Zach Snyder did a serviceable job at the helm here. Of course, the subject matter is so rich that it would be near impossible to make a bad movie, only a poor adaptation. While I wouldn’t necessarily call it that, I found the finished product something wanting…
While Snyder’s composition was ferociously loyal to the graphic novel, some sequences (especially the action setpieces) lacked any real extra cinematic punch with movement. With this and the much worse ‘300’, the man seems to only have one technique in his directorial bag of tricks by going to the slow-mo well about ten too many times. Where’s the chaotic pacing and furious editing from ‘Dawn of the Dead?’ I suppose with the (self-imposed) constraints of limiting his compositions to what is drawn on the panels of the book, his imagination for motion went out the door. This cannot continue in the future films of a director who has had the “visionary” label placed upon him (watch and read the promotional material)
A criticism that many have levied upon Snyder is that his fidelity to source material has come at the cost of the final product lacking a soul and identity of it’s own. I, for one, have never been crazy about to-the-letter adaptions of literary source material, especially comic books. In fact, some of the greatest adaptations bear very little resemblance to the books on which they’re based (‘The Thin Red Line’, ‘Stalker’, and ‘Berlin Alexanderplatz’ come to mind). However, I don’t feel that ‘Watchmen’ lacks a soul. An identity, on the other hand…, I don’t know. In this, the hayday of the comic-book film, ‘Watchmen’ doesn’t offer stylistically too much that we haven’t seen. Of course I enjoyed watching these characters with whom I’ve only been acquainted with through still panels come to life, but I don’t believe this same excitement can be shared by those who never read the graphic novel. And, yes, the moral and ethical conflicts in ‘Watchmen’ are far more complex than anything we’ve seen in a superhero flick (the murky ethical dilemma created by an individual who cannot die participating in a war where thousands of lives are lost could warrant a discussion board all in itself), but I would say that is more of a product of the source material instead of what the movie leant independently.
A lot has been written about Jackie Earle Haley’s performance as Rorshach, and I’m not in disagreement over his pitch-perfect turn. Instead, I will point out three other turns with which I was quite pleased. The Comedian did some of the more reprehensible acts of any of The Watchmen, and was oddly enough, probably the most introspective of them all. Jeffrey Dean Morgan pulls off the facade brilliantly, capturing both the odious external, and remorseful undercurrents. Billy Crudup takes on the one role that most people felt couldn’t be pulled off in Dr. Manhattan (it was mainly his storyline that caused most to deem Watchmen unfilmable). However, even through the CGI-enhanced body, the fire is there. Dr. Manhattan has gone beyond ambivalence toward mankind into the realm of pure spite. Crudup gets this across without so much as a slight change in verbal tone. And finally, upon first watching the film, I was slightly annoyed with Matthew Goode’s portrayal of Ozymandias; however, upon subsequent viewings, I have come to appreciate the performance. As both Adrien Veidt and Ozymandias (I always felt it was fitting that the only Watchman whose public identity is known had the most defined identity split), Goode imbues absolute loathing for those around him. As Veidt, it is because there is no one with whom he can interact on his level. And, as his hero alter-ego, it is due to his hubris that the world around him would be a better place if he could mold it.
Overall, the film was a slight disappointment, but hardly a failure. It’s major flaws were in that Patrick Wilson and Malin Akerman didn’t have much to offer (the scene aboard the Nite Owl’s ship is one of the worst uses of the song, ‘Hallelujah’ ever besides being one of the clumsier sex scenes in recent memory). Also, as has been mentioned already on this thread, the music selection was more baffling than anything else. The choice of songs didn’t create a sense of time and place (in fact, in some cases such as ‘Sounds of Silence’ and ‘All Around the Watchtower’, simply confused matters in this sense), and nor did it adequately set proper mood.
In the end, upon final assessment:
Top 3 things that worked
1 Jackie Earle Haley
2 The opening credit sequence (a brilliant way to still portray The Minutemen storyline without adding 45 minutes- you have to make cuts somewhere from the novel)
3 Fine story pacing- a lean 2 1/2 hours. Very little fat
Top 3 things that didn’t
1 Malin Akerman
2 Slow motion action sequences
3 The fidelity to the source creates a lack of narrative cohesion, causing it to feel episodic at times
Ultimately, ‘Watchmen’ probably should have been made into a miniseries. Two and a half hours seems too long for your average moviegoer, but not long enough to fit in all the ideas of the graphic novel. And, in the end, a perfectly adequate and faithful screen adaption of ‘Watchmen’ is still going to be leaps and bounds better than your average comic book flick
I remember watching this in high school, and thinking it was one of cooler movies I’d come across, as well. However, upon watching it again a few years ago, it seemed silly and overly simplistic (Louis Cyphre, c’mon!). Jumbled, awkwardly paced, and inane.
Still, always love the Big Easy as a setting (especially for crime and detective stories)… So colorful.
By the way… a predictable ending (i.e. a twist you see coming a mile away) doesn’t alone make a movie bad. If the entire movie is predictable (i.e., you can tell how every sequence will unfold eve,n without watching), then you have a problem If all a movie has to offer is the ending, then it’s going to have issues with aging poorly… While it was predictable, I don’t feel that was what was wrong with the film.
A collection of John & Faith Hubley would be great, as would a retrospective of Jiri Trnka.
I could very easily see Criterion taking on classic old school animation like Winsor McKay and the Fleischer brothers.
As far as features, I would pretty much eliminate everything Disney. Not so much that they aren’t up to quality. Instead, I am saying that Disney has done a fine job with their Platinum Series of their classic films. The only two Pixar films I would consider are the two by Andrew Stanton, ‘Finding Nemo’ and ‘Wall-E’ (the best American animated film in nearly two decades).
Satoshi Kon is one of the most fearless filmmakers working in world cinema today. Every new film is a revelation (for the uninitiated, check the following: ‘Perfect Blue’, ‘Tokyo Godfathers’, ‘Millennium Actress’, ‘Paprika’, and the series ‘Paranoia Agent’).
Hayao Miyazaki is the master, and deserves to be placed next to Kurosawa, Ozu, and Mizoguchi as the finest Japanese directors of all-time. However, his Studio Ghibli is owned by Disney, and the DVD releases have been solid (perhaps with the exception that Disney didn’t pay too much focus on the Japanese transfers on some of the older ones).
