Watchmen - Best movie ever?

[Aseph]

I felt primarily that the ending was just rushed. It being different from the book wasn't the problem. But, as everyone keeps saying, I have my fingers crossed that it will be fleshed out in the director's cut.

[Creaphis]

I still haven't seen the movie, so I don't know if I would like this new ending I'm hearing about, but I'm not one who considers all change as sacrilege. The adoption of TNT instead of a psychic cephalopod actually solves a little problem I had with the novel. As glorious as the original ending is, I liked imagining Dr. Manhattan to be the sole supernatural being in the entire canon - a god so alone that he is, in fact, atheist. This gives the universe a nice flavour, hard to describe - complex and delicious. Then out of nowhere, psychic powers not only exist, but are apparently inherent to certain human DNA strands. As far as applied phlebotinum goes, TNT is definitely less interesting than the Squid of Doom but also a bit more in line with my impressions of the universe.

I don't know when I'll go watch the Watchmen, but I know that I will. I can see it. In the near future, I am staring at a spent ticket stub. I am standing still, staring at the ticket, next to a garbage bin. Ten seconds later, the ticket lies still amongst paper cups and cold popcorn, and I am walking away.

[Bucket]

Well, it's slightly more interesting than TNT and slightly less ridiculous than alien squid.

[Aseph]

Creaphis said:

I still haven't seen the movie, so I don't know if I would like this new ending I'm hearing about, but I'm not one who considers all change as sacrilege.

Like I said, the ending was different detail-wise but it still makes the same point and has the same moral dilemma about what evil truly is and whether or not the ends really justify the means and all that. That was what I found to be IMPORTANT about the ending. The Squid of Doom was just an interesting plot device that propelled the moral of the story forward, and I won't be tearing my hair out in clumps just because he's been redacted. So, I guess I agree with you...?

Creaphis said:

I don't know when I'll go watch the Watchmen, but I know that I will. I can see it. In the near future, I am staring at a spent ticket stub. I am standing still, staring at the ticket, next to a garbage bin. Ten seconds later, the ticket lies still amongst paper cups and cold popcorn, and I am walking away.

Cute. I experienced guffaws of shrill, nerdy laughter.

[Coopersville]

I saw it yesterday... 10/10. This is the only movie that I've legitimately wanted to see multiple times in theatre.

[Sharessa]

Creaphis said:

As glorious as the original ending is, I liked imagining Dr. Manhattan to be the sole supernatural being in the entire canon - a god so alone that he is, in fact, atheist. This gives the universe a nice flavour, hard to describe - complex and delicious. Then out of nowhere, psychic powers not only exist, but are apparently inherent to certain human DNA strands.

Well, Ozymandias was supposed to be superhumanly smart. They didn't really explain why or how, though. They just said it at one point in the book. I think his IQ is over 200 though.

I don't know when I'll go watch the Watchmen, but I know that I will. I can see it. In the near future, I am staring at a spent ticket stub. I am standing still, staring at the ticket, next to a garbage bin. Ten seconds later, the ticket lies still amongst paper cups and cold popcorn, and I am walking away.

Hehe.

[kristus]

as someone who hadn't read the comic I decided to look up some info that just didn't fit into the movie. Character backgrounds specifically.

Ozymandias being the biggest question mark. and I couldn't really find anything that explained how he had come to be so fast.

I don't see how people found the movie overly complex or so. It wasn't hard to keep up with the development of the story or anything.

[dew]

kristus said:

and I couldn't really find anything that explained how he had come to be so fast.

viedt has no superpowers.. alan moore simply believed it was possible for a human to catch a bullet. you wouldn't call moore exactly a sane person, you know. :)

[kristus]

No. You're quite correct. You wouldn't.

[AirRaid]

I saw the movie last night.

I had never even heard of the comic before hearing about the movie.

I loved it. I was able to follow it all the way through, nothing was terribly confusing other than the original appearance of Dr Manhattan, (holy shit glowing blue dude, wtf?) which was explained later.

Overall, yes, I enjoyed it.

[Bucket]

dew said:

viedt has no superpowers.. alan moore simply believed it was possible for a human to catch a bullet. you wouldn't call moore exactly a sane person, you know. :)

B-b-b-but I thought the comic made perfect sense of everything! The only possible reason I could be confused by something in the movie was because I hadn't read the book. Now you're telling me I have to take certain things at face value, just like a regular movie??

[Belial]

It was awesome.

The ending was fine by me, I sort of wanted to feel that guilty pleasure of seeing the psychosquiddy on film but in the end it's better the way it is.

Nevertheless it did remind me of Advent Children in a way, so I suppose I can understand people who say it's focused too much on the fans of the comic to be fully enjoyable by those who haven't had any contact with it.

Unlike say, Sin City.

[Aseph]

Bucket said:

B-b-b-but I thought the comic made perfect sense of everything! The only possible reason I could be confused by something in the movie was because I hadn't read the book. Now you're telling me I have to take certain things at face value, just like a regular movie??

Read the book and it will probably answer most of your questions, but maybe not all. Nothing is perfect, not even Watchmen. We are all so nuts over it because it comes a lot closer to being perfect than most things do, in the medium or even in general.

[Enjay]

Saw it last night: enjoyed it.

This contains some spolers.

It's not an all-time great movie IMO, but it is good. Perhaps very good.

I thought a great many of the scenes were very well handled. Even the telling of the alternative time line of the story as the opening credits rolled was very well done.

A lot of it is told in brief flashbacks but these were usually done very well too and, despite the fact that this had the potential to be annoying, it was compulsive viewing and I just wanted to see more.

The characters were almost all very well defined and the back stories deliciously painted. I thought the nasty side of the Comedian was well brought out but still played off against the fact that he was doing things that, ultimately, did tend to benefit people. Rorschach was fantastically uncompromising and hard as nails throughout.

The look of the movie wasn't all dark, Gothic and miserable either. It was (more or less) our world. A place with light and dark. Believable.

I like the fact that the "superheroes" aren't that super. They are not the dull one-dimensional characters of the likes of Superman who has god-like abilities, always wins, bullets bounce off of, always has a paladin-like morality and has to have a super-badguy or kryptonite to challenge him.

What "super powers" there are are actually pretty close to the kind of jumps, tumbles and so on that a practiced gymnast could manage. No leaping of tall buildings in a single bound. The strength of the heroes was high, but not excessive and you felt that a well placed bullet would take any of them down (Manhattan excepted).

The heroes of Watchmen are ambiguous, flawed and very human. Their existence isn't necessarily the wondrous experience of other comic book heroes - they end up in mental asylums, or murdered, or gunned down in combat etc etc. Or, maybe, they just end up going back to a normal life.

Even superhero sex could be a fumbling, embarrassing affair.

The villains were all well done too. All were sleazy and had done time.

Almost all the main characters were well fleshed out, very rounded and highly competent, yet fallible. The only truly super being is Dr. Manhattan and he is so different, almost abstract, that his god-like abilities are in some ways a hindrance to him as much as they are a benefit. As such, despite his place in the world of Watchmen, he isn't an overwhelming force in the story structure. He is often central to what is going on and can swing a significant situation one way of another, but his detachment means that he won't necessarily do so. As a result, whether he achieves a goal for the overall plot or not is no more predictable than it is with anyone else. Ozymandias also ably demonstrated that Manhattan could have his weaknesses exploited or powers neutralised.

In fact, I thought that Manhattan was very well handled. He was strange, detached, abstract and fleetingly human. He definitely had wants, desires and had human frailties but he was also detached and intellectually working with a different set of rules to a human (comments about life versus death, acknowledgement of what Veidt had achieved (neither condemning nor congratulating) etc). His voice was also marvellously soft ethereal, detached and yet filled with pathos.

I enjoyed the fact that the movie was, in places, slow and long but not dull. It gave time for things to be teased out deliciously.

The soundtrack does seem to be a love it or hate it thing. I'm on the love it side. Each piece of music was well used IMO. Hallelujah may have seemed a bit OTT during the sex scene but, if you listen to the full lyric of that song, rather than just the chorus, it really isn't.

I loved the look of the tech. The 1940s heroes looked like 1940s heroes. Hero suits were made of old fashioned material and hand stitched leather etc. As things moved on, so did the costumes - but never to an unbelievable level. Even the computer was appropriate looking for the mid 80s (although it was too fast). Imagine that, a realistic computer using something that looked like a believable OS in a movie! (personal minirant - Why, in the age when everyone knows what a computer looks like, do Hollywood still insist in having people use ridiculous, unbelievable, all-knowing, magical computer interfaces even in the most mundane situations where, actually, they would be using Windows?)

The ending was fine by me. It kept the curious unpleasant victory feeling. Something had been achieved but at a terrible cost. Was Ozymandias right or wrong? Relative peace has happened but was he right to sacrifice millions to achieve it? Will the discovery of Rorschach's journal ultimately undermine that situation and undo what has been done? Is that right or wrong?

Related to those final scenes, I liked the nod to "this is a comic book, but it's different" when Veidt says he's not a comic book villain. He isn't "monologuing" to allow the heroes to defeat him. He'd already done his thing 35 minutes earlier, knew he'd done what he needed to do and had good reason to believe that he would even win through the current situation of the attack of his friends/ex-friends. I also like the fact that he isn't a villain per se. Yes, it was his plan that the protagonists had to try and foil and he did some very unpleasant minor and major things to achieve it. However, I don't get the impression that he ever did it for personal gratification. He will not be "king of the world" or anything of that kind. In fact, if such attention was drawn to him, his achievement would start to unravel and he knows that


Weak points?

Ozymandias was the only central character not to be fleshed out fully. He did have a lot of screen time and perhaps the editors considered that was enough, but he never felt as rounded as the others did. He is the only central character whose back story we don't really find out at all.

The scene with Manhattan and Laurie on mars dragged a bit IMO. Ultimately, we all know that it was just a CGI crystalline structure flying around a CGI mars and it wasn't anything particularly wondrous in these days of top-notch CGI so it either needed to be more special, or dealt with more efficiently.

Nixon's nose. 'nuff said.


Observations:

I don't know why some people have said that it was confusing. It wasn't. I saw it with 2 friends. I read the graphic novel almost 20 years ago, one friend is a fan and has read it a number of times and the other hadn't heard of it until a few weeks ago. None of us had a problem following the movie.

It is definitely a story of its time. As such, I suspect that it has far more relevance to people who lived through that time. In the real world, the threat of "mutually assured destruction" was very real and a daily news item. We all knew what the clock being at 5 to midnight meant and there was genuine fear in the population as a result. There were daily anti nuclear protests and organisations such as CND were very high profile. I certainly remember those days and the ever-present fear/worry that played at the back of our minds that, one day, there could just be a big flash on the horizon and that would be it. Nothing we could do except die or, perhaps even worse, survive.

Further, a lot of the items in the alternative history of Watchmen (eg the flowers in the gun scene) are absolutely iconic, particularly to people who remember them, and their re-writing in Watchmen is not mere entertainment but a powerful statement.

So, I wonder how the impression left by this movie varies versus the age of the viewer? If this movie could have come out at the time the GN was written, I am sure that it would have been absolutely explosive (no pun intended). The GN was, but to a far lesser degree due to the audience it reached IMO.

In addition, I think part of the mixed reception for the movie might be because of its general tone. It isn't an action superhero movie in the tone of a superman or Spiderman movie. Aside from Manhattan, there really aren't super powers, there isn't much in the way of "biff, bang, pow" action and the plot is, at times, slow and often intelligent. To a lot of superhero/comic book movie fans (particularly the more casual ones), Watchmen might not be what they want or expect.

Violence was often grittily realistic. When Rorschach deals with the kidnapper, it was horrible, very visual, unpleasant violence. They could have easily cut away (again, no pun intended) but they didn't. I'm glad that they didn't. I could hear a lot of the theatre wincing. Screw them! I'm quite sure that they will happily go to their next movie and watch ridiculous Hollywood explosions and bullet hails and not think about the reality of a human getting broken by them. The scene was exactly what it needed to be and was neither too long nor too short.

Of course, there was also plenty of more comic violence (also sometimes pretty grim - eg the getting into Rorschach's cell scene, at which I laughed like a drain - much to the disgust of the woman next to me).




Favourite moments?

The entirety of Rorschach's prison term. From his arrival and interview, through to the canteen scene (loved the "you're locked in here with me" bit) through the riot, on to the "give me my face" scene and, finally, the dwarf in the toilet bit.

Rorschach and Nite Owl's hand shake.

The Dr. Manhattan accident (and his rebuilding). He wasn't just bitten by a radioactive spider, followed by a few sleepless nights. His accident was a terrifying and painful experience and I also got the impression that, for him - with his altered sense of time - his reassembly and return may have taken a very long and traumatic time from his point of perception.

And many, many little vignette scenes that help to paint such a full picture of the world.






See, I can make a long post without it being a long, negative rant. :P


(edits: spelling)

[Patrick]

Too Many Blue Wangs

[40oz]

Yeah I heard that was a downer for most people.

[Belial]

Enjay said:

I enjoyed the fact that the movie was, in places, slow and long but not dull. It gave time for things to be teased out deliciously.

If you enjoy such qualities in movies you'd probably like Tarkovski's "Stalker" and "Solaris".

Violence was often grittily realistic. When Rorschach deals with the kidnapper, it was horrible, very visual, unpleasant violence.

The thing I liked the most about that scene was that someone obviously looked at how it played out in the GN and said 'It's been done' (for the unaware, it was a "Saw"-like scenario), then went and changed it without sacrificing the pivotal meaning of the event for Rorschach.

[Technician]

Patrick Pineda said:

Too Many Blue Wangs

I thought it was dangerously low on blue wang.

[Skeletor]

Just came back from watching it.

Well, if I never read the comic book I would've loved it. Fortunately, I did read the comic book before watching the movie.

Pros:

*They generally kept the main story intact. Even with the new ending the point was nearly the same as the original.

*Dr. Manhattan, very well done. Awesome to see him in live action.

*Costumes on all of them.

Cons:

*If you read the comic book, it's basically the whole comic book except every section has been cut down...ALOT. Watching the movie felt like I was reading the comic book and then skipping 50-70 pages, then reading like maybe 2-3 pages, then skipping 100 pages, and then we're at the end. It was a bit anguishing to watch. This is one of the reasons why it should not have been made into a movie. Why movies based on books usually suck.

*I hate Zack Snyder. I hate the flashy, stylistic directing. I absolutely, positively HATE over the top gore and violence and long sex scenes. I hated the Rorschach jail scene where the guys arms were getting cut off. I hated seeing Rorschach cleaving into the guys head over and over. I hated the 10 minute porno reel of Dan and Juspeczyk humping each other with "hallelujah" in the background. The GN had violent moments but it did not focus 20 panels to blood and guts. Give me violence and a short bit of it that has context. Not just because you think blood and gore is "fucking cool dude!"

*The music is nice but it's weird with the Watchmen movie. I don't care if it's the songs of the era. I would much have preferred an origial no-lyric soundtrack.

Anyways, it's really the over the top violence, slow-mo, stylistic bullshit directing that made me dislike the movie. It's sad people will just watch the movie and never pick up the comic book (some will) but most won't.

Some comments I overheard from audience after movie ended:
"It was artsy!"

"Dude, it was slow. So, basically it's all about people just killing each other forever."

Also, about over the top violence. I used to laugh at limbs getting blown off, cut off, bitten off, etc. but I asked myself why the hell I'm laughing at just sick, disturbing shit. Violence exists in the world, I know that, but why the fuck do people laugh? I hate hearing audiences go, "OOHHHH HAHHAHAHAHA" after some dude gets hacked into pieces.

[kristus]

Skeletor said:

Also, about over the top violence. I used to laugh at limbs getting blown off, cut off, bitten off, etc. but I asked myself why the hell I'm laughing at just sick, disturbing shit. Violence exists in the world, I know that, but why the fuck do people laugh? I hate hearing audiences go, "OOHHHH HAHHAHAHAHA" after some dude gets hacked into pieces.

Because it isn't real.

[Prince of Darkness]

Patrick Pineda said:

Too Many Blue Wangs

I didn't see it all that much really (they played it as like a Greek sculpture) and when I did it made me feel more like a man then I have in awhile.

[Phobus]

I saw this film very much as the outsider. It looked cool to me, but I certainly didn't expect the film to be as it really was... and to be honest, I'm very glad. It was a very clever and well put together film. Not my favourite or anything, but it was very good. I don't know much about the Watchmen at all, aside from what I picked up from the film, yet the events still made a lot of sense to me.

I watched it with my girlfriend, who was in a similar position to me. Oddly we both noticed different things about it. She picked up on a lot of clues as to who Rorsarch was, and who was behind the main course of events, whilst I noticed a lot of the more trivial background things, like how Silk Spectre II has a very similar face to my girlfriend and the giant pink elephant balloon in its various appearances.

The only thing we found hard to swallow was Rorscarch's balaclava/mask type thing. Cool as it was, we didn't see how it could keep changing patterns like that, and nobody explained it, wheras things like Nite Owl's equipment were easily explained by his "batcave" and general Batman style.

We also found it sort of funny how most superheros were wearing the better part of a tank as armour, whilst heroines had to make do with skimpy vinyl and rubber suits.

We really enjoyed it though, and I'd certainly not mind seeing more of that sort of thing, so an extended DVD or whatever would be good for me.

[myk]

kristus said:
Because it isn't real.

Maybe, but how do you know Romans didn't act the same way while watching gladiators fighting or lions eating Christians? School kids do often get all excited watching a pair of kids duke it out, after all.

[Bucket]

We're all animals.

[kristus]

myk said:

Maybe, but how do you know Romans didn't act the same way while watching gladiators fighting or lions eating Christians? School kids do often get all excited watching a pair of kids duke it out, after all.

Well, maybe I am talking for myself. Though I never laugh at over the top violence. But I can enjoy it. Since I play Doom. One thing I can tell you about the Romans and the gladiator culture though.
They didn't have hooligans and riots.

As for the school kids. I think the same thing applies there. It's not really real. School kids that fight rarely really want to hurt each other. They might get pissed off at each other for whatever reason and decide to roll around in the dirt for a bit until they get tired. At least that was what I did when I was a kid.

[Aseph]

I don't think Watchmen should prompt a debate about violence and human nature. If you want to be horrified by the theater audience you're sitting with, go see the new Last House On The Left and watch as people laugh during the rape scene. THAT'S fucked up.

[myk]

Yeah well, I'm already horrified at people chewing nachos or popcorn, or talking in the theater while the movie is on. Then there's the ones that take off their shoes and put their smelly feet over the seats of the next row... oh wait, it's the same people.

Actually, this generally happens in the more modern, fancier cinemas. Hence I tend to go to smaller, older establishments :p

[Enjay]

myk said:

Yeah well, I'm already horrified at people chewing nachos...

Aside from the noise and the general disruption, the smell of cheap chilli sauce and hot cheese wafting across the theatre (and mixing with the feet smell) is quite nauseating. It's almost enough to put me off my enjoyment of a fat guy having his arms removed with an angle grinder. ;)


You're right, the smaller cinemas seem to have less of that kind of customer.

[Aseph]

There was actually an occasion in a small theater that probably got on my nerves more than anything else I've experienced as a moviegoer. I was seeing the Cowboy Bebop movie, and there was this guy a few rows in front of me who had fallen asleep about 20 minutes in and was literally snoring so loud that I couldn't hear the movie over him. If we had been in a bigger theater with a louder sound system, this might have been less of a problem. Anyway, I threw my half-empty fountain drink at him. Needless to say, he woke up.

I was aiming for his head and missed, but I'm pretty sure it exploded in the isle right next to him and got all over his shoes. He stormed out swearing and I enjoyed the rest of the movie.

Ah, the wonder of being alone in the back isle of a dark theater so that you can harass hecklers without consequence.

But I digress. My Watchmen experience was pretty great in IMAX. A few people laughed at inappropriate moments and someone whooped like a jackass during the sex scene, but nothing major. Then again, they typically got drowned out by the absurdly powerful sound system that IMAX is so famous for.

[Frankdude]

horrible comic, worse movie.