Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Watchmen (2009) (Page 3)

 
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Watchmen (2009)
Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

- posted 03-09-2009 06:29 AM      Profile for Justin Hamaker   Author's Homepage   Email Justin Hamaker   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
One of the new guys on At the Movies said Watchmen was a seminal work of fiction from the second half of the 20th century. I was about 13 when the graphic novel was published and I had never heard of it prior to this movie. In fact, until I read a bit about the history of Watchmen, I thought it was just a cheesy X-Men knock-off.

Needless to say, I wasn't especially excited about Watchmen. I thought the movie was was too 'talky' from start to finish and all the flash backs, teleporting, and parallel story lines often left me wondering what was going on.

The movie didn't even work for me as eye candy. I thought the f/x were just ok. I was also put off by some of the soundtrack - especially when some of the songs were used. Nat King Cole's Unforgettable as someone is getting killed. 99 Luftballons. Hallelujah.

I was amused by some of the parents thinking it was an X-Men type comic book movie they could send their kids to. I probably talked to half a dozen who were completely shocked when I explained what was in the movie.

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 03-09-2009 09:12 AM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The thing is Bobby, what you saw in the movie is what was in the book. To cut out the back story stuff at the funeral would of left you going "Huh?!"
Books and movies are two very different story telling mediums. Many of the conventions that work in books (and graphic novels) do not translate well to movies. Extended passages of character back story and internal monologue are two examples of this. They're a common feature in many books. Those conventions tend to be boring as all hell in movies.

quote: Kurt Zupin
If you didn't like it, then you didn't like it. There is no arguing about it with someone. Its just not everyone's cup of tea.
It would be more flippant for me to just say "it sucked" and not elaborate. I should feel free to go into specifics on why I didn't like the movie. All that back story stuff is a big reason why. Any movie has a beginning, middle and end. The huge amounts of back story and flash back had this movie stuck at the beginning for more than half of its run time.

quote:
There is a theater with a fireplace? Oh my goodness that sounds very luxurious and upscale I MUST VISIT I WILL PAY ANY PRICE!!
What's really cool is the fire place is located in the entry area dividing the mens and womens rest rooms. I was thankful no one was trying to dry their hands in front of the fire place.

quote: John Wilson
So, you have a problem with a blue penis being on screen. Did you not see the guy having his leg blown away with a pistol? How about the Vietcong being obliterated (on screen) by Manhattan (the blue penis guy) and charred (again, on screen) by the Comedian.
Us crazy Americans are far more offended by nudity than violence. Kevin Bacon was a guest on The Tonight Show and Jay Leno played the clip of his character getting killed in Friday the 13th. They show an arrow coming up out of his throat and blood squirting up on his face. That's R-rated violence, but it is now deemed acceptable for free, over the air national TV. The funny thing is the censors made them cut out the part where Kevin Bacon is smoking a joint just before getting killed.

As for the full frontal nudity of "Dr. Manhattan," I don't recall HBO showing any of that in their "first look" piece. Instead, there were "clean" versions of certain shots where he was wearing black underwear instead of being totally naked, or the CGI was changed to obscure the pecker. At any rate, HBO is a premium channel that often shows R-rated and TV-MA rated material including nudity.

Watchmen is a very R-rated movie. That should be enough of a warning for parents to think twice before taking young kids to see this movie. A blue schlong isn't the most morally objectionable thing in this movie. If Mom and Dad have their panties in a bunch over the movie's content they both need to learn how to freaking read. The rated R logo (and all the descriptive stuff underneath) is not there just to jazz up the look of the movie poster.
[Roll Eyes]

[ 03-09-2009, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]

 |  IP: Logged
Jason Burroughs
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 654
From: Allen, TX
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 03-09-2009 05:20 PM      Profile for Jason Burroughs   Email Jason Burroughs   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Kurt Zupin
First off, any SMALL kid that sees this movie on HBO. There parents have bigger problem if they are letting their "small" child watch this. Second, you must of been looking for the "Giant" blue penis. It's not like they have a waist down zoomed in shot of it. If he wasn't painted blue then I might see the problem but it blends in with the rest of his body, you really have to be staring at it or really looking at it.
Don't forget about the parents that (based on opinion) are irresponsible and actually BRING their kids to see this movie. When I watched the movie last night, we ended up sitting behind a family, of which consisted of about 4-5 young children I'm guessing of ages 5-10.

