Jump to content

Who Watches the Watchmen?


Recommended Posts

I expected reactions like this. Kind of like all DePalma reviews.

This film is going to be bigger than Mission To Mars and I'm not talking financially. I think the emotional response will be strong and controversial as opposed to Mission To Mars where everyone merely reacted with an impassionate "meh".

Alex

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 303
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I did the same with Supergirl. I was absolutely mesmerised by Helen Slater's thighs from their very first frame to their last.

No point? I avoid populists like Ebert. He's a top critic, isn't he? Doesn't mean a thing.

There are only 6 reviews under 'Top Critics'. That's hardly a consensus, I would say. Why trust them in particular? Seems like a dumb thing to do. Is the critique of Emmanuel Levy less 'valid' than Kirk Honeycutt's?!

Yes! :lol:

It seems to be reviewing well on the geek sites...

Which is why I'm going to avoid it. I'm sure that particular segment of filmgoer will eat up alive. I'm no longer the target demographic, and that's fine with me.

Neil

So you're not a geek? Judging by the fact you have close to 15,000 posts on a forum about a film composer and by your avatar, I humbly beg to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
that one is brutal Neil

all the top critics have given it negative reviews.

You hate it so much that you need to lie about? That's low, even for you, Joe.

I have no opinion on this one way or the other.

Judging on your behaviour, you could've fooled us.

Yeah I always look at Top Critics on RT. No point otherwise.

No point? I avoid populists like Ebert. He's a top critic, isn't he? Doesn't mean a thing.

There are only 6 reviews under 'Top Critics'. That's hardly a consensus, I would say. Why trust them in particular? Seems like a dumb thing to do. Is the critique of Emmanuel Levy less 'valid' than Kirk Honeycutt's?!

I read several quotes (the text balloons) and apparently a lot of the critics seem to agree that the film is quite different, unusual and arty. I tell you what, the fact that Joe hates this movie is a very good indication. We all know Joe doesn't like things that are different, unusual and arty. Neil's taste can be described as fairly conservative too. Of course, they hate this movie! Great!

funny you calling me a liar?

when I replied to Neil, there were 5 top critic responses and all 5 were negative, now there are more, I didn't lie, I gave information that was correct at the time. Furthermore I don't hate it, I've not seen it. My opinion of the movie itself is null.

I think the trailers look bad, but since I will be seeing the movie anyways I'm hoping for the best.

Lastly you have me pigeon holed as if you have a clue what I like and dislike, again you are wrong, but thats ok, its how you roll.

btw the 6th review, the positve one by Owen G. of EW had not posted when I responed to Neil, his review gives it a B- but it quite harsh, and it strives more to impress upon the reader his vocabulary skills rather than his actual thoughts of the film. I get so tired of critics doing that, its as if they have to meet a quota on $10 dollar words.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So you're not a geek? Judging by the fact you have close to 15,000 posts on a forum about a film composer and by your avatar, I humbly beg to disagree.

Oh I'm totally a geek and I'm looking forward to Star Trek. It has the potential to be the greatest movie ever made!!!! That's why I have that avatar. But trust me, it's not for geeky reasons. And I won't be going to see Watchmen just to see the new Star Trek trailer.

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites
So you're not a geek? Judging by the fact you have close to 15,000 posts on a forum about a film composer and by your avatar, I humbly beg to disagree.

Oh I'm totally a geek and I'm looking forward to Star Trek. It has the potential to be the greatest movie ever made!!!! That's why I have that avatar. But trust me, it's not for geeky reasons. And I won't be going to see Watchmen just to see the new Star Trek trailer.

Neil

I've heard that... I look forward to the new ST trailer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, Shyamalan is not asking us to morally support it! That's not my point. What bothers me is that Mr. Night did nothing to make 'the unbelievable' believable. That all the parents of the village were able to creep out their children like that is a cruelty I simply cannot fathom. I was waiting for Mr. Night to make me doubt my strong 'reservations' on this. Perhaps he would show me something that would make me less reluctant to understand why every single parent was able to go to such extreme, never-seen-before lengths to scare his children to death. Why should I believe this? To isolate the children from the rest of the world? Some of the elders seemed wise and intelligent, so why didn't they question their own drastic actions? Why did no one feel they were taking it way too far? Why did no one understand that those measurements would only lead to complete destruction?

