BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Watchmen movie news

 
  

Page: 1 ... 1213141516(17)1819202122... 26

 
 
Eloi Tsabaoth
21:00 / 24.02.09
Yeah, it's bloody long. Just got back. Expecting a car crash, it was more like a fender bender with slight whiplash. I'll try to gather my thoughts. Any questions?
 
 
Colonel Kadmon
21:06 / 24.02.09
May we have a full and detailed report, please?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:42 / 24.02.09
If a man were primarily interested in Billy Crudup's nutsack, how disappointed or pleased might he be?
 
 
This Sunday
00:37 / 25.02.09
"World's First Movie Tie-in Coffee!"

They say that ... like it's a good thing.


They say it like it's true. Which it isn't. Hell, End of Eva had tie-in coffee!
 
 
Eloi Tsabaoth
07:14 / 25.02.09
OK, this is disconnected and not very well reasoned, like the film itself. Also there are spoilers, obviously, although not if you’ve read the book...
It was an interesting mishmash, veering wildly between Forrest Gump, Dick Tracy, and X-men 3 scripted by David Mamet. Cutting the story down to fit into even this extended time-span sometimes renders it a bit like the ‘Previously On’ section of some weird, soon to be cancelled superhero TV show. It’s mutilated and mortally wounded, but not, surprisingly, dead.
There were moments that really worked and I actually found myself compelled to sit all the way through it.
Stuff that worked: Sporadically pleasing visuals and performances, many directly quoted Alan Moore lines and schticks. Strangely pleasing to see people playing dress-up as the Watchmen characters as well. Maybe they’d have been better off doing this as a theme park. The actor playing the comedian has the right amount of unpleasant relish. Rorschach’s voice is like a bad Clint Eastwood impression but it grows on you like ginger stubble. The silly Blade style fight sequences have obviously been put in as a sop to audiences who like kicky kicky in their comic book films, but it doesn’t seem totally incongruous. And the gambit of the ‘villain’ winning still has a kick to it, possibly enhanced by the more vanilla nature of the content before it.
Stuff that failed: I’m not sure how comprehensible the film will be to anyone who hasn’t read the novel, due to key stuff being left out and some of the dialogue being a little mumbled . It’s all about cutting for time. The non-superheroes’ stories go out the window and the superheroes themselves don’t really have enough time to make the appropriate amount of impact. The revelation that The Comedian is Laurie’s father falls totally flat.
The ending seems to have been changed not because the squid is inherently ridiculous but that without the build up of all the different people disappearing and working on it would totally come out of the blue. However the replacement, of blaming Dr Manhattan, lacks the same idea of humanity coming together to fight an alien force, as it was the US who created him. The deaths also lack the same impact as we don’t know the people involved and there’s no piles of dead, staring corpses as in the comic. Basically in trying to keep it complete yet chopping stuff out Snyder’s lost some of the point. That’s not to say I think his director’s cut will be any better...
Other things: The music seemed to have been arranged by whoever did it for Doctor Who Confidential. ‘Ooh, the times are a’changing! Because times are changing!’ Worst offense is the use of Hallelujah in the hilariously silly sex-scene on Archie. The poor quality celebrity lookalikes were distracting, especially Rubbermask Nixon. I can’t speak for anyone watching it who’s not read the book but it seems really obvious that Veidt is the villain in this one, sibilant English/German accent and significant stares. Rorschach’s mask doesn’t really work in motion. And sadly, Haus, Billy Crudup’s balls are mostly obscured by his penis and there’s no really quality close-ups so you’ll have to hope for a better view in the DVD extras.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
18:26 / 25.02.09
The ending sounds rubbish.

I lost all excitement for this a few days ago. It just dwindled to nothing. And I was really looking forward to it at one point.
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:44 / 25.02.09
I must say that the Rorschach clip restored part of my faith in the movie.

It's a weird feeling to expect to really like half the scenes in a movie and really not like the other half. It's like being time-displaced or somethin'
 
 
grant
17:51 / 05.03.09
Surprisingly, I suppose, Roger Ebert is a fan.

He seems to think of the movie in terms of the perception of Dr. Manhattan - cool, removed, inhuman but fascinated by complexity, especially the complex way in which humans are messed up.

It's an interesting take.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
20:10 / 05.03.09
The ending sounds rubbish.

I lost all excitement for this a few days ago. It just dwindled to nothing. And I was really looking forward to it at one point.


Sadly, I have to agree. If even self-confessed 'gushing fanboys' (read: media whores) like Jonathan Ross and Mark Millar have reservations about it, then what's anyone who isn't lost in the (no doubt quite good) world of celebrity premieres supposed to think? Apart from 'ugh'.

I'll watch it on DVD, I suppose, on a night when I'm feeling very much alone. But it takes a specific type of film to be enjoyable under those circumstances, and I don't know if Watchmen's going to measure up.

Having not seen it, it still feels like a terrible shame.
 
 
Automatic
23:22 / 05.03.09
First two hours - 9/10, pretty much nailed it.

(Doc Manhattan origin - 10/10, absolutely perfect, see it if only for this sequence)

Last hour or so - 6/10, felt like it went on way too long, didn't really get any sense of the scale of events.

Just got back from SeOne's performance art night. Film was introduced by Dave Gibbons. Will post more tomorrow. Drunk and tired now.
 
 
wicker woman
07:07 / 06.03.09
So, Watchmen. Under the best of circumstances, this would have been a difficult movie to pull off. And while these circumstances weren't perfect, they did do a pretty good job; better than 300 would have indicated Zak Snyder could do, especially.

The first part of the movie is very rough and slow-moving. The actors don't really seem to know what to do with these characters early on, but they seem to (mostly) find their groove as the film progresses. They left the talkier bits of the book in, with (again, mostly) reasonable cuts... actually, I shouldn't say cuts, more like shortenings. One event in particular, Rorscharch's meetings with the psychiatrist, is compressed into a single meeting; it still works, but only just. Watching that guy fall apart over a series of weeks from the stress of dealing with Rorscharch's case was one of the best bits in the book.

None of my friends that went to see the movie with me seem to agree with me on this, but my most significant complaints would be that they overdid the violence; often blood seems to flow for the sake of blood, limbs and necks broken in pointlessly graphic closeups. A more subtle hand would've been better there. Also, a big part of the original material was that these heroes, with the exception of Manhattan, Veidt, and possibly the Comedian, were really 40-something schlubs that had fetishized their costumed adventuring, and a lot of that seemed to be lost; they seemed a bit too 'capable', really.

But overall, they pulled the movie off better than I had expected. Kudos, also, for leaving Manhattan naked in multiple scenes. Male nudity is something that's usually shied away from in American films but it's made all the more apparent here, especially in comparison to the almost downplayed female nudity.

Hope it doesn't sound like I'm excusing the movie's flaws, as they're certainly there. But I had fun with it.
 
 
Automatic
09:20 / 06.03.09
A few pics from last night's London Watchmen jamboree.





 
 
CameronStewart
17:51 / 06.03.09
None of my friends that went to see the movie with me seem to agree with me on this, but my most significant complaints would be that they overdid the violence; often blood seems to flow for the sake of blood, limbs and necks broken in pointlessly graphic closeups. A more subtle hand would've been better there.

My problem with all that is that the finale is entirely bloodless, and that's where we need the gore the most - after Veidt executes his plan we see a big crater where New York used to be, but not a single corpse. Gone are the heaps of bodies and the rivers of blood. We needed to see the true horror of Veidt's act, the human cost, but all we really get are shots of buildings being destroyed. It's a baffling decision, when earlier in the film we're shown thick gooey gobs of mobsters dripping from the ceiling after Dr Manhattan explodes them. It definitely robs the finale of its impact.

However, I have to say that I really enjoyed the film. It's the slimmed-down, dumbed-down, Cliffs Notes version of the story, but I remain impressed with how much they did manage to cram in the short run time. It's inconsistent in tone (Rorschach's harrowing "origin" tale rubs up uncomfortably against the supremely silly sex scene aboard the Owlship - the low point of the film for me), and the structure of the story with all the flashbacks and shifts in narrative POV give it an odd herky-jerky pace, and many scenes are reduced to perfunctory, two-line abbreviations, but I really had a big grin on my face for a lot of it. I've suffered through Detective Abberline being a opium-addicted psychic racing a horse-drawn carriage through a pristine Victorian London to save his beautiful prostitute girlfriend from being murdered by the Ripper, I've suffered through "Chancellor Sutler" bellowing his cartoonish tirades from a giant screen, while V cooks eggs in his kitchen while wearing a fucking apron. I've suffered through every single creative decision in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. This, to me, was recognizably Watchmen, and I was pretty delighted by it.

(When Zack Snyder came on board the project, the working script had Ozymandias being stopped before he executes his plan. Nite Owl crashes his ship through the wall and crushes Ozy, killing him, before he can push the button. New York is saved! High five! Roll credits! Whatever many problems exist in the film as it finally appears, I'm glad that Snyder fought for the ending that was truer to the book.)
 
 
Aha! I am Klarion
19:15 / 06.03.09
I loved it.

The only major thing that didn't sit well with me was scene when Nite-Owl attacks Ozzy after Rorschach's death. It seemed a little hokey.

I did really like the alteration that has Silk Specter and Nite Owl continuing to to be super-heroes after the final confrontation. It seems a little more optimistic to me.

Also, the origin of Dr. Manhattan was just perfect.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
19:24 / 06.03.09
I did really like the alteration that has Silk Specter and Nite Owl continuing to to be super-heroes after the final confrontation. It seems a little more optimistic to me.

That was in the book, kind of... After visiting the original Silk Specter, Laurie talks about designing a new costume with leather mask and chainmail... Is it the same in the movie?
 
 
wicker woman
10:28 / 07.03.09
My problem with all that is that the finale is entirely bloodless, and that's where we need the gore the most - after Veidt executes his plan we see a big crater where New York used to be, but not a single corpse. Gone are the heaps of bodies and the rivers of blood. We needed to see the true horror of Veidt's act, the human cost, but all we really get are shots of buildings being destroyed. It's a baffling decision, when earlier in the film we're shown thick gooey gobs of mobsters dripping from the ceiling after Dr Manhattan explodes them. It definitely robs the finale of its impact.

Agreed. I would say though that that problem could have been at least partially solved if the movie taken more time to let us get to know at least a few of the people that get killed.

Rorschach's harrowing "origin" tale rubs up uncomfortably against the supremely silly sex scene aboard the Owlship - the low point of the film for me

Also agreed. I'm no prude, but that sex scene skirted the edges of pornography; not casting value judgments on porn, per se, just saying that it was beginning to feel like something out of an entirely different and much cheaper film. I was starting to wonder exactly how many different positions we were going to be treated to there.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
12:27 / 07.03.09
Saturday Morning Watchmen

Awesome on so many levels.
 
 
grant
13:16 / 07.03.09
Oh. My brain just got bent.
 
 
Aha! I am Klarion
14:46 / 07.03.09
I hate to disagree, I thought that the sex scene was awesome; and healthy when juxaposed with the sick stuff of Rorschach's story (sick sex stuff v. health, funny, ironic kink). The key ingredient to the mix was Leonard Cohen. Just the right mix of romance, irony, style, and sleazy.

And while it was all of those things, it wasn't pornographic! Despite having a fetish for both brunettes and latex, I wasn't aroused at all.

However, I did feel warm and romantic and delighted with the humor of the scene.

You are prudes.
 
 
Spaniel
14:55 / 07.03.09
Ironic?
 
 
CameronStewart
15:09 / 07.03.09
You are prudes.

If I was a prude I likely would have made negative comment about all the full frontal male nudity, as so many reviews/commenters sadly seem to do. If any review includes any kind of snickering mention of the good Doc's penis, it's not worth paying attention to.

(Dan standing naked in front of his costume also raised some childish chuckles in the audience.)

