criterionforum.org

karmajuice wrote:Not to agree with Armond, but I'm about halfway through Watchmen now (I started it twice before without getting to finish it, so I finally bought it) and I'm not nearly impressed as I should be. Don't get me wrong, it's very good and some parts of it are masterful, but. . . well, I wouldn't call it kitsch, but over-rated certainly fits the bill.

I think that Watchmen is something of a sacred cow. Not in the "it's rubbish but everyone thinks it's good" sense but in the sense that it's something that simply has to be good. there's too much social capital invested in it for it to be otherwise. In effect, Watchmen is a validation of superhero comics as serious art. There are lots of pieces of sequential art out there but superhero comics tend to be poorly written, fascistic, escapist trash. Watchmen is a protective shield around the entire form. Any criticism you want to level at superheroes can be dismissed with reference to Watchmen.

I do have problems with it, first and foremost is its complete redundancy. So superheroes are fascistic and really not a good idea? really? d'yuh think? any satire aimed at superheroes is a satire that is directed at an easy target. As a wider piece of social satire, Watchmen is extremely heavy handed and not particularly insightful. There's little engagement with the real politics of the cold war, there's just a rather cosmetic obsession with symbols. For example, in addition to the Vietnam war (a war that could just as easily be laid at the feet of LBJ) Nixon also banned US research into chemical weapons and adopted a foreign policy that was, in places, extremely pragmatic (see the rapprochement with China). But rather than engaging with Nixon's actual historical record, Moore instead engages with him as a two dimensional counter-culture boogieman. This is an MO that stretches across Moore's work and while interesting in and of itself, is an artist's vision of the world. Not an analyst's.

If Watchmen had appeared as a book instead of a comic I suspect people would have applauded the use of symbols and the modernist fractured narrative but as a piece of social and cultural politics, Watchmen is actually not particularly interesting or biting. It says obvious things about obvious targets.

hot_locket wrote:My review: When important dramatic weight is given to horrible Nixon impersonations lasting more than 10 seconds, you know you have a winner on your hands.

You didn't even mention the makeup!

The most useful review I've seen yet.

In some ways I think the fact that superhero fans have elevated Watchmen to "holy grail" status shows that they kind of missed the point about it. They embrace the "kitsch" elements like Rorschach being a "badass" (trust me, many comic fans aren't so much farther from Snyder than you'd think), the "epic" theme and the inverted Charlton superhero characterizations. Even "real" critics focus more on the political content of Watchmen than the construction of the narrative, which to me, at least, was the REAL point of the series. It was basically about two comic book guys playing around with the comic book form by using a variety of narrative devices they felt would be unique ONLY to the comic form. The overlapping timelines, the juxtaposition of staccato panel layouts with fluid, sequential ones, etc,. Part of the fun of Watchmen was flipping back and forth between pages and comparing panels that were staged from different perspectives, which in some ways is the same as POV shots in cinema, but in other ways also like comparing photographs taken of the same situation. But because comics are made up of a sequence of panels to tell a situation, the staging was done to get the most out of that aspect of comics. Another advantage of the comic form is that they were able to strategically leave out certain things/actions/ideas BETWEEN panels, which you wouldn't get in cinema (as the eye is looking non stop).

Now, I'm not saying that comics haven't done this before in isolated cases, but Watchmen tried to bring together all the storytelling devices unique ONLY TO comics. That should have been its claim to fame but critics and fans focus WAY TOO MUCH on the politics, so-called commentary and this "subverting of superheroes" crap. They are basically coming into the comic and reviewing it like an essay or novel, which was never, EVER the point of Watchmen. Even Moore sheepishly admits that much of the political awareness in Watchmen was from a much younger, greener Alan Moore (although he was still probably smarter back then than most people are today).

Most importantly though, Gibbons and Moore both basically admit that they never set out to make any "deep" commentary on anything. Sure, they did a lot of research and stuff, but basically they tried to have fun and do something a bit different with the archetypes they grew up with as kids. That may be a disappointment to many fans and reviewers imagining a bunch of James Joyces throwing a dozen rough drafts into the fireplace in their frustration to "make art", but basically, it's as simple as that.

In short, the over-reading of the thematic content in Watchmen isn't too far off from the people who've spent years analyzing the meaning of "Rosebud" in Citizen Kane, something that Welles probably spent less than an hour or two thinking about.

That overanalyzation is what makes people come back to watch again. It is what makes people remember. Excluding pure entertainment from watching.

I just got out from seeing it and was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. One of the things that I remember from reading the comics years ago was that you weren't reading about perfect heros doing perfect things for perfect reasons. It seemed like from that point on superheros all across the board become much more culpable for their actions. The "gods" of comic books were made to look mortal. I think tries to accomplish the same thing. I enjoyed this far more than I did the Dark Knight. Yes there were redundant moments but it accomplished something that I feel most comic movies try to gloss over with a holier than thou attitude. I find it to be primarily about deconstructing the notion of the perfect here, which so far, has been what comic movies have been all about.

anyone see this yet? almost as good as the youtube cartoon

That overanalyzation is what makes people come back to watch again. It is what makes people remember. Excluding pure entertainment from watching.

Sure, these little details add to the long term mystique of a work. These readings add to the solidity of the world in inhabits, its depth of vision. But it's still basically really only scratching the surface, which is a problem when reviews focus ENTIRELY on the details and not the core.

I think there's been a reluctance to evaluate Watchmen as a purely comic-book work and how it utilizes a visual language unique only to comics. Mainstream critics come at it from a socio-political angle, while superhero fans come at it from a archetypal angle. But there's really very little analysis out there of Watchmen from a COMIC BOOK LANGUAGE angle. They read the comic but they don't really think about how the comic book form actually works, because it's almost intuitive. Yet, there is a science to it that's still quite unexplored. For cinema, there are plenty of critics who look at any particular film and judge the STRUCTURE of the film, and how it utilizes the cinematic form to communicate its situations or ideas. You look at at say, a Los Angeles Times review of a comic and you get basically a review of a novel or essay. It's fascinating for sure, but you can't help but think they're missing something.

But this has nothing to do with the Watchmen movie anyway. I just wanted to kind of rant about how the current hype/acclaim for the Watchmen franchise still vastly ignores the comic book form itself. It's like critics think of it as a novel that just happens to be told in pictures while fanboys think of it as some Super-Deep Commentary on the Theoretical Existence of Superheroes That Elevates Their Favourite Fantasies to Literature. And quite frankly, I think Watchmen looks a bit dated from both of these common angles it is seen from, even though neither camp will admit it. But as a display of pure comic book language, I think it's mighty impressive.

Wow. What a fucking mess! To be honest I went into the movie with my expectations slightly raised from reading the Ebert review. Big mistake. The movie's colossal shit from the opening onward. The screenplay is passable but far from satisfactory. The direction and camera-work, though, is even worse than we thought. How the hell anyone lets Zack Snyder touch a camera is beyond me. The film begins with a ridiculous scene of the Comedian watching the McLaughlin Group in a scene that way overplays the satire. And it goes on for ever. The entire film has an absurd feel to it, from the bad make-up jobs on and all of the cameos by historical figures and celebrities. Instead of an alternative 1980s we're confronted with cute jokes and where's Waldo moments. The violence is over the top and completely unbelievable (if no one except Dr. Manhattan has superpowers how is it that Laurie can split people's arms in two and Ozymadias can jump twenty feet straight in the air?). Snyder of course kept in the comic book's least successful scene - Dan and Laurie's fight with the topknots in the alley - and made it ridiculous. The horror is gone from the ending. No one is traumatized by it. The characters all react as if told that their third cousin's favorite cat had been run over by a car. Jackie Earle Haley gives one of the film's few great performances and Billy Crudup is a good Dr. Manhattan. Adrian Veidt's character remains surprisingly intact - he is not overly villainized - but the complexity of his decision is sort of glossed over. The moral conundrum of the finale is still there but it loses its strength by leaving out Moore's critique of the comic book hero and the political themes. There is no mention of Rorschach's idolization of Truman, weakening the irony of his final decision. Snyder's film boils down to this: a regular shallow comic book movie + Dr. Manhattan. Manhattan is one of the few successful elements from the book that are well translated. I imagine the people who are responding to this film are responding to that. Everything else is completely by the numbers. And the movie just looks ugly. Matrix-type fight scenes, slow-motion and speed-ups, ridiculous camera work and laughable SNL-type satire. I could go on and on because I know the experience will be completely gone from my mind in a few days. It's ultimately quite forgettable.

Snyder of course kept in the comic book's least successful scene - Dan and Laurie's fight with the topknots in the alley - and made it ridiculous.

I'm not sure how that scene could have gotten any more ridiculous. It was painful to read.

When I hear about movies being awful I get the urge to see them. I don't know why, I hate it. Must be some kind of masochistic streak. I should stay out of this thread to prevent any further damage to myself.

milk114 wrote:anyone see this yet? almost as good as the youtube cartoon

I'd actually much rather see a Watchmen from any of those directors. The most amusing thing about it was the subtext that Snyder has no personality or style.

Just watched it. Positives: Jackie Earle Haley. It's incredible that this guy dissapeared for 2 decades and has given his second straight great performance. Negatives- direction, slow motion porn and fucking score/soundtrack and campy impersonations. I blame the story changes on the direction, or lack of, from Snyder. The slow motion shows that he is a one trick pony and the musical editor should be shot. The music took so much away from the focus of the story that it was distracting, but the Nixon, Kissinger, Buchanan and other celebrities impersonation were so bad that they made the audience uncomfortable. The rest of the cast was decent and did the best job posible considering the lack of direction. Since I expected this film to be as bad as The Spirit, I was surprised to see how much I didn't hate it after I left the theater.

Yeah, I liked it more than I thought I might, based on how much I hated 300.

Snyder's greatest failure may be his inability to visualize Dr. Manhattan's perception of time. Unlike humans, he explains, he experiences all moments at once. But Snyder merely communicates this with a stock collection of flashbacks, with no strong point-of-view or compelling editing structure. When this device serves as the basis of a major revelation—one that wasn't built-up-to in a compelling fashion to begin with—it comes off as completely clumsy and unconvincing.

Writer Caitlin Kiernan weighs in on Watchmen. I was actually surprised by her thoughts because I thought she'd hate it.

