Movie Tab II

zzzt thank you have a nice day zzzt

Horrible film...I was soooo disappointed when I saw it. The only good thing about it is Dick Miller and he gets electrocuted after five minutes. Oh and the scene where Barbara Crampton's (of Re-Animator and From Beyond fame) head explodes. It should be remade in my opinion because the idea of muderous security robots with lazers in a mall is brilliant; just a shame the execution (no pun intended) is dull and uneventful. Safe to say I'll do full review of it soon in my trash thread

__________________
100 Favourites From The Future: REWIRED

Satya- (one of the most groundbreaking movies in Indian cinema)

Pursuit of Happyness- (Will Smith was brilliant)

Hitman- (pure crap and confusing)

The Score- (expected so much more with the number of big names that had been cast)

Sympathy for Lady Vengence-

Short Cuts (1993)
Director: Robert Altman

Not my favourite Altman movie, but still a very good piece of work.

Watchmen Director's Cut

28 Weeks Later



28 Days Later was a suspenseful, atmospheric and thrilling addition to the 'zombie' genre. At least until the third act, when the film loses it's direction and ultimately failed to reinvest interest. I put zombie in quotes because any fan of the film will tell you they are not zombies, just infected people with a virus. When I heard that a sequel was coming out, I figured it would be even worse because a sequel being better than the original is rare, specifically in this generation of filmmaking.

28 Weeks Later furthers the story, this time with new characters. The virus is gone and re-population has begun. The American army is in charge and have everything under control. That would seem like a boring movie, so of course they have to have the virus come back and wreck havoc. Which it does. In a very lame way I might add.

The film opens with an attack on a house, this is the highlight of the film. The film never reaches the same height of excitement as this, but it does keep the viewer interested. I was never bored and found that it did work well as a sequel. It doesn't have the same feel as the first. All the atmosphere that made the original good is gone here. I felt more threatened by the infected in the first because it was them against ordinary people. Here, we have guns, helicopters and apparently tons of napalm.

In one scene the soldiers bomb half the city, it looks cool, but seems ineffective, they later use gas that seems to kill everyone in sight. My question is why not use this gas first, it sure as hell beats out blowing up half the city. Small things like this are all over this film. Lead a bunch of civilians into one room for 'protection'. Of course this is one room in which the infected gain access, other people are left unguarded and creatures run around unnoticed in this government building. These things aside, the film is really well done and very enjoyable. It serves the genre well and is ultimately more enjoyable then the first.

Boyle acts as producer this time around, so the feel of the film is not all that different and the film does offer some intense moments. There is one sequence in which our characters go underground to the subway system. It's totally dark and one uses night vision from a rifle to see. The filmmakers use this to show us exactly what she sees, in a first person type of way. Very effective and scary.

The gore has been turned up a notch, with more blood splatter and a severe beating of one person that may turn some stomachs. There is another scene in which they use the blades from the helicopter to make quite a mess.

This is an entertaining sequel that manages to actually be better, albeit not by much, to the original. It adds new elements, but doesn't necessarily take the story into new directions. It is better than one would expect.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

The Enigma of Kasper Hauser

Not sure what to make of this one. There's a strong central performance driving the story of a 'foundling' who is released from a childhood of deprivation and adopted by various circles of rural German nobility. And then another strong personality strongarms himself into the story, in the form of Herzog's and his idiosyncratic directing choices. The story of the real Hauser is so shrouded in mystery that it seems you could pick or chose any number of versions of it - Herzog seems to want to use him as an archetype of human isolation in a cruel world. The film's original title of 'Every man for himself and God against all of them' drives this point home (as does the short quote at the start, set against the mesmeric threshing of wind-whipped grasses: 'Don't you hear that horrible screaming all around you? That screaming that men call silence').

Having been taught to speak and move in 'polite society', Hauser has shifted from prison oddity, through circus attraction, to plaything of the intelligencia. His oblique straight-talking is intriguing for both the viewer and his contempories. He frustrates his patron by saying he's only happy when he sleeps, and that others are 'as wolves' to him. He amuses us with his childlike perceptions of 'all encompassing rooms'. He comes up with neat answers to (toweringly stereotypical) priests and logicians. He tells strange tales of distant lands (reinforced by pulsing, grainy cinefilm footage) - and tells them with the broken narrative of thwarted logic that the film somewhat seems to want to embrace.

