Author |
Message |
Ketchuplover
Member
08-30-2000
| Friday, March 06, 2009 - 6:04 pm
It was ok. I haven't read the graphic novel.
|
Beckie03
Member
07-05-2007
| Friday, March 06, 2009 - 10:25 pm
i actually enjoyed it. it is a good spin on history and being a history major...it is very interesting to me. only thing i couldn't figure who the russian guy was that was with "castro"...
|
Ketchuplover
Member
08-30-2000
| Friday, March 06, 2009 - 10:57 pm
My uneducated guess would be Gorbachev. Have you read the GN ?
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Friday, March 06, 2009 - 11:13 pm
TERRIBLE. Nixon was president in 85? Addicted to love came out in 85? Reagan is running in 88? How is it a good spin on history? Personally, I thought the acting was horrible, and it was way too unnecessarily disjointed. They told too many unnecessary stories, went in depth at weird times, introduced only briefly to pivotal clues/characters, and told us too much about things that actually didn't really matter much overall. I think it could have been done WAY better. It was cheezy, like Spiderman 3, and I was hoping for something more like Sin City. It wasn't a good representation of a graphic novel. That girl was a terrible actress. And seriously, that line by Mr. Manhattan? "I think you are like oxygen turning to gold" Vomit. I wanted to like this movie so much, and I dragged my bf to it, and it let me down big time. It was wayyyyy too long, nad never once really engaged me. I kept waiting for the moment that I would be "in to it" but it never happened. At about 75 minutes in, I realized it wouldn't get any better; at about 2 hours, I contemplated leaving early. And I RARELY walk out of movies. Great soundtrack though!
|
Beckie03
Member
07-05-2007
| Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 8:08 am
that's what i thought ketchup...but gorbachev was fat...that russian was skinny...that's why i didn't think it was gorbachev. i guess it could have been...but...
|
Ketchuplover
Member
08-30-2000
| Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 9:07 am
What trailers did y'all get? Mine had Public Enemies,Wolverine,Illuminati,and Observe and Report(which I'd never heard of).
|
Beckie03
Member
07-05-2007
| Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 9:42 am
i had wolverine, 9, and observe and report...
|
Pamplemousse
Member
09-28-2003
| Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 3:05 pm
agree it was TERRIBLE DH read the graphic novel & was really looking forward to it. he dragged me along with the promise of "it will be like X-men" it wasn't. (but we did get a Wolverine preview) i found it to be too dark, violent & disjointed and waaaay too long. bet it is top box office this weekend though
|
Egbok
Member
07-13-2000
| Saturday, March 07, 2009 - 9:54 pm
We saw this one today and honestly, I had no idea what I was seeing. I went along because DH wanted to see this movie. I haven't read the graphic novel mentioned in some posts above. I liked the blue man, John "Dr. Manhattan" the best. For me, not knowing anything about comic book characters, I was totally lost to the 'storyline'. So for it being disjointed, dark, violent, sexy?, etc... it was all just okay for me. The movie was too long and I looked forward to the end to come up sooner than later. The trailers we got were Observe & Report, Wolverine and some new cable TV shows-to-be, "Roommates" & "Paranormal State".
