![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Just a quick post to say I really liked it. A few dot points follow, cut for some light spoilers:
- I thought the casting was fantastic. I was genuinely amazed that there wasn't a single dud choice. In most adaptations, you're lucky to get one or two casting choices that make you go "Yes! That is a perfect fit!" For me, this movie had about half-a-dozen of them.
- I think the film's makers did an admirable job of translating the comic to the big screen, with some potentially controversial storyline changes that I think were made for the best.
- On that note, I really liked the ending. I think it was a smart way to retain the essence of the comic's ending via a more streamlined, easier-to-fit-into-160-mins approach that tied neatly back into the existing storyline, and was probably a little easier to digest for the average movie goer than the whole squid monster dealie. To be totally honest, I think I like the movie ending even more than the book ending, and from assorted messageboards and lj posts I've read, it seems I'm far from alone on that one.
- Unlike
ataxi, I really liked the soundtrack, and found it did what they were obviously aiming for - it provided a sense of firmly tying the fiction to the alternate "real-life" history, which I totally bought into and thoroughly enjoyed, particularly the Bob Dylan backed opening sequence. That being said, I haven't seen Forrest Gump in its entirety, so perhaps the lack of that association is what saved it for me.
- I enjoyed the look of the film in general. It had that dulled, retro, noirish look that made it feel like you were watching pictures from old newspaper articles in live motion.
- [obligatory blue wang reference]
I need to re-read the book. Over the years my information retention from reading has improved from "fucking terrible" to "kinda bad but not too bad", and I last read it about 5 or 6 years ago, so other than major plot points I couldn't actually remember much. It did make watching the movie kind of interesting, though, having vague recollections reignited every 10 minutes or so.
- I thought the casting was fantastic. I was genuinely amazed that there wasn't a single dud choice. In most adaptations, you're lucky to get one or two casting choices that make you go "Yes! That is a perfect fit!" For me, this movie had about half-a-dozen of them.
- I think the film's makers did an admirable job of translating the comic to the big screen, with some potentially controversial storyline changes that I think were made for the best.
- On that note, I really liked the ending. I think it was a smart way to retain the essence of the comic's ending via a more streamlined, easier-to-fit-into-160-mins approach that tied neatly back into the existing storyline, and was probably a little easier to digest for the average movie goer than the whole squid monster dealie. To be totally honest, I think I like the movie ending even more than the book ending, and from assorted messageboards and lj posts I've read, it seems I'm far from alone on that one.
- Unlike
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
- I enjoyed the look of the film in general. It had that dulled, retro, noirish look that made it feel like you were watching pictures from old newspaper articles in live motion.
- [obligatory blue wang reference]
I need to re-read the book. Over the years my information retention from reading has improved from "fucking terrible" to "kinda bad but not too bad", and I last read it about 5 or 6 years ago, so other than major plot points I couldn't actually remember much. It did make watching the movie kind of interesting, though, having vague recollections reignited every 10 minutes or so.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-08 12:57 pm (UTC)I was about to worry, before I saw that line.
As a side note, when your grandma asks you about a movie you've watched, telling her 'it had a penis in it, that's about all I got out of it' is not a good response. I don't think she's going to go watch it now.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-08 01:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-08 01:19 pm (UTC)About the only song that didn't fit was the end credits.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-08 02:11 pm (UTC)However, I discovered this on the net and it gave me some chuckles.
"Why would I save a world I no longer have any steak in?"
"Do it for meat."
Oh and incase you havent seen it, this is awesome:
http://gorillamask.net/gm_media.php?show_page=video&page_id=22238
no subject
Date: 2009-03-09 12:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-08 02:55 pm (UTC)I really hated (and this didn't make it into my post) the guy who played Veidt. He was terrible.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-09 12:55 am (UTC)I was also a bit disappointed that they played up the "violence enjoyment" for Night Owl and Silk Spectre. They should indeed be the more restrained, boy-scouty characters to offset the rest of the cast's "whatever it takes" attitude.
And yes, that sex scene was kind of ridiculous. Although I'm still not entirely sure what kind of vibe they were going for. With the "flame thrower money-shot" at the end, it all felt awfully tongue-in-cheek.
Despite the handful of flaws, the film left me feeling immensely satisfied. I was constantly engaged by what was happening, and found that the movie flew by really quickly (it didn't feel like it was anywhere near 160 minutes long). I left the cinema feeling excited about what I'd just seen, and that's always a big plus for me.
I loved the guy who played Veidt. I was wary for the first couple of minutes he had on screen, but he won me over very quickly. I thought he played the part well. What didn't you like about him? The only way in which he felt especially different to the comic character to me was that they made him more obviously effeminate.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-09 12:59 am (UTC)The guy playing Veidt just felt very wooden and flat to me. I always got the impression the guy was supposed to be overflowing with charisma, and I didn't get that from the movie version.
The sex scene is just horribly inconsistent in tone. The use of "Hallelujah" implies slow, serious heartfelt lovemaking, whereas the sex itself is relatively vigorous and kinky, and then the "money shot" is deliberate hilarity. It's like they couldn't decide with out of three approaches to take with the scene, and settled on all three in a row.
It's like shooting an action scene involving PG-rated Indiana Jones-style punch-ups, following by a guy getting his arm graphically shoved in a meat grinder on-screen, culminating in the hero slipping on a banana peel.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-09 01:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-11 02:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-09 01:09 am (UTC)Other than that, basically liked the film as noted. Except that the violence was crap, both the general aesthetic and in places the way it played to the gaze of the audience, which was inappropriate to the overall moral tone. Don't agree with
no subject
Date: 2009-03-09 01:16 am (UTC)I was fine with the style of the violence (although it was very confronting), I just wish they'd made Night Owl and Silk Spectre more restrained - disabling or knocking out criminals rather than tearing them to ribbons, and doing with with just a little more effort required and not reveling in it quite so much.
I recall you saying in your post that by the end of the film you felt like any one of them could catch a bullet if they wanted to, and that's a good point.