Short Review: If you read Cliff Notes for entertainment, you'll love this movie.


Charlotte Bronte dismissed Pride and Prejudice as "a carefully fenced, highly cultivated garden, with neat borders and delicate flowers; but no glance of a bright vivid physiognomy, no open country no fresh air, no blue hill, no bonny beck." Director Joe Wright seems to have taken as his mission to correct these perceived deficiencies. He turns his characters out-of-doors whenever possible and makes upper class assemblies and balls into rollicking hoedowns. Many scenes reminded me more of a Hogarth painting than the quiet interiors of Austen's novel. Wright also wants to bring an earthiness to this story, with shots of muddy farm scenes, and focused glimpses of pig testicles. A not-so-subtle indication that he thinks this is fundamentally a story about mating.

This kind of license with the original material might disturb my equilibrium, but it could have been much, much worse. At least no one removes his or her clothes. Although come to think of it, it comes perilously close to that toward the end when we find the hero and heroine wandering around outside in the early morning hours in what amounts to their pajamas.

What is unforgivable is the breathless pace of the thing. Important scenes last for a few fleeting seconds, and then it's off to the next location, checklist style. Maybe I'm close to the material, but I wonder whether people unfamiliar with the novel could keep up with the hectic pace. The tempo most hurts the film in terms of character development. Miss Austen created an amazing ensemble of secondary characters, who in some ways are more interesting than some of the protagonists. There is no time to meet these fascinating people. The acting is competent (except in one case), but the many characters in the background are not given the opportunity to shine. The one glaring error in casting was Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet. I would rate his English accent as "barely attempted". He brought a sappy American-movie-style dad sensibility that destroyed the nuance of the character. Keira Knightley's interpretation of Elizabeth Bennet, taken on its own terms, was executed well, though it was not to my taste. In my opinion, she exchanged the diamond wit of Elizabeth Bennet for the giggling and dreamy-eyed reveries of a junior high girl.

On a positive note, many of the scenes are eye-poppingly gorgeous. It works very well as a travel promotional for rural England.

Where does this movie fall in the line-up of recent Jane Austen adaptations? The 1995 BBC mini-series is much its superior (pity Tom Hollander, who had to go through the motions playing Mr. Collins, all the while knowing that the Platonic Ideal of Mr. Collins had been instantiated for all eternity by David Bamber back in '95). This movie is at the level of Emma (1996), but below Sense & Sensibility (1995), and far below Persuasion (1995). At least it did not sink to the level of the execrable Mansfield Park (1999).

Bottom line: Stick with the Beeb's '95 masterpiece. If you don't have five hours, this version is adequate, but beware of what you are missing.

Reviewer: Jeff Burton


Related Reviews:
Keira Knightley movies
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

Other Critic's Reviews:
The Anchoress
Celluloid Heroes



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: adaptation, Carey Mulligan, Donald Sutherland, film, Jena Malone, Keira Knightley, movie review, Rosamund Pike, Talulah Riley

Short Review: If you read Cliff Notes for entertainment, you'll love this movie.


Charlotte Bronte dismissed Pride and Prejudice as "a carefully fenced, highly cultivated garden, with neat borders and delicate flowers; but no glance of a bright vivid physiognomy, no open country no fresh air, no blue hill, no bonny beck." Director Joe Wright seems to have taken as his mission to correct these perceived deficiencies. He turns his characters out-of-doors whenever possible and makes upper class assemblies and balls into rollicking hoedowns. Many scenes reminded me more of a Hogarth painting than the quiet interiors of Austen's novel. Wright also wants to bring an earthiness to this story, with shots of muddy farm scenes, and focused glimpses of pig testicles. A not-so-subtle indication that he thinks this is fundamentally a story about mating.

This kind of license with the original material might disturb my equilibrium, but it could have been much, much worse. At least no one removes his or her clothes. Although come to think of it, it comes perilously close to that toward the end when we find the hero and heroine wandering around outside in the early morning hours in what amounts to their pajamas.

What is unforgivable is the breathless pace of the thing. Important scenes last for a few fleeting seconds, and then it's off to the next location, checklist style. Maybe I'm close to the material, but I wonder whether people unfamiliar with the novel could keep up with the hectic pace. The tempo most hurts the film in terms of character development. Miss Austen created an amazing ensemble of secondary characters, who in some ways are more interesting than some of the protagonists. There is no time to meet these fascinating people. The acting is competent (except in one case), but the many characters in the background are not given the opportunity to shine. The one glaring error in casting was Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet. I would rate his English accent as "barely attempted". He brought a sappy American-movie-style dad sensibility that destroyed the nuance of the character. Keira Knightley's interpretation of Elizabeth Bennet, taken on its own terms, was executed well, though it was not to my taste. In my opinion, she exchanged the diamond wit of Elizabeth Bennet for the giggling and dreamy-eyed reveries of a junior high girl.

On a positive note, many of the scenes are eye-poppingly gorgeous. It works very well as a travel promotional for rural England.

