watchmen (2009)

when it comes to comic books and superheroes my knowledge and attention is fairly lacking. i have a historical love affair with captain america and a bunch of other marvel superheroes, and have a good grasp of the universe they exist in and the industry they are a part of. i am not an unreasonable man. i understand the technicalities that come with any adaptation, be it comic strip, tv show or prose novel, therefore i have never been one to bemoan the changing of aspects of a particular piece of source material to suit its newfound cinematic audience. with the unveiling of watchmen though, for the first time in my life, i found myself in the rather worrying predicament of acting a bit like a fanboy. i felt as though i had a god-given right to act as if the source material mattered enough to me so much that i had an opinion. ''this isnt like iron man, or batman" i thought, those films can exploit 50 plus years of history to their benefit, origins can be manipulated, scenarios can be changed, they do it in the comics so feel free to do it within the realms of film. with 'watchmen' though it was different, very different. the puzzle like nature of the book dictates that if a single ingredient is missing then a disaster could be afoot.

first of all changes to the ending were announced. many exclaimed blasphemy, whereas i wasnt hugely fussed. as long as they kept the message, the subtext if you will, then i will be happy. the second major negative mark against the films production was the employment of my chemical romance, pop-punk emo-supremo's to provide the films "theme-tune". not only that but it was a cover of one of my most beloved of songs, bob dylan's ''desolation row". "desolation row" provides what i feel to be one of the key inspiration points for the original ''watchmen'' book, in the shape of the line "now at midnight all the agents/and the superhuman crew/come out and round up everyone/that knows more than they do''. indeed the song is credited in the book, and the line is used to bookend one of the issues of the original comic that was collated to make up the now famous graphic novel. now my big problem doesnt lie in the fact that the song is one of my favourites, nor does it lie within the fact that my chemical romance are a terrible band (following record label ethics that surely contradict the message within 'watchmen'?), my problem lies in the very fact that zack snyder chose this band and this version of the song for his film. in his artistic opinion, this was the best he could come up with? really? the third and final negative pre-release woe came in the shape of the 30 second clips that were unleashed upon the internet just a few weeks ago. knowing full well that i would be seeing the film i didnt particularly want to check out the clips, for fear of spoiling the one aspect of the film that i didnt already know, but in the case of one scene i buckled. it was the scene involving nite owl 2 and the comedian on "crowd control" duty. in less than 30 seconds of footage i learnt 3 things. well i say i learnt 3 things, only 2 of those were new, whereas 1 was a confirmation of an earlier worry. the first piece of information was the confirmation that snyder really cant choose music. the scene in question, in which civil disruption turns into carnage at the hands of the comedian, features a riot, and is set in the 1970's. now whatever gave snyder the impression that 'im your boogie man' by k.c and the sunshine band was the soundtrack of choice for the keen rioter in the late 1970's i do not know, but it was a ridiculous decision, and indictive of his other musical choices, of which i will get to later. secondly, for all his good intentions, snyder just didnt get the look of this scene right. there was an ominous red glow involved in the original composition, and one which i always took to be a parallel with the scenes on mars. alas it wasnt replicated here. finally, thirdly, and perhaps most obviously was the apparent overuse of slow motion. in this one 30 second segment there were two uses of the damn technique. now im not exactly against the use of slow motion, but if ever there was a technique that required it be used in moderation then this is it.

so the run up to 'watchmen' wasnt particularly positive.

having seen the film this afternoon im actually confused as to how i felt about it. there were some great moments, and the film has a lot going for it, but i cant help but be ultimately disappointed by it.

as a literal translation of the comic strip-based action of the book then it worked fine. i was particularly impressed with jeffrey dean morgan as the comedian, and didnt find any of the performances especially lacking. the sidelining of 'moloch the mystic' and 'hollis mason', the first nite-owl was particularly annoying, being that they represent an area of the graphic novel that i found to be particularly of interest; the roots of the demistification of the superhero if you will. the pacing, obviously a victim through circumstance more than anything, really didnt work. the film didnt feel epic, as much has been made of it on various reviews, it felt slow, and lacking any kind of real heart. the all important subtext, without the contextual background provided within the book, didnt really exist. sure there was a mythology in place, plenty of opportunity for those who would like to seek out more to seek something out, but the subtext and message that were inherent throughout the source material is all but missing. a point that really got to me was the fact that the key point within the book that spells out the comedian and ozymandias' fate isnt in the film. there's a scene in the book whereby the comedian gives the young ozmandias. its a fleeting moment, but the nature of the assault mirrors the image of the opening section of the film perfectly; the roles are reversed and there was something rather poetic about the whole encounter. quite why the comedian fights back is again, beyond my comprehension. he has already accepted his fate by the time his killer strikes. for him to fight back (in the film) reaks of the filmmakers attempt at shoehorning action in. the fact that we lose the wonderful little bit of mirroring with the earlier (in the time frame of the narrative) event just adds salt to the wound.

