tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post5983967399548178965..comments2024-03-25T19:18:14.047-04:00Comments on What's Alan Watching?: At the movies: WatchmenAlan Sepinwallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03388147774725646742noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-72244377158844065022014-09-13T07:03:45.962-04:002014-09-13T07:03:45.962-04:00Good review, but I think it is a bad movie. I am n...Good review, but I think it is a bad movie. I am now reading the comic book, and I must say I think the movie completely missed the point. Not only is it's soundtrack (apart from the opening tune) and a lot of the acting terrible. It only tells plot points, and it doesn't give enough context to what's happening or any depth to the characters you are watching. Therefore making it a shallow movie, the exact opposite of the novel. If you only tell the plot, with stretched out slo mo violence, without giving real sense to how the world they live in has become as it is, how these characters have become what they are, the whole point is lost. The makers of the movie didn't seem to get most of the characters (with the most obvious example being Ozymandias), they didn't seem to get how the government used the 'superheroes' in their own advantage in the Novel, thereby making the novel a critique on America. They just copied cool images, and some dialogue, and the basic plot (while differing from it at the ending), focused on the violence, put a very bad soundtrack under it and people call it a faithful adaption. No it isn't. It would be more faithful if it didn't squeeze as much violence and information in a 2,5 movie as possible, and get across the main points of the novel. edlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-68253999181257190642009-03-18T01:39:00.000-04:002009-03-18T01:39:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.The Authorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15515156281188447315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-1127195687483726472009-03-14T18:32:00.000-04:002009-03-14T18:32:00.000-04:00i haven't read the Watchmen comic series, but i ca...i haven't read the Watchmen comic series, but i can't imagine them packing any more into one movie even if they wanted to, which is good for me, makes me feel like i got my money's worthAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-256812012844503502009-03-12T11:32:00.000-04:002009-03-12T11:32:00.000-04:00That said I would have preferred less wire fightin...<I>That said I would have preferred less wire fighting and more realistic fight scenes. </I><BR/><BR/>The aftermath of some of the blows (the blood, the bruises, the broken bones) was a lot more realistic than most superhero fights, I think.<BR/><BR/><I>In other words out of costume he was half the man he is when he is in costume playing the role of Nite Owl.</I><BR/><BR/>I think that's part of what made the scene funny, though. He can't perform unless he's put on his Nite Owl persona, where all his confidence resides. Plus, "Hallelujah" really didn't help. The friend I saw it with was annoyed because it ruined it as a love scene, she said, and I responded that I thought they were really just going for a sex scene.<BR/><BR/>The other song that didn't work was "The Sound Of Silence" playing at The Comedian's funeral. That bothered me a little the first time, and annoyed the crap out of me the second time I saw it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-71909701807144644092009-03-12T02:37:00.000-04:002009-03-12T02:37:00.000-04:00I don't understand the complaints about Goode bein...I don't understand the complaints about Goode being too skinny to be a believable Ozymandias. Pull out the graphic novel and take a look at Ozy, he aint buff in the comic. Does he come across as too skinny to be able to toss a person around? Yes, but that matches the comic since he didn't look like he could pick up a man half Comedian's weight never mind pick him up and throw him through a thick window after beating the crap out of him. In the comic he never looked like someone who could hold up in a fight against any of the others, never mind against Rorschach and Nite Owl at the same time. Which was probably intended to make the fact that he takes those two out in seconds in the comic without any effort all the more surprising. <BR/><BR/>I could have done without the wire fighting (I would prefer to have gone more real world fighting) but my movie going friend pointed out that they had to step up the fights to a) punch up the action bits to help offset the pacing of the rest of the movie, b) to compare favourably to fight scenes in every super hero movie made in the last 8 years and c) to help build up the fighting abilities of Nite Owl and Rorschach so that them being beaten by Ozy better sells how good Ozy was.<BR/><BR/>That said I would have preferred less wire fighting and more realistic fight scenes. <BR/><BR/>The "matrix style" slow motion fight effects, as some comments has referred to it, was to convey the feeling of comic book panels. <BR/><BR/>I'm shaking my head at the comments calling the Dan having erectile dysfunction aborted sex scene as an attempt at making a joke. I guess it was being too subtle but those two sex scenes are essential, character defining moments of the Dan/Nite Owl character. In a nut shell the point of that was: Dan is a paunchy middle aged, nerd with low self worth, broken up by worry and concern (with life in general but specifically with the whole impending nuclear holocaust plus the possibility of a mask killer out there) who is uncomfortable around women and susceptible to performance anxiety. Hence him being unable to get it up when the hot woman he has been eyeing for literally years finally makes a move on him. But get him back into his costume and suddenly he's found himself again, he's regained his confidence and self worth he feels like a whole man again, he has lost his anxiety, and is no longer ruled by his fears. Hence him being able to not only perform sexually but perform considerably better than his nervous, awkward interactions with her previously would lead you to believe. <BR/><BR/>In other words out of costume he was half the man he is when he is in costume playing the role of Nite Owl. I thought it was rather obvious really. The whole leaning on the flame thrower button during climax was straight comedy. Silly yes, but hey sometimes you want to throw humour into an otherwise pretty dark and serious movie. Plus that was taken straight out of the comic. <BR/><BR/>Was the sex scene a bit longer than it needed to be to convey that? Perhaps. On the other hand cutting the scene shorter would also imply that Dan "fired quickly" which would have undercut the whole point of the scene. Fading out during the scene would have fixed the whole "showing how long Dan lasted" aspect but would have removed the flame thrower joke. Which would have ticked off many fans since that is a fan favourite joke and not too mention it would have removed a humorous moment from a movie that needed a bit of levity. <BR/><BR/>OF course the scene was also there for the other level, titillation and to help sell the whole "this aint your standard super hero comic book" since at the time the comic was made sex scenes weren't done. And for that matter has there been another super hero movie that had a graphic sex scene with nudity in it? And of course if you have a hot woman in the movie it's nice to show case that to give the guys some thrills. Especially to help offset the number of shots of Dr. Manhattan's wang. (I'm not complaining about that, I thought it was appropriate. But for the average male movie goer seeing that much wang means you gotta balance it with at least one good sex scene). <BR/><BR/>I thought Akerman was pretty good as Laurie. She looked perfect for the part (although perhaps she could have looked a touch older. But then it is not unusual for a 30 year old woman to look hot). Were some of her lines a bit off? Yes. But I don't get the complaints that she didn't have chemistry with either of her lovers, I didn't think that when I was watching the movie. I think "she had no chemistry" is touted a lot when what the commenter is really saying "she looks too hot so she sucked". She filled the role nicely since in the comic she really was a cutout character. Just there to look pretty, and help define Nite Owl and Manhattan's characters more. Akerman did what was needed for the role. I found it believable that both Manhattan and Nite Owl were infatuated with her. And she carried herself well enough in the fight scenes. <BR/><BR/>As for the Flight of the Valkyrie being played during the Manhattan in Vietnam scene... I don't think it was a homage to Apocalypse Now but an inside nod to fans of the comic. That song was mentioned by Hollis (the first Nite Owl) as always reminding him of a sad scene he remembers from his dad's garage. I believe it was thrown in there as a nod to the comic, very, very inside homage which quite frankly I didn't catch and had to have that pointed out to me. But I think that is why it was chosen. It was jarring though. But I found a lot of the music cues to be jarring (especially every Dylan one used). But then again it is hard to use 0s music to set up the time period without it being jarring, 80s music is just jarring in general.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-56717726329844176582009-03-11T12:36:00.000-04:002009-03-11T12:36:00.000-04:00Yeah, that was another movie that didn't really wo...Yeah, that was another movie that didn't really work, but he was the best part of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-28737971690243497562009-03-10T11:40:00.000-04:002009-03-10T11:40:00.000-04:00@ Jim Treacher'Whereas Haley was amazing. I hope h...@ Jim Treacher<BR/><BR/>'Whereas Haley was amazing. I hope he doesn't go away as long this time.'<BR/><BR/>Does this mean you missed Haley's fantastic performance in LITTLE CHILDREN (2006)? You should check it out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-17261216981787331912009-03-10T06:35:00.000-04:002009-03-10T06:35:00.000-04:00I read Watchmen when it came out and tonight went ...I read Watchmen when it came out and tonight went to see the movie with two friends who'd not read it. We all liked it, but had some issues. I agree that it might have worked better as a 12 part series, not just because more could have been fit in and there would have been time to digest the information and speculate on the reveals (like when it came out), but because of the pacing issues the movie had. I felt like in staying true to the source the movie had a meandering episodic feel. Of course the gradual build of tension in three acts culminating in the cathartic climax is rote for superhero (and most other) movies, and I did appreciate how The Dark Knight denied us the catharsis (but still built the tension), but Watchmen just felt a bit flat. I've not read it in 20 years, so its not like I had every detail in my head and huge expectations. I guess maybe what I was really expecting was that same feeling of "holy f-ing shit this is amazing and different and awesome" that I had when I read the comic. That is alot to ask. But I just watched Wall-E a couple weeks ago and even though it is a cartoon about a mute little robot it totally made me cry. I spent twice as much time with the living talking people of Watchmen tonight, and never felt particularly invested in any of them. That is not too much to ask.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-37041632772117678092009-03-09T17:53:00.000-04:002009-03-09T17:53:00.000-04:00I'm looking forward to seeing Watchmen--on DVD. M...I'm looking forward to seeing Watchmen--on DVD. Mostly because I've heard it's long. I'm finding it hard to stay in a theater for three hours these days. But in the comfort of my own home--I think I'd enjoy this movie more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-387145517072929772009-03-09T15:56:00.000-04:002009-03-09T15:56:00.000-04:00I think Jude Law would've been perfect as Viedt. ...I think Jude Law would've been perfect as Viedt. Ah well.<BR/><BR/>Ackerman I think was okay. She certainly looked the part. To me her voice doesn't sound like Drew Barrymore's but Cameron Diaz's. And no offense to Ms. Diaz, that voice doesn't make her seem that bright or thoughtful.<BR/><BR/>Overall I thought it was really good. Flawed for sure, but for the first 2/3rds of it I was in fanboy heaven. After the jail break I thought it lost its way a bit, and felt rushed (odd in such a long movie.)<BR/><BR/>And poor Carla Guigina got stuck with some of the comic's worst lines (especially about the rain during the funeral.) A lot of her stuff plays better on the written page than actually hearing it aloud (where it sounds awfully cheesy.)<BR/><BR/>Overall... A-Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-12700880624703283892009-03-09T15:50:00.000-04:002009-03-09T15:50:00.000-04:00"I saw the movie on Friday, even missing one of my..."I saw the movie on Friday, even missing one of my beloved BSG episodes in the process (did anyone else catch the song that turned the Cylons on as part of this movie's final scenes???) and - horrors - I enjoyed it."<BR/><BR/>This is a very famous song from the 1960's. It was first recorded by Bob Dylan and it is most known for the version sung by Jimi Hendrix, which appeared in the film. I loved it's use in BSG, but I am irritated (no offense) whenever people refer to it as "that BSG song." The song has been quite famous for about forty years before BSG ever aired.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-56886682720801175002009-03-09T13:40:00.000-04:002009-03-09T13:40:00.000-04:00Alan - I followed your rules and read the comments...Alan - I followed your rules and read the comments. All of them. Excellent insight into the world of both fanatics, non-readers and everyone in between and how they all saw this movie.<BR/><BR/>However, at the end of it, your "could v/s should" principle (like Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park) and Jordan's comments were the only ones that made sense.<BR/><BR/>I have not read the comics. I discovered the wild world of Watchmen 3 weeks ago when Wired mag featured this movie and its "unmakability" and why it is so important to fans, why it inspires such fanaticism. <BR/><BR/>I saw the movie on Friday, even missing one of my beloved BSG episodes in the process (did anyone else catch the song that turned the Cylons on as part of this movie's final scenes???) and - horrors - I enjoyed it. <BR/><BR/>I agree with Jordan point - say something is "unmakeable" enough times and people will believe it. I am a HUGE fan of the Harry Potter books. Now hear me out. I know it's not even close or the same genre or anything. But fanatic fans are fanatic fans. And as I see each movie from that as it comes out, I see the outcry that follows. It's like they say about even the LOTR movies - put enough fans in a room and sooner or later, they will all find something to complain about. Some of it will be legit, some not. I think the bottom line is to find one storyline that makes most sense, has the most relevance in a given world - and then tell it as best you can. <BR/><BR/>I'm sure history buffs who know the battle of Thermopylae will find inconsistencies in that story. I know how much I've complained about bits in the HP movies. I know fans who've viciously ripped the LOTR movies and Peter Jackson for ever daring to make them. <BR/><BR/>It was a good movie. Period. Let's face it, we're not comfortable with being confronted ever with the thought that people like the comedian really exist. In your face never makes anyone comfortable. Those scenes didn't feel gratuitous to me. Uncomfortable, yes, and yes, maybe the reveal of the Comedian as Laurie's father might have been a bit better. <BR/><BR/>But it was NOT the comic, just as the LOTR and HP movies are not the books. You cannot expect to put that much detail into any visual medium because, like someone said, a movie by its very nature is moving forward, while a comic is freeze-frame.<BR/><BR/>Judge the movie for how good it is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-79423785021276465352009-03-09T12:22:00.000-04:002009-03-09T12:22:00.000-04:00Well, sorry, but I'm going to defend Malin Akerman...<I>Well, sorry, but I'm going to defend Malin Akerman and Matthew Goode here, because NOBODY could have made the frankly underwritten and poorly motivated and developed characters work.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not going to comment on the strength of the material, but Ackerman was passable. I just felt some parts she sounded wooden, and that she would twitch and bobble her head a lot.<BR/><BR/><I>Have you also explained to your thirteen year old why some men like kicking women in the ribs before throwing them over a pool table, and anally raping them? Serious question -- because where my thirteen year old grand-niece is concerned, that conversation is way above my pay grade.</I><BR/><BR/>If you take your kids to an R-rated movie without doing the proper research first, then yes, it is up to you explain whatever content is on screen.<BR/><BR/>Again, it's rated R for a reason. Kids under 17 are not admitted, unless with the consent of an adult! Okay we could argue back and forth about kids managing to find ways to get in, but the examples we've been discussing are parents taking their children.<BR/><BR/>Just to clarify, it was attempted rape (so *phew* I wouldn't need to explain what <I>anal raping</I> is), and Laurie was born out of a later consensual coupling. Doesn't make the attempt less despicable, but this was a plot point that was unclear for some people I've talked to.Kenrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06346565881555687494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-90933269948049624862009-03-09T09:26:00.000-04:002009-03-09T09:26:00.000-04:00Have you also explained to your thirteen year old ...<I>Have you also explained to your thirteen year old why some men like kicking women in the ribs before throwing them over a pool table, and anally raping them? Serious question -- because where my thirteen year old grand-niece is concerned, that conversation is way above my pay grade.<BR/><BR/>My God, would it really be so terrible if children weren't that "mature"?</I><BR/><BR/>I agree Craig it is a serious question and one my wife -their mother- and I have had many times. Yes we did talk about the attempted rape (my impression was he was stopped). I honest to God wish we didn't live in a world where kids were so mature- but we do. Kids today can see that rape scene on regular tv nowadays - it sucks but that's the way it is. With internet, television, video games (even cell phones that now have internet access) we can't bury our heads in the sand and say how terrible (I'll bet your 13 year old grand niece can find a porno website as quick as you can) - I'd rather know what they're seeing and talk about it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06336003200003462670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-85088763513398525232009-03-09T09:14:00.000-04:002009-03-09T09:14:00.000-04:00On more thought re: kids and this movie- Alan had ...