Sci-Fi Watchmen (2009)

Re: Watchmen

This movie sucked- everyone I saw it with agreed it was a waste of time... none of us had read the comics or whatever it used to be.
 
Re: Watchmen

A waste of time, huh? So I'm guessing Roger Ebert is absolutely wrong in being a movie critic and rating this an "A"? Or maybe that for years, everyone believed that it could never be made into a movie, yet it has surpassed expectations?

Sorry this movie isn't "Deep Space 9", or a new "Insurrection", or even "Generations". :rolleyes:
 
Re: Watchmen

It was admittedly a very, very long film. But it didn't really lose my interest at all. I have only seen the film so can't comment on the films ending change compared to what came previously. There were some very clear points about humanity and superheroes behavioural traits that were brought out very well where theology clashed.
 
Re: Watchmen

I actually liked the movies ending. I was a huge fan of the Novel (and the other books that were published), but the ending wasnt too far from the books. Basically everything happens the same, but instead of Doctor Manhattan going to Mars, he goes to another galaxy. And instead of a little tearing quarrel between DM and Rorschach, DM just vaporizes him on the spot.

Here are some of the points:

"# Veidt's domed Antarctic retreat appears in the movie, but there's no greenhouse, and he doesn't murder his three accomplices. Nite Owl and Rorschach have to walk to Veidt's retreat from Owl's ship, instead of using hoverbikes. Dr. Manhattan will crash through the ceiling of the retreat, and he'll be 100 feet tall. Veidt catches the bullet Laurie shoots, but doesn't break Nite Owl's nose with a plate. Veidt fights Nite Owl, Rorschach and Laurie at the same time. And Rorschach meets his "explosive demise" at the hands of Dr. Manhattan. (Update: Not Veidt as we erroneously reported before.)
# And finally, the biggest spoiler: "The squid is in." The climax of the graphic novel, where Veidt unleashes his "hideous brainchild" on New York, has been filmed."


This makes sense though, movie wise. Why the hell would a person who never read the novel enjoy a giant squid? I can understand why they didnt include it, and I also understand why they didnt include the whole fight scene between the 3 (Jupiter, Night Owl, and Rorschach).
 
Re: Watchmen

I'd give it a 5 out of 10 personally. I didn't really care to see DM's swinging wank, or see a pudgy nerd nighthawk get it on with a Diva, lol. Rorschach I thought was the coolest one of them and he got obliterated for being the only truly honest one...that kinda sucked. I also didn't really understand the use of Nixon's character and having a third term, blah blah. That just made no sense.
The SFX were sweet though, thats the only good thing I have to say about the entire movie.

I can sum it all up by saying....I liked Ironman better! I suppose I'm just not yet mentally mature enough to enjoy real artistic cinema or drama. :smiley:
 
Re: Watchmen

This was a fantastic movie. It takes a body of work that was a major literary contribution and turns it into something that is incredibly compact without being in any way rushed, that runs a spectrum of emotions without pandering, and deals with moral complexities without the need to cathect them or explain them away.
The visuals are wonderful. And I don't care how comic***** somebody is: it they don't get a bigger rush off things like Manhattans glass Mars clock moving around on film than they did from comic stills there is something wrong with them.

One of the problems with bringing stuff like this to the screen is there's always a core audience that won't like it no matter what because they think taht makes them hip. They're kind of like the ones who can't get over having a visible dick in a film and keep saying how it's not a big deal.
 
Re: Watchmen

So I'm guessing Roger Ebert is absolutely wrong in being a movie critic

Generally speaking, yes. He's an ignorant ******* who had done a great part of the effort to reduce appreciation of the arts to a thumbs up/down dichotomy. The idea that anybody would have their opinion affected by him (or any critic, really) is kind of sad.

The fact that he's right about this one is a coincidence. All watches give the right time twice a day. It's just irrelevant.
 
Re: Watchmen

Ok, I could see your point on Ebert. However, I see it this way:

He had to dumb down the rating system for the general public. The complex system of rating movies with the flow, graphics, sound, storyline, etc... is far too superior to the knowledge of the people. The target market for movies are usually younger males between 13-18, so it is even better that the "2 thumbs up" system was developed.

It's easy, simple, and even though it seems gaudy or flimsy, it seems to work :cool:
 
Re: Watchmen

Ok, I could see your point on Ebert. However, I see it this way:

He had to dumb down the rating system for the general public. The complex system of rating movies with the flow, graphics, sound, storyline, etc... is far too superior to the knowledge of the people. The target market for movies are usually younger males between 13-18, so it is even better that the "2 thumbs up" system was developed.

It's easy, simple, and even though it seems gaudy or flimsy, it seems to work :cool:


i agree with this. there have been lots of movies over the years that ebert said was not good and not worth watching. i found out after i went to the theater that in "MY OPINION" and no one elses, that the movie was enjoyable and worth the money.

he might have knocked down a good sci fi movie yet he would have praised the mediocre semi-comedy about two old women on their last thrills in life. (not sure if that was a movie , just made it up to state my point).

see i dont care what the critics say, i want to watch a movie because i want to or someone i know has already seen it and i will listen to their comments but still form one of my own. if i waste money at movies, i do. my loss.
 
Re: Watchmen

i agree with this. there have been lots of movies over the years that ebert said was not good and not worth watching. i found out after i went to the theater that in "MY OPINION" and no one elses, that the movie was enjoyable and worth the money.

he might have knocked down a good sci fi movie yet he would have praised the mediocre semi-comedy about two old women on their last thrills in life. (not sure if that was a movie , just made it up to state my point).

see i dont care what the critics say, i want to watch a movie because i want to or someone i know has already seen it and i will listen to their comments but still form one of my own. if i waste money at movies, i do. my loss.


Very, very true. Especially the last part of the statement. Critics do put a sour taste on how a movie is "good" or "bad" (One example would be the movie "The Rock"...I loved that movie, but when I was younger reading the reviews, it had HORRIBLE ratings). So I can definitely see how these avant garde type persons could diminish an enjoyable title.

One other pet-peeve...people who literally agree with the critics. Like, they live and die by their statements.
 
Re: Watchmen

Ideally, criticism is for the purpose of expanding your appreciation of a piece of work, or helping you decide if it is something that YOU would enjoy or not.

Thumbs up or down doesn't do that, and is a cheap, stupid way to approach art. Any little boy will say, "It rocks" or "It sucks"...a critic should be able to do a little more than that.
 

Similar threads

Hardwired (2009)
Tagline: They stole his past, now he's taking back his future.
Genre: Science Fiction, Adventure, Action, Thriller
Director: Ernie Barbarash, Tia Buhl
Release: 2009-11-03
Replies
1
Views
514
Back
Top