[Closed] Recent Viewing Part II

The only comparison between the execreable new age nonsense of The Fountain and the extremely clever social commentary -cum- revolutionary take on the age of the masked hero of Watchmen was that at some point a bald bloke takes the lotus position.

That's it.

The only thing that was better in The Fountain was the music.

Any other comparison is completely pointless. Apples and pears in different dimensions.

That's the thing: the film is NOT under the super hero veil.
Quite the contrary: this is definitely not Marvel or DC stuff.
This is about people, and that was the novelty of the graphic novel when it first came out: it explored the motivations and drives of people who would choose (or in Jon's case are forced into) a vigilante role, coming nothing short of the conclusion that there is somehing seriously wrong. With all of them.
And with all of us.

This is NOT a "Hulk smash - happy end" kinda film by any means!

Sadly, and as I already feared and expressed before, the novel was so revolutionary that it is now hurt by the fact that
every single superhero franchise and spin-off has continued in its wake by going the way of introspective and social-political analysis (most notably the Batman franchise, but Marvel has quickly followeed suit with its "Ultimate" line, upo which most of the current Marvel films are now based).
So for a first-time visitor, there's not as much shine as there should be (unless you happen to be knowledgeable about the history of writing for comics, vigilante heroes and superheroes).

As for the particular scene you reference, I'm not sure how that's unclear?
From the very first start and the exposition of Jon's past and origins as Doctor Manhattan, it is clear that he increasingly sees man (and life) as something mechanical, driven by chemical processes. Like he takes his father's watch apart, so he takes man apart, and in fact the Universe.
He is -as is alluded to in the film- in fact the closest thing to what we would define as a God!
...but he still needs to refer to his own frame of reference: even the Crystal Palace on Mars is just an elaborate jumble of... watch parts.

It's really not all that complicated or mystifying.

The novel is pretty much unfilmable, but I have to say that they did the best effort they possibly could without having it catering only to Alan Moore fans.

I think the characters' motivations are at the very least clear enough...but to be honest: as far as the new Batman films are concerned, apart from the classic background trauma, Nolan's Batman offers NOTHING in the sense of motivation (with the possible exception of Two-Face).
There are plenty of novels though where both Bats AND all his adversaries are dissected to the bone (to better or worse effect), so Watchmen's influence was definitely felt! And there too, to my mind, the characters' motivations were clear enough (with the noted exception of the Joker, where the whole point was that he had no motivation...but that's another story altogether).

That said, the real motive of the Watchmen's story is dehumanisation on every conceivable level (a bit of a staple for Moore, whose other credits contain V For Vendetta for example). And while the character's background and motivations are explored far more intimately in the novel (everything is in fact touched upon in the film, but don't blink or you may miss it), that's really not the crux of the story.
Hence -I guess- you mising that particular emphasis.

Didn't I just say that?

I'd say it's dehumanisation. Becoming alienated from everything that we connect to living happily and free, following moral and ethical mandates that make sense and are acceptable.

From the small (Rorschach being defined by a bunch of ink blots, even by a psychiatrist) to the mediocre (Night Owl and Silk Spectre are ONLY able to function when they wear their costumes) to the to the huge (at the end of the story, the "smartest man on the planet" destroys MILLIONS of lives) to the grotesque (a superhuman who can no longer actually relate to man).

I think it's an extremely and exquisitely dark story, and very much in line with the writer's political views as well as the feel of the time (the mid-eighties, which in many ways was a time for nihilism and fear for global annihilation if ever there was one!)

<shrug>

All I can say is that I saw this film with many friends -male and female alike- only one of whom was aware of the novel, and they all came away mightily impressed, pretty much spot-on on the film's messages and goals (which made for interesting discussions afterwards).

And while I respect your opinion and your feelings (Hey, if it feels to long, it feels too long. Nothing much to say to contradict that), your other points do not make too much sense to me as -to my mind (and that of indeed almost all of the other people I spoke to who'd seen this film)- it's all perfectly clear and understandable (in wry contrast to a film like The Fountain where I've spoken to many people and gotten as many different and diversified responses on what the film was all about), with the clear overall message that this was something fresh, different and clever.

So I'm perfectly happy for you to dislike the film.
Most everyone else, I'm very glad and uplifted to note, didn't.

MILK!

I like milk a lot. But after visiting a bar in Barcelona called Milk (which served excellent cava cocktails), I saw the movie Milk yesterday. It's about the first openly gay politician voted for a governmental function, Harvey Milk. Takes place in San Francisco and we follow the course of his battle, recruition and movement against discrimination for gay people. He campaigned succesfully against Proposition Nr 6 for San Francisco, which meant that gay teachers would be fired, because they were ... gay. This proposal was moved forward by Christians, and pushed through successfully in other states.

He also was against dog poop.

Terrible to see that the religious influence is still so strong today, after over 30 years since he was able to win against this Proposition Nr 6, especially in the USA. It's so unbelievable to see religious people always claiming everyone's equal, but then they are weaving with giant posters claiming gay's and lesbian's are sinners and whatnot.

It reminds me of a very strong scene in Six Feet Under, in which a gay person was muredered for being gay. On his funeral there were religious activists holding these boards with these type of slogans. David Fisher tris to stop them, and can't hold his anger anymore. He runs towards one of them and beats him. So so sad.

As for the movie, it all went very smoothly. Well edited and very well told. While the last scenes of him were a bit too dramatic, it was one of the more interesting biopics. Penn was great! He really nailed that character (you decide whether this is a pun intended). What I also really liked,but didn't found on cd, was the score. Especially the 'la la la' choir that was transported from the song at the beginning (I think) was really cool. Not very thematic, but also not too dramatic when you'd think it would have been.

Who wrote it? From memory I seem to remember Elfman?

Yup. He wrote the other 'Hollywood' Gus Van Sant movies too. I think?

It IS the definition of a good film score. If it works away from the film that's a bonus for us.

No shit Kojak.

Never! He's out on the foggy streets of London right now.

Across the Universe

How she managed to get funding for this I'll never know (perhaps she pitched it as a romantic musical based around songs of The Beatles and failed to mention quite how she was planning on doing it), but Julie Taymor's visual style is arresting as ever. Which is good, because it's basically got little more dramatic value than Mamma Mia or something.

Visually, that film is remarkable. It's utter tosh, of course, but tosh worth watching. The film should have been up for the Oscar for special effects (which nearly always goes to some fantasy/scifi project).

World Series. Inning 4 Philadelphia 1 New York 0

You saying Julie wears the trousers?