Jump to content

Who Watches the Watchmen?


Recommended Posts

I'd argue that apart from the Lucas boys, fanboys in general are actually the HARDEST to please out of anyone.

The fact they are singing the praises of a hugely unknown potential franchise does indeed bode well.

This isn't a franchise. The story of Watchmen is a graphic novel, which appears to be more or less in tact in the film. There's not going to be a Watchmen 2, as even talks of doing another 300 haven't produced anything as of yet. Plus, if its successful enough that they consider a sequel, Alan Moore might go on a murderous rampage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 303
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I did the same with Supergirl. I was absolutely mesmerised by Helen Slater's thighs from their very first frame to their last.

Except that it has the exact same mindless over-the-top style and action as Sin City, 300, The Spirit, etc. I've seen so much slow-motion in this film it's absurd.

Think you're exaggerating a bit. I haven't seen much of the action, and while I've seen some of the slowmo that's been in the clips, Snyders reasoning for them in the film is that they're the equivalent of splash pages from the comic.

I can get behind that.

I can't, because it goes against one of the fundamental aspects of the book, the portrayal of superheroes as being washed-up and almost boringly normal. It is not about flashy special effects and "totally cool" action, Snyder (from what I've seen) completely missed that.

And Ozymandias looks like a James Bond villain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Except that it has the exact same mindless over-the-top style and action as Sin City, 300, The Spirit, etc. I've seen so much slow-motion in this film it's absurd.

Think you're exaggerating a bit. I haven't seen much of the action, and while I've seen some of the slowmo that's been in the clips, Snyders reasoning for them in the film is that they're the equivalent of splash pages from the comic.

I can get behind that.

I can't, because it goes against one of the fundamental aspects of the book, the portrayal of superheroes as being washed-up and almost boringly normal. It is not about flashy special effects and "totally cool" action, Snyder (from what I've seen) completely missed that.

And Ozymandias looks like a James Bond villain.

I share the exact same concerns as you from the footage I've seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd argue that apart from the Lucas boys, fanboys in general are actually the HARDEST to please out of anyone.

The fact they are singing the praises of a hugely unknown potential franchise does indeed bode well.

This isn't a franchise.

Actually, it is. Your baby belongs to Hollywood now. Try to accept and adjust to the fact that business comes a long way before artistic integrity. If anything, you should be thankful that the chosen director of your precious comic's filmic adaptation appears to have been talented enough to bring an artistic edge to the material at all, since countless other deserving comic IPs weren't so lucky.

There's not going to be a Watchmen 2

Okaaaaaay. Judging by the early word of mouth on the first instalment, only crappy audience turnouts would back up your misguided prediction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, it's 92% on RT, boys. It looks like this one could be really something. The reviews use a lot of superlatives!

You're contribution to this thread has been amazing, astonishing and downright biblical. One of the greatest posts of all time.

What a strange post, Quint, it seems a bit out of place. All I said was it had a high score on RT (even though it's declining as we speak). Personally, I'm interested in how the film is critically received. If its score was 32%, then chances are it's not going to be good. Really, your overreaction is unnecessary.

its at 80 and dropping, only two major sources at this point have reviewed it, and both posted negative reviews, the majority of the other reviews falls into that sexless crowd again, a bunch of fanboys creaming their drawers isn't the basis for a solid review.

All the positive reviewers are fanboys? :lurk: Sure, Joey, sure.

Alex

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the funny review.

Snyder and writers David Hayter and Alex Tse never find a reason for those unfamiliar with the graphic novel to care about any of this nonsense. And it is nonsense. When one superhero has to take a Zen break, he does so on Mars. Of course he does.
These aren't so much superheroes as ordinary human beings with, let us say, comic-book martial arts prowess.

Really?

And what's with the silly Halloween getups?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, it's 92% on RT, boys. It looks like this one could be really something. The reviews use a lot of superlatives!

