comment #1

York "Budd" Durden says ...

You entertainment bloggers are just pissed at being scooped.

comment #2

Devin Faraci says ...

Guy, I get nothing but scooped. What's annoying is that the stuffy studio system suits see 'onliners' as this massive bloc, and they count the silverware every time we come around. But the people who flaunt the rules are the trades and the traditional media's internet entities, again and again.

comment #3

The InSneider says ...

Yeah, seriously. Who gives A SHIT? So the embargo got broken, big fucking deal. If you think being the unofficial first Watchmen review is such a big deal, then you should man up and fucking break it yourself. And why is this review not to be trusted, because the guy had read and liked Watchmen before he saw the movie? I mean, I acknowledge Jeff's last post had a point, about how when the movie impresses people who HAVEN'T read the graphic novel, then we can all start getting excited about it, but still, it doesn't invalidate this guy's opinion that he's coming to the film as a fan. And I don't really consider that a review, because Sellman is not a reviewer. He posted his opinion on the film (but more about how cool it is to be seeing a Watchmen film in the first place) but that doesn't count as a review. I know people who saw the movie months ago and they said it was fucking amazing. Does that count as a review? I don't think so.

comment #4

Devin Faraci says ...

Wait, a written and published opinion of a movie isn't a review anymore?

comment #5

Arran says ...

Kevin Smith and his producing partner Scott Mosier saw the movie months ago and let their thoughts be known on a podcast - were they breaking embargo? Serious question.

comment #6

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Devin, he doesn't mention a single specific details of what does/doesn't work about the plotting, dialogue, mis-en-scene, etc.

It's just a recollection of his "emotional experience" with the film.

And you know if his experience with Watchmen was negative, it would have never saw the light of blogosphere (Time or otherwise).

So to answer your question -- no, it's not a review.

comment #7

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Probably depends on the circumstances under which they saw the movie, Arran.

Generally those "in the biz" often get to see movies early and are not necessarily subject to the same restrictions media or press are.

I think it just kinda depends on who screen the film for them, and what was said to them before or after the screening, if anything.

comment #8

permazorch says ...

I'm looking forward to this movie with guarded optimism.

comment #9

Arran says ...

That's about what I figured, Citizen. I see this guy being much like Smith and Mosier - industry geeks who just got to see the film early. They make no effort to be objective and they're not the press.

Seems fine to me.

comment #10

Devin Faraci says ...

Yes, it's a review. Saying that you saw a movie and this is how it impacted you is a review. A review doesn't have some formula - one paragraph of plot summary, one paragraph of discussion of the cinematography - it's just a reviewer telling you that he saw the film and this is what he thought/felt.

comment #11

KC says ...

Sorry but I don't appreciate you using the language of, I guess, bubbly vapid contemptible "girlishness" to take a dump on what is very much a fanBOY embarrassing himself over a comic book movie from the director of 300.

comment #12

Josh Massey says ...

Can a company break its own embargo?

comment #13

Gaydos says ...

Agree with Faraci (and I think I agree with Jeff, at least the part that says "This is a review") and love LOVE Massey's cutting through the morass here. Now I've gotta run and watch a movie that's
not part of the militarycomicbookindustrialbrainwashdumbdownmindfuckcomplex.

comment #14

Don Murphy says ...

Devin is of course one hundred percent right. I am pushing for the day when there are no more advance screenings. I mean seriously- does the fact that this guy blogged early mean even one more customer? No. I say block everyone. The Kaels and Sarrises are no longer important. Hell, the fucking Eberts don't matter anymore. Why should studios care what cinematical has to say>?

comment #15

mtgilchrist says ...

I agree with Devin wholeheartedly about the embargo, and the fact it's a review, and respectfully disagree with Mr. Murphy. Not that anyone in particular's review "matters," but that a too-positive or too-negative review from anyone who doesn't condense their opinion to less than a sentence or two can cause interest to peak too quickly. Having written studio-sanctioned advance reviews for a handful of movies in the past, I can understand the idea that a studio wants people to be excited, but not know too much going in to the movie (meaning what's good or bad about it). They run the risk of tanking its potential b.o. because some dude thought the wire work wasn't good or the CGI was crappy or just that the movie was so awesome it's going to change the way we look at movies forever. Especially the douchiest fanboys will almost categorically turn around and say something sucks if it's hyped too much, regardless how effectively the movie accomplishes its artistic or commercial goals. So either block everyone or make the same standard of access for everyone, which is a massive, continuous problem between the studios and the online media; I don't care about scoops, but I do hate that the Time folks (in this case) are granted a reprieve from what would otherwise be a swift and powerful kick in the ass from the studio.

comment #16

mtgilchrist says ...

It should also be noted that Warner Brothers forbid ANY mention of the movie prior to opening day, including blogs.

comment #17

MartinBlank says ...

No advance screenings would mean no advance reviews. I'll bet the studios would love that.

The same sort of people who don't read reviews have never read reviews. There are still people who look at trusted reviewers before spending time and money (both in short supply these days) on a flick, especially in this economy. It's not that reviewers are more irrelevant, it's that there are more idiotic critic-proof movies that would do well even if Christ came down from the cross and said they sucked. At the very least, critics perform a sort of Consumer Reports service in the face of corporate hype.

comment #18

MovieBob says ...

Well, we've heard from Don Murphy... anyone who's NOT guilty of "Transformers" wanna weigh in? ;)

comment #19

Don Murphy says ...

MovieBob I'm sorry I am guilty of one of the biggest hits of 2007 and 2009. Now take your ass out of your mouth....

comment #20

scooterzz says ...

i suppose it would be too cynical to suggest that the studio publicity department was well aware that sellman intended to break the embargo and that would trigger a rant from one of regiulars to bloggedy-blog about how unfair it is which would trigger a shit-ton of posters giving their opinions and starting the 'watchman' train chugging down the internet track.......just wondering....
that said, i'm seeing it tomorrow and not looking forward to it much.....

comment #21

Arran says ...

Amusingly, The AV Club has done a little piece regarding Mr Murphy's posts on this very site.

http://tinyurl.com/dbhuv6

comment #22

Rothchild says ...

D.Z. finally topped all his previous crazy comments with this:

"I think Fight Club would still hold value, if not for the Choke movie, Benjamin Button and Inglorious Basterds. Now it just seems like one of those tough guy gimmicks, like Marilyn Manson or Hulk Hogan. The fact that Mamet's cashed in with Redbelt probably further diminished its appeal. Unfortunately, in the case of Watchmen, it'll probably be more of a cult flick in the vein of Dark City, since 300 is Snyder's Fight Club. And yeah, Watchmen can be made into a movie; but the question is can it be made into a movie which captures all the nuances of the source material?"

comment #23

Arran says ...

The AV Club should do a story on that post too. Obviously titled "Finally: The stupidest thing ever said on the internet."

comment #24

The Playlist says ...

"I'm sorry I am guilty of one of the biggest hits of 2007 and 2009." Too funny. Grosses trump quality argument, huh? Also, Transformers 2 is already a qualified hit several months before release.

comment #25

Don Murphy says ...

Playlist No dipshit, the guy said I was "guilty" of something and I indicated that all I was guilty o was being one of the producers of a world wide blockbuster. I never commented on the quality of the film but if I did I would say it was FUCKING awesome. As far as TF 2 the ONLY Thing that will keep it away from #1 film of the year is Harry Potter and even then who knows. The fact that you don't already know that shows how worthless your knowledge is .

comment #26

GiveMeTheMapScott says ...

Thank you for your apology, Don, and your apology in advance for one of the only movies of 2009 I am already committed to NOT seeing

I am now still waiting for similar apologies from the other 500 people involved in making that steaming pile of horror, er, i mean big hit of 2007

comment #27

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"Yes, it's a review. Saying that you saw a movie and this is how it impacted you is a review. A review doesn't have some formula - one paragraph of plot summary, one paragraph of discussion of the cinematography - it's just a reviewer telling you that he saw the film and this is what he thought/felt."

I agree that there is no exact formula to reviews, but your last sentence here is key. We get a lot of what Matt Sellman felt, but pretty much nothing about what he thought (i.e. no intellectual analysis). Would you consider critical essays on film "reviews?" I wouldn't, and that is pretty much the exact inverse of what Sellman wrote.

Personally, a good litmus test whether something can be legitimately classified as a "review" is to try to imagine yourself totally unfamiliar with a movie (which, with a property like Watchmen is admittedly hard to do at this point), and see if the piece helps persuade or dissuade you at all towards seeing the movie.

On this front, Sellman's article is really no more helpful than an essay on the symbolic meaning of "Rosebud" would be towards a potential viewer of Citizen Kane.

And with that, I think I'm out of this thread. It's beginning to feel a lot like grade-school recess in here for some reason...

comment #28

Markj74 says ...

Don Murphy: Avatar baby. Avatar. Iron Jim is going to kick your ass up and down the playing field.

comment #29

Rich S. says ...

The "review" comes from the point of view of "Watchmen as religious experience" and, as such, can be easily discounted. Maybe it's a comment on the emptiness of 21st Century American life that these comic book movies are getting so much adoration. Watchmen was a classic of the comic book genre, but it's still a comic book. The movie looks entertaining. But this guy needs some perspective.

comment #30

actionman says ...

Avatar is going to disappoint critics and audiences -- just wait and see. After more than a decade of feature film inactivity, people will be LINING UP to take down Cameron's new baby, regardless of whether or not it's good or bad or entertaining, etc.

Transformers 2 is going to EXPLODE at the box office -- a billion dollars world wide. The mixed reviews it will receive (like the first one) will mean nothing. People want to see this film. There's a reason why it sold more DVD's that most movies in the last few years. The series will follow the BO trajectory of the Pirates movies. So the 100 people who comment on this blog won't see TF2 --big deal and big surprise, a shock to nobody, and meaningless in the long run of the film's ultimate box office intake.

The new TF2 trailer is PURE FUCKING INSANITY. If you can't recognize the certain set of skills that Bay brings to the table than essentially, you're blind.

comment #31

actionman says ...

And as far as Watchmen goes, it looks like an acid-trip-of-a-comic-book-movie and I am very anxious to see what Snyder has up his sleeve. It looks stylish and visceral and really fun. Have never read the book, have no intention of reading the book, so I will be judging it as a movie only. I know that it's being presented on IMAX screens, but was any of it actually shot in IMAX format, like TDK and TF2?

comment #32

chicagodad says ...

Of course it's a review and breaks the embargo. The fact that it's a turgid story about nostalgia, not an especially useful, substantive review doesn't change that. It's going to be perceived as a review by 99% of the population that reads it.

That said, I can't imagine anyone who's going to really relate to what he's saying that wasn't already going to see Watchmen already.

There's actually the kernel of an interesting idea in the piece that is unfortunately unexplored.

I already figured that there would be two vastly different Watchmen audience experiences. Those that are seeing it with fresh eyes, and those (myself included, to some degree) that will be spending 3 hours looking for nods to pages and panels of the original material.

I don't know who said it originally, but there's a quote I love: "Geeks spoil their own fun." The problem is that for the people that are most excited for this film, it has huge potential to become a fetishistic "Where's Rorshach?" experience. Nerds and geeks tend to go all Asperger's-y on this stuff. Which tends to prevent any real immersion in the film's world.

I'm going in hoping for good work, but if not, hey, I can think of worse ways to spend an afternoon than a 3 hour game of "spot the panel."

