Watchmen

[Nighthawk 0]

Yeah, I didn't much care for it.

 

A lot of it: I really didn't like the actor playing Adrian at all. He's my second favorite character in the story, yet this version of it just came out all wrong. And, as he's the crux of the story, that cripples the whole thing.

He does come off as just a "comic book villain" (the wink wink ha ha of having him say this was atrociously cringeworthy, not to mention; undermining the whole subtext of the concept of superhero comics being thwarted in the Watchmen universe... not dealt with in the film, of course, but I'd prefer a little continuity).

Earlier in the day, I mentioned that I was going to see Watchmen later in the evening, to which the person replied "Oh yeah, that's from a comic book right? So this is like... another Iron Man?" No, but I don't enjoyhow this is going to come off to a person like that. Many people straight up walked out. Too heady, I suppose. Tried to have it both ways.

 

I did enjoy how bored and apathetic Jon seemed, that note rang very true, but I still never quite bought Billy Crudup's voice.

Rorschach; excellent. Dan was pretty good. Comedian, he was awesome all the way through, so that was satisfying (I particularly enjoyed his having a Hustler on his coffee table, and a large phallus sculpture next to his tv).

His framed Silk Spectre pin up, that was pretty sweet too. That was done by James Jean, and I may get a print for myself.

 

Anyway, yeah. Had some laughs... killed some time... but nah, not too good.

[Special K 0]

SPOILERS all over the place, etc. etc.

 

Hmm, I saw it last night.

 

Some goods: Great casting with the notable exception of Ozymandias. He looked like Dana carvey.

 

It's a pretty gorgeous movie all around. Lots of eye-candy.

 

Lots of bads. I'll stick to the three that stood out most in my mind. You could nitpick this movie to DEATH and be completely justified in doing so.

 

Ozymandias. Instead of beating a mentally broken old man, killing him, and seeming to enjoy it, then genuinely mourning at his funeral, he's expressionless. He screams "villainous mastermind". They even took that wonderful moment when all that arrogance and self-certitude finally break free. He joyously, disgustingly, celebrates his victory, as the others look on in shock and horror. Taking that out is ridiculous. IT IS THE CLIMAX OF THE STORY.

 

They amped up the blood and violence all movie and then pussied out on the doomsday. That is amazingly lame, and a perversion of the comic. The violence in the comic is largely very quick, brutal and ugly. Ozymandias killing the Comedian is not balletic. It is a murder. Hollis gets killed like a dog for no good reason. Etc. Then the doomsday scenario happens and reading it, I was really quite shocked and breathless. Mounds of human bodies and blood. It really starkly brings home how monstrous a thing Veidt has done.

Watching the movie I thought wow, an Independence Day special effect. What do I care? I just saw a fat guy get his arms chopped off with a dremel.

I don't even mind that they changed the alien to framing Jon for the carnage. It films better, and can be explained much more quickly. But taking the horror out of it is so unbelievably pussy.

 

As a caveat, when killing people singly, why the fuck would Jon leave blood and guts laying around? That's just goddamn silly. OH right. visceral thrills!

 

Lastly, Dan's NOOOOO moment. I hated this so, so much. First, I just hate people screaming NOOOOO up into the camera in movies. Hate it. Second, being snuffed out of existence alone and unmourned in the middle of a snowfield is a much more fitting and tragic end for Rorschach. And it cheapens Dan's character. In the comic Dan KNOWS he ain't giving Rorschach a ride home. And he lets him be killed without a fuss, because it's nothing more than empty bluster at that point. He's shell-shocked and all he wants is to go home and fuck his new girlfriend and not live in fear for a while. Which is generally all most people really want. He's not a hero, he' a decent man, and he's a sellout, and he sells out his friend in the end, because what's the alternative? He's impotent.

 

In general, amping up the blood and guts, and softening the faults of the characters is pretty sad.

 

In the end, it was a pretty fun 2.5 hours. I probably would have enjoyed it quite a bit more if I hadn't read the comic first (but I'm really thankful I read the comic first). As it was, some good action. The characters were warped, but it was sure fun to see them on the big screen!

 

Alan Moore:

My books are still the same books as they were before they were made into films. The books haven't changed. I'm reminded of the remark by, I think it was Raymond Chandler, where he was asked about what he felt about having his books "ruined" by Hollywood. And he led the questioner into his study and showed him all the books there on the bookshelf, and said, Look—there they all are. They're all fine. They're fine. They're not ruined. They're still there.

