MovieBob Reviews: Watchmen

MovieBob takes on the biggest super hero movie of the year - perhaps all time.

Watch Video

"should be regarded as a film on its own merit" All adaptations should be, and the sooner people realise that the less bitchin' they'll do "the book was better" No the book was different, because you imagined it differently to the director.

Anyway, I felt that dissing all those other films and directors was somewhat unnecessary and the bulk of the review could have been gotten by reading the opening few lines on screen, but it was mildly entertaining overall.

Why the hell does MovieBob not have his own account?

Overall, good review. Loved the stuff (Read- Rant) on other directors.
Let's see it more often!

I liked the Watchmen too, but overall I felt it was fundamentally flawed due to the fetters of what constitutes an acceptable running time. I'll definitely see it again, but that will be the director's cut on Blu-Ray.

"Why the hell does MovieBob not have his own account?"

Somebody should really ask him ;)

sneak_copter:
Why the hell does MovieBob not have his own account?

Overall, good review. Loved the stuff (Read- Rant) on other directors.
Let's see it more often!

Actually he does. His previous entry with the oscar episode was posted and commented by him. I'm sure there is a good reason such as possible editing by the escapist to make sure everything will render properly.

Man i really got to see this movie looks awesome

I loved the rant at the beginning. I also agree with him, that movie was a fucking masterpeice. But I would of liked to see some bad stuff in the review. Because I can point out some bad stuff in the film, mostly relating it to the book. Like how they dumbed down some sceens. The ending really made up for the dumbed down and missing scenes though.

I found the movie AMAZING and i also have watched it several times and each time it just gets better
(Now i know there will be people telling me off for this) But do you not think that compared to the comic it all seems a little "rushed", now dont get me wrong here, i mean the film is amazing and i love it to bits but after reading the comic and seeing the film, i feel theyve tryed to push all that information into a 2 and a half hour slot, and its really not enough time

As a stand alone film however, i take my hat off, well done is literally all i can say

Great review by the way, this is the first time i have watched a moviebob, will definatly watch more

galletea:
"should be regarded as a film on its own merit" All adaptations should be, and the sooner people realise that the less bitchin' they'll do "the book was better" No the book was different, because you imagined it differently to the director.

Anyway, I felt that dissing all those other films and directors was somewhat unnecessary and the bulk of the review could have been gotten by reading the opening few lines on screen, but it was mildly entertaining overall.

Golden Compass. 'Nuff said.

It would be nice if the director READ the bloody book.

I really enjoyed the film, but I think I'll enjoy the directors cut more. I think too many scenes were dropped to fit it into a 2 hour 30 min time slot that most of the general public would find acceptable for sitting down in a movie theater and to be honest I wouldn't want to spend much longer then that in there anyway.

Now all that makes me sad that my current condition probably makes watching it in the cinema impossible and I'll have to wait for the DVD.

:( I still need to wait till I can watch this.
Don't even know if it is out yet in my country...
and even still... I just don't have the time :(

Loved the rant though :D

What I'm truly grateful to the movie for is that Watchmen is now part of mainstream culture. No matter how big a superhero or comic book is the public doesn't really know about it until a popular movie is made, not just because of the people who have seen it but because of the millions more who are exposed to the marketing. Some people might morn the loss of the underground nature of the book, but I'm loving being able to talk to other people about these characters. And of course this will bring more people to the book, which no one can say is a bad thing. I mean, my dad just started reading the graphic novel because he saw a review of the film and found the book in my old room. He hasn't read a comic since silver age superman, but now he burning through Watchmen. I never thought I be able to discuss this with him without having to explain everything to him.

Probably the most important piece of comic book culture has been brought to the screen and done so masterfully. It shows that our fiction can be just as deep, moving and meaningful as any other work, and more so than most character dramas fishing for Oscar nominations. I plan to see this film three to seven times, and my forth showing's tonight. Go out, drag your friends along and show them what all the fuss is about.

this review Rules!! and also... i will wathc this movie again but as "Maet" Said, it will have to be the blue ray

I never thought I'd say this about a critic but...

"I agree with everything that man just said."

You see to me, there are moments of Watchmen that could make it "a fucking Masterpiece" which are followed by just plain aweful moments.

Zack Snyders insistance to add so much slow mo, blood and the most unintentionally hilarious sex scene I have ever seen is what killed the film for me.

And also, no, I think the actors who played Ozzy and Silk Spector where terrible. The rest of the cast worked well, petically Doctor Manhattan and Jacky as Rorsatch, but thoughs two where just plain bad.

I've never had such mixed views about a film as Watchmen. It's certainly worth seeing, just so you can have your own view on it, because it's a very 50/50 split on thoughs who like it and who don't.

Wow you are such a fan of the novel you don't notice how poorly done the movie was.
Zack Snyder's inexperience in storytelling shines brightly in this film, the main plot constantly gets lost in all the back stories and over-the-top fight and sex scenes. Which worked with his over movies such as 300 simply because starting off there wasn't much substance besides the sex and violence. But doesn't work that well in watchmen since it distracts from what should be the driving force, the plot...

Film is not really a stand alone film, since it relies heavily on the novel to fill-in for what was cut out or what lack the time to fully be explained. Meaning the movie is for fans only, since people who have not read the book with leave the theaters highly confused (like my two friends I went to see the movie with)

The only reason people claim it is such a great movie is because of the rich source material and stunning visual effects. The common person I guess could be easily entertained by the eye candy and probably could kind of get a hint that the movie was suppose to be something greater then a normal superhero movie. And the fans are easily entertained by seeing some of the scenes from the novel depicted word for word.

The movie was a disappointment. The soundtrack was a terrible selection of random mismatched periodic songs. Everyone knew martial arts and had superhuman strength. You had characters and settings coming in with no introduction or explanation. I do see that the movie was trying to be as deep and moving as the book, but just comes off as a action movie with a little twist.

I think in the hands of another director or editor or someone, this film could have been successful in being a great adaptation and a stand alone film.

While I also enjoyed the movie and agree with Bob on most points, it has come to my attention exactly why this movie will not be recognized for the masterpiece it is as an adaptation, a super hero movie, and a film in its own right: Dr Manhattan's penis.

Remember how back in 1991 when, to hear some people tell it, mostly middle school kids, that Silence of the Lambs was about a guy who tucks his penis between his legs so that he looks like a woman? Yeah, when those kids are adults now. Not that you'd notice because they are not one iota more mature. Therefore, to them, Watchmen is a totally gay movie about a naked blue guy and, *giggle, giggle* you can see his penis.

This kind of shit pisses me right the fuck off, but what it proves to me is that the world at large is not only not ready for a movie like Watchmen. It does not deserve a movie like Watchmen. It may not even deserve the empty explosion fest that are Michael Bay movies. They refuse to grow up and good things are like pearls before swine.

Maet:
I liked the Watchmen too, but overall I felt it was fundamentally flawed due to the fetters of what constitutes an acceptable running time. I'll definitely see it again, but that will be the director's cut on Blu-Ray.

Really? What do you consider an acceptable running time? The people on this thread are saying 2 to 2 and a half hours. How the fuck is that long?

mike1921:

Maet:
I liked the Watchmen too, but overall I felt it was fundamentally flawed due to the fetters of what constitutes an acceptable running time. I'll definitely see it again, but that will be the director's cut on Blu-Ray.

Really? What do you consider an acceptable running time? The people on this thread are saying 2 to 2 and a half hours. How the fuck is that long?

I think his point was that the movie should've been longer, to do proper justice to the source material, but was limited because movies are expected (both by audiences and by movie houses hoping to turn a buck) to be 3 hours at the very most.

Maet:
I liked the Watchmen too, but overall I felt it was fundamentally flawed due to the fetters of what constitutes an acceptable running time. I'll definitely see it again, but that will be the director's cut on Blu-Ray.

It's basically called unfilmable because there is just so much going on. They had to cut a lot of content from the books just to get to that magical 2 hours and 40 minutes. They cut out

Personally, I find the movie a great adaptation and should definitely be judged on its own merits. Comparing the movie to the comic is like comparing apples and oranges, even if one IS the adaptation of the other.

EDIT:
Oh yeah, since they went out of their way to provide people with 2 hours and 40 minutes of film, I wish that they lengthened it to a flat three hours.

I fully agree, the only thing about the film I didn't like was the big sex scene which just felt gratuitous.

I've seen it. I liked it, but unlike Moviebob I don't want to marry it.

It has it's flaws like the inappropriate use of songs, Sally Jupiter's unconvincing acting, Nixon's nose, etc - okay those aren't big points, but they prevent it becoming perfect...

Ant200tl:
Wow you are such a fan of the novel you don't notice how poorly done the movie was.
Zack Snyder's inexperience in storytelling shines brightly in this film, the main plot constantly gets lost in all the back stories and over-the-top fight and sex scenes. Which worked with his over movies such as 300 simply because starting off there wasn't much substance besides the sex and violence. But doesn't work that well in watchmen since it distracts from what should be the driving force, the plot...

Film is not really a stand alone film, since it relies heavily on the novel to fill-in for what was cut out or what lack the time to fully be explained. Meaning the movie is for fans only, since people who have not read the book with leave the theaters highly confused (like my two friends I went to see the movie with)

The only reason people claim it is such a great movie is because of the rich source material and stunning visual effects. The common person I guess could be easily entertained by the eye candy and probably could kind of get a hint that the movie was suppose to be something greater then a normal superhero movie. And the fans are easily entertained by seeing some of the scenes from the novel depicted word for word.

The movie was a disappointment. The soundtrack was a terrible selection of random mismatched periodic songs. Everyone knew martial arts and had superhuman strength. You had characters and settings coming in with no introduction or explanation. I do see that the movie was trying to be as deep and moving as the book, but just comes off as a action movie with a little twist.

I think in the hands of another director or editor or someone, this film could have been successful in being a great adaptation and a stand alone film.

I have to agree with you on that. I had too explain the movie to my firend at least twice for them to understand the full plot.

Saw it three times now. I cannot see why they had to go fuck up the ending though. Besides that little point, I thought the movie was fantastic.

notoriouslynx:
But I would of liked to see some bad stuff in the review. Because I can point out some bad stuff in the film, mostly relating it to the book.

Moviebob:
"should be regarded as a film on its own merit"

Ant200tl:

I think in the hands of another director or editor or someone, this film could have been successful in being a great adaptation and a stand alone film.

Terry Gilliam himself said he couldn't do it. Who exactly would you have got? Spielberg.

(Anyone even mentions Lucas and I will disown them from humanity ;))

I... didn't hate it, but I didn't love it either.

I dunno, I just felt like it tried to hard, didn't take any risks, kept to the book like it was the bible, and overall, they tried to film the book, and proved why that isn't as good an idea as the people think.

This book makes for a good book.

But not for a good movie.

It's still a good movie, which is an ancomplishment, but it's not a masterpiece.

MovieBob is officially one of my heroes.

Totally agree, loved that movie.

The_root_of_all_evil:

notoriouslynx:
But I would of liked to see some bad stuff in the review. Because I can point out some bad stuff in the film, mostly relating it to the book.

Moviebob:
"should be regarded as a film on its own merit"

Ant200tl:

I think in the hands of another director or editor or someone, this film could have been successful in being a great adaptation and a stand alone film.

Terry Gilliam himself said he couldn't do it. Who exactly would you have got? Spielberg.

(Anyone even mentions Lucas and I will disown them from humanity ;))

Oh, I didn't see that. Thanks. Yeah, I guess you can't base the review on differences from the book, but there were some other bad stuff he could of pointed out. And he could of pointed out some other stuff in the film that was good besides the characters acting.

damm good movie. yeah ok, not a good as the book but so fucking what? maybe if the movie had been directed by alan moore then it would have stayed 100% true to the comic. but a movie based on a book or a play or anything else will almost always be an abridgement of the original.

good acting, great special effects and an ending that was nearly as good as the one in the comic. most of the music was pretty good, but one or two songs felt out of place

i dont understand why people are so up in arms about the sex scene though. whats the problem? nite owl has sex in the book, and in the movie, so its not like its a continuity error or anything. it was just 30-45 seconds of shagging in a 2 and a half hour long movie

anyway. rant over. might get some abuse from fanboys but there you go. fuck 'em.

want another good book to film adaptation: The Maltese Falcon

Uhm... is this a review or a commercial?
I mean, I haven't seen it yet, but even if it's all that you're saying it is, that's still a lot of brown-nosing for circa 5 minutes.
You coulda told us a bit about the movie itself, like, the story'n'shit instead of breathlessly repeating your claims of perfection over and over again.
But... you got to me, I'll watch it. So I guess, mission fucking accomplished. :-D

Susan Arendt:

mike1921:

Maet:
I liked the Watchmen too, but overall I felt it was fundamentally flawed due to the fetters of what constitutes an acceptable running time. I'll definitely see it again, but that will be the director's cut on Blu-Ray.

Really? What do you consider an acceptable running time? The people on this thread are saying 2 to 2 and a half hours. How the fuck is that long?

I think his point was that the movie should've been longer, to do proper justice to the source material, but was limited because movies are expected (both by audiences and by movie houses hoping to turn a buck) to be 3 hours at the very most.

The butter zone for most wide theatrical releases is around 100-150 minutes. People who've read the Watchmen often say that in order for the film to incorporate everything appropriately, the film should be ~240 minutes long, which is just too long for the average audience to care. If there is a four hour cut on the DVD, I'd like to see it, but my point is that there's no way the average movie goer would.

Frankly, I don't understand why Watchmen is considered "unfilmable," especially when the source material is essentially a storyboard that already cuts a large chunk of the work involved in the project.

That bit about anything containing a cape or a spaceship being a 'genre films' hit the nail on the head.

I dunno about this one. I think I agree with Bob halfways here. He usually has a knack for saying exactly what I think about a movie, but I was torn over this movie. I think my major problem was that this really struck me as something bizarre. I think Zack Snyder did his thing here. The comic book was a mystery/drama with bits of action mixed in that, just as in all mysteries and dramas used those moments of action to build to a climactic moment of action that results in epiphany. In Zack Snyder's adaptation, it was an action film with bits of mystery and drama mixed in. I think of it sort of like Hendrix's version of The Star Spangled Banner where he riffs all over the song. Is it great? Yah, you bet, it's awesome! Would you want is as our national anthem? Hell no. It's not a tune you can sing to, and it's a good five minutes longer. Similarly, Zack Snyder riffs all over Watchmen. And while it's fair to say "you can't compare this to the comic book, it's a film!" I argue that when the director claims that relation from the start, you're forced to. Just like Francis Scott Key, Alan Moore is the better genius in this example.

Also, I dunno what movie you were watching, but Malin Ackermann was awful. It ruined Billy Crudup's performance, because his character was meant to display his emotions purely through what he said, not his facial expressions and tone of voice. Ackermann's character was supposed to be his opposite; a character who was distinctly human and was visibly emotional. But Malin Akerman wasn't a good actress in that movie (perhaps because unlike a lot of the other people, she hasn't been in movies with good actors). She was attractive, sure, but contributed nothing. When Dr. Manhattan and Laurie are having their confrontation on Mars, her lack of good acting, of expressing the character's emotions appropriately, caused me to think Billy Crudup was doing a piss poor job. And then I realized it was that without characters that played their emotions off his lack (like Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, & Jeffery Dean Morgan), everything just felt dull.

You know who would've blown that role out of the water? Kate Winslet. Then we could've had all three of the leads from Little Children.