Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Watchmen (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
**I've seen Tales of the Black Freighter, but I'm not sure I've ever seen the Ultimate Cut of this.**
A comedian died in New York. Someone threw him out of a window and when he hit the sidewalk his head was driven into his stomach. The only person that seems to care is Rorschach, the one superhero who refuses to take off his mask. The Keene Act was passed in 1977 banning all forms of costumed crimefighting. Rorschach continues to do so as he feels his mask is his true face. His theory is that someone is out to kill costumed heroes and that it's his responsibility to inform his former colleagues. There's Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl II whom Rorschach used to be partners with before Dan retired, Adrian Veidt/Ozymondias, one of two costumed heroes to make his identity public who's also a self-made millionaire and considered to be the smartest man in the world, Dr. Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, the only one of the group who has genuine super powers thanks to an accident that nearly killed him who is now commissioned by the government, Laurie Jupiter/Silk Spectre II, her mother was in the Minutemen along with The Comedian and wanted her daughter to follow in her footsteps, and finally Edward Blake/The Comedian, another superhero commissioned by the government that knows more than he should while his knowledge takes its toll on him and whoever is around him at the time thanks to his reckless and sadistic behavior. What any of them fail to realize is that there's a conspiracy going on that's bigger than any of them could have ever imagined.
I had watched the motion comic in its entirety earlier in the week to get myself ready for this and it had really gotten me excited for this film. The first time I read Watchmen, I thought it was good but not great. However, I thoroughly enjoyed it the second time through. My biggest question going into the film is how I would feel about the altered ending since I already knew about that going into it. Turns out that the ending in question wasn't so bad, but I wasn't happy with some of the other things that were changed or left out to lead up to said ending.
The film is pretty much right on the money the majority of the time. Zack Snyder continues his trend of pulling panels directly from the source material and making them a cinematic reality. The dialogue is often times word for word from the graphic novel and doesn't feel forced or out of place when something new is used. The cast left nothing to be complained about as they all did a great job. Jackie Earle Haley was a fantastic Rorschach. He sounded just the way I expected Rorschach to sound and just looked like a splitting image of Walter Kovacs. Billy Crudup's emotionless Dr. Manhattan was also pretty much just as I envisioned. Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian was the one I seemed to be most pleased with. He did a great job making you care about this costumed superhero who did brutally sadistic things to people yet somehow still made you care about his character. Snyder's use of slow motion seems to be used more efficiently this time around. It felt like it was used only when needed rather than just to be eye candy. The effects used with Dr. Manhattan are worth a mention. Even if he's just standing there, you can tell how much time and effort was put into making him look spectacular. Let alone cost quite a bit of money. Rorschach's mask was also an interesting special effect that is sure to catch anyone's eye. The effects are pretty flawless and should please most moviegoers.
There was a lot of material left out of the film or changed that I wasn't particularly happy with. I don't want to seem too nitpicky, so I'll only touch base on a few of them. I view most of the stuff that was left out as character development that was important to the overall story. Most of the material in question concerns Rorschach; he visited Adrian Veidt to warn him of his mask killer theory not Dan, his response to The Keene Act, Walter Kovac's landlady, anything concerning his apartment, and his drop box, where he hides his mask during the day, everything about his psychiatrist's relationship bending and breaking during the course of the Rorschach case, how and where he got the mask, how he disposed of the man who kidnapped that little girl, and it just keeps going. Most of that was left out of the theatrical version of the film. Around the halfway point to the end of the film, I felt like it just strayed further and further away from the source material. In the novel, Dr. Manhattan is the only superhero with superpowers. The film kind of leaves that up in the air since other characters are seen punching stone off of walls and jumping to inhuman heights into the air. It was just kind of a, "Wait...what?" kind of moment for me. I realize it was probably just the wirework used that I'm questioning, but it didn't sit well with me.
I'm hoping the final cut of the film that's rumored to be three hours to three and a half hours long puts some of these important bits (including Hollis' death and The Black Freighter storyline among other things) back into the story. It wasn't that I didn't enjoy it, but it wound up just not meeting my expectations. My recommendation is don't read the graphic novel before viewing the film. The film is worthwhile for Zack Snyder enthusiasts, comic book fans, and pretty much anyone looking for a good action film. I would recommend it to just about anyone, but I think that ultimate version of the DVD is going to be what fans will really be excited over and for good reason. As a film, it's incredibly entertaining. In comparison to the graphic novel, it comes up a bit short. For now, I just see it as a good film that could have been a lot better.
