*Please continue pre-hype discussions in the already bustling threads:
Box Office Predictions (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/550450-box-office-predictions-watchmen-6.html)
Zach Snyder Talks Watchmen (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/495864-zack-snyder-talks-watchmen-37.html)
**Please do not post unless you have seen the movie or you have anything relevant to a review.
notvandnobeer
03-02-09, 12:09 AM
Got to see the film at an advance screening on Imax this past Friday at Wondercon. Dave Gibbons came out before the film and sort of introduced it, then he watched the movie with the rest of us. I personally loved the film and feel that it was extremely faithful and I was surprised how much Snyder actually got in there. I didn't mind the lack of the squid because the tone and meaning of the ending were there. Overall, no complaints from me because I can accept that this was an adaptation and not a replacement for the comic. One more thing, I heard some people complaining about Rorshach's voice as being to similar to Batman's voice in the Dark Knight. I say whatever to that. It didn't bother me in the Dark Knight and it didn't bother me with Watchmen. I thought Haley was fantastic and the end with him and Manhattan was incredible. I'm going to go see it again on Friday and encourage any fans of the comic to check it out.
Solid Snake PAC
03-02-09, 12:23 AM
So...in a comic book movie scale..where does it stand?
Elpresidentepez
03-02-09, 12:24 AM
I went to the same wondercon screening and I enjoyed the heck out of the flick. It was very faithful to the Graphic Novel, there were some minor changes and one major change (the squids not there get over it.) I gave it four and a half stars, but I probably should have given it four. My only complaint was while each scene was very close to the graphic novel they left out enough sequences that each character's arc felt rushed, and some. I'm looking forward to seeing it again this weekend. Like the novel I plan on revisiting it several times.
Elpresidentepez
03-02-09, 12:27 AM
So...in a comic book movie scale..where does it stand?
Just from my sleepless convention haze, I would put it slightly below the Dark Knight. That might change after more thought. I think the director's cut could place it far above TDK.
edit: I could also be in a Phantom Menace type of denial...but my heart says no.
Solid Snake PAC
03-02-09, 01:16 AM
wow.
Suprmallet
03-02-09, 02:15 AM
I will post my thoughts after I see it tomorrow night.
notvandnobeer
03-02-09, 09:27 AM
So...in a comic book movie scale..where does it stand?
I will probably have a better feeling for where it stands after I see it again on Friday, but I put it just below Dark Knight which is my favorite comic book movie. To be fair though, Watchmen has a few things working against it compared to Dark Knight. Since Watchmen is an adaptation of an actual story, I already knew the story and what was going to happen, so there were no real surprises. Dark Knight was certainly influenced by different Batman stories, but was an original story. Plus, Heath Ledger's Joker was the best performance I've ever seen in a comic book movie. This is in no way a slight on Watchmen because it was still damn exciting watching it play out.
Damed
03-02-09, 03:01 PM
The so called "top critics" over at RT who have seen it (all 4 of them) agree.
'dan30oly' must be lumped in with these guys as well, since he apparently saw it and gave it 0 stars. would love to know his thoughts...
The O
03-02-09, 03:41 PM
I will say this about the film: Jackie Earle Haley deserves award consideration as Rorschach. He's terrific.
Bill Gibron
03-02-09, 04:33 PM
I will say this about the film: Jackie Earle Haley deserves award consideration as Rorschach. He's terrific.
Ditto.
:)
BILL
jjcool
03-02-09, 04:36 PM
'dan30oly' & 'jjcool' must be lumped in with these guys as well, since they apparently have seen it and gave it 0 stars. would love to know their thoughts...
Saw it, and just didnt like it. It was as simple as that.
Who gave it 4.5 stars and why?
scott1598
03-02-09, 04:53 PM
Saw it, and just didnt like it. It was as simple as that.
Who gave it 4.5 stars and why?
k. the others posted in this thread with their views.
jjcool
03-02-09, 05:20 PM
k. the others posted in this thread with their views.
I see that others have posted their opinions, but who specifically voted 4.5 stars? I only ask, because you saw fit to post the names of the people that voted 0.
Eric F
03-02-09, 05:23 PM
Yeah, like Gibbons is going to say he dislikes the movie, especially in front of an audience. Not...gonnna...happen.
In any event, if this movie is anywhere near as good as Spidey 2 and TDK, then it will be something amazing.
Lastly, let's keep this thread spoiler free.
maxfisher
03-02-09, 05:28 PM
I see that others have posted their opinions, but who specifically voted 4.5 stars? I only ask, because you saw fit to post the names of the people that voted 0.
Bill Gibron and Elpresidentepez voted 4.5, but you could've seen that yourself. So what elements of the film were so horrible to merit a 0?
jjcool
03-02-09, 05:32 PM
Bill Gibron and Elpresidentepez voted 4.5, but you could've seen that yourself. So what elements of the film were so horrible to merit a 0?
Do you really want a big old thread crap?
Navinabob
03-02-09, 05:55 PM
Some people will like the movie, some will not. I put a little bit more merit in reviewers from certain print magazines and newspapers over the guys at Rotten Tomato due to the fact that the guys at New Yorker probably have an education in film and not just a computer in their mom's garage.
With that said I'll follow a few guys on AICN and trust their opinion because the movies they really liked I had as well, I find that much more relevant then say "MrRobot453" views. Perhaps we should name the last 5 movies we saw and loved and then grade Watchmen. That way if MrRobot453 gives Watchmen an D+ and gave an A to Media Goes to Anything and Paul Blart Mall Cop I'll know that I have nothing in common with that person's opinion and can then discard it.
Kal-El
03-02-09, 06:06 PM
Do you really want a big old thread crap?
I think just expounding on your review a little bit won't be taken as a threadcrap. This is a review thread after all. Good AND Bad. I'm curious as well to think what posters here think about the movie.
scott1598
03-02-09, 06:21 PM
Do you really want a big old thread crap?
expressing your negative opinion about a movie you saw is not in anyway a threadcrap, i don't think. reviews threads will have varying opinions across the board. from the very much like to the very much dislike. expressing reasonable opinions either way is what it is all about and most are interested in all the different views.
jjcool
03-02-09, 06:39 PM
I think just expounding on your review a little bit won't be taken as a threadcrap. This is a review thread after all. Good AND Bad. I'm curious as well to think what posters here think about the movie.
I will try to be as spoiler free as I can here.
Probably the biggest problem that I had with the film was that I hadn't read the comic beforehand. Going into the film I wasn't a fan, and I definitely didnt come out a fan. My guess is that, from reading a couple reviews online, is that if you were a fan of the book you are gonna love the film. Maybe if I had read the comic beforehand, I wouldnt have found alot of what happens in the film to be just off the wall weird. Going into it, I thought I was a comic book movie fan. X-men, spiderman, superman, Ironman, etc. In fact I thought two of the best films last year were The Dark Knight and Ironman, but this was not at all what I was expecting. It isn't your typical Hollywood comic book movie, and for fans of the comic, that is great. But for non-fans, like me, it leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. I have a feeling that this film is going to be huge in its first week, but fall off very rapidly. You need to be a fan of the book to enjoy and fully understand the movie. Alot of backstory that left me saying "huh?" and "what the hell just happened".
Where to start with the acting. Lets start with the good. Jackie Earle Hailey was good. His performance as Rorshach was top notch. You could really tell what was driving him. He almost seemed to be like Batman taken to an extreme.
The Bad: Not necessarily "bad" per se, just not as good as I would have liked. Most of the other main actors. Just didn't seem that believable to me. I know, it's a movie and I should suspend disbelief, but even with that suspension most of the other actors seemed a bit off. Almost like they were trying too hard. I so wanted to be able to say that Jeffrey Dean Morgan rocked this, as he does indeed rock as Big Daddy Winchester, but alas, even his performance fell flat.
The ugly: Malin Akerman. She isnt exactly ugly, but her acting definitely was. At times she was wooden and stiff, and at other times it seemed to me that she was reading off of cue cards. She was definitely the weakest link in this ensemble.
The effects and whatnot. After 300, I was expecting alot more from Zack Snyder. This didnt deliver. I was going into a comic book movie expecting lots of action, and, sure there was some, but the action sequences seemed weak at best. The overall backgrounds, which I assume were mostly (all?) CGI, were way too dark at parts. I addition, some of the effects seemed way too comic booky for the film. Maybe I saw a bad print, or the guy running the theater fucked up. I dont know.
Summing it all up, I left the theater very dissappointed in the film. I think that is going to be a common sentiment amongst viewers that have not read the comic. I am curious to see what more of the diehard fans of the original source material have to say.
edstein
03-02-09, 08:43 PM
^^^ Excellent review. I have yet to see the movie but a few of reviews I have read seem similar to the post above. If your a fan of the comic you'll love the movie. Otherwise it falls short. I'd still like to see the movie but I'll wait a week after the first weekend crowd dies down.
jjcool
03-02-09, 09:15 PM
^^^ Excellent review. I have yet to see the movie but a few of reviews I have read seem similar to the post above. If your a fan of the comic you'll love the movie. Otherwise it falls short. I'd still like to see the movie but I'll wait a week after the first weekend crowd dies down.
I have the feeling that the crowd is going to die down pretty quick, as this seems like a pretty genre specific film. I'm curious to see a view from the other end of the spectrum though.
maxfisher
03-02-09, 10:21 PM
Yeah, thanks for the spoiler-free review. I was curious if you'd read it or not and am happy to hear it sounds like it'll please pre-existing fans. I'm still a little surprised anyone would rank a film like this 0/5. I'd expect that to be reserved for something like 'Beer for My Horses', but it sounds like you were rating on how it fulfilled your expectations, which is fair enough.
jjcool
03-03-09, 12:19 AM
Yeah, thanks for the spoiler-free review. I was curious if you'd read it or not and am happy to hear it sounds like it'll please pre-existing fans. I'm still a little surprised anyone would rank a film like this 0/5. I'd expect that to be reserved for something like 'Beer for My Horses', but it sounds like you were rating on how it fulfilled your expectations, which is fair enough.
There isnt a doubt in my mind that the score would have been higher had I read the comic when it first came out and was a fan. Barring that, though, I really didnt see any redeeming qualities.
naitram
03-03-09, 01:06 AM
So who else here read the graphic novel back in the day? Those are the reviews I'm interested in hearing - not that it makes anyone else's opinion less valid, but this book has been around a long time in my life and I hope it's a real treat to see it visualized this way.
notvandnobeer
03-03-09, 01:13 AM
So who else here read the graphic novel back in the day? Those are the reviews I'm interested in hearing - not that it makes anyone else's opinion less valid, but this book has been around a long time in my life and I hope it's a real treat to see it visualized this way.
I first read the book about 15 years ago and I'll say that it was awesome to see it on the big screen. I do feel like it will be a hard sell for people who have never read the comic. The friend I saw it with had never read the comic and he enjoyed it even though he said he felt overwhelmed by it. I think reading the comic first would be a huge help to anyone seeing the movie, but I feel the same way about the movie that I do the book, I think it should be read or seen multiple times.
naitram
03-03-09, 01:22 AM
I first read the book about 15 years ago and I'll say that it was awesome to see it on the big screen. I do feel like it will be a hard sell for people who have never read the comic. The friend I saw it with had never read the comic and he enjoyed it even though he said he felt overwhelmed by it. I think reading the comic first would be a huge help to anyone seeing the movie, but I feel the same way about the movie that I do the book, I think it should be read or seen multiple times.
Good to hear. I completely realize a good film should stand on its own merits regardless of the source material, this just happens to be one of the few adaptations where I've actually read the book, not to mention when I was younger and grew up in that era of comics. They can't all be LOTR, but hopefully this will live up to my hype.
GreenVulture
03-03-09, 01:41 AM
I will try to be as spoiler free as I can here.
My guess is that, from reading a couple reviews online, is that if you were a fan of the book you are gonna love the film.
See, I hate that assumption people are making. I'm a fan of the comic (still remember buying the paperback off of Amazon about 8 years ago) but I'm apprehensive at best about the movie.
My biggest fear, and it may seem an odd one, is that Snyder is so slavishly faithful to the material, so unerring in his refusal to deviate at all from the way the comic panels look, that it essentially resembles a live-action, note-for-note version of the story, without realizing that things that come off well in one medium come off incredibly bad in another (think Sin City or the incredibly bland Harry Potter movies).*
Not to mention that, from the clips I've seen, almost all the actors chosen for their parts look bad and that Snyder is doing that stupid slo-mo-then-sped-up bullshit he pulled on 300--for those who have seen it, do I have a reason to be worried on both counts?
Still going on opening day, though, if just to verify that yes, somebody did finally adapt Watchmen for the screen, though it will be with reservations...I hope I am proven wrong, though. Oh well, if it sucks, I'll still have the motion comic version...and my imaginary film version that was made by former directors Terry Gilliam or Paul Greengrass.
P.S.: Glancing at the soundtrack listing, it looks like Snyder really went out of his way to choose some of the most obvious and popular music cues in history. Are they at least used somewhat well in the movie?
* (yes, I know Snyder changed the ending)
Solid Snake PAC
03-03-09, 01:55 AM
Bad casting? For most part everyone is perfect..my only worries are the actors chosen for Ozymandias and Silk Spectre II
Suprmallet
03-03-09, 06:23 AM
I just got back, feeling more uncertain about the film than I thought I would. I figured I would either love it or hate it. As it is, I am ambivalent.
No matter how you look at it, there is no doubt that Watchmen is a Herculean effort from Zack Snyder. The look and feel of the Watchmen world is brought meticulously to life under Snyder's watchful eye; every frame filled with small details to act as nods to longtime fans of the comic, or for those experiencing the film on repeat viewings. My worry is that Snyder got the letter of the comic down, but in his zeal to shove as much as he could onscreen, he forgot the spirit.
Of the actors, Jackie Earl Haley was perfect. He became Rorschach and I never doubted him for a moment. Jeffrey Dean Morgan also had my rapt attention whenever he was onscreen as The Comedian. Billy Crudup brings more humanity to Dr. Manhattan than is in the comic, although sometimes at the expense of the character's grandeur. Malin Akerman has really been getting attacked by critics and audiences alike (one audience member commented during the screening, "I've seen better acting from a chair,"), but I don't think she was so bad. She still looks strange in her Silk Spectre outfit, but outside of that she's the hottest she's ever been. Patrick Wilson and Matthew Goode fall a bit short as Nite Owl and Ozymandias, although never so bad that I was taken out of the film. Of the secondary cast, Stephen McHattie gets short shrift as the original Nite Owl; appearing only twice and very briefly at that. Carla Gugino gets more screen time as the original Silk Spectre.
The film generally follows the storyline set in the comics, although many events are condensed or altered to fit the runtime. The entire history of costumed crime fighting is told in the opening credits, losing the sense of time and place we get from reading about the Minutemen in Under The Hood. From there, things follow fairly predictably until the end, which is changed in form, although not terribly much in spirit (with a few notable suggestions).
To me, the biggest problem was the lack of time. Don't get me wrong, the movie IS long; it's just not long enough. Honestly, as I was watching events reach their ultimate conclusion, I couldn't help but feel that the piece would have been better served as a cable TV miniseries. Would you get the awe of seeing Manhattan's Martian construction appear out of the ground on 60 foot IMAX screens? No, but you'd tell more of the story. I know that changes and substitutions have to be made to adapt any piece of literature to the big screen, but over and over I found myself missing plot elements, characters, and lines of dialogue.
And it isn't just that I want everything to be added in. Alan Moore took great care to include things for a reason, and with elements missing, the piece feels incomplete. Important moments feel less meaningful. That, to me, was the underlying problem. For me, seminal scenes such as: Nite Owl and Silk Spectre deciding to spring Rorschach, or Dr. Manhattan realizing the value of life, or Ozymandias' victory were robbed of their power by truncating so much of the material leading up to it. And wonderful lines get removed for seemingly no reason. In particular Dan's admission that he feels impotent in the face of nuclear destruction, after having failed to get an erection with Laurie during sex, or Jon's beautiful speech about life being more rare than a quark, etc. are gone, and their absence is palpable.
Further, by removing certain background features, such as the two Bernies at the newspaper stand, or the presence of the squabbling newspapers, later scenes get awkwardly shoved in to fit the plot, but without the emotional resonance they would have held otherwise. The absence of the New Frontiersman is especially notable when they actually get the final say in the film; it's a jarring way to end the piece, given that the newspaper appears only fleetingly prior. Also, a few substitutions were far lower in quality than the way events occur in the book, much to the film's detriment. Luckily these moments, while strongly felt, are few and far between.
