Pajiba

Sorry, another 3 hours? And I know what I'm in for? And I'm paying $12 for it? Sorry. No dice.

I don't know about you, but I at least listen when Solid motherfucking Snake tells me something.

I read the Hayter letter yesterday. (Hadn't seen the Patton Oswalt one, so, thanks for that). I feel bad for the people who poured their heart and soul into this film for all those years and actually thought it would be some huge success.

Regardless of the quality of the film, I never really saw how it was going to be a huge commercial success.

It's long.

It's rated R.

It's confusing.

It's about a bunch of superheroes no one has ever heard about.

It has no star power. (I had never heard of any of the actors who played Ozymandias, Silke Spectre, or the Comedian. I had to look Nite Owl up on IMDB and only then did I realize he was in "Hard Candy". I only really know Billy Cudrup as the guy who did a voice in "Princess Mononoke" and from some independent film about drug addiction, the name of which I don't remember. I remember Jackie Earl Haley from his "Bad News Bears" and "Breaking Away" days and from his hillarious appearance as Chris Elliot's cousin, Donald, in one episode of "Get A Life". I think my brother and I are probably the only two people in America who watched that episode. That was in 1991.)

It's beloved by a rabid core that would freak out at almost any change, modification or deletion, but were dealing with a story that's impossible to film and totally inacessible to anyone unfamiliar with the work without some changes/deletions.

Given all of that $55 million isn't that bad.

I think people's perception of the popularity of the graphic novel got all skewed as well. Yes, many people love it. Yes, many people think it's the best graphic novel ever. But it doesn't have anywhere near the popularity of almost any mainstream Marvel or DC title. The majority of comic book readers aren't all that sophisticated.

Think about it this way. Let's say someone makes a new film based on "The Great Gatsby" or "The Grapes of Wrath", widely considered to be two of the best modern novels (well, according to my 30 second internet search. THANK YOU WIKIPEDIA). The movies are near perfect adaptations, but there are no famous actors in either film. Then you have the "DaVinci Code" starring Tom Hanks, Gandalf, Amelie, and others. Which of these films is going to make more money?

I would have liked to have seen the film do better commercially, simply because there are a lot of other great, non-mainstream, mature (not in a porn type of way) comics out there. The success of "Watchmen" would have gone a long way to helping them get the proper treatment they deserve in film. I would have also liked to see it do well because, obviously, people like Hayter and others who really loved the material and did their best feel that it's commercial success would have been some sort of affirmation or vindication or something.

Frankie "Forbidden" Donuts, Capo, Nerd Mafia.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!

just sayin'

Too many Americans are "believers"; they don't take to meta-cinema or cynical-cinema too well.

That's why Spiderman kills in sales and more intelligent fare doesn't.

I guess TDK would be the exception to the rule. It's the perfect storm of the two coming together. But it's not the rule.

Nadine, I looked up the guy that played Rorschach and hot DAMN. It's the ugly kid from the motherfucking Bad News Bears. You know the one I mean. That ugly kid! His character's name was Kelly, right? And he was a bad ass (I'm talking about the original Bad News Bears, not that stupid ass remake).
Does that help? I did a happy dance screaming he's working again! Someone gave him a job!
I still hated the movie, though. Most pointless 2 1/2 hours of my entire life.

Blows my mind that anyone thought Dr. Manhattan was too stiff. I thought that actor gave him an exceptional amount of range for a character who was essentially growing more inhuman by the minute.

... mostly I just wrote all this to mention that Brian Michael Bendis was better before he started writing every Marvel comic title ever, and that Brian K. Vaughn is the Brian of choice.

Sharon, thanks but alas thats not...well no, the actor is who I'm thinking of but thats not what i'm reminded of =S

This will plague me

And, since it's almost the anniversary, once again fuck everybody everywhere who pussied out on going to see "Grindhouse" cause it was so looooong and weeeeeird.

You're the reason we can't have nice things.

I'll second that. I'm still waiting for the DVD release of both movies and all the trailers in one pack.

Nobody saw "Grindhouse" because it was shit. I don't think it had anything to do with length/weirdity.

You're the reason we can't have nice things.

Yep.

Nadine, please, dear heart, tell me what's on your mind. This kind of thing bothers me ALL the time and I am overly eager to help.
It's spring break, I have brain cells freed up for a few days.

The photo - That was Oswalt?

That looks like The Shat trying his goofy charm for fanboys.

Anyway, Oswalt owns all other reviews. Last fuckin' graf, man.

I'm not angry about the movie, I just don't want to see it. If it's anything less than awesome, I can't be bothered with an adaptation of a book I love, if only because I know I'll just sit and compare it to the book the whole time and come out of the theater feeling unhappy. There's nothing wrong with the movie existing, I just don't want to take part in it.

I don't think that particular instance is Sicky's fault, there, Sarina, because my quote got jacked-up at the same exact place.
While I was perfectly fine with accepting that it was probably plain ol' dumbassery on my part, and in an isolated instance, being sick might suitably explain it on your end, the fact that it happened twice with the same block of text, in the same place both times, makes me think that it has to do with the spacing between that last sentence and the paragraph above it.

At least you'll get over your sickness...

Rest well.

Nadine, I got a distinct Clint Eastwood-vibe when I watched him. It was all in the mouth and the way he spoke. Is that who you were thinking of?

I did not read the novel, loved the movie, and I will see Watchmen again. All the haters can go snuggle up to that fucking mall cop dude.

With the quality of the story already known, it's as if carping about what didn't work was the only thing left to do.

