Kevin's Watch

My son, who's a big Spiderman and X-men comic (er, graphic novel) buff but never read Watchmen, wasn't sure he wanted to see it, so I told him, "Here's your chance to see one without all those expectations."

I plan to see it the way I saw Matrix. Total ignorance. I also hope for less of the plot-ignoring style I saw in 300.

imdb is at 8.5 with 2k votes so far...

Apparently it is so good that the Saturday Morning Cartoon is being made.

Wayfriend wrote:Well, after hearing and reading a host of negativish reviews, Roger Ebert's review was very positive. I am enheartened again. Not because I think highly of Roger, but because it means that it's possible for non-comic fans to enjoy it.

Im a non comic fan and Im hoping to enjoy it very much. I havent seen any trailers yet, just bilboard ads (especially on Enemy Territory Quake Wars which Im addicted to). I love the look of the characters. I dont know much about the characters or anything, I just read a little bit about who they were and thats all.

Ill be seeing it on Monday night and Im ripe with anticipation.

I enjoyed it, a good movie, but nowhere near capturing the Watchmen's spirit, and I felt like it held together the book's plot like a machine and didn't really breathe as its own, independent artwork.

There were also some deviations from the original that I found shockingly bad. At least one sucked all the movie's energy from me:

Spoiler

Psychic energy being Veidt's weapon of choice and no fake alien transported in.

Secondly, the stylistic effect:

Spoiler

A big comic book wall of energy picking some pedestrians up and sweeping them back. Big whoop. Instead, effing tell the viewers, "I enacted my plan 35 minutes ago," then CUT to static, wide shots of dead bodies -everywhere-, blood everywhere all over New York and it hits you much more powerfully than a fricking CGI effect.

In short. Had I the technical knowledge of being a director, I would have made a much better Watchmen film. I will give him kudos for handling the flashbacks well, especially Manhattan's, but I felt the whole thing was dressed up as Watchmen then pushed down the hall. I'm glad Moore distanced himself from this work. Oh--and Rorschach's origin story lost a lot of its verve when:

Spoiler

Instead of saying nothing and burning the man in his own home, he says something witty and axes him several times over the head. On top of that, the effect that Rorschach has on the psychiatrist is lost, as well as Rorschach's stunning monologue as the house burns. I know this can't be stuffed in the film, but there you have it; I'm beginning to believe Moore when he said this was only made for the graphic novel medium and can only thrive there.

wayfriend wrote:Well, after hearing and reading a host of negativish reviews, Roger Ebert's review was very positive. I am enheartened again. Not because I think highly of Roger, but because it means that it's possible for non-comic fans to enjoy it.

What's fascinating to me is that Roger hadn't read the novel, and he was enraptured by this universe. I don't always agree with him, but he is definitely my favorite reviewer to read. He is also one of the most open minded critics out there. My favorite review header - Michael Bay, You Suck but we love you! (Transformers)

I just saw it...

I'm still...feeling it...

I've never seen a film that resonated emotionaly like this did...I'm changed a little...

Artistically, some of this has never been done before and is astounding...

Some of the acting and therefore casting is superb - Rorsharch, Comedian, Dr. Manhatten - some is underwhelming - Ackerman's Silk Specter II...

Watchmen has probably my all-time favorite opening credits...ever...

I have not read the comic/graphic novel...so I can't say that Snyder "pulled it off" as Smith has said...but it feels like it...

I do agree with Lord Foul that the plot arcs are so deep and many that it does feel strained and hacked together somewhat...

The slow-motion in the fight scenes works sometimes, but overall really jars the pacing of the film and brings it down to a comic-book level film (a la 300, which was) instead of the deeper masterpiece that is the GN, Watchmen.

There's also a good deal of gratuetus violence/gore and nudity/sex which most wasn't really necessary, and although one may argue that this is needed to convey the depths humanity can achieve in depravity - Rorsharch's whole diatribe - it could have been done much better with much less...

And Snyder apparantly got some Jackson-itis as the film didn't end when it should have...

The filmed bogged down at times...but by it's end it really hadn't felt like it was as long as that - much like DK...

Half this film is a masterpeice...and half this film is just average - missing story, primarily on Osimodos, along with the most interesting character, Comedian, not being in the second half of the film...some huge dialogue issues, much seeming like it was taken straight out of the comic, which in many cases made the film seem quite childish in conveyance - many obvious plot points spoken instead of conveyed intuitively...the final climax suffers from bad scripting...

In the end, I give it an 8 out of 10 for imdb, and *** out of ****

It moved me as no other film ever has...but it's flawed, none the less.

I predict it will be very good, but not great. The word on the street is it's really, really good, but not Dark Knight good.

spot on; saw it yesterday, not too bad, has nothing on the GN though ...

Spoiler

didnt mind the changed ending, i.e. no alien-squid and a frame-up of Dr Manhattan; but it was really hard to grasp the scale of Veidt's act without any emotional investment from the 'street level' characters, who weren't given any screen-time whatsoever; no corpses where shown, no scope was afforded to the tragedy at all; also the sex scene was cringe-inducing

far from a classic or a masterpiece imo, pretty good viewing but nothing to write home about. If comparisons must be made I preferred the Dark Knight, and I'm not a Batman fan in any way shape or form .. [/code]

? The film ended in the exact same place as the GN. It's also the right place. It zips every arc shut at the same time, while tantalizing us with even MORE ambiguity. Who is right? Who is wrong? Who's the hero? Who's the villain? Should we admire Rorschach or condemn him? How valuable IS truth? Valuable enough to jeopardize humanity? Can you read his death as a noble sacrifice to preserve his own integrity while allowing humanity a chance to have peace?

I wish they had moved more of what they couldn't fit off to the sides, rather than excising it, but overall its a fabulous achievement. The story IS beautiful. Tightly wrapped, streamlined complexity. A Gordian knot.

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:. . . nudity/sex which most wasn't really necessary . . .

You need a reason? The more gratuitous the better! You just sold me on this movie.

I know absolutely nothing about this, except that it looks cool and one day I'll watch it on Blueray.

The Dreaming wrote:? The film ended in the exact same place as the GN. It's also the right place. It zips every arc shut at the same time, while tantalizing us with even MORE ambiguity.

I felt that the film should have ended:

Spoiler

As the camera pulled away from Rorchark's splattered psychological blood symbol in the snow.

That was ambiguitous enough for me...and I didn't need the rest...though I liked them (should've been left for DVD).

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:

The Dreaming wrote:? The film ended in the exact same place as the GN. It's also the right place. It zips every arc shut at the same time, while tantalizing us with even MORE ambiguity.

I felt that the film should have ended:

Spoiler

As the camera pulled away from Rorchark's splattered psychological blood symbol in the snow.

That was ambiguitous enough for me...and I didn't need the rest...though I liked them (should've been left for DVD).

Spoiler

They made a symbol out of his blood? Ugh, terrible... That's not even clever. And nah, it needs to end like the graphic novel, where you leave it to the reader's imagination whether or not the newspaper prints his journal.

Malik23 wrote:

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:. . . nudity/sex which most wasn't nreally ecessary . . .

You need a reason? The more gratuitous the better! You just sold me on this movie.

Not if it weighs the narrative down or is just hokey and poorly executed, as in Watchmen (the film; the graphic novel handles it tastefully and the first sex scene is pricelessly juxtaposed against Ozymandias doing a gymnastics routine on TV).

Lord Foul wrote:Not if it weighs the narrative down or is just hokey and poorly executed, as in Watchmen (the film; the graphic novel handles it tastefully and the first sex scene is pricelessly juxtaposed against Ozymandias doing a gymnastics routine on TV).

Damnit, there you go making a perfectly rational argument--and a good point to boot--when all I was trying to make was a tit joke.

I'm not a comic book fan but I did read my friend's copy of Watchmen.

The biggest disappointment was the lack of the pirate comic.

Spoiler

(Though they did have the reader and his old-man-friend there at the end, they kinda hugged/shielded each other right before being ripped to shreds. I thought of it as Snyder admitting their absence was a flaw and paying some homage to the characters.)

matrixman wrote:I just bought the companion book to the film, which I normally don't do before seeing the film in question. I am unbelievably pumped for this movie. I'm just resisting the urge to read through the whole book right now.

I already love the movie simply for its faithfulness to the look of the characters. Anything beyond that is a bonus. I know I shouldn't judge a movie by its trailer, but the atmosphere just feels right.

Spoiler

DR MANHATTAN'S SCHLONG IS TOO DETAILED IN THIS VERSION.

I seem to remember the comic-book version being a sort of vague blue cylinder. Maybe you guys disagree tho.

I feel very strange being the only person to mention this. I can't believe no one else got angry about this.

Not true; The Hunt for Red October was far better than the book - and that's NOT denigrating the book Smile
Ditto for Carpenter's The Thing.

Really? I have to say, I thought that Who Goes There had a more interesting ending. The tension of the blood testing just wasn't preserved for me, it was almost goofy on-screen.

Of course, I had a hell of a lot more fun with Carpenter's version.

Instead of saying nothing and burning the man in his own home, he says something witty and axes him several times over the head. On top of that, the effect that Rorschach has on the psychiatrist is lost, as well as Rorschach's stunning monologue as the house burns. I know this can't be stuffed in the film, but there you have it; I'm beginning to believe Moore when he said this was only made for the graphic novel medium and can only thrive there.

Even though you liked the flashback handling, I honestly thought it was more jarring in the film version than in the real version (in other words, I agree - the story just works better in the original form and there's no surprise about it).

didnt mind the changed ending, i.e. no alien-squid and a frame-up of Dr Manhattan; but it was really hard to grasp the scale of Veidt's act without any emotional investment from the 'street level' characters, who weren't given any screen-time whatsoever; no corpses where shown, no scope was afforded to the tragedy at all; also the sex scene was cringe-inducing

I suspect the director's cut includes some of the pedestrians since it's really long (5 hours?) and

Spoiler

that the inclusion of the two comic-characters and the psychiatrist seeing the explosion was an admission by Snyder that the theater version isn't perfect.

Not if it weighs the narrative down or is just hokey and poorly executed, as in Watchmen (the film; the graphic novel handles it tastefully and the first sex scene is pricelessly juxtaposed against Ozymandias doing a gymnastics routine on TV).

Ozzy in this version didn't seem quite the same...his face was a little too narrow and it kept throwing me off.

Does it really matter that they look the exact same? I mean, isn't it the story and charactrization, their journies and personalities, their relationships that matter most?

Now, I'm not a visual person, and maybe that's the real issue as I tend to ignore descriptions of how characters look in books...

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:Does it really matter that they look the exact same? I mean, isn't it the story and charactrization, their journies and personalities, their relationships that matter most?

Now, I'm not a visual person, and maybe that's the real issue as I tend to ignore descriptions of how characters look in books...

I don't believe I ever implied that it mattered, I simply noted the difference.

Whether there is any 'real' difference, the fact is that I constantly felt that Veidt looked very different and that did distract me. Do I think that's a reason to rate the film low? Absolutely not. Did it make me enjoy the film less, because I didn't get drawn in as easily? Ya, unfortunately it did.

-There are things (like the above example) which made me enjoy the movie less, and I can't blame Snyder for not being perfect enough to "fix" them.
-There are things (exclusion of pirate comic, shortening Rorschach's time w/ psychiatrist) which made the movie not as good as the comic, but I can't blame Snyder for leaving them out (not 'nuff time spent).
-There are things (ending details) which I felt messed with the original for no particularly good reason and messed up the ring of the comic. At the same time, even if I disagreed w/ these changes they gave me a good opportunity to think about the original more. Contrast allows better understanding and in that sense I am happy it wasn't the same.

I enjoyed the movie a lot so w/e. Just saying things I noticed.

WOW. This sounds awesome (pulled from wikipedia)

Among of the more unique promotional items given away in conjunction with the film's release were blue condoms, meant as a nod to the character Dr. Manhattan who appears naked for most of the film, and whose skin is a bright shade of blue. The condoms were primarily given away at bars and came in a matchbook-like package with the bloodstained smiley face on the outside. Inside was the message "We're society's only protection."

I want one.

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:Does it really matter that they look the exact same? I mean, isn't it the story and charactrization, their journies and personalities, their relationships that matter most?

Now, I'm not a visual person, and maybe that's the real issue as I tend to ignore descriptions of how characters look in books...

Casting is integral to film, and yeah, I think they mis-cast the role of Ozymandias big time. Needed someone buffer and with no strange accent.

Holsety wrote:

Spoiler

DR MANHATTAN'S SCHLONG IS TOO DETAILED IN THIS VERSION.

I seem to remember the comic-book version being a sort of vague blue cylinder. Maybe you guys disagree tho.

There was far too much

Spoiler

blue penis

in this movie. He owned a costume (or was it a covering he thought into place?), so why the hell couldn't he wear it? I found the

Spoiler

enormous blue penis

distracting. I think this was because it served no purpose in the story. A minor quibble, though.

Aside from that, I found the film pretty gory. . . in all the wrong places. And I think that Rorschach's reaction to the pedophile would have been better the way it was written (I didn't read the GN myself, but my friend informed me of the change in the movie).

Overall I'd give the movie 8.5.

I've quoted the following several times in my 6+ years as a Watcher. It's the best moment in the comic. It's the best moment in any comic. It's among the best things ever written in any genre. Am I to understand that it is NOT in the film???

Stood in firelight, sweltering. Blood stain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night. Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever, and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion, bear children, hellbound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. Was Rorschach.

I'll be royally pissed if the defining moment of Rorschach's life didn't make it into the movie.


Manhattan's BP actually makes sense. His thoughts and feelings were usually far removed from human thoughts and feelings. You couldn't know and perceive all he knew and perceived, and still operate in human terms. Moore probably only had him wear a costume in the comic so it wouldn't be banned.

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:Does it really matter that they look the exact same? I mean, isn't it the story and charactrization, their journies and personalities, their relationships that matter most?

Now, I'm not a visual person, and maybe that's the real issue as I tend to ignore descriptions of how characters look in books...

Like I said, I know nothing of this story. But aren't we talking about a graphic novel? Which was then turned into a motion picture? How can the look of the characters not be important?

I agree that the story and the character arcs are the most important thing, but you can't have a character without characterization, and a large part of characterization can be achieved through their appearance (if that's the route the author wants to go . . . I'm not into graphic novels, so it's not as important to me, either). You may ignore descriptions of eye color and hair color, but some details of appearance can be crucial. For instance, how could anyone diminish the importance of Nick Succorso's "buccaneer smile" or Angus Thermopyle's fat, sweaty malignancy? I can see how the wrong actor or the wrong look could pull someone out of a story which has already impressed them with a certain visual expectation.