# Rate The Watchmen movie



## Krug (Mar 3, 2009)

So what did you think of the much-awaited movie?


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 3, 2009)

Is it out yet?  Have I gotten my days confused and missed it?


----------



## mrtauntaun (Mar 3, 2009)

It comes out Friday.


----------



## Volsung (Mar 5, 2009)

SkidAce said:


> Is it out yet?  Have I gotten my days confused and missed it?




I saw a free preview screening last night.  It followed the priciple thread of the book pretty closely.  I thought the tone was pretty close and the acting was generally good, overall.

No punches were pulled in the translation, and the R rating was well earned.

It's been about four years since I read the book, and i'm still digesting the film, so i'm not sure what else to say.


----------



## Krug (Mar 6, 2009)

Just watched it, and thought the first hour or so which lays down a ton of establishment gets tedious, the next hour and a half wasn't too bad. Snyder does have a knack with visuals, though you have to give Gibbons and Moore a lot of credit for providing him with one of the best storyboards in the world. 

I don't find the new ending that disruptive in enjoying the movie either. Superior to the comic? No way; but good, yes. One thing that did bug me was the blatant and distracting use of music. During the Vietnam scene where the Comedian and Doc Manhattan are showing the Vietcong their moves, Ride of the Valkyries is playing. In Veidt's office it's Everybody Wants to Rule the World. And of course you have The-Times-They-Are-A-Changing during the intro. Was so bad it made me cringe.

Credit to Crudup and Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. I think they did a great job in their respective roles. 

Rating: 7/10


----------



## DonTadow (Mar 6, 2009)

A solid 8.5 maybe 9 for me. As a science fiction movie, which is what it is, its up there with dark city and 12 monkeys in my book.  Sadly, ts been so long since we've gotten a calibar scifi film like this, that people have forgotten that science fiction doesnt mean consistant space battles and alien assaults.  It's a nice balance ofa ction and story.  It deviates from the book in a few places, but the story here was good. 

I feel embarrased to say i liked th ending here better the than the book, simply because it ties everything together just a little bit more. Regardless it was a nice homage.


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 6, 2009)

Now that I have seen it...I loved it, giving it  9.

However, if you were not familiar with the storyline and the reasons for all the back story...it may have felt a little drawn out in the begining to some people.

Definately R rated.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Mar 6, 2009)

I thought it was very well done, and most of the actors got the characters spot on. I would have prefered the original ending, but found the new one quite acceptable. I gave it a 9. Given Hollyweird's 'sensitivity' to original material, this was amazingly true to the graphic novel.


----------



## Silver Moon (Mar 7, 2009)

9 out of 10 for me.   I found Silk Spectre II to be poorly cast, but other than that I thought it was great (and I loved the comic).    I'll also echo that the relatively minor change to the ending actually was an improvement.   Note, I did see the IMAX version, which made the special effects scenes all the more spectacular.


----------



## garyh (Mar 7, 2009)

Saw it today and throughly enjoyed it.  The altered ending worked well, especially since some of the supporting parts like the missing scientists and artists were left out.  I really enjoyed the actors playing Rorshach, the Comedian, and Nite Owl.  Thought they got the parts down well.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Mar 7, 2009)

I'm pretty much just going to parrot the other posts here. I thought the beginning was a little slow, though I really liked the opening montage and I thought the song choice there was perfect (unlike in other portions of the movie). I was perfectly fine with the ending and I thought it worked better than the graphic novel version would have in a movie (works in the comic though).


----------



## WhatGravitas (Mar 7, 2009)

Darth Shoju said:


> I'm pretty much just going to parrot the other posts here. I thought the beginning was a little slow, though I really liked the opening montage and I thought the song choice there was perfect (unlike in other portions of the movie). I was perfectly fine with the ending and I thought it worked better than the graphic novel version would have in a movie (works in the comic though).



The entire film felt slow compared to a lot of other films - but I have to say I enjoyed that. It was paced differently from an action film, something that fits the theme and tone of the film (note: I deliberately avoided reading the comic before the film).

It struck me as a "style-over-substance" film, but not in a bad way. It has lots of strong, impressive pictures and fitting music - sometimes it felt more like an "artsy" film than a big comic adaption, but then, I like a strong sense of cohesive style in films.

However, the characters were... slightly flat. While the film left an impression of gravitas, the characters did not. Rorschach was great and the portrayal of Dr. Manhattan also stood out - somewhat, because he did felt *alien* on occasion. The rest... was not uninteresting, but not particularly gripping either.

Furthermore, the film felt like it came too late. I think the themes of the film would have made more impact a when the nuclear threat was more pervasive - or even before the release of Dark Knight, which did the "realistic superhero" theme already- and better, character-wise.

Nevertheless, the positive aspects outweigh the negative ones by far, hence I think it's a solid 8. It probably could have been better, but not a lot, given the length constraints - because it does feel a bit rushed towards the end, suggesting that it had to cut a lot from the comic.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 7, 2009)

If it had come out before Dark Knight, it would have had more impact. Rorschach's portrayal was great, and he kinda gives Ledger's Joker a run for his money.

I eagerly await the DVD with the extra features.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 7, 2009)

I'm kinda surprised to be saying this, but I loved it I loved it I loved it (that's a quote from the film critic David Edelstein, BTW, from his review of Sin City).

re: Dark Knight vs. Watchmen... thematically they're fairly different. In The Dark Knight, being a superhero is a _bad_ idea, in Watchmen it's a _tremendously bad_ idea, for everyone.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 8, 2009)

9 for me, Thought it was better than Dark Knight and glad they went with the R rating.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 8, 2009)

I have never read the comic so I am basing my opinion on the film alone. I thought the film looked great and it did well not feeling like 2 hours and 40 minutes. 

The casting of the main characters was great, but this barely makes up for the spectacularly bad casting of real life politicians and newspeople. I would have prefered made up newspeople and just about anyone else as Nixon. I cringed every time I saw these people. 

One review I saw complained about the music overwhelming the film, and I have to agree. Less would have been more in this case and a little less volume at times would have been good as well. At least none of the music sucked and they were willing to pay major royalties for big songs. 

My biggest complaint however was dated feel of the movie. I fully understand that this is based on a 20 year old story, but the literal adaptation of it just doesn't work in this time frame. 

Overall I gave it a 7/10 based on cinematography and acting by (most of) the main characters. This is pretty good for me as I rate on a bell curve with 5 being average and maybe 1 movie every year or two managing a 9+.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Mar 8, 2009)

I gave it a 6.

On the whole, it was a pretty faithful adaptation of the comic as I remember it, and the changes made generally made sense, though with some rather glaring oversights.

On the other hand, it reminded me that I did not actually like the comic.

Brad


----------



## Pbartender (Mar 8, 2009)

I think my biggest disappointment was how many people in the theater didn't "get" the point of the movie...  We went to see it last night, and our theater was filled with people who were laughing and cheering during all the most inappropriate parts of the movie.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Mar 8, 2009)

I suspect that much as well, after the showing, I heard comments blurted out, like "I hate this film', "I was so disappointed'...like that.

But my mental question to them was, 'Why did you stay for the entire run then?'

I gave a *8* our of 10.

Got flashbacks, on the comic panels, as I watched the movie.

As everyone knows, it is very, very, very hard...to give a true translatation from written material,and puttin it on the silverscreen.

I will see this film agian.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 8, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> I think my biggest disappointment was how many people in the theater didn't "get" the point of the movie...  We went to see it last night, and our theater was filled with people who were laughing and cheering during all the most inappropriate parts of the movie.




Yes, we had some guys that laughed at all the wrong times (seriously- during a 



Spoiler



rape scene


? Are you sick or just inable to cope with a mature theme?).


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 9, 2009)

I would give it a 9. Quite faithfully adapted and visually fitting extremely well. I found that the ending actually flowed better with the overall plotline then the graphic novel version, which always felt sorta just, "and here is a squid!" You could see more of a lead up in the movie.

As for inappropriateness, can't say saw much of that in our showing. We had laughter at some of the violent scenes (especially the deep fryer) but it was less a "haha funny", more a "holy crap!" laugh.

But yeah definitely earned its R rating.


----------



## Mark (Mar 9, 2009)

Good movie.  Packed with ideas and action.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Mar 9, 2009)

Just got back from seeing it.  I was beginning to be unsure of what to expect from it.  I avoided the escalating publicity campaign for it because I wanted to be better able to judge it on its own terms - which was already difficult enough because I know the original material so well.  Then I started getting mixed signals about how good/bad it was and couldn't tell if it was adverse fanboy reaction or inappreciative criticism.   The movie is generally good, but unfortunately I gotta say that it could have  been better.  Not "should", just "could".

