• MF Watchmen 2009 Spoiler Thread







A bunch of reviews has hit the net.

movies.ign.com
slashfilm.com
denofgeek.com
totalfilm.com
huffingtonpost.com
timesonline.typepad.com
entertainment.timesonline.co.uk
empireonline.com

/spoiler questions

Having just finished the novel - I have some thoughts.

I thought at first the squid idea was lame until I saw it depicted in the novel, and found it powerful and relevant.

Now, I am wondering, do they blame this all on Manhattan so that he is the common enemy and not some alien being? I hope they make that as powerful. In the book Manhattan leaves so if hes gone, who are they teaming up to fight? (usa/russia)

Did I miss something?

I also thought rorschacs death in the novel too swift -"what are you waiting for" "BAM" uh.

and about the ending, from what i've read they do try and make manhattan the common enemy for the world but apparently some of the message of the book is lost. I've only skipped around in the comic, never read it through all the way so I couldn't say "what" that message is. I'm guessing some high liberal thought of leaving nukes alone and protect the planet bullshit but you never know with Moore.

In addition to Ebert’s review, he has posted an essay which discusses Dr. Manhattan and the IMAX version.

I was surprised to find out that he has never read the book. After reading his review, I thought for sure than he had gone through it once or twice. Apparently, he was able to grasp many of the story’s nuances after only one viewing. That’s pretty impressive.


If you’re looking for a Moore “message book,” read V of Vendetta rather than Watchmen. Unlike V, the narratives about absolute power and corruption in Watchmen are not intended to be the focal point. These ideas simply tie in with the overall approach to the story.

In essence, Watchmen is a meditative exploration of the human dilemma as told through (and against) the superhero archetype. When all is said and done, Moore raises more questions than he answers. This makes sense considering that the book's title is derived from a rhetorical question.

I'm glad he gave it a second look. Having never read the mini-series/graphic novel, Ebert had some very astute observations after his second viewing. Maybe he'll feel compelled to read the book now. And yes, if you've never read V for Vendetta, it's a must as well.

to those that've seen it, does Fox studios get any credit at the beginnning of the film? Just kinda curious how that all ended up. I saw that David Hayter wrote the script to this. You all realize that David does the voice work for Solid Snake in all the Metal Gear Solid games?

I read one comment about the way Moore only handled two origins in the book, Rorshach and Manhattans. Manhattan is born through the miraculous reconstruction of his body and Rorshach's comes from the complete deconstruction of his personality. And in the end, Manhattan kills Rorshach.

I saw nothing of Fox. I was happy.

Saw it. Wasn't blown away by it, but didn't hate it either. It dragged a bit at times.

I didn't feel a connection to the source material at all and I don't think it had anything to do with the directing or the adaptation; I just don't think any of the characters or the story is particularly interesting. It didn't feel like anything I haven't seen before.

For all the hype, it's about as overrated as Hellboy.

I would agree with it being a bit slow at times, but the brutality of the fight scenes more than made up for it.

For the most part, I was happy with most of the changes that were made. I understood why it was done, but it still kept true to the main premises. Rorschach in prison has got to be the best. I did not like the changes to the ending, in particular the subtle changes to Owlman's character and the confrontation between Manhattan and Rorschach. Should have been truer to the book (or maybe my memory of it). I liked it though. I'd give it 4 out of 5.

For the most part I agree. I think in the end I admired the film more than I enjoyed it.

That's a good way to put it.

You know what's overrated in movies like this? Symbolism and the so-called 'intellectuals' (i.e. shortsighted pricks) who think that because a graphic novel 'tries' to be deep it's somehow more brilliant than the typical superhero romp. I'd argue the complete opposite. The real brilliance is crafting a superhero story that connects with people - a Spider-man or a Batman - not stuffing it with amateur, liberal, and oversimplified commentary on the human condition. That's why the Matrix sequels sucked. The battle scenes in this flick felt so out of place, so "here's where we please the superhero action audience" that it cheapened the quality of the flick, and likely by association, the graphic novel itself.

Genius is in the subtle details.

http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=watchmen


http://www.demonoid.com/?search=watchmen




Watchmen.CAM.XViD-CAMERA (english) @ demonoid.com

only pulled in 55.6 million. could be the long running time hurt it, or that no body really recognizes these actors or characters, but that seems a little low for this.

I'll be honest, I've never read the comic. In fact I never HEARD of it until the trailer before The Dark Knight (and I lol'd a bit at the "poor man's Batman" dude in that trailer). Didn't see it because it's just not important to me.

Contrary to what fans of this graphic novel may think, it's not all that spectacular a story. Second the brand isn't recognizable in the least. I consider myself to be pretty well versed in comic lore and I had no memory of ever hearing about the Watchmen until I saw the trailer before The Dark Knight. On top of that, it's rated R and the characters and themes are nothing resembling marketable. Moreover, there's not one major actor in the flick and 95% of moviegoers couldn't tell you who the director is. Lastly, the movie got mixed reviews. 55 million is a perfectly reasonable opening weekend hull by any objective measure.

I just saw that Ebert video and I'm honestly sick.

I warned you, man! I know it's not his fault but damn if I wouldn't sue the plastic surgeon if I was him. Damn, give me a pig jaw or somethin! I've yet to download this. no way I'm payin money for it.

