Note: This review was originally posted on a message board forum. I am reposting it here for archival purposes. It has been backdated to the date of its original posting.
Wow. What a film. You know, for the reputation it gets, I thought it was quite good. Caligula is, obviously, a dramatized depiction of the rule of the infamous Roman emperor Caligula, and the story is a great demonstration of the way that absolute power corrupts absolutely, with the added twist of insanity. A lot of the film seems to embrace absurdism and pure hedonism, but at its heart it's the tale of a man who became God - or so he thought.
I think it's a great story, and the rampant deviance and sexuality is quite refreshing. In fact, the movie opens with the title card "Pagan Rome", and it goes all out in depicting the popular image of pagan "debauchery". Public orgies, rape, incest, hints of bestiality ("take my horse to his own bed")...it's got everything. In fact, you may have heard the controversy over the porn scenes spliced into the movie. There are, indeed, a couple places where the sexuality goes way beyond what's necessary. You can clearly tell, in these instances, that the sex is changing from either plot-driven or atmosphere-generating (both used extensively throughout the film), to a point where it's just shameless pornography. And, despite what reputation I may have for what I like to see in a movie, I thought the film would have been much better off without those particular scenes. I have no problem whatsoever with the sex being there, it's just that in those cases it becomes the emphasis, and goes from "interesting movie sex between characters" to "cheap porn sex between extras".
So yeah, I don't want to give off the wrong idea, because I'm thumbs up on most of the sex in the movie. It's just those couple instances where it just goes too far, and it takes away from the movie itself. Which, minus those porn parts, I feel is a really strong and enjoyable movie. Great characters. Caligula's sister was hot. I'm kind of disappointed they didn't end up getting married. "And now for Caesar's wedding gift!" Boy, Caligula totally went insane. Anybody fancy a game of "Almighty Caesar says..."?
I'd love to be more liberal in my recommendation of this film, but the bottom line is, you're not gonna like it if you're offended or in any way dislike explicit violence and sexuality. But if that doesn't bother you, I'd like to take this opportunity to say that Caligula has an entertaining and epic story to tell underneath all that. Despite what you may have heard to the contrary.
"Give him enough rope, he'll hang us all."
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Last Tango In Paris (1972)
Note: This review was originally posted on a message board forum. I am reposting it here for archival purposes. It has been backdated to the date of its original posting.
Last Tango In Paris is a Bernardo Bertolucci classic, which received considerable controversy due to its depictions of "rough" sex. However, the film is notable in that, despite receiving an X rating (the then-equivalent of today's NC-17), it received an Oscar nomination (or two).
I commend Bernardo Bertolucci's lack of restraint in tackling issues of sexuality in his films (The Dreamers being a more recent example), in a more straightforward way compared to Hollywood, but not with the vulgar and soulless approach that pornography uses. Last Tango In Paris is a beautiful film, and its highlight is the intense character study, pulled off magnificently by Marlon Brando in the lead role. The subject of the film is the relationship between two complete strangers who bump into each other on a Paris street, and proceed to have a completely anonymous sexual relationship. It sounds pretty basic, I know, but the film is not just an excuse for the sex. The story is about these two people, who they are, and it explores the nature of their anonymous relationship - asking questions like, why is it so fulfilling to them?
The film itself is admittedly slow, there's not really much in the way of action, but that's just the type of film it is. There's some mystery in it that I found very intriguing - in the beginning these two characters are complete strangers, not just to each other, but to the viewer as well. And so, as you move through the film, these pieces of identity are thrown at you, and you have to piece together just who these people are, their motivations, etc. And it's pretty tragic, the details of this man's life.
Definitely an interesting film, but I felt it was lacking something, to really attach myself to it. And I think that something was the fact that, despite how intriguing Marlon Brando's character was, and even how cute the girl in the equation was, their relationship kind of confused me. I think I can generally understand the appeal of the anonymity of the whole situation, but the sex scenes were some of the least erotic I've ever seen - I mean, one of them, the infamous butter scene, was literally anal rape (it's not explicit, but it is uncomfortable). I mean, I guess I can't really understand why the girl kept coming back, and how she could have fallen for him...
Anyway, the movie ends kind of tragically, and hell, the character study was fascinating, and it's worth a watch for Marlon Brando's performance alone, I think. Of the Bertolucci films I've seen so far, though, I enjoyed The Dreamers much more.
Last Tango In Paris is a Bernardo Bertolucci classic, which received considerable controversy due to its depictions of "rough" sex. However, the film is notable in that, despite receiving an X rating (the then-equivalent of today's NC-17), it received an Oscar nomination (or two).
I commend Bernardo Bertolucci's lack of restraint in tackling issues of sexuality in his films (The Dreamers being a more recent example), in a more straightforward way compared to Hollywood, but not with the vulgar and soulless approach that pornography uses. Last Tango In Paris is a beautiful film, and its highlight is the intense character study, pulled off magnificently by Marlon Brando in the lead role. The subject of the film is the relationship between two complete strangers who bump into each other on a Paris street, and proceed to have a completely anonymous sexual relationship. It sounds pretty basic, I know, but the film is not just an excuse for the sex. The story is about these two people, who they are, and it explores the nature of their anonymous relationship - asking questions like, why is it so fulfilling to them?
The film itself is admittedly slow, there's not really much in the way of action, but that's just the type of film it is. There's some mystery in it that I found very intriguing - in the beginning these two characters are complete strangers, not just to each other, but to the viewer as well. And so, as you move through the film, these pieces of identity are thrown at you, and you have to piece together just who these people are, their motivations, etc. And it's pretty tragic, the details of this man's life.
