|
Post by Chris Decker-The Wild Rover on Mar 9, 2009 19:11:32 GMT -5
So my experience.
Never read the novel. Had no idea about the book. I got caught up in the hype. Saw it loved it. But i have a very interesting story to tell.
A freind of mine who is huge in to graphic novels, wanted to see this movie bad. So obviously, when i was finished with it, I was gonna call him and discuss it. So it gets to the party where silk spectre II (still getting used to the names) shoots the villian(i think his name was Adrian?) and than...FILM DETERIORARTES IN FRONT OF MY EYES.....
So I txt my buddy...
me: jeff I am in the middle of the threatre, this movie just deteriorated in front of me, right at the conclusion.
jeff: dude, that f***ing sucks.
now here is where it gets funky, i didn't know if he saw the movie or not. I mean i figure: he's gone to midnight showings of things, day off showings. So I assumed he's scene the movie already. Plus he read the Novel. So I tell him this verbatim.
Me: Like legit the conclusion. Manhattan just exploded NYC and the film Split.
My friend does not respond.....My question is, if he didn't see the movie....did I Spoil it for him??
|
|
|
Post by tap on Mar 9, 2009 19:27:01 GMT -5
My very long review:
Originally, after seeing Watchmen—the much belaboured and anticipated new film by movie wunderkind Zack Snyder, adapted from the canonical graphic novel by acclaimed writer (of noted bearded fame) Alan Moore and illustrator (and solely credited) Dave Gibbons—I figured it was not worth a review. Admittedly being unfamiliar with the original 1986 12 issue run as well as its derivative forms bounded in one collected volume, I went into the first screening Friday afternoon as something of a blank slate, oblivious to the minutia of detail that I knew the legions of fans the book were keen to look for, scrutinize, criticize, and potentially dismiss. I knew offhand of the overall characters and themes, and, of course the widely discussed ending that, according to previously published accounts, had been changed. The documented legal battle between corporations, the fairly incompetent Warner and the villain-du-jour Fox, over the film rights and exhibition profits earlier this year raised anticipation to a fever pitch. I had some reservations going in to the movie to be sure, because of Snyder’s track record thus far: an entertaining, if not dumb, remake of George Romero’s satirical zombie classic Dawn of the Dead, and the maddeningly banal, swords-and-slow motion popcorn vehicle based on crank conservative comic icon Frank Miller’s 300, a tiresome blend of homophobia that somehow, unconsciously (?) misses the homoeroticism of the Spartan tale of lore and the spectacle of the idealized male form rendered in computer-generated pixellation. Snyder, then, was not reeling me in on blind faith alone, regardless of the advertising campaign’s attempt to brand him a visionary. The futility of writing this review was based upon the fact that, on first blush, I liked the movie. It was not great, it was okay to good, and that, under far more competent and skillful auspices, in the hands of someone like Terry Gilliam or Darren Aronofsky, the movie could be great. So then, being amused rather than enthralled, I saw no point to write one, and at least it did not gather the hyperbolic reactions of *another* comic book movie last summer. Then, thinking about the movie, and furthermore the book I have yet to read, I thought I would put some ideas down and see if people agree.
So the film begins with something of a ridiculous punch’em up sequence, complete with THUD! on the soundtrack, as a masked assailant attacks an aged superhero we come to learn is the Comedian, watching a too-obvious reference to the McLaughlin Group on his 1980s television. The Comedian is tossed around the room like a bouncing ball, unable to land a fist or foot against his attacker. Amazingly, both men can punch through marble and smash kitchen fixtures into rubble... such that the “human” aspect of the graphic novel, as described by friends when discussion the film before its release, seems to be wholly absent. I shuttled this thought away and told myself to save overanalyzing for later, since there is no point in crucifying the film at minute 3 when I had some 160 or some minutes left to go. The Comedian then is promptly tossed from his 30-something storey apartment to fall to his death. From this rather visually noisy, although not very interesting opening, comes perhaps the most entertaining part of the film: the credits.
