Watchmen Trailer online

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I don't even know if it's that. It was basically a rant against a series of marginally related things that hardly addressed the film at all. With an underlying current of distain for Alan Moore as well. Really weird.

The New Yorker is to Watchmen as Pitchfork is to U2?
 
not really 'hipster'

they consider themselves more highbrow

Dark Visions: The Current Cinema: The New Yorker

“Watchmen,” like “V for Vendetta,” harbors ambitions of political satire, and, to be fair, it should meet the needs of any leering nineteen-year-old who believes that America is ruled by the military-industrial complex, and whose deepest fear—deeper even than that of meeting a woman who requests intelligent conversation—is that the Warren Commission may have been right all along.
 
No clue, I'm guessing the cast of Friends?

The critic for my local paper is an asshole, too, so maybe it's just a natural thing.
 
Yes, it's there. The only 2 aspects that were changed about the ending were it not being the squid and Dan totally wailing on Ozy instead of mackin' on Laurie again.

Oh thank the maker.

But Dan beating up Ozy? That's weak because (a) he could never in a million years take him and (b) that's just cliche audience-pleasing bullshit.

And you LIKED that?
 
Oh thank the maker.

But Dan beating up Ozy? That's weak because (a) he could never in a million years take him and (b) that's just cliche audience-pleasing bullshit.

And you LIKED that?

I did. It enforces Ozy's thing about "feeling every innocent death," if I remember the line correctly. Like Lance said, it's a form of penance. And the part about Dan's "schoolboy heroism" not being able to do anything, too. He's still impotent, but at least he has the balls to care about something again, in this case, the death of his partner.

It played out like Batman beating the shit out of The Joker in the interrogation room of TDK, if anything.

That's fucking weak, too. He knows he's right. It takes away from the character if you have him all repentant about it.

He repents by watching all of the footage of the devastation on all of those TVs in the novel as well. He still knows he's right, but he regrets that so many innocent people had to die, like I said above.
 
Well he certainly feels bad about having to go to those lengths to achieve his goals, but I still think it fits better with him being a bit more stoic about it. He still looks down on Dan, Rorschach, The Comedian, and Laurie. Who are they to help process his guilt?
 
Well he certainly feels bad about having to go to those lengths to achieve his goals, but I still think it fits better with him being a bit more stoic about it. He still looks down on Dan, Rorschach, The Comedian, and Laurie. Who are they to help process his guilt?

Maybe because they're so insignificant to him that it doesn't really matter? I'm unsure on what position to take at the moment.

When he speaks to Manhattan alone in his sanctum, I read it like he has some uncertainty... especially in his reaction to Manhattan's "nothing ends" line (I'm paraphrasing). That didn't make the film either, which disappointed me, but we get the point by that moment.
 
I'm sure this is bound to be one of the lesser problems with the film. I'm not too worried about that little detail.
 
When he speaks to Manhattan alone in his sanctum, I read it like he has some uncertainty... especially in his reaction to Manhattan's "nothing ends" line (I'm paraphrasing). That didn't make the film either, which disappointed me, but we get the point by that moment.

That's unfortunate. I love that part.
 
LeMac... does it feel like it's 2 hours 40 minutes?

or like TDK, you get zoomed in and goes really fast?
 
That's unfortunate. I love that part.

Same here, but again, I was more amazed at how much was in there than what was left out.

LeMac... does it feel like it's 2 hours 40 minutes?

or like TDK, you get zoomed in and goes really fast?

The pacing slows after The Comedian sequence and flashbacks, picks back up when Manhattan goes to Mars, and slows a bit during the final confrontation. I felt pretty much the same way I did when I saw TDK for the first time, if that's any indication. That one hit a snag after the hospital blows up and up until the warehouse sequence with Harvey, Gordon, and the Goddamned Batman.
 
Watchmen, the game?

YOU can dump a pan of hot grease onto someone's face!

YOU can shoot a pregnant Vietnamese woman in the abdomen!

YOU can experience erectile dysfunction!

YOU can slaughter millions of innocent people in major cities around the globe!

Sounds like fun.
 
Ebert is more of a reviewer for the typical movie attendee.

Much more than that New Yorker guy.



These days he looks a bit like Harvey Dent 2 , he survives a very serious illness.

Ebert's reviews have veered a bit lately, he gave a very strong review of The Fall. I liked the movie, but it was not a big hit. I can't help but think his reviews are influenced by all he has been through.
 
So, I just watched the film.

It's very well done, artistically amazing, and I would say sticks very true to Moore's original work. It doesn't seem as dark, although perhaps more graphic and shocking - which only enhances it, I'd say. The characters really come to life, and there's a shocking wealth of detail in most of the scenes that those who know Watchmen fairly well will spot (for example, Walter Kovacs walking around quite innocently whilst stuff happens in New York).

It felt almost as though the graphic novel had lost a bit of weight and hopped onto the silver screen. I would argue that although losing this weight will not please a fair few of the fans, it was necessary in order to keep the film understandable and watchable, and it works well.


From what I've read, Ozy seems to take the beating as a sort of penance.

The way I interpreted this was more sort of him allowing Dan to beat on him because he was secure in the knowledge that he was right and that beating him wouldn't change anything. Seemed more of an arrogant "you can hit me all you want, but I'm still superior" sort of stance to me.

All in all? Great film, worth watching again, but I'd still question it as a standalone film. IMO it works best as a companion piece to the original work.
 
Also, this sentence from Ebert's review was quite hilarious:

"Everything is made of quantum particles, after all. There’s a lot we don’t know about them, including how they constitute Dr. Manhattan, so the movie is vague about his precise reality. I was going to say Silk Spectre II has no complaints, but actually she does."
 
I don't want to spew any hate on this film
but, the LA Times had a less than enthusiastic review.
The guy said the same thing Moore said, this is an unmakeable story.

My expectations have really fallen.
I think I will have to see it Friday afternoon, if I wait till Sunday, I may not want to go.

I expect many on this site to support the film big-time, they have so much invested.

Seems like everyone was in agreement about how wonderful The Emperor's New Clothes were when speaking about that shit movie Indy 4.

Well, I have lowered my expectations considerably. If I have done the same for any of you, we may get our pop corn monies worth, after all.
 
Back
Top Bottom