My name is Devin Jacobsen and he was wrong for the role. I'm happy for him, and think he is a good actor, but that doesn't mean he was the right one to play Ozzy.
WATCHMEN - Movie Discussion and Grading (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
The less blood, the better. That's why.
Less blood now, but likely more blood later.
A
I loved it. I saw it at the midnight showing on Thursday but I needed some time to let my thoughts gestate. The film is long (and you do kind of feel it in certain cases) but I am going to definitely need to see the film again since I spent so much time absorbing all the little details and remembering things that were in the book.
To me it felt like the book. The characterizations were spot-on. Jackie Earl Haley WAS Rorshach very much like Hugh Jackman was Wolverine or Heath Ledger was The Joker. The voice-- which is exactly how I imagined it sounding in the book-- to the costume, everything. I was concerned how Haley would do outside of the costume but he nailed the prison scenes. I was sorry to find the stuff with the pyschologist was gone, but I understand the omission.
Billy Crudup was everything I read in Doctor Manhattan and more. I also felt the voice was spot-on. Manhattan's "origin" flashback sequence was simply mind-blowing. It felt like something out of Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain. The synergistic combination of visuals, voiceover (taking sections of dialogue lines directly from the book) and music was just truly captivating. Without a doubt my favorite part of the film.
Jeffrey Dean Morgan also nailed the part of The Comedian. Edward Blake-- while not my favorite character-- was certainly the most complex. And I felt like Morgan totally got that complexity. You are suppose to loathe this guy but you manage to drum up some empathy for him, despite everything he's done. They even managed to get the scene with him and Moloch in there. I really appreciated that.
Dan Drielberg was always the most relatable character in the book in my opinion. For some reason I could resonate with his feelings of lack of self worth or meaning until he put on that costume. It was like a dependency for him even though he was horrified to put the costume back on again. Patrick Wilson actually made the character more human in my opinion. He was believable as Drielberg and equally convincing as Nite Owl II.
I never liked the Silk Spectre in the book. Personally, she came off as way too bitchy and annoying to me. Malin Ackerman does an adequate job for making her a strong-willed yet vulnerable woman but I still didn't buy the character. I liked her mother (played by Carla Guigino) more.
Matthew Goode was Adrian Veidt wasn't as woefully cast as some might say. Sure, he could have bulked up more, and his costume, while a parody of most superhero outfits, made him look at bit ridiculous. Regardless, I consider those minor, trivial objections and I think Goode overall did a good job at portraying Veidt's elitest moral attitude.
Overall, I found it to be visually impressive. Zack Snyder definitely has a style and for the most part I think it worked well and suited the story, even though I hate speed ramping. The visual effects were stunning and technically speaking it is a gorgeously made film.
As for those who still think Watchmen is "unfilmable" because a few details had to be exorcised... Isn't that the same for nearly every literary adaptation? What makes Watchmen so different? Of course not every little nuance is going to be there on the screen. It's like same with every translation from book to film. That doesn't mean it's "unfilmable" (surely by that definition every book is?). There's a reason why the book is still there at the end of the day. No film could capture every little detail of a book, no matter how lightweight or dense. As Snyder puts it, his adaptation is like a teaser for the book. Hopefully it will cause those who have not read the book discover it for themselves after watching this movie. I think the film version of Watchmen does that.
I loved it. I saw it at the midnight showing on Thursday but I needed some time to let my thoughts gestate. The film is long (and you do kind of feel it in certain cases) but I am going to definitely need to see the film again since I spent so much time absorbing all the little details and remembering things that were in the book.
To me it felt like the book. The characterizations were spot-on. Jackie Earl Haley WAS Rorshach very much like Hugh Jackman was Wolverine or Heath Ledger was The Joker. The voice-- which is exactly how I imagined it sounding in the book-- to the costume, everything. I was concerned how Haley would do outside of the costume but he nailed the prison scenes. I was sorry to find the stuff with the pyschologist was gone, but I understand the omission.
