|FAQ||Members List||Calendar||Search||Today's Posts||Mark Forums Read|
|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|Aug 25th, 2009 11:51 PM|
|DrewP||I enjoyed.... That is all have to say, also in the Director's Cut they added back the Hollis death and other auxiliary info.|
|Apr 29th, 2009 06:48 AM|
|testtube||I read the comic then went and saw the movie. As a semi-brainless gory beat em up injected into the Watchmen's original story casing it was a fine way to waste 3 hours. Pure eye candy with enough balls to show the blood and boobs when needed. As an adaptation of a damn fine comic, total failure, sorry. My only gripes are with Zack Snyder, the guy isn't anywhear near as hip as he wants to be. The soundtrack was lifted straight from Forest Gump and the Devo reference was completely axed. Tarantino and Scorsese seem to be the only people in Hollywood with actual taste in music.|
|Mar 25th, 2009 11:03 PM|
|Mar 25th, 2009 06:28 PM|
As much as your right about the sex scene being weird i still recon it served a purpose that could have been but wasn't delt with in the film. Thinking about it actually, It reminds me of when in steven king's IT they all have sex to help get over the horrors they'v indured. Now THAT was weird.
As for the coming from night owl over manhattan part, I dont recall that part in the movie but I cant imagine it having the same effect coming from some former colleague rather than a guy who can see the past and future simultaniously.
I suppose its unrealistic to expect everything and frankly I think they did a damn good job. I'm looking forward to the director's cut tho.
|Mar 25th, 2009 05:11 PM|
|Mar 25th, 2009 03:48 PM|
***There are Spoilers here***
As for casting: The comidian was awesome. Rorschach: awesome. Night owl was overplayed IMHO but well cast. I recon bits like the 'NOOOO!' and him meeting Ozy instead of Rorschach were put in to push him towards main characterdom, although like someone else mentioned the murder of Hollis should have been in there for the sake of character development. Adrian and Laurie could have been better cast, Ozy in particular. I didnt think he was played meloncholic or charismatic enough. Plus the guy looked like a skinny little wuss.
3.5 pickles I feel is accurate.
And yes, I know sexing isn't a real word.
|Mar 14th, 2009 07:21 PM|
I personally thought that the adaptation was the best that could be done with the given amount of time. also, i can't believe i am about to say this, but i definitely don't think they could have casted any better, other than Viedt of course, i didn't like how pansy-ass he was, and how big his damn nose was.
It did upset me pretty bad how while they showed the opening credits, they were showing pictures that were i guess supposed to some how explain to us what had happened throughout the time of the original hero force( i cant remember their name atm). this pissed me off because they never really clarified in the movie that they weren't allowed to fight crime anymore, and that a bill was passed enforcing so.
also, i actually think that their altered ending was in good taste. it wasnt so different that it made it an entirely different story, but it made it a little bit more realistic.
|Mar 14th, 2009 12:09 PM|
|Graystreet||I dunno, I think an updated version set in 2003 where Jude Law AKA Rorshach runs rampaging through a paleo-futuristic version of San Fransisco, looking for Nite Owl's son, that witnessed the murder of one of the top dino-mob bosses of Now Jersey so he can kill him would have been far better then seeing that guy that people know his name but I don't know what he's from play Doctor Manhattan.|
|Mar 14th, 2009 05:35 AM|
I've been watching this post for the past while and have been listening to a lot of opinions an bitching. But I thought it would be interesting to hear from the "horses mouth" as it were... http://creativescreenwritingmagazine...atchmen-q.html
Interesting to hear the long path that it took to get to what we got... and to think of how much worse it could have been....
|Mar 13th, 2009 11:08 PM|
|executioneer||i'm sorry that you like terrible emos dude|
|Mar 13th, 2009 11:04 PM|
|JJ the Jetplane||Might seem random, but... why is everybody hating on My Chemical Romance? I like My Chemical Romance...everybody here seems to hate my music.|
|Mar 13th, 2009 05:28 AM|
But yeah, at the end of the day, he was an a-hole who loved to hear himself talk. Thank god they toned that down some for the film.
|Mar 13th, 2009 03:51 AM|
|Rufus the Perturbed||
I think what we can take from all this is that there will never be a comic movie that is completely 100% accurate. That isn't always a bad thing. Personally, I liked the changes that were made to Spiderman 2. Spiderman 3, not so much. As for Watchmen, I never read the whole book, so I'm hoping I'll still enjoy the movie.
Oh, and to Dr. Boogie, I thought your review was quite funny. Rorshach as a pastry chef. Hilarious.
|Mar 13th, 2009 03:17 AM|
|Alcibiades||Dr. Boogie: I really wish I hadn't loaned my copy of the book to a friend after seeing the movie so I could check but... if memory serves he talks about helping guide the world towards peace right after the 'I DID IT!' panel. But basically, either way, I always viewed him as a big full of himself jerk who figured if he was the only one who could stop everyone fighting he was the only one who could make the world a better place after.|
|Mar 13th, 2009 01:38 AM|
Dear Dr. Boogie.
