Watchmen

Watchmen

After being a lifelong fan of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's masterpiece of a graphic novel. I wasnt 100% confident but moving aside from that, the opening sequence is brilliant with Bob Dylan ( who lyrics were quoted in chapter one of the book) playing over the alternative events of the last 100 years. This film never fails to live up to the novel and translates perfectly despite a few variations which actually work equally. Features both the intelligence and brutality that it always was. The film seems to do it in a more nihilistic way but still works.

Theres no doubt this is a long film to sit down and watch, i read the book over say a week so i never felt too uncomfortable. But that obviously is the thing missing i cant really compare the 2 as the comic medium and the film medium are 2 entirely different things. Its almost like a film being translated into another language.

I have to say i felt the characters ( Night owl and Veidt) were a bit too roughly based..we didnt actually get too much of a insite into those characters and arent we supposed to hate Veidt. I certainly didnt find him too much of a baddie.

I have to say Jackie Early Haley is such an intense character and is the highlight of the film, he plays Rorschach like it was what he was born to do.

(Read Less...)

http://robinollysays.blogspot.com

Double Bill: Watchmen and Metropolis

Two big, long films with many ideas... and at both their cores, the theme of societal alienation. Watchmen's Dr. Manhattan (left) achieves a kind of perfect power--unlimited, pragmatic, and even physically attractive. He embodies the dreams of a society on the verge of atomic holocaust; he is their hero, because he represents that frighful power put to positive use (or at least, to the preservation of America). The military and the media hale him as the leader of the glorious future. But Dr. Manhattan can no longer relate to human beings, and they eventually turn on him.

The Maria Robot (right) is the creation of the masters of Metropolis--the uber-rich who dominate the world of the future but rely on the labour of a permanant underclass to maintain it. The robot has two purposes: first, to undermine a nascent protest movement in the underground caverns where the labourers dwell. Second, to replace those workers with tireless robots like itself. The Robot is covered with a false skin that makes it resemble Maria, the beautiful and benevolent leader of the movement. However, the Robot lacks Maria's kindness--it is seductive and chaotic, and eventually, the citizens turn on it, incinerating it on top of a bonfire.

Two powerful beings with limitless potential, and both the products of powerful men with short-sighted dreams.

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-04-13 03:38:44 by user06

Watchmen Review

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-04-10 22:40:46 by user01

Watchmen

I give the movie: 2.5/5

Besides faulting it for being too long (even though huge chunks of the comic book were edited for film), this just brings me to the point that rings oh so true - Watchmen is unfilmable.

Those were actually the exact words that came out the mouth of the classic comic book's revered writer, Alan Moore. Some things, I feel, should be left in its original source material. And Watchmen should be one of them.

Translating a story of emotionally-distraught masked vigilantes onto live-action on screen is a trying task. Even though the competent cast does their best to portray the conflicting emotions of the characters caught in 70's America in a pending nuclear war with Russia, the gaudiness of it all being displayed in real-life is almost too much to stomach.

While the trailer did seem cool (actually, it was with the help of music), witnessing in full-length the slightly-pudgy Nite Owl land on the ground, cape flailing and all, was too cheesy to be taken seriously. And talking about Nite Owl, his rendesvouz with Silk Spectre came across as laughable, instead of steamy.

There are just too many complains that I have for this film, which in the first place, should be left in its brilliant form as a graphic novel. While last year's loose movie adaptation of another classic,Wanted, was very well-received, the film Watchmen had exactly duplicated its source material, which basically made us question,What's the point?

(Read Less...)

Wilson Ng - http://wilsoniscurious.blogspot.com/

Last updated: 2010-03-14 05:21:25 by wilsoniscurious

Watchmen

Not perfect and not nearly as good as the source material, but damn it, Watchmen was just so tremendous at so many times that it is impossible for me not to be completely smitten by it. While I have yet to see the longer directors cut, the film is a little messy, but messy can bring about brilliance and Watchmen was a film that dared to get in unsuspecting, normal peoples faces with heavy sex scenes, male nudity (and not in a comedic way either), violence, and flat out bleakness...much like what was done with the original comic series.Watchmen also sports one of the best opening credit sequences I have ever seen. It gives me fucking goose bumps.

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: High Plains Drifter , Dalkomhan insaeng , Dial M for Murder

Review: “Watchmen”

* * * * out of four stars

I was reminded of one particular director as I watched Zack Snyder’s latest epic, “Watchmen.” Quentin Tarantino. “Watchmen” isn’t Tarantino-esque, but it accomplishes what Tarantino accomplished with “Kill Bill” and “Pulp Fiction.” It transcends the genre. It’s a whole new kind of superhero story.

The first question someone asked me after I had seen it was “Is it better than ‘The Dark Knight?’” In some ways it is. In many others, it isn’t. However, the question is irrelevant. “Dark Knight” and “Watchmen” are two entirely separate entities, with different struggles and morals. They’re apples and oranges. Both, however, are four-star, top-of-the-line superhero/action films.

“Watchmen” opens with the murder of former superhero The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan). Through an open credits sequence taking place after the murder we see the history of a group of superheroes named “The Minutemen” who fight together throughout the fifties and sixties (including Comedian). We see through their eyes several events in history, including the Kennedy assassination (which didn’t happen the way we all think) and Vietnam.

Then President Nixon passes the Keenan act, outlawing superheroes, forcing them to retire.

Now it’s 1985, Nixon is still in office, and the threat of nuclear war hangs over the world. Our remaining heroes are the sexy Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman), nerdy Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson), dark and mysterious Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), all-powerful Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), and rich entrepreneur Ozymandias (Matthew Goode). Each are retired now, thanks to Nixon’s Keenan act, trying to live normal lives.

Well, all except the paranoid Rorschach, who is undertaking the investigation of Comedian’s murder. Rorschach must work in secret, for he’s a wanted man. Meanwhile, Dr. Manhattan is perfecting a series of nuclear reactors while working with Adrian Veidt aka Ozymandias. He is also having problems in his relationship with Laurie (aka Silk Spectre II), and this could be because he’s lost his perspective on being human. Or maybe it’s because she’s tired of him walking around naked all day?

Dr. Manhattan was originally the son of a clockmaker who became a scientist. One day he forgot his watch in the lab and went back to get it. The lab doors then locked him inside and he was zapped into oblivion. Soon he found a way to reconstruct himself, and when he did he had incredible power, blue skin, and no clothes. Ladies, he’s worth the price of admission.

Laurie grows impatient with Manhattan. So she goes to see Dan aka Night Owl II. The two have a great connection, and maybe she’d be better off with him. The two reminisce about old times and have a drink together.

In the mean time, Rorshach is framed for murder and found by the police, who expose his true identity, and begin to move our plot from introspective character piece (which is done very well) to all-out action film (which is done much better).

