Dark Shadows

Director: Tim Burton
Starring: Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Helena Bonham Carter, Eva Green, Jackie Earle Haley, Jonny Lee Miller, Chloe Grace Moretz, Bella Heathcote
Running Time: 113 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Dark Shadows starts off promisingly enough, with a prologue that's actually somewhat intriguing and an initial 40 minutes that teases the possibility that Tim Burton may have finally made a great movie again. Then it's all downhill, as the tone, which was initially so sure and steady, goes all over the place. At points it's just not clear what Burton was going for. Sometimes it feels like a Gothic horror movie while at others the comedy is so broad it may as well be a remake of The Munsters. What's not in question is that as far as TV-to-film adaptations go, at least this one seemed like a reasonable idea and it's understandable why Burton wanted to tackle it. But it's also equally frustrating when you have a director with so much talent and all these great ideas who can't seem to translate it into a compelling narrative with characters we care about. It happens over and over again with him to the point that it's difficult to even pinpoint a solution anymore (though taking a break from working with Depp might be a start). This is a fascinating near-miss, filled with elements that could have made for a great film and a single performance that really deserves to be in one. And having not seen the original 1960's cult supernatural soap it's based on, I'm comfortable wagering a guess that it's probably excellent. You can see the shell of something special and different here, especially in the first half hour. It would all seem to be right in Burton's wheelhouse, but once again his propensity for favoring production design over storytelling sinks him.     

The story tells of Barnabus Collins (Johnny Depp), who arrives to America from Liverpool in the mid 1700's and has an affair with the family maid Angelique (Eva Green), before spurning her and falling in love with Josette du Pres (Bella Heathcote). But an angry, jealous Angelique reveals herself to be a witch, cursing Josette into jumping off a cliff to her death and sentencing Barnabus to a life as an immortal vampire. Buried alive and locked in a chain coffin by Angelique for 196 years, he finally awakens in 1972, discovering that his cursed descendants now reside in his Collinsport, Maine manor. There's his cousin and family matriarch, Elizabeth (Michelle Pfeiffer), her brother Roger (Jonny Lee Miller), her rebellious 15-year-old daughter Caroline (Chloe Grace Moretz), Roger's troubled 10-year-old son David (Gulliver McGrath), and his psychiatrist Dr. Julia Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter). They're joined by the grounds' creepy caretaker, Willie Loomis (Jackie Earle Haley) and their newest arrival, Victoria Winters (Heathcote again), a mysterious girl who's been hired as David's governess and bares more than a passing resemblance to Barnabus' dead lover Josette. Staying with the family under the guise of a distant relative, Barnabus begins to fall for her. But Angelique's still in town posing as a successful business woman, and if she can't have him, she'll destroy him, along with the rest of the Collins family.

The casting feels spot-on and as aggravating as it is seeing Depp collaborating with Burton for what feels like the hundredth time, he at least seems well suited for a role he's supposedly dreamed of playing for years. It's just unfortunate that his spooky, pale-faced appearance makes the role seem indistinguishable from his turns in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sweeney Todd, Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Alice in Wonderland. So, Barnabus is basically a composite of every Tim Burton character he's played. I'd like to say Depp does something totally different this time around, but it's really just more of the same, which isn't to say he's terrible. In fact, the most interesting portion of the film is the culture clash that takes place when 200 year-old Barnabus wakes up in the 1970's and must adjust to this new lifestyle around him. Just about the best decision Burton made was to set this in that decade since the setting becomes a time travel trip for the viewer as much as the story's protagonist. Watching Barnabus find his way around these surroundings, his observations of the music and fashions and seeing how his dysfunctional family responds to his resurrection, provide the satisfying moments.With a soundtrack featuring the likes of The Moody Blues, Donovan, Black Sabbath and Alice Cooper (who cameos) a good case can be made that the music is actually better than the movie, providing a steady stream of entertainment the story often lacks, especially in its last hour. Frequent Burton collaborator Danny Elfman also provides a creepy, catchy score that captures just the right tone for the material.

An excellent musical montage set to The Carpenter's "Top of the World" that pretty much signifies the film's last great moment before it deteriorates before our eyes and Burton's worst impulses take over. The script seems to abandons the compelling "fish-out-of water" story and Baranbus' connection to Victoria (who may or may not be his reincarnated lover) in favor of his love/hate feud with Angelique. There's a silly, over-the-top sex scene and everything that follows is practically too much of a mess to describe. Eva Green does her best to make it work though, giving what's far and away the best performance in the film by managing to lend many dimensions to a fairly one-dimensional character. Seductive, creepy and funny, she successfully turns Angelique into kind of a live-action cartoon, proving to have a great knack for physical comedy as well as dark drama. A haunting Bella Heathcote excels too in her dual role, despite being introduced as a major character then promptly forgotten about by the film's second half. Chloe Moretz is as melodramatic as can be as angry teen Caroline, though there's a development late involving her that comes completely out of left field and seems to make little sense at all. And this is probably the closest Helena Bonham Carter will ever come to playing at least a partially normal character in one of her husband's films. Yet, her Dr. Hoffman stills seems like a wacked out weirdo, which is probably appropriate.

