*** Official WATCHMEN Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Pete York]

Despite all the kerfluffle over embargoes and such, this is essentially a critic proof film, no? Anyway two disparate but interesting critics, Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) and Kyle Smith (NY Post) both gave the film :star: :star: :star: :star: today, for those looking for a critical 'goose'.

 

[Ray H]

Ebert's review is pretty heartening.

 

[TonyD]

well, here's the link to that.
Watchmen :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews

 

[Brandon Conway]

Sounds like Ebert liked it for all the reasons one should like an adaptation of Watchmen. An encouraging sign.

 

[Derek Miner]

I think many people could decide whether this movie is something they'll be interested in just by reading that review. Personally, I'm waiting to hear Joe Morgenstern (Wall Street Journal) weigh in, since I like his writing style and usually agree with his reasons for liking or disliking a film.

 

[DavidJ]

I am wavering a bit in my desire to see the film after some of the discussion of what makes this a "hard R" film, but Ebert's review does stoke the flame of curiosity.

 

[Patrick H.]

Ebert and I tend to be in lock-step when it comes to this genre, and he is seriously gushing in that review. This is officially a must-see.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Watchmen". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "Watchmen" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy

 

[Patrick Sun]

I laughed when I realized they almost could have casted Danny Bonaduce as Kovach (Rorschach). But Haley is very entertaining as Rorschach, and totally got the character, though could have put in a few more "hurm.."s.

The music is so loud at times, far too distracting and unnecessary (I almost felt like it was trying to jolt viewers awake in case they nodded off).

Matthew Goode was totally mis-cast, or mis-interpreted Veidt to the point of distraction for me. Malin Akerman was decent eye candy, but her acting undermined many scenes for me, and just couldn't elevate the material, which was too bad.

The film, based on its script, never did find a good rhythm or pace, and it was just jamming stuff in because they were needed to keep the plot moving, but to the detriment of the pacing. It was a little sad to see how ridiculous super-hero costumes look in real-life (I guess that's the point).

It was sort of interesting how the blue dong was coyly shot around in our early introduction to Dr. Manhattan, but then not so coyly shot in the last couple of hours of the film.

 

[JonZ]

I said the hell with it and went to a midnight showing. I liked it. Alot more than VFV, which I always thought was overrated.

Too many noisy young people I wanted to strangle, but I knew that would be the case for this showing.

There are pacing problems, which I could especially see if youre not familiar with the material. A few scenes seemed rushed, so the dir cut will be interesting to see.

I liked the new ending and the little extra "noooo" that was thrown in to show that Nite Owl really does care for Rorschach. I thought the guy playing Ozzy was weak in some parts but ok for the ending. I liked the new ending. Thought Wilson was fine and Haley was awesome as R.

Akerman looks fantastic as a brunette. I never even gave her a second look as a blonde, but she really looked beautiful here.

One scene I did miss that I wish was there was Rorschachs first visit to Harrys Bar- maybe the Dir Cut.

The sylized violence was ok to me, but I thought the attack in Blakes room was REALLY fantastic and effective. Worked very well. I thought the Comedian was great.

I was suprised how great Doc Manhattan looked. The previews dont do the job they did justice.

 

[mattCR]

I may have the opinion that will be very unpopular. I can see this doing well.. for a weekend. I just don't see this translating into word of mouth that lasts. There are some great things I liked: the costume design and cinematography were great.

Didn't like:

* Music was often jarring and strangely chosen.

* Veidt's character was REALLY badly done, and the play to environmentalism with regards to the automotive tycoons didn't make sense; it just felt jammed in there to combine novel scenes and give motive, along with re-doing the ending. I get why they were doing that, but if you're going to do it, the insertion of the genetically altered animal at the end makes NO sense.. a group of kids near me said "what the hell is that" but of course, no time for explanations and it didn't fit with the plot changes at all.

* I found the ending changes kind of off-putting for a different reason. There was an effort to stay true to the book, but if you're going to cut things, you have to cut all the way. The appearance of Rorshack's diary in the crank file at the end made sense to those who read the book, but since we didn't have any of the news stand dialog, etc. it didn't fit with anything else.


My biggest complaint is one that I assume a lot of people will disagree with... the heroes DID have superpowers as presented, and that hurts the story. One of the key elements of the books was that these were vigilanties for the most part. When the attack on Blake happens, and he gets thrown through a granite (or stone whatever) countertop, and punches through a concrete pylon.. it set the stage for expectations to look to superhero powers later, right off the bat.

We started off a midnight showing near sellout. When the lights came up, we were just a little bit over 1/2 in attendence. This film had maybe the most "walkouts" of any film I have ever attended. I have a feeling a lot of the crowd, especially the teeny-bopper crowd, just finds that this doesn't match with what they expected.

 

[Cory S.]

Matt,

You nailed it for me.

V for Vendetta is a better adaptation than this thing. After the film was over, the first thing I thought was "So what?". It didn't resonant one bit. I firmly believe, had this story been given the contemporary treatment like V, it would've hit home a lot more.

As it stands now, I really don't see adding an extra 30 to 35 minutes for the director's cut helping this film one bit...but I could totally be off my rocker.

There is no connective tissue to this film.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

I suspect the longer cut on DVD will play better.

BTW, did any of you see the new Star Trek trailer? Thoughts, crowd reactions?

 

[Cory S.]

That Star Trek trailer killed at the midnight screening I was at. Hell, even the new Wolverine and Terminator trailers got good reactions. But, Star Trek was the hit.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

 

[Holadem]

Add me to the list of those swayed by Ebert's review (I had little interest in this.) I am at least curious now.

--
H

 

[Patrick Sun]

I think the film screeches to a halt whenever Veidt is on the screen.

 

[Andy Sheets]

 

[Don Solosan]

"Kicking out elements of the story was a requirement to fit within the time you can have a film. But the film went through the conceit of aluding to these elements later, even when it detracted or made the changes elsewhere seem out of touch with the rest of the story."

Snyder has already said that there will be a 3+ hour version of the film (like the extended cuts of the Lord of the Rings movies). Those conceits may pay off in the longer version.

 

[rich_d]

Just saw this film.

Now, I don't know the Watchmen stuff at all. So all I care about was a good story, well presented.

This is not that.

I guess that old chestnut of mankind (X-Men, Fifth Element) isn't worth saving just doesn't appeal to me as a story. Truly, I don't know why they thought this film would interest people. Many of the characters are quite uninteresting.

Seemed like the movie was made by a committee of angry young men without adult supervision or without a grown-up to edit the thing. As someone else mentioned, the original score is awful.

The film seems to be to be The Fantastic Four meet The Silver Surfer meets The Fifth Element meets Dr. Strangelove (including an hommage to the war room). Except that Dr. Strangelove makes great use of nuclear war while here it is only some smelly fart of a bad idea.

Please don't tell me it was following the book/pamphlet/comic or whatever. Filmmakers make movies not books.

That and a major plot hole.

If Dr. Manhattan doesn't care about mankind, why does he come back to Earth? Because supposedly he saw his future and that is what he is suppose to do. Illogical but I'll let it go. What we know is that he can see the future when he is on Mars. He sees the girl cry before it happens because that is the future he is a part of. So riddle me this, why is he caught unaware about what involves him when he returns to Earth? Did he take a nap?