Taking Woodstock (2009)

3/5

Ang Lee's Taking Woodstock is a curious film because it seems to have an uncertain target audience. The plot follows Demetri Martin and his crazy mother Imelda Staunton who run a cheap hotel on the countryside. At risk for defaulting on their mortgage, they attempt to convince the music festival Woodstock to host in their city in order to gain heavy hotel traffic. Suffice it to say, the plot is not the film's strong suit. My favorite aspects of the movie were the characters and the acting. They were all fascinating personas, adeptly portrayed, but I feel like I have no idea why they did the things they did. I didn't really understand their motivations; their "complexities" remained wholly nebulous to me. I also enjoyed the comedy, but it felt very subdued and infrequent, as if it were not the main focus of the movie. I am not sure what the main focus of the movie was, in fact. Most of the filmmaking was not particularly memorable, including cinematography, editing, and music. All in all, I didn't find this to be a particularly impressive film, especially coming from Ang Lee, but it's not bad per se. I'm just confused as to its purpose.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1127896/

Watchmen (2009)

4/5

Watchmen was not as bad as I expected. I expected another 300, but I got something much better. After seeing both, I realized that Zack Snyder does little to alter, either improve or tarnish, the source material he is given. As far as graphic novels are concerned, Frank Miller's 300 sucks and Alan Moore's Watchmen rocks. Everything I liked about this movie originated from Alan Moore--the believable story, the complex characters, the mature mood and atmosphere. Everything I didn't like originated from Zack Snyder--the incessant slow-motion, the bad special effects, the poor music choices. There is one thing I will credit Zack Snyder with adapting successfully, and that is the intro credit sequence to backdrop the story's timeline.

Still, there were a number of changes Snyder should have made to make the adaptation more successful. First, it should have been around 2 hours (instead of 2 hours 45 minutes) and more focused. Snyder allowed extraneous material to bog down the pacing and confuse the audience. Second, there was way too much nudity, especially of a certain blue penis. (Also, why does Dr. Manhattan have eyebrows but no pubic hair?) Third, the actors spoke with comic book stylings, which stood as a stark contrast to the mature mood evoked by the movie's story. Fourth, it didn't really explain the universe. Why are these superheroes stronger/faster/smarter than everyone else? How can someone just raise their daughter into a career of crime-fighting? Why does Rorschach's mask constantly change ink patterns? How is Ozymandias faster than a speeding bullet? Most of these complaints are minor, but I often think of them when I think of this movie. Still, Watchmen is an altogether enjoyable experience and one I would highly recommend to people who are curious as to what might really happen in an alternate universe of superheroes.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/