The Watchmen Movie

[Ermisenda]

I didn't see a thread based on this so I decided to start one since I saw it last night. I personally didn't like it. For those have seen it what did you think? (Remember to put your comments in spoilers in case people who haven't seen the movie and don't want it to be spoiled read them)

[zibber]

I'm still debating whether I should go see it. I'd probably go if someone invites me (someone did, but I was busy), but I'm all about Alan Moore and not so much about Hollywood. It would still be kind of cool to see some stuff on the big screen,

Um, Doc Manhattan and the formation of his big Mars palace? Oh yeah.

but I remember how immensely dissatisfied I felt after watching V for Vendetta (W for Wachowski). I think I'll end up downloading a DVD screener or something of that quality.

Out of curiosity, have many people read the book before seeing the movie?

[Rudy]

I haven't seen it yet, but I plan to. I read that, among reviewers, those who had not read the book enjoyed it more than those who had... which seems odd.

I'll definitely see it, if for no other reason than because Moore annoys me (sorry, zibber.)

[Ermisenda]

I really didn't like the plot or a lot of the content the scenes included. Visually it was very impressive.


I felt that the sex scene was unnecessarily graphic and the amount of nudity shown was unnecessary too. It was so slow to get into the plot and it really shouldn't of lasted 2 hours and 40 minutes. I disliked the plot and felt it fell flat especially at the end. I was very dissatisfied by the plots 'climax' although i did like the very last scene with Rorshcach's journal. I loved Rorshcach the character and he was killed off at the end. That frustrated me lol. And the gore was unnecessary, so brutal in same parts.

The technical side was so brilliant. I thought some of the techniques used were genius, the swinging of the door (for those who remember it when Rorshcach is going to kill that guy in the mens room). I thought the way they devised the action scenes with this fluid slow-mo and then suddenly fast gave the punches so much impact, it was awesome! All the scenes were all visually imaginative and engaging and the cinematography was awesome, along with the lightening and designing of sets but it was the plot that ruined it for me. It had such potential. They should've hired me as director or head of script/plot devising :P

[Airfire]

I just saw the film and was disappointed in that the previews for it were a bit deceptive; I still liked it despite its huge drawbacks. If you were looking for an intense, non-stop action flick, your expectations will only be met through a few scenes that get lost in a mystery-esque plot that is far too drawn out. The story wasn't necessarily good, nor was it bad; it just lacked the depth that other portions of the film excelled in. Visually speaking, it was impressive, and the atmosphere of the film really brought you into the dark alternate world (circa 1985). Also, the characters were very fleshed out, in the sense that each got their own sufficient screen time to explain who they were and how they came to be.

What I liked most about the film was Jackie Earle Haley's performance of Rorschach, which was brilliant. I have a thing for sociopaths that seek vengeance ;)

For the first time in quite a while, I almost felt like crying when Rorschach died near the end. I had a feeling it was coming through the film's creative foreshadowing, but still... I was so attached that it felt like a part of me died inside.
(I did not read the graphic novel before seeing the film, but was aware of the plot via some comic-gurus at school.)

[Chronos]

II read that, among reviewers, those who had not read the book enjoyed it more than those who had... which seems odd.

Maybe those who read the book have preconceptions that the movie doesn't live up to? Or the movie is seen to be 'not true' to the book?

Anyway, I've read the book but I've yet to see the film.

[jikin]

I'm waiting to decide if I want to see it in the theaters or not. I read the graphic novel years ago and loved it, but that would probably place me in the group of people who have higher expectations of it.

Basically I'll wait until one of my few friends who has read it gets to see it before I decide if it's a see now or rent later film.

[Mozzes]

Most of the people I've talked to who didn't like the movie are hilariously pretentious prats who think the graphic novel was like a collaboration between Rembrandt and Shakespeare and as a result is some untouchable piece of fine art instead of a comic book...

[universalis]

Just come back from watching it now. I was totally absorbed and thought it was simply a masterpiece.

Definitely Top 10 favourites. Mostly because of the existential themes.
I was especially fascinated by and related to Dr Manhatten's character.





mattosphere added to this post, 20 minutes and 27 seconds later...

Not to mention watching Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach, was just a phenomenal experience.

[zibber]

Most of the people I've talked to who didn't like the movie are hilariously pretentious prats who think the graphic novel was like a collaboration between Rembrandt and Shakespeare and as a result is some untouchable piece of fine art instead of a comic book...


I'll definitely see it, if for no other reason than because Moore annoys me (sorry, zibber.)

No offense, but I can only laugh at this :)

I mean, I can sort of see nasty ad hominem shit like that influencing my judgments, although I can't think of an example now, but it has nothing at all to do with the actual works in question.

All I'll say is that if you clear your prejudice and give the comic the time it deserves, (as long as you're a fan of comics) you'll most likely be surprisingly refreshed and satisfied. It's not meant to be condensed to 2h40m.

[harrycallahan71]

I saw it last night. Visually it was good, but it did have it's flaws. Not being a fan of Zack Synder much at all i was pleased that he stayed true to the novel for the most part. Overall I enjoyed it for what it was, but I wouldn't say it's the best comic book movie I've seen. The best part of the movie was definitely Haley's performance as Rorschach. His voice reminded me of Snake Plissken.

[TheLastMohican]

I didn't realize that it had an R rating. That's very unusual for a comic book movie.

[HeyZeus]

I've read the graphic novel many times. Alan Moore is a great comic book writer (Marvelman/Miracleman being some of the most adult and creative I've read). Alan Moore apparently does not like to be adapted. Some artists just feel that way, and I can understand it.

I like the Watchmen GN a lot, especially the Rorschach origin issue, but it's far from the best comic/GN of all time as some of the commercials are saying. Frank Miller is undeniably the best comic book creator of the era of sophisticated storylines in comics. I liked the V for Vendetta movie quite a bit, but thought the John Hurt character was absurdly overbearing, and the Prothero (Limbaugh caricature) character was so openly hateful that he was utterly unlikely to be popular as infotainment in any modern culture. Well, excepting Nazi Germany maybe.

I will definitely see the movie after the throngs of TV-commercial-led zombies die down at the theaters.

Would appreciate any insight into the crowds that you have experienced when seeing Watchmen.

Jackie Earle Haley for Sexiest Man Alive 2009!!!!!!!

Forgot to mention...I thought 300 was horrible.

[Henry]

I didn't see a thread based on this so I decided to start one since I saw it last night. I personally didn't like it. For those have seen it what did you think? (Remember to put your comments in spoilers in case people who haven't seen the movie and don't want it to be spoiled read them)

Potential spoilers...don't read if you're worried.


Shades of 300. By that I mean a movie made by and about repressed homosexuality. Some idealization of the female form, but unending hours of naked men and grotesque violence. The only respectable character launches several invectives against the lesbian lifestyle. And in the end we have an unsatisfying conclusion and events that create distant male relationships. The themes of repressed homosexuality in 300 were silly, this was ridic.

I didn't hate it though. It had its moments, I kind of liked the borderline-suicidal tone of it, and I loved the female costuming. The problem is that I didn't like any of the characters except Rorschach...Manhattan is so ridiculously withdrawn and obsessed, Batman is a fat pussy, they don't exactly give the Comedian even-handed treatment, Manhattan's girlfriend spends the whole movie blowing whoever puts a roof over her head, and the corporate guy is a narcissist.

[Rudy]

No offense, but I can only laugh at this :)

I mean, I can sort of see nasty ad hominem shit like that influencing my judgments, although I can't think of an example now, but it has nothing at all to do with the actual works in question.

All I'll say is that if you clear your prejudice and give the comic the time it deserves, (as long as you're a fan of comics) you'll most likely be surprisingly refreshed and satisfied. It's not meant to be condensed to 2h40m.
Well, I was joking when I said that I would see it because I don't like Alan Moore, but it is true that I don't like him.

I read the comic. It was great; one of the better comics that I've read. It's the pretentious "artiste" attitude that annoys me: "My comic is too good for a movie." This attitude annoys me in any purist that doesn't want a book or whatnot made into a movie. Suck it up, and consider them as separate entities, is all I can say. Movies should be judged on their own merit, not on whether they lived up to what they were based on. *shrug*

[Claptonian]

I read the comic. It was great; one of the better comics that I've read. It's the pretentious "artiste" attitude that annoys me: "My comic is too good for a movie."

