Nachokoolaid wrote:Oh, I really liked the movie, btw. I gave it a 9/10. Gotta go update my movie journal.
Nachokoolaid wrote:Did you see it yet Dennis? I've been looking forward to your rant... errr... review.
papalazeru wrote:Fried Gold wrote:Fried Gold wrote:You're getting like Hitler.John Locke wrote:The URL contained a malformed video ID.
Fixed.
Fixed...and fucking funny.
DennisMM wrote:Nachokoolaid wrote:Did you see it yet Dennis? I've been looking forward to your rant... errr... review.
I can't bring myself to face the crowds opening weekend. I'm figuring either an early evening show some night after work this week, or possibly next weekend when the word of mouth slows down. I'm hoping to like it on some levels. I really am. Some of the non-geek reviews I'm reading give me confidence, but only on certain levels - visual command of the form (if still immature), several performances, ability to collapse the story into a limited running time.
A.O. Scott of the New York Times says it's better than 300 but not a good movie, and he opines, "The sex may be laughable, but the violence is another matter. The infliction of pain is rendered in intimate and precise aural and visual detail, from the noise of cracking bones and the gushers of blood and saliva to the splattery deconstruction of entire bodies. But brutality is not merely part of Mr. Snyder’s repertory of effects; it is more like a cause, a principle, an ideology. And his commitment to violence brings into relief the shallow nihilism that has always lurked beneath the intellectual pretensions of “Watchmen.” The only action that makes sense in this world — the only sure basis for ethics or politics, the only expression of love or loyalty or conviction — is killing."
Is he referring to the comic, or to the movie, or both? Not very clear on his part, but it's an interesting thought. I have read that the movie kicks up the violence quotient substantially and for no apparent reason. That's a little disappointing to me, as I thought most of the violence in the comic was pleasingly restrained.
A question I have, not a huge spoiler but still worthy of the black box - When Dan and Laurie attempt to make love in Dan's apartment, is the TV running a display of Veidt's physical prowess, as in the comic? For a while I have been convinced that Dan's failure in the face of Adrian's ability was meant to foreshadow Dan and Laurie's metaphorical impotence when confronted with Adrian's big hoax.
DennisMM wrote:I can't bring myself to face the crowds opening weekend. I'm figuring either an early evening show some night after work this week, or possibly next weekend when the word of mouth slows down. I'm hoping to like it on some levels. I really am. Some of the non-geek reviews I'm reading give me confidence, but only on certain levels - visual command of the form (if still immature), several performances, ability to collapse the story into a limited running time.
A.O. Scott of the New York Times says it's better than 300 but not a good movie, and he opines, "The sex may be laughable, but the violence is another matter. The infliction of pain is rendered in intimate and precise aural and visual detail, from the noise of cracking bones and the gushers of blood and saliva to the splattery deconstruction of entire bodies. But brutality is not merely part of Mr. Snyder’s repertory of effects; it is more like a cause, a principle, an ideology. And his commitment to violence brings into relief the shallow nihilism that has always lurked beneath the intellectual pretensions of “Watchmen.” The only action that makes sense in this world — the only sure basis for ethics or politics, the only expression of love or loyalty or conviction — is killing."
Is he referring to the comic, or to the movie, or both? Not very clear on his part, but it's an interesting thought. I have read that the movie kicks up the violence quotient substantially and for no apparent reason. That's a little disappointing to me, as I thought most of the violence in the comic was pleasingly restrained.
Regarding the violence, it doesn't feel out of place. What does feel out of place, apart from the finale, are the fight scenes.
A question I have, not a huge spoiler but still worthy of the black box - When Dan and Laurie attempt to make love in Dan's apartment, is the TV running a display of Veidt's physical prowess, as in the comic? For a while I have been convinced that Dan's failure in the face of Adrian's ability was meant to foreshadow Dan and Laurie's metaphorical impotence when confronted with Adrian's big hoax.
Grammaton Cleric Binks wrote:So anyway I'll be in and out giving my spoiler-free Watchmen review. Let me being by settin the background. I've never read the book. I only vaguely knew the heroes, and I vaguely knew the premise. Obviously this was going to be a CGI visual fest. The question is was it going to all flash and glam, and no meat, or would it be something to sink our teeth into. Guys, this was a feast that fulfills. The intro alone was great. It set the tone, and for guys like me who have never read the book it was clear how the heroes and history related. You had an old group of heroes, or old in that they were set in the forties, time moved on, and so did the heroes, some retired, some met untimely ends, some just faded away, the world moves on, and finally we end up in 1985 alternate reality where Nixon is still president as the term-limit was repealed. All you guys could have read this, so I could be preaching to the choir. Since I was in high school time, and the Cold War, and the threat of nuclear war between the US and USSR was very real this hit a raw nerve with me. I thought the characters would be lame to be honest. I mean we've been inundated with superheroes for years. Some have become legends, others unforgettable limited issue characters who never got beyond that. So I'm thinking how could I be made to care about new characters who appeared only in a single graphic novel. By the time this was over I cared about every one.
I've always been a sucker for freak characters who either hide their face, or show off their horrors. Guys like Two-Face, Red-Skull, Unknown Soldier come to mind. Rorschach is a psycho, but he's a good psycho. I don't even think we see his face until halfway through the movie. Jackie Earle Haley (I think I called him Jackie Erley earlier) was incredible. You'd think it wouldn't matter who was under the mask, but that's like saying V for Vendetta could have had anyone instead of Hugo Weaving. Halfway through I realized who he was. He is Paul Kershey from Death Wish, only not as nice. He is without compromise, and without remorse. Wrongs will be righted at all costs. It's that simple to him. He is the anti-hero, and among all of them, he was my hero. What are his powers? I honestly don't know? You've seen the trailers, he has a mask that shifts into different rorshach test patterns. The only thing I can say is he's kind of like an old school Mike Hammer type who will stop at nothing. He can fight, he's very strong, resourceful, and acrobatic. It's his attitude that is great, and when he tell how the person in him left, and only Rorshach remained it was priceless. If you've read the book see the movie. If you haven't read the book, see this movie.
Fievel wrote:I thought it was okay. Not great, but not a raging shitfest either.
I guess the only real enjoyment I got out of it was watching scenes from the book in motion.
And that slow-fast trick needs to stop.
Now.
Seppuku wrote:Lol, don't know if anyone caught it, but someone just changed the title of Wikipedia's Watchmen article to: "A good movie, but lame superheroes are lame. Also, the first Silk Spectre (a blonde Carla Gugino with bouncing tits) is f_cking hot. If I was the Comedian, I’d try to rape her, too." It was up for about an hour before some killjoy edited it back again.
EDIT: Now w/ Screencap.
Fievel wrote:I thought it was okay. Not great, but not a raging shitfest either.
I guess the only real enjoyment I got out of it was watching scenes from the book in motion.
And that slow-fast trick needs to stop.
Now.
Nachokoolaid wrote:Bullet time seemed to get old really quickly, but I think that fast/slow stuff is really interesting, because you can manipulate it so much. How fast? How slow? Which places do you change speeds? I love that effect, and as long as it isn't overused, I hope it sticks around for a long time.
Fievel wrote:I thought it was okay. Not great, but not a raging shitfest either.
I guess the only real enjoyment I got out of it was watching scenes from the book in motion.
And that slow-fast trick needs to stop.
Now.
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:I dig all that slo mo stuff. Certainly take that over all that shitty rapid cut and shaky cam shit that has ruined movies like Bourne and Bond.
I feel a photograph/still can capture everything an image is trying to say better than a moving image sometimes, and so having the movie go into slo-mo shows not just the 'beauty/whatever' of a scene, but also allows you take in all that is going on and it's detail, thus getting more information from it. Basically it allows you to be more involved and absorbed by it. So I like Snydey doing this. There endeth the movie leshon. kthxbai
Retardo_Montalban wrote:The problem with the slow motion, is that it can ruin the timing of a scene. When over used it drains all the excitement out of a scene and can telegraph a moment that is supposed to have impact, destroying any surprise, leaving the scene as flaccid as Doctor Manhattan's cock. I'm not a proponent of shaky cam either. I think all this stuff is just parlor tricks, meant to detract the audience from realizing the ineptitude of the cinematographer.
burlivesleftnut wrote:Retardo_Montalban wrote:The problem with the slow motion, is that it can ruin the timing of a scene. When over used it drains all the excitement out of a scene and can telegraph a moment that is supposed to have impact, destroying any surprise, leaving the scene as flaccid as Doctor Manhattan's cock. I'm not a proponent of shaky cam either. I think all this stuff is just parlor tricks, meant to detract the audience from realizing the ineptitude of the cinematographer.
Personally I didn't notice it all that much in Watchmen, but I kind of find it outrageous that you sum up this technique as "ineptitude of the cinematographer". I could under stand that bias for movies with the quick cuts, although I certainly disagree with it (if anyone, blame the editor), but in Watchmen, there were mad skills represented with the cinematography. Now whether you appreciate the technique or not, don't blame the dude who filmed it. The work in Watchmen was beautiful. Other than a few CGI flubs, visually the movie is near perfection.
burlivesleftnut wrote:Retardo_Montalban wrote:The problem with the slow motion, is that it can ruin the timing of a scene. When over used it drains all the excitement out of a scene and can telegraph a moment that is supposed to have impact, destroying any surprise, leaving the scene as flaccid as Doctor Manhattan's cock. I'm not a proponent of shaky cam either. I think all this stuff is just parlor tricks, meant to detract the audience from realizing the ineptitude of the cinematographer.
Personally I didn't notice it all that much in Watchmen, but I kind of find it outrageous that you sum up this technique as "ineptitude of the cinematographer". I could under stand that bias for movies with the quick cuts, although I certainly disagree with it (if anyone, blame the editor), but in Watchmen, there were mad skills represented with the cinematography. Now whether you appreciate the technique or not, don't blame the dude who filmed it. The work in Watchmen was beautiful. Other than a few CGI flubs, visually the movie is near perfection.
Pacino86845 wrote:I think Fried Gold is fish.
Fried Gold is a spatula.
burlivesleftnut wrote:Yeah, I thought this was a real winner. As a few of you know, I didn't even care for the comic that much. My expectations were pretty low going in, but I got really caught up in the story and the characters. It wasn't perfect. Some of the cgi was a little off, a lot of the make-up sucked, and the classic hits they chose were a little too on the nose, but none of that detracted from the story.
One of the things I liked about this that I just didn't get from the comic was that these people were striving to be heroic. I liked how much Silk Spectre and Nite-Owl enjoyed getting back in the game, and I really enjoyed that Snyder upped the action quotient with them. The alley scene and prison riot were just spectacular. You could really feel the joy these people felt in getting back to their roots as heroes.
I don't have too much too say, but I will probably read back and debate some stuff with you guys later, but I will close with this: I REALLY liked the ending. This will probably sound like blasphemy, but I wouldn't even mind a sequel to see where this new world goes. I especially liked that Laurie and Dan didn't go into hiding like in the comic. That always bugged me. They made this decision to keep Ozymandias' shit a secret and then run off, which kind of contradicted the point that the world did need heroes like them.
Oh and movie Silk Spectre > comic Silk Spectre. She was 100,000% less whiney cliched woman hero in the movie.
caruso_stalker217 wrote:Of course Rorschach is everybody's favorite (except burl, who liked Nite-Owl) and Jackie Earle Haley is perfect in the role.
caruso_stalker217 wrote:Post-movie piss: 2 minutes 16 seconds.
Pacino86845 wrote:Although I didn't make any direct connections to other uses of the songs on the soundtrack, many of them did sort of stick out and made me take some distance from the story... I dunno, maybe their timing was off or they were too obviously injected into the film.
Nachokoolaid wrote:I noticed a lot of people are bitching about the music (I'm one of them). But I think that other films ruined me on some of the musical choices. For example, during the funeral, I couldn't help picturing Frank the Tank being darted and falling into a swimming pool. And you would think Snyder wouldn't want people picturing a giant green ogre during a sex scene that's sort of important. Did he not know that ENTIRE song was used quite well in SHREK? "All Along the Watchtower" might have worked in the Vietnam scenes, but it seemed out of place in the Arctic.
I did like the opening credits quite a bit, and the song choice there was good. I also thought that "I'm Your Boogie Man" for the riot scene was perfect. And although I hated it at first, when I remembered that "99 Red Balloons" was actually a song about nuclear warheads, I didn't hate it as much as I originally did.
The music was one of the weaker parts of the film though, at least in my opinion.
Fried Gold wrote:I should add... rubs.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests