Rate The Last Movie You Watched

[RainMaker]

Where are you guys finding Moon playing at? Just random theaters?

[NoSkillz]

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: 6/10

About ten years too late and boring as hell. The whole appeal of the Raiders series was the slam bang action, the realistic stunts, the sharp and witty banter and the breathless wonder as Indy made new discoveries.

None of that is here. And what's with all the crappy CGI? Goodness, it looked awful, especially compared to the heart-thumping action of the movies from the 80s. Dull, dull, dull.

Tropic Thunder: 8/10

Very entertaining satire of action movies, with Ben Stiller having his mark all over this one (Actor, Director, Producer, Writer, etc). Robert Downey Jr is tremendous as a brilliant Australian method actor who might go a bit too far with his preparation. And Tom Cruise, unrecognizable except for his voice, steals every scene he's in as a studio giant.

Fun movie and very clever at times.

[JetsIn06]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Where are you guys finding Moon playing at? Just random theaters?

Yea, pretty much.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just finished up with my umpteenth watching of Kelly's Heroes, difference being this time that my son finally watched it with me.

Tough trying to remember that, to him, Oddball is being played by Kiefer Sutherland's dad. Thank goodness he's seen some clips from the Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts, otherwise the only reference point I could think of for Don Rickles would have been "a human Triumph the Wonder Dog".

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Where are you guys finding Moon playing at? Just random theaters?

It was playing at one art/indie theater in the Triangle. Definitely not in wide release here.

[DataKing]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Thank goodness he's seen some clips from the Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts, otherwise the only reference point I could think of for Don Rickles would have been "a human Triumph the Wonder Dog".

That's probably the most apt description of Rickles I've seen in some time.

[larrymcg421]

Moon has expanded to three theaters in Metro Atlanta. Just check showtimes on Fandango or Yahoo movies and it should be somewhere near you.

[The Jackal]

I just popped in here randomly and see you guys talking about Moon - very quality flick. It seems to be playing mostly at independent theatres, that's where I saw it.

[rowech]

Casino Royale (7/10) -- I must admit I'm not a huge Bond guy. I've probably only seen two or three of the movies all the way through but decided to watch this one as a chance to get in on the new Bond. Are all Bond plots this convoluted? Let's come up with this crazy story, throw in fast cars and faster women, blow some stuff up, and have fun. Certainly entertaining but overall as a movie, ho-hum.

[Lorena]

Twilight - 2/10

What a piece of garbage. It sort of felt like one of those after school movie specials they had on tv when I was younger. Ant watched bits and pieces of it with me and I actually didn't mind him cracking jokes since I wasn't engrossed in any of the scenes. I felt nothing for any of the characters and the makeup job.. jeez, I thought the movie was bad but the makeup job was horrid. A vampire does not have a pale face and color on his neck, cmon... it's all in the details. The actress that played Bella overacted, underacted.. she was just horrible.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Lorena

Twilight - 2/10

What a piece of garbage. It sort of felt like one of those after school movie specials they had on tv when I was younger. Ant watched bits and pieces of it with me and I actually didn't mind him cracking jokes since I wasn't engrossed in any of the scenes. I felt nothing for any of the characters and the makeup job.. jeez, I thought the movie was bad but the makeup job was horrid. A vampire does not have a pale face and color on his neck, cmon... it's all in the details. The actress that played Bella overacted, underacted.. she was just horrible.

I watched it on an overnight flight with no sound, and it looked terrible.

[cubboyroy1826]

As for Twilight come on vampires do not sparkle, what a crock.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Lorena

Twilight - 2/10

What a piece of garbage. It sort of felt like one of those after school movie specials they had on tv when I was younger. Ant watched bits and pieces of it with me and I actually didn't mind him cracking jokes since I wasn't engrossed in any of the scenes. I felt nothing for any of the characters and the makeup job.. jeez, I thought the movie was bad but the makeup job was horrid. A vampire does not have a pale face and color on his neck, cmon... it's all in the details. The actress that played Bella overacted, underacted.. she was just horrible.

I have the same sentiments regarding this movie.

That didn't stop my girlfriend from dragging me to watch it.

[Lorena]

Paul Blart: Mall Cop - 6/10

It was better than I thought it'd be.

