Mainstream Fetish: The Misogyny Of Sucker Punch [Review This Again]

The Good: Moments of direction, One or two performances
The Bad: Problematic plot, Constantly unsettling tone, Lack of distinct or intriguing characters, Most of the acting, Poor editing, Unrelenting misogyny in the writing
The Basics: Sucker Punch twists a disturbing creepy setting and a horrible personal tragedy into a masturbatory visual fantasy that falls utterly flat.


[There is a big meme in the art community going around now called "Draw This Again." In the meme, artists illustrate how they have grown in their chosen medium by putting side-by-side pictures of art they created in the past and now. My wife had the great idea that I should do something similar with my reviewing. So, for 2017, I will be posting occasional "Review This Again" reviews, where I revisit subjects I had previously reviewed and review them again, through a lens of increased age, more experience, and - for some - greater familiarity with the subject. This review is one such review, where I am re-experiencing Sucker Punch after many years, devoid of the hype that surrounded the movie and with more experience as both a reviewer and one who has seen more works by co-writer and director Zack Snyder. The film was originally reviewed here!]

My wife and I recently began watching the television series American Gods and it did not take long into the series before I found myself looking at actress Emily Browning, who plays Laura Moon in American Gods, and thinking that she looked somewhat familiar. The "somewhat" became clear the moment I realized that she was the same actress who played the lead in Sucker Punch; with only six or seven years between the first season of American Gods and Sucker Punch, Emily Browning's appearance did not significantly change. Instead, the reason it took me so long to identify the actress on American Gods was that she had more than three expressions on the television show. In Sucker Punch, Emily Browning's performance is unfortunately limited to staring blankly, expressing anguish, and screaming defiantly.

Sucker Punch is one of those films I recall being very excited about, swept up at the time in the promotions for it, and then incredibly disappointed by it when I rushed out to see it in the theater. My enthusiasm for the film was originally sparked by how much I enjoyed Zack Snyder's cinematic rendition of Watchmen (reviewed here!), but when I watched Sucker Punch, I recalled only feeling like it was a half-assed rewrite of Brazil (reviewed here!). But, seeing Emily Browning episode after episode on American Gods, I felt like perhaps I had misjudged Sucker Punch and I decided to watch Sucker Punch again.

I was wrong about Sucker Punch in my initial assessment.

Sucker Punch is worse than it initially appeared; on many levels. I have often been called a tough reviewer, one who is much harsher in evaluating films than many other reviewers. When it came to Sucker Punch, though, I quickly discovered in watching the movie again that I was not nearly stringent enough in my standards.

Watching Sucker Punch again, this time on a smaller screen, the film's flaws are far more glaring. While the movie initially appeared to be visually-spectacular, one of the things that caught me in watching Sucker Punch again was how unfortunately choppy much of the editing was. Given that I alternated between utterly bored by and appropriately horrified by the story, the fact that Sucker Punch cannot be relied upon to be considered even a visual masterpiece made the film an utter disappointment.

Sucker Punch is a film that attempts to be clever, but quickly degenerates into visual garbage. The movie focuses on a young woman who is not even given a proper name in the film. "Babydoll" is only given that name when she is committed to an insane asylum, as part of her fantasy sequence where she tries to escape the horrors of her new reality. Sucker Punch opens with Babydoll's mother dying, her step father getting custody of her and her sister and her mother's will granting everything to Babydoll and her sister. When their step father advances upon Babydoll to rape her, she resists, but in barricading herself away from him, she leaves her sister vulnerable to his attack. While the stepfather assaults her sister, Babydoll recovers his gun and breaks into her sister's room. There, she tries to kill her stepfather, but accidentally kills her sister. Babydoll is in shock when her stepfather has her committed to an insane asylum in Vermont where he bribes the orderly, Blue Jones, to have Babydoll lobotomized.

Five days into her stay in the asylum, Babydoll is set to be lobotomized against her will. And attentive viewers will notice that the film is pretty much over at that point. What follows this opening set-up is Babydoll having fantasies of the asylum being a very different place and within that dream, she imagines escape fantasies involving herself and four other inmates of the asylum.

Sucker Punch is a dark set up for absolute narrative garbage. The entire film is established as a cheap reversal flick where only the least-observant audience will notice that the narrator completely shifts as Babydoll transitions from the lobotomy chair to the stage within a brothel nightclub. The thing is, as unsophisticated as that is, Sucker Punch becomes even more clumsy as it nears its climax. One of the other patients at the asylum, Sweet Pea, becomes the film's protagonist in the film's final moments and that makes Sucker Punch one giant narrative tense slip, where its characters and dreams within a dream make no rational sense.

Co-writer Zack Snyder hopes viewers will not notice that the film does not make rational sense as Babydoll is given the role of apparent protagonist when she is constantly a victim and damsel in distress . . . always bailed out by men. For sure, Babydoll and her comrades have grand fantasy sequences where they slaughter steampunk zombies, orcs, dragons, samurai warriors, and twisted men, but it is hard to ignore two things: 1. those sequences are supposed to be analogies for training as the young women learn to work together and fight alongside each other (which makes no sense because in the fantasies, they are entirely proficient in every way) and 2. the sequences are fantasies for Babydoll escaping her reality . . . which is supposed to be her dancing in such a sexy and seductive way and objectifying herself that it distracts all of the men around her.

One of the fundamental issues with Sucker Punch is that it acknowledges its own sickness early on, but does nothing to fix it. Sweet Pea's proper introduction to Sucker Punch is the young woman, playing Babydoll in a play, rejecting the premise of sexualizing a lobotomy victim. Sweet Pea wants better material than a rape fantasy to portray and that is, sadly, the last moment where a woman is given an opportunity in Sucker Punch to stand up for herself and stand up against the patriarchy in a coherent way.

So, what follows are five chicks running around in short skirts, dancewear, tight tops, underwear, stockings, Hot Topic fetishwear, etc. shooting guns, running, and swinging swords when they are not in a more mundane fantasy where they are being constantly assaulted, exploited or menaced by men within the asylum/club.

The real peak of suckitude (it's hard to take Sucker Punch seriously, much less evaluating it like it deserves a high level of diction to deconstruct) is that with the writing being so terrible, only two performers are truly allowed to break out and show genuine range . . . and they are both men. Sucker Punch might have ass-kicking women on screen, but the female characters are monolithic and hard to empathize with. To be clear, it is easy to be horrified by Babydoll's abuse and her accidental killing of her sister. But that's over in the first ten minutes and the rest of the movie has Emily Browning running around wearing very little, performing with a blank expression for Zack Snyder's elaborate rape fantasy. Browning, Jena Malone, Abbie Cornish, Vanessa Hudgens, and Jamie Chung are given surprisingly little to do as the female characters other than cosplay and run around.

So, it is somewhat surprising when Oscar Isaac and Scott Glenn steal Sucker Punch. Glenn plays the sensei character who actually has a chance to smile in his final scene and play (no matter how nonsensical the leap is) a character who is genuinely good in a dark mess of a film. At the other end of the spectrum is Oscar Isaac. Isaac portrays Blue Jones with constant menace and a skeevie quality that is unsettling to watch. There is not a hint of the jubilation he portrayed as Poe Dameron in The Force Awakens (reviewed here!) or his innate charisma. Instead, Isaac is a thoroughly despicable villain in Sucker Punch and he rides the tone of constant menace and misogynistic malice from beginning to end.

Ultimately, Sucker Punch is a mess and on the small screen, it becomes even more obvious how bad the film's content actually is. The sound for Sucker Punch cranks up the music and plummets for the dialogue. Sadly, even if one watches Sucker Punch with the volume muted, it is no better a film. Sucker Punch could be called "empowering to women" only as tongue in cheek; Sweet Pea nails it early on - Sucker Punch is a sick fantasy wherein young women at their most vulnerable are subjugated, robbed of their identity and ultimately given an entirely irrational narrative in place of an authentic story.

For other works with Jamie Chung, please check out my reviews of:
Flock Of Dudes
Big Hero 6
The Hangover Part III
The Hangover Part II
I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry

1.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2017 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

As Bad As One Might Suspect: Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice Belabors Set-Up And Spectacle Over Substance!

