posted by Scott Nehring at 1:00 PM



0 comment(s)

Alan Moore's classic graphic novel is in good hands. Zack Snyder (300, Dawn of the Dead), has a gifted eye and obviously is in tune with this kind of work. How successful he is at bringing this to screen is something that obviously remains to be seen but based on what I see below, he's certainly on the right path.

I don't hold graphic novels in high esteem. They are punched up comic books regardless of fanboy insistance to the contrary. This said, The Watchmen is the dominant title in the medium and stands as an important work. Even comic books deserve respect when they reach the pinnacle of their kind.*

Take a look at the trailer, it does look good - if you're into superheroes, alternate universes and special effects (which I am).

Don't know anything about The Watchmen? You'll probably need some help making sense of the trailer. Cinematical's Elisabeth Rappe has an outstanding primer to help you on your way. It is a must read for those who haven't seen the comics...er, "graphic novels".

Return to the Movie Trailer Page

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

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

posted by Scott Nehring at 7:00 AM



4 comment(s)

Should I see it?
Yes, with caution.

This a film rich with character and fine performances. Devious French aristocrats Marquise Isabelle de Merteuil (Glenn Close) and Vicomte Sébastien de Valmont (John Malkovich) spend their time emotionally tormenting and scandalizing others. Through sex and treachery the two compete to see who is more evil, who can do the most damage on another person. When Valmont sets his sights on destroying the soon be married Cécile de Volanges (Uma Thurman) he also plots to bed the conservative Madame Marie de Tourvel. Trouble comes when Valmont falls in love with de Tourvel and his sinful plans begin to unravel. Malckovich, Pfeiffer, and Close give the best performances of their careers. Glenn Close is particularly strong in her role as deceitful and arrogant elite. There are also strong performances by a young Uma Thurman and Keanu Reeves.

Based on his play that is based on a novel, Christopher Hampton's script is intricate and literate without being stuffy. He handles the matters of sex with clever turns of the phrase and while he does get a bit bawdy he doesn't become obscene. This noted, the film deals with a large amount of sex so those sensitive to the subject should be warned. There is frank sexual activity, and nudity in the film.

This movie does a wonderful job showing how lies and cruelty can undo a person. As Valmont comes to see the path of destruction he has left in his wake, he stands as one of the best examples of remorse put to film.


Related Reviews:
John Malkovich movies
The Killing Fields (1984)
In the Line of Fire (1993)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Washington Post
Roger Ebert

Labels: adaptation, film, Glenn Close, John Malkovich, Michelle Pfeiffer, movie review

posted by Scott Nehring at 9:00 AM



0 comment(s)

Should I see it?
No.

The first strike against the film is Emma Thompson's appearance. They want to make her look hideous and they succeed. The problem is that the audience is stuck looking at a revolting looking person for the whole film. Second strike, the look of the film itself is obtuse and distracting. Third strike, the piece as a whole is boring. They achieve well beyond the story's limits and end up with a fumbling, predicable misfire. Forget this one.


Related Reviews:
Family films
Ratatouille (2007)
The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything: A Veggie Tales Movie (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Urban CineFile
Hollywood Jesus

Labels: adaptation, Colin Firth, Emma Thompson, film, Kelly MacDonald, movie review, Thomas Sangster

posted by Scott Nehring at 5:00 PM



0 comment(s)

The film looks impressive enough, but does it have a story to match? Based on the novel by Jeanne Duprau, this film tells the story of an underground city whose electricity has been set to cease. Some teens search clues explaining the city's origin in hopes of saving the population before the lights go out. This has a great deal going for it. The plot is interesting and is centered on a deadline - deadlines are great plot devices. The cast is strong, the screenwriter Caroline Thompson has a good track record with not only adaptations (Black Beauty, The Secret Garden, Buddy) but also with quirky material (Edward Scissorhands, The Nightmare Before Christmas, The Addams Family). The only unknown element in the production is director Gil Kenan. Kenan handled the well-received animated feature Monster House but hasn't released a live-action picture yet.

Just taking it on looks alone, I have to admit, I'm looking forward to it.

