Who Still Watches Watchmen?

As Zack Snyder settles into his Netflix tenure making whatever he wants to lesser and lesser success (at least critically), I find myself more drawn to his previous work, especially Watchmen (though I’ll keep watching everything he does, since I’m a fan and truly want to like his work). I loved the film at the time, and as my superhero fatigue grows worse each year, the movie seems even more relevant. It’s a nice diversion from time to time since it’s so self-contained. And since it’s been fifteen years since I wrote anything about it, I thought it was time to revisit why I still watch Watchmen.

Adapting Pre-Existing Worlds

Since his split with DC, Snyder has made three original films, Army of the Dead and the two Rebel Moon movies. All three have been critical failures, and I personally have found them either just okay or disappointing. Upon rewatching some of his previous, and more popular, work, it occurred to me that Snyder works best when adapting existing work. Even though the three films he’s made are extremely derivative of other works (the zombie genre, Star Wars, etc.), they are technically original meaning he has to work with a blank slate.

I love films like Watchmen, 300, and the DC stuff because Snyder is able to work with an existing visual story and bring it to a new medium. He doesn’t have to focus on creating anything, leaving all his attention to building the atmosphere of a world a built-in fanbase is already aware of. I’ve always been a bigger fan of Snyder’s style over his substance, and Watchmen is the best example of this. 

The world of Watchmen is so slavishly recreated here that I often revisit it because I want to experience the setting. It makes for nice, though often disturbing, background noise. Snyder was criticized at the time for being too concerned with recreating the comic book rather than actually adapting it, but that’s what I like about it. 

The score, the looks of all the characters, especially Dr. Manhattan, and the city make this a rewatchable film for me. Using all the visual elements of the book, Snyder was able to simply bring the locations to life. I enjoy getting lost in a graphic novel like Watchmen, and the movie, for better or worse, recreated that world.

There are certainly plenty of differences from the source material, and re-reading the graphic novel is something I enjoy doing, but it’s a lot faster to just turn the film on to get a quick fix of the Watchmen world.

That is what saddens me about this Netflix phase of his career. He’s been given free reign, and now he’s suddenly more worried with trying to come up with semi-original concepts rather than finding an existing property to adapt. He’s still working with huge budgets for this stuff, so it would be so much better if he could pick a graphic novel or more obscure comic book series and have Netflix buy the rights. I’ll watch whatever he makes, but I hope the next film is an adaptation, because he seems to work better within the limits of a pre-existing world.

Having Your Cake

Another criticism of the film is that it’s too much like a standard comic book movie with its focus on heightened violence while it’s supposed to be a satire of the genre. This isn’t entirely Snyder’s problem; it exists in the book. Sure, there aren’t as many gruesome close-ups, but there is plenty of blood in the book. Perhaps the movie goes too far at times, but overall I’m okay with it, because the result of violence is important. You see bones and blood, and it’s horrifying. Yes, part of me will always be a thirteen-year-old gleefully saying, “Oh, shit!” when I see stuff like that. But the movie fan in me currently suffering from severe Marvel fatigue appreciates the consequences of the violence. 

In Watchmen, every scene of violence is extreme. But in something like, say, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (which was a bit of a breaking point for me), there’s a moment during a fight in which one of the fighters gets seriously injured, and everyone stops like they had been play-fighting and someone had taken it too far. These are supposed to be superhumans fighting to the death, and when someone gets hurt, they call timeout? I get that Disney is worried about the kids or whatever, but I’ll take brutality over that weak shit every time.

When violence becomes so bland and commonplace that no one ever seems to get truly hurt, it loses its impact. I find the Marvel treatment of violence to be much more damaging to young eyes than Watchmen’s (not that I’m showing this to my kids anytime soon). At least in Watchmen, violence is horrific. And sure, the wrong audience (and wrong part of my brain) will find it awesome at times, but for the most part I’ll have the correct response and find it repulsive and disturbing. I would rather an audience be disturbed by violence than be numbed by it.

Which Cut?

Zack Snyder is getting up there with Ridley Scott when it comes to director’s cuts, and Watchmen is a perfect example of that. I saw the nearly three-hour theatrical cut a couple times in the theater, then bought the slightly over three hours director’s cut, and finally ended up with the three and a half hour Ultimate Cut, which is just the director’s cut with all the Tales of the Black Freighter stuff added. So when I revisit it, I have to make a choice.