The Good: Moments of Henry Cavill's performance, Moments of plot concept for the conspiracy
The Bad: Dull, Preposterous, Overlong, Ridiculous characterization, Terrible writing
The Basics: Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice sucks.


When it comes to blockbuster movies, there are few movies I can think of that disappointed me more when I went back to them than Man Of Steel (reviewed here!). Seeing Man Of Steel on the big screen, early, it was a real thrill . . . but time, distance, and rewatching the movie truly lessened the film for me. So, when I first sat down to Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice, I was very concerned that history would either repeat itself (and I would be too lenient on the film) or I would over-compensate and be overly hard on the movie. The latter was a real concern for me from the moment Gal Godot was cast as Wonder Woman, as I have long advocated for Anne Hathaway for the role (check out that article here!).

After watching Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice, I am finally ready to write a review the way my wife has often ask that I do. My wife hates it when I waste my time writing long, well-conceived, complicated analyses of products and events that are very simply bad. Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is simple and bad . . . but most of it is not the fault of the performers or even director Zack Snyder. The problems with Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice all start with the writing.

Conceptually, Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice tries to do too much, so it does none of it particularly well. The film is a belabored set-up to the forthcoming Justice League film and the scene that features Diana Prince (Wonder Woman) effectively introducing the other three members of the League (Green Lantern is not included!) stops the movie dead. It would have been better as a post-credits scene than a component of Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice.

Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice starts as a potential reflection on the nature of Superman and his role in the world. After Metropolis was virtually destroyed in Man Of Steel, Superman has become a divisive concept; a messianic figure and a potential threat to humanity for his autonomous, unaccountable, nature. That concept is blended poorly with Bruce Wayne's desire to reign in Superman, as he witnessed the carnage in Metropolis 18 months prior and experiences yet another loss in his life as a result. Rather than staying focused on either concept, Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice becomes mired in a painfully simplistic conspiracy put together by Lex Luthor.

Lex Luthor in Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is, arguably, the worst interpretation of the character ever and while actor Jesse Eisenberg is taking a lot of flack for it, he deserves remarkably little blame. Lex Luthor in Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is written as The Joker. Eisenberg plays him as appropriately twitchy and unsettled and I just kept waiting for the movie to take a clever turn what would have made it explicit that Lex Luthor was the Joker (elements like the Polaroid photos of Martha Kent seemed like foreshadowing in that regard). That moment never comes and instead of Lex Luthor being a genius who is actually motivated by the desire to save the world from its dependence on Superman, he is just a non-committed, rich version of The Joker.

Lois Lane and Clark Kent's relationship is portrayed as simplistic and bland. When Doomsday finally pops up, it looks like leftover footage of Cave Trolls from The Lord Of The Rings. And it is hard not to imagine Joss Whedon cringing as Wonder Woman finally makes her big screen debut as a half-rate sidekick who ultimately appears as muscle (virtually nothing of her cerebral nature is present)(Whedon having famously written a pitch or spec. script for Wonder Woman more than a decade ago, only to have it go nowhere).

Despite the spectacle (though most of it is surprisingly dark), simplistic and bland is an apropos description of Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice. When the biggest geek-out factor is recognizing actors (on screen and voices) from Watchmen (reviewed here!) in the film, the movie has serious problems. More could be said, but it would be pointless: bad is bad and Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is bad.

For other live-action DC superhero works, please check out my reviews of:
Suicide Squad
The Dark Knight Trilogy
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Superman Returns
Catwoman
Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 - 1997
Supergirl
Superman
Wonder Woman

2.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2016 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Another Compelling Character Study On Screen: Match Delivers!

The Good: Wonderful acting, Interesting characters
The Bad: Very simplistic plot
The Basics: Match shows off the impressive acting talents of Patrick Stewart, Matthew Lillard and Carla Gugino without telling a really big or interesting story.


Lately, it seems like I have been watching a lot of new movies that have not quite landed with me. While some have been straight-out duds, others have simply failed to live up to the hype that permeates this time of year (Oscar Pandering Season). So, I found myself ridiculously excited about one of the few understated, unhyped movies being released this weekend, albeit in fairly limited release. The film is Match and all I had to hear about it before committing to watching it was that it stars Sir Patrick Stewart (the fact that Carla Gugino, whose performances have consistently impressed me, was in it only added to the short-lived excitement I had for the film before watching it).

Match is based upon a play by the film’s writer and director, Stephen Belber. It is worth noting, up front, that I have not seen the theatrical work upon which Match was based; this is a pure review of the film as it stands on its own. Fortunately, Match is deep and compelling enough to make for a good film that is worth watching . . . if for nothing else than the impressive performances it contains.

Tobi Powell is a demanding dance instructor/director who lives in self-imposed isolation. Despite having some fairly strict routines and rules – Raoul at the local Greek diner knows him well and is willing to make party mix for the Julliard instructor – Tobi meets with Lisa and her husband, Mike, at his beloved local dive. The two begin to interview Tobi at the restaurant and he leads them back to his apartment to continue the interview for Lisa’s dissertation. At Tobi’s apartment, both Lisa and Mike start to ask specifically about Tobi’s history coming up in the 1960s. When they start to ask about sex in the 1960s, Tobi begins to get high in order to remember and loosen up with the stories.

With Lisa and Mike pressing for details and bringing up Gloria Rinaldi, someone Tobi hooked up with in the late 1960s, Tobi begins to suspect that Lisa and Mike have specific goals that have nothing to do with a “dissertation.” Tobi quickly puts together that Mike thinks that Tobi is his father. While he denies the probability of being Mike’s father, Mike – whose mother died after having to give up her career as a dancer and be a secretary instead – insists he take a paternity test. After Mike forcibly takes a sample from Tobi, he abandons Lisa at the dance instructor’s apartment. As Mike races to confirm paternity, Lisa and Tobi discuss their relationship.

The role of Tobi Powell might well have been one of the most daring roles for Patrick Stewart . . . had he not played the flamboyantly gay director for one of the most memorable episodes in the history of Frasier. That said, Stewart is amazing in the role of Powell. Stewart manages to evolve the role of Powell beautifully over the course of Match. Stewart goes through a wonderful emotional transformation on-screen, much like Stanley Tucci did in Some Velvet Morning (reviewed here!). Stewart once again asserts himself as a master performer with simply his facial expressions and the power of his reactions. Director Stephen Belber captures the master’s expressions perfectly.

Matthew Lillard gives, perhaps, the performance of his career in Match. From almost the first moment Mike sits down, he is stiff and has a clear wall up. Lillard emotes well with his eyes; actually he withholds expressing much with his eyes and he manages to insinuate backstory and motive long before it is made explicit. Lillard still brings some wonderful humor to the role, like when Mike sees Tobi’s vase full of fingernail clippings! At the other end of the spectrum, when Lillard silently looks through photographs in Tobi’s apartment and speaks about certitude, he is strong, serious and credible as his character is revealed to be a cop. Having seen Lillard play goofy so often, the role of Mike illustrates that he has genuine acting chops and he nails the part.

Carla Gugino fleshes out the triumvirate perfectly. Gugino’s Lisa is a good foil for Mike and she lends a the sympathetic voice to the more intense, rational, and deeply wounded character of Mike. Gugino and Lillard have decent on-screen chemistry to make for a credible couple, especially at the outset of the film. Gugino and Stewart play off one another incredibly well. Gugino is saddled with a lot of exposition to describe the relationship Lisa and Mike have and Gugino emotes through it in a compelling-enough way.

Match does not make the audience wait for Mike to find out the truth for it to come out and it makes the film seem far less pretentious than it could. That said, Match is a remarkably simple film that, given its intimate scope, feels very much like a play. Belber does a decent job of minimizing the near-plotlessness of Match to make good use of the screen – especially in capturing facial expressions and the emotions revealed through the actors’ eyes – but he is limited by his own creation. The result is a movie that deserves more attention, but is not a sterling example of incredible cinema; it is a reminder to those who love film that theater has merit and deserves our attention as well.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
To Write Love On Her Arms
The Last Five Years
The Voices
Love, Rosie
The Seventh Son
Song One
Project Almanac
American Sniper
Vice
Paddington
Inherent Vice
Selma
Still Alice
Predestination
The Interview
The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies
Expelled
Annie
The Imitation Game
Birdman

8/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for a listing of films from best to worst!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Upon Further Review, Spin City "Season One" Is Far More Average Than Extraordinary.