The ending heavily hints at a sequel that won't likely happen anytime soon due to this film's disappointing financial returns. The expectation was clearly to build a franchise but adapting a TV series (especially one with which most modern audiences are unfamiliar) is tough because you can get way with a lot more when you have weeks and months to build a story. Supposedly, the supernatural weren't introduced in the original until well into the show's run, which had to have been a fun shock for viewers. An updated feature film adaptation has no such luxury, highlighting one of many advantages TV has over film right now. This is definitely a case where there are a lot of interesting ideas and fanciful performances that just don't connect in a cohesive, engaging story like they should. The set-up is perfect but when it comes to delivering on it, Burton drops the ball. If there's good news it's that the first hour of the movie proves that he's still got it. He always seems to be at his creative peak when telling deeply personal original stories, but frequently falters when adapting previously existing material for a payday. Dark Shadows feels like something strangely in between. It's questionable placing the blame entirely on Burton when so many other hands are on deck and factors at play in determining this project's success, but he's an unusual case in that he's the kind of filmmaker whose visual influence and style permeates through every facet of the work. For better or worse, his imprint is unmistakable. It's just that lately, it's been for worse.        

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Director: Samuel Bayer
Starring: Jackie Earle Haley, Rooney Mara, Kyle Gallner, Katie Cassidy, Thomas Dekker, Kellan Lutz, Connie Britton, Clancy Brown
Running Time: 95 min.
Rating: R

★★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

On the horror remake offensiveness scale, A Nightmare on Elm Street would probably fall somewhere in the middle, ranking below A Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween and Psycho but slightly above Friday the 13th in terms of how many fans a reboot will upset. While the 1984 original was an entertaining, well-made 80's slasher with an unusually original premise for its time, it wasn't scary and with each progressing sequel Freddy Krueger, much like Jason, became less an icon and more a parody. That seems to be reoccurring problem in the horror genre as these franchises continue long past their expiration date, losing all creative steam while the studios beat a dead horse trying to wring every last cent out of them. Saw is the latest victim, and though its seventh installment is being touted as the last, you can bet it'll eventually be back in some form or another. These movies always come back, and that's not necessarily such a bad thing since many love them with a passion so in that sense reviving a long-dormant franchise like Nightmare isn't the worst idea there is. Sure, it's a shameless cash grab, but at least there's a need for creative resuscitation here, unlike the recent remake of that same year's The Karate Kid, which raped a classic story solely for profit. Hardcore horror fans may feel the same way about this but they should at least be grateful the kids aren't pre-teens, it's rated "R," and there's a concerted effort to return the series to its darker, more serious roots. Unfortunately, for all the arguments you can come up with for this remake being somehow defensible, the filmmakers have gone out their way to make it FEEL as pointless and disposable as possible. The same problems that have plagued all the other Platinum Dunes-produced horror remakes like Chainsaw, Friday The 13th, The Amityville Horror and The Hitcher are again on display to a lesser extent, but this does have three big things going for it: A great concept and two very talented actors. The results are decidedly mixed, but better than expected. In the end though, it still doesn't work mainly because these horror remakes are all starting to feel and look the same, adding nothing to what was already there and ineffectively re-executing everything that was done well enough the first time around.

Much of the original story remains intact (save for a few changes) which is a good thing because this is one of the rare slashers powered by a concept so strong that even the 1984 film and its inferior sequels couldn't fully capitalize on it. In a small American suburb, high schoolers Nancy (Rooney Mara), Quentin (Kyle Gallner), Jess (Thomas Dekker), Kris (Katie Cassidy) and Dean (Kellan Lutz) are all having nightmarish visions featuring a severely burned man in a red and green striped sweater and a glove equipped with sharp knives. He attacks only in their dreams and if he kills them there, they die in real life. The key is to stay awake (whether that be with the aid of stimulants or just sheer force of will) so that doesn't happen but Freddy slices through the teens until only Nancy and Quentin are left to discover the truth of everyone's shared past with this man and attempt to defeat him for good. One of the more positive changes the updated script provides is the introduction of the idea of "micro-naps" in which the potential victims fall asleep for 10 or 15 minutes, making it even harder for them (and us as the viewer) to distinguish between what's real or not, which ups the suspense level considerably. There isn't anyone who hasn't dozed off for a few brief minutes or felt so tired that they haven't a clue where they are making so it's a clever twist on a familiar idea.

