How did I miss the news that this was coming!? THE WATCHMEN is coming next year?! Holy shit! I don't know anything about it yet, but here's hoping it gets the SIN CITY treatment!
This could be really, really cool. But isn't the story way too long to be made into a 2 hour movie? I'm going to have to go back and re-read this. Alan Moore is going to be loving life - first V for Vendetta, now this!
A little info from Wizard magazine regarding the Watchmen movie:
It's in pre-production at Paramount. Paul Greengrass ("The Bourne Supremacy") will direct. David Hayter ("X-Men") wrote the screenplay. Looks possible for a 2006 release.
Between this and Singer's "Superman Returns" I'm already looking forward to NEXT year's comic movies!
Am I really the only one who thinks this movie will suck?
Even if it was possible to make Watchmen into a decent feature-length movie - which I'm not sure it is, the book is so long - Zach Snyder is about the last guy I'd choose to make it. Look at what he's done thus far - a zombie flick, a bunch of commercials, and 300, which while pretty good as a flashy, mindless action film, fell flat on its face every time it tried to get serious. And Watchmen is all about making the inherently ludicrous into something serious, dramatic, and thought-provoking. It's the antithesis of the flashy kind of comic book storytelling that Snyder is known for.
It doesn't matter how many big stars you get, here. Snyder is going to fuck this movie up so badly that it might actually precipitate critics and some fans to call for a moratorium on comic book films for a while. Just you watch... men.
Very true about the quality of the movie. I liked the book so much that I'm a little scared about what they'll do with the movie. I'll still see it, because I'm a mindless lemming that follows the will of Hollywood. But then I'll gripe semi-intelligently about it later.
I think I'm the last guy on Earth not to have read the Watchmen yet. I guess I'd better get to it before the movie comes out and permanently sours my opinions of it.
Bert - I guess I'm just the eternal optimist. Just because Zach Snyder's portfolio is small is no reason he couldn't go Peter Jackson on it and do it justice. He's a young, up-coming director, which is what I think Watchmen needs. His zombie movie was good (did you see it?) and I thought he did a terrific job with '300'. From what I've heard he's a big fan of Watchmen and has a passion to do it right. And after the success of 300, he also has the power to get it done right (like keeping it R rated). It could still turn out to be Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, but I hope not!
I don't doubt Snyder's passion at all - and I commend him for it. But based on his (admittedly limited) previous attempts, he has no ear for serious dramatic storytelling. I don't think something like keeping it R rated is nearly as important as getting the tone of the movie right, and like I said, when Snyder attempted a serious tone in 300, it was stank city. You just don't want a post-MTV-style commercial director doing this kind of movie.
And yes, I did see the zombie flick, and it was okay. But again, nothing in it leads me to believe he could pull off the narrative complexity of a Watchmen.
I hate to say it, but something as good as Bryan Singer's Superman Returns would be way too much to hope for when talking about something like Zach Snyder's Watchmen, and I'm saying that as someone who found SR to be decidedly "meh".
My two cents: Watchmen is just about impossible to adapt to the movies. Doesn't matter who's directing, it's gonna be motherfucking tough. It's an unwieldy story, really complicated (I've read it once, and feel like I really grasped a small percentage of it) and it'd make more sense to turn it into, say, a mini-series for HBO or something. I tend to agree with Bert that Zack Snyder isn't a great reason to light a fire under our enthusiasm... but, as I am with any movie great or small, I'm cautiously optimistic.
Tis true that the task of making Watchmen into a movie is damn near impossible: comics is the medium it was made for. A lot of what's cool about it is things particular to comics (remember the repeating panels -- palindrome like -- in the one issue?). But, that's not to say a cool movie couldn't be made. And when I said Zach Snyder would keep it R-rated, the tone is exactly what I meant. I'm sure the studio heads don't get too fired up for a somber, R-rated super-hero movie with heroes the public is unfamiliar with, where the main action happens off-screen, but... Snyder has the Hollywood clout to push it through anyways!
Fuck the Bone! I wanna see Rorschach realized on-screen!
Well, an R-rated tone might be what you meant, but I contend that that's not the most important tone to strike to get this movie right, and that Snyder is most likely not the man for the job. Let's revisit after it gets made (if it gets made) and see if we both feel the same way we do now. :)
I saw Patrick Wilson, the guy who plays Dan Dreiberg for the first time last night in a super duper fucked up movie called Hard Candy. Anyone see this? Godamn I'm still traumatized by it. It's a decent flick but the story is rough business. The dude deserved what he got but fuckity fuck, it was harsh treatment.
Hard Candy was a crazy movie. I had no idea what I was in for when I started watching it but I left feeling very disturbed. I think I watched it six months ago and it I still think of it once in a while. Ellen Page was awesome in her role though.
Hard Candy was an ... "interesting" movie. Ang & I both felt a bit uneasy watching it. The guy certainly gets the full treatment. And not in a good way.
And yes, the Watchmen cast is a bit disappointing. A bunch of young and pretty actors... go figure.
Oh well. The beautiful thing is they can F up the movie good, but we'll still have the comic! And who knows, it could still be an interesting movie, even if not very faithful to the original comic.
Raws - Have you read The Walking Dead? This series is sweet, just ask Bells. You need to read through some trades. It would make an excellent HBO series.
I can vouch for Walking Dead - I have the first collection, and it's pretty sweet.
