The Watchmen movie: Cartoon Totally Not in the OP *COMIC SPOILERS*

Behemoth

AJAlkaline40 wrote: »

I am actually pretty sincerely disappointed that

They didn't keep the part where Rorschach gave the guy a saw and set the room on fire and said "Can't saw through the chains, not enough time". That was just an incredibly more hardcore way to kill someone. Also, the concept of him waiting and watching the flames was pretty potent, too.

The couldn't include that now, it would be perceived as a rip off of Saw.

AJAlkaline40

Behemoth wrote: »

AJAlkaline40 wrote: »

I am actually pretty sincerely disappointed that

They didn't keep the part where Rorschach gave the guy a saw and set the room on fire and said "Can't saw through the chains, not enough time". That was just an incredibly more hardcore way to kill someone. Also, the concept of him waiting and watching the flames was pretty potent, too.

The couldn't include that now, it would be perceived as a rip off of Saw.

I know, the irony!

Overlord

Both kinda pinched it from this:

Mad Max Ending

At about 2:12

AJAlkaline40

Aw, and I had thought it was so original in the comic. Oh well.

David_T

Behemoth wrote: »

Incoherent, overblown, and grimy with misogyny, “Watchmen” marks the final demolition of the comic strip, and it leaves you wondering: where did the comedy go?

Out the window. Someone wasn't paying attention.

Bogart

Thirith wrote: »

I've got a book of Anthony Lane's reviews. I don't always agree with him and he is pompous, yes, but he's got a number of absolutely glorious reviews. The one for Revenge of the Sith is a thing of beauty, if you ask me.

I've got that book. I think he's maybe the best film reviewer in the business, but he's got some blind spots.

setrajonas

Bogart wrote: »

Thirith wrote: »

I've got a book of Anthony Lane's reviews. I don't always agree with him and he is pompous, yes, but he's got a number of absolutely glorious reviews. The one for Revenge of the Sith is a thing of beauty, if you ask me.

I've got that book. I think he's maybe the best film reviewer in the business, but he's got some blind spots.

what

Bogart

setrajonas wrote: »

Bogart wrote: »

Thirith wrote: »

I've got a book of Anthony Lane's reviews. I don't always agree with him and he is pompous, yes, but he's got a number of absolutely glorious reviews. The one for Revenge of the Sith is a thing of beauty, if you ask me.

I've got that book. I think he's maybe the best film reviewer in the business, but he's got some blind spots.

what

what back at ya.

Thirith

What people often don't seem to understand is that the most interesting reviewers don't present some dull, even-handed opinion - or, worse, that they write reviews that agree with me, the reader, otherwise they're dicks, wankers, shitcocks, aaargh. An interesting reviewer provides sharp, well-written reviews that you may or may not agree with, but if you're willing to listen to someone who may have a different opinion they can make you think.

I disagree with a lot that Anthony Lane says about genre films, but even when he's condescending as hell he makes interesting points and in a style that's head and shoulders above most reviewers I read. That alone makes him worthwhile.

That, and his review of McG's Charlie's Angels.

1ddqd

On the whole, he's (the New Yorker reviewer) catered to a majority of the population with that review. While we might not agree with his taste, he's probably stabbed right the point - at least, most people seeing this movie will agree that way.

Effing sucks.

Bogart

Thirith wrote: »

I disagree with a lot that Anthony Lane says about genre films, but even when he's condescending as hell he makes interesting points and in a style that's head and shoulders above most reviewers I read. That alone makes him worthwhile.

This, pretty much. Altough it has to be said that he loves certain genre movies - Aliens, Terminator, Where Eagles Dare, Speed (he wrote a rapturous review of it, claiming it to be the movie of the year), etc.

Also, I don't think he's catering to the majority of the population with his tastes. The cinema-going public can't get enough of superheroes, and his apparently loathing of them makes him the standout.

setrajonas

I don't like Anthony Lane as a reviewer. As a writer, he's can be quite funny and witty, but it's a rare day when he actually says something I find insightful, whether I agree with it or not. And yes, I absolutely agree that just because you don't agree with a critic/reviewer that makes them shit. I hate that mentality.

Thirith

It depends very much on the individual review. I've read some where he went for snark over substance, but the snark was of the highest quality. Then I read some - e.g. the aforementioned Revenge of the Sith - where he was spot on with many things IMO. Sometimes when he doesn't like a genre or a film, he does something that is questionable: he starts slamming the film's (or genre's) fans without having anything other than a stereotypical picture of who/what these fans are - his review of Return of the King, while he pinpointed some of that film's weaknesses, suffers from that IMO.

Bogart

To be fair, his review of The Return of the King is overwhelmingly positive, and he mentions the books not with the usual sniffiness found in literary circles but with affection and no little admiration. He points out the lack of humour and irony (which is more than fair comment), and his bewilderment at some displays of fans, but I think those are fair comment.

redhalo

Aleph wrote: »

So far the negative reviews haven't done anything but confirmed some of my fears about the movie but this one actually got my blood boiling, I feel like nerd-raging at the writer.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/03/09/090309crci_cinema_lane

Man, what? He gets quite insulting towards fans of comic based movies saying that they are defensive over "rock-jawed heroes and their melon-breasted sidekicks". He acknowledges that Alan Moore distanced himself from the previous movies because he felt they would be abused, but still uses them as an example of how they foreshadow that Watchmen would be bad. It kills me because he seems to have legitimately researched Alan Moore, but chooses to pander to the population that thinks comics are stupid and juvenile. It's almost just as insulting to his constituent readers. How can you imply that comics are juvenile, but be upset that a superhero movie isn't more like Spiderman?

Thirith

I'd definitely agree that this review isn't especially consistent and definitely falls down in that respect. However, moving from one bad review to "This guy sucks! Pretentious New Yorker wanker!", which some are wont to do, seems like something of an over-reaction...

Bogart

redhalo wrote: »

Man, what? He gets quite insulting towards fans of comic based movies saying that they are defensive over "rock-jawed heroes and their melon-breasted sidekicks".

Fans of comic-books and the movies based on them do get hugely defensive over the characters. That isn't a controversial statement at all. Nor is implying that superheroes (especially women) are usually drawn a certain way. They are.

Robos A Go Go

Bogart wrote: »

redhalo wrote: »

Man, what? He gets quite insulting towards fans of comic based movies saying that they are defensive over "rock-jawed heroes and their melon-breasted sidekicks".

Fans of comic-books and the movies based on them do get hugely defensive over the characters. That isn't a controversial statement at all. Nor is implying that superheroes (especially women) are usually drawn a certain way. They are.

But he's taking Watchmen as yet another installment in the series of stories about manly men in spandex and their breasty cohorts when it's clearly meant to be a criticism of that aspect of the medium, not a celebration of it.

And when he goes on to act as though Watchmen is saying that it's okay to kill millions to "save the world" just because only one hero disagrees, it's clear that he really doesn't understand the intent of the work at all.

Aleph

He also failed to understand that both V For Vendetta and Watchmen were written to reflect on their respective eras, thus the undercurrent of nihilism in both works. He acted as if Watchmen, both the movie and the book, were cashing in on the dark and gritty superhero trend.

redhalo

Thirith wrote: »

I'd definitely agree that this review isn't especially consistent and definitely falls down in that respect. However, moving from one bad review to "This guy sucks! Pretentious New Yorker wanker!", which some are wont to do, seems like something of an over-reaction...

I know too little of the New Yorker or this guys other reviews to make a call on that. But missing the point is missing the point. I just don't think that a critic should judge a cheese burger by comparing it to ice cream. That's probably a horrible analogy, but really though.

redhalo

Bogart wrote: »

redhalo wrote: »

Man, what? He gets quite insulting towards fans of comic based movies saying that they are defensive over "rock-jawed heroes and their melon-breasted sidekicks".

