I really enjoyed it. Can't really ask for much from a comic book film. Very entertaining.
Watchmen - The Movie
- Thread starter The_Red_Hope
- Start date
just bought the book, will start reading it later
Really? Stylistically it was good in how it reflected what was going on in the main story, but in and of itself? It's real ugly to look at, and you can see the ending coming a mile off.
Is this really nearly 3 hours long?
We might be going to see it tonight, but not sure I could stand sitting in a cinema for that long if it turns out to be crap. Last time I tried it was with LOTR, after which I spent at least as long complaining to everyone.
We might be going to see it tonight, but not sure I could stand sitting in a cinema for that long if it turns out to be crap. Last time I tried it was with LOTR, after which I spent at least as long complaining to everyone.
I don't think this is your kind of movie noodle.
Why's that, Wonder Pig?
Have you read the comic? I think it was very much orientated at pleasing fans of the comic first, and it kinda long, and slow at the start, you might not be bothered.
shit film, waste of 3 hours, wether ive read the book or not i thought as a film it was terrible, predictable storyline, minor twist at the end, good action scenes, wouldnt recommend anyone to ever waste there time on this film, main dude sounded like christian bale.
I found the bits with Manhattan on Mars to be too long and very boring (as I said these were the parts that seemed to cause some people to walk out).
However, the Rorschach character was the only thing that saved the film for me - he was by far the best character/actor.
On a side note, Veidt and the Silk Spector woman were amongst the worst acting performances I have ever seen in my life - really cringeworthy stuff.
Their performances really dampened the experience for me, especially the actor who played Veidt. The character of Laurie (silk spectre 2) was annoying in the graphic novel so I didn't expect her to be much better in the movie. Veidt, however, was interesting, but the man playing him simply wasn't a good actor.
The movie was very faithful to the book and didn't really alter anything but the ending and some small details. When a movie does that, it usually ends up being a shitter, abridged version of the book. That's what happened to Watchmen.
Great soundtrack, that is undebatable.
Yep mine too, with the authours back story and such. Great contrast (and comparisons) between this Shakespearian pulpy tragedy and the more 'sophisticated' Watchmen story arcs. For all Watchmen's literary ambition I love how it nods to it's roots with Tales of the Black Freighter.
It's exactly these parts that make me wonder how, when a visionary like Terry Gilliam says it can't be made, a hack like Snyder steams ahead. Haven't seen the film yet though.
To be fair to Snyder, he obviously revers (no way thats spelt correctly) the source material and he does make a good attempt at doing it justice, I don't think he was in this for the money.
300 was a pile of insulting excetement though.
300 was a pile of insulting excetement though.
feck me, you cnuts could have told me how fecking long this excrement was, and don't come up with any smart comments about reading this thread prior to seeing it, as if I have time for that.
You didn't like 300?
I haven't read the original, nor did I have any clue on what it was about (until I saw the trailers etc) but I really enjoyed the movie. The effects were absolutely brilliant, and the whole look (for want of a better word) of the movie was exceptional.
How did it stray away from the original text?
I haven't read 300 either, but the film was just so over the top and ridiculous.
I also haven't read the comic but i thought over the top and ridiculous was kind of the point.
Just didn't like it.
I got bored with 300. Apparently, according to my friends, the point where I stopped watching it was before the big war. They shouldn't have spent so bloody long getting to it IMO. Haven't got around to finish watching it, and neither do I think I will. I don't think I can take a couple of hours of 'SPARTAAAAAAA.'
Not easy to sit down for 3hrs, especially at the pictures. Then again, I'm sure I suffer from a word not invented yet.
i hate sitting in the cinema for any longer than an hour and a half. the seats are just not comfortable and you cant stretch because some cnut behind you wont see.
making a 3 hour movie is just torture
making a 3 hour movie is just torture
I hate aeroplane journeys. Those seats aren't big enough. Arghh!
me too, but at least if its long haul you can get up and stretch your legs
To be honest, Geebs, I can't stand any journey longer than 2-3 hours. And I think the cabin pressure doesn't suit me at all. That said, I know people who can travel(plane) for 15-18 hours without an issue.
I haven't seen the movie, but I heard that they cut out the conversation between Veidt and Manhattan in the movie. If that's true, it's a real shame.
