The geeks shall inherit the earth

…or at least, inherit just San Diego, for about a week. I haven’t blogged about a lot of things in a while, so to start with, let me just talk about Comic-Con. Yes, part of the reason I haven’t been blogging is because July was packed with a ton of exciting (and not so exciting) events – like the biggest geek-out fest of every year, San Diego Comic-Con International, held on July 22-26. I went to all four days, but I got into an accident on July 23rd, and well, it sort of ruined the rest of my Comic-Con experience. Anyway, I’m going to skip that part because I don’t really feel like going into the gory details, but let me start with the previews of shows I saw at the Con.

Let me start with the new ABC show V, which premieres this fall. The show is a remake of the 1984 TV series of the same name, which in summary is pretty much just about an alien invasion, the human resistance, etc. The show stars Firefly‘s Morena Baccarin, Lost‘s Elizabeth Mitchell, Party of Five‘s Scott Wolf and The 4400‘s Joel Gretsch. I watched the pilot, and although there were some interesting parts (such as an appearance by Firefly‘s Alan Tudyk), I felt like the show didn’t really bring anything new or interesting to the table. Morena Baccarin plays Anna, the leader of the “aliens” who are called “visitors” (hence the title ‘V’), while Elizabeth Mitchell plays FBI officer Erica Evans, who is trying to find out the truth about the visitors. The pilot jumped into the thick of it right away, and didn’t really spend any time introducing the characters. Actually, it starts right when the aliens invade (or more like, park their mothership on top of NYC) and you just have to sympathize for the characters from there. I felt like they could’ve done a much better job. For those of us who weren’t familiar with the 1984 series, a little build-up would probably have helped. It just seemed rushed and so it became tough to sympathize with characters who were strangers to you as the viewer. I’m going to give this show a chance, since I love Elizabeth Mitchell and of course, duh, there’s Morena Baccarin, but I don’t really see this show taking off. It’s nice to see Scott Wolf back in business, though.

Another new show which premieres this fall is The Vampire Diaries. Now, I’m not really qualified to talk about this because I left about 5 minutes after the pilot was shown (it was that bad), but I feel like speaking out about it. Dear Hollywood, enough with the fucking vampires. Seriously. What is this sudden fascination with vampires? And don’t even get me started about Twilight, because it’s nothing special. But let’s not get into a full-blown rant on Twilight, because I’ve reserved that for my next post (mwahahaha!). The Vampire Diaries is pretty much Twilight on TV. The only reason I stayed to watch the first few minutes of it was because I knew Ian Somerhalder [who played Boone on Lost] was going to be in it. Alas, Ian Somerhalder did not appear in those first 5 minutes I stayed. The bottom line: it [The Vampire Diaries] is nothing but teenage sap, akin to 90210. I’m sure the Twihards will love it.

On to the only vampires I can tolerate in HBO’s True Blood panel. This show kept me sane throughout this sweltering summer. I was committed to getting into this panel, so I waited in line for about 2 hours. No pain, no gain, right? Anyway, the panel consisted of Stephen Moyer (Bill), Ana Paquin (Sookie), Alan Ball (creator), Charlaine Harris (writer of the books), Rutina Wesley (Tara), Michelle Forbes (Mary Ann), Nelsan Ellis (Lafayette), Sam Trammell (Sam), Deborah Ann Woll (Jessica) and Alexander Skarsgard (Eric). Two people were clear standouts on this panel; Alexander and Nelsan, whose characters seemed to be the most well-received (and for good reason). Alexander was a clear favorite – he drew applause and shrieks from female hordes left and right. Poor Stephen Moyer, who plays vampire Bill Compton and Sookie’s lover, had to endure numerous questions about when Eric and Sookie would finally hook up. Alan Ball was the life of the panel; he has been known to be witty and engaging at these things and he defintiely proved that point at the panel. Michelle Forbes came off as a tad full of herself. She’s a tremendous actress, but she just had this haughty look on her face during the entire panel and didn’t seem quite that interested in what the fans had to ask her. What I learned from the panel was that Evan Rachel Wood was going to be joining the TB gang as the Vampire Queen. Should make for a fun season.

The Lost panel was one of the most fun panels I’ve ever been to. They [the powers that be, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse) always know how to put on an excellent show, and since it was the last hurrah (Lost’s final season returns in January of 2010), it made sense that they closed the season with a bang. The panel started off with Damon and Carlton taking questions from the fans, when all of a sudden Jorge Garcia (Hurley) shows up at the microphone with questions, much to the delight and surprise of the entire fanbase at Hall H. Shortly thereafter, Michael Emerson (Ben) shows up, to an eruption of cheers from the audience. Nestor Carbonell (Richard Alpert) filmed this hilarious short making fun of his eyelashes/eyeliner and also showed up at the panel. And then, for the ultimate surprise that pretty much drew the most applause, Josh Holloway showed up, causing a downright riot in Hall H. After a montage of fallen Lost characters that ended with the most heart-wrenching “death” of the series, Charlie Pace’s demise, voila! Dominic Monaghan appeared onstage. It truly was a fun experience, and what I learned from the panel was essentially something I had expected, which is that season 6 will be sort of a “reset” season. According to Darlton, season 6 will be very similar to season 1, and I read that clue as that the stories of the characters would reset back to that of season 1. Kate as a fugitive, Jack having issues with his father, Charlie still on drugs, etc. except the difference  is perhaps in the details. For instance, it is revealed (through an America’s Most Wanted video) that in season 6, Kate, instead of running from the authorities after murdering her father, actually murders the wrong guy. So that’s a storyline we can wait to see unfold. Overall, the Lost panel was a real success and everyone came out of that amped and excited for the new season.

