Watchmen - The movie is finally made

[obeygiant]

Saw it at a 3:15 matinee this afternoon. For $5.

It was very good. The title sequence was stunning. The violence was especially vivid and brutal. Overt references to Apocalypse Now and Dr. Strangelove. The Apple 1984 commercial even has a cameo.


If anything they stayed too close to the novel and at times strikingly close. I know if they strayed away too far there would be a chorus of complaints. In a way I think it hampered the film makers a little, it may have even lost a little soul.

Otherwise it was an intense movie, long in some parts, but very satisfying.

 

[Carl Abudephane]

.

 

[Randman]

Much better than many of the reviews.

Not as good as Dark Knight or even Iron Man but it had a lot of stuff to wade through.

I was glad to much attention was paid to the graphic novel but I also think it could have strayed a little farther in some areas and enhanced the story.

I'l be keen to see the director's cut extended version.

 

[D0ct0rteeth]

***Some Spoliers ahead****

I had tried to read watchmen back in the 90's, and I'll be honest I never really got into it... But when I heard that they were making a movie I read it, and reread it over the last few years and I can truly appreciate it.

The comic itself was a turning point, and it wasn't that it was unique - but instead that it both critiqued and analysed everything that came before it.

- what would it actually take in a real world for someone to dress up in a costume. If they did wouldn't that person literally become a sociopath?
- If someone was super powered - how would that impact their love-life and connections with humanity?
- How would the rest of humanity truly look at heroes?
- What is the connection between violence/power/control and sex?
- What is the role of homosexuality and fetishism in comics
- As we age and mature - how do we pass that on to our children and avoid damaging or controlling them?
- How do we deal with a world that is changing so fast, and that uses us up, spits us out and in the end will destroy us.. How do we find hope and joy in this world.. or even a sense of purpose or meaning?
- And despite however amazing the world is - we will always have a need and desire for escapism. You see this in the black freighter comic
- How politicians and people of power will always seek to control and win and dominate - they are reactionary and respond only to fear. Fear of losing their power.. fear.. fear.. and more fear. and in the end it wasn't hope or a sense of higher purpose or ideals that saved us... but a very very delicate balance based on a greater fear.

This comic is praised so much, and over the past few weeks critics just say that it is a great comic universally - but never actually say why it is great. The comic is over 20 years old and the themes of Watchmen have been used and reused from Heroes, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and in some degree I will say that there is a part of me.. somewhere.. that says that this truly is the best Watchmen film that could possibly ever be made - but then there are also so many other things that absolutely made me shake my head. Now I will say that I feelSnyder did a decent job, and in a way I almost don't feel that it is even fair to critique or judge this movie at all. This movie cannot be made. Its as if you tried to make Six Feet Under, The Wire or the Sopranos into a 2hr movie. Its too broad. its too epic.. and I know that they wanted to do it on HBO, but HBO said no. When the 3.5-4hr extended cut is released I will rewatch it, but even then I feel that you cant fix a bad recipe by making more of it.

Snyder seems to have largely traded the subtext, nuance and social exploration aspects of the work for an excuse to just make the most brutal and dark superhero movie he could. Thisisn't a terrible film... its amazingly reverent and loyal to the book - but it does so in a way that has actually misrepresented the original.

Imagine if you went to a art gallery and it had posters and lithographs of Michelangelo, Degas and Picasso all over the walls... you may take 4-5 minutes and walk around and look at them, and comment that they are nice... However, you can never call them art.. they have no soul, they reflect the light completely differently and they will miss all of the texture, nuance and history that the original have that make it a true work of art. Most importantly, you should never miss the opportunity toactually see an original in Paris - and if you did, you would say, without any doubt - "Wow, I had no idea, it does look completely different".. the complexity of thecolors and the entire experience of seeing it would be completely different.

Snyder's film in dozens of ways has actually misrepresented the classic, and had traded substance for style, and is in a way satiring itself - which unfortunately becomes confusing and sloppy.

For instance, just to take a single aspect - Violence in the original work was the exact opposite of every other comic book. Violence was a poor sad desperate result of fear or desperation. It was a central pillar of every character.

Ozymandias killed the comedian because he was afraid his plan would get out. He was the Smartest man in the world... but like a Pharaoh, or King.. he was completely alone. Like a machine.. a reflection of Dr Manhattan - he will do what is logical in order to save the world but his plan, and the violence was pure logic. It was not out of love or ethics... but just amathematical desperate decision.