[Chief Rum]

The Inside Man (8/10)

You know, I saw this in the theaters when it came out, have bought it, and seen it since, and now I just saw the last half hour on BET. I had thought I did a review of this, but did a search and couldn't find it. Go figure...anyway, just wanted to say I liked this movie when I first saw it, and I think I appreciate it more now on repeated viewings. Lots of good acting performances here, much more nuanced and subtle acting (which is easier when you have Denzel, Clive Owen, Jodi Foster and Christopher Plummer in it).

I read somewhere they're making a sequel. Not sure how that would work (I mean, the elements are there with how the first one ended, but not sure I want to see them try this again, too likely to mess it up).

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Lorena

Paul Blart: Mall Cop - 6/10

It was better than I thought it'd be.

That's funny, I just watched this movie a few hours ago. I'd probably give it the same rating. A goofy comedic version of Die Hard.

[Julio Riddols]

Visioneers - 8/10

If Zach Galifianakis did "I Heart Huckabees" but with a slightly different theme, this would result in a film called "Visioneers". It was hilarious, awkward, interesting, and overall enjoyable in the sense that every performance was enjoyable to watch.

The twist at the end was even fairly surprising.

I highly recommend it to fans of Wes Anderson films or I Heart Huckabees style comedy/drama.

Zachs wife in the film has some of the funniest and most awkward lines I have ever heard given the situations in which they are said.

[larrymcg421]

Hmm, I'd give Paul Blart a 1/10. It was actually worse than I thought it would be, eventhough I had low expectations. I was just expecting King of Queens-level humor set inside a mall. But it was just bad, bad, bad. I think I laughed once during the entire movie. And the hostage story was idiotic. The 2nd half of the movie is filled with the villains leaping around like they've seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon too many times.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

Visioneers - 8/10

If anyone is interested in this its available for instant viewing through Netflix. I'll catch it this weekend.

[terpkristin]

Funny People - 6/10

A good idea with terrible actors. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised, I think Adam Sandler is a horrid actor, I should never have had any high expectations for this flick. It went on too long. It felt like Apatow tried to make a combination comedy/artsy flick and failed. A few bright spots, but overall I was disappointed.

/tk

[rowech]

Funny People (7/10) -- I'm not an Adam Sandler fan at all but i felt like he was probably playing himself. I've reached the point where I'll probably watch anything with Seth Rogen in it. He to me, is the top comedy draw right now. I agree with Terpkristin that the movie was too long. I think people have harped on Apatow to make a "real" move so he tried. In the end I'm not totally sure I get what he was trying to say.

[boberot]

Knowing [4/10]

Just watched this with the wife and the boy. Started out with some mystery and intrigue and quickly slid downhill. One of those movies that seems like things got really muddy between original premise and final edit.

The ending had a major "You've got to be kidding me" element.

[Lorena]

Step Brothers - 5.5/10

This was really hard to rate. I thought it was hit or miss and some scenes were so forced and predictable. There were some parts, though that were ROFL funny though so they made up for the extremely bad parts.

[Lorena]

Originally Posted by Lorena

Step Brothers - 5.5/10

This was really hard to rate. I thought it was hit or miss and some scenes were so forced and predictable. There were some parts, though that were ROFL funny though so they made up for the extremely bad parts.

Ant and I made a friendly bet as to when the first underwear/ass scene would be shown in the film. Seems anytime these guys are in a movie, one or the other happens. Ant thought there would be an ass scene around 25 minutes in, and I said underwear in 35 minutes.

Spoiler

No ass scene and I didn't note the testicle scene but the underwear scenes were at 5 minutes and 25 minutes in which was much sooner than I remember from previous movies.

[chinaski]

Funny People - 8/10. Dont understand the negative reviews of this one at all, its not a masterpiece by any stretch, but I thought Sandler was excellent (almost Punch Drunk Love good). Just a sincere, honest story about being human.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Funny People - 8/10. Dont understand the negative reviews of this one at all, its not a masterpiece by any stretch, but I thought Sandler was excellent (almost Punch Drunk Love good). Just a sincere, honest story about being human.

