Quis Custodiet Ipso Custodes?

I forgot in my post yesterday to also mention I saw "Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D." The fact that I forgot to mention it might hint that the movie is sort of forgettable, and that may be true, but I also really enjoyed it. Like "Speed Racer" earlier this year, this is the sort of movie that makes you feel like a little kid again.
The movie is certainly cheesy, but cheesy in all the right ways. The 3-D is totally used as a gimmick all the way through, but exactly the sort of thrill ride gimmick that makes the little kids in the seats next to you go "WHOA" over and over again. My personal favorite bits involved sharp-toothed fish jumping right at your face, T. Rex drool dripping at the camera, and Brendan Fraser brushing his teeth and spitting at you.
Also, I have to hand it to them, for a movie with such a ridiculous premise handled with such silliness, they actually got a lot of the geology right. It was obvious that a geology consultant was aboard for the movie, and kudos to them for getting one. I always applaud movies when they make an effort to get some of the science right, even when the movie is clearly based around spectacle and little else.
For example, Brendan Fraser's character mentions that diamonds, rubies, and other rare gems are often found in areas of high volcanic pressure. He's right! The mineral muscovite, which I've NEVER heard mentioned in a movie before, actually is used as a plot device twice! And it indeed comes in thin and glassy sheets, as shown here. I'm also pretty sure that magnesium indeed does explode when ignited by fire. Finally, this is the first movie I've seen that even goes to the trouble to mention "feldspar" at least once. Not a bad bit of science for a film that is essentially nothing more than an extended amusement park ride.
I've always thought that cheesiness, when handled with the right amount of self-awareness, can be loads of fun. Examples are abound in sections of the first two "Spider-Man" movies and the first two "Mummy" movies, also with Brendan Fraser (though I frankly think "Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" looks like it's going to be a big stinker). And I think "Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D" can be added on to the list of fun little kid pleasures of 2008. I may actually have enjoyed it more than "Speed Racer," and that's saying something!

Now that I've got that out of the way, I want to bitch a bit about the newest "Watchmen" trailer, which you can see here. Without a doubt, this is a cool trailer, but I'm quite worried. I think Zach Snyder is a talented director, but after seeing the trailer, I think he may be WAY to green to handle "Watchmen," arguably the greatest comic book ever written.
Zach Snyder has currently done two features, both of which were pretty solid. I actually thought his "Dawn of the Dead" was a better, more dramatic movie than "300," but it's his second movie that certainly got more attention from audiences. Indeed, Snyder did capture the "300" graphic novel pretty well, but that's mostly because Frank Miller's "300" is little more than superficial man-posing anyway. Snyder's experience with commercials served him well in that adaptation.
But "Watchmen" deserves a hell of a lot more than just a bunch of shots that look super neat. Without a doubt, Snyder mostly has nailed the look of the comic. But for the most part, the trailer just looks really "cool" and not much else. Granted, that is the POINT of a trailer, but it still has me on edge. When I read the book, I felt "Watchmen" would need to be a movie that stayed busy in order to deliver all the information it contained. And yet, the trailer shows so much slow-mo that I'm wondering how they're going to cram it all in if this is their approach. We already know how much Snyder likes drawn out slow motion action scenes after seeing "300." But is that what "Watchmen" needs? I don't think so.
"Watchmen" needs that heavy gravitas that comes from superb dialogue and, more importantly, superb acting to deliver those fantastic words by Alan Moore. I'm not trying to sell the screenwriters short; it's just that Alan Moore has already delivered all the excellent dialogue you need. But "Watchmen" isn't about just delivering a bunch of cool lines. It's about the weight and meaning behind all those lines. I'm not sure Zach Snyder knows how to handle that yet.
And going with a bunch of unknown actors is a risky choice. I actually tend to like unknown actors in big budget movies because they often allow you not to have any preconceived notions about the characters when they appear onscreen. It worked great for Brandon Routh in "Superman Returns." He was an unknown who easily upstaged Kate Bosworth, and maybe even Kevin Spacey, because he so perfectly captured the naivete and untainted purity of Superman (which is ironic, because that movie was all about how Clark Kent knocked up Lois Lane...but whatever, that's another argument).
Still, most unknown actors are also inexperienced actors, whether you like to admit it or not. And to get good performances from inexperienced actors, you really need to be an actor's director. And I don't think Zach Snyder is. He's getting close, but I don't think he's there yet. Directing "Watchmen" this early in his career as a director might be a bit presumptuous of him.
I know, I know...it's just a teaser trailer, and it's WAY to early to say how the movie will turn out. However, as I said before, "Watchmen" IS the greatest comic book ever written, and the movie deserves to be something special, not just another Hollywood blockbuster. Here's hoping my fears are unwarranted, and I can look back on this post sometime next year and laugh about how nervous I was.
I do like the use of the Smashing Pumpkins song though!