Where does this movie fall in the line-up of recent Jane Austen adaptations? The 1995 BBC mini-series is much its superior (pity Tom Hollander, who had to go through the motions playing Mr. Collins, all the while knowing that the Platonic Ideal of Mr. Collins had been instantiated for all eternity by David Bamber back in '95). This movie is at the level of Emma (1996), but below Sense & Sensibility (1995), and far below Persuasion (1995). At least it did not sink to the level of the execrable Mansfield Park (1999).

Bottom line: Stick with the Beeb's '95 masterpiece. If you don't have five hours, this version is adequate, but beware of what you are missing.

Reviewer: Jeff Burton


Related Reviews:
Keira Knightley movies
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

Other Critic's Reviews:
The Anchoress
Celluloid Heroes



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: adaptation, Carey Mulligan, Donald Sutherland, film, Jena Malone, Keira Knightley, movie review, Rosamund Pike, Talulah Riley

Short Review: Having Mike Myers perform in a kid's movie is like having Charles Manson teach a course on anger management.



This film is an abomination, but we get what we ask for.

Everyone knows film don’t matter right? We go to the theater, or turn on cable and turn our brains off. We all just want to be entertained. It’s just a movie.

This film is the result of attitudes like I mention above. We have spent our lives ambivalent to what the leftists, perverts and turd merchants have been doing to our culture for the sake of agenda and dollars. We have allowed the lowest forms of our society lower our standards down to their level. We have sat idly by while our entertainment has become a bustling carnival of pornographic idiocy.

We’ve made our bed, but I don’t want to sleep in it.

This film, although a few years old, should be a sound alert to those who still care that a time has come to make a change. This film clearly made for the youngest of audiences and uses the allure of a classic of children’s literature to draw audiences in. The production has the banner of Seuss to give it a facade of legitimacy. It is far from legit. This production has a flagrant disregard for the honorable work it is based on and any audience unfortunate to see it. Where this could have been an enchanting ode to the classic, we have cheap butt humor and swearing.

Mike Myers is not a brilliant comedian. He mugs for the camera and offers the lowest of humor. He peddles in groin jokes and is lauded by society as a master of the form. In The Cat In The Hat we are shown his complete lack of self-control or inventiveness. The character is nothing more than a faded copy of Austin Powers with slightly less rutting.

Parents, do not be fooled by the sign out front. This is nothing but poison for your children. This children’s film offers your kids erection jokes, cleavage, swearing (they cut the words off with bleeps or other loud noises) rectal and urination jokes and that’s what I can come up with off the top of my head.


The entertainment you allow your children to consume is a critical choice for all parents. It shapes your child’s thinking and value system. Allow you kid to watch filth such as this and you’re pleading for trouble. Have some respect for your kids. Demand more from those who wish to spend time with them. Do not allow the turd merchants to debase your kids for the sake of a quick buck. Keep them and yourself away from this movie.


Related Reviews:
Children's adaptations
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
Curious George (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Film Freak Central
Combustible Celluloid


Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: adaptation, Alec Baldwin, Dakota Fanning, Dan Castellaneta, Kelly Preston, Mike Myers, Sean Hayes

How to Train Your Dragon is Dreamworks latest 3D animated adventure featuring Vikings, dragons, and monsters. The story is a sort of Androcles and the Lion parable where the main character "Hiccup", is a nerdy 98 pound weakling of a Viking who desperately wants to kill a dragon to impress the hottest girl in the village.

During a devastating dragon attack, Hiccup manages to shoot down one of the most dangerous and elusive dragons. Unfortunately, it is still alive and he can't bring himself to dispatch the helpless critter with his only weapon - a tiny, rather symbolic, knife.

Instead, Hiccup discovers the dragon can be quickly tamed, trained and flown - which doesn't sit well in a village where every building has had to be rebuilt due to dragon attacks and the art of killing them is considered a necessary survival skill.

The movie is cleverly written and the art design excellent. The story moves pretty well right up until it gets to the anti-war on terror message. The message may act as a bit of a sucker punch for adults, but will likely be missed by the kids. The final outcome of the story tends to moderate the message in any case.
Pet peeve: the usual PC female lead who can and does literally kick the butt of the protagonist.



Related Reviews:
Animated movies
Chicken Little (2005)
Chicken Run (2000)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Culture Catch
Robert Ebert




Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: adaptation, Amadeus, America Ferrera, animated, Craig Ferguson, film, Gerald Butler, Jay Baruchel, Jonah Hill, Kristen Wiig, movie review

What: The world has ended. In the aftermath, a man travels through a countryside full of robbers, killers and cannibals with the hope of protecting a book.


Who: The latest from the Hughes Brothers (From Hell, Dead Presidents) has the commercial and cinematic advantage of featuring Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman in the leads.

