"A Serious Man" - New Coen Brothers trailer online.

It seems like only a few months back we were chuckling (for the most part) at the exploits of Brad Pitt, George Clooney and John Malkovich in the Coen spy comedy, Burn After Reading. Made rather speedily on the heels of the multi-Oscar winning success of No Country For Old Men, and starring the Coens' most eye-catchingly A-list cast to date, you could be forgiven for believing that the Coens were heading in a direction a little less leftfield and little more universally accessible. Whilst it could have been feared that this may lead them closer to the dangerous territory of the Intolerable Cruelty and Ladykiller days (usually acknowledged as the Coens' least, well, Coen-like, works and also their worst), the film itself went some way to prove that, regardless of a star cast, the Coens' are still masters of creating a unique mix of comedy, weirdness and violence never quite seen anywhere else.

Yesterday Empire Online brought news of the trailer for the Brothers' latest offering, A Serious Man. Set in 1967, it tells the story of Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a Jewish academic who's up for tenure and facing a series of personal crises. His wife (Sari Wagner Lennick) wants a divorce so she can marry his colleague (Fred Melamed); his brother (Richard Kind) is living on his sofa and his children are stealing from him. He looks for advice from three different rabbis, but doesn't get exactly what he's looking for. It has the potential to be pretty bleak, yet it also has the potential - if done right - to be very funny. In other words, it has the potential to be very Coen. And not a star name in sight!

Check the preview out below:

I personally think the trailer is wonderfully done. It gives away suitably little, and yet at the same time it feels like it may be giving artful set-up to the themes and atmosphere of the film. The looping sounds and images give the impression of a man who's sad life has left him trapped in a never-ending cycle, desperate for help - whilst shots of scratched teeth and Larry spying on his sunbathing neighbour seem to suggest a more sinister element. And it all builds up to a great punchline exchange. Imagine that the Coen filmography that rolls near the end were a list of credits and the whole edit could almost be presented as a short film in itself.

I have to admit that I was beginning to worry that the Coens may be getting over prolific after their No Country success and would start rushing out lower quality films, with more focus on big names than unique ideas - I mean Burn After Reading was good, but it wasn't quite their best. However, from this trailer, A Serious Man looks like a great return to their shades of brown and grey, wonderfully odd 20th century period films, like Barton Fink (one of my favourites). Encouraging stuff! I await this one eagerly.

Watchmen Reflections

A pre-second viewing look back...

As I noted in my last entry under "Idle Observation", you may have noticed that after my Watchmen "Comic vs. Film" themed rant in March (an entry written before the movie's release, recommending that people read the graphic novel first - a recommendation based solely on a "feeling" about the upcoming film based on trailers, clips etc), I never actually got around to giving my opinion on the film. Well, since it is now just under a week before the UK DVD release date, I figured that now is a good time for me to finally get that down - though I should point out now that I will mostly be critiquing, not formally reviewing and therefore will be saying little of the actual storyline (though you've all read it since my last post, right? *wink*). Of course, I will now have the benefit of hindsight, which some may argue is unfair on the movie, since the cinematic experience and the first time "Wow factor" often diminish over time - but I feel, in this case, this is acceptable as no second viewing has yet been undertaken and since, with this particular film, I began thinking over its every detail almost as soon as I left the theatre, making notes along the way. Makes me sound like a lunatic, I'm sure, but trust me; it was the natural reaction for any moderate - large Watchmen fan.

So, I hear you ask, how do I feel Zack Snyder's vision shaped up? A complete disaster from start to finish, right? Well, actually, to his credit - no, not totally. *Gasp* I know!

"But I read your previous rant - what about the edits? The background detail? The thriving sense of a real, though alternative, New York city with living characters and activities, surely that can't be there?" - Well, to be honest, it's not. Not really. But not despite Snyder's best efforts. There are nods here, there and everywhere - newspaper headlines, magazine covers, great sets and things in the background for fans to notice. However, whilst it helps create a bit of an all round atmosphere, a lot of it is real blink and you'll miss it stuff. It's a commendable attempt by all means, but other than providing nice shot dressing it's not particularly enhancing to the movie viewing experience, unless you're able to scan through it all in slow motion (which I'm sure Zack Snyder would love, since we know how much he likes slow motion). The background characters also take a definite backseat, several of them being cut or making only non-speaking appearances that fresh viewers would think nothing of, but this is understandable given the time limits imposed. However, the very presence of such characters means that there may be hope for them to receive more screen time in a future fan pleasing Director's Cut, which is definitely good news.

