Well, that's one way to get a bunch of positive (if not exactly literate) blurbs for your film.

I didn't hate Cloverfield, but I wasn't wowed by it either.

I found my original post-screening thoughts in Movies 6 and most of it is bitching about the NYC details they got wrong.

Jessica, the subway stuff drove me CRAZY. And your points about the found footage premise are exactly right. It was an interesting exercise in some ways, but character-wise I ... was happy everyone died. So.

Tonight we've got Blindness. Anyone see it? Don't spoil me, though!

I only caught about half of Watchmen. The first scene, a few through the middle and the last 45 minutes. I thought what they kept was perfect and what they changed needed to be changed. Right actors, right set deisgners, right costumers. I swear some actors they just sucked right out of the comic book. At one point I realized I was sitting in a theatre watching this movie and I felt a little overwhelmed. Something has happened that, for most of the last 20 years, I was sure would never ever happen. Then I realized what a silly fangirl I was being and got over it.

Harry Potter trailer

I'll admit that the Cloverfield characters were generally Too Stupid To Live, but since I run into people like that every day it didn't seem that farfetched to me.

I run into those people every day also, but I like to think they wouldn't survive an event like that. Or at least I'd like to get the joy of seeing them eaten, in return for my $10.

ION, Viggo Mortensen nonwithstanding, Appaloosa is not a good movie.

Viggo Mortensen nonwithstanding, Appaloosa is not a good movie.

Yeah, it's not a horrible way to get through an afternoon, but completely forgettable afterwards. It's hard finding movies that Dad likes, though, so it was worth going to see it with him. (He's a John Wayne buff and loves old-fashioned Westerns, so he's very forgiving of films with quality issues, as long as they feature horses and terse men with guns.)

Roger Ebert gives Watchmen four stars:

I didn't think the review was spoilery for the movie; not even really for the book (which it appears he hasn't read). His final paragraph:

I’m not sure I understood all the nuances and implications, but I am sure I had a powerful experience. It’s not as entertaining as “The Dark Knight,” but like the “Matrix” films, LOTR and “The Dark Knight,” it’s going to inspire fevered analysis. I don’t want to see it twice for that reason, however, but mostly just to have the experience again.

I'm sorry Ebert has lost his voice, but I'm very glad he still has his mind, his fingers, and the Internet.

So I saw the movie tonight. I did indeed feel like I missed some stuff by not reading the graphic novel first. I enjoyed the movie and would call it "good" (like about a 3/3.5 out of 5). I enjoyed Spiderman 2 better, but Watchmen is definitely better than Spidey 3 or Xmen 3.

The scene that Jessica referenced above with the music accompaniment made me laugh out loud in the theater, but I actually think that the director intended the scene to be that cheesy.

The main thing that I felt I was missing is the characters' motivations. I do not (for the life of me) understand what was going through the mind of Ozymandias with his final solution. How had he come to the conclusion that this was the only way to save humankind? And did he really think this was a permanent solution? Beau had to explain to me that the point of Moore's novel is to point out that superheroes aren't fun people to be around and that their way of looking at the world was fundamentally flawed. I now get that, but I'm not sure the movie made this point particularly well.

Can I just say there was a whole lot of blue penis action? I was shocked. Damn. Overall, I was entertained by the movie. I didn't laugh as much as most of the people in the theater. I found the violence really gross most of the time. I thought it was over the top, but again I think that was the director's point.