Saturday, March 7, 2009

Ed's Review: Watchmen

It's an inevitable truism that anyone who's a big fan of a literary work will always find it superior to the film adaptation, but while that truth does hold with Watchmen, let me say with absolute certainty: this is the best book-to-film adaptation since The Princess Bride. (Hey, I love that movie.)

For anyone who hasn't seen it, here's the rundown: in the late 1930's, following the debut of Superman in Action Comics, people in real life started dressing up in costumes and fighting crime. Seeing as it takes a pretty extreme personality to dress up in tights and punch criminals, these folks were a colorful bunch, ranging from the steadfast and noble ex-Canadian military officer Captain Metropolis, to the sexy, opportunistic Silk Spectre, to the borderline psychotic and violent Comedian.

Eventually, public affection for these brave folks waned, and gradually most of them faded away, turning to alcoholism or drugs or the simple pleasures of writing autobiographies and running car shops. (Except for the Comedian, who fit right in with the U.S. military after bravely joining the fight in WW2 and who then kept on trucking.) As the 60's approached, though, a young theoretical physicist was involved in a freak accident that left him with god-like abilities. While he was used as a tool to deter Soviet aggression and support American military action, a new wave of heroes rose: the second Silk Specter, daughter of the first; the second Nite Owl, an admirer of the original; Ozymandias, supposedly "the smartest man in the world;" and Rorschach, who is awesome.

But in 1977, following a city-wide police strike in New York that led to massive riots and looting despite the efforts of these heroes to contain it, the U.S. government passed the Keene Act, which officially banned costumed vigilantes (aside from Dr. Manhattan and the Comedian, both direct agents of the state). The film is set eight years later, with Cold War tensions on the rise thanks to the U.S. aggressively flaunting their bright blue demigod and the U.S.S.R trying to stockpile enough nukes so that even Dr. Manhattan can't stop them all.

I lay all this out because, while the movie does its best to give you the backstory, there's just too much to cram in despite their best efforts. At times, it seemed like they'd thrown in so much that it made it difficult to focus on the two main story threads: the murder of the Comedian, and the approach of World War III. As you can probably tell, I'm pretty familiar with the graphic novel and actually spent a good chunk of this week reading it in preparation, so I had no problem following the film...however, it seemed to be a little disjointed in its presentation of this information, and I have a feeling that a lot of newbies will get a little lost.

I'll get my other nitpicks out of the way so that I can end this review by telling you how awesome the film is. First, it should be noted that Watchmen (the graphic novel) is not a very action-heavy story; in fact, it only has two real fight scenes and a few short bursts of violence. The movie, needing to appeal to an audience that expects a certain amount of ass-kickery from a superhero blockbuster, has added in a couple of fights where there were none, and greatly extended and dramatized the ones that were. In these scenes, you can clearly tell that this is the same guy that directed 300; slow-motion is used to an extent that made me remember that god-awful South Park parody episode, though it at least has the upside of making the fights easy to follow (hear that, new Batman movies?). Also, while all of the costumed vigilantes (aside from Doc Manhattan) are just normal folks who happen to be in better shape than most but hardly superhuman, they're throwing punches that shatter stone walls and kicking people across rooms like it's nothin'. It does look cool, but Dan is a 40-year-old man who's been retired from superheroing for eight years; he should not be kicking people through the air.

The rest of my complaints are understandable changes to the script and plot that were fairly essential for the conversion from book to film. One early scene has Dan visiting Adrian Veidt in broad daylight, whereas originally, Rorscharch made the trip at night. (Also, Veidt said no to the toys, dammit! Although being the geek that I am, I'd totally buy them.) Dan's also present at one of the big, climactic scenes at the end; it's clearly a ploy to establish him as the primary protagonist and hero of the story, but the book was an ensemble piece where Dan and Rorshach and even Laurie shared the spotlight for large swaths. And speaking of Laurie, the pacing and writing made her big revelation scene much less earth-shattering, and it seemed like hardly more than a side plot. Realizing what she does on Mars is a big deal.

Speaking of big deals that weren't all that big in the film: it's really easy to figure out who Rorschach is, and the revelation isn't nearly as huge and "oh crap, I need to read/watch this whole thing again up to this point!"

Also worth nitpicking is the technology available to the characters, from Nite Owl's goggles with built-in HUD or Veidt's computer having a mouse and running a Windows-like program...in 1985. In the book, all this could have been easily explained by the simple fact of Jon's existence; the dude allowed the creation of electric cars by being able to synthesize infinite quantities of lithium out of thin air, so I'm pretty sure he could advance computer technology without Bill Gates. But given that no reference is made to Dr. Manhattan's technological contributions to society (and the lack of the omnipresent curb-side charging stations in New York), it's a little jarring.

My final complaint is one that I'm sure every Watchmen fanboy is parroting: they changed The Plan! On the one hand, I understand that American movie-goers have a very strange threshold for weirdness, and the original plan would have gone over about as well as the plot for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Still, the movie's version seems much less sensible and rather poorly thought out, not to mention less creative and way, way deadlier.

