Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
AmericanDragon

Watchmen

Recommended Posts

Looks good to me, some people take their comics, novels, and movies too seriously, but I still respect everyone's opinion regardless. I liked League of Extraordinary Gentleman, which a lot didn't, and I liked The Dark Knight. Trailers look decent for this, and it seems to be pretty faithful to the comic so why the hell not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/02/staggering_fail.php

 

"I've seen Watchmen," he began. "And speaking as a huge admirer and devotee of the graphic novel, the film is a staggering failure. On the plus side, you've got a pretty literal adaptation of the source material. It is at times a meticulous and gorgeous recreation of Alan Moore's original work. Unfortunately it's an empty, inert, meandering and, yes, boring 2 hours and 45 minutes.

 

"Oh, and it's horribly acted throughout. Truly. Malin Akerman (i.e., Silk Spectre II) confirms whatever fears you may have initially felt after The Heartbreak Kid and 27 Dresses. Carla Gugino (the other Silk Spectre) just looks silly. Patrick Wilson (Nite Owl II) is his usual blah self. Only Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach and Billy Crudup's Dr. Manhattan register at all.

 

"Sadly even the presumed up-and-comer Matthew Goode plays Ozymandias, the world's smartest man, as an arch and slightly bored Bond villain. I had high hopes after being wowed by him in The Lookout, but he's bungled this great opportunity. (It's clear in retrospect the part should have gone to a real star. Say what you will but Tom Cruise would have been perfect.)

 

"I say all of the above as a person who was very much into the 20 minutes they screened for all of us months ago. Sorry to confirm our worst fears but those scenes in fact remain the best and among the few that work on any level.

 

"Watchmen is just not much of a movie. It has no narrative pull and no characters to invest in. It uses rotely shoehorned-in action scenes, and has a sheen that doesn't befit the dark material.

 

"So much for the visionary vistas of Zack Snyder. Oh, what Paul Greengrass could have done!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Outstanding clip.

 

Best of the clips so far. I'm not having the highest expectations at the moment, but hey. Interestingly, the review posted is one of two negative reviews I've seen. Every other early review has been better (saying it's as faithful an adaptation as it could have been, no squid aside) so I'm not totally giving my hopes up. Granted, all the reviews (including the two negative ones) are all fan reviews...

 

And even if it's disappointing, It could have been worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The slo-mo and wire-fu worries me because, well, Watchmen was never really about the same kind of stuff that most superhero comics were. It had fights and superpowers and explosions, but those were never the important parts. It was about the emotions in between the heroic acts, and, well, the guy who made 300 doesn't seem like the first choice to do a comic adaptation in which story and character should be prioritized over action.

 

I liked League of Extraordinary Gentleman, which a lot didn't, and I liked The Dark Knight.

Yeah, to compare to another genre, that's kinda like saying "I liked Meet the Spartans and I liked Airplane!".

 

Patrick Wilson (Nite Owl II) is his usual blah self.

 

"So much for the visionary vistas of Zack Snyder. Oh, what Paul Greengrass could have done!

Firstly, if you've seen Little Children or Hard Candy, you know that Patrick Wilson is a perfectly competent actor. Don't just shriek "but, Phantom of the Opera!" and call it a day.

 

Secondly... Paul Greengrass? The guy who directed the Bourne sequels? What an utterly random and non-sequiter name to drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Secondly... Paul Greengrass? The guy who directed the Bourne sequels? What an utterly random and non-sequiter name to drop.

Greengrass was one of the names originally attached as a director.

 

Fun fact: When they were going with casting the movie in the 90's, the studio was dead set on Arnold Schwarzenegger as Manhatten. There's a nice article about the history of the whole thing here, though it leaves out the horrible Sam Hamm script, that Jude Law was also originally going to be Manhatten, and that Terry Gilliam was the first director attached to the whole thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilliam as director... could have been interesting. Jude Law was interested in being Ozymandias for a long time, and he's probably the one of the few big-name stars that I'd accept for this sort of movie. I think he could have pulled that role off brilliantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gilliam as director... could have been interesting. Jude Law was interested in being Ozymandias for a long time, and he's probably the one of the few big-name stars that I'd accept for this sort of movie. I think he could have pulled that role off brilliantly.

The thing is, the script given to him was horrible, and felt more like another comic book movie instead of an adaptation of one of the greatest graphic novel's of all time (if you think the current squid free ending is bad, Hamm's script has Manhatten sacrificing himself-you can read all about the rejected script here.) He pretty much concluded that there was no way in hell he could do the movie. It's been in development hell forever, and it wasn't until 2005 or 2006 that any real progress was made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/02/staggering_fail.php

 

"I've seen Watchmen," he began. "And speaking as a huge admirer and devotee of the graphic novel, the film is a staggering failure. On the plus side, you've got a pretty literal adaptation of the source material. It is at times a meticulous and gorgeous recreation of Alan Moore's original work. Unfortunately it's an empty, inert, meandering and, yes, boring 2 hours and 45 minutes.

 

"Oh, and it's horribly acted throughout. Truly. Malin Akerman (i.e., Silk Spectre II) confirms whatever fears you may have initially felt after The Heartbreak Kid and 27 Dresses. Carla Gugino (the other Silk Spectre) just looks silly. Patrick Wilson (Nite Owl II) is his usual blah self. Only Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach and Billy Crudup's Dr. Manhattan register at all.

 

"Sadly even the presumed up-and-comer Matthew Goode plays Ozymandias, the world's smartest man, as an arch and slightly bored Bond villain. I had high hopes after being wowed by him in The Lookout, but he's bungled this great opportunity. (It's clear in retrospect the part should have gone to a real star. Say what you will but Tom Cruise would have been perfect.)

 

"I say all of the above as a person who was very much into the 20 minutes they screened for all of us months ago. Sorry to confirm our worst fears but those scenes in fact remain the best and among the few that work on any level.

 

"Watchmen is just not much of a movie. It has no narrative pull and no characters to invest in. It uses rotely shoehorned-in action scenes, and has a sheen that doesn't befit the dark material.

 

"So much for the visionary vistas of Zack Snyder. Oh, what Paul Greengrass could have done!

 

Fuck this guy. Carla Gugino never looks silly. More like "have my babies," hot. And I don't even want babies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does she not play the 60ish mother of Akerman's character? I could see her looking silly in that role. She's so beautiful.

 

Well, I dunno about the "current" scenes, but in the flashback ones she's hot, as per usual.

jeffrey_dean_morgan_as_the_comedian_and_carla_gugino_as_the_original_silk_spectre_watchmen_movie_image.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BUT(T), since Alan Moore seems like kind of a dick and the existence of this movie upsets him, I'm all for it.

 

He's not a dick. He's just sick of his hard work being turned into crap films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BUT(T), since Alan Moore seems like kind of a dick and the existence of this movie upsets him, I'm all for it.

 

He's not a dick. He's just sick of his hard work being turned into crap films.

Plus, Hollywood aren't the only ones who have fucked over Socko the Wizard Who Could Write Comics. I love Moore's work, and though he can be a dick at times, it's at least understandable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snyder unwinds every bone-splintering blow with copious slo-mo combined with concussive shifts in frame rate. Truth is, he leans too hard on that slo-mo button - not least in Watchmen’s worst scene: cringy porny sex bafflingly scored to ‘Hallelujah’.

 

Okay, I might have to rescind my "no go" just to laugh at this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I love comics, I could never get into Watchmen. I read it. I got it. I think some fat kid stole it from my house in high school. Regardless, I'd rather a comic (and a movie) entertain me more than stimulate my brain. I can't get excited about this movie at all. That five minute demo reel (expanded to ten minutes through the use of slow motion) pretty much defeated any interest I had in seeing it.

 

What really bothers me is that all of these four out of four and five star reviews dedicate space to all of the flaws (such as the acting/casting and slow motion). Maybe I'm old fashioned, but shouldn't a great movie be...great? I remember when everyone went gaga over Sin City despite the fact that it was nothing more than a solid B movie. I'm also a little perturbed that we're in the era of too much CGI yet critics are celebrating these movies that are green screen-centric (I realize that they actually built sets for Watchmen but I'm generalizing here). I dunno...I don't want to go overboard before the movie even comes out. I just wish visionary director Zack Snyder would take on a project that wasn't based on the work of someone else. Sorry for the rant.

 

tl; dr: I'm the only person in the world (that doesn't believe he's a wizarrd) who has read Watchmen and doesn't want to see it

 

 

EDIT

Snyder unwinds every bone-splintering blow with copious slo-mo combined with concussive shifts in frame rate. Truth is, he leans too hard on that slo-mo button - not least in Watchmen’s worst scene: cringy porny sex bafflingly scored to ‘Hallelujah’.

 

Okay, I might have to rescind my "no go" just to laugh at this.

Will it be the classic choir version or Leonard Cohen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT

Snyder unwinds every bone-splintering blow with copious slo-mo combined with concussive shifts in frame rate. Truth is, he leans too hard on that slo-mo button - not least in Watchmen’s worst scene: cringy porny sex bafflingly scored to ‘Hallelujah’.

 

Okay, I might have to rescind my "no go" just to laugh at this.

Will it be the classic choir version or Leonard Cohen?

I'm pretty sure it's the Cohen version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The original Cohen version? Not the more famous Jeff Buckley take?

The CD soundtrack lists it as the Cohen version.

Unfortunately, it has My Chemical Romance covering "Desolation Row" (this is honestly the one thing so far that seriously pisses me off. I'm trying to look at the rest of this with an open mind, and not as an overzelous fanboy ready to declare it terrible or great until I see the fucking thing, but this is the one thing I can't get over.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×