Giving us as much back story on school caretaker and accused child molester Fred Krueger as possible (even going so far as to come up with with an origin story for his sweater) isn't necessarily a bad idea in theory since he isn't one of those horror villains where the more you know or see of him, the less scary he becomes. He simply isn't scary at all to begin with so no harm done there. But you do have to question the logic of showing and spelling out information what was subtly, but effectively implied in the original films. This can't either but it makes little sense attempting to recreate key scenes, moments and plot points from the original, only with cutting edge computer generated effects. Re-tracing the original film's steps beat for beat but with higher production value is a silly idea that only helps make this feel like the latest inferior sequel in the franchise. This is a problem similar to the one marring the final act of Rob Zombie's 2007 Halloween remake, in which he attempted to faithfully reconstruct and jam John Carpenter's original film into the last third of his, but with more overt brutality. It's almost as if all these filmmakers want to have their cake and eat it too by teasing a new direction only to fall back on recreating scenes from the original (in some cases rather poorly) as some kind of misguided tribute or an attempt to throw a bone at hardcore fans. Last year, Zombie rebounded strongly with the gutsy, unrelenting Halloween II when he strayed as far as possible from the source material, finally breaking free from the genre conventions holding these remakes back. That's a template this could have followed in place of the typical sequel/reboot mish-mash route that was chosen instead. It's also interchangeable with a lot of other recent horror remakes with its slick music video style approach to the material, which diminishes the sense of dread and urgency in favor of making everything look dirty, but high budget dirty.  In other words, it's too polished. Maybe not coincidentally, this was directed by Samuel Bayer, who's first ever directing gig was Nirvana's classic 1991 "Smells Like Teen Spirit" video. Say what you want about Zombie's efforts but at least he captured the visual feel of trashy, low budget midnight drive-in movies.

The biggest hurdle cleared is the casting of Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy Krueger, who steps into the role made famous by Robert Englund after online fans pushed to have him cast. They were right on target, and as much as this will upset loyalists, he's no worse at it than his predecessor. Not necessarily better mind you, but different in a way that's appropriate for the liberties taken with the source material. Whether that more realistic approach (facially looking very much like an actual burn victim) is the right one considering this is supposed to be a horror/fantasy character may be up for debate, but Haley's the right guy for the job considering Freddy is supposed to be more frightening than entertaining. His small stature is a minor issue (he's nowhere near the physical presence Englund was) and there aren't as many clever one-liners for him to deliver, but that's not what's really called for here anyway. Unfortunately the character he's given isn't all that interesting and the flashback backstory, despite playing to all of his strengths as an actor, isn't really developed enough since doing that would mean the writers would have to stray from the predictable horror rules suffocating the picture.

My (and seemingly everyone else's) new favorite actress of the moment, Rooney Mara, gives us a Nancy that's a far cry from Heather Langenkamp's appropriately superficial incarnation over 25 years ago. Sullen, morose, and shy, she's the most withdrawn female protagonist we've seen in a horror movie in some time and pensively looks and acts like she's suffered some great tragedy, maybe one outside of what's actually happening in this story. And whatever that tragedy is I can practically guarantee you it would have made for a better movie than we got here. As an actress, Mara has this interesting look and expression to her face that's inscrutably intelligent, making you think she knows something you don't and if you stare long enough you might be able to figure out what. It was evident in just her few sensational, Oscar-worthy scenes in The Social Network and it's only a little bit of a surprise that the quiet intensity that made her performance there so memorable carry over into this. It's unlikely any studio decision makers completely knew at the time of her casting just how much they got or what would happen with her career so it's unfortunate that she's contractually locked (as is Haley) into appearing in a sequel should it occur. And judging from the final scene, it's a safe bet it will. That this doesn't seem like the worst news in the world for her (at least no worse than Robert Downey Jr. spending the rest of his career in Iron Man purgatory) is a credit to how much she brings to a project that doesn't deserve her talents. Until she takes over the film, Katie Cassidy does a surprisingly credible job early on with a one-note scream queen character and Kyle Gallner seems right at home as the weirdo, emo co-lead opposite Mara. Friday Night Lights' Connie Britton and gifted character actor Clancy Brown are wasted in the obligatory adult roles, as is too often the case in these types of films.

Sadly, the acting all-around is actually better than the original and it doesn't seem to help one bit since no one could decide whether they wanted to make a slasher with cheesy acting faithful to the original or an updated version that takes itself seriously. The result ends up being a fake cheesy slasher taking itself too seriously and I'm wondering if removing some of the goofier horror elements and playing it as a straight psychological drama would have been wiser. With a premise this strong and the acting clearly there to support it, a gripping story could have been constructed centering on dreams and reality as these teens come to grips with a buried childhood tragedy. NOES 2010 feels like it should have ambition beyond just covering the original and if a more realistic approach was the game plan they should have had the guts to go all the way with it since there was real potential to do something interesting here. This near-miss exposes the biggest problem with remakes in that there's always a cause to worry that studios will continue to casually resurrect a beloved title or franchise without seriously considering how.

