Seppuku wrote:I hate to be all douchey to a fellow mod, but Wheders is a bit of an Event junkie. He also gave Superman Returns and Cloverfield 10/10 at the time they came out, but would he still rate them that today? (Dude also writes great reviews, otherwise I wouldn't have remembered his ratings).
burlivesleftnut wrote:Seppuku wrote:I hate to be all douchey to a fellow mod, but Wheders is a bit of an Event junkie. He also gave Superman Returns and Cloverfield 10/10 at the time they came out, but would he still rate them that today? (Dude also writes great reviews, otherwise I wouldn't have remembered his ratings).
Knowing Whedon, I doubt he would change his ratings on those movies at all. There is nothing wrong with being exuberant about something.
MasterWhedon wrote:burlivesleftnut wrote:Seppuku wrote:I hate to be all douchey to a fellow mod, but Wheders is a bit of an Event junkie. He also gave Superman Returns and Cloverfield 10/10 at the time they came out, but would he still rate them that today? (Dude also writes great reviews, otherwise I wouldn't have remembered his ratings).
Knowing Whedon, I doubt he would change his ratings on those movies at all. There is nothing wrong with being exuberant about something.
Just for accuracy's sake, I actually gave both Superman Returns and Cloverfield 9/10. Cloverfield--I'll stand by. SR--I saw three times in theaters and each time I realized my memories of the movie were better than the movie itself. I wanted to like it so much more than I actually did, and that's why my review was so positive. (I think it's more like a 6/10, all things considered. Enthusiam = 3 points!)
The 8/10 I gave Watchmen is based on one viewing and a lot of conversation with friends who've seen it--but only two friends, so I haven't gotten that diverse a spread of opinion yet. Like I said, I'm really itching to see it again and to get feedback from everyone else once it's in release since I'm not entirely, 100% convinced of how I feel about it all just yet. I think the 8/10 will stand, mostly because, for me, about 80% of the movie works.
And, yes, I am an Event Movie junkie.
MasterWhedon wrote:And, yes, I am an Event Movie junkie.
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:I should be seeing this at the weekend. Ferrchrissakes, I hope its worth it, I'm so wound up about it if you were to touch me (there) I'd unravel so fast you'd tihnk you're witnessing a new movie by the Wachowskis.
Empire wrote:Recently quizzed on his expectations for the movie adaptation of his hallowed graphic novel Watchmen, Alan Moore — shaman, philosopher, citizen of Northampton and visionary comic-book auteur — was heard to sigh. “Do we need any more shitty films in this world?” he grumbled not-unreasonably. After all, a muddled V For Vendetta and the gigantic snafu that was The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen had led him to finally cut all ties (including financial) with the movie world. Let them do what they will, just don’t involve me. He concluded his diatribe with the simple remonstration that Watchmen, his masterwork, was “inherently unfilmable”.
Which is not exactly encouraging for a director attempting their dream project. But Zack Snyder, hot from his stylised-if-juvenile adaptation of Frank Miller’s 300, is a determined man. Even if Moore had turned his back, Snyder was one of the faithful, Watchmen his Bible, and would treat it with a care unprecedented in the annals of Hollywood screw-ups. Every sinew of directorial effort has been bent on proving the author wrong.
Equal parts celebration, parody and exotic dissembling of an entire industry, the novel is dizzy with storytelling devices: not just comic-strips, but biographical chapters, diaries, newspaper reports, poetry quotations, medical files and a warped, ultra-violent story-within-a-story called Tales Of The Black Freighter (sensibly siphoned off by Snyder into an accompanying animated DVD release). It was less the Citizen Kane of graphic novels than the Ulysses — a vortex of astonishing ideas that could take you years to fully compute. Stick that into two hours of family entertainment then, Zack…
In this gloomy, alternative Nixonian America, an outcast superhero has been tossed out of his apartment window. Still, The Comedian, former member of the disbanded Watchmen, has some ugly secrets. Rorschach, a paranoid sleuth whose ink-blot mask eerily ebbs and flows with his moods, can smell conspiracy, but his fellow ex-Watchmen are hard to convince. Ultra-brain Ozymandias is locked away in his ivory tower solving the energy crisis, Nite Owl and Silk Spectre are fretting over freakish pasts, while Dr. Manhattan — the only genuine superhero, having been blasted in a freak atomic accident — has become detached from human emotion, capable of knowing his future and travelling to Mars on a whim.
