-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Rottenwatch: WATCHMEN
- Thread starter DevelopmentArrested
- Start date
- Status
Skiptastic
Member
Yeah, I really liked Rorshach and Dreiberg. In fact, I thought Dreiberg was more likable than he was in the graphic novel. I am going to see it again tonight, but I don't really know how I feel about it right now.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Honestly, I don't see how the actors were bad. I think that almost everybody did a good job, with Silk Spectre II being the only really average performance in the movie. Even then, though, I don't think that her acting was bad; it was consistent with the development of the character in that story. I thought that for the most part, though, they all did a pretty fantastic job. I'd probably put the hierarchy of actors something like this:
Rorschach > Dr. Manhattan = The Comedian > Nite Owl > Ozymandias > Silk Spectre II.
Rorschach > Dr. Manhattan = The Comedian > Nite Owl > Ozymandias > Silk Spectre II.
AgentOtaku
Member
Had time to let it sink in and honestly:
I fall into the group of people thinking it doesn't quite work for the fans nor people who haven't read the GN.
I did like it though ....but found it more interesting than actually satisfying or entertaining
It was a weird experience
I fall into the group of people thinking it doesn't quite work for the fans nor people who haven't read the GN.
I did like it though ....but found it more interesting than actually satisfying or entertaining
It was a weird experience
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
ChrisGoldstein said:
He's crying in the comic.
There is a difference between great acting and not being horrible. The performances in Watchman fall somewhere in the middle and honestly are probably closer to horrible than great. I really didn't sense any real emotion from almost any of the characters.
You say the Nite Owl acted well when those sex scenes have got to be one of the worst ever put on screen. I think the acting in a soft core porn has a better acted sex scene than what was in the movie.
How did Manhattan act well? I don't remember anything memorable that he did.
The Comedian did have some decent delivery of his lines, I will give you that.
Just because the actors and scenes look good doesn't equate to the acting being good.
You say the Nite Owl acted well when those sex scenes have got to be one of the worst ever put on screen. I think the acting in a soft core porn has a better acted sex scene than what was in the movie.
How did Manhattan act well? I don't remember anything memorable that he did.
The Comedian did have some decent delivery of his lines, I will give you that.
Just because the actors and scenes look good doesn't equate to the acting being good.
Randy Lanzarote
Member
Saw it this morning, thought I'd make a list of a few things I needed to get off my chest.
All I can say is, roll on the 210 minute cut, as I hope they throw some scenes back in, and extend others. The pacing in the middle of the film is all over the place.
Rorschach - Glorified as the ultimate anti-hero, the character has lost the edge and the darkness he had in the comics. His backstory is told with a worrying amount of pace, considering that it takes an entire chapter to learn his story in the comics, here he gives it up with a minimum of fuss.
The Ending - As bad as I thought it would be. No emotional resonance when NY is destroyed given that the tertiary characters who added so much to the NY scenes are never introduced in the movie. The two Bernie's share the embrace from the comic, but given that neither character is given screen time why should anyone care? Nite-Owl's "VADERNOOOO.jpg" moment was not needed, as was his childish tantrum directed at Ozy.
Violence - Ummm...I've no real complaints here. Some say its too gratutitious, I'd say that where it was implied in the comic, here it is seen in all its glory. Some scenes do work better, for example I've never understood why Big Figure had his fat henchman's throat cut, the scene in the movie made a lot more sense (to me).
Manhattan - Well played, but his portrayal is all over the place. On the one hand we have Laurie telling us how he no longer cares about humanity, but he spends parts of the film working with Ozymandias on an infinite power source in a hope to end war....that level of detachment in the comic that is present in the comics is only used when it seems its necessary for the story.
Everybody needs a montage! - There are a few choice scenes in the movie that are set to some well known tracks from the 60s/70s/80s, but for me, they simply don't work. Whilst the idea of having The Comedian's funeral set to 'Sound of Silence' works on paper (and in a fanmade youtube vid), in the movie it just feels horribly overbearing, and more a case of Snyder doing what he thinks looks cool.
Nixon's nose - .... wtf? Did no-one say "Uhmm.. isn't that a little too big, even for Nixon?" I keep expecting Gepetto to pop up and say "Back in your box, Pinocchio".
However, I don't want to give the impression that I hate the movie. What I find annoying is a lot of the criticisms I've made will probably be rectified for the full-blown director's cut. So until I've seen that version, its hard to pass judgement. I'll have to accept the new ending I guess, its a shame that a giant alien monster is considered far too fantastic for audiences to accept than say....a blue man who can create multiple copies of himself and increase 700% in size.... oh wait... :/
At the end of the day, I think that barring someone putting up $200 million of their own money to make a Watchmen movie that is 1:1 with the comic, this is the best adaptation that Hollywood could have provided us with. If you read through David Hayter or Sam Hamm's scripts for the movie then you'll agree that this could have turned out a hell of a lot worse. So for Snyder to make a movie that is as close as this is to the source material, I think deserves some credit.
The Ending - As bad as I thought it would be. No emotional resonance when NY is destroyed given that the tertiary characters who added so much to the NY scenes are never introduced in the movie. The two Bernie's share the embrace from the comic, but given that neither character is given screen time why should anyone care? Nite-Owl's "VADERNOOOO.jpg" moment was not needed, as was his childish tantrum directed at Ozy.
Violence - Ummm...I've no real complaints here. Some say its too gratutitious, I'd say that where it was implied in the comic, here it is seen in all its glory. Some scenes do work better, for example I've never understood why Big Figure had his fat henchman's throat cut, the scene in the movie made a lot more sense (to me).
Manhattan - Well played, but his portrayal is all over the place. On the one hand we have Laurie telling us how he no longer cares about humanity, but he spends parts of the film working with Ozymandias on an infinite power source in a hope to end war....that level of detachment in the comic that is present in the comics is only used when it seems its necessary for the story.
Everybody needs a montage! - There are a few choice scenes in the movie that are set to some well known tracks from the 60s/70s/80s, but for me, they simply don't work. Whilst the idea of having The Comedian's funeral set to 'Sound of Silence' works on paper (and in a fanmade youtube vid), in the movie it just feels horribly overbearing, and more a case of Snyder doing what he thinks looks cool.
Nixon's nose - .... wtf? Did no-one say "Uhmm.. isn't that a little too big, even for Nixon?" I keep expecting Gepetto to pop up and say "Back in your box, Pinocchio".
However, I don't want to give the impression that I hate the movie. What I find annoying is a lot of the criticisms I've made will probably be rectified for the full-blown director's cut. So until I've seen that version, its hard to pass judgement. I'll have to accept the new ending I guess, its a shame that a giant alien monster is considered far too fantastic for audiences to accept than say....a blue man who can create multiple copies of himself and increase 700% in size.... oh wait... :/
At the end of the day, I think that barring someone putting up $200 million of their own money to make a Watchmen movie that is 1:1 with the comic, this is the best adaptation that Hollywood could have provided us with. If you read through David Hayter or Sam Hamm's scripts for the movie then you'll agree that this could have turned out a hell of a lot worse. So for Snyder to make a movie that is as close as this is to the source material, I think deserves some credit.
All I can say is, roll on the 210 minute cut, as I hope they throw some scenes back in, and extend others. The pacing in the middle of the film is all over the place.
**spoiler altert**
Watched it last night and I thought it was ok.
The strongest part was the opening montage then it went downhill from there. Though I don't mean it in a bad way, the rest of the film just did not live up to the jolt of the visually amazing opening set to Bob Dylan's Times a Changin.
I also felt some of the soundtrack choices were distracting and forced. Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah for the sex scene? It's an amazing piece of music and they could have set it to the scene when Ozymandias activated his master plan.
The film's faithfulness to the graphic novel also prevented it from settng up the alternative world properly.
All in all, I liked it enough that I'll buy the DVD when it comes out. May go back to see it a 2nd time.
Watched it last night and I thought it was ok.
The strongest part was the opening montage then it went downhill from there. Though I don't mean it in a bad way, the rest of the film just did not live up to the jolt of the visually amazing opening set to Bob Dylan's Times a Changin.
I also felt some of the soundtrack choices were distracting and forced. Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah for the sex scene? It's an amazing piece of music and they could have set it to the scene when Ozymandias activated his master plan.
The film's faithfulness to the graphic novel also prevented it from settng up the alternative world properly.
All in all, I liked it enough that I'll buy the DVD when it comes out. May go back to see it a 2nd time.
