The Wolverine

August 4, 2013 by  
Filed under Movies

Wolverine is one of my favorite super heroes. With “X-Men”, Wolverine was always the most intriguing character because he was so conflicted. On one hand, he has a good heart. But he’s also very angry and violent, and he hates authority. It makes sense that eventually Wolverine would get his own film series, because he’s such a three dimensional character. And he’s so well played by Hugh Jackman that it’s always appealing to know there’s a film coming out with Wolverine in it. In “X-Men Origins: Wolverine”, he just wasn’t given a very good story. In “The Wolverine”, however, things are a little different.

First of all, I liked that this storyline took from the “Wolverine” series that Frank Miller worked on in the 80’s in which Logan is in Japan. I always liked those comics, and I liked that Wolverine was the feature star of a comic book series because he certainly could carry one. We’re introduced to Wolverine at first during the Nagasaki bombings. He saves the life of a Japanese soldier who grows old and lives a full life thanks to Wolverine saving him. The old man named Yashida (Haruhiko Yamanouchi) is a successful business guru who is on his death bed and asks to see Wolverine one last time. Wolverine, meanwhile, is grieving the loss of his beloved Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) whom he had to kill in “X-Men: The Last Stand”. Her ghost haunts his dreams and he can’t get over losing her, especially since he had to take her life. But he accepts the offer from the old man, whose invitation is delivered by a precocious girl with some nifty ninja moves named Yukio (Rila Fukushima) who can see into the future. He is taken to Japan where he meets Yashida’s beautiful granddaughter Mariko (Tao Okamoto) whom Yashida is afraid for because he feels like if he dies, she will not be protected. So he reveals to Wolverine that he wants to take the thing that makes Wolverine “immortal”, and have it for himself since he believes Wolverine doesn’t want to live forever, anyway.

Wolverine doesn’t take the offer, though, and the old man dies. This leaves Mariko vulnerable to the Yakuza who are after Yashida’s business. Her own fiance is behind this so he can gain control of the company which has been left to her. So Wolverine steps in to help her, and gets caught in the middle. He also has suspicions of an assistant of Yashida, a bombshell named Dr. Green (Svetlana Khodchenkova), who does something to Wolverine that takes away his powers for a while and it’s revealed she’s after the same thing Yashida was.

All of this is pretty entertaining fodder for an effective, efficient super hero action film that delivers what “Origins” didn’t, and that’s a compelling story. Predictable? Absolutely. But the performances by Fukushima, Okamoto and Jackman are strong enough that the lacking creative qualities are compensated. Jackman’s performance is absolutely perfect. He has really owned this role of Wolverine and it’s actually a shame he will never be considered for an Academy Award because this is a comic book character and not a period piece. He absolutely commands the screen when he’s on, and practically carries the movie on his back. I almost think he shouldn’t be put in another “X-Men” movie because it might undermine the rest of the characters. He’s just that good.

Some of the action sequences are breathtaking, too. There’s a sequence on top of a super fast train that, while mostly CG, is pretty enthralling. The climactic battle with a giant Robosamurai is a pretty good one, too. When you put it all together, it’s a fun movie. It’s nothing great, but it’s a good entry into the “Wolverine” series. I hope it can continue this way, too, because Jackman is a real treat to see playing this role.

My rating: :-)

The Dark Knight Rises

July 24, 2012 by  
Filed under Movies

Back in 2005, Christopher Nolan rescued one of the most self-destructive franchises in movie history when he resurrected Batman in “Batman Begins”. What began as a promising run with Tim Burton in 1989 devolved quickly once it was taken over by Joel Schumacher in the mid-90’s; and the culminating film, “Batman & Robin”, promised that the franchise had completely fallen apart. After that film, I think we were all sick of Batman. At least, we were sick of *that* Batman. But, Batman as a symbol of justice, as a comic book hero, is still intriguing. The costume, the super rich alter ego, and the inner struggle of the character, are still something we yearn to see.