I did like much of what i saw, but felt strangely trammelled by Herzog's take on the material at the same time. (There were other versions he could have gone for, but he eschewed the self-harming conman aspects, preferring instead this ingenue who could straight-talk on his behalf, having him perceive nothing but beasts roaming uncaring lands)

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

WATCHMEN Director's Cut 2009

Marks the arrival of Zack Snyder as one of the worst living directors or at least one of the most uneven. The graphic novel is pure brilliance and it's very cinematic at that , but what's wrong with the movie is that it doesn't try to capture what Watchmen was all about at all - the characters. All it does is get the big major plot twists and action scenes from the book and exaggerates them , it's a wonder to look at - but falls flat on the acting and writing department.

David Hayter (aka Solid Snake) and Alex Tse's screenplay is a meaningless adaptation and Snyder pursues it in his flat action-packed style as usual (just as he did with Dawn of the Dead). Malin Akerman is a terrible actress with matching dialogue and Matthew Goode who plays Veidt is even worse. Jackie Earle Haley and Jeffery Dean Morgan are spot on perfect and perhaps if all the roles been such fits the movie would have been great.

As for this director's cut version of the movie - it's just 20 minutes of stupid extra scenes which for the most part were completely absent in the book. This little write-up seems bent on hatred , but it's just disappointment - the movie itself is actually pretty good despite it's full potential.





Harry Potter Sorcerer's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets

These adaptations are ambitious and divulge a lot of the creativeness from the books , but overall are bloated and poorly strung together. Their narratives are ever changing from being about the kids and their relationships with each other to some mystery plot which feels terribly out of place. Oh yeah the second one is almost a complete clone of the first.

With a nice editing job these movies could be much more enjoyable , it's clear they are shooting for the stars and not pulling any excess material from the books (even if it's for the better).





Bruno 2009

I knew exactly what I wanted with Bruno , a shock type comedy that would only be funny for the first time - but most of the jokes fell flat and the movie took a more staged presence than it's predecessor which really set up the whole idea for Borat.





Ratatouille 2007

I watch this one a lot. My favorite Pixar film by a mile , they have never worked on this level - the story is incredibly well written , well surpassing anything they've done so far. Which also speaks for the animation , they really were on top of their game with Ratatouille - it's got all the benefits of three dimensional animation with all their fancy dynamic lighting effects but also offers the organicness of hand drawn animation.

Another thing which isn't often talked about is the digital camera work , it looks very different from their other movies in that instead of static focus on what's happening it's a very fluent flowing moving camera style.





Up 2009

This is my third time seeing this one and I seem to like it less every time. The floating house idea is brilliant and the opening montage is really something special , but the rest of the movie I feel mixed about. The visuals range from brilliant to lazy , the camera is always very close in on the characters and most of the movie takes place in this blah looking jungle. Most of the characters introduced are just typical annoyances and the story starts to feel like clockwork rather than imagination.

On the other hand there are some really great moments and the characters that feel useless will occasionally do something funny.





Synecdoche New York 2008

A film I'm always happy to get lost in , Kaufman wrote this epic for the screen and it shows that he's not just a writer but a man fully willing to bring his vision to people with his directorial debut. So many great actors and such heavy material to work with - it often warps from being dark and depressing to funny to exciting to confusing and once again back to sadness. If you enjoy layered clever writing , grade A technical work , and invested acting you should enjoy this one.

__________________

Miller's Crossing- (I really do love the Coens so much, can't believe it's taken me so many years to finally start watching their films properly)

The Condemned-

Amazing what I can get done without the Internet to distract me...



Dark Star (John Carpenter, 1974) -

John Carpenter's feature-length debut - revolving around a small team of astronauts who fly the titular planet-destroying spaceship - is a surprisingly competent low-budget space thriller. For the most part, the special effects are rather impressive - the notable exception being a red beachball that is supposed to pass for an alien life form. Fortunately, this doesn't clash with the tone of the rest of the film - Dark Star doesn't take itself too seriously, and this works to the film's advantage. Plenty of the script's strongest moments are built on some essentially stupid situations - planet-destroying bombs are fitted with artificial intelligence and become very difficult to use properly, one of the astronauts is actually just a mechanic that got placed on the ship by mistake, an elevator goes up and down with nobody on it, etc. It all builds up to an ending that is at once so bleak yet still amusing and even full of a little wonder at the possibilities presented by space. Despite its many flaws, it's still a rather solid film and definitely belongs in the top half of Carpenter's filmography.



