The A-word.
It's the bane of cinephiles, everywhere.
That book you love; the comic you remember; the show you used to watch; the game you lost an entire summer playing? Oh, someone's adapted it and it's getting made into a movie! Whether a cause for pre-emptive celebration or foreboding caution, it leads to only one thing: expectation. And expectation is the death of the 'clean' movie-viewing experience; no matter how closely the film sticks to its source material, or how much it tries to distance itself, it will be faced with the hurdle of comparison.
And while the movie industry loves the pre-built marketing buzz of 'now a major motion picture!', they loathe the comparative references which will be made from the first review onwards. Because many punters will expect to get exactly the same reaction from a completely different medium, to a story they already know. And therein lies the problem.
In this monthly series, we'll look back at some of the most respected and best-loved properties which have made the perilous journey to the big screen; often with some controversy, and almost always with far too much hype. This isn't so much a review of the films themselves, more an appraisal of their suitability as an adaptation.
Watchmen Alan Moore (w. Dave Gibbons, John Higgins) (1986)
And so, the next phase of this series - centering around the works of Alan Moore - begins with what could well be the most heavyweight of his adapted works, indeed, the archetypal Graphic Novel™. First released over twelve issues in 1986(/7) and set in an alternate 1985, Watchmen begins as a slightly offbeat murder mystery in a world where costumed heroes fought crime alongside the police, but have since been outlawed. The book's first page opens with three horizontal panels; a receding aerial view of the smiley badge once belonging to former Watchman and all-round a-hole The Comedian, lying in a gutter awash with blood. The sequence is narrated by the detective-vigilante Rorschach's journal and sets the tone of the book perfectly; rigid in its layout, nihilistic in its content, visceral in its meaning. This is topped later only by scientist-turned-demigod Dr Manhattan explaining that the difference between life and death is, to him, barely even worth mentioning.
This is only the third time I've finished the book, yet I still struggle to write anything approaching a 'review', probably not least because it's way more complex than the novels I do manage to read when I'm not sitting in a cinema or writing about sitting in a cinema. The first time I read it (before the Zack Snyder's film-version was released), I freely admit to being pretty much lost for the first four issues or so, although never to the point where I wanted to stop.
As well as the more straightforward flashback sequences as we go along here, tangent threads drift in and out of the main narrative, coalescing as the story evolves from all directions. Additionally, the last 3-4 pages of each issue present passages from in-universe books and magazines, giving the reader even more background to the characters and surrounding events. And not to get too hung up on the difference between a comic, a trade-paperback, a novel and a graphic novel, but Watchmen can be classed as A Novel on the sheer density of the text alone. And the aforementioned panel-structure means there are no placeholder or filler-pages. Every single line of every single frame matters, even though it may not seem to the first time round. This is a book which rewards re-reading. It also rewards patience; do not think 'oh, it's only twelve comics, I'll be able to zip through that in no time'.
Watchmen is a brightly coloured neo-noir with a heart as dark and cynical as the poor saps who populate its pages. It is also an absolute joy to read, if only because it's nice to know that no matter how fucked up our world has become in the thirty years since its release, things could always have turned out worse...
Ah, the DC ensemble hero-movie it's still cool to like ;) Joking aside, this film is the reason I can't give up on Zack Snyder, no matter how unsure his footing becomes these days. And oddly, Watchmen was one of the first movies I reviewed here, back in the day.
Landing in our cinemas in 2009, Watchmen hardly ushered in the 'dark superhero' movie, but it's arguable that films like 2005's Batman Begins paved the audience's way for a story like Watchmen to be told properly. The fact that the tale itself predates the cinematic trend for scowling heroes works even more in its favour. And speaking of timelines, in the alternate 1985 we see here, there are shades of the 'Bad Hill Valley' from Back To The Future Part II (and also in some of the ageing prosthetics, if I'm being fair). And while that film arrived with us three full years after the publication of Watchmen, it's worth noting that the cinematic version arrived twenty years after that. I like to think there's a bit of circular-influence going on, theatrically at least.
