|
Post by Derrick on Jul 4, 2010 21:30:55 GMT -5
Watched this movie today with some friends and we had a spirited discussion I'd like you guys to weigh in on:
Is WATCHMEN the "Citizen Kane" of superhero movies?
If not, then what is?
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jul 5, 2010 0:35:13 GMT -5
Hmmmmmm. For me, there's plenty of impressive stuff in WATCHMEN, but it's also kind of cold. I felt I was watching someone slavishly realizing someone else's vision, like a director working off another's storyboards. Which, let's be honest, is pretty much what it is. My opinion may change when I watch it again, as has been the case with THE DARK KNIGHT, which I think is more cinematic and informed more with the director's aesthetic than that of the source material. It also has truly superior acting by Ledger, Eckhardt and Bale. There are no comparably memorable performance for me in WATCHMEN.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jul 5, 2010 12:52:11 GMT -5
Hmmmmmm. For me, there's plenty of impressive stuff in WATCHMEN, but it's also kind of cold. I felt I was watching someone slavishly realizing someone else's vision, like a director working off another's storyboards. Which, let's be honest, is pretty much what it is. My opinion may change when I watch it again, as has been the case with THE DARK KNIGHT, which I think is more cinematic and informed more with the director's aesthetic than that of the source material. It also has truly superior acting by Ledger, Eckhardt and Bale. There are no comparably memorable performance for me in WATCHMEN. Not even Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach or Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian?
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jul 5, 2010 14:01:32 GMT -5
Not even Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach or Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian? Yeah, for me the whole thing felt hermetically sealed, and there wasn't enough room for the actors to make their mark, as wasn't the case with DARK KNIGHT. Not just those two, but I love Billy Crudup, Carla Gugino and Mathew Goode. Having said all that, I'm at the age now where I realize more and more that (a) I'm simply not the target audience for some things. This picture could have succeeded in every measure and it wouldn't have really appealed to me. And (b), I no longer entirely trust my first impressions of things anymore. So often I'll re-watch something I was kind of "meh" about and come away knocked out. (Two recent examples of this are THE AVIATOR and APOLOSSA.) I suspect WATCHMEN may be a similar case, as it's kind of haunted me, even as I wasn't that into it when I first saw it. (Also, my judgement was based on the 3 hour Director's Cut, which was exhausting...)
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 5, 2010 17:47:09 GMT -5
I would have liked to see Orson Welles make a film version of The Shadow, but he had different interests (as was the case throughout his career, he did work like "The Shadow" on radio to fund his own projects). A couple of years ago, though, Mark Millar created an elaborate April Fool's news story (for Comic Book Resources) about a proposed Batman film, to have been directed by Welles. The story came with terrific concept art (purportedly by Welles himself as part of the joke, but actually drawn by Bryan Hitch). I don't like Millar's comics writing at all, but this story was brilliant, and very convincing (unless you checked the date it was published - or noticed that none of the dozens of books written about Welles ever mentioned it). You can read some more information here: goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/05/17/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-103/As far as the "best superhero movie of all time" question goes, I prefer The Incredibles, myself. It's not only a great story, with fine animation, but is set in a convincing animated world where superheroes exist. One problem I have with super hero movies in general, even ones I like, is that the costumed superhero can look pretty silly in a live-action setting, even one designed to resemble a comic book (like Burton's Batman films or del Toro's Hellboy films). I think the best representations of super heroes on film have been animated (the Fleischer Brothers Superman cartoons, the "Dini-verse" cartoons, the etc.) The Incredibles tops my list. But if you want to stick with live action, I'll throw in a good word for Robert Altman's Popeye. Seriously - if any one (live action) film resembles a comic strip comes to life, that's the one, for me. James
|
|
|
Post by HulkSmashNow on Oct 1, 2010 4:51:59 GMT -5
"Watchmen" left me pretty cold, too. It seemed to just try a little too hard, although Haley's Rorschach was pretty spectacular. Some stories are better left on the printed page, and "Watchmen" was one of those in my opinion. I feel "The Dark Knight" to be the greatest superhero movie because it worked very hard to not be a comic book or superhero movie at all if that makes any sense at all.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Oct 2, 2010 17:53:32 GMT -5
"Watchmen" left me pretty cold, too. It seemed to just try a little too hard, although Haley's Rorschach was pretty spectacular. Some stories are better left on the printed page, and "Watchmen" was one of those in my opinion. I feel "The Dark Knight" to be the greatest superhero movie because it worked very hard to not be a comic book or superhero movie at all if that makes any sense at all. I gotta ponder that DARK KNIGHT statement of yours before commenting as it's a whole lot deeper and more profound than one would think. And as for WATCHMEN, I see your point. Not everything has to be adapted for the movies or television. Matter of fact I'm weary of a new book or comic hitting the shelves and it hasn't been out for a week when speculations start as to who going to direct/star in the movie version.
