Thoughts this Monday evening on Watchmen....
Thoughts this Monday evening....
I saw Watchmen on Saturday, and generally liked it. I'm reserving final opinion on a later day. My friend Alex has (rather correctly, I think) stated that Zach Snyder's movies lack soul. I view this one as a step up from 300, which was itself a step up from Dawn of the Dead....
In general, I liked the movie. Let me say that first. It gets a thumbs up. I thought it was fun, and worth the price of admission.
A few things to say:
I've never been a huge booster for Watchmen, not because I don't like the book, but because the title seems overrun with people who drool over it.
Me? I like the book, and I own it. But it's not one of those that I re-read on an annual basis. Hell, it had probably sat on my shelf for five years before I re-read it upon learning that they'd be making a movie out of it. It's one of those that I recognize the quality and message of, but frankly, it's not one of those that's an overly fun read, for me.
Kinda like how I recognize the greatness of Citizen Kane, but will most likely watch Dr. Strangelove or Star Wars...they're most accessible and easy to fall into, and are more to my personal sensibility. Not as great, but maybe a little more fun, for my taste.
But anyway....Snyder's movies are fast food. They're good and easy on the surface, but generally there's not a lot original or of value beyond what's on the surface, other than what the original authors put there.
And I guess that's my issue, this slightly inebriated Monday night (and by Damn is that Bar Harbor Blueberry Ale tasty).
The poster for Watchmen, in large bold letters, declares that this movie comes from the visionary director of 300.
OK. 300, I kinda liked, too. In a cotton-candy kind of way, where I know that none of what goes on really bears a lot of thought.
And Dawn of the Dead? It puts a little quicker motion into what I've always viewed as the least enjoyable of George Romero's zombie movies.
But visionary?
I'll tell you what I infer from that "visionary" label.
That there is a specific message, or at the very least, a distinctive visual, artistic imprint coming from Snyder, as an auteur.
Well, that's all well and good, I guess, until you realize that Zach Snyder's best two known movies to date are A.) a remake of a cult classic and b.) an almost page to screen remake of one of Frank Miller's best comic works.
Well, if Zach Snyder's a visionary, he's lifting his visions directly from other people. Which I suppose happens from time to time, but he's not bringing anything new to the table. Let's call a spade a spade, and go from there.
Like I said, I liked the movie. It was a faithful re-telling of the Watchmen comic. There wasn't a lot new, except for the infusion of Dr. Manhattan into the destruction of city sequences, which I'll admit worked very well for the whole flick. I'll give Zach Snyder credit...he recognizes what works, and translates it to a different medium well.
Little things?
Patrick Wilson? Reads his lines. Same with The Alamo, Hard Candy or Lakeview Terrace. He's not acting. He's reading his lines. He's better in Watchmen, playing a guy who's uneasy with the roll thrust upon him. Not to damn with faint praise, but this is maybe the perfect roll.
Other things?
Second only to my own, I have probably seen more of Dr. Manhattan's penis than any other man's
Other than that?
The movie's not bad. I just don't know that it's going to hold up to a lot of analysis....
I saw Watchmen on Saturday, and generally liked it. I'm reserving final opinion on a later day. My friend Alex has (rather correctly, I think) stated that Zach Snyder's movies lack soul. I view this one as a step up from 300, which was itself a step up from Dawn of the Dead....
In general, I liked the movie. Let me say that first. It gets a thumbs up. I thought it was fun, and worth the price of admission.
A few things to say:
I've never been a huge booster for Watchmen, not because I don't like the book, but because the title seems overrun with people who drool over it.
Me? I like the book, and I own it. But it's not one of those that I re-read on an annual basis. Hell, it had probably sat on my shelf for five years before I re-read it upon learning that they'd be making a movie out of it. It's one of those that I recognize the quality and message of, but frankly, it's not one of those that's an overly fun read, for me.
Kinda like how I recognize the greatness of Citizen Kane, but will most likely watch Dr. Strangelove or Star Wars...they're most accessible and easy to fall into, and are more to my personal sensibility. Not as great, but maybe a little more fun, for my taste.
But anyway....Snyder's movies are fast food. They're good and easy on the surface, but generally there's not a lot original or of value beyond what's on the surface, other than what the original authors put there.
And I guess that's my issue, this slightly inebriated Monday night (and by Damn is that Bar Harbor Blueberry Ale tasty).
The poster for Watchmen, in large bold letters, declares that this movie comes from the visionary director of 300.
OK. 300, I kinda liked, too. In a cotton-candy kind of way, where I know that none of what goes on really bears a lot of thought.
And Dawn of the Dead? It puts a little quicker motion into what I've always viewed as the least enjoyable of George Romero's zombie movies.
But visionary?
I'll tell you what I infer from that "visionary" label.
That there is a specific message, or at the very least, a distinctive visual, artistic imprint coming from Snyder, as an auteur.
Well, that's all well and good, I guess, until you realize that Zach Snyder's best two known movies to date are A.) a remake of a cult classic and b.) an almost page to screen remake of one of Frank Miller's best comic works.
Well, if Zach Snyder's a visionary, he's lifting his visions directly from other people. Which I suppose happens from time to time, but he's not bringing anything new to the table. Let's call a spade a spade, and go from there.
Like I said, I liked the movie. It was a faithful re-telling of the Watchmen comic. There wasn't a lot new, except for the infusion of Dr. Manhattan into the destruction of city sequences, which I'll admit worked very well for the whole flick. I'll give Zach Snyder credit...he recognizes what works, and translates it to a different medium well.
Little things?
Patrick Wilson? Reads his lines. Same with The Alamo, Hard Candy or Lakeview Terrace. He's not acting. He's reading his lines. He's better in Watchmen, playing a guy who's uneasy with the roll thrust upon him. Not to damn with faint praise, but this is maybe the perfect roll.
Other things?
Second only to my own, I have probably seen more of Dr. Manhattan's penis than any other man's
Other than that?
The movie's not bad. I just don't know that it's going to hold up to a lot of analysis....
posted by Tommy at
22:55
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home