Comments -

All karas1's Comments

Showing items 2,931 - 2,940 of 3,174
<<  <  291 292 293 294 295 296 297 >  >>  

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.



Unspecified Title (Article) - 3/10/2009 4:16:36 AM

Well, I agree with Nell.  Not for the sake of families with kids but for me.  I'm not the kind of person who likes slasher movies or movies with lots of graphic violence.  I've read Watchmen many times but I wasn't expecting that.


Certain scened had to be graphic such as the one where Rocharch douses the inmate with hot  fryer oil.  But most of the violence was not portrayed so graphicly in the book.  In the book Laurie and Dan were attacked in an alley and defeated the prospective muggers.  You saw some unconcious guys strewn around.  You didn't see protruding broken bones or splattering blood.  When Dr Manhattan killed the mafia guys in the resturant you saw some guys go "poof", you didn't see their dinner companions drenched with blood and their bones and intestines hanging off the ceiling.

I never saw 300, mostly because it was advertised as the kind of film that has graphic violence and I don't like that kind of stuff.  Had I known that Watchmen would be so graphicly violent I still would have seen it (though I wouldn't have brought that particurlar friend with me).  But I would have been prepared.  As it was I felt blindsided.  I expected the R rating to refer to the sex scene with Dan and Laurie and the full frontal nudity of Dr Manhattan, which would have gotten the picture an R rating if ther film contained no violence at all


WATCHMEN Tops Box Office (Article) - 3/9/2009 10:55:51 AM

Veidt blew up other cities including Moscow and Paris and some others.  We saw them briefly on his view screens.  Given that he blew up the capitals of other countries Veidt should have destroyed Washington DC rather than NYC but it was NYC in the comic so I guess it had to be NYC in the movie.  Besides, EVERYBODY loves to pick on New York City.


A TV King Rises (Article) - 3/9/2009 10:50:32 AM

Well, I missed Lost last week so I'm glad I get a chance to see it this week.

WATCHMEN Tops Box Office (Article) - 3/9/2009 10:22:18 AM

Thank you joeybaloney.  At least SOMEONE read that long post I wrote and had something to say about it.

Perhaps I was too negative in stating what I didn't like about the film.  There were many really good things about it too.  I loved what they did with Rocharc's mask and as I formerly stated, with the scenes on Mars.  All the prison scenes were really good and the action was terrific.  The actors, particurlarly the ones who played Roscharc and the Comedian, knocked it out of the park.  The set design, costuming etc was perfect and the music choices were mind blowingly perfect. 

They actually got the flashback format to work way better than I expected. 

Like joeybaloney I disliked that Veidt framed Dr Manhattan rather than identifying an outside, alien source for the destruction.  Perhaps something other than the squid could have been devised if they couldn't make that convincing but I felt that a glowing ball of destruction was a cop out.

Most of all, I regret that the heart of the movie, the meaning was lost.  I guess the full experience of Watchemn really is unfilmable in a format short enough to do as a movie.  2 hours and 40 minutes just wasn't long enough to pack it all in.

WATCHMEN Tops Box Office (Article) - 3/9/2009 3:52:51 AM

That should have read "I'd give it an A- or a B plus"  For some reason it won't let me include a plus sign.

I miss the edit feature.

WATCHMEN Tops Box Office (Article) - 3/9/2009 3:45:51 AM

Can't blame the economy.  Movie attendance is up 19% over what it was this time last year.

SPOILERS - big time - be warned - don't say I didn't warn you

I was a little disappointed with all the gore.  In the comic, Roscharc chained the child murderer and left him in a burning building, in the movie he chopped the guy up with a meat cleaver.  I found the meat cleaver method more unpleasant to watch, and frankly, less psychotic on Rocharc's part.  There were other instances where gore was shown which was implied or happened off pannel while we watched someone else's reaction shot in the comic.  I felt the extra violence was exploitave and sensational and detracted from my enjoyment of the movie.

Another thing I disliked about the film was the portrayal of Adrian Veidt.  Maybe it was the actor or perhaps it was the direction but none of the warmth and charm that Ozymandis had in the comic came out on screen.  The first time I read the book I was shocked that such a caring person as Veidt should be the murderer.  The movie version presented a chilly SOB that seemed very capable of mass murder.  And since Bubastis had not been portrayed as Veidt's constant companion and pet in the film, the part where he disintigrated her to get Dr. Manhattan had absolutely no impact.  In fact, since we had no contact with her before the climactic scene in Veidt's antactic retreat I wonder that they included her at all since, frankly, the CGI giant mutant lynx looked kind of silly, especially since, for no apparent reason, they decided to make her blue.

And they cut out the "plain folks" in the movie.  The guy who owned the news stand, the boy who read the comic, the butch lesbian cab driver and her artsy lover and the locksmith who kept replacing Nite Owl's locks after Rocharc broke them were important characters.  We met the psychologist who worked in the prison only briefly and learned nothing about his life or even met his wife.  And the two cops who investigated Blake's murder weren't seen for the rest of the film.  In the book we knew these people as well as we knew Dan and Laurie and Roscharc.  We cared about them.  And they were important because their lives were the price that Veidt payed for world peace.  To say "I killed millions but I saved billions" sounds, perhaps, reasonable.  To know and care about a few of the people who lost their lives makes such a cold transaction horrible in a way that was not presented in the film.

I don't know how I feel about the absence of the squid.  On the one hand, perhaps it would have looked silly on film.  On the other hand, I like the Lovecraftian imagery of the squid in the book and since Veidt didn't genetically engineer an "alien" it destroyed the subplot of the missing artists, how they created the "alien" and how Veidt murdered them.  More lives sacrificed for the cause by Veidt.

I make it sound like I disliked the film but I didn't.  It was much more faithful to the source material than I could have dreamed possible.  The action was fantastic and the portrayal of the characters (aside from Veidt) was spot on.  It looked terrific and I got a real kick out of the scenes of Dr Manhattan's flying clock construction on Mars.  But somehow, the heart of the film was gone.  It was like a present with nothing inside, just an empty box with pretty wrapping paper.

I'd give it an A- or B on spectacle and appearance and I would reccommend it to friends, assuming they have strong stomachs.  I'm really looking forward to the DVD release with the pirate comic footage added because perhaps that will bring back the message of the film that I thought was missing (that Veidt had "sold his soul" for peace, had become a monster through the horror of his actions).

And you know, they showed a lot less of Dr Manhattan's penis than I would have expected.  Considering that he walked around stark naked for most of the film there was a lot less full frontal nudity than I expected.  They added the gore and subtacted the male nudity.  Hmmmm.  You know that if Dr Manhattan had been a female character there would have been naked blue breasts in every frame.

5 Awesome Movies Ruined By Last Minute Changes (Article) - 3/7/2009 11:31:52 AM

About Blade Runner.  I like the original theatrical version.  I like the voice over by Harrison Ford and the film noir atmosphere it evoked.  That atmosphere was enhansed by his monotone reading, indicating how tired and strung out and jaded he was by his prior life as a professional killer and how unwillingly he was doing this new blade runner assignment.

And the "happy" ending never seemed so happy to me.  Far from living happily ever after, Dekkard and Rachael were fleeing north into a trackless forest  wilderness (not the best environment for lifelong city dwellers) where they would spend the rest of their lives (however long those would be) on the run, constantly looking over their shoulders for the legion of blade runners sure to be dispatched to hunt them down.  It was hope, but it looked like a long hard road.

As for the whole, Dekkard is a replicant thing, besides making no sense for a variety of reasons, it would gut the whold message of the movie for me.  As I see it, the movie was about how Dekkard, a human, was so tired and jaded by the hard, violent life he had lived as a blade runner that he was emptionally shut down, less alive than the androids he hunted.  His interaction with the replicants Roy Batty, Priss, Leon, Zohra and especially Rachel (with whom he fell in love), rejuvinated his emotions.  He regained his humanity from the androids!  Of course, if he had been a replicant all along then he had no "humanity" to regain and message I percieved in the movie was meaningless.

CLOVERFIELD 2 Development Confirmed (Article) - 3/3/2009 11:46:39 AM

I think everybody is being a little hard on the characters.  Yeah, they were a bunch of self involved, shallow, yuppie 20 somethings but hey, we've all been there at some point.

I'm not really interested in learning more about them.  But the monster and  where it came from interest me.  A sequel to Clover field would have to be really different from it's parent movie or it will look really derivitave.


Date Joined: October 3, 2006