Watchmen

“Watchmen”

USA. 2009. Directed by Zack Snyder. Screenplay by David Hayter and Alex Tse. Based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Starring: Malin Akerman, Billy Crudup, Matthew Goode, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Patrick Wilson, Stephen McHattie, Carla Gugino, Matt Frewer, Laura Mennell, Rob Labelle and Gary Houston.

Rating: ★★

You cannot blame Zack Snyder's long-awaited movie version of the graphic novel, Watchmen for straying too far away from its highly acclaimed original source but in this adaptation, it is strangely not a plus. Yes, the movie is almost slavishly faithful to the inspired, award-winning graphic novel (save most notably for a couple of key plot points towards the conclusion) but the key word is there is slavishly. It is one thing to see a film really cinematically interpret the material onto the screen and quite another to see one like Watchmen that just utilizes the graphic source novel as a superficial blueprint.

Now I did thoroughly enjoy the original 1986 graphic novel created by Alan Moore (who is so vehemently opposed to any of his works being filmed that he asked his name be removed from the credits) and illustrated by Dave Gibbons. It portrayed an alternate universe in which the Vietnam War was won through the use of superheroes, former President Richard Nixon was hence elected for four more terms until 1985 when the story is set and nuclear tensions between the US and USSR have only heightened. The film project was passed on through a couple of studios and several filmmakers including Paul Greengrass and Terry Gilliam who wanted to film it as a mini-series (which I would have preferred considering the multitude of back stories). As the director, Zack Snyder has now made it, the movie only disappointingly underscores his fanboy-appealing obsession with employing the same surface theatrics that he used in his last film, 300 rather than seriously depicting the more flesh-and-blood and less archetypal characteristics required for this story.

As in the graphic novel, the movie opens with one past superhero, Edward Blake aka The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) being viciously attacked by an even stronger assassin and finally thrown out of his high-rise apartment. It may seem like a random killing but Rorshach (Jackie Earle Haley) believes there may be a larger plot to target the other Watchmen consisting of Dan Dreiberg aka Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson), Laurie Juspeczyk aka Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman), Adrian Veidt aka Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) and Jon Osterman aka Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), whose skin radiates blue and whose superpowers helped him almost singlehandedly win the Vietnam War for the US. Despite that victory, it also ultimately propelled Nixon to outlaw superheroes after years of endorsing the Watchmen and the previous group they took the place of, the Minutemen that included Hollis Mason aka Nite Owl (Stephen McHattie), Sally Jupiter aka Silk Spectre (Carla Gugino), who is also the mother of her later predecessor, Silk Spectre II and The Comedian who stayed active throughout the span of both clans while being generally a hedonistic, vicious, uncouth lout.

Rorschach, who gets his name from his facial mask that keeps changing ink-blot patterns, pays a visit to each of the now retired Watchmen, as his diary presents his reflective musings and also serves as the voiceover narration throughout the film. The movie also keeps the same structure of inter-cutting various heroes' back stories at various points in the main present story; so much the same, in fact, that what worked in the comic occasionally becomes muted on the screen, as resorting to excessive flashbacks in movies often end up robbing some of the forward narrative momentum as it does here. In any case, the filmmakers have certainly scrambled to cover their bases within their 161-minute running time to try to get the fans to savor each character and the non-fans to come up to speed on the complicated, multi-layered story.

A story like this, however, needs standout performances at the center to bring the various dimensions of these characters to life and this is the part of the film that shows Snyder is far more interested in visuals than simply getting story and character interaction right first, which is quite apparently difficult given that the actors are in front of a blue screen throughout as in 300. Perhaps Snyder trusted the mostly first-rate cast including Billy Crudup and Patrick Wilson to let the acting take care of itself (except for Malin Akerman, whose acting skills everyone is picking on for good reason) but few of the actors ever seem completely at home in their roles. Only Jackie Earle Haley actually makes a lasting impression as he seems to truly absorb his character and reflect the tortured psyche that was permanently scarred by a heinous crime and thus propelled him to become a vigilante. Carla Gugino also adds in some sass and spice in her small role playing Silk Spectre as a 50s superhero vixen and later a 67-year old woman, although with Righteous Kill and this movie, she may want to take on a role that is somewhat less demeaning (with her character having a penchant for rough sex in the past one and almost getting raped here).

But one shocking disappointment is Matthew Goode, who had been good in past movies like The Lookout but comes across as a 90s pretty boy rapper type playing dress-up as opposed to the rich, confident tycoon he is supposed to be after being the only one who has revealed his true identity as one of the Watchmen to the world. As for Malin Akerman, well, her track record is not very good with past films like The Heartbreak Kid and 27 Dresses and seeing her faced with scenes here where she is called upon to strike some higher dramatic notes (as when she discovers a revelation about her origin late in the film) only underscores her decidedly narrow emotional range on screen. The Valley Girl speak she often inflects in her dialogue certainly does not help matters either.

