Upcoming
Youth in Revolt
January 15
January 22
Drool
The Girl on the Train
"Staggering Failure"
The fact that I was instinctually repelled by Matt Selman's whorish and insipid remarks about Watchmen (Warner Bros., 3.6) doesn't mean I have a dog in this fight. I don't. I worship any film that convincingly creates in its own realm and knows how to zap the audience into believing in its theology, so if Watchmen manages this feat, terrific. But a trusted journalist friend, aroused by yesterday's uproar over Selman's very suspicious testimonial, passed the following along this morning. Again -- I have no stake in this. I'm just a guy on the sidelines.
"I've seen Watchmen," he began. "And speaking as a huge admirer and devotee of the graphic novel, the film is a staggering failure. On the plus side, you've got a pretty literal adaptation of the source material. It is at times a meticulous and gorgeous recreation of Alan Moore's original work. Unfortunately it's an empty, inert, meandering and, yes, boring 2 hours and 45 minutes.
"Oh, and it's horribly acted throughout. Truly. Malin Akerman (i.e., Silk Spectre II) confirms whatever fears you may have initially felt after The Heartbreak Kid and 27 Dresses. Carla Gugino (the other Silk Spectre) just looks silly. Patrick Wilson (Nite Owl II) is his usual blah self. Only Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach and Billy Crudup's Dr. Manhattan register at all.
"Sadly even the presumed up-and-comer Matthew Goode plays Ozymandias, the world's smartest man, as an arch and slightly bored Bond villain. I had high hopes after being wowed by him in The Lookout, but he's bungled this great opportunity. (It's clear in retrospect the part should have gone to a real star. Say what you will but Tom Cruise would have been perfect.)
"I say all of the above as a person who was very much into the 20 minutes they screened for all of us months ago. Sorry to confirm our worst fears but those scenes in fact remain the best and among the few that work on any level.
"Watchmen is just not much of a movie. It has no narrative pull and no characters to invest in. It uses rotely shoehorned-in action scenes, and has a sheen that doesn't befit the dark material.
"So much for the visionary vistas of Zack Snyder. Oh, what Paul Greengrass could have done!
"And to reduce it all to dollars and sense, I'll be shocked if this one plays to a wide audience after an admittedly huge weekend. Watchmen fans are in for a rude awakening."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 17, 2009 at 6:21 AM
comment #1
markj
says ...
Not really a surprise. Dawn of the Dead and 300 were terrible pieces of cinema. And the 'acting' in 300 was something else...
Posted by markj
at February 17, 2009 7:00 AM
comment #2
mpneeb
says ...
Yeah, you're gonna make a lot of friends with this post, Wells (not trying to buttress or detract from it, I just know what some people have invested in this thing).
Posted by mpneeb
at February 17, 2009 7:21 AM
comment #3
loyal
says ...
I imagine the "staggering failure" post will make Hollywood-Elsewhere the center of the universe, at least for today.
Congrats Jeffy.
Posted by loyal
at February 17, 2009 7:24 AM
comment #4
actionman
says ...
Eh, some people will flip, others won't. Is this really much of a surprise? It'll be cool looking eye-candy. What's wrong with some of that from time to time?
Dawn of the Dead is easily the best of the recent zombie films and 300 was an artistic triumph. So I have a hard time believing that Watchmen will be "boring."
Posted by actionman
at February 17, 2009 7:27 AM
comment #5
CitizenKanedforChewingGum
says ...
So, we have Watchmen "LITERALLY COME TO LIFE" onscreen vs. "a staggering failure."
Boy, these graphic novel fans sure do love them some hyperbole.
As always with these (first on the draw) extreme reactions, the truth will almost undoubtedly lie somewhere in between.
Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum
at February 17, 2009 7:42 AM
comment #6
DeafBrownTrashPunk
says ...
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
uhh, I don't care what your journalist friend says, Wells, I will still see the movie and make the decision for myself! I think the trailer still looks damn good....
Posted by DeafBrownTrashPunk
at February 17, 2009 7:44 AM
comment #7
Rich S.
says ...
Also, there's a mild (or gigantic) spoiler in there, for anyone who's interested in the movie.
It looks like a literal translation of the comic to screen. The comic is twelve issues long and takes its time getting where it's going. This review sounds just about right, actually.
Posted by Rich S.
at February 17, 2009 8:00 AM
comment #8
Monument
says ...
Malin Akerman is a horrible actress, I had doubts about this thing ever since I saw her name attached. If Snyder was dumb enough to cast her in a lead, then I'm certain he fucked up elsewhere.