As for Watchmen... I'm not as concerned as the blogger in the post was about age... Patrick Wilson and Jackie Earle Haley were both terrific in Little Children (which y'all HAVE to see - one of my fave movies of 2006) and Matthew Goode and Billly Crudup are actually pretty solid actors. Now, I'm not saying it's going to be sweet, but this really isn't any reason to go leaping off a bridge and declaring it's going to suck. My feelings are pretty much the same as they were before the cast was announced. And my two cents: That blogger is kind of a turd... I think having (somewhat) lesser-known actors isn't always a detriment, and will actually cut down on the distracting elements more famous faces tend to bring. Besides, who knew anybody in 300, and that was a pretty badass movie, no? Perhaps not as character-driven as Watchmen, but still...
Swerb, you're right that many of the choices aren't necessarily bad, but the casting for Sally Jupiter is downright retarded. I'm not arguing against choosing unknowns, but the criticism that they're too young is a valid one.
I did see Little Children, BTW, and I agree, it's sweet.
Well, this is interesting: Apparently Carla Gugino will be playing Sally Jupiter. Dunno where the other intel came from, but as the previously named actress was my biggest reason for hating the overall casting choices, this makes things seem a lot better, IMO.
And by the way: I re-watched 300 last night, and it only reconfirms my reservations about Snyder. he's all flash and no substance, mark my words fellas.
Sounds promising. Still not sure how it will translate. The watchmen faithful are almost cultlike, so they're going to have approach this movie and forgot about trying to please the cult and focus on the masses.
I watched the trailer before reading his comments, and I pretty much
agree with his comments. I've always thought that having Zack Snyder
making Watchmen into a movie was a bad idea, but I can't argue with the
fact that visually it looks amazing. But it focuses on all the wrong
elements that made Watchmen great. Watchmen is the antithesis of a
action-packed superhero beat-em up, but that's pretty much all this
trailer shows.
I think, in order to get people outside of the Watchmen Graphic Novel influence, they needed to hollywoodize the movie a bit more. I just hope they're true to the characters. I'm going to assume that the whole story within a story of the pirate ship that the boy was reading will not be in the movie.
Terry Gilliam originally passed on Watchmen in the late '80s, saying
it was unfilmable unless it was a TV miniseries... some corners have to be cut.
But
the trailer at least looks pretty cool, and of course they're going to
load it with action, lest Joe Moviegoer be discouraged. Then again, how
often is a trailer - especially just a teaser - an accurate
representation of the film as a whole?
Sandman needs to be a traditional hand-drawn animated series for HBO...
All I'm saying is that it didn't even hint at anything deeper, and it most certainly could have, and should have. All the people I saw Batman with were assuming this was just another X-Men or Justice League type movie after watching the trailer.
All I'm saying is that it didn't even hint at anything deeper, and it most certainly could have, and should have. All the people I saw Batman with were assuming this was just another X-Men or Justice League type movie after watching the trailer.
That's what I tried to explain to Jeurge when she thought the trailer was cool. Watchmen is supposed to be the deconstruction of the superhero, not a mindless action movie. To be fair you can't tell how mindless the movie was from a short trailer but Bert is right, they could have hinted at something a bit deeper. The Dark Knight trailers were able to infer something deeper or at least I thought they did. Knowing the source material I'm incredulous as to whether this director is capable of translating it into a film worthy of the Watchmen mantra.
To be fair you can't tell how mindless the movie was from a short trailer but Bert is right, they could have hinted at something a bit deeper.
Agreed - but my point is, who trusts Hollywood marketing?
Any "teaser" is often like tasting the fish eyeball without even getting a whiff of the filet. Not that anyone here would just say, "Screw the filet" and skip it entirely simply because the eyeball tastes bad (because, as I've learned by proxy thanks to Bear Grylls, what eyeball doesn't?)... but... sorry, this metaphor is kind of tortured.
I guess I just like to be cautiously optimistic about such things... or in some cases, cautiously pessimistic, even if such concepts aren't really that far apart.
obviously I lean toward the pessimistic side. Also, as Bells pointed out, the Dark Knight trailers gave us a very accurate glimpse at the final product. It is very possible to do and nor without precedent. Mark my words (again): this movie will suck. Maybe joe moviegoer will enjoy it in lieu of X-Men 4, but Zack Snyder simply isn't capable of doing the Watchmen justice (maybe no one is), and this trailer only makes my position stronger.
And maybe I really am a cynic, because I can't believe I'm going to say this, but does anyone else think that Frank Miller's new Spirit movie looks turdy as well? The initial teaser looked like a shoddier version of Sin City part 2, which meant to me that Frank hadn't learned nearly enough to go out on his own as a director. The subsequent trailers have looked a bit (but only a bit) different, and thoroughly nonsensical. And dare I say, the Spirit himself looks rather retarded with that mask that disguises nothing.
I've never read the Watchmen but I saw the trailer the other day when I went to see Dark Knight. I had no idea what the trailer was for but my first impression was that it was some kind of X-men type movie with X-men that I didn't recognize. However, the deeper I got into the trailor, the more substance there seemed to be and I suddenly became interested. While it was visually spectacular, there still seemed to be an interesting story underneath. Then low and behold, the title was revealed. I'm going to have to get a copy of the Watchmen to read before hand.
Still, nothing is as sweet as the new James Bond flick is going to be.
As far as building interest in the graphic novel, WATCHMEN the movie is already a success. I've sold several copies since the trailer in front of THE DARK KNIGHT began showing.
Yeah, I'm going to crack Watchmen again before the movie opens, for sure... probably after I'm done re-reading the Sandman series for the jillionth time. I dunno if you guys have ever read it, but it's the best comics series EVER - don't argue with me...
And Bone: I'm not a huge Bond fan (Casino Royale was admittedly pretty sweet, even if the ending was a fiasco), but the new trailer is badass. My problem is, I hate the title. "Quantum of Solace"? Pure pseudo-intellectual gibberish.
