Movie Micro-Reviews: Edition 29

Slumdog Millionaire	81	We should be thankful this movie was made. American studios seem to think we only want to see pretty white actors. The actors, young and younger, in this shocking but touching story made the film special. Certain scenes will stick with me. Maybe for the rest of my life.
Dark City	73	In many ways, as imaginative as the Matrix, or any of the best pure sci-fi. How does Man react to being the subject of an experiment? What is reality? What is “self?” The atmosphere is excellent, but the execution is just a tad jarring. Still, worth a viewing for most people, and certainly for sci-fi fans.
Field of Dreams	83	“Is this heaven?” “No. It’s Iowa.” Is this perfect? No, but it’s engaging, full of flavor, and a fantasy that fills empty spaces we didn’t know we had.
Watchmen	79	I am impressed. Dark, graphic, but not as tied to the comic images as I expected from the director of “300.” I got into it. But not for the faint of heart, or those wanting a typical hero story. It’s not Dark Knight, but it’s not Fantastic Four either.
Jesus Christ Superstar	91	Reviewed back in Edition 11. And it’s Lent, so it was time to see it again. Though, truth be told, I listen more than watch. Carl Anderson and Ted Neely were made for these parts.

I feel a need to write a bit more than the micro-review, especially about "Watchmen."

Over the ensuing days, "Watchmen" has grown on me even more. I think some of the reason for that is that I've been listening to my "Great Books" audio course and some of the themes in "Watchmen" are also in the first several "Great Books" and they really come through more upon reflection. I'm still not sure I will own it, though I think I will see it again sometime.

The ideas of ultimate Good and Evil are worth examining, and countless works of art do just that. "Comic books" and "Superhero" treatments tend to take a clear viewpoint. "Watchmen" does not. "Superheroes" also tend to be quite typical in their heroism. Even flawed superheroes are typically basically good. Many of the people we meet in "Watchmen" are not. They all are true to their own moral codes, but the codes they follow are not typical, and they are not mine. I don't fault the film for that, but it does leave a different taste in my mouth than a traditional "hero" story (super or not.)

One person who saw it immediately reacted by saying it was "too graphic" in some parts. This is true, I'm sure, but I am inured to it by now. The violence is no more graphic than I've seen in other "R"-rated movies, and the sex can't be missed, but it's not as graphic as I thought it was going to be. Dr. Manhattan's nudity was a shock, at first, but it makes perfect sense.

I actually came to the rating of "79" primarily because of my current rules. I can't recommend it to everyone, so it needs to rate below 80. But it was too good to go lower. And, as I've thought about the film since then, I am sorely tempted to raise it, and allow some of my 80+ movies to have "warnings."

More people will like "Field of Dreams" (83) than "Watchmen" (79) but the impact and the innovation of "Watchmen" were more impressive.