Review CXXX - Watchmen

Review 130
Watchmen (2009)

I remember watching Zack Synder's Watchmen when it first came out, although I remember the preparation a lot more. I had already seen V for Vendetta (I read the graphic novel years later) and promised myself I would read Watchmen before watching the film to walk in ready and expecting. I ordered it a month before the release date of the film, and by the time I got it, I scrambled to finish it. But if you want to take in Watchmen - the graphic novel, I mean - you have to take the time to read it. I also know I was too young to really understand the messages of the book, kind of like I'm sure I would capture a lot more of V for Vendetta now than when I read it almost three years ago. Anyway, all that to say, I rushed through Watchmen, watched the movie, shrugged my shoulders, and called it okay. Recently, on a night where I was too excited to sleep as I recently got a job offering in another city for the summer, I picked Watchmen off my shelf and decided to give it a serious read. Holy. Shit. That thing is full of messages that are still applicable to this day. Globalisation, fetishism, heroism, degradation of a culture, and others that are maybe a little less obvious. Alan Moore, the writer who also wrote V for Vendetta, really had his shit going on! I'm still missing some of the finer details of Watchmen after spending another sleepless night finishing it off, but seriously, that thing is a piece of work. I wouldn't say it's fantastic - sometimes a bit lengthy in text for my liking, and the art form is not my favourite - but it's damn close. All that to say, I decided to check out the film again.

Superheros, once seen with gleaming eyes, have since been outlawed, leaving, mostly, only the retired and the ones working for the government. However, when a famous masked man, Edward Blake aka the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan - the Supernatural dad! He'll always be John Winchester to me) is murdered, society will ask once and for all: who watches the watchmen?

I always feel a little guilty when I hate on a film just because it differs from the book. I mean, sometimes I think the changes are justified, but it's true that I often just say, "But the book was this way and I didn't get the guy I wanted!" (read: Watership Down) But sometimes a movie can stand on its own, like The Shining, which, honestly, takes on a completely different meaning (read: everything) from the book. I originally hated on The Shining, but I have since made my amends with Stanley Kubrick and bow to his expertise. But I am happy to say that my complaints from Watchmen are not based on differences from the graphic novel because really, the movie is a copy paste, except for the ending and switching around some dialogue. But seriously. When Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) leaves Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson - the Insidious dad! Whaaat!) after eating some beans and Dreiberg's like, "Why don't I see you anymore?" (not verbatim) and Rorschach's all, "You quit," Dreiberg sits down on the floor and takes off his glasses. Exactly as he does in the graphic novel. And I mean, I'm not complaining. They were adapting from a visual novel, so you literally see all the important scenes and can reenact them exactly. Would I have wanted it differently? Well, the book does a great job, so I'm fine with the copy paste. I don't think huge fans really wanted to see it changed - they wanted a faithful adaptation. I mean, the movie was THREE HOURS, a bit excessive, but you got what you wanted, apart from some extra characters and little stories in between. And yes, I will address the different ending - I know, after seeing Watchmen that some guys were damn pissed off by the change in the ending. I don't know why the writers and director decided to get rid of the giant octopus. My guess is it probably would have looked cheesy, and they were looking to keep the film more dark. Although they did put the lion hybrid mutation creature... Yeah, I don't know. But whatever, I can see the energy burst Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) sent working fine for the purposes of the film.

Well, I guess I will complain a little bit because our heroes from the graphic novel cannot speak... Yeah, I hated the (men's) voices. Especially Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) - I wanted a much more manly sounding voice. Rorschach bothered me. It was like Batman from The Dark Knight, and I didn't like that voice, so really, it was just bad. They said his voice was monotone in the book - not raspy and smoker's cough. Dan Dreiberg was... okay. But he sounded so awkward and nerdy, it was overblown. I also didn't really like the actors chosen. Malkin Akerman was fine, I liked her. Jeffrey Dean Morgan was cool too. But Rorschach? No. Dr. Manhattan? No - the face, as well as that shitty body (Okay, be built, but those muscles looked like shit and I hated it). Dan Dreiberg? Ehhh, okay, but the nerdiness was way too overplayed - I hated it. Adrian Veidt? No.

But you know why maybe I hated everyone? Because the acting sucked. How can such a big-budget film have such shitty, god-awful, boring, uninspired actors and actresses? I was clawing out my eyes for every word spoken. Not a single person delivered a good line. I feel like they all showed up, looked down at the script, and read. It was bad. Very bad. Thus, Watchmen is unwatchable. The fighting sequences were mediocre, the cinematography not super cool, it's really long, and the story, well, you have the graphic novel, so why would I watch this junk? Seriously, I can't get over how wooden everyone was. They literally didn't try. I could freakin' act better than this shit. Oh, and the sex scene? Super awkward and went on for way, way too long. I got my boyfriend to watch some of it, but after that scene, he bailed. I wish I had as well. Honestly, I'm super disappointed that this was produced. The film was there, but none of the actors were.

