Short Review: The media reports of Tom Cruise’s kid’s feces being bronzed may be in error. As it turns out, it may have actually been the shooting script for this film.


There are two big issues with this Tom Cruise movie:

1. Tom Cruise
2. The movie

My issue with Cruise is that he is Tom Cruise in nearly every movie he appears in. He is not an actor. He is a personality. I'm not a fan of personalities.

Looking beyond Cruise, which normally involves simply standing up, you will find Alias and Lost creator JJ Abrams at the helm of this project. This was his first feature film. I enjoy Abrams’ television work. His shows are vacuous and embarrassingly simple. His characters are emotional single-line caricatures but are given enough clever flints of dialog to make them likable. His shows are what they intend to be, disposable yet addictive fluff.

This film is just as disposable as Abrams' TV work. The difference is that this film actually prompts you to throw it away.

Where Abrams’ Alias can get you to suspend your disbelief so you’ll buy that Jennifer Garner can smuggle a XM8 Lightweight Assault Rifle in her camisole, his big fat McMovie can’t get beyond its own bloated subplots. This whole film is one big Alias episode without the benefit of Garner’s charm or Kevin Weisman’s (Marhsall Finkman) humor. Abrams goes so far as to insert, for no reason, Greg Grunberg (Alias’ Eric Weiss) into the first act. This would be like Leonard Nimoy striking it out on his own back in the 70’s but refusing to take off his pointy ears.

Absent the distraction of Jennifer Garner in a body sock shooting a TM-203 Grenade Launcher, Abrams' adoration of cheesy scripting is made just that much more obvious.

If you haven’t seen the film you may want to stop reading, I’m about to spoil the works. Although now that I consider my warning, I'm not sure that's really possible. Can you spoil trash?

The central point of the film is that super-spy Ethan Hunt tries to prove to himself (and others) that he can have a normal life with a wife and the whole shebang. All of this is wrapped up in a muddled plot which pushes Hunt to obtain “The Rabbit’s Foot”. This is currently in the pudgy hands of bad guy arms dealer Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Yes, the villain’s name is really Owen. Owen. " Oh, no here comes Owen." "I'm so scared of Owen!" Why not Karl, or perhaps Irwin?

“The Rabbit’s Foot” is a toxin Owen is looking to sell to bigger badder guys. Actually, we’re never told what “The Rabbit’s Foot” is and why we should care. For that matter, we’re not given the identity of the bigger badder guys and why they're so scary. Everything is nebulous, which means they are meaningless.

Owen, while performed well by Hoffman, is not an ominous figure. Since he and Ethan aren’t the focus and the conflict between the two is not clearly established, the climatic scenes lose their wind. Any momentum found in the first act is spent by halfway through the film because Abrams is too intent on wedging in a conspiracy subplot into the piece that the film simply can’t support.

Here is a heads up for all of the big time, huge budget Hollywood goofballs; If you have a big, fat McMovie and you need to reach a broad international audience, the recipe is easy:


What this does is create a firm central plot from which you can hang subplots and any other nonsense you want.


If you’re a fan of JJ Abrams’ work, stick with his small screen products. This film, while offering a few well crafted moments, will ultimately waste your time. If you’re going to do that you may as well see Jennifer Garner kill a dozen guys with a flame-thrower while parachuting wearing nothing more than a teddy.


Related Reviews:
Tom Cruise movies
War of the Worlds (2005)
Vanilla Sky (2001)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Film School Rejects
Beyond Hollywood




Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Billy Crudup, Eddie Marsan, film, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Keri Russell, Laurence Fishburne, Michelle Monaghan, movie review, Philip Seymour Hoffman, sequel, Simon Pegg, Tom Cruise, Ving Rhames

Johnny Depp portrays John Dillinger. Johnny Depp and his precious mug and girly frame portraying a harden criminal is like having Steven Seagal portray Richard Simmons. You need someone to be quirky? Need someone to be pretty? Hire Depp. Need someone to look like it will hurt if he hits you? Depp ain't on the list.

Depp's casting isn't just a problem because he's plainly not a good match for the role. Depp is a limited actor. I know, I know, we're all supposed to agree he's one of the most brilliant actors of our generation. I don't think so. He is gifted at quirk. Give him a over-sized role where he gets to play and ham it up, there is no one better (Pirates of the Caribbean, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Edward Sissorhands). Give him a human being? He doesn't seem to be able to grow beyond his own skin. If you look at his straight roles (Secret Window, Finding Neverland, Blow) he is incapable of giving a memorable performance. It seems he needs the protection of a clown nose to ply his trade.