Bottom Line: Just go see it now. Don't let anyone ruin the movie's twists and surprises for you. Don't talk to anyone who's seen it, and don't read reviews (though I promise to keep this one spoiler free). Just go see it. My fellow geeks, this one is one of those movies.


Review: So far in 2010 I've seen two movies in the theater: The Book Of Eli and The Road (My review of that film is here.). Both of them are movies set in a post apocalyptic American wasteland. Both of them are stories of men with precious cargo on arduous journeys. Both of them pit their heroes against killers, cannibals, thieves and crazies. And both of them revolve around some of the same themes.

But these two films could not possibly be more different. These two films are polar opposites. These two films, for all their remarkable similarities, seem to have originated in different universes. I saw The Road with high hopes, expecting to love it, and I left the theater dismayed. I saw The Book Of Eli figuring that, at best, it would be OK ... and I left the theater with that post-movie buzz you only get when you've seen something you know you and your friends will talk about for years to come.

There is so much I want to tell you about this movie, but I don't want to tell you anything about it. I don't want to ruin this movie's twists and turns. Imagine that it's 1999 and you've just seen The Sixth Sense on opening weekend. Think about how badly you'd want to tell your friends about the film, but how much you'd want them to see it knowing nothing about it so they'll get the full experience. This is that kind of thing.

Now, don't go see it expecting Ikiru or Schindler's List. Let me be clear, this is a pop movie. It's pure comic book story telling, with broad characters and a completely implausible plot. This film is sentimental and corny and some of the dialogue is pretty bad. But this thing is custom made for a certain kind of movie goer; people like me and my friends. People who are more than happy to suspend disbelief in the name of a fun, loud movie with surprising emotional impact and a few unexpected twists and turns. This is a "fanboy" movie and it'll be a Godsend for fanboy audiences.



There will be time to discuss this movie's themes and messages and all the little plot details and it's oozing nerdy goodness over the next several months. Meanwhile, with the goal of not ruining it for you, I'll give you only the bare basics:

Denzel Washington is incapable of turning in a bad performance. He's up there in the modern pantheon, with De Niro and Penn and Eastwood, and he can take a good movie up several notches toward greatness. A big part of this movie's success is because of Denzel's nearly peerless command on screen.

Gary Oldman is good here, too, as one of those lip-licking psycho villains he does so well, but has rarely done at all over the past ten years. I'd forgotten how much fun it is to see Oldman as a prancing, scene-stealing bad guy.

As the damsel in distress, Mila Kunis is a custom fit. She has the kind of saucer sized eyes that don't require her to do any actual acting, and as a comic book female lead she's more than adequate for the job at hand.


This movie isn't set in the kind of hyper-realistic post apocalypse that made The Road such a long trudge. This dystopia is more cinematic and conventional; more comparable to Mad Max or The Planet Of The Apes. After having spent two hours last week, slowly going insane with Viggo Mortensen in that other film's jet black nuclear wasteland, The Book Of Eli and it's Fallout-like user-friendly Armageddon was a welcome return to an entertaining apocalypse.

This movie is getting mixed reviews, and that's because of the movie's message. This is a film that comes down cleanly, in a very broad sense, on one side of one of those great cultural divides that separates some folks from others. I've read some of this movie's bad reviews, and it's apparent that many of those who dislike the film are really railing against this movie's greater themes. Certain kinds of people cultivate a certain kind of secular uber-coolness, and in order to maintain the prerequisite air of elite detachment, they'll almost feel required to slam this movie. Just see it for yourself and make your own call. This one is worth the ten dollar gamble on a movie ticket. Movie fans like me, who relish a good geek-out that's framed on traditional good-vs-evil archetypes, will find much to love in The Book Of Eli.


Oh, and let me be clear about one thing: This movie isn't actually based on a comic book. But it is a comic book movie, and geeks know what I mean by that, and that it's a good thing. There's a reason so much of the marketing is aimed at me and my fellow fanboys. This is our kind of thing. This movie and movies like it, more so than any actual Marvel or DC licensed product, represents the best possible effect that comic books could have had on modern film.



Related Reviews:
Denzel Washington movies
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)
American Gangster (2007)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Dark Matters
The Critical Critics

Labels: adaptation, Denzel Washington, film, Gary Oldman, Jennifer Beals, Michael Gambon, Mila Kunis, movie review, Ray Stevenson, Tom Waits

Peter Jackson personally bought the rights to the novel, so we can assume he made this as a labor of love. I'm mixed on what I'm seeing. While it is certainly pretty but the source work is dark and incredibly devoid of any theology. Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan), a teenage girl, is raped and murdered. Her body is dismembered and hidden by her killer. Susie's soul watches the events that follow her death from her "personal heaven". She narrates as her family suffers grief and the long search for her killer continues.

For a tale that centers on a character who is dead and watches from the afterlife THAT AVOIDS THE ISSUE OF GOD is a huge cop out. I understand this isn't a treatise on God but to not even broach the subject? Its like having a story take place in the White House and avoiding the subject of the Presidency.