There’s so many places to go here in terms of both releases of feature lengths and shorts collections. This is such a vast untapped field for Criterion. I can very easily see shorts collections soon.
However, if this is a thread on what we think are the finest animated films of all-time, I will give a quick (forgive me) list of what I think are the greatest (no particular order)
Pinocchio, What’s Opera Doc?, A Czech Year, The Dot and the Line, Duck Amok, Watership Down, Cameraman’s Revenge, Wrong Trousers, Fantastic Planet (would be a great Criterion release), Castle in the Sky, Spirited Away, Perfect Blue, Akira (released on Criterion’s laserdisc library), Nightmare Before Christmas, Triplets of Bellville, Wizards, The Iron Giant, The Simpsons Movie, Rooty Toot Toot, Madame Tutli Putli, Fantasia, Bambi.
Ok, maybe not a quick list, just what came immediately to mind.
@D. Head. I remember talking about that scene with you a few days ago. Great stuff.
Just wanted to chime in on that, because by reading this thread I don’t know if I want in on all this namecalling and animosity…
And now I enter at my own risk by throwing in my 2 cents. I think the violence in the film is utilized quite well, and can hardly be called gratuitous. For example, the tavern scene takes somewhere in the vacinity of twenty minutes to set up; and, when the violence comes it’s done in less than thirty seconds. The introduction of “The Bear Jew” takes about five pages worth of dialogue (at least it would seem that way) before he finally emerges from the darkness in a long shot of the violent payoff.
I haven’t gotten the comparison to torture porn that I’ve heard some people bring up when talking about this movie (perhaps some people see Eli Roth and make the relation that way). In films like ‘Saw’, ‘Hostel’, and the new ‘Halloween’, unspeakable violence is being inflicted upon INNOCENT victims, a title that could hardly be placed upon Nazis.
@Pavel R.: I couldn’t agree more on the re-naming of this thread. I think what Tarantino has done best is force cineastes to re-evaluate the cinematic art form, and venture out into the fringes at which they usually would stick up their noses and dismiss. Film is not a term paper, and Tarantino is one of the few figures in modern film who holds no pretensions about what he likes. If only more critics and cineastes could be so honest with themselves. “B-Movie?” Wasn’t ‘Deliverance’ named in the top 100 novels of the 20th Century. ‘Never Mind the Bollocks’ is consistantly cited as one of the finest albums ever made. Hell, even the work of Samuel Fuller (who now appears prominently in the Criterion Collection) was dismissed in his day as a purveyor of so-called “B-Movies”. None of these had pretensions of high art, however, there is no one who can question their artistic value.
@Sandwiches.
It would be VERY hard…near impossible…for ANYONE to sink to the level of the Nazis, and I don’t believe The Basterds came anywhere near close here. This is a fact that we must remember.
A Jewish friend of mine paraphrased Dave Chapelle in regards to this movie: “If every movie could end with Hitler getting mowed down by machine guns and then blown up, I would love it.”
Put into perspective what the Nazis actually did…11 million murdered (6 million being Jewish). There is no way whatsoever that The Basterds could be sinking to that level no matter how gruesome their methods may be. I find it hard to understand the naivete in the thinking that the Nazis in this film deserve any kind of sympathy simply because how they are eliminated.
You’re correct about that, Mike. I wasn’t addressing the overall backlash towards Mr. Tarantino. Just that specific crowd that dismiss him solely because he doesn’t make typical arthouse movies. The main point I was trying to convey is that Tarantino’s talent alone has become a frustrating element to those who wish he would make more highbrow fare. They, for some reason, feel that he should (in their words) “grow up” and make something with what they feel has more merit.
I haven’t seen too much of a decline in the man’s output personally (I know there are many who disagree, and there are solid arguments on that side). There isn’t much difference in quality (or approach) in the ‘Kill Bill’ films or this one to his first three. His early films, however, all fit into the more respectable genre of the crime film. His catalog this decade, in contrast, falls into more disreputable genres. And, by putting out work of (arguably) the same quality in these fringe genres, he is forcing those who might be dismissive otherwise to re-evaluate what they think of these genres.
@ Nathan M. Yeah, his specific recommendations into the B-Movie oeuvre haven’t all been necessarily appealing (the original film titled “Inglorious Bastards” is horrendous). I didn’t necessarily mean that he was helping cineastes in his specific recommendations as much as allowing people to be honest with themselves in what they like. I have, however, found films here and there elsewhere that definitely won’t find their place in any film canon that I have enjoyed.
@ Nathan M. Yeah. I guess so. To each his own, and it does seem that he goes out of his way to place some horrible films high up on a pedestal, but it’s what he likes. I did, however, like ‘Detroit 9000’ and ‘Switchblade Sisters’, both of which were distributed on video through his Rolling Thunder Productions (of course, at least somebody else thought ‘Switchblade Sisters’ had some merit, as it was a Criterion laserdisc)
…and I’m hardly implying that this film is without critical acclaim. Ebert has given it 4 Stars, and many critics are calling it his best since ‘Jackie Brown’ (which, of course, could very well be measured praise). It has clearly been polarizing, but not without its champions in the critical community.
You’re correct, Matt… I could add- The atrocities of Milosevich in Bosnia and Idi Amin in Uganda. I get your point, but I think you miss mine. People saying that the acts of a small group of soldiers inflicting pain upon the purveyors of atrocities is somehow sinking to the level of Nazis is absurd. I would love to see a movie where Milosevich and Radislav Krstic are mowed down by Croats or a Cambodian rising up where Pol Pot is made to experience the horrors he inflicted upon people. A Native American revenge picture would be refreshing, however, it probably wouldn’t go over as well in the mainstream. The point is, there is no hell bad enough for these particular people, so I feel no sense of sympathy when I see violence inflicted upon them.
The Nazis are the closest thing in history to universal villains.
“There’s always someone willing to sink down as far as needed if they’re given the opportunity.”
You’re very right… In ‘Crimes and Misdemeanors’, Max Von Sydow is told by a woman how shocked she is about how the world could let what the Nazis did happen, to which he responds, “Dear girl, the only thing that shocks me is how it hasn’t happened more often.” (a paraphrase. It’s been a little bit of time since I’ve seen the film, so I apologize for not getting the quote exact. But the scene has always struck me).
I’m hardly saying I agree with Ebert as a whole. Here’s a man who included ‘Blue Velvet’ in his book, ‘I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie’ among other instances with which I disagree strongly. I was just citing him as the most prominent of the film’s supporters. There are other notable critics who have rated this film highly, as well as notable ones who have the exact opposite reaction such as David.
Film discussion is always more interesting when it’s polarized. I generally have a lukewarm reaction to those films that get across the board strong reviews (‘Saving Private Ryan’ for example). Movies people can’t seem to agree on, though… Those films are fun to talk about.
David, not once in any of his posts has Mr. Head stated that he hated any of the films you’ve mentioned. You seem to be coming to the (illogical) conclusion, that since he likes this one, he must hate the more highbrow films that you are citing, which are fantastic, by the way (I’ve always valued your opinion as a film critic). As always, nobody agrees with somebody else 100% of the time, and in this instance, you and I disagree on a particular film. It seems to me that most of what you have against this movie is more about what it’s not than what it is. That’s unfortunate
Pierce Brosnan- The Matador
Romain Duris- The Beat That My Heart Skipped
Jake Gyllenhaal- Brokeback Mountain
Tony Leung- 2046
Cillian Murphy- Breakfast On Pluto
The best advice I can give you is to be open-minded. Don’t let an individual element of a movie (star, director, genre) keep you from watching a movie. Be adventurous. Sure, you will see a lot of drek; but, then again, we all have. We need to know what we don’t like as well as what are our favorites. Hack directors can make surprisingly good films, and piss-poor actors can (given the right role) give revelatory performances.
I couldn’t agree more with the suggestions to read about movies. Check out as many books with as many different focuses as possible.
If you want to be more versed in a specific genre, era, or director- immerse yourself in them.
Be confident in what you like. There will be plenty of films you enjoy for which you will be ridiculed. Stick to your guns.
Nathan M. is right. It looks like you have gotten yourself off to a good start.
Now, if I were to give suggestions:
Terrence Malick (complete filmography- it’s easy. only four films thus far)
Fassbinder (esp. Merchant of Four Seasons)
Woody Allen
Robert Altman
Peckinpah
Bunuel
and for not so run-of-the-mill suggestions
the work of Apichatpong Weerasethakul, the most exciting new director of the past decade
Ken Russell (esp. The Devils if you can find it) (btw, you may very well find yourself hating this suggestion, as Russell is definitely an acquired taste)
Leah Pool’s ‘Lost and Delirious’
P.S.: Being I mentioned Ken Russell, I might add that there are a few directors you may need to ease yourself into. I had a friend show ‘Satyricon’ to another friend who had never seen a Fellini film. It took that person ten years before they would watch another movie by the man. ‘Satyricon’ is a great film, just not one to show to a Fellini virgin.
While I’m a bit late to chime in on this matter, I believe David makes a very strong point in asking African Americans to identify themselves here. I’ve seen on the internet far too often individuals hiding behind anonymous avatars and screen names, and see it as a consequence-free avenue to spout off things (involving sex, race, or whatever) that they would never DARE say in public unless they were certain they were around a group of like-minded friends. David, unlike many people on this site, at least has the nerve to go under his real name (and being a public figure as a film critic, the anonymity factor is even further thrown out the window).
Race is an issue that too many people feel that the best way to deal with it is to ignore or not speak about. Criticism levied upon filmmakers like Spike Lee for invoking race too often always enrage me. It’s precisely this head in the sand mentality toward the subject that allow it to persist. Years back, I was working in a video store. An old man (easily no younger than mid-sixties) came up to the counter and purchased three bargain-bin Civil War documentaries. I asked him if he was interested in the ‘Gettysburg’ prequel (at the time, it had just been announced that the film that would become ‘Gods and Generals’ was to begin filming). He gave some clueless ambivalent answer, and then went on to say (and I QUOTE), “Lincoln had the right idea…. He wanted to send ‘em all back to Africa. If he had his way, we wouldn’t have to deal with ’em today.” I took the man to task on this, for which I was brought to the back of the store by my employees. “Let it go. He’s just too old. That’s just the way he thinks. It’s the time period from where he came,” were some of the excuses they gave me for his comment. I responded by saying, “That man has a grandchild somewhere who hears their grandfather spew out such hate.” Everybody is entitled to free speech, this is true. But there are no guarantees in The Constitution that what somebody says should be accepted and tolerated by everyone else simply because he or she have the right to say it. People have equal right to speak against damaging and hate-filled trash.
If you can find it (and with English subtitles), check out Kim Jee-Woon’s internet short, ‘Coming Out’. An outstanding and incredibly clever vampire story, this was his most notable work prior to ‘A Tale of Two Sisters’.
Scorsese has had high-profile films pushed back twice prior to this: ‘The Age of Innocence’ (1992-1993) and ‘Gangs of New York’ (2001-2002). There wasn’t much explanation to either, except the possibility that they were incomplete (which was never cited as an official reason). Back then, Scorsese wasn’t as commercially viable as he is today, in the wake of two consecutive $100 million grossers (even though he had just celebrated his biggest box-office hit as of back then, ‘Cape Fear’ in 1991).
One can’t say much as to whether or not box-office was a factor in either case considering his b.o. track record (both films were insanely expensive compared to what the studios, Universal and Miramax respectively, must have anticipated the returns to be). But, in the case of ‘Age of Innocence’, awards chances were decimated. Had ‘Age of Innocence been released in ’92, Scorsese would have been pitted against Eastwood for Best Director (how interesting, in hindsight, would that have been. They would’ve gone head to head on three separate occasions), Daniel Day Lewis would have another acting nomination to his tally, and we would probably be referring to Winona Ryder as “Academy Award winner Winona Ryder.”
‘Shutter Island’ seems to be more commercial fare than a prestige-type picture, but Scorsese still makes the highest quality of commercial fare (‘Cape Fear’, ‘The Departed’, e.g.). I can only imagine marketing being the reason here, but the spring release date is VERY curious. The other two pushbacks were moved to winter of the following year. Springtime is generally where studios dump what they feel to be their “lost causes” (think ‘The Alamo’ or ‘The Soloist’). I can’t imagine that being the case here… We shall see, though
Well, I didn’t bring up ‘Last Temptation’ simply because not only was it pushed back, but filming was halted altogether. The project changed studios, and wasn’t resumed until years later with a completely different cast (except for Harvey Keitel). The other two I mentioned (as well as ‘Shutter Island’) were already in the can, and were pushed back for whatever reason.