A comedian died in New York. Someone threw him out of a window and when he hit the sidewalk his head was driven into his stomach. The only person that seems to care is Rorschach, the one superhero who refuses to take off his mask. The Keene Act was passed in 1977 banning all forms of costumed crimefighting. Rorschach continues to do so as he feels his mask is his true face. His theory is that someone is out to kill costumed heroes and that it's his responsibility to inform his former colleagues. There's Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl II whom Rorschach used to be partners with before Dan retired, Adrian Veidt/Ozymondias, one of two costumed heroes to make his identity public who's also a self-made millionaire and considered to be the smartest man in the world, Dr. Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, the only one of the group who has genuine super powers thanks to an accident that nearly killed him who is now commissioned by the government, Laurie Jupiter/Silk Spectre II, her mother was in the Minutemen along with The Comedian and wanted her daughter to follow in her footsteps, and finally Edward Blake/The Comedian, another superhero commissioned by the government that knows more than he should while his knowledge takes its toll on him and whoever is around him at the time thanks to his reckless and sadistic behavior. What any of them fail to realize is that there's a conspiracy going on that's bigger than any of them could have ever imagined.
I had watched the motion comic in its entirety earlier in the week to get myself ready for this and it had really gotten me excited for this film. The first time I read Watchmen, I thought it was good but not great. However, I thoroughly enjoyed it the second time through. My biggest question going into the film is how I would feel about the altered ending since I already knew about that going into it. Turns out that the ending in question wasn't so bad, but I wasn't happy with some of the other things that were changed or left out to lead up to said ending.
The film is pretty much right on the money the majority of the time. Zack Snyder continues his trend of pulling panels directly from the source material and making them a cinematic reality. The dialogue is often times word for word from the graphic novel and doesn't feel forced or out of place when something new is used. The cast left nothing to be complained about as they all did a great job. Jackie Earle Haley was a fantastic Rorschach. He sounded just the way I expected Rorschach to sound and just looked like a splitting image of Walter Kovacs. Billy Crudup's emotionless Dr. Manhattan was also pretty much just as I envisioned. Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian was the one I seemed to be most pleased with. He did a great job making you care about this costumed superhero who did brutally sadistic things to people yet somehow still made you care about his character. Snyder's use of slow motion seems to be used more efficiently this time around. It felt like it was used only when needed rather than just to be eye candy. The effects used with Dr. Manhattan are worth a mention. Even if he's just standing there, you can tell how much time and effort was put into making him look spectacular. Let alone cost quite a bit of money. Rorschach's mask was also an interesting special effect that is sure to catch anyone's eye. The effects are pretty flawless and should please most moviegoers.
There was a lot of material left out of the film or changed that I wasn't particularly happy with. I don't want to seem too nitpicky, so I'll only touch base on a few of them. I view most of the stuff that was left out as character development that was important to the overall story. Most of the material in question concerns Rorschach; he visited Adrian Veidt to warn him of his mask killer theory not Dan, his response to The Keene Act, Walter Kovac's landlady, anything concerning his apartment, and his drop box, where he hides his mask during the day, everything about his psychiatrist's relationship bending and breaking during the course of the Rorschach case, how and where he got the mask, how he disposed of the man who kidnapped that little girl, and it just keeps going. Most of that was left out of the theatrical version of the film. Around the halfway point to the end of the film, I felt like it just strayed further and further away from the source material. In the novel, Dr. Manhattan is the only superhero with superpowers. The film kind of leaves that up in the air since other characters are seen punching stone off of walls and jumping to inhuman heights into the air. It was just kind of a, "Wait...what?" kind of moment for me. I realize it was probably just the wirework used that I'm questioning, but it didn't sit well with me.
I'm hoping the final cut of the film that's rumored to be three hours to three and a half hours long puts some of these important bits (including Hollis' death and The Black Freighter storyline among other things) back into the story. It wasn't that I didn't enjoy it, but it wound up just not meeting my expectations. My recommendation is don't read the graphic novel before viewing the film. The film is worthwhile for Zack Snyder enthusiasts, comic book fans, and pretty much anyone looking for a good action film. I would recommend it to just about anyone, but I think that ultimate version of the DVD is going to be what fans will really be excited over and for good reason. As a film, it's incredibly entertaining. In comparison to the graphic novel, it comes up a bit short. For now, I just see it as a good film that could have been a lot better.
Ande Thomas (69 KP) rated The Time Traveler's Wife in Books
May 30, 2019
I've been thinking a lot about what I would write about <i>The Time Traveler's Wife,</i> partly because it seems one usually falls into one of two camps: Love it, hate it. It turns out, I belong to the latter. I won't bother with the sci-fi elements, the could he/couldn't he, the exploration of time travel as a plot device - I'm always willing to engage with a story as long as it follows it's own rules. My problems run deeper.
