I know the critics don’t like it but both Louise and I did. I was surprised to see it currently rates 8 out of 10 on IMDb. It’s certainly long, perhaps too long. It is the most faithful adaptation of a book I’ve ever witnessed. I kind of agree with those critics who say perhaps it’s too reverent. Just like the book, though, if you like it you’ll want to go back and see what you missed and immerse yourself in the world.

Speaking of which, I finished my re-read of the book on the same day I saw the film and my admiration has only gone up. It’s not without its faults — some of which I think they tried to address in the film — but it is an amazingly intricate piece of storytelling.

So what’s all the fuss about Watchmen for anyway? Well, if you’ve ever wondered what the fuss about comics was or what makes one turn into a graphic novel, then this is the place to start. Read it and you’ll realise how much you know and love in modern “super hero” films is owed to it.

And that’s not all. It’s not like looking at pictures, it’s not like reading a book. Your brain has to operate on two tracks simultaneously. As you read the words you have to independently absorb what’s going on in the pictures and not let the narrative carry you away. This is because there’s so much important detail going on in the background that isn’t related to the words but is part of the story. Not infrequently the narrative will be accompanied by a different picture story but one that parallels the words.

When I first read it late last year it was unlike anything I’d read/seen before. If I have one piece of advice on Watchmen, it would be to take your time and digest every frame. On which note, I’m off to start re-reading it right now…

The trailer does look good. My problem is with the name. I was going to complain that the plural of quantum is quanta but that’s the wrong way round. The real issue with Quantum of Solace is that it’s far too close to The Phantom Menace and we all know how that turned out.

If its core arguments are sound then the message will survive. The arguments’ scientific basis is sound. The High Court ruling only requires nine errors to be highlighted and for teachers to explain the political context — hardly a bad thing in itself.

Do we have to accept messages entirely without question because someone influential says they are important? I’m glad that important ideas such as climate change are held up to scrutiny because it makes it that much harder for self interested, short sighted politicians like Bush to deny.

And the film? Well, in genre terms it’s a sci-fi thriller/actioner. It’s definitely towards the “harder” end of sci-fi, think 2001 or Alien. It’s got the confined feel of those films too and from the interview I picked up that this was a concious choice. In places I was worried that it was going to veer towards the mindless chase-me-chase-me-blood-and-gore of something like Event Horizon but thankfully these elements of the film are kept in proportion. It was only as we discussed the film afterwards that Mr Estall and I began to appreciate how clever and different the writing really is; some of this can easily pass you buy as you are pulled along by the compelling story.
The visuals are a treat and there are some striking stylistic choices made that raises this film above the norm. If you decide to see this intelligent action flick I’d recommend finding the biggest screen you can.

Suggestions for classic films for the first meeting are welcome. A good working definition of “classic” is if you tell someone you haven’t seen film X and they reply, “You haven’t seen X?!”. So for me, that would include The Godfather and The Shining.

1. Raiders — 1pm
2. Temple of Doom — 4pm
3. Last Crusade — 7pm

Turn up when you can for as long as you can. Crash a film midway if you must, just ignore my scowls.

Fedoras and bullwhips optional, comedy names mandatory. The rules for the comedy names are as follows: Replace your own first name with an American state name. Bonus marks if it starts with the same letter as your first name or alliterates. I’ll be Arkansas Smith.

We’ll provide dinner, somehow. Bring your own booze and nibbles, e.g. bad dates.

Louise and I got to the cinema about 5 minutes before the film started, thankfully with pre-bought tickets in hand. Due to Orange Wednesdays the place was rammed and we were uncomfortably close to the front and off to the side. It reminded me of going to see Four Weddings where I was in the leftmost, frontmost seat. Ouch.

Anyway, enough of the situational ramblings. We both enjoyed the film and I think it is improved as much by what is left out as what is put in. Particularly the jettisoning of much of the Bond paraphernalia that has grown up around the series. Recent films had acquired a touch of the pantomime where you know most of the shape of the film before you even sit down. Listen up 007, this is a watch. Oh yes it is! Oh no it isn’t! Ah, Miss Thinly Veiled Double Entendre, I’ve been expecting you. He’s behind you!

In the opening (post-credit) chase scene my hackles started to rise: When is climbing up a crane ever a good idea as an escape route? But as soon as I saw the parkour action I couldn’t help but smile. I’ve wondered for a couple of years what it would be like to use parkour stunts in a film; answer: good!

From that point on the film had me engaged almost throughout. I thought the running commentary on the poker game a little heavy handed. Look! It is the tell! He is bluffing. Yes, thanks, James already explained that not two minutes ago. Stupid test audiences!

The humor, too, was much better. And so on… lots of other people have raved more articulately about the obvious improvements. My few gripes above aside, it was a good film. They’ll make a packet. Yes, James Bond will certainly be back.

End note: A quick plug for Firefox 2. The built-in spell checker certainly made writing this post a lot easier. Or a least less embarrassing when I got “paraphernalia” wrong.

(Another aside: The wind started to pick up a few minutes ago and blew over some of our milk bottles, so Louise and I have had a fun time crawling under our cars with torch and broom. Not feeling so tired right now.)

We’re planning to go and see Casino Royale on Wednesday evening. Tim W seems to rate it; Mark less so. I’m still hoping to see The Prestige, given it’s relation to Batman Begins and Tim S’ recommendation. However, I don’t think our babysitter quota will stretch far enough. So, Tim, it’s not Borat but can I interest you in some Bond? (I was going to write Bondage there but I hear double entendres went out with Brosnan.)