Aside from these (to be fair, probably impossible to capture) little details though, there are also some more noticeably strange directorial choices; for example, the expansion (and in several cases, of course, slow motioning) of every fight scene and the decision to make these fight scenes ultra-violent. Where in the comic it was a bloody nose here, a knock-out there, on the big screen these have become a smashed face or an obliterated limb. I'm not normally one to complain about this sort of thing, but Watchmen is a movie that could actually benefit from some cut-aways that leave things to the imagination. In fact, so much emphasis is placed on blood spattering in some of the first fights that some of the more violent instances from the comic, such as a man receiving a gas propelled grappling hook to the chest, when seen onscreen actually seem fairly tame in comparison to one of Nite Owl II's bone smashing punches. In one scene, they even go out of their way to re-write how Rorschach disposes of a foe, adding blood where there wasn't blood before, in a way that seems strangely pointless. This doesn't detract from Snyder's storytelling though, so much as just confuse anybody who has read the comic, making them think; "I don't remember it being quite like that".

Now, this may sound fairly negative so far, so why am I not berating the movie and saying it was a total cock-up? Well, the answer to that is that in order to assess Watchmen as a movie, one has to judge whether it works as just that - a comprehensible and enjoyable piece of storytelling in the cinematic medium that, whilst it will never be the same as the comic, at least stays loyal to the essentials of its plot and tone. And it does... up until a point - literally, a chronological point. Sure, there are subplots missing and yes, there's a bizarre amount of gore, but as far in as the first 90 minutes I still found myself having a pretty good time. Directorial choices aside, seeing the characters brought to the screen was an exciting experience, the pace of the story was good and the overall tone seemed to be about right. There were some flashy and over the top moments in the fight scenes, but generally this didn't have the feel of being just another stupid Hollywood blockbuster. However, Watchmen is 160 minutes long, which - it would seem - must have been at least an hour too short. Oddly though, Snyder's reaction to this seems to suggest not only that he was worried about how to fit everything in, but also that he felt the established pace and tone of the first two acts could not possibly continue without the audience getting bored.

From the moment that Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II decide to come out of retirement by donning their costumes and taking the Owl ship out for a spin, there seems to be a sudden shift in the film's dynamic. It's possible this was inserted in order to reflect how returning to crime fighting allows these characters rediscover their purpose in life, allowing them to step away from the depression that previously dominated their personalities and become more confident and assertive, but the way its delivered simply jars with what precedes it. From the needlessly over-dramatised fire rescue they perform, to the ridicule worthy sex scene that follows (which plays like a horrible soft porn, scored to Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah") there's a sense that Snyder was scared that the start of the movie had been taking itself too seriously. Suddenly the edits and re-writes from the source material start to stand out more and leaps of logic/sudden moments of convenient deduction seem to present themselves with greater frequency. It seems like Snyder is zipping the audience along post-haste, worried that otherwise he might lose their attention as we approach the movie's most controversial departure from the comic. Yes, that re-written ending.

Those of you who have read Watchmen will know its distinctive ending well and, when it was rumoured that Zach Snyder had changed this, fanboys were up in arms. So, without giving away too much - either of the comic or the film, does the new ending work? Well, yes and no. The essential bare bones structure of the Watchmen ending is that - since the story is set in an alternate 1985 - in order to end the never-ending stand-off between the USA and the USSR, which seems set to bring the world to the brink of nuclear war, the story's villain reveals that he believes he is actually trying to save the world by finding a way to shock the Earth into becoming a united front. The movie, in its own way, keeps this central theme intact and, through several small re-writes/removals along the way, makes it internally seem to make some sense. However, since the whole final act is somewhat rushed, and since we don't really know anything about the civilians of New York (tying again to the removal of background characters) who, in the comic, play a crucial role in bringing home the story's final scenes, we don't really get the gravitas of situation or sense the constrasting horror and admiration that could be gleaned from what the villain has/hasn't accomplished, or who he has/hasn't hurt in the process. Some of the comic's vital dialogue exchanges are removed in favour of yet more silly fighting (which now seems fuelled less by gore and more by the Hollywood school of wire work) and, overall, the whole thing just doesn't hit as heavily as it should. Plus, when you stop to think about it too much outside the theatre (as anybody who's read the source material naturally finds themselves doing), the re-written ending has a bit of a flaw. Whilst the comic focuses on how only an unknown and baffling threat could scare the world into the unison, the film chooses a known scapegoat to pin the threat on, and one who - before this point - is seen (as much as politics would see things) as being very much allied to the US. Surely this would just make the USSR and its supporters even more pissed off with America for being the ones to provide civilisation with a massive global threat?

