Give It This Much

email this story
read comments (68)
post a comment

Watchmen's opening main title sequence is as nicely rendered as I'd heard, and I didn't have a huge problem listening to Dylan's "The Times They Are A'Changin'" as it happened. I was taken with the portion that lays out Dr. Manhattan's (i.e., Billy Crudup's) history. The Dr. Manhattan full-blue-schlong footage probably will make it more routine for male genitalia to appear in mainstream movies henceforth. (Although I'm not sure that's any kind of major blessing.) And yes, Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach does deliver in a hard, tight, snarly way.

And the CG depiction, by the way, of JFK's exploding right-temple head wound in Dallas beats Oliver Stone's all to hell.

But is Watchmen likable? No, it's not. There would have to be something really wrong with you to see this thing and come out on the street beaming and saying, "Yeah... liked it! Woo-hoo!" It's too bitter and cynical and disgusted with human nature to be "liked." I mean, take away Patrick Wilson's Nite Owl/Dan Drieberg character and this is one rancid, bitter, foul-of-temper, heart-of-stone, phlegm-in-your-face, puke-in-the-gutter superhero movie, certainly in a spiritual sense.

Is it endurable in the sense you can get through all 160-odd minutes without looking at your watch three or four times? Or even once or twice? The truth is that I didn't look at my watch once, and I took no bathroom breaks, even though I sort of wanted to.

Is it somehow enjoyable? Yes, somewhat -- but again, you have to go into it prepared. You certainly have to be up on the graphic novel, the characters, their backstories, etc. Because the story is more than a little complex. And then you need to read at least a dozen negative reviews and get ready to hate it with a passion. Which is different from going in determined to hate it, which I definitely wasn't. I went in with my eyes and pores open but at the same time prepared and willing to hate it. You know, open to this. And guess what happened?

I didn't "like" it but I didn't hate it. And here it is an hour later and I still don't hate it. I'm fairly certain I'll never see it again, even on Blu-ray. It's too much of a Gordian Knot, too exhausting, too angry, too obsessive. But at least it's balls-out, no-holds-barred obsessive, which you have to at least respect in this age of corporate branding and capitulation.

Did director Zack Snyder err by trying to replicate the Alan Moore- Dave Gibbons-John Higgins graphic novel a little too precisely and meticulously? Maybe, but at least he went for it big-time. Would Watchmen have been better served as a twelve-part miniseries? Perhaps, but Snyder at least tried like hell to make it work as a feature, and he opened his heart, soul and veins in order to do so.

The cut Snyder turned in, I've read, was messed with by Warner Bros. somewhat, but it doesn't feel as if too much of it was cut down or diluted. Watchmen may or may not be your cup of tea (it's not mine) but at least it was made by a kind of madman who gave as little quarter as possible and didn't muck around. I almost love the fact that Watchmen doesn't try to make you feel "good," and that it just tries to be itself. And give Snyder credit for giving it a fairly kapow look all through. I don't know why I didn't mind all the slow-mo stuff, but I didn't. I kind of feel left out in this respect.

I emerged from the theatre feeling subdued but not seething inside. Watchmen never put a real smile on my face, but neither did it make me sit forward and groan and spread my fingers across my face. Yes, it frequently turned me off and sometimes inspired feelings of deep loathing. It provided almost nothing in the way of whole-hog satisfaction, but at least it left me feeling that I'd seen something different.

I knew going in it wouldn't be the same old good-evil, black-white superhero hash, but I wasn't entirely prepared for how unconcerned it would be as far as trying to charm or half-hold onto a mainstream audience.

I mean, I hated it at times. Jeffrey Dean Morgan's Edward Blake/The Comedian has to be one of the most loathsome and inhumane characters in history, and the Watchmen, who are supposed to be semi-good guys, spend much of the film treating him like some kind of loutish bad-brother figure. I mean, the odor just wafts off the screen from this guy. Yecch.

For all the revolting rage and purist revenge fantasies in this film, which are over-the-top vile (this is a movie that channels misanthropic fury and disdain like it's flowing through a firehouse) and the detestable sadism and the right-reactionary political acts that the Watchmen serve (doing the bidding of Richard Nixon, Dr. Manhattan winning the Vietnam War in a week's time by slaughtering the North Vietnamese and Vietcong like flies, Blake savagely beating up a mob of lefty-hippie protestors), not to mention the random savageries (rape, endless bludgeoning, beating the hell or the life out of adversaries)...this is finally a big-studio flick that doesn't give a holy damn about anyone or anything except those who've been on board to begin with.

And I almost liked it for that. I couldn't finally "like it, not being one of the faithful-faithful, but it has my grudging respect. But that's all it gets.

Cohen-Hoover << previous | next >>Hitler Again

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on March 6, 2009 at 10:02 AM

comment #1

Pinko Punko says ...

Called it- the rest of the shmoes can suck it.

Jeff is more complicated than most people give him credit. Huzzah!

And he had the cajones to see the movie not stoned, so I can take his word for it more than some of the other kids, though I hope they enjoyed it. You did get the giant popocorn, right actionman?

Posted by Pinko Punko at March 6, 2009 12:15 PM

comment #2

actionman says ...

It's too bitter and cynical and disgusted with human nature to be "liked."

This is probably why I will love it.

Posted by actionman at March 6, 2009 12:15 PM

comment #3

actionman says ...

I don't eat movie theater pop-corn, Pinko. But thanks for thinking of me. And I am not rushing out today/tonight to see it -- Sunday will be just fine.

Posted by actionman at March 6, 2009 12:17 PM

comment #4

George Prager says ...

Sounds like a day playing the slots at the Merv Griffin Casino in Atlantic City.

Posted by George Prager at March 6, 2009 12:17 PM

comment #5

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

That is a fair review, Jeff...congratulations.

For the record, I don't think Watchmen is supposed to be likable (although watching this, I fuckin' fell in love with Rorshach all over again...what can I say, I'm a sucker for characters who are brutally honest), but that is definitely a decent enough reason for not doing handstands over the film.

I imagine many who aren't "fans" will have very similar reactions.

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at March 6, 2009 12:18 PM

comment #6

Pinko Punko says ...

I'm just teasing, actionman. I know you are just looking for some good action.

I'm still teasing.

Prager- a day with the smoke, grime and blue haired ladies at the casino. In a word, soul-destroying, but mezzo-mezzo if you are up at the end of the day. Fits Jeff's take to a T.

Posted by Pinko Punko at March 6, 2009 12:19 PM

comment #7

bachelorcool says ...

For the first time ever, in complete agreement with what Jeff says - and I'm the one who usually loves everything he hates.

Posted by bachelorcool at March 6, 2009 12:20 PM

comment #8

actionman says ...

"I don't know why I didn't mind all the slow-mo stuff, but I didn't. I kind of feel left out in this respect."

I know why -- because it looks snazzy. And that's what Snyder is all about. Check it out:

http://www.joblo.com/snyders-golden-rules

5. Movies are Pictures.
"For me, visual style has the same importance as story, as character and as the environment. In the end, a movie is a series of pictures and I try to be aware of that at all times."

Posted by actionman at March 6, 2009 12:21 PM

comment #9

Sean says ...

Snyder at least tried like hell to make it work as a feature, and he opened his heart, soul and veins in order to do so.

This is (or will be, once I've seen it) the crux of it for me. That's not something that you say about soulless Michael Bay entertainments. If Snyder's reach was high enough and his grasp was more than halfway there, I'll be pleased. That said, this line from Slate sticks with me (also written by someone who had not seen it at the time, instead having seen the same trailers we all have):

(talking about the comic's incidental characters) The lurid violence of the superhero plotline is overshadowed by truly heroic acts of forgiveness, selflessness, and the facing of hard truths by characters who would normally barely merit a glance in an issue of Batman. Needless to say, most of these characters and techniques are missing from the finished film, which views Watchmen from only the superhero fan point of view, which is the least rewarding approach.

That's the way in which I fear Snyder's reach will fall short for me.

Posted by Sean at March 6, 2009 12:23 PM

comment #10

Rich S. says ...

Hats off for making it all the way through and not even looking at your watch.

You gave it a fair shake (and read the comic) and I think that's all anyone can ask for.

It looks poised for a massive opening weekend. Be interesting to see where it goes from there.

Posted by Rich S. at March 6, 2009 12:24 PM

comment #11

televisiontears says ...

Thoughtful, honest assessment, Jeff. It's about how I felt, though I think I was a bit more mesmerized by it. And I *will* eventually see it again - most likely from the comfy confines of my sofa and a nice Pinot.