While I do think some of these things can and will be corrected with a director's cut (obviously the inclusion of the Bernies and the Tales of the Black Freighter in the Ultimate Cut will go a long way towards repairing some of these problems), in its theatrical form Watchmen feels like a hollow exercise. Snyder wants to make big statements, but despite the film's generous running time, he's deprived of the canvas he needs to make it run on all cylinders.
However, the film is immaculately shot and beautiful to look at all the way through. The action is compelling, if over the top. Diehards and neophytes alike should see it. I think as it is now, the best that this movie can do is open people's eyes to what Watchmen is, in hopes that they go seek out the book. I'm eagerly awaiting the Ultimate Cut, as I know this isn't Snyder's final word on the subject. I'd give it three and a half stars. Three stars for not making a complete disaster and at least feeling like Watchmen at times, an extra half star for some good action sequences and great production design and detail.
scott1598
03-03-09, 11:21 AM
Good to hear. I completely realize a good film should stand on its own merits regardless of the source material, this just happens to be one of the few adaptations where I've actually read the book, not to mention when I was younger and grew up in that era of comics. They can't all be LOTR, but hopefully this will live up to my hype.
so you gave it 0 stars, yet haven't seen the movie :hscratch:
naitram
03-03-09, 11:39 AM
so you gave it 0 stars, yet haven't seen the movie :hscratch:
that was an accident, I must have been high
scott1598
03-03-09, 11:41 AM
that was an accident, I must have been high
maybe you could ask a mod to reverse it so you can have your say when you do...
scott1598
03-03-09, 12:10 PM
what i would like to know from those who have seen it...
is it better to know the story going in (i am going to get the "Watchmen: Complete Motion Comic") and really want to know if i should plow through that before i see the movie in theaters?
will that make it better to know or perhaps worse to know, as i usually like to go in fresh, but i do want to get the most out of the theatrical presentation.
Yavin
03-03-09, 12:16 PM
what i would like to know from those who have seen it...
is it better to know the story going in (i am going to get the "Watchmen: Complete Motion Comic") and really want to know if i should plow through that before i see the movie in theaters?
will that make it better to know or perhaps worse to know, as i usually like to go in fresh, but i do want to get the most out of the theatrical presentation.
Hard to say, because once you've read the graphic novel or watched the Motion Comic you have been (for lack of a better word) "tainted", and I would imagine it would be difficult to form an opinion of the film as an uninformed movie-goer, with no knowledge of the story whatsoever.
That being said, every review I have read has included some mention of the film being harder to digest for the uninformed viewer, based purely on the amount of information being thrown at you.
I would think that having some prior knowledge of the graphic novel would be a good thing, because a) it douses your expectations of the film being a full-on, action-packed, superhero extravaganza; b) it allows you to better appreciate the introspective moments in the story; and c) it allows you to sit in awe seeing every minutiae of detail from the graphic novel translated to the big screen.
I'll be sure to post my thoughts on the film after I see it tonight. But based solely on the three points above I don't expect to be disappointed.
naitram
03-03-09, 12:24 PM
what i would like to know from those who have seen it...
is it better to know the story going in (i am going to get the "Watchmen: Complete Motion Comic") and really want to know if i should plow through that before i see the movie in theaters?
will that make it better to know or perhaps worse to know, as i usually like to go in fresh, but i do want to get the most out of the theatrical presentation.
Wait, you haven't even read it? You started this thread and have that nifty avatar - now I just feel used.
jjcool
03-03-09, 01:09 PM
See, I hate that assumption people are making. I'm a fan of the comic (still remember buying the paperback off of Amazon about 8 years ago) but I'm apprehensive at best about the movie.
I guess I did assume that the opposite of my experience was true. These rav reviews that I am seeing had to come from somewhere. The logical assumption for me was that they were from fans of the comic.
Suprmallet
03-03-09, 01:11 PM
what i would like to know from those who have seen it...
is it better to know the story going in (i am going to get the "Watchmen: Complete Motion Comic") and really want to know if i should plow through that before i see the movie in theaters?
will that make it better to know or perhaps worse to know, as i usually like to go in fresh, but i do want to get the most out of the theatrical presentation.
Personally, I think the less you know about the comic, the better. See the movie, have a reaction. Then go read the comic. Hopefully that will provide a better experience than what I had, which was reading the comic and then being disappointed by the movie.
Solid Snake PAC
03-03-09, 01:29 PM
Totally agree. At this point so close to the premiere. Don't read it...it's not enough time to suck it all in. Go in as a pure member of the audience, and then tell us what you think. I mean..I have Watchmen ingrained in my mind. I remember a lot of the details in it and whatnot. So...I may look at it more favorably (being the comic book nerd that I am) and/or more critically also (since I am a film major). Oh..i have 2 nerds battling it out in my head..Comic Book Guy vs. Film Student/Snob...rarely do they totally agree.
Suprmallet
03-03-09, 01:52 PM
Actually, the film critic in me enjoyed the film much more than the comic book nerd who has read Watchmen so many times he can practically recite it by heart.
scott1598
03-03-09, 02:02 PM
Personally, I think the less you know about the comic, the better. See the movie, have a reaction. Then go read the comic. Hopefully that will provide a better experience than what I had, which was reading the comic and then being disappointed by the movie.
that is what i am thinking as well. i think the novel would be a good companion piece to do after to get more insight and fill up any misunderstandings i have from the film and hopefully get more enjoyment from the film if it wans after seeing.
i think i'll go in as a movie and comic book movie fan and see the spectacle. if or when i don't "get it" i will do the novel to fill the gaps and get the "true" ending.
Solid Snake PAC
03-03-09, 02:03 PM
Right, so where does this stand in the comic book movie spectrum. This is the way I grade stuff...as a film itself..and as a film in the genre.
Suprmallet
03-03-09, 02:16 PM
I'd say it's worse than Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, and Superman: The Movie. Better than Incredible Hulk. Maybe on par with Iron Man, but I was not as big of a fan of Iron Man as a lot of people on this forum.
Elpresidentepez
03-03-09, 02:17 PM
I don't know anyone who read Watchmen and fully appreciated it and didn't go back and reread it. I'm not saying the movie is as good as the graphic novel, but I do think the movie is a lot to take in. I plan on seeing it again this Friday. I will say that after last Friday's screening my opinion of the film hasn't changed too much. I want to write up a full review, but I'll wait till i see it again. Bottom line: faithful in spirit to the graphic novel and beautiful to look at and extremely entertaining.
Solid Snake PAC
03-03-09, 02:25 PM
Personally my comic book film spectrum is like this:
TDK
Iron Man
Batman Begins
Superman
Sin City
Superman II
Hellboy II
X2
Incredible Hulk
Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man
Hellboy
Blade II
X-Men
Blade
Punisher: War Zone (though it was a damn entertaining action flick)
Spider-Man 3
Superman Returns
FF2
FF
X3
Daredevil
Suprmallet
03-03-09, 02:49 PM
I wouldn't rate Iron Man as highly, but along your spectrum I'd say Watchmen falls in there somewhere between Sin City and X2.
Solid Snake PAC
03-03-09, 03:30 PM
Ah well than that's good. Also...
does Rorschach get killed the same way as in the comic?
Suprmallet
03-03-09, 03:36 PM
Yes, and it's a very well done scene.
PopcornTreeCt
03-03-09, 03:59 PM
My biggest fear, and it may seem an odd one, is that Snyder is so slavishly faithful to the material, so unerring in his refusal to deviate at all from the way the comic panels look, that it essentially resembles a live-action, note-for-note version of the story, without realizing that things that come off well in one medium come off incredibly bad in another (think Sin City or the incredibly bland Harry Potter movies).*
Dude... is there anyone that is going to agree with this assessment? Incredibly bland Harry Potter movies?
Suprmallet
03-03-09, 04:02 PM
I think he meant 1 and 2, which are word for word copies of the book, but not so great as movies.
Solid Snake PAC
03-03-09, 07:10 PM
Yes, and it's a very well done scene.
Fucking A. That's probably the most shocking scene in a comic in general. You never expected that to happen..but reasonably it makes sense and it does happen. I can't wait to see this film...
Zen Peckinpah
03-03-09, 07:16 PM
I read it last summer and that's clearly one of the scenes which stands out immensely from others. Shocking, yet very powerful.
Rorscach and Dr. Manhattan are, coincidentally, my favorite characters.
Solid Snake PAC
03-03-09, 07:55 PM
I just want to see Rorschach be badass. He's my fav character in it. He's such an absolute extremist to punish the wrongdoing. He's violent, graphic, mentally off-balance...but maybe he's the only one that will do that others won't.
The flashback scene to the murdered child and it's violence is just a reaction that most can understand but don't act out. He just snapped...and it was never the same
Suprmallet
03-03-09, 07:58 PM
I'd have to go with Rorschach and The Comedian, myself, but there's no denying the power of that scene.
Unfortunately they use it to justify some silly posturing from Nite Owl that isn't in the comic and doesn't need to be in the movie.
joefrog91
03-03-09, 08:05 PM
I will try to be as spoiler free as I can here.
Probably the biggest problem that I had with the film was that I hadn't read the comic beforehand. Going into the film I wasn't a fan, and I definitely didnt come out a fan. My guess is that, from reading a couple reviews online, is that if you were a fan of the book you are gonna love the film. Maybe if I had read the comic beforehand, I wouldnt have found alot of what happens in the film to be just off the wall weird. Going into it, I thought I was a comic book movie fan. X-men, spiderman, superman, Ironman, etc. In fact I thought two of the best films last year were The Dark Knight and Ironman, but this was not at all what I was expecting. It isn't your typical Hollywood comic book movie, and for fans of the comic, that is great. But for non-fans, like me, it leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. I have a feeling that this film is going to be huge in its first week, but fall off very rapidly. You need to be a fan of the book to enjoy and fully understand the movie. Alot of backstory that left me saying "huh?" and "what the hell just happened".
Where to start with the acting. Lets start with the good. Jackie Earle Hailey was good. His performance as Rorshach was top notch. You could really tell what was driving him. He almost seemed to be like Batman taken to an extreme.
The Bad: Not necessarily "bad" per se, just not as good as I would have liked. Most of the other main actors. Just didn't seem that believable to me. I know, it's a movie and I should suspend disbelief, but even with that suspension most of the other actors seemed a bit off. Almost like they were trying too hard. I so wanted to be able to say that Jeffrey Dean Morgan rocked this, as he does indeed rock as Big Daddy Winchester, but alas, even his performance fell flat.
The ugly: Malin Akerman. She isnt exactly ugly, but her acting definitely was. At times she was wooden and stiff, and at other times it seemed to me that she was reading off of cue cards. She was definitely the weakest link in this ensemble.
The effects and whatnot. After 300, I was expecting alot more from Zack Snyder. This didnt deliver. I was going into a comic book movie expecting lots of action, and, sure there was some, but the action sequences seemed weak at best. The overall backgrounds, which I assume were mostly (all?) CGI, were way too dark at parts. I addition, some of the effects seemed way too comic booky for the film. Maybe I saw a bad print, or the guy running the theater fucked up. I dont know.
Summing it all up, I left the theater very dissappointed in the film. I think that is going to be a common sentiment amongst viewers that have not read the comic. I am curious to see what more of the diehard fans of the original source material have to say.
Thank you for your honest review. I plan on seeing this at a midnight showing in my town this week. I've read the graphic novel so many times that I hope it won't keep me from enjoying the movie. However, your review makes me think Snyder should have made a 4 hour version of this movie for DVD release or to show on HBO as a mini-series. You really need to know the "whole" story to know what is going on. Watchmen is considered so much more than a "comic book", so it's not surprising that it wasn't like a regular "comic book" movie. I agree that this movie stands the chance of having a great opening, but then falling off because people that expect to see another TDK or X-Men will tell their friends not to bother.
Solid Snake PAC
03-03-09, 08:38 PM
wait!
is the rape scene as violent as in the comic?
Yes, I don't mind to have a film spoiled. No matter what the finished product always quells my imagination. Seeing it happen is a lot better than imagining it...at least in this sense.
Suprmallet
03-03-09, 09:37 PM
The rape is pretty violent. Obviously he doesn't actually get to rape her, but he beats her harshly. Then he's beaten badly by Hooded Justice.
Solid Snake PAC
03-03-09, 09:49 PM
Oh god....I want to see this so bad. Seems like it does the comic justice but at the same time isn't able to get in a killing blow for greatness.
resinrats
03-03-09, 11:57 PM
Probably the biggest problem that I had with the film was that I hadn't read the comic beforehand. Going into the film I wasn't a fan, and I definitely didnt come out a fan. My guess is that, from reading a couple reviews online, is that if you were a fan of the book you are gonna love the film. Maybe if I had read the comic beforehand, I wouldnt have found alot of what happens in the film to be just off the wall weird.
This might be a BIG problem for this film's success. The film should be presented as if there was no graphic novel. People shouldn't have to read the comic before seeing it to enjoy it. Don't leave questions that it takes having to read the comic to understand.
I'll see it saturday. I've never read the comic. Getting worried now.
Solid Snake PAC
03-04-09, 12:04 AM
You could say Sin City had the same thing...though they are very different beasts. Sin City is very easy to get into in comparison to Watchmen.
LickTheABCs
03-04-09, 12:43 AM
Is the slow-mo as annoying as it is in EVERY trailer and EVERY scene I've scene so far? What I mean is, is there any scene in the movie that doesn't feature slow-mo?
Suprmallet
03-04-09, 12:54 AM
Most of the scenes in the movie don't have slow motion. It's mostly in the action sequences and then there is more conventional slow motion used for dramatic effect at other points. Don't forget, most of this movie is actually a drama.
Solid Snake PAC
03-04-09, 01:01 AM
well depending to some, heavy talking drama in a comic book film may be slow-mo for them...
LickTheABCs
03-04-09, 01:40 AM
^ agreed. Well, with me at least, any time there's no boobs on screen it goes in slow-mo.
Solid Snake PAC
03-04-09, 01:52 AM
lol...hoohhoho..hahaa....ohhhh *sigh*
Yavin
03-04-09, 10:25 AM
Ok, I saw an advanced screening last night, and here's my spoiler-free take:
First of all, I thought the movie was very good - it did not disappoint. But it didn't blow me away either. As an adaptation of the book, it did its job commendably. Despite the fact that it is not a panel-by-panel, line-by-line film adaptation (lesser story arcs are dropped, scenes are condensed/combined, some dialogue is altered while still retaining the original tone, and some elements of the narrative are taken out and dropped into different parts of the story), it still felt a bit by-the-numbers for me.
Yes, it is somewhat cluttered. At times, it felt like they were just going through the motions to churn out scene after scene from the book. For the first half hour to forty-five minutes or so I found myself keeping track of what scenes marked the end of what chapters of the book. I think the first 4 chapters are pretty easy to delineate in the film, but after that it became a little more difficult to define the individual chapters - which was a good thing.
The acting was solid throughout, with, of course Jackie Earle Haley being the standout. Even Malin Akerman didn't really disappoint. The violence in the film did seem a bit gratuitous at times (perhaps to push the R-rating a bit), while the nudity did not.
Whether or not it is best to read the book before seeing the movie is hard to say. Having read the book (ok, ok, watched the Motion Comic) beforehand, I can say it takes a bit of the magic out of the film since it does seem so by-the-numbers and there's nothing that will truly surprise you if you've seen any of the trailers/ads. But then again, since the film does feel at times like it's going through the motions to churn out scene after scene from the book, those who have no prior knowledge of the book will get a sort of disjointed feeling from some of the scenes - as some of them don't flow quite so naturally.
Either way, it's a good film, and surprisingly didn't feel at all like a nearly 3 hour film to me. It will surely benefit from an extended cut with some of the excised material, especially the Tales of the Black Freighter.
Now for some discussion including spoilers:
The opening credits montage that takes place after the events in the Comedian's apartment was really well done. Set to Bob Dylan's "Times, They Are A'Changin'", it really set the tone for the film and let the audience know that this wasn't a typical superhero action film.
I also liked some of the extra flourishes in some of the scenes that weren't in the book (at least, not in the Motion Comic). Bits like the Owl Ship shooting flames outward at the end of Silk Spectre II and Night Owl II's sex scene in the Owl Ship, the scene between Rorschach and Malcolm during the prison break where Rorschach puts on his "face" again and then says to Malcolm "Your turn. What do you see?", and the Rorschach pattern left in the snow after Dr. Manhattan kills him.
The little bits of detail in the backgrounds of the scenes were really neat (and interesting) to see as well - like the snow globe in your Laurie's apartment during the flashback to seeing her parents argue. There was one detail that I noticed during the scene where Nite Owl II and Rorschach were in Ozymandias' office trying to access his computer: once Nite Owl enters the right password several file folders appear on the screen. One of them was named "Boys". I wonder if this might be an allusion to the comment that Rorschach makes in the book (but not in the film) that Ozymandias' might possibly be homosexual. I thought this was an interesting way to put this into the film without having Rorschach actually say the line (since the meeting between Rorschach and Ozymandias' does not take place in the film).
