Features
Headlines
Search
Archives
(I was going to hold onto this and some more stuff until the beginning of the week, but we’re ready to go so let’s hit it during the weekend.)
I’m not one of those guys who says this work or that cannot be filmed. I don’t share the arrogance that demands faithful representation of a beloved piece of literature on the screen, and even with my own devotion to comic books and, of course, Alan Moore’s “Watchmen,” I always thought there was a great movie in there waiting to be unleashed.
I think it was Quentin Tarantino who once said he would never translate a comic book to the screen because there are just too many damn people to please. There’s some truth there, mixed with a little pomposity. I had Zack Snyder’s back. I enjoyed “Dawn of the Dead” enough and was one of “300”’s few serious vocal champions. I would have preferred a director with a penchant for grit take up the reins on “Watchmen” but I found myself curiously okay with the stylized ballet Snyder seemed to be interested in creating.
But in a nutshell, “Watchmen” damn near stole my faith in movies. Maybe that’s a stretch, but come on, it’s all up there on the screen. Minus a climax that was likely changed for the better given what will and won’t work in a film, every inch of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’s hard work is laid out for us at 24 frames per second. And you know what? It doesn’t work. And we can’t say anyone involved in the production botched the adaptation because it’s faithful to a fault.
I think we can blame the woeful, stomach-churning, cringe-worthy failure that this is on the frothing-at-the-mouth fandom that scared Snyder and company away from being creative, from understanding the value of compositing (a tactic Christopher Nolan has so expertly employed with the Batman franchise) and from, at best, realizing that the tone we manifest in our minds as we flip through a work of graphic fiction can’t be satisfied by lifting nearly every inch of hard-boiled, wordy (if eloquent) narration. God bless him for trying to please them all, but what they wanted ain’t art.
“Watchmen” is an awful, awful film.
Snyder shows no sense of rhythm here. Every musical cue is worth a cringe. Let’s throw “Desolation Row” in there at the end, you know, because the first chapter of the book is called “At Midnight All the Agents.” Get it? Let’s toss Tears For Fears’ “Everybody Wants to Rule the World” in the background of a key Ozymandias scene, you know, because we can’t help but continue the “look, it’s 1985” thing going and because it’s neat and ironic. Get it?
On and on. Let’s stick “All Along the Watchtower” in there because we have a cool shot of Rorschach and Nite Owl walking through the snow that we can match tot he lyric “two riders were approaching” for no good reason whatsoever. Let’s see if we can break “Munich”‘s record for laughs during a sex scene. Let’s have the gall to put nipples on a superhero costume after a decade of backlash against a franchise that did the same.
It’s not all on Snyder. This is the biggest of pressure projects. But two films into his career, I don’t think he ultimately had the balls to take this on, nor the experience to understand why. “Watchmen”‘s crash-and-burn ride into the annals of “all-time-worst-films-ever” territory can be placed squarely at the feet of a comic-obsessed community that demands their beloved titles receive the white glove treatment. They share Snyder’s lack of understanding that replication is folly.
Moore’s 12-installment masterpiece is, first and foremost, a success of the written word. Each chapter is littered with nuance and artful brushstrokes that ultimately could never be conveyed to the screen. I saw it with my own eyes. For example, one of the most brilliant volumes ever written (chapter 3 of “Watchmen”) played out in front of me almost to the letter, but it didn’t have that time-bending intensity it did when I read it and ascribed my own atmosphere. I was shocked: Moore was right.
There is plenty to chew on where the political fabric of this film is concerned, whether the on-the-nose paranoia works simply because it is so on-the-nose, how we might interpret the film differently a year ago, and therefore, through a different prism, etc. But all I can think of, right here and now, is how wrong every inch of this production felt, from start to finish (minus that a nifty opening credits montage).
Hey, look at the bright side: at least now we know.
Have your say in this week’s sidebar poll (and at length below, if you wish): What did you think of “Watchmen?”
56 responses so far
1 3-07-2009 at 1:33 pm
Davidraider88 said...
