Movies

[WayOutWest]

I plan on seeing Watchmen at midnight Thursday night, but I've been really sick the past couple of days, so we'll see what happens ...

That movie sucked big time, we almost walked out twice.  Don't waste your time people, you're better off renting "Mystery Men".

[westkoast]

I also did not care for "The Dark Knight". If I wanted to see relentless death and violence without the satisfaction of revenge, for what revenge can there be for the killing of thousands, I would just watch the Twin Towers collapse again. Loud and pointless, not even Ledger could salvage it. Plus, I don't know about the rest of you, but movies that glorify the mass slaughter of policemen over and over again is sending out a black messages. One, that policemen are all incompetent, so two, watching them die in huge numbers serves them right.

Also, "Body of Lies". These movies about the Middle East have a common theme to them - Hollywood, at least, has given up all hope of the U.S. succeeding against these people. We should all get out now. Apparently, the lucky ones are already dead.

"Get Smart". Whoever wrote this movie had no clue as to what made the TV series popular. They drained all aspects of Buck Henry and Mel Brooks out of it and even when using the patented lines from the show, could never duplicate Don Adams' delivery, and did not even try. Pathetic. Also, 99 was funny on the TV show. Apparently a comedy was not what the makers intended. They succeeded.

"The Changling". Terrific from top to bottom. One of the best movies I have seen that came out in the last couple of years. Eastwood has figured out how to make movies bigtime.

Back to "Wanted". I 'wanted' to kill the frustrated ninth grader who wrote this garbage after suffering through this crap. So you got bullied on the playground by others who think you suck. Deal with it like the rest of us do. And forget about Angelina Jolie suddenly popping up in your life to make it all better. But you are the little punk jerking off at you wrote this junk.

Get Smart was my step dads favorite show so I use to watch it with him all the time.  When the movie came out I just knew it wasn't going to work.  They thought because Steve Carell was popular at the time, coming of some really funny movies, anything they put him in would be good (Ditto for Anne Hathaway).  Like you said you can't just put any funny person to play Don Adams' role.  Just the voice itself cannot be duplicated.  Plus how are you going to spoof the opening scene when it's one of the best openings to a show of all time?  They should have left everything about the show intact and not tried to modernize it to fit this decade.

Wanted sucked more than Jenna Jameson but this is what I read when I saw the paragraph. "Damn kids and their damn skateboards. Always near my lawn with their hippity hop and their damn Angelina Jolie. Back in my day...." 

[WayOutWest]

I plan on seeing Watchmen at midnight Thursday night, but I've been really sick the past couple of days, so we'll see what happens ...

That movie sucked big time, we almost walked out twice.  Don't waste your time people, you're better off renting "Mystery Men".

The more I think about it the worse it gets.  IMO the premise of this movie is the best superhero premise/plot of any movie I've ever seen.  Makes "The Dark Knight" looks like "Romper Room" but the execution of the movie was HORRID!  When I saw the ending it really made me mad that they made us sit through 2 hours of crap just to get to the good part which was only 15 minutes long. 

[Wolverine]

I plan on seeing Watchmen at midnight Thursday night, but I've been really sick the past couple of days, so we'll see what happens ...

That movie sucked big time, we almost walked out twice.  Don't waste your time people, you're better off renting "Mystery Men".

The more I think about it the worse it gets.  IMO the premise of this movie is the best superhero premise/plot of any movie I've ever seen.  Makes "The Dark Knight" looks like "Romper Room" but the execution of the movie was HORRID!  When I saw the ending it really made me mad that they made us sit through 2 hours of crap just to get to the good part which was only 15 minutes long. 

Funny, because I feel almost the complete opposite, Miggy.

The first few minutes of the movie were the best part, IMO (the title sequence was a nod to those of us who've read the book).  Really, the first hour so was great, especially the Manhattan stuff on Mars and the Comedian's funeral.  Anything involving Manhattan, the Comedian or Rorschach was terrific, and it's not a total coincidence that I feel those were the three stand-out performances among the cast.