It's not a personal discomfort with sex that makes me dislike the scene on the Owlship, it's that it was neither erotic nor triumphant and just seemed ridiculous and laughable. I take your point about needing something to lift the audience's spirits after watching Rorschach bury a cleaver in a child molester's head, but the scene was, in my opinion, mishandled. Showing Dan and Laurie in various different positions humping against the console was tacky and juvenile (you know, the things you don't really want a Watchmen movie to be), and while the Cohen song may have sold it for you, for me it was one of a list of obvious, on-the-nose musical choices through the whole film. Heidi over at the Beat makes a great point about Quentin Tarantino - when he chooses a song to accompany a scene in his movies it's usually some old or forgotten pop song juxtaposed in a surprising and original way which gives that song a new energy, whereas Snyder goes for the obvious. "Everybody Wants To Rule The World" for Adrian Veidt? "Ride of the Valkyries" for the Vietnam scene? "The Sound of Silence" for Comedian's funeral? Or, yes, "Hallelujah" for the sex scene? They're not particuarly clever or thoughtful choices and they raised more groans from the audience I saw it with than anything else.

I still enjoyed the movie!
 
 
CameronStewart
15:33 / 07.03.09
Actually the one choice of music that I did really like was the Philip Glass Koyannisqaatsi stuff for Manhattan on Mars. That worked extremely well and I'll probably have difficulty separating it from Watchmen now.
 
 
Spaniel
15:52 / 07.03.09
Just spoken with The Natural Way, who actually really enjoyed the movie. His review pretty much chimed with yours Cameron: it has flaws, on-the-nose music cues amongst them (Ride of the Valkyries for the a scene in Vietnam? That's just awful), but on the whole about as good as he could've expected.
 
 
Aha! I am Klarion
17:22 / 07.03.09
I actually think that the obvious musical choices work, because they are subversive.

I sinkered when in interviews Synder called the book "subversive," but I think that he lived up to this in the use of the music: like the comic, playing familiar notes with a slight twist we don't expect.

The film's use of music and aesthetic made things less deadly, deadly serious (which the Graphic Novel really isn't anyway) and more absurd and gonzo. That really worked for me.

Also, I only discovered Cohen for myself about three months ago, so I am not too jaundiced in my response to his music when used in the film.
 
 
Spaniel
17:39 / 07.03.09
Eh, in what way subversive? I haven't seen the film, but those choices just sound a bit obvious and dumb, if you ask me. Adjectives like heavy-handed spring to mind.
 
 
Poke it with a stick
18:32 / 07.03.09
Is it bad that this review really, really encourages me to go see the film?

Now, which to be? A sociopath, a deranged pseudo-intellectual or a brutalised, immature man?
 
 
Aha! I am Klarion
18:33 / 07.03.09
Talk about the film snob hour (yuck, yuck)! "heavy-handed," you say (lol). It seems you have a case of "Watchmen-doltry."

It's subversive in the same way a good Simpsons parody is: an ironic reuse of a familiar cultural artifact.

It makes you laugh at something familiar or see it in a new light. "Ride of the Valkyries" works because, like in "Apocalypse Now" its use makes fun of the gung-ho masculine enjoyment of the "gaming" aspects of war. But its use actually enhances the original intent of the film it references, since the opera is used in a fantastic story that involving a Super-human Giant and an agent of a clearly fascist government. It makes a point; it makes you laugh at the clever and ironic alteration of a common cliche (which is classic joke-telling). The result is a joke on all of those who view the Apocalypse Now scene without irony.

It is consciously of incredible bad taste and ballsy and is more effective because of that.
 
 
Aha! I am Klarion
18:46 / 07.03.09
From the linked review.
"Three-quarters of the movie is taken up with flashbacks about alarmingly-fascistic vigilantes."

You do realize that this criticism means that the man didn't get the content in the slightest.
 
 
Spaniel
19:05 / 07.03.09
Talk about the film snob hour (yuck, yuck)! "heavy-handed," you say (lol). It seems you have a case of "Watchmen-doltry."

Talk about making stuff up in your very own head (yuck, yuck, (lol))

It's hardly film snobbery to suggest that just perhaps Snyder is being a bit obvious and dumb. Directors, particularly Hollywood directors, do dumb, obvious things all the time. I suppose I better go and watch the film before I continue with this conversation, but I'd be very interested to see what other board members - board members that have actually seen the pic - make of your reading. Sounds like you're reaching way beyond the borders of the text to me, I have to say.

I may be wrong, however.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
19:13 / 07.03.09
Now, which to be? A sociopath, a deranged pseudo-intellectual or a brutalised, immature man?

Hah! Read that same review last night at work and thought "hmm, I tick ALL those boxes! Maybe this'll be awesome after all!"

My favourite part is, having already said it's an alternate 1985, when he says for unexplained reasons, Russia is still a superpower. Um... dude? Even in the REAL 1985 Russia was still a superpower. How much explanation do you WANT, exactly? They've only got three hours...
 
 
Aha! I am Klarion
19:14 / 07.03.09
It boils down to this: It made me laugh, not at the film, but with the filmmakers. I felt it was an ironic and not a moronic and obvious gesture.
 
 
Aha! I am Klarion
19:22 / 07.03.09
"It's hardly film snobbery to suggest that just perhaps Snyder is being a bit obvious and dumb. Directors, particularly Hollywood directors, do dumb, obvious things all the time."

Nice Bill O'Reilly level of cognitive dissonance, there. Those "Hollywood Directors" do dumb things all the time! Seems like a snobby statement to me. Passes my duck test and all.

If you made a reasoned argument it wouldn't be snobby.

Snobbery is the realm provincial of generalizations.
 
 
Spaniel
20:15 / 07.03.09
Crikey, you're a charmer. Someone questions your reading and suddenly they're either an idolater, a prude or a snob. Defensive much? Not sure why someone who hates generalizations would be happy employing the term provincial, an' all.

Look I'm not saying that Hollywood directors are all stupid idiots ergo Snyder was being an idiot in that instance, I'm saying that given a lifetime of watching stupid big budget movies littered with dumb and obvious directorial choices that if Snyder were being dumb and obvious in this instance I wouldn't be suprised. Yes I am revealing prejudice, but I'm not trying to make a strong argument, I'm just stating how these choices sound to me as someone who hasn't seen the film, and nothing you've written compels me to rethink my initial reactions given that they seem to be predicated on reading the text in some very particular ways.

I mean, the Sounds of Silence at a funeral? Really? That's subversive? Hallelujah when an impotent man gets it up? At best that just sounds silly. Is the silliness what you think is subversive? That it's poking fun at the oh-so-serious text? What the fuck would be the point of that? Why would that be interesting?

I dunno, I suppose I should just watch the film and make up my own mind.
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
20:30 / 07.03.09
Well, before getting into the rest of the film, a bit about the music: I thought the choices were successful about half the time. Dylan worked where it was, the Glass was gorgeous and amazing, making that entire sequence a complete film in itself. Like others have said, see it just for that sequence alone. The Cohen, ehhhhh, I like the song, I sort of like it where it was, but the sex scene was a bit goofily done. The Wagner, though, I thought did exactly what it was suppose to: put Apocalypse Now in a different context within this Watchmen-ified world.

As for the rest, the film did some stuff very right and some stuff very wrong. I liked most of the Manhattan stuff (aforementioned origin sequence is the thing that makes me want to go back a second time). Rorshach was pretty much nailed. They did a good job with Dan and Laurie for the most part. Ozymandias was the worst part of the movie. The characterization was ridiculous and the finale was.... something they should have vastly changed from the book instead of the abortion that scene turned out to be. I realize they were trying to mimic the book but it didn't work out very well. It needed more space, this felt like the quick version of some of the most important scenes of the story.

Overall, the biggest culprit to this movie not being as good as it could have been was the editing. It was just really messy editing. Things that should have been trimmed were overlong. The compressed bits made no sense. It makes me want to see if the Director's Cut is any better in this aspect, although I suspect it won't be, unfortunately. I really think that Synder filmed and planned a great movie, but that it was ultimately butchered in the editing room.
 
 
This Sunday
20:40 / 07.03.09
I mean, the Sounds of Silence at a funeral? Really? That's subversive? Hallelujah when an impotent man gets it up?

I think I'd like it better if they were swapped. Who doesn't like a Simon and Garfunkel with their airship porno?

I see what he's trying to do, with the whole comic about comics/movie about movies and their soundtracks, but, no.

Hello Rorschach, my old friend...
 
  

Page: 1 ... 1213141516(17)1819202122... 26

 
  
Add Your Reply