Sci-Fi Watchmen (2009)

Re: Watchmen

Ideally, criticism is for the purpose of expanding your appreciation of a piece of work, or helping you decide if it is something that YOU would enjoy or not.

Thumbs up or down doesn't do that, and is a cheap, stupid way to approach art. Any little boy will say, "It rocks" or "It sucks"...a critic should be able to do a little more than that.
The infamous "thumbs down/up" ratings by people like Ebert are for entertainment, not serious reviews. I would tend to doubt that most movie fans give much thought to whether somebody gave a simple "Yay" or "Nay" review of a movie.
 
Re: Watchmen

Actually, the thumbs down thing is widely cited and discussed for films. Ebert is one of the most listened-to film raters. It's not "entertainment"...it's information. More people are aware of that kind of rating than know why it was rated good or bad.

But I also intended the "thumbs" thing in the wider sense. How many film reviews do you see that work to expand appreciation, rather than just tell people if it was good or bad? VERY few in the papers. Maybe in serious film magazines.

Even screenwriter forums continually have posts like "Wolverine gets 90% from RottenTomatos" and such.

Lots of pretigious weekly and monthly reviewers will tell you EVERYTHING sucks. I have kept score on writers: one guy didn't like a single film for almost two years. And that's what he wrote about: why movies suck. What good is that to anybody?

By the way, I worked as a film reviewer for years. This is something I've paid attention to.
 
Re: Watchmen

Lin, I could see where you are coming from. However...


Like I stated before, the average joe schmo is ignorant. You and I will both agree that even American culture is so hyped on everything being the best price, fastest way, and easiest route. For example, look at diets. I am a bodybuilder so I know what it takes to have a great body (and I do NOT use steroids or HGH! I absolutely am disgusted with them)...and that is all gained through hard work, nutrition, and patience. But the an average American person will buy supplements and have their diet and nutrition revolve around them. Or they will workout for a week straight, not see any results because it takes months, and then give up saying its "genetic to have a great body". I've seen this a million times (****, my parents too!), and it makes me realize how impatient and lazy our culture can be. This also goes to the people who do use steroids or HGH...the easy way out is never a good way.

My point is that Ebert has come up with a way that can relate to an average watcher. Like I also stated, the main target market for a viewer is between 13-18, male. Especially in the summer blockbuster area. Ebert has made a clever and "easy, quick, and un-patient" way to make the average user think if the movie is worth seeing or not. Yes, it is a shame that it is dumbed down, but it works. It is a shame we live in a lazy society. But it still works.

You cancel out all the intermediaries, and you could end up saving money, time, and nerve. I think I'll give this two thumbs up ;)
 
Re: Watchmen

Actually, the thumbs down thing is widely cited and discussed for films. Ebert is one of the most listened-to film raters. It's not "entertainment"...it's information. More people are aware of that kind of rating than know why it was rated good or bad.
I disagree entirely with the premise that shows like Ebert's are not for entertainment purposes. Having Ebert (and Ropert :() onscreen going back-and-forth with each other was the driving force behind many viewers watching; having them both agree on a movie made for quick reviews & boring TV. Just because it is a popular does not mean it is taken as an authoritative source.

In a different medium, the Apple iPod is the most popular portable media player; does that mean audiophiles who take music seriously think of an iPod as real way of listening or just cheap mass entertainment? I'd place my money on the latter just as I would put money on people who watch a lot of movies not really caring whether a particular critic gave a thumbs up/down to a movie.
 
Re: Watchmen

It it's on TV it's for entertainment purposes.

The whole "everybody's stupid so you have to dumb down for them" argument sucks, frankly.

There's just no justification for the "good/bad" BS taking up time. If they can't say something to give people an idea of whether they want to spend their time and money, or if they can't do anything to expand appreciation then who gives a **** if they like it or not.

You don't have to be a genius to be available for information or to have your apprericiation expanded.

We're talking about MOVIES and TV shows here, the idea of an appeal to elitism is pretty silly. (Always the other guys who are stupid, of course)
 
Re: Watchmen

Wow...you still dont get it do you??