I apologize for making insinuations. I have read many of your articles and always enjoyed them. I was just very confused as I went through your review and started to ponder. I know that I may have been exaggerating when I said half of the changes, but you have to understand my confusion in having just watched the film, and so much of what you said was not there. Also I don't remember there being much music from Beetlejuice, it was mostly older rock music and such. (all along the watchtower by Jimi Hendrix is the only one that stands out in my mind right now) Anyways kind sir, I am glad we cleared this up and I'm sorry if you felt I was implying that you are a liar. (Which at the time I probably was but I didn't know you had seen a directors cut.)
|Mar 13th, 2009 12:59 AM|
|HeroliciousDeBlanc||Oh and I was disappointed Dan Dreiberg as the little spoon was cut out.|
|Mar 13th, 2009 12:58 AM|
Wobzire: yeah, they set off the flamethrower in the comic.
Tetsu Deinonychus:You said it perfectly when you said Ozymandias' presentation telegraphed his plans furhter on in the movie. maybe it's because I've read the comic, but every vibe I was getting from Ozymandias pointed in the direction of evil. Especially when he dodged the assasin's bullets by running through all the businessmen he was THREATENING verbally, and Oh look! they're all dead! isn't that terrible for Ozy?
|Mar 13th, 2009 12:56 AM|
Ugh, I wish I hadn't gone back to look. I had almost forgotten that the ending was my least favorite part of the entire comic. If they had kept the original ending as-is, you can bet that the number of people who walked out would've been double what it was from just old people and irresponsible parents.
|Mar 13th, 2009 12:34 AM|
Sir, I don't like what you're implying. I-Mockery prides itself on being a beacon of integrity among all the Hollywood phonies out there. What I saw was the director's cut version of the Watchmen film. There was a focus group after the screening, but I excused myself after it became apparent that it would be boring.
I was actually contacted by Mr. Snyder's representative by phone on friday morning. He assured me that while some changes would be made based on the focus group's feedback, the majority of the film would remain untouched for its nationalwide theatrical release.
And for your information, I did not make up half the changes I mentioned in my review.
|Mar 12th, 2009 11:48 PM|
|Lordsalmon||Dear Dr. Boogie, I just watched the movie and there was no mention of rorshach being a pastry chef and he didn't live with Dan. In fact none of the other super heroes knew his Identity, Maybe your review was supposed to be a joke, but I don't get it. Half of the shit you said were changes are just lies you made up, unless in fact you saw some other movie instead of watchmen. In saying this I still didn't enjoy the movie very much, but my roommate who has read the graphic novel enjoyed it a lot.|
|Mar 12th, 2009 07:00 PM|
And you might be thinking, "that didn't work in any of the world wars, why would it work then?" It wouldn't, but he wouldn't pick up on that because of the hubris part of his character.
|Mar 12th, 2009 06:30 PM|
I don't remember either the flamethrower going off or a romantic kiss at the end happening in the comic. I will have to double check now. I just felt those where not necessary and sort of needlessly thrown in for "laffs" and "awws". About the penis, it was gigantic (thanks IMAX) and blue it didn't really need to bark to get attention. Not my attention anyway. Could be that I have issues outside the scope of your help.
I have no idea what you are talking about with a Twilight kid or Roman history. Sounds interesting though.
|Mar 12th, 2009 06:03 PM|
Why would that scene upset you? That happened in the book. Is it sarcasm? Why did you measure his penis? Did it bark at you? I think you've created more questions then answers, and quite possibly, brought salvation to humanity by dumbfounding us with digital penis measuring.
That kid from Twilight that liked Alexander the Great would be proud. I think he tried like that something once, but I saw this one dude, like narrating from his diary or something and left the theater.
|Mar 12th, 2009 03:34 PM|
|wobzire||I hated this movie. Took too many liberties. When they were doing it in the owl ship and the flamethrower went off I honestly almost walked out. When Jon was kissing her goodbye at the end and slowly dissapearing I swore to god I would burn hollywood to the ground. This nit picky; but why did they make Jons penis so much larger in the movie? I feel that that is highly symbolic of everything that was wrong with this adaptation.|
|Mar 12th, 2009 08:15 AM|
Dr. Boogie: Ozymandius has two reasons for why he does his plan from behind the scenes, his stated one (which I don't remember him referencing in the movie) and his implied one.
The stated reason is that he believes he'll be needed to help guide humanity to a lasting peace and prosperity. If he became the villain, even if he united the world against him he wouldn't be able to do the necessary reconstruction work afterwords. That's why he needs a false threat too. It needs to be something people are afraid of but can't really fight against, if he was the villain people really could send armies against him. And since if he died the threat would be over and everyone would start squabbling again, he'd have to battle back against the armies and then his plan for peace is shot. If he died, without his genius to help the world would immediately go back to war with one another.
But the second, and heavily implied reason is that he wants the world to view him as a great man and not a villain. That's why he projects an image of perfection to everyone. In one sense it's good for his cover, but he clearly is obsessed with going down in history as a famous man for the 'right' reasons. He wants to destroy the current world order and rebuild it, but he wants to be remembered for the rebuilding, not the destruction.
|This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|