Billy Crudup was everything I read in Doctor Manhattan and more. I also felt the voice was spot-on. Manhattan's "origin" flashback sequence was simply mind-blowing. It felt like something out of Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain. The synergistic combination of visuals, voiceover (taking sections of dialogue lines directly from the book) and music was just truly captivating. Without a doubt my favorite part of the film.
Jeffrey Dean Morgan also nailed the part of The Comedian. Edward Blake-- while not my favorite character-- was certainly the most complex. And I felt like Morgan totally got that complexity. You are suppose to loathe this guy but you manage to drum up some empathy for him, despite everything he's done. They even managed to get the scene with him and Moloch in there. I really appreciated that.
Dan Drielberg was always the most relatable character in the book in my opinion. For some reason I could resonate with his feelings of lack of self worth or meaning until he put on that costume. It was like a dependency for him even though he was horrified to put the costume back on again. Patrick Wilson actually made the character more human in my opinion. He was believable as Drielberg and equally convincing as Nite Owl II.
I never liked the Silk Spectre in the book. Personally, she came off as way too bitchy and annoying to me. Malin Ackerman does an adequate job for making her a strong-willed yet vulnerable woman but I still didn't buy the character. I liked her mother (played by Carla Guigino) more.
Matthew Goode was Adrian Veidt wasn't as woefully cast as some might say. Sure, he could have bulked up more, and his costume, while a parody of most superhero outfits, made him look at bit ridiculous. Regardless, I consider those minor, trivial objections and I think Goode overall did a good job at portraying Veidt's elitest moral attitude.
Overall, I found it to be visually impressive. Zack Snyder definitely has a style and for the most part I think it worked well and suited the story, even though I hate speed ramping. The visual effects were stunning and technically speaking it is a gorgeously made film.
As for those who still think Watchmen is "unfilmable" because a few details had to be exorcised... Isn't that the same for nearly every literary adaptation? What makes Watchmen so different? Of course not every little nuance is going to be there on the screen. It's like same with every translation from book to film. That doesn't mean it's "unfilmable" (surely by that definition every book is?). There's a reason why the book is still there at the end of the day. No film could capture every little detail of a book, no matter how lightweight or dense. As Snyder puts it, his adaptation is like a teaser for the book. Hopefully it will cause those who have not read the book discover it for themselves after watching this movie. I think the film version of Watchmen does that.
A+
I have yet to read the graphic novel either, but I appreciate that Snyder took great effort to remain faithful to the source material. He seems to be taking hits from a few critics for this. Also, I like alternate reality kinds of movies found this treatment of time between the 1940s to the mid 80s to be fascinating.
It was cool to see the exploration of the consequences of what could happen to the world if there was a 'superman' and he took a side. Much has been discussed about the sociopathic ruthlessness of Rorschach or the amoral actions of the Comedian, but Dr. Manhattan snuffed people out with simply no regard. At least the other two retained their human motivations.
My only gripe is that I wish the film could have devoted more towards my favorite heroes, the above-mentioned Rorschach and the Comedian. I could have done with a bit more back story on them and a little less of the characters moping about what was in the beginning of the film.
It is good to see Jackie Earl Haley again after all these years and he MADE the role of Rorschach. His performance alone was worth the price of admission. Those of you who did care for this kind of superhero film (finding it too dark, long, simple fear of the glowing blue willie, whatever) should at least give Haley his due.
And I am glad others besides me noticed the fine work of Jeffrey Dean Morgan's Comedian:
I plan on reading the original novel myself. I recommend this film, but do not go expecting it to be a 'Spider-man' or a 'Fantastic Four'.
I have yet to read the graphic novel either, but I appreciate that Snyder took great effort to remain faithful to the source material. He seems to be taking hits from a few critics for this. Also, I like alternate reality kinds of movies found this treatment of time between the 1940s to the mid 80s to be fascinating.
It was cool to see the exploration of the consequences of what could happen to the world if there was a 'superman' and he took a side. Much has been discussed about the sociopathic ruthlessness of Rorschach or the amoral actions of the Comedian, but Dr. Manhattan snuffed people out with simply no regard. At least the other two retained their human motivations.
My only gripe is that I wish the film could have devoted more towards my favorite heroes, the above-mentioned Rorschach and the Comedian. I could have done with a bit more back story on them and a little less of the characters moping about what was in the beginning of the film.
It is good to see Jackie Earl Haley again after all these years and he MADE the role of Rorschach. His performance alone was worth the price of admission. Those of you who did care for this kind of superhero film (finding it too dark, long, simple fear of the glowing blue willie, whatever) should at least give Haley his due.
And I am glad others besides me noticed the fine work of Jeffrey Dean Morgan's Comedian:
I found the Comedian to be a tragic character. He reminded me a little of the Russell Crowe character in 'LA Confidential' - someone who started out with good intentions but whose other 'talents' and natural tendencies came to the forefront as time and consequences progressed. It was a bittersweet touch that after all the years, the Comedian retained photos of the only woman he seemed to love (despite his actions towards her) and a daughter he could never be close with. Morgan did a great job showing the characters regrets mixed in with his inherent violent tendencies.
I plan on reading the original novel myself. I recommend this film, but do not go expecting it to be a 'Spider-man' or a 'Fantastic Four'.
A. I'm not a huge fan of the graphic novel, but this was a great movie. The title sequence was amazing.
Agreed Haley's Rorschach is flawless.Nearly equaled by Morgan's Comedian was spot on. I actually felt sorry for that bastard.
The only unimpressive role in the movie was the guy playing Veidt.
Agreed Haley's Rorschach is flawless.Nearly equaled by Morgan's Comedian was spot on. I actually felt sorry for that bastard.
The only unimpressive role in the movie was the guy playing Veidt.
I'm watching it tonight, looking forward to it very much.
Some of the reviews complain that the film is too close to the original and too "complicated" - I say, bring it on!
How could it not be a good thing to stay true to an original that brilliant? And complicated - just grow a brain, idiot, or stop reviewing any films but High School Musical XXIV and Beverly Hills Chihuaha.
Some of the reviews complain that the film is too close to the original and too "complicated" - I say, bring it on!
How could it not be a good thing to stay true to an original that brilliant? And complicated - just grow a brain, idiot, or stop reviewing any films but High School Musical XXIV and Beverly Hills Chihuaha.
But he had scenes with a psychologist, did they have more in the comic?
Too tired to write a detailed review right now, but gotta say I loved the touch that Nixon and Kissinger were meeting in a very good replica of The War Room from Dr. Strangelove. If that doesn't add a black comedy subtext to the Nixon scenes, I don't know what does!
Lots lots more.
Just saw the film on Saturday night. I had never even heard of the Watchmen other than the phrase "Who watches the Watchmen?"
I had never heard of the comic or the trade paperback or whatever it originally was until less than a week ago.
(i keep seeing comic/graphic novel and trade paperback mentioned in this thread so i have no idea what was first or if they are one and the same.)
I somehow managed to miss any trailers or tv commercials for this film so i went in completely and utterly blind.
I had no knowledge of the characters or plot in this film. With all of that said, i thought the movie was....pretty good. I will have to go see it again to get a proper "experience" with this film. So much was packed into the movie that it demands a second viewing. I was quite honestly very confused for the first part of the film. The opening "montage" left me wondering what the hell was going on. All the jumping around with flashbacks and newsreels left me wondering what timeframe this movie was supposed to be taking place in.
Everything that happened in the first part of the film did not make any sense to me until later on. For that reason alone i want to watch it again just to be able to place the opening scenes in the proper context.
I will be honest and say that yes i thought that part was hilarious. I laughed out loud when he smashed her into the pool table. At this point i had figured out that everything was supposed to be comic-book and it was funny that the Comedian in his old age can withstand his head smashing through various objects like tables, glass, countertops etc (not pavement apparently) but in her prime Sally Jupiter is brought to her knees and defeated by a couple punches and a pool table? The violence was so over the top throughout that i was laughing through quite a bit of the film.
The movie was not subtle in any way, it was quite easy to spot the villian about 10 seconds after his appearance. The love triangle was also apparent.
I just realized that i rated the film as pretty good yet all i'm doing is ragging on it. I will have to save the final analysis for another viewing. Some of what i find funny or silly or apparent in the film might change with a second viewing.
I had never heard of the comic or the trade paperback or whatever it originally was until less than a week ago.
(i keep seeing comic/graphic novel and trade paperback mentioned in this thread so i have no idea what was first or if they are one and the same.)
I somehow managed to miss any trailers or tv commercials for this film so i went in completely and utterly blind.
I had no knowledge of the characters or plot in this film. With all of that said, i thought the movie was....pretty good. I will have to go see it again to get a proper "experience" with this film. So much was packed into the movie that it demands a second viewing. I was quite honestly very confused for the first part of the film. The opening "montage" left me wondering what the hell was going on. All the jumping around with flashbacks and newsreels left me wondering what timeframe this movie was supposed to be taking place in.
Everything that happened in the first part of the film did not make any sense to me until later on. For that reason alone i want to watch it again just to be able to place the opening scenes in the proper context.
I will be honest and say that yes i thought that part was hilarious. I laughed out loud when he smashed her into the pool table. At this point i had figured out that everything was supposed to be comic-book and it was funny that the Comedian in his old age can withstand his head smashing through various objects like tables, glass, countertops etc (not pavement apparently) but in her prime Sally Jupiter is brought to her knees and defeated by a couple punches and a pool table? The violence was so over the top throughout that i was laughing through quite a bit of the film.
The movie was not subtle in any way, it was quite easy to spot the villian about 10 seconds after his appearance. The love triangle was also apparent.
I just realized that i rated the film as pretty good yet all i'm doing is ragging on it. I will have to save the final analysis for another viewing. Some of what i find funny or silly or apparent in the film might change with a second viewing.
I saw it last night with friends who hadn't read the graphic novel and I loved it. It was indeed long and slow in some parts of the film but nonetheless a great movie and Zack Snyder can do no wrong in my eyes. My favorite character in the movie and in the graphic novel was Rorschach and I thought that he was played brilliantly by James Earl Harley! I pretty much agree with everything that JacksonArcher stated about the movie...still am also digesting the film. Visually I thought it was beautiful, the acting was great, the actors seemed to really get what their characters were all about, loved the score and soundtrack will be getting them both. I can't wait to see the Black Freighter...and the sub-plot with the interrogator I missed as well...was hoping to see a couple of scenes with him discussing Rorschach. Overall Awesome movie...was impressed and will be getting the DVD when it comes out.
Oh, and I just wanted to add I haven't read the book. I had no trouble following it. A near masterpiece. Quite amazingly done. I had a few complaints so I won't see it again until I can fast forward, but it was very well done.
Yeah, the New Frontiersman is an extreme, over-the-top, exaggerated right-wing newspaper. The editor in some of the extra material even defends the KKK. So I'm not sure how much of an impact Rorshach's journal would have if published. Some people might believe it but then again, some people believe in Big Foot and the Lock Ness monster.
I remember someone blaming that the scene was too chreographed and I agree. They did good for titilation in this scene when they really should have been focusing on the brutality of what Blake was doing.
A few line I wish from the comic could have made it in here. Sally telling Laurie that she was fucking an A-bomb and the New Frontiersman editor telling his assistant that "three million people got killed and you weren't one of them."
I think that the holocaust from a gradual escalation of tension will be less devastating than the all-out retaliation with everything one side has that will happen when the truth gets out.
I really don't think "the truth getting out" would have that kind of effect. Regardless of who did it or why, the people of earth now know what its like to have cities wiped out in massive explosions, and they want no part of it.
Also, Rorschach didn't have the whole truth yet when he dropped off his journal. He didn't have any information in there one way or another as to what Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias were really up to.
I would have kept the secret but taken out Veidt. Depriving Veidt of getting to run his "brave, new world" was the worst thing you could do to the man.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
- Poll
