Comments -

All karas1's Comments

Showing items 2,901 - 2,910 of 3,153
<<  <  288 289 290 291 292 293 294 >  >>  

The 7 Most Powerful Wizards (Too Lazy to Use Their Powers) (Article) - 3/14/2009 6:06:49 AM

Gargamel is one of the 7 most powerful wizards in cinematic history?  Really?

WATCHMEN the Week After (Article) - 3/14/2009 5:31:33 AM

Funny, I understood why the pirate comic was there and what it meant  the first time I read it.  It enriched the story for me.  And I really missed it in the movie.  Looking forward to the DVD release that includes it.

Flying over Watchmen (Article) - 3/14/2009 5:23:44 AM

BTW, I read Watchmen for the first time in 1985.  I was a regular reader of comics at the time and was familliar with the state of comics back then.  Watchmen blew me away.  I loved it.  I loved how real it was to show a superhero who was impotent, one who was crazy, one who was a publicity hound, one who was a viscious bastard who did what he did because he enjoyed hurting people.

Watchmen the comic IS violent and full of gore.  If they had stuck to the gore that was in the comic I wouldn't have complained.  But they added more gore and it looks much more realistic in the movie than it did on the printed page.

Flying over Watchmen (Article) - 3/14/2009 4:41:38 AM

I'm sorry gauleyboy but you misunderstood me.  Allow me to clarify.  I never said that a movie shouldn't make a point or have a message.  I believe a movie should have a message.  A movie without a message is just an insubstantial spectacal, like junk food.  But a movie should also be entertaining.  If it doesn't entertain then it can't convey it's message properly.  It's like a nutritious meal that tastes bad and which nobody is going to want to eat.

Personally, I found that far from entertaining me, the ultra gore portrayed in the movie repulsed me.  It made the movie less entertaining than it would have been if less gore had been shown.  And furthermore, it obscured the message that I felt the film should have been trying to portray, the message that I got from the book.

The message that I got from the book was that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Ozymandis, in order to save humanity from a nuclear war, killed a million people and scared the #$%^&* out of everybody on planet Earth.  In the process he lied, committed murder and betrayed people who trusted him.  He used his position as a celebrity to pull a massive con job on the entire planet.  And he'd been planning it for years.  He turned himself into a monster on par with the most terrible people in human history.  And he had started out as such a sympathetic character.

I really didn't get that message from the movie.  The portrayal of Ozymandis in the film was different from the character I saw in the book, colder and less sympathetic.  I never felt that he was saving humanity because he cared about them, more because it would be less fun to be rich and powerful on a bombed out planet.  And without the pirate comic to really point out the metaphor, the point that he had sold his soul to save others was lost.

Well, I didn't see it.  I was looking for it but  perhaps I was just too busy going "Eeew, gross!" about all the extraneous gore to notice it.  The friend I took to the movie didn't see it either.  She never read Watchmen.  When I asked her what the movie had been about she thought the message of the movie was that people are selfish and evil.  She said that she had seen that point made by many other films and didn't need to see it again.  And she thought the ultra violence and gore were very upsetting and unpleasant to see.  She didn't like Watchmen very much and I think she wished she hadn't seen it though she was too polite to tell me so. 

I don't need a movie to tell me that violence and gore are unpleasant. I already know that.

So I guess my biggest objections to the movie is that I found the gore and ultra violence unpleasant and worse, they obscured what I thought should have been the message that the movie should have been trying to portray.  That makes it bad art.

Maybe Snyder wasn't trying to portray  that message, I don't know.  Maybe he didn't see the message in the book that I did and was therefore not trying to portray it.  Maybe he made a movie that said exactly what he wanted it to.  Maybe you didn't see that message in the book and therefore didn't miss it in the movie.

Chuck: Chuck Versus the Lethal Weapon (Article) - 3/13/2009 12:42:27 PM

The character of Cole Baker is redundant.  That's why they have Brice Larkin, to romance Sarah and make Chuck feel inadaquate.


Flying over Watchmen (Article) - 3/13/2009 12:24:10 PM

Darkknight, I think the reason they no longer sell real looking toy guns is that robbers were using them to commit robberies.  I also seem to remember a news item about a teenager who while playing with such a toy gun was killed by police who thought he was threatening them with a real weapon.

Flying over Watchmen (Article) - 3/13/2009 12:17:25 PM

Sorry Hobbs, I guess I did misread your comment.