Maybe the biggest problem I had with some of the liberties they took with this film adaptation was the placement of the exposition that Dr. Manhattan experiences time unlike everyone else. The scene where this takes place in the book is still there in the film, but he also explains how he views time (and can see the future, essentially) very early on - in the scene in his lab where Rorschach comes to warn him of the mask killer. This (coupled with some of the phrasings of his lines, like "I am on Mars. You and I are going to have a conversation there now.") made him into less of a character and more of a plot device.
Finally, the ending. I didn't mind so much that there was no giant squid monster. The ending had the same tone, though felt slightly more clunky. It also makes you wonder what Dr. Manhattan did to piss Ozymandias' off that he would make Dr. Manhattan into the villain to bring about world peace. I do agree that the final scene at the New Frontiersman does come out of the blue and feel a little tacked on, not having any New Frontiersman scenes prior in the movie. Just a short scene or two there throughout the film would have made this feel a lot more natural.
scott1598
03-04-09, 10:34 AM
^^^ nice review Yavin. thanks for that.
Ash Ketchum
03-04-09, 10:41 AM
What's the Watchmen "motion comic" that people keep talking about?
scott1598
03-04-09, 10:45 AM
What's the Watchmen "motion comic" that people keep talking about?
go to the DVD Talk forum (there is a couple threads already on it (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/dvd-talk/550973-watchmen-motion-comic-dvd.html)) or look on Amazon for description. basically, comic panels with some animation and a narrator that is pretty faithful to the novel.
mdc3000
03-04-09, 12:04 PM
Yavin,
great review. How crazy was The Bloor last night? Lots of people going apeshit? Just curious...
PopcornTreeCt
03-04-09, 12:05 PM
Motion comic... I hope that does not become a new medium. It's lazy to the nth power.
Solid Snake PAC
03-04-09, 12:19 PM
It's interesting but not enough for me to buy it. They always seem to be slow and mildly entertaining.
Yavin
03-04-09, 12:58 PM
Yavin,
great review. How crazy was The Bloor last night? Lots of people going apeshit? Just curious...
^^^ nice review Yavin. thanks for that.
Thanks! The line-up was long, but nowhere near as long as some of the line-ups I've seen at the Toronto International Film Festival. I think the line started forming roughly 2 hours before showtime. There was also a rush line, which I think had more people in line than the line for pass-holders. Everyone was psyched for the movie, but the audience was well-behaved, luckily. A big round of applause after the film ended. Great experience all around.
Yavin
03-04-09, 01:07 PM
It's interesting but not enough for me to buy it. They always seem to be slow and mildly entertaining.
I was surprised that the narrator's voice-over for Hooded Justice sounded exactly as the portrayal of Hooded Justice in the film!
tucker
03-04-09, 02:07 PM
i saw it last night
it has stunning visuals
the opening credits was cool
(entire soundtrack was great)
it has elements of the sin city, xmen,the matrix and 300.
163 minutes was justified
i would recommend seeing this flick!
Yavin
03-04-09, 03:13 PM
I forgot mention one thing in my review, which I disliked:
When Ozymandias is confronted by Nite Owl and Rorschach, explains his plot, and then tells them he wouldn't have told them if they had any chance of changing its outcome, he preceeds it with the line "What am I, a comic book villain?". I understand this is meant to be satire, but (AFAIK that line is not in the book and) it is just too blatant and self-aware a line. For me, this put the movie dangerously close to Scary Movie territory, if you know what I mean.
Suprmallet
03-04-09, 03:36 PM
I've got the book in front of me. Ozymandias says "Do you think I'm a Republic serial villain?" Essentially, yes, he says "Do you think I'm a comic book villain?" He just refers to it by an older name.
Yavin
03-04-09, 03:40 PM
I've got the book in front of me. Ozymandias says "Do you think I'm a Republic serial villain?" Essentially, yes, he says "Do you think I'm a comic book villain?" He just refers to it by an older name.
Ah, ok ... still, in the film, it felt sort out of place with the tone of the rest of the movie.
DonnachaOne
03-04-09, 03:53 PM
Ah, ok ... still, in the film, it felt sort out of place with the tone of the rest of the movie.
I see what you mean. In the "Watching the Watchmen" Dave Gibbons said the impetus behind making a guy read a Pirate comic was that superhero comics would probably not be as resonant in a word that actually had superheroes. So the "Republic Serial" villain was probably used for the same reason; would a "comic book" villain mean as much in a world where comics themselves are so unlike what we know?
jjcool
03-04-09, 05:07 PM
You could say Sin City had the same thing...though they are very different beasts. Sin City is very easy to get into in comparison to Watchmen.
Interesting, as I really did not enjoy Sin City either. In fact, I was asleep about halfway through it. I will have to check it out again to see if a second viewing makes it any better. Hopefully a second viewing of watchmen will make me think differently about it, as I now know a little more about the story.
Dr. DVD
03-04-09, 10:28 PM
I will try to be as spoiler free as I can here.
Probably the biggest problem that I had with the film was that I hadn't read the comic beforehand. Going into the film I wasn't a fan, and I definitely didnt come out a fan. My guess is that, from reading a couple reviews online, is that if you were a fan of the book you are gonna love the film. Maybe if I had read the comic beforehand, I wouldnt have found alot of what happens in the film to be just off the wall weird. Going into it, I thought I was a comic book movie fan. X-men, spiderman, superman, Ironman, etc. In fact I thought two of the best films last year were The Dark Knight and Ironman, but this was not at all what I was expecting. It isn't your typical Hollywood comic book movie, and for fans of the comic, that is great. But for non-fans, like me, it leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. I have a feeling that this film is going to be huge in its first week, but fall off very rapidly. You need to be a fan of the book to enjoy and fully understand the movie. Alot of backstory that left me saying "huh?" and "what the hell just happened".
Where to start with the acting. Lets start with the good. Jackie Earle Hailey was good. His performance as Rorshach was top notch. You could really tell what was driving him. He almost seemed to be like Batman taken to an extreme.
The Bad: Not necessarily "bad" per se, just not as good as I would have liked. Most of the other main actors. Just didn't seem that believable to me. I know, it's a movie and I should suspend disbelief, but even with that suspension most of the other actors seemed a bit off. Almost like they were trying too hard. I so wanted to be able to say that Jeffrey Dean Morgan rocked this, as he does indeed rock as Big Daddy Winchester, but alas, even his performance fell flat.
The ugly: Malin Akerman. She isnt exactly ugly, but her acting definitely was. At times she was wooden and stiff, and at other times it seemed to me that she was reading off of cue cards. She was definitely the weakest link in this ensemble.
The effects and whatnot. After 300, I was expecting alot more from Zack Snyder. This didnt deliver. I was going into a comic book movie expecting lots of action, and, sure there was some, but the action sequences seemed weak at best. The overall backgrounds, which I assume were mostly (all?) CGI, were way too dark at parts. I addition, some of the effects seemed way too comic booky for the film. Maybe I saw a bad print, or the guy running the theater fucked up. I dont know.
Summing it all up, I left the theater very dissappointed in the film. I think that is going to be a common sentiment amongst viewers that have not read the comic. I am curious to see what more of the diehard fans of the original source material have to say.
I am a fan of the book and have yet to see the movie. That said, this is a very good review. I admire the poster for elaborating on why he didn't like the movie and actually giving some reasons as opposed to just saying "it blows" and leaving it at that, which is way too common on the net nowadays.
This seems to confirm what I thought; little appeal outside of the fanboy realm. An R-rated superhero flick that more or less spits on what the general public has come to expect from the genre can't go over well. Dark Knight was a rare gem that could appeal to both camps, and it will never be replicated, especially not within a year. Bottomline for fanboys is this: we are in the middle (perhaps near the end, but who knows) of the hey-day of comic book movies. We should enjoy them while we can.
Solid Snake PAC
03-05-09, 12:53 AM
interesting...ebert gave it 4 stars...
Ebert's Review: After the revelation of “The Dark Knight,” here is “Watchmen,” another bold exercise in the liberation of the superhero movie. It’s a compelling visceral film — sound, images and characters combined into a decidedly odd visual experience that evokes the feel of a graphic novel. It seems charged from within by its power as a fable; we sense it’s not interested in a plot so much as with the dilemma of functioning in a world losing hope.
That world is America in 1985, with Richard Nixon in the White House and many other strange details, although this America occupies a parallel universe in which superheroes and masked warriors operate. The film confronts a paradox that was always there in comic books: The heroes are only human. They can be in only one place at a time (with a possible exception to be noted later). Although a superhero is able to handle one dangerous situation, the world has countless dangerous situations, and the super resources are stretched too thin. Faced with law enforcement anarchy, Nixon has outlawed superhero activity, quite possibly a reasonable action. Now the murder of the enigmatic vigilante the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) has brought the Watchmen together again. Who might be the next to die?
Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), the only one with superpowers in the literal sense, lives outside ordinary time and space, the forces of the universe seeming to coil beneath his skin. Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) is the world’s smartest man. The Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) is a man isolated from life by his mastery of technology. Rorshach (Jackie Earl Haley) is a man who finds meaning in patterns that may only exist in his mind. And Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman) lives with one of the most familiar human challenges, living up to her parents, in this case the original Silk Spectre (Carla Gugino). Dr. Manhattan is both her lover and a distant father figure living in a world of his own.
These characters are garbed in traditional comic book wardrobes — capes, boots, gloves, belts, masks, props, anything to make them one of a kind. Rorshach’s cloth mask, with its endlessly shifting inkblots, is one of the most intriguing superhero masks ever, always in constant motion, like a mood ring of the id. Dr. Manhattan is contained in a towering, muscular, naked blue body; he was affected by one of those obligatory secret experiments gone wild. Never mind the details; what matters is that he possibly exists at a quantum level, at which particles seem exempt from the usual limitations of space and time. If it seems unlikely that quantum materials could assemble into a tangible physical body, not to worry. Everything is made of quantum particles, after all. There’s a lot we don’t know about them, including how they constitute Dr. Manhattan, so the movie is vague about his precise reality. I was going to say Silk Spectre II has no complaints, but actually she does.
The mystery of the Comedian’s death seems associated with a plot to destroy the world. The first step in the plot may be to annihilate the Watchmen, who are All That Stand Between, etc. It is hard to see how anyone would benefit from the utter destruction of the planet, but remember that in 1985 there was a nuclear standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union that threatened exactly that. Remember “Better Dead Than Red”? There were indeed cold warriors who preferred to be dead rather than red, reminding me of David Merrick’s statement, “It’s not enough for me to win. My enemies must lose.”
In a cosmic sense it doesn’t really matter who pushed the Comedian through the window. In a cosmic sense, nothing really matters, but best not meditate on that too much. The Watchmen and their special gifts are all the better able to see how powerless they really are, and although all but Dr. Manhattan are human and back the home team, their powers are not limitless. Dr. Manhattan, existing outside time and space, is understandably remote from the fate of our tiny planet, although perhaps he still harbors some old emotions.
Those kinds of quandaries engage all the Watchmen, and are presented in a film experience of often fearsome beauty. It might seem improbable to take seriously a naked blue man, complete with discreet genitalia, but Billy Crudup brings a solemn detachment to Dr. Manhattan that is curiously affecting. Does he remember how it felt to be human? No, but hum a few bars. ... Crudup does the voice and the body language, which is transformed by software into a figure of considerable presence.
“Watchmen” focuses on the contradiction shared by most superheroes: They cannot live ordinary lives but are fated to help mankind. That they do this with trademarked names and appliances goes back to their origins in Greece, where Zeus had his thunderbolts, Hades his three-headed dog, and Hermes his winged feet. Could Zeus run fast? Did Hermes have a dog? No.
That level of symbolism is coiling away beneath all superheroes. What appeals with Batman is his humanity; despite his skills, he is not supernormal. “Watchmen” brings surprising conviction to these characters as flawed and minor gods, with Dr. Manhattan possessing access to godhead on a plane that detaches him from our daily concerns — indeed, from days themselves. In the film’s most spectacular scene, he is exiled to Mars, and in utter isolation reimagines himself as a human, and conjures (or discovers? I’m not sure) an incredible city seemingly made of crystal and mathematical concepts. This is his equivalent to 40 days in the desert, and he returns as a savior.
The film is rich enough to be seen more than once. I plan to see it again, this time on IMAX, and will have more to say about it. 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.
tucker
03-05-09, 01:45 AM
Bottomline for fanboys is this: we are in the middle (perhaps near the end, but who knows) of the hey-day of comic book movies. We should enjoy them while we can.
i agree!
iron man, tdk and watchmen are very good!
Navinabob
03-05-09, 02:35 AM
I have a question for those who already saw the movie, after watching the motion comic with my girlfriend she felt that she could not see the live action version because of the situations with the dog violence (the bloody-dog face with the doctor, Rorschach dispatching the ones who ate the girl, original Owl and his dog getting killed by the gang). How graphic are those scenes? Will just shutting eyes be silly if you can hear exactly what is going on quite easily?
Any of the other violence is just fine, Rorschach can flay people all night long, but acts against animals (particularly dogs) has a special place in her heart. Any advice will help, thanks.
Suprmallet
03-05-09, 03:00 AM
Hollis Mason's death is left out of the movie, so you don't even see his dog. You do see the dogs with their heads split open, but you don't see Rorschach kill them. You see flashes of the dog during his interview with the psychiatrist, and then later he throws the dogs through the windows of the building at the killer. So there is some violence involving dogs, but you never see anyone attack a dog outright.
Also, I don't think the guy ate the girl. I think he molested her and then chopped her up and fed her to the dogs to get rid of the evidence.
Superboy
03-05-09, 03:47 AM
I thought it was a really mediocre movie, because you had to have read the comic book to understand the movie. I saw it with my girlfriend and i spent nearly 3 hours afterwards explaining everything that happened, because she had no clue what was going on. The ending was also very strange in terms of tone. I'm not upset that they changed it, but it didn't have the same feel that the comic resonates - which is that the nightmare is over, and life is just beginning.
I still think that Snyder was hung up on semantics - he wanted to bring the movie to screen, but comics aren't just glorified screen plays.
Ultimately, I thought The Incredibles did a better job of translating Watchmen to the screen.
Shannon Nutt
03-05-09, 08:28 AM
interesting...ebert gave it 4 stars...
You should have probably linked that intsead of re-posted it. I know Roger prefers that his stuff be linked to, unless you're just using a partial quote. For the record:
Hollis Mason's death is left out of the movie, so you don't even see his dog. You do see the dogs with their heads split open, but you don't see Rorschach kill them. You see flashes of the dog during his interview with the psychiatrist, and then later he throws the dogs through the windows of the building at the killer. So there is some violence involving dogs, but you never see anyone attack a dog outright.
Also, I don't think the guy ate the girl. I think he molested her and then chopped her up and fed her to the dogs to get rid of the evidence.
Interestingly enough, I just saw the Japanese trailer online yesterday, and there's a brief clip of the attack on Hollis and his subsequent death. So it looks like this was indeed filmed and hopefully this will make it into the extended cut, because his was a character who was neither here nor there in the film.
Hopefully this means they also filmed an alternate version of the bar scene interrogation with Rorschach and Nite Owl, one that ends with Nite Owl finding out about what happened to Hollis.
Edit: Just read the Collider article on the extended and ultimate DVD release. Looks like Hollis' death will be in the extended cut, and apparently everything else left out from the book. I'm not afraid of the proposed 3 hour and 25 minute runtime at all.
stingermck
03-05-09, 10:52 AM
Oh im getting hyped. Boss is letting me come in at 10 tomorrow, since I assume Ill be back home around 3:30am. Cant wait!
Artman
03-05-09, 12:25 PM
Our company's going to see the first showing Fri morning - a tough day at the office but I think I can manage!
Solid Snake PAC
03-05-09, 12:43 PM
You should have probably linked that intsead of re-posted it. I know Roger prefers that his stuff be linked to, unless you're just using a partial quote. For the record:
Bottomline for fanboys is this: we are in the middle (perhaps near the end, but who knows) of the hey-day of comic book movies. We should enjoy them while we can.
I don't know about that. When the stuff we used to enjoy in our dark little corners suddenly becomes mainstream, something gets lost. The small pleasures we used to get, that spoke to us and not the masses, have been watered down and turned into thrills for everybody. What drew me to Iron Man and Batman comics when I was young wasn't necessarily what I saw in IRON MAN and THE DARK KNIGHT. Those were big-budget spectacles designed for a mass audience. Nothing wrong with that, but just not my idea of great comic book movies. I loved PUNISHER: WAR ZONE because it didn't go all mainstream and mega-budget on us. It was small, gritty, dirty, gory, dark, lunatic, delirious, and funny as hell. That's probably my favorite comic book movie of the last decade or so.
Solid Snake PAC
03-05-09, 01:28 PM
It also had a crap story and Jigsaw was too over the top. Yes, it was in the right direction but it was not a top comic book film. TDK and Iron Man were a great adaptations of the comics. I seem to really remember a lot of moments in IM alone that were in the comics..specifically the humor...
Interestingly enough, I just saw the Japanese trailer online yesterday, and there's a brief clip of the attack on Hollis and his subsequent death. So it looks like this was indeed filmed and hopefully this will make it into the extended cut, because his was a character who was neither here nor there in the film.
Hopefully this means they also filmed an alternate version of the bar scene interrogation with Rorschach and Nite Owl, one that ends with Nite Owl finding out about what happened to Hollis.
Edit: Just read the Collider article on the extended and ultimate DVD release. Looks like Hollis' death will be in the extended cut, and apparently everything else left out from the book. I'm not afraid of the proposed 3 hour and 25 minute runtime at all.
Yes, I am aware that it will be put back into the film.
If you notice, in the bar scene where Rorschach interrogates the guy from Pyramid, you can see Nite Owl look around the bar and spot the knot who eventually tells him about killing Hollis. In the theatrical cut we cut away before Nite Owl talks to him, but I fully expect in the extended cut it will play out as it did in the comic.
Dr. DVD
03-05-09, 05:53 PM
I don't know about that. When the stuff we used to enjoy in our dark little corners suddenly becomes mainstream, something gets lost. The small pleasures we used to get, that spoke to us and not the masses, have been watered down and turned into thrills for everybody. What drew me to Iron Man and Batman comics when I was young wasn't necessarily what I saw in IRON MAN and THE DARK KNIGHT. Those were big-budget spectacles designed for a mass audience. Nothing wrong with that, but just not my idea of great comic book movies. I loved PUNISHER: WAR ZONE because it didn't go all mainstream and mega-budget on us. It was small, gritty, dirty, gory, dark, lunatic, delirious, and funny as hell. That's probably my favorite comic book movie of the last decade or so.
Never saw War:Zone, busy time for me when it arrived, and it was out of theaters in my area in the blink of an eye. I see where you are coming from, but it seems that the adaptations that are only fanboy friendly in terms of appeal are done with us in mind (Watchmen, Sin City, 300). Watchmen is the most difficult to do as Sin City had the old film noir aspect to appeal to critics and 300 had the ass kicking action loved by heterosexual men the world over. ;) FWIW, as I wasn't around here when Iron Man came out, that was the first Marvel adaptation where I felt like I had watched something that was in the Marvel universe, not something in a movie version of the "real world" with Marvel characters. But I have to say, as a comic fan, did you ever think the day would come where you could walk to your DVD shelf and see 300, Sin City, Spider-Man, Iron Man, and others all together? At one time it was pretty much Batman and Superman and that was all we got. It is a good time to be a comic fan IMO.
Watchmen the movie is a perfect adaptation of the graphic novel. I don't know how else or who else could have done it. Every single actor was excellent. I don't get all this criticism over the film. And it was an extremely short 3 hours, unlike The Dark Knight which felt like two movies put together. Watchmen was a beautifully crafted film. I look forward to the Director's Cut on DVD.
A++++
Patman
03-06-09, 03:25 AM
The film is an abridged version of the book, so it'd be a little confusing to a non-reader. That said, to do the story justice, including proper character development, I think it needs to be a 5-6 hour film. It's a tough project to take the source material and adapt it for the big screen, but it swings for the fences, but you only end up with a ground-rule double.
Casting-wise, I liked Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl and Jackie Haley as Rorschach. Didn't think Malin Akerman did well as Laurie as she's just not good enough of an actress to pull off pivotal scenes, couldn't really stand Matthew Goode as Veidt, but I'm ambivalent on Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan. Carla Gugino did well for a small-ish role.
At this moment, I think I'd give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.
stingermck
03-06-09, 03:26 AM
Just got back also. TDK is still my favorite, but this was an excellent adaption. Theater was crowded and a group of guys dressed up like Watchmen, which was cool. Ill post more later once I sleep and let it settle some.
silentbob007
03-06-09, 03:27 AM
Just back from a midnight show ... nothing like a graphic sex scene with a theater full of stoned, giggling teenagers.
Initial impressions: it felt a bit long but was worth the journey
CloverClover
03-06-09, 03:27 AM
I am mixed about it, I would give it a C or B-, on the one hand it is refreshing to see such great writing and ideas in a mainstream film... in content and ideas it far surpasses batman, however the movie is full of BS. The filmmaking is disastrous, starting with the editing, special effects, pop songs, fight scenes, some of the acting... it is like they tried as hard as they could to take the integrity out of the material, while still claim to have stuck to the source... to have their cake and eat it too. There might as well have been techno music playing through the fights....
I don't think it worked as a movie at all, the only strength of it is that the movie happens to be Watchmen, the best parts of the movie felt like experiencing literature... so overall it felt pointless, I will pick up the g novel instead some time, then experience it as intended.
Rypro 525
03-06-09, 04:23 AM
Got back too. As a non reader (yet, i bought the comic about 2 weeks ago, but haven't read any of it yet). I really enjoyed it. Sure some of the acting was a bit stiff, but it didn't deter or take away from the movie. Surprisingly enough the crowd i saw it with at the muvico arundel mills theater was well behaved, and clapless till the end credits and the scene where Rorschac spilled hot oil over the guy at the prison Also what i enjoyed to is that while it was close to 3 hours, it didn't really feel that long either. since i'm too lazy to read through 30 pages worth of threads, how does the book end? since i know they changed the ending.
Solid Snake PAC
03-06-09, 04:25 AM
Just got back from the theater. I know that TDK was the better film..but...I think I liked Watchmen more. No matter what it does feel somewhat immediately rushed to reach convenience. I was pleased by all the acting, Haley was badass. I'm writing a review right now for flixter/facebook..so I'll post it with some changes cuz...well we know wtf Watchmen is..but yeah...to bed now.
Well wait....maybe I don't like Watchmen more than TDK. Gimme a couple of hours of sleep and we're good to discuss this................
pridesticks06
03-06-09, 04:38 AM
I too just arrived from the late showing, and was surprised at how well it was adapted from the graphic novel. I was pretty skeptic and pessimistic about it, but overall was quite pleased. Length wasn't too bad at all, and besides some small nitpicking complaints, it was well-done. My initial rating is 4.5/5 but like many movies, the more I think it over the lower it will go.
Also, theater was packed. Two full auditoriums at the Warren theater, but I only saw one costume - Comedian.
porieux
03-06-09, 05:37 AM
I'd say it's worse than Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, and Superman: The Movie. Better than Incredible Hulk. Maybe on par with Iron Man, but I was not as big of a fan of Iron Man as a lot of people on this forum.
WOW, I really hope that isn't the case because I found those three to be unwatchable dross, despite their mysterious (to me) popularity. Iron Man was good though. Didn't see Hulk.
My GF is trying to get me to see this in the theater and you just made her job even harder, LOL.
ardathbey
03-06-09, 06:13 AM
I thought it kicked ass. I just finished reading the book this week and thought it was faithful. I think Snyder did an amazing of job of bringing it to life. Random thoughts...
==Was the group ever actually referred to as "the Watchmen" in the book?
==Loved how they changed how Rorsach get's his mask back. That moment with Malcolm was tremendous.
==Are there different version of the book? Don't recall seeing the blue penis at all in the book. Seemed like more cursing in the film as well. Did I maybe read a censored version?
==Missed Hollis' death and Dan's reaction. Glad it's back in for the DVD.
==Preferred the ending in the movie. Dr M being the weapon instead of a "alien" squid was much better.
==Thought the opening credit sequence was amazing. Snyder is really good at them. His opening to Dawn of the Dead is also one of my favs.
==Didn't like that Laurie didn't smoke.
==Didn't care for Dr. M ALMOST stop Blake from shooting the girl in Nam. Came off much worse in my eyes than him not even moving.
DonnachaOne
03-06-09, 06:17 AM
==Was the group ever actually referred to as "the Watchmen" in the book?
No.
==Are there different version of the book? Don't recall seeing the blue penis at all in the book. Seemed like more cursing in the film as well. Did I maybe read a censored version? The book had quite a bit of both, handled carefully to never make it seem gratuitous.
Tarantino
03-06-09, 06:25 AM
I thought it was...okay. The story was a good one (having never read the comic), but it did feel long, and afterwards felt...unspectacular.
I just didn't get the feeling that I did when I saw Spider-Man or TDK afterwards.
I probably won't watch it again.
= J
Suprmallet
03-06-09, 07:59 AM
==Was the group ever actually referred to as "the Watchmen" in the book?
That comes from the phrase "Who watches the Watchmen?" which is found as city graffiti throughout the book. It comes from the latin phrase Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?, literally translated as "Who will guard the guards themselves," although "Who watches the Watchmen?" is a popular way of phrasing it. It refers to Plato's Republic, which would have had a ruling guardian class. The question was brought to Plato of who would guard the populace against the guardians. The question has been re-used to muse on the idea of where ultimate power should lie. The heroes, being above ordinary humans in one way or another, are the "Watchmen" who must be watched.
==Loved how they changed how Rorsach get's his mask back. That moment with Malcolm was tremendous.
Agreed. It's one of the few alterations from the book that improves upon the story in general.
Trevor
03-06-09, 09:05 AM
I thought we had decided that these polls should be public? Anonymous polls are useless imho, too easy for haters or diehards to give the max or lowest with impunity.
scott1598
03-06-09, 09:25 AM
I thought we had decided that these polls should be public? Anonymous polls are useless imho, too easy for haters or diehards to give the max or lowest with impunity.
i don't think review polls or choosing between which movies should be public at all (in fact if i see a public poll i usually won't choose in it).
it is nobody's business what you picked and why and there is no need for a potential someone to call you out on giving a min or max and then asking for reasons and get all hated on if not supplied. i did it in the beginning to quell any threadcrappers, but no, private is the more respectful. the scant few that choose impurely will go unnoticed by all the rest who decide to do for real.
but, please let us not discuss this in here.
nickdawgy
03-06-09, 10:21 AM
I'll be seeing it tonight, providing the theater doesn't sell out :lol:
Zodiac_Speaking
03-06-09, 10:28 AM
Well, you can read my thorough review by clicking the link below in my sig panel, but it's a good film. I think sticking so close to the novel, backfired on them. Characters weren't allowed to breathe. I felt it was still too long. Blasphemous, I know, but early one it felt too episodic.
I enjoyed it and will buy it on BD, but it a good superhero film that failed to show why the graphic novel was so highly touted.
DthRdrX
03-06-09, 10:33 AM
I've read the novel but won't see the movie till tommorow afternoon. I'm curious, for people that have seen the movie, thumbs up or down on the revised ending? I have no idea what they changed it to yet.
The Bus
03-06-09, 10:36 AM
I've read the novel but won't see the movie till tommorow afternoon. I'm curious, for people that have seen the movie, thumbs up or down on the revised ending? I have no idea what they changed it to yet.
Didn't see the movie but read spoilers earlier that said that
Dr. Manhattan is the monster.
How exactly they do that, I don't know.
Also:
HaFwr-vh2qU
CaptainMarvel
03-06-09, 10:39 AM
I'm running late so I don't have much time to type. I saw this last night and I loved it. It was far better than I could have expected.
I think the ending actually worked better than the original books. I wasn't a fan of the squid monster, but this made sense.
stingermck
03-06-09, 10:53 AM
I think the ending worked a lot better. It makes it more connected to the characters and the story, rather than a random monster drop.
Overall I still enjoy the film after sleeping on it. Like others have said, maybe it was too faithful? I guess thats not a bad thing though.
I really liked the 2 fights Nite Owl had. Thats the kind of fighting Ive always wanted to see in a Batman film. Lots of martial arts, and things breaking. Rather than the Bale super punch.
I'm very interested in the directors cut. Also I thought there were a lot of great music choices in the film, and the opening montage was great.
I am a fan of the book, I don't worship it like some, but I am a fan, and it was a good ride.
And Laurie gave a good ride too ;) though I miss her chain smoking for some reason.
Trevor
03-06-09, 10:55 AM
but, please let us not discuss this in here.
I respect your opinion, but obviously disagree. I could be wrong, but when we discussed this in feedback I thought the majority favored public polls. And I'll discuss it more if I feel like it.
But back to the movie......
A lot of people are saying that if you love the book you'll love the movie, but I was expecting the exact opposite, at least from the huge Alan Moore fans. Giving the atrociousness of all the earlier film adaptations of his work, and my feeling that the graphic novel is one of the finest works of fiction in any medium, I went into the film thinking that it had no chance to measure up, and would likely be a train wreck. I became cautiously optimistic for a mediocre effort after seeing the trailers, but was surprised to like it much more than I anticipated.
It was far from perfect, but at the very least it was a well done "motion comic", as it seemed that half the shots were panel for panel. Much of the casting was brilliant, and Jackie Earle Haley was amazing. I give it a solid B+ for now, but need to see it again when I'm more fully awake. Midnight showings between 12 hour shifts aren't a good idea.
toddly6666
03-06-09, 11:31 AM
I would like to add that the old age make-up (Sally Jupiter and Nixon) and the CGI mouth of Dr. Manhattan are not as bad as everyone says. The old age make-up is as good as in any other movie (For example, I thought that Kate Winslet's old age make up was awful in THE READER, but no one said anything about that). And the overall CGI'ing of Dr. Manhattan was excellent and amazing to look at.
And I think Nixon's extra long nose was an ode to Pinocchio - Nixon the "lying puppet." The older he got, the more lies he fed to the people.
Yavin
03-06-09, 11:48 AM
^ The old-age make-up on some of the other characters, such as Wally Weaver and Janey Slater, appeared to have been handled a little better than for Sally Jupiter. I got a bit of a Lea Thompson from Back to the Future vibe whenever aged Carla Gugino was on screen. The CG on Dr. Manhattan's face was really well done, as if Billy Crudup was under prosthetic makeup or something ... the line creases by the eyes, etc. were nice touches.
On the topic of Dr. Manhattan, one scene that made me chuckle a bit was:
The first time he reappeared in full (i.e., not as a circulatory system, etc.) in the dining hall where Wally Weaver and Janey Slater were having lunch ... from the way the scene was shot, he was not facing Janey when he appeared. I.e., she was facing his backside ... how the heck did she recognize him based on just looking at his naked blue behind?!
toddly6666
03-06-09, 12:37 PM
After watching the Watchmen movie, I don't understand why so many people are complaining. As a fan of the book (I've read it about 4 times), I see the movie as a perfect adaptation of the book. I can understand the movie getting low reviews by people who haven't read the book or haven't read it too many times, but what exactly are fans of the book complaining about?
Here are some other recent movies that have had a serious following of their books. Now we all know that they say the books are better than their films, but I also think that fans of those books like these movies a lot more than the average joe.
Lord of the Rings
Twilight
Persepolis
Harry Potter
The Passion of the Christ
Chronicles of Narnia
The books may be wonderful and all, but I think those films above are just okay, with the exception of Lord of the Rings...
So are their any hardcore fans of the Watchmen book disappointed with the film?
Edit to add... someone beat me too it back in Post #99. :(
Daytripper
03-06-09, 12:57 PM
Well, I loved it. And the time flew by. I couldn't believe it's nearly a three hour film. I'm pissed because there was something wrong with either the film print or the projector in my theater. The top half of the movie was out of focus the entire time. I complained twice but apparently they couldn't do anything about it. Anyway, I'm stunned this didn't an NC-17 rating. Because it's quite possibly the most graphic violence I've ever seen. And I wasn't expecting so much swinging blue dick. If any. YOWZA! Homeboy was packin some serious heat too. Anyway, I'd give the film a 8.5/10 rating. Which I'm sure will go up the more I watch it over the years. Like "Hellboy".
Trevor
03-06-09, 01:02 PM
That's the funniest video I've watched all year, thanks Goldberg.
Ranger
03-06-09, 01:04 PM
Are the fights simlar to the ones from 300? Or Watchmen's less/more violent?
stingermck
03-06-09, 01:09 PM
What could have been:
"When Snyder first came on board to the direct the film, the script was very much in that standard superhero movie shape. “The script I was handed, the studio said this is PG-13. It was updated to the War on Terror. Dr. Manhattan goes to Iraq instead of Vietnam. Adrian gets killed by Dan in the end. The Owlship crushes him and [Dan] has some kind of cool tagline. No Manhattan on Mars. No Comedian’s funeral. No Rorschach being interrogated.”
