Following from Contact...
Crash (Paul Haggis, 2004)
Not to be confused with the "erotic" Cronenberg film about people who get turned on by car accidents, Crash is a meditation on racism as told through multiple interweaving stories and viewpoints. I thought it hit its marks a bit obviously at times, but it at least had something to say and presented characters that could be both noble and nasty, depending on the moment. It surprised me by winning the Oscar for best film that year, but since it was the only one I'd seen, it's the one I had on my Oscar pool. Yay for me.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Ang Lee, 2000)
I first saw Crouching Tiger in an indy theater, sitting next to a Frenchman friend of mine who'd been a projectionist back home in a theater that showed a lot of Hong Kong cinema. I thought the film was beautiful, but to him, it was a lot of stuff he'd seen before, but that just hadn't been shown to mainstream audiences. And then after the multi-weapon battle between the two women (isn't Michelle Yeoh just wonderful?), I heard him say under his breath "Well I've never seen THAT before." It was also the very first DVD I ever bought, at the same time I bought my first (and much lamented) player.
Cube (Vincenzo Natali, 1997)
An indy, Canadian-made science-fiction puzzle movie? Why yes! Cube definitely had a 1970s SF vibe, with a puzzling downer ending, but it at least gets you talking. My own theory is that the Cube represents the failing mind of a man, represented by the Autistic Man in the story. Nicole de Boer (Ezri Dax!) as the Math Student is logic, the Architect is the ego, the Cop is aggression, and so on. Pieces of him are being destroyed systematically, so there may be a reincarnation allegory going on here, especially given the final image. Maybe there's a whole post in that.
Daleks' Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D. (Gordon Flemyng, 1966)
In the mid-60s, when the Daleks became even more popular than Doctor Who itself, Gordon Flemyng attempted to remake The Daleks as a drive-in movie for American audiences, with an absent-minded professor-type Doctor Who played by Peter Cushing encountering the Daleks in glorious technicolor! Doctor Who and the Daleks did well enough that The Dalek Invasion of Earth was also attempted, and it's just as charming as the first. Charming, though clearly aimed at younger audiences. I have it because of my obsession with Who, of course.
Daredevil (Mark Steven Johnson, 2003)
A lot of people speak ill of Daredevil, but I quite liked it. Sure, some of the effects were fuzzy. Yeah yeah, everyone fights with the power of Xena Warrior Princess. But so what? It thought it was a great distillation of some of Frank Miller's storylines, and I would be more than happy to see another chapter, with the Kingpin destroying Matt Murdock's life like in the comics. Daredevil is in fact the only reason I can stand any song by Evanescence. Those two cues in the film really affect me. I liked it so much, I bought the Director's Cut as well. But that's a story for next time.
But what did YOU think? Next: Daredevil Director's Cut to Dead Poets Society.
Crash (Paul Haggis, 2004)Not to be confused with the "erotic" Cronenberg film about people who get turned on by car accidents, Crash is a meditation on racism as told through multiple interweaving stories and viewpoints. I thought it hit its marks a bit obviously at times, but it at least had something to say and presented characters that could be both noble and nasty, depending on the moment. It surprised me by winning the Oscar for best film that year, but since it was the only one I'd seen, it's the one I had on my Oscar pool. Yay for me.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Ang Lee, 2000)I first saw Crouching Tiger in an indy theater, sitting next to a Frenchman friend of mine who'd been a projectionist back home in a theater that showed a lot of Hong Kong cinema. I thought the film was beautiful, but to him, it was a lot of stuff he'd seen before, but that just hadn't been shown to mainstream audiences. And then after the multi-weapon battle between the two women (isn't Michelle Yeoh just wonderful?), I heard him say under his breath "Well I've never seen THAT before." It was also the very first DVD I ever bought, at the same time I bought my first (and much lamented) player.
Cube (Vincenzo Natali, 1997)An indy, Canadian-made science-fiction puzzle movie? Why yes! Cube definitely had a 1970s SF vibe, with a puzzling downer ending, but it at least gets you talking. My own theory is that the Cube represents the failing mind of a man, represented by the Autistic Man in the story. Nicole de Boer (Ezri Dax!) as the Math Student is logic, the Architect is the ego, the Cop is aggression, and so on. Pieces of him are being destroyed systematically, so there may be a reincarnation allegory going on here, especially given the final image. Maybe there's a whole post in that.
Daleks' Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D. (Gordon Flemyng, 1966)In the mid-60s, when the Daleks became even more popular than Doctor Who itself, Gordon Flemyng attempted to remake The Daleks as a drive-in movie for American audiences, with an absent-minded professor-type Doctor Who played by Peter Cushing encountering the Daleks in glorious technicolor! Doctor Who and the Daleks did well enough that The Dalek Invasion of Earth was also attempted, and it's just as charming as the first. Charming, though clearly aimed at younger audiences. I have it because of my obsession with Who, of course.
Daredevil (Mark Steven Johnson, 2003)A lot of people speak ill of Daredevil, but I quite liked it. Sure, some of the effects were fuzzy. Yeah yeah, everyone fights with the power of Xena Warrior Princess. But so what? It thought it was a great distillation of some of Frank Miller's storylines, and I would be more than happy to see another chapter, with the Kingpin destroying Matt Murdock's life like in the comics. Daredevil is in fact the only reason I can stand any song by Evanescence. Those two cues in the film really affect me. I liked it so much, I bought the Director's Cut as well. But that's a story for next time.
But what did YOU think? Next: Daredevil Director's Cut to Dead Poets Society.
