Hate for the Watchmen movie

[Leroy]

I liked the Watchmen movie and can see why a lot of people hated it since they went in expecting an action movie (the studio foolishly marketed it as one). It's almost the opposite of the recent Green Lantern in the sense that Watchmen was slow and took its time to develop the characters as opposed to the terrible editing and the rapid fire stuff in Green Lantern. I also liked they kept in the alternate 1985 setting since I'm bit of a history buff but I bet that just confused most people.

 

[Harvey]

I like the new ending that was devised for the movie, but it has a lot of problems:

-a number of the performances are just awful (Ozymandias, Silk Spectre II, Richard Nixon)
-some of the make-up is unbelievably bad for a feature film (Richard Nixon, Silk Spectre I as an old women)
-some of the music choices are rather obvious (Ride of the Valkyries over Vietnam, Hallelujah during the sex scene)
-Snyder's direction relies too often on slow-motion, which has the effect of glorifying the story's violence and rather missing the point of the graphic novel

 

[CaptJimboJones]

As a big fan of the novel, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. It was wonderfully shot, it was extremely loyal to the source material, the adaption was very good. It was very much like watching the graphic novel, which is a hard thing to pull off.

However, I can understand why it didn't resonate with most modern audiences. It's overall theme felt dated - it was a cold war movie in a post-cold war era. And what was brilliant about the graphic novel in the '80s - an alternative, gritty, realistic portrayal of the superhero - has already been done any number of times (Unbreakable, for example, or even Heroes). In a lot of ways it stuck too close to the source material without attempting to update it for today's viewers. I realize that might have been a disaster, but as it was done, the movie just didn't have the kind of relevance for today's audiences that the graphic novel had for its readers back in the '80s.

 

[Saxman1]

Visually stunning, plot very disturbing with the raping and such. Don't want to see it again. How did it avoid an NC-17 for violence?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I hated it because it felt like a sequel to a movie that does not, in fact, exist. I mean, so much of what actually mattered to the story took place before the movie begins. Much of this was alluded to in dialogue, while a good deal more of this was told in flashbacks that did nothing but disrupt the narrative. Plus the action scenes were given that awful speed-up slow down look, and the finale was underwhelming.

My favorite single comment I've heard about this film was from Michael Phillips when he was talking Malin Ackerman. He says she is possibly "hollywood's wost actress." LOL

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwRxBXq8m04[/yt]

 

[davejames]

I thought the movie was okay for what it was, but it just didn't capture the tone of the comic (at least as I always saw it) very well at all.

Where the comic always struck me as being fairly gritty and bleak, Snyder shot the whole thing as if it were another glossy superhero movie, with every shot being so carefully composed and so overloaded with style (and of course the oh-so-perfectly placed rock song) that it made the whole thing come off feeling really contrived and artificial to me.

Worst of all, he took this cool idea of a world where average people dress up in costumes, and amped up their powers and abilities to ridiculous, superhuman levels (the alley fight being the worst example). Hell, Snyder has these people running up walls and kicking ass in ways we don't even see Batman doing in the Nolan movies! lol

 

[crookeddy]

Worst of all, he took this cool idea of a world where average people dress up in costumes, and amped up their powers and abilities to ridiculous, superhuman levels (the alley fight being the worst example). Hell, Snyder has these people running up walls and kicking ass in ways we don't even see Batman doing in the Nolan movies! lol

This is the main issue. Why are these people (other then Manhattan) so damn powerful?

 

[crookeddy]

I feel your pain. I'm the only one of my friends who thinks Ang Lee's Hulk is better than the one directed by Louis Letterier

Well, that's because it's not.

 

[Lonemagpie]

So I have a bunch of friends who are major movie buffs. We all go see about 20-25 movies a year and share similar likes and dislikes. A major disconnect happened with Watchmen though. I absolutely loved the movie. Loved the direction, loved the story, loved the questions it asked.

However 3 out of the 4 friends I saw it with absolutely hated it. and I can't really explain why. One said it's too violent (so?), another said the story sucked (how can one think that?), and I got random crap from the other two.

So, did anyone else here hate (or love) the Watchmen movie? Can you explain why its so divisive, even among genre fans?

I love it - but I think part of the problem it had is that the opening credits sequence is so stunning, such a work of art, that nothing else in the movie can live up to it...

(That, and the sequence where Nite Owl and Silk Specter beat the crap out of people for fun is *totally* against the grain of everything the two characters are about in the rest of the film...)

 

[Beagleman]

Personally I love it, it's not the graphic novel and I understand the changes, I think it can stand on it's own. Not the biggest Snyder-fan but I think he got the essentials of the story... As said above it's not a superhero-movie but the deconstrution of that genre, and that, IMO is great. People are flawed, not boyscouts and if they think they're special... well than you get psychos in costumes.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

I feel your pain. I'm the only one of my friends who thinks Ang Lee's Hulk is better than the one directed by Louis Letterier

Well, that's because it's not.

Yeah, keep that smiley winkin', mister.

 

[crookeddy]

I hated it because it felt like a sequel to a movie that does not, in fact, exist. I mean, so much of what actually mattered to the story took place before the movie begins. Much of this was alluded to in dialogue, while a good deal more of this was told in flashbacks that did nothing but disrupt the narrative. Plus the action scenes were given that awful speed-up slow down look, and the finale was underwhelming.

My favorite single comment I've heard about this film was from Michael Phillips when he was talking Malin Ackerman. He says she is possibly "hollywood's wost actress." LOL

I thought that was the best part. We don't dabble in origins or backstory. We are dropped into the natural beginning of the saga the movie is about.

In fact, I've seen many people on these very boards asking for other movies to follow this formula.

 

[DonIago]

I mostly liked the movie, though I can't say it's one I go back to very frequently now. After several rewatches the slow parts do get slower.

Reading some of these comments though, while it may not have yielded optimum entertainment value I think some people may have missed the points that Snyder (or the comic, which I've never read) was trying to make.

Things like the slow-motion or the "perfect" song choices, for instance...I'm reasonably sure Snyder was -exactly- aware of what he was doing.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I hated it because it felt like a sequel to a movie that does not, in fact, exist. I mean, so much of what actually mattered to the story took place before the movie begins. Much of this was alluded to in dialogue, while a good deal more of this was told in flashbacks that did nothing but disrupt the narrative. Plus the action scenes were given that awful speed-up slow down look, and the finale was underwhelming.

My favorite single comment I've heard about this film was from Michael Phillips when he was talking Malin Ackerman. He says she is possibly "hollywood's wost actress." LOL

I thought that was the best part. We don't dabble in origins or backstory. We are dropped into the natural beginning of the saga the movie is about.

In fact, I've seen many people on these very boards asking for other movies to follow this formula.

uh, no. most of the important events happen before the film starts.

 

[crookeddy]

I hated it because it felt like a sequel to a movie that does not, in fact, exist. I mean, so much of what actually mattered to the story took place before the movie begins. Much of this was alluded to in dialogue, while a good deal more of this was told in flashbacks that did nothing but disrupt the narrative. Plus the action scenes were given that awful speed-up slow down look, and the finale was underwhelming.

My favorite single comment I've heard about this film was from Michael Phillips when he was talking Malin Ackerman. He says she is possibly "hollywood's wost actress." LOL

I thought that was the best part. We don't dabble in origins or backstory. We are dropped into the natural beginning of the saga the movie is about.

In fact, I've seen many people on these very boards asking for other movies to follow this formula.

uh, no. most of the important events happen before the film starts.

And those "best" parts aren't the story being told. The story starts with the murder of the comedian.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Yeah but if you are going to start the story at the proper narrative moment and yet tell us gobs and gobs of information afterwarsd, first about a previous team (minutemen) to backstories about every sing,e character in flashback despite the fact that people in this world would know them anyway and sine the entire story - the one that's happening NOW- is tied so intricately to all this stuff that happened before the comedian died, why why why is the comedian your starting point?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Visually the movie makers did a fine job. But they missed the boat when trying to convey the themes. These characters are not supposed to be "SUPER-HEROES", shining icons of goodness and morality. They're supposed to be kooks running around in costumes beating people up... and perceived as such by the public. Just as they would be in real life. Virtually every one of Moore's costumed characters either had some pretty strange quirks/hangups, or lived an alternative lifestyle, or was a certified wacko. Or more than one of the above.

How'd the movie "miss the boat" on that? I'm confused by who the shining icons of goodness and morality were in the film, because even the two most virtuous characters got sexually excited by beating the living shit out of people they could have easily subdued with less damage. Then you have the fascist assassin rapist, the psychopath, the genocidal megalomaniac, and the blue god who could easily put an end to the impending war but just doesn't give a shit any more because mortal affairs are trivial to him.

I always felt that Watchmen wouldn't translate effectively to the screen because you'd get one of two results: Either 1) they'd try to make it into a standard superhero movie and totally miss the point, or 2) they'd manage to convey the point and totally turn off the audience who were expecting standard superheroes.

Strangely, both things happened! Although it was more 1).

I honestly don't know how you came away with the impression that it was a standard superhero movie with mostly likable and heroic characters. I can understand not liking it, but you seem to have fundamentally misread what happened in the movie.

 

[Deckerd]

I'll be honest. I didn't understand it. We watched it with concentration from start to finish and were baffled.

 

[Pauln6]

I loved it. It was visually striking, the casting was great, and it told a good story. I agree that some of the violence was unnecessarily brutal especially when you consider that they edited out Silk Spectre's chain smoking - a wierd double standard especially as the smoking was her vice that was meant to illustrate her as a more damaged character rather than anything positive.

I loathe smoking in movies with a passion and applaud efforts to reduce it in movies (LA Confidential proved that film noir without a haze of cigarette smoke can still be cool) but not where it is a significant trait of the character.

I do agree that the movie was quite slow so I can see why action junkies might not like it. Overall, it was a far more creditable adaptation than the shambolic League of Extraordinary Gentlemen where they added powers, special effects, and huge explosions to a tale of Victorian adventure wtf?

 

[CaptJimboJones]

Yeah but if you are going to start the story at the proper narrative moment and yet tell us gobs and gobs of information afterwarsd, first about a previous team (minutemen) to backstories about every sing,e character in flashback despite the fact that people in this world would know them anyway and sine the entire story - the one that's happening NOW- is tied so intricately to all this stuff that happened before the comedian died, why why why is the comedian your starting point?

That's a fairly common narrative structure used to engage the audience from the outset of the story. The murder is the key event that grabs the audience, and then they're slowly given the relevant background information as the plot advances. Many, many novels/films etc have used it over the years.

Stories don't always have to be told chronologically. I thought the structure worked quite well for the Watchmen story, both in the novel and the film.