Kevin's Watch

I assume you know this is about a guy who

Spoiler

ages backwards.

If you don't know the main premise, stop reading now. But seriously, it's in the trailers. Where have you been?

Anyway, this was a great movie. Very sad, epic, touching, and quirky in a Forest Gump kind of way. The effects were amazing, especially at the beginning when Ben was a kid. The way they made Brad Pitt look simultaneously like and old man and a little boy was entirely convincing. Honestly, this effect was probably better than Gollum.

Everything else is going into the black spoiler box.

Spoiler

When I say, "in a Forest Gump kind of way," I mean that literally. This is the '00s version of that '90s movie. Sure, there are major differences (the whole aging backwards thing), but let's look at the similarities:

* A "framed" story (i.e. the main story is a flashback, but eventually reconnects with the present time frame)
* Based in the south (therefore, fake southern accents abound)
* Tells the main character's life from childhood to having his own child
* The kid has a "handicap" (both "handicaps" involving an inability to walk, which he soon overcomes)
* The kid falls in love with his childhood sweetheart
* His sweetheart goes away and has a wild life
* His sweetheart keeps reappearing in the story, teasing us with their eventual relationship.
* Meanwhile, the main character goes on many adventures around the world
* Tugboat = shrimp boat
* Main character fights in "the war"
* Momma has little nuggets of southern wisdom
* Main character ends up being rich
* Cycles of life, death, love, loss, and the choices that shape your life--comprise the main theme
* Hummingbird = feather

Okay, not everything has to be spoiler tagged. I can safely say, it's very long. It's depressing in many scenes. You will leave the theater melancholy and thoughtful about your own life and those you love. Hopefully, a little bit inspired, too. A sense of, "hey, we're all going to die, and while that sucks, life is still pretty good." Not too bad for a Christmas time flick.

It is a little preposterous, after the fact, to think that those closest to him don't consider it at all strange that he's aging backwards, and that he should be studied for the scientific implications this has on the process of aging . . . but the story is engaging enough that you don't think about that (too much) while watching. It's a fantasy, and a metaphor for the life cycle in general. In fact, this metaphor becomes increasingly obvious as the movie goes on--so much that it might sound preachy if it weren't so touching. But just in case you didn't get the point, there's a 20 second "this is the moral of the story" bit at the end which I really wish they had left off. It would have been just fine without it.

I wanted to put up my review before reading any others. But now that I've started reading some reviews, I realized this movie was scripted by the same guy who wrote Forrest Gump, Eric Roth! I nailed it!

Thanks for the review, Malik. Yeah, I thought the very end of Forest Gump could go as well, in the "cry here" scene with the feather. I'll just bite my lip and get through this one.

After thinking on this for a day, I've noticed a problem.

Spoiler

There is no reason why Ben couldn't have stayed to raise his kid. By the time she was a teenager, he was still in his "20s." So he had the body of a 20-something, and the mind of a 50-something. Why wouldn't that be ideal for raising a kid? He wouldn't have started regressing into childhood until his daughter was in her 20s. The logic of this tragic twist doesn't hold up at all. Daisy still ended up taking care of him as a "child." It's little plot holes like this--which exist only because the filmmakers wanted to pull our heartstrings--that can ruin a movie for me. I can't stand feeling manipulated for no logical reason.

So no one else has seen it? It had the second largest Christmas opening in history. Really, no one?

Anyway, I just wanted to add: never go to a digital projection theater! We specifically chose the digital showing of this movie because I'd never seen one before. It was horrible. I don't know if you're familiar with the the "light rainbows" of DLP projectors (and TVs). Most people don't notice them. But once someone points them out to you, it's impossible not to see them. When your eyes are still, they aren't there. But when you move your eyes around, there is some kind of prism effect caused by the DLP's tiny rotating mirrors (that's how it produces different colors). This makes people think that it's only visible during fast action, but that's incorrect. That impression comes from the fact that your eyes are darting around the screen to watch the fast movements. But it happens during slow scenes, too, if you're looking around at different parts of the screen. Sitting close up at a large theater, it's even worse, because your eyes are moving more to see everything.

If you've never seen these rainbows, they're like an afterimage or "ghost" effect, except full of color. It makes it look like you're tripping, except without all the cosmic insight.

As much of a mancrush as I have on Brad Pitt, and as much as I admire David Fincher's direction, I have utterly no desire to see this movie. It looks completely uninteresting to me.

Malik23 wrote:Anyway, I just wanted to add: never go to a digital projection theater!

That's funny, because I'll only go to digital theatres! The film ones have all kinds of problems, like:

- Grainy / blurry image
- Flickering black spots
- shaking

Which all combine to give me headaches when watching them.

The digital ones, on the other hand, are crystal clear, stable, and have perfect quality.

Rigel, well I suppose you shouldn't look for the rainbows, then, because once you see them, you won't be able to not see them.

Digital projectors will only be without grain if the film which is being projected was filmed digitally. A movie that was captured on film will still exhibit grain, even if projected digitally. The blurriness is a feature of the focus (in control of the guy operating the projector), not a feature of digital vs film. Flickering black spots could be the mark up in the corner indicating that it's time to change the reel. This would be eliminated by digital projection. Also, random spots due to the film aging would also be eliminated. But in a newly released film, there shouldn't be any flickering black spots. If you see the movie when it comes out, at a good theater, film will look pristine. Shaking can only come from the operator bumping the projector. That can happen for any projector. It certainly has nothing to do with digital or film.

When our movie started, the digital projector went completely green and pink. The entire picture stopped. We had to wait about 5 minutes, then color was restored.

There are pros/cons of any medium. But this particular digital projection didn't have one single pro over a film projector. In fact, I was sitting close enough to the screen that I could see individual pixels, in addition to the rainbows. That was very distracting. I'll take film grain over that any day. (Some digitally captured films even have "grain" artificially added back in because some people hate the digital look, claiming it looks artificial or CGI.)

I guess it's all down to the quality of the projector, then.

I've never been to a film theatre that matches the quality of the digital ones I've been to, which is why I'm so much in favor of them.

As far as my complaints go, though:
- Black spots: These appear for one or two frames at a time, at random places on the screen - so they're not any kind of status indicator.
- Shaking: it's a consistent vibration, so it's probably a bad mounting for the projector. The digital theatres are newer, so are probably less likely to have a loose mounting. Over time, I might see the same vibration develop in them.
- Grain / blurriness: For me at least, comparing standard film to digital projection is like comparing a VHS tape to 1080p. The improvement in quality is so obvious, that I can't believe people still watch film. Of course, I also make a point to sit as close to the "sweet spot" in the theatre as possible (1/3 from the front, right in the middle), and try to avoid at all costs the front portion of the theatre.

Rigel, film has a much higher resolution than digital capture methods. Your comparison of VHS to 1080p, while possibly true to your eyes, isn't due to resolution. Digital can look cleaner, as I admitted, but it doesn't have higher resolution.

Ahem... It's an analogy. That's why I said it's like comparing VHS to 1080p.

I am well aware of the way film operates. In fact, it does NOT have a higher resolution than digital, for the simple reason that it does not have ANY resolution. Given quality production, analog methods will almost always have a higher quality than their digital counterparts.

The problem is that in the real world, sub-par equipment and methods are often used. In these instances, digital gives you a better final quality.

Damn Malik. I'm very fond of you, but you'll debate about anything, won't you?

Debate? Nah, just a conversation.


I'm excited about the potential for digital capture and projection--I just haven't seen it pay off yet.

Wait until Jim Cameron's Avatar hits the screens.

..well.. there is " interference". Interference can be in the form of technological mishaps; The film breaks, the projector wobbles, a noisy audience, heck, our own eyes blink at exactly the wrong time.

But more importantly to me, is the other kind of interference. A story is being told. in that telling, bad editing,,bad costume, bad writing, bad directing, bad acting, bad production values as in casting, location, or all the above, can and often do leave a far lasting impression of Interference,,than a broke or scratchy film, or a optical anomaly. Mishaps happen with any technology. But mistakes made in the actual production of the story told, cost alot more...If a movie is flawed, you won't buy or rent a DVD of it. But if a movie is well made, even if the theater experience is flawed, you probably will rent or buy a DVD of it.

True, the decision to go digital, rite from the start of production, is modern but not without potential of Interference in the Technical sense. The rush towards it..well..consider the nature of the story being told,,and the digital choice or not may be indicative of the Value of the Story being told.

My roommate saw this movie and said it was excellent. I'll take a look when the chance comes up.

Cail wrote:Wait until Jim Cameron's Avatar hits the screens.

We have been waiting. When is he ever going to finish the damn thing? It will be outdated before it finally hits the screens.

Cagliostro wrote:Damn Malik. I'm very fond of you, but you'll debate about anything, won't you?

*spits out coffee trying not to laugh*

Fist and Faith wrote:

Cagliostro wrote:Damn Malik. I'm very fond of you, but you'll debate about anything, won't you?

*spits out coffee trying not to laugh*

Laugh it up. (It was kind of funny.)

Yet, the debater in me must point out that an opinion worth having is an opinion worth defending. Otherwise, who cares what you think? If you don't take your own opinion seriously enough to defend, why even say it? (By "you," I don't mean anyone here! "You" in general.)

With that said, I've probably justified my own caricature. Carry on.

Malik23 wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

Cagliostro wrote:Damn Malik. I'm very fond of you, but you'll debate about anything, won't you?

*spits out coffee trying not to laugh*

Laugh it up. (It was kind of funny.)

Yet, the debater in me must point out that an opinion worth having is an opinion worth defending. Otherwise, who cares what you think? If you don't take your own opinion seriously enough to defend, why even say it? (By "you," I don't mean anyone here! "You" in general.)

With that said, I've probably justified my own caricature. Carry on.

A)..not all that is put forth as opinion,,is opinion.
......A1) not all opinion is based in reason and logic, therefore Defending is non sequitor.
B)...There is an assumption here..perhaps false..that " we" and I mean that in the general sense,,not any body " here"...care about what You think,,or how you think..Of course I speak of the plite of the middle class.." We" are feckless.

C)Thoughts, of which Opinions are a variety,,can be uttered , to inspire, evoke, empathize, etc..so Defending is again not the point.

D) I really do Not want to carry anything. I am of the perspective, that the less encumbered I am,, the free'er the thinking I am capable of. So, your directive is non sequitor..to " me" anyway.

E)..in the virtual world,, we are all caricatures of ourselves.