Spoilers abound.
<spoiler>
First, I'd be remiss not to at least acknowledge the creepy factor of a 40 year old naked man befriending a 6 year old girl. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I've got to put my two cents in.
The whole experience reeks of grooming. Henry shows up, naked, in a young girl's life and (although true) casually explains that he's a <i>time traveler</i>. Her imagination is hooked. Her very own secret Magic Man. Over the following years, their friendship blossoms, and Henry refuses to tell her anything about the future. He is friendly, charming even, and always respectful. But he remains an enigma. Clare is pulled in by the mystery of the Magic Man. All she knows are the dates of his future arrivals. Until one day he begins to break his rule and tell her that they will be together. They'll get married and be in love and have a life. What changed? Why is he suddenly willing to tell her snippets of her future life? Puberty. She admits her desire to be with him and he basically says "keep waiting, it'll happen."
From that moment, her life has been decided - by Henry, and for Henry. Clare spends the entirety of her teenage existence (and beyond) waiting on Henry. The whole of her character arc is basically one big middle finger to the Bechdel test. Henry leads her by a leash with clues and vague promises of the future. We'll be together when you're older (we're destined). We'll have sex on your 18th birthday (wait for me). We'll meet in Chicago (move to Chicago). Even after his dying breath, he subtly slides direction her way. "I hope you move on, but by the way, I'll drop by when you're EIGHTY. But by all means...move on." Is it coincidence that Henry's time traveling mimics an emotionally abusive relationship? Clare tells us, "Henry is an artist of another sort, a disappearing artist. Our life together in this too-small apartment is punctuated by Henry’s small absences. Sometimes he disappears unobtrusively . . . Sometimes it’s frightening." Sure, you say, but he can't help it. He wants to be there for her. <i>It's just the way he is.</i> It's not even hinted at. Multiple people tell Clare <b>to her face</b> that Henry is bad news. But she won't hear it, because he spent her entire childhood molding her into his wife.
The author doesn't hide the allusion to Homer. Rather, she beats us over the head with it. And sure, it makes sense; Clare is the patiently waiting wife, Henry the distant traveler. Even Alba takes up her role as Telemachus, going on her own journeys in search of her father. But do we need both main characters referring to Henry by name, as Odysseus? We get it, girl. You want to write your own romantic Odyssey. Ease up.
Oh, and by the way - Clare's quote above? That's one of her first comments on married life. Her first thoughts after the wedding are "Why is my husband always gone? Why am I always afraid for him?" Henry's first thoughts? "How can Clare listen to Cheap Trick?" Let me remind you that this is the guy who's willing to rattle off a comprehensive list of early punk before jumping up to join in singing a Prince song, but he's upset that his wife listens to The Eagles instead of some obscure as hell French punk band. Also, this man who is thrilled to share musical tastes with a young teen with a mohawk then laments that the kid can't find his own music and has to take his? He preaches the meaning of punk before privately questioning why those kids want to be punk? Here's a guy who's entire life was shaped by music - both of his parents made livings playing music written before they were even born, yet he can't comprehend why two preteens could (or should) like The Clash, or why Clare would like The Beatles. <i>Stay in your own time,</i> he is essentially saying, <i>leave the time traveling to me.</i>
The guy doesn't even realize the pain he causes. Ingrid asks him "Why were you so mean to me?" "Was I," he says, "I didn't want to be." I know, I know. Everyone around her didn't want him to see her or speak to her. But need I remind you - dude time travels and frequently gives himself tips from the future. "Hey pal, take it easy on Ingrid," or "Bro, Ingrid is really shaken up, don't listen to her family or doctor, she needs some closure." But of course, nothing can really change, everything is the way it is.
This is all before I even begin to mention how much Niffenegger LOVES to name-drop. Of course there's the aforementioned punk band name-vomit, mentions of Henry's parents' work can't go by without naming a specific piece, despite adding nothing to the story or our understanding of the characters, there are two separate references to Claude Levi-Strauss (why?), and various other casual mentions of figures that seem to serve no purpose other than to prove that Henry is smart, and knows smart people things.
</spoiler>
I wanted to like this book more, I thought it had a fascinating premise and an interesting perspective. Obviously, I'm not a regular consumer of romance, and I realize that the problems I have with this book are problems shared by a large portion of the genre. But I am positive that we can have a love story that isn't mired by (at best) morally ambiguous relationships. I understand it was a different world when it was published, and that's not directly anyone's fault. Questions of consent and power and respect have been thrust into the spotlight in the short years since this book was published, but that's the lens with which I have to peer through. Stop glorifying these vapid, and frankly, abusive relationships as the paragon of romance. We're better than this. We need to be.
