I have never read the graphic novel Watchmen. I've read some stuff about it and a number of reviews of the film which criticized either the work, the film based on the work or both. I also don't think its in any way necessary to read the graphic novel in order to have any opinion on the film. I read a great number of reviews before I saw the film, almost all of them negative. I decided I had no desire to see it. Then a friend recommended I see it. Admittedly the reviews I usually read are written by elitist film viewers. Their analyses are usually well written and filled with reference and allusion to other film, literature and psychological insight. These are the reason I like to read them. They are almost scholarly. The problem can be is that sometimes they are unwilling to acknowledge that a film is either 1)enjoyable despite its flaws or 2) isn't actually bad.
Watchmen isn't actually bad. I admit I had problems with the pacing. The source material is long and clearly Snyder felt to even do it justice the film would have to be long. But at times I was in agony for the film to move forward and accomplish something. There is also at least one comically misplaced song and scene in the film. Its laughable and perhaps intentionally so but its also painful. I bring this up because the use of Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable" at the opening (as well as Bob Dylan's Times They Are A Changing") are so perfect for the scenes they are tied with.
Watchmen is set in 1985, but a different 1985 than we know. There have been two generations of super heroes, the Vietnam War was ended by such a super hero and eventually there was a ban on masked heroes. All of this brings up very interesting and salient points on the nature of vigilantism. There is also the very eminent threat of nuclear annihilation. All these themes and more are running through the story that follows the lives of several of these masked heroes. The story is either familiar to you or easily accessible via a synopsis so I'll refrain from summary.
Zack Snyder is skilled. Like 300 before this, there are many shots that are recreated from the graphic novel. It shows an amazing attention to detail and patience to get a shot exactly right. The fact that he can turn a complex work into a convincing and entertaining film (even with flaws) as well as balance a myriad of distinct characters is nothing short of praiseworthy. Perhaps a more innovative director would have strayed from the source material more and created a film that strove to be its own contribution but what we have received is not crap.
The opening fight sequence followed the the credit sequence are, as I already mentioned, wonderful combinations of imagery and music. In fact the first fight sequence in my opinion is the best one in the film. This is not to say that several other fight sequences weren't wonderfully choreographed. When these guys and gals are fighting I was riveted and at other times when they weren't fighting and the characters were being explored I was intrigued too. In particular, Dr. Manahattan (voiced and a few times actually acted (i.e. not CGI) by Billy Crudup.) who as an immortal superman has an intriguing story arc.
In the end its not only entertaining but I think an interesting film in the choices it makes. It may not be an excellent film but it definitely strives to be. It is by far and away a better film than 300 and takes more risks and shows more development than Dawn of the Dead, his debut and remake of the Romero classic. I'm curious and eager to see him work on something that isn't steeped in a pop culture tradition and virtual frame by frame story boards to see what he can do with it.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Wendy and Lucy
Editor's note: To all my fans (ahh who am I kidding) to all my friends who feel semi-obligated to check and my family who feels fully obligated to check and to all those random people who came upon this site by chance and quickly hit the back button as they searched for something of real value, I apologize for not updating this site more frequently. I have not never fear ceased to view movies (although I have watched far fewer this year as I am no longer trying to achieve an inane goal).
Kelly Reichardt's film Wendy and Lucy is a small affair following for a brief time Wendy, a 20 something adrift from the world. She is heading to Alaska so she says. She is accompanied by her beautiful dog Lucy. Wendy has traveled from somewhere in the Midwest (Indiana? I can't recall). She has about $500 dollars left to make it and then tragedy strikes.
Wendy wakes up one day to find her car will not start. A kindly security guard guides her to a repair shop that never seems to be open and a grocery store where she can get some food. Wendy shoplifts a can of dog food for Lucy and is arrested. By the time she is released, Lucy has disappeared. The rest of the film has Wendy trying to find Lucy and get her car repaired.
Michelle Williams is well cast here as Wendy. She's quiet and withdrawn and has her best connection with Lucy. She's decent in this role and the character doesn't call for big outrages. She takes it all quietly in stride more defeated by the world than outraged by it. Despite Williams doing what she can with the character, the film is a bit flat.
My own personal problem with the film which I admit might be unfair, is how stupid Wendy is. She has $500 and a dog she tied up out front of a grocery store. Why the hell is she shoplifting a can of dog food? What do you think will happen to a dog, if its left for 5 hours while you get arrested? Is the character really that stupid or is this really that pathetic of a plot device?
The two ancillary characters of note are the security guard who offers his knowledge and phone to Wendy to help her out and the repair shop owner played by Will Patton. And might I add a complete waste of Will Patton's character actor talent. Why did they even bother casting Patton? Anyone would have done just as well. Was there some bigger scene with him that got cut out? He's literally little more than an extra.