Zillz - You may have to put aside a copy of Watchmen for me... shit maybe even ship it out to me since baggage is so expensive these days. How expensive is book rate to Yurope? With all the hype, I think I have to read this.
On another note.... what do you get when you cross Star Wars and Flashdance?? Well the following of course!
Yeah, I'm going to crack Watchmen again before the movie opens, for sure... probably after I'm done re-reading the Sandman series for the jillionth time. I dunno if you guys have ever read it, but it's the best comics series EVER - don't argue with me...
Swerb, Neil Gaiman's Sandman is most definitely the best read out there. All though, the one problem I had with it was the art wasn't consistant. They went through a few artists in that series and it seemed the art got sloppy at times.
But the story is so freaking good that you don't care. The showdown with the demon is perhaps one of my favorite scenes in comics. Bar none.
I'm definitely going to have to find a copy and read it again.
Bunky: Tropic Thunder is hilarious. Even Cruise haters will find his glorified cameo really funny, I reckon. And Downey is really funny. Heck, so are Stiller and Jack Black, despite their crummy recent output. I haven't laughed that hard at a movie since Hot Fuzz...
NickNick: I've read the Sandman Companion (a must-read if you're a big fan), and Gaiman wanted a different artist for every story arc so the look and feel of the book didn't become old and tired. That's one of the reasons I like the series so much - it's not the same thing over and over. But you're absolutely right: the writing is amazing. That's what lends the series consistency. The Dream of a Thousand Cats... I love the Brief Lives storyline... and yes, the dual with the demon is great. They're reissuing the whole series in four big, oversized hardcovers (Absolute Sandman), and I'm jonesing to buy them just to see the art in a larger format... but they're really fracking expensive...
Well I've finally read Watchmen after years of being ridiculed for not having done so. I've decided "the children were right to laugh at me" (Simpsons/Ralfie reference) as it is indeed a full sweet comic. It's impressive how in a 12 issue miniseries there can be so much backstory that one can feel as attatched to the characters as something you've read for years. The background stories are told in a way that doesn't make you feel like you're missing out on the current story, and keeps some characters a complete mystery until the proper time. I am definitely looking forward to seeing this movie now and after re-watching the trailers on youtube several times it was cool being able to point out scenes that were almost identical to panels in the comic.
Also I finally got arround to seeing Hellboy 2 last night. I liked it a lot. You could definitely tell it was from the Pan's Labyrinth guy, but that movie was good too so it didn't bother me. It seemed like there was a much bigger budget than the first one, which led to a lot more fantastical creatures. I have only a passing knowledge of the comic version of Hellboy, so I can't speak of the accuracy of the movies. But that probably just allows me to enjoy them all the better. Ron Perlman is full sweet as Hellboy.
Swerb, I saw Tropic Thunder today. I was laughing my ass off. (Deep sigh) Tom Cruise had me cracking up and made me forget for 2 hours that I think he is a complete douche bag.
Downey was full sweet and Jack Black was funny rather than annoying. I also noticed that he was sporting the t-shirt from my website in a scene!
I won't say anymore about the movie for fear of getting a spoiler smackdown laid upon me by Ross!
Well, Bells & I saw Tropic Thunder yesterday. Pretty funny in parts, little boring in other parts. Tom Cruise is full sweet though! I'd give it 2.5 stars (3.5 Swerb?). The fake promos in the front and Tom Cruise over the ending credits are the funniest bits, I thought.
We really wanted to see HELLBOY 2 but there was only one showing in the whole area: Holland at 8:10 PM. WTF!?
New Spirit trailer here. Again, I just can't work up any excitement for this, even though I strongly feel like I ought to. It's got train wreck written all over it.
I'm becoming slightly more optimistic about Watchmen (no, not because of the indigo instrument) but that Zack Snyder seems slightly less douchey in interviews about Watchmen than he seemed in 300. That's not much to go on, quite honestly, and I'm still in the camp that this will be "meh" at best, flashy and low on substance.
Jack - Start me a Rookies box. Put in there some must haves.... The Watchmen... the perfect Captain A T-shirt.. and whatever is needed. No, don't try to pawn off old Pokemon or high priced hardcovers!
Jack - Start me a Rookies box. Put in there some must haves.... The Watchmen... the perfect Captain A T-shirt.. and whatever is needed. No, don't try to pawn off old Pokemon or high priced hardcovers!
I'M ON IT!
WATCHMEN? CHECK!
SWEET CAPTAIN A SYMBOL T-SHIRT? CHECK!
THE WALKING DEAD! CHECK!
Finally... Bells is going to recommend CAPTAIN AMERICA, ED BRUBAKER OMNIBUS HARDCOVER (sorry, it's high-priced but oh-so-worth it!) CHECK?
Tell Roche to start me a box as well based on our last phone conversation. I believe it will include the Brubaker Captain A's as well. I told him to do this but I don't know if he took me seriously or not.
Dude - I should get a comission. At least throw their wooden nickels over to me. Those should net me a tootsie roll. I hope you are ordering me up a Captain A shirt as I asked for years ago. Make it X-tra Large for my furture massive muscles. It is the sweet one of just the shield.
Start a box for NickNick anyway. He can come in and visit the stuff he could be buying if he was rich.
So... how much wrath would I receive if I said I just finished the Watchmen novel and had the review of - Meh. Most of it was boring and the end it did get a little interesting. It got to the point where I could not even read the little 'supplements' at the end of the chapters.
The movie looks much better than the book and I will certainly watch it.
