|
Watchmen -dir. Zack Snyder -written by David Hayter & Alex Tse Whether it’s the heavy advertising or word-of-mouth, everyone has heard of Watchmen. Everyone knows the deal - based on the deeply psychological character study of the same name, the story seeks to deconstruct the superhero genre, and is epic in its scope and complexity. Given this emphasis on the source, nobody should be surprised that Watchmen is a film catering to the initiated. It was the complexity of the story that led Terry Gilliam to claim (while he was being considered to direct) that the story was “unfilmable.” Well, Gilliam is wrong: Watchmen is filmable, and Zack Snyder has done it. The success of the endeavor, however, is less cut-and-dry. Here’s the good: as one probably expects of the 300 director, the film looks fantastic. The translation of Dave Gibbon’s visual style is grandiose, unique, and well-handled, and the CG elements are very well integrated (or not, in the case of Dr. Manhattan, who benefits from this uncanny quality.) The daunting range and scale of the material, fluidly shifting time periods and character subjectivity, is handled just as smoothly; the film is as well structured and paced as it is designed. With a handful of careful changes, omissions, and added scenes, the viewer is given something surprisingly lean and complete, despite the 163-minute runtime and scope of the original narrative. In these respects, the film is a masterwork for Snyder. That is, from a purely technical standpoint, the film is intelligent and precisely tuned, and an uncompromising piece of adaptation. However, here’s the bad: while divergences from Alan Moore’s source text may have spelled doom for LXG or other previous adaptation attempts, Watchmen proves that fanatic loyalty to the page can be its own vice. This plays out in numerous ways throughout the film. More innocuously, Snyder leaves baskets of Easter eggs for the viewer that may delight fans while leaving the unfamiliar confused by numerous ‘wink-wink’ references with unexplained significance. More relevant, however, is David Hayter and Alex Tse’s script, with its over-reliance on phrases and terms lifted directly from the comic. Moore’s story – generally divided into 9 panels per page – crams a great deal of information into a small amount of real estate. Unfortunately, when translated to the screen, this “efficient” dialogue becomes heavy-handed, unnatural, and loaded with undue exposition...a problem mostly overcome by the talented cast, but not without a handful of groan-worthy interactions. Whether the result of fear or a lack of inspiration, Snyder's extremely conservative editing eye may actually have left the entire project weaker for it. Moore's voice shines through, while Snyder's does not...and this isn't quite as good as it initially sounds. Despite these issues, Snyder has probably given us the best adaptation of Watchmen possible. It covers all the necessary bases, and addresses all the necessary issues. The biggest disappointment, sadly, is that it does these things somewhat soullessly...the film feels more a piece of visual art than it does a compelling human drama. Although this may sound like a problem endemic to Zack Snyder, I hesitate to blame any member of the production team for it...in fact, I refuse to. Really, the issue is that the Cold War paranoia at the heart of Watchmen no longer speaks to contemporary audiences as it once had. Over 20 years later, the threat of nuclear war seems just another piece of Americana, as much a contributor to the period backdrop as the classic rock soundtrack. Lacking this dramatic impetus, Watchmen becomes something sillier than it was...good, entertaining, but more an exercise in stylization than anything topical or relevant. If pressed, I'd rate the film 4/5 swinging blue dongs: 
Xealot fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Mar 6, 2009 |
#
?
Mar 6, 2009 13:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
I think Xealot pretty much covered everything. This movie is as fantastic as a film adaptation of Watchmen can get. Sure some things are left out; like Ozymandias's homosexuality, why Dr. Manhattan is nude, why Nixon is still president, and obviously a changed ending, but I don't think any of these issues really stop this film from being loyal to the book. Too loyal for some obviously, as many critical reviews have complained about. About my only point of irritation was explaining to the people I went about Nixon, the cold war, and why the scenes in the intro with the "changed history" were significant. Trying to explain why a painting by Andy Warhol was funny to a bunch of teenagers made me feel really, really loving old. So if you're going to see this with people who have no sense of history then I recommend bringing along a history book so they can catch up along the way. All in all I'll give Watchmen a 4.5 out 5.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2009 21:01
|
|
|
^^^Uh, you saw David Bowie and the Village People at Ozy's Studio 54 party, right? (And the dubiously-named "Boys" folder on his computer...) Anyway, Xealot's right. This is the best they could have done, the only reason it feels a little cold is that there's no time for the build-up. They hit all the main points, and everything they did include is pretty much totally accurate, but the story really loses a lot of impact without all the sub plots and characters. The excerpts from Under the Hood, Bernie and Bernie, the psychologist's transformation from naive, ineffectual blowhard to caring human being. These things (and many, many others) are all missing, and it really hurts the delivery. It's not a bad movie, it's not even a bad adaptation. It would just take too long to get it all in there, and even if the movie suffers because of it, I don't think you can fault Zack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2009 02:36
|
|
|
The disservice to The Watchmen's potential in film really deserves more viewings to properly document and explain the film's failings. I won't be doing that. The Good: It looks nice, the visuals are terrific, and The Comedian and Rorschach are well presented. The Bad: Where to start... Length/Pacing/Character Development: For being rather lengthy, I feel that the length isn't the problem, as much how it was utilized. Women walking out of this film may have the strange sensation that a well endowed virgin had just failed to pleasure them. As nice as it is that Snyder attempted to give the audience a great deal of backstory for the characters, it did little to help the audience appreciate them or feel something for them. Nite Owl and Jupiter are very important characters but what we see of them is not compelling. We understand that Jupiter is in a place that wasn't entirely her choice but the flashbacks and realizations don't give the audience a clear idea of what she feels, and her actions aren't terribly consistent with what would be a logical response to her past and that is not resolved either. Additionally, they are the driving force of much the film, but with the hollowness of their characters, it's as though the film is being pulled forward without direction. Rorschach has a similar problem in that, despite being the logical choice, he doesn't lead the plot. The film is best suited to a noir detective tale, but that aspect, and the narration, are only present with himself. As a man set out to solve a mystery, and the film itself being a mystery, every deviation from this is wandering and unfocused. Rorschach should frame and lead every act, but his presence is intermittent and his relationship with the plot and the rest of characters is loose and unexplored. Music: I couldn't explain the music choices through any artistic reasoning. The best I can explain it is that 99 Luftballoons, All Along the Watchtower. Hallelujah, and a few others are just injected as superfluous pop culture references for people who inexplicably haven't heard music predating 1990. What 99 Luftballoons had to do with Nite Owl and Jupiter having a drink is beyond me so long as the explaination isn't "hey it's the 80s." WTF: The prolonged sex scene between Jupiter and Nite Owl. I'm not going to spoiler that because that particular scene is vitally important to the failure that is Watchmen. The best way to describe this is that it is similar to a joke that isn't funny until it goes on too long and you realize the absurdity of it all is the actual punchline. To watch this scene (accompanied by Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah, of all things) is like watching a Cinemax late night softcore sex scene. However, for some reason it was put into the middle of a film that is supposedly serious and winds up detracting from the entire film for the sake of how seriously out of place, bizarre, and unneccessary it is (and Leonard Cohen). Ultimately, this film just fails to reach a basic level of competence even within its gracious allotment of time. I don't believe that it was impossible to capture Watchment in a feature length film, but this attempt prominently displays film's inadequacies in comparison to literature as apposed to focusing on the strengths that film and literature share. There needed to be a consistent orientation in narrating the film that could also be used to fill in the histories (All Rorschach). Yes it would have been different from the book, but the plot could have been presented accurately, thoroughly, concisely, and in a manner superior to what we have been given. 1/5 Just stay home. doginapot fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Mar 7, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2009 07:14
|
|
|
