Watchmen

[cd213 0]

One thing that bothered me happened in the audience, during the attempted rape scene, there were a lot of people laughing. Some people also laughed at parts that were meant to be serious, as some other have said on here as well.

[LaParkaMarka 0]

One thing that bothered me happened in the audience, during the attempted rape scene, there were a lot of people laughing. Some people also laughed at parts that were meant to be serious, as some other have said on here as well.

 

People laughed during the rape? I mean, I can see someone laughing at blue wang or some of the cheesier lines, but Comedian beating the tar out of Silk Spectre was not funny at all. Yikes.

[cd213 0]

One thing that bothered me happened in the audience, during the attempted rape scene, there were a lot of people laughing. Some people also laughed at parts that were meant to be serious, as some other have said on here as well.

 

People laughed during the rape? I mean, I can see someone laughing at blue wang or some of the cheesier lines, but Comedian beating the tar out of Silk Spectre was not funny at all. Yikes.

 

When Comedian first hit Spectre, there was a few laughs, then some people groaned, and then there were laughs again.

[Fuzzy Dunlop 0]

I laughed during that scene, too. There were some pretty ridiculous punching sound effects, which I don't mind or really even pay attention to during regular fight scenes, but they seemed really obvious and out of place there.

[DarKnight 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.

 

I bet Rorschach's mask will be explained in the director's cut. I got the feeling there was probably many people in the audience wondering "why does this guy's mask have ink that moves?", and some people were probably puzzled by Bubastis in the film as well. Since they never explained Veidt's genetics technology in the movie, I bet some people were thinking "there's a blue tiger with horns for no reason."

 

[SuperJerk 0]

Come on, really....half of you are complaining it was too long, and the other half are complaining about too much being left out. Huh?

 

Yes, it wasn't as good as the book...because you can go into a lot more depth in 300 pages than you can in 3 hours. Having said that, even a watered-down Watchmen movie was better than 90% of the super-hero movies out there. You had all the important elements there...and I agree with the choice to not include the

fake telepathic squid from outer-space that destroys New York

. Besides the ending, the changes were superficial.

 

My only complaint was it seemed like they were trying to make the epilogue funny instead of ironic, then it cut to a song that I didn't feel was the right choice for what should have been a sobering moment.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Plotwise, most of the stuff was there. Thematically and in terms of the background and psychology of several of the characters, it wasn't. Those were the important elements that were missing.

[SuperJerk 0]

Be specific.

 

What is it you think was missing?

[Scroby 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.

 

I bet Rorschach's mask will be explained in the director's cut. I got the feeling there was probably many people in the audience wondering "why does this guy's mask have ink that moves?", and some people were probably puzzled by Bubastis in the film as well. Since they never explained Veidt's genetics technology in the movie, I bet some people were thinking "there's a blue tiger with horns for no reason."

I did that with the tiger. I had no idea why the tiger was there and figured that maybe it had something to do with the temple. It was very random for me.

[SuperJerk 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.

 

I bet Rorschach's mask will be explained in the director's cut. I got the feeling there was probably many people in the audience wondering "why does this guy's mask have ink that moves?", and some people were probably puzzled by Bubastis in the film as well. Since they never explained Veidt's genetics technology in the movie, I bet some people were thinking "there's a blue tiger with horns for no reason."

I did that with the tiger. I had no idea why the tiger was there and figured that maybe it had something to do with the temple. It was very random for me.

In the book, Viedt was really into genetic engineering.

[Angle-plex 0]

what was missing wasn't the problem, it's that what was there didn't translate to film well, and i don't know if there was any way that it could have.

[cabbageboy 0]

Here are some things I felt were missing:

 

--I can't believe they cut out the bit with the Original Silk Spectre kissing the picture at the end of the book. One of the best parts of the book and it was gone. I did like that Dan and Laurie weren't incognito at the end though, never saw the point.