Watchmen

Director: Zack Snyder
Starring: Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, Malin Akerman, Billy Crudup, Matthew Goode, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Carla Gugino
Running Time: 162 min.
Rating: R

★★★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

For months I've been kidding people that I planned on reading Alan Moore's seminal 1986 graphic novel, "Watchmen" before viewing the film. I say kidding because anyone who knows me knew I had no plans to do such a thing. I never read the book BEFORE seeing the film on which its based, wanting to always go in completely fresh. It's a policy I'd implement even if I weren't reviewing movies and one that's always seemed to work well, so there's little reason to change it. The last thing I want to to do is turn into one of those whiners who complain that "the book was better." And when you consider just how many movies I see and how many of them are based on novels, it's safe to assume that my perception and possible enjoyment of these films would be substantially altered (if not ruined) by reading the books they're adapted from.

I've never been more pleased with this policy than after seeing Zack Snyder's take on Watchmen, especially given all the controversy its adaptation has caused. This supposedly sacred text, long considered "the Citizen Kane of comics," has always been labeled more or less unfilmable and when the shocking news broke that it would be attempted, irate fanboys were up in arms. So isn't it ironic that Snyder went out and made a movie that would only appeal to those who thought it shouldn't have been made? Then it's released and he's publicly dragged through the mud for being too slavishly true to the source material. Poor guy can't win. Having not read it I can't comment on how true it is to the novel (though I've heard it's VERY) but it does play like an insane amount of effort was put into capturing the look and visuals, even if deep ideas don't always come along for the ride.

In its over two and a half hour theatrical version it's a sprawling, sometimes brilliant mess as frustrating as it is unforgettable, without making the slightest effort to be accessible to casual viewers unfamiliar with the novel. And that's the double-edged sword of a "faithful" adaptation. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Yet in spite of all its attempts to alienate me I strangely became absorbed in it all anyway. For what its worth, the film drips in stylistic cool, is unmatched in visuals and production design and earns its R rating. None of this is a surprise considering it comes from the director of 300, who isn't exactly known for his subtlety.

There are definitely glimpses of a masterpiece in here and for the first 10 minutes it sure seems destined to be one. But there's still this nagging feeling (made much more evident in the director's cut than the theatrical one) that something more emotionally resonant could have been unearthed with tighter, more focused direction. Even someone completely unaware of the source could tell this was a very tough work to translate to the screen and Snyder deserves credit for at least having the guts to try, as divisive as the results may have been.

The film opens in an alternate 1985 where Richard Nixon is serving his fifth term as President and the threat of war with the Soviet Union is a very likely possibility as the "Doomsday Clock" counts down toward Armageddon. We're introduced to a group of superhero vigilantes known as the Watchmen who have been outlawed by Nixon since 1977, their costumes retired and identities kept under wraps. Only two still remain under government employ: Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), formerly scientist Tom Osterman, created as a result of a nuclear accident and possessing the power to control the universe. And the brash Edward Blake/the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) whose gruesome murder in the film's opening scene sets the plot's wheels in motion.

The exiled, ink blot masked Rorschach (a brilliant Jackie Earle Haley) suspects foul play and recruits the very reluctant Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) back into action. Joining them is Dr. Manhattan's assistant and girlfriend, Laurie Jupiter/Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman), who faces the thankless challenge of living up to the legacy of her superhero mother, the original Silk Spectre (Carla Gugino in retro pinup mode). The final member to again suit up is Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, the "smartest man in the world," who revealed his identity to the public, using his name to make billions funding scientific research. Rorschach is determined to uncover what he believes is not only a massive conspiracy to wipe out the group, but something with more disastrous results for the entire human race.

It was inevitable that with the success of The Dark Knight we'd be seeing darker superhero films and it's a credit to Snyder's direction that as messy as this is it doesn't suffer as badly as you'd expect in direct comparison to Nolan's film. A lot of that could probably be chalked up to the fact that Moore's story (or however much of it survived in David Hayter's script) is just so bizarre and original that it's forced to be judged on its own terms. Like The Dark Knight it asks the intriguing question of what would happen if superheroes really existed. What would they look like? What would they do? How would they affect society? But unlike Nolan's film, the tone sometimes comes across as campy, while still finding a way to entrench itself in a kind of pseudo self-seriousness. What really needs to be said about a film that features a ship ejaculating? Snyder really struggles to effectively balance this tone from time to time because the material is just so challenging and he isn't quite there as a filmmaker yet. But he's close.

The big ideas that are present are front and center in the opening minutes of the film with one of the best title sequences I've ever seen. Unforgettably set to Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A Changin," the sequence somehow manages to be both movingly poignant and hilarious as the Watchmen and their superhero forebearers, the Minutemen, are shown via fake newsreel footage shaping the events of this alternate history. Give the studio credit for biting the bullet to pay for the use of the entire song. A fortune for sure, but worth every penny. It marks the first of many classic rock songs on Snyder's playlist (which also includes Hendrix, Simon & Garfunkel and Leonard Cohen) that will sometimes distractingly invade upon the picture at the strangest of times. At least he has good taste. Unfortunately, this groundbreaking opening sequence also sets up unrealistic expectations for what follows.