The five minutes that follow suggest that either more than one director worked on the project or Snyder is absolutely schizophrenic. A montage of wonderfully rotoscoped tableaux vivants roll past, set to Bob Dylan’s tune “The Times They Are A-Changin’.” Over the course of 40 or so years we see the rise of the superhero of the Golden Age, with bright colours and minimalistic design, battling evil-doers, and inserted into many historic American moments of the twentieth century. Here too does Snyder show with plain observation the reality of crime-fighting, as some superheroes are gunned down, some are carted off to the mental asylum, some are killed for “deviation” from the norm. As well, some cracks in the mythology begin to show, as we are introduced the childhood version of the protagonist of the film, viewing his mother servicing men, lined up, eager to ignore the genesis of the Cold War. Kennedy is assassinated (by the Comedian’s hand), Vietnam protests combust and are as quickly shot down, Kent State style, as some superheroes integrate themselves fully into popular culture (Andy Warhol, the moon landing, Club 54) while domestic scenes of strife darkly colour the “times” that are a-changin’, as the latest iteration of superheroes smiles for the camera as Nixon is re-elected for a third term while people are wild in the streets. The musical choice is a tad on-the-nose, but somehow, through its obvious ironic nature that should erase any efficacy, works, given the imagery presented. The troubling aspect of the credits is that it sets up a complicated aesthetic that does not hold for the rest of the film: the grand and the mundane, the romantic and the realistic, the mythic and the actual... all these binaries have a genuine kitsch to them as “comic” that is completely “novel,” a conscious contradiction, a parallax condition that is open to a variety of interpretations. This speaks to some idea of a “larger picture” (both cinematically and as well as potential contemporary commentary) but, sadly, the rest of the proceeding overemphasizes the “graphic” aspect of entertainment.
We come to see a silhouetted figure skulk the damp streets to find the smiley face button of the Comedian near his fall. Rorschach, as an adult now, masked, with an ever-changing series of ink blots that mysteriously float about the fabric, grappling-hooks himself up to the Comedian’s loft, all the while narrating exegetically, writing in an as-yet-unseen journal. He suspects that if one of his superhero comrades has been killed, especially with the United States and the U.S.S.R. on the brink of nuclear annihilation, that there may be a plot to silence others. Rorschach then visits his former partner, Dan Dreiberg, formerly known as Nite Owl II (of which we see Nite Owl I and Dreiberg discussing former glories over drinks in the film as well). Rorschach alerts Nite Owl to his suspicions and then moves on to speak with the omnipotent Dr. Manhattan and his amour Laurie Jupiter, aka Silk Spectre II. The last character we are introduced to his Adrain Veidt, or Ozymandias, the smartest man on the planet, who has amassed a fortune on his hero likeness and seeks new forms of consumable (and renewable energy).
From these points of exposition we are introduced to a dizzying array of flashbacks, digressions, and complications of narrative as each character’s backstory, to varying degrees, is explained. To sum each character up (and greatly reduce their pathos): Rorschach is a sociopath; the Comedian is a fascist; Nite Owl is emasculated; Silk Spectre lives in her mother’s shadow; Dr. Manhattan is dissociative, detached from the concerns of humanity; and Ozymandias, narcissistic to the core, attempts to save humanity. Again, this is a reduction to be sure, but I do not have the time nor the willpower to attempt to work through the mechanics of the plot of an almost 3 hour film. What I will say is most of the characters are performed well-enough, although nothing really shines as truly great. However, Jackie Earle Haley, the man who would be Rorschach, stands head and shoulders above the rest of the cast (even if he is one of the shortest heroes). He embraces the character down to a gruff rasp that does not grate like Christian Bale’s most recent turn as the Caped Crusader. Rorschach actually becomes more interesting when his “face” is removed. Rorschach is “good” only because he is uncompromising. Come the end of the film, when Ozymandias manufactures the death of millions of people and pins it on a rogue Dr. Manhattan (who served as a weapon for the United States, winning Vietnam in a week) to serve the end of world peace, Rorschach, unlike his compatriots, refuses to concede to this new utopian future (built on the dead... that sounds familiar) and, willingly, is killed by Dr. Manhattan, as he explodes in an ink-blot design on the Antarctic snow (hardly subtle). Synder, as Moore and Gibbons before him, construct identification with a man who, normatively, is clearly troubled, and through vicariously living through Rorschach’s torture and dismemberment of criminals to achieve his own end of discovering the truth of who killed the Comedian and why.