“Watchmen’s crash-and-burn ride into the annals of ‘all-time-worst-films-ever’”
Wow, really?
I mean ya some of the musical cues were bad and the film had its flaws, but among the worst ever? Not even clos
2 3-07-2009 at 1:38 pm
Casey Fiore said...
I liked it but thought it was really rough around the edges. Totally agree on the music cues. Playing “Hallelujah” over the sex scene was insulting. I did, however, think that it had many redeeming qualities. Jackie Earle Haley being the biggest of them. Fantastic. I also liked Wilson and Morgan. The CGI was too distracting on Doc Manhattan to even comment on Crudup. Ackerman and especially Goode ruined the fun. I didn’t like the treatment of Laurie Juspecyk either way. Truth be told I thought some scenes were brilliant, most of all being fight scenes, especially in the prison.
3 3-07-2009 at 1:38 pm
Joel said...
Couldn’t disagree with you more. But don’t worry I’m not gonna call you an idiot. :P
I absolutely loved everything about this film. Loved its spirit. Loved its complete, uncompromising faithfulness to the book’s tone.
But I loved Indiana Jones 4 and The Happening. What do I know? :P
4 3-07-2009 at 1:38 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
You left off the “territory,” an omission that changes the tone of the line you’re quoting, but yeah, it’s close. For me.
5 3-07-2009 at 1:49 pm
Davidraider88 said...
Do you really think this film is worse than Fantastic 4 or Ghost Rider or Daredevil?
6 3-07-2009 at 2:00 pm
Christian said...
I liked it, but its shortcomings all came, as Kris said, through it trying to be too faithful to the source material. As well it seems as if the filmmakers focused solely on making a good adaptation rather than a good film. After seeing the film on novel on screen pretty much verbatim, it made me realize how much of the material is unnecessary when in the context of the film. As well I did not like some of the obscure artistic choices, such as the song “Hallelujah” and its usage in the film. Even still I liked it, but it’s not perfect.
7 3-07-2009 at 2:04 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
David: “Ghost Rider” excepted, actually, yes. I do.
8 3-07-2009 at 2:43 pm
Rob Scheer said...
I actually think the faithfulness wasn’t necessarily a problem per se (though I wish the film was cut down a bit, shedding some scenes and moving brisker), but rather, I think the movie is sunk by Snyder’s stylistic choices:
– the awful music cues and awful, distracting make-up
– the cartoonish, surreal tone/aesthetics – the exact opposite of what ‘Watchmen’ is supposed to be
– the fetishistic over-the-top emphasis on gore and grotesquerie (didn’t make me squeamish, just all wrong for the movie); even Snyder’s re-created Kennedy assassination in the opening credits felt needlessly tasteless in its depiction
– making the action/fight scenes so much longer and drawn-out, replete with slo-mo and bone-crunching sound effected – you can tell these are the scenes Snyder relished, even though they’re a mere afterthought in the book
9 3-07-2009 at 2:56 pm
chad said...
Glad I’ll never see it.
10 3-07-2009 at 3:10 pm
John Foote said...
Agree Kris — sucks bad — not worse than ‘Battlefield Earth” or “Exorcist II” The Heretic”, but close — just awful…
11 3-07-2009 at 3:25 pm
Zan said...
Can’t believe how bad it was. The scenes on Mars almost induced laughter, and the climax was delivered in such a rushed and unsuspenseful manner that Alan Moore’s tug got lost in the fray.
I can see why the guy wouldn’t go anywhere near it.
12 3-07-2009 at 4:01 pm
Chris said...
I never read the graphic novel – I’m 21 and European, Tintin and Asterix are my own heroes – but what I got from the film is, that the story behind it all must be really good. I felt that the guy who wrote the damn thing had something great in mind, which didn’t translate quite so well onto the screen.
However I wouldn’t call it a trainwreck. Snyder made some very bad choices (constant slo-mo, “Hallelujah”, some colour schemes), still, as a whole it was pretty enjoyable – even though I felt like it would never end.
13 3-07-2009 at 4:03 pm
Chase Kahn said...
I didn’t really like it, either. The “prison fight scene” which Snyder embellished is hardly a strongpoint. The whole thing felt WAY too fast because Zach couldn’t wait to get to his constituency into it again. It’s one of the best scenes in the novel and here it’s an afterthought.
I hate it when director’s pump up aggro-rock during a scene like that. Let the sounds and sights of the fight flood the screen.
14 3-07-2009 at 4:35 pm
Kokushi said...
Kris, from 1 to 10, which is your rating?
15 3-07-2009 at 4:56 pm
A.J said...
I don’t agree or disagree with you. However, this does have a four star rating from roger ebert and a worst film ever citing from you. Reviews are all over the place. The most divisive film ever?
16 3-07-2009 at 5:27 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Kokushi: No idea even how to qualify it, which is why I didn’t bother with a proper review. It’s a dichotomy, too, because while I truly believe it to be one of the worst films I’ve seen in quite some time, I can’t imagine giving it a zero star rating or anything (which, ironically enough given the above conversation, is what I gave “Daredevil” and “Ghost Rider”).
17 3-07-2009 at 6:11 pm
Glenn said...
I haven’t read the graphic novel so I was going in blind and I didn’t mind it, but it wasn’t anything special. Great effects, costumes, art direction and some good performances from Haley and Crudup, but it just felt a bit flat. That big climax, especially, felt unexciting. Very much a “meh” for me.
18 3-07-2009 at 6:45 pm
Casey Fiore said...
Tapley, do you have any positive opinions on the film? What did you think of the performances? or at least just Rorschach
19 3-07-2009 at 7:59 pm
RichardA said...
It’s an enjoyable film to me and in general the movie has merits to it–because of the ideas behind it. It’s not much different from The Dark Knight with regards to its ideas about humanity and costumed heros. But I enjoyed this movie than TDK partly because Watchmen just seemed like it did not pretend to be sourced from a comic book–with all the cheesy soundtrack cues and the absurd sex and nakedness.
20 3-07-2009 at 10:07 pm
Harry said...
I’m not a comic book fan, but I gave this a shot after being treated with Dark Knight. Dark Knight blew me away because it was simply a great film. Watchmen was the worst movie i’ve seen this year. It was an awful movie. Awful.
21 3-07-2009 at 10:42 pm
Chris said...
I have not read the graphic novel ‘Watchmen’ but I did like the movie. However, it was certainly flawed. The last 30-40 minutes were too long and not that interesting, therefore it didn’t keep up with the rest of the movie. Some of the dialogue was also a bit on the cheesy side at times, and the violence was a little over the top at certain parts, for what it seemed to mostly be shock value.
Anyways, The Dark Knight still remains the greatest comic book/superhero based movie of all time. Anyone who says Watchmen is better needs their head examined.
22 3-07-2009 at 11:38 pm
Michael Rogers said...
I thought it was very good, different, thought-provoking and unique. I thought the make-up and effects were below par, the gore far too over the top and it lacked the certain class and gravity of a film like TDK. Thats me being tough.
The opening 20 mins alone make it a film worth seeing and I thought the ending, whilst not great, was a vast improvement on the comic.
23 3-07-2009 at 11:55 pm
Vermicious Knid said...
It is not a good or bad film. It just…is. I don’t know?
24 3-08-2009 at 1:11 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
Casey: The opening credits montage was inspired. Funnily enough I thought Haley was a bit awkward in the roll, though he seems to be a bright spot for those who don’t like the film. Nothing redeeming is leaping to mind, though. I kind of liked Jeffrey Dean Morgan. He seemed to get the role in a way I wasn’t expecting. That’s…about it.
25 3-08-2009 at 1:14 am
Jonah said...
Worst ever? Please.
I never read or heard of Watchmen until talk of the movie started doing the rounds. I saw it this morning and thoroughly enjoyed myself. It was nasty, dark and trying very hard in some spots but was I mightily entertained? Yes, I was.
