TheDarkKnight12 Reviews

Watchmen (2009)

Watching the Watchmen

[9/10 · 15 March 2009]

First things first; I read the graphic novel prior to seeing this movie. I, personally, think this is a necessary step. Obviously, I cannot comment on the experience from the perspective of somebody previously ignorant of the source material, but due to the depth and detail of the graphic novel which incorporates several mediums of communication such as excerpts from biographies, other comic books (comic within a comic) and journal articles. That being said, this is a movie review.

The movie is very similar to the graphic novel, a lot of the script retains dialogue taken directly from the novel; several of the shots are literal translations from paper to screen in a very impressive manner. This movie is a very faithful adaptation of the novel. Some elements are changed, and it is common knowledge that the end is changed fundamentally, which I will not discuss here in my hopefully spoiler-free analysis. Any changes have been made out of necessity, to reduce the still-long length of the movie, and in some cases, made out of convenience, not detracting any meaning from the story itself; essentially, de-bulking the story to fit a movie.

I thought the casting was brilliant, Rorschach is very similar to Christian Bale's Batman at points, such as his husky voice, and unquestionable resolve. That being said, Rorschach still holds his own, and some, making him a modern legend. The cinematography was breath-taking, the drama fast-moving, which, with such a large amount of dialogue to go through, never seems slow or stuck.

One thing which did surprise me was the amount of violence in the film and the graphic nature of these scenes - admittedly, all present in the graphic novel, albeit, some changes have been made.

This is not your average superhero movie - it's grimy, it's real, it's dirty, it's violent, it's pain-stakingly psychoanalytical explaining several means, not necessarily converging on similar ends. This is a movie of morality, war, conflicting attitudes and resolve where the audience truly empathises with some characters and finds others utterly repulsive.

Overall, I thought this movie was excellent. I am glad I read the graphic novel before it, but even so I believe the movie could stand on its own; however, I recommend reading before seeing to get the most out of it.

The Matrix (1999)

The Matrix Trilogy - The Best Superhero Movie(s) ever Made (so far)

[1 February 2009]

As the title of my comment suggests, I'm arguing the case that The Matrix (trilogy) is the best superhero movie(s) ever made (so far!). Lots of people claim the trilogy should have stopped after the first movie, that the sequels were somewhat self-indulgent, over-complicated and not necessary. I watched all three films recently, back-to-back, and the story makes absolute sense, I can't help but feel that due to the large gap between the films (well, the first and second) people maybe lost the overall picture. That being said, each to their own, I just feel that the trilogy is complete, enthralling and narratively exceptional.

My first point that this is a 'superhero' movie may be somewhat controversial, since Neo has no 'superhero powers' - but then again, neither does Batman and that's considered to be in the same genre of those movies containing characters with a biological or physiological advantage. Now, at the end of the first film we see that Neo can fly, in subsequent films we see he can dodge bullets, in fact he can stop them in mid-air. These are super powers, but they only exist inside The Matrix (well, until the last film when he gets stuck in the Matrix, and also acquires a sixth sense where he can visualise his surroundings in terms of light). In a way it's a bit like Superman's powers, he's only a 'superhero' under the Earth's sun; Neo's only a superhero inside the matrix (I know there's complications in the Third film where Smith comes into the human world, and Neo remains in the Matrix without being 'jacked-in'). Much like the Harry Potter franchise, I won't give anything away for those who haven't read the books, but the idea of a hero and anti-hero being 'somehow connected', inevitably leads to a thrilling conclusion.

So, what have the films got that make them so exceptional. Well, they cross so many genres whilst (maybe it's just the 'greenness' of the shots) creating their own brand. Firstly we have space travel, albeit not technically in space (well, not at all actually) in huge hunking piles of junk (remember the Millennium Falcon, anybody?) with a cocky pilot (Narobi = Han Solo). Secondly, we have pirates! The definition of a ship 'space ship or otherwise', Morpheus being the William Shatner of the Matrix Enterprise (haha, OK I made that up - but you know what I mean).