The Good: Moments of humor, Interesting characters, Decent acting
The Bad: Quickly sacrifices concept for familiar, Several gags that hold up poorly over rewatching.
The Basics: All twenty-four episodes on two discs from the first season of Spin City remind viewers how the show started high and quickly became something familiar.


For celebrities who peak young, there is often a lag between the project that makes them a household name and the one that illustrates that that initial success was not a fluke. There are few actors who create iconic characters who are later able to come back and form equally iconic roles afterward. Take, for example, Ted Danson. Danson's role on Cheers was his defining role and while he had Becker afterward, it was never as popular as Cheers and he is likely never to be identified more as Dr. Becker than Sam Malone. See? Even though it has been over a decade since I last saw an episode of Cheers, I could recall the character's name.

One of the other 80s actors that comes easily to mind as one who has created a seminal role for himself is Michael J. Fox. Fox arguably peaked early with his role of Alex P. Keaton on Family Ties. Still, as Fox searched for roles after that comedy, it seemed like more often than not, his projects were referred to as "vehicles." The most successful Michael J. Fox vehicle to date - and possibly the final chance Fox might have to make a recognizable character for his resume - was Spin City. After years stuck on DVD with mediocre "best of" collections, Spin City has been released as complete season DVDs. The thing is, upon rewatching Spin City "Season One" the show seems suddenly less audacious than it did when it originally aired and my excitement over it diminished when watching the set twice.

Mike Flaherty is the deputy mayor of New York City under Mayor Randall M. Winston, Jr., a wealthy ridiculous mayor whose marriage is on the rocks. But Mayor Winston's idiocy aside, Mike's job is made a hundred times more difficult by the fact that he is dating a prominent reporter, Ashley. Having moved in with Ashley, Mike works to keep his home life and work life separate, though he often finds himself working with his problematically witless staff to keep Ashley from breaking stories that Mike is not yet ready to become news.

As part of his daily job, Mike finds himself voted Sexiest Man in New York City, negotiating a strike with the sanitation workers, haggling with a real estate developer who is a personal friend, keeping a Mayor For A Day contest winner from undoing Mayor Winston's agenda, dealing with a snowstorm, appeasing the deaf community, and ultimately, dealing with a missing mayor. Mike's team keeps him on his toes as he takes onto the staff a militant gay rights activist, an egoist, and more idiots than most people should ever have to deal with!

I remember loving Spin City. In fact, I recall loving it so much that when my Creative Writing professor in college noted that Carla Gugino's Ashley was being booted from the series, I was as outraged as one could be. Actually, I remember raising my voice and scoffing about how stupid a move it was and that Ashley leaving - which she does after about eleven episodes - gutted the concept of Spin City. And it is true. The show begins as a clever play wherein Mike Flaherty must juggle his home life and his work and for the first dozen episodes, the show is original, funny and has almost limitless potential. The latter dozen episodes in this boxed set feature Mike Flaherty simply going through the motions of dating.

This is not to say there are no funny moments in the second half of the season; "Deaf Becomes Her" and "Hot In The City" have some hilarious lines. In fact, "Hot In The City," wherein an ex-girlfriend of Mike's seeks to have his baby by capturing some of his sperm, is enduringly funny. But episodes like "Kiss Me, Stupid" and "Bone Free" could belong to virtually any sitcom in the past fifty years. That unfortunate level of interchangability in the characters and situations - and even the writing with the gags that the show is supposed to hinge on - is not present in the first few episodes and the show suffers some as a result.

Fans of Spin City who were attentive to the show will be glad to know that the DVD boxed set of Season One contains the original episodes as they aired. For those who watched the show, there was a disturbing trend; several episodes (like "The High And The Mighty") appeared on television in two ways. There was the original aired version - with Ashley present and in a supporting role - and a rerun version following Gugino's departure from the series where Ashley was removed from the episode and the scenes with her were reshot with other reporters asking questions of Mike or Paul.

Still, at its best, Spin City works because it is a character-driven sitcom. In the first season, the primary characters include:

Mike Flaherty - Deputy Mayor. He is constantly putting out brush fires around city hall. He goes head to head with his girlfriend, Ashley, about what the public has a right to know and what is a work in progress. He loves Ashley and when she leaves, he is heartbroken . . . for a time. Sexy and fun, Mike delegates responsibilities and largely attempts to keep City Hall functioning by keeping the Mayor out of the loop whenever possible,

Mayor Randall M. Winston Jr. - The Mayor of New York City. He is addle brained and trusts Mike implicitly. He and his wife are on the rocks and as he turns 50, he discovers Mike might be his best friend as well as subordinate,

Paul Lassiter - Press Secretary. More or less an idiot, Paul is constantly stymied by the press and Ashley walks all over him. He is mugged and lives in fear for a time, but finds a strange companion in . . . the Mayor,

Carter Heywood - A vocal activist in the gay community and the most prominent black member of the staff. Brought on by Mike to solve a p.r. problem with the gay community, he is energetic, eager to initiate change and finds himself torn when a past love surfaces to reclaim him. He and Stuart clash frequently,

Stuart Bondek - Deputy deputy mayor. Stuart is acerbic, offensive and prejudiced. He and Carter clash frequently and he basically sits around making sarcastic and sexist remarks for comic relief and to torment Paul, Nikki and James,

Nikki Faber - Mike's secretary. Constantly falling for the wrong guys, she works to support Mike when Ashley leaves,

James Hobert - Speech writer. James comes from Wisconsin and is green. He is picked on for his naivete,

Janelle - The Mayor's assistant. She serves largely in a supporting role this season,

and Ashley - Mike's girlfriend and a leading member of the New York City press. She ruthlessly asks the questions that no other reporter will, constantly putting Paul on the spot and leaving him sweating. She is offered a better job, which she takes, leaving Mike behind to advance her career.

Spin City has a pretty amazing cast, which includes Richard Kind (Paul), Michael Boatman (Carter), Barry Bostwick (Winston), Alan Ruck (Stuart - he was perfectly cast. Having met him in person, he is utterly hilarious and Ruck's personal sense of humor was a great fit for the Stuart character), and Connie Britton (Nikki). The show rounded the cast out wonderfully at the beginning with Carla Gugino who is now finding some success as Sally Jupiter in Watchmen (reviewed here!). Far more than just a pretty face, Gugino is plausible with the depth and tenacity of a reporter in the first season of Spin City and it is unfortunate to see her cast aside as she was.

But much of the show hinges on Michael J. Fox and he is memorable as Mike Flaherty . . . until the show alters its concept. After the initial episodes, Fox's performances seem more like a twist on the Alex P. Keaton overachiever than the juggling deputy mayor. In other words, Fox is used in more of a familiar than groundbreaking fashion. Still, he has an excellent sense of comic timing and the show works.

On DVD, Spin City "Season One" comes with minimal DVD extras, which include a featurette on the first season with interviews from all of the main cast (notably lacking Gugino) and the show's creators. There are also a couple of commentary tracks which are decent, but not earth shattering.

Ultimately, the first season of Spin City serves to remind viewers of the benefit of syndication; when a show works and is truly audacious and interesting, sometimes it is changed and the best episodes might be available without purchasing the entire boxed DVD set. Still, there is just enough with this DVD set to recommend it. The show was at its best right out of the gate and this boxed set has most of the best episodes the series produced. It is just unfortunate that so many of the best ideas for the show were mortgaged so quickly.

For other works featuring Carla Gugino, please check out my reviews of:
Sucker Punch
Night At The Museum
Snake Eyes

7/10

For other television program reviews, please visit my Television Show Review Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Of All The Ideas To Get A Sequel...Night At The Museum Makes Me Wonder "Why?!"

The Good: Moments of humor, Decent DVD bonus features
The Bad: Entirely predictable, Premise never develops beyond itself.
The Basics: Predictable and underwhelming, Night At The Museum does not live up to its hype as even an interesting film.


Note: This review was originally written in advance of the sequel’s release. To date, I have not seen the sequel. Enjoy!