I’ve been vague on details because chances are if you’re reading this, you’ll want to go see it, and would probably see it anyway even if I gave it one star. Well trust me, as vague as I am, this is no one star film. Great visuals, excellent storytelling and some very wild action scenes.

The most intriguing character is Rorschach, whose mask features a constantly-shifting ink blot. Rorschach occupies a world of his own at times, away from the other characters. And at the end we probably sympathize with him the most.

Speaking of the end, if you haven’t read the graphic novel, the ending is going to surprise you. It’s brilliant, it’s bold, it’s different. This is going to be one of the best films of the year.

(Read Less...)

Watchmen

Watchmen

Starring:

Billy Crudup, Mathew Goode, Jackie Earl Haley, Malin Akerman, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Dan Dreiberg

Director: Zack Snyder

Genre: Action/Drama/Sci-Fi

Rated: R

Watchmen takes place in an alternate version of 1985. The cold war is raging, Nixon is president for his 5^th term and superheroes or “masked vigilantes” have been outlawed by the keene act. A former member of the Minutemen the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) Is murdered and now the only “Masked Vigilante” still working Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) tries to uncover what happened to him and find out why former Masked Vigilantes are being murdered.

Director Zach Snyder stays true to the roots of the Graphic Novel and even lifts shots directly from it to give the movie an Authentic Watchmen Feel.  The film does not stray very far from the source material however the comic within a comic “tales of the black freighter” has been omitted although Snyder is supposed to include it in the DVD release. Also the Ending has changed, people familiar with watchmen will either love it or hate it. It doesn’t change the outcome just how they get there. The film is dark, sometimes violent and does possess a lot of the tone of the graphic novel.

The shining light in this movie is clearly Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach when he is on screen the film is great and you get lost in the universe of the Watchmen.  On the other hand there is Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) who is horribly miscast and is an epic failure as the worlds smartest man, He is supposed to be the embodiment of perfection both mentally and physically however Mathew Goode conveys neither, every time he comes on screen you are taken out of the film by how awful he is.  The rest of the cast does a really good job Billy Crudup as Dr Manhattan the only person with actual powers as well as Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl, Malin Akerman as Laurie Jupiter seems more like a secondary character than a pivotal love interest between Dr Manhattan and Nite Owl.

Studios have been trying to make this film for over twenty years and have not been sure how to do it unfortunately they still have not figured it out. The graphic novel is so multilayered with a back-story on each character (these are all characters being introduced for the first time). As well as the comic within a comic, the themes of the cold war and nuclear destruction.  For Fanboys of Watchmen or people that have read the Graphic Novel they may very well love this film since they know the details and motivations of each character; However if this is your introduction to the Watchmen Universe you are probably not going to enjoy this. First timers will be confused about what is going on who each character is and why the movie takes close to 3 hours but explains very little. Ultimately Watchmen tries real hard to pull off the graphic novel but does not succeed and much like the Keene act in the film banning Masked Vigilantes  a similar act should have been made banning this movie about masked vigilantes.

Watchmen Creator Alan Moore has gone through great pains in distancing himself from movies that have been made from his work you will not find his name on the credits. I wasn’t sure why at first until you watch the watchmen and realize that not every work should be transferred from one medium to another.

Watchmen has Great Visuals, a long running time as well as a hard to understand narrative for those who are not familiar with the source material. If you are previously familiar with the story then you should see it, if you are not familiar take a pass and wait for complete story to be released on  DVD.

(Read Less...)

Watchmen

Comic book nerds, rejoice! The long-awaited Watchmen movie is finally here! We've been waiting since last July, as the preview first premiered before the mega-blockbuster The Dark Knight. The preview tells the basic plot of theWatchmen: In a 1945 era where President Nixon is serving his fifth term. After an ex-superhero, the Comedian, is murdered, one of the Watchmen, Rorschach decides to investigate. "One of us died tonight. Somebody knows why. Somebody knows." These are the words spoken by Rorschach in a Batman sort of growl, played by Jackie Earle Haley, most known for being in last year's Semi-Pro with Will Ferrell and Little Children with Kate Winslet. Earle Haley is only one of the odd actors chosen to play the Watchmen superheroes. Malin Akerman, who was in The Heartbreak Kid and 27 Dresses, plays Silk Spectre II; Billy Crudup, who was in The Good Shepherd, Mission: Impossible III and Big Fish plays Dr. Manhattan; Matthew Goode, who was in Match Point andBrideshead Revisited plays Adrian; Jeffrey Dean Morgan, who plays Denny Duquette on Grey's Anatomy plays the Comedian; and Patrick Wilson, who was in Lakeview Terrace and Hard Candy plays Nite Owl II.

Watchmen was also directed by Zack Snyder, who also directed the Frank Miller graphic novel adaptation, 300. I was expecting great things from him, as he was the most controversial member of the Watchmen cast, as people didn't know what to expect from his directing. I was neither satisfied nor unsatisfied. The movie was very dark, which I was expecting from it, as the graphic novel it's based upon is a "comic book for adults." I also thought that he captured the gloomy feeling of the movie perfectly, up until an hour and a half into the film. After that, it felt like a bad George Lucas impersonation. Zack Snyder also used the slow-mo effect on the movie whenever he got a chance too, and that got pretty annoying as well. He directed a Nixon-revolution sort of thing; Watchmenreminded me a lot of V for Vendetta. He was, however, very faithful to the graphic novel. Watchmen is a near perfect page-by-page adaptation. Snyder was a great choice for directing what original comic book illustrator Alan Moore called "un-filmable". I agree with Moore, it is indeed un-filmable, due to the novel's jumpy story and plotline. But I believe that this is as good as it could've got.

The Watchmen graphic novel was on Time Magazine's Best 100 English-language novels of 1923-the present. That's why it was such a risk to turn this into a movie. The graphic novel itself is pretty long, so it's no wonder that theWatchmen movie was 2 hours 45 minutes. About a half hour too long. But I didn't mind the duration of the movie; you get your money's worth. And it allows you to sit in a dark, heated movie theater for 3 hours and forget all of your worries.

