Jump to content
sethos

Who watches ...

Recommended Posts

"Look on My Works, Ye Mighty, and Despair!"

or

"How I Learned to Stop Worrying and (not) Love the Giant Azure Dick"

 

How exactly does one go about adapting one of the most profound, challenging, groundbreaking, thought-provoking works of all time into a big budget film? The answer, according to Zack Snyder & Co., is apparently, crassly.

 

Self-tasked with the impossible goal of re-telling a sprawling, multilayered work of text and art, Snyder has opted to remove all semblance of symbolism, symmetry, perspective, and avant garde structuring to replace them with titillation, pornographic violence, misogyny, and shallow sensationalism.

 

From the outset the viewer is bombarded with slow-motion ultra-violence set to music that recalls music videos, video game cutscenes, and worst of all, fan-made youtube AMVs. Music, film techniques, and themes exist in a state of non sequitur, a distracting and vexing reality that will go unresolved for the next 2 and a half hours. Sure, the dates mentioned place the story within the same time frames as the comics, but the film's elements never pin this down-- the "present" seems like some mishmash of Cold War 80s and Dubya-run 00s, unfortunately reminiscent of the other recent major Moore adaptation-- V for Vendetta. Watchmen attempts to marry 80s Nuclear paranoia with today's environmental concern, only to have both come across as minor, easily-ignored threats. Pick one and stick with it I say; there isn't enough time to get the audience to invest in both, and you certainly can't please everyone at the same time-- so either go with the original (MAD) and risk losing those too young or uninformed, or choose the latter (Earth) and run with it.

 

The only bit of symbolism I found in the whole movie was that of Dr. Manhattan's cock. His oversized genitalia is the perfect way to describe this exercise in futility: An aggressive, in-your-face film that substitutes shock value and titillation for depth. In the book, Gibbons purposefully modeled Manhattan's body on Renaissance sculpture. He chose Michelangelo's David, whereas Snyder & Co. seem to have gone with Ron Jeremy. Just to be clear: I have absolutely no problem with nudity (of either sex) in film, so long as it has a point beyond exploitation. Art vs Pornography; restraint vs excess....

 

The women fare no better, with fairly thankless roles, all 2 of them. Silk Spectre II, an aesthetically-pleasing Malin Ackerman, is little more than jailbait-cum-seductress who is objectified throughout the film by pretty much every other character, including her mother. While Ackerman looks the part, she sure as hell can't play it. I cut her some slack for being stuck with a script laden with awful dialogue and a director obsessed with framing shots like they were static panels in a comic book (newsflash, Zack: posed figures making grand statements and engaging in exchanges of exposition works on the printed page, not in moving pictures; this is where filmic adaptations of comic books succeed or fail). I didn't for one moment buy her attachment to Manhattan, Dreiberg (she sure fell into bed with him quickly!), or her mother. I didn't feel her hate for The Comedian or her conflicted feelings about adventuring. In fact, I didn't empathize with her at all, something the comic was able to do early in the story. Much like the other characters her individual fighting prowess and abilities were strangely ramped up to superhuman levels. When she kicks an attacker in an alleyway, he doesn't just go down-- he goes up, does a 180, bounces off a dumpster, and then crashes to the ground. She made a guy her size look like a kickball. WTF?

 

The next biggest misfire has to be Billy Crudup's Dr. Manhattan. Here is a character that loses touch with those qualities that once made him human as he becomes more and more a being of pure science. Expressing doubt, conflict, and distance should not be done through whining and sullen expressions. The character is supposed to be one reflection/symmetrical opposition to Rorschach—the uncompromising victim of the laws of the universe. He shouldn't cry about existing in multiple times, he should state it matter-of-factly. He should be blank-faced, so that when people look at him they see what they want to see: A god, a weapon, a man, a lover, an embodiment of hope, etc.

 

But the worst offender is Matthew Goode's Ozymandias. First off, that accent-- what is it? Swiss? Ignoring the fact that I never read the character as having a German accent, I didn't understand what accent he was trying to affect until the final act. However, this is a minor quibble and the character suffers more from major flaws like poor acting and direction, particularly in regard to facial expressions. Gibbons never drew Ozymandias with a sneer, mischievous grin, or look of utter superciliousness. So why are Goode and Snyder tipping their hand so quickly? And how do they expect us to sympathize with the character? Ozymandias is supposed to be (like most of the cast) a character of greys, yet clearly torn up about what it is he thinks he "has to do." Where is the guilt? The introspection? Here he is presented as a snobby, irredeemable, Machiavellian villain. He is yet another revamped, ramped up character whose tactical fighting skills are overshadowed by his more-than-human physical abilities. When exactly did Ozymandias enter the Matrix?

 

Nite Owl II is basically the opposite of Silk Spectre II for me: physically not the best match for the character (looks too damn young), but Wilson does a good job portraying him (though he too was often hamstrung by the bad script).

 

Morgan is solid as The Comedian.

 

Rorschach is the redeeming factor in this mess, and the film suffers greatly when it abandons him, especially to ruminate on politics, existentialism, and love. The scene where the cops finally catch him has a couple of missteps (he wouldn't have freaked out when he found out he was setup, he's a planner and improviser) and has the same degree of out-of-place superpowers bestowed upon him: we see him survive a two-story leap out of a window, then watch as he starts attacking cops(!). Other than these relatively minor gripes, this is the one character the film got right, not just in terms of the source material, but also in terms of being someone the viewers really want to watch.

 

Mostly the film fails to translate the themes, structure, or moods of the book. Rather than deconstruct anything Snyder instead tromps out cinematic cliche after cliche, including techniques that he himself has overused by this point-- heavy digital re-coloring, green filters, fluorescent lighting, speed modulation, harsh contrast, grainy film stock, etc. etc. (one thing I'll say about the extreme contrast and film graininess-- it didn't help the makeup/special effects department at all) I don't know what the answer is, but perhaps Snyder should have attempted to deconstruct cinematic storytelling by weaving in different styles of visual storytelling (animation, motion comics, etc.)? Whatever the best alternative, the least he could've done was to not make a fucking video game trailer with subtley-smashing soundtrack and pass it off as a film. (You'd think I'd have learned from 300...) It's yet another example of Watchmen-inspired "grim 'n' gritty" storytelling that mostly misses the point. The point isn't to be dark and brooding and extreme, the point is to take a conventional genre and turn it on its head. (Especially now that grim 'n' gritty is the norm.)

 

It's impossible to cram the series into such a (relatively) short time frame; even the extra hour the director’s cut will supposedly have will be woefully inadequate.

It doesn't matter anyway because the film is already far too long.

 

Boring me is a sin, boring me for nearly 3 hours is an unforgivable one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, agreed with Trace. Though I wasn't quite as down on Dr Manhattan as he seems to be. Also, I suppose I did enjoy it a little more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on, why is everyone (hyperbole I suppose) agreeing, Trace just eloquently tore it a new one.

It almost barely matches your reviews.

 

Ostensibly the only two positives were.

 

Morgan is solid as The Comedian.

Rorschach is the redeeming factor in this mess

The rest was quite rightfully slaughtered by Trace.

 

Although the vulnerabilty/damage was missing from Rorschach, the scene in the comic where he practically confronts his childhood self was a crucial bit of character development for a character who deliberately isn't meant to develop, I'll gladly agree with you all there.

But it also fealt that Snyder had made the mistake of falling in love with Rorschach whereas Moore wisely kept his distance as the book progressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hold on, why is everyone (hyperbole I suppose) agreeing, Trace just eloquently tore it a new one.

It almost barely matches your reviews.

 

Ostensibly the only two positives were.

 

Morgan is solid as The Comedian.

Rorschach is the redeeming factor in this mess

The rest was quite rightfully slaughtered by Trace.

 

Pretty much it was just myself and Abhi agreeing, and my positives of the film were basically Trace's, plus an enjoyment of the intro montage and the ending (which Trace also sort-of supported). All of these are relatively minor points that are definitely outweighed by the negatives in my review. Plus, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, the longer my mind lingers on the film, the more I dislike it in my mind. I think Trace adequately summed up almost all of what I thought went wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Rohne, since you clearly felt exactly the same way that I do - ie., that no film was ever going to do Watchmen justice, let alone one directed by Zack Snyder - why did you bother seeing it in the first place? Did you think there was any chance that your pessimism would turn out to be unwarranted, or was it a "well, I might as well pick at the scab" sense of obligation?

 

That's probably going to sound fairly passive-aggressive, but I'm genuinely curious.

A perfectly valid question Mark.

 

1). To have an opinion on it.

I suppose your scab argument may factor here.

 

2). Friends and family some of whom would only "watch" it as a film.

 

3). As I believe Twilight put it way back, I didn't for a second believe that most or any of the nuances and subtlely, hell depth of the book would make it to the screen, but I still thought there might be a relatively enjoyable film in it.

I didn't even get that.

It was incompetent even by Snyder's standard.

Even as battle porn I enjoyed 300 far more than this. The same goes for From Hell, V For Vendetta and even Sin City.

Seriously even Sin City.

Snyder was completely out of his depth here, and it even effected the dumb bits that he should have excelled in.

This was devoid of breathing spaces (I think that was Grinning Fellow and rightfully so).

The action scenes were denied a proper build up and a subsequent wind down.

 

I honestly thought that Mars, Vietnam and Bullet catching would at the very least make for some enjoyable popcorn fare.

But it was incompetent and cheaply green screened.

 

4). Even the trailers and adverts were comparably classier.

Which shouldn't come as a surprise.

But we had had the nifty use of the Smashing pumpkins The Beginning is the End is the Beginning, with it's thougthfully overlapping lyrics in the prominent trailers, but all the premptive bile and hatred could not have prepared me for the rest of Snyders soundtrack.

 

5). The reviews, some of which I generally trust painted a far better picture.

 

6). Sadism I suppose, I had half adapted it in my head using the film's timed image limitations to replace and reinterpret crucial Moore tricks and feats.

Man I've even got Sandman down to a four film adaptation.

Cat killing curiousity there.

Your scab argument again.

 

 

I still profess that the opening credit sequence was to blame, it gave me a sliver of hope during the films start, somehow erasing the preceeding needless fight scene.

I was genuinely mouthing maybe, just maybe.

He got a fair share right there, and why?

Because it was a music video.

But all that good will vanished sharpishly and I fealt freshly betrayed.

 

Not sure what this says about me (Although I probably am!) but it didn't help any that Ozymandias was my favourite character from the book.

Ofcourse the book has two crucial scenes that make this so.

His niggling doubt when he asks Jon if he has done the right thing and his spin on his early defeat to the Comedian.

"I studied his weaknesses that feint and the devastating uppercut/left".

I love that, as it accounts for Moore's contrivance as to why he would murder Blake in a rather grissly manner in the first place, rather than just making his death appear natural.

Worlds smartest man or not he still has that Mr Ripley esque (Specifically in Ripleys Game/The American friend) intolerance for a slight.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually thought it was a good adaptation when it came to the scenes and moments that Snyder took directly from the book, and as far as the parts that were changed for the studios purposes, I thought Snyder managed to create an ending that still held on to the original intent of the books ending. I thought it was the best adaptation of Alan Moores work to date. Oh well I liked it. I didn't love it, but I liked it. I can't wait for the special edition DVD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Rohne, since you clearly felt exactly the same way that I do - ie., that no film was ever going to do Watchmen justice, let alone one directed by Zack Snyder - why did you bother seeing it in the first place? Did you think there was any chance that your pessimism would turn out to be unwarranted, or was it a "well, I might as well pick at the scab" sense of obligation?

 

That's probably going to sound fairly passive-aggressive, but I'm genuinely curious. Same goes for anyone else in the "I was fully expecting to hate it, but had to see it anyway" camp - I don't know how many of those guys we've got here, but I've seen plenty of them elsewhere. Why?

 

Also, perhaps more importantly - did anyone who was expecting to hate it find themselves pleasantly surprised? Or, of course, the opposite - anyone who was expecting to love it but ended up being hugely-disappointed? I just wonder, because almost all of the reviews I'm seeing, both positive and negative, seem to be "well, that was more-or-less exactly what I was expecting". While this does rather reinforce my decision not to see it, I'd be very curious to hear from anyone who bucks that trend.

 

 

I think I fairly flip-flopped during this film's build-up and definitely remember writing at least once that I just didn't care about the upcoming Watchmen movie. But I suppose the reason I went to see it was morbid curiosity.

