| Author |
 Topic  |
|
RockGolf 
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
 Posted - 03/08/2009 : 00:54:09
|
| I've read comics for over forty years. In all that time the only violence in comics that made me wince was when Rorschach broke some schlub's little finger. Ice frikin' cold. Don't tell me but I hope it's included in the movie. |
 |
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 03/08/2009 : 02:06:44
|
| There are so many genius moments in the book - I can easily visualise whole panels. Right now I'm thinking about Rorschach in jail taking the ink blot test and seeing "a pretty butterfly", or calmly kicking his toilet cistern apart and electrocuting the floor... |
|
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 03/08/2009 : 02:41:09
|
There are untold levels of brilliance in the novel. In the "Fearful Symmetries" chapter, the layout of every panel on the first page is a mirror image of the opposite panel on the last page, and it continues on every page from first to last. As if the pages were laid in a row, left to right, with a mirror down the middle.
Wish I'd discovered it for myself, but there are some brilliant pages of "The Annotated Watchmen" that point it out. |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 03/08/2009 : 02:44:26
|
I saw it last night. I never read the comic so I went in completely cold. After seeing it, I have even less of a desire to read the comic than I did before I saw it.
None of the characters or plot lines engaged me on a human level in the way The Dark Knight, Sin City, or the Spider-Man films did. In fact, I actively disliked every character and had not a care in the world whatsoever if any of them lived, died, achieved their goals, failed to achieve their goals or anything else. I agree with Rorschach when he criticizes the Blue Guy for making the entire movie unnecessary. The film is also extremely violent, which I guess is part of the book, but I wasn't prepared for it. Conan is right when he says its closer to Saw than Spider-Man. The ads make it look like X-Men or something.
On the other hand, the visuals are extremely impressive. I know some people didn't like the compositing and animation of the Blue Guy, but I couldn't disagree more. Overall, I'd give the movie a 10 out of 10 on the production level and a 4 out of 10 on a story level. |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 03/08/2009 : 06:57:59
|
[Not necessarily spoilers, but maybe more than you want to know if you haven't seen the movie; though if you've read the book, there's nothing here that can spoil it for you.]
Everyone is entitled to their reactions, G, so I cannot take issue with you for how you received the film and the story. Truth be told, I had an initial difficulty getting into the graphic novel, not knowing what to expect, coupled with a slew of subtexts that were, initially, jarring. Once I got to the middle, and then finished it, however, I was as satisfied in the reading as I had been with two of my favorite novels, Faulkner's As I Lay Dying (which also has a somewhat disjointed telling), and Dostoyevsky's The Adolscent (involving a narrator whose vision of the tale is quite different from what the reader learns the tale to be).
For me, the concept of a world where actual costumed adventurers -- with no superpowers -- attempt to police the streets, and are initially accepted, is fascinating. Sure, we have to accept that they appear to be very athletic and highly skilled fighters, but they are, oddly, a more absurd group of X-Men in that their calling has nothing to do with the impetus of a special gift/mutation -- just their own psychopathic drive to be ultra do-gooders impressing a code of righteousness on an American society.
Their efforts are at once silly to the logical mind, and for a time effective; they are limited, and dispensible, and there is an inherent curiosity over what the hell will happen to such people. Thrown into this mix are two somewhat opposite extremes: the super "man" and the super "human," both at work together and at odds in varying desires with respect to saving a violent world. One extreme breathes an extension of time into the existence of the adventurers while ultimately necessitating their extinction. The other extreme abides their waning adveturousness, while ultimately also necessitating its extinction. The interaction of the heroes is, intentionally, a cavalcade of fearless absurdities ironically attempting to enforce logic, peace and societal order onto humanity. The characters represent something both ridiculous and sublime.
There are numerous elements of the brilliant absurdity of the Batman hero inherent in the story and the adventurers -- remember: Batman had no special powers; he's really just a wealthy nut-job vigilante. In one way of thinking, the story is, to a degree, the the tale of a disembodied Superman in league with the many splintered facets of Batman [vigilante; psychopath; socialite; inventor; warrior]). It's really fascinating for me when I parse out the story.
I can completely understand not necessarily getting hooked by the film or the story, and thus not having a desire to read the book. Sometimes even a work considered great by others fails to intrigue everyone (like that damned Ulysses that I cannot get into, though I have greatly enjoyed a lot of the literary criticism about the book).
If you don't like the comic book genre, you are unlikely much to relish reading the graphic novel. But if you were ever attracted to the Marvel and DC heroes, and especially the story lines of the mid 70s to the mid 80s -- replete with numerous character flaws and character struggles -- the book deserves a read. It takes the superhero character flaw study necessarily into an even more human realm. And that is because these heroes are not mutants: they are human.
P.S. I agree 100% with your grading of the production level.  |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 03/08/2009 07:57:52 |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 03/08/2009 : 14:19:23
|
On a side note, it always irks me when people describe a film as being of the comic book genre. Is this a real genre? I don't believe so. To say something is of the comic book genre is to horribly underestimate what comics can achieve, like they're loaded with Kerpow, Kersplat and so many cliches that this somehow makes them this genre all of itself. For my money, Comic Book is no more a genre than 'based on the best-selling book'.
Perhaps if we keep getting films of the calibre of Watchmen, V For Vendetta, Road To Perdition and A History of Violence to name just a few, we'll finally get rid of this over-generalization one day. Or if we keep getting Fantastic Fours and Spider-man 3's, maybe not 
P.S. This reminds me of a recent exchange I had with a workmate who said she didn't watch animated films. How insane is that? Like the medium has some influence on what the story being told is. It's like saying you don't like The Beatles because their album is on a CD. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 03/08/2009 : 15:23:44
|
| Not as bad as an otherwise extremely film-literate friend who doesn't like to watch subtitled films. How insane is that. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 03/08/2009 : 19:39:46
|
It's tough to read reviews of this because everyone is reviewing it as an adaptation and not a movie. Even though there are a lot of missteps and things I would not have done -- the 300-y flourishes are a particularly bad idea -- it's still fucking Watchmen, man.
I always read both the movie and book as a devastating takedown of comic book logic. (SPOILERS) Regarding Ozymandias's morally ambiguous actions, I figured that he was actually pretty clearly a villain. I mean, he's either not smart enough to maintain his fragile peace, or he's smart enough to have easily come up a way to solve the Cold War that didn't involve nuking New York. But superheroes solve the problem by beating them up, and when the problem is humanity, Ozymandias beats that up too. When your only tool is a hammer every problem etc., etc. I shared this interpretation with someone and he pointed out that that makes Adrian not a villain, but just as much a failed hero as all the other Watchmen.(END SPOILERS)
I read a comic panel once that had Superman asking, "What if I, you know, punched it?" and a caption reading "Superman tries to solve the world hunger crisis." That's Watchmen in a nutshell. |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 03/08/2009 19:40:56 |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 03/08/2009 : 20:01:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
P.S. This reminds me of a recent exchange I had with a workmate who said she didn't watch animated films. How insane is that? Like the medium has some influence on what the story being told is. It's like saying you don't like The Beatles because their album is on a CD.
I understand what your colleague meant, but I'll take it down one more meta-level. You know what? They're all animated. Still pictures flop by at 24/second. Half of all the time we spend in the cinema, the screen's actually blank. The "motion" in "motion picture" is only an illusion made possible by human beings' persistence of vision. [Thanks, maker of human beings, for my p.o.v.: I love it!] Animation uses the same principle; in fact, it is the same principle. Yet it took less than a decade for us to go from laughing at a zoetrope to accepting the illusion so thoroughly that it can startle us or make us cry.
Your friend wants to see "real people" rather than "animation." Too bad: that only happens in live theater.
