Post Your Reviews for "WATCHMEN"

[makdaddy]

Re: Post Your Reviews for "WATCHMEN"

And folks, don't judge it too harshly I think. There's still a director's cut on the way and an "ultimate" cut that will be the director's cut with the animated Black Freighter footage interspliced where applicable. They say the director's cut might even get a theatrical release if the initial theatrical run goes well enough.

**** yeah man, can't wait for 3 more hours of this movie!!!

[Tokzic]

Re: Post Your Reviews for "WATCHMEN"

Saw it yesterday. Thought it was good, but not great.

I liked the beginning infinitely more than the end. At the start, they established this really unique feel to the world... it was a superhero movie, but it didn't feel anything like one. Then, towards the end, surprise surprise, WE'VE GOT TO REUNITE AND SAVE THE WORLD AND EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE CHEESEY. The last hour really made it a lot worse than it could have been.

Also, this drove me bonkers. I absolutely hate continuity errors in films. They're so ****ing amateur and they should be picked out long long LONG before the movie is released, ideally before they even start shooting.

spoiler alert lol

You know the scene in the Antarctic base? (yeah the whole thing was done badly but the following especially made no sense) You know the part where Ozy runs off to lure Dr. Manhattan into the obvious trap? Okay, so he "kills" him. Then, all of a sudden, cut back to the main chamber, where Ozy has magically teleported. Then, after what seems to be everybody standing around for a bit, the Owl and Silk suddenly have a problem with him again, and furthermore, Silk pulls a gun.

What.

a) Why wouldn't the two others go help? Why would they sit around in the main chamber with their thumbs up their asses?

b) Wouldn't they think something's wrong, you know, when Oz comes back up the goddamn stairs? Without Dr. Manhattan? How the hell did he get in the room without anyone raising an objection? I don't know about you but if my friend went to go kill some dude, and the dude he was trying to kill came back, I'd probably get mad immediately, not let him come in and get comfy first.

c) A gun? Why the hell didn't she shoot him in the leg when she first entered the room and he was standing still without looking at them? Fucking duh.

EDIT:

OMG SEX AND VIOLENCE THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE

Oh whine. They were entirely appropriate. It was never for shock factor, it was always directly relevant to what was going on. Stop being such pussies.

OMG IT WAS THREE HOURS LONG

THAT IS SO LONG

Length doesn't matter. Pacing does. An hour and a half is too long of a movie if you're going to make a movie about someone baking a batch of cookies and three hours is not too long if there is three hours worth of content there. I was never bored at a single point during the movie and unless you have ADD or something I can't picture anyone actually being bored at any point. The problems with the movie definitely weren't pacing.

[MrRubix]

Re: Post Your Reviews for "WATCHMEN"

I guess I like bad movies then.

I really, really enjoyed it. The action scenes were great (my favorite is the one that occurs in the opening scene), and the music choices were actually quite appropriate (note how the songs chosen fit with the time period AND mood, which I felt was pretty well-done).

Before anyone nitpicks at the issue of movies living up to the source: If you have read the graphic novel, I think you'd be crazy to think that Snyder didn't make a faithful rendition. Like, 70% of the script is from the damn thing, word-for-word. The deviations that WERE made were good calls (come on, if the ending involved alien squids, the general audience would be pulling a major WTF. It'd require a lot more building up, and it would just not fit. The movie ending is much better and makes more sense, in my opinion). Making Manhattan the scapegoat, given the circumstances of the US and the Soviets and the events of the film, was more "realistic." By the way, this paragraph contains spoilers.

The gore/violence was definitely up there on the Holy Fuc-O-Meter (mmm, juicy ceiling ornaments, anyone?), but I wasn't focused on that so much. I really enjoyed the character progressions... there were some very cool speeches and some interesting questions that were brought up. All in all, I had a fun time watching the movie, and didn't leave disappointed at all. This is probably one of the better examples of "keeping to the source" while still providing lots of interesting visuals, interpretations, humor, blue penis, etc.

