefore immediately claimed they didn’t like the film as a result. As fellow film student Matt Waters said “some people just don’t get things.”
I personally loved this film. It was depressing in the best sense. I do like Rocky (the first one) but for me this is quite simply better.

5 STARS

Slumdog Millionaire

Okay so here we have it, the first film I saw at the cinema this year and I must say what a phenomenal start this has been to a year of film.

The film tells the story of Jamal (Dev Patel) a former childhood begger from the slums of Mumbai who enters the Indian version of ‘Who wants to be a millionaire’ in the hope of winner the big prize. However after reaching 10 million rupees, Jamal is suspected of cheating and is taken into custody (after all how can a slumdog succeed further on a game show where doctors, scientists and various other professionals fail). He is tortured and forced to tell his life story, this then leads us to a series of flashbacks of how he learn’t this knowledge.

One of the thing that impressed me the most was Danny Boyles’ direction, delivering his finest film since 1996’s Trainspotting (which I loved). He has truly captured a sense of scope making Mumbai feels like a character in its own right and as always has given us characters that we can truly relate to in one way or another. Worth noting is the way the film is beautifully shot with use of panoramic visions and swooping camera angles.

As an audience we can sympathise with Jamal’s quest to be with the one he loves as well as his strained relations with his brother. For me one particular performance that stood out was the game show host (who’s name I don’t know). As opposed to Britain’s Chris Tarrant (who I feel is just a little too family friendly and a little too ITV for my liking), this game show host is far more cheeky making fun of Jamal harsh background. Also worth noting is how snide and conniving he becomes when the cameras stop rolling.

If I was to categorize this film I would describe it as ‘feel good’ cinema, however what’s impressive is how for most of the film we witness very dark and shocking moments (such as people being burn’t alive) yet you still feel a warm glow by the time the credits role.
Overall I feel the ever prominent Danny Boyle has turned out one of the finest underdog rags to riches story I have personally seen. Brilliantly executed and put together. (word of warning: leave the cinema the moment the credits roll or you’ll be ‘treated’ to a bollywood song and dance number).

5 STARS