Saturday, July 04, 2009

Saying Goodbye

I gave up my cat yesterday.

The reasons aren’t really relevant at the moment, but suffice it to say that it had to be done. It moved, quietly and unexpectedly, from a possibility to a probability to a certainty. There was no small amount of denial on my part, accompanying honest and sincere attempts at prevention and amelioration. But when I finally realized I couldn’t keep Wesley, it hit me like a hammer.

(Presumably. I have no idea what getting hit by a hammer feels like, aside from a minor “ouch, I missed the nail” sort of way. It was much worse than that, with a much larger hammer.)

There was no way I’d ever consider taking him to the humane society, and I’d have been extremely reluctant to leave him with anyone I didn’t already know, or who at least came with a strong recommendation from a good friend. Thankfully, neither of these options was necessary, as my parents were willing to adopt Wesley.

They were more than willing. They were thrilled, as they love Wesley. They fuss over him whenever they come to visit, and on the few occasions I’ve taken him to visit them, he’s had a lot of fun with their three-year-old Siamese. (after some initial hissing and growling, of course; Satchel, the Siamese, enjoys sneaking up on Wesley from behind at every opportunity, which is a particularly unwelcome strategy when Wesley is trying to eat.)

It’s altogether a good situation for Wesley: A bigger house with a backyard (and accompanying birds and squirrels to stalk and/or be afraid of), another cat to play with and two loving “parents” to pamper him. It’s hard not to see that as an improvement over staying with me, where he’d have a smallish two-bedroom, several rooms of which he’d be shut out of, no access to outside, and just me to give him his daily rationing of affection.

It made the decision much easier. But it still felt like I was ripping out one of my internal organs. Worse than that, because I don’t have any particular sense of duty or responsibility to my kidney. (Though I am extremely squeamish where needles and scalpels are concerned.)

First, there’s the general principle: A pet is supposed to be forever. You make a commitment to look after it, not just when it’s convenient for you. So I feel like a failure on some level.

More importantly, it feels like I’m giving up a huge part of my life. For the past four years, no matter what happened – lousy jobs, dysfunctional relationships, good moods and bad moods – Wesley was there to meet me when I got home. Yes, it was largely because he wanted to be fed, but there was also some small amount of affection. He’d sit on the couch with me, claw at my chair when I spent too much time on the computer, and hop into bed with me at the end of the day. And in the morning, if I slept too late, he’d bite my face to let me know it was time to eat.

At the beginning, Wesley picked me out. When I went to the Toronto Humane Society in search of a cat – an exciting but saddening experience for any animal lover – he stood up against the bars of his cage when I walked by. Maybe he did that for everyone, but it didn’t matter. I walked around for a bit looking at other cats, but my decision had been made for me.

When I filled out paperwork, I received his medical records. He’d been found in rough shape, bad nutrition and hostile, and the notes suggested the possibility he’d have to be put down. Thankfully he didn’t, and after a visit with a foster family there was little sign of the vision problems or weak hind leg that were noted on the form. He was friendly and relaxed, the only sign of his time on the streets a slight notch in one ear.

When I brought him home, I expected him to run for cover as soon as I let him out of his box. But he took his time getting out, and proceeded to pace around my apartment for half an hour before finally finding a comfortable spot under my bed. He was a bit skittish if you stood right in front of him or snuck up on him, but settled in quite quickly.

Perhaps that’s the worst part of it: Wesley’s the most relaxed and easy-going cat I’ve ever known. He’s rarely made anything resembling an escape attempt, preferring to stay close to home; the closest he’s come is sneaking under the balcony divider and walking into my neighbour’s living room one summer evening, an event I’m fairly certain was mostly accidental.

Which makes it more likely that someone abandoned him. Someone couldn’t, or wouldn’t, look after him, and left him on the street, where he almost died.

Not that you’d ever know it if you met him. But that thought stays with me. And aside from the principles and the memories and friendship, perhaps that’s what makes giving him up so hard.

