Just got home from watching The Watchmen. Feelings are… different, right now at least. I watched it with two friends, one who enjoyed it and the other who didn’t. The one who disliked it really didn’t want to even come but I kind of forced him, so his opinion really didn’t effect me. The one who enjoyed it ultimately didn’t “get it” I don’t think, and I kind of use him to gauge average audiences. After finishing the movie, which was so close to the original book it dawned on me how outside of the norm the whole story of Watchmen is, and I’m curious how this film is going to ultimately go over.
SPOILERS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The ending was the biggest departure from the comic aside from the name change of The Crimebusters and such. I can see how it will bother some, but it really didn’t alter my views on the film. The main difference is that Dr. Manhattan is left taking on all of this burden of being our world’s villain, whereas in the book the world united against a faux-alien race (oh, and a lot more people die instead of just half of New York). What does this do to the Watchmen universe? In the end, in my opinion, not so much. Only one faux-villain was replaced with another and with Manhattan leaving earth at the end in both stories, the conclusion really isn’t changed all that much. However it does lose a bit of that “What the hell?” factor that the comic originally had, but truthfully after seeing how the rest of the film came about when taking it from the page literally - I can side with Snyder a bit on this because I really can’t imagine that playing well to an audience in this format. Reading someone describing a squid with psychic enhanced destroying powers in a graphic novel is one thing, seeing that being explained by a human on-screen would probably come out a little silly. I would still love to see it though if they did indeed shoot both endings like I had read a long time back.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< SPOILERS
There were so many other things I enjoyed though. The amazing imagery. Absolutely amazing in every way, from the opening credit sequence with the moving images to all of the shots that were lifted straight from the panels of the book. The performances have been getting mixed reviews, but I really didn’t think anyone did poorly with the film. I was especially surprised by Patrick Wilson as Night Owl, who from all of the images I had seen of him did not appear that much like the Dan from the book. However, once in the film I was just like “wow, he looks just like him aside from having no gut… and he’s putting in a damn fine performance!”. Aside from Crudup who’s job was essentially not to emote anyway, I thought all of the cast were really great.
It was really surprising to see how faithful it was to the source material. Really, you’ve got to give it to the film, there’s more male genitalia than you’ll likely ever see in a movie theater again in your life unless you’re big into gay porn. I’ll be honest that such an adaptation was what I had hope for, but when seeing how massive the story turned out to be and the length of the film - one wonders what a more concise version of the story, like noirfiction mentioned above, might look like. However, it’s understandable how this would have angered fans of the book after years of comic films being completely shat upon by their adaptations and truthfully I’d probably be one of those screaming from the rafters. I suppose the only way to present Watchmen is with an epic film to match this universe with nearly a century worth of alternate circumstances than those of our own reality - that were dictated in four to six pages of nothing but text at the end of every Watchmen book.
Alan Moore has been pretty vocal in his anger at a Watchmen film being made and I understand that but at the same time I see a artist acting a bit like a baby. It’s hard to sit there and agree with someone like that, when you watch a film like Snyder’s which is two and a half hours of Moore’s round butt being kissed in a way that few authors will ever be lucky enough to have their work treated. How many novels have so much of their dialogue lifted scene after scene and with so little changed. He has the ending to complain about sure, but I think all this new conclusion does is add another layer to the universe. My opinion at least.
ive read the comic, and i watched the movie on thursday night, and i have to say that the movie is very good…yes its not completely faithful, but from a film makers standpoint you can totally understand why they cut stuff and changed things a little…but for the most part, the film still stays true to a lot…A LOT…to the source material. I’ve noticed though, the film is going over a lot of peoples heads. Ive heard from some that they didnt understand what the hell was going on…but then again i heard that from a fuckin 13 year old and his friends who know nothing about the Watchmen…my 22 year old g/f ,who also basically knew nothing about the Watchmen, understood and enjoyed the film though…i give the film an A-
People seem to be unable to connect to the movie on an emotional level. Like, they don’t feel for the characters or what is going on. I felt the exact opposite. I was deeply moved by everyone and everything on screen. I should really stop reading the imdb forum page for Watchmen…it gives you a rather sad picture of people.
Despite all its stylistic flourishes courtesy of Zack Snyder’s keen eye, the writing was its strongest point. The characters and the plot was beautifully enacted. But then again, Alan Moore is pretty much the best there is in comics.
[quote=“Crazy Kenneth”]
People seem to be unable to connect to the movie on an emotional level. Like, they don’t feel for the characters or what is going on. I felt the exact opposite. I was deeply moved by everyone and everything on screen. I should really stop reading the imdb forum page for Watchmen…it gives you a rather sad picture of people.
[/quote]It’s going around everywhere. I just read IGN’s review for the film, and despite giving it a three and a half out of five it seemed as if writer Jim Vejvoda just felt like dragging the film through dirt during the entire process. I read this coupled with a little debate I just saw on G4’s Attack of the Show featuring Drew McWeeny defending the film versus some Blogger guy who seemed emotionally pitted against the film and found absolutely nothing to like about it.
Myself, as a reviewer, I usually don’t find myself defending too many films that a lot of people have a stake in. I don’t write about films that play at the multiplexes and truthfully I don’t really care about them usually. The few times I get out and go to the theaters are for big geek-occurences such as Watchmen, Dark Knight, Sin City, anything Tarantino, etc. Usually I don’t find myself really enjoying the film only to find so many who didn’t. None of this is to say that if you didn’t like Watchmen you’re a dumb-dumb poo poo head. I wholeheartedly understand average audiences walking out of the theater going “wow, that was soooo slow moving! The commercials made it look like Spiderman 4!”. However, seeing these educated men picking apart such a well-made film using such base accusations just baffles my mind.
SPOILERS
Vejvoda, who was a fan of the book originally, makes some valid criticism in his review. He brings up the conclusion of the film and points out how the immense tragedy of the situation was actually handled better in the book. Having the destruction looking like a massive crater in the film does detract from the severity of the situation. In the book we see up close and personal all the human carnage, with the streets awash in human blood. This was a good time to pull at the heart strings of the audience and show them the human casualty’s up close and personal but unfortunately the film did not go that route.
However, Vejvoda then questions the logic of the film in having Dr. Manhattan posed as the enemy. His logic dictates that the soviets would see this as a time to strike the US at their weakest. However, regardless of two strikes against America in two of the most heavily populated centers of commerce - nuclear power would still be had, and total human annihilation would still be there. However, looking at it from the soviet side - the US economy would be severely damaged from two such blows (as would all the world and major states damaged by Dr. Manhattan), and the credibility of the US would also be severely damaged and could indeed be a good time to comfort the US in an attempt to become the larger global super power. This scenario seems all the more likely if you’re wanting to get into this kind of deep rudimentary questioning of something that ultimately does not matter. It’s not like the film was asking you to believe that after all is said and done the USSR would cease all communist activities and everyone would hold hands and join a psychic link that creates a unicorn. What the film asks you to believe isn’t so incredulous that it deserves to be mocked nor questioned to such a degree that it turns you against the film.
/SPOILER
So it has just been weird to see such negativity for such a well made film. Regardless of whether or not you thought it met expectations, or whether it delivered a social question mark that reached the pinacle set forth by the original book or not - this is still a fantastic version of that story in my opinion and certainly as good a film as could have possibly been made.
I was really disapointed. I think, with this many charcters etc it would work better as a TV series with 12 episodes. The movie was just too short to tell us everything. Why should I care about NYC exploding? Alan Moore introduced all those secondary characters for a reason. The squid ment something. All those people dying, that was horrible. And in the movie? OH NO NEW YORK EXPLODED. And apparently like a dozen other cities. Oh, I’m so moved and morally confused.
Everything in the film just felt so rushed. If I didn’t read the comic I’d either be really confused, or think of it as a really average, maybe even bad, movie with a hot chick and a couple nice scenes.
[quote=“fruitbrute”]
Why should I care about NYC exploding?
[/quote]
hmm…LOL
[quote=“fruitbrute”]
Everything in the film just felt so rushed.
[/quote]
That’s weird. A lot of people felt that many scenes were boring. Myself, I thought the pacing was excellent.
[quote=“Crazy Kenneth”]
hmm…LOL
[/quote]Yeah, well, in A New Hope they blew up a whole planet, and yeah, ofc it was somehow moving and all, but you almost forgot it afterwards, it was not important to you. Or when “Flock of Seagulls” dies in Pulp Fiction - it’s shocking, but it’s not a big deal. That’s what the explosion felt like in Watchmen, too me at least.
I also think the source material was too big to try and contain within almost 3 hours of film. Although I didn’t really get bored as such, I was however taken out of the experience with many cringeworthy scenes (the sex scene, when Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II rescue the trapped people from the fire) and cheesy dialogue (most of Laurie Jupiter’s). I also didn’t buy into Adrian Veidt being the smartest man in the world. This says more about the actor than the character though.
This film didn’t really make any sort of impact on me. It was just another blockbuster-type film you watch once and forget in years to come.
[quote=“Ify”]
cringeworthy scenes (the sex scene, when Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II rescue the trapped people from the fire) and cheesy dialogue (most of Laurie Jupiter’s).
[/quote]
Yea, the fire scene was like something straight out of spider-man, I know it’s in the comic but they could have tried to make it a little better. I also think the chick that played Laurie was just terrible anyways. Plus, in the comic she’s 35 and kind of fed up and growing older. In the movie she was just a typical annoying 20-something.
Other then that I did enjoy it though.
I went and watched it last night. Dr. Manhatten turns me on something fierce. Must be cos blue is my favourite colour.
[quote=“Geoi”]
I went and watched it last night. Dr. Manhatten turns me on something fierce. Must be cos blue is my favourite colour.
[/quote]
It doesn’t have anything to do with his ability to make himself “grow” does it? ;D
Naw, I’m pretty sure almost every man can make himself “grow”…
[quote=“Geoi”]
Naw, I’m pretty sure almost every man can make himself “grow”…
[/quote]
Zing!
That was fantastic 
there were many women in tonight’s sceening. The news about the blue penis in the movie must have gotten about.
[quote=“Serious Kenneth”]
there were many women in tonight’s sceening. The news about the blue penis in the movie must have gotten about.
[/quote]
Did you find it distracting? I didn’t myself, Id’ read the book and knew it’d be there, but a lot of people sitting around me mentioned it.
[quote=“Noir_Fiction”]
Did you find it distracting? I didn’t myself, Id’ read the book and knew it’d be there, but a lot of people sitting around me mentioned it.
[/quote]
not at all. I am not unsure about my sexuality and/or an immature idiot like some other people out there. It even makes sense, because Alan is loosing his humanity, and so goes his sexuality. It doesn’t bother him that he’s whipping it out, since he does not see himself as a man. NOT showing the penis would have been distracting and awkward.
[quote=“Serious Kenneth”]
not at all. I am not unsure about my sexuality and/or an immature idiot like some other people out there. It even makes sense, because Alan is loosing his humanity, and so goes his sexuality. It doesn’t bother him that he’s whipping it out, since he does not see himself as a man. NOT showing the penis would have been distracting and awkward.
[/quote]
The work itself isn’t very commercial and it’s for reasons like the penis because ideas like that just go way over their heads. I think for all the faithfulness they left in things that didn’t need to be in there i.e the penis, bubastis, Hollis.
Well that goes over their head, but appearently also a lot of the “deeper” layers are lost on people. I put deeper in apostophes because they should be obvious to any halfway intelligent person. The whole thing about vigilantism, the dark view of society, the outrageous philosophical question (is it justified to kill millions to save billions?), the political subtext…
but wait: are you saying they should have left the penis out so that the movie is commercially succesfull?
I agree on Bubastis, Hollis - I thought he worked. Probably could have been left out but I’m glad he was in it.
this is so funny: ;D
<LINK_TEXT text=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjDFz-eJ … annel_page”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjDFz-eJCDU&feature=channel_page</LINK_TEXT>