To be sure, some of the visuals that copy directly off the comic book page are arresting particularly when Doctor Manhattan starts taking frequent detours to Mars after feeling increasingly detached from earthly human beings. But that is also part of the problem: The surface visual wizardry is way too glossy for its own good. The visual panache worked for a movie like 300 where the characters were all archetypes anyway as opposed to more human characters but here, combined with some lackluster acting, it repeatedly keeps us at arm's length to get into the personalities of the superheroes. Additionally, the endless freeze-frame zooms that Snyder employs to show some of the hard R-rated brutal impacts like a punch to the face or a graphic arm-break are getting quite tiresome now after 300. It also ends up actually lessening the full visceral impact of the violence itself and prevents the audience from feeling the physical and psychological pain and, within a story that attempts to explore the troubled and harsher psyche of superheroes, the splatter violence combined with the pyrotechnic flash becomes mindlessly quease-inducing rather than as appropriately unsettling or disturbing as the characters and the audience should be feeling.

It is all unfortunate that the visual whizzes and bangs get in the way of supplying a better dramatic backbone because actually the one thing that was admittedly improved in the film version was the ending. Some of the absurdities have been removed and the choices characters make seem a little bit more logical than in the graphic novel. But, by then, it is too little, too late. We are not fully engaged with these characters and the movie has not allowed us to ponder the moral balance in the brink of nuclear war to make the risky and audacious statement it wants to make at the end.

It may seem rather peculiar that a movie that stays so close to an accomplished work of art could end up being so mediocre and unmemorable but not when one considers what is really required in a real film adaptation. The fact that graphic novels practically provide moving storyboards to film can make a director think it might be enough to just lazily try to replicate the images on screen. True adaptation, faithful or not, is not just about visually filming the descriptions of its source but also about filmmakers providing their own personal interpretation to view the characters and story. Robert Rodriguez in his faithful film version of Sin City got it right because he treated the inherent drama in his operatic pulp story as seriously as his admiration for the pictures prepared for him by its source from Frank Miller. Watchmen, on the other hand, ultimately provides a textbook example of an adaptation where mindlessly faithful reverence of a comic book has drained out the greater potential for a singular, focused dramatic vision.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”

USA. 2008. Directed by David Fincher. Screenplay written by Eric Roth. Screen story written by Eric Roth and Robin Swicord. Inspired by the short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Starring: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Taraji P. Henson, Julia Ormond, Tilda Swinton, Jason Flemyng, Mahershalalhasbaz Ali and Elle Fanning.

Rating: ★★½

David Fincher’s The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a movie that treats its own potentially fruitful premise just as a curious case rather than with great curiosity. Here is the story of a person who literally ages in reverse from being born in an old man’s body all the way to dying as an infant and the filmmakers mostly just scratch the surface of observing such a person. That the film's impeccable technical achievements belie its utterly safe and conventional story treatment make it all the more disappointing.

The movie is loosely based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald from 1921 and, considering that one of the adapting writers is Eric Roth, the writer of Forrest Gump, one can easily notice that movie’s obvious influences. The difference is that movie actually immersed us and gave us insight inside Forrest’s mind to view various pivotal events in American history through his unassuming, innocent eyes. On the other hand, because this fantasy story following backwards aging can inherently contain the folly of disjointing its own narrative flow, however, it requires an even greater level of clarity into its title character’s mind to achieve an epic sweep and that is something the movie and the screenplay hardly attempt.

As a result, what we ultimately get is like the Odyssey of the adventures of the titular character, Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt), who is born in 1918 New Orleans, as the tagline says, “under unusual circumstances.” The birth happens immediately after a famous watchmaker loses his son in World War I and builds a clock at a train station that moves backwards, hoping that it will turn back time itself and bring his son back. Instead, it leads to Benjamin being born as a very wrinkled, arthritic old man in a baby’s body.

His mother dies from the laborious childbirth and his horrified father, Thomas (Jason Flemying) abandons him in the footsteps of a nursing home owned by Queenie (Taraji P. Henson). Despite the initial reluctance of her husband, Tizzy (Mahershalhashbaz Ali), Queenie takes pity on Benjamin and adopts the child as her own. No one expects him to live very long considering the very feeble and ailing status that he is born in and he takes a longer time than most acquiring language and learning how to use his legs. Moreover, due to his old-age appearance, he fits in quite well with others in the nursing home.