I understand that for purposes of "expanding"knowledge to folks for the sake of a better review is essential. HOWEVER...

Once again, people dont give a **** what reviews say. In fact, you take the average viewer and put a review with a rating next to it. That review will never be read because they have everything sumed up for them. I mean, cmon! Why should they read when it is handed over to them?

Ebert does a great job going back and forth to help folks decide the winning vote on spending money in a theater or even wasting time to watch it. Quite frankly, your argument sucks for the offense of Ebert :P

A critic who has a detailed, aesthetically prepared review will not survive the fast paced enviroment that is the movie main stream.
 
Re: Watchmen

Gee, I guess I just don't get. All those years writing and running publications, doing hundreds of film reviews and interviews. writing screenplays and pitching them.

Meaningless because you see to feel that it conflicts with whatever it is you're trying to say.

Which seems to be that everybody else in the world is stupid. Except us of course. Well, actually, except you, since I seem to have trouble accepting your one-dimensional whatever it is.

So a guy is thinking about going to the movies. Maybe he's heard about a flick, maybe he's just looking for somewhere to take a girl, or the kids. So he picks up the paper. He's not going to read the review, apparently (God KNOWS why they run them). And he doesn't want to know what the film's like so he can decide whether or not to go. Or which one to see.
No, he's much more interested in whether or not the reviewer says "It's good" or "It's bad."
Because he trusts reviewers to know these things.

Now, after having seen the film, he's not going to buy a film magazine because, gee, nobody buys those things. The lives of actors are their own business and nobody thinks anymore. Just us. Or rather you. I guess...you haven't made it clear whether you are one of the lumpen knuckleheads you deride or not.

Whoa, this is tiresome.

Here's the dealL a movie review can serve a purpose by giving the reader information to help him decide what to see.

Film criticism can serve a purpose by giving the reader information to aid his appreciation. Most fans like that, even it it's just stuff about the stars. Or "the making of". People buy magazines the show how films fit in to our lives. But apparently nobody buys them.

A critic who has a detailed, aesthetically prepared review will not survive the fast paced enviroment that is the movie main stream.

Yeah, right. Actually, most newspapers, especially weeklies DO feature detailed reviews (I won't get into "aesthetically prepared", whatever that means). The WEEKLIES, the ones that are SURVIVING the newspaper shakeout which you might have heard about. They run right off at the mouth. They are probably the most common form of movie review in the United States.
What they don't do though, generally, is the things I've mentioned above. What they do is go on and on about why the film sucks.

If you're not aware of this, I'd suggest picking up something and reading it when you get a chance.

It's not me who's not getting here, kiddo.
 
Re: Watchmen

Hehe, this is fun...

Ok Lin, Mr. Guest Author/"former movie critic"...I guess I will just have to reiterate once again...

First, go to dictionary.com. Look up "aesthetics". Read. Think about it. Put it in a sentence.:D

#1: This culture (specifically AMERICAN culture) is in a fast paced enviroment. With everyone working, raising families, and trying to have some social time, many people do not have the TIME or PATIENCE to sit down and read a page long review. That is based on FACT. Also, do you really think parents are going to want to sit down and read what, lets say, WALLE is all about? Hell no. In fact, they will see what the critics say in a short glance, see if its Rated G, and then take their whining kids to see it.

#2: Have you ever seen a 13 year old read a review let alone a book?! Or an 18 year old? How about a 31 year old? I know that I love to read. Many people do. But the AVERAGE populace does not have patience or time to do so. Call it ignorant or call it juvenile, that's the way it is.

#3: Honestly, if I am going to see a movie, I dont want a full description on what it is. I want to see what kind of PROFESSIONAL guru's have rated it and if I want to spend 8 bucks to see it or wait until DVD. I dont want to know if Wolverine had bone claws in the beginning (even though I read the comics)...I want to find out for myself.

So, Lin, maybe you're just comparing yourself to the average person. That is fine, everyone does it. However, when it comes to logical thinking, one must know the limits on what an entire population is really about. And Ebert knows that. Period.