The film as a whole is not one I can recommend. It is flat, miserably flat. The movie trails the violent and wild final thirteen months of Dillinger's life but it never digs into the man. We are given a disjointed history lesson without motive or emotion. The bank robbers rob a bank, they shoot it out with cops, they drive away, there's some hollow scenes between Dillinger and his gal Billie (Marion Cotillard). Every once in a while there are interjections of Agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) squinting his eyes and grumbling as he trails the criminals. Plenty goes on but nothing really happens.

Director Michael Mann tries to straddle making a star-driven Hollywood movie and a patient "serious" movie. Mann is careful to keep his content somber but can't help but drift into typical Hollywood cheesiness. His "Hollywood" choices stand in stark contrast to the rest of the film. An example is the over-produced twangy guitar riffs that blast during running gun battles. The out of period music jumping in from nowhere stinks of someone following the notes coming from the studio demanding they try to liven it up for the kids.

Screenwriters Mann, Ann Biderman and Ronan Bennett fail to condense Dillinger's whirlwind crimespree into a digestable narrative. The film is terribly choppy with criminals and characters passing in and out as the story moves from town to town. The relationships between the characters are assumed instead of developed because there is so much rushing to the next scene. We are never given a chance to hook into any of the characters so their efforts have no depth and their deaths have no impact.

Given that the two leads, Dillinger and Purvis, only spend five minutes together on screen there isn't much of a conflict. Yes, Dillinger is confronted by cops but its all very faceless. Dillinger's and Purvis' scenes are seperate and never meld to build any momentum. By the time Dillinger's infamous death comes, Mann tries to make the tension swell, but there is none there. We are left with a numb scene of a man being shot to death and having his death mean nothing.

Skip this one. You're bound to forget you watched this in a few months anyway so save your time.


Related Reviews:
Johnny Depp movies
Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
Finding Neverland (2004)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Cinema Autopsy
Black Sheep Reviews

Labels: Billy Crudup, Christian Bale, film, Johnny Depp, movie review

Short Review: It answers the question what would it be like if Superman became an undergraduate philosophy major and didn’t have the wits to know he shouldn’t take his professors seriously.



Zack Snyder’s (300, Dawn of the Dead) adaptation of Alan Moore’s Watchmen is faithful to the original which means it is overly complex and at times downright silly. In the spirit of over thinking simple things and spending way too much energy to not say a great deal, I will break this review into sections for particular audiences:



The fact that I have to write a separate review for people who haven’t read the graphic novel(s) should tell you everything you need to know. The film takes place in an alternate reality where regular humans dress up like superheroes. They don’t have super powers except one guy who is glowing blue, and walks around naked with his personal dangle flapping in the wind. The heroes in this story are different because they're mopes and don’t want to be heroic. There are plenty of conflicted people with furrowed brows and tearful eyes.

Despite the dramatics, Watchmen is one of the most visually engaging films I’ve ever seen. Visually, this is a masterful work. Even with Snyder’s love for unprompted slow motion and gimmicky shot placements, the film is brilliantly executed. If, like me, your main interest in the film is seeing the spectacle on display, you will not be disappointed.

I do warn if you have to see it read the graphic novels first or at least glance over Cinematical's Elisabeth Rappe outstanding primer to help you on your way. For most people, if you go into this film without prior knowledge you will be stuck trying to figure out why you should care. Given how hollow the film actually is, you may still be left wondering that question regardless of your prep. Either way, if you’re going to sit there and watch people being set on fire, chopped into pieces, raped and disintegrated you may want to get the back story so you can understand why.



The long standing opinion is that Watchmen is simply too knotted, too pondering to make it to the screen. This opinion is correct. The film doesn’t work. Zack Snyder was the right man for the job of adapting this to the screen but the task was simply too big. The problem is that movies are indeed different than comic books. The episodic nature of the story works fine in the panels of a graphic novel but it doesn’t translate into the language of film. Snyder is so intent on being faithful he wasn’t able to overcome this difference. When combined with his time constraints, Snyder is forced to shorthand important historical information leaving his audience to fill in too many gaps. For example, when Silk Spectre II discovers that The Comedian is her father there is no great “ah-ha!” for the audience. There is very little time spent on the relationships between the Jupiter women and The Comedian so the depth of the trio’s relationship is completely lost. The big revelation becomes a another ho-hum fact tossed on the pile.