Then, at the age of 12, he meets seven-year-old Daisy (Elle Fanning), the girl who becomes immediately fascinated by him and eventually becomes the closest thing to the love of his life. Beyond that, the movie checks off other pivotal events in his life such as fighting in WWII on a tugboat led by Captain Mike (Jared Harris) and then, while having the look of a 67-year old man, having an illicit affair with Elizabeth Abbott (Tilda Swinton), the wife of a visiting British trading minister. As time progresses, he and the adult Daisy (Cate Blanchett), who is now a successful ballerina, move in and out of each other’s lives as they deal with the fact that even if they stay together, they will not exactly be able to “grow old” together as he will age younger in appearance all the way to becoming a baby.

Some of those individual moments throughout are, to be sure, emotionally affecting and the movie’s belief in taking the Odyssey approach is that since Benjamin ages backwards while everyone around him ages forward, life is most significant to him in intermittent moments. That may perhaps be true and was also true to an extent in Forrest Gump due to his low IQ but I kept thinking to myself why is this movie not reaching the emotional critical mass it wants to? Then, it dawned on me that (this might sound a little strange) there is really little or nothing especially distinguishing about Benjamin Button as a character. Sure, there is the occasional voiceover narrating his thoughts but the movie just assumes that he will just act like any other person we meet, only in reverse. Hence, with a lack of personal character development, we are never really treated to the wholly different intellectual and emotional perspective that we should have had.

This then leads to the larger issue the screenplay and story by Eric Roth and Robin Swicord completely dismisses, which is the concept of nature vs. nurture. The story seems to mostly presume that it is only the biological mindset and appearance of Benjamin that determines his real age (such as how a person brings him to a brothel at only the age of 12 because he looks to be in his 70s, which I found somewhat creepy). But don’t his growing life experiences based on how long he has lived play a role in his maturity? Wouldn’t it have been more fascinating to see a man trying to live forwards even as he ages backwards? Then what would it really be like for a 60-some year old mind to have the free-wheeling spirit of a younger man or how does a child’s mind retain a lifetime of experiences? The second part of the last question on his belated childhood in particular is so quickly glossed over with a lazy plot point and one montage of too many that is supposed to be heartbreaking but left me feeling rushed and unmoved.

It is unfortunate that all of this serves as an ultimately less than satisfactory dramatic backbone to some astonishing, jaw-dropping images, which is probably why it took so long until now for Hollywood to make the movie and, in future, will probably be studied by filmmaking students. The first 30 minutes in particular are truly remarkable in combining the techniques of digital effects, animatronics and motion capture to seamlessly graft Pitt’s face into a frail baby’s body and later a 4’ sized one when he is trying to walk from his wheelchair in a church. The makeup of both Pitt and Cate Blanchett in their respective roles is also faultless and David Fincher uses even more of his trademark sepia tones with his cinematographer, Claudio Miranda to create a chromatically fantastical yet somewhat melancholic universe.

The actors cannot be faulted either, although, after the overrated Babel, this is the second time Pitt and Blanchett have starred together in a movie with an ambitious premise but unrealized promise. Nonetheless, they are never less than credible acting in a variety of stages in life, particularly Pitt, who certainly makes a committed effort to deal with hours of makeup and imagining the visual effects that will complete the aging illusions. He and Blanchett certainly also share a nice, convincing romantic chemistry within their clearly odd predicaments and the fact that their characters finally do not resonate is not the actors’ blame but the screenplay’s. Also worth mentioning is Taraji P. Henson, who stands out as the most vibrant and spunky character in the movie as Benjamin’s adoptive mother.

I know The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is already getting some awards consideration for its technical accomplishments and actors and that is probably just as well (even if the picture as a whole is far from deserving of a nomination). With this cast and production credits, of course they can make a scene work and occasionally glow. But, by the end, it is all superficial because there is no truly original inspiration or idea behind it all. What we are then left is just a predictable, conventional tale and that is really the last description I would have wanted to use for a literally time-bending fantasy like this.

Twilight

“Twilight”

USA. 2008. Directed by Catherine Hardwicke. Screenplay by Melissa Rosenberg. Based upon the novel by Stephanie Meyer. Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Billy Burke, Ashley Greene, Peter Facinelli, Nikki Reed, Jackson Rathbone, Kellan Lutz, Cam Gigandet, Taylor Lautner and Anna Kendrick.

Rating: ★★

I cannot say for the original, wildly popular source novel written by Stephanie Meyer, which I have not read, but I think there is an interesting angle in the teen human-vampire romance in Catherine Hardwicke’s movie version of Twilight. It is probably apt that only a teenager like the story's central character, Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) who is a very antisocial 17-year-old and more than just a little fascinated with death would fall in love with a vampire in the first place. The problem with the movie is the so-called romance is not really much of a romance.