As a lazy man, I tend to rewatch Watchmen on Max instead of getting out my blu-ray copy. But even with Max, there’s more than one option. If you just play the movie, you get the theatrical cut, but if you go to the extras section, the Ultimate Cut is available. I actually prefer the director’s cut, but I sold that copy after buying the Ultimate Cut, not realizing that the Ultimate Cut didn’t also include the director’s cut (physical media was very complex fifteen years ago). So I typically go with the indulgent Ultimate Cut when I revisit the film.

Since it’s essentially the director’s cut, if I’m giving the film my full attention, I’ll scan through the Black Freighter stuff as I watch. It’s not that I don’t like that stuff (it’s always nice to hear Gerard Butler using his normal accent), I just find it too jarring. In the comic, it’s not a big deal to go from a comic panel to a different type of comic panel. But for this film to go from this cinematic world to an animated pirate story just takes me out of it. 

As for the director’s cut, there are quite a few moments that I love that have been added. Dr. Manhattan transporting the entire TV studio is better than in the theatrical cut in which he transports from there to Mars. And the original Nite Owl’s death scene is one of the best moments in the entire film. For those two moments alone, I’ll always go with the cut that includes them.

But director’s cuts can take away some things, too. I already liked the theatrical cut, so a couple small things got changed that bother me every time I watch it. First, there’s a transition in the theatrical cut from Rorschach looking at the Minutemen picture in Comedian’s closet to the same picture in the original Nite Owl’s apartment. In the director’s cut, the scene in Comedian’s apartment needlessly continues as Rorschach fights a cop. It just adds a little more unnecessary action and takes out a good transition. 

The second issue I have is with the intro of the Comedian in Vietnam. In the theatrical cut, we first see him in the close up of him lighting his cigar with the flamethrower. In the director’s cut, he’s shown firing a gun from the helicopter, landing, and walking, in slow motion, of course, before we get the close up cigar lighting. 

These might seem like minor quibbles, but when you see something the first time and like it, it’s hard not to find the new version a little lesser. I suppose this is what all the original trilogy people feel like when they see the Star Wars Special Editions. 

But the good outweighs the bad, and with streaming now (or blu-rays that include every cut), I have the option to watch whatever I want. It’s not like it’s changed forever. 

Random Thoughts

That fucking Nixon nose…

The older I get the more I’m like the Comedian at the beginning of this: skipping over news and trendy shit and enjoying something nostalgic, or in this case, literal Nostalgia. I still want to watch as many new movies as I can, but I equally enjoy rewatching something I love, like this, even when I could be watching something new. I just want to sit back and lose myself in the past.

I will always love the opening credits, especially since I’ve become a much bigger Dylan fan since this first came out, but the Batman shot has always bothered me. So the implication in the first shot is that the original Nite Owl is thwarting the robbery that would have created Batman outside the Gotham opera house. But Nite Owl is in New York City…and there are Batman posters in the scene. I know I’m dissecting this too much, but I think this is a case of not having enough faith in the audience to put together what this scene is meant to represent, so Snyder tacked on the posters to hit you over the head with it. But come on, Snyder, we all see those fucking pearls on Martha’s neck; we get it.

I never understood the “Good luck, Mr. Gorsky,” line when Manhattan is filming Neil Armstrong on the moon. I assumed Gorsky was the name of a cosmonaut or something, but it turns out there’s an urban legend that when Armstrong was a kid he hit a baseball into his neighbors’ house, the Gorskys. While retrieving the ball, he heard Mrs. Gorsky yell, “Oral Sex?! You’ll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!” First off, how the fuck did anyone ever believe such a story? Secondly, what a weird thing to say in response to a blowjob request. Anyway, it’s bullshit.

Dr. Manhattan is handled perfectly in this. I imagine even haters of this movie enjoy his origin sequence, at least.

And Crudup deserves a lot of credit for it, too. His voicework is great when being gentle and sad, and even better when he finally loses it.

A lot of needle drops catch shit in this movie, but I love the use of “99 Luftballons” and to this day I think of Watchmen when I hear it.

I am not as big a fan of the use of “The Sound of Silence.”

“Mother, it’s two in the afternoon.” Am I just a drunk, or does that not seem like such a crazy time to be drinking? If it was ten in the morning, then maybe the line would work for me.

“I’m sixty-seven years old.” That line always makes me laugh. It is from the book (though it’s sixty-five there), but it’s just focused on so strangely in the film. And it’s not that vital of a line from the book, so why include it?

Same goes for “What happened to the American dream?” Yes, it’s from the book, but it’s not framed in the same way as the film, it comes across as more conversational. Some lines from books, especially comic books, just don’t work in film.

“I said, ‘Leave me alone!’” Gets me every time. Moments like that make me forget my minor issues with the film.

And then seeing Nixon’s nose brings me right back out of it. I just don’t understand why he’s featured so prominently in this. In the book, they keep him in the shadows or off-page, but when he is shown, it’s a realistic aging of him, they damn sure don’t double the size of his nose.

The attempted assassination of Veidt is one moment of extreme violence I don’t agree with, but it’s mainly because of Snyder’s now-famous love of slow motion. Instead of showing the scene in full speed, which would convey the famed speed of Veidt, it’s shown in slow motion, so we can see all the grisly details. Once again, I’m all for splattering blood all over the audience to hammer home the shock of violence, but this moment relishes in it too much.

Lee Iacocca taking a bullet between the eyes always amuses me, mainly because I found out later that he had no idea about it until a reporter contacted him for a quote. Imagine getting that call, “How do you feel about being shot in the head in the new comic book movie coming out this weekend?”

There’s no way a prison cafeteria has ever been set up with the fryers that close to the inmates, right?

I remember “Hallelujah” by Leonard Cohen catching the most crap when this first came out, and while I understand why such a song during a sex scene is groan-inducing, it was actually the first time I had ever heard the song.

There’s plenty of cheesy stuff in this film that is directly from the comic, and the Archie flame/cum shot is the worst of them all.  

Is the revelation of the newsstand guy and comic book reader having the same name (Bernard) the origin for Snyder’s Martha moment in Batman v Superman? If so, he didn’t listen to the comic book Bernard, who says, “Not big a deal. There’s lots of people called Bernard.”

And while I love the weirdness of the giant space squid in the book, I do think changing it to a supposed Dr. Manhattan attack is the better choice.

Veidt is watching The Road Warrior, Marvin the Martian, “Addicted to Love,” some porno, the “1984” Apple commercial, his own Nostalgia commercial, Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie, Fail-Safe, The 300 Spartans, Rambo: First Blood Part Two, This Island Earth (which you also see a poster for in the book), the MTV intro, the “Where’s the beef?” commercial, and some other stuff I didn’t recognize or couldn’t figure out from the credits.

"Synecdoche, New York"

Synecdoche, New York - Written and directed by Charlie Kaufman, starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, Samantha Morton, and Tom Noonan - Rated R

Where to start with this one? Synecdoche, New York is a complicated, funny, depressing, disgusting, impressive, ambitious, and beautiful film about playwright Caden Cotard (Hoffman), who may or may not be dying and his attempt to stage a play about everything that takes place in a constructed New York within a giant warehouse with people becoming characters and characters becoming people. So this is standard stuff for Charlie Kaufman (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Adaptation) but maybe not so standard for the average filmgoer. The story is much more complicated than I just put it, and looking back at my sprawling single sentence description, that's saying something. The trick is to watch this movie without trying to understand every bit of it. It's a lot like reading Shakespeare (I'm not saying this is as good as anything Shakespeare wrote, but the the best way to watch/read this film is similar to reading Shakespeare). You might come across words you don't understand in Shakespeare, but the language sounds great and if you can get the main point out of the overlong speeches, then you'll do okay. If you sit there and try to understand every word of a Shakespearean play, then you will probably not enjoy it. Same goes for Synecdoche. If you ask yourself why does this character age and this one doesn't?, or who is this new character and why is she taking up so much screentime all of a sudden?, then you will not enjoy this film. You can analyze it, but looking for some definite meaning behind it will only leave you angry. So don't just try to figure out "what's really happening" in this film, allow yourself to watch it first.

Now that my opening rant is over, let me say that I did enjoy this film. It wasn't life changing or anything and it didn't really make me evaluate my life (more on that later), but I was constantly interested and Philip Seymour Hoffman gives possibly the best performance of his career. I know he's done the whole depressed, mumbling artist before (The Savages), but I hated his character in that film. I found myself hoping for the best for Caden Cotard in this film, even though he comes across as a bit pretentious and selfish. Okay, not a bit, he is completely selfish and completely obsessed with himself. He puts on a play of his own life, then has somebody not only play him, but also play him directing him, while he watches it all. It's a fine line between ambition and selfishness, yet I enjoy watching him. And he plays an old man to perfection. It's almost creepy how much he changes throughout this film. And the performances around him are very good as well. I thought Samantha Morton was great and Tom Noonan really stood out as Caden's stalker/portrayer. Catherine Keener did a good job, but I wish she would stop playing these disconnected, miserable wives who end up being even more selfish and despicable than the disconnected husbands that she's leaving in the first place. So she was good in that I hated her character, which may not have been the point, but it created a reaction for me, so there you go.