By the way, I love the final "grudging respect" graph. Kind of a "you're lucky I don't kick your ass" sentiment.

Posted by televisiontears at March 6, 2009 12:28 PM

comment #12

chicagodad says ...

Nice review. Looking forward to seeing it tomorrow. Well written and thought out piece, Jeffrey

As far as not "liking" any of the characters, I get the same thing from James Ellroy's books, which are among my favorites. There's usually no one you can really like in them, either. At least not among the main characters.

Interestingly, I always found Manhattan the most likeable and sympathetic, in a way. Maybe because he had his condition thrust upon him, rather than choosing to become a superhero like the others.

Pretty ballsy for a big studio superhero movie.

Posted by chicagodad at March 6, 2009 12:28 PM

comment #13

DarthCorleone says ...

Good review. I'm very much looking forward to this tonight. What can I say? I'm a fan of cynicism.

Posted by DarthCorleone at March 6, 2009 12:30 PM

comment #14

scooterzz says ...

i second what bachelorcool said...

Posted by scooterzz at March 6, 2009 12:31 PM

comment #15

MovieBob says ...

Shockingly fair. If nothing else, it has to say something that a major studio film that's looking to be THIS big of a hit is disgusted with humanity so much that Jeffrey Wells thinks it's too much ;)

Posted by MovieBob at March 6, 2009 12:32 PM

comment #16

actionman says ...

"unlikable" characters are almost always more interesting to watch on-screen. at least for me.

Posted by actionman at March 6, 2009 12:32 PM

comment #17

EnglishBob says ...

(And the CG depiction, by the way, of JFK's exploding right-temple head wound in Dallas beats Oliver Stone's all to hell.)

Jeff, I believe the director of the footage used in Stone's movie was a guy named Zapruder!

Posted by EnglishBob at March 6, 2009 12:33 PM

comment #18

televisiontears says ...

EnglishBob, I was thinking the same thing, but decided to let it go.

Posted by televisiontears at March 6, 2009 12:37 PM

comment #19

Breedlove says ...

If Devin Faraci reads this, I'm still curious about his comment in an earlier thread that it would be a mistake to see this for the first time on Imax.

I didn't particularly want to see THE DARK KNIGHT on Imax. It almost seemed like it would be too much, too distracting, for what was essentially an urban cop thriller. The visuals weren't primarily what that film was about for me.

WATCHMEN, however, a big, bright, colorful, trippy, over-the-top superhero movie, eye candy galore...I don't know, seemed like it would be good in Imax. I was planning to see it in that form.

Curious what you were getting at, Devin.

Posted by Breedlove at March 6, 2009 12:39 PM

comment #20

televisiontears says ...

One more thing. Did anyone happen to catch Billy Crudup on The Daily Show last night? He was disarmingly and charmingly awkward. He strikes me as an unabashed film nerd who's so passionate and excited about what he does that everything else is second-fiddle. I was expecting him to be more like his character from Almost Famous, but he seems genuinely thrilled to be able to do what he loves for a living.

Posted by televisiontears at March 6, 2009 12:52 PM

comment #21

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Actionman says...

" 'unlikable' characters are almost always more interesting to watch on-screen. at least for me."

Then you will love the Comedian (who doesn't quite get enough screen time) and Rorshach (who does, and makes the absolute most of it).

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at March 6, 2009 12:58 PM

comment #22

George Prager says ...

This will be Wells tonight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nspf2E76cw

Posted by George Prager at March 6, 2009 12:59 PM

comment #23

jackkerouac says ...

"bitter and cynical and disgusted with human nature"... now let me think... just who does that remind me of? Hmmm...

Posted by jackkerouac at March 6, 2009 1:01 PM

comment #24

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Your instincts are sound, Breed...saw it in IMAX last night, and I can't really imagine watching it any other way. Easily worth the extra 3-5 bucks you'll have to pay. Just skip the refreshments and call it even.

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at March 6, 2009 1:04 PM

comment #25

scooterzz says ...

nice one, prager.....

Posted by scooterzz at March 6, 2009 1:07 PM

comment #26

Chase Kahn says ...

I just came back, and I'm honestly surprised Jeff didn't rip it. I'm a huge fan of the novel (just finished reading it again last night) and Snyder is just completely the wrong man for the job.

The first hour is borderline brilliant, Rorshach and Dr. Manhattan are rendered beautifully -- the latter's origin story is easily the best sequence in the film.

