Movie Lovers Only

News flash:  Terminator is an action franchise.

Apparently, this is news to some people.  I keep hearing about “James Cameron’s sci-fi classics” and whether or not the new movie will “measure up.”  People also made those kinds of comments about Star Wars and Indiana Jones, and they’re well-deserved; the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones trilogies are the kind of high quality that surpass measly four-star reviews.  They defined their respective genres, and filmmakers are still heavily influenced by them today.  People were right to wonder if that kind of greatness could be continued in the present.

With all due respect, the Terminator franchise does not belong to that same category.

Don’t get me wrong; that’s hardly an insult.  Saying a movie isn’t as good as the original Star Wars is like saying you don’t play tennis as well as Roger Federer.  Being mentioned in the same breath is praise enough.  And if my previous post wasn’t indication enough, I like the Terminator films.  They’re fun, well-made films, driven by creative and compelling action sequences.  But they’re also melodramatic, often thin, and not as original as many seem to remember.  So when I compare Terminator Salvation to its predecessors, I’m not judging it against sci-fi masterpieces; I’m judging it against a series of above-average action films.

And the new Terminator Salvation continues that tradition effectively.

From the first scene, the film establishes exactly what it is: the beginning of a new story set in the Terminator universe.  The style of the opening, which features lots of continuous takes, smooth camera movements, a grey color palette, and no music, immediately sets the tone as more akin to Children of Men or War of the Worlds than previous Terminator films.  The story also turns the focus from a constant threat to John Connor to the way the apocalypse has affected the pockets of survivors.  These are represented in different groups reacting to their circumstances in different ways, bringing a scope and emotional touch to a potentially bland story.

That’s not to say that it throws all convention out the window.  There are numerous subtle and not-so-subtle references to earlier films, from the customary “I’ll be back” line to creative cocking of a shotgun, but Salvation isn’t weighed down by them.  And even though the usual run-from-the-big-killing-machine overall plot no longer applies, by the action-packed climax of the film, I felt very much like I was watching a Terminator movie.  And that’s a good thing.

Unfortunately, the film’s greatest strengths are also its greatest weaknesses.  The story’s broader focus on the evil SkyNet’s master plan and how it affects humanity as a whole is personified by Marcus Wright.  The story arc belongs to him, and actor Sam Worthington nails it.  He’s believable and sympathetic, not to mention very watchable in action scenes, every step of the way.  However, this demotes Christian Bale’s John Connor to a supporting role, which has a decent story of its own, but Connor just doesn’t have enough to do.  His individual scenes work just fine, but a central theme of the film is his struggle with the other military leaders over his “savior” status and moral agenda, and this aspect of the story just doesn’t get enough screen time to have much punch.  Thankfully, when Connor and Wright finally cross paths, both of their stories get an extra boost that carries to the end of the film.

Similarly, but less significantly, the refocused story doesn’t allow for a central villain, which was the main point of tension in the earlier films.  There is an organized threat behind SkyNet, but the details don’t come into focus until later in the film, and by then it serves a somewhat different purpose.  Still, I view this change as a good thing; tall people with machine guns and a single facial expression only have so many dramatic possibilities, especially given current moviegoers’ preference for more character-driven stories.  We’ve seen the good guy vs. bad guy formula in three separate films already, and by the third one, it was starting to feel a bit tired.  It’s time to explore more stories in this post-apocalyptic world set up by James Cameron and Co.

Salvation delivers just what we want froma Terminator film: powerful action sequences, and there are plenty of them.  Thankfully, it doesn’t pretend to be any more complex or important than it is, lending to the enjoyment of what’s actually on the screen.  And hopefully, we can continue the explosions and gunplay again in a few years.

Before I start, let’s get a bit of semantics out of the way:  A prequel is a story set in the same continuity as what’s come before it, just taking place before the events we’ve seen instead of after (X-Men Origins: Wolverine; Star Wars Episodes I, II, III).  A prequel sets up the events that are already known to happen, so because Obi-Wan Kenobi was alive in the first Star Wars, he can’t die in any of the prequels to it.  In contrast, a reboot takes characters and possibly events that we’ve seen before and makes a brand new story out of them, ignoring what’s come before and establishing a completely new continuity (Batman Begins, Casino Royale).  A reboot, by definition, is not attached to any previous stories, which is why Heath Ledger could play the Joker on the rise in The Dark Knight as a completely different character than Jack Nicholson in 1989’s Batman.  Now that we’ve cleared that up, I’m going to confuse you completely: the new Star Trek is a prequel that functions as a reboot.

