The Videogum Movie Club: Watchmen
Let's all go to the movies, and let's all see the same movie, and let's discuss it here.
Who woofs the Woofmen?
Woof. Perhaps the biggest problem with Watchmen* was how flat-out boring it was. On that particular note, A.O. Scott already got the best zing in with his review in the New York Times on Friday:
Dr. Manhattan's existence is busy and fairly melancholy, but I do envy him his ability to perceive every moment of past and future time as a part of a continuous present. If I had that power, the 2 hours 40 minutes of Zack Snyder's grim and grisly excursion into comic-book mythology might not have felt quite so interminable.
"Give me back my zing!" -- Zingschach.
But boredom is just one problem, of which this movie has a million. Let's talk about some of them:
*Unless otherwise indicated, any proposed problems with Watchmen are problems with the movie alone and not at all with the book on which the movie is based. The book is great.
Things start off badly with the opening credits (sorry, Anthony Lane). Sure, they give newcomers a well-paced history of the Watchmen's origins, but the whole thing is so Forrest Gump-y as to be laughable. Oh, look, Mister Manhattan shaking hands with JFK! I recognize that the (again, great) source material presents this story in an alternate-universe where these characters interact with a cast of real-life historical figures, but that doesn't make it not silly when you CGI them in and overdub it with Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'."
The movie is visually beautiful. I think we will all agree on that. Every frame is really well designed. It looks really expensive. Especially Dr. Manhattan's carefully CGI-ed dick, which gently waved in some non-existent breeze.
But lush, willow-tree-dick-filled visuals will only get you so far. They have to work in support of something else.
For example, good acting. Of which there is none in this movie. Well, Jackie Earle Haley was actually pretty good as a mask-less Rorschach. The thing is, I'm not saying anyone in this movie is a bad actor. It was one of those rare instances when you can tell that the fault for terrible performances falls squarely on the shoulders of the director. You get the sense that "visionary" directory Zak Snyder has never met an actual human being before, but that he's read a lot about them in 20-year-old comic books.
Smarter people than I have talked about the film's over-reliance on the source material; how creating an alternate 1985 when even a look at the actual 1985 would hold little relevance or meaning to a contemporary audience. It's true that the Cold War now seems somehow quaint, and/or at the very least, resolved. For a world facing actual conflicts up down all over the place, an elaborate evil villain superhero scheme to resolve tensions between the United States and Russia is an echoless throwback. Nothing tracks.**
But even in simpler terms, the film drops the ball on the book's remaining salience with its weird insistence on graphic violence. Where the book dealt anxiously with the conflicted morality of violence and the human tendency towards self-destruction, the movie unapologetically basks in it, Eli Roth style. Heads are cleaved in. The walls run slick with blood. At one point, Rorschach is in prison, and he attacks a fellow inmate by throwing a vat of boiling oil in his face. The camera lingered on a gratuitous shot of a man screaming as his eyes bubbled in his head, and the audience, at least the audience where I saw the movie, cheered. Perfect.
Perhaps the problem with adapting comic books (or graphic novels) for the screen, especially when you do such a fastidious job of using the original source material, is that there's often a translation-feedback-loop. Comic books are a cinematic medium, and often take their visual cues from movies, but they're not movies. And when you turn them into movies, the effect is like using BabelFish to translate English into Portuguese and then back into English.
But BabelFish loops aside, even as an action movie, Watchmen fails. There are no major set pieces, the fight scenes that do occur are turgid and silly, like they were choreographed by 14-year-olds in someone's backyard.
And yes, that bad-ideas-jeans sex scene.
Obviously, not everyone agrees with me. Roger Ebert liked it so much he plans on seeing it a second time. And of course Sexman:
Your turn.
**ADDENDUM: This is not a suggestion that the movie should have been a modern update, with Ozymandias faking an Al-Qaeda attack or some Team America nonsense. An updating of the material would not only offend fanboys, it would sap the original text of its actual meaning and render the movie a parody of the book. THE POINT here is that the lack of energy in this political moment provides yet another reason why this movie never needed to be made in the first place. Superheroes are parables, and parables need to be relevant to the life we currently live to have any meaning.
Posted by Gabe at 11:45 AM in The Videogum Movie Club
Tags: Alan Moore | Watchmen | Zak Snyder
The graphic novel was great...but it was hard to overcome the acting of Mae West (Gugino), Cameron Diaz (Akerman), Clint Eastwood (i loved him but still, Haley), and the rest of the bland bunch while not being distracted by the musical cues: "All Along the Watchtower" at the climax and My Chemical Romance at the credits roll? Ugh.
Score = 2
the times they are a changin during a turbulent historical montage? ugh
the sounds of silence during a funeral in the rain? ugh
hallelujah during a sex scene in some type of helicopter? what?
Score = 6
those songs were referenced in the comic... well, except hallelujah
Score = 9
RIGHT?!
i laughed through those parts.
i couldnt believe how cheesy it was.
Score = 1
oops, i liked it. I guess I was wrong.
It seems like you have problems with it not being subtle enough. But I thought some of the un-subtlenss actually served the movie well. It was about big exaggerated action with fancy costumes and explosions and iconic music. It made it visually stunning- like you said. And then the great story and speech from the book was able to seep in- so overall... enjoyable movie.
Score = 14
Apparently, we (all movie-goers) have learned nothing from Dick Tracy and Batman & Robin in that fancy costumes & sets taking a front seat over acting equals crap. The message was there, but the gaudy visuals belied Moore's ability to tell the story he told and put an emphasis on EXACTLY the parts that he was trying to deconstruct - the idea that superheroes can't be intricate or human.
Snyder thought that verbatim lines and indicating not acting was going to convey the message and it did, but in a manner that was without style, class (yay porn & ass-kickin'!) or reverence to the true spirit of the piece. Send him back to movie adaptation 101.
Score = -1
I could totally buy this argument if the lack of subtlety didn't poop all over the brilliant source material. The comic dealt with complex political and moral issues, which the movie simplified to the point of parody. The lack of cinematic subtlety could be forgiven, but I can't forgive the lack of thematic subtlety.