It’s a whodunnit, although what exactly has been done is hard to say. It’s an action movie heavy on dialogue, although the movie styles up the punch-ups into slow-mo montages slickly edited to effective if anomalous tunes — a Snyder predilection that can lean towards the wearily hip. It’s an origin story, or rather five origin stories flashbacking through time. It’s a bleak, rangy tale of a planet beset with disorder, a parable about power, and a superhero soap that shuttles between multiple story arcs that almost divides the film into comic-book cells.
Greater reputations than Snyder’s have wrestled with the beast to no avail. Terry Gilliam, no stranger to whirling structures and otherworldliness, couldn’t figure it out. Paul Greengrass, no stranger to political subtexts and propulsive action, was abandoned by a sceptical studio. Amid the mud-hurling of the recent court case, the script was accused of being an “unintelligible piece of shit”.
That Snyder has gotten a version to the screen at all is a triumph. He has found a way — although this is 160 minutes of a dense, geek-orientated blockbuster for grown-ups. Inevitably, but hardly catastrophically, it fails to truly capture the cascade of ideas and bracing cynicism of Moore’s writing. Yet there is a challenging, visually stunning and memorable movie here, moored halfway towards achieving the impossible.
It will also inevitably be judged from two angles: what it means for those that have read the comic-book, and those who will enter the cinema unequipped, say, with the history of the Minutemen, predecessors of the Watchmen, or the nature of Bubastis, Ozymandias’ genetically mutated lynx. Snyder nearly manages a film for both, but errs to the former. While necessarily filleting down the vast story to something palatable for human bladders, he is slavish to the original text. In his desire to encompass the novel’s strands, storylines and their payoffs are short-changed, leaving the film emotionally subdued, more an intellectual mystery than natural thriller.
And there is no compromising for the junior dollar: arms are snapped, heads hatcheted, and Viet-Cong splattered like flies by Dr. Manhattan, while Silk Spectre keeps her kinky boots on during mid-flight coitus. The entire atmosphere, dunking the cleaner lines of the novel into a pungently vivid, rain-sloshed superhero noir, lacquered in blood stains and midnight shadows, is superbly realised, a true world-unto-itself far more stimulating than Iron Man’s Windowlened sparkle or even The Dark Knight’s shimmering, Michael Mann-ish nightscapes.
In boldly keeping the book’s (then contemporary) 1985 setting fraught with Cold War paranoia — the plot teeters on the brink of nuclear war — the film becomes a less urgent period-piece. The political spine is now cute, as America taunts the Soviets as it has Dr. Manhattan as the ultimate deterrent. A hairless blue man with it all hanging out, he comes care of a mo-capped Billy Crudup that’s about 70 per cent successful — much better in close-up than the distracting mid-shots dominated by his blurry-blue CG cock.
Of all the Watchmen, it is Rorschach and Nite Owl who are most successful. Jackie Earle Haley finds the leery, psychopathic heartbeart of the faceless Bogart, and you half-wish Snyder might have stuck with Rorschach as protagonist rather than spreading the net so wide. No doubt the purists would have wailed. Patrick Wilson, too, is just right as the tortured Owl, a hero bereft in his own identity. It is Mathew Goode as oddball Ozymandias, and Malin Ackerman as Silk Spectre who botch line-readings, ill-at-ease in latex that is part suit and part joke.
Which should tell you Snyder has caught the novel’s provocative mindset. Fundamentally, Moore was asking how a universe of costumed crime fighters might actually work. A quest borrowed by Nolan for his Batman rethink. Here, though, there is dark satire: Batman (now Nite Owl) can’t get it up, impotent without his suit on; Wonder Woman (now Silk Spectre) carries the mountain of her mother’s guilt (a previous Silk Spectre marooned in old age); Superman (now Dr. Manhattan) has taken on the unreachable guise of a god. Best of all, there is Philip Marlowe (now Rorschach), with his do-or-die morality and Taxi Driver voiceover, the most hideously human of the bunch. Holed up in the clink, the inmates try to dispose of the despised crime-fighter. Unmasked and dead-eyed, Earle Haley turns to his foe and, shortly before dousing him in boiling chip studly, chillingly delivers Moore’s deathly magic: “None of you understand. I’m not locked up in here with you. You’re locked up in here with… ME!” And he’s the hero.