It may seem like I haven't necessarily explained what the movie is about, so I want to point out that this film is really an examination of life in general. There may be theories of the afterlife, the subconscious, the fear of death, the awkwardness of relationships, but all of that adds up to life in general. Just listen to the characters discuss the play. When they talk about the play, they are talking about the movie. It's almost like breaking the 4th wall, but I thought it was an interesting way for the filmmaker to reach through to the audience and say, "you are all right and you are all wrong. It's about life, so it's going to be different for each living person." But the film isn't so strange that it's all about interpretation. There is a straightforward story here, but it's about more than just a play. Also, one of the strangest things is the film is a constantly burning house. This may turn some people away as being too stupid or absurd. But it is a cool and funny idea, really. And if you can accept it and continue with the movie, you'll be doing yourself a favor.

The burning house is just one of the interesting visuals. Just imagine a portion of New York City in a giant warehouse, with a second warehouse and a second NYC , and then a third. Anyway, it looks amazing when you see a New York skyline with a warehouse roof above it. It's massive and impressive, without being too showy. Obviously this is not an effects driven movie, but it does contain some impressive visuals that are there for the story, not vice versa.


Now on to Kaufman himself. I'm not sure if I really like his work. It's all interesting, but sometimes it comes off as being complicated for the sake of being weird. I didn't get that feeling with this film. It might be because he directed this one. It's his first directorial effort and that might be the most impressive aspect of it; that he would attempt such a complicated film for his debut. I don't think he'll match this film, but his directing career is certainly going to be interesting.

I had to wait on DVD for this (since I think it expanded to a total of 50 theaters before it was pulled) and I checked out a few special features. There's a behind the scenes type thing that covers multiple aspects of the making of the film. A featurette with Hoffman talking about his character which I turned off because it was late when I watched it and it was about to put me to sleep. There's a conversation with Kaufman and some British guy that I did fall asleep during because the British guy didn't seem to know how to talk to Kaufman. But there is one interesting feature, a five-person conversation about the film with five critics/bloggers. It's interesting and a must-see if you want to know about some of the philosophical references (which I completely missed because I'm just not into philosophy, which might be a philosophy all it's own...). Apparently Caden's last name of Cotard refers to a syndrome in which a person believes that he/she is dead, dying, or missing/losing organs. There's a few more, but you're better off watching the feature for yourself. Just make sure you have a dictionary handy, these guys are pretty uppity and love to throw out references to obscure films and they love to use words that nobody uses in everyday language. But there's good information in their conversation, even though I think their emotional reactions to the film are exaggerated; one guy claims he must drink after watching the movie, one claimed that he went into a two week depression after watching it, and at least three of them admitted to weeping either during or after the film. Maybe these critics are much more in touch with their emotions than I am, but I think the majority of the people out there are not going to be that changed by this film. It is just a movie after all. The critics also claimed that this film will cause you to examine yourself more than the film. I have to disagree. I was able to look at the film for what it was, not as a referendum on me, personally. Sure, I can relate to aspects of it, but you know what? I can relate to aspects of Transformers, but we don't mention reactions to movies like that. I'm sorry, but Synecdoche, New York and movies like Transformers do have something in common, they're movies and they are meant to entertain. So ignore some of the more pretentious critics of this film and remember that it is not an essay on philosophy and it's not a pyschological exam made just for you. It's a movie, enjoy it.

Few more things: There's a podcast called the Slash Filmcast (you can find it on iTunes or at http://www.slashfilm.com/) that recently reviewed Watchmen along with Kevin Smith. It's lengthy and they talk about almost everything that I wanted to talk about with it, so check that out if you want more Watchmen stuff. And check it out if you like movies in general, because those guys are by far the best of all the movie podcasts out there. They don't just agree with each other, like most podcasts, they have actual conversations. And they are going to do a show on Synecdoche, New York soon and it will certainly be interesting, with many different interpretations.

Almost forgot, if you're wondering about the title, it's part a play on words because the film takes place in or near Schenectady, New York. And the word synecdoche itself is a figure of speech that uses a part of something to refer to the whole (i.e. faces in the crowd referring to complete people) or vice versa. Look up some more examples if mine doesn't make sense. But the point is that the play he's putting on is a part of life referring to life in general, but sense it's a play, it's really not life...or maybe not. That's what I gathered from it, though. But everyone's different.


Next: Happy-Go-Lucky, possibly a retro review of RoboCop, and I might check out Knowing.