Visit the official site

Return to the Movie Trailer Page

Screenwriter: Caroline Thompson (Edward Scissorhands)
Director: Gil Kenan (Monster House)
Actors: Bill Murray (Caddyshack), Tim Robbins (Code 46), Martin Landau (Ed Wood), Saoirse Ronan (Atonement), and Mackenzie Cook (Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End)

Labels: adaptation, Bill Murray, film, Martin Landau, movie trailer, Saoirse Ronan, Tim Robbins

posted by Scott Nehring at 7:14 PM



0 comment(s)

Attention fans of Jules Verne, you will have to wait for an adaptation of his Journey to the Center of the Earth to hit the big screen. Until such a time when someone does base a movie on his work, you can enjoy the new amusement ride coming out this summer.

Click here to visit the official site

Return to the Movie Trailer Page

Screenwriters: Michael Weiss, Michael D. Weiss (The Butterfly Effect 2), Jennifer Flackett (Nim's Island), and Mark Levin (Wimbledon)
Director: Eric Brevig
Actors: Brendan Frasier (Crash), Josh Hutcherson (Bridge to Terabithia), and Anita Briem (The Nun)

Labels: adaptation, Anita Briem, Brendan Fraser, film, Josh Hutcherson, m, movie trailer

posted by Scott Nehring at 8:06 PM



0 comment(s)

"My city...she is my mother, she is my lover."

ew.

Frank Miller (300, Sin City) is taking more creative control of his projects and his first effort is this film based on Will Eisner's comic. Of course there's plenty of excitement from the typical dim bulb, slack jaws on the Internet. I'm willing to bet we're in for a brilliant looking, but overly stylized and emotionally vacant movie. I certainly hope the final film is better than what they're revealing in the trailer. "she's is my mother, she is my lover"? Are they paying for this kind of writing?

Click here to view the official site




Return to the Movie Trailer Page

Screenwriters: Frank Miller (300) and Will Eisner
Director: Frank Mille (Sin City)
Actors: Scarlett Johansson (Match Point), Eva Mendez (We Own the Night), and Samuel L. Jackson (Snakes on a Plane)

Labels: adaptation, Eva Mendes, Frank Miller, movie trailer, Samuel L Jackson, Scarlett Johansson

posted by Scott Nehring at 9:16 AM



0 comment(s)

***Cross-posted on CATHOLIC MEDIA REVIEW***


Should I see it?

Yes (with cautions)

Short Review: Great until the final act and then it gets very muddled. It’s like getting great, scenic directions to grandma’s house but once you get there, instead of seeing Grandma’s house, you’re left parked in front of a closed down petting zoo that is being used to hold practices for the local bomb squad. Sure it’s interesting but didn’t someone promise we’re going to grandma’s?

The Coen Brothers' intricate film is beautifully shot, and eloquently written film but it is also marred by their tendency towards self indulgence. They are simply the worst at ending their movies. Their final acts almost always descend into strange musings that are incompatible with the rest of the story. I contend the reason they tend to flounder is because they’re not actually telling stories, they’re describing people. They get so involved in their characters that they forget to propel their narrative into a resolvable direction. In the case of this film, they frankly abandon telling the story and wander off to investigate the ethical issues that curse their characters. It's a little like seeing someone works on a complicated mathematical problem on a chalkboard, only to have them wipe the slate clean before giving you the sum and then begin working on a related problem. If you’re into closure or traditional endings, this film will leave you wanting.

Even with its stuttering resolution, this is a remarkable piece of cinema. It is clearly deserving of all of the awards and praised it has received. Every aspect of the film is masterfully handled and shows a dedication to intricate filmmaking that is a pleasure to witness. The story revolves around three men. Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), a gruff welder, stumbles across the results of a drug deal gone bad in the desert. From this he discovers and keeps a case containing two million dollars. He takes it home to his simple wife Carla (Kelly MacDonald). It isn’t long before the menacing killer Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem, in an Oscar winning performance) arrives in the area, looking to get the lost loot. Chigurh, with a devil’s smile and a patient, yet frightening, tone tracks down Moss across Texas. He gives the feeling of being supernatural, a symbol more than a man, more on that in a bit. As Chigurh pursues Moss, the killer…well, kills. He leaves a trail of dead hotel clerks, criminals and random people on the road. On this trail, old, crusty sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) struggles to make sense out of the nonsensical deaths caused by Chigurh’s efforts. This may not seem like a foundation for a great film. In many cases, the story itself is rather pedestrian. Where this movie strikes its cord is in character and in the choices made by the Coens.

