contact us

Use the form on the right to contact us.

You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right.

           

123 Street Avenue, City Town, 99999

(123) 555-6789

email@address.com

 

You can set your address, phone number, email and site description in the settings tab.
Link to read me page with more information.

SWAGGER, NOT STYLE

The worldwide headquarters and hindquarters of freelance writer Chris Klimek

Watch-day!

Chris Klimek

watchmen-6 I'm going to see Watchmen at midnight , and I can't wait. Actually, that statement is demonstrably false, because I've been waiting for this movie ever since I read (retired?) DC Comics Publisher Jeanette Kahn's "Direct Currents" column about a potential film adaptation of Watchmen back in the late 80s.

I was excited when I read in the long-defunct Fantagraphics-published fanzine Amazing Heroes that Sam Haam had written a screenplay that actually improved upon the one (arguable) flaw of Moore and Gibbons' 12-issue maxi-series: it's 1950's The Day the Earth Stood Still-style denouement. (I hear that an alteration to the ending has survived all the subsequent drafts and years of development hell, though only the Writers' Guild knows whether the finished film's ending was Haam's.)

I was excited when Terry Gilliam was going to direct it, even though his own revision of the screenplay purportedly sucked worse than the film version of Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. If anybody could get this thing onscreen intact, I figured, the guy who made Brazil could do it.

I was excited again, ten-plus years later, when Paul Greengrass was going to do it. (Though Cloverfield is probably a fair indication of what a Greengrass-shot Watchmen would have looked like.)

I was skeptical when I heard Zack Snyder, he of the-shot-by-shot adaptation of Frank Miller's 300, had won the gig. I haven't seen 300, but I gather it was mostly about a bunch of CGI-hardbodies wrestling in Matrix-like slow-motion. But when I read about the faithfulness and commitment with which Snyder was translating Moore and Gibbons' sprawling masterpiece for the movies -- keeping it set in alternate 1985, casting non-stars, allowing for a near-three-hour theatrical-cut run time (three-plus for DVD) and, crucially, an R-rating -- I began to get excited again.

In about seven hours, I'll be watching the movie. Sometime after that, though possibly not right away, I'll know whether Snyder and screenwriter David Hayter succeeded. I've tried to avoid reading the mainstream critics' notices, though I did weaken and read David Edelstein's review in New York, which articulated nicely my reservations about Snyder.

I believe this much, though: Snyder tried -- really tried -- to make something great. Or at least to be faithful to something great.

Orson Welles, who made three brilliant films and many more failures, said it takes as much hard work to make a bad movie as it does to make a good one. But William Goldman, who's had more commercial success than Welles but never improved upon The Princess Bride, said that most movies aren't even meant to be any good.

Watchmen, I have faith, was meant to be good. And now, we'll see.