However, the film on the whole, whenever transcribing the politics of the books, engages with the very stereotypes of violence and psychopathy of those who don the tights that, presumably, the book is critiquing. Snyder has no sense of the political, or, albeit, in a loud, obnoxious “stump speech” cheer kind of way. Furthermore, his manner of filmmaking is quite unlike William Wyler, who said (paraphrasing) “I give the audience 2 plus 2 and let them answer 4.” Snyder gives the audience “2 plus 2” then blurts out with absolute certainty “5!” Snyder reinverts stereotypes that are stood on their head, then doubles them, amplifies them. The scenes of gore (and to wit, I do not flinch at gore) are celebrated for their presentation, the method of violence as the answer, for a tension of affect—wincing, jerking, oohing and aahing—when bones break and blood spurts that, given the pornographic presentation of violence as violence unto itself with no commentary behind it, undoes any sort of sympathy or understanding for either the hero or the victim (something of an odd formulation to be sure... our heroes become our villains). I think of comic books as something of a dialectic, as they are imbued with qualities of life, of being larger than life potentially, when read, as characters leap off the page. The reader, borrowing from the construction of the comic from its creators, using the page as a medium, produces meaning. Snyder’s film is death without life. Such an irony escapes the director (or, were I to be so bold, metteur-en-scene) as the penultimate moment of the story arch, the death of millions to save the planet, is barely represented; it serves as a trope of the plot to perpetuate character grandstanding (Rorschach, even in a moment of real humanity, and moreover Nite Owl, complete with “NOOOOOOOOOO!”). I doubt the inclusion of more than 40 minutes of context would help ground the film in some realm of humanity, since this inhumanity (besides the echo of the existence of Dr. Manhattan) is systemic through the whole movie text.
I may even go so far to venture that Watchmen the graphic novel is a book canonized for its own canonization, a way for comic book fans to be feel legitimated for loving comic books by placing a popular text within a historical body of work that becomes further repeated and further reified as the definitive texts to read to become a fully-fledged individual. Moore and Gibbons deconstruct the cliché, but that too is a cliché. Nothing “novel” is truly said. In terms of content, I would suggest that Moore and Gibbons are a comic book equivalent of Michael Haneke. They give you violence, atypical characterizations, and gestures to wider socio-political concerns, thus proving some kind of popular culture relevancy, while gorging you with the very violence, atypical characterizations, and gestures they seem to be critiquing. It is hardly a deconstruction, it is a parody of the reader for buying into the very politics of the book that serves as window dressing for a way to disseminate form from content, reader from awareness. That so many people who have read the novel identify with Rorschach without resistance (as indicated from many fan reviews I’ve read) kind of prove this point, even though Moore and Gibbons, in their deft sleight-of-hand, are mere child magicians, who think they can shape the world through their understanding of it. Nite Owl, in the film, elucidates this thought, as he pounds the face of Ozymandias in, as Ozymandias perverted humanity. The thought of humanity, expressed in speech balloons through avatars of the creators, no less have perverted thoughts of humanity too, if not a perversion of thought itself. It is more a manner of not being damning enough rather than damning too much. The fact that the contradiction of this thought (which, granted, is probably the best thing to come out of the book, because it leaves things open-ended, if there should be an end to begin with) is limited to the comic book form, and now in film form, suggests an unwillingness to cast stones beyond the comfort and confines of easy targets, such as superheroes. It is easy to tear them down because they are no higher than in arm’s reach. Perhaps once I read Watchmen my opinion will change, but I’m rather certain my preconceptions will not change (although I allow myself the space to change them... this would not make me a hypocrite). Then again, maybe Moore and Gibbons are mental midgets, real-world representations of The Big Figure.