The film's structure is muddled and sometimes confusing, jumping back and forth between Rorschach's murder mystery investigation and attempts to draw the Watchmen out of retirement as we're given flashbacks and all their backstories. The device feels like something that could have been directly lifted from the novel and if it isn't I'll stand corrected. Through these flashbacks, some substantially more involving than others, we learn that they're less superheroes than deeply flawed, psychologically damaged people who wear costumes and are working through some major issues.

None except maybe two could even be considered the slightest bit likable with the worst of all being the film's victim, the cynical Comedian, a depraved rapist and murderer whose bleak outlook on the world isn't completely unlike Ledger's Joker. In his view, society created him and will have to live with the consequences. What little sympathy we initially felt upon his demise is quickly wiped away after we actually get to know the guy. Jeffrey Dean Morgan is terrifying and funny in a role that's larger in importance than screen time. While the characters are unsympathetic and difficult to like I did care what happened to them, and much of that can be chalked up to the other strong performances, one of which is possibly award worthy.

Jackie Earle Haley should give his agent a raise for having this be the big role to follow his Oscar nominated comeback in Little Children from a couple of years ago. Under the mask he's effectively scary as Rorschach but it's toward the middle section of the film when he's locked up and it's taken off, exposing Walter Kovacs, that we're given insight into the sociopath who wore it. And that's when the brilliant ferocity of Haley's performance as really takes over in string of memorable scenes. Billy Crudup, best known for playing a "Golden God" in another film is a blue one here and aided by some great CGI brings a unique calmness and low-key tranquility to Dr. Manhattan, who's essentially a prisoner of his own powers and we maybe see more of than we'd like. The most intriguing flashbacks of the film are to his life before the accident.

A nearly unrecognizable Malin Akerman has been cited by many as the weak link as Silk Spectre II and while she's unproven as an actress and this part was probably more than she was ready for, I thought she fared as well as could be expected. Those claiming she's so dreadful probably all read the novel and carry delusions of grandeur in terms of what they think the character should have been. Although it is kind of funny to think that the actress whose most notable work until now was in the awful Farrelly Brothers comedy The Heartbreak Kid beat out all others to land such an iconic role. But it fits, possibly because I haven't read the novel I have problems picturing another actress bringing more to the part (or the costume for that matter).

The relationship between her character and Patrick Wilson's Nite Owl is handled well with the always reliable, underrated Wilson proving once again that he's pretty much capable of anything, this time playing a paunchy, out shape dork afraid to come out of superhero retirement. It kind of reminded me how Clark Kent should be played, if he was to be played again. He's both literally and figuratively impotent with Dan being nothing until he puts on that costume. Wilson portrays that reluctant transformation perfectly.

On the flip side, Matthew Goode projects very little in the way of charisma or intelligence as Ozmandias in the film's flattest performance. He just has no presence at all in a role that seems to have been written especially to convey that. It's the one part that feels like it was miscast and should have been filled with a bigger star capable of coming across as a larger than life personality. It starts to become an even bigger issue for obvious reasons toward the third act of the picture, resulting in an ending that comes across messier than it should. This, and an embarrassing caricature of Richard Nixon (realizing our worst fears of how stupidly he could be portrayed onscreen) are the two biggest faults of the film.

Snyder would have just been better off not showing the Nixon character or shooting the actor from behind since his physical presence is inconsequential to the story anyway. Actor Robert Wisden is less to blame than all the latex he's buried under which makes you wonder why they just didn't put a Nixon Halloween mask over his head and call it a day. Where's Frank Langella when you need him? But the funniest thing about this unintentionally hilarious depiction of Nixon is that it does somehow strangely fit the bizarre tone of the film.

When Watchmen ended I had no idea what I thought of it, which isn't rare for me. Usually when something like that occurs a second viewing is required. Except that second look came in the form of the over 3 hour director's cut which makes for a great point of comparison or a terrible one, depending on your perspective. I'm leaning toward the latter. Unaware of its gargantuan running time beforehand I was hoping this version would not only clear up questions I had about the narrative, but also enhance the overall experience as many director's cuts have done in the past. Instead it accomplished the exact opposite, diminishing much of the film's power.

Usually, I have nothing against director's cuts (my all-time favorite film is one) but there's just no restraint shown at all here. The seemingly minor flaws in the theatrical version are magnified and a story that didn't have the tightest focus to begin with became much more muddled with useless, excess breathing room. The additional 24 minutes ADD NOTHING. But beyond that, they actually take away from what was already there by piling on scenes that would only interest someone deeply familiar with the source material. In other words, drooling fanboys and no one else. Did I really need to see Hollis Mason's death? Of course not. It's a total waste of time. Those who read the novel are probably gasping at that statement but that's exactly the point: You read the novel. Many others didn't and a movie has to be made for them also.