I'm willing to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt. Although his casting of Mark Wahlberg is puzzling. Weren't there any actors available for the role?







Screenwriters: Fran Walsh (King Kong), Philippa Boyens (Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers) and Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring)
Director: Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King)
Actors: Saoirse Ronan (Atonement), Mark Wahlberg (The Happening), Rachel Weisz (The Mummy), Stanley Tucci (The Devil Wears Prada) and Susan Sarandon (Bull Durham)

Labels: adaptation, film, Mark Wahlberg, movie trailer, Peter Jackson, Rachel Weisz, Saoirse Ronan, Stanley Tucci, Susan Sarandon

Short Review: It answers the question what would it be like if Superman became an undergraduate philosophy major and didn’t have the wits to know he shouldn’t take his professors seriously.



Zack Snyder’s (300, Dawn of the Dead) adaptation of Alan Moore’s Watchmen is faithful to the original which means it is overly complex and at times downright silly. In the spirit of over thinking simple things and spending way too much energy to not say a great deal, I will break this review into sections for particular audiences:



The fact that I have to write a separate review for people who haven’t read the graphic novel(s) should tell you everything you need to know. The film takes place in an alternate reality where regular humans dress up like superheroes. They don’t have super powers except one guy who is glowing blue, and walks around naked with his personal dangle flapping in the wind. The heroes in this story are different because they're mopes and don’t want to be heroic. There are plenty of conflicted people with furrowed brows and tearful eyes.

Despite the dramatics, Watchmen is one of the most visually engaging films I’ve ever seen. Visually, this is a masterful work. Even with Snyder’s love for unprompted slow motion and gimmicky shot placements, the film is brilliantly executed. If, like me, your main interest in the film is seeing the spectacle on display, you will not be disappointed.

I do warn if you have to see it read the graphic novels first or at least glance over Cinematical's Elisabeth Rappe outstanding primer to help you on your way. For most people, if you go into this film without prior knowledge you will be stuck trying to figure out why you should care. Given how hollow the film actually is, you may still be left wondering that question regardless of your prep. Either way, if you’re going to sit there and watch people being set on fire, chopped into pieces, raped and disintegrated you may want to get the back story so you can understand why.



The long standing opinion is that Watchmen is simply too knotted, too pondering to make it to the screen. This opinion is correct. The film doesn’t work. Zack Snyder was the right man for the job of adapting this to the screen but the task was simply too big. The problem is that movies are indeed different than comic books. The episodic nature of the story works fine in the panels of a graphic novel but it doesn’t translate into the language of film. Snyder is so intent on being faithful he wasn’t able to overcome this difference. When combined with his time constraints, Snyder is forced to shorthand important historical information leaving his audience to fill in too many gaps. For example, when Silk Spectre II discovers that The Comedian is her father there is no great “ah-ha!” for the audience. There is very little time spent on the relationships between the Jupiter women and The Comedian so the depth of the trio’s relationship is completely lost. The big revelation becomes a another ho-hum fact tossed on the pile.

The film also stumbles by Snyder avoiding the inclusion of the side story Tales of the Black Freighter (released separately straight to DVD) and the other insertions. These don’t go to build on the main narrative so it is understandable why he dropped them from the production. Their omission hurts because they are philosophical olios. They help construct the piece’s worldview and aid in the development of the series’ tone. In addition, without their distraction the basic flaws of the original story are plainly obvious. The presumptuousness of the plot, the thinness of the motivations and hurried actions of the characters all stand out because we can give them that much more attention. This is not a desirable attribute when your plot is so loose.

The story itself has always been problematic. In the original book it is well disguised by the sheer force of its originality and headiness. The eye candy Snyder presents can’t carry the lacking plot. The book manages to balance the competing storylines where Snyder’s film amplifies silly love triangle between Silk Spectre II, Dr. Manhattan and Night Owl II. The film is consumed by their nonsense.



With one exception, the performances are underwhelming. To defend the actors I will say the characters don’t offer them much to work with. The perfect example of this is Silk Spectre II, performed by Malin Akerman. Akerman is certainly an aesthetically pleasing choice, but the character comes across as just another poorly written female role. She’s a grown up version of a sixteen year old ninny whimpering because daddy won’t let her take out the car. Akerman doesn’t manage infuse the character with any life so she becomes a latex laden mannequin who recites dialog. Akerman is not the weakest link in the production. The lowest points all come from one singularly dismal performance. To put it plainly, Matthew Goode is bad. Goode plays Ozymandias and justly has him as snobbish and effete. He gets that much right. The performance as a whole is uninspired. Goode manages to take a complicated character and turn him into a girlish bore.

The stand out is Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. To be fair the character is the best written and has the most meat for an actor. Jackie Earle Haley exceeds expectations. I’m willing to claim that the man deserves a best supporting actor nod for his effort. He was born for the role and handles it perfectly. I cannot conceive how someone could do better.

I do not recommend viewing this film. For the average film audience member, it will likely confuse or bore. This is a very bitter, violent work that relishes the brutality. The overall messages of the film are like listening to a gaggle of depressed art students strung out on downers. There is much said but it ultimately means nothing, since when you argue the universe is meaningless then your complaint fails to have any value. You may as well go with the flow because any other action is irrational (assuming there is rationality in your stupid existential universe.) If indeed humans create their own reality and their own morality, then that’s how it is. Making a movie with a big naked blue guy crying in his beer on Mars isn’t going to change it. If everything is senseless and we're a pathetic joke then why should I sit and listen to fictional crybabies bellyache about it? What's the point?



The worldview of the film is the same as the book. Nihilism soaks every nook and cranny and the meaninglessness of the human experience is studied and explored. Heroes are false gods and the world is just a nihilistic nightmare where might make right and the mighty hate themselves for being unable to fix the situation. Moore deconstructed the hero with the intent of dismantling the superhero figure. He was successful. You can’t read the book or watch the movie without it peeling away something from the genre. His work, in my opinion, opened the doors for more deconstructions across our culture. James Bond, Batman, Star Wars, and fairy tales themselves though productions like Shrek have all been remodeled in Moore’s wake. I see these all as connected. Moore, Snyder and others tear down our heroes but don’t replace them with anything. We’ve seen this throughout American culture. We have struck down every meaningful ideal, every useful institution and attempted to rebuild it based on wispy secular whims. We've built a culture that keeps looking back instead of looking forward. Our deconstructed culture hasn’t fed us and in our starvation we’ve turned to post modern cannibalism where we regurgitate the societal milestones of earlier times and consume them once again for sustenance. We stand now with no valuable culture identity of our own. Everything in our culture today is a recycled, rehashed token from a previous era, this film included. This film brings the deconstructed, whiny superhero to life but it fails to give us anything in exchange for his demise.



For those of you who don’t know better please note – this is not Spider-man. This is an adult film dealing with adult topics very plainly. There is wall-to-wall violence and a number of the scenes are quite sexual. Then there’s that business of the big blue guy walking about with his tackle exposed. Those who are concerned about viewing brutality or sexual behavior are strongly advised to avoid this film.




Related Reviews:
Movies based on graphic novels
V for Vendetta (2005)
Sin City (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
SouthCon
Jim Treacher

Labels: adaptation, Billy Crudup, film, Friday Rewind, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, movie trailer, Zack Snyder

Short Review: Apt title, if you redefine "Curious" to mean "Pointless".


Director David Fincher (Fight Club, Se7en, Alien3) is brilliant and creating films that are marvelous to view. Each of his films is a fully realized, rich visual orgy for the eyes. He has a talent for design and revels in it every time he gets behind the camera. There are times when his gift compliments his film (Fight Club, Se7en) but there are other times where it overwhelms a weaker script (The Game, Panic Room). Fincher seems to be a little too in love with his own cinematic voice and has begun to trend towards rambling too on long. Like his previous film Zodiac, he has some compelling source material and knows how to design a film around his story. He fails to keep his narrative from getting too lethargic. Like Zodiac this film tends to be a rambling mess without a useful conclusion. Unlike that film, this outing makes up for its deficiencies by displaying a couple of notable performances and a production design worthy of study.

Based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, the film tells the tale of Benjamin Button who mysteriously is born an old man and gradually gets younger as his life progresses. The central conciet of the film is handled carefully by Fincher who eases the audience into the concept. Brad Pitt as the titular character gives his best performance in years (considering his films over the past few years, this isn't saying much.) He delivers on the task of combining the aging body of an old man with the spirit and mind of a very young boy. This a complicated duality to play out and make believable. Pitt, under Fincher's direction pulls it off. Opposite Pitt, Cate Blanchett plays Daisy, Button's love. While her performance is less challenging on the technical level, Blanchett does provide a empathetic and engaging character to counter Pitt's more novelty based role.

As mentioned, the film's strength is in its look and its ability to bring its world to life. The design work in this production is awe inspiring and a delight to look at. This is one of the rare films that I would recommend based purely on its look. This is a fortunate quality because the story itself ultimately fails. Since it takes place over a lifetime it is episodic. This is a result of trying to bring a life to the screen. Screenwriter Eric Roth managed this task in his script for Forrest Gump and he handles the passage of time in the same manner here. It makes sense to do so, in both stories we're following the life of an odd character across the decades, both of whom make a living on boats by the way. Like Gump, Button's story is interesting but unlike Gump it's not entertaining. This leads to being involved in his story for a good long time, it runs for almost two and a half hours, but not getting much in return. Forest Gump left its audience with a good vibe and a touching conclusion. This film doesn't strive for this result and the ending feels a bit uneven.

I do recommend the film but with the warning that it may be boring for some audience members. It is as stuffy and aloof as it appears. It is also a very literate movie that patiently displays its characters allowing us to enjoy their details.