Posted by Monument
at February 17, 2009 8:02 AM
comment #9
Mark
says ...
"Malin Akerman (i.e., Silk Spectre II) confirms whatever fears you may have initially felt after The Heartbreak Kid."
Whose fears is this guy presuming? I had zero problems with Akerman.
Posted by Mark
at February 17, 2009 8:04 AM
comment #10
actionman
says ...
Akerman, besides being ULTRA-SEXY, isn't that bad of an actress at all, and was actually funny (and weirdly endearing) in that piece-of-shit Heartbreak Kid remake. She was also stone-cold-hot and very fun in her Entourage episodes. And she scores points for her slutty, topless scene in the first Harold and Kumar adventure. Maybe she sucks in Watchmen, but for me, it'd be a first for her.
Posted by actionman
at February 17, 2009 8:12 AM
comment #11
byanyother
says ...
It's kinda sorta funny how anyone can write anything now and it gets posted and taken as actual fact. I also don't get the take-down mentality at all either. It seems vicious, personal and mean.
Posted by byanyother
at February 17, 2009 8:21 AM
comment #12
actionman
says ...
byanyother -- the take-down bullshit is usually perpetuated by bitter, failed "artistes" who are so annoyed that they never made it that they feel the need to shit and piss and vomit all over the work of other, vastly more talented people. It's really fugly if you ask me.
Posted by actionman
at February 17, 2009 8:24 AM
comment #13
Jeffrey Wells
says ...
Wells to Actionman, byanyothe: The guy who wrote me his views of the film isn't a "bitter, failed artiste,": and what he wrote isn't fact -- it's what he felt and thought after seeing the movie. But don't listen to me. Live in your little caves and interpret anything that isn't hyperventilating praise as the ravings of diseased minds.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells
at February 17, 2009 8:32 AM
comment #14
actionman
says ...
Wells -- I wasn't being disrespectful to you OR your source, and I wasn't calling your source a "failed artiste." What I don't like is sight-unseen bashing. It's fucking cowardly and annoying.
At the end of the day, what the fuck do I care about what OTHER people think of any given film? If it works for me, that's all that matters. And in the case of Watchmen, it will be hard to take ANY of the reviews seriously, as too many people are emotionally invested in the souce material to offer unbiased opinions, and there are too many haters out there who feel the need to shit on whatever new blockbuster that's about to be released.
These are movies, not the cure for cancer. Geez.
Posted by actionman
at February 17, 2009 8:37 AM
comment #15
DeafBrownTrashPunk
says ...
"These are movies, not the cure for cancer. Geez." Actionman, well said, but now you gotta beware for your safety. TDK fanboys will come after you.... after all, their lives are meaningless without TDK...
I HATED Malin Ackerman n 27 Dresses (yes... I saw the movie.. don't blame me) and I hated her annoying voice and her whiney, bimbotastic performance. She ruined the movie for me, to be honest.
When I heard she was casted in THE WATCHMEN, I was like, "whaaat?!?!" but then I figured that maybe I'll give her a shot because she's an actreess after all, and actresses are always given shitty roles before getting their big break, so you guys are being unfair to her.
But whatever, I'll take this review with a grain of salt.
Posted by DeafBrownTrashPunk
at February 17, 2009 8:46 AM
comment #16
Rich S.
says ...
"I hated her annoying voice."
Why is this statement bothering me so much?
Posted by Rich S.
at February 17, 2009 8:58 AM
comment #17
iamjoe
says ...
Anything genre related can and usually does inspire polarized reactions among "the film elite". Not worried about this.
What poisons this post more than that is :The fact that this "reaction" is not credited to anyone if the person , and that any Watchmen related post is going to draw more hits to HE (see Don Murphy-Watchmen-WarPost). Wells needs to eat too.
Posted by iamjoe
at February 17, 2009 9:01 AM
comment #18
Monument
says ...
"I HATED Malin Ackerman n 27 Dresses (yes... I saw the movie.. don't blame me) and I hated her annoying voice and her whiney, bimbotastic performance. She ruined the movie for me, to be honest."
That's exactly how I felt after Heartbreak Kid, then my wife made me watch 27 Dresses which only confirmed my opinion. Anyone praising her acting ability is clearly blinded by her breasts.
Posted by Monument
at February 17, 2009 9:04 AM
comment #19
Balerion
says ...
Mr. Wells,
"Whorish".
Bah. So transparently cynical and unpleasant. I've followed your on-line writing since Mr. Showbiz, but you're turning miserly in your age. It's grown tiresome.