Now I know I am clearly not part of the target audience for this story, which, aside from the very watered down vampire elements, is really just another clichéd teenage love story and plays purely on the fantasy of the plain girl falling for the tall and handsome, mysterious, gothic boy in town. But does the romance have to be this cheesy and sappy? Are we not yet past the oldest clichéd ending of those old, tired teenage movies – the big high school prom? And couldn’t the reason the vampire boy, Edward (Robert Pattinson) ends up falling in love with Bella be just a little deeper than the fresh scent of her blood?

Edward turns out, however, to be a part of the Cullen clan who can actually walk around in daylight as long as it is a cloudy or rainy day and deliberately choose to be “good” vampires by feeding off animal blood instead of human blood (although choosing to label himself a “vegetarian” for this is really an insult even to euphemisms). This is why he tells Bella to stay away from him. Of course, being so fancied with death already and doting on Edward’s glances with his eyes that actually change colors, how is she going to resist a temptation like that? In addition, it certainly does not hurt when he has the power to literally see where she is at all times and run in a flash to use his bare hands to stop a truck from hitting her or protect her against a group of lascivious muggers.

As you can guess from the general outlines, the story is really a pilfered rendition of the vampire legend into a purely female-oriented fantasy, which is probably notable for being so rare. This is the first movie I can remember in a long time where all the attention is on the male where he is not only the supposed knight in shining armor but also the forbidden fruit. This, of course, means that any guy dragged to see this love story will actually seriously be left out of the loop and yawn or roll his eyes through much of this... but then it is not often there is a movie that tries to strictly and directly appeal to the fairer gender.

Some of the ladies, however, might even find this love story a little shallow because the director, Catherine Hardwicke and her writer, Melissa Rosenberg do not inject it with the key ingredient of passion. Hardwicke, who previously directed the much better Thirteen in 2003 and seems to specialize in adolescent angst, does a decent job setting up Kristen Stewart’s Bella as a teenager who has just moved away from her divorced and remarried mother to live with her father (Billy Burke), is more than a little troubled and seems more engrossed with mingling with otherworldly beings since she clearly is antisocial in this one. But, as far as I can read about her reason to fall for Edward, there is little more than that. Sure, he has saved her life a couple of times, too, but she looks more enthralled with the near-death experiences she has had than she is grateful for him having saved her life (she herself says, “Death is peaceful, easy. Life is harder.”).

Pattinson’s Edward, on the other hand, has been stuck at the age of 17 for over 100 years and is afraid that if he kisses Bella, he will not be able to control his urge against the pheromone scent of her blood. There is another element of how, for some reason, he cannot read her thoughts when he can read everyone else’s. Fair to say, despite his strong-willed resistance to actually cave in to his primal urges and his passing curiosity at what she is thinking (which, as some others have pointed out, does make a nice allegory on the virtues of abstinence and also leads to the longest almost-kissing scene between a couple I have ever seen), this is not a romance built on any kind of real personality.

Oh yeah, there is also what happens when Edward stands under direct sunlight, which, for me, was the most unintentionally hilarious scene in the movie. No, his skin does not burn under it but it literally starts shimmering like there are diamonds all over. Fine, the teenage girls may swoon over (and in the theater I watched the movie in filled obviously with a lot of teenage girls, most of the audience seemed quietly entranced) but I honestly was having trouble containing my laughter at the cheesy visual effects on display and just the awfully sappy contortion into which they have crumpled the vampire mythology.

That is about the scene when the movie really just falls apart in the second half. The whole sequence in which Edward finally reveals himself to Bella as a vampire is played with dialogue that sounds like a greatest lines medley out of a bad Harlequin romance novel. It also does not help that, despite the movie's mostly effective, chilly blue and gray visual look, the visual effects are so laughable when we see Edward whooshing from tree to tree or just looking like a goofy monkey when he is rapidly climbing up a tree with Bella on his shoulder. Also, the final fight sequence between the good vampire and the truer, I mean, the bad vampire (hey, there are some bound to actually live by their true nature of wanting human blood, right?) is so repetitive and anticlimactic that it almost feels like it was shot as an afterthought. I know Twilight was made as an independent film with a small budget and my suggestion for the next time the filmmakers work with a limited budget is this: Work around the constraints and just rely on good, clever editing for the tree climbing scenes and perhaps have the vampires try to read each other’s minds and outthink one another rather than merely bashing through walls.

As I said before, however, I did find the story of Twilight somewhat intriguing in its setup and I think it is because it could have made a good beginning for an unfulfilled romance. If Bella actually decided to listen to Edward the first time to stay away, then the whole story could have been a closer rumination of the cleft between life and death, humans and vampires. Now that the fruition of the romance has happened this easily and simplistically, I have lost all interest.

Footnote: Also in limited release right now in the US is the Swedish vampire movie, Let the Right One In, which is about the strong bond that forms between a 12-year old boy and a girl vampire stuck at 12 years old. That is one of the best movies to come out this year and is only on limited release because it is subtitled. And here is the difference in depth between the two movies. In Twilight, the beginning catalyst for the male vampire to become attracted to the girl is his bloodthirsty urges. In Let the Right One In, however, the girl vampire would not even think to bite the boy because he is her best friend.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

“The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian”

USA. 2008. Directed by Andrew Adamson. Screenplay by Andrew Adamson, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. Based on the novel by C.S. Lewis. Starring: Ben Barnes, Georgie Henley, Skandar Keynes, William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Sergio Castellitto, Peter Dinklage, Warwick Davis, Vincent Grass, Pierfrancesco Favino, Cornell John, Damian Alcazar and Alicia Borrachero.

Rating: ★★★

The first time we visited Narnia in 2005’s The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, its citizens were threatened by the mercurial White Witch. In this second installment of the beloved series of books by C.S. Lewis, Prince Caspian, the heroes discover that the threat comes in the form of a corrupt human ruler. No doubt that Lewis felt that a greater, more relatable challenge to the resilience of the young heroes would be an evil that is not an external force but personified in greed and tyranny.

The story wastes no time in whisking the Pevensie siblings, Lucy (Georgie Henley), Edmund (Skandar Keynes), Peter (William Moseley) and Susan (Anna Popplewell) away from WWII Britain into the land of Narnia. What was only a few years since the events of the first film in the real world has been 1,300 years in Narnia and they find that the human Telmarines have driven the Narnians into near extinction. Among the Telmarines, there is the treacherous Lord Miraz (Sergio Castellitto) who now wishes to eliminate his nephew and would-be heir to the throne, Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) after his wife, Queen Prunaprismia (Alicia Borrachero) has finally bore him a son.

Caspian barely manages to escape the attempt on his life thanks to the early warning from his mentor, Doctor Cornelius (Vincent Grass) and finds himself in the midst of Narnians. The latter group is reluctant to trust a Telmarine like him at first until he shows his extensive knowledge of the Narnians, including talking animals, Centaurs, Minotaurs and others including Trumpkin the Red Dwarf (Peter Dinklage). As they realize that the Telmarines led by Miraz will come to hunt all the Narnians down, the Pevensies, Caspian and the Narnians band together to battle against the impending threat.

The original C.S. Lewis books have been read by millions of children worldwide and one thankful note is how director Andrew Adamson (who did the first two Shrek movies) and his co-writers, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, who wrote both the first film and this one, have not diluted the allegorical themes of the source novels. They may rely much more on spectacle this time around than in the first one and the climactic battle at the end does substantially blow up a small portion of the original book. But they retain the lessons of faith particularly in Lucy, who still believes the Christ-like lion king of Narnia, Aslan (voiced by Liam Neeson) will come again to restore order to the land. While Peter, Edmund and Susan provide good role models for children in their fierce, admirable mettle (even if they cannot imitate their surprising fighting skills in Narnia), Lucy reflects how there may come a point when we must consider allowing God to step in and do the rest.

Besides those deeper lessons, Adamson and his visual effects crew have improved on the scale and sweep of the original, which is perhaps why the time of release was switched over to summer instead of Christmas in the first film. We can certainly see the $100 million budget particularly in the extended climax as we see the camera swoop over skies to capture large mythical birds and, in a very neat shot, slides under to show a booby trap launched by the Narnians to literally “pull” the ground down under the Telmarines. I could have, however, done without some of the slow motion shots of the one on one battle between Peter and Miraz that dulls its ferocity and glamorizes it a bit too much. There is also no escaping that this film, despite its PG rating, probably has just as much furious swashbuckling as The Lord of the Rings, just with a less amount of blood.

The actors all do a fine job though I do wonder whether the kids will grow up by the next film as markedly as they have from the first one. I certainly hope that will not affect the future casting of young Georgie Henley who, as Lucy, really is the crucial moral center of the story and brings just the right amount of pluck to balance her bedrock values. Tilda Swinton also gets to make a juicy cameo appearance as the White Witch, whose representation and context is actually slightly improved from the original book as she tries to tempt Prince Caspian into selling his soul.

