The Manic Maniac: R.I.P. Watchmen? - Aug 07, 2008 - 09:41am
what's interesting about the "arguement" the article tries to make is that THIS IS EXACTLY WHY ALAN MOORE doesn't endorse his comics being made into movies. people tend to disregard what it means when comics are refered to as it's own "medium", but this too is where the issue comes up. the issue is adaptation versus the original work, and whether is "should" be done or not, and when it is done, does is lessen the original, or is the movie some how "more true" than the original. what the article is expressing is the how, in mad rush and "doing service" to the original, the minutia where the life exists is getting pummelled out. I agree. but we can't blame the fact THAT it's getting adapted, we can only blame WHO is adapting it and HOW they're doing the adaptation. take DARK KNIGHT (it's of course very easy for me to use this as an example BECAUSE it's so good, and so fresh on our collective geek minds): Christopher Nolan is (and was before) a quality filmmaker with a "voice" and something to say with it. having hims take on Batman, and be allowed to put his ideas and sensibilities with the character and mythos of Batman (and frankly, having the taste to be able to discern which great works of Batman to draw from) and to also know when to completely make the movie and story "his own" IS WHAT MADE THE DARK KNIGHT SUCH A QUALITY AND WELL MADE FILM. (of course there are a number of other factors, but listen to things like Goyer talk about "what Chris wanted", or how the actors talk about how they "felt safe to work on set" and you'll see that it was things of this kind that the director brought to the project that enabled the film to be great.) can this all happen with WATCHMEN? sure. is it likely? no. but I'm sure it's gonna be really good, and good fun to watch. for those that just can't seem to pierce the tome of the graphic novel, they'll like the movie I'm sure. for those who have been over saturated by everything from the last five or ten years only, they my feel that the movie is a little trite -- not realizing that WATCHMEN (like many others) has been pillaged for story twists and turns for YEARS from things like 24, and DIE HARD movies, to something as recent as THE INCREDIBLES. I also think that in Zack Snider's trying so hard to please "us fans" he may fail to put any of his own touches, flairs, or nuances (that a director like Nolan did with Dark Knight -- and made it so good), and without those things the movie will just feel flat. if the movie is just a transcription and beat for beat breakdown of the comic, it will feel phony. something won't feel right. in fact, the closer he (Snider) nails certain things, he'll only call more attention to any other thing that may deviate from the graphic novel. (again, an area that Nolan really didn't have to contend with because he was making his "own" Batman, and all his efforts and choices were made in service of the story.) I'm sure that the assemblage of actors (and there are some good ones in WATCHMEN) will do much to prevent that, but that will be where the biggest point of contention may lie. and here is where, it wouldn't matter if it's not exact, if instead it was injected with some subtance from a filmmaker with a voice.

---

Box Office: HANCOCK Flies into July 4th Victory - Jul 07, 2008 - 08:35am
putting my two cents (and the cost of five tickets this weekend) in: I agree with HANSO and a few others, HANCOCK was a pretty good movie. was it great? it felt like it was -- but that there were things taken out of it. it really did. I don't know if anyone noticed that, but there were certain moments that kinda jerked ahead in the story. knowing movies the way I do (and the way movie studios are) I'm pretty sure this was cause they ordered cuts to the script/story/movie all in mid-stream and we were left with a movie that was missing bits. there were gaps in it's logic. I'd heard that the script for this "TONIGHT HE COMES" is one of the best -- it obviously attracted all this talent (Charlize, Bateman, Berg and of course Smith) so it's a shame when Hollywood then goes and cuts it's nose off to spite it's face. but, that said, the movie was REALLY GOOD. I say that cause it goes against expectation in a way. it doesn't do or give you what you're used to or want, and it's still rewarding. this is the kind of movie that, if it WERE cannon to some other comic hero, fans would be going ape sh!t over it cause they did things that they weren't "supposed to." but that's what made this movie interesting. I also feel that the big moments in this movie can be EASILY SPOILED, and if so, then the movie's punch is faded. so that's too bad, but luckily, I stayed relatively spoiler free. I don't read reviews of genre movies, especially things I really want to see, or that have piqued my curiousity... and the reason is cause reviewers don't know how to write these days. they can't discuss a movie without exposing major plot and that sucks. also, no one seems to value the real importance of what storytelling is really all about: having a story UNFOLD. you're not SUPPOSED TO KNOW what happens, and if you can guess it, or if it's telegraphed beforehand.... and it actually is the thing that you guessed, then it's poorly done. HANCOCK didn't do that. it was a bumbling SUPERMAN story in a way. a "what if there really was a POWERED SUPER HERO in the world... and he was a f*ck up?" I liked that, cause when it made it's turns, they were pretty good. were they GROUNDBREAKING? no. but they were pretty good. I really liked the relationships and I liked what things implied. frankly, I also liked the sort of allegory that was going on with HANCOCK too. the idea that he was almost like AMERICA (our country). his symbol was the eagle. he was the world's only SUPERPOWER. he did things that saved people, and he saved them with brute force and in his own way -- and got criticized and was given a hard time for it. (he even has that spat with the french kid. good times.) HANCOCK was original. he wasn't superman, ironman, batman or anybody else. and with all that's come before, and how all the "ideas have been mined", etc., I think that HANCOCK was pretty damned good.

---

LOST: No Place Like Home Part 2 - May 31, 2008 - 01:01pm
yeah this was a good finale. (*there will be SPOILERS*) I liked how it answered "who was in the coffin?" only to leave the question, "why?" for us to mull over for the months ahead. THAT was a great idea -- because a cliffhanger at this point, at this place, would've ruined the show. I'm glad "they" didn't. I also like how they answered/addressed one of my greatest points of criticism even AS I watched and loved the show: the line, "we're the good guys Michael." now old hat, this was a huge thing, one that was thrown in there leaving us to wonder, "is Ben saying that cause he's just crazy evil and THINKS he's good, or is he really a good guy?" well, he's certainly the lesser of evils, but I like how the unfolding of this season has essentially shown that he is one of the good guys (in his own way). I agree with the autobot rgtchtiger in that they really pumped up Michael's presence on the show only to have him for like a few episodes. even worse: ZOE BELL. c'mon LOST GUYS! what the hell?! her name was on the credits of like almost every episode for atleast the first half of the season if not longer. then, she does her stunt jump and that's it!!! now, I know this might mean that she'll be back, blah blah blah, but that's really dropping the ball frankly. I'm sure Zoe didn't mind the steady check for no work, but still. I think that was poorly handled. but I digress, cause as I said, I DID really like this season closer. I also thought it was good that Desmond FOUND Penny. not just cause I've got a soft spot for romance, but cause with the high body count (that I'm glad they didn't shy away from) letting Desmond actually get what he was wanting and fighting for was nice. somebody should get what they wanted. I loved how Sun is very serious in the present and said to Widmore when she met him "we have mutual interests." that implied that she now knows who's directly responsible for the explosion on the freighter and want Ben's ass. that also has tons of wicked potential for the future, cause she might evolve to be the "secret spy" within the Oceanic 6 or whatever. I liked how Sawyer & Juliette think that there's a different fate for the Oceanic 6... and how that could lead Sawyer to becoming the new Lord of the Flies of the remaining castaways (who knows?). his group may do battle with Locke's group... though, as I think about it, that wouldn't be much of a fight what with Dentist Bernarld "I'm-not-Rambo" Nadler. but there's gotta be some kind of conflict. I like how we learn why Ben was wearing a winter coat. I like how there are consequences to those who "move the island" (are these part of "the rules" that Ben talked about? and does that mean maybe Widmore was once on the island like Ben, and moved the island and now can't get back?). I also liked that there was a lot emotion going on with Ben turning that wheel. it wasn't just physically difficult, it was HARD and showed how he really has changed since his daughter's death. I also liked that they finally SHOWED something fantastic happen AND acknowledged that it was happening between characters (as opposed to "I honestly don't know" answer for the smoke). Like that HUGE sci-fi reveal of that station and it's implications. they didn't smooth it over or shrug it off like it wasn't there. the moving of the island... was pretty interesting. pretty cool. watching LOST I do know that they're really into the "simplest answer being THE answer", so I'm thinking that with the "time traveling bunnies" example, where they "shifted it a minute into the future", I think all Ben did was "shift" the whole island ahead, but probably to the present or something. that would explain why it "disappeared" but also didn't got anywhere. it would essentially be in the same place, just at a later time. that could also be for some really cool stuff in the next two seasons. I'd say that it would be a very cool and even BOLD move to have all of next season be OFF THE ISLAND COMPLETELY. like, NEVER SHOW the island or anyone on it for a whole year. it would be cool and very hard to do -- cause they'd have to make it interesting -- but I think that it would be really creepy and almost maddening (we may grow Grizzley Adams beards like Jack going crazy waiting). but I think it would make for a cool move, cause then we would really be desperate to "get back on the island" just like the characters. we would also be eager to know what happened and why, and if they did "shift into the future" then that would explain it too -- in a weird way. Ben would know the location, but not the "when", and so he would be waiting maybe trying to get back, and Widmore and his people would be following Ben etc. of course the logic ain't exact -- like Locke. he got off. how? but, they're ideas people. there's also the notion that Kate with Aaron is kind of like Ben with Alex in a way, and so they could do something with that. I'd still like to know about JACOB and I wonder if we ever will. I'd still like to know what's up with the four-toed statues. I Richard just a guy who "shifted" around time, or is he something else? I'd like to know. over all it was really good and I'm looking forward to whenever they restart the show.

---