I agree that the altered ending is superior to the original because of the requirements of a movie.  All the little clues and subplots setting up the original ending would have added a lot of time and been FAR harder to adequately explain to an audience.

I think it must have been a tough decision to remain as faithful as they did to the original material because it seriously affected the pacing.  Now I don't mind slow-paced movies.  Heck, this one practically wins points for being a "superhero" movie that DOESN'T come off as being hopped up on crack and amphetamines.  But it nonetheless plays _unnecessarily_ slow in places.  It's a tough adaptation to perform, but I can't help but feel they'd have made a more widely accessible movie if the editing had moved the STORY along a little quicker and used less montage and more flashback, or perhaps even [sacrilege!] reorganized exposition scenes in a more chronological order.  Given the depth and complexity of the material they did VERY well.  You just have to accept that the movie is NOT an ACTION film going into it - and that's difficult for someone not familiar with the original material to grasp.

The music _choices_ were great, but the volume was obnoxious, hamfisted, and generally BADLY handled.  It drew attention to itself, which means it committed the crime of drawing attention away from the film to focus just on the music.

Good performances from Jackie Earl Haley (Rorshach), Billy Crudup (Dr. Manhattan), and Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Comedian).  Malin Akerman (Silk Spectre) for some reason doesn't _quite_ come across with as strong a performance (but damn! is she hot - so all is forgiven), and Matthew Goode (Ozymandias) wasn't written/played as the wunderkind with the thinly veiled ego as I thought he should have been and I think it was a mistake not to cast someone who had a more developed physique that he had in the original - the wannabe god to Manhattan's genuine deific abilities.  As it was it felt too underplayed.

I also agree about the casting and performances of real-world characters like Nixon, Kissinger, etc.  Bad makeup, vocally off, and actually played too seriously.  I think if they'd have gone for more caricature it would have worked better since these were very much background parts in the original material.  They needed caricature in order to be more familiar.

Still quite enjoyable though.  I gave it a 7/10, but then I try to score low to counter the proven tendency to actually score movies high right after you've seen them.


----------



## Farganger (Mar 9, 2009)

I thought it was great fun, but more interestingly my sister enjoyed it, as did most of her colleagues at a big LA premiere last Wednesday. Largely 40-something entertainment lawyers, none were comics readers, genre fans or really fit the "profile".

Very anecdotal evidence, of course, but I think it gives the lie to all the reviews claiming no one with a brain over age 25 could possibly enjoy the movie. There have been a lot of these, but the New Yorker's was the first I read and now sticks in my craw:

"The result is perfectly calibrated for its target group: nobody over twenty-five could take any joy from the savagery that is fleshed out onscreen, just as nobody under eighteen should be allowed to witness it."

Lane's review hits all the "high brow critic" top notes, including expressing sympathy/sorrow for the poor actors burdened with the roles and script. Genre-bashing has tapered off a bit in the last few years, but remains the easiest way of establishing cred as a "serious" critic.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 11, 2009)

Saw it tonight at an IMAX cinema with my brother. I've read Watchmen, he hasn't. We both loved it (I gave it a 9). I think the ending works better than the comic ending. Loved the acting, especially Rorshach, Night Owl and Dr Manhattan.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 12, 2009)

Farganger said:


> I thought it was great fun, but more interestingly my sister enjoyed it, as did most of her colleagues at a big LA premiere last Wednesday. Largely 40-something entertainment lawyers, none were comics readers, genre fans or really fit the "profile".
> 
> Very anecdotal evidence, of course, but I think it gives the lie to all the reviews claiming no one with a brain over age 25 could possibly enjoy the movie. There have been a lot of these, but the New Yorker's was the first I read and now sticks in my craw:
> 
> ...




Who critiques the critics?


----------



## Wombat (Mar 13, 2009)

Well, it is no where near as good as the the graphic novel (it would be difficult to have that happen), but it was decent enough for the main plot.

The violence got _overly _graphic -- if it were any _more _graphic, I would have left the theatre.  I was right on the bubble during the fight in the alley.

_Watchmen _is a complex story about perceptions of truth and reality, about what individuals are willing to take stands for, and hiding truths behind comfortable views.  The movie doesn't do a bad job of getting that on the screen, but it doesn't do as well as it could.  Still, I don't think most movie audiences would be pulled in for all of that, especially in a "comic book film".  