Definitely an interesting film, but I felt it was lacking something, to really attach myself to it. And I think that something was the fact that, despite how intriguing Marlon Brando's character was, and even how cute the girl in the equation was, their relationship kind of confused me. I think I can generally understand the appeal of the anonymity of the whole situation, but the sex scenes were some of the least erotic I've ever seen - I mean, one of them, the infamous butter scene, was literally anal rape (it's not explicit, but it is uncomfortable). I mean, I guess I can't really understand why the girl kept coming back, and how she could have fallen for him...
Anyway, the movie ends kind of tragically, and hell, the character study was fascinating, and it's worth a watch for Marlon Brando's performance alone, I think. Of the Bertolucci films I've seen so far, though, I enjoyed The Dreamers much more.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Kids (1995)
Note: This review was originally posted on a message board forum. I am reposting it here for archival purposes. It has been backdated to the date of its original posting.
Having just watched Kids, I honestly can't decide if it's an exploitation film, or one of those cautionary tales they show you in Health class. Perhaps it's both. It's definitely an "AIDS scare" type of story, from the '90s. It's filmed in a rather voyeuristic fashion, following a day in the life of one particular teen, whose hobby just happens to be deflowering virgins, and he just happens to be HIV positive. Can't you just feel the drama unfolding, already? Kids depicts a rather depressing picture of urban youth, where the kids indulge in just about every sin your parents and teachers ever warned you about. But the most disturbing thing is, not the eight year olds smoking pot, the twelve year olds having sex, nor the fifteen year olds engaging in an E-influenced orgy, the teen gang beating an outsider to a bloody pulp, nor even the drunken rape, but the fact that, as sick as all of this is, it didn't feel to me so exaggerated that I didn't believe it could be real.
The characters are, with perhaps one or two exceptions, very unlikable (which I think is the point), and certainly not the kind of people I'd ever hang out with. However, I found the "fly on the wall" perspective and the "pseudo-documentary" style quite interesting, as I have some voyeuristic tendencies myself, but, while I found the film to be relatively enjoyable, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody else (particularly of more delicate sensibilities) were to consider it "trash". Because really, that's more or less the subject of the film.
Having just watched Kids, I honestly can't decide if it's an exploitation film, or one of those cautionary tales they show you in Health class. Perhaps it's both. It's definitely an "AIDS scare" type of story, from the '90s. It's filmed in a rather voyeuristic fashion, following a day in the life of one particular teen, whose hobby just happens to be deflowering virgins, and he just happens to be HIV positive. Can't you just feel the drama unfolding, already? Kids depicts a rather depressing picture of urban youth, where the kids indulge in just about every sin your parents and teachers ever warned you about. But the most disturbing thing is, not the eight year olds smoking pot, the twelve year olds having sex, nor the fifteen year olds engaging in an E-influenced orgy, the teen gang beating an outsider to a bloody pulp, nor even the drunken rape, but the fact that, as sick as all of this is, it didn't feel to me so exaggerated that I didn't believe it could be real.
The characters are, with perhaps one or two exceptions, very unlikable (which I think is the point), and certainly not the kind of people I'd ever hang out with. However, I found the "fly on the wall" perspective and the "pseudo-documentary" style quite interesting, as I have some voyeuristic tendencies myself, but, while I found the film to be relatively enjoyable, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody else (particularly of more delicate sensibilities) were to consider it "trash". Because really, that's more or less the subject of the film.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Ten Years After
Note: This collection of reviews was originally posted on a message board forum. I am reposting it here for archival purposes. It has been backdated to the date of its original posting.
I currently have Ten Years After on my playlist, so I decided to write up a "brief" review of their discography. This will cover all of their original albums (not including the recently released Fillmore concert from 1970), and nothing else (such as the 1980 comeback, or the new albums released by the reformed band minus Alvin Lee).
Ten Years After (1967)
There are some bands whose debut album features material that is as good as the band will ever release. There are other bands who have a chance to evolve and mature in the public eye. Ten Years After is the latter. Their self-titled debut is rough and spotty, and notable mostly in that the best tracks are light years behind their later live versions. Eric Clapton's influence is more and less obvious in the tracks Love Until I Die (which recycles the riff from Crossroads) and I Want To Know, as well as Spoonful (though I'm not sure how early Clapton/Cream was playing Spoonful, and it's possible the inspiration comes from The Paul Butterfield Blues Band's recording). The standout track is I Can't Keep From Crying Sometimes, an old blues newly arranged by Al Kooper (the version Ten Years After is covering here), which, here, is a paltry little thing, but like Dazed and Confused from Led Zeppelin's debut album, would eventually grow into a monster in their live set.
Highlights: I Can't Keep From Crying Sometimes, Help Me
Undead [Live] (1968)
It's rare for a band's sophomore release to be a live album, but Ten Years After were a special kind of band. They were one of (if not) the hardest touring bands of their time, and many say that they were at their best in the live arena. Still, on this album, the band is relatively young and inexperienced. You can tell that they are a group of incredibly talented musicians, but they haven't quite crafted their 'presence' yet. The live cut of I Can't Keep From Crying Sometimes is a vast improvement over the earlier studio version, but it hasn't quite reached critical mass yet; and neither has the guitar workout, I'm Going Home, featured here for the first time (interestingly, there's no studio version - but I doubt this particular track could be improved upon in the studio). Woodchopper's Ball is mandatory listening, as it and I May Be Wrong But I Won't Be Wrong Always feature a jazzier side of the band that took a backseat to the blues/rock concentration in later live shows.