Other panels I went to: Sherlock Holmes from Warner Bros., which was a blast. Robert Downey Jr. commanded the room with such presence, and it was apparent he took his cue from the success of Iron Man during last year’s Comic-Con. Rachel McAdams and Joel Silver were present as well. The Disney panel was also fabulous. They premiered clips from the still unfinished new Disney movie The Princess and the Frog, which is the first time we’ve seen hand-drawn animation in a few years since the advent of 3D and Pixar. A surprise guest at the Disney panel was the legendary Hayao Miyazaki. I was so overwhelmed with surprise when I found out he was making an appearance. The crowd at Hall H was at its feet to welcome one of animation’s biggest icons, the man behind My Neighbor Totoro, Castle in the Sky, Princess Mononoke, Spirited Away, etc.

Although I did feel that there was something a bit lacking at Comic-Con this year, I still thought it was a lot of fun. I would have liked to have been able to see James Cameron’s Avatar panel, but alas, one can only wait in line under the San Diego sun for so long. I will post pictures when I get the chance.

How to destroy a comic book movie

Pretty badass poster, right? I judged the movie by its poster, to my detriment.

I feel like a complete fool having ever been convinced that Marvel would be able to churn out another faithful and enjoyable comic book movie with X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I mean, I’m embarrassed that I didn’t see it coming. When Hugh Jackman was the surprise guest at Comic-Con 2008, having flown all the way from Australia just to show a roomful of geeks footage of his new Wolverine flick, I was ecstatic. I thought, here we’d finally get a decent Sabretooth story (and the Liev Schreiber casting was pretty clever, and probably the only good decision made in this movie), and then we’d finally be able to see one of the most beloved comic book characters of all time, Gambit a.k.a. Remy LeBeau.

I was in the theater watching X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and I felt like I was going to have a seizure. Not only was it packed with sentimental fluff, but the little action that was in the movie was just choreographed bullshit. The film attempted to tell Wolverine’s origin story, but it failed from the get-go. It wasn’t faithful to the actual comic book story, and they took tremendous liberties with the characters that should be considered a crime. The movie got a C+ from most critics, but I feel like that is way too generous for a movie failure of epic proportions.

The first ten minutes of Origins was cool. Flashy superhero antics featuring the always delightful Deadpool [played by Ryan Reynolds], slo-mo history scenes of Jimmy/Logan growing up with Victor and both of them going off to fight wars. It was all good for the first ten minutes. I even like Danny Huston as a young William Stryker. But then they went into the romance story between Silverfox and Wolverine, and it only went downhill from there. Not only was the romance poorly constructed, the audience didn’t really have enough time to empathize with their relationship. The two characters just appeared to be thrust at each other and the audience was just supposed to accept it as an epic love story. And then the mindless killing starts when ex-members of the unit Stryker led in Africa start getting murdered. There really is no reason for this, and it’s funny how the movie barrels along regardless of how lame the plot is.

Liev Schreiber was the only convincing person in the movie. He played his role very well, and he was the best Sabretooth that we comic book fans would probably ever have. Unfortunately, a good actor can only do so much with poor direction and a horrible script. Schreiber’s great acting wasn’t enough to hold up the entire film. Hugh Jackman, as per usual, was charming and extremely hot without his shirt on (and at one point, actually buck naked, but I think that may have been a body double – ah well, a girl can dream), but alas, he wasn’t any good either. Yes, we’ve gotten used to him living in Wolverine’s skin for what – four years now? So he is Wolverine. The problem is, there was no depth to his character. He seemed like a bumbling bonehead, and even though the revenge angle was pseudo-workable, the writing was just absolutely terrible.

I was actually excited to finally see Dominic Monaghan doing something after his character, Charlie, got killed off on Lost, and when I heard he was going to be in Origins, I was enthused. Sadly, though, Monaghan was probably in the movie for a total of 5 minutes. It was actually kind of pathetic. Monaghan had stated in an interview right before he left Lost that he wanted to do other things, and he was thankful to Lost for getting his face out there and giving him exposure, but now he had wanted to do more than that and do movies, etc. Little did we know that he was only good enough for something like a five minute cameo of a character who has absolutely no endearing qualities and a pretty stupid way of activating his powers, actually.

Which brings me to Gambit. Gambit was the most anticipated appearance in the entire movie. I had heard that Taylor Kitsch [Friday Night Lights] was picked to play the part, and this was cool because he definitely looks the part of the flirtatious Cajun bad boy. However, Kitsch’s Gambit was lukewarm, clumsy and unimportant. The movie could have gone on without him, and frankly, the only reason I can think of why Gambit was inserted into the movie was for show. He wasn’t relevant; the scenes he was in were terrible and ridiculously shot. The fight scenes were abysmal. So in short: the long-awaited premiere of Gambit was a major let-down.

