People: Not Pixar’s best friend.
Wait, wait, wait! Interesting? You think it looks interesting? A bunch of cliche mice talking about poop and a few other animated rodents is interesting? Jee-zuhssss…
And no, you won’t be seeing a review of G-Force on my website, but that’s only because I’ll be out of town all July and won’t have access to a computer at all, so… sorry there
I just finished watching Watchmen, and seeing the little attention it had gained despite its deep storyline and great characters, I feel that I should do a little reviewing after this. I know my Transformers review have yet to be completed, but that one’s a full in-depth review. This one, however, will be a brief run through… I think. 
To start off, let’s not talk about Doctor Manhattan’s genital. Yeah, it’s big, it’s blue, and it’s flopping all over the place on the 70 foot screen. From one point of view, you could say, “Well, the movie, just like the novel, kept it real.” John Osterman gets transformed, and as Dr. Manhattan, he probably wouldn’t be shy about being naked all the time. But, because everyone else is human around him, and as people, we all have our own levels of comforts, hangups, and lines of decency, Dr. Manhattan should have some common sense and go out and get some underwear. If he was that absent-minded, you know The Comedian would be the one to say, “Hey, dude, put that thing away.” Then to that, and the fact that he can alter matter, wouldn’t he just make it disappear when people were around? Also, how comes he lefts it hanging when he’s normal size, but when he’s the 200 feet tall Dr. Manhattan in Vietnam, he has to get some superhero jock strap. Why not really intimidate the enemy? Make them feel small in more than one way?
I do give credit to this movie for just putting it out there, but how could the filmmakers not know it will be distracting? But, remember, Watchmen is a graphic novel, and because of that, its target audience should be mature. If you’ve read it, you’d know that it deals with F-ed up people dressing up as would-be superheroes. They rape each other, kill criminals instead of bringing them to justice, and have distorted and emotional lives. A blue guy walking around without his undergarment is the least of their worries.
With that aside, I have to congratulate Zack Snyder and company for making a solid 2 hour and 45 minute version of the graphic novel. Now, that doesn’t mean it’s perfect, there are definitely some problems, so let’s talk about what worked, and didn’t, and the reason why.
But just a warning, I’m going to be talking spoilers, so, if you want to be surprised and don’t want anything ruined, get away from this post now, go watch the movie, and then come back and finish listening. I will be using the spoiler tags, but at times, I might miss something and leak some important information. So, if you want to play safe, quickly scroll down without stopping now.
~•The spoiling commence from here•~
Okay, let's talk start with what worked. First, of course, the visuals. A-effing-mazing. Zack Snyder definitely has skills in this area. What's nice here is that there is a mix of green-screen magic and just regular, good old fashioned live action sets and locations, and unlike in [i]300[/i], they are not totally the focus in overall. Here, they really add to the story and the characters. The movie also succeeds in adapting the graphic novel as well as anyone could have done considering 60% of the source material had to be cut out.
For this to be a movie, the main detective style of Rorschach [spoil]investigating The Comedian's death[/spoil] is the part of the structure that fits best to an American H-wood style mainstream movie. All the other backstory and character history elements are expandable when adapting - at least in theory - but in practice, they kinda aren't, especially when the main story of Rorschach is basically a device - a reason for the graphic novel to explore the human condition and [spoil]the American society in 1985.[/spoil] That's why, to me, the movie feels a little bit light in terms of emotional impact in the end, and that's the side effect of focusing on the main driving story and wanting to please the 'fanboys' - that's the area where the film is a real success, giving comic book geeks what they wanted. But that means that outsiders, or non-novel readers, were kinda left in the dark during the movie preview and left feeling a little bit empty because they didn't have the knowledge of the graphic novel to fill in the blanks of what was left out.
If this was to be a really great movie version of the book, more changes should have happened. This is the trick of adapting. In a movie, the spirit of the source material is what needs to be adapted - the meaning, not necessarily the images and the structure. There's been some criticisms that this is a dumbed down version of the book. If that's the case, it's just an inevitable side effect of the adaptation process. The decision was made to be faithful to the look more than the spirit, and as a result, some of the meaning is lost. Again, in an H-wood mainstream produced movie, there has to be a main character pursuing an objective with opposition challenging them and the struggle that goes towards the final climax and, hopefully, an emotionally satisfying resolution.
There are two major areas of the comic that are missing. First, the comic within a comic: Tales of the Black Freighter. Due to a huge amount of spoilers in the following paragraph, I'm just going to Spoiler Tag all of it.[spoiler]This is basically an allegory for Adrian Veidt, who we learn as [spoil]the figure of the masked heroes' deaths and the 'million must die for peace' secret plan.[/spoil] Adrian is just like the marooned castaway, who has optimism and servility at the beginning of his journey. This is shown at the early Crimebusters meeting that The Comedian cynically ruins. Adrian is hopeful about solving the world's problems, and so too is the castaway about getting back to his loved ones. But, as the pressures increase and the hopelessness sets in, each character is forced to consider more desperate, savage, and dehumanizing solutions, convincing themselves that the ends justify the means. This is Adrian's emotional and spiritual backstory, his mutation into a savage. [spoil]Later there's a line in the movie and the comic where The Comedian jokes about how humans are basically savages pretending to be civil.[/spoil] This ties in with The Black Freighter allegory. It's gone from the movie version, which is a correct choice structurally from an adaptation point of view. Bu, while it cuts down in the minutes, it also cuts down on the meaning of the overall story, the mood at the time, and the emotional impact of the characters. So, by the time Adrian informs what he did and why he did it, we understand him psychologically, but we aren't connected emotionally.[/spoiler]
Think of the whole adaptation process as sort of a Christmas tree, and as the ornaments and lights are removed, it becomes less and less a symbol of Christmas and more a generic tree. Its structure's there, but the elements that transform it into something with meaning are gone. Same thing goes here into adapting a novel into a movie. The more backstory and other elements of the graphic novel that you remove from a movie, the less it represents the original source material and the more it loses that original meaning.