Let me preface this post by saying I am not in anyway familiar with the Watchmen comic, so my thoughts are purely based on the movie from an outsiders perspective. I was holding back on posting my thoughts to see what some other reaction would be, but I'm glad that the unnecessarily lengthy and completely jarring sex scene is brought up. When trying to decide what specifically about this movie left a bad taste in my mouth after coming out of the theater, I keep leaning toward the sex scene and the continual shots of Dr. Manhattans flacid blue dong. It doesn't make sense to me why in some scenes Dr. Manhattan has some sort of underwear while for the remainder of the movie he is mostly naked. The shot of him in his "underwear" gets the point across that he is some sort of energy being that doesn't need to bother with clothes or hair gel or toothpaste or any other facets of modern human hygiene habits, and I'll agree that showing him naked in a few scenes would get the point across, but seeing this naked blue CGI actor for a large portion of the movie seems childish in the sort of way that would make a child giggle while not really doing anything to further the development or personality of the character. As for the sex scene, the only way I can compare the absurdity of it is by drawing your attention on the sex scene from Team America. Yes, it really IS that ridiculous, because it goes on for so long and shows so much skin that it becomes a parody of what the scene is trying to convey. Maybe it's just me, but I expected a little more character development, a lot less "woe is me" from Night Owl, and a hell of a lot less flacid blue dong and love making. 3/5 - It's worth seeing, if only for Rorschach. The Shep fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Mar 7, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2009 07:37
|
|
|
I wrote this review for a friend's website so that's why it doesn't read like it was written by someone posting on somethingawful plus that's why I have to actually describe the plot: Alan Moore is probably unhappy at the mass media frenzy that his classic graphic novel Watchmen has become almost overnight. Merchandise related to the movie has been available at Hot Topic stores across the country since the film was announced, and it's pretty much an absolute certainty that this Halloween, Rorschach will be the new Joker. However, as in the case of the Dark Knight, this situation is very much warranted. My synopsis of the plot will be brief because, firstly, I don't want to spoil anything for anyone who hasn't read the book, and secondly, there's a lot to cover. The movie takes place in an alternate 1985 where presidential term limits have been abolished, Richard Nixon is in his fifth term, and Watergate was little more than a minor scandal. The Cold War is ongoing and costumed vigilantes (superheroes, if you will) have been made illegal and thus most have slipped quietly into retirement with three notable exceptions: The Comedian and Dr. Manhattan who worked for the United States government (eventually retiring on their own terms), and Rorschach who continues to work independently and illegally as a sort of underground avenger. The main characters of the movie are these three as well as fellow former heroes Silk Spectre and Nite Owl. The movie opens with a rather intense murder scene and the plot unfolds as our heroes try to discover the details of this murder. While on the subject of murder I have to take a second to mention the violence in the movie. Though not terribly frequent, when violence does occur it tends to be rather gruesome. Limbs are viciously broken, several people are lit on fire, a man gets his arms sawed off. . .I could go on but I won't. Suffice to say, this movie is not for the weak at heart. This sort of violence has its place in the gritty pseudo-reality of movies like Saving Private Ryan or Platoon, but at times it felt like the director Zack Snyder was going out of his way to make his audience uncomfortable, simply because it seemed like a good idea. Of course, having directed 2007's cult favorite 300, Snyder has illustrated that he is not shy about making violent movies and when he does so, he does it with all the subtlety of a brick to the face. Having said that however, he has made an adaptation that is, for the most part, very faithful to the source material. Much of the subplots had to be left out for time constraints (as it stands, the final cut is almost 3 hours long), and fans of the original novel will recognize this. However, Snyder takes enough time to delve into character origins and backstories that by the film's halfway point you have a definite idea of who these people are and what they each stand for. The acting is at best good and at worst mediocre. The performances in this movie will not launch any careers but for the most part it is at least passable. Malin Akerman is lackluster as Silk Spectre, but Jackie Earle Haley gives Rorschach the performance he needs. These are the two extremes among the core cast. As a piece of work existing on it's own, Watchmen (the movie) is a mediocre action/sci-fi thriller. As an adaptation of a graphic novel it lacks the sensationalism of 300 and replaces it with a modicum of substance that was not to be found in the testosterone fest that was the tale of the 300 Spartans. Granted, Alan Moore and Frank Miller (the respective writers of the two graphic novels in question) tell their stories in very different ways, but when channeled through Zack Snyder, Moore's story still shines. In other words: “One-nothing. Your move.” 4/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2009 07:45
|
|
|
I watch the Watchmen, and I love it. I'm a fan of the comic, and this movie lived up to my lofty expectations completely. I love the visual style of the film, and the music choices suit the mood nicely. It's kind of reminiscent of what Scorsese does with music in his films. The highly stylized look of the film, the use of CGI, I dig it all. Right from the very impressive opening credits, the movie pulls me into its world with the visuals and music. The cast is great all around, they deliver the goods. Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl II, Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach, Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian, and Carla Gugino as Silk Spectre all resonated very strongly with me. Some folks have said that Malin Akerman's performance as Silk Spectre II is weak, I had no complaints personally. Pretty much every artistic liberty the movie took was fine with me. Ozymandias comes across as more creepy in the movie than he did in the comic, I enjoy this interpretation of the character as well. The various other changes (The lack of the squid, for example) also went down smoothly with me. I feel that they did a perfect job adapting a very dense work into movie form. The characters are as likable and flawed as ever, and the feel of paranoia and helplessness of the cold war is thick. The action is spectacular, brutal and satisfying. The tender moments are handled quite well also, giving us the full package of sex and violence. Pretty much, you get a modern fable about vigilante heroes trying to fight the feeling of powerlessness of the cold war. It's an uncompromising ride I plan to take many more times over the years. 5/5 PsychoGoatee fucked around with this message at 09:26 on Mar 7, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2009 09:06
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:a lot less "woe is me" from Night Owl If you thought that was bad, then you may want to pass on the graphic novel. I was actually relatively pleased with how they handled his character, because he was just SUCH a downer in the comic. I anticipate it is similar to the most recent Harry Potter movie (not the new one coming out, the last one), where I felt he just bitched and moaned the whole time, while my fiancee tells me that he was much worse in the book. So yes, Night Owl did complain a fair amount, but it was in a reduced form from the comic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2009 09:24
|
|
|
PsychoGoatee posted:(The lack of the squid, for example)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2009 09:45
|
|
|
I broke my cardinal rule with this movie, in that I went into it having read every review I could get my hands on. I sort of felt that the positive/negative reviews were essentially people who got it versus people who didn't get it. Looking back, I don't think that's necessarily true, but critics sure were (are) polarized. I honestly can't stand the way a lot of reviewers look at movies like this, as they're doing nothing more than showing how little imagination they have. God forbid they take a comic book seriously. Check out this one: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0307/p25s02-almo.html Guess you could say it's like a review of a Western movie by someone who hates westerns...what's the point. Regardless, that's how the media is and that's how it's gonna stay. I think the general tone of these reviews is a good summation of the movie itself. On one extreme you have this god drat amazing film that is an absolute joy to watch from start to finish. But under this bright shiny gloss, it does have some flaws (all of which have already been mentioned). A lot of the early negative reviews highlighted just a handful of gripes (some of the acting, the length, the wtf sex scene), and seemed to think they ruined the film. The movie was not without it's flaws, but I walked out of that theater in absolute awe tonight and I don't regret a second of it. I really like how they portrayed the Nite Owl (who was my favorite character from the comics and still is), though as has been said the Silk Spectre was a bit lacking. It did seem that they pushed it pretty hard that Nite Owl had always had the hots for her, but this is a movie so subtlety's a lot harder to do. I did think the 99 Luftballoons was a little much, but it just emphasized how lost and goofy the guy is without his Owl suit. Suit on, he's a bad rear end that no one fucks with. Without it, he's a clueless geek who unironically wears cardigan sweaters. I did think that with the way they handled some of the gore and the sex, that Zack was trying a bit too hard to make 300 again (honestly that was a fear I held going in). It's hard to say this, but I did feel that occasionally the sex and gore did subtract from the movie a bit in that they were just so overdone. But that goes back to what I like about Zack Snyder: with this and 300 he did a great job of making what was happening on screen seem like a comic book...almost real, but not quite. Even if they're fantastic fighters, people don't fly across the room and smash into stone walls if they're punched. But that's okay, it's not real life. People don't actually bleed like that....but that's okay too. Basically the guy turns everything into porn, pushing it to the absolute limits (or tries to)...and I don't dislike this, it has its place. As for the ending, It honestly worked out really well. I'm really glad they didn't try to do the squid...to be honest I had never liked that part. To summarize: yes it had it's flaws, but they weren't even close to crippling. Zack Snyder you son of a bitch, you did it. You loving did it, absolute 5/5. edit: did anyone else notice how every time Dr. Manhattan was shown in full....they loving centered the frame on his genitals? Yeah, the man's an impressive piece of visual effects, but really. Capn Jobe fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Mar 7, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2009 09:51