Good luck in this and your future endeavors, whatever they may be.
Posted by Balerion
at February 17, 2009 9:07 AM
comment #20
movie8435
says ...
"The guy who wrote me his views of the film isn't a 'bitter, failed artiste,': and what he wrote isn't fact -- it's what he felt and thought after seeing the movie."
So why did you make such a HUGE STINK about the initial review of this film? Why do you accept, respect, or appreciate what this friend said but not what Selman posted? Furthermore, had your "friend" absolutely loved this film would you have ever printed his thoughts? Something tells me no.
I'm no fanboy. I have never read a comic book in my life, but I sense some underlying hatred for this film from Jeff, whether he admits it or not.
Posted by movie8435
at February 17, 2009 9:10 AM
comment #21
Chase Kahn
says ...
I just can't convince myself that Zach Snyder will be able to pull it off. This just reeks of '300' to me, the trailers, the release date, the TV spots, everything.
'Watchmen' is a much better source novel than '300', which was a glorified flip-book, but we'll see.
By the way, I thought I read a month ago that the running time was down to a 150-155 minutes range, not 165 like the reviewer says?
Posted by Chase Kahn
at February 17, 2009 9:15 AM
comment #22
byanyother
says ...
"Live in your little caves and interpret anything that isn't hyperventilating praise as the ravings of diseased minds."
Diseased minds? I'll take the cave dwellers over the agenda-laden attacks any day. Living in a cave, posting a negative review from the safe cowardice of anonymity. Hm. Tough call.
Posted by byanyother
at February 17, 2009 9:32 AM
comment #23
Monument
says ...
No I think it was a sincere reaction to the style; a saccharine, Harry Knowles-esque keyboard orgasm which is not just a bad writing style, but the kind of "review" that has proven to be entirely untrustworthy. I seem to remember similar reactions to 300 before it was released, and that one turned out to be a bloated CGI turd.
Posted by Monument
at February 17, 2009 9:33 AM
comment #24
Ethan
says ...
This is what I was worried about during the first few months of production. I felt like all I heard from Snyder was about how much he was trying to make it look like the graphic novel and not enough about capturing its themes. But over the last six months or so I started to feel like Snyder got it and was going to do a perfect job.
So am I still anticipating it? Hell yes. But are my expectations lowered? For sure, and that's probably a good thing.
Posted by Ethan
at February 17, 2009 9:42 AM
comment #25
lonniechung
says ...
Zack Snyder is an outstanding director when it comes to composing a scene that looks fantastic. Anything remotely human in said scene comes off as an afterthought. As someone who just wants to see a good movie and has no real experience with the source material, I hope that Snyder somehow overcomes this flaw with the Watchmen.
Posted by lonniechung
at February 17, 2009 9:59 AM
comment #26
Jeffrey Wells
says ...
Wells to Balerion: Look - a guy who is entirely reputable and professional and educated wrote what he wrote, sent it to me, and I passed it along. I didn't identify him for obvious reasons, and if you want to tell yourself it's all about my bitter attitude then go right ahead. When I woke up this morning I had no eagerness to go after "Watchmen" at all....none. I am neutral about the film, looking forward to seeing it, etc. Well, not so much now.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells
at February 17, 2009 10:00 AM
comment #27
Colin
says ...
"When I woke up this morning I had no eagerness to go after "Watchmen" at all....none. I am neutral about the film, looking forward to seeing it, etc. Well, not so much now". - Jeff
The consistent threads indicate otherwise.
Posted by Colin
at February 17, 2009 10:29 AM
comment #28
ZayTonday
says ...
The reviewer sounds like he was looking for a reinvention that had a new take on the material and was diappointed to find out that it was exactly the same as the book.
Posted by ZayTonday
at February 17, 2009 10:47 AM
comment #29
ZayTonday
says ...
If Greengrass did his version it would be a shaky-cam fest that takes place in the present.
Posted by ZayTonday
at February 17, 2009 10:50 AM
comment #30
Marcus T
says ...
Malin Ackerman in 27 Dresses was meant to be annoying and whiney - that was the part, and it's called acting. [Also, don't think it has anything to do with breasts as she seems to have small ones.]
I agree with Action Man - it sounds like a fun movie - though am disappointed that it will not cure cancer.
I know a few people who worked on it, and they have nothing but good things to say about the experience and the movie (and honestly, when people hate a movie they work on, they do say so ...).
Posted by Marcus T
at February 17, 2009 10:53 AM
comment #31
Mowkeka
says ...
Two hours and forty-five minutes? Are you kidding me? What are these people thinking?
I've never read the graphic novel, but I was willing to give this movie a theatre viewing because of all the ra-ra fans.
But I can't think of anything else I'd rather NOT do than watch really bad CGI for almost three hours. PASS.
Posted by Mowkeka
at February 17, 2009 11:26 AM
comment #32
frank_delsa
says ...
The main problem with the other review is that there's an embargo on reviews so far.
I really don't see the point in trying to refute that one by braking the embargo again and posting a "trusted friend" thoughts...
The embargo will be lifted, the movie is screening (and actually buzz from fans is pretty good), soon the general consensus will appear, one way or the other, and one of the two will be in a minority.
For the record, the guy who wrote the rave review, and actually signed it, Matt Selman, is one of the producers of The Simpsons, not a random blogger.
Posted by frank_delsa
at February 17, 2009 11:30 AM
comment #33
CitizenKanedforChewingGum
says ...
"I know a few people who worked on it, and they have nothing but good things to say about the experience and the movie (and honestly, when people hate a movie they work on, they do say so ...)."
No offense, but that's kind of a dumb statement. One person's experience working on a film, and how the finished product actually plays are two entirely separate entities that have very little (if any) direct bearing on each other.
Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum
at February 17, 2009 11:32 AM
comment #34
Jonah
says ...
"TDK fanboys will come after you.... after all, their lives are meaningless without TDK..."
Another day, another idiotic, baseless statement by the resident "punk".
Posted by Jonah
at February 17, 2009 12:20 PM
comment #35
Midwest Doug
says ...
I loved the first trailer -- all visuals. I hated the trailer with dialogue. I suspect that my reaction will be the same for the movie -- if I can watch it and have it wash over me, wonderful. If I have to watch it and pay attention to what the actors are saying, ugh.
Posted by Midwest Doug
at February 17, 2009 12:27 PM
comment #36
Circumvrent
says ...
"I HATED Malin Ackerman n 27 Dresses (yes... I saw the movie.. don't blame me) and I hated her annoying voice and her whiney, bimbotastic performance."
She doesn't sound all that "deaf," either.
I have to say, they almost had me going. All of the early reports and images from the film had my thinking that Snyder might have actually knocked it out of the park, even if his first two films are almost completely incompetent. I don't know if it'll be a "staggering failure," but I'm glad that my expectations are somewhat tempered.
Posted by Circumvrent
at February 17, 2009 12:29 PM
comment #37
Rich S.
says ...
Thanks, Circumvent. That's what was bothering me.
Posted by Rich S.
at February 17, 2009 12:32 PM
comment #38
Circumvrent
says ...
Sorry Rich - totally missed your comment.
Posted by Circumvrent
at February 17, 2009 12:35 PM
comment #39
Rich S.
says ...
Circumvrent,
Actually, I was wondering whether anyone else had picked up on that. I'm glad you did and that I'm not the only one that found that comment, shall we say, puzzling.
Posted by Rich S.
at February 17, 2009 12:39 PM
comment #40
Movie fan09
says ...
"I've seen Watchmen," he began. "And speaking as a huge admirer and devotee of the graphic novel, the film is a staggering failure.
I figured as such. It's Zach Synder.
I remember seeing a behind the scenes doc, and he said the only comic he was reading when this one came out was Heavy Metal, and what attracted him to this comic, was the set up and I think when he approached the movie, I think he was more concerned with what he could do effects wise, than what the whole thing was about.
For example, take a look at that Manhattan scene.
It's composed to be a war scene without any gravitas.
It's all about the effect.
There is very little domination and the after effects and more about "whoa, he's blowing up stuff! cool man!"
Posted by Movie fan09
at February 17, 2009 1:02 PM
comment #41
dinovelvet
says ...
Paul Greengrass' version was terrible, it had the story updated to a post 9/11 generic War On Terror scenario. Anyway, the only casting I have issue with is Matthew Goode as Ozymandias; isn't he supposed to be some sort of charismatic Adonis? Logically then, you hire an emo-looking lanky British bloke and dye his hair. The suggestion of Tom Cruise in the role is strangely fascinating, it would certainly channel the "Cruise is a weirdo cultist!" public sentiment into an interesting direction.
Posted by dinovelvet
at February 17, 2009 1:20 PM
comment #42
James Kang
says ...
"Oh, what Paul Greengrass could have done!"
Or Darren Aronofsky. They were both attached to Watchmen at separate times.