The other major story it removed deals with [spoil]Rorschach's psychologist.[/spoil]
[spoiler]He's mostly in the novel for one chapter, but he undergoes a huge character journey, basically losing his faith in humanity and a person's ability to change, just like many of these mass crimefighters. The more they see in a criminal world, the less hopeful they are in making a difference in it.
In the book, we see the psychologist go home, becomes obsessed with Rorschach, and we learn that he's kinda motivated by the media glamor of having a high-profile patient. What's great about the chapter is the philosophy behind it. It's probably the deepest, most mind-blowing part of the book, titled, "The Abyss Gazes Also," which is a quote taken from philosopher Frederick Nietzsche.
This also ties in with Rorschach's mask, and the imagery here is awesome. The facial hood is the Rorschach ink blot, created by psychologist, Herman Rorschach, in 1921. It's basically designed for patients to reveal themselves without the typical 'question and answer,' analytical digging. Instead of non-stop question after question, it is an image shown to a person with only one question asked, "What do you see?" That's a metaphor for life. Our experience of the world is based on how we see it. One person can wake up and say, "Oh, god, another day," while another says, "Oh, god! Another day!"
The psychologist here, Dr. Malcolm, sees the world - the world being the Rorschach ink blot here - in a certain way through his perceptions. It's organized, knowable, understandable, and there's a standard of normalcy of mental health that he guides his patients to. But like Nietzsche says, "Battle not with monsters, less thy becomes a monster, and if you gazes into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. For Dr. Malcolm, the more he gazes into Rorschach, the more he starts to see the world through Rorschach's eyes, the colder and more cruel the world becomes.
By the end of the chapter, Malcolm is taking the test himself, remembering what he used to see - a tree, or something nice, but he's changed now. The ink blot shows him who he is now, not how he used to be before he met Rorschach. At this point, he realizes the real truth behind the image when he says, "The horror is this." In the end, it's simply a picture of empty and meaningless blackness; we are all alone, there is nothing else.
That's the power of the chapter - picking up the meaning of how we view the world and give purpose to it. That what the novel does to the idea of 'Superhero-ing.' What is justice? What is heroic? What's evil? Bad versus good? This adds to the climax of the story when we have to ask, "Did Ozymandias do something justified in the end?" We are viewing his actions like the ink blot, and we are giving it the meaning. There aren't any 'ultra-clear' answers presented to these questions, but it's impressive enough that the novel even bother to asks them and makes us even think about these ideas.
[/spoiler]
These are the elements that make it stand out from the rest of the comic world, and it's also materials like these that make it a real challenge to adapt to the movie. As it is now, Dr. Malcolm is in like two or three scenes of the film. His whole story, growth, and change are cut out, and because of that, we've lost the added meaning and exploration he add to the novel. He's just a 2-D character in the movie that's more of a functional structural tool so we can get Rorschach's backstory.
To include his journey in contribution to the theme of the story and the mood of reality, the filmmakers would have had to take the spirit of this character and his emotional journey and condense it and create some new scenes. But that would have pissed off the key demographic - the fanboys.
Now, let's talk about Rorschach's backstory. I like how it was handled, and it definitely helped us identify with him. The major change in it was [spoil]how he killed the child murderer. In the book, he chains the dude up and sets the house on fire. In the movie, he meat-cleavers his head over and over, and we were able to see all these hacks, added with some obviously CGI blood.[/spoil] So why did we get this changed? Probably because in 1985, [spoil]burning a criminal in his house[/spoil] seemed like a shocking move, but after 22 years of creative on-screen kills, through today's eyes, it seems weak, and tired. From the filmmakers' point of view, this is something that didn't seem like it will make us in the audience go, "Wow! Holy crap! That was cold!" and we wouldn't truly believe that Rorschach has lost his humanity.
I will post until this far, and will post more as I see fit. Hope you guys could offer some thoughts on my thoughts, while giving questions and arguments against any aspect you felt to be inaccurate towards your perspective. :wink:I agree PE will be wicked! I love gangster movies and Michael Mann is one of my fave directors after I watched Heat and Miami Vice. HP6, well, there’s not really a bad film so far, so I’m expecting this to be another good adaptation, not to mention this is one of the most important books in the series. As for Funny People, I saw the trailer a few minutes ago and think it looks well, funny and heartwarming. Real-life funnymen as stand-up comedians? Not to mention I kinda like Mr. Rogen’s performances. I can’ wait to see [spoil]Adam face off against an Australian! [/spoil]
“True to your heart, you must be true to your heart…” 
Me too. I have a feeling it’s gonna be real juvenile, but I’m a huge fan of action and espionage movies, so this should be fun. 
Yup, I’m hoping so too. 
Really? Hm… I kinda liked the first one, it was serviceable entertainment. I love how Dexter and Able [spoil]both thought of Mr Stiller as the enemy and slapped him at the same time![/spoil] Haha, I saw that from a TV spot, it’s now showing in Oz.
“You’ll never find… as long as you live… someone who loves you… tender like I do…”
I’m afraid I haven’t watched it yet, so I won’t read your review just yet. I did hear though from friends who have, that they have removed some story elements and made Roscharch out to be a bad egg instead of a victim of circumstances. Have you read the graphic novel by the way? It’s emotionally-draining, but thought-provoking at the same time.
Anyway, I’m really stoked now to see the Transformers sequel! I know this film has polarised a lot of the members here into two camps: those who think Mr. Bay could do with a lesson in scriptwriting (although he’s only the director, but you can argue he does have a say in creative choices), and those who couldn’t care less and just want to see a big, dumb, summer movie spectacle. I belong to the latter camp, and I don’t care how much they deviate from the original TV series (cos’ I never watched much of the original episodes to begin with) or how much they lack of a coherent plot. I just want to see big honkin’ extraterrestial robots destroy cityscapes and beat the living crap out of each other. Oh, and Megan Fox. Any storyline (which I’m sure there will be) will just be the icing on the cake.
I am so going on opening day! Autobots, roll out!
Well, that is your choice, but remember, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen could have all that (except maybe Megan Fox’s hot bod) and still be a Terminator 2 if it had been placed under the hands of James Cameron. As you said, Micheal Bay has skills, but that doesn’t mean Transformers 2 won’t be cinematic s***.
And of course, the reason I’m typing up all of these is because with each movie ticket purchased, Micheal Bay is encouraged even more that this is what fans want to see - shallow CGI action with no sense of drama similar to those in Terminator 2. This would be bad because with the moviepocalypse soon approaching us, good movies would soon, due to poor choices by the audience, diminish away, replaced by movies with hot chicks, cool lines, but no brains.
In other words, think before you pay, it might mean ruining the future of a good movie world.
My review of The Soloist is now posted over on my website!
I enjoyed your review, Dragon of Omnipotency. I watched Watchmen in the cinema having not read the graphic novel and really enjoyed it, though yes, I got the feeling that it was missing a few things and assuming that the audience had more knowledge of the material than it actually did. I love Rorschach though, what a character, and I’ll be buying the DVD when it’s released mainly because of him.
I’m pleased you addressed Dr. Manhatten’s rather, uhm, ‘naked’ issue. I have to say, it was very distracting! I just couldn’t take him seriously despite the fact that he’s meant to be this really powerful being.
Flare: Yeah, I’m aware of the power of consumers and how they ‘vote’ with their money. I always tell my friends not to support crap films coughDisaster Moviecough and give underappreciated ones like No Country for Old Men a chance instead (yes, the ending is weird, but by golly, I love that film).
Well, I guess one way to give Mr. Bay less dough without missing out, is to buy a ticket for another movie which you think deserves your hard-earned ‘moolah’ more and sneak in to watch Transformers instead (most of the time, the ushers will be at the corridor entrance, instead of the actual theatre’s door). That way, your struggling independents get your money, and you get to enjoy a big, stupid summer blockbuster! I’m too lazy to do that, not to mention I think TF2 deserves my cash because of the hard work of the visual effects artists to bring the robots to life (and not so much because of Mr Bay, since I know he can be a total jerk). I do know some people do that, so maybe you could try that if you want to enjoy TF2 without Mr Bay earning a single cent. It’s not cheating, since all movies cost the same more or less anyway. Of course, if you don’t want to watch TF2 in the first place, then feel free to go ahead and attend your appointed screening.
That’s cool. I wanna watch that, though I doubt it’ll get a release here. Looks good, though. Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey, Jr… It’s based on a true story, right?
Good review, TS2! I also saw The Soloist and I agree it wasn’t perfect, but still very inspiring and had great performances.
Dr. Manhattan’s blue penis wasn’t a distraction. He’s supposed to wear less clothes over the years as a sign of his lost of humanity. If Doc had cared about it it could have detstroyed the character, and if they had come up with something to cover it would have been a sign of the usual double moral of people like some in the MPAA.
At least they kept that. They destroyed lots and lots of thing from the novel so…
lizardgirl: Thanks. Rorschach’s character might be one of the most deepest character in the novel, very well thought out, but he’s just a part of a bigger picture, and that’s what made the graphic novel intelligent, requiring readers to have that same amount - or even greater - of intellect to truly understand its dark beauty.
I’m glad you enjoyed my review, but hang on, because there’s more I want to talk about.
Luke: Nice. I’m impressed that you are able to comprehend and process your opinion into my thoughts. I believe you have watched Watchmen and read its novel with true enjoyment.