I get tired of comic book fans being disappointed by the filmic adaptations – these are 2 very different media. Expectations of fidelity are unrealistic. Don’t watch them. Re-read the book. You’ll be able to keep your vision of it for yourself.
26 3-08-2009 at 1:25 am
Brian Kinsley said...
This movie is so much better than those other movies. The credit sequence alone is better than those other movies entire.
The credits and Manhattan’s origins were pure, pure gold. The rest was okay to baaaad. Haley was good, great without the mask. Morgan was pretty great too, but entirely unnecessary to the movie.
27 3-08-2009 at 1:36 am
JP said...
I enjoyed the movie for what it was. I thought Dr. Manhattan looked a little cheesy CGI (and that Tiger looked awful). The only truly cringe-worthy aspect was the awful music. When the film ended, I turned to my boyfriend and said: there was some really terrible musical choices in that. From the ridiculous Ride of the Valkyries, to the roll-the-eyes Hallelujah, I was often distracted and annoyed by the music. Supposedly Tyler Bates did some kind of score for the film, but I don’t remember it. The music director should never be hired again.
28 3-08-2009 at 2:07 am
Jonathan Spuij said...
It’s of course interesting to see how this film gets compared to TDK all over the place. Isn’t that always a bad thing to use for the sake of argument? Comparing it to the best comic-book-adaptation ever will never do the film any good.
The film is fine as it is, I enjoyed it, but I see the flaws. They come more from the fact its a very literal translation than anything else.
I wonder how people will look back on this extreme split in views. Truly ranging from “Worst-ever” to “best-ever”. Fascinating.
29 3-08-2009 at 2:43 am
BurmaShave said...
This was not written or thought about in a nuanced way, which was neither fair nor correct. With some distance, I think you’ll feel foolish for much if not all of the hyperbole here. And I’m speaking as someone who was extremely ambivalent about the film.
30 3-08-2009 at 8:58 am
R.J. said...
Wow Kris, I totally wasn’t expecting you to hate this film. I just saw it last night and was blown away! I thought it was amazing,but “to each his own” I guess.
31 3-08-2009 at 9:11 am
entertainmenttodayandbeyond said...
Kris
I must admit I never read the comics and didn’t like the trailers much but walked out of the movie really liking it. It hooked me from beginning to end. I still go by opinion that WB spent way too much marketing it. Fans were going to see it no matter what. They were literally preaching to the choir and overmarketed the film. For the record the majority of the audience I saw the film with hated it. For me, it totally worked as I found it fasinating throughout. Going in I was prepared to have the opposite reaction. I didn’t. One more thing- the box-office will suffer a huge drop in weekend# 2 based on the audience reaction I saw. That I have no doubt. Again for me it worked 8.5 out 0f 10.
chuck
32 3-08-2009 at 9:41 am
Troy said...
“God bless him for trying to please them all, but what they wanted ain’t art.”
Ugh.
33 3-08-2009 at 12:19 pm
Neel Mehta said...
I’ll offer a counterargument to BurmaShave’s comment (#29) above.
If you feel strongly for or against a film, you should go with your instincts and use whatever words are available to quantify how good or bad it was. Hyperbole is acceptable.
My review (click my name if you’re interested) tries to take this approach, but ultimately comes across as a little toothless. I didn’t elaborate on exact, spoilerish elements to support my initial statement to convince others not to see the movie.
I just don’t think I was forceful enough. You do a better job.
34 3-08-2009 at 2:45 pm
Joe said...
I thought it was a decent film while some of the song choices was abit cliched however i think it would serve best as a mini series Starting with The Minutemen to the rise and fall of the Watchmen then finsih with the story of The Comedians death investigation. kudos for being faithful i thought Jackie Earles Haley’s performance wasgreat everyone else was decent
35 3-08-2009 at 3:55 pm
BurmaShave said...
Neel Mehta I’m glad you’re content to be simple. Some of us can’t live like that.
