dagblog - Comments for "Watchmen: Complex but Rewarding"

Saw it last night myself.

DF — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:54:00 +0000

In reply to Just saw it last night. My

Saw it last night myself. Had two "Comic Book Guys" sitting right behind my girlfriend and me. We were early for goods seats, so I got to hear a solid 20 minutes of inane comic book guy talk. It's been a while since I've spent much time in a comic shop. I believe that I will maintain that practice.

I had almost the exact same take as you did. Impressive, consistent visual style, though it was far less self-conscious than the graphic novel. Maybe that's a good thing in a way? Most of the characters were spot on. I, too, especially loved the portrayals of the Comedian and Rorschach. Two gripes: I did not like the actor that portrayed Veidt at all (major gripe) and Dr. Manhattan's voice was deeper in my head (minor gripe). I think Veidt should have been portrayed as an affable playboy philanthropist, but instead he seemed like a smarmy prep school type from the outset. My girlfriend thought that Manhattan's voice made him seem gentle and introspective, which I think is an accurate depiction of his character.

I like what they did with the ending. I don't want to spoil it for anyone so I'll just say this: The first time I read the graphic novel I laughed out loud at the ending. Maybe I'm just missing something, but it seemed absolutely ridiculous to me. The movie ending adjusts this and comes up with a scenario that is more satisfying and plausible IMHO, given that it incorporates the only really huge leap of the tale instead of clumsily and suddenly introducing another at the end.

After Allsburg's comments about the action, I was watching it closely. There were a couple of moments where I saw what he was seeing, but for the most part I really didn't see anything more than what I'm used to seeing in a modern martial arts flick. This could have possibly been alleviated by addressing Veidt's exceptional physical prowess as was done in the graphic novel, but at almost three hours some cuts had to be made.

All in all, it was a pretty faithful portrayal. I had wondered how the Cold War-era paranoia would translate to modern day. I still wonder how most people will take that part of it. I bet reading it in the 80s for the first time was a more immersive experience. I didn't read it until much later. This leaves me with one question: If the film doesn't live up to the hype, are we really talking about the hype of the film or the hype of the graphic novel itself?

Around Watchmen, the hyperbole is rampant. Most beloved, best, most awesome graphic novel of all time, etc. I guess what I'm saying is: Maybe the film isn't showing its own flaws so much as it's the flaws of the original showing through in translation. Many people apparently consider this story to be the best that comics have to offer. Maybe that's true, but I wonder if comic book fans are really prepared to grapple with what that may really mean. Are comic book fans really ready for the larger world to judge what is perhaps their most beloved story, warts and all?

I propose than henceforth

DF — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 19:21:29 +0000

In reply to So Watchmen's level of

I propose than henceforth that the Ulysses-300 scale be used for all movie ratings.

So Watchmen's level of

acanuck — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 19:09:57 +0000

In reply to I'm going to see the film

So Watchmen's level of complexity falls somewhere between Ulysses and 300? Thanks for narrowing it down, guys.

Just saw it last night. My

quinn esq — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 16:27:27 +0000

In reply to Watchmen: Complex but Rewarding

Just saw it last night. My buddy and I laughed, because - mixed in with the sold-out crowd - there were about a dozen "Comic Book Guys" in the place. I was one of those original mid-80's Watchmen freaks who bought copies and gave them to people as presents and generally thought Alan Moore was God. (Turns out he's Satan, but still cool as hell.)

We both had the same reaction to the movie, worth seeing, did surprisingly well in handling the visuals... but no way could they get the multiple layers thing happening on-screen, the way it is in the book. Still, I loved the Comedian and Rorschach. Also, very tough to match the book because Moore would drop in quotes or pictures that just made you stop, think, sink into it... then proceed. The movie had to keep pressing forward, raise the action, so lots more fight scenes.

Overall, I'm with A-burg - hi guy! - complex but rewarding. Not great though. Now what I'd REALLY like to see (since we've done V for Vendetta and Watchmen) is SWAMP THING! Time to do the big green elemental up proper. Or maybe Swampy vs. Ozymandias.