 

My review of the film can be summed up as 'all the revelations from the book were there but they lost most of the bits that made you care' (wasn't meant to rhyme btw). So many people on other message boards/twitter etc are saying they just saw the film but have to think about their response. I think that what's actually happening is that people are struggling to care either way. Basically, I nothinged the film. It passed the time, not too unpleasantly but I didn't feel much of anything at all while I was watching it. I went wanting to like it or not like it but it was just so average and there is no need for me to ever watch this film again.

 

I found it quite telling afterwards that, for all it's plots and pomp, my favourite scene was Dan and Laurie discussing Captain Carnage (who enjoyed being beaten up, as I'm sure you remember) and how he tried it on Rorschach who then dropped him down an elevator shaft.

 

Similarly, Lady Venkman's favourite bit was near the end where Rorschach apologises to Nite Owl, realising he can be difficult to work with and that Dan is a good friend.

 

I found it interesting that those were the two scenes that really stuck with us. The nice little character moments that made it in to the film without having to cram so much exposition or information into the other scenes or indulging in some often unnecessary spectacle to a soundtrack that may have been lyrically appropriate but that, musically, did not evoke anything.

 

It would be very easy to fall into listing all the things I didn't like but, ultimately, it just wasn't worth the fuss. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I myself thought the movie was okay. Wasn't great nor terrible. I went to go see it over the weekend with my brother who LOVES the book and he was heavily disappointed. I didn't really have any high expectations of it although I was interested in seeing it, just not as much as others. I wasn't really disappointed in anyway as I knew I wasn't going to love it. But there was nothing for me to hate either. A lot of reviews that are bashing the hell out of it I don't quite see too much why. But I do agree with some reviews about it seeming rushed and not catching most of the nuances that made the book so freaking glorious of a book and you can blame that mostly on time restraint. When I'm describing this film to others, I basically say most of the main story plots from the book are there but they're basically presented as the cliff-notes because there was no way all that greatness would fit into a 2.5 hour flick.

 

Performance-wise, I agree about Rorschach and Nite-Owl and the Comedian. Silk Spectre was alright. My brother and I didn't find her performance as terrible as other folks were making her seem so we were expecting A LOT worse. Although a thing I found weird was that I found her to be very likable. In the book, to me she was an absolute bitch and I really disliked her. The bitchiness in the flick was practically gone. I dunno, maybe that's why I didn't mind her performance. :blink:

 

My favorite character, Ozy, was eh. The actor wasn't bad it's just that he didn't play my Ozymandias. Before seeing the movie, I remember talking to a few people about how terrible the character looked and it annoyed me. I guess it bothered me that he looked... well, my fault if this offends, but "gay." Like when some film-makers, etc, make a villain seem like a homosexual that way you have another reason to dislike them against the manly hetero hero(es). But seeing it all on the final cut I didn't get that vibe from the character but I hated the arrogance they gave him. I missed the very calm and humbled Ozymandias. In the book, even as the "villain," his demeanor could have got you to just stand and listen to his reason because he wasn't that bad of a guy (well, besides killing like millions of folks. :tongue:) But yeah, Good had this whole, "Yes, I am the smartest man therefore better than you" performance that irked me as an Ozymandias fan.

 

Manhattan I felt was done really well. No complaints from me although I get bothered by everyone being bothered by his nakedness. Quite a few reviews revolve around his penis and when I saw it, all I could think about was, "That's it? People are making a fuss about this?" In the book it's there also, it's nothing new. Hearing that people giggle and act immature and uncomfortable when it came on to me sounds really stupid. I'm glad the audience I saw it with didn't make any fuss about it. When the movie ended and I mentioned about reviewers constantly referring to Manhattan's blue schlong, my brother looked at me in confusion, "What are you talking about?" "His schlong. His dick." "They showed it?" "Dude, did we just watch the same movie?" "Ha. I guess I was focusing on the story so much that I didn't even notice it." :laugh: Oh, my brother of mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My favorite character, Ozy, was eh. The actor wasn't bad it's just that he didn't play my Ozymandias. Before seeing the movie, I remember talking to a few people about how terrible the character looked and it annoyed me. I guess it bothered me that he looked... well, my fault if this offends, but "gay."

 

I thought that a couple of scenes sledgehammered that.

Was the "Village People" one from the comic ?

 

The following interview suggest that they missed the point that was made by Rorschach's journal was not about Ozymandias but about Rorschach's paranoid mentality.

 

Asked how he came up with the idea that Veidt might be gay, Goode replied, "It's suggested by Rorschach. 'Possibly homosexual. Must investigate further.' But then you can say that abuse leads to abuse so some people could say if they're psychologists that there's a possibility that Rorschach might be a homosexual. You never know, and that maybe he fancies Veidt. I don't think that was the case and I think it's only suggested in our film. I actually started laughing hilariously…on the computer when they break into it with the password. He puts in the things and it says his operations. Then on the other side it says 'boys'."

 

Not everyone is going to notice something that subtle. "There's an Easter egg for you," laughed Goode. "I found that hilarious and that was because it is the '80s and so there's an element of he looks a bit like David Bowie. So it's not necessarily in that sort of new romantic look. So that very subtle thing suggests it all right there."

 

The decision to give Adrian Veidt a slight German accent was something Goode wanted to incorporate into the character – of course with director Zack Snyder's approval. "It was funny because we shot without thinking about doing that part of the scene first, the Lee Iacocca scene. It was only after that, because it was six month job, it was only after we shot that that I came back to Zack and we both talked about the possibility of giving him that other sort of public persona and private persona," explained Goode. "I just came up with the idea and dealt with it. I just did it. I hope it worked."

 

http://movies.about.com/od/watchmen/a/matthew-goode.htm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did see the Boys folder and found it pretty funny, I might add. I don't mind if the character himself is gay. I actually wouldn't be surprised. It's just that the way he looked as compared to how he looked in the comic was so different and it just seem as if they were making Ozy look purposely feminine in the original photos of the film promos with that girlish domino mask, etc, as a way for folks watching the film to become a bit uncomfortable of him, etc. Maybe it's just me. Heh, I do recall a few people saying he looked like Alicia Silverstone from Batman and Robin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, Goode lord!

 

Matthew, you're just an actor, a marginal one at that; please leave the writing duties to others.

 

Thank you.

 

RE: Balthy's take on SSII

I liked her character in the comic. She's a person caught between worlds: Her mother's old-fashioned sense of womanhood, the feminism of the 80s, a (forced) life as a hero, and living/being a "normal" woman. Her character has real growth and is interesting (even when she's being "a bitch") and that gets me to care for her. Plus, she becomes humanity's advocate!

The film, however, missed all of that (except, obviously, the advocate part, which was unconvincing as fuck).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My review of the film can be summed up as 'all the revelations from the book were there but they lost most of the bits that made you care'

I think that's fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, Goode lord!

 

Matthew, you're just an actor, a marginal one at that; please leave the writing duties to others.

 

Thank you.

 

RE: Balthy's take on SSII

I liked her character in the comic. She's a person caught between worlds: Her mother's old-fashioned sense of womanhood, the feminism of the 80s, a (forced) life as a hero, and living/being a "normal" woman. Her character has real growth and is interesting (even when she's being "a bitch") and that gets me to care for her. Plus, she becomes humanity's advocate!

The film, however, missed all of that (except, obviously, the advocate part, which was unconvincing as fuck).

 

I get you, I just couldn't get into the character at all for some reason. Maybe if I read it again I'd have her grow on me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did see the Boys folder and found it pretty funny, I might add. I don't mind if the character himself is gay. I actually wouldn't be surprised. It's just that the way he looked as compared to how he looked in the comic was so different and it just seem as if they were making Ozy look purposely feminine in the original photos of the film promos with that girlish domino mask, etc, as a way for folks watching the film to become a bit uncomfortable of him, etc. Maybe it's just me. Heh, I do recall a few people saying he looked like Alicia Silverstone from Batman and Robin.

 

Yeah, I had two problems with this:

 

1) Making the (male) villain either effete or leeringly predatory towards the (male) hero is a cheap, effective, and deeply harmful way of heightening audience discomfort. If I never see that tactic again it'll be too soon. (Note that it's not gay villains per se that I have a problem with--it's gay-ish villains who are painted as a creepy contrast to the masculine hero, i.e. Xerxes from 300. Thanks a fucking ton, Zack Snyder.)

 

2) Gay subtext aside, Ozymandias looked too slight to be as physically powerful as we're supposed to believe he is. My friends and I were laughing during his fight scenes at the end--it was like the sequences in Buffy the Vampire Slayer where tiny Sarah Michelle Gellar kicks the ass of a seven-foot-tall vampire. But on Buffy at least it's supposed to be campy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched the first 72 minutes of the film. What is going to follow is the opinion of someone who has not yet read the book, specifically for the reason to share a view uninfluenced by the source material.

 

What I've seen does not suck, yet hasn't impressed me on a whole.

 

My favourite scene so far was the whole Dr. Manhattan segment- Great music, an intriguingly passive character, and well organized scenes. I also found a liking in Rorschach even though his voice gives me throat cancer by just listening to him :P However, so far there's no feeling of connection to either of the characters- it's too bleak and emotionally detatched for its own good, yet by gazillion times deeper than 300. Silk Spectre II and Ozymandias have been the most unconvincing and shallow characters thus far (A spoiled playboy and a nobody) , and I'm not sure that I accept the Comedians way of thinking- Which brings me to the only reason why I'm going to continue watching the film as soon as I find the time- Since what on earth made this animal of a human being weep like an old, lost man? Which does speak volumes about the plot- There's too much time wasted on presenting brief character bios instead of actual drive. I'm also often confused in which time the film plays, as I see no clear (or clichéd) representation of any. Audiovisually, it has been a mixed bag. There were some aesthetic shots, but on a whole, it lacks a distinct style or direction, and the music only works when it's in melancholy mode (Then excellently though). Last note: OTT violence FTL.

 

So yeah, that's the gist of it. More to come later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Rohne, since you clearly felt exactly the same way that I do - ie., that no film was ever going to do Watchmen justice, let alone one directed by Zack Snyder - why did you bother seeing it in the first place? Did you think there was any chance that your pessimism would turn out to be unwarranted, or was it a "well, I might as well pick at the scab" sense of obligation?

 

That's probably going to sound fairly passive-aggressive, but I'm genuinely curious. Same goes for anyone else in the "I was fully expecting to hate it, but had to see it anyway" camp - I don't know how many of those guys we've got here, but I've seen plenty of them elsewhere. Why?

 

Also, perhaps more importantly - did anyone who was expecting to hate it find themselves pleasantly surprised? Or, of course, the opposite - anyone who was expecting to love it but ended up being hugely-disappointed? I just wonder, because almost all of the reviews I'm seeing, both positive and negative, seem to be "well, that was more-or-less exactly what I was expecting". While this does rather reinforce my decision not to see it, I'd be very curious to hear from anyone who bucks that trend.

 

I was fully expecting to hate it as an adaptation but I had some hopes that it would be a reasonably entertaining film in its own right. It was in hope for the latter that I went to see the film (not to mention the fact that my department is full of comic book fans and were all making a night out of the midnight screening that ended up being fun on a purely social basis). I wanted to see if it would, at least, be fun.

 

As my review probably indicates, I did dislike it as an adaptation and did enjoy some elements of it as a movie. I was definitely pleasantly surprised (for the most part) by the portrayals of Rorschach and the Comedian. Other elements, of course, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to see an opinion from someone who hasn't read it. I found it hard to judge the film without relating it to the book.

 

When we went to see it 3 out of 4 of us had read it (one many times, one not as many, one I think has read it all and one not at all.) I still haven't had chance to speak to her to see what she actually made of it (short of showing her the graphic novel and showing some direct lifts, plus bits that never got anywhere near the screen for perspective.)

 

I can't really imagine what it's like from the point of view of someone who has no knowledge of Moore's original, is anyone else here someone who has/will watch it without knowledge of the source?

 

Or failing that, the people we go watch it with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dragged my buddy along to see it and he doesn't read comic books at all. In fact, I don't think he's read a single issue in his life. However, he did think The Dark Knight was the best film of 2008. Then again, he didn't care much for Snyder's 300. Additionally, he is card-carrying member of the "I hate camera tricks" club. So he was a bit of toss-up going in.

He ended up hating everything but the scenes with Rorschach.

 

A co-worker of mind who is a major comic book geek, but who has not read the book, went to see it today. He plans on reading the text now, so I'll get his opinion on both and see if reading the source material causes him to reevaluate the film (which I'm guessing he really enjoyed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that was definately a movie based upon Watchmen.

 

Also, am I alone in thinking Haley was (while by far the best thing here) not really spectarular?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...