How many sex scenes are in this movie anyway? All I remember from the book was the obvious
one (I also prefer not to call the
scene one). I've heard some people say there was a lot of them which is not to my recollection of the novel again, so I'm wondering if Snyder put some extra stuff in there for the hell of it or are people just exaggerating things which wouldn't suprise me (sounds like people really didn't do their homework on what this movie and the source material contains).
Dan/Laurie
Comedian/Sally rape
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
bionic77 said:
I think that they did a very good job in portraying the emotions that the characters were feeling, so I guess that I'll just have to disagree with you guys.
The Nite Owl did a really good job with his part the whole way through. If the sex scene had 'poor acting', it's because it was shot in such an odd way and Patrick Wilson is a serious cinema actor, not a soft core porn actor. Outside of that scene, though (which I thought was acted in a perfectly acceptable way, by the way), I think that he did a good job of showing Dan Dreiberg as a flabby, ineffectual nerd who has nothing in life now that he's a civilian. He also struck a good contrast when he put on the Nite Owl suit; his posture and voice changed and betrayed a confidence that he didn't have before he put on the suit.
Dr. Manhattan was rather perfectly cast. His emotions were really understated, to the point where it's almost impossible to catch anything from him, but you could sense the human emotion that underlay all of his scenes and the character himself. I think he captured the voice perfectly, as well; it sounds perfectly human, but it captures the almost total detachment that Dr. Manhattan has from his humanity. I think Crudup did a very good job, and I liked the very short bit of pre-Manhattan Osterman that he does; the way he says "Janie, don't leave me!" just before the accident was a particularly good delivery of a line, I thought, as it showed a simultaneous mix of pain and fear that was very well-balanced.
The Comedian had more than decent line delivery; it was basically flawless. He captured very well that slightly sarcastic demeanor that the Comedian has when dealing with people, while still showing the flawed, human side when he cried by Moloch's bed and when he was visiting young Janey. He also became a scumbag with perfect fluidity during the
rape scene and the scene where he kills the pregnant woman.
Honestly, I think that they all did a very good job, and I'm not seeing how any of them were horrible at all (though if somebody thought SSII was horrible, I would understand, though I'd disagree).
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Combine said:
There are four sex scenes in the novel, three of them make it to the movie. The one between Dan and Laurie at Karnak is cut, though for reasons that have more to do with the new ending than for time issues, for once.
AgentOtaku
Member
Some more dislikes:
- The music choices ....I didn't think I would care but yeah, they were pretty WTF!?
- The acting. To me, the performances don't quite hit their stride until Doc Mahattan exiles himself to Mars. I think this is more due to the scenes trying to much to mimic the panels and nobodies performance is getting time to breath...
- I agree that the "normal" heros felt to "superish" and wish they would have dialed back the chorography.
- Random things that make it into the movie that don't need to be there (since they cut so much anyway) ...Like Babastis.
- Sex scene ....It was there and didn't bother that much ...'cept the music
- I HATED how Ozy was handled and I really hope they add his development back in the Director's Cut. I liked Matthew Goode's performance though alot
- To me, murder mystery plot of Watchmen is secondary to the actual characters, who're what stand out to me the most. Unfortunately I think the movie, as it is now, focuses too much on the plot for sake of following a movie formula and everything else suffers because of it. A Watchmen mini-series via something like HBO could have totally fixed this...
Oh and man! ....Carla Gugino is just so gorgeous!
- The music choices ....I didn't think I would care but yeah, they were pretty WTF!?
- The acting. To me, the performances don't quite hit their stride until Doc Mahattan exiles himself to Mars. I think this is more due to the scenes trying to much to mimic the panels and nobodies performance is getting time to breath...
- I agree that the "normal" heros felt to "superish" and wish they would have dialed back the chorography.
- Random things that make it into the movie that don't need to be there (since they cut so much anyway) ...Like Babastis.
- Sex scene ....It was there and didn't bother that much ...'cept the music
- I HATED how Ozy was handled and I really hope they add his development back in the Director's Cut. I liked Matthew Goode's performance though alot
- To me, murder mystery plot of Watchmen is secondary to the actual characters, who're what stand out to me the most. Unfortunately I think the movie, as it is now, focuses too much on the plot for sake of following a movie formula and everything else suffers because of it. A Watchmen mini-series via something like HBO could have totally fixed this...
Oh and man! ....Carla Gugino is just so gorgeous!
This movie should have an epic drop off. What it does have going for it, is little competition in the coming weeks. The audience for Race to Witch Mountain doesn't really overlap Watchmen.Decado said:Grossed 25m on Friday. Might do 40m this weekend. Then it is just a question of whether it has legs. The reception seems to have been mixed, so I wouldn't count on it and it is only getting about $6,961 per theatre.
I think WB's hype train may have backfired.
SpeedingUptoStop
will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
Like I said earlier, it seems like a lot of complaints (not all of you) are just because some things just aren't there. The movie is damn near 3 hours already. For a streamlined Watchmen experience, I don't think you could do much better than this. Ideally, it should have been a miniseries. Even still, it's amazing how the distinctly different chapters were patched together in the film, flowing quite well into eachother. I was really surprised at how non-linear the film was, pretty much sticking entirely to sequence of events in the comic. Snyder definitely stepped up his game here. For a single, concise definition of what Watchmen is, this is it, IMO.Gattsu25 said:
AgentOtaku
Member
For me, it's personally Doc Mahattan origin during Mars
I think Billy Crudup nails it and is most definitey my favorite performance in the whole film. Ony wish he had more of a voice of god thing going on as that's how I always envisioned it in my head =P
I think Billy Crudup nails it and is most definitey my favorite performance in the whole film. Ony wish he had more of a voice of god thing going on as that's how I always envisioned it in my head =P
SnakeswithLasers
Member
Saw it last night, chalk another one up in the "no thanks" category.
I thought it was a very enjoyable film (yea, and I've read the GN). Many have questioned, how do you adapt the unfilmable? Well, it seems we have our answer. Snyder and Co. have managed to create a worthy companion piece to Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' graphic novel. The translation of the complex story succeeds with a terrifically well balanced compromise between accessibility and fidelity. Sure, there's a few omissions and changes, but in the end Moore's twisted themes and characters are beautifully presented. Watchmen paved the way for a new age of dark tales in the comic book industry, and while Snyder's adaptation may not have that kind of impact, he's done what many claimed to be impossible.
Hey if you liked it great for you. I just wasn't impressed.Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
One thing I don't get is the complaints about the music. The 99 balloons and the Hallelujah songs were horrible but for the most part I liked the music in the movie and in fact it was one of the few things I liked about the movie (the others being the costumes and Rorschach).
And this movie won't have legs at all. I had no idea going in how inappropriate it would be for kids. Without kids and families going to see this movie I don't see how it can get to $200 million domestically. Probably ends up around $120 million and will probably become profitable once it goes to dvd.
Alivor said:
I did the same thing (and watched the motion comic). I kind of wish I hadn't.. so many of the scenes were so fresh in my mind they sort of bored me in the movie.. and every little change becomes apparent.. I found myself more looking for changes and anticipated the next panel too much.
Snyder has made some changes here and there, and obviously the ending is changed. BUT, I will say he stayed extremely true to all the characters, all of the themes are in there for the most part, and it feels like Watchmen.
Most of my complaints are smaller, and several of them are going to be changed in the directors cut I'm sure (Ror. psychiatric evaluation is way too short, not enough time given to the older super heroes., not enough Hollis).
The mistake of the theatrical cut was removing the news stand and it's charachter's (the comic book reader, news stand owner, lesbian bar owner, etc). Without them to give you the view of the everyman you lose a lot of the emotional tie to the end of the movie.
I watched it last night, it was a tad better then average but not by much. I honestly don't see how someone not familiar with the Graphic Novel could follow the plot coherantly. They basically stripped a lot of the back story to shrink the viewing time and I felt it hurt the experience in the long run. The acting outside of Rorschach was pretty fucking horrible, especially Silk Spectre II and Ozymandias. The soundtrack was ATROCIOUS, I consistently found myself cringing at the song selection, I mean who in the fuck thought it was a good idea to use "Hallelujah" in a fucking sex scene? The movie wasn't entirely faithful but I'm not one to complain about that sort of thing. The only things keeping it from total mediocrity were the visuals and needlessly drawn out action scenes.
I personally read the graphic novel two days ago and sort of wish I hadn't, I know if anyone else hated this, but the movies use of actual quotes from the Comic gave me a "I swear I've seen this movie before" feeling.
I personally read the graphic novel two days ago and sort of wish I hadn't, I know if anyone else hated this, but the movies use of actual quotes from the Comic gave me a "I swear I've seen this movie before" feeling.
Yeah, I meant 55-60m. Forgot about SundaySolo said:
The per screen average is really bad, though. So it may wind up being less than that.
Should I read the graphic novel before I go see it? Most movies are better if you haven't read the book, but it may be different for this one.
Solo said:
and 60-70 million for an R rated 2:30 hour long movie that is not a sequel is fantastic.
It is also great for a March release.
Plus, WB can make money on all of the tie ins they are selling to fanboys (motion comic, black freighter, 2-3 DVD releases, selling copies of the comic itself)
and WB now has a certified AAA director on it's hands in Snyder.. and given that they just let him make two of his pet projects in a row without stepping on his toes, they probably will have a good working relationship with him for years to come.
Dr. Strangelove
I'M COOCOO FOR COCO CRISP!
Read the whole graphic novel before seeing the film. The film was pretty terrible. Lots of bad acting, bad soundtrack selection, and the changes Snyder made were most definitely for the worse.
sionyboy said:
wait, so it sounds like the tails from the black freighter stand alone DVD/BRD they are selling is going to consist of content that was not in the graphic novel. (i.e. the "whole" comic.)
That could be cool.
In any case, I hope that super ultimate extreme cut with everything in it is out this year. I would hate if they only sold the theatrical cut, then sold the directors cut, then sold the ultimate cut..
which is what they are going to do just so I have to buy them all.
fistfulofmetal
Banned
Whichever Blu-ray is the longest cut is the version I'm getting.
Gattsu25 said:
You're definitely in the minority it seems.
Most GN fans simply can't get past the "flaws" relating to accuracy. I'd like to think I was at an advantage last night when I saw it since I never read the GN.
The movie was damn near 3 hours long and drove the point home, while giving me plenty of meat to chew on (that's not a nod to Dr. Manhatten's very nude body btw). I learned all I felt I needed to know about the characters and story. Any longer; adding more detail, just would not work for a mainstream-ish movie. Covering everything fans wanted, and covering it faithfully, would have pushed the movie to 4 or 5 hour territory. Just not gonna happen at the cinema (for a movie of it's kind).
A super long unedited director's cut will hopefully take care of some of the complaints.
Anyway, I quite honestly dont see how, outside of technicalities (acting, pacing, etc.), there can be a discussion between die-hard fans of the original novel and folks who's first taste of Watchmen, was this movie.
My opinion then, was that this film was a beautiful, captivating, brutal, but mostly honest look at the human condition. It was incredibly impactful and took me a couple hours after the credits to really let everything sink in. If I had to give it some kind of score, I'd say that outside some very minor quibbles, it was absolutely incredible.
and in my stinging opinion, a better put together movie than The Dark Knight, even if not nearly as faithful to the source
4.5 Dr. Manhattens outta 5 I guess
To fans of the novel, for what it's worth, this movie only made it that much more clear; I really have to get my hands on a copy!
Kastro said:
I had the same problem. It didn't help that it was at 2 in the morning. I think I should have just not reread the novel and I would have enjoyed it more.
1. You will become bored with the scenes that are the same as the comic.
2. You will spend more time picking out the changes that were made vs actually enjoy the narrative.
border said:
Well, for Under the Hood they can put a lot of the stuff that was implied in the novel (hooded justice being hard gay, etc) into the documentary. They can also combine some of the other articles between the chapters into the documentary.
If they do it right it could be very good.
Then they can make a super mondo extreme cut and put parts of "under the hood" between chapters, and I would buy it.
(I have already purchased the motion comic bluray, am getting the tales from the black freighter/under the hood bluray, and will but each subsequent "better" DVD release... WB is going to take about 120 bucks from me before they are through)
kinggroin said:
The Dark Knight doesn't have a specific story source to be faithful to. Though I suppose it does do a good job of keeping most the dramatis personae of Batman and presenting them in a fresh way.
That's the difference when adapting 70 year old characters that have been revamped and rebooted a bazillion times or adapting a 12 issue story from around the end of the Cold War that has the Cold War imminently going hot as a major plot point.
You really can't extricate these characters from their situation / storyline and still call it Watchmen.
- Status