Upcoming
March 12
The Exploding Girl
SuicideGirls Must Die!
Tapes from the Script
March 17
Watchmen Pan #3
"I didn't hate Watchmen, but I didn't love it either," says a longtime HE reader who managed to snag a ticket to the London premiere, which ended a couple of hours ago.
"I'm not a cinema snob and can take a decent loud popcorn film in my stride as much as an animated Israeli documentary or the latest from Shane Meadows. I read one early Watchmen review (if you can call it that -- it was more of an ejaculation of words) that seemed to praise the movie purely on the basis that it existed, and that any fan of the comic books should be grateful that a movie of Watchmen simply exists.
"I don't think this is good enough, and is definitely not the right attitude to take. I think anyone who sees Watchmen, whether a fan previously or not, [can't help but] walk away disappointed that it didn't live up to its potential.
"What I want more than anything in my popcorn movies is a bit of consistency. I'm led to believe that the big blue Dr. Manhattan is the only truly superhero in the film, but in that case, why are all the other Watchmen able to leap like agile cats and fight with the power of ten men? I understand that this is an alternate universe where Ozymandias is the smartest person in the world, but just because he's pretty clever doesn't mean it makes sense when towards the end of the movie he comes accompanied by a new breed of big Antarctic cat with huge fucking ears.
"All I ask for is consistency in the world which we are seeing, and the movie will work. If this stuff is going to make sense, that's fine -- explain it. Tell me why he has a big cat, don't just throw it in there."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 23, 2009 at 4:50 PM
comment #1
Deathtongue_Groupie
says ...
So a pan from someone who has issues with things that are in the graphic novel? Someone claims to like popcorn movies, yet then wants every single thing he sees in it explained?
A review from someone doesn't seem to grasp the fundamental fact that pretty much every popcorn movie falls apart once you start pulling at the loose threads.
Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie
at February 23, 2009 5:08 PM
comment #2
DarthCorleone
says ...
That's funny. I was hoping Bubastis would be in the movie, but apparently he does not show up until the end (hence, the designation here of him as "Antarctic"). That's sort of lame if he just appears with no explanation like that, because Bubastis does have a character arc of sorts. Bubastis is just a personal pet that Ozymandias used his significant means to genetically engineer.
Posted by DarthCorleone
at February 23, 2009 5:12 PM
comment #3
Kristopher Tapley
says ...
Aiming to piss off WB again, I see...
Posted by Kristopher Tapley
at February 23, 2009 5:46 PM
comment #4
LYT
says ...
"why are all the other Watchmen able to leap like agile cats and fight with the power of ten men?"
Couldn't you sort-of argue that about almost any action movie? Even the "realistic" Bourne movies have a hero who can perform borderline impossible feats. Certainly in the comic, Adrian does at least one thing that would be impossible for a real-life human; it's implied his abilities are honed beyond that of any other man alive.
As for Bubastis (who is female, btw), if you take the time to explain her, you have to sacrifice time somewhere else to make the whole thing a reasonable length. Considering she's not that relevant to the overall plot, and I haven't seen any plush versions being marketed, that seems a minor issue.
Posted by LYT
at February 23, 2009 6:46 PM
comment #5
scooterzz
says ...
no one i saw the film with had a problem with the presence of bubastis given the context in which she was introduced...no one...
Posted by scooterzz
at February 23, 2009 6:58 PM
comment #6
berg
says ...
I like Miss March better when it was Miss February
Posted by berg
at February 23, 2009 8:12 PM
comment #7
Rothchild
says ...
Oh, Jeffrey. Some people are going to hate the movie but even you could tell this is a dumbass pan without any concrete or insightful complaints. I guess you just want to take this movie down...with or without any ammo.
Posted by Rothchild
at February 23, 2009 8:48 PM
comment #8
D.Z.
says ...
http://www.riskybusinessblog.com/2009/02/heath-ledgers-next-movie.html
Posted by D.Z.
at February 23, 2009 9:09 PM
comment #9
BurmaShave
says ...
Wells, sorry to D.Z. (where is that crazy fucker by the way/speak of the devil and he shall appear), but any thoughts on Sean Penn and Naomi Watts as Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame in FAIR GAME for Doug Liman? It doesn't even have your boy Lurie's NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH to compete with in the minds of most people.
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/sean-penn-naomi-watts-and-bourne-identity-helmer-negotiate-fair-game
Posted by BurmaShave
at February 23, 2009 9:14 PM
comment #10
DarthCorleone
says ...
Bubastis - she. Sorry about that. I knew that. I frequently invert the gender of felines.
Posted by DarthCorleone
at February 23, 2009 11:27 PM
comment #11
Aarkeon
says ...
Given the rejigged ending Bubastis is kind of random. In the GN Ozy spent all his resources and time towards his one end goal. Bubastis was part of Ozy's genetic engineering experiments that led them to being able to create the squid. Since there's no squid, Bubastis's presence just ends up making Ozy a goofy mad scientist playing around on the side when he's not working on his grand master plan.
Though I will say I haven't seen the flick and maybe I'm wrong, scooter's post seems to suggest Bubatis is given some kind of other context?
Posted by Aarkeon
at February 23, 2009 11:28 PM
comment #12
scooterzz
says ...
aakeon -- sorry to mislead...you've actually nailed it...
all i meant was that, with the setting being what it is, the appearence of this 'pet' doesn't seem to need explanation to those who haven't read the novel...and those who have just accepted it with the other changes....there will probably be complaints but there weren't in the crowd i was with......
Posted by scooterzz
at February 23, 2009 11:43 PM
comment #13
MovieBob
says ...
It strikes me weird that "it's supposed to be real except Dr. Manhattan, so why can they move like that?" turns up so consistently - they aren't doing anything Jason Bourne doesn't do, and even leaving that aside it's nothing you can't find REEMS of YouTube clips of parkour kids doing for real all the time.
Posted by MovieBob
at February 23, 2009 11:54 PM
comment #14
Geoff
says ...
What about punching through concrete?
Should it seem realistic to me? I've never read Watchmen and so far the images I've seen don't appear to be going for "realism." A comic book is always going to be stylized, so forget the images. Does it match up with the story?
Posted by Geoff
at February 24, 2009 12:56 AM
comment #15
Geoff
says ...
Wow, I left out a part there.
I'm talking about the fight sequences I've seen so far. It looks like they're all in The Matrix.
Posted by Geoff
at February 24, 2009 1:01 AM
comment #16
D.Z.
says ...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_en_mo/obit_zieff
Posted by D.Z.
at February 24, 2009 1:18 AM
comment #17
markj
says ...
Went to see The Wrestler recently and there was excitable chatter after every trailer shown, except Watchmen. Just a bemused silence.
Posted by markj
at February 24, 2009 2:52 AM
comment #18
CitizenKanedforChewingGum
says ...
I love it when people can pretend like they can read the audience's mind due to how much audible noise they make during the trailers.
"Bemused silence." Project much? Explain to me how that's different from the "awestruck silence," which it is commonly mistaken for...
Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum
at February 24, 2009 4:35 AM
comment #19
BurmaShave
says ...
I'm afraid I must second markj, I've experienced similar reactions in the past few months. The worst reaction I can remember to a trailer was CRANK 2 in front of THE INTERNATIONAL. Who thought that would be a good fit?
Posted by BurmaShave
at February 24, 2009 4:53 AM
comment #20
EDouglasCS
says ...
I don't remember ANYTHING in the graphic novels about anyone actually having powers beyond Dr. Manhattan... the footage I've seen seem to be making all the Crimebusters to have Neo-like powers.
Posted by EDouglasCS
at February 24, 2009 5:46 AM
comment #21
Imogen
says ...
While Mr. Wells persists in posting cherry-picked negative reviews from anonymous nobodies, the British press are defying the Warners embargo and are raving about the picture. The London Times calls it "peerless" "mesmerising" and "incisive" and The Guardian is comparing it to Citizen Kane http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/feb/24/watchmen-reviews-roundup-zack-snyder
Posted by Imogen
at February 24, 2009 6:29 AM
comment #22
Ethan
says ...
You're really reaching for the bottom of the barrel now Jeff.
Posted by Ethan
at February 24, 2009 6:52 AM
comment #23
Chase Kahn
says ...
Why wasn't this post called, "Not Friends of Watchmen #3"?
Posted by Chase Kahn
at February 24, 2009 6:52 AM
comment #24
Rich S.
says ...
Harry Knowles at AICN, apparently emboldened by Devin Faraci's "non-review review," has finally come out with a detail-less rave. I knew it was only a matter of time.
I generally respect Devin's viewpoint, and his non-review is an unqualified rave, so maybe the flat aspect of the few scenes they've released is an anomaly. I'm still worried, though, since Devin approaches it from the angle of a fan of the comic who is amazed Snyder was able to pull it off. I liked the comic, but I've never been part of its religion. I'll approach it with an open mind.
