My thoughts on Watchmen

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

OK, before I go anywhere, I just want to say, please don't kill me.

I loved Watchmen, the graphic novel. It was an amazing book. It had alot of depth, a good, well developed plot with closure, characters which were crafty and designed to perfection, and a world with maniacal amounts of detail and personality. And when i first heard of the movie i was very very very skeptical about how well it would turn out. The trailers were not impressive to me, and i soon as a realized Zack Snyder was doing it I officially assumed it was doom to the fires of hell for all eternity.
The reason I loved Watchmen was because of its intelligence. Its depth. Its world. It was an intelligent book, with complex characters. The violence and sex, while present, was done in the sidelines and was never really highlighted on all that much in the book. And furthermore the violence wasn't meaningless or dragged out. The trailers had made me convinced that all intelligence in the story would be gone. And so had all the reviews. Note, not the people on the internet, ACTUAL reviews like the Associated press, New yorker, Washington post, those guys.
But I finally decided to go see it, and I entered the theater with mixed feelings. As the movie trivia flashed on the screen my hand shook, awaiting disappointment but somehow hoping that it would be amazing in the end.
It wasn't all that bad. The movie wasn't horrible and the acting was good. It wasn't the long two and half hour violent pornography I had expected it to be. But it wasn't amazing either. See, the movie isn't a normal film adaptation. The movie is a near EXACT copy of the book. Now, that doesn't make the film amazing, but it doesn't make it bad. It was a good copy, and that should please some people, but it does not mean the movie is good. In fact, it scared me that it was too familiar to the book. While it was better then what I had expected, It wasn't that impressive, because despite being a copy, it failed to excite me in the same way the book did. Maybe that's because i already knew the ending, but my point is, something was lost in translation here.
Zack Synder is not a good director. He is an average director. The fact that he was able to copy watchmen so well was because it was Watchmen and because he had a lot of other talented people help him on this. Because he copied all the shots directly from the book, he had no need to make up his own cinematic decisions, and that's probably a good thing. where the fact that Snyder is an average tool comes through is in his awful choice of music, as well as his dumb slow motion affects every other second. In fact, it's kinda funny. A lot of people said that Mr Zack rushed the story to much. I say he slowed it down. I swear I waited ten freaking seconds just to see Laurie turn around with all her hair swaying and stuff. It was dorky and dumb. Zack snyder is not good, he just has good source material.

In conclusion, watchmen is not good, but it's not bad either. It could've been worse. Go see it for yourself, and form your own conclusion. Now send me some hatemail.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

I agree with most of your points except the one about Zack Snyder. While I agrees he's, at best, an average director his greatest skill is taking the look of something (especially comic books) and making it visually identical.

Take a look at 300 and the original graphic novel. It's very simular to the Watchmen, it looks panel to panel almost identical.

But, the main problem with Snyder is also his love of gore, sex and slow mo. He believes it's what makes a movie grown up, and thats where it fell apart for me. The Watchmen movie trys to hard to get across that it's a mature film that it comes off as childish and laughable at times.

There are moments when Snyders love of the soarce material makes sections of the movie exstraudinary, such as Doctor Mahattans origin. But that's all they are, sections.

Watchmen is such a huge, intelligent, multilayered beast of a book that it was never going to translate well to movie form, no matter who directed. For the most part Watchmen managed to get a very basic version of the plot onto the big screen, but that's not what makes Watchmen so incredible. What makes it extraudinary is how you can pick it up, read it for ten minites, and notice something that changes the whole book. Every single time you read it.

Alan Moore wrote Watchmen to push the boundrys of what Comic books can do. The Watchmen movie trys to push the same boundrys and breaks under the strain.

 

[Undeed]

Take a look at 300 and the original graphic novel. It's very simular to the Watchmen, it looks panel to panel almost identical.

But it should not look panel to panel identical, it should give us the illusion of motion, moving pictures rather than stil frames. If I wanted to see still frames, I'd read the comic book, I went to the theaters for moving pictures. If I wanted a panel to panel translation on the screen, I'd buy the 'motion comic' they've been selling, where it displays on a screen and reads it to you.

