When talking about relationships, Amy always tells me that she's interested in guys that are interested in her, but not too interested in her. I always found that kind of silly, who doesn't want someone to be interested in them?
"They have to play the game David."
I always contested that people needn't play the game with me, they simply need to be interested and if I'm interested, it will work perfectly. Amy predictably scoffs, says whatever, and then I push her over because simply put, that is what Amy and I do.
Strangely, that little story perfectly explains how I feel about Watchmen.
Whenever I go see an adaptation of a favorite comic or book and I leave, I always think "man! why could they not just follow the source material? Is that so hard?" I've actually blogged about this a time or two, and at the time, I really believed what I wanted was a faithful adaptation of my favorite works. Otherwise you'll end up with some bastardization of the materials like what happened with Daredevil or Christmas with the Kranks (the latter wasn't even that great of a book - it was a cute one, but the movie was monumentally terrible so I had to include it).
However, similar to the relationship discussion, it really works a lot more like Amy thinks than I think. Don't follow the source at all? Failure. Follow the source so meticulously you're watching essentially a shot for shot remake of the comic? Not failure, but something doesn't feel right. It's like the Rolling Stones say, you can't always get what you want, but you'll get what you need.
I think the ideal adaptation is mostly faithful but kind of not like the Nolan Batpics, the Raimi Spiderpics (excluding the rise of emo Spider-Man), and the Singer X-Pics. They carry on the spirit of the source materials beautifully, pay tribute often with little moments, but dn't obsessively reshoot what happens in the comic, because then you'll capture everything that happens plotwise and character wise, but you'll miss out on the subtext and spirit of what happens on the pages.
Now, to speak less in generalities and more in specifics.
Watchmen, for all intents and purposes, is the single most faithful comic adaptation ever. Zack Snyder and team managed to condense a 12 issue maxi series into 2 hours and 43 minutes, reproducing shot angles, using exact lines, and never missing character beats. Nearly everything was exactly the same, save for changing the endings significantly (but seriously, a squid monster from another dimension psychic blasting downtown New York City? I know it's a comic movie, but that is ridiculous - good change Zack). Many of the characters were captured perfectly, or in some cases, even managed to improve.
For example, Patrick Wilson (of Little Children fame) managed to somehow turn one of the weaker characters in the story (Dan Dreiberg aka Nite Owl II) and turn him into arguably my favorite character in the entire movie. Dreiberg's weakness was still evident, but it was not his defining characteristic like it was in the comic. They managed to turn him into someone you really believe could win over Silk Spectre, and someone you really believe could be out there kicking ass on a regular basis.
Jackie Earle Haley has to be mentioned, as he managed to perfectly capture Rorschach. Rorshach, in my opinion, is the best character from the comics. He sees things in a simplified black and white while everyone else in the movie sees things in shades of gray, and his hyperviolent and fiercely vengeful representation in the film lit the screen with intensity whenever he came about. Some will say that Haley stole Christian Bale's Batspeak from the Nolan Batflicks, but to be honest, Alan Moore originally wrote the character to speak like that. No less, Haley's performance as Rorschach ensured the movie would, at the very least, capture the most interesting character well.
Really, Billy Crudup was excellent, Jeffrey Dean Morgan did a great job as the Comedian, Matt Frewer did a lot in his one scene as ex-villain Moloch, and a lot of the supporting cast was superb. Malin Akerman was definitely a weaker point in the primary cast, but to be fair, Silk Spectre was always a character defined by the men in her life, not really by herself, so in that regard she did a lot with her work by turning her into a more three dimensional (and badass character) who balanced the movie a bit from what could be perceived as misogyny from the rest of the film.
The biggest acting complaint: Snyder's decision to actually film scenes with Richard Nixon, who was acted by possibly the worst actor ever and given the single worst makeup job ever made. Every time he appeared on the screen, I wanted him to go away immediately.
On to Zack Snyder.
Zack did a bang up job in this movie. He managed to do the impossible by not holding back at all and filming this movie exactly like the comic, and successfully adapting the unadaptable. Very impressive. His obsession with overt violence and slow motion actually worked out very well in this (although come on now, slow motion sex scenes are just bizarre and hilarious, and then a little awkward), as what I believed would be the biggest downfalls of the film ended up being strong points. His usage of music (besides Leonard Cohen's truly abysmal rendition of "Hallelujah" in the midst of the aforementioned sex scene) was superb, with high points going to the opening expository credits being framed with Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'."