Are the fights simlar to the ones from 300? Or Watchmen's less/more violent?
Well, I'd say more. MUCH more violent.
CloverClover
03-06-09, 01:17 PM
I've read the novel but won't see the movie till tommorow afternoon. I'm curious, for people that have seen the movie, thumbs up or down on the revised ending? I have no idea what they changed it to yet.
thumbs way down, horrible choice... of course it will go down with most people, because it's easier to swallow, but how can Zack Snyder think he knows better than Alan Moore? Hollywood movies always try to make everything as cyclical and compact as they can, trying to grab elements from the plot and pay them off in clever ways, or to tie everything up... the ending they used in the movie is a bad example of that, and makes little sense... Watchmen plays on the genre where giant sci-fi monsters are a tradition...only this time created by the good guy... taking the squid out is like replacing the eye of Sauron, with Saruman
It is a good movie because it's Watchmen, but it is wrapped in total incompetence
dom56
03-06-09, 01:27 PM
Only two and half stars from both DVDtalk reviewers. Maybe I should wait for the extended cut dvd to come out.
Trevor
03-06-09, 01:41 PM
Only two and half stars from both DVDtalk reviewers. Maybe I should wait for the extended cut dvd to come out.
I don't say this often, but this is sort of a "try to see it on a huge theater screen" movie.
Also, given all the free ticket promotions, you can make it a fairly free experience.
kms_md
03-06-09, 01:41 PM
i guess i will chime in on the ending. (spoilers, just in case)
in order to have the squid work, you have a rather complex subplot intertwined throughout the movie. i think that using dr. manhattan as the "monster" works well within the context presented in the movie. in fact, i had the feeling that mankind was not angry at dr. manhattan for the slaughter of millions, but strangely appreciative for averting annihilation or apprehensive that he was still "watching us".
ps. i voted 4 stars. i was impressed and enjoyed it immensely.
RagingBull80
03-06-09, 02:23 PM
I saw this at the midnight showing this morning. I don't know where I stand on it though. I liked it. I got a lot of enjoyment out of it; I just think I was expecting something a little different.
I read the novel and enjoyed it. I think it’s one of the greatest comics ever written but I'm no fanboy.
I understand that things had to be removed to make the movie work for the general public and I am fine with that. I even liked the changes that they made.
Rorschach getting his costume back while at the prison.
Dr. Manhattan being the cause of the huge explosion.
The extended sex scene between Dan and Laurie.
Too me, it was too bright. I was expecting something darker with less humor.
I do think it was a good movie. I think my expectations were a little too high but I need to see it again.
Malin Akerman didn’t bother me but I thought Matthew Goode was pretty bad.
Rorschach was badass.
Oh, and it flew by. It did not feel like it was almost three hours at all.
I gave it three stars because I think it was a good effort.
stingermck
03-06-09, 02:43 PM
To all us midnighters (from BOM post)
Warner Bros.' "Watchmen" grossed $4.6 million in Thursday midnight runs, more than double the midnight gross for Zack Snyder's previous film "300." Pic played more than 1,595 midnight run across the country. Today, "Watchmen" officially opens in a total 3,611 theaters. That's the widest theater count ever for an R-rated film.
RagingBull80
03-06-09, 02:46 PM
Oh I forgot, It was great to see The Road Warrior on one of Veidt's many TVs.
stingermck
03-06-09, 02:51 PM
Oh I forgot, It was great to see The Road Warrior on one of Veidt's many TVs.
As well as Rambo First Blood Part II, and also some random porn too?
RKillgore
03-06-09, 03:08 PM
I read the series when it originally came out, so my perspective is one from someone who is very familiar with the graphic novel.
It would be easy to point out things that were done better in the book. I missed seeing the regular citizens, like the two Bernies, to show how the superheroes affected society. There's not so much an impression of global crisis, other than the scientists moving the doomsday clock to 11:55. I expect that will be fleshed out with the extended version DVD. I also didn't get the impression that Ozymandias was as popular and revered as he was portrayed in the book.
But, to those who think the movie is just a pale imitation of the book, I'd like to bring up a few things that were done better in the movie:
Rorschach doesn't lunge out of Molock's refrigerator. Sure, that may have been a cool scene in the comic, but in reality it would play out more awkwardly.
Molock enters his tiny, shabby apartment and notices the refrigerator light, as the door is slightly ajar. As he approaches, the door swings open from an internal thump, revealing a cramped Rorschach inside.
Rorschach: Uhhhh, errm, ennf. Leg asleep. Could you give me a hand?
In the Silk Spectre I rape scene, Sally gives Eddie an impressive right cross to defend herself rather than scratching his face.
The Nite Owl costume design is an improvement. In the comic, when Dan is dressed up, he just looks like a slightly pudgy guy in spandex. The movie version is a more drastic transformation, looking cooler and showing us Dan's motivation for being a costumed adventurer.
The following are more drastic deviations from the book, spoilerized to preserve your viewing surprise.
Janey Slater makes an appearance at the Dr. Manhattan televised interview to break he news she has cancer. This is a more drastic reveal to push Jon over the edge.
Ozymandias takes the place of Captain Metropolis in the first meeting of the <html><strike>Crimebusters</html></strike> Watchmen as the instigator of the group. I know this was done to condense the story, but this shows Veidt's inclination to "fix" the United States or the world. When the Comedian humiliates him, it makes Veidt's attack on him more personal.
Rorshach's encounter with the child abductor/murderer was a real surprise. Rather than ripping off a scene from Mad Max, Rorschach has more definite, black & white answer.
The Rorschach pattern on the snow was a good touch; I'm surprised they didn't do it in the comic. Also the Pioneer Publications logo (publishers of The New Frontiersman) was a good touch.
I thought it was a very good adaption and look forward to the bonus-packed, extended cut DVD.
For a lot of the little touches I thought were missing, go to www.thenewfrontiersman.net, including a circa 1980's Minutemen video game.
Luther Heggs
03-06-09, 03:29 PM
The Rorschach pattern on the snow was a good touch; I'm surprised they didn't do it in the comic.
It was done in the comic, in a way:
in the comic, the stain in the snow left by Rorschach forms the same blood-stain shape that recurs constantly throughout the book. It's the last instance of it until the one in the final panel.
Giles
03-06-09, 04:05 PM
for the IMAX-Digital presentation I saw this morning - I was surprised that the end credits are under a minute - a movie first in a long time. Is this different for the 35mm/DLP versions. I was also surprised that a lot of people were at this screening since it was 10:45am and in Alexandria.
still mulling over my thoughts of the movie but generally I was impressed.
droidguy1119
03-06-09, 04:08 PM
I have to see it again, I think, although I'm not chomping at the bit to do so. We'll see how I feel later. I haven't read the comic (I always see the movie first, and then read the book, because I feel then you can take both on their own terms). It felt like two and a half hours of exposition. I thought the epilogue, before the part in the office, was kind of terrible. I thought Dr. Manhattan's backstory (and the always-welcome use of the Koyaanisqatsi theme) was the best part of the movie, that Patrick Wilson was excellent, as was Jackie Earle Haley, while Matthew Goode was terrible and Malin Akerman started out good but got worse as the movie went on. I liked "The Times They Are A-Changin'" although it ran long.
I don't know how well it's going to do. I don't think most of the audience that went to my midnight show were prepared for the movie to be two and a half hours of not-so-much action and include Tricky Dick.
Patman
03-06-09, 04:22 PM
for the IMAX-Digital presentation I saw this morning - I was surprised that the end credits are under a minute - a movie first in a long time. Is this different for the 35mm/DLP versions. I was also surprised that a lot of people were at this screening since it was 10:45am and in Alexandria.
still mulling over my thoughts of the movie but generally I was impressed.
Watchmen's running length of 163 minutes (with end credits) is over the 150 minute limit for IMAX films, so that's why the credits were over so quick on the IMAX version.
Bandoman
03-06-09, 04:25 PM
Just came back from Watchmen. It was really, really good. I read the comic for the first time a couple of months ago, so I haven't been a fanboy since the 80's like others who were rabidly awaiting this film. It's not as adrenaline-inducing as The Dark Knight, just because of the nature of the story, but it is really cool and very well done. Aside from a couple of wooden performances, they got everything right IMO. Rorschach is the highpoint. The alternate ending doesn't bother me in the least. I give it 4 stars.
Indy Jones Fan
03-06-09, 04:28 PM
I voted 4 stars. I haven't read the graphic novel but still found the story to be great and not hard to follow at all. From the spoilers I've read about the original book ending I think the theatrical ending was perfect. Looking forward to the Blu-Ray release.
Also, was I the only one getting a serious Clark Griswald vide from Dan Dreiberg? :)
Giles
03-06-09, 05:03 PM
Watchmen's running length of 163 minutes (with end credits) is over the 150 minute limit for IMAX films, so that's why the credits were over so quick on the IMAX version.
it was an IMAX-Digital presentation not IMAX 'Film'
UncleGramps
03-06-09, 05:07 PM
Watchmen's running length of 163 minutes (with end credits) is over the 150 minute limit for IMAX films, so that's why the credits were over so quick on the IMAX version.
Besides the credits, was anything else cut from the IMAX version? That's the version I was planning to see tomorrow.
Suprmallet
03-06-09, 05:11 PM
Only the ending credits have been altered for IMAX.
Giles, the Digital IMAX presentations are taken from the IMAX DMR prints, so even though they could play a 10-hour movie digitally, it's going to conform to the physical platter standards. At least until they start making movies only to show in IMAX digital with no 70mm version.
Giles
03-06-09, 05:14 PM
^ got ya...
I thought there was no film backup for IMAX-Digital, so if the digital source gets messed up, there's not an alternative.
Slumbering Fist
03-06-09, 05:22 PM
Didnt like it too much. Old school fan, bought it issue by issue, but I dont think its a perfect work or the greatest "graphic novel" ever. Landmark, accomplished, and important, yes, but it has flaws.
As for the film, stuff that worked for me: The opening. Comedian and Rorschach. Some general changes in the plotting, like the funeral, Rorschach getting his uniform back, and the press conference.
The reworked ending was hit and miss. Hit- the scheme. Miss- the tidiness, lack of gristle to the aftermath. Its funny that the film had zero qualms about all the other bits of extended and graphic violence except for the most important bit of violence in the entire story. Kill a pedophile? Flirt with an NC-17. Kill millions of innocents? Go PG.
As for the rest: The incidental score sucks, furthermore they apparently thought all you need to sell the era is blasting some well-known song over the scene. The look was all uniform drab and dreary, didnt feel era specific. The sex scene was laughable. I hated the way Synder filmed the action, it was too kung fu, too physically improbable, and for Christs sake, just like 300, too much slow motion. No alien, so why keep the kitty, and a hideous CGI one at that? Oh yeah, and apparently they hired the Dick Tracy team to do the Richard Nixon makeup.
I just didnt find the balance quite right. There are, of course, tongue in cheek/highly comic bookish things alongside straight serious/higher minded moments in the source, but on film when contrasted with the uber cool styling, it makes distinguishing between the playful bits and the serious bits kinda' gray. Stuff that should have been serious felt artificial and comic and that kind of killed it as an adaptation.
Watchmen works better as a comic purely because its a multi-textured commentary on the medium itself and a film just cannot do that because... uh, its film, duh. Sometimes one medium cannot fully translate to another. Its like, say , a novelization of 8 1/2, is gonna' pale to the film because its a film about film. Synder and Co. did okay, maybe the best you can do, but its still a pale translation, lots of detail, but not much subtext.
Giantrobo
03-06-09, 05:25 PM
I just got back and I LOVED this movie.
I mean Wow. Over the last couple days I've read reviews here and I gotta admit I was getting really worried. But this movie delivered for me on many levels. It wasn't perfect, no film is, and yet I felt glued to what was going on in the film. Anyone paying attention to this movie should be able to follow what's going on.
One thing, I know people are pissing on Malin Akerman's acting but it really wasn't as bad as some say. I liked her performance and I think she brought something nice to the role. To me she had heart.
mdc3000
03-06-09, 05:27 PM
Saw it in IMAX (print, not digital) and thought it was fairly kick ass. I'm going to have to see it again to decide for sure, but I'd say 4 stars. It never felt long and the only thing I kept thinking about on the drive home was all the great little moments that didn't make it into the movie that would have gone a LONG way to making the characters more relateable/interesting/fleshed out. In fact, my major problem with the movie is that I feel if I didn't know the material beforehand, the movie is pretty inaccessible. Not in the sense that you can't follow the plot, because it is all there (just in a less thematically interesting sort of way) but they don't give you a moment to really get invested in the characters - therefore making a lot of the flashbacks etc. pretty dull and boring if you don't know the richer source material. Going in I already LOVED Dr. Manhattan, Rorschach, Laurie and Dan. I'm not sure if I'd feel that way from JUST seeing the movie alone (and judging by the fidgeting and complaints afterwards, my uninitiated audience didn't give two shits about them...)
With the exception of Ozzy, Laurie (in a few scenes) and old Sally, who were pretty brutal IMO, the performances were decent - with Manhattan and Rorschach being the huge standouts. Haley just NAILED it and everytime he's on screen the movie springs to life. The movie looked gorgeous and sounded amazing. I love how each scene is loaded with images from the book, directly translating a lot of the artwork/framing... I didn't mind the last act change and thought it worked well. I was left wanting more and had a blast with the movie, I just think the general public will be deeply unsatisfied with this one, so I think it will sink like a stone in the coming weeks... but if you already love Watchmen, you're in for a treat.
Suprmallet
03-06-09, 05:38 PM
^ got ya...
I thought there was no film backup for IMAX-Digital, so if the digital source gets messed up, there's not an alternative.
Sorry, I don't think I explained it very well.
In order to show a film shot in 35mm in IMAX, it requires a remastering process. This is called DMR. In order for Watchmen to fit on physical IMAX platters, the end credits had to be shortened. IMAX digital does not use a film backup. However, they do use the DMR elements for making the digital print. So any changes required for DMR will show up in digital, even though digital can handle longer run times. In time, IMAX may decide to do different digital prints versus film, but right now the point of IMAX digital is to cut costs, not add to them, so I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Hope that explains things a little better.
Krug
03-06-09, 05:47 PM
Just watched it, and thought the first hour or so which lays down a ton of establishment gets tedious, the next hour and a half wasn't too bad. Snyder does have a knack with visuals, though you have to give Gibbons and Moore a lot of credit for providing him with one of the best storyboards in the world.
I don't find the new ending that disruptive in enjoying the movie either. Superior to the comic? No way; but good, yes. One thing that did bug me was the blatant and distracting use of music. During the Vietnam scene where the Comedian and Doc Manhattan are showing the Vietcong their moves, Ride of the Valkyries is playing. In Veidt's office it's Everybody Wants to Rule the World. And of course you have The-Times-They-Are-A-Changing during the intro. Was so bad it made me cringe. The signposting was just too much.
Credit to Crudup and Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. I think they did a great job in their respective roles.
Gave it 3.5 stars
Suprmallet
03-06-09, 05:50 PM
You didn't like the muzak version of Everybody Wants To Rule The World? I thought that was pretty funny and appropriate for Veidt and that scene.
mdc3000
03-06-09, 05:51 PM
Oh yeah, for anyone who cares, the only trailer attached to the IMAX print I saw was Harry Potter: No Star Trek, No Terminator.
Krug
03-06-09, 05:59 PM
You didn't like the muzak version of Everybody Wants To Rule The World? I thought that was pretty funny and appropriate for Veidt and that scene.
I would have been fine with it if not for the other music choices throughout the film. :)
maingon
03-06-09, 06:06 PM
Well I seen it today, and first of all I must say I never got around to read the novel, I was hoping to read it before the movie, but I didnt and came into the movie knowing not much about the plot execpt for some of the politics, Nixon etc
I didnt really care for it, I felt disconnected for most of the movie, It was better in the middle, but i found the ending to be boring and the first half didnt flow well. Felt like I should of read before seeing this.
I loved the opening credit, the look of the movie, I liked Laurie Jupiter, Walter and Nite Owl 2. . Carla Gugino and the actress that played Laurie were extremely sexy.
not a bad movie, but i wish I read the graphic novel and then maybe I would of liked it more. I did like the prison stuff pretty awesome.
I dont think this movie will do well, it will probably do good opening weekend, but if you never read the graphic novel most people wont like it as much.
onebyone
03-06-09, 06:38 PM
I am torn on this one. I really liked some scenes, and the Comedian and Rorshach (especially him) were fascinating characters and any scene with them was great. Carla Gugino was good with her limited time too, and the use of flashbacks was very clever.
I could've watched a whole movie just revolving around those prison scenes.