It’s not comparable, at all. I know that. Wesley is, if you’ll excuse an expression that makes it sound like he’s dead, in a better place. He was nervous at first, and a bit grumpy towards my parents’ other cats, but was settling in by the time I had to leave. Not that that made leaving any easier; I spent much of the day feeling miserable, depressed, and occasionally nauseous. I considered staying another day, but I knew I’d still feel same way the next day, or the next week.

And so I left, and didn’t feel too bad on the bus ride home.

I was just about feeling almost okay by the time I got home. Until I put my key in the lock, and realized there was no one waiting for me. No cat to feed, no litter to change, nothing to do at all but amuse myself. The silence and emptiness was striking, different from almost every day of the past four years.

I’m still getting used to it. It’ll take some time. One day, hopefully not too far, but without being disrespectfully soon, I’ll come home and not immediately notice what’s missing.



Settling In with Satchel

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

I Kill Giants review

You probably know the story.

A child retreats into a fantasy world, which may or may not be real, to escape the problems she is experiencing in the real world. In the end, she learns a valuable lesson and is better able to face her fears.

The first thing the concept of I Kill Giants reminds me of is Terry Gilliam’s Tideland, a particularly demented escape-from-reality fantasy that’s not particularly good. There’s Pan’s Labyrinth, or even My Neighbour Totoro.

I Kill Giants has many familiar parts: A would-be friend who is initially rejected; a kind guidance counsellor who wants to help; a school bully; a big sister who’s trying to hold everything together. It definitely feels like something you’ve read or seen before.

So all that said, you might be expecting a fairly negative review. But as it turns out, I Kill Giants is one of the best comics I’ve read in a long time.

Why does it work? These stories are familiar because they resonate; everyone remembers being a child, and everyone has some fantasies about escaping real life for something better, happier, or more exciting. (See also Gilliam’s Brazil for one of the best examples.)

I Kill Giants, in particular, works because it’s honest, even if it’s honest about lies and fantasies. The protagonist, Barbara, is unvarnished: She’s rude, arrogant, dismissive of people who are trying to help her, and occasionally violent. In fact, it’s easy to interpret the early chapters as the story of a girl with serious mental health issues. If you’re the sort of person who needs a likeable, easily relatable character, this may not be for you.

But Barbara’s rough edges make the story’s eventual payoff far more rewarding: We grow to like her, even love her, because it’s not forced upon us. We learn about her gradually, and come to understand her view of the world. (For my part, I totally fell for her when she explains the origin of her hammer’s name.)

The other key to the book is the art of JM Ken Niimura, a relative newcomer to North American comics, and his work with writer Joe Kelly. Niimura’s a bit rough around the edges – action scenes don’t always come off as clearly as they could – but it frequently works to the story’s advantage. His sketchy, manga-influenced art captures the characters perfectly, particularly Barbara: As the story and her mood shift, Niimura’s art keeps up with it.

The mythical, monstrous, possibly imaginary giants are wonderfully realized as well: Vague and threatening, likely influenced by any number of sources without looking like any sort of monster in particular. His covers, too, are beautiful, though they aren’t reproduced in the trade.

And Kelly, for his part, is brave enough to let Niimura tell some of the most important parts of the story himself. Because Barbara’s problems are rarely on the surface, much of the story is left to the audience’s interpretation of events, which is chiefly influenced by Niimura’s visuals. Some of the final scenes in the book are largely wordless, and have some of the greatest impact you’ll find in a graphic novel.

I’ve stayed away from describing the plot, since I Kill Giants benefits, at least on a first reading, from the story’s ambiguity and mystery: Kelly & Niimura keep things vague enough to be mysterious, but not so obscure to be actively frustrating. (There’s one cop-out, with scratched out text in a speech balloon, but it works quite well in the context of the story.) Truth be told, I had the impression the story was about something else entirely, given some preview art. It’s not really a mystery, and I’m not sure you could really “spoil” such a story, but it’s structured in an incredibly rewarding fashion: It works as well on subsequent reads as it did the first time around, but for different reasons.

