Norrin Radd
Vice Admiral
It blows my mind that they didn't cast someone older and the mask on him just looks stupid in the movie.
WATCHMEN - Movie Discussion and Grading (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
It blows my mind that they didn't cast someone older and the mask on him just looks stupid in the movie.
Seriously, the slow-motion shit's getting out of hand. It's everywhere. Disney did to the Power Rangers.
Japanese. Power Rangers. Slow motion.
For fuck's sake, one of these things just doesn't belong...and I'm saying that from a composition standpoint. The fights look terrible, with the slow-mo sucking any momentum in the (air) punches, and highlighting the limits and faults in the costuming and making the pyrotechnic charges far more apparent.
Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight is the only modern, American-adapted tokusatsu I've seen that doesn't use slow-mo for everything. Then again, it wasn't initially a giant pile of steaming shit in Japan either.
Japanese. Power Rangers. Slow motion.
For fuck's sake, one of these things just doesn't belong...and I'm saying that from a composition standpoint. The fights look terrible, with the slow-mo sucking any momentum in the (air) punches, and highlighting the limits and faults in the costuming and making the pyrotechnic charges far more apparent.
Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight is the only modern, American-adapted tokusatsu I've seen that doesn't use slow-mo for everything. Then again, it wasn't initially a giant pile of steaming shit in Japan either.
A. I'll tell you why.
My actual first encounter with Watchmen was when it was first run as a comic miniseries. The only issue I ever bought at the time was the one that focused on Rorschach in prison, (I didn't read the whole thing until it was available in trade paperback.) so that's the most vivid part of the story in my memory.
For me, a comic movie's worth is based on how much of what was depicted in the comic it gets right, so while I was enjoying the movie up to that point, it didn't actually feel like it was bringing the story to life for me until it got to those scenes of Rorschach and the psychologist in the interrogation room.
That was when the "cool movie" switch toggled in my brain. So, A.
Kinda the point of a good comic movie.
Oh, really? Because when I finally read the full story I thought it was nothing more than pretentious nonsense, which is actually like saying "the sky is blue" because everything Alan Moore writes is pretentious nonsense. But obviously I must have missed the Grand Shining Insight you saw, because I think the movie pretty much delivered on the "pretentious" trademark. So why don't you explain what the graphic novel is about for those of us who obviously don't share your Ozymandias-like big brain?
My actual first encounter with Watchmen was when it was first run as a comic miniseries. The only issue I ever bought at the time was the one that focused on Rorschach in prison, (I didn't read the whole thing until it was available in trade paperback.) so that's the most vivid part of the story in my memory.
For me, a comic movie's worth is based on how much of what was depicted in the comic it gets right, so while I was enjoying the movie up to that point, it didn't actually feel like it was bringing the story to life for me until it got to those scenes of Rorschach and the psychologist in the interrogation room.
That was when the "cool movie" switch toggled in my brain. So, A.
Kinda the point of a good comic movie.
Oh, really? Because when I finally read the full story I thought it was nothing more than pretentious nonsense, which is actually like saying "the sky is blue" because everything Alan Moore writes is pretentious nonsense. But obviously I must have missed the Grand Shining Insight you saw, because I think the movie pretty much delivered on the "pretentious" trademark. So why don't you explain what the graphic novel is about for those of us who obviously don't share your Ozymandias-like big brain?
Norrin Radd
Vice Admiral
Geez Admiral, let's not get personal.
I'm just tired of hearing about how brilliant and mind-blowing the stupid graphic novel is supposed to be. It's good, it's dynamic, it is not the be all and end all of comic books.
To be as good as its defenders claim it would have to be better than something like Maus. Seriously?
The movie is a great adaptaion. If you want exactly what Moore put in the original, tell his highness to climb down off his high horse and write the adaptation himself. Failing that, you got the most faithful adaptation you're ever going to see, and there's really nothing wrong with it.
Perhaps you should tell that to the film's marketing people...
"The Most Celebrated Graphic Novel of all time."
