Watchmen: A Review

[3113]

Went to see it. Let me start by saying that I have read the comic, but long ago. So I was able to see it as a movie, not as a graphic novel made into a movie. It is a good movie. It is not, IMHO, groundbreaking, seminal, breath-taking, or likely to be a blockbuster. But at 2 hours 41 minutes, I can say that I was not bored, I did not feel anything was going on too long, I didn't want to stop watching and I didn't leave feeling disappointed. It's a good movie.

Some scenes are amazing, but it should be noted that the best scenes owe their wow-factor to the book, and that means down to certain camera angles that copy panels drawn by artist Dave Gibbons at writer's Alan's Moore's direction (in some instances, one feels that it's not Zack Snyder directing, but Alan Moore with Dave Gibbons as cinematographer). In fact, just about everything good in the movie is thanks to what's good in the comic, including a strong sense of the world, the look of the characters, the best dialogue, etc.

There is one notable exception to this: the credit sequence at the beginning which is all the director's and is really brilliant, as my husband predicted it would be given Dawn of the Dead's credit sequence. In some ways, the movie is worth seeing just for that credit sequence. The director uses it to introduce us to the world by giving us this alternative history lesson and it's marvelous!

Of course, on the other side, the movie's source material also gives it problems, and it does have problems. It'd take too long to go into them, but really it comes down to this: Alan Moore said that Watchman isn't a movie and it isn't. It just isn't.

Jackie Earle Haley is *brilliant* as Rorschach, Jeffery Dean Morgan and Patrick Wilson are both very good as the Comedian and Nite Owl respectively. The rest of the cast is okay, with Matthew Goode being the weakest, but I don't know how much of that is his fault. His part is the least flushed out.

By all means, go see it. Just don't have a big gulp to drink before hand. Though it doesn't feel like a long movie, it is a long movie. Enjoy!

 

[rgraham666]

Seconded. I just got back from seeing it.

The guy that played Rorschach was spot on. Looked, acted and spoke the way the character did. And he is one crazy motherfucker. The guy who played the Comedian was pretty damned good too. The guy who played Night Owl did well. Kind of a wimp out of his costume.

It did catch the essence of the graphic novel. But it really lacked the depth. To be honest Watchmen should be a TV miniseries, but I'll take what I can get.

I got stared at for laughing at one of the Comedian's jokes. Specifically this one, which is told in the midst of a riot.

Night Owl: What happened to The American Dream?

Comedian: What happened to The American Dream? It came true!

They took out my favorite joke by him though.

So over all, I think it was pretty damned good.

I made the same mistake 3 did though.

Edited to add. Yes, the starting credits are brilliant!

 

[sadangel]

Went to see it. Let me start by saying that I have read the comic, but long ago. So I was able to see it as a movie, not as a graphic novel made into a movie. It is a good movie. It is not, IMHO, groundbreaking, seminal, breath-taking, or likely to be a blockbuster. But at 2 hours 41 minutes, I can say that I was not bored, I did not feel anything was going on too long, I didn't want to stop watching and I didn't leave feeling disappointed. It's a good movie.

Some scenes are amazing, but it should be noted that the best scenes owe their wow-factor to the book, and that means down to certain camera angles that copy panels drawn by artist Dave Gibbons at writer's Alan's Moore's direction (in some instances, one feels that it's not Zack Snyder directing, but Alan Moore with Dave Gibbons as cinematographer). In fact, just about everything good in the movie is thanks to what's good in the comic, including a strong sense of the world, the look of the characters, the best dialogue, etc.

There is one notable exception to this: the credit sequence at the beginning which is all the director's and is really brilliant, as my husband predicted it would be given Dawn of the Dead's credit sequence. In some ways, the movie is worth seeing just for that credit sequence. The director uses it to introduce us to the world by giving us this alternative history lesson and it's marvelous!

Of course, on the other side, the movie's source material also gives it problems, and it does have problems. It'd take too long to go into them, but really it comes down to this: Alan Moore said that Watchman isn't a movie and it isn't. It just isn't.

Jackie Earle Haley is *brilliant* as Rorschach, Jeffery Dean Morgan and Patrick Wilson are both very good as the Comedian and Nite Owl respectively. The rest of the cast is okay, with Matthew Goode being the weakest, but I don't know how much of that is his fault. His part is the least flushed out.

By all means, go see it. Just don't have a big gulp to drink before hand. Though it doesn't feel like a long movie, it is a long movie. Enjoy!

Seconded. I just got back from seeing it.

The guy that played Rorschach was spot on. Looked, acted and spoke the way the character did. And he is one crazy motherfucker. The guy who played the Comedian was pretty damned good too. The guy who played Night Owl did well. Kind of a wimp out of his costume.

It did catch the essence of the graphic novel. But it really lacked the depth. To be honest Watchmen should be a TV miniseries, but I'll take what I can get.

I got stared at for laughing at one of the Comedian's jokes. Specifically this one, which is told in the midst of a riot.

