I have mixed feelings about it too. I think it's only good because the comic is soo good. Rorsasch and Dan were quite good though. So was Mom Jupiter.
Watchmen vs Watchmen
|
 On 08/31/2014 at 10:18 AM by daftman See More From This User » |
When I read Watchmen I thought that it would be difficult to turn it into a movie. There are so many characters and so much backstory. When the movie did come out, I remember there was a very polarized response to it, both among critics and fans. Now that I've read the book and seen the movie, I'm rather divided myself.
Warning, dear reader! There is no way to talk about this without completely spoiling it. If you plan to read the book or watch the movie (or both!), then please stop reading this now. Go find out what the fuss is about firsthand and then come back. I'll still be here.
It didn't start out very well, in my opinion. Before even popping in the disc, I noticed the back of the box refer to the characters several times as "superheroes," something the book rarely, if ever, does. They're usually called "masked adventurers," even by themselves. Other than Dr. Manhattan, of course, these are just normal people. They don't have any special powers. But after watching the opening fight between the Comedian and...his assailant, you would assume super strength at least. They smash through walls and marble counters and Ozymandias picks up the Comedian one-handed without the slightest effort before hurling him out the window. I know he's buff but the Comedian is a big guy. Everyone else seems just as strong though. Many a character goes flying across a room from a single punch or kick. But it shouldn't be like that. This isn't the Matrix. It might seem a small thing but I think it hurts the believability of the story.
And that's a shame because the casting, by and large, is very good. The actor playing Dan Dreiberg nailed the part: nerdy, middle-aged, and socially awkward. Rorschach is also spot on, as is the Comedian. I wish Dr. Manhattan's voice had been deeper or more confident or manly or something. Laurie Jupiter I could take or leave. Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias) seemed a little too cold, almost a jerk. One of the reasons the ending of the book is effective is because Veidt is a sympathetic character.
The ending bothered me too. The effect of the ending is the same as the book (everyone putting aside their differences because of the threat of a common enemy) but it gets there in a very different way. I can understand why they changed it. By getting rid of Veidt's creature, they were also able to cut the whole subplot of the missing artists, which cut down on the time of an already long movie (not to mention special effects $$) but I think it's a weaker story for the change.
I was also surprised how much they embraced the R rating. I do think a straight telling of the story would probably get an R but it's also a fact that PG-13 movies tend to make much more money. While there is plenty of swearing in the book, I don't remember if anybody ever dropped the f-bomb. It's common parlance in the movie. The one thing the book isn't shy about is blood (that would need toning down a little for PG-13, I think) but the movie really takes it a step further and seemed almost needlessly violent. You see lots of bones getting broken, sometimes with the bones coming out of the skin, and plenty of graphic gunshot wounds. When the assassin came for Veidt, why did he start shooting up the entire room? And then the sex scene between Laurie and Dreiberg kind of dragged on. It was what, two or maybe three panels in the book? All that stuff is fine if that's how they wanted to make the movie (and I guess it was) but it didn't seem to help the movie at all and just shrunk the potential audience. If I'm reading IMDB right, looks like it lost money overall.
Now I know I've been pretty hard on the movie but that's just because the book is so very good and I enjoyed reading it. Watchmen is a great story with great characters and that largely carries over to the movie. Some of the changes are understandable, if not preferable (e.g., the ending), while others are more bizarre (e.g., Rorschach splitting the head of the child murder open instead of setting fire to the building; the book's version fits the character better). The filmmakers are obviously big fans of the property as anyone who's read the book will quickly see. There are lots of little references to the world, like the Gunga Diner and being able to spot Rorschach out of costume in different scenes. I just wish they had kept things a little more faithful.
Getting to see Rorschach's mask in motion though, well, that might just have made the whole movie worthwhile.
lol
We'll just hit it this weekend for sure...right? 
Comments