Like I said, not a bad film by any means, but it is not fully _Watchmen_.  I would give it between 6 and 7


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 13, 2009)

Interestingly I find I'm still thinking about the film three days after seeing it - that is pretty unusual for me, and in the cold light of dawn I'm happy with my '9' rating I gave it.

(Sometimes I enjoy the initial thrill, but on retrospect a film was a bit empty. Didn't happen that way with watchmen for me).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 13, 2009)

Interestingly I find I'm still thinking about the film three days after seeing it - that is pretty unusual for me, and in the cold light of dawn I'm happy with my '9' rating I gave it.

(Sometimes I enjoy the initial thrill, but on retrospect a film was a bit empty. Didn't happen that way with watchmen for me).


----------



## Baron Opal (Mar 14, 2009)

Holy crap, that was _intense_.

I just got back from seeing it. There was an amazing intensity about that movie. The violence was intense, the music was intense and the sex was intense. (Malin Akerman pushed my buttons, lemmie tell ya)

I enjoyed the movie, but oddly I'm in sensory overload right now. I like the alternate ending better. It almost looks like Adrian's "Plan C" to remove a certain problem.

It has been a long time since I read the comic. It seemed unusually faithful to to source material; good job there. Jackie Earl Haley (Rorshach) and Billy Crudup (Dr. Manhattan) were great. I enjoyed their performances greatly. On the whole I agree with Wombat and the Man in the Funny Hat.

I give it a 7.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Mar 14, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> Interestingly I find I'm still thinking about the film three days after seeing it - that is pretty unusual for me, and in the cold light of dawn I'm happy with my '9' rating I gave it.
> 
> (Sometimes I enjoy the initial thrill, but on retrospect a film was a bit empty. Didn't happen that way with watchmen for me).



Yup - I saw it last week and I still think the film is great or think about it a bit. In retrospect, _Watchmen_ lacked the initial "whooph" of an action flick, but it sure has the lasting effects of a drama, which makes it decidedly different for a comic book film - but given the source, that's a given.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 14, 2009)

Lord Tirian said:


> lacked the initial "whooph" of an action flick, but it sure has the lasting effects of a drama,




Yes, that's it exactly!


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 15, 2009)

For what it's worth, from someone who didn't read the comic, I thought it was one of the best movies I've ever seen.  And definitely _THE_ best superhero movie I've ever seen.

It had wonderful characterization, intricately enjoyable layers to the story and plot, and every color of the moral/ethical spectrum (not just Black and White).  And like Plane Sailing said, even days afterward I still find myself thinking about it.

Definitely one I'll have to get in a collectors edition when it comes out on disc.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 17, 2009)

It was quite packed in Vancouver, when I saw it.  And I heard it was one of the only films that was in production in my town last year when the writer's strike happened.  

I really liked it, despite a few minor flaws.  I was amazed how many parts exactly mirrored the comic.  Personally I felt that the best done parts of the movie was the opening montage, and a look into Dr. Manhattan's past and inner thoughts.

I'm just wondering that since they had Matt Frewer who played Max Headroom cast as Moloch, if they happened to actually show Max Headroom on TV at any point in the movie.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Mar 17, 2009)

Saw it over the weekend. Neither my wife nor I have read _The Watchmen_.

We enjoyed the movie, though neither of us would rate it as the best comic book movie we've seen.  Having read about the "real" ending and watched the "movie" ending, we both agree the movie ending was a better choice and made for a better film.

i'm not sure that we needed Richard Nixon to be the boogie man, and I must admit that I objected to that. Reagan would have filled that role just as well.  That's a quibble with the book - not the movie.

On a more philosophical note, I'm not so sure that this was a movie that _needed_ to be made. I can think of a few better bets on which to gamble 150 million dollars in film.

That said, there have certainly been FAR worse films and FAR worse bets, too. So that's par for the course I guess.

I'll get this on Blu-Ray when it comes out as I am sure many others will too. The studios will end up making back their money in the end. This is not a "bomb" of a film. But it's not a hit  - and I don't think it deserves to be one, either. If the great unwashed prefers their comic book stuff more....comic bookey, then I'm not sure that's a great surprise to anyone.

Absent Heath Ledger's untimely death, I don't think _The Dark Knight_ makes a Billion at the box office either.  To tell the truth, I prefered _Iron Man_.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Mar 17, 2009)

Kobold Avenger said:


> I'm just wondering that since they had Matt Frewer who played Max Headroom cast as Moloch, if they happened to actually show Max Headroom on TV at any point in the movie.




