Jump to content

FILM: Watchmen


Recommended Posts

I rather liked the fact that apart from Dr Manhattan, so ones "powers" were explained in the movie. They just had them.

Erm, no one else in the movie *had* powers. Only Dr. Manhattan did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Watchmen Theatrical Cut

My first taste of uncompressed 1080p Blu-ray

I'm generally pretty desensitized to violence in films but this film has some really nasty stuff in it. The near rape scene, the killing of a pregnant women are hard to watch.

After seeing the DE earlier, this films actually feels rushed. It was missing some interesting stuff. It's still good though.

I'm very intrigued by the character Rorschach. It's one of the strongest performances I've seen in recent years. And most of the acting is in the voice. So much in fact that when he finally gets unmasked, it doesn't actually make any difference in how the character is perceived. It's a bold, uncompromising performance. I wonder if Jackie Earle Haley was nominated for any acting awards. He should have been.

Nite Owl II in costume in some shots reminded me of Rutger Hauer. especially when he smiles.

The songs and source music is great. But the original score is pretty generic. The thing is that that hardly seems to matter. Maybe the great movies no longer need great scores?

I don't think the new Superman can be as good as this because the source material does not have this kind of depth and texture. Like 300 is not as good as this because the comic, despite the fantastic way it looked was very one-dimensional.

If there is any criticism then it must be the make-up.

Old Carla Cugino just looks like she's wearing old-age make up. Even at the first scene with the Comedian I could see it was an actor under heavy latex. President Nixon looks very phony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Nixon looks very phony.

He was a liar. Maybe that's why his nose was so obviously phony? Strangely enough, I thought it was befitting the rest of the scene, which of course is a nod to Kubrick's Strangelove.

The songs and source music is great. But the original score is pretty generic.

It's constantly referencing to the '80s. When Rorschach walks the streets, the music sounds like Vangelis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The songs and source music is great. But the original score is pretty generic.

It's constantly referencing to the '80s. When Rorschach walks the streets, the music sounds like Vangelis.

That could play in Blade Runner. Which of course is fitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the new Superman can be as good as this because the source material does not have this kind of depth and texture. Like 300 is not as good as this because the comic, despite the fantastic way it looked was very one-dimensional.

In many ways, 300 is the tight version of LOTR. After I was impressed with Watchmen, I decided to watch 300 but this time from another perspective (after all, I knew the story and during Watchmen I noticed that I was fascinated by 'how' everything was put on film - the 'way' it was told) and suddenly it was equally satisfying. Since then, Snyder has become one of my favorite directors. Style over content!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's constantly referencing to the '80s. When Rorschach walks the streets, the music sounds like Vangelis.

Yeah.

But some of the action music sounded either like Hans Zimmer/Media Ventures or had a Don Davis The Matrix style with those loud orchestral crashes and wallops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious how you'd find the longest version of Watchmen.

Oh, and Brokeback Mountain is certainly better than Crash. At the very least. And I'm not even a fan of this film.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said before, there is this kid who's reading comic book and the animated film is about that. And it kind of comments on the main narrative. Cartoon is the last thing I'd call it. It's probably even more disturbing than the main film.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the longest cut limited and quite expensive? I'd really like to see this film, but the confusion over the different versions and the price issue have so far kept me from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the longest cut limited and quite expensive? I'd really like to see this film, but the confusion over the different versions and the price issue have so far kept me from it.

Avoid theatrical version (which is the only version readily available in Europe). Go with DC or UC. I'd recommned to see UC (the longest version), for it is the closest you get to the full Watchmen experience. It includes this animated film intercut with the main feature. It is an intergral part of the comic book so I find it essential to the whole. It wasn't directed by Snyder, but works quite well. If not, just watch DC.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Alex is it worth checking out?

I have seen the cartoon but not integrated into the live action film. I wasn't really affected by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is better seen as part of the film. On it's own it left me rather cold. It's part of a bigger fabric. Did you notice how it mirrors some themes from the film?

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since then, Snyder has become one of my favorite directors. Style over content!

In the case of Watchmen I think style are content are balanced very well, taking an equal share.

