It didn't really serve a purpose. In the graphic novel, he remarks that it always existed in the sand, it was just waiting for him to uncover it. He compared it to a statue always existing in a block of marble... it was just waiting for the artist to uncover it.
Why would superman do anything he does? Who knows.. because he can?
Also, I'm not sure that he ever did fly, but presumably he could since he can do more or less whatever he wants.
anyone who mentions this when writing impressions deserves a kick in the face. if that's really what you come out of the movie thinking about, don't even bother posting a review. did everyone write about jason segal's three scenes of penis in forgetting sarah marshall? who gives a shit. ive read enough reviews in this thread that have literally said.. great movie but too much blue wang. like really? that's what defines a person's experience of this film? a cg penis? dumb dumb dumb.
yeah, the focusing on the cock is pretty fucking stupid.
funnily enough, the only nude scene that got a chuckle from the audience was when Night Owl II was standing in front of his old suit buck naked. seemed kind of out of place.
but god damn, it really did point out how polarized our culture is when it comes to nudity and sexuality when people were aroused by the torture scenes and put off by a naked human.
yfunnily enough, the only nude scene that got a chuckle from the audience was when Night Owl II was standing in front of his old suit buck naked. seemed kind of out of place.
I think it was driving home the point that he was impotent until he put his suit back on. That hero identity made him something, represented his dynamism, and having it taken away by the Keene act reduced him to a schmuck who couldn't perform socially or sexually.
He puts it on, beats up dudes w/chick, then pr0n scene commences bow-bow-chicka-bow.
Dr. Manhattan is nude for most of the GN too - the nudity is a demarcation point for his transcendence where he loses touch with human societal norms. Early in his career, like in the Nam scene, he's wearing trunks.
Ive only heard one person complain about too much blue penis, but the guy is an idiot who sits behind me in my economics class. He constantly tries to hit on the girls that sit near him in the most obnoxious way. He probably wanks off to tranny porn.
This one girl I used to date told me she liked the large amounts of blue penis though. Opposite attitudes I guess.
that's why i was confused, when he pointed at the dead dog's head when the killer was telling him to arrest him, it looked like a bullet hole wound to me
that's why i was confused, when he pointed at the dead dog's head when the killer was telling him to arrest him, it looked like a bullet hole wound to me
Just saw it yesterday.
I never read the comics and I knew really nothing about the plot but I walked out of the theater pretty disappointed. One of the first movies in a very long time that I actually checked my watch. Pacing was terrible and outside of Rorschach and the Comedian I didn't care or identify with anyone else in the movie. Rorschach almost did save it for me though.
I just came back from the movie and I was somewhat disappointed. They didn't make enough cuts to give the movie focus. Instead, it's a superficial romp through the scenes of the novel.
Basically, they tried to do too much.
Mike Works said:
oh, thought of another question:
what was with that glass thing manhattan created on mars? can't he fly?
A lot of the things in the GN don't make really sense if observed or judged from a rational eye. This is actually what I like from it.
Personal Theory:
The giant thing he builds in Mars is some kind of homage he does in retrospect for what he used to be/could have been when he was a kid and his father taught him how to assemble watches: a watch maker. DM misses those times, misses when he was just a mere human and not some kind of god, because being a god is what made him lose his humanity and therefore all the people he loved.
Actually, in the GN, DM is a character that shows a lot of suffering and this was completely lost in the movie.
As I said, the movie would need 6 hours to be at least a decent reflex of what the GN is, just in terms of story. Then there are a lot of other things such as depth, pacing or direction that I don't think can be achieved using the kind of approach they used.
There are key scenes that were removed or were explained in a totally broken way.
The movie is very "Hollywoodian" while the comic, despite being placed in the States and having a clear american-comic look, is just the opposite. It has that kind of British touch when it comes to jokes, irony and, in general terms, levels of acidity when it comes to explain the things.
IMHO the movie would have been a lot more interesting if directed by somebody "out of the scene", an independent director mainly. That said, I would have liked to see a Nolan approach to Watchmen; that would have been probably the best compromise between success and fidelity to the original.
I didn't get this impression at all. To me, his narration sounded like Mersault's, from The Stranger. He was living very emotional moments, which is maybe why it can seem like he's being dramatic, but I believe he lives all moments of his timeline equally -- none is more significant than others.
ourumov said:
The movie is very "Hollywoodian" while the comic, despite being placed in the States and having a clear american-comic look, is just the opposite. It has that kind of British touch when it comes to jokes, irony and, in general terms, levels of acidity when it comes to explain the things.
IMHO the movie would have been a lot more interesting if directed by somebody "out of the scene", an independent director mainly. That said, I would have liked to see a Nolan approach to Watchmen; that would have been probably the best compromise between success and fidelity to the original.
I disagree with this as well. The movie was anti-Hollywood in many (but not all) ways. Do see that, you need not look beyond all the average movie-goers' disappointment in it. From the run-time, to the unabashed male nudity, to the attempted rape, the lack of a typical villain, the swift killing of millions of people, the non-dramatized shooting of a pregnant woman, Watchmen did what mainstream movies don't. I would say the "Hollywood" choices it made were: Ozymandias' delivery of dialog, including his confrontation with (?)oil tycoons, Nite Owl's II beating up of Ozy at the end (although I love Ozy's response), the child killer blatantly acknowledging his guilt, Rorschach almost crying at the end, and some other things.
I also think that The Dark Knight is much more "mainstream" or "Hollywood" or whatever than you might think it is. On repeated viewings, the dialog is very corny. I cringe at Harvey's instant analysis of the gun and his recommendation of buying American, as well as "But, Your Honor, I'm not done," the armored vehicle driver's/passanger's many cliched exclamations, Joker's "I love this job," and more. I don't know why you assume Nolan would've given Watchmen some other kind of treatment.
Also, I'd call Watchmen's marketing the epitome of "pump and dump." There didn't seem to be an interest in supporting this picture with ads beyond the first couple weeks.
Also, I'd call Watchmen's marketing the epitome of "pump and dump." There didn't seem to be an interest in supporting this picture with ads beyond the first couple weeks.
After dvd/blu-ray sales, WB will have made money. your 250 posts dedicated to declaring this movie as the next speed racer is kind of disturbing though.
Finally got to see this with my gf last night; I've read the graphic novel several times over the last 20 years or so but she wasn't at all familiar with it. From the previews, she thought it was going to be an "Avengers" movie or something, or at least a mainstream typical Hollywood superhero movie.
We both liked it a whole lot; I think they did about as good a job as can be realistically expected in translating it to the big screen. I'm kind of jealous that not only was my gf able to see it without any preconceived notions, but that she was expecting a much lighter, more run-of-the-mill experience and got a surprise of ultra-violence, alternate history politics, and myth-deconstruction. We were talking about it all night afterwards.
Anyone else think a few songs were really misplaced during certain scenes of the movie? I forget the specific songs and scenes, but at least three times I was just like "WTF? Why are they playing this song?". It kinda killed the "serious" mood at times for me.
Other than that, I agree with what everyone else has to say. Poor pacing through the first third of the movie, but once they got down to Dr. Manhattan it picked up and finished well. Rorschanch was an awesome character and made the movie. His actor did a great job!
That may have been a marketing misstep. The Batman pictures don't live or die by their action. In fact the action in Begins was largely terrible.
But I guess Watchmen didn't have performances to fall back on the way Dark Knight did. I think I would have sold it as revision. Not sure that's something people line up to see, but it would have been a little more honest.
I think the movie finally made my friends realize (even though they wont admit it) a point that I had made about the GN a long time ago (I've read it a few times, and am an avid comic fan): The pacing of the GN is slow. When talking about it to people who have read it once or are about to read it I always accentuate the novel aspect of it.
The ironies, structure of the narrative, and symbolism makes it much deeper than most graphic novels. And this in turn makes it much harder to swallow, especially the first time. I just hate when my friends talk about the novel because my friends basically have only read one or two other GN's and claim this to be "the greatest GN blah blah". So they basically talk about the novel from the basic fanboy/critic standpoint without having read a great many GN's (or other illustrated works). It always makes me wonder how many people other there are like that.
Btw, I really enjoyed the movie since I went in expecting it to be what it is: a good adaptation of a good graphic novel that I think people expect they should love and thus overhype. Don't buy into the hype and see it. You won't be disappointed since it is a good movie.
The movie did flop, which I guess might be a blow to WB who invested quite a bit of money on it.
Too long, too confusing (for newcomers) and a lot of gratuitous gore and nudity killed it. A lot of my friends (who haven't read the comic) hated it or didn't watch it.
Perfectly cheesy and tongue-in-cheek at times, yet deadly serious when it needs to be. From Nixon's fake face and the amazing 80's feel, to Manhattan on Mars and Rorscach at the end.
A true commentary on pop culture, comic book movies, and it still manages to be a great adaptation.
I have some issues, though. The biggest one being the pacing. Even though the film is long, it felt rushed. Hopefully the DC will change this.
The other is the acting of a certain female lead, which is wooden. At certain moments, she's great and very believable. Other times it's just embarrasing.
Yeah I just saw the movie this weekend. Really didn't like it but I feel that is mostly because I hadn't read the GN. I think if I kind of knew where the pacing was going I would have enjoyed it a lot more.
Everyone (I've even caught myself doing it) says this, which is just the wrong way to look at it. If a movie can't stand on its own without familiarity with the source material, then it's just not a good film, which may be the case.
All in all, I think the problem is just that by attempting to stay so true to the book, it set up a film that is quite unlike what people would come to expect. At times, it WANTS to be a blockbuster, action-filled film, but those scenes are few and far between and not at all what the book was about. Thus, reading the book isn't a requisite for enjoying the film, but it incidentally prepares you to know what to expect. Also, it gives you an attachment to the characters that is very important for the success of most comic book films. Not only do you not know any of these characters if you haven't read the book, but you also have no frame of reference for what they're supposed to be. Try explaining to people the characters were loosely based on Charlton Comics characters. You'll be met with a blank stare, as the characters Moore crafted are more memorable than the characters he used as a template, and the Watchmen was a completely self-contained story.