The only thing that I would have changed was the action frequency and the pacing of the film in general. There was just not enough action when compared against... well... the non-action portions. I really wanted to see some more heavy, high-speed, intricate, visual combat that we were shown in the opening scene. As for the pacing, I felt that it was all over the place, and it was often difficult to get a feel for its flow. Speaking of that, brb bathroom.

Real quick though, I give it an 8/10

[Zybanthia]

Re: Post Your Reviews for "WATCHMEN"

c) A gun? Why the hell didn't she shoot him in the leg when she first entered the room and he was standing still without looking at them? Fucking duh.

Also, why wouldn't you shoot multiple shots, but that's a common movie stupidity in characters. The fact that she just kinda fires a bullet, he rolls down the stairs and "OH MAN WE'RE GOOD NOW" pisses me off, but I've seen so many movies do this particular thing that I'm almost numb to it.

Oh whine. They were entirely appropriate. It was never for shock factor, it was always directly relevant to what was going on. Stop being such pussies.

No, actually, it wasn't always, and as I've said myself I have no problem with violence if it isn't stupid. When Rorschach puts an ax in the guy's head repeatedly? Meaningful. I personally loved it and wished he hadn't killed the guy so soon. When a guy randomly gets his arms chainsawed off? Not meaningful. It didn't further anyone's character, past, storyline, anything, it was just HERE'S SOME BLOOD BECAUSE THIS WAS A GRAPHIC NOVEL AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE RECREATING

[Syhto]

Re: Post Your Reviews for "WATCHMEN"

I liked the music, I just felt it didn't fit the scenes. They detracted from them rather than enhancing them.

p.s. I think it's kind of obvious what I mean by lengthy. And by superhero movie, I kind of mean, uh, you know, like comic superheroes. Which is what it is. Don't be stupid. Each of them will stand on their own in a way, of course, but I could have been warned somehow.

If I had been prepared for what I was going to see, I probably would have liked it. That's the honest truth. But I went to the theatre expecting a normal DC comic type movie, and it wasn't. So sorry if I seem a bit harsh, but yeah, I JUST watched it, and I was pissed when I left the theatre.

I thought the story was good, but there was bad directing and bad calls on a lot of the little things. Plus, now that you mention it, yeah. The violence was really random and out of place.

My favorite part out of the entire thing was probably the comedian's funeral. Or when it ended.

[Xx{Midnight}xX]

Re: Post Your Reviews for "WATCHMEN"

From what you all said I'm afraid to see it, if it's as bad you all say I'd have to walk out of the theater.

[Afrobean]

Re: Post Your Reviews for "WATCHMEN"

This is my point: how many of the trailers of Watchmen advertised a single funny line? I can't think of one.

Now how many trailers of any comedy movie are going to show the action scenes? Unless the action scenes are meant to further the comedic value... probably none.

Advertise the movie based on its genre.

What genre would you say this fits under? Drama-scifi-action? I haven't seen all of the trailers, but that's the sense that I got from the ones I did see.

Now if the trailers had shown all the workings between Ozymandias, and the scenes with Rorschach trying to get information, etc etc, we probably wouldn't have expected an action movie.

Yeah, my guess based on the trailers would have been that it's sort of a drama (maybe even crime-drama) centralized around Rorschach investigating what's going on, paired with a little action to keep things interesting. Oh, and sci-fi with all the superpowered naked blue man and all.

**** yeah man, can't wait for 3 more hours of this movie!!!

Theatrical cut is "156 minutes", director's cut is "3 hours" (180 minutes), a difference of roughly 14 minutes, according to Wikipedia. The stand alone animation is about an hour, so presumably, the "ultimate" cut will be about 4 hours.

Look at Lord of the Rings though. Did anyone bitch and moan about the length of the extended cuts they did for those films? No, people lauded Jackson for creating an extended cut that told more from the book that the film couldn't manage in as short a time.

[MrRubix]

Re: Post Your Reviews for "WATCHMEN"

Tass bowls like the Spartans roll.

[travman301]

Re: Post Your Reviews for "WATCHMEN"

I thought most of the music choices fit really well, save one or two scenes.

[OrganisM]

Re: Post Your Reviews for "WATCHMEN"

I thought the pacing was off and the story felt at times a bit unfocused and convoluted. I'm familiar with the graphic novel though I need to go through and read the whole thing before I can reserve judgment in that respect. Watchmen avoids many of the pitfalls of this type of movie while being guilty of several things which bothered me, a couple of which I've already mentioned. The bottom line is I felt it was a great story with a lot of potential, but the most important thing is the telling, and they didn't do that nearly as well as they could have.

I suppose I could give a tentative numerical representation, but I'm not sure that does it justice. Umm, 7.5/10

But I went to the theatre expecting a normal DC comic type movie, and it wasn't.

I thought the story was good, but there was bad directing and bad calls on a lot of the little things.

I agree with you on the second part, but since when were comic/superhero movies good?

If we're talking in the Marvel or DC realms... the X-Men and Spiderman trilogies were in many ways vapid and empty despite the incredible material they had to work with, and although some of the Batman movies were great, some of them were just.. augh.

[Bolth mannn]

Re: Post Your Reviews for "WATCHMEN"

the dark knight was good with batman, didnt really like the first one though
spiderman 1 an 2 was good, i personally think number 3 sucked
i didnt like any of the superman ones.

i HATED watchmen

[NFD]

Re: Post Your Reviews for "WATCHMEN"

So apparently they took out the parts with the ship wrecked comic...?

[ieatyourlvllol]

Re: Post Your Reviews for "WATCHMEN"

The use of music was definitely strange, yet refreshingly so.

As Rubix and OrganisM have already expressed, the pace/flow felt a bit awkward at places, though overall, following the film wasn't too much of a task.

Without having even read the graphic novel, I was still able to appreciate the philosophical overtones (of which there are many). Action was somewhat secondary to me - the few sequences were awesome, but aside from helping to retain the characteristic comic book stylization, they weren't particularly instrumental in conveying the ontological, theological, and sociological themes inherent to the novel. Eh...perhaps I'm ascribing more depth to the film than was present.

Additionally, though to a certain extent, it's usually alright to compromise a bit of cinematic censorship for thematic emphasis, the movie crossed the line in several of the violent scenes. I might say that the director/producers should know when they've gone from graphic to grotesque, but then again, This Is Sparta, etc. (if you catch my drift hehe).

In any case, I can't really pass fair judgment until I've read the novel. For now, I'll give the movie an 8.5 out of 10, though that rating could change drastically.

[Solid Dreams]

Re: Post Your Reviews for "WATCHMEN"

The only part in the movie where I actually was jolted out of my zone of contentment was the guy uses the saw to chop off fat guy's arms.

"He's in the way of the lock!" then he just cuts through the bolts anyways...What?

Other than that, I really liked it. I think most of the sex scenes were pretty fitting with how you would show couple tension, and the action (based around Rorschach) was really nice.

When there was the random beat em up of the gang, that was kinda off, but whatever.

The reason they stayed there and let Dr. Manhattan handle Ozy is, well, because he's Dr. Manhattan. "I'm gonna go 'splode some people." "Kay."

[Afrobean]

Re: Post Your Reviews for "WATCHMEN"

Without having even read the graphic novel, I was still able to appreciate the philosophical overtones (of which there are many). Action was somewhat secondary to me - the few sequences were awesome, but aside from helping to retain the characteristic comic book stylization, they weren't particularly instrumental in conveying the ontological, theological, and sociological themes inherent to the novel. Eh...perhaps I'm ascribing more depth to the film than was present.

No, it sounds more like you're throwing around big words to sound more intellectual.

8)

Additionally, though to a certain extent, it's usually alright to compromise a bit of cinematic censorship for thematic emphasis, the movie crossed the line in several of the violent scenes. I might say that the director/producers should know when they've gone from graphic to grotesque, but then again, This Is Sparta, etc. (if you catch my drift hehe).

The original art is frank and brutal too. It's supposed to be over-the-top in that regard.

People like to say "oh well it's based on a graphic novel, so it's supposed to be graphic in its portrayal." No. That's not what the term "graphic" even means there. But even so, they're right in a way regardless. The violence is graphic.

In any case, I can't really pass fair judgment until I've read the novel.

This film is intended to stand alone. Perhaps the ONLY fair judgment one can give is to not consider the comic that it is based on.