comment #1

Gabriel says ...

Hate to say it, but this is the review that best captures exactly how I felt about it.

comment #2

soap+water says ...

I've seen watchmen twice already and it's a dazzling pop epic. period.
emmanuel levy deserves HUGE KUDOS for spotting this early, it took my two views to see what he saw on one.
No-one seems able to admit that they can not now (and never will, perhaps) 'get' what's going on with the film.
I'm fantasising about recording a commentary track, taking people by the hand and explaining to them that THE WORK IS THERE.
Watchmen takes the mindest of the book and very tastefully cooks a brew of moden history, blockbuster spectacle, sampling culture and comic book nonsense.
It's a POP EPIC and works as a POP EPIC.
if you can't spot this on the first viewing, GO AGAIN.
In 12 months this movie's reputation will set in stone.
THE WORK IS THERE.
It is A-grade pop. the referencing is mind-blowing... Dr manhattan's bedroom, the 2001/louis XIV decor. the man that sleeps here is THE NEXT STEP IN HUMAN EVOLUTION.
Vietnam combat scored to the valkyies. IN THE WATCHMEN WORLD THERE IS NO APOCALYPSE NOW... the US won, ya see.
These are exceedingly clever gags.
Nixon is happy to see the northeast nuked.

comment #3

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

You know shit's gone a bit wacky when Wells starts quoting Poland.

This thing is going to be divisive as hell...people loving it, people hating it, people like it but disappointed, people disliking it but less than they imagined.

This is bound to happen when you adapt such a beloved property in a different medium.

I'm approaching it like an Oliver Stone film...you just have to see it for yourself so you can have a valid opinion and engage in an intelligent debate.

comment #4

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Wow, another negative review. How refreshing of Jeff. Because, it sooooo important to take this film down.

Because the last thing we need right now are filmmakers attempting to bring difficult material to the screen....

comment #5

soap+water says ...

guys, it's golden. go twice.
it's a hell of a show.
i would shake snyder's hand if i got the chance.
might take 12 months, might even happen during the theatrical run, but will sooner or later GET this film en masse.

comment #6

ZayTonday says ...

Wow Wells, you do a post for Poland's review and completely ignore Ebert's. You've got no dog in this race, no sir.

comment #7

MovieBob says ...

Y'know what the sad thing is, Wells?

Given your oft-stated love for the gritty 70s/early-80s urban asthetic, for dark cynical "heroism is a lie, morality is gray" anti-populism, for the concept of taking genre stuff and deconstructing it into conversation pieces... Given all that, if you didn't have this silly hangup about ANYTHING that comes out of Geek Culture; this would be WAY up your alley.

comment #8

kneelbeforezod says ...

People should probably stop taking the bait... Jeff is clearly trying to wind the fans up with each successive post. But as someone above said... it does seem odd that he's so keen to take down a film that is at least trying to do something different, even if it isn't totally successful (and having seen it tonight, it isn't). Ah well...

comment #9

soap+water says ...

this might sound harsh, but jeff was writing press kits for GOLAN GLOBUS circa the period when true hipsters were first going gaga over alan moore's deconstructionist headtrip.

It was 1985! deconstructionism was DECADES off being a hip term to throw around.

Jeff just plain ol' wasn't there.

Perhaps it stings him a bit.

comment #10

soap+water says ...

I know it annoys the shit out of me when i 'miss' something.
i'm truly ashamed that i've only just read Torso.

comment #11

Zac Bertschy says ...

Poland's review is one of the first I've read where I think "this guy really didn't get what was going on in this movie nor did he understand what the point was" is actually a legit criticism rather than fanboy defensiveness.

You are not supposed to "care" about the characters in Watchmen the same way you "care" about Superman or Spider-man. The graphic novel's been around long enough and this movie has been hyped enough to where any critic who'd done.. oh, let's say 30 minutes' worth of research or had any sort of intellectual curiosity about this whole ball of wax wouldn't complain that he didn't "care" about what happened to the characters. The ideas are bigger than that.

People don't "love" the characters in Watchmen. This is not a Batman movie, it's not a Spider-man movie. I think a lot of folks who write about moves would do themselves a huge favor by not walking into it saying "oh, this is a superhero movie!" because that isn't what it is.

comment #12

renorambler says ...

When the comic first hit I remember friends trying to analyze what it meant about a person when you admitted which of the Watchmen you most identified with. It's not a matter of "love" for the character.

Incidentally, I was horrified when my best friend said he most identified with Ozymandias. But he was equally horrified that I was most sympathetic to Rorshach.

comment #13

soap+water says ...

good points!
the characters in watchmen are, essentially, notches on a moral compass.
That, i think, is there key function in the story.

Now what's so cool is that they're also so gorgeously fleshed out and textured.

we lose a little bit in the movie, but it's still a remarkably tasteful distillation of the book.

comment #14

ZayTonday says ...