That said, I didn't think the rest of the actors were very good at all. They were just... bland. Some scenes were like, "Really, seriously, you used that cut?" the song placement was way too obvious, and as said earlier that sex scene was just horrible.
I didn't like the ending very much either. It just seemed underwhelming.
I haven't read the graphic novel though, and unless the ending there is very different, I wont.
joefrog91
03-06-09, 06:57 PM
As a fan of the comic, I was real geeked up to watch this movie. I give it 3.5 stars. I wanted it to be longer and have everything from the comic in it. That was the major complaint I had. It really should have been an HBO mini-series that came on two weeks straight. Also, some of the delivery of the dialogue was stilted. That worked for a film noir like Sin City, but so much here.
There were scenes were dialogue was spoken that had no reference point because Snyder left those extra scenes out of the movie. It didn't make sense to keep those lines in if the corresponding scenes were out. I also didn't see a reason to change some of the plot lines and create new ones.
Now, for everything right with the film. Haley's Rorschach was dead on. His voice, his mannerisms were exactly what I had in my head since the first time I read Watchmen. He should get an Oscar nomination for his performance. A guy came dressed as Rorschach and looked really cool. His friend came as Doc Manhattan. He looked cool too.
Speaking of which, Billy Crudup was great as Doc Manhattan. His choice of voice wasn't what I imagined it would be, but it worked. The guy that played the Comedian was pretty good too. The girl that played Laurie was very sexy, but not a very good actress. She wasn't as bad as most people are saying though. The guy that played Nite Owl was good. I couldn't tell if Ozymandias was being aloof on purpose or if it was bad acting.
I will see this movie again, hopefully in San Antonio next week on the IMAX screen. If you read the comic, you will like it. If you didn't, then you may have a lot of questions about what is going on.
DonnachaOne
03-06-09, 07:33 PM
My review of Watchmen, since images are so much more important than words, context or meaning:
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/3876/sadq.gif
Brack
03-06-09, 08:24 PM
Wow, what a terrific piece of entertainment. But it is much more than that, and that's probably why I really loved it. I saw it on the IMAX, and WOW, the visuals and sound are top notch, some of the best I've ever heard. I've never read the book, but I borrowed it from my sister after seeing it today and look forward to this universe. I can't praise this movie enough. It's funny, I see it being compared to The Dark Knight, which I don't think makes much sense. I think there's much more to Watchmen than TDK, so I give the edge to Watchmen.
harpo787
03-06-09, 08:27 PM
First of all, that Saturday cartoon thing is just wrong on so many levels! Rorschach as a crazy kook, but in an oh-so-loveable way (complete with loveable nut voice)?!? GASP!
Regarding The Watchmen ever being called "The Watchmen" in the book...didn't somone spray paint that on a wall or window? Was it just a general reference, like to the government etc. rather than the superhero group? Read the book once, so I don't recall.
And my review, in general: As I said, read the graphic novel once about a year ago, so I have some reference to it while watching the movie. Thoroughly enjoyed both the comic and the movie. I was still a little confused watching the movie, but not to the point of being lost. I'd give the movie 4 out of 5 stars. I can see those having never read the novel being disappointed in it, if they are anticipating an action-fest.
harpo787
03-06-09, 08:31 PM
I felt it was still too long. Blasphemous, I know, but early one it felt too episodic.
I enjoyed it and will buy it on BD, but it a good superhero film that failed to show why the graphic novel was so highly touted.
Interesting...didn't feel as long as it actually was, to me. Forgot to note that in my brief review.
That said, though, I totally agree with you on the film not being able to fully show greatness of the novel.
Son of Odin
03-06-09, 09:20 PM
loved it. loved the graphic novel. can't wait for the director's cut with an hour of add' footage. imo, best movie i've seen in years. the sex scene was, well, sexy. it came off really well. loved the nudity, it needed it for realism. this ain't no sugar coated movie. it pulled no punches. as graphic as the novel. made dark knight look like batman&robin. rorschach is what batman should be it he wasn't such a p*ssy. great acting as well. no character was a weak link. spot on casting.
harpo787
03-06-09, 09:31 PM
I didn't know that Terry Gilliam was attached to Watchmen at one point! Interesting tidbit from wikipedia:
"Gilliam abandoned the project because he decided that Watchmen would have been unfilmable. "Reducing [the story] to a two or two-and-a-half hour film [...] seemed to me to take away the essence of what Watchmen is about," he said.[75] After Warner Bros. dropped the project, Gordon invited Gilliam back to helm the film independently. The director again declined, believing that the comic book would be better directed as a five-hour miniseries.["
Giles
03-06-09, 09:36 PM
^ oh that's old well established news, how could any Watchmen fan NOT know that little bit of trivia ;)
filmerp
03-06-09, 09:36 PM
The film absol-effin' blew my mind!
I saw the midnight screening with 5 other friends. There was a clear division in our opinions; 3 of us had read the graphic novel and loved the film, while other 3 who did not found it quite long and difficult to follow. While I'm definitely going to check it out again, hopefully in IMAX, I suppose I'd recommend reading the graphic novel before seeing the film because, while you'd then be viewing the film already knowing the revelations, you'd also avoid severe confusion as well as appreciate the amazing level of detail referencing the book.
The only drawback to me was the casting of Veidt's character, whom I felt was terribly uncharismatic. They should have cast someone who gave the gravitas of a "celebrity" superhero who could then conceivably build a corporate empire based on his image.
Torchur317
03-06-09, 09:48 PM
First off I've never read the graphic novel so I had no expectations besides seeing the trailer. Zack Snyder already impressed me with the Dawn of the Dead remake & 300. He did not disappoint one bit, This is the most extreme hard hitting comic book ever made. I can't believe this film got an R for all the shit that was in this movie. Violence & gore galore, pregnant woman getting killed, basically a scene straight from a porn, plenty of blue cock & ass, & other stuff.
Jackie Earle Haley gave the performance of a lifetime as Walter Kovacs / Rorschach. I've always thought he was a damn good actor especially after seeing All the King's Men & Little Children but never thought he could pull off such bad ass role as Rorschach. He's a small guy & he never seemed like someone that would seem threatening but he really outdid himself on this film. I must say his performance rivals Heath Ledger in last year's Dark Knight. Jeffrey Dean Morgan looks like Javier Bardem's twin brother, it's really crazy how much they are alike. I've never really seen anything else from this guy but he was very impressive as Edward Blake / The Comedian in his supporting role. He was my second favorite character after Rorschach, He was insane & killed with no problem, I loved it.
I'm surprised no one else is talking about Patrick Wilson's performance, He was very good in this. It's good to see him getting more lead roles these days. I respect this guy, he's not afraid to take a risk. Stuff like Little Children, Hard Candy, & Angels in America are all very interesting roles/projects to do. Billy Crudup was good in this but I expected better from him considering his past work. Plus he was way too exposed in this, every time he was on screen I wanted to scream out "PUT ON SOME PANTS". They showed way too much of his cock & ass in this, I don't care if it was pink, blue, or whatever it was too much really. I would have rather seen more of Malin Akerman nude in this. Regardless, he still had a good performance in this but I've seen better performances from him in other films. Stephen McHattie, Carla Gugino, & Matt Frewer were really good in their small roles.
Now on to the weakest links.... Matthew Goode was excellent in The Lookout & had a better performance in Woody Allen's Match Point but in this he was a little above average but nothing special compared to the others. I hate to say this but Malin Akerman is a horrible actress for the most part but this was her best performance so far but that's not really saying much. I will give her this, she looked really sexy in this movie & her nude scenes were more impressive than the one in The Heartbreak Kid. I don't understand why she was casted tho, maybe the actresses that Zack Snyder wanted didn't want to get nude or do that borderline porn love scene. Look at his past leading ladies Sarah Polley & Lena Headey, both have alot more talent and I consider them both more attractive than Malin Akerman. I will say some of song choices in the film were interesting but most of them fit. If you have 3 hours to kill, this is worth checking out on the big screen with it's great visual & special effects.
I gave it 4 1/2 stars, Highly Recommended....
Son of Odin
03-06-09, 10:00 PM
First off I've never read the graphic novel so I had no expectations besides seeing the trailer. Zack Snyder already impressed me with the Dawn of the Dead remake & 300. He did not disappoint one bit, This is the most extreme hard hitting comic book ever made. I can't believe this film got an R for all the shit that was in this movie. Violence & gore galore, pregnant woman getting killed, basically a scene straight from a porn, plenty of blue cock & ass, & other stuff. Jackie Earle Haley gave the performance of a lifetime as Walter Kovacs / Rorschach. I've always thought he was a damn good actor especially after seeing All the King's Men & Little Children but never thought he could pull off such bad ass role as Rorschach. He's a small guy & he never seemed like someone that would seem threatening but he really outdid himself on this film. I must say his performance rivals Heath Ledger in last year's Dark Knight. Jeffrey Dean Morgan looks like Javier Bardem's twin brother, it's really crazy how much they are alike. I've never really seen anything else from this guy but he was very impressive as Edward Blake / The Comedian in his supporting role. He was my second favorite character after Rorschach, He was insane & killed with no problem, I loved it. I'm surprised no one else is talking about Patrick Wilson's performance, He was very good in this. It's good to see him getting more lead roles these days. I respect this guy, he's not afraid to take a risk. Stuff like Little Children, Hard Candy, & Angels in America are all very interesting roles/projects to do. Billy Crudup was good in this but I expected better from him considering his past work. Plus he was way too exposed in this, every time he was on screen I wanted to scream out "PUT ON SOME PANTS". They showed way too much of his cock & ass in this, I don't care if it was pink, blue, or whatever it was too much really. I would have rather seen more of Malin Akerman nude in this. Regardless, he still had a good performance in this but I've seen better performances from him in other films. Stephen McHattie, Carla Gugino, & Matt Frewer were really good in their small roles. Now on to the weakest links.... Matthew Goode was excellent in The Lookout & had a better performance in Woody Allen's Match Point but in this he was a little above average but nothing special compared to the others. I hate to say this but Malin Akerman is a horrible actress for the most part but this was her best performance so far but that's not really saying much. I will give her this, she looked really sexy in this movie & her nude scenes were more impressive than the one in The Heartbreak Kid. I don't understand why she was casted tho, maybe the actresses that Zack Snyder wanted didn't want to get nude or do that borderline porn love scene. Look at his past leading ladies Sarah Polley & Lena Headey, both have alot more talent and I consider them both more attractive than Malin Akerman. I will say some of song choices in the film were interesting but most of them fit. If you have 3 hours to kill, this is worth checking out on the big screen with it's great visual & special effects.
I gave it 4 1/2 stars, Highly Recommended....
I agree that haley's performance was one of the best in years. too bad the movie wasn't about a gay guy or he would win an oscar. I think his acting was better than penn's in milk or mystic river. the director's cut should make this closer to 4 hours, so i'm glad they didn't go the mini series rout. imo, malin blows headey and polley away in hotness and f**kability. 5 of 5 stars for me.
Sanjuro37
03-06-09, 10:13 PM
Man, way to go Zack Snyder. Way to go. I was worried you were going to make Watchmen a cheesy special effects cook-off reel, and that didn't happen at all. Instead, you made it the most fucking boring superhero movie I've ever seen. And I saw Spider-Man 3.
Giles
03-06-09, 10:15 PM
^ Spidey 3 though was a clusterfuck of a movie.
Dr. DVD
03-06-09, 10:56 PM
Saw it. I have read the graphic novel. I thought the movie was great adaptation. All of the strengths of the story were present, and unfortunately so were the flaws. But hey, I liked it, and that's all that matters. If you can, see it in IMAX, as the scenes area site to behold. Jackie Earle Hailey was brilliant BTW.
SomethingMore
03-06-09, 10:59 PM
Can someone explain...
How is there any benefit to seeing this in IMAX? Wouldn't it just end up looking softer?
Giles
03-06-09, 11:00 PM
Saw it. I have read the graphic novel. I thought the movie was great adaptation. All of the strengths of the story were present, and unfortunately so were the flaws. But hey, I liked it, and that's all that matters. If you can, see it in IMAX, as the scenes area site to behold. Jackie Earle Hailey was brilliant BTW.
the highlight of the film IMO.
the scene that had my audience erupt with enthuiasm was when
the guy got the oil thrown onto his face - OUCH!
Giles
03-06-09, 11:01 PM
Can someone explain...
How is there any benefit to seeing this in IMAX? Wouldn't it just end up looking softer?
softer, no it's uprezzed to the brightness and sharpness of 70mm. The soundtrack is insane as well, the bass was ungodly.
toddly6666
03-06-09, 11:03 PM
thumbs way down, horrible choice... of course it will go down with most people, because it's easier to swallow, but how can Zack Snyder think he knows better than Alan Moore? Hollywood movies always try to make everything as cyclical and compact as they can, trying to grab elements from the plot and pay them off in clever ways, or to tie everything up... the ending they used in the movie is a bad example of that, and makes little sense... Watchmen plays on the genre where giant sci-fi monsters are a tradition...only this time created by the good guy... taking the squid out is like replacing the eye of Sauron, with Saruman
It is a good movie because it's Watchmen, but it is wrapped in total incompetence
I didn't hear any Lord of the Rings fans complaining how Peter Jackson changed the demise of Saruman, different from the way it played in the book, but similar, just like this updated ending in Watchmen - same theme but slightly different. I think the movie ending of Watchmen is better than in the book.
Giles
03-06-09, 11:08 PM
^ no I was pissed how they changed the demise of the Witch King, it was pretty much word for word in the Rankin/Bass animated version, but Peter Jackson nudered it for his version.
anyway back to Watchmen....
toddly6666
03-06-09, 11:14 PM
So is Hollywood going to give Jackie Earle Haley more roles now that he's been oscar-nominated in Little Children and was awesome in Watchmen? Or is hollywood going to continue to ignore the creepy ugly actors? I'm afraid that Jackie Earle Haley is going to get William H. Macyed (noticed in Fargo, and just got all these small roles after except for The Cooler).
Patrick Wilson should be doing more action movies as well - I want to see him headline in some cool action flick.
Malin Akerman was better than I expected and hot as well! She could play Lois Lane in the next Superman movie, definitely replace Kate Bosworth who was skanky-looking and dreadful in it...
Carla Gugino should be starring in female action-heroine movies, such as Milla Jovovich, Angelina Jolie, Kate Bosworth, and Rhona Mitra...
Torchur317
03-06-09, 11:15 PM
So is Hollywood going to give Jackie Earle Haley more roles now that he's been oscar-nominated in Little Children and was awesome in Watchmen?
He's already in the upcoming Martin Scorsese film Shutter Island....
With Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, Emily Mortimer, Michelle Williams, Max von Sydow, Patricia Clarkson, Elias Koteas, Ted Levine, John Carroll Lynch, & others.... Looks great!
Solid Snake PAC
03-06-09, 11:25 PM
Well I think Macy kind of fell into his typecasting. He seems to go for them, the depressing weak funny guy. I'd think Haley would fight for other roles...he looks cool as normal guy..I bet he could a sarcastic funny characters...or something else.
Also..that joke Rorschach says was funny...in the comic it was ok..the way Haley says it and ends it is good dark humor of the sort.
Brack
03-06-09, 11:25 PM
off topic a bit, but why are so many dudes upset about penis in movies? it happened when Forgetting Sarah Marshall was released, and it's happening now. I don't hear many women bitching about breasts in movies (maybe some uber-feminists or something, but that's a given). it's a penis, get over it.
Solid Snake PAC
03-06-09, 11:32 PM
Cuz in America, and most of the Americas actually, we're still very young to accepting genitals on film. Europe is more lax with it cuz..well they've been doing it for a while. And I think breasts in general are more mainstream cuz it's not genitalia. It's just a HUGE male attention grabber of the sexual type. A penis is more trouble in general cuz it's an OUTWARD genital...where as a woman is just...an entry for the most part. We never get a shot of vagina opening in actual non-porn films.
Torchur317
03-06-09, 11:33 PM
Macy kind fell into his typecasting.
When you need a loser who makes mistakes or gets himself in trouble....
Macy is the perfect choice....
Brack
03-06-09, 11:41 PM
Cuz in America, and most of the Americas actually, we're still very young to accepting genitals on film. Europe is more lax with it cuz..well they've been doing it for a while. And I think breasts in general are more mainstream cuz it's not genitalia. It's just a HUGE male attention grabber of the sexual type. A penis is more trouble in general cuz it's an OUTWARD genital...where as a woman is just...an entry for the most part. We never get a shot of vagina opening in actual non-porn films.
the dude's wang was flaccid....:confused:
Solid Snake PAC
03-06-09, 11:47 PM
Well we never see a hard-on in the comics..so no need for a hard-on in the film. I think it would polarize the audience for sure...