I tell you why! It's bull! And Mr. Night was shooting for spectacle and effect, rather than common sense. He came up with a premise that is only acceptable in children's stories and he thought everyone would buy it. He took his audience for granted. If you make your audience believe in the premise then everything else (other aspects) will follow. If he had presented his story as a fairy tale, then maybe I would've gone along with it. If I saw disgust on some of the parents' faces while they were putting incredible fear into the hearts of their own young children, then maybe I would have met Shyamalan halfway.

I don't understand your objections here, Alex. These people all signed up -- very willingly, one assumes -- to be residents in the village. Nobody forced them, cajoled them, or probably even begged them. I doubt William Hurt had to even pitch them very hard. Presumably, his plan to keep the children from straying from the confines of the village was a major part of his initial conversations with each of them, and they all said it sounded effective, and therefore like a good idea. Either way, it's very obvious that they've all been okay with it for years and years and years.

I get that what you're saying is that such a scenario is totally unbelievable. I don't actually agree with that; I think that there are a lot of people in the world who -- if they had the money to make it a genuine possibility -- would be very happy to totally remove themselves from society. But even if I didn't agree, it's a movie ... you ought to be able to accept just about anything within a piece of fiction, provided that once you're inside that piece of fiction, there's nothing self-contradictory. And as far as I can remember, everything within The Village is thoroughly consistent.

All that said, I'm not a parent, so who knows; if I were, I might have some of the same objections you've got.

luckily the New Star Trek trailer will be online by next Monday anyways, if not sooner.

Take it from the manager of a projection booth: just because a new trailer "is supposed" to play in front of a certain movie, that's no guarantee that it will. The studios like to think they control such things, but they don't; the exhibitors do.

For example, my company sends me a weekly list of what trailers to play in front of the movies, with four (or, occasionally, five) being the maximum. One of them will be whatever trailer Warner Bros. -- the studio which made Watchmen -- has attached to the first reel. That'll likely be Terminator, which leaves only three open spots. I won't be the least bit surprised if Star Trek isn't on the list. It wasn't on the list for Quantum of Solace when the first full trailer "was supposed" to premiere with.

Of course, in that instance, certain projectionists might have put the trailer on the movie when they screned it just so they could see the trailer on a big screen for themselves, and they might have then "forgotten" to remove it until the weekend had passed. Something similar might happen with the new trailer this weekend.

I say all this only to long-windedly suggest that nobody should ever buy a ticket for a movie expecting to see a specific trailer. If you do and it's not there, find a manager after the movie and throw a fit. They'll give you passes. If they don't, get on the website for their corporate office, and throw another fit about the fact that the first fit you threw apparently didn't matter to their local management. If that doesn't get you passes, then you should find another theatre to attend; because that one doesn't care what you think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i understand thats how it works BB, but the new Star Trek trailer is supposed to be online Monday, but someone will get it online, and it will be removed only to show up somewhere else and if one is patient then Monday they will see it legitimately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to know your thoughts but I'm afraid I'm not coming back to this thread. From now on the discussion will be about the film itself and I don't want to read any spoilers.

Alex

Ditto. Hope everyone who goes to see it enjoys it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoilers of what? It's not like the story hasn't been available for 2 decades. Meh

http://music.ign.com/articles/958/958996p1.html

True, and its not that I don't know the story, but it obviously has been altered to fit a 2.5 hour movie. I'd like to be surprised as to what is/isn't included and what has been changed to accommodate these changes.

As for the score, I've listened to samples and really dig it. I'll probably pick it up Friday after I see the movie if I like it enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoilers of what? It's not like the story hasn't been available for 2 decades. Meh

It's not what most would consider to be a mainstream comic book universe. I'm a big fan of the more popular DC and Marvel characters, but I don't know anybody in The Watchmen from a hole in the ground. So I would also feel that anything about this movie is "spoiler" caliber. But this thread is obviously full of spoilers, so I don't know what I'm doing here in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it earlier tonight. Spoilers will follow, so if you don't want 'em, duck the f--k out.

