Email here for additions & corrections.

Ishtar
(May, 1987)
The Seven-Per-Cent Solution (OOP)
(Ross, 1976)
The Devils
(Russell, 1974)
The Pirates of Penzance
(Papp/Leach, 1983)
The Fortune
(Nichols, 1975)
-30-
(Webb, 1959)
Betrayal
(Jones, 1983)
Play It As It Lays
(Perry, 1972)
The Outfit
(Flynn, 1973)
Alex in Wonderland
(Mazursky, 1969)
The Legend of Lylah Clare
(Aldrich, 1968)
In The Cool of the Day
(Stevens, 1963)
That Cold Day in the Park
(Altman, 1969)
Thumb Trippin'
(Masters, 1972)
Midas Run
(Kjellin, 1969)
At Long Last Love
(Bogdanovich, 1973)
Brewster McCloud
(Altman, 1972)
Outcast of the Islands
(Reed, 1951)

Reader Submissions
1930's-1950's
The Moon's Our Home
(Seiter, 1936)
Sh! The Octopus
(McGann, 1937)
The Mating Season
(Leisen, 1951)
Bad for Each Other
(Rapper, 1953)
The Phenix City Story
(Karlson, 1955)
Run of the Arrow
(Fuller, 1956)
House of Secrets
(Green, 1956)
Saint Joan
(Preminger, 1957)
Macabre
(Castle, 1958)
The Fiend Who Walked the West
(G. Douglas, 1958
Five Gates to Hell
(Clavell, 1959)
1960's
Key Witness
(Karlson, 1960)
Summer and Smoke
(Glenville, 1961)
The Chapman Report
(Cukor,1962)
Bachelor Flat
(Tashlin, 1962) [on Hulu]
The L Shaped Room
(Forbes, 1963)
The Chalk Garden
(Neame, 1964)
A Thousand Clowns
(Coe, 1965)
You're a Big Boy Now
(Coppola, 1966)
The Whisperers
(Forbes, 1967)
Dark of the Sun
(Cardiff, 1968)
Skidoo
(Preminger, 1968)
Last Summer
(Perry, 1969)
The Comic
(C. Reiner, 1969)
1970-1974
The Revolutionary
(Williams, 1970)
The Landlord
(Ashby, 1970)
Diary of a Mad Housewife
(Perry, 1970)
Tropic of Cancer
(Strick, 1970)
I Never Sang for My Father
(Cates, 1970)
Sometimes a Great Notion
(Newman, 1971)
Marriage of a Young Stockbroker
(Turman, 1971)
The Music Lovers
(Russell, 1971)
Drive, He Said
(Nicholson, 1971)
The Steagle
(Sylbert, 1971)
The Last Movie
(Hopper, 1971)
Made For Each Other
(Bean, 1971)
The Day the Clown Cried
(Lewis, 1972)
Hickey & Boggs (OOP)
(Culp, 1972)
The Carey Treatment
(Edwards, 1972)
Pete 'n' Tillie
(Ritt, 1972)
Slither
(Zieff, 1973)
Man on a Swing
(Perry, 1974)
Open Season
(Collinson, 1974)
The Tamarind Seed
(Edwards, 1974)
Law and Disorder
(Passer, 1974)
Homebodies
(Yust, 1974)
Stardust
(Apted, 1974)
Celine and Julie Go Boating
(Rivette, 1974)
1975-1979
Rafferty and the Gold Dust Twins
(Richards, 1975
At Long Last Love
(Bogdanovich, 1975)
Hearts of the West
(Zieff, 1975)
Welcome to L.A.
(Rudolph, 1976)
W.C. Fields and Me
(Hiller, 1976)
Citizens Band
(Demme, 1977)
Twilight's Last Gleaming
(Aldrich, 1977)
Looking for Mr. Goodbar
(Brooks, 1977)
Girlfriends
(Weill, 1978)
Movie Movie
(Donen, 1978)
The Medusa Touch
(Gold, 1978)
American Hot Wax
(Mutrux, 1978)
Hot Stuff
(DeLuise, 1979)
Scavenger Hunt
(Schultz , 1979)
Players
(Harvey, 1979)
Rich Kids
(Young, 1979)
Nightwing
(Hiller, 1979)
Screams of a Winter's Night
(Wilson, 1979
When You Comin' Back Red Ryder?
(Katselas, 1979
1980's
Resurrection
(Petrie, 1980)
The Awakening
(Newell, 1980)
Simon
(Brickman, 1980)
God's Angry Man
(Herzog, 1980)
Fast-Walking
(Harris, 1982)
Twice Upon a Time
(Korty & Swenson, 1983)
Trouble in Mind
(Rudolph, 1985)
When the Wind Blows
(Murikami, 1986)
Housekeeping
(Forsyth, 1987)
The Glass Menagerie
(Newman, 1987)
Patty Hearst
(Schrader, 1988)
Drowning by Numbers
(Greenaway, 1988)
Haunted Summer
(Passer, 1988)
The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years
(Spheeris, 1988)
1990's
Old Times
(Curtis, 1991)
Prospero's Books
(Greenaway, 1991)
City of Hope
(Sayles, 1991)
The Baby of Macon
(Greenaway, 1993)
King of the Hill
(Soderbergh, 1993)
Dadetown
(Hexter, 1995)
SubUrbia
(Linklater, 1997)

Upcoming

January 8

Bitch Slap

Waiting for Armageddon

Wonderful World

Youth in Revolt

January 15

January 22

Drool

Extraordinary Measures

The Girl on the Train

Just To Be Clear

email this story
read comments (16)
post a comment

To double-underline that I have no dog in the Watchmen hunt, I'm stating an obvious interest in posting any other reactions to the film -- pro, con, whatever. Even a submission on the level of that detestable 2.16 article by Nerdworld's Matt Selman would be of interest. Obviously there's more to Watchmen than the opinion of one journalist colleague or some alpha-brained Simpsons contributor. I've been told that another critique will land in my inbox fairly soon so I hope others will follow.

Has anyone noticed, incidentally, that Selman hasn't written a word on Nerdworld since yesterday afternoon's blow-up? What a lazy fuddy-dud candy-ass he must be. Can you imagine being silent after igniting a firestorm of this sort? Is Selman hiding out? Is he working the tension off at a local workout place? Did be buy groceries early last evening at Whole Foods and then go out to dinner with friends, with whom he drank California wine and laughed uproariously at their jokes?

Harris on "Re-Visioned" Connection<< previous | next >>The Bucks & The Challenge

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 17, 2009 at 8:34 AM

comment #1

loyal says ...

What are the odds that the next review will fail somewhere between "Best Movie EVER" and "Staggering Failure?"

Posted by loyal at February 17, 2009 9:17 AM

comment #2

Midwest Doug says ...

Grossman posts to Nerdworld with roughly 3-5x the frequency of Selman, so I'm not surprised. Or should he be defending himself against the wolves of Wells and Faraci?

Selman saw Watchmen. Selman had his reaction. Selman told editors. Could he post his reaction without breaking embargo? Compromise reached. Jeff reads. Jeff reacts, as do many others.

Selman's piece doesn't strike me as any more of a review than the "impressions" Jeff provides when he's under embargo. I still don't understand all the ruckus; Selman had a fanboy reaction and identified himself as such. And he's not a Time movie reviewer.

Posted by Midwest Doug at February 17, 2009 9:18 AM

comment #3

SlimAthletic says ...

Matt Selman wants to fight you, Jeff. What are your winning chances?

Silly that he doesn't consider himself press when he works for Time.

Posted by SlimAthletic at February 17, 2009 10:05 AM

comment #4

Rich S. says ...

Between this post and the recent trip to Oxford, Jeffrey seems really eager to engage in some fisticuffs. Maybe Uwe Boll is still interested.

Posted by Rich S. at February 17, 2009 10:19 AM

comment #5

Rich S. says ...

I'm also shocked, SHOCKED that AICN hasn't chimed in on this yet. (Yes, folks, that last statement was indeed sarcasm.)

Posted by Rich S. at February 17, 2009 10:21 AM

comment #6

Colin says ...

For not having a, "dog in this race" you seem pretty obsessed with the embargo buster review, if it had reamed the film would you be this angry?

Posted by Colin at February 17, 2009 10:32 AM

comment #7

Ponderer says ...

Some reactions on AICN are starting to come in. This pretty positive review just got posted:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40148

Posted by Ponderer at February 17, 2009 11:01 AM

comment #8

Jeffrey Wells says ...

For the most part AICN correspondents probably can't be trusted to write about the cinematic effectiveness of Watchmen. Too many of them are emotionally embedded in the lore of Alan Moore and CG fantasy flicks, etc. You need someone cold and hard and dispassionate to review this thing, and that means no graphic-novel freaks.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at February 17, 2009 1:18 PM

comment #9

Rich S. says ...

And, of course, the guy's name is Ramses II, aka, Ozymandias.

Posted by Rich S. at February 17, 2009 1:26 PM

comment #10

Gordon27 says ...

If Warner Brothers wants to enforce an embargo, and this guy is an employee of Time Magazine, and published that, obviously WB doesn't consider it a review, right? I mean, the biggest movie WB has this year, I'm sure the editors at Time put in a courtesy call. That's just common synergy.

Posted by Gordon27 at February 17, 2009 1:47 PM

comment #11

Rich S. says ...

"I mean, the biggest movie WB has this year"

I think perhaps the Harry Potter crowd might take issue with that statement.

Posted by Rich S. at February 17, 2009 2:13 PM

comment #12

Ponderer says ...

"For the most part AICN correspondents probably can't be trusted to write about the cinematic effectiveness of Watchmen. Too many of them are emotionally embedded in the lore of Alan Moore and CG fantasy flicks, etc. You need someone cold and hard and dispassionate to review this thing, and that means no graphic-novel freaks."

Sure - was just posting and and all reactions as you requested.

You pose an interesting dilemma, though. Is an enthusiast for any form to be discounted if a film deals with their subject matter? Like, is a die-hard baseball fan unreliable in terms of judging a baseball film? Where is the line?

I don't mean any of this in a confrontational sense - I'm simply curious where people think the line is drawn between subjective analysis and compromised opinion.

Posted by Ponderer at February 17, 2009 2:52 PM

comment #13

Colin says ...

I don't mean any of this in a confrontational sense - I'm simply curious where people think the line is drawn between subjective analysis and compromised opinion. - Ponderer

If anything I think "fanboys" would be far more critical of the work than anything else.

Posted by Colin at February 17, 2009 3:42 PM

comment #14

Gordon27 says ...

"I think perhaps the Harry Potter crowd might take issue with that statement."

Maybe. Maybe not. I think an argument could be made that WB has a much bigger vested interest in 'Watchmen', since they own the book and the merchandise rights themselves.

At any rate, that's quibbling, unless you really think that it being possibly as low as the second biggest movie WB releases this year means that Time magazine wouldn't bother to call their bosses to make sure this was okay?

Posted by Gordon27 at February 17, 2009 7:03 PM

comment #15