You're contribution to this thread has been amazing, astonishing and downright biblical. One of the greatest posts of all time.

What a strange post, Quint, it seems a bit out of place. All I said was it had a high score on RT (even though it's declining as we speak). Personally, I'm interested in how the film is critically received. If its score was 32%, then chances are it's not going to be good. Really, your overreaction is unnecessary.

Lol, my reply was not a serious one Alex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alex the difference between you and the rest of us, is we'll make up our own minds and not be like you and rely on a consensus of reviews.

Why do you always think in terms of black and white? It's fatiguing, Joey.

I already showed interest in this film before there was any critical consensus. Yes, I sometimes use Rotten Tomatoes as a tool. With so many movies coming out (I have a broad interest), it can actually be very helpful to make a selection or even discover little unknown gems. I have to be selective because I can't buy or watch every movie out there. The nice thing about accumulated reviews is that good movies usually get a high score and bad movies usually get a low score. If it works for me, why not take advantage of that? Is it waterproof? Sadly, no. To give you a recent example, well received films like Iron Man and Hellboy 2 have failed to tickle my fancy. You see, RT doesn't influence my personal verdict.

Alex

Link to post
Share on other sites

why do I think in black and white terms with you Alex, is because you're so very predictable. You have so few shades of gray.

I have no desire to see this movie but I will because I will be getting dragged to it. Thats ok cause come fall he has to go see the Wolfman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you must pick a review that best will reflect your future opinion. Perhaps Emmanuel Levy as he's the least fanboyish of those posting positive reviews.

Joey, I rarely read the reviews themselves. Like I said, I have my own opinion. I don't even know who Levy is. Also, I don't want any spoilers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You should use the excuse I do Joe.

I tell her no one is forcing her to go to see the movies I like. ;)

Mark, its a give and take thing, and strangely most of the films he begruginly sees with me he ends up liking better than I do, and vice versa.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the funny review.
Snyder and writers David Hayter and Alex Tse never find a reason for those unfamiliar with the graphic novel to care about any of this nonsense. And it is nonsense. When one superhero has to take a Zen break, he does so on Mars. Of course he does.
These aren't so much superheroes as ordinary human beings with, let us say, comic-book martial arts prowess.

Really?

And what's with the silly Halloween getups?

Do you think the reviewer was spoiled by the relatively realistic The Dark Knight?

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the funny review.
Snyder and writers David Hayter and Alex Tse never find a reason for those unfamiliar with the graphic novel to care about any of this nonsense. And it is nonsense. When one superhero has to take a Zen break, he does so on Mars. Of course he does.
These aren't so much superheroes as ordinary human beings with, let us say, comic-book martial arts prowess.

Really?

And what's with the silly Halloween getups?

Do you think the reviewer was spoiled by the relatively realistic The Dark Knight?

Possibly.... :lol:

Most people have a stereotypical view as to how superheroes should look, act and the powers they possess.

You go against the norm and you tend to upset some.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no opinion on this one way or the other. I haven't read the graphic novel and I have no investment in any of it. It doesn't look like something I'd enjoy (nearly 3 hours of CG) but considering how beloved a property this is to its fans and how long it's taken to get made and the legal drama with Fox I guess I was hoping for it to be better liked.

I will say that the review I posted commented on the advertising, specifically the "visionary director" line and that's been driving a buddy of mine nuts since the first trailer.

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't look like something I'd enjoy (nearly 3 hours of CG)

Where'd that come from? Dr. Manhattan and Mars, sure, along with some digital set extensions and whatnot, but this isn't like 300 where it was practically all green screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The trailer made it seem otherwise. And the running time just seems too much. I'm now getting a King Kong/Superman Returns vibe from this thing. Never a good sign for me. I hope people enjoy it, but I'll be staying far away.

And as for the person who linked to RottenTomatoes, not the best idea. I took a look and the movie is at 76%, which is alright, but then I clicked on "Top Critics" and it wasn't too pretty. One out of six of them liked it but of course he writes for a Warners publication. Maybe that'll change by Friday, but right now, it's not so good.