<I>On more thought re: kids and this movie- Alan had said he thought this movie should be NC17 - I disagree. Yes, this is certainly not a kid's superhero movie - Dark Knight wasn't either - but I think many kids under 17 are mature enough these days to understand it. Because of the graphic novel and movie my kids (16,13) have had terrific discussions this weekend about the Cold War, dread, absurd-ism, etc.</I><BR/><BR/>Have you also explained to your thirteen year old why some men like kicking women in the ribs before throwing them over a pool table, and anally raping them? Serious question -- because where my thirteen year old grand-niece is concerned, that conversation is way above my pay grade.<BR/><BR/>My God, would it really be so terrible if children weren't that "mature"?Craig Ranapiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08923246310584658857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-29121282173140416922009-03-09T08:50:00.000-04:002009-03-09T08:50:00.000-04:00I concur with Alan almost 100% on this one. We saw...I concur with Alan almost 100% on this one. We saw the movie at a midnite showing Thursday night and the crowd had pretty much the same reaction. <BR/><BR/>I didn't read the graphic novel until two weeks ago so I was completely unfamiliar with it. The graphic novel really touched a nerve with me it did an excellent job of conveying the sense of dread and the cynicism we all lived with back then. And that's what was missing from the movie - the Cold War is just cold dead history to anyone under 30 or so- an updated story using terrorism or something similar would've had much more impact.<BR/><BR/>On more thought re: kids and this movie- Alan had said he thought this movie should be NC17 - I disagree. Yes, this is certainly not a kid's superhero movie - Dark Knight wasn't either - but I think many kids under 17 are mature enough these days to understand it. Because of the graphic novel and movie my kids (16,13) have had terrific discussions this weekend about the Cold War, dread, absurd-ism, etc.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06336003200003462670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-82216621251469128712009-03-09T07:37:00.000-04:002009-03-09T07:37:00.000-04:00I agree that Laurie's revelation came very sudden ...<I>I agree that Laurie's revelation came very sudden in the movie. I was not impressed by the actress.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, sorry, but I'm going to defend Malin Akerman and Matthew Goode here, because NOBODY could have made the frankly underwritten and poorly motivated and developed characters work. I don't care how good an actor you are, if you haven't got a decent script to work with you're left trying to make bulls**t taste like chocolate mousse.Craig Ranapiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08923246310584658857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-48241789487983306442009-03-09T05:39:00.000-04:002009-03-09T05:39:00.000-04:00I enjoyed the movie a lot. I'm a comic geek, but ...I enjoyed the movie a lot. I'm a comic geek, but never went gaga for Watchmen. Let the flaming commence.<BR/><BR/>I understand why it's so highly regarded. I understand its impact. But that was twenty years ago by the time I read it. I was like one year old when it originally came out. I found it... to put it bluntly... boring. I guess that highlights that I'm not a literary man.<BR/><BR/>As a single narrative it's hard to stay engaged. The emphasis is on all the back stories of the characters. The murder of the Comedian sets up the story, but is lost in all the history. The Black Freighter intercuts the narrative, making it difficult to move forward. A story that could have been told in six issues was expanded to twelve. There's a lot of stuff in there. It's certainly dense. If you have the patience you'll probably be rewarded. I don't have that patience.<BR/><BR/>This is why I liked the movie. I remembered enough about the story to have no problem following along. It hits all the major themes - sure maybe not as fleshed out as it could have been, but it was enough to give you something to think about.<BR/><BR/>I tried rereading Watchmen afterward. I ended up skipping all the same things (the prose, Black Freighter) and ended up thinking Snyder did a good job compressing the interesting parts of Watchmen into a 2.5 hour movie. I see the point that this maybe isn't a movie that should have been made, but I'm glad it was.<BR/><BR/>I'm just going to make random comments in response to previous comments:<BR/><BR/>I agree that Laurie's revelation came very sudden in the movie. I was not impressed by the actress.