Zac Bertschy's right... there's a little thing going on here called "moral ambiguity" and the number one criticism hurled at most works with morally ambiguous characters is that they're all unlikable or unredeemable. Poland just wants his movies with charaxcters wearing the white and black hats apparently, or at least that's what he expects when going into a "comic book movie".

comment #15

ZayTonday says ...

The characters are actually more like notches on an ideological compass, which is driven home with the two dueling news bureaus: The New Frontiersman being the right wing one and Nova Express being on the left.

comment #16

soap+water says ...

a nitpick. 'moral compass' says the same thing and sounds better.

comment #17

Arran says ...

Hate to say it, but Poland's almost completely spot on. Just saw it myself and his review pretty much sums up my own feelings. Rorschach is the only character that really sticks with you.

(Though I do still like the speed up/slow down thing in the fight sequences...I'm sorry, I still think it looks kind of cool.)

comment #18

MilkMan says ...

1. Who is Emmanuel Levy?
2. Who cares what some guy named Emmanuel Levy thinks?
3. What kind of douchebag calls something a Dazzling Pop Epic with a straight face unless he is the douchebag known as Armond White?
4. Why did Emmanuel Levy choose the name "Soap + Water
as his psuedonym?
5 Who are some of you people?

comment #19

moorish says ...

Gus, Wells has "no horse" in this race. None. At atll. Ahem.

comment #20

Imogen says ...

Jef citing Poland while ignoring Roger Ebert is like saying the English won World War II without any help from the Americans.

comment #21

Joe Gillis says ...

Let me preface: I have no stake in defending or condemning Watchmen. Haven't seen it yet. It's Wells' tactics here that I abhor. He's "trying to take the movie down" (as if he has a fifth the resources, influence, etc., to do so) because Warner Bros. didn't kiss his ass when they were promoting it. Those times he's bitched about not getting in to press/critics/promotional screenings? That's what pushed him over the edge. And it's not the first time he's done it! He slammed Munich because of the same lack of "attention" Universal and Dreamworks gave him. In an LA Magazine article entitled "The Blog Whisperers" (http://www.mywire.com/a/LosAngelesMagazine/blog-whisperers-two-middleaged/2726186?&pbl=15), author Stephen Rodrick asked Wells "if his reaction [to Munich] might have been different if Universal had treated him with more deference." Wells responded with a "Maybe," which in Wells-speak means "Absolutely." And he's doing the same thing with Watchmen. Don't let him bait you for hits anymore--his petty, "Warners doesn't respect me" issues are his only to deal with.

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/truth-media-flames/truthmedia-flames-watchmen.php

comment #23

D.Z. says ...

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485797

comment #24

MDOC says ...

Roger Ebert's 4 stars is the final word for me until i see Watchmen this weekend. Poland's pop sensibilities are a little skewed. The guy loved Matrix Reloaded. If Watchmen is no Matrix Reloaded, I'd say it's a great sign.

comment #25

MarkVH says ...

Actually Imogen, the Russians were the ones who won WWII.

And a 4-star review from Ebert these days is kind of like Keith Olberman siding with an Obama policy decision. Pretty much a foregone conclusion.

comment #26

Imogen says ...

Well Kyle Smith gave it four stars too, and he's a right-winger. If Ebert is Olberman, Smith is Bill O'Reilly. Which is fine, as you need both wings to fly!

comment #27

actionman says ...

To be fair, Ebert gave 300 only ** so it wasn't an automatic given that he'd give Watchmen ****

comment #28

slithis says ...

WELLS -- GOING TO CITE EBERT'S FOUR STAR RAVE?

WELL?

I have no experience with the book and I can tell you that it is a pretty damned sensational experience. Perfect? No. Visionary? Yes.

WHAT SAY YOU ON EBERT?

comment #29

DavidF says ...

Slithis beat me to it as I was posting the same thing elsewhere but this is getting riddiculous.

Now he is ignoring a 4-star review from the country's (and maybe the world's) best known and generally respected reviewer and posting his longtime rival's net review as a "killshot."

Really? Poland couldn't land a killshot if you gave him a shotgun and planted him in front of a goldfish bowl.

When Wells has:
a) Seen the movie
b) Seen fit to give equal press/comment to the raves as to the slams

He will have something to say. The rest is so much "high thread count" posturing and I expect better.

comment #30

mrmystery says ...

Milkman, your idea of a nuance critical response to posters enjoying a movie is to question their right to comment, i.e.. "Who are some of you people."
in that spirit

You're such a pompous douche. Must be terrible to be you.

comment #31

Hawkboy says ...

DavidF - Ebert's hardly infallible - he still hasn't lived down giving Godfather III a better rating than Part II.

comment #32

nemo says ...

"Actually Imogen, the Russians were the ones who won WWII."

You've got that right, at least for the war in Europe.

comment #33

jamesD says ...

I strongly suggest you guys a H - O T site for tall chix and guys-- ____Tall kiss C om ____ Im sure it will work for-- you. End your loney life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!