While at first glance I wasn't sure I'd enjoy the end chapter supplements, I now can't imagine not having read them. They add so much to the immersion factor. Sure a couple of them weren't all that exciting (Owlman's entry in the ornithological journal quarterly I'm looking at you) but I wouldn't have felt half as involved or knowledgable in the world the story takes place in without them.
Oh well, at least you'll have your Captain A movie soon enough.
Since I'm a Bond fanboy, I watched Quantum of Solace. Despite the shitty title, I thought it was sweet. A little departure from the norm. Comparisons can be made to Bourne but far sweeter in my opinion. Daniel Craig is arguably the best Bond save Dr. No's Connery. In this film, Bond was less suave in the traditional sense and more ruthless.
The director shot some amazing scenes. The car chase in the beginning is second only to the one in Ronin. The foot chase scenes were amazing and though not quite as acrobatic as the one in Casino Royale, it was fantastic nontheless. The Opera scene was one of my favorites. It had a feel to it that is hard to describe - something really cool about it. And of course when Bond and the villian first set eyes on each other... great scene. Which brings me to another point. The villian was one of the better ones in the Bond series. He was less Dr. Evil and more realistic. Also there were no unrealistic gagdets though the computer at MI6 headquarters was pushing it.
The movie wasn't flawless but for the most part, I loved it. Hard to say if I like it better than Casino Royale. I would have liked a few more sauve, charming James Bond scenes but he was to busy opening up a can.
I give it the thumbs and even if you don't identify with Bond because you are a dumpy, no self confidence having, no will to excel, cracker ass cracker, I'm sure you will still appreciate the movie.
I listened to Swerb's podcast review and I don't think he enjoyed it very much. From what I remember, his being a cracker-ass cracker didn't figure prominently in the review, but of course he might just be keeping that shit to himself. Hopefully he can get on here and elaborate.
Listening to the podcast now. Just an FYI on the title. It comes from a short story in Flemmings book A View to a Kill. There are a couple short stories in it and in this one. Basically a character in the story tells Bond that people in relationships need a measure of comfort, or a quantum of solace. It fits well in that story and makes perfect sense but why the filmakers used it as the title for this one? Maybe for the fan boys to recognize it as a tribute.
Swerb says the series is dependent on credibility straining sequences. Of course thats also the criticism of the series as well. Roger Moore jumping out of a plane sans parachute? Pretty cheesy. Daniel Craig pulls it off in this film with far more credibility. Pierce Brosnan kicking anyones ass? Perposterous. Craig looks like he's tough and rugged enough.
That action isn't Marc Forster's forte is a dubious statement. The action in this is far more intense and believable than any Bond film. The action sequences are better than any in Dark Knight or any of the Spider-Man series imo.
The other guy on the podcast says that this film is dark and grim. Not a fun film. I agree with that but I think it's a good thing. The Moore and Brosnan movies are too campy - like Clooney's Batman. That's like saying Bale's Batman is all wrong. Well the Bond in the books is a very dark character. He's essentially a government assassin that solves problems. They also say this Bond is different because he goes rogue demonstrates that the podcaster's don't know shit about Bond. He goes rogue in one of the Dalton flicks as well as the books. Hell at one point he even tries to kill M in the books.
Swerb says it's 55 minutes into the film before we see Bond grieving for Vesper. Well maybe it's because he's this cold blooded assassin who's really pissed at an organization that killed his girlfriend and is plotting against the World. He's got a whoop ass to attend to. It's not like he's some nerdy kid who has little confidence that gets superpowers handed to him on a silver platter and goes bumbling around. He has trouble dealing with his emotions but that's what you would expect from a hard man like Bond. Vesper describes him as a maladjusted SAS type in Casino Royale. She's right. Remember this is supposed to be early in Bond's career. He just became a 00 in the last film.
Again, I really really disagree with Swerb on the Opera part. The fact that he dropped the sound and went with the score in the confrontation was awesome. When Craig and Greene stop and catch each others eye from across the room - the scene was intense and fucking awesome.
I enjoyed the Bourne series but this was WAY better and Swerb, with all due respect - you are a cracker-ass cracker.
Hahaha, well obviously the Spider-Man comparison is absurd in the extreme from my perspective so I will treat it as the obvious bait that it is.
That said, Bone, your review definitely piqued my interest. I haven't really even watched a serious preview of this movie and I've now heard very differing views on the action scenes (of which I fancy myself a connoisseur), so I feel compelled to judge for myself.
I've never really been very taken with the Bond franchise, though I probably enjoy them a smidge more than Swerb. I will say, however, that I enjoyed Casino Royale a lot more than probably any other Bond film. I know the early Connery ones are supposed to be the best but I personally could never get past some of the silliness. Made for a different time, I suppose.
This is just my opinion, and I'm sure Swerb will disagree, but I think he is holding the Bond movies to a higher standard than he might once have due to the fact that Casino Royale seemed a bit more serious than most previous Bond movies, and got into his psyche a bit more. Swerb was apparently looking to continue or expand on this, and when the movie probably reverted in that respect to be more in line with its predecessors, he was let down.
Hahaha, well obviously the Spider-Man comparison is absurd in the extreme from my perspective so I will treat it as the obvious bait that it is.
Touche
The early Bond's were good for 60's era action films and they started to get silly very early on and cascaded into sheer absurdity. Many are unwatchable turds. Casino Royale was really good because it completely refreshed the character and updated him. My only criticism of this movie was that the action sequences reeled off at a frantic pace for the first third of the movie and we don't get to see Bond be characteristicly charming and witty like in the Casino Royale scene where he meets Vesper for the first time or he comes back to the card table after being poisoned. In this movie he is pissed off and all about business.
