Watchmen

POSTED BY: ecgordon
UPDATED: Monday, December 14, 2009 18:36
VIEWED: 13159
PAGE 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

ECGORDON

Friday, March 6, 2009 11:54 PM

I didn't see any other thread for this, but if I'm wrong please point it out to me.

Got off early today and caught a matinee, and I loved it. I bought the novel a month or so back but decided to wait until after the movie to read it, since there have been too many films that butchered a beloved book. Now I can't wait to read it.

It did not seem as long as it actually is (2 hours, 43 minutes). That's longer than The Dark Knight but it did not lag at any point and I never got the feeling there were any extraneous plots thrown in. Can't say how faithful it might be to Alan Moore's story but it worked for me. Nothing confusing either in plot or character motivations.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, March 7, 2009 12:56 AM

Thanks for the excellent review, Ec! I want to see it so badly! I loved the novel.

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

WASHNWEAR

Saturday, March 7, 2009 4:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
I didn't see any other thread for this, but if I'm wrong please point it out to me.

Got off early today and caught a matinee, and I loved it. I bought the novel a month or so back but decided to wait until after the movie to read it, since there have been too many films that butchered a beloved book. Now I can't wait to read it.

It did not seem as long as it actually is (2 hours, 43 minutes). That's longer than The Dark Knight but it did not lag at any point and I never got the feeling there were any extraneous plots thrown in. Can't say how faithful it might be to Alan Moore's story but it worked for me. Nothing confusing either in plot or character motivations.

Man, glad to hear it! Like you, I'm holding off reading the novel before seeing it. I'd rather risk thinking the book sucks compared to the movie, than the other way around. Of course, ideally I won't have to think either suck. I guess I should just try to maintain a positive outlook...

It was like that when we got here!

CELLARDOOR

Saturday, March 7, 2009 4:20 AM

Been a couple years since I read the novel, but when I saw the movie this afternoon it seemed more like the graphic novel than any other book-to-film translation I can recall (and I've seen a fair share). Some differences exist here and there, and a few implications were more elaborated, but pretty much the same work in a different form. That's a powerful story, and I hope people will check it out soon! Fairly disturbing in some parts though. It earns the R rating thoroughly.

ECGORDON

Saturday, March 7, 2009 4:22 AM

I just read someone else's opinion on another forum and their's was the exact opposite of mine. They didn't make it clear if they had read the book but it seemed to be implied.

Hopefully I will have my official review on my site sometime tomorrow, plus a friend has promised his review as well, and he is a big fan of the book and a comics geek in general. It will be interesting to see his take on it.

WASHNWEAR

Saturday, March 7, 2009 4:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CellarDoor:
Been a couple years since I read the novel, but when I saw the movie this afternoon it seemed more like the graphic novel than any other book-to-film translation I can recall (and I've seen a fair share). Some differences exist here and there, and a few implications were more elaborated, but pretty much the same work in a different form. That's a powerful story, and I hope people will check it out soon! Fairly disturbing in some parts though. It earns the R rating thoroughly.

The other day on NPR Bob Mandella was knocking the movie, in part because of its faithful reproduction of the book. He seemed to feel they shouldn't have been afraid to stray from the source material here and there.

He did acknowledge the challenge of pleasing The Base, though.

It was like that when we got here!

CELLARDOOR

Saturday, March 7, 2009 4:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ECGordon:
I just read someone else's opinion on another forum and their's was the exact opposite of mine. They didn't make it clear if they had read the book but it seemed to be implied.

Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:

The other day on NPR Bob Mandella was knocking the movie, in part because of its faithful reproduction of the book.

Yeah... I did find myself thinking, "Ok... so what next? Let's keep moving." I guess that's because it was almost identical and I HAD read the book, so it was kinda like paying more money to read it again with sound effects. I'd still strongly recommend it, but it sure didn't take many/any new directions.

Seeing Rorschach walking and talking was worth the price of admission. What an amazing character. The mask was incredibly well done, and I'm glad it took this long to make the movie so that could be done right with the CG.

SHINYGOODGUY

Saturday, March 7, 2009 8:19 AM

I have never read the novel, but I've heard quite a bit about it. I purposefully did not seek it out to read because I wanted to go in unhindered by any preconceived notions.

Every time I saw the trailer for this movie I thought, WOW that looks great. I hope that the movie lives up to what I'm seeing.

Going to a matinee tomorrow, I'll let you know then. I read a couple of moviegoer's reviews and people either love it or hate it. Good sign.

SGG

Tawabawho?

BIGRICHARD

Saturday, March 7, 2009 8:47 AM

saw it 2 nights ago, and I'm still thinking about bits and pieces of it, trying to decide what I did and didn't like.

To begin, it LOOKED great. Snyder definitely has an eye for the visuals, and from the get go it looked amazing. The casting is also perfect, and they all do well, especially (in my opinion) Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach, Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl, Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian and Billy Crudup as Manhattan.

I did have a few problems, particularly with the soundtrack, Nixon and Carla Gugino's 'old' makeup.
I actually quite liked the new ending, although it wasn't TOO different.

The scope is AMAZING, and the opening credit sequence is definitely deserving of the praise it's been getting, and it must have been quite a pain to shoot a lot of the scenes for such a small little clip.

All this said, I did sometimes find a slight lack of emotion in the film, and this made it less perfect than I was hoping for, but it is nonetheless, better than most adaptations that we're getting these days, and I'll be sure to get the "amazing-ultimate-super-special-uber-nerd-geek-extended-director's-edition box set", with the Under the Hood and Black Freighter clips, which will now doubt make the film go for about 4 hours.

DEEPGIRL187

Saturday, March 7, 2009 2:27 PM

I think that I'm more with the 'stayed too close to the graphic novel' camp, though for slightly different reasons. The fact that some of the scenes were directly lifted from the comic is great, but I think it kind of restricted the actors. A lot of the text is more literary than dramatic, so it doesn't necessarily come out as well as it does when your're reading it.

On the other hand, there were a lot of parts where they struck gold. I don't think they could have found better actors to play Rorshach and The Comedian. Jefferey Dean Morgan made The Comedian likable, which is extremely scary given the circumstances. And while I think he portrayed Rorschach as a little too emotional at time, Jackie Earle Haley still did a wonderful job with what was probably one of the most difficult and fascinating characters to show on screen.

*************************************************

"This is my timey-wimey detector. It goes ding when there's stuff. Also, it can boil an egg at 30 paces, whether you want it to or not, actually, so I've learned to stay away from hens. It's not pretty when they blow."

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE