RobertScorpio
Pariah
I just got back from seeing it. I totally agree your review, and so I DITTO your remarks. Souless was a great way to put it. It should have been a two movie story..too much to grasp in one two hour setting....
Rob
WATCHMEN - Movie Discussion and Grading (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
I just got back from seeing it. I totally agree your review, and so I DITTO your remarks. Souless was a great way to put it. It should have been a two movie story..too much to grasp in one two hour setting....
Rob
Loved it? No. But i did see it coming and i did laugh when he popped her one. The more over the top it got the funnier it was. I do not equate movies with reality in any way shape or form. I do not feel pity or horror or any disgust over what happens to fictional characters.
If you felt disgust over a bit of a bloody nose/attempted rape and Blake popping a pregnant Vietnamese girl then you must have almost died when millions upon millions of people were killed around the world.
Just got back from seeing the film. Interesting to compare my reaction to my girlfriends. I am a fan of the novel she has never read it.
Me: I give it a B. I think they did the best they could possibly do with what was a very complex and multi-layered novel. The ending was too quick and didn't flow very well from what came before it. I also thought the cameos from "real people"(i.e. actors made up to look like them, Nixon, Kissinger, etc) were hokey and fake looking. There was too much pure exposition too where characters and their back stories were kind of forced into the story just to tell people who they are. Very true to the characters and the novel though
My girlfriend: She enjoyed the first half, but the thought the second half of it became a very standard costumed action hero type movie. She thought it was visually stunning, but the dialogue was extremely hokey and wooden. Much of the film also really confused her and I think she had a point. She didn't realize costumed heroes were outlawed, and didn't realize they didn't have super-powers. She didn't understand where the characters fit it in as the film moved through different time periods.
We also both thought the actors looked scarily like people from the 70's and 80's and the film would have been better with some A-listers.
Comedian: Robert Downey Jr.
Silk Spectre 2: Demi Moore
Rorschach: Danny Bonaduce
Synopsis: A nice visual imagining of a good story, but like most films if you read the book first the movie is kind of a let down.
Me: I give it a B. I think they did the best they could possibly do with what was a very complex and multi-layered novel. The ending was too quick and didn't flow very well from what came before it. I also thought the cameos from "real people"(i.e. actors made up to look like them, Nixon, Kissinger, etc) were hokey and fake looking. There was too much pure exposition too where characters and their back stories were kind of forced into the story just to tell people who they are. Very true to the characters and the novel though
My girlfriend: She enjoyed the first half, but the thought the second half of it became a very standard costumed action hero type movie. She thought it was visually stunning, but the dialogue was extremely hokey and wooden. Much of the film also really confused her and I think she had a point. She didn't realize costumed heroes were outlawed, and didn't realize they didn't have super-powers. She didn't understand where the characters fit it in as the film moved through different time periods.
We also both thought the actors looked scarily like people from the 70's and 80's and the film would have been better with some A-listers.
Comedian: Robert Downey Jr.
Silk Spectre 2: Demi Moore
Rorschach: Danny Bonaduce
Synopsis: A nice visual imagining of a good story, but like most films if you read the book first the movie is kind of a let down.
I enjoyed the film and was impressed that so much of the book made it to the screen unscathed. The casting was fantastic throughout. Rorcharch was the stand out, but I want to comment on the portrayals of Silk Specter II and Veidt. I have read many people criticizing the performances, but I feel both Goode's and Ackerman's performances were accurate. Laurie is mostly a lost character, trying to find her own identity, so Ackerman's somewhat hollow presence of screen was just right and I feel purposeful. Goode's Veidt was also so removed from humanity, that he is unrelatable and unlikeable. Again, doing the character justice.
While I enjoyed the film, I feel that the changed climax came across as a bit weak. The book's psychic squid has such a shocking punch due to the graphic scale of the slaughter. There was a lot of blood and dead eyes staring back the the reader. The film's "Manhattan bomb" solution was positively bloodless and far to clean. The large crater in the film (and shown in only one city) was not shocking and failed to convey the gravity of Veidt's plan. In a film that did not shy away from violence and blood, it was odd that the climax was so blah.
That being said, I still feel the film was a success and I do look forward to the extended dvd versions.
While I enjoyed the film, I feel that the changed climax came across as a bit weak. The book's psychic squid has such a shocking punch due to the graphic scale of the slaughter. There was a lot of blood and dead eyes staring back the the reader. The film's "Manhattan bomb" solution was positively bloodless and far to clean. The large crater in the film (and shown in only one city) was not shocking and failed to convey the gravity of Veidt's plan. In a film that did not shy away from violence and blood, it was odd that the climax was so blah.
That being said, I still feel the film was a success and I do look forward to the extended dvd versions.
Oh please, at this point Demi's lucky to be a B-list, and Danny Bonaduce is on the D-list at best. Downey'd have been good, but that's because he's Downey.
I enjoyed it. Really liked the opening sequence, the fight choreography, and anything Rorschach did. One criticism I have that hasn't been mentioned is the Rorschach prison escape scene. I thought it came off as rather clumsy compared to the book. The toilet only breaks on accident and he only electrocutes an already unconscious guy.
I saw maybe 15 people walk out of my showing of the movie. I think they really were expecting the film to be along the lines of iron man, and didn't expect there to be meat cleavers going in to foreheads and full nudity. People REALLY need to check ratings before they take their kids to see moves. One of the families leaving actually put their hands on their kids eyes as they escorted them out so they wouldn't see the gore on screen.
But yeah, not the perfect movie but something I enjoyed.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new.php?id=12264 That's the entire intro sequence, pretty cool and one of the better parts of the film.
I saw maybe 15 people walk out of my showing of the movie. I think they really were expecting the film to be along the lines of iron man, and didn't expect there to be meat cleavers going in to foreheads and full nudity. People REALLY need to check ratings before they take their kids to see moves. One of the families leaving actually put their hands on their kids eyes as they escorted them out so they wouldn't see the gore on screen.
But yeah, not the perfect movie but something I enjoyed.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new.php?id=12264 That's the entire intro sequence, pretty cool and one of the better parts of the film.
Last edited:
Kinda funny that 'Downey'd be good, but that's because he's Downey!" just that line cracks me up. Like the Chuck Norris T-shirts I see.
"As anyone - Downey would be good... because HE'S DOWNEY! Don't mess wit' da Downey!"
"As anyone - Downey would be good... because HE'S DOWNEY! Don't mess wit' da Downey!"
We also both thought the actors looked scarily like people from the 70's and 80's and the film would have been better with some A-listers.
Comedian: Robert Downey Jr.
Silk Spectre 2: Demi Moore
Rorschach: Danny Bonaduce
Whoops, I didn't mean that's who should play the characters I meant that's who we thought the actors looked exactly like. My girlfriend actually thought it was Downey for awhile.
Comedian: Robert Downey Jr.
Silk Spectre 2: Demi Moore
Rorschach: Danny Bonaduce
Whoops, I didn't mean that's who should play the characters I meant that's who we thought the actors looked exactly like. My girlfriend actually thought it was Downey for awhile.
I thought it was the secret love child of Edward J Olmos and Downey.
I enjoyed the movie, A-. First half dragged, second half picked up the pace. Some of the CGI was quite bad but for the most part very good. Loved the soundtrack even if the use in someplaces was questionable. Acting was mostly ok, some was better (Rorschach) some not so much (Ozy).
Really? I thought the visuals were spot on throughout. Can't remember any shots that stood out as "bad" cgi.
Maybe the Mars scenes and the glass vessel, but then I didn't think it was bad cgi, just obvious cgi.
Yeah. No giant glass timepiece hovering over the sands of Mars would actually look like that.
I graded it an A for the movie, but as a fan of the comic, it was definitely an A+ experience.
I spent the whole time amazed by the fact that I was almost literally watching the comic on the screen.
Ok, so I obviously knew there was technically a ton of stuff missing. Either subplots that work better in comic form or would just have extended the movie to unreasonable lengths (can't fucking wait for that extended DVD
) but it did feel almost like reading the book yet again.
I think in its fidelity to the source material it may have made for a slower paced film than normal. Long periods of narration over slow-motion worked great for me, because it was straight from the comic, but might not have been the best filmic choice. I don't know, because I can't seperate film from comic.
I spent the whole time amazed by the fact that I was almost literally watching the comic on the screen.
Ok, so I obviously knew there was technically a ton of stuff missing. Either subplots that work better in comic form or would just have extended the movie to unreasonable lengths (can't fucking wait for that extended DVD
) but it did feel almost like reading the book yet again.I think in its fidelity to the source material it may have made for a slower paced film than normal. Long periods of narration over slow-motion worked great for me, because it was straight from the comic, but might not have been the best filmic choice. I don't know, because I can't seperate film from comic.
Apart from Ozy (whose issues were physical and directorial I think) the main cast were pretty much perfect. I don't see how stunt casting a few A-Listers would have improved the piece.
Overall, the film just isn't as good as the book (well duuuuh), but it's a damn fine effort. I'm starting to come around to the "new" ending, even though I'm pretty sure the calamari of death could have worked just as well on film.
What they have done, amazingly, is simplify Watchmen without dumbing it down (at least not to any huge extent). A month ago I thought that was an impossible feat. They proved me wrong and I'm happy to admit it.
Okay okay, lemme explain.
I mean it's obvious because it's a giant glass timepiece hovering over the sands of mars. And it also looks perfect - too perfect. Which, of course, is what they were going for, bit it did skate dangerously close to that "not blemished enough" look of "bad" (or "early") CGI.
I wouldn't ever criticise any visual aspect of this movie, please don't misunderstand me. It's just that's the only scene I could possibly think of that even comes within a billion miles of being poorly realised.
It's kinda why I - in fits of videophilic snobbery - grimace every time someone mentions buying it on DVD. Squishing these visuals down to be viewed on an archaic, low resolution interlaced video standard is tantamount to vandalism in my book. That's like smearing shit all over the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
Flame away!
Overall, the film just isn't as good as the book (well duuuuh), but it's a damn fine effort. I'm starting to come around to the "new" ending, even though I'm pretty sure the calamari of death could have worked just as well on film.
What they have done, amazingly, is simplify Watchmen without dumbing it down (at least not to any huge extent). A month ago I thought that was an impossible feat. They proved me wrong and I'm happy to admit it.
Yeah. No giant glass timepiece hovering over the sands of Mars would actually look like that.
Okay okay, lemme explain.I mean it's obvious because it's a giant glass timepiece hovering over the sands of mars. And it also looks perfect - too perfect. Which, of course, is what they were going for, bit it did skate dangerously close to that "not blemished enough" look of "bad" (or "early") CGI.
I wouldn't ever criticise any visual aspect of this movie, please don't misunderstand me. It's just that's the only scene I could possibly think of that even comes within a billion miles of being poorly realised.
It's kinda why I - in fits of videophilic snobbery - grimace every time someone mentions buying it on DVD. Squishing these visuals down to be viewed on an archaic, low resolution interlaced video standard is tantamount to vandalism in my book. That's like smearing shit all over the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
Flame away!
Last edited:
Apart from Ozy (whose issues were physical and directorial I think) the main cast were pretty much perfect. I don't see how stunt casting a few A-Listers would have improved the piece.
Overall, the film just isn't as good as the book (well duuuuh), but it's a damn fine effort. I'm starting to come around to the "new" ending, even though I'm pretty sure the calamari of death could have worked just as well on film.
What they have done, amazingly, is simplify Watchmen without dumbing it down (at least not to any huge extent). A month ago I thought that was an impossible feat. They proved me wrong and I'm happy to admit it.
Yeah. No giant glass timepiece hovering over the sands of Mars would actually look like that.
I mean it's obvious because it's a giant glass timepiece hovering over the sands of mars. And it also looks perfect - absolutely perfect. Which, of course, is what they were going for, bit it did skate dangerously close to that "not blemished enough" look of "bad" (or "early") CGI.
Oh, I wasn't nitpicking your response - for some reason the whole earlier criticism of "bad CG" reminded me of Venkman's response to the poltergeist book-stacking incident.
^
Ah ok, I got the wrong end of your meaty stick I guess...
Ah ok, I got the wrong end of your meaty stick I guess...
It was really only one shot that stood out as bad for me, quite early in the film I think it was with the city skyline and the things in the air (ad balloons?) they just looked very very bad CGI, which is strange cause in later shots they looked good.
I'll make this short and sweet.
Watchmen gets an A- as a movie from me. I really liked the look of the movie. The acting. The FX. It was a fun experience.
As an adaptation it gets a B. There's a certain something lacking... maybe it's just the intimacy of sitting there reading it and letting it unfold slowly.
It would have been dishonest though to factor in the comic when grading the movie. The movie stands on its own as all book to film adaptations should.
Watchmen gets an A- as a movie from me. I really liked the look of the movie. The acting. The FX. It was a fun experience.
As an adaptation it gets a B. There's a certain something lacking... maybe it's just the intimacy of sitting there reading it and letting it unfold slowly.
It would have been dishonest though to factor in the comic when grading the movie. The movie stands on its own as all book to film adaptations should.
A-
I have to admit I rather liked it, and I definitely want to see it again. I'm a long-time fan of the original, and I was always intrigued as to how the movie work work out. Obviously it can't slavishly follow the original, but I was pleased with the outcome nonetheless.
I love the secondary character stuff from the original, but I understand why it couldn't be used in such a long film. Well, not in the theatrical cut, anyway. I have to admit I'd have liked a bit more newstand/road junction stuff to flesh the world out a bit more. Ah, well.
I thought all of the main cast did a great job - especially Haley as Rorschach. He was fecking amazing. Goode did better than I thought he would - a couple of the publicity shots of him in the Ozy costume looked a but crappy, but it worked out fine onscreen. I liked the accent, as well.
Laurie wasn't as self-involved and whiney as in the original, I thought. Which is a good thing. Dr. Manhatten was cool, The Comedian was one mean, nihilistic swine and Nite Owl II was just right.
The only part I didn't like was the ill-fated Crimebusters...err...Watchmen meeting. Ol' Nelson needs to be there for that generational context. Such an important scene in the book.
So - I liked it, and will be getting the DVD when it comes out. Sorry Jim, but I ain't got a Blu-Ray player yet...
Oh - and I absolutely loved the opening titles montage. Wonderful.
I have to admit I rather liked it, and I definitely want to see it again. I'm a long-time fan of the original, and I was always intrigued as to how the movie work work out. Obviously it can't slavishly follow the original, but I was pleased with the outcome nonetheless.
I love the secondary character stuff from the original, but I understand why it couldn't be used in such a long film. Well, not in the theatrical cut, anyway. I have to admit I'd have liked a bit more newstand/road junction stuff to flesh the world out a bit more. Ah, well.
I thought all of the main cast did a great job - especially Haley as Rorschach. He was fecking amazing. Goode did better than I thought he would - a couple of the publicity shots of him in the Ozy costume looked a but crappy, but it worked out fine onscreen. I liked the accent, as well.
Laurie wasn't as self-involved and whiney as in the original, I thought. Which is a good thing. Dr. Manhatten was cool, The Comedian was one mean, nihilistic swine and Nite Owl II was just right.
The only part I didn't like was the ill-fated Crimebusters...err...Watchmen meeting. Ol' Nelson needs to be there for that generational context. Such an important scene in the book.
So - I liked it, and will be getting the DVD when it comes out. Sorry Jim, but I ain't got a Blu-Ray player yet...
Oh - and I absolutely loved the opening titles montage. Wonderful.
The comic is probably my all time favorite. The movie I thought was a very faithful adaptation, and I can begrudgingly understand the squid-less ending. As I was watching it (as usual when seeing an adaptation of a book) I was seeing more flaws than pluses, but I was that was with LOTR as well. So I loved it, with only slight reservations. I was in tears several times. Actually as much as I love the comic, I thought they should have made it shorter for the mainstream audience... I would have cut out a lot of the Dan/Laurie stuff as it's not really apropos to the plot. I mean of course Rorshach isn't ultimately important either but we all know how awesome he is My initial concerns about Manhatten's monotone blank delivery were wrong, it came off very appropriate. The only cut I was mad about; they should have shown Hollis getting killed because it VALIDATES Rorshach's theory! It's funny, when I got home I leafed through the entire comic and my god it was a literal translation, almost word for word. Still missing the squid, though
My initial concerns about Manhatten's monotone blank delivery were wrong, it came off very appropriate. The only cut I was mad about; they should have shown Hollis getting killed because it VALIDATES Rorshach's theory! It's funny, when I got home I leafed through the entire comic and my god it was a literal translation, almost word for word. Still missing the squid, though Similar threads
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
- Poll
