It's all a big joke
URGA MOTW
Watchmen
If you've never heard of Watchmen, you're obviously a blind and deaf hermit... this film has been highly promoted over the past few months, and is eagerly the most anticipated geek film of the first half of 2009. In the 1980's, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons wrote the graphic novel "Watchmen" and it was highly acclaimed at the time. If you've read it, you'll know why. It is less of the standard superhero style and more a comment on the darkness of humanity and how fear drives us as a society.
So how does a movie adaption stand up to today's fear-mongering society, which is now used to dark and brooding superheroes (like Chris Nolan's Batman)?
Suprisingly well, in my opinion! I have heard plenty of mixed reviews about this movie, but I can definitely say this is a very faithful adaption of the graphic novel. Director Zack Snyder has almost taken the book frame for frame, line for line, and filmed it. Sure, he changed the ending somewhat and left out a small number of subplots and back story, but you'd have to do that. Considering that I re-read the book only a few months ago, it's reasonably fresh in my mind, and remembering the story details (especially the bits that had to be cut out of the film), I did find the finished product rather enjoyable. It's not jaw-droppingly amazing that it has you walking out of the cinema going 'Wow!' but it is definitely a satisfactory movie and a probable worthy DVD purchase in a few months' time.
So now for the bad bits, and to be honest, they aren't all that bad, just detracting:
- Snyder seems to be almost too faithful to the book - there are places that I'm sure could have done with slightly different framing or more cuts between characters rather than simply continuously framing the shot the way it's done in the book. I'm also sure that very little of the dialogue had been rewritten - even some of the more laborious parts.
- He also seems to love the "slow-down-freeze-speed-up" shot. It happens WAAAAY too much in the film. A few times, it would have been fine, but this seems to be overused in /every/ action sequence. And it's not as if this is a ground breaking cinematographic technique. It was used in the Matrix!
- I'm gonna have to say it - Dr Manhattan's blue penis. Sure, he's a character that's naked. Sure, he's naked in the book and they do show his penis there too. But here, it seems several shots were framed to deliberately include full frontal nudity in the shot, even when it seemed unnecessary. It's almost distracting too. To be fair, I also thought the sex scene showing Laurie Jupiter's breasts was also gratuitous. Perhaps it was a sort of "here you go, boys" to appease the audience members who were sick of looking at a naked (albeit blue) man.
- The violence and gore seemed a little over the top in places. It didn't really phase me, but I could see how it could upset some people.
- Richard Nixon. The makeup was very very fake, and their impersonator didn't really sell the character to me... maybe they should have got the guy who does Nixon on Futurama - "My fellow Earthicans".
Soundtrack-wise, I can see the good and the bad. The choice of iconic songs does work in most instances, as they can invoke a specific time and place in history (and that works for flashback scenes in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's) but sometimes the song choice did try and hit you over the head with the metaphor.
A lot of the serious fanboys (and I don't consider myself among them, I've only read the book twice) will complain about the changed ending that significantly deviates from the book. To be honest, I didn't mind it. It did allow them to drop a few subplots without losing the mystery, and the explanation does make sense when the villain explains everything. And I suspect, for a modern audience, especially those who aren't comic book fans, the "solution" proposed is easier to swallow than the original from the book, which would have made it seem like a cheesy B-movie. So I'm happy with that change. To be honest, I thought even more adaption of the story could have been done - after all, that's what changing media needs.
However, all in all I quite enjoyed it. It is essentially a live action comic-book. I don't know how well it would play to an audience that a) isn't too familiar with the superhero comic book genre, b) doesn't pay close attention at all times or c) just want things going boom. Does it stand alone as a good movie? I'm not sure. I guess a repeat watching on DVD may be able to help with that. If you've not read the book... what did you think? Does the movie stand alone without the extra backstory? Could you follow the plot the whole way through? Any really really annoying questions at the end that you want answered?
"Watchmen" was a fairly satisfactory movie, and a faithful adaptation of the graphic novel. I enjoyed it, but I'm not going to plug it as the best movie of the year either :)
8/10
Watchmen
If you've never heard of Watchmen, you're obviously a blind and deaf hermit... this film has been highly promoted over the past few months, and is eagerly the most anticipated geek film of the first half of 2009. In the 1980's, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons wrote the graphic novel "Watchmen" and it was highly acclaimed at the time. If you've read it, you'll know why. It is less of the standard superhero style and more a comment on the darkness of humanity and how fear drives us as a society.
So how does a movie adaption stand up to today's fear-mongering society, which is now used to dark and brooding superheroes (like Chris Nolan's Batman)?
Suprisingly well, in my opinion! I have heard plenty of mixed reviews about this movie, but I can definitely say this is a very faithful adaption of the graphic novel. Director Zack Snyder has almost taken the book frame for frame, line for line, and filmed it. Sure, he changed the ending somewhat and left out a small number of subplots and back story, but you'd have to do that. Considering that I re-read the book only a few months ago, it's reasonably fresh in my mind, and remembering the story details (especially the bits that had to be cut out of the film), I did find the finished product rather enjoyable. It's not jaw-droppingly amazing that it has you walking out of the cinema going 'Wow!' but it is definitely a satisfactory movie and a probable worthy DVD purchase in a few months' time.
So now for the bad bits, and to be honest, they aren't all that bad, just detracting:
- Snyder seems to be almost too faithful to the book - there are places that I'm sure could have done with slightly different framing or more cuts between characters rather than simply continuously framing the shot the way it's done in the book. I'm also sure that very little of the dialogue had been rewritten - even some of the more laborious parts.
- He also seems to love the "slow-down-freeze-speed-up" shot. It happens WAAAAY too much in the film. A few times, it would have been fine, but this seems to be overused in /every/ action sequence. And it's not as if this is a ground breaking cinematographic technique. It was used in the Matrix!
- I'm gonna have to say it - Dr Manhattan's blue penis. Sure, he's a character that's naked. Sure, he's naked in the book and they do show his penis there too. But here, it seems several shots were framed to deliberately include full frontal nudity in the shot, even when it seemed unnecessary. It's almost distracting too. To be fair, I also thought the sex scene showing Laurie Jupiter's breasts was also gratuitous. Perhaps it was a sort of "here you go, boys" to appease the audience members who were sick of looking at a naked (albeit blue) man.
- The violence and gore seemed a little over the top in places. It didn't really phase me, but I could see how it could upset some people.
- Richard Nixon. The makeup was very very fake, and their impersonator didn't really sell the character to me... maybe they should have got the guy who does Nixon on Futurama - "My fellow Earthicans".
Soundtrack-wise, I can see the good and the bad. The choice of iconic songs does work in most instances, as they can invoke a specific time and place in history (and that works for flashback scenes in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's) but sometimes the song choice did try and hit you over the head with the metaphor.
A lot of the serious fanboys (and I don't consider myself among them, I've only read the book twice) will complain about the changed ending that significantly deviates from the book. To be honest, I didn't mind it. It did allow them to drop a few subplots without losing the mystery, and the explanation does make sense when the villain explains everything. And I suspect, for a modern audience, especially those who aren't comic book fans, the "solution" proposed is easier to swallow than the original from the book, which would have made it seem like a cheesy B-movie. So I'm happy with that change. To be honest, I thought even more adaption of the story could have been done - after all, that's what changing media needs.
However, all in all I quite enjoyed it. It is essentially a live action comic-book. I don't know how well it would play to an audience that a) isn't too familiar with the superhero comic book genre, b) doesn't pay close attention at all times or c) just want things going boom. Does it stand alone as a good movie? I'm not sure. I guess a repeat watching on DVD may be able to help with that. If you've not read the book... what did you think? Does the movie stand alone without the extra backstory? Could you follow the plot the whole way through? Any really really annoying questions at the end that you want answered?
"Watchmen" was a fairly satisfactory movie, and a faithful adaptation of the graphic novel. I enjoyed it, but I'm not going to plug it as the best movie of the year either :)
8/10