Has he ever actaully said that or anything like it? I don't think so. He actually makes very valid points, and even then, he hasn't tried to prevent the movie from being made. He just doesn't want his name on it. And if you've seen and read League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, you might understand why he's not a big fan of his work being adapted for the screen.

As for the movie, I thought overall it was very faithful to the book and visually stunning. I think it really lacked the emotional impact the book had, though, and thought the climax was disappointingly anticlimactic. Overall I enjoyed it and there were some truly brilliant sequences.

[Rudy]

Has he ever actually said that or anything like it? I don't think so. He actually makes very valid points, and even then, he hasn't tried to prevent the movie from being made. He just doesn't want his name on it.

This is the article that I based my statement on:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In it he says that the comic is inherently unfilmable, because it used techniques that are too sophisticated for movies. He also says that he'll be spitting venom on the production.

[Airfire]

I didn't realize that it had an R rating. That's very unusual for a comic book movie.

Heh. Let's just say that it earned that rating, and rightfully so:

Violence is up to par with most movies, but there is some gore in the film, such as a circular saw to the forearm of a prison inmate. Although, most of the R rating goes to the sex scenes between Silk Spectre II and Nite Owl. I swear, it was so borderline NC-17 and I am a little shocked that it had its place in a comic-book film. I think it was completely unnecessary. Oh, and you can see all of Dr. Manhattan's physique.

[TheLastMohican]

Heh. Let's just say that it earned that rating, and rightfully so:

Violence is up to par with most movies, but there is some gore in the film, such as a circular saw to the forearm of a prison inmate. Although, most of the R rating goes to the sex scenes between Silk Spectre II and Nite Owl. I swear, it was so borderline NC-17 and I am a little shocked that it had its place in a comic-book film. I think it was completely unnecessary. Oh, and you can see all of Dr. Manhattan's physique.

I agree, completely unnecessary. I guess we should have guessed, considering it was directed by Snyder, but 300 was not that extreme, in part because the violence was highly stylized. The sort of content you describe is sure to hurt ticket sales (though Watchmen will make a lot of money anyway).

[Claptonian]

He also says that he'll be spitting venom on the production.

From the article: "Moore said all that with more mischievous glee than true malice...."

The fact is, Moore is right. Most of what was lacking in Watchmen was due to the inherent limitations of films when compared to comics. I read an interview months ago where Moore talked about how, in a comic, a visual is permanent. The reader can stare at it for as long as he wants, he can go back to it after reading a few pages ahead, etc. This makes a big difference, especially with something like Watchmen which is filled with shocking, graphic images.

I remember when I read the comic, when Rorschach is first presented with the ink blot test and he sees the image of the dog with its head split open, it was extremely unsettling. It was even more unsettling reading the rest of the page with that image still lingering in my peripheral vision. It had a real impact which I think was missing in the movie, simply because you can't capture that effect in film.

I'm not siding with Moore 100% because I liked the movie and I'm really glad it was made. I'm just saying that Moore has made some valid points and all in all he hasn't been a bitch about it. I don't think he's ever tried to get the movie shut down or even tried to discourage people from doing it. He didn't even seem to have a problem with artist Dave Gibbons being involved in it. Moore even wanted to give his share of the royalties to Gibbons.

[boldbidder]

For those who feel the movie was unnecessarily violent or sexual keep in mind that those scenes were lifted panel for panel from the graphic novel on which the movie is based. That was Zack Snyder and the creative paying homage to the source material. Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, I really liked the fact they kept the brutality of the violence and the sex scenes. It was consistent with the world the Moore created within the text, it deserved to realized on the screen.

[blueback]

I read the graphic novel a few months ago and just saw the film.

I have to admit that I was entranced the entire time. I love Zack Snyder's way of translating a graphic novel into a movie (he used a lot of the cinematic tricks from 300).

This is just me, but I don't think a better job could have been done. Snyder took an incredibly elaborate novel and shoe-horned it into a movie. Give the inherent differences between the formats the effect is that much more amazing.

