Watchmen / Хранители: I didn't know comics are supposed to be boring

[alexandral]

Mr.Alexander and I watched "Watchmen". The film can be described in the best way using his words: "It all started really well, didn't it?". It did start really well but it ended as a most boring adaptation of a graphic novel I have ever seen. Hours and hours of the screentime were spent in monotone dialogues and monologues of infinite importance that were read at you by actors who seemed to be obviously thinking about their dinner arrangements whilst reading.

Story
The story itself is taken from an 80s graphic novel and taken FAITHFULLY, so this means that it is much more misogynistic, homophobic and disability-insensitive than the stories you are used to seeing on your screen. Consider the story of a woman who falls in love with her rapist, then deliberately conceives a "beautiful child" with him and who of course, forgives the rapist because he gave her a child!! (and all this in a boring way). Oh, and the only person of colour that I have noticed in the film was a prisoner meeting his death through a deep burn by the use of deep frying pan in the hand of Rorschach.

Special effects and cinematography
Some of the special effects were really good, but I have to note that when you see a person being annihilated in a fire or a force to particles for the first time it might come as an interesting special effect. But when you see this very same effect done several times though the movie you might start to wonder what kind of medication is the special effects man taking. Moreso, quite few of the special effects used in the film could be dated back to "Matrix".

There is an interesting cinematographic angle that Zack Snyder likes to use in his films. I don't really object to this:

300, Gerard Butler



Watchmen, Billy Crudup (? I am not sure that the blue guy's rare was Billy Crudup's ? )



Watchmen, Patrick Wilson




Music
As far as musical score goes , if L.Cohens Halliluah haven't been already murdered for me by Alexandra Burke, it would have been by the use of it in "Watchmen". And how did they dare to lay their hands on Mozart!!!!!! You were so right, lage_nom_ai and baleanoptera.

Controversy
There is much controversy going on about the film, if you are interested , please refer to FandomWank here and here and here, the movie seems to be just the thing for FandomWank. Apparently Watchmen's screenwriter David Hayter wrote this perl (I can not believe that someone in his right mind can write something like this):

"It may upset you. And it probably will upset you. And all along, we really meant it to. ...All this time, you’ve been waiting for a director who was going to hit you in the face with this story. To just crack you in the jaw, and then bend you over the pool table with this story. With its utterly raw view of the darkest sides of human nature, expressed through its masks of action and beauty and twisted good intentions... Like the Comedian on the Grassy Knoll. ...You'll be thinking about this film, down the road. It'll nag at you. How it was rough and beautiful. How it went where it wanted to go, and you just hung on. How it was thoughtful and hateful and bleak and hilarious. And for Jackie Earle Haley.
Trust me. You'll come back, eventually. Just like Sally.

Oh , David Hayter - may be they could have come for more if it wasn't so boring?

Comments

[lage-nom-ai.livejournal.com]

I TOLD YOU SO.

And I have to say, even Billy Crudup's blue penis was boring after a while!!

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

You were so right. In fact, this is probably the most misogynistic film I watched in the last decade.

And I have to say, even Billy Crudup's blue penis was boring after a while!!

And even Patric Wilson displaying the same didn't help!!!! (see below) I was relieved when Dr.Manhattan put his weird panties on.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Watchmen is something that, IMO is very tied to when it came out. Aside from his Joker book, though, it's my least favorite book of what I've read of his work. That Comedian comes out being portrayed more sympathetically than anyone else is something I'll never get over.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I agree , the storyline seems to be quite dated overall. I think the film could have benefited from some adjustments, and it would have been DEFINITELY better not to have actors reading passages from the comic out loud instead of .. acting? I don't care for any of them in the film, none of the actors impressed me.

[lesbiassparrow.livejournal.com]

I know I ought to trust your excellent judgment and that of others on my flist, but I suspect that I will end up seeing it and being annoyed. And then you can tell me 'I told you so.'

That quote from the screenwriter makes me both laugh and fear anything he's ever done.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

Hee! I would love to read a post of yours about this masterpiece. :D And there is a purely shallow factor to consider ** see above **. ;D

That quote from the screenwriter makes me both laugh and fear anything he's ever done.

Hee! Like - this guy is so crazy? He wants to be lynched? or he doesn't understand the meaning?

[lesbiassparrow.livejournal.com]

I think some of these people live in their own little world and are astonished when anything like real life intervenes or people get offended. And then all they can think is WELL IT ISN'T LIKE THIS WHEN I WRITE.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

The most laughable attitude of the creators of "Watchmen" I observed is "No! This film is not for everyone!". Sure thing, dudes! Old-school fans of the original might love this by default. The rest of us - you might consider making some effort to make us interested.

[dianora77.livejournal.com]

Hours and hours of the screentime were spent in monotone dialogues and monologues of infinite importance that were read at you by actors who seemed to be obviously thinking about their dinner arrangements whilst reading.

LMAO! If you weren't married, I think I'd propose to you. :D

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

Have you watched this already? If not - do not spend your money, download instead. :D

[dianora77.livejournal.com]

It's one of those movies everyone's talking about that I've absolutely no inclination to see.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

Very wise decision. Apart from various shots of naked men (too many to keep you interested) and shots of ladies in spandex the film has nothing to offer.

[baleanoptera.livejournal.com]

Hee! You know I couldn't agree more. There should also be a ban or some form of time-out regarding the use of "Hallelujah". That poor, poor song gets pasted on everything.

I agree that the Watchmen actually started well, and IMHO the title-sequence was the best part of the whole film. (largely because it wasn't in slow-mo with never-ending monologues!) Though the use of Mr. Dylan and "The times they are a changin'" was a bit too "nudge-nudge-alternate-reality" for me.

I also adore your visual analysis of the Zack Snyder ass-shot. *g*

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

Hee! You know I couldn't agree more. There should also be a ban or some form of time-out regarding the use of "Hallelujah". That poor, poor song gets pasted on everything.

The funny thing is, my daughter is a huge fan of "Shrek" (we watched it about 10 times already) so during that love scene full of pathos I could not make myself not to think about Shrek and Donkey and giggle. I was particular irked by an attempt to add credibility to the ending by the use of "Requiem". There MUST be a ban on overuse of "Requiem" too.

I also adore your visual analysis of the Zack Snyder ass-shot. *g*

I will keep my eye on the Snyder's new films to see if the trend will continue - do you know there will be a sequel to "300" ? I anticipate endless opportunities for the shots like this.

[trailer-spot.livejournal.com]

I also watched the movie last week at the theatre. I still don't entirely know what to make of it but I have to say that I didn't find it boring. I wasn't familiar with the graphic novel (GN) and so there was a lot I had to digest. I only now have read the first two chapters of the book that I borrowed from a friend (he has the six-part series, and I only have the first part, so currently I can't read more).

I think I had different expectations than you. I knew that Snyder would adapt the GN as faithfully as possible (he wouldn't be allowed to do anything else). So I expected that there will be shots that look like comic panels (which I really liked) and also comic book dialogue. And since the GN consist of characters that are all pretty much unlikable I don't think you can critisise the movie for that. I mean I have the opinion that if a movie is based on a book, the movie has still to be good on its own right (the reason why I didn't want to read the GN beforehand) but in this case you can't change. We can debate if there should've been better dialogues (or if it had to be based in the 80s) but I didn't expect better.
I'm not sure after reading your entry, have you read the GN before you saw the movie?

Now the fact that a very expensive movie got made which consists of at least ambiguous and mostly even bad characters, that, I have to admit, I find pretty interesting. A superhero-movie consisting of anti-superheroes. And a much more complicated one than let's say "Iron Man". And I am wondering how many of those who saw the movie and are enthusiastic about it (and aren't familiar with the book) noticed what it's about. Though I suspect most didn't like it anyway.

Given the bad characters I can very much understand if someone doesn't like the movie. I had a similar problem with "Sin City". While watching the movie I realised that I don't like what I'm seeing. Very interesting visually but it seemed too much bad boys (and girls) for the sake of badness. And of course, the other movie from Snyder "300" was much worse. So I don't know what to make of people who "love" these three movies. I fear there are more people like that idiot screenwriter who wrote that letter.

A problem I had was with Ozymandias. While a lot of the characters had a backstory, I thought they didn't do enough to establish why he's the 'smartest man in the world'. Though I guess you can see the fact that he's very rich as prove he's smart. And given how important he is to the story I felt they should've done more. He also had the worst costume (as super-hero and as a person). But again, it's based in the 80s, so unfortunately we had to deal with a few "ugly" things. ;)

re music: There I entirely share your critisism. I still don't know what the director intended with the use of 'Hallelujah'. Maybe it was meant ironic, but it didn't make sense to me. As a German, Nena's '99 Red Balloons' made me laugh because for me it was also inappropriate but I know why he used it (in the US the song became very popular and automatically gets associated with the TV movie "The Day After" about life after nuclear war).

Again, I didn't love the movie, but I find it very interesting and I'm already looking forward to seeing it again (on TV or DVD). It also made me very curious about the GN.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the graphic novel; to be honest I am not a big fan of graphic novels. I like films based on them from time to time, but it is as far as I go.

My problem with the movie is not in the violence or the characters that are unlikable. As you know, I love movies like "Vengeance Trilogy". I like movies with moral ambiguity, but I prefer when the stories are told from a neutral perspective. The story "she fell in love with her rapist. Oh, what she had to do? he is so handsome!" is one of the most talked about misogynist stereotypes and it looked like the film was preaching this in all seriousness. This is kind of odd.

But the main thing, of course - I just found the movie drawn-out, full of numerous slow-motion scenes and monotone dialogues that didn't give any information. The movie also projected a strong feeling of self-importance, something I dislike in films or TV. And it wasn't just my feeling; this has been positively confirmed by David Hayter's "open letter" - what a self-important statement!

Another main thing that someone pointed put in the comments - A movie about people in spandex fighting the crime has to have some sense of humor.. "Watchmen" had not even a hint of humor, it was too serious!!! "Why so serious???"

I am observing Snyder's films with "Why so serious" approach –

I liked "Sin City" quite a lot, it was his first adaptation and it was interesting, had good pace and awesome graphics. (Edit N2 - Silly me, "Sin City" is not Snyder's movie. Now it makes sense!)

I anticipated "300" but it was a bit of a joke for me – a film about Spartans in crazy leather pants. There were some redeeming features in a form of Gerard Butler (see the screencap in this post).

"Watchmen" – so boring that I absolutely didn't expect this after all the posts of praise I have been reading. I expected controversy, I expected to be shocked. I didn't expect to be bored.

And I am wondering how many of those who saw the movie and are enthusiastic about it (and aren't familiar with the book) noticed what it's about.

What is it all about, you think?

Sorry for editing

I still don't know what the director intended with the use of 'Hallelujah'. Maybe it was meant ironic, but it didn't make sense to me.

May be he just likes "Shrek" and was hinting that Dan is Shrek?

[trailer-spot.livejournal.com]

What is it all about, you think?

My thoughts so far.
They are all, pardon my language, fucked up characters. I don't know if they are a parody of the usual superheros, but they are certainly different. Usually a good superhero is shown as torn, or conflicted but they still serve a good purpose. Here they are mostly just bad, or have become bad. When they started out they had good intensions (though it was still a form of self-justice) but now their ego's have taken over control.

One problem still is that the movie "celebrates" violence (just as "300"). So there's still the question if it was necessary to show some things in graphic detail. It may serve the purpose to show how bad the superheroes are, but it also opens the door that some people will like the movie for the wrong reasons (that's what I alluded to in my previous comment).

The book was written in the mid-80s where the very conservative Reagan and Thatcher ruled. I think you can easily see the Watchmen as henchmen of those regimes (or the recent Bush administration who also thought to be above the law). So the movie raises the question, repeatedly indicated in the film, "Who watches the Watchmen?". Are they to decide that in order to safe the world it's okay to kill a few million people?
The movie destroys the usual superhero-myth.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

They are all, pardon my language, fucked up characters. I don't know if they are a parody of the usual superheros, but they are certainly different. Usually a good superhero is shown as torn, or conflicted but they still serve a good purpose. Here they are mostly just bad, or have become bad. When they started out they had good intensions (though it was still a form of self-justice) but now their ego's have taken over control.

I was expecting this from the trailers. I think this was achived , but this wasn't anything new. We had seen it done in IMHO better way in recent "Batmans" ("Batman begins" and "Dark Knight"). And generally, this seems to be the aim of any recent superhero movie, even .. "Iron Man"!!!.

It may serve the purpose to show how bad the superheroes are, but it also opens the door that some people will like the movie for the wrong reasons (that's what I alluded to in my previous comment).

** Agrees **
I can absolutely see this movie to be a huge hit with middle-aged fans of the original source. After all, we are back to good old 80s!! We have some guys like this at work, I am going to make some research and ask them what they thought.

The movie destroys the usual superhero-myth.

It certainly did for me, but with boredom. :D The film is like grunge sexed-up version of "Batman and Robin".

I thought they didn't do enough to establish why he's the 'smartest man in the world'. Though I guess you can see the fact that he's very rich as prove he's smart.

I think they might have been afraid to disclose who the "villain" is too soon?

PS: I did like Rorschach, however, very much so. But I wished they cut some of his long voiceovers.

[trailer-spot.livejournal.com]

We had seen it done in IMHO better way in recent "Batmans" ("Batman begins" and "Dark Knight").
Yes, there was also a lot of "dark" in "The Dark Knight", but I think "Watchmen" tilted far more towards the "dark" than TDK.
But to make it clear, I find TDK the much better movie. I like it much more when the story is concentrated on fewer (in that case three) characters compared to half a dozen of them. And the story was much more compelling. And I'm looking forward to see both of them again because I find both of them interesting.
"Iron Man" on the other hand I found quite entertaining, but not particular interesting. I thought the story was just about average and only the charm and wit of RDJ brought the movie above average. Though fun to watch.

re Ozymandias: Yes, they probably tried to make him look relatively low-key.
I know you were already bored but I think they should've tried to make the ending "longer" to let it better sink in what he has done. It should've also been possible to make the movie shorter by cutting other scenes.

re Rorschach: He was the most impressive character. And strangely enough even more so when he took off his mask. Very fearsome. And the other bad guy, Comedian, was also remarkable.
And there it is again, the ambiguity that the worst characters are the most fascinating. :)

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

My feeling about "The Dark Knight" and "Iron Man" are very much in agreement with yours. :D

I know you were already bored but I think they should've tried to make the ending "longer" to let it better sink in what he has done. It should've also been possible to make the movie shorter by cutting other scenes.

I agree with you - if they cut down some of the monotone speeches of Dr.Manhattan (and some of Rorschach's voiceovers) , removed the whole Mars bit (seems to be pointless and didn't add anything to the story) but played the ending better it could have been a totally different movie. The movie really was quite interesting to watch in the first 1/3.

re Rorschach: He was the most impressive character. And strangely enough even more so when he took off his mask. Very fearsome. And the other bad guy, Comedian, was also remarkable.
And there it is again, the ambiguity that the worst characters are the most fascinating. :)

They are both my favourites too, I had a bit of "Oh, this is Danny from Grey's anatomy and Daddy Winchester from Supernatural" in the case of the actor who played Comedian, but he was good!


On the other hand, Dr.Manhattan was quite ridiculous.