Watchmen

[Pacific]

Just saw it tonight without having any prior knowledge of the story, or reading the GN. I really enjoyed it. I'm not sure if reading the GN would enhance the experience or not but I thought it was an entertaining movie and a decent storyline. Well worth 7 bucks.

[A Perfect Score]

Well...it was interesting to say the least.

As someone who had read the graphic novel, I was disappointed. The ending, while it accomplished the same premise, wasnt as interesting as it was in the graphic novel. That said, they could have butchered the ending alot more then they did.

I thought the cast did an excellent job, particularely Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan. Billy Crudup I thought was excellent, but I dont know how much is attributed to him and how much is attributed to the CGI/everything else. Overall, I enjoyed the movie to a certain extent, that said, I think that the graphic novel was much better and deserves to be read by everyone.

I had some major complaints. As much as I like Matthew Goode, I thought he was a terrible choice for Ozymandias. For me, he was BY FAR the weakest thing in the film. I think he is a fine actor, I just dont think he was right for the role nor do I think he did it justice. Malin Akerman was meh, I thought she was believable, but again casting could have been better in that situation.

They left alot of explaining out, in particular concerning Bubastis and I felt Rorschach's backstory was underdeveloped. That said, the movie was engaging and had some absolutely fantastic action sequences, not to mention it looked like it was brought right from the comic page. I dont think anyone can accuse Snyder of butchering Moore's work.

Overall, it didnt live up to what I was expecting. It was good, but not great. I think its better then some non-fans might leave you to believe, but I'm definately glad I had read the graphic novel beforehand.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Originally Posted by A Perfect Score

Well...it was interesting to say the least.

As someone who had read the graphic novel, I was disappointed. The ending, while it accomplished the same premise, wasnt as interesting as it was in the graphic novel. That said, they could have butchered the ending alot more then they did.

I thought the cast did an excellent job, particularely Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan. Billy Crudup I thought was excellent, but I dont know how much is attributed to him and how much is attributed to the CGI/everything else. Overall, I enjoyed the movie to a certain extent, that said, I think that the graphic novel was much better and deserves to be read by everyone.

I had some major complaints. As much as I like Matthew Goode, I thought he was a terrible choice for Ozymandias. For me, he was BY FAR the weakest thing in the film. I think he is a fine actor, I just dont think he was right for the role nor do I think he did it justice. Malin Akerman was meh, I thought she was believable, but again casting could have been better in that situation.

They left alot of explaining out, in particular concerning Bubastis and I felt Rorschach's backstory was underdeveloped. That said, the movie was engaging and had some absolutely fantastic action sequences, not to mention it looked like it was brought right from the comic page. I dont think anyone can accuse Snyder of butchering Moore's work.

Overall, it didnt live up to what I was expecting. It was good, but not great. I think its better then some non-fans might leave you to believe, but I'm definately glad I had read the graphic novel beforehand.

See I left the movie thinking it lived up to expectations I had but did not exceed them, which is fine. I also happened to think Goode gave one of the strongest performances in the film. I think Veidt in the movie is much more interesting than Vedit in the novel. I think the biggest problem the movie had was even at 3 hours they had to make some important cuts but I have faith the directors cut with rectify that.

[A Perfect Score]

Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo

See I left the movie thinking it lived up to expectations I had but did not exceed them, which is fine. I also happened to think Goode gave one of the strongest performances in the film. I think Veidt in the movie is much more interesting than Vedit in the novel. I think the biggest problem the movie had was even at 3 hours they had to make some important cuts but I have faith the directors cut with rectify that.

I am anxiously awaiting the rumoured 3.5 hour director cut, complete with the black freighter footage. For me, I felt that I was disappointed in the film, but my expectations were almost certainly too high, which I know and acknowledge. That said, I felt that there were numerous things which were problematic, the most obvious being Goode. Once again, I have to reiterate that I love him as an actor, and I think he has a very bright future, but he was most certainly not right for the role. Not only is he completely different then he is in the comics, I felt that while Goode played him well, the new take on the character severely lacked several important qualities that the GN version had, particularly the intimidation factor.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Originally Posted by A Perfect Score

I am anxiously awaiting the rumoured 3.5 hour director cut, complete with the black freighter footage. For me, I felt that I was disappointed in the film, but my expectations were almost certainly too high, which I know and acknowledge. That said, I felt that there were numerous things which were problematic, the most obvious being Goode. Once again, I have to reiterate that I love him as an actor, and I think he has a very bright future, but he was most certainly not right for the role. Not only is he completely different then he is in the comics, I felt that while Goode played him well, the new take on the character severely lacked several important qualities that the GN version had, particularly the intimidation factor.

I will continue to disagree that Goode's Veidt was not good. I though Vedit in the GN was great and all but I liked the film version of Veidt even more. For some reason I just found myself liking Goode's Ozymandias more than the GN version. I can agree that the film version of Veidt is very much different than the GN version so I can see why you were not a fan but I really dug his performance and it was one of my favorites in the film. The others being Patrick Wilson who actually had me liking Nite Owl V2 (something the GN did not do) an of course Haley's Rorshach which was ******* fantastic. I really did not even think Ackerman did that bad a job nor did I find any performance in the film weak.

To each his own I guess but you have proven in the past that you are a moron when it comes to judging good acting :(

[Mr.Regular]

Wow that was terrible. A few good moments but overall what a stinker.
For the record Im not a comic fan, graphic novel fan, nor did I have any knowledge of the plot.
But I thought it was boring, cheesy (ex. "On Mars, you taught me the meaning of life!"<-come on if thats not the lamest thing youve ever heard!), a tad chilidish, and over the top.
If youre a fan of the genre or the specific novel you may feel differently but overall I thought it was pretty bad.

[A Perfect Score]

Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo

I will continue to disagree that Goode's Veidt was not good. I though Vedit in the GN was great and all but I liked the film version of Veidt even more. For some reason I just found myself liking Goode's Ozymandias more than the GN version. I can agree that the film version of Veidt is very much different than the GN version so I can see why you were not a fan but I really dug his performance and it was one of my favorites in the film. The others being Patrick Wilson who actually had me liking Nite Owl V2 (something the GN did not do) an of course Haley's Rorshach which was ******* fantastic. I really did not even think Ackerman did that bad a job nor did I find any performance in the film weak.

To each his own I guess but you have proven in the past that you are a moron when it comes to judging good acting :(

Ben Foster will suck no matter what I or anyone else says :D

[Scott Wright]

Saw it Friday afternoon.

Going in I really didn't know much about it other than what I had seen on the previews and for the most part it lived up to expectations. I guess my biggest gripe is I wish they had explained the history of the characters a little more. That and too much blue schlong.

Overall I really liked it though.

[WMD]

I saw it today. Liked it quite a bit.. except that I had to piss really, really, really, really, really, really bad for probably the last hour.. so.. I kinda lost focus. I also had bad seats in the IMAX threatre (front row/center.. not the front-front though)

Also got distracted because someone in the theatre had to get carried out because he was on some kind of drugs.. or something..

I'll have to watch it again sometime.

[M.O.T.H.]

Originally Posted by Lions WMD

I saw it today. Liked it quite a bit.. except that I had to piss really, really, really, really, really, really bad for probably the last hour.. so.. I kinda lost focus. I also had bad seats in the IMAX threatre (front row/center.. not the front-front though)

Also got distracted because someone in the theatre had to get carried out because he was on some kind of drugs.. or something..

I'll have to watch it again sometime.

ugh...that happens everytime I go to the movies. I almost blacked out while sitting through the Dark Knight.

[BrownsTown]

Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo

I will continue to disagree that Goode's Veidt was not good. I though Vedit in the GN was great and all but I liked the film version of Veidt even more. For some reason I just found myself liking Goode's Ozymandias more than the GN version. I can agree that the film version of Veidt is very much different than the GN version so I can see why you were not a fan but I really dug his performance and it was one of my favorites in the film. The others being Patrick Wilson who actually had me liking Nite Owl V2 (something the GN did not do) an of course Haley's Rorshach which was ******* fantastic. I really did not even think Ackerman did that bad a job nor did I find any performance in the film weak.

To each his own I guess but you have proven in the past that you are a moron when it comes to judging good acting :(

I agree. Goode, Wison, and Haley were all great performances in my book. Haley was especially impressive because he just had to be great or people would be pissed off because he was so awesome in the GN.

[sbh15]

Originally Posted by M.O.T.H.

ugh...that happens everytime I go to the movies. I almost blacked out while sitting through the Dark Knight.

I just got it out of the way the instant Maggie Gyllenhall (sp) got on the screen.

[iworshipbender]

Originally Posted by sbh15

I just got it out of the way the instant Maggie Gyllenhall (sp) got on the screen.

To me it was all like:

ALL RIGHT KATIE Hol....

****.

[sbh15]

well I believe I am going to see this tonight... I'm not really sure what to expect just yet.

I am easily impressed by a lot of movies, so hopefully these reviews are semi-accurate, because it seems like a lot of the movie buffs said they enjoyed it.

I feel like for me it's either going to kick ass or fall flat on its face.

