WATCHMEN - Movie Discussion and Grading (SPOILERS)

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Either that, or people just give grades like "above average" (B) based on whether they enjoyed a movie more than usual. There is no rigor - academic or otherwise - to rating these things.

I'll note that after the quoted paragraph Daneel went on to say some much more positive things.

Patrick Wilson really brought Dan Dreiburg to life quite effectively: I completely bought him as the impotent and subtly frustrated man who needs to don a costume and engage in heroics to get excited again about life.

I agree, and Wilson is playing sort of the "unsung hero" character here - Dreiberg is what passes for a normal human being amongst this group of costumed sociopaths, and Wilson inhabits that space right in the middle of a triangle whose angles are Manhattan, Rorshach and Veidt.

 

[Stevil2001]

My how the rating system has fallen ... unless an A now just means "didn't suck" instead of "highest in excellence". But I'm not surprised. Even mediocre concerts, artists and events get standing ovations these days as a regular practice.

Yes, Ted, we all know everything was better back in the day. Should I get off your lawn?

 

[TGTheodore]

My how the rating system has fallen ... unless an A now just means "didn't suck" instead of "highest in excellence". But I'm not surprised. Even mediocre concerts, artists and events get standing ovations these days as a regular practice.

Yes, Ted, we all know everything was better back in the day. Should I get off your lawn?

And pick up after your dog, too!

It's a cat?

Damn glasses ... grumble, grumble ...

--Ted

 

[Captain Craig]

I don't think Hollis specializing in the repair of obsolete cars is meaningless if you remove the original context - just a somewhat different meaning.

It did for me.
Until I read the commentary here about the electric cars I did have a different, and equally valid imo, meaning of that sign.

Hollis himself is old and obsolete while the newer and younger take over(ie Nite Owl). The cars are just the symbolic stand in, that was how I viewed it and it worked for me.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I saw it today it was a good movie, and Damn they we're kidding when they said it was rated R with all that blood in it!

 

[Skywalker]

Unfilmable, my ass. That was great.

I really wasn't expecting the film to be as faithful as it was, because I, too, thought that there was just too much story to pack into a film and keep it at a somewhat manageable length. Two hours and forty-five minutes is still pretty darn long, but while it seemed to have dragged for a lot of folks, the movie actually moved along at a pretty good pace for me. Maybe it's because I'd just finished re-reading the comic last night, so everything was still fresh in my mind.

The acting was generally very good to excellent. Haley was, of course, the standout, but I also really enjoyed Patrick Wilson's portrayal of Dan Dreiberg. I thought Dan was kind of lame in the comic, but Wilson did a great job of bringing him to life and making me care more about the character than I had previously. I thought Malin Akerman did fine; Laurie isn't exactly the most complex character, anyway, and her storyline was trimmed down some, so she didn't have a lot to work with. Billy Crudup's Doctor Manhattan was...interesting. But then, the character himself is pretty difficult to grasp. My only criticism is his voice seemed a little too soft, to me, but that's not really a complaint. And Jeffrey Dean Morgan was fantastic as the Comedian, as many of you have already said. I hated that guy in the comic, but I actually found myself caring a bit more about him in the movie. Maybe it's because I actually saw and heard him crying and actually acting like a human being for a moment, instead of just reading it in a text bubble.

Matthew Goode was the one casting choice I was really iffy about. When the cast was first announced, I thought he looked completely wrong for the character. But I actually thought he did a pretty decent job in the movie. I didn't really get a sinister vibe off of him immediately, like a lot of you seem to have. He still doesn't really look right for the part, but at least he managed to portray it fairly well.

And the ending. It was definitely different, but I think I agree with others in thinking that it was well done and, dare I say it, an improvement over the comic's ending. I remember when I was reading Watchmen for the very first time a few years ago, I had a complete "WTF?" moment when the giant alien squid was revealed. Making Dr. Manhattan the cause of the destruction, and making it a truly global event, keeps the story's focus squarely on the main characters and the driving conflict--that being the imminent destruction of the human race. Kudos to whoever came up with that idea, because I think the squid would have only garnered laughs in the theater.

