Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: Watchmen  (Read 6123 times)

Bromor Neckbeard

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Watchmen
« on: March 13, 2009, 01:07:29 am »

There are comic book movies whose main audience is kids or teens, but which can be enjoyed by adults as well.  Watchmen is not one of those movies.  Watchmen is a comic book movie aimed squarely at adults, with nothing for the kids.  It is necessarily rated R, and for the same reasons as the rest of Snyder's work in Hollywood.  It is vitally imperative that parents not make the mistake of assuming that since Watchmen is about comic book heroes in colorful costumes, it is a movie appropriate for kids.  Remember, the man who directed this movie also made 300 and the remake of Dawn of the Dead, and it is easily as age-inappropriate as either of those movies, including a rape scene, numerous gruesome fight scenes, a convict's arms being sawed off with an angle grinder, and a mugger's arm being broken with such fury that the bone comes out of the skin.

Watchmen is set in the Eighties, in an alternate reality in which costumed superheroes have been a part of American culture, not in comic books, but in real life.  Far from making the world a better place, the presence of these heroes has exacerbated the social and political tensions of the Cold War era, despite the fact that they have been all but eliminated by a law passed in 1977.   At the start of the movie, a former government operative and costumed hero named The Comedian is murdered in his apartment by a mysterious assailant.  The movie follows the remaining heroes as they investigate the death, and shows the history of the characters and the truth of the murder through a series of flashbacks.

I've been a fan of the comic since I was introduced to it in 2002, and I'm honestly incapable of emulating the viewpoint of somebody who's never read what is widely considered the greatest graphic novel of all time.  If you've ever read and enjoyed Watchmen, then you should definitely see this movie.  It's conceivable that a non-comic fan, or a non-Watchmen fan, would enjoy this movie, but I would tend to bet against it. This is not only because of the subject matter, but because the movie is nearly as dense as the book, despite leaving out more than half of the comic book.

Despite the numerous missing chunks (many of which we are promised will be restored in multiple upcoming special director's cuts), Watchmen is as faithful an adaptation of the source material as is humanly possible.  This works both for it and against it, as the book is not to be read once at a constant pace, but to be pored over, to be read repeatedly and absorbed at leisure.

Although not as convoluted as the book (in which almost every panel has multiple meanings), Watchmen is packed with little Easter eggs in the background that may not be caught on the first viewing.  My favorite of these was when in the first few seconds of the opening credits, Nite Owl I (who the moviegoing public will generally believe to be based on Batman) saves a couple who look suspiciously like Thomas and Martha Wayne from a gun-toting mugger outside the Gotham Opera House.

The Best Things about Watchmen:

Jackie Earl Haley does an excellent job portraying the (physically and morally) repulsive Rorschach.  Jeffrey Dean Morgan does an equally good job portraying the equally repellent Comedian.  Both of them basically become their characters, and I can't think of a single actor I'd rather play either.

When I heard that Zack Snyder was directing this movie, I was totally content with that directorial choice.  The guy who gave us 300 and Dawn of the Dead is the exact guy that I'd pick to "give us bodies beyond all our imaginings".  Now, despite the fact that we apparently didn't GET bodies beyond all our imaginings, I don't feel that my trust was misplaced, because the rest of the movie is 99% faithful to the book.

All the little additions that are faithful to the spirit of the book, even if they aren't in it.  Notice how every time you see out the window of Ozymandias's office, the blimp slooooowly moves closer to the Twin Towers, but you never see it get there.  Sort of a 21st-century update to the Doomsday clock, for those young enough not to remember a time when there was a very real fear that nuclear war might annihilate the human race tomorrow.

"So tell me, Doctor... what do you see?"

Most of the soundtrack.  Opinions on it are mixed, but I thought all but one of the songs was appropriately used.

The Worst Things About Watchmen:

Yes, there were some flaws.  As I've already pointed out, we didn't get bodies beyond all our imaginings.  We got all the breasts, blood, and blue cosmic-being schlong we could possibly want, but the one scene to which I refer (hopefully with enough circumlocution to avoid spoiling it for anybody who doesn't know what I'm talking about) was strangely...sterile.  In the book, that scene was as viscerally horrifying as seeing people jump out of the World Trade Center live on CNN.  In the movie, just as the cause of it is changed, so is the impact.  We don't see any dead, we just see a bunch of ruined buildings and hear about it on the news.

The utterly terrible CGI Bubastis.  They should have just left her out if they weren't going to bother doing her right.  In the first scene she appears in, she blends in with the actors approximately as well as Toucan Sam convinces you he's really in the kitchen with those kids pouring them a bowl of sugary breakfast food product.  As she bounds up the brightly-lit staircase with her master, it's vividly apparent as she bounces in and out of his shadow that she doesn't cast one of her own.  This is all the more unfortunate when compared to the flawless CGI work done on Doctor Manhattan, whose blue glow reflects off the actors in every scene he's in.

The final song on the soundtrack, that plays over the ending credits.  Every song in the movie up until then was appropriate to the time period.  Then, we're jolted out of our suspension of disbelief by My Chemical Romance, for Pete's sake.  It really felt like they did that on purpose to get people out of their seats.  "Time to go, folks, movie's over, get back to the 21st century and let the janitor sweep up the popcorn and candy wrappers!"

Inna final analysis:  If you're a Watchmen fan, go see this movie.  Much like Doctor Manhattan, you can know exactly what's going to happen and still be surprised by it.  Even if you don't like it (and if you feel that Watchmen doesn't belong on film, I will not contest that despite how much I liked the movie), Hollywood needs to get the message that we want faithful adaptations of works like this, not Saturday Morning Watchmen.
Logged

Tormy

  • Bay Watcher
  • I shall not pass?
    • View Profile
Re: Watchmen
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2009, 09:03:00 am »

I will definitely watch this movie, even tho I never read comic books in my life.  ;D
I really liked the Incredible Hulk, Spiderman, Iron Man etc. movies also.
Logged

Granite26

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Watchmen
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2009, 10:00:59 am »

It's... intended to be deep, political, and intelligent.  It doesn't ALWAYS succeed.

That said, I think there was a gratuitous level of sex and violence.  I am by no means a tone it down, all comic books should be for kids, but there were some points where the gore was not supporting anything.

Also, I felt that the soundtrack was TOO iconic.  The songs were too recognizable, and often had so much presense that their playing overshadowed the actions (sound of silence and red balloons were the worst)

oh, and reason has some great articles on it.

Nilocy

  • Bay Watcher
  • Queen of a Community.
    • View Profile
Re: Watchmen
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2009, 10:21:15 am »

It was a good movie overall. Great for fans of the comics, although as always with these things people are left dissapointed about there not being abosultely everything the comic had, in the film itself.

I did have a few issues with it though.

Slow motion effects being overused.
The music coming in at innapropriate times.
And the difference of Rorscachs voice when he had his mask on or off. He just didn't... sound like the comic was suppoesed to make him sound imho.

P.S oddly, the film in Britain is rated an 18, so you'd definately not see any children around to watch it.  (I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between an 18 and an R rated films between the countries)
Logged

Electronic Phantom

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Watchmen
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2009, 11:11:16 am »

Americans figure that the kids have already seen it all on TV.  What's a little more in the movie theaters?

-(e)EP
Logged

Granite26

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Watchmen
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2009, 11:32:35 am »

P.S oddly, the film in Britain is rated an 18, so you'd definately not see any children around to watch it.  (I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between an 18 and an R rated films between the countries)

Link

We haven't yet sunk to the level of letting the government tell us what movies we can or can't take our kids to, although after seeing the 9 year olds running out of the theater when I went to see 8mm, that may not be the black and white issue I tend to think of it as.

Basically R = 18, only your parents can bring you in if they want to.  We have NC-17, which is pretty much the same, but not much gets that (other than pr0n).  There's a lot of politicking going on involving that, largely due to the bad rep that movies stuck with NC-17 get (dismissed as pr0n) so it's defacto censorship in that movies duck to R to maintain profitability.

MoonDancer

  • Bay Watcher
  • Figment of your imagination
    • View Profile
    • My Blog
Re: Watchmen
« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2009, 11:46:13 am »

I enjoyed the movie even though I've never seen the comic. I'm a blood, violence, and explosion type of gal so I saw nothing wrong with it. I do have to admit that it has got me curious about the comic. Does anyone know where I can find it?  :)
Logged
Can I kill him? No? What about eating him? Can I eat him? No? Your no fun!

