Watchmen movie.

[arnisador]

We went to see this at the IMAX yesterday. (It wasn't filmed in IMAX.) I have read the graphic novel only once and I was very pleased with the movie! It looked great and didn't feel at all drawn out despite its considerable length. The change made to the ending didn't bother me at all--it was consistent with the overall theme of the book.

The philosophical issues and depth were still there. It'll surely bear a second viewing (and my son will be doing that today).

The fight scenes were good but not spectacular.

Definitely recommended for those who like comic books and comic book movies!

 

[exile]

I really like the graphic novel—glad to hear that the movie isn't a letdown!

 

[stickarts]

Thanks for the review! I look forward to seeing it!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

My wife got me interested in the Watchmen, she has the graphic novel. I'm looking forward to it as well. I've always enjoyed the "Rorschach" character.

 

[Randy Strausbaugh]

Hmm, got to disagree on this. I love comics and enjoy a well-done comic adaptation, but I found the plot of this movie a little tired. I deliberately did not read the graphic novel in order that I might give the movie a fair shake on its own merits, so I don't know how the two compare, but Alan Moore was quoted in Wizard as calling the movie "that f---ing thing", and said he will not watch it. Granted that means that he doesn't know how well or poorly it turned out, but obviously there were problems if the creator is so set against it.

The fight scenes were good but not spectacular.

Here we agree, they seemed to be inspired or influenced by the scenes from "The One" and "Serenity". Problem is, there wasn't enough of them for my taste.

One thing there was too much of (IMHO) was the shots of the blue guy's penis. Added nothing to the story and seemed vastly inappropriate. It was as though someone said "Hey, lets shoot as many scenes of Dr. Manhatten's junk as we can, for no good reason".

The special effects were OK, but nothing spectacular. I've seen blue lightning and floating CGI thingies before.

The guy who played Nite Owl II looked too much like Chevy Chase for me to take him seriously.

They killed off the character I liked most (although they did wait until the end of the film). His voice sounded like Christian Bale dubbed it using his "scary Batman" voice.

The opening several minutes seemed to be rushed and jumbled to me. Characters introduced and then disposed of without getting to know about them.

Again, I don't know how closely the movie followed the comic, but I really thought it was two hours and forty-five minutes I can never get back.

What I did like?
A) The girl was hot.
B) When Night Owl went through the Pyramid files, there was one titled "The Boys". Sounds like they're teasing a movie with Billy Butcher and crew.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Hmm, got to disagree on this. I love comics and enjoy a well-done comic adaptation, but I found the plot of this movie a little tired. I deliberately did not read the graphic novel in order that I might give the movie a fair shake on its own merits, so I don't know how the two compare, but Alan Moore was quoted in Wizard as calling the movie "that f---ing thing", and said he will not watch it. Granted that means that he doesn't know how well or poorly it turned out, but obviously there were problems if the creator is so set against it.

You have to know Alan Moore. He hates everything. Seriously. Brilliant guy, love his work, but a serious whack job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Moore

They killed off the character I liked most (although they did wait until the end of the film). His voice sounded like Christian Bale dubbed it using his "scary Batman" voice.

True to the graphic novel. One of the reasons the studios fought over this for so long is that there is no chance for a sequel.

The opening several minutes seemed to be rushed and jumbled to me. Characters introduced and then disposed of without getting to know about them.

I think it really is aimed at those who read the graphic novel. Others need not apply. They should have made that clear, IMHO.

 

[arnisador]

Alan Moore was quoted in Wizard as calling the movie "that f---ing thing", and said he will not watch it. Granted that means that he doesn't know how well or poorly it turned out, but obviously there were problems if the creator is so set against it.

I think it's a bit more complicated here--he was very disappointed in other adaptions of his work and was philosophically opposed to making a movie out of Watchmen. He's making a statement about art in general.

One thing there was too much of (IMHO) was the shots of the blue guy's penis. Added nothing to the story and seemed vastly inappropriate.

I think this is one of several areas where fidelity to the graphic novel--which had this--may have trumped best judgment for a movie. As Alan Moore has said, they are different media!

Characters introduced and then disposed of without getting to know about them.

Yup. Again, possibly too much reverence for the source material and its fans' expectations here. It followed the story very closely (excepting some details about the conspiracy) and included very many details from it.

Well, having read the graphic novel it was a very good experience for me, but my son and I both wondered how it would play for a person receptive to superhero movies but not familiar with this particular one. Now we know! But hey, Roger Ebert gave it four stars...

 

[zDom]

I enjoyed it.

I've never read nor heard of the Watchmen before. The story was a BIT confusing at first, but it all started to make sense eventually. Makes me want to go find out more about, maybe even read, the graphic novel.

I found it significantly "deeper" than other superhero movies.

Definately some great lines in there (mostly by Rorschach). I guess there's no possibility of a sequel with Rorschach (without a ridiculous plot contrivance) but would LOVE to see a prequel on this character.

ANY dangling blue penis would have been too much for me, but my GF was delighted that they had something in there "for the girls."

I would have liked to see it balanced with more views of Laurie Jupiter's "assets"

I agree that Malin Akerman (Laurie Jupiter / Silk Spectre II) looked GREAT as a brunette superhero — very hot. (not so much as herself, blonde ... )

Not a movie For The Kids: was MUCH much more graphic than I expected it to be in several different ways.

But I liked it. Probably will watch it again either on the Big Screen or when released to DVD.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Haven't seen it yet; have read the book several times in prep., will absolutely post my review when I do.

 

[Omar B]

I saw it on Friday with all my buds and 3 people who had never read the book. As fans of the book we all thought visually it looked cool but it lost all it's balls in the translation to screen. Firstly the "Black Freighter" story from the comic is not present (but will be there in the ultimate edition) but it serves as a window into Adrian's mind, a good man driven to do terrible things for what he sees as right and then does not realize he's suddenly become a monster. A lot of Adrian is left out or glossed over, worlds great philanthropist, hero to all, shining beacon to greatness and see how compromise leads to his fall.

There's so much left out like at the end Adrian asks Manhattan if he did the right thing after he saw the literal translation of what he's done (Rorschach's death).

The relationship between both Silk Specters are hackneyed at best. Mother should be jealous of her daughter's youth and angry that she's wasting her youth not being a hero.

The relationship between both Night Owls is glossed over too. We see them both having a beer together in the beginning but his murder at the hand of hero hating thugs is not even mentioned.

All in all, it's a pretty movie but like Snyder's other work goes for the action and leaves out the character stuff out. Hell, my bud said it was the "Cliff's Notes" version of Watchmen. Rushing from action scene to action scene. Remember, there is only one true act of heroism in the book, NO and SS rescuing the people from the burning building. It's a story of them as people not a way to see heros do cool stuff.

Hell, the entire Mars sequence if presented like in the book would have shed so much light on Manhattan's condition, a god, life is unconditional so he holds no values like any other omnipotent being. While he tries to understand why ants value life so much "A living organism and a dead one has the same number of atoms, I see no difference Sally."

 

[zDom]

Whoops: forgot to add,

I LIKED the action scenes as I actually got to see a decent amount of martial art technique sequences ... something that I have been deprived of lately in movies (with directors prefering to pan in too close with a hand held camera and bad lighting to "make us feel like we're there.")

 

[DavidCC]

I read the book 20 years ago. I liked the movie. I like introducing characters, hinting at some depth, and then discarding them. THis builds an illusion of depth - each character is the star of their own narrative, one we only get a glimpse of.

I like the way they changed the ending. I think it is more relevant to modern ideas.

too much blue penis for me. The wife didn't seem to mind, and I'm all for anything that gets her thinking about "that certain part of the male anatomy" LOL But I didn't really need it shoved in my face over and over like that.

(wow that sounds so super gay)


But I think it makes a point about Dr. Manhattan's perspective. In flashbacks, he is wearing a loin-cloth, but in "current" shots he is not. This demonstrates his growing detachment from the human perspective, coming to disregard social proprieties etc.

I would have ended the movie in Antarctica.

 

[Omar B]

Wow you guys must be a bunch of prudes. You do know he was naked in the book too right? What's the deal, we are all grown ups.