Hey I thought I'd start a thread about movies you've seen recently. What was good, what stunk...that sort of thing.

The wife and I saw GRAN TORINO with Clint Eastwood. AMAZING. GO see it. We gave it a 8.5 out of 10.

1)
I saw -- "Transporter III"-- a few weeks ago & it was entertaining.Worth the matinee price. Jason Statham does a good job at that role,especially the fight sequence scenes.It pretty good.
2)
Today i just saw-- "YES MAN"-- with Jim Carrey. I liked it. It's worth full price. Everyone liked it in the theater. I recommend that one!
3)
Rented-- "EAGLE EYE"-- last night. It's entertaining & reinforces my theories on government computers, & evesdropping 24-7. It's right there as a healthy budget film with lot's of action. Billy Bob Thorton plays a pretty good FBI agent. Shai Lebo... is a great actor too.
4)
--"WANTED"-- with Brangelina . I rented this one last night also & it's worth renting i guess. I'm not going to go out & try to shoot around corners & crap with my handgun like they did in this movie! lol. At least they could have showed her boobs!

Hmm...interesting! I was curious about YES MAN, but didnt see it.

I did not see Eagle Eye as I'm not a big fan of Shia LaBarf.

WANTED was pretty good. My wife liked it better than I did actually!

I saw Wanted, it wasn't bad, just a popcorn flick, nothing more. I felt I spoiled it for myself because I read a little too much information on Morgan Freeman's character. It reminded me a lot of a movie titled Lucky Number Slevin, which came out a couple years ago, also with Morgan Freeman. I like that one a little more.

Saw Pineapple E xp ress, thought it was pretty disappointing. Ditto with Tropic Thunder. Step Brothers, and Zack and Mirri were pretty funny. Burn after reading wasn't too bad, the ending was kind of abrupt, although that seems a common thing in a Coen Brothers film. Righteous kill was predictable.

In Bruge is one of my favourite of last year, which Colin Farell won a Globe for the other night. And if anyone has not yet seen M. Night's "The Happening", please keep it that way. It truly is a horrible film. I haven't seen Lady in the Water yet, but I quite like the rest of his movies, including The Village, which doesn't seem to be that popular.

I havent seen Gran Torino yet, but I do plan on seeing it along with Benjamin Button, which I hear is fantastic.

I'm with you Grima. The Village is a good movie, it was just poorly advertised. People went into it e xp ecting a horror flick and it -really- wasn't. Lady in the Water is a good movie too, again, as long as you don't go into it with false e xp ectations. It's a weird movie, and it's probably not even remotely like anything else you've seen. You can clearly tell it's a movie he did for himself. The Happening was pretty bad, but I've seen worse.

New for me, I checked out Slither the other day. It wasn't too bad. A good throwback to the old school horror films. Plenty of funny moments, too (Nathan Fillion is -amazing-). The good thing about it, is it's -supposed- to be a bad movie. So it really works.

As far as new in theaters, there really hasn't been much out that I've wanted to see.

I watched Eagle Eye a couple weeks back, I thought it was a pretty cool movie with a pretty cool premise. It wasnt the greatest movie of all time, but I enjoyed it. I think Billy Bob's character was really good.

Yeah I was not pleased with "Eagle Eye" OR "The Happening"...both of them were disappointing. Oddly enough, I thought "Death Race" was entertaining. "The Visitor" was surprisingly good. I loved "In Bruges" with Colin Farrell. Great flick...super funny.

"Pineapple E xp ress" was ok.
"Step Brothers" was pretty funny (See "Semi-Pro", for sure!).
I just bought "The Sasquatch Gang", and G.A.Romero's "Diary of the Dead", and both are pretty mediocre.
Bought "Vantage Point" as well. Nothing special, but Dennis Quad is always pretty good. I always buy the bargain bin DVDs, and get what I pay for, I guess.

[quote=""Rough666""]
"Step Brothers" was pretty funny (See "Semi-Pro", for sure!).
.[/quote]

Love the Nazi/KKK costume scene.

I liked Vantage Point... mainly because of the different format of seeing the same thing from different perspectives and getting a little more each time. Its not the way I would want to watch every movie, but it was something different than your everyday movie.