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites
that one is brutal Neil

all the top critics have given it negative reviews.

You hate it so much that you need to lie about? That's low, even for you, Joe.

I have no opinion on this one way or the other.

Judging on your behaviour, you could've fooled us.

Yeah I always look at Top Critics on RT. No point otherwise.

No point? I avoid populists like Ebert. He's a top critic, isn't he? Doesn't mean a thing.

There are only 6 reviews under 'Top Critics'. That's hardly a consensus, I would say. Why trust them in particular? Seems like a dumb thing to do. Is the critique of Emmanuel Levy less 'valid' than Kirk Honeycutt's?!

I read several quotes (the text balloons) and apparently a lot of the critics seem to agree that the film is quite different, unusual and arty. I tell you what, the fact that Joe hates this movie is a very good indication. We all know Joe doesn't like things that are different, unusual and arty. Neil's taste can be described as fairly conservative too. Of course, they hate this movie! Great!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still excited, and will be no matter how many bad reviews it gets. But I'll admit that I'm disappointed the movie isn't getting better reviews from the majors.

It seems to be reviewing well on the geek sites, though, and I suspect that my sensibilities are closer to those reviewers' than to, say, those of the reviewer from The New Yorker. So while the negative reviews from the majors disappoint me, they don't discourage me.

I'll find out Wednesday what the deal really is with it. Woo-hoo!

I avoid populists like Ebert.

Ebert has been mostly dead to me ever since he called The Village one of the worst movies he'd ever seen.

I can understand not liking The Village, which is, after all, an extremely mannered film, and one which hinges entirely upon your willingness to buy the big plot twists. But one of the worst movies ever? Ludicrous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm still excited, and will be no matter how many bad reviews it gets. But I'll admit that I'm disappointed the movie isn't getting better reviews from the majors.

It seems to be reviewing well on the geek sites, though, and I suspect that my sensibilities are closer to those reviewers' than to, say, those of the reviewer from The New Yorker. So while the negative reviews from the majors disappoint me, they don't discourage me.

I'll find out Wednesday what the deal really is with it. Woo-hoo!

Aren't the so-called majors all populists? I don't think Watchmen is a movie for everyone.

I too like to see it Wednesday but I don't think it's a good idea to see this particular movie in theaters. I'm going to wait for the DVD.

Alex

Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to be reviewing well on the geek sites...

Which is why I'm going to avoid it. I'm sure that particular segment of filmgoer will eat up alive. I'm no longer the target demographic, and that's fine with me.

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can understand not liking The Village, which is, after all, an extremely mannered film, and one which hinges entirely upon your willingness to buy the big plot twists.

That's actually very perceptive of you, Bryant. However, I had more problems with buying the plot than with any plot twists. As a parent myself, I just couldn't believe the premise of the story and the motivations of the characters. You had to take it or leave it. Mr. Night himself did nothing to make it slightly plausible. The only thing I did buy was the photography.

Alex

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't the so-called majors all populists? I don't think Watchmen is a movie for everyone.

Hmm ... I don't follow any of them closely enough to know if they're populists or not. I tend to lean toward populism myself, but I definitely like to occasionally embrace something that turns "most" people off.

As for Watchmen, I can't say without having seen it, BUT ... the mere fact that it fits within the superhero genre ought, theoretically, to make it very accessible to a large audience. What that large audience will then take away from it, however, will be what serves to limit its appeal.

But I don't think we should count it out as a mainstream success. After all, the vast moviegoing public doesn't always like to be surprised, but sometimes, they like it just fine. Sometimes, when they're surprised, they respond by taking the movie to their hearts, because it feels like some sort of genuine experience, rather than just another movie. And I suspect many will be surprised by this movie's violence, sexuality, and depravity, as well as the many questions of morality and existential doubt it will raise (assuming those elements have all been transferred over from the comics, that is). Will these elements cause people to recoil, or will it cause them to sit forward in their seats, clenching the armrests a bit? Impossible to say until it starts happening.