The ending was - how shall I put this? - not good.  It's different from the book, but believe it or not I'm not entirerly opposed to that idea.  If you have a different direction you want to go, fine.  But stay true to the *SPIRIT* of the book, and while they did okay in that respect, the whole ending felt incredibly RUSHED (in the book, Ozy goes on for a good ten pages - nothing but exposition, so I knew the filmmakers were in trouble.  It's a tough assignment to tackle.)  And on top of that, there were a few scenes that I felt were ABSOLUTELY necessary - and they were left out and/or changed (granted, there were a lot of changes/ommissions from the comic).

Overall, I liked the movie.  Felt it was good.  What they got right, they REALLY got right.  But to me, it feels INCOMPLETE.  It's a 12-issue limited series that's been turned into a two-and-a-half hour movie.  There had to be stuff left out, or otherwise we would have been in the theatre for eight hours.  So I'm okay with leaving some stuff out, but that makes the movie "good."

The book is SO MUCH BETTER.

Out of this world, really.  Easily among my top five favorite stories told in comics.  Right there with Batman: Year One, Batman: The Long Halloween, X-Men's "Days of Future Past" and Fables' "Legends in Exile."

[Derek Bodner]

I also did not care for "The Dark Knight". If I wanted to see relentless death and violence without the satisfaction of revenge

So movies have to end happily to be any good?

As for the rest, fake terrorism on movies doesn't exactly get to me, especially when you have the news showing Nick Berg videos (i.e. THE REAL THING) over and over and over again to get better ratings.

[Skandery]

I can't help but wonder, Miguel, did you happen to make the mistake of taking your kids to the movie?

I was watching a History channel or AMC special on comic books a couple of years ago.  They were talking the mythology of comics, the history, the niche in culture, etc.  The editor-in-chief of DC said something quite simple to observe, yet for some reason I had never personally thought of.  He said not only have comics been shaped to draw in adult readers, the majority of comics today are not for children.  Well if you can point to an event in comic history that was the start of that shift, it was 1986 and publication of Watchmen. 

The movie was dark, subversive, sexual, smart, gluttonous, and engaged in socio-political themes that reflect the worst of society and the director had no choice in the matter.  For if Snyder had any hope of translating the iconic Watchmen graphic novel to the screen, he had to remain faithful.  Otherwise why take on this particular material if your intention is to make a generic, broad-appeal, superhero blockbuster.

I thought the style and characterization were excellent.  The exposition was overlong at times but reflected Moore's writing style.  Pacing was an issue with the movie but they crammed a 12 issue story into 2 hours and 42 minutes.  Had the filmakers had the patience and the studio had the guts, they probably should have made a two movies, maybe a trilogy.  The strongest performances were Jackie Earl Haley (Rorschach), Billy Crudup (Dr. Manhattan), and Jeffrey Dean Morgan (The Comedian).  Malin Ackerman (Silk Spectre) and Patrick Wilson (Nite Owl) gave measured performances.  Matthew Goode was overwhelmed by Ozymandias although admittedly had the toughest role.  The Art direction was supreme!  Much like there was a concious effort for Dave Gibbons/John Higgins (the original artists on the comics) to use secondary colors (Purple, orange, green) instead of the general primary colors (Red, Yellow, Blue), you could tell the directors stayed faithful to that scheme.

You could say that with such well-known source material, the weight of the pressure to stay true may have crushed the filmmakers in the end.  Personally I admire and applaud the effort and had quite an enjoyable movie experience.  This is one DVD that is definitely going to be in the collection.     

A-

[WayOutWest]

I can't help but wonder, Miguel, did you happen to make the mistake of taking your kids to the movie?

I did take them and the two that are smarter than me, and by the "transitive axiom of inequality" are smarter than any of you, found the movie to be awesomely bad.  You touch on why we felt that way below.

I was watching a History channel or AMC special on comic books a couple of years ago.  They were talking the mythology of comics, the history, the niche in culture, etc.  The editor-in-chief of DC said something quite simple to observe, yet for some reason I had never personally thought of.  He said not only have comics been shaped to draw in adult readers, the majority of comics today are not for children.  Well if you can point to an event in comic history that was the start of that shift, it was 1986 and publication of Watchmen. 

Again that is what really made me mad the more I thought about it.  IMO the premise of "Watchmen" is terrific, it's what made "The Dark Knight" and "BSG" so enjoyable for me.  No more of that fake violence where nobody really gets hurt or the beloved mortal humans being spared any true hardship or death.  The X-Men did that a bit where soldiers died fighting, same with Transformers but typically only the bad guys die.  I'm glad superhero and sci-fi movie makers are leaving that "never never land" world behind and making movies/series for thinking adults.

The movie was dark, subversive, sexual, smart, gluttonous, and engaged in socio-political themes that reflect the worst of society and the director had no choice in the matter.  For if Snyder had any hope of translating the iconic Watchmen graphic novel to the screen, he had to remain faithful.  Otherwise why take on this particular material if your intention is to make a generic, broad-appeal, superhero blockbuster.

That is the part we had the most questions about, why did the film not explore what made these characters so interesting, they only went there with "Rorschach" to a small extent.  They touched on it very little with Dr. Manhattan (imo Manhatten means GAY in superhero-speak) and the Comedian, they had such a great opportunity with the Vietnam arc but spend all of 5 minutes on it.  Instead they spent (aka WASTED) a large portion with queer owl boy and spandex-ho's stupid relationship.  They wasted SOOOOOOOOOOOOO much friggin time on PG-13 BS and nearly ignored the R rated story behind these guys and what made them really interesting.  This movie was borderline GAY because you knew there was a truely DARK and TWISTED side to the whole story and they barely scratched the surface.

I thought the style and characterization were excellent.  The exposition was overlong at times but reflected Moore's writing style.  Pacing was an issue with the movie but they crammed a 12 issue story into 2 hours and 42 minutes.  Had the filmakers had the patience and the studio had the guts, they probably should have made a two movies, maybe a trilogy.  The strongest performances were Jackie Earl Haley (Rorschach), Billy Crudup (Dr. Manhattan), and Jeffrey Dean Morgan (The Comedian).  Malin Ackerman (Silk Spectre) and Patrick Wilson (Nite Owl) gave measured performances.  Matthew Goode was overwhelmed by Ozymandias although admittedly had the toughest role.  The Art direction was supreme!  Much like there was a concious effort for Dave Gibbons/John Higgins (the original artists on the comics) to use secondary colors (Purple, orange, green) instead of the general primary colors (Red, Yellow, Blue), you could tell the directors stayed faithful to that scheme.

IMO too little Rorschack and too much queer-eye for the strait guy time spent on owl boy and his ho.  I did enjoy the opening scenes that told the history to present day story of the super heros, too bad the movie didn't stick to interesting stuff instead of forcing some BS relationships on the audience.  Anything with Rorschach was great but the movie wanted to shove some stupid love story down our throats.

You could say that with such well-known source material, the weight of the pressure to stay true may have crushed the filmmakers in the end.  Personally I admire and applaud the effort and had quite an enjoyable movie experience.  This is one DVD that is definitely going to be in the collection.     

I have a feeling that if I read the comics I will get even more pissed.  The directory, or whoever, focused completely on the wrong stuff.  I wish I had followed my gut instinct and passed on this movie after seeing the previews.

A-

C-

[WayOutWest]

Funny, because I feel almost the complete opposite, Miggy.

The first few minutes of the movie were the best part, IMO (the title sequence was a nod to those of us who've read the book).  Really, the first hour so was great, especially the Manhattan stuff on Mars and the Comedian's funeral.  Anything involving Manhattan, the Comedian or Rorschach was terrific, and it's not a total coincidence that I feel those were the three stand-out performances among the cast.

You're right, the movie started off great with the "history" of the Watchmen.  Great music as well IMO.

The ending was - how shall I put this? - not good.  It's different from the book, but believe it or not I'm not entirerly opposed to that idea.  If you have a different direction you want to go, fine.  But stay true to the *SPIRIT* of the book, and while they did okay in that respect, the whole ending felt incredibly RUSHED (in the book, Ozy goes on for a good ten pages - nothing but exposition, so I knew the filmmakers were in trouble.  It's a tough assignment to tackle.)  And on top of that, there were a few scenes that I felt were ABSOLUTELY necessary - and they were left out and/or changed (granted, there were a lot of changes/ommissions from the comic).

I loved the ending, or the revealing of the true "Master Plan".  It tied everything back together very well after the movie unraveled everything.  The director did a HORRIBLE job of it, in fact the director made the movie nearly unwatchable to the point that you didn't care about the underlying plot.  One of the STUPIDIEST things about the movie was Dr. Fagtastic realizing the "miracle" that was Spandex-Ho herritage and having a change of heart in regards to Earth.  Dear Allah that was STUPID!!!!

Overall, I liked the movie.  Felt it was good.  What they got right, they REALLY got right.  But to me, it feels INCOMPLETE.  It's a 12-issue limited series that's been turned into a two-and-a-half hour movie.  There had to be stuff left out, or otherwise we would have been in the theatre for eight hours.  So I'm okay with leaving some stuff out, but that makes the movie "good."

The book is SO MUCH BETTER.

Out of this world, really.  Easily among my top five favorite stories told in comics.  Right there with Batman: Year One, Batman: The Long Halloween, X-Men's "Days of Future Past" and Fables' "Legends in Exile."

As I stated to Skandypants, if I read the comics I might have to sit down and write and angry letter to the director of the movie.  IMO this movie is on the same horrid level as "Batman and Robin".

[JoMal]

I also did not care for "The Dark Knight". If I wanted to see relentless death and violence without the satisfaction of revenge

So movies have to end happily to be any good?

You are kidding, right? Because I am pretty sure that was not what I was saying at all.

But a movie about relentless violence with no foreseeable and satisfactory outcome is not what Hollywood is about nor what people tend to want to see very often. You would expect a movie of this genre to make some sense of it, but it never did. So by the end, when the inevitable finally happened, so what?

As for the rest, fake terrorism on movies doesn't exactly get to me, especially when you have the news showing Nick Berg videos (i.e. THE REAL THING) over and over and over again to get better ratings

.

What is clear is that the conscious effort to entertain the populance by a relentless and clear adherance to violence has permeated our culture from our video games and movies straight to weekly news bites coming from all corners of the viewing world. It has become "okay" to kill in "fun", and look, we have the latest incident on YouTube.

Westkoast may joke about my close resemblence to Clint Eastwood, but I would hope this is not just an age thing, because if it is, I may be one of the only ones left on this board as this culture catches up to the rest of you "violence" junkies. The first mistake is to accept the culture shift with open arms.

[Wolverine]

I just returned from seeing "Watchmen" a second time, and my feelings overall remain the same, sans one aspect of the movie: the performance of Billy Crudup.

To me, it isn't just that it's the best acting work in the film; it also elevates Manhattan to the single most vital character.

In the novel, Rorschach (the primary protagonist) and Ozymandias (the central "villain") are the two most important characters, but the film's plot - and especially Crudup's performance - bring Manahattan to life in a way the book never could.  Here's a character who's a "God," but at one point was human.  You'd expect to hear a booming, powerful voice (as I did when reading the graphic novel), but instead a subtle, unemotional, "soft" voice provides the viewer with clear evidence of his withdrawal - something the book, by its very nature, could never do - and therefore, makes him an even more interesting character.  One, in fact, that is so compelling on screen, I often forgot what else was going on around him.

Don't get me wrong.  Roschach is still my favorite character (BY FAR), but Crudup's work in the film will forever change the way I read the novel.  And as an actor, that's something of a noteworthy performance ... to say the least.