I agree with what you said, that’s why I consider Watchmen to be a very daring film, wiling to go beyond borders other movies don’t have the guts to even touch upon.
Anyway, from here on, I will just place the large spoiler tags on everything that follows for both convenient sake and the sake of not revealing any single shred of spoilers. Just highlight everything below the “Spoiling Commence Here” warning for the best reading experience.
~•The spoiling commence from here•~
[spoiler]While what Rorschach's manner of killing the child murderer in the movie is way more graphic, we definitely feel the anger, rage, and dehumanization. You might be saying that Zack Snyder has a thing for over-the-top violence, but I think here, it adds to the character. I actually became pretty nervous at this moment of the movie. You could really feel Rorschach became an animal, and just like Ozymandias, he loses his hope and belief in people. It's also just like Dr. Malcolm - Rorschach has stared into the eyes of the killer and criminal and has become one himself. He looked into the abyss, and the abyss looked back.
This is a great example of a good adaptation decision, because another thing to consider is when adapting something older, you have to make it work for new audiences, so something that may have been shocking or amazing 20 years ago probably seems 'bored-inary' by now. It's the responsibility of the adapter to make it relevant in today's world - it's just part of the process. As long as the spirit carries over, the shape that manifests itself into is secondary. Again, it's like the ink blot; it's the meaning, not the shape that's important.
My favorite example of this is Rorschach's death. In the book, Dr. Manhattan blows him up, and there's a stain in the snow, but we see it from a side angle. In the movie, there's a great overhead shot, and the bloodstain is a Rorschach blot. It's an artistic opportunity that was missed in the comic the first time around, and capitalize here for a great effing moment. It's an example of the movie improving upon the original source material.
That's why I like this movie overall. It faced a huge challenge, and for the most part, it made the right choices - again, for the most part. Let's talk about the major area that I think hurt the movie - the music.
Not the score, but the songs that just interrupt and destroy the moment, mood, and emotions it's building like a phone ringing while you're making out with your boyfriend. The more I watch my favorite movies or classic pop culture films that we all remember, the more I realized that they all have great scores. Go ahead, think of your favorite films, I bet most of them have amazing music - [i]The Godfather[/i], [i]Star Wars[/i], [i]Jaws[/i], [i]Indiana Jones[/i], [i]Amelie[/i], [i]Silence of the Lambs[/i], [i]The Dark Knight[/i], [i]Alien[/i], [i]Aliens[/i], [i]Braveheart[/i], [i]Titanic[/i], [i]Casablanca[/i], [i]Cars[/i], [i]Toy Story[/i], [i]Finding Nemo[/i], [i]WALL•E.[/i] - and that's because the score reflects the characters. It highlights their themes and their feelings. If they are not developed enough as people, then the music has nothing to connect with, so it loses its anchor and gets lost - [i]and[/i], so do we.
The opening Bob Dylan song here, "The Times That Are Changing," is actually pretty great, and that credit sequence works really well. It's an example of the adaptation process taking the source material and presenting familiar material in a new and exciting way that fits perfectly within the film medium. But the music success stops there.
Next, we have the '99 Luftballons' moment, which is just totally goofy. I know it's set in the '80s, but the heck is that supposed to add to the story, or characters, or mood?! How does it reflect the crime-ridden nuclear tension of the times? It takes place during a moment when the Nite Owl and the Silk Spectre are meeting in some kind of coffee shop, and it plays for like, 15 seconds. It serves no purpose and doesn't reflect either of those characters' emotions.
The same thing could be said for Simon and Garfunkel's "The Sound of Silence," it turns the funeral into a hokey music video. Also, I know the choice of Jimmi Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower" connects back to the idea of [i]The Watchmen[/i], and how the lyrics actually have a reference to the title of Chapter 10, "Two Riders Were Approaching," which also ties in to the bible and the passages about the horsemen and the apocalypse approaching, but it's a good idea that doesn't really work. Why sacrifice the mood of the moment for a cool reference, or a song that maybe the director or someone involved in the production had always wanted to hear in a movie?
Also, technically, the lyrics should have been "Two Walkers Are Approaching" because for some reason, the idea of these sort of floating hovercraft segways that The Nite Owl and Rorschach use in the book is removed. This is an example of an adaptation screw-up, even though it's a small one. Why not just spend the money and create those hover-vehicles?
Overall, it's very tricky to use already established music in a movie. Probably, the master of this is Martin Scorsese. In [i]Mean Streets[/i], or even [i]Goodfellas[/i], Scorsese uses music that has a ton of cultural memories and meanings attached to it to add to the characters' journeys. Here, these songs seem way too forced, and the 99 Luftballons is actually the only one from the '80s, so you can't say it's done to create an '80s feeling, even though, maybe, in 1985, you have some radio stations playing golden hits of the '60s and the '70s, but why not just use the radio in the background, always have it playing around certain characters so that we are catching the songs in the background? I really wanted to laugh when these songs came on. They totally interrupted the mood instead of helping to create it and maintain it. So, let's ask, "What role does music play in a movie? Why is there even a score? Why not just have silence and have it all being environmental noise?
It all depends on story and characters. They're the ones determining the score and the music selection. If the story's about a DJ in a club, then guess what? The story will need a lot of already created pop culture recognizable and club hip-hop techno music. But if it's about a Jazz musician, then Jazz music's gonna reflect his or her world. Here, the characters are unique in a tense, dark, and depressed world bordering on anarchy. The score in any movie is a way of giving voice to the characters' emotions.
One of my favorite not-so-recent scores is [i]The Dark Knight[/i], especially the big swooping, heroic Batman action theme. It totally works. We feel the power of Batman going into action. Now, imagine if that was a rock song, like George Thorogood's "Bad To the Bone." It would totally change the mood. That song's actually used pretty well in [i]Terminator 2[/i], because in the moment it's used, it's designed to get laughs from us. It's a very self aware wink from director James Cameron. The rest of that movie is scored.
Scores become audio themes for characters in movies. In great movies, each character has their own variation on the overall theme of the score. Here, the best example is Dr. Manhattan's backstory flashback on Mars, which is Chapter 4 in the novel. This is really my favorite part of the novel and the movie, though a lot of great moments within it were cut out from the film. Not only is the structure amazing, with the [i]Slaughterhouse Five[/i] type jumping of time frames, but also the meaning behind that - how the photograph is like a star, a moment of past history, and that all we see in space are photos of how the universe used to look. The character development here in Manhattan is really nice, but what really adds to it here is the music. It's not original to this movie, but it thankfully matches up perfectly with the moment, mood, and character. It's by Philip Glass, taken from the 1982 film, [i]Koyaanisquatsi[/i].
It's kind of an experimental movie, but it's basically a visual poem of just images and music about humans, nature, and the out of balance relationship that they are involved in. If you haven't seen it, put it on your online rental queue right now. That movie actually ties in with [i]Watchmen[/i] because it's essentially one long ink blot. There's no narrative, and there's no dialogue, so there's no one telling you what to think or how to interper what you're seeing. It's basically a series of images and music, and any meaning the movie ends up having is provided by the viewer.
The music is the minimalistic repeating theme that feel scientific it has this quantum physic kind of tone to it, which is all added by Dr. Manhattan's character. If you watch the original film, [i]Koyaanisquatsi[/i], it has a different kind of characteristic where you feel this clash between nature and humans. So, it's a rare example of music intended for one kind of movie, one set of images, mood, and time frame, yet it gives meaning to something else. In this segment, we learn that Dr. Manhattan's dad was a clockmaker. So, the music also begins to have this 'ticktock' sort of pacing to it. Ultimately, I think we're hearing Dr. Manhattan's heart and his mind beating and thinking. It's like he's conducting a score.
If only this movie had given the characters similar types of themes, and this should have been reflected in the world. This is 1985, a cold war, tense universe, which needs a tone - just like New York in [i]Taxi Driver[/i], or the sinful city in [i]Se7en[/i], two movies Zack Snyder tried to emulate when making this. One of the best movies to mix score and soundtrack is [i]Forrest Gump[/i]. The themes reflected the emotions of Forrest, Lieutenant Dan, and Jenny, while the songs reflect the mood of the time, which is appropriate because Forest's life Americans' ways of reviewing 40 years of American and world history. The use of the songs here are appropriate, but here in [i]Watchmen[/i], it's kind of like heavy metal being played instead of piano at a fine dining restaurant. That's why, unconsciously, we feel disconnected from the characters and the overall effect of the movie. Mix that with the lack of backstory and motivation for Ozymandias, the Nite Owl, and Silk Spectre, along with the removal of the newsstand characters, who are really responsible for connecting us with the politics and the country, and we start to feel like associates instead of friends or family with this movie.
But I do want to give props to the cast, except the choice of the actor for the short crime boss figure in the jail who has a grudge against Rorschach,
Big Figure.
[img]http://www.avclub.com/assets/images/articles/article/24617/bigfigure_jpg_300x1000_q85.jpg[/img]
In the book, he's kinda like an old, short guy, but they decide to go with this actor:
[img]http://www.geekshow.us/wp/wp-content/uploads/Danny_Woodburn.jpg[/img]
Danny Woodburn
The problem is:
1. He's the guy from [i]Seinfeld[/i] who always hangs around Kramer, which means we all remember him from that role. Why would the filmmakers choose an actor who would create memories from the show in our minds when the rest of the cast is made up of actors who don't bring any preconceive notions to the movie?
1. He looks nothing like the character in the book. Up until this point, the look of the characters has been dead-on when compared with the look of the characters in the graphic novel. So, what the F here?!
Do you know who should have played this character?
[img]http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/modernmaterialist/2009/01/BenjaminButton-poster.jpg[/img]
Benjamin Button. Yeah! He looks more like the boss from the graphic novel than the [i]Seinfeld[/i] guy.
I was actually laughing a little bit here whenever he chewed his cigar and said his lines, mainly because part of me was waiting for the camera to pan up and show Kramer as one of his henchmen. Also, within this jail scene between the boss and Rorschach, there are climaxes that have been changed a bit. In the comic, Rorschach handcuffs the guy to the bars and the other henchmen slices his throat. Here, they step it up again, using a saw to just cut off his arms at the elbows. It's definitely an extreme change, but one that I, again, actually liked.[/spoiler]
So, anyway, I said as much as I could. I might conclude this whole review with another long post at another time. Till then, thanks for reading this far. :wink:I wish I can read your review, Flare, but I can’t till I’ve watched the movie lest I be spoiled. 
I do wonder about the images though, guess I’ll find out when I eventually get down to reading it!
Anyway, I just got back from watching Land of the Lost. I went in knowing it was based on the old TV show, so I ‘got’ the opening logo and the retro-looking costumes and set designs, unlike my theatre-mates. Will Ferrell returns to Anchorman and Talladega hilarity levels with his latest adventure, this time as an action hero; ‘quantum-paleontologist’ Dr. Rick Marshall. Anna Friel (Pushing Daisies) and Danny McBride (Pineapple Express) are along for the ride as a Brit scientist and a good-natured redneck respectively. Together, the trio encounter a lecherous ape-man, zombie lizard people, murderous insects, and a relentless T-Rex that pursues Rick at every turn!
There’s some nice action sequences and awe-inspiring music thanks to Mr Giachinno once again. Will works his ‘arrogant show-off’ character staple to a T, and McBride gave a decent performance as Will’s foil. Anna proves a worthy sidekick and love interest as Rick’s fan, and Cha-Ka, the monkey with a boob fetish, provides a few of the movie’s bigger laughs and gags. However, it is ‘Grumpy’, the unstoppable dino after Marshall’s blood, who single-handedly steals the show, his constant pursuit and taunting of Marshall throughout the entire movie becomes one giant ‘running joke’, sometimes quite literally! The CGI looks a bit cheap, but maybe it was meant to give that ‘cheesy’ aesthetic.
Downsides would be some of the ad-libbing, as in much of Will’s films and most comedies nowadays, get a bit tiring, and the show drags at some parts instead of being poignant downtime. The ads also deceptively portrayed it as a family movie, when in actuality, it has some pretty adult jokes sprinkled throughout. It also feels at times like they were moving from one skit to another instead of being a single cohesive adventure with a strong storytelling force, and some bits of the plot still confused me after the movie was over.
Overall though, it works as a good old-fashioned adventure movie along the vein of Indiana Jones or Romancing the Stone. The script could do with some tighter editing, but the action sequences were nicely done (and for the first time in a long while, the shaky-cam aesthetic was actually used effectively) and the score and sound effects lift what would otherwise be a tiresome field-trip into a rousing expedition into the unknown. This is one trip worth taking.
P.S. Stay for the credits for a surprise scene!
Rating: 3.5/5
Don’t worry about it, TDIT. I will be posting reviews of other movies as well, so just watch out for them.
Also, sorry for any inconveniences caused by my spoiler tags, but I’m about done with the end of this post.
~•The spoiling commence from here•~
[spoiler]Now, as I was saying, for today's audience, Big Figure's arms being cut off is more shocking and definitely makes you go, "Holy crap! That just happened?!" It also reflects the savageness of criminals, which is what the story is about; people acting like animals and losing their civility.
Now, let's talk about the Spice Channel softcore porn scene between Nite Owl and Silk Spectre. Overall, it's in the comic, but it's definitely not as hardcore as it is here in the movie. Also, the scene also has another weird soundtrack song; [i]Hallelujah[/i] by Leonard Cohen. Along with the Bob Dylan credit sequence song, this one kinda works as well for the most parts, but it goes on too long and it becomes a little comical. The scene in the book is definitely not as blatant, but it does have the nudity, and it does show the sexual hunger between the characters, all the way down to the detail of the flame shooting out of the ship.
Adapting a frozen image comic into a moving picture means filling in the blanks between images with movement, so, here, we definitely get to see a lot of the action. The only problem is that the moment should mean more to the characters and we should feel it. For the Nite Owl, this moment mean being empowered again, he's in denial that being the Nite Owl is his destiny, so he's become this nerdy-looking pervy guy that visits Hollis Mason and just whacks off to dreams about being with Silk Spectre - if she never leave Dr. Manhattan. For him, this moment is a rebirth, which the song is suppose to reflect.
For Silk Spectre, it means connecting with the man who loves her more than Dr. Manhattan can, since, everyday, he's becoming less and less human. This emotional phlegmatic level of the scene is totally missing. The meaning could have been captured with the closeups of their faces, glances of their hands and grips, instead of these softcore wide shots that distract you and make you think, [i]'Why are they showing this?'[/i] because you know that the minute we see her bazoombas, we're not going to be paying any attention to the story anymore, and when we see the curve of her butt being just like the moon in the background, you know the guys in the audience are thinking, [i]'Mental note: Get in line early the day the DVD comes out.'[/i]
This is also like the moment in [i]300[/i] when King Leonidas leaves the battle and have this wrestling match Spartan goodbye sex with his wife. The purpose of this moment seems to be that the reason for him fighting - to protect his country, his family, and, especially, the woman he's passionately in love with - can be shown. But, it's way over the top.
Here in [i]Watchmen[/i], I really wasn't offended or shocked by it, but I did wonder if it could have been used better to add to the story so that it felt like it belong because, again, afterall, [i]Watchmen[/i] is basically an adult-themed story, and the filmmakers deserve credit for keeping it raw, primal, animalistic, and uncivilized because those are the questions about humanity the graphic novel is trying to ask and answer.
The next area to talk about... whoa... hold, on, hold on a minute here... Okay, there's a whole lot to talk about here, but let's just save all those discussions for a full-length commentary in the future. For now, let me end this review with... the ending of the movie.
So, as we all know, the ending has been changed. Here, it's been altered so that it looks like Dr. Manhattan is the bad guy, the one that destroyed the city, and the enemy the world is gonna band together against. The idea here is decent and it basically captures the same spirit as the original idea, so you can't get too angry at these changes. It's another good example of good movie adaptation taking something from one medium and transferring the spirit and the overall meaning into the movie medium. But, some of the original power is lost because, in the book, even though it's a little silly, Ozymandias has created an alien-looking creature with a brain cloned from a psychic - I know, it sounds crazy - which, upon death, will send out a psychic signal filled with horrible images of death and an alien world. The people of Earth will believe without a doubt that the alien threat is real and they will band together to fight it. Again, it sounds really ridiculous and, I guess if they used it, we might have laughed it off the screen - or, if it was done right, maybe not. I like the idea of the psychic brainwash that makes all humans on Earth believe in aliens instead of what is used here, giving them too much credit to be responsible and, hence, cause them to join together against Dr. Manhattan. This means he will have to show up and create problems every now and then because if there is peace for too long, then people will get lazy, lose their idealism and return to their old ways.
More things about the ending have been changed, like the Nite Owl being outside when Dr. Manhattan kills Rorschach. Part of me kinda likes this because it makes his friendship with his old partner seem a little bit stronger. On the other hand, Rorschach is a loner, he doesn't really connect with people. In addition, in the graphic novel, Nite Owl's kinda self-involved and a little bit obsessed with the Silk Spectre at this moment, so it's kinda forceful here in the movie. Moreover, it doesn't help that the Nite Owl does the whole Darth Vader, Homer Simpson...
[b]'NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!'[/b]
for a bad dramatic effect.
Now, for everyone saying that the movie is too sex-obsessed: In the novel, after they've learned that Ozymandias has killed thousands of people of New York, Nite Owl and Silk Spectre go off into another room and engage in some booty time action. Again, that was suppose to reflect their disconnection from the world and attempt to find some human connection with each other because everyone around them is becoming less and less human and sex is kind of the most primal way to get in touch with basic humanity.
Probably the major flaw in the end here is our lack of understanding and connection to Ozymandias. I just wish I understood him better and connected with him like Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan so I could feel his realization of this twisted dream solution to the Earth's problems. There's a great line in the movie when he says, "I've made myself feel every death," and I remember sitting there thinking, [i]'Well, I'm glad you felt it, 'coz I sure didn't.'[/i] That's what happen when you take away the Dr. Malcolm storyline and the newspaper stand owner, who represents people's fears, and the kid reading the [i]Tales of the Black Freighter[/i] comic, which, again, represents Ozymandias' journey from idealistic, would-be superhero to the person who created this tragedy. But, these cut out characters are the regular people who die, and if we know them for just a bit, we'd feel bad for them, and we'd feel the impact and the horror of Ozymandias' solution. Maybe we will when it's released on the DVD as a director's cut - if it has an extra 40 minutes with the [i]Tales of the Black Freighter[/i] cartoon edited in.
Overall, the time limits forced onto this one is kinda funny because everybody is complaining about how long it is or how long it would have been. But, does anyone remember that the all time box office champ, [i]Titanic[/i], is 3 hours and 17 minutes long and the all time box office champ adjusted for inflation, [i]Gone with the Wind[/i], runs for 3 hours and 40 minutes? Let's not forget [i]The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King[/i] was over 3 hours as well. If a movie is good, the time will fly by and we the audience will watch it over and over. But, I guess the studio - or whoever that ordered the cuts - thinks everyone nowadays has ADD and can't pay attention for that amount of time, which is bull.
So, again, with the short timeframe here, I vote that this is definitely a solid adaptation. It took the safe route by preaching to the choir instead of trying to convert newcomers. While it's sacrificed some characters and some of the spirit of the novel, it's still a very [i]watch[/i]able, unique movie experience. The only way this could had really stayed true was to make some kind of 6 hours version of it, maybe a mini TV series or a trilogy. As it is, this is kinda like the first pancake - not perfect, but still edible.[/spoiler]
Again, there's a lot here to say about the movie, so let's agree to meet again when I feel it is necessary to create a full-length, in-depth [i]Watchmen[/i] review. We will have about 15 parts to break it down then.
So, thanks for sticking around this movie review. Let me know what you think!
:smiley: Until then, choose your movies wisely, because H-wood gives us more of what we pay for, and as always...
Long live good movies!I’ve managed to finish all the Harry Potter movies that were on DVD this week (thank whoever created the two dollar movie rental). It was entertaining, the effects are good, and it was easy to understand the plot. My only problems were [spoil]how many times Harry fainted[/spoil], [spoil]the absurd amounts of Deux Ex Machina moments[/spoil], and [spoil]I’ve never read the books, but is Lord Voldemort really supposed to look like a cancer patient who’s gotten his nose chopped off?[/spoil] And this is girly, but Radcliffe and Pattinson looked very handsome in their roles.Now that I’ve viewed this little gem, I’m very excited to watch Half-Blood Prince. The Harry Potter series is good in my opinion.
