Watchmen Review
Mar 5, 2009 by Vic HoltremanIs Watchmen as awful as reviewers say or as awesome as bloggers claim? The answer lies somewhere in between.
Short version: Watchmen is an ultra-violent, sexually explicit mystery film (with a few costumed heroes thrown in) that is visually stunning, but uneven.
Screen Rant reviews Watchmen
I’ve really been dreading writing this review because frankly, I’m still not sure how I feel about Zack Snyder’s big screen adaptation of the revered graphic novel (yes, I’m calling it a graphic novel), Watchmen.
There are some films that I really wish I could watch TWICE prior to writing a review: Big, highly-anticipated blockbusters tend to taint my initial viewing with expectations. Ideally there would be one viewing where I’d just let the film wash over me and then a second viewing where I could be more objective and analytical.
A little background for context: I read the graphic novel once, last year, following the San Diego Comic-Con. I’m not a die-hard devotee of the book, but I recognize that at the time it was written it was groundbreaking in its approach to the superhero genre. I don’t remember every nuance or panel of the story, but I remember enough for the film to make sense to me.
The problem is – I can’t “unremember” the book in order to give you the point of view of someone coming to the film with little knowledge of the story, and I’m not so into it that I can compare it detail by detail to the book – so take this review for what it’s worth. Some of you will end up agreeing with me and others will probably call me an idiot… such is the life of a guy who runs a movie website.
First off, for the uninitiated, you should know a couple of things:
- This is NOT really a superhero movie in the sense that we’ve come to know the genre. It’s not X-Men or Spider-Man – it’s not even The Dark Knight… it’s really more of a murder mystery with a bit of superhero action thrown in for flavor.
- It also seriously EARNS its R-rating, people. This is NOT a film you should bring your kids to because “it’s a superhero movie.” There is extremely graphic, horror movie-level gore, scenes of intense, realistic violence, full frontal male nudity throughout the film – and a very explicit sex scene.
Watchmen is also a very “dense” film, one that a viewer will no doubt pick up more details and nuances upon repeated viewings, so I won’t be covering a lot of detail here as far as story.
The film opens with a montage of scenes giving us the history of costumed vigilante crime fighters back in the 1940s. It’s pretty damned cool looking back and seeing men and women wearing homemade costumes and masks taking on muggers and such, sometimes even posing for the newspaper photographers in the middle of capturing the bad guys.
These are the glory days of the masked crime fighter, with society loving them and the heroes enjoying the heck out of what they do – even forming a loose alliance with one another. Eventually in the film we see some of these older “superheroes” who are now either dead or retired – trying to live normal lives.
The Comedian meets his end in Watchmen
From there we move to the iconic scene from the book – The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), now in his 60s, sitting at home in his apartment when a shadowy figure breaks in and beats him to a bloody pulp – culminating in his murder via being thrown out of a window high above street level.
It is now 1985 and masked vigilantes have been outlawed by the government for almost 15 years; Richard Nixon is in his 5th term as President, and the world is on the brink of a nuclear war between the United States and Russia.
Rorschach/Walter Kovacs (Jackie Earle Haley) is a vigilante who has told the government to go screw itself and still prowls the streets at night. As depicted in the film, I would say that he is probably portrayed as some Liberals imagine all Conservatives to be. He’s borderline crazy (if not actually over the edge), but he knows where he stands and what he believes in – to a fault. He doesn’t believe the killing of the Comedian was a burglary gone bad – he thinks that it was outright murder and that someone is tracking down ex-heroes one by one in an attempt to wipe them out.
This mystery is in fact the crux of the film – we follow Rorschach through his investigation and along the line we meet other ex-heroes Nite Owl II/Dan Dreiberg (Patrick Wilson) and Silk Spectre II/Laurie Jupiter (Malin Akerman). Dan lives a quiet, lonely life (he comes across as a bit of a geek) while Laurie has a relationship with the one true superhero in the story: Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup). Things are strained between Laurie and Dr. Manhattan, as he is slipping farther and farther away from humanity due to his god-like powers and intellect.
Rorschach tells Dan his theory about a “mask-killer” (they were once partners) and Dan goes off to warn Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) that his life may be in danger as well. Adrian is a super-genius billionaire who created his mega-corporation after vigilantism was banned. He is supremely confident and is determined to change the world for the better and bring it back from the brink of nuclear destruction.
Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre II and Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl II
The film takes us through Dan and Laurie rediscovering that the only time they really feel alive is when they’re in full costume, out there fighting crime. As a matter of fact, Dan goes through a Clark Kent to Superman transformation once he dons his costume, changing from a clumsy, impotent coward, into (as Jesse Ventura so eloquently said in Predator) a sexual Tyrannosaurus.
Overall, what this story is about is showing how really messed up in the head people who put on bizarre costumes to go out and beat up bad guys would be if they actually existed in the real world. We’re talking about your next door neighbor putting on a batsuit complete with mask and cape, going downtown and beating up people so badly that they had to go to the hospital. Sure, it sounds good in a comic book or a movie, but would you really want to live next door to that guy? Would you really feel safe?
Watchmen follows the book very closely for the most part. Where it deviates mainly is via omission of certain aspects of the book and the ending. But what you see on the screen follows the imagery in the book to a “T.” Visually, I don’t think anyone could have done a better job with bringing the artwork from the book to life. I do think that some of what was omitted (and may be in the director’s cut for all I know) might have brought more humanity to the film. In particular what you’ll find missing if you’ve read the book is anything having to do with the old magazine stand guy and the young man reading “Tales of the Black Freighter” while keeping him company.
The format of the film is such that you don’t get to know some of the characters until you’re pretty deep into the film. We don’t get to see the pre-Dr. Manhattan Jon Osterman until we’re probably over an hour into the film. The movie jumps around quite a bit, and I don’t know how that will go over with people who aren’t familiar with the original story. It seems to me that perhaps some license should have been taken with the structure of the film considering the fact that the original story took place in 12 separate comic book issues spread over the course of an entire year. But if you know the story, this won’t bother you at all.
Naked Dr. Manhattan with the naughty bits blurred (as they aren’t in the film)
Visually, Zack Snyder did a fantastic job with Watchmen. The incredible attention to detail in everything from the background sets to the props and costumes is really something to see. Of course one aspect of the film I could have stood to see a bit less of was Dr. Manhattan’s penis. The logic of the story was that eventually he becomes so detached from human norms that he doesn’t see the point of wearing any clothing. However I’m pretty sure I don’t recall Mr. Happy being so prevalent in the book. Here we’ve got full body shots all over the place and frankly, it was a bit distracting (I’ll never look at Blue Man Group quite the same way again).
The CGI effects for Dr. Manhattan were very impressive, except when it came to him actually speaking – there was a bit of the “uncanny valley” effect at work there and it just didn’t look quite right.
Far and away the best thing about Watchmen was Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. The man is mesmerizing and his performance rivals that of Heath Ledger as the Joker. I loved his interpretation of the how the character would sound, and when he gets to prison you’ll be jumping out of your seat at just how awesome he is.
Jackie Earle Haley about to go ballistic in Watchmen
Another bright spot was the despicable Comedian. Jeffrey Dean Morgan was great to watch… he was just SO twisted that you couldn’t turn away and he just draws you in.
So what didn’t work? I thought that both Malin Akerman and Carla Gugino were quite weak. Akerman’s performance came across as pretty shallow to me, and Gugino’s first real scene in the film as an old woman almost had me laughing out loud because it seemed so campy. I could take or leave Patrick Wilson’s performance – maybe it was just the character he was playing that left me cold.
I also really didn’t think that Matthew Goode was the best choice for Veidt/Ozymandias. He seemed too frail of build to me, and this became much more of an issue in the final scenes in the film where he displayed what seemed to be superhuman strength in a film where the only super-powered being is supposed to be Dr. Manhattan. This also came up in the early scene where the Comedian is fighting for his life – he punches through what looks like solid brick, and while it might look cool, it didn’t seem to make sense.
Matthew Goode as Adrian Veidt
Aside from the Comedian and Rorschach (and maybe even Dr. Manhattan), I never really felt drawn into the characters in the film. They felt like, well, characters – instead of real people. I suppose it was almost akin to an Opera, where you’re very aware of what you’re watching as an observer. It was so obviously trying to honor the source material that you could actually TELL that’s what it was doing.
