Watchmen

[johnnystress]

My problem with the film is that it's exactly like the comic. It's far too reverential to be a proper adaptation. .

I've heard this a couple of times- that in their determination to be faithful to the comic they forgot that it's a film they're making that needs to be enjoyable on its own merits. I hate the thought that you need to be 'in the know' to appreciate it.

I'm going to see it this afternoon - dressed as Dr Manhattan

[Eric Plumrose]

I hate the thought that you need to be 'in the know' to appreciate it.

That's something else I've wondered. For the most part, the actors simply say their dialogue, which doesn't help when it comes to explaining what's going on. Be interesting to hear what those who haven't read the comic think of the film, though I suspect a lot of 'em might just get a kick from the blood and guts.

[golledge100]

I hate the thought that you need to be 'in the know' to appreciate it.

I'm going to see it this afternoon - dressed as Dr Manhattan

Quality! Funniest comment of the week!

[Eric Plumrose]

In a double-breasted suit, Johnny? Or CGI todger?

[Colin YNWA]

Saw it last night and thought it was pretty good. Obivously there were compromises required to try to fit things in but by and large they worked. As people have said the biggest problem it has is it's such a literal translation. For me this led to the experience being very clinical and I was less watching it as an exciting movie and more as an exercise in transfering comics to film. I therefore am looking forward to seeing it again and even at almost 3 hours this won't be a chore.

One question I do wonder about is how defined the treat will be to people who don't know the comic? There doesn't seem to be any real growing tension?

Still damned fine effort and I'd happily recommend it.

[Mardroid]

In a double-breasted suit, Johnny? Or CGI todger?

With this weather he won't have to paint himself blue anyway.

[mogzilla]

Still damned fine effort and I'd happily recommend it.

thats all i need to know

[johnnystress]

Just back form the cinema (brr its cold out)
I enjoyed it a lot and it was pretty amazing to see the comic come to life so accurately- from a visual point of view

Rorschach steals the show of course. And I really , really want that 40's style Silk Spectre poster.

The problem with this movie I feel has already been said. If you haven't read the book I'm not sure what you'd make of it

I've seen and heard some scathing criticism from people who weren't familiar with it (one star out of five in the Metro)- and why should they be? It faithfully reenacts all the back stories of the characters and has a montage to explain the current socio/political climate. But I knew all this already and got a buzz out of seeing it all done so well. But maybe someone with a fresh pair of eyes might be thinking- who is this and why should I care? So as a film I don't know how successful it really is...but all the same I thought it was really enjoyable and the altered ending was a pleasant surprise.

But that big blue mickey put me to shame

[Robin Low]

Be interesting to hear what those who haven't read the comic think of the film...

My girlfriend and her sister have never read it and had never even heard of it until I showed them the trailer.

They loved it.

Regards

Robin

[Tweak72]

This is brilliant.

//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

This was so awesome

[Bouwel]

That cartoon must be made. I deem it so.

-Bouwel-

[Roger Godpleton]

I think the main problem with the film in comparison to the book is that it offers a very literal interpretation of events. [spoiler]At the end the New Frontiersman prints Rorschach's journal and all is revealed right? Well maybe not, the NF is made by cranks for cranks. Who's really going to believe them, or even care? In the film though, we don't really see just how far out the NF is and it's pretty much game, set and match for Rory[/spoiler]

One scene I really liked though was [spoiler]The Silhouette at the VJ day celebrations.[/spoiler] I could have done with a lot more clever riffs like that.

[JOE SOAP]

Saw it tonight and must admit, it impressed me a lot. It does have some problems, mostly in the pacing/breathing space, cut so damn tight for cinema that it needs to stretch a bit in the first hour and a half but it does settle. Return of the KIng had the same problem but was helped by the full cut greatly as did the other LOTR films. The limited use of slo-mo didn't bother much as it seemed so intense and concentrated that it added to the brutality.

One thing I think it needed, and this may be in the longer cut, is that the Comedian practically disappears from the second half of the film and his presence is much missed. This could have been remedied with seeding the Blake/Laurie/father/daughter storyline sometime in the middle, it also would have prepared us for the revelation of that arc which almost came out of nowhere but seemed to work, hopefully these scene(s) exist and can be reinstated.

I can't really give an honest opinion of it as a "film" cos I know the book inside out and it doesn't do a disservice to it, the closest thing I think I can compare it to is the L.A. Confidential adaptation which was similarly awkward in translating from page to screen but worked marvelously. Anybody who is not familiar with Watchmen the book are going to find it bizarre.

The Dark Knight is not a good comparison, it's a better paced film but Watchmen has so much more where I feel TDK , a simpler story, grows more hollow with repeat viewings cos Batman and the joker are such boring characters and the Harvey Dent arc doesn't work at all.

Jackie Earl Haley brings even more to his role as Rorshach and everytime he's onscreen is incredible. The whole cast I have to say pulled their weight and I was surprised to see the effete/Bowie like Ozymandias interpretation work so well plus Malin Ackerman ain't as bad as some say.

The sex scene worked in a bizarro porn/fetish way, partially the point, but I think it could have been scaled back a few notches on the satirical scale.

It's a better adaptation than V for V and does not screw up the payoff or the characters as V the film did. All the dramatic points work in Watchmen.

I'd listened to Mark Kermode's review of Watchmen before viewing and he basically trashed it, I went in trepidation to the flicks tonight but afterwards I think he was grossly unfair and I generally agree with his opinions but he does tend to think that even some of the trashiest/worst horror films are brilliant and worth watching so fuck him.

so...


Watchmen ain't the nightmare we all dreaded. No, it's not the masterpiece the book is and does continue some of the books faults. Lesser films have been called materpieces. The film is dialogue heavy and could have been trimmed without losing anything but it does work and I hope the pacing will be improved by the longer cut. It's a companion to the book and is in no way the lesser for it.


The magnificent opening titles to the film are online:

http://chud.com/articles/articles/18407 ... Page1.html

[PsychoGoatee]

I watched Watchmen last night, I loved it. They did a great job adapting a very dense graphic novel, and we got a great film out of it.

The cast was great all around too, Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach, Carla Gugino as Silk Spectre, all great choices.

I plan to see this quite a few more times over the years.  

[Eric Plumrose]

The magnificent opening titles to the film are online . . .

At that point, I was thinking "Yeah, this is gonna be a lot of fun". It started going wrong for me with the sound of Rorschach's voice. It's the same hilariously bad sub-Clint Eastwood growl that Christian Bale adopts when he's batsuited-up. With the exception of a few keys moments in the comic, Rorschach was far too emotional in the film.

And Malin Akerman's performance as Laurie is really quite bad at times.