If you state that you were a former "movie reviewer/critic", then maybe there is a little bit of jealousy? Kind of a correlation...;)
 
Re: Watchmen

First, go to dictionary.com. Look up "aesthetics".

Don't flatter yourself with that smarmy superciliousness, kiddo. I'm out of your league. As film critic, writer, and being a jerk if I want to.

You are mistaking somebody DISAGREEING with you (and making it stick) with somebody who can't UNDERSTAND your shopworn, off the rack "Americans are too stupid to like what me and my uppity buddies like".

Yeah, jealousy. That's it. Why don't you just have the balls to state, "I lost control of this discussion" instead of a third rate cheap shot like that?

You haven't got a clue about what I'm saying there, your lack of pickup on it is obvious in every paragraph to everybody but you.

But please, continue to inform us on how you like people to break movies down to thumbs up, thumbs down for you. It's dreary, but kind of queasily cute.

And you can either keep this felgercarb up or not. Your call.
 
Re: Watchmen

BTW, Mr. Get a Dictionary. "reiterate" means repeat. So turn yourself in to the department of redundancy department.
 
Re: Watchmen

: Have you ever seen a 13 year old read a review let alone a book?!

No. I've heard RUMORS of 13 year olds reading books. But if you say it doesn't happen there must be something to it. Because after all, you're.... wait, what is it you are again that informs your high skool hotshot opinions?
 
Re: Watchmen

Hahaha! Looks like somebody hit a freaking nerve! If you guys are going to hang around the net and give your opinions........grow thicker skin!;)
I don't know what difference it makes, I mean really. I wouldn't presume to think what the "average american movie goer" thinks but for my part I never pay attention to a critics reviews anyway. I just watch the trailers and if it looks good to me I see it and judge it for myself. I don't rely on someone elses tastes to decide if I should go see a movie or if I liked it once I saw it.
I have seen many cases where all the critics loved a particular film and I personally thought it was a piece of felgercarb, then others where the critics all hated one but I (and most others) loved it. So I don't really see what difference it makes whether a critic gives a movie two thumbs up, down..four stars...bags of popcorn....multiple endorsements.......or whatevers. It all boils down to personal preference. So, my rule of thumb is if the critics like it...it probably sucks, will win an Emmy and most folks will dis-like it and visa versa, :D.

Kinda like the Watchmen movie, the critics seemed to love it. I usually watch comics based movies so I saw it. I wasn't that impressed. The FX were top notch and the story was so so. I didn't really get why the critics were so high on the "Oh this super hero movie has a more adult theme" thing. It was costumed heros doing what they do with a pretty slutty sex scene mixed in it and one genious playing God making decisions for the greater good while killing thousands of people with a huge bomb......big deal. If he was so smart then why didn't he come up with a win win solution instead of an "I can manipulate these peeons" approach. Frankly, it seemed pretty stupid to me but what do I know, I'm just a hick redneck;)!
 
Re: Watchmen

Whoa whoa whoa!!!!!!!!!!

Looks like I DID hit a nerve! :eek:

Hehe, Lin, I like your criticism and your thoughts, and it is awesome that I can have an agreement/disagreement with an author.

P.S. You have very interesting work...I watched that sex video (the one with the guy and girl and they speak "pictures"....pretty funny!).
 
Re: Watchmen

There's a difference between "hitting a nerve" and "getting on somebody's nerves".

But yeah, the whole binary film review thing is a a pet peeve of long standing.

Thanks for your comments, Glad you liked my graphicporn. Peace, love, tie-dye.

Birdman, your comment on the "wow, comics go adult" points to a common feature in media reaction. They get their darlings, assume everybody else is as in the dark as they are and it becomes "common knowledge" that, say, "The Simpsons" is some cutting-edge thing moving American television into new realms of sophitication. (Meanwhile ignoring "Duckman" which was actually DOING that at the same time Simpsons was an animated "Married With Children"

One of those on/off film critic things that used to get me was slick/edgy. Nothing in between: it's either slick of edgy. The one you're noting is kids/adults. And if it's animated it just has to be for kids, right.
 
Re: Watchmen

Hi guys, newbie here chipping in my two cents:

I personally read the reviews from start to finish, because I (gasp) like to form my opinion. For example, in the upcoming Wolverine Movie reviewers hate what they did to one character, but since I don't care about that character, I can happily watch the movie. In addition, I find some reviewers tougher than others, and a lot they don't agree with each other. Frankly I also think that anyone who has the time to be on a message board can certainly read a review from start to finish.

Getting back to the movie, I loved the Watchmen but they banned it from showing in our local IMAX. Unfortunately, I didn't get to see Doctor Manhattan's package on the big screen. :P
 
Film: Watchmen (2009)

When I saw this film I knew nothing about the plot, having never read the mid-1980s comic book of which (as I learned later from the Wiki entry) the film is said to be a faithful adaptation. I'm not sure whether this was an advantage or disadvantage; at least I didn't spend my time checking its authenticity and was able to evaluate the film purely on its own merits.

The setting is an alternative 1985 in which the USA has had a history of masked vigilantes (superb fighters but otherwise normal humans) now all retired. There is also one genuine superhero with god-like powers as a result of a laboratory accident, who is now a glowing blue figure known as Dr Manhattan. His existence enabled the USA to win the Vietnam War and gave them a dominant position over the Soviet Union. However, he is becoming increasingly remote from normal human affairs and seems to have disappeared, causing Cold War tensions to become increasingly hot: nuclear war threatens. Meanwhile, someone is killing off the vigilantes and the survivors get together to try to discover what is going on.

Having experienced something of a surfeit of Hollywood superhero movies of late, I had certain expectations. I was expecting light entertainment: a fast-moving thriller with a straightforward good vs evil plot, lots of action and special effects, probably a dash of humour in the quieter scenes, and maybe a touch of thwarted romance. I was therefore rather surprised to discover that, although Watchmen has most of those elements (I can't say I noticed much humour), it also has a lot more. It is a generally slow-paced and indeed very long film, running for over 160 minutes. It is also rather confusing, hopping constantly between the present and the pasts of several of the heroes at different stages of their lives: I wasn't always sure who the younger versions of the characters were meant to be. Overall, it is a rather grim and downbeat film with a pessimistic twist in the ending.

I understand that many aficionadoes of the comic book rate this film very highly. My own view is rather more mixed. There are some good elements and some strong scenes, but overall I suspect that the desire to be faithful to the comic has resulted in a rather messy and confused structure with too much packed into it. It was involving enough for me to watch to the end, but I'm not likely to want to see it again.
6331135384154117296-5276701336246029240



(This entry is cross-posted from my science-fiction & fantasy blog.)
 
An odd lot of superheros in an alternative timeline - AND THEY DID IT WELL! Three hours long and well worth the time spent watching it. Adult science fiction but should appeal to all ages {note: some sex and nudity, very violent at times, and often dark}. This movie is an interesting trip - creative, intelligent and plenty of action - not your everyday superheros.

From IMBd:

"In an alternate 1985 where former superheroes exist, the murder of a colleague sends active vigilante Rorschach into his own sprawling investigation, uncovering something that could completely change the course of history as we know it."
 
Previously Hollywood did a movie version of 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' which strayed very far from the original GN source and was horrible. This time I think they stayed too close to the original. It's okay. helps to have read the GN. Well cast, esp Comedian.
I wish Rorschach would have had a more monotone voice, like Bruce Willis, instead of the raspy/growly.
 
HBO has announced that they are working on a Watchmen series. Zach Snyder, who directed the 2009 movie, was originally involved but had to bow out due to his work on the DC movies. Damon Lindelof previously worked on titles like Lost, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Prometheus, and Cowboys & Aliens.
 
there's a set of GNs called 'before watchmen' that details their back stories; presumably they'll go there. would not be 'Watchmen' without the Comedian!
doubt they'll keep any original cast.
I don't get HBO so I won't be watching.
 

Similar threads

Hardwired (2009)
Tagline: They stole his past, now he's taking back his future.
Genre: Science Fiction, Adventure, Action, Thriller
Director: Ernie Barbarash, Tia Buhl
Release: 2009-11-03
Replies
1
Views
514
Back
Top