So in the end, is Watchmen a good film? I think so. Was it a great or close to perfect film? I’d have to say no. It felt long to me, and we have the issues I pointed out above. It is however yet another comic book-based movie that breaks the mold, and lays the groundwork for more non-traditional comic book stories to be turned into films.
I think it’s definitely worth seeing, and I’ll be very curious to hear what you think of it. I really think Watchmen is destined to be a cult movie – not very mainstream, but with a smaller and very dedicated core of fans loving it as time goes on.
Our Rating:
4 out of 5
Around the web:
Loading ...
Overall nice review, although I personally thought the movie succeeded to a larger degree than you did. Adrian Veidt might have seemed weak, but I remember thinking the exact thing you are complaining about here – when reading the graphic novel years ago. So the movie seemed very faithful to the graphic novel to me.
In the end, what I decided was the supposed explanation for Veidts fighting skills was his incredible intelligence and ability to predict his opponent’s moves(as well as catching a bullet through incredible knowledge of physics), but he always came across as a character that was meant to be cheesy.(It’s the comedian who punches through a concrete wall btw, not Veidt. The review was a bit ambiguous on that part.)
Anyway, as far as I’m concerned, this is one of my favorite movies now. I haven’t seen solid filmmaking like this in years. Coupled with the great story of the graphic novel – it’s pure win.
The philosophy behind a lot of what happens might be too much for some people though. It’s not exactly satisfying to have truth lose to pragmatic considerations in the end for example, nor is it common to see characters following the ethical code of “the end justifies the means” triumph, but that’s one of the charms of the source material. It’s different.
@ almanza
2 things, just because someone have not read Watchmen does not mean they have to have been too young. They could have simply chose not to read it, or have not yet read it. Sorry, as much as you think this is the uber guber ultimate blah blah blah, everything is up to personal preference, so there is no right or wrong, it’s called opinions.
Secondly, beanbags are not used as a “nonlethal” alternative. There is no such thing as a “nonlethal” weapon. Tasers, bean bags, pepper balls, pepper spray, etc. are considered “less lethal” weapons. Yes, you can die from ANY and all of those.
@ Sylar
I loved that line too, and really wish the cops had swarmed him AFTER he finished.
My other favorite rorschack line was at the end. “Never compromise, not even in the face of armegeddon. Thats the difference between you and me dan.”
It showed that as flawed as his character was, with all the killings and torturous acts he inlficted, he still has morals. That he would rather live a terrible truth than happy lie.
While not having read the graphic novel, i did watch the “motion comic” and came away extremely impressed by it. It made me so excited to watch the movie. I loved the movie but agree with many before me that the need for excessive gore and nudity were a bit unnecessary.
The film did a great job of representing the motion comic, which im sure was trimed a little bit, even with its 5.5 hour combined run time. I would have PREFERRED the alien attack ending, but left the theater feelin ALMOST indifferent about either. They both work, i just think one could work a little better.
I am with Robert and Illusio, this film was absolutely incredible!
Illusio makes a great point in his comment that the philosphy behind this film might be too much for most, which is fine. After walking out of the theatre, I personally felt that I just watched something that comes only in awhile, not that often. And who knew from a major studio picture! I mean, you have a character in Roschach who is so right-winged and he is the one character whom everyone likes! In a Hollywood movie?
I cannot remember who wrote it, maybe at this site or another, but I remember this film being described as the Blade Runner of this generation. Which is fine by me, because I can see that happening with this film! Years down the road, I am sure when looking at this film on its own it will be so reveared!
And for those of you did not get it, did not like it, had problems with it, or are just to nitpicky that it is not exactly like the book, you guys have missed out on a great experience!
The Doc Manhattan nudity is not at all distracting. Because he blue and glowing, and vaguely inhuman seeming, I found myself forgetting that he was even naked. I barely noticed it at all. Please don’t make this the reason you skip the film!
I’d like to comment on the high level of violence in the film. Some women in tha bathroom after the moive seemed really offended by the Comedian killing the pregnant woman in Vietnam, and they were talking like that kind of thing was unnecessary. Lest you feel the same way, I want to point out that these women were drastically missing the point, which was that the Comedian was a government agent, employed by the military, who is often touted in the media as people who “protect us” and our interests overseas. The film tries to deconstruct the notion of “the protector” and asks the question, protecting us from what? And from whom? And at what cost? I thought all of the violence, regardless of how uncomfortable it made me, was relevant.
One more thing about the message of the story, as I perceived it:
Adrian Veidt destroyed the world so he could profit off the rebuilding of the world… notice the Veidt Construction signs around ground zero at the end. Who does this remind you of?
When the people who are in the business of preotecting us will not think twice about splashing someone’s face with hot oil, killing a pregnant woman, or murdering millions of people (even for the sake of world peace), DO WE WANT THESE PEOPLE PROTECTING US?
To those who admire Rorschach’s so-called “morals,” I’d like to point out that his inability to compromise shows a lack of compassion, a lack of what most people who call “morals.” I think that’s the point… if you insist on seeing the world in black and white terms, you won’t last very long… your own definitions will bite you in the butt.
Mo, I am with you! I felt the same way, personally felt that Snyder delivered in spades! I always laughed that he was touted as “The Visionary Director of 300!” For what? Copying panel for panel?
But this film has made him somewhat earn that title. The touches he adds are great!
Lastly, this is a true definition of a “dark” movie. Not TDK!
Personally, I think that for anyone who has read the graphic novel and really likes it will appreciate that the movie stayed true to the source material. Unfortunately the same quality that endears the film to the comic’s following is also it’s downfall.
The story in the novel jumps through different points in the time line haphazardly, the film does the same thing but with very little attention paid to the transitions. So, every time the story moved forward in the movie you were hit with a smattering of folk or pop music. This approach worked on paper, but in a movie there is so much more to consider when setting a mood or tone and the film did not do that. Also, certain pieces of music that were used in the movie were sometimes unnecessary or just plain inappropriate for their respective scenes.
Long story short, the film stayed true to the graphic novel. They really should have considered how the movie would look strung together the way it was and maybe saved some of those clips that were shaved at the request of the studio. Pick better music, every time the scenes changed i was squirming in my seat.
this film was excellent!! well done..
i was afraid of the results for this production before I went to see it.. and I am really relieved outcome, now I have seen it
generally I don’t think this style of comic book is suited for a film adaptation, and should be left alone by hollywood. however i guess its also good thing that these ideas are also shared with mainstream cinema audiences – whether its lost on them all or not..
how the sound and the vision was tied together during the action sequences were amazing. this was really good film making and would have been a mammoth task.
the film could not have possibly been any shorter. and in this case, to ask the film makers to interpret the original material in their own way is ridiculous. the book is perfect and to my imagination they have captured the tone, story arch, and sub text as best as could within a film
finally, the fact that it is polarising its audience is a testament to its strength!
@ ken j
i think you misunderstood, i was asking what age he was, because i’ve always gotten the impression that this comic was widely read by it’s contemporary audience, so i was curious to know what age group he was to know if this was true or not. If you read the second part of my post I do say there are all types of tastes and people read comics for different reasons, in never said his opinion was wrong, I wrote to encourage his reading of the material to maybe understand the movie better, also to answer his question of whether the comic was action packed (not really) or more verbal interaction type thing (which it is ). I like Watchmen, it’s an awesome read, but I never said it was the “uber guber ultimate blah blah blah” I didn’t, if you never want to read something, I could honestly care less, it’s just a suggestion.
As for the second part, You can probably kill a person with any given object if you try hard enough. Again not the point of my post, I was trying to answer a question, which I stated I was unsure of myself, comedian (IN AMERICA) used rubber bullets/beanbag/gas canisters. Not actual bullets. But yes ask a police officer those are the non lethal alternatives, can they kill someone? Yeah, so will a pencil in the eye. But that’s not their purpose, if it was then they would simply be bullets, because you don’t shoot something if you don’t want it dead, but if you want to stop a guy without killing him and you don’t feel like getting hurt a beanbag/taser/ rubber bullet might be an option. (at least according to police, military, prison guards, etc)
Hello,
First of all i would like to apologize for my english is not my native language therefore it may sound funny and with some errors, and for that i apologize.
I already had the pleasure of watching the movie and i must say, its a really awsome movie.
either if you are a hardcore fan or just someone who likes a good movie with a solid story.
