There are numerous posts on this long-anticipated film based on a critically acclaimed graphics novel at Big Hollywood and elsewhere, and I haven’t read the source, so I’m not going to see it until then, unless my kids force me to buy it on DVD before I do that, I suppose. David Thompson’s carefully wrought review may help guide your own decision:
So, is Watchmen ‘unfilmable’, as Moore insisted? Well, Snyder’s impressive visual fidelity has come at a price. The film is frequently striking and surreal, often beautiful, but it’s also disjointed in tone and strangely undramatic. Despite its formidable running time, Watchmen is never boring – there’s always something to watch, some reference to spot – and the extended opening credits are close to nerd heaven.
However, this virtuoso montage is one of the film’s strongest sequences, which suggests that audience satisfaction may depend on familiarity with the comic. For detail obsessives, there are plenty of small joys along the way. Dr Manhattan’s luminous anatomy is lovingly rendered, John Higgins’ skewed colour palette is carefully reproduced, and even Veidt’s computer files make for interesting reading. But as the end of the world looms, the pervasive mood is one of stillness and detachment; only Rorschach’s prison scenes generate momentum.
Elsewhere, there is little tension or urgency. And, told as a film, this matters. Yes, Gibbons’ imagery is reproduced fastidiously and often to great effect, and much of Moore’s dialogue is used verbatim, with mixed results. But the lingering pleasure derived from reading (and re-reading) Watchmen remains somewhat elusive in this striking, uneven and ambitious film. What Snyder delivers is, above all, an arresting visual curio – surprisingly lifeless, but fascinating nonetheless. If the definition of a classic work is the urge to revisit it, then the Watchmen comic is a classic. Whether Synder’s film will reward repeated viewings isn’t clear. But see it, once at least.
I don’t get it. Why is there a bullseye on blue dude’s forehead?
(this, from a guy who quit reading comics / watching ANIME back when Fat Albert last ran on Saturday mornings..)
Reminds me…I’m due some range-time.
Movies about comic books are not my cup of tea. It’ll be on Cinemax some day and I can always go to bed if its boring or simply unwatchable.
I’ve been advised by several people to see the movie before reading the graphic novel.
Movies made from graphic novels (Sin City, etc.) are closer to the source material than movies made from books tend to be, but the thinking is that watching the movie while comparing it to the novel is distracting… and I can see that. It’s like reading the script. I did that once, too, with a Star Trek script and when I saw the movie it was entirely ruined because I was stepping through each scene in my head, even from reading the script only once, and even knew that the next thing to happen would be a particular facial expression from Whoopie Goldberg.
The film is pretty nihilistic, I understand, and I’ve got enough to drag me down just living through Obama. I’ll wait untikl the parody comes out.
I’ll skip the graphic-novel series and the movie, in favor of PVP’s satire.
…which you’ll find is also disjointed. I got the distinct impression there was a reason for that, since Kurtz is usually very good about narrative flow.
The ‘bullseye’ is explained n the comic, not the movie. Initially, the military wanted to make Dr. Manhattan into a marketing sensation by giving him a helmet, costume with logo, etc. but he rejected that and drilled the hydrogen atom onto his forehead as a concession to their need for a symbol
The movie was a disappointment to me in many small and some large ways. They needed to tie elements together to smooth it out for the first-time viewer.
Rorschach’s ending makes no sense unless you recall his opening monologue, for instance. Too many events were left unexplained and thus became inexplicable instead, such as the rioting at the time of the Keene Act
They needed to tie elements together to smooth it out for the first-time viewer.
There’s the rub. Doing a work like Watchmen properly would require several three hour movies.
I fully understand why the ending was changed — without the necessary spadework ahead of time, the ending from the graphic novel would’ve produced a “WHAT! THE! FUCK!” reaction from a naive audience.
That said, I enjoyed the movie a lot. Rorschach was perfect.
I never read the book so if this sounds stupid realize its the musings of a casual viewer. However, why the plot to trick dr. manhattan, blow up the cities framing dr. manhattan thus bringing the world together rather than just spend the time tricking dr. manhattan to destroy all the worlds nuclear weapons? seems foolish and obvious to me. I still enjoyed the movie though and would pay to see it again. listen to what the papers say about it here–>http://www.newsy.com/videos/watching_the_watchmen/
Having no basis for this guess, I would imagine the plot would have been to mislead the civilians instead of Dr. Manhattan because the civilians are easier to mislead.
Moocher!