The big problem is that you never get any real sense of what Wendy is running from. Why does she think the solution is Alaska? These things don't necessarily need to be stated outright but at the very least the character needs to convey something of these things. Else why the hell do we care what happens to her?
Frankly I was more concerned with the dog than Wendy. Probably not a good sign for your movie.
Kelly Reichardt's film Wendy and Lucy is a small affair following for a brief time Wendy, a 20 something adrift from the world. She is heading to Alaska so she says. She is accompanied by her beautiful dog Lucy. Wendy has traveled from somewhere in the Midwest (Indiana? I can't recall). She has about $500 dollars left to make it and then tragedy strikes.
Wendy wakes up one day to find her car will not start. A kindly security guard guides her to a repair shop that never seems to be open and a grocery store where she can get some food. Wendy shoplifts a can of dog food for Lucy and is arrested. By the time she is released, Lucy has disappeared. The rest of the film has Wendy trying to find Lucy and get her car repaired.
Michelle Williams is well cast here as Wendy. She's quiet and withdrawn and has her best connection with Lucy. She's decent in this role and the character doesn't call for big outrages. She takes it all quietly in stride more defeated by the world than outraged by it. Despite Williams doing what she can with the character, the film is a bit flat.
My own personal problem with the film which I admit might be unfair, is how stupid Wendy is. She has $500 and a dog she tied up out front of a grocery store. Why the hell is she shoplifting a can of dog food? What do you think will happen to a dog, if its left for 5 hours while you get arrested? Is the character really that stupid or is this really that pathetic of a plot device?
The two ancillary characters of note are the security guard who offers his knowledge and phone to Wendy to help her out and the repair shop owner played by Will Patton. And might I add a complete waste of Will Patton's character actor talent. Why did they even bother casting Patton? Anyone would have done just as well. Was there some bigger scene with him that got cut out? He's literally little more than an extra.
The big problem is that you never get any real sense of what Wendy is running from. Why does she think the solution is Alaska? These things don't necessarily need to be stated outright but at the very least the character needs to convey something of these things. Else why the hell do we care what happens to her?
Frankly I was more concerned with the dog than Wendy. Probably not a good sign for your movie.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
A Christmas Tale
Family drama is a tried and true formula for a movie. It goes as far back as ancient tragedy if not further. Sometimes its done terribly, sometimes its managed in a mediocre way and sometimes its done well. Rarely it goes done very well. If you wanted a recent example of terribly done I'd point to The Family Stone. Wretched in almost every respect and down right confusing and manipulative at many points. Last year's Rachel Getting Married I would lump in the mediocre category. It was loved by some but between the nausea inducing camera work and the heavy handed push of ideal liberal world, it really cuts its potential bite.
When it comes down to a dysfunctional family, from last year, its not Rachel's wedding and sister Kim who take the lead but the family of A Christmas Tale. Here we are introduced to a large family that ends up coming together at Christmas (including the estranged son) in part because the matriarch is dying. Thrown basically in medias res into the whole situation, it never becomes entirely clear what happened to cause the exile of Henri (Mathieu Amalric).
Its been too long since I saw the film to recall all the individual story lines and I'm not sure I could have recalled them all two months ago when I saw the film. Suffice to say that the story carries you on, as you watch a family of love and dysfunction. Key in my view is the performance Jean-Paul Roussillon as head of family Abel. A loving father and grandfather, even when faced with the sadness of his ailing wife, the disappointment that his family can't all get along or the sadness of a lost child that still hangs over the family, he commands the scenes he is in as an ever patient, pleasant man who wishes every Christmas and perhaps every day could be spent with his family.
The family feels ever so real in its actions and interactions. Even if you don't understand the rifts, you believe them. This is the film's strength. Its weakness is perhaps its frequent almost direct camera addresses and a bit too much flying back and forth between stories with the result that I at times got quite confused as to what was going on. Still the family drama is well crafted and grim dysfunction at such a festive time never seemed so fascinating.
When it comes down to a dysfunctional family, from last year, its not Rachel's wedding and sister Kim who take the lead but the family of A Christmas Tale. Here we are introduced to a large family that ends up coming together at Christmas (including the estranged son) in part because the matriarch is dying. Thrown basically in medias res into the whole situation, it never becomes entirely clear what happened to cause the exile of Henri (Mathieu Amalric).
Its been too long since I saw the film to recall all the individual story lines and I'm not sure I could have recalled them all two months ago when I saw the film. Suffice to say that the story carries you on, as you watch a family of love and dysfunction. Key in my view is the performance Jean-Paul Roussillon as head of family Abel. A loving father and grandfather, even when faced with the sadness of his ailing wife, the disappointment that his family can't all get along or the sadness of a lost child that still hangs over the family, he commands the scenes he is in as an ever patient, pleasant man who wishes every Christmas and perhaps every day could be spent with his family.
The family feels ever so real in its actions and interactions. Even if you don't understand the rifts, you believe them. This is the film's strength. Its weakness is perhaps its frequent almost direct camera addresses and a bit too much flying back and forth between stories with the result that I at times got quite confused as to what was going on. Still the family drama is well crafted and grim dysfunction at such a festive time never seemed so fascinating.
The Wrestler
Randy "The Ram" Robinson (Mickey Rourke) was once a hugely popular and successful wrestler. The Hulk Hogan or Ric Flair of his day. But time has moved on and its twenty years after the peak of Randy's success. Randy has trouble paying his bills, has a part time job, but still wrestles on the weekends. Each Friday in a community center or local gym, Randy relives the glory of twenty years ago. Randy has the fans and the roar of the crowd even a small one still keeps him going.
Randy is old and his body is starting to show it. He uses a hearing aid, has some heart trouble and lives alone. He spends his time in his trailer, working to make ends meet and going to the local strip club where he has a flirtatious stripper who is also getting on in age. Randy has a broken relationship with his daughter and not much to live by.
The story is not perhaps anything spectacular. We follow Randy about his life as he struggles to live and faces problems such as being locked out of his trailer for failure to pay rent. We see him in the glory of the wrestling ring and the not so glorious time behind a grocery store deli counter. We often see this from an established behind the back shot that reminds one of a documentary or perhaps a wrestler entering the arena. Its novel for a while and at times works really well. At others it took me out of the story.
What we ultimately are really talking about in this movie is Mr. Rourke. His body busted and bruised, he looks and plays the broken down man who still has dreams of better times bouncing around in his head. Rourke plays this with aplomb and never mind a critique that might suggest he is just playing a version of himself. There is little in the movie that can't be seen coming but as a character study it does a nice job.
Marissa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood are supporting players as the stripper and estranged daughter respectively. Tomei shows a nice range (though she was better in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead). Wood has little to do and perhaps her talents are wasted. Some have even complained she should have been left out of the film entirely. I can't totally agree with this sentiment. My favorite single scene is one which involves Rourke and Wood as father and daughter. Having slowly begun the mending process of their relationship, the two dance around an abandoned room as if a waltz were playing.
Its a sentimental scene to be sure but since it seems quite inevitable that Randy will manage to mess up with his daughter again, it had a bittersweetness to it. All the possibilities of what might have been for this father and daughter if Randy could just get past his mistakes. Rourke sells the scene and the movie and although it wasn't a perfectly crafted film, you can bank on enjoying most of it thanks to Rourke.
Randy is old and his body is starting to show it. He uses a hearing aid, has some heart trouble and lives alone. He spends his time in his trailer, working to make ends meet and going to the local strip club where he has a flirtatious stripper who is also getting on in age. Randy has a broken relationship with his daughter and not much to live by.
The story is not perhaps anything spectacular. We follow Randy about his life as he struggles to live and faces problems such as being locked out of his trailer for failure to pay rent. We see him in the glory of the wrestling ring and the not so glorious time behind a grocery store deli counter. We often see this from an established behind the back shot that reminds one of a documentary or perhaps a wrestler entering the arena. Its novel for a while and at times works really well. At others it took me out of the story.
What we ultimately are really talking about in this movie is Mr. Rourke. His body busted and bruised, he looks and plays the broken down man who still has dreams of better times bouncing around in his head. Rourke plays this with aplomb and never mind a critique that might suggest he is just playing a version of himself. There is little in the movie that can't be seen coming but as a character study it does a nice job.
Marissa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood are supporting players as the stripper and estranged daughter respectively. Tomei shows a nice range (though she was better in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead). Wood has little to do and perhaps her talents are wasted. Some have even complained she should have been left out of the film entirely. I can't totally agree with this sentiment. My favorite single scene is one which involves Rourke and Wood as father and daughter. Having slowly begun the mending process of their relationship, the two dance around an abandoned room as if a waltz were playing.
Its a sentimental scene to be sure but since it seems quite inevitable that Randy will manage to mess up with his daughter again, it had a bittersweetness to it. All the possibilities of what might have been for this father and daughter if Randy could just get past his mistakes. Rourke sells the scene and the movie and although it wasn't a perfectly crafted film, you can bank on enjoying most of it thanks to Rourke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)