Ready to be jealous? I just saw Watchmen

[JasonEvans]

It is good to be a part-time movie reviewer!!

I got to see a screening of Watchmen last night, easily the most anticipated movie of the year so far. For those of you who do not know, Watchmen is taken from the pages of an amazing graphic novel by the same name. Many consider it to be the finest graphic novel ever made. My review of the film will make many references to this book but I will not give away spoilers for folks who have not read the book.

Wow-- where to start?!?! I'll begin with the look of the film. It is not like Sin City, 300, or other graphic novel adaptations that attempt to look like a comic book brought to the screen. It contains some nice computer rendered moments that have a bit of a comic book feel but this is more movie than moving graphic novel and I was fine with that. The visual art in this film is still fabulous. The images of the mean streets of 1980s America are brought wonderfully from the comic book to the screen and there are moments where the cinematography is a real wonder to behold.

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1184697/photo_26_hires.jpg

Ok, up next is the sex and violence. This is not a movie for younger superhero fans. I did not take my 12 year old, who has very sophisticated movie taste, to the screening and I doubt I will be taking him once it comes to regular theaters. He is close, but probably needs a year or so before he is ready for this kind of thing. There is plenty of blood and gore on the screen. It starts out kinda slow but really picks up about midway through the film. The gore is not in a lot of scenes, but when it comes, it really stands out. There is a lot of male nudity (mostly buttocks, though we get several full-on visions of one character's dangling johnson) and not as much female nudity. The movie features a couple sex scenes, including one that is fairly kinky and graphic. The scenes are necessary to the plot and are not gratuitous. Despite the sex and gore, I did not feel like the movie was just being sensational. Most of the stuff is warranted.

I am pretty lenient when it comes to letting my kids see adult themed films, but I think most normal parents would not want their child under 15 or 16 to see this movie.

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1184697/photo_11_hires.jpg

Well, now that we have dispensed with some of the superfluous stuff, it is time to get to what matters... the story and my actual enjoyment of the film.

I liked Watchmen, liked it a lot. It held my attention for the entire 2 hours and 40 minutes (it is long!) and only dragged a tiny bit in a couple places. Some folks have complained about the corny voice-over by Rorshach but I saw it as a nice extension of his psyche and it did not bother me. It was corny though. The movie does a good job of dealing with some of the elements from the book that I thought would be nightmares to translate to the screen-- like Dr. Metropolis seeing the past, present, and future at the same time. Some of the makeup on the multi-aged actors (we see characters when they are young and quite old) was only so-so, but it did not bother me very much.

The visual effects are all quite strong and the movie does not feel like it is relying on a lot of digital tricks to show the action. There are not a ton of action scenes but what is there is wonderfully choreographed and shot. In fact, I found the action scenes to be as good as anything we have seen in a comic book to screen adaptation because there was less fast-paced hyper action than we usually see and more slo-mos allowing us to appreciate what was going on.

I do think that some folks may have trouble following the plot at times, but I doubt anyone could become really lost. On the other hand, I may be a bad person to judge this as I have read the book, so I had a strong basis of knowledge to keep up with what was going on. Director Zach Snyder did leave some parts of the book out of the movie-- and I strongly approve of all of his omissions. Most notably, he does not include any of "Tales of the Black Freighter" -- though I have heard that he shot some stuff and will include it on a director's cut DVD down the road. I compare this project to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings adaptation because they both follow the books as faithfully as they can and then decided to bring additional material from the books to the audience via DVD. Fans of the book will get what they want from this movie, that is for sure.

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1184697/photo_13_hires.jpg

I was not a great fan of the acting. It is not bad, but there is nothing special going on with the actors. Snyder took a cast of mostly no-names, which I liked because we do not have pre-conceived notions about the actors/characters as a result. Still, there is no one who stands out in the cast or who will be made into a big star as a result of this film.

It is worth noting that the audience I saw it with was probably 80% male, maybe more. I know there are women out there who are comic book fans, but I don't think this is a date movie by any stretch of the imagination. There were some older people in the audience-- by older I mean over 55 or 60. It appeared that they were more eager to get to the exits than the rest of us. But, for guys from late teens to about 50... especially guys who like superheros at all, this is a real winner. There was plenty of applause when the film ended.

I left the movie trying to think of where it ranks in the pantheon of comic book movies. It is in a league with the best-- Dark Knight, 300, Sin City, Spiderman 1 and 2, Iron Man, and a few others-- though maybe just a touch below some of the truly elite films in the category. It is not as accessible to the general public as the Spider Man, Iron Man, and Batman films. Fans of the book are going to flock to the theaters and will be quite pleased, no question about that. The rest of you will like it, though probably not quite as much.

I want to say so much more-- but it is not fair to talk about specific plot points until folks have had a chance to see the film. So, I am going to stop here for now.

-- Jason "Well, I may post more as I think of it ;) " Evans

[JasonEvans]

Oh, meant to add, if folks want to ask me specific questions, feel free to post them in this thread. I will put answers in spoiler text if it is a spoiler.

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1184697/photo_40_hires.jpg

-Jason

[Cormac]

:D

Just kidding! But I am extremely jealous! I just read the graphic novel this past fall in anticipation of the film and absolutely loved it. It is the first and only graphic novel I have read (not usually in to that sort of thing) but this one is phenomenal. I can't wait for the movie! Unfortunately I have my comprehensive exams this weekend (they determine whether I get my Master's or not! Wish me luck! :) ) so I will not be able to see it opening weekend. But I loved 300 so I'm psyched to see what Snyder has cooked up.

The Tales of the Black Freighter would be difficult to work into a film in a way that made sense to the part of the audience that had not read the book. I get leaving it out, but hopefully he worked it in for the dvd! I think it adds a great layer to the book, but it just may not translate well to film. Who knows? Anyway, as always, great job with the review Jason and thanks for the screen shots!

[JasonEvans]

I forgot to add-- while this is a dark film, very dark, there are several humorous and lighter moments. The crowd was laughing out loud several times (one of the best moments of humor comes at the end of the kinky sex scene). These moments of levity provided a nice relief from the dark and foreboding nature of the film. They are among the most memorable parts of the film.

-Jason "see, told ya I had more to add ;) " Evans

[2535Miles]

Right on Jason! I think it's really cool that you got to see it early. A phenomenal review, as always. You've got me pumped up for Friday! Do you think it's worth seeing in IMAX?

[JasonEvans]

Right on Jason! I think it's really cool that you got to see it early. A phenomenal review, as always. You've got me pumped up for Friday! Do you think it's worth seeing in IMAX?

Hmmm. Yeah, I think probably so. Some of the computer generated stuff on Mars will probably look fantastic in IMAX. Some of the action scenes in the prison will be really fabulous in IMAX. I think you will still very much enjoy it in a regular theater, but if it is not a problem to see it in IMAX, I think the experience will be worth it.

-Jason "right now, someone who has not read the book is saying, 'MARS?!?!?!'" Evans

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/Images/stories/2008/jul/watchmen14.jpg

[Cormac]

Jason, without giving away too much, I know Snyder reworked the ending a LITTLE bit IE he eliminated a large "something"....... I don't know how else to put it without going into too much detail! :D I'm sure you know what I'm talking about! Anyway, does the ending more or less capture the spirit of the ending of the novel and does it work in film? Honestly, I wasn't really a big fan of the ending in the novel (the big "something" was just too random for me!). I liked the idea of the ending I guess, but I just didn't like the means used to reach it. Does that make any sense? I"m trying not to go into too many details, maybe this should have been a PM!

[JasonEvans]

Jason, without giving away too much, I know Snyder reworked the ending a LITTLE bit IE he eliminated a large "something"....... I don't know how else to put it without going into too much detail! :D I'm sure you know what I'm talking about! Anyway, does the ending more or less capture the spirit of the ending of the novel and does it work in film? Honestly, I wasn't really a big fan of the ending in the novel (the big "something" was just too random for me!). I liked the idea of the ending I guess, but I just didn't like the means used to reach it. Does that make any sense? I"m trying not to go into too many details, maybe this should have been a PM!

I hesitate to talk too much about this as fans of the book may not want to know if there are changes in the movie. So, I will give me answer in spoiler text. Highlight to read it--

The movie ending is different from the book. The "something" I think you are talking about has been eliminated. And, ready for this, I think the movie ending is superior to the book.

There you go.

-Jason "I enjoyed not knowing how much would be changed from the book -- and you will too" Evans

[Cormac]

Thank you very much!

[AtlBluRew]

I'm really glad to see that the movie doesn't disappoint. I also read the graphic novel in anticipation of the movie and really loved it! I was intrigued that it made Time's list of 100 Best Novels. It gripped me from page one.

[Kdogg]

Honestly, I wasn't really a big fan of the ending in the novel (the big "something" was just too random for me!).

Spoiler
I think that was the whole point of "it" in the comics. It was supposed to be absurd and almost unbelieveable. I guess the change will give Alan Moore something to complain about now.

Thanks for the review. I'm sure the opening will be huge but I don't know if the movie will have legs. I hope it does well.

[JasonEvans]

Thanks for the review. I'm sure the opening will be huge but I don't know if the movie will have legs. I hope it does well.

I dunno-- I think this will have fairly decent BoxOffice prospects. I think this will be a big, big film among late teens - middle aged males but it is not gonna be a movie that women or families go to see.

300 is a good comparison. It was eagerly anticipated with a strong buzz campaign. It was a film that clearly only appealed to a core male demographic. Critics said good things (though it seems Watchmen is getting slightly better reviews). 300 ended up making $210 million.

Now, I think a good percentage of that was younger males who went back and saw 300 multiple times. This film does not have as much violence or action and is far more cerebral, so I am not so sure it does as much repeat business (except for the die-hard fanboys who may be put off by some of the small changes from the book). Still, like 300 there is really no competition at all at the boxoffice right now and there do not seem to be all that many action flicks coming out in coming weeks until Fast and Furious opens in April. I could see Watchmen being the #1 film for the next several weeks.

If I had to guess, I would expect Watchmen to earn about $180 million, maybe a bit more.

--Jason "it is tough for me to judge things fully, as I read the book and have no idea how folks who did not read it will react to the film-- I could be waaaay off base on this flick!" Evans

[darthur]

Rotten Tomatoes has not been overly positive to Watchmen so far, and I wasn't sure whether that meant the film was mediocre or just a little inaccessible. As someone who has been looking forward to the movie, I am glad to hear your positive review!

I noticed a couple of the RT reviews still seem to have trouble coming to grips with comic-based movies that take themselves seriously. Although Watchmen is at a different level of seriousness from most, I'd have thought reviewers would be used to this by now.

[JasonEvans]

Rotten Tomatoes has not been overly positive to Watchmen so far, and I wasn't sure whether that meant the film was mediocre or just a little inaccessible. As someone who has been looking forward to the movie, I am glad to hear your positive review!

I noticed a couple of the RT reviews still seem to have trouble coming to grips with comic-based movies that take themselves seriously. Although Watchmen is at a different level of seriousness from most, I'd have thought reviewers would be used to this by now.

It is worth noting that almost all the complaints are that the film is too faithful to the book and that the story suffers as a result. As I stated, I have a hard time judging this flick because I read the book and loved it. As a result, I know what is going on and do not need the film to explain stuff to me as much. It is entirely possible that some people will see this movie and say, "what the heck was that giant moving thing on Mars?" or "Nixon is still president?" or "what is the deal with the blue dude talking in past/future tense all the time?"

See, these things did not need explaining to me. To the uninitiated, they may be highly distracting and ruin the film. I just do not know.

--Jason "I can confidently say that folks who enjoyed the book will love this film-- I feel good about that statement" Evans

[brevity]

Saw a screening of Watchmen last night. I'll offer a counterpoint to Jason Evans' glowing review. I am not familiar with the source material, and frankly would be a bit turned off by it if the movie is as faithful as people say.

I did not enjoy the movie at all. Mostly I found it pretentious. I think that wrapping the story in fragments of American history (Kennedy, Cold War, Nixon, Vietnam, Twin Towers) and slapping on a classic rock soundtrack (Bob Dylan, Simon & Garfunkel, Jimi Hendrix) is a lazy, manipulative, and unsurprisingly effective approach to gloss over things that matter to us and try to make us care about the movie.

I would have forgiven a lot of the film's failings had it been more adept at getting to a point. Instead we're given sort of a meditative, wandering setup for more than half the film before the plot decides to actually move forward.

The past few years have provided several interesting examples of how die-hard fanboy culture (comics, fantasy, sci-fi, etc.) can succeed and even thrive in the mainstream. This does not deserve to be one of them; it's incredibly divisive, and I would be very curious to see if avowed non-fanboys can embrace this movie at all. Certainly the studio(s) that financed this movie want to see a real audience crossover, and not just the $70-90 million in box office on the first weekend, which is essentially impulse ticket buying.

There are good things about the film -- Jackie Earle Haley's performance as Rorschach comes to mind, despite a voice(over) that hilariously recalls Christian Bale's constipated Batman -- but they don't overpower all the features that make many of the characters, and most of the film, so unlikeable.

Well, now you have a second opinion. You may agree with the first opinion, and that's fine. Many people will. But I feel certain that readers of this thread who are wondering about the movie have a little more to work with now, and are less likely to feel misled if they don't like what they end up seeing. I guess that's the point of a counterpoint.

(For harsher words on the subject, click on the link in my signature.)

[darthur]

Saw a screening of Watchmen last night. I'll offer a counterpoint to Jason Evans' glowing review. I am not familiar with the source material, and frankly would be a bit turned off by it if the movie is as faithful as people say.

Well I haven't watched the movie of course, but I did want to say something in response to your comments, based on having read the book.

Like many of the Rotten Tomatoes reviewers, it seems to me that you are not acknowledging what Watchmen really is (or at least tries to be): a stylized character study. In many ways, it's very similar to the recent movie, The Wrestler. Retired and aging wrestler/self-proclaimed superheroes come to grips with the fact that the world doesn't want or need them anymore. As with other character studies, the plot is largely secondary, there primarily as a stimulus to make the characters all react in their own way.

In this context, complaining that the antagonist takes too long to show himself is sort of missing the point. Watchmen is not about the confrontation with the antagonist - it's about what would drive the antagonist to do what he does, and what would drive the other characters to respond as they do. It's not the first comic movie to move in this direction. The whole prison sequence within V for Vendetta, for example, has everything to do with character, and nothing to do with the plot. Both Christopher Nolan Batman movies are similarly preoccupied with human nature outside of the main hero vs villain story arc. So Watchmen is not unique in this - it just goes further than other movies have.

Anyway, I'm sure the movie's not for everyone, although the book at least is popular outside of traditional comic fans. There's a reason why Time listed it as one of the greatest 100 books of the 20th century. But even if the movie were done perfectly, it requires an audience that is (a) interested in a character study, and (b) not put off by superheroes. That may be asking a lot.

[brevity]

Well I haven't watched the movie of course, but I did want to say something in response to your comments, based on having read the book.

Like many of the Rotten Tomatoes reviewers, it seems to me that you are not acknowledging what Watchmen really is (or at least tries to be): a stylized character study. In many ways, it's very similar to the recent movie, The Wrestler. Retired and aging wrestler/self-proclaimed superheroes come to grips with the fact that the world doesn't want or need them anymore. As with other character studies, the plot is largely secondary, there primarily as a stimulus to make the characters all react in their own way.

In this context, complaining that the antagonist takes too long to show himself is sort of missing the point. Watchmen is not about the confrontation with the antagonist - it's about what would drive the antagonist to do what he does, and what would drive the other characters to respond as they do. It's not the first comic movie to move in this direction. The whole prison sequence within V for Vendetta, for example, has everything to do with character, and nothing to do with the plot. Both Christopher Nolan Batman movies are similarly preoccupied with human nature outside of the main hero vs villain story arc. So Watchmen is not unique in this - it just goes further than other movies have.

Anyway, I'm sure the movie's not for everyone, although the book at least is popular outside of traditional comic fans. There's a reason why Time listed it as one of the greatest 100 books of the 20th century. But even if the movie were done perfectly, it requires an audience that is (a) interested in a character study, and (b) not put off by superheroes. That may be asking a lot.

Fair enough. Your comparison to The Wrestler is interesting, because you're right: both are stylized character studies. For the record, I didn't love that movie either, but I had a greater appreciation for Darren Aronofsky's craftsmanship. There was a tighter story there as well, so it's easier for the viewer to get a grip on the proceedings.

I realize that there's probably a grand element to Watchmen that you're not supposed to easily grab, and that there may have been some purpose to delaying the central confrontation for so long. And upon some reflection, I suppose I liked the ending. But that didn't excuse, at least to me, the sickening indulgence of having 1 hour 45 minutes of atmosphere.

My review deliberately leaves out the word "superheroes" (using "costumed fighters" instead) because it was not apparent to me that they were superheroes. Aside from Dr. Manhattan -- who was so supernatural he'd veered away from anything human, including a sense of heroism -- you had a group of volunteers, whose motivations were either unclear or not satisfying.

[JasonEvans]

I want to thank Brevity for his counterpoint. As you may have guessed from my comments, I am more than a little fearful that folks who have not read the book will have trouble with this film. To hear him confirm this is not at all a surprise to me.

Still, I am not willing to admit that his opinion is the one that will be shared by all non-fanboys who see this flick. I think the odds that someone who read and enjoyed the book will enjoy this film are around 95%. The odds that someone who has not read the book will like it are probably closer to 50 or 60%.

In the grand scheme of things and given Hollywood's pretty dreadful success rate at making quality films, I think 50-60% is pretty decent-- even if it does leave a lot of people feeling like, "what was that?!?!"

--Jason "my advice-- go buy the book and spend the next 24 hours reading like a madman ;) " Evans

[JasonEvans]

My review deliberately leaves out the word "superheroes" (using "costumed fighters" instead) because it was not apparent to me that they were superheroes. Aside from Dr. Manhattan -- who was so supernatural he'd veered away from anything human, including a sense of heroism -- you had a group of volunteers, whose motivations were either unclear or not satisfying.

Your view is correct. The book makes it quite clear that the costumed fighters are not heroes, but merely regular people who have taken on this role in society. Most of them are in peak physical condition and are extremely well trained in the martial arts or something like that -- plus they have a lot of experience at fighting so they kick some butt -- but they do not have "superpowers."

In other words, they are more Batman than Spiderman or Superman.

Oh, except for Dr. Manhattan -- who is so powerful it is almost annoying. The book does a better job than the movie of explaining his visions of the future and how to resolve that with the overall ending.

--Jason "I'd be interested in hearing about someone seeing the movie and then reading the book-- Brevity, you up for this?" Evans

[JasonEvans]

I did a movie review segment today on a local radio station where I talked about Watchmen. If you want to hear it, they posted it on their website.

http://multimedia.790thezone.com/m/21959071/movie-guru-jason-evans.htm

-Jason "the station does sports talk here in Atlanta and they have me focus on 'movies for guys'" Evans

[Cavlaw]

I read the book recently and enjoyed it. I'm not a huge graphic novel fan, but I picked up "The Dark Knight Returns" maybe 15 years ago and liked it, so when I heard "Watchmen" was even better I had to give it a go.

I'm now fairly excited to see the movie, whereas beforehand I had no interest in it. If it's good, I anticipate picking up the DVD to see the director's cut and the "Tales of the Black Freighter" feature.

I'll probably catch a matinee tomorrow morning, and will report back with my thoughts.

[2535Miles]

--Jason "I'd be interested in hearing about someone seeing the movie and then reading the book-- Brevity, you up for this?" Evans
I haven't read the book yet. But, like the guys on your radio show, I did some research and was really familiar with the history of the graphic novel. It's on my book wishlist now.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. We went to the IMAX Late Show (2:00 AM this morning) and it was packed! Even though I haven't read the graphic novel, I feel like this was a great transition from print to film. The story was fantastic and I'm really looking forward to picking up the graphic novel.

The interesting thing my buddy and I noticed was all of the people commenting on the rating as we walked out of the theatre. A lot of them, my buddy included, felt like the movie deserved a NC-17 rating. Ignoring the blatant discrepancies and lack of oversight by the MPAA, I found myself starting to agree with my buddy. The violence was graphic, but I felt like it was necessary. Can anyone comment on the level of gore and violence in the novel?

P.S. Great plug for Duke Jason!!!

[JasonEvans]

I haven't read the book yet. But, like the guys on your radio show, I did some research and was really familiar with the history of the graphic novel. It's on my book wishlist now.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. We went to the IMAX Late Show (2:00 AM this morning) and it was packed! Even though I haven't read the graphic novel, I feel like this was a great transition from print to film. The story was fantastic and I'm really looking forward to picking up the graphic novel.

The interesting thing my buddy and I noticed was all of the people commenting on the rating as we walked out of the theatre. A lot of them, my buddy included, felt like the movie deserved a NC-17 rating. Ignoring the blatant discrepancies and lack of oversight by the MPAA, I found myself starting to agree with my buddy. The violence was graphic, but I felt like it was necessary. Can anyone comment on the level of gore and violence in the novel?

P.S. Great plug for Duke Jason!!!

Thanks for listening to my radio appearance (http://multimedia.790thezone.com/m/21959071/movie-guru-jason-evans.htm). It is a fun gig. I am surprised how many friends around town tell me they hear it when they are riding in their cars and the such. I nailed all my on-air Oscar picks a couple weeks ago, which was nice ;)

As for the film's rating-- I think NC-17 would be a bit much. The sex is not gratuitous, in my opinion. There is really only one steamy sex scene. The male full-frontal nudity is not pervasive and does not seem sexual. So, I do not see it being NC-17 based on the sex.

Yes, it is gory at times, but it is certainly no worse than most horror films these days. I don't see the gore as being any worse than Saw or Hostel or even a Friday the 13th type film. In fact, I found the blood to be used in a mostly tasteful fashion-- it helped tell the story. It was not just there to titillate and shock the audience. For example, at the end of the most violence scene in the movie-- the prison scene-- the blood that comes out of the bathroom door is 100% necessary to understanding that scene. Heck, one could almost praise the movie for not showing us more of what happened in the bathroom that caused the blood.

Anyway, I think R is 100% the correct rating for this film. NC-17 would have been an outrageous rating.

--Jason "eager to hear what others who saw it felt about it" Evans

[2535Miles]

Thanks for listening to my radio appearance (http://multimedia.790thezone.com/m/21959071/movie-guru-jason-evans.htm). It is a fun gig. I am surprised how many friends around town tell me they hear it when they are riding in their cars and the such. I nailed all my on-air Oscar picks a couple weeks ago, which was nice ;)

As for the film's rating-- I think NC-17 would be a bit much. The sex is not gratuitous, in my opinion. There is really only one steamy sex scene. The male full-frontal nudity is not pervasive and does not seem sexual. So, I do not see it being NC-17 based on the sex.

Yes, it is gory at times, but it is certainly no worse than most horror films these days. I don't see the gore as being any worse than Saw or Hostel or even a Friday the 13th type film. In fact, I found the blood to be used in a mostly tasteful fashion-- it helped tell the story. It was not just there to titillate and shock the audience. For example, at the end of the most violence scene in the movie-- the prison scene-- the blood that comes out of the bathroom door is 100% necessary to understanding that scene. Heck, one could almost praise the movie for not showing us more of what happened in the bathroom that caused the blood.

Anyway, I think R is 100% the correct rating for this film. NC-17 would have been an outrageous rating.

--Jason "eager to hear what others who saw it felt about it" Evans
I definitely agree that the sex scenes and the full-frontal nudity do nothing to warrant a NC17 rating. For this movie, I think the violence would be the only reason to even consider the NC17 rating. Hollywood seems willing to accept graphic violence as a perfectly normal, every day activity that any child should be able to watch with the accompaniment of a legal guardian. Movies like Saw and Hostel disturb me greatly and I think their R ratings are more suspect that Watchmens. Yet, I had the feeling that most of the violence was adapted from the novel and quite necessary to the story and character development. See the Comedian's flashback scenes with Silk Spectre; it may be difficult to watch, but it was a crucial part of the story.

So I agree that NC17 is a bit much for this movie and I'm not leaving towards agreeing with my buddy anymore.

[JasonEvans]

55 million for the opening weekend-- not nearly as much as I had expected. I figured it would be more like 65 or 70... at least. This flick is gonna come up well short of $200 million, I bet.

I am disappointed that more of the "fanboys" on the DBR have not chimed in. Didn't anyone else see this over the weekend? Come on people!! The most anticipated movie of the year so far!

-Jason

[BD80]

... The crowd was laughing out loud several times ...


... I am disappointed that more of the "fanboys" on the DBR have not chimed in. Didn't anyone else see this over the weekend? Come on people!! The most anticipated movie of the year so far!


Great movie! Didn't read the graphic novel, but read up enough to understand the premise and the characters. Still don't understand what the machine on Mars was. I am old enough to have appreciated many of the Easter eggs, such as Warhol's showing of Ozymandias illustrations/paintings with Truman Capote in attendance, but am also so old that the term "fanboy" seems pejorative.

My teenage sons and I loved the movie, but I was enraged at some of the shortcuts - like Veidt using the easily hacked "Ramses II" as a password on his computer! Using "12345" would at least have made me laugh.

I appreciated the bits of levity thrown in, but felt too often that I was the only one laughing. I greatly enjoyed the development of the characters and their motivation for being "heroes." The ending was an interesting twist to that development. I am anxious now to read the graphic novel to enjoy the original ending.

I recommend the movie highly, with the caution that it is graphically violent. I for one believe that science fiction or fantasy can be great fiction, and don't automatically lump them into a category with comics. This has a good story and it is well told in a very visually stimulating fashion.

Does anyone know if there is a list compiling the easter eggs from the movie? I get a bit annoyed trying to catch then all while I am trying to follow the plot. I will go back to see the movie again - this time in IMAX - and see how many more I can catch.

[brevity]

Using "12345" would at least have made me laugh.

"1-2-3-4-5? That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage!"

(Sorry, saw Spaceballs over the weekend.)

Jason: if I happen to find myself in a bookstore, I'll take a look. But I wasn't willing to pay for the movie -- early screenings are free -- so I doubt I'd seek out the source material. Sorry.

[JasonEvans]

My teenage sons and I loved the movie, but I was enraged at some of the shortcuts - like Veidt using the easily hacked "Ramses II" as a password on his computer! Using "12345" would at least have made me laugh.

Recall that the movie takes place in the mid-1980s, before complex passwords and cyber security were real issues in society. Plus, I am not sure that Veidt did not want to be discovered. The "smartest man in the world" has real ego issues ;)

The object on Mars was the inside of a watch. Dr. Manhattan's father was a watch maker and forced his son to study watch repair techniques. As a result, the young Jon Osterman became very good at seeing how things worked and putting them together from a bunch of different pieces. As a result, when his body is torn into a million little pieces by the "Intrinsic Field thingy" his consciousness is able to figure out how to put himself back together. At the end, when Veidt tricks him into another Intrinsic Field thing and taers him apart again, he quips, "learning how to reassemble myself was one of my first tricks," when he reappears as a giant and grabs Adrian.

My favorite "easter egg" moment was The Comedian putting the gun away on the grassy knoll. Nice!

--Jason "here is a question-- which character did you like best, who was the hero of the story?" Evans

[Cavlaw]

Still haven't seen it, was tied up this weekend. Planning on a Saturday matinee. We'll see.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

I finally got to see Watchmen, and as one of the long-time fanboys who was more than apprehensive, I'm happy to say that I came away very impressed. Obviously Snyder went to great lengths to make the movie as faithful to the book as possible. In fact, I'd echo the sentiments I've heard from others that, if anything, he went too far. The Onion (http://origin.avclub.com/articles/av-talk-watchmen,24729/) folks suggested that he seemed to use the panels of the book as almost a storyboard, and I think there's some truth in that. We lost a lot of the "film vocabulary" in terms of lenses/camera moves, etc. in favor of forcing actors to replicate specific panels.

I felt that Watchmen had some amazing setpieces: Dr. Manhattan's origin, the funeral, and the opening (set to "The Times They Are A-Changin'") all blew me away. I'd also join Jason in saying that the new ending was, IMO, better than Moore's original. Once more folks have had a chance to see the movie we can hash that out some more.

Some of the performances were a bit wooden (Malin Ackerman, I'm looking at you) but I thought that Crudup and especially Haley were masterful (Christian Bale, that is how you rasp without sounding like Cookie Monster). The slow-motion fight scenes felt a bit played out to me (it was cool in 300 and V for Vendetta, but didn't add much here).

Unfortunately, I think Watchmen is stuck between a rock and a hard place in terms of length and we sort of got the worst of both worlds. Watchmen is just too long for the average moviegoer who has no investment in the work/characters and I'm not surprised that there have been complaints about it feeling cold and disjointed.

OTOH, viewers familiar with the book are probably going to miss the reported hour that was cut. A lot of folks (http://io9.com/5164535/whats-on-watchmens-cutting-room-floor)have hit the missing scenes/themes, but I'd add The New Frontiersman, the "Jupiter" family's ethnicity, a lot of the older generation (Hooded Justice's fate, all the original Nite Owl's stuff including his end, and Captain Metropolis), and the origin of Rorschach's mask. Heck, I really missed the documentary interludes.

Overall, I probably won't see it in theaters again, but am eagerly anticipating the Director's Cut DVD. I am very happy with what Snyder has done, but I'm not sure it has the commercial appeal to either drag in new viewers (too long and confusing) or drum up repeat viewings by fanboys like me (too much missing, why not wait for the "real" version on DVD?) Still, Watchmen has been a Hollywood White Whale for decades and it was wonderful to see it realized on screen. Hopefully it makes enough in theaters and convinces enough folks to check out the book and then buy the DVD. Great works like this need to be made and I hope the numbers add up for the studios so that they will continue to be.

[bjornolf]

I am a fan of the few graphic novels that I have read, but I haven't gotten a chance to check out "Watchmen" yet. I am in line at my library, and if I like it, I'll pick it up at Books-A-Million. I don't get out to movies as much as I'd like, and it sounds like the DVD is going to have SO much more. I'll probably wait for the Blu-Ray and go watch it on my friends 12 foot screen. ;)