Spoilers abound.
<spoiler>
First, I'd be remiss not to at least acknowledge the creepy factor of a 40 year old naked man befriending a 6 year old girl. It's been discussed ad nauseum, but I've got to put my two cents in.
The whole experience reeks of grooming. Henry shows up, naked, in a young girl's life and (although true) casually explains that he's a <i>time traveler</i>. Her imagination is hooked. Her very own secret Magic Man. Over the following years, their friendship blossoms, and Henry refuses to tell her anything about the future. He is friendly, charming even, and always respectful. But he remains an enigma. Clare is pulled in by the mystery of the Magic Man. All she knows are the dates of his future arrivals. Until one day he begins to break his rule and tell her that they will be together. They'll get married and be in love and have a life. What changed? Why is he suddenly willing to tell her snippets of her future life? Puberty. She admits her desire to be with him and he basically says "keep waiting, it'll happen."
From that moment, her life has been decided - by Henry, and for Henry. Clare spends the entirety of her teenage existence (and beyond) waiting on Henry. The whole of her character arc is basically one big middle finger to the Bechdel test. Henry leads her by a leash with clues and vague promises of the future. We'll be together when you're older (we're destined). We'll have sex on your 18th birthday (wait for me). We'll meet in Chicago (move to Chicago). Even after his dying breath, he subtly slides direction her way. "I hope you move on, but by the way, I'll drop by when you're EIGHTY. But by all means...move on." Is it coincidence that Henry's time traveling mimics an emotionally abusive relationship? Clare tells us, "Henry is an artist of another sort, a disappearing artist. Our life together in this too-small apartment is punctuated by Henry’s small absences. Sometimes he disappears unobtrusively . . . Sometimes it’s frightening." Sure, you say, but he can't help it. He wants to be there for her. <i>It's just the way he is.</i> It's not even hinted at. Multiple people tell Clare <b>to her face</b> that Henry is bad news. But she won't hear it, because he spent her entire childhood molding her into his wife.
The author doesn't hide the allusion to Homer. Rather, she beats us over the head with it. And sure, it makes sense; Clare is the patiently waiting wife, Henry the distant traveler. Even Alba takes up her role as Telemachus, going on her own journeys in search of her father. But do we need both main characters referring to Henry by name, as Odysseus? We get it, girl. You want to write your own romantic Odyssey. Ease up.
Oh, and by the way - Clare's quote above? That's one of her first comments on married life. Her first thoughts after the wedding are "Why is my husband always gone? Why am I always afraid for him?" Henry's first thoughts? "How can Clare listen to Cheap Trick?" Let me remind you that this is the guy who's willing to rattle off a comprehensive list of early punk before jumping up to join in singing a Prince song, but he's upset that his wife listens to The Eagles instead of some obscure as hell French punk band. Also, this man who is thrilled to share musical tastes with a young teen with a mohawk then laments that the kid can't find his own music and has to take his? He preaches the meaning of punk before privately questioning why those kids want to be punk? Here's a guy who's entire life was shaped by music - both of his parents made livings playing music written before they were even born, yet he can't comprehend why two preteens could (or should) like The Clash, or why Clare would like The Beatles. <i>Stay in your own time,</i> he is essentially saying, <i>leave the time traveling to me.</i>
The guy doesn't even realize the pain he causes. Ingrid asks him "Why were you so mean to me?" "Was I," he says, "I didn't want to be." I know, I know. Everyone around her didn't want him to see her or speak to her. But need I remind you - dude time travels and frequently gives himself tips from the future. "Hey pal, take it easy on Ingrid," or "Bro, Ingrid is really shaken up, don't listen to her family or doctor, she needs some closure." But of course, nothing can really change, everything is the way it is.
This is all before I even begin to mention how much Niffenegger LOVES to name-drop. Of course there's the aforementioned punk band name-vomit, mentions of Henry's parents' work can't go by without naming a specific piece, despite adding nothing to the story or our understanding of the characters, there are two separate references to Claude Levi-Strauss (why?), and various other casual mentions of figures that seem to serve no purpose other than to prove that Henry is smart, and knows smart people things.
