WATCHMEN - Movie Discussion and Grading (SPOILERS)

[Emher]

Dream wrote:

---

It was supposed to be seen as ridiculous in the comic. Dan needed to wear his Nite Owl costume just to get it up. That isn't supposed to be normal.

The comic and movie also had the random fire shooting out of the ship scene at the end.

Well I know hat after reading the comic after seeing the film. But that's sorta my point, the movie should be able to stand on it's own, and mostly it does that, but that scene is still unclear about it's intentions me thinks.

[John Clark]

Just finished watching it. I haven't read the graphic novel and thought the movie might be overhyped (the trailer didn't overly impress me).

I did enjoy the movie overall

[DarthPipes]

About the deleted scenes, Patrick Wilson is fantastic in the scene where he learns Hollis was killed. You could really feel him going over the edge when he yells "Tell your friends they're dead! I'm going to wipe out this entire rathole neighborhood!"

[Skywalker]

I just finished watching the DC. I enjoyed the TC, but there was something about it that just felt slightly "off." Most of that was fixed with the DC, which restored a lot of good stuff and really fixed some of the pacing issues that kind of plagued the TC.

My favorite additions were probably Rorshach's line about Veidt ("Possible homosexual? Must investigate further." ), and Hollis Mason's death (poor guy) and Dan's reaction to it (Patrick Wilson's performance in this movie is kind of underrated, IMO). I'm still not sure what Zack Snyder was thinking with the choice of music for Dan and Laurie's sex scene. And Nixon's nose is still ridiculous (though that seemed intentional to me).

I kind of wish I had waited until the Ultimate Edition comes out in December, but I'm not sure if meshing Tales of the Black Freighter into the movie will work as well as it did in the comic. And the movie's already long enough as it is. Maybe I'll rent it.

[Dream]

Skywalker wrote:

---

And Nixon's nose is still ridiculous (though that seemed intentional to me).

I really wish Frank Langella had played the older Nixon in Watchmen. I watched Frost/Nixon recently and thought Langella was incredible in the role as the former president. I just can't take the actor that plays the Nixon in Watchmen seriously.

[DarthPipes]

Patrick Wilson's performance in this movie is kind of underrated, IMO

Yeah, Wilson was terrific. I think Jeffery Dean Morgan as The Comedian was the best thing in this movie but Wilson's character felt so true to the comic that it felt like he literally walked off the pages.

That music choice for the Dan/Laurie sex scene was an odd one indeed but I never considered that moment to be dramatically serious in the book. It was meant to be silly. Dan was able to get it up again after putting on his costume and just wanted to **** his bitch. That's pretty much how I read it.

[Davros]

I'm glad I picked up the Director's Cut.

[Buck Rogers]

Well I got a chance to see it on demand via Comcast cable,and some of the violence i
could do with out as some of full frontal nude scenes,but It to me wasn't worth the overall hype.
I did like the fact it was alternative history tho,and that the 16th amendment never occurred resulting in Presidential terms of office being unlimited like Nixon having three terms of office.
However some please explain to me why the Comedian was shown to be the shooter at grassy knoll during the Kennedy assassination.
I laughed at the end when the local newspaper had no news to print even though Ronald Reagan was running for President in 88, the reporter decided to check out Rorschach's journal toward the end of the film.
Also when does a hero become a villain at the end unless he was being portrayed as an anti-hero in the beginning of the film.
Well enough ranting on my part.

Good night all

Signed

Buck Rogers

[Harvey]

Saw the theatrical cut again, since the director's cut isn't out on DVD, at least at Blockbuster. It hasn't gotten better since I saw it in the theatre--it's gotten worse. Snyder nails the visual look of the comic, but seems to miss the dramatic point of the book all the same. In one sense, this is good. Snyder makes the ending far better and more plausible than the book. But it still isn't plausible. With Doctor Manhattan leaving the Earth, the incentive for peace to be mantained isn't there. Certainly a man who is a God, or a man who is the smartest in the world should realize that they kill a lot of people over something that won't last long.

Most of the performances are terrible, which convinces me Snyder doesn't know how to work with actors. Haley's Rorschach is one note. All of the female performers are light weights (and the old age make-up on them is ineffective). Ozyman-what's his name is terrible, whoever the actor is. Nixon is a bad caricature (not even a good one).

I do want to finish reading the book completely through now, though.

[Maurice]

Buck Rogers wrote:

---

I did like the fact it was alternative history tho,and that the 16th amendment never occurred resulting in Presidential terms of office being unlimited like Nixon having three terms of office.

Or repealed, which seems more likely.

Buck Rogers wrote:

---

However some please explain to me why the Comedian was shown to be the shooter at grassy knoll during the Kennedy assassination.

He also flat out implies he bumped off Woodward and Bernstein, so Watergate was never played out. Clearly he's working with Nixon and his cronies, even back at JFK's assassination. The implication being that getting rid of JFK allows Nixon to get elected in the first place (don't forget that JFK beat Nixon in 1960, so there's a revenge motive).

Buck Rogers wrote:

---

Also when does a hero become a villain at the end unless he was being portrayed as an anti-hero in the beginning of the film.

When your story is about moral ambiguity.


One funny thing I noticed...I bought the Dirctor's Cut, and the second disc has the "digital copy", but the latter appears to be the theatrical cut...so you get both.

[Harvey]

If only the movie had ambiguity. Veidt's inclinations are far too obvious throughout. I don't know if it's a bad performance, or bad direction, or both. But it's the opposite of what the film needed.

[DarthPipes]

Harvey wrote:

---

If only the movie had ambiguity. Veidt's inclinations are far too obvious throughout. I don't know if it's a bad performance, or bad direction, or both. But it's the opposite of what the film needed.

I liked Matthew Goode's performance better the second time I saw it but he's not helped by the fact that his character's "evilness" is not very subtley. Giving him a foreign accent was kind of a dead giveaway too although strangly it seems less pronounced on the DVD.

Malin Ackerman's performance is a little better too although she's still the weak link of the cast. Her character was badly hurt by the virtual elimination of her animosity towards Edward Blake. When it is revealed that Blake is Laurie's father in the movie, it has no dramatic punch at all because Laurie barely mentions Blake at all in the film, let alone hates him.

The 22nd Amendment is repealed in the world of Watchmen, allowing Nixon to keep running. Having won Vietnam in this world, he enjoys enourmous public support. Manhatten's presence changed everything in this timeline.

About the change at the end, with Manhatten being blamed for everything. I can see this forcing the worlds to work together but no way in hell would people be "holding hands and singing" with the U.S. if Manhatten had really done this action. They might work with the U.S. but they would likely be very bitter that the American government's ultimate weapon caused so much damage.