Originally posted by Darth JelloI agree. I was just re-reading the first few parts of the book, and I realised how intensely spot-on they got the appearance of Nite Owl II out of costume.
he was chubby in the movie. It was more or less spot on with the book and if you have problems with the transition, listen to the last /film podcast and you may feel better about it.
I'll give my full blown review of this film.
Graphic novels are the type of media that can be loved or despised by someone, depending on your tastes. For example, I love the classic 'Amazing Spider-Man' run, while I highly dislike the somewhat recent story 'Civil War'. It's this balance that helps readers understand what type of comic they're in to. However, if there's one comic everyone I have ever known that reads comics loves, it's 'Watchmen'. A story of hope, love, destruction, betrayal, and war, it may very well be the best comic ever created.
So when it was announced that Zach Snyder would direct the long awaited theatrical adaption to this story, I was obviously excited beyond all belief. Everything seemed as if it was working perfectly in the movie when you heard about it. The physical details were all there, no character was out of place(except for the minor ones), Mr. Snyder seemed to know everything you could about 'Watchmen', and we already know that he's a visual wizard.
So here's my question: What the heck went wrong?
Granted, "Watchmen" is the kind of film that is almost impossible to make, but if you're going to make it, I'd hope that you would try to be a little bit closer to the comic. And for those already saying how close it is to the comic, I must full blown disagree. It looked just like "Watchmen", but did it feel at all like it? The tone, dialogue, and characters felt so much more stiff and shallow than in the graphic novel. I could go into why, but I digress, considering that it seems like I have done nothing but complain in a geeky fashion.
"Watchmen" tells the story of an alternate 1985, in which superheroes were outlawed, the Cold War has escalated, crime is rising, and Nixon is re-elected as president of the United States of America. In this messed up world, a retired superhero named the Comedian is murdered. This upsets Rorschach, the only superhero still active, who just happens to be a lunatic. He tries to gather together his old team mates, all of which have their own story to tell. We also learn more about the Comedian, who is not only a sick, perverted, violent monster, but also may have held the key to something big. Now as the superheroes come together again, they must unravel a mystery that could either make or break the planet.
Zach Snyder is definitely way over his head in this film, which easily shows. The acting is mediocre in general. The worst acting is easily provided by Malin
Akerman and Matthew Goode, who play the second Silk Spectre and Ozymandias. Both of them feel so wooden and uninteresting, sometimes even completely devoid of emotion. This is a shame, considering these two have two of the most emotionally driven characters. When the end of the film happens, you would expect Goode to show some kind of emotion, but it's like he had the ambition of a stick. Akerman isn't any better either. But with these two rocks, we have two feathers that really push the story along. The two I am talking about are Jackie Earle Haley as the insane Rorschach, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the Comedian. Rorschach is easily one of my favorite comic book characters, and I was completely satisfied with Haley's performance. Whether you like or dislike this film, it's hopeful that Rorschach stood out. Morgan was also a good choice for Edward Blake(the Comedian), lighting up the screen with his enthusiasm and flat out vicious attitude. In the middle of this are Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhatten and Patrick Wilson as the second Nite Owl, who both aren't too bad, but share the issue of knowing when what emotion should come to mind at the moment. I mostly blame Zach Snyder, who has never been shown to be capable of directing actors.
Mr. Snyder also seems to have a far too odd fascination with slow motion, something that made several people in the theater scream "Stop with the Matrix stuff already!" What worsens this is his desire to make every sex scene and fight in slow motion. If the slow motion was gone from this film, the movie would be only an hour in length(a jokestimate, but still a valid point). Our beloved "300" director also seemed to have ditched the dark, intricate story-lines for mind numbingly stupid fight scenes and random violence(not to mention that five minute long sex scenes). The action is downright weird, and serves no purpose other than to look cool. It seems Snyder didn't get the info that these people(excluding Dr. Manhatten) are supposed to be completely human, adding onto the tension of their characters, not doing backflips and karate chopping.
The dialogue also felt a bit off, along with the plot. Even if you didn't read the comic, you can tell exactly what was written by Moore for the comic, and what was written for the movie. The styles of each are so different that I felt like I was watching two different films. And on the topic of plot, I understand the movie couldn't have everything(or most) of what was in the comic, but the gaping plot holes are insane. For one, Bubastis(Ozymandias' pet) is absolutely random. It has the subtlety of Scrappy-Doo, and the usefulness to the plot as Snarf did the "Thundercats"(yes, very obscure reference). The plot twist ending is forced, and creates the most anti-climactic reactions from the superheroes. Not until Rorschach's death does anyone actually cry. Newsflash: Millions of people just died. Please show some compassion.
In all of this ranting, I feel as if I am obligated to show what worked. As I said before, some of the acting was good, and considering a lot of the dialogue was derived from Alan Moore, much of the conversations throughout the movie are great. There's also the visual amazement "Watchmen" has that really helps represent the film as a whole. I apologize, but this is almost all of my positives for the movie. And for those looking for mindless action and sex, this has plenty of it, making it a fun dumb movie.
Overall, this is one of the most disappointing movies to me as a comic fan. While everything looks like the graphic novel, Alan Moore's true emotional fantasy has been lost in translation, leaving us with nothing more than "300" in circa 1985. My largest complaint is that it wasn't a bad movie, but it could've been much, much better. Hopefully the Director's Cut will be more satisfying to me.
My rating: 2/5
Never had read the book before, I dont know why....something just doesnt interest me in the Watchmen. Just saw the movie......I dont know about this one and have to watch it again.
Jackie Earle Haley did a great job with Rosch and some fights where cool and these are the only good comments I can say for right now.
"I am not locked up in here with YOU! YOU are locked up in here with MEEE!!!"
Is the best line.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
he was chubby in the movie. It was more or less spot on with the book and if you have problems with the transition, listen to the last /film podcast and you may feel better about it.
Graphic novels are the type of media that can be loved or despised by someone, depending on your tastes. For example, I love the classic 'Amazing Spider-Man' run, while I highly dislike the somewhat recent story 'Civil War'. It's this balance that helps readers understand what type of comic they're in to. However, if there's one comic everyone I have ever known that reads comics loves, it's 'Watchmen'. A story of hope, love, destruction, betrayal, and war, it may very well be the best comic ever created.
So when it was announced that Zach Snyder would direct the long awaited theatrical adaption to this story, I was obviously excited beyond all belief. Everything seemed as if it was working perfectly in the movie when you heard about it. The physical details were all there, no character was out of place(except for the minor ones), Mr. Snyder seemed to know everything you could about 'Watchmen', and we already know that he's a visual wizard.
So here's my question: What the heck went wrong?
Granted, "Watchmen" is the kind of film that is almost impossible to make, but if you're going to make it, I'd hope that you would try to be a little bit closer to the comic. And for those already saying how close it is to the comic, I must full blown disagree. It looked just like "Watchmen", but did it feel at all like it? The tone, dialogue, and characters felt so much more stiff and shallow than in the graphic novel. I could go into why, but I digress, considering that it seems like I have done nothing but complain in a geeky fashion.
"Watchmen" tells the story of an alternate 1985, in which superheroes were outlawed, the Cold War has escalated, crime is rising, and Nixon is re-elected as president of the United States of America. In this messed up world, a retired superhero named the Comedian is murdered. This upsets Rorschach, the only superhero still active, who just happens to be a lunatic. He tries to gather together his old team mates, all of which have their own story to tell. We also learn more about the Comedian, who is not only a sick, perverted, violent monster, but also may have held the key to something big. Now as the superheroes come together again, they must unravel a mystery that could either make or break the planet.
Zach Snyder is definitely way over his head in this film, which easily shows. The acting is mediocre in general. The worst acting is easily provided by MalinAkerman and Matthew Goode, who play the second Silk Spectre and Ozymandias. Both of them feel so wooden and uninteresting, sometimes even completely devoid of emotion. This is a shame, considering these two have two of the most emotionally driven characters. When the end of the film happens, you would expect Goode to show some kind of emotion, but it's like he had the ambition of a stick. Akerman isn't any better either. But with these two rocks, we have two feathers that really push the story along. The two I am talking about are Jackie Earle Haley as the insane Rorschach, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the Comedian. Rorschach is easily one of my favorite comic book characters, and I was completely satisfied with Haley's performance. Whether you like or dislike this film, it's hopeful that Rorschach stood out. Morgan was also a good choice for Edward Blake(the Comedian), lighting up the screen with his enthusiasm and flat out vicious attitude. In the middle of this are Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhatten and Patrick Wilson as the second Nite Owl, who both aren't too bad, but share the issue of knowing when what emotion should come to mind at the moment. I mostly blame Zach Snyder, who has never been shown to be capable of directing actors.
Mr. Snyder also seems to have a far too odd fascination with slow motion, something that made several people in the theater scream "Stop with the Matrix stuff already!" What worsens this is his desire to make every sex scene and fight in slow motion. If the slow motion was gone from this film, the movie would be only an hour in length(a jokestimate, but still a valid point). Our beloved "300" director also seemed to have ditched the dark, intricate story-lines for mind numbingly stupid fight scenes and random violence(not to mention that five minute long sex scenes). The action is downright weird, and serves no purpose other than to look cool. It seems Snyder didn't get the info that these people(excluding Dr. Manhatten) are supposed to be completely human, adding onto the tension of their characters, not doing backflips and karate chopping.
The dialogue also felt a bit off, along with the plot. Even if you didn't read the comic, you can tell exactly what was written by Moore for the comic, and what was written for the movie. The styles of each are so different that I felt like I was watching two different films. And on the topic of plot, I understand the movie couldn't have everything(or most) of what was in the comic, but the gaping plot holes are insane. For one, Bubastis(Ozymandias' pet) is absolutely random. It has the subtlety of Scrappy-Doo, and the usefulness to the plot as Snarf did the "Thundercats"(yes, very obscure reference). The plot twist ending is forced, and creates the most anti-climactic reactions from the superheroes. Not until Rorschach's death does anyone actually cry. Newsflash: Millions of people just died. Please show some compassion.
In all of this ranting, I feel as if I am obligated to show what worked. As I said before, some of the acting was good, and considering a lot of the dialogue was derived from Alan Moore, much of the conversations throughout the movie are great. There's also the visual amazement "Watchmen" has that really helps represent the film as a whole. I apologize, but this is almost all of my positives for the movie. And for those looking for mindless action and sex, this has plenty of it, making it a fun dumb movie.
Overall, this is one of the most disappointing movies to me as a comic fan. While everything looks like the graphic novel, Alan Moore's true emotional fantasy has been lost in translation, leaving us with nothing more than "300" in circa 1985. My largest complaint is that it wasn't a bad movie, but it could've been much, much better. Hopefully the Director's Cut will be more satisfying to me.
My rating: 2/5
Nah.
The feel was fine and totally like the GN (impending doom, f*cked-up America etc), the acting was great in parts, fine in others, the action was awesome, and the slow-mo was tastefully done, Plot was solid and the 'gaping holes' were non-existent (super-villains are meant to have crazy-ass stuff like genetically-altered lynx's), nobody cries in the comic either, Rorschach just gets pissy and it wasn't mindless sex and action but succeeded in delivering the major themes of the GN the best a movie could have in the time.
But other then that you were spot on.thumbsup You mentioned that the music was a little off at times right....😕
8/10
Originally posted by Darth Exodus
The feel was fine and totally like the GN (impending doom, f*cked-up America etc), the acting was great in parts, fine in others, the action was awesome, and the slow-mo was tastefully done, Plot was solid and the 'gaping holes' were non-existent (super-villains are meant to have crazy-ass stuff like genetically-altered lynx's), nobody cries in the comic either, Rorschach just gets pissy and it wasn't mindless sex and action but succeeded in delivering the major themes of the GN the best a movie could have in the time.But other then that you were spot on.thumbsup You mentioned that the music was a little off at times right....😕
8/10
Saw the movie. I thought some stuff was good and some bad. Mainly it was the little things. Showing Comedian Vs. Ozy was something I enjoyed and would have added to the book imo. What I didn't like is how much violence was inserted.
Book: Nite-Owl breaks somebody's arm.
Movie: Nite-Owl bends someones arm back so far it breaks open and spews blood all over the place.
It was ridiculous. Like, in the book Jon's disintegrations would be completely sterile. Here, they spew blood, bones and organs all over the place. It's not cool, it's gross.
Well, the violence from the graphic novel was "shocking" for its time and also served to show that if "superheroes" really did exist, they WOULD be violent, etc. So, since time has passed since the graphic novel was written, I understand that the violence had to be toned up in order to convey the same message to an audience that is no longer affected by the kind of violence portrayed in the graphic novel. The podcast mentioned earlier in this thread kind of states these thoughts as well and it seems like a logical explanation as to why some of the violence was altered or increased in the film.
Only found one of Rorschach but I found two of nite owl that are pretty good though they're missing the bottom of the legs.
http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/NIteOwlFull.jpg
http://mos.totalfilm.com/images/n/nite-owls-antarctica-suit-630-75.jpg
http://lostmoya.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/rorschach-watchmen.jpg
Rorschach's kind of sucks in quality.