While the theatrical cut finds a good balance in appealing to fans and newbies alike the extended version flies off the rails with self-indulgence, feeling like it was storyboarded to death to cram every little detail in. We get more of bizarro Nixon and a bigger dose of Rorschach than is necessary, especially in regards to his sometimes over-explanatory voice-over narration. The decision to use that in any version is a questionable call, but it seems worse in the director's cut, recalling that infamous Blade Runner voice-over debacle. Scenes that were wisely cut short initially extend well past their saturation point, which sometimes makes for a trying viewing experience.

NO MOTION PICTURE SHOULD BE 186 MINUTES LONG. It's cruel and unusual punishment, regardless of how dense the material it was adapted from is. It reeks of bloated egotism on the part of the director. And I'll think twice now before siding with a filmmaker who complains he wasn't allowed to "fully realize" his vision...IN OVER TWO AND A HALF HOURS! It's great to want to please fans of the novel and do the story justice but sometimes less should be more. Instead of locking Snyder and his over 3 hour cut in a cell and throwing away the key, Warner Bros. stupidly gave in to his con job by actually giving this unnecessary version a limited theatrical release earlier in the year. I've yet to revisit the original version since but after viewing the director's cut but it'll be interesting to see how it plays now.

Watchmen's release was accompanied with the tagline: "FROM THE VISIONARY DIRECTOR OF 300." That effort was disposable war porn but here Snyder comes one step closer to earning that "visionary" label. Nothing about this is forgettable or lacks vision, despite carrying that similar "style over substance" vibe. Luckily for Snyder I'm reviewing the FAR SUPERIOR theatrical cut which is only fair considering that's how it was released. And if you think I've talked about both just to avoid forming a solid conclusive opinion on the film, you're completely right. But I do know I'd see it again in a heartbeat and can't stop pondering the story or the characters, making me believe this could be one of those times where those telling me "the book is better" may be right.

Alan Moore took his name off the film just as he did V For Vendetta before it and you can't blame him. It's his baby and he has every reason to be protective. But after that, there's nothing he can do to control our reactions to it. I didn't even read the novel and can tell this makes for a fascinating study on adaptation and how hard it is to please everyone, even if you've stayed as true as possible to the source as possible. That Watchmen leads to conversations and analysis like that is the highest compliment it can get and proves why every work, regardless of stature, should be fair game for cinematic interpretation. Just don't expect me to read the book first.

Little Children

Director: Todd Field

Starring: Kate Winslet, Patrick Wilson, Jennifer Connelly, Jackie Earle Haley, Noah Emmerich, Phyllis Sommerville, Gregg Edelman

Running Time: 130 min.
Rating: R

**** (out of ****)
In 2001 Todd Field released In The Bedroom, which earned an Oscar nomination for Best Picture and was hailed by many critics as a masterpiece. It wasn't. Little Children is. What was the first thing I did after I finished watching this film? I sat and thought about it for a long, long time. And then...I watched it again. It's not an easy movie to sit through emotionally but it really requires at least two viewings to fully appreciate all the subtle nuances and tiny details that hide between the cracks of the film, in both the directing and the performances. It's so observant and intelligent about life that you might not even notice all the ground it covers at first. I know I didn't. After the first viewing I was taken aback and not quite sure what to make of it because it's so different from anything that's out there right now. It's very dense, methodically paced, isn't easily accessible and plays like a sprawling novel.

Based on Tom Perrotta's 2004 bestseller of the same name, Field co-wrote the script with author, going on record as saying they had no interest in simply just translating the material onto the screen, but adding a different dimension to it. Having not read the book I can't compare the two, but I have a feeling this is one of those rare adaptations where the integrity of the original work was not only preserved, but enhanced. Kubrickian in its execution, the film features a visionary style, sterile quality, and dark sense of humor the late director would have surely appreciated. It even contains a Barry Lydon-style voiceover narration. There's a throwback feel to it, from the creepy opening title sequence to the score and pacing all the way to it's ambiguous but ambitious ending. It could hold its own with some of the best from the 60's and 70's. The kind of movie they don't make anymore.

I thought Kubrick comparison may have been unfair until I remembered that Todd Field was an actor before he was a director and had a small role in Kubrick's last and most underrated film, Eyes Wide Shut. It looks like someone took notes. Many filmmakers have attempted to employ Kubrick's style over the years but none have come close to succeeding technically or effectively harnessing the spirit of them. Field has.

The film perfectly capturing those lazy summer afternoons in suburbia where the "desperate housewives" sit idly on the park bench gossiping while their children play. Playground politics are on full display in this small Massachusetts suburb and Field keeps digging deeper and deeper into the hypocrisy that surrounds its inhabitants. Someone who wants no part of this hypocrisy and is truthful to herself to a fault is Sarah Pierce (Oscar nominated Kate Winslet). A free spirited woman who was once a dissertation away from her Master's degree in English and is now a mother who couldn't possibly be more unfit for motherhood. Her only enjoyment in life comes from her evening walk around the neighborhood facilitated by her husband Richard's (Gregg Edelman) return from work, where he stays late masturbating to internet porn.