It wasn't perfect, but it was far better than I ever could have imagined it would be. A-

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I had a complete "WTF?" moment when the giant alien squid was revealed. Making Dr. Manhattan the cause of the destruction, and making it a truly global event, keeps the story's focus squarely on the main characters and the driving conflict--that being the imminent destruction of the human race.

Arguably, if the Soviets are a few degrees more cynical than the average "Outer Limits" viewer, the time immediately following the destruction of New York City by an unexplained event like the Squid would be a really, really good time to launch your missiles - if you'd been planning to do that before the attack, that is. After all, if Dr. Manhattan ain't gonna lift a finger to stop the Squid why should he bother about a nuclear launch?

 

[Skywalker]

I agree. I think that if such an event had happened in the real 1985, the Soviets would have tried to take advantage of the situation immediately. Kick them while they're down, so to speak.

Of course, if that had happened, I probably would have been screwed. I was living on a U.S. Air Force base in southern Italy in November 1985.

 

[DarthPipes]

And Jeffrey Dean Morgan was fantastic as the Comedian, as many of you have already said. I hated that guy in the comic, but I actually found myself caring a bit more about him in the movie. Maybe it's because I actually saw and heard him crying and actually acting like a human being for a moment, instead of just reading it in a text bubble.

He pulled off that crying scene well. A lot of actors don't do crying good as all. His most effective scene was when Blake says to Sally "What's wrong with a guy talking to his...good friend's daughter." He actually pulled that off with genuine emotion. It was effective moment for such an unsympathetic character.

 

[Gojirob]

IIRC, they believed this thing to be a kind of extradimensional 'bee' that bled through into our world. Perhaps the Soviets (led by Gorbachev, who was at least more pragmatic than some) feared a full on strike would cause more such bleeds. It had the effect Ozy wanted; people were literally so fearful that they felt forced to cooperate and figure this thing out and prevent against another such incursion. Besides, Nixon and Gorbachev were door-openers in our world, so it works that they could be the ones to set things aside, although this Nixon seems to have murdered JFK, Woodward and Bernstein (the novel implies what the movie opener said flat-out), so he may have been even more corrupt domestically. Odds are, the Soviet economy was even more overburdened by military expenditures in that universe, so anything that called it off was likely welcomed by Gorbachev, presuming he was more or less the same person.

 

[Dream]

A-

I loved the movie. The entire main cast did a good job playing the characters. Standouts were Rorschach, Doctor Manhattan and The Comedian. Jackie Earle Haley was perfect as Rorschach and I had absolutely no complaints. I think the coolest visual effect in the movie was Rorshach's mask. Doctor Manhattan managed to be god like without being too far out. Also the actor that was the Comedian played the part of bastard really well but you also felt sorry for him. Malin Akerman was a hottie as Silk Spectre II. The film looked very slick and the fights exciting.

The plot made perfect sense to me. Highlights include the opening scenes, Rorschach vs SWAT team, and Doctor Manhattan on Mars. I don't mind the changed ending.

It's always cool seeing all the characters from a book/comic you are a fan of brought to life onscreen in a movie. I will probably see the movie once more before it leaves theaters. Looking forward to the dvd.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Making Dr. Manhattan the cause of the destruction, and making it a truly global event, keeps the story's focus squarely on the main characters and the driving conflict--that being the imminent destruction of the human race.

The irony is that while that change put a greater emphasis on Dr. Manhattan, the movie kinda skimmed over the fact that Dr. Manhattan's clear American allegiances were what created such a power imbalance between the U.S. & the USSR in the first place in that universe. That's part of why I think the Dr. Manhattan plan would be more effective than the giant squid plan. Because Dr. Manhattan was the cause of the problems in the first place, it makes sense that he would be such an integral part of the solution. (That's also part of what makes Ozymandias such a bastard. His goal was to prevent nuclear war, yet it was a war that he triggered by manipulating Dr. Manhattan into leaving Earth.) However, since the movie kinda glosses over just how important Dr. Manhattan was in exacerbating Cold War tensions, some of the solution's symmetry is lost. My friends who hadn't read the book ended up putting too much emphasis onto Nixon's continued presidency. (Of course, Nixon is an easy target. Personally, I'd be much more afraid to see how a 3rd term Jimmy Carter would deal with this crisis.)

BTW, while I do recall the book had subtle hints that Nixon had the Comedian murder Woodward & Bernstein, I don't recall any about JFK in the book. Am I missing something?

His most effective scene was when Blake says to Sally "What's wrong with a guy talking to his...good friend's daughter." He actually pulled that off with genuine emotion. It was effective moment for such an unsympathetic character.

It's a good moment. But it's one that suffers a bit in the translation to film. On film, the scene loses its ambiguity. In the book, you kinda gloss over the "..." until later on when all the pieces suddenly come together. I felt that the movie gave it away far too early that the Comedian was Laurie's father.

IIRC, they believed this thing to be a kind of extradimensional 'bee' that bled through into our world.

Which kinda seemed to negate the ongoing threat of the "aliens." I'd think that humanity would more likely be united against an intelligent alien invasion rather than a telepathically fatal E.T.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

It's always cool seeing all the characters from a book/comic you are a fan of brought to life onscreen in a movie.

I agree. However, I don't think that most of these actors REALLY pulled it off. Rorschach was great, exactly as I imagined him. The others? Meh.
Nite Owl II was properly pathetic. It's authentic to the comic but kinda annoying to watch.
Silk Spectre II was decent but nothing special.
The Comedian was very good but not quite as rough & gregarious as he was in my mind.
Dr. Manhattan was excellent, although I would have added more reverb to his voice or something.
Ozymandias was just wrong. I can't quite put my finger on it. He just didn't command the kind of clean-cut, all-American charisma that I felt the character should have. (But then, that kind of combination is very difficult to achieve. Look at how hard it is to find a decent actor to play Superman. Come to think of it, I think a bleached blonde Brandon Routh might have been a better choice.)

 

[Turtletrekker]

My friends who hadn't read the book ended up putting too much emphasis onto Nixon's continued presidency. (Of course, Nixon is an easy target. Personally, I'd be much more afraid to see how a 3rd term Jimmy Carter would deal with this crisis.)

If the studio had their way and the movie had been set in modern times instead of '85 (Doc Manhatten would have stopped 9/11 instead of winning Vietnam), it might have been the third term of George W. Bush instead! A far, far scarier prospect, IMHO.

 

[Praetor]

My friends who hadn't read the book ended up putting too much emphasis onto Nixon's continued presidency. (Of course, Nixon is an easy target. Personally, I'd be much more afraid to see how a 3rd term Jimmy Carter would deal with this crisis.)

If the studio had their way and the movie had been set in modern times instead of '85 (Doc Manhatten would have stopped 9/11 instead of winning Vietnam), it might have been the third term of George W. Bush instead! A far, far scarier prospect, IMHO.

True indeed to both, on so many levels.

 

[Daneel]

I'll note that after the quoted paragraph Daneel went on to say some much more positive things.

Well, yes... I thought there was much more to admire in the film than to criticize.

I'd like to point out, though, that the paragraph Ted quoted was from ManOnTheWave's review, not mine.

 

[Capt. Vulcan]

God Magnus' journal, March 10, 2009...

Saw "Watchmen" movie opening day. Couldn't get IMAX ticket due to friends being too slow in responding to email invite. Settled for regular showing instead. Still good.

Enjoyed movie. Thought adaptation was best yet for any of Alan Moore's work. Ending worked for me, and scenes taken right out of comic panels were visually striking. Sex scene too long and made audience laugh.

Jackie Earle Haley nailed Rorschach role, but Malin Akerman was a little weak in acting despite rocking body. Was very impressed by Jeffrey Dean Morgan. Enjoyed seeing Matt Frewer and Garry Chalk on big screen too. Happy for them getting work.

May have missed some details. Will have to investigate further in IMAX.

::unwraps sugar cubes::

*Ronch*
*Ronch*
*Ronch*

A-

*schlorp*

Hurm, for some reason I always thought he was eating bullion cubes.

 

[Gojirob]

IIRC, they believed this thing to be a kind of extradimensional 'bee' that bled through into our world.

Which kinda seemed to negate the ongoing threat of the "aliens." I'd think that humanity would more likely be united against an intelligent alien invasion rather than a telepathically fatal E.T.[/quote]

Except that a full-on invasion would require much more staging, and any holes in that story might have been spotted out much more easily. The 'bee-squid' is something that 'just happened', and if it happened once... The subliminal nightmares Ozy unleashed plus the seeming randomness of it all would have sparked people's imaginations. Plus, he seemed to be gambling that, just as generations of war and proxy fighting had cranked things up, so would generations of peace (Rorschach's journal would not be believed overnight, if ever) cause people to not want the old madness anymore. Russian fatalism may have come into play, as well as belief in psychic powers that the State did not supress, and may have acted as a surrogate for religion.

 

[USS Mariner]

B-

First, I was surprised at how good this actually was, as both an adaptation and as a film. The new ending worked well, and my fears about the "evil oil" subplot being a pile of shit were unwarranted, for the most part. The cinematography, in several spots, was brilliant, and I noticed many cute visual and aural nods to both the fans and to the general public. Many changes to the plot were actually well done, both to make up for the cut elements and as abridgments for the background "inserts." Except for three of the cast members, the acting was pretty good across the board, with kudos to Rorschach, The Comedian, and most especially Dreiberg. In short, Watchmen is watchable.

Despite this, there are many, many problems with the film, ranging from minor nitpicks to huge gaping holes in plot construction and film cohesion. Even this early, I can say that this would have earned a C if I had not already read the novel. This isn't because of material being omitted, but because many parts of the story draw from the missing material on both thematic and literal levels. A lot of work was done to fix this, but it seems to be focused around specific scenes. Almost all of the events in Watchmen draw from each other in one respect or another, and I just don't think the writing staff took a hard enough look at the plot as a whole.

One small example of this (for the sake of time) would be Bubastis, whose appearance was linked directly to Veidt's original plan. However, because that was changed, her appearance is now jarring and out-of-left-field. A regular Siberian tiger would have been more appropriate, and it probably would have been easier to simply write her out, now that she no longer serves her primary thematic purpose (as evidence of Ozymandias' capabilities.)

While the cinematography was excellent most of the time, except for Rorschach's fight with the police, all of the fight scenes came of as ridiculous. I understand that no film portrays hand to hand combat with perfect realism, but I can't understand why every single fight was not only in slow-motion, but overdone, and almost laughable in terms of bodily and environmental damage. It's hard to take Rorschach as such a monster when you have Laurie and Dan murdering an entire street gang, and to a lesser extent, when it appears that Eddie is picking off protesters at point blank range during the NYC riots (which may be unintentional, due to the angles involved and the fact that he may be using rubber bullets, but it isn't entirely clear what he's shooting with.)

There is a litany of things I could point out, not just errors like the one's I've mentioned, but many of the brilliant things that the film did do. However, I'd rather devote a separate topic for that. Be on the lookout.

All in all, it's a decent film, but I don't think Snyder's approach was as effective as it could have been. I really think another rewrite would have made a world of difference, and I may end up seeing it again.

 

[ATimson]

One small example of this (for the sake of time) would be Bubastis, whose appearance was linked directly to Veidt's original plan. However, because that was changed, her appearance is now jarring and out-of-left-field.

Really? As someone who never read the book, I thought her presence was perfectly fitting with Veidt's Egyptian trappings. (Is there an adjective form of "pharaoh" that I, my spell checker, and m-w.com aren't aware of? )

It's hard to take Rorschach as such a monster when you have Laurie and Dan murdering an entire street gang, and to a lesser extent, when it appears that Eddie is picking off protesters at point blank range during the NYC riots (which may be unintentional, due to the angles involved and the fact that he may be using rubber bullets, but it isn't entirely clear what he's shooting with.)

Laurie and Dan were at least acting in self-defense. You could even say that about most of Rorschach's actions in the prisons. But while axing the child molester in the head may have been well-deserved, it was still a rather brutal murder.

As for Eddie, I thought he was just as much of a monster as Rorschach. The difference was that one took glee in his sadistic actions, while the other simply saw them as necessary. Rorschach's ruthless logic is much scarier than a flamethrower-wielding psychopath--Rorschach is, to borrow a phrase, dangerously sane.