And so, Christopher Nolan, who at the time was still making his way into the Hollywood mainstream, rebooted the whole thing and started from scratch. At the time, we didn’t have an onslaught of comic book movies every year, so it didn’t feel as much as a saturated genre (as, say, watching “The Amazing Spider-Man” did). And Nolan took a serious approach to Batman, someone who wanted to do a character study as well as an action film. The result, “Batman Begins”, was a smashing success. Finally we saw Batman as a real character. The film was dark and brooding much like Burton’s 1989 version; but we learned so much more about Bruce Wayne and Batman in this film. With champion efforts by good actors like Michael Caine and Chrisitan Bale, this Batman movie was thorough, thought-provoking, and sensational.

His follow up was one of the biggest and best comic book epics brought on screen with “The Dark Knight” in 2008. Though that movie was surrounded by the hype of the passing of Heath Ledger, the film stood as a fantastic, big scale action thriller with one of the best “villain” performances in film history. It would be hard to top an achievement such as “The Dark Knight.”

This time, Nolan tries his best with “The Dark Knight Rises”, throwing everything and the kitchen sink at us with big explosions and massively complex action sequences. The result? Well, I said it’d be hard to top “The Dark Knight”. And, it certainly doesn’t come close. In fact, this to me was the weakest of the 3 films. It spends so much time on the action and too much time on corporate politics, and so little on character, that this was an imbalance.

“Rises” begins big with an escape by the villain Bane (played by Tom Hardy), a hulking cross between a roided up bomber pilot and Darth Vader who has a curious wit that could be appreciated if we could understand what he was saying half the time. While the voice is a bit bass amplified and broadcast through surround sound, sometimes it’s so muddled that you just have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Other times, his voice goes so over the top it’s hard to tell if he’s aware of how silly he sounds. But when Bane throws his hands, it’s no laughing matter. There’s no question that he is the most physically imposing villain that Batman has faced in the entire movie series, dating back to the 60’s.

Meanwhile, Bruce Wayne is bankrupt after a venture with Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), who seemingly comes out of nowhere to help Wayne Enterprises, and has invested in a fusion power project that has ultimately cost him his fortune, and his board removes him from the company. She and Wayne share a brief romance; but there isn’t a lot of time spent on their relationship, and perhaps it’s for the best in the end.

As for Batman, he’s retired. Wayne suffered an injury that has left him a bit crippled. This is taken advantage of by another adversary, who is Selina Kyle, or, Catwoman (Anne Hathaway). She’s a burglar who only steals from rich people…like Robin Hood. Only with much more sex appeal. There are two sides to this character, though, and she is actually one of the stronger ones in the film thanks to a brilliant performance by Hathaway. There is a vulnerability inside her; but she “masks” it (ahem) with a hard edge that says she can’t be manipulated. Wayne somewhat sympathizes with her; she feels something for him as well, but she just can’t show it.

Batman does make a comeback, however, as expected. Otherwise I guess the movie would’ve only been 45 minutes long and called “The Dark Knight Says I’d Rather Not”. He’s not as strong as Bane, however, and routinely gets dominated by Bane’s strength and agility. The reason Bane is so similar to Batman physically is because he was trained by the same man, Ra’s al Ghul (reprised by Liam Neeson) in the League of Shadows. Bane was excommunicated, and is seen as Batman as a “rogue”. But Bane wins out, and Batman is cast into the same prison that Bane grew up in, with his only hope of escaping is by climbing out of a hole and leaping to freedom. Allegedly, Bane is the only one who could ever do this, and it was when he was a child.

The city of Gotham is at Bane’s mercy, and he destroys a part of it with explosives in the ground that erupt and blow up a football stadium (one of the more breathtaking sequences in the film), and some of the bridges. It also encases the entire police force underground, leaving the city to a Lord of the Flies-like Martial Law. However, this won’t last very long as he has coveted a nuclear bomb after releasing the core from its fusion power chamber, that will detonate in 5 months. Whomever programmed a time bomb for that long either forgot to carry the one, or is a very patient madman.

