Hmm, 30+ pages anyone?

I don't think I've ever been so indifferent to a film that's about to receive so much discussion.

At least most of my friends agree with me on this one (Unlike 300).

And those that don't? Banished to Mars?

^ but is that because of the film or the general storyline from the graphic novel?

It's weird. I just can't fathom how someone can be this indifferent to it. I can understand hating and disliking and loving and praising...but indifference? Hmmm. If anything, failed or not, this was ambitious.

i'm with jon. very meh. nothing to love and nothing to hate.

Um, that sounds worse than 8/10.

the grade is irrelevant really. there are many movies i've given high grades to that are eventually, just forgettable. i'm throwing watchmen into this. the movie isn't invoking feelings of disappointment, undying love, hate, pleasantly surprised .. any. In a sense, its a bit like watching Taken. Thought Taken was great but in the grand scheme of things, i'm quite indifferent to it.

Outside of being a completely different medium?

Let's be real, Watchmen isn't a particularly well-drawn or dynamically drawn comic. Never has been. At the very least, Watchmen the film offers a visual feast that the comic never intended to.

That's new.

My friend and I have been expressing our worries regarding the positive reception of Rorschach by teen/young adult males, and how their embrace of the character shows up their ignorance. I was in that phase too, during my Dostoevsky/Nietzsche period, but that was when I was 16. I've outgrown it, so why the fuck can't the collective young male demographic in this world do the same?


Beyond Rorschach, The Dark Knight, etc. lies the whole spectrum of humanity, not merely the shit-stained iota of its being that flitters its life away in some dungeon.

It's a visual feast whose outlines have already been drawn elsewhere. It's like having a surprise party you've known about since before its inception.


I agree that there is no use comparing two different mediums. I strongly disagree with your suggestion that Watchmen is not a dynamically drawn comic. Moore and Gibbons do some splendid things with the framing, etc. that shows their considerable understanding of the comic medium. The way something small, for example, becomes progressively larger frame to frame as its significance becomes more apparent, or the way two narratives conclude in one single frame on both a linguistic and visual level. It's great stuff.

shut up

Being creative with framing and progression isn't the same as being well drawn. I mean, no one will ever confuse Dave Gibbons for Alex Ross. And I don't think an Alex Ross Watchmen would be nearly as good. Gibbons was perfect for Watchmen.

But there's a world of difference visually between what happened to The Comedian in the pages of the comic and what happened in the film.

I agree. Comedian being thrown out the window is 1000x more memorable than in the comic.

1000 times more memorable, wow. So, after the event in the comic, did you completely forget about the Comedian being thrown out of the window, and were you 1000 times being conscious of it in the film?

This is a silly argument, anyway. Cinema has more at its disposal, so one would expect it to be, purely on superficial grounds, more visually enticing.

Although I think that's a deeply subjective matter, and I personally dispute that the film is in any way visually superior to the comic. Plus, you're comparing a work from the 1980s in a different medium to one in 2008. Let's see how the film holds up in the next 20 years.

Just got back, my mind is racing with thoughts on it. This is a review for now but, in short, brilliant. Honestly, I didn't go in expecting to be blown away and that may have helped but this film at times, was a masterpiece. Never a full one, or even a very good one but from scenes like Dr. Manhattans rise, to Rorschach's prisoning I was just in awe. Lets get this out of the way, the slow motion worked beautifully in most of the scenes in the film. It was a bit too much during the Comedians death (which was done excellently) but honestly I didn't mind it. The casting, top notch. Jackie Earle Haley is one of the best casting choices as Rorschach I have seen since Jackman as Wolverine (not in terms of acting, but in overall just being the character). He is, masterful. Also, I didn't recognize Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl II until half way through the film, his transformation, IMO, could not have been better. The adaptation itself is beautiful, especially in the Dr. Manhattan transformation scene, I was again, in awe. I feel like i'm giving this film a massive blow job, but I was never once bored, not entertained or hating the film. I think the last third was a bit weaker than the rest of the film, but still it's was pretty beautiful. Was it too much of a literal adaptation? At times, but it was so faithful that it became it's own, it became a fanboy orgasm. And with saying that, the film will probably have no cross over appeal WHAT SO EVER. It's too faithful especially in the second half (minus the ending) to really grab in the average movie goer. Even getting past it being a graphic novel, Watchmen is a world of it's own and you have to read to the graphic novel, you have to accept the world to truly be entertained. I could be wrong though, and I hope I am. The soundtrack was hit and miss, more hit though, maybe just not the inclusion of 99 Red Balloons. This film is anything but "meh", I can see people hating it and absolutely jizzing over it, but Watchmen does not leave you, the viewer, in the land of meh. It's just not a middle ground film. A

It was just as I feared: a loud, colourful mess that captures all the sound and fury of the graphic novel and none of the meaning. The film is nearly as shallow and hollow as 300, something it surely should not have been.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy it; there were parts that were terrifically innovative and brilliant (the opening credits in particular), but the film seems to lose ingenuity as it goes along, ending as generically and mediocre-ly as possible. The ending change, while commercially viable, makes little sense in the context of the work as a whole. But then again not a lot does. The film captures bits and pieces of the novel, but fails to render it as coherently and interestingly as its source material. It's merely a lot of flash and style without any meaning behind it. As expected.

The cast is mostly a wash, but at least Haley and Morgan bring some life to their characters. The rest are mostly invisible; Akerman is a complete joke.

On the song choices: though they were occasionally inspired, they mostly brought me out of the movie and reminded me of other, better films I could be watching instead. Only Dylan really works in the context of the film, and then only over the credits. Though I appreciate the inclusion of Philip Glass' Koyaanisqatsi score, it's much too brilliant for this film.

As a pure visual stunner, it works. As an adaptation of the source material, it fails. As a movie, it falls somewhere in between. So I'm gonna have to go with a...

Meh.

You have broken agreed Meh quota's according to EU rules Dan, you must be immediately..........given a thumb wagging by the Commissioner.

Good thing I don't live in Europe!

Once again foiled by geography!

Seriously...Dan needs to shorten his "Meh" quota! Every other film is "meh". Doesn't matter what you think of them...just come up with something other than meh!

OK I HATED THIS FANBOY WET DREAM OF A FILM.

Better?

Whatever, S.N.O.B.

why does trixster love being a little bitch

Been thinking about this all night and all day today.

For the past few weeks, I've been going back and forth with being so excited for it's awesome-ness and then scared because it could potentially suck.

The opening credits were brilliant. The casting was brilliant. The action was awesome. Dr. Manhattan is still my favorite character.

I had no problem with Akerman, because just like in the novel, she was pretty much just there for fluff.