Watchmen
I went and saw Watchmen tonight. Good thing I reread the graphic novel several months ago or I fear I might have been lost.
I enjoyed it. It is extremely similar to the graphic novel--almost frame for frame. Honestly, it could have used a little bit of editing to make the story flow better--after all, the original is essentially told in chapters. But it is so true to the novel that this choice is understandable.
Quick geeky, non-spoiler, fanboy thoughts:
-Rorschach is just as awesome in the movie as he is in the book. I'm pretty sure they even added freckles to the actor so that he would look like the novel's depiction.
-Quite a bit more violent than it needed to be, I thought. Makes sense for the Rorschach stuff (since he's a psychopath), but some of the other stuff was a little unnecessary. Having seen director Zach Snyder's other stuff, I think perhaps he can't help himself.
-Speaking of unnecessary, Dr. Manhattan's....um, junk...was distracting to say the least. Maybe the kids these days think it's no big deal and I'm just old-fashioned, but I find it hard to focus on the story whenever there is casual full frontal male nudity involved in a non-sexual situation. I did check the comic on this one, and it is much more, shall we say restrained, in its depiction of...of...oh fine, his PENIS. I think this could have been handled differently (especially since the same scenes in the trailer were edited). Like I said, it wasn't uncomfortable for me as much as it was distracting.
-Not to belabor the point, but given Dr. Manhattan's physique, his character in the movie is clearly a CGI image most of the time. So I wonder if actor Billy Crudup had any "creative input" into how he was drawn down there? I kinda have this image of Crudup's agent and the producers hammering out contract numbers and saying "OK, how about we drop our asking price another $500K, but only if you add another 2 inches?"
-All the impersonators they hired to play the real people, like Henry Kissinger, Pat Buchanon, Lee Iacocca....it kinda made the movie lamer than it had to be. I really think that if they had to make this movie again, they would have cast Frank Langella as Nixon.
-You know, director Zach Snyder is probably going to be called "brilliant" for making this movie, but when you get down to it, this guy did exactly what he did on "300", which is to take the comic book and recreate all the same images on screen. I'm not underestimating how hard it is to make a movie like this, but at the same time, can I ever really take this guy seriously as a creative talent if the best thing he ever does is to take existing comic books and translate the exact images to the big screen?
-Just realized that most of the main characters are different parodies of the Batman archetype--a violent vigilante investigator, a fighter with gadgets, a billionaire with a keen intellect and athleticism.
Pretty good movie, all in all. As long as I'm geeking out here, let me also say that seeing the new Star Trek trailer got me pretty excited as well.
4 Comments:
I agree - the movie was more sexed up and violent than the book was - and the book was pretty dark. Rorsharch doesn't take a cleaver to the girl's killer in the book! My only gripe is that in the book, when Rorsharch's mask is removed, it's kind of a "holy crap, he's just... _that_ guy?" But in the movie the reveal isn't as powerful. Not sure why that is.
Dr. Manhattan - yes, the junk is distracting, but in the book it's kind of relevant. He becomes more naked as he is less able to relate to people. This definitely doesn't make it across in the film. There's a really interesting "making of" journal of how they made Manhattan. Billy Crudup wore a suit with motion sensors and hundreds of blue LED's and then they drew the digital Dr. Manhattan over him.
-Not sure that people really would label Snyder as brilliant. The only thing I thought was impressive is that I heard he drew some of the storyboards himself.
-Hurm. While similar to Batman, isn't Rorsharch the Question and Nite Owl the Blue Beetle?
-What did you think of the changed ending?
No, Rorschach merely burns the guy alive. I still kinda got that feeling when they unmasked him tho.
Not sure if Snyder is held in high regard or not, but generally, I'm not that impressed.
You're right about the Blue Beetle being Nite Owl. As for the Question, there might be a chicken and egg problem--was the Question similar to Rorschach pre-1986? A quick Wikipedia search tells us that the Question was originally intended to be the Rorschach character.
I thought the changed ending was fine. Probably better, since the original ending is slightly more ridiculous (what with the giant telepathic squid and all).
I find it strange that the squid is considered "ridiculous" given that one of the central characters is a guy who can essentially manipulate space and time. Granted a giant squid would be a little jarring but it's not like that world is completely grounded in realism.
All the characters have Charlton analogs. I believe that Alan Moore pitched the story with DC's newly acquired Charlton characters in mind but it was felt to be too drastic for them so they each have an analog. Dr. Manhattan / Captain Atom, Comedian / Peacemaker, Ozymandias / Peter Cannon and Silk Spectre / Nightshade.
Well, given that audiences are used to superheroes, Dr. Manhattan isn't any more ridiculous than the Incredible Hulk. It's not the giant squid itself that is ridiculous as much as it is the notion that the master plan would involve one. Even if you were to fake an alien invasion, not sure a giant squid would be the way to do it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home