Not that I saw. 

I never thought of Max Headroom when I saw him though. I thought "Trash Can Man". He played that role  - and rather memorably at that - in the mini-series version of Steven King's "The Stand".


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 17, 2009)

Kobold Avenger said:


> I was amazed how many parts exactly mirrored the comic.




I heard that they basically used the comic as their storyboard for large sections of it


----------



## Klaus (Mar 17, 2009)

Gave it a 9.

I think it was amazing, and very tight. If it were any tighter, it'd be Malin Ackerman's costume ( :heart: ).

Rorschach, Nite Owl and Dr. Manhattan were awesome.

My wife's comment: "Everyone is a Comedian."


----------



## Richards (Mar 19, 2009)

Steel_Wind said:


> I never thought of Max Headroom when I saw him though. I thought "Trash Can Man".



Whereas I saw him as Taggart from "Eureka."  Pretty cool that we got two "Eureka" alumni in "Watchmen" - Matt Frewer as Moloch, and Chris Gauthier (Vincent on "Eureka") as the guy in the smiley face T-shirt at the New Frontiersman about to pick up Rorschach's journal from the slush pile at the end of the movie.

Johnathan


----------



## Jdvn1 (Mar 19, 2009)

Gave it an 8. It was excellent, but a bit on the long side, and had gratuitous nude scenes that lasted much longer than needed.

Ultimately, I don't think they needed sex to sell this one.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 19, 2009)

Jdvn1 said:


> Gave it an 8. It was excellent, but a bit on the long side, and had gratuitous nude scenes that lasted much longer than needed.
> 
> Ultimately, I don't think they needed sex to sell this one.



All nudity in the movie replicated the comic book pretty closely.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 19, 2009)

Klaus said:


> All nudity in the movie replicated the comic book pretty closely.




Schlong swung blue,
Everybody saw one...
Schlong swung blue,
Why'd the artist draw one?

(with sincere apologies to Niel Diamond. Link for the youth-impaired : Neil Diamond | Song Sung Blue lyrics)


----------



## Klaus (Mar 20, 2009)

Sure, sure. Focus on the CGI phallus. I'll focus on Malin Ackerman's... er... special effects.


----------



## Felon (Mar 21, 2009)

Saw it on IMAX yesterday. Pretty much what I expected of Snyder based on the 300: lots of gratuitous slow motion, a soundtrack alternating between guitar riffs and morose overtures, and an overemphasis on exposed flesh.

I enjoyed it, but I can see where someone who hadn't read the series wouldn't make a lot of connections. For instance, the revelation that the Comedian is Laurie's father is supposedly devastating, but the movie really doesn't set that up. We don't get to see the altercation between the two of them at the state party (where she throws her drink in his face), we don't get her haranguing Rorschach for describing him as a fallen hero, and we dont' even get the info that Laurie doesn't really know who her father is (she thought it might have been Hooded Justice). Someone not familiar with series doesn't know about any of that. They get the impression that they worked together (the Watchmen are portrayed as a team, rather than the one-time failed assembly of the Crimebusters) and that she thought he was pretty cool when she was younger. The only other connection between the two of them prior to that is a few off-hand comments early on between Laurie and her mom.

OTOH, the movie fixes a lot of the contrivances of the book, chiefly the ending, plus stuff like the nonsensicality of 



Spoiler



hiring an assassin to kill you when you could just hire him to shoot whomever you're with (you're going to kill him afterwards anyway)


. Also, the characters are a bit more even in terms of their strength of character. You don't have lots of dumb, simpering character portrayals (particulary Drierberg). Dan is actually the leading man of the movie, whereas the comic is all shared billing.


----------



## megamania (Mar 22, 2009)

Finally got to see it-


As a comicbook it is a 10

As a movie.... a 7?


Flashbacks work well in comics but poorly in the movies.  The ending worked well.


----------



## megamania (Mar 22, 2009)

Klaus said:


> All nudity in the movie replicated the comic book pretty closely.




Though Manhatten seemed to have been.... enlarged 


Actually, I noted they did a lot of cut offs and item blocking in most scenes.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 23, 2009)

megamania said:


> Though Manhatten seemed to have been.... enlarged
> 
> 
> Actually, I noted they did a lot of cut offs and item blocking in most scenes.