Highlights: Spider In My Web, Woodchopper's Ball
Stonedhenge (1969)
My brother thinks very highly of this album, but I can't help seeing it as flawed. This was Ten Years After's "experimental" album, and is, structurally, similar to Yes' Fragile (though preceding it) in that the individual bandmembers take turns experimenting with their instruments, coming together on a handful of tracks. Unfortunately, though, in my opinion, the result is less successful than Fragile would be. However, there's still much to be heard on the album, including Hear Me Calling, which became a bit of a hit, and the excitingly unconventional No Title; and the album overall is a step forward from the debut.
Highlights: Hear Me Calling, No Title
Ssssh (1969)
This was Ten Years After's breakout album. On this album, you can begin to hear the band crafting that 'presence' I mentioned earlier. They're sounding increasingly comfortable and confident, and in the case of the standout tracks, they're beginning to be able to record cuts in the studio that aren't immediately overshadowed by the songs' live counterparts (not to say that they're necessarily better, though).
Highlights: Good Morning Little Schoolgirl, I Woke Up This Morning
Cricklewood Green (1970)
This is Ten Years After's early masterpiece, and my second favorite of their studio albums. There isn't a track on this album that I don't love (well, okay, Year 3,000 Blues is kind of iffy), and the highlights are both songs that I myself have performed live - so that should tell you something.
Highlights: 50,000 Miles Beneath My Brain, Love Like A Man
Watt (1970)
Watt is sort of the lull between two standout albums, and while not as good as its chronological neighbors, it's still a polished and consistent album, with maybe a bit more of a focus on whimsy and jazz than the straight up rock/blues that, in my opinion, lifts their other albums up. The band's Chuck Berry influence comes to the fore in the album's closing track, a live cut of Sweet Little Sixteen from the Isle of Wight concert.
Highlights: I'm Coming On, Think About The Times
A Space In Time (1971)
This is the album that everybody remembers (provided they remember Ten Years After at all), thanks to the radio hit I'd Love To Change The World (the band's only lasting hit, with the one possible exception of the immortalized live version of I'm Going Home from Woodstock, which, due to its length, is somewhat less radio-friendly), which is actually far from the band's greatest recording (go figure). The rest of the album is very good, too, but contrary to its popularity, I've never liked it quite as much as the superior Cricklewood Green. Overall I think it's a bit more mellow, which might appeal to some, but leaves me wanting something a bit heavier. It's got my favorite album art out of the band's discography, though.
Highlights: One Of These Days, I'd Love To Change The World
Alvin Lee & Company (1972)
By this point, we're approaching the tail end of the band's remarkable run, and yet, two of their greatest albums are still to come. This is not one of them. Alvin Lee & Company is a retrospective compilation of singles and rarities from the band's catalog. A number of live tracks from the Undead album are presented in single form (a.k.a. chopped to pieces), including the bizarre single version of I'm Going Home, which runs for three and a half minutes and completely ruins the spirit of the song. Some of the singles are interesting, especially The Sounds, and the jammy Boogie On is also worth hearing. If you're lucky, you might be able to collect everything on this album that's worth owning as bonus tracks on remastered versions of the previous albums.
Highlights: The Sounds, Boogie On
Rock & Roll Music To The World (1972)
This album is Ten Years After's mature masterpiece, and my favorite of their studio albums. The standouts are slightly less straightforward than those on Cricklewood Green, my other favorite album, but are instead deeper and more complex. I could have easily listed at least half the album as highlights. The title track itself is a fairly simple rocker, but is an impressively compact musical statement of just what rocks about rock n roll, while also being a nod to the rock of the fifties, as is also Choo Choo Mama. Standing At The Station and Religion are both developed and interesting pieces worth hearing. I highly recommend this album.
Highlights: You Give Me Loving, Turned Off T.V. Blues
Recorded Live (1973)
If you want to know what Ten Years After was, this is the album to listen to. Blowing the premature Undead out of the water, this is Ten Years After live, at their finest. I Can't Keep From Crying Sometimes has matured into an otherworldly 16 minute space jam; I'm Going Home, which reached maturity by the time the band performed at Woodstock, is still as fast and ferocious as ever; and Help Me replaces the tentativeness of the studio version with a fevered intensity. Slow Blues In 'C' is another good blues (not represented in any other form in the band's catalog), and the jam/rockers (One Of These Days, You Give Me Loving, and Good Morning Little Schoolgirl) sound fantastic, with Alvin Lee going at it with all the skill that earned him the nickname of "Fastest Fingers In The West" (or some variation).
Highlights: Help Me, I Can't Keep From Crying Sometimes, I'm Going Home
Positive Vibrations (1974)
And, after cementing their live legacy, the band goes out with one last album, before dissipating. Alvin Lee wasn't finished with music however, as he continued to perform and record over the decades with various outfits. Ten Years After's final album, like Watt, is not on par with their greatest, but is consistent and offers some interesting tracks worth hearing, like the opener, Nowhere To Run, the mellow feel-good title track, and the rocking Going Back To Birmingham. The rest of the album contains a number of funky/jazzy grooves.
Highlights: Nowhere To Run
I currently have Ten Years After on my playlist, so I decided to write up a "brief" review of their discography. This will cover all of their original albums (not including the recently released Fillmore concert from 1970), and nothing else (such as the 1980 comeback, or the new albums released by the reformed band minus Alvin Lee).
