Watchmen: The Ultimate cut

In honor of my 1000th view on That Indie Reviewer, I am going to review one of my all time favorite films, Watchmen. I don't know why, but everyone seems to pick on this film. But why, it's stylish, visually impressive, brilliantly portrayed and, for the most part, pretty much matches the source material. So what went wrong with the fan-base declaring it an insult to the greatest Graphic Novel of all time. Let's find out.
In America, over a third of the population read Comic Books, most of them follow them religiously. If you ask anyone who has reads comics or graphic novels "what have you read?", a majority will say Watchmen. The novel has redefined Comic Books as a graphic novel, including delicate themes of responsibility and choice, elements of philosophy and a deep examination of society. Among its many achievements, is the inclusion on Time's "all-time greatest novels list". All of this aside, it was a testament to comics as writer Alan Moore wanted to prove just how powerful a graphic novel can be.

Set in 1985(alternate timeline for the noobs) in America, Vietnam and Mars. It follows the misadventures of a vigilante group of Heroes called The Watchmen. After the government and public have spoken, they are branded illegal and under government property. The film follows the death of one of the watchmen who was killed in one of the best shot fight sequences since the Matrix duel between Mr Smith and Neo. One of the heroes, Rorschach, tries to uncover a conspiracy theory, while the others dissuade him.
One of the best parts of this film is the acting and the portrayals, especially Jackie Earle Haley(Rorschach), of each of the heroes. When reading the novel, I tried to think of what their voices sound like and how they would really react. The use of a mostly unknown cast brings a sense of realism to this. The only actor I thought was quite underwhelming was Malin Akerman as Silk Specter/Laurie Juyzpekle. Everyone else was, pretty good, but I just felt she didn't really know what to do with this role. As I said before, Rorschach is just a complete bad-ass(in fact I think I should have put him on my list of top ten Bad-asses).He is the common saving grace for fans, that he was what made the film so great. But there is so much more. Each fight sequence(yes each of them have a little bit of or is complete slow-motion) is shot in such a style it flows and feels like this is how and why these guys did the whole superhero shtick. Another is the locations and bringing the comic to life, seeing the stretch of Mars and the filthy night life of New York(Note: New York is a lovely city with lovely people). In the extended cut, which I assume most haters of the original cut have avoided, includes adaptions of the voyage of the black trader(voiced, in animation, by Gerard Butler) and has extended scenes with the every men of daily life. I also love this soundtrack, especially the opening montage(one of the best forms of film-making in a long time) and during the funeral of the Comedian.

There are some things that are wrong though. There is a lack of subtlety in who the villain is(no really guess?). The actor who plays him just didn't give off the trusting, philanthropic businessman that was in the comic, in fact he cares for little to nothing during the entire movie. It's only at the end that he really cares and even that seems forced. I won't say that slow motion is bad, but it is certainly overused in this movie, I wouldn't mind the mix of fast and slow pace or just fast pace. I would certainly like to have seen more of each characters philosophy or political or religious opinion. Each one had a certain standpoint of ideals(eg. Rorschach is a left-wing nihilist, comedian is a right-wing patriot).

But these are only some minor points. The film has its own sense of time and patience. It went at its own pace and it brought to life memorable characters, with a memorable story on what it really means to be a superhero. It is elegant, stylish, well portrayed and this sights number one guilty pleasure and one of my 15 favorite movies of all time. In my opinion, see this film, its one of those strange oddities of film that is not usually seen, like fight club or Donnie Darko. In fact it's not even guilty to watch it, you will feel renewed watching it.