Score = 7
Agreed. Snyder cut out what to me seemed like pivotal thematic scenes (Hollis Mason's death!) that really captured the desperation of the time in the novel but left in the atrocious and exceedingly long sex scene and added more violence (the prison beat down). He did a good job recreating visuals, but narrative subtlety and echoing a theme across the entirety of the work are not Snyder's strong points.
I didn't hate the movie, but this kind of stuff bothered me.
Score = 1
the overall trigger happy violence ruined it for me... it messed with the characters intent from the original story (they didnt fight anyone in prison)... everything was completely Hollywoodizizizied. But, duh, I knew that going in. So i didn't hate the movie, for the fact there was some of my favorite book scenes done with the same spirit as the book- that was great... but hell, that really wasn't the Watchmen with that ending... its movies riiiiight.
Score = 2
I agree about the violence. I get grossed out really easily and I really wasn't expecting a bloodbath.
Plus, I found the book boring (sorry) and the movie was more boring than the book so I was either grossed out or bored to tears the entire time.
Score = -3
*SPOILER*
let's just jump straight ahead to the "ruin-it-so-bad-that-you'll-never-need-to-see-the-movie" type spoiler:
the ending SUCKED. the book's central question of "is it ever acceptable to use calamity and tragedy to accomplish the goals of peace and beauty?" was completely lost. snyder turned ozymandias into a completely flat and generic comic book baddie - an evil genius in a rubber suit. worst.
and what's the idea with having the nite owl and silk spectre still in action as vigilantes? THE POINT OF BLOWING UP NEW YORK WAS THAT IT ACTUALLY MADE THE WORLD *BETTER*? get it??? vigilantism is no longer necessary. points deducted for snyder making it look like he's trying to set up for sequel.
points also deducted for being seven hours long.
Score = 6
I think that Snyder did an okay job of keeping the theme, it would've turned non-readers off even more if the ending was intact, but it was somewhat frustrating. All in all I thought it sucked, it dragged, the music was cringe-worthy and so was almost every scene with Dan and Sally Jupiter. Also I thought I heard something about a sequel?(yech) so maybe that is what the two stay as vigilantes
Score = 2
What? Do you think that means there's not going to be any more bad guys? It means the US and Russia are not going to blow each other to shit. Not that every purse snatcher is going to find Cheesus then get a job at Mcarnolds. Fail
Score = 2
You're a filthy hater, Gabe. Zac Snyder really succeeded here. How could they have made this movie and not used the Cold War? Fanboys would have killed Snyder's dog for that. While I liked the movie, I will call out the horrible use of the Jimi Hendricks song. Wow, that was terrible.
And please, allow me to attack the source material, as I have nothing to lose. The whole idea that nuking/throwing a huge squid on New York will solve any world problems is the dumbest idea ever. It's been a while since I read the book, so I can't recall if they try to blame the squid on Dr. Manhattan the way they did the nuclear blast, but it wouldn't help anything if they did. For years America has used an 800-foot-tall blue guy to kill anyone against America, but then the world is supposed to weep when he kills Americans? And why are countries not involved supposed to end their feuds for one attack? Did Israel declare peace with Palestine after 9-11? No. So the whole plan was really flawed, but the movie, i still say, was good.
Jackie Earle Haley should have totally played Wolverine, too.
Score = -5
The best part of the sexman video is when he goes on his 3 second rant about people leaving "retarded" comments on his pages how his hands are not stars
Score = 2
YOUR hands are not stars!
Score = 1
I enjoyed it. The little changes bothered me less than I thought they would. Same with Zack Snyder's directing style.
The movie itself gets a solid 8/10. The performances (The good ones, at least) get a 10/10, because fuck you they were awesome.
And as a whole the movie gets a special, one-of-a-kind achievement award for being the best Watchmen will ever be outside of the comic book.
Score = 5
Disagree. I can't really imagine the movie being more faithful to the source material. The acting was fine. 1985 was too long ago to be relevant? Really? I suppose it could've been updated for a "modern" audience. But who are we kidding? That would be horrifying. The entire comic hinged on a Cold War sense of dread about mutually assured destruction. What in the modern world compares? Al Qaeda? Citibank? North Korea?
If there's any problems, the film probably tried too hard to cram in every action scene from the comic. And without the more detailed history and perspectives of minor characters (like Rorschach's psychiatrist's case study and excepts from Nite Owl's book and other publication, missing writers/artists/scientists subplot) given in the Graphic Novel some of the soul was lost in translation.
On the other hand, someone put almost all of Watchmen in a movie! If you liked the book watch this movie, because it's basically the same. I can only imagine the fanboy shitstorm if Snyder rewrote the whole thing.
My only complaints would be that some of the music choices were poor, Veidt was not well cast, some of the Comedian's history was too blatant(especially the JFK thing).
Score = 6
This review will be like the movie in that it will attempt to perfectly duplicate my mixed feelings:
I hate to be one of those "I read the book FIRST" people, but I did, and that has to come into play for my feelings. I enjoyed seeing the characters "come to life" (ugh) and I felt that they were all very close to how I interpreted them when I read the novel. Jackie Earle Haley was an outstanding Rorschach in his gritty touch portrayal, and Billy Crudup's soft emotionless voice really fit Manhattan's voice. It was fun to see how closely the film matched frames and how closely the plot developed with the novel.
However, the violence definitely needed to be toned down. For example, when Rorschach butchers the kidnappers head. In the novel, he simply burns him alive. Why change that? It's just as effective and in many ways MORE gruesome and painful than a cleaver in the frontal cortex, if that's a thing. And why do we need to see a man get his arms buzz-sawed off with so much screaming and Tarantino blood-splosions? It was a little much. But not as much as Manhattan's big blue dong, which was big, and blue.
Despite those shortcomings, I felt that the theme of the savage nature of man translated fairly well. The people I saw it with that hadn't read the novel felt that it was pretty clear.
But as one of my friends who had not read it said: "I felt like I was watching The Dark Knight and then it turned into Fantastic Four at some points." So it was dark and realistic, but then it got campy sometimes.
I also felt that the they missed out on the shock you feel when you learn that Ozymandias perpetrates the entire scheme since his character is doesn't receive much attention. He just doesn't come off as a genius or as the incredible athlete that he's supposed to be. I had to explain to people that he's supposed to be the perfect man: super-genius, and close to having superpowers without having them. Their response; "Ohh ok. That makes more sense."