I saw this yesterday with some friends and we all agreed that the film is really bad. It is boring, banal, and way to fond of cliches, especially in the choice of music which often subverts any intelligent point that the film is trying to make. The film is also in opposition with the source material because in Snyder's hands a Leftist masterpiece has been turned into a commercial that legitimizes the last eight years of the Bush dictatorship because it kept us safe. For my money, Snyder is a akin to Tarantino in trying to replicate a sense of coolness that only fizzles out. Yet, I will give Snyder credit that he is a politically aware filmmaker, too bad for him that he is celebrating a cause that has been responsible for destroying the world's equilibrium and has led the US to a point where it is viewed as the worst nation/aggressor on the planet. Moreover, he is clearly celebrating throughout the film a belief that only the private sector/global corporate capitalism can bring about real lasting change no matter the human or intellectual cost involved.
Most of the acting is overwrought with leadenness but Jackie Earle Haley and Patrick Wilson (Nite Owl) are quite good. Much of the look of the film feels extremely flat which is in keeping with Snyder's over-reliance on CGI work to create his sense of the world. When he is not using CGI then he is borrowing heavily from films to establish setting: the war room scenes closely resemble the war room scenes in Dr. Strangelove, the cemetary sequences were similar to those in Dick Tracy with the camera gliding through the wrought iron fence, the crater of New York resembles the news footage of the world Trade center after 9/11.
In addition to these many flaws there are a number of gratuitous shots of the Twin Towers of the world trade center as they tower over the cemetary, we can see them from Veidt's office window, when Nite Owl and Silk Spectre save the people in the fire, etc. While I recognize that the film is time specific to 1984-1985, Snyder's constant inclusion of the Towers seems to me to be a choice that is dictated by more than a necessity to replicate the geographic space of New York in the 1980s. It seems that he is arguing that if the US had done away with term limits and elected a no-nonsense President who disregards law and order and humanity then we would be better off as a nation and perhaps so would the world. I do not believe that the recent interest in the period of 1973-74 and Richard Nixon is merely coincidence, after all in Frost/Nixon one could make the argument that what is driving the interest in that film is a desire by us to see someone take responsibility for their evil actions. After all neither Chaney or Bush will ever have to truly pay for the terrors that they have inflicted on the US and the planet.
Finally I would point out that many of the references such as the McLaughlin group, Dick Cavett and others will be completely unfamiliar with younger viewers. They will not have the necessary knowledge to understand the fear that actually gripped many of us who lived through the 1980s and were fearful of nuclear war between the US and the U.S.S.R. In the end what Snyder's vision shows is that he is a pedestrian filmmaker with a right-wing ideological point of view that he will continue to espouse no matter the facts or outcome of these misguided principles.

I'm actually indifferent to this one. All I could think is it was better than 300, which I found to be a crushing bore. This one was stop and go, though, its pacing just all over the place. Sadly I think the only sequence I really liked was the opening credits, which gave a sort of condensed history. The action scenes were rather bad, and that jail scene was even worse on the big screen.

I thought Jackie Earle Haley was great, the best thing about the movie. I think his final scene had a real punch to it that the movie could have used more of. I was disappointed they cut out most of the psych stuff involving his character. I thought Crudup made a decent Manhattan and liked Wilson. And I'll even give props to Matt Frewer for his small role.

Music selections were sort of bizarre and really called attention to themselves (though thought the choice for the opening credits worked.) The Nixon stuff was awful. And I'm still not completely sure who Carla Gugino is but based on this and that shit stain Righteous Kill I have to consider her one of the worst actresses out there right now. God, she's awful.

cdnchris wrote:And I'm still not completely sure who Carla Gugino is but based on this and that shit stain Righteous Kill I have to consider her one of the worst actresses out there right now. God, she's awful.

Well, Carla Gugino isn't cast in films for her acting ability, but for her other assets.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Well, Carla Gugino isn't cast in films for her acting ability, but for her other assets.

That's probably true, but I loved Karen Sisco.

Just saw it and, to let you know the important caveats for the review, I haven't read the novel and thought 300 was a good time-waster.

Of course, Watchmen was both too long and too short. They should have either jettisoned the faithfulness and cut it down to the 105-minute range or stayed faithful and made a mini-series. The plot gets rolling then we stop for character stories. Well, let's get to know these people and their alternate world. Oh, wait, now we're back into the Who's Killing The Watchmen plot. Some more high-flying action adventure. Oh, wait, now that grinds to a halt as we go into another back character story.

All of the musical interludes are terrible except the last one and the acting ranges from good to horrible. Snyder is an ok action director (I won't scoff at anyone who can direct action where I can tell what's going on after Quantum of Solace) but, my, he cannot direct a dialogue sequence at all. They are all in tight headshots, often with the forehead cut off. It was like watching a movie of floating heads from the Worst DVD Covers thread.

Otherwise, from what I've read from when I got home, the new ending is a vast improvement over the original (a giant squid? really?) and the complexity of the design is interesting and would bear repeat viewings.