"What Just Happened" / "The Mosquito Coast" / "Watchmen" (second viewing) / "Milk" DVD

What Just Happened - Directed by Barry Levinson, starring Robert De Niro, Bruce Willis, and John Turturro - Rated R

What Just Happened is a behind the scenes look at what it's like to be a producer in Hollywood. It's based on a book by real-life producer Art Linson (who also wrote the screenplay). With De Niro as the producer and Bruce Willis playing himself, I expected this movie to be hilarious, but it is mediocre on nearly every level. First of all, the book used true stories and included the names of actual actors involved in them. Even though the stories are still the same, I wanted to know who these stories were based on. Especially the British director (Michael Wincott, who steals every scene he's in) subplot about changes that are forced on him. The changes involve a scene in which a dog is shot in the head onscreen, which I found hilarious because I've comented a hundred times about the fact that a villain can kill countless humans and no one bats an eye, but hurt a dog and you are evil incarnate. So I enjoyed that aspect and Bruce Willis appeared to be having fun in his freak out scenes (he plays himself and he refuses to shave his beard for a role).

But that's where the fun ends for me. The sped up car scenes were annoying. I didn't care about De Niro's most recent divorced wife, much less the older one. I had no feelings toward his character whatsoever, really. I didn't want his film to fall apart, but I didn't want it to succeed, either. If this movie's goal was to show that no one cares about anything in Hollywood, then it succeeded. And that may very well have been the goal, but when it creates an indifference in me, the viewer, then I'd rather not watch it. That's really it. I expected to laugh a lot, but I was completely indifferent to the whole thing. I assume actual Hollywood people like it, though, so about 0.005% of the audience was pleased.

The Mosquito Coast - Directed by Peter Weir, starring Harrison Ford, Helen Mirren, and River Phoenix - Rated PG

I know this came out in 1986, but I want to throw in an older movie now and then if impresses me. The Mosquito Coast is about a troubled genius (Ford) who decides to uproot his family and move to a Central American jungle devoid of civilization and build an ice factory. When I read the synopsis I was instantly interested. Something about people going deep into the jungle where only a boat can reach always seem to appeal to me (my favorite films include Apocalypse Now, Aguirre, and Fitzcarraldo). I guess I've skipped this for so long because the poster for it is ridiculously boring. Sure, Ford has a troubled look on his face, but that's all it is, and doesn't he look a lot like Kurt Russell there?

Early on this movie had my interest. Hearing Ford rant about the problems with the world and how a war is about to happen is pretty entertaining. He goes off with such ease so I instantly bought into his character. Hell, a lot of the stuff he says makes sense, now more than ever. When he takes his family to the jungle and starts to build his own mini-civilization I was still with him. I even found it believable that his family would go along with no complaints because it is established early on that he is eccentric and moving to the jungle might not seem like that crazy of an idea to all of them. But it's not all good times and eccentricities. Eventually, you start to see that Ford might be losing it. He treats his children with extreme harshness at times (mentally, not physically). And while his wife (Mirren) is adamantly by his side, his two sons start to see the problems. Especially River Phoenix, who also provides narration. Phoenix stands up well against Ford and the two truly seem to have a familial connection onscreen.

Weir doesn't do anything special in this film, but he does have a few nice shots of nature and river travel, which leads me to believe that he was heavily influenced by Werner Herzog (Aguirre and Fitzcarraldo). I half expected Ford's family to come across Klaus Kinski hauling a steamboat up the side of a mountain at one point. The world of Fitzcarraldo and The Mosquito Coast is not too far apart. And if you haven't seen either of the Herzog films mentioned, please check them out, you won't be sorry.

There are tons of thought provoking questions to this film. Is civilization becoming too material? Where does God fit into all this? (That question is handled with a kind of bookended plot involving a missionary priest.) What do humans really need to survive? There are more, but the point is that this film makes you ask yourself how you would handle life in Ford's new civilization. I wouldn't last nearly as long as the characters in this film.

Watchmen - Second viewing

Just a few things here. I wanted to check out Watchmen on a regular screen the second time to compare, but I ended up in IMAX again, so I've got nothing on that. I will say that I enjoyed this film just as much the second time as I did the first. And that was the main thing I wanted to find out: does this film stand up to a second viewing? For me, it absolutely did and I want to watch it at least one more time before the theatrical run is done especially since the screenwriter (David Hayter) has now put out a call to all Watchmen fans to watch it again to boost the box office take because he thinks, and I agree, that if this movie doesn't make more money then no studio will allow another one like it to be made again.