<BR/><BR/>I would've liked to see more of the psychiatrist, although that would be too much of a detour for the movie.<BR/><BR/>The sex scene might've been cheesy, but it's in the book, including the fire climax, which I found amusing. I'm juvenile.<BR/><BR/>The movie is R for a reason - blame the parents.<BR/><BR/>I like the slo-mo, speeding up, and zooms. I think it's an interesting experience. Like when reading a comic book, when you move through panels, the artist may zoom to different parts of the scene or you can take your time to admire a certain sequence.<BR/><BR/>By speeding up time, I think Snyder can get away with a lot more violence without it being too uncomfortable. A lot of discomfort is the anticipation or the act of violence, not necessarily the final result. He speeds up time to the point where he's almost just cutting to the bone finally breaking or the cleaver having entered the skull, and so he can illustrate what has happened without putting you through the act of it happening. He presents you with the shocking image and relieves you of it quickly.<BR/><BR/>I still think the original squid ending, a truly external threat, makes more sense in uniting the world.<BR/><BR/>Rorschach was awesome.Kenrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06346565881555687494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-91787757787215838782009-03-09T03:42:00.000-04:002009-03-09T03:42:00.000-04:00Dittoes on Goode. He was so friendly/menacing in T...Dittoes on Goode. He was so friendly/menacing in The Lookout, and yet so bland and lifeless here. And in a movie with a butt-naked blue guy and Carla Gugino in old-age makeup, he managed to looked ridiculous. He looked like David Bowie in a leftover Batman costume.<BR/><BR/>Ackerman has the jawline of a Dave Gibbons character, but little of the acting ability. <BR/><BR/>Whereas Haley was amazing. I hope he doesn't go away as long this time. And he got the benefit of the few added scenes that actually improved on the comic. Like Rorschach's post-defenestration fight with the cops, and pulling on his "face" in front of the shrink: "Your turn, doc. WHAT DO YOU SEE?" Chills, man, chills.<BR/><BR/>Vaguely dissatisfying overall, but about as good as any movie version could have been. I'll probably buy the DVD like a sucker. (Assuming I have any money left by then.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-90754424833329813702009-03-09T01:24:00.000-04:002009-03-09T01:24:00.000-04:00I pretty much agree with Alan's review. As someone...<I>I pretty much agree with Alan's review. As someone who really loves the book, I'm not sure I gave the film an entirely fair shake on its own terms, but I think on the whole it was pretty good -- or at the least, very interesting. </I><BR/><BR/>ITA. I think I was so nervous about it sucking (since a friend of mine told me right before I saw it that all her friends who'd already seen it said it sucked) that I couldn't enjoy it fully. Now that I know it doesn't suck (IMHO), I will see it again so I can relax and enjoy it (or at least, enjoy the parts I already like more). There were parts I found too pulpy, and I agree that Ackerman and Goode were weak links, but Jackie Earle Haley was magnificent as Rorschach, and Billy Crudup and Jeffrey Dean Morgan each rocked as Dr. Manhattan and The Comedian, respectively. I liked Patrick Wilson fine, too.<BR/> <BR/>One thing that did bug me, a lot, was the "300" on the door when Ozy is beating the crap out of The Comedian (the address read "3001" until The Comedian got knocked into it). Nice hackery there, Zack (for the record, I hated "300" with a passion).<BR/><BR/><I>Or, failing that, could Guy Pearce have bulked up enough to make it work?</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, hells yes!<BR/><BR/><I>I might be giving him more credit than he deserves because of his bravura turn in The Lookout.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>I didn't even recognize him from that! He looks manorexic now--at least, he does in IMAX.<BR/><BR/>I saw it at a midnight show at a local IMAX with a theatre full of hardcore fans and the general feeling I got coming out was a positive one--lots of clapping at the end, lots of audience reactions throughout. Did hear some people having the "comic vs. movie" discussion, but none of it was overly negative that I could tell. I took a friend's son with me (his parents didn't want to stay up that late), and he loved it. He's never read the novel, but now he's jonesing for it. Oh, and I covered his eyes during the sex scene (he's 15, so it's a joke when I do that) :-)<BR/><BR/><I>After all that I thought I wanted to read the book, but after skimming these comments now I think I might be better off not knowing what I'm missing.</I><BR/><BR/>Please don't deny yourself the pleasures of the novel because of some of the posts here. It's such a good novel that it inspires passionate devotion in its fans, is all :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-2333609839796049862009-03-09T01:19:00.000-04:002009-03-09T01:19:00.000-04:00I liked it. I'll probably see it again in imax at...I liked it. I'll probably see it again in imax at some point. <BR/><BR/>I didn't really have a problem with the casting. Even moore admits at the start he never really had an idea about silk spectre and what to do with her.<BR/><BR/>I do think they cut the revelation scene too short. They really needed that scene at the party where Laurie throws the drink into his face. "'You tried to rape my mother!' 'Only once.'" is a great bit of dialogue.<BR/><BR/> Hopefully that's part of the last 30 minutes snyder said he cut. <BR/><BR/>I think part of the problem where the film fails a little is snyder cut out all the man on the street newsstand stuff. That's where you get the sense of just how bad the world is. How close they are to war to mutually assured destruction.<BR/><BR/>Also how do you have the line read "whatever was left of Walter Kovacs died that night." When you could have said. "It was Walter who closed his eyes and asked for mother it was Rorschach who opened them again."Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08965717916375558077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-25849591994416196152009-03-09T01:09:00.000-04:002009-03-09T01:09:00.000-04:00Rolf, huh? I was thinking Draco Malfoy.Rolf, huh? I was thinking Draco Malfoy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-28758865115684936112009-03-08T23:39:00.000-04:002009-03-08T23:39:00.000-04:00I came in cold, knowing very little about the movi...I came in cold, knowing very little about the movie or the original source material. (The theater I saw it in was only about 10 percent full).<BR/><BR/>My reaction... eh. Why is THIS so revered?<BR/><BR/>Didn't hate it. Not in any hurry to see it again. Ask me in a month what movies I've seen lately, I'll probably have a hard time remembering.<BR/><BR/>Veidt's character, I remember thinking at the time, reminded me of Rolf, Liesl's Nazi boyfriend from The South of Music.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-33520683136289771642009-03-08T23:15:00.000-04:002009-03-08T23:15:00.000-04:00I'd been hearing about the movie for about a year ...I'd been hearing about the movie for about a year now, with the buzz on the internet and so forth, and I was hating all the people who would not shut up about the movie. I had never read it and I did not have the connection or comic love that some of these fanboys had. <BR/><BR/>My roommate bought the book, last week, because he wanted to read it before seeing it. I decided to give it a read after him, and I easily saw where this could be a great movie, but I found it to be an extremely boring read. Not a bad read, just not a good one either. <BR/><BR/>The movie was a great retelling, but I left feeling like anyone who hasn't read it might not understand what they just saw. Another friend of ours saw the midnight showing with us, and we convinced him to read it beforehand (because it is quite complicated so we thought that might help him understand). He started reading that day, and got through about half of it before we had to leave for the theater. He also liked the movie version better than the book.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that this movie has enough staying power to break even at the box office, but I am sure that the DVD release will cover the bottom line for the movie.fgmerchanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06810080679098585277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17517257.post-85584698919892758272009-03-08T23:11:00.000-04:002009-03-08T23:11:00.000-04:00I've been rereading the comments and I've got to s...I've been rereading the comments and I've got to say that the whole parents bringing children to graphic film thing seems to be effectively headed off in countries with a graduated rating system. <BR/><BR/>In Australia films that get an R in the US are given one of three separate ratings: M for movies like Thank-you for Smoking or Shanghai Knights which merely recommends that people under 15 stay away, MA for movies like Casino Royale, Watchmen et cet. which means you have to be 15 or accompanied by an adult and R for truly soul wrenching experiences like Requiem for a Dream which restricts the movie to those who are 18 or older.<BR/><BR/>It isn't perfect and it doesn't stop people making bad decisions but it does provide a clearz warning to those who can't be bothered to do their research.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com