cornixt:
I saw the Watchmen at the weekend, first time I’ve been to the cinema for several months. I’ve not read the book, but I’d heard a lot about the film. Overall it is pretty good and I can see it getting better with subsequent viewings, but it is a bit muddled. I’ve heard people complaining that there is too much backstory and not enough plot, but the backstory is really what makes the film. The plot actually feels more tagged onto the end, whereas the backstory is a swipe at the human condition. It’s not about flawed superheroes, it’s about flawed people who became masked vigilantes and became close through proximity rather than proper friendship. The only person with superpowers is Dr Manhatten (whose penis is actually only visible in a few scenes, despite what people have been saying), but he is so detached from his humanity that he has no motive to do anything. Saying that, most of the characters gave and received punches that are a bit much for even a very strong and fit person. Maybe I came at the film from the best perspective, knowing enough to not have to second-guess so much of the set-up, such as where history in the film diverged from our own. If you dislike seeing people explode, you should probably give it a miss.
I’m certainly adding the book to my wishlist now. Despite being a fan of graphic novels, I’ve never made a big effort to read it and it was always checked out of my local library. I was never impressed enough by the artwork to buy it. Maybe I’ll wait for the extended DVD to come out in a few months and make my wife look away at the gory bits (she was bad enough when she saw the bone sticking out of Locke’s leg in Lost).
I can understand the weird reviews it has been getting. The action fans will be put off by the esoteric parts, while most esotoric fans probably won’t even go to see it due to the way it has been advertised. The people who enjoy both are much fewer in numbers, but they seem to love it. For those I would recommend Cube, but you’ve probably already seen it.
Baggronor:
I was never impressed enough by the artwork to buy it.
I used to be the same, although you should make the effort, its well worth it. The film inevitably had to cut out a few bits. But, yeah, the art in the book is very pedestrian compared to the writing.
The action fans will be put off by the esoteric parts
Good :) It's never a good thing to cater to blockbuster meatheads. I hope they go see it and come out with a headache.
most esotoric fans probably won't even go to see it due to the way it has been advertised.
Most of them will know about it I reckon, its a very famous graphic novel.
I loved the film, thought it was awesome :)
Ishkur Cinderhat:
I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, although it was quite long and had about a dozen endings (similar to The Return of The King) where one final cut after the showdown would have sufficed. I would compare the movie to Sin City both with regards to the method of storytelling and the amount of action and gore. In any way, thank god I have a strong stomach, you don’t often see someone’s arms being cut off with a buzzsaw…! :o
Rorschach was the coolest guy on the big screen for quite awhile, he carried the movie for me.
Xander:
I enjoyed it.
I also have not read the novel. I enjoy thinking through my movies, so that stuff didn’t bug me. I enjoyed the exposé of the human condition as well. Rorschach was indeed very cool.
The movie, Cube, is Canadian. 
It’s one of my favourite flicks.
GRNDL:
I support Cube. Awesome film. The second one wasn’t bad, but they ruined the ending, IMO. Cube Zero… er… nevermind. If you liked Cube, you should check out “Nothing” - its not as edgy, but imaginative and well done and written/directed by the same guys, I believe.
I think the movie of Watchmen did justice to the book, at least, as much as is possible. I thought it would be an utter failure, but was surprised by it. I was expecting it to be rewritten and dumbed down until it missed the point of the graphic novel, but was pleased to see it have some substance. For me, it was a good antidote to the saccharine superhero staples that have been trotted out these last few years following Spiderman’s success. It broke the formula for what to expect from a superhero movie.
I’m still hoping for a Marshall Law movie… I can just imagine the grin on my face if that made the silver screen. Hhehheh
Khan!:
I was never impressed enough by the artwork to buy it.
cornixt
I used to be the same, although you should make the effort, its well worth it. The film inevitably had to cut out a few bits. But, yeah, the art in the book is very pedestrian compared to the writing.