Sarah finds herself amidst three shallow housewives who have set their sights on a man they've dubbed the "Prom King," who has returned to the playground with his son after a long absence. This is Brad Adamson (Patrick Wilson) a stay-at-home dad whose beautiful wife, Kathy (Jennifer Connelly) is a successful PBS documentary filmmaker and family breadwinner. That she's a documentary filmmaker is a neat touch since the uncredited voice that narrates this film belongs to Will Lyman of PBS Frontline fame. Screenwriting coach Robert McKee will probably yell at me for saying this but I'm a sucker for voice over narration. If used well it can add a lot to and this is possibly the best use of it ever in a film. The narrator here is smart, eloquent and often very humorous, popping up at just the right moment (like a tense dinner scene) to add rather than detract from the story. His voice is as much a character as anyone else's in the film.

Brad spends his days entertaining his son and his nights pretending to study for the bar exam, which he's failed more times than JFK Jr. He doesn't want to be a lawyer, or really much of anything for that matter. Time that could be spent studying is used watching kids skateboard in the park in an attempt to recapture the teenage years that eluded him, even though the kids don't even notice he's there. The housewives in the playground are too scared to talk to him, or maybe simply too lazy, but Sarah isn't and on a dare strikes up a conversation. As a joke they share a kiss in front of the shocked and horrified mothers resulting in a very funny scene. That eventually leads to summer afternoons at the pool with the kids and a deep friendship. It soon turns into a torrid affair.

Meanwhile the entire neighborhood has a bigger problem with the release of convicted child molester Ronnie J. McGorvey (Oscar nominated Jackie Earle Haley) from jail after serving a 2-year sentence. He comes home to live with his aging mother (the wonderful Phyllis Somerville) and their scenes together are maybe the most touching, and at the same time strangely pathetic, of the film. She's trying to prepare him for life when she's gone despite the distraction of the town breathing down their necks. When he shows up for a swim at the public pool the parents grab their kids and flee like they've seen Jaws. Leading the charge is Larry Hedges (a completely unrecognizable Noah Emmerich), a "retired" neighborhood cop who leads a group called "The Committee for Concerned Parents" who makes it their mission to rid the town of this pedophile. He organizes a weekly touch football game with the guys and recruits Brad to be their quarterback. He has a secret of his own. From the opening scene of the film, with figurines rattling on a shelf as the sound of an oncoming train approaches, we're prepared for tragedy as these characters' lives threaten to intersect in the worst possible way for over two tension-filled hours.

Rarely does a film get so many little details right and hide such small treasures for the viewer to discover. Like the jester hat Brad's son wears all day but takes off the second his mother comes through the door, as if playtime is over. The real parent is home. No use for silly costumes. Or Sarah forgetting the rice cakes for her daughter and her frazzled reaction to it. Has anyone ever been more ill equipped for parenthood? The narrator at times mirrors the thoughts of the audience as he wonders how Brad can possibly cheat on his seemingly "perfect" wife with Sarah but we actually do know why and so does he. Sarah understands him and for Brad that means an awful lot right now. His wife would rather share the bed with their infant son.

The movie tries to convince us that Sarah is even physically wrong for Brad with her "boyish figure," and does an admirable job dressing her in baggy clothes to make her look as unflattering as possible. Of course we know Kate Winslet is far from ugly and having a "boyish figure," but if the narrator and wardrobe do not completely convince you, her performance will. She digs deep into this sad and negligent mother to deliver the finest work of her career. Some may find her scene with the book club discussing Madame Bovary a little too on the nose and in the hands of a lesser director it would have been. Field knows just the right way to handle it and Winslet is captivating.

On the surface Jennifer Connelly's Kathy seems like just a ball and chain plot device for Brad and Sarah to get together and an underdeveloped character. Look closer though. Watch how Connelly effectively portrays a nagging wife without ever once nagging. She'll give a look or say something just a certain way that gets under Brad's skin. When he announces he's thinking of buying a cell phone her response is so simple and matter of fact that it's actually devastating. How about when Brad comes home and finds a list of magazines he's subscribed to on the table with a note attached: "Do You Really Need These?" Finally a movie portrays marital strife with something a spouse would actually do! People don't always scream and yell at each other. These are the things that hurt more.

Over the past two weeks, between this and the indie drama Hard Candy, I've been able to see two movies starring Patrick Wilson, who I had never really seen or heard of before then. Both of these films are among the best I've seen in years and I think the reason neither performance garnered nominations (perhaps aside from the uncomfortable subject matter) is that he has such a natural screen presence that it appears he isn't doing anything. He's the best kind of actor. He doesn't force anything and can slip into a character without you noticing he's inhabiting it. With his blank expression and regular everyman looks you don't even notice he's giving a performance. Of course it wouldn't be up for any awards. It's too subtly brilliant and never draws any attention to itself. It's what he doesn't do that makes him so effective.

Much has made of Jackie Earle Haley's huge comeback and return to Hollywood's good graces thirty years after his role in The Bad News Bears. The strange thing about his performance as Ronnie is that it doesn't pull you in immediately, but rather sneaks up on you and slowly builds throughout the film until it finally explodes, or more accurately, implodes. His blind date is painful to watch. It seems like it's going well until we realize this man is simply not capable of having any kind of normal social interaction with anyone. The date ends the only way it can: in disaster.

Recently there has been some forward progression in how pedophiles have been portrayed onscreen. Between this film, The Woodsman and Hard Candy we're seeing pedophiles portrayed not as nameless, faceless monsters but as real people who are seriously ill and need help. Their behavior may be monsterous but it doesn't mean they're not human. It may be easier for us to pretend they're not, but if we do we're no closer to understanding what causes it. If we don't understand that, how can we prevent it? It's a reminder movies can educate as well as entertain. A lot of people are going to be uncomfortable with a movie that presents a pedophile in a sympathetic light, but I don't think this does that. It presents him as a sick human. Haley's performance is what earns our sympathy. Your heart breaks for the guy.

As good Haley's performance is, it's not the best in the film. I think that honor belongs to Noah Emmerich as the neighbor who makes it his life goal to harass the hell out of Ronnie and his mother. I can't tell you how many neighborhood parents I knew growing up who were exactly like ex-cop Larry Hedges. I could swear I knew the man. Emmerich gets every detail just right. It's so spot on it's scary. Loud, lonely, obnoxious, opinionated and self-centered he's the guy in the neighborhood you're nice to because you feel you have to be. Not a bad guy mind you, just annoying. You always have that feeling that he's harmless though, as he hides behind his mask of insecurity. For good reason. Everyone has a past. Especially guys like Larry. When you live in a small town you really have no choice but to be nice to him because you're going to have to deal with him every day. I loved it when Kathy had to remind Brad that he doesn't even like Larry Hedges. How true that often we get so caught up in our routines we're not even sure how we really feel about anyone, or even if we care anymore.

Emmerich, a fine character actor best known for his "best friend" supporting roles in films like The Truman Show and Frequency finally has an opportunity to play a character that's three dimensional and complex, and he sinks his teeth into it. How committed was he to this performance? Let's just say when he first appeared on screen I had no idea who he was. He looks like he lost all the weight DeNiro gained for Raging Bull. You can tell he underwent both a physical and emotional transformation to become this neurotic, obsessed man. It's the great overlooked performance of the film because it weaves so seamlessly and realistically into the story that it's almost impossible to notice how powerful his work is upon an initial viewing. His character is at the heart and soul of this film and that's never clearer than at the end. I think it's my favorite performance, supporting or otherwise, of the past year and Emmerich deserved a nomination.

Everyone has their favorite genre of film. Some like horror, others action/adventure, and some prefer suspense films. I always get strange looks when I tell people my favorite type of films are suburban nightmares. There's something about real people put in real situations with the volume turned way up that I respond to. Since I grew up in a small town a lot like this one (minus the public pool) and hated it it's always interesting for me to see these types of films exposing the hypocrisy of the residents, yet still showing them as human beings who make mistakes. The title of the film is cruelly ironic as it's the parents who are really the "little children." They need to be protected…from themselves. There's something about the truthful way it exposes how people think and act that we can learn from. I would rank this film alongside American Beauty, The Ice Storm and The Swimmer as the greatest in this genre.

I went into this film with the highest expectations imaginable and they were exceeded tenfold. In a year that's seen films like Children of Men and Notes on a Scandal come with incredible hype only to fall short for me I went in with great trepidation as well as optimism. As the film's finale approached I worried Field would force all these characters into a contrived collision course of melodrama. Just the opposite occurred. Instead the film ended quietly, introspectively and intelligently. At first I was surprised how abrupt the ending was and the lack of closure. But sometimes in life, that's how it is.

You have to wonder what would have happened had New Line gotten behind this film and pushed it like all the mindless sequels and remakes we've been seeing in theaters lately. That it was only nominated for 3 (albeit very well deserved) Academy Awards is shameful. It should have been a lock for a Best Picture nomination. How Field's first feature In the Bedroom, a great film but inferior on every single level, earned one in 2001 is perplexing. I think mismarketing is to blame and it's carried over into the DVD release as well. The cover art makes the film look like a romantic comedy and doesn't even hint at the emotional heft and complexity of this story.

Interestingly, the DVD doesn't come with a single special feature (not even a trailer) and there are no plans for a special edition in the future. You know what? I'm glad. Any special feature accompanying a film like this would seem gratuitous. Supplemental material, which in most cases is still a good idea, has devolved into a tool for filmmakers to hide the fact their movie sucks. I really don't need to hear George Lucas talk about the catering crew on the Star Wars Episode III DVD. This movie can stand on it's own and it's fitting there isn't a feature on here because this movie doesn't even seem like it belongs in the DVD era at all. That this is only Todd Field's second film can mean one of two things: He's peaked, or more frighteningly, his best work is yet to come. Either way, Little Children is one of those rare motion pictures that stay with you.