Of course there are differences between the storytelling techniques you can employ on the page and the ones which will work on-screen. The film can't dot around its own timeline in quite the same way, so most of the background world-building is taken care of with a montage behind the opening titles. Screenwriters David Hayter and Alex Tse capture the episodic feel of the story's published forbear, and while it's not as minutely-complex as the book, the plot itself it still largely intact. Although as my director's cut is just over three hours and still skips through some of the intricacy and nuance, it's hard to imagine what more it could have done, realistically. This isn't a panel-for-panel transcription of the original source-material, but it's as close as we were ever going to get*1, and hats off to Snyder for making that happen. Visually, tonally, emotionally, this is an outstanding adaptation.
Not that I heard. This time.
Although there is a very similar one when someone gets thrown over the railings in the prison-riot sequence.
Level 2: Well, Matthew Goode's in this (may god have mercy on his accent), and he was in that Stoker along with Ralph 'Ric Olié' Brown.
*1 Okay, apart from the space-squid. But I completely understand why they changed that for the screen. The 3hr director's cut doesn't even touch on the Tales Of The Black Freighter sub-story, either, and it's still arguably got far too much going on. Slightly ashamed to say I haven't braved the Ultimate cut, yet. But only slightly. I've got the Black Freighter DVD which was released separately, but viewed outside the confines of the film it loses its relevance and just becomes a short animated feature, so I didn't include it here. [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
The third time may be the charm but before that, the second is confirmation. A confirmation that I enjoyed Dawn of Justice. A confirmation that it's got some great characters, great performances and great moments. And a confirmation that the film is still an undisciplined, almighty mess. A mess which held my attention for its two and a half gruelling hours, but only as my brain picked holes from scene to scene (far to many to list here, unfortunately)*1.
Much has been said and written about Batman v Superman by now of course, and even I have to concede the validity of most of the sniping (although not the petition-raising by entitled fanboys who don't seem to be able to differentiate between a director and a writer). But today, I found that the key to enjoying Dawn of Justice is trying one's damnedest to ignore Jesse Eisenberg and his part in it. A repeat viewing only reinforces how much he's clearly not Lex Luthor, to anyone with even the most civilian knowledge of Superman's nemesis.
But what we really get here is the combined fragments of a great Batman film, a mediocre Superman one, and a dreadful Justice League setup. The former shows great promise (although I still hold deep reservations about Jeremy Irons), and as much as I'd like to see Affleck direct Batman's next outing, I'd love to see Kevin Smith helm it more. Superman's a little trickier as he has far less story-time here (which considering the film is about him seems odd), and the scenes we do get are hampered by the Daily Planet drudgery that should really be sidelined into a weekly TV show. And the less said about the DC extended-universe being pimped by having characters watch clips of superheroes on a laptop, the better.
White Dawn of Justice is by no means one of Snyder's best films, I can't hold him responsible for the film which came out of the editing suite. The jumbled storytelling smacks of mid-production and last-minute re-writes, studio hesitation and focus-grouping.
And as fascinating as I find the final product, a movie that cost a hundred million dollars for each hour of screen-time should do more than leave me interested…
Oh, and it's also a hell of a lot easier to watch in 2D.
Oh, 'DC things'…
By this point, I imagine you either already have or definitely won't.
Not likely.
Not nearly.
Nope.
There is indeed.
Level 2: Ben Affleck was in 2003's Daredevil (lest we forget) alongside Jon 'Pre Vizsla' Favreau.
*1 Although two things:
1) That 'mark of the bat' thing being a death-sentence in prisons is fucking bullshit for a start. Those institutions run on reputation; a brand that says "I'm such a badass I could only be taken down by the Batman" is going attract attention, but hardly mark someone out as an easy target. Those two blokes that the news report says were killed were doing time as p*edos. I suspect that would have been the real cause?.
2) How long have Gotham and Metropolis been that close together? When the bat-signal goes up and Lois Lane's on top of that building in Metropolis, it's like less than two miles away. I know they're on the edge of town, but are you really telling me that the combined size of these two would be smaller than London? Really? Or are they more like Newcastle and Gateshead? That could explain the initial animosity between the heroes, actually. It's not until Doomsday shows up (from Sunderland, I imagine) that they can put aside their differences…
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Well, that's a change of gear. Or rather, Dawn Of Justice is a change into several gears, all at once, for two and a half hours. Riding the cinematic clutch towards the Justice League, DC bring us a whole bunch of ideas and origins, all crammed into one 150 minute rollercoaster. And before I get properly started, I'll add here that the film kept me entertained throughout. Okay, it also kept me bemused and thematically motion-sick from time to time, but on the whole I enjoyed it*1.
