• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Rottenwatch: WATCHMEN

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zabka said:
Sounds like he went into it assuming the movie would be shallow because of Zack Snyder, then spent the entire time looking for evidence of this as he watched.
Click to expand...
I can say the same for plenty of GAF. :lol BejaminBirdie's inevitable impressions will surprise no one.
 
I was impressed with the film. The comics are certainly all up there to look at, no complaints for the art director or DP. The credit sequence was really good. I'd imagine Snyder shot everything in the books. I'm looking forward to seeing the full-length version, but I would also love to see a lean 2-hour cut. There is a tight mystery amongst the philosophical musings. I thought the action sequences were well coreographed. I was a little worried over some of the earlier footage we'd seen, but it was further polished. I thought the music selection was fine, if a little arch at times. But they were often direct transferences from the book. I also think 99 Luftballoons was a proper choice. It's a quintessential 80's tune and it's resonant to the nuclear tension storyline.

If I have any complaints:

I thought the fight with the Top Knots was a little brutal. For characters who were only just getting back into costume, I didn't think they should have gone right away with compound fractures and stabbings in the neck.

Laurie's big revelation on Mars. For most of the movie, I didn't think Malin did a bad job. She was a serviceable actor. But even with the extensive changes to the scene (much better in the comic), she didn't have the chops to sell it. However, I prefer to see the dialogue changed than watch her further struggle with emoting.

The super-strength was a little oversold in the climactic scene. Even just toning down the chop-sockey-esque sound effects would do it.


I thought the new ending worked. Even truncated and unexplained, Bernie & Bernie's hug was nice. In the end, it was a good superhero movie. I don't think it transcended the medium the way the comics did their's, but I have no hesitation in giving it a recommendation.
 
Yeah, Mark Kermode's take-down of the picture is pretty scathing and he's not wrong. I will admit that sometimes I take simple satisfaction in seeing something I like come to life, but those moments are ultimately fleeting in this picture.
 
adamsappel said:
I thought the fight with the Top Knots was a little brutal. For characters who were only just getting back into costume, I didn't think they should have gone right away with compound fractures and stabbings in the neck.
Click to expand...
First panel of the fight.
o5c7x3.jpg

Also includes lame pun.
 
Kastro said:
bourne has way better action scenes than watchmen
Click to expand...

Bourne doesn't have action scenes, it has sequences where someone pulls out a gun or gets in a car, and then the camera goes berserk.
 
You know what I hate about these threads? It's always tough to judge who brings up legitimate criticisms and who is just back filling their negative preconceived notions.
 
i love the raw, shaky-cam fights of bourne compared to watchmen. the watchmen fight scenes seemed cheesy as hell

and also, actually showing the sex scene was hilarious. it just looked totally out of place. i'd rather the audience see laurie getting undressed (just so we can still see her tits), and then the audience can use their imagination after that.
 
Paul Greengrass can't do fights/action at all. Any little number of choreography heavily ill framed to ridiculous degrees with rapid edits. You could easily just take Watchmen well framed and full shot single edits and do all of that to get the same effect. It's very amateurish and prevalent in many modern western action movies, in which it recently plagued Quantum of Solace after the fantastically set-up, framed, and choreographed Casino Royale by Martin Campbell, no coincidence the second director wasn't really an action director either so he had no eye for it. The fact so many movies use this style makes Snyder approach to actually seeing the action so damn refreshing.

At the very least, one could argue it's just an extensions of Paul Greengrass moving documentary style and he's not really an action director, but it doesn't make it any better than all the other constant abuse of this style for action film making.
 
woodchuck said:
i love the raw, shaky-cam fights of bourne compared to watchmen. the watchmen fight scenes seemed cheesy as hell

and also, actually showing the sex scene was hilarious. it just looked totally out of place. i'd rather the audience see laurie getting undressed (just so we can still see her tits), and then the audience can use their imagination after that.
Click to expand...

I nearly always find the subtle approach much more appealing. Explicit ioften just makes you uncomfortable.
 
Zabka said:
Anyone thinking a better film was out there from anyone should really take a look at the early scripts. The only compromises made were for Snyder's version were for time.

I can't take anything you say seriously when you view the movie through the "Visionary Director of 300" lens. You have to realize that your preconceptions of Snyder have affected your opinion, especially when you're complaining about Bubastis' existence in the movie.
Click to expand...

i actually didn't really feel that for sure about him until after i saw the movie...well i'm sure the negative reviews didn't help very much, but most of what i said about snyder wasn't really cemented until after i saw the film. so you're saying that because i read negative reviews talking about snyder, and sort of agreeing with their stances on him, i am precluded from having a valid opinion?

as for what i said about bubastis, i was probably a little harsh...i don't really hate that he's in there, it's more that i think he's unnecessary, and probably a little confusing for some people. but still, out of everything i complained about, the main thing you're going to take issue with is my opinion on a genetically altered lynx?
 
KHarvey16 said:
You know what I hate about these threads? It's always tough to judge who brings up legitimate criticisms and who is just back filling their negative preconceived notions.
Click to expand...

It's not really that tough to judge.
 
I was watching parts of it the other night just to see the All Along the Watchtower section and came away surprised by a bit of acting by Manhattan.
I love the way he seems kind of excited when he realizes how much of a "miracle" Laurie is. There's a flash of epiphany at his realization of the impossible that really sticks out compared to his non emotive previous scenes in the film
 
HomerSimpson-Man said:
Paul Greengrass can't do fights/action at all. Any little number of choreography heavily ill framed to ridiculous degrees with rapid edits. You could easily just take Watchmen well framed and full shot single edits and do all of that to get the same effect. It's very amateurish and prevalent in many modern western action movies, in which it recently plagued Quantum of Solace after the fantastically set-up, framed, and choreographed Casino Royale by Martin Campbell, no coincidence the second director wasn't really an action director either so he had no eye for it. The fact so many movies use this style makes Snyder approach to actually seeing the action so damn refreshing.

At the very least, one could argue it's just an extensions of Paul Greengrass moving documentary style and he's not really an action director, but it doesn't make it any better than all the other constant abuse of this style for action film making.
Click to expand...

Shrug, I think it's used to better effect when the story calls for it. In a cheesefest like 300 sure slow-mo works fine. But Watchmen is supposed to be gritty, not overly flashy and full of Power Ranger posturing.

I don't think it's fair to lump Greengrass in with all other "shaky-cam" uses either, considering he pretty much mastered it seeing as the Bourne series is considered one of the best action trilogies in a long while if not ever. Quantum of Solace being a failure was hardly just because of "shaky-cam". It had many problems.
 
i came to read about watchmen. i stayed to hate on the action in bourne movies.

sometimes it's great in chase scenes (love that moment in the third film, i think it is, when you just see bourne whiz by on a motorcycle and go up a staircase) but for the most part i think it ruins the fight scenes when you can't see what the hell is going on. i think the fight scenes in the first bourne were much better than in the second and third, and the less stylized, more realistic fight scenes in a movie like the transporter knock the pants off all of the stuff in any bourne flick.
 
Bubastis looked like shit, they spent $150 million on this movie and they couldn't get a decent cgi company? I mean after watching the chronicles of narnia, the lion looked hot, I expected a lot more.


--Bourne butchered the Ludlum books I cant watch that shit...marie was not ugly or german and she never died.

Run Lola looks like a tranny, and shaky cam sucks. The matrix slow mo is the best.
 
Scarecrow said:
I was watching parts of it the other night just to see the All Along the Watchtower section and came away surprised by a bit of acting by Manhattan.
Click to expand...
How were you watching "parts of it" the other night? Do you own a theater or have a projectionist friend who will fast forward the film for you?
 
ChrisGoldstein said:
Bubastis looked like shit, they spent $150 million on this movie and they couldn't get a decent cgi company? I mean after watching the chronicles of narnia, the lion looked hot, I expected a lot more.
Click to expand...

Bubastis did kind of look like a cartoon, but the CGI that sticks out to me is the tank that Dr. Manhattan crushes. Before he even lifts it into the air it looks out of place, something about the lighting and/or camera view angle just didn't look right.
 
AVclub said:
How were you watching "parts of it" the other night? Do you own a theater or have a projectionist friend who will fast forward the film for you?
Click to expand...
Let's not be coy about what you really mean here.
 
YYZ said:
Let's not be coy about what you really mean here.
Click to expand...
I'm not being coy. I'm asking for clarification because I'm trying not to jump to conclusions. I'd love to read a reasonable explanation. It pains me to believe that folks are in this thread talking smack about some camcorder copy of Watchmen they looked at on a 17 inch monitor. I'm really hoping that isn't the case.
 
HomerSimpson-Man said:
Paul Greengrass can't do fights/action at all. Any little number of choreography heavily ill framed to ridiculous degrees with rapid edits. You could easily just take Watchmen well framed and full shot single edits and do all of that to get the same effect. It's very amateurish and prevalent in many modern western action movies, in which it recently plagued Quantum of Solace after the fantastically set-up, framed, and choreographed Casino Royale by Martin Campbell, no coincidence the second director wasn't really an action director either so he had no eye for it. The fact so many movies use this style makes Snyder approach to actually seeing the action so damn refreshing.

At the very least, one could argue it's just an extensions of Paul Greengrass moving documentary style and he's not really an action director, but it doesn't make it any better than all the other constant abuse of this style for action film making.
Click to expand...

You so crazy. The human and car chase scenes in Supremacy and Ultimatum are orders of magnitude more exciting and exhilarating than anything Snyder has ever done.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
I am more convinced that people who admire film for craft are going to hate this movie, and those who admire film for being thought-provoking or novel are going to love it.
Click to expand...

But thats the thing, Ignatz - the movie isnt thought provoking. Now, from everything Ive ever heard, Im sure the GN is, but Snyder's film is not. There is very little below the surface here. I was HOPING to get a movie that would give me lots to chew on, but I didnt get it.

Zabka said:
Sounds like he went into it assuming the movie would be shallow because of Zack Snyder, then spent the entire time looking for evidence of this as he watched.
Click to expand...

To be quite fair, the "Snyderisms" are all over the place in the film, and one doesnt really need to intensely scrutinize to find them.
 
jett said:
You so crazy. The human and car chase scenes in Supremacy and Ultimatum are orders of magnitude more exciting and exhilarating than anything Snyder has ever done.
Click to expand...

Don't you think you should see the film or read the comic or at least know something about Watchmen before you blast it and Snyder?

I hated 300, and I hated the excessive use of slow-mo there. But I thought both the action and the use of slow-mo in Watchmen was pretty damn good.
 
Started watching the motion comic, man it's way better than the movie. It's nearly 6 hours long, which is what they would have done with the movie to make it close to the graphic novel.
 
Kastro said:
Shrug, I think it's used to better effect when the story calls for it. In a cheesefest like 300 sure slow-mo works fine. But Watchmen is supposed to be gritty, not overly flashy and full of Power Ranger posturing.

I don't think it's fair to lump Greengrass in with all other "shaky-cam" uses either, considering he pretty much mastered it seeing as the Bourne series is considered one of the best action trilogies in a long while if not ever. Quantum of Solace being a failure was hardly just because of "shaky-cam". It had many problems.
Click to expand...
i think in trying to give the movie the exact look of the comic, some slow-mo was warranted, but overall it was a little overdone
 
Blader5489 said:
Don't you think you should see the film or read the comic or at least know something about Watchmen before you blast it and Snyder?

I hated 300, and I hated the excessive use of slow-mo there. But I thought both the action and the use of slow-mo in Watchmen was pretty damn good.
Click to expand...

I've read the GN, when did I blast it? I've only commented on Snyder's worthlessness as a director.
 
I'm also starting to wonder if those familiar with the GN loved the movie more than many of us who haven't read the GN because their memory/subconcious was filling in the many blanks that the movie had. I mean, people always talk about how great the characterizations are and how powerful/deep the themes are in the GN. Seeing the movie only, the characters were completely one-dimensional, and the themes were muddy at best.
 
Solo said:
I'm also starting to wonder if those familiar with the GN loved the movie more than many of us who haven't read the GN because their memory/subconcious was filling in the many blanks that the movie had. I mean, people always talk about how great the characterizations are and how powerful/deep the themes are in the GN. Seeing the movie only, the characters were completely one-dimensional, and the themes were muddy at best.
Click to expand...

There have been a lot of people who have said they haven't read the GN, but enjoyed the movie and its characters/themes.

Roger Ebert being one such person.
 
ChrisGoldstein said:
Bubastis looked like shit, they spent $150 million on this movie and they couldn't get a decent cgi company? I mean after watching the chronicles of narnia, the lion looked hot, I expected a lot more.


--Bourne butchered the Ludlum books I cant watch that shit...marie was not ugly or german and she never died.

Run Lola looks like a tranny, and shaky cam sucks. The matrix slow mo is the best.
Click to expand...

To be fair, you can't expect them to spend the same time, money, and effort on the CGI for a cameo (bubastis) as they did for the main character (Narnia).
 
Solo said:
I'm also starting to wonder if those familiar with the GN loved the movie more than many of us who haven't read the GN because their memory/subconcious was filling in the many blanks that the movie had. I mean, people always talk about how great the characterizations are and how powerful/deep the themes are in the GN. Seeing the movie only, the characters were completely one-dimensional, and the themes were muddy at best.
Click to expand...
that's probably the case for a lot of people
 
Blader5489 said:
There have been a lot of people who have said they haven't read the GN, but enjoyed the movie and its characters/themes.

Roger Ebert being one such person.
Click to expand...

And thats fine, Im not condemning anyone for having different tastes than mine. Im just saying that I do feel a lot of you might have a very different outlook on the movie had you not read the GN first.
 
i have no idea how i really feel about this movie, to be honest. i think i hover toward the middle. when someone bashes it, i think it's too far; when someone talks about how deep and thought-provoking it is, i feel they're giving it too much credit.
 
beelzebozo said:
i have no idea how i really feel about this movie, to be honest. i think i hover toward the middle. when someone bashes it, i think it's too far; when someone talks about how deep and thought-provoking it is, i feel they're giving it too much credit.
Click to expand...


I want to see how the director's cut is. Hoping for more background stories to see how it works.
 
beelzebozo said:
i have no idea how i really feel about this movie, to be honest. i think i hover toward the middle. when someone bashes it, i think it's too far; when someone talks about how deep and thought-provoking it is, i feel they're giving it too much credit.
Click to expand...
yeah i'm still sort of conflicted...i thought it brushed the surface of some of the important stuff (although yeah it might just be the fact that i read the comic filling in the gaps), and it had some really impressive visuals, but other times i was disgusted and bored...so it sort of evened out to about average ...?
 
beelzebozo said:
i have no idea how i really feel about this movie, to be honest. i think i hover toward the middle. when someone bashes it, i think it's too far; when someone talks about how deep and thought-provoking it is, i feel they're giving it too much credit.
Click to expand...

Well, I think you're mostly right, but as solo pointed out, it's related to whether you appreciate the book. The book was definitely thought-provoking, especially for the time.
If the movie were to stand on its own, I think it would be hard to see some of the themes.
 
mrkgoo said:
Well, I think you're mostly right, but as solo pointed out, it's related to whether you appreciate the book. The book was definitely thought-provoking, especially for the time.
If the movie were to stand on its own, I think it would be hard to see some of the themes.
Click to expand...

yeah. i'd read the book prior, so my current theory about why i bounce back and forth in my opinion is that there is a part of me that really appreciated some of the visual work in putting the graphic novel on screen, but then also trying to take what's there strictly for what it is and thinking that a lot of the movie as a standalone product is cheesy, rushed, and flawed.
 
beelzebozo said:
yeah. i'd read the book prior, so my current theory about why i bounce back and forth in my opinion is that there is a part of me that really appreciated some of the visual work in putting the graphic novel on screen, but then also trying to take what's there strictly for what it is and thinking that a lot of the movie as a standalone product is cheesy, rushed, and flawed.
Click to expand...

I agree totally. My background is I read half of it while sitting at Borders one afternoon :lol
 
beelzebozo said:
yeah. i'd read the book prior, so my current theory about why i bounce back and forth in my opinion is that there is a part of me that really appreciated some of the visual work in putting the graphic novel on screen, but then also trying to take what's there strictly for what it is and thinking that a lot of the movie as a standalone product is cheesy, rushed, and flawed.
Click to expand...


Couldn't have put it any better
 
Solo said:
And thats fine, Im not condemning anyone for having different tastes than mine. Im just saying that I do feel a lot of you might have a very different outlook on the movie had you not read the GN first.
Click to expand...
But that might go for the people that haven't read the book and dislike the movie.
 
Battersea Power Station said:
But that might go for the people that haven't read the book and dislike the movie.
Click to expand...
i think that's the thing with this movie, you can view it from like a dozen different perspectives, and have a different opinion of it from every one
 
Solo said:
But thats the thing, Ignatz - the movie isnt thought provoking. Now, from everything Ive ever heard, Im sure the GN is, but Snyder's film is not. There is very little below the surface here. I was HOPING to get a movie that would give me lots to chew on, but I didnt get it.



To be quite fair, the "Snyderisms" are all over the place in the film, and one doesnt really need to intensely scrutinize to find them.
Click to expand...


Well, the positive reviews I've read in the mainstream that come from reviewers that *haven't* read the book seem to think it is. For the people who do like it, that seems to be a major reason.
 
Battersea Power Station said:
But that might go for the people that haven't read the book and dislike the movie.
Click to expand...

How so though? Its not my fault if I haven't read the book and don't think the movie adequately tells its story, but rather the movie's fault for not being adapted successfully. Probably a good 40-50% of the movies out there are adapted from a book Ive never read, and that doesnt stop many of them from being great films.

Heres the way I see it: I've never read a Spider-Man, Superman, or Batman comic (well, that last one is a lie, as Ive read Year One and TDKR, but you get the point) either, yet those respective movies stood just fine on their own, and I never felt as though I was missing half the background information. They were self contained adaptations that introduced and built up the characters, set up a conflict, and followed thru on that. I didnt think Watchmen really succeeded at all in doing this for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Rottenwatch: The Bride!
37
924
CGNoire replied
Megalopolis | Rottenwatch
2 3 4 5
235
17K
Chuck Berry replied
Watchmen: Chapter 1 (Animated comic adaptation)
5
1K
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
Watchmen Chapter 1 & 2 Teaser.
34
4K
DeafTourette replied
Section 31 Rottenwatch: Kurtzman makes a worse Star Trek movie than Into Darkness, Nemesis, and Final Frontier combined
2
94
8K
Darkmakaimura replied
Top Bottom