Well, Metacritic's rating of 56 seems about right. It did a manful job for the first two hours, staying just about as faithful to the comic as you could hope given how much a movie would have to leave out. (Though having Rorschach played by Batman was a bit rubbish, and Ozymandias was far too wussy.) But then it all goes horribly wrong in the last 43 minutes, coincidentally the point at which it starts to diverge from the book. I ended up borderline hating it, but that's actually unfair to much of it, and even at its worst it isn't a quarter as bad as V For Vendetta.

Pretty much how I felt about it, aside from queasiness over the ultraviolence (the film reveled in blood much more than the book did, last chapter aside...)

Y'know, quite a lot of the reviews said that, and I barely noticed any.

I really liked it. It's been a couple of years since I read the book so I didn't notice where it deviated from the book that much.

I've always thought comics and novels are better suited to a TV serial format. The Spiderman and Batman cartoons in the early 90's were rather good. It's a shame the new ones are so dreadful.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing the extended DVD version of Watchmen. When there were so many characters it really needed another half hour for them to get established. Not that I'd suggest that a longer cinematic version would be a good idea.

Aren't you better off just waiting for the DVD these days?

We've all got uber big tellies, 5.1 surround sound, and comfy sofas - why run the gauntlet of the great unwashed to watch a film that, in all likelihood will be cut anyway to get the appropriate 12/15 certificate?

(I realise it doesn't apply in the case of this film as it's an 18, but you can bet your arse there'll be an extended director's cut.)

On the very odd occasion I still go to the cinema, I always end up regretting it.

As for Watchmen, really looking forward to seeing it - on DVD.

I quite frankly thought it was brilliant. Thoroughly enjoyable all the way through. Translated well from paper to screen, incredibly faithful to the extent that the cinematography of tons of the scenes were virtually lifted straight from the page.

Ozymandias was a bit of a skinny geek, but I don't understand what you're saying about Rorschach at all. Batman?*

I thought the rest of the cast was really very good. Nite Owl was excellent. The Comedian was absolutely spot on in every scene. Laurie was a bit rubbish, but I guess that's not unexpected.

Controversially, I thought the ending was significantly better than the ending in the book - to the point where I came out of it thinking "why didn't Moore do that in the first place? That makes a million times more sense!".


*EDIT - unless you mean the voice? In which case that's how I always figured he'd speak. Just sounded right, to me.

Except the setup doesn't exist in the book - because Jon can make anything out of thin air, there's no energy crisis for Veidt to use as a ruse to work out how Manhattan ticks. Also, I don't understand why the Russians didn't launch their missiles straightaway after they were attacked by 'Manhattan' - given that they'd know his energy signature too, and America was attacked last (given by the events shown on the TV screens in Karnak).

I think the alien ending is better from a Gordian Knot point of view (a solution totally external to the intractable problem) but I just don't think it could have worked on screen, so the new ending isn't as bad as it could have been.

I thought it was mostly superb, way exceeded my horrid expectations. The logic of the ending didn't quite work for me, but most of the film held together far better than it really had any right to. Ozymandius was a weak performance, and Silk Spectre despite the eye-candy was kinda pointless, but Rorschach and Dr Manhattan were perfect. On the whole I found very little to dislike. My biggest beef was however the last 30 minutes or so, the oceans of blood atrocity of the holocaust was kinda awkwardly side-stepped but then that's largely inevitable with a movie of this budget.

If you've listened to Moore read excerpts, that's kinda how he makes Rorschach sound. Gutteral and monotone.

Well, to be fair I thought it sounded fucking ridiculous in The Dark Night too.

I thought it was was brilliant, for the most part. My only real qualm was that the discussion between Laurie and Dr. Manhattan on Mars was shortened significantly (for obvious reasons, but it's still one of my favourite bits, and it's a lot more integral to the story than the film seemed to suggest; Manhattan almost seems fickle here).

There's no ace bio-dome wossname, either, so another good scene is lost, and Bubastis isn't properly introduced or explained, so his/her death won't have meant anything to the newbies. That's about it for the bad stuff, though; for those first two hours I was in awe at pretty much everything.

Edit: Adrian was a bit shifty throughout, too. Finding out he was up to anything was a total smack in the chops in the comic.

I don't like Bale's Batman at all, the voice and the grimacing are primary reasons. Rorschach is a metaphor, maybe caricature of Batman, and thus the slightly ott voice probably fits the character better. If you go with that for Batman himself, it's obviously dipping a toe in unintentional self-parody.

Kinda coincidental that both Watchmen and Batman are DC property really, isn't it?

Nah, he's this guy:




The Question in question.

Ah ok, interesting, that seems literal. I'm also pretty sure I remember Moore saying that Rorschach was supposed to represent what it might actually be like to have a Batman-style vigilante superhero, i.e. a single-minded psychotic nutter. Someone who is basically acting out of psychological pain, hence the name.

I'd heard Rorschach was based on Question as well. Question is completely amazing in the Justice League cartoons which are frequently more mature than most film super hero stories.

If you haven't watched those you're really missing out. Sometimes it feels more like Alan Moore stuff.

I'll go see Watchmen, undoubtedly I'll quite enjoy it as I did with V.

For what it's worth, I massively enjoyed it, but I'm not sure how much of that comes from me filling in the other bits of the source material that didn't make it on screen in my head as it went along*. I largely appreciated the effort Moore put into fleshing out the world things took place in rather than what happens in it, and largely that's what's been cut.

But all of that stuff is what would make people say that it's not going to make sense as a film, so I suppose it's proven true for some at least. My mate whom I watched this with hadn't read it beforehand, and came out liking it and agreeing that it still brings up far more things to think about and discuss that Slumdog Millionaire, but I wouldn't put money on this getting eight Oscars.

I really can't think what major elements could be changed or added without turning a what's already a long film into a monstrous one, so overall I'm pleased with it. Far better than I expected from a script that's co-written by the guy that does the voice for Solid Snake**.

*See also David Lynch's Dune 'adaptation'. I love it, but it must be utterly impenetrable to anyone who hasn't read the book.

** See also X-men & X2

Rather stupidly, the two notable bits of censorship that I noticed were to do with smoking. In the comic, Laurie accidently sets archies flam thrower because she was looking for a cigarette lighter... in the film she just does it because she's a bit of a pratt? Also, since we can't see a teenager smoking, young Rorscharch doesn't stub bullying teens cigarette out in the teen's eye, he bites his ear off instead.

Ozy came accross a bit wrong - in the comic he starts off as a philantrophist, where in this he's a hard-nosed businessman Bond villain.

Also found the violence a bit unpleasant - especially with the Kennedy assasination.

But overall, thought it was pretty good. Not great. But far better than I expected Snyder to manage. Although the moving of the "nothing ever ends" line, so it's not said to Ozy, does change the message a bit unpleasantly.

[EDIT] Oh, and Nixon's nose was stupid

Right, I'm off outside for a tab. I was doing well then, too.

I didn't see the point of having Rorschach take a cleaver to the murderer's skull, instead of what he does in the book. It didn't save any time, though I suppose it did give them an excuse to splash some claret around.

In the book, he stubs the cigarette in the first kid's eye (not in the film) and then bites the cheek of the second kid, which from what I saw did happen in the film.


I was quite impressed with how faithful it was to the book for the most part. I also agree that the change to Ozymandias' plan simplified things but didn't harm the story.

Overall I think it was about as good as anyone could expect from a film version of one of the all time classic graphic novels.

Nope. I love the film but don't think I could bear to read the book(s).

Saw it this afternoon.

A mess of a film, a complete and utter mess.

I've just seen it and thought it was okay. The way the actors read the lines seemed horribly stilted quite often. Silk Spectre 2 wasn't really any good at anything other than looking pretty. Loved Nite Owl though. Original silk spectre was pretty good as well I thought.

Seemed to be some excessive violence at times

I didn't mind Rorschach's voice because to me it represented his view of himself. He thought it made him sound tough and it made him feel he was someone other than who he really is. They really made him look like the comic character didn't they? And the child version.

The song at the end though... AAAAAAAAAAAAARGGGGGGGGGGGH!!!

You are mad, sir, mad. The film was a load of rubbish. It looked kind of interesting in a ropey acid sci fi way, but otherwise was just silly and confusing. The book is brilliantly written, original and imaginative and absolutely overflowing with insights into psychology, politics and philosophy.

MAD.

I really enjoyed it. I felt it dragged a bit at the time (particularly the last third), but afterwards I began thinking about all the different scenes and realised I really wanted to see it again, almost immediately.

Considering how sprawling and dense the source material is, I'm surprised by how good a job they did. Comedian, Rorschach, Night Owl and Dr Manhattan were all spot on. Is it perfect? Nope. Is it better than any of us could have hoped for? I think so.

For anyone who hasn't seen it:

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/485797

Scooby Dooby Dooooo!

I'm still dreading seeing this, because it's directed by that cock who made 300, is it not? So already I'm expecting it to contain lots of irritating slow-mo camera-wank.

Does it?

Yes, but not us much as I was fearing.

Still, his slavish devotion to swanky slo-mo managed to ruin at least one good scene. The bit where Rorschach torches the coppers in Moloch's apartment -- the slow-motion really draws attention to all the machine guns pointed directly at him, none of which are firing.

Still I think you'll find this is the definitive watchmen adaptation

Did I not just link to that all of THREE POSTS AGO?

Tch!

Probably because most thickos would think they were copying SAW

I just pay no attention to whatever you write obviously. That's why I subscribe. Obviously.

Do I get to have the excuse of meaning to post it for days and forgetting?

So I was kind of ambivalent about seeing this - everything I've seen of it looks like shit, and the praise it's got tends to be of the "it's good because it's really faithful to various minutiae" which as far as I'm concerned really isn't a point in favour when praising an adaptation. But I was intrigued and wanted to see it for myself.

But now I just read this, and as well as making me feel a bit ill, it's pretty comprehensively put me off spending any money to see it, and significantly put me off even downloading it. 'Watchmen' The Movie - It's Like Being Raped. Said as an enticement to go see it, from the screenwriter. Extravagantly creepy.

It's incredibly poor form for an artist to piss and moan and tell people how to enjoy their work, but this article feels worse than that, because it's arguing for a depth and a poignance that aren't really there. The film lovingly reproduces (most of) Watchmen, but it doesn't understand it or try to say anything interesting.

It was bad from the beginning in that "please, I'm one of you, do this for us! Go pay to see the couple-hundred-million-dollar movie I wrote for!" shameless pleading and disingenuous nerdsploitation way that Kevin Smith and others have done before. But the ending jumped off the deep end into an extra mega-level of gross... grossness.

Also:

"Is it Apocalypse Now? Is it Blade Runner? Is it Kubrick, or Starship Troopers?"

No.

Well, as a standalone movie (I'm yet to do more than thumb through the book), I really enjoyed it.