Then Snyder embellishes the action scenes to his Mountain Dew vid-game/fanboy crowd, he uses on-the-nose, obvious song choices ("Sound of Silence" nearly killed me), although the Dylan thing is fine, it was refrenced in the novel, after all.

On paper, 'Watchmen' is a brilliant medium-buster, transcendent -- on the screen, it's small flaws are gaping, and it's a film with big ideas, small-minded execution.

Posted by Chase Kahn at March 6, 2009 1:07 PM

comment #27

ZayTonday says ...

Yeah, the Sound Of Silence use was a tad heavy in the hand but all that other music fit perfectly.

Posted by ZayTonday at March 6, 2009 1:12 PM

comment #28

Chase Kahn says ...

"Hallelujah" and the song that plays when Dan and Laurie see eachother in the restaurant failed, as well.

By the way, Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach is easily the best thing in the entire film -- that's a brilliant piece of casting.

The scene where he's set up at Moloch's apartment -- he's freak-out is exactly how I imagine it in the novel.

Posted by Chase Kahn at March 6, 2009 1:18 PM

comment #29

Gaydos says ...

Today's page one of the New York Times Arts section contains a review of "Watchmen" and an obit for Horton Foote.

Just to make me feel better about life, would someone under 30 please note that they find the Foote oeuvre contains qualities so far not found in that of big screen comic book adaptations?

Posted by Gaydos at March 6, 2009 1:19 PM

comment #30

DavidF says ...

I'll join the chorus of people giving Jeff credit for a well-written review. I disagree on several counts but I can't say that he utterly failed to get it or was as blatantly unfair as his pre-view postings indicated he would be.

It is dark and relentless and complex and, as you say, Snyder gave it all. IT's an R-rated comic book movie and it basically succeeds on all its own terms and if it's not perfect, if it goes a bit too far? Well, could have been A LOT worse.

Allz I know is I'm gonna give it a week or two to clean the pallette and then hit the IMAX.

Posted by DavidF at March 6, 2009 1:21 PM

comment #31

crazyeight says ...

Wow, you're all falling for another trick by Wells?

You all know that this time next week, he'll be back to hating this with every fiber of his being, calling it the worst thing to ever happen to film-- to HUMANITY!!!-- and hating on every critic who admits to even enjoying it, or even *appreciating* it as little as Wells does here.

Am I too cynical about Wells and his constant, repetitive, instant revisionism?

Two words: King. Kong.

To quote Ash, it's a trick-- get an axe.

Posted by crazyeight at March 6, 2009 1:24 PM

comment #32

Rich S. says ...

crazyeight, don't think that thought hasn't crossed my mind. Jeffrey even turned on TDK to a certain extent.

Something tells me he will stick by this one. But you could well be right.

Posted by Rich S. at March 6, 2009 1:41 PM

comment #33

Sabina E says ...

There you go, Wells, you always take me by surprise. So you don't hate the Watchmen after all!

Posted by Sabina E at March 6, 2009 2:00 PM

comment #34

Sabina E says ...

and I hate the Comedian, too (at least in the book). I can't wait to see how he's portrayed onscreen...

Posted by Sabina E at March 6, 2009 2:01 PM

comment #35

Imogen says ...

A very well-written, honest and intelligent review, Mr. Wells. I really enjoyed reading it.

Posted by Imogen at March 6, 2009 2:04 PM

comment #36

Devin Faraci says ...

Breedlove -

The film is very dense. There's a lot going on in the frame, and the IMAX experience isn't one where you can soak in or examine the frame. Your eye is darting from giant image to giant image. I think IMAX may be great for a second viewing, but there's a lot to try and grasp your first time through.

Posted by Devin Faraci at March 6, 2009 2:51 PM

comment #37

mrNo says ...

I love the comic and I think the movie is a great companion. Nothing can replace the brilliance of the source material but I thought Snyder did a great job of boiling it down to a single film. Finally, a movie that treats superheroes as the fetishistic pervs we know they are - the sex scene in the clouds was one of the greatest superhero scenes I've ever seen. Infinitely better than the fucking "Am I dreaming" shit in Superman: The Movie. I even liked the Manhattan switch from the squid - they had the sense to build it up from Manhattan's first scene. Can't wait to see it in Imax.

Posted by mrNo at March 6, 2009 3:16 PM

comment #38

Ray says ...