|
|
|
I liked this movie a lot. I only read half the graphic Novel before seeing it, as we had only recently got it in the store, that said I was amazed at how much they cut out from even half the book. I didn't like some of the changes to settings and scenes, I didn't like some of the omissions, I get it's a movie and they have limited amount of time but gently caress that you lose a lot of the soul of the book when you go chopy chopy and gut the thing. All that said I really did like the movie, I'll buy the DVD if only for the hope that they put some of the stuff back in. Would've liked more time at the News Stand or more time with the Psychologist for instance, also what's with all the killing. These guys have really no problem killing criminals, it kinda makes sense they got outlawed. I dunno the cuts weren't to my liking, and if it wasn't for the guy who played Rorschach just completely inhabiting the part and becoming the character I doubt I would've liked this as much. You get to see Malin Akerson's tits which is good, but she shows them in every movie so it isn't reason enough. I also didn't like the music in pretty much any scene in the movie, it felt too much like pandering in some parts and just out of touch with what was happening in others. And really My Chemical Romance? I want to give this a 5 but I can't so I'll give it a 4 4/5 Pros: Really looks very nice and Rorschach is amazing, the Comedian only just behind him for the actor really putting their all into the role. Cons: Music was terrible for the most part, and the amount of poo poo chopped out or altered was disappointing. Bottomline: Best Comic book movie since Wanted (gently caress Dark Knight, there I said it), if you like Comic book movies that wear their "R's" with pride, then you'll want to catch this film, sides what else you gonna see, Madea goes to Jail?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2009 10:56
|
|
|
I had never read The Watchmen before seeing the film. There were a few things I didn't understand - why Nite Owl was extremely unattractive, why Dr. Manhattan had to be naked when working with nuclear physics and why the drat sex scene was so long but overall I was happy with it. I'm not extremely intellectual and I was worried that I wouldn't understand a lot of what was going on, but I was nicely surprised when I understood most of it and enjoyed it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2009 12:42
|
|
|
One bit of the comic that was well-represented in the film was a continuation of the use of color. In the comic, the primary colors like red and blue were very toned down, and secondary colors like purple, brown, orange and yellow were used instead. The color choices helped visually cement "Watchmen" as the anti-comic, as traditional four-color comics used primary colors. True to the comic, blues and reds were kept faded and obscure (observe the flag in the funeral scene) except for the glowing blue Dr. Manhattan (intended to look as out of place in the Watchmen universe as possibe,) and the briefly-seen 1940s characters in the opening sequence. Maybe I only noticed this because one of the "making of" videos mentioned it, but the end result, like the comic, was a superhero world that looked off-kilter, even in its colors. As someone who read the comic as it came out, and can't remember how often I have read it since, I would have liked to see more. There is one scene from the comic that I think should have been in the theatrical cut of the movie: the party scene where Laurie confronts the Comedian and throws a drink in his face. It would have made things more clear to those who hadn't read the book that she hated him. Without this scene, the scene where she finds out the Comedian is her father lacks the level of intensity that it should have had. Some moments in the film amazed me, and fully lived up to my expectations. The things that were missing, and the cheap workarounds in a couple of scenes, let me down just as often. Some of the irritation was pure nerd rage, I admit, but some was due to things left out that made the story less comprehensible to those who had not read the book, but without enough context to make those folks want to read it. 3.5/5, although I fully expect the DVD version, with an extra hour of movie and other extras, to add a star or so to that rating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2009 20:51
|
|
|
I was a fan of the book when it first released in the 80s. It turned me on to more adult ways of thinking while I was in my teens, along with The Dark Knight and lots of leftfield independent books. gently caress me, that was a good time to be a young male. We had the aforementioned comic books, Aliens, Ghostbusters, The Terminator and other Arnie movies, early anime, etc.. Truly some sort of golden age for American pop culture. Add some Sega and Nintendo on top and it was erection-provoking. I'm sure I missed some of the nuances of Watchmen the first few times I read it, but, visually, it left a huge mark on me. I loved the layout, the colors, and esp the pencils. Gibbons (with the exception of some super thick torsos) really accomplished something with his artwork. I coveted each issue and went on to buy both the Portfolio and leather bound novel. That said, I felt no fan rage after seeing the film. I did not have that same shitregret I felt after seeing the SW prequels and Indy 4. Snyder definitely did not desecrate the source material the way Spielberg and Lucas did with their last round of films, especially given the breadth of the novel. I know it's a warped metric to use, but I was worried about that level of carelessness. At the same time, there were some pretty bad choices in this film. The music cues are very obvious for the most part. I pray to god that Hollywood's new soundtrack philosophy is not to choose songs which blatantly say through lyrics what is happening in the scene. I noticed that the Hollywood poo poo Factory also did this with NIN and Terminator: Salvation. It also feels like "Watchtower" is constantly used in films, and always to evoke that nostalgic/triumphant feeling in the viewer. We get it. And gently caress Nena. Also, is Snyder trying to single-handedly legitimize massive use of slo-mo? It seemed like the first 1/4 of the film was bogged down by it. I also do not need whooshing sounds to indicate that things are moving in slo-mo. The biggest problem with the film is that it's just too late. The book pioneered many conventions seen in today's superhero films, yet it may seem cliched to initiates. Yeah, broody heroes, one gets martyred to unite the people, blah blah. The Dark Knight (while not my fave film by any means) stole mad thunder from this project. It's really too bad this was not released in the early 90s, though it's tough to imagine how they would have visualized many of the scenes using that technology. What the film does have is very adult content. I enjoyed seeing pretty nasty violence (softened a bit my CGI blood), sex, and other manly things. As a result, I think it was what TDK wanted to be before compromising for a PG-13. I can't believe how hung up people are on the CGI wang. Dr. Manhattan is supposed to represent a perfect, Vitruvian man, and such a figure would not be wearing a fig leaf. People are apparently confused by the garment he wears during flashbacks, but I always thought it was just a function of being more in the public eye and trying to be more human than he eventually cared to be. The sex scene in the sky would have been OK with me if they had omitted the flamethrower. poo poo, it comes across a bit Lucas-y and silly. The sex scene should be graphic and intense, as it's a massive release for both characters. Thank christ they got the casting nearly dead-on. Veidt may not be quite how I envisioned him, but it's mostly spot-on. Rorschach could have had his own series if, well, you know. Nite Owl was an inspired job of casting and they really nailed his HQ. Very curious to see if they try to mine this for a prequel. I really liked the flashbacks, and would love to see that era developed in another film. I know Moore would poo poo his (doubtlessly tight, black) pants, but I think it would be cool. I can't wait to see how the animated segment and the extended cut of the film add to the experience. It's just a matter of time until we get a fan edit that rolls it all together (and hopefully smooths out a few things in the process). 4/5 the_psychologist fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Mar 8, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2009 04:38
|
|
|
I have to say that I have never read the novel so I walked in with no misconception and no basis for this movie. I saw the trailer and thought this was going to be the best movie this year. With that said this movie was one of the worst loving movies I have seen. I enjoy gratuitous violence and sex as much as the first man, but seriously I have never seen a movie drag on with the plot trying to cover every characters back story like Batman Begins, but with 5 characters this gets kinda boring, redundant and honestly, loving stupid. If you want to remake Batman Begins, don't do it with a movie that has 5 main characters. The movie is slow and has no real conclusion at the end. My wife tried to get me to leave about 45 minutes in, but I hoped it would get better. The character development was so poorly done it was hard to care about any of the characters or really anything they were doing. The editing of the film was so poorly done and made the movie seem longer than it was. I can't even imagine what they cut from it other than the actual pieces that would have moved the story along faster. The gratuitous violence was unnecessary and made the movie that much worse and I enjoy violence, blood, and guts. However this movie didn't seem to even do this tastefully. It was as if the movie through in blood and guts just because they could. The sex scene was soft core porn at best and made the movie feel cheap. It reminded me of something I would see on Showtime after 10:00pm at night. Poor plot development with a gratuitous, pointless sex scene thrown in pushed this movie from "I can watch this and it'll be okay" to "I'm not recommending this let alone telling anyone I saw it". The one redeaming value was the special effects and the bit of fighting involved. I could care less about the philosophical values as those were washed away by the pointless garbage and slow plot development. Since I can't rate this movie a 0 I'll give it a 1/5. [EDIT] You will enjoy this movie only if you enjoy seeing blue penis during every scene.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2009 09:23