This is one of the best character pieces made in recent memory. It is a rare thing to be presented with characters so intensely interesting that there’s a sense of loss when long scenes of dialog end. I wanted to see more about these people, learn more about them. This careful character construction makes the confrontations more tense since the audience is involved on both ends of the fight. When Moss and Chigurh finally meet and fight, I found myself hoping for a draw so the film could continue. I can’t think of the last time this has happened.

This is a fantastic movie that I cannot recommend it highly enough. You have two master filmmakers at the height of their skills working with a cast that meets the high expectations of a brilliant script. What more could you ask for?

Click below to view the trailer

Cautions: This is an incredibly violent movie. It is a study of evil and that evil is expressed in blood. This sanguine film doesn’t push the gore to an unreasonable level and the violence, while quite rough, is handled with respect. It’s not there for the sake of showing something exciting; it goes to build the story. In other words, it’s excusable. This said, it is important for those who are sensitive to seeing violent images to be forewarned that this film is loaded with brutal killings.


Worldview: The film is a search for structure (read God) in this seemingly random world. Two of the main characters, Ed Tom Bell and Anton Chigurh struggle with meaning in different ways. Sheriff Ed Tom Bell tries to think his way to an explanation. He sees the results of men’s dark hearts and the disconnected path of violence. Confronted with this, Bell attempts to keep order and attempts to reason. He fails and ultimately gives up the cause by saying “I always figured when I got older, God would sorta come into my life somehow. And he didn't. I don't blame him. If I was him I would have the same opinion of me that he does.”

Anton Chigurh himself is a remorseless killing machine. In a sense he is much like The Terminator since once he begins on a path to kill someone he does not stop until the task is done. At one point however, a fellow killer says of Chigurh when Moss says he will make a deal with the killer “You don't understand. You can't make a deal with him. Even if you gave him the money he'd still kill you. He's a peculiar man. You could even say that he has principles. Principles that transcend money or drugs or anything like that. He's not like you. He's not even like me.” Chicurh, acts as a grim reaper, slowly but surely coming to claim each soul. He is lost, however, in a meaningless world of death. Casually peddles death seems to be a way for him to define certainty in a strange way. In the film’s best scene, Chicurh confronts a dim-eyed shop owner and has the man call a flipped coin. If the man wins, he lives, if he loses, Chigurh will kill him. Chigurh states about the 1958 coin “It's been traveling twenty-two years to get here. And now it's here. And it's either heads or tails. And you have to say. Call it.” The coin, fate (God) decides the outcome to this man’s life, not Chigurh. He never makes the jump that it is his choice whether to kill or not. He doesn’t recognize that it is not fate but rather his choice to flip the coin in the first place which defines him. God may put him in the situation, but his reaction to it is the key. At the end of the film, and if you haven’t seen the film please stop here because I’m going to give away important parts of the plot, Moss’ wife Carla confronts Chigurh face to face. Chigurh, in a moment of mercy, allows her the flip of a coin to decide her fate.

Carla Jean Moss: You don't have to do this.
Anton Chigurh: [smiles] People always say the same thing.
Carla Jean Moss: What do they say?
Anton Chigurh: They say, "You don't have to do this."
Carla Jean Moss: You don't.
Anton Chigurh: Okay.
[Chigurh flips a coin and covers it with his hand]
Anton Chigurh: This is the best I can do. Call it.
Carla Jean Moss: I knowed you was crazy when I saw you sitting there. I knowed exactly what was in store for me.
Anton Chigurh: Call it.
Carla Jean Moss: No. I ain't gonna call it.
Anton Chigurh: Call it.
Carla Jean Moss: The coin don't have no say. It's just you.
Anton Chigurh: Well, I got here the same way the coin did.

