Added: 3 years ago
From: TheLogicJunkie
Views: 1,338
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (14)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Well, since you like Stanley Kubrick, take about a half hour and watch the multi-part documentary here on YouTube called "Kubrick's Odyssey". I won't spoil it by telling you any more than that.

  • have you seen the director cut ?

    can you make a review about it

  • No, I haven't seen the director's cut, but I've been trying to find a rental copy of it. After all, since I wasn't particularly thrilled with the movie, I'm not inclined to buy a copy of it, even if it is the director's cut.

    Also, it does piss me off that our culture has acquiesced to all this "director's cut" crap -- if you can't release it the right way, don't release it at all. In the old days, they made fully great movies with this thing called "intermission" at the halfway point.

  • You sir. Are a buttface. This movie was great

  • Pffft.

  • let em watch mortal kombat rofl

  • 70's porn is way too hairy.

    If you want quality porn, watch any production by Rocco Siffredi, or anything with Belladonna in it.

  • oh thanks! i'm gonna watch some 70's porn :)

  • I want to punch this bitch!

  • the lord of the ring movies were TOO LONG AND I WAS BITCHING CUZ I FELL ASLEEP DURNING IT

    i don't have a complant about the time they cut what they needed to cut, the brooklyne scenes would have been drawing out the film so i understnad them cutting it and have zero problem with it,

    only problem i cought with the lines was the "noting ever ends" it didn't cary any of the wieght it did in the comic, i don't know why they couldn't have the line delviered same way by same ppl it was in the comic

  • Well, the only way to have the movie be shorter but also feel right, would be to have it broken up into several movies, because you have to have enough overall length somehow to have room for all the essential pieces.

  • i thought the movie was well done. I would not want to see it broken up, the comic itself could have been cut in half, i do agree some movies based off of books or comics would be better as a mini searis but watchmen would not be one of them, maybe if FOX ever did a watchmen movie it would be better, but i verry happy with this version

  • Well, I have a feeling that now that a version of Watchmen has actually been done, it's going to serve as a confidence-builder for other filmmakers to give it a go. Because of that, I think they'll probably do a full-animated version of it, in mini-series form.

  • Ok, I been reading comics/graphic novel for almost 20 years. I didnt HATE this movie but it just felt a little FLAT. Rorschach, was incredible!!! I'm here in New York, the theater was full. Most, everyone had this look on their faces like we just been robbed. My girlfriend Hated it. Overall, as a comic book fan I say support it. But it just didn't have that WOW factor. 2 1/2 stars out of 5

  • Yes, exactly...  That's the problem.

  • My biggest problems with the film...

    1. You obviously HAVE to cut out "Tales of the Black Freighter", but with that you cut out the vital element of foreshadowing that made the novel so good.

    2. I didn't like how they initially portrayed Ozymandis as sinisterlike. In the novel, I found him to be egotistical, but also a people person and emotionally unstable. In the film, they immediately make him out to be the "bad guy".

  • I agree. Snyder didn't really understand who the true enemy is, in the Watchmen... it's the spectre of nuclear armageddon, not Ozymandias.

    ...Because of this, Ozymandias is actually a kind of anti-hero in his Machiavellian scheme to defeat that evil. However, that then makes him, within a more interpersonal scope, the villain, to varying degrees, of the other heroes and, unbeknownst to the outside human race, the outside human race.

    What Moore ultimately weaved with the story is fascinating.

  • ...Moore managed to weave a kind of telescopic perspective of heroism and villainy, whereby a hero is a hero at one level of perspective, yet is a villain at another... and I think this applies to all the characters in the story. All are guilty, yet all are innocent.

    Too bad Snyder either didn't understand that, or understood it, but just couldn't do it because of time constraints.  Personally, I'm starting to think it was the former.

  • I agree with you about the whole "graphic novel" bit. I still have the original comics laying around somewhere.

    Let's face it, it would not be made as a TV mini-series without severe censoring of violence/sex and a much lower budget.

    I thought they did an awesome job. Granted, the beginning was stronger than the ending, but I thought the same of the comic.

  • Well, they would have to air it as a series on someplace like Showtime, then...

    In truth, I thought that the way they "ended" the movie was even worse than the original series. The ending was, to my tastes, terrible.

  • LogicJ,

    I totally disagree. Although I hate to recommend a movie-rewrite (in fact, I feel dirty doing so), I did like the new ending better than the old. I think the new ending gives an even greater depth and meaning.

    I think it brings out a lot more theological discussion and is more believable. To be honest, although I loved the comic, I never liked the squid that much.

  • Well, I just don't see how they got to the ending... it seemed just spliced in, to rush the picture to an end.

    And at least when there was the ridiculous squid, there was a verifiably villainous presence for the whole world to witness and attribute things to. I just don't feel that the whole "Dr. Manhattan is God" thing they patched into the movie was fleshed out and integrated well enough into things to make it really true for me.

  • To make that point clearer, it wasn't until I just now read you use the phrase "theological discussion" that I remember that new scene in the movie -- with the guy in the glasses who was being interviewed (it was very well-acted, I thought) -- where he made a point to emphasize "Dr. Manhattan IS God" or something like that. I realized that Snyder was perhaps trying to steer things differently for some reason, but it never really felt like it clicked for me, even after you mention theology.

  • Okay, so what did you like about the squid? I know you said it's "villainous presence"... but could you be a little more descriptive?

    Although it tied in the missing writers and all in the comic, I always felt that the squid seemed a little bit too much. On the other hand, it definitely fit the bill as a dark practical joke much better than the new ending (which doesn't at all).

  • You misunderstand me... I didn't care about the squid, per se. I still don't.

    My point is that, crappy as it was, at least the squid put a culpable face on "the ever-present threat". In the same sense, it would have been nice had Adrian, in the movie, been able to create an openly-visiable hologram or something of Dr. Manhattan, vaporizing the city. Then at least it would have been obvious that it was Dr. Manhattan who was being framed.

    I've never seen a worse ending than what Snyder did.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more