EDIT: Should have stipulated that what your friend prefers is a very long string of photographs over a very long string of drawings. |
Edited by - randall on 03/09/2009 02:09:23 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 03/08/2009 : 20:55:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Your friend wants to see "real people" rather than "animation." Too bad: that only happens in live theater.
And the distinction between "real" people and "animated" is becoming increasingly blurred as "animated" characters look increasingly real. |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 03/08/2009 : 21:31:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I read a comic panel once that had Superman asking, "What if I, you know, punched it?" and a caption reading "Superman tries to solve the world hunger crisis."
 |
|
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 03/09/2009 : 13:45:04
|
Saw this last night and i couldn't even begin to stsart even telling you what i though it was ALL about.
But it looked great, wonderful stylised violence and great special effects.
Moral grey areas abound as amoral characters eat up the screen which probably doesn't endear any of them to audience.
Yet i'd still reccommend it.
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 03/09/2009 : 14:24:40
|
I agree it looks great - but what's that escapee from The Blue Man Group doing wandering around in the buffkins for all to see ... okay he's well-hung, but I mean ... And how come's no one seems to notice. And how come's he don't go nudie to the funeral?!!!
And really - how come's the totty feels a need for lip liner on Mars?
The opening title sequence is a very stylish coherent [if a bit sub-Tarantino] precis of the back story - even for those who don't know the 12-part graphic novel.
After that the script's a mess, all over the place. Banal dialog bigtime. Blue Man on Mars: Why would I want to save a world I no longer believe in?
Totty: Do it for me.
Pul-eeze -- pass the barf bag.
Severe structure surgery required. Action ... zilch, zilch, zilch ... pretentious talk ... pan around oh-so-clever viz-icons, e.g. zepplin cruising straight for twin towers; inscription of Shelley's Ozymandias etched into pseudo-Carnak statue ... some not-so-clever, e.g. giant space travelling thingy made out of crystal, resembling intricate watch of Blue Man's boyhood, but though able to withstand Martian atmosphere cannot withstand badly acted pounding fist of Totty ... more action ... zilch, zilch, zilch ... more inane dialogue ... and so it goes. No wonder Moore removed his name from the credits.
I dunno, there are too many shots where former art-student Snyder seemed to be auditioning for some commercials shoot.
Oh, yeah, and I remember an interview where Snyder promised that Rorshach's changing "face" would document his emotions. But all that happens is a mindless series of changing ink-blots - great sfx but entirely meaningless. Oh, yeah, and how come's he can eat food when there's no mouth opening?
We won't even go into why saving the world takes place wholly in America, where a group of trapped schoolkids takes precedence over the Iran-Contra affair, equal pay for women, a cure for AIDS, the bombing of The Rainbow Warrior - well, you see what I mean.
Big promo question: Who's watching the Watchmen?
Duh -- enough peeps to take it to the top b.o. spot.
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/09/2009 : 16:55:44
|
I can't really explain why but I really enjoyed it. It did seem as though it was largely something that 'looked' like the graphic novel but didn't have half the subplots and undercurrents, which I guess is strangely appropriate given the artist's involvement but not the writer's. But I still enjoyed it as a mystery/ noir/ bone-crunching stylized violence kinda' way.
I have to admit I never read that thing about Snyder wanting to convey Rorshach's emotions via the mask. Nice idea I guess, but I know from speaking with Dave Gibbons himself that was never intentionally drawn into the comic so maybe he had words with Snyder.
Oh, and Rorshach ate food by folding his mask up. It was drawn like that in the comic and, true to most of the shots in the film, it was like that there too. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 03/09/2009 : 20:24:52
|
"We won't even go into why saving the world takes place wholly in America, where a group of trapped schoolkids takes precedence over the Iran-Contra affair, equal pay for women, a cure for AIDS, the bombing of The Rainbow Warrior - well, you see what I mean."
Considering that Watchmen is entirely a critique of superheroes' vast limitations, I don't really think this is a fair criticism at all.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Watchmen (2009)