I should also mention the presence of blue dong. As it's present in the book and it symbolizes Dr. Manhattan's detachment from human concerns and emotions, I'm not going to file it under complaints. But there is blue dong. You have been warned.

But anyway, all the fannish bitching out of the way, this is an excellent adaptation of the best graphic novel ever created, and the result is a very damn good movie. If you haven't read the book before, you'll probably be a bit lost, but overall you'll enjoy it. If you have read it, you'll be admiring the shot-by-shot recreations of everything from fight scenes to establishing shots, and the sincere respect and love with which the writers and director treated the source material.

Overall, Watchmen is a great start to the summer blockbuster season.

Ed's Totally Subjective Score: 9.2/10

Resurrection time again!

Another year, another dusting-off of the old blog in time for movie blockbuster season. Let's see how long it lasts this time.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Still alive!

Sorry for the absence, folks. A new version of Dwarf Fortress launched last week, and, well...

Anyway. A recap of last Saturday's session will be posted tomorrow, followed by some prep stuff (including more low-level ogre crunch for my fellow 4E DMs). Stay tuned

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Ed's Review: The Dark Knight

Midnight showings: great for the atmosphere, terrible for the plot comprehension.

When I walked out of the theater Thursday night (well, Friday morning), I couldn't have told you much about The Dark Knight other than that it was awesome. While that would generally be enough to go on, I've now seen it a second time, and I actually know why they were on that ferry, why there were some bills left in the vault, and how Harvey got his dad's coin back.

As with most movies, the second viewing also revealed a few previously unnoticed flaws. With as dark and realistic as the film tries to be, the occasions of magical technology don't really fit. (See: the bullet, the Bat-bike, and a big segment towards the end. The plane thing is excused on account of it being based on actual, if silly, technology.) Also, while Christian Bale's Batman voice has improved for the most part, there are a few scenes where it sounds like he just downed a 40 of Southern Comfort and is feeling belligerent.

But! That's it for nitpicks. Let them be crammed into a single paragraph and forgotten, for this...this is the Big Damn Movie of the Summer.

Everything else about this movie is awesome. Heath Ledger, without any shadow of a doubt, steals the show; saying he's the best Joker yet is like saying the grand canyon is sort of deep and the Atlantic Ocean is kinda big; he's aided a lot by some spectacular writing, but that's only a fraction of the total equation. There's not enough that can be said about his performance...he completely inhabits the role. Which, actually, may partially explain the tragedy earlier this year.

Aaron Eckhart, meanwhile, takes the first runner-up award as Harvey Dent, and draws on a little Clint Eastwood-i-ness as his character arc progresses. Christian Bale is Christian Bale; the spotlight doesn't shine nearly as brightly on him this time, so he doesn't get much time to flex his acting muscle. Maggie Gyllenhaal is leagues and leagues better as Rachel Dawson than Katie Holmes was, and in all seriousness, had me crying a little during her big scene on my second viewing. (The first time, I was too busy being stunned.)

The plot is epic. It could have definitely been stretched and filled enough to make two seperate films, but despite that it doesn't feel condensed or rushed at all. The story raises a lot of surprisingly deep moral questions, both through the Joker's social experiments and Bruce Wayne's heroic journey. The editing is a bit rough in a couple of places (one conversation between Bruce and Alfred obviously suffers from it), but these instances are zipped by without a second glance, and you'll have forgotten them in seconds.

All in all? Seriously, this movie rocks. I'd like to think it'd be impossible to dislike, but I am, sadly, aware of the existence of RottenTomatoes.com and the people who frequent it. It's not the life-changing experience some of us had secretly hopes for, but it's still far and away the best film of the summer. Go see it.

Ed's Totally Subjective Score: 9.8/10

PS: Why weren't they Harvey Bullock and Renee Montoya? Seriously, come on.

Friday, July 18, 2008

Pre-Review for The Dark Knight

It's way too late and I'm way too tired to go into a full review just yet; The Dark Knight is epic, and there's too much for my weary brain to wrap itself around just yet. Still, there's a few things I've gotta say right off the bat...

1) Mr. Hamill, I'm sorry. I grew up with you, and I'm sure I'll still hear your voice when I read a comic, but there's no way around it: you are no longer the best Joker.

2) Mr. Ledger, I don't know if reincarnation exists, but if it does, could you get on that? Like, now?

3) WATCHMEN! Yes! Before the movie, there's a trailer for Watchmen. And now I've got another long year of waiting to go. (Oh, there was a trailer for Terminator 4, too, but...WATCHMEN!)

4) I didn't realize how much Katie Holmes sucked until I saw her replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal. Rachel Dawson is so much better now.

5) Okay, it's official: the prosthetics technology necessary for a Jonah Hex movie exists. C'mon, Time Warner.

6) They're Renee Montoya and Harvey Bullock in my personal canon.

7) And here I thought ballerinas were encouraged to be aerodynamic.

That's all I got for now. Tomorrow: actual review! Here's a spoiler, though...I'm pretty sure the score's going to be in the high 9's.