Ryan Reynolds, who played Deadpool, was one of the best in the movie, but alas, the way the writers completely butchered his character is beyond forgivable. Deadpool is one of the most endearing charactes in comic book history, mostly because of his talkative nature and his skill with weapons. They were able to demonstrate these endearing qualities early on in the movie, which pretty much constituted those ten minutes of bearable fluff I was talking about in the beginning of the film. However, the movie eventually reveals that Stryker was working on a program called Weapon XI (don’t even get me started on that one) and that he had made Deadpool the new Weapon XI – a super mutant with powers from different characters. They even brought in a young Scott Summers to take his powers! I’m telling you, what the writers did to Deadpool was absolutely fucked up. Quite possibly the most fucked up thing you could do to a comic book character, actually, which is why it can only boggle the mind why the hell Marvel would ever give their blessing for something as absurd as Deadpool being a supermutant who can have his head hacked off and yet survive.

I bet you Bryan Singer is as pissed off as I am. Anyway, X-Men Origins was a complete waste of time and money. The acting was so horribly cheesy, almost bordering on telenovella-esque, and the writing was downright abusive towards the characters. There was really nothing good about this movie at all, except for a few naked Hugh Jackman scenes that particularly interested those in the audience who were of the female persuasion. I give this movie an F. I would never see it again. Why? I’m not a masochist.

Swedes are creepy

I remember when I watched Let the Right One In. I was sitting in front of my computer and I had a pillow in front of me, for when it gets really creepy and I can use it for cover. Let the Right One In was an interesting film. And no, by ‘interesting’, I don’t mean bad. It wasn’t exactly awesome, but it was surprisingly simple and melancholic. It was a bit gory in parts, but it wasn’t in-your-face Hostel-gross. Once the movie started, I could feel the hair on the back of my neck stand up. I don’t know what it is about vampires or monsters or whatever that are represented by foreign films. They just seem way scarier. The vampires in 30 Days of Night were frightening, and they were speaking a fictional language developed by a Linguistics professor to convey primal ideas.

Anyway, back to Let the Right One In. The film turned out to be less scary than I had expected it to be. It was rather sentimental (and this isn’t a negative thing) and focused, which was surprising. You don’t really expect a lot of horror movies to have that sort of approach. The plot was interesting, but it could have used more meat to fill in the story. I would recommend it to those who appreciate foreign films as well as scary films. This movie excelled in establishing a haunting atmosphere – one which a lot of American horror movies are lacking in. Overall, you come away from the movie with a sense of melancholy, and a greater appreciation for Swedes – because they can be extra creepy if they want to.

Pride and pretense

I had been putting off watching Vicky Cristina Barcelona because I’m not the biggest fan of Scarlett Johansson and I didn’t feel an overwhelming desire to watch her for an hour and a half. I’m not going to waste your time by going over the details of why I’m not a ScarJo fan, but I will tell you this: Penelope Cruz’s  Oscar is well-deserved. I haven’t seen Volver yet, but I am sure she is equally as intense in that movie as she is in this one. 

The movie revolves around two best friends, Vicky and Cristina, American women who go to Barcelona for the summer and fall for the same guy, an artist played by Javier Bardem. Vicky and Cristina are apparently polar opposites, and yet supposedly best friends. Quite unconvincing, considering how much disdain Vicky has for Cristina’s lifestyle, and how disapproving Cristina is of Vicky’s uptight demeanor. Anyway, Vicky is the more practical one; all common sense, no spontaneity. She is in Barcelona for educational purposes, as she is doing a thesis on Catalan identity. Cristina, on the other hand, is more of a caricature of the hipster folk we see these days. I say that she is a caricature because she isn’t a person, but more of an idea. The idea is that this woman has no qualms about anything, no hesitations about making spontaneous decisions, and is in love with the idea of being impulsive and unequivocal with her life, so she does everything in her power to enforce this idea. I had absolutely no patience for her character, and the movie actually does address that her character is pretentious, which I was a little surprised by (in a good way).

Javier Bardem plays Juan Antonio, an artist who seduces the two friends and makes a proposition to sleep with them both. The offer, although probably intended by Woody Allen (who wrote and directed the film) to come off as sexy and endearing, felt contrived at best. I feel like Bardem’s character was too much of a cliche. It was as if Allen thought of all the things “real artists” say during normal conversations and came up with the most insanely off-base portrayal of one.

Penelope Cruz was the breath of fresh air that the movie badly needed. The film started off in a very pretentious manner, with a voice-over that grew really annoying as the movie progressed, so it really needed one kind of haphazard element that made the movie look gritty and undeliberate. Cruz was absolutely fabulous as the aggressively beautiful Maria Elena, Juan Antonio’s crazed ex-wife who occasionally threatens to kill herself or the other people around her in a vicious act of passion. I totally understand why she won the Academy Award for this movie.  She was just brilliant, and she proves time and time again that she is more than just a pretty face.

Overall, the movie was a little painful to sit through. Normally, I’m pretty good with Woody Allen movies. I loved Annie Hall, and enjoyed Sleeper. I didn’t particularly care for Match Point, but considering all the hot guys who were in that movie, I couldn’t resist. But Vicky Cristina Barcelona was just the movie I didn’t need to see after The Go-Getter completely didn’t agree with me. Some people might like the movie because they think that when people go to Spain they want to live the life of the passionate artist or whatever, but that is just Allen capitalizing on people’s romantic ideals of European travel. It’s a very true romantic ideal – to want to be swept away by some tall, dark, handsome brooding painter who spouts philosophy on a regular basis while on vacation in one of the most sensual countries in Europe – but when you package it in the way Allen has done in Vicky Cristina Barcelona,  the ideal is no longer romantic and it becomes a reflection of the increasingly mainstream hipster crowd we are getting these days. The Diablo Codys and Chuck Klostermans of the world can gush about the genius of Vicky Cristina Barcelona all they like, but I sure don’t see what the fuss is about.

Nothing is what it seems

Some movies can surprise you. The one thing you learn about Hollywood after years of watching is that when you come in with high expectations, you’re more likely to be disappointed than to be wowed. Take for instance, The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. I had made an event of this premiere and was about ready to crawl out of my skin from utter excitement. If you’ve been reading my blog, you know how I feel about this film, so I won’t bother with the gory details. The short story: I absolutely hated it. I felt so robbed of my 1o dollars and faith in the movie that I felt like crying. No joke. I know it seems melodramatic to the lot of you, but when you’ve been a fan of the Narnia books since when you were a kid, you would understand how important a movie adaptation is.

And then there’s a film like The Go-Getter. I like Lou Taylor Pucci; most of his films I’ve enjoyed, like Fifty Pills and Thumbsucker. So I came in expecting a good time. What I got in the first ten minutes of the film was absolute drivel. I remember thinking, at the time I watched the movie, what pretentious garbage it was. The beginning was catchy; a hipster quote about Huckleberry Finn. Can’t go wrong with that. But as the movie progressed, it came off like a group of fresh-out-of-film-school students decided to come together, apply all their knowledge about the indie movie, and make a film about a guy who goes on a road trip for some random reason. Don’t get me wrong; I love indie films. I do, however, from my frequent watching of them, know exactly what is an indie film and what isn’t. A good old indie film doesn’t feel like it has to have all the elements of an indie film. An indie film doesn’t classify itself as an indie film. An indie film becomes an indie film because the story is small but the message is big and most often insightful. An indie film is a small package with a memorable surprise. In The Go-Getter, whatever genius message it was that was being communicated by the scriptwriters was lost amid the pretentious crap they were trying to pull. From the empty, fluffy language of the film up to the over-the-top indie music that was being played all throughout the film, I felt like I was about to throw up any second as I was watching it. What irks me more than any other film in the world is a film that tries too hard to be something. I appreciate films that are at least honest about how stupid they are, like Paul Blart: Mall Cop, for instance. I would take that film over The Go-Getter anytime, only because the former is filmed with a clear view of what it wants to be: a mindless comedy with people flying around in the screens. The Go-Getter aspired to be this one transcendent film, filled with clever anecdotes that no one in real life really says, and filled with music that would give the impression of coolness. It was like watching a fucking Chuck Klosterman book unfold.

So like I said before, some movies disappoint you when you least expect it to. On the other hand, if you come in with no expectations, you’re most likely to be pleasantly surprised. Like for instance, the movie Happy-Go-Lucky, starring award-winning actress Sally Hawkins. I had come in not expecting much from the movie, because I had seen the previews and didn’t think it was anything more than a glorified Bridget Jones’s Diary. It was quirkier than I expected, and not in a good way. I found myself in awe of how silly of a character Poppy Montgomery is, but at the same time, found her lack of self-consciousness quite fascinating and bordering on the endearing. She grows on you, this Poppy Montogomery. I thought the film started out a bit slow, but picked up towards the end. The best parts were the ones involving the driving lessons she was having with a complete psycho who referred to the rearview mirror as “Enraha”, the “all-seeing eye”. Absolutely ridiculous. Anyway, I see why Sally Hawkins won the award for Best Actress in a Comedy, and it is well-deserved. The film will probably not be liked by everybody, but it’s an endearing film, and Poppy’s happy-go-lucky attitude does rub off on you a little bit.

And then there’s 17 Again. I admit that even a toxic movie nitpicker like me has some weaknesses. That weakness would be a deliriously cute boy like Zac Efron. I don’t care if I’m made fun of, YES, I went to see 17 Again because Zac Efron is cute as a button and I had nothing better to do on a Saturday night. So sue me. I had expected nothing but fluffy drivel, but it wasn’t at all. It was entertaining fluffy drivel, with a cute boy in the midst of it. Zac Efron was his usual charismatic, gorgeous self, and although he was pretty much playing the self-assured heartbreaker he usually plays in all of his films, he did however surprise me towards the end, when he has a dramatic scene in a court room as his character tries to win back his wife, who is filing for divorce. So I still have hope for him that he will someday break out of his teen heartthrob status and become a more refined actor. The movie had its unfunny, cliched parts, but it also had its moments, such as a painfully gush-worthy scene involving Efron, a leather jacket, a hot car, and Spoon’s “The Underdog” playing in the background. Speaking of which, this movie had some pretty good songs in its soundtrack; songs from Cat Power and The Kooks among some of them.

Soldiering on

I’m a big fan of Rachel McAdams, and I think she’s a terrific actress and could be the next Jodi Foster, if she plays her cards right. So when I heard about The Lucky Ones, I immediately rented it from Netflix. The Lucky Ones is a story about three soldiers who get back home from doing tours in the US army, and they’ve gotten so used to being in the military that they don’t seem to know what to do with themselves when they get back out into the real world.