</spoiler>
I wanted to like this book more, I thought it had a fascinating premise and an interesting perspective. Obviously, I'm not a regular consumer of romance, and I realize that the problems I have with this book are problems shared by a large portion of the genre. But I am positive that we can have a love story that isn't mired by (at best) morally ambiguous relationships. I understand it was a different world when it was published, and that's not directly anyone's fault. Questions of consent and power and respect have been thrust into the spotlight in the short years since this book was published, but that's the lens with which I have to peer through. Stop glorifying these vapid, and frankly, abusive relationships as the paragon of romance. We're better than this. We need to be.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The Dark Knight picks up not too long after Batman Begins left off. The way the citizens of Gotham look at Batman is still pretty divided. Some see him as a vigilante in a mask who takes the law into his own hands and others see him as a caped crusader who helps keep scum off the streets. A hero to some and a villain to others. Harvey Dent, the man running for DA, enters the picture and could be the face Gotham is looking for to be its new hero. A man who's not only capable of getting rid of the filth on the streets of Gotham in a more efficient manner, but could be the reason Batman hangs up his cape for good. It seems as though Gotham has found itself with a new criminal psychopath though that's keeping Batman, Harvey Dent, and the Gotham PD busy these days. The Joker is, without a doubt, Batman's most dangerous adversary. A madman whose only desire is to give Gotham a better class of criminal. Bruce Wayne goes beyond his limits as Batman to try and take him down and all The Joker wants is for Gotham to be filled with pure chaos. Can Batman bring The Joker to justice? Will Harvey Dent become Gotham's new white knight? How does Rachel Dawes fit into the picture?
I had been looking forward to this movie for what seemed like an eternity and to make it worse is that I had to sit in the theater for an hour since I got there early. All I could think about was that I was finally seeing this movie that I was so excited about. I have never anticipated a film to this capacity. Ever. I was thinking that there was no way a movie could live up to being that good. So the real question is, "Did the film live up to my expectations?" The answer is no. It didn't. It surpassed my expectations in every way possible. The two hours and thirty two minutes running time went by in a blur as there was little to no down time and my eyes were drawn to the screen the entire time. This movie was epic. I don't toss that word around too often, but there's no way else to describe it. It was epic in every sense of the word. I've never seen a film that had this much of a crowd response to not only the film, its actors, its twists and turns, but the trailers beforehand as well. I lost count how many times I had goosebumps throughout the film because what I was witnessing was exactly what I wanted to see and then some. It is truly an extraordinary experience.
The cast was brilliant. The returning cast from the last film continued to be impressive. Michael Caine always manages to be charming and steal a few laughs as Alfred and the film wouldn't be the same without Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox. Christian Bale is still the best Batman to ever put on the cape, in my opinion. It was nice seeing more Batman this time around than Bruce Wayne. The way he struggles with if continuing to be Batman is the right thing for Gotham still plagues him and is still equally as amazing. Maggie Gyllenhaal has, as I'm sure you've heard by now, replaced Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes and actually brings a spark to the role. She brought the charisma and overall talent to The Dark Knight that Katie Holmes should have had in Batman Begins. Gary Oldman is an actor who I still think doesn't deserve the credit he deserves and what he brings to the role of Jim Gordon, especially this time around in The Dark Knight, should hopefully get people talking. Which brings me to Aaron Eckhart. By the time the credits start rolling, I can guarantee you'll be praising his work in this film. I can't really imagine anyone else in the role of Harvey Dent now and what he winds up going through and how he portrays it is just incredible. The intensity he put into the role really caused him to steal quite a few scenes.
Hm. That's the whole cast isn't it? I'm not leaving anyone out, right? Oh, of course. Heath Ledger as The Joker. Did it live up to the hype and was it worth all the fuss? It does, my friends. It's actually better than the hype. Ledger steals every scene he's in. Period. Whatever he tapped into and whatever kind of preparation he went through for this role is truly phenomenal. He WAS The Joker in this film. He was somehow able to embody The Joker in a way that is frightening, maniacal, and even hysterical all at the same time. You will wind up holding your breath and trying not to make a sound every time he comes on screen because you don't want to miss a second of this mesmerizing performance. I was reading that he locked himself up in an empty apartment for a month to prepare for the role to get a true feel for the character; his body language, quirks, his voice, etc. He had The Killing Joke, The Man Who Laughed, and a few of the first issues of Batman that had appearances from the Joker as references. I can tell you this...it truly shows, if that's the case. The way he submerged himself in this character is almost beyond words. He deserves every ounce of praise that he gets.
It is ridiculous how much praise The Dark Knight truly deserves. Even the most elaborate descriptions feel like they're still not doing the movie justice. The film is for Batman fans, for Nolan fans, for fans of good storytelling, for fans of good writing, for fans of amazing cinematography, for fans of some of the strongest acting performances ever to be filmed, for fans of action/crime/dramas...long story short, the film can and probably will be enjoyed by anyone. It is the only film to come out in recent years that not only lived up to the hype, but leaped over it and actually deserved every bit of it. By the time you get to the end credits, you'll immediately want to see it again and you'll be just as excited the second time(and possibly third time) through. It's that good.
I had been looking forward to this movie for what seemed like an eternity and to make it worse is that I had to sit in the theater for an hour since I got there early. All I could think about was that I was finally seeing this movie that I was so excited about. I have never anticipated a film to this capacity. Ever. I was thinking that there was no way a movie could live up to being that good. So the real question is, "Did the film live up to my expectations?" The answer is no. It didn't. It surpassed my expectations in every way possible. The two hours and thirty two minutes running time went by in a blur as there was little to no down time and my eyes were drawn to the screen the entire time. This movie was epic. I don't toss that word around too often, but there's no way else to describe it. It was epic in every sense of the word. I've never seen a film that had this much of a crowd response to not only the film, its actors, its twists and turns, but the trailers beforehand as well. I lost count how many times I had goosebumps throughout the film because what I was witnessing was exactly what I wanted to see and then some. It is truly an extraordinary experience.
The cast was brilliant. The returning cast from the last film continued to be impressive. Michael Caine always manages to be charming and steal a few laughs as Alfred and the film wouldn't be the same without Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox. Christian Bale is still the best Batman to ever put on the cape, in my opinion. It was nice seeing more Batman this time around than Bruce Wayne. The way he struggles with if continuing to be Batman is the right thing for Gotham still plagues him and is still equally as amazing. Maggie Gyllenhaal has, as I'm sure you've heard by now, replaced Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes and actually brings a spark to the role. She brought the charisma and overall talent to The Dark Knight that Katie Holmes should have had in Batman Begins. Gary Oldman is an actor who I still think doesn't deserve the credit he deserves and what he brings to the role of Jim Gordon, especially this time around in The Dark Knight, should hopefully get people talking. Which brings me to Aaron Eckhart. By the time the credits start rolling, I can guarantee you'll be praising his work in this film. I can't really imagine anyone else in the role of Harvey Dent now and what he winds up going through and how he portrays it is just incredible. The intensity he put into the role really caused him to steal quite a few scenes.
Hm. That's the whole cast isn't it? I'm not leaving anyone out, right? Oh, of course. Heath Ledger as The Joker. Did it live up to the hype and was it worth all the fuss? It does, my friends. It's actually better than the hype. Ledger steals every scene he's in. Period. Whatever he tapped into and whatever kind of preparation he went through for this role is truly phenomenal. He WAS The Joker in this film. He was somehow able to embody The Joker in a way that is frightening, maniacal, and even hysterical all at the same time. You will wind up holding your breath and trying not to make a sound every time he comes on screen because you don't want to miss a second of this mesmerizing performance. I was reading that he locked himself up in an empty apartment for a month to prepare for the role to get a true feel for the character; his body language, quirks, his voice, etc. He had The Killing Joke, The Man Who Laughed, and a few of the first issues of Batman that had appearances from the Joker as references. I can tell you this...it truly shows, if that's the case. The way he submerged himself in this character is almost beyond words. He deserves every ounce of praise that he gets.
It is ridiculous how much praise The Dark Knight truly deserves. Even the most elaborate descriptions feel like they're still not doing the movie justice. The film is for Batman fans, for Nolan fans, for fans of good storytelling, for fans of good writing, for fans of amazing cinematography, for fans of some of the strongest acting performances ever to be filmed, for fans of action/crime/dramas...long story short, the film can and probably will be enjoyed by anyone. It is the only film to come out in recent years that not only lived up to the hype, but leaped over it and actually deserved every bit of it. By the time you get to the end credits, you'll immediately want to see it again and you'll be just as excited the second time(and possibly third time) through. It's that good.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Siempre estamos solas”
Alfonso Cuarón‘s “Roma” has been lauded with praise and award’s hype, and I must admit to have been a little bit snooty about it. A black-and-white Spanish language film with subtitles that – to be honest – looks a bit dreary: can it really be that good? Having now (finally) seen it on Netflix I can confirm that’s a big YES from my point of view. It’s a novelty of a glacially slow film that grips like a vice.
A primer on 70’s Mexican History.
This is a film about ordinary life set against tumultuous times. Set in the Colonia Roma district of Mexico City (if you were puzzled, as I was, where the title came from) it is an “Upstairs, Downstairs” tale of Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), a maid and nanny to a middle class family in the early 70’s.
There are two intertwined stories here: Cleo’s personal story and that of the family background in which she works.
Cleo has a pleasant enough life working as partners in crime in the household with Adela (Nancy García García). Life is about getting the work done (well, more of less), keeping the four children happy – to who she is devoted – and scraping enough by to spend her downtime with her martial arts boyfriend Ramón (José Manuel Guerrero Mendoza).
Meanwhile the lady of the house Senora Sofia (Marina de Tavira) has an affluent and cosseted lifestyle amid her loving family.
But times are about to change for all of the players, as events – not just the events of the ‘Mexican Dirty War’ of 1971 going on in the background – transpire to change all their lives forever.
A masterclass in framing.
It’s criminal that I wasn’t able to get to see this in the cinema. Since every frame of this movie is a masterpiece of detail. There is just so much going on that your eyes dart this way and that, and you could probably watch it five times and see more. Even the opening titles are mesmerising, as the cobbled floor becomes a screen and an airliner lazily flies across it.
Even major action sequences, that other directors would fill the screen with (“Do you KNOW how much this scene is costing for God’s sake??”), are seen as they would typically be seen in real life – second hand, from a place of hiding. This is typified by the depiction of the Corpus Christi Massacre of June ’71, where the military, and more controversially the elite El Halconazo (The Hawks) of the Mexican army, turned on a student protest. Most of the action is seen as glimpses through the windows by the characters during a shopping trip to the second floor of a department store. How this was enacted and directed is a mystery to me, but it works just brilliantly.
A masterclass in pacing and panning.
One of Cuarón’s trademarks is the long take (think “Children of Men”) and here he (literally!) goes to town with the technique. An incredibly impressive scene has Cleo and Adela running through the streets of the City to meet their lovers at the cinema. It’s a continuous pan that again defies belief in the brilliance of its execution.
Even the mundane act of Cleo tidying up the apartment is done with a glorious slow pan around the room. Some of this panning is done to set the mood for the film (“Get settled in… this is going to be a long haul”) but others manage to evoke a sense of rising dread, an example at the beach being a brilliant case in point.
The cinematography was supposed to have been done by the great Emmanuel Lubezki, but he was unavailable so Cuarón did it himself! And it’s quite brilliant. So, that’s a lesson learned then that will reduce the budget for next time!
A personal story.
Cuarón wrote the script. Of course he did… it’s his story! He’s the same age as I am, so was nine years old for the autobiographical events featured in the film (he is the kid who gets punished for eavesdropping). Numerous aspects of the film are from his own childhood, including the fact that his younger brother kept spookily coming out with things that he’d done in his past lives! It’s a painful true story of his upbringing and of the life of Liboria Rodríguez: “Libo” to whom the film is dedicated.
Where the script is delightful is in never destroying the mood with lengthy exposition. Both of the key stories evolve slowly and only gradually do you work out what’s really going on. This is grown-up cinema at its finest.
It’s also a love letter from Cuarón to the cinema of his youth, a passion that sparked his eventual career. We see a number of trips to the local fleapit, and in one cute scene we seen a clip from the Gregory Peck space epic “Marooned”: the film that inspired Cuarón’s own masterpiece “Gravity“.
A naturalistic cast.
Casting a large proportion of the cast from unknowns feels like a great risk, but its a risk that pays off handsomely, particularly in the case of Yalitza Aparicio, who is breathtakingly naturalistic. Cuarón withheld the script from his cast, so some of the “acting” is not acting at all – specifically a gruelling and heartrending scene featuring Cleo later in the film. That’s real and raw emotion on the screen.
Marina de Tavira, although an actress with a track record, is also mightily impressive as the beleaguered and troubled wife.
Final Thoughts.
This is a masterpiece, and thoroughly deserves the “Best Picture” awards it has been getting. It’s certainly my odds on favourite, as well as being my pick, for the Oscar on Sunday. Will it be for everyone? Probably not.
There are some scenes which feel slightly ostentatious. A forest fire scene is brilliantly done (“Put out the small fires kids”), but then a guy in a monster suit pulls off his head-wear and starts singing a long and mournful song. Sorry?
There will also be many I suspect who will find the leisurely pace of the film excruciating; “JUST GET ON WITH IT” I hear them yelling at the screen. But if you give it the time and let it soak in, then you WILL be moved and you WILL remember the film long after you’ve seen it.
I remain cross however that this was released through Netflix. This is a film that deserves a full and widespread cinema release in 70mm format. It’s like taking an iPhone snap of the Mona Lisa and putting the phone on display instead.
A primer on 70’s Mexican History.
This is a film about ordinary life set against tumultuous times. Set in the Colonia Roma district of Mexico City (if you were puzzled, as I was, where the title came from) it is an “Upstairs, Downstairs” tale of Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), a maid and nanny to a middle class family in the early 70’s.
There are two intertwined stories here: Cleo’s personal story and that of the family background in which she works.
Cleo has a pleasant enough life working as partners in crime in the household with Adela (Nancy García García). Life is about getting the work done (well, more of less), keeping the four children happy – to who she is devoted – and scraping enough by to spend her downtime with her martial arts boyfriend Ramón (José Manuel Guerrero Mendoza).
Meanwhile the lady of the house Senora Sofia (Marina de Tavira) has an affluent and cosseted lifestyle amid her loving family.
But times are about to change for all of the players, as events – not just the events of the ‘Mexican Dirty War’ of 1971 going on in the background – transpire to change all their lives forever.
A masterclass in framing.
It’s criminal that I wasn’t able to get to see this in the cinema. Since every frame of this movie is a masterpiece of detail. There is just so much going on that your eyes dart this way and that, and you could probably watch it five times and see more. Even the opening titles are mesmerising, as the cobbled floor becomes a screen and an airliner lazily flies across it.
Even major action sequences, that other directors would fill the screen with (“Do you KNOW how much this scene is costing for God’s sake??”), are seen as they would typically be seen in real life – second hand, from a place of hiding. This is typified by the depiction of the Corpus Christi Massacre of June ’71, where the military, and more controversially the elite El Halconazo (The Hawks) of the Mexican army, turned on a student protest. Most of the action is seen as glimpses through the windows by the characters during a shopping trip to the second floor of a department store. How this was enacted and directed is a mystery to me, but it works just brilliantly.
A masterclass in pacing and panning.
One of Cuarón’s trademarks is the long take (think “Children of Men”) and here he (literally!) goes to town with the technique. An incredibly impressive scene has Cleo and Adela running through the streets of the City to meet their lovers at the cinema. It’s a continuous pan that again defies belief in the brilliance of its execution.
Even the mundane act of Cleo tidying up the apartment is done with a glorious slow pan around the room. Some of this panning is done to set the mood for the film (“Get settled in… this is going to be a long haul”) but others manage to evoke a sense of rising dread, an example at the beach being a brilliant case in point.
The cinematography was supposed to have been done by the great Emmanuel Lubezki, but he was unavailable so Cuarón did it himself! And it’s quite brilliant. So, that’s a lesson learned then that will reduce the budget for next time!
A personal story.
Cuarón wrote the script. Of course he did… it’s his story! He’s the same age as I am, so was nine years old for the autobiographical events featured in the film (he is the kid who gets punished for eavesdropping). Numerous aspects of the film are from his own childhood, including the fact that his younger brother kept spookily coming out with things that he’d done in his past lives! It’s a painful true story of his upbringing and of the life of Liboria Rodríguez: “Libo” to whom the film is dedicated.
Where the script is delightful is in never destroying the mood with lengthy exposition. Both of the key stories evolve slowly and only gradually do you work out what’s really going on. This is grown-up cinema at its finest.
It’s also a love letter from Cuarón to the cinema of his youth, a passion that sparked his eventual career. We see a number of trips to the local fleapit, and in one cute scene we seen a clip from the Gregory Peck space epic “Marooned”: the film that inspired Cuarón’s own masterpiece “Gravity“.
A naturalistic cast.
Casting a large proportion of the cast from unknowns feels like a great risk, but its a risk that pays off handsomely, particularly in the case of Yalitza Aparicio, who is breathtakingly naturalistic. Cuarón withheld the script from his cast, so some of the “acting” is not acting at all – specifically a gruelling and heartrending scene featuring Cleo later in the film. That’s real and raw emotion on the screen.
Marina de Tavira, although an actress with a track record, is also mightily impressive as the beleaguered and troubled wife.
Final Thoughts.
This is a masterpiece, and thoroughly deserves the “Best Picture” awards it has been getting. It’s certainly my odds on favourite, as well as being my pick, for the Oscar on Sunday. Will it be for everyone? Probably not.
There are some scenes which feel slightly ostentatious. A forest fire scene is brilliantly done (“Put out the small fires kids”), but then a guy in a monster suit pulls off his head-wear and starts singing a long and mournful song. Sorry?
There will also be many I suspect who will find the leisurely pace of the film excruciating; “JUST GET ON WITH IT” I hear them yelling at the screen. But if you give it the time and let it soak in, then you WILL be moved and you WILL remember the film long after you’ve seen it.
I remain cross however that this was released through Netflix. This is a film that deserves a full and widespread cinema release in 70mm format. It’s like taking an iPhone snap of the Mona Lisa and putting the phone on display instead.