As for the ending...disappointing. They really did miss the point.
This will sound weird, but when I turn my brain off and just watch it, I still actually enjoyed it. Sorry that I'm so conflicted. I just needed to get this off my chest.
Score = 9
The characters in the movie all seemed to RELISH killing. Night Owl and Silk Specter were interesting because they DIDN'T. Also Ro-Ro was a pyschotic loon in the book, but a likeable anti-hero in the movie. They should have kept in his fascist/homophobic rants to make him a little less simple.
Score = 0
Disagree. I can't really imagine the movie being more faithful to the source material. The acting was fine. 1985 was too long ago to be relevant? Really? I suppose it could've been updated for a "modern" audience. But who are we kidding? That would be horrifying. The entire comic hinged on a Cold War sense of dread about mutually assured destruction. What in the modern world compares? Al Qaeda? Citibank? North Korea?
If there's any problems, the film probably tried too hard to cram in every action scene from the comic. And without the more detailed history and perspectives of minor characters (like Rorschach's psychiatrist's case study and excepts from Nite Owl's book and other publication, missing writers/artists/scientists subplot) given in the Graphic Novel some of the soul was lost in translation.
On the other hand, someone put almost all of Watchmen in a movie! If you liked the book watch this movie, because it's basically the same. I can only imagine the fanboy shitstorm if Snyder rewrote the whole thing.
My only complaints would be that some of the music choices were poor, Veidt was not well cast, some of the Comedian's history was too blatant(especially the JFK thing).
Score = -2
I've never been a graphic novel reader, but seeing this made me want to read it. The concept was great, but everything else was pretty terrible. Snyder managed to assemble an incredibly talented cast (with the exception of Akerman, at least) and completely drain them of any watchability. I guess that's quite the accomplishment in itself, but probably not what he was going for. But it sure was pretty, I'll give it that.
Score = 2
I haven't seen it, so I'll just agree with Gabe until I can form my own opinion (which I generally try to avoid).
Score = -6
Wow Gabe, you're awesome, but I disagree with this review completely. I don't think the movie was a masterpiece in any way, but it was no where near as bad as you make it seem. I thought the opening credits were beautiful and very well done. I didn't think the acting was bad either. No one was really "Oscar-worthy" but they weren't horrible. And I really don't understand the fascination with Dr. Manhattan's nudity. It's a penis! Get the hell over it. I wanted to slap every person who giggled whenever they showed a naked man for a couple of seconds. I do understand how some could find it boring, though. Personally, I love the book so I was already interested in the story but I know that people I saw it with (who hadn't read the book) were just pretty confused and bored by the whole thing.
Score = 12
I didn't hate the movie as much as I thought I would but it was still fairly terrible. I think, by cutting out the news stand guy and the kid/black freighter (i know its coming but have you seen clips from it? its retarded) almost all context and subtext present in the novel was vacated. When you read the book, these sections serve as way to build tension. You get to feel the fear and paranoia going on the in world from the news man talking to the kid and the more visceral, raw sense of those emotions from the black freighter.
The film just seemed to fill a lot of this vacated space with gratuitous violence and it totally failed. I mean, people in the theater laughed during many of the more graphic scenes in the film (and basically the rest of it too). I guess that could be more an indictment of the audience but when one of the more poignant moments of the book (to me) rolls around and Dr. Manhattan zaps Rorschach then there's just a plop sound and the audience roars, its a sad state no matter who's to fault.
I know it'd have been nigh impossible for any director to fit in all the content of the book but what we got in this film was just completely hollow and meaningless.
Score = -1
yeah, i have to disagree as well, for the most part. I really enjoyed it, and I didn't have as big a problem with the soundtrack as most people seemed to. I do agree that more focus should have been placed on veidt throughout, and I was disappointed with the alternate ending, but overall I thought it was entertaining, and I didn't find myself bored at all throughout.
Score = 3
I disagree 100% about the idea of modernizing the story. The Cold War is absolutely the context in which the story needs to be told. I feel like where they dropped the ball was in creating the sense of dread and paranoia that runs throughout the book. Sure, they discussed the threat of nuclear destruction several times, but it was never that pervasive and never had that much weight in the movie. Also, because so many of the auxiliary characters were cut out or had severely truncated screen time, it was hard to feel a whole lot whenever the "master plan" was finally realized in the end. All the characters we cared about were safe in Antarctica.
Some of the performances were surprisingly bad. But Rorschach, Nite Owl, and Doctor Manhattan were almost exactly as I had imagined them. I also really, really enjoyed the opening credit sequence--Forrest Gump-y or not.
Overall I did enjoy the movie, but it felt like cliffnotes Watchmen. Snyder got the story across, created a handful of truly iconic images, and absolutely nailed the film's book's most interesting character, Rorschach. But the heart and soul of the book was missing. The thing is, I really don't know what I would have changed about it (besides recasting Veidt and giving Dr. Manhattan some denim cut-offs). Maybe this is as close as we'll get?
Score = 4
The Sexman clip was worth watching if only to hear him say "blue weiner." To me, Sexman's fingers are stars.
Score = 13
I don't feel like debating the merits of the movie, but I do want to put in my two sense. The graphic novel was amazing and no possible adaption of it could ever be as good as the original. I'll admit i disliked the ending and was a bit shocked by the amount of sex and gruesome violence, but that did not stop from from enjoying the film. It was definitely the best superhero movie i can remember seeing, and unlike certain Batman movies, Watchmen had a reason for being as long as it was and never felt like it was dragging on unnecessarily.
Score = 2
I will no read the comments. I loved this experience too much to wallow in the dissatisfaction for any longer than the time needed to reply to Gabe.
The acting bears criticizing. The oil-boiled face was in the book, at least. And yes, at the 2:00PM IMAX show in NYC, there was applause (though it was clearly for the trademark line that followed the disfiguring/murder) A lot of those broken bones, the meat-cleaver-to-the-head, etc. were not (called for or necessary). Slow-motion bullets through joints are generally unnecessary! But this, in the long run, is small stuff.