[quote=""Curunir""]Yeah I was not pleased with "Eagle Eye" OR "The Happening"...both of them were disappointing. Oddly enough, I thought "Death Race" was entertaining. "The Visitor" was surprisingly good. I loved "In Bruges" with Colin Farrell. Great flick...super funny.[/quote]

I saw The Visitor about a week ago and thought it was pretty good. Richard Jenkins did a good job, I've always recognized him in other movies, and it's nice to see him as the leading guy.

On the other hand; I thought Vantage point, which I saw a couple months ago, was quite boring in my opinion (sorry Blade). It just kept repeating, what, like 6 times? I can appreciate something filmed differently (Memento) but the storyline just wasn't satisfying enough.

Semi-Pro, also seen a couple months ago, didn't cut it for me either. I barely remember the movie, I thought the only part that was funny was the Bear fight.

Now onto movies I've seen recently, let me start with Taken. Nice action film, Liam Nieson plays a very cool ex government spy/soldier. The only problem I had with it was that the story was pretty straight forward, and I was e xp ecting some twists and turns through out the movie. Gran Torino was good as well, but really only because of Clint Eastwood. I mean the story was ok, kinda predictable ending, it just wouldn't be much with Grumpy ole Eastwood.

Saw some Hitchcock recently, trying to keep up with the classics as well. Watched 'Rear Window' for the first time, which I believe is the highest rated Hitchcock movie on IMDB. While I liked it, In my opinion it doesn't deserve a higher ranking then some of his other classics, Vertigo is my favourite followed by either North by Northwest or Psycho. I might have to watch it a second time though, I remember I didn't really like the last half hour of Vertigo, until I saw it again, then it started to grow on me. Also saw a film called "Number 17" from the early 30's. It was alright, the DVD was picked out of a Bargain bin and had 20 of his early films, so it's not his best work, and it was also pretty crappy quality. I also got the chance to finally watch the 4th psycho, as my sister got me the DVD set of all three psycho sequels for Christmas. The fourth one was the only one I hadn't seen, and it was absolutely terrible, just like the 2 & 3. The only thing that made it bearable was the inclusion of Bernard Hermans original soundtrack, which was absent from the other sequels.

I always love when you come across a movie that you have no e xp ectations, or low e xp ectations for, and it turns out really good. I know I had no idea what I was getting into with Fellowship of the Ring, and the Two Towers. But of course when you have high hopes for it or any hopes for it, its going to disappoint you in some way. I was gung ho for ROTK, and POTC 3, and they turned out to be the least favourite for me of their franchises (although they are clearly not bad movies). Anyways, I had really low e xp ectations for Stardust, but I ended up really liking it. It's a very nice little fairytale, with some great appearances by some legendary actors (Peter O'Toole, Robert Deniro). I highly recommend it, a lot better then either of the Narnia films.

I want to see Taken... looks good and has Liam Neeson, what else could be better?

I watched Max Payne, which, I wasnt e xp ecting much, but I was literally bored so much I considered not finishing the movie.

I just bought the new release Steven Seagal dvd called "Against the Dark" for $20. The art print looked cool on the cover.He has a sword in his hand with some vampire looking chicks .
It's about (they say flesh-eating vampires)but really are just crazy people zombies & the whole thing takes place in a "contaminated zone" of a city in an abandoned hospital. I didn't see any vampire skills like jumping from windows. It was a low budget flick for sure. It wasn't horrible,but whatever you do;don't go out & pay $20 for it. Some parts of the movie reminded me of "Hostel" a little.
I should have went with my gut feeling that it was going to be a sucky low budget flick. I'm going to try & trade it with some Steven Seagal fan!

The happening was an interesting movie.

[quote=""Steel Dragon""]I just bought the new release Steven Seagal dvd called "Against the Dark" for $20[/quote]

Where did you pay $20 for a Steven Seagal movie?!

[quote=""Curunir""]Where did you pay $20 for a Steven Seagal movie?! [/quote]

Walmart. The thing is, one of his last flicks was ok.

