Change Your Image
hockeyrage88
Reviews
Watchmen (2009)
Ambitious, and for filmmakers, there is a lesson to be learned here.
The first thing I discussed with my fellow 'Watchmen' attendees last night was- if you were to try to briefly explain to someone what the movie 'Watchmen' is about, what would you say? None of us could come up with a succinct answer.
My only attempt at an explanation is this.
'Watchmen' tries to be about everything.
So many topics and themes are tackled in this film, from environmental issues to child abduction, from politics to sexual assault, from war to love.
While the film does provide some interesting insights in these topics, it is really too much for one film.
We were actually trying to identify the protagonist, and the best I could come up with is Rorschach, since he does the voice over narration and keeps the journal. I think he is also the most sympathetic character, because there is such a disconnection felt with most of the other characters.
I understand that some of these complaints perhaps are directed more at the book than the film, and I have not read the book. But, it is the job of the filmmakers to shape the story of the book into a film that the audience can connect with, and I believe that in trying to keep too true to this book, the writers of 'Watchmen' the movie lost most of their audience.
'Watchmen' is a joy to the eye, as the art direction is top notch. The opening credits sequence is stunningly brilliant in its cinematography and as an expository storytelling device.
Every movie is about something, but unfortunately, Watchmen is not. Because it tries to be about everything, it is actually about nothing.
The Shield (2002)
Despite public's marginal complaints- Maybe the best drama ever written for Television.
Many people have complaints about 'The Shield'.
"The camera is too shaky." "It looks too grainy." "There are always things in the way of the shots." "The storyline is difficult to follow." I have heard or read about these complaints multiple times from one-time or casual viewers of the show. Let me first address the cinematography and art direction.
With so much going on in each episode and each season, it is important for the director to help evoke emotion in a subtle manner whenever possible. The contrast in framing does just that. Many times we are looking at the characters from across the street or from outside through a window to give it the feel of a 'Cops' type show, but also to keep us somewhat separated from the decisions made by the characters. It is important to let us have an outsider's perspective on some of the events that transpire. However, it also becomes necessary to put us in the heat of a moment to intensify the emotional impact. This contrast enhances both ends of the spectrum, and it is carried out flawlessly.
The 'graininess' of the show is maintained because it follows with the theme of the show. It has always been shot on super 16 film. They could easily upgrade to 35mm or a HD format, but it would hurt the overall feel of the show. 'The Shield' takes place in a high-crime, low-income area of Los Angeles called Farmington, and the PD building is called the 'Barn'. It is an older building that used to be a church and the funding of the department matches that of its community. This 'grainy' look enhances this feeling of edginess and basement-style living and is a terrific contrast to the bright and shiny style of such shows as CSI: Miami. Neither is better or worse; both are appropriate for each program, though I have to admit that the cleaner, higher resolution may be more pleasant to look at, but I'll watch 'The Shield' over a cookie cutter episode of CSI any day.
I cannot argue against the fact that the story-lines are hard to follow. They are. Even in season 7, many events are referenced that occurred as early as the first season. Many elements would be lost for anyone just trying to tune in now. This is not to say that it wouldn't be enjoyable; there are new plot developments that occur in every episode, but certainly some of the story points would seem irrelevant. For this reason, this show should be viewed as an 86 part movie. This sounds ridiculous but it is true. Due to this length of time and amount of events that have occurred with the same characters, the dynamic character arcs are unrivaled in their true-to-life tragedy, simplicity, and unpredictability, yet maintaining a sense of believability in every decision each character makes.
'The Shield' challenges standard conceptions of the protagonist and antagonist. It will make you question your own morals. It will make you feel both good and bad about yourself and humanity, but you will appreciate the insightful way everything is presented.
Right now we are 2 episodes away from the end, and I can comfortably say that 'The Shield' will stay with me forever. I also think that it will be under-appreciated forever, but those who will say that it is one of the best programs to ever grace the small screen will be right. It is, in my opinion, the best drama ever written for Television, and the story of Vic Mackey is without a doubt one of the best uses of the tragic hero theme since the writings of Shakespeare.
Do you really think that these choices of editing and cinematography are simply because the creators are inexperienced and don't know any better? Please think for a moment. But if the 'graininess' or 'shakiness' still bothers you, by all means, move along to Desperate Housewives.
War (2007)
Just an action movie.. with no action.
I was ready to accept this movie for what it was, a simple no-brainer action movie with some good fight scenes between two of the most exciting action stars in show business today. Unfortunately, this turned into an example for aspiring filmmakers on how not to write a screenplay. The first 2/3 of this movie is all exposition through dialogue, and VERY little action.
Let's count along with the clichés:
1) I'm going after the guy that killed my partner. 2) 'Rogue' - "He's just a myth man." He has plastic surgery to change his identity. He has no master. No one knows his true identity. 3) "Don't let your obsession for finding this guy take your son from you, you've already lost your wife." (btw I just realize that no more mention of this is ever made after this scene) 4) The police chief takes bribes from the Yakuza to let their shipment pass, but it's a double cross, but his wife and child were threatened. 5) The hero cop who's partner tries to get him to quit smoking then when his partner dies he does quit.
These are just the most glaring themes throughout, but I can assure you, each scene contains some cliché or another, and if this film didn't take itself so seriously it could be one hilarious spoof.