Baggronor
I was initially put off by the colours in the art as well, but seriously, I strongly recommend that you (both) reconsider your judgments of the art. It's not the polished, muscly, shiny art of more modern comics, but imo the grimy and almost sketch-like nature of Watchmen's art is far more appropriate to its subject matter. The amount of detail and consideration that goes into nearly every panel is astounding, and really only becomes apparent after second and subsequent readings. Compositionally the art is really good, and the stuff it does with light and shadow and colour contrast (again, after the initial shock of the unusual colour palette) are pretty darn cool - and I read somewhere that they were groundbreaking at the time, although I've forgotten where now :(
Anyways, the description of the art as 'pedestrian' is a little harsh.
Thanks for your review, cornixt. I enjoyed the movie as well, although it can never be what the book is. I'm always curious to get the opinions of people unfamiliar with the novel. For those who haven't read it yet: please to read now. Signed, Khan!.
Swissdictator:
I’m considering it. A friend recommended I go see it and said I might like it.
I’m very wary of anything based on comic books, I have never liked comics to be honest. Plus they have a stigma in my family (regardless if that is fair or not). It extends to superheroes in general. Batman is the exception as he is much more believable… but I might check this movie out.
Baggronor:
I was initially put off by the colours in the art as well, but seriously, I strongly recommend that you (both) reconsider your judgments of the art. It's not the polished, muscly, shiny art of more modern comics, but imo the grimy and almost sketch-like nature of Watchmen's art is far more appropriate to its subject matter. The amount of detail and consideration that goes into nearly every panel is astounding, and really only becomes apparent after second and subsequent readings. Compositionally the art is really good, and the stuff it does with light and shadow and colour contrast (again, after the initial shock of the unusual colour palette) are pretty darn cool - and I read somewhere that they were groundbreaking at the time, although I've forgotten where now
Anyways, the description of the art as 'pedestrian' is a little harsh
I dislike overly shiny polished comic art. I wouldn't really call the art in Watchmen sketchy, its still pretty standard comic art. Its perfectly competent, and has some very nice set pieces, but its nothing special imo, like the art in V for Vendetta. Perhaps harsh, but artists are always the harshest critics :) For example I much prefer something like Dave Mckean's artwork in Arkham Asylum (Arkham is that rare thing where the art and writing are both awesome).
n any way, thank god I have a strong stomach, you don't often see someone's arms being cut off with a buzzsaw...!
Depends what sort of films you like :D
I'm very wary of anything based on comic books, I have never liked comics to be honest. Plus they have a stigma in my family (regardless if that is fair or not). It extends to superheroes in general. Batman is the exception as he is much more believable... but I might check this movie out.
Dude, go watch it :) If you liked The Dark Knight, then go watch this.
Khan!:
Perhaps harsh, but artists are always the harshest critics :)
Baggronor
Hmm, well played sir. I don't think I'll get anywhere with "yeah well non-artists are pretty much just as knowledgeable so thbbt." I concede your superior frame of reference ! :hat off
@Swissdictator: I tend to think of Watchmen as more of a science fiction novel than a "superhero" novel. None of the characters are really super-powered, save one - and he's the science/speculative fiction element. One of the themes of the book is the deconstruction of the superhero, and superhero mythology, and the way we conceive of heroes in general. So there's no unironic spandex costumes or alien fighting or alternate universes or Captain America here. Well, there's sort of a Captain America, but he's not the nice kind. Anyways you might find yourself pleasantly surprised, particularly if you keep in mind that the *point* (in part) is that it's pretty peculiar to dress up in silly costumes and fight crime.
This_Is_My_Boomstick!!:
Im now about to hide behind some thing large to avoid things being thrown at me but…
i went to see it and i didnt like it at all, normally im a great fan of the super hero movie but i thought the film was waaayyyy to long, the villian very bad, to many flashbacks to past events, slower moving than a sedated snail pacing wise, there are a lot of other bad things about this film imo but the list is to long to post here
As for the saw scene i barely flinched and apathy set in and i though well woopie do, wasnt that good a scene
TLTG:
I agree. I saw it about a week ago in theaters and it bored me to tears. It may well have done justice to the book, but that’s not what makes a good movie. A lot of the complaints I have about Watchmen are the same complaints I had for the LOTR movie adaptations - it was looooooong, and the pacing was painfully bad.