Back to the film, the art direction is very strong, given Snyder’s last film was a green screen bonanza. The streets, alleys, and apartments tried to give off a sense of being palpable, but Snyder’s fidelity to action strip away any engaging background elements. It has been noted through many reviews and will be repeated here too, but yes, the music choices were awful. Awful as conscious sledgehammer-like parody. Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” during the sex scene between Nite Owl and Silk Spectre is laughable when Nite Owl finally has an erection (here I should mention that Malin Akerman, the actress playing Silk Spectre, is truly terrible as you may have heard, presumably hired because of her previous skin roles in Harold and Kumar and The Heartbreak Kid). Simon and Garfunkel’s “The Sounds of Silence” for the Comedian’s funeral and Jimi Hendrix’s cover of Dylan’s “All Along the Watchtower” for when Nite Owl and Rorschach walk to Ozymandias’ wintery fortress stand out stupidly, with little introduction and cues and exit as abruptly. A blaring My Chemical Romance cover of Dylan’s “Desolation Row” concludes the licensed music butchery (especially since My Chemical Romance, thematically, have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the film or the graphic novel). However, these glaring musical choices aside, what offended me most about the music was Tyler Bates’ original score and one part of the score in particular. When Rorschach describes the night his alter ego Walter Kovacs died, Bates rips off Christopher Young’s cue for the Cenobites from Clive Barker’s Hellraiser. Bates is virtuoso plagiarist, as he also ripped off some musical bits from Elliot Goldenthall’s score of Titus. The work I can contribute to Bates that I like is in Rob Zombie’s films, but I really have no time for the composer whatsoever. The CGI rendering of Dr. Manhattan (and especially his Mars palace [?]) could garner some Oscar consideration. The fragile nature of his glass palace as it floats about the Mars terrain is one of the few moments the volume turns down from 11 to 2, and Snyder would be wise to move in that direction for future endeavours (although I doubt he will). Amazingly, much of the reaction around Dr. Manhattan relates to his blue member, fully visible on screen. What I do not understand is that half the human population has apenis, yet, when one is shown onscreen (and it is hardly a threatening penis , since it is flaccid the entire time), people still titter. Seriously, go watch Fassbinder’s Fox and His Friends. If an abundance ofpenis onscreen offends you, please, go home.
I do not think there is much more to be said about the movie. The above is something of a rambling collection of observations, befitting the film’s structure, I suppose. I think had Watchmen been developed for HBO as a 13 part series it would have been served better. And too, had Snyder and his filmic frat-boy antics stayed away from Watchmen, it would be intelligent enough, rather than rushing from lowest common denominators. If you have the will to subject your posterior to 3 hours of movie-going and the financial means to do so ($8 ticket, $20 for confectionary), I say: why not go? I know after the fact I at least have a curiosity to pick up the graphic novel, more than I did before I saw the movie. I do not see this film having much traction after 2 or 3 weeks, unless a director’s cut rereleased in the summer, as rumoured, could get people to come back. I will be more than willing to see a director’s cut if Snyder, with more material and a longer runtime, can subdue his ADD-style of filmmaking. I am sure some points of the book were lost in context and translation to the cutting room floor. It is another comic book movie that could have been great, but was not.
EDIT: A point I forgot to mention, that it is ironic that Zack Snyder is being hailed as a "visionary" in the marketing campaign for the film when is body or work consists of a remake and 2 adaptations. Furthermore, since he translated so many panels of the book to the screen as if they were storyboards, his film earns credibility as being "faithful." The funny thing about faith is that it requires blindness, of some sort, to perceive it. So how can a "blind" filmmaker, as Snyder is, miming his source material without apology, a visionary? This is not to say it needs to be a reinvention of the wheel either. I found the story told in The Dark Knight to not be very good. I suggested some alternate tales that could have been spun, many based in other media. This is not to say it had to be a literal retelling of these stories either. Watchmen, in its credits sequence, shows some the sparks of creativity that would have made an entertaining and engaging picture, but for the most part, the movie, like the final morality of its characters, remains enshrined in darkness.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Mar 9, 2009 19:32:58 GMT -5