Carla demands Chigurh acknowledge his freewill, his culpability in her murder, in all of his murders. He can’t make the leap, if he comes to admit his actions are of his own making, he is then guilty, an active player in this world and not some random device. Earlier in the film he refers to himself as a “perfect tool for the job”, the job being to kill another person. Chigurh finds his heels stuck in the swamp of a completely fate based world. If man is directed completely by fate then he is nothing more than a tool, a mere function. With freewill, choice, man ignites the sometimes terrible consequence of randomness on the world but he can also be judged for the decisions he makes.


Related Reviews:
Coen Brothers movies
Miller's Crossing (1990)
Intolerable Cruelty (2003)
The Ladykillers (2004)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Dear Cinema
Popcorn Junkies

Labels: adaptation, Coen Brothers, hitman, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, movie review, Tommy Lee Jones, Woody Harrelson

posted by Scott Nehring at 7:59 AM



0 comment(s)

Should I see it?
Yes.

Short Review: We’ll need to open a self-help section in the video stores to house this DVD.

Based on the successful novel by Mitch Albom, this film has some big shoes to fill. Albom's works may be smarter and a bit wiser, but they pull from the same sentimental well that Oprah has been guzzling from for years. This piece isn't much different. There's a mind at work here, and there are some kernels of wisdom to be found, but they are covered with a sticky saccharine coating.

This made-for-television movie does do a great job bringing the original piece to life. Like any adaptation the movie suffers from being a derivative work. In most instances, adaptations tend to be dim replications of the original source work. This is somewhat the case here. Taking the film on its own, it is rather well done. It's not a brilliant piece but it is effective.

The story follows Eddie (Jon Voight), a maintenance man who is lingering between Earth and Heaven. He meanders the fringes of the afterlife and confronts the life he has led. Voight is well cast here and provides a respectable yet broken man. Voight is comfortable in his role and brings a common man charisma to Eddie. Supported by solid performances by Dagmara Dominczyk (Kinsey), Jeff Daniels (Dumb & Dumber), and Michael Imperioli (The Sopranos), Voight provides an enjoyable and moving performance.

The content of the story, while interesting is certainly is suspect in some areas. Although it deals exclusively with the afterlife, this is hardly a Biblical film and the characters are anything but religious. The script is careful to toe the politically correct line and offend no one with anything that may smack of religious flavor. God and Heaven are gingerly referred to but not delved to with any depth. This keeps the piece from attaining a grander scale of thought. It reminds me of when, during the Christmas season, people insist on saying Happy Holidays no matter what. I'm in the store buying wrapping paper and ornaments for a Christmas tree, the cashier has a cross around her neck and she has to say "Happy Holidays" instead of referring to Christmas directly. Sure, its a small deal but we're ignoring the truth of the matter. This film suffers from the same kind of problem. It wants to talk about the afterlife but it doesn't want to be hindered by any theology. Granted, this isn't a Biblical movie, it's a self-help movie. It doesn't intend to speak about the greater things it intends to provide some hot-air that has whiffs of wisdom thrown in.

While it fails to achieve to reach anything larger, this is still an enjoyable and relatively harmless movie. There are some nice, cozy statements about handing regret and forgiveness and no one will be offended. If you're looking for stronger statements about the afterlife and managing one's time here on Earth, there's a better book on the subject I can recommend.


Related Reviews:
Adaptations
Because of Winn-Dixie (2005)
Le Scaphandre et le Papillon (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) (2007)
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)


Other Critic's Reviews:
DVD Verdict
eOpinions

Labels: adaptation, film, Jeff Daniels, Jon Voight, movie review

posted by Scott Nehring at 6:10 PM



0 comment(s)

One of my readers e-mailed a question I thought was worthy of answering here. He had just finished To Kill a Mockingbird and was wondering:

“What is it about the style and pace that makes it so different (and good)? I don't understand why they there aren't more films that capture that feeling. Is it the casting as much as the story? Or is it just the whole package?”

This is a complicated question that has many angles. To get to the roots of this, the inquiry can be broken down into two sections. 1. Why was this film so good? 2. Why don’t they make more films that don’t make me want to dry heave?

The specific reasons why one would like this film are numerous. At the center of the piece is a fantastic story. The novel is a classic of American literature and this film does well by its source material. Both writers, Harper Lee who wrote the book and the screenwriter, Horton Foote who adapted the piece for the screen, are both Pulitzer Prize winners. This was back when winning the Pulitzer was a meaningful achievement. The work of these two is the foundation for the success of this piece. The main reason for this production working so well is because it was written first and then produced.

This isn’t always the case.

What I mean to say is that the script was carefully built. It was created with a literate mind at work. Often adaptations are lousy affairs where the original material is injured by the experience. If the screenwriter is a screenwriter first and isn’t versed in the broader areas of literature and dramatics, translating a complicated piece like this will most surely fail. While this piece isn’t a page by page translation, Foote’s obviously understood the work and went forward with thoughtful concern for what he was doing.

Another important point about this production is the director and lead actor. The director Robert Mulligan was at the top of his game during this period. He was brilliant with actors and assisted the likes of Ellen Burstyn, Natalie Wood and others to Oscar wins. In this piece, he helped the lead Gregory Peck win his Oscar for Best Performance. Peck’s performance as Atticus Finch is one of the better cinematic performances of his generation.

The short answer here is that you liked this film because it was well done. The casual pace matched the low boil the film is set to. The intelligence of the performances is in sync with the depth of the material. In other words, the best people doing the best work they’d produce in their lives built this film.

How many productions can boast that?

Looking to the other question of why aren’t more films made like this? Well, first and foremost it is an issue of marketing. The development of the “target audience” has killed literate film.

There has been a slight culture change. We’ve devolved from reading works like To Kill a Mockingbird, of Mice and Men, and In Cold Blood to consuming Stephen King and Harry Potter. Obviously people still review the classics but these folks aren’t those the marketers in Hollywood wish to woo. Look around, do you see some dim eyed, moron teen frantically working over their cell phone.

That’s the lump of humanity the movies are made for these days.

Go ask the aforementioned moron their thoughts on the character arc of Atticus Finch. Ask them about Lee, Steinbeck or Hemingway. Ask them if they know what a book is.

I bet they won’t know what you’re talking about. C’mon, they’re a moron – morons don’t know anything that’s why they’re morons. That is also why they go to give money to any movie that is pushed in front of them.

There’s a deeper issue at work within the industry as well. Unlike many directors and actors today, the folks from back in Gregory Peck’s day had serious dues to pay. This is not to take away from the work people do these days to get their big breaks. Back then however, it was common for actors and directors to come from theatrical backgrounds. They learned their craft not from some film school but from the theater. Peck, as an example, left Berkley to get into acting. He trained at the Neighborhood Playhouse in New York and made his way to Broadway before breaking into the movie business. While most actors still are trained, and trained by effective teachers, many go directly into film/television acting. Sure, many still attempt the theatrical life, it is safe to say that many simply head out East for the Gold Rush. The separation of film from theater another reason for the illiteracy in our entertainment. Those directing film/television are trained for these areas. They rarely have any theatrical background at all. Therefore, they begin their careers without being versed in the classics of our civilization. Instead they worship at the shrines of world cinema. This is how we end up with the likes of Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriquez. While they may be great guys to have a beer with, they are useless when it comes to insightful works that improve humanity. If one doesn’t have an understanding of the classics of drama they lose the broader view of this world. This, as we can see, leads to the artist having much less to say about this world.

To summarize:

1. Why was this film so good?
It is a piece built by the best in the business doing their best work.

2. Why don’t they make more films that don’t make me want to dry heave?
Those who are not our best and brightest are making works to satisfy the common denominators in our society.



To finish I want to remind folks of a couple of things.

1. You can e-mail me with any film related question and I will be more than happy to oblige. If I don’t know the answer, I know where to direct you to find resolution to your query.

2. Any such e-mails are subject to being republished here (without your name) if the answer matches my content.

Labels: adaptation, commentary, Gregory Peck, reader mail

posted by Scott Nehring at 6:47 AM



0 comment(s)

posted by Scott Nehring at 9:50 PM



0 comment(s)

posted by Scott Nehring at 9:39 PM



0 comment(s)