Just saw it, and while it had a few funny moments from the stand up bits, the rest of the movie just dragged and dragged...I think a 6 is being generous, but some of the jokes had me laughing so ill give it that much.

[Chief Rum]

500 Days of Summer (9/10) I really enjoyed this movie. No, that's not the right term. Okay, I really appreciated the quality of this movie. It was well acted, the premise was interesting, it was a rom com that actually successfully broke from the standard formula, it was at times lol funny and there was a lot to think about with this movie when it's all done. But to say I "enjoyed" it, would be to say I had never been in a relationship, which is of course not true. And since I have, I felt I knew exactly what the characters--especially Gordon-Levit--were going through, and I felt those pains and hurts from this movie reflected in my own experiences. So I will say this is a very worthy viewing experience. But be prepared--if you have ever been confused and hurt and struggling in doubt and in emotional turmoil over a relationship, this movie will bring it out in you.

Funny People (6/10) I don't know that I have much to add that hasn't already been said. I thought the acting by Rogen and Sandler was very good, but Mann and Bana felt off. But that's okay, I wasn't really in the theater for them. I was looking for comedy, though, and this movie failed to deliver, except for, as noted, some very funny stand up bits, and maybe a joke or line here and there (the Eminem-Ray Romano thing was pretty funny). Mostly, the way to describe this movie is "awkward" and "off". Just too much of it, which is why it seemed as long as people say it felt (and it was literally long, too, over two hours). You can only take "awkward" for so long, and with Rogen playing by definition a socially awkward and sparsely talented comedian, and Sandler a socially stunted post adolescent dealing with a life crisis, it only made it seem longer (even though both did terrific jobs with their roles). Yeah, Apatow should stick to funny for pure funny.

[ISiddiqui]

I was looking for comedy

Hmmm... maybe that's the problem? The movie was perhaps marketed wrong?

[larrymcg421]

Funny People - 8/10

Apatow has never been a "pure comedy" guy. His movies always have a sense of realism and honest emotion that is missing from your typical Will Ferrel-Ben Stiller films. So Funny People just seems like a natural step forward for Apatow. It is his most serious film to date, but I don't think it sacrifices the funny. Even when it gets dramatic in the last third, there are still some great jokes sprinkled in.

The rest in spoiler tags:

Spoiler

The one thing I liked about the movie most is that Sandler's character never really changes. He's an asshole at the beginning and still an asshole at the end. His experience allowed him to be a little more introspective and realize that he's a prick, but he doesn't go through some artificial transformation that you see in most movies like this.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Funny People - 8/10

Apatow has never been a "pure comedy" guy. His movies always have a sense of realism and honest emotion that is missing from your typical Will Ferrel-Ben Stiller films. So Funny People just seems like a natural step forward for Apatow. It is his most serious film to date, but I don't think it sacrifices the funny. Even when it gets dramatic in the last third, there are still some great jokes sprinkled in.

The rest in spoiler tags:

Spoiler

The one thing I liked about the movie most is that Sandler's character never really changes. He's an asshole at the beginning and still an asshole at the end. His experience allowed him to be a little more introspective and realize that he's a prick, but he doesn't go through some artificial transformation that you see in most movies like this.

Spoiler

I wonder how that will play with audiences. To me, I agree with you. I think Rogen's character grows as evidenced by the comfort level shown in his various stand up routines and the rest of the characters are consistent.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Hmmm... maybe that's the problem? The movie was perhaps marketed wrong?

It probably was, but that's how they had to market it, I think. Their point was that this is the guy who did 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up, so it has to be a comedy, right? Doesn't sell tickets to tell the potential audience that the comedy guy was trying something more serious.

I already knew from reading a couple reviews that it wasn't some endless haha, so it wasn't so much a surprise to me, but I think that would be a big disappointment for a lot of people if they didn't know that going in.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by boberot

Knowing [4/10]

Just watched this with the wife and the boy. Started out with some mystery and intrigue and quickly slid downhill. One of those movies that seems like things got really muddy between original premise and final edit.

The ending had a major "You've got to be kidding me" element.

Watched this last week and I'd give it a 1/10. It started out as a potentially interesting conspiracy/mystery and ended up being a complete pile of shit. Worst movie I've seen this year.

