Watchmen

[Recoil]

I can't wait until this movie fails and all the fan boys kill themselves. The Dark Knight will beat it in both box office and critical acclaim. The Director has already said he won't return if/when they do a sequel.

"The world will look up and shout 'save us' and I'll wisper 'no'".... wow.... that is some deep ****...What a bunch of non-sense.

Now. Bring on all the fanboys who will rage against my post and tell me I don't understand the significance of the literature. LOL.

 

[Handlethevibe]

If you look around online you can find a brief clip of the prison breakout. It is embarrassing. Found it http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40200

 

[Gradstudent78]

Originally Posted by LVoer

The Director has already said he won't return if/when they do a sequel.

That doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the film or his experience making it.

 

[Flambeur]

getting very mixed reviews so far

 

[DocHolliday]

Originally Posted by Tck13

How so? I don't really know the history but I kinda liked the movie IIRC.

Moore's original is fantastic. The movie had one cool scene -- Dorian Gray getting shot up -- and some interesting set design. Could have been so much more. Sean Connery was really awful, and I like Sean Connery.

Originally Posted by RFX45

Got my tickets for the midnight showing and I purchased the motion comic yesterday.
It's a good way to recap what I read several years ago.

I was looking at that yesterday. I liked the preview, but it's like six hours long and I couldn't make that kind of commitment. But let me know what you think -- if you say it's awesome, I might download it on my iPod for travel entertainment.

 

[Neo_Version 7]

It's been called "unfilmable" in the past for a reason. It wasn't the lack of development in special effects or anything like that. The different stories weave in and out establishing histories of the past; so to put it coherently in film is quite a task.

And despite how some may find it incredibly dated, that's kind of what they're aiming for. The graphic novel is so revered that experiencing it in another medium is natural for "fanboys". I don't see the harm in that.

And The Dark Knight was ****. Mediocrity at its finest.

 

[Neo_Version 7]

Originally Posted by Flambeur

getting very mixed reviews so far
I'm not surprised. I suppose critics just don't find it as straight-forward as 300 -- which almost every reviewer is comparing it to. That's fair considering it's the same director but still. Different source material.

 

[tagutcow]

Originally Posted by Handlethevibe

If you look around online you can find a brief clip of the prison breakout. It is embarrassing.

Found it

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40200

Er... what is the "massively cool" moment in that clip?

I imagine a 13-year-old boy would think it's all awesome.

 

[DocHolliday]

Originally Posted by tagutcow

Er... what is the "massively cool" moment in that clip?

I imagine a 13-year-old boy would think it's all awesome.

That's the scene that made me think the movie could be really awful.

 

[Bhowie]

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

That's the scene that made me think the movie could be really awful.

Seeing the trailer and finding out who the director was, just stole my desire to see this movie.

 

[Neo_Version 7]

We should write a letter.

Dear Mr. Snyder,

Please go easy on the slow-motion.

Should I add anything else?

 

[DocHolliday]

Originally Posted by Bhowie

Seeing the trailer and finding out who the director was, just stole my desire to see this movie.

There were a few signs I found encouraging. Rorshach looks good, and some of the design is spectacular. I also liked the enthusiasm I saw for the project. But now I'm not very optimistic. Same ingredients went into League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

 

[acidboy]

I'm gonna see it in 5-1/2 hours... jeesh I hate watching movies for more than 2 hours, I do hope this is worth it..

 

[bmulford]

I keep hearing how the movie features far too much blue man cack.

 

[RFX45]

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

I was looking at that yesterday. I liked the preview, but it's like six hours long and I couldn't make that kind of commitment. But let me know what you think -- if you say it's awesome, I might download it on my iPod for travel entertainment.

Finished it a while ago. It definitely is long but it is also divided into 12 chapters and last about 30 minutes each so it can be seen a chapter at a time. I think it is pretty good, it adds to the overall feeling and could possibly give a different translation on the book on how the narration is acted out. The only thing I was a bit off is that there is only one narrator so even the women's dialogue is read by the narrator, pretty much a man trying to emulate a woman's voice. I got used to it quick though, just somewhat weird in the beginning.

Originally Posted by LVoer

I can't wait until this movie fails and all the fan boys kill themselves. The Dark Knight will beat it in both box office and critical acclaim. The Director has already said he won't return if/when they do a sequel.

"The world will look up and shout 'save us' and I'll wisper 'no'".... wow.... that is some deep ****...What a bunch of non-sense.

Now. Bring on all the fanboys who will rage against my post and tell me I don't understand the significance of the literature. LOL.

