Watchmen film review

[Cochese]

I pm'ed Mr Mom, but if you want to tell me what they did instead of the giant squid in New York, I welcome the spoilers. Send me a PM so the people here dont get butt hurt.

 

[Rack]

Maybe you should have read up on what you were about to watch before seeing the film. Watchmen is not a popcorn superhero story and it seems you thought it was going to be one. It's not the movies fault you thought you payed to watch X-Men.

Agreed. People thinking this was going to be another Spiderman, Superman, Batman, etc., type of movie obviously didn't know what they were going to watch.


There's a rating for movies, people. An "R" or "NC-17" should give you a good indication of what type of movie it is. Just cuz there's superheroes involved doesn't mean it's a kiddie movie.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Maybe you should have read up on what you were about to watch before seeing the film. Watchmen is not a popcorn superhero story and it seems you thought it was going to be one. It's not the movies fault you thought you payed to watch X-Men.

Wow. I'm surprised at some of these comments, especially yours Sultan.
I haven't seen it yet, but I read the novel about 20 years ago and remember really liking it. Rorschach is the most memorable thing about it for me, so I'm not surprised to hear you say that.

I honestly don't remember if the novel is the way you described the movie, (nihilistic social commentary). Maybe when I read it, my head was in a different place socially. Did you read the novel?

I went in with no expectations that it was a popcorn "superhero" story. I had absolutely no preconditioned expectations concerning it, as I have never even seen the novel, let alone read it. I went in to watch the movie because it was hyped beyond imagination, and I came out feeling exactly as I said I did. It was aesthetically appealing, but it was boring sans Rorschach and the fight sequences. Maybe I will read the book someday, and perhaps understand the hype.

 

[theogt]

Never read the novel. Didn't have expectations.

Loved it. Really loved it. I thought it was fantastic. Unique, engaging, beautiful to watch. I didn't have a single complaint.

 

[Cochese]

Never read the novel. Didn't have expectations.

Loved it. Really loved it. I thought it was fantastic. Unique, engaging, beautiful to watch. I didn't have a single complaint.

If you liked the film, you should read the book. You can get it new for just over $10 on amazon. Its a great read.

 

[mr.jameswoods]

Graphic novel = Long comic book

or a novel with lots and lots of pictures..... my kind of novel.

It's not just the length but usually the themes as well. When the first graphic novels emerged in the 80's, they had more adult oriented themes and were designed toward older audiences.

 

[mr.jameswoods]

OH............

I took it as more like "I'm a big fan, so ANYTHING story written about that which I like is not "just a story" or a novel. Because it's a big deal to ME, then it's a GRAPHIC novel....."

I think that most Pulitzer Prize winning Novelist's would be a little disappointed in any comic book being described as a "graphic novel". I've read everything and anything having to do with Batman. My wife bought me the COMPLETE Batman Collection going back to 1938, but I never considered this collection as a anything more than great DC comic stuff.

Anyway, from what I gather since it came out, the reviews of WatchMen has been a little less than what most expected. Especially from those who know something about it. I never heard of WatchMen until I started seeing the trailers @ the movies over the summer. It looked like something I'd want to see for sure. But most of the folks who have read the "graphic novel" and were fans of WatchMen are not very happy about the movie, again, from what I gather...................

I'm STILL going to go see it though.