|
Harlequin
Member
07-11-2008
| Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 1:25 am
I LOVED this movie. I've read the graphic novel and I thought Zack Snyder did a great job of getting the comic book feel in to the movie without following some cheesy snapshot scenes in other movies. I felt that Rorshach was brilliant in the movie (well, he's just an amazing character concept anyways) and I loved the fight scenes. Like everything DC Comics/Marvel Comics does, they take the world and make it in to an alternate universe, so Nixon being president at that time didn't bother me, or anything historical. That's just something comic books do, and so that's what Watchmen does. It's like how X-Men comics follow a liquid timeline. Civil Wars take place when they really don't, presidents are elected, etc. I don't know. I thought it was funny, exhilarating, gritty, and deep. The point of Watchmen is to make one question what a hero actually is, and just like with the novel I found myself wondering what that was. Was it the absolutist Rorshach? The Machiavellian Adrian? The nihilistic Comedian? They each have their points. I don't see the disjointed factor y'all are mentioning, and I also don't see what the problem is with long movies. I've been hearing that a lot lately and I always seem to disagree. I think a movie should be however long it needs to be. Watchmen surrounds multiple characters, and to give each of them justice it takes time. To stay true to the theme, that takes time. I was never in my theatre chair wishing it would be over. In fact, I'm probably going to go see it again. XD Disclaimer- I'm a giant comic book junkie. I mean, X-Men makes my world go 'round. All of my friends that are also big in to comic books and have seen the movie have loved it as well. If the characters DIDN'T get their respective time on-screen, I'd call foul. So, with that said, maybe the film is catered more towards big fans of the novel/comic books in general than anything else. Previews I saw... Public Enemies, X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Must. See.), Angels and Demons, Observe and Report, Terminator: Salvation
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 7:47 am
I don't have a problem with the story, or the different characters; I actually liked the characters. I just think it was disjointed in a way that didn't HELP the movie, and I think they didn't do it justice. While I haven't read the novel, I have heard from friends that it tried so hard to stay true to the novel, almost frame by frame, that it detracted from the overall movie. I think there there is a way to stay true to the story, without confusing non-readers, or boring people. I totally agree that a movie should be as long as it needs to be, but only if it's a good, and engaging movie. If you're not into it, if it doesn't grab you and pull you in, you feel like you're being held hostage in the theatre. I think where a movie like Xmen beats this one, is that it knows what [from the comic] can be thrown away, and what can be developed a bit more. I had NO problem with the violence or sexuality. I think it could have been done better though. I enjoyed the fight scene at the beginning, with The Comedian, but some of the others were cheesy, like the one in the jailhouse, etc. While I understand that you can only go so far without CGI (and I commend the producers for not relying too heavily on it), the actors didn't do a good job of their scenes. The woman in the film as AWFUL. I have also read that the movie didn't capture the characters properly. For example, in the movie, when the two are going to fight everyone in the jail, she looks like she's excited to destroy some people, when I hear the book did not portray her that way. One of the things I DID like, was the concept of the superheroes in their "time off" from the "job". I like that they weren't living a second life like Clark Kent/Superman, or Bruce Wayne/Batman. They really just went home, took their capes off, and hung out with other off-duty superheroes.
|
Harlequin
Member
07-11-2008
| Sunday, March 08, 2009 - 12:15 pm
I just think we're going to disagree on this. I believe the fight scenes were very well choreagraphed. It's kind of Snyder's touch on the action, similar to his other film 300 where the fight scenes are surreal more than anything, and he doesn't rely on a shaky camera to get the heart pumping. It's a clear yet dreamlike sequence that he goes for, and when that's in a movie such as this I thought it worked. I don't really have an issue with Silk Spectre II enjoying these fighting sequences. Actually, I think it was fitting. After not having any action for so long, and then being put back in to it, well, I am pretty sure I'd be enjoying myself. (She only really showed herself enjoying it after the building on fire anyhow) I mean, I actually kind of liked her. She wasn't weak like, say, Rogue in X-Men. Now don't get me wrong. Between the novel and the movie, I do prefer the novel. That said I am of the idea that movies based on novels/comic books will never be as good as the actual thing. The friends I went with that didn't read it were also enthralled with the story and loved every minute of it. The movie theatre I was in was full of cheers and excited chatter as well. (Although, it DID look like college frat night in there...)
|
Spencer1
Member
03-27-2009
| Monday, March 30, 2009 - 10:56 pm
For me the movie was okay. Nothing special apart from the special effects It's a classic Hollywood movie with lot of action and that's how it should be seen. Haven't read the novel yet, maybe I should. Let's see if I can get a cheap copy.
|
|