Some weeks ago, my wife was in our bedroom laughing constantly as I wrote my daily reviews and I poked my head in to see why. She was watching Night At The Museum and she seemed to be enjoying it. As I prepared for Summer Blockbuster Season, I figured that I would end up seeing the sequel - Night At The Museum: Battle Of The Smithsonian - but through today, I have not. Still, I figured it was worth catching the original, in case I do manage to get out to see the sequel. Despite my wife and I having a lot of differences in taste, I cannot recall the last time I enjoyed a film so much less than she did than after watching Night At The Museum. Moreover, I find myself baffled as to why this film garnered a sequel when it was so generally weak itself.

Night At The Museum is one of those films where the concept is pretty much all there is to the flick. When one knows that the movie is about a night security guard at a museum where all of the inanimate models of people and animals come to life at night, they have pretty much seen the film. Over the course of three nights, night watchman Larry Daley assumes his position at the Museum Of Natural History in New York City where a pharaoh's enchanted tablet animates all of the displays at night. They get up, walk around, talk and torment one another and Larry. Outside a few moments, the movie was nowhere near as funny as I suspected it would be - from my partner's laughter - and on the merits, it is certainly below average.

Larry Daley is recently-divorced and floundering financially in life even as he sees his ex's new boyfriend getting closer to his son, Nick. Determined to not be forced further away from his son by poor job conditions, Larry takes a job at the Museum Of Natural History as the new nightwatchman, replacing Cecil, Gus and Reginald. There he is given specific instructions to maintain order at night and he arrives for his first night not understanding the urgency with which Cecil warns him to not allow anything in or out of the museum at night. When the Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton in the lobby comes alive, Larry freaks out and begins to stick to the list Cecil left him with, despite failing to keep some of the vital conditions straight.

After a day of research, Larry returns to the Museum where he is more prepared to deal with the animals, Atilla the Hun, miniature cowboys and Romans, and a love-struck Teddy Roosevelt. But the power that allows the displays to animate throughout the museum is coveted by those who used to have Larry's job and Larry must marshal the disparate forces in the museum to save the artifacts and earn his son's love and respect.

On the plus side, Night At The Museum does not insult the viewer's intelligence excessively by drawing out the source of the mysterious happenings. In one of the first moments, the former pharaoh's enchanted plaque is introduced and it is quickly revealed to be the source of all of the animated display pieces. As well, Night At The Museum is cute and has a few moments of humor. Unfortunately, of the three big moments of cuteness or humor, the movie gets two of them out of the way quickly. Larry slapping the monkey and the Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton essentially being a cute pet-like creature are established with haste. Outside those two moments, I only recall with any ease one moment that I actually laughed at and that was near the climax of the film. As a result, this is a lot slower than it is funny.

As well, Night At The Museum quickly establishes its premise, but then does little or nothing of real note with it. Everything comes alive at the museum at night . . . all right, once Larry figures out how to deal with the animals and multicultural display pieces, the movie is pretty much over. Thus, writers Robert Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon are forced to create a rather obvious series of conflicts that are hardly engaging enough to keep the viewer interested. The immediate humor of the situation wears out because no matter who Larry encounters, the jokes are essentially either "maquette becomes animated" or interethnic misunderstanding humor.

The real problem with Night At The Museum comes for anyone who has ever been to the American Museum Of Natural History (reviewed here!). Realism takes a back seat to fantasy from the outset in the fact that almost every display is behind glass at the actual Museum. In other words, outside the dinosaur, Teddy Roosevelt and one or two animals, everything in the Museum would be safely contained, just as the pharaoh in the film is. Moreover, places like the Hall Of Ocean would be loud with the sound of water-based animals dying of suffocation every night when they came alive!

The character and plot arcs are stiflingly predictable as well. On the third night, Larry tries to impress the tourguide, Rebecca, and his son by showing the museum pieces coming to life, so the most predictable reversal - the creatures not animating - is exactly where the film goes. Because there is the conflict between Larry and his ex-wife and a distance from his son Nick, the attempt to bond with Nick is met with plot-convenient reversals that lead Nick to be disappointed in his father only to miraculously have that reversed when Nick rises to the occasion.

This is all stuffed together with a somewhat pointless subplot where the Teddy Roosevelt mannequin has a longing for the Sacajawea mannequin. Larry also has a clear desire to impress Rebecca, but fortunately that subplot is not resolved with the predictable potential kiss that would have been even more obvious than where this movie goes. Given that surprise is a key element to comedy, the lack of surprise in the film once one knows the premise guts the film's rewatchability. Even my partner - who was excited about seeing the movie again because we had been to the Museum Of Natural History - laughed less the second time than she did the first time through.

As for the acting, it is hard to deny that Night At The Museum has a pretty excellent cast. Carla Gugino continues her trend of family-friendly flicks in her bit role as Rebecca and Jake Cherry does an adequate job playing Nick. Dick Van Dyke, Mickey Rooney, and Bill Cobbs have wonderful supporting roles as the three nightwatchmen who are prematurely retired and Van Dyke especially rises to the occasion with a decent sense of comic timing. Conversely Ricky Gervais is uncharacteristically stiff as the museum's director, Dr. McPhee. Robin Williams upstages Ben Stiller in every scene they share. Mizuo Peck has great chemistry with Williams when she is finally given a speaking part and they share scenes.

Much of the movie hinges on the performance of Ben Stiller and he is good as Larry. In the role, he is required to run fast, bug out his eyes and act as if he is in danger from obviously virtual characters he is sharing the screen with. He does all of that well and director Shawn Levy seems to have a decent sense of how to use Stiller's sense of physical performance to sell the reality of the situation.

Still, it is not enough to let me recommend the movie; the film is slow and predictable with special effects that are not realistic in far too many places. At least it makes my decision of whether or not I ought to catch the sequel an easy one.

For other films featuring Ben Stiller, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Tower Heist
Megamind
Envy
The Royal Tenenbaums
Zoolander
Keeping The Faith

5/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Why Watchmen Deserves The 2009 Best Picture Nomination (And Oscar!)

| | |
The Basics: Often neglected by the Academy, the “super hero” film Watchmen deserves the consideration for the Best Picture Oscar more than any in 2009!


This was originally written and published when it still mattered! Enjoy!


As the year comes to a close and the almost six thousand ballots for the Academy Awards (Oscars) have been sent out, movie viewers who are members of the Academy are being asked to vote for the nominees for every major award in the Academy Awards. While I had hoped to finish my Best Picture Project (here!) before writing this article, my lack of a VCR (yes, one of the films was never put on DVD and another two have been a bear for me to get in on anything other than VHS!) is leaving me three films short as the ballots for the 2009 Academy Awards go out. Even so, I am in a unique position to write about what might be deserving of the Best Picture Oscar as I have reviewed every prior winner.

Hands down, the 2009 Best Picture Oscar ought to go to Watchmen.

With the Golden Globe nominations showing a science fiction preference only for Avatar (reviewed here!), the Academy is continuing its rather dumb (there’s no more appropriate word for it) preference for films that are proximate to the ballot release. In other words, most films that get nominated for the Oscars are the ones that are released in December, where they are fresh in the minds of those who vote for them. While the Golden Globe nominations do not necessarily foreshadow the nominees or the winners of Oscars, sadly the voters seldom break ranks with the Golden Globe nominations. For Watchmen, they ought to. As near as I can figure it, there are three reasons why the Academy should break with tradition and nominate Watchmen (reviewed here!) and three reasons they should uphold tradition and nominate and give Watchmen the Best Picture Oscar.

The reasons Oscar voters should break with tradition and nominate Watchmen for the Best picture are:

1. It uses the film medium extraordinarily well. Over the course of the (almost) ninety years the Best Picture award has been given out, it is shocking how many films have won the top honor with little or no differentiation from a stage play. The Best Picture ought to do something that illustrates that it is a great movie. It’s not a great book, theatrical play or comic book, it is a film.