My eyes never drifted that much towards Lil' Manhattan to judge that.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Mar 25, 2009)

Klaus said:


> All nudity in the movie replicated the comic book pretty closely.



Maybe, but it still didn't add anything to the movie, other than length. I enjoyed the movie, but think those scenes could have been trimmed. It may work better and have better pacing in the graphic novel.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 25, 2009)

Jdvn1 said:


> Maybe, but it still didn't add anything to the movie, other than length. I enjoyed the movie, but think those scenes could have been trimmed. It may work better and have better pacing in the graphic novel.




I wasn't paying close attention, but I thought they were trimmed. Oops sorry.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 25, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> I wasn't paying close attention, but I thought they were trimmed. Oops sorry.





Honestly, I could've done without the bone-popping violence in the alley fight scene. It was the only time the violence in the film seemed over the top.

But the sex scenes were integral to forming the bond between Dan and Laurie, specially in light of how Dan couldn't ... er... bond before.


----------



## beeflv30 (Mar 26, 2009)

A 7/10 for now, once the dvd comes out with the Black Freighter and new scenes added in I will likely give it an 8 or 9.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 26, 2009)

Klaus said:


> But the sex scenes were integral to forming the bond between Dan and Laurie, specially in light of how Dan couldn't ... er... bond before.



That was well done. Maybe the meaning was too obvious, but it just seemed ... believable?


----------



## Merkuri (Mar 27, 2009)

Two weeks ago my boyfriend and I decided we wanted to see Watchmen, but we had both heard from a couple different sources that it should be treated as an addendum to the book, and that if we watched the movie first we'd never appreciate the novel.  Having never heard of it before the movie, we went to the bookstore that Saturday and picked up a copy and both read it in a week so that we could see it the next weekend.  I literally finished the book on Friday night around 11 PM and went to the theater at noon the next day to watch the movie.  So we saw it in movie form while it was still fresh in our minds.  We both loved it.

I thought it did justice to the book.  I was expecting differences, having come to the realization years ago that books and movies are two completely different mediums and lend themselves better to different kinds of stories, and I was just floored when they started after the opening montage with something that looked EXACTLY like the first few pages of the book.  As it went on I kept being impressed at how closely they managed to stick with the book in many cases, and where they did differentiate it seemed to flow naturally.

This next part's about the ending.  Big spoiler.  Don't read if you haven't read the book or seen the movie yet.

[sblock]
When I first walked into the theater I was expecting them to totally and completely change the ending.  It had been so horrific, so depressing, that I felt like the producers would think that a popular audience would rebel and demand their tickets and popcorn money back.  The ending of the book had left such a bad taste in my mouth, but as I put the comic down and started to think on the story more, turning it around in my brain, it just felt right.  Horrible, and nightmare-inducing, but right.  I wanted the movie to have the same ending as the book but just felt that no one in their right minds would end a movie that way.

I was surprised at the way they ended it.  It was close enough to the book that on first glance it had the same emotions attached to it as the book ending, but it felt more plausible, as I've heard others say here.  Immediately after I walked out of the movie I liked the movie's ending and felt like it was almost better than the book, but as I got further away from the viewing experience I realized that it lost something.  The big piece, I think, was that the city scene when Dr Manhattan and Laurie come back to Earth.  The destruction was there, the death toll was as high as the book (probably higher, since multiple cities were involved), but it was just a crater.  The feeling of looking across a field of nothing, knowing that something was once there is just a drop in an ocean of sorrow, horror, and disgust of seeing masses of masses of bodies like there were in the book.  As I started to compare the two endings in my head I felt like the movie ending had so much less emotion piled into it.  It may have made more sense, but it was like the difference between seeing somebody with an amputated arm and seeing somebody who's arm had just been gnawed at by wild dogs, still hanging in bloody, tattered bits.  One makes you sad and the other makes you recoil in horror.

Although, I have to say, I enjoyed immensely the idea that somebody _actually hit Veidt_ in the movie.  I think that was the worst part of the book ending - the idea that Veidt got away with it with absolutely no consequences whatsoever, not even a slap on the wrist.  I felt better that somebody actually decked him for it, but I imagine it's the same type of feeling somebody would get kicking their mortal enemy's dead body if it were already dead when they got there.
[/sblock]

I heard some people say that they felt the story was dated - that the threat of nuclear annihilation didn't have the same oomph anymore.  I felt like that was something they did poorly in the movie, but honestly I'm not sure how they could've done it better without making it even longer.  Especially towards the ending, the book gave you a really good sense of the fear everyone was feeling in that time period, where they felt that their lives and the entire world as they knew it might end in as soon as a few days.  The movie just didn't have time to get that feeling across.