Watchmen attempts to be a faithful adaptation of a superb piece of work, but falls flat on its face for acting. I was excited to see these characters come to life on the screen, but they weren't. The only thing I liked was the music, but I was disappointed with the use of Jimi Hendrix's rendition of All Along the Watchtower - that song is sacred. Stick to the graphic novel. Seriously.

Also, one last point - I know Dr. Manhattan was able to re-assemble himself and all, but in terms of the physics, how, and how the hell does he teleport? Does he do this faster than the speed of light when he teleports people? He should totally be going off about the quantum physical applications of his reconstructions. He's a physicist, no? From after World War II? This could be done. I would be so down.

Review CXXIX - Jason and the Argonauts

Review 129
Jason and the Argonauts (1963)

What started with a They Might Be Giants song became one of the most enjoyable and impressive films I have ever seen on screen. I am, of course, talking about Don Chaffey's Jason and the Argonauts starring Todd Armstrong, Douglas Wilmer, Niall MacGinnis, Honor Blackman, and Nancy Kovack.

After receiving a message from Zeus (Niall MacGinnis) and taking it too far, Pelias (Douglas Wilmer) overthrows a king and attempts to kill the king's son, Jason (Todd Armstrong). However, having killed the woman protecting Jason in Hera's (Honor Blackman) temple, Hera becomes Jason's protector, warning Pelias of his actions and helping Jason in his future journey to take back the Golden Fleece and his rightful kingdom.

I wish I could explain what made this film so great, but seriously, it was everything. The plot, based on Greek mythology about Jason and the Argonauts (what a surprise), was perfectly set up and I was totally engrossed throughout. I found the film set everything up super well, and I was rooting for Jason and his fellow crew the whole time. This may be a bias on my part as I've always enjoyed Greek mythology. To say I'm an expert, no, but I remember sitting down and watching cartoon re-enactments of the Odyssey and falling in love with the imagination of it all. Watching Jason and the Argonauts revived that love. I guess some things really do never change. But even as an adult, you could definitely enjoy the plot, and I would recommend it for all ages.

However, the plot aside, the film also has something that puts it down in the hall of fame: the special effects. Even living in the present day, this effects show ingenuity and class. I'll be spoiling the film a bit, so if you'd rather go in completely clean, stop here - though it really shouldn't ruin your experience. The first time we get these effects is when Jason visits Hera and Zeus and they tell him of his journey to obtain the Golden Fleece. All right, we kind of saw something familiar in The Wizard of Oz, about 25 years earlier, but it still looks pretty clean considering the time period. But there are other effects used, including miniature models, to get other effects, which was just awesome.

But this was the tip of the iceberg. What I really mean by special effects is the stop motion. Yes, the stop motion in Jason and the Argonauts is, hands down, some of the best stop motion I have ever seen. But you know what? I won't explain it. I think this video explains it enough and you get to hear it from the master himself: Ray Harryhausen.

I don't really have much else to say about the film because its genius can't be explained: you must see it to believe it. And I highly, highly recommend it for adults and children.

This also made me want to re-watch Army of Darkness. I wonder why? Hehe.

Review CXXVIII - Zootopia

Review 128
Zootopia (2016)

My boyfriend and I decided to visit the theatre on Friday to finally use a movie pass we got for Christmas. Since we rarely see anything in theatres worth watching, we decided to check out a bad film to make fun of it. He was set on Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens, but considering I've never been a fan of the franchise, and I already knew the film was a copy paste of the original, we went in to see Byron Howard and Rich Moore's Zootopia, with voices from Ginnifer Goodwin and Jason Bateman as our protagonists.

Zootopia was bad. Now, don't get me wrong. The animation was spot on and pretty fine, as expected from a Disney/Pixar film. I wouldn't expect anything less from this multi-million(billion?)-dollar company. No, what I'm talking about is the plot.

Now, I watched the film as an adult, so of course I'm seeing it through experienced eyes. But the amount of social justice this film pushed scared me. No, really, I was scared. I mean, check it, I thought the film was going to be all "love everyone" considering the plot. I mean, really, it was expected. But the film took a rather ambiguous and respectable meaning for a kid's film and took it way, waaay out of proportion. I'll explain why. And be warned: I'm the ruining the film here on out. No mercy.