Just to be clear, but saying you like how it was put on film, do you mean purely the visual aspect (camerawork, visual effects, editing etc)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, but saying you like how it was put on film, do you mean purely the visual aspect (camerawork, visual effects, editing etc)?

Everything that is visual and that is visually expressing something. The cinematography. The composition. The movement. The lighting. I can watch those films without dialogue even though Watchmen is a lot more dialogue driven than 300 (and probably Sucker Punch). Every scene is visually maxed out. There's even something 'electrifying' about how the actors are captured on film (Watchmen) or digital film (300). Anyway, all the things that are part of the director/storyteller's vocabulary. Originally, as comic books, 300 and Watchmen are two different things but I mainly enjoy them because of what Snyder's adds to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Watchmen is a lot more talky them most films of this type. But I like that aspect. Especially the voice-overs.

I did not know it was shot on film until I saw the grain on the blu-ray.

But in your opinion, is how an actor is shot more important then his performance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question. Of course, performance is important but I know that I've never seen Rutger Hauer as electrifying or as radiant than in Blade Runner. Back then, Ridley Scott really knew how to capture something or someone. Maybe all his years in advertisement has something to do with that. He sees what the visual forte of an actor (or whatever that finds itself in front of the lens) is and he knows how to highlight it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that film is the closest you can get to "Gesamtkunstwerk". You know, total art. Where you have so many individual elements that can work that it is almost impossible to properly rate it. You know, that's what is so wonderful about it. It can have a mediocre script, but one can still find some great merits. It is a painting, ballet, symphony, sculpture, photography, theater, everything. It's not just the story, just the pictures or sounds.

That's why I'm not as much interested in changing anyone's opinion on a certain film. I'm just curious what makes it tick for them.

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all down to personal taste and preference, of course. I can understand why someone like Alex values very highly the power of images, but I would personally much rather watch (and listen to) a mesmerising performance by an actor in a good film than stare at a living prop whom is placed there merely (debatable) to be a part of the scenery within the greater composition of a given shot. We all appreciate beautifully framed cinema, but I think Alex resides at the extreme end of the spectrum in that regard, which in truth I personally don't believe to be a good thing (which is not a dig at the fella).

I choose story and characterisation over imagery, but you know what? I'll take 'em both and I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It look shite, it really does. I doubt I'll ever even watch it. I've made my feelings known on green movies and from what I've seen they don't come greener than Sucker Punch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How? I see a film leaning towards the screwball comedy of the fourties. It has that tone, not the elevated tone you would expect from heroic tales.

Right, Elmo Lewis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does have certain 1940's-flavored elements, especially when it comes to the scenes with Hackman and that hopelessly innocent Metropolis. But don't reduce it to that.

Is it an epic in the strict sense of the word, though? Well, there are some emotional moments shown through spectacular visuals. If that's what we consider epic (I don't, I just consider that Hollywood), then why not?

Unless you count the "son who exceeds his father's expectations" angle. Narratively speaking, you can't get more epic than that. But that would make The Godfather the ultimate epic and I doubt that's what Quint meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does have certain 1940's-flavored elements, especially when it comes to the scenes with Hackman and that hopelessly innocent Metropolis. But don't reduce it to that.

It's clearly a film of 2 halves. The first part has that "sprawling epic" quality too it. both on Krypton and the wide fields of Smallville.

The metropolis section is a bit more screwball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does have certain 1940's-flavored elements, especially when it comes to the scenes with Hackman and that hopelessly innocent Metropolis. But don't reduce it to that.

It's clearly a film of 2 halves. The first part has that "sprawling epic" quality too it. both on Krypton and the wide fields of Smallville.

The metropolis section is a bit more screwball.

It's when the movie looses all its appeal to me. But the first part is still fantastic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Watchmen (Dir Cut). No story spoilers.

The past ten years or so has seen a surprisingly large succession of succesful and largely worthwhile superhero movie adaptations hit the big screen, with the biggest icons leading the charge in the form of Batman and Spiderman and with the likes of Hellboy and Ironman bringing up the rear. But for every qualified superhero success story there seems to have been a deluge of lesser known, almost specialist comic book characters having a dig at carving out their own cinematic riches; with consistently disappointing and lacklustre results. It seems your average movie-goer has little interest in superheroes outside of the iconic likes of Superman and Batman; with complete indifference towards the vengeance of Darkman or the flashy exploits of The Green Lantern - movies which are destined to be forgotten as also-rans. "Cult" superheroes are too risky a venture, too difficult to nail.

