Jump to content
sethos

Who watches ...

Recommended Posts

No you're not.

 

He was ok. I thought the Comedian was better. I enjoyed Crudup's turn too.

 

I didn't hate Haley, but Rorschach is a pretty uninteresting character. So yeah, I thought the Comedian and Manhattan were much more interesting. the moe I think about it, the more I like Manhattan. Also some very solid effects work on him (I'm thinking that was most of the budget)

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.

I'm ashamed to say that the first thing that popped into my mind was that Veidt enjoyed reading The Boys, just didn't like it enough to pay for it.

 

Ridiculous, really. Surely the world's smartest man would recognize that the place to stash your porn is in the Windows directory of the C drive, in a folder that has its icon replaced with the unknown file format icon and named win.oll or something inconspicuous like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who didn't think that Adrian Veidt was particularly supposed to be gay in the movie. Sure he was seen with The Village people in the movie, but it was at Studio 54 (wasn't it?), which attracted all sorts of fabulous & groovy people. Nothing else said "gay" to me; "preening" or "vain" perhaps, but not necessarily homosexual.

Does being vain (and having ridiculous floppy hair) make you a "gay villain" in the movies?

 

Anyway, just to start to redress the balance: I still thought it was a fucking great movie. There.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, just to start to redress the balance: I still thought it was a fucking great movie. There.

Right on.

 

Saw it yesterday, I loved it. Third, maybe second best comic book movie.

 

Shame though that a certain heartless person didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even close to Third Best Comic Book movie ever.

 

Spider-Man 2

X-Men 2

American Splendor

Spider-Man

Iron Man

Dark Knight

Ghost World

 

All much better flicks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll grant you The Dark Knight and X-Men 2.

And maybe Spidey 2.

Oh, and probably Iron Man.

 

 

Shit, it's starting to drop down that list isn't it?

5th best superhero movie then.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've seen the second half of it yesterday, and I can't recall being this disillusioned by a film for a long time. Why did it turn from a muddled, yet intriguing alternate dimension character study into a sub-par, bland and unintelligent crime thriller? It was also riddled with clichés and mindnumbingly boring. The only redeeming factor was Rorschach hacking and slashing through inmates. Amidst all this simplicity however, there were numerous plot/character points I did not quite get, yet in retrospect don't give a flying dookie about. Why there's love for this flick I can't comprehend. Even V was a better movie, some lame acting and the horrendously botched ending aside.

 

5/10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa now, it's "Stating opinion as fact" not "as Truth".

 

It's well documented that Hagren has very different requirements of a film, but

"The only redeeming factor was Rorschach hacking and slashing through inmates"

just about wraps it up for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Apocalypse is upon us, for Hagren speaks The Truth!

:laugh:

I'm not sure which "Hagren" you are referring to, since everyone knows I always speak the truth! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say, this is all very depressing. I suppose there never was any hope of it being intelligent, but I hoped at least it would be bearable

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must say, this is all very depressing. I suppose there never was any hope of it being intelligent, but I hoped at least it would be bearable

 

Well, if it's any comfort, I didn't find it unbearable. There is some entertainment to be had here (though, clearly, your mileage may vary). It's just not a very good adaptation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I guess I didn't explain what I meant. I saw one part of the reviews you guys made and said "Not going to see THAT then".

 

I can't deal with movies with extremely loud soundtracks blaring away. I don't like really loud music and "atmospheric" noise with my action. I have the only functioning pair of eardrums in my immediate family, because they all refused to wear protection in the scrapyard, so I don't often stay in the same room as one or more of my brothers, to them, volume controls are to be cranked hard right. And I actually suffer pain during some movies , they seem to think louder is better.

:tongue:

 

And slo-mo anything makes me grind my teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialists review the Watchmen film and are disappointed:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/mar2009/watc-m13.shtml

 

They didn't read the source material, which is regrettable since they seem to take a dire view of the comic and Alan Moore. But, as a movie review, there shouldn't be any need to read the graphic novel before seeing the film.

The people doing the art reviews at this site can sometimes be elitist, although I liked the point about the circular nature of "blaming the comic medium for the film being juvenile".

They also seem to miss the point about the superheroes being depicted in the film, which having not seen the film, I'm unsure if it's a fault on their part, not being able to see the ambiguity, or if the whole point of the film (well, supposed point, as it's the point of the graphic novel) is unintelligible because the film is poorly done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And slo-mo anything makes me grind my teeth.

 

In that case, avoid this movie at all costs.

 

Or take some sort of dental protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Watchmen screenwriter David Hayter pleads for us to see the film more than once. His argument is that this film needs to be watched as many times as the book needs to be read. Not particularly impressed at this. (although I am really interested to see the dvd - not just a director's cut but the 'Under the Hood' doc which sounds like a really good way to adapt the bonus material in the comics)

 

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40409

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yknow, I was thinking about this the other day.

One of Alan Moore's (many) objections to the film is that with the book "a reader can take the time to absorb the character backgrounds, by having the option of turning back the pages so that they can connect elements they had just read to past elements, but that film forces you to watch the story at 24 frames per second"

I don't know about you guys, but I've been known to do that with a DVD on a number of occasions, so Hayter's pleas for us to see the film more than once doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would watch Ghost in the Shell more than once. Or Se7en or Fight Club more than once. Or The Ring. But Watchmen, I think it does not fall in the category of "movies you should watch twice". Just my opinion.

Nonetheless, I will watch Watchmen a second time. First in english, second with spanish dub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yknow, I was thinking about this the other day.

One of Alan Moore's (many) objections to the film is that with the book "a reader can take the time to absorb the character backgrounds, by having the option of turning back the pages so that they can connect elements they had just read to past elements, but that film forces you to watch the story at 24 frames per second"

I don't know about you guys, but I've been known to do that with a DVD on a number of occasions, so Hayter's pleas for us to see the film more than once doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I think Hayter means now, as in see it more than once in the theatre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yknow, I was thinking about this the other day.

One of Alan Moore's (many) objections to the film is that with the book "a reader can take the time to absorb the character backgrounds, by having the option of turning back the pages so that they can connect elements they had just read to past elements, but that film forces you to watch the story at 24 frames per second"

I don't know about you guys, but I've been known to do that with a DVD on a number of occasions, so Hayter's pleas for us to see the film more than once doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

My irk was more that we should go and see it at the cinema again to show studios that this sort of film works.

 

Am very happy and interested to watch the film again, just not happy to pay for it until it comes out on DVD and I can watch it at home, go back and look at everything in detail etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue with directors insisting that their films are meant to be seen more than once is that, in order for me to buy that, the movie has to also succeed after one viewing. It can succeed in different ways or on different levels, i.e. you notice the surface good stuff at first (fight scenes, cinematography, good acting) and pick up the subtleties after a second viewing, but the movie has to meet you halfway. If I walk out of a movie theater thinking "wow, that was only mediocre" I'm not going to see the movie again just because after two viewings it might be great.

 

Same goes for DVDs.

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...