As a parent myself, I just couldn't believe the premise of the story and the motivations of the characters. You had to take it or leave it. Mr. Night himself did nothing to make it slightly plausible. The only thing I did buy was the photography.

I can believe in people being scared enough by the violence of the world that they would, if they had the resources available to them, take extraordinary measures to combat it. This is a post-9/11 film, and -- like many an American film to be released in the years since -- it is tackling the subject of how we respond to an act of horrific, crippling violence.

What made it believable for me is the fact that the movie doesn't exactly present what the parents (the village elders) do in a positive light. Their actions are indirectly responsible for Adrien Brody's character's schizophrenia, and are therefore also indirectly responsible for what happens to Joaquin Phoenix's character. These are people who are so traumatized by violence, and so frightened of it, that they've removed themselves from the world. And yet, violence has found them despite their best intentions. In some ways, I find what they have done to be an understandable urge, but I can't really morally support it, and I don't think Shyamalan is asking me to.

Where the movie sings for me -- and it really, really sings for me -- is in the character Bryce Dallas Howard plays. She, despite her infirmities, is everything the village elders have failed to be: fearless, relentless, passionate, vital, and absolutely determined to do whatever she can do to help the people she loves. This is a woman who is convinced that monsters are in the world, and yet she is not only willing to go amongst and pass through them to help save the life of a man she loves, she is insistent upon doing so. Ivy serves as a counterpoint to everything her elders stand for.

But yes, even if you don't respond to any of that, the cinematography is of the highest order, and so is the score, and probably the production design as well. Either way, on this particular subject, Roger Ebert can suck it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What made it believable for me is the fact that the movie doesn't exactly present what the parents (the village elders) do in a positive light. Their actions are indirectly responsible for Adrien Brody's character's schizophrenia, and are therefore also indirectly responsible for what happens to Joaquin Phoenix's character. These are people who are so traumatized by violence, and so frightened of it, that they've removed themselves from the world. And yet, violence has found them despite their best intentions. In some ways, I find what they have done to be an understandable urge, but I can't really morally support it, and I don't think Shyamalan is asking me to.

Of course, Shyamalan is not asking us to morally support it! That's not my point. What bothers me is that Mr. Night did nothing to make 'the unbelievable' believable. That all the parents of the village were able to creep out their children like that is a cruelty I simply cannot fathom. I was waiting for Mr. Night to make me doubt my strong 'reservations' on this. Perhaps he would show me something that would make me less reluctant to understand why every single parent was able to go to such extreme, never-seen-before lengths to scare his children to death. Why should I believe this? To isolate the children from the rest of the world? Some of the elders seemed wise and intelligent, so why didn't they question their own drastic actions? Why did no one feel they were taking it way too far? Why did no one understand that those measurements would only lead to complete destruction?

I tell you why! It's bull! And Mr. Night was shooting for spectacle and effect, rather than common sense. He came up with a premise that is only acceptable in children's stories and he thought everyone would buy it. He took his audience for granted. If you make your audience believe in the premise then everything else (other aspects) will follow. If he had presented his story as a fairy tale, then maybe I would've gone along with it. If I saw disgust on some of the parents' faces while they were putting incredible fear into the hearts of their own young children, then maybe I would have met Shyamalan halfway.

It seems to be reviewing well on the geek sites

Smart move, Bryant! Now only geeks seem to love this movie. Joe, Neil and KS will love you for it.

Alex

Link to post
Share on other sites

I expected reactions like this. Kind of like all DePalma reviews. They don't really say anything substantial. It's just "we don't get it so it must be bad" attitude. I'm sure there is plenty wrong with this film, but it shouldn't be worse than 90% of everything else. We'll see soon enough. At least it wasn't that expensive.

:lol:

Karol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.