Hurm...


As for some of the reviews, I think it is a bit biased, especially to those who have not read the book itself.
I mean I read one of the reviews and this is what I got...

FILM REVIEWS
Film Review: Watchmen By Kirk Honeycutt, February 26, 2009 03:35 ET
Bottom Line: Ouch. It's not easy being a comic book hero these days. The poor boys have taken their lumps in "Hancock," "The Dark Knight" and even "Iron Man." Self-doubt, angst and inadequacies plague them. And now comes "Watchmen." Its costumed superheroes, operating in an alternative 1985, are seriously screwed up -- and so is their movie. If anyone were able to make a nine-figure movie, something like "Watchmen" would have been the opening-night film at the Sundance Film Festival.

As stimulating as it was to see the superhero movie enter the realm of crime fiction in "The Dark Knight," "Watchmen" enters into a realm that is both nihilistic and campy. The two make odd companions. The film, directed by Zack Snyder ("300"), will test the limits of superhero movie fans. If you're not already invested in these characters because of the original graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, nothing this movie does is likely to change that predicament.

That's bad news for Warner Bros. and Paramount, which hold domestic and international rights, respectively. Opening weekends everywhere will reflect the huge anticipation of this much-touted, news-making movie. After that, the boxoffice slide could be drastic.

Snyder and writers David Hayter and Alex Tse never find a reason for those unfamiliar with the graphic novel to care about any of this nonsense. And it is nonsense. When one superhero has to take a Zen break, he does so on Mars. Of course he does.

The film opens with a brutal killing, then moves on to a credit-roll newsreel of sorts that takes us though the Cold War years, landing us in 1985 when Nixon is in his third term, tipping us that we're in an alternate 1985 America, where our superheroes have taken care of Woodward and Bernstein and other forces have evidently taken care of the U.S. Constitution.

The opening murder happens to a character called the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), who was once a member of a now-banished team of superheroes called the Masks. Fellow ex-Mask Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) -- his mask one of perpetually shifting inkblots -- takes exception to his old colleague's death. He believes the entire society of ex-crime-fighters is being targeted even as the Doomsday Clock -- which charts tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union that could lead to nuclear war -- nears midnight.

His investigation and renewed contacts with former buddies fills us in on the complicated histories and problematic psychiatric makeups of these colleagues.

It's all very complicated but not impenetrable. We pick up the relationships quickly enough, but soon realize these back stories owe more to soap operas than to superhero comics.

The thing is, these aren't so much superheroes as ordinary human beings with, let us say, comic-book martial arts prowess. The one exception is Billy Crudup's Jon Osterman, aka Dr. Manhattan, who in true comic book fashion was caught in a laboratory accident that turned him into a scientific freak -- a naked, glowing giant, looking a little bit like the Oscar statuette only with actual ******** -- who has amazing God-like powers.

These powers are being harnessed by an ex-Mask, Matthew Goode's menacing though slightly effeminate industrialist Adrian Veidt.

When Dr. Manhattan's frustrated girlfriend, yet another former Mask, Malin Akerman's Laurie Jupiter, can't get any satisfaction from Dr. M, she turns to the former Nite Owl II, Dan Dreiberg, who seems too much of a good guy to be an actual superhero, but he does miss those midnight prowls.

The point is that these superheroes, before Nixon banned them, were more vigilantes than real heroes, so the question the movie poses is, ah-hah, who is watching these Watchmen? They don't seem too much different from the villains.

Which also means we don't empathize with any of these creatures. And what's with the silly Halloween getups? Did anyone ever buy those Hollywood Boulevard costumes?

The violence is not as bad as early rumors would have one believe. It's still comic book stuff, only with lots of bloody effects and makeup. The real disappointment is that the film does not transport an audience to another world, as "300" did. Nor does the third-rate Chandler-esque narration by Rorschach help.

There is something a little lackadaisical here. The set pieces are surprisingly flat and the characters have little resonance. Fight scenes don't hold a candle to Asian action. Even the digital effects are ho-hum. Armageddon never looked so cheesy.

The film seems to take pride in its darkness, but this is just another failed special effect. Cinematographer Larry Fong and production designer Alex McDowell blend real and digital sets with earthen tones and secondary colors that give a sense of the past. But the stories are too absurd and acting too uneven to convince anyone. The appearances of a waxworks Nixon, Kissinger and other 1980s personalities will only bring hoots from less charitable audiences.

Looks like we have the first real flop of 2009.

I mean how can a review like that be taken seriously?