Ironically, while Watchmen is based upon a graphic novel, this is the film. And, more than any other film this year, it uses the medium well. The special effects create an alternate reality that could not be created on stage. It is rich, filled with costumes, sets and special effects (including music) which create a film that looks and feels real, even though it obviously is not. As well, it is stylish and characters react in ways that have a realism to them which is not the case in such over-the-top special effects pictures like Avatar. Watchmen is consistent in the way it creates a film which tells the story it tells in a way that effectively uses the medium and tells it with the full richness of the big screen. It does not require one use their imagination (like a book) and it tells a big story that could not be told as effectively on stage (or is so static that it looks like it might as well be a stage play). In the history of the Best Picture, there have been a slew of winners from Broadway Melody to Ordinary People to Chicago which do not use the film medium all that well, creating films which might as well have been theatrical productions and do not use the full scope of the film medium. Watchmen uses the full scope and pushes the envelope.

2. It would recognize an oft-neglected genre in film. In the history of the Academy, no science fiction or super hero film has ever won Best Picture. Star Wars (A New Hope) lost to Annie Hall! And The Empire Strikes Back was never nominated. If the Best Picture represents the greatest film of the year, there ought to be some consideration for the body of work that is created by acknowledging this. While science fiction and super hero films are exceptionally popular, none has ever gotten the top prize.

Last year, The Dark Knight was shut out of the big award, despite being exceptionally popular and well-made. Watchmen, arguably, tops even that. It’s about time the body of “greatest films of all time” included one which celebrated the fantastic. Horror (Silence Of The Lambs) and Fantasy (Return Of The King) have garnered the top prize, it’s about time science fiction/super hero films had their shot and there is, arguably, none better than Watchmen, certainly not for 2009!

3. It would discourage Oscar Pandering Season and raise the bar on films that get nominated. Films are put out 52 weeks of the year, it is absolutely insulting that the only ones that get fair consideration for the Best Picture are released in December. The Academy voters are treated as idiots who have short attention spans and, sadly, they live down to that by usually nominating films that come out in December.

Watchmen was released in March and that is no reason it ought not to be fairly considered, even if it means voters might have to actually go back and rewatch, rent or buy the film to screen it. For sure, it deserves to be seen on the big screen, but it is now available on two different DVD/Blu-Ray versions for voters to screen it on!

The reasons Oscar voters should uphold tradition and nominate Watchmen for the Best Picture are:
1. It is a smart film with great character development. Far too often, the Best Picture winner is a movie that has predictable character arcs. From The Great Ziegfeld and The Life Of Emile Zola through No Country For Old Men and Slumdog Millionaire, the Best Picture winner is filled with character studies and stores where the characters are not static. Like Crash, Watchmen is an intimate character study which features characters who actually grow and change and develop through the movie.

Watchmen stands out because most of the characters grow and change throughout the film and the primary one who does not change actually has a statement by the fact that he does not change. Great films are character-driven and the characters of Watchmen – Dr. Manhattan, Rorschach, Nite Owl, Silk Spectre and Adrian Veidt – move the plot forward and advance the plot of the film. The plot does not determine the direction of the film, the characters do. This is the key element of all of the best stories (not just films). The best Best Picture winners – Amadeus, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, and Casablanca – all have this in common. Watchmen deserves a place with them.

2. It would help illustrate the independence of the Academy from the foreign press, which nominates the Golden Globes. Because the Golden Globes nominate both Drama and Comedy/Musical, they often set the trends for Academy voters, but when the Academy has illustrated its independence, we’ve had winners like Crash.

Watchmen is a distinctly American film and, especially on the heels of Slumdog Millionaire deserves to win.

3. It is set in New York City. This might seem ridiculous, but given how many Best Picture winners are set in New York City, this seems like it is a fair mark in the film’s favor! Sure, it’s an alternate New York City, but if New York City films have a better chance of winning, it’s about time that worked in the favor of a truly original and incredible film!

For these reasons and more, Watchmen ought to win the Best Picture Oscar and voters ought to give it serious consideration when they receive their ballots!

For other film commentary projects, please check out my argument on why Anne Hathaway would be an ideal choice for Wonder Woman, here!

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Eyes Gone Blind: Snake Eyes Blinks!

The Good: Carla Gugino, First half hour
The Bad: Second half, Lack of consistent characterization, Unsatistfying ending
The Basics: An excellent setup leads into a terrible disappointment when Snake Eyes attempts to be clever but instead negates all real characterization.


It's the unfortunate film that begins so well as to be called engrossing and then degenerates into something silly and unprovacative. Yet, such is what you have with Snake Eyes. It is not, as the video box suggests entitled "Cage Snake Eyes" which is as it appears on the box, movie poster, etc. It seems like they're selling Nicholas Cage. Well, his character is bought, perhaps he is as well.

Cage plays Rick Santoro, a mostly-corrupt cop who gets jazzed about fight night. Rick has an old time friend Kevin Dunne, who is a Commander in the army and is set the task of guarding the Secretary of Defense. After betting heavily, Rick goes to the prize fight to watch the heavyweight champion duke it out with a competitor. Kevin, apparently concerned with a security risk, takes off after a redhead. Moments later, Kirkland is shot and Rick has to piece together what happened. Rick's main lead is a woman who approached Kirkland moments before the shooting, Julia.

The problem lies in how everything goes from there. It's not too revealing to suggest that Gary Senise needs to get cast as something other than a villain. The problem is, it's not revealing anything. It's not a surprise. Gary plays Kevin as too perfect, it's set up to be a surprise that he's involved. The problem with that is that it doesn't read as real. Kevin and Rick have a real bond. Or so it appears. Rick doesn't appear nearly as traumatized as he ought to considering the set up in the beginning.

There's something to be said for the idea that two people who are close can't change without the other knowing it. The film sets up their relationship as one such relationship and then it doesn't realize it. Kevin comes off as too true for how far he falls. Sadly, Rick's rise to heroism makes more sense than Kevin's decline into villainy.

The only great acting in the film comes from Carla Gugino. Her character is the most consistent, the most real and the best acted. Julia seems giving and kind and concerned. She is exactly the conscientious citizen that does rise up to fight corruption when she learns of it. Carla Gugino acts perfectly for the role, adding more than simply an innocent face, but genuine confusion and realistic movement to a person out of place in a world where law enforcement and criminals lay in the same bed.

Sadly, even Carla's wonderful acting is not enough to recommend this film. If you ever catch it on television, set a timer. When you hit thirty minutes, turn it off and make up your own ending. Trust me; it's better that way.

For other works featuring Carla Gugino, please check out my reviews of:
Sucker Punch
Watchmen

2.5/10

For other film reviews, please check out my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |

A Pinup Who Is Barely Able To Stand, "Silk Spectre" Is An Unsatisfying Action Figure.

The Good: Generally good (accurate) appearance
The Bad: Massively overproduced, Poor articulation, Poor balance
The Basics: Looks good, but the Silk Spectre (Classic) action figure falls down when out of the package (literally!).


There are few things in merchandising that depress me as a feminist as much as substandard figures of female characters in a toy line dominated by generally excellent sculpts of male characters. Unfortunately, that is where I find the Watchmen toy line with its heroic men easily outstripping the two anemic, unbalanced versions of Silk Spectre made in the line. Unfortunately, after checking out the first series Silk Spectre (Modern or Silk Spectre II) action figure, I bought the second series Silk Spectre and found myself equally disappointed.

The second Silk Spectre figure is the embodiment of the Classic 1940s Silk Spectre character from Watchmen, Sally Jupiter. The character in the film was little more than a 1940s Pinup who has an unfortunate encounter with The Comedian and ultimately retires, but pressures her daughter, Laurie, to become a costumed vigilante years later. Unfortunately, just as the first figure had its flaws, the less-recognizable Silk Spectre action figure is unfortunately unposeable and unbalanced, making for a poor toy and collectible.

Basics

To support the film Watchmen (reviewed here!), DC Direct released two series of Watchmen action figures. DC Direct was tapped because they had the ability to create a higher caliber of action figure, based on the film characters. DC Direct created only eight figures based upon the cinematic representations of the essential Watchmen characters. The second collection of figures featured the Classic Silk Spectre action figure as one of the four figures released simultaneous with the film.

Arguably one of the least desired characters in Watchmen to merchandise was Silk Spectre (I, henceforth simply "Silk Spectre"), who was played by Carla Gugino in the film and is now immortalized in plastic thanks to DC Direct. There is only the one figure of Gugino's Silk Spectre; there is another of her daughter, Laurie Jupiter as Silk Spectre II. Those looking for a figure of Sally - for those looking to have alter egos, an aged Sally in the nursing home would be cool - outside her outfit will have to wait quite a long time or find someone who does custom figures. This is highly unlikely as the older Sally Jupiter - and a younger one outside her costume - was a support character and her purpose was far more in the realm of dialogue as opposed to conflict.

Standing 6 1/4" tall to the top of her head, Silk Spectre is a lightly coifed woman who looks like a 1930's/40's Pinup girl complete with ruffled skirt and a garter belt. The DC Direct action figure features such details as the fishnet stockings, painted on garter snaps, and meticulous button details down the figure's chest. Silk Spectre is cast with pretty extraordinary casting details, so her outfit looks precisely as it did in the film, including the gloss of the leather breastplate that protects her heart and waist. Silk Spectre's boots look kinky with their very high heels and her hands are molded open as if to entice or slap her fellow figures.

All of Silk Spectre's face is visible, as she does not wear a mask and it looks well-sculpted and generally well-colored. The lips are thin and red and her eyes are a sharp blue; she is even detailed with painted on eyelashes. As well, her cheeks bear rouge and her pupils are appropriately black. Her short red hair even includes accents so she looks like she has real hair, not a helmet! In fact, given the somewhat elaborate hairdo with the swept back hair and then shoulder length back, it is astonishing how well DC Direct got the sculpt of Silk Spectre's head.

Accessories

Silk Spectre only comes with the standard Watchman base. The base is a 2 1/2" plastic square that raises the figure 1/2" off the display surface and most closely resembles a section of suspension bridge. The base has three holes in it, through which one of the two pegs that come with the figure may be placed. The peg is designed to go into a hole in the figure's foot and Silk Spectre has a hole that fits the peg in her right foot only. The other two holes may either be filled in or left unpegged. The base also comes with a simple connector which latches together Silk Spectre's base with the base of any of the other Watchmen figures; all of the bases seem to be identical.

The lack of accessories for Silk Spectre is predictable and on par with the other figures in this line. Sally is not seen using any accessories in the film. At least the figure isn't ruined by accessories that don't fit her!

Playability

Watchmen is an adult film and as a result, most everyone who picks these figures up will be using them for display, not play. DC Direct seemed to figure this out well in advance and the bases that the figures, like Silk Spectre, come with are designed for support and display, as opposed to play. The fundamental problem with the Silk Spectre action figure is that it is virtually unposeable.

On the principles, Silk Spectre is a pretty cool action figure, but once she comes out of her package her extreme weaknesses become easily apparent. Granted only seven points of articulation, Silk Spectre is poseable in incredibly limited ways. With one of the joints being utterly pointless - the thighs have a swivel joint that essentially allows Silk Spectre to point her toes to the sides as opposed to straight ahead - Silk Spectre is low on poseability and likely to disappoint even those who put her on display. She has joints at the thighs, shoulders, wrists, and neck. The joints make for a decent range of motion, but the lack of elbow joints is especially disappointing. The shoulders are ball and socket joints, so Silk Spectre may flail straight-armed. The lack of leg articulation means Silk Spectre can not be posed sauntering down stairs or crouching or even being bent over by an abusive vigilante. She cannot even be posed to run away! Instead, she may be posed to look like a Pinup girl standing somewhat seductively. At least the head is a ball and socket joint, so she may look in a great number of directions.

Also lame is the fact that Silk Spectre has absolutely terrible balance. Her feet may not really be moved, but she only stands up when her foot is in the foot peg. Sadly, there is only one foot-peg to prevent those using this as a display piece from knocking the figure over very easily. This is annoying, as when Silk Spectre actually was one of the most flexible characters in the film!

Collectibility

DC Direct seemed to gauge about the right amount of interest in the Watchmen figures and with the DVD release, they re-released most of the figures again. This Silk Spectre is one of only two figures not to be returning to shelves with the re-release of the toy line. This is unsurprising as many of the initial run remain at the stores as this was one of the pegwarmers from the toy line. Silk Spectre is incredibly easy to find and one suspects that those who want one already have her. In other words, this is a terrible investment piece and only die-hard fans will want one.

Overview

One need not have high hopes for an action figure to want it to do such simple things as stand and be posed in more than one interesting pose. Unfortunately, the Silk Spectre figure fails with that basic litmus test and may easily be avoided by fans of the cinematic Watchmen.

For other figures from Watchmen, please check out my reviews of:
Nite Owl (Modern)
Ozymandias
Rorschach
Nite Owl (Classic)
Limited Edition Dr. Manhattan

4/10

For other toy reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

"Brazil 2011:" Why Sucker Punch Is An Epic Failure.

The Good: Effects, Moments of concept
The Bad: Obvious plot, Lack of sensibility, No great performances, Character is sublimated for effect, Castrated effects.
The Basics: After months of anticipation, Sucker Punch falls seriously flat for anyone with a brain in their head . . . or a comprehensive knowledge of genre film history.


The return of my blog to cyberspace came at a particularly good time; I have spent months eagerly awaiting the release of Sucker Punch and while I would have loved to had my review up after a midnight screening, because my blog wasn't functional that night, I held off for its return and a matinee. I am now exceptionally glad that I did. I write those words with a pretty heavy heart. Zack Snyder's last cinematic epic, Watchmen (reviewed here!), leapt right onto my Top Ten Of All Time movie list and knowing that Sucker Punch was co-written and directed by him was a huge selling point for me. After all, if Snyder could made someone else's work into an amazing cinematic achievement, what could he do on his own?! Unfortunately, the answer - for myself and anyone who has ever seen Terry Gilliam's masterpiece Brazil (reviewed here!) - is, sadly, nothing. At least, he isn't able to do anything extraordinary or original with Sucker Punch.

In fact, Sucker Punch is unfortunately lazy and is more than just an attempt to make Brazil sexy or relevant again. The greatest disappointment of the slick, easy-to-watch film is arguably how it dumbs itself down to get the PG-13 rating it was handed. After the explicit qualities of 300 and Watchmen, fans of Zack Snyder's works will be immensely disappointed at how castrated and bloodless Sucker Punch is. But more than that, despite the few lines of dialogue thrown in at the end, there is little surprise to Sucker Punch; there is no surprise to the protagonist's lobotomy because after years of films with death dreams and reality-bending scenarios, the median audience is smart enough to see everything in Sucker Punch coming. What we do not see coming is told to us at the end and, lamely, does not improve the film in any noticeable way.

Baby Doll is a twenty year-old young woman whose mother dies, leaving her and her little sister in the hands of her stepfather. Angered that his wife bequeathed everything to her two daughters, Baby Doll's sister is killed and she is framed for the murder, which allows her stepfather to get her condemned to an insane asylum in Vermont. There, the stepfather pays the facility's administrator to have her lobotomized and after a week in the facility, Baby Doll finds herself strapped down to face the lobotomy spike.

But just before the hammer falls, Baby Doll demands the doctor stop and everyone in the room becomes her peers in the asylum; other young women like her who have been committed. Baby Doll is told how things work in the asylum by Rocket; the asylum is part of a club where the women dance before prostituting themselves to the locals. The villainous head of the facility, Blue Jones, is saving Baby Doll for the High Roller. As Baby Doll prepares to be used, she discovers she has a power in her dancing. While she dances, she escapes into a fantasy realm where she distracts the authorities while her friends Sweet Pea, Rocket, Blondie and Amber steal the objects needed to make their escape. As the day of the High Roller's arrival nears, all of their lives are put in increasing jeopardy as Baby Doll fights for their freedom in her dreamscape.

Sucker Punch initially seemed like it might be edgy and dark, but much of the problem with the movie is that it does not live up to the ambition of a movie where the protagonist has to escape the horrors of her world by entering a dream world. So, for example, the commercials implied - with the emphasis on the falling button - that Baby Doll is being sexually abused by her stepfather, but he's simply in a one-time murderous rage at the time. The result is feeling that there is little special or honestly as traumatic as implied in the story of Baby Doll that makes her need to slide into her imagination world to survive. Moreover, I went into Sucker Punch eager, but feeling that I had seen much of the movie through the slew of previews aired for the film. To the credit of the filmmakers and promotion companies, a surprisingly little amount of the movie is actually in the previews. Sadly, despite having a whole lot more in the film than is in the multitude of previews, there is actually very little not in the previews.