I Kill Giants is contradictory is many ways: It’s a tried-and-true formula and concept, but executed in an unconventional fashion. Perhaps that’s why it works so well: It’s a story we all know, but presented in a way that still gives us something new. It’s predictable in its way, but also holds as much emotional impact as any comic I’ve read in a long time. A must-read.

(There’s an interview with Kelly and some preview art at CBR.)

Thursday, May 14, 2009

New Bryan Talbot!

One of my favourite artists - Alice in Sunderland is one of the most visually impressive books I've ever seen - has a new book coming out in the fall!

It's... Steampunk Anthropomorphism? I can totally dig it.


(I actually got a print of this image when I met Talbot on his Sunderland book tour. It's a nice looking piece.)

Summer movies bonanza

So I plan on avoiding Wolverine like the plague - X-Men III was bad enough, and there was way too much slow-mo in the trailer. And while it may be pretty good, I just can't work up much enthusiasm for Star Trek; George Lucas has pretty much turned me off anything involving the word "prequel". Don't even get me started on movies based on action figures from my youth.

But! It's summer, and there are still many movies to be seen that I'm actually excited about seeing.

Up

It's Pixar. Do you really need another reason? They've always been good, but they keep getting more unique and original. It'll be hard to top Wall-E, but I had similar thoughts after Ratatouille, too.



The Brothers Bloom

This looks fun, and the cast is lovely, Rachel Weisz in particular. I'm concerned it may be one of those movies that looks much better in trailer form, but I'm willing to take that chance.



500 Days of Summer

They're talking about The Smiths in the trailer! That is enough, right there. This could be the best music nerd movie since High Fidelity.



Ponyo on the Cliff By the Sea

All right, I don't actually know a whole lot about this movie. It may be excessively cute. However, it's Hayao Miyazaki. He gets the benefit of the doubt. And while I have philosophical problems with dubbing, at least this will be done properly, with Cate Blanchett, Tina Fey, Liam Neeson, and Lily Tomlin among the English voiceover cast.


(Side note: Could this year be the first time there's actual competition at the Oscars for Best Animated Picture? With Coraline, Up, and Ponyo, there are a lot more heavyweights than I can ever remember in the category.)

Whatever Works

Woody Allen's been erratic for the past few years, and over the last decade has managed to demote himself from my "Must See Automatically" list. But Vicky Cristina Barcelona was very good, the cast here is promising - you can't go wrong with Patricia Clarkson - and it looks to be the sort of movie Woody does quite well, if only because he's been doing it for the last 30 years. I'm optimistic.


(Intresting find while looking this up: Woody's next movie, currently untitled, features Nicole Kidman, Naomi Watts, Josh Brolin, Anthony Hopkins, and Antonio Banderas. That's pretty damn impressive.)

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

2010 Can't Come Fast Enough

I was a late convert to The Wire, but I'm hoping to get in on the ground floor for David Simon's new series, Treme. The cast list alone looks fantastic - Wire's team supreme of Clarke Peters & Wendell Pierce, Melissa Leo, and Deadwood's Kim Dickens. Plot details are still fairly minimal - it's about New Orleans, post-Katrina - but this article makes it sound damn intriguing.

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

When Did the National Post Become Cool?

Also known as That Other Paper I Never Bother to Read, The National Post has been running a series of Q&As with artists, writers, and cartoonists appearing at this weekend's Toronto Comic Art Festival. It's surprisingly cool.

Maybe I should ignore The Post less. Maybe.

Friday, May 01, 2009

The Greatest Movie Endings of All Time

I have many deep thoughts. I have a blog. But I am sick and have neither time nor energy to produce something deeper. So: A list!
(These are spoiler free, mostly.)


  • Manhattan: "You have to have a little faith in people."

  • Magnolia: Aimee Mann's Save Me and Melora Walters' smile.

  • Fight Club: The world falls apart, and the Pixies provide the soundtrack.

  • Brazil: The real ending, obviously. Which is unreal. Sort of.

  • Casablanca: Duh.

  • Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: Just because.

Yes, I enjoy ambiguity. So what?

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Wait, what?

I should know better than to look at this sort of thing, but curiousity compelled me to look at DC's look at the spectrum of lanterns.

Immediate thoughts:

  • "Willpower" is an emotion?

  • There is probably something to be said about the fact that the Pink Lanterns - the Lanterns of Love - are exclusively women. Or that DC apparently had to deviate from their template and change the name entirely to "Star Sapphires".

  • "Love" and "Compassion" are pretty close. You could probably make a case for "Hope", too.

  • I'm possibly repeating myself, but: "Death" is an emotion?
I understand that DC is trying for a theme here, but they really could have put a bit more thought into it.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

That's what I call ENTERTAINMENT



(Background info at The Beat.)

There are no attempted puns about philately in this post

Stamp collecting is probably one of the most boring and generally lamest hobbies one can find. (One might think there'd be problems with someone who spends most of his time writing about comic books pointing that out, but I have no regrets. To be fair, collecting stamps is much cooler than collecting spoons.)

Until now:

"Mythical creatures" is a pretty nifty theme unto itself, but having them illustrated by Dave McKean? Totally awesome.

The Royal Mail rocks.

Canada Post continues to rock quite a bit less.

A beaver playing hockey. Outrageous! Truly, Canada Post is the Andy Warhol of stamp design.

Someone find Wildstorm a dictionary so they can look up the meaning of the word "quit"

It's probably not too harsh to call Wildstorm's revamp of a couple years ago a failure that should best be forgotten. It's not that the books were bad or didn't sell, but that the really important ones didn't show up at all. The two flagships of the line, Wildcats by Grant Morrison and Jim Lee, and The Authority by Morrison and Gene Ha, managed a combined 3 issues before disappearing into the publishing ether. First they were just late, then they were really late, then people stopped asking about them. It took even longer for Wildstorm to get around to telling anyone they probably weren't going to come out at all.

It was either atrocious planning, or another sign that Wildstorm is right near the bottom of DC's priority list, since both Lee and Morrison abandoned their books to work on other, DCU-oriented projects. Morrison has since announced he has no interest in continuing Authority - something that strikes me as grossly unprofessional - Gene Ha has moved on to other work, and apparently Lee will come back to finish Wildcats, now planned as a graphic novel, whenever All-Star Batman takes a break.

But now, two years after the second and apparently final issue of Authority, Wildstorm has decided to finish the story. But instead of Morrison, Keith Giffen will now be writing it. And while an artist has not been announced, I'll be surprised if it's Gene Ha.

I don't have any real problem with Giffen - he's a solid writer, and will always have my affection for JLI and the various Superbuddies stories. But you just can't go from Morrison to Giffen. Regardless of your personal evaluation of their talent - and I've been losing interest in Morrison's work over the last year or so - they're not at all the same sort of writer.

And if there's one lesson Wildstorm should have learned by now, it's that very few people really care about their characters. Authority didn't set the sales charts ablaze two years ago, so will anyone be lining up for the new book now, without the two marquee creators attached?

Wildstorm seems to have achieved some level of stability now, or at least figured out a system whereby they manage to publish the books they say they're going to publish. The Authority/Wildcats relaunch was an embarrassing mess, and I can't imagine reminding people about it is going to do anyone any good.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Do you need even MORE of my thoughts?

If things aren't random enough around here, you can always follow me on Twitter. Mostly I just signed up to spite my lovely girlfriend, who is not at all fond of Twitter. But maybe it doesn't have to suck?