That being said, I think the story line is not for everyone. The reason I like it so much (GN and movie) is that every "page" inspires new philosophical questions or new appreciations for an artistically made point. If you're not the sort of person who sees those things, or if you don't appreciate the ones being shown, it won't work on the same level for you.

The man-junk: While I prefer to avoid the sight of another man's package as much as the next guy, at least Snyder didn't linger on it. In my opinion it is on screen when it plausibly should be. Dr. Manhattan's not a ken doll. He's disconnected, but he's still a man. He still gets confused and aroused and upset and everything else. He choose to be formed as an idealized man, and an idealized man isn't castrated. He just forgets to put clothes on a lot. I can't help but think that the guys who have a huge problem with that are reacting to something inside themselves, not on the screen.

The context: The Night Owl, Silk Specter II, and Rorschach get the most back-story explanation because there just wasn't room for everyone else. In an interview Snyder said that he compressed the movie down to 3.5 hours and then had to cut it down to the current 2.5 hours, so I'm sure all the appropriate context was filmed and hopefully it will be included on the DVD release! I have a hard time predicting how people who don't know all the significant details from reading the GN will interpret what is going on. For example, Ozymandias is much easier to understand in the GN when he gets to explain how he became what he was. In the movie he is just kind of there to provide a plot. Because he doesn't have a back story he kind of turns into a normal supervillian who, in a "twist" ending, turns out to be more of an anti-hero than a totally evil bad guy.

The philosophy: This was my favorite part of the GN and the movie. I think the most important theme in the story is illustrated at the end between Rorschach and everyone else. He lives his life completely without compromise, risking absolutely anything to illuminate the truth (he is a detective after all). Except for the excessive violence I think Ayn Rand would like Rorschach. Anyway, at the end everyone else agrees that it is better to keep Ozymandias' secret because it did produce peace, and telling everyone the truth would only plunge the world back into war. They decided that life was more important than truth. Rorschach couldn't accept that. He had always thought that truth was more important than life. That is why he was so brutal in his pursuit of the truth. He knew he was risking his own life because his efficacy and methods made him so dangerous. At the end he simply ran afoul of a force too strong even for him to win against. Or did he? His diary could expose the whole thing and, in a sense, allow him to get what he wanted after all. It brings up the interesting question: is truth more important than life?

The sex: People need to get over sex. Sure, God thinks it's a bad idea outside of marriage, but he doesn't seem to be smiting anyone for it. I think it can be a beautiful and significant thing, especially when it's artistic. Not only is the sex scene aesthetically pleasing, it's meaningful because it expands our understanding of the characters. The Night Owl (II) and Silk Specter II are the only two characters who inherited their costumes from a parental figure. Before they retired they both lived under the shadow of that knowledge. Just like a child who grows up being compared to their successful parent, the two of them had to reject the persona so that they could return to it again and actually make it their own. That's why Night Owl couldn't get it up right away, he had lost his mojo. Silk Specter II was just glad to find a guy who was not only her equal but also just as lonely as she was, so she wanted to jump into his bed (she is her mother's daughter after all). The two of them had to go out and do something totally of their own making, rescuing people from that fire, before they could feel good enough to come together. Silk Specter II wasn't happy with Dr. Manhattan because there wasn't anything she could offer him, but there was something she could offer the Night Owl II, just like there was something he could offer her.

The ending: I thought it was an elegant way of dealing with the difficulty of cutting down the plot to fit into a decent movie length. It allows for the complete removal of everything from the GN related to Ozymandias' elaborate production of the alien squid thingie, which also allows for the removal of most of Ozymandias' story. Since most of the characters are all alone anyway, it makes sense to focus on the ones who have relationships. The friendship between Rorschach and Night Owl, the love triangle between Night Owl, Silk Specter and Dr. Manhattan are the primary relationships in the story. Tracking the simplified ending back to the beginning of the movie helps to streamline everything because it requires less explanation and therefore less of the isolated back stories.

The R-rating: It think it makes sense to put so much sex and violence in the movie that children won't be allowed to see it: it's not for children. It is a movie about adults, dealing with adult problems, not about how super sweet it would be to have super powers. Superman movies are for children, because apparently it is possible to fight for the fate of the entire world with global-class criminals and not spill any blood. The Watchmen is a philosophical examination of what it means to find your own balance with the rest of the world. Children wouldn't get it. So, not only does the R rating ensure that kids will be less likely to see it, it helps the adults to engage with it because it shows real consequences for people's actions.

