The Escapist Presents: MovieBob Reviews: Watchmen

[Susan Arendt]

I liked the Watchmen too, but overall I felt it was fundamentally flawed due to the fetters of what constitutes an acceptable running time. I'll definitely see it again, but that will be the director's cut on Blu-Ray.

Really? What do you consider an acceptable running time? The people on this thread are saying 2 to 2 and a half hours. How the fuck is that long?

I think his point was that the movie should've been longer, to do proper justice to the source material, but was limited because movies are expected (both by audiences and by movie houses hoping to turn a buck) to be 3 hours at the very most.

 

[Syntax Error]

I liked the Watchmen too, but overall I felt it was fundamentally flawed due to the fetters of what constitutes an acceptable running time. I'll definitely see it again, but that will be the director's cut on Blu-Ray.

It's basically called unfilmable because there is just so much going on. They had to cut a lot of content from the books just to get to that magical 2 hours and 40 minutes. They cut out

Spoiler

Rorschach's second psychological test and some of his past

and that's just one of the very many smaller scenes not seen in the movie (The Black Freighter is probably the most notable absence). Another thing is that at the end of each chapter of the book, there are some text that adds flavor to the world in which the comic takes place. Most of the information in here are, at best, only alluded to in the main storyline (but significant in its own way, as it illustrates some of the relationships between characters)

Personally, I find the movie a great adaptation and should definitely be judged on its own merits. Comparing the movie to the comic is like comparing apples and oranges, even if one IS the adaptation of the other.

EDIT:
Oh yeah, since they went out of their way to provide people with 2 hours and 40 minutes of film, I wish that they lengthened it to a flat three hours.

 

[SmilingKitsune]

I fully agree, the only thing about the film I didn't like was the big sex scene which just felt gratuitous.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

I've seen it. I liked it, but unlike Moviebob I don't want to marry it.

It has it's flaws like the inappropriate use of songs, Sally Jupiter's unconvincing acting, Nixon's nose, etc - okay those aren't big points, but they prevent it becoming perfect...

 

[Ph0t0n1c Ph34r]

Wow you are such a fan of the novel you don?t notice how poorly done the movie was.
Zack Snyder?s inexperience in storytelling shines brightly in this film, the main plot constantly gets lost in all the back stories and over-the-top fight and sex scenes. Which worked with his over movies such as 300 simply because starting off there wasn?t much substance besides the sex and violence. But doesn?t work that well in watchmen since it distracts from what should be the driving force, the plot?

Film is not really a stand alone film, since it relies heavily on the novel to fill-in for what was cut out or what lack the time to fully be explained. Meaning the movie is for fans only, since people who have not read the book with leave the theaters highly confused (like my two friends I went to see the movie with)

The only reason people claim it is such a great movie is because of the rich source material and stunning visual effects. The common person I guess could be easily entertained by the eye candy and probably could kind of get a hint that the movie was suppose to be something greater then a normal superhero movie. And the fans are easily entertained by seeing some of the scenes from the novel depicted word for word.

The movie was a disappointment. The soundtrack was a terrible selection of random mismatched periodic songs. Everyone knew martial arts and had superhuman strength. You had characters and settings coming in with no introduction or explanation. I do see that the movie was trying to be as deep and moving as the book, but just comes off as a action movie with a little twist.

I think in the hands of another director or editor or someone, this film could have been successful in being a great adaptation and a stand alone film.

I have to agree with you on that. I had too explain the movie to my firend at least twice for them to understand the full plot.

 

[ChocoCake]

Saw it three times now. I cannot see why they had to go fuck up the ending though. Besides that little point, I thought the movie was fantastic.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

But I would of liked to see some bad stuff in the review. Because I can point out some bad stuff in the film, mostly relating it to the book.

"should be regarded as a film on its own merit"

I think in the hands of another director or editor or someone, this film could have been successful in being a great adaptation and a stand alone film.

Terry Gilliam himself said he couldn't do it. Who exactly would you have got? Spielberg.

(Anyone even mentions Lucas and I will disown them from humanity )

 

[SatansBestBuddy]

I... didn't hate it, but I didn't love it either.

I dunno, I just felt like it tried to hard, didn't take any risks, kept to the book like it was the bible, and overall, they tried to film the book, and proved why that isn't as good an idea as the people think.

This book makes for a good book.

But not for a good movie.

It's still a good movie, which is an ancomplishment, but it's not a masterpiece.

 

[Graham]

MovieBob is officially one of my heroes.

Totally agree, loved that movie.

 

[Mr_spamamam]

damm good movie. yeah ok, not a good as the book but so fucking what? maybe if the movie had been directed by alan moore then it would have stayed 100% true to the comic. but a movie based on a book or a play or anything else will almost always be an abridgement of the original.

good acting, great special effects and an ending that was nearly as good as the one in the comic. most of the music was pretty good, but one or two songs felt out of place

i dont understand why people are so up in arms about the sex scene though. whats the problem? nite owl has sex in the book, and in the movie, so its not like its a continuity error or anything. it was just 30-45 seconds of shagging in a 2 and a half hour long movie

anyway. rant over. might get some abuse from fanboys but there you go. fuck 'em.

want another good book to film adaptation: The Maltese Falcon

 

[Skeleon]

Uhm... is this a review or a commercial?
I mean, I haven't seen it yet, but even if it's all that you're saying it is, that's still a lot of brown-nosing for circa 5 minutes.
You coulda told us a bit about the movie itself, like, the story'n'shit instead of breathlessly repeating your claims of perfection over and over again.
But... you got to me, I'll watch it. So I guess, mission fucking accomplished. :-D

 

[Maet]

I liked the Watchmen too, but overall I felt it was fundamentally flawed due to the fetters of what constitutes an acceptable running time. I'll definitely see it again, but that will be the director's cut on Blu-Ray.