[CT Bronco Fan]

Originally Posted by Scott Wright

Saw it Friday afternoon.

Going in I really didn't know much about it other than what I had seen on the previews and for the most part it lived up to expectations. I guess my biggest gripe is I wish they had explained the history of the characters a little more. That and too much blue schlong.

Overall I really liked it though.

There is no such thing as too much giant blue schlong

[bearsfan_51]

Dissapointing. For as intricate and thought-out as the plot supposedly is, I found it very shallow and immature. A 19 year old that took a course in intro to Nietzsche could have done better. In fact, they basically ripped off his concept of the Superman. Oooh...people are destructive..how original.

The montages were great (in fact the credits are the best part of the movie), but in terms of plot development and deep psychology it's pretty hallow and geared towards someone that doesn't really understand the concepts it's trying to develop.

[bearsfan_51]

Better than 300 though, which is absolute filth.

[A Perfect Score]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Dissapointing. For as intricate and thought-out as the plot supposedly is, I found it very shallow and immature. A 19 year old that took a course in intro to Nietzsche could have done better. In fact, they basically ripped off his concept of the Superman. Oooh...people are destructive..how original.

The montages were great (in fact the credits are the best part of the movie), but in terms of plot development and deep psychology it's pretty hallow and geared towards someone that doesn't really understand the concepts it's trying to develop.

Did you ever read the GN? its more detailed in alot of ways I felt...And I can definately understand your complaint with the film. If I hadnt read the GN before, there would have been some parts in the film which left me scratching my head lol.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Originally Posted by Scott Wright

Saw it Friday afternoon.

Going in I really didn't know much about it other than what I had seen on the previews and for the most part it lived up to expectations. I guess my biggest gripe is I wish they had explained the history of the characters a little more. That and too much blue schlong.

Overall I really liked it though.

In my opinion there was not enough blue schlong because watching it make some people in the theatre uncomfortable was great.

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by A Perfect Score

Did you ever read the GN? its more detailed in alot of ways I felt...And I can definately understand your complaint with the film. If I hadnt read the GN before, there would have been some parts in the film which left me scratching my head lol.

It's not a matter of being confused, it's a matter of being underwhelmed. I understand the points they were trying to make, they were just doing it in an incredibly sophmoric and underdeveloped fashion.

It's a mainstream media movie though, so I understand. Just not what I was hoping for giving the things I've heard. It was worth the 5 bucks and the trip to the theatre, but not much more.

[Dr. Gonzo]

I thought going into the movie that people who say it without having read the GN may enjoy it more because they would be experiancing Watchmen for the first time. After seeing the movie there is no doubt in my mind that reading the GN made it infinitly better. The movie works as a companinion piece to the GN rather than work as a stand alone film which in my mind is fine but I am sure it sucked for the many people going into the movie blind.

[TACKLE]

Just got back from watching the Watchmen. I really liked it but I didn't love it. As mentioned previously, I thought the cast did a nice job. It was just what I expected. Although this isn't a really a fair criticism, the fact that is so close to the GN it didn't really give me anything unexpected, good or bad. Gonzo is dead on. It is a great companion/complimentary piece to the book and the fact that is so close is a plus as a fan of the GN but didn't allow me to love the movie independently.

[Brodeur]

The more and more I think about the movie, the more I'm bothered about how Ozymandias was handled. They made him seem like a villain from the get-go, they made him look too young, they cast the wrong actor to play him (as much as I like Goode), they didn't really show enough of the fact that he was one of the most beloved people in the world, they didn't really go into enough with Bubastis, and they removed his talk with Manhattan in Antarctica.

I still really like the movie and I think the extended version will probably fix some of these problems, but still.

[A Perfect Score]

Originally Posted by Brodeur

The more and more I think about the movie, the more I'm bothered about how Ozymandias was handled. They made him seem like a villain from the get-go, they made him look too young, they cast the wrong actor to play him (as much as I like Goode), they didn't really show enough of the fact that he was one of the most beloved people in the world, they didn't really go into enough with Bubastis, and they removed his talk with Manhattan in Antarctica.

I still really like the movie and I think the extended version will probably fix some of these problems, but still.

My sentiments exactly...I love Goode as an actor, but he was terribly miscast...I wasnt intimidated nor impressed by him at all, which is part of the appeal of the Adrian Veidt character...I dont know, I just thought he was a terrible choice for the role, he seemed almost effeminate, maybe even homosexual...I know it mentions that in the novel, but its so minor, where as here it was a huge character trait...He was my biggest issue with the film.

[CJSchneider]

Thought yall would like this LOL