To watch it on DVD is a travesty. Bert - if you see it at the theater and don't like it, I'll refund your money.
And for the record, I really don't think Swerb is a cracker-ass cracker. It's just fun to say.
The cracker-ass cracker will chime in: People actually listen to that podcast?
I dunno, I just think the Bond series is trying to play catch-up with the Bourne movies, which are the pinnacle of the modern action movie. Let Bond breathe a bit. Let Bond be Bond. And while I would never criticize a film for being too dark, Quantum had very minimal humor, and what little it had fell flat. I liked Casino Royale for having some subtle, sly wit - completely absent here.
And the action sequences? Meh. I draw the comparison between Forster and Christopher Nolan - great directors, but not great action directors. The opening car chase in Quantum is borderline crap. A few more cuts, and it's Michael Bay. And it doesn't compare to the opening sequence in Casino Royale. Not even close. To say it's "second only to the one in Ronin" is purely absurd. I do think the fight on the scaffolding is very cool, but could have been better in the hands of a different director.
Also, Bone, you say that Bond is all about business... read between the lines: one-dimensional. Daniel Craig is a better actor than the guy in Quantum who stands around and scowls for two hours. The scene with drunk Bond attempts to show him grieving Vesper, and completely undercuts the impact of it by having the asshole bartender tell us the fucking martini recipe. What bullshit! If he's doing all this for Vesper, then I don't really buy it. Show me a reason, don't tell me. I do like the new Bond, and I like Daniel Craig. But not in this movie. The plot is way overwritten, and the characters are underwritten. A few more plot convolutions, and it's Pirates of the Caribbean.
You also don't mention the "Bond girl," the Russian chick. What a boring-ass character. Decent to look at, of course, but dull as hell. We see her near the beginning of the film and then she disappears for 45 minutes. No character development. She, like Bond, wants revenge. Who cares? And Bond doesn't even TRY to get in her pants!
As for the villain - I'm all for realism. The guy playing him is good. But the character is a run-of-the-mill greedy capitalist opportunist. Giving him, I dunno, an ounce of color would have been nice. But no. Bland as milk.
And Bert, I appreciate your defense of my argument. But I'm no fan of the old Bond - kinda cheesy, sometimes fun. I don't think Quantum reverted to the old style at all. Just something completely different, even from Casino Royale, and I don't think it works. And admitting I'm not a Bond fan means I may offer a viewpoint that's a hair more objective than Bone's. Just saying.
And although our opinions differ on this topic, I would never, ever say:
The only thing that you have written here that makes sense is your opinion on the Bond girl. The rest I chalk up to the ravings of a lunatic :)
I think you missed the point of the Martini scene. He's grieving over Vesper in private, struggling to deal with his mixed feeling of love and betrayal. When Mathis asks him what he is drinking, he refuses to acknowledge the name of the drink - the Vesper because he is still terribly hurt from her perceived betrayal. Also, he isn't doing all this over Vesper. He wants revenge over the guys responsible but he's also aware of the overall threat of Quantum poses. Greene and his arm of Quantum had nothing to do with Le Chifffre's project. At the end of the movie M says she needs Bond back and his reply was that he never left. He wasn't going off the reservation on a Vesper revenge spree as M thought. He was doing his duty.
I do enjoy a witty, funny Bond but it wouldn't have made sense in this film. As M puts it, he's blinded by inconsolable rage. She may be a bit overboard but he is definitely very angry and much darker in this film. He's compensating for letting his guard down and his emotions getting in the way as he did in the last film. Taken as a single film I can see why you might not like it but you have to view it as a series and understand where he's coming from and where he's going as a character in the next film. After all, with out spoilers, he gets his mind right at the end of this one.
If I remember correctly, you wrote before that you had problems with Le Chiffe because he was over the top with his bleeding eye. Greene on the other hand had personality but realistic. You are a picky villain nazi.
Harry from Aint it Cool News shares the same feelings about this particular Bond in his review.
Not that you couldn't find a bunch of critical reviews but I wanted to link you to someone who explains my interpretation of this Bond a little more completely.
Shit ninjas! I've wanted to see QUANTUM and now I'm even more excited to so I can join in the discussion (will it be "F The Bone" or "Swerb is a cracker-ass cracker"?!).
If I remember correctly, you wrote before that you had problems with Le Chiffe because he was over the top with his bleeding eye. Greene on the other hand had personality but realistic. You are a picky villain nazi.
I have to say, Swerb's comment about the villain had me thinking the same thing. But I will reserve judgement until I've seen the movie.
Oh, and yes, Swerb, your podcast is on my regular rotation now. I rather enjoy it. I like the format - I do, however, have some suggestions that I'll share with you when we next meet. :)
OK, maybe I'm a hypocrite on the villain argument. But on the other hand, it's not an either/or argument. From my current perspective, Le Chiffre was a little bit silly, but preferable over the Greene guy, who's not interesting in the least. I don't want Dr. Evil, but neither do I want a fucking accountant.
I'm not a fan of Ebert's review; he trashes the film because it's not like the old, classic Bond. Period.
Bone, reading your analysis has me thinking I might have missed something, especially regarding the conclusion of the film. But by then, I had stopped caring. All the frontloaded action aims to excite us, but there's very little character development in there, and a whole ton of plot, plot, plot. The boring Bond girl doesn't help.
However, I refuse to concede the point on the martini scene. Just as Bond is finally expressing something, the bartender has to recite the recipe. It just struck me as an obvious promotional tie-in, and it took me right out of the movie. He might as well have turned to the camera and said, "Drink Dr. Pepper! Mmmm!"