The film starts off with a play. We find out that bunnies and tigers were natural enemies at some point in history, but after the formation of major metropolis Zootopia, prey and predator evolved to live in harmony. Already we kind of see this derogatory stance of those living outside of the city, but wait, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Filled with humour, we find out through this play that our rabbit protagonist, Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin), wants to be a cop. Her parents are absolutely appalled, considering there has never been a rabbit cop before. "Don't do it, honey. Be a farmer like us. We gave up on our dreams and settled down. You'll never survive as a cop." A "fellow" fox classmate, complete with Southern drawl, pushes her down further emotionally and physically by reminding her of her genes. "You'll never be nothing more than a stupid bunny!" Okay, that gives us enough to discuss for now. So, one, the film points out that farmers basically gave up on their dreams of going to the city and are happy being submissive and sticking to old traditions. How about we tell that to the family in The Grapes of Wrath, hm, or the real small-time farmers out there today who face rising constrictions on their hard work (and yes, I am talking about the Oregon farmers who had a huge protest)? A completely respectable family who was forced out of their homes only to travel to bigger, better places and get shut down and told they were garbage, partly because they were from mid-South. Based on this one vicious fox obviously from the South, Southerns are also all conservative nutheads (can't even make a pun, so sad). I mean, yes, based on what I've seen as an outsider, the South is more republican-based, but the subject of conservative = bad in the media is a story for another time.

So yeah, this hare wants to be a cop. Not only is she a rabbit, but she's a female. And when she graduates top honour in the police academy, Mayor Lionheart (J.K. Simmons) is all ready to bring her in, supporting this whole movement to bring more prey into the police force. Remind you of all these movements to bring more women into the army/reserves, or to bring more women into engineering? One hundred percent. As a female pursuing a male-dominated field, this is real. This is very real. Anyway, we see that Mayor Lionheart is actually a jerk to the vice-mayor, a nice sheep, Bellwether (Jenny Slate). Bellwether, after seeing that Judy is not really getting the work she hoped - she's assigned parking duty - she keeps telling her, "Us small guys gotta stick together." Which, all right, that's fine. That's nice.

During one of her patrols, Judy happens upon a con-artist fox, Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman). Now, I didn't mention this, but foxes are the bottom of the barrel in this city. No one trusts them. But given what Nick Wilde is - taking advantage of other animal's niceness, including Judy - can you really blame them? Well, instead of explaining everything leading up to it, Judy finds out through a heartfelt moment that Nick was treated like shit at some scout meeting because he was a fox. So he decided, "I would just become what everyone expected from me." Honestly, my mouth opened wide at this shit. Are you serious? Are you blaming everyone else on your problems? Obviously this is saying that if a minority supports a stereotype, it's not their actions - it's the result of social conditioning. Honestly, guys? Guys. I understand not all stereotypes are just. I understand. But don't give me this bullshit. Yeah, a child who is sexually abused may go on to be a pedophile, but if a black man robs a store, do you think it comes only from a white man putting him down, saying he will never amount to anything? Yes, of course this is the subject of many rap songs where black people can be put down, but seriously, stop blaming your problems on other people. Nick chose to be this way. If it was me, I would have proved them otherwise. I know a lot of you will disagree, and honestly, I never investigated a lot into this, but I nonetheless don't appreciate this "it's never my fault" attitude. Fess up to your crime.

Nearing the end of the film, once Lionheart is booted out since he was hiding the fact that predators were reverting back to their predator nature, we found that new mayor Bellwether was up to this all along with some nighthowler plant thing. "Prey are 90% of the population! We will push the predators out, so we are no longer the little man! Muahaha." Way to spread on the white guilt, guys. Once again, white Man is the problem, leading to minorities doing wrong. Once again, I understand how much white people have done, but if you look at what people in general have done, seriously, it's just easier to blame the white Man for everything since white people went to conquer mass areas. But anyone see what Asians have done to other Asians? See what a lot of African country leaders are doing right now? See the state of a lot of Latin American countries? Yeah. White Man.

But the part that really... So, this is before we find out everything about Bellwether. Judy finds the crazed predators and explains that predators can go crazy, but prey can't. Nick is completely and absolutely offended, and storms off. Judy heads back to her hometown, only to find out how the predators are going crazy. She heads back to Zootopia and tells Nick she was wrong in her assumptions, and she was a jerk and... Honestly, I can't remember exactly. But the way it was said... Honestly, it was like Judy deserved such punishment. Given the whole debate on genes playing a role, it's like the whole debate on how men and women are completely equal in every way. I mean, shit, I believe in equality, but we're different. Prey and predators are different. You cannot deny your evolutionary history, people! You cannot deny genes, no matter how much this film pushes that shit down your throat. I refuse to accept that!

My point here is, Zootopia is pushing all this on our children. They are impressionable. And we're shoving these socialist views down their throats and setting them up for this victimised culture. Even if you agree with it, don't you think this film takes it too far? I mean, shit, like I said, a "I love everyone" theme is fine, but to push this much shit down your throat... Even this idea that politicians may do good while doing bad... Am I even getting through to anyone? This is extreme. I wouldn't want my kid watching this. Not with this many social agendas being shoved down their throats. No. Please, no.