Fans of comic-books and the movies based on them do get hugely defensive over the characters. That isn't a controversial statement at all. Nor is implying that superheroes (especially women) are usually drawn a certain way. They are.

No doubt, but my issue is that he's refusing to believe that the character's could possibly be any deeper than that. For being a critic of movies, that's awfully short-sighted.

This is why fans are defensive, people like this just go "Spandex, check. Muscles, check. This shit is for children."

edit: Ack, double post. Usually these threads move faster than that.

KalTorak

ElJeffe wrote: »

Aleph wrote: »

So far the negative reviews haven't done anything but confirmed some of my fears about the movie but this one actually got my blood boiling, I feel like nerd-raging at the writer.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/03/09/090309crci_cinema_lane

One lord of the genre is a glowering, hairy Englishman named Alan Moore, the coauthor of “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” and “V for Vendetta.” Both of these have been turned into motion pictures; the first was merely an egregious waste of money, time, and talent, whereas the second was not quite as enjoyable as tripping over barbed wire and falling nose first into a nettle patch.

man whut

Anyone who thinks LoEG was better than VfV fails at life.

Nice that the reviewer apparently blames Moore for the fact that his work got turned into shitty/distorted films.

Bogart

Robos A Go Go wrote: »

Bogart wrote: »

redhalo wrote: »

Man, what? He gets quite insulting towards fans of comic based movies saying that they are defensive over "rock-jawed heroes and their melon-breasted sidekicks".

Fans of comic-books and the movies based on them do get hugely defensive over the characters. That isn't a controversial statement at all. Nor is implying that superheroes (especially women) are usually drawn a certain way. They are.

But he's taking Watchmen as yet another installment in the series of stories about manly men in spandex and their breasty cohorts when it's clearly meant to be a criticism of that aspect of the medium, not a celebration of it.

And when he goes on to act as though Watchmen is saying that it's okay to kill millions to "save the world" just because only one hero disagrees, it's clear that he really doesn't understand the intent of the work at all.

It's a general introduction to the review talking about superheroes as a genre. Yeah, I agree, it misses the angle of Watchmen and the way in which it sets itself apart from the general mass of superhero comics.

As for the second point, well, I dunno. He may have wilfully missed the intent of the work, or it may just not come across clearly in the film and, not having read the book, is unable to supply the missing information himself. I'll see when I go on Friday.

EDIT: How many people complaining about the review have actually seen the damn film yet?

Bogart

KalTorak wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

Aleph wrote: »

So far the negative reviews haven't done anything but confirmed some of my fears about the movie but this one actually got my blood boiling, I feel like nerd-raging at the writer.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/03/09/090309crci_cinema_lane

One lord of the genre is a glowering, hairy Englishman named Alan Moore, the coauthor of “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” and “V for Vendetta.” Both of these have been turned into motion pictures; the first was merely an egregious waste of money, time, and talent, whereas the second was not quite as enjoyable as tripping over barbed wire and falling nose first into a nettle patch.

man whut

Anyone who thinks LoEG was better than VfV fails at life.

Nice that the reviewer apparently blames Moore for the fact that his work got turned into shitty/distorted films.

No, he doesn't.

New Yorker Review wrote:

In each case, the cry from readers was that the movie was doomed by its treacherous departure from the original; Moore distanced himself from both productions, and he has done so again with the new adaptation of “Watchmen.”

Robos A Go Go

Bogart wrote: »

Robos A Go Go wrote: »

Bogart wrote: »

redhalo wrote: »

Man, what? He gets quite insulting towards fans of comic based movies saying that they are defensive over "rock-jawed heroes and their melon-breasted sidekicks".

Fans of comic-books and the movies based on them do get hugely defensive over the characters. That isn't a controversial statement at all. Nor is implying that superheroes (especially women) are usually drawn a certain way. They are.