Actionamn, I am very, very interested in hearing your reaction to the film, or anyone else's who hasn't read the comic.

comment #33

Markj74 says ...

actionman: Never underestimate Jim Cameron, especially in the sci-fi arena. My prediction? He'll show Bay, Ratner, Wiseman, Snyder and co for the spectacularly untalented filmmakers that they are.

comment #34

Josh Massey says ...

I used to be an elementary school teacher. One of our rules was "don't talk during tests." I laid down this rule for my students.

However, during tests, I routinely talked. Some times to clarify the questions, some times to reprimand behavior. I talked despite creating the rule "don't talk during tests."

Was I breaking the rule?

comment #35

actionman says ...

Markj -- lumping ULTRA-HACKS like Ratner and Wiseman in with Cameron, Bay, and Snyder is insulting to the talents of the latter mentioned filmmakers.

I am rooting for Cameron, I have loved his films in the past, but I just don't think that Avatar is going to be the end-all-be-all of cinema as he's touting it as. Coraline was the first time I felt that 3-D was used in service of the story, rather than being the story itself. With Cameron always setting out to invent the technology as he's in production on the film, there's always the chance that his story telling will be overshadowed by his technique.

And that's the fundamental difference between Cameron and Bay. Cameron is all about blending the two (story and technology) while Bay is all surface-flash-and-glitz (which is TOTALLY fine).

Snyder isn't in their league yet, but he's on his way. What he did, from just an artistic perspective, on 300, was nothing short of brilliant. Brilliant. My guess is that he'll settle somewhere in between Cameron and Bay's sensibilities.

But Wiseman and Ratner literally beg, borrow, and steal from these masters, adding nothing new to the genre, and they typically neuter already established franchises or simply churn out one piece of uninspired action garbage after another. They are more or less worthless.

comment #36

Markj74 says ...

actionman: I wasn't lumping anyone in with Cameron. When it comes to action-spectacle cinema there's him and then the rest. And they'd probably all agree with me. When other directors in Hollywood are calling Avatar "the game-changer" you know something special is on the cards.

comment #37

actionman says ...

we'll see...

comment #38

Rothchild says ...

Markj:

How is Avatar going to make more than 300 million between December 18th and December 31st? Don wins the argument even if it isn't his movie.

comment #39

Drew says ...

This is an embargo break. Selman, like everyone who has had the film screened for them so far, was told that there were to be no reviews AND NO BLOGGING. Warner absolutely considers it an embargo break, whether it's on Time.com or not.

comment #40

D.Z. says ...

Don: I hate to break it to you, but TF's a geek flick which was going to do well, regardless of quality, much like the SW prequels. Paramount won't be so lucky with G.I. Joe, though, since no one still likes or has fond memories of the show, which is why those Fensler spoofs are so popular. TF 2, otoh, could probably open big, but drop fast, since it looks like Bay just transplanted the humans and robots onto the Stargate set.

actionman: I'm actually wondering if Avatar will even make its December date. Titanic already had a trailer months in advance, but this sucker only has some alien models. Anyway, I think the real reason it'll disappoint is that people are expecting something to make up for Dark Angel; and that's not gonna happen. As for Transformers, it actually did fairly horrible on HD-DVD, while Iron Man and TDK did better on BD. So I'm starting to wonder if people are already tired of it by now.

comment #41

Josh Massey says ...

"Anyway, I think the real reason it'll disappoint is that people are expecting something to make up for Dark Angel..."

Ah, eh, eh, ick... (HEAD EXPLODES)

comment #42

GiveMeTheMapScott says ...

when is something going to come along to make up for YOU?

TF2 is likely going to be as bad as the original but its going to make buckets and buckets of money.

comment #43

cheapetiffany says ...

I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your President by your ballots, and so I ask you to confirm me as your President with your prayers. And I hope that such prayers will also be the first of many. If you have not chosen me by secret ballot, neither have I gained office by any secret promises. I have not campaigned either for the Presidency or the Vice Presidency. I have not subscribed to any partisan platform. I am indebted to no man, and only to one woman -- my dear wife -- as I begin this very difficult job.cheap tiffany co jewelry