I also would've liked to see more of the Watchmen heroes' pasts. We got to see Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan and Silk Spectre's, but I wanted to know more about Nite Owl and Adrian. Silk Spectre and Dr. Manhattan were the two reasons that this movie had the "R" rating. Manhattan wore no clothes in the movie, so be prepared for lots of blue nudity. Dr. Manhattan has the power to see his own past, present and future, so he helps Spectre recall her past, saying that she's "scared". I don't want to give too much away, but it gets pretty sexually explicit. The two along with Nite Owl have sex at least 3 times in Watchmen, too. The blood-and-gore content wasn't as bad as I was prepared for it would be. If you can handle a midget's red-water leaking underneath a prison bathroom door, then you can handle the Watchmen. Exciting movie? Yes. But like a lot of movies, explosive action doesn't make up for a confusing and dull story. A movie that comes to mind is Michael Bay's Transformers. Sure it had cool special effects, but so much that you didn't quite follow the actual story. Replace some of the fight scenes in Transformers with time-consuming dialogue and you get theWatchmen. It's a gorgeous film to look at (the cinematography is absolutely breathtaking), but the idea of a Watchmen movie is more fun than the actual flick. The movie is supposed to show that Superman is for grown-ups, too, but If you take away all of the sex and blood, you basically have what could've been a PG-13 movie that you would see 7 and 8 year olds at.

It is cool, but I craved a lot more from the movie. Watchmen brings you face-to-face with what could happen if society actually shunned superheroes. PictureThe Incredibles, but add nudity and a lot more violence. It's what everyone at the water cooler will be talking about, so I say see it. The first mega-movie of 2009 was a disappointment. Let's hope the rest of the year goes better than this. I giveWatchmen 2/5 stars.

(Read Less...)

-Nick

Watchmen

Basic Premise

It's 1985 and the world is teetering on the brink of a nuclear holocaust that could wipe out all of humanity. Political tension is high and no one thinks there will be a tomorrow. In the midst of all this, a costumed hero is killed. There are several theories but only one seems to make sense -- someone wants the heroes out of the way before something big goes down. It's a race against the doomsday clock and the grim reaper and the heroes are losing.


Review

I will give this movie the highest compliment I can give -- they stuck to the graphic novel. There were only slight (itty bitty) deviations and a few embellishments and changes but those added to the movie.

Before I say more, to those who have never read theWatchmen graphic novel (what's wrong with you?) this is not a typical comic book movie. It is a drama not an action movie. Don't get me wrong, there is action. The fight scenes are beautifully done and amazingly graphic (bones being broken through skin graphic) but the fight scenes are few and far in between and only serve to further the plot, not carry it. Please don't go to this movie expecting wall-to-wall action because you'll only be ticked off and then tell people the movie is crap when it isn't.

As I said, all involved followed the graphic novel beautifully. They even kept Jon (Dr. Manhattan) au naturel *snicker*. A little surprising but one of the few reasons the movie earned that R rating (there was also some graphic sex, violence, and a near rape scene). I was actually quite happy to see Jon in the all-together (and not for the reasons you think, you perv). I thought they might make a Ken doll out of him, so I'm happy that didn't happen. :)

The casting was great. I had always imagined Jon with a deeper voice, but that's just my preference when it comes to men. I had no complaints with any casting choices, the acting or anything. Heck, the guy they got to play Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) actually made me like the character because I hated him when I read the graphic novel. Mr. Haley did him beautifully and brought a new depth to the character that I made me appreciate Rorschach a little more.

I actually want to see the movie again, but I want to wait for the DVD so I can see all the extras that go with it. I will definitely be buying the two-disc version. Speaking of DVDs, there is a DVD out at the moment -- Watchmen The Motion Comic. It's the comic with voice acting and limited motion, not really animated... a moving comic. I haven't watched my copy yet, but it comes with a $7.50 coupon towards theWatchmen movie (that expires at the end of March). So if you are unsure about the movie, buy the DVD. If you can get through that then use the coupon and go see the movie. If you can't get through the DVD, take it to FYE (or some other place) trade it for store credit, give the coupon to a friend who wants to see Watchmen and save your money for the GI Joe movie.

I would have to say my favorite part of the whole movie was watching Jon's eyes. I can't gush enough about him since I was sure turning Watchmen into a movie would ruin him. Even with the stellar acting of Mr. Haley, Jon remains my all time fav Watchmen character.

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: Star Trek (2009), Avatar, 300

D. Renee Bagby<br />
Building New Realms of Passion<br />
http://dreneebagby.com

Who Watches the Watchmen?

“'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”-Percy Bysshe Shelley

Ozymandias’ empire wracks the Mighty Corporations with a despairing and mocking futility of their own human fallacies, but in time the boundless sands will consume his legacy. Though he controls the Outer Limits of human knowledge, he fails to recognize that the means never justify the ends and in doing so, becomes less human than the ghostly Dr. Manhattan.

WATCHMEN is a modern adaptation of the great science fiction classic THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, with the indestructible Gort replaced by the bluish Ubermensch. This is visually prevalent in the graphic novel where the film poster can be seen at Madison Square Garden, but the effects of an unstoppable force creating a United Earth under threat of alien annihilation is analogous. What begins as a masked murder mystery deepens into a nuclear morality play, and the juxtaposition of scenes to deconstruct causality is wonderfully crafted.

The narrative introduces many characters and imbues each with enough time to see them as disparate people, not comic book caricatures. But it’s Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach whose abusive but strictly ethical performance invigorates the film; he is the outcast, the voice of reason who doesn’t sell his soul at the cost of billions…and accepts his fate, no demands his fate be carried out and dies knowing that he is justified.

Director Zack Snyder fills every inch of the 2:35:1 frame with exacting detail, his mise-en-scene subliminally conveying information from Alan Moore’s prose and Dave Gibbon’s dense artwork. The film’s structure and pacing is fantastic and could easily have devolved into a stuttering fanboy panegyric. The action sequences utilized too much slow motion though the editing was quick-witted and atypical of Summer Block(head)busters. With Nietzsche’s superman accepting his part in this tragedy, The Comedian would have appreciated Rorschach’s fatal joke that will destroy this tenuous peace…because human nature can’t be changed. Final Grade: (B+)

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: The Birds, Breathless (Jean-Luc Godard, 1960), Funny Games

All reviews copyright Korova, Ltd. Visit Alex at his Home Theatre Blog, http://korovatheatrepresents.blogspot.com/

Last updated: 2010-02-24 20:20:27 by AlexDelarge

Watchmen

Every now and then forbidden love is consummated at the movies. The idea for a big-budget action movie somehow gets into bed with a quiet arthouse film and something truly unusual is conceived.

Most of the time, this offspring is non-viable. Which is why moneyed interests in Hollywood descry the practice as an abomination against God and Man.

But if the bastard child comes from a widely popular pre-existing property, sometimes he gets all the nourishment only a pure-bred would normally get. Then, if the special effects industry is up to the task... if the casting is spot-on (and preferably star-free)... and if the director has a strong enough sense of story...

...you get something like "Watchmen."

A sparkling, inventive, audacious plunge into mystery and weirdness with a philosophical riddle at its core -- in this case, what does it mean to be good? -- and a palpable empathy for the ultimate sadness of the world.

"Watchmen" is a grown-up fairy tale. Very, very grown-up, from the unselfconscious but unexploitative nudity (male and female) to the fundamental failure of the good guys to remain good and the bad guys to remain bad.

The story of both the film and the graphic novel begins with a death. A man named Edward Blake is murdered. What makes this noteworthy is that Edward Blake used to belong to a now-defunct group of superheroes called the Watchmen.

On the trail of the killer is the Batman stand-in Rorshach, a deranged sociopath or an incorruptible crusader, depending on your perspective. He decides someone is stalking ex-heroes, and he will not rest -- seriously, he will not rest -- until he finds the responsible party.

Rorshach's simple quest drives the story, and it's a good thing too, because the plot quickly becomes vastly complex. There are five principle characters at play -- six if you count the gone but not forgotten Edward Blake -- each of whom conceals an inner drive and a terrible secret. Expect long digressions into backstory.

Here are some short ones:

Malin Ackerman's Laurie Jupiter is a sexy tomboy born into the family business who discovers that blue demi-gods don't make great boyfriends.

Patrick Wilson's Nite Owl does make a great boyfriend. He splits Batman duty with Rorshach, incorporating all the sane aspects of the caped crusader.

Matthew Goode's Ozymandias is billed as the smartest man in the world. By the end of the movie, you believe it.

The omnipotent and bright blue hero Doc Manhattan learns over time that the more you really study a person -- or an entire world of people -- the less judgmental you become. That's also the experience of the audience at the end of the story.

Most movies bring the audience home from their journey via a restored sense of justice and order. "Watchmen" does not. It leaves you stranded somewhere strange and alien. This leaves a bitter tang in the mouth that will not be to everyone's taste. I enjoyed it immensely, after the manner of an especially dark coffee roast or a nice red wine. It's not a can of Mountain Dew. Not everything is trying to be a can of Mountain Dew.

One final warning:

The movie presupposes not just a familiarity but a level of absolute comfort with the superhero milieu. Doc Manhattan is a naked blue muscle-man of nearly infinite power. He is not what's weird about this movie. He is what's NORMAL about this movie. You can't even blink at the fact that people have superpowers. You'll need your suspension of disbelief for other, far stretchier, things.

If you like superhero comics or films, here's one on acid. If that idea doesn't excite you, you'll probably want to stay away. The run-time is 2 hours and 43 minutes, and it does feel long. It's a satisfying meal but a five-course one.


Score:

How Accomplished: 88/100

How Much I Liked It: 93/100

(Read Less...)

Watchmen

A comic that “deconstructs the mythology of comics” is still a comic. That’s been Alan Moore’s dilemma all along. If he wrote fairy tales he could be Angela Carter, and Watchmen would be his Company of Wolves. But he writes comics. And comics are always hamstrung by their form. Using pictures to tell a story means you lose interiority. There’s only so much depth that can be crammed into a thought bubble. So even though Watchmen does have characters with rich interior lives, we still only glimpse a fraction of the whole. The movie version of Moore’s opus doesn’t conquer its progenitor’s problems, but it’s a stunning-looking miss.

Set in an alternate 1985 where Nixon is still president and costumed (if not-quite-super) heroes are commonplace, Watchmen is very much a dark fantasy story. It plays out like a murder-mystery. A quasi-fascist “hero” known as The Comedian is thrown out a window. His quasi-fascist friend Rorschach decides to investigate. Not all the heroes ofWatchmen are quasi-fascists, but moral compromise is to Watchmenwhat gay allegory is to the X-Men, so no-one gets away entirely clean. It seems there’s a war brewing between the “super-powers”. And America and the Soviet Union are knuckling-up at the same time. Strange – You’ve got fallible men with the power to destroy the world – and global statesmen; together in the same story. Could it be that Rorschach’s about to uncover a Cold War allegory?

I’ll admit I’m a bit of a cynic when it comes to the “genius” of the original Watchmen. I don’t know that there is a fountain of ideas for director Zack Snyder to draw from. But there are fantastic images. Whether it’s the palace on Mars made from the inside of a watch (watch-men… Sheesh, that one’s worthy of Salman Rushdie), or the history of the American century re-enacted by men in capes, Watchmen– for all its faults – is intoxicating to look at. It bears comparison withBlade Runner – that same oily, lustrous, demonic beauty – hell-chic. If only Synder had had the balls to let Vangelis do the score – embrace the 80s unabashedly – it could be perfect. But then, maybe I just wantWatchmen to be Blade Runner meets Black Rain.

Performances vary, but there are at least two members of the cast who do good work. Billy Crudup is credible as a despairing, naked, blue super-hero. He’s been given the power of God by a (conveniently) never-to-be-repeated experiment. He can see through time and alter the atomic structure of things, but (remembering his audience) he still has trouble with girls. His character, Doctor Manhattan, is a deity without conscience, and the movie doesn’t shy away from the philosophical ramifications. Jackie Earle Haley, as Rorschach, is also someone who benefits from playing a character who was interesting to begin with on the page.

Women (as usual in comics) do less well. Malin Akerman has probably the most gratuitous sex scene in recent memory and (as usual in movies) mostly asks men why they’re doing things or cries when it all gets too much. She does get a romance with a perfectly nice, though slightly psychotic (what was up with that alley fight?), Patrick Wilson, but Russ Meyer-feminism still rules in Watchmen. The movie’s attitude to sex is summed up by Akerman’s costume; at the same time self-consciously exaggerating a stereotype and barely even conscious other types of women exist.

Comics aren’t literary because you can’t draw metaphors – at least not subtle ones. If Watchmen works on a metaphorical level – it’s pure Robert Ludlum, with a message even CND would have frowned on as obvious. For Alan Moore, writing for twelve-year-olds, that message was sufficient to seem “adult” in a medium where most protagonists wear their underpants on the outside. But Watchmen isn’t literature. If the movie seems crass or adolescent or gloomy – that’s the comic book’s fault. With fairytales it’s easy: themes can survive transition. In comics – without the capes – you’re watching Death Wish.

(Read Less...)

WATCHMEN (2009)

BOTTOM LINE: Long winded and meandering while simultaneously melding dark dramatic sequences with stupid looking costumed superheroes, “Watchmen” is a mixed bag of strong themes, incredible visuals, overall mediocrity and silliness.

THE GOOD: Hollywood is on the comic book/graphic novel bandwagon, turning to a vast array of published material for new films. Much like The Spirit which came out last year, “Watchmen” occupies an uncomfortable ground between maintaining the tone of the source material and creating great cinematic entertainment. Director Zack Snyder has certainly created a feast for the visual senses, forging an alternate reality on screen where President Richard Nixon continued to serve in to the 80s after being aided by a band of superheroes to win the Vietnam War. The enigmatic and god-like Dr Manhattan (Billy Crudup) is capable of bending matter and energy to his will, serving America but becoming increasingly detached from the human race as his vast knowledge and power grows. The other superheroes are a mixed range of good natured souls such as Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) and Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman) to the darker vigilante Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) and the immoral Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan). The concepts in the film are certainly fascinating, least of which being an alternate take on history with America and Russia now on the brink of nuclear war in the 80s and the Watchmen who can potentially stop it all from happening. Cold war motifs run rampant, as do themes of annihilation and human endurance in the face of such catastrophe. The superheroes are not themselves immune from the darkness, with the smartest of them all, Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) hatching a plan which may save the world but destroy the Watchmen in the process. The second half of the film is where all of this comes to a head and makes for some more intelligent viewing than what you might expect from a film like this. “Watchmen” is a unique in its creation of an alternate reality with its original visual and storytelling sensibilities.

THE BAD: Although it is not nearly as bad, “Watchmen” has much in common with last year’s The Spirit in that the conventions of the graphic novel do not seem to translate as well in to the realm of cinema. The first half of the film jumbles together a myriad of storylines to introduce all the characters, and they all appear to have different tones and styles which do not adequately advance the storyline that well. The dark, internal monologue style of the Rorschach storyline that in many ways embodies a “Sin City” style tone does not meld comfortably with the almost silly 60s comic book like quality of the Nite Owl and Silk Spectre characters. The Dr Manhattan storyline appears to spring right out of a 50s B-movie sci-fi film, and the immoral antics of the Comedian seem to negate the whole reason why these guys are heroes in the first place. Ironically, the Richard Nixon character seems the most comic book of them all with his over the top nose extension to accentuate his iconic facial outline. Zack Snyder has not really given us a way in to these characters given the first hour is so long and meandering. The second half of the film becomes more interesting, but by the end of the two hour and forty minute run time, you are left wondering whether or not forty minutes could have been cut out of the film to give it more focus.

RATING: 6.5/10

(Read Less...)

Todd Murphy <br />
http://www.allaboutmovies.net

Special Movie Review - Watchmen

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-01-19 00:30:02 by user01

Movie Review: Watchmen (2009)

I had been importing my short Flixter entries for all my movie reviews up to now, but I thought if any movie deserved a full review, it would be Watchmen, possibly the most anticipated movie of the year for many (unless Harry Potter 6 or Transformers 2 is more your thing).

Disclaimer: I will preface this review with two comments: (1) I am going to stick to my convention of not revealing much about the plot or what happens in the movie; (2) I have not read the Watchmen graphic novel yet (thought it might ruin the movie experience if I read it beforehand).

4 out of 5 stars

Watchmen is likely to be one of the most unusual films you will ever see.  It’s about superheroes, but it’s not your typical superhero movie.  Most of the superheroes don’t display any obvious supernatural abilities (which really just makes them people who like to fight crime and have costume fetishes).  It’s often difficult to discern who is good or evil, right or wrong.  Probably all of the main characters exhibit some form of mental disorder at varying levels of seriousness.  In a sense, they are the anti-superheroes.

As I said, I don’t like to reveal the plot for those that don’t want to know about it (but I assume most people who go to see it have a rough idea).  All I will say is that the story takes place in an alternate historical version of 1985, during the peak of the US/USSR Cold War.  This becomes clear in the opening sequences.

However, to some extent, it doesn’t really matter what the plot is about, because at its heart, Watchmen is a character movie.  The story is told in non-linear form, jumping from character to character and revealing their back stories through flashbacks.  There is a central line in the plot, a mystery waiting to be solved, but the focus is firmly on the characters – who they are, how they became the way they are, their personal struggles, their fears, desires, motivations and ambitions.  At the same time, there is this constant undercurrent about the nature of human beings, and in particular, their capacity (or lack thereof) for understanding and compassion.

The Watchmen graphic novel (by Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons and John Higgins) first came out between 1986 and 1987, which explains the setting.  For many years, it was regarded as unadaptable, and after seeing this film, I got a sense of why that may have been the popular opinion.  It’s a shame that the movie was not made closer in time to the graphic novel, because the story reflects many of the contemporary anxieties of the American public of that period.  Many of those anxieties are still relevant today, but they have evolved (in the wake of 9/11) and the impact is not quite the same as it would have been.

Directing and Screenplay

Director Zack Snyder and writers David Hayter (who wrote the original script) and Alex Tse (who kept the best elements but amended much of it) should be commended on bringing Watchmen to life at last.  As I haven’t read the graphic novel, I cannot comment on how good the adaptation was, but as a standalone film, it was very good, though not great.  The difficulty may lie with the running length – at 163 minutes, it is very long for a superhero movie (though not as extraordinary as it would have been a few years ago) – but at the same time, you get a strange feeling that there was much more of this bizarre world yet to be explored.  Perhaps the director’s cut, which is supposedly 191 minutes (and coming out with the DVD), will be a more complete picture for those that want to see more of it.  For some, I imagine 163 minutes is already too much.

Acting


Haley as Rorschach was amazing  

The importance of the acting in a film like this cannot be understated.  For the most part, the actors in the lead roles delivered believable performances that traversed a plethora of emotions.  The clear standout would undoubtedly be Jackie Earle Haley as the freakish yet intriguing Rorschach, the best character by far.  You’re already impressed with him when he wears a mask that obscures his entire face.  You then become even more amazed when he takes off the mask.  Truly brilliant.

Not far behind is Patrick Wilson (Haley’s co-star in the magnificent Little Children), an extremely underrated and underappreciated actor who plays Nite Owl II, a slightly overweight and awkward social misfit.

If there is a weak link, it would have to be Matthew Goode’s Ozymandias.  While he may fit the bill physically (tall, lean and traditionally handsome), he doesn’t quite exude the charm and presence needed from the character.  Not to take anything away from Goode’s performance because it was adequate, but if you have to pick on someone it’s him.

Violence, Sex and Special Effects

Given the classification ratings for Watchmen, it’s not surprising that there is an abundance of incredibly bloody and gruesome violence (as well as ’normal’ violence), a bit of sex and nudity (both real and assisted by special effects) and some coarse language (though not as much as I expected).  I’m glad they made this film for adults rather than worry about the classification and go for a toned down version that simply wouldn’t have worked.

The fight scenes were superbly choreographed - smooth, crisp and whole, thankfully avoiding the rapid cut scenes that have plagued action films of late.  And from the guy who directed 300, I would have expected nothing less.  On the other hand, Snyder didn’t shy away from some of the more frightening scenes either, displaying the pain, gore and blood in all its glory.
As for the special effects – they were good, but certainly not groundbreaking.  They did a fairly decent job with Billy Crudup’s Doctor Manhattan, but there were times when you could easily spot things that were completely computer generated (not that you would expect them to build the real thing).

Conclusion

On the whole, Watchmen was very very good – but it fell considerably short of the masterpiece some it expected to be.  It may seem unfair, but you cannot NOT compare the film to its source material (or at least its reputation if you haven’t read it), which is considered by many to be the greatest graphic novel of all time.

There were some absolutely brilliant sequences littered throughout this movie, but it was more scattered than consistent.  Those expecting an all-out action flick might be disappointed because there are quite a few ‘dull’ character development moments in between.  I assume there will probably be 4 broad classes of reactions to Watchmen: (1) loved the graphic novel and therefore loved the movie; (2) loved the graphic novel but felt the film did not do it justice; (3) haven’t read the graphic novel and now want to after seeing the film; (4) thought it was weird and stupid and didn’t get it.

I put myself in the third category.

(Read Less...)

PJM

Last updated: 2010-01-23 03:30:38 by pacejmiller

WATCHMEN

First off, I’ll just say I’m not the biggest fan of this whole superhero movie trend.  Not that I have anything against the genre, I just simply haven’t seen many that I find to be that great.  But I’m looking forward to when that great one is made (and no, The Dark Knight wasn’t it).
In the meantime, I must say Watchmen is pretty darn good.  In fact, it’s better than most of the superhero movies.  It maybe because it’s from a graphic novel and not from a comic.   At least it seems that the movies based on graphic novels are a bit more elaborate and complex than those about comic book heroes.  This movie is directed by Zack Snyder who is the director of 300, probably the best and most successful adaptation of a graphic novel.
While there are no big-name actors in this cast, they all do quite well in their roles.  And the movie clocks in at almost 3 hours (!) so they each have a good number of scenes among them.  Patrick Wilson probably gets the most screentime; he plays Nite Owl.  He’s been pretty good in each movie I’ve seen him in so far.  The film tells how he used to be one of a few popular “costumed heroes” back in the day but they have been quite inactive for a while.  It is the murder of one of these heroes which takes place early in the movie that leads them to band together once again and get back to their crime-fighting ways.
There is a very cool opening-credits sequence, done in slow-motion, which shows that there was an even earlier group of heroes that preceded Nite Owl and his buddies.  It shows what happened to that group as there were some tragedies involved with them as well.  One of them also happens to be the mother of a later hero.  The only one who was active during both time periods is Dr. Manhattan, played by Billy Crudup.  He is the most fascinating of the characters as he is the only hero that truly has “super” powers.  His powers are actually the result of a very bad accident.  But the reason he comes across as the most fascinating is that he struggles throughout the film to stay in touch with his original human self.  He finds himself lacking emotion at times, yet he tries to balance his superhuman powers with his relationship to his human girlfriend.
One interesting thing I noticed in this film is that it actually has no villain.  That’s quite rare for this kind of movie.  It seems to use society in general as what needs to be saved.  It just needs to be saved from going bad as a whole.  Even when the movie seems to indicate a lead villain at one point, you realize he really isn’t.  I like that the film focuses on people just being good or being bad rather than singling out one evil mastermind and just stopping that one person.  Overall, it could have benefited from being cut shorter but I guess there was a lot to tell from the graphic novel (which has been hailed as a classic).  Watchmen is definitely worth seeing though at least once.

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: The Shawshank Redemption (1994), Se7en , 25th Hour

http://www.examiner.com/x-39833-Philadelphia-Movie-Examiner

Last updated: 2009-12-22 17:32:00 by thatmoviedude

Watchmen

In one of the most beautiful moments of the “Watchmen” graphic novel, by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, two characters who had been lying to themselves for so long finally go back into action and feel alive for the first time in years — and they make love, wearing their costumes, which are, after all, their real skin — finally embracing who they are and what they want.
In the “Watchmen” film, this scene happens in slow motion to the sound of Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” and ends with a orgasm metaphorically represented by a flamethrower.

I am being serious.

I could feel my face muscles cringing and my balls atrophying. This was the moment where I finally stopped trying to overlook this film’s gaping flaws and decided to accept it wasn’t going to be a masterpiece, or even excellent. As the movie went on, this lowered to “decent”, “poor” and finally to an inexplicable wish to personally apologise to Alan Moore for — I dunno, allowing this… thing… to happen, I guess.

I’ll admit my hopes were high — however, I was prepared to accept a flawed film. “Watchmen” is, after all, an extremely complex masterpiece that would require subtlety to be adapted — and the script by Alex Tse and David Hayter was actually decent, if flawed, and a few revisions could have shaped it into an excellent blueprint for the ultimate adaptation. However, nothing could have prepared me for Zack Snyder’s tremendously innapropriate direction, which removes all the dramatic punch of the graphic novel and replaces it with light, cheap humor. A humor which, in the graphic novel, enriched the drama subtly — in the film is only a source of laughs, many of them unintentional.

You could say I’m being unfair, comparing the movie so much to the novel, but unlike the excellent “V for Vendetta” (the only good movie based on Moore’s work), “Watchmen” tries to be faithful to the source material, to the point of re-creating panels of the book. And, amazingly, it completely misses the essence of the original work. Therefore, it is subject to comparisons.

It is never explained, for example, how Rorschach and other “human” vigilantes are capable of jumping several feet, running up walls or punching people so hard they fly against walls. The graphic novel made a point of stressing the only superhero with powers in its universe was Doctor Manhattan, and the others were mere human beings — which, in fact, only made Dr. Manhattan’s growing distance to the rest of humanity even more obvious. But Snyder destroys this concept with his exaggerated action scenes that need half the scenery being destroyed by superhuman punches in order to be intense. It’s particularly bad when he feels the need to add the close-up of a face being punched in super slow-motion, which happens with the Comedian and Rorschach (“Look, the blots in his face move around when his face is punched, this is COOL!”).

Super slow-motion, in fact, is something Snyder seems to have become addicted to since “300″ — but while it worked for that film, it rarely does here. For every beautiful shot using this technique (the Comedian being thrown out a window), there’s ten others where this feels exaggerated and unecessary (the Comedian jumping from Nite Owl’s ship during the riot scene). The initial credits sequence, for example, is painfully innapropriate, since it gives “Watchmen” a light tone, showing pictures of violence and Cold War headlines in pretty colors and to the sound of Dylan’s “The Times, They Are A-Changing”.

Violence is yet another aspect Snyder fucks up in. Instead of using it brutally, he uses it in an aesthetically pleasing way, like a (super slow-motion) shot of an elbow being broken, which is comically over-the-top. Not to mention the scene a man’s arms are sawed off, where the quantity of blood splattering on the wall caused giggles in the entire movie theather. This kind of violence is simply gratuitous, it’s there just so Snyder can show a liquid being spurted. In slow-motion. Super slow-motion.

But his greatest fuck-up, his major mistake was to turn the most beautiful moments of the graphic novel into awkward jokes — and I’m not sure this was his intention. If it was, he’s insane. If it wasn’t, he’s a poor story-teller. In the scene a character fails to get aroused during sex with another, for example, Snyder keeps the camera on them — which makes the scene funny and light. Hell, even on the graphic novel Alan Moore had the common sense of turning his “camera” away, much like Martin Scorsese did in his famous camera movement in “Taxi Driver”, when Travis Bickle had a painfully awkward conversation via phone. And when these two characters finally manage to make love — after going back into action, as aforementioned — “Hallelujah” starts playing. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had doggystyle sex to the sound of “That’s The Way (Uh-huh uh-huh) I like it”, then Rorschach appearing and joining the fun, later with a lesbian scene between Laurie and her mother… okay, I’m digressing.

Snyder also removes other moments from the novel which were brief but meant more than an entire hour of dialogue could convey — that would be the unforgettable moment in which Sally Jupiter kisses a portrait. In the movie, it’s replaced… by dialogue. And what happens to Hollis Mason, who disappears from the film?

And I haven’t even got to the ending yet, but hold on, there’s more complaints.

As you probably already noticed, the musical selection of the film is HORRENDOUS. I don’t remember seeing a movie so utterly mistaken in that aspect for a long time. The Comedian being buried to “The Sounds of Silence” couldn’t have been more pretentious and ridiculous, and I fail to see why “All Along The Watchtower” played in the scene Rorschach and Nite Owl travel to a fortress in Antartida. “Ride of the Valkryes” was a ridiculously obvious choice for the Vietnam scene and yanks us out of the movie by making us remember “Apocalypse Now”. And the one truly good selection, “Pruit Igoe & Prophecies” by Philip Glass, doesn’t play for long enough and isn’t explored to its full potential. But okay, okay, “I’m Your Boogeyman” fit well into the riot scene, in a satiric sort of way, I’ll admit.

And the ending — ah, wait, there’s something else. Snyder completely fails to immerse you in the film — not only the aforementioned “Ride of the Valkryes” and other musical selections remove us from it, so do some horribly timed dialogue, like the moment that, in the film’s climax, a character says “I’m not a comic book villain”. And in the prison rescue scene, when Rorschach catches a criminal in the bathroom, Snyder uses the bathroom door to comic effect much like the kitchen door in “The Party”, with Peter Sellers — and once again, not only we’re reminded of another film, but yet another scene from the original graphic novel is adapted lightly.

Finally, yes, the ending. In order to remove some subplots from the graphic novel, like the character Max Shea, they changed the ending to something they felt made the same point as the original work did. Only it doesn’t. The ending feels far-fetched, expositional and – guess what – light, which is exactly the opposite of the graphic novel, which built up to it from the very beggining. There’s also a hideous plothole in that new ending, but this is a spoiler-free review, so here’s a great article by my friend Ted Roland on that obvious flaw nobody seemed to notice. Ah, yes, a character yells “NOOOOOOOOOO!!”, too. Just to make things worse. Oh wait, they get even worse than THAT:

The film ends with a My Chemical Romance song.

Okay? Are you crying yet? No?

The film ends with a My Chemical Romance song, for fuck’s sake.

Did Tyler Bates even compose anything for this movie? What’s he doing in the credits? In a movie that badly needed a strong original score, where the hell was he?

There are, however, things “Watchmen” gets right. Technically, the film is almost flawless. The cinematography, art direction, special effects and costumes are magnificent, with the exception of Rorschach’s trenchcoat, which doesn’t have the blood stain — yes, another important thing Snyder got wrong. Ironically, though, one of the best scenes of this film is when Rorschach becomes Rorschach, even if it’s pointlessly different from the graphic novel. 

The casting is mostly right. Unknown actors were a good call from Snyder (something that led me to believe he knew what he was doing, before I saw the film), since their relative lack of star power allows their characters to stand out. Jackie Earle Haley is an excellent Rorschach, shame he isn’t in a better film. Patrick Wilson does well as Dreiberg, but Snyder shits all over the character throughout the movie. Carla Gugino is more of a “deluxe cameo” than anything, but Jeffrey Dean Morgan is a good Comedian. Matthew Goode is, like Patrick Wilson, prevented from doing well because of Snyder’s fuck-ups, but Billy Crudup creates an interesting Dr. Manhattan. Finally, Malin Akerman is horribly inexpressive as Laurie Juspeczyk, standing out as the only truly bad performance.

This is a clear case of a potentially great film being destroyed by an overconfident director who believes his particular style of directing – and his musical tastes – are adequate to any film, even to the adaptation of one of the greatest graphic novels of all time. The “unfilmable” comic book is filmable, but not by Zack Snyder. He can create pretty imagery (in slow motion (SUPER slow motion)), but he can’t make it work in a narrative.

And people say Alan Moore is a prick for demanding his name be taken off the credits.

Written by André Navarro on March 8th 2009 

(Read Less...)

http://andrenavarro.wordpress.com/

Last updated: 2009-12-21 06:04:16 by andre_navarro

The Watchmen as reviewed by the Vulcan Stev family

Reviewers: VS, PIT#1, PIT#2, PIT#3.  Mrs VS stayed home as she KNEW she wouldn’t like this movie, she was right.
*Note* PITs 1&2 are teenagers, PIT#3 is 10 and had Daddy’s permission to come see this movie as long as he sat next to Daddy and did not object to having his eyes covered at parts Daddy deemed to excessive.
VS: – 1.75 pointed ears
FIrst let me state that I am not some rabid fanboy worshipping at the ‘holy writ’ of Alan Moore.  I have read the graphic novel and enjoyed it immensely.  Was Watchmen a groundbreaking comic for its time? yes.  Was it unfilmable by the technology at the time? yes.  Did Zach Snyder make an equitable film adaptation of the novel? yes.  Will it appeal to the average filmgoer? probably not given the way it was advertised.
There were changes obvious to anyone who has read the graphic novel.  To anyone who has not read the comic the changes do not detract from the storyline at all.  If, as I clearly indicate, I think that Mr. Snyder pulled off what many deemed as impossible, just why did I give it the rating that I did?
First the violence, although present in the source material, was overdone for my tastes.  We did not need to see bones breaking, hatchets cleaving, and bullets penetrating to make this movie.  The comic has these events occuring outside the panel borders.  Clever angles and editing could have conveyed the violence without being quite so graphic.  Second, Dr Manhattan’s well publicized..er …ah anatomy.  There was, to my recollection, ONE scene that showed full frontal in the book and Doc M. was not so well endowed, clearly average in the book.  It was distracting.  Third, the soundtrack.  I realize Mr. Snyder was trying to provide generational hooks by using songs from the appropriate era depicted, but seriously 99 Luft Balloons?
As I write this I’m also reading a news story that Watchmen’s box office earnings have dropped 71% from opening weekend.  Our experience bears this out, the theater was 3/4 empty when watched the 2:00pm show.  Why?  in my opinion it’s because the studio mis-marketed this movie.  Audiences not familiar withthe graphic novel were lead to believe they were getting this year’s Iron Man or The Dark Knight.  What they got was a over-violent murder mystery set in a world with costumed adventurers.  I blame the studio system for this.  Audiences did not get what they were lead to expect.  The fallout is that Hollywood is going to blame the director, script and source material rather than themselves.  The suits are not going to see this as a marketing failure but rather, “We listened to the director about sticking to the source material and look what happened.”  As a result we’re going to see more “Hollywoodized” adaptations in the future.
What did the director get right?  Cutting out the annoying ‘comic-within-a-comic’, losing some of the subplots and the change to the ending although criticized by some was entirely believeable and served the same purpose.  Zach Snyder did the best job he could without making a 5-hour mini-series.  His attention to detail was obvious, I’m looking forward to the director’s cut. 
PIT#1: – 1.9 pointed ears
Dad tried to give us a background tutorial into the Watchmen without revealing the plot twist at the end.  He had read some reviews were people stated that they had a hard time following the story plot-line.  Dad’s explanation confused me, the movie did not.  This movie requires you to pay attention.  You are not spoon-fed the plot you are required to think.  Kudos to Zach Snyder for not caving to studio demands.
Was the violence excessive? yes in my opinion.  To much was shown graphically that didn’t need to be shown.  I won’t reveal what but if you’ve seen the movie you’ll understand which scenes I’m talking about.  This movie is not for the squeamish.  It’s not a hack-fest like Friday the 13th but the violence was still too over-the-top.  The sex scene made me uncomfortable.
PIT#2: – 1.7 pointed ears
Dad confused me as well with his explanation.  After I saw the movie I understood what Dad was talking about but I had no trouble following the movie.  If you’re expecting a standard Super Hero flick go rent Iron Man.  If you want to watch a whodunnit with plenty of action then go see Watchmen.  The violence got out-of-hand at times.  They could’ve easily shot this movie as a PG-13 without changing one bit of the plot.  All it would’ve taken was a few judicous edits.
PIT#3: – 1.7 pointed ears
Daddy tried to make me cover my eyes at the icky parts.  I did see the man’s arm break and that was disgusting.   I closed my eyes when the kissing and sex were on the screen.  This is NOT a super hero movie.  It’s a mystery that has heroes in it.  This movie would’ve been nicer on the small screen (at least for me).  I enjoyed the movie and I’m happy Daddy took me, but the director could’ve left out some stuff.
7.05 pointed ears out of 8
Be forewarned that the violence in this movie IS excessive.  Only you can determine what is appropriate for your family.  Be forewarned that this is NOT a super hero movie in the tone of Iron Man, Spider-Man, or even The Dark Knight.  This is a murder mystery set in a world of costumed adventurers.  Pay attention when watching this film you can’t be mindless with this flick, the story does not take you by the hand.
Watchable (with reservations).  I plan on buying the Director’s cut DVD.

(Read Less...)

Watchmen

As a fan of superhero films, I have to say that this is one of the better forays into the genre. I have read numerous reviews about how dark this film was and that it wasn’t for kids. Yes, I’ll agree this is not for kids. That’s why it’s rated ‘R’, but it is no darker than Daredevil .
Each of the Watchmen has their own unique story that we are made aware of through flashbacks. Most of the film is told through the narration of Rorshach through his diary. Jackie Earl Haley is unknown to me, but I’m sure after this role he’ll be getting more work. At first, I thought he was just doing the gravely voice that has been used in the Batman films and more recently in The Spirit, but as the film went on and they unmasked him, he kept the voice. For those of you that watch ESPN, he resembles Skip Bayless from First Take or 1st and 10, whatever they decide to call that thing this week.
Matthew Goode is another unknown. His performance left a little to be desired for me. As far as the action sequences went, he did a bang up job, but his acting was a bit weak. The main reason I say that is that he seems to have an accent for most of the film, but somewhere in the middle of the film, he loses it.
Patrick Wilson seems to be a perfect fit as the unsure Nite Owl. At times, he reminded me of his time in The Alamo. I guess these are the kind of characters that work for him, and they do work for him. As the film progresses and he gains confidence, you find yourself cheering for him to get the girl. Still, he is not the first person I would have chosen for a superhero, but I think that is the point of this casting.
Malin Akerman is another unknown. She has the unenviable task of bringing one of the most complex characters in the film to life. Granted she does an alright job, I think she could have done better, but in a film full of almost all men, she is some welcome eye candy.
Billy Crudup may have had the hardest part in the film. As Dr. Manhattan, he was a virtual ultimate human, but had to somehow manage to keep his humanity, and yet start to feel as if he was drifting away from humanity. Did you get all that? Yeah, his character was that complex. With such a daunting task, he really stepped up to the plate and delivered.
Carla Gugino seemed to be a bit wasted in her role. Not that she did a bad job, but I just think they could have gone with an older actress to play the aging Silk Spectre and find some unknown to play her young counterpart. That’s just my opinion, though.
The fighting scenes are awesome. Since this film is directed by the same guy who directed 300, you can see his stamp in said scenes as they do the whole slow down, speed up thing. Still, they are just as graphic, if not more so than in 300.
Each flashback is set up by certain events going on in the film. Although they are all interesting, I have to say that Dr. Manhattan’s is the best.
Speaking of Dr. Manhattan, he has to be the most well developed character in the film, followed by Rorshack, however, I could do without having to see him in his birthday suit for just about every scene he was in. I’m sure the females that watch this will love it, though.  Of course, if Sally Jupiter would have spent the entire film in her birthday suit, this thing would have been rated NC-17. You know it’s true.
I wish they would have given us a little more info on the older generation. I mean, why even say anything about them, other than to introduce us to The Comedian and Silk Spectre, if you’re not going to go somewhere with it. I just felt a little empty on that front.
So, this film is supposed to turn the superhero film genre on its head the way the graphic novel did for the comics. It’s supposed to be this dark, moody film and is a masterpiece. I’ll give it to them that this film is dark and masterful. It’s head and shoulders above The Dark Knight.
At nearly 3 hours, you would think they could have cut it down a bit more, yet I actually enjoyed every minute of this film, unlike Dark Knight, where I felt like I was in some sort of cerebral brainwash, for lack of a better term. Yes, this film does get a bit preachy at times, but given the time and world they live in, it makes sense. To be honest, it’s really no more preachy than Wall-E. This is one film you have to see. It has everything you would want in a good action flick, so why wouldn’t you want to see it?

http://thankyounetflix.wordpress.com

(Read Less...)