Friday, March 13, 2009

The Ups and Downs of Being Erica

If you’ve never lived in Canada, you probably don’t understand the odd relationship we have with Canadian culture. There’s very little of it, you see, and it’s frequently not very good. American programming tends to drown out Canadian entertainment, Hollywood draws in a lot of Canadian talent, and the few Canadian TV shows tend to look like American TV shows shot on half the budget.

The CBC, being the official national public broadcaster, tends to do things a little differently. They often go the other way and produce TV shows about the experience of being Canadian. They, too, are often shot on a relatively low budget and don’t end up being very good, but at least they’re trying. And sometimes the come up with a real gem: The mid-90s brought the wonderful Twitch City and the brilliant satire The Newsroom. A few years ago there was the amusing This is Wonderland, though I’m not sure if anyone other than my family and I watched it. And now, perhaps, CBC has created another unique, if somewhat flawed, series in Being Erica.

(Observation: The producers put together a nice site leading up to the show with Erica’s blog and video diary, but it appears to have been abandoned since the show actually started. That doesn’t seem like a great idea.)

The premise is that Erica is 32 years old and leading something of a disappointing life. Unsatisfying job, non-existent lovelife, surrounded by people who are doing the things she wished she could be doing. Then she meets a mysterious therapist who, though unexplained means, offers her the opportunity to go back in time and re-live some of the key moments in her life that led to her current predicament.

The good news is that Erin Karpluk is wonderful in the title role. She’s smart, sympathetic, and witty, and while she’s certainly a bit of a fuckup, she’s not so much of one that she becomes a complete loser. At times she’s incredibly self-aware and observant, and at other times… not. She hasn’t so much ruined her life as she thinks she has, which is the sort of sentiment I can get behind. (Though I’ll come back to that in a moment.)

She’s also terribly attractive, though I have problems lusting over a woman with the same name as my sister.

But the flip side of that is that the writers seem to have crafted a star at the expense of the supporting cast. Barely any of the supporting characters are at all interesting, most of them existing only to serve plot points or counterpoints to Erica’s life. Some are just there to be successful and intimidating: Her mother frequently expresses disappointment in one way or another, her best friend is a lawyer, her sister is a doctor, her former best friend is a successful newspaper columnist.

And those are the best examples. The lesser half of the cast consists of characters whose sole purpose is to be mean to Erica. Her sister’s fiancĂ©e has no redeeming features whatsoever, which stands out even worse because her sister seems like a nice, reasonable person. Her boss is a bitch and a bit of a ditz. Her old professor yelled at everyone. She joins a super-secret fraternity run by super-jerks. Most of her ex-boyfriends turn out to be shallow jerks.

One or two such characters would be fine, but the continued parade of People Who Are Mean to Erica robs the show of potential conflict. Erica is almost always right, and far too many episodes run with the theme of a) Erica taking revenge on the mean people, or b) Erica realizing the mean people were mean and she didn’t really care what they thought in the first place.

Sometimes, this works, largely because of Karpluk’s charm: We love Erica, and hate the people who are mean to her. And she’s just really, really good sometimes: The mild overdose of high school nostalgia in the pilot is wisely countered by Erica’s diatribe, to a slightly baffled teacher, that teenagers are just really stupid.

The formula can get predictable at times: Erica has a problem in her life. She goes back in time to revisit a moment that somehow relates. She learns a valuable lesson, which she then applies to her current problem. Sometimes the lesson involves making out with a lesbian.

But every now and then, the show breaks out of the formula, or at least maximizes its effect. Til Death focuses on Erica’s sister’s wedding, and the regret in question is that Erica helped her sister get back together with her (still really a jerk) boyfriend after a fight several years ago. When given the chance to fix her mistake, events unfold differently yet still remain the same, and the life lesson isn’t applied nearly so smoothly. It’s an extremely strong episode, in no small part because of its unpredictability; for the first time, we get the sense that it might not work out in the end.