The part where Veidt ask Manhattan whether he did the right thing was one of the best part in the comics. You can see that behind that arrogance, the belief that he did all that for the greater good, he dropped all that and almost begging to Manhattan for confirmation.
how are you meant to read the book?
read the first section of the comic (act 1) then the story until you hit the comic act 2
or just read the comic?
or read the comice then read the stories?
read the first section of the comic (act 1) then the story until you hit the comic act 2
or just read the comic?
or read the comice then read the stories?
just the comic. The little bits between chapters are extra background information on characters or parts of the story.
Would recommend you to read it as a whole, i.e, the chapters followed the stories because the stories add a lot of useful insight into the world of the watchmen and the psychology of the characters.
On my first read I found it difficult to get into the stories because I was so keen on getting back to the chapters, but the second time around I appreciated the stories a lot more.
Just watched this today.
I can appreciate Snyder's efforts, the visuals were excellent and most were extremely true to the graphic novel; I was amazed at the accuracy of some of them e.g. John being zapped. He also kept true to the story (bar the ending) and most (if not all) the script was lifted straight from the graphic novel, which I think is also good, so I found myself knowing exactly what the characters were going to say.
However, the acting was just terrible. The Comedian was a joke (pardon the pun), whenever he said 'It's all a joke' I cringed. Really poor and unbelievable. Doc Manhattan sounded like a pussy, I was expecting a deeper more commanding kind of voice for someone who can manipulate just about anything. Adrian Veidt had none of the gusto he had in the book - this guy was the smartest person in the world and his confidence really shone through in the graphic novel, but in the movie, he just seemed like a snivelling shit. The guy playing Dreiberg was kind of average, I'm indifferent really.
The only character that was anything like I imagined was Rorschach. Even the voice (although one can argue that was slightly overdone). I think he was captured perfectly, but the fact that he was a ginger made me chuckle (he had blood red hair in the novel).
I think for someone, who hasn't read the novel, to say the movie is shit has a good case. There was a LOT of talking compared to the amount of action, and did not live up to the expectations that maybe the trailer showed. As I have read the novel, I can appreciate what the director achieved, but all-in-all I want 3 hours of my life back. I think Watchmen is just one of those stories which is more exciting on paper than on screen.
Finally, that sex scene between Dreiberg and Jupiter Hallelujah in the background? Yes! Hallelujah Dreiberg managed to get erect! Snyder probably wanted to include the sex scene because it was in the novel, but it seemed it had only been included because they couldn't get off the first time and the audience would have wanted satisfaction. Didn't think much of it.
Bitterly disappointed 6/10.
I can appreciate Snyder's efforts, the visuals were excellent and most were extremely true to the graphic novel; I was amazed at the accuracy of some of them e.g. John being zapped. He also kept true to the story (bar the ending) and most (if not all) the script was lifted straight from the graphic novel, which I think is also good, so I found myself knowing exactly what the characters were going to say.
However, the acting was just terrible. The Comedian was a joke (pardon the pun), whenever he said 'It's all a joke' I cringed. Really poor and unbelievable. Doc Manhattan sounded like a pussy, I was expecting a deeper more commanding kind of voice for someone who can manipulate just about anything. Adrian Veidt had none of the gusto he had in the book - this guy was the smartest person in the world and his confidence really shone through in the graphic novel, but in the movie, he just seemed like a snivelling shit. The guy playing Dreiberg was kind of average, I'm indifferent really.
The only character that was anything like I imagined was Rorschach. Even the voice (although one can argue that was slightly overdone). I think he was captured perfectly, but the fact that he was a ginger made me chuckle (he had blood red hair in the novel).
I think for someone, who hasn't read the novel, to say the movie is shit has a good case. There was a LOT of talking compared to the amount of action, and did not live up to the expectations that maybe the trailer showed. As I have read the novel, I can appreciate what the director achieved, but all-in-all I want 3 hours of my life back. I think Watchmen is just one of those stories which is more exciting on paper than on screen.
Finally, that sex scene between Dreiberg and Jupiter
Hallelujah in the background? Yes! Hallelujah Dreiberg managed to get erect! Snyder probably wanted to include the sex scene because it was in the novel, but it seemed it had only been included because they couldn't get off the first time and the audience would have wanted satisfaction. Didn't think much of it.Bitterly disappointed 6/10.
I think your being overly critical of the cast...I thought the comedian was good as was Night Owl, Moloch and a lot of the periphery characers...Veidt and Manhatten were a bit shit to be fair though. Kovaks hair was pretty much the same as it was in the novel, certainly in my printing (I think your stretching for criticism with the ginger/blood red bit)
But overall your right...It dragged on too much and I just wanted it to finish by the end. As you say, whats profound and interesting on the page, is often boring and laborious on the screen (The Da Vinci code being another good example)
I also didn't like the ending. The whole point of the squid was that it would 'unite' the waring countries...Surely blaming Manhatten wouldn't do that?
Either way, I'd agree with 6...about right
But overall your right...It dragged on too much and I just wanted it to finish by the end. As you say, whats profound and interesting on the page, is often boring and laborious on the screen (The Da Vinci code being another good example)
I also didn't like the ending. The whole point of the squid was that it would 'unite' the waring countries...Surely blaming Manhatten wouldn't do that?
Either way, I'd agree with 6...about right
The Rorschach hair thing wasn't really a criticism, more of an observation. Obviously you can't have someone properly red-haired in real life because it'd look stupid so ginger was the closest they could come to it. Rorschach was the best character in the movie (which I alluded to in my post anyway). I didn't like the actor who played the Comedian though, but at they did a good job making him look as he did in the novel.
I found myself waiting for the movie to end, which left me very disappointed. I was expecting so much.MockneyRevil said:
The extended cut is set to be released in select theaters.
That nuclear blue penis was a bit disconcerting.
I thought it was pretty good although not what I expected, maybe the inevitable extended cut will be better.
I think it is inevitable though with coming away disappointed with a 'dark' superhero movie, after seeing the first Sin City which I fecking rate as one of my top movies all time. For the people who clamor Dark Knight, Dark Knight, Batman wasnt really that dark, the movie was, but that was more down to the villian. I sure as feck hope Sin City 2 is as good as one, although in the end Watchmen really was pretty decent, just not up to the par of the comic or the level that Sin City set 5 years ago.
I think it is inevitable though with coming away disappointed with a 'dark' superhero movie, after seeing the first Sin City which I fecking rate as one of my top movies all time. For the people who clamor Dark Knight, Dark Knight, Batman wasnt really that dark, the movie was, but that was more down to the villian. I sure as feck hope Sin City 2 is as good as one, although in the end Watchmen really was pretty decent, just not up to the par of the comic or the level that Sin City set 5 years ago.
Ill be getting it on DVD. Enjoyed it, despite never reading the comics/graphic novels.
Plus I spent the whole time in the cinema trying to decide if the woman in it was really that fit or not, or whether it was just her costume. Bloody hell.
Plus I spent the whole time in the cinema trying to decide if the woman in it was really that fit or not, or whether it was just her costume. Bloody hell.
That's what she said?
In all I actually preferred the 'new' ending they used in the film.
I thought this was awesome. A proper 'scotch' movie.
That said I can understand those who haven't read the graphic novel really not liking it. I think it's the sort of movie that warrants more than a passing knowledge of the source material to get the most out of it.
The change to the ending didn't really bother me (it worked to the same effect and made sense). I also liked the title credits (having Blake being the JFK killer was a smart touch) and the slight change to Rorsach's back story (the meat cleaver was sick)
Also, the soundtrack was indeed awesome but that's been said.
Oh and anyone that thought the acting was bad should go watch Gran Torino.
That said I can understand those who haven't read the graphic novel really not liking it. I think it's the sort of movie that warrants more than a passing knowledge of the source material to get the most out of it.
The change to the ending didn't really bother me (it worked to the same effect and made sense). I also liked the title credits (having Blake being the JFK killer was a smart touch) and the slight change to Rorsach's back story (the meat cleaver was sick)
Also, the soundtrack was indeed awesome but that's been said.
Oh and anyone that thought the acting was bad should go watch Gran Torino.
The Da Vinci code profound?!! Haha, no offence, but it was a popcorn book.
I've read the graphic novel twice...I still found it dull and didn't like it. It's brilliantly made, but as a film it doesn't really work...it drags on and is boring. For me it was anyway.
Haven't even read it to be honest, and I don't intend to
I totally agree - Snyder seems to catch the look of the source material well, but none of the soul.