Moviepro (www.moviepro.net)

We have taken some photos of "Watchmen". They represent actual movie quality.

• Quelle surprise! posted on 31 Aug 2009

  Well I did my civic duty and went to watch the Watchmen. Gotta say, this is some good adapted cinema. Zack Snyder plays it close enough to the original comic book that only die-hard fans will nitpick, and he manages to make a movie that can be enjoyed over some three hours and counting that doesn't feel all that long while sitting in the actual theatre. Considering the last thing he did was that real stain 300, we can tell that the really significant difference between the quality of one comic book film and the other adapted by him is the source material. Watchmen is a classic, and the movie does it a fair bit of justice.I can't speak to what people who HAVEN'T read the original source material will think about it, except that there was a disturbing amount of children in the audience attending the screening. Note to parents: comic book movies don't mean friendly all American superheroes. Actually, that's the image that this movie deconstructs, and with lots of disturbing material even by today's standards. However, for the REST of the world going to see it with no expectations, it tells the story quite well and hits the major points fluently, which is refreshing, and it is well-paced and entertaining, though in some places dark. Can't wait to hear what people who haven't read the comic have to say about the ending... gotta be good.Even the acting is pretty true to the original characters, which is surprising. Seems the actors did their research and feel those characters, which is a change in form for many adaptations, I must say. If Snyder leaves a personal print on this, it's in the music. Some of his choices work... some of them are unintentionally funny. Oh well.I'm sorry I'm writing this review as a comparison to the novel, which I'm sure there is no end of all across the Internet. It's just hard, when having experienced another version first, not to compare the two materials, and Snyder sticks so closely to Moore's ideas (if maybe not his specific vision... credit removed, yet again!) that the movie almost begs cross-reference. I for one miss the primary colors of the graphic novel, but that's just me. I'm sure other fans have their own personal beef with the movie, but I think in the end it is the audience who aren't previously acquainted who will really show how effective this movie is.--PolarisDiB

• A Dark Insight into the Superhero World posted on 31 Aug 2009

  Starting off, I am just reviewing the film overall and not taking in account any of the written sources it's based off. Watchmen seems to be a complex film, and I'm sure and extremely hard to make an adaption of. It seems with dealing with material, such as this one, it's almost impossible to please everybody. Watchmen is a about a team of superheros that look after or "watch" the world around it and society which is supposed to take place in 1985. Be warned: this is not your regular superhero movie. Watchmen seems to reveal a much darker existence and reality into their world, the world of these superheros that we have seen so many times before. This isn't teenage Peter Parker, running and flying through the streets of New York. This is a much darker piece of work including, graphic violence, murder, sex scenes and nudity between these heroes. This film could be described as controversial with all the history, themes and meanings it goes through. It expands through many historical events, such as the Vietnam War and the Nixon Presidency.The film starts off with a murder and a mystery that surrounds it. (As it is said in the plot.) This side of the story was very interesting and entertaining. It kept my interest going forward, not knowing what to expect. Interesting, and suspenseful with a sort of realism to it. Then the film sort of gradually goes off into more of a fantasy setting, with a whole bunch of outer space, mystical objects, creatures, and end of the world hints. I didn't really care for this side of the story, but it is sort of a fantasy superhero film, based on the graphic novel, so I can't knock it for being what it is supposed to be. What I didn't like, was how long it took to actually discover what was going on with the plot, which turned out to be a bit confusing. There was a bunch of goofy and corny parts, which really wasn't needed or could have been done better. The sex scene for example, seemed kind of forced and awkward. Now to the characters since its more of a character driven piece anyway. Oscar nominated actor, Jackie Earle Haley, completely stole the show as Rorschach. Every time he wasn't on screen, I just kept waiting for him to come back. I loved his character and his storyline. There's not enough good things I can say about him and his performance. Him alone, makes the film worthwhile, in my opinion. Just what if the others could be as good... Well for Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre II, I can't say she was bad, but not all that great. It seems obvious that she was pretty much put in this film as eye candy, which she definitely succeeds at. Overall, I liked the rest of the cast and thought they did a pretty good job with a few weak moments (mainly Ackerman). Some of the action sequences seem like they could have been done better. Snyder's style made them look "out of synch." The visual look and feel of the film is well done. The opening credits scene with the song playing is fantastic. The song "Times are a Changin' by Bob Dylan plays in the background as these credits really set the tone and mood for the film. Beautifully done. Not all of the songs seemed to fit though. Some of them seemed really out of place and even awkward at times. Interesting, dark cinematography with some great visuals. Most of the writing and dialog was great, particularly, Rorschach's scenes and lines. Maybe Haley just made it that much better? There is some weak moments as well mostly with Ackerman's lines. Maybe because some of her weak delivery of some of her lines. Don't mean to pick on her, but she seems to be the weak link in this one. Overall, Watchmen seems like a dense, deep, complex look at the superhero world. It made for an interesting film, that I just had to see because I was so intrigued by the R rating with the dark graphic nature of this kind of superhero film. It's not perfect, and I'm sure some people won't like it, but a pretty good film nonetheless. If you go in looking for an interestingly done story about a new kind of insight to the dark world of superheros then this film should work for you. 6.5-7 out of 10