The preceding episode, Adultescence, also works quite well, though for different reasons: It’s a fairly simple character piece, with Erica reliving her Dirty Dancing-themed Bat Mitzvah after suffering an embarrassment at a baby shower. She goes back, toughs out the embarrassing party, and puts down the local bully, only to have her mother tell her not to worry and that she certainly won’t be single and unsuccessful by the age of 32. And it’s all pulled off by Samantha Weinstein, standing in for the 12-year-old Erica.

Michael Riley’s Doctor Tom remains an uneven character: His excessive reliance on famous quotes is funny at times, and grating at others. He’s at his best when he’s being a relatively stoic sounding board for Erica, and can be downright annoying when he shows up to explain the moral lesson of the episode. Similarly, the show can be prone to excessive narration from Erica the beginning and end: If you really need the main character to explain what the show was about, you’re probably doing something wrong.

Being Erica can be incredibly frustrating to watch at times. It’s so good at times, and shows such potential, that it’s all the more infuriating when they trot out another clichĂ© plot twist or yet another one-dimensional supporting character. It needs to be bold and daring to work, it needs to take some chances and not be afraid of failure. There are some encouraging signs: The next episode features Erica travelling back to the events of a previous episode, which could be fascinating or may just turn out to be pseudo-clever navel-gazing, and the finale will apparently deal with the as-yet-unexplained death of her brother.

I want it to succeed and be the show it could be. I want Erin Karpluk to be a star, and I want the CBC to have a genuine quality hit and something to show for being one of the few sources of unique Canadian entertainment. But mostly, I just want to really love it and look forward to it every week, instead of wondering if it's going to be a good episode or a bad episode.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

In Defence of the Comic Shop

Apparently feeling we haven't had a real good comic-blog-controversy lately, Augie De Blieck tells us why we should stop going to the comic store and buying monthly comics.

The underlying point of the essay is hardly controversial: Too many people buy too many comics out of habit, not because they particularly enjoy them. I can get behind that.

But the financial aspect is slightly out of whack. Trade paperbacks are cheaper than monthlies because the monthlies pay for most of the content. Stop publishing the monthlies, and trades won't remain so cheap; either they'll become more expensive, or the monthlies will be replaced with hardcovers.

Shopping entirely online isn't necessarily a great option. For one thing, it means lots of money for giant corporations with little customer service or any sort of investment in the community, something I dislike on general principle. I order from Amazon sometimes, but I certainly wouldn't want it to be my only option.

Online ordering also cuts down on the great art of browsing. Buying online can be quick and easy, but it's best for times when you know exactly what you want. Only an actual, physical store can provide the great discovery of finding a book on the shelf or rack that looks really cool. Or even thinking "That book sounds kind of interesting, but I'd like to take a look at it before I buy."

De Blieck acknowledges this point to some extent:

Go to your local comic shop and see if those two books are currently in stock. I'd say you have a pretty good chance of the X-Men title being on a shelf somewhere. I wouldn't lay any bets on a random "Asterix" volume haunting the same bookshelves. And even if your retailer stocked "Asterix," would that particular one be on the shelf?
There's one awesome store in Toronto that would almost certainly have those books, and another pretty good store that might.

Of course, many stores aren't very good at all. If my choice was between online shopping and a physical store that only sold Marvel and DC books, I'd probably go online, too. But that's an argument in favour of more good comic stores, or at least one opposed to crappy stores.

There's absolutely no better place to buy comics than a good comic book store.

Do you need another Watchmen review?

In his defence, Zack Snyder really loves Watchmen. This film is a labour of love, a dedication to Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, an immaculate recreation of a great book.

Unfortunately, sometimes love is not. Or, perhaps more accurately in this case, love is too much. Zack Snyder adapting Watchmen to film is a lot like someone falling madly and devotedly in love with you on a first date: Barring some pretty exceptional circumstances, it’s just going to end up feeling creepy and awkward.