I've been a fan of the comics for almost a decade, so I've got baggage, but: ultimately, I liked it a lot.

I've got problems, though:

(1) As reviewers have been pointing out, almost all of the old-age makeup is terrible. Like, amateurishly terrible. Distracting, even, and I don't normally mind that sort of stuff.

(2) The actor they hired to play Nixon is not good. Also, Nixon is used poorly; and that's a generous evaluation. Even worse, HIS makeup -- including a long fake nose that would look cartoonishly ridiculous in an Adam Sandler movie, much less in something as serious as this movie wants to be.

(3) The superhero action is way overdone. I'm not talking about the slow-mo. I liked almost all of the slow-mo, and loved much of it; that coming from somebody who hated 300. No, I'm talking about the fact of what happens during the fights: the fights are cartoonishly exaggerated, so much so that I think people unfamiliar with the comics will not get that (apart from Dr. Manhattan), these people do not have superpowers. Now, I get why Zack Snyder made this particular choice. He wants the movie to work upon moviegoers in something similar to the way the comics worked on comics-readers upon their release. In other words, he wants Average Joe Moviegoer to feel like he's watching a normal superhero movie, so that when the gnarly stuff starts happening, it seems all the more shocking and profane and sexy and subversive. So I don't mind the overdone action, not really; I just wish it had been dialed back a little bit.

Those are a few of my major complaints. And they are major. However, there is way more stuff in this movie that I like than stuff that I dislike. For example:

(1) The acting amongst the main cast is mostly excellent. I've seen a few reviews blasting Malin Akerman for being one-note and lousy; I do not agree. It's not powerhouse acting, but she's good, and she's also sexy as hell. Jeffrey Dean Morgan is effective as The Comedian, and Matthew Goode is, well, good as Ozymandias. Patrick Wilson is a bit better than good as the younger Nite Owl. The standouts are Jackie Earle Haley (who is never less than excellent, and in a few scenes is flat-out awesome as Rorschach) and Billy Crudup (who, vocally, is absolutely perfect as Dr. Manhattan). The only major performance I didn't like was Carla Gugino's; she's shrill, obnoxious, and saddled with very unhelpful makeup in most of her scenes, though she is good in the flashbacks.

(2) The controversial change to the climax of the plot is fine by me. My only reservations are that I like how the comics' version of this story do a slow-burn throughout the books; this new ending is fine, it just isn't given as much of an opportunity to breathe. Note that I said as much; I think Snyder did as good a job as he could have done in a single film. That said, I'd have loved to have seen that doggone squid. Also, why isn't it midnight in New York when the explosion happens? That's a giant missed opportunity.

(3) I really, really liked almost all of the music. The Philip Glass piece is very memorable during Dr. Manhattan's flashback sequence. I also liked how several of the songs were worked in: "99 Luftballoons" is great, "The Sound of Silence" is great, "All Along the Watchtower" is great, "The Times They Are A-Changin" is great. I detested the cover of "Desolation Row," however, and I think it ends the movie on a great big false note. As for Tyler Bates' score, assuming all the pieces I'm thinking of are his and not repurposing of other people's works (like the Glass cue), I think it worked very well. I'm not sure it's good music, but it's good scoring. It seems to serve primarily as a series of cues to the audience to think of certain types of movies, either consciously or unconsciously. An example: during a scene in which Nite Owl and Rorschach talk about their past as partners, there is bluesy guitar music that made me think of the Lethal Weapon movies, i.e., buddy cop movies. Nice.

There's more, but I don't want to be typing much longer.

All in all, I liked it, and I would definitely recommend it to people who I know have similar sensibilities to my own. For everyone else, though, man, I don't know what most people are going to make out of this thing. I watched it with about a dozen co-workers, most of whom had not read the comics, and all of whom liked the movie; several of them loved it. So who knows, the general audience who kinda knows what they're getting themselves into may be very receptive to it. But others, who don't know they're about to see an extraordinarily violent movie in which there is a decent amount of blue penis ... I can imagine people not just disliking this movie, but outright hating it. I'll be surprised if it isn't very divisive.