 The story starts when Tim Robbins’ character, Fred Cheaver, is the only one with the rental car and Rachel McAdams and Michael Peña’s characters tag along for the ride. T.K. Poole (Peñ) wants to go to Las Vegas because he was sent home from Iraq after some shrapnel got into his thigh, resulting in him having erection problems. The trip to Vegas is to see if a bunch of strippers can get him aroused enough to remedy the situation. Rachel McAdams plays Colee Dunn, a Southern sweetheart whose earnest demeanor can charm, but also irritate. Her character goes on a road trip with T.K. and Cheaver in order for her to return a guitar to the family of a fallen comrade in Iraq.

The story seems comedic at first, but it’s really emotional too. The writing is funny, and the message is very clever. It’s sort of like recidivism for the military, is what is being explored in this movie.  So the three soldiers get out of war expecting all these things from the world they come back to, thinking that because they fought for America they expect the world to be a little bit different, a little bit better, and instead, it’s not so much. And they don’t know how to function in this strange society, so they go back into the army even if they vowed they would never go back. This movie is a pretty good watch. It’s not a stellar movie, but it’s one of those movies that makes you go “huh.”

If Jason Bourne had a daughter…

…and she was kidnapped while on vacation in France by an Albanian organization that specializes in human trafficking, drugs and murder, it would pretty much be the movie Taken, starring Liam Neeson as an ex-government operative/spy/CIA agent who stops at nothing to get his daughter back.

The movie was awesome. Being than I’m a big fan of the Jason Bourne series, I felt like the film was on the same par, even though it’s not related to the series. I had doubts on whether Liam Neeson would be able to pull off playing a badass, but he did it effortlessly. The movie was hard-hitting, intense, fast-paced and definitely action-packed, and it’s one of those films where you’re on the edge of your seat for pretty much the entire duration of the movie.

It was nice to see Maggie Grace again, who played Shannon on Lost. Maggie Grace plays Liam Neeson’s daughter in the movie and she gets kidnapped while in France with a friend. The film demonstrates just how easy it is to be in the middle of a dangerous situation when traveling abroad and what tactics these underground organizations use to lure unsuspecting teenagers.

Taken is one of the best films I’ve seen this year, and it was believable, dramatic and had great performances. I learned some pretty valuable stuff, too. I highly recommend watching Taken.

Twilight will suck the sanity out of you

Like any good film critic, I try to watch films that, despite my personal dislike of the subject matter and/or plot in general, have derived a public consensus of its awesomeness in order for me to deliver an objective criticism. Twilight was my project last night; I was curious to find out why this was one of the best-selling movies in the past year, and why it warranted a second installment. Basically, I just wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Critics hailed it as “the next Harry Potter”; Meyer was showered with praise for her “brilliant prose”. I was confused. Not to toot my own horn, but usually when it comes to films and books, I’m usually on the up and up on the breakthrough films and writers, especially books that would be considered comparable to the Harry Potter books. I was astounded – why, if the Twilight series was such an awesome read, had I never attempted to pick it up?

Curious as to why the books were being hailed as the second coming of a J K Rowling wannabe, I decided to see what all the fuss was about. I picked up a copy of Twilight (no, I did not pay for it) and skimmed through the first couple of pages. My initial reaction? There wasn’t anything new about this story. Meyer’s tale is annoyingly common, and her take on vampires was stereotypical (pale, brooding, see: The Lost Boys), other than the fact that they happen to be  sparkly [literally]. Not only do the books suffer from mediocrity and even border on plagiarism (with its borrowed themes from Charlaine Harris’ Southern Vampire Mystery books as well as the more well-known Buffy the Vampire Slayer), but the storyline was so amazingly silly that I did not even bother finishing the book. In my opinion, the book reads like teenage erotica. I find it hilarious that parents around the country are actually pushing their prepubescent little girls to read this book, when all it is is really just some teenage girl’s sex dream about a vampire she’s obsessed with. At least in True Blood, Sookie Stackhouse is more open and honest about the fact that she wants to get it on with Bill Compton. And that’s at least more forgivable because the show is on HBO and is R-Rated, whereas Twilight is recommended as reading material in middle schools around the US.

I can’t say I had higher hopes for the film. When I heard about all the buzz surrounding instant stars Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart, I thought, “well that’s great, another batch of young stars get a chance to make their names.” Unfortunately, the film was even worse than the book. I can’t even begin to describe how awful the movie was. The only other film I have said was completely awful was Max Payne, and you all know how terrible that movie was. Anyway, so let me tell you what I really thought about the movie.

Kristen Stewart, as Bella, the heroine of the story, was genuine, but incredibly boring and lackluster. I feel like Stewart isn’t a very good actress because she lets her own personality overtake the characters she plays. if you watch her previous films, like In the Land of Women, Into the Wild and Adventureland, you’ll see that she’s playing the same characters over and over again, except in different settings. I have seen her in person, at the Comic-Con Twilight panel, and believe me, she definitely injects her own personality into her characters. Good acting is supposed to be about immersing yourself into a role and engaging in such a transformation that you are barely even recognizable as a separate person from your character. I will give her credit for the effort, because I feel like as an actor she, along with the rest of the cast, was burdened by the lack of depth in the characters as well as a poorly written script.

The storyline was painfully cheesy. I rolled my eyes so many times I think I was thisclose to having a seizure because of it. To be honest, I didn’t finish the movie (in fact, I only sat through 30 minutes of it) so I can’t really say that it gets better, but from the length of time I watched it, I felt like I was in movie hell. It was movie hell in the sense that the acting was so shoddy, that it felt like I was watching a high school play performed by amateurs at the school auditorium.  The script was so stupid, there were whole conversations between characters that absolutely made no sense. The storyline was so painfully cheesy – it was essentially a teenage girl worshiping a vampire.