• wow... just wow... posted on 31 Aug 2009

  just finished watching the watchmen a few hours ago at an imax theater. as a forward, i am not familiar with the graphic novels... at the moment anyways.This is the best film i've ever seen. There isn't a single thing about the movie that I would have changed. I am usually extremely critical of every movie, and just about every movie that i've ever watched there is something that I would have changed from the godfather, to lord of the rings, to shawshank, to the matrix, to cuckoo's nest, to pulp fiction, to slumdog, to 300. That is a hell of a league of movies. The weakest actor might have been the Adrian Veidt / Ozymandias character... that speaks volumes that all the character parts are superb.story, cinematography, score, effects, violence... all brilliant Like i said, i haven't read the graphic novels, but in all fairness, when is a movie better than the corresponding book? Comparing it and judging it based on a different format is not a fair comparison. Compare it to any other movie, or even a comic hero type movie. the closest movies i can think of in a similar genre is batman begins which is i would say an 8 or 8.5, and the dark knight about 7 or 7.5 (although i haven't seen iron man)... this movie is a 10 until something better comes out.

• Well it looks like the book... posted on 31 Aug 2009

  The general consensus on Watchmen is that those who read the graphic novel will love it and those who didn't will hate it. This theory conveniently explains the mixed response it has received from critics and audiences alike. Well I will prove to be the exception to the rule. I read the book, I loved the book, and the film is dreadful.There is a reason why the first director approached to make this film is Terry Gilliam. Others offered the job include the excellent Darren Aronofsky and Paul Greengrass. These are three gentlemen who have a strong visual style but crucially understand the mechanics of themes and storytelling. Eventually the studio settled on Zack Snyder, laughably referred to in the trailer as "the visionary director of 300." That's not to say 300 isn't a fun film but it's altogether meaningless and it knows it. Could this man best known for a style-over-substance snuff picture possibly have the capacity to bring Alan Moore's pessimistic vision of complex superheroes to the screen? Let's start with the acting. Besides the sole stand-out of Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl, the cast is made up of actors who are at best wooden and at worst a stockpile of logs. Jackie Earl Haley is watchable as Rorshach but the talk of an Oscar nomination is deeply perplexing since all he had to do was scowl. Plus I preferred the one scene where he wasn't utilizing the Christian Bale Batman voice. I also have to excuse Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan since the character isn't supposed to emote. Everyone else, however, would be better suited as firewood.A friend of mine allegedly referred to this film as a perfect adaptation. Perfect. In other words, it looks like the illustrations by Dave Gibbons. By that logic, I could pick up a copy of The Catcher in the Rye, frame and film the text, add music to it, and presto: I've made a perfect adaptation of J.D. Salinger's book simply because all the words are in it. Just because it gets the plot and the visuals mostly right, doesn't mean it captures the essence of what Watchmen is really about. Ask yourself if you really cared about any of the characters as portrayed in the film. Of course you didn't care, stop lying! The reason you don't care and I don't care is because Snyder doesn't care. What does he care about instead? He cares about how bad-ass Rorschach is. He cares about how awesome gratuitous violence is. He cares about how much we all want to bang Silk Spectre. The film ends with Bob Dylan's "Desolation Row" on the soundtrack as interpreted by My Chemical Romance, which makes you think Dr. Manhattan has just teleported you into the heart of an emo mosh pit. Instead of the bittersweet taste you are supposed to have in your mouth due to the Machiavellian actions of the heroes, you feel like cheering. But what is there to cheer about? Ultimately the film doesn't know what it wants to be. On the one hand, the book suggests that it should mean something, but on the other hand, depth is not as fun as breaking fingers in slow-motion, and because slow-motion looks a bit artsy, the emptiness of Snyder's vision is masked with the utmost portentousness. The soundtrack perfectly sums up this notion, making use of Simon & Garfunkel and the Mozart Requiem for no other reason except it sounds cool. It's the Tarantino School of Soundtracks but at least Tarantino films never pretend to be important. All this would be forgivable were it not for one scene that plays Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" over a sex scene that was lifted straight out of a late night softcore romp on Cinemax. That scene, with its excessive thrusting and its noir lighting, is the essence of Zack Snyder's Watchmen.By the time Terry Gilliam's chances to direct the film fell through in the late 1980s, he came to the conclusion that the only faithful way to adapt the book was to make a five-hour miniseries. I suspect he was onto something since the 2 ½ hour Watchmen is all sizzle and no steak, so maybe there was no way to make it work. Stanley Kubrick famously had no regard for the books he was adapting, especially Stephen King's The Shining, but he was able to use them as a starting point for his own cinematic vision. He made The Shining work. Maybe because he didn't have to worry about winging fanboys in 1980. Now I'm imagining what Stanley Kubrick's Watchmen would look like. And now I'm happy.