Even the parts where he slices up the zombie vampires with his sword weren't great or impressive at all. They showed his arms & hands too much & didn't pan back to let you see the "big picture" of the whole scene,etc,etc.
Freaking low budget. I e xp ected a little better than that.

You did? .... Honestly?

[quote=""BladeCollector""]I want to see Taken... looks good and has Liam Neeson, what else could be better?[/quote]
I went to see it last weekend, and it is good. I'd definitely recommend checking it out if you're still interested. It's pretty rare you get to see Liam Neeson as the lead, and he does a good job. It's pretty violent, which is a plus too.

Seems to me like this film will follow the same path as say, Mr. Brooks. A surprisingly good film, that not many people will see.

well i dont no if it has eny interest of yours,but i just bought the new arn II,move .i realy hope this move will live up to the first arn.
hopefully some more action and less romance.

is grimma the only one in here who actuly seen this great movie??

oh ,besides another viking movie is comming up its called ,valahalla rising.i hope it have somthing in it ,to look forward to.

i do have another question has enyone seen the movie, pathfinder,i cant seem to find this in eny stores over here .

[quote=""am.dk""]well i dont no if it has eny interest of yours,but i just bought the new arn II,move .i realy hope this move will live up to the first arn.
hopefully some more action and less romance.

is grimma the only one in here who actuly seen this great movie??[/quote]

Well I will have to check out the sequel, although it's already been some time since I saw the first one. Was a pretty good movie, but I won't go as far as you and say it was great. Isn't there supposed to be a third one as well? IMDB lists 2 at the moment, and I thought this was a trilogy, unless I'm mistaken.

am.dk wrote:i do have another question has enyone seen the movie, pathfinder,i cant seem to find this in eny stores over here .

Ahh, I just watched it a couple days ago. It actually was a lot better then I thought it would be, but still nothing more then an average movie. Check it out, you may like it.

BrandalftheBlue wrote:The happening was an interesting movie.

While I will kindly disagree, I'm curious what was your take on it? What did you find interesting? I'll admit the concept of a killer toxin released from plants could make an interesting plot for a movie, and I have enjoyed Shaymalans past works. But it just didn't work in any way for him, this time.

I saw Benjamin Button last Sunday, and it was pretty good. I'm not sure how to rate it amongst other David Fincher films, he's not one of my favorite directors, though hes done some pretty interesting films. It is different from his others too, it was like a combination of 'Forest Gump' and 'Big Fish'. One of my favourite scenes, for those of you who might have seen it, was the story about the clock maker in the beginning, and how it related to the whole movie. Nice touch.

Let's see, also saw "W", the movie about the now former Pres. George W. Bush. I like to follow US politics and all, but this movie wasn't that great, pretty boring I thought. The trailers and TV spots almost make it out to be a comedy, but it isn't. The story jumped all over the place, with the main plot focusing on his relationship with his father. I will give props to Oliver Stone, I think he was pretty tame, considering his criticisms towards the Former President and his party. I'm not trying to create and discussions or debates though, I've always thought this isn't the place for politics.

So since Oscars are coming up, which of the nominated films have you seen? Which deserve to win, which should have been nominated? Anyone have a favorite film of 2008 they would like to share?

None of them deserve to win in my opinion. It's sad that so many movies had to be scraped off of rock bottom to compete with the most popular film of 2008, which for once was the only mainstream choice I was rooting for. But it's not like the Academy would recognize something like the Dark Knight.

Why I say this is because of the large amount of films from 2007 that didn't get SQUAT recognition compared to some that did. They're throwing noms and awards at Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire, which I'm sure is a great film and all, but his best (in my opinion) was Sunshine and that was totally skimmed over - it's an amazing film in the grain of 2001 and Event Horizon (only much better than the latter) and I highly recommend it.
And Brad Pitt is getting all these noms for Benjamin Button, where (also my opinion) he gave the performance of a lifetime in what should have won best picture, cinematography, AND musical score of 2007, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. I can't describe how much I love that film.
And as if I needed another example, Josh Brolin was nominated for Milk. Uh, HELLO?! No Country for Old Men? They gave the best supporting actor nom to Javier Bardem?! The guy was great, yes. But he was merely a Terminator-type role. I've seen better believable psychopath hitmen. I know what you're thinking, but no - Brolin wasn't the lead. Tommy Lee Jones was the main character, so I think it'd be fair to have nominated Brolin for best supporting of that role, as he was absolutely amazing in his comeback year (Grindhouse, American Gangster, to name a few - the man certainly had a huge comeback).
Though I think Casey Affleck should have won something at the Oscars. Hell, give him best supporting for The Assassination of Jesse James or something. He even outshined Pitt in that film. Certainly better than anything his brother is capable of. Though Ben proved to be a much better director than actor with Gone Baby Gone. Two great performances by Casey in one year - where's his recognition?
And I'm still waiting for Viggo to win something. 2008 was a dissapointment except for The Dark Knight, which I knew would never be Academy material. But it seems like, along with 2007, 2009 will pit a few of my favorite filmmakers against each other. In '07 we had Mortensen and Day Lewis both nominated for best actor. As much as I think Lewis deserved it I really wanted to see Viggo win too. He's very under-rated. In any event, I'm glad Clooney didn't win. He's very much the opposite (over-rated) and thought Michael Clayton was a huge bore fest. But like I said, it seems that 2009 will be similar, as I predict two films I've been eagerly waiting for: The Road and Michael Mann's Public Enemies. Not that I should have to worry... it's not like either of those will be nominated - they're probably good! J/k.... but not really. I can't wait though. If the Road had come out when it was supposed to (October of 08) then I'd be saying at least a couple good movies came out last year. But they felt the need to push it up some more apparently.


Bleh. Overall I'm very disappointed in Hollywood's snobism lately and it seems like when they have too many choices they overlook too many gems, yet when they have very few that threaten their vision of art they'll totally ignore them and seek choices in what normally wouldn't even be thought of. It's all too political the way it works and I don't put much stock in what they say is "the best film of the year", for example.

I cant believe GRAN TORINO wasn't nominated for anything. AMAZING film.

And Casey Affleck? I find him annoying, no rather really annoying, in just about everything I've seen him in.

What have you seen him in?

[quote=""Sedhal""]What have you seen him in?[/quote]

Gone Baby Gone most recently.

All the Ocean's movies.

200 Cigarettes, chasing amy...

I can't see how he was annoying in Gone Baby Gone to be honest. I know most people complain about his voice, but he's still likable to me. And he's one of those actors that seems to play a role so convincingly people start to hate him in real life. Watch Jesse James. He's absolutely amazing in it. You may simplify things and call him annoying, but look past that. He's very talented.

[quote=""Sedhal""]None of them deserve to win in my opinion. It's sad that so many movies had to be scraped off of rock bottom to compete with the most popular film of 2008, which for once was the only mainstream choice I was rooting for. But it's not like the Academy would recognize something like the Dark Knight.[/quote]

I would have liked to have seen both Slumdog and the Wrestler, but I probably won't get a chance until they are released on DVD. I do think Dark Knight should have been nominated, although, while I haven't seen many of this years nominees, I wouldn't think it should win. Chris Nolan has produced some great movies over the years, and Ledger's Joker is the perfect villain, but I don't know. My excitement for it has faded, and I'm starting to think some if it is a little over rated. But then again, was there really a better movie then that last year?

I do agree though, the academy, and all the other award shows seem to fall for the same trick each year, nominating the string of same old artsy movies that are released in December, and ignoring every other film released before hand. All of them picked by the studio heads hoping to get a boost in sales by having the film nominated.

Sedhal wrote:And Brad Pitt is getting all these noms for Benjamin Button, where (also my opinion) he gave the performance of a lifetime in what should have won best picture, cinematography, AND musical score of 2007, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. I can't describe how much I love that film.

I didn't quite like Jesse James myself, wasn't my can of cola. It was beautifully filmed, I don't remember the score, but it was just wasn't very interesting, with the exception of a few scenes and the end. Buy the way, thought the cameo by James Carvell was pretty good. Did not e xp ect to see him in a film. Same with Sunshine, not a big Sci Fi fan.

And as for Mortensen's Russian mobster, and Day Lewis' milkshake loving oilman, I have no doubt the better actor one. Obviously I do like Mortensen's work, but you just can't compete with Lewis. I don't find Viggo as convincing, I hear his accent slip every so often.

Curunir wrote:And Casey Affleck? I find him annoying, no rather really annoying, in just about everything I've seen him in.

Don't mind Casey Afflect myself, I find him easier to stand than his older brother. I do have say that I certainly find Edward Norton, Nick Cage, or Leo DiCaprio annoying in most of their roles (though there are always exceptions).

I recently just watched saw V, very demented movies....

Saw... five movies (and counting) I'll never waste an hour of my life on...

don't waste your life watching those movies

I actually love the saw movies. I love how they are all interwoven and you get a new piece of the puzzle in each movie. Not to mention jigsaw is a great character

"Zach and Meeri Make a Porno" = Funny!

[quote=""BladeCollector""]I actually love the saw movies. I love how they are all interwoven and you get a new piece of the puzzle in each movie. Not to mention jigsaw is a great character[/quote]

I too enjoy the Saw movies. I'm no fan of the horror or gore genre, but these movies sure have an interesting plot, if nothing else. Sure the acting is... bad and the twists, though shocking, are sometimes cheap, but what more can you can you e xp ect for a movie that is filmed in about a month and released every Halloween for the past couple years. At least check out the first two. And yeah, Tobin Bell plays a great villain.

Yeah I cant wait that crap (Saw movies). It seems to me that they make them just to make a quick buck while all the kids are celebrating Halloween.

I saw The Reader. I can't see why Kate Winslet won for best actress other than the fact that she got naked. I mean, she is a good actress.

Mikey Rourke in the Wrestler was FANTASTIC. Go see it.

The Visitor with Richard Jenkins--also a great movie. It surprised me, especially since Richard Jenkins usually does small bit-roles.

"Body of Lies" with DeCaprio & Crowe was good. They could have cut out the love story with DeCaprio's charactor with some chick. Basically Crowe is a CIA agent "handler" who stays in DC & DeCaprio is the undercover in the field agent getting stuff done everywhere. Mostly in the middle east areas where most of the terrorist activity is.

I believe the job that DeCaprio does in the movie for real pays about $90K a year.

If they had cut out that element, why would he turn himself over to the terrorists near the end?

[quote=""Sedhal""]If they had cut out that element, why would he turn himself over to the terrorists near the end?[/quote]

You didn't just spoil the ending, did you?

No, I spoiled the *near* ending.

Sorry though, my bad. Forget I said anything.

OK, so I finally saw "Watchmen." I've never read the graphic novel so I went into it with no e xp ectations. It was interesting. It had a long, sprawling, fairly involved plot that was somewhat hard for me to follow because a lot of the e xp osition was narrated by the Rorshach character, and I had a hard time understanding him (he used a gruff voice and, well, my hearing is not what it once was). The things I found most interesting were the elements of alternative history: it's 1985 and Nixon is still the president of the US. He used the superheroes to win the Vietnam War, Watergate never happened or was toned down, etc. The nose the makeup guys put on the actor to simulate Nixon's nose was pretty hysterical. This movie also had the most full-frontal nudity I've ever seen in a mainstream movie, but since it was on a glowing blue CGI godling, I don't know if it really counts.

Where I thought the movie really delivered was in the ending, by not having a stereotypical Hollywood ending. I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it and want to.

One disappointment: the trailers for Star Trek and Terminator Salvation were supposed to be attached. Where I saw it, they were not. I've seen them both online already, but I was looking forward to seeing them on the big screen.

Not sure why some folks and critics are being so hard on this movie. I watched it also, and loved it. Haven't read the comic yet, but I went with two friends who did, and they said it was 98% faithful to the source, and well done. In this era of dark super heroes, the Watchmen fit in well, though some might find the political atmosphere a little dated since it harkens back to the time period in which it was written, albeit in a different timeline, as Olorin pointed out. Is it relevant by today's terms? Yes, I think the message is still valid in many ways.

I too went in e xp ecting the Star Trek and Terminator trailers. ST was missing, but they did show the Terminator one and I can safely say it left me salivating for that release date.

Watchmen is hard for me... I describe it as 50% pure awesomeness and 50% pure bullcrap. I never read the graphic novel but I vaguely was familiar with the story so I knew what to e xp ect on a broad basis.

The ending for me was the best part. Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach are the best characters in it, and if it weren't for them I'd probably severely dislike the movie. Which is why I kind of dislike it. I dislike disliking it but I can't really feel any different than I do. My main complaints are with the writer Alan Moore (he's a nutcase) rather than the filmmakers. If you're going to do Watchmen, do Watchmen. And they did (to an extent). I'd hate for them to change anything, so that's why I'm blaming the original when I say that this film had some major BS in it. It's fantasy, I can take it, but when you mix fantasy with "real world" events and then try to pawn it off as hypothetical or something (ahem... flowers in rifles and completely peaceful protesters being shot like a firing squad? That's not at all what happened, if they're referring to what I think they are).

SPOILER:


I did however like how well the Kennedy assassination was done, by the hands of the Comedian at the grassy knoll. Very superbly rendered with what looked like a combination of the real video.


But one of my other big complaints was the music. I know they were trying to link it to that time period and all (except the majority of the movie took place in the 80s). But there's a time and place. And S&G, Hendrix, and Leonard Cohen (except the end credits song) were severely out of place and whether they fit lyrically or not - did not fit tone-wise (except for S&G at the funeral, which - come on. Am I supposed to take that song seriously when watching a glowing blue guy mourn a "superhero" friend? Errm.) It just seemed very comical to me and culturally out of place. I wish they had kept with some more contemporary music like the Smashing Pumpkins and Muse that were in the trailers. What Tyler Bates (I think) did as far as the score goes was pretty darn good - wish we heard more of that (loved the Dr. Manhattan creation scene).

Overall very disappointing. And I wouldn't be saying that if I didn't see the potential in those two characters I mentioned. Really pains me actually. And far too many.... awkward scenes (I'm not referring to the illuminated blue johnson, that was actually not as bad as people made it out to be - just don't look at it if it's uncomfortable) like um... Night Owl & Silk Spectre.... were they aiming for laughs ?


It's too bad you didn't get the trailers. I had the best trailer lineup in ages. Public Enemies, T4, and Star Trek. People actually CHEERED for Star Trek. You don't see that everyday. Maybe it's the teen Hannah Montana generation that really thought the younger actors were cute or something.

[quote=""Sedhal""]It's fantasy, I can take it, but when you mix fantasy with "real world" events and then try to pawn it off as hypothetical or something (ahem... flowers in rifles and completely peaceful protesters being shot like a firing squad? That's not at all what happened, if they're referring to what I think they are). [/quote]

I imagine you're referring to Kent State and no, that's not how it happened in reality, obviously, but I think they were springboarding from that event, which happened during the reign of the real Nixon, to a more fancifulized event that might happen during the unending reign of an unbeatable Nixon. Take it as political commentary on Nixon, one of the most controversial presidents of the last half century (I'd say the most controversial, but for Bush Jr.).

Yeah I can understand what they're doing there but they're treading a fine line between fantasy and reality when splicing the two together like this (obviously). The way I see it, if the reality works, use it. If it doesn't, well... then you shouldn't be using it - make something up. As equally as I wouldn't want canon material changed for a film merely to help me enjoy it better, I don't think elements of the story as closely and intentionally patterned after real events should "rape" history in that way. I mean, this is what Watchmen is all about and I'll be honest, it wouldn't work without bringing up events that hit close to home. But I'm all for meaning and self-reflection, it's just when they take it a step further and use specific events/names/dates etc. in many cases. I can appreciate it for what it is, I'm just more of a fan of escapism in a way. Art as a form of escape from our world or our current lives.