The only cops that are above ground are the disgraced former Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) and a bright young cop named Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Blake still believes in the Batman even though he’s part of a police force that was after him when Batman was still capering in Gotham City.

All of these stories meshing together do make for an ok 165 minute lark. There’s never a moment of boredom in the film because it’s packed with so many intense sequences and climactic action scenes. It does not wear you out. However, because of the scale of the epic, and a drop off in character development, there are some lulls in the storylines that leave some very wide open plot holes. I’m all for suspending disbelief, but this really tries your patience on more than a few occasions, especially at the end. Then it goes beyond suspending disbelief to the point where you have to damn near expel it. Also, Bane is not nearly as interesting or consistent as the Joker was. Granted, it would be hard to top Heath Ledger’s performance. But Bane really doesn’t have much of a personality; and, as I mentioned before, it’s hard to understand a word he’s saying sometimes. Hardy does as much with his eyes and body language to convey his meaning; but the overpowering inability to hear his words really hurts the performance. I blame this on post production and Nolan’s stubbornness more than Hardy’s acting chops, however.

The film’s pace is fine, and it does have some superior effects; on balance, I would have still recommended it…had it not been for the ending, as I mentioned above. Nolan has always seemed to rise above standard movie cliches and even with the somewhat bloated “The Dark Knight”, he still told a compelling story rich in story and character, and here I just felt left out. But beyond that, which I could still forgive, the ending is not only cliched, but ultimately impossible. And in its final shot, more groan inducing than moving. Nolan is an intelligent writer and filmmaker; but here, he seems to take the easy way out to appease the audience. I would’ve expected a more complicated or compromising climax out of such a grandiose trilogy. Instead, it’s very predictable and relies so heavily on your belief in comic book hero magic that it just felt out of place in a film series full of so much…reality. And that’s what had separated Nolan’s Batman series from the others.

This is still a strong trilogy; in time, I may forgive the film for its flaws. For now, I can only give a mixed review and say I would’ve liked to see more out of a filmmaker I respect as much as Christopher Nolan.

My rating: :?

Iron Man 2

May 17, 2010 by  
Filed under Featured Content, Movies

Comic book movie sequels can be a conundrum. While you already have the pressure of being a sequel already, most of the time you’re given the chance to flesh out your hero a little more and give them another villain to work with. You do, however, have the advantage of a lot more material to work with. Marvel is the most prominent icon in comic book movies today, with the successes of The “Spiderman” series, the “X-Men” series, a revamped “Hulk” series, and of course the first “Iron Man”. But the “Iron Man” series has a different kind of approach to its sequel because the function of its hero, Tony Stark, isn’t a tortured soul like Peter Parker or Bruce Banner. He’s actually a charismatic billionaire who loves life and loves his money. So the angle here isn’t about morphing into a monster or using super hero strength to counter a nerdy teenage existence. Quite simply, “Iron Man” is about one thing:

Toys. Tony Stark loves his main toy, the Iron Man suit with all its bells and whistles and impossible awesomeness. He doesn’t believe it should go to the military to be used in some liberal agenda. He also believes he’s the only one who can be trusted enough to use it. Copycats have tried and failed; except for an ex-con in Russian whose father used to work with Tony’s father and was exiled from the project. The Russian, played by Mickey Rourke in a very underused role, creates a suit that can rival Iron Man’s power and ability. It also happens to look pretty cool.

Meanwhile, Tony is tangled up in a plot with a group called S.H.I.E.L.D. that knows Tony’s suit can be useful; but Tony himself is useless. Scarlett Johansson plays Black Widow (though she’s never referred to that code name in the fim; she’s Natasha or Natalie), part of the organization, and Samuel L. Jackson plays Nick Fury.

Also, Ivan (Rourke) is lured into a scheme by a rival gun maker named Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) to build a better Iron Man suit so he can upstage Tony Stark.

This is all well and good, and I think the movie tries to show off how cool it is a little too much. The thing I liked so much about the first film was that it was surprisingly charming and interesting as well as being pretty good to look at. The final battle scene was as hokey as they come; but by that time, the film was already likable enough to where I didn’t care.

But a sequel was not going to really be surprising. We knew what we were getting, ultimately. This wasn’t going to be like “Superman II” or “Spider-man II” or even “X-Men 2”. There was no real growth for Tony. Tony is Tony. He has a bit of a problem with his ticker, but it doesn’t really change who he is. This one’s just louder and more stuff gets blowed up. In a somewhat self-serving and indulgent scene, Tony and his long time pal Rhodey (played this time by Don Cheadle instead of Terrence Howard) get into a big macho fight that leaves Tony’s pad really busted up. And of course their friendship is kind of hurt at that point.

The movie is very predictable and not as enjoyable as the first. There’s a freshness missing; and while Downey, Jr. and Rourkey provide entertaining characters and some nice moments, the movie still is what it is: it’s just an action film. Sure, that’s fine. I still enjoyed that part of it. Perhaps this series is a bit doomed in that regard. Tony will never NOT be Tony, nor will he have room to grow to be more mature. He’s fun and charming, but there’s not anything flawed enough in him to make a real change. In other words, there’s not as much at stake. Not for his character or what will happen to his life. He puts on a suit that’s able to be pulverized by an electronic whip and still survive. He’s still insanely rich; and the future’s bright. I’m not sure where else this story needs to go.

But if there is going to be an “Iron Man 3”, which I feel there will, I think it’s a mistake. The next project for this would be a “S.H.I.E.L.D.” film, or the Avengers. I think the last bit at the end of the film credits reveals that’s probably inevitable. I think that may be a lot more fun than seeing a guy fly around in a metal suit blowing stuff up for two hours for a third time.

My rating: : :|

Kick-Ass

April 22, 2010 by  
Filed under Featured Content, Movies

“With great power, comes great responsibility.” That’s Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben, giving his nephew Peter a little bit of foreshadowing as he emerges as The Amazing Spider-man. True words.

But how about when you have no power? Kick-Ass, also known as David Lizewski (played by English actor Aaron Johnson), asks this question in the film “Kick-Ass”, a non-superhero super-hero movie that works almost as two movies. One, a light hearted comic book movie that features a lot of action, and cartoon violence. The other is a more serious undertone of betrayal, hatred, and exploitation on the part of fathers and their children. Do the two work?

Well, let’s back up for a moment. “Kick-Ass” introduces a super hero idea in which we live in the normal world, and one kid doesn’t understand why there hasn’t been a copy-cat of a comic book super-hero. He invents one that ultimately is named Kick-Ass, and goes to try and save kittens or junkies from being beaten up by a gang of other junkies. When he is incapacitated by one such group, he has lost some feeling in certain parts of his body so he is able to withstand more beatings than the normal human being. In all of the comic book movies I’ve seen, this was the most painfully realistic set up for an origin story I’ve seen. Nothing about military experiments. No explosions in the lab, no radioactive side effects from an arachnid bite. No, this was just a kid who got a little over his head and wound up surviving a stab wound among other injuries.

But, instead of deterring him from fighting crime, it inspires him even more. He is an internet sensation, and he designs a MySpace page (dating the film’s development process, obviously). He gets the attention of two others–a disenchanted father (played by Nicholas Cage) and his daughter, Mindy. He has an idea to showcase her as a superhero as well–but a much more violent one, as Hit Girl. She’s got a mouth that would give Irish Spring and Dove a billion dollar endorsement, and moves that make Cat Woman look like an amateur.