 

That's pretty much the attitude I took after the movie. So, I curled up with my copy of Absolute Watchmen and proceeded to get lost in the perfect comic book once again.

[DMann2003 0]

Wow, I feel like I'm gonna come across as a defender here.

 

I thoroughly enjoyed 'Watchmen' last night. Most of the criticisms I'd been reading were that it was overloaded, bloated, didn't flow and turgid. But I felt fully immersed and never felt the film dragged, or felt that the film felt like a 2 3/4hr film.

 

I did read the novel over the last year, and while I feel overall it is better at transferring the nuances of the themes, I do feel that Snyder did get a couple of themes spot on. Namely that so-called heroics are futile at best, because human nature itself is so unpredictable that to attempt to 'right wrongs' will never truly change things. And the fact that Adrian's ultimate goal of peace comes through intimidation and fear, not by any change in human nature.

 

a word on the 'squid-less' ending...it's perfectly understandable to make the conclusion that by changing Dr. Manhatten to the scapegoat, that the world would not necessarily forgive America. However, because it is noted several times, how 'godlike' Manhatten is, I feel the world is scared into peace, so as not to upset in their minds this 'vengeful' god. So like it or not, the world (Russia, etc) dare not retaliate against the US for it's weapon gone mad, because they have a greater fear of what they think Manhatten might do in response

 

I might be the only one who was ok with Goode as Ozymandias. I think he nailed him as a vain playboy, and later a man consumed by his own hubris. And Wilson WAS Night Owl perfecly.

 

In the end, I do feel that the film doesn't stay with me that much, but I can't deny that for me, for its running time, I was completely involved. The closest film it reminded me of was 'Blade Runner' in fact.

 

I'd give it around a B+ overall.

[godthedog 0]

re: the bloodless doomsday:

 

i'd chalk it up to post-9/11 anxiety. you just can't show destroyed buildings and dead bodies all over the place in new york city without making your audience really uncomfortable. there's no real good way of handling that. looks like they were trying to make it as cratered and lifeless as the surface of mars--which is a good enough idea, but the execution was bad.

 

my favorite part about that segment in the book is that long empty beat of dead scenery. it's a solid six pages of "oh shit, oh shit, oh shit." i was really hoping for a couple moments of empty silence so that the carnage would hit home, but i don't think we saw more than 20 or 30 seconds of the landscape.

[DarKnight 0]

Wow, I must be the only person who read the comic, and really enjoyed the movie. I think people are trying WAY too hard to compare the graphic novel to the movie, and try to remember what was missing and such. I went in seeing the movie today not trying to think about the comic, and I thought the movie rocked. If anything, I think some things in the book being cut out in the movie actually may have helped in some ways. Most of the stuff that was cut out from the book I didn't really miss. About the only thing I did miss from the book not being in the movie was the

Hollis Mason death scene though, I thought that scene was really powerful in the book.

As for the casting, I thought everyone did a fine job, and Matthew Goode wasn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be. Basically, this movie will end up being one of those "love it" or "hate it" type of films.

[DMann2003 0]

Oh Thank God, DarKnight just got me off the hook lol

[Special K 0]

I don't think Goode is necessarily a bad actor. I think he was consciously directed so the character was bloodless and emotionless, with a thin, false veneer of smarm. For whatever reason, they consciously took out his

big celebration scene. (Also his quiet, button-pushing scene come to think of it)

Again I have no reason why they thought it would make the character more compelling, it does not.

 

This is a probably a 3 star movie, but it had its work cut out for it. Watchmen is the greatest graphic novel ever.

 

I think people are trying WAY too hard to compare the graphic novel to the movie, and try to remember what was missing and such

I can understand why they changed some things, but I don't have to like it. Their reasons show contempt for their audience. Everything they changed served the purpose of dumbing it down. The

non-squid

ending was the thing I was MOST okay with actually. I didn't have to try hard to compare things to the graphic novel, because I remember reading it for the first time like it was yesterday. You know why? Because it was fucking brilliant. And I imagine it's the same way with many other people.

 

Again, it's a fun movie, totally worth $9.50. But I was at no point awed. And I was awed reading the graphic novel.