I do understand one thing though there is no middle term for this movie. you either love it or hate it with all the power you have.
i Recomend you guys not to care about the reviews and watch it youreself( no disrespect meant here for the reviewer here because i really like youre reviews.) but this is a very “personal opinion” movie.
Cheers all and sorry again for my english.
Thanks Vic, I’ll pass..
I read every word of every post and frankly couldn’t find a good reason to see this.
Frankly, I’ve had enough of graphic, gratuitous violence in films and it seems that a lot of ‘visionary’ directors can’t seem to get their point across without it.
(..And I LOVED John Carpenters, ‘THE THING’, go figure!)
@almanza & Ken J
Actually, I thought the Comedian was firing tear gas canisters at the protesters.
Vic
Ryan, I would have to disagree with you on Snyder’s choice of music, except for Cohen’s Hallelujah for the love scene. They could have picked something better.
The opening credits montage was great! Luft Balloons was a great intro to a ‘fun’ outing between two longtime companions. Along The Watchtower was a great transition to the final set piece, that is the one thing out of the entire film that is constantly replayed in my mind. Even the muzak version for “Everybody wants to rule the world” in Veidt’s office was a great and subtle touch! So, one faulty misstep by Snyder.
Before I comment I want to mention that I am a fan of the graphic novel, and consider it my favorite graphic novel. That being said I really enjoyed the movie. The one bad thing about this movie was the fact that I had to watch it with other people. Most notably, a trio of junior high aged boys setting almost directly behind me. For anyone considering letting your children attend an R-rated movie also consider the possibly that instead of warping them it may also destroy the movie for someone else. I could barely even hear a scene with Dr. Manhattan involved over the constant snickering from behind me. I wanted to turn around and ask if they had ever seen a penis before. Other than that the nudity did not bother me in the least. It was actually essential to the film in my mind since it was very important that Dr. Manhattan makes the audience feel uncomfortable. Seeing him walking around with a total disregard to his own nudity is a major sign of his withdrawal from society.
I especially enjoyed the line “I was originally misquoted, I did not say the superman exists and he is American, I said god exists and he is American. If that fills you with a sense of religious terror that only proves that you are still sane. I think that line sums up how we should feel about Dr Manhattan perfectly. I think the same or a similar line appeared in one of the between chapter text sections of the graphic novel, but it had more impact on me in the movie.
I disagree with many of the objections to the casting, first with regards to Adrian Veidt. I don’t think he was physically that big in the graphic novel. He really represented more of the mind over matter, being the best that you could be type of hero. The movie really missed out by not having the ad text for the Veidt method that the book showed. I think this did a wonderful job in the book of explaining why he was able to do the things he could. In the book he even made a comment to Night Owl and Rorschach about how if the assassin hired to kill him had been faster, he would have had to catch the bullet. In the movie they just chose to have him actually do so. I also think the actor did an excellent job of portraying his extreme confidence which is what makes him who he is far more than any visible size.
Next I noticed a few comments on Dan seeming to be too much of a geek or not really all there. That is exactly what he needed to be. The Keene act affected him more profoundly than any other character. Without Night Owl he wasn’t much more than a fan boy. He had grown up idolizing Hollis Mason the original Night Owl, and when he took over as Night Owl it really defined every aspect of his adult life. When the government and the people he had set out to protect turned against him it destroyed him leaving him with a lonely and pointless existence. The one scene with Dan and Hollis Mason really drives this point home. He comments to Hollis “Us retired guys have to stick together.” He is obviously attempting to make a joke but the difference between Hollis who chose to retire, and Dan who was forced to give up the most important aspect of his life is almost painfully visible in that moment.
Of course Rorschach is absolutely perfect, and I agree with most of the comments posted here in that regard. I was a little disappointed when he actually killed the child killer in the movie rather than giving him the hacksaw and letting him choose between burning to death and cutting off his own hands, but I got over it quickly. One other thing that disappointed me may seem very minor, but in the graphic novel Night Owl says to Rorschach “sometimes it is very hard being your friend.” They still did a good job with the scene in the movie, but it seemed a lot stronger in the book.
My thoughts on the ending have varied almost hourly since I left the movie. I am usually pretty accepting of a change in a translation to a movie, and at first I did not understand the need for this. However the more I think about it, the extra detail to explain the “alien” from the book would have added significantly to the length of a movie that was already pushing the boundaries of how long people will sit through a movie. This makes me even more upset that Hollywood will not make massive budget movies with me alone as the intended audience. Seriously Hollywood I am worth it. Honestly however I can accept the change to the ending. It does not quite do justice to the genius of Adrian Veidt, and how superior his intellect is to the rest of us. But the ending from the book would have required an additional leap of faith as well as an extra 45 minutes of explanation. I cannot think of anything I would have wanted removed from the movie to make up for that time difference.
I am completely unable to comment on this movie as a standalone experience not related to the book because I have read the book too many times. I am still debating taking my wife to see it to get her perspective, but fear that the intensity of some of the violence might make it un-enjoyable for her.
I have to say, I;ve never been to your site before or read any of your other reviews, but this one feels exactly like how I felt about The Watchmen. I had never read the comic, but I had certainly heard about it and knew the basic premise of the story. Visually it was great, I thought the pacing was actually good for a 3 hour movie. I would say Watchmen was a great movie, but did I love it? Not really. I would definitely recommend it for others to see though.
@SK47 & anyone else reading.
Don’t get me wrong I still think it was a good film and good adaptation, but maybe they could have reorganized the sequence of events so it makes more sense to someone who might not have read the book.
Also, I don’t mean I didn’t like the music, after all who can really dislike Bob Dylan or Nena, but where they placed the songs really bugged me. I mean not only was it jilting to suddenly go from a very somber and intense scene between Laurie and Dr. Manhattan to a light hearted dinner conversation with Laurie and Dan at a restaurant. There’s really no need to throw 99 Luft Balloons on top of it. I understand she’s there to blow off steam and what not but it doesn’t mean she’s compltetely three sheets to the wind either. I’m not sure how to put it but it just felt wrong. This also happens when we get to The Comedian’s funeral. I know this part of the story is particularly important because of the back story that is revealed, but I think it would have been much better without Bob Dylan or any music for that matter. The priest performing that last rights in the rain would have been more than enough noise to set the mood.
But that’s just me talking, I’m not sure if anyone else felt this way about it, but I’m very interested to find out.
@Morgs
Welcome to Screen Rant.
Vic
No problem with the nudity here. I loved all the costumes , but Silk Spectre is the best, very sexy.
As for story line… I think if not familiar with the book it would be a bit hard to follow for some. Confused my wife pretty well.
Good review…I tend to agree that this film will hit it big it’s first weekend, then slip into cult status. I’ve been a Watchmen fan for over 20 years, having read (and re-read) the books in college. For me, the attention to the look of the comic was wonderful and the director packed as much of the story in as possible.
I am concerned that those unfamiliar with the story may not get as much out of it, although 4 in my group had never read the books and yet all enjoyed the movie.
I look forward to the DVD. I think there we will see more of the side stories (I did notice the Newsstand owner and kid cling to each other as NYC was destroyed).
I do hope that the film encourages those who ahve never read the books to pick them up and geive them a try…
Sorry, I found the movie boring, slow and too long. Visually the movie was at times quite stunning and certain characters engaging, like Rorschach, but I definatly vote two thumbs down.
Metalsculpter, TWO thumbs down, not just one
@ Vic Holtreman
yeah that’s what i remember the last shot being (when the guy got hit in the back into the wall), but I wasn’t sure if he shot something else in-between. I guess I’m just going to have to watch it again.
Adrian Veidt’s part was great I thought, it was the last thing you expected seeing him suddenly and almost superhuman like kickin butt. The vegetarian and pacifist comments really added to the whole “this guys a sissy” buld up then suddenly he is the man. Having not read the novel and not knowing what to expect, I thought that was a great twist.
Rorschach was the man, the comedian was a great jerk also.
I never saw blue penis as I only watched his face lol. I really didnt care.
I thought the sex scenes were cool,justified, and kinda funny. The cant get it up part was funny, took some excitement for it to happen. The rape scene never accually got to raping but added alot more hate for the Comedian so another one that needed to be there.
Worse thing about the move to me was Nixons nose, other than that I loved it.
GF and I saw the movie yesterday – have to admit that Rorshach and the cinematography/score were the highlights of the movie. The scene of the Comedian’s funeral with “Sound of Silence” playing was a stunner, perfect. That being said, when the movie was over, it didn’t feel like it did when the book ended – not sure why.
How can this be–I agree with almost everyone! The music sucked. The pacing was off. It was faithful in spirit to the book. Only Robert Altman could have woven stories together better. (Did I just praise Altman??)
Rorshach was great, Nite Owl was great, Silk Spectre was ooh la la. I wanted more Comedian, who was much more interesting on screen than in print. Viedt–could have been a little more on the adonis side.
The ending was better than the book. Anything more would have made the movie just too long. It may be the Bladerunner of this generation, but I think it’s the Cloverfield of this year. (Enough oddities that word of mouth will scare many off.)
I think it will do well with DVD sales, where ubergeeks can invite friends over, put the long-ass movie on Pause for an intermission, and come back. Of course the deleted scenes or directors cut will be a big pull. I don’t know why, but the gory pirate story will have its own pull as well.
You know, my friends made SUCH a big deal over Doc Manhattan’s man parts. I figured it’s be all WHAM!IN MY FACE, especially when he was ten feet tall. I honestly barely noticed it. And you won’t…not unless you, like, STARE at it. The movie wasn’t TERRIBLE as people (like my dad who walked out and got a ticket to another movie) make it out to be. However, I think you need to read the graphic novel to TRULY appreciate it. I have this hatred for Malin Akerman, I really do. Some stuff was unnecessary, really. Like the 3848382 minute sex scene that was over in –what?– one panel in the novel? And I wasn’t too find of Matthew Goode’s adaptation of Ozymandias. OH MAN, BUT JACKIE EARLE HALEY STOLE THE MOVIE.
well i agree with most of this vic. tho ive never read the graphic novel. so i cant compare to that. i thought the movie better than alot of the superhero movies nowadays batman begins was great but i hated TDK with a vengence. spider-man was a joke and x-men was good. the new 1′s i liked as well iron man and the incredible hulk were amazing. ok well i got stop ranting…. i thought this movie was rele deep… i had to rele pay atention to what was said and unlike other superhero movies there was no enemy so i guess it was mystery aspect the added to movie the most. o and i lover the montage at the begining. well that was my two/25 cents hah!
The review was…ok.
I think to come watch the movie, as a person who has read the book, but wasn’t overly enchanted by it is a bad start.
And while reviews are always going to be biased, that relative disenchantment with what you say admittedly was groundbreaking for its time as a side note would add further negative side effects than just blockbuster skepticism alone.
I think with a keen interest in the book, you understand the intricacies and take the with you to the cinema. But, if you have a limited interest, the fine details are amiss, which clouds your understanding of the movies concepts from the get go which is almost definitely the case with your experience.
You say that you didn’t want to see Dr. Manhatan’s penis as much as it was present, illustrating this a personal dislike. Yet, you go on to say that the constant exposure is because of a distancing from human norms.
That’s were you lost me.
That is not the logic of the story at all. It’s also a prime example of clouded judgment spawning from a indifference to the source material.
The logic to me, seemed quite obvious.
He can 1. Clone himself 2. Inflate or deflate (I’d assume?) his physical mass and to a lesser extent 3. He can teleport him self around.
Now all these things would point to a reason of impracticality for the lack of clothing, not personal distance from social norms at all.
And while “Mr. Happy” did not feature as much in the book as it did int he film, you have to remember that we are also looking at a movie with far more cuts than the book ever had hence more nudity. Also, the original mock-up had more nudity in it but was eventually toned down, covered up and made more modest for the actual public release.
Also, if you had a keen interest in the book you would notice many interactions between the source material and the movie, morseso in any film I’ve ever seen.
For example.
Moloch (The Magician*) had a deck of cards in his top draw when Rorschach opens it to find ‘illegal’ cancer medication.
and my personal favourite feature:
In the novel, they talk about the identities of all the old masked vigilantes through the book. One of which story, talks about hooded justice. It was said in the book that they thought that he was actually a famous Russian weightlifter who had gone mysteriously missing due to the similarities in build and height. This is of course not at all proved or disproved in the book. However, in the movie when hooded justice comes into the room to break up the impending rape of Sally Jupiter by the comedian, he speaks in a Russian accent.
Brilliant, yes?