Dr Manhattan was the mirror to Ozymandias in the fact that he was a central representation of love all thru the book. He truly loved Janey Slater. - but by being transformed into Dr Manhattan.. by actually being the representation of wish fulfillment an having all of the power in the world, he lost/chose to stop loving her. He abandoned his role as a husband and chose the love of another woman, Laurie - who ironically did the same to him with Dan. It is only on Mars when Dr Manhattan see's the true complex beauty in Laurie that he begins to love again and becomes almost human again. Manhattan does several amazing things at the end of the book, all related to violence.

1. He chooses to not stop or condemn Veidt. He literally chooses pacifism. Just moments after reconnecting with his humanity, this is not his apathy or ambivalence - but he absolutely chooses to stop the violence, both on Earth and in Antartica.
2. He murders Rorschach, or more accurately commits Euthanasia to end his tragic life. He could have left him out in the snow, of course he would have died and would have no opportunity to tell anyone. But he kills him to ease his pain. Again mirroring the sacrifice of millions in NYC
3. He doesn't attempt to reunite or reconcile with Laurie, he steps aside and literally disappears. He leaves to allow her and Dan to mature into fully functional adults. All 3 of them have now left their twisted violent/heroic ways and are now true mature adults and can have a relationship thatisn't based on violence, S&M or approval of their mother/Hollis.

The comedian was a weak sociopath who used violencece to control, dominate others - to the point of it becoming his career - in the end he realizes what a joke he is. He is mirrored by Rorschach whom shows how a life or repeated violence is literally so tragic and meaningless that he literally begs to be killed at the end of the story. Both men tried to find meaning in their life by dominating violencethru violence - ultimately both men were destroyed by it.

Violence is literally a replacement for love or spiritual connection for both Nite Owl and the Silk Spectre. Hollis has actually moved on and found fulfillment in restoring old cars, mentoring Dan, and with the neighborhood kids. Hollis literally tells Dan to move on and he doesn't need to keep coming around, and Dan blows him off... not to be polite... but because Dan NEEDS Hollis.. Dan is so empty and is missing something in his life. All of his money has been given to him, he has no one to share his life with - and is so desperate for companionship he has named his ship, and is in twisteddysfunctional relationships with both Rorschach and Sally (which eventually mature into more meaningful relationships).

I could write about this for hours but the violence in the book is a conscious tragic substitute for life and meaning. As the characters mature they either chose to change, or be destroyed by it. Unfortunately the movie doesn't truly illustrate this arc, but instead it celebrates the violence, amps it up and doesn't add to or make the connections.. but instead it blurs them and this can be said about several aspects of the film such as the music, sex, and dialogue.

 

[leekohler]

I'm going at 3:30! I'll let you know what I thought.

 

[question fear]

Saw it last night...I read the graphic novel in anticipation of the movie, and thoroughly enjoyed both. But I will admit to not having a lot of preconceived notions, since the book was new to me too.

 

[MOFS]

Well I saw it on Friday, and was a big fan of the comic - I bought it having got very excited by the trailers and good word of mouth from some fans of it - but I have to say one thing about this...

I am very worried about this film's chances.

At the moment its rating stands at 64% on RT. This is probably about right. This film has a LOT of issues with it, and unfortunately few bits to recommend about this.

Good points:

1) As everyone has said, the opening credits are excellent. They really set the scene and are a good replacement for "Under the Hood"...

2) The look of the film: it looks about right - just like the comics. Even Dr Manhattan looks good. However two points were very distracting ... Richard Nixon's "nose" and the horrible model of Karnak shown initially.

3) Patrick Wilson (Nite Owl) actually made you interested in the Nite Owl II. Matthew Goode (Ozy) did well with what I've started to think is a short-written part in the comic.

4) Most of the music. Apart from "Hallelujah". I bought Billie Holiday's "You're My Thrill" in participation of that scene. It's replacement brings unintentional comedy to the piece.

Bad points:

1) It was very rushed. My favourite part of the novel was the slow revelations of Laurie's plots, and for me she was the most important in the comic. In the film however ...

2) Malin Akerman. Oh dear. She is not a Top Gun actor put it that way. Saps the life out of any line. Would not be out of place in Neighbours (Brits and Aussies may understand this) or any other daytime soap.

3) The whole plot is very complicated if you haven't read the book.

All in all, I was bitterly dissappointed. I worry it'll bomb. The crowd's reactions in the cinema was muted to say the least. As an 18, I don't think there will be many coming for repeat viewings. It's a brave film, but its deeply flawed.

 

[leekohler]

Well I saw it on Friday, and was a big fan of the comic - I bought it having got very excited by the trailers and good word of mouth from some fans of it - but I have to say one thing about this...

I am very worried about this film's chances.

At the moment its rating stands at 64% on RT. This is probably about right. This film has a LOT of issues with it, and unfortunately few bits to recommend about this.

Good points:

1) As everyone has said, the opening credits are excellent. They really set the scene and are a good replacement for "Under the Hood"...

2) The look of the film: it looks about right - just like the comics. Even Dr Manhattan looks good. However two points were very distracting ... Richard Nixon's "nose" and the horrible model of Karnak shown initially.

3) Patrick Wilson (Nite Owl) actually made you interested in the Nite Owl II. Matthew Goode (Ozy) did well with what I've started to think is a short-written part in the comic.

4) Most of the music. Apart from "Hallelujah". I bought Billie Holiday's "You're My Thrill" in participation of that scene. It's replacement brings unintentional comedy to the piece.

Bad points:

1) It was very rushed. My favourite part of the novel was the slow revelations of Laurie's plots, and for me she was the most important in the comic. In the film however ...

2) Malin Akerman. Oh dear. She is not a Top Gun actor put it that way. Saps the life out of any line. Would not be out of place in Neighbours (Brits and Aussies may understand this) or any other daytime soap.

3) The whole plot is very complicated if you haven't read the book.

All in all, I was bitterly dissappointed. I worry it'll bomb. The crowd's reactions in the cinema was muted to say the least. As an 18, I don't think there will be many coming for repeat viewings. It's a brave film, but its deeply flawed.

Then perhaps my review will be a bit encouraging to you. And even though it won't win any Oscars, I enjoyed it. I would like to see it again despite it's flaws. It was a joy to behold. I got the whole thing even not having read the graphic novel, which I will now be reading.

Yes, Akerman is bad, but certainly not as bad as people have made her out to be. Jackie Earle Haley and Patrick Wilson were amazing.

I think people will actually be talking about this movie for quite some time and seeing it repeatedly.

 

[P-Worm]

Then perhaps my review will be a bit encouraging to you. And even though it won't win any Oscars, I enjoyed it. I would like to see it again despite it's flaws. It was a joy to behold. I got the whole thing even not having read the graphic novel, which I will now be reading.

Yes, Akerman is bad, but certainly not as bad as people have made her out to be. Jackie Earle Haley and Patrick Wilson were amazing.

I think people will actually be talking about this movie for quite some time and seeing it repeatedly.

Glad to hear you liked it, Lee. I have to ask, did you think you followed everything alright? The whole movie is a bombardment of information I was wondering how many people were following it without having read the novel. For instance, what did you think of Bubastis (the purple tiger with horns)? They didn't explain that all in the movie and it just shows up out of nowhere.

I liked the movie, but it didn't blow me away. I think the problem comes from the fact that there are so many characters and stories that it becomes hard to be emotionally attached to the characters and so you care less about their victories/failures.

With that said, it was a BEAUTIFUL film and I have to tip my hat to Zach Snyder and everyone that made that film. It's been a while where I felt that I was watching something epic while I was in the theater.

Overall, it gets a 4/5 from me.

P-Worm

 

[leekohler]

Glad to hear you liked it, Lee. I have to ask, did you think you followed everything alright? The whole movie is a bombardment of information I was wondering how many people were following it without having read the novel. For instance, what did you think of Bubastis (the purple tiger with horns)? They didn't explain that all in the movie and it just shows up out of nowhere.

I liked the movie, but it didn't blow me away. I think the problem comes from the fact that there are so many characters and stories that it becomes hard to be emotionally attached to the characters and so you care less about their victories/failures.

With that said, it was a BEAUTIFUL film and I have to tip my hat to Zach Snyder and everyone that made that film. It's been a while where I felt that I was watching something epic while I was in the theater.

Overall, it gets a 4/5 from me.

P-Worm

That sounds about right. No- I didn't understand the Tiger thing, but I'm pretty sure I got the rest of it. I liked the labyrinthine nature of the story.

Is there anything else you think I may have missed? I thought it came together quite nicely plot-wise. I never felt lost.

 

[dukebound85]

i HATED this movie. it made no sense and a complete waste of time imo

the male nudity was an unwelcomed surprise as well

 

[leekohler]

i HATED this movie. it made no sense and a complete waste of time imo

the male nudity was an unwelcomed surprise as well

Oh please! How many years have you been looking at naked women in movies? WTF man? It's about damn time, I say. I've been in the buff in more than a few movies I've done too. It shouldn't be a big deal. It's just a penis for god's sake. It's not as if you don't see one every day.

 

[Mr_Brightside_@]

The title sequence was stunning. The Apple 1984 commercial even has a cameo.

I so wanted to get this in first. I couldn't believe it was playing immediately to the right of the main TV monitor. I wonder why the director chose it...
As for the title sequence, I caught Alfred Eisenstaedt's V-J day in Times Square photograph and the (da Vinci's) Last Supper acted out (Silk Spectre I's husband's finger makes it clear). Were there any others that you caught?

i HATED this movie. it made no sense and a complete waste of time imo

the male nudity was an unwelcomed surprise as well

Ughhhh, a flaccid penis? I... I have one of those!!!

 

[dukebound85]

Oh please! How many years have you been looking at naked women in movies? WTF man? It's about damn time, I say. I've been in the buff in more than few movies I've done too. It shouldn't be a big deal. It's just a penis for god's sake. It's not as if you don't see one every day.

i dont enjoy watching nudity in any movie as i find it demeaning

i came in thinking it was going to be like batman/spiderman/ironman type movie and got a gory, sexual, confusing movie that i think is a piece of crap

seriously why the gore and why the nudity

here i was telling my 13yo brother i thought it sounded good from the trailers. will have to advise him to not waste his time

 

[question fear]

Oh please! How many years have you been looking at naked women in movies? WTF man? It's about damn time, I say. I've been in the buff in more than few movies I've done too. It shouldn't be a big deal. It's just a penis for god's sake. It's not as if you don't see one every day.

Ha! Well, I don't, but it didn't bother me. Some of the reviews really were hung up on the "blue wang" so I was expecting something really front and center, and it wasn't really shocking at all.

 

[leekohler]

Ha! Well, I don't, but it didn't bother me. Some of the reviews really were hung up on the "blue wang" so I was expecting something really front and center, and it wasn't really shocking at all.

No- it was very well done and it made sense. Here's a guy who simply can't be harmed, so why would he bother with clothes? That's the main reason people started wearing them in the first place, protection. And if he was going to be nude, what were they supposed to do? Make him a eunich?

i dont enjoy watching nudity in any movie as i find it demeaning

Demeaning? How? It's a human body! It exists and it's how you born. A nude body is nothing to be ashamed of. My god this country is messed up when we start teaching people that nudity is demeaning. No wonder we have so many problems.

 

[timerollson]

I read the graphic novel and this movie was awful.

3 hours long and it felt rushed. It needed the little intricacies like the "Black Freighter" and they were notably absent (understandably).

 

[leekohler]

I read the graphic novel and this movie was awful.

3 hours long and it felt rushed. It needed the little intricacies like the "Black Freighter" and they were notably absent (understandably).

Interesting. I didn't read the GN and I rather liked it. I guess we'll see if that trend becomes common.

 

[Mr_Brightside_@]

No- it was very well done and it made sense. Here's a guy who simply can't be harmed, so why would he bother with clothes? That's the main reason people started wearing them in the first place, protection. And if he was going to be nude, what were they supposed to do? Make him a eunich?
Demeaning? How? It's a human body! It exists and it's how you born. A nude body is nothing to be ashamed of. My god this country is messed up when we start teaching people that nudity is demeaning. No wonder we have so many problems.

You're, like, in my head, or something (but smarter). I read several reviews that did refer to M's nudity, so I expected it, saw it, and immediately moved on. That was probably the least demeaning nudity I've seen in a film in a long time. Even Silk Spectre + Night Owl was done tastefully, in my opinion.

 

[leekohler]

You're, like, in my head, or something (but smarter). I read several reviews that did refer to M's nudity, so I expected it, saw it, and immediately moved on. That was probably the least demeaning nudity I've seen in a film in a long time. Even Silk Spectre + Night Owl was done tastefully, in my opinion.

Yes, it was. In far too many movies these days, it can be gratuitous. It was extremely well done here and made sense.