Boiling Point (Takeshi Kitano, 1990) -

Even though I've gotten used to Kitano's very idiosyncratic filmmaking style, Boiling Point never really felt like it came together to make for a particularly strong experience. Granted, the photography looked good and there were several decent scenes in it (with the highlight being one character's attempt to smuggle a machine-gun in a bunch of flowers only for the gun to go off accidentally) but they were scattered very loosely throughout the film. The rest of the time is devoted to watching a blank-faced misfit as he struggles through his life, whether watching him try and play baseball or going through a very protracted quest for revenge against a yakuza member who wronged him (which includes travelling to Okinawa in search of a gun and inadvertently meeting up with an aggressive yakuza boss played by Kitano himself). Ultimately, it's very hard to care about what happens to anyone in the film, least of all the mopey lead.



The American Friend (Wim Wenders, 1977) -

An interesting little film, this. Dennis Hopper is the titular character, a con artist slumming in Germany who ends up coming into contact with a terminally ill craftsman (Bruno Ganz). However, despite top billing, Hopper ultimately ends up being a secondary character compared to Ganz's more sympathetic plight as a family man desperate enough to carry out murders for a French gangster in order to posthumously provide for his wife and son. His journey is an interesting one - the lengthy sequence where he nervously but purposefully stalks a target across the Parisian metro system is a compelling one. It's interesting to see Wenders direct something approaching a conventional drama/thriller - between Robby Müller's always-brilliant cinematography and the unpredictable way in which he tells the story, it's an interesting watch, right up to its ending that is both literally and figuratively explosive.



Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (David Yates, 2009) -

For the record, I am not a fan of the Harry Potter films but I got taken to this anyway. Of course, I knew what I was getting into so I just tried my best to go along with it. The film looks very smooth and the effects are of a reasonably good quality, but the film was ultimately hampered by its noticeably ridiculous plot development. To quote what someone I know said about the film, it needed "less love and more blood". I definitely agree with the first part - I know the characters are teenagers and everything, but the film just ends up riddled with so many romantic subplots (to say nothing of the subplot where perennial outcast Ron becomes the hero of the Quidditch team) you almost forget about the film's central plotline revolving around Harry and Dumbledore's quest to defeat Voldemort once and for all. Even when it's resolved (as much as it can be resolved in the penultimate instalment of the series) it still feels a little hollow and rushed. I know that I'll probably get dragged to the next film, and when I do, I hope that it's a more concentrated effort than this one.



Performance (Donald Cammell and Nicolas Roeg, 1970) -

Made during the explosion of counterculture cinema in the late 1960s, Performance definitely adheres to the anarchic standards of underground filmmaking. However, I don't think that necessarily makes it a good film, though. I'm already familiar with Nicolas Roeg's solo efforts (think this counts as the fourth film of his that I've seen) and his particularly unusual filmmaking style and I'd never really had a problem with it before, although in the other cases it was at least attached to a fairly coherent story. Not so in the case of Performance - which, as far as I can tell, revolves around tidy but temperamental gangster Chas (James Fox) ending up in trouble with either his competitors or his superiors (for all I know, they could be one and the same) and having no option but to hide out in the home of reclusive pop star Turner (Mick Jagger). That gives license for the film to be filled with a series of vignettes where an uptight Chas butts heads with Turner and his groupies in between bizarre (presumably drug-fuelled) visions. Performance ends up coming across as a film that is too arty and experimental for its own good. It offers style to compensate for its lack of substance, but the style feels empty. I get the feeling that I should almost be ashamed of myself for deriding a film that is clearly an exercise in artistic expression instead of formulaic storytelling and it may be better than I give it credit for, but that's the way it is. Performance's "art" does not excite any particular interest in me, but I guess you can't please everyone.



Fitzcarraldo (Werner Herzog, 1982) -

I almost felt like giving this a purely because of the scope behind it. The story revolves around Klaus Kinski as the titular opera-lover who vows to bring grand opera to the small South American village where he lives. To fund his plan, he has to harvest rubber trees that can only be accessed by riding a large steamboat down a river before hauling it over a mountain with the help of hundreds of natives. The film is truly an unusual epic, revolving around one man's crazed dream and the lengths he goes to in order to pursue it. It's a fascinating journey from beginning to end, taking all sorts of strange turns and always making for compelling viewing. Hell, the part that made me feel like giving it a was the whole half hour or so that revolved around the steamboat being hauled over the mountain. It's a lengthy sequence but it's quite simply awe-inspiring to watch. (Although it's annoying that the subtitles on the DVD that I watched ended up cutting out quite frequently.)