We also have the critical point to any successful sci-fi franchise, obviously 'the one' e.g. Annakin Skywalker in the Star Wars series, we have somebody who possesses something which nobody else has ('bringing balance to the force anyone' :p).

Anyway, comparisons aside. My main point, as I run out of time is the argument why this is the BEST superhero franchise ever made. And I will conclude by explaining my viewpoint. If we look at the Spider-man trilogy, most critics (and even die hard fans agree) that by the third installment with the preposterous transformation of Peter Parker into a kind of emo-rock god mid-way through the film was laughable, and the inclusion of three villains merely muddled the whole film. The Matrix, however, manages to surpass this by maintaining the villains from the very start to the very end. Technically there's two villains. Agent Smith (although he's managed to make about a trillion of himself) and 'the robots' (represented throughout by Sentinels, or the agents inside the film) but really (much like many good video games) the actual villain is the 'final boss' and a fantastic amalgamation of fortune whereby neither villain is mutually exclusive. The consistency of the main villain(s) whilst throwing in a few more relatively insignificant characters for food for thought (such as the Maravinji (I don't know the spelling), or the two identical twins, or Reagen in the first film) whilst adding to the story, not confusing things.

To conclude, this movie differs from all the others by killing the superhero. To show that goodness may not always prevail from a personal sense (Neo loses Trinity) but powers or gifts can be used for larger effect. This is the first film to mind, that the hero sacrifices himself for the benefit of his species. I'm sure most people will recognise the somewhat religious/philosophical element of the hero who dies for his people. Also, the ending isn't exactly perfect, it's not all rosy, the humans aren't free, they're just spared their city, for the time being, thanks to Neo (the Architects speech, humorously flowered with complicated terminology to represent a high intelligence explains how this is all part of the plan - e.g. the creation of Neo occurs due an unsolved equation to iron out the imperfections of the Matrix). If this is true, Neo's part, and death, really hasn't changed much, but it has saved those individuals in the immediate present. In a rather depressing twist, the claims of the Architect that this is, in the words Heath Ledger's joker, 'All part of the plan', makes the struggle of Neo and all his loss, seem worthless. But throughout the movie, human emotions are referred to, e.g. love, hope, emotions that robots can't seem to fathom. And it is this love, sacrifice and display of the fundamental make-up of being human, makes us think that the Architect maybe hasn't quite got it all as worked out as he thinks.

Also, I must add (and I'd be naive if I wasn't to mention) the importance of 'choice'. The clear cut different of having a 'purpose' and choosing to live our own lives. Also, I must mention the train station scene, which suggests that programs of the Matrix may be, themselves, 'evolving' ('I, Robot' anyone?) suggesting that this time, the system, despite the Architects best efforts, may be waking up and escaping, you guessed it, 'control'.

Eagle vs Shark (2007)

Eagle vs. Shark: A Review

[8/10 · 20 October 2008]

Let me begin by saying that I have only recently discovered Flight of the Conchords. I was introduced to their television series by a friend and because I enjoyed it I took an interest in where this series originated from. I now understand that Jemaine Clement and Brett McKenzie are a comedy duo which have been together for a number of years. Scrolling through youtube it is apparent that the songs present in the series have existed for a long time and have only recently been put into a sit-com format. Now, this is not a review of FOTC, but a review of Eagle vs. Shark; but an important point is that viewing this movie retrospectively is the best way to go. I think most people would get enjoyment from seeing Jemaine in a 'different' (pinch of salt) role whereas if Eagle vs. Shark is your first exposure to Mr. Clement then you might not enjoy it as much.

This movie was exactly my cup of tea. My favourite kind of films are slow, script-driven films with awkward humour and an aesthetic that most major movie goers probably wouldn't enjoy (such as The Royal Tennenbaums, Lost in Translation (which actually did very very well, I do not know how - maybe the Copolla connection), or The Life Aquatic).