Really? What do you consider an acceptable running time? The people on this thread are saying 2 to 2 and a half hours. How the fuck is that long?

I think his point was that the movie should've been longer, to do proper justice to the source material, but was limited because movies are expected (both by audiences and by movie houses hoping to turn a buck) to be 3 hours at the very most.

The butter zone for most wide theatrical releases is around 100-150 minutes. People who've read the Watchmen often say that in order for the film to incorporate everything appropriately, the film should be ~240 minutes long, which is just too long for the average audience to care. If there is a four hour cut on the DVD, I'd like to see it, but my point is that there's no way the average movie goer would.

Frankly, I don't understand why Watchmen is considered "unfilmable," especially when the source material is essentially a storyboard that already cuts a large chunk of the work involved in the project.

 

[teknoarcanist]

That bit about anything containing a cape or a spaceship being a 'genre films' hit the nail on the head.

 

[HobbesMkii]

I dunno about this one. I think I agree with Bob halfways here. He usually has a knack for saying exactly what I think about a movie, but I was torn over this movie. I think my major problem was that this really struck me as something bizarre. I think Zack Snyder did his thing here. The comic book was a mystery/drama with bits of action mixed in that, just as in all mysteries and dramas used those moments of action to build to a climactic moment of action that results in epiphany. In Zack Snyder's adaptation, it was an action film with bits of mystery and drama mixed in. I think of it sort of like Hendrix's version of The Star Spangled Banner where he riffs all over the song. Is it great? Yah, you bet, it's awesome! Would you want is as our national anthem? Hell no. It's not a tune you can sing to, and it's a good five minutes longer. Similarly, Zack Snyder riffs all over Watchmen. And while it's fair to say "you can't compare this to the comic book, it's a film!" I argue that when the director claims that relation from the start, you're forced to. Just like Francis Scott Key, Alan Moore is the better genius in this example.

Also, I dunno what movie you were watching, but Malin Ackermann was awful. It ruined Billy Crudup's performance, because his character was meant to display his emotions purely through what he said, not his facial expressions and tone of voice. Ackermann's character was supposed to be his opposite; a character who was distinctly human and was visibly emotional. But Malin Akerman wasn't a good actress in that movie (perhaps because unlike a lot of the other people, she hasn't been in movies with good actors). She was attractive, sure, but contributed nothing. When Dr. Manhattan and Laurie are having their confrontation on Mars, her lack of good acting, of expressing the character's emotions appropriately, caused me to think Billy Crudup was doing a piss poor job. And then I realized it was that without characters that played their emotions off his lack (like Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, & Jeffery Dean Morgan), everything just felt dull.

You know who would've blown that role out of the water? Kate Winslet. Then we could've had all three of the leads from Little Children.

 

[MovieBob]

You know who would've blown that role out of the water? Kate Winslet. Then we could've had all three of the leads from Little Children.

As much as I'd like nothing more than to see Mrs. Winslet in Silk Specter's costume, I don't find much fault with Ackerman's performance overall. Doing a good job at playing a fairly shallow, whiny, immature character isn't the same as giving a shallow performance. Her character is really only granted ONE big "lose your shit" acting moment in either version of the story, and I thought she hit the right spot.

Regarding the often-derrided sex scene, I think it's close to the most tragically-honest depiction of "hopeless-dork-gets-to-nail-woman-way-way-way-WAY-the-fuck-out-of-his-league" captured on film in recent memory... which is of course not to say that it's not silly and awkward looking.

 

[Littaly]

Hah, good job at the Rorschach rewrite in the beginning

But seriously, I'm amazed how well received this movie is. Internet is a hard person to please, yet this movie has managed to. I agree with you, splendid cast, you always felt at home with the characters, the same way they were in the comic book, it was a lot like the pictures coming to life.

It was missing a few things though. Cutting out the Tales of the Black Freighter was not devastating, but cutting out the guy who was reading it and everyone else at the newspaper stand was hurting it. They helped giving life to the universe, and added to the feeling of pending doom, in the movie you sort of forgot that the world was threatened by nuclear war. Also Rorschach's character was made a little less interesting since the full conversations with the psychoanalyst were not shown.

But otherwise I agree, splendid movie, can't wait for the director's cut. Zach Snyder is really a director with balls.

Edit: and learn how to pronounce Åkerman!

 

[philosophicalbastard]

The only real problem I had with the film was that ozymandias didn't really have that much depth to him.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

I wish they'd made it into an HBO series or something equally better paced. At least Stephen King had the sense to put a stop to any notions of doing The Dark Tower any other way.

 

[SonofSeth]

What a load of toss!! CGI and fight choreography were great, but the other 2 hours and 20 minutes was a major snore fest. Don't get me started on the sex.

OK OK, not completely boring, Rorschach narrating was great and Comedian was one majestic prick, but as movies go, this just can't do.

P.S.
Didn't read the book, but watching the movie did make me want to.