anotheranon (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
anotheranon) wrote2009-03-15 08:58 pm
anotheranon) wrote2009-03-15 08:58 pm
Watchmen: expanded review
I did see Watchmen opening weekend and posted initial impressions, but held off writing more until I'd re-read the novel.
I still think it was a good movie, with some shortcomings - most forgivable, some not.
The Good: I still maintain that Rorschach and the Comedian were wonderfully cast. The former in particular was downright chilling (how some people read him as a laudable character I CANNOT figure out), and I wish they'd delved more into his backstory - in both the novel and movie Rorschach's the most interesting character, IMHO - I saw his perspective while all the time realizing he's a psychopath.
I hated the Comedian. Which is good, as while he's remorseful at the end (beginning?), he's meant to be hateable.
Dr. Manhattan's backstory - lavish detail and Philip Glass really worked for it. That they had lavished this frame-by-frame on Rorschach!
Those opening credits, larger than life with pop cultural nose-tweaking. I want a poster of Silhouette's kiss ;)
I'm gonna get shot for this, but the lack of squid. I really do think it would have read as cheesy to have an exploding psychic squid on screen.
They didn't flinch at the violence or nudity - no, not even at the Big Blue Wang. With the latter I was particularly impressed that there was no fanfare and no obvious pans upwards/away - it just was.
The Bad: Ozymandias/Adrian Veidt. In the novel he's an Olympic athlete/supermodel/genius with charm and extroversion to burn. Cold, Distant Other-Than-Human didn't cut it - he seemed more like Warhol than anything resembling an athlete - pretty flat by comparison.
The lack of the people at the newsstand/the "Dark Freighter" parallel story - I get why they cut it; if they didn't it would have been 5 hours long, but they add the perspective of normal humanity to the mix. They can be seen in the destruction scene, so I'm hoping for extras when the DVD comes out.
The Ugly: the violence was necessary for the narrative, but some of the gore got out of hand. Or maybe it's just me thinking blood is less scary in Crayola-red on the page than in thick, gooey-realistic globs in glorious Technicolor. Was it necessary to cut that guy's hands off?
I think the movie missed the point about the prison break: the book shows Nite Owl II/Silk Spectre II lamenting the violent "twilight zone" Rorschach's in while busting heads - they're oblivious to their own activity/complicity. In the movie they just bust heads without reflection. And should Nite Owl II really be quite that badass?
Costume notes: lately I've had an attraction to 1940's style (curves, big shoulders, small waists) so needless to say I loved the Minutemen costumes! One happy day I'll have Silhouette's gear, Silk Spectre I (complete with red wig) and vintage Wonder Woman cut and made to my measurements!
External link: Watchmen Proves The Cold War Is An Alien World makes a persuasive argument that the nuclear holocaust fears of the mid-1980s seem so ridiculous ~20 years on that it makes the entire premise of "Watchmen" foreign to today's audience, though I'm not completely sold. I was too young in the 1980's to have been aware of any "the bomb could fall any second" fears, but I'm conversant enough in history to know that the nuclear war theme was timely when Watchmen was written. It is an interesting read, in any event.
Short version: I think that despite a couple of stumbles and one fairly poor casting decision, the movie mirrors the book about as closely as it can without being 9 hours long. I am curious to see any deleted footage and the Tales of the Black Freighter DVD, but I really hope this inspires more people to read the graphic novel - there's so much more there.
I still think it was a good movie, with some shortcomings - most forgivable, some not.
The Good: I still maintain that Rorschach and the Comedian were wonderfully cast. The former in particular was downright chilling (how some people read him as a laudable character I CANNOT figure out), and I wish they'd delved more into his backstory - in both the novel and movie Rorschach's the most interesting character, IMHO - I saw his perspective while all the time realizing he's a psychopath.
I hated the Comedian. Which is good, as while he's remorseful at the end (beginning?), he's meant to be hateable.
Dr. Manhattan's backstory - lavish detail and Philip Glass really worked for it. That they had lavished this frame-by-frame on Rorschach!
Those opening credits, larger than life with pop cultural nose-tweaking. I want a poster of Silhouette's kiss ;)
I'm gonna get shot for this, but the lack of squid. I really do think it would have read as cheesy to have an exploding psychic squid on screen.
They didn't flinch at the violence or nudity - no, not even at the Big Blue Wang. With the latter I was particularly impressed that there was no fanfare and no obvious pans upwards/away - it just was.
The Bad: Ozymandias/Adrian Veidt. In the novel he's an Olympic athlete/supermodel/genius with charm and extroversion to burn. Cold, Distant Other-Than-Human didn't cut it - he seemed more like Warhol than anything resembling an athlete - pretty flat by comparison.
The lack of the people at the newsstand/the "Dark Freighter" parallel story - I get why they cut it; if they didn't it would have been 5 hours long, but they add the perspective of normal humanity to the mix. They can be seen in the destruction scene, so I'm hoping for extras when the DVD comes out.
The Ugly: the violence was necessary for the narrative, but some of the gore got out of hand. Or maybe it's just me thinking blood is less scary in Crayola-red on the page than in thick, gooey-realistic globs in glorious Technicolor. Was it necessary to cut that guy's hands off?
I think the movie missed the point about the prison break: the book shows Nite Owl II/Silk Spectre II lamenting the violent "twilight zone" Rorschach's in while busting heads - they're oblivious to their own activity/complicity. In the movie they just bust heads without reflection. And should Nite Owl II really be quite that badass?
Costume notes: lately I've had an attraction to 1940's style (curves, big shoulders, small waists) so needless to say I loved the Minutemen costumes! One happy day I'll have Silhouette's gear, Silk Spectre I (complete with red wig) and vintage Wonder Woman cut and made to my measurements!
External link: Watchmen Proves The Cold War Is An Alien World makes a persuasive argument that the nuclear holocaust fears of the mid-1980s seem so ridiculous ~20 years on that it makes the entire premise of "Watchmen" foreign to today's audience, though I'm not completely sold. I was too young in the 1980's to have been aware of any "the bomb could fall any second" fears, but I'm conversant enough in history to know that the nuclear war theme was timely when Watchmen was written. It is an interesting read, in any event.
Short version: I think that despite a couple of stumbles and one fairly poor casting decision, the movie mirrors the book about as closely as it can without being 9 hours long. I am curious to see any deleted footage and the Tales of the Black Freighter DVD, but I really hope this inspires more people to read the graphic novel - there's so much more there.
no subject
Also, agreed on not missing the squid. With the other cuts they made, I think having it show up out of nowhere would've been an even bigger WTF?! for people who weren't familiar with the graphic novel.
no subject
OTOH, the most inspired bit of casting was, far and away, Jackie Earle Haley.
no subject
I looked him up on IMDB and he's mostly known as a child actor - it seems his comeback was a 2006 movie about a pedophile for which he won an award.
I'm half tempted to check it out, but if he's as good in it as he is as Rorschach I'm not sure I could stomach it.
no subject
I really would have forgiven them almost any other casting gaffe but Rorschach because he is the moral compass for the entire story.
I should say that while I cannot call Rorschach likable (frankly none of the characters particularly are), he is the most brutally honest about who he is and what he does. Certainly the one who won't compromise himself.
no subject
We won't shoot you. Peter and I discussed this the other night. Frankly, the squid was fairly cheesetastic, and we both agreed that ultimately, setting up Dr. Manhatten as the world's common enemy instead was a neater trick. And one more likely to work, in any reality.
"They didn't flinch at the violence or nudity - no, not even at the Big Blue Wang. With the latter I was particularly impressed that there was no fanfare and no obvious pans upwards/away - it just was."
We loved that there was also no "strategically placed props" or awkward movements to hide his glowing blue junk. As you said, it was just there, natural, and as he should be, he was not self conscious about it.
no subject
no subject