I was thrown, however, by a misconception when I went in. I thought this was going to be a movie about ordinary people (with one exception) in an alternate universe who run around like superheroes because of their twisted psychology. Instead it's a movie about superheroes who are just like the superheroes in comic books but have a more fleshed-out world and psychological profiles grafted on. Is this the way it is in the original work or was it changed for the movie?

All in all, I'm not sure I'd read the book now after seeing the movie (a giant squid? really?).

BrianInAtlanta wrote:I was thrown, however, by a misconception when I went in. I thought this was going to be a movie about ordinary people (with one exception) in an alternate universe who run around like superheroes because of their twisted psychology. Instead it's a movie about superheroes who are just like the superheroes in comic books but have a more fleshed-out world and psychological profiles grafted on. Is this the way it is in the original work or was it changed for the movie?

Thats my largest beef with the film. Snyder has what are supposed to be regular people kicking thugs twenty feet into brick walls and hopping absurd heights to grab onto fire escapes, etc. There are many instances of this. My mother went to see the film and thought they all had some sort of powers, just nothing as deity-esque as Dr. Manhattan. In fact she really didnt understand many aspects of the story because they are barely explained or totally glossed over.

I don't see how anyone would think these are normal people based on Snyder's direction unless they knew beforehand. The power-ranger sound effects and fists breaking through walls in the opening fight set a truly awful precedent for the rest of the film.

Grand Wazoo wrote:Thats my largest beef with the film. Snyder has what are supposed to be regular people kicking thugs twenty feet into brick walls and hopping absurd heights to grab onto fire escapes, etc.

Yes, that's it. A novice such as myself was led to believe all these people had physical abilities far beyond the human norm. There wasn't even any room for movie physics.

Still, it was more believeable than The Dark Knight.

Jeff wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:Well, Carla Gugino isn't cast in films for her acting ability, but for her other assets.

That's probably true, but I loved Karen Sisco.

She was good on Spin City before she got fired for being good on Spin City

Carla's supposed to be tremendous in Desire Under the Elms with Brian Dennehy, which is coming to Broadway next month.

BrianInAtlanta wrote: I was thrown, however, by a misconception when I went in. I thought this was going to be a movie about ordinary people (with one exception) in an alternate universe who run around like superheroes because of their twisted psychology. Instead it's a movie about superheroes who are just like the superheroes in comic books but have a more fleshed-out world and psychological profiles grafted on. Is this the way it is in the original work or was it changed for the movie?

I think that there are two ways to answer this issue depending upon what you mean.

If you mean that they're just like super-heroes in the sense that they do heroic stuff like kicking ass etc then yes. Creation of the film.

However, if you mean that they behave like super heroes in that they fill the same role then it is partly in the book. Moore's deconstruction of the super hero genre only goes so far. Watchmen's only engagement with the surrealism of people dressing up in costumes and taking on lives of vigilantes is at the level of the art direction; the mis-match between the gritty realism of the day to day scenes and the 4 colour camp of the scenes with the Watchmen themselves. the incongruity of costumed super-heroes is something you buy into when you pick up the book, the case isn't made for it.

I haven't seen the film yet but I'm interested by the reports that Snyder a) waters down the visual campness... making the film look more gritty and 'realistic' and b) turns up the lack of realism in the action scenes. The original Watchmen walked an incredibly precarious knife edge in terms of its ontological grounding and I think Snyder pisses about with it in subtle ways. Whether this improves or kills the film I shall comment upon when I actually see it.

Not that it means anything, but the New York Red Bulls apparently didn't care for it.

We went to see Watchmen as a team and, for the guys who actually made it through the whole movie, regretted it afterward.

jbeall wrote:Not that it means anything, but the New York Red Bulls apparently didn't care for it.

We went to see Watchmen as a team and, for the guys who actually made it through the whole movie, regretted it afterward.

If players of the most boring sport on earth can't even make it through this, I'm definitely avoiding it.