• This is one Amazing Movie! posted on 31 Aug 2009

  I must say that I in fact loved this movie. A lot of my friends at school had been talking about it and I had seen the book pop up a few times. I never really thought much of it until I went and saw a movie with my fiancée and we saw the preview for it. And better yet, it came out on my birthday! I eventually got hold of the book and two days before the opening of the movie, I read and finished it with only an hour left until I was going to see it. I was pretty much bouncing up and down in car with excitement to see the movie. Once I got in the theater, I couldn't look away from the screen throughout the entire movie. Everything about it made me sit on the edge of seat and it kept my attention during the entire 2 hours and 43 minutes. Ever since I saw it, I can't stop thinking about it and I can't wait to go and see it again this weekend!!

• Uneven posted on 31 Aug 2009

  Watchmen has been in development for over twenty years. It went through several drafts and directors, and studios competed for it, but we finally got it, for better or worse. I heard at one point Warner Bros. wanted to update it to modern times (*shudder*) so I guess it could have been worse. Watchmen brilliantly recreates parts of the graphic novel, but these moments are greater than the sum of its parts. Superheroes have been outlawed since the mid 1970's by a law called the Keene Act. Watchmen starts with the premise that the first real superheroes appeared in the 1940's, but during the 1950's they started to decline. More and more superheroes were killed and there were no more supervillains to hunt. Then came Dr. Manhattan, the first (and only) superhero with powers. Dr. Manhattan is a living God, with the power to do almost anything. He leads the United States to victory in the Vietnam War and gives them the edge in the Cold War. Dan Dreiberg, aka Nite Owl II and Laurie Jupiter, aka Silk Specter II (named after her mother) retire after the Keene Act is passed. Adrian Veidt, aka Ozymandias, the smartest man in the world, reveals his identity and becomes a successful corporate businessman.Watchmen begins like the comic, with the murder of Edward Blake, aka the Comedian, one of the two last superheroes working for the government. The vigilante detective Rorschach investigates the murder, suspecting someone is picking off costumed heroes. A Bay of Pigs situation develops in the Middle East when the USSR invades Afghanistan, and everybody panics about a Nuclear War breaking out. Rorschach suspects someone wants the old superheroes out of the way so they can't stop it. What proceeds is essentially a character study of all the superheroes I have mentioned thus far. What would these superheroes be like in the real world? The Comedian is portrayed brilliantly. He is essentially the antithesis of Captain America. He sees the human race as savage and selfish, and sees the world as a joke. Rorschach is probably the best adapted character in the movie. Jackie Earl Haley delivers the best performance in the movie, even though his face is covered for most of it. He is what Batman would be like in the real world. Patrick Wilson gives an admirable performance as Nite Owl, the most normal and relatable of all the superheroes. Malin Akerman isn't the best actress but she's adequate for Silk Specter. Billy Crudup is good as Dr. Manhattan but his performance is overshadowed by the special effects that make his character. Manhattan sees the world on a Quantum level, and sees time as simultaneous. He is so existential he loses touch with the way humans see the world. The only bad performance is Matthew Goode as Ozymandias, but some of that stems from one dimensional writing. His accent disappears periodically.I must commend Snyder for meticulously recreating the look of the comic book. Everything looks just like the comic. The opening credits outline the history of the first superheroes very well in a short period of time. The choice of Bob Dylan's "The Times they are a changin" is very appropriate. I particularly liked the recreation of the JFK assassination. I think Watchmen's loyalty to the source material is part of its downfall, unfortunately. It follows the structure of the comic almost to a tee, but I don't think it works in movie form. The plot develops very slowly because it keeps stopping to give us more background story for the characters. This in part creates a conundrum for any filmmaker: the background is essential for the story, yet it slows down the pace considerably. I feel like a mini-series or a two part movie would have been more appropriate for Watchmen than a single film. Watchmen has been called unfilmable and I can see why. The novel was brilliant for the execution of the story, and if you remove one element it has a big impact on the rest of the story. For example, I think the film lost the atmosphere of panic and impending doom by omitting scenes with New York's citizens that were so great in the novel. If these scenes are inserted into the director's cut though, they would just feel like unnecessary bulk. To create this atmosphere Snyder relied on scenes with a Richard Nixon actor with laughable makeup in a Dr. Strangelove set that aren't as effective.Watchmen still has many problems that do not stem from the complexity or enormity of the source material, however. The film is gratuitously violent for no good reason. Snyder sticks in Matrix style action scenes with annoying slow motion that certainly make the film longer than necessary. These scenes seem to contradict the premise of being a deconstruction of the superhero genre. Some of Snyder's choices of music are embarrassing or simply distracting.Another problem I had was with the ending. Considering how slow they built up to it, the ending was very rushed and it did not create a feeling of tragedy or grief. It comes across as an Independence Day action scene rather than a tragedy. Laurie and Dan's reactions are not nearly sad enough. Dan acts furious, which is a total deviation from the source material. They were supposed to be so stricken with grief that they could not fight. Snyder did not have the guts to portray the characters this way. The absence of the squid does not bother me so much. Ozymandias does not express any shred of doubt like he does in the comic, which would have helped his character.Watchmen is loyal to the comic in some respects, but ultimately misses the big picture. But even if one does not take that into account, we are still left with an overlong film with mediocre direction.

• so perfect I can't find words to describe it posted on 31 Aug 2009

  Watchmen is so good, I saw it three times already and I realize I have a Watchmen addiction I mean really it's so breathtaking every scene it's a movie that will break boundaries there violence, but that no so bad, because it's meant to be a story on itself, outside our society, in a different world but still I find many things that we nowadays share with Watchmen the music, for instance it's so good, so perfectly put together with the images on the screen my favourite movies are Scorpio Rising, Forrest Gump and Watchmen you see many people being hit at on this wonderful music okay the comic is cool too I don't disagree with that I just think that every living soul should see this movie it changed my life completely I'm very sorry I cannot be more specific on some scenes, but I don't want to pull the magic away before you've seen it yourselves the parts I don't like about Watchmen are details like the sex scene not the first one you see but the second it's on music that makes you laugh instead of tender oh I'm so mad at myself I don't find words to show the goodness of Watchmen let me put is thus: if I were king or somebody like a king, somebody with a lot of authority, I would make everybody see Watchmen but not only that I would say they all have to vote 10 on IMDb for this movie, so it can go back where it belongs: in the top 250!

• My opinion swings like blue dong. posted on 31 Aug 2009

  I was first introduced to the Watchmen graphic novel when I was about 12 years old. I thought it was the coolest thing because this comic didn't hold back any punches. It had blood, nudity and profanity unlike our Marvel Superheroes of that time. I was into this novel, and I was the geek who had a closet love for Watchmen and who was also in a flock of other kids, who thought Wolverine or Spiderman was so F-in cool that they looked at me funny whenever I brought this cult classic up.18 years later, as the great Watchmen novel slowly went to the back burner of my memory, I hear and anticipated the movie to be released by Zack Snyder. and I said to myself:"No way. I thought I was the only one and maybe like a dozen or so around the world who know about Watchmen." Now everybody is on the bandwagon to anticipate Watchmen's greatness or flop. I hyped myself so much for the Watchmen to be my all time favorite. I was walking around thinking: "Yeah, this movie is going to cure my nearsightedness and make me psychic or prophetic or something." Well none of that came true. After viewing Watchmen, I realized that what when I was young I missed out on the story and the adult situations that enveloped this classic. I think it was because I was too young and immature to comprehend its complexities at that time. This movie did me a favor by making me want to reread the graphic novel and bypass the blood, nudity, and violence in order to actually enrich my life by understanding the underlying story of Watchmen.I admire Zach Snyders attempt to match his grandiose direction against Alan Moore's concept, even though it doesn't compare to the novel. Hopefully Alan Moore, can at least give Zack Snyder credit for making this attempt. The director did his best to match story and style in a live sense. And for a movie that is two and a half hours, of course it would leave a lot of that story out. His director's cut on DVD promises the movie to be over 3 hours long. Some people who hated this movie, hated it because of 3 things. 1) They were bored because it was too long, 2) they didn't understand the movie, or.....3) (the best reason)... it is no where near the greatness of the graphic novel. If they hated this movie for any other reason. Well, they don't go out much...On a technical note, special effects and CGI were there and convincing. Acting was okay all around, (Even Silk Spectre and Ozymandias weren't all that bad). Sorry, I didn't go around looking for flaws in this movie. My only complaint was the multiple story lines felt a little too forced and that some characters weren't developed enough, namely Ozymandias and to a certain extent Night Owl 2. I know, I know, it would have been a three and a half hour movie if it did. And yes, the ending was rather disappointing and I thought the climax should have been more moving than just a brief explosion. I didn't like this movie as much as I did 300, which had a simpler story line.On a positive note, this movie left me with some nagging questions and I am willing to see this again on DVD. But I will turn back to the graphic novel before anything. I still strongly recommend it. If this movie did any thing, it reinforces the marketing of this great great novel.