I look forward to seeing how this thing does at the box office. I also look forward to seeing it again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a score aimed squarely at young consumers who think Pirates of Caribbean and The Dark Knight are the best things ever written, who think orchestras are passé, and who wouldn’t be able to pick out a countermelody if you hit them over the head with it. What bothers me about this, though, is the fact that you can guarantee that the Watchmen soundtrack will sell in huge numbers, make a boat load of money for Reprise and Warner Brothers, and will lead to other films of this type having similar scores commissioned, because they too want a piece of the youth market pie.

OK, that guy can shove it up his @$$. Honestly, the score is orchestral to the extent where it still sounds listenable. In fact, certain parts probably have less synth than TDK. If he refuses to listen to scores that intentionally have synth and computers, than he is just a close minded tard. People who like TDK and Watchmen don't think orchestra is "passe" as this boob suggested, they just prefer to judge it on the actual music and don't let a few orchestration mistakes or choices cloud their vision.

That being said, I do not like the Watchmen score very much. I was just suggesting we do not judge it on its use of electronics like that douche. In fact, I feel it used electronics fairly and well have listened to some of it. It's certainly not a great score, but it's far from bad. Better than I expected from Bates. I have a soft spot for "All that is Good" and I hope is accompanies the scene where

Dr. Manhattan kills Rorschach.

I look forward to tomorrow night. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything spoilery is spoiler-tagged.

I saw the movie this morning, and loved it.

Let's discuss the music, first...

Surprisingly, I cared more for the songs than Bates' score; the choices were good; the opening sequence is great with whatever song it has (I don't recall the title).

The one plastered over the flight to the location of the final confrontation, however, is a very poor choice; it should have ben music, or a better song.

The end credits' first song is awful and horribly loud, and mars the conclusion of a very good movie.

The score does the (minimal) job ("it works" well enough in the movie), but it severely lacks identity-- no distinct theme(s), no cohesion, no evolution, no dominant motif, nothing.

Everything could have been put together from various sources as for a temp track; as a matter of fact, it seems to have been exactly the case, as Philip Glass is credited for two or three (three, I believe) tracks taken from The Hours, one of the -quatsi films and possibly a third movie (or another track from the same); since I don't have any of these, I could not identify anything, but it may very well be that the best stuff I heard and liked actually came from Glass.

(Bryant, thanks to you, I now know that the wonderfully delicate approach that so impressed me for Dr Manhattan's flashback was actually by Glass).

This is a terrible waste, musically speaking.

For a movie in which one of the major characters in more ways than one has lost his humanity and become a soulless god, it is a terrible (and unintentional) irony that the score should be missing a soul, at least one core theme from which a good deal of the music could grow and evolve, whether into awesome beauty or awesome chaos.

That's the movie's truly awful joke.

Onto the movie now, then...

The change made to the end does not alter its impact, the characters' dilemma, the horror and ambiguity; the book's device might indeed not have been as efficient on-screen, but the solution they found is a good one, and it results very logically from the whole situation and characters, which is also why it fits so well.

It would have been perfect had they included two minutes (or even just half a minute of newspaper montage) to strengthen part of it by planting the seeds of fear-- in other words,

by showing the fear and wariness of American people faced with the discovery that "God exists, and he's American"; it would be natural for many of them to be scared that Dr Manhattan take over the country or go berserk for some reason. A montage of journalists interviewing people in the streets, debates on TV, and/or sipply newspaper and magazine covers ("God or Devil? The Russians fear Dr Manhattan. Should we?") would have laid a basis for the universal fear that unites the world at the end.

Still, Snyder (and the screenwriting team) managed to condense everything important into this movie and adapt the ending in a satisfactory way that does not betray the book's intent (

after all, whether it's a giant pseudo-extraterrestrial monster or Dr Manhattan, what matters is that Ozymandias achieve a monumental, murderous hoax that creates peace by sacrificing millions of lives to save millions or billions; extending it to other cities is a good idea, too

).