the music, both score and found was awful, with particular woe being aimed at the use of leonard cohen's 'hallelujah' throughout the most embaressing sex scene i have seen in quite some time. seriously its just incredibly lazy filmmaking when you rely on such well known songs to project a feeling upon the audience. add in the use of 'the sound of silence' during the funeral march and you have something that i would expect from a student film.

one last negative - richard nixon? what on earth went wrong there?

as i mentioned above, the film translates the literal image of the book onto the screen in a very faithful manner. at times it genuinely does feel like the book has come to life, yet at others it feels like a shoddy rip off of the product it claims to be. the overuse of slow motion does wear at first, but after a while it blends into the edit and isnt especially noticeable. it would be nice to see snyder lay off on the slo-mo a bit tho, the final fight in particular would have benefitted from a bit of speed and realism, especially considering the nature of the participants attire. and while its the negatives that stand out the most, the overall experience was fine, just not necessarily alan moore's 'watchmen'; it wasnt great, but it wasnt awful either. it was just "ok", which is probably the most disappointing thing of all.

the visitor (2008)

tom mccarthy's follow up to ''the station agent'' proved to be a sleeper hit last summer, with a reinvigoration of interest after richard jenkins' oscar nomination. more importantly the film won the best director award at the independent spirit awards, a more telling sign of quality in my opinion.

"the visitor" tells the story of walter vale, a widowed college assistant who has all but given up on his work and life. when visiting new york for a work assignment he finds that a pair of illegal immigrants are living in his apartment. rather than removing the couple, he decides to let them stay, and over the course of the next 30 minutes or so we see their relationship bloom. vale learns how to be passionate again, through the course of learning to play the traditional drum instrument that tarek plays for a living. through a chance encounter the film takes a decidedly grim turn, and the focus is turned on topic of the american governments post 9/11 foreign policy.

richard jenkins is fantastic as walter vale, just fantastic. im not hugely aware of his work, i remember him from ''six feet under'', and have seen him in the recent "burn after reading'', but he is simply a revelation in this post. his character is reminiscent of that of finbar in mccarthy's previous "the station agent", in the respect that we dont feel like we want to like the character, or that the character doesnt actually want us to like them either. throughout the picture the character is unveiled though, and we learn to feel empathy towards him, and are willing him onto develop.

the themes of the film are pretty hard hitting, in the sense that injustice and political wrong-doing is on the screen for all to see. the film doesnt cop out and offer unrealistic answers, it simply shows us the cause and the realism that is the fact that very little can be done by the average person with regards to the situation we are witness to. visually the film is outstanding. the stunted pace of the film i complimented by languid, sparse arrangements that tie into the tone perfectly. mccarthy's style works as a counterpoint of sorts to wes anderson, with a similiar low key style but understated theatrics.

i was really affected by "the visitor", much moreso than i expected to be. its a wonderful piece of cinema that shows that the talented man at the helm is developing greatly as a cinematic force.

frost/nixon (2009)

as someone who is a bit of an obsessive with this political era in general i entered 'frost/nixon' with may doubts. ron howard is perhaps the epitome of ''safe'' filmmaking, hes hardly known for his visual flare or even his political gravitas (although the recent 'happy days'-themed obama campaign video he did with henry winkler suggests there is a heavy political awareness in the man if not his work) so with this in mind i was of the staunch opinion that he was the wrong man for this film, and that someone more obvious should have been in his position, say george clooney, aparently attached to the project post-''good night, and good luck''. alas i was wrong. howard pulled off the film with an unfamiliar strong kick. his work in the past has shown a tendency to lean towards the over-emotional, yet the extent to which it was used in "frost/nixon'' actually worked.

much has been made of the projects theatrical origins. many have said (presumably those who havent actually had the pleasure of seeing it) that the film didnt need to be a film, and that at best it would lend itself to a tv movie of sorts. i couldnt disagree more, ''frost/nixon'' is a film that needs to be seen on the big screen. the whole 'theme', for want of a better word throughout of ''the power of the close-up'' is a unique and hugely strong point that exhibits itself throughout the film, and is one of the best uses of the technique that this viewer has ever seen. the cut of the film is very cinematic too, and while the scenes of the now-older participants commenting on the importance of what was happening jars and distracts a little, ultimately its a much more cinematic and powerful experience than maybe one would have anticipated.