Good review, Jeff.

Basically, I think WATCHMEN is this year's SPEED RACER ... a film that reaches very high and fails, which is something I encourage at all times from Hollywood.

Posted by Ray at March 6, 2009 3:20 PM

comment #39

mitchtaylor says ...

Snyder did it with Dawn of the Dead and now he's done it again with Watchmen! He drained the material of any larger meaning, any sense of place or time, and stuck the damn thing up on screen! Yaaaaaay!

Posted by mitchtaylor at March 6, 2009 3:38 PM

comment #40

JT says ...

Wells also liked TDK in his firt review but he slowly got around to hating it. He'll be faster with this. Bank it.

Posted by JT at March 6, 2009 3:56 PM

comment #41

lipranzer says ...

As I said in a thread up top, I didn't hate this, but I essentially feel about this the way I felt about the first Harry Potter movie - I give him points for not screwing it up, and it's not terrible, but it could have been better. I do think Wells' review is fair.

Posted by lipranzer at March 6, 2009 4:05 PM

comment #42

Chase Kahn says ...

To put it simply, I think Snyder's film just turns the source material into an exhibition of nihilstic camp when its all said and done.

The musical choices, the performance of Malin Akerman, the fetishistic and over-stylized fight scenes that pander to Snyder's constituency...it all takes away from Moore's work. It's a shame, because an hour into the thing, I thought he was going to pull it off. I also had a problem with pacing in the second half -- maybe director's cut will solve it? I'm curious to see...

Posted by Chase Kahn at March 6, 2009 4:26 PM

comment #43

Gabriel says ...

I agree with you 100%, Chase. Those were the three biggest problems.

Much of Wells' review echoes my feelings to it (albeit with a little more patience for it than I had), except I don't really see the balls in shooting the comic so closely without putting any life into it whatsoever. I also don't see how the pronunciation of Rorschach isn't getting more flak.

Posted by Gabriel at March 6, 2009 4:34 PM

comment #44

MilkMan says ...

Just got back from seeing it. Read the graphic novel in 95. Read it again in 05. Read it one last time three weeks ago.

The performances in this movie - save Haley - are fucking horrible. Horrible. Snyder has no idea what he is supposed to get out of actors. They looked lost and that's because they probably were.

Movie is fine for a Friday night rental with a cheese pie from Richie Palmer's, some Virgil's root beer, and a peanut butter cup or two.

Some of the visuals and pacing and snazzy editing cancel out the HORRIBLE acting.

So I call it a wash.

Posted by MilkMan at March 6, 2009 4:39 PM

comment #45

Chase Kahn says ...

I didn't have a huge problem with the actors outside of Akerman -- Morgan was fine, Wilson was okay, Goode not so much...Gugino was fine in her limited time. etc.

I don't know, I think it had alot more problems than that, I wasn't expecting much. Although, Snyder does seem to mistake the machismo shouting bullshit as "acting". Gerard Butler did it for 120 minutes in '300' and Haley and Wilson sure do indulge themselves here.

Posted by Chase Kahn at March 6, 2009 4:51 PM

comment #46

mick hilliard says ...

Of all the dipshit assholes who post on this blog, Chase Kahn is without a doubt the most obnoxious. What an arrogant prick. He always spouts his opinions as if they are absolute universal truths. Hey moron. Go fuck yourself.
Now that felt good.

Posted by mick hilliard at March 6, 2009 5:17 PM

comment #47

loyal says ...

"I didn't "like" it but I didn't hate it."

"I mean, I hated it at times."

LMFAO.

Anyway, I saw it a second time today and it held up. The Hallelujah sex scene isn't as awkward the second time around.

The Comedian becomes almost lovable for some reason. I found myself less repulsed by his actions.

Everything I loved the first time, Dr. Manhattan's birth, the credit sequence, the prison scenes, I loved them as much the second time around as I did the first, if not a bit more.

Posted by loyal at March 6, 2009 5:19 PM

comment #48

frank_delsa says ...