• I'll Watch The Watchmen, Over, and Over Again posted on 31 Aug 2009

  I have to salute Warner Brothers for taking to obvious gamble on producing a film which was not a guaranteed sell for mass audiences. They choose to stick as close to it's source as possible without compromising the integrity of said source. Doubly so I have to salute Zack Snyder for bravely throwing himself into a no win situation in taking on this project. He knew that he was damned by the purists of the graphic novel in lieu of the fact that he strove to stay as close as possible to Alan Moore's masterpiece. He also knew that he would also be damned by the uninitiated. The people who have never read the graphic novel. For the popcorn munching, soda-gulping crowd who were expecting another Dark Knight, and instead found a film which is abundant in psychological complexity, and jam packed with political satire. Watchmen was always meant to be a story where action takes a back seat to character depth.In this age of cinema, we all seem to be plagued by the belief that things can't be done. We find ourselves to be discouraged to take risks, and attempt to think beyond to sphere of the current social consciousness. In the case of Watchmen, everyone concerned with the making of this film decided that this kind of cynicism is damaging. Warner Brothers decided that instead of joining the line of studios that rejected the project for fear of whatever backlash may occur, WB instead decided to be the one's to say "We did it, and whether you like it, or not, what matters is that we had the guts to say it could be done.After reading Watchmen I knew deep down that a film was possible, and that all it needed was a Director who had the right sensibility, and comprehension of the material to make it work. Zack Snyder, though not the obvious choice, was definitely a great choice. Some may call him a director who is all flash, and no substance, but after watching his prior work on Dawn of the Dead, and 300 I just can't agree with those claims. Snyder simply knows how to make the most of every scene by capturing it at every angle. He knew that the way to make any film memorable was to insure that every frame is an iconic image that'll be burned into the subconscious of the viewer. With Watchmen he struck a gold mine. Every frame of Watchmen is gorgeous to behold. He brings out the grimy streets of 1980's New York with unflinching passion. When Dr. Manhattan exiles himself on Mars, Snyder makes you feel the blissful solitude. Having read the book, I was able to see the same story from new and exciting aspects. I loved seeing familiar scenes achieve a kind of emotional impact that cannot be achieved with 2D images alone.I do agree with Alan Moore that the graphic novel format is a medium all it's own, but I also agree with Robert Rodriguez (re: Sin City) when he said the mediums are similar. In the realm of movies, comics are storyboards, and Snyder, like Rodriguez, followed the imagery every step of the way. All the while knowing how to pace the story in all the right ways. The differences in the adaptation are seldom but they are still appropriate. Never once was something cut or changed that I was left lamenting it's omission. I'm sure a lot of it will be in the promised director's cut. As for the squid. I'm sorry but even if Zack Snyder, and the screenwriters could find a way to fit it in, it seriously would have been a hard pill to swallow on film. Even with Snyder visual talents, it still would have looked ridiculous, and would have overshadowed the impact of Ozymandias' intent. The ending is different, but still the same. You still feel for the tragedy of what Ozymandias has done, but you still feel the conflict that all the Watchmen feel regarding their decisions afterward.The only shortcomings I could say this film had was that Malin Akerman was lackluster, and seemed unable to reach the core of the part. Also the inclusion of Ozymandias' pet Bubastis is great for fans, but is quite confusing for the uninitiated, so it may mean a lashing from the fans, but since there's no prior scene explaining Bubastis' origins, as a fan I'd feel no remorse for losing the cat. I just hope that the director's cut explains her more thoroughly. In the end I will boldly say that Watchmen is a masterpiece of ambitious film-making, and in the long run people will look back and realize what all the hubbub is about.

• Epic! posted on 31 Aug 2009

  Watchmen is definitely one of the best movies of the year. It has top of the line action, interesting characters, and fantastic visual effects. It builds up the suspense till the unbelievable ending and if you've read the book, you'll find the movie is extremely accurate.The actors like Malin Akkerman, Billy Cruddup, Jackie Haley, and Carla Gugino all give powerful performances and really bring the characters to life. The action sequences mostly consist of cracking bones and bloody wounds, which is kinda gross.But the movie isn't perfect, it has a few issues: 1)Way too long. 2)Some of the performances by the actors were sorely lacking. 3)Movie takes itself way to seriously. 4)Almost all action sequences are in slow motion, sort of ruining it. 5)Slightly cheesy writing with bad one-liners.Still, it a great remake and Snyder did a good job fitting so much important material into one 2 hour movie.

• Wow posted on 31 Aug 2009

  When I first heard that things were changed for the Watchmen movie, I wasn't too pleased. Then I watched it.They did an amazing job. The actors captured the would-be-heroes perfectly.Speaking of which, the casting was outstanding. I thought the casting on Star Trek was good, but finding people to match with fake people, and pulling it off better than anyone else? Mr. Snyder, I tip my hat to you.The production was good, what they changed didn't take away from it at all, and made it accessible to new comers as well as pleasing old fans. I would recommend this to anyone, at all, ever. P.S., I didn't think it was possible, but Rorschach is an even bigger BAMF than ever..TT.

• Visually perfected, stylish mess of a movie that i totally overjoyed! posted on 31 Aug 2009