By this, I mean that Sucker Punch is a lot of repetition and it quickly becomes the antithesis of entertainment because not only have viewers seen the sequences before - in other movies and in the previews - they have seen it all before within the film. So, in virtually every dream sequence, there is the leap with the hitting the ground in a crouch, the look up, the jump in air where Baby Doll remains suspended an unrealistic amount of time. While Baby Doll and her friends move from the trenches of a World War scenario to a castle with a dragon to a futuristic train with robotic assailants, the fights they have at each level are remarkably similar.

And that is where the bloodless quality of the movie seems remarkably pedestrian, pandering to those who want action without anything incredible. At each level, Baby Doll and her team encounter adversaries who do not bleed; zombie Germans reanimated with cloth and steam, goblin-like monsters who can be slayed, but not spray any blood when they are chopped in half, and robots. Even Baby Doll's eventual revelation at the climax is problematically free of blood and a scene prior to that wherein people are shot at close range - without any splatter - is utterly laughable. One suspects Zack Snyder will come out with some form of "ultimate edition," but even realism to the gore or actually showing the characters getting smacked around when it happens will not save Sucker Punch.

The reason little can be done to save Sucker Punch is because the fault is not in the special effects. The movie is easy to watch. It's twenty-something Hollywood-thin chicks running around like schoolgirls in boots, short skirts and halter tops toting guns and swords. It's a masturbatory fantasy of anyone who likes to mix sex and violence and Snyder succeeds on that level.

The problem is there is no substance to back it up. The characters in Sucker Punch are homogeneously uninteresting. Baby Doll is not terribly distinctive and one has to wonder why she is living with her parents at age twenty when she is characterized as almost fiercely independent while in the asylum. The others are never delved into deep enough to be viable characters, so the whole characterization seems to just be "looks good in skimpy outfits."

As for the acting, it is uniformly bland when it isn't outright bad. Emily Browning's performance seems to mostly be based on her ability to stare into the camera and keep her lips parted as some mundane idea of what passes as sexy these days. Browning's portrayal of Baby Doll is sexy only to those who look for flash and no substance. The character acts lobotomized throughout and Browning sways to imply the hypnotic dances, but she never has enough zest to truly draw the eye or titillate the viewer.

Backed by usually solid performers like Carla Gugino and Jena Malone, Browning's performance stands out only as the most focused on performance in a movie where style continually trumps substance. Malone, especially, has been known to take small roles and make them significant. She shined in Donnie Darko (reviewed here!) despite how small the role actually was, yet her Rocket never breaks out. Similarly, Gugino's Dr. Gorski seems more like an archetype than a substantial individual.

Avoiding a discussion of the technical flaws - sword impacts obviously behind the neck as opposed to through it - and problems with perspective (i.e. scenes not featuring Baby Doll, despite the fact almost the entire film is her imagination), Sucker Punch is still a disappointment that will never be the cult classic it could have been.

For other films with Oscar Isaac, please check out my reviews of:
X-Men: Apocalypse
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Drive
3/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Complex And Engaging, Watchmen Deserves The Hype As A Perfect Film! (My 100th Review In My New Blog!)

The Good: Wonderful acting, Interesting characters, Well-conceived plot, Amazing effects (CG, costumes, everything!), Pacing.
The Bad: None that I could find!
The Basics: Gritty, beautiful-to-watch and packed with amazing characters portrayed by surprisingly talented performers, Watchmen tells an elaborate conspiracy story about fallen vigilante heroes at the end of the world.

Some of the tenses in this review might appear off.  I screened Watchmen early and was happily part of the hype surrounding the film (my review was even quoted elsewhere!).  I opted to change very little in transferring it over to my new blog.  Enjoy!

Every year, it seems like there are some films that are hyped so much that one either goes into the film feeling like there is nothing left for them to see of the actual movie or that the movie cannot possibly live up to the hype and greatness the viewer has been sold on. Last year, the film with perhaps the greatest amount of hype that managed to shatter the expectations of viewers and exceed the reputation preceding it was The Dark Knight. In a year when sequels seemed to be the vast majority of what is looming upon the silver screen, there were few truly original or unique pictures for most adult moviegoers to anticipate. Arguably the one I was most eager for was Watchmen. And for those who have not, well, there hardly seems like a better time to get psyched than now. Moreover, there are appropriate parallels between The Dark Knight and Watchmen not the least of which is that the first trailer for Watchmen made its debut before The Dark Knight the year prior. It is worth saying right out:

It was worth the wait.

For those who have been waiting for Watchmen to make a cinematic appearance worthy of the depth and complexity of the graphic novel, ever since the graphic novel was first compiled and published, this film rewards the patience of those readers. For those who have been waiting for a superhero film that is complex, gritty and actually has motifs and is adult more than just for violence or gratuitous nudity, Watchmen has been worth the wait. And for those with fears that the film cannot possibly live up to the publicity surrounding it, that there are no great American movies with stories waiting to be told . . .Watchmen arrives at the perfect moment to puncture such cynicism. As for my usual disclaimer before such films, it is worth noting that this is a review for the film Watchmen, not the graphic novel Watchmen (click here for my review!). For those looking for a literal translation to film of the graphic novel, Zack Snyder's Watchmen is not it, but it comes as close as a movie can for such a densely written comic book story. For those who know nothing of Watchmen, you're in for a cinematic treat unlike anything else!

The Comedian is dead, having been thrown out his apartment window and plunging hundreds of feet to the ground below. His death leads the vigilante, Rorschach, out of the shadows to launch an investigation. In this 1985, Rorschach may be one of the last vigilantes still in action as the Keane Act of the late '70's bans vigilante heroes from operating. With the death of the Comedian, one of Rorschach's associates from a short-lived vigilante group in the 1960s, Rorschach touches base with the other known former-vigilantes. Without Rorschach, a masked vigilante who never gave up his mask, the others, Dr. Manhattan, Adrian Veidt, and Dan Dreiberg put Blake (the Comedian's given name) to rest.

But Blake's murder stirs up conflict for Laurie Jupiter, whose mother - a vigilante in the late thirties - was once sexually assaulted by Blake. Laurie's distress over Blake's murder exacerbates the fissures in her relationship with the indestructible master of time and space, Dr. Manhattan. Confronted with allegations that his existence and nature might be toxic to human life, Dr. Manhattan flees Earth for some peace, abandoning Laurie, whose affections for the more simple Dan begin to blossom.

But with the murder of the Comedian, an attack on Veidt and the abandonment of Earth by Dr. Manhattan, paranoia about war with the Soviet Union begins to mount. When Rorschach is exposed and incarcerated, Dreiberg and Laurie suit up as Nite Owl and Silk Spectre to break him out, prevent war with the Soviet Union and prevent rioting in the streets of the U.S. while finding out who could have arranged all of the events that have put the world into such a sudden state of calamity where the apocalypse appears just moment away!

If it sounds like there is a lot going on in Watchmen, there is. The movie is packed with references to prior generations of (often masked) vigilante heroes whose main purpose has been to stop crime in the United States. Most of the film happens in 1985, though it is not quite the 1985 most people remember. Nixon is still president, serving his fourth term as his popularity skyrocketed after winning the Vietnam War through the use of Dr. Manhattan and warriors like Blake. Nixon's United States in 1985 is at a state of tense detente with the Soviet Union, arguably because of Dr. Manhattan.

Dr. Manhattan, it is worth explaining, is a floating blue man whose existence is the result of a scientific accident. Working on studying particles, physicist Jon Osterman was blown apart when he became trapped within an experimental device. Osterman did not die, though, and over the course of several months, his disparate molecules worked to find their way back to one another guided by his willpower and consciousness. He managed to reassemble himself into a more or less human form and since has been able to manipulate space and understand time, which he appears to see all moments at once, not just what is now. Instead, he knows the outcome of conversations he is having with Laurie before she reacts and he is able to teleport himself to Mars when things get bad for him.

Dr. Manhattan is the most fantastic element that Watchmen asks viewers to accept. Instead, the film is remarkably rooted in reality, albeit an alternate history. But even that makes sense. The Soviet Union feels they cannot attack the United States because they have no way of knowing if Dr. Manhattan can stop all the bombs or destroy them as well. There is an intricate psychology to the concepts portrayed in Watchmen, even surrounding Dr. Manhattan.