They somewhat “team up” when Kick-Ass is asked by The Hot Chick at David’s school, as they have become chums since she thinks he’s her gay BFF, to tell one of her former “clients” at a help clinic to back off of her. When Kick-Ass goes to this guy’s pad, he realizes he really is way in over his head as there are five or six other guys in there and they can easily kill him. But Hit Girl comes in and saves the day, and from there, the other more insidious plot develops.

A drug cartel is being run in the city underground by a powerful “lumber entrepreneur” named Frank D’Amico (played by another English actor, Mark Strong), and his plans are being spoiled by an unidentified “masked man” who has been killing his men. On this night when Kick-Ass is identified as being a part of the scheme (since the “client” was working for him), he is indicted fully by D’Amico, who wants him dead. His son, Chris (played by McLovin, or Christopher Mintz-Plasse), concocts a plan to create his own super hero persona to lure Kick-Ass and let his dad catch him. He wants to “learn about the family business”. His father allows it, and thus creates Red Mist.

When we learn about Mindy’s father’s past, the plot becomes a bit muddled in its purpose. What was once a fun loving, cute, and somewhat realistic approach to what it would be like to be a “real life superhero” becomes a darker, more sardonic tale of revenge and manipulation. Mindy’s Dad, Damon (super hero persona is Big Daddy, and he sports a very funny Adam West impersonation), raises his daughter to be a lethal killer so he can exact revenge on D’Amico for selling him out and causing major family complications. When she is enlisted as Hit Girl, she is more than willing. It’s hard to tell whether it’s just brainwashing and we should dislike Damon; or, we should feel he’s justified. It’s a slippery slope, and one that may be a little too heavy-handed for otherwise such a jovial movie.

The film’s fork in the road occurs when Kick-Ass  and Big Daddy are captured by D’Amico’s men, and there’s a very real danger of them being killed. While David is narrating the film, he reminds us of other endings in which the hero narrates even when he’s not alive. Is it a ruse? Or will this film go that far to prove a point?

The film, from this point, sheds its realistic layer of skin and uncovers what I guess it was going for all along–superhero comic book violence and big explosions.

It’s hard to say whether it’s a total failure. I was, by this time, completely enthralled by the film. I really liked the characters, and I really hated the bad guys. In the climactic ending, it is extremely unrealistic and extremely violent. It bears no resemblance to the sweet and funny movie it started as. But I didn’t dislike how it progressed. If you look at a lot of comic book stories, some of them do resemble normal stories of normal people in fantastic situations. Peter Parker is the perfect example. He is exactly what “Kick-Ass” is emulating, except that Peter Parker *does* possess super powers.

The lesson of the film is certainly muddled because of the bombastic way the film ends. It goes from being about taking responsibility for who you are, the loss of identity, and the exploitation of society, to being about getting revenge and losing yourself in the super hero persona. My feeling is that’s what the filmmakers wanted. They wanted this ultimately to be a sarcastic super hero film that ends like all other super hero movies end. And of course, it ends on a note that leaves it open for a sequel.

I liked this film a lot, and I would love to see a sequel. I’d love to revisit these characters. But I wonder if maybe they were missing something here. It’s hard to feel sorry for Damon, Mindy’s dad, because he’s made her a victim just as much as he made himself. Whether Mindy likes her lifestyle as being a cold-blooded killer or not, she wasn’t really given the choice. It’s a bit dark and moody and out of place in a movie that’s supposed to be mostly for laughs. However, I do find it daring that they chose to make her so young. This is an age when the younger generation has an advantage over the older ones. They have technology, and so many more things at their fingertips. Is it really overexposure and exploiting? Or is it just the way things are now? Every generation takes a few steps back and a few steps forward. The invention of Hit Girl is tricky because I certainly wouldn’t like to see anyone try to mimic her in real life–they’d be killed. But her spirit is nothing to be offended by or be ashamed or afraid of. Her heart is in the right place. I also would hope that David has realized how much his docile and sympathetic father has been so much better for him letting him make his own choices, unlike Chris and Mindy, who have had their destinies and decisions forced upon them by their fathers. I do think the film missed the boat on that revelation.

