Benz Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 LOL Episode #17, Silk Specter's momma gets raped "Oh noes help! Somebody help!" "Shut up and bend over, lady!" Yeah that'd learn the kiddies wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopcruz Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 What is really most disturbing about the whole shebang is that Laurie's dad is trying to get with her. Eww. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelogan Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Just got back from seeing this. All in all, not too shabby. They got most of the important bits in, just a few things that stuck in my craw. The violence is turned up significantly. I have no qualms with pain and gore in and of itself, just some of it seems slightly out of character. For example, during the alley fight scene with Dan and Lori, they don't just fend off their would-be attackers; they violently and gruesomely murder them. It makes it seem like these people are clearly menaces with no regards to the law. And that may be true in a sense, but I never got the impression that they tend to go all Punisher/Judge Dredd on muggers (Rorschach excluded). During the scene with the same characters in the prison riot, when they are faced with a lot of thugs in their way and they give each other this little smile and rush into battle. It was a little too buddy cop bad action movie for me. Kinda bugged me. I understand that a lot of shit had to be removed for pacing and time constraint issues, but I really would have liked more characterization with Rorschach's psychiatrist. The issue that focuses on his slow withdrawal and acceptance was prob'ly one of my favorite ones. I really dug how Rorschach's psychosis starts to infect him, that's not in the movie. I missed the two Bernies, but understand why they're absent. It's not an atrocity, and that's more than I can say about most Alan Moore adaptations. I had a list of things that, if they weren't in the movie, I was going to be marching outside the theater holding a sign that read "The End is Nigh". They were all in there. It's not perfect, but it's prob'ly about as good as anyone can do. I've been saying for years that more movies need giant blue uncircumcised wangs in them. Finally Hollywood is taking a step in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Rorschach is always clowning around! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Just got back from seeing this. All in all, not too shabby. They got most of the important bits in, just a few things that stuck in my craw. The violence is turned up significantly. I have no qualms with pain and gore in and of itself, just some of it seems slightly out of character. For example, during the alley fight scene with Dan and Lori, they don't just fend off their would-be attackers; they violently and gruesomely murder them. It makes it seem like these people are clearly menaces with no regards to the law. And that may be true in a sense, but I never got the impression that they tend to go all Punisher/Judge Dredd on muggers (Rorschach excluded). During the scene with the same characters in the prison riot, when they are faced with a lot of thugs in their way and they give each other this little smile and rush into battle. It was a little too buddy cop bad action movie for me. Kinda bugged me. I understand that a lot of shit had to be removed for pacing and time constraint issues, but I really would have liked more characterization with Rorschach's psychiatrist. The issue that focuses on his slow withdrawal and acceptance was prob'ly one of my favorite ones. I really dug how Rorschach's psychosis starts to infect him, that's not in the movie. I missed the two Bernies, but understand why they're absent. It's not an atrocity, and that's more than I can say about most Alan Moore adaptations. I had a list of things that, if they weren't in the movie, I was going to be marching outside the theater holding a sign that read "The End is Nigh". They were all in there. It's not perfect, but it's prob'ly about as good as anyone can do. I've been saying for years that more movies need giant blue uncircumcised wangs in them. Finally Hollywood is taking a step in the right direction. I think Snyder was trying to push the whole "they're all scumbags" issue which was true for the rest of the group (Ozy, Rorschach, Manhattan, and Comedian) but Silk Spectre and Nite Owl always struck me as two stupid kids living out their fantasies and really meaning no harm so yeah that would be a bit much. I would bet much of the missing tidbits (minus the squid, which can fuck off as that was really one of the more tedious plot deviations from the book will be restored more fully in the DVD versions. Snyder's cut was a good 40 minutes longer (not counting Black Freighter tidbits) than the theatrical version from what I understand so don't lose hope just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hakujin Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 I scrolled past the review cuz I'm on my way to see it in IMAX tonight. It's $13.50 for 1 ticket, 