Stay far away from Sucker Punch, holy shit that movie.
― circa1916, Sunday, 7 August 2011 01:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
never get tired of laughing at "Superman Returns is going to be legendary"
― some dude, Sunday, 7 August 2011 02:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
I still don't see what's so bad about it. It's about as faithful to the comic as a film's going to get.
― Why'd You Wanna Tweet Me So Bad? (dog latin), Sunday, 7 August 2011 02:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
Watchmen, that is
― Why'd You Wanna Tweet Me So Bad? (dog latin), Sunday, 7 August 2011 02:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
I watched it just before reading the book admittedly. Maybe my opinion would change were I to watch it again. I dunno.
― Why'd You Wanna Tweet Me So Bad? (dog latin), Sunday, 7 August 2011 02:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
"about as faithful to the comic as a film's going to get"
that's where it went wrong, though. Because the comic was (in addition to everything else) a very formalist critique of the comic form and movies are a very different medium. For one, they have moving images. Or at least THEY SHOULD.
― like working at a jewelry store and not knowing about bracelets (Dr. Superman), Sunday, 7 August 2011 02:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
and "Hallelujah" wasn't in the comic
::shudder::
― L.P. Hovercraft (WmC), Sunday, 7 August 2011 02:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
Edelstein pretty well summed up how noisily lifeless i think it is ("Watchmen is dead on the screen, but I gotta admit it's some corpse: huge, loud and gaseously distended by its own dystopia"), but i'm also one of the only people who doesn't think the source material was all that perfect to begin with.
― some dude, Sunday, 7 August 2011 02:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
tons of people don't care for the comic. that said, alex in sf otm when he said the movie was completely tone deaf to the material - i think that's really the key problem with the movie from which all the littler problems emanate
― http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKbsdMRqhcI (Princess TamTam), Sunday, 7 August 2011 03:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah i guess that must be true -- i just got a very "that's it? that's all? van damme" feeling when i read it
― some dude, Sunday, 7 August 2011 03:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah the movie got EVERYTHING wrong tone-wise. and theme-wise for that matter.
― king of torts (strongo hulkington's ghost dad), Sunday, 7 August 2011 03:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
like i realize its probably hard to get any blockbuster greenlit w/ actors over 30 who are remotely less-than-beautiful, but the fact that theyre middle aged, blemished, baggy skined frumps is kinda the whole goddamn point.
― king of torts (strongo hulkington's ghost dad), Sunday, 7 August 2011 03:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
actors too good-looking was really the least of its problems
― some dude, Sunday, 7 August 2011 03:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
well yeah.
― king of torts (strongo hulkington's ghost dad), Sunday, 7 August 2011 03:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
although Malin Akerman is definitely one of the most astoundingly talentless model-turned-actresses to ever headline a major Hollywood flick (xpost)
― some dude, Sunday, 7 August 2011 03:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
i mean zach snyder is michael bay on adhd meds so i wasnt expecting anything above the level of "adolescence-raping horror" but ugh.
― king of torts (strongo hulkington's ghost dad), Sunday, 7 August 2011 03:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
I remember almost nothing about this movie
― g++ (gbx), Sunday, 7 August 2011 03:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
snyder's more like bay on ritalin since the super fast cutting isnt really his bag... im much more willing to believe that snyder could make a good movie one day than bay could
i didnt find any of the cast to be excessively beautiful. laurie's not supposed to be a baggy frump, and patrick wilson captured dan's essential goobertude pretty well. most of the acting is quite bad but i dont really blame the actors for that
― http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKbsdMRqhcI (Princess TamTam), Sunday, 7 August 2011 03:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh i missed the "on adhd meds" part
love the graphic novel, but this movie was bleh
― Neanderthal, Sunday, 7 August 2011 04:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
patrick wilson totally did a standup job
― some dude, Sunday, 7 August 2011 04:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
only place where the casting falls down is an ozymandias that everyone in the cinema could destroy in a fight
― 10/11 of a dead jesus (darraghmac), Sunday, 7 August 2011 08:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
matthew goode more like matthew bade
― some dude, Sunday, 7 August 2011 11:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
fucking awful film
― Once Were Moderators (DG), Sunday, 7 August 2011 11:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
the comic was a big part of my childhood and i seem to be the only person on earth who found nothing except "hallelujah" to object to in the movie
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
hey I'm just trying to save you guys from wasting yr hard-earned kopecks on this movie. You'll thank me later
― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 18 July 2008 19:09 (3 years ago)
― Richard Nixon's Field of Warmth (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 8 August 2011 04:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
Grant Morrison defended this movie in a recent interview; maybe he'll get Snyder to do Invisibles or We3?
― Philip Nunez, Monday, 8 August 2011 04:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
dude he already has the producer of League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen and the Transformers movies on We3
― generous loller at dollies (sic), Monday, 8 August 2011 05:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
this totally seems like it would be in Gmo's wheelhouse
― http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKbsdMRqhcI (Princess TamTam), Monday, 8 August 2011 05:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Once Were Moderators (DG), Monday, 8 August 2011 10:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
you said that a few posts ago.
― Why'd You Wanna Tweet Me So Bad? (dog latin), Monday, 8 August 2011 11:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
"fucking awful film"
― Once Were Moderators (DG), Monday, 8 August 2011 11:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
awful fucking film
― Number None, Monday, 8 August 2011 11:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
fifth pilfered filthy pilchard falafel
― Why'd You Wanna Tweet Me So Bad? (dog latin), Monday, 8 August 2011 11:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
to be fair, this film was fucking awful
― Once Were Moderators (DG), Monday, 8 August 2011 11:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
and there was awful fucking
― Number None, Monday, 8 August 2011 11:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's awfully fucked
― Millsner, Monday, 8 August 2011 11:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
I liked it too.
I wonder if the point of the hallelujah bit is to make you go "jesus christ this is disgusting", just as it would be if you were actually watching two old fetish people getting it on?
― The New Dirty Vicar, Monday, 8 August 2011 12:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
I doubt it. Also neither of them are old
― Number None, Monday, 8 August 2011 12:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
dont really see how malin akerman is disgusting unless you hate people with oblong heads
fucking awful film mind you
― Once Were Moderators (DG), Monday, 8 August 2011 12:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
im much more willing to believe that snyder could make a good movie one day than bay could
He already did, it was called "Dawn of the Dead."
― Dave Zuul (Phil D.), Monday, 8 August 2011 13:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah yeah i know. i liked DotD, though it's pretty clear now that James Gunn's script is why it was good. bay also made The Rock which was a good movie, but im positive he'll never make that mistake again.
― http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKbsdMRqhcI (Princess TamTam), Monday, 8 August 2011 13:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
The Rock was not a good movie. [/objective scientific view]
― The New Dirty Vicar, Monday, 8 August 2011 14:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol I actually saw some of this on TV the other day - was kinda worth it for my wife's lolzy reactions, but not really
― satisfying punishment for that thing he said about lesbians (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 22 August 2011 16:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/books/dc-comics-plans-prequels-to-watchmen-series.html
― James Mitchell, Wednesday, 1 February 2012 12:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
Brian Azzarello, a comics author who is writing the mini-series for the Watchmen characters Rorschach and the Comedian, said he expected an initial wave of resistance because “a lot of comic readers don’t like new things.”
er...
― ledge, Wednesday, 1 February 2012 12:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
“It’s our responsibility as publishers to find new ways to keep all of our characters relevant,” said DC Entertainment Co-Publishers Dan DiDio and Jim Lee. “After twenty five years, the Watchmen are classic characters whose time has come for new stories to be told. We sought out the best writers and artists in the industry to build on the complex mythology of the original.”
― James Mitchell, Wednesday, 1 February 2012 12:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
I love how Alan Moore just gives the same response he always gives to everything.
― The New Dirty Vicar, Wednesday, 1 February 2012 12:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
“I think the gut reaction is going to be, ‘Why?’ ” Mr. Azzarello said in a telephone interview. “But then when the actual books come out, the answer will be, ‘Oh, that’s why.’
― Wie wol ich bin der vogel has noch den erfret mich das (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 13:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
the accounting books
― flags post o fu (darraghmac), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 13:14 (1 year ago) Permalink