Concerning Anthony Lane's 'Review' of Watchmen

Sorry readers for all the Watchmen postings lately, but I really feel this is necessary.

This guy, Anthony Lane, is so full of conceited, self promoted brilliance it makes me want to puke. Go read his article about Watchmen and then read my piece. I have no issues with the dude if he doesn't like the movie. I have issues with the way his article is written and a lot of things he says.


Mr. Lane,

Really dude, I understand you don't like Watchmen – that’s OK. But just maybe you shouldn't try so hard to distance yourself from all of us bourgeois, low life youngsters? I don't know how old you are, yet I can't imagine that your life has presented itself in such a way that you have a good reason to totally condemn your youth, a period when your mind was still open and your body wasn't failing. Your lack of enthusiasm for the inheriting generation is quite interesting. Forgive me if I, as an ignorant, conspiracy harboring, school boy 19 year old, forgo the trap that you've obviously fallen into in your mid-life crisis, where the only acceptable view of the young is one of distaste and barely concealed laughter. Do you enjoy having that ‘intelligent’ conversation with your much more merited cadre of elder women?

Trying so hard to be an elitist bastard is even more embarrassing than actually being one. And if you can find it within to listen to someone other than yourself, then know that your sophisticated vocabulary and writing style (while impressive) do not justify your degradation of this movie, Zack Snyder, or its audience. If truth be told, you don’t actually say much in the whole range of it. Babbling about ‘great hairy English lords’ (how classy) and trying to comes across witty by making sweeping generalizations and insidious remarks with clever word choices, gives no value to your opinion. In the entire length of your review you criticize and undermine the caliber of several million people, call Alan Moore, one of the most prolific and celebrated writers of our time, a baboon, and vaguely hint that anyone who enjoys this film is a ‘slavvish’ and apparently disturbed individual. Unfortunately in the whole piece I can see maybe six good points you make that pertain to the movie at all.

1. You thought that the Snyder went overboard with the violence, specifically in the attempted rape of the Silk Spectre and with Rorshach in the pedophile scene. You are correct in saying it’s a departure from the graphic novel (but the leg being chewed on is not).
2. You felt that the dialogue was cheesy and amateur.
3. You didn’t like Malin Akerman’s performance citing her lack of emotion and line delivery as limp.
4. You didn’t like Matthew Goode at all.
5. You don’t like Bob Dylan’s music in the opening credits because it didn’t fit the tone of the movie and was almost shamefully cliché.
6. You thought that the opening sequence was well done.

Apart from that, the rest of your review is fluff that doesn’t actually have anything to do with the film and is more of a social critique. I find that just a touch ironic, since Watchmen is all about social criticism and specifically challenges society’s tendency for violence and disrespect. Hmmm…that sounds a lot like what you were getting at with all your mystical commentary and metaphoric allusions.

I have to say that I find it amazing that someone like you can’t see the point behind this movie. Try looking beyond the first layer of the film if you don’t like its aesthetic, and immerse yourself in the message. Do you really think this movie would be as violent and dark as it is if there was no purpose to it? Watchmen isn’t supposed to make you comfortable and it isn’t supposed to be clean. It’s supposed to make you think and feel the black aspects of our culture.

If anything, your tone alienates readers who are not so into themselves or who enjoyed thinking about the ideas and concepts behind Watchmen (by the way, that would be several hundred million). Why should we listen to such a pompous high-horsed fellow such as you, when anyone who prefers to read friendly, engaging material can find it elsewhere? Learn how to review a film as a film, instead of turning it into an editorial. And maybe try to peel back the layers around you instead of allowing yourself to be caught in the shallows.

EDITORIAL: Marvel's Movie Magic: Is Everyone On The Same Page?

Marvel comics is easily the most successful company that ever went from making comic books, to then producing movies about them. In the past few years alone we have seen amazing movies such as Spiderman 1&2, Iron Man, X-men 1&2, Blade 1&2, and The Punisher (among others).

But like any film 'series' they have also had their less popular films, Ghostrider, Hulk, X3, Spiderman 3, Daredevil, and Fantastic Four (among others).

But that seems to be a good track record. Now, here is my problem.

Marvel does not seem to treat film as different art from the art of comic books. This is their downfall, because the two forms of expression are very different. Here are the two comic book tenants, that I think should not apply to their film counterparts.

1. When an artist leaves... get a new artist! The character will change a bit, but everyone knows that it is the same guy.

When a characters artist changes in a comic book, people either like or dislike the new designs, but eventually they get over it and keep reading. The art may have changed, but the character is the same and it is good enough for the readers.

In a film though, if an actor leaves and is recast after making one popular film already as the character, people will have a lot more trouble accepting the new actor in the sequel.

In Iron Man, Terrance Howard played Jim Rhodes, Tony Starks best friend, with many hints that he will return as another hero in the sequel. Ironically, he won't. Well, Rhodes will, but Howard has been recast with Don Cheadle.

Edward Norton already said he will not be reprising his role as Bruce Banner in the upcoming avengers movie, making one wonder how they will recast a lead character with out everyone complaining about continuity.

Back in 2004, The Punisher was played by Thomas Jane, and now in the sequel, he is being played by Ray Stevenson. Once again, the lead actor quit and someone new came on.

Now, sure, if it was animated, nobody would care. Lots of people can do the same character voices, and pull of the character convincingly, but when it is a full actor who must bring his character to life, every actor will do it differently. I can guarantee that each of these new actors will not play the character in the same way as the first actor originated the role.

Bringing me to...

2. Don't make a film with a sequel in mind.

Why? Because unexpected stuff may happen! If any of these films were made to be standalone films, then there would not be an issue. If they just planned on making a Hulk movie, and then later the producer said "let's make a sequel", and the lead actor said 'I don't want to...' then they could just drop the film and move on to the next one... because face it... Marvel has tons of characters, and would probably love to make a film for each and every one.

But... if you really want to make a sequel... then you need to GUARANTEE that all the original actors (unless they are incapacitated) will be in it. How? By outlining how long you want the franchise to run and then getting all the actors to sign 'multiple film agreements' before starting the first film.

I like Marvel films, but I wish each one didn't have to be it's own trilogy. The first (and usually the second) ones are usually great, but by the third they just push the stuff way to far in a bad direction. I don't want Spiderman 4 after seeing Spiderman 3, as much as I loved the first two, and I don't want to see an avengers movie with half a cast from the prequel, and half 'all new replacements'.

What do you think?