Posted by Rich S.
at February 24, 2009 6:54 AM
comment #25
Rich S.
says ...
Imogen, to be fair, that Guardian piece also cherry picks the two positive reviews that Jeffrey also posted. And to say that they're comparing it to Citizen Kane stretches the point of the piece more than a bit.
I want to read a review by someone with no agenda one way or the other.
Posted by Rich S.
at February 24, 2009 6:58 AM
comment #26
Chase Kahn
says ...
All that piece does it compare the graphic novel to 'Citizen Kane' -- never does it state that Zach Snyder's 'Watchmen' is comparable to the Orson Welles' film.
Posted by Chase Kahn
at February 24, 2009 7:02 AM
comment #27
Imogen
says ...
Chase, I quote from the penultimate paragraph of the Guardian review:" Is it really comparable to Citizen Kane? The film's events certainly follow a comparably epic form."
Posted by Imogen
at February 24, 2009 7:13 AM
comment #28
JW Smith
says ...
Hello all. I'm the writer of the review Jeff has kindly summarised for us here so I thought I'd jump in with a few comments and rebuttals. I hope you don't mind.
@Deathtongue_Groupie: I don't have issues with things that are in the graphic novel. The world of the book exists as a consistent entity. I didn't feel this consistency in the film. I don't want everything explained by any means, I just want things to make sense. You seem to suggest that we shouldn't allowed to criticise popcorn movies for their failings. I say that film comment and review is based not only on enjoyment of the film, regardless of genre, but on what they don't do well.
@DarthCorleone, LYT and Scooterzz: I'm fully aware of Bubastis' background because I've read the book. It made sense here. As Corleone rightfully points out, I've designated her as 'Antarctic' because that's what we're led to believe: that Ozymandias has a big cat as a pet. Nothing more, nothing less, and completely out of nowhere.
@Rothchild: what do you want for me? Would you like me to talk at length about the intelligent and insightful movie I saw last night? Because I would, if I'd seen a film that could offer that up. If I was reviewing the graphic novel I'd have no problem discussing at great length the many interesting points Alan Moore's work raises. Zack Snyder's Watchmen does not cover any of these points. Nothing concrete to offer? I've seen the film, sir. Jeff doesn't need to take this movie down. It will live or die on it's own strengths. Some will feel it has them in abundance, whereas I don't think that way. I didn't hate the movie, I just didn't like it very much either.
@Ethan: Jeff isn't reaching for the bottom of any barrel. I'm a fan of his work and I know he's been featuring reviews for this movie, so I sent him a link.
Posted by JW Smith
at February 24, 2009 7:52 AM
comment #29
JW Smith
says ...
And of course now I'm aware of the typos in my hastily-written response. To Rothchild I meant to say 'what do you want FROM me?' and the final sentence of my point directed at Deathtongue_Groupie should have read 'I say that film comment and review is based not only on enjoyment of the film (or lack thereof), regardless of genre, but discussion about what they do and do not do well.'
Posted by JW Smith
at February 24, 2009 8:09 AM
comment #30
storymark
says ...
So, does this mean we'll get another post later today where Jeff insists that just because he's only running negative reviews while ignoring all the positive ones, it doesn't mean he has anything against the movie?
'Cause those are always funny posts.
Posted by storymark
at February 24, 2009 8:21 AM
comment #31
Deathtongue_Groupie
says ...
JW - the point was that by their very nature popcorn movies tend to concern subjects that don't hold up well to scrutiny. Hence, it's pretty easy to pull them apart for transgressions of logic. I have to wonder if you didn't give any examples of "popcorn films" you rate highly because we could then ask you to explain a litany of logic flaws in them.
I always like those touches in movies of unexplained background minutia that suggests the world of the film extends to areas not on screen. Like that moment in BUCKAROO BANZAI when while running through a room Jeff Goldblum sees a watermelon in a press-like device. "I'll explain later" his companion says. Of course it never is.
Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie
at February 24, 2009 10:46 AM
comment #32
Deathtongue_Groupie
says ...
Jeff's gonna have to go into pan overdrive:
London Daily Mirror: "Watchmen is unlikely to steal Slumdog Millionaire's tagline of 'the feel-Good Movie of the year!' but it's searing, spectacular and simply unmissable."
Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie
at February 24, 2009 11:29 AM
comment #33
wildphantom
says ...
I don't get all the hating Jeff. You amusingly post that you are more or less impartial having not seen it. Yet all you post are 'pans'.
There's half a dozen reviews out there from actual critics that are positive to absolutely glowing - most from the UK - and yet you're still committed to a seeming campaign to take the thing down?