The main stumbling block is that the story's trying to be in too many places at once and ends up flitting all over the place, even once the main plot-thread has kicked in. In trying to set up Batman, Superman's story falters and Wonder Woman's falls at just about every hurdle (and we all know Batman, of course, just not this Batman. Even if he's remarkably similar to Batman). Structurally, the film's a mess, and I don't know if that's down to re-shoots, re-writes or just taking two potentially great movies and cramming them into one which is less so. The film either needs to be much shorter or about 45 minutes longer, either would ease the strain.
There are also a few directorial issues that didn't seem to happen in the previous film. Laurence Fishburne is over-acting a cartoon version of the newspaper editor he played perfectly sensibly three years ago; Jeremy Irons forces himself to grimace through a wisecracking version of Alfred The Butler which suits neither the actor nor the character; and I've no idea why Jesse Eisenberg seems to think that the best portrayal of Lex Luthor would be channelling Jim Carrey's Riddler into the role, but Snyder appears to have agreed and has just let him get on with it, anyway*2.
Between the hyperactive story-threading, the shoe-horning of other DC properties and Bruce Wayne's anxiety daydreams, there's far too much going on here. Dawn Of Justice is not a great film, although there are great things within it. It's really a good second-draft which needs tightening up and trimming down.
Perhaps most ironically, DC have brought us a film which doesn't really do justice to the Superman we know, and certainly doesn't do justice to the Batman we don't.
Okay, it may not be Zack Snyder's Watchmen, but at least it's not Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch. We should all be grateful for that, if nothing else...
All of the superhero movies at once, I think.
Go big or go home.
Sadly, I don't think it does.
And it does pain me to say that, even as a Marvel fanboy.
Not nearly.
Not at all.
There only bloody IS, yes!
Level 2: This film's got Scoot McNairy in it, and he was in Killing Them Softly with Ben Mendelsohn, who'll be in Star Wars: Rogue One later this year. Actually they were in Black Sea together as well, which is why my brain struggles to separate them since those films were where I saw both of them for the first time. Even though there's like this ten year age difference between them.
Anyway yeah, that. Look, I've been awake for 22 hours as I write this and I'm still too buzzed to sleep...
*1 I pretty much have to say this because I'm going to go on and pick it apart. But ultimately, it's a film I'll gladly watch again, even if that's just in prep for the sequel. I can see why the critics are mauling it, and as much fun as I had, I'd be hard pressed to actually disagree, put it that way.
*2 Oh, and further to Superman having My Two Robin Hood Dads, it turns out that Batman's parents are Maggie out of the Walking Dead and The Comedian out of Watchmen. Which explains a lot, when you think about it…
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Man of Steel (second-pass)
Cert: 12A / 143 mins / Dir. Zack Snyder / Trailer
Superman's mum is hot. There, I said it. I mean his Kryptonian mum (no offence Superman's Earth mum). I'd noticed this last time I watched the film, but I'd forgotten how much until now. This seemed to be a running theme, in fact. I'd also forgotten how much I enjoyed Man of Steel. I didn't forget that I enjoyed it, of course, just how much damned fun it is. Even the run-time didn't bother me too much this time around.
Another thing which slipped my mind is that both of Superman's dads here are Robin Hood. If that's not the setup for a sitcom, I don't know what the hell is.
But yeah, I had great fun revisiting Zack Snyder's retooling of Krypton's last son. I love how much time we get to spend on his home planet at the beginning of the film. It's not a throwaway setup, it's an entire prologue and everything which follows benefits massively from its inclusion. And even if the last hour of the movie is essentially an extended fight scene, it's a one which doesn't let up.
Although really, Kal? Now you sigh audibly and snap Zod's neck? Before the cowering family in the corner are bisected, but after hundreds of thousands have been crushed under the collapse of Metropolis? Oh, alright then…
Still holding up well after a few years, Man of Steel is DC proving that they can play with the big boys. Or rather, proving that they are one of the big boys.
Tonally, it's somewhere between Chris Nolan's Batman and Tim Burton's Batman.
If you get the chance, sure.
More than.
It's certainly the best I've seen Cavill.
Nope.
There certainly is.
Level 2: This film's got Larry Fishburne in it, and he was in that Apocalypse Now, as was Harrison 'Solo' Ford.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Watchmen
Watchmen