So it is refreshing when a movie like Watchmen comes along.

An unexpected amalgamation of genres and a mesh of suitably brash personalities, the film is at once arresting and quickly very fascinating. That director Zack Snyder manages to assuredly and superbly weave a strong narrative through what boils down to an episodic plot in which each and every character is given plenty of time to breathe and be fleshed out, is probably the film's biggest achievement. That he makes it immediately accessible and the story's vast complexity effortlessly easy to follow (this is no convoluted Batman plot) is a near filmic miracle.

So many films (not just superhero ones) flounder at the first base – characterisation, but not here: the motley bunch who make up the Watchmen are wonderfully realised and importantly – vividly executed in terms of both dialogue (sharp as a needle) and poise. In this completely believable alternative universe, characters like The Comedian and the brilliant Rorschach are on the face of it every bit the larger-than-life clichés and caricatures we have come to expect from our comic book superheros, however; I've never personally encountered such clichés who have beating hearts, real humanity (or lack of) and an overall, anti-narrative written into their fibre. These aren't complex characters merely because they witnessed their parents get murdered, no, these people count attempted rape, child murder and alcoholism among their many 'failings'.

And yet they endear themselves. They are likeable. That's a very special filmmaking gift, that. Hard to come by and absolutely appreciated when it does. You're still on their side as they fight 'crime' and catch the bad guys. Though it is often the case that in this deeply colourful world (nothing is black and white here) the bad guys go after the bad guys. It's fascinating stuff.

But they're not all bad, not at all – Nite Owl is the nice, polite single fella down the road who at nighttime over a few beers dreams of bringing back the good old days of kick-assing villains into jail, the yearning for the old camaraderie never going away. But he can't manage it, its best left alone – a spot-on observation of middle-aged has-beens pining for their youth again, entertaining the idea of an affair as they go about there daily mundane business. A superhero's mid-life crisis. Heck – he's even lost his mojo in bed. Marvelous.

Dr Manhattan as the film's only true humanoid superpower exists in this story as the central McGuffin to which all events are tied to, which is a smart move. Adding a grandiose element of epic sci-fi to the mix succeeds for two reasons: he makes everyone else and their petty problems look pathetic, he makes the viewer realise that this is much bigger than criminal squabbling, plus, in putting us - the viewers, right there into the mind and thinking of this god-like being we are in complete understanding of his motivations when he is clearly more and more disinterested with Earth and humankind. It creates a great suspense mechanic, an anchor to brace the growing tension to. The nuanced performance by Billy Crudup in the role cements it - such a gracefully delivered performance with a cold, patronising edge. I'd love to see him reprise it sometime.

The film doesn't get it all right, though. The pacing could have been even tighter, there's an intentionally bad sex scene which doesn't quite work as it was probably designed and I do not like Guy Richie/Edgar Wright camera swishes (with yep, swishy sound effects) in my movies, unless they're comedies (where I can accept them). Keep that gimmicky crap away from movies aimed at intelligent adults. I mean, would a Stanley Kubrick superhero movie ever had camera swishes with sound effects? I think not.

Minor things though which don't really impact much on my engrossed enjoyment of the film. It looks like a dark comic book brought to life, the film is alive with content and it doesn't treat the viewer like a complete dickhead.

5 Stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, and I agree with the observations about the film's characters, the review's main focus. I didn't notice the Guy Ritchie "swishy sound effects". I agree with Steef, it was refreshing to see every move. I was surprised that the camera wasn't too close to the choreography (see Comedian apartment) and yet is was extremely violent, impactful and beautiful at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't really see it as a special quality just because we can make out what's going on in an action sequence and I certainly don't find it refreshing at all. Such things should be a given. I realise it's trendy nowadays to edit the shit out of fight sequences to within an inch of their lives, but that's all it is - a trend.

I don't award kudos points to Snyder just because he didn't follow that trend, in the same way I don't award them to Spielberg either.

Watchmen has so much going for it, such sensibilities like shooting a fight scene with clear framing and incorporating a more traditional, albeit stylistic approach to editing are just a part of the greater make-up and are not a highlight, for me. We should already expect those things from any director worth a punt.

Now that was a good review Quint!

Thank you for saying so. I had to dust my laptop off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't really see it as a quality just because we can make out what's going on in an action sequence and I certainly don't find it refreshing at all.

Okay, now I recognize you again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Watchmen: The Directors Edition.

Comic book hero movies with superheroes are now very common, every year two or 3 big budget ones come out at the very least. All of them basically the same, because the comic books they are based on are basically the same. The mythos of the hero or heroes, an interesting couple of villains. Some personal agenda, and a plot which often involves world domination/destruction.....often New York is laid waste.

Watchmen has all of these elements, yet it never feels like one of the herd. It knows every cliché of the genre and plays with them, exposes them.

The film starts strong with a dramatic fight scene that ends badly for Superhero The Comedian. From they it segues into a series of vignettes underscored by a Bob Dylan song. Famous scenes from the 20th century. Familiar, yet different.
The investigation to find out who killed The Comedian and why is the main plot of the film, but it's only the spine. Much of the film takes place in flashbacks. Exposing our heroes. Explaining their origins, their motivations.

The director, Zach Snyder constantly shifts to different times, different viewpoints back to the present, or in this case 1985, under Dick Nixon, on the verge if all out war with Russia. This world is less stylised then how Snyder painted his scenes in 300. It looks deliberately very familiar to our world, but with cinematic touches. Blimps with advertising circle New York, like the circled L.A. in Blade Runner (Snyder also uses a famous advertisement from Ridley Scott), the war room as shown in this film looks identical to the one shown in Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, filmed in grey tones.

This is far more of a character movie then the average Superhero fare. It also gives some of the actors a chance to really stretch.
Jackey Earle Haley spends much of the movie wearing a mask, but does amazing things with his voice and posting. Gravely tones that would make Clint Eastwood sound like a tenor. His Rorschach inhabits the same kind of uncompromising vision that Dirty Harry had, but much for savage and terrifying. And when he finally does take of his mark, or is unmasked actually, we see the face matches the voice perfectly.

Billy Crudup also does a lot with his voice. most of the character he plays is CGI, and even though his face can be reconized as his own, the eyes are empty and white. His Dr. Manhattan talk in a flat, dry, often bored tone. Him being so powerfull and omnipotent that the questions, opinions and lives of everyone around him seem remote and insignificant. Crudup's character constantly talk to people like one would talk to a 4 year old child.

These two stellar performances are supported by a strong cast. Especially Jeffrey Dean organ is impressive as The Comedian, making a raping, pregnant-woman shooting psychopath into someone you actually feel some compassion for.

The joy of Watchmen is that it is about so much more then it's basic plot. Even though the world the movie portrays if fictional. It feels expansive. The "present time" in Watchmen film like an end of an era. It has an epic quality that most Comic book movies lack. An epic quality not achieved by budget, or effects, but by the years. This movie feels like it's telling a story of decades. The rise and fall of the Superheroes.
In it's 3 hours it achieves this more then the last string of Marvel film did that led up too The Avengers.

Snyder's direction is detailed and confident. His love for slo-mo feels natural and well-used. And it's a beautiful looking film, far more appealing then the murky and garish look of the comic it's based on.
The score by Tyler Burden is effective, but essentially anonymous. Musically this movie belongs to the many songs. From 3 Bob Dylan songs, the Nena's 99 Luftballons, to Hallelujah by Leonard Cohen. Orchestral music-wise the highlights are the tracks composed by Philip Glass.

In my opinion this is the best comic-book/Superhero movie ever made. Many will still point at Superman: The Movie instead and that is OK. Essentially these two movies are polar opposites.
Superman The Movie is a celebration of the genre's most enduring hero. Watchmen is a dissection of the genre as a whole. A commentary on the Superhero rather then perhaps an actual superhero film.

Most commentary films are meaningless without the subject they are riffing upon, Watchmen however can stand alone.

**** out of ****

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.