Article Ratings & Comments
(1-20 of 22 posts) | Reply
on Mar 09 2009 01:19 PM I just don't understand why people who know they probably aren't going to enjoy a movie go and see it with the intent to review. I knew nothing about Watchmen except what I'd seen on the commercials, so I would class myself as a "know nothing" going into the movie, but I still found it easy enough to follow. I've seen most of the superhero/graphic novel movies of the last decade, and this was by far the most interesting story out of any of them. Here's a suggestion, if you don't like dark stories with stylized violence, then don't see them. You write for a Christian newspaper, you should probably just limit yourself to movies with puppies and rainbows so not to offend your delicate sensibilities. To everyone else, the movie is clearly an achievement in film making, the cinematics are gorgeous, the characters are rich and well-developed, and the plot is crazy but well-executed. You should definitely see this movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 09 2009 01:39 PM Please try to focus on the screen next time. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 09 2009 03:33 PM In reply to this comment (#2364310) "To everyone who enjoys a watered-down version of a masterpiece, the movie is clearly an achievement in film making, the cinematics are gorgeous, the characters exhibit no development whatsoever, and the plot is crazy but still flattened. You should definitely spend your $10 on weed and watch The Dark Knight again." I fixed this for you. And I've read the comic three times, so please don't tell me I "didn't get it." Because I got it, and I got more to it than you did, because I've read it. To everyone who hasn't seen this movie: It's basically just a snuff version of the comic book that misses the point entirely. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 09 2009 10:53 PM It's obvious that some of you cant handle the greatness of this film (or refuse to enjoy it for no apparent reason) (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 10 2009 11:13 AM I too was looking for the exit. I think the trailer was definately mis-leading when it came to how much action was in this film. Most parts I found boring and dragged out forever. This is definately not your typical "Hero" film.. far from it.. more like a bunch of dysfunctional wooden actors threw on some costumes and decided to make a porno. Several times during the film I had to ask myself if this was a cheap kinky fanboy porno or a real movie, because I could not take this movie seriously at all. Yes, I understood the story and craptacular plot line (what little there was). In reply to Slik Nik: I went into this film WANTING very badly to enjoy it (and so did my husband) but neither of us did. It was too long, boring and a mess of a plot. Did I care about any of the characters even AFTER their stories were explained? No. If you find this film great, then good for you, I guess alot of moviegoers will eat up anything these days with the lack of any expectations. The fact is that the 300-esque special effects were thrown in so forcefully so that my husband summed it up best: During the building fire scene when they slowed the camera down when the explosion was happening and they focused on that gal's hair flying around it reminded us of a shampoo commercial - and was just as blandly memorable. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 10 2009 02:10 PM Read the greatest graphic novel of all time, then see the movie again. The film does not fully live up to its title, but it is clear that some of you are too picky about what you need to see or don't want to see in a film i.e. penises, special effects, violence. Stop the whining and maybe you will realize an imaginative, alternate '80s reality that this film sometimes brilliantly portrays. As a counter opinion, for me the Watchmen made 3 hours go by incredibly fast. Now that's entertainment. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 10 2009 08:21 PM You are left looking at the exit and I am looking at more credible reviewers. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 10 2009 09:34 PM Christian Science? Isn't that an oxyMORON? (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 10 2009 09:35 PM Christian Science? Isn't that an oxyMORON? (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 10 2009 10:31 PM This reviewer is terrible, if you are going to review a movie at least get it right. "it's about the Watchmen, a race of costumed superheroes %u2013 they're more like supervigilantes" They aren't supposed to be superheroes, they are vigilantes, like Batman, no superpowers (except Dr. Manhattan). I personally enjoyed the movie but I've also read the book and maybe some of that background helped. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 11 2009 08:35 AM In reply to this comment (#2365694) Slik Nik: I%u2019d hardly call my criticism whining. I must have hit a nerve with you since you've resorted to personal attacks. This just sums up the maturity of the people who watch this film - in other words teenage fanboys looking for a porno/gore porn movie. I find myself feeling ripped off after seeing this movie as the trailer was very different from what the movie actually brought to the screen. The trailer portrayed a very special-fx intense "Hero" movie. Both I and my husband found it quite the opposite. Lots of long, slow parts with very few special effects sequences that were notable as well as a very twisted odd story punctuated with over-long sex scenes that were in no means artistic or necessary but extremely awkward. At least in 300 the sex scene was very artistically done - an art form of light and color - and short and to the point. This movie seriously reeked of cheesy porn, something I was NOT expecting and did NOT want to pay for. It's NO WONDER that the author of the graphic novel REFUSED to put his name on this drivel or associate himself with this movie in any way/shape/form. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 11 2009 11:52 AM In reply to this comment (#2367233) If I'm a fanboy then you're a whiner. Wasn't even replying to you and your out of place comments until now. Personal attacks? Whatever suits you best my dear... Porno/gore porn? Hardly, 300 was more pornographic like what you're describing with its crude rape scene, and as for the other sex scene in 300 it was way overdrawn, cheesy, and unnecessarily skanky (it actually offended my gf). What you see as awk in watchmen is called character development, which maybe you're just not familiar with yet. SPOILER night owl and silk spectre doin it in archie the ship, cuz it reminds them of good times. end SPOILER. need any more explanations? Oh, the writer, he's a recluse, and hates films to begin with. Oh and one more thing, don't judge movies by their trailers. They will create false expectations like you had. Don't like a tad bit of violence and promiscuity? watch a movie rated pg like Paul Blart, seems more up your alley. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 11 2009 12:13 PM mr. snyder's best movie is still his remake of "dawn of the dead." though not as good as the romero original, i did like his take on fast-moving zombies.that,too, is an oxymoron, similar to christian science. this movie was like a joke that takes forever to tell and than the punchline fails miserbly. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 11 2009 10:59 PM wow! what movies do you even enjoy? maybe you're not use to entertaining movies (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 12 2009 03:03 AM Stupid people have a hard time following the film "Watchmen." Certainly anyone who found this film too "talky" falls into that category. I'm gratified that not everything (including action/fantasy genre) is being made just for RETARDS any more. Let the lowest common denominator go to stupid, cheap, ****ty movies. Let the budgets go to nifty fare like this. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 12 2009 09:38 AM You Suck! (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 12 2009 02:31 PM Christian Science Monitor, it's hard to believe that you could have possibly given this movie a positive review, even if you did like it deep down. However, please state your real reasons for not liking the movie instead of blaming it all on the violence. Go ahead and admit that it made you uncomfortable when the existence of a god was questioned. Go ahead and admit that you found the sex to be gratuitous, and admit that you probably didn't care for the giant blue genitalia you unknowingly stared at. Giving your real reasons might make your laughable single-paragraph review a little more credible. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 13 2009 12:17 AM Laughable. Everybody with a brain knows you didn't like the movie because it contains male full frontal nudity, and that you write for a Christian magazine. If the ocean is too frightening for you, go back to the pond where you belong. (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 13 2009 12:21 AM In reply to this comment (#2368595) I imagine he would enjoy Passion of the Christ. ;P (Reply to this) |
|
on Mar 15 2009 12:59 PM ... Was there a review in any of that rubbish aside from saying what the characters looked like? Just wondering. (Reply to this) |
RSS Feeds
