For the most part, the Times' review of Watchmen was positive. Go ahead and read it yourself, you'll see. I was glad to know that the more graphic parts of the original work were kept intact, and that despite the over-slick costumes, the characters seemed to be true to themselves. I was a little bothered by the last sentence, though:
Someone clearly hasn't been paying attention. "First attempt" to make a post-adolescent comic book movie? All right, just off the top of my head, I can name several previous (and successful!) attempts:But as the first attempt to make a truly post-adolescent comic book movie,
Watchmen is, literally, peerless.
- Road to Perdition
- Ghost World
- A History of Violence
- Persepolis
- American Splendor
- From Hell
All of these were based on comic books. That doesn't even count Sin City, 300, V for Vendetta, 30 Days of Night, Stardust, Constantine, or the Hellboy films. Also comic book movies, although their status as "post-adolescent" could be argued. Of course, that argument would be entirely subjective, hinged upon one's own definition of the term. Does "post-adolescent comic book movie" refer to a movie that is an adaptation of a post-adolescent comic, or a post-adolescent movie that happens to be an adaptation of a comic book? And exactly where are we setting the bar for post-adolescence itself?
Anyway, the presumption that "comic books" equals "super heroes" is annoying enough coming from my fellow (North) Americans, but I expected better from an article that was written for a publication in the United Kingdom. People in the UK should know good and bloody well that not all comic books are wedged into the superhero genre. Most of the best "non-cape" comics on both sides of the pond are penned by Brits.
In closing, I want to go see Watchmen really really badly. Good thing I get paid the day it opens.
No comments:
Post a Comment