So now that my own review of “Watchmen” is written, I read the summary of “major” reviewers on imdb.com. These people! Usually, comic book movies and blockbusters in general get panned for being childish and superficial. No subtext = bad movie. But does “Watchmen” get any credit for being LOADED with subtext, for implying as much as it shows explicitly? Not from most reviewers.
Most reviewers are denouncing the film for being too faithful to its source material. Wha? A movie is bad for respecting its source material? Source material considered one of the best examples of its own genre?
Reviewers usually slam action movies for being formulaic; “Watchmen” breaks formulas, but rather than praising that strategy, reviewers are calling it boring and plodding.
The guy from CNN spends half of his review criticizing the publicity, which calls director Zach Snyder a “visionary.” I agree that Snyder doesn’t deserve the visionary title, but what does the trailer have to do with the actual movie?
The prevailing opinion is that “Watchmen” will only appeal to fanboys. Not only am I not a fanboy, I’ve never looked at a frame of the graphic novel. And I think it’s an outstanding film. It’s refreshing to see a superhero/comic book movie that doesn’t cater to a 13-year old attention span.
March 25, 2009 at 9:08 pm |
Imdb.com is a great resource site but when it comes to reviews and ratings I pay absolutely no attention because it is some of the stupidest users I have ever encountered. I figure there are many 13 year olds on there as well as a lot of people who just post and rate in order to piss people off. Some of my all-time favorite films have less than five hundred votes and many have less than 5.0 rating and I so rarely ran into a worthy review on the site that I stopped reading them altogether.