Some scenes Snyder nailed so perfectly I would find myself thinking "God! I can't believe I'm watching Watchmen. Who's watching the Watchmen? I'm watching the Watchmen!" One scene really blew me away, with the contrast of Silk Spectre and Nite Owl II getting in a alley fight AND Dr. Manhattan's ill-fated television appearance. It worked unbelievably well, and Snyder's passion for the project really, really came through in scenes like that.
Alright, so now I go into my biggest complaint, and why I can never call this a great movie regardless of what I've said in the previous seven or so paragraphs.
This movie is completely and utterly pointless.
Alan Moore, the writer and co-creator of the comic series, has often said in the past he doesn't want his comics to be adapted into film. For a couple reasons really, but the main reasons are that the comics that Hollywood has adapted have been terrible and because of one thing I really, really believe in. Comic books, in many ways, are the perfect storytelling medium. When done right, you can capture all of the power of the written word within their pages, and the visuals are limited only by the imaginations of the creators of the story. Film is limited by budgets and by the simple fact some things can not be digitally recreated.
Moore and Gibbons created Watchmen and it contains all of the power of the written word and all of the images exactly like they should be. Snyder managed to take the visuals and recreate many of them very well, and he took the characters and their words and applied them to the film to a truly monumentally accurate degree. Why though? As someone who has read the series multiple times, why was this a necessary exercise, short of Snyder's love for the story, Warner Bros. desire to make a boatload of money, or an attempt to share what many consider the greatest comic of all time in a more widely appreciated medium? It was truly exciting to see it all happening on the screen, but it just kind of felt wrong.
As New York Magazine said, this movie was embalmed. The spirit of this movie was choked out by Snyder's intense desire to get it right and his inability to follow through with what he started. Never was this more evident than in the films final parts, in the restructured ending. Ultimately, the ideas are presented in a similar fashion as they are in the comic, but the legendary moral dilemma the characters are put into - the ultimate "what would you do?" finish to a story - the crux of the entire storyline - pretty much falls flat. In a way, Snyder's desire to capture the characters and story so well sucked all of the real world tension from the story, making the ending not relatable and suffocating in application. When Rorschach screams "Do it! Do it!" at Dr. Manhattan (one of the absolutely most intense moments in any written form ever), you want to be screaming in your head in denial of that happening.
Snyder doesn't let that happen, as he uses Dan Dreiberg as a manifestation of the audience and lets him do the emoting for us, eternally robbing us of the bifurcated feeling related to this showdown between two men with two ideas of what is justice and what is right. You can't argue with God, but justice needs to be served. We never get that feeling as an audience. Ironically enough, in the one point where I really, really felt Snyder needed to follow closely (the last meeting of the Watchmen), he takes it a different direction arguably because the way it was originally presented is the least easy to translate to film. Yet it's that ending that ties everything that happened before it together.
To put it back in the relationship perspective, Snyder played the game, but when it was for all the marbles he decided he wanted to play a different game.
Perhaps the ultimate point is that the key to a successful adapation isn't meticulous recreation of the source material. It's cutting the story down to the core, keeping the characters correct in their representation, and making sure you catch the spirit of the story correctly. Snyder almost got it right, and as Jack Nicholson says in Mars Attacks, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
Watchmen: B-
I Watched the Watchmen
Who watches the Watchmen...lines
After work today, in the midst of possibly the stupidest storm in a stupid winter (writing skills go right out the window when I'm annoyed by Alaska - I'm the written equivalent of the Hulk), I ran over to Century Cinemas (or whatever it goes by these days) to pick up tickets for Colver and I to see Watchmen tomorrow afternoon at 3:55 PM.
Tangent: After going to see the Dark Knight at midnight last time and having to deal with people openly ripping on comic books or the people who are there to clown around with their friends and participate in an "event," I decided it was time enough to abandon the idea of midnight showings. Great in theory, stupid in application. I'll gladly go see movies at matinee prices and not have to deal with the tools going to midnight showings, thank you very much (stepping off soap box made out of comic long boxes...now).
As I was waiting in line to purchase my tickets, I looked over to the left to theater 9, where it said "Watchmen: 12:01" (and it also said Underworld 3 playing at a few other times, however for some reason I doubt what I saw was there for Rhona Mitra slaying Lycans) and had two people sitting on the floor in line. This was at 4:50 in the afternoon. No way could they be there for Watchmen could they? When I get up to the counter I ask.
"Those guys at theater 9...they aren't in line for Watchmen are they?"
"Yes they are sir."