 

[Gelfin]

i dont enjoy watching nudity in any movie as i find it demeaning

i came in thinking it was going to be like batman/spiderman/ironman type movie and got a gory, sexual, confusing movie that i think is a piece of crap

seriously why the gore and why the nudity

here i was telling my 13yo brother i thought it sounded good from the trailers. will have to advise him to not waste his time

You probably need to get a handle on the difference between your expectations and what a movie actually intends to be. Citizen Kane would look pretty dumb if you went into it expecting Iron Man.

I actually do find your reaction interesting. I find the book is a lot more poignant to a 30+ audience, and I've been wondering if the movie will tend to have a similar age skew. In fact, I've sort of suspected that if Watchmen is going to succeed, it's going to have to do it despite utterly flopping among the "traditional" sub-24 male superhero movie demographic.

I mean, here's a group for whom the 80s are the stuff of history books. They have little exposure to the classic pre-Superman "costumed vigilante" stories on which Watchmen draws heavily. They have almost no patience for drama -- they just want something "cool." They've enjoyed something of a renaissance in superhero movies that are nevertheless somewhat staid and formulaic, and the marketing for Watchmen does little to drive home the point that this is something different.

Although, honestly, it wouldn't have taken a hell of a lot of digging to find that out. Unless you're one of those people who puts himself in a metaphorical cave so that every movie comes to him completely fresh (and thus have little excuse to blame the movie for not meeting your expectations), one has to wonder if you've been living in a literal cave. As for your thirteen year old brother, there's a chance the R rating "for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language" would have hinted in that direction. This is a hard-R story. It was written that way. A PG-13 version would have been a travesty.

In conclusion I thought I should point out to no one in particular that oh my good golly gosh I sure am offended at the sight of a penis, just as any straight woman-loving straight manly male who is totally straight must always be. I'm sure I could probably work up a bit of vomit if it will help you to understand that I am not, in fact, one of those people who doesn't vomit at the sight of penises. In fact, I'm so straight I won't even look at my OWN penis for fear it might try to convert me. Maybe it's not at all relevant to the subject at hand, but I really wanted to be completely clear on this point. If you have any further questions regarding my attitude towards penises, please direct them to my Canadian girlfriend who totally exists.

 

[dmr727]

In fact, I'm so straight I won't even look at my OWN penis for fear it might try to convert me. Maybe it's not at all relevant to the subject at hand, but I really wanted to be completely clear on this point. If you have any further questions regarding my attitude towards penises, please direct them to my Canadian girlfriend who totally exists.

This is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. Not only does it poke fun of homophobes, but it's a shoutout to John Hughes films. Good work sir!

 

[leekohler]

In conclusion I thought I should point out to no one in particular that oh my good golly gosh I sure am offended at the sight of a penis, just as any straight woman-loving straight manly male who is totally straight must always be. I'm sure I could probably work up a bit of vomit if it will help you to understand that I am not, in fact, one of those people who doesn't vomit at the sight of penises. In fact, I'm so straight I won't even look at my OWN penis for fear it might try to convert me. Maybe it's not at all relevant to the subject at hand, but I really wanted to be completely clear on this point. If you have any further questions regarding my attitude towards penises, please direct them to my Canadian girlfriend who totally exists.

Haha! OMG! Post of the day!

 

[P-Worm]

In my opinion, I was much more disturbed by certain other scenes than the site of a blue wang (making joints move in the wrong direction and the rape scene come vividly to mind). In fact, I thought the Dr. Manhattan butt shots were crazier than the penis just because Dr. Manhattan had a ridiculously chiseled butt. And this is coming from a person that many on this forum would consider a homophobe!

And Lee, be sure and tell us what you think of the whole thing after reading the book. I want to hear the opinion of someone that had the Watchmen experience 'backwards' if that makes any sense.

P-Worm

 

[leekohler]

In my opinion, I was much more disturbed by certain other scenes than the site of a blue wang (making joints move in the wrong direction and the rape scene come vividly to mind). In fact, I thought the Dr. Manhattan butt shots were crazier than the penis just because Dr. Manhattan had a ridiculously chiseled butt. And this is coming from a person that many on this forum would consider a homophobe!

And Lee, be sure and tell us what you think of the whole thing after reading the book. I want to hear the opinion of someone that had the Watchmen experience 'backwards' if that makes any sense.

P-Worm

I definitely will. I wanted to pick it up today, but the book store was closed already. It happens on Sundays!

I think I will go see it again though. I liked being in that world for almost three hours.