But he's taking Watchmen as yet another installment in the series of stories about manly men in spandex and their breasty cohorts when it's clearly meant to be a criticism of that aspect of the medium, not a celebration of it.

And when he goes on to act as though Watchmen is saying that it's okay to kill millions to "save the world" just because only one hero disagrees, it's clear that he really doesn't understand the intent of the work at all.

It's a general introduction to the review talking about superheroes as a genre. Yeah, I agree, it misses the angle of Watchmen and the way in which it sets itself apart from the general mass of superhero comics.

As for the second point, well, I dunno. He may have wilfully missed the intent of the work, or it may just not come across clearly in the film and, not having read the book, is unable to supply the missing information himself. I'll see when I go on Friday.

EDIT: How many people complaining about the review have actually seen the damn film yet?

I don't see how it could be unclear when, from what we know, Rorschach still chooses to die over becoming complicit in Ozy's charade.

redhalo

Bogart wrote: »

No, he doesn't.

New Yorker Review wrote:

In each case, the cry from readers was that the movie was doomed by its treacherous departure from the original; Moore distanced himself from both productions, and he has done so again with the new adaptation of “Watchmen.”

New Yorker Review wrote:

The problem is that Snyder, following Moore, is so insanely aroused by the look of vengeance, and by the stylized application of physical power, that the film ends up twice as fascistic as the forces it wishes to lampoon

New Yorker Review wrote:

The assault is there in Moore’s book, one panel of which homes in on the blood that leaps from her punched mouth, but the pool table is Snyder’s own embroidery. You want to hear Moore’s attempt at urban jeremiad? “This awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children.” That line from the book may be meant as a punky retread of James Ellroy, but it sounds to me like a writer trying much, much too hard

Sounds to me that he blames the movie for being too close to the book.

Bogart wrote: »

EDIT: How many people complaining about the review have actually seen the damn film yet?

Has the reviewer? (rehtorical question) All of his criticisms have nothing to to with informing the quality of the movie, he just busts on how it's atypical of the superhero stereotype and as such is bad. Nothing he has discussed is unique to the movie. Night Owl still looks like a Batman knock off, superheroines still get raped.

Bogart

Robos A Go Go wrote: »

Bogart wrote: »

It's a general introduction to the review talking about superheroes as a genre. Yeah, I agree, it misses the angle of Watchmen and the way in which it sets itself apart from the general mass of superhero comics.

As for the second point, well, I dunno. He may have wilfully missed the intent of the work, or it may just not come across clearly in the film and, not having read the book, is unable to supply the missing information himself. I'll see when I go on Friday.

EDIT: How many people complaining about the review have actually seen the damn film yet?

I don't see how it could be unclear when, from what we know, Rorschach still chooses to die over becoming complicit in Ozy's charade.

Again, you haven't seen the film and know as much as I do (nowt) about how good it is or how well the points come across. Maybe the review's completely wrong.

The exact quote is

New Yorker Review wrote:

Amid these pompous grabs at horror, neither author nor director has much grasp of what genuine, unhyped suffering might be like, or what pity should attend it; they are too busy fussing over the fate of the human race—a sure sign of metaphysical vulgarity—to be bothered with lesser plights.
In the end, with a gaping pit where New York used to be, most of the surviving Watchmen agree that the loss of the Eastern Seaboard was a small price to pay for global peace.

It does sound as though Lane has missed the point of the ending, but whether that's Snyder's fault or his own I don't know.

Aleph

Bogart wrote: »

EDIT: How many people complaining about the review have actually seen the damn film yet?

What's the point of this rhetorical question? Most of the people complaining aren't angry because Anthony Lane thought the movie was bad.

Bogart

redhalo wrote: »

Bogart wrote: »

KalTorak wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

Aleph wrote: »

So far the negative reviews haven't done anything but confirmed some of my fears about the movie but this one actually got my blood boiling, I feel like nerd-raging at the writer.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/03/09/090309crci_cinema_lane

One lord of the genre is a glowering, hairy Englishman named Alan Moore, the coauthor of “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” and “V for Vendetta.” Both of these have been turned into motion pictures; the first was merely an egregious waste of money, time, and talent, whereas the second was not quite as enjoyable as tripping over barbed wire and falling nose first into a nettle patch.

man whut

Anyone who thinks LoEG was better than VfV fails at life.

Nice that the reviewer apparently blames Moore for the fact that his work got turned into shitty/distorted films.

No, he doesn't.

New Yorker Review wrote:

In each case, the cry from readers was that the movie was doomed by its treacherous departure from the original; Moore distanced himself from both productions, and he has done so again with the new adaptation of “Watchmen.”

New Yorker Review wrote:

The problem is that Snyder, following Moore, is so insanely aroused by the look of vengeance, and by the stylized application of physical power, that the film ends up twice as fascistic as the forces it wishes to lampoon

New Yorker Review wrote:

The assault is there in Moore’s book, one panel of which homes in on the blood that leaps from her punched mouth, but the pool table is Snyder’s own embroidery. You want to hear Moore’s attempt at urban jeremiad? “This awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children.” That line from the book may be meant as a punky retread of James Ellroy, but it sounds to me like a writer trying much, much too hard

Sounds to me that he blames the movie for being to close to the book.

Your first post read like you were narked that he blamed Moore for LoEG and VfV being bad/distorted movies. At least, that's the bit of the review you were quoting.

redhalo

Bogart wrote: »

redhalo wrote: »

Bogart wrote: »

KalTorak wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

Aleph wrote: »

So far the negative reviews haven't done anything but confirmed some of my fears about the movie but this one actually got my blood boiling, I feel like nerd-raging at the writer.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/03/09/090309crci_cinema_lane

One lord of the genre is a glowering, hairy Englishman named Alan Moore, the coauthor of “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” and “V for Vendetta.” Both of these have been turned into motion pictures; the first was merely an egregious waste of money, time, and talent, whereas the second was not quite as enjoyable as tripping over barbed wire and falling nose first into a nettle patch.

man whut

Anyone who thinks LoEG was better than VfV fails at life.

Nice that the reviewer apparently blames Moore for the fact that his work got turned into shitty/distorted films.

No, he doesn't.

New Yorker Review wrote:

In each case, the cry from readers was that the movie was doomed by its treacherous departure from the original; Moore distanced himself from both productions, and he has done so again with the new adaptation of “Watchmen.”

New Yorker Review wrote:

The problem is that Snyder, following Moore, is so insanely aroused by the look of vengeance, and by the stylized application of physical power, that the film ends up twice as fascistic as the forces it wishes to lampoon

New Yorker Review wrote:

The assault is there in Moore’s book, one panel of which homes in on the blood that leaps from her punched mouth, but the pool table is Snyder’s own embroidery. You want to hear Moore’s attempt at urban jeremiad? “This awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children.” That line from the book may be meant as a punky retread of James Ellroy, but it sounds to me like a writer trying much, much too hard

Sounds to me that he blames the movie for being to close to the book.

Your first post read like you were narked that he blamed Moore for LoEG and VfV being bad/distorted movies. At least, that's the bit of the review you were quoting.

Sorry about that. To clarify I'm narked that Lane acknowledges that movies can betray their source material but then goes on to include Moore in his critisism becuse the movie is too close to source. The entire review may as well be just a review of the graphic novel in it's own right.

Fatboy Roberts

I got a review comin up at at Aint it Cool News and Geek in the City.com, I'll link to em when they go live, but the short version is this:

Snyder gave it probably the best shot anyone could have given to faithfully adapting this work, only to find out at the end that Moore was probably right: The book is simply unadaptable. There's a lot here that works, almost all of it LOOKS right, but almost none of it FEELS right. An admirable attempt that is worth the time spent admiring it, but not much more.

Lacroix

I didnt read the NYorker review as soon as I read the "wheres the comedy?" line in the RT preview, I just assumed after that point it would be like talking to someone who's every opinion was opposite to mine. I really have a pet hate for critics who review films according to what they subjectively feel is lacking, or what they miss about the genre, or what the movie ISNT about. It bugs me.

I had this issue with Roger Eberts review of the Hitman movie. We agree that it is a bad film, but he as much as says 'gunning down pop up stormtroopers is sureley from the game' and I think attributes the 'sexy female lead and misogyny' to the game as well. No, the film was not remotely like the game where you are most succesful for ONLY eliminating your target, and which no female characters fancy you.
RESEARCH people...

Bogart

redhalo wrote: »

To clarify I'm narked that Lane acknowledges that movies can betray their source material but then goes on to include Moore in his criticism becuse the movie is too close to source. The entire review may as well be just a review of the graphic novel in it's own right.

Ah, I see. Yeah, Lane doesn't appear to like the novel much, and I'd disagree with him as much as you no doubt would on that point.

seasleepy

Watching the media cover this is pretty hilarious. Case in point: the AP bothered to write an article to "warn" fans that a sequel to the movie is unlikely. (You should be able to tell that this is a bad topic for a story when every quote you can get from anyone involved is basically "....Are you fucking retarded. No.")

Fatboy Roberts

My review:

http://geekinthecity.com/?p=1342

ElJeffe

My problem with Lane is not that he didn't like the movie, but rather that he wrote a review in which almost every sentence is full of stupid and/or wrong. He name dropped Moore and the comic enough to imply that he knew what he was talking about, and then seemed to completely miss the point of the both comic and movie. Complaining that the movie is misogynist is like claiming that The Accused is misogynist. Many of his other "complaints" similarly fail to miss the entire point of the movie.

Normally, one could assert as possible that the movie just failed to establish its themes well enough... except Lane clearly wants you to think that he's familiar with the comic enough to "get it". And anyone who read the comic and wasn't an idiot would be able to grasp the themes, and thus be able to discern between a movie which has no such themes and one that just fails to recreate those of the comic.

So.

Perhaps Lane is an idiot with poor reading comprehension.

Perhaps Lane knows dick about the comic and shouldn't have pretended like he knew what he was talking about.

Or perhaps he's just a troll who hates comic book adaptations and hates superheroes and wanted to spend a dozen column inches insulting the film's target audience by proxy. This is my belief, and it doesn't require that I've seen the movie or like the movie. And again, writing a review on a film from a genre you detest is disingenuous and a huge disservice to the reader.

tl;dr: Lane is an ass. The fact that he makes pretty sentences does not make him less of an ass.

redhalo

Fatboy Roberts wrote: »

My review:

http://geekinthecity.com/?p=1342

That's how you properly write a negative review that's informative as to what to expect and why you hold your opinion of it.

ElJeffe: That's my thoughts exactly.

Olivaw

I just don't know why anyone would go to the New Yorker for film criticism to begin with

It's like going to a restaurant specifically to be abused by the pompous, snobby, unhelpful waiting staff

But people do that too

I guess I just don't understand people

ElJeffe

Fatboy Roberts wrote: »

My review:

http://geekinthecity.com/?p=1342

That is an excellent review and now I am nervous.

See, Lane? That is how you pan a film.

Oh, and fuck you for making me nervous. :x

Fatboy Roberts

Don't be nervous. The movie worked almost flawlessly for my co-host, he had nothing but praise when it ended. The reactions I saw and heard upon leaving the theater ran something like this:

Read the book: FUCKIN LOVED IT HELL YES.
Read the book: Pretty but empty inside.
Didn't read the book: Whafuck? Whoa. I'm gonna check that out again.
Didn't read the book: Too long too long too long ugh.