Have you read the book? Seriously, pick it up - its awesome.
Posted by wildphantom
at February 24, 2009 11:40 AM
comment #34
JW Smith
says ...
There are plenty of popcorn movies that you could pull apart, of course. Watchmen is one of them, and in this case I felt that not only was the logic of the world lacking in consistency, the film didn't live up to its potential for a number of other reason.
There are a number of absurdly over-the-top movies that I enjoy watching despite the fact that they would fall apart after yanking that thread. I had great fun watching Welcome To The Jungle even though I know it was a pile of shit. Watching the remake of The Wicker Man with friends is one of the most enjoyable movie experiences I've ever had. X-Men 2 was incredibly exciting and very enjoyable. I'll watch the original Indy trilogy over and over again and will smile for every minute. I'm aware that flaws exist in all of these movies, not to mention hundreds of others that we would probably classify as little more than casual popcorn movie fodder. I am equally aware that they wouldn't stand up to any close scrutiny in terms of logic. But the actual quality of filmmaking on display in these movies, or the fun you have laughing at the many flaws in the so-bad-they're-good ones, makes up for the logic holes.
In Watchmen, there wasn't enough to distract me from this stuff, so it becomes more of a sticking point for me.
Posted by JW Smith
at February 24, 2009 11:44 AM
comment #35
D.Z.
says ...
Imogen: I'm guessing the Brit reviewers subscribe to the Alan Moore rants of Americans being bullies, since any country which occupies India, Belfast, and the Falklands is automatically friendlier and more reasonable than us.
Posted by D.Z.
at February 24, 2009 12:06 PM
comment #36
Rich S.
says ...
"Have you read [Watchmen]? Seriously, pick it up - its awesome."
Believe me, that is absolutely the last thing you want to happen.
Having read Jeffrey's reactions to the LOTR movies, I'm pretty sure how I know his reaction to this one is going to go. Be thankful that he's posting pans from people that have actually seen it.
My prediction? At best, his review will reference how many times he looked at his watch. At worst, he won't last 45 minutes.
Posted by Rich S.
at February 24, 2009 12:20 PM
comment #37
Imogen
says ...
DZ: I am Spanish and not British, However, I must say that I thought your remarks were remarkably ill-informed and offensive to anyone who happens to be Northern Irish. Why, if I were Liam Neeson, I should punch you in the face!
Posted by Imogen
at February 24, 2009 12:48 PM
comment #38
CitizenKanedforChewingGum
says ...
Now D.Z. is even pissing off Europeans...
Expanding his horizons!
Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum
at February 24, 2009 1:05 PM
comment #39
Imogen
says ...
While The Guardian compares the movie to Citizen Kane, this reviewer compares it to The Godfather. This review is quite splendidly written.
http://chud.com/articles/articles/18250/1/REVIEW-WATCHMEN/Page1.html
Posted by Imogen
at February 24, 2009 2:56 PM
comment #40
D.Z.
says ...
Imogen: Well, I'm sure the Basques and the descendants of the people who met Columbus would agree with me, so...
Posted by D.Z.
at February 24, 2009 3:12 PM
comment #41
Imogen
says ...
D.Z.: I am not foolish enough to discuss matters like this with a person like yourself . who it is obvious to me now says such things in order to agitate and annoy. Go plague children with your petty antagonism, for this adult shall not play such spiteful games with you. I shall now ignore everything you say to me and you have my word on this. Shame on you.
Posted by Imogen
at February 24, 2009 3:31 PM
comment #42
Gordon27
says ...
That's the best response to DZ I've ever seen. Sincere, heartfelt kudos.
Posted by Gordon27
at February 24, 2009 6:50 PM
comment #43
TOM SMITH
says ...
I had great fun watching Welcome To The Jungle even though I know it was a pile of shit.
Posted by TOM SMITH
at December 1, 2009 11:00 PM
comment #44
Valentinus
says ...
I like Miss March better when it was Miss February
generic levitra
buy generic levitra
Posted by Valentinus
at February 6, 2010 1:21 AM
comment #45
ivory
says ...
I really enjoyed read your article, very interesting, Regards
astaga.com lifestyle on the net
nowgoogle.com adalah multiple search engine popular
Posted by ivory
at February 8, 2010 10:28 AM
comment #46
ajim
says ...
nice to be here.... thanks for share
nowGoogle.com adalah Multiple Search Engine Popular
Posted by ajim
at February 28, 2010 8:03 PM
Post a comment