Tweak

InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "life is beautiful"

Username: 
Password:    
Remember Me
  • Create Account
  • IJ Login
  • OpenID Login
Search by : 
  • View
    • Create Account
    • IJ Login
    • OpenID Login
  • Journal
    • Post
    • Edit Entries
    • Customize Journal
    • Comment Settings
    • Recent Comments
    • Manage Tags
  • Account
    • Manage Account
    • Viewing Options
    • Manage Profile
    • Manage Notifications
    • Manage Pictures
    • Manage Schools
    • Account Status
  • Friends
    • Edit Friends
    • Edit Custom Groups
    • Friends Filter
    • Nudge Friends
    • Invite
    • Create RSS Feed
  • Asylums
    • Post
    • Asylum Invitations
    • Manage Asylums
    • Create Asylum
  • Site
    • Support
    • Upgrade Account
    • FAQs
    • Search By Location
    • Search By Interest
    • Search Randomly

cowboy_witch ([info]cowboy_witch) wrote,
@ 2009-03-12 00:26:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Watchmen Movie Review
First and foremost, I think anyone who complains that Watchmen is too faithful to the original comic (or graphic novel, if you prefer) didn't truly appreciate the material in the first place. Just because Zack Snyder nearly created this movie panel-by-panel from the comic doesn't make his work any less visionary or exemplary; like his work on 300 -- another adaptation of a universally-revered comic -- Watchmen takes what made the material so beloved in the first place and introduced it to the masses.

This film is roughly two hours and 43 minutes long (with the DVD release rumored to be a good 30-40 minutes longer than that), but it doesn't feel that long. Watchmen moves along at a crisp pace -- which is to expected of any story that begins with the death of a major character.

Like the comic, Watchmen begins with the murder of Edward Blake, also known as the costumed hero The Comedian. Whereas many heroes in the comic book world have super powers and fantastic back stories, the majority of the costumed heroes in Watchmen are otherwise normal people -- aside from their need to play dress-up and fight crime on their own, these people were no different than you or I. The Comedian was a government operative in 1985, where the U.S. was still locked in Cold War with Russia and Nixon is serving a fifth term after using The Comedian and Dr. Manhattan to help win Vietnam.

Interesting aside ... Munchie told me last night that if we had our own glowing naked blue guy (henceforth referred to as GNBG), we probably would've found Osama bin Laden by now. Not sure if he meant because Dr. Manhattan was radioactive or because the reality of him walking around nearly all day completely naked would just scare the guy out of hiding. Knowing Munchie? Probably the latter.

Aside from government operatives Comedian and GNBG, the vigilante Rorschach was the only costumed hero still in operation. Nixon passed a law in 1977 outlawing such activities, but Rorschach's moral absolutism and near-psychosis kept him from quitting the way Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II did. Rorschach began investigating The Comedian's death, leading him to warn other former costumed heroes and uncovering a plot that would eventually involve all of the Watchmen -- including the surprising-but-not-really eventual villain.

I mean, c'mon ... you go most of your life being called "The Smartest Man in the World" and tell me you don't eventually go batty and evil. Or maybe it was all those TV monitors -- maybe he watched too many pornos at once one night and just snapped.

The way the plot unfolds -- interspersed brilliantly with flashbacks exploring every character's past (including the late Comedian) -- keeps the movie from feeling like it drags. While fans of the book will love the movie's near-exact faithfulness, it's still a decent enough story on its own that newcomers can follow along and not be left in the dark.

They might wonder about the abundance of shiny naked blue genitalia, but they'll get over that.

Much of what was cut from the theatrical release will be released either on the DVD release or in a separate DVD. That means this film is as close as Snyder reasonably could've gotten to Alan Moore's original vision (even though Moore, as per usual, refuses to associate himself in any way with a film based on his work. Artist Dave Gibbons was more than glad to offer his assistance in the film, though).

Be warned: this film is graphic, earning every bit of its R rating. The violence is bloody to the point where it could very well put the first Kill Bill to shame, and there is one rather steamy sex scene (well, steamy compared to other comic-book movie sex scenes, of which I can't think of many) -- which, amazingly enough, does not involve the GNBG. There is also an attempted rape scene that is disturbing both in terms of scope and subject matter. This is not a movie for the young, and definitely not for the squeamish or the faint of heart.

Sorry fanboys -- no giant squid. Instead, Ozymandias uses a machine to duplicate Dr. Manhattan's power in his effort to "save the world," and instead of wiping out half of New York, in the film he takes New York as well as several other large cities throughout the world.

