emilyweiland Reviews

Watchmen (2009)

one of the best, with some reservations

[10/10 · 7 March 2009]

First off: I'd recommend reading the comic first, but it isn't necessary. I went to the movie with my sister and she liked and understood it just fine, though there were one or two minor points that didn't make sense (one due to a detail omitted from the movie, another just because she missed it.) From the perspective of someone who really likes, but is not overly obsessed with, the source material, I can say that it is very good, both as an adaptation and a standalone movie. The attention paid to detail by the filmmakers is appreciated, as are some of the changes they made to the story.

The changes range from tiny to massive, really. The ending (the end is the same, but not the means) is changed from the comic, and I think that while it would have been fun to see the original, the one used in the movie functions just as well and is a bit easier to swallow for most people. Something that I both liked and disliked was the omission of a certain character's death. It also slightly disappointed me (and confused my sister) that the origin of Rorschach mask and of his masked identity are never mentioned (if you haven't read the comic and don't plan to, just ask a random person who has to tell you about it. It's worth the two-minute explanation.) The quality of acting runs across a broad spectrum. On one end, we have Malin Ackerman, who barely emotes (even during intense scenes.) Patrick Wilson and Matthew Goode are solid. Also, i you've seen the trailers and Billy Crudup (the blue guy, Doctor Manhattan) seems stiff, his portrayal actually works very, very well. It's not quite what I expected, but the calm monotone really suits, and adds to, his character. And then there's Jackie Earle Haley. Wow. In the words of my sister, "that guy that played Rorschach is a damn good actor." Not only is he visually perfect for the role, his out-of-mask acting is awesome (in the most literal sense.) He really brings out the insanity, intensity, and melancholy of the character; his final moments in the movie (and readers of the comic will know what part this is) are nearly perfect in their chilling, electrifying delivery.

Of course, it's also a beautiful action movie with a great score and soundtrack (though it may make you cringe every time you hear Leonard Cohen's voice ever again in your life.) The long run-time feels just right. It's got some killer costumes and it's got gore.

The gore. Though there isn't too much more of it than in the comic, the aggressively realistic portrayal of bones breaking, mouths foaming, arms being severed and heads splitting makes it seem much more excessive. There are some scenes that have been altered to gorier situations, oddly both of them involving the same character (perhaps to make him seem crazier? I don't know.) It's not for kids or the faint of heart (and features a couple of film's most deeply, intensely awkward sex scenes,) but Watchmen is certainly worth the time and functions well both as a mildly thought-provoking story (particularly for newcomers) and a pretty blockbuster. Watch it, seriously.

Blood and Chocolate (2007)

hardly like the book, but *can* be enjoyed

[6/10 · 12 August 2008]

It's been said over and over that the movie is nothing like the book; this is essentially true. While the book had an ending that was both unexpected and much more realistic (in some ways) than what you expect, the movie has a fairly typical movie-like third act. This isn't totally a bad thing; in some ways, it made the story a bit easier to enjoy without too much thinking.

That, really, is the key to enjoying Blood and Chocolate; don't turn off your brain, but don't try to make it any more than it is. The acting is fine, not great, not terrible, but serviceable. Everyone is suitably pretty, casting is solid. While it is sort of cheesy and not exactly an Oscar contender, nothing is too outrageous or schlocky. I've found that it is a good movie to watch if you feel like watching a movie and don't care what you pick up; there's some action, some horror (well, only vaguely,) some romance, some... something. An all-around "okay" movie, and not the worst worst way to spend an evening.

Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008)

Very fun, decent story/acting--recommended

[7/10 · 12 July 2008]

While it may not be the deepest, sharpest, or most deeply affecting movie this summer, it is certainly one of the funnest. Lots of action, and while some of it is a bit overdone, it's sure to keep you interested. Despite its PG rating, I can honestly say that my (21-year-old) sister and I had a lot of fun seeing it.

