Superhero Filmmakers: Where's Our Watchmen?

Hi! My name's Austin and I read "Society of the Spectacle" once in an undergraduate art history class.

> 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.

Proof that Denby hasn't read the book. And also that he doesn't understand Gibbons is as responsible for the book as Moore, but that's a less relevant beef at this time.

Proof that Denby hasn't read the book.

Lane, not Denby!

hey are too busy fussing over the fate of the human race—a sure sign of metaphysical vulgarity—to be bothered with lesser plights

Classic.

> Lane, not Denby!

WHAT-EVER!

zing:

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. The result is perfectly calibrated for its target group: nobody over twenty-five could take any joy from the savagery that is fleshed out onscreen, just as nobody under eighteen should be allowed to witness it. You want to see Rorschach swing a meat cleaver repeatedly into the skull of a pedophile, and two dogs wrestle over the leg bone of his young victim? Go ahead. You want to see the attempted rape of a superwoman, her bright latex costume cast aside and her head banged against the baize of a pool table? 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.”

OK, he read it. But he can't make up his mind about it from one sentence to the next.

> Moore, is so insanely aroused by the look of vengeance, and by the stylized application of physical power

> nobody over twenty-five could take any joy from the savagery that is fleshed out onscreen, just as nobody under eighteen should be allowed to witness it.

which is it?

I don't understand your confusion. His point is that only teenaged boys would get a kick out of the violence.

Whether his fellow-Watchmen have true superpowers, as opposed to a pathological bent for fisticuffs,I never quite worked out = "I sent an intern to watch this for me."

The first sentence indicates he thinks Moore is hot for the carnage, Alfred.

Lane is clearly not a comic book fan; the first paragraph telegraphs that like an SOS. This is what a cursory read of the book and sitting through the film feels like for a non-comic book fan. It ain't the target audience.

Do you think a fan of comic books would have given this a better review?

Well, I'm a fan of comic books and this one in particular. Although I haven't seen the movie, I expect it to suck and I think I've made it clear why.

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

uh

I am all for "it tried to do [x] but that didn't work" criticism but srsly this is pretty grim source material so criticizing it for not being funny seems to be basic point-missing.

I think a fan of comic books would've given this a _different_ review. Most of what Lane centers on in his criticism are issues that wouldn't stop any fan of the comic from buying a ticket. We already know about the child rapist and the dog, we know about the Miller-esque Rorschach dialogue and the dystopian powertrip grumblings. They're a given but a fan of the book (or of good comics in general) forgives the trappings for the meat underneath. Lane doesn't.

I know it's a controversial position, but I have no opinion on the quality of this film until after I've seen it.

I find it hard to believe you don't have some first impressions, based on your current handle.

There's a difference to having an opinion on the movie and having an opinion on the reviews of it. I may end up hating this but that doesn't change the fact that I think most of the reviews linked here have been garbage.

My first impressions are that it looks like a slavish recreation of a comic book in film form; i.e. Sin City redux. I thought Sin City was okay for what it was, but not a great film. I think this is gonna make a lot of money and that, chances are, I likely won't be enthralled.
But I'm attempting to withhold judgment until after I see the thing.

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

hahaha

"and where's snoopy? i like snoopy."

This entails a whisk through history from the nineteen-forties to the eighties, with shots of masked figures shaking hands with John F. Kennedy, posing with Andy Warhol, and so forth; these are staged like Annie Leibovitz setups, and, indeed, just to ram home the in-joke, we later see a Leibovitz look-alike behind a camera. But must we have “The Times They Are A-Changin’ ” in the background? How long did it take the producers to arrive at that imaginative choice?

was in the book u fuckin tarddd

"anthony lane, springfield shopper. who are you and where are you going?"

wau, that username

This film could have been fantastic, a great start to a long line of sequels, but they leave no room at the end to even have a sequel, let alone want one.

A real head-scratcher from the Moviehole review ^

So the value of a movie can be found in how well it sets itself up for a sequel?!? That's certainly an original line of criticism!

that moviehole "review" by "ashley" is fake. look at the byline.

I think the byline is a typo. I'm pretty sure the actual reviewer is Ashley Hillard - a real person who writes reviews for Moviehole.

The review is far too pedestrian to be a joke.

http://nymag.com/movies/reviews/55005/

At last, a decently written review, from David Edelstein. He doesn't like it either, but at least his critique focusses on the film-making, unlike Lane's weird all-superheroes-are-fascists-where-are-the-lols? hissy fit.

That New York Mag review is pretty much EXACTLY what I'm expecting to see.

I kind of expect that, too, only that's what I'm looking forward to so this is basically confirming that the movie is going to meet my expectations.

That Lane review actually made me really angry when I first read it

Not me! You can see how calmly I reacted.

clearly!

He was just so damn smug about missing the point!

4 stars from Empire, but it was always going to be.

as I was driving through Kentucky yesterday, the oldies radio DJ said "have you heard about that movie coming out called Watchmen?". other dj said "yeah, it's supposed to be one of those animated movies isn't it?". first DJ says "it's one of those new computer animated movies... about superheros"

Ebert's review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090304/REVIEWS/903049997

huh that's a surprise

Ebert's awful taste is a surprise?

guess the critic:

Neither political satire nor camp, it fails the unique, fantasy mix of classicism and modernism that distinguished both 300 and Vin Diesel’s The Chronicles of Riddick.

Rex Reed.

Armond White

you get a cookie

guess the critic:

oh come on give us a hard one

Should I see Chronicles of Riddick?

How much do you enjoy stabbing yourself in the nuts?

don't be Riddick-ulous

It's low on my list of preferred activities.

"Combining elements of Hamlet, Dune and Vin Diesel running in slow-motion; Riddick essentially becomes William Shakespeare's first video game."

"Riddick is a loner, Dottie, a rebel. He's a simple man, like Pee-Wee Herman, who is not concerned with getting the girl. But, unlike Pee-Wee, poor Riddick doesn't even have a bicycle for companionship."

"A virtuoso exercise in world creation, a plot-heavy epic that's like a breath of fresh air in a time when movie stars and high concepts pass for science-fiction."

to bad they never got to make the sequel where Riddick marries a fruit salad