One thing I noticed though and found really ironic -- in the end, with the shot of the destruction in New York ... the Twin Towers are still standing. I realize this was 1985 and an alternate universe, but I find it interesting not even the approximation of a nuclear detonation could take down the World Trade Center.

A lot of newcomers might see Watchmen as more of the same when it comes to costumed superheroes, a predictable action film with the requisite love stories and subplots. But Watchmen succeeded not just as a commentary on society (nearly all of Moore's work was famous for that), but of the superhero genre. Every character was a parody of a sort on the genre, and if one knew where to look, there were subtle digs at the genre everywhere.

And honestly? That was part of the story's charm.

In the end, I think Watchmen was a rousing success. Long considered the one comic that was completely unfilmable, and yet Snyder did just that. A faithful adaptation of one of the 20th century's most celebrated stories, this is easily one of the best movies of the year, if not the best. I realize the Academy frowns on this genre of film, but if Watchmen isn't up for something in next year's Oscars, there's a serious problem.

First The Dark Knight, now Watchmen. The comic book movie is finally growing up. Let's just hope the trend continues; don't mess this up, Wolverine.


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]poetic_fangs
2009-03-12 08:11 am UTC (link)
Also, still waiting for a comic adaptation which I like. The recent 'Batman' films did very little for me and I sort of regret paying money to see them. :)

'300' might have qualified, but that was based on true events.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]cowboy_witch
2009-03-12 10:29 am UTC (link)
I can kind of see that. I happen to like a lot of the more recent ones, but even I have to agree something gets lost when translating a story from the panel to the moving screen. On the one hand, it's really cool seeing these stories you grew up with in action -- but on the other hand, it kinda kills it a little.

The good comic book movies just make the killing more enjoyable. If that makes any sense at all. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]poetic_fangs
2009-03-12 10:56 am UTC (link)
It's often because, by their very nature, they are designed for a completely different format.

One I forgot about, however, was 'Sin City'! I never read the original material, but I liked the film, considering what it was. It didn't have any illusions about itself and was literally a 'moving' version of a comic.

To truly make them films, however, requires something else. It's the same problem many computer game adaptations often have. 'Tomb Raider' had excellent potential, as did 'Bloodrayne', but they ended up being overly superficial. Making them into films should be a case of shifting the elements around, so that they suit reality more than they otherwise would.

In many ways, I think that certain properties should stay in the realm of CGI films. 'Tomb Raider' should have gone that way and the only interesting story in 'The Animatrix' was superbly designed for that medium, in my view.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]cowboy_witch
2009-03-12 11:12 am UTC (link)
I'd completely forgotten about Sin City, good catch. Yet another panel-for-panel literal adaptation. Also a very good film.

You raise a good point about game adaptations; I think trying to make a movie out of a product in another medium is always tricky, but videogames especially because most of them aren't plot-heavy -- the story isn't the point of the game nine times out of 10. RPGs aside, no one really plays a game for the story; I don't play Tomb Raider for riveting plot -- I play it because it's fun.

And as we discuss this, I see there's another Street Fighter movie. Jooooooy ... *eye roll*

Talk about proving my point for me.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]poetic_fangs
2009-03-12 11:27 am UTC (link)
Well, of course, the original game was superficial, but the character outgrew that, because of her popularity. :) Photogenic, yes, but an entire history was grown up around her, to explain their origins and what shaped her into who she became.

There's an excellent first draft of an alternative script for the film, which was done in 1997 or something. It's just the initial part of it, but starts out with how her parents died in the plane crash, she was forced to be a survivor and all the rest of it. I'm actually one of the few who was entertained by the film, such as it was, but still lamented it, because of how very superior a 'true' version could have been. They had the budget and the studio massively supported it. It easily could have been what most hoped for, but ended up completely different.

I have not personally seen the 'Bloodrayne' film, but have specifically avoided, because of seeing all the reviews and knowing that it literally turns the character into something completely different: They changed her from a snarky anti-heroine, just before World War Two, to a sympathetic girl in the Dark Ages.

I guess that it all comes down to the feeling you get of being disappointed by squandered potential! You ask yourself, what was the point in all that money being spent to secure the licence for an artistic property, if they're not going to do it justice? It's like seeing an old friend's name tarnished, for no apparent reason.

On the other hand, there are times when there can be too much attention to authenticity and the product can then suffer as a result. The new version of 'King Kong' is a case in point.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Read comments) -


Home | Site Map | Manage Account | TOS | Privacy | Support | FAQs