 

[Howitzer]

I went in with the typical fangirl mentality: "I really liked the book. Oh please, comic book gods, don't let the movie be total crap." I emerged only vaguely disappointed. The movie wasn't awful at all. I rather enjoyed it, actually. However, all I did was like. I didn't feel any real compulsion to go back and see it again or anything. It was a respectable translation to screen. It wasn't fantastic and it wasn't a train wreck.

Too many details were altered for me to be comfortable with, though. I could deal with the whole Manhattan-killed-New-York concept, but there were simply too many other things out of place. Laurie's mother looked far too well off; her quiet decline in a retirement home had been a symbolic element. Ozymandias' suit redesign looked too modern-day, not mid-eighties. Hollis Mason appeared once and then vanished again. Bubastis appeared literally from nowhere and left something like a minute later. Watchmen is a pretty lengthy series, yes, and as it stood the movie was already on the long side, but the nerd in me was kind of bummed at all the stuff they had to pass on. I was exceptionally annoyed that at no time did Rorschach leap out of any fridges. And the sex scene...uh, yeah. Ludicrous, far too long, and totally unnecessary.

But, as I've said, it's not all bad. The majority of the characters were cast well (with the exception of Veidt, who had some kind of phantom accent that appeared for select scenes.) I also want to know where the heck they found the guy who played the psychologist. The resemblance between him and his character was disturbingly perfect.

I respect how much work Snyder put into keeping the movie as close to the book as he could manage. But still, it's a movie, and any director worth his salt (well, more truthfully, worth his money) will have to produce a film that's appealing to the common moviegoer -- not just the Watchmen dorks who turned out to see it -- if he wants to turn a profit. Still, I think I now understand what Alan Moore meant when he said that he would not be seeing the movie himself.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

Take a look at 300 and the original graphic novel. It's very simular to the Watchmen, it looks panel to panel almost identical.

But it should not look panel to panel identical, it should give us the illusion of motion, moving pictures rather than stil frames. If I wanted to see still frames, I'd read the comic book, I went to the theaters for moving pictures. If I wanted a panel to panel translation on the screen, I'd buy the 'motion comic' they've been selling, where it displays on a screen and reads it to you.

Umm...It did move.

 

[TheGreenManalishi]

I'm unfamiliar with the graphic novel, but I felt that the Watchmen film as a standalone piece of cinema was fantastic. Story was good, acting was good, music was good, everything (dialogue, violence, sex) in moderation. It encompassed what a good film should be.

 

[Ago Iterum]

Take a look at 300 and the original graphic novel. It's very simular to the Watchmen, it looks panel to panel almost identical.

But it should not look panel to panel identical, it should give us the illusion of motion, moving pictures rather than stil frames. If I wanted to see still frames, I'd read the comic book, I went to the theaters for moving pictures. If I wanted a panel to panel translation on the screen, I'd buy the 'motion comic' they've been selling, where it displays on a screen and reads it to you.

What the hell are you on about? The movie isn't made up of still frames.

 

[Bat Vader]

I found the movie to be quite enjoyable. I mean he did change some things but they all worked out in the end.

 

[Nerdfury]

Take a look at 300 and the original graphic novel. It's very simular to the Watchmen, it looks panel to panel almost identical.

But it should not look panel to panel identical, it should give us the illusion of motion, moving pictures rather than stil frames. If I wanted to see still frames, I'd read the comic book, I went to the theaters for moving pictures. If I wanted a panel to panel translation on the screen, I'd buy the 'motion comic' they've been selling, where it displays on a screen and reads it to you.

Yes. Many comic to movie adaptations have these - it's called 'fan-service.' It's very common to take popular or iconic scenes and replicate them to please the fans.

Why else do you think Gandalf repeated an almost exact set of lines in the movie as from the book when he faced against the Balrog when most of the rest of the movie had lines different to the books? All people wanted to hear was "You cannot pass! I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor. The dark fire will not avail you, Flame of Udun! Go back to the shadow. You shall not pass!"

 

[Littaly]

Imagine if he had taken any more liberties. Then Internet would have lynched him. In the end there was no other way to do this than adapting the movie as far as it was humanly possible, and Snyder is definitely the right man to do that. I agree that it was not perfect, but it was really good, and it was pointing in the right direction.

 

[Undeed]

Take a look at 300 and the original graphic novel. It's very simular to the Watchmen, it looks panel to panel almost identical.