Night Owl: What happened to The American Dream?

Comedian: What happened to The American Dream? It came true!

They took out my favorite joke by him though.

So over all, I think it was pretty damned good.

I made the same mistake 3 did though.

Edited to add. Yes, the starting credits are brilliant!

Between the reviews from you both I think I want to see it. I'll most likely have to wait to see if it comes out on DVD though. I'm probaly fortunate in a way that I haven't read the novel so I won't have any preconcieved idea of it.

I'll be sure to remember not to drink a big gulp if I do see it at the movies though.

Thank you both for the review!!

 

[3113]

Between the reviews from you both I think I want to see it. I'll most likely have to wait to see if it comes out on DVD though.

Actually, this is a movie worth seeing in a theater on a big screen. There are plenty of "Wow" scenes that won't be nearly so awesome on a small screen with a small sound system. There are plenty of DVD movies out there--romantic comedies and small dramas that do just as well on the t.v. as they do in the theater, and there are plenty of spectacle movies that are so awful that there's no point in seeing them on a big screen even if that's where they ought to be seen.

A good movie that deserves the big screen is, I think, rare enough that it's worth scraping the money together--including some for popcorn--and getting a good seat in a real movie theater with a big screen and surround sound. Do be aware, however, that this movie very much deserves its R-rating: there are really graphic, brutal and bloody scenes in this movie, some of which I couldn't watch.

Also sex scenes (one really sexy one with the lead female in nothing but thigh-high boots) and nudity. If you've seen the ads or commercials, the blue man played by Billy Crudup walks around naked most of the time; so when I say nudity, I mean some female, but mostly a lot of full-frontal male...then again, I'm pretty sure Billy's well hung physique is computer generated--not sure if that makes a difference, but there ya go

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I've been wondering if it was worth going to. That head's up on graphic, bloody violence secures the 'not' as far as I am concerned. If I want to see lots of blood, I'll go clean a fish. At least it will taste better than popcorn.

 

[sadangel]

Actually, this is a movie worth seeing in a theater on a big screen. There are plenty of "Wow" scenes that won't be nearly so awesome on a small screen with a small sound system. There are plenty of DVD movies out there--romantic comedies and small dramas that do just as well on the t.v. as they do in the theater, and there are plenty of spectacle movies that are so awful that there's no point in seeing them on a big screen even if that's where they ought to be seen.

A good movie that deserves the big screen is, I think, rare enough that it's worth scraping the money together--including some for popcorn--and getting a good seat in a real movie theater with a big screen and surround sound. Do be aware, however, that this movie very much deserves its R-rating: there are really graphic, brutal and bloody scenes in this movie, some of which I couldn't watch.

Also sex scenes (one really sexy one with the lead female in nothing but thigh-high boots) and nudity. If you've seen the ads or commercials, the blue man played by Billy Crudup walks around naked most of the time; so when I say nudity, I mean some female, but mostly a lot of full-frontal male...then again, I'm pretty sure Billy's well hung physique is computer generated--not sure if that makes a difference, but there ya go

Thank you for the additonal review of it. I'll have to see if I can't find some way to see it before it leaves the theater then!! I can deal with graphic bloody scenes. I watch too many horror movies as it is!!

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I was going to go see it tomorrow. I will let you know what someone that never read the comic thinks of it

 

[amicus]

http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/2007/07/synopsis.html

There is a synopsis that doesn't really act as a plot spoiler....

But I have a question...about comic book characters, cartoon characters and such, all, I thought, were children's entertainment but seem to have morphed over into adult fare and....well...it just doesn't compute for me...

Why?

Amicus...

 

[manyeyedhydra]

http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/2007/07/synopsis.html

There is a synopsis that doesn't really act as a plot spoiler....

But I have a question...about comic book characters, cartoon characters and such, all, I thought, were children's entertainment but seem to have morphed over into adult fare and....well...it just doesn't compute for me...

Why?

Amicus...

You're mixing up the medium with the content.

Just because the medium happens to use a combination of artwork and prose to tell a story doesn't necessarily mean that the story is merely children's entertainment. The story can still be anything.

 

[3113]

You're mixing up the medium with the content.

True. And Ami is showing his age here. Comic books haven't been children's fare since the 40's. Even in the 50's they were beginning to be for older kids--and that's American comics. Japan and France have always created comic books for all ages, ranging from comicbooks for little kids to those exclusively for adults. In the U.S., however, the transition of comic books from kids fare to adults, especially superhero comics, was much slower. They were artificially forced to stay for kids in the 50's when congress threatened to get involved in the comic industry and censor them if they didn't go back to making superhero comics for kids only.

This left only underground comics (those not approved by the comic book's industry watchdogs) to be adult--meaning, usually, pornographic.

By the 60's, however, superhero comics were tackling adult themes. And by the time Watchmen came out in the 80's, American comic books with superheroes had been adult-ish for at least twenty years. Watchmen just went all out, no lingering doubts about it.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

There is one notable exception to this: the credit sequence at the beginning which is all the director's and is really brilliant, as my husband predicted it would be given Dawn of the Dead's credit sequence. In some ways, the movie is worth seeing just for that credit sequence. The director uses it to introduce us to the world by giving us this alternative history lesson and it's marvelous!

I went to see it on Thursday, and I have to agree. I quite enjoyed the movie overall, but the opening sequence was, for me, the best part. I also had a slight laugh out loud moment at *SPOILER* Rorschach's death. *SPOILER*

 

[CharleyH]

I went to see it on Thursday, and I have to agree. I quite enjoyed the movie overall, but the opening sequence was, for me, the best part. I also had a slight laugh out loud moment at Rorschach's *SPOILER*.

Yes, that was brilliant! lol

 

[3113]

I went to see it on Thursday, and I have to agree. I quite enjoyed the movie overall, but the opening sequence was, for me, the best part. I also had a slight laugh out loud moment...

Whoa! Better edit this with a "SPOILER" message! Some people going to see this movie haven't read the comic and don't know what happens.

 

[amicus]

I talked with my youngest daughter last night and asked her about 'Watchmen' and other 'adult' cartoon films and television fare; her answer, while sexist, was most interesting at least to me.

"Little boys that don't want to grow up." she said, "They are like gamers, video games, heroic comic book characters, most men I meet are still little boys playing games, playing at life."

Even if that is true, which I suspect it is, those on this forum would never admit it....too close to home...might make you very uncomfortable about remaining an adolescent into your forties....rather like the continuing, 'counter culture', cult of aging hippies and yippees and their larvae.

Curious....but it does make some sense...



Amicus...

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I went to see it on Thursday, and I have to agree. I quite enjoyed the movie overall, but the opening sequence was, for me, the best part. I also had a slight laugh out loud moment at *SPOILER* Rorschach's death. *SPOILER*

I was very upset by that moment*.

And I will verge on the edge of spoilers myself.

That was much more gruesome than I expected, and I had been warned ahead of time. I was not expecting so many people of all type, young, old, men, women, and everyone to be killed with with such impunity. Having never been exposed to the comics until seeing the movie I had no idea what I was in store for as far as story, characters, or any of it. All that I knew about it was that the original ending had a giant squid eat the planet.

It was very enjoyable though, for someone that went in completely fresh. I was shown characters that I could care about, or against. the good and badguys were all very well put together three dimensional people.

And I really thought the younger Night Owl was supposed to be playing Chevy Chase the first time I saw him




*I keep trying to spell this "monemt"

 

[rgraham666]

It didn't eat the planet in the comic. And what did happen was far more gruesome that what happened in the movie.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Yeah, whatever.

Someone on IMDB thought that complaining about the shadows during the dream sequence made any sense. It's a dream sequence. Who cares of the shadows aren't technically right?

 

[3113]

Yeah, whatever.

Someone on IMDB thought that complaining about the shadows during the dream sequence made any sense. It's a dream sequence. Who cares of the shadows aren't technically right?

Agreed. That sequence is taken from the comic--so there might have been shadows in the original art--either way, it was beautifully done. One of those "wow" moments.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Oh, and speaking of the opening credits, I was glad that no one was sitting right next to me when I weeped at the woman placing a flower in the rifle barrel.

 

[3113]

Some funny stuff appearing now on YouTube regarding the new movie.

This is just wrong--but funny.

And this is hilarious, but you have to be a fan to understand it, because it's all about how the ending was changed. You also can't know German

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Some funny stuff appearing now on YouTube regarding the new movie.

This is just wrong--but funny.

And this is hilarious, but you have to be a fan to understand it, because it's all about how the ending was changed. You also can't know German

I saw the first one a week before the movie. It's a bit funnier now that I have seen the movie and have a reference for what the characters should be like

And I am amazed at how many subjects I have seen captured by that Hitlet scene. They keep getting better and better

 

[Goldie Munro]

i went to see Watchmen last week in the Imax cinema in London at 2.45 am (yes that is am) It was a very surreal experience for many reasons! I thought the visuals were astonishing - and yes the opening credits are a masterpiece in themselves. I have read the book and what i loved about the movie was how it did try hard to stick to the visuals of the novel.

Its along time since I read the novel but there were some visuals that really stuck in my mind and lo there it was on the screen! Some of the sets were just as they were in the graphics - from that aspect I was really impressed. There were some really slow sequences and at two and a half hours it may have been a bit long.

However, if you like sci fi fantasy super heroes with an alternative slant you will love this film. I do recommend that you read the book first or the Nixon/Vietnam victory scenes may be just a little confusing.

The special effects are stunning - and how would they have got away with the full frontal penis so much if it wasn't on a digitally created blue super human? (and it was slightly super human! (the penis I mean))

This is not your usual Hollywood blockbuster super hero film - bear that in mind.

Who is watching the watchmen?