WATCHMEN - Movie Discussion and Grading (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
I enjoyed this movie quite a bit... though I've never seen the graphic novel it is based on, so I have no reference for comparison in that aspect (then again, I also have never seen the graphic novel version of 300 and liked that movie too).
There were only a half dozen other people in the theater with me on opening day, first showing of Blade Runner. I saw it three more times in it's original run and none of those showings had a larger crowd of people.
That's below the $70 million estimate, and less than the opening weekend numbers for 300.
Norrin Radd
Vice Admiral
Considering it kept dropping over the weekend, I think it's going to sink next week. $56M is a disappointment. Not a bomb. But not a hit.
Compared to 300, it runs about an hour longer, so fewer showings per day.
There will be a sequel it will just be direct to DVD.
Can't say I'm surprised. Watchmen is an R-rated movie that's nearly three hours long and received reviews that were mixed at best.
On the bright side, this should kill any talk of a sequel.
I'm definitely looking forward to the extended editions though.
On the bright side, this should kill any talk of a sequel.
I'm definitely looking forward to the extended editions though.
Anymore info on how Under the Hood has actually been adapted? The Official Companion Book and making of specials have photos and video of many more flashback scenes than in the actual movie.
I'll be getting it.
If I recall, Under the Hood will be an "interview" with Hollis Mason that's less than ten minutes long. Probably include some clips and stuff.
If I recall, Under the Hood will be an "interview" with Hollis Mason that's less than ten minutes long. Probably include some clips and stuff.
Grade of A
Thought it was freaking awesome. Its the kind of movie I like to see several times, just to soak it all in. I never read the comic or the book before I saw this. Going in I didn't have a clue what to expect. The theater was full and they clapped at the end. So most of them felt the same way I guess
If they made movies solely based on Rorschach I would go see each one of them. I thought that character, and the actor who played him did a remarkable job.
Thought it was freaking awesome. Its the kind of movie I like to see several times, just to soak it all in. I never read the comic or the book before I saw this. Going in I didn't have a clue what to expect. The theater was full and they clapped at the end. So most of them felt the same way I guess
If they made movies solely based on Rorschach I would go see each one of them. I thought that character, and the actor who played him did a remarkable job.
Don't invite your enemies to suck your dick. They may use teeth!
No worry. Most Internet would-be critics are toothless.
There's a bit more with Kovacs and the shrink, but mainly there's a lot more with the shrink on his own. The novel tells the story omnisciently, and sometimes follows minor characters into situations removed from the Watchmen themselves. In the case of the psychiatrist, we see his relationship with his wife and friends deteriorate because of his involvement with Rorshach. He comes to believe that average people look away from evil too much of the time, and ought to do more to combat it.
His final encounter with his wife is a street argument about his unwillingness to give up working with "losers" and letting it depress him. He interrupts the conversation to go to the aid of a stranger who's being assaulted on the street - IIRC - and an instant later is destroyed by the Interdimensional Squid.
I see this playing out in a similar manner to Superman Returns: a good movie that just wasn't what a lot of the audience was expecting (i.e. upbeat action-packed spectacle). I expect the box office will follow a similar pattern.
I gave it an A. Kudos to Zack Snyder for sticking so close to the novel. The aspect of the of the ending that was changed didn't bother me. It seemed plausible enough especially since the mind killing monster storyline from the novel was pretty outlandish.
Rorscach of course, rocked. Jackie Earle Haley was great. The actor who played Laurie was exceptionally cute, and gave a passable performance rather than great. Alright, Matt Frewer as Moloch. Nice performance.
I don't think you need to read the book to understand the movie although you DO have to pay attention. Very well done. Better than I thought it would be.
Rorscach of course, rocked. Jackie Earle Haley was great. The actor who played Laurie was exceptionally cute, and gave a passable performance rather than great. Alright, Matt Frewer as Moloch. Nice performance.
I don't think you need to read the book to understand the movie although you DO have to pay attention. Very well done. Better than I thought it would be.
Better than I thought it would be as well. I gave it an "A", down from an "A+" only because I thought the actress who played Laurie had a few utterly wooden lines here and there that threw me off. It's also difficult for me to grade, because it had been a few years since I'd read the novel, and there was a LOT in that movie that hit surprisingly close to home, for a number of reasons I won't go into. It was one of the best films I've seen this decade, and perhaps the most uncomfortable theater experience I've had - I'll leave it at that.
Owl and Silk Specter looked cool in the prison, but the previous dream did a good job of showing that his dependence on action wasn't good. Some at the theater I went to were shocked by the violence & blood but that was the point (too bad that some feel Rorschach and the Comedian were cool). I wished that Rorschach's image-mask stayed constant.
I think the movie is more condemning of the character, playing "Requiem," having Dan mad and having Adrian a bit more regretful; the comic showed more of the relieved international news, had the title "A stronger Loving World" and Manhattan's support suggested it really was necessary (then again, there was also humor in his being such a marketer, loving his pet and the whole concept of a Redford lookalike putting on a dark version of The Day the Earth Stood Still, so weird it worked). I wish he could have been more persuasive and hence disturbing.
Nixon's comment about fate being in a higher power made him more sympathetic in the comic while in the film it supports the argument that the end of the world means an end to responsibility.
I think the movie is more condemning of the character, playing "Requiem," having Dan mad and having Adrian a bit more regretful; the comic showed more of the relieved international news, had the title "A stronger Loving World" and Manhattan's support suggested it really was necessary (then again, there was also humor in his being such a marketer, loving his pet and the whole concept of a Redford lookalike putting on a dark version of The Day the Earth Stood Still, so weird it worked). I wish he could have been more persuasive and hence disturbing.
Nixon's comment about fate being in a higher power made him more sympathetic in the comic while in the film it supports the argument that the end of the world means an end to responsibility.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
- Poll
