Bad Movie Night: Watchmen

Over the weekend I caught Watchmen with the wife and a few friends (including the gentlemen behind Soulkerfuffle and LastBestAngryMan). Ever since viewing the stunning trailer and reading the acclaimed source material I had been very excited to see what could be done in the film version. Upon leaving the theater, having a few beers and several rounds of discussions, seeing Watchmen felt more like I had been on a really terrible date with an extremely attractive person.


What do I mean? Well, true beauty is far more than skin deep. Watchman's gorgeous outter skin includes stunning visuals and several strong performances, but for a movie that really wants that brass ring (and not just a ride on the carousel), it's what's on the inside that counts. Unfortunately this film is plagued by a few aspects that are either truly awful or leave the audience (both those who read the graphic novel and those who haven't) utterly confused.

LastBestAngryMan wrote a great review in which he broke the movie down into good, bad, and confusing aspects. I will attempt to do the same, however I'm going to try to limit my comments to three of each: good, bad, and What the Hell? I'm also going to add an "Eh" catagory to list three things that riled a lot of people which I didn't mind and/or care about as much.

Let's start with three good things about Watchmen:

1. Like LBAM I was really impressed with the way many of the characters were portrayed by the actors. Three real standouts were Patrick Wilson as Dan Dreiberg / Night Owl, Jackie Earle Haley as Walter Kovacs / Rorschach, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan as Edward Blake / The Comedian. I felt that Wilson successfully captured the abject Schlubbery of the "dysfunctional" Dreiberg, Haley was a very gritty Rorschach, and Morgan was a deplorable human being (aka successfully illustrating to The Comedian to the audience). Casting Director scores points for these guys.

Don't worry, that same Casting Director will lose points in a few paragraphs, but I digress...

2. It sure was a pretty movie, and I felt for the most part Zack Snyder was successful in visually translating the graphic novel to the screen - Watchmen was simultaneously georgeous and gritty. 90% of the costumes were spot on and I was impressed how each decade had an authentic look and feel.

3. As someone who read the book, I really liked the easter egg exposition, especially the opening sequence, which I agree with LBAM could be one of the best in film history (save for the song choice, but more on that later). Throughout the movie you get a lot of pertinent information about the alternative history as well as the story's current events through little TV clips, newspaper headlines, pictures, signs, etc... Well played, Mr. Snyder.

I did like that he had the word "Squid" on one of Ozymandias' doomsday counters as well. Again, well played.

Now for the Bad:

1. I think about a week before the final cut of Watchmen, one of the computer animators found somewhere in his notes that they needed a large, genetically engineered Lynx. "Oh shit" he thought to himself, because he only had $5 left in his CGI budget. That day he went without a Big Mac extra value meal and Bubastis was born.


The outcome: Bad Saturday afternoon Sci-Fi Channel movie.

2. Super Ninja Anime Action Sequences!!! This disappointed me because half of the time the heroes fought like competantly trained martial artists and the other half they were doing Chinese opera troop wire tricks. Towards the end I was expecting Night Owl to run up a wall and flip kick three guys while yelling "you think you are the guy, but I'm the guy with training in dragon. You shall honor the floor with your presence."

Yes, I realize Adrian Veidt catches (more like blocks with his hand) a bullet mid-air in the comic book, but he's supposed to be the absolute pinnacle of human perfection - and the bullet still damages his hand.

Movie could have been an hour and a half long if the slow motion fight scenes were shot in real time.

3. The ending went off the rails. I'm sorry but by the credits I was literally wringing my hands at the screen. And I'm not even talking about the lack of calamari either - in my opinion that didn't matter as long as it was, well, done in some kind of character-believable manner. Instead we got a healthy dose of Croutching Bubastis, Hidden Manhattan chop-sockey fighting, Silk Spectre with a gun no explanation explanation why she has it, Adrian Veidt acting like Dr. Claw, and Night Owl going off like Luke Skywalker at the end of Empire (and shooting lazorzcanninz to boot).

What the Hell?

1. Ozymoyeras. No really, Ozymandias looked and was built like Jamie Moyer. Now, I realize that in his 40s Jamie Moyer is an incredible athelete, however he could not pick up over his head and toss a highly trained, formidible 250+ lb man out a plate glass window. The "now you see it, now you don't" accent was also very confusing. Isn't there something to be said for consistency? The above mentioned casting director lost all cred with this one.

"I am going to teleport a psychic squid into right field"

2. This book was written in the 80s and did not have to be made relevant in 2009. Sorry, but all references to an oil-dependant energy crisis and having "big corporate America" as a confrontational bad guy was kinda lacking. Yes, I realize that in the real world there was an energy crisis in the 80s, but in the book, one of the main concepts was that Dr. Manhattan had already solved the U.S. dependance on oil. And he did it without Adrian Veidt's help.

3. While the actual movie score was beautiful and well-written, the songs selected for the soundtrack were poor choices at best. I really don't think they fit the decades with which they were placed - seemed more appropriate for Full Metal Jacket than a comic book movie set in the 80s. As per LBAM, all they needed was Buffalo Springfield.

And things I didn't care about as much as some people:

1. Watchmen is a dark, gritty book and movie - I wasn't disturbed by the over-the-top violence. Trained martial artists and experienced fighters can break joints and limbs given the right opportunity and there is blood when people get shot and/or stabbed. The movie was rated "R" so I went in expecting it. That said, I don't really remember Laurie and Dan killing gang members outright in the alley and the Silk Specter did not carry a gun in the book (until the end when it is clearly explained why). Rorschach and The Comedian were the graphic novel's notable exceptions because these characters weren't vigilantes who "brought 'em in" - they preferred a pine box.

2. Sans Calamari. I know I said I didn't like how the ending went off the rails towards the end, however the fact that there wasn't a genetically-altered squid as opposed to some other "MacGuffin" didn't bother me. Hell, even the ending that was written could have worked if it wasn't just so clumsily "bull-in-a-China-shop" and paid more attention to details (as per conversations with LBAM and Soulkerfuffle, one second after Moscow got hit with a "Dr. Manhattan blast," 51,000 Russian nukes would have been caterwauling towards DC).

3. A lot of people were upset that Archemides, Night Owl's technologically advanced ship, had chain guns instead of fire supression systems and noise emitters, however I didn't mind. That is a matter of personal taste which I realize is in complete contradiction to most of what I've already said. It just think chain guns are cool. Of course they don't really work with the character, but they're awesome anyway. I want a chain gun so I can mount it on my wife's car. That would rock.

All in all, I can't say I despise Watchmen. In the same sense, however, it is still a little disappointing - I was expecting more, even though many people (including Alan Moore) have gone on record as saying it was unfilmable. I think everyone, from cast to crew, did the best they could to create something mass-marketably accessable from something that was designed not to translate that way.

So back to the original comparison, Watchmen was a bad date with an attractive person - fun to look at but impossible to truly enjoy on any kind of sustainable level. That is, of course, unless you're good at turning off your ears so you can just enjoy the eye candy.

Overall Score: five over Dragon Wars (ten over being the best, equal to Dragon Wars being horrendous beyond belief).

Bad Movie Night: Cloverfield

This past weekend, The Machete and I were joined by my fiancee for Bad Movie Night: Cloverfield. I have to admit, I believe the three of us were a bit confused coming out of the theater: we couldn't tell if we had just seen a really awesome giant monster movie or a really bad episode of Dawson's Creek. So let us bisect it into its two components and review from there, shall we?

BAD ASS GIANT MONSTER MOVIE: CLOVERFIELD!!!

Cloverfield delivers in spades when it comes to capturing all of the chaos and confusion that would occur if a giant monster (and its freaky-creepy minions) decided to attack a major metropolitan area. Tension, suspense, and outright fear are used perfectly to steer the audience away from ridiculous disbelief (it's still a giant monster movie) and towards creatively tweaking their "Fight or Flight" response. Claustrophobia, terror, and an overwhelming "rats in a maze" hopeless feeling exude out of every scene.

The street level perspective is a great tool. It helps theatergoers realize that in this situation, where a big scary creepy thing is knocking over buildings, expelling evil minions, and eating people like bon bons, no one would really give a rat's ass where it came from or what it was here for until they were far enough away to safely conjecture about it, preferably over a post traumatic stress beer.

Most thankfully, there is no "Plot Stick" either. At no point does a scientist or a government agent who somehow has the creature's entire history "break it down" for the audience. The closest the movie comes to that is overheard conversations of people trying to rationalize or guess the creature's origins and motives. They do this while they are running for their lives, of course. And also, while the movie does bear a resemblance to 9/11 media coverage, the "Plot Stick" thankfully keeps from trying to "teach us a lesson" or preach. It's subtle - the imagery really adds to the confusion and fear. Smart.

The actual monster and its minions were, for lack of a better term, bad ass. As a whole, it was cool to see the creatures weren't your generic dinosaur-esque fire-breathing lizards on the rampage. Honestly, I think a zoologist would have a hell of a time classifying it, unless there was a general "awesome" phylum. Seriously, it's way more "Lovecraft" than "B-Movie Discovery Channel." The creature gets bonus points for having the wherewithal to rip the head off of Lady Liberty and launch it into downtown Manhattan. Up yours, King Kong!!!

But...

For all it's cool aspects, there is something holding this movie back from being truly awesome, and I thank my fiancee for this pop culture reference...

DAWSON'S CREEK SEASON FINALE: CLOVERFIELD!!!

The (human) main characters are the one truly truly truly weak link in this film.

The main story line should have opened with a Paula Cole or Dido song. In a nutshell, and I'm not giving anything away, spoiled twenty-something yuppies act like spoiled twenty something yuppies for the entirety of the movie. You know, during the catastrophic and cataclysmic leveling of New York City, amidst death and destruction and the rampaging of one huge bad ass creature and legions of smaller, creepy, and equally bad ass little creatures, characters who really don't care about anything else but what they want.

The main character's motivations and actions are just absurd. Maybe I don't really understand the simple nuances which drive human emotion and love and all, but to risk the lives of friends and siblings to find a girl you've had a crush on and who just walked out with another guy is, for lack of a better term, stupid. And it's not like "I drove to your house in a car with the engine light on in an ice storm" stupid - it's like charging head long into 20 stories of death dealing monster stupid. There is nothing even chivalrous or brave about it. His brother is right when he refers to him as a "douche bag."

The only thing possibly more insane than this jackass main character are the other jackasses following him. Hello, my name is Jim Jones, would you like to try my koolaide? I understand the trials that come with loyalty, but seriously though... The moment my best friend starts marching off to save some hussy from a rampaging mega-monster, I'm cracking him over the head with my Sony handi-cam and dragging his ass to safety. Let the guys with the tanks and guns (who are obviously losing) take care of it. Instead these morons bravely march onward into the jaws of death.

I don't know, maybe the writers wanted the audience to hate the main character and feel bad for his entourage in the same way you feel bad for an abused pet? Maybe they wanted you to see a bit of Darwinian Karma in action? Heady social commentary about selfishness? I'm not sure, but if the characters had an ounce of precaution, pride, or common sense to guide their actions, then maybe they would be more believable than the monster attack itself. Instead, you find yourself cheering for the monster to eat them. And cheer often, you do!!!


Bad Movie Night Rating: Seven over Dragon Wars (7/10).

Cloverfield is certainly entertaining. The main creature is probably the best rendition of a giant monster (all classical respect aside, Mr. Kong and Mrs. Zilla), there is a tangible tension and fear pervading through the film which is great, and the reactions of the people are extremely realistic, save for one moron leading a pack of morons through what looks like a post-9/11 war zone. It's a winner if you can get your mind past all of the "whys" and "hows" of the characters' actions and just enjoy watching them get eaten.

***I READ AN AWESOME REVIEW FROM THE BOSTON GLOBE AFTER I FINISHED THIS: CLICK HERE.

Bad Movie Night

I wanted to clear this up before I posted my review of Cloverfield.

Over the past few years, The Machete and I have been avid moviegoers. Unlike many of our friends, we have different "criteria" for what makes a movie good. We don't base our enjoyment solely on things like character development, plot, setting, how much it changed your life or made you think, etc... No, we like to include gunfights, car chases, profane humor, and general ridiculousness. Our friends' opinions of our movie choices has led us to label our cinema-going as "Bad Movie Night."

Past greats (in our book anyway) include such gems as Sin City and 300. These movies are no-holds-barred in-your-face ass-kicking cinematic masterpieces (to us). You get out of the theater and just want to punch someone square in the temple and/or talk about how well it was written, how you truly appreciated the actor's portrayal of the character, how much the stunning visuals or the soundtrack added to the experience, etc... Movies like these remind me of the subtle nuances experienced while drinking a fine glass of red wine with a bloody 24 ounce ribeye.

Films like these and the LoTR trilogy don't come along that often, however. Some movies are highly entertaining but, well, not that great for their blatant use of the "plot stick"*** (The Matrix, 28 Days Later). Some are mindless entertainment (Hitman, Live Free or Die Hard, I'm sure Rambo). Some had potential but are actually too much and you end up leaving the theater feeling terrible about yourself (Hostel). Some are really funny (Knocked Up). Some really make you think (Donnie Darko, Sunshine). Some just purely suck (Dragon Wars).

So remember, when reading our reviews, don't take them even slightly seriously.

*** The "Plot Stick" is the worst of the cinematic tools a director or writer will use when guiding moviegoers. In a nutshell, it's when they assume the audience is stupid and, in a Deus Ex Machina maneuver, have a character come in and explain the entire damn movie. AKA "hitting the audience over the head with the Plot Stick."