Overall, Watchmen would have perhaps been better handled as something like a 5 part mini-series. Something that would keep all of its layers and tangents in place and could flow at the sort of pace that Snyder's first 90 minutes did without having to worry about time constraints. Because, when one reflects, it's not just the ending that suffers. Not enough time is spent on the story's best reveals (who's under Rorschach's mask doesn't seem to be a mystery for longer than five minutes, the mystery of Silk Spectre II's parentage is dealt with all too speedily and the revelation of the villain barely even registers) and, despite serving as focal points, at least two of the central characters, Rorschach and Dr Manhattan, don't get the full fleshing out they deserve. Does a fresh viewer, unaware of the comic, really get a feel for how Dr Manhattan experiences time? Is there any evidence of Rorschach's sly ingenuity, surveying out every room he enters and removing any useful materials that could later be used for weaponry or sustenance? Or, more importantly, do viewers get a full sense of his unflinching and uncompromising viewpoint on crime and the soul crushing effect his stories can have on those who choose to see the world more liberally? I'd say probably not.

To sum up then: a fair effort from Zack Snyder, but in the end perhaps Watchmen just isn't right for the screen, or - if it is - perhaps just not in this format. When I left the cinema I probably would have given it 3 1/2 out of 5 for the general experience, but I fear on future viewings, that could sadly slip lower.

An afternoon in Croydon... - Some random thoughts.

First of all, just a quick sentence to say; "whoops, looks like I kind of forgot about this blog... again." I set it up in September... wrote in it the first time in March... then left it for three more months. Fairly useless of me! But I'm going to endeavor to post more often now, as life tends to get more fast paced and interesting during the Summer months - everyone's perkier, a lot of my friends will be having their Summer off uni and generally I think it will make me happier and create a cooler vibe to write in.

You may also notice that I never followed up my Watchmen post with an actual review of the film - silly me! I've got all my opinions written down as notes, I just never wrote it up on here. I'm thinking I'll do it in July, before the DVD comes out, and then write a "second opinion" review after I watch that (because even if the film wasn't great, the promise of extra material means I'm bound to buy it, since I'm a sucker, especially when Watchmen related things are concerned).

Now, to the meat of this post - it's going to be more of a diary entry/collection of thoughts than anything else. Just a few bullet-pointed observations of what went through my head on my last afternoon trip into Croydon:

- First off, I just have to say thank God they closed one of the pre-existing H&M's before they opened that new massive one! It may seem strange to celebrate the closure of a shop, especially since I occasionally shop in H&M, so the more the better right? However, the problem is, Croydon is just getting saturated with the same shops/restaurants (with the same stock/food) over and over and over. There was a time a month back where it looked like we were going to be treated to the new found presence of three H&M's within 3 minutes walk of each other. Fantastic - what a marvellous addition to the two HMVs, four McDonalds, four Starbucks (at least!) and five (yes, five!) Subways that also lie within the same square mile. Not that I don't occasionally buy stuff from all these fine examples of capitalism in action, but can I be blamed for craving just a little something different? Are we all so brand driven, lazy and easily swayed in Croydon that they know opening yet another branch of the same will still do great business, even if it's 30 seconds from one that already exists? Let's change it up. After all, they do say variety is the spice of... ooo, a Subway, don't mind if I do.