And yet, this film is being declared as the best Disney film ever produced. Instead of accepting our differences, the film promotes a unity. But it also promotes a self-destroying culture where we're all at fault for the decisions of others. And those who are against seeing this equality are simpletons who gave up on their dreams. I... stop here. Zootopia further emphasised what I already knew: when/if I have kids, they are not going to watch recent films.

Also, separate rant: the animal sounds and depictions were not always accurate, and I would have liked to see some two-toed sloths. They're cuter, you know.

Review CXXVII - Badlands

Review 127
Badlands (1973)

I've been wanting to write a review for Badlands for about two weeks, but when I say school takes up a lot of time, I mean it. While I was on a week-long break, it was worse than usual given the amount of work my teachers - actually, one teacher - piled on to complete for the following week. Let's just say I never want to go back there. Anyway,enough about school. Let's talk about Terrence Malick.

I'm familiar with Malick's work. To describe the images he catches in a reel of film is near impossible - you can only witness them to see the beauty he catches. He particularly has the sense in capturing solitude in empty landscapes, in the prairies, as can be seen in Days of Heaven. He also captured the beauty of nature in the hell of war, as in The Thin Red Line. But you know what he can't capture? My attention with his plots. Good god, the plots are awful. As beautiful as Days of Heaven was, the plot and characters were boring as all hell. The "Does your sister keep you warm at night?" line is a running joke between friends, and I couldn't even finish it. The Thin Red Line was okay, but again, the plot was just pushing anti-war in your face. It was so linear and boring that, to be honest, I don't even remember the exact plot, apart from the scene where a member of the ranks tells these kids to attack up a hill, an absolutely horrible strategy that made no sense. But again, the shots were always beautiful.

Now we have Badlands, his first feature film starring Martin Sheen as Kit and Sissy Spacek as Holly. The plot follows similarly to the 1958 rampage of Charles Starkweather and Caril Ann Fugate, but with some romanticisms here and there. But we'll get to that.

Badlands is beautiful, as was expected. The shots of prairie land were astounding, capturing the solitude and the minilomania of man. I'm disappointed that I did not view the film in 1080p because this is one which can only truly be appreciated in clearcut quality. Nevertheless, it was beautiful. I still hold Days of Heaven higher, but considering this was Malick's first film, let's give him some slack.

One of my favourite shots, by far. [ref]

Now, how did I find the plot? Well, better than Days of Heaven, that's for damn sure. But it still was meh. Centering on the perspective of a teenage girl in love who finally gets the attention of another human being, you know right off the bat that she's perfect bait for Kit. The film even has a scene after she meets her future partner-in-crime with her sitting on a chair with a giant, maybe fish sculpture in the back with the huge words "Bait" written on it. Pretty neat. But yeah, the two get along fine until Kit decides to take vengeance upon the world.

Just what Kit asked for. [ref]

However, while we know Kit comes from the wrong side of town and apparently he's pretty miserable, the death and all just kind of... happens. It's not really fully explained, and I didn't like the little blurbs from Kit claiming, "I bet they'll blame that one on me too!" after seeing a dead animal on the side of the road. It was just weird. And bad. So Kit's character was out for me. What about Holly? I mean, some of the lines she spurted out during her monologue was meaningful, at least to me. But most of it was just... okay? And her character, well, she just kind of happened. Bland, nothing really going on. She's forgettable. Her father is murdered by Kit and she's just there. Honestly, just, I have nothing to say about them. We don't really get any type of bond, or so I found. They just come together after Kit approaches Holly, and then Holly falls for Kit. But I find hard to believe Kit actually falls for Holly. Just weird. I'm out.

The unlikely couple held together by murder. [ref]

But the main thing I wanted to bring up with this film is the romanticism behind the whole killing spree. The film ends with Kit finally getting caught (Holly surrenders earlier on), and everyone refers to him as James Dean. While this is true to what happened with Charles Starkweather, I find it really hard to believe that the two cops who catch him at the end are all smiley. Christ, at the end, the cops wish Kit the best of luck. I mean, maybe it's just pushing this idea that Kit wasn't actually a bad guy at all, and he was just put in these circumstances beyond his control... But dude, seriously? He killed a bunch of people! This film seems to glorify the two, and even though Holly informs us that Kit is killed by capital punishment, Holly goes away free, claiming she married a man who defended her. It's like they go away without any sort of reprimand. I... really didn't get it. What was the film trying to tell me, in terms of this murder? I get this whole American dream set-up, but that ending was just... what?

In the end, Badlands is a beautiful piece of cinema, but it fails on any attempt to tell a story. The characters are boring, and the plot is just bland and pretty nonsensical. Would I recommend it? If you want something pretty to look at, check it out; otherwise, as with the other Malick films, it isn't worth a second glance.