Overall though, this is a good yarn, and it’s fun. Yes it gets a bit heavy handed at times, but I still find it very entertaining–and before you start feeling bad about reveling in Hit Girl’s ability to kill 5 men in less than 1 minute, remember that these are heartless criminals who do nothing for society except have more money than you and make crass remarks about women and double park when they shouldn’t. So really, she did us all a favor.

Take the film as an origin story for a comic book, and there’s not a lot of difference between this and any other comic book movie you’ve seen. And it delivers as well as the best ones out there.

My rating: :-)

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

May 26, 2009 by  
Filed under Featured Content, Movies

The Super Hero Train continues its wrath into our summer movie cineplexes, and this time–we revisit the X-Men. But not all of them. No, apparently the franchise made enough money to justify reinventing the series focusing on certain individuals of the clan, and why not kick it off with its most interesting and conflicted? Wolverine, or Logan (or James, as you will know him), is once again at the heart and center of epic battles and getting himself into all kinds of trouble with the government. But this time, he’s a bit naive to it all. He even falls in love.

Hugh Jackman brings a little more punch and anger to his character in this film, and in some scenes, just a look at the pain in his eyes tells you enough that Jackman can handle it. His portrayal of Wolverine in this film is his finest of the series, and while it won’t get him an Oscar nod (or even an invite to host again), he does make up for a somewhat sloppy narrative, a clunky first act, and an extremely predictable overall film. Like Will Smith did for the simplistic “I Am Legend”, Jackman is a large reason why this film works at all.

But it isn’t all about him. Some of the battle scenes, especially the climactic one with Weapon XI (also known as Deadpool–also known as something that’s crawled into my nightmares before), are breathtaking, and while the character relations between Wolverine and his brother Victor (played by Liev Schrieber who seems to enjoy playing an animal) and Wolverine and his love interest (that pays off after a forced beginning) are strenuously contrived–they don’t ruin the film completely.

This film is passable, and sometimes it is actually kind of fun. But of all the super hero movies we’re being inundated with, it would not surprise me if this one happens to fall between the cracks and disappears into oblivion until it becomes a cult classic twenty years from now. There’s nothing too spectacular–and even the great battle at the end steals a bit from various movies. I nearly suspected CGI prints were stolen from “The Phantom Menace” at times. I’d recommend seeing “Star Trek” over this–but if you’re in need of a Wolverine jones (which is a clinical condition, I’ve read), then this movie won’t disappoint. For die hard fans of the series and the character, you will be disappointed.

My rating: :|

Watchmen

March 8, 2009 by  
Filed under Featured Content, Movies

This film has been in the works for over two decades. As early as 1988 there was a draft penned by Sam Hamm (who co-wrote the first “Batman” film in 1989) for a film adaptation of “Watchmen”. For years it was passed around studios, laid around on people’s desks, rewritten by different people, and different directors taking passes on it. The one filmmaker that passed on it that struck me the most was Terry Gilliam, who said, “I’ll make it if I can make it 10 hours long”. Funny line, but I think he meant it.

After seeing this film, I know exactly what he means. He was kidding in a serious way. And here’s the long and short of it: “Watchmen” is unfilmable. Now, does that mean this was a bad film? Does it mean it wasn’t as “stunning” as some critics have called it? Not visually adaptable? Well, no. That’s not what I mean. Visually, the movie is extraordinary. The costumes are spot on; Dr. Manhattan is a true vision. The fight scenes are well choreographed.

But a movie isn’t just a bunch of visual shots. I would love to convince Zack Snyder of this, because he seems to think it’s more important to make a music video than a movie. And it made me wonder…so did they pick the wrong director? What went wrong?