The difference between this film, and shows like True Blood and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, is that in the shows mentioned, the female characters were strong, independent women who had their own personalities and did not take crap when it was given to them. In Twilight, Bella is basically just a schmuck who follows Edward around like a lovesick puppy. She does not challenge him at all. The thing about Bella as a character in the film is that she was not allowed to progress; by this I mean that we don’t see an investment in the character from the audience. Now, I know that the director and producers were probably just expecting that the moviegoing audience would be comprised of existing Twilight fans already who have read the books, but what of us non-fans? We need to be coaxed into rooting for a character, and to do this, we need ample build up in order to fall in love with each character. In the film, there is nothing of the sort.

Robert Pattinson, who played Edward…Wow, I can’t even begin to describe how sorry I felt for him when he was acting. But then again, if he had better lines I think it would probably have been a little better. I feel like he was treated like more of an object, than as a person, which is hilarious because I never would have expected such a turnaround of stereotypes in a film like this. Edward waltzes into a room, with his brooding glare and pale face, and there’s some godawful rock song in the background. I swear, it felt like I was watching one of those old school classic rock music videos, like Guns N Roses’ “November Rain” or something. Silly, indulgent and cheesy. Apparently this guy is supposed to be the sexiest vampire around, and to me they [the actor, and the entire crew, including make-up and special effects] tried way too hard to make him the it guy.

Really, I just have absolutely no idea how these books were even remotely compared to Harry Potter. I mean, it is nowhere near as good as the Harry Potter series; nowhere near as imaginative or as gripping. I would say it’s not even worth picking up in the first place, just from the sheer lack of good writing in it. Overall, I see absolutely no pros in this movie. Bad acting, bad writing, bad direction, horrible make-up and special effects. Like I said before, MOVIE HELL. Every scene in the movie was like torture, having to endure the terrible acting on top of the lousy script. And whoever the director is needs to find another job. I shudder now, when I look back at the 30 minutes I wasted watching Twilight, and I maintain that it was one of the most terrible films I’ve ever seen. I gotta say, it’s like I have a sixth sense when it comes to being able to tell if a movie is gonna be shit. I could tell it was going to be shit from the previews I saw at Comic-Con, and lo and behold: Twilight may have epic failed in the vampire department (even the story department, in general), but it definitely succeeded in sucking the sanity out of me.

Watching the Watchmen

For those of you who are Purists of the Alan Moore-Dave Gibbons masterpiece Watchmen, I can tell you that you will have absolutely no complaints of the Zack Snyder film adaptation. I would say that the graphic novel was translated seamlessly onto the screen, if not for Alan Moore’s outright panning of the film as a whole. But what can you expect from Alan Moore, right? One could say that the fact that he didn’t light himself on fire in a fiery rage means that the film wasn’t as horrible as he portrays it to be. Methinks Mr. Moore either simply has a flair for the dramatic, or he really just doesn’t think Watchmen is filmable. Zack Snyder proved him wrong, but only to an extent.

For those who have yet to see the film, let me give you a brief overview. Watchmen is set during the period of the late 70s to early 80s when Richard Nixon gets elected for a third term, and Cold War looms on the horizon. People are starting to get paranoid and antsy, and costumed heroes, once heralded as saviors of the day for fighting the bad guys, get out of control, and they become distorted caricatures of the superheroes we all know and love. The premise is that if you have the audacity to dress up in a superhero costume and fight crime, you’re probably mentally unstable. The superheroes in this novel make Peter Parker’s geeky insecurities seem small and immature. In fact, they seem more like villains than heroes. The Comedian is an example of a superhero with very flawed principles, and you find that out the hard way when you see how vicious he gets with women and children. So, everyone fears the end of the world, and costumed heroes are hated by the public. Suddenly, someone kills the Comedian, and the story becomes a whodunit mystery with little twists and turns. Watchmen is a story about human nature, and how it is only human nature to want to save the world, to be loved and appreciated, and to exact justice.

From the get-go, once the project was announced to be helmed by Snyder, buzz had begun to swarm around this holy grail of graphic novels. According to several die hard fans, it was simply too complex, too deep, too grim or some other thing that’s just too _______. While I agree that Watchmen is definitely one of those works of literature that is extremely difficult to translate properly onto the big screen, I don’t believe that anything in literature is unfilmable, if the right person were to take on the task. Granted, many fine reads have failed despite reputable directors [I’m talking to you, Andrew Adamson, and your failed Prince Caspian film] at the helm. But, like Dr. Manhattan muses to Laurie while on Mars, there are those miracles in filmmaking; those rare gems that occur only when the right person comes upon the project. The best example of this filmic rarity is Peter Jackson and The Lord of the Rings. Imagine how catastrophic it would have been had the original plan prevailed of making the trilogy into one movie. One movie. Yeah. I thought so. You were seething when I said that, right? Exactly.

When it comes to interpreting great works of literature to the big screen, one is faced with the seemingly insurmountable task of remaining true to the message of the book, being able to separate the detrimental, necessary and unnecessary parts of a book, and to interpret the characters’ intentions appropriately, given the more sensitive medium of film. The trick to adapting a work of literature is to remain true to the essence of the story, while at the same time presenting it from a new and unique perspective. Unfortunately, Snyder was only able to fulfill the former and not the latter.

