Jump to content
sethos

Who watches ...

Recommended Posts

I'm genuinely happy for everyone who's excited by this film, and hope you all enjoy it as much as Wil Wheaton did.

 

That's probably it from me about this film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No its Wil Wheaton, rather enjoy reading his blog actually. We're not stooping to denigrating someone's opinions based on a role no-one cared about twenty years ago, are we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No its Wil Wheaton, rather enjoy reading his blog actually. We're not stooping to denigrating someone's opinions based on a role no-one cared about twenty years ago, are we?

 

I enjoy his blog too. I'm stooping to denigrating his opinion because I feel it is misguided. The prospect of Zack Snyder Visionary Director of 300 directing a Sandman movie is absolutely horrifying. The Wesley Crusher thing was just me being unnecessarily dickish towards the guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurm.

I have seen the trailer in spanish.

Err... What's up with all that talk about revenge? And the Silk was less than convincing in the only phrase of the trailer, I don't know...

I think they lowered some things to make it easier for the dumb, numb and rich audience. Maybe I will go to the cinema, nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it will turn out to be a good film, just not a good adaptation.

I'm sure it will look cool, and be entertaining, but I'm not expecting even 1/1000 of the level of depth the comic had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it will turn out to be a good film, just not a good adaptation.

I'm sure it will look cool, and be entertaining, but I'm not expecting even 1/1000 of the level of depth the comic had.

 

It's certainly getting a lot of good reviews. It's annoying, though, how many of the critics are praising Zack Snyder for innovating in the superhero genre when it was actually Alan Moore that did so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no faith in Hollywood. Fuck it.

 

 

Hollywood blows ass. Do you know how many great movie scripts that never get made because of studios? It's ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathon Ross is reviewing Watchmen tonight on Film 2009.

All the reviews I've read so far have been favourable, but I'm interested in what a reviewer who has a great deal of love for the original comic has to say about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hollywood blows ass. Do you know how many great movie scripts that never get made because of studios? It's ridiculous.

 

How do you know they're great if they never get made?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"great movie scripts" as opposed to "great movie scripts" ?

 

I've seen at least four, so would estimate it is around nineteen or twenty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonathon Ross is reviewing Watchmen tonight on Film 2009.

All the reviews I've read so far have been favourable, but I'm interested in what a reviewer who has a great deal of love for the original comic has to say about it.

But he's not going to come clean about his comic filth on the tele will he.

 

He's like one of those "good germans".

 

Still he did a cracking Neil Gaiman interview I went to once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly enough, I still think that Timeout magazines film reviews are still some of the, if not best film reviews around.

Here's their Watchmen review from someone who is very familiar with the source material.

 

I don't feel there are any spoilers here, but exercise caution nontheless.

 

The most celebrated graphic novel ever written, ‘Watchmen’ takes place in an alternate 1985 teetering on the brink of nuclear Armageddon, as a group of retired superheroes reunite to track down mysterious masked assassin. The graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons was a self-reflexive comment on the entire genre and explored the fine boundary between the masked vigilante, the dirty civil servant and the dictatorial fascist.

 

It has long been thought unfilmable: a direct translation, it was argued, would be overlong, punishingly bleak, bewilderingly convoluted and wildly uncommercial.

Which is exactly the film '300' director Zack Snyder has delivered.

 

With the exception of an altered (and, it must be said, slightly improved) denouement, Snyder and his screenwriters have changed almost nothing from the original text. Costumes, sets, visual effects, the framing of shots and sequences, all the choicest lines of dialogue, even the music selections come directly from the novel.

With all of these decisions taken out of the director's hands, what's left for Snyder to do?

 

Snyder's biggest impact is felt in the action sequences, which are also the film's weakest scenes: overstylised, repetitive and pornographically violent.

Violence is the major theme of Moore’s book: it’s questionable efficacy in solving global problems, the conflicted, animalistic thrill of crushing one’s enemies.

Snyder rides roughshod over such subtleties: 'Watchmen' may be the nastiest blockbuster ever devised.

It luxuriates in snapping bones and literal explosions of gore.

It's here that the gulf between comic and movie becomes most clear: Gibbons's drawings were often shocking, but they served a purpose.

Snyder employs violence for the rush, and while this approach is sometimes brutally effective, it's also deeply crass.

 

The casting throws up mixed results: Patrick Wilson is agreeably vulnerable as Nite Owl, while Jackie Earl Haley makes for a supremely effective, unsettling Rorschach.

But these two seasoned professionals stand out in a cast chosen for their physical similarity to Gibbons's drawings. Thankless female figurehead Silk Spectre demands an actress of real grace and vulnerability: Malin Akerman’s bland, soap-opera performance barely scratches the surface, while Matthew Goode's vacuous portrayal of the power-hungry Ozymandias suggests annoyed playboy rather than World's Smartest Man.

