Comments | kali921: General question re: LJ Abuse team's warnings

kali921

General question re: LJ Abuse team's warnings

Mar 07, 2009 12:44

The best encapsulated review of Watchmen that I've heard thus far ( Read more... )

questions for the flist

Comments 16

lurkerwithout March 7 2009, 20:59:03 UTC

Ah the brave volunteers of LJ Abuse. Making incompetence look good. Off topic, sweet iHavok icon...

kali921 March 8 2009, 22:16:10 UTC

Well, now I at least know how to handle spam when it comes up!

outlawpoet March 7 2009, 22:34:27 UTC

nice quote. Applies to a lot of adaptions, actually.

kali921 March 8 2009, 22:16:35 UTC

Do you mean "adaptations"?

martinjdekay March 8 2009, 01:14:50 UTC

From what I read recently, yes. I've a copy of a document I can email you.

kali921 March 8 2009, 22:17:04 UTC

That would be great! Kali921 [at] Livejournalus dottus commus should work. Hopefully.

stewardess March 8 2009, 01:18:58 UTC

Another question to ask: how frequently does LJ Abuse issue a warning of any kind before suspension? It is definitely not 100 percent of the time.

kali921 March 8 2009, 22:17:26 UTC

It's amazingly inconsistent as far as I can tell.

thehefner March 8 2009, 02:10:28 UTC

I would tentatively disagree with NPR's assessment on the grounds that it applies more accurately to Robert Rodriguez's SIN CITY. That was way more strictly slavish an adaptation, to concerned with turning the comic into a live-action thing rather than actually making a movie.

There are many moments of WATCHMEN that I would argue really stand on their own as a film, if not the whole film itself. There are even a couple moments of outright brilliance. I actually liked it a hell of a lot, but will hold off on thoughts until I see it a second time.

kali921 March 8 2009, 07:11:29 UTC

You've been very forgiving of Snyder all along. I'm not surprised that you thought it was brilliant.

thehefner March 8 2009, 15:23:32 UTC

I suspect you think I'm some sort of ass-licking Snyder apologist, but I *never* said that I thought it was brilliant. I said moments of brilliance.

Just as Snyder's DAWN OF THE DEAD had moments of brilliance. I may hate that movie as a whole, but there's no denying that the first fifteen minutes qualifies as brilliant, particularly the credits sequence (same said for WATCHMEN; Snyder's music video background means he at least understands the power of the montage).

My eventual review won't be "OMG, BRILLIANT!!!" because frankly, we're not seeing the full film yet and I don't feel qualified to judge how well he pulls anything off.

kali921 March 8 2009, 22:23:36 UTC

No, I don't think you're rimming Snyder. (Yet!) I do think that you and I have completely different standards on what constitutes good acting performances when it comes to films that are adaptations of comic book material and, based on the long reviews that I've seen you write, you tend to like performances in those films that I find unforgivably wooden and laughable and stilted and just plain BAD.

Jackie Earl Haley was a pleasant surprise in Watchmen, and I was grossly disappointed by JDM, who should have owned every scene that he was in and sadly didn't (although he owned a few of them). I wonder if they had to break out the glycerine tears for his crying scene with Moloch.