[Lorena]

Aliens in the Attic - 6.5/10

Larissa and I were invited at the last minute by a friend and I had never heard of the movie , never seen a trailer.. nothing so didn't know what to expect. It is what it is, a movie about kids fighting aliens to stop them from taking over the world.

Not to be a prude, I'd imagine a movie w/ Ashley Tisdale wearing a bikini should get something other than PG.

[rowech]

Taken (10/10) -- Funny that a week ago I watched vigilante justice in The Brave One for 45 minutes before turning it off. Had to deal with the character's emotions, the inner turmoil of being vengeful with being a good person, worrying at every turn, etc.

In this one? We don't have to put up with that. What we get is Liam Neeson being a complete badass and being full of rage. It's not a 10/10 because it's a masterpiece of theatre but it's a 10/10 for a good action movie.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Lorena

Ant and I made a friendly bet as to when the first underwear/ass scene would be shown in the film. Seems anytime these guys are in a movie, one or the other happens. Ant thought there would be an ass scene around 25 minutes in, and I said underwear in 35 minutes.

Spoiler

No ass scene and I didn't note the testicle scene but the underwear scenes were at 5 minutes and 25 minutes in which was much sooner than I remember from previous movies.

Spoiler

I would count the running out of tp scene an ass scene. Albeit a side shot.

[Swaggs]

Funny People (5/10) -- Most of my thoughts have already been touched on, but an overall disappointing film for me. It had the makings of a good movie with good characters, some good laughs (the standup routines, George's movies, the interactions with real celebrities), and an interesting premise, but I think introducing the love interest's family was the mistake that keeps this movie from being really good. We really didn't need to see Leslie Mann's family/house/husband -- all it did was add an extra 45-minutes to the movie. Bana was pretty awful (I cannot believe that is his real accent, it sounds worse than a fake to me) and it felt indulgent, to me, for Apatow to feature his children and wife so much. I didn't like that we had to go the extra mile to see how Bana and Mann's marriage situation is resolved (I don't think anybody really cared why their marriage was falling apart, beyond the easily explained career travel) -- seeing how she affected George's life should have been the goal.

Anyway, not terrible, but not worth seeing in the theatre. I actually think there was probably a pretty good movie in there if Apatow (or someone not so attached to the actors) edited it down to 90 or 105 minutes.

[tarcone]

From Dusk Till Dawn- 9/10

My wife had never seen this flick. I havent seen it in years. It came on IFC tonight, so we watched it. I love this movie. What a great twist. Totally unexpected. My wife had no clue. That made the movie that more enjoyable to me. this is my favorite Tarantino movie. Great cast, also.
If you havent seen this movie, I highly recommend that you do.
Its pretty gory, but it is a Tarantino movie.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by rowech

Taken (10/10) -- Funny that a week ago I watched vigilante justice in The Brave One for 45 minutes before turning it off. Had to deal with the character's emotions, the inner turmoil of being vengeful with being a good person, worrying at every turn, etc.

In this one? We don't have to put up with that. What we get is Liam Neeson being a complete badass and being full of rage. It's not a 10/10 because it's a masterpiece of theatre but it's a 10/10 for a good action movie.

thanks - i wanted to see this movie but missed it in the theaters. will have to check it out

[Lorena]

Special - 8/10

Indie movie about a depressed parking meter reader that goes to see a doctor and gets an experimental drug for depression. The drug makes him believe he has superpowers which he can use to fight evil.

The movie had that indie feel to it with the hand held camera and it was distracting at first, but after a while I got lost in the story. Michael Rapaport did such a good job playing the main character, I had tremendous sympathy for him but at the same time I cringed and laughed. Really well done movie.

Fanboys - 7/10

A group of friends makes the cross country road trip to the Lucas Ranch to break in and watch Star Wars Episode 1 The Fantom Menace.

Fun movie for Star Wars fans with some Star Trek stuff added in as well. The cameos were also very entertaining to watch.

[Lorena]

Still Waiting... - 1/10

Sequel to Waiting. If you're into tatas and booty, crude and rude, w/ a side of racism, this movie's for you.

I don't mind some tatas and booty, crude and rude when it's done right, but this movie had too much and it was done more for shock value than humor.

[Mustang]

Push - 7/10. I don't know how I feel about this one. Not bad, not great. Kind of a government created X-men movie I guess. Seems to be too much backstory that they only touch the surface of and movie gets bogged down too much in trying to say what each type of person is.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Push - 7/10. I don't know how I feel about this one. Not bad, not great. Kind of a government created X-men movie I guess. Seems to be too much backstory that they only touch the surface of and movie gets bogged down too much in trying to say what each type of person is.

Ya, i wasnt really sure how to rate this one...the potential is there for a great movie, but through out it all you just feel like somethings missing. I dont know necessarily what it was, but something just didnt click for me to take it from average to really entertaining.

[BrianD]

I agree with both of you guys on your assessment of Push, but I'd rate it at 4/10. I was disappointed at the potential wasted.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Watchmen (director's cut) -- 8/10

As most of you probably know, Watchmen is pretty much considered the "greatest graphic novel of all time." It won all sorts of awards and is included in all sorts of "best 100 books of X" type lists. It was originally published as a 12 issue mini-series in 1986-1987, but is more typically sold as a single graphic novel containing all 12 issues.

It was written by Alan Moore, who is easily considered one of the top writing talents in comics of all time. He's responsible for a number of excellent comics, including "V For Vendetta", "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", "From Hell", "Top Ten", and others. A lot of his work in the 80's (including both "V For Vendetta" and Watchmen) was very heavily influenced by his strong dislike and mistrust of Thatcher's conservative England and Regan's America. While a great talent, he's a weird dude. He worships a pagan snake god, for example.

The comic series was ground breaking for a number of reasons. It was one of the first comics to really delve into the psychology behind why someone would actually dress up in a costume and fight crime. It's as much a deconstruction of superheroes as it is a narrative story. It (along with Frank Miller's Dark Knight, which was published at the same time and was the launching point for the conversation of Batman from the campy 60's TV show type character to the dark, brooding character we have today) was really the first comic to really get into those issues and sort of move comic books from the realm of fantasy to literature. The books are packed with symbolism and various themes that have become the fodder for many an essay on the topic. Watchmen was also one of the first comics to deal with the question of: What would happen if super heroes existed in the real world? In the comic, super heroes sort of come into being in the late 1930's/early 1940's and deals with their impact on society and politics going forward. There were also a number of great technical aspects to the comic (use of certain colors, framing techniques, panel composition,etc.) that were used in ways that weren't really all that common before.

The problem with trying to review this movie is that I love the comic. I first read it when I was 15 or 16 and have read it well over a dozen times since then. It's something I like to go back and re-visit every year or every other year, because I'm always picking up something new or seeing things from a different perspective. Therefore, it's pretty much impossible for me to look at the movie totally objectively or really try to see it through the eyes of someone who has never read the comic before. That said, I will try my best.

The first thing to note, is that this movie was never going to be as big as the comic. It was impossible. The comic is now 23 years old. Everything that was groundbreaking about it (see above) has been copied and done over and over again. So, it was never going to impact its audience the same way the comic did. Even comic book movies, like the recent Nolan Batman films or Iron Man or even M. Knight Shaylamam's "Unbreakable", have already probed some of the issues that were revolutionary back in the mid 1980's.

Another knock against the film is that what was revolutionary for comics was not revolutionary for movies. Despite comics being a much older medium, it's evolution has not progressed nearly as fast as the evolution of film. Be it based on original material or novels, filmmakers have long been dealing with complex characters and themes, deconstructing heroes, dealing with political issues, and the like. The same goes for film techniques. The kind of technical advancements we saw in the comics just don't translate to the technical advancements in film. So, there is really nothing technically and substantively original (other than the material itself) about the movie.

Watchmen has often been called the "Citizen Kane" of comic books and I think that analogy works very well. A large part of why people consider Citizen Kane one of the best (or the best) film ever made, is, in large part, due to Orson Wells' direction and the technical achievements of the movie. There are a number of different types of shots, scene composition, editing techniques that had never been seen before. All of this, plus the compelling tale of Charles Foster Kane, makes Citizen Kane a great film. All of these things would not, however, make "Citizen Kane" a great comic book. As with Watchmen, part of the appreciation of Citizen Kane is knowing and being familiar with what had come before them in their respective media. Taking them out of their original medium cannot help be lessen the impact, feel and importance of these works.

So, after that incredibly brief intro, let's get to the actual movie, shall we?

I love the movie. I think it's fantastic. Is it perfect? No. I do have some quibbles with it and there are a few things that I would change/cut out, but, taking the movie as a whole, I cannot imagine a better Watchmen actually ever being made.

The guys who made this movie understood the comic, they loved it and they did everything they could to lift it from the page onto the screen. I think one of the reasons some big fans of the comic didn't care for the movie are because of the things I discuss above. The movie didn't have the same visceral impact for them that the comic did, but that was never going to happen. Even if they had done a literal, page for page translation, it wasn't going to happen. There was just no way to re-create that phenomenon that was Watchmen 20 years later or on a movie screen.

The movie was directed by Zach Snyder of "Dawn Of the Dead" (the re-make) and "300" fame. This movie is not "300". There are a few slow motion action sequences (very few) reminiscent of the bulk of "300", but the movie is not hyper-stylized and all green screens. That kind of thing works very well when making a movie based on Frank Miller's work (see also "Sin City"), but not at all necessary nor appropriate for Watchmen. Watchmen is supposed to be grounded very much in reality and dark, gritty, smelly, foul reality. The only thing that does carry over, however, is my man's love for splatter and gore. There's a lot of it in this movie. Now, granted, the Watchmen world is supposed to be a pretty grim, violent place, but there is a lot of blood and guts thrown around. Snyder clearly has a bit of a fetish for that kind of thing. I don't mind it. Most of it works fine, but some of it is a bit gratuitous.

The basic plot of the movie is as follows: In the late 1930's and early 1940's, some people in New York, independent of one another, decided to dress up and fight crime. They eventually got together and formed the Minuet Men. None of them had any super powers to speak of, but were just fit men and women who were vigilantes. They became celebrities, but never really did much more than fight petty crimes such as gangs or "bad guys" who also dressed up in costumes. They eventually all either retired, were killed, disappeared, or went insane. A new generation of super heroes came around in the 1960's, This group was essentially like their predecessors, regular people in costumes. The one exception being Dr. Manhattan. He was a physicist who through a freak accident in a lab essentially becomes a god. He's the large, blue naked guy. That group fights crime for a while, but eventually the cops get pissed off about the masked vigilantes, they go on strike, riots break out and in 1977 the Senate passes a law outlawing non-government sanctioned masked heroes. Two go to work for the government and all but one (Rorschach) retire. The movie takes place in 1985. Richard Nixon is in his 5th term as president and the US is on the verge of nuclear war with Russia.

The beginning of the movie is astoundingly good. It opens up with a great fight sequence and then goes into the credits. The credits are really one of the highlights of the movie. They are a sequence of shots of scenes throughout history involving the various characters. Most come across as living still photographs of the characters. It helps place you in the world and gives you a flavor of the past and gives you the fate of the first generation of heroes. There are scenes of the older heroes capturing villains, there is a scene where Dr. Manhattan is shaking the hand of JFK in front of the White House, the Comedian killing JFK, Dr. Manhattan on the moon, etc. One particularly cool shot is a recreation of that famous photo of the sailor kissing the nurse after the end of World War II. Here, however, it's Silhouette, one of the Minute Men, who walks by and grabs the nurse and kisses her, while the sailor just walks by smiling and waving. They are all set to Dylan's "Times They Are a Changin'." (One of Snyder's good use of music, unlike some others.) They are all very well done and it's really impressive. In about 3 minutes or so, you get a feel of the impact these characters have had on history. Taken as a whole the first 10 minutes of the movie are as impressive as any I've seen.

The movie pretty much follows the comic as close as it can. Given the length of the work, there are a number of cuts (mainly subplots involving minor characters) and some scenes are shortened, but it changes very little and captures the essence of all the main characters as well as the major themes. The narrative of the movie, like the comic, is a bit complex and involves and number of stops and starts. The story is as much about the plot as it is about the characters and their respective backgrounds. So, there are a number of extended flashbacks throughout the movie that essentially give you the origin story of a number of the characters. The actual plot of the film almost seems secondary to the character studies in many ways. Given how well developed and interesting the characters are, it works. The flashbacks also help give the who world as sense of depth and richness. That said, some of the fine points of the actual plot can get a little lost among the jumps back and forth between past and present. (That's another reason I've read the comic so many times, there are a lot of subtleties that are easy to miss.)

