New Yorker Watchmen Review *Minor Spoilers*

Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by theenglish, Mar 3, 2009.

  1. theenglish

    theenglish Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Location:
    Suriname
    The New Yorker has a very unflattering review of the movie. Not to say that this is necessarily a film that will appeal to the art crowd, but it does bring up some disturbing points for me. I was a fan of the original graphic novel, which I read back in the 80's as it was originally published so I know the story but I don't want this thread to contain too many specific movie or plot references for those who do not want to know about them.

    Check out the review:

    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/03/09/090309crci_cinema_lane
     
  2. Harvey

    Harvey Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    I'm not surprised by that review. I fear I may agree with much of it, but reserve judgment until I see the film. It's little consolation that the seven critics at Metacritic have been about as unkind to the film, though.
     
  3. Michael Chris

    Michael Chris Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 11, 2001
    Location:
    The 'Querq, NM
    It's at 76% on RT. So that's good. I suppose.
     
  4. CaptainCanada

    CaptainCanada Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    Charlottetown, PEI, Canada
    The NY review's not positive about the film, but it doesn't seem any higher on the original story (to the point of severely misinterpreting Moore's work), which casts some doubt on its credibility.
     
  5. Admiral James Kirk

    Admiral James Kirk Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2001
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Ah you gotta be born with your head stuck straight between your butt cheeks to even be considered for a job at the New Yorker. Like I care what that pretentious hack thinks. I may not have seen the movie but even if it's bad it doesn't deserve a review that hoity toity. I can't think of any movie that does.
     
  6. firehawk12

    firehawk12 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Location:
    EXILE + ATTON = GUUUUUUSH!!!! (pic by aimo)
    What the fuck? Like really?
    We're all assholes who think women are best found in porn magazines? I know reviews are supposed to be opinion, but could this line have worked if it was some other group?

    "Sex and the City" harbors ambitions of political satire, and, to be fair, it should meet the needs of any 30 year old woman who believes Prada will solve all her problems and, whose deepest fear - deeper even than that of missing a sale at Louis Vutton - is that their fourty-thousand dollar wedding gown might be ruined on her wedding day.

    I'm so tired of this "nerds are losers" shit. Ugh.
     
  7. RoJoHen

    RoJoHen Awesome Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2000
    Location:
    QC, IL, USA
    So prove them wrong!

    It is our job to bring out everyone's inner nerd! One day nerds will reign supreme.
     
  8. firehawk12

    firehawk12 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Location:
    EXILE + ATTON = GUUUUUUSH!!!! (pic by aimo)
    All I can hope is that the guy's computer breaks down when he's writing a long review and he forgot to save his file. Then we'll see who he calls. :p
     
  9. hyzmarca

    hyzmarca Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Reading this guys other reviews, it's fairly obvious that he wouldn't know a good movie if it shat on his face, and he has a pathological hatred of both action films and summer blockbusters.
     
  10. Bishbot

    Bishbot Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    HUGE doubt to my mind. I'm willing to accept that the film might not be all that - although I really really hope I'm wrong, but this review is a complete joke.
     
  11. Professor Zoom

    Professor Zoom Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Location:
    Idealistic

    Agreed. When I read it it's clear the reviewer seems to hate (or doesn't believe that it's possible) the very idea of a comic book, certainly the idea that a comic book could tell a complex story.

    There are other reviews out there that don't like it, but at least they seem to understand the comic...or at least appreciate it.
     
  12. Skywalker

    Skywalker Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Well, he does write for The New Yorker. :lol:
     
  13. God Magnus

    God Magnus Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    A world where criminals operate above the law...
    Agreed. The entire review's credibility was shot as soon as I read that. It's one thing to tear a movie apart, it's another to insult its primary audience.

    Reading the review through, it seems the writer was also biased against Moore's original work and missed a lot of the point of the book to begin with, so the movie review itself is suspect IMO.
     
  14. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
  15. Ben Sisko3

    Ben Sisko3 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2001
    Location:
    Heavenside
    :rommie::rommie::rommie:

    My thoughts exactly.

    Dude loves his Conan and Spider-Man...
     
  16. Chess Piece Face

    Chess Piece Face Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 17, 2001
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio
    I'm not reading the review, but I've feared all along that this will suck. It just looks stupid to me in a Batman Returns kind of way...I don't know. I guess if they are lampooning superhero movies instead of superhero comics I "get" that but I just don't give a shit.

    The Watchmen movie needs to be serious, like a 9 hour miniseries, and Nite Owl needs to be a fat, balding, impotent, sorry older guy...not some dude that is kicking ass matrix style, like in that clip.
     
  17. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    What gave you the impression that this is "lampooning" anything? All I've read and seen suggests that it's a very faithful, very serious, hard R-rated adaptation of the original Moore/Gibbons comic miniseries. True, the comic was itself a deconstruction of superhero tropes, and there was no doubt some humor in that, but it was hardly a comedy.
     
  18. The Super Brando

    The Super Brando Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Location:
    Nashville
    The reviewer seems pretentious and elitist. Granted, there are many pretentious and elitist people out there who will agree with him, and will dislike the movie. Maybe I'm not high brow because I like graphic novels and superheroes, but this movie just looks cool to me.
     
  19. Lapis Exilis

    Lapis Exilis Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Location:
    Underground
    I've been checking several respected reviewers on the film and yes, The New Yorker's shows plainly that he doesn't understand the original medium or story, so it's unlikely he's going to get the movie.

    However, several reviewers who do plainly understand the book are remarking that the film is slavish to the point of creating a faithful but lifeless adaptation. Which is a drag.

    From Nick Setchfield at SFX magazine:
    "Critically, Watchmen dissected comics in the unique vocabulary of the funnybooks. A celluloid version needed to be just as playful with cinema, interrogating the cliches and tropes of screen crusaders – everything from the high-camp riot of ‘60s Batman to the darkly tinged X-Men movies. But while Snyder adds fashionably overwrought sound FX to the combat sequences (and his slo-mo, sped-up action tic soon gets annoying) they feel misjudged....

    It’s not a bad film. It’s actually coldly, technically brilliant. And it honours Moore and Gibbons only too well. But it’s monumental and slab-like, an exercise in cinematic taxidermy, in need of a lightning strike to animate its parts....

    Ultimately you’re left feeling like Billy Crudup’s wan Dr Manhattan, witnessing a supernova from afar – yes, it’s a spectacle, it’s worthy of a polite smattering of applause, but somehow you’re too distant and detached to care. This is an easy film to admire, a crushingly hard film to love."

    A great adaptation requires so much more than the misguided attempt to simply transfer something from one medium to another.

    From Devin Gordon's Newsweek review - a very good point:

    "Only a few filmmakers have struck a balance. "The Godfather" was a bestseller, but for the screen version, director Francis Ford Coppola bravely rearranged nearly all of its furniture, building a bit character's wedding into a massive set piece at the start of his film and, for the climax, intercutting a solemn baptism with a string of brutal Mafia hits. More recently, the "Harry Potter" movies didn't get it right until the third try, when Alfonso Cuarón turned Hogwarts into a magically grungy, bluish dungeon populated with disaffected adolescents in blue jeans. Comic-book and fantasy adaptations are now a dime a dozen, but they tend to work best—see Christopher Nolan and Batman—when they are spiritual, rather than literal, transfusions. The apotheosis, surely, is Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, which stands shoulder to shoulder with Tolkien's books. What separates Jackson and Snyder isn't the depth of their love for the material. It's that Jackson was merciless about it when he had to be."

    I'll still go see it, and then I'll reread the book which I haven't picked up in probably 20 years. It'll be interesting to see if the book holds up, or if it is either too attached to the particular paranoias of the 80s, or the particular paranoias of being 20. Maybe there is something timeless about it, and it's surely a good yarn. I look forward to finding out.
     
  20. HaplessCrewman

    HaplessCrewman Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Location:
    Office of Scientific Intelligence
    If this is the worst critics can dish out, we are in great shape! :rolleyes:

    An inconsequential review.