Posted by James Kang
at February 17, 2009 1:42 PM
comment #43
D.Z.
says ...
I'll bbl, but it looks like we're gettin' Forrest Mystery Men. http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2009/STUVWXYZ/Watchmen/trailer.php
Posted by D.Z.
at February 17, 2009 3:25 PM
comment #44
D.Z.
says ...
"Staggering Failure"
Sounds like every Alan Moore adaptation so far...
Posted by D.Z.
at February 17, 2009 5:03 PM
comment #45
CitizenKanedforChewingGum
says ...
"Staggering Failure"
Actually, it sounds like every D.Z. post so far...
Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum
at February 17, 2009 7:54 PM
comment #46
iamjoe
says ...
CitizenKaned
That was too way too funny, thank you!
Posted by iamjoe
at February 17, 2009 10:21 PM
comment #47
The Winchester
says ...
"Oh, what Paul Greengrass could have done!"
Or Darren Aronofsky. They were both attached to Watchmen at separate times."
I'm still hoping there's a chance Gilliam can make it.
Posted by The Winchester
at February 17, 2009 11:04 PM
comment #48
theultimatebiu
says ...
The geeks are going insane.
I do hope its a good movie but I have been rather shaky about the fact that their has been little dialogue shown in the trailers.
Posted by theultimatebiu
at February 18, 2009 2:37 AM
comment #49
Dave Polands Gut
says ...
typical wells putting this "review" up and actually giving it credibility.
Posted by Dave Polands Gut
at February 18, 2009 8:04 AM
comment #50
MDOC
says ...
It would of been nice to have casted some stars in this thing. The Tom Cruise suggestion was inspired. How about Mel Gibson as the Comedian? We all have heard how Arnold Schwarzenegger was considered as Dr Manhattan the first time Watchmen was considered in the 80s.
Posted by MDOC
at February 19, 2009 7:39 AM
comment #51
Kevinxi
says ...
I couldn't agree more with your friend's assessment of the film, esp. the reference to Paul Greengrass. The movie was a faithful adaptation of the book, but that's the problem. Why does Snyder insist on mimicking someone else's vision instead of putting forward his own?
Posted by Kevinxi
at March 10, 2009 12:58 PM
comment #52
free games
says ...
Dawn of the Dead and 300 were terrible pieces of cinema.
Posted by free games
at October 26, 2009 12:42 PM
comment #53
MTS Converter
says ...
waht a new idea.
Posted by MTS Converter
at December 13, 2009 4:20 AM
comment #54
canadian cialis
says ...
I agree
Posted by canadian cialis
at January 3, 2010 2:57 AM
comment #55
shaomiaoshelley
says ...
MTS Converter is an excellent mts conversion software that can convert mts files to other video and audio formats. In addition, The MTS Converter can convert mts, ts, trp hd video files perfectly and quickly.
Posted by shaomiaoshelley
at January 7, 2010 8:39 PM
comment #56
observer
says ...
however,wathcmen is good movies..i like it..Astaga.com Portal Lifestyle On The Net:Let's Think Out Of The Box
Posted by observer
at January 11, 2010 11:16 PM
comment #57
bony
says ...
There are 4 solutions below for iPhone users to Convert DVD to iPhone.
Thus you can easily enjoy dvd movies on iPhone or iPhone 3GS.
DVD to iPhone Converter, is designed to help you rip DVD movies and convert DVD to iPhone video,
FREE and EASY TO USE
Posted by bony
at January 19, 2010 5:47 PM
comment #58
dreamwing1986
says ...
Today I accidentally found quite a nice website about MTS Converter --http://www.mtsconverterreviews.com/.
Posted by dreamwing1986
at January 21, 2010 3:27 AM
comment #59
dreamwing1986
says ...
Today I accidentally found quite a nice website about MTS Converter --http://www.mtsconverterreviews.com/.
There are so many nice software for everyone to convert mts files.
Now I share with you these powerful software.
MTS Video Converter
MTS to AVI Converter
MTS to MPG Converter
MTS to MPEG Converter
MTS to WMV Converter
MTS to FLV Converter
Convert MTS to MOV
convert mts to mp4
Posted by dreamwing1986
at January 21, 2010 4:44 PM
comment #60
johnismile
says ...
M2TS Converter will be your best assistant in the conversion work from M2TS to other popular video and audio formats. This M2TS Converter will give you the fastest conversion speed and highest conversion quality.
M2TS to MP4|| M2TS to MKV
Posted by johnismile
at February 2, 2010 10:34 PM
Post a comment