I’m really quite looking forward to Shutter Island. If anyone’s interested, I’ve provided the link to the trailer below:
I just saw Coraline. Oh my god, where do I start. The first half of the movie: BORING! But the second half? Oh my god. The second (And I think last) half, oh, my, god. It blew me away. When [spoil]her parents were trapped and wrote “Help Us”[/spoil]. I thought “Okay, creepy”. Same with [spoil]the ghosts[/spoil]. What happened to the other wannabe whatever that kid’s name was, the other him. I thought “Okay, even more creepy”. When [spoil]Coraline trapped her other mother and she shouted “NO! DON’T LEAVE ME TO DIE WITHOUT YOU!” and she was grabbing her. [/spoil] 
; I was thinking “Oh my god, what kind of kids movie is this?” But GREAT and rather strange and messed up movie. I would give it a 7/10.
When I first saw Coraline, the whole thing blew me away. I liked it a lot more than Selick’s other films, even though James and the Giant Peach was one of those movies that I loved as a kid. So, Coraline, 10/10!
Also I saw The Nutty Professer II: The Klumps, and hated it. Some parts were funny but it wasn’t nearly as good as the origanal, and I stopped about halfway through. 4/10
The following spoof interview transcript has been rated NB (No Bull).
Fact: My post made number of the total amount of posts for this thread look like the word, “leet” in the language of leet speak.
So, as promised in my moviepocalypse thread, I would post my thought on the M. Night Shyamalan movie, Lady in the Water. But, instead of me telling about what I think, why not let the director man himself talk to us about this movie?
[i]Welcome movie-loving peeps, I'm the [b]Dragon of Omnipotency[/b] from Pixar Planet forums, and I'm here with tonight's interviewee, M. Night Shyamalan, writer and director of Lady in the Water.
Thank you for being here, Mr. M. Night. Lady in the Water seems less mainstream than your previous movies. Were you worried about alienating potential audience members?
[b]M. Night:[/b] Screw the audience. I'm gonna do things that I know will be upsetting to the general population. I know it! Yet, I told my self I'm still gonna do it.
But, you ought to be worried. I mean, back then, I watched the preview a hundred times, and I still didn't know what the heck this movie was suppose to be about till I convinced myself to watch it.
[b]M. Night:[/b] Mhn hm.
Has anyone told you they like this movie?
[b]M. Night:[/b] My kids.
How did you get Warner Bros. to give this idea the green light?
[b]M. Night:[/b] (snickers) Tricki-trickier than I thought it would be.
Do you mean you tricked the studio heads?
[b]M. Night:[/b] First I tried to do it kinda straight, and then I realized that that wasn't gonna work.
But then you said, "Hey, listen up, you business suits-wearing crapheads, I'm the guy who made The Sixth Sense. Did anyone of you know Bruce Willis was dead the whole movie? No. That's right, you didn't. So, just sign the freaking cheque and let me make this freaking movie." Does that sound right?
[b]M. Night:[/b] Mhn hm.
Did you tell the producers that the movie is about a lady in a swimming pool,
[b]M. Night:[/b] Mhn hm.
and that the hero of the movie is a pool cleaner,
[b]M. Night:[/b] Mhn hm.
and that the bad guy is a porcupine werewolf monster?
[b]M. Night:[/b] Mhn hm.
Didn't anyone say, "M. Night, are you effing crazy?"
[b]M. Night:[/b] They weren't cynical. Not most of them, you know? (giggles) They weren't cynical.
Did anyone suggested the title, Pool Guy Vs. Porcupine Werewolf Monster?
[b]M. Night:[/b] Mhn hm.
Don't you think that's a better, more accurate, more exciting title?
[b]M. Night:[/b] Mhn hm.
So why choose such a bad title? I mean, it's not even accurate. She's not in the water in the entire movie, like the Bubble Boy is in the bubble the whole time. At least it could had been called, The Lady Who Came Out of the Water and Caused A Lot of Trouble.
[b]M. Night:[/b] Lady in the Water, which was a celebration, but not a celebration in the language that people tell me I'm allowed to do, but a celebration in my own specific language.
And, in a few words, how would you summarize your own language?
[b]M. Night:[/b] It's me going into the forest.
I have no idea what the heck that means. Can you rephrase that without the metaphorical nonsense?
[b]M. Night:[/b] I'm-I'm-I'm gonna screw the rules.
Was Lady in the Water your 'screw the rules' masterpiece?
[b]M. Night:[/b] I think with the other movies, I was happy to be, erm, working in the limits of a system.
So, Lady in the Water is your way of taking those limits and ramming them up the butt of that system?
[b]M. Night:[/b] Mhn hm.
Okay, let's take a break. My butt is asleep, I need to stand up. We'll be right back.[/i]Edited by Rachel - no excessive advertising, please. You can post your review here if you want people to read it.
I just recently watched Lilo & Stitch which is why I am suddenly obsessed with it all over again. <3 It really is one of a kind…in its design, story, character development and everything.