Related Reviews:
Brad Pitt movies
Ocean's 11 (2001)
Babel (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Movie Every Day
Dear Cinema

Labels: adaptation, Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, David Fincher, film, movie review, Tilda Swinton

When the marketing first hit for this film last year I thought it looked interesting. The images were compelling and the plot seemed interesting.

I was wrong.

Yes, the design work for the film is fully realized. It has a distinct look and feel and it's memorable. Unfortunately, that’s the only successful element in the production. The story never rises above its conceits, the dialog is uninspired and the acting is stilted because the characters are written so thinly. Even Bill Murray, who I like, fails to bring anything to the film. His scenes look like he flew in for a few days, quickly wrapped his scenes and headed on out. He pops in every once in a while, smirks and then disappears leaving no significant impact.

The film tells the tale of the City of Ember, a subterranean city that is lit by lamps. Humans have been forced underground for two hundred years and now the generator is failing. Two teens stumble upon the secrets behind their dimming town and rush to figure out the clues to the secret before everyone is sent into darkness. This is a very good concept. This had the potential to be a great family movie, but in the end it is just another sloppy adaptation. The production as a whole isn’t awful, but it doesn’t shine either. It all just sits there, a cinematic lump with nothing to do. There’s no real point it seems and given that the whole endeavor fails to justify its existence the audience is left watching scene after lumbering scene without any momentum. When the final act comes in I couldn’t have been less interested, and couldn’t have been more bored.




Related Reviews:
Adaptations
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Guest Reviewer: Jeff Burton
Roger Ebert

Labels: adaptation, Bill Murray, film, movie review

Short Review: It answers the question what would it be like if Superman became an undergraduate philosophy major and didn’t have the wits to know he shouldn’t take his professors seriously.



Zack Snyder’s (300, Dawn of the Dead) adaptation of Alan Moore’s Watchmen is faithful to the original which means it is overly complex and at times downright silly. In the spirit of over thinking simple things and spending way too much energy to not say a great deal, I will break this review into sections for particular audiences:



The fact that I have to write a separate review for people who haven’t read the graphic novel(s) should tell you everything you need to know. The film takes place in an alternate reality where regular humans dress up like superheroes. They don’t have super powers except one guy who is glowing blue, and walks around naked with his personal dangle flapping in the wind. The heroes in this story are different because they're mopes and don’t want to be heroic. There are plenty of conflicted people with furrowed brows and tearful eyes.

Despite the dramatics, Watchmen is one of the most visually engaging films I’ve ever seen. Visually, this is a masterful work. Even with Snyder’s love for unprompted slow motion and gimmicky shot placements, the film is brilliantly executed. If, like me, your main interest in the film is seeing the spectacle on display, you will not be disappointed.

I do warn if you have to see it read the graphic novels first or at least glance over Cinematical's Elisabeth Rappe outstanding primer to help you on your way. For most people, if you go into this film without prior knowledge you will be stuck trying to figure out why you should care. Given how hollow the film actually is, you may still be left wondering that question regardless of your prep. Either way, if you’re going to sit there and watch people being set on fire, chopped into pieces, raped and disintegrated you may want to get the back story so you can understand why.



The long standing opinion is that Watchmen is simply too knotted, too pondering to make it to the screen. This opinion is correct. The film doesn’t work. Zack Snyder was the right man for the job of adapting this to the screen but the task was simply too big. The problem is that movies are indeed different than comic books. The episodic nature of the story works fine in the panels of a graphic novel but it doesn’t translate into the language of film. Snyder is so intent on being faithful he wasn’t able to overcome this difference. When combined with his time constraints, Snyder is forced to shorthand important historical information leaving his audience to fill in too many gaps. For example, when Silk Spectre II discovers that The Comedian is her father there is no great “ah-ha!” for the audience. There is very little time spent on the relationships between the Jupiter women and The Comedian so the depth of the trio’s relationship is completely lost. The big revelation becomes a another ho-hum fact tossed on the pile.

The film also stumbles by Snyder avoiding the inclusion of the side story Tales of the Black Freighter (released separately straight to DVD) and the other insertions. These don’t go to build on the main narrative so it is understandable why he dropped them from the production. Their omission hurts because they are philosophical olios. They help construct the piece’s worldview and aid in the development of the series’ tone. In addition, without their distraction the basic flaws of the original story are plainly obvious. The presumptuousness of the plot, the thinness of the motivations and hurried actions of the characters all stand out because we can give them that much more attention. This is not a desirable attribute when your plot is so loose.

The story itself has always been problematic. In the original book it is well disguised by the sheer force of its originality and headiness. The eye candy Snyder presents can’t carry the lacking plot. The book manages to balance the competing storylines where Snyder’s film amplifies silly love triangle between Silk Spectre II, Dr. Manhattan and Night Owl II. The film is consumed by their nonsense.



With one exception, the performances are underwhelming. To defend the actors I will say the characters don’t offer them much to work with. The perfect example of this is Silk Spectre II, performed by Malin Akerman. Akerman is certainly an aesthetically pleasing choice, but the character comes across as just another poorly written female role. She’s a grown up version of a sixteen year old ninny whimpering because daddy won’t let her take out the car. Akerman doesn’t manage infuse the character with any life so she becomes a latex laden mannequin who recites dialog. Akerman is not the weakest link in the production. The lowest points all come from one singularly dismal performance. To put it plainly, Matthew Goode is bad. Goode plays Ozymandias and justly has him as snobbish and effete. He gets that much right. The performance as a whole is uninspired. Goode manages to take a complicated character and turn him into a girlish bore.

The stand out is Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. To be fair the character is the best written and has the most meat for an actor. Jackie Earle Haley exceeds expectations. I’m willing to claim that the man deserves a best supporting actor nod for his effort. He was born for the role and handles it perfectly. I cannot conceive how someone could do better.

I do not recommend viewing this film. For the average film audience member, it will likely confuse or bore. This is a very bitter, violent work that relishes the brutality. The overall messages of the film are like listening to a gaggle of depressed art students strung out on downers. There is much said but it ultimately means nothing, since when you argue the universe is meaningless then your complaint fails to have any value. You may as well go with the flow because any other action is irrational (assuming there is rationality in your stupid existential universe.) If indeed humans create their own reality and their own morality, then that’s how it is. Making a movie with a big naked blue guy crying in his beer on Mars isn’t going to change it. If everything is senseless and we're a pathetic joke then why should I sit and listen to fictional crybabies bellyache about it? What's the point?



The worldview of the film is the same as the book. Nihilism soaks every nook and cranny and the meaninglessness of the human experience is studied and explored. Heroes are false gods and the world is just a nihilistic nightmare where might make right and the mighty hate themselves for being unable to fix the situation. Moore deconstructed the hero with the intent of dismantling the superhero figure. He was successful. You can’t read the book or watch the movie without it peeling away something from the genre. His work, in my opinion, opened the doors for more deconstructions across our culture. James Bond, Batman, Star Wars, and fairy tales themselves though productions like Shrek have all been remodeled in Moore’s wake. I see these all as connected. Moore, Snyder and others tear down our heroes but don’t replace them with anything. We’ve seen this throughout American culture. We have struck down every meaningful ideal, every useful institution and attempted to rebuild it based on wispy secular whims. We've built a culture that keeps looking back instead of looking forward. Our deconstructed culture hasn’t fed us and in our starvation we’ve turned to post modern cannibalism where we regurgitate the societal milestones of earlier times and consume them once again for sustenance. We stand now with no valuable culture identity of our own. Everything in our culture today is a recycled, rehashed token from a previous era, this film included. This film brings the deconstructed, whiny superhero to life but it fails to give us anything in exchange for his demise.



For those of you who don’t know better please note – this is not Spider-man. This is an adult film dealing with adult topics very plainly. There is wall-to-wall violence and a number of the scenes are quite sexual. Then there’s that business of the big blue guy walking about with his tackle exposed. Those who are concerned about viewing brutality or sexual behavior are strongly advised to avoid this film.




Related Reviews:
Movies based on graphic novels
V for Vendetta (2005)
Sin City (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
SouthCon
Jim Treacher

Labels: adaptation, Billy Crudup, film, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, movie trailer, Zack Snyder

Short Review: This film demonstrates that just because you can do something doesn’t necessarily mean you should go through with it.


Spielberg is one of the masters of film, but this is an embarrassment. I have my expectations of Spielberg - extremely high expectations. This is a man who is literally one of the most powerful people in human history. Think of the power he has access to. He IS Hollywood. Everyone who thinks of working in the industry references him directly. He has the industry at his feet and can make nearly any movie he wishes. He has the resources available to him to satisfy any creative itch he needs to scratch. When he does produce something it is a global event. His voice is heard across the Earth each time he clears his throat.

If, as a world, we are willing to allow Spielberg to breathe this rarefied air then we must hold him to the highest standard. With his position, resources and most of all talent, he should be making Schindler’s List level films without fail. Each production stemming from this man’s decisions should be nearly perfect. Is this too high of a standard? No. We should be getting John Ford, Hitchcock or David Lean and we’re getting Michael Bay.

This film shouldn’t have been made. There is no purpose to it. We know the story and Spielberg has nothing new to add except that HE’S DOING IT. The whole production stinks of hubris. It says something about a man who would be in the opening of Austin Powers in Goldmember, holding up his Oscar as a means of showing his importance. Yeah, it’s a joke but can you honestly see yourself doing the same thing?

