It just went up today, and there’s already a little argument brewing about Paul Constant’s review of Watchmen.
From the review:
Watchmen made it impossible for almost anyone to write a great superhero comic book for nearly two decades afterward. Using clever satire and well-placed logic, it deconstructed the superhero genre in such a profound way that the best writers are just starting to shake off Watchmen‘s influence now. For this to be a truly great adaptation, it would have to render every other superhero movie silly and small in comparison. It decidedly does not.
And in the comments:
I completely disagree Paul. I have not read the comic, so as a regular viewer I felt that the movie ran at a pretty deep level throughout. The audience seemed to be completely enthralled for the whole movie, and the dialogue (some which was directly quoted from the comic, I was told) was great.
This review isn’t going to change the fact that I am going to see the movie and more then likely love it. When one doesn’t fit with the other can’t you just take them seperately?
Paul, your film review fails because you fault it for being a movie and not a comic. This is the trick of reviewing an adaptation, and I was hoping for a review of the movie. *sigh*
Jump in here.