Make sense?  No?  Good, that means I explained it right.  Go see the movie.

Seriously, getting any more information than that is only going to detract from the experience of seeing the film in theaters.  Star Trek is designed with the notion that the viewers’ only exposure to its universe so far has been pop-culture references and a few iconic visuals.  The characters, their worlds, and the concepts behind them are introduced as though you’ve never seen them, which includes trailers and articles about this particular movie.  If you need proof that it’s worth seeing, check out the stellar Rotten Tomatoes rating.  Just don’t read the reviews.

If you insist on staying and reading the rest, I’m going to blow sunshine at you about how much fun this movie is.

It’s no secret that the filmmakers are walking a fine line of keeping the old fans happy while trying to appeal to newcomers and a young crowd.  But by and large, we Trekkers are easy to please at this point.  Our latest TV show died with a whimper in 2005, the film series collapsed on itself a few years before that, and the last time anyone not wearing rubber ears enjoyed a Trek movie was in 1996 (Star Trek: First Contact).  We’re dying here.  Put the Enterprise back on the big screen and throw in a few lines like, “I’m givin’ ‘er all she’s got, Cap’n!” and “Highly illogical,” and we’re like giddy school children.  Fortunately, J.J. Abrams and Co. know that doing justice to the franchise means a lot more than that.

By making a film that appeals to film goers at large, the filmmakers are actually doing Trekkers a favor.  For a long time, Star Trek has been an indulgence of sci-fi nerds and people with too much spare time (I include myself in that demographic).  It’s a real joy to sit in a crowded theater with my peers, enjoying the very same things I’ve enjoyed for more than half my life, and seeing other people enjoy it with me.  Needless to say, the team accomplishes this with flashy visuals, plenty of action, lots of humor, and a lot of winking at the audience.  Plus, being an Abrams film, the story centers on characters rather than clunky, political plots (I’m looking at you, Star Trek I, VI and IX).  Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with some political drama, but it’s not the way to introduce newcomers to the universe, and when not bolstered by a character-driven narrative (a la The Bourne Supremacy), the film can tire of itself quickly.

There’s nothing I can say about the movie itself that hasn’t already been said by hundreds of reviewers.  It’s a solid, fast-paced movie that anybody would love.  I must point out that, as enjoyable as it is, it doesn’t quite reach the level of the best blockbusters.  Obviously, it doesn’t tackle those tough, moral questions with the heavy-handedness of it predecessors, but that sort of leaves it feeling a tad flat in the end when compared to more emotional and cerebral films like The Dark Knight.  However, some people have said that it ignores the spirit of Gene Roddenberry’s original work, and I have to disagree.  The current trend in cinema is to have darker, more violent, and more disturbing subject matter in mass entertainment than before; the aforementioned films are primary examples.  Star Trek exists among them in stark contrast, refusing to accept hopelessness, encouraging humanity to strive for greatness and accept nothing less than peace and prosperity.  Naive?  Maybe.  True to the original?  You bet.

Star Trek is the most fun I’ve ever had in a movie theater.  There, I said it.

Few films spark the kind of discussion and intrigue of Watchmen.  The mysterious trailer debuting in front of The Dark Knight, the sudden realization of the classic status of the source material, the incomprehensibility of the explanation of the narrative from a Watchmen fan to a lay person, even dainty girls wondering if they’d be able to stomach it – all these things begged the big question: will it translate to a successful film?  After three weekends in cinemas and rapidly-dropping box-office results, it would appear that Warner Bros. will be lucky to break even after marketing is factored in.  Not quite what we expected from a property at the center of a high-profile legal battle between two studios.

But here’s a better question, which is the only pertinent one now: does the movie work?  Oddly enough, the people best equipped to answer the question are not the fans.  Watchmen is not a franchise; it’s a stand-alone graphic novel using all original characters in a story and structure unlike any superhero adventure ever created, with a potent political message and way more complexities than could ever fit on a movie screen in a reasonable amount of time.  Therefore, those who have read the graphic novel, by their own admissions, are unable to judge how the movie holds up simply as a film.  Fans are actually looking to the average moviegoer to judge this for them.  Well, my friends, as it happens, I have not read Watchmen.  Yet.  I’m a fan of comics and their movies, but I haven’t gotten around to this one yet, which puts me in a rare position in which to judge this film.

And now, my verdict:  It doesn’t work.

I’m told by countless sources that the Watchmen film stays very close to the course material, even down to specific angles and dialogue.  It’s the same way the director, Zach Snyder, made Frank Miller’s 300 two years ago, and how Robert Rodriguez made Sin City.  I would argue that such an approach fit both of those works, but doesn’t really work for Watchmen.

First of all, the original graphic novel is over 400 pages, complete with flashbacks, a 40-year timespan, and an ensemble of characters in three (four?) different incarnations.  And that’s just scratching the surface.  That’s an awful lot of heft for a commercial film, especially since it also has to establish an alternate 1985 timeline (kind of like Back to the Future Part II, except… well, nothing like it at all).  The unfortunate result is that, even with an opening montage that’s designed to fill us in, the audience spends more time trying to make connections and understand what’s going on than they do understanding the characters and investing in their lives.  Notable exceptions are Rorschach, who is a little too badass until his mask comes off and Jackie Earle Haley is given the chance to really shine, and Dr. Manhattan, whose fantastical story and unique plight actually make him easier to relate to.

Some fans and nonfans alike claim that the film is incomprehensible to anyone not familiar with the graphic novel.  I don’t think that’s true at all.  There are obvious places where the narrative is incomplete for time reasons, but the overall story and themes remain intact and don’t quite leave the viewers behind.  However, when removed from the pages of the novel and not given time to grow, the characters still lack a certain depth, especially Nite Owl and Silk Spectre II, which is a shame considering their centrality to the narrative.  The movie tells the audience how to feel about these characters rather than evoking a response, which leaves viewers in their seats instead of drawing them in.

This inability to pull viewers in is deterimental to the entire experience, and author Alan Moore would likely agree.  The Watchmen graphic novel is a watershed comic because it portrayed “superheroes” doing things people weren’t used to, like killing indiscriminently, swearing at each other, and engaging in all manner of sexual escapades.  This isn’t lost on the filmmakers, but when these scenes are translated from illustrated panels to moving images, the results just seem gratuitous and over-the-top.  The audience is so far removed from the characters and events that much of the shock value, on which the entire climax hinges, is nonexistent, even with 163 minutes of running time.  After watching the whole movie, with all its expensive effects, huge ensemble cast, and unique storyline, the reaction it induces is an underwhelming “…meh.”

What could they have done differently?  Frankly, the only way to save the film would have destroyed it.  The graphic novel just isn’t structured to be a film; it’s structured to be a graphic novel.  The entire thing needed a fresh approach with a completely different storytelling method than the book provides.  One way to do it would have be to frame the whole story within the entries of Rorschach’s journal, streamlining and focusing the entire story.  Another solution would have been to just tell the story linearly in chronological order, starting in the 1940s, although that would likely made the whole experience rather bland.  What I probably would have done is remove the flashbacks and let the entire backstory be filled in with exposition in the first Act, save for a couple pivotal moments, such as the rape scene and Dr. Manhattan’s origin.  Everything else could be explained via dialogue and pictures and a variety of other methods a clever filmmaker could use.

I’m of the opinion that the best way to do a novel justice is to make it into a great movie.  Inevitably, certain plotlines will be sacrificed and certain methods changed, but all in the name of making a great theater experience.  (I could run this point into the ground with example after example, but that would take all day.)  But had Watchmen been tampered with in the adaptation process, the fans would have cried foul, and you can bet there would have been at least an attempted boycott.  The only other solution?  Just don’t film it.  The only way to experience a graphic novel is to read it.  You won’t find it in a movie.

In the end, Watchmen succeeds in sticking close to its source material, but in doing so, the classic “unfilmable” comic sinks its own film.  Just goes to show that you can’t judge a book by its movie.