Verdict
Okay, it isn’t the graphic novel, but Zack Snyder clearly gives a toss, creating a smart, stylish, decent adaptation, if low on accessibility for the non-convert
4/5 Empires.
Pacino86845 wrote:That's a pretty good review, so was Whedo's in fact... I think at this point I *might* be satisfied with the end product, which for a film adaptation of Watchmen is probably the best we can get. Bonus points if it holds up as its own film... it's been a while since I've (re)read the graphic novel, so hopefully I'll be able to have a mildly fresh perspective on the film.
Lord Voldemoo wrote:to re-read or not to re-read. That is the question...
Heyoucantlaughatthat wrote:Tomatometer is filling up, for those who are interested!
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/
I'm thinking Watchmen will settle in the mid-80's range. That's where it is now.
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:another guy has a face that won't FARKING SIT STILL FOR MORE THAN A FARKING SECOND!!! WHAT THE FUXXAKES IS HE MEANT TO BE? IS HE SUPER? He's psychotic and does looooooooooooads of shit and his face looks like Ellen Page
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:That my face looks like ellen page?
I don't know whevva to take that as a complement or start trying to bone my nostrils.
Seppuku wrote:Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:That my face looks like ellen page?
I don't know whevva to take that as a complement or start trying to bone my nostrils.
Wait, so you're tapehead too? Just how many alts do you have?!
Peven wrote:so now we are reviewing movies based on promotional clips? what is next, a review based on the initial teaser?
WATCHMEN
Australian/NZ release: March 5
Before I get started, I'm going to give a very brief rundown for those who don't want to read the entire review: it's very, very, very good. Not a sublime work of perfection, but probably as close to brilliant as we're likely to get. 9 out of 10, verging on the high end of 9.
Now to the review proper. I'm afraid I have no deep, personal story about how "Watchmen" shaped my childhood. As a matter of fact, I didn't really read any comics until a couple of years ago when I became friends with some comic geeks who introduced me to the best of the genre. "Watchmen" was amongst them, and reading it was certainly the key moment when I realised that comic strips could be literature.
That said, I have no particular emotional tie to the source material. I didn't think we'd see it made into a film because I simply couldn't see how that story would be properly condensed without being either convoluted or a pale imitation of what made the book great. Director Zack Snyder and screenwriters David Hayter and Alex Tse deserve a lot of credit for managing to avoid both extremes. The film rockets along, and even the small moments feel exciting and dangerous. One of the reasons I've softened on TWILIGHT -- god, am I really name-checking TWILIGHT in a WATCHMEN review? -- is that TWILIGHT managed to create a real sense of place. It's not an easy thing to do, which is why we've seen the same version of New York in hundred of different films. WATCHMEN has a tremendous sense of place (but, unlike TWILIGHT, also makes the rest of the movie good as well), thanks to the unparalleled production design of Alex McDowell. Remember the other week when I was talking about non-directors being so good at what they do, they are essentially auteurs? (Thomas Newman in composing, Thelma Schoonmaker in editing, Charlie Kaufman in writing, etc...) I should have included McDowell on that list; the work he's done over his career, from THE CROW to FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS to FIGHT CLUB to THE TERMINAL, has been jaw-dropping, and THE WATCHMEN stands as a contender for his best work ever. It's truly stunning.
The casting, too, is largely brilliant. Billy Crudup's otherworldliness in portraying Dr Manhattan is neither over-the-top nor underplayed. It's such a perfect balance. The character could have been a parody, or they could have made him human and let his facade slip a little, but they didn't. They walked the line flawlessly; both in terms of FX and performance, Dr Manhattan is the standout of the film. Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Carla Gugino (even when her makeup makes her look like Stockard Channing), Malin Akerman, and especially Jackie Earle Haley are perfect in their roles. Haley is an inspired choice for Rorschach, and as with Comedian and Dr Manhattan, his character is not toned down at all to appeal to the masses. It's something I think I took for granted in the film, but as I write about it, I'm becoming aware of how many potential bullets this film avoided. It's actually quite remarkable how well they did it. The same goes for Patrick Wilson. I really dig Patrick Wilson, but I couldn't see him as Nite Owl. The casting just didn't fit for me. Boy, was I wrong. Wilson is unrecognisable; Nite Owl is exactly as he was in the book.