|
|
|
Watchmen was a decent adaptation of an excellent story. Time constraints forced a huge amount of material to be cut, especially in terms of character development. We were never given any believable reason for several of the characters' motivation, especially Ozy and Night Owl. The ending was a giant letdown, since it...just ends. Basically every major plot point was rushed Rorscharch's death, Ozy's Antarctic fortress and his reasoning for doing all of this, the ending where they're all just like "hmm, ok whatever.", and Night Owl's decision to come out of retirement based on a dream. Also, a lot of subtleties such as Rorscharch being the sign carrying guy were lost on the audience since we barely saw that guy in closeups and Rorscharch's demasking was so anticlimactic. The movie contained some very graphic and entertaining fight scenes, so I'll give it credit for that aspect. The character development and pacing really hurt it, with all the flashbacks and cut material, so that works against it. Overall, I enjoyed it as a movie, but like they always say, the book was better. I watched it with my fiance who had never read the book and she hated it, since it was so gory and she also didn't understand the characters' motivation. Finally, what was up with the music choices? Terrible distractions to what were supposed to be serious scenes. 2.5/5 A good effort, but flawed due to cut material and story changes. Bigass Moth fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Mar 8, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2009 14:08
|
|
|
Caveat: I never read the graphic novel, but I was quite familiar with it from comic book reading friends and Wikipedia. The casting was spot on. Rorschach and The Comedian basically stole the show, and the others were all great, if not stellar. Ozymandias is the only character who might have been slightly miscast, but he's fairly ancillary and was certainly not a distraction. There was no real star power mucking up the screen, and the movie is greatly improved by it. The actors disappear into the characters with varied and subtle performances. The celebrity impersonations (Nixon, etc) that litter the movie were all well done, and lacked that fake CGI/green screen feel of pseudo-historical films like Forrest Gump. The plot moves along slowly, but it's interspersed with vignettes about many of the character's backgrounds, which helps keep you interested even if the main plot isn't racing out of the gate. This movie takes its time getting where it wants to go, so it's not for the attention-deficient. The action was well paced, well executed and didn't overwhelm the rest of the quieter themes in the movie. It seems they just bulked up the violent sequences enough so that it could actually be a movie, but they did it well. It gets a little gory at times, so be mindful if you're bothered by the sight of blood. It won't blow you away, but it won't bore you either. Also, after a particularly brutal attack on a another inmate while Rorschach is in prison, he delivers the line, "I'm not locked up in here with you. You're all locked in here with ME!" It was the first time I'd heard an audience applaud a movie in quite a while. The music deserves a mention. It starts out well with "Unforgettable" by Nat King Cole playing on his TV while the Comedian is murdered and "The Times They Are A'Changin'" by Bob Dylan during a very interesting opening sequence showing how history has gone differently by showing some iconic moments of the 40 years prior to the movie for this alternate 1985. They seemed to fit perfectly with the first two awesome sequences in the movie, and I had real high hopes that it might be an excellently scored film. Then it moves on to "Sounds Of Silence" by Simon And Garfunkel, which wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't playing during a very reverently acted, rain soaked funeral that completely fails to match the scene the actors portrayed. Yes, it's a sad song, but not every sad song is a funeral dirge. This funeral is intercut with some bad moments in the Comedians's life, and the song is too high hippyish for when you're putting an American 'hero' into a pine box. It really ruined that scene. Later, we hear "99 Luftballons" out of nowhere. I know it's a cold-war protest song, but it's not playing on someone's radio; the movie just decided we wanted to hear the sentence "Von neunundneunzig Luftballons; Auf ihrem Weg zum Horizont" just to remind us that it is indeed 1985. Instead, it just totally takes us out of the scene. Those are the worst examples of a bad soundtrack, but those are not all of them. "Hallelujah" by Leonard Cohen for a sex scene that was only hurt by it, "All Along The Watchtower" by Jimi Hendrix, which is a great song, but came out of nowhere, and is a signal for when the movie starts to get bad, (more on that later) and a by-the-numbers rendition "Ride of the Valkyries" which is basically humming, "Man-hat-an is AWE-Some. Killing the V-C.". These songs are all fine songs, and there are other good ones in there, but they are terribly placed in this movie. Fortunately, they save the worst for the end, with My Chemical Romance covering Bob Dylan's "Desolation Row." I like MCR okay, so please understand that I am not a typical hater when I say that their song totally sucks. It is strictly unlistenable. Clearly, the music staff of this movie worships Bob Dylan, so much that they didn't notice they were ruining the movie with this soundtrack, so by loosing this eardrill onto an undeserving public must be their way to try to destroy Bob Dylan music for everyone else so no one else will accidentally screw up a movie with this type of soundtrack. Okay, the ending. If you're wondering if they changed it but don't want to know how, check this spoiler. Yes, they changed it. I'm surprised you hadn't heard, but I'm spoilering it anyway. I told you to listen out for "All Along The Watchtower," and that's where the movie starts to get bad. Once you hear Jimmy say, "There must be some kind of way out of here," you may want to listen to Jimmy and find your way out of the theater. You will like the movie a lot more if you leave then, and just make up your own ending. Going to stick around? Okay. Here is the film's ending and what's wrong with it. SPOILER WARNING! THIS TEXT WILL RUIN THE ENDING OF THE WATCHMEN MOVIE! Ozzie has planted these bombs under a dozen or so major cities that blow up using power similar to Dr Manhattan's. They devastate the cities and disintegrate millions, and the world is united in fear of the big blue Doc. The Cold War ends. There is peace on earth. None of the heroes can say anything about it because if they do, they know they will doom the world to nuclear annihilation. Rorschach refuses to compromise his principles, and demands that Dr. M. kill him, which he does. Tiny epilogue basically identical to the graphic novel. The end. The specific blow-by-blow isn't specifically what I have a problem with. So why does this ending suck? The movie never lets us in on the secret, and we could have never figured out the plan ahead of time. Dr. M and Ozy are shown working on these generators for free energy, but the specifics of them actually using his blue magic are never explained. For a movie that flashes back on itself constantly and could have easily hinted towards the plot earlier, that's a real cheap shot. Now, I could have figured it out by saying, "Why is this engine meaningful? It wouldn't be included in the movie if it didn't matter." However, I shouldn't HAVE to do that. If I use the laws of movies to predict the ending, that doesn't make me enjoy it any more than being left out in the cold and blindsided by the ending. It does the same thing by quickly showing this vagrant with a sign in the background of shots, but you never get the chance to figure out it's Rorschach unless you KNOW it has to be a character because the movie focuses on him for an 1/8th of a second two long, so he must be significant later. Using the rules of movies to notice little nuances in a film is like cheating in solitaire. Win or lose, it's more fun when you don't. AND, just to add insult to injury, the villain actually has the audacity to say, "I'm not a comic book villain. Do you think I'd tell you my plan if you had any chance of affecting the outcome?" That's a stupid thing to say; he could have just as easily said "Bond villian" or "Supervillian" and not give a cringeworthy and unnecessary nod to the original media. This is on top of the fact that Ozy is actively insulting us for not figuring it out earlier. I don't care if the original had that line; it should have been cut. Little hints are best left to graphic novels, which can be consumed at their own pace, and the observant can assemble their own theories between issues. I don't agree with Moore on much of his cinematic theories, but I will give him this point. Also, I accept that it's possible that I missed the one line of dialogue that hints at it. It was 2 1/2+ hours. Still, this movie needed either another 5 minutes to better include us in on the evil plot, or a different (and probably even worse) ending. Beyond that, the ending was very weak and rushed. Is this the best plot he could conjur? Can Ozy's company really avoid suspicion forever? Wouldn't killing 15 million people and destroying a dozen metropoli cause a global recession? How long will people remain afraid of Dr. M if no more cities blow up? Does he plan on destroying one every decade? And how is this living in fear of Dr. M fundamentally different than living in fear of nuclear annihilation, particularly to the citizens who can't tell that there is no real threat from Big Blue? Also, let me be the first (okay, not the first, but whatever) to draw a line between this and Dark Knight. DK has a much more believable "Let's have everyone believe something that isn't true because it's better." ending. One of these involves sprawling international politics, diplomacy and nuclear armaments, while the other is concerned with public opinion in a single city. Even so, if this movie had come out first, I imagine this ending would have been more satisfactory. There are also normal problems with the staging and workings of the last act. Why did they celebrate inside the dangerous chamber? We know the chamber wasn't their accomplishment since it was invented decades prior. Why aren't there 20 blue Indians after they get vaporized? Even if they aren't there yet, what if there are in a few days? And, for that matter, why does Ozy need one of those chambers? Even if it's just to blast Dr. M later, why does the world's smartest man think that disintegrating Dr. M, a man with omniscient control over his own atoms, will do anything at all? Even if it did, what if he left a version of himself outside? Why does he need to be in Antarctica, (except to not be in NYC)? Why can't Dr. Manhattan detect that Ozy is going to create a tachyon storm (or whatever) to block his future vision before he can create it, or are they particles already working before Ozy's completed the work (a la Bill & Ted)? Why does Nite Owl have an Antarctic version of his costume? For that matter, where did Silk Spectre get her that fur coat if she was teleported there from Mars? And what's with that purple cat? However, despite the fact that I spent 3 times as long bashing it it as I did praising it, I highly recommend it for the good parts. The first 2/3s of this movie are totally awesome. If it had kept that up, it could have been the best comic book movie ever made. Instead, it's simply great with a poor ending. Watchmen is the A.I. of comic book movies, except the good parts are better and the bad parts aren't as bad. Everything but the last act was first-rate, and ending didn't ruin everything. It simply existed in its own badness with the same characters, like someone replaced the last scenes of Godfather II with the end of Godfather III. In other words, if you like superheroes, see this movie. Just be sure to listen for Jimmy's signal to boogie out of there if a bad ending can wreck everything for you. Rating: 4 of 5. (2 of 5 for those allergic to bad endings.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2009 23:13
|
|
|
(Originally posted in Fanboy's Watchmen thread.) Holy poo poo, this exceeded my expectations, and despite my past nerding, those were very high expectations. Let me just get this out of the way, Haley was to Watchmen as Heath was to Dark Knight. Phenomenal performance, I wouldn't be surprised if he wins an Oscar. My biggest fear was that during the preview clips most of the actors seemeingly had wooden performances, but this isn't the case. Malin Akerman was definitely the worst of the big six performances (Rorschach, Dan, Veidt, Laurie, Dr. Manhattan, The Comedian), but she was still very passable. Morgan and Billy Crudup did an amazing job on The Comedian and Dr. Manhattan respectively, but even they were over-shadowed by Haley. I thought Patrick Wilson did a good job with Dan, and Goode with Veidt (surprised by this), but they just don't compare. The movie overall had a few pacing issues (the ending being the worst), but it's forgivable. They definitely got the story across, and I even like the new ending. In fact, I believe that in some scenes, the movie is superior to it's source material. And the soundtrack was awesome, it really was. Especially Hallelujah. My only true gripe with the film is the actiony Jet-Li sequences, but I even got past all that. It didn't even make me flinch. I wanted this film to be the next huge thing in the comic book movie genre, and it is. I wouldn't even be hard-pressed to say this is the biggest and best the genre has yet offered. Is it movie of the year material? Maybe not (but Haley still deserves and Oscar, drat it!), but it will be a film that I will remember for a long time. I was as left as impressed leaving the theatre as I was TDK, and that says a lot. 5/5 for me, and the DC will surely give it the extra strength it needs for another .5
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2009 23:37
|
|
|
The Watchmen is a good movie. Yes there are flaws in it, but every movie has flaws. The main concerns seem to be the sex scene, the music, the ending and, of course, the penis. Let me address those. First, the sex scene is basically the exact same tone as the sex scene in 300. Yes it's a bit long, but it's not tasteless. It's certainly better than the Neo/Trinity sex scene. You see a lot of skin, but all in all it's a very small part of the movie. If you get uncomfortable with nudity then it may make you uncomfortable, but I didn't mind it. Also, the flame thing is funny. Get over it. The music for the movie is well done. The music is mostly topical, and rarely, if ever, interrupts the flow of the movie. The movie is set in the 80's and the music is appropriate for that. Maybe I would have changed a song or two around, but all in all it should be a minor point even if it bothers you. I don't want to get into the ending too much because it's a spoiler (obviously) but as a fan of the graphic novel I thought the end was very well done. It makes sense, it preserves the original tone of the comic, and it works. I saw the film with two people who had never even really heard of the graphic novel and one who read it when it originally came out and they all thought the ending made sense, worked for the movie and was good. Ok, the penis. There is some penis in the film. There is glowing blue penis. I didn't count, but there's probably 10 shots with penis in it. That's really not bad considering a pivotal character goes naked the entire film. Really, it's like the sex scene. If you're horribly offended by nakedness, you should avoid the movie. If you're a regular person you should get over it and not let it ruin a very good movie. All in all, this is a good film. It's gorgeous, clever, tells a good story, has great action and great characters. It's faithful enough to the book to appease fans and accessible to people who have never seen it. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2009 06:07
|
|
|
Read the book months ago when I first heard this was coming out- I had to see what the hype was all about- and I liked it quite a bit. I wouldn't say I loved it, but it was pretty drat good. I dragged my lady to the movie tonight and we both loved it. Fan-loving-tastic. Most of the complaints I've heard don't bother me in the slightest. I did miss the scene where Hollis gets beat up by the gang- which was one of my favorites from the comic, not because of what happened to him, but because of the way the fight was depicted in the comic. And I love that they got rid of the loving squid. That was the strangest part of the book to me... 4.5/5 TShields fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Mar 9, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2009 07:16
|
|
|
Havn't read any of the comics but I understood the premise. Everytime another sex scene came on, everytime the stupid music played, everytime the movie beat you over the head that they live in a morally questionable world and how everything is shades of gray, blah blah I wanted to walk out. The entire movie could have been cut by an hour and we wouldn't have missed a single thing. There was just so much unnecessary fluff in this. The Dark Knight did everything this movie tried to do but in a much more interesting way, without beating you with graphic sex scenes and violent murders. 3/5, see it I guess if you really liked the source but if you're looking for an interesting comic book movie, this movie has so many pacing issues that it's hard to sit through, I can't imagine anyone doing a second viewing. And if you're hoping for a fun action-packed movie, you'll be completely disappointed, the action scenes except (maybe) the opening Comedian scene (which again ruined by stupid overly dramatic music) are such a small % of the actual cut of the film you'll hate yourself for having to sit through 3 hours of blue dick with no payoff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2009 19:22
|
|
|
The sex scene was overdone, but the blue penis wasn't obtrusive -- in most of his frontal scenes they shot him from the waist up, but not in a way that seemed out of place, like, "Oh crap, we better move up quick, people might see his penis!" That said, I personally found the movie likable but boring. I liked the backstory into each of the characters best. I think I would enjoy the book/comic/whatever better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2009 23:44
|
|
|
The reviews really are all over the place for this movie (they took out too much! they didn't take out enough!), and you can cut the pretentiousness with a knife on some of the reviews posted thus far. I never read the comic books (or any comic book ever..), and never even saw the trailer. I only went to see it because my brother is under 18 and wanted me to take him. When the opening credits started with my favorite Bob Dylan song, I decided to stop being pessimistic and try to enjoy the movie. I loved it, and I'm having trouble thinking of any complaints. Obviously I disagree about the soundtrack being terrible, and looking back through the thread I disagree with just about every single other bad thing mentioned. Maybe the sex scene was a little long, maybe I could have lived my whole life without seeing a blue penis, but I don't think either of those impacted the movie enough to take away any enjoyment I got out of it. I'll give it 5/5, it blew me away. Some of the goon reviews have reminded me why I avoid people who read comic books like the plague.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2009 00:15
|
|
|