 

--The bit with the globe as Laurie thinks back to her childhood. In fact the whole "Comedian is her dad" revelation fell a bit flat. Darren Aronofsky (a rumored past director) could have handled that scene better, employing his rapid cutting to her various thoughts.

 

--Hollis Mason's death. This flat out needed to be there. Snyder probably wished that it would have stayed, but without it the film doesn't hit you in the gut nearly as hard. To me this was one of the most upsetting parts of the book. We don't get that feeling that things in NYC are going straight to hell. Without it we don't get that people are sick of superheroes and that they take it to an extreme end.

 

--The various people on the street. The destruction of NYC fell slightly flat in the film since we see the various people and if you know them from the book this makes sense. But if you haven't read they just seem like various nobodies walking around. Hopefully this will be remedied in the director's cut DVD, since it puts a human face on the destruction.

 

 

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Be specific.

 

What is it you think was missing?

I'll refer you to some specific quotes from people on the previous page that sync up closely with my thoughts.

 

snyder is totally incapable of handling violence in any kind of ironic, thoughtful, or interesting way that has any kind of subtext. to snyder, all violence onscreen is to be treated in the same way and must be made to look as cool as possible. not only did his attitude destroy 2 of the most powerful moments in the story (showing us only the aftermath of the NYC stuff and rorschach's death), but it shows that he isn't interested in what the comic was really about...

 

...deep down [Rorschach is] a fascist piece of shit, and that's really important for the comic because it's the whole root of his convictions and his take-no-prisoners uberviolent attitude. aside from 2 quick references to his distaste for homosexuality and women, snyder didn't explore any of that dimension at all. he just wanted to make rorschach look like a bad-ass and get all his good one-liners in.

 

part of what makes the comic so great, i think, is that it has the balls to suggest that the very idea of a superhero is inescapably fascist, and that no one actually has the moral authority to assert himself as a "superhero." 'the dark knight' plays with this in a not very satisfying way, but this movie goes nowhere near any of that. all the complexity is taken out of adrian's egotism, and he becomes a cartoon villain. all the moral terror is sucked out of the decision to let adrian get away with it, and he tries to play the world-united aftermath straight, with swirling hopeful music, as if this was really an okay thing to do. there's no sick irony underlining the happy faces like there was in the last 5-10 pages of the comic.

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.

Even just looking at this as a pretty superficial take on the book--which is all I expected it could ever be--it became apparent pretty early that Snyder was using his actors as little more than action figures in a series of dioramas, focusing more on positioning and image than on any actual performance note. It didn't matter for a couple of the actors--Haley was mostly superb, and I thought Patrick Wilson "got it" as well. I think the first time this really clicked for me was when Rorschach visits Dan and they go down to the Owl Cave. You can see the path Snyder's taking from panel to panel, but it's all obviously leading up to the iconic shot of an out-of-shape Dan slumping in front of his costume. In the book, it's the first reveal of the costume, but we see the costume several times before then in the movie, and the impact is totally drained. What was the point?

 

Snyder misses the point a lot, I think. The gore was comically drippy, and the fact that Laurie straight-up kills a gang member with a knife to the throat seems completely at odds with the character and the whole distinction between Rorschach/The Comedian and Nite Owl/Silk Spectre. If Dan and Laurie are breaking people's legs in half and killing indiscriminately, what's so special about the menace and sense of unhinged drive that pushes Rorschach? Laurie is just tits (nice ones, at least) and kicking in this version.

I also felt that the subtlety and ambiguity of the ending was more or less entirely tossed out. It's like, look kids--Nite Owl's beating up Adrian because black and white superhero morality fails and/or is pointless! Zounds! Snyder didn't have the balls (or maybe the talent?) to really imbue the story with the level of moral terror and horror it demands throughout its 12 issues. Everything was very simplified, most of the "good" characters were idealized in a way the book, to its credit, never allows to happen, and the film ended up being a pile of exposition with a rushed plot and some weird leftovers. It's like Watchmen for people who read the comic but didn't get it.