But they can hardly be blamed: Snyder repeatedly fluffs the film's emotional peaks, blundering through on his way to another action setpiece.

 

But, try as he might, Snyder can't sabotage the sheer majesty of the source material. The breadth and grandeur of Moore’s globe-spanning narrative still astounds, and to see Gibbons’s iconic images writ vast and messy across the screen packs an undeniable sentimental punch. Like the book, there’s an impressive visual and narrative density here, cramming a bewildering amount of information into already overloaded scenes. The characters may be undermined by Snyder’s glib, hasty approach, but they still resonate, as do the overriding themes of power, corruption and human frailty.

 

But 'Watchmen' is still going to be the ultimate tough sell: there will be those who view the film as a bewildering mishmash of underexplored themes, thinly sketched characters and noisy, excessive violence. They're probably right: any work of popular art which demands prior knowledge must be deemed a failure. And yet, there’s something admirable about the entire enterprise: its ungainly size, its unrelenting weirdness, its willful, challenging intensity. Neophytes should probably steer clear, but for longterm fans of the source work this will be a hugely pleasurable, if ultimately unenlightening experience.

It was rated 3 stars out of 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the last episode of "At the Movies" (which used to be Siskel & Ebert, then Ebert & Roeper) Ben Mankiewicz gave the movie a VERY favorable review, noting that nearly the first 30mins is straight out of the comic. Both he and Ben Lyons (who I cannot fucking stand, ditto for his hack of a father) both loved the graphic novel and assured fans that the film was true to the source material while still finding ways to reach out to new/unfamiliar audiences. If I'm not mistaken they called it one of-- if not the-- best comicbook films of all time. BM liked Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl II, and BL loved Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. Both were suitably impressed with Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian.

 

Nevertheless, my expectations remain lowered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, Testy must've been posting as I was.

Well-written review, and exactly what I figured the film would be-- aesthetically authentic, but nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But he's not going to come clean about his comic filth on the tele will he.

 

He's like one of those "good germans".

 

Are you a crazy person? Ross indulges his comic nerdery whenever his day job gives him the merest hint of an excuse to do so. He even went off on one about William Marston and EC Comics when he appeared on QI, of all shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
watchmen.jpg

 

The scene-setting montage after the opening sequence was spectacular.

 

Oh, you saw it? Detailed review please, sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, personally, I thought it was an excellent flick and as perfect an adaptation as you could possibly hope for, even though

they changed the ending! The ending in question actually worked a lot better than the one in the original story, no-one's ever in a rush to mention the big giant space squid, are they ?!

 

Before the film started, there was an introduction by some chap, as part of his spiel he asked who'd read the original comic - very few had, so it was a good chance to get a feel for how normal folk were going to enjoy it.

 

I'm going to spoiler two scenes here, but if you've read the comic you'll know about them anyway (there's very, very little from the comic that doesn't make it onto the screen, I was constantly taken aback by how many scenes/panels/chunks of dialogue were shown verbatim).

 

Anyway the audience reacted best to

Rorschach hitting the "...you're trapped in here with me." line. They loved it, big cheer and claps, don't get that a lot in Irish cinemas.

 

They, like me, guffawed at the

use of Cohen's Hallelujah for the Night Owl/Silk Spectre sex scene, a thundering misstep. Seriously, if they stripped out the music it would've been a passable scene, but as is it's probably up there with the worst scenes in cinema history. I did like that they left the burst of flame in at the end though, cheesy but then it's meant to be.

 

My own personal highlight, as mentioned above, was the montage set to Bob Dylan's "The Time's They Are A-Changing" - I'm pretty sure my mouth was hanging wide open for most of it. Brilliant!

 

Oh, Alan Moore isn't mentioned anywhere, Dave Gibbons gets a big shout out as artist/co-creator in the opening credits.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, personally, I thought it was an excellent flick and as perfect an adaptation as you could possibly hope for, even though

they changed the ending! The ending in question actually worked a lot better than the one in the original story, no-one's ever in a rush to mention the big giant space squid, are they ?!

 

Shizzle, but to me

the squid ending is a perfect example of a mad science scheme and it fits in nicely with the ridiculous costuming and all the other classic comic book trappings. I'm also curious as to how an American super-powered citizen going rogue and destroying several cities could bode with the world community.

.

 

Oh, Alan Moore isn't mentioned anywhere, Dave Gibbons gets a big shout out as artist/co-creator in the opening credits.

That's the way he wants it.

 

What I want to know though, is

does it end with the JJJ analogue character's assistant reaching for Rorschach's journal?

 

And as on overall flick, how does it compare to TDK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...