Who Watches the Critics? The Critic Response Thread

[Doctor Jones]

Haha there was a kid right in front of me and everytime something really R rated happened I'd point to him to my friends. Haha poor kid missed half the movie with his mom's hand infront of his face.

That mother must be feeling stupid as hell.

Good for her.

 

[KenK]

Anyone else come across this?

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2009/03/watchmen_fanati.html#comments

 

[Kane52630]

Anyone else come across this?

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2009/03/watchmen_fanati.html#comments

yea, its been talked about
or are you talking about the comments?

 

[KenK]

Both, essentially. It's just amazing to read such vitriol in such overwhelming abundance. I just found her idea that Watchmen was heavily marketed to children profoundly ridiculous.

 

[DACrowe]

I read both of her reviews. She sounds like the Anne Coulter of 'critics,' if you dare call her that. Completely out of touch of other view points in the world and only likes things that reinforce her Evangelical mindset. Ugh. The more she hates it the happier I become.

 

[Nivek]

I don't even count those people as film critics, they are society critics...

 

[[A]]

I was just checking Ebert's blog, and his latest entry is about Watchmen (and how much he liked it). Also, he titled the entry "We're all puppets, Laurie. I'm just a puppet who can see the strings".. t: which is the phrase I had in my msn for months

 

[Crook]

I just noticed that line wasn't in the movie.

 

[BestGirl]

I just noticed that line wasn't in the movie.

I thought Ebert hadn't read the GN. So how did he know to give his blog entry that title? Maybe the movie inspired him to read the GN.

 

[Katsuro]

I thought Ebert hadn't read the GN. So how did he know to give his blog entry that title? Maybe the movie inspired him to read the GN.

The line was definately recorded/filmed, as it was one of the audio clips on the Facebook page. Maybe he heard that? Or yeah, maybe he read the book after seeing the movie. If so, mission accomplished.

 

[DACrowe]

I just saw this on Ebert's insightful blog (even I never applied string theory or quantum mechanics so deeply to Dr. Manhattan and it just makes me love the character more):

In the comment section Ebert (at least earlier in the week) was responding to points he found interesting. Well one self-appointed expert on art, taste and all things intellectual came and ranted for a few paragraphs about why Moore and Watchmen is overrated. While there is some minute truth, he comes off like so many critics who call Watchmen childish and completely tries to slam the medium and culture as a fringe best swept under the rug.

Anyway, Ebert's response was priceless:

Roger I respect you immensely and I agree that (in theory) two of the characters in the comic book (NOT graphic novel, sorry, there is no such thing) are interesting, or suggest interesting things - Manhattan and Rorschach. And it seems to me that, along with some visual splendor, won you over.
Watchmen, the comic book, is badly written and childish. And for a long time it got away with it, because none of the real arbiters of taste, on any level, seemed willing to step up and stop its momentum. So comic geeks (it is, in a way, the Citizen Kane of comic books, using every means at its disposal to tell a story - only, it's not good, unlike Citizen Kane - and actually represents, in many ways, a step back, or an ending) worshipped it to the top, till it became seemingly stuck there - respected. Time Magazine, hardly a bastion of good taste or sound aesthetic judgment, but a fair barometer of general cultural opinion, listed it in their top 100 novels of whatever, from wherever. Which again is fascinating as a novel is a very distinct art form and Watchmen is not a novel, but the point is, they put it there. Its place seemed secure, and would have remained so, except -
This movie. And the most intelligent, literate, respected film writers - other than you - have seemingly relished the opportunity to get off their chests just how plain bad, or at least not very good, this particular sacred cow actually is, and has always been. It really is badly written and childish; AO Scott's saying a college kid deep in Nietzsche and other such poses common to young people would love the comic, and the movie, is spot on. And so such people did, and still do. Alan Moore is an emperor with no clothes, IMO. And I for one am grateful this clunker of a movie was released so that such arbiters of taste as we still have in this nation (Anthony Lane, come on down) had occasion to correct a longstanding error. This bad, juvenile art very nearly entered the canon. Me, I want Frank Miller and Alan Moore, and the legions of fanboy man-children currently freaking out on messageboards all over the net, OUT of the canon, where they belong. I don't know which review said it (many have included variations on it) but those people need to grow up - as do Miller and Moore, two grown children who really are writing comic books for a reason, but - merely my opinion - would have been better served by staying within their limitations.
But yes I would like to thank Mr Snyder (whose 300 I loathed, but whose zombie movie was fun) for giving the culture the opportunity to put this particular work in its proper place. Watchmen is like something I'd have written at 18 or 19, only I'd have abandoned it because I'd have seen how childish and embarrassing it all really was. Moore didn't, he persisted, and got away with it for 20+ years. Good on Anthony Lane, Walter Chaw, AO Scott and others for taking this charlatan and his arrested-development fan(boys) down a peg.
End rant.

Ebert: Is it so bad to have a comic book that might appeal to a college kid deep in Nietzsche? For starters, we could use a lot more such college kids.

 

[Motown Marvel]

i love how obsessive the guy is with stating repeatedly how bad and childish and over rated and etc the book is, but never ever gives a single example as to WHY it's bad.

i also like how he says theres no such thing as a graphic novel. if he's saying theres no such thing as a watchmen graphic novel, thats true. theres the individual comics and a trade paper back. but, uh, to say graphic novels in general dont exist, is ignorant.

 

[deathfromabove]

i have much man love for ebert.

i shook his hand.

dont always agree with him but he knows his film.

 

[BlackLantern]

i love how obsessive the guy is with stating repeatedly how bad and childish and over rated and etc the book is, but never ever gives a single example as to WHY it's bad.

i also like how he says theres no such thing as a graphic novel. if he's saying theres no such thing as a watchmen graphic novel, thats true. theres the individual comics and a trade paper back. but, uh, to say graphic novels in general dont exist, is ignorant.

It's like someone standing in the middle of a Gay Pride parade and saying they don't believe in homosexuality

 

[Doctor Jones]

Indeed he does. The only critic I ever respected, even though I don't agree with him all the time, I find his reviews insightful and enjoyable, and different. It's not a send up review of everything, he adds stuff that I enjoy, I like his sense of humor.

 

[terry78]

So now if he gives Nolan's next movie a thumbs down will you still say that?

 

[BlackLantern]

So now if he gives Nolan's next movie a thumbs down will you still say that?

why not....you can give a negative review and not be insulting or condescending...the problem is a lot of the negative reviews are insulting and condescending because of the source material....like it's ok to pick on the comic fans because they're used to it