But it should not look panel to panel identical, it should give us the illusion of motion, moving pictures rather than stil frames. If I wanted to see still frames, I'd read the comic book, I went to the theaters for moving pictures. If I wanted a panel to panel translation on the screen, I'd buy the 'motion comic' they've been selling, where it displays on a screen and reads it to you.

What the hell are you on about? The movie isn't made up of still frames.

I seem to have not been clear enough.

I am agreeing with the OP in that the excessive use of slow-motion effects detracts from the film, both in making it more difficult to watch and taking time from events we may actually care to see. When ever the film is brought to a pause or a crawl, that's a few more seconds that could have been used for story elements. And while these effects can be used to enhance the film and emphasise important points, when overused they feel cheap and tacked on. It seemed less to me about translating the book than it was about leaving his mark: "I'm going to do this slo-mo thing in all of my films from now on so everyone can know it was me!" While that may not have been the intent, it is certainly what I got from it.

 

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

Too many details were altered for me to be comfortable with, though. I could deal with the whole Manhattan-killed-New-York concept, but there were simply too many other things out of place. Laurie's mother looked far too well off; her quiet decline in a retirement home had been a symbolic element. Ozymandias' suit redesign looked too modern-day, not mid-eighties. Hollis Mason appeared once and then vanished again. Bubastis appeared literally from nowhere and left something like a minute later. Watchmen is a pretty lengthy series, yes, and as it stood the movie was already on the long side, but the nerd in me was kind of bummed at all the stuff they had to pass on. I was exceptionally annoyed that at no time did Rorschach leap out of any fridges. And the sex scene...uh, yeah. Ludicrous, far too long, and totally unnecessary.

Speaking of scenes which were totally unnecessary, what I don't remember from the comic book was the hour long fight scene seen between the comedian and his masked killer. I mean, in the comic book I am pretty positive he was out the window by the third panel. Maybe my memory's bad. But I agree with your point: a lot of things that should have been longer were cut shorter, and a lot of things that should have been cut shorter were made longer.

I couldn't deal with the new ending. I thought it was trash. Forgot to bring that up.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS (will something tell me how to do the spoiler thing?)

I'm sure most of you remember, that in the comic book Eddie found out about the plans because he managed to find the island where Veidt was building his super space alien thing. That's why Adrian had to kill him. Now because their was no giant alien, there was no island, and because their was no island, their was no place for Eddie to visit. So how the hell did he find out? The new ending not only ruined the godly and surreal image of Veidt (I mean after all, the guy did make a freaking alien), It also created a huge plot gap. But maybe i am the only one whose a big enough of a dork to notice that.

Or maybe I have the story wrong.

 

[bad rider]

I thought it was really good... Also Snyder did something with which I credit to him as a testament to his manhood, he slowed down the fight scenes so that you could enjoy them. Which is so much better than in most films were the camera angles flicker like crazy while adding flashing in there for no reason.

 

[Izakflashman]

What went wrong is the fact he used the pacing the comic used. Which was brilliant for the comic itself, but doesn't work in a cinematic sense. I'm glad he DID do it though. It may have made all my friends yawn because they hadn't read it, but I still liked it. I didn't feel rushed through the movie.

 

[mike1921]

I'm unfamiliar with the graphic novel, but I felt that the Watchmen film as a standalone piece of cinema was fantastic. Story was good, acting was good, music was good, everything (dialogue, violence, sex) in moderation. It encompassed what a good film should be.

Which is how you should take it. As a standalone piece of ciniema

See, the movie isn't a normal film adaptation. The movie is a near EXACT copy of the book. Now, that doesn't make the film amazing, but it doesn't make it bad. It was a good copy, and that should please some people, but it does not mean the movie is good. In fact, it scared me that it was too familiar to the book. While it was better then what I had expected, It wasn't that impressive, because despite being a copy, it failed to excite me in the same way the book did. Maybe that's because i already knew the ending, but my point is, something was lost in translation here.
Zack Synder is not a good director. He is an average director. The fact that he was able to copy watchmen so well was because it was Watchmen and because he had a lot of other talented people help him on this. Because he copied all the shots directly from the book, he had no need to make up his own cinematic decisions, and that's probably a good thing. where the fact that Snyder is an average tool comes through is in his awful choice of music, as well as his dumb slow motion affects every other second. In fact, it's kinda funny. A lot of people said that Mr Zack rushed the story to much. I say he slowed it down. I swear I waited ten freaking seconds just to see Laurie turn around with all her hair swaying and stuff. It was dorky and dumb. Zack snyder is not good, he just has good source material.