Derrich
03-06-09, 11:50 PM
So you're telling me that -wasn't- Natalie Portman?
D
Brack
03-06-09, 11:50 PM
Well we never see a hard-on in the comics..so no need for a hard-on in the film. I think it would polarize the audience for sure...
that was my point. jeez.
toddly6666
03-06-09, 11:52 PM
Any dude uncomfortable with seeing penis on the big screen is either full of it, trying to be that cliched "dude" always expressing how straight he is, or is insecure.
How would it sound if some woman got upset watching full-frontal female nudity in a film and said "ewww, vagina and breasts, gross!" It's childish and immature...
Another one of man's continuous bad-habit, brainwashing, machismo "group" comments anyway, because any man that has watched a porno in their life is not honestly disgusted with dick. Most men need dick in their porn - it doesn't make them more or less "sexually conflicted" just because you need to see it in your porn. Unless you are the lying dude that says, "I only watch lesbian porn". Yeah right!
Dr. Manhattan's dick was just hanging there anyway a la National Geographic. He wasn't walking around with a boner. When he was in giant form, I was actually hoping that Snyder would cut to a shot of godzilla dick for a good laugh and to make insecure people go "ewww." Actually now that I think of it, I don't remember any balls? Were there blue balls? haha
LickTheABCs
03-06-09, 11:55 PM
lotta text, lotta text, list of other movies, lotta text, Look at his past leading ladies Sarah Polley & Lena Headey, both have alot more talent and I consider them both more attractive than Malin Akerman, lotta text
Wait! You think Sarah Polley is more fuckable than Malin Akerman? You scare me.
Ok, now back on topic
Rypro 525
03-07-09, 12:00 AM
Anyone else notice that during the opening credits that Alan Moore didn't recieve credit? i know he wants nothing to do with it, but would that be the reason as to not crediting him.
Torchur317
03-07-09, 12:02 AM
How do I scare you?
It's called an opinion & I don't think Malin Akerman is really that hot to be honest....
She looked her best in this but in other stuff I wasn't really impressed....
Son of Odin
03-07-09, 12:03 AM
malin ackerman in spandex/latex=what ms. marvel, spiderwoman, mockingbird, elektra, phoenix/rachel or jean, emma frost should look like in comic book movies. hopefully marvel gets it right that spandex can work in these movies.
auto
03-07-09, 12:07 AM
Anyone else notice that during the opening credits that Alan Moore didn't recieve credit? i know he wants nothing to do with it, but would that be the reason as to not crediting him.
He asked that his name be removed from the film. He wants nothing to do with it.
Torchur317
03-07-09, 12:21 AM
why are so many dudes upset about penis in movies? it's a penis, get over it.
Any dude uncomfortable with seeing penis on the big screen is either full of it, trying to be that cliched "dude" always expressing how straight he is, or is insecure.
How would it sound if some woman got upset watching full-frontal female nudity in a film and said "ewww, vagina and breasts, gross!" It's childish and immature...
Another one of man's continuous bad-habit, brainwashing, machismo "group" comments anyway, because any man that has watched a porno in their life is not honestly disgusted with dick. Most men need dick in their porn - it doesn't make them more or less "sexually conflicted" just because you need to see it in your porn. Unless you are the lying dude that says, "I only watch lesbian porn". Yeah right!
Dr. Manhattan's dick was just hanging there anyway a la National Geographic. He wasn't walking around with a boner.
Looking at most of the reviews on this thread, I'm one of the few if not the only one who complained about too much blue penis & ass in this. If you are going to call someone out be a man & do it. Don't generalize it for everyone when you are talking to me. I'm not full of it, I'm not that cliched "dude", I don't need to watch porno because I have a woman for my needs, & I'm not insecure at all. It's not childish or immature at all.... The answer is simple, I don't like seeing other guy's dicks & I'm not the only guy who thinks that way.
paradicelost
03-07-09, 12:22 AM
I've owned the book for almost two years and just started reading it a few days ago and am only 1/4 of the way through. I thought from what i've read the movie stayed pretty close to the book, but from what i've heard they did change some things.
Funniest thing was I'm guessing a lot of people decided to go and wasn't aware of the Graphic Novel or really anything but the trailers they've seen, because when Rorschach first goes into the Comedian's apartment and throws "liberals" into his little soapbox speech, 3 people from different parts of the theater got up and left. And they were all very vocal about why they were leaving.
I really enjoyed it, I thought it was the shortest 2 1/2 hour film i've ever sat through, which i guess is a good thing.
Tracer Bullet
03-07-09, 12:26 AM
Billy Crudup was good in this but I expected better from him considering his past work. Plus he was way too exposed in this, every time he was on screen I wanted to scream out "PUT ON SOME PANTS". They showed way too much of his cock & ass in this, I don't care if it was pink, blue, or whatever it was too much really. I would have rather seen more of Malin Akerman nude in this.
:lol:
The hell you say... god I love straight dudes.
LickTheABCs
03-07-09, 12:27 AM
I'm not that cliched "dude", I don't need to watch porno because I have a woman for my needs, & I'm not insecure at all.
I always love this argument. I have a GF too and I watch porn all the time.
Well, not all the time, but you get my point.
Brack
03-07-09, 12:28 AM
Looking at most of the reviews on this thread, I'm one of the few if not the only one who complained about too much blue penis & ass in this. If you are going to call someone out be a man & do it. Don't generalize it for everyone when you are talking to me. I'm not full of it, I'm not that cliched "dude", I don't need to watch porno because I have a woman for my needs, & I'm not insecure at all. It's not childish or immature at all.... The answer is simple, I don't like seeing other guy's dicks & I'm not the only guy who thinks that way.
You go on about how you're being singled out, then you say you're not the only one? That just seems contradictory.
I don't just read what people on here have to say, I read other forums and blogs and have read similar posts as yours on almost every place I frequent. It's just something I've noticed and felt the need to ask, because to me it just seems silly.
paradicelost
03-07-09, 12:29 AM
Any dude uncomfortable with seeing penis on the big screen is either full of it, trying to be that cliched "dude" always expressing how straight he is, or is insecure.
How would it sound if some woman got upset watching full-frontal female nudity in a film and said "ewww, vagina and breasts, gross!" It's childish and immature...
Another one of man's continuous bad-habit, brainwashing, machismo "group" comments anyway, because any man that has watched a porno in their life is not honestly disgusted with dick. Most men need dick in their porn - it doesn't make them more or less "sexually conflicted" just because you need to see it in your porn. Unless you are the lying dude that says, "I only watch lesbian porn". Yeah right!
Dr. Manhattan's dick was just hanging there anyway a la National Geographic. He wasn't walking around with a boner. When he was in giant form, I was actually hoping that Snyder would cut to a shot of godzilla dick for a good laugh and to make insecure people go "ewww." Actually now that I think of it, I don't remember any balls? Were there blue balls? haha
I was more grossed out at all the dudes in "Eurotrip" than i was in seeing Mr. Manhattan's manhood. I'm guessing its that little gay side in me( that some say is in everyone) that just is ok in seeing a well built guy being naked
but is a little creeped out by seeing a bunch of old,fat, naked dudes on a beach.
Torchur317
03-07-09, 12:36 AM
You go on about how you're being singled out, then you say you're not the only one? That just seems contradictory.
Look how to read please.... I said I think I'm the only one who posted that when I checked most of the reviews posted in here, I didn't see anyone else who posted anything about it. I could be wrong because I didn't read every single one on here. Hence why I put "I'm one of the few if not the only one who complained."
Brack
03-07-09, 12:43 AM
Look how to read please.... I said I think I'm the only one who posted that when I checked most of the reviews posted in here, I didn't see anyone else who posted anything about it. I could be wrong because I didn't read every single one on here. Hence why I put "I'm one of the few if not the only one who complained."
I never called you out, you called yourself out. I can read, and you acted as if I was calling you out. If I'm wrong in making that assumption, I'm sorry.
Solid Snake PAC
03-07-09, 12:54 AM
I really don't mind any nudity at all as long as it's used tastefully within the context of the story. Manhattan to that point was beyond what humanity understood or could relate to. He only wore clothes in the case of the general public. He didn't care if it was in the view of those close to him. It was used, like in the comic, with good taste and context relevant to the character. What I will not stand is just generic throwing about of nude shots just to have it in there. I think you have to get past that eventually...I mean my weakness is gore, I'm not offended by it...I just don't like it being used all the time for the hell of it. Though I did like Oldboy's use of it because it was relevant to the story and used appropriately in it.
Finisher
03-07-09, 12:56 AM
Agree with droidguy that the film felt like two and a half hours of exposition. Film felt longish to me yet I wanted more. Mainly because Snyder is a stellar shooter; his command of visuals is truly impressive.
Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan and The Comedian were all very memorable. I got a HAL9000 vibe from Dr. Manhattan with the superior intellect and measured voice. Loved seeing the Humongous and Ridley Scott's Apple ad on Veidt's monitors. Would love to see a screen cap of all his monitors.
BTW, the sound in IMAX was unbelievable.
toddly6666
03-07-09, 01:02 AM
Looking at most of the reviews on this thread, I'm one of the few if not the only one who complained about too much blue penis & ass in this. If you are going to call someone out be a man & do it. Don't generalize it for everyone when you are talking to me. I'm not full of it, I'm not that cliched "dude", I don't need to watch porno because I have a woman for my needs, & I'm not insecure at all. It's not childish or immature at all.... The answer is simple, I don't like seeing other guy's dicks & I'm not the only guy who thinks that way.
I didn't even notice your original post. The first time I saw dick mentioned was when BRACK mentioned it as being "an off topic discussion"...
haha, I like the way you said to me "Be a man". You just proved my point about clicheness. There's a difference between a naked dude getting in one's personal space in real life (could be disturbing I guess) versus watching a naked dude on tv/film (not disturbing). It's all about the context of the dick. This is why I actually don't believe any straight dude that automatically states the black & white answer (aka lie) of "I don't like seeing other guy's dicks." The majority of guys just say that out of bad habit, but if they think about it, I don't think they would even get upset or comment on seeing dicks on film...yes, I would not want to see a dude come into my room, pull down his pants, and show me his dick - yes I agree with you on that point. But I disagree due to people's obsession with voyeurism (such as porn). I don't agree with the comment "most men don't like seeing dick" only because I have the belief that the majority of men like male-on-female porn or certainly don't have anything against it. For example, I don't mind lesbian porn, but I prefer to watch male-on-female porn. Therefore, I do like to see guy's dicks (with the combination of a woman).
So, you used to cringe when you saw penis in porn? I'm sure you've seen a porno, yes? It has nothing to do whether one needs it or not.
This is another reason why Watchmen is a great movie, because the full-frontal male nudity topic comes up. Dr. Manhattan is like a superhero or god that everyone looks up to, guys and girls. I don't think anyone would get upset over a male god walking around naked. I'm sure most people, men and women, would worship him, and his "style". I wouldn't be thinking "damn god, put on a robe!"
Solid Snake PAC
03-07-09, 01:12 AM
Totally agree. I am not fazed at all by a penis on screen. If a guy literally pulled his dick out in front of me, yeah I'd be a little unsettled. It's all about the use of it. Plus it's totally unfair to accept a woman being naked and not a man. Fuck that. It's just nudity big deal. It's all about context.
grrr
03-07-09, 01:25 AM
:lol: I think some of you got lost on your way to the IMDB boards.
alfonsosoriano
03-07-09, 01:44 AM
Such a good film. :D
pridesticks06
03-07-09, 01:51 AM
:lol: I think some of you got lost on your way to the IMDB boards.
:rimshot:
That was great. I thought about the movie more today, still love it.
CloverClover
03-07-09, 02:37 AM
there is so much more to say about watchmen than the big swinging blue penis lol
Navinabob
03-07-09, 02:37 AM
I think the original 60's Batman had the best use of superhero dick.
Young
Master
Dick... Grayson. Imagine a slow-mo battle with Bruce Lee in slow-mo this time. Get on it Snyder!
fausti
03-07-09, 03:09 AM
Just got back from it. Came in a doubting Thomas and came out impressed and pleased. Willing to see it again.
nickdawgy
03-07-09, 05:37 AM
I saw it last night, 5/5 stars. Great movie and a definite Blu-Ray buy.
The thing that bothered me is we had a packed house for the 8:25 showing, and there were a group of people in their 20's that kept laughing whenever Dr. Manhatten came onscreen and his junk was showing. I heard lines like "Damn, n**ga is all limp and shit!" I mean grow up.
Super X
03-07-09, 08:23 AM
I give it 4 out of 5 stars. In general, I thought it was probably the closest anyone would be likely to come in adapting the Alan Moore story to film. I thought Snyder established the right atmosphere and was brilliant in the casting of Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. I wasn't particularly thrilled by the actor playing Ozymandias, though. He established an aloofness, but he didn't have the presence that I felt the character should have, either in attitude or physical build. The other weakness of the film ironically came from its desire to remain as close as it could to the comics. There were sections of the film that felt serialized, which pulled me slightly away from the overall story. That works in a monthly comic where a single issue can focus on a particular character and still maintain that connection to the overall tale, but the shifting of POV in the movie format felt a little forced. Again, though, I'm not sure how else it could have been done without losing those integral character moments present in those sections.
Ash Ketchum
03-07-09, 08:31 AM
I found WATCHMEN long and incredibly dull. It did nothing to engage me emotionally. With the exception of Haley (as Rorschach) and Morgan (as the Comedian), the actors had no charisma. There was no life to this film. Except for the prison riot scene, nothing exciting happened. The other action scenes (about four of them) were too short and unmemorable to have any impact. I’m sorry, but a superhero movie should have some suspense and some thrills, shouldn’t it? Instead, for 90% of its running time, it's all talk. A few laughs wouldn’t have hurt either. The poor audience I saw it with waited and waited (2 hours and 40 minutes) for a reason to be there. And never got it.
This is what happens when the fanboys take over Hollywood. Big expensive movies about absolutely nothing. The geeks are in fanboy heaven luxuriating in the most minor and inconsequential details while the rest of us are stewing over wasted time and money.
I should add that I've read the comic and found it interesting but not that compelling.
joefrog91
03-07-09, 08:40 AM
I found WATCHMEN long and incredibly dull. It did nothing to engage me emotionally. With the exception of Haley (as Rorschach) and Morgan (as the Comedian), the actors had no charisma. There was no life to this film. Except for the prison riot scene, nothing exciting happened. The other action scenes (about four of them) were too short and unmemorable to have any impact. I’m sorry, but a superhero movie should have some suspense and some thrills, shouldn’t it? Instead, for 90% of its running time, it's all talk. A few laughs wouldn’t have hurt either. The poor audience I saw it with waited and waited (2 hours and 40 minutes) for a reason to be there. And never got it.
This is what happens when the fanboys take over Hollywood. Big expensive movies about absolutely nothing. The geeks are in fanboy heaven luxuriating in the most minor and inconsequential details while the rest of us are stewing over wasted time and money.
This is what I thought would happen. Most people will expect an action-packed super-hero comic movie. Watchmen is really a drama with a little action.
Ash Ketchum
03-07-09, 08:45 AM
This is what I thought would happen. Most people will expect an action-packed super-hero comic movie. Watchmen is really a drama with a little action.
Well, if you're gonna make a "drama with a little action," make it a low-budget arthouse movie or a TV series. Don't make it a $150 million special effects extravaganza and then market it as if it's an action-packed superhero adventure. I think the non-fan, non-geek audience got cheated on this one. And if you're gonna make it ONLY for the Watchmen fans, as I believe to be the case with this one, then scale it down for that crowd and don't try to sell it so aggressively to the rest of us.
Super X
03-07-09, 08:48 AM
This is what I thought would happen. Most people will expect an action-packed super-hero comic movie. Watchmen is really a drama with a little action.
Exactly. Watchmen, at its heart, is a murder mystery which makes use of the trappings of the superhero world. If someone goes in expecting to see "The Dark Knight", they're likely to be disappointed. But hopefully some people will watch and realize that, hey, you can have a movie about superheroes which doesn't have to be an all-out action film.
Trevor
03-07-09, 08:51 AM
I found WATCHMEN long and incredibly dull. It did nothing to engage me emotionally. With the exception of Haley (as Rorschach) and Morgan (as the Comedian), the actors had no charisma. There was no life to this film. Except for the prison riot scene, nothing exciting happened. The other action scenes (about four of them) were too short and unmemorable to have any impact. I’m sorry, but a superhero movie should have some suspense and some thrills, shouldn’t it? Instead, for 90% of its running time, it's all talk. A few laughs wouldn’t have hurt either. The poor audience I saw it with waited and waited (2 hours and 40 minutes) for a reason to be there. And never got it.
This is what happens when the fanboys take over Hollywood. Big expensive movies about absolutely nothing. The geeks are in fanboy heaven luxuriating in the most minor and inconsequential details while the rest of us are stewing over wasted time and money.
I should add that I've read the comic and found it interesting but not that compelling.
Sounds like you were expecting a dumbed-down-for-the-masses action story, which is what most comic book films are I guess.
Watchmen is not that type of book, or movie. As Joefrog just said, it's a drama.
I'd add that it is more a suspense/thriller. You really didn't find any suspense in the movie? How is that possible? The entire story is about trying to solve a murder/conspiracy.
paradicelost
03-07-09, 08:53 AM
Holy Crap, i just figured out that Rorschach was played by Jakie Earle Haley (a.k.a. Kelly Leak)
Glad to see he's getting more jobs after being away almost 15 years.
paradicelost
03-07-09, 08:59 AM
Well, if you're gonna make a "drama with a little action," make it a low-budget arthouse movie or a TV series. Don't make it a $150 million special effects extravaganza and then market it as if it's an action-packed superhero adventure. I think the non-fan, non-geek audience got cheated on this one. And if you're gonna make it ONLY for the Watchmen fans, as I believe to be the case with this one, then scale it down for that crowd and don't try to sell it so aggressively to the rest of us.
Dude, seriously. So only brainless popcorn flicks can have a budget over 150 million dollars. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It had some nudity in there, and pretty good sex scene that should make the popcorn people happy, right.
If you don't like it that's fine I can see why some wouldn't, but you're argument is somewhat asinine.
riotinmyskull
03-07-09, 09:03 AM
I should add that I've read the comic and found it interesting but not that compelling.
shouldn't you have known going in that this wasn't going to be an action fest?
mdc3000
03-07-09, 09:33 AM
^Yeah, if Ash read the book, how the hell could he have expected anything else?
NoirFan
03-07-09, 10:03 AM
Often, Anthony Lane's best writing comes at the expense of a bad film. Here's (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/03/09/090309crci_cinema_lane) his frequently hilarious pan of Watchmen from The New Yorker. My favorite passage:
....There is Laurie, who goes by the sobriquet of Silk Spectre, as if hoping to become a top-class shampoo; she is played by Malin Akerman, whose line readings suggest that she is slightly defeated by the pressure of pretending to be one person, let alone two. Then there is Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode), who likes to be called Ozymandias. Goode played Charles Ryder in last year’s “Brideshead Revisited,” and I fear that, even as Ozymandias murders millions from his Antarctic lair, which he does at the climax of “Watchmen,” Goode’s floppy blond locks and swallowed consonants remain those of a young gadabout who might, at worst, twist the leg off his Teddy bear.
maxfisher
03-07-09, 10:14 AM
After reading some of the early comments on this, I was a little worried going in last night. It just shows how much personal taste can influence a take on a movie. This was one of the more impressive movies I've seen in quite some time. Snyder's decisions on what to keep and what to excise were nearly perfect.
The acting was great throughout, with the real highlights being Haley, Morgan and Wilson. Rorschach, Comedian and Nite Owl II were brought to life exactly how I pictured them in the book. Dr. Manhattan was a little different than I'd imagined, but was still a great take on the character. Veidt and Silk Spectre II seem to be catching the most flack. I thought both interpretation worked just fine, though Akerman probably was the weakest link.
For those wondering if they'll enjoy it if they have/haven't read the book, there's no way to tell without seeing it. I enjoyed the entire thing, but was worried it'd end and my girlfriend wouldn't have liked it since she hadn't read the book. When it was over, I looked over and asked what she thought. She replied, "That was fucking awesome and we need to go see it again." I don't think this movie's for everyone, but I do think it's a tough one to break down in terms of 'this kind of person will love it and this kind of person will hate it.'
Jeffy Pop
03-07-09, 10:50 AM
I was fairly skeptical going in, but it won me over. There's certain things I didn't like, but for the most part, they got most of it right.
One thing - I was one of the people that hated Rorshach's cookie monster voice in the trailer, but I have to admit I was wrong. Haley's performance is one of the best things about the movie.
Gilgamesh1082
03-07-09, 11:17 AM
One thing - I was one of the people that hated Rorshach's cookie monster voice in the trailer, but I have to admit I was wrong. Haley's performance is one of the best things about the movie.
Not to mention that dude has one ugly mug on him. When they took the mask off, I couldn't believe just how alike he looked to the comic's portrayal.
Also, funny moment. I forgot to turn off my cell phone at the start of the movie. When the big atomic blast goes off behind Jupiter and Night Owl and they kiss/get vaporized (not spoilering it because its in the frakkin commercials/trailers, every single one of them, plus its a dream sequence and has no bearing on the story), the scene goes silent and my phone goes off. Its the Terminator Sarah Connor Chronicles theme. That iconic DA-DA-DA-DA-DUM, DA-DA-DA-DA-DUM. Many laughs were had by the audience. :)
Super X
03-07-09, 11:26 AM
Also, funny moment. I forgot to turn off my cell phone at the start of the movie. When the big atomic blast goes off behind Jupiter and Night Owl and they kiss/get vaporized (not spoilering it because its in the frakkin commercials/trailers, every single one of them, plus its a dream sequence and has no bearing on the story), the scene goes silent and my phone goes off. Its the Terminator Sarah Connor Chronicles theme. That iconic DA-DA-DA-DA-DUM, DA-DA-DA-DA-DUM. Many laughs were had by the audience. :)
:up:
paradicelost
03-07-09, 11:40 AM
Not to mention that dude has one ugly mug on him. When they took the mask off, I couldn't believe just how alike he looked to the comic's portrayal.
Also, funny moment. I forgot to turn off my cell phone at the start of the movie. When the big atomic blast goes off behind Jupiter and Night Owl and they kiss/get vaporized (not spoilering it because its in the frakkin commercials/trailers, every single one of them, plus its a dream sequence and has no bearing on the story), the scene goes silent and my phone goes off. Its the Terminator Sarah Connor Chronicles theme. That iconic DA-DA-DA-DA-DUM, DA-DA-DA-DA-DUM. Many laughs were had by the audience. :)
That's funny i was running late to see it and I just ran it at the start of the flick and completely forgot to turn my phone on silent(after bitching about it on this board) and in the middle of the film, i start hearing "It's simple, kill the batman", and I just went oh shit, frantically tried to grab it to hit ignore.
Slumbering Fist
03-07-09, 12:02 PM
Sounds like you were expecting a dumbed-down-for-the-masses action story, which is what most comic book films are I guess.
Watchmen is not that type of book, or movie. As Joefrog just said, it's a drama.
I'd add that it is more a suspense/thriller. You really didn't find any suspense in the movie? How is that possible? The entire story is about trying to solve a murder/conspiracy.
I think maybe he has a legit complaint that carries over from the book. It wasnt as noticeable when I originally read it over the course of a year but upon rereading in one big lump you see that the "mask killer mystery" in Watchmen doesn't really have much going on, no solid suspects, no macguffins, no suspense. Its pretty weak stuff that has a fairly pat third act rush to get things over.
Moore wasnt so much focused on the mystery as he was the mythology and characters. Its an aspect the film makers could have improved upon had they not been so locked in to being faithful and detail referencing.
Gilgamesh1082
03-07-09, 12:11 PM
Oh, and Dr. Manhattan turns out to be a Cylon. Huge shock to me. I do love me some All Along the Watchtower.
Shannon Nutt
03-07-09, 12:43 PM
I won't say that I loved it, but I liked it quite a bit. The prison scenes with Rorschach and the flashback origin sequence with Dr. Manhattan were the two best sequences for me, which really captured the look and feel of the graphic novel. The Night Owl/Silk Spectre relationship I think translated the worst to the big screen, and while I enjoyed all of Snyder's retro song choices, "Hallelujah" was probably the most (unintentionally?) hilarious.
As for the different ending, I actually think the scheme here works better than the scheme Moore came up with. They achieve the same results, but the movie version just gels better with the characters.
But most of the movie worked for me, and I think we DID get the most loyal adapation we could have hoped for. As for those who aren't familiar with the graphic novel? I wonder if they are going to leave the theater wondering why there was more talking than action. :)
MinLShaw
03-07-09, 01:27 PM
First of all, shame on Anthony Lane for including such a spoiler in his professional review of the film (as quoted by NoirFan).
Secondly, I understand the reason for all the edits--even at 163 minutes the movie pushes the mainstream audience attention span limit. I read the original material for the first time right before seeing the film (I finished 40 minutes before the movie started!) and I couldn't think of anything omitted that I felt needed to be included.
Still, there is an unintended consequence of the edits. What made Watchmen so brilliant is that, for 23 years, scholars could write about it from a variety of perspectives: political science, sociology, psychology, women's & gender studies, and I'm sure several others. Most of those elements are severely reduced, or outright eliminated, by the trimming of this film version, leaving a murder mystery cluttered with flashbacks.
I cannot fault Zach Snyder for what he omitted in this theatrical cut; there is simply no way he could have included other material and had a manageable film to present audiences. The alien-to-Manhattan-frame-up change is the only plot change I caught, and I think it not only makes sense, but may, in fact, be a better ending.
NoirFan
03-07-09, 01:29 PM
First of all, shame on Anthony Lane for including such a spoiler in his professional review of the film (as quoted by NoirFan)
My apologies. I've since added a spoiler tag.
scott1598
03-07-09, 01:32 PM
well, this certainly wasn't a great movie by any stretch of the imagination. it was good, but it didn't thrill me like i thought it would.
i would describe it as: visually arresting, epic in scope, graphic, dense (but not hard to follow), and then so so. i always got the feeling through the movie that i've seen this stuff before. the violence certainly wasn't anything new. the slo-mo of course not, and the story just didn't seem all that grand. i believe the novel (though haven't read yet) is probably a lot more rich with detail and layers. i just didn't find those layers in the movie. the novel, while i am sure very un-pc and broke new ground, i just didn't see it in this movie. but, with that said i am very much looking forward to the motion comic so i can get more of what i missed from the movie.
i don't think you have to know the source material or be a pre-existing fan prior, i know i wasn't, to enjoy this or more importantly understand it. it was a good story and i saw where Snyder was trying to go, but i don't think he got there quite adeptly. many are saying a lot of the scenes translate well to screen, but i suspect it is richer in the novelization form and therefore more incredible to read. i think this works as a mystery/crime/suspense movie, but i think it has been done and done better in other instances.
i didn't think it was as dense as i was led to believe (again, i think the novel would be more so), but i also wouldn't say it was light on plot.
i wasn't bored at all, but i wasn't on the edge of my seat either. i think Wilson was adept with the material, but Haley was just magnificent. Crudup, Akerman, and especially Goode probably could have been better cast or at least should have brought much more to these roles. they were fine, but nothing outstanding by any means.
this was good fun, :3star: from me. i was just looking to be thought provoked and thrilled a little more.
also, i thought we would get a glimpse of how Rorschach's mask worked is that divulged in the novel or anywhere else that someone can describe?
Slumbering Fist
03-07-09, 01:43 PM
...also, i thought we would get a glimpse of how Rorschach's mask worked is that devulged in the novel or anywhere else that someone can describe?
I dont think there's a need for spoiler. In the comic Walter Kovac (Rorschach) worked as a tailors assistant and the material came from a rejected dress made from a funky fabric that Dr Manhattan had developed. This is, in the comic, revealed during his psychiatric evaluation flashbacks.
Additionally, sorta' regarding this, how a subtle change of a sequence alters intent regarding Rorschach. In the comic... During his interrogation he pretends to be Kovac, thus during the whole ink blot test he's coldly giving the psychiatrist the humane generic answers he wants- "I see a pretty butterfly." In the film, he's just Rorschach, so the dishonest answers come across as sarcastic instead of the totally creepy way they are in the comic. Because of that change, people were actually chuckling at the blot test during my screening, even at the "I wish I had an abortion" and fighting the bullies bit. I found that very off putting.
RichC2
03-07-09, 02:42 PM
I enjoyed this :up:
Boba Fett
03-07-09, 02:54 PM
Regarding Rorschach's mask origin, I wish they'd:
have mentioned where he got it from, since the rejected dress came from Kitty Genovese the woman who was murdered as a whole neighborhood listened and did nothing. It was arguably the reason why Rorschach became Rorschach in the comic.
mdc3000
03-07-09, 04:00 PM
^Exactly, I was surprised that was left out, but I guess the murdered child storyline takes precident in showing how he got so ruthless about justice being served. I suspect the Kitty Genovese/Mask Material bit just bloated the script and was cut out for pacing issues. Saw it a second time today and liked it even more than the first time around. Still solid - however I saw just regular 35mm and after seeing the fantastic IMAX presentation, it was like going from blu-ray to dvd again - not quite as vibrant or sharp.
bunkaroo
03-07-09, 04:59 PM
I gave this 3.5/5. I enjoyed many of the characters, but the story didn't do a lot for me. I had started the graphic novel but never got more than 1/4 through it due to time issues. I'll still finish it based on what I've heard the differences are.
I thought it was excellent visually. I loved both Rorschach and the Comedian. It did feel like stuff was missing. I'll happily buy the director's cut when it hits Blu-ray.
Blu Man
03-07-09, 05:24 PM
It was pretty good. The music was horrible though.
Giantrobo
03-07-09, 05:25 PM
Additionally, sorta' regarding this, how a subtle change of a sequence alters intent regarding Rorschach. In the comic... During his interrogation he pretends to be Kovac, thus during the whole ink blot test he's coldly giving the psychiatrist the humane generic answers he wants- "I see a pretty butterfly." In the film, he's just Rorschach, so the dishonest answers come across as sarcastic instead of the totally creepy way they are in the comic. Because of that change, people were actually chuckling at the blot test during my screening, even at the "I wish I had an abortion" and fighting the bullies bit. I found that very off putting.
Really? I guess my audience "Got it". Because we were just like "WOW" during that scene. He was very creepy there. Besides, I wonder if some of the laughter you heard was more of that nervous or uncomfortable laughter that happens when people see shocking or disturbing scenes?
Anyway, I'm pretty sure I'm going to see this again in the next few days.
Brack
03-07-09, 05:26 PM
It was pretty good. The music was horrible though.
really? I thought it fit perfectly.
Blu Man
03-07-09, 05:28 PM
really? I thought it fit perfectly.
I thought they wanted it to fit perfectly, but it didn't. Happy music was being played during drak times.
Giantrobo
03-07-09, 05:42 PM
I thought they wanted it to fit perfectly, but it didn't. Happy music was being played during drak times.
I also agree that the music worked. Nothing took me out of the scenes or distracted me.
Dude, seriously. So only brainless popcorn flicks can have a budget over 150 million dollars. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It had some nudity in there, and pretty good sex scene that should make the popcorn people happy, right.
If you don't like it that's fine I can see why some wouldn't, but you're argument is somewhat asinine.
That's not what I said in my post. Nor did I say it should have been dumbed-down. Nor did I say I was expecting an actionfest. What I was expecting was some entertainment value. I didn't get it. And neither, as far as I could tell, did the audience I saw it with. There was a boo and quite a bit of grumbling afterwards. And, like I said, if you're going to spend this kind of budget on a film and market the hell out of it, you'd better have something to give the audience.
The storyline in the comic book is trite. I could sum it up in a couple of sentences:
SPOILER WARNING - spoiler contained in following plot synopsis:
A bunch of retired costumed heroes feel threatened when one of their number is killed so a couple of them investigate and find out that one of their old colleagues is trying to neutralize them in order to further a plot to create a catastrophe so terrible that it diverts the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. from going to war and thus brings about world peace. Okay, that's one sentence. That's all there is to the story. Pretty silly, isn’t it?
SPOILER OVER
Now, you can get away with a trite story in a comic book by covering it up with interesting character interactions, background detail, social issue stuff, political context, backstories, various motifs and through-lines such as the newsstand owner and the kid and the story being told in the pirate comic (which promises to be a much more exciting story), etc. And Moore and Gibbons did a good job of making an interesting comic out of it.
But when you translate it to the big screen, the triteness of the story sticks out like a sore thumb. So you have to do something to make it a little more compelling and interesting. You have to try to do more to make this alternate universe version of recent American history believable. You have to make the audience care about these characters. Or at least cast some good actors who can bring something to their interpretations. Failing that, you have to at least provide some large-scale action setpieces to distract the viewers, the way Nolan and his writers did in THE DARK KNIGHT (another trite story). The filmmakers of WATCHMEN didn't do any of that.
Sure, fans who have a lot invested in the original story seem to have a lot invested in this film. But what about the rest of us? Why should we care?
Liver&Onions
03-07-09, 07:42 PM
After the showing I went to the pollsters were outside, one guy decided to yell out to the waiting crowd "It wasn't bad, for a PORNO".
Buy: