I'm a fan of the book, though I've always considered it to have a preachy message and a weak ending; the film improves on the former and is limited to a shade above mediocrity (in the case of the ending) by the latter.  I figured that somewhere between issues 11 and 12 Alan Moore must have starting landing some steady residual payments for V for Vendetta and doing mountains of blow (we are talking about 1984-1985 here).  That being said, I'm a sucker for a filmed adaptation of a long novel that conveys the themes and characterization of the original work effectively.  Brian Helgeland did that with masterful skill when he wrote the screenplays to LA Confidential (which is one of my top five) and Mystic River, and David Hayter did a really good job condensing Watchmen, so I give credit where credit is due.  Hell, Hayter had twice the job, as those two films focus on three primary characters instead of six.  I thought casting was weak in the case of the dude who played Veidt (which is a pretty universal complaint) and while Malin Akerman played more of a shrinking violet than I would have liked, I can't say anything bad about her amazing little Swedish ass.  It may be that the slightly modified ending (which included waaaaaaay too much wire fu for my tastes) made it impossible for Veidt to come off right.

The opening series of tableaux vivant set to "The Times They Are a'Changing" will go down as one of my favorite sequences in all of film, along with the long Steadicam shot in Goodfellas.  I may actually like it even more.  The choice of song is a little bit Lord Privy Seal (which is a problem throughout the film-- and why would you ever use the Leonard Cohen version of "Hallelujah" when the Jeff Buckley version is available?), but I never liked that song until I saw it in that context, and that's surprising given that I do really like most of Bob Dylan's 60's stuff.  

A bunch of reviewers are complaining about the level of violence in the fight scenes.  I'll have to check out their reviews of the LOTR films and see if they were as bothered by the amped up gore in those; if they were, then they're pussies who can't handle a little fake blood, which is fine, but if they weren't, then they're just being inconsistent.

The Ape liked it.  Not perfect, but as good as I could have expected.  Will be buying the super ultra mega Blu Ray edition.  Hrrm.

I don't 'get' people who don't 'get' Watchmen.

When someone's review revolves around blue penis and doesn't mention anything about the point of the story, I just don't know what to say. I guess I'll have to resort to, "WTF?!"

I happen to disagree with Alan Moore's basic premise which is something along the lines of, "To hell with it all!" but at least I appreciate the points he was trying to make. But if you don't see the significance of the basic elements of the story, such that all you have to say is "there was a blue penis", then all I can say to you is, "You don't get it." Sorry, but that's the truth. Better stick with Batman or Spiderman or something with an equally simple story. Maybe come back to Watchmen in a couple years when blue penises aren't so distracting to you.

With this discussion getting active all other posts will now contain SPOILERS!

Precisely! I just dont get it... none of it made sense to me, (granted, i never heard of "Watchmen" before this movie >.> despite how nerded out i get on somethings ). Blue penis was the only memorable part of the movie! Then again, Monochromatic face-man was a more enjoyable character to some degree, being a self-rightous anti-hero sociopath helped... not that i can remember his damn name >.>

I guess im just to "unfamiliar" with this universe... but it seems like its not well thought out at all (which is probably why i never heard of it or took up an interest )

Well... not just limited to "super powers" but something that gives them an edge, a uniqueness. "Wannabe Batman" had nightvision swimming goggles! (facepalm)... and a spaceship! (whos name i REMEMBER!)

 End Movie badguy had... uh... Vegitarian C.E.O... uh.. o_O ... im at a loss on him, other than money, and brains, he had nothing.

So start spoiling it Omega before my head implodes

Sorry, can't help you there on the basic stuff. If you can't remember names, then maybe pay more attention? Sorry if that's not much help.

Maybe buy the book? It has more detail and background, so it might help.

This is not a typical comic book story. Maybe it would help if you consider it a comic book story about comic book stories, with a bit of morality thrown in for epicness. The point is not to stop the bad guy's schemes, it's to explore the nature of heroes, villains, humanity, 'super' humanity, 'what's the point of it all?', and other such topics. Knowing people's specific names and powers is not the point, except as it might relate to their character or the story.

It is more mythology than anything. Maybe read some Greek or other mythology? I don't know how to help here. Like I said. I don't get not getting it.

And yet so many people (I read a lot of reviews on it today) don't seem to get it. I think perhaps they are expecting X and getting Y. On the other hand, a lot of people go in expecting nothing and totally understand that it's Y. These people tend to rate it 8s 9s and 10s. So it's not just a matter of being familiar with the back story...

THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!

(Though, seriously. The comic is more than half a century old already. If there's something in here you didn't already know, you probably wouldn't like the movie anyway)

Doomy: Uh. None of the superheroes except for Dr. Manhatten had powers, dude. Were you off popping popcorn when the crucial part about, "The superman exists. And he is American!" was rolled?

This is a cold war era story. I think most of the people who don't like it are simply ignorant of it's origins. Alan Moore wrote this when there was a very tangible threat that a Soviet warhead might come crashing through his roof one dreary afternoon. Dr. Manhatten is a deliberately obvious reference to America's 'Manhatten Project', which created the first atomic bombs.

Moore was effectively stating in the book that the human race was not going to survive the Cold War because we didn't have the ability to meet compromises or sacrifice any of our personal power (Rorschach represented the rigid American moral compass, Manhatten the power held by America with it's nuclear technology - and thus, only through the death of Rorschach and departure of Manhatten was the Cold War diffused)

I really dug the movie. It captured the graphic novel beautifully, comic-bookish sprays of gore and all, and didn't take typical political compromises or liberties (like was done with V for Vendetta). Veidt's characterization was poor, which really did suck (a huge part of the mindfuck the comic gave you was that Veidt was such a likeable character. Very intelligent, but also very down to Earth... think of Michael Shermer, but wearing a superhero costume. Moore broke the 4th wall in a very subtle and clever way with his villain, because it's not like Veidt only duped the other protagonists into believing in him: he duped you, too.

When Nite Owl cracked the computer at Veidt industries, it should not have just been him whispering, "...No...' - the whole theatre should've said it with him.

Anyway. I digress. It might be that some things are simply much easier to do in print than they are on the screen.

The overtones and questions Moore offered were largely honored, and more importantly, the movie was entertaining to watch for the whole 3 hours.

I think it's a more cosmic idea than just 'two gametes'. It's about the whole chain of events that leads to one specific person's existence, from the big bang to the formation of Earth, etc., not just "hey, your mom and dad got horny and out you popped nine months later."

As my signature line below indicates, I think calling it a 'miracle' is wrong, but I have no problem expressing wonder at the fact, which I think was the point the story was trying to make.

For me, this was the one redeeming realization Dr. M. came to. Up until that point, he was just another ego-inflated human, self-absorbed to the point of losing himself and losing sight of what's important. He succumbed to Alan Moore's cynicism later at the end, but at that one point on Mars, he found something worth fighting for and became a hero. (My interpretation only holds up if you ignore the supernatural connotations of 'miracle', and instead replace it with the idea of 'wonder'.)

IMO, the only truly heroic character is Rorschach, even if he's somewhat misguided. He was the only one willing to stand up for what's right, even if it meant his own destruction. He's the atheist activist member of the bunch, and the others are the moderates and the status quos. I love the idea that his diary gets discovered, and potentially ruins the whole crazy plan even after Dr. M destroys him. By his destruction, it proves (IMO) that the plan was evil, and therefore that the other Watchmen had become exactly what they were trying to prevent. Who watches the Watchmen, indeed.

On the other hand, I don't share Alan Moore's pessimism about humanity, that there is only self-deception or complete annihilation. So, in my interpretation, Rorschach's diary doesn't lead to nuclear war, it leads to humanity being given a second chance to get it right; not to deceive themselves again, but to find the real solution, which is to overcome both deception and annihilation by dedication to truth and wonder. Of course, Moore is unlikely a rationalist (let alone a wonderist), so I'm sure that's not the message he intended. Thankfully, I'm not bound to his interpretation by the mere fact that he authored it.

this squid is unknown to me, explain! good guy? bad guy? terrible plot device?

I think that movie may have been the biggest load of bullshit I've ever seen. Only the enlightened man with his superior intellect and elevated sense of morality understands that in order to save humanity you have to give people cancer, stage terror attacks murdering millions of innocents, and deceive everyone. And he must be right because the superman agrees, and any of us ignorant, primative savages who are opposed to murder and deception even in the cause of the "greater good" (whatever the hell that's supposed to be) just don't get it. It's beyond me how anyone could swallow such tripe.

I know i would!

Whenever something is as overhyped as this movie, I know it's probably going to suck on some level. That's why I'm so skeptical about Slumdog Millionare.

I admit I've never read the graphic novel and haven't seen the movie, but I know it's gotten pretty mixed reviews. I overheard some girl raving about how AMAZING it was yesterday. I was like....LOL, I'm sure.

That wasn't the point of the story. You are criticizing the same thing that the story is criticizing. The point is that what they did *was* wrong. That's why they have the scene at the end where Rorschach's diary gets discovered, with the implication that this carefully crafted plan will get unraveled anyway, despite the fact that Rorschach was killed. In fact, it makes Rorschach's death all the more poignant, because he knew his diary was out there and he was willing to die anyway, to prove the point that the plan was evil.

Never believe the hype. Don't even listen to it. It only raises your expectations, which dramatically increases your chance of being disappointed, *even if* the movie is actually excellent. So many times I've got my hopes up only to be disappointed. Even when the movie is actually a really good movie, the hype just puts my expectations too high, and I end up not enjoying it as much as I would have if I had gone in with no expectations.

Matrix: Had no expectations, it was awesome. Fight Club: No expectations; awesome.

Godfather: High expectations, didn't really like it. Etc. Etc. (can't think of examples right now, although there are lots)

Never listen to negative reviews either! Or positive ones, for that matter. In fact, the fewer expectations you have, the more accurately you'll be able to enjoy the movie.

If the reviews were to be believed, then Tank Girl would have sucked majorly. However, if you watch it with no expectations, it's an awesomely fun movie. I mean: Bjork in the soundtrack, Ice T dressed as a kangaroo, Lori Petty in a 'dust shower' scene (I never thought she could be sexy until then), Malcolm McDowell getting shrivelled up like a vacuum sealed bag, what's not to like?!

Reviewers don't review for the sake of giving an accurate reading of whether you'll enjoy the movie. No. They have a reputation they are trying to cultivate. Most of them just read other people's reviews and echo back whatever their guru-at-the-time said.

To a reviewer, Tank Girl was bad because saying it was entertaining would have been embarrassing, even though that's the truth. "I can't be seen giving a positive review to such a weird and quirky movie! I must pan it!"

If I had read or listened to the reviews, I probably wouldn't have seen Tank Girl, and if I had, I probably would have thought it stunk. However, I went for one thing: Bjork. I had low expectations otherwise, and I ended up loving it.

As for Watchmen, the negative reviews I have read (and I read a lot of negative ones, trying to understand why they didn't like it) have all come from people who really did not understand the point of the movie/story. They focused on things like gore and nudity and the length of the movie, and whatnot. They universally did not address the actual point of the story.

All of the reviews that *did* address the point of the story were highly positive, usually giving 8, 9, or 10 out of 10. Ebert got it and he gave it 4 stars, his highest rating.

So, if you're not likely or willing to 'get it', then you probably will either enjoy it as a so-so comic book movie, or dislike it for some personal taste reason, such as too much gore, or pointless male nudity, or whatever.

But if you like movies that require a bit of thinking and following plot twists, and focusing on flawed characters and whatnot, then you'll probably enjoy it a lot.

Of course it's ambiguous. It's supposed to make you think, not hit you over the head with preaching. Most good stories leave some ambiguity in the ending. Name one that doesn't.

Veidt made it exceedingly clear that if anyone ever learned the truth about his plan, then the whole thing would fall apart. And then someone learns the truth and is about to print it in a paper. That's a pretty clear signal to me that the plan is about to fall apart.

That's kind of the point. The plan was so flimsy, and Veidt made this very clear, that even the slightest trickle of information about it would destroy it. That's the point. Such plans are destined to fail, because you can't stop all the crazies and radicals from throwing a wrench in your works.

If Alan Moore actually intended to endorse the plan, he would not have bothered with the whole diary thing. Think about it. He's a writer. He's got the whole story figured out. Why throw a wrench in your own machine? Because it is the machine that you're trying to destroy, of course. If you know anything about Alan Moore, you'll know that he's anti-authoritarian, subversive, rebellious, etc. It's his schtick. I mean, look at that long hair and those gaudy rings he wears. I can assure you he does not endorse the plan.

I don't think I've said that I think the story is clear. In fact, my first post was expressing my dismay that so many people did not seem to get the movie. 'Clearly', it is not clearly portrayed.

But, as for your interpretation that Moore endorses the plan, I think you'll have a hard time making that case. The movie is threaded throughout with Rorschach's diary. That's no coincidence. The characters are all deeply flawed in their own ways. The final act is morally repugnant, even if you can rationalize it by the numbers. Mix all those variables up, and you'll have a hard time justifying that Moore thinks Veidt's plan is a good one.

Toss in a little background knowledge about Moore himself, and then it does become 'clear' that he would not endorse such a plan. If anything, he is promoting the cynical position that there are no solutions. He's more of an anarchist type.

They are *all* quasi villains. Well, at least deeply flawed characters. Even Nite Owl seems to go along with the silence idea, making him complicit.

That's not the point I was making. I wasn't saying that you have to know Moore's background to get the story. I'm saying that it 'makes clear' that he wouldn't endorse the plan. It resolves the ambiguity. But I still think it's pretty obvious just from the story itself that Rorschach's diary throws a wrench in the plan. Otherwise, why does the diary start and end the story. Why does Veidt take such great pains to explain that he must cover every track and not let the secret out, for fear of the world reverting to chaos? Why does Dr. Manhattan kill Rorschach? Why does Nite Owl consent to silence?

All of it is designed to emphasize that if the information gets out, the whole thing was for nothing. And then Moore lets the information get out. Obvious conclusion: The whole thing was for nothing. It was one big 'joke', to quote the Comedian.

This is not like a horror movie where the bad guy is 'killed' in a building collapse, but then you see his fingers wriggling from underneath the rubble -- cut to credits. That's a staple of horror where 'evil never dies', or more obviously, they want to leave room open for a sequel. There will be no Watchmen sequel. It's a self-contained story. It is there to make a point. So, therefore, the diary must have a point. The only point that makes sense is that it's there as a wrench in the gears of a giant, complex, and fragile machine. It is there to destroy the machine. Otherwise, why have it at all?

But they aren't all portrayed as villains. They're portrayed as merely human, more than human, and too human. The way that the characters are presented and what happens to them after they find out provides the context for us to understand their reactions and gauge them. The extreme characters presented extreme opposing viewpoints and the others presented a moderate view.

Okay, four people are made aware of the plot.Two people represent a moderate view. Their reaction is "what's done is done. To go public now would do more harm than good." Already it's wrong to present this as a moderate view because it's not moderate at all. We know it represents the moderate view because that's how the characters were portrayed, merely human, reasonable yet flawed. In the end they live seemingly happily ever after.

Then there's the superman. He wasn't portrayed as villainous. He was portrayed as inhuman, beyond human and beyond the concepts of right and wrong. What does it say about the story that the character who has transcended the concepts of "good" and "evil" takes the side of the man who blew up the city, who also happens to be the "smartest man on earth"? It's presented as extreme, not because it's extremely sinister but because we are incapable of comprehending it. Then having done his "good" deed he flies off into outer space.

Rorschach represents the other extreme view but unlike the superman he is portrayed as villainous, obsessed with retribution, unable or unwilling to compromise, morally rigid and puritanical."The truth must be known" he says. But that's not an extreme, it's the moderate view.

The conclusion to the story is laid out plainly. The enlightened man was right. The superman approves and can now retire. The world is at peace. The moderate people acquiesced though somewhat reluctantly but to their own benefit because they can now enjoy this peaceful world. And the "villain" has been vaporized.

The diary is presented as an ethical dilemma for the viewer. Would you be willing to throw all that away for the sake of abstract concepts like "truth" and "justice"? It isn't presented in an uncontroversial manner like the rest of the conclusion because it's for the viewer to decide. That's the controversy. Will he publish it? Should he? Would you do it? And presented in this manner I stand behind my original assessment. That's bullshit. 
 

Cool, then you can go back to being dismayed about why everyone doesn't "get it" instead of considering the possibility that the problem is in the way that the story is framed and not with everyone else.

I used to think like you until I found out that apparently there are experts on this matter with access to arcane knowledge about what the true meaning of the film is, and they'll tell you if you got it or not.

Maybe Gauche should read the book(s)? Most movies based on any kind of novel tend to suck when compared to the novel itself. The only time that a novelization of a movie disappointed me was when the novel was based on the movie, and it was basically a movie script. The Karate Kid part III is the only example I can come up with.

I'm not insulting you because you didn't like the movie. I already said that it was fantastic that you didn't like it.

My objection was to you dismissing Watchmen as some unworthy drivel, clearly without having any understanding of it's author, origins, motifs, etc.

I offered my opinion of the film and engaged in a lengthy discussion about it. I guess where you come from that's not enough. So you tell me. To what length do I have to discuss this movie before I'm allowed to lose interest?

.