Their words, not mine. Nor are they the property of or insinuated by anyone else in this thread, AFAIK.
Just because someone thinks that the material is great doesn't automatically imply that they think it's the best ever. At worst, it implies that they haven't read that much, at least in the way of comic books. As far as I know, that isn't a crime.
Inversely, just because you think someone writes pretentious crap doesn't automatically invalidate your opinion as factual or probable. Also, it doesn't give you permission to attack and insult anyone else for a dissenting opinion, even in degrees.
If your output here is typical of your literary talents, one could very easily claim that your work is pretentious, because you assume that people give more of a damn about what you say more so than anyone else. A personality trait like that tends to carry over to most disciplines, especially writing. I know this from experience, personal experience.
For you to call Moore "pretentious" is the sheer hight of irony. I'm not suggesting that you are "wrong" or that I or anyone else is somehow "right," however. I'm just pointing out that you have no reason to pretend that you are any less of a pretentious windbag than Moore, or anyone else for that matter.
"The Most Celebrated Graphic Novel of all time."
Their words, not mine. Nor are they the property of or insinuated by anyone else in this thread, AFAIK.
Just because someone thinks that the material is great doesn't automatically imply that they think it's the best ever. At worst, it implies that they haven't read that much, at least in the way of comic books. As far as I know, that isn't a crime.
Inversely, just because you think someone writes pretentious crap doesn't automatically invalidate your opinion as factual or probable. Also, it doesn't give you permission to attack and insult anyone else for a dissenting opinion, even in degrees.
If your output here is typical of your literary talents, one could very easily claim that your work is pretentious, because you assume that people give more of a damn about what you say more so than anyone else. A personality trait like that tends to carry over to most disciplines, especially writing. I know this from experience, personal experience.
For you to call Moore "pretentious" is the sheer hight of irony. I'm not suggesting that you are "wrong" or that I or anyone else is somehow "right," however. I'm just pointing out that you have no reason to pretend that you are any less of a pretentious windbag than Moore, or anyone else for that matter.
Last edited:
^ I wish I had the foresight to come up with something as incisively succinct as that. 
A+
I must've been watching a much different film from those who gave "D" or even "F" grades, because what I saw was fan-freaking-tastic. I'm sorry you guys didn't have a more enjoyable time with it.
I came in knowing the story backwards and forwards, having first read the graphic novel 13 years ago. All I came in expecting was for Zack Snyder to be as respectful to the original material as was possible in 2 hours and 40-something minutes. That's what I was given. Most of the actors involved handled their roles with care (especially Jackie Earle Haley!), although I would have to name Malin Ackerman and Matthew Goode as possible weak links. My ONLY complaint is the cyanide capsule scene. I thought that looked a little sloppy and revealed more than it was supposed to at too early a point in the film. Otherwise, bravo, Mr. Snyder!
I must've been watching a much different film from those who gave "D" or even "F" grades, because what I saw was fan-freaking-tastic. I'm sorry you guys didn't have a more enjoyable time with it.
I came in knowing the story backwards and forwards, having first read the graphic novel 13 years ago. All I came in expecting was for Zack Snyder to be as respectful to the original material as was possible in 2 hours and 40-something minutes. That's what I was given. Most of the actors involved handled their roles with care (especially Jackie Earle Haley!), although I would have to name Malin Ackerman and Matthew Goode as possible weak links. My ONLY complaint is the cyanide capsule scene. I thought that looked a little sloppy and revealed more than it was supposed to at too early a point in the film. Otherwise, bravo, Mr. Snyder!
Awesome!
I read the comic book fifteen days ago (it's only when a movie adaptation nears that TPTB reprint original materials
) and the end result is faithful to the letter.
The story flows perfectly, the imagery is rich, the music is awesome - All Along The Watchtower, Hallelujah, Everybody Wants to Rule the World (lol!!!!)...
And I gotta admit I spent 2h42 gawking at Malin Akerman...
Oh my God, she's so hot, she's so flippin' hot!!! She's like a curry! She's so hot she's making me sexist! Bitch!
I read the comic book fifteen days ago (it's only when a movie adaptation nears that TPTB reprint original materials
) and the end result is faithful to the letter.The story flows perfectly, the imagery is rich, the music is awesome - All Along The Watchtower, Hallelujah, Everybody Wants to Rule the World (lol!!!!)...
And I gotta admit I spent 2h42 gawking at Malin Akerman...
Oh my God, she's so hot, she's so flippin' hot!!! She's like a curry! She's so hot she's making me sexist! Bitch!
I think it was good and bad at the same time. Visually it was stunning. The characterization was good. And it tried to be as faithful to the book as one could get away with. But, at the same time, it's a little too faithful to the source material. Snyder seems to have too much reverence for it, and even what are supposed to be mundane scenes seem filled with awe.
Honestly, the movie just kind of drags for the first half. There's really not a whole lot going on other then character backstory. Which was dull to me because I already knew it. If I had not had already known it I might have found it more interesting. The plot is kind of secondary to the characterization, which is how the book was , but that doesn't make for an exciting movie. Actually it makes for a dull movie that moves at a snails pace despite all the cool directing. It starts to pick up latter on though.
The film lacks subtlety, which is not surprising considering how bombastic Snyder's style is. Because he does that fantastic stuff very well. But what made the book so good was that when the big shockers occurred you didnt see it coming despite all the subtle clues Moore laid out for you to see. Here, most of the big reveals are predictable because the clues Snyder lays out for you are so obvious that he might as well be in the theater screaming them at you. Even if you have not read the book it's obvious what's going to happen.
It also lacks that human touch. The book had many ordinary, average folks who you got to see and learn about. So when the genocide at the end occurs, the emotional impact of it is felt more. In the movie we only get to see Hollis Mason(who's there a few times then is forgotten) and the prison shrink. And the shrink is so cartoonish you don't really care what happens to him or anyone else in New York for that matter.
And honestly it's just too dark, grim, and takes itself too seriously. The book was very mature, but it wasn't overbearingly dark. It had it's share of lighter moments to go along with the darker ones. Here, it's all dark and nothing but. Most of the political stuff are just distractions that run on too long. They could have cut those down and you wouldn't have lost anything. In the book they were only a few panels.
I didn't like Sally Jupiter at all. She was mean, nasty, vain, and bitter. She was nothing like the sweet, but dumb, old broad in the book. Which is why she was such a contrast to The Comedian.
The Comedian was underwhelming. Morgan looks the part, but he's too laid back, suave, and casual. The Comedian to me is loud, over-the-top, and full of fire and fury. He's a modern Viking savage. Moore based the character on G. Gordon Liddy, and Liddy is not a laid back guy. Honestly I just saw an evil John Winchester dressed up for carnivale.
Rorschach is good, but we could have used more scenes of him beating down bad guys. Because that never gets old to me. There's a reason why all the fans only care about him and could give a damn about the other characters. And it's not because he's the cool, gritty one. And it's not because he's the one who stays true to the faith. It's because he's the only one with charisma and style. He bleeds it in gallons. No matter what he does, it's badass as fuck. Even mundane things like eating beans he manages to make cool.
Laurie a was useless fuck-toy in the movie just like she was in the book. So nothing really changed here. Her sex scene with Dan was overdone though.
Adrian I didn't care for. It's not because the character was written poorly. I think he was written quite well actually. It's just that the actor is so damn creepy as him you can tell he's involved in the conspiracy just by how creepy he is. He's less Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark and more of an effiminate, corperate, Hannibal Lecter. Everything he does is creepy as fuck. But again, this goes back to Snyders lack of subtlety.
John is, yet again, more interesting as a concept and an analogy then an actual character. And that's just because it's hard to relate to someone so utterly inhuman. Which, I guess, is the point. Cudup is fine here. But I would have liked someone with a little more prescence. I'm probably just being picky though.
Dan actually is a stronger character in the movie then he was in the book. He was pretty mentally soft in the book. At the end, he proved Rorschach right about that. He had his fuck-toy now so he was kind willfully oblivious to it all. Here, his freindship with Rorschach is examined more, which I really enjoyed. At the end, his motivations make more sense then just being a wimp with no balls. He keeps quiet about it out of fear of John killing him and Laurie, like he did Rorschach to set an example more then anything.
The changed ending was less random then the book, but it made John look like a total tool. "The smartest human is as much a threat to me as the smartest cockroach." Well that cockroach totally owned you, didn't he?
Im going to see it again. It was really late when I saw it so I was probably just tired. So I'll probably have a better opinion of it after that.
Honestly, the movie just kind of drags for the first half. There's really not a whole lot going on other then character backstory. Which was dull to me because I already knew it. If I had not had already known it I might have found it more interesting. The plot is kind of secondary to the characterization, which is how the book was , but that doesn't make for an exciting movie. Actually it makes for a dull movie that moves at a snails pace despite all the cool directing. It starts to pick up latter on though.
The film lacks subtlety, which is not surprising considering how bombastic Snyder's style is. Because he does that fantastic stuff very well. But what made the book so good was that when the big shockers occurred you didnt see it coming despite all the subtle clues Moore laid out for you to see. Here, most of the big reveals are predictable because the clues Snyder lays out for you are so obvious that he might as well be in the theater screaming them at you. Even if you have not read the book it's obvious what's going to happen.
It also lacks that human touch. The book had many ordinary, average folks who you got to see and learn about. So when the genocide at the end occurs, the emotional impact of it is felt more. In the movie we only get to see Hollis Mason(who's there a few times then is forgotten) and the prison shrink. And the shrink is so cartoonish you don't really care what happens to him or anyone else in New York for that matter.
And honestly it's just too dark, grim, and takes itself too seriously. The book was very mature, but it wasn't overbearingly dark. It had it's share of lighter moments to go along with the darker ones. Here, it's all dark and nothing but. Most of the political stuff are just distractions that run on too long. They could have cut those down and you wouldn't have lost anything. In the book they were only a few panels.
I didn't like Sally Jupiter at all. She was mean, nasty, vain, and bitter. She was nothing like the sweet, but dumb, old broad in the book. Which is why she was such a contrast to The Comedian.
The Comedian was underwhelming. Morgan looks the part, but he's too laid back, suave, and casual. The Comedian to me is loud, over-the-top, and full of fire and fury. He's a modern Viking savage. Moore based the character on G. Gordon Liddy, and Liddy is not a laid back guy. Honestly I just saw an evil John Winchester dressed up for carnivale.
Rorschach is good, but we could have used more scenes of him beating down bad guys. Because that never gets old to me. There's a reason why all the fans only care about him and could give a damn about the other characters. And it's not because he's the cool, gritty one. And it's not because he's the one who stays true to the faith. It's because he's the only one with charisma and style. He bleeds it in gallons. No matter what he does, it's badass as fuck. Even mundane things like eating beans he manages to make cool.
Laurie a was useless fuck-toy in the movie just like she was in the book. So nothing really changed here. Her sex scene with Dan was overdone though.
Adrian I didn't care for. It's not because the character was written poorly. I think he was written quite well actually. It's just that the actor is so damn creepy as him you can tell he's involved in the conspiracy just by how creepy he is. He's less Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark and more of an effiminate, corperate, Hannibal Lecter. Everything he does is creepy as fuck. But again, this goes back to Snyders lack of subtlety.
John is, yet again, more interesting as a concept and an analogy then an actual character. And that's just because it's hard to relate to someone so utterly inhuman. Which, I guess, is the point. Cudup is fine here. But I would have liked someone with a little more prescence. I'm probably just being picky though.
Dan actually is a stronger character in the movie then he was in the book. He was pretty mentally soft in the book. At the end, he proved Rorschach right about that. He had his fuck-toy now so he was kind willfully oblivious to it all. Here, his freindship with Rorschach is examined more, which I really enjoyed. At the end, his motivations make more sense then just being a wimp with no balls. He keeps quiet about it out of fear of John killing him and Laurie, like he did Rorschach to set an example more then anything.