I disagree WHOLEHEARTEDLY on the opening montage. I think it did what it was trying to do, what needed doing, perfectly. I nearly wept. All the little bits from the interstitial material that I wanted to see really, really badly was right there in the opening credits. WEPT.
Though the "cut your leg off or burn in this building" scene was NOT recreated, and is arguably the most Saw-y thing in the original material. Cut because of too much similarity to the very sort of thing it likely inspired, if you ask me. And we are worse off for it.
Score = 5
I gave it a B. Maybe a B-. The music choices were a joke. That was really, really disappointing to me. And the new, more friendly ending that they chose to give us in the film leaves you with a sense that they thought the movie-going audience would be too stupid to accept the book-version. The ending in the book is the only logical way to unite all the world's superpowers against a perceived "outside" threat. Dr. Manhattan, or Superman, or God, was an American. The new ending left a hole in the plot so wide that a lot of the enjoyment i experienced during the rest of the movie disapeared through it. I don't agree with many of my friends, who are fanboys though they will deny it, that it was too long, and I don't think it was boring at all to see such wonderful source material recreated with live-action and special attention to how Dave Gibbons interpreted Alan Moore's stark tale. I found much of it thrilling.
Score = 1
"The ending in the book is the only logical way to unite all the world's superpowers against a perceived "outside" threat. "
Hee hee hee, you might want to look up logic in the dictionary.
Score = 1
I'm not a Watchmen fanboy so forgive my ignorance, butis that the way the book ended??? Ugh! That, the soundtrack, the campy historical sequences, the awful individual performances (not you Kelly Leak, you were great!) all ruined this movie for me.
Score = 1
That's sort of the the way the book ended, it was actually more ridiculous. But(!) it was also a comic book and not a self important movie.
Score = -2
My review of Watchmen...
Veidt: I'm not a comicbook villain...
Me: UGH!!!
Rating: 3/5
Score = -5
I liked it but there were plenty of things that I had issue with. The first act was slow as hell. We got to see everyone's (besides Dan's) origin story then everyone's relationship with the Comedian all the while I'm wondering when the storyline would move forward. Rorschach was the only one actually moving the story forward while most of the screen time went to Dan and Lori who just had scene after scene of talking about the past. Yawn you two, do something relevant! And was it just me or did it seem at several moments in the movie that something sudden was about to happen, like an assassin appearing out of nowhere or someone suddenly getting shot, but then it just... didn't?
I also don't think you can call this a superhero movie. Superhero movies usually have amazing stunts and drawn out fight sequences. This movie had five action sequences and except for the climactic fight they were all kinda bland. I also remember being told the book was focused more on the mystery Rorschach was investigating while the movie had little to no mystery in it.
I have more grievances but they seem to be pretty well outlined by everyone else. I feel like I enjoyed the concepts and ideas behind the story and characters more then their execution. Oh well.
Score = -1
Haven't read the book. But every fear that I had about Zak Snyder directing this film was fully realized. Too bad you can't CGI Acting. Or teach bad actors how to act in front of a green screen at least. Rorschach was the exception, his scenes were great.
I can't believe I invested two and a half hours in this film. I might not read the novel now. Boo 300 director. Go CG yourself into prison.
Score = 2
It was horrible. Laughably bad. I walked out after about half an hour.
Score = -5
Haven't read the graphic novel. Yet. Man, I think you got this movie all wrong. Completely. I think it was damn near flawless - yes even the music choices, the fight scenes, the acting, the pacing, etc. Haters just being Fanboy Haters. Seen it twice already and can't wait to read the graphic novel.
Score = -8
I liked the violence. I liked the easy breezy blue balls. I liked the movie. The book? Felt 25 years old.
And I can't even imagine how else anyone was expecting the actors to act, especially when it was a pretty faithful line-by-line adaptation.
Score = 1
Man I can accept people hating it even though I liked it, but the criticism that pisses me off is people saying it was too long. All the best movies are long! It takes a long time to tell a good story, And for what I have to pay to get it, I appreciate it being so long.
It was definitely way too violent. There were times where I thought I might have to leave the theater and vomit. It wasn't necessary. Other than that I didn't mind the over-the-topness of it all. The campiness kept it from getting boring like Spiderman or Superman. The sex scene was hilarious and I refuse to believe that snyder took it seriously. Too much of the symbolism was thrown in your face though.
Now though I'm afraid it might have ruined the graphic novel for me. I saw the movie first and then read the novel yesterday. I didn't think it was so great. I don't know, maybe I just don't like graphic novels.
Oh, and the opening credits were awesome.
Score = 0
If you don't think the movie needed to be made, how could you ever like it?
Score = 2
Gabe, I'm sorry people were cheering during the gratuitous violence. No one clapped in my theatre, but I was at a midnight showing at the drafthouse in Austin, TX, film haunt for many of the biggest geeks in the nation.In my opinion, that was one of the very few missteps in this film. It seemed to serve no purpose narratively, (what's the best way to break Rorschach out of his cell? Saw this guy's arms off!-What?) and I fully blame Mr. Snyder for that.
However, I disagree about the acting. Patrick Wilson is one of my very favorite actors, and I felt that he embodied Nite Owl II's insecure personality. While Silk Spectre II and Ozymandias kind of pulled me out of the world a bit (not with their acting, but because they looked way too young to believably play their parts) I feel one performance is waaay overlooked.
Freaking Billy Crudup! Come on, he was brilliant. He acted every scene, but even if he hadn't, his voice work was amazing. So many other actors would've played Mr. Manhattan with a God-like, booming voice, or worse, robotic "detached" voice. You know, to show how he's deatched. But Crudup's performance was soft and unassuming, belying the humanity that Dr. Manhattan had once possessed, and subtly asserting that he truly had lost his understanding of compassion and empathy, which is very different than simply not having it.
Anyway, apart from the gratuitous violence, I felt that the narrative was well-paced, but a little murky at times. It left a lot for audiences to either assume/infer, or fill in from the source material, which is a mistake. the movie shouldn't be a companion to the graphic novel; it should be able to exist without it.
As for the relevancy of the plotline, I was barely alive during the cold war/ 1980's and I still feel the story was relevant. I think any time period/ political conflict can be relevant/ fresh so long as the creators focus on the lesson to be learned or enduring question of the era (such as the question of the "morality of violence") I don't think the cold war specifically is quaint at all; in modern times it symbolizes hysteria, suspicion, ostracization and facing one's mortality. I'd say those are pretty basic and enduring themes.