So my experience. Never read the novel. Had no idea about the book. I got caught up in the hype. Saw it loved it. But i have a very interesting story to tell. A freind of mine who is huge in to graphic novels, wanted to see this movie bad. So obviously, when i was finished with it, I was gonna call him and discuss it. So it gets to the party where silk spectre II (still getting used to the names) shoots the villian(i think his name was Adrian?) and than...FILM DETERIORARTES IN FRONT OF MY EYES..... So I txt my buddy... me: jeff I am in the middle of the threatre, this movie just deteriorated in front of me, right at the conclusion. jeff: dude, that snorking sucks. now here is where it gets funky, i didn't know if he saw the movie or not. I mean i figure: he's gone to midnight showings of things, day off showings. So I assumed he's scene the movie already. Plus he read the Novel. So I tell him this verbatim. Me: Like legit the conclusion. Manhattan just exploded NYC and the film Split. My friend does not respond.....My question is, if he didn't see the movie....did I Spoil it for him?? From what I've heard and seen, I'm pretty sure you did.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Decker-The Wild Rover on Mar 9, 2009 19:36:04 GMT -5
So my experience. Never read the novel. Had no idea about the book. I got caught up in the hype. Saw it loved it. But i have a very interesting story to tell. A freind of mine who is huge in to graphic novels, wanted to see this movie bad. So obviously, when i was finished with it, I was gonna call him and discuss it. So it gets to the party where silk spectre II (still getting used to the names) shoots the villian(i think his name was Adrian?) and than...FILM DETERIORARTES IN FRONT OF MY EYES..... So I txt my buddy... me: jeff I am in the middle of the threatre, this movie just deteriorated in front of me, right at the conclusion. jeff: dude, that snorking sucks. now here is where it gets funky, i didn't know if he saw the movie or not. I mean i figure: he's gone to midnight showings of things, day off showings. So I assumed he's scene the movie already. Plus he read the Novel. So I tell him this verbatim. Me: Like legit the conclusion. Manhattan just exploded NYC and the film Split. My friend does not respond.....My question is, if he didn't see the movie....did I Spoil it for him?? From what I've heard and seen, I'm pretty sure you did. well looks like i owe him price of admission. maybe i'll get him a chillis gift card
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 9, 2009 21:30:24 GMT -5
You know equating our displeasure with the story elements with a fictitious gripe about the shade of blue is really just trying to make legitimate arguments seem illegitimate without actually addressing them. It's such a strawman argument. Snyder used nearly 3 hours already so it wasn't that it wasn't long enough he just did nothing compelling with the time he did have. Sure putting more plotline in might have made it drag out longer. It is also arguable that they could have reduced the porn and ultraviolent FX sequences to put in actual story driving content. You mention Hollis Mason's story as too much unneccesary stuff for the movie, yet they still put Hollis in, in a scene that really didn't serve any purpose to the story. So it's not that I am complaining that they didn't put him in, I am complaining that they put him in but didn't use him. His death could have just happened off camera and been alluded to its not like his death took up much in the book. His death however was what made Rorschach's crazy idea sound more reasonable to Niteowl. As it is Niteowl just realizes he's soft and impotent and adapts the life of Rorschach and is tiptop again. Helping to push the singular view that Rorschach is the righteous one. Moore wrote the book as a hater of the policies of Reagan/Thatcher and used several of those characters to show the flaws in that form of thinking. However he didn't force his viewpoint to the forefront of the book. Which is why Rorschach became so darn popular because he wrote him honestly. Snyder is dishonest with these characters. Hell, if you want to get into the superficial, lets compare the costumes. Comedian is pretty close to acurate as is Rorschach. Silk Spectre is now the Latex Spectre, but that's ok she's just there for the sex scene anyway. Niteowl though went from awkward pudgy man in spandex to cool Batman. And Ozymandias, lest we forget he's the one we need to hate wears the hated Batman-Robin suit complete with the reviled molded rubbercast suit nipples. Halfway down this page is a side by side comparison. emptees.com/posts/12966-who-watches-the-watchmenOzymandias sought the approval of the others after the fact in the book and got it save for Rorscach. In the movie his colleagues opinions matter to him less then Bubastis and he gets facepunched for stopping nuclear war. Rorschach's psychotic streak is either a joke (throwing wannabe villain down elevator) or so overly justified you never question if he's gone over the line. Hell the end even implies that in death Rorschach's justice will prevail because they never showed that the New Frontiersman was a radical fringe tabloid. Wherein the comic the New Frontiersman is shown as being full of crackpot conspiracy theories most people would dismiss. Could that not have been shown with a few frontpage shots scattered throughout the series without being the straw that turned a nearly three hour movie into something so huge it would be unmarketable and unwatchable, I'd like to believe there are directors who could do that.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Potato God on Mar 9, 2009 22:00:38 GMT -5
You know equating our displeasure with the story elements with a fictitious gripe about the shade of blue is really just trying to make legitimate arguments seem illegitimate without actually addressing them. It's such a strawman argument. Snyder used nearly 3 hours already so it wasn't that it wasn't long enough he just did nothing compelling with the time he did have. Sure putting more plotline in might have made it drag out longer. It is also arguable that they could have reduced the porn and ultraviolent FX sequences to put in actual story driving content. You mention Hollis Mason's story as too much unneccesary stuff for the movie, yet they still put Hollis in, in a scene that really didn't serve any purpose to the story. So it's not that I am complaining that they didn't put him in, I am complaining that they put him in but didn't use him. His death could have just happened off camera and been alluded to its not like his death took up much in the book. His death however was what made Rorschach's crazy idea sound more reasonable to Niteowl. As it is Niteowl just realizes he's soft and impotent and adapts the life of Rorschach and is tiptop again. Helping to push the singular view that Rorschach is the righteous one. Moore wrote the book as a hater of the policies of Reagan/Thatcher and used several of those characters to show the flaws in that form of thinking. However he didn't force his viewpoint to the forefront of the book. Which is why Rorschach became so darn popular because he wrote him honestly. Snyder is dishonest with these characters. Hell, if you want to get into the superficial, lets compare the costumes. Comedian is pretty close to acurate as is Rorschach. Silk Spectre is now the Latex Spectre, but that's ok she's just there for the sex scene anyway. Niteowl though went from awkward pudgy man in spandex to cool Batman. And Ozymandias, lest we forget he's the one we need to hate wears the hated Batman-Robin suit complete with the reviled molded rubbercast suit nipples. Halfway down this page is a side by side comparison. emptees.com/posts/12966-who-watches-the-watchmenOzymandias sought the approval of the others after the fact in the book and got it save for Rorscach. In the movie his colleagues opinions matter to him less then Bubastis and he gets facepunched for stopping nuclear war. Rorschach's psychotic streak is either a joke (throwing wannabe villain down elevator) or so overly justified you never question if he's gone over the line. Hell the end even implies that in death Rorschach's justice will prevail because they never showed that the New Frontiersman was a radical fringe tabloid. Wherein the comic the New Frontiersman is shown as being full of crackpot conspiracy theories most people would dismiss. Could that not have been shown with a few frontpage shots scattered throughout the series without being the straw that turned a nearly three hour movie into something so huge it would be unmarketable and unwatchable, I'd like to believe there are directors who could do that. Bingo.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Mar 9, 2009 22:58:51 GMT -5
You know equating our displeasure with the story elements with a fictitious gripe about the shade of blue is really just trying to make legitimate arguments seem illegitimate without actually addressing them. It's such a strawman argument. Snyder used nearly 3 hours already so it wasn't that it wasn't long enough he just did nothing compelling with the time he did have. Sure putting more plotline in might have made it drag out longer. It is also arguable that they could have reduced the porn and ultraviolent FX sequences to put in actual story driving content. You mention Hollis Mason's story as too much unneccesary stuff for the movie, yet they still put Hollis in, in a scene that really didn't serve any purpose to the story. So it's not that I am complaining that they didn't put him in, I am complaining that they put him in but didn't use him. His death could have just happened off camera and been alluded to its not like his death took up much in the book. His death however was what made Rorschach's crazy idea sound more reasonable to Niteowl. As it is Niteowl just realizes he's soft and impotent and adapts the life of Rorschach and is tiptop again. Helping to push the singular view that Rorschach is the righteous one. Moore wrote the book as a hater of the policies of Reagan/Thatcher and used several of those characters to show the flaws in that form of thinking. However he didn't force his viewpoint to the forefront of the book. Which is why Rorschach became so