I tried to summarize what I liked and didn’t like about the film, and basically came to the conclusion that I liked almost all of the scenes with Rorschach, and none of the scenes without him. The villain was horrible, the plot as I mentioned was muddled and slow, and Dr Manhattan’s member pops in to view about every thirty minutes, starting an hour or so in to the movie. I think a better story, with better pacing, could have been designed by following Rorschach’s investigation more. A gritty “hero” like Rorschach in a dark uninviting world, performing acts of cruelty on criminals for the greater good, THAT’s interesting. Give me an hour more of that, and cut off the two hours of crap that isn’t that, and replace the ending with a better one and better villain to go with it. There’s a million ways you can go with the ending of a gritty realistic supers style movie, and they picked probably the worst one I could have imagined.
Sojourn:
The movie, Cube, is Canadian. ;) It's one of my favourite flicks.
Xander
say whaaaaaaaat? I didn't know this! why have I never seen this? probably too thought provoking for my liking, OR SO XANDER THOUGHT! lol
I've only heard good things from my friends who have seen this. though I haven't yet. I still may, but, I don't often get excited about movies unless I know what it's about, and since I had zero clue what it could be about, interest never piqued. Luckily Xander gave me a Coles notes version the other day, so now I have a better idea.
Might check it out in the coming weeks, but I'm more excited about I Love You, Man. Paul Rudd is FUNNY. hehehe
Baggronor:
The villain was horrible, the plot as I mentioned was muddled and slow, and Dr Manhattan's member pops in to view about every thirty minutes, starting an hour or so in to the movie. I think a better story, with better pacing, could have been designed by following Rorschach's investigation more. A gritty "hero" like Rorschach in a dark uninviting world, performing acts of cruelty on criminals for the greater good, THAT's interesting. Give me an hour more of that, and cut off the two hours of crap that isn't that, and replace the ending with a better one and better villain to go with it. There's a million ways you can go with the ending of a gritty realistic supers style movie, and they picked probably the worst one I could have imagined.
Mmmmm yeeah, but that would have been the re-writing that the fans wished to avoid at all costs. Cinematically it could have made a more rounded film, but it would have ignored the main concepts behind the book. Watchmen isn't supposed to have an ending where everything is resolved, nor are any of the characters heroes or villains as such. Having a 'better' villain, cutting out the 'crap' and replacing the ending with a 'better' one would turn it into exactly what its trying to comment on.
I concede your superior frame of reference !
My judgement isn't superior, its just maybe a little better informed concerning technique and is also massively biased because of what I do :)
GRNDL:
Agree with Baggranor on this point. Watchmen isn’t supposed to be a superhero movie (that is a movie about superheroes doing superheroic things to fight crime and enact justice.) Its a commentary on how ridiculous superheroes as portrayed in the comics are (my analysis) and instead, putting forward the idea that if there were costumed vigilantes, this is how things might go down. Beings with super powers, whether they are bestowed by charisma, wealth, sheer determination or just plain gifted powers would probably abuse them and go around the system in place to make a better world, possibly at a high cost.
There are no superheroes in Watchmen. There’s really only ONE true hero and he’s a complete a-hole and a psychopath who loses sight of the ultimate reasons to be a hero. The closest thing to a superhero Watchmen has, Dr. Manhattan, has no interest in being heroic.
The movie isn’t a roller coaster ride - it wasn’t intended to be, it was a character analysis. To say it failed you as a movie is ridiculous - it just wasn’t your kind of movie.
Khan!:
The movie isn't a roller coaster ride - it wasn't intended to be, it was a character analysis. To say it failed you as a movie is ridiculous - it just wasn't your kind of movie.
GRNDL
Yeah, that's fair enough. I do agree though that the way they did the "villain" in the film was not to my liking. His character in the book was far and away more interesting. Also the actor was not good. Now *that* I have a frame of reference on :)
I think maybe one of the flaws of the movie is that it tries to be an exciting action-y superhero flick as well as the character study and speculative head-trip of the book. For example, when Nite Owl and Silk Spectre go and rescue the folk in the apartment fire, the book's scene is really restrained, and played for humour, and emphasizing that Nite Owl is still kind of awkward and both of them feel excited and silly at the same time. But in the movie there's chain-guns and explosions and slow motion and crashing through cielings and I was like "what the heck??"
So I think it's a valid criticism of the movie to suggest that its a bit schizophrenic. Also I agree that I would have liked to have seen Rorschach's backstory a bit more. The conversations he has with the psychiatrist in the book are really interesting, and they felt a bit rushed in the film.
Grimstonefire:
I have to say I don’t really know what to make of the film.
I guess it was not quite what I expected, given that I had a fair understanding of the basic plot beforehand.
I don’t know whether it was part of the graphic novels, but I think the excessive nudity didn’t add anything to the storyline. The violence was probably just about right, given the depth of it in many modern films.
In terms of the plot though I think it would be hard for someone to truly appreciate it without reading the novel, which is a shame imo. There were a few things that didn’t make sense to me, such as the tiger with horns and the brainy guy zapping all his scientists, and why the door shut on Dr Manhattan in the fatal experiment.
The overall feeling of the film though is one that really requires a relatively high level of commitment to understand and dwell on the concepts involved. If every sentence is highly important, and has some broad commentry on humanity etc I found it hard to follow when someone was actually saying something profound or not.
The plot as a whole though was entertaining enough, and though the delivery was not quite what I expected I would probably want to watch it again at some point.
The SFX are very good though IMO, and I thought the young Rorschach was a very good likeness to the older version.
The reappearance of Dr Manhattan and his mars spaceship thing were especially well done.
Khan!:
There were a few things that didn't make sense to me, such as the tiger with horns and the brainy guy zapping all his scientists, and why the door shut on Dr Manhattan in the fatal experiment.
Grimstonefire
Yep, the folks I went with all said the same thing. It does all make more sense in the book. But I dunno why they put the tiger in the movie, it didn't have any purpose at all, they way they put it together.
As for the door, that scene from the comic has people shouting "get him out! stop the experiment!" while the head scientist looks on helplessly and says "the door won't open after the timer has been set!......it's a safety feature...."
TEN POINTS FOR IRONY!
dedwrekka:
Great film. I actually first got into the comic because of the idea of super heroe who, for the most part, don’t have any powers (with a couple exceptions). I really enjoy the way that the arrival of Dr. Manhattan effects the world, though. I just wish they’d gone into a couple of other things that effected the changed timeline; The murder of Woodward and Bernstein for instance and the act criminalizing non-sanctioned superheroing (the idea was stolen for Pixar’s “The Incredibles”).
The existentialism in it is also a great addition for me. From Dr. Manhattan’s views on the world, to the characterization and roles (Veidt isn’t really the villain, but none of the “Heroes” in it are heroes either). Thinking outside of the normal roles is part of the experience.
GRNDL:
re: Door on Intrinsic Field Generator closed by timer… safety feature… Irony…
Yes, intentional. The son of a watchmaker who’s father tried to stop him from becoming a watchmaker and instead take up physics has his ultimate fate/destiny set into motion by a timing mechanism… And in turn, Dr. Manhattan becomes the watchmaker of humanity. Setting events into and out of motion.
re: The cat, Ozymandias killing his staff…
The cat was an odd thing - an homage to the comic, nothing more. It was obviously downplayed as a pet to Ozymandias, what else do you need? The book shows the cat for other reasons which were not included in the movie, and wouldn’t have made sense if you’d only seen the movie (Ozy clones things…)
As for Ozymandias killing his staff - I thought it was obvious that he was in the process of eliminating those who knew too much or were a threat to his plans… You know, like the Watchmen themselves? Ie: the main plot of the movie?
It’s one of my favourite flicks.