LOL Where do I start? First of all, it's Watchmen not WatchMen or Watch Men and these people are not affiliated with watches in case you are wondering; hey I'm not trying to insult you but I have no idea what you know considering you had never heard of the term graphic novel until today. Second, the term graphic novel has been in existance for a while now. Putting quotations around the word as if I made that up just makes you look silly. Go to Barnes and Noble, Borders or any other well recognized bookstore and they will have a section formally entitled "Graphic Novels". Furthermore, it's funny to insinuate that you understand comics because your wife bought you the "COMPLETE" Batman collection since 1938 LOL as if Batman is a symbol of the most thought provoking work in comics; that would be comparable to someone saying they understand fine dining because they ate at every Olive Garden in the United States. In fact, the best Batman work was written by Frank Miller in the mid 80's and Grant Morrison today so it doesn't really matter whether you have read older Batman since it's not really critically acclaimed. In addition, there are so many different types of graphic novels that have nothing to do with heros or powers for that matter. In addition, Neil Gaiman, a comic book writer, won the famous World Fantasy Award for his Sandman work which even got respect from Norman Mailer. It was the first comic to ever win that award. Gaiman also won the Newberry award which is the most prestigious children's literary award.

And Most of the best writers in entertainment are comic book writers. Ever heard of television shows like Lost? Yeah, that is written and produced by a comic book writer. There are several other examples of this. Frank Miller's Sin City? I laugh at the elitist posture posed by you. Some of the most brilliant and creative minds are in comics and they choose to remain in comics. The fact is comics are a medium that allows them to convey ideas that traditional novels would not allow . This is why Hollywood started employing comic book writers because it took comic book writers to push the boundaries and introduce ideas that mainstream writers failed to accomplish.

Lastly, I think this Pulitzer Prize winning author would disagree with you. He is a big comic book fan.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/10/31/pulitzer-prize-winning-writer-hired-to-write-spider-man-4/

 

[mr.jameswoods]

I went in with no expectations that it was a popcorn "superhero" story. I had absolutely no preconditioned expectations concerning it, as I have never even seen the novel, let alone read it. I went in to watch the movie because it was hyped beyond imagination, and I came out feeling exactly as I said I did. It was aesthetically appealing, but it was boring sans Rorschach and the fight sequences. Maybe I will read the book someday, and perhaps understand the hype.

I think your reaction is perfectly normal. I knew a lot of the backstory but as I was watching it, I remember how the movie left out details that would have helped the viewer better understand and enjoy the movie. For example, the movie never tells you how the Comedian found Ozymandia's island by accidentally observing it while he was flying over it because he thought it was an island designed to hide communist rebels he was fighting at the time. Veidt/Ozymandias reveals that clearly in the graphic novel but not in the movie. There are a lot of little pieces of information that were missing that when accumulated could make the film not as enjoyable. The movie also fails to show the transition of Dr. Manhattan becoming less human. When he first becomes Dr. Manhattan, he wears clothing and is more human in regards to his behavior. As time passes, he becomes less human as he is evolving past the limitations of human existence.

But the biggest problem is Ozymandias. For others reading: SPOILERS...stop reading if you haven't seen the film.










In the comic book, Ozymandias is depicted as an intelligent yet passive person. He is very much depicted like Reed Richards, in the Fantastic Four comics, a brilliant yet mild mannered person. So when you are reading the comic book, you are genuinely suprised to learn that Ozymandias is behind the whole thing. In the film, he is depicted like a typical James Bond villain. He is suave and calculating and the audience immediately gets the idea that he is probably up to no good. The audience should never get that idea.

 

[Aikmaniac]

Question involving SPOILERS below...







Does anyone know why the Comedian shot JFK? It was in the opening credits (which I thought were unbelievable).

 

[smarta5150]

I just got home an hour or 2 ago from watching it.

I went into this as a Watchmen virgin and therefor didn't have any expectations at all.

The only thing that worried me was I saw "The Spirit" not to long ago and that was THE WORST MOVIE I have EVER seen (seriously, the worst movie EVER). So I was gonna be nervous on any movie I saw next, especially this since they are kind of related (a little bit, but anyway).

I loved it. Sure I was lost on why some of the superheroes were actually super and how they got their powers but they had a lot of story to get in and couldn't make this a 5-hour film.

Finally a comic hits the big screen for adults. Violence, blood and sex. Twisted ending where the "villain" wins.

I am going to have to see it again at my local IMAX in a week or so.

 

[DallasEast]

I read the graphic novel before seeing the film so I was a fan of Watchmen before seeing the movie. However, if you are not a comic book fan, I would say wait until it comes out on DVD. It was really long and they didn't do a very good job explaining some of the backstory and detail. I know that if I didn't read the graphic novel, I would have been confused at times. They also left out some details like failing to explain the intrinsic field concept during Dr. Manhattan's origin. And of course, they changed the ending but they didn't alter it in such a way as to take away the main premise or theme of the ending in the graphic novel. Also, the acting is mixed. Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan were amazing. Ozymandias was horribly cast and the actor speaks with such a thick accent and wasn't displayed as the liberal pacifist that he is depicted in the comic. Nonetheless, I think most people didn't take the warnings seriously when they said it wasn't a typical comic book film and peopel expected Iron Man or the Dark Knight and realized this film is on a different level.

I pretty much agree with your assessment with exception of a few things. My wife never read the graphic novel, but she followed the story fairly well. I've always believed that filmgoers have varying degrees of comprehension when it comes to movie themes and plots, so I don't take that as a negative for the movie because some didn't "get it".

The artistic concept of Watchmen was much more tasteful than that of 300 or Sin City, but other than that, I would not place the movie on a different level over that of The Dark Knight. Christopher Nolan's sequel was almost an atypical superhero type movie, which was a better adaptation of its graphic novel than that of Watchmen's. That's just my opinion, though.

Quite frankly, I don't feel that the movie was long enough. As you've stated, important details were either slightly touched on or omitted. Perhaps the movie would have been better served by having it divided into two volumes a la Quentin Tarentino's Kill Bill instead of just attempting to "fit" everything into one film. Waiting for the second volume to return to theathers six to eight months later would have been a small sacrifice in my book if it meant translating the story more completely.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I read the graphic novel before seeing the film so I was a fan of Watchmen before seeing the movie. However, if you are not a comic book fan, I would say wait until it comes out on DVD. It was really long and they didn't do a very good job explaining some of the backstory and detail. I know that if I didn't read the graphic novel, I would have been confused at times. They also left out some details like failing to explain the intrinsic field concept during Dr. Manhattan's origin. And of course, they changed the ending but they didn't alter it in such a way as to take away the main premise or theme of the ending in the graphic novel. Also, the acting is mixed. Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan were amazing. Ozymandias was horribly cast and the actor speaks with such a thick accent and wasn't displayed as the liberal pacifist that he is depicted in the comic. Nonetheless, I think most people didn't take the warnings seriously when they said it wasn't a typical comic book film and peopel expected Iron Man or the Dark Knight and realized this film is on a different level.

ok, now review the book. Was it good, average, alright, not so good. ...and give a comparable. (as good for one person isn't so good for another)

 

[morieeel]

Really enjoyed this movie, even though I didn't know nothing of it before..
I was shocked when I heard that the guy who played Rorschach was Kelly?(the athletic kid who smoked) from the Bad News Bears. :laugh1:

 

[Rack]

Really enjoyed this movie, even though I didn't know nothing of it before..
I was shocked when I heard that the guy who played Rorschach was Kelly?(the athletic kid who smoked) from the Bad News Bears. :laugh1:

Holy crap I KNEW he looked familiar.


Don't remember him being a redhead though.

 

[Kevinicus]

I just got back from seeing it...and I don't really know what I think of it. I understood it easily enough. I definitely wasn't blown away by it, and it certainly wasn't bad. I don't really feel one way or the other about it right now. Not sure if I'll bother to see the extended edition or not.

 

[jem88]

I haven't seen it, but a good friend of mine was a lead artist on the movie. In his words (as I don't really understand this kind of thing):

"My studio did a lot of work on the film, over 300 VFX shots. We worked specifically on the character Rorschach, the guy with the moving ink mask."

Anyways, definitely proud of him as he's a very talented dude. For that reason above any other, I'm going to check it out.