Ten Years After (1967)
There are some bands whose debut album features material that is as good as the band will ever release. There are other bands who have a chance to evolve and mature in the public eye. Ten Years After is the latter. Their self-titled debut is rough and spotty, and notable mostly in that the best tracks are light years behind their later live versions. Eric Clapton's influence is more and less obvious in the tracks Love Until I Die (which recycles the riff from Crossroads) and I Want To Know, as well as Spoonful (though I'm not sure how early Clapton/Cream was playing Spoonful, and it's possible the inspiration comes from The Paul Butterfield Blues Band's recording). The standout track is I Can't Keep From Crying Sometimes, an old blues newly arranged by Al Kooper (the version Ten Years After is covering here), which, here, is a paltry little thing, but like Dazed and Confused from Led Zeppelin's debut album, would eventually grow into a monster in their live set.
Highlights: I Can't Keep From Crying Sometimes, Help Me
Undead [Live] (1968)
It's rare for a band's sophomore release to be a live album, but Ten Years After were a special kind of band. They were one of (if not) the hardest touring bands of their time, and many say that they were at their best in the live arena. Still, on this album, the band is relatively young and inexperienced. You can tell that they are a group of incredibly talented musicians, but they haven't quite crafted their 'presence' yet. The live cut of I Can't Keep From Crying Sometimes is a vast improvement over the earlier studio version, but it hasn't quite reached critical mass yet; and neither has the guitar workout, I'm Going Home, featured here for the first time (interestingly, there's no studio version - but I doubt this particular track could be improved upon in the studio). Woodchopper's Ball is mandatory listening, as it and I May Be Wrong But I Won't Be Wrong Always feature a jazzier side of the band that took a backseat to the blues/rock concentration in later live shows.
Highlights: Spider In My Web, Woodchopper's Ball
Stonedhenge (1969)
My brother thinks very highly of this album, but I can't help seeing it as flawed. This was Ten Years After's "experimental" album, and is, structurally, similar to Yes' Fragile (though preceding it) in that the individual bandmembers take turns experimenting with their instruments, coming together on a handful of tracks. Unfortunately, though, in my opinion, the result is less successful than Fragile would be. However, there's still much to be heard on the album, including Hear Me Calling, which became a bit of a hit, and the excitingly unconventional No Title; and the album overall is a step forward from the debut.
Highlights: Hear Me Calling, No Title
Ssssh (1969)
This was Ten Years After's breakout album. On this album, you can begin to hear the band crafting that 'presence' I mentioned earlier. They're sounding increasingly comfortable and confident, and in the case of the standout tracks, they're beginning to be able to record cuts in the studio that aren't immediately overshadowed by the songs' live counterparts (not to say that they're necessarily better, though).
Highlights: Good Morning Little Schoolgirl, I Woke Up This Morning
Cricklewood Green (1970)
This is Ten Years After's early masterpiece, and my second favorite of their studio albums. There isn't a track on this album that I don't love (well, okay, Year 3,000 Blues is kind of iffy), and the highlights are both songs that I myself have performed live - so that should tell you something.
Highlights: 50,000 Miles Beneath My Brain, Love Like A Man
Watt (1970)
Watt is sort of the lull between two standout albums, and while not as good as its chronological neighbors, it's still a polished and consistent album, with maybe a bit more of a focus on whimsy and jazz than the straight up rock/blues that, in my opinion, lifts their other albums up. The band's Chuck Berry influence comes to the fore in the album's closing track, a live cut of Sweet Little Sixteen from the Isle of Wight concert.
Highlights: I'm Coming On, Think About The Times
A Space In Time (1971)
This is the album that everybody remembers (provided they remember Ten Years After at all), thanks to the radio hit I'd Love To Change The World (the band's only lasting hit, with the one possible exception of the immortalized live version of I'm Going Home from Woodstock, which, due to its length, is somewhat less radio-friendly), which is actually far from the band's greatest recording (go figure). The rest of the album is very good, too, but contrary to its popularity, I've never liked it quite as much as the superior Cricklewood Green. Overall I think it's a bit more mellow, which might appeal to some, but leaves me wanting something a bit heavier. It's got my favorite album art out of the band's discography, though.
Highlights: One Of These Days, I'd Love To Change The World
Alvin Lee & Company (1972)
By this point, we're approaching the tail end of the band's remarkable run, and yet, two of their greatest albums are still to come. This is not one of them. Alvin Lee & Company is a retrospective compilation of singles and rarities from the band's catalog. A number of live tracks from the Undead album are presented in single form (a.k.a. chopped to pieces), including the bizarre single version of I'm Going Home, which runs for three and a half minutes and completely ruins the spirit of the song. Some of the singles are interesting, especially The Sounds, and the jammy Boogie On is also worth hearing. If you're lucky, you might be able to collect everything on this album that's worth owning as bonus tracks on remastered versions of the previous albums.
Highlights: The Sounds, Boogie On
Rock & Roll Music To The World (1972)
This album is Ten Years After's mature masterpiece, and my favorite of their studio albums. The standouts are slightly less straightforward than those on Cricklewood Green, my other favorite album, but are instead deeper and more complex. I could have easily listed at least half the album as highlights. The title track itself is a fairly simple rocker, but is an impressively compact musical statement of just what rocks about rock n roll, while also being a nod to the rock of the fifties, as is also Choo Choo Mama. Standing At The Station and Religion are both developed and interesting pieces worth hearing. I highly recommend this album.
Highlights: You Give Me Loving, Turned Off T.V. Blues
Recorded Live (1973)
If you want to know what Ten Years After was, this is the album to listen to. Blowing the premature Undead out of the water, this is Ten Years After live, at their finest. I Can't Keep From Crying Sometimes has matured into an otherworldly 16 minute space jam; I'm Going Home, which reached maturity by the time the band performed at Woodstock, is still as fast and ferocious as ever; and Help Me replaces the tentativeness of the studio version with a fevered intensity. Slow Blues In 'C' is another good blues (not represented in any other form in the band's catalog), and the jam/rockers (One Of These Days, You Give Me Loving, and Good Morning Little Schoolgirl) sound fantastic, with Alvin Lee going at it with all the skill that earned him the nickname of "Fastest Fingers In The West" (or some variation).
Highlights: Help Me, I Can't Keep From Crying Sometimes, I'm Going Home
Positive Vibrations (1974)
And, after cementing their live legacy, the band goes out with one last album, before dissipating. Alvin Lee wasn't finished with music however, as he continued to perform and record over the decades with various outfits. Ten Years After's final album, like Watt, is not on par with their greatest, but is consistent and offers some interesting tracks worth hearing, like the opener, Nowhere To Run, the mellow feel-good title track, and the rocking Going Back To Birmingham. The rest of the album contains a number of funky/jazzy grooves.
Highlights: Nowhere To Run
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Watchmen (2009)
Note: This review was originally posted on a message board forum. I am reposting it here for archival purposes. It has been backdated to the date of its original posting.
Watchmen: The Movie
Was it good? Yes, it was great. Was it as good as the graphic novel? Unsurprisingly no, but that's a compliment to the graphic novel, and not a complaint about the movie. In fact, considering the quality of the source material, the complexity and subtlety of its brilliance, and the differences between the media, creating a satisfactory movie adaptation of a story like Watchmen is quite an accomplishment. And I do consider it accomplished.
Casting was effective. I think the characters were portrayed quite well, Rorschach being no exception (totally bad-ass - he's got to be my favorite character). I think Patrick Wilson was a good match for the second Nite Owl - even though I couldn't shake off my interpretation of him as "the guy" from Hard Candy. Which is sort of an odd juxtaposition. But that's my problem, not the movie's problem.
Special effects were spared no expense, and though some of them seemed a little gratuitous, you have to admit this is the sort of thing a lot of people like to see. Besides, the action was great.
I think the one thing about the movie that I liked the most is that it was a hard R. Heavy violence, sexual themes, even some nudity. And considering the maturity of the source material, I wouldn't have been satisfied otherwise. I was pleased at the approach they took.
Some specific things:
BEGIN SPOILERS
The Comedian's death early on was drawn out into quite a battle. It was impressive, though I'm not entirely sure what it added to the story overall. Aside from another good action scene, of course.
When Doc Manhattan goes to Mars, and has his little soliloquy, explaining his past, while exposing us to his unique perception of time (or what humans experience as time), I thought it wasn't nearly as effective as it was in the graphic novel. It's a complex scene, though, so I'm not holding any grudges.
The ending was slightly different from the graphic novel, though not as much as one might have you believe. It's just that instead of an interdimensional alien invasion, it was a bunch of experimental reactors exploding, with the blame being placed on Doc Manhattan. Some people seem to say the movie ending makes more sense, but the alien invasion ending is so much cooler (plus, it makes for a better practical "joke"). Still, it didn't ruin the movie for me that there was no interdimensional alien at the end.
None of the female roles in this story really stand out for me, but I have to say, when the Silk Spectre (young generation) got back into her uniform and started kicking ass, she was pretty sweet. And the steamy scene in the "owl chopper", while she still had her boots on (but nothing else)...
END SPOILERS
When the movie opened, and went into the opening montage of history clips, I was a little concerned, because I was thinking about how complex the story is, seeing all the events flashing by, and I was wondering if the movie would be able to successfully get the depth of the story across. And, considering the limitations of the medium, I think they did a fine job.
Anyway, great movie, and I highly recommend it. As a superhero movie, and as a comic book movie, it's not anything like a superhero movie or a comic book movie, and that's one of its greatest strengths. It stands out from the pack. And in a good way. Considering all the hype around this project, and the acclaim the original story has gotten, I could see how this could easily have been a disaster, but I must say, I think it turned out well. So don't miss your chance to see it!
Some notes on the two Watchmen-related specials:
Under The Hood
In the graphic novel, we are treated to excerpts from Hollis Mason's (the original Nite Owl) autobiography, Under The Hood, which offers us insight into the earlier generation of Masked Heroes - the Minutemen - that preceded the current Watchmen in the story. This addendum to the movie plays out in the form of a television interview (complete with commercials, including one for Veidt's "Nostalgia") with Hollis Mason, as he discusses much of the stuff covered in the autobiography. Much of the earlier generation stuff seems to have been glossed over in the Watchmen movie, and this featurette makes up for it, adding that perspective back in. Some side characters get a little extra screen time, as well, including the newsstand owner, who gets to say his catch phrase, "in the final analysis". Under The Hood hardly stands on its own, but it's an amusing and informative addition to the Watchmen experience.
Tales of the Black Freighter
Tales of the Black Freighter, on the other hand, not only stands on its own, but in my opinion, is at least as good as Watchmen itself, if not even better (and it only clocks in at 25 minutes). In the graphic novel, there's a series of scenes around the street corner newsstand, where a hanger-on kid reads a pirate comic, that we get to experience in pieces here and there. The story is incredibly dark and poetic, and honestly, it was my favorite part of the whole Watchmen experience. It's kind of separate from the rest of Watchmen, though, so it's no surprise it wasn't included in the movie - yet, I'm really really happy that they decided to animate it as an extra. And I won't say much, since there's no point in describing the story when you can just read (well, watch) it for yourself, except this - the animated version is unquestionably a success. Four thumbs up (the other two borrowed from a dead shipmate).
Watchmen: The Movie
Was it good? Yes, it was great. Was it as good as the graphic novel? Unsurprisingly no, but that's a compliment to the graphic novel, and not a complaint about the movie. In fact, considering the quality of the source material, the complexity and subtlety of its brilliance, and the differences between the media, creating a satisfactory movie adaptation of a story like Watchmen is quite an accomplishment. And I do consider it accomplished.
Casting was effective. I think the characters were portrayed quite well, Rorschach being no exception (totally bad-ass - he's got to be my favorite character). I think Patrick Wilson was a good match for the second Nite Owl - even though I couldn't shake off my interpretation of him as "the guy" from Hard Candy. Which is sort of an odd juxtaposition. But that's my problem, not the movie's problem.
Special effects were spared no expense, and though some of them seemed a little gratuitous, you have to admit this is the sort of thing a lot of people like to see. Besides, the action was great.
I think the one thing about the movie that I liked the most is that it was a hard R. Heavy violence, sexual themes, even some nudity. And considering the maturity of the source material, I wouldn't have been satisfied otherwise. I was pleased at the approach they took.
Some specific things:
BEGIN SPOILERS
The Comedian's death early on was drawn out into quite a battle. It was impressive, though I'm not entirely sure what it added to the story overall. Aside from another good action scene, of course.
When Doc Manhattan goes to Mars, and has his little soliloquy, explaining his past, while exposing us to his unique perception of time (or what humans experience as time), I thought it wasn't nearly as effective as it was in the graphic novel. It's a complex scene, though, so I'm not holding any grudges.
The ending was slightly different from the graphic novel, though not as much as one might have you believe. It's just that instead of an interdimensional alien invasion, it was a bunch of experimental reactors exploding, with the blame being placed on Doc Manhattan. Some people seem to say the movie ending makes more sense, but the alien invasion ending is so much cooler (plus, it makes for a better practical "joke"). Still, it didn't ruin the movie for me that there was no interdimensional alien at the end.
None of the female roles in this story really stand out for me, but I have to say, when the Silk Spectre (young generation) got back into her uniform and started kicking ass, she was pretty sweet. And the steamy scene in the "owl chopper", while she still had her boots on (but nothing else)...
END SPOILERS
When the movie opened, and went into the opening montage of history clips, I was a little concerned, because I was thinking about how complex the story is, seeing all the events flashing by, and I was wondering if the movie would be able to successfully get the depth of the story across. And, considering the limitations of the medium, I think they did a fine job.
Anyway, great movie, and I highly recommend it. As a superhero movie, and as a comic book movie, it's not anything like a superhero movie or a comic book movie, and that's one of its greatest strengths. It stands out from the pack. And in a good way. Considering all the hype around this project, and the acclaim the original story has gotten, I could see how this could easily have been a disaster, but I must say, I think it turned out well. So don't miss your chance to see it!
Some notes on the two Watchmen-related specials:
Under The Hood
In the graphic novel, we are treated to excerpts from Hollis Mason's (the original Nite Owl) autobiography, Under The Hood, which offers us insight into the earlier generation of Masked Heroes - the Minutemen - that preceded the current Watchmen in the story. This addendum to the movie plays out in the form of a television interview (complete with commercials, including one for Veidt's "Nostalgia") with Hollis Mason, as he discusses much of the stuff covered in the autobiography. Much of the earlier generation stuff seems to have been glossed over in the Watchmen movie, and this featurette makes up for it, adding that perspective back in. Some side characters get a little extra screen time, as well, including the newsstand owner, who gets to say his catch phrase, "in the final analysis". Under The Hood hardly stands on its own, but it's an amusing and informative addition to the Watchmen experience.
Tales of the Black Freighter
Tales of the Black Freighter, on the other hand, not only stands on its own, but in my opinion, is at least as good as Watchmen itself, if not even better (and it only clocks in at 25 minutes). In the graphic novel, there's a series of scenes around the street corner newsstand, where a hanger-on kid reads a pirate comic, that we get to experience in pieces here and there. The story is incredibly dark and poetic, and honestly, it was my favorite part of the whole Watchmen experience. It's kind of separate from the rest of Watchmen, though, so it's no surprise it wasn't included in the movie - yet, I'm really really happy that they decided to animate it as an extra. And I won't say much, since there's no point in describing the story when you can just read (well, watch) it for yourself, except this - the animated version is unquestionably a success. Four thumbs up (the other two borrowed from a dead shipmate).
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Gary Moore - Live At Montreux (1990)
Note: This review was originally posted on Bridge To Better Days. I am reposting it here for archival purposes. It has been backdated to the date of its original posting.
I asked for, and got, a Gary Moore concert DVD for Christmas, which I just got around to watching the other night (which is just as well, as it gave me a good electric blues performance to watch on my birthday). This is the first Gary Moore item I own, although since watching the DVD, I have put a few of his albums on my "want" list.
I believe I was first introduced to Gary Moore through my classic rock message board forum of choice (not a big surprise). I know him best as the guy who inherited Peter Green's old guitar. And not only does he own it, but he plays it. And he's a real Peter Green fan - he even recorded an album of covers in tribute (one of the albums I added to my list). He was around back in the '70s, and had some connection with Peter Green, I think. Pretty sure he played with the band Thin Lizzy at some point. Had some solo success, and then in 1990 he released Still Got The Blues, which is kind of his blues revival akin to Eric Clapton's From The Cradle.
The DVD I got is the live performance in 1990 from the Montreux "Jazz" Festival, by Gary Moore and the Midnight Blues Band. More or less, it's Still Got The Blues in a live concert format. And it's very good.
