A: They're almost exactly the same length.
Australia (three stars total - twice as many as Watchmen) I went into Australia (165 minutes, 2008) expecting more of the musical melodrama from director Baz Luhrmann's previous work in Moulin Rouge! (127 minutes, 2001) but hoping for no less of the charm and cartoonish action of Romeo + Juliet (120 minutes, 1996). Although Australia was longer, it wasn't as epic as Nicole Kidman's Far and Away (140 minutes, 1992), neither in years nor in distance covered. It actually shares more in common with one of my father's favorite movies, Quigley Down Under (1990), but without the gunslinging and with a less impressive stampede than The Man from Snowy River (1982). Speaking of the stampede, it should have come 25 minutes earlier, immediately following a standard half hour of character introductions. Every subsequent plot point came 25 minutes too late after that. Which 25 minutes before the stampede would I cut? The ten minutes it takes to get from the bar to the station and the death of Nullah's mother. Call me cold-hearted, but all that came out of those scenes was the connection between Nullah and Lady Ashley (which could have started on the stampede) and the connection between Hollywood's Wizard of Oz and aboriginal gulapa (or magic, which led to most critics' biggest problem with the movie). In order to cut the movie down to the two-hour average, I would have also cut the 20 minute montage between winning the army contract and Nullah's walkabout, however I did appreciate hearing one of my favorite jazz tunes, "Begin the Beguine." and seeing Drover's tuxedo transformation. Carney's daughter could have still become Fletcher's wife without the montage, and the time saved could have been better used to make him a worse villain. As Australian movies go, I don't think this one's more romantic than Strictly Ballroom (94 minutes, 1992) or as thrilling as Crocodile Dundee II (110 minutes, 1988). The most interesting commentary I can make is that two people sacrifice their own lives to save another's and both happen to be aborigines. "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" may have been used repetitively, but it wasn't as bad as "Put On Your Sunday Clothes" in WALL-E.
Watchmen (one and a half stars total - felt twice as long as Australia) Director Zack Snyder seems to share the same fault as Baz Luhrmann for getting longer with each successive outing: Dawn of the Dead (101 minutes, 2004), then 300 (117 minutes, 2006), and now Watchmen (163 minutes, 2009). The opening credits by themselves cover 30+ years. That should tell you everything you need to know about how long this movie feels. My boss told me he walked out of the movie after the first 40 minutes and there's a reason for that. The entire first hour of the movie should have been cut, along with all the flashbacks, and the slow motion scenes should have been normal speed. So much time is spent going backward, it never feels like things move forward at all. Not that I would mind being stuck in the '80s, but this isn't the '80s I remember. It's interesting to consider what the '80s may have been like for those who weren't kids at the time. I remember '80s excess and fear of the U.S.S.R., but I remember action figures and gang culture much better. The movie covers all these things, but you wouldn't want to watch a movie about that, would you? I would have been unfaithful to the book and started with Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II getting cornered in the alley by hoods, right before they beat them all down, because that scene sums up the whole movie. It's Matrix-style bullet time meets Revenge of the Nerds, where a geek gets the girl, and average-looking good guys look good fighting without getting so much as a scratch. It's all about B-movies going mainstream, and the corruption in that concept. I watched the movie to see the costumes (the best part), not to listen to funeral dirge soap opera music (the worst part). I should have been honest up front - I'm not a fan of the Watchmen comic book series (I hate when it's referred to as a graphic novel; it was a series before it was collected) and I tried not to hold that against the movie. I was hoping it might have some je ne sais quoi to make me sympathize more with characters that you're supposed to hate. Alas, I'm afraid the movie was TOO faithful in that regard and the narration, which works for comics but not movies, made me hate the characters more than I already did. The question is not whether the movie is better or as good as the book, because that question always gets the same answer. My question is whether any non-comics reader would have watched this movie if not for all the marketing?
1 comment:
i think that you have been listened to so much faggy music, that your balls have disappeared, and you have forgotten what is cool. come on you gave 27 dresses a better review, and that movie should have gotten aids it was so bad. the movie was good, the only thing i would have changed was the soundtrack was a bit much. he kind of beat us over the head with some of the music. but overall i liked the movie, even dr. manhattan's balls were entertaining.
Post a Comment