darn popular because he wrote him honestly. Snyder is dishonest with these characters. Hell, if you want to get into the superficial, lets compare the costumes. Comedian is pretty close to acurate as is Rorschach. Silk Spectre is now the Latex Spectre, but that's ok she's just there for the sex scene anyway. Niteowl though went from awkward pudgy man in spandex to cool Batman. And Ozymandias, lest we forget he's the one we need to hate wears the hated Batman-Robin suit complete with the reviled molded rubbercast suit nipples. Halfway down this page is a side by side comparison. emptees.com/posts/12966-who-watches-the-watchmenOzymandias sought the approval of the others after the fact in the book and got it save for Rorscach. In the movie his colleagues opinions matter to him less then Bubastis and he gets facepunched for stopping nuclear war. Rorschach's psychotic streak is either a joke (throwing wannabe villain down elevator) or so overly justified you never question if he's gone over the line. Hell the end even implies that in death Rorschach's justice will prevail because they never showed that the New Frontiersman was a radical fringe tabloid. Wherein the comic the New Frontiersman is shown as being full of crackpot conspiracy theories most people would dismiss. Could that not have been shown with a few frontpage shots scattered throughout the series without being the straw that turned a nearly three hour movie into something so huge it would be unmarketable and unwatchable, I'd like to believe there are directors who could do that. Ok, I guess we'll keep this going. Moving from Strawman arguments to Stickman arguments, heaven help the board if I have to go to Brickman. The "porn" as you call it was pretty important in the book. Nite Owl feeling impotent except when he was his alter ego. It was also the catalyst for freeing Rorshach. Plus wasn't it only 30 seconds? Thats hardly stealing time. As for flashy effects and violence, they looked awesome, and were once again in the book for the most part. Watchmen world superheroes aren't Green Arrow with boxing glove arrow incapacitations, sometimes they need to break an arm. So while you may dismiss them are fluff, they were actually quite integral to the plot. And as for Hollis, they played down the massive gang wars occuring in the city in favor of making it more of a government caused apocalypse, therefore people randomly killing Hollis cause he was a mask would have seemed out of place. Also he served a purpose in order to introduce Dan and show the transition from old to new. I liked his role in the movie, and it seemed an acceptable cut. Plus it would have been more ultraviolence which you wanted cut in exchange for story. Its a superhero movie, subtelty can't be as effective. You can't put a certain sign up in a corner and expect the entire audience to turn away from the glowing blue naked guy to see it. Also, these were political digs from 20 years ago, much of the audience wouldn't remember it too well. Plus there were plenty of subtle digs in the movie, you just had to know where to look. As for costumes, yeah they were changed. Believe it or not, loose fabric T-Shirts are not condusive to fighting crime. The last time we had one of these in a movie, it was Pumaman with his khakis of doom, and that sure as hell didn't work. So they gave Dan body armor instead. He was still schlumpy under, but actually wore something that would have disguised him and make him seem like a threat. They did it with Batman and no one batted an eye. The same could be said for Ozy and SS, they actually got a costume in this version, as opposed to just looking like someone from Woodstock. Ozy didn't care about what others thought in the book except for Manhattan when he was wondering if his peace would stay. His attutude can be summed up in the book and movie in one line, "Grow Up." Plus he killed millions to achieve his goal and never gets any comeuppance, sure I felt the facepunching was kind of odd, but him getting some sort of consequence for it was good to see. The New Frontiermans at the end clearly mentions Rorshach's book is in the Crank File, do we really need to hammer in the fact that his journal is in a pile of conspiracy and crank theories? But then they could have gone the Twilight route and made everything a lot clearer by having their characters explain who they are and how they feel via dialogue, "Ozymandias blew up Manhattan? That makes me Angry!It was the best movie it could have been.
|
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Mar 10, 2009 0:05:24 GMT -5
How does that even make sense? It did win best picture. Ok... yet it relates to me thinking a movie I felt sub par could be better how? I understand you feel this is the best the movie could be, myself I believe things can almost always be better, and this is definitely a case of that. Hell I think Snyder could have done better, let alone another director(possible Chris Nolan, and others). And just because I expected it to be, and believe it could be better, doesn't mean I expect it to be best picture.
|
|