I want to pick the book up and read it again.  I want to go back to the theaters and see it one more time.  I almost feel like my life is missing something now that I'm finished with the movie and the book, as if Watchmen had been a part of my life for years instead of just for a week.  I'll probably read it again soon, but I feel like I need to give it a rest.  That type of story really needs time to simmer before you pick it up again.  It needs to age like wine.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 27, 2009)

Don't forget to pick up the DVD with the animated movie "Tales of the Black Freighter" (the pirate comic the kid reads throughout the graphic novel) and the documentary "Under The Hood" (based on Nite Owl I's memoirs).


----------



## Silver Moon (Mar 27, 2009)

Merkuri said:


> This next part's about the ending.  Big spoiler.  Don't read if you haven't read the book or seen the movie yet.



Spolier warning:  



Spoiler



Good comment, what made the dead body scene really hit you was that you had gotten to know so many of the dead people at the newstand over the course of the series.   Since the movie didn't include nearly all of those scenes with the secondary characters seeing them dead wouldn't have made a difference.


----------



## Merkuri (Mar 27, 2009)

Silver Moon said:


> Spolier warning:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The fact that we saw two of those characters at the very end of the movie doing exactly what they had done in the book (with no lead-up or explanation to it) makes me think that they originally had some of those newsstand bits in it but took them out because the movie was long enough already.  I wouldn't be surprised if the DVD had an extended edition that let us get to know those characters a bit more.  

(I was purposefully vague here so I don't need to block this all out in a spoiler, so I hope you'll know the moment I'm talking about.)


----------



## Darrell (Mar 30, 2009)

Waited a while after seeing it before posting, to be able to consider it more fully.

All in all, I didn't like it.  I liked the comic (I hate the term "graphic novel," it smacks too much of trying to pretend it's more high-brow than it is; kind of like saying "erotic thriller" instead of "softcore porno") when it came out, but the message of the comic is dated now...to the point where the fear of a nuclear war with Russia seems somewhat like a relic of the 'good old days."  That, I think, is less a problem with the movie than with the original story, however.  As we get further and further from the Cold War, I'm not sure Moore's story is going to be able to completely stand the test of time.

Acting-wise, I thought the protrayal of Rohrshach was spot-on, The Comedian was also quite well-done, and Nite Owl seemed (as someone else mentioned) to be the protagonist of the movie, taking over almost every scene he was in.  Silk Spectre was drop-dead gorgeous, but...well...bland.  I found Dr. Manhattan to be more 'wooden' than 'alien,' and wasn't at all satisfied with the portrayal.  Overall, the worst acting was in the character of Ozymandias.  Rather than a super-intelligent, physically-honed pinnacle of humanity with an ego to match, he just seemed to be a whiny, simpering mess.

I also had problems with the level of the music in certain scenes (though I didn't find it off-putting in the opening montage), and thought it felt like it lasted every single minute of its length, and then some.  In addition, I found a lot of the CGI (particularly in some of Dr. Manhattan's scenes, and Ozymandias' cat-thing in every appearance) to be scene-breakingly jarring.  The violence didn't really bug me that much (though the alley fight might have been a bit over-the-top), but the nude/sex scenes with Nite Owl and Silk Spectre seemed a bit forced and definitely went on for too long.  The change at the ending was pretty good, as film adaptation changes go, and I actually liked it better than the comic, but felt it was a case of 'too little, too late.'

Overall, I give it a 3.  I won't see it again, and won't buy the DVD.  While it kept very close to the source material, I'm not sure the source material is terribly relevant anymore.  It may have simply taken too long for this to get to the screen.

Regards,
Darrell


----------



## Krug (May 13, 2009)

DVD out in July:
The Blu-Ray Blog | Who watches the Watchmen on Blu-ray? Watchmen: Director’s Cut Detailed, includes Facebook Social Media Connectivity

Relieved they won't be cutting the Black Freighter animation into the movie. The styles just don't gel.


----------



## Krug (Jul 13, 2009)

Scene of Hollis Mason's death that's included in the Director's Cut DVD:
News: Watchmen Director's Cut Deleted Scene | Latino Review


----------