[The Niggardly King 0]

After watching this again... I'm going to say that Goode was actually a decent Viedt. There were times he came off well, but he didn't get much of an explanation. He just got like 2 or 3 scenes before the reveal. The cutting down of his scenes hurt as all people have seen up until the final act is this one-dimensional effeminate prick who is obviously spelled out as the mastermind behind things.

[Youth N Asia 0]

Just got back from seeing it on IMAX. Too tired to go into a lot, but I loved the hell out of it. I didn't want it to end really. I read the book in high school and liked how they stayed pretty true to it. Time to re-read it again.

[JimmyHendricks 0]

I saw this opening night at midnight, in a sold out IMAX. It’s been a combination of being busy and wanting to wait a couple of days before posting my thoughts to let everything digest.

 

I liked it, but I didn’t love it. There were lots of things that bugged me, most of them little. I think we’re in a real honeymoon phase with this film, where people are determined to like it no matter what because they waited so long for it. Don’t get me wrong-it was good, but Dark Knight was miles, miles better. I sense a Superman Returns/Spider-Man 3 revolt by summer or so. By the time the DVD comes out, I think everyone will be hyped for the director’s cut instead of the theatrical edition, which will hopefully fix most of the nagging problems I had.

 

I’m blacking out everything from this point on, but honestly, if you are reading by this point in the thread and complain about spoilers…..

 

The soundtrack was too much. Bob Dylan during the credits was the only one that fit. Really, “99 Luftballoons”? “All Along the Watchtower” was completely jarring and felt forced. I think Snyder was trying to be Tarantino and have memorable moments coincide with a particular song. It didn’t work. When you are reacting more to a song than what is happening on screen, it isn’t correct.

 

The grotesque violent parts also felt forced. Snyder would intentionally hold on a broken arm for a second or so, in a “hey, look at THIS!” kind of edit. I’ve always felt that violence is much harsher if you show less of it. I was surprised they handled Big Figure’s death off screen the way the novel did. I would have chosen someone else besides the little guy from Seinfeld for that part, but the entire jailbreak scene was masterful.

 

The sex scene in the Owlship didn’t really bother me all that much.

 

Notes on the casting: Home runs: Haley as Rorschach, Wilson as Night Owl, Dean-Morgan as The Comedian. Crudup as Dr. Manhattan was fine, although his voice was a little high and gentle. Ackerman felt a little TOO sexy as Laurie, but she acted the part perfectly.

 

Goode as Veidt was a total miscast, looking like Dana Carvey in a Hans and Franz sketch. And I’m tired of all the “He’s skinny because he’s supposed to be fast like Bruce Lee” excuses-they could have found a better actor with muscles. He played a straight up devious villain from the start, and everything, from his comb-over hair to his bright outfits to his lame accent made him seem like a cartoon character.

 

A quick note on the wardrobes/costumes-I appreciate that they didn’t completely re-design everything (I saw the concept art in one of the movie books and everything looked way too futuristic and sleek), but some outfits, like Veidt’s, looked like something out of Power Rangers. Night Owl’s redesign was well done, and some of the others could have had the same treatment. All the 1940’s Minutemen outfits looked great, though, as if they were made with items from a department store, which fits the story.

 

Finally, Veidt is supposed to be in his mid-40’s, Laurie in her late 30’s. Both Ackerman and Goode are 30, and looked even younger in the film. Laurie looked like she was 21. Carla Gugino is too beautiful to play Sally Jupiter, who always seemed old to me, even in her younger days. I would go as far as to cast Gugino as Laurie and have an older actress play Sally, really.

 

The opening credits were fantastic, best part of the film. The Comedian in Dealey Plaza shooting JFK got the loudest pop in my theater.

 

Anything with The Comedian was great, especially the Vietnam stuff. Even his aged makeup/appearance was well done. Some of his lines, like the “It’s all a JOKE!” one in his murder scene, felt a bit forced, though. Dr. Manhattan on Mars (and that entire “chapter”) was beautifully done.

 

I know Black Freighter/Under the Hood is getting its own DVD in a few weeks, but I would have loved more Hollis Mason, particularly his death scene. I would have also liked at least ONE scene at the newsstand, maybe when the New Frontiersman is delivered after Dr. Manhattan’s TV interview. That would keep advancing the story at least.

 

Rorschach was written more as a badass cool guy than the Right-Wing nutjob he truly was. Haley played what he was given very well, with the exception of the inkblot scene with Dr. Long. In the novel, I always felt like he was trying to act genuine when he guessed “nice flowers”, or “a pretty butterfly”. In the film, he’s being a straight up smart ass, and the moment loses something. Also, I hated him simply hacking the child killer to death, when setting the fire was much better, and would have been a much more powerful moment in the film.

 

Two things really, really annoyed me: The revelation of Laurie’s father, and the ending/climax. Jon’s mind-scanning technique felt like a studio-induced technique to rush things along, when using the novel’s approach, where Laurie discovers it by talking out loud, was much better. Plus, having Jon say, “The Comedian was your father” was essentially saying, “Uh, we don’t think the audience is smart enough to get that, so we’ll just tell you”.

 

The ending? Everyone I’ve seen has said they were OK with changing it. Well, I’m not. It completely changes the reason why Jon leaves at the end of the story. Plus, in the novel, he’s essentially like “Fuck this world, I’m out of here”, whereas in the movie he seems to leave because he isn’t welcome on Earth anymore. Then that goodbye kiss to Laurie-give me a break. In the novel, he steps over a naked Dan and Laurie and goes off to Mars at peace. In the movie, there’s this big, sad, dramatic exit. Blah. I thought the squid was a complete WTF moment, but it was much better than what we got. Oh, and no “I DID IT!” from Adrian? Giving Jon’s “Nothing ever ends” line to Laurie? Lame. That was the climax of the story, where Adrian’s father-figure idol dismisses what he did. Instead, they give you the impression that it was all necessary. Finally, just show the damn journal at the end. We didn’t need another Rorschach V/O reminding us what was inside.

 

I just bitched for about 8 paragraphs, but I think most of my problems could be fixed in a director’s cut. I just envisioned some big-wig studio exec, sitting back in his leather chair, telling Snyder, “I don’t want no goddamn squid! And the hot chick needs to show her tits, and be sure to put lots of cool music in it!”

I don’t think Snyder blew it, but I think the studio made sure to put their coat of paint on it before they would release it.

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

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

You're gonna have to explain what's ironic about it. The old-age makeup was pretty bad. I wanted to reach out and remove globs of it from Gugino and the actors playing Nixon and Kissinger.

 

As for my thoughts on the film, I'm just gonna c & p what I wrote elsewhere:

 

You know what I thought was far and away the worst thing about it? Malin Akerman. Christ on a fucking cracker did the movie come to a screeching halt every time she opened her mouth. Way too much of the film's dramatic weight was placed on her character and she was in too over her head to handle it. It didn't help that most of her scenes were with good actors; I've mentioned elsewhere my fondness for Billy Crudup and I thought Patrick Wilson acquitted himself nicely, even if his character was one of the least interesting in the film.

 

Single best moment in the film was the opening credit sequence. Best performances were Crudup's and Jeffrey Dean Morgan's. Jackie Earle Haley was decent, though his interpretation of Rorschach was a part of the film's biggest non-Akerman problem: Zack Snyder's Watchmen was, at times, a too-literal adaptation of the comic. Dialog that read fine within the context of the graphic novel sounded awfully hokey when being said aloud, most notably Rorschach's v/o, as well as

anytime a character yelled "No!" during a moment of terror, like when Rorschach was surrounded by cops or when Drieberg screams it after Manhattan kills Rorschach

.