And it's hard as I seem to agree with Alan Moore on some things but totally find him hypocritical and contradictory. You can find a video on youtube if you search for "Alan Moore on Anarchism/Anarchy". What he says here reminds me of how Watchmen both made me feel like I agreed with it, yet at the same time also didn't agree with how it was going about it (I guess?). I mean: There were many viewpoints and themes I totally agreed with in it, yet not in certain contexts I suppose. But anyway, in this video Moore basically e xp lains how anarchism is the only true way to really live in this world. He blames governments as he preaches to us and then tells us we shouldn't have people telling us what to do. Now... I agree with a lot of this. I consider myself somewhat of a libertarian and would prefer it if everyone just did what they want as long as I can do the same - Don't concern me, I just want to live my life in a way. The concept of anarchy does seem appealing in many ways. Yet I'm also a realist. I'm no fan of the government but I see its purpose. It's a necessary evil. I also realize that in anarchist "societies" (or lack thereof), Darwinism happens. And through Darwinism, weak people band together or with the stronger people to form relationships and dependencies and that escalates and from there they grow bigger and encounter a bigger group that wipes them out and the demand to hook up rises, ultimately leading to a larger society or community that neads to be led by someone or something (which boils back down to the "someone") and this is how governments form. Anarchism - seems like a nice thought, but it's not really possible for too long. No matter where we start out, people will naturally form societies and end up governing them somehow. It's human nature. But I'm rambling and getting way off topic and probably saying too much already. I guess it's just hard because I feel like it only really bothers me when I completely disagree with viewpoints I relate to in the first place on a basic level.

[quote=""Sedhal""]Yeah I can understand what they're doing there but they're treading a fine line between fantasy and reality when splicing the two together like this (obviously). The way I see it, if the reality works, use it. If it doesn't, well... then you shouldn't be using it - make something up. As equally as I wouldn't want canon material changed for a film merely to help me enjoy it better, I don't think elements of the story as closely and intentionally patterned after real events should "rape" history in that way. I mean, this is what Watchmen is all about and I'll be honest, it wouldn't work without bringing up events that hit close to home. But I'm all for meaning and self-reflection, it's just when they take it a step further and use specific events/names/dates etc. in many cases. I can appreciate it for what it is, I'm just more of a fan of escapism in a way. Art as a form of escape from our world or our current lives.[/quote]

So, basically what you are saying is that you don't like 'what if' scenarios? Because that's essentially what the Watchmen is. The issue of superheroes not being real aside, the story offers us a glimpse at a world familiar in many ways, yet shaped somewhat differently by changing a few crucial events in the past. Personally, I find such e xp lorations fascinating. I'm a big fan of history, and I often wonder how things might have turned out if things had gone the other way. What if the Roman empire had not fallen? What if Nazi Germany had won WWII? These have been e xp lored in both novel and film form, and yes, though it stradles a misty border between reality and fiction, I don't see why that stops it from being a form of escapist entertainment that can be appreciated and valued on its own merits.

I guess for me, it all depends on what the movie is setting out to do. Take this example, for instance: the movie Braveheart is a somewhat historically accurate portrayal of the e xp loits of William Wallace (leaving all the fictional fluff out for the sake of argument here.) Now, imagine the movie stood as is for most of its running length, yet at the end, instead of being captured and executed, Wallace goes on to conquer England and alters the course of history. Without forewarning and setup, I could definitely understand why an audience would be put off by this. What would be the point of altering history that way? How does that improve the movie in any way? None, really.

However, with something with the Watchmen, we have a different approach on our hands. We know going in, from the opening sequence, and from the premise and genre of the movie alone, that this is an alternate, parallel look at our history. The movie is set under those conditions, and remains so. Yes, it is grounded in various elements of our history, but there is never any question that the writer is attempting to do something else or convince us that we should accept his version of events as anything other than fiction. A momentary escape from reality, if you will.

Having said that, I guess I can understand why you don't like the movie because it walks a line you don't personally enjoy, yet that is merely a subjective opinion. The movie makes a social commentary, and it does so by drawing in the viewer with names that he will recognize, such as Nixon and the Vietnam war. Could the message have as much of an impact if those names are changed? Not very likely, as we are so prone to forget our mistakes and repeat them, perhaps we need a good dose of familiarity in our entertainment once in a while, just so that we are reminded of who we are and where we came from... lest we forget.

Anyway, all that really matters in the end is what each individual walks away with once the movie is over, regardless of what others think. I liked it, you didn't. Fair enough.