The changed ending was less random then the book, but it made John look like a total tool. "The smartest human is as much a threat to me as the smartest cockroach." Well that cockroach totally owned you, didn't he?
Im going to see it again. It was really late when I saw it so I was probably just tired. So I'll probably have a better opinion of it after that.
Last edited:
Agent Richard07's post: February 28th, 2009. Movie comes out next week, never read the graphic novel. Must pick it up. Seems like everyone else has read it but me. Don't know if I'll get through it on time. Must try.
Five Days of Watchmen
So here's how it went for me... I've seen thread after thread discussing this classic graphic novel and it felt like I was the only one who'd never read it. I was meaning to pick it up over the last few weeks, but kept putting it off. Then, this past Monday, I finally decided to get it. It was pretty thick and I didn't think I'd be able to wade through it in time, but I did. I started reading on Tuesday and finished yesterday on Thursday. Took me three days. Now Friday rolls around and I finally got to see everything in live-action with the book still fresh in my mind. Got the Watchmen experience in five days.
The Movie
How did I like the movie? I enjoyed it well enough. Unfortunately, I can't really say how well the movie's story stands on its own because it felt more like a supplement to the book, so that's how I'm looking at it.
Here's my point by point breakdown...
- The movie wasn't "real world" like The Dark Knight was. It looked like a comic book brought to life and captured the spirit and tone of the book without going overboard. It was a good balance between reality/hightened reality and had the right amount of dirtiness and grittiness.
- The music and the openning montage were great.
- A lot of the book's exposition was missing and a few things were changed, but the overall story was there and it did well at including at least some of the little touches from the book.
- We didn't get the psychologist's story which I found interesting, nor did we get to know Adrian's secretary and her attitude towards death just before getting shot. Those were good things that were missed. No Heinz beans either. Damn them!
- They didn't give us Rorschach's backstory or anything with the landlady which is a shame.
- The movie also didn't get into how this world of 1985 had advanced tech or where Rorschach got his mask. I'm glad I had the book to fill in those bits.
- The other big thing that was missing was the tension between Russia and America. That didn't come off as a big deal in the movie.
- The action was good too and I didn't mind the slow motion, however, you gotta wonder how these people could kick/throw eachother or the bad guys 20 feet across the room. Very Smallville-ish.
- Sally's rape scene was toned down considerably and didn't look good. Looked too choreographed. In hindsight though, maybe they had to lighten it up as much as they could.
- The movie wasn't so subtle about The Comedian being Laurie's father.
- I wonder why they changed Big Figure's sentence from 20 years to 15.
- There was a missed opportunity... In the book when Laurie is in bed with Dr. Manhattan and realizes that she's feeling four hands and that she's being pleasured by two Dr. Manhattans, she gets up and yells... "STOP IT! JON! BE ONE PERSON AGAIN!!!" I thought that was funny, but they didn't put the line in the movie.
- I was aware that they changed the ending, but I'm not sure how I feel about it. Both versions made sense, but I think the "alien threat" from the book might have worked better.
- The city shot where we saw the reconstruction of New York was nice. Really felt like the dawn of a new world.
The Characters
In short, I liked 'em all.
- Jackie Earle Haley was fantastic. He was great as the pedophile in Little Children and did an equally fantastic job as both Rorschach and Walter Kovacs. He had everything down.
- Last year when I saw the trailer, I thought that Malin Akerman looked great as Laurie/Silk Spectre. Then when I read the book, I started to wonder if she could pull off the character I was reading. I didn't think she could but she did. She's another one who got the book role down. Looks, character, everything. She was just as much a turn-on on the screen as on the page. They even amped up her sex scene. Malin Akerman going at it nude in fuck-me boots was nice. Gotta thank her for that.
I'm surprised though that they changed the ending so that she couldn't sport her blonde hair. I thought she was perfect casting for that moment.