Here is the whole film: Tom “Sure I’m Straight, Why Does Everyone Keep Asking Me?” Cruise and the rest of the cast spend their time running from unimpressive alien machines while patching up their dysfunctional family. They run some more, they in-fight some more. People get killed then Cruise and family runs some more. Did I mention they run? The story is an exercise in transparency. You know how each scene will play out and you know how the film will end. The fate of the ship in Titanic held more surprises than this sad film. To worsen matters, the internal logic of the whole piece falls apart upon the slightest touch. The rules of the movie are set up in one scene only to be contradicted in the next. The only consistent thing about this film is young actress Dakota Fanning. Fanning is the single bright spot in the film - and I say this as someone who doesn't like Dakota Fanning - she usually irritates me to no end. Other than her convincing performance, we are left with a grand disaster of a film.

Steer clear of Cruise and Steven Spielberg’s self-congratulatory “Me” fest. They’ve made this film for themselves, let them watch it, you don’t have to.


Related Reviews:
Steven Spielberg films
A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (2001)
The Terminal (2004)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Rolling Stone
Roger Ebert

Labels: adaptation, Dakota Fanning, film, movie review, Steven Spielberg, Tim Robbins, Tom Cruise

Short Review: It’s more of a stinking pile.


Based on the popular video game, this volley to the low-IQ set manages some striking imagery while delivering an embarrassingly lame script. This “story” about a mother and daughter who get trapped in a strange small town that has been literally swallowed into Hell has the intellectual force of a Marilyn Manson video.

Ripping on a film based on a video game may seem needless. The bar isn’t set high in the first place. I see this trend of basing films on video games to be a scourge. Films like Doom, Final Fantasy, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, Resident Evil and all Uwe Bol movies, support the content free storytelling video games have been promoting for over twenty-five years. Video games place the audience in the driver’s seat and in effect makes them the hero. This tends to be a bad thing. The reason? When one watches a movie or reads a book they have an interaction with the hero character. They experience the story through that person on page or on screen. Great heroes like Sherlock Holmes, Miss Marple, or even Rambo, for that matter, delivers us to new worlds. We experience the story through their eyes and the narrative (the story) is established through this relationship. We see the world through their point of view, their experience. We interact emotionally with this experience and learn to expect things of the hero. This is how we become attached to certain heroic figures like Indiana Jones, James Bond, Luke Skywalker, etc. They become like real people because they develop depth. Video games spoil this relationship. By placing us in the heroic role, the rest of the world of the story begins to lose its perspective. The interaction between audience and hero is critical for a story to actually complete its function – to educate. Since the relationship with the hero is our avenue into the new world, when this bond is broken we are left with a valueless and empty husk of a story. There's no emotional bond beyond fleeting moments of excitement or fright. It is the difference between saying “A ball hit the man.” when one could say “A ball hit The President of The United States.” The first sentence is bland and without content. The second sentence involves an emotional response because we have someone we can identify with (either positively or negatively) involved.

Well, we’re way out in left field aren’t we?

Back to the movie.

Since this was based on a video game, there isn’t any depth or logic. There is just its presence. There are some very stunning visual images of evil and Hell. I’ll go as far to say that some of the images are downright disturbing. But in the end they mean nothing and are not enough to make up for a story that lingers and eventually fades into a muttering mess.

There are strong anti-Christian elements to the film, some of the most openly spiteful ones I’ve seen. This said, the low nature of how Christians are displayed in this piece is as meaningless as the rest of the production. The theology, logic and structure of the movie as a whole are so sophomoric they tend to negate themselves.

My fear is that some goofy teenager is watching this crap. Firstly, because its’ bad for the brain to watch such crude and horrid imagery. Secondly, it’s a bad movie and kids need to see the beauty of life more than they need to see the bitter remnants of some jerk’s foul imagination. The lessons taught in this film would be lost on most teenage boys who would be more drawn the demonic imagery. In this they will not be disappointed. This being the case, I’d advise parents to keep the children far away from this hateful yarn.


Related Reviews:
Another video game movie
Resident Evil (1999)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Flickering Wall
Roger Ebert

Labels: adaptation, film, movie review, Radha Mitchell, Roger Avary, Sean Bean, video game

I like this trailer, it's unconventional opening draws you in (although it over sells things a bit), and the remainder gives a good sense of the grandeur of the whole film.

The film itself is exceptional across the board, one of the best from the 1980's, in my estimation.

Return to the movie trailers page

Click on the little vulgarian to read the review

Screenwriter: Peter Shaffer (Equus)
Director: Milos Forman (Goya's Ghosts)
Actors: Tom Hulce (Jumper), F. Murray Abraham (Finding Forrester), Elizabeth Berridge (Hidaglo) and Jeffrey Jones (Ferris Bueller's Day Off)

Labels: adaptation, Amadeus, biography, film, movie trailer, Mozart, Tom Hulce

Screenwriters: David Hayter (X-Men) and Alex Tse
Director: Zack Snyder (300)
Actors: Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Kabluey), Malin Akerman (Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle), Billy Crudup (Big Fish), Jackie Earle Haley (Semi-Pro), Patrick Wilson (Hard Candy), and Matt Frewer

Labels: adaptation, Billy Crudup, film, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, movie trailer, Zack Snyder