Society (Brian Yuzna, 1989) -

Blend teen angst, body horror and class-divide satire into a single film and you get Society. Disaffected jock Billy (Billy Warlock) discovers one day that all the upper-class people in his Beverly Hills community have their own strange conspiracy going on - he eventually learns that every affluent, well-to-do person in town is an inbred mutant that loves nothing more than to engage in weird flesh-bending orgies. Quite simply, Society is just a fun little film - there's probably a lot more potential to its mockery of upper class citizenry than it managed to achieve, but was biting social commentary really the focus of the film? No, it was just a very welcome piece of subtext to a very bizarre black comedy that involves people getting twisted and molded in all manner of strange and terrible (but still starkly amusing) ways. It's definitely not for everyone, but the people who would enjoy such a blatantly ridiculous piece of 1980s horror that's shot through with all manner of inventive special effects (that were invented by a guy calling himself Screaming Mad George, no less!) should check it out if they haven't already.



Vampires (John Carpenter, 1998) –

The later half of John Carpenter’s filmmaking career is chock-full of mediocre B-movies, and Vampires is no exception. It has a handful of good qualities – some good photography, a cool Western-style score, and some half-decent special effects – but it’s weighed down by some sub-par writing and poor acting. There are some decent ideas presented in the script but they’re badly fleshed out and full of inconsistencies. The action isn’t really too spectacular either.



Starman (John Carpenter, 1984) –

One of Carpenter’s more accessible movies treads a lot of the same ground as E.T. in revolving around an alien coming to Earth on a fact-finding mission and being pursued by the authorities as a result. The E.T. comparison should give you an idea what to expect, although making the alien a humanoid (played with a strange charm by Jeff Bridges) opens up the possibilities a bit. There’s some nice effects work, an interesting story and I can see why Bridges got an Oscar nomination for his work here. A very charming alien movie.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Watchmen:

****ing awful film. Takes a great novel and then takes away all the subtleties that made it great.Also,the acting is paper thin and the violence is overindulgent(There wasn't half this much violence in the book and several of the fights scenes which lasted about a page in the book are expanded into large two to five min battles.).The opening montage is the only good thing about this. I am so glad I didn't sit through this in the theater, I think I would have left.

A great film,But this depressed the **** out of me. It's got a great epic scope and it's so well done,But it takes so much out of you that by the end you are just emotionally drained and don't want to watch it again.

I'd agree with a lot of what you said about Synechdoche, except about the use of the word "great".

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Crank

Yeah, Chopping (Pinching?) Mall isn't really good. The head explosion and that whole chase, plus the bit where the guy crashes that stupid little truck into the spinning robot (and immediately dies) were the high points for me.

Any thoughts on Wes Craven's Shocker? I saw some screenshots from it recently and I think I might watch it tonight.

Departures 2009

A very simple movie that takes it's time moving forward , not really much to say beyond that. Offers some interesting views on Japanese culture and this traditional ceremony known as encoffinment.





Clerks 1994

Hilarious , moving , and original.





Sonatine 1993

What starts as a gangster picture eventually grows into a much larger picture. Kitano paces his films in a very calm rhythmic matter but then will slap you in the face with something really chilling. A joy to watch every time.

Public Enemies (2009 - Michael Mann)

Body of Lies (2008 - Ridley Scott)

Revolutionary Road (2008 - Sam Mendes)

Blood Diamond (2006 - Edward Zwick)

Hot Fuzz (2007 - Edgar Wright)

Skins (2002 - Chris Eyre)

Imprint (2007 - Michael Linn)

The Last of the Mohicans (1992 - Michael Mann)

__________________

Aw i loved The Condemned...

anyway

Jerry Maguire 1996 -

Kids that cute shouldn't be allowed to exist unless everyone can have one But it was a really great movie, Tom Cruise was really likeable and so was Renee Zelwegger because she was younger and less obnoxious It felt kind of long in places but overall it was great

On the Waterfront 1954 -

I loved it. The entire movie just clicked really well with me and i'd watch it again in an instant. Marlon Brando was amazing.

Groundhog Day 1993 -

This is one of those movies that changed the way i thought for the rest of the day. It was super cutesy which i have to be in the mood for. And i was so it worked.


The Third Man 1949 -

The last half hour was really awesome and the entire sequence in the sewers. I really liked how a ton of the shots weren't right side up, the city shots were all slanted and it made it look really cool especially since everyone was lying!

Starship Troopers - 1997

It was such a fun watch. I actually lol'd a bit and it was so campy and fun! Except one particular death >.> which i was so not okay with and it was COMPLETELY unnecessary. and **** denise richards.

Das Boot 1981 -

A very great movie! I've noticed about myself that i like really epic things and this would be one of them. Three and a half hours long and filmed in a cramped submarine and still it held my attention the entire time. And i really liked the captain...yeah.

Annie Hall 1977 -



It was super funny Woody Allen humor. The only reason i didn't give it five stars is just because i find all of the dysfunctional relationships in Allen's movies somewhat exhausting sometimes but the dialogue was great and hilarious. Sleeper is still my favorite Allen film just because i think it focuses on comedy more than plot which i enjoyed. And it was just a completely different type of comedy.

The Fifth Element 1997 -



It was a lot less of a serious movie than i thought it would be. It was really jokey (if you get what i mean) and had a sort of colorful kiddish style to it which i wasn't expecting but yeah i really enjoyed it as i do with pretty much anything Bruce Willis is in. And Chris Tucker was hilarious and i always love Milla Jovovich oh and Gary Oldman being the bad guy again never fails.

Duck, You Sucker a.k.a. Fistful of Dynamite 1971 -



I'm getting thoroughly depressed that i only have one more Sergio Leone movie to watch (Once Upon a Time in America) He always provides me with some of the best movie watching experiences ever. This wasn't as good as Good, the Bad and the Ugly or Once Upon a Time in the West but i'm giving it five stars anyway because i loved it a lot. It seemed a bit long when it was getting towards the end but i forgave it and i absolutely loved James Coburn as i always do. He pulls off gray hair very well

Dead Alive 1992 -



That baby was the funniest thing i've ever seen in my life! I watched the entire park scene again (with Igor) because it was so hilarious. This and Bad Taste are tied, they're both actually very different movies...but so similar at the same time...but it seems like a semi different brand of humor and i like them both. And now i have The Frighteners coming to me in the mail

The Cat Returns 2002 -



I would have been obsessed with this as a child because i'm obsessed with cats and it had very childish humor. It was a good movie but it was missing some of that magic quality that makes Miyasaki's movies so enjoyable for adults as well as kids.

Wow i've watched a really mixed crop of movies lately...

Sorry all my ratings are really high...I just do them based on how much fun i had while watching the movie

Role Models


I've already watched this movie three times in the last week, which shows just how much I like it. You could be forgiven for thinking this is another Judd Apatow flick, it does have a lot of the actors he uses such as Rudd, Banks, Jane Lynch and of course Christopher Mintz-Plasse (a.k.a Mclovin). It also has the same sort of raunchy dirty humour that Apatow flicks have whilst having a softer more caring side as well.

The movie is about two energy drinks salesmen, Danny and Wheeler who are given the chance to avoid jail time and do community service after going on a semi rampage whilst leaving a school where they go to promote their drinks.

Their community service is with Sturdy Wings, an organisation aimed at getting adults to help children. Danny is partnered up with Augie, a quintessential nerd who's passion in life is LAIRE, a fantasy game where people dress up like elves and dwarfs and “fight” each other. Wheeler on the other hand is put with Ronny, a potty mouthed and sex obsessed 10 year old who no other “big” has been able to cope with for more than a day. If they don't complete their 150 hours of service, the two main characters face jail time.


Seann William Scott and Paul Rudd have a great chemistry in the movie and their wit and comedic timing is hilarious. I particularly enjoyed how both of them are constantly questioning everything said by the head of Sturdy Wings, played by Jane Lynch, who is an ex cokehead. Mintz-Plasse and Bobb'e J.Thompson are the both brilliant in this movie, I don't think I've ever seen a 10 year old kid use as many profanities as Thompson does in this movie. Lynch is also very funny and strange in her role.