- Having been a regular user of a Diesel's Fuel For Life perfume pour homme for about the past year, I was intrigued to see that they have recently released a new fragrance. And I must say that, on the basis of the tester I used, I quite like Only The Brave. However, I feel must also say that would have been more inclined to buy a bottle had said tester not been shaped like a miniature clenched fist (with a large "Diesel" knuckleduster), grasped firmly around a little aftershave spirting cock. I think I stick to my cool, khaki clad, mini-cantine for now, thanks all the same!

- Even though I in no way disliked Slumdog Millionaire (though I probably enjoyed The Wrestler more at the cinema the very next day), I for the time being refuse to buy it on DVD until they bring out a version without that shite schmaltzy cover with Dev Patel and Freda Pinto smiling in the burst of confetti. Why, you ask? Am I just a massive kill joy who doesn't want evidence of the "feel good hit of the decade" in my DVD collection? No - it's just that cover does pretty near sweet FA to summarise the actual vast majority of the film. In fact, all it serves to do is undermine any sense of tension or drama created during the course of the narrative's first two acts by showing people immediately that "everything's lovely" come the end. What the hell kind of marketing is that?! That is what I don't want in my DVD collection. I bought three DVDs from the main chart display in HMV (branch A, not branch B) that day - I did not buy Slumdog Millionaire.

- Upon this day in Croydon, I commited what could surely be classed as the number one book reader's faux pas; I judged a book by its cover. However, whilst this is normally a sentence used to cast derision on the silly and easily lead, that day I felt I could say it with pride. I defy any man to not want to buy a book entitled "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". The title (and cover image what one can only presume to be a zombified Elizabeth Bennett) caught my eye on one of those displays they put in HMV, right by the tills, in an attempt to persuade you into making one more last minute purchase you don't need - and it worked! And if that wasn't enough to sell me, the opening description of the blurb certainly was - "an expanded edition of the beloved Jane Austen novel, featuring all new scenes of bone-crunching zombie mayhem". You, my good sir, have sold yourself a book! See, not all my thoughts are cynical and negative. Zombies frickin' rule! I think it may have ninjas in it too, but only time will tell.

- Unfortunately, my last point is another downer... for you see, on this particular day, it wasn't raining. Why is that a downer? Well, you see, the sun was partially visible. Again, why is that a downer? Because when the sun is out, even just slightly, that means it's that time of year again - the time of the Croydon summer twat. You know the sort - tracksuit bottoms, or (if you're especially lucky) tiny umbro shorts, reebok classics, thick silver chain and... nothing. Wait. That's just a chav isn't it? What's missing here? Oh yeah, that's right - a shirt! It's not just not wearing a shirt that gets me though. It's the fact that there's no sign of a shirt tied round the waist, no bag that could contain a shirt, in fact no evidence of a shirt at all! Just a bare chest, and an attitude problem. If you're lucky, maybe a few shit tattoos. Joy of joys. First, it's not even that hot out. Second, just put it away, man! We're going round the shops, not to the beach! Heck, it's not even the park! One of the examples I saw was extra special: not only was he shirtless, but he didn't even have the toned (read; uber skinny) body that they usually have; he had rather noticeable pot gut and (the coupe de grace) one his arms was in a sling, presumably from a recent act of pointless stupidity. Ok, I'm being slightly harsh there, it might have been an honest accident (maybe he hurt it at work and put in a ridiculous claim. Oh, I jest), but do you know why I don't feel as bad as I could for judging him? Because he wasn't carrying a fucking shirt!

And that concludes my random thoughts on an afternoon in Croydon. I'm not sure when I'll write again, but hopefully in less than three months! I'm off up to my old Uni (Warwick) this weekend to take part in the short film competition that my friends enter and I help with each year, so my next post could well be about that, but, you know me, things could change!

Catch ya later.

Who watches the Watchmen?

So, "Watchmen" - after yeeears of movie development hell, being passed from writer to writer and director to director- has finally been made into a film, will be released on Friday and I'll be seeing it that evening.