Fight Club

Well this was unexpected wasn't it (Note to self: get better jokes). Well in wake of watching this film I have realized that the best way to attract a crowd is to follow a certain set of rules. RULE 1: You don't talk about That Indie Reviewer, Rule 2: YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT THAT INDIE REVIEW!
(OKAY Maybe you can, please do)
Fight Club is about this man. Just a man you don't know the name of, and his life is SO boring. He has insomnia, he can't concentrate. It's like when you have stayed up every night to watch a midnight movie while your parents don't know for about two weeks (not that I would know anything about that). He is played by Edward Norton, who you will not see in anymore Incredible Hulk movies. He has his whole mid life crisis at thirty, feeling unfulfilled as an average white collar worker in an insurance firm and as a human being who just is stuck. Now here is where I admit freely to feeling stuck in a nowhere lifestyle or at least I am afraid of that. No feeling is worse than emptiness. That is until Tyler Durden pops in to his life. A soap seller played by a ripped Brad Pitt, he is just so psychotic and fun loving that you just go with it. To relieve the stress in their lives they start a club that people can just beat the crap out of each other until they tap out. But this is only the Beginning.
The visual flare of this film just pops with interest. I mean the animation is like those films made in the late 90's/early 2000's, like toy story blended with CSI: crime scene investigation. But there is more than that. The shots and cinematography is spectacular. You see the grittiness and filth of this world through Eds eyes and you feel pumped for the reactions these guys have. I feel as though this has a fairly subtle message on the economy and society. When you see it "through the eyes of Sherlock Holmes, you see the battlefield", well through the eyes of Tyler Durgen you see a level of the world you know you must not see. When acknowledging the cast, each member contributes their personalities, like Brad Pitt being an eccentric, thrill seeking badass, Edward Norton playing a average Joe with a personality complex and Helena Boham Carter as a mysterious factory chimney of gruesome nature and quirky mannerisms.
We are bombarded by a whole reel of madness breaking through sanity, this wasn't how men dealt with life or the problems they have...or is it sanity breaking through this madness of life. Driving to work, catching up with our daily Starbucks coffee, filing our AR files into the blue section, trying not to imagine hitting our boss, having another late night meal of eating the leftovers of the leftovers and sleeping after sitting for an hour and a half thinking of ways to clear our mind. This is our sanity, it's not healthy to be self contained and insecure. Watching this, take note of the flickers happening every time Ed acknowledges or question of his insanity.
The film is plagued by the gruesome fact that life is cruel and unrelenting, moments arise that will put many at awkward levels yet to be reached by anyone who hasn't seen this or any other movie I have reviewed. So for those of you who can't stomach what hass been handed out so far, then you might like this film a little more. I think this is one of the best cult movies that I have seen so far (After Donnie Darko) and for many of you, as well as mainstream audiences, you will very much like this film. But like American Psycho its brutal and enjoys it, so don't watch it with your parents. Beautifully crafted, shot and executed, no wonder it is seen as one of the best films of all time.

The Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy

There is a pestilence upon this land, that apparently everything good is barely noticed and anything bad is given all the attention just for us to focus our negative reactions just to get a reaction. With that said, let us concentrate on a relatively unknown adaption of a famous Sci-fi series. No, not Star trek, a British sci-fi series. Not Doctor who, but A Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. Never heard of it, not surprising. In the 1970's Douglas Adams performed a medium transfer from radio to novel with the adventures of A Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. Soon after it was adapted for TV and now screen(so its a medium transfer, from a medium transfer, from a medium transfer). Now, I never read the novels or saw the show, well I tried but it was a bit slow and I saw the movie first so the quality was different. So I shall be looking on this movie as just the movie not by it's medium transfer.

The story follows Arthur Dent and his travels through space on the spaceship the "Heart of Gold", alongside fellow earth being Trillian, aliens Ford Prefect and his semi-half-cousin Zaphod Beeblebrox and depressed robot Marvin. After earth is destroyed to make way for a hyperspace bypass, Arthur and Ford hitch a ride with Vogons who are hot on the trail of President of the Galaxy, Zaphod who stole the Heart of Gold. From here they embark on a quest to find the ultimate question to the answer of life the universe and everything. (I dare you to look that up on Google, the answer is at the bottom of this page). 

Now the main criticism for this film comes to the the fact that most things in this film you may not get all the jokes or the refrences due to it being adapted from a novel and TV show. But to tell the truth, I understood everything, thanks to Stephen Fry playing the Guide. His voice makes him the master of exposition and anything he says, you'll listen to it. Another criticism comes from the cast half being made up by Americans like Zooey Deschanel and Sam Rockwell. To me they had more than enough energy to portray the characters. The British cast is very well cast especially Martin Freeman as Arthur. Of coarse, it's the little people who make this film for me. Warick Davis Portrayed Marvin, while Alan Rickman voiced. You could not get a better voice for Marvin. But of course some of the humor can be a little...stale. They aren't many, but I say 70% are funny, while 10% are really funny.