One "full frontal" shot of Mr Manhattan was more than enough. obs00041.gif

When Daniel was looking at his costume in the basement, nude, seen from behind, I was afraid he would turn around. obs00041.gif

I was despairing to see anything to, uh, balance this; fortunately, the splendid Malin Akerman was relatively generous (not for as long, though). obs00072.gif

A agree with Bryant on these points:

- I kept wondering at Nixon's nose, too; he looked like a caricature, a la Ronald Reagan in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight returns

- the characters all seemed as powerful as Superman, while I recalled they were actually like Batman (exceptionally fit and trained, but not endowed of superhuman strength).

Much to be said, certainly; what comes to mind right now: the main title sequence is great.

The casting was excellent, apart from Carla Gugino (and not even that much), I was not familiar with any of them.

Carla Gugino was a great choice for a 1940 pin-up.

I had doubts regarding Ozymandias; Matthew Goode fitted the "most intelligent man on earth" description, but did not look broad-shouldered enough for the little action he was to have; in the end, he turned out to be really good.

Jeffrey Dean Morgan looked right from the start (promo pictures) as The Comedian.

As Bryant said, Cruddup's gentle, even voice was perfect for Dr Manhattan-- whose CGI was perfectly done.

Jackie Earle Haley is perfect as Rorschach-- with Manhattan, an even more so, a most crucial casting decision upon which the whole movie depended; he looks absolutely right for the part, and his voice is great. Like Hugo Weaving as "V", even though he was in a mask 90% of the time, Haley was incredibly effective.

As for Malin Akerman, she looked great in the part (believable) and is divinely superb.

I have not read the book in a couple of years (I will now re-read) it, but there don't seem to have been any glaring omissions nor contradictions.

Snyder & co truly did a very good job of adapting to the big screen a complex story. The movie stands very well on its own, and I believe it is indeed most respectful of the graphic novel-- and therefore, undeniably, the best adaptation of a book by Moore.

And then, he's also produced The Black Freighter as an animated feature, plus plenty of stuff for the DVD/BR (including, for instance, an interview of Mason discussing Under the Hood, if I remember correctly)!

I can't wait to have the BR (I should be properly equipped by then), to see the movie again and discover all the extra material.

It's not perfect (I have humbly given an example in the spoiler above of a little that might have helped; a clear explanation of the reason the heroes were outlawed would have been good, too), but it's a damn fine movie & adaptation, which is no easy feat. True, using the book as a storyboard certainly makes things easier than compleely rewriting the whole thing, but it certainly is not a surefire formula, and the fact that it works is not a mark of laziness on Snyder's part, but rather a strong testament of the excellence of Moore & Gibbons' graphic novel (writing, pacing, staging, ...) and of Snyder's ability to inject some life and camera work into the panels instead of just point-and-shooting everything "as in the panels".

Short of a 12-part TV feature (animated or live action) or even a multi-part movie, transferring on-screen every single panel of the graphic novel, I don't think a better adaption could have been made (and then, would something four times as long really be four times as good?)-- but it's easy to see how truly bad it could have been.

Even by producing them as extra features for the DVD/BR, some parts could never be kept (such as the excerpts from Dan's books on owls), but if you want all these, every single word and every single picture, you can just read the book; as Snyder himself said, if the movie makes you want to read the graphic novel, it's a success.

A cinematographic adaptation is not supposed to be a substitute for a literary work; it may improve upon it, and it does happen, but even the greatest adaptation is not meant, nor should be considered, to be a substitute.

Congratulations on the movie, Mr Snyder! http://bobcat74.free.fr/obemoticons/smileys/obs00001.gif

Shame on you, though, for having made such a poor scoring decision obs00007.gif -- except when using existing cues by Philip Glass obs00001.gif .

Superman-- The Movie remains my favorite "comic book movie", and Spider-Man 2 follows it in the list.

Watchmen is great; the difference in the material and the end product is such, that I believe a new category is necessary: "the graphic novel" movie.

Superman is four-color comic glory; in this new category, Watchmen may well be its mirror equivalent (its Bizarro?) as the seedier, darker, pessimistic underbelly of superheroes. Dark and gritty as it is, the Batman Begins-The Dark Knight dyptic still deals with heroics: the "Dark Knight" is still the good guy, in an unambiguous way-- "a white knight"; Watchmen, however, depict superhero versions of "dirty" Harry Callahan gone wrong (think of the second movie-- no, not Harry, but I won't spoil it if you haven't seen it yet).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've yet to see it, glad to see that it's not atrocious.

I've said to myself from the start that, if during the scene when Rorshach is finally apprehended the audience feels sorry for him, then the movie will work. If the audience didn't give a crap, then forget it.

BTW, I've been listening to the Tyler Bates score, and usually I'm not a fan of synths, but if the movie is set in an alternate 1985, then it makes sense. Also, I couldn't help but notice during "Rescue Mission" that there's a little motif that at first sounds exactly like Elfman's Batman, only to quickly drop back down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BB, do you get the feeling that this film will do well at the boxoffice, or is it going to have a decent opening and then disappear?

Hard to say, and I'm curious to find out. Our sales for the midnight show have been tremendous; less so for the rest of the weekend.

My guess is that it's going to do around $60 mil for the weekend, and end up at around $150 mil overall. A good mid-size hit, in other words: nothing spectacular, but very respectable.

BUT ... I think it's got potential to really cross over. I think it could be the kind of movie that really gets people talking, even the ones who hate it (and there will be some of those). Sometimes, when that happens, a movie can really take off. I think the rating and the runtime will help keep it from happening in this instance, but if it does happen, I won't be too surprised.

Looking forward to seeing it again in about three and a half hours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
An example: during a scene in which Nite Owl and Rorschach talk about their past as partners, there is bluesy guitar music that made me think of the Lethal Weapon movies, i.e., buddy cop movies. Nice.

The review of the score I linked mentioned that, but didn't see it as a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Superman-- The Movie remains my favorite "comic book movie", and Spider-Man 2 follows it in the list.

Watchmen is great; the difference in the material and the end product is such, that I believe a new category is necessary: "the graphic novel" movie.

Superman is four-color comic glory; in this new category, Watchmen may well be its mirror equivalent (its Bizarro?) as the seedier, darker, pessimistic underbelly of superheroes. Dark and gritty as it is, the Batman Begins-The Dark Knight dyptic still deals with heroics: the "Dark Knight" is still the good guy, in an unambiguous way-- "a white knight"; Watchmen, however, depict superhero versions of "dirty" Harry Callahan gone wrong (think of the second movie-- no, not Harry, but I won't spoil it if you haven't seen it yet).

And because of the way it portrays "superheroes", it's important that this remains a "comic book" film. Graphic novel is too much of a term used by people to legitimise the comic book to people who are too snobby to realize its a genuinely powerful art form. It's like the guy who's filled his basement with Star Wars (or Star Trek) "Collectibles." They're toys dude, you've spent thousands of pounds on toys, but eff it, be proud of what you love.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An awkward film. It's exactly what I expected it to be: a long collection of great sequences and not a great movie. It just doesn't make much sense in this form. True, it is faithful to the comic book, but it doesn't quite work. Alan Moore was right: as it is Watchmen is unfilmable. A 12-issue series is great. Each part has its own pattern and is dedicated (more or less) to one character, not unlike Lost.m In the film it feels weird and slow. There is no momentum to it. It is literally a 12-part comic series in 160 minutes. And, mind you, these were the longest 160 minutes in my life.

I had a problem with an enhanced violence in the film. It is probably the only creative contribution to the film. And it's a moot point. The film doesn't really benefit from that: it doesn't improve the uneven pacing whatsoever nor is it needed to underline this already bleak story. Alan Moore once said that the understatement in these kind of things is sometimes enough to make the point. It's probably has something to do with rating. "You know, we've already got permission to do rated-R. Let's do it even more R so no one will doubt it's a mature film".

As I said, it doesn't mean there is no merit to the film. Many scenes or sequences are well done and, on their own right, are worth seeing. It's just the whole thing is so unexciting. The themes from the book and the general feel is there, sure. But in this quite literal translation... I'm not so sure.

Score is godawful. I don't care how many scores from the 80's Bates tried to emulate. It doesn't make it relevant. And sometimes the music feels laughable: in the more emotional scenes. Songs would suffice, even if they seem sometimes out of place.

Maybe I'm spoiled by the book. But there was an sense ot detachment to the whole thing. At which point the only sensible question is: was it really necessary to make this one?

I'll try to see it again at some point. I wanted to see a director's cut. Now I'm not so sure I want it even 90 mins (or so) longer.

Overall, a curious expierence, but not a good film at all.

Karol - who can't imagine regular people enjoying this film.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is probably the only creative contribution to the film.

Thoughts on the title sequence?

I didn't have much of a problem with the violence, as it's mostly Rorschach's scenes where it happens. The one time I thought it went too far was the gang fight with Nite-Owl and Silk Spectre.

One of my friends who saw it with me called the movie an "interesting failure."

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is probably the only creative contribution to the film.

Thoughts on the title sequence?

I liked it. But, like everything else in the film, it's too long.

I didn't have much of a problem with the violence, as it's mostly Rorschach's scenes where it happens. The one time I thought it went too far was the gang fight with Nite-Owl and Silk Spectre.

That's the scene where it bothers me most. It is cartainly not what these characters would do.

One of my friends who saw it with me called the movie an "interesting failure."

This is exactly what it is indeed.

Karol

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised you talked about how long it felt.

Pretty much everyone I know felt that time went by really fast, and that the movie didn't take time to breathe (which I now agree)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it a second time tonight, and I liked it more than I did the first time. Always a good sign, in my opinion.

Sure, it's not the comic book. So what? I think it works well (not perfectly, but well) on its own. This stuff about the comics being "unfilmable" is a bunch of bulls--t. There are challenges, and to do it really well would require both an enormous budget and the luxury of many, many hours worth of film. But if this movie proves anything to me, it's that it could be done. They do alright even with a crippling time limitation in this movie; with, say, twenty-four hours and some inventive editing, sure, absolutely it could be done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm surprised you talked about how long it felt.

Pretty much everyone I know felt that time went by really fast, and that the movie didn't take time to breathe (which I now agree)

Well, it certainly didn't for me.

Sure, it's not the comic book. So what? I think it works well (not perfectly, but well) on its own. This stuff about the comics being "unfilmable" is a bunch of bulls--t. There are challenges, and to do it really well would require both an enormous budget and the luxury of many, many hours worth of film. But if this movie proves anything to me, it's that it could be done. They do alright even with a crippling time limitation in this movie; with, say, twenty-four hours and some inventive editing, sure, absolutely it could be done.

My impression was the story didn't move at all. That every single scene was ornamented and heralded as the most important thing in it. There is no story arc, in the film sense. There is only constant exposition. But then again Watchmen was never about the plot, which is very simple and, frankly, less important than the characters. That's why it doesn't work as a film. It's not that I discard entirely what Snyder tried to do. It's just the graphic novel is more like literature I'm not as interested in the fact how faithful it is. You can do this kind of thing with editinf and such, as you say. But I already read a graphic novel. It's pointless.

It could work as a TV series though.

Karol

Link to post
Share on other sites

One important poitn I forgot: having read the book, even though once only a few years ago, I was familiar with both characters and story.

Thus, I could not well judge the movie on its own, nor guess the reaction of someone discovering it (which I wish would have been my case, too), and how easy it was for them to comprehend everything at once.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Director Zack Snyder's cerebral, scintillating follow-up to "300" seems, to even a weary filmgoer's eye, as fresh and magnificent in sound and vision as "2001" must have seemed in 1968, yet in its eagerness to argue with itself, it resembles "A Clockwork Orange." - Kyle Smith (New York Post)

Now I know why I'm interested.

Alex

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange description. Both accurate and inaccurate. More the latter though.

It was better the second time around. But still... it's simply not a great movie. For those who can't read it might look like something fresh. For the rest - it's simply redundant in the end. Guilty pleasure at the best.

Karol

Link to post
Share on other sites
Director Zack Snyder's cerebral, scintillating follow-up to "300" seems, to even a weary filmgoer's eye, as fresh and magnificent in sound and vision as "2001" must have seemed in 1968, yet in its eagerness to argue with itself, it resembles "A Clockwork Orange." - Kyle Smith (New York Post)

Now I know why I'm interested.

Alex

Now I can only be dissapointed.

Not many films I've seen can compare to 2001 favorably.

Link to post
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.