I have read comments by people saying they couldn't understand the attraction to Jarrod (Clement's character) because he is rather dissatisfied with his life, and clearly places emphasis on unimportant things. However, I disagree. In my opinion, Jarrod is a lonely guy but he's not exactly looking for anything. He has two things in his mind, the first is to get revenge on a high-school bully who, in Jarrod's words, '...ruined my life'. Secondly, he wants to gain his father's approval. Unfortunately for Jarrod, his brother (played by the film's director) was a model son, successfully in a variety of endeavours, notably running (we see Jarrod's father reminiscing to an old tape of Jarrod's brother winning a running championship). Jarrod cannot compete with his brother, but one of the biggest twists, is that Jarrod's brother committed suicide a few years ago, as a result (or at least Jarrod's father has convinced himself) of a pushy parent (his father). Wrecked with guilt, Jarrod's father sits traumatised, unable to relate to a family he feels responsible for breaking. Fortunately for Jarrod's father, Lily (a charming, yet quiet girl) sees something appealing in Jarrod (usually in a film about awkward love, the two lovers are usually thoroughly nice people who lack confidence - however Jarrod is full of it! Believing his is some kind of heroic, fighting machine - probably triggered by his previously undeniable skills at the computer game Fight Man).

Without giving everything away, Lily refuses to give up on Jarrod and becomes an inspiration to Jarrod and his family. Jarrod's sister and her husband are the owners of a failed business selling tracksuits who find some financial solitude in Lily who buys most of their products! Secondly, in a charming excerpt Jarrod's father asks Lily to 'take me away from here'. Only through Lily's eyes can the family see that maybe all is not lost, and in the touching finale, Jarrod and Lily, accompanied by his family decide to give it a try. Importantly, the family accompany Lily to the bus station, and they are unsure as to whether Jarrod will be there waiting for her. This represents the idea that Lily is as important, if not more important, than Jarrod to Jarrod's family than Jarrod himself.

This film is quiet, reserved and is brought to life by short animated scenes and a brilliant soundtrack which cannot be bought on UK itunes unfortunately! It has been compared to Napoleon Dynamite, but I think it has more to it, I certainly finished watching this film with a sense of accomplishment for the characters, whereas, in my opinion, Napoleon Dynamite was weird for the sake of it.

One more point is that Lily is absolutely charming, and if the clips on youtube that i've seen are anything to go by, the New Zealand accent has been replaced by American voice-overs. This is absolutely devastating to the film. Half of Lily's charm is her accent and her delivery of her lines. If American audiences cannot understand the accent, then subtitle it, over-dubbing ruins the whole feel of the film.

Garden State (2004)

Garden State - A Review

[11 April 2008]

So, Mr. Braff, from a relatively unknown actor to the (apparently) highest paid soap opera actor ever (130,000 dollars per episode) to the Writer and Director of 'Garden State'. A film documenting the life of a struggling young actor and his associated difficulties.

I struggle to believe that this film would have received such widespread acclaim if Zach Braff wasn't so well known. And, of course, the (rather surprise) inclusion of esteemed actress Natalie Portman makes this film what it is. That being said, I still love this movie and am so glad it has made the waves it has done.

So, why is this movie good? I would give it 7 or 8 out of ten. I don't know much about Camera shots or Character Development or general movie production stuff so I'm not going to comment on the aesthetic or juxtaposition of scenes/dialogue/character interaction in any great depth.

Much like Lost in Translation (For me, anyway) this film doesn't really have a plot at all. In fact, it's hard to pick out one stand out sequence which really sticks in my head. But, I still really like Lost in Translation. And this leads me onto my first point. The Soundtrack.

Zach Braff hand picked these songs, unsurprisingly for his own film. And as a result, send a complete CD of the track listing to potential actors to give them an idea of the feel of the movie. And it's so important since there really isn't a 'feel' to this movie. It's such a calm, introverted, back-story of self discovery, recollection and analysis that rather than an 'in-your-face' obvious, and logical progression in the form of 'Beginning, Middle and End' and that's what makes this film so important. Braff's character is highly medicated with anti-depressants and has been for years. And I think this is what most people who dislike this film, might not understand. The entire point is that his medication has numbed him from the world, from his own emotion, from living a life and music provides inspiration to the acting itself.