Milk - DVD

I also watched Milk again and while I disagree with the Academy on giving Penn the Oscar over Rourke, I still think this is one of Penn's best performances. And I mentioned something about the weird shots of Milk and Dan White talking (where they are in the bottom half of the screen and a large amount of the screen is taken up by the ceiling and walls) and I realized what was going on this time. When they first talk, they are small on the screen, the next time they are medium, and when it's getting close to the assassination their heads fill the screen. This visual clue to the conflict brewing between them was really cool, I thought. Also, the DVD has a few deleted scenes and some featurettes, but just watch the old documentary if you want a good story about the real people from the movie.

Next - Synedoche, New York, and Happy-Go-Lucky.

"Watchmen"

Watchmen - Directed by Zack Snyder, starring Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, Billy Crudup, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Malin Ackerman, and Matthew Goode. Rated R

I'm going to skip over what the film is about since that would take up too much space and I already wrote something like that and it can be found in the Opinion section on http://www.perrycountynews.com/.



Watchmen is an entertaining, epic, extremely cool movie and fans of the book will love it and newbies will at least be entertained by it. Having said that, this is a difficult movie to review because there are such high expectations for it. It would be so much easier if I hadn't read the book, but I did. One problem was making myself accept this as its own film, but I couldn't help but notice changes here and there. So I'll start with the faithfulness of the adaptation.


Zack Snyder and the writers (David Hayter and Alex Tse) stuck very closely too the source material with this one and only the most hardcore fan of the book would be angry with the changes made. The most important thing is that the Watchmen world is intact. Does it seem like a completely different America? No, but it's different enough that it becomes a kind of character in the film. It's just impossible to translate the world completely from the book. The ending is different and quite a few things were cut out but, dare I say it, many of the changes improved on the story. That's not necessarily a knock against Alan Moore. It's more about the fact that a book and a movie are two very different mediums and certain things don't work in each. For instance, a long fight sequence in a graphic novel is not going to be suspenseful and it certainly isn't going to have a wow factor. The fights in Watchmen the movie are amazing and there is very little in the book to go on for the fights. Snyder made sure that he expanded and added plenty of fighting into this not only to make the film more entertaining, but also because the viewer needs something to go along with the long scenes of character development. But the book has a more intricate story that can't be displayed on film unless you want a six hour movie that has very little action. So I liked the changes because it made the movie its own piece of work, rather than just being a moving replica of the book. Things move faster and the stuff that was left out wasn't really vital to the story anyway. Plus, if you love the source material that much, just read the book again.

This brings me to the style of this film. I've never seen so many great pull back shots that reveal such massive and amazing visuals. This is all made that much better on IMAX. The giant screen makes it so much more impressive than it would be in a standard theater and the sound is phenomenal as well. It's just cool to see the opening panels of the book (closeup on smiley face button that pulls back to the apartment the Comedian was thrown out of). It's an experience that warrants multiple viewings. Snyder also goes from backstory to backstory almost seamlessly and it keeps the movie interesting. It wouldn't be as good if Rorschach was narrating the entire film. I liked hearing Dr. Manhattan take over the narration for awhile. This movie is taking some flak for the pacing, but I loved it. It goes from an impressive and brutal fight sequence to a meditative backstory and it feels natural. One review I read complained about all of the origin/backstories but I wanted more.

Of course those stories wouldn't be interesting if the actors didn't do their jobs. Jackie Earle Haley was the perfect choice for Rorschach. His voice is perfect and he looks strange enough to pull off the scenes without his mask. He's offputting as a character, but you get on his side pretty quickly in the film. Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan is great as well. It's hard to get past the visual effects of his character (which also look great on a big screen), but his voice has a simplicity to it that is perfect for the character. It is devoid of emotion, which it should be, but there's a hint of humanity in it that makes you identify enough with him to not be put off by his indifference. Jeffrey Dean Morgan really brought the Comedian to life. He has some of the best lines in the film ("What happened to the American dream? It happened. You're lookin' at it.") and even though he's an awful man, you want to laugh with him. My only problem is that he has minimal screentime, but that's in keeping with the book. Malin Ackerman, Matthew Goode, and Patrick Wilson are all fine, with Wilson standing out a bit. I just think that their characters are the least interesting so the actors had the least to do here. But they still have their moments and they don't disappoint by any means.