Alan Moore once said that Watchmen was unfilmable. For the sake of argument, we can say that he’s cranky on general principle, but his opinion gains some credibility when Terry Gilliam agrees with him. One of the biggest problems – beside Watchmen being rooted in superhero tradition and the very form of sequential art – is that there’s so much going on. Many characters, many storylines, all criss-crossing one another and frequently jumping about chronologically. It’s a lot to fit in to one movie, requiring someone to decide what’s important and what isn’t.

Snyder decided that almost all of it is important and had to be on the screen, which has the unfortunate effect of making none of it important. At 163 minutes, Watchmen is full of plot and happenings, barely taking any time to breathe or relax – and this is the short version, with an “Extended Edition” DVD expecting to take up most of a long weekend. It still feels harshly edited, with characters disappearing for long stretches – the Comedian is absent for most of the middle third, making Laurie’s revelation on Mars seem jarring. Snyder’s kept many of the cameos and callbacks of the book, but they lack meaning because the context has been stripped out; the film, like the book, ends on the New Frontiersmen office, but it’s the very first appearance of the extreme right-wing magazine and likely meaningless for anyone who hasn’t read the book.


The reality is that something had to give for Watchmen to function as a film. Perhaps the Minutemen, perhaps Laurie’s relationship with the Comedian. Probably at least a few of the Nixon scenes, laden as they are with bad impersonations and excessive prosthetic noses. Snyder probably could have cut about 15 minutes off the running time by eliminating all the slow-motion action shots.


Watchmen
also runs into some of the problems Sin City had with excessive faithfulness: Dialogue and narration that works on the page doesn’t always work when spoken aloud. Rorschach’s journal doesn’t work nearly as well when heard, and Jackie Earle Haley’s growly Christian-Bale-Batman voice doesn’t help. And just on general principle, narration tends to be more intrusive in a film than on the page; comics tell a story through a series of moments, and occasionally require narration to fill in the gaps, while film is more immersive. “It was dark when the murderer returned” is entirely superfluous when it’s plain to see that it’s dark.

Snyder’s occasional bouts of independence don’t add a whole lot to the film, either. The violence is cranked up about a dozen notches, and to little dramatic impact; if anything, showing Silk Spectre and Nite Owl to be just as vicious and violent as Rorschach erases the differences between the characters. The explicit sex scene adds nothing, in addition to being excruciatingly awkward and not the least bit erotic.


Snyder often sets up battles between faithfulness and innovation. The costumes are generally upgraded from spandex to the more cinematic leather/body armour, which is a perfectly reasonable change. But when Ozymandias appears to be wearing body armour, catching a bullet doesn’t seem nearly as significant. The setup goes MIA as well, resulting in a scene that looks a lot like the book but holds little of the impact. In fact, much of the finale lacks the oomph it has in the book, perhaps because Snyder’s rushed through so much of the story to get here.


This all sounds terribly negative, but I didn’t hate the film by any means. The set designs and costumes are excellent, and it certainly looks like Watchmen. The actors are generally good; not exceptional, but the rushed nature of the film leaves little time for nuance. The opening credits sequence, almost entirely of Snyder’s own creation, is a beautiful thing, though the emphasis on the Minutemen is lost shortly thereafter.


Watchmen
is rather frustrating, because at times it comes so close to really getting it, and you can tell Snyder really does want to make a great movie out of a great book. But his devotion to the source material hamstrings his effort: The book was innovative and experimental, and a successful adaptation – not mere translation – demands more than just a scene-for-scene recreation. It needed a director unafraid to put his own stamp on the material, someone who wasn’t afraid of cutting that scene or enraging a particular segment of fandom.

It’s ultimately rather pointless. It’s not great, it’s not bad, it’s just there. It doesn’t stand up to book at all well, nor does it stand on its own with any strength. It’s interesting to watch, but perhaps not for two and a half hours. An ambitious failure would have been far more interesting than the safe and predictable homage Snyder produced.