As for the rest of the characters, psychology plays a huge part in their decisions, from the abused boy who becomes Rorschach to Laurie feeling pressured by her mother to become a vigilante. Ozymandias (Veidt) seeks to use his staggering intelligence to solve social problems and Dreiberg sees taking up the mantle of the Nite Owl as away to fulfill himself. Even the Comedian, with his arrogance and brutish strength is constructed in a way that makes sense. The ultimate masculine persona, he struts around in a pretty minimal costume for much of his part in the film, as if nothing can harm him.

What separates Watchmen from virtually every other superhero type movie is that the characters are motivated by powerful internal drives and limited by their own psyches. This is not an army of Supermen, it is a collection of Batmen, most of whom are not as well funded. So, they do what they can. Dr. Manhattan might be all-powerful, but Rorschach certainly is not, nor are any of his associates. When Nite Owl and Silk Spectre don their costumes once more to try to save the incarcerated Rorschach, they are stuck using their old equipment.

And they are completely human. Laurie and Dan, in fact, connect because of their humanity as both share a deep loneliness. This is where the title to the movie throws so many people. Watchmen is presented as a title in such a way that it implies that "watch" is a verb and this is a film about those who watch over us. Instead, one interpretation is that "watch" here is more accurately the noun and that watches, traditionally made of tiny, intricate connections of gears that interact to create a whole, working instrument, act as a metaphor for the interactions of society and vigilantes. There are powerful machinations at work in Watchmen and they are the work of those who understand how the big picture fits together.

At this point, one might suspect that Watchmen is a terribly tedious and boring film, whatwith needing to understand an alternate timeline, having histories of characters who are killed so early in the film one wonders why the storyteller bothered and portraying a complex conspiracy that makes one's head hurt just to consider it, but nothing could be further from the truth. Despite the running time of 163 minutes (and just over three hours in the newer Director's Cut!), Watchmen is remarkably tight, providing viewers with information at a decent pace, but not one that is so stifling the viewer cannot keep up. In fact, watching Watchmen becomes fun almost instantaneously.

The reason there is no word to describe Watchmen's look and pacing other than "fun" is because the movie easily reawakens in the viewer a strong sense of the simple joy a great movie can bring to a viewer. Rorschach appears using a grappling gun and he leaps about through the rain and glass and he is just plain cool. When he begins to interrogate suspects, he is instantly dangerous and frightening. Conversely, in the scenes where characters express love, there is a real sense of passion and artistry.

All of the visual aspects come together perfectly as a result of director Zack Snyder. Snyder, perhaps best known for his film 300, utilizes many of the same elements in Watchmen. Fight sequences speed up, people leaping slow down, the moment before a blast goes off there is that imperceptible drag and then all of the fury rips forth. Snyder uses the speed of movement to help tell the story, move the film along and highlight the simple majesty of the motion picture.

However, it is essential to understand that this film is a hard "R." It IS violent, disturbing, and at the same time, complex and horrifying. There are long stretches of conversations broken up by intense fights or scenes literally dripping with gore. Despite the quality of the movie, it is not easy to watch in many spots.

But none of this is gratuitous. The plot progresses with each frame of the film and the reason for this is largely that the characters on screen - and off it! - are moving everything. Despite Rorschach, Laurie and Dan reasoning out the mindset and machinations of the one behind the events that are putting the U.S. and U.S.S.R. on the verge of nuclear war, the movie is not bogged down in excessive exposition. Instead, as relevant details about the past or characters comes to light, flashbacks begin to show the story instead of having a character drone the story. In other words, Watchmen uses the film medium exactly as it ought to; showing the story instead of putting people on screen to tell it.

In this way, director Zack Snyder and the screenwriters (and the writers of the original graphic novel) make a movie smart enough where viewers have to piece the mystery together and figure it out using the plot and character clues given. The true genius of the film Watchmen is that it does not abandon the complex psychology of the original book. Instead, all of the primary characters have their own motivation and that struggle to overcome or accept their pasts is presented in a very real way. So, despite the fact that Rorschach appears to be a crazed fanatic clinging to a life of absolutes, his violence to stop thugs and his inability to give up the mask makes perfect sense. Rorschach was damaged early in life and while Laurie resented being a vigilante and Veidt had plenty of other ways to apply his genius, Rorschach's only coping mechanism was . . . to be Rorschach.

It is a rare thing that a film asks the viewer to consider how important the motivation of the characters and their early development is to who they are in the present, but Watchmen continually does that. Fortunately for viewers, it is unrelenting in that aspect. In other words, as the film goes on, writers David Hayter and Alex Tse do not assume the viewer has been presented with too much information and they continue to present more. The movie never stops being smart and as a result, most viewers will feel the need to see the movie twice.

The advantage of all of the factors working in Watchmen's favor is that it is worth seeing on the big screen twice (I saw it twice on the big screen, once in IMAX and I keep wishing I could see the "Director's Cut" that way now!). In addition to having amazing special effects with great fight sequences and cool devices, a plot that is engaging enough to find more in upon multiple viewings and interesting characters, Watchmen has acting that puts virtually every other superhero movie to shame. There are no big names in Watchmen and the result is that each of the primary and secondary actors carries the same weight on screen. Outside the visual effect of Dr. Manhattan glowing blue and the Silk Spectre's outfit being a classy sexy vinyl number, it is the people who dominate the screen for how they act.

Patrick Wilson, for example, plays Dreiberg and his challenge is to be a nervous man whose best days are arguably behind him while still presenting the concept that this is a man who could reasonably be an armored vigilante willing to take to the skies and streets at night to protect society. Wilson has the former down with his posture and nervous hand movements throughout every early scene he is in as Dreiberg. But Wilson infuses a dignity and strength into the delivery of his lines that insinuates that Dreiberg has what it takes to be a vigilante hero and it is the subtle intelligence with which he delivers his lines that makes Nite Owl not only plausible, but utterly believable.

Jeffrey Dean Morgan is not a Robert Downey Jr. impersonator as Edward Blake (or the Comedian), instantly overcoming any physical resemblance to the well-known actor. Similarly, Billy Crudup overcomes the make-up needed to make him into Dr. Manhattan to genuinely emote and carry all of his scenes in a way that the glowing blue would seem to defy. And Matthew Goode talks like he could be the smartest man on Earth as Veidt.

Still, the movie hinges most on the performances of Jackie Earle Haley and Malin Akerman. Haley plays Rorschach and he captivates the audience with his wonderful sense of fluid movement as he stalks his way through the early scenes in Watchmen. His voice similarly emotes and captivates in a way that he cannot otherwise do, considering he wears a full mask. Haley uses his voice to create the unrelenting and somewhat crazy character who moves much of the film. And when the mask comes off, Haley says more with his eyes in a single frame than most actors do in an entire movie.

But the pleasant surprise is how captivating Malin Akerman is. Akerman has Hollywood beauty that won't quit, but she quickly establishes in her performance that she is the heart of Watchmen. Akerman plays Laurie with the most extreme emotional range, portraying anger when Blake is killed and she has to consider his crimes against her mother, loneliness in dealing with Dr. Manhattan who has evolved to a point he clearly no longer understands her to plaintive when begging him to save Earth. Akerman is brilliant portraying all of those moods (and more) with conviction. She rules every moment she is on the screen and she makes her character's journey from resentful to triumphant real.

More than anything else, that's what Watchmen is; it is real. Watchmen is a chance to escape into an alternate world that is completely convincing and wonderful in ways that too few films take the time to create and then develop. Zack Snyder does with Watchmen and it is the amazing cinematic achievement we have been waiting for . . . since, well, The Dark Knight!

On DVD and Blu-Ray, Watchmen hit the market with a beautiful sound and visual transfer that looks amazing on HD televisions. There are a slew of featurettes included, as well as a full-length commentary track of the film with the director. As well, there is a director's cut which re-inserts deleted scenes back into the feature, making for a more complete film. "The Director's Cut" is just as perfect as the original was and fleshes out the "universe" quite nicely.

For other epic films, please check out my reviews of:
Inception
The Empire Strikes Back
Dark City

10/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my index page!

© 2010, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |