fenton Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I thought the movie wasn't very good,. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 oh god i forgot the awful obvious model that was the antarctic base. that shot was so bad it felt like a joke. i enjoyed it but i won't be seeing it again. the sex scene was meant to be funny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chax Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 okay...so how many people liked this movie primarily due to giant blue cock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest assegai Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 okay...so how many people liked this movie primarily due to giant blue cock? There's giant blue cock in it? Hmm.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chax Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 okay...so how many people liked this movie primarily due to giant blue cock? There's giant blue cock in it? Hmm.. http://defamer.gawker.com/5156728/zack-sny...-uncut-watchmen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JohnTqs Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 blue ass was good too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plstik Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 seen it yesterday too and it was a bit...naah but i`m trying to get the comics at least. by the way did you get those buttons too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest boo Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 i was at a cinema the other day and there were loads of teenage girls wearing those badges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glass Plate Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 MERCHANd-NIIIIIIIIICEE!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autopilot Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 If they're gonna do merch, they should go the ironic route and have Ozymandias lunchboxes and action figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JohnTqs Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 MERCHANd-NIIIIIIIIICEE!!!! wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 their nixon was awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr Salads Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Is there a point for an alternate reality? Whatever biting commentary it was supposed to be in the comic was obviously distilled into irrelevancy in the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JohnTqs Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 i cannot believe the hate this film is getting. After the revelation of “The Dark Knight,” here is “Watchmen,” another bold exercise in the liberation of the superhero movie. It’s a compelling visceral film — sound, images and characters combined into a decidedly odd visual experience that evokes the feel of a graphic novel. It seems charged from within by its power as a fable; we sense it’s not interested in a plot so much as with the dilemma of functioning in a world losing hope. That world is America in 1985, with Richard Nixon in the White House and many other strange details, although this America occupies a parallel universe in which superheroes and masked warriors operate. The film confronts a paradox that was always there in comic books: The heroes are only human. They can be in only one place at a time (with a possible exception to be noted later). Although a superhero is able to handle one dangerous situation, the world has countless dangerous situations, and the super resources are stretched too thin. Faced with law enforcement anarchy, Nixon has outlawed superhero activity, quite possibly a reasonable action. Now the murder of the enigmatic vigilante the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) has brought the Watchmen together again. Who might be the next to die? Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), the only one with superpowers in the literal sense, lives outside ordinary time and space, the forces of the universe seeming to coil beneath his skin. Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) is the world’s smartest man. The Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) is a man isolated from life by his mastery of technology. Rorshach (Jackie Earl Haley) is a man who finds meaning in patterns that may only exist in his mind. And Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman) lives with one of the most familiar human challenges, living up to her parents, in this case the original Silk Spectre (Carla Gugino). Dr. Manhattan is both her lover and a distant father figure living in a world of his own. These characters are garbed in traditional comic book wardrobes — capes, boots, gloves, belts, masks, props, anything to make them one of a kind. Rorshach’s cloth mask, with its endlessly shifting inkblots, is one of the most intriguing superhero masks ever, always in constant motion, like a mood ring of the id. Dr. Manhattan is contained in a towering, muscular, naked blue body; he was affected by one of those obligatory secret experiments gone wild. Never mind the details; what matters is that he possibly exists at a quantum level, at which particles seem exempt from the usual limitations of space and time. If it seems unlikely that quantum materials could assemble into a tangible physical body, not to worry. Everything is made of quantum particles, after all. There’s a lot we don’t know about them, including how they constitute Dr. Manhattan, so the movie is vague about his precise reality. I was going to say Silk Spectre II has no complaints, but actually she does. The mystery of the Comedian’s death seems associated with a plot to destroy the world. The first step in the plot may be to