Matthew Goode as Adrian Veidt is very good, but I wish he was ten years older. There's nothing wrong his performance at all, but he's too young, too slim. This is a role that should have gone to a Jude Law or even a Tom Cruise; someone who still looks movie star immaculate, but looks like they've gone through the ringer a bit. This is one of the few roles that would have benefitted from Cruise's baggage. Still, Goode is... I don't want to make the nominative pun, but he is very, very surname. Just a tad miscast.
I'm glad I've been able to rave about the film for so much of the review. My tendency is, sometimes, to focus on the negative, even if that negative makes up an incredibly small percentage. As I said, I didn't realise how good the film is while I was watching it, because I expected it. I expected the Comedian to be violent and psychopathic; generally things only stand out when they're done wrong. So full credit to the 98% of the film that gets it right.
Zack Snyder really is the real deal, and the majority of his work in this is sublime. It's not perfect, however. For every The Times They Are A Chanin' montage, there's a sequence in Vietnam with Ride of the Valkyries over it. Really? Ride of the Valkyries? Is it a completely inappropriate homage, a lazy piece of direction, or a placeholder you forgot to change before release? It's a bizarre choice because it's so uniform and cliched, and stands out because the rest of the film isn't. And though I don't really love the use of the ramp-up, ramp-down style used to appropriate effect in 300, it doesn't overwhelm the film.
I am left to wonder how well this film is going to do. Not to be uber-cynical about it, but it's almost too good for the masses. I really don't know how it's going to play to people who haven't read the book and don't really know what to expect. Do people really want a big budget deconstruction of superheroes with moral ambiguity and unanswered questions? Even if it is as violent as this?
Make no mistake, the film is violent. There's violence, there's sex, there's naked Dr Manhattan. It really is truly impressive how much they've managed to keep from the book. Hat tip to Warners for not watering it down. Between this and the freedom they gave Christopher Nolan on DARK KNIGHT, DC properties might just have a chance to bounce back and rival Marvel.
Undoubtedly, this is THE comic book film of the year. I can't imagine the film being done much better than this, and even though I have minor quibbles, they are minor, and don't detract from what is a truly terrific film.
BlueHawaiiSurfer wrote:He lost me at "they should have used Tom Cruise".|
Peven wrote:so now we are reviewing movies based on promotional clips? what is next, a review based on the initial teaser?
Retardo_Montalban wrote:Peven wrote:so now we are reviewing movies based on promotional clips? what is next, a review based on the initial teaser?
I can review the movie based on a dream I had where Zack Snyder was lovingly raping Ron Moore, and Dennis was crying in the corner clutching his hard cover definitive Watchmen legacy edition of Watchmen.
Seppuku wrote:BlueHawaiiSurfer wrote:He lost me at "they should have used Tom Cruise".|
Oh yeah, can you imagine Tom Cruise of all people playing a guy so isolated from the world he thinks he's the mouthpiece for the rest of humanity?
You've gotta admit, the dude can put in a good performance every now and then. I'm having trouble imagining him with blonde hair, though.
Peven wrote:Retardo_Montalban wrote:Peven wrote:so now we are reviewing movies based on promotional clips? what is next, a review based on the initial teaser?
I can review the movie based on a dream I had where Zack Snyder was lovingly raping Ron Moore, and Dennis was crying in the corner clutching his hard cover definitive Watchmen legacy edition of Watchmen.
that is a review i would be interested in reading
Pacino86845 wrote:Peven wrote:Retardo_Montalban wrote:Peven wrote:so now we are reviewing movies based on promotional clips? what is next, a review based on the initial teaser?
I can review the movie based on a dream I had where Zack Snyder was lovingly raping Ron Moore, and Dennis was crying in the corner clutching his hard cover definitive Watchmen legacy edition of Watchmen.
that is a review i would be interested in reading
Does that dream have anything to do with the upcoming Watchmen/Battlestar Galactica cross-over?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests