Movie Review: Watchmen

As a big fan of the comic book, I've been looking forward to watching this movie for a long time. I have to admit that I was the tiniest bit disappointed that it was not a shot for shot, word for word retelling of the the source material.

Jackie Haley play Rorschach, a vigilante in an alternate 1985 where superheroes exist. When a former colleague of his is murdered under mysterious circumstances, he uncovers a conspiracy that could change the course of world history.

Watchmen features a number of well thought out and interesting characters, however, some of the performances are noticeably lackluster. Malin Akerman's take on the heroine Silk Spectre II is stiff, even painfully dull at some points. However, Jackie Haley is stellar as Rorschach, giving a performance that is at times touching and at others downright terrifying. The other acts by Billy Crudup, Patrick Wilson and Matthew Goode are not as good as Haley's but are still impressive in their own right.

One of my favorite parts about this movie is how it portrays it's characters. Their not just masks, their people behind the masks and the movie does a good job showing how each character struggles to live a normal life behind their costumes.

My biggest problem with this movie is the dirction by Zack Snyder (300). Let's be perfectly honest: he's a action director. I don't have any problem with this, but Watchmen is not supposed to be centered around action. It's the mystery, the intrigue, the subtlety that make it such a compelling story.

Overall rating: 3 out of four stars. It's a good movie despite a wooden performance and an inappropriate direction style.

Reference scale:

Captain America < Watchmen < The Dark Knight

Documentry Review: Art and Craft

I think I'm back into doing this blogging thing. I've got enough material to keep me going for a while and time on my hands - not all of which needs to be spent binge-watching Arrow.

Art and Craft follows the story of one of the most infamous art forgers in the U.S.: Mark Landis. But he doesn't do it for profit - he does it for kicks, convincing museums that he has originals, donating them and getting them to put his fake work on display. The documentary also follows the people who were working on stopping him, and how for one man Landis became a sort of obsession.

The documentary isn't purely about forgery, it also touches on the theme of metal illnesses. Mark Landis is schizophrenic among other things, and that's part of the reason he does what he does. The man who was chasing him developed OCD while chasing Landis. The documentary does a good job showing how it effects their lives and what they do.

The feature also does a good job showing what goes into making the forgeries. One of my favorite parts of the film was getting to see Mark "sell" a painting to a library. They believed him and he donated it to them, leaving it hanging on the library wall.

One of my main problems with the documentary is that the crew appears to be intruding on Landis' life. He seems like the kind of guy who just wants to be left alone, and is even reluctant to go to a gallery displaying his work.

My other issue is the editing. It's made clear Landis watches a lot of television, so the filmmakers decided to insert occasional shots of TV shows that were at times random and confusing. Sometimes they made sense but others just threw off the pace of the movie.

Overall rating: 2.5 out of four stars. It is dull at parts, but overall it's pretty good.

Reference scale:
Dogfights of the Future < Art and Craft < The Battered Bastards of Baseball.

Tomorrow:
TV Season Review: Arrow Season One

Movie Review: Lawrence of Arabia

I'm back, and I've got another oldie for you. A classic, in fact.

Lawrence of Arabia stars Peter O'Toole in what, incredibly, is his debut performance. He is stellar in the role of T.E.  Lawrence, a irreverent and somewhat cynical officer in the British Army during World War One. He's sent to Arabia on what seems like an impossible mission to rally the Arab tribes against the Turkish invaders. At more than three and a half hours long, it is a true epic in both scope and story.

Now, I've reviewed some pretty dark movies on this blog. But I think Lawrence of Arabia takes the crown. I like to describe Lawrence's character arc as "In the beginning, he was weird but everyone else thought he was crazy. In the end he was crazy but everyone thought he was weird." He goes from a somewhat lackadaisical soldier to a cold blooded killer with a God complex, and you get to watch his path into darkness.

The acting is fantastic. Peter O'Toole is fantastic as Lawrence, and although he is the star, he steals the show anyway. All around, the acting is great, from Alex Guinness as Prince Fiesal to Jack Hawkins as General Allenby.

The direction is also amazing, with extreme long shots and some incredible action and dramatic sequences. I think it would be cool to be able to see this movie on the big screen, so you could more appreciate the detail, the little dots on the horizon, and all those small details that come together to make a great movie.

The one problem I did have with this movie was that the editing was a bit sloppy in some places, especially the audio. But that was far overshadowed by all the great things this movie has to offer.

Overall rating: 4 out of four stars. One of my top ten favorites of all time.

Reference scale:
Ben-Hur < Lawrence of Arabia < Nothing (in my opinion, this is the greatest historical epic ever)

Tomorrow:
Documentry Review: Art and Craft

Complaining about Netflix

I haven't been posting a lot recently... sorry. I can't promise that I'll post more in the future, but I'll try.



The reason I decided to go back and post today was because I am really mad at Netflix right now. I am a big fan of the show Arrow, and I have been waiting for season 2 to come on Netflix forever. The said, promised, even, that it would come out on September 14th, two days before the DVD release.

So you can imagine my rage when on September 15th I excitedly check Netflix only to find... it's not there. At the last minute, Netflix decided to change the release date to October 8th. So I am decidedly pissed at the business for changing the date, and doing so without forewarning fans of the show.

I'm calling out Netflix right now to put Arrow season 2 up as soon as possible. I can't believe that they would lie to us this way. If you are a fan of Arrow, please share this, and write to Netflix to tell them to put Arrow up as soon as possible and to stick to their promises in the future.

Movie Review: The Bourne Identity

I haven't posted in a while, and for that I'm sorry. I've been doing a lot of screenwriting which has been taking up my time. I'm going to try to post more often in the future. So, here's a movie which would be better titled "Generic Action Film".

The Bourne Identity follows Jason Bourne (Matt Damon), who should be dead. Really, he should be dead. He's not a superhero, so please someone explain to me how he survived being shot dead and drowning in the Mediterranean sea. He's left with no memory of who he is and why he is not dead when he is picked up by a fishing boat that is passing by. He then sets out on a quest to find out who he is and why everybody seems to want him dead with the help of the gypsy Marie (Franka Potente).

The movie is shot in a sort of documentary style to try and make the viewer feel like it's more realistic. They do it in a fashion that was uncommon for the time when it was made, along with making use of a much more gritty style of cinematography which was popular in 2002.

Matt Damon is great as Jason Bourne, and this was a decent follow up to what is possibly his best role in Saving Private Ryan. That said, none of the other acting is really a standout. It's not bad, it's just not particularly good.

The movie doesn't really have a great plot, or any plot so to speak of. It attempts to make up for this with lots and lots of action. Fistfights, gun fights, car chases, you name it, this movie has it.

Overall: 2.5 out of four stars. If you love action movies, this one is for you. If you don't, you could probably find something better to watch.

Reference scale:
The Bourne Supremacy < The Bourne Identity < The Bourne Ultimatum

Movie Review: Snowpiercer

Wow. This movie is really depressing. If you're going to watching it, I would not recommend doing anything vaguely negative the rest of the day.

Snowpiercer is a post-apocalyptic story about a train carrying all of what remains of the human race after a failed global warming experiment freezes the planet. At the front of the train is a near-Utopian society, where passengers can get almost everything that they want. However, the further you go towards the back, the more impoverished it becomes and a class society forms. A citizen of the tail of the train, Curtis (Chris Evans), stages a revolt to equalize the power on the train.

The film's violence is really over-the-top and is probably my least favorite part of the film. They could of done a lot less of the blood and gore and still had a good movie.

Everything else, however, is well above average. It's a very provocative film politically, with a lot of moral questions front and center.

The acting is superb, from the lead in Chris Evans to the supporting cast of actors not only from the US but also Korean and European actors. Chris Evans gives in my opinion the best performance in a role that is at times hard and gritty but at others very touching.

It's a very serious and dark movie. The days have past when even the most serious movies would crack a joke or two, this movie is incredibly hard core and no-nonsense. I would consider this movie in the same category as Blade Runner in that it's very serious and violent.

Overall: 3.5 out of four stars. If you can stand the gory, on-screen violence, it's a provocative and interesting film.

Reference scale:
Blade Runner < Snowpiercer < Looper

Have you seen Snowpiercer? What did you think? Comment below!

Movie Review: Benchwarmers

Sometimes a movie's opening reflects the content of the rest of the movie. This movie opens with a fart joke.

The Benchwarmers follows the story of three older guys who decide to form a little league team in order to avenge their failures as kids. It's a decent concept, but my real beef with this movie is everything except for the concept.

The script is only so-so, I felt like it relied way too much on nerd/jock stereotypes than it ought to. Character development was minimal and although it made me chuckle in a few places, it had a lot of room to improve.

My biggest problem with this movie is the acting. It's terrible. Even for a kids movie, the acting either seems forced or underdone. They deliver their lines like they're kids in a WB Mason commercial.

The plot is relatively simple, which is understandable given its intended age demographic. The humor also uses the same excuse and it would be better if the screenwriter at least used a little tiny bit of subtlety. It's riddled with jokes about farts and other subjects on the same level of maturity. It's rated PG-13, so I think it kind of fell into that dead zone where its rating prevented its intended audience from seeing it but was too immature for those who were allowed to watch it.

Overall: 1 out of four stars. It's directed by the same guy who directed Grown Ups 2 so you can expect the same level of complexity.

Reference scale:
Grown Ups < The Benchwarmers < Happy Gilmore