Recently in On The Big Screen: Category

I Watched The WATCHMEN (Movie, That Is)

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
So I saw the Watchmen movie over the weekend (all but five or so minutes of the more violent/yucky parts, that is).

The movie was, in my opinion, "[coital-synonym-gerund-used-as-a-positive-comparative-modifier deleted ] incredible."  Arguably the best movie version of a comic book that I can think of.  It was as good as I'd hoped for.  It was a good movie, and seemed like it would make sense even to someone who had not read the comics now was a comic book reader.

The source for the WATCHMEN movie was the 12-issue comic book limited series from DC Comics published in 1986-1987 (and collected into booklike trade and hardcover book versions readily available from book stores, comic stores, the Science Fiction Book Club, or your local library).

When Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's ground-breaking WATCHMEN comic book series came out in 1985 and 1986, I had the good fortune to not only be buying and reading comic books again (I'd had a few few-year hiati), but was also reading/participating in comic book discussions online, through the Usenet rec.arts.comics.* Newsgroups.)  Aside from the too-rare feeling of sharing the experience of reading a great comic, eagle-eyed fans spotted easy-to-miss clues, speculated on what was going on (not as spoilers, just great guessing), providing a form of as-you-go commentary/annotation.  It was a great way to be reading great comics.

The premise/setting/plot of WATCHMEN, in brief, is that it's 1985 in an alternate-history where Nixon is still (thank to term limits being changed) president, and the Cold War with Russia is intense, with the "Doomsday Clock" -- likelihood of nuclear war -- at five minutes to twelve.  This world's first generation masked/costumed crimefighters, including those banded together as the Minutemen, have retired; the newer generation, the Watchmen, are out of action (or working for the government) because the government has outlawed costumed vigilanteism.

There is only one "superhero" -- meaning extraordinary powers, rather than physical skills and/or weapons and gimmickry: Dr. Manhattan, created by accident in a nuclear test facility.  As the WikiPedia entry notes, "Moore used the story as a means to reflect contemporary anxieties and to deconstruct the superhero concept."

Other of Moore's comic book work has been made into movies, including V FOR VENDETTA and THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN.  For reasons outside the scope of my review, Moore didn't want his name associated with this film -- which is sad, in my opinion, as this is the best and most authenticate movie version of his stuff to date.

Based on the trailers, and articles and interviews I'd read, I had no doubt that the movie would deliver an amazingly satisfactory look-and-feel of the comics, as if one had fallen asleep while reading it, and shifted into a dream version.  This is a lot harder to do for a comic than a book, I'd argue; for all that, say, Phillip Pullman's GOLDEN COMPASS (see my review) or Tolkein's LORD OF THE RINGS posed major challenges, we didn't really know what most of these looked like, we just had our mental images.  (Which the movies of both of these captured brilliantly, IMHO.)

And it delivered.  WATCHMEN, the movie, looked like the comic brought to life.  It included key scenes, dialogue, events, and images from the comic, while also adding or expanding to make sense.  The use of period music -- Bob Dylan singing "The Times They Are A-Changing" in the opening credits, notably -- was powerful beyond words.

The other question was, could and would a movie of WATCHMEN make sense -- could the plot, sub-plots, and other aspects of the comics be condensed into movie length?  Or would it only make sense -- correct sense -- to those of us who'd read the original comics?

I believe the movie made enough, and correct, sense, even if you hadn't/haven't read the original comics.  There were some omissions, and some changes, including aspects of the ending, but nothing I would request changing.
 
It was an incredible well-done movie. 

It was also, in many places, explicitly violent and gruesome enough that I avoided watching several scenes once it became clear what was about to happen -- all taken accurately from the original comic.  (Ditto several scenes with frontal male (CGI) nudity and explicit sex.)  This is NOT A MOVIE FOR CHILDREN, any more than the original graphic novel was. 

Arguably the hardest challenge was making a movie that meant something, when it couldn't mean what the comic meant in the mid-1980s (ignoring what the comic meant as a statement about superheros and superhero comics per se), because, of course, it's not the mid-1980's anymore, with the spectre of the Cold War hovering near.
Ditto, much of the audience is a new generation, not alive for the events or cultural references of a movie happening in an alternate-1986 (and many moviegoers not even alive when the WATCHMEN comics were first appearing).

I have no idea what someone between the ages of 15 and 30 would think of this movie, or what it would make them think.

But I feel that director Zach Snyder, the actors, and the myriads of other people involved in the making of this film kept it true to the spirit of being about something... and preserving the poetry of Alan Moore's writing, plotting and pacing, and of Dave Gibbons' artwork, as they made a movie.

So if you haven't already seen WATCHMEN, and can tolerate some moments of uber-violence (or are good at shutting your eyes quickly), go see WATCHMEN. 

Even if you don't go see WATCHMEN, at least watch the opening credits, with Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A Changin'" in the bckground, if they're still online somewhere.  (As I write this, copies are being cease-and-desisted off... search for "watchmen opening credits").  Here's the link I just found them at.

Like I said, expletive-deleted brilliant.

And whether you see/saw the movie or not, check out the fake trailer for Saturday Morning Watchmen, found by a friend:


 

On The Big Screen: The Golden Compass

| | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

I went and saw the film, THE GOLDEN COMPASS, the day after it opened, to make sure I saw it, on an at-least-middlin' sized screen.

I enjoyed it a lot; I'd happily go see it again (on a larger screen, if possible), and if the eventual DVD has extra material, I'd rent/borrow it for that, although I don't feel the desire to own and re-re-re-see the movie.