Watch the Watchmen @ MF (larger screen size link)


[align=center][flash width=499 height=330]http://www.megavideo.com/v/20PHA5GAc27f3c1ec8796331fd0a08fb44d30b45[/flash][/align]

it was boring, and terrible. The story, as always, was sublime. However it was acted horribly, and drawn out to embarrassment (in my own humble opinion of course). I was disappointed.

if forced to break it down, I enjoyed 15%, groaned but tolerated 25%, and sat through in agony the remaining 60% of it. My poor wife, the trooper, sat through in agony 100% of it. I really felt betrayed, but once again this may simply be a childhood story I loved, (I was in Junior High when Watchmen was published), that really wasn't that great, and If I were an adult reading the same story , after the nostalgia had all but vanished, I would see the craptastic fuckfest of a film I just saw.

It's pretty sad, for me anyway, when even the sex scenes were garbage. (however props to Malin Akerman for keepin' me in the theater.) I will see it again, downloaded, or free in some way, just for a second take (in case I'm not being fair) but I doubt my opinion will differ.

Saw it; was pleasantly surprised; and have started to appreciate it more and more in reflection. In order to make a final judgment, I will probably read the book and see the film once more.

Currently, I would say that Snyder got 90% of it dead-on. However, some of the songs, a few reworded lines, and the extended fight sequences all gave me pause. Like CoGro, I suspect that the later was done to please the studio and, by extension, “mass audiences.”

One thing that is discerning about seeing a Watchmen movie is that some of the references seem out-of-place. In part, the story was intended to be a comment on the golden age era comic books. Since superhero comics and superhero movies haven’t evolved in the same way, some of these ideas get lost in translation. For example, while the image of Dollar Bill’s cape getting stuck in a revolving door is funny in and of itself, it doesn’t hold up as a parody on over-elaborate superhero costume. After all, there have been only a few caped characters who have made it the big screen. To this extent Moore is right. Comics are comics and movies are movies. Maybe Snyder and Hayter should have made an effort to change certain aspects of the characters so it is more reflective of recent comic book films. It’s not necessary to make a literal translation of the book in order to be true to its principles.



While I was waiting for Watchmen to start in sold-out IMAX theater, I wondered what type of movie the audience was excepting to see. Hopefully, they weren't anticipating a typical superhero film with set action sequences and a resolute climax. If so, they were in for disappointment as the story intentionally avoids these plot devices. In fact, the movie isn’t really concerned with its own plot. The murder of the Comedian and the impending nuclear standoff are just an excuse to explore the characters, the nature of man, and our roll within the universe (if we even have one).

As I said when the project was announced, I was surprised that this film was being made with the story intact.

I’m surprised you weren’t at least aware of the book. I collected comics for a couple years around in the late 80’s. I was very aware of it then as it had only been released a few years earlier. I’m not sure how it was initially received in the comic community, but I do remember it being grouped with TDKR, which seemed to be highly regarded at the time. Over the years, I kept hearing highly favorable things about the book. I thought it came to be regarded as the Citizen Kane / Ulysses of the medium.



While I agree with your point (to a certain extent), I think its best to keep in mind that “connection” is a relative viewpoint.

A few years ago, after watching V of Vendetta, I decided that it was time to read Watchmen. I bought the graphic novel and ended up being deeply moved by the experience. For one, Moore seemed to make some of the same observations on life that I had made over the years. Manhattan’s views on the seeming insignificance of existence along with his epiphany about the improbability of individuality were high points for me. But besides the philosophy, I really found the characters interesting. Each hero is a deeply flawed, which makes them very human. In the end, I was able to relate in someway to their detachment, angst, cynicism, sense of honor, helplessness, and conflicting moralities.

I do understand why people would have a hard time connecting with Watchmen. To a point, Moore doesn’t overtly attempt to connect with the audience and manipulate their emotions. He simply writes about very complicated ideas and characters and hopes that by virtue of his writing, the audience will care when something emotional happens or when they reveal some type of perceived truth. I don’t view this approach as being wrong. It’s just a different.

All I know is that the material is worth spending time with, and once you do make that connection, it can be very rewarding. I suspect that the middle-aged woman sitting next to me in the theater today would agree. She quietly sobbed as Dr. Manhattan explained to Laurie that she was miracle.

I can see that happening. Hell, I worked at a comic store during High school and never had anyone come in and request Watchmen! People wanted Youngblood and Spawn and Pitt all day long though.

Well, not just that, but the current generation of movie goers doesn't quite comprehend the threat of nuclear destruction and the symbolism of the doomsday clock. They really don't have some frame of reference or a context to put these things ideas in.

I was watching a bit of it above there and it seems really good to me, despite the mixed reviews and our waiter at a restaurant last weekend telling us it sucked. He said he was really into comic books and such but this movie didn't do it for him.

But after watching some of it it seems right up my alley and I'm sure me and my gal will love it, so I'm gonna take her to see it in digital this weekend because it seems totally worth it.

I watched the bootleg of it. It was alright. I was put off by the ultra violence of it. the guy getting his head chopped into multiple times and then the prison thug getting his arms sawed off, just over the top really. worse than any horror movie I've seen recently. All Rorshach stuff actually.

