Official WATCHMEN Thread

I thought it was a very good adaptation of a -very- complicated novel. I understand and respect the changes made at the end, and I don't think they distracted from the story or the lessons of the tale. To get the alternative in would require at least 2 more levels in the storytelling. In many ways I'm glad this thing took a while to get to the screen -- there's no way it could have been properly handled in the late 80s/early 90s.

I disagree with the comment on the excessive violence. Violence isn't pretty, and shouldn't be prettied up. The arm thing was maybe a little over the top, but the alternative in the comic wasn't any cleaner.

For Watchmen readers, a solid A- effort. If you went expecting to see Batman or the Hulk, then maybe a C.

 

Brainless comic? I wouldn't put Watchmen in that category. It doesn't have much action in it at all. It's mostly story driven, the movie had more action sequences than the book did.
Ironically enough, the Times listed Watchmen as one of the top 100 novels of all time.

 

Here's a continued thought: using the arm-cutting scene as the example - it's not that the guy got his arms cut off. As they bring up the saw to the guy's arm the audience was already going "aaagh!" Hitchcock knew that painful screaming and off-camera action was enough for the viewer. You don't need to actually watch the arms get cut (with curiously digital blood everywhere) to feel the angst. But I guess the "Hostel"/Rotten.com generation is desensitized to that. Then, oddly, a few minutes later Rorschach dispatches another enemy behind that swinging door, and curiously Snyder shows some restraint.

Put another way, I have heard the quote that the difference between erotica and pornography is that erotica uses a feather while pornography uses the whole chicken.

 

Naked women, sounds like a must see to me!

 

I simply didn't like the movie. I thought the plot was scattered to much and it was to hard to get connected to the characters and the story wasn't that engaging. I was so long that I wanted to leave.

There are definitely some cool scenes and ideas, but I think they could have done much better.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing this movie.. I hope it's decent despite CNN's review.

 

On another note....


Google search: 9, movie.

This looks like it is going to be a great flick. The sound track is awesome!

 

Agreed. You felt no emotion for this movie whatsoever.

 

I just saw the movie this evening. It was long, but I didn't know what to expect since I am not a comic book reader. All I knew is that it was a Graphic Novel and knowing that I was wondering why the he!! the idiots next to me and a few others in the theater had brought their 8-10 year old kids to see the movie. I got a little bit squimish in some scenes but got over it pretty quickly. In order to really understand it I will probably have to watch it again. All in all I thought it was good.

 

I am pretty picky which movies I actually go to see in the theater and Watchmen was one that I debated about but ultimately decided to wait until it came out on DVD. I never read the comic, so perhaps my enthusiasm was muted. I was more curious than anything.

Finally had a chance to watch it over the weekend. What can I say...Ehhh? Not great but not terrible overall. It had some fantastic moments, the opening credits with Dylan's song playing was probably the best scene. It just pulled you in and took you through 40 years of alternate US history. Very, very well done.

I also enjoyed the character of Dr. Manhatten and his back story, although if Veidt thought he could kill him by the same method he was created perhaps he isn't the smartest man in the world. Having never read the novel, I also didn't understand the blue tiger Veidt had as a pet. It was never explained. I liked the part where Manhatten was pleasuring his girlfriend and working on his power reactor at the same time. I guess it's good to be omnipotent.

I actually found the character of Rorschach to be a bit annoying with his gravelly voiceover. When his mask was removed my first thought was "How did Danny Bonaduce get that role?" His prison break and riot were nicely filmed action bits though. I didn't have a problem with the sawing off of arms, how quickly the dwarf and other enforcer turned on Mr. No Arms was what I think the point was anyway.

The whole subplot of The Comedian being the heroine's father was fairly pointless. The ending seemed contrived, that to unify the world you had to destroy several cities and blame Dr. Manhatten. IMO that would only serve us for a short time and in a year or two old rivalries would flare back up. Most of the world was united in Fall, 2001. Not so much now...

Overall I wouldn't recommend it to others.

 

I just rented this on DVD and have got to say that it was so much better than I expected and I regret not seeing it in a theatre. I'm not a big action movie guy, and what I liked about this was the fact that it was really character driven. The characters just happened to be superheroes. It showed they had vulnerabilities and weren't perfect. Anger, regret, love......there was depth to the characters. This isn't a movie to just watch and be done with, but to revisit and think about some of the nuances that usually are lacking in big-budget-blow-****-up movies.

 

I watched it a couple nights ago... it was OK, but I didn't really like it anymore than Sin City, which I also thought was OK.

The violence didn't bother me - I think A Clockwork Orange had more gratuitous violence (which I don't mind). My only problem with the movie was the story seemed pretty weak. I didn't find myself very engaged nor did I find myself really caring about the plight of the characters very much. The plot seemed to bounce around too much, and it was all a grand lead-up to the final plot twist, which, wasn't much of a twist IMO, and seemed a bit contrived and unbelievable. I'm not talking suspension of disbelief, I just mean the story wasn't very plausible... that the world is now at peace after the event? Nahhh, a bridge too far.

Visuals were good and it was well acted and well shot, just a bit of a thin story to make into such a big production.

I'm having a bit of a hard time explaining what makes it not a great film, but I suppose it's just that it is mediocre to decent in many areas, and just didn't stand out as a future classic. Just like Sin City... it was cool to see, but not something I'll remember in 10 years or probably be excited about watching again when I've forgotten the details of the film.

I'd rate it 6.5 out of 10. About as good as the new Star Trek movie... a good effort, but not a classic.