2009 movieRating: 15/20 (RD: 15/20)
Plot: The times they have a-changed, and in an alternate universe 1980's New York City (in which Richard Nixon is inexplicably still president and American won in Vietnam), superheroes have been outlawed and crime is everywhere. People live in fear of a seemingly inevitable nuclear holocaust. Following the murder of aging costumed hero The Comedian, another costumed superhero called Rorshach runs around in a fedora to warn his former cohorts about a potential threat against all superheroes and try to figure out who's behind it. Comic books explode as invitations to the apocalypse are mailed out.
I was unclear about my own anticipations going in, and coming out, I was more unclear about whether what I watched was brilliant or crappy than I have been following a movie in a long time. I'll borrow from RD, my friend who recommended and loaned me the graphic novels a few years ago (I should add, by the way, that without that reading, I might have been completely lost during this nearly three-hour movie): it was almost as if this movie had two directors, one who wanted to make a silly blockbuster that would make fanboys drool and pee their pants in delight and another who understands subtlety and grace and wanted to focus more on the depth of the graphic novel--the philosophy, the satire, and the dark dark humor.
The brilliance. An absolutely stunning opening scene followed by a gorgeous opening credits with bizarrely artistic visuals that simultaneously shocked, amused, and enlightened while "The Times They Are A-Changin'" blared. The rest of the visuals--seamless CGI, breathtaking imagery, fight scenes straddling the line between over-the-top and over-the-over-the-top. The story itself which retains the difficulty of the graphic novel's narrative structure, unfolding gracefully with flashbacks and (maybe?) flashbacks within flashbacks. There's so much to see; this is an absolutely jam-packed nearly three hours. And this is the exact kind of movie that excites me, the kind you just want to discuss endlessly and the kind which I believe people will be discussing for years and years. Nuances, depth, power, ambiguity. So much of this is so great, transcending comic book movies and blockbusters, baffling and tickling the audience, and holding that mirror up to our world in a way that reflects now, twenty-five years ago, sixty-seven years ago, and two hundred years ago. But. . .
There was so much wackiness, so many times when the movie loses focus, and so many unfortunately embarrassing moments in this. There was a necessary but troublingly campy sex scene, a few too many of those moments where this slipped into goofy action mode (self-parody?), and lots of stuff that should have easily ended up on the cutting room floor. There was some genuinely awful acting. There were some truly odd soundtrack choices ("99 Luft Balloons"? Was that incidental or was that supposed to be on a jukebox since the setting was the 80's?) and some scenes that might have been unnecessarily super-ultra-violent. I also hated this animated creature that was in the movie for no apparently reason. It looked really stupid.
I'll add four more things. 1) I really look forward to seeing this again. It's a feast. 2) I don't see movies often at all in movie theaters. I almost forgot that I had to buy tickets and am lucky RD was with me or I would have probably been beaten and arrested. But I wonder how much seeing movies in theaters makes those movies seem more impressive than they would be on my television screen. 3) I believe this is better than any Batman movie ever made. Add any Incredible Hulk movie to that. 4) My favorite audience member comment: "Doesn't anybody in this movie wear clothes?" I doubt I see more big ol' blue CGI penis this year.
10 comments:
Eh. I liked this film, but it was so uneven, and so poorly put together that it cant ever be considered great. The divergence of the ending really blunted the entire premise of the movie. If you dont remember the novel, Ozymandias CREATES an alien menace to bring the world together. This movie ignores all that and essentially just makes him a grade Z villain that thinks he knows whats good for us.
I thought the look of the film was amazing, but compared to comic book movies like Superman, Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight and even Iron Man, (Which I notice you are not that fond of.) its just a lot of cool scenes that have no place to go.
"Uneven" might be a fair description. "Bloated" might be another one.
I don't know, burymore. I had a tough time rating this one and even put it off for a few days. My ratings always seem inflated when I see movies in the theater (I don't do that often...see 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' for inflation evidence), so that might be part of it. I'm planning on seeing this again. I know the endings are different, but thematically, they work in the same way, don't they?
Nope, I didn't like 'Iron Man,' and I think both 'Spiderman 2' and 'The Dark Knight' are overrated. Which Superman are you talking about? I've got a Superman movie to watch soon. I've not seen the newest Superman movie.
Cory's journal:
0:01 into film... nice fight scene.
1:04 mildly interesting backstory on big blue of the hanging schlong. Worthless chick doesn't even scream or stick around for moral support as boyfriend gets fried. Women.
1:30 piece of great dialogue from Rorschach, doing his best Clint Eastwood imitation, to other prisoners. Something like "I'm not trapped in here with you, you're trapped in here with me".
1:41 nice sex scene. Most believable either character has been so far.
2:40 end of crappy film. Can finally go to bed and mourn the loss of sleep I could have had if not for misleading movie review.
"Watchmen" might be the most unlikable film I have seen in a very long time. It is very long on style and short on giving me a single character or event to care about (maybe Rorschach, but his early 80's-influenced, extreme right-wing, anti-liberal rant at the very beginning hurt any chance of that). Good special effects and a style that is very imitative of many better movies (including an almost obsessive use of slow motion) does not make a good movie. This is a big budget film with a bargain basement cast and brain.
Who exactly am I supposed to like or sympathize with in this film?
The credit scene, like the rest of the movie, is long on style and short on logic or good casting. If I remember, the graphic novel had Reagan as president, but since so many potential righty ticket buyers worship at his alter, they decided to make despised Dick a three term Pres.(banking on the fact that the fan-boys this film is aimed at are too stupid to know there was a Constitutional Ammendment preventing such a thing). And what an actor they chose. They were not even trying. The voice was OK, but they would have been much better off with someone putting on a Richard Nixon Halloween mask. Every time I saw Nixon on screen I wanted to throw something or wanted to wake you up in the middle of the night.
I was also weirded-out by the supposedly 67 year old Comedian and the 67 year old Silk-slut. Who did the makeup in this thing?
I also could not get past the central idea that all of our country's history has to be forgotten to buy into this film. It's way too much to ask, especially with how poorly it is done.
I can't even list the number of things that don't make sense, but my favorite example might be the scene with the midg..., dwar..., size-challenged prisoner. Why would this guy possibly think two, and then one big guy would be able to handle Rorschach? If there were 50 that wanted Rorschach dead, then why didn't he get some of them.
Bad acting, jarring confict between historical fact and this movies conceit, often vulgar and unoriginal action scenes, lousy actors playing lame heroes, incongruous music that you mentioned (the only thing I got out of hearing classics like "The Sounds of Silence" and "All Along the Watchtower" was sadness that they were being used in this mess of a movie), mean spirited, completely unbelievable, pretentious, and filled with scenes where I had to keep seeing big blue's dick, "Watchmen" was a waste of my film-watching time. Perhaps the reason I bothered to waste more time ranting against it was the incredibly egregious statement you made, saying it was better than any "Batman" film. Do you honestly believe this is better than "The Dark Knight"? For my money, I would rate every "Batman" movie better except for "Batman and Robin" (a movie worth less than things I leave in the toilet. By the end of "Watchmen", I couldn't care less what had happened or who it happened to. I only cared about it being over, getting to go to bed, and complaining to you. A 9.
My bad. Nixon was a FIVE term President. Are you kidding me?!
Also... meant amendment.
I don't think Reagan was in the graphic novel at all...at least as a president. I'm remembering Nixon.
First off, 'Batman'...there's nothing new about it. Its biggest crime is that it failed to excite. I wasn't moved by the experience. It was just so frustratingly average, and the end was a complete mess. You're telling me you really cared about Bruce Wayne/Batman in that movie? Why? The only character I gave a damn about was the Joker, and even then, I appreciated him more as a comic caricature than as an actual character that I could relate to. And Batman's voice costs it at least a point.
Not that I'm trying to say the characters in 'Watchman' are easy to connect with or anything. They're also gross caricatures, blown-up comic cliches. But I think that's definitely part of the point, isn't it?
I'm assuming you did read the book. It seems like you did. Even so, I think you're missing some of the nuances, the layers, and brilliance which makes this something I want to watch again. This is blackly comic satire...
Wait, I have to pause for a moment..."Nice sex scene"? What? That was easily the worst part of the movie.
Ok, blackly comic satire...a lot of the things you really seem to hate are part of what makes it interesting, I think. There are so many layers, so many different readings. It's a movie you've got to watch with your mind whereas 'Batman' and the other superhero popcorn flicks you can just get away with watching with the eyes. 'Watchmen' is a deeply flawed movie for a lot of the reasons you mentioned, but a complete waste of your time? That seems really harsh. I'm still wanting to see it again. Who knows? Perhaps its flaws will stand out more upon a second viewing, and I'll bump it down a point (or two).
The credits are brilliant. Completely.
The action scenes (other than the opener) don't do much for me, but neither do the car chases and junk in 'Batman'...I'd take the action scenes in the television series over both of them, and I'm not even kidding.
I can't see how this is any meaner-spirited, more pretentious, or less believable than 'Dark Knight' either. The latter (unbelievable) is especially baffling to me. You need for these comic book movies to be believable?
And boy, the whole alternate universe thing really seemed to bug you. I really like that.
Maybe the first 'Batman' movie (the very first 'Batman' movie)comes close to 'Watchmen' but the new ones are 13's. 'The Watchmen' is a 15. I haven't seen Tim Burton's in a long time. I don't think I saw the one with Arnold either unless Robin is in it. I did see most of one with Robin.
I read about a quarter of the graphic novel, so I will concede the Reagan point. Reagan was mentioned and it was set in the mid-80's, so I must have assumed.
I disagree with almost everything else.
I'm sad that Batman lost a point for his voice. He needs to disguise it, so I wonder what he should have used instead of raspy. Maybe a British Batman? An Irish brogue? A device like Stephen Hawking?
