Comments on: WHO’LL WATCH THE WATCHMEN? EVERYBODY

By: Green

Green — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 03:52:25 +0000

The reason to watch renditions of books as movies is because what the director is supposed to do is add their own creativity.

I liked Watchmen the book. The screenshots are tempting me to watch the movie, but I know that the director of this movie has no ability when it comes to making movies (has anybody seen 300, good thing you haven’t).

I do agree based on the screenshot of Rorschach above that he is done well.

By: yal

yal — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:47:51 +0000

I just did a saturated release this morning after eating a chili dog and supreme breakfast burrito.

By: captain america

captain america — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:38:59 +0000

um…i liked it. thought it was great, actually. except for the ending, which made even less sense than the ending in the graphic novel.

the scene where dr. manhattan is comtemplating his past on mars was just beautiful. so much so that i had to shhhh the teenagers behind me who insisted on yacking through the whole movie up to that point.

By: Doom

Doom — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:05:59 +0000

Rorschach was based on the Question.

By: James

James — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 03:38:59 +0000

“I didn’t like the claustrophobic, painfully stylized graphic novel when I read it in the early ’90s. The apocalyptic plot struck me as uncomfortably reminiscent of Atlas Shrugged.”

Rorschach is based on an objectivist character, Mr. A. Alan Moore could hardly be described as a Randroid, though….

By: Boxxyfan

Boxxyfan — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:02:20 +0000

Russian dubbing is so fucking lame, exept maybe for Manhattan, and the whole movie is just too long and tedious. Also, nor heard the hype nor about the graphic novel.

By: Rammspieler

Rammspieler — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:40:50 +0000

abelincoln, the problem is that knowing how most people are lazy fucks who will wait for the movie to a novel to come out, a lot of people who’ve never read the graphic novel either because they are lazy or are too self conscious too read what is basically a comic book only hundreds of pages long and openly admit it, will go see the movie to see what all the nerds are talking about. Then they’ll see it and take it for granted thinking that what they see in the movie (all artistic/budget/time constraint liberties aside) is an actual representation of what the book is about and think it was all a waste of time and that the real fans are idiots for saying what they say about it.

I know I get pissed every time I hear people lauding the film version of V for Vendetta even though for the Wachiowski Bros. it was nothing more than yet another exercise in “bullet-time” photography and making the then mandatory “Fuck You,Bush” movie that every Hollywood director/producer had to make. Undoubtedly most people went to see it just because it was made by the same guys who made the Matrix trilogy and not because they actually read the original graphic novel.

By: abelincoln

abelincoln — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:15:31 +0000

i totally agree with the asshole-ripping comments but… who cares? the comic still exists untainted, we just get another movie. and really i couldn’t imagine any director doing the comic justice.

By: Plamen Petkov

Plamen Petkov — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:46:39 +0000

to Col. Richard Hindrance (Mrs):

Why don’t you comment on the subject but instead choose to attack me? Come on fartbrain, here is MY email petkov00@gmail.com, let me see you write to me and see how far you can get with me. Challenge is open. next move is yours. I am waiting.

By: phew

phew — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:46:20 +0000

Gosh, I’m glad I don’t live in the US.

By: MoheganSunHotelCasino

MoheganSunHotelCasino — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:29:09 +0000

the graphic novels was better.

By: Tam

Tam — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:57:23 +0000

Campbell:

If you’re interested in Kitty Genovese, then also check out Harlan Ellison’s chilling ‘The Whimper of Whipped Dogs’ short story, if you haven’t already.
Actually come to think of it, much of the worldbuilding of watchmen is borrowed from 60s science fiction authors like Vonnegut and Dick so that was probably the inspiration for Rorscharch too.

By: jake1

jake1 — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:27:10 +0000

I agree with #13. And then some.In 1986 I was a freshman in high school and a huge x-men fan until some guy gave me the first six issues of Watchmen. I have never read an x-men comic since. The Watchmen is the solitary reason that people take comic books seriously today and Zach Snyder just took a monster dump on all of that. I actually walked out of the theater after 20 minutes and finished it at home as it was intended to be seen….as a shitty camcorder bootleg on the internet.I personally wouldnt have minded if he’d taken certain liberties with the movie as long as he left its most defining trait intact. Its intelligence. But no. This one was for all the Wolverine fans out there.No deep thinking required. Subtlety need not apply. Having trouble figuring things out? Then lets let the smartest characters let loose with some seriously wooden exposition. That shits just for fags anyway, right? Wouldnt want to take time away from another gratuitous slow-mo kung-fu fight or that skinemax style sex scene. And the actors? I mean…DAMN! When a dude in a mask steals the show acting-wise, you know its bad. Snyder should stick to gay porn period pieces and leave the smart stuff to people who,like, i dunno….make movies for people who like smart stuff. This movie is strictly for douchebaggy middle america, which has already declared it a winner. I cant wait til Hollywood ruins Miracleman.

By: WhereToDownloadGames

WhereToDownloadGames — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:18:38 +0000

great review, don’t believe the hype.

By: Campbell Roark

Campbell Roark — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:32:25 +0000

this film was a flaming piece of shit. It’s not at all faithful to Moore’s story:

1. the ending is entirely different.

2. the origin of Rorshach’s “face”- which Moore tied to the Kitty Genovese slaying in 1964- the mask he wears is cut from a dress she had ordered… that is cut wholesale, as is the transformative way in which R. kills his first bad-guy (I guess they thought it was too much like SAW- even though I’m pretty sure they stole that premise from the Watchmen comic…

3. DR. manhattan’s origin and his beautifully cold, Houellebecq-esque nihilistic pronouncements on humanity’s worth are abrogated more or less entirely, the chapter wherein he ruminates upon the chance of his becoming, and the one where he takes

4. Whoever did the music for this film should be beaten with a paintbucket and have their genitals ground to pulp with a cheese grater and a firm touch- the fucking riot set to KC and the sunshine band’s “I’m yer boogie man”? What. the fuck. Not to mention Simon & G’s “Sounds of Silence” treacle ruining the comedian’s funeral. Oh and using “Flight of the Valkyries” for the Vietnam scenes… Naw, that’s not the most obviously lame, bald-faced/flatfooted fucken play for cred I’ve ever seen…

5. the dialogue was completely reworked leaving no cliche unturned, no banality unobserved, no bathos undistlled.

6.The android they designed to play Veidt can’t pronounce the letter “R.” Which, when taken with his limpid, sterile performance makes the character detestable in the extreme.

And that’s just the first 6 things that pop in my head. If you dug this shitfest then probably like Don Delillo novels and The fucking Strokes. Hollywood is now 4 for 4 in their unabashed sabotage of Moore’s genius. I stand by The Wall Street Journal for the first time: “Watching ‘Watchmen’ is the spiritual equivalent of being whacked on the skull for 163 minutes. The reverence is inert, the violence noxious, the mythology murky, the tone grandiose, the texture glutinous.”

Well put.

By: Tam

Tam — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:19:20 +0000

I really don’t get why anyone’s made this film. Yes, people like me who grew up reading too many comic books love this book because it’s a smart critique of the junk we grew up with as kids. But I’m not sure why anyone who wasn’t obsessed with all that stuff would care about seeing superheroes ‘deconstructed’. It’s like looking at those Andy Warhol prints without knowing about Campbell’s Soup or Marilyn Monroe. That said, there probably is an interesting, resonant film to be made from the book given its vast scope, but this isn’t it.

As an aside, The Incredibles, which, (as Eileen pointed out) is heavily influenced by Watchmen is a far more fascinating film. I’ve never seen such an all-American nasty tribute to fascism and superior firepower as that film, and in time to come I suspect it might come to be viewed much as ‘Triumph of the Will’ is today.

By: BingoMath

BingoMath — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:42:20 +0000

a lot of marketing with this movie!

By: derriick

derriick — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:39:58 +0000

i hat it when people don’t say a thing about being over saturated with ads and bullshit. stop watching TV you idiot. the excuse that you cant escape it is malarkey.

By: Woz

Woz — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:45:07 +0000

Captain -
Considering that the graphic novel was smart and engaging, people expected the same of the movie. But you can’t expect the average dope to understand existential philosophy or basic psychology for that matter.

So they dumb it down and its not that good. Slumdog Millionaire was much better (although it didn’t deserve the Oscars).

By: Captain Chimichanga

Captain Chimichanga — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:01:18 +0000

This is now the third review I’ve read this morning that uses the phrase “seminal graphic novel.” How irritating.

Stop pretending that this isn’t the best film that Hollywood has produced in at least the last two years.

If you thought parts were boring or couldn’t handle an extra 40 minutes for your money, there is something wrong with you.

It’s a movie about comic-book superheroes. Stop taking it so damn seriously.