  'Watchmen' at first sight (and by that i mean movie description, plot, cast etc.) seemed like another over-hyped superhero movie which we had plenty to watch in this millennium. Then the movie came to cinema, i wasn't going for it, just didn't feel like watching it, had no high hopes or anything that would suggest a great quality entertainment, basically i was kind of "scared" of cheesy and cliché superhero action flick. Then 'Watchmen' came to DVD, director's cut was released and i finally decided to watch it. My expectations did neither rise or fall during this period of almost full 4 months, i still expected the same thing i expected from the original version that was shown in cinemas worldwide. In my subconsciousness i thought director's cut was just a tag that comes with additional 20 minutes of slow-motion meaningless action scenes or things like that. I certainly didn't know i was in for such a delightful treat...Things started of pretty weird, politically-based, historically overcooked things shown on TV etc. Then some fight, drunk "big-boy" vs unknown figure, whatever, nothing special... And then one of my favorite songs by Bob Dylan played on like REPEAT (that's the first time i see a whole song play in the beginning of the movie, and it wasn't just a whole song, if i remember correctly one verse was repeated after the song ended! Pretty long intro yeah.), it was 'Times They Are A-Changin'', truly an undisputed timeless classic. Then, as the movie was going forward i thought things got kind of out of control (nobody who watched this movie or read the comics told me that this movie can be considered as "big joke" or some black-comedy or anything like that) and i thought it was pretty awkward, but even at that point i was completely into the movie, enjoying every sequence, every line. With every scene passing by i enjoyed the movie more and more. Casting was superb, i really didn't know any of the actors much (although everyone was fairly familiar and recognizable) but they were so into their roles of these superheroes/super-villains that it was just very atmospheric, stylish and highly entertaining. Malin Akerman as Laurie Jupiter/Silk Spectre II was truly astonishing, beautiful and likable, really gave this movie a boost from my point of view. The plot is somehow complex and yet very simple, heroes, villains, saving the world...I think this movie shows that the line between undisputed, compelling, thought-provoking masterpiece and entertaining pop-corn flick is sometimes very thin and that truly applies to 'Watchmen'. People might consider it a "big joke" and it truly is a big joke at some parts, that's why i said it's a mess of a movie, 3 hour long movie filled with style, gory action scenes, thought-provoking sentences, highly emotional content at some parts etc. Some people will love it (no matter what direction they choose for the movie, masterpiece or entertaining pop-corn flick) and some will hate it with each scene passing by more and more...Visual effects, as i mentioned in the summary are awesome, this movie in my opinion is visually perfected, style pretty much gives that aspect a big boost and vice versa, every scene that's done with special effects has been a joy to behold and nothing less than that. Photography is astonishing at some parts of this movie, i mean with this kind of photography and visual effects no wonder they decided to make a 3 hour long film. The fact is that they could've surely make this movie 45 minutes shorter but they decided to take a more requiring, scenic route and for that i'm really grateful.Forget about 'Iron Man', 'Transformers' and other superhero movies that only rely on visual effects and franchise, 'Watchmen' is the movie you've been looking for if you're hungry for some visually perfected, thought-provoking, action-filled (gore included) movie with great atmosphere and amazing style. Yeah, 'Watchmen' definitely has all of that, and although some viewers may consider it mess of a movie that in the end gave nothing, i consider it a mess of a movie that gave everything throughout the whole 3 hours (director's cut). 'Watchmen' is definitely one of those movies that you will watch again if you liked it and even if you didn't you will watch it again!10/10 - for a surprisingly awesome treat and probably the best 3 hours spent on a movie since 'The Good, The Bad and The Ugly'

• Comicbook-skeptic proofed posted on 29 Aug 2009

  Even those who have never had anything to do with comic books will find this two-and-a-half hour, alternate-history, apocalyptic extravaganza enjoyable.This, of course, as long as they have previously read one or two reliable articles on Watchmen (like this month's Wired magazine on-set story about the film making, or even Wikipedia). It's absolutely not necessary to check the graphic novel in itself, though comic advanced enthusiasts seemed to enjoy the movie as well. Director Zack Snyder manages to keep viewers busy for nearly three hours with a masterful balance between non-fiction likeliness and men-in-tights absurdity.

