Terminally Incoherent

I know that this is probably all over the internet right now, and it not news anymore, but holly shit! The Watchmen trailer! Holly shit! I must post about it:

Watching the trailer literally gave me chills and made me giddy like a schoolgirl. I haven’t been this excited for a movie for years. Fuck, last time I watched a trailer 8 times in a row just to catch all the details was when they first released sneak peek previews for Phantom Menace featuring clips of the Darth Maul fight scenes. Of course Star Wars prequels turned out to be a disaster and a half.

Zack Snyder did pretty well with 300 and kept it pretty close to the source. Can he pull of this one without totally fucking it up? I hope so, but there will be some hurdles. For example the original is deeply rooted in cold war mentality. I’m pretty sure there will be a temptation there to switch Russians into terrorists to make it more current but I’m not sure that would work considering the ending of the series.

The trailer is amazing though. It looks like someone in the costume department spent many, many sleepless nights trying to figure out how to make Nite Owl’s costume look presentable. The original is possibly one of the most stupid looking super-hero getups in DC history, but in the trailer it looks very… Batman-esque, and actually kinda cool. Whoever designed it is a fucking genius.

Watch the ending of a trailer very closely. Initially I thought that emerging pattern was just some kind of a logo, but it is not. It is the glass citadel on Mars! You can actually see Dr. Manhatan inside of it. Fucking awesome! I can’t wait!

Just a note - if you don’t know why people are excited about this trailer, and you never read The Watchmen go and read it an join us in the excitement. It is possibly the best super-hero story ever written, and if you are going to read just one graphic novel in your life this one should be it.

Ever since Iron Man came out everyone kept telling me how unbelievably awesome it was. Best thing since sliced bread! Best super-hero movie ever made EVAR! LIKE OMGZ!

So I watched it…

Before I begin, I have to confess some level of ignorance of the original source. I never really followed the adventures of Iron Man or the Avengers so I don’t really know the origin story that well. But as with most of the old school Marvel super heroes their history is full of retcons and modernizations. For example, I know that initially Stark was wounded in Vietnam, which later magically changed to Afghanistan. The movie itself uses a variant of the more recent storyline and I really can’t pick on that.

From what I know, originally Iron Man’s chest piece had no internal power source and had to be re-charged every day making him heavily dependent on external power sources. In the movie however the chest piece is essentially a super efficient “arc-reactor” which not only powers the magnets that keep shrapnel from entering Stark’s heart but is also the power source for his suit.

Nut never mind that. The movie was not half bad. I think that something finally clicked in Hollywood when they realized that DC is actually fucking winning on good super hero comic book adaptions. They had Batman Begins which was widely recognized as awesome, and now Dark Knight in which Heath Ledger rules so hard it is not even funny (well, at least that’s how it looks in the previews). What does Marvel have?

They have Spider Man which went from decent to totally embarrassing. The third part is actually so painful to watch I mostly blocked it out. They have Daredevil which is very much like Spiderman 3 only it did not need two sequels to get that way. Same goes for Electra which is actually probably worse than Daredevil. There is Ang Lee’s Hulk which is complete rubbish. Fantastic Four - I’m at a loss for words here. So bad that I pretend that it never happened. What else…

Ghost Rider was so horrible that I only managed to sit through half of it. X-Men was decent, but they played fast and loose with the source and for some reason decided to marginalize pivotal characters. Storm had like a single line in each movie, Cyclops was an ass and got killed of and Rogue went from strong, opinionated and powerful southern chick to totally emo teenager from the suburbs. They get major points for “I’m the Juggernaut, bitch!” but while the trilogy is entertaining and popular it is clearly not in the same ballpark as Batman Begins.

Iron Man is a valiant attempt to bring awesome to the Marvel universe on the silver screen. I actually liked it. Believe it or not, but someone finally managed to write a Marvel inspired screenplay that was not totally ridiculous and keep reasonably close to the source. There are departures of course - for example Obediah Stane (aka Iron Monger) is actually working for Stark here, and his armor is based on Stark’s prototype which was lost in the desert. But I can understand why they did this - it simply lead to a better, more cohesive story.

Robert Downy Jr. was incredible as Tony Stark - they couldn’t have picked a better actor to play this role. I think his personality pretty much drives this movie, and makes it work.

There is a lot of humor in the movie, but it is not forced or gratuitous. It usually hangs on Downy Jr’s delivery and timing which is impeccable. There is also suspense and drama, and bad-ass super-hero combat but it is neither not overbearing nor over the top. It is just the right mix, and the overall tone is rather lighthearted. They were trying to make an entertaining summer blockbuster and they have succeed.

And of course there is the ending. I think I can say it, because by now it is no longer a huge spoiler. The ending clearly sets the stage up for The Avengers movie which is actually awesome in my honest opinion. I always thought that the Marvel inspired movies were incredibly sterile and isolationist as compared to the comic books which were full of crossovers. Now it seems that all the new productions connected to Marvel will have small teaser cameos helping to gel these distinct productions into a cohesive whole.

Iron Man gets my seal of approval, and I do not give it lightly. It is not perfect, but I believe it is one of the best adaptation of a Marvel line so far. I’m watching and reviewing The Incredible Hulk next so let’s hope this new trend continues.

Hancock is a great example of how Hollywood can take a simple and yet brilliant idea, combine it with great special effects, great acting, flawless execution and totally fuck it up in the third act. I have been excited for this movie ever since I first saw the trailer for it months ago. It looked great - a totally unconventional, original take on the superhero genre with a large dose of humor. As every brilliant idea this one was simple that I was amazed no one did this before.

What if superman was real? Let’s consider this - we would have a guy who can fly, is virtually indestructible and he is strong enough to lift a car and fling it across the town if he wants to. But where does that car land? Does it destroy someones house? Does it demolish public property? What happens when our superhero accidentally bumps into an overhead road sign while flying over he highway? What if the sign falls down on the road, demolishing several cars and creating a gigantic pileup. What if he tries to toss a beached whale back into the sea and due to bad aim sends it crashing down into some yacht on the horizon?

Let’s face it - it is not easy to be superman. When you are indestructible, you take many things for granted - for example, if you get hit by a train, nothing will happen to you. The problem is that the collision with you will cause the train to come to a sudden stop. Thanks to pesky things like laws of physics this means that the wagons will still want to keep moving and will likely pile up or fly off in random directions destroying the tracks, the electric poles, and half the neighborhood.

Hancock may be a superhero, but his exploits cause incredible amounts of collateral damage. Most of it is un-intentional, or accidental. Some of it is just gutsy bravado stuff. The public hates him, the police thinks he is a nuisance, and local officials want him either out of town or behind the bars. On top of that (or maybe because of that) our hero reminds me of the characters people roll up for super hero RPG games. He used charisma/personality as a dump stat. He sleeps on the street, he is dirty, coarse, rude, has a really bad temper and an advanced alcohol problem. Not really a shining role model, or all American hero like Mr. Clark Kent. But because of that Hancock is almost tangibly more realistic super-powered vigilante than the ones we see in comic books. He could stop fighting crime, and saving lives but he seems to feel the need to help people. His intentions are good, but execution is usually less than perfect. In effect instead of chairing when he arrives people threaten to sue him, call him names and etc..

That’s until he meets a PR expert who convinces him to turn his life around, take responsibility for his actions and become a real superhero. To do that he has to willingly go to jail, be rehabilitated and change his ways.

To me this was a brilliant - pure gold. Will smith is excellent at playing the stubborn, rude, drunken, bad-ass Hancock. His road to become a real hero is both funny, moving and entertaining. They could have stopped here, and have a movie about a hard journey from a hated outcast vigilante to a beloved superhero and a role model.

If they wanted to do more they could have taken it even further. Perhaps having the reformed hero feel betrayed when he is blamed for completely accidental damages he could not prevent and people turn their backs on him once again. Or perhaps do something else - for a bit it seemed like Hancock and the PR experts wife (Charlize Theron) will have some sort of a fling which would probably be an interesting dramatic twist. But no.

Someone in Hollywood decided that this plot is not cinematic and grand enough. So in the third act the movie mutates into something completely different. And by different I mean crappy. Up to this point Hancock was original, funny, light heated but also moving. Past that point it is none of the above. It is a rehash of old ideas, and played out storyline. I’m not going to tell you what happens, but I will throw this out there. This new movie into which Hancock changes in the third act can be described by using classic “X meets Y” Hollywood pitch. It may be spolish so you will have to highlight the next line to see it:

Highlander meets My Super Ex-Girlfriend.

Yep. I’m totally not shitting you. Watch the movie and tell me I’m wrong. The mood changes, the tone is different and most of the humor is gone. It is a train wreck. In fact, I would recommend stopping watching the movie around the time when Smith and Theron are about to kiss. It all just goes down hill from there and the film becomes some sort of grotesque parody of itself.

Wasted potential. This could have been a good movie. In fact, I was kinda hoping that this will be the single star studded blockbuster this year that will not be a complete disappointment. As usual however, the trip to the movies leaves me disappointed and angry. Every time Hollywood fucks up a decent story I die a little inside. And yet I keep hoping that this next movie won’t be a complete dud.

To be fair, Hancock is not a complete disaster. The idea is great, and the initial setup is perfectly serviceable. I’d say the movie is actually worth checking out but you should keep in mind that the third act will want to make you want to claw your eyes out of your skull just to stop the pain. Watching Hancock is almost like watching Highlander and then Highlander 2 one after another for the first time. You suffer a similar kind of shock, disgust, anger and nausea. The difference is in magnitude - Hancock is much milder experience but it doesn’t change the fact that the ending sucks big time.

Oh, and sorry for the late post. They usually appear before noon, but I fucked up the date and time thing and did not have access to the internets to fix it all day.

I must admit that I’m a huge fan of the Hitman series. I loved all of the games, but you probably know that because I reviewed at least one of them on this very blog. When I heard that the movie was being made, I knew it was going to be bad. But I also knew I will have to watch it out of the love for the series.

As expected, the story from the game was scrapped completely and re-written from scratch. The only elements that remained intact were cosmetic. So the main character is still known only as 47, he is still bold, has a bar code tattoo on the back of his head, and wears his black suit, and a red tie. He also gets his contracts via laptop emblazoned with the trademark lily logo just like in the games. There are also couple of shots that tried to mimic the 3rd person perspective view from the game.That’s about it. Everything else was changed.

Agent 47 is no longer a genetically engineered clone, but an orphan trained from a very early age by the “Organization” which is no longer the ICA we know from the games. No recurring characters such as the unfortunate Agent Smith, or Diana Burnwood. In fact I thought Diana will be the female lead in this movie, but instead we got a bitchy, foul mouthed prostitute who just can’t seem to keep her clothes on and keeps interfering,
and getting in the way.

They also failed to capitalize on some of the very memorable locations and settings from the game. Some of my favorite were the Hell/Heaven Masquerade club, the Opera House, The Casino and the Mardi Grass. This was a perfect movie to show our hero traveling all over the world trying to find clues by performing strategic hits in various exotic locations. Instead, the whole move takes place in Russia and our locales are: gray and dirty Moscow Streets, Moscow train station, rural Russian back roads, and a Russian Orthodox temple. Sort of bland and unimpressive for what it could have been.

I admit, the whole super-human clone bit was always a bit cheesy so I can see how someone could want to remove it. It worked in the games, but perhaps it would not work on the big screen. But then again, if you are making adaptation of a successful franchise why mess around with the plot? It’s not like someone will accuse you of bad writing because you were simply faithful to the original. You can still create dynamic dialog, and memorable characters while working within the framework of the original plot. But this is Hollywood, and the temptation to remake the story to cater to the lowest common denominator seems to be irresistible.

The usual formula is to take a successful property and turn it into a blockbuster action flick with lots of shooting, explosions and mandatory gratuitous nudity without regards for the theme, tone, and mood of the original.

The Hitman movie is precisely that - it is Agent 47 meets Mission Impossible. Over the top action, extensive slow motion shoot-out scenes with high body count, and prolonged martial arts sequences are basically the “meat” of the movie. Very little is left from the original game play experience which awarded stealth, subtlety and blending into the background. In the beginning we can see him perform a couple of stealth kills, but that ends abruptly when the tables are turned and our hero is exposed. From from that moment, till the and his primary modus operandi seems to be full frontal charge. Scene after scene we see him burst into one place or another, whip out his guns and then keep shooting until no one is left alive.

The portrayal of Agent 47 is not true to the original either. In the games the protagonist was cold, detached, cynical unflinching and extremely professional. He seemed world weary, and while capable of good and compassion he never let these things interfere with his job, or compromise his safety. Timothy Olyphant’s take on this character comes close to the mark, but misses by a considerable margin. He sort of got the look, and some of the mannerisms - and sometimes he is able to pull off the classic 47 “no bullshit, just business” demeanor. Unfortunately most of the time his warm and somewhat youthful and energetic personality shines through. In fact, 47 seems to be written to reflect that - as sort of an innocent, misunderstood and socially maladjusted personality. He is actually sort of a nerd incapable of normal social interactions and very uncomfortable around women. In the very first scene we see him, he gets hit on by some ditzy blond who tells him he should not put ice in whiskey, and he just runs away like a school boy.

While the games never really show 47 being intimate with a woman it can be somewhat justified. The only time we see our hero is during or between missions. And unlike James Bond and other action heroes modeled after him, 47 doesn’t mix business with pleasure. When he is on a job, he has no time to fuck around (both in literal, and figurative sense of the word). In the movie however any sexual advances from the opposite sex seem to make him very uncomfortable, and he reacts very awkwardly every time. His overall attitude towards sexuality sort of reminds me of the uneasiness with which Dexter approaches the same topic. I do not agree with this interpretation though. I don’t think the real 47 would ever have to resort to using a sedative to “escape” from under a half naked chick desperately trying to undress him. I have no clue what the point of that scene was but my brother agreed that it made the protagonist look totally gay.

If I was to describe the Hitman movie in one sentence, I would say it is a light hearted action flick about awkward, sexually ambiguous, 40 year old virgin killing machine with a heart of gold. Or in other words, complete departure from the source and a total waste of time. This just supports my theory, that movies based on video games totally suck. I have yet to find a single exception to this rule.

On Monday I wrote about the horrible, brain damaging experience that was the new Indiana Jones movie. In the comments section Teague asked me what was the last good movie that I saw. Well, I decided that I will write about that movie today.

After watching Indy battle Roswell aliens on Saturday, I sort of needed to do something to counteract this experience. Sort of like rinsing my brain from the dreadful mental muck spewed by all recent George Lucas productions. I picked Memento because I had never heard a bad thing about this movie. Everyone kept talking about it in superlatives. When I took Psychology back as an undergrad my professor just couldn’t shut up about it during the lectures on memory and amnesia. Ever since then this movie was on my “to watch” lists.

This Sunday I really needed to watch something intelligent, and intriguing - anything to stop the recurring fantasy of me punching George Lucas in the face for making me waste $10 bucks on one of the worst movies of this year. It worked, Memento did not disappoint me and it was a hell of a ride.

The film is unique in almost every aspect - starting from the idea (a man anterograde amnesia hunts the killer of his wife seeking revenge), to the composition and story telling methods. We experience the movie very similar to the way Leonard (out protagonist) lives his life: few minutes at a time. Due to his condition, he cannot form new memories. He promptly forgets everything he sees and hears after it leaves his short term memory which usually only takes few minutes. We experience the movie in the same way. Each scene starts when Leonard just forgot what was going on, and ends at the point where he is about to forget everything again. Here is a twist though - we watch the events unfold in reverse chronological order and running in two parallel timeliness which merge at some point in the movie.

This may sound confusing, and initially it is. Things happen to our hero, and we don’t know why (and neither does he) but with each scene we get more information. And since most of us can form long term memories, we can always stay one step ahead of Leonard and put together all the pieces of the puzzle until we have a clear picture of what has transpired.

Since Leonard can’t do that, he has developed a system of notes, and reminders for himself. His method is so simple it is almost brilliant. He always caries a small Polaroid camera with him and snaps pictures of things he wants to “remember”. For example, how his new car looks, the motel where he is staying, the people he met recently. On the little white strips he writes relevant info - like “my car”, “my motel” or given person’s name and phone number. On the back he scribbles notes: like “don’t trust this person” or “this person will help you” and etc. Very ingenious.

Some facts are too important to trust to pictures. He tattoos them directly onto his body - some in reversed letters so that he can read them in the mirror. These facts include the fateful line “John G. Raped and Murdered my Wife”.

What initially bothered me was the fact that while Leonard would forget recent events so easily, but he had this intricate system in place. How did he remember to take notes - or how to take them? I did some research in this direction and apparently there are two types of memories we form - episodic and semantic. Episodic memories are snapshots of events, while semantic memories are more procedural and instinctive (like riding a bike for example) or factual (water is wet, sun is bright, etc…). The theory is that most episodic memories get translated to semantic memories over time - so you actually forget the exact details of the event, but you remember the “story” the way you tell it to people as sort of a monologue. But they also develop via repetition and training. People with anterograde amnesia seem to have more problems with forming episodic memories rather than semantic ones. Leonard mentioned at several points in the movie that he is able to learn by repetition and routine - so it is possible that his notes system, and the instincts he used to cope with his condition developed over time.

His amnesia is tragic, but also strangely liberating. Leonard never gets embarrassed, has no regrets and no remorse. He doesn’t have to live with his choices - only with their potential consequences. And he has a very strong drive - his quest for revenge, is what keeps him going, and keeps him motivated. All of these factors make him a very intense and memorable character, and Guy Pierce does an incredible job portraying him on the screen.

Memento raises interesting questions about the very nature of memory. At some point someone questions Leonard’s ability to collect and process facts for his investigation based on his condition:

Memory can change the shape of a room; it can change the color of a car. And memories can be distorted. They’re just an interpretation, they’re not a record, and they’re irrelevant if you have the facts.

Are Leonard last memories real? Does his story actually check out, or has he successfully deceived himself and conveniently forgot important details of his life? The ending, or rather the beginning of the story is rather ambiguous and puts a big question mark above Leonard’s whole quest. All the facts about Leonard’s we took for granted throughout the movie are questioned.

What would you do if you were Leonard in these last scenes of the movie? Would you make the same choice he did? And what do you think of Gamme’s version of the story? Do you think what he said about Leonard’s wife it was true?

If you haven’t watched it yet, I highly recommend it. It is highly entertaining, suspenseful and masterfully written, acted out and produced. And it only shows that what we talked about in The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull thread is true: good stories do not need any special effects or big budgets. These things are really just cosmetic stuff. But if you make them the focus of your project, you usually lose sight of what is the most important: the story and the characters.