The humour in this movie is pretty standard and is nothing new, but there are a large number of quotable lines and on repeat viewings, the movie is still funny which can't be said of all comedies. Lines like “now the get out of jail free card, is that based on something real?” had me in splits of laughter. A lot of lines in the movie are homophobic and racist yet it is done in such a way that I don't believe it is offensive at all.

Credit must be given to director David Wain who takes a formula we've seen many many times before and makes it something memorable.

Role Models isn't as good as Superbad but it is one of the best non-Apatow movie I've seen in recent times. It is a movie that will appeal to a fairly large audience and if you did like movies like Knocked Up and Superbad, I recommend you check it out.

This statement is completely backwards. The original source material was never a warm character study, far from it, but a cold and clinical look at what actual superheroes might be like, from an uncompromising viewpoint. the inclusion of the side stories should drive the point home that this work is a philosophical dive into a collection of myths that were previously thought of as "for children only".

Also, your statement completely contradicts itself within just a few sentences. You talk about Snyder being perhaps the worst director working today, but just a few sentences later, you target the writing and acting as the problem with the film, applauding it's visual style. In reality, the film just has minor quibbles in these areas. Ackerman is arguably weak, and Goode misplays Ozymandias, but overall, most of the performances are acceptable, with Haley knocking it right out of the park.

This is what irk's me - One minute, people are insisting that the adaptation needs to be completely accurate, sacrificing nothing in the transition to film, and then they turn around and sxlay the thing for having issues with cinematic flow or something.

Meanwhile...the writing is bad??? It's almost word for word in the dialogue department, and for the most part, the flick is blocked almost exactly like the comic, with the obvious omissions of the newsstand etc.

Really, I just have a problem with two things in the film. The silly sex scene, and the WAY over-the-top prison escape. Other than that, it was damn well done.

__________________

Got round to joining Blockbuster in my new town and so...

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
- Sadly nothing to do with The Thin Man. Had a discussion with Mr. Next about this afterwards. He said that small flaws in a rom-com type film can be overlooked if you are convinced enough by the sweetness of the film. Which I suppose is true (explain otherwise the presence of Strictly Ballroom and Latter Days in my top films). And with this one he was convinced, I wasn't. Ok, so it's a step up from your standard glossy teen film. It at least tried for a kind of indie sensibility. But it was still too glossy for me, and there was still a serving of gross-out humour and keep-missing-each-other farce which made me roll my eyes. For those unfamiliar with the film Michael Cera (best known from the not entirely dissimilar in some ways Juno) plays Nick, hung up on his bitchy ex, who bumps into her school-mate Norah, who just happens to think the mix tapes he keeps sending his ex are great and they spend the whole film traipsing round an improbable New York so small they keep bumping into other characters, where even an extremely drunk girl can wander around alone without fear of being attacked, and there are apparently no driving laws (such as having a license, insurance or seatbelt). 3/5

Repo! The Genetic Opera
Some kind of brilliant. If your idea of brilliant is people dressed in fetish gear running around cutting each other up. And singing. Repo! is first and foremost a musical with a horror setting, not a horror film (as the guy in Blockbuster felt the need to point out, perhaps they'd had people complain about the singing). The plot is a classic operatic tale of family secrets, old feuds and murder. It is knowingly, deliberately theatrical. Anthony Stewart Head stands out as the concerned father of a sick daughter who has a double life as the Repo man, repossessing the organs of people who haven't kept up their payments to Paul Sorvino's evil Geneco for their surgery. The two main problems are that the songs are not over-memorable, at least not on a first viewing, and that it descends a couple of times into blatantly teen-orientated cheese. It keeps its tongue in its cheek throughout, however, and I can't imagine this not becoming a cult classic. 4/5

I thought the novel was very large in scope but the characters were at the center , where as the movie doesn't really seem to care about them. Many scenes which further support the character's reasons and behaviors were cut to allow for longer action scenes and none of the really important scenes were executed properly in the film.

The conversation between Laurie and Manhattan on Mars was pretty dull , the relationship between Laurie and Dreiberg didn't feel the least bit actual , the emphasis on nuclear war and Ozymandias were much more exaggerated and obvious where in the book they more back thoughts.

One of the few parts that actually felt like I thought they should have was John's backstory and how he became Manhattan - probably because it was so cold and detached from humanity (which is how all of Snyder's films feel to me).