The film also stumbles by Snyder avoiding the inclusion of the side story Tales of the Black Freighter (released separately straight to DVD) and the other insertions. These don’t go to build on the main narrative so it is understandable why he dropped them from the production. Their omission hurts because they are philosophical olios. They help construct the piece’s worldview and aid in the development of the series’ tone. In addition, without their distraction the basic flaws of the original story are plainly obvious. The presumptuousness of the plot, the thinness of the motivations and hurried actions of the characters all stand out because we can give them that much more attention. This is not a desirable attribute when your plot is so loose.

The story itself has always been problematic. In the original book it is well disguised by the sheer force of its originality and headiness. The eye candy Snyder presents can’t carry the lacking plot. The book manages to balance the competing storylines where Snyder’s film amplifies silly love triangle between Silk Spectre II, Dr. Manhattan and Night Owl II. The film is consumed by their nonsense.



With one exception, the performances are underwhelming. To defend the actors I will say the characters don’t offer them much to work with. The perfect example of this is Silk Spectre II, performed by Malin Akerman. Akerman is certainly an aesthetically pleasing choice, but the character comes across as just another poorly written female role. She’s a grown up version of a sixteen year old ninny whimpering because daddy won’t let her take out the car. Akerman doesn’t manage infuse the character with any life so she becomes a latex laden mannequin who recites dialog. Akerman is not the weakest link in the production. The lowest points all come from one singularly dismal performance. To put it plainly, Matthew Goode is bad. Goode plays Ozymandias and justly has him as snobbish and effete. He gets that much right. The performance as a whole is uninspired. Goode manages to take a complicated character and turn him into a girlish bore.

The stand out is Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. To be fair the character is the best written and has the most meat for an actor. Jackie Earle Haley exceeds expectations. I’m willing to claim that the man deserves a best supporting actor nod for his effort. He was born for the role and handles it perfectly. I cannot conceive how someone could do better.

I do not recommend viewing this film. For the average film audience member, it will likely confuse or bore. This is a very bitter, violent work that relishes the brutality. The overall messages of the film are like listening to a gaggle of depressed art students strung out on downers. There is much said but it ultimately means nothing, since when you argue the universe is meaningless then your complaint fails to have any value. You may as well go with the flow because any other action is irrational (assuming there is rationality in your stupid existential universe.) If indeed humans create their own reality and their own morality, then that’s how it is. Making a movie with a big naked blue guy crying in his beer on Mars isn’t going to change it. If everything is senseless and we're a pathetic joke then why should I sit and listen to fictional crybabies bellyache about it? What's the point?



The worldview of the film is the same as the book. Nihilism soaks every nook and cranny and the meaninglessness of the human experience is studied and explored. Heroes are false gods and the world is just a nihilistic nightmare where might make right and the mighty hate themselves for being unable to fix the situation. Moore deconstructed the hero with the intent of dismantling the superhero figure. He was successful. You can’t read the book or watch the movie without it peeling away something from the genre. His work, in my opinion, opened the doors for more deconstructions across our culture. James Bond, Batman, Star Wars, and fairy tales themselves though productions like Shrek have all been remodeled in Moore’s wake. I see these all as connected. Moore, Snyder and others tear down our heroes but don’t replace them with anything. We’ve seen this throughout American culture. We have struck down every meaningful ideal, every useful institution and attempted to rebuild it based on wispy secular whims. We've built a culture that keeps looking back instead of looking forward. Our deconstructed culture hasn’t fed us and in our starvation we’ve turned to post modern cannibalism where we regurgitate the societal milestones of earlier times and consume them once again for sustenance. We stand now with no valuable culture identity of our own. Everything in our culture today is a recycled, rehashed token from a previous era, this film included. This film brings the deconstructed, whiny superhero to life but it fails to give us anything in exchange for his demise.



For those of you who don’t know better please note – this is not Spider-man. This is an adult film dealing with adult topics very plainly. There is wall-to-wall violence and a number of the scenes are quite sexual. Then there’s that business of the big blue guy walking about with his tackle exposed. Those who are concerned about viewing brutality or sexual behavior are strongly advised to avoid this film.