There are not a lot of action sequences in the movie. In fact, I would say about 90% of the action in the movie was stuff that was added to make it more exciting. There aren't that many fights or action sequences in the comics, so Snyder takes his opportunities when he can to either add a fight sequence or extend sequences that are pretty brief in the comic.

The strength of the film resides in its cast (with one exception). The cast is essentially made up relatively unknown actors.

Jackie Early Halely (from "Bad News Bears" (the original) and "Breaking Away" fame) plays Rorschach. Rorschach is most people's (including mine) favorite character in the comic and Halely absolutely nails it. His mannerisms, his voice, his look, everything, is pitch perfect. I loved pretty much every scene he is in. There is a scene with him and a psychiatrist and the scene is shot exactly as I have been imagining it on screen for years. It was joy to see it come to be.

Billy Cudrup plays Dr. Manhattan. He's essentially a CGI character throughout the bulk of the film. I think they really nailed his look. Given that he's a blue glowing person blank, pale-blue eyes and spends a lot of the film naked, they really could have gone horribly wrong with his appearance. Luckily, their approach works great. And, yes, as noted, he is naked a lot in the movie. Fully naked. That's how he was drawn in the comics and it's a pretty important detail. He wears clothes in his flashback sequences, but a big part of the character is the fact that he's drifting further and further away from humanity. He sees things on a sub atomic level and people and their conventions (clothes) have begun to lose all meaning to him. He dresses up for public appearances, but other than that, why bother?

Patrick Wilson plays Dan Drieberg, the new Nite Owl. He, also, really nails the look and feel of the character. As a super hero, he's essentially Batman - a guy with a costume and cape who relies on hand-to-hand combat and gadgets. Since his retirement, however, he's sort of lost his way. He's grown a bit fat, he's balding, wears glasses and is sort of aimless. Wilson packed on a good 30-40 lbs to play the part. He's by far the most "normal" of the group and works as a good center of the movie.

Jeffery Dean Morgan is the Comedian. This is by far the most difficult to get a grasp on and complex character in the entire comic. There is something sympathetic about him, but at the same time he's totally reprehensible. He's vicious, brutal, he shoots a pregnant woman, and rapes a woman. Morgan does a great job of really making this guy more than just a monster. It's too bad that, like the comic, the Comedian really doesn't play much of a role after the first third of the movie.

Matthew Goode plays Ozymandias. He's the next closest thing to a super hero in the movie. He's the world's smartest man and is incredibly fast, strong, etc. People are mixed on whether they like his portrayal in the film. They think he's a bit too foppish. I thought it worked well. For obvious reasons, he's never going to be a fan favorite, but I think he does a good job pulling off the arrogant, Aryan superman feel that is important to the character.

Malin Akerman plays Silk Spectre. She is, by far, the weakest link in the movie. She's not a very good actress and when you put her up against the talent listed above, her flaws become even more apparent. Granted, her character is not that well written and doesn't have the depth that the other characters have (a lot of people criticize Moore for not being able to write good female characters), but she still isn't great. The combination of weak actress and weak character is a bit tough at times. She's not horrible, but some of her delivery is just, well, weak. The film is better when she's not on screen.

One thing Snyder does need to work on is his use of music, at least in this film. There are few times in which his musical choices are just really unnecessary and a bit heavy-handed. There are few scenes that for a few seconds it feels like you're watching music video all of a sudden. It doesn't last long, but it's a bit jarring. The worst abuse of this is his use of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah." He uses it during a sex scene that is too long and combining it with that song is just, well, not good. I am certainly not prudish and the sex scene does occur in the comic, I just don't see the reason why it needs to be a 2 minute soft core porn scene instead of a few seconds of getting it on and then fade to black. The scene in the comic is all of 2 panels. He shot a similar soft core scene in "300". It was unnecessary there as well. That is pretty much the worst scene in the movie. It is, however, only 2 out of 184 minutes.