Score = 6
This movie just felt so completely unnecessary. I have a hard time believing anyone who is a real fan of the book would have a reason or desire to ever revisit the film after the mandatory, "just-to-see-it" first viewing.
If it had to be made into a movie, it would have been nice to see it approached with a bit more creativity than just turning into another "stylized" computer-driven action movie. The book is so psychological and introspective, but the film completely loses that by 1) focusing so much on violence and sex, 2) having to constantly push the action forward because that's just how movies work, and 3) playing Jimi Hendrix at the story's climax.
I think it would have been interesting if they made a Watchmen film that was more gritty and realistic, since the book, despite its fantasy elements, is so rooted in reality. I'm thinking like a classic film noir with computer effects only where totally necessary... I mean it would be pretty much impossible to make a totally satisfying movie out of the book no matter how someone went about it, but I just wish it wasn't degraded to another 00s-era special effects ejaculation =/
Score = 9
I definitely disagree that the movie was a failure, except in that it did not (and could not, of course), live up to the book. To say it was a failure for not doing so is basically saying "this could not do something impossible and so it is worthless." Well... I like to think we're able to measure under a more reasonable rubric than that.
The opening credits succeeded for me precisely because so much of the imagery they used and altered was iconic - the Eisenstaedt Times Square on VJ day image, the assassination of JFK, etc - they are specifically evocative of our history, so recasting them was, to me, an effective way of sort of resetting the audience's historical landmarks. Of course, if you go into the movie with "Oh, please..." in your spirit and prepared to pass your lips, that's how you're going to react to it, and everything else in the movie. The "Hallelujah" sex scene is another good example - yes, that song in that context is an eye-roller for a certain set, but if you're focused on "OMG can't believe they used THAT song" you lose what the scene is about, which is a man who is only able to become sexually aroused when he's been in costume, a man who literally lost his potency when he hung up his "hero" identity. Dan was essentially "castrated" by the Keene act - that's why the sex scene is necessary.
The movie doesn't succeed on every level - the slo-mo, wirework fight scenes did away with one of the touchstones of the book, which is that the violence is being committed, good and bad, by normal people. Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan, who are both walking philosophical arguments in the book, become sort of distilled into collections of cliches when paraphrased for a movie. And the new ending doesn't satisfy the idea of escalating groups of identity (when a larger "them" appears, we can recast and expand what we think of as "us") that makes the ending of the book so powerful. But... I think it did about as well as it could have walking a very fine line - it HAD to be a comic book movie to make money and hold an audience's attention, and it had to be just a lot of talking at some points to honor the source material.
So... I liked it, and while I disagreed with some decisions Snyder made (because, I mean... The Sound of Silence, during a funeral?), I also think he did a really good job considering the scope of the task.
Score = 6
Someone mentioned that the movie's like the book, and if you like one you'll like the other. That argument is true in rare instances and this was not the case. The book is better. Stay home. Read it. Don't spend a dime on Watchmen. Here's why!
If you're going to adapt literature for the screen, add something to it and through an artistic scope convey the message. Don't just fucking hold the comic book up to the monitor and say, "Yup! It sure look like it! Action!". All of that marketing BS about how it was a faithful adaptation hooked geeks and completely made that subculture look stupid for getting drawn in on the sole pretense of a completely un-artistic notion.
"Faithfully" adapting material shouldn't mean line-for-line recitations or matching up panels and shots, it should mean MAKING SURE IT FEELS THE SAME. The verbatim lines didn't help the wooden actors (save for Haley) one damn bit.
Score = 0
I completely disagree with most of the points made here, mostly about the violence. The violence was important, who cares if it wasn't the same as the source. The book wasn't exactly perfectt. The violence, especially when it involved Rorschach, was needed to develop the characters. If you looked at all the different character's fighting styles, it reflected parts of who they were. It's not exactly deep symbolism, but honestly, trying to do deep symbolism in a movie like this would be silly. Showing how damaged and psychotic Rorschach is as a human by showing him continually and shamelessly committing heinous acts of violence, on the hand, makes sense and adds to the overall character of the film.
And as far as relevance? Yeah, it's not the Cold War anymore, but there's still tensions between the US and plenty of other countries. It doesn't need to be us versus the Russians for it to apply. We may not have Dr Manhattan but the world still views us as overpowered and kind of a bully, Obama or not. And there are nuclear fears still. I haven't gone one week in as long as I can remember without someone mentioned Iran or North Korea and possible nuclear arms.
Lastly, the acting. It was a broad strokes movie. I wouldn't want this to be the Eternal Sunshine of superhero flicks. It needed to be big and blunt and over the top. It covered a lot of ground and part of what made it work was that the characters weren't trying to lend an superfluous air of subtlety. Most of my favorite movies are favorites because they're subtle and nuanced, but realistically, a film adaptation of Watchmen probably shouldn't be filled with subtle and nuanced performances. These characters need to quickly establish themselves and need to be obvious for the movie to work. Furtive glances and toned down speeches would've been out of place in a movie with a teleporting-matter-shifting-glowing-blue man with his cock hanging out.
Score = 2
I never saw so many disappointed faces leaving a movie theater in my life. Me? I instantly regretting giving any money to the movie and not just buying the graphic novel again.
Score = -1
I haven't seen it yet, and I can't decide now if I should or shouldn't. The trailers looked awesome, butI have sen/heard so many negative reviews (this video sums up a lot of them, and even has Ebert's thoughts- http://tinyurl.com/d4odpj). Now I can't decide if it is even worth my time (heard it is really long too) or if I should pass. Or should I see it to decide if all the negative reviews are exaggerating? I never read the book. Will that make me like it more? Or less?
Score = -1
Shut the fuck up. You either want to see it or you fucking don't . Don't let these haters influence that shit. Cheesus lord show him the way.
