Atop Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 well Salads, yes, because one could argue that people who like to be a part of the conversation just to be antagonistic are assholes whom invalidate their input..... Showing what you like and dislike about something is different... But no arguing from me, I have known you were an asshole for years now... So if I were to review you it would be very consistent.... except for the time you helped me to get the early leak of 'Ultravisitor' on slsk..... that was nice of you, but the record is one of his worst.... so........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Clitterhaus Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Don't start arguing with Salads about a film you saw. Salads is a child whose anus has been streched out to its maximum limits, of course your view on this film will differ from the great man salads. Internet owns you butt-monkeys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atop Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Crusty Von Boozehound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr Salads Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 well Salads, yes, because one could argue that people who like to be a part of the conversation just to be antagonistic are assholes whom invalidate their input..... Showing what you like and dislike about something is different... But no arguing from me, I have known you were an asshole for years now... So if I were to review you it would be very consistent.... except for the time you helped me to get the early leak of 'Ultravisitor' on slsk..... that was nice of you, but the record is one of his worst.... so........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 this review - http://efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=17...mp;reviewer=416 sums up pretty much how i felt epecially this last part.. The only true tragedy would be if this film and "The Dark Knight" — like the original "Watchmen" and Frank Miller’s "The Dark Knight Returns" in the ‘80s, conceived as grand statements and summings-up on the subject of the superhero — led not to the medium moving on from caped crusaders but to a bunch of grim, gritty superhero ripoffs, which is what happened in comics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wall Bird Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Ozymandias was one of the worst aspects of the film for me. He is probably my favorite character in the story, but to see him cast so poorly and not given the time he deserved to develop in the film was a huge injustice. First off, I thought the actor who played him, Matthew Goode, did not have the right build. Ozymandias is supposed to be the goddamned ubermensch and be an example of peak physical ability. I think he should have been a bit more beefy and apparently well built instead of having a skinny build and a Kyle MacLachlan haircut - which I now associate with being a douche in movies. Also, the slight German tinge to his voice seemed counterproductive in helping us believe that he's not a bad guy. I know it's prejudice to say so, but it's hard in American film not to raise suspicions in a whodunnit when one of the main characters is a stoic billionaire with a bad haircut and a german accent, especially when your intent is to make them seem like the least likely person to have committed the crime. I do have to give the choreographers props on his fighting style, though. Watching the fight against the Comedian was very nice. Ozy's fighting style was tight and efficient. Just watching him bob and weave with precision against the Comedian's blows made it plain to see how he could have got his ass kicked so cleanly. However, does anyone other than me also feel like movies and, in this case, novels romanticize how easy it is to actually throw stuff through a window. I've never done it, but isn't it their job not to break? Also, missing from the representation of Ozymandias is his charisma. There was no hint at all as to how beloved he is around the world and how much of a public figure he is. Also, the interview between him and Eli Roth in the novel is one of the most humanizing moments for me. You really get a feeling for how great of a guy he truly is when he jokes around and how he's practically perfect. Last, but certainly not least, they only alluded to his Alexander the Great obsession. This aspect really helps to drive home his motivations and reasons for his actions. I feel it is vitally important in understanding who he is. Anywho, I've got a lot of other gripes as well such as Dreiberg's hissy fit against Ozymandias, The soundtrack usage, the lack of time between Rorschach and his psychiatrist. Also, the movie felt pretty hollow and did not resonate with me very well. After having watched it I don't see any reason to have turned it into a film. The novel is much more effective. By the way, they nailed the Comedian, but did they have to throw in the implication that he shot JFK? Maybe I've missed it, but it wasn't in the novel and it's a pretty significant thing to add. I don't see why they would bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 By the way, they nailed the Comedian, but did they have to throw in the implication that he shot JFK? Maybe I've missed it, but it wasn't in the novel and it's a pretty significant thing to add. I don't see why they would bother. it is very heavily implied in the comic book that Comedian at least was in on the assassination as well as Richard Nixon / agreed that they really butchered Ozymandias, i was especially upset with the lack of his backstory and hashish eating journey as well as his Antarctica fortress which looked much more boring than in the comic book i was actually glad they removed the psychologist home life sub plot and mostly just glossed over that character. for