Like pretty much any 3-D movie these days, things fly at the screen with startling regularity. Though occasionally annoying, it adds to the experience--this isn't Gandhi, after all. The acting is above-average all around, and the characters mostly believable. In a feat not seen in what seems like centuries, it features a 13-year-old boy character who--wait for it--actually acts like a 13-year-old-boy (believe me, I would know.) Though the story is mostly predictable--scientific breakthrough leads to trip to Iceland leads to center of the Earth--it actually has a couple surprising points, where it does the opposite of what the formula would expect. It's just a couple tiny shake-ups, but it prevents the story from falling prey (mostly) to hyper-mediocrity. It gets tired and over-the-top at times (glowing birds! geyser! dinosaur! 19th-century literature!) but really, that's what summer movies are all about.

While it may be too scary for very little kids (the theatre had some crying toddlers) pretty much anyone over the age of 3 should like this movie. It's fast, short, and intense, great for a summer afternoon.

Children of Men (2006)

Eh. No.

[4/10 · 2 March 2007]

This really wasn't a good movie. There is no ending, the plot barely makes sense. It's supposed to be this vision of England in the future- but it looks suspiciously like the England I saw three years ago, plus some explosions.

The acting is quite good, the writing decent. It's the plot itself, and the logic, that is lacking. It's not in any way enjoyable to watch; there are only a few moments where any form of humor or happiness exists. I wouldn't recommend buying it, but if you really want to torture yourself with a depressing two hours of explosions, fine. Rent it.

The Lost Room (2006)

Wonderful, Original.

[6/10 · 17 December 2006]

I watch a lot of the SciFi "Original" movies. They are often really, really awful, and good for nothing but a laugh.

This miniseries, however, was excellent. The characters are well-written, well-cast and well-performed; there aren't gaping plot holes or any cheap, tacky special effects.

The main character, Joe, vaguely reminded me of Jack Carter, the main character from Eureka, another SciFi show. The two show aren't really anything alike; Eureka is more comedic. Both characters were separated from their wives and raising their own children.

And, the plot. It has this quality, where it reminds of of all kinds of different things that I can't quite place, yet is completely fresh and original. The characters aren't stereotypical, but there are a couple that fall comfortably into nice little categories. The whole thing has just a tiny hint of open-endedness to it, which is good, but still offers good explanations for the important things, which is great.

I highly recommend watching this if it comes on again, though make sure you start with Part One! A side note: Another reviewer mentioned disliking Elle Fanning in comparison with her sister (Dakota,) but I think I much prefer the younger incarnation presented here. She isn't as dramatic as her ubiquitous sister, but acts how I would expect an eight- or nine-year-old girl to act. It's a fresh change.

Silent Hill (2006)

good, but not quite good enough

[7/10 · 15 July 2006]

After playing all the released games and hanging around on Silent Hill, forums, I heard that a movie was being made out of (mostly) the first game, from 1999. My first thought was something along the lines of, "dear god, don't let it be so." But after seeing the movie, I wasn't nearly as offended as I thought I would be.

I already knew form the trailer that the great music from the games (mostly from Silent Hill 2) was preserved for the movie. The monsters were mostly pulled from the second game as well, which was kind of puzzling considering that their design and actions were so closely tied to the events of Silent Hill 2, not the original that the movie was to be based off of. Once they appeared in the movie, I stopped caring that they were out of context.

All the monsters in Silent Hill are played by people in costume, not CGI (with the exception of the famous cockroaches.) This was very nice, as it just isn't the same with CGI. All the monsters were amazing, all identical to how they appeared in the games (again, with one or two exceptions, this time from monsters not in the games at all).

The plot was... different. I was disappointed that Harry Mason was replaced by Rose DaSilva, and couldn't fathom why they would rename Cheryl into Sharon. It just kind of irked me.

Most of the plot elements came from the original Silent Hill, with a dash of Silent Hill 2 and a few added points.

I was very happy with Laurie Holden as Cybil Bennett, though disappointed with her final scene (NOT how it happened in the game!).

The new-for-movie ending, though an interesting twist, eliminates the possibility of ever having a movie with Silent Hill 3's plot, one of the best of the series. And having the theme from Silent Hill 3 play during the credits was a touch random...

All in all, the movie captured the essence of the game, with spectacular music and visuals, but had a few points of annoyance.

Note: when the IMDb credits list Claudia Wolf of SH3 and Henry Townshend of SH4 as being characters in the movie... pay no attention.