Is This a Bad Sign?

Earlier this week, Ain't It Cool News had all the casting news surrounding The Watchmen. I've been following this because I liked the book and think it could potentially be a very important comic book adaptation, but I'm not super excited about the movie, so I haven't felt the need to comment on it. I pretty much think all the casting choices are pretty good. I was mostly intrigued by Keanu Reeves as Dr. Manhattan, but he turned it down and Jason Patric became the frontrunner. Whatever. He's good too (though AICN mentioned that they "flirted with" Billy Crudup for the part, and if I had to choose from the three of them which one I would like to see naked and painted blue, it would be him). It just wasn't something I gave much thought to.

Then, today, I was reading EW.com's 25 Worst Sequels Ever Made and I got to number 9. I'm starting to think going for Patric when they can't get Reeves is a bad omen, because that movie was unwatchable. Hopefully, everything will be OK as long as they don't get Sandra Bullock to play Sally Jupiter.

As for who's going to play The Comedian, of all the names floating around, I think Gerard Butler is the best choice. Ron Pealman is good; the AICN article hints that Thomas Jane is the frontrunner, and I always think casting him is a good idea; but Butler kind of creeps me out, even though I think he's really good looking. Dude just seems crazy.

On an unrelated note, I saw a commercial for the re-release of Blade Runner last night. How sad is it that this was the most interesting and attention grabbing ad I have seen for a movie in years? Sure I want to see Live Free or Die Hard, and Transformers is surprisingly cool looking, but that Blade Runner made me like the movie was going to be something unlike anything I'd seen before, and I've seen the movie before. Or maybe it was just Rutger Hauer drawing me in.