Watchmen Watched 489
In a blatant attempt to make my movie-going a valid business expense, I'm putting together some notes on Watchmen, and providing a place for you all to discuss it. The first thing I want to say is that I had high hopes: If you ask any serious comic book nerd what the most important book is, they will probably give you one of two answers, and "Watchmen" is the right one. So really Snyder, the director of 300, could only do wrong. Fortunately for me, he was very true to the book: just like 300, many sequences are shot-for-shot from the comics. Some stuff didn't make it, and the new ending has a different meaning to me (one that really isn't as satisfying, but is certainly cleaner). But what I can't say is if it was a good movie or not. I sorta wish I could get an impartial opinion of someone who isn't a nutty fan of the book to tell me how it stands as a movie. I imagine a bit slow, wordy and maybe a bit confusing in parts. I'll leave full reviews to others, but I enjoyed the picture and suspect you will too.
A good review from a non fanboi (Score:5, Informative)
Roger Ebert [suntimes.com]
Never heard of rotten tomatoes???? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A good review from a non fanboi (Score:4, Informative)
Onion AV Club review. [avclub.com]
Massawyrm's review [aintitcool.com] (which I was surprised at.)
One thing gives me hope (Score:5, Informative)
I've seen a lot of book-to-movie attempts. Some are watchable, like Lord of the Rings. Some are not, like Dune. I can't help myself. I'm nitpicky. Occasionally very nitpicky.
But I'm keeping high hopes that The Watchmen will not be too far off the mark. Why you ask?
Because Kevin Smith liked it. [slashfilm.com]
Let's face it - he's probably a bigger comic book geek than almost all of us. And if it passes muster with him, it may just be great.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Informative)
It took some searching, but here's the link to TFA [slashdot.org].
Here's my spoiler free rundown (Score:5, Informative)
I read the graphic novel one week and watched the Motion Comic before I saw the movie this morning at 12:00 AM. Here are a few notes:
a. The movie has a long runtime: Watchmen covers a lot of material. I think I left the theatre at 3:00 AM. Make sure you have the endurance to enjoy the entire film.
b. Watchmen can be confusing: The movie can be a bit of a challenge to follow if you are not familiar with the graphic novel. I had to explain parts of the movie to a friend who had never read the comic 10 times, namely information regarding the Minutemen and the Crimestoppers, and the differences between the two generations. The movie does a good job of giving a backstory, but it can be a lot to keep track of.
c. There's nudity. If you read the graphic novel, you know what to expect. Come in with a mature mindset, and you will do a good job. Come with a theatre of teenagers and you will get some silly snickers during some serious scenes. Anyone familiar with the comic should know which of thes I am refering to.
d. Careful if you watched the Watchmen Motion Comic: If your first experience was with the Watchmen Motion Comic, you may be disappointed at some parts. Namely because the WMC will have you expecting voices to be in a certain way. After reading the graphic novel, I watched the WMC and I associated the voice of Dr. Manhattan with my images of him. I was a bit upset hearing the voice actor for Manhattan. He did a good job on his performance, though.
e. Don't come into this expecting 300: This is a crime thriller, not a beat-em-up movie. Sure, it has some good violence and action if that's what one is looking for, however, the real meat and bones is in the storyline and how it deconstructs the superhero concept.
That's about it. They did as good of a job as was possible considering time, budget, and fanboy limitations.
That's about it...
Missing the point (Score:1, Informative)
The brain monster wasn't important, the reasoning behind it and Ozymandias' "ends justify the means" altitude is.
Saw it at 12:01 (Score:5, Informative)
Very faithful except for the ending which is still faithful to the idea of the ending.
There were a few scenes in the first hour that were a little loose or slow. that's not it.
Here it is: The movie had a great sound track but a lousy score. The background "emotion" music (that made star wars great) was average. the sound track was the biggest change in the "feel" of the novel to me.
The characters were great except veigt was about 20 pounds too light imho.
There is a lot of stuff there for the fan which is meaningless to someone who hasn't read the comic first. It's not bad- it just doesn't connect emotionally because you see some secondary characters or scenes without the 30 panels of buildup you got in the comic.