In Casino Royale, Bond orders a Martini with three measures of Gordon's, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shaken very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon peel. This is the recipe that Flemming has in his book with the same title. Bond names it the Vesper after Vesper Lynd in both the movie and the book.
Now everyone who has seen Casino Royale know this, so why else would Bond ask the bartender what he is drinking when everyone knows full well it's the Vesper - other than to show Bond's contempt for her because of her betrayal? He let his guard down and got hurt and now he's struggling with that in this scene. Clear as day.
To my knowledge, Gordon's Gin does not sponsor the movie nor does Lillet. Smirnoff vodka does however and the brand isn't even mentioned in the recipe. If you perceived this as a promotional tie in then I can only say that the degree to which your perception of this scene mirrors reality denotes, as Roche would say, cognitive defect :)
Diageo is the distributor for both Smirnoff and Gordons. Diageo was heavily involved in the Smirnoff-Bond Promotion in Casino Royale. Don't think that the Bar Ordering scene was keeping true to the story. It was paid advertising for the brand.
If you are here when the Diageo Employee Bar is open, maybe we can go up and have a Vesper. Drinks there are served at a hefty discount!
Was Diageo heavily involved with the 1953 book, Casino Royale, from which the recipe comes from? No. If it's a blatant promotion, why not make it 3 measures of Gordon's, one of Smirnoff instead of "just vodka", and half a measure of Kina Lillet? They don't even mention the brand of Vodka because they are keeping true to story. Also, the asshole bartender actually goes out of his way to point out that Lillet is not vermouth but a French aperitif . Why spend extra time talking about Lillet if not owned by Diageo. Again, for the slow, the recipe above comes straight from the 1953 book - ver-fucking-batim.
Over the ears, Bond films have been rampant with product placement. Bond's vodka of choice has always been Smirnoff. He's had Rolex then switched to Omega. Aston Martin, Bollinger, Brioni suits, etc. This film has had the least amount of blatant product placement. Do you know who dresses Bond in this film? I had to look it up - Tom Ford. We see him driving a Range Rover and a fucking Ford SUV but you'd really have to pay attention to figure that out. You never hear a peep about his watch as you have in previous films.
I didn't even like that scene particularly to be honest. I felt that they were beating you over the head to show inner conflict within Bond specifically by setting it up that way. That scene was 100 percent not a intended as a product placement scene. I'd bet my cock on it. If Diageo links themselves to it because of Gordon's - it's because they are capitalizing on the fact that in 1953, Ian Flemming decided to create a Vesper using Gordon's. You see Bond drinking what appears to be whisky in the Mr. White interogation scene. It comes out of an unlabeled crystal decanter. If they were into product placement why not have a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue (owned by Diageo too?)
I may be a little carried away over this but I'm completely flabergasted by Swerb's interpretation of this scene.
Sorry, I didn't have time to research the incredibly boring minutae of the scene. It may not be product placement according to the by-the-letter definition of it. It's a talking point, a dude-friendly version of the Sex and the City cosmopolitan.
I did notice that he drives an Aston Martin at the beginning of the film. And that didn't bother me because it's an action sequence. The martini thing bothered me because it's a point of characterization for Bond, and it took me out of the movie.
Keep in mind that I speak from the perspective of a fairly casual observer who not necessarily a fan of the franchise, but merely someone who wants to be entertained by a movie for two hours. Hence, why I compare it to other action franchises, like the Bourne movies.
Bone - I got to thinking, while you're out in GR, you might want to watch yourself with the cracker-ass crackers comments. There's a lot of us here, and we if organized properly, we most surely could take you down. It kinda reminds me of the classic How Maby 5 Year Olds topic. So Bone - How many cracker-ass crackers can you take on? Some of us have been working out...
Yeah, I'm on #4. I've been a little slow because I've had to study my ass off but I just had my evaluation flight yesterday so I can devote my full attention. I'm a big fan so far.
By the way, my parents said they like you but they thought you were on drugs because, and I'll quote my dad, "I don't know if he is on drugs but Jackzilla is the happiest son of a bitch I've ever seen".
Are you saying you already gave it to me in the ass? Either you roofied me up or you are rockin a case of mistaken identity and buttsexed someone else.
So Swerb, have you seen a screening of The Spirit yet? Is it as bad as I think it's going to be? Man, it hurts me to say it, but that movie looks like it could be the worst thing ever made. Can I blame Robert Rodriguez for convincing Frank to make Sin City in the first place? He clearly has no business making movies. Aww hell, who am I kidding? Frank hasn't even made a decent comic in years either - I think he's just trying to hit rock bottom at this piont so he can languish in faux-retirement until he resurfaces with some inane comeback effort...
I have to go read Year One now to wash the stink off...
The Spirit is at 17% on the tomatometer. At least I never had any enthusiasm for this one to begin with. I don't see it opening big, and if the reviews are bad, look for it to come and go quick!
The Spirit is ok... kinda crappy and all over the place, but it might almost work on a camp level. It's fun to look at, at least. Sam Jackson mostly sucks, though. He goes way over the top...
That's it? That's the best you got? What, this is it too close to your day job to offer a real critique? Or is it just that unremarkable?
Not to speak for John, but I will anyway... What's that about not buying a cow when you get the milk for free? Not that John's a cow... or that there's any milk involved whatsoever...
That's John's demo-review. Just like XBOX Live, you get just a peek. If you like it and want the whole thing, it'll cost you 800 points... or something.
Well, frankly, when I posted those two sentences, I was experiencing pre-Christmas work burnout. But now, if anybody wants an Unofficial Swerb Review, ask away!
In the meantime, feel free to read Ross' movie reviews on his Facebook page, despite the fact that it's very, very upsetting to Fatty...
Not long til the WATCHMEN movie (March 6) and I'm still excited. They've apparently shown it to some folks in the press who were sworn to secrecy but here's one dude's non-review.
I'm hoping to win early passes from Swerb, else is anyone local wanting to get together to see it? Midnight showing anyone?
In spite of all my nay-saying, I'm still excited to see it too. I still have to maintain a pessistic outlook on it, but even if it's terrible, I still want to see the attempt!
Entertainment Weekly has a cover story this week on WATCHMEN (plus 6 different collectible covers... "Gotta Get 'Em All!"). Did you know the pirate tale has been pulled from the theatrical release and will be (or has been?) released as it's own animated DVD? (Later to be shown together in limited release in theaters). Kevin Smith loves the new movie. My excitement grows.
I read it last night too. I was just telling Roche last night, I'm not changing my prediction per se, but I will go so far as to allow for Watchmen to be a decent movie, but if it is, it will be good in a way that is distinct from what made the comic so good (ie, cool action scenes and visually stunning set pieces, which the comic did not really showcase).
But hell, I could be wrong about all that, and Snyder could possibly pull off the impossible and nail the nuance and subtlety that made the comic great. But I doubt it.
Well, Swerb and The Lucky 25 get to see the movie tonight. I talked to him today and told him we expected at least a mini-review on here.
Reviews are a bit mixed, and it's at 74% on the Tomatometer. The biggest criticism seems to be that it's too faithful to the graphic novel, without enough changes to make it a great movie on it's own. I don't see anyone calling it an outright piece of crap by a duchebag or anything, though, so that's good. I'm excited to see it Friday!
OK, so, Watchmen... not bad. I was entertained. I really liked Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach - the Rorschach stuff is worth the price of admission, I think. I also liked Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl. Generally, it's pretty faithful to the book for the first 2/3, then deviates and gets kinda shark-jumpy towards the end, but not too bad. I wouldn't recommend that anyone not see the movie.
Two of the biggest problems I had with it: Ozymandias gets short shrift, and considering the importance he has to the overall story, making him relatively one-dimensional was a mistake. Secondly, Zach Snyder is trying to make this movie everything to everybody. Big chunks of the dialogue and narrative sequencing are practically verbatim from the book... but then, he almost unavoidably dumbs it down for the sake of general audiences. To address Bert's concerns, action is amped up a bit, for better in some scenes, worse in others, and some of the bigger set pieces are neat, but not awe-inspiring.
I dunno... I enjoyed most of the movie because I'm a fan of the book, and watched some of my favorite bits come to life. But the average viewer, I'm assuming, may find it slow or needlessly complicated. He goes middle-of-the-road with it, and I can't see anyone really loving it, or really hating it. The "too faithful to the graphic novel, without enough changes to make it a great movie on it's own" argument is pretty valid.
Another beef: Snyder seems to struggle to find a consistent tone. Some of it's funny, almost kitschy, as if the story is self-aware of it being a deconstruction of the superhero (which is how I interpret the book), but it strays from that, and it's a bumpy ride. What the movie lacks is any serious weight or dramatic gravitas regarding the threat of impending annihilation. That's where the stories of the people on the street - the quarreling lesbian couple, the newsstand guy, the peek into the life of Rorschach's shrink, etc. - are sorely missed. Sure, the world's at stake, but I'm not feeling it. And he inserts highly recognizable songs into the movie (Sound of Silence by Simon and Garfunkel, for example), which was sort of amusing, but distracting and unnecessary.
I dunno, I could go on... I'm curious to see what y'all think of it... and FYI, the "Tales from the Black Freighter/Under the Hood" DVD is coming out March 24, according to Amazon.
Ebert obviously hasn't read the book, so he's skewed by that. I also think his review has more to do with the ideas inherent within the story than the execution of the ideas.
Also, I don't think I mentioned that some of the fighting was too kung-fu-ey for my tastes...
Well, I just got back from Watching the Watchmen in IMAX. I have to say that I enjoyed it quite a bit more than I thought I would. If I'm honest, I was looking for some of the things I noticed in the negative reviews to vindicate my prejudice, but at this point at least, I think most of those criticisms were warrantless.
I would have a very hard time reviewing Watchmen strictly as a movie, and not as a movie trying to imitate an existing graphic novel, so I realize that it's pointless for me to try. Kudos to Swerb for being able to do it, but hey, that's his job.
SPOILERS FOLLOW
For me, I really got into realizing the characters onscreen and comparing how closely most of them resembled their comic book counterparts. The Comedian was exceptional, Night Owl was almost lifted off the page (except he wasn't fat enough), and I'll be damned if Rorshach wasn't abso-fucking-lutely perfect. He was by far the best part of the movie (and the novel, IMO). Both in and out of his mask, you couldn't have found a better person to play him. I want to go back to see the movie again just for the prison scenes.
Doctor Manhattan: pretty good, I guess, but the CGI was kind of distracting, to say nothing of the swinging CGI crank. Do you realize someone had to actually model that thing in the computer? Also, Laurie was entirely miscast, and that chick is a pretty shitty actress if you ask me. However, I will forgive all that since she has a world-class ass.
I suppose the criticisms about Veidt's role being too small are not unfounded, but I still thought it worked okay - I guess this is where my inability to divorce myself from the comic comes in - every scene with him in it felt totally true to the source material, even though some of them were missing.
