seawalker

"The Boat That Rocked" will not trouble the Oscars next year. I would not call it a work of genius.

Reasons?

The film did not have a plot. A series of sketches strung together is not a plot.

The film was set in 1966, but the music cues were all other the place. This could have been because either

a) the producers were incredibly slack in researching the music that would have been played on the radio during the period that the film is set

or

b) the film was actually a piece of science fiction, as the DJ's appeared to have access to a time travel device, allowing them to obtain and play music from the future.

(Examples? Oooh, lots. "Let's Spend The Night Together" and "Jumping Jack Flash" by the Rolling Stones (1967 and 1968, respectively), "H-Ho Silver Lining" by Jeff Beck (1967), "A Whiter Shade Of Pale" by Procol Harum (1967) and "Crimson and Clover" by Tommy James and the Shondells (1969). There were more. Have fun finding them yourself.)

The film was 129 minutes long. 29 minutes too long, in my opinion. I suppose that a broad comedy can be longer than 100 minutes and still work, but you would need a better director than Richard Curtis to make it work. As with his previous film "Love, Actually" (which I actually like a lot), I felt that Richard Curtis is a better writer than a director. Another director might have made "The Boat That Rocked" a tighter movie.

There was a whiff of sexism about "The Boat That Rocked". Just a whiff, but a whiff nevertheless. Society has moved on, guys. There were strong, capable women in the 1960's, but none in the 1960's of this movie. Why not?

So, "The Boat That Rocked" was a disaster then? Yes?

Well, no, because "The Boat That Rocked" was mostly a funny, unpretentious and entertaining film. It had a soundtrack that was out of this world, idiosyncratic performances (does anybody pout quite like Bill Nighy or lick a microphone like Rhys Ifans?) and was just a nice, feelgood movie. Honest injun. I left the cinema with a big smile on my face and bought the soundtrack album the very next day.

The critics have not been kind to "The Boat That Rocked". Hell! Who cares what any critic has to say? "The Boat That Rocked" was not a classic, but give it a go. You might like it.

Funny thing. Just before this weekend I was thinking to myself, 'Where the hell are all the bad movies? About time you searched one out, lad.' Phew! In the nick of time "The Unborn" turned up.

Make no mistake, "The Unborn" was a real stinker. A horror in the worst sense of the word. I cannot imagine the wager that fine actors like Gary Oldman and Carla Gugino must have lost to get them to appear in this poo, but it must have been a big one.

Hurrah! There were some good things.

Some of the twisted body imagery was quite effective. (It was effective when it first appeared in "The Exorcist", twenty six years ago.) Also, Megan Fox lookalike Odette Yustman looked quite nice in her underwear.

Boo! There were many more bad things.

A predictable plot, cobbled together from a million other direct-to-video movies. No tension or scares whatsoever, with every story twist sign posted miles ahead. Awful acting, of course, with 'best friend' Meagan Good being top of the list of shame. Slow, boring, terrible.

I thought that "The Unborn" was absolutely dreadful. A rotten film.

Avoid.

Hollywood cannot please all of the people all of the time. Hollywood cannot please Alan Moore any of the time.

... And it's a real shame, because if Alan Moore had not chosen to distance himself from the movie adaptation of "Watchmen", and made it clear that he had no intention of seeing the movie, he would realise that "Watchmen" was a very good movie indeed. Possibly the best adaptation of the legendary comic book that could be made.

True, "Watchmen" wasn't perfect. The dialogue was more comic book than movie. Carla Gugino and Matthew Goode were underused. Some of the popular music cues were misplaced. (Simon and Garfunkel's "The Sound Of Silence" is a beautiful and evocative song, and was used well, but appeared in the wrong time period in the movie. Compare and contrast with the perfect use of Dylan's "The Time's They Are A Changing" over the opening credits.) There was a tad overuse of slow motion action sequences. Some of the density of information of the original book was missing. (Then again, to have fitted it all in, how long would that movie have had to be?)

When "Watchmen" worked, it worked perfectly. Excellent period detail, realistic violence (so brave of Zack Snyder to not compromise on showing the hard violence of the original book to get a more audience friendly certificate), massive scope and beautifully pitched performances. (No better performance than that of Billy Cudrup. A walking, talking special effect, to be true, but his calm serene voice hinted a unknown reserves of power and philosophical intelligence. He was the perfect Dr. Manhattan.)

There is a small part of me that feels sad that he will now never see the Gilliam/Aronofsky/Greeengrass versions of "Watchmen", but Zack Snyder made a great film. It was a hard movie to pull off. He should be proud.