Some things were the same as the comic but came across a LOT differently.
Never has so much swinging male private parts been on display. Much more impact when it's swinging around than on the printed page.
The sex scenes had a lot more impact and were more *real* than many sex scenes in many other movies. the awkwardness of it is frequently dropped from "hollywood reality". it was amazing. this added a lot ot the suspension of disbelief for the rest of the film.
The violence was extreme. In the panel, it's one thing-- on the screen- it's disturbing. This is not a kid's movie even if they edit out the nudity.
Was very satisfied- understood the edits and changes that were made. Recommend it- but you'll get more out of it if you read the graphic novel first.
And what is with hendrix being the new SF catch song...
Re:Warning to all mods: joke alert (Score:2, Informative)
300 was more in the league of "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" or "Sin City". Which is to say important, but not seminal.
Looking forward to it (Score:5, Informative)
I haven't seen it yet, but I'm going to see it as soon as I can. I was hoping this wouldn't get screwed up, and signs indicate that it hasn't.
The surest way to screw it up would have been to get Tim Burton [imdb.com] or Paul Verhoeven [imdb.com] to direct it; they don't seem to be able to make a movie based on a book without wanting to change things and put their own fingerprints on it. (I'd love to watch a Starship Troopers [wikipedia.org] movie. Too bad we didn't actually get one [sff.net].)
Everyone agrees that a perfect, 100% faithful adaptation is impossible, unless you do it as a miniseries that is around 12 hours long. The best we can hope for is that the screenwriter and director do a good job of streamlining the story and keeping the important parts intact. Kevin Smith [slashfilm.com] says that this has been done.
I've read several reviews, and they illustrate how impossible it is to walk the tightrope. The movie keeps large chunks of the original dialog intact, and reviews have complained about dialog-heavy, boring long scenes. As a fan of Alan Moore's writing, I'm expecting that I will like or love these "boring" scenes. You can't please everyone.
I read an interview with the director, Zack Snyder. He said the movie studios pushed on him to cut some of the more shocking scenes, such as a rape, and a scene where a pregnant woman gets shot; but the scenes were important to the story, and he got them kept in. In the book, the alienation of Dr. Manhatten is shown visually in the way he stops bothering to wear clothes; this is kept as well. The pirate-themed side story would have made the movie too long... but they filmed it anyway and it will be available as its own feature on DVD.
I read that Zack Snyder gave each actor a copy of the graphic novel, and authorized them to edit their characters' dialog to more closely match the graphic novel. I have real hope that this movie will make me happy as a Watchmen fan.
P.S. Alan Moore is not happy with it, but as far as I can tell, he is automatically not happy with any attempt to turn his work into a movie. You could get Peter Jackson with an unlimited budget, and he still would not be happy. I read that they offered to have him help with the adaptation, but he declined. (Which makes perfect sense... that way he can complain about everything, and no one can say "well, you had the power to change that, why didn't you?")
steveha
Re:Missing the point (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either (Score:3, Informative)
Too much graphic sex and foul language.
You didn't read the graphic novel, did you?
Given what Watchmen was about and how it was constructed you couldn't make it "family friendly" without destroying it.
Re:I think you jumped the gun a little. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Watchmen non-fan (Score:3, Informative)
Haha, wow. I couldn't disagree more. I did first read it when I was about 16, but I don't feel nostalgic about it at all. It's difficult to digest, the ending isn't particularly satisfying, and it was full of cultural references that I was too young to really appreciate (Nixon, Vietnam, 1940s superheroes).
Furthermore, the characters seemed "unrealistic" even then, because I was smart enough to realize that the Watchmen is mostly a comic book about comic books. The book quite clearly sets up the concept of "superheroes in the real world" and then proceeds immediately to "superheroes in the real world don't work."
Compared to most superhero comics, which are just rehashes of adolescent power fantasies, Watchmen reads like The Bridges of Madison County.
Re:Send me! (Score:2, Informative)
Calling them superheroes is a bit of a stretch - with the exception of Doctor Manhattan, they are really costumed vigilantes.
Most of the reviews I've seen so far rate the movie as mediocre, even fans. A couple of reviewers severely panned it, like Colin Covert of the Star Tribune - one star, contains the second worst sex scene in cinema (or something like that - maybe it was just this year...) followed by it also contains the worst (and others round out the top 5), quotes like "Who watches the watchmen? Nobody." Christopher Tookey of the Daily Mail, UK also laid into it, - "This despicable trash...," "Watchmen is unwatchable - a grotesque squandering of time, talent and technology," "Verdict: Hollywood at its woeful worst"
Mostly I've seen reviews suggesting it is just way too long and should have been edited down (the directors cut supposedly is pushing 4 hours, and critics still don't think they cut enough...)
Re:A good review from a non fanboi (Score:3, Informative)
Such a silly assertion, so easily refuted. [suntimes.com]
Re:Watchmen non-fan (Score:2, Informative)
Watchmen is like Star Wars. You must experience it at age 18 or younger to appreciate it. Youre just too old. To adults, the characters are unrealistic, the plot is uninteresting, the love story silly, the ending illogical, and the tough guy machismo boring. To kids and teens its nectar of the gods. Its firmly in the realm of nostalgic stuff.
This is all bullshit.
- I liked Star Wars around 12, yes.
- I disliked the new and revisionist-history Star Wars around 30, yes.
- I also loved Lord of the Rings around 35 (without reading the books), it felt like original Star Wars to me. Saw it multiple times. Said, "Now George Lucas should go clean shit at the zoo."
- I didn't really "get" Watchmen until I re-read it for the fourth time at around age 37. Final analysis: It's really a horror story, merely in the guise of a superhero comic.
To summarize: "Watchmen is like Star Wars. You must experience it at age 18 or younger to appreciate it," is all bullshit.
Re:Send me! (Score:5, Informative)
Something about killing superheroes?
Something about how real masked vigilante would be, the fetichist, oversized-ego, psycho-past, nostalgic underwear-over-pants kind, and the problems they would have if they really existed. Add to that an intrigue and a very good naration, and you have one of the most incredible novel ever written.
Oh and it's 11$ on amazon [amazon.com] (the whole 12 chapter in one tome) in paperback. Make yourself the pleasure of increasing your culture ;)
Re:Watchmen non-fan (Score:1, Informative)
This is a fallacy. I read Watchmen for the first time when I was 20, after having it be required reading in a science fiction literature course. I couldn't have asked for a better environment in which to read the novel.
Re:Watchmen non-fan (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I think you jumped the gun a little. (Score:3, Informative)
The mask is a piece of scrap fabric that was intended to be used by a high fashion designer to make dresses but the patterns were unpleasant.
It's one of many tiny little tech touches that are taken for granted.
Picture it as some kind of nano-cloth most likely. We are close to making things like it now in real life.
It didn't react to his moods in the comic (tho the artist may have used it occasionally to do so).
Manhattan is a lot like Spock-- he claims he is disconnected and has no emotions but he really still has them. He fled to Mars because he was upset. He might have been able to heal his girlfriend-- but randomly he was emotional and didn't.
Manhattan in the movie and in the comic is sort of a prisoner of time and predestination-- he can see things that will happen- but can't change them. In the comic there are times where he will say "in a few minutes you are going to say something that pisses me off" and he is not pissed off at that point-- then when the person says "but why are you going to be upset when I say this"? And THEN he gets pissed off because now they actually said it. It was a cool concept.
The pyramid was a movie construct but there were pyramid references in the book. it was forgivable.
Re:Dots? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not talking about the cigarette burns. I'm talking about the 'Coded Anti-Piracy' dots that denote what theatre the cam was used in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coded_Anti-Piracy [wikipedia.org]
Re:It's just been reviewed - not good (Score:3, Informative)
Basically it was a bunch of over-muscled people (mostly men) in daft costumes - not quite wearing their underpants on the outside, but you get the picture, spouting cliches and trying to look "hard".
Yup, that is one of the major points of the comic. Not just how daft they look, but how daft they would actually have to be to do something as ridiculous as all that.
Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either (Score:4, Informative)
I believe that rating it R "For Images of a Dog's Head Smashed Open" would keep parents from bringing their kids. Or even just "For Images of a Blue Wang."