Score = 0
They should've just paid to make this instead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w&e
Score = 2
how about the utilitarian ends justify the means type ending? or the ridiculous disregard for all people except those poor folk in the burning building? i guess the watchmen are the only people that matter. the super heroes didnt really give a shit about anything but each other. if the point is that we dont need superheroes, as others tell the graphic novel hints at, it failed at getting that point across. also, the comedian being in the zapruder film made me cringe in horror. that was way too far. very distasteful. i get it was comic book movie, gratuitous violence is a staple, but the way all people but the watchmen were portrayed was atrocious. i know its supposed to be a pretty much nihilistic view of man and blah blah blah.
i do think my reactions were polarized by the audience, who laughed at every stupid joke about someone dying and could not contain themselves when a person exploded, or got his hands chopped off, or got a butcher's knife to the face, or a protester got punched in the face (and shot with a shotgun). their enjoyment of these terrifying images made me all the more appalled. if i were to see the movie, as others have suggested, with my brain off, it would have been much more bearable.
Score = 0
Not the definitive version of the graphic novel, just like The Lord of The Rings isn't the definitive film version of the books. Sadly, there are very few working directors today capable of delivering a real Watchmen film. Maybe Stanley Kubrick could have done it, but he died 10 years ago. It was pretty faithful to the graphic novel, on a superficial level, but I liked it anyway...
Score = -1
the fryer is the guys face, the sawing of the arms, that's in the book. If fact, the book is even more gruesome
Score = 2
"99 Luftballons" was also in the comic. That doesn't mean its inclusion was well executed in the movie.
Score = 2
Silk Spectre II was so annoying I almost went into rages every time she came up on screen.
They made Nite Owl II really cheesy and obnoxious as well, so their scenes together were just a double-whammy of bad.
Jackie Earl Haley and Billy Crudup were quite enjoyable in their roles. Billy's voice as Dr. Manhattan was perfect.
They really ruined the whole Ozymandias thing, though. First off, casting was horrible. Secondly, in the book when you learn that Ozymandias is behind it all you feel shocked. He's like this happy-go-lucky perfect athlete guy that you would never expect to do something so evil. In the movie they got his character all wrong. Every scene he was in was just dark and foreboding. I saw it coming a mile away. "Oh hey, that's the bad guy."
I wouldn't say it was a COMPLETE fail. It just never should have been made in the first place.
Score = 0
I had not read the book. I saw the movie and hated it. A lot. My friends who read the book said that if I had read the book first, I would have liked it and better understood what they were going for.
If you need to read the book to appreciate the film adaptation, then it is a 100% FAIL.
Bad acting and an endlessly dull presentation are just the icing on the fail cake. This movie is truly horrible because it was NOT a working adaptation of the original source material.
Score = 3
I have a much easier time understanding the works of Shakespeare in film, or even in live performance, if I've spent some time reading the play in advance. Does that mean that every movie/live performance of Shakespeare " is a 100% FAIL.?"
Score = 1
This review is making me feel that feeling that makes you go Grr.
First of all, All Along The Watchtower makes perfect sense in that the lines include "a wild cat began to growl, two riders were approaching, and the winds began to howl". Tone-perfect.
Second, if you seriously think that the opening credits were anything other than astonishing (in the first panel alone Nite Owl I saves Batman's parents at the Gotham Opera House) I hate your damn guts.
It's not a perfect adaptation. There has never been a perfect adaptation. But I thought this was 8/10 material, and 9/10 when you consider we almost had Joel Schumacher producing a modern Watchmen with Arnold Schwarzenegger as Dr. Manhattan.
Score = 3
Would've been considerably better in someone (anyone?) else's hands. Does Zak Snyder need to use slow motion every five seconds? Regardless, I thought it was an above-average movie and it stayed pretty faithful to the book. Great casting in regards to Jackie Earle Haley, the dude from Hard Candy/Lakeview Terrace and Billy Crudup, but total fail casting with the Comedian. Everything he said made me cringe. Wasn't a fan of the music or the opening credits (could it have been any more obvious?), but I liked the inclusion of All Along the Watchtower, which Moore actually quoted in the graphic novel before (after?) the section it was played in. Plus, Hendrix melting your face off is rarely a bad thing. I'd give it a 7/10.
I'm actually a bit more intrigued by the "Saturday Morning Watchmen:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w
Score = 0
Oh, forgot to mention the random inclusion of Nite Owl when Jon kills Rorschach. What was the point of all that? So they could have two "Wrath of Khan" style screams?
"DOOOOOO IT!!!!"
*blows up*
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!"
Score = 6
yeh i completely agree. i hated that he was included in that scene. that is by far the most emotionally powerful part of the book for mine and then to have nite owl impotently wailing on ozymandias afterwards was just kind of pointless..
Score = 1
I just don't understand why, if you're shooting your proverbial CGI-wad all over the place, you don't include the "it-came-from-Captain Kirk's-Vulcan-girlfriends-underpants" looking alien being to drop on NYC? Seriously, isn't that what this CGI shit is for?
Score = 2
Snyder wanted an out, so that when everyone hated his movie he could point to his new fucked-up ending... but there are 3 fingers pointing right - back - at - him!! (Thank you, Mrs. Strassser's 3rd grade class for that).
Score = 0
I have not read the book, and I'm sure it was great.
But, fuck! That was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I've never wanted to walk out of a movie at so many different points (if I was by myself, the only point necessary would be at the start of the Bob Dylan song).
Score = -4
I saw Watchmen and read the book first. I didn't think it was as good as the book. I did think it was too violent. For example, the scene with Silk Spectre and the Comedian totally lost it's effect because it was way too karate like and action packed and SS just kind of sat there and bent like a barbie doll. Weird.
I didn't like the ending but it made sense to me, Unlike the rest of the film. One of my friends showed up 30 minutes late, and said to my other friend she had no idea what was going on, to which he responded "being 30 minutes earlier wouldn't have helped"
Score = -2
I got to see it at a private screening with my clients. So, AWKWARD... was uncomfortable to watch porn with people from work.
I dozed off a few times (so long!), but I really loved Jackie Earle Haley. So one thumb up and one blue dong down.
Score = 3
Oh, my God. Sexman said "blue weener". Sexman said "blue weener".
Score = 0
What i hated the most was sort of pre-film, and that was all the papers/critics saying "Zak is filming the movie that was deemed unfilmable!" as if it was unfilmable because of its complex narrative or something. It's unfilmable because it's a comic book utilizing comic book traits to in part comment on the world of comics. It's like saying "Zak is filiming Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, the song that was deemed unfilmable!"
Anyway, basically i watched this movie from a strict narrative view knowing that most philosophy and commentary would be lost. That being said, i thought it was an ok movie. So to get on the hate train, aside from the music choices which were AWFUL, things that annoyed me:
1. The hammering in of "The world is a joke" blah bullshit. THE REAL TREASURE... WAS FRIENDSHIP. It's like, thanks for failing at Thematics 101. Zak shouldn't have even tried.
2. I felt they kind of ruined the end scene where Rorschach is killed. I don't know how exactly, but it is way more emotional in the book. (i liked the Rorschach actor on the whole though)
3. I thought emotion was all distorted from the book, i guess as a fault of the medium. Like people laughing when the midget in jail walks on screen? Or not laughing when Nite Owl says "He dropped him down an elevator shaft"?
4. There were a lot of visual sync ups and visual motifs in the book that i think Zak could have effortlessly incorporated, but for whatever reason, didn't. (Namely the kissing silhouettes, which showed up once.)
Score = 2
I felt the same way about Rorschach's death, a scene I was really looking forward to in the film. I think the reason Rorschach's death was not as moving as in the comic is:
1. The relationship between Rorschach and Manhattan is so paper thin in the movie, outside one dialogue scene between them at the beginning of the film. And the Watchmen meeting where they did not speak.
2. The inclusion of Nite Owl and his cry of, "Noooooooooooo!"
3. Snyder seeming so pleased with himself by showing Rorschach's remains on the ground looking like a blot. I'm not remembering if this is how it was in the comic (probably), but Snyder should have known that visual metaphor should not trump emotional impact. THIS IS A MOVIE, NOT A DRAWING.
Score = 1
I actually thought they didn't dumb down the philosophy so much. And I thought the super bloody violence made sense when used with Rohrschach because of how he views the world in black and white and therefore everyone who is an asshole deserves to get flushed down the metaphorical toilet because he is the agent of 'good'.
Where did you see it? I saw it at Rideau and the row of bros behind me were talking the whole time about their date-rape plans or whatever (Thus Spake Zingathustra).
Score = 1
Creepy!
Score = 0
I don't think they dumbed down the philosophy necessarily (with the exception of everything Comedian related) because it was mostly just transcribed. I just feel like a lot of it, doesn't translate into a film medium. A lot of lines and scenes just seem like plot devices, when in the comic medium they have a helluva lot more poignancy.
i saw it at the Silvercity for the IMAX. I figured if i was going to prepare myself to hate a movie, it should at least be as big and as loud as possible. (in retrospect, i probably didn't need to see an eight foot tall blue penis in high definition.)
Score = 1
Keeping the setting in 1985 I think enhances the story in a very different way - perhaps in a way that's not what Moore or Snyder intended. It's meant to be a parable on the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction, but ultimately, though we have lots of great threats today, nuclear brinksmanship is something that's not a threat to all ciites but a single one - either by terrorist attack or a "rogue" nation. It's horrible but it's not the end of all mankind.
So Veidt is wrong. His attempt to "save" the world is potentially unnecessary, even in a Dr. Manhattan version of 1985. The people he kills to create a new world could have kept on muddling through the old one for a long time, just as we do.
Score = 0
As they say, LOL. Your problems with the movie really WERE problems with the book. You just had to say they weren't so that you wouldn't get boiling fat poured on you.
Score = 3
my god, gabe, you've become an angry little elf. slumdog, watchmen, the mere thought of an AD movie. i think i liked you better when you had opinions, not just rank bitterness. but now that your opinions have turned into :( i think you're ready to go and rule hollywood. the transformation is complete and i think you're just the sort of person to show them what's what.
anyway, since everyone's doing a pretty commendable job of ripping watchmen a new one, i'd just like to point out that jackie earl haley's rorshach deserves more than a grudging nod. shit was inspired, yo.
Score = 5
Why isn't Sexman more famous???
Score = 0
I'm glad that others noticed the swaying of the glowing, blue, CGI penis! I'm also glad to know what I missed while hiding during the boiling-oil-on-face scene...or not. I didn't understand why Dr. Manhattan had to speak in a completely robotic monotone, though. At one point, he was a normal human, right? Did the crazy electrical accident fry his ability to speak normally? Anyway, Rorschach was clearly the best part.
Score = -2
OH ALSO, NIXON'S NOSE.
WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT ABOUT.
Score = 3
Personally I think the movie was good. Problem is it was a lose/lose situation. The creators knew it wouldn't make a good movie and never wanted it to be made into one. And it's such a long story that to keep it 100% true to the original would mean making it much longer than it already is. But toning it down and cutting parts out would take away plot development, as well as piss off some of the fan base. Also, changing the way each scene is set up and the dialogue would've pissed off some people, but keeping it fairly true (from what I've seen) to the original obviously didn't work. I think it was the best movie version possible. And, it got people (like me) who've never even heard of Watchmen to go out and read it. As soon as I finish the book I'm on now I'm buying it. A buddy of mine bought it the day after seeing it and is already raving about how much better it is. It all about the big picture.
Score = 2
Here's my problem:
Fanboys love it.
Now, there's nothing wrong with that, really, but I'm really afraid this is going to be a repeat of The Dark Knight, which was a leaden, confused film that frankly would've been dragged down into absolute suckage without Heath Ledger entertaining us.
And now comics fans don't hesitate to call it the best movie they've ever seen.
It wouldn't bother me if people called it their favorite movie, but they have to go and act like it was objectively brilliant, even though it doesn't live on the same continent as brilliant.
It really, really bugs me to hear paeans to such a mediocre film every time superhero movies are mentioned, and now I'm going to have to hear paeans to two mediocre movies every time the subject of superhero films comes up.
I do not look forward to it.
Score = 0
This movie was not good. It was, in fact, very bad.
If The Dark Knight could so successfully capture Moore's terrifying philosophical ruminations on anarchy and chaos ("The Killing Joke"), then we shouldn't tolerate being spoonfed this blood-soaked piece of popcorn cinema...the bar has been set, and Snyder isn't even participating. He crafted a great look, but there seemed to be nothing underneath the sheen--there was nothing to think about, nothing to ponder...just nothing.
And that's why the violence was gratuitous--because it stood for nothing. Man is savage, yes, but not in the blood on the walls/blood running under the bathroom door/blood spraying from a meat cleaver exit wound kind of way that we saw in this film...that stupid shit won't even stand as a hyperbolic reflection of anything, it was Rambo-style bullshit that fills the bloodust of the average knucklehead moviegoer.
Back to Dark Knight. I left that film feeling uncomfortable. Something happened in that film...but I left this movie laughing.
Score = 2
The three minute sex scene very nearly ruined the movie. Overall this movie is worth seeing. Not sure why anyone would think otherwise. At its very worst it is a c+ still very entertaining. Sure it is overstylized bordering on camp, and the blue peen is slightly distracting, but the film remains thoughtful and makes you think just like the book. Ok maybe not just like the book.
Score = 0
You know what? Snyder really loves that comic book, also, don't gets it at all.
Score = -1
I was very excited to see the adaptation of the novel, but didn't have very high expectations. However, even the lowest of expectations were not met.
I was bored, I laughed when I shouldn't have and I was very disappointed.
My biggest problem is that if you're going to "stick to the material" so closely - which I think he did try to do - why take license on such mundain things. 1) you just put a midget in an ascot and called it a day. Are there no little people who like closer to the character in the novel? 2) with all those CGI affects you couldn't get Dr. Manhattan's mouth the move correctly upon pronunciation of certain letters, you couldn't use make-up to get someone to actually LOOK like Richard Nixon and you couldn't age Oxymandias? 3) Silk Spectre II can't fight in high heels but those bitches from Charlie's Angels can?
There were just a lot of little things that weren't paid attention to that really bothered me and took me out of the movie...aside from the fact that I almost fell asleep.
Score = 0
Wow, I can't imagine what it must have been like to watch a movie before the internet was around and enjoy it without having to defend your positive opinion of said movie.
Also, I enjoyed it.
Score = 4
'The movie is visually beautiful. I think we will all agree on that. Every frame is really well designed. It looks really expensive. Especially Dr. Manhattan's carefully CGI-ed dick, which gently waved in some non-existent breeze'
Gabe Cock Lust #2
Score = 2
Apostasy Alert:
The Watchmen book also falls pretty flat at the end. The last chapter is pages of Ozy walking around explaining his evil plan, while Nite Owl and Rorschach...walk with him. Then Dr Manhattan shows up and...agrees. The fact that the "plan" was laughable - no one seems to remember this. Watchmen was cool as a book up until then, it had a good look, but almost nothing happens in it. It's good as a meta-analysis of the comic book superhero genre and as a treatise on fascism, but as a comic book it's not that great.
Score = 6
Worst part was I was trying to buy into this movie's "hey, these are normal people forced into the roles of superheroes, let's see what happens", and by the end of the movie dude's walking around his Arctic lair with a purple lion with horns. And Watchmen are fighting off prisoners like it's the Power Rangers. Huh? I thought this film had a serious identity crisis, and didn't see how it was the "different" superhero film it claimed to be. The last 45 minutes were so boring.
Score = 0
I absolutely loved it. Gabe, as usual, you are a hipster retard. IT'S OKAY TO LIKE THINGS!!!
Score = 2
You see, this movie wasn't boring, because so much of it was hilariously funny. The Hallelujah sex scene stands out, obviously, as being the pinnacle of the horrible directorial choices in this movie, but, as mentioned, THE dick, and other parts, conspire to make most of the movie funny, as opposed to action packed and exciting.
Also, goddamnit, they changed the ending.
Score = -2
watch it again. there is gay porn on Veidt's computer.
Score = 1
The movie is a fair recreation of the source material. Nothing really happens in the comic books and that meditative pace is recreated here. The sex and the violence are both inspired by the comic books. If I have a gripe regarding the violence it would be that Snyder likely removed the scene in the novel where Rorschach splits the dog's head because the studio thought that people wouldn't forgive him for killing a dog, which is sort of the idea of Rorschach. The ending in the comic is pretty thin. The modified film ending, which is basically the same with a modest tweak, requires less nonsense and removes the references to the missing world-class psychic which had no real place in the story apart from making a strained reference to psychic energy or something in the conclusion.
If you didn't like the movie, it's because it was faithful to the the source material but the source material was good for reasons that defy the limitations of film. Terry Gilliam was long ago tagged to direct a Watchmen movie and he eventually resigned. He said it would take at least a 6 hour miniseries. He might have been right. This movie was good on its own merits. I enjoyed it.
Score = 1
I kept thinking that the guy who played the Comedian was Javier Bardem (I found out later that it's actually Jeffrey Dean Morgan), but the two actors definitely look alike
Score = -1
alright, well i dont completely disagree with gabes review. i thought the movie was close to horrible but not completely so. the bad acting was ...bad. and the music choice for some (most) scenes, were just like "wtf was zak snyder thinkin!?" or "hahahaha thats fuckin hilarious!" cause the second ones how i personally reacted. especially during that sex scene with "hallelujah" playing in the backround, ughh how hilariously cheesy.
The ending, i think, sucked. what happened to "staying true to the material", zak?
it was poo. also, most of the people i know were focused mainly on dr. manhattans blue penis. big deal! any penis would look like that it was dipped in blue ink!
i think zak tried to simplify the movie while trying to not change the real story so that fanboys as well as people who just want to watch a movie could be pleased.the movie was somewhat good but failed to live up to my expectations.
on a brighter note, i loved almost all the scenes rorschach was in. jackie earle haley was incredible and really portrayed rorschach as to what i imagined when i read the graphic novel. another guy that i liked was ozymandias, even though they dont show much of him in the movie, the actor seemed to fit the character.
now one of the things that pissed me off was the girl, i forgot her name... (yeah thats how much i dont care), who played the silk spectre. she wasnt much of an actress in this movie and didnt portraty laurie well. she looked kind of manly in the fight scenes and it made the fighting look unreal... bleh.
Score = 1
i'm surprised how many people are still giving their two cents on this. i stopped caring the day after i saw it.
Score = -1
I never thought I'd say this... but I agree with the Red Skull
Score = 0