Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Criticwatch - Ben Lyons watches the Watchmen, but who watches Ben Lyons?

You think I'm tough on Ben Lyons? Erik Childress at Criticwatch tears apart the latest episode of At the Movies without ever mentioning the "JoBros". Erik starts by quoting Lyons on Watchmen:

And it seems like this is going to be the one film we're gonna see of this franchise. It wasn't like Zack Snyder was trying to setup the sequel. I really appreciate that.


Erik continues:

But any Watchmen fanatic reading the Quote of the Week will tell you that Alan Moore's seminal graphic novel is completely and totally a self-contained story. It's not a comic book series. It's NOT a franchise like Batman, Superman or Spider-Man. The 12 issues released between 1986 and 1987 are now purchased as a complete novel and that is the basis for Snyder's 162-minute epic.

MANKIEWICZ: We'll there's not the source material for a sequel.
LYONS: Exactly.


But my favorite part is Erik's presumed checklist that Lyons uses when rating movies.

BEN LYONS' RATING CHART

_____ 1. I didn't fall asleep, so it entertained me.
_____ 2. It looks like an Oscar movie.
_____ 3. Made me shut off my texting machine.
_____ 4. Hey, that dude took a picture with me.
_____ 5. It's just like the cool trailer


That's just the top five. Click here to read the rest.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh boy. That's like praising the last Lord of the Rings for not leaving room for a sequel! OF COURSE THERE WON'T BE ANOTHER ONE!

Anonymous said...

Here's something I found on Lexis Nexis-


Los Angeles Times

December 28, 2008 Sunday
Home Edition

Ebert's reminders about a critic's ethics

BYLINE: Chris Lee

SECTION: SUNDAY CALENDAR; Calendar Desk; Part E; Pg. 5

LENGTH: 303 words


Pulitzer Prize-winning movie critic Roger Ebert declined to comment for this article on Ben Lyons. But he seemed to have had Lyons specifically in mind when he wrote a recent post on his Chicago Sun-Times blog titled "Roger's Little Rule Book." It lays down "enduring ethical ground rules" governing movie criticism. Among them:

"No posing for photos! Never ask a movie star to pose with you for a picture . . . . . . You diminish yourself by asking for a snapshot."

"A trailer is not a movie." (Lyons urged viewers to see the romantic thriller "Twilight" based on its trailer.)

"Accept no favors. For example, if some 'friends' throw you a birthday party at a Vegas joint they hope to fill with movie stars who are your 'friends,' say thanks, but no thanks. That crosses the line, even if the 'Britney Spears
Enhanced Coverage LinkingBritney Spears -Search using:
Biographies Plus News
News, Most Recent 60 Days
of Korea' truly is your close personal friend." (In October, Lyons celebrated his 27th birthday at Las Vegas nightclub Body English with a party attended by a number of C-grade celebrities including, you guessed it, BoA Kwon, who is sometimes identified as "the Britney Spears Enhanced Coverage LinkingBritney Spears -Search using:
Biographies Plus News
News, Most Recent 60 Days
of Korea.")

"Keep track of your praise. If you call a movie 'one of the greatest movies ever made,' you are honor-bound to include it in your annual Top Ten list. Likewise, for example, if you describe a film as 'the most unique movie-going experience of a generation,' and 'one of the best films of 2007, and of the last 25 years,' it's your duty to put it in the Top Ten of 2007." (The quotes come from Lyons' appraisal of "300," which he then neglected to include on his year-end list.)

Ebert saves the best for next to last: "Never allow IMDB to describe your principal acting credit as 'co-host of Siskel and Ebert' if you are neither Siskel nor Ebert." (The Internet Movie Data Base indeed lists Lyons as co-host of the defunct show.)


Man, the LATimes really has it in for Lyons, don't they? What class Ebert showed to decline to comment.

Anonymous said...

This is what annoys me when there is an adaptation to the screen. Some critics do not even bother looking at the source material. Case in point: Tim Burton's Batman movies are completely praised like God's gift but every person who ever read a Batman comic book could not believe what he did to the source material. Giving any back story to the joker that was looked more like something from Dragnet than in any attempt by DC comics like Frank Miller or Alan Moore giving a Joker backstory was completely stupid. Just like even though I liked Benjamin Button I did not see any reason for Eric Roth completely modernizing the source material that completely was only F. Scott Fitzgerald in name.

Erik Childress said...

Yeah, except Lyons claims he's on his second reading of the graphic novel. Which makes him extra stupid.