What really holds this movie together is the Effects, puppets, good CGI, and costumes that actually look real. When you first see the Vogons you are blown aay by how real they look. But the scene that does it for me is factory floor of the Planet construction company. It is a sight to see, especially on the big screen. The writing is very good(kind of pointless seeing how I bashed a third of the jokes), but the fans of the mythology constantly forget that Douglas Adams who came up with it all, wrote it, so what does that say and it does bring up points like, why are we here, should we ask why or role with it, is it better to be happy than right? Well I am happy I saw this film, but I don't think its great. It will be good for the sci-fi nerds and fans out there, but casual audiences will be scratching their heads.
Premise: 1 Star
Direction: 1/2 star
Acting: 1 Star
Effects: 1 Star
Script: 1/2 Star
4 Stars out of Five.

                                                                         

Argo

Well for my final review in America I am going to do a film of patriotism and bravery that was apparently so good it was Oscar worthy...no not Lincoln, Argo. Yes, the film that is beloved by Americans( but not other countries so much) about the American spirit( in spite of it being a covert operation) and gave us the facts of the operation hidden from us for so very long( but changed a lot to add extra action, tension and suspense).

OK, as far as you have been reading my reviews, you know that I don't like this movie. Not the worst, but not the best either. It's boring, slow, historically inaccurate and overrated. ( I should point out in my list of overrated films, the list extends from overrated slightly but still good to extremely overrated and quite bad.)
As you know, since most of you saw it , the story is about Tony Mendez(played by a not Mexican
Ben Afflec) and his plans( you know not Canada) to extract six American hostages from a hostile
1980s Iran. And how is this done but by making a fake movie and using Iran for test shots( I won't lie, that plan is incredible) the rest of the film is a race against time to remove the hostages before they are discovered.

The film suffers from extreme patriotism by stuffing it down our throat how hurt America is by this crisis that they come up with the idea and did most of the work and put themselves on the line to commit such a daring deed. It also glorifies America and the CIA even though they were the contributing factor to this uprising. They also underplayed Canada's role, who had pretty much supported the idea the whole way throughout, making them seem against the plan as it might endanger Canada and its embassy.

I think some of this directorial decisions came from Afflecs time on Pearl harbour(because let's be honest they are both similar). Lets see: based on a true event, certain points are dramatised, made out
to promote American spirit and patriotism, first half good due to character development and
progression of story, while the second half is poorly done and both glorifies Afflec and America.

Much of this criticism relies on how much you realise the academy have made mistakes over the years. These films were not bad, just the competition that year was clearly better.

Example 1: Gone with the wind won best picture as the academy believed this film to stand the test of time better than The wizard of Oz.

Example 2: Citizen Kane lost to how green was the valley, remember that film...no, we'll OF COURSE NOT.

Example 3: Although I have yet to see it, Gladiator is believed to be cliched and pretentious and many question why it won.
For more examples check out watchmojo.

For all the problems I have with this movie it has but one saving grace, build-up. The first half of this movie was done very well with good supporting by John goodman and Alan Arkin. I liked seek the process that went into this plan and the interactions. But ultimately it just struck a bad cord with me due to its slowness, confusing plot points, forced patriotism, boring and taking an idea a bad place. There is two ways they could have gone, one they could have followed it the whole way through with the history and it accurate and not offend the Canadians. Or they could have taken the concept and taken liberties with it the whole way and placed it in a different time period or country and get across the same messages.

If any snubbing happened it would be that films like Lincoln, life of pi, django and armour had everything Argo had and more. Lincoln had patriotism, historical accuracy, powerful delivery by all the leading actors and supporting. Life of pi dealt with faith, had amazing visuals and emotion, Django told a story with class and fun, it was well written and the academy is too stuffy for controversy( they try to avoid it but that also limits their ability to award artistic integrity). Of all the films that were nominated in the Oscars, save for armour and frankenwenie which I have not seen, any of them would have been better as best picture. I know it's against all my blog stands for, but Argo, why don't you Ar-go f**kyourself. I hope you enjoyed please comment if you believe there is a snubbed film out there.

                                                                    

The Hill and Wood

You know the way I said that my opinion on film, television and music differs from that of an average Irish teenager, well I would like to address the opinions I express in my reviews. I have noticed that I am much too positive and would like to resubmit at least four of my previous entries after re-reviewing the films I will be more critical in my opinion. With that said, lets examine all areas in the Independant/cult culture. So now I will be doing my first of...most likely very few...reviews of indie rock bands. Today it's a concert I went to in Washington last week.

The Hill and Wood is a band from Charlottesville, Virginia. Starting off with their folk rock style they eventually evolved towards a rock/pop sound with a mix of country, blues and jazz. The one thing I like about independently made music or film is the fact that they have little to no restrictions, other than their budget, to make stellar work and produce what they love. The songs these guys have can range from a slow, toe-tapping melody to a fast paced mover and shaker. In most songs there
is subtle message hidden beneath the riffs and lyrics, here I can't find it. Keep in mind that this was a live performance, but the equipment was  just terrible. There moving songs could hardly be heard above the baseball system of audio amplification. Sometimes the songs are well paced and slow so you can make out each word and really get a feel for the song. But that is only one problem with the performance another is the song lineup. I loved the songs they chose, but before the show began there was a montage of performers who got the whole crowd dancing. Also the crowd was just to stuffy and mainstream I think for this band. Any interaction with the crowd was met with the ever dreaded sound of awkward silence. I think one the reasons was the lack of stage presence. These guys should really try to take advantage of the power of live performances. When I went Paul McCartney in Dublin, he had lights, smoke, fireworks and jokes a plenty for the crowd. He composed them, played games and teased them. These guys just wanted to know if we enjoyed the song they just played. Feel confidant with the song guys, know the crowd liked it and if not play games like "the next one is better". They must get better presence, but I say it might be out of the zone they are more common with assosiating with. The stage would be smaller and full of fans. So those are my problems with the show itself, but as for the band, they are very good. Very few have heard of these guys and they really need to get more recognition. From a critical point of view the band is interesting. If they come to Ireland with better stage presence, you can garauntee that I will watch them. If there is one thing I would change is Fiona Dougherty(female lead) getting some more solo's. her voice is haunting and melodic and I would love to hear more from her. The lead is amazing to say the least. His vocal talents span everything from slow to upbeat to head banging. My favourite song of theirs would have to be "Let a good thing grow" and with that I shall leave you with that song.

                                                                 

American psycho

For the first time, I am writing from America on my iPhone and I have decided to use a different format for this review, please tell me if I should keep this style or keep the original. I hope you enjoy so let's get started.
Set in the hustle of New York, banker and stockbroker, Patrick Bateman is just like any yuppy in business, not much individuality or originality, all about the rank, the apartment you own, the card you hand out and the restaurants you can book. He comes off as a perfect asshole, no redeemable qualities but one, he is completely bonkers. He kills, he rapes, he mutilates, tortures and humiliate his victims. Through this brief view, we see into the psyche and double life of a business yuppie. Prostitutes, cocaine, affairs and envy. We spiral through the days in which he really loses it and we just get knocked right out of our wits. Combining social commentaries with gruesome horror, we are treated to a real spectacle of choice cinema. A lot of things are off putting in this film. Two full on sex scenes, gruesome murder(including a gruesome death scene in the extende edition that I will not furnish you with the details about) and clever but almost perverted social commentary on business and upperclass society. But this ultimately is what makes it good. It pushes the boundaries of what can be put in a film while still remaining tame and artistic. What saves it is Christian Bales performance as Batman(I mean Bateman). Sorry, but you can make multiple jokes and references towards Batman on the dark side or what if Batman had gone the other way and turned into a sociopathic killer while as Bruce Wayne he would be a completely unlikable asshole. That is what gives it a cult following, that and it is considered to be one of Christian Bales performances and all anyone can think of is his performance in the Dark Knight trilogy.

This film got a lot of criticism at the time of release due to the graphic violence. But I ask what is the point of film if you can't express opinion. Because that is what film is, art. We tell stories and express opinion on society, politics, art and pop culture. If this film is to be a martyr for films to express opinion, then so be it. I love the cast, I love the acting, I love the story and the film is memorable as a good psychological horror. I dislike the gore, but only a little bit and the sex scenes are a little over the top and sometimes distracting. If you enjoy Bale, horror and good commentary, then this is your film. I would avoid it if you are squeamish or just like Bale too much as Batman. Also don't watch with your parents, you will regret it.

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

When it comes to cult movies, I don't think this comes under the full meaning. I mean it was well received by most critics and the audience liked it, as well as making a profit in the Box-office. But some part of me thinks that this film is underrated. But at the same time it was like a guilty pleasure of mine. Many flaws and some strengths. It's much like 'The Prince of Egypt', it was good, but it doesn't have the recognition it deserves. But know I see all the flaws and that the book is much better. Why? Just read on to find out.  For the first time, a film that has no obvious connection to cult movies is going to be reviewed on the cult section of this Blog. So let's dive right into A Series of Unfortunate events.

The plot is a bit contrived and a little silly(sometimes silly due to it only covering three of the thirteen books in the series. So you may not be satisfied unless you've read the books). Three children of remarkable skills(Violet, the inventor, Klaus, who can remember everything he has ever read and Sunny{still a toddler}, with teeth so sharp the can cut through anything.) The siblings are all shocked to discover that one day their parents have died in the fire. Now orphans, they are sent to live with their evil uncle, Count Olaf. At first meeting they are subjected to cruel treatment and slavery. Realizing he only wants their vast inheritance(did I forget to mention that they are billionaires.) they try to escape his grasp at every turn. Of coarse that is a grim storyline, but the film is just too light hearted for that

Now, the good things about this film is and it's only saving grace for the audience is the comedy. Jim Carry's over the top delivery, the garbles of Sunny translated into insults and the quirky characters around them Like their uncle Monty played by Billy Connolly and Aunt Josephine by Meryl Streep. The other saving grace in my opinion, is the Burtonesque look. It's not very dark, but the twisted, skinny, harsh colored world that Brad Silbering created is so well done, I actually thought it was directed by Tim Burton. It captured the look and feel the book was trying to get across. For the most part the acting is very well done, so props to them for that. The acting is very well done and considering who and what they were working with, well done to Emily Browning(Violet), Liam Aiken(Klaus) and Kara and Shelby Hoffman(Sunny). 

And now for my problems.  It is so different from the novel. As much as I love Carry as Olaf, the Darkness is almost completely gone. It cuts away from death when it happens and rather alludes to the death, like when someone dies the narrator is just, "you get the idea"(he actually said that when the scene cuts away from the death.) Also Olaf was never funny in the novel, he was almost pure evil, killing, lying and stalking. Not to say Carry was miscast, I now wish he was a little more evil. My other problem is the Differences from the book. Like shorter times with the other relatives, problems not being taken seriously and the ending. I won't spoil it and it isn't a bad ending, it just made it a stand alone movie in what should obviously be a quadrilogy. It ended on a high note and not much connection to the next book, leaving the audience satisfied with just one movie and not leaving them hungry for more. Another problem is the the setting. I have said the world looks good, but it also look's a little modern mixed with the past(steampunk anyone) I am kind of confused due to the 'fashion' they wear. And there that modern talk in what should obviously be the late 50's to early 60's. It can be funny, but is also quite distracting.

All those problems aside, I won't really recommend not watching it and it isn't anything special, but if you want a good laugh and you ant to start reading a series that is dark, depressing and an acquired taste.
Premise: 1 star(silly, but also very dark)
Direction: 1 star(very burton without the burton and well crafted to the silver screen)
Acting: 1 star( enjoyable, but can be quite deadpan and sometimes jaded)
Effects: 1 star(considering the use of models and puppets more than CGI)
Script: 0 star(dialog is a bit corny and not wholey adapted from the book)
**** stars(good for a few viewings, not the best movie you have ever seen, but could have been much, much worse.).

I hope you enjoy this review for I am travelling to America next week and therefore will not be able to write my next review for at least another two weeks and a half. Maybe I will meet some of the American fans during my travels(unlikely, but I like to hope).