As a Watchmen fan, I had absolutely no problem with the movie. It was like watching the graphic novel unfold on the big screen, literally. For those who like Watchmen the way it is, and who think that no enhancements were required for the actual novel to be even better, you won’t be disappointed. However, if you were looking for a neat twist, or fresh insight into the graphic novel, you won’t find it in the movie. Unfortunately, the problem (well, technically it isn’t really a problem, but more of a personal preference on my part) is that Snyder was a bit too faithful to the novel. Now, like I mentioned before, it’s extremely difficult to translate one of the most celebrated graphic novels of all time onto the big screen and make cosmetic or substantive changes to it and not get serious backlash. However, when you remain too faithful to the book, you risk not putting your signature on it and making it even better than the book. I personally would have preferred that Snyder injected a little bit of insight into the movie to make it his own, but perhaps he feared by doing so he would get scolded for it by the legions of Watchmen fans around the world, and he is completely in the right to be wary. So like I said, it wasn’t a big problem, but one that I’ve heard about before from critics and fans alike.

Now, my humble opinion is that Watchmen was good, but it could have been great. The film was so literal that everything was in perfect sequence, and even exact frames from the graphic novel seemed to be lifted right off of the pages and transferred onto screen. I was pleased at this, because it was like an inside joke for us fans of the graphic novel. If you hadn’t read the graphic novel, you wouldn’t be amazed at the likeness of the cast members when they took on the exact same poses as the characters they were trying to emulate. There were several nuggets in the movie that I feel were a nod to the hardcore fans, the ones who’ve read the novel numerous times and who appreciate the insertion of the newspaper man and his comic book-obsessed friend (see: Tales of the Black Freighter).

The film took its time to progress, which for many die hard fans is just the way it should be. I had no problems with it, but I noticed that quite a few people started going to the bathroom in parts that were a little slow, such as the Silk Spectre 1 parts and the Dr. Manhattan flashback. Now, I wouldn’t want any of these parts cut at all, but I felt like there were parts that we could have done without, such as the Hollis Mason Under the Hood sections, and the flashbacks could have been shortened. The reason I say this, despite being content with the film, is that as the film progressed, it actually got better and better. Towards the end, after Nite Owl and Silk Spectre 2 resolve to do something about the end of the world, the movie started to get to a much quicker, more urgent pace, which I thought made that whole end-of-the-world-at-midnight premise even more forboding. I liked how it built up, and that Snyder saw that these parts were imperative in making the story appear complete, but some may not see it that way.

Something peculiar that I noticed was that instead of a score, a bunch of songs were used as backdrops to some momentous scenes, including The Comedian’s burial, featuring Simon & Garfunkel’s “Sound of Silence”. At first I was wigged out by it, because it was just too strong of a backdrop and sometimes when you have actual songs and not film scores you risk having the songs distract you from the scene. The songs were a bit distracting, but when you get used to them they kinda blend in well with the film. Many people were also disturbed by the fact that Dr. Manhattan was butt naked (front and back) in the movie, but I feel like this was just a silly uproar, only because if it were a woman the audience wouldn’t feel as such. Funny how double standards still apply to big blue supermen like Dr. Manhattan.

Jeffrey Dean Morgan plays the cigar-smoking, trigger-happy Comedian.

I could not ask any more from the acting. At first I was skeptical about Matthew Goode being cast as Ozymandias/Adrian Veidt, but as soon as he started speaking, you could tell he was immersed in the character. Personally, I would have preferred that the person they cast as Veidt was more buff, or at least a little bit bigger and more well built than Goode, but Goode compensated for it with his acting. Patrick Wilson was a very good Nite Owl/Dan Dreiberg. He was able to encapsulate the mid-life crisis and inferiority complex that the character was going through and you could see the apparent change when he finally decides to give the costume another chance. Jeffrey Dean Morgan was the Comedian. I couldn’t even tell that he was acting. It was like the character from the graphic novel literally jumped onto the screen. Another person I was a little skeptical about was Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan. If you think about it, this guy has the most difficult task. He has twice the challenge, because he is not only a big blue motion-capture or CGI figure, but he also has to remain detahced, while at the same time being able to convey the reasons he is so. Crudup did a tremendous job; his voicing  for Dr. Manhattan was definitely on point. And of course, we’ve come down to the man of the 3 hours, Rorschach, played by the amazing Jackie Earle Haley. There is a reason why Rorschach is such an interesting and acclaimed character. He reminds me a lot of Yossarian, from the book Catch-22, because his character starts off as someone everybody thinks is crazy or is mentally deluded. But as the story progresses, you realize that Rorschach is the only one who really still has his goals in check and who thinks that justice needs to be served. Rorschach is grim and has absolutely no faith in humanity because of all that he has gone through from his childhood. He is joyless, pensive, but he is every bit the classic superhero, because of his pure vision of justice. Jackie Earle Haley was the ultimate Rorschach, and no one could have done the role justice than he did.

I had several favorite scenes from the movie, all of which were scenes from the novel that I loved as well. The Laurie-Dan sex scene in Dan’s apartment was classic, AND extremely important. It was also very well done by Malin Ackerman and Patrick Wilson. In this scene, both were able to tell the story that these two people had–separate stories, but converging ones. Laurie was suffering from an inherited career as Silk Spectre 2. She was born into the career, and she did not exact any joy from it. On top of that, her lover, Dr. Manhattan, does not understand her and her needs. She needed Dan because Dan needed something exciting in his life. He needed to be reminded that he was once Nite Owl, and that he could do it again. The sex scene was funny because it was every bit the one in the graphic novel: raw, awkward and clumsy, but also very earnest.