[LaoTzu]

I just finished watching it.

I'll watch it again.

I hadn't heard of the novels or anything to do with the characters/story before. I liked how they kept it dark and 'realistic', while overemphasizing the violence (to keep it from being TOO real... can't describe it better sorry). It's got to be difficult trying for realism with these characters and storylines.... they did a pretty good job.

At points, I thought I was watching 'The Tick' live action show... and it seems a bit drawn out at times. But fleshing out all the Mains so much was kind of a nice bonus.
Not sure why there had to be an alternate reality to it all... I suppose it allows for more creative free-license and odd behavior...

A bit too much sex/gore... but meh... whatever floats ur boat. Thats what Graphic Novels are all about :)

Reading BlueBack's spoiler, I tend to agree it was mostly necessary...

[Night Runner]

For the most part, I agree with blueback. Snyder did a really good job, considering the epic scale of the GN.

At first, I was really disappointed with the way he altered the ending. Now that I think of it, though, it seems to make sense. The end result is the same, every character's fate played out the way it did in the GN, and the alien thing would probably take too much time to explain. Methinks he took a shortcut there.

My absolutely favorite part of the movie was the opening credits, with the montage of the old crimefighters. Major, major, major kudos for that short scene where The Silhouette (the lesbian crimefighter) makes out with the nurse. :lovestruck: It was random, it was fun, and it was a great "re-imagining" of that historic scene. Actually, I loved The Silhouette's character was portrayed throughout the movie. That black outfit and all that gothic-type makeup in the 1940s... :thumbsup:

[Moondyn]

I saw it tonight and it was far too long. A 1 hour and 30 minute trim would have been nice. I liked the intp blue guy Manhattan, and the blond mastermind guy intj the best!

[jcb]

first half, roughly, was good. the character/plot development etc was interesting enough.

the second half, from the cheeseball sex scene between the batman guy and jupiter onward, was utter shit.

it seemed very rushed. not to mention the director (beyond the second half of the film) didn't seem to know who he wanted as the main focus of the movie so he decided everyone would be, consequently leading to no one being the focus.

hey, if its that great a comic, flesh out the characters/pre-story moreso in the first film while leading us to a second film that details the rest of the events a.k.a. take ones time to tell the story.

but then that would run completely contrary to the average person's desire to have everything, right NOW, at any cost - we can't have that! so let's cater to the lowest common denominator as per usual and totally fuck it up.

[speedsuit721]

I saw it last night, and there seems to be a lot of, "Why was Nixon elected for three terms?" "Why was Dr. Manhattan naked?" "Why were all those sex scenes in there?" Because they were in the comic books! I'm not sure why people are getting huffy over the alternative 1980s scenario when movies are nothing BUT alternative realities. It was to prove a point and provide a proper setting for the story. Dr. Manhattan is naked because he is disconnected from humanity and sees no point in wearing clothes.[/QUOTE]

Alan Moore doesn't like his work being adapted because he was burned by Hollywood the first time he attempted it. And he had a lot of fallings-out with DC, particularly over the rights to Watchmen. So he's sworn off ever being remotely involved in or even receiving profits from movies made from his books. I listened to Dave Gibbons himself explain it at NY Comic Con. He said Moore was "the most sane, rational person I've ever known."

I liked the movie. I kind of missed the squid, but the new ending actually wrapped things up more cleanly than the comic books did. As a bonus, the movie helped me appreciate a lot of the humor in the books. I tend to miss the emotional depth in books--probably because I don't enjoy expressing it much myself--and seeing it played out on screen made me realize how funny a lot of moments are. And we'll get a lot more on the director's cut DVD.





speedsuit721 added to this post, 8 minutes and 22 seconds later...

it seemed very rushed. not to mention the director (beyond the second half of the film) didn't seem to know who he wanted as the main focus of the movie so he decided everyone would be, consequently leading to no one being the focus.