 

EDIT: Oh, I did forget that the opening credits were STELLAR.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Well again, it's a divisive movie. If anything, it could have been much worse. Hell, look what the studio wanted.

 

Oh, and if you haven't seen it, here's the opening credits montage, which was easily my favorite part of the movie. Say what you will about Snyder, but the man knows how to do great credit montages (Example: the Dawn of the Dead opening credits.)

[The Niggardly King 0]

I'm surprised to see that it's the fans of the comic that enjoy this movie more. Most people I've talked to that didn't read the comic actually thought the story sucked or that it had no story at all. A lot of complaints that they should of just focused on one thing and not all the little subplots. I guess when there's no big name or main villain attached to unknown comic characters most people just want one or two things to follow. No complaints about the awkward dialogue at parts.

 

Oh, I could never hear what Nixon was saying because everyone was laughing at the bad makeup.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Oh, I could never hear what Nixon was saying because everyone was laughing at the bad makeup.

Well, with the exception of "Frost/Nixon", I can't think of a single television or movie portrayal of Nixon that doesn't come off as cartoonish.

[godthedog 0]

Wow, I must be the only person who read the comic, and really enjoyed the movie. I think people are trying WAY too hard to compare the graphic novel to the movie, and try to remember what was missing and such. I went in seeing the movie today not trying to think about the comic, and I thought the movie rocked. If anything, I think some things in the book being cut out in the movie actually may have helped in some ways. Most of the stuff that was cut out from the book I didn't really miss. About the only thing I did miss from the book not being in the movie was the

Hollis Mason death scene though, I thought that scene was really powerful in the book.

As for the casting, I thought everyone did a fine job, and Matthew Goode wasn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be. Basically, this movie will end up being one of those "love it" or "hate it" type of films.

 

way to back up those opinions. good work.

 

[cabbageboy 0]

One thing to note about Nixon....anyone else feel that the makeup was a deliberate grotesque caricature? I didn't crack up at it since it felt like a bizarre piece of business intentionally done. Of course I didn't see it in IMAX either, haha.

Anyway, after seeing this today with my brother (DarKnight) I have a bit different feeling than he does. While I did think the ending of the film was much more plausible than the doomsday device in the comic, they really downplayed the whole scenario a great deal. It's almost as if the deaths of 15 million people fell flat, reminding me of the Stalin quote "One death is a tragedy...one million is a statistic." It's even odder that I didn't even want Veidt to "get his" in the film, whereas in the book I thought he was a complete douche at the end and wanted Dr. Manhattan to vaporize him. Why destroy all of those places? Wouldn't NYC and Moscow have sufficed?

 

Smaller things to note: I preferred the Rorschach backstory in the book, where it went into his actual beginning as a vigilante and also his killing of the pedophile was handled better. I liked him burning that guy in the house more than hacking his skull with the cleaver.

 

Rorshach's narration was a strange dilemma for Snyder. In the book we as readers can take his journal with a grain of salt, figuring this guy is a complete nutjob and dismissing some of his more delusional rants. Film is different. Narration has an authority to it, almost like when we hear someone do a voiceover it becomes The Truth. It's the same lines as the book, but it comes off completely different.

 

Snyder ampted up the violence but there were small bits that didn't make it into the film. I wish they had gone into more detail with the Laurie flashback and had the globe, which gave the comic a Citizen Kane vibe. But above all the biggest problem is that the book's narrative momentum just doesn't translate to film all that well. In the book we get captivated by all the flashbacks because we can simply read it and take our time. In a film flashbacks really shouldn't be the actual highlights of the film, but they are here. The stuff happening in the actual narrative doesn't GRAB the viewer the way the comic did. I read it recently for the first time and found it incredibly tense, as if there was something terrible about to happen but couldn't pinpoint it. The film didn't quite have the same drive to it, but then I knew Veidt was behind everything going in. For those who hadn't read the book, was the film more suspenseful?

 

It was really the lack of the people on the street I think. It's a bit indulgent I suppose, but in the book there were the news vendor, the black kid reading the pirate comics, the lesbians, etc. It put a face on what Veidt was doing...these were the people he was going to kill for the Greater Good.

 

Perhaps these details will be in the director's cut? I know the Hollis death scene will be, which was sadly absent here since it gives you the feeling that NYC is getting close to total anarchy. Those bits of spectacle seem to be on the cutting room floor, but hopefully will be on the director's cut DVD.