"Seriously?"
"Been there since 3. Weird if you ask me."
They've been there since 3 PM. For a movie that is at midnight.
3 PM.
Midnight.
What. The. Hell.
See, there are certain things I understand getting to places ridiculously early for. Example: Black Friday, when you want to get the doorbuster items that will save you literally hundreds of dollars. Things of that sort, whree there is actually a significant impact on what you are doing.
Getting to a movie NINE hours early is ridiculous. You know what happens if you show up at 11? You're sitting four rows up or down from the people who showed up at 3 pm. It also turns out that you are seeing the exact same movie. What do you gain? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Bill Hader really captured it in his online webisode series "the Line", which was a series about Hader and his friend showing up eleven days early for the midnight showing of the premiere of Future Space (essentially Star Wars, but you know, made for this web series). Basically, it captures exactly how insane it is to go early, through thorough (and hilarious) over exaggeration of course.
Don't get me wrong. I'm excited for Watchmen. As of five minutes ago, I was reading one of the many comics I bought this week (emphasis on many). It's going to be awesome to watch one of the all time best comics represented in perpetual slow motion and overstylization. I mean, nothing gets me more excited than that prospect.
But still people, stop being so freaking crazy. It's a movie, and a movie in which going at 11 pm (oh noes! only an hour early!) is perfectly fine. I'm probably going to show up 20 minutes early tomorrow and be perfectly fine with wherever I sit. I'll probably be a lot more comfortable than those people that were in line today. Know why?
Because I wasn't just sitting in a movie theater for nine hours!
/rant
Over/Under
This weekend I was laying on my couch watching TV, recovering from the hectic evening the Roots concert presented and preparing myself for a sojourn into the midtown Mecca (my beloved stretch of road that includes my most frequently visited commerce based locations - Kaladi's, Middle Way, Boscos's), when I found myself engrossed in Hellboy. It was playing on TNT HD, and as much as I hated having to watch commercials and desired to put in my DVD to watch instead, the ramificiations of the previous night strictly disallowed this.
Which was fine.
Commercials allowed mini-naps and jaunts to other locations in my house to perform other duties (a little laundry here, dishes there, drinking a gallon of water and downing four advil as well...), so all was good. However, watching that movie and the barrage of Hellboy II: the Golden Army commercials really got me thinking about all of the things out there that gets ignored because of the whims of the audience and all of the crap that makes the big bucks and earns all the praise. So here I have a few little nuggets I want to share, because you know me: I love sharing my opinion on anything and everything, especially when it comes to what is over and underrated.
Movies: Underrated - Dark City (written and directed by Alex Proyas). Overrated - Any studio movie by Guillermo Del Toro.
While watching Hellboy, I couldn't get over the fact that there was simply something wrong with it. Overall it's a decent enough movie, but there is just something...off about the whole thing. Then the commercials for Hellboy II kicked in and I kept thinking about what a monumental trainwreck that was overall. Then I got to thinking about Blade II. At about that point, I started to wonder, can Guillermo Del Toro, visual genius and well regarded auteur, do anything right when it comes to making American studio films?
Don't get me wrong, I love Pan's Labyrinth, but that was Del Toro on his own turf. Pretty much everything he's made in America has been well regarded, but for the most part it's average at best (or it wishes it was).
Yet you have Dark City, a dynamic, methodical, and flat out brilliant sci-fi film featuring huge concepts and actual substance. Alex Proyas made an absolutely amazing comic book movie that wasn't even based off a comic, it just represented all of the high concept yet grounded in substance style you'd want out of a movie of the sort. Yet it didn't even clear $15 million dollars and to this day it has hardly even found an audience. People even claim that it was a rip off of the Matrix, which doesn't make for a number of reasons, most obviously the fact it came out before the Matrix.
The point is, Proyas made an incredible film, yet has made only two movies since. Del Toro on the other hand is an industry golden boy without any real success (in my eyes) in American film.
Sometimes, there isn't any justice.
Alan Moore Comics: Overrated - Watchmen. Underrated - Top 10.
Oh my! Did I really say that? Did I say the universally praised Watchmen was overrated? How could I do so? Well, I would like to say that I do quite like Watchmen. It's an extremely good comic book and I understand why people like it a lot. What's not to like? Moore is at peak form here, you have Dave Gibbons supplying fantastic pencils, and you have an extremely relevant and engaging story.
What I question isn't it's quality, which it is, just those that claim that it is the pinnacle of the comic book artform. To me, I'd take Preacher. I'd take Y the Last Man. Hell, even in terms of the universally loved comics, I'd probably take Maus over it. It just doesn't have the personal feel that I think makes a great piece of art a masterpiece.
On the other hand, Top 10 is a work from later in Moore's career that many overlooked. It was from his publising line - America's Best Comics - that featured his more highly regarded runs on Tom Strong and Promethea. Lost in that web of incredible works was Top 10, which was like a procedural cop drama in a world where everyone had powers. Except one that was long on interpersonal relationships and short on fictional forensic procedures. Okay, perhaps it was long on that too, but go with me here.
In recent years, Top 10 has started to earn a modicum of the praise it deserves, especially with Wizard naming issue #8 from season 1 the best single issue since I've been alive (whatever that means). But at the same time, I think it deserves to be held in the same regard of his best work, including Watchmen.
Overrated movies: Sunset Blvd. (Directed by Billy Wilder)
When I was at the library today, I was checking out works by H.P. Lovecraft due to my recent addiction to anything and everything Mike Mignola related, and while reading the inside cover of At the Mountains of Madness and Other Novels by Lovecraft, I noticed something that really struck home about what I wanted to say about Sunset Blvd., the 26th highest rated movie of all time according to IMDB.
About Lovecraft's work, the editor (or someone) said, "At the Mountains of Madness remains one of the few works of American science fiction from the 1930's that can be read today for genuine literary pleasure rather than dutiful historical interest."
That is the exact point I'd like to make about older movies. Because I loved movies so much, in college I started watching much older movies to brush up on the classics. I started light, with the pop genius that was most of the work from the late 60's and 70's. Then I moved onto the hard stuff, and what stood out in particular was Sunset. That movie went down like the molasses my parents gave me when I was little to get over a cough. Slowly and disgustingly. My quest to bone up on the classics became "dutiful historical interest" at that exact moment, and also ended permanently then.
Gloria Swanson may have been anxiously awaiting her close up, but my god, I was anxiously awaiting a good movie to appear. I was not expecting a boring trainwreck. Sometimes though, that's what you get.
Also overrated: Shakespeare in Love, Brokeback Mountain.
Underrated music: the 88 - Over and Over
I came across this randomly one day when I was in at the radio station I DJ'd at in college. I was looking for new albums to review, when I impulsively grabbed this off a semi-interesting description on the cover. This is precious pop defined. Precious pop is a genre Hannah and I invented to describe Dr. Dog, but it works incredibly well for this as well. Full of instantly hummable melodies, hand claps, and more hooks than you'd find in your average marina, I immediately fell in love and waited for this one to inevitably blow up.
I still am waiting.
Seriously people.
This album is really freaking good, yet I could probably poll 1,000 people in my city and I'd say at most, 5 people will have heard of it, if even that. That makes me very, very sad.
Also underrated: Anathallo's Floating World, the Elected's Sun Sun Sun, Phantom Planet's the Guest.
Holy crap.
As many will know, I'm a huge, huge fan of comics. Have been since pretty much as long as I can remember (excluding a 3 to 4 year period where I stopped reading entirely) and I'm rather encyclopedic with my knowledge. I love the medium absolutely, and for the general populace, Watchmen remains as the single greatest creation the comic form has made. Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons created a deconstructionist view of superhero comics that both tore apart the medium and rebuilt it stronger than ever.
Or so they say.
I'm a fan of the series. Don't get me wrong, just like I'm a fan of Dark Knight Returns. But a certain level of "is this overrated?" constantly creeped into my head while reading these two books. I very much enjoyed Watchmen but I had to ask - is this really the best the medium has produced? Of course the last time I read it must have been 5 or 6 years ago (if not more) and perhaps my less developed teen mind couldn't wrap itself around the complexities the alternately straightforward comic/dense prose present. I'd say it's still one of my top 20 all time comic stories, but when most others put it at number one with a bullet, I scoff a tad.
However, the trailer for Zack Snyder's (300) adaptation of it is out, and good god...it's spine tinglingly delicious. Maybe it's because the focuses are clearly Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach (my two favorite characters) within the trailer, but I don't know. It rocks hard. Watching it gave me goosebumps. I feel as if I may have to dust off my old copy this weekend and try to figure out what I missed, because clearly Snyder is aware of it and wants to rub my nose in it.
Well bring it on Zack.
Check out the new trailer here. It's worth it. Or you can go see the Dark Knight as it is supposedly playing before hand. I hear that may be a good movie or something.
