watched.

[thehefner]

I don't have the time nor energy to really give all my thoughts on WATCHMEN. In fact, I may hold off entirely until I've seen it a second time.

I think that folks really really *really* need to see it at least twice--if they can--just as I think people need to reread the book at least a couple times (with healthy breather periods in between, natch). It's not as dense as the book, but good lord, did they manage to cram so much in that two and a half hour period.

It was fascinating to read all the very different reviews over the past month, giving me a bizarre but very effective combination of over-hype and lowered expectations. Furthermore, the way everyone's coming into this with their own expectations versus the film's delivery is actually a surreal inverse of my own expectations and demands of THE DARK KNIGHT and being the world's biggest Harvey Dent fan*, but that's a whole essay unto itself.

The real test will be seeing how well it survives the first weekend. How will it hold up once word of mouth spreads? Because let me tell you, by the time of Rorschach and Dan's first meeting, several of us could feel other members of the audience bristle. This will most definitely not be for everybody, fan or otherwise.

And dear lord, I don't think I can read any more reviews right now, between ALL the goddamn bitching. No one can agree on what works or what doesn't, and right now, I'm in no mood to process it.

A warning to everyone, though: I don't think any of us will really be able to judge WATCHMEN the movie until we see the complete 302-minute long cut on DVD this Fall. Only then... ONLY then... will we truly see Snyder's WATCHMEN as it should be, and judge it on its own true merits. Until then, we've got this lengthy excerpt Cliff's Notes version.**

I'm gonna have a lot to say. But for now, based on what I did see, let's just say I give it a solid B+. Hell, maybe even A-. Even now, I think about it with wonder and go, "Wow, I actually saw that." But let's see how I feel after Round 2. Possibly in IMAX. Or at least the Uptown.

That said, when it comes to a couple of my opinions, many of you will think I'm outright nuts. Fair warning.



*Can I realistically claim that? So far, I haven't met anyone else as passionate and/or as well-versed of the character, but I don't wanna sound like an unhealthily obsessed freak or anything.

**And before you think that you can judge everything now, that no amount of extra scenes or different editing can make any difference, chew on this thought: the Director's Cut of DAREDEVIL was actually watchable.

Comments

[tragical-mirth.livejournal.com]

It is fanboy prerogative to bitch no matter how good or bad something is. :P

For what it's worth, I enjoyed it. My two complaints were Malin Ackerman and the fact that the music was too loud and overwhelming, but those were very small.

I'll probably go see it again as soon as I can. I'm not sad that people didn't like it. I would probably be disappointed if they did.

I kept my post about the movie limited to comments about the actors to avoid spoilers, but this movie really does have a roster of some of my favorite B-list actors. I'd really like to see all of them do well and get lots of work in the future.

[the-mithril-man.livejournal.com]

I've always maintained that there are certain written works that, no matter how good the movie or how much the people in it really want it to be and love the source, should never be made into a movie. It's just the wrong medium for them, period. I hear it said now and again that this movie of this book or that movie of that book will "Legitimize" comics. Not going to happen, and I'm not even sure half the people saying that know what in the hell they mean by "Legitimize" anyway.

I for one liked it, and will be getting a few folks together and seeing it again. Then again what do I know. I almost got stoned to death in a comics store in Columbia for saying that I liked LXG.

"I don't wanna sound like an unhealthily obsessed freak or anything."
Too Late.
One of us. One of us. One of us.

I liked it...

[american-arcane.livejournal.com]

...unfortunately, I'm not sure how the regular public will take to it.

After all, it's not exactly a "feel good action blockbuster"...

I was genuinely impressed by what I saw on the screen. Especially the pacing of the film. It never bogged down like I was afraid it would.

Eagerly awaiting the "full" version a few months fro now. ;)

[nectarousness.livejournal.com]

Hey, from one Harvey Dent fan to another, your obsession is awesome. So like, yeah.

It makes me feel a lot better about my obsession with him. D:

I also saw Watchmen last night and I kind of went in without any specific expectations on what would be in it and what wouldn't be, and I was amazed and really happy with the final product. They cut out my least favorite parts of the graphic novel (although the way Big Figure was "disposed" of wasn't nearly as silly).

I'm definitely going to see it twice, just so I can thoroughly catch what was done in each scene since the first time around, I was just mesmerized by how awesome each sequence was.

[jackolantern.livejournal.com]

I liked it quite a lot, although I think that Ackerman was better than Matthew Goode; I wasn't too surprised to find out that Goode played Jeremy Irons' role in the remake of Brideshead Revisited, because from the beginning he seemed to play Ozymandias as if he were channeling Irons at his most lip-smackingly villanous. Otherwise, the performances were fine.

I don't care about the negative reviews; two of them stated that Nixon was on his third term in 1985--it's one thing to say that you're not into this superhero stuff, but it's just plain sad when you can't even bother to do the fucking math, right?

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

One of the more controversial opinions I'll be expressing in more detail in my eventual review (assuming I still feel this way after the second viewing) is that I honestly preferred the movie versions of Laurie and Adrian to the ones in the comics. Honestly, I found the movie's "super-villain" Ozymandias more sympathetic than the comic one. It's the lack of smugness. He seemed way, way more smug in the comics.

Yeah, that's the thing: this movie is so goddamn dense, so many of these reviewers don't really understand what the hell they just saw. Even if they think they already know the comic inside and out. I count myself among them, as I reread the book annually and always notice things I never noticed before.

[kagome654.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I found the movie's "super-villain" Ozymandias more sympathetic than the comic one. It's the lack of smugness. He seemed way, way more smug in the comics.

THAT'S WHAT IT WAS!

Sorry, I was wondering why it was that I found movie Adrian more palatable than his comic version! I think it was the lack of smugness, with the the jubilant 'I did it!' fist pump toned down and the general quiet melancholy he seemed much more subdued. He behaved more like someone actually making a hard decision than in the comic book, in which I got had the distinct impression he was equally concerned with being the man who ended the threat of nuclear war as he was with actually ending nuclear war. Accepting Nite Owl's beating towards the very end of the film when he could have just given him another spanking went a long way to strengthen that impression. I'm not sure if that makes him a better character, but I found myself sympathizing with him a lot more.

I disagree with you on Laurie, but then I disliked comic Laurie upon my initial reading of the comic, it's possible movie Laurie will grow on me after multiple viewings.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Exactly, exactly. And I'm glad you put up the part about not being sure if that makes him a better character, because that's that's an excellent point I'm gonna need to keep in mind upon the next viewing. Just because we sympathize with him more (and it sounds like many, many people don't, from the reactions his performance has gotten), does that actually make him better in the movie than in the book? Considering how controversial he is in either version, I don't know if there could ever be a simple answer to that question.

Yeah, I'm still not sure how I feel about Laurie, but her delivery reminded me a bit of Maggie Gyllenhaal, another actress disliked by many for her sometimes shrill and off-putting style. I just always found Laurie to be annoying, but understandably and sympathetically so. In the movie, she seemed to finally let go of some of that once she started superheroing again.

Like, much as I love that scene in the comic where she and Dan squabble about Rorschach "going to the bathroom" in the prison, I kinda like that she wasn't being petulant about it in the movie like she was in the comic. It was kind of refreshing that she and Dan were both just "Uh... yeah, do what you gotta do."

Again, it doesn't mean that it's a better choice. Oh boy, this review's gonna take me awhile.

[leiacat.livejournal.com]

I know how I felt about Laurie: the purpose of women in this story is to be catalysts, not characters. It's not the actress, it's the part she played in at least this version of the world. Even the handful of butt-kicking scenes do not redeem the fact that she's a plot device, not a character. (In fact, nearly all the women mentioned in the plot seem to exist either to make a male character sulk or make a male character stop sulking.) A model of feminism it's so very not.

[tragical-mirth.livejournal.com]

I liked ambiguously gay movie!Ozy more than anybody else seems to. I keep telling myself it wasn't because of the ambiguously gay thing, but it probably was. Slashers, start your engines...

(I also have a thing for evil bastards that don't entirely realize they're evil - and may actually not be depending on your viewpoint. Far more interesting than smug evil bastards, though I like those too. I'm not picky.)

[leiacat.livejournal.com]

I want to see this movie again, with you and with a pause button so you can explain bits to me.

From where I sit, this was first and foremost utterly cinematically gorgeous, and I hope it at least gets an Oscar nomination for that. I loved loved loved its visual style, and transitions into comic panels, and how the shots were framed.

It was also a good self-contained story, which would have been well-paced even with the back-stories if it wasn't for the rambly diary. (I don't blame them for the rambly diary, but it was the only part of things that _felt_ long and slow.)

[gallen-storm.livejournal.com]

My big question for everyone is, with out spoiling it for those who have not yet seen the film. What did everyone think about the ending’s tweak from the comic’s. Personally I was torn, but after sleeping on it I like the movies tweak they did for the ending over Moore's ending. BTW the tweak I speak of for those not following me is, what Adrian does to end nuclear war.

On another note, my younger brother who is not a comic book fan, he is a musical theater actor, loved the film. He was impressed by the deep multi level plot. He also loved, and was shocked by, the endings outcome and walked away impressed and wanting to now read the comic. Overall he walked away understanding the films as being more then a superhero film.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

I'm of two minds about it all, honestly, and will do my best to weigh the pros and cons of each. Jesus, that topic alone could take up an entire post. It's single-handedly resulted in more bitching and wank on the talkbacks to sites I visit, but I know folks here are more intelligent and thoughtful than that.

And that's very cool! I'm loving how this has spawned people everywhere to go and read the book, which has never happened like this for any other superhero movie. Even after THE DARK KNIGHT, you never saw anybody reading BATMAN: YEAR ONE on the subway.