Well that's not at all how I see it, really. It's not that I don't like "what if" scenarios. Quite contrary to that, I also find them interesting and the examples you mentioned sound like amazing platforms for further e xp loration. I don't see such cases in Watchmen (beyond the concept of real superheroes used as tools of the government) "what if" scenarios. With events like the Kennedy assassination, that's fine. I totally dig that part and it was great that they just blatantly showed who was at the grassy knoll. It is a mystery, therefor I can accept that hypothetical/parallel universe reasoning.

The difference is that Kent State is a much more open event and we know what happened there. There is no room (in my eyes) for speculation or slightly shifting the events to go "what if?". As, it's not "what if _the protesters hadn't been fired upon_" or an equivalent to your examples, where the possible outcome of that "here-and-now" of the situation was different. No, I see it quite differently when they blatantly twist the whole premise to begin with. They make it look like these protesters weren't looting, trashing stuff, setting buildings on fire, and throwing bottles at the national guard, while the latter simply stands there and coldly fires at them. This isn't a "what if" situation, it's a form of propaganda for an agenda.

And as you say further down in your post, if the realism wasn't there it wouldn't be as effective. This is why I have problems with the grouping of A and 2. It's either A&B or 1&2. He uses real names and events in order to "hit close to home" yet completely lies about specific implied events. He basically wants to have his cake, eat it, then eat it once more.

A true "what if" scenario isn't picking and choosing based on agenda to piece together the history you'd like to believe. If this story is really supposed to illuminate our wrongs and failures of the past then you'd think it could rely on more factual material when directly referencing known instances. It's fraudulent in that way. A) It's a story about retrospect and a social commentary applying superheroes to real events, yet B) It completely distorts a few of these events in order to suit the author's agenda. It's very self-defeating in that way.

Do you see where I'm coming from a little bit with the difference of outcome vs. the whole basis for which a particular event went down? It would be different if it was something these superheroes had an effect on (IE: Vietnam's victor), but they weren't at the "massacre". Analyzing the two components, that was portrayed as our reality, not the superheroes' hypothetical reality or the combination of the two.

It's like: The difference of reality + fantasy, vs reality + fantasy + agenda. As soon as any bias and polarization comes into play, it's no longer reality that we're making a commentary on, which makes the rest of the story that less credible.

But to say I disliked it is still hard for me. Like I said, I totally respect the fantasy element Moore has in the story and absolutely love Manhattan and Rorschach. Though I also disagree with you on it being escapist, however. On the surface it is. That's the whole fantasy element. But on the surface it's just a "superhero" story. On the inside, it's very anti-superhero and leaning towards (supposed) self-reflection. And the fact that both main time periods were written and take place in the past doesn't help any. That's just my personal taste though, like you said.

Now that you've made a more clear-cut distinction of your points, I totally get what you are saying. I dont' have the same reaction to the issue that you do, but I see where you're coming from at least. I'm not very familiar with the Kent incident, and I can only say that perhaps Moore meant to imply that something about his alternate series of events led to those people not having to engage in looting and rioting, but if so, then why was the National Guard there at all, period? Ya, I see what you mean now.

As for disagreeing with me on it being escapist, again I suppose it is just a matter of perspective, as always. Because I was not as deeply drawn into the issues of history onscreen as you were, the movie was more of an escapist e xp erience for myself than for you.

You guys are taking this movie way too seriously.

Nah, I don't think so. I think the issues raised go beyond merely the Watchmen, so it's not just a dissection of the movie itself, but also about what makes a particular moviegoing e xp erience work for one person and not so much for the other.

Oh, I was just kidding anyway. It was actually the kind of in-depth discussion we don't see often enough on this site.

Exactly, and pardon my original e xp lanation it was 3AM. I'm glad I was more clear the second time around.

I think the story deserves serious thought, being both the anti-mindless superhero movie and a complete work of art. If we don't analyze movies, then what else is important? I'll be straying even further off target here, but it's like survival vs. enjoyment. What's the point of living if there's no fun in life. That was a very general analogy but you get the idea.


EDIT: oh, sorry just saw your post. Nevermind lol