For me personally, this film is about the hopelessness of reaching adulthood whereby everything leads up to a point where you either make, break or figure out why things maybe haven't worked out quite how you wanted them to be. It's about partying when you're young, where everyone is 'someone' and you're part of this tight knit friendship group and it's the potential for your life when you grow up which keeps friendships fresh. Unfortunately, when you're older and you've not really achieved anything and everyone is in the same boat, it's a bit like going home to see old friends and wonder how they are. Only, when you go back you realise nothing has changed.

The main point of this film is that Zach Braff's character felt forced to leave home since his Dad made his feel guilty for his Mum's paralysis and since then he can't live a normal life due to the guilt and shame he feels (And of course, his medication, which may in fact be the thing that's largely preventing him from moving on).

It takes the death of his Mother for him to return home. And following this he meets Natalie Portman's character, with whom he falls in love. And he meets and old best friend of his, who isn't actually getting anywhere with his life, and seems completely contented with this which reassures Zach Braff's character.

Overall, since I could type away about this movie all day, but I'm probably boring people, this movie isn't about anything concrete or material. It isn't about self-discovery or love or taking chances or happiness or romance or friendship. It's purely and simply one mans struggle with himself to overcome an obstacle and burden he should never have been forced to bear as a child which as a result has left him confused, alone and unable to properly interact or achieve success in life. And all in all, he realises that he should never have been made to feel guilty, and as a result can get on with his life. And rather fortunately, the presence of Natalie Portman's character, who is utterly charming, provides the trigger for him to be released from his depression.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

2001 Space Odyseey: Hit or Miss?

[5/10 · 28 March 2006]

This film was 'interesting' to watch merely because of the hype i purchased it at a reduced price recently. I put it on, sat back and watched. There were several things that impressed me; firstly, the menacing character HAL whom we believe is programmed to have no emotion. HALs reasoning was completely justified, the two characters were going to disconnect him and this it's as though HAL feels betrayed, and switches to survival mode, just like an instinctive human response. Secondly, the Star Child, having the main character placed in a lab etc etc, very peculiar but intriguing nonetheless. Thirdly, the use of silence to create a feeling of isolation and to recreate the vastness and loneliness of space.

Having been impressed by these factors, I was left completely unimpressed by other pointers which I think ruin the film. The 'breathing' of the astronaut, nice idea but absolutely, gut-wrenchingly annoying. The huge portions of the film which show us 'space' for about fifteen minutes which seem completely and utterly, mind-numbingly boring. I know that technology has improved and if it was 1968 i'd appreciate it more. Modern technological films like the Terminator still took everyone's breath away but didn't carry on and on and on with stupid 'choir' moaning in the background. These bits of the film weren't even nearly as intimidating as the music. It almost feels like the 'choir' are sick and tired of taking shot after shot of seeing this dreary 'exploration', well let's face it at least their moans are genuine. I think I nearly competed with them when I was watching.

We can all see what Kubrick was trying to achieve and fair enough, the idea is there and as usual he's organised it in 'chapters', the end is truly scary and misleading enough, or open-ended enough (as Kubrick intended) for people to discuss it on boards like these and claim it's the best film ever.

People who think this film is art, are right,it was at the time and still is. But we all have to take this with a pinch of salt, and instead of gaping mouths wide open at these 15 minute bursts of opera and 'exploration' we merely sit and appreciate it for three minutes before going 'this is actually ridiculous'. I don't want to be cynical, it's not fair or realistic to judge the films effects by todays standards, but we can judge the ideas, the script and direction. The ideas, provided by a very interesting and descriptive novel, the script which correlates with the bland presentation of this film, and the characters (HAL is genuinely horrifying) are all superb.

I just can't figure out whether or not I like this film. I like certain elements but other bits are truly pathetically long-winded and uninteresting.