Gauleyboy, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  I felt  it was glorifying the violence and pretty much showing gore because it could, not for any grand purpose.  A movie is, after all, entertainment.  I went to the film to be entertained.  Far from entertaining me, I found the violence distressing and uncomfortable.  Therefore, the movie failed in it's purpose in this facet for me. 

I am aware that there are people who do find the portrayal of gore and ultra violence to be entertaining.  Those are the poeple who watch slasher films and, for want of a better term, what is poplurlarly called torture porn, films such as Saw and Hostel.  Since those films were popular and both have several sequels I guess there are enough of such people to form a sizable fan base. Doubtless they enjoyed all the blood and gore in Watchmen.  But are they a sizable enough segment of the population to support what is supposed to be a major tent pole film with a huge budget?  I guess we're going to find out.

And if I wanted "real", I'd watch a documentary about a war or the Holocaust.  I wouldn't watch a film about  blue guys who can teleport to Mars.


WATCHMEN the Week After (Article) - 3/13/2009 4:27:04 AM

This is where the pirate comic in the original was so important.  The stranded sailor was just a regular guy, a man with a wife and kids who did his work and raised his family.  After his ship is attacked and he is stranded on the island, he becomes convinced that his home and family are in danger.  He performs increasingly savage and grotesque acts with the best of motives, to return home and save his family.  By the end of his tale he has, in the service of his heroic intentions, become a monster as terrible as the ghost pirates on the ship and performed actions just as evil.  He has damned himself. 

And that is JUST what Ozymandis did.  In the quest of world peace and the salvation of humanity he bacame the most brutal mass murderer in history.

Flying over Watchmen (Article) - 3/13/2009 4:10:31 AM

The pussyfication of America huh?  Well, maybe I am a pussy.  What can I say?

I didn't object to the violence, per say.  I expected violence.  I objected to the way the violence was portrayed.  Snyder seems to love gore and the gory portrayal of violence.  But parts of the movie made me really uncomfortable.  I don't pay $8 to see a movie to be made to feel uncomfortable and judging by what some of you guys report I'm not alone.  I doubt those people you saw leave the theater left because they didn't like the sex or the action.  I imagine they left because they didn't like the gore.

The pirate sub plot WAS violent and gory.  But it made a point, the gore was there for a reason.  Certain scenes in the movie HAD to be gory and bloody.  When Roscharch threw the dead dogs at the pervert it had to be shocking and when he threw the fryer oil on the inmate had to be horrible.  When the Comedian tried to rape Sally Jupiter it had to be brutal and the beaten, bloody Sally had to be pathetic.

But a lot of the gore I saw in the movie seemed gratuitous and unnecessary.  You didn't have to show the broken bones of the muggers in the alley or the gooey remains of the mobsters that Dr Manhattan killed in the resturant.  I think that the extra gore diluted the power of the scenes that DID have to be visceral and bloody.  It made it difficult to tell which scenes were important and which were just an exercise in cool special effects.  My objections are as much about the artistic choices Snyder made as they are about seeing something yucky.

If that makes me a pussy then... meow.

And can't we have differences of oppinion around here without stooping to name calling?  Aren't we adults?



Flying over Watchmen (Article) - 3/12/2009 4:32:24 AM

OK, some of you guys like graphic violence.  You like slasher films and torture porn and other movies that spray blood and gore all over the screen. I get that. 

I'm a Watchman fan who doesn't like it a lot.  I try to avoid movies that portray such images.  Yes, the book was very violent and bloody but it didn't, how shall I put this, celebrate the violence quite so much.  In the book, nobody liked the violence.  People like Nite Owl and Silk Specter acted violently because they felt it was the only tool that would get the job done.  Rocharch did violence because he felt that amoral criminals who did violence deserved to have the same violence done back to them, but he didn't enjoy it.  The only character who really grooved on the violence was The Comedian whom everybody can agree was a real bastard.

The movie gloried in the violence, the broken bones, the severed limbs the blood spurting all over the place.  In every instance (except one) the movie amplified the gore factor of every fight scene or character death.  The only exception was the death of Big Figure where we see Roscharch approach him menacingly and then the water comes out from under the bathroom door.  Would the scene have been better if we had seen Roscharch drown him in the toilet?  I think not.  It worked better the way it was filmed.  And I wish some of the other violence in the film had been handled with similar restraint.

As for the R rating being a clue, those of us who have read the book know that the story contains a graphic sex scene, a violent attempted rape and a lot of full frontal male nudity.  If no one had thrown a single punch in the movie those things would have meant an R rating.




Date Joined: October 3, 2006