Well, let me take a step back. When you think about what Terry Gilliam said–”You’d need 10 hours to tell this story”–he’s right. But wrong. You can’t do that. People would literally get bored. Why? Because they’re watching this, not reading it. A book, even a graphic one, can be enjoyed on a completely different level than a film. A film must have a spine, a theme, a plot, a point. “Watchmen” the book wanders through many plots, many themes, many points. “Watchmen” the film simply meanders and becomes muddled halfway through, because in trying to find itself, it gets lost in so many ideas that the book is allowed to breathe life into.

And that is what I mean by it being unfilmable. I think this was probably the best representation of the book there can possibly be, and yet I feel somewhat unfulfilled saying that the movie was, at best, a disappointment. Was it that I expected too much? No. I don’t even care that they changed parts of the ending to make it easier to understand. That’s natural. That happens with adaptations. And maybe not only Terry Gilliam was right, but the author himself, Alan Moore, said it perfectly: this was meant to be a comic book. Not a movie.

So, as an adaptation, this movie is actually as successful as it could be. But it’s still a failure as a film. Have I confused you yet? Well, try watching the movie without having already reading the book and see how far you get before you start wondering what you’re watching at all. And unless you’re David Lynch, movies aren’t supposed to be that confusing.

We have characters set up from the get go, with the murder of a famed superhero known previously as “The Minute Men” and now “The Watchmen”. He’s known as The Comedian, and his character is probably the heart of the film’s (and a lot of the book’s) theme. The Comedian is sadistic, sarcastic, cynical, hateful, and cold hearted. He, though, is a conundrum. His name is light hearted, and fun. It’s playful. He is a facade. He’s a joke. Behind the mask of a hero, he’s a villain. The film plays with this a lot, and sometimes beats you over the head with that, too.

Then you have Rorschach, who sees through it, and not only sees through The Comedian, but all of humanity. “The whores and the politicians will look up and shout, ‘Save us!’ And I’ll whisper, ‘No’.” He embodies humanity’s paranoia, while The Comedian embodies humanity’s hypocrisy and self loathing. Night Owl represents humanity’s simplicity and a root of normalcy (and blandness); while Dr. Manhattan takes on a whole other perspective: humanity’s struggle with itself and needing a deity to feel second to. Yet Dr. Manhattan questions everything in life as well, and also prefers solitude. But he judges, as well, even if he doesn’t want to.

And so you have all of this at play, and this is where the film gets into trouble. The book takes many paths, and that’s great for a book; but a film doesn’t get that luxury. You have to choose a plot and stick to it. There’s the murder plot of The Comedian; there’s the Doomsday Clock plot; and then there’s the subplots of the old “Minute Men” and the parallels of what was old and what’s new, and older generations fading and newer generations throwing away the past. The film, instead of trying to tie down a plot line, goes in every single direction the book does. And that’s admirable–but it’s a failure. It was set up as a failure. There was no way that approach was ever going to work.

It’s a shame because there are some wonderful moments in the film. The opening credit sequence with Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin’” was spectacular. Every scene with Dr. Manhattan was a treat for the mind. Rorschach’s journal entries are thoughtful and well narrated. But while the film tries to throw too much on one plate, it ultimately shatters, leaving audiences baffled more than enlightened.

I think it’s obvious I don’t give this a passing grade–but for some reason, I’m also not going to say I don’t recommend seeing it. I do recommend reading the book first and foremost. If you’re confused by the film, reading the book I think will make you appreciate what you saw more. There are some great things that Snyder does. But while he has wonderful source material to work with, he can only do so much with a 163 minute time limit. I won’t let him off completely, though; there were some things he could have done differently. And there is a sex scene that didn’t need to be in there at all.
So yes, this could have been done at 10 hours. But it would have been just as much a failure because this was never about strength of plot, but about ideas and themes and characters. “Watchmen” will never work as a film, because it’s not meant to. But this was probably the best representation you could get.

Maybe it just should have been left in production hell. But, it’s not a total waste of time. And the soundtrack’s pretty good, too.

My rating: :???: