Jump to content

Watchmen


Derek5272

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Saw it today. I had never read the comic, so I had no idea what to expect and didn't go into it with a scrutinizing mind. Like Catphish, I went in with no expectation whatsoever. Overall, I dug it. It was good. Not great-I didn't love it, but a decent flick nonetheless. I paid matinee price so that was cool. Lots of violence and the almost rape scene was pretty intense. I won't be in a big hurry to see it again, but didn't feel hosed out of $5 each for me and the gf (who disliked it).

Rorschach remined me of Danny Bonaduce. :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

 

This is a strange thing to say.

It's comprised entirely of iconic songs from the times the story happens.

A bit too easy listening, sure but lame ? I see nothing but great songs here.

 

 

Not the music itself, but when you take the music vis-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ok, I just got back from seeing the film.

I liked it - more than I was expecting to actually. Yes, Jackie Earle Haley was excellent as Rorschach (and I remembered him as Moocher from the film "Breaking Away"). But I also thought that Patrick Wilson as NiteOwl was really good, and Jeff Morgan as the Comedian was well done. The others were okay - not great but decent enough.

The best part of the film were the visuals & art direction - really outstanding I thought. Lots of great little details and good deal of "wow factor". The title sequence itself right off the bat was an excellent bit of filmmaking.

I liked the fact that it was really long, and that there were a lot of complexities and jumping around in time to the story. I find that sort of stuff rich and interesting.

Sure, there were bits that could have been better maybe. Whatshisname playing Ozymandias was kinda weak. Having Ozy fully explain his plan is the kind of storytelling device I generally hate. The flamethrower joke (Niteowl & Silk Spectre) was too cutesy. The fight scenes had a bit too much standard action film sound for my tastes. But none of these things ruined anything.

Overall I'd give this a solid 8 outta 10. Not the be-all/end-all of films no, but well done and certainly worth seeing. I've read a ton of reviews and backstory about this and quite honestly I was expecting worse. I'm glad I was disappointed.



One little detail. I'm not 100% sure, but I thought I heard someone in the background during the scene where NiteOwl & Silk Spectre are eating in a restaurant say, "I'm glad I ordered the four legged chicken". If so, that's pretty funny. There were actually a lot of little bits like this in the background (visual & audio) that were fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


One little detail. I'm not 100% sure, but I thought I heard someone in the background during the scene where NiteOwl & Silk Spectre are eating in a restaurant say, "I'm glad I ordered the four legged chicken". If so, that's pretty funny.

 

 

I heard that too and definitely appreciated it. I'm going to have to get more involved with the graphic novel and watch it again I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Sure, there were bits that could have been better maybe...Having Ozy fully explain his plan is the kind of storytelling device I generally hate. The flamethrower joke (Niteowl & Silk Spectre) was too cutesy.

 

 

However, both are directly from the comic...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

However, both are directly from the comic...

 

 

Yeah, I appreciate that. But still, from a purely "film experience" viewpoint, they bothered me some. Like I said before, neither entirely ruined the film or anything - just some of the bits that kept it from being flawless IMO. They are both cheap shots to some degree (even if Alan Moore wrote them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They are both cheap shots to some degree (even if Alan Moore wrote them).

 

 

The flame thrower thing I'll give you, but the plan explication is essential to Moore's story, the whole "your greatest accomplishment is failing to stop the salvation of the world" idea...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

so we saw it the other day and 3 min 'til the end the film burns up , total meltdown it was like a b movie special effect , infact we all thought it was real :lol::mad: so when the hottie comes home and tells mom she knows who here daddy is it melts right there , sooo can someone be so kind and pm what happened just after ... :wave: the good news is we got free passes for another day .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The flame thrower thing I'll give you, but the plan explication is essential to Moore's story, the whole "your greatest accomplishment is failing to stop the salvation of the world" idea...

 

 

I've got no problem with Oz explaining his reasoning behind what he did. I also agree that some sort of explanation of who/what/where is essential to the story. It's just that the device used to accomplish this wasn't as good as some of the other elements in the film.

 

When a storyteller (be it a writer, filmmaker, or whoever) has to find a way to tell the actual story (or a part of it), he/she usually draws upon any number of devices in which to accomplish this. They could actually show it in scenes (which of course takes a lot of time), they could hint at it here and there during other scenes, they could show it as a series of old newscasts, they could do a flashback, hell they could even do a song and dance number. But one of the easiest and cheapest ways to do it is to simply have one character tell it to another. Sometimes this works, but often it seems like a cop-out from the creative side of things. Also, it can not seem natural for the character to be doing this. This is the problem I had here.

 

Compare this with the way some of the backstory was told during that opening credits montage. This part of the film was excellent and really well crafted. And it was really tight and efficient. Had it been done by having say Rorschach telling it to Silk Spectre, the effect would have been weaker. And it wouldn't have felt natural.

 

The way they chose (Oz telling it to NiteOwl/Rorschach) DID work. It did accomplish the task, and it was necessary to tell this part of the story. It's just that the way it was done was weak in comparison to some of the rest of the film (and book).

 

Still though, I liked the movie, and enjoyed it much more than not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I've got no problem with Oz explaining
his reasoning behind what he did
. I also agree that some sort of explanation of who/what/where is essential to the story. It's just that the device used to accomplish this wasn't as good as some of the other elements in the film.


When a storyteller (be it a writer, filmmaker, or whoever) has to find a way to tell the actual story (or a part of it), he/she usually draws upon any number of devices in which to accomplish this. They could actually show it in scenes (which of course takes a lot of time), they could hint at it here and there during other scenes, they could show it as a series of old newscasts, they could do a flashback, hell they could even do a song and dance number. But one of the easiest and cheapest ways to do it is to simply have one character tell it to another. Sometimes this works, but often it seems like a cop-out from the creative side of things. Also, it can not seem natural for the character to be doing this. This is the problem I had here.


Compare this with the way some of the backstory was told during that opening credits montage. This part of the film was excellent and really well crafted. And it was really tight and efficient. Had it been done by having say Rorschach telling it to Silk Spectre, the effect would have been weaker. And it wouldn't have felt natural.


The way they chose (Oz telling it to NiteOwl/Rorschach) DID work. It did accomplish the task, and it was necessary to tell this part of the story. It's just that the way it was done was weak in comparison to some of the rest of the film (and book).


Still though, I liked the movie, and enjoyed it much more than not.

 

 

I think one aspect you are ignoring is that this is supposed to be, to some extent, a parody of the idea of a super heroes. How could you truly parody a super hero story, but then leave out one of the biggest super hero cliches? Its true that there are more effective ways to tell the story itself, but I can't think of a better way to deliver the parody in that situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I think one aspect you are ignoring is that this is supposed to be, to some extent, a parody of the idea of a super heroes. How could you truly parody a super hero story, but then leave out one of the biggest super hero cliches? Its true that there are more effective ways to tell the story itself, but I can't think of a better way to deliver the parody in that situation.



True. I thought it was funny that after telling the tale he even took the time to point out that he isn't like normal villains who tell your the plot first, he told them his plot because it was already 35 minutes too late, it didn't matter.

I am an OLD school fan, I still own the original first print comic book that pre-dated the graphic novel. I wonder how much in value they spiked for the next few weeks any way. :lol:

I really enjoyed it over all.

What I didn't enjoy was seeing around 10 kids under the age of 6 in that theater. Those parents deserve to be jimmy kicked out a window. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So, to re-reail the thread...

 

Can someone explain why exactly the Comedian had to be killed?

 

Okay, so he learned about the plan, but it didn't seem like he cared or was going to do something about it. So, why kill him and tip off the others that something was up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So, to re-reail the thread...


Can someone explain why exactly the Comedian had to be killed?


Okay, so he learned about the plan, but it didn't seem like he cared or was going to do something about it. So, why kill him and tip off the others that something was up?

 

 

The Comedian was becoming progressively weaker, emotionally. This was most apparent when he went to one of his nemesis and drunkenly spilled his guts. It was only a matter of time before he spilled to someone who mattered and destroyed the plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...