 

Oh and as far as the cast goes, everyone was solid enough aside from Goode. It's not that he was all that horrible, but it left me with more of a feeling like "Okay, of all the actors on earth they picked THIS guy?" The part needed a bigger star in a way that Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan did not. Maybe Val Kilmer a decade ago would have made for a good Veidt.

 

Overall I'd give it ***.

[Ravenbomb 0]

Before he was cast in The Dark Knight I would've said cast Aaron Eckhart as Veidt.

[At Home 0]

Too old.

 

And cabbageboy, you are a fucking idiot. Holy shit.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Funny, I always saw Veidt as a mix between the all American capitalist entrepreneur and David Bowie.

[At Home 0]

David Bowie was in the movie! He's listed in the credits. Obviously not the real David Bowie, but he's in the Studio 54 scene with Veidt.

[Gary Floyd 0]

David Bowie was in the movie! He's listed in the credits. Obviously not the real David Bowie, but he's in the Studio 54 scene with Veidt.

And Mick Jagger was with him.

[At Home 0]

I even yelled out in the theatre, "THAT'S DAVID BOWIE!" Woo. I laughed at the sex scene too. Out loud. For a long time.

[DarKnight 0]

Wow, I must be the only person who read the comic, and really enjoyed the movie. I think people are trying WAY too hard to compare the graphic novel to the movie, and try to remember what was missing and such. I went in seeing the movie today not trying to think about the comic, and I thought the movie rocked. If anything, I think some things in the book being cut out in the movie actually may have helped in some ways. Most of the stuff that was cut out from the book I didn't really miss. About the only thing I did miss from the book not being in the movie was the

Hollis Mason death scene though, I thought that scene was really powerful in the book.

As for the casting, I thought everyone did a fine job, and Matthew Goode wasn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be. Basically, this movie will end up being one of those "love it" or "hate it" type of films.

 

way to back up those opinions. good work.

 

Well, I guess I could go into more detail saying why I didn't miss some things. So, lets think about about scenes from the book that weren't in the movie. This seems to include:

 

SPOILERS AHEAD

 

-Dr. Long's subplot with his wife and maybe some extended dialogue between him and Rorschach

-The people on the street corner like the newspaper guy, the kid, the lesbians, etc.

-Hollis Mason's death and many of his other scenes

-The subplot with the detectives

-Some of Laurie's scenes and backstory, like the incident with the Comedian at the party

-Little bit of Rorschach's backstory about how he got his special ink blot mask and his first days fighting crime with Nite Owl

 

And there may be more things I'm forgetting. Out of that list, about the only things I missed not being in the movie were Hollis Mason's scenes. It would have been nice if these scenes from that list were included in the movie, but really, I didn't miss them all that much, and I thought the movie was more fast paced because of them being eliminated. I don't know, maybe thats just me?

 

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

I just saw it...I ended up enjoying it pretty well. I didn't mind that they chaged the ending at all...but I hated the bloodless destruction of new york. After how graphic parts of the movie were, the lack of gore in that part made the ending feel anti-climactic.

[Craig Th 0]

In the GN, did Dr. Manhattan walk around naked like he did in the movie?

[Gary Floyd 0]

In the GN, did Dr. Manhattan walk around naked like he did in the movie?

Yep.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm finding the irony of people bitching about Nixon's make-up especially amusing.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I thought it was pretty good. I agree mostly with Special K's assessment of the film; I only read part of the graphic novel because I had to return it to the library before I was finished; I think I got close to halfway through it, so I don't even know anything about the

squid

ending. As it was, I thought what did end up in the film was really good.

 

Thought most of the parts with Dr. Manhattan were kind of boring, but that's just my personal dislike for the character; Crudup did just fine in the role. Jackie Earle Haley was amazing as usual, and Malin Akerman was hot, although she had a few really bad line deliveries. Didn't care about Goode's performance, since they really cartoonized his character.

 

I mean the film is what it is; it's pretty much the summation of the plot in the graphic novel, but Hollywoodized to make it work for big screen audiences. I don't think there was any real way to find a middle ground with this, and it's unfortunate; you either have to bastardize it and make it like Iron Man or whatever so it'll make big money for the casual dipshits who never have nor will read the GN, or you can make it as true to the story as you can and please the fans of the GN but take on the risk of having it flop. It sounds like they leaned heavily in the latter's direction, but not enough that it didn't still have enough elements of the former to upset both types of people.