While I'm sure, and have read reviews that support this feeling, that the movie will have plenty of good points, I also have a feeling that a lot of it will be far too similar in cinematic style (both visual and aural) to what Snyder did with '300', with lots of slow-mo and over-dramatised fight scenes. Whilst that worked quite well for '300', given that the source material is Frank Miller and therefore is deliberately over dramatised and involves a lot of fighting, I'm really not sure this will do justice to Watchmen. Of course, I'm sure Zack Snyder has it in him to direct in a more subtle, understated and realistic manner (as a story like 'Watchmen' should be done) if he feels the need, but I don't think he's going to have done it. Almost every clip I have seen so far has an unnecessary change, an extra 'cool looking' fight scene thrown into it, a bizarre choice of music, or all of the above. This has me a little worried as I feel if in the future people will associate the book (one of my favourites, not just amongst comics, but in general) with an 'average' or perhaps at best 'reasonably good' movie, which contributes nothing amazing that they haven't seen before. So here's my main point:

If you reckon you'll end up going to see 'Watchmen', please, I implore you, read the graphic novel first (or, if not first, then at least don't be convinced after you've seen the movie that it's not worth your while to check it out). I assure you, it is worth it; it's a great story and a great comic. But, as the author, Alan Moore, says; it was created to show off what comics could achieve that film/novels can't and, as a result, it's amazingly dense. For some examples, check out the level of detail in background (the brand of trainers somebody wears, a poster, a bit of graffiti), and how all the seemingly pointless minor characters and references crop up subtly all over the place, tying the fictional world together and giving you a real sense of an alternative 1985 New York that contains its own living and flowing personalities. The world of the story is subtle and careful. You don't have time to study each frame of a film like that and therefore, right off the bat, any movie of 'Watchmen' - despite the best attempts of the director to include tiny details (and respect to him for that) - is not going to be able to achieve to same effect and, inevitably, certain changes will need to be made. Not once in the comic does anybody actually say 'Watchmen' out loud; the book's title comes from both background graffiti that says 'Who watches the Watchmen?' (a translated Latin quote, being used in this case to question the effectiveness of superheroes), and from the speech President Kennedy never got to make in Dallas where he was to refer to the American people as the 'watchmen of the world'. In the film, this has simply been changed to be the direct title of a superhero group - just one silly example of a nice subtle touch being made glaringly obvious for the audience in an attempt to make the story more accessible and Hollywood friendly.

Also bear in mind that, written in the mid-80s, 'Watchmen' was the first 'superhero' comic that really attempted to be grounded in a sense of reality. The characters are "real people" and their lives have "real consequences" as demonstrated by a few examples (don't worry, these aren't really spoilers, just background info); one hero, made by the bank that employs him as a gimmick, to wear cape, gets it caught in a revolving door during an armed robbery and, unable to free himself quickly, is shot to death. The 'Superman' character, upon discovery of his existence, is immediately snapped up as a government weapon to give the US leverage over the USSR - but at the same time also emits dangerous levels of radiation. The 'Batman' character, following a government act that bans superheroes, finds his identity robbed in ways that majorly effect his confidence and personal life.

'Watchmen' asks; what would happen if, disbelief suspended, masked crimefighting crusaders really had begun to exist in the 20th century. It looks into the psychology of people who would put on a ridiculous costume and go outside and fight crime - sound familiar? Probably because it's since been a huge influence on the superhero genre as a whole, both in comics from the mid-80s onwards and the movies that those modern storyline re-writes have inspired (for non-comic readers; remember that line in Batman Begins; "A man who dresses up as a bat clearly has issues"; or perhaps the entire series "Heroes"; in particular Mr Linderman's plan, in the first series to let Peter explode, wiping out half of New York City, eventually causing the country to unite through grief and fear was ummm, rather shamelessly stolen from one "Watchmen" character's view on the world let's say).

The biggest reason to read it though, is just to experience the story unedited, unchanged, with all the proper characters in all the proper places, with the original - albeit slightly ridiculous - ending still in place (which I know for a fact is re-written for the film, which is silly, since it's SUPPOSED to be ludicrously shocking - that's the point of the character's plan) and without random Hollywood extended fight scenes, dodgy music choices and over-extensive use of Snyder slow motion.

I'll report back when I've seen it! Until then, I'll leave you with a panel from the comic. And, the guy doing the finger breaking? He's the hero. These are complex characters! Haha.