Oh, and back to the Night Owl for a sec: I thought I would be much more annoyed by the amped-up slick-ass fight scenes, but for some reason I wasn't. Maybe it was just my mood, we'll see if I revise my opinion upon further viewings (it's happened many times). I will also say something that Roche will probably flip out about: the way he's portrayed in this film, Night Owl would kick the ever-loving shit out of Christian Bale's Batman. No contest. Makes you wonder, though, how would a retired, aging dude still be that sweet? Oh well.
Also, I guess I'm showing my age, but I did find some of the violence to be a bit gratuitous. I'm not against violence in movies, but some of it felt like it lingered a bit too long, and relished it a bit too much.
So basically, I have to eat my words to some extent. It stayed very true to the comic and did a B+ job of it, in my opinion. It necessarily left out many of the things that made the comic a true piece of literature, and didn't really add anything to make it a classic film in its own right, but it was a very serviceable attempt at filming the unfilmable.
One last thing, about the ending: everyone says that the change here was for the better, and maybe I agree, but I don't think it's so clear cut. Granted, a giant squid monster is a bit campy, but the basic message is that if humanity is under attack by something alien, it gives all humans a good reason to unite. Now, you can certainly argue that Dr. Manhattan isn't human (he isn't), but it's not really the same thing in my book: he's a somewhat known entity who at least was once human, and I would think that after a while, if he didnt' show up again, we'd pretty much resort back to our old ways. But I really do think that the comic version probably would have a longer-lasting effect on people since you just don't know when the other shoe will drop. Anyway, it's certainly not enough to ruin the movie for me or even detract, but I'm just saying I don't think it's as obviously a better ending as everyone else seems to.
Bert - I saw Watchmen again last night (on IMAX... saw the "regular" version the first time) and liked it a little bit better. It seemed more cohesive than I initially thought.
SPOILERS AHEAD, of course.
You're absolutely right about the ending. A friend commented that the squid was just "Alan Moore being wierd." But I still prefer it, because we don't expect it at all. I like the absurdity factor.
Still, I don't see anybody who hasn't read the book giving two shits about the movie. It has no serious spectacle to it, like, say, the Batpod/semi chase scene in Dark Knight. I also talked to a few random people (who recognized me from the paper) and they hated it - too gratuitously violent, they said, and they were disturbed by the Rorschach stuff. They may have been expecting something like Spider-Man, I'd assume.
I think adding 5 minutes of Veidt's origins would have made a noticeable difference. Really, we're already in the theater for 160 min., what's a few more? As it is, he just comes off as a smug one-dimensional a-hole. Plus, I was distracted by Matthew Goode's obviously fake hairpiece.
One other minor bone of contention - the amount of punishment these people can take. None of them has superpowers; they're just dudes in suits. The layperson will watch this movie and believe them to be nigh-invulnerable. I was more bothered by this at the beginning when The Comedian is killed, less so during the Nite Owl/Laurie scenes of kickassery. I have to say, Snyder's direction was terrific during those parts.
Agreed about Snyder. I was saying to my friends after the movie that Snyder is a very capable action director, and makes Christopher Nolan look like a kindergartener by comparison.
Agreed about Snyder. I was saying to my friends after the movie that Snyder is a very capable action director, and makes Christopher Nolan look like a kindergartener by comparison.
That seems a bit extreme... I agree that Snyder's a better action director overall, but I think the Dark Knight Batpod chase is better than anything in Watchmen.
I agree with that, but the fault there lies in that Snyder didn't attempt a spectacle of that magnitude in Watchmen. But in comparing apples-to-apples (fight scenes to fight scenes), Snyder proves superior.
As far as the "unbelievable" action sequences, they were on par with Batman, another normal human taking a large amount of punishment. I agree with the overall gartuitousness of the violence. I also thought the love scene wasa bit overdone. Not saying I didn't enjoy it, but I didn't need to see the flamethrower shoot out. That was a bit silly.
Overall I found the movie enjoyable. Megan even enjoyed it. There was a rather annoying couple behind us that kept making comments every time Dr. Manhattan turned around.
Watched the Watchmen last night for the first time. While I found the book to be slightly boring, I did really enjoy the movie. I believe the reason I did not enjoy the book as much as everyone else was I never read a lot of comic books. You guys have learned to appreciate the finer subtleties that I have not developed for that medium.
Still - the best line in the movie:
"None off you all seem to understand.
I'm not locked in here with you
you're locked in here with me!"
I totally agree, that's by far the best line. And it's so funny considering what a small fry Rorshach is. But it's actually done much better in the movie than in the book because in the book, it was merely in the case files as read by the psychologist - you never "heard" Rorshach say it at all, just a reference to him having said it.
I watched Watchmen again a couple of days ago - the director's cut - and I still definitely liked it a lot. I still am conflicted about the amped-up action scenes, because on the one hand I enjoy watching them (I also still contend that Night Owl is impossibly sweet in fighting scenes) but they are in stark contrast to the mood the book was going for. Also, it was too over-the-top violent. However, Malin Akerman's ass lost no luster - that thing is one of the seven wonders of the world.
Just watched 'The Hangover'. Another typical guy-bonding film, but, still very funny. I don't remember it coming out, so it was a great surprise for me. It even has a Tyson cameo for the Bone. BTW.. I am watching the Tyson documentary too. Not bad.
I'll agree that the Watchmen movie strayed from its original mood. I can see why that bothers the true fans. I didn't mind it so much. People expect superheros to be more super. Plus it gave them the chance to amp up the action scenes - which I didn't mind either. I expect action scenes in superhero flicks. One of the criticisms of the Bale Batman on this site was the dark action scenes hiding the action.
The Fatties are venturing even further East tomorrow and visiting the Black Sea in Bulgaria for one week. We are staying with a colleague of mine who is from there. With the site performing at its current pace, I won't miss much.