Frankly I left the cinema acknowledging the shortcomings but happy with what I got. It was the best attempt, exceeded my expectations, I'll see it again and geek out on the extended edition when it eventually arrives- much to the amused contempt of my wife.

Ah. Further evidence of my dumbassery, as I did not know that (although, I suspected).

I, too, am still awake (obviously), against my desire not to be, since I have to get up in four fuckin' hours to work a twelve-hour shift. Pissed as hell doesn't come close... tomorrow is gonna suuuuuuuck.

Thanks for the heads-up. Hope ya feel better soon.

Apologist? See, that word always sounds like there's something to rationalize or forgive, which there is not in that case, except on the part of the schmucks who stayed home.

Thanks, Miss BP.

it looked silly and boring to me so I never saw it

*looks over his glasses at you*

You also voted for Hubert Humphrey and killed Jesus.

It's going to be bad Jay.

And yet, Forbiddendonut, with all that, my 11yo nephew LOVED it. He wasn't confused at all. he got the movie completely. He only had 1 question: 1) why do men rape and beat up women? (I guess the Rihanna/CBrown thing was on his mind) which prompted a long discussion after the flick over a burger, chocolate shake, and fries.

He made me buy him the GN later that day. He devoured most of it on the ride home. My sis said he stayed up all night reading it by flashlight.

And we're going to see it again this weekend.

How can we take Patton Oswalt seriously if he doesn't even know the name of the thing he's defending? He might as well be urging us to see a Batman movie called 'The Darkest Knight'.

I would see this movie again even if I hated it just because it was written by the man who repeatedly saved the world from Metal Gear.

Little note from eversea..

Saw it in Amsterdam yesterday, the house was sold out.

Realy liked the movie, and I adore the comic.
And my respect for Zack actually grew, I mean, I liked 300, but that as a kiddy movie compared to this.

They took one of the most layered comics I ever read, and yes, made the message and story more understandeble, but it worked as a movie.

Furthermore I wish movie fans would stop looking at the Money as a sign of succes. This movie will earn enough, and will become cult in a couple of years, is my gues.

Can't wait 'till the extended DVD WITH the pirate story, YAY.

So.
Yes, good movie.
Go see it and make up your own mind. Stop whining about movies you didn't see yourself.

I don't know about you, but I at least listen when Solid motherfucking Snake tells me something.

I would see this movie again even if I hated it just because it was written by the man who repeatedly saved the world from Metal Gear.

Ya'll gonna make me cry in here.

And for those folks seriously having an issue with Oswalt saying "THE Watchmen": you are kinda proving his point, doncha think?

Yeah, he knows well enough that it could be some chain yanking, or he just wrote it drunk.

Me, I shout when I'm sober, I'm more of a mushy drunk writer.

5 times. 12.5 hours of Watchmen watching. It gets better with each viewing.

I think Patton Oswalt hit the nail on the head when it comes to rampant fanboyism. Nothing is ever good enough for some people, and even though this movie breaks so many Hollywood rules... it apparently isn't enough.

If that's what it means to be an original fan of The Watchmen, let me off the boat. I liked it. I liked the changes. I don't see it as some kind of competition for the book... but as something that COMPLIMENTS it.

Its Skut Farkus

Li'l Walter certainly looks like him. Angry Adult Walter kinda reminds me of someone else too but I can't place it either.

I just noticed the line "I'm glad I ordered the four-legged chicken!" last night.

"But they're new!"

Also, apparently Matthew Goode gave himself a backstory, since there wasn't much existing, of his family fortune being ill-gotten. Nazi gold and such, which is why he'd then give it away, and also that he'd cut out his natural German accent when speaking publicly, which was good to know as I'd wondered if it had just been inconsistent performance, but when watching again I could hear what he was doing.

I've seen lots of trashing but no credit for the way Ms. Akerman really nails a lot of looks. I think a few lines didn't come off but she knows how to use her eyes and face. There's a particular moment down in Dan's workshop, I think when he's going to show her the goggles, and there's this uncertain, bashful smile with her face changing three or four times in a second or two. It's really charming and effective.

My love truly lies with Patrick Wilson's smile though, as well as his straight-man exasperation when out and about with his ruffian friends. Batman never gets to shrug and mug like that.

My belated and belabored analysis:

Years ago, a nerdy college roommate of mine went on and on about how brilliant Watchmen was, and had even claimed to have written a screenplay based on it. On his say-so, I bought the DC series, skimmed it and put it away. It just didn't do much for me then, and having watched the movie, can now say what the crux of the problem is: it's just not that interesting of a concept anymore. In the twenty years since the original graphic novel came out, comic books have been deconstructed, reconstructed and reconstituted.

Nuclear destruction-- which was still a very real worry back in the mid 80s-- was already a pretty overused cliche when it appeared in the 1978 Superman movie. But for today's audience, it just doesn't click as a credible threat in the post-Cold War world.

Plus, as anyone who's studied such films can tell you: superhero movies are only as good as the quality of the villain. It's the struggle between the yin-yang of the protagonist and antagonist that creates the suspense, and drama. That's what made the last Batman movie work-- it was all about the Joker, not the Bat.

But as a drama, The Watchmen lacked this element. Ozymandias, as the mystery villain was all but absent, and he certainly wasn't threatening. The characters were all painted in gray, with the supposed heroes (Rorschach and the Comedian, in particular) being the darkest.

Yes, Snyder gets props for attempting to make the movie; but I think that Alan Moore had it right when he termed it "unfilmable."