Related Reviews:
Movies based on graphic novels
V for Vendetta (2005)
Sin City (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
SouthCon
Jim Treacher

Labels: adaptation, Billy Crudup, film, Friday Rewind, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, movie trailer, Zack Snyder

Screenwriters: Ronan Bennett (The Hamburg Cell), Michael Mann (Miami Vice) and Ann Biderman (Primal Fear)
Director: Michael Mann (The Insider)
Actors: Johnny Depp (Finding Neverland), Christian Bale (The Dark Knight), Billy Crudup (Watchmen), Marion Cotillard (A Good Year), Stephen Dorff (Blade), Giovanni Ribisi (Boiler Room), Rory Cochrane (Right at Your Door), Stephen Lang (Gods and Generals) Lily Taylor (Household Saints) and Matt Craven (Jacob's Ladder)

Labels: Billy Crudup, Christian Bale, film, Giovanni Ribisi, Johnny Depp, Marion Cotillard, movie trailer, Rory Cochrane, Stephen Dorff, Stephen Lang

Short Review: It answers the question what would it be like if Superman became an undergraduate philosophy major and didn’t have the wits to know he shouldn’t take his professors seriously.



Zack Snyder’s (300, Dawn of the Dead) adaptation of Alan Moore’s Watchmen is faithful to the original which means it is overly complex and at times downright silly. In the spirit of over thinking simple things and spending way too much energy to not say a great deal, I will break this review into sections for particular audiences:



The fact that I have to write a separate review for people who haven’t read the graphic novel(s) should tell you everything you need to know. The film takes place in an alternate reality where regular humans dress up like superheroes. They don’t have super powers except one guy who is glowing blue, and walks around naked with his personal dangle flapping in the wind. The heroes in this story are different because they're mopes and don’t want to be heroic. There are plenty of conflicted people with furrowed brows and tearful eyes.

Despite the dramatics, Watchmen is one of the most visually engaging films I’ve ever seen. Visually, this is a masterful work. Even with Snyder’s love for unprompted slow motion and gimmicky shot placements, the film is brilliantly executed. If, like me, your main interest in the film is seeing the spectacle on display, you will not be disappointed.

I do warn if you have to see it read the graphic novels first or at least glance over Cinematical's Elisabeth Rappe outstanding primer to help you on your way. For most people, if you go into this film without prior knowledge you will be stuck trying to figure out why you should care. Given how hollow the film actually is, you may still be left wondering that question regardless of your prep. Either way, if you’re going to sit there and watch people being set on fire, chopped into pieces, raped and disintegrated you may want to get the back story so you can understand why.



The long standing opinion is that Watchmen is simply too knotted, too pondering to make it to the screen. This opinion is correct. The film doesn’t work. Zack Snyder was the right man for the job of adapting this to the screen but the task was simply too big. The problem is that movies are indeed different than comic books. The episodic nature of the story works fine in the panels of a graphic novel but it doesn’t translate into the language of film. Snyder is so intent on being faithful he wasn’t able to overcome this difference. When combined with his time constraints, Snyder is forced to shorthand important historical information leaving his audience to fill in too many gaps. For example, when Silk Spectre II discovers that The Comedian is her father there is no great “ah-ha!” for the audience. There is very little time spent on the relationships between the Jupiter women and The Comedian so the depth of the trio’s relationship is completely lost. The big revelation becomes a another ho-hum fact tossed on the pile.

The film also stumbles by Snyder avoiding the inclusion of the side story Tales of the Black Freighter (released separately straight to DVD) and the other insertions. These don’t go to build on the main narrative so it is understandable why he dropped them from the production. Their omission hurts because they are philosophical olios. They help construct the piece’s worldview and aid in the development of the series’ tone. In addition, without their distraction the basic flaws of the original story are plainly obvious. The presumptuousness of the plot, the thinness of the motivations and hurried actions of the characters all stand out because we can give them that much more attention. This is not a desirable attribute when your plot is so loose.

The story itself has always been problematic. In the original book it is well disguised by the sheer force of its originality and headiness. The eye candy Snyder presents can’t carry the lacking plot. The book manages to balance the competing storylines where Snyder’s film amplifies silly love triangle between Silk Spectre II, Dr. Manhattan and Night Owl II. The film is consumed by their nonsense.