 

I liked that the movie was long, fairly entertaining (I always like Zack Snyder's action sequences, even if I agree with godthedog that they just don't work as well in this kind of movie) and that I ended up with a nearly empty theater on a Saturday night for it because there were a couple other movie theaters in town showing it around the same time and there aren't too many people in my part of town going out to the movies at that time.

[Special K 0]

Oops, disregard. +1.

[Guest Smues]

Saw it Friday, didn't like it. At all. I haven't read the comic, but judging from the movie I wouldn't like that either. And man did the movie feel like it never ended. I know it was close to three hours, but it felt more like five. I was just waiting for it to end and it kept refusing to. Not my cup of tea.

 

[dubq 0]

Saw it last night. It was very good. Not great, but very good. It definitely was a little too lengthy.. but I think that was more be being tired than anything else. The movie-ending was fine, IMO as well. I don't think the GN ending would've worked as well to be honest.

 

Also, I didn't see the problem with Nixon's makeup or Sally Jupiter's makeup either. They looked perfectly fine for the type of movie this was - think Marv or the Yellow Bastard in Sin City. I guess people just need something to nitpick about. Though I definitely would've liked them to at least explain Rorschach's mask.

[cd213 0]

Just came back from it, and I must say: it's good. Not great, but good.

 

The Bad

 

-Ackerman and Goode were bad as Silk Spectre II and Veidt-Goode in particular failed to capture Veidt. The big thumbs down goes to Carla Gugino as Silk Spectre II, which was a Razzie worthy performance.

-Some of the cuts were obvious (

no death of Hollis, though that will be in the director's cut

) though it makes me look more forward to the director's cut.

-The sex scene was pretty bad, as was the music choice. Actually, most of the music choices are pretty obvious.

-Slow motion got annoying at times.

-Not movie related, but there was a guy behind me who said "pop art sucks." It didn't help that he and his friends look and sounded like men you'd find on hotchickswithdouchebags.com

 

 

The Good

 

-The opening credit sequence is incredible.

I love that they kept the death of Silver Dollar, which always struck me as the funniest bit from the graphic novel.

-Crudup, Haley, Wilson, and Morgan are great in their roles. Haley steals the show as Rorschach-I can't think of anyone else playing him now, while Wilson did a great job capturing Dan's character.

-There are three instances when the music choices work-Bob Dylan's "These Times They are a Changin'," Phillip Glass, and even "99 Luftballoons" worked well.

-While the slow motion was annoying at times, there isn't as much as there was in "300."

-I'm a movie score fan, and I loved the score by Tyler Bates, especially the piece that's a tribute to the "Blade Runner" score.

-I'm amazed by how faithful it is for the most part. Sure, there's some changes and things cut out, but for the large part, it's pretty damn faithful to the source material, and plenty of the dialogue comes from the graphic novel itself. Also,

Rorschach's death had the same impact that it did in the graphic novel, IMO.

-

Sure, there's no squid, which is still a bummer. That out of the way, Veidt's new plan actually wasn't bad, and actually worked in the movie. Oh, and yes, the fat kid does find the journal at the end.

 

I give it 8/10. It could have been better, it may not be as good as the graphic novel (though if anyone was expecting that, then they are crazy) and maybe it was more good than it was great, but it's the most faithful adaptation we're going to get. Sure, there's some bumps, and it will most likely divide audiences (and fans), but I enjoyed it, and really look forward to the director's cut.

 

I agree with a good portion of what you said here. I just got back fro the movie, and I enjoyed it a lot. Like others have said, it wasn't perfect, but it was also a good way to kill 3 hours. I'm watching the Complete Motion Comic right now, and this is pretty cool. Another thing that I liked about the movie was the voice-overs of Rorschach writing his journal. I was happy they kept that.

 

I would say that as far as comic movies goes, this was up there with THE CROW as far as being true to the source material. I also liked the ending of the movie a lot more than the one in the book.

[CBright7831 0]

I think the one thing that struck me the most is that

they changed Rorschach's origin

.

 

That part left me scratching my head.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Bill O'Reilly likes this film. His only complaint was the "sickening" near pornographic sex scene.