It really wasn't rushed at all. There were side plot points removed, but nothing that made the main plot point harder to understand. It moved at pretty much the same pace as the books. And the movie spent as much time on each individual character as the books did. No one character is supposed to be the main character.
[QUOTE]
hey, if its that great a comic, flesh out the characters/pre-story moreso in the first film while leading us to a second film that details the rest of the events a.k.a. take ones time to tell the story.

I'm not even sure how that would work. The characters are developed throughout the story. And as I said above, the whole thing moved pretty much scene for scene through the books.

[Mozzes]

All I'll say is that if you clear your prejudice and give the comic the time it deserves, (as long as you're a fan of comics) you'll most likely be surprisingly refreshed and satisfied. It's not meant to be condensed to 2h40m.

On the contrary, I've read the graphic novel and liked it. I realize I probably came off a bit dismissive towards the comic but I meant to sound disgusted with the fandom surrounding it. I guess I don't usually feel strongly enough about works of art to argue taste. It just seems so...futile. It's the view of the fanboys that "this is the greatest thing even and any attempt to replicate it is going to suck" that makes me giggle.

That being said I didn't really care too much for the movie because it was too similar to the comic. Well, I knew that going in but I didn't realize how much it would annoy me. I mean, if I wanted the story almost exactly like it was in the comic I just would've read the damn comic. I think that's the reason I liked The Dark Knight so much. It was relatively fresh (well, at least as fresh as Batman vs. Joker can be). The same thing with the X-Men movies. A lot of fanboys bitched about how much they deviated from the comic storylines but if I wanted those stories I would just read the comics.

For me it's the same way with the Harry Potter movies and all the others. I don't understand the appeal of simply transferring a story to a new medium. Give me something novel!

[Claptonian]

In regards to the ending:

I don't think the change was necessary and I think it actually made the ending far less believable. After all, Dr. Manhattan was working for the U.S. government and America's enemies viewed him as an American WMD. If the world thought he was responsible for millions of death worldwide, I think they would blame the U.S. for it, even if he wasn't acting on behalf of the American government. America's enemies would probably use it as a way to turn the rest of the world against the U.S.

In the book, the whole point of using an alien attack as the event its that it represents an outside force, completely unrelated to any of the existing conflicts. Dr. Manhattan has too many ties to America to be considered an outside force. He fought in Vietnam, for Christ's sake! :p

[Goethe]

I loved the film; Ozymandias is the best.

[rain]

Potential spoilers...don't read if you're worried.


Shades of 300. By that I mean a movie made by and about repressed homosexuality. Some idealization of the female form, but unending hours of naked men and grotesque violence. The only respectable character launches several invectives against the lesbian lifestyle. And in the end we have an unsatisfying conclusion and events that create distant male relationships. The themes of repressed homosexuality in 300 were silly, this was ridic.

I didn't hate it though. It had its moments, I kind of liked the borderline-suicidal tone of it, and I loved the female costuming. The problem is that I didn't like any of the characters except Rorschach...Manhattan is so ridiculously withdrawn and obsessed, Batman is a fat pussy, they don't exactly give the Comedian even-handed treatment, Manhattan's girlfriend spends the whole movie blowing whoever puts a roof over her head, and the corporate guy is a narcissist.

i couldn't agree more. it is exactly what i thought of the film.

[BostonIan]

I just saw the movie, I loved it.

The premise was intriguing. Rorschach was great, he was the center of the movie. There were great minor social cameos, and the actors being lesser-knowns let them embody the characters very well. The flow was good for me, didn't drag, the sex scene was explicit, but it informed one of the characters. The revealed villain was a great choice, and the ending appealed to me. Not because it was a good ending, because it was a bad ending that was supposed to be bad and reflected on the modern tendency away from a clear right/wrong.

Two thumbs up: :thumbsup::thumbsup:

[universalis]

I don't think there was a villian. That's another reason I liked it.

[Saint Alexander]

I read the graphic novel some years ago, and when I heard it was being made into a movie, re-read it for posterity; when the movie finally came around I loved it.

It did a great job translating the overall premise of the book - applying superheroes to as 'real' a real-world scenario as was possible - without sacrificing too much integrity in that translation.

[Synapse]

I heard the movie was terrible by many sources and I looked at Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes and this film looks quite medicore. I see that the Rotten Tomatoes rating is currently at 65, so it would be considered "fresh", but I've never liked a movie below 80 on there.

They say the movie tries to accomplish too much, by simultaneously attempting to preserve source material and make it entertaining, but they fail with an awkward attempt in the middle. :(

[SShack]

I thought the movie was okay. It wasn't particularly mindblowing, though that's to be expected when comics hero culture has been deconstructing itself for the past two decades (thanks in part to the Watchmen, of course).

Dumbass parents brought their little kids to the movie, despite the R rating. I kept thinking about this 8-year-old girl who was no doubt leaving the movie with a lot of questions -- about the penis. Though I suspect more likely she found the movie very boring because the concepts were way too mature for her.

Grossing me out was the morbidly obese fat man in the back row who laughed (very loudly) at the bloody corpses of the lesbians.

[Night Runner]

I heard the movie was terrible by many sources and I looked at Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes and this film looks quite medicore.

Keep in mind that those are the same sources that told the world that The Incredible Hulk (the one made in 2003, not 2008) was excellent and Joss Whedon's Serenity was terrible. Lots of paid weasels who go with the flow... Ask your friends if they've seen it and whether they liked it - that method almost never fails me.

[blueback]

In my mind, the bottom line is that you have to participate in the experience.

It's not like 300 where you can just sit back and let the movie happen to you, instead you have to dig into what is happening and find meaning in it. There's a lot of substance there if you start looking for it. At least, there is for me, so if you disagree with me about what is important then maybe there won't be for you.

I mean, it's a story about saving/destroying the entire world and there isn't a single good guy or bad guy in it! Everyone is ambiguous. That's so much more fun than the artificially contrived story lines which wimp out of actually presenting anyone with a moral dilemma.

Is it acceptable that the people trying to save the world only feel good about themselves when they get the chance to beat the shit out of people? Did the Comedian have point? Should Dr. Manhattan have put shorts on? There are so many different lines of thought and none of them have an obvious answer. That is good art.

[Alienated]

Finally, a comic book film with gore and sex. :)

[Mozzes]

Keep in mind that those are the same sources that told the world that The Incredible Hulk (the one made in 2003, not 2008) was excellent and Joss Whedon's Serenity was terrible.

What are you talking about? Ang Lee's Hulk scored 61% on RT's tomatometer which is barely "fresh" by their standards while Serenity scored 81% which is pretty decent.

[Night Runner]

Those are current results. When Hulk first came out 6 years ago, critics were praising it left and right. Huge opening weekend - then the word of mouth spread and it plunged horribly. Serenity was ripped to shreds by most "professional" critics when it came out...

[aok]

I thought it was one of the best superhero movies I've seen, if not the best. I thought it had much more of a thought provoking story line than most superhero movies and the characters were much more multidimensional. I read a little of the graphic novel. I also liked V for Vandetta (which I didn't read) and From Hell (which I did read). The Mindscape of Alan Moore was also very good as well.

[Kisai]

I'm now waiting for the real Alan Moore story that 'can't be made into a movie' to be made into a movie - Marvelman.

[Lesondemavie]

I saw the movie last night and I really enjoyed it.

Did anyone else find Rorschach incredibly sexy?

[Merle]

For those who feel the movie was unnecessarily violent or sexual keep in mind that those scenes were lifted panel for panel from the graphic novel on which the movie is based. That was Zack Snyder and the creative paying homage to the source material. Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, I really liked the fact they kept the brutality of the violence and the sex scenes. It was consistent with the world the Moore created within the text, it deserved to realized on the screen.


Not all of the violence was in the book. For instance, Rorschach killing the kiddy murderer with a meat cleaver - in the graphic novel he doesn't kill him, he ties him up, lights the place on fire, hands him a saw and says something like " I wouldn't bother trying to saw through the cuffs you don't have that much time", implying that the guy should cut his own limbs off.

The movie ups the violence and changes Rorschach's character in the process.

Likewise, with the Vietnam scenes and the Comedian splattering Vietnamese soldiers to bits - that is at least implied in the book but not shown.

I found that a bit troubling, because as a whole the movie likes its protagonists a whole lot more than the book does, and they are far more heroic, and so I would think it really ought to downplay rather than upscale the violence, because it then glorifies it which is really warping what the book was about.

The sex, I had no problem with and I don't think it was at all explicit... a few lingering shots of entwined legs and some up-and-down movements, not exactly hardcore is it?

[Silence]

I saw the film opening weekend, and was grateful that there were no little kids in the theater. Then again, the manager was right at the ticket booth, warning parents. That was nice to see, because knowing there are kids in an adult movie is a distraction.

I'd read the GN a few years ago, and when I got wind of the movie finally being made, I re-read it. Sometimes I get more out of a second (or third) reading, and this was one of those times. I loved the GN.

I thought the movie was stunning.

We all know it's impossible to convey everything we read onto film; different mediums evoke different emotional connections. I thought they did a wonderful job, given the time restriction they had. It's been nearly a week, and I'm still reflecting on it, which means I'll be seeing it again and buying the DVD when it comes out.

Even though I knew the story, the translation to the screen made it new. I loved the acting, the effects, the violence and the sex- the whole shebang.

Each character had so many, many facets and layers. It's not often that you find that in a movie, and even less often that you find the heroes to be so grubby and flawed and so utterly and recognizably human. Each one of them held echoes of every person, and to have this done under the threat of nuclear war that was all-pervasive in 1985- nostalgia was just bonus.

[stankerbell]

I really liked the movie; saw it in imax and like many others here thought that it was visually beautiful. The action scenes (while matrix-like) were fun to watch and i loved the fact that they didn't cast any "a list" actors for the main roles. For me, I thought rorschach and the comedian stole the show.

[Kisai]

Saw it this weekend.

The worst I can really say is to compare it to the Harry Potter films, where everything is beautiful, you get to see your favorite scenes re-enacted but just really rushed as a story. I appreciate pacing in a film.

I think the movie failed in several key places. It didn't do a very good job in showing you how messed up Rorschach is. I don't know if its the rating board or American culture, but chopping off a man's arms on screen in a method that does not advance the story is treated as a blase' thrill, but actually showing Rorschach's mom abusing her son doesn't make the cut.

I missed Dr. Manhattan's quote in the comic when he blows up Moloch's henchman's head "The morality of my actions escapes me." I always liked that quote.

I wished the Comedian was more animated in his admoninations that Jon was turning into a flake in Vietnam. The actor seemed too calm for just getting his face sliced up.

I wished Rorschach was played creepier, without emotional ticks on his face in prison. I felt in the comic that he turned his flesh face into a mask. I miss Drieburg explaining to Lori how Rorschach attracts all this insanity and chaos in the prison break.

The pacing of Lori & Jon's conversation on Mars could have gone much better. I felt the actress was flat as Lori. I realize the film was 2 hr. 40m.

[Prunesquallor]

My problem with the sex scene was the background music.
I mean, Leonard Cohen? Wtf?

Other than that, I was surprised at how close it was to the comic - I had much lower expectations, but I still didn't love it. It was fine. Rorschach's face was pretty cool.

[Spitefulserpent]

Just saw it and liked it a lot. A lot of people gave Matthew Goode crap for his performance but I didn't think he did too bad. What gets me is that they moved the whole "nothing ever ends" conversation...

[Night Runner]

I realize the film was 2 hr. 40m.

The DVD version will be about 40-50 minutes longer. Here's hoping it'll fill in the gaps.

[dcm]

In my mind, the bottom line is that you have to participate in the experience.

It's not like 300 where you can just sit back and let the movie happen to you, instead you have to dig into what is happening and find meaning in it. There's a lot of substance there if you start looking for it. At least, there is for me, so if you disagree with me about what is important then maybe there won't be for you.

I mean, it's a story about saving/destroying the entire world and there isn't a single good guy or bad guy in it! Everyone is ambiguous. That's so much more fun than the artificially contrived story lines which wimp out of actually presenting anyone with a moral dilemma.

Is it acceptable that the people trying to save the world only feel good about themselves when they get the chance to beat the shit out of people? Did the Comedian have point? Should Dr. Manhattan have put shorts on? There are so many different lines of thought and none of them have an obvious answer. That is good art.

I haven't read the comic, and enjoyed the movie. I wholehearted agree with this statement.