Yawn
In these cases, “Hahahaha!” is the only thing to do.
WHTF Man, his films are likened to tracing on portraits, then making a “bizzarro” version of the original source material. I would not go far comparing “Watchmen” to “2001”. It’s stupid to make that sort of compairison, YAWN.
Who knew the POST hired Quote Whores?
(But then who’d be surprised?)
It’s the New York Post, a hardcore, right-wing tabloid. It’s film reviews are about as important as those found in US Weekly.
The only real surprise is that a Murdoch owned paper would so highly praise a film that his studio tried and failed to sue over in an attempt to get distribution rights and a share of the profits.
Haha thanks for the laugh. I loved “The Watchmen” but making comparisons to Kubrick is a little much. “2001” is such an incredible movie so anytime someone makes a comparison to Kubrick I always make it to that movie. Snyder has it in him to make a movie on that scale but just hasn’t done it yet…again though, I thought “Watchmen” was incredible and couldn’t imagine anyone making a better movie of that than he did.
Kyle smith is a hack. Who writes for the new york equivalent of the Sun (an awful excuse of news sporting a 6th grade writing level, advertisments, and souless Sunshine girls)
its best not to take anything he says seriously.
Precious precious time lost reading this…
A local critic made a damned fine effort trying to insist that “300” was a loving homage to “Seven Samurai”. The argument basically boiled down to “They’re both about a small force setting up tactically against a bigger force.” The same critic also compared “Vantage Point” negatively to “Rashomon” in terms of stories playing out from multiple perspectives. Obviously, I don’t read his reviews much, anymore, but his is the newspaper with the most cohesive local listings, so he’s a necessary evil.
—DiB
A local critic made a damned fine effort trying to insist that “300” was a loving homage to “Seven Samurai”. The argument basically boiled down to “They’re both about a small force setting up tactically against a bigger force.” The same critic also compared “Vantage Point” negatively to “Rashomon” in terms of stories playing out from multiple perspectives. Obviously, I don’t read his reviews much, anymore, but his is the newspaper with the most cohesive local listings, so he’s a necessary evil.
—DiB
I believe 2001 is one of the most important motion pictures since the invention of the medium. It seems to me an almost completely non-verbal experience, and has a method of storytelling that still goes over most people’s heads, 40 years later. From the beginning of the century to 1968 motion pictures had, for the most part, developed a recognizable way of approaching and telling a story. Kubrick believed in the power of the image, and it’s ability to carry the viewer’s mind to places words couldn’t begin to describe. His ideas were formed and fleshed out for the moving image and no other medium.
I like Alan Moore a lot, and I think that the same thing can be said about his work in graphic novels. Watchmen is a milestone in the history of the comic medium, both in themes and in overall execution. I believe Alan Moore would agree with me in saying that his stories were created for the comic book medium, and their translations to film are not just unnecessary, but they misdirect the power of their ideas.
I think it would be fair to liken Kubrick’s abilities in the film process to Moore’s writing in comics, but to try and compare these films is wrong in so many ways. Watchmen wasn’t created as a film, and 2001 was. To compare them to each other is simply ridiculous without a very complicated argument.
far too many fool hacks somehow end up as professional film reviewers. The really knowledgeable and intelligent writers on film are hardly known; the public show on TV and in the papers is usually run by crowd-pleasers and even non-specialist entertainers who aren’t properly qualified.
Brian-You need to give some credit to Arthur C. Clarke too. A lot of the ideas in 2001 originated from him.
Any movie that reduces such a intense and spiritually longing song as Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” to screwing music immediately loses an credibility in my mind. At least Shrek had the decency to use a cover.
Yawn, with Yajadoo!
Steve, you’re absolutely right, I’m very aware of Clarke’s immense collaboration on the film. I was just comparing the two of them directly because I think it’s fair to say that that film would’ve looked much different if say, Peter Hyams directed it.
Thanks.
hyperbole
I think he’s our generation’s Kubrick. Legends of the Guardian was very Kubrick-esque.
No, Snyder is much better than Kubrick ever was.
No.
Just, no.
Stanley Kubrick’s work may have been deemed “Visual” and “Cold”, but it was only because Kubrick’s sensibilities were placed on top of stories with plenty of thematic material (like “Barry Lyndon”, “A Clockwork Orange” and “The Shining”). Even his most “cold” work, “2001: A Space Odyssey”, had some humanity in it, though delivered in a different fashion than movies that are deemed humanistic.
The problem with Snyder is that what one sees is LITERALLY all there is for the most part. He can supply the visual pop, certainly, but what else is there? Even with “Watchmen”, Snyder still wasn’t able to rise above the imagery. If Alan Moore’s big, eccentric brain wasn’t able to give Snyder some depth, what can?
No, Snyder is much better than Kubrick ever was.
ugh, so true.
I don’t see how they’re that similar. Where’s Snyder’s Paths of Glory or Lolita?
Oh gosh, now I’m thinking about what would happen if the 2013 Man of Steel Superman reboot/prequel/sequel/whatever were based on Lolita. That’d be one weird superhero film.
@Longstreth
Here’s to hoping!
Kyle Smith is a pawn… Least favorite top critic.
Kyle Smith is Armond White without the pizzazz.
Ouch.
“I think he’s our generation’s Kubrick”
Every generation gets the Kubrick they deserve?
“Every generation gets the Kubrick they deserve?”
Win!
methimpikehoses
Praising the film along with another perfect score (5/5) was Kyle Smith of the New York Post, comparing it to some of Stanley Kubrick films “Director Zack Snyder’s cerebral, scintillating follow-up to ‘300’ seems, to even a weary filmgoer’s eye, as fresh and magnificent in sound and vision as ‘2001’”.
Need I say more?