annihilate the Watchmen, who are All That Stand Between, etc. It is hard to see how anyone would benefit from the utter destruction of the planet, but remember that in 1985 there was a nuclear standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union that threatened exactly that. Remember “Better Dead Than Red”? There were indeed cold warriors who preferred to be dead rather than red, reminding me of David Merrick’s statement, “It’s not enough for me to win. My enemies must lose.” In a cosmic sense it doesn’t really matter who pushed the Comedian through the window. In a cosmic sense, nothing really matters, but best not meditate on that too much. The Watchmen and their special gifts are all the better able to see how powerless they really are, and although all but Dr. Manhattan are human and back the home team, their powers are not limitless. Dr. Manhattan, existing outside time and space, is understandably remote from the fate of our tiny planet, although perhaps he still harbors some old emotions. Those kinds of quandaries engage all the Watchmen, and are presented in a film experience of often fearsome beauty. It might seem improbable to take seriously a naked blue man, complete with discreet genitalia, but Billy Crudup brings a solemn detachment to Dr. Manhattan that is curiously affecting. Does he remember how it felt to be human? No, but hum a few bars. ... Crudup does the voice and the body language, which is transformed by software into a figure of considerable presence. “Watchmen” focuses on the contradiction shared by most superheroes: They cannot live ordinary lives but are fated to help mankind. That they do this with trademarked names and appliances goes back to their origins in Greece, where Zeus had his thunderbolts, Hades his three-headed dog, and Hermes his winged feet. Could Zeus run fast? Did Hermes have a dog? No. That level of symbolism is coiling away beneath all superheroes. What appeals with Batman is his humanity; despite his skills, he is not supernormal. “Watchmen” brings surprising conviction to these characters as flawed and minor gods, with Dr. Manhattan possessing access to godhead on a plane that detaches him from our daily concerns — indeed, from days themselves. In the film’s most spectacular scene, he is exiled to Mars, and in utter isolation reimagines himself as a human, and conjures (or discovers? I’m not sure) an incredible city seemingly made of crystal and mathematical concepts. This is his equivalent to 40 days in the desert, and he returns as a savior. The film is rich enough to be seen more than once. I plan to see it again, this time on IMAX, and will have more to say about it. I’m not sure I understood all the nuances and implications, but I am sure I had a powerful experience. It’s not as entertaining as “The Dark Knight,” but like the “Matrix” films, LOTR and “The Dark Knight,” it’s going to inspire fevered analysis. I don’t want to see it twice for that reason, however, but mostly just to have the experience again. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...VIEWS/903049997 roger e gave it 4 stars idk walking out i thought i would have given it 3 1/2 stars, if i was a critic. but i will be going to see it again and will be paying more attention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr Salads Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 i cannot believe the hate this film is getting. After the revelation of “The Dark Knight,” here is “Watchmen,” another bold exercise in the liberation of the superhero movie. It’s a compelling visceral film — sound, images and characters combined into a decidedly odd visual experience that evokes the feel of a graphic novel. It seems charged from within by its power as a fable; we sense it’s not interested in a plot so much as with the dilemma of functioning in a world losing hope. That world is America in 1985, with Richard Nixon in the White House and many other strange details, although this America occupies a parallel universe in which superheroes and masked warriors operate. The film confronts a paradox that was always there in comic books: The heroes are only human. They can be in only one place at a time (with a possible exception to be noted later). Although a superhero is able to handle one dangerous situation, the world has countless dangerous situations, and the super resources are stretched too thin. Faced with law enforcement anarchy, Nixon has outlawed superhero activity, quite possibly a reasonable action. Now the murder of the enigmatic vigilante the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) has brought the Watchmen together again. Who might be the next to die? Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), the only one with superpowers in the literal sense, lives outside ordinary time and space, the forces of the universe seeming to coil beneath his skin. Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) is the world’s smartest man. The Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) is a man isolated from life by his mastery of technology. Rorshach (Jackie Earl Haley) is a man who finds meaning in patterns that may only exist in his mind. And Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman) lives with one of the most familiar human challenges, living up to her parents, in this case the original Silk Spectre (Carla Gugino). Dr. Manhattan is both her lover and a distant father figure living in a world of his own. These characters are garbed in traditional comic book wardrobes — capes, boots, gloves, belts, masks, props, anything to make them one of a kind. Rorshach’s cloth mask, with its endlessly shifting inkblots, is one of the most intriguing superhero masks ever, always in constant motion, like a mood ring of the id. Dr. Manhattan is contained in a towering, muscular, naked blue body; he was affected by one of those obligatory secret experiments gone wild. Never mind the details; what matters is that he possibly exists at a quantum level, at which particles seem exempt from the usual limitations of space and time. If it seems unlikely that quantum materials could assemble into a tangible physical body, not to worry. Everything is made of quantum particles, after all. There’s a lot we don’t know about them, including how they constitute Dr. Manhattan, so the movie is vague about his precise reality. I was going to say Silk Spectre II has no complaints, but actually she does. The mystery of the Comedian’s death seems associated with a plot to destroy the world. The first step in the plot may be to annihilate the Watchmen, who are All That Stand Between, etc. It is hard to see how anyone would benefit from the utter destruction of the planet, but remember that in 1985 there was a nuclear standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union that threatened exactly that. Remember “Better Dead Than Red”? There were indeed cold warriors who preferred to be dead rather than red, reminding me of David Merrick’s statement, “It’s not enough for me to win. My enemies must lose.” In a cosmic sense it doesn’t really matter who pushed the Comedian through the window. In a cosmic sense, nothing really matters, but best not meditate on that too much. The Watchmen and their special gifts are all the better able to see how powerless they really are, and although all but Dr. Manhattan are human and back the home team, their powers are not limitless. Dr. Manhattan, existing outside time and space, is understandably remote from the fate of our tiny planet, although perhaps he still harbors some old emotions. Those kinds of quandaries engage all the Watchmen, and are presented in a film experience of often fearsome beauty. It might seem improbable to take seriously a naked blue man, complete with discreet genitalia, but Billy Crudup brings a solemn detachment to Dr. Manhattan that is curiously affecting. Does he remember how it felt to be human? No, but hum a few bars. ... Crudup does the voice and the body language, which is transformed by software into a figure of considerable presence. “Watchmen” focuses on the contradiction shared by most superheroes: They cannot live ordinary lives but are fated to help mankind. That they do this with trademarked names and appliances goes back to their origins in Greece, where Zeus had his thunderbolts, Hades his three-headed dog, and Hermes his winged feet. Could Zeus run fast? Did Hermes have a dog? No. That level of symbolism is coiling away beneath all superheroes. What appeals with Batman is his humanity; despite his skills, he is not supernormal. “Watchmen” brings surprising conviction to these characters as flawed and minor gods, with Dr. Manhattan possessing access to godhead on a plane that detaches him from our daily concerns — indeed, from days themselves. In the film’s most spectacular scene, he is exiled to Mars, and in utter isolation reimagines himself as a human, and conjures (or discovers? I’m not sure) an incredible city seemingly made of crystal and mathematical concepts. This is his equivalent to 40 days in the desert, and he returns as a savior. The film is rich enough to be seen more than once. I plan to see it again, this time on IMAX, and will have more to say about it. I’m not sure I understood all the nuances and implications, but I am sure I had a powerful experience. It’s not as entertaining as “The Dark Knight,” but like the “Matrix” films, LOTR and “The Dark Knight,” it’s going to inspire fevered analysis. I don’t want to see it twice for that reason, however, but mostly just to have the experience again. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...VIEWS/903049997 roger e gave it 4 stars idk walking out i thought i would have given it 3 1/2 stars, if i was a critic. but i will be going to see it again and will be paying more attention I have immense respect for Rog. He's a great writer. In fact me and him are on pretty informal terms. S'why i call him rog. But sometimes he gets too obsessed with stuff no one else seems to catch. Like the dr. manhattan character. He was so obsessed he not only focused on him in his review but took it further into town in his journal entry, talking about quantum mechanics and how he doesnt understand it. I think without that character we might have seen a different review. We might have also experienced a better movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JohnTqs Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 i cannot believe the hate this film is getting. After the revelation of “The Dark Knight,” here is “Watchmen,” another bold exercise in the liberation of the superhero movie. It’s a compelling visceral film — sound, images and characters combined into a decidedly odd visual experience that evokes the feel of a graphic novel. It seems charged from within by its power as a fable; we sense it’s not interested in a plot so much as with the dilemma of functioning in a world losing hope. ... The film is rich enough to be seen more than once. I plan to see it again, this time on IMAX, and will have more to say about it. I’m not sure I understood all the nuances and implications, but I am sure I had a powerful experience. It’s not as entertaining as “The Dark Knight,” but like the “Matrix” films, LOTR and “The Dark Knight,” it’s going to inspire fevered analysis. I don’t want to see it twice for that reason, however, but mostly just to have the experience again. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...VIEWS/903049997 roger e gave it 4 stars idk walking out i thought i would have given it 3 1/2 stars, if i was a critic. but i will be going to see it again and will be paying more attention I have immense respect for Rog. He's a great writer. In fact me and him are on pretty informal terms. S'why i call him rog. But sometimes he gets too obsessed with stuff no one else seems to catch. Like the dr. manhattan character. He was so obsessed he not only focused on him in his review but took it further into town in his journal entry, talking about quantum mechanics and how he doesnt understand it. I think without that character we might have seen a different review. We might have also experienced a better movie. Manhattan is a big part of the movie, without him the film would not be as deep as it was. It's been two days since i saw it, and i'm starting to forget this movie already, but i remember thinking manhattan added a lot of depth with the whole 'you are a god' bizness. i really enjoyed his part of the story...man turns into god, gets a new gf (at this part i remember him saying "she was younger" and thinking "so he does have sexual feelings like a human"), loses his human-ness and his gf, questions who he is and why he should save the world/if he cares for life anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glass Plate Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Is there a point for an alternate reality? Whatever biting commentary it was supposed to be in the comic was obviously distilled into irrelevancy in the film. The main focus of the comic is to be about comics, not to be some ultra political critique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Betty Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 their nixon was awful. Every one keeps talking about the size of that blue wang BUT DID YOU SEE THE SIZE OF THAT NOSE!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Caustic Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 their nixon was awful. Every one keeps talking about the size of that blue wang BUT DID YOU SEE THE SIZE OF THAT NOSE!? Watchmen 2: Wang vers. Nose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gary C Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Underwhelmed. Too much slo-mo. Nixon sucked. Not enough blue-cock. (delete full-stops where appropriate) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr Salads Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I dont think the blue cock moved realistically. It seemed too heavy. Limp dicks arent made of concrete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneboi Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 everyone keeps calling the blue cock huge, but it wasn't. at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest boo Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 i was wondering about that. i could barely see it on the pic i just saw. does anyone have a high res version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atop Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 i cannot believe the hate this film is getting. After the revelation of “The Dark Knight,” here is “Watchmen,” another bold exercise in the liberation of the superhero movie. It’s a compelling visceral film — sound, images and characters combined into a decidedly odd visual experience that evokes the feel of a graphic novel. It seems charged from within by its power as a fable; we sense it’s not interested in a plot so much as with the dilemma of functioning in a world losing hope. That world is America in 1985, with Richard Nixon in the White House and many other strange details, although this America occupies a parallel universe in which superheroes and masked warriors operate. The film confronts a paradox that was always there in comic books: The heroes are only human. They can be in only one place at a time (with a possible exception to be noted later). Although a superhero is able to handle one dangerous situation, the world has countless dangerous situations, and the super resources are stretched too thin. Faced with law enforcement anarchy, Nixon has outlawed superhero activity, quite possibly a reasonable action. Now the murder of the enigmatic vigilante the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) has brought the Watchmen together again. Who might be the next to die? Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), the only one with superpowers in the literal sense, lives outside ordinary time and space, the forces of the universe seeming to coil beneath his skin. Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) is the world’s smartest man. The Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) is a man isolated from life by his mastery of technology. Rorshach (Jackie Earl Haley) is a man who finds meaning in patterns that may only exist in his mind. And Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman) lives with one of the most familiar human challenges, living up to her parents, in this case the original Silk Spectre (Carla Gugino). Dr. Manhattan is both her lover and a distant father figure living in a world of his own. These characters are garbed in traditional comic book wardrobes — capes, boots, gloves, belts, masks, props, anything to make them one of a kind. Rorshach’s cloth mask, with its endlessly shifting inkblots, is one of the most intriguing superhero masks ever, always in constant motion, like a mood ring of the id. Dr. Manhattan is contained in a towering, muscular, naked blue body; he was affected by one of those obligatory secret experiments gone wild. Never mind the details; what matters is that he possibly exists at a quantum level, at which particles seem exempt from the usual limitations of space and time. If it seems unlikely that quantum materials could assemble into a tangible physical body, not to worry. Everything is made of quantum particles, after all. There’s a lot we don’t know about them, including how they constitute Dr. Manhattan, so the movie is vague about his precise reality. I was going to say Silk Spectre II has no complaints, but actually she does. The mystery of the Comedian’s death seems associated with a plot to destroy the world. The first step in the plot may be to annihilate the Watchmen, who are All That Stand Between, etc. It is hard to see how anyone would benefit from the utter destruction of the planet, but remember that in 1985 there was a nuclear standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union that threatened exactly that. Remember “Better Dead Than Red”? There were indeed cold warriors who preferred to be dead rather than red, reminding me of David Merrick’s statement, “It’s not enough for me to win. My enemies must lose.” In a cosmic sense it doesn’t really matter who pushed the Comedian through the window. In a cosmic sense, nothing really matters, but best not meditate on that too much. The Watchmen and their special gifts are all the better able to see how powerless they really are, and although all but Dr. Manhattan are human and back the home team, their powers are not limitless. Dr. Manhattan, existing outside time and space, is understandably remote from the fate of our tiny planet, although perhaps he still harbors some old emotions. Those kinds of quandaries engage all the Watchmen, and are presented in a film experience of often fearsome beauty. It might seem improbable to take seriously a naked blue man, complete with discreet genitalia, but Billy Crudup brings a solemn detachment to Dr. Manhattan that is curiously affecting. Does he remember how it felt to be human? No, but hum a few bars. ... Crudup does the voice and the body language, which is transformed by software into a figure of considerable presence. “Watchmen” focuses on the contradiction shared by most superheroes: They cannot live ordinary lives but are fated to help mankind. That they do this with trademarked names and appliances goes back to their origins in Greece, where Zeus had his thunderbolts, Hades his three-headed dog, and Hermes his winged feet. Could Zeus run fast? Did Hermes have a dog? No. That level of symbolism is coiling away beneath all superheroes. What appeals with Batman is his humanity; despite his skills, he is not supernormal. “Watchmen” brings surprising conviction to these characters as flawed and minor gods, with Dr. Manhattan possessing access to godhead on a plane that detaches him from our daily concerns — indeed, from days themselves. In the film’s most spectacular scene, he is exiled to Mars, and in utter isolation reimagines himself as a human, and conjures (or discovers? I’m not sure) an incredible city seemingly made of crystal and mathematical concepts. This is his equivalent to 40 days in the desert, and he returns as a savior. The film is rich enough to be seen more than once. I plan to see it again, this time on IMAX, and will have more to say about it. I’m not sure I understood all the nuances and implications, but I am sure I had a powerful experience. It’s not as entertaining as “The Dark Knight,” but like the “Matrix” films, LOTR and “The Dark Knight,” it’s going to inspire fevered analysis. I don’t want to see it twice for that reason, however, but mostly just to have the experience again. I already posted this review in an earlier page(spoil alerted) and Ebert didn't hate the film.... Are you a bad reader or am I missing some hidden hatred? This film is, once again like all of the other adaptations, ruining Alan Moore's reputation.... He is a writer, a fantastic writer at that, and should start denying requests to adapt his stories.... I enjoyed the film but it isn't near the comic in greatness... Nor is 'Watchmen' Moore's best work....('From Hell' is in imo and the opinions of most Moore fans) Therefore I am starting to dislike the film based on its reactions and attempt at making a fine story better.... Zack Snyder fixed nothing but simply did a cover version of one of his favourite books... I would try and distance myself from the film and just consider it to be separate from the book but it is hard because a lot of the story is there in the film but some details that should have been added, weren't there i.e. more Ozymandias, word for word from the book Dr. Manhattan monologues.... some extra ones were added but shouldn't have been.... the fucking and arm sawing scenes, Nixon's and Sally Jupiter's make-up..... Nixon period, should not have been in this film.... And it looked like Snyder thought it should, not like we thought it should...... I did love the Mars scenes, even though some of you super design nerds think it looks shoddy or whatever..... I thought it looked cool..... and if Manhattan, Rorschach, and the Comedian hadn't been in the film, that wouldn't make sense but I am sure the film doesn't make sense to a lot of people anyways........ they made it worth watching....Blue cock and all I am sure all of this has been said so far but I had to get it off my mind for any of you that enjoyed the book way before any talk of a film was widely known.... And everything else by Alan Moore..... I'm sorry Mr. Moore.... We should have let you or another Brit who like you understands America better than most Americans, be behind this film... ...................................................... LAST POST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest my usernames always really suck Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Did someone say blue cock? » Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... « Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.