Atonement

*Note: This is another installment in The Film Official's not-quite-a-series series on films from 2007. Eventually, there might be a whole post that celebrates a movie year which, by comparison, slapped 2008 around like, I dunno, this?


Atonement deserves a lot of credit for not sucking.

Obviously a lot of it should go to Ian McEwan, the dude who wrote the book on which the film was based*.

*I haven't read the book, here's a review of it from ESPN.com baseball analyst/book junkie Keith Law. Beware -- spoilers aplenty.)

The story starts at an English mansion somewhere (sorry -- it all looks the same to me), but luckily the book/film isn't a typical Costume Party for the Rich, not for the duration. Even the well-to-do characters end up elsewhere, and in tough situations. Some are self-imposed, some most certainly are not self-imposed, as -- in this Best Picture nominee -- a poor kid (James McAvoy) gets quite the shaft from a lovestruck young girl (Oscar nominee Saoirse Ronan early, two other actresses later) who is jealous of McAvoy's forbidden relationship with her sister (Keira Knightley).

But this isn't one of those Merchant/Ivory-type snooze fests -- which, in the words of a person close to me, are little more than "stuffy British melodramas." Not quite. After that melodramatic setup and its main plot point (which involves a word once used to describe Larry David's wife's beloved aunt -- that link is most definitely NSFW), a good deal of the story exists on battlefields and in a wartime hospital and other not-so-glamorous places.

Like I said, it's still pretty melodramatic: Heavy issues -- true love, betrayal and, of course, atonement. Not much levity here. Some VERY SERIOUS conversations and confrontations, the kind that only seem to happen in fiction*. And lots of war-is-hell elements -- which sorry to say, are ordinary and played out**. In all, despite the film's surprisingly short two-hour runtime, it still seems a little lengthy, a bit bulky.

*Then again, considering how Atonement ends, there's something to that fact.

**Seriously, war is bad? I had NO idea.

Again, though, it doesn't suck. From the start you can tell it's different -- that aforementioned word clues you in that there's not an overwhelming sense of "proper," which is what drags a lot of these British Upper Crust movies down. The way it's filmed* -- director Joe Wright uses some creative devices, cinematographer Seamus McGarvey crafts some undeniably beautiful images, and Dario Marianelli's Oscar-winning score is unusual (the main character is a writer, and a typewriter's click cleverly serves as percussion in several places) -- also is an asset.

*I must say, though, while it's a remarkable achievement cinematically, that 5 1/2-minute tracking shot left me wondering: Yeah, but ... so what?

Then there's the ending, which gave the book's critics (at least the aforementioned Keith Law) a lot of pause. It involves an unusual narrative device -- I won't spoil it here -- but I can see why it left some angry, especially in written form. Strangely, in the film version, it kind of works. Movies so often are saddled with cheesy, cop-out Hollywood endings where everything gets settled neatly and cleanly. Atonement's, though -- even if it is, shall we say, told and not shown -- does not follow that pattern. Although a similar device was used far more cleverly in Adaptation (my personal vote for the best film ever, BTW), Atonement deserves points for not turning itself into fairy tale (and ... fade to black with swelling, happy music!) or simple climactic tragedy (and ... fade to black after the horrible final incident).

Oh my God, I think I just talked myself into liking this movie*.

*Still, in the context of 2007, it's not even remotely top-10. Stay tuned ...

Overlooked: Zodiac

According to Box Office Mojo, Zodiac made about $33mm in American theaters. That placed it No. 81 on the list of top-grossing films in 2007. I already rolled my eyes at the meaning of gate receipts as it pertains to movie quality, so I ... don't ... need ... to ... tell* ... you ... why ... you ... can't ... trust ... the ... numbers.

*Alvin and the Chipmunks? Are you effin' serious?

Then again, to paraphrase a great song, who am I to wave my finger? I didn't see Zodiac in theaters, either. Heard good things. Was intrigued. Probably stayed home and watched Entourage instead.



Now? Since first catching Zodiac on TV about three months ago, I've watched it far more times (about 10, give or take) than any half-hour segment of Vincent Chase complaining about his life*.
*Can we get an Ari-only spin-off, please?

So why is Zodiac so infinitely watchable?

THE STORY
Serial killer flicks are as played out as the whole Obamicon thing. But Zodiac is not a serial killer flick. It's about the obsession -- namely, the obsession of those pursuing the killer, not the killer's own craze. It contains no phony suspense or chases or climaxes. You don't see the perp in some basement, showing all his sadistic glory to the camera*.

*Like, ya know, in The Silence of the Lambs. Yeah, I'll say it -- overrated.

Plus, the whole thing features straight-up, chronoligcal storytelling. It starts at the first killing (notice it only recreates the crimes that were witnessed) and navigates through the story of a cartoonist-turned-author, a drunk/drugged-up reporter, a determined cop, and several others who tried to answer the question: Who was this Zodiac Killer who terrorized the Bay Area in the 1970s (and perhaps took credit for more murders than he actually committed)?

It's not so much a whodunit as an account of the proceedings. And it absolutely grips you from the opening scene, not letting go until you see credits roll 160 minutes later.

THE SCRIPT
Part of that comes from the source material. But also credit the screenplay, a brilliantly un-Hollywood piece from James Vanderbilt (who, if Wikipedia is to be believed, had some earlier run-ins with script changes). This one certainly doesn't seem meddled-with. It sort-of, kind-of has a resolution, but nothing that resembles the Last Big Showdown/Climax/ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE! AHHHHHH! garbage that most suspense films devolve into. As mentioned above, it just tells a story.

It also does so with sharp, witty dialogue ("I'm eating here, Bill") and exceptional attention to detail (example: the S.F. Chron newsroom, amazingly, looks and sounds like a newsroom).

THE DIRECTION
David Fincher gave us Seven, the underrated Alien3, and this one (which arouses more film students than any Cinemax After Dark special ever did). Fincher also got nominated for his solid work in Benjamin Button.

But none of it reaches the level of Zodiac. He leads a Thomson Viper digital camera through this maze of a story, making what could have been a dull, made-for-TV-type film seem wholly cinematic. From the composition of shots (they look like paintings, thanks to Fincher, that Thomson Viper and cinematographer Harris Savides) to the perfect pacing to the construction of several scenes (especially the TV show phone call ... see that one below), this is a top example of the craft.

After all, killings aside, the whole movie is a bunch of talk. So why is it so thrilling? Credit Fincher for quite a bit of it.

THE EDITING
For some reason I'm an editing junkie (which leads to a number of rants when the wrong movies get nominated for the Oscar ... no Minority Report in 2002? Ugh.) Speaking of which -- Zodiac at least belonged in the conversation in 2007 . Just check the way the morning show scene is cut. Wow.

Zodiac - Not Tracing Your Call Movies & TV SPIKE.com

THE SOUNDTRACK
Take a look at this thing. They're not all great songs by famous artists, but there's hardly a cliche on there. Unlike in some other movies.

THE CAST
If you watch a lot of movies, and then you watch Zodiac, you'll be saying a lot of "I know that guy" here. I mean, the cast features one of the one of the McPoyle Brothers from Always Sunny, the voice of Roger Rabbit, and The Actor Who Is In Every Movie (plus a Holiday Inn commercial starring a NASCAR driver).

Who could argue with that?

Watchmen

Watchmen is easily the best film I've seen all year.



Yeah, so it's the first 2009 movie I've seen. So what?

Actually, so this: Watchmen might be the No. 1 out of 1, but it ain't all that good*.

*First a disclaimer: I have not read the graphic novel. Therefore, although my complaints might also pertain to the source material, that's not the point. The point is, this is a movie. If I wanted something faithful to the book, I would read the book.

We'll call it The Dark Knight, Part 2: It involves superheroes. It looks great, it sounds great, some characters are great and some lines they utter are, well, great.

But then there's the fact that it's looooooong. No, not long. Long is fine (see: Rings, Lord of the). So let's say "bulky." Needed a cut.

Of course, that probably would have angered book fanboys and fangirls, so I understand why it didn't get one. But that doesn't make it OK. Do we really need every character's back story? Two (or was it three? four?) romance plots, none of which is very interesting? The identity of a certain character's certain parent? Yawn.

And then there's the endless moralizing, which seems to be in vogue in superhero movies these days. Like The Dark Knight before it, characters spew platitudes that will probably end up on Facebook profiles or something. And yes, I know most of these characters were human, so that gives them a little more of an excuse to ... well, to be human. But there's just something odd about hearing dull philosophy from folks who otherwise specialize in kicking ass and taking names (and, in this case, placing those names on court dockets). Give me Tony Stark's unapologetic megalomania over the internal conflicts of Strong and Pretty People any day, thanks.

All of this brings me to another parallel to TDK, and this one on the positive tip -- it really does have one strong redeeming character. In the Batman movie it was Joker, who was unpredictable and manic and hilariously so. In Watchmen it's our quasi-narrator, Rorschach, a cynical little tough guy who wears a mask and speaks in gravelly, Christian Bale Batman/Walt Kowalski tones and who often omits the articles from his sentences so they spew faster. It sounds like noir narration -- the best narration of all, IMO. And really, the climax is something out of noir, too.

So why all the heft around it? Rorschach (played by Jackie Earle Haley, who couldn't be farther from Kelly Leak unless he were playing a sex offender) and his unraveling the mystery of who killed The Comedian -- that works. The rest -- all the other characters and their internal (and, sort of, external) conflicts -- leave it. In the end, it's all empty words, except for the ones Rorschach speaks. Gimme a 90-minute movie about him, and you've got yourself a hit in my eyes*.

*And yes, a legion of angry book zealots. But hey -- if they don't like it, they can go read.

OUTTAKES
-Awesome opening credits. Who else thinks there should be an Oscars category for Best Title Sequence?

-As an actress, Malin Akerman is ... well, she's hot. Although she showed chops when explaining her love of Freakshow.

-Another complaint: The soundtrack. Just add Kanye and The Fray and you could upload it straight to a college kid's iPod. The Sounds of Silence? Hendrix's All Along the Watchtower? Good songs. Didn't fit. FAIL.

-End on a positive note: Always great to see Mickey from Seinfeld get work, and good work at that.