It is remarkable in many ways how an explicitly Christian-themed series of books have provided such a wildly popular, accessible escapist fantasy (though the overt religious references do get progressively more implicit in the series). Part of it is a tribute to C.S. Lewis’ vivid imagination to project his values and messages to an otherworldly universe and much of it is the filmmakers’ ability to translate it without being too didactic. And with this film’s battle brought down to a more accessible human level, more children and adults alike will identify with this battle that many loyal fans will readily recognize not so much as a metaphorical battle of David vs. Goliath but actually David vs. King Saul.

Iron Man

“Iron Man”

USA. 2008. Directed by Jon Favreau. Screenplay by Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum and Matt Holloway. Based on comic book characters created by Stan Lee, Don Heck, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby. Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow, Leslie Bibb, Shaun Toub, Faran Tahir, Sayed Badreya, Bill Smitrovich and Clark Gregg.

Rating: ★★★½

It was only a matter of time before Hollywood realized how classic comic books can make such rich, ideal source material for intelligent, full-blooded blockbusters when done right. Richard Donner started it first in Superman back in 1978, Sam Raimi raised the bar in the new millennium in his first two Spider-Man films and Christopher Nolan re-energized the increasingly lifeless Batman franchise in Batman Begins. Now here is actor turned director Jon Favreau as the unlikely man to reinvigorate another superhero thought to be forgotten in Iron Man.

Diehard comic book fans would know that Iron Man was one of the earlier Marvel superheroes from the 1960s but this first cinematic adaptation keenly updates him and his alter ego, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) to the current postmodern age of military warfare. In fact, the opening act of the film has that Catch-22 feel reminiscent of Andrew Niccol’s Lord of War as it introduces Stark as a rich, womanizing owner of a large weapons manufacturer. His weapons are only supposed to support the American military fighting in Afghanistan but the chaos of war never provides any means to ensure that it stays in their hands.

Stark finally comprehends that when he is captured after a surprise military attack from the Taliban. He was originally there to give a military demonstration of his latest weapon but while in captivity sees firsthand that the guerillas can have just as easy access to his products, too. Thankfully, he is also a highly resourceful man who, with another fellow captive, Yinsen (Shaun Toub), plans and succeeds at an escape by building a bulletproof metallic suit armed with small missiles and rockets to make him fly. When he comes home, he decides to perfect his body suit while having a change of heart about making destructive weapons.

All of this may sound a little too serious for a summer movie but it is easy to forget that the comic book is really a serious art form, too, with greater emphasis on the human flesh and blood dimensionality behind the mask (as originally enlivened by Stan Lee, Don Heck, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby). Favreau and his writers, Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum and Matt Holloway respect that tradition here and are not afraid to sell their superhero as one that battles with his smarts and not his might and not against just a cartoonish adversary but a real world of political hot zones. It is also a great asset for them that Robert Downey Jr. is simply fantastic in perfectly balancing the humorously playful aspects of his hedonistic billionaire persona and his emotional and physical heroic transformation into seeing the errors of his moneymaking ways and becoming Iron Man.

None of this is to say that the film is without its impressive CGI, of course, and Stark’s initial trial and error stages of perfecting his crude Iron Man suit provide the similarly relatable, crowd-pleasing appeal that Bruce Wayne offered in Batman Begins. The visual effects are all seamless though the final climactic battle does slightly pale to Iron Man’s sensational escape sequence and another where he flies in to save a group of Afghan refugees (partly because the real villain of the story is easy to guess). But the effects are all the more memorable because they are so compellingly inhabited by the actors, particularly Downey Jr. when we see his gee-whiz wonder reactions to the computer displays behind the Iron Man helmet. They are also never chaotically overloaded like last summer’s “robotic” film, Transformers.

A top-flight supporting cast is just as crucial to add further dimension to the world of the superhero and a clear standout is Gwyneth Paltrow who does some of her best and most vivacious work in years as Stark’s sassy, long-time personal assistant, Pepper Potts. Of course, we know that Stark as a changed man will come to really fall for the only girl who really sticks by his side and the two generate some electric chemistry in their snappy, witty navigation between the professional and the romantic. The ever dependable Terrence Howard and Jeff Bridges also provide able support as Stark’s best friend, Jim Rhodes, and business partner/mentor, Obadiah Stane, respectively (a double-take from Howard in particular in his admiration for Stark’s body suit generates some big laughs).

Favreau previously directed the surprisingly enjoyable Will Ferrell vehicle, Elf and the space adventure, Zathura but Iron Man is a big stride forward for him as a director who can handle spectacle pictures as well. One can sense his boyish ardor for the comic book medium and, unlike Neil Marshall’s recent disappointing homage to post-apocalyptic B-movies Doomsday, his equally palpable love for the cinema trusts the roots of classical storytelling to sweep in non-readers into the comic book feel. His zeal for both mediums translates well to make more fans out of those not familiar with the man of iron, who, for my money, is far more intriguing than anything the man of steel has been up to lately.

Christmas Movie Marathon

“Christmas Movie Marathon”

In this season of peace and rejoice, I thought I would take a look at some perennial Christmas classics that band us together in the holiday spirit, the recent hits with the potential to become one of the classics and the clunkers that cause us to depressingly retreat to our corners.

The Classics:

It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) – How can this movie not grow more timeless with its story about a man who realizes that the world would have been a much worse place without him? Realizing that gives us all something to aspire to in our lives.

A Christmas Story (1983) – There is no funnier or more accurate film that captures the inner child that fixates on a particular gift and nothing else. It is even better because the gift he wants – a BB rifle – has every adult around him fearing it will destroy their peace if he shoots his eye out. And the movie stands above similar counterparts because it actually brings out the importance of family amidst the whirlwind of materialism.

A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965) – His friends may call him a “blockhead” and say he can’t decorate a Christmas tree right but actually Charlie Brown is one of the smartest in the Peanuts bunch for going through the pain of asking what Christmas is really all about. Perhaps my personal favorite holiday film, if only for the climactic moment where Linus drops his security blanket and steps forward to tell whose birthday Christmas really is.

Miracle on 34^th Street (1947) – In a way, this movie plays as an inside-out contrast to It’s a Wonderful Life because it is about an old man who is thought to be insane because he is willing to be the real Santa Claus and bring unusual and uncommon generosity to children. It also exposes the materialistic culture for all its bah-hum-bug worth while reminding us that we all need our childhood fantasies from time to time to carry through the stresses of life.

An Affair to Remember (1957) – This movie covers the romance field of Christmas and how frustrating it is not to spend it with the one you’re destined to be with. It is also the most emotional time (or entertaining fun) you will have in seeing what difficult contortions fate puts through these two lovers that we know should be together from the beginning.

A Christmas Carol (1951) – This one still stands as the best adaptation of the Charles Dickens classic with Alastair Sim giving an Ebenezer Scrooge with no cinematic equal. Being about how a cynic transforms into a better person, the story stands as one of the best kind of realist feel-good movies despite the fantastical elements that aid the hero.

The Recent Hits:

Catch Me If You Can (2002) – This is more of a caper but underneath is a story of a runaway whose closest encounters at Christmas time are his close-calls with his pursuer. It is a nice boot that the pursuer becomes like a parental figure for his young suspect and that builds to a movie that celebrates the hero’s brazenness over his criminal behavior.

Elf (2003) – Who thought the crazy comedian Will Ferrell could mold himself into an elf-like character? I certainly didn’t until I saw this movie that redirects Ferrell’s relentless antics into unassuming cheerfulness. It's a nice contrast that his father played by James Caan turns out to be the most bah-hum-bug guy around the corner.

Love Actually (2003) – A movie that takes the feeling of being with the one you love for Christmas and multiplies it by eight. That builds to a joyous medley of heartfelt confessions of romantic feelings, unrequited or not, with a few disappointments along the way from seeing a few of them misguided or misdirected. This one looks the closest to building a reputation as a perennial favorite.

The Polar Express (2004) – Despite the unintentionally haunting look of motion-capture in general, Robert Zemeckis’ expanded cinematic telling of the children’s book survives the trappings and reinforces the need for children to behave well. It also perhaps presents Santa and his elves in a more organized fashion than any other film.

Love Affair (1994) – This movie is actually a remake of An Affair to Remember and, though not quite as good as the original, it stands on its own for the distinct ways it plays with destiny not only bringing these two lovers together but heartily approving of them. One is the lush cinematography that seems like a sneaky angel to unite these two lovers and the other is the late incomparable Katharine Hepburn, who plays the wise aunt through which Annette Bening sees the true gentlemanly qualities of Warren Beatty and truly loves rather than just likes him (and the implicit celebrity parallels are unavoidable).

The Clunkers:

Jingle All the Way (1996) – Here is a movie that shows how being relentlessly materialistic is nothing more than plain idiotic. It looks like Schwarzenegger is trying to make his action hero persona more accessible to kids by turning himself into a flying-toy action figure. Get the joke? I didn’t either.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) – In the world of movies that get you in the bah-hum-bug spirit, this one would reign supreme. Why? Because it makes the hideous creature effects of the Grinch outshine Dr. Seuss’ veiled social commentary, which proves that technical wizardry, when not needed, can detract from real insight. The other take-home message here is to never bury a talented comedian with makeup to make him look uglier.

All I Want for Christmas (1991) – How sad that a movie that tries to embrace family values is also so insipidly inane. We already know that the divorced parents should have never split. The children know it, the grandmother knows it, and the parents can’t deny it. So there is no conflict to worry about and there is no need for a movie about them.

Surviving Christmas (2004) – Wow, get the irony of this situation: a man who wants to literally buy back the childhood he missed. This one sounds like something out of Class 101 of self-destructing story premises. No wonder they released this sucker back in October so that people would forget about it by Christmas time.

Christmas with the Kranks (2004) – Talk about forcing the Christmas décor down people’s throats. I don’t know who got the idea that neighbors would gang up on you when you decided to pass on putting up Christmas decorations but if the world ever became as tyrannically bankrupt as this neighborhood, I would pack up my bags and choose to live in Mars.

So feel free to heed the recommendations and have a Merry Christmas!

Stardust

“Stardust”

USA. 2007. Directed by Matthew Vaughn. Screenplay by Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn. Based on the novel by Neil Gaiman and Charles Vess. Starring: Charlie Cox, Claire Danes, Michelle Pfeiffer, Robert De Niro, Sienna Miller, Nathaniel Parker, Kate Magowan, Mark Strong, Jason Flemyng and Peter O’Toole.

Rating: ★★★

It’s been some time since a real fairy tale like The Princess Bride has hit theaters and Stardust is a creatively crazy one. There may be one too many imaginative ideas in this fantasy mix of swashbuckling, evil witches, greedy princes, and, yes, even a cross-dressing pirate but the ambitious concoction is more than refreshing in a summer filled with sequels and retreads. And the central story breathes renewed life into the concept of stargazing.

The film, based on the novel by Neil Gaiman and Charles Vess and narrated by the duly recognizable voice of Ian McKellen, introduces Tristan Thorn (Charlie Cox) who lives in England with his father, Dunstan (Nathaniel Parker). He is initially unaware, however, that his mother, Una (Kate Magowan) was actually a slave girl in a fantasy land from beyond called Stormhold.

He is at first smitten with Victoria (Sienna Miller). In order to dissuade her from marrying another man whom he loses to in a pitiful duel, he sets out to retrieve a shooting star that they see falling in Stormhold. With the star will arrive a rare stone whose bearer will determine the next heir to the king (Peter O’Toole).

That star is Yvaine (Claire Danes), a beautiful young woman with long, flowing blonde hair reminiscent of none other than Goldilocks. Tristan finds her after his father tells him about a magic candle that was left behind by his mother and uses it to cross over to Stormhold. He is not the only one who is seeking for her, however, including no less the seven princes greedy for the stone she is wearing and a group of evil witches, Lamie (Michelle Pfeiffer), Empusa (Sarah Alexander) and Mormo (Joanna Scanlan) who want to perform a ritual on her to attain immortal youth.

Amidst this adventure, Tristan will, of course, come to protect Yvaine from the greedy princes and the witches and he will eventually realize that he loves Yvaine and not Victoria. After all, as the old saying goes, how can he resist a shining star that is literally aligned to him? It’s a nice touch that she literally glows even brighter when she feels the emotion of love. It also helps that Cox and Danes have a sweet and natural onscreen chemistry together, even if their fairy tale innocence is marred a bit by the fact that their characters actually fall into bed.

As with most fairy tales, however, the side characters are the scene stealers and the filmmakers went for top-shelf actors to cast these roles. First mention goes to Robert De Niro as that transvestite pirate who trains Tristan in swordplay and Yvaine in waltzing. He scores enormous laughs whether cross-dressing in his closet in the midst of a ship attack or utters the film’s funniest line, “Do you ever try to remove blood stains from silk shirts? Nightmare!” There is also some morbid humor in how the greedy princes turn into lingering ghosts complaining about their fates. Michelle Pfeiffer, meanwhile, gets to play a juicier, meaner and slightly more risqué rendition of the evil Queen from Snow White, much to the chagrin and jealousy of her sisters and our amusement. That leads to a truly loopy fight scene where Cox enters a swashbuckling duel with a dead body controlled by Pfeiffer via a voodoo doll.

The film may not quite achieve the sweep of The Princess Bride with its side plots (De Niro’s character, funny as he is, is really an obvious deus ex machina) but its abundance of rich ideas and laughs is worth cherishing. And Shakespeare the playwright would have been vastly amused by his own Romeo & Juliet and Hamlet influences in the story. His own populating of colorful characters might not have been a perfect fit for a fairy tale but if he had ever penned one, it might have turned out as something like Stardust.