Gary Moore can play the blues convincingly, and yet, he's also quite the shredder. If you're curious about what "blues shredding" must sound like, just listen to Gary play one of the many old blues tunes on this disc. He's incredibly talented, and he does a good job of imitating other players. For example, the Peter Green covers he does really do manage to capture that Peter Green sound, just with a little shreddy flair over top in parts. And Gary does an impressive cover of Roy Buchanan's The Messiah Will Come Again at the close of this concert. Just doing the song itself is an amazing thing, but he actually plays it convincingly. I wouldn't say these covers are better than the originals, but they're very good, and certainly worth listening to (especially if you could hear them live in person) - and part of that is a testament to Gary's taste, and the sheer quality of the artists he's so moved to cover.
And despite the blues being all about covers, two of the songs that stood out to me were what I presume are Gary originals - or at least had more of an original sound to them than the majority of blues standards he played. Midnight Blues is a good song, very soulful, and the title track from the album, Still Got The Blues, is an incredible song in its own right. Simple, but oh so powerful. "So long, so long ago, but I've still got the blues for you." I even got a little teary-eyed during the song. Another of Gary's tricks, perhaps even contrary to his shredding, is the sustain he can get, holding certain notes for extended periods of time - something I've always admired in a guitar player.
Albert Collins guests on a couple songs. It's quite illuminating watching Collins and Moore play together on stage. You've got the old watch going up against the new blood. Naturally, Collins plays with less notes and more soul, but you can't deny Moore's proficiency with his instrument. You have to wonder how a guy like Collins must feel on stage at a time like that. To his credit, he's a revered legend, but I can imagine myself in his position. "Yeah, I've got soul and a strong reputation, but this guy can just play circles around me, how in the hell am I supposed to save face?" And yet, I think he manages to do a pretty good job. He's also a bit of a showman, which helps - I actually read that he used to do the "walk into the crowd while playing a solo" trick that I've seen Buddy Guy do, and that one time, he actually walked out of the venue, went down a block, ordered a pizza, and came back to the stage, all while playing a guitar solo - followed by the pizza guy showing up to the stage with the pizza he ordered at the end of the song. Yeah.
Anyway, Collins does one of his own songs - Cold Cold Feeling - which really struck a chord with me. Sounds somewhat Jimmy Dawkins-esque, and I've been downright crazy about Jimmy Dawkins lately (within my bluesphere). At any rate, I've put an Albert Collins album on my "want" list, too. He's another of the classic bluesmen I've heard a lot of praise for, but hadn't been properly introduced to. I'm excited to hear more.
Before we leave the Collins "thread", another comparison we can make between him and Gary Moore is in singing ability. Gary's a pretty good singer for his material, fairly melodic, but compared to Collin's bluesy growl...well, there is no comparison. Sorry, Gary. Of course, Gary's a "prettier" singer, but lemme tell ya boy, one thing the blues ain't, is pretty.
So what have I got left to say? Gary also does some Billy Gibbons (of ZZ Top) and Stevie Ray Vaughan impressions (on guitar, of course). I've enjoyed listening to Gary Moore, and he puts on a great show. I recommend blues fans interested in what I've described here to check him out. I'm not about to put him in my list of top favorite guitarists - maybe if he had a bit more soul and less shredding - but his talent is impressive, and I have no hesitation in putting him on my 'good' list. I wonder if he tours around here - I got the impression he was never as big in the US. By the way, he's an Irishman, just for the sake of curiosity.
Gee, I wasn't sure if I'd have enough for a book report. And now I feel like I'm back in elementary school...
I asked for, and got, a Gary Moore concert DVD for Christmas, which I just got around to watching the other night (which is just as well, as it gave me a good electric blues performance to watch on my birthday). This is the first Gary Moore item I own, although since watching the DVD, I have put a few of his albums on my "want" list.
I believe I was first introduced to Gary Moore through my classic rock message board forum of choice (not a big surprise). I know him best as the guy who inherited Peter Green's old guitar. And not only does he own it, but he plays it. And he's a real Peter Green fan - he even recorded an album of covers in tribute (one of the albums I added to my list). He was around back in the '70s, and had some connection with Peter Green, I think. Pretty sure he played with the band Thin Lizzy at some point. Had some solo success, and then in 1990 he released Still Got The Blues, which is kind of his blues revival akin to Eric Clapton's From The Cradle.
The DVD I got is the live performance in 1990 from the Montreux "Jazz" Festival, by Gary Moore and the Midnight Blues Band. More or less, it's Still Got The Blues in a live concert format. And it's very good.
Gary Moore can play the blues convincingly, and yet, he's also quite the shredder. If you're curious about what "blues shredding" must sound like, just listen to Gary play one of the many old blues tunes on this disc. He's incredibly talented, and he does a good job of imitating other players. For example, the Peter Green covers he does really do manage to capture that Peter Green sound, just with a little shreddy flair over top in parts. And Gary does an impressive cover of Roy Buchanan's The Messiah Will Come Again at the close of this concert. Just doing the song itself is an amazing thing, but he actually plays it convincingly. I wouldn't say these covers are better than the originals, but they're very good, and certainly worth listening to (especially if you could hear them live in person) - and part of that is a testament to Gary's taste, and the sheer quality of the artists he's so moved to cover.
And despite the blues being all about covers, two of the songs that stood out to me were what I presume are Gary originals - or at least had more of an original sound to them than the majority of blues standards he played. Midnight Blues is a good song, very soulful, and the title track from the album, Still Got The Blues, is an incredible song in its own right. Simple, but oh so powerful. "So long, so long ago, but I've still got the blues for you." I even got a little teary-eyed during the song. Another of Gary's tricks, perhaps even contrary to his shredding, is the sustain he can get, holding certain notes for extended periods of time - something I've always admired in a guitar player.
