Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Watchmen (2009)

This is topic Watchmen (2009) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001524

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 03-06-2009, 09:21 AM:

Perhaps if I were a fan of the comic book, I would have enjoyed this movie. Not having read the comic books, I was bored to tears during the first hour and a half of this movie. I so wanted to fall asleep, but I was too hyped up on Mountain Dew. The last hour was better, at least the minimum amount of action you would expect from a superhero movie. The acting seemed like they were reading off of cue cards, and the special effects, especially Mr. Manhattan, just seemed out of place. If I were a fan, I might rank it higher, but as I am not, I give it 1 out of 5.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-06-2009, 10:48 AM:

Perhaps if I had ever heard of the Watchmen, I might be interested. Now where's the movie chronicling the adventures of Archie and Jughead?

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-06-2009, 01:00 PM:

Too much character development and not enough plot. Effects are OK but not great. I have not read the book, and while watching it, it felt like I was missing something. The makeup is really bad...Carla Gugino's old age makeup was especially terrible, as was Nixon's. Most of the actors seemed to just be going through the motions, letting the effects carry the film.

HOWEVER, this review is only from the film's first hour and 40 minutes. I did not see the rest of the film because the projection team at the AMC EASTON TOWN CENTER 30 spliced one of the reels in upside down (this was an Imax Junior film showing, so upside down is very possible.) This was the second public showing of this print, and I don't see any excuse for this to happen. They told me they had a problem at the midnight screening and they "thought" they had fixed it, so there are now 500 angry patrons who have not seen the end of the film. From looking at 1570.com, most of the folks there got their prints well in advance so things like this should not happen. When I pay a premium price for a movie ($3 extra), I expect a premium presentation. This sure wasn't one.

Meanwhile, I'll be checking THEMOVIESPOILER.com to see how the thing ended. I sure don't want to sit through that first 100 minutes again. And the story intrigued me enough that I will try to get it to read.

[ 03-06-2009, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Mark Lensenmayer ]

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-06-2009, 01:57 PM:

From some of the negative reactions from people who are not familiar with WATCHMEN and never read the comic books,s I feel I may find myself not liking the film too even after I tried watching the new in motion comic book on a Blu Ry disc. I do not know if the video was a good way to become familiar with the characters and the story but I was totally bored from the very beginning and did not know what was going on. Perhaps it was a man reading all of the character's parts or the inclusion of all the printed text as it appeared in the comic books which I found totally distracting. I will still see the movie only because I want to check out IMAX Jr with my $7.50 ticket coupon I got when I bought the Blu Ray disc. Who knows, I might enjoy the movie.

-Claude

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 03-06-2009, 03:36 PM:

Full disclosure: I have not read the "graphic novel" (comic book), and I don't care about it. Movies are a separate beast, and must be judged on their own merits.

I was as super pumped for this as I have been for anything since The Duchess, albeit more animatedly. And, much like The Duchess, I was supremely let down.

I'm sorry, I thought this was about... well, anything. The first two hours of this long, drawn out behemoth were just a jumble of seemingly unrelated plotlines, none of which was compelling at all. The characters were all quite dull, with the possible exception of the Rorschach fellow, and I thought he was overacted like a high school play. I was constantly checking my watch, and it took a supreme exertion of willpower to stay, especially since I was missing the season finale of Burn Notice. Eventually, something intelligible started happening, but I was still bored by it, and by that time I was disenchanted by the whole thing anyhow. None of the "plot twists" were surprising, and all of the characters were deplorable. The premise of the ending was somewhat interesting, but nothing new or unique. In the end, I just really didn't care if everyone died.

[bs]

out of 5. Worst movie I've seen in a while.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 03-06-2009, 04:27 PM:

CINEMA: Warren Moore, Moore, OK
AUDITORIUM: 8
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital Cinema DLP/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: One of the trailers had really low volume
RATING: One star (out of four)

WARNING: I had a spoiler quote from the movie about Earth and the need for life to go on, but I can't remember it now. Anyway...spoilers...

The Warren is all about atmosphere, so much so that they have a crackling fireplace sound effect they pipe in by the gas fireplace in the restroom waiting area. But if the sound effect is on and the fireplace isn't...

Four big fat guys (even by MY standard) sit immediately in front of me. Three are excited to be here, and one is excited to ruin it for them. He basically says this. He also paws one of them repeatedly as he makes kitten noises and licks the back of his hand.

THE PLOT: A comedian dies. Wackiness ensues.

So there's this group of superheros who think somebody's trying to kill them. You have a Flash Gordon wanna-be, a Xena Warrior Princess wanna-be, a mediocre Batman, a big blue naked philosopher, and an asshole with a squishy mask. There's a beautiful opening credit sequence montage that handles a lot of back story...or so you think until the next TWO HOURS of back story montages. Montage after montage after montage after...zzzzzzzzz. [sleep]

The biggest action sequence in the first two hours is...of all things...premature ejaculation.

Then comes the final hour of movie and the big action climax. Or the anti-climax.

It's just fucking stupid.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-06-2009, 05:29 PM:

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
I was as super pumped for this as I have been for anything since The Duchess, albeit more animatedly.

Just out of curiosity, why those two movies?

Anyway, I actually liked this movie a lot more than I thought I would. As a fan of the comic, I didn't quite see how it could be adapted into a movie. But they made about as faithful an adaptation to the story as possible.

On a lot of levels, the book is very much the CITIZEN KANE of comics. It's a simple story which is used to deconstruct the medium, and then reconstruct it in a way which makes the reader think about things differently. The story itself is almost secondary, and outside of the comic's tight formal structure, it lacks a great deal of significance.

Because of this, adapting it into another medium creates a watered-down product. I mean, would there be much point to a novelization of CITIZEN KANE? Sure, it would still be a good story, but on its own merits, people would be left wondering why the movie was so acclaimed.

To simplify, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, but there's not much going on in there. I have a feeling it's not going to stand up too well to repeated viewings, and that over time, my appreciation for it will diminish.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 03-06-2009, 06:38 PM:

Mark, that is appalling. Did they refund everyone's money, or did they try to hand out free passes?

If the dumb-asses at that theatre can't properly put a film together, I guess it makes the case for switching to low-res digital projection.

Message to movie-goers - wait for home video. Or if you can't wait, pirate the thing. At least on your computer, it won't be upside down.

[Frown]

*Disclaimer: I've never put a film together. Is it hard?

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 03-06-2009, 07:57 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
Just out of curiosity, why those two movies?

The Duchess because I love Keira Knightley (although she is in a lot of bad movies), and I had a standee up in my lobby for two months. It was just the first, most recent film I could think of that I was super pumped over. As for Watchmen, I like superhero type movies, and the teaser trailer that I played on a bunch of stuff was fantastic and led me to believe that this was actually a movie about people beating things up. Although, I am glad they didn't twist the anti-nuclear proliferation aspect into stupid global warming bs.

Posted by Robert John Jeromson (Member # 2559) on 03-06-2009, 07:59 PM:

Changing the mood a little I really enjoyed this, I have read the comic but I think I probably would have liked this regardless, totally my kind of film.

The adaptation was fairly faithful, save for one major difference. I liked the characters and the performances, Patrick Wilson and Jackie Earl Haley in particular. Good effects, great sound.

Saw this in IMAX, which is the first DMR transfer I have seen and I was quite impressed.

4 out of 5 from me.

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 03-06-2009, 08:54 PM:

Not being a comic reader (I stopped reading the Beano 40 years ago) I was unsure what to expect.....bit long but enjoyed it!
3/5

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-06-2009, 09:01 PM:

quote: Geoff Jones
*Disclaimer: I've never put a film together. Is it hard?

No, but there are a lot of ways to screw it up if you're not careful (or an idiot).

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 03-06-2009, 09:03 PM:

I haven't read the comic yet, but I liked the movie quite a bit, so now I will.

I thought it was full of plot. I think when watching, you must remember the state of the union during the time this story takes place. Unlike V For Vendetta, they didn't try to modernize and change the story and destroy it as a result.

If anything, there wasn't enough character development. I was left with many questions on many of the characters. I assume the graphic novel will fill in the blanks for me. Overall, it is definitely worth watching again.

Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 03-06-2009, 09:12 PM:

This is a film for fans of the book. If you didn't like the book, I doubt you'll like the movie. If you didn't read the book, you'll likely end up saying "Meh. It was ok, too drawn out, but OK I guess." or "This sucked and was too long." It is not going to do as well as everyone hoped, and won't live up to the hype.

