Kevin Smith Has Seen Watchmen: Its...Astounding

[The Dude]

Kevin Smith is the man. This is a fact.

Pumped by this news. This is my most anticipated movie of 09. By miles.

 

[mpw261]

He actually saw the entire movie?

 

[RustyCage]

He actually saw the entire movie?

Well, he saw whatever form it was in at the time..

 

[Agentsands77]

He didn't say the movie was anything like Sin City, except in the aspect of being exactly like the book.

Well, sure. But that's kind of my problem. Y'see, I don't parade SIN CITY as an example of a good adaptation. The comics are decent, but I thought that film was utter dreck. So when Smith says, "Remember that feeling of watching Sin City on the big screen and being blown away by what a faithful translation of the source material it was, in terms of both content and visuals?" That was never me.

Now, to Smith's credit, he does say it does an even better job of that than SIN CITY (which it better do, or I'll walk away might disappointed). But I'm glad Smith liked it, and I am hopeful that WATCHMEN will deliver.

 

[luke1234]

Kevin Smith is the man. This is a fact.

Pumped by this news. This is my most anticipated movie of 09. By miles.

agreed

 

[dlvillarreal]

Kevin Smith is one lucky son of *****...

 

[CaptainGenerica]

Well, sure. But that's kind of my problem. Y'see, I don't parade SIN CITY as an example of a good adaptation. The comics are decent, but I thought that film was utter dreck. So when Smith says, "Remember that feeling of watching Sin City on the big screen and being blown away by what a faithful translation of the source material it was, in terms of both content and visuals?" That was never me.

Now, to Smith's credit, he does say it does an even better job of that than SIN CITY (which it better do, or I'll walk away might disappointed). But I'm glad Smith liked it, and I am hopeful that WATCHMEN will deliver.

I'm kinda curious as to why you think Sin City wasn't a good adaptation. It's been awhile since I've read/watched it, but I remember being impressed by the faithfulness, if not blown away by the movie itself (or the comics for that matter).

 

[Star]

I'm curious too... what exactly could have been done to make Sin City 'better'?

It's so similar to the comics, and it has the same 'feel'...

 

[Lobster Charlie]

I don't think copying a comic book panel for panel into a film format is the most favorable way to adapt a graphic novel. Mind you, I could very well have mis-read the Sin City books, and seen them a bit more "serious" than the over-the-top cartoonish violence offered by RR and Frank Miller. I was a big fan of the books, btw.

My problems with the Sin City film:

-Stories told out of order. What was the point of that? Some people I'd spoken to after seeing the film were utterly confused by it. They also tried to cram way too much into one film.

-The violence was way too cartoony. I expected something more gritty, a tiny bit more "serious," and less like an overt Robert Rodriguez film.

A few scenes that come to mind:

--Marv dragging that guy's face on the pavement while driving at about 100 miles an hour (I always imagined that scene was actually a car going much slower, making it that much more agonizing, and you know, still keeping the guy alive long enough to actually offer some information)

--Marv being tossed around like a rag-doll by Goldie's convertible. It looked so preposterous, the audience I saw it with was in hysterics. Nuh-uh. That scene should've played far more brutal, IMO. Making it funny takes the weight out of it, IMO.

-Cheap CGI look. I said it then, and I'll say it again: the way they shot this thing won't stand the test of time. The entire film felt more like a (cheapish, at times) music video than an actual "film." What's wrong with just shooting the thing on real sets, utilizing a few nods to Miller's technique used in the comics?

And don't get me started on the makeup. Mickey Rourke is ugly enough to pull off Marv without having to wear a bad wig and that silly jaw.

-Casting and performances. Rosario Dawson, Jaime King, Bruce Willis, Brittany Murphy, Elijah Wood, and Michael Madsen, I'm looking at you. Bruce Willis didn't belong anywhere near this film, and didn't capture what I believe to be the real Hartigan in the least. The role had Clint Eastwood written all over it, and while I know they'd never get him for such a part, they could've hit a little closer to the mark.

Michael Madsen had the worst acting and dialogue in the film. Jaime King looks a little too burnt out to pull off "high class hooker." Everyone else I listed are way too young. Kevin is more of the "creepy substitute teacher from Bible school," a guy in his late 30's/early 40's with receding hairline, not a punk kid. Brittany Murphy was an inspired choice, but she hammed it up way too much. Hearing her bleat out "you DAMN fool" was just stomach-churning. And don't get me started on the cheap scenes with the hookers in Old Town. Most of them weren't nearly as hot as presented in the comics, and seemed like they just hired mostly their friends to wear skimpy clothing and try to look "tough." The scene of them firing down into the alley felt tacked-on, lazy, and not the least bit as awesome as the comics.

To their credit, Clive Owen, Mickey Rourke, Carla Gugino, and Nick Stahl did a great job. Devon Aoki was decent, and Jessica Alba was alright, but didn't come close to capturing the Nancy from the comic books. What was with her lame dancing that lasted about 10-15 seconds? Did they happen to miss the 2 page spreads we'd sometimes get multiple times in a single volume? None of the dynamics caught on the comic page were truly brought to the big screen in regards to this character.

*nitpick side note on her scenes: Marv explicitly states that he loves Katie's because it was an old country bar. Nancy wears country gear, as does Shellie. So why the crap techno-ish music? Where was "Drivin' Wheel" by Emmylou Harris? nit pick, I know, but I was actually looking forward to that part.

I can (obviously) go on about this, but the main problem I had with Sin City was that it wasn't quite the adaptation I was looking for. I was hoping for something more gritty, not so "literal," and for the directors/writers to bring something *more* to the Sin City world, rather than just trying to get actors to replicate comic book performances. That allows for bad dialogue (comic-talk works in the books, not so much in real life), silly action, and simplistic storylines.

If I want a comic book, I'll read a comic book. When I sit in a theatre, I want to see a film. A few nods here and there are great, but just copying the panels doesn't excite me. Sin City could've been a whole lot more, IMO.

 

[Agentsands77]

I don't think copying a comic book panel for panel into a film format is the most favorable way to adapt a graphic novel. Mind you, I could very well have mis-read the Sin City books, and seen them a bit more "serious" than the over-the-top cartoonish violence offered by RR and Frank Miller. I was a big fan of the books, btw.

My problems with the Sin City film:

-Stories told out of order. What was the point of that? Some people I'd spoken to after seeing the film were utterly confused by it. They also tried to cram way too much into one film.

-The violence was way too cartoony. I expected something more gritty, a tiny bit more "serious," and less like an overt Robert Rodriguez film.

A few scenes that come to mind:

--Marv dragging that guy's face on the pavement while driving at about 100 miles an hour (I always imagined that scene was actually a car going much slower, making it that much more agonizing, and you know, still keeping the guy alive long enough to actually offer some information)

--Marv being tossed around like a rag-doll by Goldie's convertible. It looked so preposterous, the audience I saw it with was in hysterics. Nuh-uh. That scene should've played far more brutal, IMO. Making it funny takes the weight out of it, IMO.

-Cheap CGI look. I said it then, and I'll say it again: the way they shot this thing won't stand the test of time. The entire film felt more like a (cheapish, at times) music video than an actual "film." What's wrong with just shooting the thing on real sets, utilizing a few nods to Miller's technique used in the comics?

And don't get me started on the makeup. Mickey Rourke is ugly enough to pull off Marv without having to wear a bad wig and that silly jaw.

-Casting and performances. Rosario Dawson, Jaime King, Bruce Willis, Brittany Murphy, Elijah Wood, and Michael Madsen, I'm looking at you. Bruce Willis didn't belong anywhere near this film, and didn't capture what I believe to be the real Hartigan in the least. The role had Clint Eastwood written all over it, and while I know they'd never get him for such a part, they could've hit a little closer to the mark.

Michael Madsen had the worst acting and dialogue in the film. Jaime King looks a little too burnt out to pull off "high class hooker." Everyone else I listed are way too young. Kevin is more of the "creepy substitute teacher from Bible school," a guy in his late 30's/early 40's with receding hairline, not a punk kid. Brittany Murphy was an inspired choice, but she hammed it up way too much. Hearing her bleat out "you DAMN fool" was just stomach-churning. And don't get me started on the cheap scenes with the hookers in Old Town. Most of them weren't nearly as hot as presented in the comics, and seemed like they just hired mostly their friends to wear skimpy clothing and try to look "tough." The scene of them firing down into the alley felt tacked-on, lazy, and not the least bit as awesome as the comics.

To their credit, Clive Owen, Mickey Rourke, Carla Gugino, and Nick Stahl did a great job. Devon Aoki was decent, and Jessica Alba was alright, but didn't come close to capturing the Nancy from the comic books. What was with her lame dancing that lasted about 10-15 seconds? Did they happen to miss the 2 page spreads we'd sometimes get multiple times in a single volume? None of the dynamics caught on the comic page were truly brought to the big screen in regards to this character.

*nitpick side note on her scenes: Marv explicitly states that he loves Katie's because it was an old country bar. Nancy wears country gear, as does Shellie. So why the crap techno-ish music? Where was "Drivin' Wheel" by Emmylou Harris? nit pick, I know, but I was actually looking forward to that part.

I can (obviously) go on about this, but the main problem I had with Sin City was that it wasn't quite the adaptation I was looking for. I was hoping for something more gritty, not so "literal," and for the directors/writers to bring something *more* to the Sin City world, rather than just trying to get actors to replicate comic book performances. That allows for bad dialogue (comic-talk works in the books, not so much in real life), silly action, and simplistic storylines.

If I want a comic book, I'll read a comic book. When I sit in a theatre, I want to see a film. A few nods here and there are great, but just copying the panels doesn't excite me. Sin City could've been a whole lot more, IMO.

Mostly agreed. Another real problem I had with the SIN CITY film is how rushed the stories were. They were never really given any time to breathe.

 

[laudanum09]

I'm stoked that he liked it, but then again I don't necessarily respect this guy's taste 100percent of the time...especially lately...but good news nonthe less, one finger crossed, the other well...making some sort of sign analogous to skepticism...

 

[Nivek]

What I always love about comic fans dissing Sin City as a adoption... Frank Miller himself was all over it. The guy wrote and did all the art for the comics, but his live action vision where the dude was on set every day was for whatever reason "wrong". Love fans.

 

[Lobster Charlie]

George Lucas also directed the Star Wars prequels, and we saw how those turned out.

Frank Miller's comic book work in the past 10 years hasn't been all that great, either.

Comics and film are totally different mediums. And while I'd never call the Sin City film "wrong," I simply didn't like the way it was handled. *shrugs*

 

[luke1234]

Im not sure if i trust kevin smith,

he did praise Star Wars Episode 3, and we all know how that turned out

 

[EternalMaster]

I don't think copying a comic book panel for panel into a film format is the most favorable way to adapt a graphic novel. Mind you, I could very well have mis-read the Sin City books, and seen them a bit more "serious" than the over-the-top cartoonish violence offered by RR and Frank Miller. I was a big fan of the books, btw.

My problems with the Sin City film:

-Stories told out of order. What was the point of that? Some people I'd spoken to after seeing the film were utterly confused by it. They also tried to cram way too much into one film.

-The violence was way too cartoony. I expected something more gritty, a tiny bit more "serious," and less like an overt Robert Rodriguez film.

A few scenes that come to mind:

--Marv dragging that guy's face on the pavement while driving at about 100 miles an hour (I always imagined that scene was actually a car going much slower, making it that much more agonizing, and you know, still keeping the guy alive long enough to actually offer some information)

--Marv being tossed around like a rag-doll by Goldie's convertible. It looked so preposterous, the audience I saw it with was in hysterics. Nuh-uh. That scene should've played far more brutal, IMO. Making it funny takes the weight out of it, IMO.

-Cheap CGI look. I said it then, and I'll say it again: the way they shot this thing won't stand the test of time. The entire film felt more like a (cheapish, at times) music video than an actual "film." What's wrong with just shooting the thing on real sets, utilizing a few nods to Miller's technique used in the comics?

And don't get me started on the makeup. Mickey Rourke is ugly enough to pull off Marv without having to wear a bad wig and that silly jaw.

-Casting and performances. Rosario Dawson, Jaime King, Bruce Willis, Brittany Murphy, Elijah Wood, and Michael Madsen, I'm looking at you. Bruce Willis didn't belong anywhere near this film, and didn't capture what I believe to be the real Hartigan in the least. The role had Clint Eastwood written all over it, and while I know they'd never get him for such a part, they could've hit a little closer to the mark.

Michael Madsen had the worst acting and dialogue in the film. Jaime King looks a little too burnt out to pull off "high class hooker." Everyone else I listed are way too young. Kevin is more of the "creepy substitute teacher from Bible school," a guy in his late 30's/early 40's with receding hairline, not a punk kid. Brittany Murphy was an inspired choice, but she hammed it up way too much. Hearing her bleat out "you DAMN fool" was just stomach-churning. And don't get me started on the cheap scenes with the hookers in Old Town. Most of them weren't nearly as hot as presented in the comics, and seemed like they just hired mostly their friends to wear skimpy clothing and try to look "tough." The scene of them firing down into the alley felt tacked-on, lazy, and not the least bit as awesome as the comics.

To their credit, Clive Owen, Mickey Rourke, Carla Gugino, and Nick Stahl did a great job. Devon Aoki was decent, and Jessica Alba was alright, but didn't come close to capturing the Nancy from the comic books. What was with her lame dancing that lasted about 10-15 seconds? Did they happen to miss the 2 page spreads we'd sometimes get multiple times in a single volume? None of the dynamics caught on the comic page were truly brought to the big screen in regards to this character.

*nitpick side note on her scenes: Marv explicitly states that he loves Katie's because it was an old country bar. Nancy wears country gear, as does Shellie. So why the crap techno-ish music? Where was "Drivin' Wheel" by Emmylou Harris? nit pick, I know, but I was actually looking forward to that part.

I can (obviously) go on about this, but the main problem I had with Sin City was that it wasn't quite the adaptation I was looking for. I was hoping for something more gritty, not so "literal," and for the directors/writers to bring something *more* to the Sin City world, rather than just trying to get actors to replicate comic book performances. That allows for bad dialogue (comic-talk works in the books, not so much in real life), silly action, and simplistic storylines.

If I want a comic book, I'll read a comic book. When I sit in a theatre, I want to see a film. A few nods here and there are great, but just copying the panels doesn't excite me. Sin City could've been a whole lot more, IMO.

Wow, so in your mind, a faithful comic adaptation is impossible, right?

Because Sin City blows every other comic film out of the water when it comes to being comic-to-screen "faithful".

Now you may not like what you saw on screen, but that is exactly what comes from the comics. If you disagree, I think you might just be over romanticizing the comics. They aren't all that deep to begin with... typical over-the-top Miller "dark" stories as seen in his Batman and Daredevil runs. The look of the movie matches the look of the comics. Nothing cartoony about it.

And if you can nitpick Sin City to death, I'd imagine you have absolutely trashed every other comic movie ever made.

My advice: stay away from comic movies if you know they will never satisfy you.

 

[Bubastis]

I adore most of Kevin Smith's films, Love watching him in interviews, Listen to his Podcast regularly, and can't wait for Zack and Miri make Porno or Red State, but his review could go either way. He really liked V for Vendetta, and said it was a good adaptation of the respective novel. Personally, I hated the movie and thought it was an awful adaptation of the book.
But according to his Facebook, Watchmen is one of his favorite books, so it looks like he takes it seriously. Fingers crossed.

 

[Lobster Charlie]

Wow, so in your mind, a faithful comic adaptation is impossible, right?

Where and when did I say that? I loved Dark Knight, Begins, Spider-man 2. Iron Man and the new Hulk I found entertaining.

Because Sin City blows every other comic film out of the water when it comes to being comic-to-screen "faithful".

What's "faithful?" I simply stated I don't prefer someone copying comic book panels onto the big screen. And the liberties that RR took, I disagreed with. I found 300 a bit more entertaining, but again, not a big fan of the green screen/copying-comic-book-panels thing. But at least 300 is a better made film, IMO.

If "faithful" is just trying to replicate the exact look of a comic book, then I'm not the biggest fan of "faithful." It's cute for a moment, but I get bored after a while. I appreciate TDK because of what Nolan brought to these iconic characters, without sacrificing too much of their core iconic traits.

A truly "faithful" adaptation of Sin City would've been an animated film done in the exact comic book style. I'd love to see that. In fact, I'd prefer that over seeing what can sometimes resemble a bunch of comic-convention cosplayers running around spouting hammy comic book dialogue.

And if you can nitpick Sin City to death, I'd imagine you have absolutely trashed every other comic movie ever made.

You're imagining too much. You seem offended. It's just a difference in opinion.

My advice: stay away from comic movies if you know they will never satisfy you.

Thanks for the laugh!

 

[DarkReflections]

i remember hearing his review of the trailer on smodcast. that episode was funny as hell.

 

[Bubastis]

Which smodcast was that? Like what number?

 

[DarkReflections]

its smodcast number 58 titled kodachrome. they go into talking about it right away. minus the sponsor.

 

[CinnaLightning]

I hate to rain on everyone's parade, as I love Kevin Smith and hope the best for Watchmen, but...

“Revenge of the Sith” is, quite simply, ****ing awesome. This is the “Star Wars” prequel the haters have been *****ing for since “Menace” came out, and if they don’t cop to that when they finally see it, they’re lying. As dark as “Empire” was, this movie goes a thousand times darker

That was Kevin a few years ago

 

[Nepenthes]

another reason to not like Kevin Smith

 

[copywrite]

To his credit, Episode 3 was miles better than the previous two debacles.

 

[CinnaLightning]

Yes it was, but Kevin, like all of us fanboys is all too quick to praise a new installment or adaptation of a beloved franchise

 

[Steelsheen]

I hate to rain on everyone's parade, as I love Kevin Smith and hope the best for Watchmen, but...



That was Kevin a few years ago

and he was right.

i'm not one who buys into reviews of other people. i'm glad he's excited about it, but come opening day (if that will ever come) i'm gonna enter the theater not expecting anything despite the spoilers. its best that way.