I normally wouldn't comment much on the soundtrack, but it's been catching alot of heat from critics as well for being uninspired. Ride of the Valkries plays during a Vietnam sequence, Sound of Silence plays during a funeral, All Along the Watchtower is used...sure it's been done before, but the songs fit. I'd rather hear a known song than some strange one that was picked just because it was unknown. If it works, use it, and these songs work. Plus, the music during Dr. Manhattan's origin story is very effective.

Is this a perfect movie? No. Some changes and omissions hurt. I thought Rorschach's mask should have been explained and Richard Nixon, as a character, should've been toned down. My problem with Nixon is that they used the most ridiculous fake nose ever put on film. All that thing needed was some red paint and it would've doubled as a clown nose. I don't understand how they let that get on screen. I cringed each time I saw it. But the problems are easily overshadowed by the sheer volume of this film. The fighting is top notch and plentiful, the visual effects are impressive and rarely out of place (Dr. Manhattan sticks out a bit awkwardly at times), the acting is impressive at times and never below average, the film in general looks beautiful at all times, and it follows the book so closely at times that you notice shots that match up exactly with some of the comic frames.

I just don't know what this film is like for someone who hasn't read the book. The people I went with who hadn't read the book loved it, so I suppose this film works for more than the fanboys. I can't imagine how the story works for someone like that, though. I knew everything going in, so there were no surprises and it always made sense to me. But I know about every aspect of the story the book and I can't just forget that information so I can analyze the story. That would require quite a few more viewings. That factor aside, I was extremely entertained by this film and I found myself noticing little nods to the book here and there in the background. The detail of this film will make this film interesting to me for many, many more viewings and that's always a major factor in a film for me. So check it out if you want to see a well made film that is different from all the rest of the comic book movies out there. Watch it on IMAX if you can, because that screen does justice to the painstaking detail and style that was put into this great movie.

Also, the opening credit sequence was easily one of the coolest I've ever seen and it developed quite a bit of history for the alternate 1985 U.S.A. as well. And after reading some of the reactions to the film (i.e. people bashing it on IMDB) I realized that there were a few more problems with the film that I failed to write about, but there is almost certainly going to be a director's cut of this movie and I'll wait for that before I overanalyze this version. Let me make this clear, though: I had forgotten a few of the minor issues with plot and character (can't really get specific about it because it involves spoilers) because the film was so impressive on multiple levels. I'll probably watch it in the theaters one more time, then I'll write my reaction upon a second viewing.


Next week: Something on DVD, maybe What Just Happened? and a couple others.

"Choke" / "Redbelt" / "Australia"

Just a few DVD releases to review before I gear up for my Watchmen review tomorrow night. By the way, if you are interested in Watchmen and want to read an article I wrote about it, go to http://www.perrycountynews.com/ and check out the Opinion section. Or just buy a paper if you're in the area.

Choke - Directed by Clark Gregg, starring Sam Rockwell, Anjelica Huston, Kelly Macdonald, and Brad William Henke. Rated R

Choke is about Victor (Rockwell), a "historical re-enactor" at a Colonial theme park, and his problems with his mother and his sex addiction based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk (Fight Club). If you know Palahniuk's work, then you know that this is going to be a strange film. Victor goes to restaurants and starts choking on food, getting a (hopefully) rich person to save his life...then start sending him money because they feel like they are responsible for his well-being. That works well in the book, but I thought it wasn't focused on enough in the film. The film dwells on the sex addiction aspect, which is equally funny and strange, but it felt like that was the focus because the filmmakers hoped it would lead to a buzz or some controversy or something, but it didn't. It just seemed like their was no heart in any of this film. I don't mean that in a moral way, but in a filmmaking way.

The acting is fine throughout. Rockwell turns in yet another good performance (when will this guy get some wide recognition?) and Henke is great as his co-worker/best friend Denny. THey work together well and I found myself hoping they would be in more scenes, but that would get in the way of all the sex scenes, wouldn't it? Huston is okay as Victor's senile mother and Macdonald does a decent job as a doctor, but they really didn't have much to do in this.

This film suffered from a bad translation from the novel. That's all there is to it. It was not nearly as dark as the book and it lacked focus. If you haven't read the book, then you might enjoy it, but I'm a Palahniuk fan and I was extremely disappointed in this. Even with a bad translation, there should have been a slew of great lines and interesting situations, but it just isn't there. By the time the movie gets into the whole second coming of Christ plotline, it had already ran out of steam and I no longer cared about any of the characters. It did make me want to read the book again, though, so I'll be entertained once I get into that.