 |  IP: Logged
Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

- posted 03-09-2009 05:55 PM      Profile for Mark J. Marshall     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
How'd that work out?

 |  IP: Logged
John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 03-09-2009 07:38 PM      Profile for John Wilson   Email John Wilson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mark J. Marshall
How'd that work out?
Well, I certainly hope they covered their children's eyes whenever that 'giant' blue penis came on screen! [Razz]

That's all there was to worry about, right? [eyes]

 |  IP: Logged
Sam Graham
AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues.

Posts: 1431
From: Waukee, IA
Registered: Dec 2004

- posted 03-09-2009 08:46 PM      Profile for Sam Graham   Author's Homepage   Email Sam Graham   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Bobby Henderson
The fireplace was working Saturday.
I know. I was there watching "Coraline" again.

(Yes. You and I were actually there at the same time.)

 |  IP: Logged
Jason Burroughs
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 654
From: Allen, TX
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 03-10-2009 12:16 PM      Profile for Jason Burroughs   Email Jason Burroughs   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Put it this way, there was no covering of children's eyes. Quite the contrary.

 |  IP: Logged
Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

- posted 03-10-2009 09:21 PM      Profile for Claude S. Ayakawa   Author's Homepage   Email Claude S. Ayakawa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I finally had the opportunity to see WATCHMEN today in Digital IMAX at the Dole Cannery 18 here in Honolulu and I was very impressed with the presentation but not the movie. Like the Motion Comic I tried to watch on a BD disc last week, practically nothing made any sense because there was no continuity in the way the movie was scripted because it followed pretty much what was in the original comic version. That is the reason I had difficulty enjoying the disc. All was not lost however because I had enjoyed the technIcal quality when I watched my first digital IMAX movie. Compared to the huge IMAX screen at the now defunct Waikiki IMAX, The Dole screen was much smaller and I noticed the picture did not fill the entire screen due to the original scope aspect ratio of the movie. The sound however was awesome and sounded pretty much the same as the Waikiki IMAX.

Regarding the film use of full male frontal nudity and a that of a couple making love, I can understand the reason for a R rating and I was very troubled when a couple brought their two little girls to the 12 noon showing I saw today when they sat right in front of me. I could hear them talking to their parents during the quiet periods of the movie but because the sound was loud almost throughout the film, I was never bothered by their presence. I am wondering what kind of people these children will be when they grow up .

-Claude

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 03-10-2009 10:23 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
IMHO, the violence in Watchmen just on its own is worth a serious R-rating. That doesn't mean I think it's okay to allow a pair of young girls to see Dr. Manhattan teleport into a scene wearing only his birthday suit. However, I do not think Dr. Manhattan's dork is the most objectionable thing shown off in this movie.

Young children shouldn't be exposed to imagery like a close-up slow motion shot of an arm getting compound fractured during a fight or a fat prisoner's arms getting amputated with an electric saw. Or how about Rorschach chopping a meat cleaver into a guy's head numerous times?

To a child under about the age of 10 that kind of stuff can be pretty horrifying. There's enough screwy adults out there who love ultra-violent imagery that the content arguably qualifies itself as a category of porn.

 |  IP: Logged
Kurt Zupin
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 989
From: Maricopa, Arizona
Registered: Oct 2004

- posted 03-11-2009 08:56 AM      Profile for Kurt Zupin   Email Kurt Zupin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This argument is getting so damn dumb, why do you think it got a R rating? Rated R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language. Hmmm guess that makes it R.

Any parent who is allowing their child to see this movie has serious problems.

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 03-11-2009 10:03 AM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think anyone is arguing with each other in this thread. The MPAA already did its part by giving the movie a tough R-rating. No one can get onto them about it.

The simple point is being made that quite a few irresponsible parents are taking their kids to see Watchmen because it is a superhero movie and ignoring its R-rating to their own detriment. Apparently those parents don't seem to be bothered at all by exposing their kids to bloody on-screen violence. After all, those same kids are probably playing very gory video games and watching shows on TV with R-rated caliber violence back at home, even on free OTA television. But gasp! There's some blue CGI muscleman guy walking around with his pecker dangling in open view. Now the parents are offended and some may even be chewing the asses of theater staff over it.

My opinion is parents have only themselves to blame if they don't like what their kids are unexpectedly seeing when they're taken to see an R-rated movie. The ratings and their description underneath totally lets the movie and the theater showing it off the hook.

I saw lots of kids well under the age of 17 in the theater when I saw Watchmen last weekend in Moore, OK. Just about any R-rated action movie I see in theaters will have at least a few kids sitting in the audience. These days it seems like nudity is kind of a rare thing in R-rated American movies, and if there is any nudity it's typically very brief. I think a lot of parents have become complacent in thinking most R-rated movies are somehow tame enough for kids to watch.

 |  IP: Logged
Daniel Wright
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 163
From: Okmulgee, Ok , USA
Registered: Oct 2003

- posted 03-11-2009 11:51 AM      Profile for Daniel Wright   Email Daniel Wright   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There were quite a few small kids in the theatre during the showing I went to. A five year old child does NOT need to see this movie. Come on folks get a sitter or don't go out.

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 03-11-2009 02:00 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The most common question we get about R-rated movies is "How bad is it?"

Some parents are going to bring their kids to R movies and there's nothing we can do about it, but some people do get justifiably irritated that a movie can be rated R for one or two very brief moments and the rest of the movie can be much tamer.

Here's an idea: Add a number to the R rating, and increment the number by ONE for each minute of the film that contains an R-rated element (language, nudity, sex, violence). Therefore a movie like "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" might be about an R-2, "Gran Torino" might be about an R-65, or something like "Watchmen" might be more of an R-100.

This system would give parents a more precise idea of "how bad it is." A parent might be OK with bringing their kid to an R-1, but might think twice about something like an R-96.

 |  IP: Logged
Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008

- posted 03-11-2009 02:13 PM      Profile for Joe Tommassello   Email Joe Tommassello       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
I am wondering what kind of people these children will be when they grow up .
The kind that say "Why is that so small...and not blue?"

quote: Bobby Henderson
The MPAA already did its part by giving the movie a tough R-rating.
Bob - all the advertising and promotion I saw said it was rated "R" - you know...the same rating as "Jerry Maguire". If you want "Tough R" to be an accepted rating then it should probably say that on the poster. Used to be that nudity to that degree got an "X" or "NC-17" automatically and many people probably still assume that is the case. Add the fact that there was really no reason for it - and they could have gotten a PG-13 otherwise and had a much wider audience - and it seems a stupid decision by everyone involved. No one would have NOT gone to see it because it was PG-13.

The average moviegoer will not be expecting such content and due to the "comic book" origins of this film might be easily confused into thinking it is more family-friendly. It should have been NC-17 anyway but - in this case - particularly to "protect" the ignorant.

And for you "purists" who loved the graphic novel and think that level of nudity was "required" because it was true to the original material I say this...keep your pie hole shut if I decide your already adored new Star Trek isn't worthy of the name. You can't have that both ways...who do you think you are after all? The President of the United States?

As for the movie I enjoyed it. Looked good in real IMAX. It's not much different than the film noir of the 50s in it's content, look and pacing - except, of course, for the giant blue schlong.

 |  IP: Logged
Jason Burroughs
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 654
From: Allen, TX
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 03-11-2009 04:52 PM      Profile for Jason Burroughs   Email Jason Burroughs   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
My point was that you absolutly cannot count on "resonsible parenting"

Suffice it to say that any parent that would bring thier children to a movie of this caliber are deffinatly not responsible parents. Fruther illustrated by the father's gleeful pointing out of the rape scene to his 10yr old daughter.

I really do wish I was making this up.

On the rating+scale idea, I have only this to add, is that what is worse than annother is totally subjective. Some people/families may view violence to be more acceptable than sex & nudity. Some would have an alternate view.

Yes it would be more valuable to have a more granular rating system, but objectivity needs to be maintained.

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.