Albert Collins guests on a couple songs. It's quite illuminating watching Collins and Moore play together on stage. You've got the old watch going up against the new blood. Naturally, Collins plays with less notes and more soul, but you can't deny Moore's proficiency with his instrument. You have to wonder how a guy like Collins must feel on stage at a time like that. To his credit, he's a revered legend, but I can imagine myself in his position. "Yeah, I've got soul and a strong reputation, but this guy can just play circles around me, how in the hell am I supposed to save face?" And yet, I think he manages to do a pretty good job. He's also a bit of a showman, which helps - I actually read that he used to do the "walk into the crowd while playing a solo" trick that I've seen Buddy Guy do, and that one time, he actually walked out of the venue, went down a block, ordered a pizza, and came back to the stage, all while playing a guitar solo - followed by the pizza guy showing up to the stage with the pizza he ordered at the end of the song. Yeah.
Anyway, Collins does one of his own songs - Cold Cold Feeling - which really struck a chord with me. Sounds somewhat Jimmy Dawkins-esque, and I've been downright crazy about Jimmy Dawkins lately (within my bluesphere). At any rate, I've put an Albert Collins album on my "want" list, too. He's another of the classic bluesmen I've heard a lot of praise for, but hadn't been properly introduced to. I'm excited to hear more.
Before we leave the Collins "thread", another comparison we can make between him and Gary Moore is in singing ability. Gary's a pretty good singer for his material, fairly melodic, but compared to Collin's bluesy growl...well, there is no comparison. Sorry, Gary. Of course, Gary's a "prettier" singer, but lemme tell ya boy, one thing the blues ain't, is pretty.
So what have I got left to say? Gary also does some Billy Gibbons (of ZZ Top) and Stevie Ray Vaughan impressions (on guitar, of course). I've enjoyed listening to Gary Moore, and he puts on a great show. I recommend blues fans interested in what I've described here to check him out. I'm not about to put him in my list of top favorite guitarists - maybe if he had a bit more soul and less shredding - but his talent is impressive, and I have no hesitation in putting him on my 'good' list. I wonder if he tours around here - I got the impression he was never as big in the US. By the way, he's an Irishman, just for the sake of curiosity.
Gee, I wasn't sure if I'd have enough for a book report. And now I feel like I'm back in elementary school...
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
The Butterfly Effect 3: Revelations (2009)
Note: This review is part of my coverage of Horrorfest III.
The Butterfly Effect 3: Revelations
This is Butterfly Effect with an urban flavor, and an extra helping of gore. I don't think it's anywhere near as effective as the first Butterfly Effect movie, though. The whole serial killer idea is interesting, but the execution is weak. When you make a film about time travel, there's gonna be a heapload of time paradoxes. You can either ignore them or piece them together for a clever story. In this movie, they seem to ignore a lot of them, and the ones they do use, which they use to drive the whole plot idea, don't seem to be explained or pieced together very well. I dunno, it feels like a good idea, but it just doesn't quite work out that well.
The best part of the plot is the idea of having the character who can time travel using his abilities to become a freelance psychic helping the police close cases by traveling back and observing various murders. He can't interfere, of course, because that would trip the butterfly effect and screw everything up. Which is bound to happen, or else there wouldn't be a movie. Well, the character in question gets pushed into going back to solve the mystery of a murder close to him - that of his once-girlfriend - and he inevitably screws things up. Back in the future (present?), he finds that not only was he unable to prevent the murder, but he also seems to have created a serial killer. Why he doesn't just stop there is beyond me, but he seems to have an iron will to keep screwing things up worse and worse, thinking that one of these times he's gonna manage to fix things.
And that's where things kind of fall apart. There's an interesting twist at the end - I knew the identity of the serial killer would turn out to be significant, but I was still surprised - but it's hardly worth the ride. Besides, "this is so Scooby Doo"? Not a convincing serial killer. There are some pretty emotional turns which serve to reinforce the whole "changing the past is dangerous" idea, but honestly, just watch the first Butterfly Effect movie. It's far more...effective.
The Butterfly Effect 3: Revelations
This is Butterfly Effect with an urban flavor, and an extra helping of gore. I don't think it's anywhere near as effective as the first Butterfly Effect movie, though. The whole serial killer idea is interesting, but the execution is weak. When you make a film about time travel, there's gonna be a heapload of time paradoxes. You can either ignore them or piece them together for a clever story. In this movie, they seem to ignore a lot of them, and the ones they do use, which they use to drive the whole plot idea, don't seem to be explained or pieced together very well. I dunno, it feels like a good idea, but it just doesn't quite work out that well.
The best part of the plot is the idea of having the character who can time travel using his abilities to become a freelance psychic helping the police close cases by traveling back and observing various murders. He can't interfere, of course, because that would trip the butterfly effect and screw everything up. Which is bound to happen, or else there wouldn't be a movie. Well, the character in question gets pushed into going back to solve the mystery of a murder close to him - that of his once-girlfriend - and he inevitably screws things up. Back in the future (present?), he finds that not only was he unable to prevent the murder, but he also seems to have created a serial killer. Why he doesn't just stop there is beyond me, but he seems to have an iron will to keep screwing things up worse and worse, thinking that one of these times he's gonna manage to fix things.
And that's where things kind of fall apart. There's an interesting twist at the end - I knew the identity of the serial killer would turn out to be significant, but I was still surprised - but it's hardly worth the ride. Besides, "this is so Scooby Doo"? Not a convincing serial killer. There are some pretty emotional turns which serve to reinforce the whole "changing the past is dangerous" idea, but honestly, just watch the first Butterfly Effect movie. It's far more...effective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)