Watchmen

[Tennessee Blue Mike]

Great special effects. Long movie time wise but covered a lot of ground. Dark which was no surprise but I enjoyed it and hoping to see a sequel in the not too distant future.

Favorite character Rorschack.

 

[Neiler]

This is my weekend revenge for going to see Benjeman Button last week!

 

[heatmeiser]

That Benjamin Button film is beyond wank.

Sorry to go off topic, but I saw it mentioned above and had to vent my spleen.

Utter guff.

I quite fancy watching Watchmen, but I'd probably get bored.

 

[McBain]

That Benjamin Button film is beyond wank.

Sorry to go off topic, but I saw it mentioned above and had to vent my spleen.

Utter guff.

I quite fancy watching Watchmen, but I'd probably get bored.

Im guessing your more of a Saw 5/Epic Movie kind of guy?

 

[SLAVEN BILIC]

Great special effects. Long movie time wise but covered a lot of ground. Dark which was no surprise but I enjoyed it and hoping to see a sequel in the not too distant future.

Favorite character Rorschack.

won't/can't have a sequel.

 

[heatmeiser]

Im guessing your more of a Saw 5/Epic Movie kind of guy?

No, I enjoy film making of genuine quality rather than pretentious pseudo-intellectual wank.

I enjoyed some of his other films; 7, Fight club and even Zodiac. I think Mark Kermode summed it up quite amusingly well when he said it is 'Forest Gump with A levels'.

Oscar winners/nominees are almost always cack anyway - Titanic, Dances with Wolves, The English Patient et al.

I generally avoid mainstream american cinema as it almost exclusively predictable, sentimental guff.

You'll find me in the world cinema aisle looking under K for Korean and F for French.

 

[Tennessee Blue Mike]

won't/can't have a sequel.

Probably right but we could see a prequel or follow a main character in the future. I'm not betting against it myself.

 

[McBain]

No, I enjoy film making of genuine quality rather than pretentious pseudo-intellectual wank.

I enjoyed some of his other films; 7, Fight club and even Zodiac. I think Mark Kermode summed it up quite amusingly well when he said it is 'Forest Gump with A levels'.

Oscar winners/nominees are almost always cack anyway - Titanic, Dances with Wolves, The English Patient et al.

I generally avoid mainstream american cinema as it almost exclusively predictable, sentimental guff.

You'll find me in the world cinema aisle looking under K for Korean and F for French.

Mainstream American Cinema is Western Mainstream Cinema. Your confusing the two. A multitude of International 'tradies' ply their craft to these films so generalising them all into the Guff section is rather harsh. Sure, Hollywood is American and there is a standard fare of utter Guff to choose from, but to put this film in the same basket as Beverly Hills Chiuaua or Enter the fist is just wrong.

I value your opinion, I just feel that Button was a great simple film. Beautifully shot, and told a tale of a man in reverse. Had it been done by Lee Chang Dong, or Jeunet would it have made it more palatable? If it had subtitles and a fractured take on reality would you have enjoyed it more?

What Im trying to get at, and have a good discussion on cinema in the process, is why you didnt like it. Or at least feel comfortable while you are watching it. What didnt it do for you? Apologies if I sounded rude, I just remember watching the film thinking, this is a great peice, well told, good pacing, solid perforrmances, right down to the make up and effects. Making Pitt look 17 at the end was a brilliant piece of skill by the DP and the make up team.

 

[heatmeiser]

Mainstream American Cinema is Western Mainstream Cinema. Your confusing the two. A multitude of International 'tradies' ply their craft to these films so generalising them all into the Guff section is rather harsh. Sure, Hollywood is American and there is a standard fare of utter Guff to choose from, but to put this film in the same basket as Beverly Hills Chiuaua or Enter the fist is just wrong.

I value your opinion, I just feel that Button was a great simple film. Beautifully shot, and told a tale of a man in reverse. Had it been done by Lee Chang Dong, or Jeunet would it have made it more palatable? If it had subtitles and a fractured take on reality would you have enjoyed it more?

What Im trying to get at, and have a good discussion on cinema in the process, is why you didnt like it. Or at least feel comfortable while you are watching it. What didnt it do for you? Apologies if I sounded rude, I just remember watching the film thinking, this is a great peice, well told, good pacing, solid perforrmances, right down to the make up and effects. Making Pitt look 17 at the end was a brilliant piece of skill by the DP and the make up team.

It was undoubtedly a skillful and technically excellent piece of cinema. Some of the cinematography was stunning and like you say the make-up and costume design was excellent (and quite rightly oscar-winning).

As to why I did not enjoy it; it just felt way too wishy washy, overly sentimental. And, fundimentally empty.

It reminded me of Forrest Gump (think they shared a screenwriter) in that they seemed to sit down and think 'Hmm, which famous historic events can we put our character in?'. Most of the time however, they didn't really need to be there.

I think I was also disappointed after looking forward to the directors next film after really enjoying much of his work so far.

I'm not at all snobby about 'world cinema'. I enjoy films from all over the world, the US as much as anywhere. But, just as with music, I tend to enjoy a certain style more than others.

Clearly many people enjoyed it greatly. Just my opinion.

 

[Neiler]

I really loved the concept of the anti-hero super hero movie!

Did anyone else find Dr. Manhattons slong disturbing though, my girlfriend continously felt the need to giggle every time she saw it!