Some of the prosthetics they used to "age" some of the characters wasn't great and neither was the make-up they used for Richard Nixon.

There was some talk that to make the movie more relevant to today's audience that they should have set it in modern times, dealing with terrorism or resource scarcity or something. The reason being is that the Cold War era politics that play a central role in the film are incredibly dated today and feel almost kind of quaint. While that view point certainly makes sense, I'd rather have the more faithful adaptation that we got than a more "relevant" modernized version. A lot of the history of the characters would have to be completely changed to set the movie 20 years later than the comics. It just never would have worked without sacrificing so much of the characters and themes.

It's hard to go into too much detail about the film without discussing individual scenes and referencing back to the comic. The movie just flat out delivered for me. It captured the characters and the feel of the world. It looks great and a lot of the scenes are lifted almost directly from the page. While they cut things, I think they kept enough of the "little moments" that really helped flesh out the characters and their various relationships to one another. They did change the ending a bit. The master plan is still carried through with the same results, but its execution is different. I actually think what they did in the movie makes a lot of sense and works fine.

Now, would I recommend this movie? I think it's definitely worth watching. Because I am coming at the movie from a certain angle, it's hard for me to wonder whether someone who never read the comic would like it. I know there are people who loved the comic and hated the movie, people who hated the comic and likes the movie and those who never read it and either hated it or loved it. It's no small endeavor. The director's cut is 3 hours and 4 minutes and the theatrical version is 2 hours and 40 minutes. So, if, for whatever reason, you don't get into it, it will be a long and painful experience. If you do, however, it's really quite the experience.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

In the Loop (8/10) - A great political satire, what Wag the Dog should have been. Bumbling UK minister gets embroiled in the rush to war. Hilarious, especially the Prime Minister's enforcer who uses crude language as a weapon. Fairly redundant if you've seen Iannucci's The Thick of It, but enjoyable nonetheless.

[molson]

Saw a few movies over the last few weeks.

Whatever Works 6/10

It's definitely dated, which makes sense considering Woody Allen wrote it in the 70s. There's a lot of sexual movie cliches that probably would have been fresher and more interesting back then. Still, if you're a fan of Larry David, it's very fun to see him act as a leading man. He and Allen obviously seem like they'd be a perfect team, on paper. I got tired of David's whining about an hour in though, I think he's better in small doses. And Evan Rachel Wood falling for David's character is one of the bigger streches in movie history, including previous Woody Allen movies where he's the leading man.

The Hurt Locker 9/10

Maybe the best war movie I've ever seen in terms of creating the feeling that you're actually there. That's the level it really works at - there's not really a story or characters to get wrapped up in.

Away We Go 7/10

There's a lot of likeable actors in this movie, and I'd say it was "pleasant". Not a pure, laugh-out-loud kind of comedy, but very pleasant.

Bruno 7.5/10

I actually liked it better than Borat, perhaps because I didn't see Borat until months after its release and I was familiar with the character. I didn't know much about Bruno, and this movie is just a non-stop attack on the senses. I don't remember any bits that really fell flat, maybe because there's absolutely no time to dwell on them, you're very quickly off to the next scene. Did seem staged at times, but I wasn't looking for authenticity, so it didn't bother me.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I agree with both of you guys on your assessment of Push, but I'd rate it at 4/10. I was disappointed at the potential wasted.

+1

[JonInMiddleGA]

Much Ado About Nothing 1993

Caught the last hour tonight for the umpteenth time. Been a favorite of mine since the first time I saw it years ago. From the bickering of Branagh & Thompson to the work of Michael Keaton, just a solid piece of work.

[Blade6119]

A Walk in the Clouds 9/10

Love story about a soldier coming home from the war who poses as a woman's husband as she goes home pregnant and they fall in love. Keanu Reaves in the lead, but it works. It is what it is, and it does that well. Its a simple love story wrapped into the cultural differences of two people's heritage. A really enjoyable fim, which i dont often think when i watch romantic flicks.

[Swaggs]

No one has seen GI Joe yet?

I want to see it, but it looks like it is going to be a huge disappointment, so I am holding off on ruining that part of my childhood for now.