<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Watchmen</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.moviezeal.com/watchmen/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.moviezeal.com/watchmen/</link>
	<description>The official podcast of MovieZeal.com, where film is always best discussed under the gentle influence of fine wine (as fine as $10 will get you). Each week Evan, Heather, and Luke pick a theme, discuss a theatrical release based on that theme, pop the cork and drink a wine that fits said theme, and finally subject one another to The Gauntlet, where forcing others to watch painful films nets you fabulous prizes. There is not anything else on the internets like it (literally).</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:54:17 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Film-Book dot Com</title>
		<link>http://www.moviezeal.com/watchmen/comment-page-1/#comment-89798</link>
		<dc:creator>Film-Book dot Com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:21:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moviezeal.com/?p=2252#comment-89798</guid>
		<description>Nice review Demme. The parts of this film were certainly better than its whole.

Having not read the 12-part comic series Demme, you will be more satisfied when you sit down to read it.

I also agree with your theory of less is more in reference to the violence in the film.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice review Demme. The parts of this film were certainly better than its whole.</p>
<p>Having not read the 12-part comic series Demme, you will be more satisfied when you sit down to read it.</p>
<p>I also agree with your theory of less is more in reference to the violence in the film.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luke Harrington</title>
		<link>http://www.moviezeal.com/watchmen/comment-page-1/#comment-87913</link>
		<dc:creator>Luke Harrington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:01:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moviezeal.com/?p=2252#comment-87913</guid>
		<description>(Thanks!)

You make a fair point, Rick, and I can&#039;t really argue. I guess what I was trying to get at was that far too many superhero pictures try to have it both ways. They want to be in-your-face with their grittiness, but they still want to be shiny, fun, and not overly transgressive -- to make sure that they remain palatable to the masses, and thus fulfill their bottom-line obligations. They also seem blissfully unaware of the fact that a film about a guy in a rubber suit is inherently silly, and thus can never be truly gritty on the level of, for instance, a Wilder noir.

That&#039;s why I have to give &lt;i&gt;Watchmen&lt;/i&gt; at least a little bit of credit. It wasn&#039;t trying overly hard (or even at all) to be palatable to the masses -- it was a sick, twisted film about sick, twisted people who did sick, twisted things to each other. The most effective scene (aside from the opening montage, of course) was, in my opinion, the part where Rorschach threw hot grease on one of his fellow prisoners. It established his character as some sort of pathetic inversion of a Nietzschean Ubermensch. If they had just implied it, it hardly would have had the same impact -- we may have gotten the general idea of what he was capable of, but we wouldn&#039;t have been forced to stare unblinkingly into his soul.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(Thanks!)</p>
<p>You make a fair point, Rick, and I can&#8217;t really argue. I guess what I was trying to get at was that far too many superhero pictures try to have it both ways. They want to be in-your-face with their grittiness, but they still want to be shiny, fun, and not overly transgressive &#8212; to make sure that they remain palatable to the masses, and thus fulfill their bottom-line obligations. They also seem blissfully unaware of the fact that a film about a guy in a rubber suit is inherently silly, and thus can never be truly gritty on the level of, for instance, a Wilder noir.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s why I have to give <i>Watchmen</i> at least a little bit of credit. It wasn&#8217;t trying overly hard (or even at all) to be palatable to the masses &#8212; it was a sick, twisted film about sick, twisted people who did sick, twisted things to each other. The most effective scene (aside from the opening montage, of course) was, in my opinion, the part where Rorschach threw hot grease on one of his fellow prisoners. It established his character as some sort of pathetic inversion of a Nietzschean Ubermensch. If they had just implied it, it hardly would have had the same impact &#8212; we may have gotten the general idea of what he was capable of, but we wouldn&#8217;t have been forced to stare unblinkingly into his soul.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick Olson</title>
		<link>http://www.moviezeal.com/watchmen/comment-page-1/#comment-86957</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick Olson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:55:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moviezeal.com/?p=2252#comment-86957</guid>
		<description>Joe, I tend to agree ... never having read the book, I had to judge it as a film, and it fell pretty short in my book.

And I don&#039;t think graphic-violence can be equated with grit.  Just ask Billy Wilder or John Huston or any Welles or any director of classic noir (for example), who managed to be plenty gritty.  If &quot;Batman Returns&quot; wasn&#039;t gritty it wasn&#039;t because it wasn&#039;t graphically violent, it was just a lousy movie.  I&#039;m with Joe: graphic violence is a lazy way of acquiring what a weak script and anemic direction -- both in evidence in &quot;Watchmen&quot; -- doesn&#039;t provide.

(Good to see you all back, Luke!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joe, I tend to agree &#8230; never having read the book, I had to judge it as a film, and it fell pretty short in my book.</p>
<p>And I don&#8217;t think graphic-violence can be equated with grit.  Just ask Billy Wilder or John Huston or any Welles or any director of classic noir (for example), who managed to be plenty gritty.  If &#8220;Batman Returns&#8221; wasn&#8217;t gritty it wasn&#8217;t because it wasn&#8217;t graphically violent, it was just a lousy movie.  I&#8217;m with Joe: graphic violence is a lazy way of acquiring what a weak script and anemic direction &#8212; both in evidence in &#8220;Watchmen&#8221; &#8212; doesn&#8217;t provide.</p>
<p>(Good to see you all back, Luke!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luke Harrington</title>
		<link>http://www.moviezeal.com/watchmen/comment-page-1/#comment-85469</link>
		<dc:creator>Luke Harrington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:13:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moviezeal.com/?p=2252#comment-85469</guid>
		<description>I tend to agree. The film was, from what I hear, a success in terms of translating the novel to the screen -- but simply as a film, it wasn&#039;t much of anything. It felt long, bloated, full of itself and purposeless. It also didn&#039;t help that it came out more than two decades after the comic, now that the &quot;superheroes -- but GRITTY superheroes!!!&quot; shtick that it (admittedly) invented has been done to death.

That said, I have to disagree with you, at least to a point, regarding the violence. To me it felt a little bit refreshing to see a film that took the &quot;gritty superheroes&quot; thing to its natural conclusion. After seeing the wishy-washy &quot;OMG WE&#039;RE SO GRITTY, BUT WE STILL NEED A PG-13 RATING&quot; blandness of the &lt;i&gt;The Dark Knight&lt;/i&gt; (*ducks, lest there are any Batman fans reading*), this felt refreshingly honest to me. There were moments when it was over-the-top to the point of feeling pornographic, but at the same time, that felt true to its world.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I tend to agree. The film was, from what I hear, a success in terms of translating the novel to the screen &#8212; but simply as a film, it wasn&#8217;t much of anything. It felt long, bloated, full of itself and purposeless. It also didn&#8217;t help that it came out more than two decades after the comic, now that the &#8220;superheroes &#8212; but GRITTY superheroes!!!&#8221; shtick that it (admittedly) invented has been done to death.</p>
<p>That said, I have to disagree with you, at least to a point, regarding the violence. To me it felt a little bit refreshing to see a film that took the &#8220;gritty superheroes&#8221; thing to its natural conclusion. After seeing the wishy-washy &#8220;OMG WE&#8217;RE SO GRITTY, BUT WE STILL NEED A PG-13 RATING&#8221; blandness of the <i>The Dark Knight</i> (*ducks, lest there are any Batman fans reading*), this felt refreshingly honest to me. There were moments when it was over-the-top to the point of feeling pornographic, but at the same time, that felt true to its world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.450 seconds -->