Spoiler alert: for those of you who haven't read the book (yet), I'll do the first half of this review without giving anything away, beyond stuff from the first few minutes. I'll put up a Spoilers Follow flag before any serious plot-killers.

Some of the underlying premise: The books (and movie) take place (mostly) in a parallel Earth, where people's souls are external and visible, taking animal form, and behaving like autonomous, talking beings. Referred to as "daemons," (pronounced "demon" in the movie, I don't know whether that's how Pullman meant it pronounced in the book, versus the more Greek-ish "day-mon." (This isn't a spoiler, it's part of the movie's voice-over intro.)

It's books, it's now a movie, too: Like the LORD OF THE RINGS film trilogy, and the five or six Harry Potter films, the GOLDEN COMPASS movie is based on a popular "ology" of fantasy books -- in this case, the first volume (except, I'm told, the last three chapters) of Phillip Pullman's trilogy HIS DARK MATERIALS. The three books in the trilogy are THE GOLDEN COMPASS (known in the U.K. as "Northern Lights"), THE SUBTLE KNIFE, and THE AMBER SPYGLASS. (Useful-looking web sites: www.hisdarkmaterials.org and the site by the book publisher.)

Book or movie first?: Should you read the books first? I can't advise you. Having read the books makes it lots easier to know what's going on, but, of course, changes the experience from "what's going to happen next?" to "So how will they show this?" -- probably the biggest challenge that Tolkein and Rowling readers faced in seeing the movie adaptations.

But do read them. I've read all three books -- several times -- and enjoyed them. They're full of distinctive characters, marvels and other nifty stuff, and a rip-rousing lot of action. (I've read some criticisms, mostly on how parts of the second and third books seem to lose their sense of direction, and I can't argue that, but they're still wonderful, wonder-filled, good books.

Good job of rendering the book?: My summary opinion of "how well did the movie do in conveying the book?": Very well. I had no clear in-my-head images of what I expected -- unlike, to some extent, LORD OF THE RINGS -- so I wasn't disappointed, and didn't find myself muttering "That's not what she/he/they/it looks like..." If anything, the movie exceeded my mental images. Lovely steampunktech vehicles, architecture, and all. The movie kept/conveyed the tone of the book, took us to all the locales -- Jordan College, the docks, the cold north, the castle of the armored bears. No complaints.

And the movie did a good job of introducing all the characters, helping us keep track, moving parallel sub-plots along... and bringing the events to a good closing point at the end, while also clearly stating what the (hopefully) next movie will be about.

The only thing I really didn't like was the dorky song over the closing credits. Bleah.

Go see it (unless you belong to a religious group that has forbidden members to see it).

SEMI-SPOILERS STARTING HERE...

I'm not going to tell you about the movie proper; other people can do that, probably better than I can.

The golden compass is an Alethiometer -- a handheld instrument that lets the user get answers to questions, assuming they have the ability to query the device and properly interpret its responses. In the book, if I recall, alethiometers are (important) tools used by protagonist Lyra Belaqua and others; in the movie, the golden compass takes on greater import, it seems.

There's some major differences between the book and the movie, although they don't, in my opinion, make a big difference to the general action.

In particular -- as you probably know if you've heard any of the radio interviews/discussions, or read some of the reviews -- in the movie, the Big Bad (to borrow a Buffyism) is the Magisterium, an organization seeking to eliminate free will, to wipe out sin. In the books, although the Mag. is still a Medium-Size Bad, it's, ultimately, about a powermad-gone-senile angel who claimed to be the divinity (if you read the books carefully, they're not about "God dying" or "killing God," it's "an angel who claimed to be the Creator"), and the BB is the angel Metatron and his multi-universal minions.

If/when we get to Movie #3, possibly even within #2, this could make for big differences; in GOLDEN COMPASS, not so much, in my opinion.

(The Catholic Church has decided that the Magisterium is a very thinly disguised negative portrayel of the Church -- something I, um, confess I neither noticed nor cared about either way. The Vatican is apparently Not Happy. It's good to see they're not still busy being upset about Dan Brown's DA VINCI CODE :-)

Things I liked: The movie's makers did a lot of nice touches regarding the daemons, which I've decided I won't mention, so that even if you've read the books, you can still get some sense-of-wonder out of this. I will say it was nifty seeing all the daemons alongside and interacting with their people, in scenes, it made the whole notion a lot more real than the books did.

The zeppelins were fabulous, the interior looked a lot like some of sf artist Tom Kidd's Gnemo paintings.

What else...I liked the cast, which includes Daniel Craig (the most recent James Bond) did a good job, Derek Jacobi in a good if small part, and Nicole Kidman  (loved her in MOULIN ROUGE) as a well-dressed "don't mess with me" mastermind. Great sets, great scenery. I gather some people complain that the CGI effects are to much like LORD OF THE RINGS, HARRY POTTER, and everything else that's been out lately; I didn't have that problem.

Conclusion, sort of: I don't know if this helps you decide whether or not to go.

My bigger question(s): I wonder what the reading/watching experience is like for somebody who hasn't read a bunch of fantasy and science fiction?

In theory, given STAR WARS, STAR TREK, HARRY POTTER, LORD OF THE RINGS, and NARNIA, not to mention ALIENS and whatnot, this may no longer be possible. However, soaking one's brain with movie and TV scifi isn't necessarily the same; it may familiarize you with obvious concepts (alien, rocket ship, faster-than-light, wizard, magic, lesnerize, et cetera), but not necessary "the science fiction (reader's) point of view."

About this Archive

This page is a archive of recent entries in the On The Big Screen: category.

Farewells is the previous category.

On The Small(er) Screen: is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

On The Big Screen: : Monthly Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.01