Comments
...I'll probably have to wait for my fiancée to be away from the house though...
I had always passed up Cube in the store, but now I'm intrigued to check it out.
De: The Director's Cut is a much improved version (in a sense), but that playground scene is still in there ;-).
As "de" said, there were some good moments, like the rain scene and him using a depravation tank to sleep, ect. But for every good thing, there's bad, like the fight in the playground, in broad daylight, without either of them in costume. Ducan's Kingpin being totally wasted until the big end fight scene and even then he wasn't done right. But I could forgive all those little things... almost. But the moment Daredevil let the criminal die on the subway tracks, that was when the movie was ruined for me. He went from hero to the Punisher minus eyesight then. And that just isn't Daredevil.
So, a valiant attempt which ultimately fails, precisely because they didn't understand the character Frank Miller made him into.
This is a darker vision of Daredevil, to be sure, but just because an adaptation fails doesn't mean the movie fails (as I said recently when discussion Constantine).
DD has a definite arc in the movie. He's gone too far. He's a "punishing" vigilante (though careful not get his hands actually bloody), but when he's beating up one of the Kingpin's goons later and then notices a kid and sees... himself. He KNOWS he's gone too far.
That's the whole point of his showing mercy to Fisk at the end. He ISN'T the bad guy. I thought it was interesting to make a vigilante (which most superheroes are) actually have to remind himself of this fact.
He's not the Daredevil from the comics, but that doesn't mean it's not a perfectly legitimate superhero movie (IMO).
Then why make a movie about Daredevil, if you aren't going to use the source material as the core template for the character?
I mean, with this logic, they should have made Spider-Man a monsterous half-man/half-spider mix, who shoots a web from his ass, and drinks human blood, but he starts out as a high school kid who just gets bit by an irradiated spider.
You defense of Daredevil is no different. If they want to do the story about a vigilante who goes too far and later tries to pull himself back over that line, that's fine. But that's not Daredevil. That's not his story. That's not the character. If you want to make an adaptation film (which most superhero movies are), you should remain as true to the character's core as you can.
There are variations in Spider-Man and X-Men, that don't fit in with the established history of the characters and that's fine. I can forgive that. But to alter the primary core of the character, makes it no longer that character. No matter what else, Daredevil is not a killer. Period. Once the film made him one, he was no longer Daredevil. He was the Punisher in a red suit, or soemthing like that.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. If you want to do the story of a character that has an established history and characterization, then you need to remain as true to the core of the character as you can. Alter it too much and it is no longer that character. They altered too much in Daredevil, so that is why the movie fails for me. Because any superhero movie about an established character IS an adaptation. And if THAT fails, so does the movie, IMO.
They lifted most of the Elektra plot straight from the comics, mind you, and this is close to Frank Miller's vision of an emotionally destroyed Daredevil (almost as if Reborn had already happened). Superheroes are such extremes that it was a fair point showing one going too far and then actually HAVING TO PULL HIMSELF BACK. The Punisher would never do that.
Comics characters have such varied histories, you can pull from any number of eras. You SURE DD never went off the deep end? What if your DD is the happy go-lucky yellow-uniformed one? What if it's Ann Nocenti's drifter? Within the parameters of Miller's DD, I thought there was enough of the core there.
Daredevil gets so much flack, I feel it needs all the defending it can get ;-).
And not in any one of those "versions" of Daredevil is he a killer. Even in the vaunted Miller run, the closest we get in the issue where Daredevil sees Bullseye in the hosptial and plays russian roulette with him. What happened in the end? Nothing. Daredevil says, "My gun has no bullets. Looks like we're stuck with each others."
Even after all Bullseye had done to him, the beatings, the torment, killing his lady love, Daredevil still couldn't bring himself to kill someone. THERE is your core of the character. And that is what is missing in the film.
First of all, the killing scene was definitely a mistake, in my opinion. It is, however, something I can live with and it doesn't bother me too much, probably because I saw the movie before picking up the comic. Secondly, the playground scene is one of the most stupid scenes in movie history. It's ridiculous. I can see how that scene, by itself, would make people hate the movie.
Aside from that, I think the director's cut of this movie is one of the best superhero movies of all time (and I say that without being the least bit embarrased). I think it transcends the genre beautifully and highlights the civilian persona of Matt Murdock quite well. While I find the acting to be a little uneven, I quite like Affleck's take on the character and see it as one, of many, aspects of the DD we have seen during 40+ years of comic history. Many writers have written the character, and each one has delivered their own take on him. The movie's portrayal is yet another take on the character. Nothing more, nothing less.
One thing the movie does better than the comic (at least the early issues), is portray DD/Matt Murdock as both believably blind and a believable superhero. While many fans maintain that he's not "really blind" because he has extra powers, this premise falls apart somewhat when you look at it more closely. I also suspect that this idea is based on people's assumption that all people who are considered legally blind actually use canes or even Braille, when the fact is that only a minority do. Many people who would be considered "partially sighted" for one reason or another have no mobility issues whatsoever. Just like DD's unique kind of blindness makes it fully possible for him to kick a tidy ass, on the one hand, and not be able to watch TV on the other. Okay, that's a bit of a detour, but I did like the fact that both the superheroics and the blindness were portrayed believably. He is, after all, not pretending to be blind. He is pretending not to have superpowers. And, no, that's not the same thing.
But, I digress. Last point I wanted to make is this: While the theatrical release was okay, I think people who haven't seen the movie and want to check it out should go straight to the Director's Cut. In my opionion, the theatrical release got butchered. Still okay, but much worse than the DC.