• Outstanding! posted on 29 Aug 2009

  An ex-superhero is thrown through a plate glass window, many stories above the city. Was his murder somehow connected to the feared imminent nuclear holocaust between the United States and Russia? Someone seems to want the former do-gooders out of the way in this thrilling, one-of-a-kind, jaded look at superheroes that turns conventional comic-book wisdom on its head.It's an alternate 1985. Richard Nixon has been elected to a fifth presidential term. But the USSR is encroaching on Afghanistan, and the US isn't taking too kindly to it. Enter the smartest man in the world, Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode), formerly known as superhero Ozymandias, who is working with the ethereal Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), a physicist who has achieved immortality and near-omniscience owing to a long-ago lab mishap. With Dr. Manhattan's help, Adrian hopes to dissolve the tension between the two superpowers.But that's not the only conflict, not by a long shot. Since the characters here are unfamiliar to most audiences, there's plenty of backstory, seamlessly edited into the main story as important details that inform the characters. (For one thing, we get to see the rather graphic - more on that later - origin of Dr. Manhattan.) The superheroes have conflict within their own group, which has gone its separate ways - with different goals and outlooks. Not only that, but the world at large isn't entirely on the side of masked avengers, labeling them as vigilantes. By the present, most of them have ditched their costumes for traditional lives; some tinker with their gadgets in their basements, in hiding, and some merely blend into society.Here's who's left in 1985, in addition to Ozymandias (who's revealed his true identity to the world) and Dr. Manhattan: Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson), Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman), and The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan). Others have gone insane or been murdered themselves in years past; all suffer as everyday humans now.So how does Watchmen skewer comic-book tropes? Well, they're not always good, you see. Some are, but some maliciously kill, albeit for the greater good. Some take delight in the suffering of man if that man is, say, a child killer. That sort of thing. The truth is, no one here is perfect, not even the superheroes. Another difference is the high level of violence in the movie. This isn't a comic-book movie where the bad guys fall down when they get slapped, no sir. No, the heroes beat the stuffing out of them, with blood, entrails, and the like splattering all over the place. Limbs are dislodged, brains are exposed. It's wildly violent, much like director Zack Snyder's last film, 300, but without the detached, this-can't-be-real tone. This isn't a movie in which the bad guys are brought in for questioning or sent to prison to think about what they've done. This is a movie in which the bad guys are annihilated, period.In case you're still contemplating taking the kiddies to see this superhero fare, here's another caveat: there's nudity. No, it's not Malin Akerman (although you do get a glimpse), it's the blue-hued Dr. Manhattan himself. Sometimes he's in a thong, but often he's just letting it all dangle there. Funny thing is, it's not really all that shocking. If it'd been one of the humans, perhaps, but Dr. Manhattan is more humanoid than human at this point.At 160 minutes, the action really doesn't let up. But that's nothing - most movies are fast paced now. This one has a plot that can keep up with the action. In fact, the intricacies of the plot are delicious to unwrap; this was not a movie - superhero or not - where you can predict the end without just taking a wild stab.I can't understate how tremendous an achievement this movie is. If we're all lucky, this will open the door for more adult comic-book films. The good guys don't always have to be about justice and truth and all that junk, and the bad guys can sometimes get what's really coming to them. I do want to point out that among the outstanding cast, Jackie Earle Haley as the haunted, masked Rorschach is tremendous. Wilson, who appeared with Haley in Little Children a few years back, is also dweebishly strong as the aging Nite Owl II.

• Awful posted on 29 Aug 2009

  I am truly amazed by the support and fan base this movie has obtained. Saw this movie some 6 hours ago and just cannot believe how awful this movie was. That were the 2 1/2 hours of my life wasted. Such a weak script and very bad editing. I mean it was like watching some armature film maker work which just didn't seem to end. Cant believe that Zack would make this after a decent film like 300. First half hour of the film were spent arguing with myself that this film was going to get better and during the last half hour I was about to pull out my hair, out of disappointment and disbelief. I mean talk about mindless sex scenes and aimless violence.God help us all.

• What a waste of money. posted on 29 Aug 2009

  First, I'm giving this 5 stars purely on the great special effects, but then what film doesn't have those these days?The acting was poor, there was virtually zero character development, and I spent about 70% of the time being bored. The plot has potential, but it skipped between flashbacks and what might've been flashforwards (who knows o_O?), and the history of the storyline was extremely boring.I had hoped that the gruff 'I need a throat sweet' voice over was going to stay with Bale in Batman, but no. The narrator of this movie had the same 'give me a soother' voice and that was quite annoying. The female lead was also incredibly irritating, and clearly only got the part because of the amount of nudity required for her role. I cannot see many respected, decent actresses being okay with such a lousy script and the nudity. The story itself didn't pick up any sort of pace at all until at least half way through (that's an hour and a half, nearly :P ). It contained too much blood and gore for my liking. That is a personal preference so does not reflect much on how decent the film is as a whole, but if you don't want to see guts hanging from the ceiling, people having their hands cut off, a man getting a meat cleaver to his head multiple times, two dead dogs, bones being broken (and subsequently bursting through the skin) and people exploding from the inside out... then really don't go see this. Of course the fanboys of the comics (Oops, sorry, I meant Graphic Novel....) will rate this film highly just because they're fanboys. I got taken along with my best friend and her comic book mad fiancée and even he after weeks of "omg watchmen!!!" was unimpressed, as was another comic book loving friend of mine. I wish I hadn't shelled out to see it, I feel it was a total waste of my time and money. I am now just looking forward to seeing the Transformers and Ironman sequels, now there are two great films.

• Probably the Best Comic Adaptation to Date... posted on 29 Aug 2009

  Alan Moore can complain about this film's existence all he wants to... That doesn't change the fact that "Watchmen" is probably the best comic book adaptation to date... Actually, despite Moore's general complaints about the end results of previous adaptations of his work, most of them ("From Hell", "V for Vendetta", and this film) have turned out very well. Only the horribly translated "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" was truly a disappointment... Let's face it: when you're an acclaimed writer that Hollywood latches itself onto and they manage to score 75%, you're definitely beating the spread...While it's true that Zack Snyder probably used "300" in the same way that Peter Jackson used "The Frighteners" and the dream sequences in "Heavenly Creatures" (i.e.: as practice for LOTR and to show he could pull it off), the end result is every bit as good as any of the films of Middle Earth..."Watchmen" is a brutal, no-holds-barred, and faithful retelling of what is probably one of the best graphic novels ever printed that manages to be a vast improvement over Snyder's last effort "300" by ditching the almost panel-by-panel-shot-for-shot literalism for something much more narrative and tangible in nature... People who have called the film "confusing" or the equivalent should probably all be taking Ritalin... If you actually pay attention, the plot is very easy to follow... People have also complained about a lack of character development when probably 45 minutes to an hour of the total 2 hour and 43 minute running time is spent in flashback, fleshing out the various characters' histories (just like the graphic novel... imagine that)...Granted, this movie will mostly appeal to devout readers of Alan Moore, such as myself, but regardless, this is a great movie... It isn't Alan Moore's fault, Zack Snyder's fault or the fault of any of the actor's, producers, writers (or anyone else who worked on the film) if people don't "get it" because, as a species, our attention spans have been whittled down to next to zero... Yes, it's almost 3 hours long, but that time goes by at a reasonable rate... The pacing of the film is fine, the editing is well orchestrated and the special effects are superb...I was a little hesitant (as I always am with comic adaptations) about the casting of the film, but the entire cast did a great job... The actors actually looked like the characters they were supposed to be playing (again, imagine that...)... I read one fan review where the author was complaining that Billy Crudup's performance was "flat, detached, and emotionless"... uh... yeah.. That's Dr. Manhattan for you... d'oh...Ignore the negativity... See this movie... It's far superior to the highly lauded (and unjustifiably so) "The Dark Knight" (which I gave 6/10)...9/10...

• Could have been so much better posted on 29 Aug 2009

  To start off with, I have not read the graphic novel. I was expecting a visually stunning, and hopefully interesting film. Well at least it was visually stunning. The story and the action left much to be desired.In all fairness, it is difficult to adapt any book to the screen. Books, by their nature, contain many intricate details that are nearly impossible to replicate on-screen. In addition, mood and characters thoughts are also difficult to convey in film. But this film even failed at the basics of establishing characters and their relationships with each other. The story had flashbacks showing various snippets of each character, but their impact was more of "what the heck is this?" as opposed to an "Aaah, now I see why he is this way!" feel.The movie was disjointed in the first third and little of any relevance is revealed about each character. When the action does pick up, who cares, you are probably asleep by this point.Another thing the movies misses the point on, is the point of the movie. Throughout the film the audience is constantly reminded that human nature cannot be changed. Humans are driven to do obscene things in the name of power, greed, and money. And while our "heroes" are supposed to be immune to these things, they are not. The part that disturbs me about the end, however, is that despite the message that is delivered throughout the film, it is completely flipped on its head as this supposed big event radically changes human nature, AND WE ARE JUST SUPPOSED TO ACCEPT THAT PREMISE EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED THAT THIS IS THE CASE.I am trying to be vague about the plot elements in case you have not seen the film yet. But the ending is not supported by anything presented during the previous, arduous 3 hours leading up to the end.BTW, not for the kiddies at all. With a scene of attempted rape, and the multitude of nudity you will want to keep the kids at home for this one. While you are at it, stay at home yourself and watch something a little better, like the ABC movie of the week!

• Watchmen delivers posted on 29 Aug 2009

  I can understand why Alan Moore wouldn't want his name attached to Zack Snyder's Watchmen. His original material is more nuanced, complex, and, well, just original, and probably can't ever be replicated in another medium as well. But man, if ever an effort was to be made, this version of Watchmen is as good as it's going to get. It doesn't pull punches, doesn't sugarcoat or shrink away from what Moore imagines, and while some details are left out, far more was left in than I expected. Kudos for everyone involved in this movie. I can't describe what a joy it is to see a movie that doesn't talk down to its audience, and isn't, unlike adaptations of fellow graphic artist Frank Miller's work, just about men behaving badly. Watchmen is a beautiful, thought-provoking piece of work, deserving of the name.

• Trys too hard. posted on 29 Aug 2009

  A fine movie no doubt. But a lot of it drags on, gets boring, and begins to suck the life out of you. This is largely because of the film trying too hard to follow it's own source material. With the exception to Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian and maybe even, to a much lesser extent, Jack Haley as the gruff voiced Rorschach, none of the actors will jump out at you. The action is as well done for a comic-book/superhero movie as you'd expect, even getting a little brutal in some parts, which I found very nice. The visual style of the film is... well it's quite the eye candy that's for sure. There's a lot of neat things for you to look at if you're sick of trying to follow the complex storyline. To finish up, Watchmen is a good, faithful(to a fault), and well made movie that has some depth. But it is by no means an amazing movie, nor should it ever be considered one. It is entertaining, but not nearly enough to match that of most comic-book movies of the last decade. Especially the superb-ness that is called "The Dark Knight" (oh no, I've started comparing everything to Dark Knight!). Maybe if Watchmen had decided to take some more liberties instead of trying so hard to be an almost exact page for page adaptation, it would have worked out much better as a movie like "V for Vendetta" did. Because if you ask me, the films biggest problem is that it has to unfortunately be based on the comic-book called Watchmen. Which is just too much for a single film to contain.Also, Watchmen may just have what could go down in history as one of the most unintentionally hilarious sex scenes ever filmed.7/10