Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

*** Official WATCHMEN Discussion Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
169 replies to this topic

#1 of 170 OFFLINE   Pete York

Pete York

    Supporting Actor



  • 560 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 01 2004

Posted March 04 2009 - 12:02 PM

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 Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image today, for those looking for a critical 'goose'.

#2 of 170 OFFLINE   Ray H

Ray H

    Producer



  • 3,481 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 13 2002
  • Real Name:Ray
  • LocationNJ

Posted March 04 2009 - 12:49 PM

Ebert's review is pretty heartening.
"Here's looking at you, kid."

 


#3 of 170 OFFLINE   TonyD

TonyD

    Executive Producer



  • 16,240 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 01 1999
  • Real Name:Tony D.
  • LocationDisney World and Universal Florida

Posted March 04 2009 - 01:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray H
Ebert's review is pretty heartening.
well, here's the link to that.
Watchmen :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews
facebook.com/whotony

#4 of 170 OFFLINE   Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    Lead Actor



  • 7,305 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted March 04 2009 - 03:51 PM

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

"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932


#5 of 170 OFFLINE   Derek Miner

Derek Miner

    Screenwriter



  • 1,668 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 22 1999

Posted March 04 2009 - 04:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Conway
Sounds like Ebert liked it for all the reasons one should like an adaptation of Watchmen. An encouraging sign.
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.
= Derek Miner =
Co-founder, Sunscreen Film Festival

#6 of 170 OFFLINE   DavidJ

DavidJ

    Screenwriter



  • 2,612 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 23 2001
  • Real Name:David

Posted March 04 2009 - 05:11 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

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.

#7 of 170 OFFLINE   Patrick H.

Patrick H.

    Second Unit



  • 476 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 23 2004

Posted March 04 2009 - 05:37 PM

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.

#8 of 170 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Studio Mogul



  • 25,045 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted March 04 2009 - 10:23 PM

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

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Listing

 


#9 of 170 OFFLINE   Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul



  • 37,891 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted March 05 2009 - 07:39 PM

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.
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#10 of 170 OFFLINE   JonZ

JonZ

    Lead Actor



  • 7,793 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted March 05 2009 - 08:08 PM

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.

#11 of 170 OFFLINE   mattCR

mattCR

    Executive Producer



  • 10,053 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2005
  • Real Name:Matt
  • LocationOverland Park, KS

Posted March 05 2009 - 08:45 PM

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.

trakt.tv

Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)

This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3


#12 of 170 OFFLINE   Cory S.

Cory S.

    Supporting Actor



  • 983 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 07 2004

Posted March 05 2009 - 10:00 PM

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.
"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves.  But, not the one it needs right now.  So, we'll hunt.  Because he can take.  Because, he's not a hero.  He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector.  A DARK KNIGHT."

#13 of 170 OFFLINE   Lou Sytsma

Lou Sytsma

    Producer



  • 5,351 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 1998

Posted March 06 2009 - 12:24 AM

I suspect the longer cut on DVD will play better.

BTW, did any of you see the new Star Trek trailer? Thoughts, crowd reactions?
Every man is my superior, in that I may learn from him.

#14 of 170 OFFLINE   Cory S.

Cory S.

    Supporting Actor



  • 983 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 07 2004

Posted March 06 2009 - 12:36 AM

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.
"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves.  But, not the one it needs right now.  So, we'll hunt.  Because he can take.  Because, he's not a hero.  He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector.  A DARK KNIGHT."

#15 of 170 OFFLINE   Lou Sytsma

Lou Sytsma

    Producer



  • 5,351 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 1998

Posted March 06 2009 - 12:41 AM

Posted Image
Every man is my superior, in that I may learn from him.

#16 of 170 OFFLINE   Holadem

Holadem

    Lead Actor



  • 8,972 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 04 2000

Posted March 06 2009 - 05:28 AM

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

#17 of 170 OFFLINE   Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul



  • 37,891 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted March 06 2009 - 05:51 AM

I think the film screeches to a halt whenever Veidt is on the screen.
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#18 of 170 OFFLINE   Andy Sheets

Andy Sheets

    Screenwriter



  • 2,371 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2000

Posted March 06 2009 - 07:13 AM



#19 of 170 OFFLINE   Don Solosan

Don Solosan

    Supporting Actor



  • 748 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 14 2003

Posted March 06 2009 - 08:49 AM

"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.

#20 of 170 OFFLINE   rich_d

rich_d

    Screenwriter



  • 2,000 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 21 2001
  • Real Name:Rich
  • LocationConnecticut

Posted March 06 2009 - 08:52 AM

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?






Forum Nav Content I Follow