3hrs long and is killing my entire Fri. night, so I'll be uber-PO'd if Snyder doesn't deliver the goods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 I think Snyder was trying to push the whole "they're all scumbags" issue which was true for the rest of the group (Ozy, Rorschach, Manhattan, and Comedian) but Silk Spectre and Nite Owl always struck me as two stupid kids living out their fantasies and really meaning no harm so yeah that would be a bit much. See, I thought Dr Manhattan is a very sympathetic, even tragic, character. The idea of a godlike creature slowly losing any connection to humanity because he can't relate to it anymore, that doesn't make him a scumbag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 See, I thought Dr Manhattan is a very sympathetic, even tragic, character. The idea of a godlike creature slowly losing any connection to humanity because he can't relate to it anymore, that doesn't make him a scumbag. Like Comedian and Rorschach you got to be sympathetic for him during the mipoint of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 So a group of us watched it last night. Some thoughts (include spoilers for the book as well as the movie): 1) People saying it should have been NC-17 are being silly. This was hard R, not NC-17. 2) Alot of these reviewers giving it negative reviews are grading this movie on a less forgiving scale than they review other movies. People have bitched and moaned for years that movie adaptations in general never do justice to their source material and that Watchmen would be get a Hollywood treatment with a 100 minute run time and a happy ending. Then it gets adapted faithfully with only a few changes, most for the better, and people bitch that it's adapted TOO faithfully. Did it have some flaws? Sure, but I don't care about flaws, I care about a movie having some balls and some guts, something this movie had literally as well as figuratively. I hope that time will improve this movie in the eyes of some of the naysayers, so come 2010, we can see some Oscar consideration for the performances (Rorschach, Comedian and Nite Owl are the stand out performances for me). 3) I loved Ozy's line, "I'm not a comic book villain." I didn't remember it from the book, so I went back, and sure enough, the original line was "I'm not a Republic Serial villain." It was only a same change, but it was definitely better. 4) In the book, Dr. Manhattan had long ago solved the world's energy problems with his ability to mass produce any chemical compound. The rare metals necessary to make battery powered cars me made in bulk. You kind of had to not consider that solving the world's energy crisis would be simple for a man with Jon's powers. In every way other than that, the energy crisis story line was better. 5) In the book, Robert Redford is the presidential hopeful that the newspaper editor calls a 'absurdity', which is funny because on the previous page you see a newspaper that says "RR to run in 88?" and if you catch it, you're first thought is Reagan. I don't know if they wanted to avoid insult Redford or what, but the change worked just as well I guess. 6) Did the book ever mention the Comedian being JFK's assassin? I'll admit, when reading the book, I wondered how a sitting president could be killed in 1963 of the Watchmen's timeline if Jon Osterman became Dr Manhattan in 1959. I liked how they still mentioned Woodward and Bernstein even though the glossed over the original scene it which it was referenced in the book, but I don't recall the book explaining JFK's assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelogan Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Just re-read my post and realized that it came off way to negative, I'd just gotten home and the little out of character things I mentioned were really grinding on me. I don't think I put enough stress on the fact that I don't think it can be done any better. The classic little scenes I loved are generally done line for line from the book, the only scene that I really missed was the psychiatrist having dinner with his wife and friends and they ask about the Rorschach case and the kidnapping, "He butchered her and fed her to his dogs." . Jax, in regards to comment 6.), I don't recall that at all from the book, but I approve of its inclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hakujin Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 I've been saying for years that more movies need giant blue uncircumcised wangs in them. Finally Hollywood is taking a step in the right direction. Billy Cruddup's floppy blue wang gets WAY more screen time than necessary. Ditto for the number of shots of man-ass. And I saw it in IMAX so whenever I held up my hand to obscure Dr. M's junk it did no good. Gratuitous male nudity aside, the movie kicked ass! I'm not a big fan of the comic. I read it back around 2001 and liked it enough, but I don't hold it w/ the reverence hardcore fans do. However, after watching the film I do want to go back and read the comic again. I'll likely do this before I buy it on DVD--and this movie is begging for the 3-disc in-depth DVD treatment. The flashbacks and the reveal of each character's back story were handled beautifully. I agree w/ everyone else in that Silk Spectre II & Nite Owl II came off as the most sympathetic. But Rorschach was the real star of the film for me. His journal entries narrate the film as it did the comic, and he remains the only un-compromised character--the only one solely dedicated to justice. The Comedian & Rorschach had the meatiest roles and both actors did an outstanding job in the roles. Some minor drawbacks to the film include the make-up. The younger characters made to look older were terrible! Ditto for Nixon and all the other "real" characters like Ted Koppel and such. The make-up was so disturbingly unrealistic that it really killed the moment whenever they were on screen--Nixon especially. People in the theater actually laughed when he came on screen to announce Def-con One! Another minor flaw, I thought the continual use (or over use) of pop songs in place of a score was a bit distracting. Someone mentioned before the jailbreak scene w/ Silk Spectre & Nite Owl as a bit cheezey and I agree. It could’ve been a lot better. Besides the feel of the scene was too much like the alleyway gang fight earlier in the film. I also thought the role of Ozymandias really needed a bigger name star—or at least an actor who could command more (forgive me for going Kiefer Sutherland on y’all here) gravitas on screen. Way back when Snyder took over as director Tom Cruise’s name was thrown around for the role and I think he would’ve been perfect. But the biggest problem I had w/ the film was the same problem I had w/ the comic—the ending. The only way to avert global nuclear annihilation w/ Russia is through some random culling? We simply know that’s not true now. I don’t know, maybe it’s because I was a kid in the 1980s and nuclear war was never a real fear for me growing up. Maybe that’s why I could not relate to the weight of nuclear war on the characters in the story; even with devices like the “Doomsday Clock” and newspaper headlines to try and convey this real fear of the story’s characters it never connected w/ me as an audience member/reader. Despite those flaws, it was still a highly enjoyable film for the most part. It had great pacing, interesting characters, and a captivating setting. All in all it was an A- film for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiffytee Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 been awhile since i read the comic, let's say about 6 years. I was totally blown away. To this day it's the best graphic novel i've ever read (how much weight you wanna put on this is questionable since i admittedly haven't read many). So naturally, I gotta see this movie. As a stand alone movie, this thing is a mess. I am guessing that if you didn't read the graphic novel, it's going to be a bit overwhelming to follow the story. There is a lot going on to be put in a 3hr movie. The good thing is that they did it very well. As an adaptation, they pulled all the stops and actually integrated a major change that fits well. A little better addition that would have made more sense would be a few "accidents" in key parts of the world. a little reminder at the end with a ticking clock to the doomsday time woulda been a nice touch. but yeah, i gotta say great adaptation. Nice flashback placement. Great cinematography. but... I didn't care for the characters like I did in the graphic novel. And I didn't get that feeling walking out like i did before. It hits you like a truck. Granted, at that IMAX, i was constantly getting pummeled with, what, 12,000 watts of sonic bliss - which gave me a headache and instilled envy at the same time. So yeah, I can't pinpoint it. Maybe it's the classic - the book's always better or it was meant to only be on paper... or it's always better the first time around. Or the incessant need for Americans to have a happy ending and just "infer" a bad one. I disagree with putting a high profile character as ozzie. It would deflect the suprise. I see silk and owl smiling at each other all the time as their little code for: we're gonna pound each other again right after we pound some thugs... so i didn't really mind much. again, don't get me wrong, it's probably the best incantation possible of this story. You won't see any emmy's, and you won't see much praise on this one from the average moviegoer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiffytee Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 btw, does silk spectre not look like lucy lawless? silk: lucy (number6): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Lindsay Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 i disagree with the complaint about gratuitous male nudity...it's about fucking time! anyway, as someone who hasn't read the graphic novel, i agree with spiffy. it does come off as a little disjointed and confusing but it's still an enjoyable movie. everything comes together and is explained in the end. eli also hasn't read it and he said it's one of his favorite movies. someone else here said it would make a better miniseries and i think that may have been a better medium for it. it would have given more time to tell the story...it felt like everything was crammed in so things were either explained too quickly or the way it played out didn't really make sense (i.e., a certain someone jumped the friend ladder very quickly). in all though, like i said before, it was an enjoyable movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hakujin Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 someone else here said it would make a better miniseries and i think that may have been a better medium for it. it would have given more time to tell the story...it felt like everything was crammed in so things were either explained too quickly or the way it played out didn't really make sense (i.e., a certain someone jumped the friend ladder very quickly). in all though, like i said before, it was an enjoyable movie. Yes, WATCHMEN is the greatest 12 episode mini-series HBO will never make. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Hightower Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Well, Watchmen is already a movie. HBO needs to make Walking Dead a series! There I said it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Lindsay Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Fuck yes! With Aaron Eckhart as Rick! also, i forgot to mention in my comment on the movie (probably because it's a little off-topic and there are a ton of dudes in here) that patrick wilson has a very nice ass. i have such a weird crush on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelogan Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I also thought the role of Ozymandias really needed a bigger name star—or at least an actor who could command more (forgive me for going Kiefer Sutherland on y’all here) gravitas on screen. Completely off topic, but dude, I haven't thought about that Kiefer Sutherland interview in years! Reading that made me spout a little burst of laughter. The type that makes your girlfriend look at you quizically. Now, what is your least favorite word? Say it. SAY IT!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 And Preacher is the greatest 66+5+4=75 episode mini-series HBO will never make. Probably anyway. By the way, does anyone think that the success of Watchmen ($55M opening weekend, domestic) might put an R-rated Preacher trilogy on table for Warner (I'm presuming Warner has the rights since it's a DC property)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Hightower Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Fuck yes! With Aaron Eckhart as Rick! No, no. We don't need Aaron all bearded and skinny when he plays Cap in the Avengers movie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Eckhart's too old for Cap. Cap needs to be in his later 20s. I'm with LL, he'd be perfect as Rick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelogan Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 And Preacher is the greatest 66+5+4=75 episode mini-series HBO will never make. Probably anyway. By the way, does anyone think that the success of Watchmen ($55M opening weekend, domestic) might put an R-rated Preacher trilogy on table for Warner (I'm presuming Warner has the rights since it's a DC property)? $55M huh? Not too shabby, that's gotta make some suits pretty happy. Last I heard the Preacher movie was greenlit again with Sam Mendes directing, has that been canned already? I haven't heard anything about it in months. A trilogy would be nice, at least then it would have a fighting chance of doing the books some kind of justice. Lets hope that someone with more chops than James Marsden gets cast this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopcruz Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I'm pretty sure that HBO still has the option rights, I know they are filming a bunch of pilots right now, but I dunno if Preacher is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelogan Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 HBO had gotten as far as the budgeting stage in 2008, then they pussied out, deciding it was just too "Violent, dark and controversial". Cowards. If they had a change of heart I would be thrilled, if it's gonna be adapted that would be the ideal format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopcruz Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I'd be surprised because the Song of Ice and Fire pilot is getting produced, and that I think is a fair bit less accessible and damned violent, and sexual. Personally, I can't wait though, awesome series. I'd been looking forward to Preacher though, damn shame. Also, I hear Watchman has had a pretty crazy drom-off from Friday sales to the rest of hte weekend. Early on it had been tracking to $70 mill and dropped down to $55, work is, next week might be a worse drop off than ususal. Considering the budget, it might not be all that profitable until the after market. It had a better opening than 300, but looks to fall far, far short of it's total take. And it cost more to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.