Another scene I loved was the prison scene involving Rorschach. One of my favorite lines from the graphic novel is Rorschach’s, when he says to the prisoners who want a piece of him: “I’m not locked in here with you, you’re locked in here with me!” And with Jackie Earle Haley’s brilliant acting, I was almost brought to my feet! All in all, the performances were impressive and better than I had expected, and the ending had me in tears, I am embarrassed to say.

Overall, the film was well done. Great acting, epic story, stellar graphics, and precise directorial choices made this film enjoyable. As an adaptation, it was completely faithful. Some criticisms could be that the fight scenes were a little hokey, and were maybe a little too reminiscent of 300, which is understandable, considering we have the same director at the helm. Also, the Rorschach voice overs from his diary at first seemed like Sin City or The Spirit. When it first started, I was almost like, “Oh no.” But the voice overs were important, because how else would we get some insight into Rorschach’s lovely, demented mind? But I love the fearlessness of the movie, and how it delivered in terms of the atmosphere and the tenacity. Richard Nixon was definitely weird-looking, and I wish they would have just asked Frank Langella to play Nixon, but hey, we’ll take what we can get, you know? Overall, I highly recommend watching it.

Watchmen is an intelligent murder mystery with a justification that leaves it up to the viewers to judge. Whoever murdered the Comedian did so for both selfish and unselfish reasons and the audience will understand that, and in the words of Dr. Manhattan, “without condemning or condoning it.” Snyder delivered a home run, in my opinion, because it was a faithful adaptation of a graphic novel that really didn’t need any enhancements to be brilliant. Snyder had his work cut out for him, given that Dave Gibbons worked with him on the overall film and since he didn’t really need much work when it came to screenplay. All he needed to do was tell the story in a straightforward way, without compromising the essence of the characters and the story. In the ending, Rorschach tells Nite Owl: “Even in the face of armageddon, never compromise!” And that is exactly what Snyder did. Even in the face of critics and even the creator of the graphic novel telling him it could not be done, Snyder proved it could be done. The question now is, will you be watching the Watchmen?

Welcome to the jungle

Blindness is directed by Fernando Meirelles, the brilliant eye behind cinematic greats The Constant Gardener and City of God. Starring Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo, Danny Glover and Gael Garcia Bernal, the film tells the story of a hypothetical situation wherein an epidemic of blindness sweeps the nation, and only one woman [Julianne Moore] can see. The film presents a frightening vision of what the world would be like if everyone couldn’t see, and it basically promotes the notion of man being reduced to keeping afloat via survival instincts. It was a very scary and disturbing picture of what it would be like in a world of panic and disorder.

It would be a gross understatement to simply say that the film was intense. It was intense, all right, but it was also very graphic without actually being graphic, if that makes any sense. There were some very disturbing situations and scenarios that completely blew my mind and they disturbed me to a point where, after I watched the movie, I was actually replaying them over and over in my head, unable to drown them out. The movie was violent, without being slasher-flick-y, and it was like playing a game of Worst Case Scenario involving a world filled with people who were all blind.

The film is somewhat philosophical, and taps into the nature of man. It asks the question, is man born good or evil? If man loses sight (literally), would we be able to preserve our great and civilized societies, or revert back to the days of hunting and tracking as a means of survival? What lengths would a civilized human being go to in order to ensure survival? I don’t think there were some necessarily brilliant performances, apart from Julianne Moore’s of course. I think that the story speaks for itself, in terms of substance and gravity. It really makes you reflect on this civilization and it’s a scary thought to reflect on.

What would happen if you were the only person in the entire world who could see? Well, the film answers that question in more ways than one. Julianne Moore’s character is married to an eye doctor who acquires the blindness disease from a patient, who acquired it from someone else, etc. When everyone starts going blind, Moore’s character decides to feign blindness (even though she can see perfectly) to be able to accompany her husband into what is some sort of government-run quarantine facility, replete with military guards, food rationing and absolutely no maintenance or care whatsoever. Basically, in this worst case scenario, instead of the government helping its citizens get better and trying to determine the cause of the blindness, they end up taking the shortcut and throwing these infected ones into a quarantine facility, hoping that the blindness will be contained there. Unfortunately, the blindness spreads quickly and soon the entire country, if not the world, is blind.

Moore’s character starts off taking care of everyone in that facility. Since she is the only one who can see, she has to make sure they are able to get to the bathrooms to relieve themselves and take baths, she helps them get food, and helps them get from point A to point B. It’s a crapload of hard work and it’s scary to think of yourself in her position. Eventually people start giving up on stuff like going to the bathrooms and just start urinating and defecating everywhere, and since the government doesn’t send anyone to clean up because they fear that they will get infected too, the place literally becomes a shithole overnight.

Overall, the film definitely presented a disturbing scenario. It is essentially a hypothetical story of a world where everyone is blind, save one person. The audience is looking through the eyes of that one person who can see, and what the audience sees is so atrocious and so unbelievably disturbing that you would probably prefer not to see anything at all. It’s a thought-provoking film that will leave you wondering, is that really the dystopian reality of what would happen if everyone was blind?