Allsburg, welcome to

Bluesplashy — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:07:01 +0000

In reply to Watchmen: Complex but Rewarding

Allsburg, welcome to dagblog. I don't go to many movies but I like reading reviews and enjoyed yours. I will continue to read your reviews if you allow Genghis to attach a talking heads video to each one. Made me really happy to see that.

Coincidentally, I just

DF — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:03:30 +0000

In reply to We like our reviewers to

Coincidentally, I just watched Wall Street last night, another film that is set in 1985. From the soundtrack:

If it's been a while, I would highly recommend watching it again. It seemed somehow topical.. not sure why...

Compared to the characters in

allsburg — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:00:18 +0000

In reply to We like our reviewers to

Compared to the characters in Watchmen, the Dark Knight is a blissfully naive simpleton. If complexity of character is something you crave, I guarantee that Watchmen the graphic novel will be up your alley. It's really more of a character study than a action adventure or murder mystery. The characters aren't infallible (except, perhaps, for one) and largely stumble around the world desperately trying to understand it. The movie tries for the same, and I think largely accomplishes it - although this is undercut somewhat in the film by the fact that, though spiritually troubled, our heroes seem to border on near physical invincibility.

I'm going to see the film

DF — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:45:03 +0000

In reply to Watchmen: Complex but Rewarding

I'm going to see the film tonight. I've also read the graphic novel. I'd have to say that I'm a fan of comics, but the traditional superhero thing hasn't appealed to me since I was a kid and I've never liked Superman, a character that pretty much epitomizes exactly why this type of character doesn't appeal to me.

Watchmen, the graphic novel, appeals to me precisely because it's a radical take on the superhero. With many of the characters in the novel, it's an attempt to answer what these people might be like if they actually existed as real people. With Dr. Manhattan, it's the question of whether they would even care about us or identify with us if they were truly super.

With these questions and others, Watchmen is also a comic about comics. The way Alan Moore talks about it reminds me a great deal of some things that William Burroughs wrote about Naked Lunch. Burroughs considered his novel an assault on traditonal narratives, those that allowed for a cinematic mental experience. He didn't want his readers to be able to play that movie in their heads. Maybe that's part of the reason that Cronenberg's film adaptation didn't work. Another work that comes to mind is Fahrenheit 451, which in many ways is about the way visual media can overshadow literary pursuits, even literacy itself, and all that comes with this shift.

Bradbury's novel also suffered a horrible translation into film, but maybe the question is whether it should even be made into a movie, a question that the work itself seems to force us to ask. Similarly, Alan Moore has always maintained that with Watchmen he wanted to write a story that exemplified the medium, a story that showed the unique properties and potential of the medium even as it made challenges about what the medium has traditionally been. It's also why he says he refuses to see the film.

Unlike Moore, I will watch Watchmen this evening. Of course, every adaptation begs us to make comparisions, but what I'll really be looking for is how well the film captures the more elusive themes of the graphic novel. Zack Snyder put 300 on the screen well enough, another graphic novel with an author who was famously cautious of the film industry's tendencies in screen adaptations, but it's a story that is decidedly less complex. I have little doubt that Snyder's visual treatment will be pleasing, but I think the subtler aspects are probably an open question.

Good to see you, Baby. I'll let you know what I thought about the rest after I see the film.

Guns AND boobs?? My kind of

Orlando — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:20:07 +0000

In reply to Watchmen: Complex but Rewarding

Guns AND boobs?? My kind of movie.

Welcome to Dag. :)

We like our reviewers to

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:15:00 +0000

In reply to Watchmen: Complex but Rewarding

We like our reviewers to suffer. It's good for the soul. Just ask Orlando. As a result of the Oscars, her soul is really, really good. So in short, better change your sleep schedule.

Question: I find that people often give comic book movies a pass on the features we usually deem important in movies, e.g. plot, character, acting, coherence, etc., using the excuse that they're based on comic books. I love superheroes, but that doesn't mean that I enjoy two-dimensional bad guys and gaping plot holes, so except for stand-outs like Dark Knight, I'm usually disappointed. This one sounds different from the usual fare. Will a comic book curmedgeon like me enjoy it?