Medium Large

Friday, March 6, 2009

Posted in 1 by cesco7 on March 6, 2009

medlarge8341
Today’s Link: My Short and Personal Review
Today’s FUN Link: Watchmen: The Saturday Morning Cartoon
Nice Link from a Good Friend
Programming Note: I’ll be on Get in Bed with Brian and Sara on Cosmo Radio tonight at 9 PM (EST), Sirius Channel 111 and XM Channel 162.

About these ads

22 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Jim said, on March 6, 2009 at 11:17 am

    So I’m guessing the movie wasn’t what you expected, Ces?

  2. Tim said, on March 6, 2009 at 11:18 am

    Victim of it’s own hype, or just meh. Will it be a better movie a year from now when you can view it without thinking of the six month media carpet bomb we’ve been subjected too?

  3. Michael Ezra said, on March 6, 2009 at 11:27 am

    Well, the majority of critics (including Rogert Ebert amongst many others) say it’s worth seeing, and even the hardcore nerd buzz on the Internet is positive (a rarity, as hardcore comics nerds are rarely happy about _anything_). So I’m still going to see it. (But not for a while, as I’ve mentioned previously…will wait for the crowds to subside.)

  4. Chris Opperman said, on March 6, 2009 at 11:29 am

    did you really not enjoy it, ces?

  5. cesco7 said, on March 6, 2009 at 11:39 am

    It was the odd–and the ultimately impossible to address–realization that the movie felt it need far more depth, more background for both the characters and the alternate reality yet was far too long of a film. In short, the visuals were incredible, the admittedly few action sequences were remarkable and the allegiance the director showed to the source material was exceptionally admirable. As most reviewers said, the opening six-minute montage is a work of genius and yes, had that approach somehow been maintained throughout the movie this might very well have been if not a brilliant film than an exceptionally entertaining one. However, to do that one would have to have created a whole new version of “Watchmen” that could breath within the confines of a film’s length but, alas, would only irate the book’s legions of admirers.

    I by no means wish to take the standard but pointless approach of “put something up on a podium only to knock it down.” (One I can completely understand people accusing me of after a full week of “Watchmen” strips). I think Zach Snyder should be applauded for what he did and I fear most directors who work on an adaptation are setting themselves up for a thankless task, not because of any lacking in their skills but because favorite books have played out so often in the minds of their fans without concern of such film necessities as time length and feasibility that they cannot possibly meet expectations.

    My short review is that it was a triumph of technical skill and sheer–for lack of a better word–gumption on the part of Snyder, the cast (especially Haley and Wilson) and everyone involved. By no means should their hard work be dismissed so easily. But, alas, I found the movie dull and often realized I was watching a movie, which leads me to believe I failed to connect with it.

    But that is one man’s opinion (much as the above strip is in no way meant to represent what I think the general opinion is nor how believe others should perceive it). Was I victim of my own hype? (I can’t blame others for such because marketing is marketing). Almost certainly. But all I can say is that I felt the time drag and my spirits deflate with it.

    Of course, if you want to see the movie by all means do so. you may love it and you have ever right to tell me I am way, WAY off on my assessment. I look forward to your opinions.

  6. cesco7 said, on March 6, 2009 at 11:44 am

    Michael: It is worth seeing (especially on the big screen) because for all of the faults I may have perceived you still have seen nothing like it before. And I’m really happy the hardcore “nerd” buzz is positive because the last thing I want is for all these people to have put so much time and effort into a movie only to be met with indifference.

    I think my comic may be perceived as too negative and perhaps that is the result of writing something immediately after having seen the movie at 5 this morning. Please, go see the film. I hope as many people as possible enjoy it because who would wish others to have an unsatisfactory time?

  7. Michael Ezra said, on March 6, 2009 at 12:06 pm

    Ces: No need to justify your opinion or apologize for it being “too negative.” If you didn’t like it, you didn’t like it. I hope you didn’t feel I was saying our opinion is “wrong” just because it differs from that of Ebert and the beloved hardcore nerd-base. :-)

    I do take it as a given that no film could ever fully do justice to the original comic. The same is generally true for film adaptations of prose works, except for Michael Chrichton and John Grisham novels which are written specifically with Hollywood treatments in mind.

  8. Naked Bunny with a Whip said, on March 6, 2009 at 12:13 pm

    I found the movie dull

    So it really is a faithful adaptation!

    Yeah, I liked the graphic novel, but it did drag a lot.

    I will buy the DVD, but I can’t go to a theater nowadays, dangit.

  9. jfruh said, on March 6, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    Thanks for resetting my expectations, Ces, after I read a couple of glowing reviews. I feel that it’s easier to enjoy an adaption of something you’re emotionally attached to if you don’t have high hopes for it, if you follow me. I still am miffed that you can’t see Night Owl’s beer gut in his costume.

  10. Nicolai said, on March 6, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    Maybe this adaptation will be more fun:

  11. El Santo said, on March 6, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    I haven’t seen the movie, but … well, based on the reviews, even the positive ones, I think Ces might be on the money. The positive buzz I’ve encountered, by the way, leans toward the “well, it wasn’t as deep as the book, but it was impossible to film the movie any other way” type.

  12. Pirk said, on March 6, 2009 at 2:49 pm

    just think, they’re almost out of Alan Moore stuff to make movies out of . . . they might even have to make a Lost Girls movie

  13. Chance said, on March 6, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    All the points Ces makes are valid. That said, I think the parts of the movie that work more than make up for the parts that don’t. Jackie Earl Haley’s performance (as Rorschach) alone is worth the price of admission.

  14. cesco7 said, on March 6, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    I agree. Jackie Earl Haley is remarkable in the movie. It does my heart good to see people like him and Mickey Rourke get their second act.

  15. El Santo said, on March 6, 2009 at 8:59 pm

    High five, Pirk!

  16. Charles Brubaker said, on March 8, 2009 at 1:40 am

    Funny I read this. Alan Moore actually hates how the movie came out

    http://www.totalfilm.com/features/exclusive-why-alan-moore-hates-comic-book-movies

  17. Schlimmerkerl said, on March 8, 2009 at 12:49 pm

    So you were at the opening Friday night? Me too.

  18. Pirk said, on March 8, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    Haley did the Christian Bale batman voice except it didn’t sound ridiculous

  19. Chris Opperman said, on March 8, 2009 at 10:16 pm

    I watched it.
    :(

    Chris

  20. Lindsey said, on March 9, 2009 at 2:06 pm

    I think it’s so interesting how people can get completely different impressions from it. I saw it and thought it was fantastic, I can’t wait to go back and see it again. I’d read a lot about it beforehand, such as Ces’ post and a lot of impressions, spoilers, etc, and thought I would hate it but none of those things ended up bothering me.

    Of course, I’m pretty used to seeing long movies after seeing the LOTR movies around 25 times in the theater, so the length didn’t bother me.

  21. Chris Opperman said, on March 9, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    I really enjoyed the first like 2/3rds of it, but I hated the major change they made as much as I hated Arthur Dent kissing Trillian in the H2G2 movie and V kissing Evey in V for Vendetta. It was all the more disappointing because the first 2/3rds of the movie was so faithful.

    There were a lot of amazing scenes in it, though, admittedly, and it was cool to see it on the big screen.

    Chris

  22. p said, on March 10, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    I hated the major change they made

    I know, Janey Slater actually showing up in person at the press conference?!! WTF man! I guess they just didn’t expect people to swallow the far-fetched idea that Manhatten freaks out due solely to the cancer revelations (and I guess it wouldn’t have worked on film), but that’s Hollywood for you.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 190 other followers

%d bloggers like this: