The Spirit

Frank Miller is a notorious comicbook artist whose work is characterised by stark visuals and a flare for ultra-violence. It was only a matter of time before Hollywood began to plunder his back catalogue of creations. ‘300’, ‘Sin City’ and even the gritty tone of ‘the Dark Knight’ were all ripped from Miller’s pages. They transferred easily to the cinema, with devastating box office success. Confident, Hollywood turned to Miller to adapt Will Eisner’s cult comic ‘the Spirit’ into their next big hit. He failed miserably.

The Spirit is an immortal masked avenger who spends his nights prowling the roofs of his crime ridden city, looking for wrongs to right and dames to rescue. At every turn he faces his nemesis, a diabolical crime-lord known as ‘the Octopus’. So far so good (and so Batman), but unfortunately here’s where the fun stops. The film isn’t just bad, more unforgivable than that, it’s dull.

In two dimensions, the comics at least had a quirky charm, but this is obliterated by the transfer to the big screen. The sight of our stoic hero actually skipping along the tops of buildings is unavoidably ridiculous. The film’s plot is equally absurd and features a worrying mix of pseudo-science and ancient Greek mythology. Is our hero a ghost, a god or just a man? Only one thing is certain, after twenty minutes you’ll have given up even trying to care.

Much of the blame lies with the film’s appallingly mundane leading man Gabriel Macht. His monotone monologues gradually gnaw the fun out of all the films cartoonish visuals. Supposedly smart one-liner s, are left ruined by an agonisingly wooden delivery. Miller’s decades of making comics has clearly left him ill equipped to direct real people. Perhaps he had aspirations of turning bad acting into some form of parody, but the film’s just not clever or subtle enough to be satire.

It’s tragic to see someone as emphatically cool as Samuel L. Jackson trapped in such a monumentally mediocre film. He might be the only man alive who can make Kangol hats and tartan trousers look stylish, but even he can’t save this mess. Though at least for his sake, he looks like he had fun trying. It’s also a pity to see the smouldering efforts of Scarlett Johansson, Eva Mendes and a whole host of dangerous damsels go to waste. Poor little vixens.

‘The Spirit’ feels like it should have been made 20 years ago, in the dark ages when comicbook movies were just embarrassing and silly. Back then, superhero movies were like pornography; their awful acting and camp innuendo was a guilty pleasure, only to be enjoyed in private. It's sad to see them reduced to this yet again.

‘The Spirit’ is out on DVD and Blu-ray now, but if you buy it then they’ll never learn...

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

After the X-men trilogy made over a billion dollars it was a commercial inevitability that Wolverine, the series most popular brooding hero, would return. This film is the first of three planned solo outings, plotting the years of Wolverine's life before he joined Professor Xavier's team of X-Men. ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’, shows us just how Wolverine got his indestructible adamantium skeleton and those famous claws. It also reveals his bitter rivalry with his ferocious half-brother Victor (aka Sabertooth) and the tragedy of his doomed first love.

In the comics, Wolverine’s exact origins were an elusive secret for a long time. In a way, revealing the character’s back-story in such explicit detail does rob him of much of his aura of mystery. Arguably Wolverine is a more intriguing character as a man haunted by a terrible forgotten past. In particular, the introduction of an obligatory love story, feels more like a plot device rather than a genuine emotional connection between the characters. The film’s attempts complicate Wolverine and his origins don’t match the simple animal rage that epitomised his best comicbook incarnations. The film isn’t convincingly dramatic or mindlessly entertaining; but what else is worth watching?

The innate problem with any prequel is that we already know what’s going to happen. It’s all but impossible to generate suspense when we know with absolute certainty who’s going to live and die. Added to the fact that Wolverine is already almost impervious to physical harm, this leaves all the film’s earnest action deprived of danger. Another major challenge for this film is that it has to maintain continuity with all the existing X-men movies. This severely limits the plot, which at times seems contrived and painfully predictable. It's certainly not helpful that X-Men 2 already dwelt heavily on Wolverine’s murky past. Most of the film's supposed revelations will feel overly familiar to anyone with a basic knowledge of the character.

The film draws heavily on the endlessly vast universe of popular characters from Marvel comics for its supporting cast. However, the rapid parade of fan favourites looks like a cynical ploy to widen the appeal of the film as much as possible. The huge potential of characters like Gambit and Deadpool is wastefully squandered on a handful of scenes and a few glib lines. It’s pretty clear, the only reason they’re really here is to test the waters of audience interest before these characters get their own spin-offs. The fact that the studio announced that Ryan Reynolds's Deadpool was getting his own movie, within weeks of Wolverine's opening, seems to confirm these suspicions.

Although the film’s visual effects are without fault, the high standards set by the previous X-men trilogy leaves little room for it to distinguish itself. The spectacular has become so commonplace that it’s now impossible to overwhelm an audience’s good sense with some CGI and a few explosions. Hugh Jackman convincingly captures Wolverine’s iconic feral look yet again, but his surly charms are nowhere near enough to save an uninspired script. Pruning away the ensemble cast of the X-men trilogy was supposed to be a good thing. However, the weight of credibility which actors like Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen lend to a film can’t be underestimated. Liev Schreiber is an effectively menacing presence as Victor, but the film generally lacks performances of substances. Good actors fight a desperate losing battle against shallow writing, armed with only limited screentime. The film’s casting was adept; unfortunately almost every other aspect of the production falls disappointingly flat.

Marvel has already announced production on a further five movies in the X-men franchise. Only time will tell if these efforts will repay the faith of comic fans or further disappoint them. Of course you’ll still watch Wolverine, but you probably won’t like it much. Let’s just hope they find a proper script and some real claws for the sequels, because we both know, you’ll end up watching those too.

Who Watches the Watchmen..?

Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' comic book masterpiece “Watchmen” has been acclaimed as one of the hundred greatest novels ever written. At a time when comics were still dismissed as childish fantasy, "Watchmen" showed that graphic novels could be adult, profound and important. After over two decades of delay, hype and failed attempts, ‘Watchmen’ has finally made the perilous journey to the big screen. Many were sceptical that the sprawling narrative, iconic visuals and cerebral subtext of the book could ever be adequately captured on film. Moore himself labelled this task impossible and disowned any interest or involvement in attempts to adapt his work. But was he right...?

The film preserves the book's urgent plot in its entirety. In a grim alternative reality where the cold war rages on in 1985, the world stands on the brink of nuclear apocalypse. Costumed superheroes have been outlawed and left to the concerns of their own broken lives. But when the savage murder of a former ‘hero’ begins to expose a plot to hasten global annihilation, will the forgotten Watchmen save mankind and is it even worth saving?

Visually, the film is painstakingly faithful to its original inspiration. The book’s dark and gritty imagery comes to life with each scene lifted from the page. Special effects finally seem to have caught up to Moore and Gibbons’ imagination. Even more challenging characters such as the blue, god-like and often naked Dr Manhattan are brilliantly realised. Handled with less care, such absurd imagery could easily have ruined the films ability to function seriously. Director Zack Snyder applies the stylised slow motion skills from his previous film ‘300’ to 'Watchmen'’s visceral action scenes, but thankfully gives equal prominence to the weighty dialogue.

Avoiding the box office lure of big name stars, the film's relatively unknown cast look and feel like their familiar characters. The absence of famous faces doesn’t weaken the film, but instead gives it an added air of realism and credibility. Oscar nominee Jackie Earle Haley is perfect as the gravel voiced and appealing psychotic vigilante Rorschach. His noirish narrative propels much of the film with brutality and success. Billy Crudup is equally effective as Dr Manhattan, Watchmen’s most unique, thought provoking and enigmatic character. Solid performances from the rest of the cast are largely successful in showing the flawed complexity of their characters. If at times they do fall a little flat, this is more a failing of the characters themselves than the manner of their portrayal.

To call ‘Watchmen’ a superhero film is perhaps a mistake since none of the characters really fulfil the definition of a hero. Collectively marred by unapologetic cruelty, apathy, insecurity and psychosis, they are grim caricatures of familiar comicbook ideals. Audiences expecting camp, costume-clad adventure will be left disappointed and shocked. 'Watchmen' is a deliberate and merciless parody of the ‘superhero’ genre, which it exposes as cartoonish moralistic fantasy. Those unfamiliar with the book and its intentions may find this concept less understandable and immediately digestible.

‘Watchmen’ is an ambitious effort to convert a superb piece of literature which far exceeds the cautious expectations of many fans. But the film risks overreaching itself and alienating audiences by refusing to simplify or condense it’s more high brow ideas. Some will no doubt be left weary and confused during 'Watchmen'’s vast 160minute runtime. Viewers may also find the ugly ultra-violence of the film more difficult to stomach than that which is still, admittedly, a bloody part of the book. However, it is likely that cinema audiences have now become too numbed and desensitised to nasty death and dismemberment to really notice or care much. Personally, I found that 'Watchman's desire to shock detracted from its efforts to be profound. By similar measure, those seeking violent thrills will be left bored by the film's more pretentious diversions.

Overall, Watchmen will be a relief to established fans, but may struggle to please the appetites of wider audiences. The film's box office success is almost assured thanks to hype and a well oiled marketing machine, but it probably does merit the attention. The successful aspects of the film demand viewing even if its flaws inhibit any desire for endless re-watching. As the tagline reads “who watches the Watchmen?”... perhaps you should.

Link below to red carpet coverage from the world premiere featuring interviews with Dave Gibbons, the cast and fans.

http://www.lsq.tv/red-carpet/watchmen-world-premiere-red-carpet.html