Man Stroke Woman (2005–2007)

Man Stroke Woman

[1 December 2005]

This show relies on it's cast, with Nick Burns from Nathan Barley and Nick Frost from Spaced/Shaun of the Dead we anticipate a programme that's much funnier than it actually is. Undeniably there are some good sketches, e.g. the Where's Josh? sketch but others are just poor - the shag marry kill sketch is boring, the problem is that they have two or three of the same sketch per episode and when it's boring it stays boring. This comedy is average, i can't believe there weren't better scripts or ideas to create but once again we see typecasting and reputations which boost sales, or viewing figures. Not a complete waste of time, but definitely not laugh out loud in may places and a quite frank disappointment. I though that the title meant it had some male humour and female humour throughout but when i watched it with some females friends they only laughed at the bits I did meaning i've either got butch friends or they genuinely don't find the humour aimed at them funny. I'd give this 5/10, I'm not surprised Nick Frost jumped on the bandwagon since he started out as Simon Peggs flatmate and to get ahead he's clutching at straws. The money spent on producing this could have been put to better comedies incorporating new talent instead of this semi- funny waste of space.

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

The Phantom of the Opera - overrated flop

[6/10 · 3 August 2005]

Visually this film is delicious from the outset, the black and white sequences are reminiscent of the visuals in 'Moulin Rouge', but the actual actors are quite frankly poor. I am fully aware this is a musical adaptation and some of the moments were truly breathtaking such as the roof scene with the Phantom lurking in the shadows, surrounded by gargoyles, or angels, he makes the similarity in some of the lyrics, but he refers to himself as the "Angel of the Night".

There were two clear cut "toilet breaks" in this film, where you could leave the cinema, go to the loo, come back in and the film hadn't moved on. I appreciate the use of tone and melody to put a point across but at the finale when things are rushing and Christine has "the choice" she decides to sing her thoughts in Soprano instead of the realistic split second decision that the Phantom is pressing for.

The songs were just stupidly slow moving in parts and Christine looks more like a gormless fool than an enchanting young lady, in parts. The phantom himself almost managed to shape the lyrics into the desired melody but sometimes it felt like they were searching for notes rather than putting things into song because it should be - more of a case of doing it for the sake of it, and the "Devil Child" circus scene is just ridiculous, as if they'd allow for children to be brought up in such a place! I haven't seen the musical and have no desire to.

And if the Phantom has lived in the dungeon for so many years - where did he obtain his clothes? How did he learn to speak with such grammatical correctness, where did he learn to write music and what instruments is he using? The whole thing is just absolutely ridiculous - and as for the "night in shining armour" he's more of a wet lettuce than anything to be reckoned with. If the Phantom wasn't just an unfortunate social outcast, then this lad would be cream-crackered! His voice is so monotonous and yawnful that I couldn't help but laugh. It's no wonder Christine is so "weak willed" I would be too just to have a little bit of excitement rather than the "i want to go wherever you go - that's all i ask"...that's all you ask?! Right.

One good thing about the singing was that all the words (well, more than you normally can hear in a musical) could be heard, well done, but let's face it, the plot isn't exactly hard to follow is it now? Minnie Driver was the only bright spark in this film and even she was remarkably annoying. The two owners of the Theatre were actually superb in their roles, and one particular scene was absolutely perfect (The scene where the Phantom has given them all so many notes, explaining different parts of his plan). Furthermore, what would the Phantom need £20,000 a month for? And, how can he possibly survive down there? We've seen that his saviour wouldn't even dare venture down into the dungeon so I highly doubt she made regular visits to see him.

I hate being so pedantic, but the storyline begs these questions, and the storyline isn't good enough to avoid them. It's not so "magical" or "myserious" or "well shot" to rule out these everyday routines! And make of it what you like, but if I've sat through this movie and the first thing I think of is "how does the phantom survive and his monetary issues" then it speaks for itself! It's not all bad. It's averagely good, worth a watch if you've got a couple of hours to waste.