Redbelt - Written and directed by David Mamet, starring Chiwetel Ejiofor, Tim Allen, Ricky Jay, Alice Braga, and Emily Mortimer. Rated R

Redbelt is hard to label. At its heart, it's about jujitsu and mixed martial arts (MMA). But that is just used to get into a story about honor, betrayal, scandal, alcoholism, Hollywood, crime, suicide, money, and a magic trick or two (it does have Ricky Jay in it). This may make it seem like Redbelt is a mess of a film, but Mamet's writing (which is what he's known for, there's little visual style to this film) handles it all well without letting it become too complicated. The story starts with Mike Terry (Ejiofor), owner of a jujitsu gym, who gets into a money problems. But that seems like it's going to change when Mike helps out movie star Chet Frank (Allen, in an all too brief serious role) in a fight. Chet takes a liking to Mike and wants him to help out with his new movie. Just when it looks like the film is going to turn into a behind the scenes look at Hollywood, though, it changes gears and gets into a crime/loan shark situation. All of this leads to a MMA tournament.

But Mike doesn't believe in fighting in competitions. Which brings me to Ejiofor's performance. With a lesser actor, you might end up hating Mike, what with all his sage-like advice and pretentiousness. He comes off as kind of a jerk in the beginning. Ejiofor has a presence that keeps you on his side, though. Even when he plays a villain (Serenity), I always seem to understand his side of the argument. So when he gets to play the (for lack of a better word) hero, it's that much easier to get on his side. And that is vital for this film, because when Mike has to defend what he believes in, if you don't agree with his sense of honor based on the actor's performance, then the film isn't going to work at all.

Once again, this film moves quickly plotwise so if you watch it you're going to notice a few things I didn't mention, but if you want to see a compelling film about what it takes to uphold what is right, not just in martial arts, but in life, then you won't be disappointed. You will be disappointed if you see that Randy Couture (he just plays a commentator) is in this and you expect to see a lot of fight scenes. There just isn't much fighting in this film, though the few fight scenes are pretty good. It's like a serious writer/director decided to make a Jean Claude Van Damme movie and he realized that the fighting isn't as important as the reasons behind the fighting, that's what makes this film great.

Australia - Directed by Bazz Luhrmann, starring Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman, and David Wenham. Rated PG-13

Australia has been called a beautiful mess by some critics and a trainwreck by others. They complained about the narrative structure of the film, but it all worked for me. It starts off with Sarah Ashley (Kidman) tavelling to her husband's cattle ranch in Australia. She shows up to find her husband murdered and a shady cattle baron and his trusted second in command (Wenham) trying to buy her land. She is convinced that she should take over the cattle ranch herself and drove the cattle to be sold for the army during WWII. She enlists the help of the Drover (Jackman), who doesn't like her at first, but guess what happens there. On top of that, she becomes protective Nullah, a boy of mixed Aboriginal and white descent. That is the subplot of the film. Children like Nullah were known as the Stolen Generations. The film explains what that is near the beginning, so I won't go any further into that. Just know that that is what makes for some of the suspenseful moments of the film.

So the drove is on and this is where the so-called narrative issues start. The drove plot is resolved about halfway through and the film continues with the war and the treatment of the children as the focus. Some claimed that it made this feel like two films. I liked it because it added variety to the film. I didn't want to see nearly three hours of cattle droving, that would be pretty boring. Also, this lets Luhrmann create many different visuals for the film. You have the beautiful Outback scenes on the drove and the interesting camera angles and movement, then you have an impressive bombing sequence, and the rain scene after the ball. It kept the movie interesting and kept things moving. Add a bit of goofiness to balance out the melodrama and you get a great film that is epic in length and scale alike. It may not be very original; in fact, it's downright predictable, but it's fun.

The acting is pretty good as well. Kidman and Jackman have good chemistry, but Jackman shows her up in this. You get a sense that he's having fun in this movie, with his exaggerated accent and the slightly comical fight scenes. The child actor who played Nullah is great, which is extremely important since child actor's usually take a lot of criticism. Nullah is never annoying and his narration adds a bit of humor and heart to the film. David Wenham, as the villain, appears to be enjoying himself as well. He gets to ham it up in a few scenes and while you hate him, you also enjoy the scenes he is in.

Australia came out on DVD Tuesday with only a couple of forgettable deleted scenes for a special feature. I would've liked a making-of doc or something, but the film is enough for me. If you're into westerns, war movies, romance, melodrama, comedy, amazing visuals, culture, and a bit of history then you'll love it. That list of genres might sound like a mess to some, but it sounds like entertainment to me.

Check back late Friday night (I'm watching Watchmen on IMAX and that's an hour's drive, so I won't be at a computer until later) for my Watchmen review.