- Billy Crudup did great as Dr. Manhattan. Again, totally nailed the part. A lot of press I've seen has been talking about the blue penis. It was hardly noticeable. No, I'm not making fun of him, I'm just saying... Who cares.
His big glass creation on Mars was impressive though. More impressive than in the book.
- Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Patrick Wilson each captured their roles as The Comedian and Nite Owl respectively. No problems there. I like what they did with Nite Owl's costume. Looked a lot better than in the comic. His action sequences were great too.
- Now we come to Matthew Goode as Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias. Looked like the character was changed from his comic book counterpart. He still had the "Adonis" thing down, but it was different. I'm alright with it though. He was... Shall we say... Goode..
- Carla Gugino was alright as Sally Jupiter. I was surprised to see that she wasn't the old hag that she was in the book. The younger version looked great too, but didn't hold a candle to her daughter.
- The real-life charaters like Nixon, etc were good, but the make-up wasn't the best on some of them. I appreciate the effort though.
There's more, only because Watchmen, be it the book or the movie is a big story with a lot of detail, but it's all a jumble in my head, so I'll leave it at that for now. I wonder how this movie came across to anyone who hasn't read the graphic novel.
Five Days of Watchmen
So here's how it went for me... I've seen thread after thread discussing this classic graphic novel and it felt like I was the only one who'd never read it. I was meaning to pick it up over the last few weeks, but kept putting it off. Then, this past Monday, I finally decided to get it. It was pretty thick and I didn't think I'd be able to wade through it in time, but I did. I started reading on Tuesday and finished yesterday on Thursday. Took me three days. Now Friday rolls around and I finally got to see everything in live-action with the book still fresh in my mind. Got the Watchmen experience in five days.
The Movie
How did I like the movie? I enjoyed it well enough. Unfortunately, I can't really say how well the movie's story stands on its own because it felt more like a supplement to the book, so that's how I'm looking at it.
Here's my point by point breakdown...
- The movie wasn't "real world" like The Dark Knight was. It looked like a comic book brought to life and captured the spirit and tone of the book without going overboard. It was a good balance between reality/hightened reality and had the right amount of dirtiness and grittiness.
- The music and the openning montage were great.
- A lot of the book's exposition was missing and a few things were changed, but the overall story was there and it did well at including at least some of the little touches from the book.
- We didn't get the psychologist's story which I found interesting, nor did we get to know Adrian's secretary and her attitude towards death just before getting shot. Those were good things that were missed. No Heinz beans either. Damn them!
- They didn't give us Rorschach's backstory or anything with the landlady which is a shame.
- The movie also didn't get into how this world of 1985 had advanced tech or where Rorschach got his mask. I'm glad I had the book to fill in those bits.
- The other big thing that was missing was the tension between Russia and America. That didn't come off as a big deal in the movie.
- The action was good too and I didn't mind the slow motion, however, you gotta wonder how these people could kick/throw eachother or the bad guys 20 feet across the room. Very Smallville-ish.
- Sally's rape scene was toned down considerably and didn't look good. Looked too choreographed. In hindsight though, maybe they had to lighten it up as much as they could.
- The movie wasn't so subtle about The Comedian being Laurie's father.
- I wonder why they changed Big Figure's sentence from 20 years to 15.
- There was a missed opportunity... In the book when Laurie is in bed with Dr. Manhattan and realizes that she's feeling four hands and that she's being pleasured by two Dr. Manhattans, she gets up and yells... "STOP IT! JON! BE ONE PERSON AGAIN!!!" I thought that was funny, but they didn't put the line in the movie.
- I was aware that they changed the ending, but I'm not sure how I feel about it. Both versions made sense, but I think the "alien threat" from the book might have worked better.
- The city shot where we saw the reconstruction of New York was nice. Really felt like the dawn of a new world.
The Characters
In short, I liked 'em all.
- Jackie Earle Haley was fantastic. He was great as the pedophile in Little Children and did an equally fantastic job as both Rorschach and Walter Kovacs. He had everything down.
- Last year when I saw the trailer, I thought that Malin Akerman looked great as Laurie/Silk Spectre. Then when I read the book, I started to wonder if she could pull off the character I was reading. I didn't think she could but she did. She's another one who got the book role down. Looks, character, everything. She was just as much a turn-on on the screen as on the page. They even amped up her sex scene. Malin Akerman going at it nude in fuck-me boots was nice. Gotta thank her for that.
I'm surprised though that they changed the ending so that she couldn't sport her blonde hair. I thought she was perfect casting for that moment.- Billy Crudup did great as Dr. Manhattan. Again, totally nailed the part. A lot of press I've seen has been talking about the blue penis. It was hardly noticeable. No, I'm not making fun of him, I'm just saying... Who cares.
His big glass creation on Mars was impressive though. More impressive than in the book.- Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Patrick Wilson each captured their roles as The Comedian and Nite Owl respectively. No problems there. I like what they did with Nite Owl's costume. Looked a lot better than in the comic. His action sequences were great too.
- Now we come to Matthew Goode as Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias. Looked like the character was changed from his comic book counterpart. He still had the "Adonis" thing down, but it was different. I'm alright with it though. He was... Shall we say... Goode.
.- Carla Gugino was alright as Sally Jupiter. I was surprised to see that she wasn't the old hag that she was in the book. The younger version looked great too, but didn't hold a candle to her daughter.
- The real-life charaters like Nixon, etc were good, but the make-up wasn't the best on some of them. I appreciate the effort though.
There's more, only because Watchmen, be it the book or the movie is a big story with a lot of detail, but it's all a jumble in my head, so I'll leave it at that for now. I wonder how this movie came across to anyone who hasn't read the graphic novel.
Last edited:
Re: WATCHMEN - Movie Discussion and Grading
Everyone in the theatre I was at laughed when he said... "I'm not locked in here with you! You're locked in here with me!"
I gave it a B.
It wasn't The Dark Knight. But it wasn't Spider Man 3. It kept me interested throughout, and I particularly grew to like the characters of Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan. But none of it was particularly memorable, and much of it has already faded from my mind. I probably won't see it again, or pick it up on DVD.
It wasn't The Dark Knight. But it wasn't Spider Man 3. It kept me interested throughout, and I particularly grew to like the characters of Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan. But none of it was particularly memorable, and much of it has already faded from my mind. I probably won't see it again, or pick it up on DVD.
Absolutely not. Adaptations require allowance for the extreme differences in format between a comic book page and live-action scenes. What might be "cool" in print easily becomes hokey, stilted, laughable dialogue and visuals on the screen.
There's a reason it's called an adaptation.
--Ted
I first read "Watchmen" as a trade paperback collection, probably in about 1991.
Anyway, I loved the movie. A+.
Big audience favorite line in my audience too - much laughter and cheering.
The Comedian is surprisingly likeable and sympathetic in the movie despite being a complete asshole. Strangely enough there's something wounded in the actor's performance in a couple of key scenes.
"Old Gugino" comes across as a girl playing a granny in a high school play. She's plausible in her youthful scenes.
Goode does what's required of him. Not a stand-out. Generally all the key performances are good and several are outstanding.
The attempts to recreate actual historical figures - even the brief profile image of Kennedy shaking Manhattan's hand - fall flat. I got the sense that the filmmakers figure that most of their audience just doesn't remember these people well enough to notice how bad the impersonations are.
Anyway, I loved the movie. A+.
Big audience favorite line in my audience too - much laughter and cheering.
The Comedian is surprisingly likeable and sympathetic in the movie despite being a complete asshole. Strangely enough there's something wounded in the actor's performance in a couple of key scenes.
"Old Gugino" comes across as a girl playing a granny in a high school play. She's plausible in her youthful scenes.
Goode does what's required of him. Not a stand-out. Generally all the key performances are good and several are outstanding.
The attempts to recreate actual historical figures - even the brief profile image of Kennedy shaking Manhattan's hand - fall flat. I got the sense that the filmmakers figure that most of their audience just doesn't remember these people well enough to notice how bad the impersonations are.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
- Poll