I enjoyed all of Dr. Manhattan's scenes though. I couldn't tell how the ending differed from the book other than no squid. seemed like a better ending than the book actually. I remember reading an interview of Moore's about how they deliberately put in things in the book that they thought there would be no way it could be reproduced in a movie. I believe the squid and Dr. Blue's cock were two of those. So Moore was only partly right because there's AMPLE supply of dick in this movie.

it's good, but nothing special sadly.

Overrated comic, underrated movie.


It is often said that pretentious comics writer "Alan Moore" took the medium to a newer Adult level with Watchmen. In my view Moore took comics and turned them into a more serious novel format using comics as a visual in lieu of walls of text on white pages. Moore has said Watchmen is unfilmable and was opposed to Synder at the director's helm because of the racism in Frank Miller's 300 . Yes it would have been awesome if Terry Gilliam ( who theoretically would have been more palatable to Moore) directed but in terms of success Synder could have been the only person for a job - turning Watchmen into a 3 hour long, 18-Wheeler of a movie.

The low point was the soundtrack. It would have preferable (for me at least) to have Wagner used throughout the movie as it was used during the Apocalypse Now segment. First we have Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah breaking up a otherwise awesome sex scene. Then comes Hendrix's All Along The Watchtower during the trek to Antarctica. It was cool when The Owl's ship breaking the ice matched song's guitar solo slide - but after another version of the song is used in every other episode of it's time to retire the track.



Some observations about a couple aspects of Watchmen:


Doctor Manhattan's Telekinetic Intercourse

[flash width=480 height=255]http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k37U709YG3ofwZYGBU&related=1[/flash]

I liked this scene before when it was originally in the obscure 1981 Chevy Chase film Modern Problems.



Malin Akerman
There is nothing to really add here and the images are meant to be for future use

Malin Akerman and Carla Gugino were quite lovely as the Silk Spectres.




The bottom image comes from the 2007 film The Heartbreak Kid.

And I like that shit here because it's never really been done in this context with this big a movie? Ok it probably has but I mean in terms of a group of vigilante/superhero's that think they can help society/the world. The Dark Knight could have been this grizzly and it was to a small extent(pencil in the eye- ouch! Harvey getting burned, probably forgetting some more), but with these types of characters in Watchmen that straddle the line between good and psychotic, over-the-top violence is entirely appropriate IMO.

This sure ain't X-Men nor Spider-man and it makes something like Superman Returns look like a bible tale, not just in terms of the violence but the depth of the story that it's trying to tell. Then again I haven't seen the entire movie yet, I'm basically saving the second half for the movie theater.



I'm liking the music selection so far, although to me choices like 99 Luftballoons seems to be just thrown in for good 80's measure. Ride of the Valkyries was good, although that's extremely over used in movies- but as a sort of nod to Apocolypse Now it obviously works, especially with the god-like presence of Manhattan it almost overshadows Apocolype's use or at least equals its grandiose purpose.

I found the use of Leonoard Cohen's song to be funny and ironic. The guy's finally getting it on and up, mostly due to the excitement and rush of the action they had just experienced with the burning building but most likely because of their tight gawdy costumes. Hallelujah indeed.

And that's what I want to see with this: not huge action pieces- we've seen enough of those. I want to see how these people relate to each other. So when the Comedian tells Night Owl to get his stinkin' hands off of him during the riot scene, that's refreshing. Something I haven't seen before in this 'sort' of movie, which isn't really that sort of movie at all.

Speaking of which, all the clips I had seen before the movie came out left me blank and I think it's because Warner's was trying to sell this movie as a typical big action comic book flick.

From what I've seen so far it's certainly not that and I'm glad.

Ultraviolence? Bitchin. I gotta' must watch this thing pronto and stat. Allthough I have only just watched a good chunk of it above, so far it looks way better than I've been led to believe. I think I might be able to sit through it all. I just wish you could still smoke at the movies, though. Ah, the good old days.

The embedded megavideo devise-cam is only good for 70 minutes or so - with a few of those minutes used up by clicking away the ads and such. Though one is able to a get a downloadable link from the embedded video, at 1.3gb the size is over the 1gb allotted free-download limit. This is why I uploaded a compressed 700mb version of devise-watchmenmxv.avi in the MF Film Forum.


The ultra-violence is what made the movie for me. It made what would have been otherwise hokey costumed heroes into homicidal vigilantes, i.e. Rorshach and The Comedian. Fans of the film will point to how awesome Rorschach was but The Comedian deserves attention also. The Comedian even exhibits what could be construed as Vietnam Veteran post traumatic stress disorder. All of that and Malin Akerman screwing.


As far as changes from the novel are concerned. The film ending was better in terms of being a bit more realistic. Another change or a change I like to see in my view of the film is the abilities of the Watchmen. In the novel Manhattan is the only super being. In the film, all of the other Watchmen seem to have super strength and intelligence which maybe given to them as part of a supersoldier program or by Manhattan himself (ie. Rorschach's mask.).

All in all, I hope this movie does well enough to help get other 3-hour long, R-Rated comic adaptations made.

the actor that played 'Barclay' in Star Trek TNG played the comedian's arch nemesis in this. he's the one with the pointy ears.

I've since deleted this movie. I could watch Dr. Manhattan or the Comedian all day, but the others bored me to tears.

Actually, he's not. Matt Frewer played Edgar Jacobi / Moloch the Mystic, not Dwight Schultz.

you're right. he played the fake time traveler that tried to steal a tricorder and take it back in time to make money. that's right. I knew he was in it somewhere.

MAX HEADROOM, you can't forget Max Headroom!

I read Watchmen as it came out, one issue at a time back in '85-'86. I was also working in a comic book shop, which provided me with a sort of a testing ground with the audience and how they perceived this series. At the time we all agreed it was unfilmable. That was back when Captain America had fake rubber ears on his mask and Spider-Man shot a big, huge rope from his webshooter taking hours to scale a building. From that perspective, I'm still thankful and astonished at the amount of time and money being pumped into this genre. With Watchmen I always knew that if it were made, they would have only one chance to nail it. Batman and Superman films can always be re-booted every dozen years or so, but Watchmen had one chance to get done right, faithfully with a no holds approach. The reactions have been polarized to be sure, much like they were when Bladerunner was released. IMHO Watchmen is to comic films as Bladerunner was to SciFi (at the time). Everyone expected to see Han Solo, but here was Harrison Ford playing a messed up cop hunting replicants and some audiences couldn't handle that at the time. Today the film is a classic.

As for Ride of the Valkyries, there is actually mention of it in the original comic. If you've ever read the original comic/graphic novel, Moore has additional material after each chapter that provides further depth and background for all the characters. In this case it's an excerpt from Hollis Mason's book "Under the Hood", found at the end of issue #1/Chapter 1. The excerpt mentions Ride of the Valkyries and how Mason considers the music to be very sad, but I won't ruin the story. Even though the music is played with a warring Dr. Manhattan, it's still mentioned in the original medium yet outside of the comic completely. But it was a strong enough reference for me to remember it from the excerpt of issue #1 when I heard it in the film.

Later this month when Tales of the Black Freighter comes to DVD, it also includes Hollis Mason's "Under the Hood", the book within the film written by the original Nite Owl. Mason's book is also shown in the background throughout the film and to this day Watchmen fans from 23 years ago still want that entire book. I look forward to how the "Black Freighter/Under the Hood" DVD will add depth to the story the way the additional excerpts did with the comic. I believe Watchmen will continue to grow and provide new life as well as insight each and every time it's offered as a new medium.

And if you haven't read the comic, please read it ... all of it, and you'll see the film in an entirely different perspective.

[hr]
If anyone wants to read the excerpt from Watchmen issue #1 I was referring to (Ride of the Valkyries reference), I uploaded the PDF at FileFront:

http://files.filefront.com//;13448523;/fileinfo.html

remember, I uploaded the entire graphic novel and it's still on the first page in the watchmen spoilers thread. just for those that haven't read it yet. it's 200mb. I'll try and read it all the next few days.

Having just read the novel, the scenes I watched from the bootleg, (prison break, comedian fight, and a couple others) were spot on.



that camera boot is being watched dont download.

You want to know who watches the watchmen? Warner Bros does hehe.

Hello, there! Chostomo here (formerly, very formerly known as Darth Caras, for those who can remember)

Has anybody seen this? YouTube "Saturday Morning Watchmen Cartoon" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

[flash width=425 height=325]http://www.youtube.com/v/YDDHHrt6l4w[/flash]

Wow, that is pretty funny. Can anyone pick out all the old school cartoon references?

Oh that's precious!

There's a really interesting disection of the opening title sequence to the movie that elaborates on the easter eggs and what didn't make it.

You can find it here.

You can see the opening title sequence in prestine quality.

Here are more Easter Eggs:

[flash width=499 height=325]http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:uma:video:mtv.com:343653[/flash]

And that Watchmen Cartoon Intro couldn't be more 80's! It had influences of Inspector Gadget, Ghostbusters, TMNT, Superfriends, He-Man (to name a few)

David Hayter posted an open letter to AICN about the movie[spoil]

[spoil]
[align=left]
[hr]
AN OPEN LETTER FROM A WATCHMEN SCREENWRITER

So it has been five months since I saw my first rough cut of WATCHMEN, and eight days since the premiere of the film I've been working on since late in the year 2000.

The reviews are out -- Some outstanding, others rankly dismissive, which can be frustrating for the people involved, (though I can only speak for myself,) because I firmly believe that WATCHMEN, the novel, must be read through more than once to even have the faintest grip on it. And I believe the film is the same.

I've seen it twice now, and despite having run the movie in my head thousands of times, my two viewings still don’t' allow me to view the film with the proper distance or objectivity. Is it Apocalypse Now? Is it Blade Runner? Is it Kubrick, or Starship Troopers? I don’t know yet.

All I know is that I had a pretty amazing experience the two times I've seen it. And both viewings produced remarkably different experiences. The point is, I have listened for years, to complaints from true comic book fans, that "not enough movies take the source material seriously." "Too many movies puss out," or "They change great stories, just to be commercial." Well, I f***ing dare you to say any one of those things about this movie.

This is a movie made by fans, for fans. Hundreds of people put in years of their lives to make this movie happen, and every one of them was insanely committed to retaining the integrity of this amazing, epic tale. This is a rare success story, bordering on the impossible, and every studio in town is watching to see if it will work. Hell, most of them own a piece of the movie.

So look, this is a note to the sheep and fangirls. The true believers. Dedicated for life.

If the film made you think. Or argue with your friends. If it inspired a debate about the nature of man, or vigilante justice, or the horror of Nixon abolishing term limits. If you laughed at Bowie hanging with Adrian at Studio 54, or the Silhouette kissing that nurse.

Please go see the movie again next weekend.

You have to understand, everyone is watching to see how the film will do in its second week. If you care about movies that have a brain, or balls, (and this film's got both, literally), or true adaptations -- And if you're thinking of seeing it again anyway, please go back this weekend, Friday or Saturday night. Demonstrate the power of the fans, because it'll help let the people who pay for these movies know what we'd like to see. Because if it drops off the radar after the first weekend, they will never allow a film like this to be made again.

In the interests of full disclosure, let me also point out that I do not profi t one cent from an increase in box office, although an increase in box office can add to the value of the writers' eventual residual profits from dvd and tv sales.

But I'm not saying it for money. I'm saying it for people like me. I'm saying it for people who love smart, dark entertainment, on a grand, operatic scale. I'm talking to the Snake fans, the Rorschach fans, the people of the Dark Knight.

And hey, if you hated the film, if you think we committed atrocities, or literary mistakes of a massive, cephalopodic nature. If the movie made you a little sick to your stomach, or made you feel bad about your life. If you hated it for whatever reason, that's cool too. I'm not suggesting you risk gastro-intestinal distress just for the sake of risky filmmaking.

But if you haven't seen it yet? Well, I'll just say this...

It may upset you. And it probably will upset you.

And all along, we really meant it to.

Because face it. All this time...You there, with the Smiley-face pin. Admit it.

All this time, you’ve been waiting for a director who was going to hit you in the face with this story. To just crack you in the jaw, and then bend you over the pool table with this story. With its utterly raw view of the darkest sides of human nature, expressed through its masks of action and beauty and twisted good intentions. Like a fry-basket full of hot grease in the face. Like the Comedian on the=2 0Grassy Knoll. I know, I know...

You say you don't like it. You say you've got issues. I get it.

And yet... You'll be thinking about this film, down the road. It'll nag at you. How it was rough and beautiful. How it went where it wanted to go, and you just hung on. How it was thoughtful and hateful and bleak and hilarious. And for Jackie Earle Haley.

Trust me. You'll come back, eventually. Just like Sally.

Might as well make it count for something.

David Hayter

[hr]
[/align]
[/spoil]
does just watching the bootleg count??

Im going to see it this weekend but the boot is great. I think its very well done. The ending is strange though as I said before, if manhattan leaves, then why join together to fight him?

Watchmen bombed 2nd weekend, down 67% to 18 million for a 2 week total of 86 million. it's budget was 150 million. it's only made 112 million worldwide. you'll never see another super hero movie made like it. never another hard R, thanks to Watchmen!

I don't know if you can necessarily blame that on the source material or even the quality of the product itself - it probably has a lot to do simply with the fact that it is R and is really violent (and graphic sex/nudity on top of that). I can't speak for everyone's rationale, of course, but one of the reasons I balk to see the movie at all is because of how graphic I know it is - and I've read the original comic and enjoyed it. I could certainly see a lot of people with less motivation to see a comic book movie be a little hesitant to see such a violent one.

Some decent action/fight scenes and the FX are okay, but it turned into a chore to finish watching, for me anyways. I never actually read the comic, so I didn't have any great expectations going in. The softcore porn was a nice bonus. Rorschach/Horshak was the star of the movie for me, and the big blue wang was distracting. There were some great moments, but in the end I wanted the $35 and three hours of my life this thing cost me refunded somehow. Might be decent on DVD, though. The "pause" and "skip" buttons do a lot for movies in my ratings system.

I hope there is a "cover the wang" special feature on the disc, though, because it was seriously annoying the dickens out of me.

I think its a real shame this film is under performing (as far as the box office is concerned). Now apart from the new ending it was really nice to see how faithfully this story was adapted to the screen, it was so close to the graphic novel that it should be applauded and deserves every success. I however am not surprised that the film is not registering with general audiences.

I read the book and enjoyed the book despite the changed ending it worked for me. I knew from the very start that the squid was removed and despite the early disappointment totally understand the film makers reasons. The same goes for all the parts from the book they decided to skim over in order to cut down the films running time (although I look forward to the extended DVD release).

The problem this movie has with reaching a general mass audience lies in how it is marketed. Several friends of mine, female and male say that they enjoy the superhero genre but have not read the graphic novel, and so I have asked them what they expected from this movie prior to seeing it. Nearly all have said: "A darker version of X-men or liike Batman - The Dark Knight".

Now for those of us in the know, who appreciate Watchmen, we know that those assumptions aren't correct and don't really do the source material justice, as it primarily a character piece about the psyche of 'normal' people who wear masks to fight crime, set against an alternate version of the the mid 1980's where the paranoia of a nuclear war with Russia is still at the forefront of public awareness.

So I can't help but think those who are so unaware of the overall story are going in expecting something, yet getting something totally different. This can affect people's judgment of the movie. It doesn't mean they don't like it or doesn't mean they don't understand it. It just means they didn't get what they thought they were paying for. Which can mean that they leave the theatre in an odd position, not really knowing what they thought of it. The word of mouth spreads and does negative press and before you know it you have a film that doesn't have an audience.

I also don't think its due to the R-Rating. I don't think R-Rated movies should have the stigma that studios associate with them, just because they limit the audience (and the money) that a film can potentially bring in. Just because a snotty 10-13 year old shouldn't be allowed to view a film based on some graphic content doesn't mean its a film that is so extreme that it totally alienates an audience.

300 was an R and it was off the success of that that Watchmen finally got greenlit with Zack Snyder at the helm. After all the Saw franchise has made a shiny penny for its studio despite being nothing more than an exercise in 'creatively' killing people on screen. Not to mention those films require no intelligence on the part of the viewer, are horribly acted, and have little to no substance to the story with character motivations which border on pathetic. (You can tell I hate the Saw movies )

The point is those films have always brought in an audience, which is why they continue to make them, the R-Rating has done nothing to hinder their success and that is what is so sad about Watchmen. It may have cost a lot to produce, and so greater things are expected of it, but in truth as a movie it did what it set out to do... adapt a great graphic novel faithfully to the screen. It did so without compromising its gritty, dark nature to cater for a larger audience to get more asses on theatre seats, make more money and overall sell people short of the overall experience just to fit with pop culture expectations.

Don't get me wrong I don't actually think that Watchmen is one of the greatest literary works of our time (I wouldn't even know how to classify any literary work) but i really enjoyed the story and the characters. I really enjoyed the film, with how much it got right, and even accepted the new ending, despite it flaws in logic it still worked in context of the movie.

I think had the studio been as brave in marketing the movie as they were in allowing Zack Snyder to go out and make it, the film would stand a better chance, as the general public would feel less confused at what they just saw, next to what they thought they were going to see. I've read the negative reviews for this film, and most of which I just don't understand. I really felt that if you enjoyed the novel then there is next to no way you could not enjoy the movie. It's that close (until the end) and even then. If you can just accept that the end is not as you were expecting, its actually ok.

Making the film overall a great piece of work. Which deserves more than what its likely to receive and would be a total injustice if other future adaptions of works similar are dismissed because of this film, which could be considered a failure solely based on its box office takings, rather that the faithful adaption of its content which it represents so well on screen.

Where to start. It feels like i could rant about this film for ages, but at the same time i have difficulties to formulate my words. I finally got around to see this the other night (thanks again DP for making me save a couple of bucks ) and it's everything that i had hoped for and more. Not only does Snyder manage to capture the essence of the graphic novel, he also manage to give it his own unique touch and gives the graphic novel a hole new dimension. The only drawback for me was the changes towards the end in the movie, but from what i've heard it's because the grapic novels ending never was in the script from the first place. My second "concern" is the (sometimes) over usages of slowmo. I'm looking forward to see it again when the "ultimate" dvd is released. From what i've heard it will be around 3 hours and 10 minutes and also features the "Black Freighter" parts that didn't make the theatrical cut.

On another note. I found this a couple of days ago and thought someone else might be interested in.

/Film - Kevin Smith and the /Filmcast Review Watchmen (/Filmcast: Ep. 41)

[In this very special episode of the /Filmcast, David Chen, Peter Sciretta, Devindra Hardawar and Adam Quigley are joined by writer/actor/director Kevin Smith to discuss Zack Snyder’s Watchmen. In this epic, 1 hour and 45-minute long discussion, the five of them delve into the faithfulness of the film adaptation, the effectiveness of the film’s soundtrack, the controversy surrounding the film’s ending, the sexuality of Rorschach, and the resemblance between Zack Snyder and Jesus.]

Creative Screenwriting Magazine

[Creative Screenwriting has released a 100+ minute podcast featuring a fascinating Q&A with Watchmen co-writers David Hayter and Alex Tse.]

This is a tough one to review for me because of a few reasons:

1) Haven't read the graphic novel/watched the motion comic yet.

2) My girlfriend kept making stupid, mocking comments through out the movie

3) I had a few questions at the end that I don't think were meant to be asked

4) I got in a car accident after the movie(nothing big)

Ok so having not read nor seen any of the original material, I wasn't sure who these people were, what time period the movie takes place in, etc. For example when I would see illustrations of the Comedian being beaten up and his smiley button flying off, for some reason I thought it was taking place in the 40's. Maybe WWII era. I guess it was the pin-up in the background that made me think that. Also, I thought the story would involve more aliens, can't really explain why other than perhaps briefly seeing Moloch and his weird ears? I dunno.

What I did know was that this group of people were some kind of superheros but didn't know or think that they're actually a loosely connected group of nutty vigilantes. After seeing a lot of the trailers, commercials and clips I began to slowly put it together, along of course with what was provided here.

When I would watch clips of this movie I was left kinda cold. Is this supposed to be cool? Corny? Fun? Serious? All of the above? After watching about an hour and a half of it, I was like 'cool, let me watch the rest with my gal at the theater because I think it deserves that much'.

Fast forward to last Saturday, saw the movie. Hmmm.. damn I wish my girlfriend would shut the fuck up with all the laughing, snide comments, mocking exclamations("OMG!"), etc.

But you know what? I think there was something she was experiencing that I actually needed to be more in tune with, as far as how I was perceiving the movie.

Because it's a tricky fucking movie, no doubt. There hasn't been such a big split with audiences over a movie [this big] in a long time- and I can understand why. You can either look at it as a serious, important piece of work- which it is. Or you can look at it as some cinematic fluff that was basically influenced by every other movie before it- which it also is. I think it’s ironic that Watchmen grossed something like $50 plus million dollars the first weekend out. It tells me that it would have grossed another $50 million if it had been a known franchise/characters and if the movie was bit more clear in its storytelling.

And I think that's where the great divide comes for many people. Simply put, they may not know how to react to something like Watchmen. As human beings it's often too easy to casually disregard confusion over something by labeling it 'crap' or saying it sucks and so on. Which is why I respect those that want to see it multiple times so they can take it in and perhaps process it a different way. At least with a second viewing there's a familiarity with the characters, story and chain of events that make a movie. There's more of a comfort level with the material, and as a result, could make the movie better for those people. It's worked in the past, at least for me. I left the Dark Knight thinking, hmm... overrated, but there's something there. With that open end of an opinion a second viewing was in order, and I enjoyed the movie more the second time and I could see what others were saying about it. It's huge, sprawling storytelling. Not easily digestible, but that's part of the excitement with The Dark Knight. It may not always taste good going down, but the important thing is to taste it because there's more to this genre of movies than X-Men, or Fantastic Four, Superman, Spider-man, etc. In the end it's always a delight and perhaps a shockingly new experience to watch how a particular writer or moviemaker takes a genre that you think you know so terribly well- and then surprises the hell out of you by exposing facets or more accurately their vision of the genre in question.

That's what happened with Dark Knight and in so many ways, happens with Watchmen. If you think about it, it's really amazing that two movies released within a year of each other(no small coincidence I'm sure)could twist and turn what you know of movies in general. Let alone the 'comic book' or graphic novel genre. But where Dark Knight presented more clearly its villains and heros, Watchmen draws that line in the mud and makes you look for it while getting your hands dirty in the process. In other words it makes you think or work for the experience you're having while watching it. Is The Comedian a good ol' boy American hero? Or some cocksucking son of a bitch bastard that should have been thrown out of a window back in the [movie timeline] 70's? When does cool=dork? Is Rorshach the way to be or the thing to avoid?

So I’m sitting there with my gal watching the movie, which she seems to revel in mocking. At some points I’m annoyed by it but during others I actually see her point of view. Who did write this stuff? Some of the dialogue is laughable, and not in a Star Wars ‘you can write this shit but you can’t say it’ kinda way. Some of it is like primary school(Aussie reference) dialogue, delivered achingly bad(“Things change”- oh really?). During certain parts, such as when Dr. Manhattan and Silk Spectre are on Mars, the drama is hammy and feels forced, as if the necessary ingredient to make this movie a story must be included at this point or it will feel empty.

I don’t know if that’s the fault of Moore’s original material, Snyder’s filmmaking or both.

And in that lies my problem and confusion with Watchmen: should I be faulting the original material or the movie? Something tells me it’s more of the former than the latter.

Another example; we see the beautiful opening titles to the movie that delves into the rise/history of superheros in America, their fall and how some, such as Manhattan and Comedien, were utilized in other areas of working for the U.S. This part I realize wasn’t in the graphic novel? or at least the title montage wasn’t.

So then a bit later when Rorshach is breaking into the facility where Manhattan is and he explains the exact same thing we saw in the opening titles, it’s redundant. “This person died because of his cape, so and so was killed because of her lurid lifestyle, that one guy was locked up in an insane asylum..” Yeah I know, we saw it all in the opening titles and it was very well done. I wish the whole movie was done in the exact same way as the opening titles. Sure it would have been categorized as a music video but it would have been really enthralling too. Since this is a movie version and stuff would invariably be eliminated any way, I think they should have ditched Ror’s dialogue going over the same stuff the title sequence did. Not a big thing, just a minor nitpick.

Let’s get to the first sex scene between Silk Laurie and Manhattan. Oh my god he’s everywhere at once! Driving his girl mad with passion! And yet a bit later in the movie, during the conversation with Veidt and Dan about nuclear holocaust and that 1%- Veidt tells Dan that even Dr. Manhattan can’t be everywhere at once. Really? Didn’t we just see that in the sex scene with Laurie? He was literally every where at once.

Basically I feel the movie, or perhaps more precisely the original material cheated, cheated me. Sure Veidt has probably never had sex with Dr. Manhattan, although I’m sure his wonderfully rich homosexual self would want to, so he may not be aware that Manhattan can split himself up into multiple beings and still perform tricks. But obviously the writers and filmmakers know. THEY WENT TO TROUBLE OF SHOWING US. So in the story, why couldn’t Manhattan split himself up and put a stop to Veidt’s wacky plan or any kind of nuclear strike for that matter? It’s like in the first Superman movie at the end when they opened up that huge can of worms in which Superman flies really fast, makes the world spin backwards and thus reverses time saving the people he loves. Well, why can’t he just do that ALL the time then? Yeah, that’s the dilemma.

You can’t tell the audience something and forget you told them later in the movie.

At some point Veidt was too sure of himself and Manhattan should have proved him wrong. It would have provided an infinitely more satisfying ending- squid or not. And I’ve heard a lot about how the original squid ending goes down despite not having read the graphic novel.

Speaking of the ending; so let me get this straight, Veidt wants to avoid a nuclear holocaust by blowing up a series of large cities around the world and blaming Manhattan for it?

Is that the gist of it? Someone fill me in if I’m wrong or missed something.

Because Manhattan should have straight pulverized Veidt for that shit in the end, NOT Rorshach. Sure Rorshach was going to expose the truth to the world, or maybe he was just saying that because he was such a tortured, twisted individual that he finally saw a way out- by having Manhattan do him.

But what does happen? Again some correct me if I’m wrong. Manhattan says something like, ‘hmm wise plan, I was sick of you bastards anyway. I’m outta here and you can blame the deaths of millions of people on me, I don’t give a shit. Cya! Oh yeah Rorshach you’re gonna tattle so you have to die.’ SPLAT

Oh and somebody answer me this: Nite Owl with Rorshach go to Antarctica for Veidt. Owly sports his cold gear, but when they get inside he’s back in his normal costume. When did he change?

Here’s the thing; I love the concept of this movie. I love what they were reaching for but I don’t think they reached it. And in that sense, it’s basically one of those movies that I’ll probably respect more than I like, although that may change in time and subsequent viewings. I’m hoping the longer DVD version will fill in some stuff I should care about.

One of the conclusions I came to recently about the Watchmen movie is this: although I loved Zack Snyder’s vision for it, I wish it were directed by a proper English director. I think it needed some of the less serious and more zany point of view of say, Monty Python or Dudley Moore and Peter Cook, Guy Ritchie, Matthew Vaughn, or Terry Gilliam for that matter. I think it should have been directed by an outsider, not an American. Would it have been made by a Brit, its comedic sensibilities of the ridiculous would have been more fitting. As it is, it’s taken too seriously here, even though I can appreciate Snyder’s treatment as well.

As for the music, I mostly liked it, although I think some of the choices like Jimi Hendrix was a bit too popular. The major complaint about the music was the last song at the credits. I understand it’s a remake, but it betrays the music by the original artists throughout the entire movie. Why not just have the original Dylan version? I would have put in another song by the original artist altogether, but that’s just me.

Oh and as for the car accident I had after seeing this movie, well it certainly deterred me from getting into it with my girlfriend as to why she was making so much noise during the movie!

Theres a scene where owl is taking off his costume maybe you were laughing at your girl. I agree with the ending question - if Manhattan is gone, why does everyone join up to defeat someone that is gone?

No one has answered that I must be on a huge ignore list. I actually read the novel and saw the movie a week later. I think it was very well done!

the only thing I can think of is they think he's gone, but could return at any moment. Just like he did when he went to Mars. They know he left, but might be back, so lets get our shit strait and work together in case he does come back.

The bigger hole though is Manhattan was America's guy. He went to war for us, destroyed who we wanted, worked for Uncle Sam. What's to keep the world from thinking that Manhattan did this under the US's orders?

it was an ok movie. the violence scared my little self though. blech.

This movie could have been a lot better. i have to say there was way too much violence in the movie, which apparently is the what Snyder is all about. I guess i didn't remember the GN being so violent, and while the movie is dark, i think its dark in the wrong places. gratuitous bloody violence doesn't make it dark, snyder! the stakes being so high for these pathetic people who are all going through some serious conflicts within. when i read that book, i really FELT the threat of nuclear war. every page was a reminder how serious of a threat it was, and i didnt feel that in the movie.

I also think it's obvious Snyder was too caught up in the details than trying to handle the characters WITH FUCKING CARE! Watchmen = characters. You don't read the graphic novel because of the story (which really isn't that amazing) you read it because of the brilliant characters! Snyder was doing a staged reading of the novel with hammy acting and millions of dollars spent on accurately building a Gunga Diner set. The characters don't stick with audiences because its not the same personal relationship there that is in the book. it felt like he was waiting to get to the action scenes. i mean, you can't put a lot of slo-mo into dialogue driven scenes can you? i think the only reason the movie has any sort of weight is because of the movie's strict adherence to the graphic novel, not really anything else

maybe i have to see it again, maybe i don't. either way, snyder would be the absolute last person in my mind to direct this. i'd take tim burton over zack "frat boy" snyder

Yeah maybe Tim Burton would have added more "whimsey" or something to it. Just seems like everything was there except one thing. Unfortunately I don't know what that one thing is because I feel like I have to read the graphic novel to find out. Maybe it's the ending.

I finally talked with my girl about Watchmen over dinner yesterday and she said she hated it, worst movie, etc. Although she added that she did like The Comedian, after which I quickly added, 'but you left to get snacks during the two main parts in which The Comedian was in!'. And she was like oh shit. And then I was like, 'so what did you think of the opening titles?'. She said she liked them. Then I was like and then she was like and then I was like 'thats why I didn't want to talk about Watchmen[so we wouldn't argue]'. I also told her how I felt about her talking and mocking the movie throughout- something she's never done before especially in a movie theater.

Anyway, Hokusai thanks for clarifying the Nite Owl costme question for me. You're right, I was too distracted to pay attention to the movie at that point.