Go away! Your stupidity might be contagious.

http://karnash.wordpress.com/

Kagus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Olive oil. Don't you?
    • View Profile
Re: Watchmen
« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2009, 11:48:35 am »

I am inclined to disagree on a few points here.

I went to a screening on Wednesday along with nine other people.  Of all of them, only I had read the book.  They all liked it, or at least thought it was decent/slightly confusing.

I hated it.


This is most likely because I'm probably one of those irritating nitpickers who will complain about the slightest details, such as having only chunks of various subplots, leaving in just enough to confuse those who haven't read the book and taking away so much that it doesn't mean anything to the people who have.  Or changing a character's costume to look more "cool", which is completely missing the point.  Or not having any of the main characters smoke, which removes the reason for one particular scene and also takes away another one of their human "flaws".  Or CHANGING THE BLOODY ENDING.

I would much rather that they just left out more scenes than change the ones that they did use.  There were half-assed sequences which were changed to the point of not giving anything to the storyline, while still managing to annoy me because they had completely missed the point and had screwed up the character development.

The actors were, for the most part, crap.  Jackie Earle Haley did indeed give one of the better performances in the movie, and Rorschach was one of the few characters who actually seemed interesting.  However, I felt that the voice was perhaps just a bit over the top, and that he played a much better Walter Kovacs than a Rorschach.  Which, in a way, is kinda missing the point.

Malin Akerman was a T&A actress, a part which she seems to do quite well.  However, in trying to act out the entirely human personality of Laurie Jupiter, she failed horribly.  You could almost see the page she was reading her lines off of.

Crudup did a somewhat passable Doc Manhattan, but he seemed more tragic than disconnected, a role which is enforced later on.  Still though, one of the better performances.

Ozymandias was just annoying.  He looked and sounded like a spoiled rich brat who felt so incredibly superior to everyone else that he just had to let off a little pressure and ooze it out now and again.  Also, I know it's difficult to get an actor who could pull off Ozymandias/Veidt while having his godlike physique, but I'm sure they could have found someone a little buffer than this twig.  Especially since his acting abilities weren't that spectacular.

Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the Comedian...  I'm a little unsure about this.  On the one hand, he looked and sounded just like the Comedian should have, or at least it seemed that way.  And he could pull off the required level of badass relatively well.  On the other hand, there were certain sequences where his humanity just dropped off and his character lost purpose.  Generally in scenes where he had a significant amount of dialog, but also the rape scene.

Speaking of which, I was massively peeved at how they handled Laurie's realization and her flashback sequences.  Instead of simply hinting at a troubled marriage, they went out and said who it was and what he had done.  And does Laurie think about these things on her own, the result of her mental barriers being worn down by stress to the point that a suspected but refused possibility finally comes crashing through?  No.  No, Doc Blueballs has to play mindfuck with her at random occasions.

Admittedly, the "see things my way" schtick was a better-than-nothing attempt at finding a replacement for the long character development and backstory required to bring these things to light the way they were in the book.  However, the way they were handled was more just "surprise mindfuck-facepalm!".  But hey, she asked for it.  Literally.

Patrick Wilson as the second Nite Owl was another two-handed role.  On the one hand, he looked as much like Dan Dreiberg as could be humanly possible, and was capable of the "kinda pudgy" wimp aspect of that character.  On the other hand, he had the conversational talents of Malin Akerman and the multifaceted personality of Archie.  I suppose you could call that chemistry.

The elderly Silk Spectre, played by Carla Gugino, came off as just being a horny old bat.  The surprise Tijuana bible could just as easily been left out, as it didn't have the background or the source that gave it special meaning.

Janey Slater, Manhattan's old dame.  I know it wasn't much of a role, and I can't blame the actress for having a few lines cut from the script, but she really didn't give the right reason for leaving Jon to his fate.  She just walked in, looked surprised, and left.  Like if someone had put a rotting pumpkin on the coffee table.

Another minor role was Edgar Jacobi, A.K.A. "Moloch" (or Malack, or however they pronounced it in the film).  I happen to like Matt Frewer, but I really don't think he was the right choice for that role.  With the over-pronounced ears and Frewer's eccentric speech patterns, he just looked and sounded like a mutant elf with a liver problem.

I would also have to agree that Bubastis looked CGI.  I know it's a little difficult to come off with a "natural" giant lynx, due to the slight problem regarding their existence, but there are some things that look more constructed than others.  This was one of the fakier ones.  Again, they could have just as easily left her out, since she had no background as one of Adrian's experiments, no role as Adrian's companion, and no job as Jon's distraction.  She was just a CGI kitty who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The soundtrack threw me off completely.  When the first Bob Dylan song came on to accompany the various images of times that are a'changin', I sat back and thought "Wow, y'know...  This is actually pretty alright.  It's showing a bit more than it needs to, but it works.

The bassy Hallelujah sex scene struck a warped chord, however.  The song in itself seemed laughable to me, and it would've needed a special kind of picture to go along with it and make it work.  What we get are a couple B-list actors in latex groping each other over the skies of New York.  The combination would've been funny if I hadn't already been insulted.

And Flight of the Valkyries for Manhattan's excessively gore-packed invasion of Vietnam?  No.  Just no.

99 Luftballons...  I was then, and am now, speechless.  My mind seems intent on shrieking out a loud Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot, but I don't know if even that would suffice.


To conclude this long-winded rambling that consists of so many complaints and disagreements, I feel I should mention the ending.

Doctor Manhattan is not a psychic squid.  He never has been a psychic squid.  He will never be a psychic squid.  You should not send a naked blue man to do the job of a psychic squid.  Ever.  It's simply unethical.

But that's putting a little too much emphasis on the exact cause, which really only annoys me because instead of adding an unknown factor (an "alien" monster that we know nothing about, other than that it is highly dangerous.  This is exactly what people are afraid of, and would be willing to band together against), they went and used a once-human anomaly that they KNOW can't be stopped.  It doesn't matter if every nation on earth put everything they had into stopping Manhattan, they still wouldn't be able to stop him.  Just ain't happening.  And how the heck could they tell it was him, anyways?

Like I said, too much emphasis on that...  What really pissed me off was that Ozymandias was portrayed as a villain, being left in the cold by everyone else instead of entering into a devil's deal with them out of necessity.  And his comment about how he had made himself feel every death fell utterly flat.  Instead of being part of a final, personal confession to Manhattan ("god"), he just mentioned it in passing while watching the weather channel.  Made his already cold and overbearing personality seem just a little more callous and snobby.


I really don't understand how people can say it was 99% in line with the story, seeing as they changed the personalities of almost all the characters, left out the development and attachment which really was the bulk of Watchmen, and changed the most important part in the whole friggin' story.

The film is really just what it advertises itself to be.  A superhero action/drama brought to you by the visionary director of 300.  It is by no means Watchmen.

If you want to see a decent action/drama from the director of 300, go ahead.  If you want to see Watchmen, read the book (again).

Granite26

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Watchmen
« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2009, 12:03:22 pm »

I enjoyed the movie even though I've never seen the comic. I'm a blood, violence, and explosion type of gal so I saw nothing wrong with it. I do have to admit that it has got me curious about the comic. Does anyone know where I can find it?  :)
Barnes and Noble has new copies.  They released it for the movie.  Should be anywhere, really.

MoonDancer

  • Bay Watcher
  • Figment of your imagination
    • View Profile
    • My Blog
Re: Watchmen
« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2009, 12:17:11 pm »

I enjoyed the movie even though I've never seen the comic. I'm a blood, violence, and explosion type of gal so I saw nothing wrong with it. I do have to admit that it has got me curious about the comic. Does anyone know where I can find it?  :)
Barnes and Noble has new copies.  They released it for the movie.  Should be anywhere, really.

Thanks....I knew that..really I did. *sheepish grin* Okay, so let's just call it a blonde moment and leave it at that.  ;D
Logged
Can I kill him? No? What about eating him? Can I eat him? No? Your no fun!

Go away! Your stupidity might be contagious.

http://karnash.wordpress.com/

¿

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Watchmen
« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2009, 04:44:05 pm »

Kagus, I think you should have been the director. I would have enjoyed the movie much more.
Logged

Sowelu

  • Bay Watcher
  • I am offishially a penguin.
    • View Profile
Re: Watchmen
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2009, 06:49:19 pm »

As a big fan of the book, I liked the movie a lot.  I thought the additions were mostly good (I twitched at the blimp), I appreciated the changes, and I thought the removals were justified.

That said, they amped up the violence a little too much.  Some of it made me go "Yay there's beating up TONS of thugs after all", but the alley scene wasn't anywhere near THAT lethal in the books, was it?

Also, the music was a little offputting.  Some of it was good.  But agreed that 99 Luftballoons felt tremendously out of place.  I guess it helped bludgeon people over the head with the setting, which maybe was necessary for the 18-year-olds since we don't live in the cold war anymore.

As for the big changes...

They changed the ending.  It's along the same lines, but there's no alien squid.  I think that's totally justified because even when I was reading the book, I was thinking "Uh...With anything like modern biotechnology, we would see through that in HOURS."  And removing any fleeting references to psychics across the world was okay with me.

They changed the scene with Rorschach vs. kidnapper, so he kills him with an axe instead of chaining him up, giving him an axe, and setting the place on fire.  When I read the comic I thought "YAY, Rorschach is being Mad Max".  That's a scene that has been done TONS of times in movies.  And while it was fun to see it in a comic, where it feels like it's been pulled out of movies and done in real-life...  It's a little too self referential to have it in a movie.  I think keeping with the original would have seemed cheesy.

I missed a lot of the worldbuilding, like the advanced Manhattan tech.  But you can't have everything and that was easy enough to drop.  I really missed the Burgers & Borscht place at the end though.
Logged
Some things were made for one thing, for me / that one thing is the sea~
His servers are going to be powered by goat blood and moonlight.
Oh, a biomass/24 hour solar facility. How green!

Kagus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Olive oil. Don't you?
    • View Profile
Re: Watchmen
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2009, 07:26:04 pm »

That said, they amped up the violence a little too much.  Some of it made me go "Yay there's beating up TONS of thugs after all", but the alley scene wasn't anywhere near THAT lethal in the books, was it?

Uggh, that was completely out of place.  That was another one of the departures from depiction of realism to action movieland.  Also, I'm normally not squeamish in regards to gore (hell, I love the squishy bits.  I'd actually recommend Final Destination 3 just for the over-the-top gore), but that arm was too much... 

Nilocy

  • Bay Watcher
  • Queen of a Community.
    • View Profile
Re: Watchmen
« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2009, 09:16:16 pm »

P.S oddly, the film in Britain is rated an 18, so you'd definately not see any children around to watch it.  (I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between an 18 and an R rated films between the countries)

Link

We haven't yet sunk to the level of letting the government tell us what movies we can or can't take our kids to, although after seeing the 9 year olds running out of the theater when I went to see 8mm, that may not be the black and white issue I tend to think of it as.

Basically R = 18, only your parents can bring you in if they want to.  We have NC-17, which is pretty much the same, but not much gets that (other than pr0n).  There's a lot of politicking going on involving that, largely due to the bad rep that movies stuck with NC-17 get (dismissed as pr0n) so it's defacto censorship in that movies duck to R to maintain profitability.

Ah ok, fair enough. I guess that would be a bit cooler if we had R ratings instead of 18s, but im 18 so i don't care anymore. My brother (who is 12) did lol.

But then again, we do have EXTREMELY awesome drinking laws, legal drinking at 18, yum yum :D

Oh and on a less derailing note:

Suppoesedly the DVD release is going to come with different cuts of the film. And suppoesedly the cinema version was the shortest one... I think theres a proper 3 hour version, which if there is. I'm watching it, its got the comic in comic series (i've forgotten the name of it, its been so long sorry :()
Logged

Wiles

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Watchmen
« Reply #14 on: March 14, 2009, 12:03:02 pm »

It is necessarily rated R,

I was actually surprised when I went to see the movie to find out that it is rated 13 in Canada, or in Quebec at least. I'm not sure how I feel about the movie, I think I'd have to watch it again to find out. I loved the soundtrack though, Hendrix, Dylan, Cohen...  8)

I have never read the watchmen comic book, so there were a few moments in the movie where I had a "huh??" feeling. Like the purple cat. Suddenly there was a purple cat in the movie and just as suddenly it was gone. I would have liked to have known a little more about Roshack (I'm not even going to try and spell his name correctly), what's up with his mask?
I had mixed feelings about the CGI, some of the Dr. Manhattan scenes were pretty bad. His body movements weren't fluid at all, he seemed very out of place.
Ozymandias is a very ironic character. Even his own name is against everything he supposedly stands for, but fitting I guess since the poem of the same name is a good example of human hubris.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2009, 12:13:09 pm by Wiles »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3