It baffles me how unsophisticated people get when it comes to violence on screen (I'm talking about Chase and Gabriel).
If a movie depicts acts of violence, it can only mean it endorses it, according to those views. It reminds me of people calling Fight Club fascist, believing the film endorsed Tyler Durden.
Of course there's a little thing called ambiguity, meaning that a film (and that's the case of Watchmen, as well as Fight Club, and Moore's work, whom, by the way, could be considered some sort of "hopeful nihilist"), acknowledges the horrors at a deep level, while at the same time finding in it some kind of dark fascination.
And really, if you thought the movie had no subtext, then you must feel the GN had none either. There's no other way around it.
Can't wait to hear Soccer Mom's mentality reactions to Snyder's next movie, Sucker Punch, the all girl fantasy/horror film that from the description reads like a blend of Lewis Carroll. Tim Burton and Russ Meyer.
Me I can't wait for it. I wasn't a big fan of his Dawn of the Dead, but I dug 300, which felt to me like a distilled, comic book version of a crazy dream John Milius might have had after he had too much tequila (and yes, that's a compliment by the way), and I loved Watchmen, it's a dense, ambitious piece of work, with some flaws and a lot of elements of real greatness in it, and that never plays it safe.

Posted by frank_delsa at March 6, 2009 7:03 PM

comment #49

Aris P says ...

Have those first 2 screen-grabs gone through an FBDW -- Friedkin Blu-Ray Wash? Grains-ville!

Posted by Aris P at March 6, 2009 7:15 PM

comment #50

Gabriel says ...

Frank, the problem I have with "Watchmen" isn't that it's excessively violent. It's that Snyder seems interested in violence only as a means for a money shot. It goes hand-in-hand with what I felt was a very shallow overall grasp (or at least, presentation) of what "Watchmen" was about.

I reacted the same to "300", only to a much stronger degree. So for me, "Soccer Mom" can go fuck itself sight unseen.

Posted by Gabriel at March 6, 2009 8:01 PM

comment #51

D.Z. says ...

"And the CG depiction, by the way, of JFK's exploding right-temple head wound in Dallas beats Oliver Stone's all to hell."

Thought it came off too much like shades of Eli Roth there...

"I mean, I hated it at times. Jeffrey Dean Morgan's Edward Blake/The Comedian has to be one of the most loathsome and inhumane characters in history,"

Personally, that's how I felt about Ozymandias. The Comedian was at least honest about what kind of a guy he was.

Posted by D.Z. at March 6, 2009 8:31 PM

comment #52

Chase Kahn says ...

Frank -- I know what you're saying, agree completely. But I didn't even mention violence, I said, "fetishistic, over-stylized fight scenes". As in Snyder loves to get off on using slo-motion, exaggerated punches, feats that are inhumanly possible, etc.

As for mick -- I'm sorry I come off that way, not the intention. I fail to see how I write differently than anybody else on here and I don't consider them assholes. Everyone is there own critic on here.

If you take objection to something I say, feel free to engage in open argument with me. I've never even seen you post on here before (or if I did, fail to remember and apologize), so just speak up next time -- there's no need for that stuff.

Posted by Chase Kahn at March 6, 2009 8:47 PM

comment #53

rr3333 says ...

Jackie Earle Haley ... from forgotten to front and center.

He'll always be Moocher to me but I'm real glad he's working again.

Posted by rr3333 at March 6, 2009 8:56 PM

comment #54

MovieBob says ...

Saw again. MUCH better the second time, when your not as out-of-breath trying to keep up with up. I now find it to be easily superior to Dark Knight, which while still excellent and among the best of last year seems small and almost cowardly - so afraid to let it's freak flag fly - by comparison.

MAJOR SPOILERS

One thing stands out to me, apart from the film-proper: Snyder proves himself a DIABOLICAL manipulator of the audience. Watch the rape scene. We get these lingering, gratuitous closeups of Gugino's breasts, ass, pieces of costume coming off... all shot in the most obvious, objectifying, dehumanizing way - and then there's The Comedian, watching... just like we were. "Appreciating," leering and objectifying her just the same way. Our POV might as well have been his. Then he savagely beats and sexually-assaults her. Half the men watching probably still have a semi right up until he slugs her. By staging it in this way, Snyder essentially implicates the entire audience (or, at least, 90% of the men and 60-75% of the women) as PARTICIPANTS in her rape and dehumanization. It's a stroke of evil genius, and it's NOT staged the same basic way in the book.

See also: Damn near EVERY long-shot of NYC has the WTC towers prominently looming over the background, which hardly anyone can see WITHOUT thinking about 9-11. A dozen or so times the background whispers "911, 911, 911..." to the audience. Tell me that's NOT supposed to make sure it's the first thing on everyone's mind when NYC goes kaboom - to whip the audience's memories of it right to the forefront just to kick them in the gut with a vision of something even worse.

The man has chops.

Posted by MovieBob at March 6, 2009 8:59 PM

comment #55

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

MovieBob - wrong-o.

When I see the WTC in movies now, my mind goes "Hey, period piece." I managed not to be manipulated by Bush & Co into a knee-jerk 9/11 association.

In fact, Snyder completely blows your theory to hell by making sure when the destruction happens, notice that the Towers are not depicted as half destroyed.

Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie at March 6, 2009 9:29 PM

comment #56

catire says ...

I'm just curious how Jeff feels about Miller's Crossing, or In the Company of Men, or other ∂∂om

Posted by catire at March 6, 2009 9:55 PM

comment #57

catire says ...

sorry about that, should end "other movies with purely cynical or misanthropic characters."

Posted by catire at March 6, 2009 9:57 PM

comment #58

mitchtaylor says ...

MovieBob- That rape scene... you've never seen a slasher film in which the very same sophistication that you want to apply to Snyder is used? Punishing people for leering at women is practically a national pastime in this country... has been since at least 1960 and probably before then.

I hated this movie. It was flat and meaningless. It did not know what it was. Dynamite in the hands of children.

Posted by mitchtaylor at March 7, 2009 12:45 AM

comment #59

Gordon27 says ...

"It say "E-flat," she play E-flat. Ping, ping. She play the right note always. That is what I cannot teach her, huh? I cannot teach her to have the soul. To play the piano is not about the fingers. We make with the fingers. But the music, monsieur, she starts here. she come out through here...
"This girl, nice girl. Very clever hands. I think, uh, perhaps some day... She can make very good typist, huh? Voila."

Posted by Gordon27 at March 7, 2009 1:44 AM

comment #60

Gordon27 says ...

BTW, Jeff, nice review. I think you're being too kind to the movie, but there were moments when, like a broken clock, it struck correctly, and the emotion you express is what I was hoping it was going to manage to elicit from me.

Posted by Gordon27 at March 7, 2009 1:49 AM

comment #61

MALONE says ...

Just remember people...

JW loved REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, which was a rotting carcass of overwrought Hollywood tripe.

Posted by MALONE at March 7, 2009 2:19 AM

comment #62

Chase Kahn says ...

I was going to indict MovieBob's rape scene theory, as well -- what is the alternative? shoot closeups of their faces during the rape? -- but I resisted until now for fear of being called a fucking asshole, because apparently expressing an opposing opinion is an example of rude, downright hatred.

Posted by Chase Kahn at March 7, 2009 7:05 AM

comment #63

Colin says ...

Malone, you're wrong. Slumdog Millionaire was a rotting carcass of overwrought Hollywood tripe.

And if Wells begrudgingly holds respect for this movie, I'm going to love it.

Posted by Colin at March 7, 2009 11:58 AM

comment #64

Sebguts says ...

I don't know. A few moments put a smile on my face (usually involving severe bodily harm), but some had me groaning and holding my head (that sex scene. What the fuck was that?)

But I enjoyed the hell out of it regardless. I think it's the best version of the graphic novel that we could have gotten.

Posted by Sebguts at March 7, 2009 2:00 PM

comment #65

MovieBob says ...

mitchtaylor
"MovieBob- That rape scene... you've never seen a slasher film in which the very same sophistication that you want to apply to Snyder is used?"

In a slasher film, the camera is usually a third-party view, or if it IS the attackers view the nudity is (clumsily) incidental because he's only there to off her. This is a different animal. It's not something Snyder INVENTED, but I find that he used it damn well.

Dear me... it's only been 2009 for three months and ALREADY I know which genius genre film I'll be defending to brick walls for the rest of damn year... ;)

Posted by MovieBob at March 7, 2009 8:55 PM

comment #66

econeywaaa says ...

Excellent review, Jeff. Snyder obviously has deep reverence for the material and while he'll never be called an "actors" director, he did a great job nonetheless. I can only imagine what Peter Weir would have done with this film.

Posted by econeywaaa at March 7, 2009 11:00 PM

comment #67

jamesD says ...

I strongly suggest you guys a H - O T site for tall chix and guys-- ____Tall kiss C om ____ Im sure it will work for-- you. End your loney life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by jamesD at March 9, 2009 1:58 AM

comment #68