I have to give this a 5. I read through the comic for the first time about 5 months ago, and went to see this on an IMAX screen with a friend who hadn't read it. We both loved it. Honestly, my only real complaint is the length of the sex scenes, and I'm only complaining about that due to knowing about how other stuff had to be cut out to fit the reels. There were also a few things that should have been made clearer for people who didn't read the comic like Bubastis (oh look suddenly a poorly done CGI cat comes out of nowhere, wait what the gently caress) and Rorschach being the doomsday sign dude. I actually really liked what was changed from the comic. Even though Snyder's portrayal of the characters (like the liberty taken with fight scenes) makes them seem much more super-heroic than Moore intended them to be (and in a way went completely against the overall message of the original source), it made for some really entertaining scenes. If you're a huge fan of the comic, you'll need to see it with the mindset that it's not a perfect recreation, understand why it wasn't exactly feasible to do one, and atleast be happy with the excruciating attention to detail paid to the visual aspects of the film. Also, as others have said, the portrayals of Rorschach and the Comedian have to be amongst the best character transitions to the big screen ever. I'm probably going to end up re-watching it before it leaves theaters, and I can't wait for the director's cut.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2009 01:48
|
|
|
Having no previous knowledge of the comicbook, I was dragged to see this by a couple of friends. I enjoyed it. At times it seems to get wrapped up in itself and loose focus for a few sections, but overall was easy to follow and intresting enough to keep me from sneaking out for a smoke like I normally do every 20 minutes in any movie; it was however a bit long... and blue. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2009 04:18
|
|
|
Superheroes are a bad idea. At Batman’s level, they’re reactionary vigilantes; at Superman’s, world-ending weapons. One of the salient points of Alan Moore’s “Watchmen” and Zack Snyder’s film adaptation is that superheroes are a dangerous concept. Moore’s superheroes are violent sociopaths, impotent vigilantes, narcissistic megalomaniacs and mass murderers. And with a few notable exceptions, they’re also sexist, reactionary and antidemocratic. In this setting, a very 1980s New York, Batman would be a racial profiler. Both the graphic novel and the film rewrite history so that in the 1940s, eccentric do-gooders decided to wear costumes and take down crooks. Sometime before Kennedy’s assassination at the hands of one costumed crime fighter, a nuclear experiment went awry, creating the god-like Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), a man who exists on a quantum level (”the superman exists, and he’s American!”). Richard M. Nixon, in his best super villain turn, uses Dr. Manhattan to annihilate the North Vietnamese and installs himself as permanent president stateside. This is all shown during a slyly skewered title sequence, arguably Snyder’s best work here. In 1985, the year most of the film takes place, Dr, Manhattan’s escapades in Vietnam have brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of all out war. Superheroes have been outlawed following popular anti-vigilante uprisings, and the disbanded Minutemen superhero team find themselves targeted by an assassin. The first to go is the Comedian (a beefy Jeffery Dean Morgan), a cigar-chomping all-American guy who beats up protesters, rapes his female colleagues and slaughters civilians when it suits him. His murder attracts the attention of Rorschach (an effectively weird Jackie Earle Haley), the Travis Bickle of Moore’s pantheon of heroes, a vigilante loner who insists on crime fighting even if it means violently murdering perps with meat cleavers. He has a bit of a chip on his shoulder: women are whores, the poor are gutter trash, and liberals are out to ruin America. He wears a mask, an ever-changing Rorschach ink spot, while he stalks his prey, all the while delivering “Taxi Driver” voiceover. That he’s cheered on by certain audience members says a lot more about them than they’d probably care to admit. We’re introduced to other neurotic superheroes. There’s Laurie (Malin Akerman), the second Silk Spectre after her alcoholic mother, a high-society drunk retired from the costumed hero business. There’s the Batman-like Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson playing Clark Kent as sexually dysfunctional man-child, albeit with considerable charm), Laurie’s nerdy love interest. Ozymandias (Matthew Goode), the world’s smartest man and socialite glam god, devotes his time to high-tech energy solutions. And of course, there’s Dr. Manhattan, glowing deep blue, who has gradually slipped away from the human race into his invisible universe of atoms and tachyons. Snyder makes his heroes a bit more super-powered than Alan Moore wrote them—they tear arms in twain without breaking a sweat and kick just a little too much rear end with just a little too much relish. Snyder isn’t a film maker who believes that less is more; with him, too much is never enough. This tendency can be distracting, as in moments of extreme violence. I’m not squeamish, but outside of Troma productions, one cleaver to the head is usually enough to make a point. I’m okay with the ramped-up fights because the film is satirizing comic books, and should probably look like a comic book movie. But the violence sometimes plumbs Sin City depths. A scene where a couple of arms are sawed off is simply too much to ask a mainstream audience to tolerate. Synder likes cheesy, overlong sex scenes as much as violence and these too carry the film a bit overboard. Moore’s comics, while very much appealing to youngish adults and smart teenagers, always had an understated quality. Even the wildly experimental sections were subtly clever, more literary or painterly than filmic. Thought Snyder takes great pains to bring the comic’s frames to life, his tendency to turn everything to 11, with pounding rock music and hectic editing, undermines the thoughtfulness of Moore’s own writing, which is very deliberate and, at times, even poetic. As a film, the material works best as a satirical black comedy. The plot is rigorously convoluted and busy, but if you ignore the somewhat tiring machinations of the story, especially as they grind into the third act, there are a lot of very nasty, funny and pointed observations about superheroes and what they represent in US culture. Rorschach stands in for the vigilante impulse, the kind of black and white reasoning people employ when they take the law into their own hands. The Comedian is the ugly American at its absolute nadir, a bully who overthrows Marxist governments when he’s not too busy beating down hippies and killing pregnant women overseas. He’s a total inversion of every virtue the country ostensibly holds dear, enacting all its worst tendencies. He’s like the Punisher and Captain America rolled into one, with the worst traits—the overkill, the chauvinism—of both, and few of their good qualities. Dr. Manhattan exists at the other extreme, godly and all powerful. But he still takes sides in conflicts, murdering millions to further US interests (truth, justice and the American way), and like any whiny human, hides from his relationship problems on Mars. Pretend for a moment Superman existed and was imbued with human emotions. Regardless of whose interests he would serve, having someone who can annihilate the planet on a whim hanging around would be unnerving at best and a destructive, unbalancing menace at worst. Imagine if Superman worked for Nixon. Audiences go to superhero movies in droves because they want to see someone with magical powers or flawless martial arts take down bad guys in crowd-pleasing fight scenes. “Watchmen” offers plenty of fights, but it doesn’t go out of its way to make the heroes overly sympathetic. Not having the time or space to develop the characters, Snyder falls back on broadly-painted types, but it allows him to distill some strong ideas. While somewhat handicapped by his excessive style, Snyder does an admirable job at demonstrating the danger of gods and superheroes, and those we assign that status to. It’s great to have them on your side, but what if you’re the “bad guy”? Who makes sure that superheroes don’t abuse their power? In the words of Juvenal by way of the comic's tagline, who watches the watchmen? 4.0/5 Love Rat fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Mar 11, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2009 04:41
|
|
|
0/5 The comic is one of the most entertaining and satisfying reads I have ever dedicated myself to, but sadly the movie adaptation fails at all levels. I tried giving this movie a chance but for my ignorance I was rewarded with awful slow-motion bullshit, wooden acting, a poorly constructed narrative, and an incredibly awkward overall feel to the movie. The Watchmen is just a complete and utter mess and managed to spectacularly gently caress up the source material, do not investigate further.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2009 06:12
|
|
|
Read the book previously: Yes General impression: Satisfaction Finally caught Watchmen tonight. I read the book about six months ago and really loved it. I was eager and hyped for the movie. All in all, I was not disappointed. I thought all the characters were cast near-perfectly. The major story elements were there and though much was left out, it wasn't anything critical to the enjoyment of the plot. The action scenes were fun, I personally like the use of slow-mo, and even though the ending was different than the book, it still created the same feelings and questions. The negatives? The soundtrack was asinine at times, the old Silver Spectre was a weak actress, and I could have done without the cheesy sex scene. Other than that, it was a fun ride. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2009 06:43
|
|
|
I thought it was loving fantastic but then again I never got into the comic and only read about half of it before getting bored because I like my entertainment in 3 hour chunks. The actors they chose were amazing. I only recognized the guy from Hard Candy who played Night Owl so I'm going to have to check out more of their work. The fact they used more obscure actors (to me anyway) made it that much better. I just read something about how Keanu Reeves wanted to play Dr. Manhattan but bowed out over budgeting cuts so holy poo poo, movie saved. Manhattan's a great character and the guy who played him did it well. (From what I read of the comic he was by far my favorite character - all seeing, all powerful, but also wistful and at odds with the world. Perfectly portrayed on screen.) Effects, colouring, detail were top notch. The story, of course, can't be attributed to the film makers, but it was handled well and it's good to see a superhero movie that isn't full of cliched cartoon kiddy poo poo like Spiderman or X-Men. I didn't care about the big blue cock as much as some people here and I'm a little worried about that. Then again I also didn't care about the sex scene and seeing Malin Akerman's perky nipples so I think that evens it out. Another thing I liked that most seem to hate is the music choice. loving loved it. Again, the opposite of cliched and the feelings evoked were appropriate. People said the same thing about the score for There Will Be Blood in that it distracted from the screen. I liked it because of that. It's nice to have a different medium than visual to knock you over the head now and then and keep you focused. All and all well worth it. Pros: - The acting and actors. It's like a film full of character actors and it's a good thing. - Story - Cinematography - Soundtrack Cons: - None really. The ending with the drama of killing off millions of people and saving the entire planet from all future war seemed too cartoony and Dr. Evil for me but I understand the need for that philosophical "here is human nature" thing. - Oh yeah, like a guy above me said the CGI cat thing was horribly done. - Another, the guy who played Rorschach was great and all, but gently caress he's a tiny little guy. Watching him on screen I started thinking of Rorschach as cute and adorable and that's no good. 5/5 SconZ fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Mar 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2009 15:58
|
|
|
quote edit
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2009 16:00
|
|
|
Mofette posted:I had never read The Watchmen before seeing the film. I was surprised by how good/understandable it was too. I assumed that when he doubled himself he couldn't duplicate clothes, so it was just simpler to be naked. 4 stars out of 5.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2009 02:32
|
|
|
As a fan of the comic I was somewhat unsure if Zach Snyder would be able to pull Watchmen off, but after having seen the film I am still floored by it after an hour. Reading the book didn't leave me judging the film based upon the source material and any liberties it may have taken or omissions it may have made. In fact, reading Watchmen before having seen this film seemingly helped me appreciate the film as its own creation and helped me understand why changes were made in the translation from book to film. Scenes that I had seen out of context previously on the internet in previews or trailers that made me question how well Watchmen would fare as a film didn't seem out of place or done poorly when viewed in full context. The only scene that stands out as unneeded or overlong was the very first scene of the film right before the murder of the Comedian, which just seemed to linger too much on what the character was watching on the television. In retrospect it wasn't even a needed scene since the opening sequence showing the Watchmen universe through the years follows soon after, and what an amazing collage of imagery it was. Much ado will certainly be made concerning the divergence the film makes at the end compared to the graphic novel. The graphic novel's original ending felt like it had come out of nowhere, and then completely came out of left field with all the talk about the role of the psychic's brain in the squid plot. The new ending is better established and has relatively believable ties to scenes earlier in the film thanks in part to the minor yet important alternate energy subplot which did little to distract from the experience. The exception to this rule would be one scene with Veidt and some corporate suits that seemed wedged in to better set up the ending. SPOILERS: I was more miffed at the near-absence of Captain Metropolis than the absence of the squid. They couldn't throw in "Captain Metropolis was decapitated in a car crash" in Rorschach's journal entry when he was mentioning the fates of all the other former minutemen? The film is amazingly graphic (I was actually surprised that this was an R-rated film as it stood in retrospect) but the extreme violence and unapologetic sexual imagery seemed far more believable and justified to me than the violence in Kill Bill or Saw (I recognize the difference in genres and why Kill Bill and Saw are as violent as they are, but the point I am trying to make is that Watchmen's violence is not for violence's sake). If anything, the unreal gore surrounding certain actions that Doctor Manhattan performs helps drive home to point of how much power he possesses. The film definitely makes you feel the violence it puts up on the screen. If you are squeamish you will be very uncomfortable during much of the action in the film. All in all, many of the weaknesses of the film can be attributed to the weaknesses in the graphic novel itself. The first half of the film will seem disjointed and confusing to anybody who hasn't read the book (I saw this with somebody who hadn't read Watchmen and the disjointedness he perceived didn't detract from his enjoyment of the film), and even with the changes to make the ending more film friendly, the ending still seems somewhat sudden given the film's (mostly) slow pacing. **SPOILERS** The revelations that Nite Owl II and Rorschach have about Ozymandias' involvement come all too quickly in the film just like they seemed to in the graphic novel.**SPOILERS** The one major weakness I thought the film independently created was the characterization of Veidt, **SPOILERS** which may tip people off towards his secret "villainous" intentions even if the film doesn't indicate what they are early on. He seems too cold and logical, his speech (not the accent, but the way he actually spoke) makes him stand out early as an outlier, and the black outfit doesn't do him any favors. If he had spoken more dynamically (the accent could have stayed, just have him speak in more than just a monotone almost-whisper voice) and if his original gold and purple outfit had stayed in some form it probably would have seemed far more surprising at the end of the film when his plot is revealed and furthermore carried out. **SPOILERS** The only other notable point is the CGI. I didn't notice any real issues with the special effects enough to think about them, but people I saw the film with did. At any rate, it isn't as sinfully bad as it was in 300. Watchmen's CGI suffers more from the uncanny valley than anything else (considering the feat of putting Doctor Manhattan on screen I thought they could have done much worse), and part of me thinks that people that see a lot of problems with the CGI were looking to find them. In summary, Watchmen is an excellent film. Snyder did it as well as anybody could have hoped to. It isn't as good of a graphic novel film as Sin City was but it is a better film overall when viewed outside the scope of the genre. It is violent and unashamed about it, but the liberal use of graphic imagery makes the film all the more powerful. Much of what plagues the film stems from staying as faithful to the graphic novel as it has. However it can't be used as an excuse for all of the film's missteps. I plan on seeing this again soon, and that is a very uncommon thing for me to do. Lastly, I did not mind the slow-mo! 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2009 04:44
|
|
|
I saw this movie last week, and I have had a bit of time to let my opinions fester and mold. Keep in mind when reading this that I am not much of a comic book person and have never read the source material; I went into this movie with only basic information in hand and had no vested interest in its relation to the source material. That being said, while many praise and love it for its ability to translate the graphic novel into a film, as a movie it is an unbearable mess. The premise is promising, but the plot itself is poorly written, unbearably slow, and all over the place. What it turns into is a detective story of sorts that culminates in a plot twist that is really hard to care about when it involves a character that has only been in about two scenes previously for a total of 4 minutes of screen time. It doesn't even feel like much of a twist; it just sort of happened, and I found myself simply saying to myself, "Who cares?" In between the plot advancement were these unbearably long background segments into the background of each character that really did little to make me feel any closer to the characters. These scenes are what killed the pacing, and they added very little to the movie. All the superhero characters besides Rorschach were poorly acted and really difficult to have any care towards. Much of the dialogue was also cringe-worthy at points, and it really bordered on being too corny for its own good. Subtlety is not in The Watchmen's vocabulary either as it made sure everything was completely obvious to the audience to the point of killing it and making it ineffective -- for instance, constant references back to the Comedian's death in the opening scene of the movie with phrases like "last laugh" and "it's all kinda funny..." etc. I believe there is even one moment where a character narrates, "I was angry." The music choice was just ridiculous and oftentimes painful. "The Times They Are-a Changing" was fitting and worked in a James Bond-esque opening credit sequence, but usage of "All Along the Watchtower" amongst others felt unbelievably forced and contrived, out of place, and downright corny. The worst offender was the use of a song involving a "Hallelujah" chorus over the sex scene which turned an intimate and rather serious scene into a laughing-stock. That said, the visual effects and styling of the movie were enjoyable at least. I feel like many people who enjoyed this movie enjoyed it for its ability to stay faithful to its source material, but that may be also its biggest weakness. As someone going into this movie to be entertained and enjoy a good show, The Watchmen ultimately fails to deliver on all fronts. It's too long and does little to justify its run time; the dialogue, acting, and writing are all poor and corny at points; the music selection was just too odd and all over the place to be taken seriously, turning some scenes into hilarious jokes. It's a shame too as many other comic book movies (most recently and notably being "The Dark Knight") have transcended their comic book roots in order to make a story that is both faithful to the original ideas of their respectful authors while at the same time creating a film that can cater to those out of that audience and create a solid, enjoyable, well-done movie-going experience. "The Watchmen" does not do this on any accounts. Anyone without any vested interest in the graphic book need not apply. Even those that do, proceed with caution. This movie is bad. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2009 07:49
|
|
|
I agree with Haud on this one. I was mostly a reader of Dark Horse Comics in the 90s, so I came into this movie with some expectations, but had not read the comic book or knew anything about it. I thought the special effects, directing, cinematography was great! But overall, the story feels sluggish and anti-climatic. You got a murder mystery, lots of suspense, plenty of action, but with a disappointing ending. From what Ive processed, its a movie about superheroes who were forced by the government to stop wearing masks and live normal lives. Most of them have no real special ability or skill beyond being tough as nails and knowing kung-fu. Almost all the fight scenes are predictable in that the prison guards, police or villains fall like lambs to slaughter. Similar to fight/combat scenes from The A-Team, Star Trek or Stargate. The heroes just mow right through any threat brought before them, which attempts, but fails to quicken the pace of the movie. Youve see one wire fighting fung-fu fight scene, you've seen them all and while it wasnt as ridiculous as Kung-Fu Hustle or The Matrix, I wasn't in any visual awe. Dr Manhattan is a very deep thought spoken character, his dialog is something that adds to the movie in a very cool way. Having a vague understanding of Quantum Physics, I didn't have any problem with the many abilities he displayed throughout the movie. However having many scenes with his 10" cock swaying with swagger, can be disturbing if you are not prepared for it. Its not like I cant deal with the male anatomy or anything, its just that its a blue CGI cock. I would have the same problem if Peter Jackson decided to make King Kong anatomically correct. I wouldn't consider it offensive, just distracting. Rorschach was great in this movie, from beginning to end. The movie mostly focuses around his need solve the mystery of who murdered The Comedian, a fellow super hero who's the dirt bag scoundrel of the super hero society. The prison scenes with Rorschach were the best I felt, however I must have missed the part where they explain the relationship with his mask. Plot holes litter this entire movie and as much as I wanted to like it, I just didn't get it. The ending seems unjust as righteous characters are killed, while more dangerous and psychotic characters are left to live. Maybe that was the point, that life isn't fair, justice is blind, etc. As someone who normally enjoys unhappy endings (12 Monkies, Series7, Quantum Leap Finale, Boyz in the Hood), I was expecting something different. 1/5 Kinison Khan fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Mar 14, 2009 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2009 23:47
|
|
|
As a big fan of the book I was left disappointed. The characterization in Alan Moore's Watchmen is very in-depth, which helps to get the reader attached to the characters, no matter how scummy they might be. In the movie, a lot of this background info is cut out. What were once thorough expositions become jumbled and hollow explanations (Roscharch's therapy especially left me disappointed). The soundtrack, the sex scene, the dong over-exposition, the hyper-violence... all these things have already been talked about. They all reinforce this superficiality that I felt as I came out of the theater today. There are definitely some moments peppered throughout the movie that thrilled my inner nerd, but I feel like too much time was spent on style and not enough on substance. 2/5, but I'd be willing to rent an extended version to see what they'll add.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2009 23:40
|
|
|
After watching "Watchmen", the way Peter Jackson scripted and wrote his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy makes a lot of sense. Having, as my first contact with the series, watched the 2008 animated comic version a few days earlier, you could tell the comics here had been adapted as faithfully as possible. While it should make the fans happy, and it made me happy, you could tell it didn't make for a very well paced film for a large share of the audience. When Peter Jackson's script and writing for his "Rings" took more liberties and some of the dialogue were condensed into something dumb, you could tell from the success of these films that pacing was better for the casual viewer. I have to commend Zack Snyder for doing a passionate job and giving fans everything he could - just hoping the resulting movie would be successful enough to warrant doing it again. For more positive note, the casting in this movie was brilliant, particularly the Comedian, Nite Owl and Rorshach's part. Special effects and the little history bits were mostly quite good. Action scenes were well directed and shot, thank god for that. You could tell though that the action-heavy director isn't very good at directing human interactions and emotions, and cinematography and score felt a little awkward sometimes. But even if some ways it's uneven, it's still the most faithful adaptation of good, comic book source material yet, an accomplishment which demands respect. Not everybody will love this film, but I'm glad it was made the way it was. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2009 20:59
|
|
|
I've read the comic. I thought that it was ok; it didn't change my life and I have no desire to read it again, but I thought that it was interesting. Watchmen is not a bad movie, but it suffers from some atrociously bad dialogue (which is the fault of too closely following the comic), an overuse of slow motion, and pacing that is fantastic for a comic, terrible for a movie. Some of the main characters are not well-defined, but the movie does do a pretty good job of tackling the more complex and interesting ones, like Manhattan, The Comedian, and Rorschach. I would have been great to see more of what motivated Adrian, however. Overall, it's worth seeing, has a solid overall story, and some great visuals. But it never really broke out of mediocrity for me. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2009 02:28
|
|
|
This was probably close to the best you could get the Watchmen to be in 2.5 hours. The characters all felt like I thought they would be when I read the comics, the acting was good, the sets were good, the camerawork was good, the editing left something to be desired. when Rorschach died and it immediately cut to nite owl screaming I felt more like laughing than anything The editing of the ending really felt rushed and the 'lets learn a lesson' music playing during it felt out of place. It should have been a 3 or 4 part series so they could explain stuff better and let things sink in. As it is now I think it will take multiple viewings to really sink in. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2009 00:22
|
|
|
I thought it was a good movie. The sex scene wasn't nearly as long as what everybody makes it out to be, it was just awkward so it felt long. Same with the all the blue dick fear, it's in there a few times but not "3 hours in every scene" presence. I'd give it a 4/5 but it probably deserves a 3 out of 5. I also never read the comics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2009 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
Watchmen was excellent to the point where if you tell me you didn't like the movie, I'd probably dismiss all your opinions of other movies out of hand, that's how much I liked it. The major issue most people have with it is that it was sold as being part of the wrong genre - it's not comparable to Iron Man or The Dark Knight or Superman or any of the other members of the superhero genre, that's really not what it is trying to do at all - it's a deconstruction that asks the question, what would happen if Superheroes existed in the real world? There is lots of talking and very little action and virtually no heroics. The "heroes" are insane, monstrous, deeply flawed individuals as a whole, and commit disgusting, barbaric acts over the course of this movie. If you go in expecting something like the Fantastic Four, you are going to be disappointed. The two issues I had with the movie were the fight scenes and the soundtrack. The (few) fight scenes are extremely overdone - too much CG, too much kung-fu, too deliberately overdone. Only one person in the movie is supposed to have meta-human abilities, yet for some reason, everyone is a kung fu fighter. Granted, kung fu and CG seem almost obligatory in movies about Super Heroes, but a more laid-back, western approach would have suited the material far better, in my opinion. The soundtrack commits the sin of using good songs in poor places, in an attempt to give the movie an 80's feel - 99 Luftballons blares at an inappropriate time, and some of the other song choices are similarly obtrusive. Visually, the movie excelled. Very well shot, very good-looking in general, lots of references in the background to catch. The characters were as a general rule well-cast - in particular, Nite Owl, Rorschach, and the Comedian were spot on. Malin Akerman is less successful as Laurie Jupiter, and Matthew Goode was somewhat weak as Ozymandias. Plot-wise, the movie is one step forward from the book, one step back. The ending of the movie is definitely much more plausible than the one in the comic, but it's also darker. I also think the movie telegraphed one of its major plot twists much earlier than the comic did In the book, you have no indication that Adrian is killing the assassin by putting a cyanide tube in his mouth, you think he is actually being attacked, yet in the same scene in the movie, you have full knowledge of this and it is made much more explicit. Adrian in general is much more kill-happy and effeminate (comparatively) in the movie, and I'm not sure the change was warranted. The movie on the whole holds together very well though, it's a really cool story. If you don't like watching people "sitting around and talking" you're not going to like this movie, just a heads up, there's a lot of that, and it's pretty long as well. I'd suggest watching it sober and wide awake, it'll be incomprehensible high or drunk or tired. I can understand not liking Watchmen, it is not made to appeal to everyone, but it's probably the best movie I've seen in a long, long time. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2009 20:41
|
|