It would have been interesting to see DeNiro as Christ, though…
Well, I didn’t bring up ‘Last Temptation’ simply because not only was it pushed back, but filming was halted altogether. The project changed studios, and wasn’t resumed until years later with a completely different cast (except for Harvey Keitel). The other two I mentioned (as well as ‘Shutter Island’) were already in the can, and were pushed back for whatever reason.
It would have been interesting to see DeNiro as Christ, though…
By what I’ve heard (and what I know of the book), the comparisons to ‘Cape Fear’ aren’t going to stop. I was really looking forward to this. Hopefully it turns out well.
I’m wondering if the pushed back date is going to effect his upcoming projects (the Roosevelt and Sinatra biopics as well as ‘I Heard You Paint Houses’, his re-teaming w/DeNiro). Will he be spending the upcoming months re-cutting and/or promoting this movie and delay the start of production on the other three (by the way, he’s suddenly a very busy man… even for him. He’s starting to work on a Woody Allen-type pace if one believes the proposed release dates on IMDB)
Jesus! This man dominated the 1970s like Godard did the 1960s, and (to a lesser extent) Woody Allen in the 1980s.
Fantastic movies. Haven’t seen one I think is less than stellar.
top 10
1 Merchant of Four Seasons
2 Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant
3 Berlin Alexanderplatz
4 In a Year with 13 Moons
5 Veronika Voss
6 Lola
7 Fox & His Friends
8 Satan’s Brew
9 Love is Colder Than Death
10 An American Soldier
1 Berlin Alexanderplatz
2 Do the Right Thing
3 Blue Velvet
4 Raging Bull
5 Veronika Voss
6 The Purple Rose of CairoThe Doulbe Life of Veronique
7 Ms. 45
8 Atlantic City
9 Wings of Desire
10 Sans Soleil
honorable mentions: Stranger Than Paradise, Spoorloos, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Lola, The Shining, LouLou, Dekalog, Raising Arizona, Ran, Paris Texas, Passion, Fitzcarraldo, Nostalghia, King of Comedy, Mona Lisa,Street of Crocodiles, Castle in the Sky (aka Laputa, the Flying Island), My Neighbor Totoro, Akira, Yeelen, Mystery Train, The Long Good Friday, Withnail & I, Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn, Lair of the White Worm, Vagabonde
Filmmaker of the decade: Woody Allen (the run he had between ‘83-’87 would earn him this distinction alone- Zelig, Broadway Danny Rose, Purple Rose of Cairo, Hannah and Her Sisters, and Radio Days all made within a four-year span. Add on ‘Crimes and Misdemeanors’ and his segment in ‘New York Stories’, and it’s a no-brainer).
Actor of the decade: Gerard Depardieu (r/u: Robert DeNiro, Klaus Maria Brandauer)
Actress of the decade: Sandrine Bonnaire (r/u: Isabelle Huppert, Barbara Hershey)
No. Not necessarily anything alike in actuality, I just feel like that’s how writers are going to go with it. They have a tendency to “group” movies together that don’t necessarily have much in common, especially if they’re made by the same director or share a star.
Spielberg and Coppola have had far too many misfires to really mention. For Coppola, one could cite EVERY SINGLE film post-Apocalypse Now (it seems he just lost it after that one, which, having seen ‘Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Journey’, I can understand) is at best mediocre. Spielberg is a constant source of frustration for me. His early output was nothing short of brilliant. ‘Jaws’ is one of the best horror vehicles ever (and ‘Duel’ is no slouch in this matter, as well). However, it seems that when he decided he wanted to “grow up” he became increasingly manipulative. ‘The Color Purple’ is maudlin and full of saccharine. ‘Always’ is absolutely terrible. ‘Amistad’ is at best forgettable. ‘Saving Private Ryan’ is a bunch of empty filler and war movie cliches pasted together by two hyperkinetic battle sequences (‘Black Hawk Down’ is far superior to ‘Saving Private Ryan’ even at playing its own game). ‘A.I.’ is a Kubrick distopyan story polluted by Spielberg’s childish wide-eyed sensibilities. ‘Munich’ is one misstep after another (including the most unfortunate sequence in the man’s career- the murder of the hostages intercut with Eric Bana having sex with his wife).
Of his “serious” films, only ’Schindler’s List’, ‘Empire of the Sun’ (minus the third act), and ‘Catch Me if You Can’ hold up (in fact, ‘Catch Me If You Can’ feels like a perfect vehicle for his specific type of cinema).
…and then you can throw in the following:
‘Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom’
‘Hook’
‘The Lost World: Jurassic Park’
‘War of the Worlds’
‘Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’
Earlier in this thread, somebody stated that they felt Fassbinder missed the mark on every other film (I disagree wholeheartedly). One should look at Spielberg’s output from the mid-1980s on, and try to say that statement doesn’t ring true for him. More duds than any director of his caliber.
WHO IS / WAS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL FILM ACTRESS EVER? almost 3 years ago
Cyd Charisse
Soledad Miranda
Brigitte Bardot
Susan George
Emanuelle Beart
…. and for one current- Ludivine Sagnier
Go to Comment
What's the most annoying film music you've had to endure? almost 3 years ago
The Sea Inside had an annoying, overly-oppressive score. Way too portentious
Go to Comment
Watchmen Appreciation Thread almost 3 years ago
Zach Snyder did a serviceable job at the helm here. Of course, the subject matter is so rich that it would be near impossible to make a bad movie, only a poor adaptation. While I wouldn’t necessarily call it that, I found the finished product something wanting…
While Snyder’s composition was ferociously loyal to the graphic novel, some sequences (especially the action setpieces) lacked any real extra cinematic punch with movement. With this and the much worse ‘300’, the man seems to only have one technique in his directorial bag of tricks by going to the slow-mo well about ten too many times. Where’s the chaotic pacing and furious editing from ‘Dawn of the Dead?’ I suppose with the (self-imposed) constraints of limiting his compositions to what is drawn on the panels of the book, his imagination for motion went out the door. This cannot continue in the future films of a director who has had the “visionary” label placed upon him (watch and read the promotional material)
A criticism that many have levied upon Snyder is that his fidelity to source material has come at the cost of the final product lacking a soul and identity of it’s own. I, for one, have never been crazy about to-the-letter adaptions of literary source material, especially comic books. In fact, some of the greatest adaptations bear very little resemblance to the books on which they’re based (‘The Thin Red Line’, ‘Stalker’, and ‘Berlin Alexanderplatz’ come to mind). However, I don’t feel that ‘Watchmen’ lacks a soul. An identity, on the other hand…, I don’t know. In this, the hayday of the comic-book film, ‘Watchmen’ doesn’t offer stylistically too much that we haven’t seen. Of course I enjoyed watching these characters with whom I’ve only been acquainted with through still panels come to life, but I don’t believe this same excitement can be shared by those who never read the graphic novel. And, yes, the moral and ethical conflicts in ‘Watchmen’ are far more complex than anything we’ve seen in a superhero flick (the murky ethical dilemma created by an individual who cannot die participating in a war where thousands of lives are lost could warrant a discussion board all in itself), but I would say that is more of a product of the source material instead of what the movie leant independently.
A lot has been written about Jackie Earle Haley’s performance as Rorshach, and I’m not in disagreement over his pitch-perfect turn. Instead, I will point out three other turns with which I was quite pleased. The Comedian did some of the more reprehensible acts of any of The Watchmen, and was oddly enough, probably the most introspective of them all. Jeffrey Dean Morgan pulls off the facade brilliantly, capturing both the odious external, and remorseful undercurrents. Billy Crudup takes on the one role that most people felt couldn’t be pulled off in Dr. Manhattan (it was mainly his storyline that caused most to deem Watchmen unfilmable). However, even through the CGI-enhanced body, the fire is there. Dr. Manhattan has gone beyond ambivalence toward mankind into the realm of pure spite. Crudup gets this across without so much as a slight change in verbal tone. And finally, upon first watching the film, I was slightly annoyed with Matthew Goode’s portrayal of Ozymandias; however, upon subsequent viewings, I have come to appreciate the performance. As both Adrien Veidt and Ozymandias (I always felt it was fitting that the only Watchman whose public identity is known had the most defined identity split), Goode imbues absolute loathing for those around him. As Veidt, it is because there is no one with whom he can interact on his level. And, as his hero alter-ego, it is due to his hubris that the world around him would be a better place if he could mold it.
Overall, the film was a slight disappointment, but hardly a failure. It’s major flaws were in that Patrick Wilson and Malin Akerman didn’t have much to offer (the scene aboard the Nite Owl’s ship is one of the worst uses of the song, ‘Hallelujah’ ever besides being one of the clumsier sex scenes in recent memory). Also, as has been mentioned already on this thread, the music selection was more baffling than anything else. The choice of songs didn’t create a sense of time and place (in fact, in some cases such as ‘Sounds of Silence’ and ‘All Around the Watchtower’, simply confused matters in this sense), and nor did it adequately set proper mood.
In the end, upon final assessment:
Top 3 things that worked
1 Jackie Earle Haley
2 The opening credit sequence (a brilliant way to still portray The Minutemen storyline without adding 45 minutes- you have to make cuts somewhere from the novel)
3 Fine story pacing- a lean 2 1/2 hours. Very little fat
Top 3 things that didn’t
1 Malin Akerman
2 Slow motion action sequences
3 The fidelity to the source creates a lack of narrative cohesion, causing it to feel episodic at times
Ultimately, ‘Watchmen’ probably should have been made into a miniseries. Two and a half hours seems too long for your average moviegoer, but not long enough to fit in all the ideas of the graphic novel. And, in the end, a perfectly adequate and faithful screen adaption of ‘Watchmen’ is still going to be leaps and bounds better than your average comic book flick
Go to Comment
What are your thoughts on Angel Heart (1987)? almost 3 years ago
I remember watching this in high school, and thinking it was one of cooler movies I’d come across, as well. However, upon watching it again a few years ago, it seemed silly and overly simplistic (Louis Cyphre, c’mon!). Jumbled, awkwardly paced, and inane.
Still, always love the Big Easy as a setting (especially for crime and detective stories)… So colorful.
By the way… a predictable ending (i.e. a twist you see coming a mile away) doesn’t alone make a movie bad. If the entire movie is predictable (i.e., you can tell how every sequence will unfold eve,n without watching), then you have a problem If all a movie has to offer is the ending, then it’s going to have issues with aging poorly… While it was predictable, I don’t feel that was what was wrong with the film.
Oh yeah, and Lisa Bonet is a plus
Go to Comment
Animated Films on Criterion almost 3 years ago
A collection of John & Faith Hubley would be great, as would a retrospective of Jiri Trnka.
I could very easily see Criterion taking on classic old school animation like Winsor McKay and the Fleischer brothers.
As far as features, I would pretty much eliminate everything Disney. Not so much that they aren’t up to quality. Instead, I am saying that Disney has done a fine job with their Platinum Series of their classic films. The only two Pixar films I would consider are the two by Andrew Stanton, ‘Finding Nemo’ and ‘Wall-E’ (the best American animated film in nearly two decades).
Satoshi Kon is one of the most fearless filmmakers working in world cinema today. Every new film is a revelation (for the uninitiated, check the following: ‘Perfect Blue’, ‘Tokyo Godfathers’, ‘Millennium Actress’, ‘Paprika’, and the series ‘Paranoia Agent’).
Hayao Miyazaki is the master, and deserves to be placed next to Kurosawa, Ozu, and Mizoguchi as the finest Japanese directors of all-time. However, his Studio Ghibli is owned by Disney, and the DVD releases have been solid (perhaps with the exception that Disney didn’t pay too much focus on the Japanese transfers on some of the older ones).
There’s so many places to go here in terms of both releases of feature lengths and shorts collections. This is such a vast untapped field for Criterion. I can very easily see shorts collections soon.
However, if this is a thread on what we think are the finest animated films of all-time, I will give a quick (forgive me) list of what I think are the greatest (no particular order)
Pinocchio, What’s Opera Doc?, A Czech Year, The Dot and the Line, Duck Amok, Watership Down, Cameraman’s Revenge, Wrong Trousers, Fantastic Planet (would be a great Criterion release), Castle in the Sky, Spirited Away, Perfect Blue, Akira (released on Criterion’s laserdisc library), Nightmare Before Christmas, Triplets of Bellville, Wizards, The Iron Giant, The Simpsons Movie, Rooty Toot Toot, Madame Tutli Putli, Fantasia, Bambi.
Ok, maybe not a quick list, just what came immediately to mind.
Go to Comment
Your favorite title sequence almost 3 years ago
Just a few from this decade:
Undertow
Ginger Snaps
Catch Me If You Can
Watchmen
Go to Comment
Favorite auteurs missing from the profile selection box. almost 3 years ago
Kenneth Anger
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
@D. Head. I remember talking about that scene with you a few days ago. Great stuff.
Just wanted to chime in on that, because by reading this thread I don’t know if I want in on all this namecalling and animosity…
And now I enter at my own risk by throwing in my 2 cents. I think the violence in the film is utilized quite well, and can hardly be called gratuitous. For example, the tavern scene takes somewhere in the vacinity of twenty minutes to set up; and, when the violence comes it’s done in less than thirty seconds. The introduction of “The Bear Jew” takes about five pages worth of dialogue (at least it would seem that way) before he finally emerges from the darkness in a long shot of the violent payoff.
I haven’t gotten the comparison to torture porn that I’ve heard some people bring up when talking about this movie (perhaps some people see Eli Roth and make the relation that way). In films like ‘Saw’, ‘Hostel’, and the new ‘Halloween’, unspeakable violence is being inflicted upon INNOCENT victims, a title that could hardly be placed upon Nazis.
@Pavel R.: I couldn’t agree more on the re-naming of this thread. I think what Tarantino has done best is force cineastes to re-evaluate the cinematic art form, and venture out into the fringes at which they usually would stick up their noses and dismiss. Film is not a term paper, and Tarantino is one of the few figures in modern film who holds no pretensions about what he likes. If only more critics and cineastes could be so honest with themselves. “B-Movie?” Wasn’t ‘Deliverance’ named in the top 100 novels of the 20th Century. ‘Never Mind the Bollocks’ is consistantly cited as one of the finest albums ever made. Hell, even the work of Samuel Fuller (who now appears prominently in the Criterion Collection) was dismissed in his day as a purveyor of so-called “B-Movies”. None of these had pretensions of high art, however, there is no one who can question their artistic value.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
@Sandwiches.
It would be VERY hard…near impossible…for ANYONE to sink to the level of the Nazis, and I don’t believe The Basterds came anywhere near close here. This is a fact that we must remember.
A Jewish friend of mine paraphrased Dave Chapelle in regards to this movie: “If every movie could end with Hitler getting mowed down by machine guns and then blown up, I would love it.”
Put into perspective what the Nazis actually did…11 million murdered (6 million being Jewish). There is no way whatsoever that The Basterds could be sinking to that level no matter how gruesome their methods may be. I find it hard to understand the naivete in the thinking that the Nazis in this film deserve any kind of sympathy simply because how they are eliminated.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
You’re correct about that, Mike. I wasn’t addressing the overall backlash towards Mr. Tarantino. Just that specific crowd that dismiss him solely because he doesn’t make typical arthouse movies. The main point I was trying to convey is that Tarantino’s talent alone has become a frustrating element to those who wish he would make more highbrow fare. They, for some reason, feel that he should (in their words) “grow up” and make something with what they feel has more merit.
I haven’t seen too much of a decline in the man’s output personally (I know there are many who disagree, and there are solid arguments on that side). There isn’t much difference in quality (or approach) in the ‘Kill Bill’ films or this one to his first three. His early films, however, all fit into the more respectable genre of the crime film. His catalog this decade, in contrast, falls into more disreputable genres. And, by putting out work of (arguably) the same quality in these fringe genres, he is forcing those who might be dismissive otherwise to re-evaluate what they think of these genres.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
@ Nathan M. Yeah, his specific recommendations into the B-Movie oeuvre haven’t all been necessarily appealing (the original film titled “Inglorious Bastards” is horrendous). I didn’t necessarily mean that he was helping cineastes in his specific recommendations as much as allowing people to be honest with themselves in what they like. I have, however, found films here and there elsewhere that definitely won’t find their place in any film canon that I have enjoyed.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
@ Nathan M. Yeah. I guess so. To each his own, and it does seem that he goes out of his way to place some horrible films high up on a pedestal, but it’s what he likes. I did, however, like ‘Detroit 9000’ and ‘Switchblade Sisters’, both of which were distributed on video through his Rolling Thunder Productions (of course, at least somebody else thought ‘Switchblade Sisters’ had some merit, as it was a Criterion laserdisc)
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
…and I’m hardly implying that this film is without critical acclaim. Ebert has given it 4 Stars, and many critics are calling it his best since ‘Jackie Brown’ (which, of course, could very well be measured praise). It has clearly been polarizing, but not without its champions in the critical community.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
You’re correct, Matt… I could add- The atrocities of Milosevich in Bosnia and Idi Amin in Uganda. I get your point, but I think you miss mine. People saying that the acts of a small group of soldiers inflicting pain upon the purveyors of atrocities is somehow sinking to the level of Nazis is absurd. I would love to see a movie where Milosevich and Radislav Krstic are mowed down by Croats or a Cambodian rising up where Pol Pot is made to experience the horrors he inflicted upon people. A Native American revenge picture would be refreshing, however, it probably wouldn’t go over as well in the mainstream. The point is, there is no hell bad enough for these particular people, so I feel no sense of sympathy when I see violence inflicted upon them.
The Nazis are the closest thing in history to universal villains.
“There’s always someone willing to sink down as far as needed if they’re given the opportunity.”
You’re very right… In ‘Crimes and Misdemeanors’, Max Von Sydow is told by a woman how shocked she is about how the world could let what the Nazis did happen, to which he responds, “Dear girl, the only thing that shocks me is how it hasn’t happened more often.” (a paraphrase. It’s been a little bit of time since I’ve seen the film, so I apologize for not getting the quote exact. But the scene has always struck me).