With one exception, the performances are underwhelming. To defend the actors I will say the characters don’t offer them much to work with. The perfect example of this is Silk Spectre II, performed by Malin Akerman. Akerman is certainly an aesthetically pleasing choice, but the character comes across as just another poorly written female role. She’s a grown up version of a sixteen year old ninny whimpering because daddy won’t let her take out the car. Akerman doesn’t manage infuse the character with any life so she becomes a latex laden mannequin who recites dialog. Akerman is not the weakest link in the production. The lowest points all come from one singularly dismal performance. To put it plainly, Matthew Goode is bad. Goode plays Ozymandias and justly has him as snobbish and effete. He gets that much right. The performance as a whole is uninspired. Goode manages to take a complicated character and turn him into a girlish bore.

The stand out is Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. To be fair the character is the best written and has the most meat for an actor. Jackie Earle Haley exceeds expectations. I’m willing to claim that the man deserves a best supporting actor nod for his effort. He was born for the role and handles it perfectly. I cannot conceive how someone could do better.

I do not recommend viewing this film. For the average film audience member, it will likely confuse or bore. This is a very bitter, violent work that relishes the brutality. The overall messages of the film are like listening to a gaggle of depressed art students strung out on downers. There is much said but it ultimately means nothing, since when you argue the universe is meaningless then your complaint fails to have any value. You may as well go with the flow because any other action is irrational (assuming there is rationality in your stupid existential universe.) If indeed humans create their own reality and their own morality, then that’s how it is. Making a movie with a big naked blue guy crying in his beer on Mars isn’t going to change it. If everything is senseless and we're a pathetic joke then why should I sit and listen to fictional crybabies bellyache about it? What's the point?



The worldview of the film is the same as the book. Nihilism soaks every nook and cranny and the meaninglessness of the human experience is studied and explored. Heroes are false gods and the world is just a nihilistic nightmare where might make right and the mighty hate themselves for being unable to fix the situation. Moore deconstructed the hero with the intent of dismantling the superhero figure. He was successful. You can’t read the book or watch the movie without it peeling away something from the genre. His work, in my opinion, opened the doors for more deconstructions across our culture. James Bond, Batman, Star Wars, and fairy tales themselves though productions like Shrek have all been remodeled in Moore’s wake. I see these all as connected. Moore, Snyder and others tear down our heroes but don’t replace them with anything. We’ve seen this throughout American culture. We have struck down every meaningful ideal, every useful institution and attempted to rebuild it based on wispy secular whims. We've built a culture that keeps looking back instead of looking forward. Our deconstructed culture hasn’t fed us and in our starvation we’ve turned to post modern cannibalism where we regurgitate the societal milestones of earlier times and consume them once again for sustenance. We stand now with no valuable culture identity of our own. Everything in our culture today is a recycled, rehashed token from a previous era, this film included. This film brings the deconstructed, whiny superhero to life but it fails to give us anything in exchange for his demise.



For those of you who don’t know better please note – this is not Spider-man. This is an adult film dealing with adult topics very plainly. There is wall-to-wall violence and a number of the scenes are quite sexual. Then there’s that business of the big blue guy walking about with his tackle exposed. Those who are concerned about viewing brutality or sexual behavior are strongly advised to avoid this film.




Related Reviews:
Movies based on graphic novels
V for Vendetta (2005)
Sin City (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
SouthCon
Jim Treacher

Labels: adaptation, Billy Crudup, film, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, movie trailer, Zack Snyder

Screenwriters: David Hayter (X-Men) and Alex Tse
Director: Zack Snyder (300)
Actors: Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Kabluey), Malin Akerman (Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle), Billy Crudup (Big Fish), Jackie Earle Haley (Semi-Pro), Patrick Wilson (Hard Candy), and Matt Frewer

Labels: adaptation, Billy Crudup, film, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, movie trailer, Zack Snyder

Screenwriters: David Hayter (X-Men) and Alex Tse
Director: Zack Snyder (300)
Actors: Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Kabluey), Malin Akerman (Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle), Billy Crudup (Big Fish), Jackie Earle Haley (Semi-Pro), Patrick Wilson (Hard Candy), and Matt Frewer

Labels: adaptation, Billy Crudup, film, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, movie trailer, Zack Snyder

Screenwriters: David Hayter (X-Men) and Alex Tse
Director: Zack Snyder (300)
Actors: Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Kabluey), Malin Akerman (Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle), Billy Crudup (Big Fish), Jackie Earle Haley (Semi-Pro), Patrick Wilson (Hard Candy), and Matt Frewer