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Oct 2, 2010 21:45:38 GMT -5
I wrote a fairly critical bit on WATCHMEN somewhere on these boards. Probably on the thread about that episode. I agree that it is better left as a comic.
|
|
|
Post by chrisj on Oct 6, 2010 23:23:37 GMT -5
There's a lot I like about the Watchmen film: the opening credits sequence, the scenes that are taken straight from the comic (like the opening fight and Rorschach sequence), the performances of Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Billy Crudup, and Patrick Wilson, the music, and a lot of the look of the film. But it falters for me in how obviously evil Matthew Goode's Ozymandias is and the unnecessary amplification of the violence and sex. On the other hand, there's very little I dislike about The Dark Knight, none of which affects the entire film as in the case of Watchmen. So I have to give my vote to the "Citizen Kane" of superhero films being The Dark Knight.
|
|
|
Post by tombitd on Oct 7, 2010 5:28:44 GMT -5
The difference between Citizen Kane and The Dark Knight?
Citizen Kane made sense.
I remain in the camp that believes, with the distance of years, that The Dark Knight is extremely overrated. It's definitely far from worthy of being compared to one of the most skillfully made films of all time.
|
|
|
Post by james on Oct 7, 2010 6:33:11 GMT -5
The difference between Citizen Kane and The Dark Knight? Citizen Kane made sense. I remain in the camp that believes, with the distance of years, that The Dark Knight is extremely overrated. It's definitely far from worthy of being compared to one of the most skillfully made films of all time. I like the first half of The Dark Knight, but I agree with you that the second half doesn't make much sense. Aside from the fact that a self-proclaimed agent of chaos sets a plan that depends on precision timing, you have to believe that the Joker's goons could get away with wiring a hospital and two boats with explosives without ever being spotted. I had the same problem with Batman Begins(great first half, falters with a mechanical plot in the second). James
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Oct 7, 2010 12:03:46 GMT -5
This is a repost of my earlier rant about WATCHMEN.
Unlike many, when I care about a comic or character, I am far from happy when I hear of a film version being planned. I'd much rather have a great run on a Batman comic book title than another Iron Bat film. It is too much of a lose/lose venture, particularly with a book like THE WATCHMEN. Too close to the comic book and what was the point? Too far from it, you lose the core meaning, and again, what was the point? I feel that the film version of THE WATCHMEN was much of the former and, at the end, took a drastic, catastrophic turn towards the latter. For the first couple of hours, it was fun to watch, a few good performances, some nice visuals, but mostly I felt like I was just sitting through a Reader's Digest version of the book. Nice time, but unremarkable. Then, the end. In order, I assume, to give modern, shallow audiences a feeling of visceral justice/satisfaction, Night Owl witnesses the death of Rorshach, drops to his knees screaming and beats the shit out of Viedt. To me, the impact of Rorshach's death in the original graphic novel was necessary and needed to be handled with the same delicacy in the film. He dies alone, his sacrifice unknown and unrecognized (except for Dr. Manhattan, who at that point makes his final break from humanity). Night Owl, unaware, sleeps fitfully in that arms of The Silk Spectre. Ozymandius is unpunished, except for the doubt caused by that chilling final line from Manhattan (which was ridiculously reassigned and thrown away in the film). A dark, haunting, uncomprimising ending, that was so essential to the denouement of the whole tale, gone and supplanted with a shit Hollywood ending.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Oct 7, 2010 12:35:10 GMT -5
The difference between Citizen Kane and The Dark Knight? Citizen Kane made sense. I remain in the camp that believes, with the distance of years, that The Dark Knight is extremely overrated. It's definitely far from worthy of being compared to one of the most skillfully made films of all time. The only problem I have with THE DARK KNIGHT is that the incredible performance of Aaron Eckhart was overlooked in the wake of Heath Ledger's untimely death. Not to take anything away from Mr. Ledger as he gave us a remarkable performance. But Aaron Eckhart's performance was equally as remarkable and as deserving of an Oscar nomination.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Oct 7, 2010 18:20:17 GMT -5
It's definitely far from worthy of being compared to one of the most skillfully made films of all time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think when Derrick first invoked a comparison between WATCHMAN and KANE he was employing that time-honored (if frequently ironically employed) devise whereby the benchmark of the earlier film is used to highlight another work's position as the apex of its given genre. For instance, if I were to describe the first BRING IT ON film as "the CITIZEN KANE of cheerleader movies" -- which it is! -- I'm not actually comparing it to KANE itself, per se, but rather to every other cheerleader movie that doesn't achieve the same level of ambition, artistry and over-all perfection
|
|
|
Post by chrisj on Oct 7, 2010 19:04:57 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think when Derrick first invoked a comparison between WATCHMAN and KANE he was employing that time-honored (if frequently ironically employed) devise whereby the benchmark of the earlier film is used to highlight another work's position as the apex of its given genre. For instance, if I were to describe the first BRING IT ON film as "the CITIZEN KANE of cheerleader movies" -- which it is! -- I'm not actually comparing it to KANE itself, per se, but rather to every other cheerleader movie that doesn't achieve the same level of ambition, artistry and over-all perfection This was how I looked at my comparison as well. Not saying The Dark Knight = Citizen Kane either.
|
|