 

The violence was occasionally too over the top;

after the initial shock of seeing someone's arms sawed off or watching a cleaver thrusted repeatedly into someone's head, it becomes almost laughable. Some of the juxtapositions were a little odd, too. What was with the bone-breaking, gut-splattering fight scene being interposed with Manhattan's television interview? Even if you hadn't read the source material, Laurie Jupiter and Dan Drieberg never seemed in true peril, whereas the increasingly disastrous interview with Doctor Manhattan had genuine suspense.

 

Also, while it's cool Max Headroom still gets work, I thought he was pretty lousy here, just mugging wildly while the Comedian was having a total breakdown.

Oh well. As for the film overall, except for the scenes where Akerman talked, I was never really bored and would probably be more forgiving of its flaws if I saw it a second time.

[Giuseppe Zangara 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.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088074/

 

Terrific performance.

[cabbageboy 0]

Glad someone mentioned that alley fight. In the book that was a minor bit of business to establish Dan and Laurie be able to still get it done. It wasn't this graphic, sick fight with a ton of Steven Seagal viciousness.

 

Also I do agree that Carla Gugino should have simply been Silk Spectre 2 in the film and a 65-70 year old could have been the mom. Maybe cast an actual 20 something actress as the younger Sally Jupiter. Laurie was 35 in the book, so Gugino would fit that role a bit better. And she would be naked in the movie. Really, no downside there. I didn't mind Akerman in the film, but there's something about her that suggests "Cameron Diaz's younger sister" roles.

[Gary Floyd 0]

[i also felt that the subtlety and ambiguity of the ending was more or less entirely tossed out. It's like, look kids--Nite Owl's beating up Adrian because black and white superhero morality fails and/or is pointless!

Interestingly, the original Hayter/Tse script has Dan Kill Veidt. While the failed beatdown is something I have mixed feelings about (it came off as trying too hard, yet I thought that it captured Veidt's arrogance rather well-one of the few instances in which that performance didn't bug me) I think it's a better idea than Veidt getting killed off, because in the end he still gets away with it.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm still seeing a lot of "this was bad because it wasn't exactly like the book" logic, which I frankly don't agree with. This is the most faithful reproduction of a comic book story (yes, I'm calling it that because it was originally published as a 12-issue series) ever made. Film has different strengths and weaknesses than comics do, so a 100% faithful translation is impossible. Many people are being hypercritical because every single thing wasn't exactly like it was in the book, instead of judging it on its own merits.

 

 

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

You're gonna have to explain what's ironic about it. The old-age makeup was pretty bad. I wanted to reach out and remove globs of it from Gugino and the actors playing Nixon and Kissinger.

With Gugino, I think the look they were going for wasn't that she was a 60-year-old woman, but she was a 60 year-old woman who wears too much make-up and tries to look younger than she is (the clothes she wore in the 1985 scenes clearly reflect this).

 

The percieved irony of everyone saying Nixon was wearing too much make-up is a reference to his 1960 presidential debate with John F. Kennedy.

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

The old-age makeup on Carla Gugino wasn't bad because it looked like an old woman trying to pass herself off as younger; it was the actual prosthetic makeup used to make her look years older that was unconvincing. She looked like a deflated version of the Lady in the Radiator from Eraserhead.

 

And the Nixon thing isn't ironic at all, but I'm not interested in arguing semantics.

[Jingus 0]

There's a difference between "I'm in a debate on television" makeup and "I have a fake nose which is bigger than most penises" makeup. Combined with the actor's cartoonish impression, it was less than perfect.

 

Gugino's makeup was worse in that it simply did not make her look anything close to a convincing elderly person. Neither did her performance, where she wasn't even trying to change her voice to sound like an older woman.

 

Why all the hate on Akerman? I thought she had easily the most thankless part as the weakest character in the story. Even in the book Laurie never had much personality, she was defined almost entirely by her reactions to other people. So I don't think it's fair to blame a fairly inexperienced, unknown actress for not breathing extra life into a character that was never interesting in the first place.

 

Especially when Goode is standing right there. He's too young, too skinny, too effeminate, and he practically never showed any emotion whatsoever. And that weird German accent was a terribly bad decision. It's like he was playing a Nazi mad scientist on tranquilizers. This was the one character who was played completely different than he was portrayed in the book. In the comic, Veidt was a warm and humane guy, a fellow who affected a sort of "aw shucks guys, I'm not THAT special" humility while spinning his schemes. In the movie, it had to be obvious to everyone who hadn't read the book that this guy was the villain, because he was played exactly like he was indeed a villain.

[godthedog 0]

The percieved irony of everyone saying Nixon was wearing too much make-up is a reference to his 1960 presidential debate with John F. Kennedy

 

were that the actual president richard nixon wearing all that prosthetic makeup, there would be something to that irony.

 

EDIT: hey, 3-man chain responding to that comment.

[SuperJerk 0]

Oh, Jesus Christ.

 

 

See, there's these things today called "jokes." Maybe you've heard of them?

 

They're not always literally true, but there's enough truth in them that someone could find them humorous. By this standard, even though it literally wasn't Richard Nixon wearing too much make-up (because he died 15 years ago), it is funny to hear people SAY Nixon was wearing too much make-up because of the role not wearing make-up on one occasion supposedly had on his political career.

 

Like for example, if I said "your mother is so old she farts dust", your mother probably doesn't literally fart dust, but because you're mother might be percieved as old, and dust is usually associated with things that are old have been sitting around for along time. You could argue that it literally wasn't true, but that isn't necessary for the joke to work.

[Jingus 0]

C'MON MAN, it wasn't a terribly good joke.

 

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

Nowhere in there did you even imply that you were referring to Real Life Nixon and not Watchmen Nixon, nor does his sweaty shift-eyed performance in the '60 debate immediately spring to mind for all these folks here who were born long decades after that happened. Someone would have to meet you more than halfway to even realize what you were talking about there without further explanation.

 

 

Back on subject: man the action style in this movie was poorly chosen. Watchmen shouldn't have anything resembling wire-fu, or a 98-pound girl being able to twist a guy's head all the way around.

[cabbageboy 0]

I don't get the talk about Nixon at all. It was a cheesy actor with a strange makeup job. Nixon didn't hurt my enjoyment of the film.

 

I'm still at a loss for how someone is supposed to play the character Adrian Veidt. It's by far the hardest role in the film. Oddly enough I wouldn't have minded seeing a younger Orson Welles take a crack at the role, though he would do it a bit different than the book. He would at least bring the charisma and megalomania to the role.

 

By the way, I would still say Sin City is easily the most faithful comic film adaptation.

[SuperJerk 0]

By the way, when I said "Jesus Christ" in my earlier post, I wasn't literally talking to Jesus Christ, but using a common figure of speech. Even though none of you were alive when Jesus was, I expected people to get what I meant. But since no one knows me personally, I guess I shouldn't take that for granted.

[Jingus 0]

Dude, your joke bombed and no one got it, just accept it.

 

And oh yeah, too much damn gore. It fit when Manhattan was vaporizing motherfuckers or when dude got his arms sawed off, but otherwise during the fight scenes I started wondering why Zack Snyder photographs an Alan Moore fight scene the exact same way he photographs a Frank Miller fight scene.

[SuperJerk 0]

Not only did you idiots over-analyze the movie, but now you're over-analyzing jokes about the movie. Keep up the good work, guys.

 

By the way, one thing that really bugged me about this movie? There were no word balloons over people's heads. That was in, like, almost every panel of the comic, but Snyder didn't do it at all! Completely ruined the spirit of the book. I also didn't like how the characters weren't all outlined in black ink.