Labels: adaptation, Billy Crudup, film, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, movie trailer, Zack Snyder

Screenwriters: David Hayter (X-Men) and Alex Tse
Director: Zack Snyder (300)
Actors: Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Kabluey), Malin Akerman (Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle), Billy Crudup (Big Fish), Jackie Earle Haley (Semi-Pro), Patrick Wilson (Hard Candy), and Matt Frewer

Labels: adaptation, Billy Crudup, film, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, movie trailer, Zack Snyder

Screenwriters: David Hayter (X-Men) and Alex Tse
Director: Zack Snyder (300)
Actors: Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Kabluey), Malin Akerman (Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle), Billy Crudup (Big Fish), Jackie Earle Haley (Semi-Pro), Patrick Wilson (Hard Candy), and Matt Frewer

Labels: adaptation, Billy Crudup, film, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, movie trailer, Zack Snyder

Screenwriters: David Hayter (X-Men) and Alex Tse
Director: Zack Snyder (300)
Actors: Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Kabluey), Malin Akerman (Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle), Billy Crudup (Big Fish), Jackie Earle Haley (Semi-Pro), Patrick Wilson (Hard Candy), and Matt Frewer

Labels: adaptation, Billy Crudup, film, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, movie trailer, Zack Snyder

Screenwriters: David Hayter (X-Men) and Alex Tse
Director: Zack Snyder (300)
Actors: Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Kabluey), Malin Akerman (Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle), Billy Crudup (Big Fish), Jackie Earle Haley (Semi-Pro), Patrick Wilson (Hard Candy), and Matt Frewer

Labels: adaptation, Billy Crudup, film, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, movie trailer, Zack Snyder

Screenwriter: David Hayter (X-Men) and Alex Tse
Director: Zack Snyder (300)
Actors: Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Kabluey), Malin Akerman (Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle), Billy Crudup (Big Fish), Jackie Earle Haley (Semi-Pro), Patrick Wilson (Hard Candy), and Matt Frewer

Labels: adaptation, Billy Crudup, film, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, movie trailer, Zack Snyder

The latest Watchmen trailer has hit. They've obviously stopped pushing it directly to the fanboys and have tried to coat the thing with a comprehensible narrative. There seems to be a but of bait and switch going on here. The average person, the one's who are adults but have the sense and pride not to waste precious moments in life thumbing through comic books, er graphic novels, will see this and may be drawn in. They go in thinking they're getting Batman or Spider-Man and they're getting Naked Lunch in tights.

I'm excited to see this. I cast in the moment I heard Snyder was on board. I also want to see how the heck they're going to adapt this thing and make it watchable. The idea that this will cross over to the general public seems to be a stretch. Then again, 300 worked and blew out of the box office.



Screenwriter: David Hayter (X-Men) and Alex Tse
Director: Zack Snyder (300)
Actors: Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Kabluey), Malin Akerman (Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle), Billy Crudup (Big Fish), Jackie Earle Haley (Semi-Pro), Patrick Wilson (Hard Candy), and Matt Frewer

Labels: adaptation, Billy Crudup, film, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, movie trailer, Zack Snyder

Click below to view the most recent trailer for Watchmen. I still have no idea how they're going to be able to make this into a coherent movie but it makes for one heck of an ad campaign.

Right now, this is the top of my can't wait to see list.


I showed this trailer to my long-suffering wife. When it was done she sat there and blinked.

LSW: "When is this opening?"
Me: "Uh, March..."
LSW: "I'm busy."



Screenwriter: David Hayter (X-Men) and Alex Tse
Director: Zack Snyder (300)
Actors: Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Kabluey), Malin Akerman (Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle), Billy Crudup (Big Fish), Jackie Earle Haley (Semi-Pro), Patrick Wilson (Hard Candy), and Matt Frewer

Labels: adaptation, Billy Crudup, film, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, movie trailer, Zack Snyder

Screenwriter: David Hayter (X-Men) and Alex Tse
Director: Zack Snyder (300)
Actors: Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Kabluey), Malin Akerman (Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle), Billy Crudup (Big Fish), Jackie Earle Haley (Semi-Pro), Patrick Wilson (Hard Candy), and Matt Frewer

Labels: adaptation, Billy Crudup, film, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, movie trailer, Zack Snyder