Do you see how much of this is just you comparing it to the book and not taking it as a standalone movie?

 

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

I'm unfamiliar with the graphic novel, but I felt that the Watchmen film as a standalone piece of cinema was fantastic. Story was good, acting was good, music was good, everything (dialogue, violence, sex) in moderation. It encompassed what a good film should be.

Which is how you should take it. As a standalone piece of ciniema

See, the movie isn't a normal film adaptation. The movie is a near EXACT copy of the book. Now, that doesn't make the film amazing, but it doesn't make it bad. It was a good copy, and that should please some people, but it does not mean the movie is good. In fact, it scared me that it was too familiar to the book. While it was better then what I had expected, It wasn't that impressive, because despite being a copy, it failed to excite me in the same way the book did. Maybe that's because i already knew the ending, but my point is, something was lost in translation here.
Zack Synder is not a good director. He is an average director. The fact that he was able to copy watchmen so well was because it was Watchmen and because he had a lot of other talented people help him on this. Because he copied all the shots directly from the book, he had no need to make up his own cinematic decisions, and that's probably a good thing. where the fact that Snyder is an average tool comes through is in his awful choice of music, as well as his dumb slow motion affects every other second. In fact, it's kinda funny. A lot of people said that Mr Zack rushed the story to much. I say he slowed it down. I swear I waited ten freaking seconds just to see Laurie turn around with all her hair swaying and stuff. It was dorky and dumb. Zack snyder is not good, he just has good source material.

Do you see how much of this is just you comparing it to the book and not taking it as a standalone movie?

But I can't take it as a stand alone film that's the thing. That's how much of a copy it was for me. The movie didn't want to be standalone film. It wanted to be a copy. Zack Snyder wanted it to be a copy. And since it wants to be side by side with the book, and is embracing the fact that it is, I will judge it so. The fact the movie didn't deviate at all from the book in almost any way (except for the awful music) is why I won't judge it as a standalone piece of cinema. I understand your point, and I agree with everything you say, and I am aware I am being unfair as a critic, but the film is just dying to be compared to the book in every possible way. And while I may be pulling complaints out of my ass, the film asked for it.

 

[mike1921]

But I can't take it as a stand alone film that's the thing.

Than you shouldn't be reviewing it.

. I understand your point, and I agree with everything you say, and I am aware I am being unfair as a critic,

.......you admit that yet defend your review?

 

[Trace2010]

The Watchmen is a very polarizing movie: either you like it or you don't- there is no middle ground.

The movie follows the essential action within the comic book almost to the word, which tends to be great for purists, but not for people who are looking for it to be the quintessential "superhero movie".
PROBLEM A: People with short attention spans could not follow 25 minutes of flashbacks.
PROBLEM B: Many things that can be communicated better in books (especially thoughts, which monologues unfortunately cannot always communicate effectively), do not work well within the context of a movie.
PROBLEM C: Many things in a movie need to be cut out- like the pirate story the kid was reading...true, it related to the story being told, but if the director had gone into that, he would have outright lost his audience.

All in all- I thought it was done very well- the actors were well cast, and they were able to communicate what they needed to. Sure, there was stuff left out- but from a book to a movie, there is a lot of stuff that needs to be left on the cutting room floor.

 

[Afterburn]

The movie itself was actually pretty good in my opinion, although it left you kind of hanging at the end as do all movies in this day in age. It really wasn't my number one intention on seeing Watchmen but the conversations at school about the big blue dong prevalent through the movie sparked my curiosity, but with that aside I actually enjoyed the movie. It's smart, witty, has a great balance of storyline and not too much mindless violence, which was performed almost flawlessly through the heavier parts of the movie. I kind of want to go back to see it again to see David Hayter's name in the credits, but I don't want to sit through it again. I liked it a whole lot, but not enough to spend five hours in the movie theater for it.

BIGBLUEDONG.

 

[CompanionCube]

Were the hell was Captain Metropolis? I don't rember him in there. Even though he was a side character.

The Watchmen film was a good movie, but like everyone said, it wouldn't be able to recreate the drama of the book. There is a different type of media between movies and books.