36 3-08-2009 at 4:00 pm
Robert Cameron said...
I really rather liked it; the opening credit sequence was wonderfully clever, and y’know I did enjoy some of the music cues. Yes, it disappointing to see how many sequences (such as Rorschach’s origin and the climax) lost 90% of the graphic novel’s power, but y’know 10% is still pretty good. Most importantly, I felt that the changes to the ending improved the story and that there were some very resonant scenes. Haley was terrific, Morgan was perfect as the Comedian, and I felt that Crudup’s interpretation of Manhattan was, although sharply different from what I expected, pretty special.
I do understand why it would upset many fans or even unbiased viewers, but I got a pretty big kick out of it.
37 3-08-2009 at 4:05 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
“I get tired of comic book fans being disappointed by the filmic adaptations”
This isn’t the same thing, Jonah. You can’t peg that facile argument on me. There’s nothing here for a die-hard comic fan wanting a faithful translation to complain about, unless you understand that an honest translation was ultimately, and quite obviously impossible if a film without tone issues was to be made.
“these are 2 very different media”
That’s the point. Translating this thing 100%, lacking any courage to go against the fanboy mandate (which I understand as a difficult task), was folly.
“Expectations of fidelity are unrealistic”
Uh, fidelity isn’t the issue. This is the most faithful comic adaptation ever.
“This was not written or thought about in a nuanced way, which was neither fair nor correct.”
Nothing to say to that but L, O and L.
Look, I fully respect that there are those who really enjoyed this film. There is NO denying that, in an increasingly unoriginal cinema marketplace, “Watchmen” flips the bird at convention and does what the hell it wants to do. This film breaks so many “rules,” it’s hard not to find it endearing. But I’m criticizing it on a different level. Quite simply, the film proves that complete fidelity (to steal a phrase from one of our commenters) sours the power of filmmaking. I think this would be the case with any literary medium, but we’ll keep it to comics now for the sake of argument.
Somehow, it worked with “300,” but that is a much more surface-level piece than “Watchmen.” It (“300″) is, quite clearly, a movie stretched across the landscape of a graphic novel. “Watchmen” is a deeper, much more nuanced work that demands an interpretation, not a replication. It simply doesn’t work as a graphic novel stretched across the canvas of a movie screen.
And that, despite your assurances (which are your own) to the contrary, Burma, is an opinion I can’t imagine shifting down the line.
38 3-08-2009 at 6:59 pm
Robert Hamer said...
I understand your point, Kris, though I think you take it a little too far. “Worst movie ever”? Not even close.
While I’m not going to bash you or condescend because you HATED Watchmen (I was bombarded with that same patronizing crap from Kool-Aid drinkers when I said I despised The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and I’m not going to stoop to their level), I will say this: Don’t let “perfect” be the enemy of “good”. Yes, this movie had a lot of flaws. But it also has a lot of strengths, too, not the least of which is an obvious passion for the story, which is more than you can say for 90% of the crap that gets churned out of Hollywood. To completely trash this movie when it takes so many creative risks, even if a lot of them don’t work, is doing a disservice to your readers.
I’d call this movie an immensely flawed but overall enjoyable film. Is it as good as the graphic novel? Hell no, but then again it was never going to even approach the genius of the source material and instead succeeds as a visually stunning and mostly exciting film.
39 3-08-2009 at 8:18 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Another misquote. I never called it the worst film ever. The actual line of copy:
“‘Watchmen’’s crash-and-burn ride into the annals of “all-time-worst-films-ever” territory…”
Territory. With a boatload of other films.
Anyway, on to your point, I think the film has virtually NO strengths. Next to nothing redeeming. This isn’t hyperbole (no matter how much some would like it to be in order to make sense of a drastically different opinion than their own). The film isn’t “good.” It’s awful. On numerous, nearly all levels.
Awful. And it goes without saying: in my opinion.
Also, passion never — ever — equals “strength” in and of itself.
I am doing no “disservice” to my readers by giving an honest opinion. Stop stretching to connect this point of view to some dastardly deed. It’s silly. Furthermore, one comment up I clearly offered the following:
“There is NO denying that, in an increasingly unoriginal cinema marketplace, ‘Watchmen’ flips the bird at convention and does what the hell it wants to do. This film breaks so many ‘rules,’ it’s hard not to find it endearing. But I’m criticizing it on a different level.”
And I’ll follow this up with another point: taking creative risks is never — ever — indicative of “quality,” in and of itself.
I didn’t enjoy this film, Robert. At all. I don’t think it succeeds at being “visually stunning” or “exciting,” and I hope you can square yourself with the fact that we part ways here (and on “Button,” for that matter).
40 3-09-2009 at 12:15 am
Robert Hamer said...
Ugh, a melodramatic explosion to measured disagreement, even when I conceeded several points to you.
I guess I should have seen it coming.
41 3-09-2009 at 12:36 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
Melodramatic? Explosion? Neither, really, but at the base of it all, I really just don’t understand the desire of some to create this other dimension when it comes to another guy’s criticism. It can’t just be “Tapley hated it,” it has to be “Tapley hated it and he’s doing a disservice to his readers for hating it.” It has to be hyperbole for its own sake. It can’t just be a simple point of view.
Weird.
42 3-09-2009 at 6:47 am
McAllister said...
I think it’s all about expectations really. I’ve never read the book and I also wasn’t expecting The Dark Knight type of good. I was expecting something more like 300 and it was what I got. I liked it. I thought the characters were pretty flat but the film was nice to look at.
43 3-09-2009 at 7:02 am
actionman said...
it was eye candy for me. it was fun.
44 3-09-2009 at 10:44 am
Derek 8-Track said...
you said…
“”Let’s stick “All Along the Watchtower” in there because we have a cool shot of Rorschach and Nite Owl walking through the snow that we can match tot he lyric “two riders were approaching” for no good reason whatsoever.”"
Pretty sure the “no good reason whatsoever” was because of the last frame on page 28 in chapter 10.
45 3-09-2009 at 10:49 am
Bill said...
I’ve started watching it online (shhh dont tell the cops) and I’ve seen 40 mins so far. I suppose watching it online is kind of like reading a comic book. You watch a bit, do a bit of work, find a minute, watch a bit more, look foward to finishing it sometime.
So far it’s been pretty good. The opening scene and credits were nice, and so far the music’s all right. “Sound of Silence” was nice. Chunks of the dialouge have been very cheesy, but the actors seem to knowingly toss those lines away.
46 3-09-2009 at 11:45 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
David: Yeah, I know…but it just comes off cheesy when juxtaposed. Again, too faithful.
Bill: Shame on you. Go shell out the cash to see it proper.
47 3-09-2009 at 12:10 pm
Derek 8-Track said...
You mean Derek?
48 3-09-2009 at 12:49 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Yeah, I meant Derek. Apologies, the blood hasn’t started flowing yet and it’s almost 2!
49 3-09-2009 at 1:25 pm
Bill said...
I’ve never done that before and I am kind of ashamed but I knew how commercial it’d be, so I suppose that was my justification. Also, living in Abu Dhabi and Beijing gets you stuck in bad habits. The 1$ DVDs are easy to get used to.
50 3-09-2009 at 9:51 pm
Sickoflamecomicmovies said...
Okay, I don’t care if you really love comics! I love movies and I hate seeing a real crapper and this was a real crapper!
It lost me pretty quickly with it’s extra long intro but I tried to remain hopeful (could have knocked off a minute off that but it did set the tone for excessiveness). It took every pop, era-centric image and threw it in the viewers face. Boring, lame and not very creative for such a creative venue.
Haley was all that kept me in my seat. If it wasn’t for him I would have walked out some time around the would-be rape scene (was that a spoiler? Not really).
The creator of the Comic Alan Moore didn’t even have faith in the movie (probably because he thought the point would be missed which I can only guess was exactly what happened though you couldn’t glue me a comic book if it was the only way to keep the world from nuclear war).
I do love a good plot though and I love character well developed for which this movie lacked but I could tell that had I the wherewithal to actually pick up the comic book Watchmen I would see the depth that simply was not in the movie.
It was not a movie for the masses it was for a very select group and what is tragic is that the rest of us were duped into watching it.
51 3-10-2009 at 11:56 pm
Scott Ward said...
Uh Kris, seriously not to boast, but see the point I have been making for months now? The same points that you said had no validity. The same points on which you heavily criticized David Poland and others for having. And don’t say I’m taking you out of context or misinterpreting because the posts are there for public viewing. And I told you that you can’t trust these “sources” who talk about a movie months before its release, yet you were utterly obdurate in your faith in them (remember, “I’ve heard nothing but good things about the movie”). I honestly respect you a lot, but I say this showing that just because you have more general knowledge about film than the people on this site doesn’t always make you right and it certainly doesn’t mean our opinions are unwarranted or invalid just because you disagree. So I hope that you can see how I can’t help but feel that people like David Poland and myself are owed somewhat of an apology. And of course not because we ended up being right, but because you shot us down so harshly. I mean, this really isn’t at all surprising. Even if you like Synder’s previous works, their intentions were working nowhere near the level that Watchmen required and no where near the talent required to execute a movie that Synder had shown. So I don’t see how anyone could not reasonably have had doubts and concerns on Watchmen (especially after it was learned that MCR’s Desolation Row would be on the soundtrack).
52 3-13-2009 at 2:43 am
7x said...
You could pick any movie and there will be some guy, who says it’s the worst movie ever. And that’s not even pathetic anymore, it’s just boring.
Your “eloquent” criticism consists of nagging about how faithful this adaption is. And yeah, congrats on comparing a limited 12 issue comic book to a never-ending tale of Batman. While we’re on that note – how come Peter Jackson never recreated Lord of the Rings? Sure, there were some changes, but the whole trilogy is just a too-faithful adaption that just doesn’t work on the screen. Also Liv Tyler? Please.
And nipples? Really? Now every comic-book movie that features a costume with nipples is “worst of all time”?
Your review is totally worst of all time.
53 3-13-2009 at 9:44 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
Scott: Nothing you said had any real point because let’s face it: you had not seen the film. You were gleefully speculating, and really, your point was that Snyder’s style was going to bring the film down and that’s not the case. It’s a completely different roadblock that no one really anticipated being an issue, that a dedication to the source material would be the downfall.
You have nothing to boast about, kiddo.
7x: I never called it the worst movie ever — for the millionth time.
54 3-13-2009 at 9:47 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
“their intentions were working nowhere near the level that Watchmen required”
You knew nothing about their intentions, Scott. And again, it says nothing of Snyder’s “talent” that the film missed. It says everything of his slavish commitment to fans who don’t know any better, however.
I really wish certain folks could get a handle on nuance. This site isn’t about black and white, right and wrong. There are many hues.
55 3-13-2009 at 10:39 am
THE Diego Ortiz said...
I enjoyed this movie a lot, but the first thing I told my cousin after the end of the film was:
He’s the hero the world deserves…
but not the one it needs right now.
So we’ll hunt him, because he can
take it. Because he’s not our
hero.
He’s a silent guardian, a watchful
protector… a blue knight.
56 4-11-2009 at 6:45 pm
Robert Hamer said...
“I really just don’t understand the desire of some to create this other dimension when it comes to another guy’s criticism.”
Right, because you didn’t try to pull the EXACT same crap with people who disliked Slumdog Millionaire and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. You devoted whole threads last year to ridiculous, childish accusations and pop psychology theories about why someone would give a bad review to those “masterpieces”, yet when someone has the audacity to suggest that your disappointment with Watchmen not meeting your expectations MIGHT be clouding your review in slobbering exaggerations, you throw a hissy fit like a baby and a hypocrite.