Short Review: Unequivocally the only movie ever made about screaming, half-naked, greased up men that is worth seeing .

In a time where homes downwind of movie theaters have to keep their windows closed each weekend to keep the stench out; this film is still an invigorating change. Yes, the dialog is seemingly overwrought, and the production is crammed with so much testosterone the DVD boxes have beards. Then there is the fact it is filled with half naked guys. There are many reasons to mock this production. Regardless, Zack Synder offered the freshest, most visually striking film since The Lord of the Rings Trilogy was released.

There is one thing that ignites my respect and approval and that is creativity. The inventiveness of this piece makes this worth seeing. From its fully realized art direction to the carefully constructed script, to the effective score, this is one of those films that combine all aspects of film making into a unified and pleasing whole.

The film follows Spartan King Leonidas as he leads 300 of his best men to hold off a army of thousands coming from Persia. Persian King Xerxes demands Sparta bend to his will and Leonidas refuses to submit to another man. When Xerxes comes to slaughter the defiant Sparta, it’s a battle royale where all of the players are apparently popping steroids between takes.


Many will most likely brush this film off as being a simple minded “guy’s movie”. Yes, there is bloodletting, screaming and oodles of death. Don’t be fooled by this film’s oafish exterior, there is more going on than a bunch of guys in leather jockstraps sweating on everything. The piece has a great deal to say about the battle between the rational versus the spiritual.

The main thrust of the film is a violent defense of The Enlightenment (or as I call it “Hey God, look -No hands!" The 300 Spartans do more than defend Sparta from the hordes of Xerxes in this film, they lay themselves down in an existential war against mysticism and religion.

Embodying mysticism, the self-worshiping devil Xerxes who is intent on commanding the world. Behind the Spartans are The Ephors who stand for organized religion. The Spartans deny both and look to remain clear of their theological entanglements to live free in their own “rational” world. Of course, the Spartans retreat from their rationality once bad things happen but that’s expected. It is the modus operandi of the self-reliant mind to crack under pressure. We’re all about being free from God up and to the point things go to pot, then comes the eventual reconsideration of one’s intellectual/spiritual footing. Despite this film’s desperate clinging to this world it is forced (albeit quietly) to bow to the afterlife.

Beyond the apparent sanguinary elements, there is a marvelously constructed piece of film making to be enjoyed. Each frame of this film is a work of deliberate beauty. I cannot think of another film so dedicated to making each inch of the screen so vibrant. Director Zack Snyder’s work is a breathtaking, visual pleasure.

The screenplay is equally as strong. Deceptively guttural, the dialog is a testament to the economy of language. Each line means something. Even when the characters are throw belligerent retorts to their enemies it isn’t meant as a sly wink to the audience, as we have come to expect from Schwarzenegger and company, but a reinforcement of the Spartan philosophy. The few words in this film are carefully chosen. Even the narration is deftly woven into the piece with care.

I seriously enjoyed this film. I was expecting this to be little more than a flashy version of all-star wrestling. I was thankfully proven wrong. Men will love this movie. This, much like Fight Club, speaks directly to our masculine side without shame.


Cautions: This is an exceptionally violent film. Digitized blood splatters, innumerable impaling, slow-motion beheadings and corpses abound. There is also graphic sex and nudity. This is not - I REPEAT IN LARGE UPPER-CASE LETTERS THAT BOLD - NOT - for children.


Worldview: As I mention above, the film essentially comes out in favor of The Enlightenment and "reason" over religion. As a Christian, how can I throw my support behind such a message, in particular one that revels in so much violence? Simple, Snyder is correct to put himself behind the Spartans.

The real Spartans were a brutish, fascistic lot. They had a code of conduct; heck, they had a code of existence. If you broke the code you were not allowed to play in their reindeer games. I see them as being the logical end of secular thinking. Without God, the perfection of mankind becomes the only reasonable goal. When you start talking about perfecting man its only a matter of time before you begin casting the hapless deformed babies off cliffs.

The battle of Thermopylae was a critical point in Western Civilization. Without it, none of what we have today would have been possible. It is one of those lynch pin moments of history. The only way to show this event is to back the Spartans. They were jerks, but they were right to push back against Xerxes intruding hordes.

Regarding the overt mind over spirit angle of the film. I don't find this offensive in the slightest. I want people to use their reason, to be thoughtful. I do not want people to define themselves by their religion or delve into mysticism. Religion is a problem, it gets worshipers to focus on process and symbols rather than the Truth and the Word of God. This in turn leads people to creating their own rules and regulations. It also leads to "us vs. them" thinking.

A film that pokes its finger, or in this case a sword, into the eye of religion - you're okay with me.
The Spartans in the film believed in gods. They weren't atheists. They simply didn't feel the need to worship a man or man made idols. In the film they fight against the old mystical thinking that still hinders many people in the world today. The sooner the ancient mysticism are vanquished, the better.



Related Reviews:
Zack Synder movies
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Watchmen (2009)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Dark Matters
Hollywood Jesus




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

Labels: David Wenham, Dominic West, film, Gerald Butler, Lena Headey, Michael Fassbender, movie review, Vincent Regan, Zack Snyder

Screenwriters: John Orloff (Band of Brothers) and John Collee (Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World)
Director: Zack Snyder (Watchmen)
Actors: Emilie de Ravin (Public Enemies), Helen Mirren (The Queen), Hugo Weaving (The Matrix), Geoffrey Rush (Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl), Jim Sturgess (21) and Sam Neill (Event Horizon)






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

Labels: Emilie de Ravin, film, Geoggrey Rush, Helen Mirren, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, movie trailer, Sam Niell, Zack Snyder

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

Zack Snyder’s adaptation of Watchmen didn’t cover the entire series. This is understandable since the episodic nature of the books isn’t capable of being translated to screen. First, it would take too much time to present all of the material. Secondly, its structure would be too chaotic for most audiences. This direct-to-video animated accompaniment to the film is for serious fanboys only, and even these geeky losers may turn their nose up to this nonsense. The story is simple enough, having survived a deadly naval ambush, a captain creates a raft out of the corpses of his dead men. He sails the waves to the port where his enemies are celebrating. He shows up and slaughters said enemies. In the context of the graphic novel this all makes some thematic sense. On its own, it is a violent, gory and needless tale of empty revenge.

The story was never meant to stand alone. This film is proof.


Related Reviews:
Gerald Butler movies
Beowulf & Grendel (2005)
Rocknrolla (2008)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
PopMatters
DVD Verdict

Labels: animated, film, Gerald Butler, movie review, watchmen, Zack Snyder

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

Watchmen hits screens this week. Readers of my site already know I'm very interested in seeing it. I think Zack Synder is a fantastic designer and a pretty good director. Visually this will be a great treat. Content wise...well...I already know I can't recommend this film just based on the original comic book, err graphic novel. Even though I've see TV spots end with the tagline "The world needs its heroes back", seen below, this is not a typical superhero movie. It's superhero as bedwetting liberal. Alan Moore the author of the original comic book, err graphic novel, "deconstructed" - meaning for the average person that he made it into yet another leftist whine fest about how sucky the world is and took all of the fun out it. Instead of having people doing heroic deeds you get a naked blue guy dismissing humanity and a psychotic who shoots a pregnant woman in the stomach (the scene is partially shown in the trailer below). Don't believe the ads, this is not just another The Dark Knight. This is going to be an amoral bog of pseudo-intellectual navel gazing - which is why I'm excited to see it. I have a sick fascination with stupid liberal claptrap and this just may its Citizen Kane. It will be interesting to see the reaction of people who have no idea about the comic book, err graphic novel. They'll be going in expecting Batman and their going to get that cranky "I hate my mom" art student dressed in tights and a mask.






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: film, movie trailer, watchmen, Zack Snyder

Warner Todd Huston has a very good article on the upcoming adaptation of Watchmen over at NewsBusters. He has smartly dissected the philosophies of the original comic book...er, graphic novel. His makes some strong points about the direction of our culture.

"We even have comic books that belittle heroism, that deconstruct the good and exceptional turning their heroes as cartoonishly flawed as the most obscene head case on the Jerry Springer Show.

When did entertainment turn so dark?"

The answer is when we introduced secularism as the central theme of our entertainment. That's a whole other post however.

Personally, I am very interested in seeing the film simply because I can intrigued by the notion its been made in the first place. I cannot see how this gets put on screen and remains intact and sensible. Heck, the comic book...er, graphic novel barely makes sense.

Click on Ozymandias to view the trailer

Labels: review link, watchmen, Zack Snyder

I'm looking forward to seeing how Zack Snyder is possibly going to get Watchmen to work in movie form. The thrill of an impending cinematic train wreck is so much fun. If it crashes and burns there's a spectacle to enjoy. If it succeeds we get a good movie. Its a win-win.

With all of the fanboy marketing that's been going around online it isn't surprising someone has begun mocking the excess. Check out the modified trailer below. Maybe its just me, but I think this is funny.

Labels: comedy, movie trailer, watchmen, 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