me it was one of the weakest moments of the graphic novel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest beatfanatic Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 they also got rid of the whole newspaper vendor and black kid reading comic storyline , for the better I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 they also got rid of the whole newspaper vendor and black kid reading comic storyline , for the better I think its being put back into the extended cut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Betty Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Here's a chunk of comic critic Tom Spurgeon's take on the film: Watchmen was so not a good movie. And you know, I'm almost hesitant to get into it more than that. I could write one of those mean, funny jeremiads and beat up on individual moments from Watchmen all day. Some of the over-the-top violence seemed like a late-night TV show parody of a movie than an actual movie, right down to a cameo by the armless guy from the SNL Steroid Olympics sketch. In one scene a woman ripped off her wig at a taping of a network news show broadcast to show her nasty chemo hair underneath, which doesn't happen outside of primetime soap operas nearly enough to suit me. In his Rorschach costume, Jackie Earle Haley evinced the same physical presence as a late-teen at a comic book convention, that kind of "la la la la I'm Rorschach I'm Rorschach I'm Rorschach la la la la" straight-ahead march. We discovered that Rorschach loves to wear his mask, but not as much as he hates looking through boxes. I'm fully expecting one of the DVD extras to be Rod Steiger's ghost coming back from the dead to tell Patrick Wilson to tone it down in that scene where Rorschach dies. The music choices were, as has been noted on every corner of the planet, spectacularly obvious and relentlessly ordinary: soundtrack by Ronco. The acting styles never meshed, and not in a good way -- it was like the performers were operating in sensory deprivation chambers and the director wasn't passing notes tank to tank. The narrative's climax asked us to believe in a world united because an American asset just killed millions of people all around the globe, which is lunacy at least as crazy and, sadly, half as entertaining, as a giant, telepathic squid. I could go on. My guess is that Watchmen's makers wanted to stay faithful to the work because they believed in it. My further guess is that they never came to an understanding of that work beyond a very facile take on some of its appealing surface aspects and genre correction elements. In that way, they're a lot like many of the book's fans. The result is a movie that while it's mostly faithful to its source material, the moments it's not faithful jar to a noteworthy degree, and the newly synthesized take of old and new elements never takes on a life of its own. Does that make sense? It's not that the changes are some betrayal of the source material and therefore one notices them as a departure from a preferred orthodoxy, because who cares? It's that one is forced to take notice of certain scenes or story elements because they feel jarringly out of place in a tapestry in large part copied faithfully from a very different work. When, for instance, Laurie and Dan go Sonny Chiba on a bunch of stupid street thugs the scene doesn't stand out because it represents a shift in tone from the same scene in the book. No one should really care about that, and many people don't have the memory of the earlier incarnation to fall back on in the first place. The scene stands out because it's crazy and excessive. The scene stands out because it drags into the movie questions of moral equivalency between putting a meat cleaver into someone's head for murdering a child and stabbing a guy in the neck because he wants your $40, and not only doesn't answer them but doesn't seem aware that the question was asked. The scene stands out because it makes the characters involved seem less human and vulnerable and made me at least much less frightened for them being able to survive their current ordeal. The scene stands out because it loads one side of the argument that perhaps Dan and Laurie retiring was an overall positive despite their unhappiness, that they were originally in it for reasons that might be questioned and that their issues are larger and more significant than wanting to feel like heroes again. http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/cr..._watchmen_film/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 went and saw it a second time with a different group of friends. this is seriously terrible. the previous complaints about the music being out of place are spot on. also the special effects, my god. what a travesty. i must have been in a better mood or something when i thought it was merely a mediocre but entertaining movie because...wow. what a fucking mess. and really, it's not even snyder's fault, because the comic is ridiculous as well. i reread it yesterday and what's the point? how is it "groundbreaking" to anyone who doesn't take superhero comics seriously? one of those cases where it illuminates all the faults of the source material rather than building on or improving it. and please, please, PLEASE stop comparing it to blade runner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Caustic Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 they also got rid of the whole newspaper vendor and black kid reading comic storyline , for the better I think » Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... « + rorschachs childhood and how he got the mask.or that he was the sign guy and read the right-wing newspaper. actually by cutting out the newstand scenes and the apartment raid, the ending didnt really make sense.... or, as much sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv_party Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 faggot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 they also got rid of the whole newspaper vendor and black kid reading comic storyline , for the better I think » Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... « + rorschachs childhood and how he got the mask.or that he was the sign guy and read the right-wing newspaper. actually by cutting out the newstand scenes and the apartment raid, the ending didnt really make sense.... or, as much sense. they showed rorshach with mask off with the sign several times, at least 3 from my recollection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 how is it "groundbreaking" to anyone who doesn't take superhero comics seriously? i think this is a fair observation but i think some people who aren't comic book fans might actually come away with a new perspective on super heroes. there is a new generation of people who takes a lot of the super hero movies seriously without even reading much of the comics. but generally i agree with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Also, missing from the representation of Ozymandias is his charisma. There was no hint at all as to how beloved he is around the world and how much of a public figure he is. Also, the interview between him and Eli Roth in the novel is one of the most humanizing moments for me. You really get a feeling for how great of a guy he truly is when he jokes around and how he's practically perfect the part with him doing acrobatics on television was sadly missed for me, i think it really did a lot in the comic to show just how popular and charismatic he was albeit in an over the top way. Have you seen the Watchmen motion comic yet? Some of the best narrated parts ending up being with Ozymandias. Although i did miss some of the filler material like the printed interview with Ozymandias (in the motion comic), they didn't include any of that stuff, just the straight up comic book story parts of the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 that's a fair point. watchmen (the comic) is one of those things that probably had a much larger effect on initial release than it ever could now, and i don't think there's any fault in saying that it all seems a bit contrived and trite, as far as literary statements go. the movie reminded me of sin city more than anything, and that isn't a particularly good thing because i despised that movie. i agree with whoever pointed out that this hopefully won't lead to more grim superhero movies like it did for comics back in the eighties. i don't think there's anywhere to go with this genre. it's about something that simply doesn't have much bearing on modern life, as i see it. it's mythic, sure, but it's also not teaching us how to live, like any great myth should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atop Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 An apocalyptic event helping to bring peace in the world is just stupid! i mean even Robert Heinlein said that nuclear war is the only thing that could save humanity... and he sucks at writing..... fuck Shakespeare too.... Plato was dumb and probably didn't know Socrates.... I hate smart shit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajaIloveyou Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I think it's a bit confusing for those of us who never read the comic, so i don't know how loyal it was to the original concept. personally i really enjoyed it, the soundtrack is great and the characters are quite interesting, not the typical heroes movie i was expecting. I guess at the end i was already a bit tired but it was worth it, would see it again with friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JohnTqs Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 this movie is so fucking good, fuck you mirezzi for ragging on this, i'm going to see this movie again next week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneboi Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 and please, please, PLEASE stop comparing it to blade runner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autopilot Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Yeah, I'm looking forward to hitting it up again next weekend. I was gonna go see it a 2nd time yesterday until I realized I have negative $150. I didn't realize it was possible to have the less than no money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JohnTqs Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 IOU Rewatching films is more important than paying off debts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autopilot Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I need something to buy the ticket with and I could only scrape together about $5 from the change on my desk. I'm gonna use that to buy coffee for the next few days until I get paid. The funny thing is, the thing that drove my account under $0 was the $200 check I wrote for federal taxes, that I completely forgot about because they didn't cash it for 3 weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubin Farr Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 So I'm having real conflicted emotions about this movie, and I'm considering never watching it ever. I mean, I've already got the perfect Watchmen in my bookshelf, why fix it if it ain't broke? But then I start thinking like it's almost like this new Blade Runner or something, cinematic awesomeness. But yeah, I'm gonna skip the cinema, and do a re-read. you could just get the motion comic on DVD, basically Moore's story brought to life in a flash style, but i've seen some of it on Xbox Live and it's pretty cool. for those who bitch about editing a book for film, it's got all 5 hours of the complete series panel for panel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.