I Watched the Watchmen (Part 2)

[TheLogicJunkie]

A.I. was actually a very engrossing movie to me, but that's because of its subject matter: I've always felt like the alienated little robot boy, all my life -- and I'd just been left for dead after almost four years by what turned out to be a Jekyll-and-Hyde girlfriend who was, for all intents and purposes, my one real human relationship. So by the end of the movie, I was totally relating to it, but abysmally sad.

[TheLogicJunkie]

You won't understand why he did Eyes Wide Shut until you watch "Kubrick's Odyssey". But I do think that Cruise and Kidman were absolutely the wrong choices for the film.

[TheLogicJunkie]

I had a nasty bully "friend" in high school who was into snuff films and gory horror films, so I never much got into the zombie movies, what with people being torn apart, screaming, and their arteries exploding open and all that. That's just too much for me.

[sportsbettingman]

As I bite my teeth together in my best Cheshire Cat smile while listening live to the punk music as The Watchmen movie makes its credits...I found it to be quite worth my time.

Like the smartish animal I am...I let the hype surrounding the film die out completely before viewing...and found it to be quite interesting and complex. I had no former love tie to a comic book, which may have added to my impressive recount of the film.

If all movies were this "bad"...things would be just fine!

[TheLogicJunkie]

Well, I just saw the director's cut, and it was even better -- things were apparently cut out of the theater version that were incredible, like when the old Nite Owl had a fight to the death with gang members who broke into his apartment to kill him.

But, yeah, you should read the original series -- they have it in a good bookstore. And if you want to see the director's version, you may likely have to buy it, because none of the video stores I called had it for rental.

[SlayerX34]

They could have released each chapter of the Watchmen Graphic Novel as a movie over the course of twelve months, just like the comic book originally was. That way, they could have had Tales of the Black Freighter, the news stand guy, less pressure on the actors to convey what is happening, and a more fleshed out story.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Yes, something like that would've achieved a story-verse that was much more organic and thorough than what they ultimately got. The film we did get was only truly compelling and art-worthy, in my judgment, through the opening credits and penthouse apartment scene. After that, its vital signs plummeted.

[SlayerX34]

I think it would have been cool if they released each chapter of the Watchmen Graphic Novel as a movie over a course of twelve weeks. That way, they could have included more story, such as the Tales of the Black Freighter, the new stand guy, and they could have fleshed things out more. And they could release two different versions of the ending, one with the giant squid for die-hard fans, and one with the Dr. Manhattan bombs.

[migca]

Intrigued by the movie, I read the novel aided by a few invaluable annotated websites. The depth and complexity imbued into this unique work were astonishing. I'd never have fully realized this without the insights provided by many site contributors. Seeing the film again was a much richer experience.

You raise many valid issues, but in any adaption, compromises were surely inevitable. With budget, demographic, and other stupid constraints, it's more amazing Snyder managed to preserve so much.

[TheLogicJunkie]

It's funny to hear people refer to the Watchmen as a "novel" or a "graphic novel", because that's not how I experienced it -- because it was originally a maxi-series of 12 issues, that came out once a month for the most part.

Anyhow, I personally never needed anything more than the series itself -- at the time, there wasn't any internet, because the series concluded in the summer of 1987. But, yes, the novel itself is incredibly rich, and I think very Kubrick-ian.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Watchmen worked for me when Snyder was able to capture that kind of Kubrick-ian feel, as you see in the opening credits' sequence and in the opening sequence in the Comedian's penthouse apartment. There was perfect, eerie spacing there, and no chance for mugging/overemphasizing by the actors.

I don't know how Kubrick got his actors to render themselves so starkly in his movies, but that's what Snyder needed to employ in Watchmen.

[migca]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you refer to "spacing." Perhaps you're referring to the pacing of a scene? Maybe I've misunderstood, but I get the sense that you're describing that unhurried, real-world pace, or rhythm that some directors are able to establish. For me, the opening scenes have that mildly expanded time-sense of a particularly vivid memory. Where you seem to have enough time to notice details that you missed initially. Does any of that make sense?

[TheLogicJunkie]

Yes, that absolutely makes sense. And, yes, I should have said "pacing", rather than "spacing", because that's what I meant -- you're right about that.

So, yes, you're describing the kind of feeling I'm talking about, perfectly. It's exactly what Stanley Kubrick was such a master of, and it always filled his films with longing. (The only exception was Eyes Wide Shut, which I hated, because I saw no chemistry between Cruise and Kidman.)

The Watchmen comics operated on that pacing.

[migca]

Thinking about many discussions like this one, I 'm drawn to a singular conclusion. Whatever it's perceived flaws, this movie has to considered a worthwhile and successful re-imagining of "Watchmen."

Otherwise, I can't imagine that so many avid, intelligent, long-time admirers of the original work would bother to debate the strengths and weaknesses of the film in such fascinating detail.

A flaming piece of standard Hollywood drek would have been quickly and thoroughly trashed, then forgotten.

[XxMetalManxX]

i thought movie0wise it was a damn good movie. but i agree on your points for the most part. but i think the movie itself was for alot of people who hadnt read the story, or even heard f it before, and the subtlty to sme extent had to be removed because as yu well know intracacies for most of society are a big no go. xD

[TheLogicJunkie]

Well, the production values and the action scenes were amazing, but I think that it would have achieved a true following had it been implemented as a long-term, unfolding saga of event unfolding than it was.

Do you know how people will turn in week after week to watch the unfolding saga of some TV miniseries or some deeply personal saga game like Final Fantasy VII? How it becomes like their life-within-a-life?

Watchmen is supposed to be like that. It's irresistible like that.

[XxMetalManxX]

yeah lol. It makes me disappointed in myself to admit it but I loved the Harry Potter books and the movies. And to me, they perfectly depicted the books...not to mention I think Emma Watson is fucking hot...I'm 17 though lol so it's not pedophilia xD but I agree, if they would've done installments it could've been even better, made them more money in the long run, and had success after success. I would've loved that. AND Nixon in the movie looked nothing like Nixon, that pissed me off the most.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Actually, I think that the Harry Potter franchise probably has the most courageous and positive of all the fantasy movies. Because it takes the position that you can be born into lousy circumstances AND you can also have great power, BUT you don't have to become evil.

Do the Star Wars movies take that attitude? No. What about the Lord of the Rings movies? No. They are much more fatalistic.

[XxMetalManxX]

Yep. And the concept of magic is fun haha. I don't like Star Wars much anyway, kinda corny. And they fucked up those movies bad with the newer ones. I like LotR alot, but even the movies aren't as good as the books, they left alot of detail out. haha. And, I like how thew books and movies develop in maturity along the way...they start to become teen and adult movies as it reaches further into Harry's life, no longer kid stories.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Have you read the Watchmen graphic novel yet?

[XxMetalManxX]

Not yet. I ought to though I bet they murder the movie which was pretty good as I've said is my opinion.

Dave, do you know anything about computer games? Diablo, in particular?

[TheLogicJunkie]

No, I've never played it...

[XxMetalManxX]

Okay well, it's about this devil character and his three brothers warring on earth and its medieval like, and an archangel names tyrael helps you to imprison them in these shards of diamonds called soulstones...its a really great story, if wiki it if i were you. there are books about it, it would make a GREAT movie

[Legitbusiness]

i didnt like the ending of this movie the book version to me was way better, and sad to say i just saw the film today...im kinda late..lol

[TheLogicJunkie]

Well, I'd say the point is to to weigh in at some point. If people only watched and evaluated the film "Casablanca" when it first came out, that would likely deprive us of a lot of later, more thoughtful analyses.

[dedwards1592]

Snyder says that there's going to be a 3 hr. 15 min. director's cut in July and an "ultimate cut" due in December that's 3 hr. and 30 min. with the black freighter in it.

[ORPHANWORKS]

I reckon that we are begining to realise the limitations of the medium. Films are a spectacle. Sure, Kubrick films are different, but that's because they are minimalist... scrutinizing. Look, no one would fund a flick about a big blue dude without the accountants meddling. That said, I didn't expect anything from the movie so I wasn't really let down... it was just the Coles Notes for the comic. Popular media ALWAYS peddles to the lowest rung. Just look around here on Youtube.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Had you ever read the series before watching the film?

[ORPHANWORKS]

Yeah... 'bout 20 years ago.

Watchmen, the Rocketeer and Killing Joke lived in my backpack and went with me everywhere.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Wow... the Rocketeer. You know, I'd almost forgotten about that one.

You know, the Rocketeer was one of the few comics movies that I actually thought was a perfectly-done little project. It began, it transpired, it ended, and made perfect sense all the way through -- there was no need for a "director's cut" or anything else to "explain" the film to me.

I don't know how faithful it was to the original series, but that was a film that stood on its own, and very well, I think.

[ORPHANWORKS]

Yeah. I loved the books, but as Dave Stevens was just making the thing up as he went along, indulging himself the whole way, a movie that was faithful would have been a mess.

The thing was made to be a saturday matinee so it worked out perfectly.

Dave Stevens even has a cameo in the flick as the exploded test pilot. The movie was a flop because it went up against Batman and Disney gave it no support.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Ugh; don't get me started on Disney.

Actually, don't get me started on Michael Eisner.

[ORPHANWORKS]

Don't get me started either.

I hope Disney and Eisner share a cell in hell with Nikolai Dzhumagaliev.

[ojdidit92]

I just watched your other review and i agree, i think its bullshit to make a movie like lord of the rings (wich is pretty much just for intertainment) 8 hours long, and cut the shit out of something as important and deep as watchmen.

[ojdidit92]

And i couldn't believe that he left the part with rorschach's childhood essays out because in my opinion that was the best and most touching part of the whole book, it really made you understand why he's doing what he's doing. zack snyder must have been using the novel for toilet paper.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Yeah... with Watchmen, you just can't omit significant back-story like that. I guess "300" was such a success for Snyder, because the story not only didn't fill a full-length movie, but the plot and premise were basic enough that he could capture all the subtleties (of which there were none), and then also have room to create additional story elements.

[ojdidit92]

sry bout that

[TheLogicJunkie]

I have my videos set so that I have to approve all comments before they post, and what's scary is that YouTube only told me about one of your posts.

[ojdidit92]

the part with the comidian and moloch is a good example of what your talking about. because in the book your supposed to be kinda confused about why he's crying to moloch but then you realize that he really has no one else to talk to. but in the movie he just comes out and says it for you.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Yeah, exactly... that's what I'm talking about. The time constraints force Snyder to cheat us, the audience, out of all the naturalness and intimacy with the characters. It creates a lot of alienation.

[jed52]

I know exactly what you're saying. Yes, there were many scenes that were rushed, but could it have been helped? If the movie were to capture every single detail of the book, it would have been well over 200 minutes. As much as I enjoy the story of Watchmen, I wouldn't want to sit in a theater for 3 and half to 4 hours. It wasn't perfect by far, but I think it was a very good attempt. I also think the budget could have been bigger. They gave the Dark Knight 185 mil. Why only 120 for Watchmen?

[TheLogicJunkie]

But here's my question: Did you sit through all of the final Lord of the Rings movie, "The Return of the King"? Because it was 200 minutes, which translates into three hours and 20 minutes... and the extended version is 250 minutes, which translates into four hours and 10 minutes!

...I saw a lot of people who sat through the entire theatrical release of that, and they were riveted the entire time. That's precisely the nature of a damn good movie: You don't give a damn about the time.

[TheLogicJunkie]

With something like the Watchmen, there is such a subtle psychological journey going on between each of the characters, and with the cultural and global military climate, that you absolutely must give it just as much play as you'd give a Lord of the Rings franchise on film.

Even people whose only exposure to Watchmen is the film, are saying that it just felt contrived that characters would have earth-shaking revelations from seemingly out of nowhere. That's because of not enough development.

[TheLogicJunkie]

You have to make an effort to see it from the perspective of the people whose only exposure to Watchmen is this film... If you've read the series, then you have to realize that Moore made all the events evolve naturally and believably, because he painstakingly showed all the in-between "dots" which connect to all the final outcomes. But without all the critical dots, you can't really accept the final outcomes as compellingly honest.

[TheLogicJunkie]

...But those people who haven't read the series, don't have that all-important benefit when they watch Snyder's movie, because he doesn't allow you nearly enough of those critical connecting dots. It's almost as if Snyder, and so many people who read the original series, don't seem to realize (or care) what has been left out for the newcomer to achieve the same quality of experience as they had, because of all the "assumed" elements that were eliminated.

[suexian]

They're talking about a possible theatrical release of the director's cut for this summer.

[toadenk]

kill bill sucked,

and i would not have been happy if this was a minn searous or a 2 part, i gotta dissagree with you I think they did amazing with the devolping they did, i think this movie was amazing for what it was, i enjoyed the lack of subty that was a draw back to the comic, and no the ending was rush, and they kept talking about the fear in almost every scen of the movie!!!!!

[DrDoomFate]

I comment on my thought about this movie on part two of your review. Just wanted to say Excellent review.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Thank you.

[kklol7]

They already announced that when they release the directors cut it's going to have a LOT of the missing stuff and is probably going to be well over 3 hours.

[TheLogicJunkie]

That's all well and good, but a director's cut should be icing on the cake, not the "right" version of the film itself, in my judgment. Of course, it might also be a form of vindication for the director after the crater is all through smouldering, but I wouldn't hold your breath expecting that with this film -- I think it was fundamentally flawed from the moment Snyder knew he had to start compressing things.

...Of course, he might also just be incapable of identifying with the story itself.

[kklol7]

It's going to be like over 200 minutes long on the director's cut.

With the option to watch the pirate cartoon spliced in.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Well, when it comes out on DVD, I'll probably have a look, then. Thanks for the heads up.

[covertanjou]

God, Thank you. Really. You put into words that...weird, hollow feeling I had after leaving the movie.

[TheLogicJunkie]

You're welcome. It's my fetish.

[mastmedia]

alright, I'm just speechless.

I was so entertained by this review...well, I just don't know what to say.

Actually, I have a lot to say. And much I've already known. But watching you pout, rant and rage about this (a rightly so) is better than any show you'd have to pay admission to see.

I feel sorry for you. Yes, I truly empathize, but at the same time, this was a very entertaining review. lol!

Like a bizarre accident, you make me want to see, as well as avert my eyes.

[PS3KUN]

Synder didn't kill the movie and was the producers who said lets cut the movie. I agree with you 100 percent, Watchmen should have been 2 movies.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Cool....

[sportsbettingman]

The movie seems to be getting not-so-great reviews all over the place. I'll wait for DVD.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Well, I'll tell you what: Visually and aesthetically, it is to be experienced on the big screen. But expect to be a bit disappointed in the logical subtleties of it.

[sportsbettingman]

50" Plasma with surround sound and Blue ray from the PS3 should do the trick! ;-)

The only Blue Ray disk I own is the movie 300.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Then I stand corrected! *L* That will most definitely do the trick!

[Legitbusiness]

hey but i did hear something about them re-releasing this movie again in june for a directors cut version...if you heard anything like this let me know..

[TheLogicJunkie]

No, I didn't. But I don't see how the acting could be any different in a director's cut movie.

[Legitbusiness]

Man that sucks, i kinda figured this would happen...well i guess i'll go see it for something to do tonight...

[TheLogicJunkie]

I mean, yeah, go see it, if only for the really good sections of the movie, and for the experience of it. But if you find yourself having issues with certain parts, know that you're not crazy or alone in thinking that.

[Charliegrowle]

I'm a die-hard fan of the book. I saw the film last night @ midnight. Your review made me feel a lot better. This movie had no heart. The whole sequence with Rorschach and the kidnapper caused my to cuss aloud in the theater. Laurie saying the "nothing ever ends" line as something "Jon would say" was wrong on a few different levels.

The graphic novel re-defined the comic book genre, the film just followed the comic/film genre.

Great review man!

[TheLogicJunkie]

Thank you... I think they took shortcuts with the dialogue and the acting, because of the time constraint. If someone like Stanley Kubrick or Ridley Scott had directed this film, the pacing and the acting would've been very different, and much more appropriate, I think.

[rgda3rd]

i agree with the cgi thing....no matter how many capture dots they put on someones face, they just can't seem to get all the little muscle movements that we notice subliminally correct. george lucas is the biggest blindman in this group. cgi is overdone today...as a fan of the book/series i can't wait to see it.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Well, yeah, go see it... it's worth the experience, after all this time.

And facial CGI continues to be a problem, as does body movement, because CGI body movement doesn't have the same slightly "herky-jerk" to it that natural movement does... it seems to move too robotically and smoothly, and even walking doesn't have the same feeling of mass and a full plod in the step, as real walking does.

That makes CGI still a painful thing to watch, and the "Beowulf" film was endlessly that.

[natebooce]

Seriously only two scenes lending to the threat off the cold war?

[TheLogicJunkie]

I promise you, it was so under-emphasized that you didn't even realize that it was a movie about impending nuclear armageddon... until it suddenly was, at the end.

Between that, and the "mugging"-style acting that so often went on, I was just shaking my head, silently.

[rgda3rd]

agreed, don't know if this makes sense, but i feel like they have a problem with...call it 'acceleration' in muscle movement. musles contract, tighten, and jerk. they forget that a human being doesn't think about moving their arm as they do it, they just do it. cgi motion is just too thought out.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Yes, yes! That's pretty much what I'm talking about, and you phrased it much more effectively than I did. There is a kind of "lurching and recoiling" quality to real movement that is missing from CGI movement.

For example, if you try quickly sweeping your arm out to the side, there is a brief moment at the end of the stroke where the hand seems to "whiplash" -- it has hyper-extended a bit, and then it auto-senses that and recoils into the final, desired position.

It's missing in CGI movement.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Now, that only happens when the movement needs to happen quickly, because there isn't the luxury of it being "thought out", as you put it, by the character making the movement. However, if the person is in a conditional situation where they do have the luxury and the motivation to make careful movements then, yes, their movement won't show the "lurch and recoil" effect, and will move in the way that CGI has typically been doing it.

[rgda3rd]

Most real motions are quicker than we think they are also...to use a video game term, our 'cooldown time' is something that only the subliminal mind picks up on, but is exagerated in cgi. when you try to replicate it , something just seems wrong, but it can be hard to put your finger on it.

[TheLogicJunkie]

I like that phrase, "cooldown time". Do you work in CGI?

[rgda3rd]

No, i'm just a movie fan. Hopefully they'll get it right in the coming years.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Well, who knows? I at least give Zack Snyder enormous credit for actually taking the leap to translate the "untranslatable". Yes, his effort wasn't perfect -- in fact, far from it -- but I really do think that he got some very key things perfectly right. Snyder laid the groundwork for other people to come along and use his example as an inspiration to create their own adaptations.

...Because of this, I almost certainly think you'll see a full-length animated series on the Watchmen.

[DarthMerlin]

If it makes you feel any better, you may be right that the movie is a pale imitation of the comic, but to me (someone who is reading the comic after seeing the movie) this movie is truly groundbreaking on it's own. It takes every comic book superhero cliche and turns them on their heads, and then smashes them to pieces. Even if it fails as an adaptation, I still think it will have a special place in cinema history.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Yeah, that was a concern about my fairness that I had from the start... Would I be able to judge if the movie was independently good, having read the comic so frequently and religiously since 1987?

[lantenec]

Thought you guys might find this interesting. It's from a book, The Marriage of Virtue and Viciousness which is a book from the spin-off series of books for White Wolf's Vampire rpg. This passage is about a group of vampires, which apparently have some kind of perfection after they are turned in this milieu: At first, when faces on dolls or toys or cartoon characters aren't close, people like them the more they cleave to human norms.

[lantenec]

(continued) But past a certain point-when the face is human-like but not quite enough to fool anyone-viewers begin to dislike them, even feel uneasy around something that is manlike but not man. Look up the the uncanny valley for more on this. (this 500 char. limit sucks, no wonder you write so many comments)

[TheLogicJunkie]

Yeah, I have to break it up.

[DarthMerlin]

Speaking as someone who does work in CGI, I'm reasonably certain that motion capture and performance capture (where they track markers on the actor's face) was employed, so the "too thought out" or "too fluid" effect is really not an issue. There are many movies in which digital doubles are used where you don't even realize it.

I believe Dr Manhattan was intentionally animated the way he was to convey to the audience that he was no longer human.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Well, actually, I can tell that there have been heavily CGI'ed movies I've watched where I can tell that sometimes the character's face has actually been mapped to an actual actor, and other scenes where they've just animated it without any mapping.

...I noticed that happening in the CGI movie "Beowulf", with the Angelina Jolie character. Sometimes her CGI'ed face had been mapped (which makes it look real, but is cheating IMHO), and other times where it was pure CGI, and more awkward.

[TheLogicJunkie]

I would very much like to see the day where they don't have to map to an actual face to make it look real. Because the problem still exists that when a face is entirely computer-animated, it still doesn't look natural.

This is not to say that they aren't damn, damn close. There's a YT video called "Virtual Girl" that is amazing, and one called "Image Metrics Emily" which I think is mapped, but unbelievable quality.

Now, if they can only reverse-engineer it to an autonomous algorithm...

[ozjthomas]

Sorry you were disappointed. It seems to have gotten mixed reviews. It looks kind of interesting, but too "dramatic" while the comic book was very low key.

[TheLogicJunkie]

Yes... The comic book had more of that feel of British or Pacific Northwestern understatement... while, at the same time, still feeling honest and organic.

Even Dr. Manhattan was human in the comics, albeit a kind of innocent "star-child". But in this movie, he lost that in at least one critical place: the scene where he is being interviewed, and told about his old friends having cancer. In the comics, he was visibly affected at the first mention of one of his friends having cancer....

[TheLogicJunkie]

...whereas here he couldn't have cared less until he was directly confronted in front of the audience by his old girlfriend, Janey Slater, in a scene that was written in for the movie and was, to me, just awful to watch, because it was so overstated that it lost all of its power.

In many ways, I realize that, after watching this movie, that Dr. Manhattan, in the comics, wasn't "unemotional" at all, but that he was suffering from a "Mr. Spock" complex, where he was afraid of having feelings.

[TheLogicJunkie]

THAT is how he should've been played -- a character afraid of connecting with his feelings -- because at least that is something for an audience to sense and connect with, because we can all relate to that. But you never got that consistent theme with the movie's Manhattan, and so, for me, it too often fell flat in that critical respect.