while the fancy shooting and cutting may impress, ultimately it comes down to the performances in such an intimate project. having never been terribly impressed with michael sheen's turns as tony blair (iv often considered him to be a poor mans david tennant) i have to admit that i was sold on his david frost. frank langella as richard nixon is a powerhouse of a performance. he owns the screen, and while compared to the actual frost interviews his performance may be slightly bombast, its still a great perfomance that lends an emotional side to nixon that i had never considered prior to this. the best actor contest at this years oscars truly is a thing of great deliberation, what with langella being nominated alongside sean penn in milk and mickey rourke in the wrestler, both of which i have enjoyed hugely. as of the moment my money is going on langella, maybe not for the right reasons (i see it as a career oscar) but still justly deserved.

milk (2009)

i was lucky enough to go to a preview screening of milk tonight. to be honest it was the one film of the oscar season that i was least looking forward to seeing; im a big fan of penn but from the publicity material milk looked to be the sort of film i would have usually expected to see the likes of tom hanks in, it just screamed "give me an oscar"! add to this the fact that im hardly a fan of gus van sant and i entered the film with trepidation.

alas i was wrong. milk proved to be a beautiful and stirring piece of cinema. it satisfied in just about every way, be it in the emotions of the characters or the thrills one wouldnt usually associate with this sort of story. sean penn puts in a great performance, which is fairly important considering hes in practically every scene. josh brolin leads a strong support cast, with great turns from emille hirsh, diega luna (nice to see him post-y tu mama tambien) and especially james franco (who proves to be a complete and utter revelation.

for me the oscar race has heated up. i didnt really consider milk to be much of a contender, but after tonight i find it difficult to believe that there has been a better performance this year than that of sean penn as harvey milk.

che - part one (2009) & che - part two (2009)

this afternoon i had the privilage of seeing steven soderbergh's epic biography of eduardo ''che'' guevara in one piece on the big screen. the entire film lasts just under 5 hours, and features a 15 minute scored intermission and credit booklet.

five hours for a single feature is a new record theatrically for myself, yet the hours flew by. in fact i would actually compare it favourably to the running time of "australia" in a way, as both are big screen epics that iv seen recently.

benicio del toro is amazing in the title role, to put it simply. he embodies the character, and indeed the figure in a way that i cant imagine anyone else doing so. why there hasnt been as much acclaim im not sure, its one of the strongest lead roles iv seen in a long time. in terms of differences in the character between the two films, che is much more prominent in the first part, whereas hes slightly more in the background in the second. i like to think of the first film as the introduction to the character, both literally and figuritively, whereas the second one explores the influence of the man, again both literally and figuritively. the supporting cast is as epic as the running time, with all proving worthy counterparts to del toro, with santiago cabrera proving a bit of a stand out as one of che's cuban comrades. an appearance from matt damon as a middle aged german preacher proved popular too.

"che" is soderbergh's return to form, after a pretty poor 8 year run (his last truly great film being 2000's "traffic", incidently del toro's finest role to date). drawing comparisons to pontecorvo's "the battle of algiers", alongside the work of terrence malick, the film (s) proves a real joy, is genuinely exhilerating and the first of what is looking to be a great first month of 2009.

W. (2008)

in a week that has seen a great deal of change in the oval office, i looked forward to spending a couple of hours looking back at the current admission in full knowledge that world politics was now devoid of the idiocy on display in oliver stone's current picture. "oh how we'll laugh!" i thought, and looked forward to seeing the film a great deal.

first things first. the good. josh brolin as bush is wonderful. his performance is inspired, if not up to his recent work with the coen brothers.

in all honesty brolin's performance is the one positive from the experience of seeing W. the main problem stems from the fact that the film doesnt seem to know what it is. a times its high drama, while at others its a second rate comedy, aiming at far too obvious targets using comedically unaccomplished actors. top of the pile of mediocracy is thandie newton, here supposedly playing condoleezza rice, although i personally dont consider a routine of tics and exagerated mannerisms to be much of a performance. i genuinely cant think of a worse performance that iv ever seen in a film, it brings the whole thing down to the level of a quickly produced saturday night skit.

im not the worlds biggest fan of oliver stone. jfk is a complete and utter masterpiece, one of the greatest films ever made, but aside from that i consider his body of work to be fairly lacking. his most recent work especially seems to lack the political bite that his earlier work had, which is particularly strange considering that his last two films have been about 9/11 (world trade centre) and george bush.

one positive thought that did come out of this fairly mediocre experience was the concept of time contextuality in film. let me explain - i saw W. two days after the new president elect was chosen, therefore my experience was much different to how it would have been had i seen the film two days before barack obama's victory.