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
I’m hardly saying I agree with Ebert as a whole. Here’s a man who included ‘Blue Velvet’ in his book, ‘I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie’ among other instances with which I disagree strongly. I was just citing him as the most prominent of the film’s supporters. There are other notable critics who have rated this film highly, as well as notable ones who have the exact opposite reaction such as David.
Film discussion is always more interesting when it’s polarized. I generally have a lukewarm reaction to those films that get across the board strong reviews (‘Saving Private Ryan’ for example). Movies people can’t seem to agree on, though… Those films are fun to talk about.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
David, not once in any of his posts has Mr. Head stated that he hated any of the films you’ve mentioned. You seem to be coming to the (illogical) conclusion, that since he likes this one, he must hate the more highbrow films that you are citing, which are fantastic, by the way (I’ve always valued your opinion as a film critic). As always, nobody agrees with somebody else 100% of the time, and in this instance, you and I disagree on a particular film. It seems to me that most of what you have against this movie is more about what it’s not than what it is. That’s unfortunate
Go to Comment
It´s the Academy of you, pick a year, nominate and then choose a winner. almost 3 years ago
2005
2046
The Holy Girl
Match Point
The New World
Tropical Malady
Winner: The New World
Go to Comment
It´s the Academy of you, pick a year, nominate and then choose a winner. almost 3 years ago
2005 Best Actor
Pierce Brosnan- The Matador
Romain Duris- The Beat That My Heart Skipped
Jake Gyllenhaal- Brokeback Mountain
Tony Leung- 2046
Cillian Murphy- Breakfast On Pluto
Winner- Tony Leung
Go to Comment
Film Buff in Training, Need Some Suggestions almost 3 years ago
ZGDK:
The best advice I can give you is to be open-minded. Don’t let an individual element of a movie (star, director, genre) keep you from watching a movie. Be adventurous. Sure, you will see a lot of drek; but, then again, we all have. We need to know what we don’t like as well as what are our favorites. Hack directors can make surprisingly good films, and piss-poor actors can (given the right role) give revelatory performances.
I couldn’t agree more with the suggestions to read about movies. Check out as many books with as many different focuses as possible.
If you want to be more versed in a specific genre, era, or director- immerse yourself in them.
Be confident in what you like. There will be plenty of films you enjoy for which you will be ridiculed. Stick to your guns.
Nathan M. is right. It looks like you have gotten yourself off to a good start.
Now, if I were to give suggestions:
Terrence Malick (complete filmography- it’s easy. only four films thus far)
Fassbinder (esp. Merchant of Four Seasons)
Woody Allen
Robert Altman
Peckinpah
Bunuel
and for not so run-of-the-mill suggestions
the work of Apichatpong Weerasethakul, the most exciting new director of the past decade
Ken Russell (esp. The Devils if you can find it) (btw, you may very well find yourself hating this suggestion, as Russell is definitely an acquired taste)
Leah Pool’s ‘Lost and Delirious’
P.S.: Being I mentioned Ken Russell, I might add that there are a few directors you may need to ease yourself into. I had a friend show ‘Satyricon’ to another friend who had never seen a Fellini film. It took that person ten years before they would watch another movie by the man. ‘Satyricon’ is a great film, just not one to show to a Fellini virgin.
Go to Comment
Racism in Film over 2 years ago
While I’m a bit late to chime in on this matter, I believe David makes a very strong point in asking African Americans to identify themselves here. I’ve seen on the internet far too often individuals hiding behind anonymous avatars and screen names, and see it as a consequence-free avenue to spout off things (involving sex, race, or whatever) that they would never DARE say in public unless they were certain they were around a group of like-minded friends. David, unlike many people on this site, at least has the nerve to go under his real name (and being a public figure as a film critic, the anonymity factor is even further thrown out the window).
Race is an issue that too many people feel that the best way to deal with it is to ignore or not speak about. Criticism levied upon filmmakers like Spike Lee for invoking race too often always enrage me. It’s precisely this head in the sand mentality toward the subject that allow it to persist. Years back, I was working in a video store. An old man (easily no younger than mid-sixties) came up to the counter and purchased three bargain-bin Civil War documentaries. I asked him if he was interested in the ‘Gettysburg’ prequel (at the time, it had just been announced that the film that would become ‘Gods and Generals’ was to begin filming). He gave some clueless ambivalent answer, and then went on to say (and I QUOTE), “Lincoln had the right idea…. He wanted to send ‘em all back to Africa. If he had his way, we wouldn’t have to deal with ’em today.” I took the man to task on this, for which I was brought to the back of the store by my employees. “Let it go. He’s just too old. That’s just the way he thinks. It’s the time period from where he came,” were some of the excuses they gave me for his comment. I responded by saying, “That man has a grandchild somewhere who hears their grandfather spew out such hate.” Everybody is entitled to free speech, this is true. But there are no guarantees in The Constitution that what somebody says should be accepted and tolerated by everyone else simply because he or she have the right to say it. People have equal right to speak against damaging and hate-filled trash.
Go to Comment
Racism in Film over 2 years ago
Kohner… Top 20 performances of all-time, easily!
Go to Comment
favorite short film. over 2 years ago
If you can find it (and with English subtitles), check out Kim Jee-Woon’s internet short, ‘Coming Out’. An outstanding and incredibly clever vampire story, this was his most notable work prior to ‘A Tale of Two Sisters’.
Go to Comment
Release date and other shinanigans over 2 years ago
Scorsese has had high-profile films pushed back twice prior to this: ‘The Age of Innocence’ (1992-1993) and ‘Gangs of New York’ (2001-2002). There wasn’t much explanation to either, except the possibility that they were incomplete (which was never cited as an official reason). Back then, Scorsese wasn’t as commercially viable as he is today, in the wake of two consecutive $100 million grossers (even though he had just celebrated his biggest box-office hit as of back then, ‘Cape Fear’ in 1991).
One can’t say much as to whether or not box-office was a factor in either case considering his b.o. track record (both films were insanely expensive compared to what the studios, Universal and Miramax respectively, must have anticipated the returns to be). But, in the case of ‘Age of Innocence’, awards chances were decimated. Had ‘Age of Innocence been released in ’92, Scorsese would have been pitted against Eastwood for Best Director (how interesting, in hindsight, would that have been. They would’ve gone head to head on three separate occasions), Daniel Day Lewis would have another acting nomination to his tally, and we would probably be referring to Winona Ryder as “Academy Award winner Winona Ryder.”
‘Shutter Island’ seems to be more commercial fare than a prestige-type picture, but Scorsese still makes the highest quality of commercial fare (‘Cape Fear’, ‘The Departed’, e.g.). I can only imagine marketing being the reason here, but the spring release date is VERY curious. The other two pushbacks were moved to winter of the following year. Springtime is generally where studios dump what they feel to be their “lost causes” (think ‘The Alamo’ or ‘The Soloist’). I can’t imagine that being the case here… We shall see, though
Go to Comment
Release date and other shinanigans over 2 years ago
Well, I didn’t bring up ‘Last Temptation’ simply because not only was it pushed back, but filming was halted altogether. The project changed studios, and wasn’t resumed until years later with a completely different cast (except for Harvey Keitel). The other two I mentioned (as well as ‘Shutter Island’) were already in the can, and were pushed back for whatever reason.
It would have been interesting to see DeNiro as Christ, though…
Go to Comment
Release date and other shinanigans over 2 years ago
Well, I didn’t bring up ‘Last Temptation’ simply because not only was it pushed back, but filming was halted altogether. The project changed studios, and wasn’t resumed until years later with a completely different cast (except for Harvey Keitel). The other two I mentioned (as well as ‘Shutter Island’) were already in the can, and were pushed back for whatever reason.
It would have been interesting to see DeNiro as Christ, though…
Go to Comment
Release date and other shinanigans over 2 years ago
By what I’ve heard (and what I know of the book), the comparisons to ‘Cape Fear’ aren’t going to stop. I was really looking forward to this. Hopefully it turns out well.
I’m wondering if the pushed back date is going to effect his upcoming projects (the Roosevelt and Sinatra biopics as well as ‘I Heard You Paint Houses’, his re-teaming w/DeNiro). Will he be spending the upcoming months re-cutting and/or promoting this movie and delay the start of production on the other three (by the way, he’s suddenly a very busy man… even for him. He’s starting to work on a Woody Allen-type pace if one believes the proposed release dates on IMDB)
Go to Comment
Favorite fassbinder film over 2 years ago
Jesus! This man dominated the 1970s like Godard did the 1960s, and (to a lesser extent) Woody Allen in the 1980s.
Fantastic movies. Haven’t seen one I think is less than stellar.
top 10
1 Merchant of Four Seasons
2 Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant
3 Berlin Alexanderplatz
4 In a Year with 13 Moons
5 Veronika Voss
6 Lola
7 Fox & His Friends
8 Satan’s Brew
9 Love is Colder Than Death
10 An American Soldier
Go to Comment
Top 10 Films of the 80's over 2 years ago
1 Berlin Alexanderplatz
2 Do the Right Thing
3 Blue Velvet
4 Raging Bull
5 Veronika Voss
6 The Purple Rose of CairoThe Doulbe Life of Veronique
7 Ms. 45
8 Atlantic City
9 Wings of Desire
10 Sans Soleil
honorable mentions: Stranger Than Paradise, Spoorloos, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Lola, The Shining, LouLou, Dekalog, Raising Arizona, Ran, Paris Texas, Passion, Fitzcarraldo, Nostalghia, King of Comedy, Mona Lisa,Street of Crocodiles, Castle in the Sky (aka Laputa, the Flying Island), My Neighbor Totoro, Akira, Yeelen, Mystery Train, The Long Good Friday, Withnail & I, Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn, Lair of the White Worm, Vagabonde
Filmmaker of the decade: Woody Allen (the run he had between ‘83-’87 would earn him this distinction alone- Zelig, Broadway Danny Rose, Purple Rose of Cairo, Hannah and Her Sisters, and Radio Days all made within a four-year span. Add on ‘Crimes and Misdemeanors’ and his segment in ‘New York Stories’, and it’s a no-brainer).
Actor of the decade: Gerard Depardieu (r/u: Robert DeNiro, Klaus Maria Brandauer)
Actress of the decade: Sandrine Bonnaire (r/u: Isabelle Huppert, Barbara Hershey)
Go to Comment
Release date and other shinanigans over 2 years ago
No. Not necessarily anything alike in actuality, I just feel like that’s how writers are going to go with it. They have a tendency to “group” movies together that don’t necessarily have much in common, especially if they’re made by the same director or share a star.
Go to Comment
How could such a great director make such a lousy movie? over 2 years ago
Spielberg and Coppola have had far too many misfires to really mention. For Coppola, one could cite EVERY SINGLE film post-Apocalypse Now (it seems he just lost it after that one, which, having seen ‘Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Journey’, I can understand) is at best mediocre. Spielberg is a constant source of frustration for me. His early output was nothing short of brilliant. ‘Jaws’ is one of the best horror vehicles ever (and ‘Duel’ is no slouch in this matter, as well). However, it seems that when he decided he wanted to “grow up” he became increasingly manipulative. ‘The Color Purple’ is maudlin and full of saccharine. ‘Always’ is absolutely terrible. ‘Amistad’ is at best forgettable. ‘Saving Private Ryan’ is a bunch of empty filler and war movie cliches pasted together by two hyperkinetic battle sequences (‘Black Hawk Down’ is far superior to ‘Saving Private Ryan’ even at playing its own game). ‘A.I.’ is a Kubrick distopyan story polluted by Spielberg’s childish wide-eyed sensibilities. ‘Munich’ is one misstep after another (including the most unfortunate sequence in the man’s career- the murder of the hostages intercut with Eric Bana having sex with his wife).
Of his “serious” films, only ’Schindler’s List’, ‘Empire of the Sun’ (minus the third act), and ‘Catch Me if You Can’ hold up (in fact, ‘Catch Me If You Can’ feels like a perfect vehicle for his specific type of cinema).
…and then you can throw in the following:
‘Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom’
‘Hook’
‘The Lost World: Jurassic Park’
‘War of the Worlds’
‘Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’
Earlier in this thread, somebody stated that they felt Fassbinder missed the mark on every other film (I disagree wholeheartedly). One should look at Spielberg’s output from the mid-1980s on, and try to say that statement doesn’t ring true for him. More duds than any director of his caliber.
Go to Comment