Just saw Watchmen wis Fiddy Fee, and had to drop onto lj before bed to say a few words. Good lord. I can’t remember the last time I came out of a movie this thoroughly dumbfounded. SO INCREDIBLY BAD… a cast of the least interesting characters I can imagine bashing us over the head wis their uninteresting pasts at painful length between scenes of puerilely gory and usually unnecessary action and idiotically pretentious voice-overs, all of which seemed designed to keep the actual story from advancing at all costs…. When after about three thousand hours of this we were finally treated to some plot, the damn thing tried ineffectually to imitate The Dark Knight (which retrospectively seems concise, well-paced, and well-edited in comparison) wis morally ambiguous social reform theory.
None of this would have been so unbelievably bad, though, if the entire thing hadn’t been so excruciatingly, almost intolerably boring. Didn’t one single person on the staff of this movie actually sit through the entire plodding, dragging three hours and make the comment, “Hey, guys, this shit is… kinda tedious…? Maybe instead of reiterating these points this often we should maybe think about actually telling the story…?” About a quarter of the way through I was ready to leave. Isn’t a boring superhero movie against some law somewhere? If it’s not, it should be. A fucking lot of things in this particular movie should be against some law somewhere.
I haven’t seen it (nor do I have any desire to) but it’s weird that the reviews are all on totally opposite ends of the spectrum. People either thought it was THE BEST THING EVER or THE WORST THING EVER.
Yeah, I’d noticed that too. I’ll admit it had its moments (the most prominent of them being a random lesbian kiss right at the beginning after which I might as well have left), but I honestly can’t see how anyone could have considering it a good movie XD
So I take it you didn’t like it?
Glad you picked up on that.
I read the actual comic and hated it, I have no intention of seeing it live action.
Good idea.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I get the impression that you haven’t read the comic. Pretty much all talk about this movie from my usual sources has been focused on whether or not it makes for a good adaptation (including myself), so I’m interested to hear what someone coming in without that preoccupation thinks of it. I was wondering throughout if it was at all coherent or interesting to someone who didn’t already know the dropped plot points and such. My mother liked it, for instance, but needed catching up here and there.
(Gah, posted too early)
Anyway, I guess I’m asking this: did you find it boringly nonsensical, boringly shallow, or both?
You are correct that I have not read the comic. I largely gave up western comics when I got into manga (for financial reasons), and I never really read any DC titles anyway.
Oddly, the movie has given me a better impression of the comic than I previously had. Granted, my previous impression was almost complete ignorance, having known it was a comic I’d never read and nothing more, so that isn’t really saying much. But there were some decent ideas in this movie, abysmally handled though I thought they were — and the mere fact that the thing was so painfully overstuffed indicates that there was a lot of content that at least someone couldn’t bear to leave out. Add to that the fact that there has been approximately one movie adaptation of a book that I enjoyed more than the book in my entire reading/watching history, and the fact that generally the more I like a book the more I’m likely to abhor the movie adaptation… and I’m disposed to think rather kindly of the comic despite having never read it XD
The movie was not at all difficult to follow, just to sit through XD To its credit, some parts of it were even well-presented, such as the hero group’s history, reasons for forming, transition to a younger generation, and dissolution. I even thought the overall plot (when we finally got around to it) could have worked if 1) I’d cared about or believed in a single one of the driving characters and 2) it hadn’t been hopelessly bogged down in pointless flashbacks and even more pointless action sequences.
The idea of a decision for peace by the almost-warring nations because of the supposed threat of an imbalanced super-power seemed a little far-fetched, but that may have been only because it was too clear-cut and simplistic — which may have been handled better in a comic where there was more time. I believe, however, that it could have worked in the movie as well (I say “as well,” but of course I don’t know if that actually happened at all in the comic XD) if Veidt had been at all believable.
Yeah… yeah… besides the needless action scenes (and overall pacing and desperately bad editing), I think the lack of characterization was the movie’s biggest flaw. For a show so packed wis backstory it was irritating to come out of it wis (among other things) only very vague ideas about most of the characters’ personalities and motivations.
The Comedian, Rorschach (and I had to look up how to spell that), and Manhattan were the only ones I really had a feel for — and given that Rorschach, for all purposes of the actual story, might as well have been cut entirely, and Manhattan’s characterization was basically blank-faced psychosis, that’s not saying much. (Incidentally, I did like Rorschach at first sight because he looked a little like Cabadath XD but his pretentious bombast got really old really fast.) Manhattan was the most interesting part of the movie, but I thought his vault-face about life and miracles was abrupt and unconvincing — again, something that (assuming it happened) was probably handled better where there was more time for it.
Love Child and her rebound came across as a couple of big blanks the entire time, wis one or two arbitrary characteristics tacked on in a feeble attempt to flesh them out — she in particular What was her name, Laurie? Anyway, they were bad, but Veidt was even worse. He was like a high-school drama club member that only remembered half his lines, probably because he’d suffered a head injury just before the performance. Vague references to history and mythology do not a super-villain make. Sure, he was giving off evil vibes all over the place, but I never got the feeling that he really believed in his implausible scheme — rendering him, and thereby the plot he turned out to have been driving, incredible. That was the part that seemed shallow, but it could have worked… Things like that do work when they’re delivered well, no matter how overblown and/or unbelievable they are… that’s the beauty of fiction… I can only assume it was delivered better in the original.
Then the flashbacks were just so tedious. None of them needed to be as long as they were; the exact same ideas could have been conveyed in a third of the time. I felt like the whole first half of the movie was largely dedicated to reiterating what an asshole the Comedian had been, which we figured out fairly easily in just one or two scenes. Sure, that played into Manhattan’s miracle epiphany later on, but, again, we figured it out long before they stopped bombarding us wis repetitive imagery to the purpose. It was like the movie-makers assumed that everyone watching was an idiot that needed these ideas drilled into their brain before they could put two and two together. Except certain two’s didn’t get added at all because apparently they weren’t important. “These two had sex on screen! Why would you want us to characterize them?”
And did I mention the pointless action? Nearly all the prison scenes added absolutely nothing to the story or even, I thought, the feel of the movie. We already knew what Rorschach was like; what else did this part accomplish? They could have had Rorschach find pointy-eared-guy’s dead body and gone straight to the others, skipping the prison detour entirely. Then the scene where Love Child and Rebound killed/maimed all those guys that randomly ambushed them as they were walking down the street… wasn’t there a better, more concise (i.e. less time-wasting) way for the movie to show them bonding by reliving the glory days? Especially given that they bonded and relived the glory days again on purpose fifteen minutes later?
I could go on, but I think I’ve already entirely lost track of your original questions as it is. I just found it a very badly-made movie all ’round, and a lot of that probably comes from it being a bad adaptation. Since I get the impression from your comments that you have read the comic and are probably a fan, what was your impression of the transition to the big screen?
I suppose I should disclose at this point. I am indeed a fan of the comic; it’s trite and predictable to say so now, but it strikes me as a near-perfect example of exactly the sort of writing and storytelling that I like. It’s highly formalist, but manages to avoid most of the pitfalls of that approach. Due to this, I was among those that were not looking forward to seeing this particular adaptation. I liked it alright when I saw it, but it was definitely a divergence from the source in some very important ways. (As a final point, I’m honestly just not as discriminating about things that don’t reach the point of actually offending me with their lack of quality, so me liking the movie doesn’t necessarily translate to a ringing endorsement.)
It seems to me that most of what you hated about it stems from its inconsistent and frankly somewhat bizarre approach to adapting the comic. Those flashbacks, those redundant sections, that whole buildup of the Comedian: all these, I think, are due to somebody picking and choosing what sections to cut out of something that was intended to work as a whole. I think they have a bunch of sections about the Comedian simply because the filmmakers liked those scenes and wanted them in. He doesn’t dominate the comic that way at all. The prison part? It was originally important largely because of the interviews with the psychologist, which had a whole issue/chapter devoted to it and explained much of what one would have been wondering about Rorshach’s personality. The filmmakers probably just wanted to get to the head-cleaving and such and thus skipped most of it.
Characterization was indeed poor, but I actually didn’t realize that until I read this post, and this is sort of what provoked my initial questions. The characters made perfect sense to me at the time, but now I suspect that they wouldn’t have been nearly as comprehensible if I hadn’t already read a more complex story about them. Dr. Manhattan doesn’t come off as psychotic at all to me, for instance, and I’ve never heard his character described that way, but I supppose that it fits for someone who you just see staring into space and mumbling about time for most of his role.
Why did I like the movie, if I’m just talking about how it disappointed me as an adaptation? Probably because I was with someone who was enjoying it and it rubbed off. I thought that the action was actually quite good; I just sort of wished that it had been employed in a different movie. I liked all of the actors and thought that it was well-cast. It was quite good visually, and I really liked the opening credits. I guess it just goes in my mind as another decent attempt at the quixotic task of making stories do things they were never, ever intended to do.
Watchmen was created as an example of what comics could do that nothing else could. The movie was inevitable, and I’m just glad that it’s probably going to get some people to read the comic if only to have some idea what was going on.
All that said, I don’t disagree with any particular point of yours, and I don’t intend to act as apologist for something that I generally liked but wasn’t particularly moved by. All I can say is that the comic is worth reading if you get the chance. Even if you hate it just as much, you will be hating something that is well-made (and it is very important that one hates only the best. Jane Austen may have written the finest works I will ever fail to read).
(that got long)
Heh heh… yours didn’t get as long as mine did XD
Admittedly I’m not qualified to discuss whether action in a movie is good or not, since I don’t enjoy it for its own sake. If it doesn’t advance the plot or provide some significant contribution to characterization, relationship development, or (arguably) tone, I’m like, “Cut it!!!” So it’s really rather rude of me to watch an action movie and bitch about the action :D
I agree that the opening credits were great, and thought a lot of the camerawork and visual effects were decent too. Another thing I liked (which is not really all that relevant to this discussion, but whatever XD) was that they didn’t hide Manhattan’s nudity. OK, well, it kinda seemed like they were trying to at first but eventually gave up. Being something of a nudist myself, I really appreciate it when non-sexual nudity is given fair treatment (i.e. displayed openly). Did he walk around naked in the comic?
Mayhap sometime I shall read the comic. I remember glancing at it vaguely many times and thinking that the logo was something squirting into the air XD
That is a totally reasonable standard for an action movie. Action movies should do those things or rethink themeselves until they do, and it’s true that most of the action was unnecessary or, at the very least, gratuitous. I suppose I wish that the obvious skill in action choreography and direction at work were being employed for something more like a martial arts movie where the fighting is the primary method of characterization.
The nudity thing is definitely something to the movie’s credit. It is pretty much exactly how the comic treated it. I was actually convinced beforehand that they were just going to pull a bunch of stupid tricks to avoid showing the penis (like, say, that disappointing animated Beowulf). It bothers me a lot that showing a person’s genitals is so ludicrously taboo (though it has been funny to talk to guys who loved the movie but were openly uncomfortable with having dicks on display). People love to joke about how prudish some people were/are about ankles on display and such, but what makes genitals so much worse than ankles?
Well, there’s another definite point in favor of reading the comic, then. I’ve been absolutely dying at online references to “lower Manhattan,” but in all seriousness I think it’s a wonderful thing to treat the human body without shame.