I love the book, and really enjoyed the film. It left out a story line that was alluded to at the very end of the film, which I thought should have been included. Also, the ending was changed from the book's ending. I think the film ending is more appropriate for the film than the book's ending (even though I wish they'd stuck to the original).

3.5 out of 5 for me.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-06-2009, 09:37 PM:

quote: Emma Tomiak
It left out a story line that was alluded to at the very end of the film, which I thought should have been included.

Which storyline is that?

Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 03-06-2009, 10:05 PM:

The old newspaper vendor and the young comic book reading kid, along with Kovacs reading the New Frontiersman. I felt that it would have made the ending make a lot more sense to those who haven't read the book. At the end, they throw them all in, and no one has seen them before. I can imagine a "Who are these people? Why have they all of a sudden focused on them?" moment for those who haven't read the book.

Also, the background on the New Frontiersman would have been good to know. It ties in the paranoid nature of Kovacs, given that the New Frontiersman is a conspiracy/nutty/ultra conservative paper. It makes what he does towards the end make more sense.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-06-2009, 10:19 PM:

As I understand it, they shot the stuff at the news stand, and it's going to be in the director's cut. They also made the pirate comic into an animated short which will be released on video in a few weeks, and then that will be cut into the movie as well. The final running time is supposedly going to be 3 hours and 25 minutes.

Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 03-06-2009, 10:22 PM:

Great! [thumbsup]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-06-2009, 11:12 PM:

quote: Emma Tomiak
If you didn't read the book, you'll likely end up saying "Meh. It was ok, too drawn out, but OK I guess."

There is no way I could ever, under any circumstances, say "meh" unless maybe I am legally retarded and don't know it.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 03-07-2009, 02:44 AM:

The thing that always blows my mind, people will bitch that first hour and 20 min or so was so slow and boring. It had to much stuff that didn't matter, yet you take that stuff out and don't explain all the characters and what makes them tick. Everyone's goign to bitch that the first hour and 20 min or so was rushed and didn't expalin enough about the characters and didn't make me care. You can't please people who just don't give a crap to begin with. Nobody has forced anyone to see this mvoie.

Wow after getting killed for the midnights (2410 cusomters) last night and being super tired and not being able to post earlier.

Seeing the trailer and posters and all the other stuff made me want to read the book before the film came out. So I did and I think doing that made me enjoy the movie so much more. I had everything from the story fresh in my mind going in. And when it was translated on the screen in such a great manner I enjoyed it even more. There are some scenes in the film that are so spot on its breath taking. Leaving out the news vendor and boy was something that didnt need to be there for the theatre version but I can't wait for the Blu-Ray and the long version.

I also think they left out one of the bigger sub plots that should of been left in but from the scene in the bar towards the end it was elluded to that it was in the other version.

Overall I give it a 4/5 [thumbsup]

I havn't seen a movie in a while that brings so much passion out of people when discussing it like this one.

Oh and Jack Earl Haley was so spot, how he acted and talked was how I pictured him in the book.

Claude, I think you should pick up the actual novel and give it a try. Having someone read me a comic would not be enjoyable to me.

Also this Film was horribly mis promoted. This is advertised like a X-Men type "SuperHero" film and it is nothing of the sort.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-07-2009, 05:08 AM:

quote: Kurt Zupin
This is advertised like a X-Men type "SuperHero" film

Hope "X-MEN:Wolverine" will be the better choice then..

Saw parts of it tonite at one of the plexes that I work at. Might have to make a time to watch the entirety..

(No, building up 70mmIMAX prints isn't any different than building up regular 35mm prints - emulsion faces the same way along with the images in the print facing up the same way..."Booth Clown Syndrome" was the cause here...)

-Monte

Posted by Steve Wilson (Member # 2411) on 03-07-2009, 05:03 PM:

I saw the movie and I too felt lost the first hour and a half or longer. The last third of the movie was pretty good.

I guess I am to old school, I am not really a prude, but, the Giant Blue Penis in my face every 5 minutes, was to just too much for my age group to accept! At least it was for me. I cannot imagine what it added to the movie or how to explain this to small kids that happend to see it on HBO?

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 03-08-2009, 07:07 AM:

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.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 03-08-2009, 07:43 AM:

I read the comic 20 years ago and I watched the "motion comic" recently, so I was well aware of the story.

The comic and the motion comic, I liked. Not everybody's cup of tea, though. I haven't been into comics since I was 12, but I still found them worth it of my time.

Saw the movie yesterday with my significant other, who had not read the comic before.

We both found the movie boring and lacking emotion. I enjoyed it slightly more since I knew the story and the winks that the movie did for the comic.

A 2 out of 5 from me, though I'd give it a 4 out of 5 as a "faithful comic translation that fails as a movie" [Wink]

Lower than that from my significant other. She really enjoyed the blue penis, though.

I found many distracting technical flaws (makeup, CGI, cinematography, excess of slow motion gimmicks, etc), but that's just me.

Overall, I think only fans of the comic will find enough joy in this movie to feel the $$$ well spent. Most of the rest, will have serious doubts.

I feel the director did an awesome job translating the comic and improving it cinematically, but whatever it is that makes the comic good it just didn't translate on the screen.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-08-2009, 11:21 AM:

quote: Steve Wilson
how to explain this to small kids that happend to see it on HBO?

You tell them it's rated "R", they know they're not allowed to watch it, kick their ass and send them to bed!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-08-2009, 11:08 PM:

Location: Moore Warren 14, Moore, OK
Auditorium: #8 (Grand Auditorium)
Format: 2K DLP, THX, Dolby Digital Cinema
Rating: 2 stars out of 4

I'm not very familiar with the Watchmen graphic novel; however, no movie should require viewers to see/read a different version of it, thus spelling out the whole story or a different version of it, before they see the movie. The movie should be able to stand on its own. I have to bring up that point for the folks rejecting negative criticism of this movie based on viewers not having read the graphic novel. The movie either works or it doesn't, previously published work be damned.

Watchmen suffers because there is so much backstory and flashback crap stuffed into this movie that it totally suffocates any forward engery the movie is allowed to generate. By the time the movie entered its final half hour I was pretty tired of it and didn't care all that much about the big revelation of the bad guy's identity and the plot twist that happens near the end.

For instance, take the funeral sequence of The Comedian. I lost track of how many flashbacks they crammed into just that one set piece alone. Sure, some important details about various characters were revealed during that, but it was still noticeably distracting. I was muttering "holy shit" to myself by the time the characters were actually leaving the cemetary.

A lot of the back-story/flashback stuff should have been heavily abbreviated and much more of the movie concentrated on action set in the present and moving forward. It's a shame the movie ultimately fell flat for me because the show had a lot of pretty cool visuals and interesting story concepts, some of it even profound. All of that is pretty worthless if the movie can't get its legs underneath it and start going anywhere.

quote: Sam Graham
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: One of the trailers had really low volume

I watched the movie in the same auditorium Sam Graham visited a couple days earlier. The trailer for Observe and Report was indeed set noticeably too low. The Star Trek trailer that played before the feature was pretty cool. The THX trailer with the vibrating vagina shaped plants drew a few "that was cool" comments.

The framing for Watchmen seemed odd. This movie was 'scope, right? The framing appeared closer to 2:1 or tad less than that, as if the picture was zoomed to use the entire 2048 x 1080 image area of the DLP chips. I could see a little of the pixel grid showing up here and there. 2K can only go so big before revealing its limits. OTOH, the picture was adequately bright (although there was a noticeable hot spot near the lower center of the screen).

My only real disappointment in my visit was not being able to get any balcony seats. My friends and I watched the 1:30pm Saturday show and the balcony was sold out the rest of the day. What really sucks is you have to buy balcony tickets in person. They cannot be reserved over the phone or via the Internet. Basically, you have to visit the theater once to buy your balcony tickets (which are assigned seats) and then you come back later. That's not too bad if you live in Moore. It sucks if you live half an hour away in Edmond or an hour away in Lawton.

quote: Sam Graham
The Warren is all about atmosphere, so much so that they have a crackling fireplace sound effect they pipe in by the gas fireplace in the restroom waiting area. But if the sound effect is on and the fireplace isn't...

The fireplace was working Saturday.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-08-2009, 11:38 PM:

Hmmm... 3 hours long, tons of flashbacks, cheesy characters, in scope... there isn't, by chance, a musical number in this movie is there? I almost think it is a Bollywood film.

quote: Bobby Henderson
no movie should require viewers to see/read a different version of it, thus spelling out the whole story or a different version of it, before they see the movie. The movie should be able to stand on its own.

No kidding!! I pretty much HATED the Lords of the Rings movies. They were asstastic and all convoluted as shit. Well, the third one was fairly good on its own, I suppose. But that second one was worse than a large peanut getting stuck on its way out of the anus and the first one was bad at best! People were all like "You need to read the books to truly understand you need to read the books read the books whaaaaah!" Screw that! I can't be blamed for not caring about the shitty books. Fucking Gandalf just letting himself go into the pit for no reason whatsoever... I still can't get over that bullshit. Fucking stupid.

quote: Bobby Henderson
The fireplace was working Saturday.

There is a theater with a fireplace? Oh my goodness that sounds very luxurious and upscale I MUST VISIT I WILL PAY ANY PRICE!!@

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 03-09-2009, 12:32 AM:

The thing is Bobby, what you saw in the movie is what was in the book. To cut out the backstory stuff at the funeral would of left you going "Huh?!" They would of had to make up stuff to fill in that gap and then people would of been bitching about that. Just like I said in my review above. IF that stuff wasn't there then people would be complaing about that. If someone didn't like the movie then their is nothing that Zack Snyder could of done to change that opinion. The general public would of complained either way.

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.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 03-09-2009, 01:11 AM:

Bobby, I wouldn't even have minded the flashback backstory (back back) if there had been anything going on. It was mostly "look at me, I'm a dick," referring to the Comedian, who is already gone anyhow, or the flashback about the Silk Spectre (right?) that they showed twice, when I got it just fine the first time. I didn't feel like the Comedian or anything he had ever done drove the story forward at all, yet he gets like four flashbacks devoted to him and his dickishness. I feel like they could have edited out a half hour of flashbacks without compromising the story, and I think it would've been better. Still needed more ass kicking though.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-09-2009, 05:19 AM:

quote: Steve Wilson
I am not really a prude, but, the Giant Blue Penis in my face every 5 minutes, was to just too much for my age group to accept! At least it was for me. I cannot imagine what it added to the movie or how to explain this to small kids that happen(e)d to see it on HBO?

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.

Yes the blue penis is what I'm worried about the kids seeing too.

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-09-2009, 06:29 AM:

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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-09-2009, 09:12 AM:

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 ]

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 03-09-2009, 05:20 PM:

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.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-09-2009, 05:55 PM:

How'd that work out?

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-09-2009, 07:38 PM:

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]

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 03-09-2009, 08:46 PM:

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.)

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 03-10-2009, 12:16 PM:

Put it this way, there was no covering of children's eyes. Quite the contrary.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-10-2009, 09:21 PM:

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

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-10-2009, 10:23 PM:

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.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 03-11-2009, 08:56 AM:

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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-11-2009, 10:03 AM:

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.

Posted by Daniel Wright (Member # 1983) on 03-11-2009, 11:51 AM:

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.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-11-2009, 02:00 PM:

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.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 03-11-2009, 02:13 PM:

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.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 03-11-2009, 04:52 PM:

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.

Posted by Clint Koch (Member # 1179) on 03-11-2009, 05:18 PM:

quote...
"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."

Or R-69 [Wink]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-11-2009, 06:17 PM:

I saw this film and still wonder what I saw...an "R" rated version of "the Incredibles?"

Yet heard that the writers of "the Incredibles" did take the basis of the "Watchmen" stories to make their film - just that they turned the end around to stopping the bad guy from taking over the world instead of the bad guy preventing a nuclear war.

I want my 3hrs back. 2/5

-Monte

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-11-2009, 06:58 PM:

quote: Joe Tommassello
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.

As a matter of fact it did. The "Rated R" logos I saw on TV commercials and posters for Watchmen included this phrase within that rating rectangle: "strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language." Jerry Maguire didn't have a supplemental rating description like that.

quote: Joe Tommassello
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.

That's not true. Full frontal nudity does not equate to an automatic "X" or "NC-17," and it hasn't since the ratings system was first put into effect in the 1960s.

quote: Joe Tommassello
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.

Joe, are you suggesting if Watchmen didn't have the nudity and sexual content it would have been worth a PG-13? The graphic violence content of that movie just on its own merits a strong R rating.

quote: Joe Tommassello
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.

Adult oriented comic books have been in existence for decades. Graphic novels for adults really came into their own during the 1980s, when Watchmen was first published. Animated movies like Akira and Heavy Metal were released in the 1980s and movies like that were geared for adults, not children.

I have no problem with the adults-only levels of sex and violence in Watchmen. Now, if someone made a new Superman or Batman movie that was R-rated, I would have a problem with that because those characters were created to include kids as members of the audience.

As ignorant as some of today's parents seem to be regarding clearly visible ratings and content warnings, it would be pretty funny for a movie like Fritz the Cat to have its original theatrical release during this time rather than the early 1970s.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 03-11-2009, 08:43 PM:

I always found fascinating how different cultures cope with the potentially moraly objectionable subjects.

This film, i.e, is rated Recommended for over 13 in the Philipines, over 15 in Czech, Findland, Norway and Japan, over 16 in New Zeland, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, etc.

More interesting is how it can change in different parts of the same country, such as 13+ in french Canada (Quebec) and 14 and 18 in other parts of Canada (i.e. Ontario=18).

In Spain there is no prior censorship based on content, only in the specialized and often self-regulated X-rated market. As a result, movie theaters CAN NOT deny entrance to anyone. The rating system is only a recommendation for parents to grant permission to their children based on a panel of expert's recommedation for age groups (i.e. PG-13, over 18, all audiences). This movie is recommended over 18 in Spain.

As the result of no prior censorship, in Spain, you can get X-rated material free-over the air on television, but usually really late at night. Programs include a rating system and a warning bell when recommeded for over 18+ material is going to be shown on TV.

To be honest, nobody here cares much about their children being exposed to sexual content as much as violence. After all, if my daughter wanted to see a blue penis when she was underage, all she had to do is look out the window from her grandparent's beach house and see how creative some surfer dudes got with their colored tanning protection cream.

But we all understand that customs and "moral values" sometimes differ between cultures and they all have to be respected and make sense equally in their appropiate contexs.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 03-12-2009, 12:19 AM:

Just wanted to Quote myself here

quote:
I haven't seen a movie in a while that brings so much passion out of people when discussing it like this one.

quote: Joe Tommassello
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?

What does this even mean? Is the nudity needed, maybe, maybe not. That is beyond the point, it was done this way to remain "Faithful" to the graphic novel. Comparing something like Watchmen, which has one source material to something like Star Trek which has multiple different source materials just does not make sense.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 03-12-2009, 04:01 PM:

Kurt:

What I am suggesting is that if the "real" fans of Watchmen - the ones who have been into it since it's publication - feel they have a more valuable opinion than me - a newbie going to the movie - then when Star Trek comes out I expect them to accept my decision about whether that movie is faithful to the original concept or just STINO (Star Trek In Name Only).

Trying to gain a little advance leverage over the "reboot" fans.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-12-2009, 05:18 PM:

Who are you going to get leverage over, though? It seems the argument would only be applicable to hypocrites who say both that only the opinions of the original comic fans count and that the opinions of Star Trek newbies should also count.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 03-13-2009, 11:07 AM:

Chris - I am just having a little fun with the younger guys here...the one's that think Star Wars was always called "A New Hope"! [thumbsup]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-13-2009, 11:21 AM:

It WASN'T?!?!

[Wink]

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 03-15-2009, 08:14 AM:

I think it's neither here nor there whether there's nudity in it or not. I like to think (incorrectly it seems) that our society is mature enough not to get hung up over nudity; we're all nude under our clothes anyway! Besides, what's a little blue cock between friends, huh? [Wink]

I'm also surprised about all the hate for this movie. Could it be the nihilistic anti-American themes going on or just expecting a super hero movie perhaps? Anyway, I liked it a lot. Here's my review......

Like Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings trilogy, Watchmen distills the spirit of it's source material rather than literally translating it in the style of Robert Rodriguez' Sin City. Much of the detail from the source material is necessarily discarded (some regrettably so - the subplot of Rorschach's alter ego and the death of Hollis Mason, for example) but, as a whole it holds together very well. Those unfamiliar with the source material will find nothing untoward here unlike, say, the Harry Potter films where the plot gaps are enormous. The film evens manages to pull off the near impossible by presenting an alternative ending which is more elegant than the original.

Director, Zack Snyder, displays a penchant for comedy and visual flair in presenting a great opening montage which provides a brief recent history of this alternative universe and sets up the story to follow. He also employs an interesting and provocative use of songs which are almost always inappropriately tagged to incongruous scenes (ballads over fight sequences, for instance) and could easily have become cliché but somehow they work, coming over instead as comical and ironic and further reinforcing that this alternative reality is slightly out of kilter with our own. There's a lot of apparent depth here, it's like several movies in one. Many of the the characters are of sufficient complexity that they could have featured in a simpler (and much lesser) movie of their own. Let's hope that the franchise is not cheapened by a succession of inferior "origin story" sequels.

Performances are all adequate for their roles although Matthew Goode seems a little miscast as Adrian Veidt, lacking the apparent body mass that would be credibly required to perform the feats of strength that he does, but this is a minor point. The film belongs to Jackie Earle Haley, however. His performance of Rorschach is spot on - he's only a little fella but, boy, can he kick arse! - and improves even further when his alter ego is revealed, shifting the film up another gear when it was already cruising along at a decent clip. Criticism of Malin Akerman is unfounded; her purpose is to stand there and look pretty and bed the heroes as the script requires, a role she performs quite nicely, thank you very much.

While the structure of the plot may be a little multi-stranded to be neatly cohesive, there's more than enough interest in the various plot strands throughout and the result is a comic book.....oops, sorry......"graphic novel" adaptation which surpasses Zack Snyder's previous (and rather woeful) 300; indeed it's one of the best ever made.

9 out of 10.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-17-2009, 11:42 AM:

Saw it this past weekend, was impressed with it as a well made movie, but I thought it was too long and I fell asleep twice during it (damn Coke Zero didn't help me out any). I never red the graphic novel, and I probably missed it during the movie when I fell asleep, but why was Dr Manhattan naked in the first place? He wears clothes in public but not in private?

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-17-2009, 04:06 PM:

Don't you? [eyes]

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-18-2009, 02:09 AM:

No comment...

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 03-18-2009, 04:10 PM:

I saw it at Regal Hollywood 24. The image was a tad dull but I am assuming it was the cinematography and not a dim projector bulb. The booth was noisy as hell, but I tuned it out after 15 min.

I did not read the book. But I liked, not loved, the movie and give it a B, though I thought V For Vendetta was filmed in a more entertaining manner.

I do think the story took itself too seriously but did not give us characters deep enough to merit that solemness. Example: Malin Ackerman's Silk Spectre. It was like she got hired for the sex scenes and nothing else.

MINI-SPOILER START I also did not buy the ending as a long term fix for whatever ails mankind since men will always find an excuse to fight each other. MINI-SPOILER END

As far as parenting, I would not judge it by parents bringing their preteen kids to this one movie alone. I don't think the problem is if your kids end up watching an occasional R movie. The only factor to consider is if the parents are ready to face the embarrassment of collectively watching it when their kids might make funny comments or ask awkward questions. South Park had it right with their Jonas Bros. episode. It is the constant bombardment of PG-13 stuff that has no redeeming value that could have a worse effect on their upbringing than an occasional non-smutty R. The R is meant to be a general guideline, not a "NEVER WATCH R if you are young". You just don't want your kids watching too many of them and if the movie is quality enough to merit exposure to that stuff.

While I had no restrictions as a kid when it came to watching movie, my family is prudish when it comes to the "embarrassment" factor of nudity and such. Still, I was exposed to the penis in a naked fight scene in Shaft in Africa as a lil kid, and all my cousins and I did was to laugh at it. Hell, I even watched Frenzy when I was 8 during a rerelease. I was a mature kid as far as movies were concerned. My mom would not take me to Blame it ON Rio or Basic Instinct type movie(and I certainly wouldnt want to watch that movie with her next to me), but she was confident I could handle serious cinema since two or three R movies a year is not going to warp me.

But I do fault parents for mistaking this movie for a regular comic book movie and taking their kids to it like a routine movie. They need to do cursory research and determine if its appropriate. The only objectionable thing I found was the glorification of the rapist. In a graphic novel, that stuff can pass, but in a mainstream big budget movie, I do not know if that tone is acceptable.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 03-18-2009, 08:17 PM:

Sometimes movies get made because there are enough fans of the original work(s) that the movie makers feel they can turn a profit without gaining much of an additional audience. Sex and the City comes to mind. The violence, nudity, etc. in this movie is all expected by existing fans. If new fans are made, so be it, but I don't think they were counting on that to make their money. If you didn't like it, too bad. It was as true to the original comic as possible and that was done for the existing fans, not for new viewers. People surprised by the content are at fault for not researching what they are about to see.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Now, if someone made a new Superman or Batman movie that was R-rated, I would have a problem with that because those characters were created to include kids as members of the audience.

That completely contradicts your statement that

quote: Bobby Henderson
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.

Regardless of the characters involved, it is always the responsibility of the viewer to research. There is little if any resemblance between Danny DeVito's Penquin and Burgess Meredith's, yet they are the same character. I remember being 14 watching Tim Burton's Batman and seeing children crying, leaving with their parents. The evolution of the Harry Potter movies also comes to mind. Indiana Jones went in reverse, growning softer as they progressed. If Superman was done as the comics portrayed him, it would also be much darker, violent, etc.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 03-30-2009, 09:39 AM:

Finally finished reading the comic and decided I like the ending in the movie better because:

{SPOILERS}

1. Night Owl was kind of a wuss in the comic. He quits after a shot to the nose whereas in the movie he keeps coming

2. I like the threat of Dr. Manhattan better than one of an alien. It seems more permanent. An alien attack will fade over time unless you stage another alien attack every decade or two. That is unlikely. Manhattan can pop up anytime he likes, remind people he is capable of destroying everything, then leave again, refreshing the fear.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-25-2009, 10:46 PM:

I should start a thread in Afterlife, but I'm not going to bother.

Someone has been bugging me to see Watchmen. So I tried to watch it on Blu-ray tonight. I got a little over an hour into it, quite an accomplishment considering it was simultaneously giving me a splitting headache and making me angry to the point of wanting to smash the TV.

I knew nothing about Watchmen going in, and an hour into this movie I still know next to nothing. The story as presented to that point is basically incomprehensible.

After shutting it off I skimmed through most of the reviews here. Looks like I'm not the only one who just doesn't get this. I also read the story synopsis on Wikipedia. No shit, that's what's going on? Why the hell is that narrative 98% missing from this movie?

I generously gave it an hour. In return it gave me a headache. Clearly the makers put a lot of effort into this. Sorry to belatedly inform them of their epic fail.

Did I mention that too much of the dialog is muffled and difficult to understand?

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 12-23-2010, 03:51 PM:

It has been 453 days since the last post.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 12-23-2010, 03:51 PM:

I missed the movie because it was gone pretty fast from theatres here, so I watched the DVD yesterday.

Still not sure what to make of it, this is certainly a strange piece of moviemaking. Great start with the title sequence, and I found the first half hour promising.

Cinematography and set design was excellent, I've no idea how much of this came from the comic book because I didn't care to read it.

I felt disappointed when the film went away from Rorschach's SIN CITY-like world and moved towards the Dr. Manhattan character. Not that it was not done well, but omnipotent characters are seldom interesting (except "Q" from STAR TREK: TNG maybe). Just couldn't care for the blue guy and his girl. In my teens I liked classic Marvel comics, except for the Silver Surfer after whom Dr. Manhattan seems to be modeled. The Surfer was great in Fantastic Four #48-50 (March–May 1966), but later I found his endless philosophic monologues really boring. Marlin Akerman may look pretty as Silk Spectre II, but she cannot bring more to the scenes with Dr. Manhattan than the script provides. Pity they didn't cast Milla Jovovich or someone else more charismatic.

The movie picks up some speed during the jail break sequence, but the last act is so lame, wanting to be SO BIG AND IMPRESSIVE that I felt like turning the DVD off.

Whether it was faithful to the graphic novel or not, I don't consider this to be a good movie. From the Mars sequence on, I felt it was going the way of LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN with a bit of 1998 AVENGERS - just blah.

However, if you look at single scenes, Zack Snyder did a good job, there is no shakycam, almost classic framing and editing, which I found quite unusual for a film of that type.