It seems to be setting up for something big at the end, which the film attempts, but in trying to deliver the twist, the only half-way clever element of the film, it kicks itself in the face yet again. The twist of Statham's partner taking the identity of the killer could have worked on its own, but the double twist with Statham's character giving him up in the first place was way too much. This film seems like it was rewritten multiple times in post production. I hope for the editor's sake that the director was completely inept because it is truly cut together poorly in some scenes- the instance that comes to mind most clearly- in the last scene where the new 'Rogue' shoots Statham's character- in one shot Statham gets up to stand in front of his sniper, he is grabbing 'Rogue' with his left arm so he is standing directly in front of him, and in the next shot all we see is 'Rogue' firing his weapon with one on in front of him at all and we are supposed to assume that it is Statham's character? This is the big ending? UnREAL.
I am begging studios - it takes so much effort from so many parties to get a project greenlit. But how then can this be one of these finished products? And this is just one example of studios constantly not giving their audiences any credit by their half-assed work. Chances are that for this film there were creative differences by many involved and most people just gave up. Honestly I hope so. Unfotunately they aren't to blame. The fact that this movie has a rating of 6.2 here is appalling. Perhaps if you have never seen a movie before in your life and you watch this it could potentially be enjoyable. Honestly I never though I'd miss the old Jackie Chan movies from the 80's and 90's- sincere heart, sporadic comedy, and UNPARALLED fight choreography and stunts, performed by Jackie Chan himself. If you thought you enjoyed 'War', please do yourself a favor and rent 'Rumble in the Bronx'.
Strange Wilderness (2008)
Definitely Unpredictable
Let me be clear- the storyline is nothing short of horrendous- it is absolutely riddled with problems and holes that were never even attempted to be covered up or fixed. From a story structure and film making perspective, this film is almost unbearable. BUT, the opposite would have been even worse- if they had tried to make a cohesive storyline out of this plot, it would have been just as bad as all the other crap movies that have nothing interesting in them, but at least have a resemblance of a 100% predictable story structure. I liked the turns this movie took because at least they were unexpected- no one could possibly guess what will happen in this movie, that much is somewhat refreshing.
As far as the humor in the film goes- watch the trailer: if it makes you laugh, then you will think the movie is funny; if not, you won't. It's as simple as that. Not that this film is an example of this but I'm tired of people giving bad reviews to films that they knew nothing about going into them- sure it's nice to have an open mind maybe even no perspective going into them sometimes, but if you are going to be angry about having your 'Time Wasted' by seeing a film, then why don't you spend 5 minutes to research a film before seeing it. That's what this website is for. I don't go out to see 'Meet the Spartans' or 'How She Move' or 'The Game Plan' or 'One Missed Call' because I know that I will not enjoy them. It's not difficult.
Little Children (2006)
Not a masterpiece, but well done.
I hadn't seen this movie until it came out on DVD, and perhaps that is why I was a little disappointed. The only reason I even watched it at all was based on reviews from friends and bloggers about what an amazing film this is. So, it's possible that my expectations were just the opposite of those who had no idea what to expect.
That been said, I have a couple problems with this picture. The first and foremost, is that I didn't care about any of the characters. I didn't necessarily care if any of them would have died, and in fact I was expecting one of the main characters to get killed. I felt the same after the ending of this movie as I did for Babel, because though I did see Babel in theaters, it was only after all of the Oscar buzz, and because of all that hype, I was disappointed by Babel as well- BUT, Little Children makes me appreciate Babel much more because I DID care about those characters. Babel explored both the GOOD and the BAD in all of its characters, whereas Little Children only explores the poor decisions its characters make, and what happens because of them. Of course, in the end, it shows that good people can make bad decisions and bad people can make good ones, but I feel let down being taken on this 2 1/2 hour journey simply to learn this fact. Babel takes this concept further and develops these decisions and how it relates to both those we love and those we've never even met.
Maybe I missed something that I shouldn't have, but it seems that a movie that was indeed so well done and actually, well written, (the scenes with narration were possibly the most interesting of the film, which is probably not a good thing) truly forgot some very basic elements of storytelling. Just one person's opinion.
Legally Blonde (2001)
Drops her life to spite her ex-boyfriend, how courageous!
When my girlfriend finally convinced me to watch this movie, I still had extremely low expectations for it, and I am sad to say that I was still disappointed.
This film is a giant hypocrisy. It tries to claim that women are just as powerful and smart as men, which I really don't need convincing of, but this film actually made me question that idea instead of support it. The only statement that it makes is that women have to manipulate and lie to men in order to succeed. Sure, Elle may have gotten into Harvard without doing so, which, of course is possible, but the film makes it seem impossible, especially with the stereotypical Harvard students that she meets and cannot manage to get along with. The worst part is that she works so hard to get into Harvard for all the wrong reasons. In the end, it tells young women that they can succeed in life even if they live inside of a little bubble that disregards all other life forms, even their own pets.
I almost ripped my own arms off during the 'bend and snap' scene, in which Elle teaches a beauty salon full of women a move that is sure to catch the attention of a nearby man to get him to talk to you. So, in a film that is 'more than just another Girl Power Film', the main character teaches other females how to get a man's attention by showing off her breasts and butt. How innovative.
I live in Southern California, and if I see another dog dressed up and being carried in a purse, I am going to move to Sri Lanka. To anyone who thinks that that is cute, please see South Park episode 812, which features Paris Hilton's dog committing suicide.
In all, this film obviously appeals very well to young women and I can maybe even see why many would like it, but it also contributes to the growing number of messages the mass media is sending to young women that make me worried about the future. I suppose, however, if it does encourage young women to aspire to achieve something or inspires them in any way to better themselves, then it is a good thing, just as long as they aren't going to prove something to their ex-boyfriend. Do it for yourself, what's so hard about that?