I did care about the Bruce Wayne character. He could be a playboy for real, but instead he is honorable (no attempted rapes or shooting lovers in the head), courageous, self-sacrificing and very intelligent. I also don't have to look at his mini-crusader. He has charisma, which is more than you can say about ANY "Watchmen" character except for Haley's Rorschach (really, the guy looks and talks just like today's Eastwood). I go back to my main criticism. These are very unlikable and lame heroes played by a mostly inferior group of miscast or lame actors.
Even if you only credit "The Dark Knight" with one great acting performance or interesting character, that is still more than can be said of "Watchmen". I agree that the end of the former was a mess, but for my money, all of "Watchmen" was inferior. At least the action in "The Dark Knight" was interesting. I can't think of any use of slo-mo. CONSTANT use of slow motion is not cool or entertaining. It is pretending to have style and is boring. "Watchmen" doesn't have it's own style so it rips off the style of other, superior films. Maybe this is less noticable when being seduced by the theatre experience.
When I speak of believability, it is within the context of the film's universe. A film can do almost anything as long as it gets the audience to suspend disbelief. I have never seen a worse Nixon. I have never seen a weirder Egyptian(?) dog. I have never seen a giant blue penis that doesn't flop while the owner is in motion. Why didn't a cop just shoot Rorschach when he was escaping instead of lining up to get burned. I already mentioned the stupid mid-dwar-short guy scene. At least in the sex scene I believed they might be doing it. Worse than not believing this rubbish, I didn't CARE.
Maybe if I had read all of the original work, I would have been able to fill in missing pieces. Maybe I would have read in nuance where none exists in the film. Maybe I would have wanted to like these people. But honestly, the historical conceit of the book was also distracting, and getting through it was work. On it's own merits, I see none of the nuance, layers, or different readings you speak of. Please clarify what I am missing. Because all I see is an overlong, poorly told, thoroughly unlikable action movie with a totally lame and uninteresting mythology. By itself, "Watchmen" kind of sucks. I would love for you to spend another two hours and forty minutes watching it again. It would kind of serve you right.
No style of its own? Rips off the style of other, superior films? I think 'Watchmen' does have its own style although it, like every single film made since 1940, borrows from really good or even really bad movies that came before it. It captures the look and feel of the comic book much better than most other comic book movies. 'Watchmen' has variety, colors, and tones; Nolan's 'Batman' movies are unvarying, colorless, and one-toned.
Just for shits and giggles, I'd like to know specifically what "superior films" 'Watchman' rips off.
I don't like the action scenes in either movie. Except for that first fight scene in 'Watchmen' which is better than anything 'The Dark Knight' hurls at me. I think I liked the prison fight scene, too, now that I think about it. Slow-motion is overused, but you can blame 'The Matrix' for that, right?
'The Dark Knight' is also too long. 'Watchmen' is arguably too short. That's right. Too short.
Did you go into this with preconceived notions? Is that at least part of the reason you couldn't enjoy it? It's not your typical summer blockbuster. It's a philosophical beast, a sneaky black comedy, and a layered satire instead.
This sort of reminds me of your feelings re: those mediocre-almost great 'Lord of the Rings' movies...you went into the experience believing the books were unfilmable. Same here. There's so much going on in the book, so many characters and subplots to juggle, so much depth, that it seemed nearly impossible to turn into a lone feature film. They did it though, and they did a pretty good job. I'm assuming you're not happy that I'm rating 'Watchman' higher than 2 of the 3 'LOTR' movies...
Why does Batman need to disguise his voice? He doesn't cover up the lower half of his face. Other superheroes, like the ones in 'Watchmen,' don't need to disguise their voices. Why does Batman? Did you actually like his voice in this movie?
Alright, be honest...how many points did you deduct for Blue Guy's penis?
By the way, when you read my upcoming 'Shrek' review, know that it is not in retaliation of your attacks of 'Watchmen'...I'm not that offended. I only gave this movie a 15/20, ya know...
Did you really use the phrase "shits and jiggles"?. A few movies that used slo-mo effectively and were cool would be the "Terminator" films, the "Lord of the Rings" films, "Platoon", and the "Matrix" films. I think the "Kill Bill" films were also similar. I don't know if I would say it was a better movie, but I enjoyed the second "Matrix" film more than this, and it had a superior slow-mo down-the-hall type scene, only with guns. There really is very little new under the Sun, but "Watchmen" wants to be cool and never is.
What comedy? I can't think of one bit of humor, black or otherwise (unless you were impressed by the oh-so-subtle metaphorical flame blast from the ship). I think you are flat out wrong to criticize the action sequences in "The Dark Knight", most of which I thought were terrific. I agree that that movie was 20 minutes too long and maybe "Watchmen" was too short, given that it lacked the nuances, subtleties, layers, different readings, etc., that you STILL have not clarified. I believe "The Dark Knight" and the "LOTR" trilogy will stand the test of time. I don't hear anything positive about this film now, much less will I years from now.
I had no preconceptions toward this film, in spite of my lukewarm attitude about the source material. I would argue that you were the one who went into it with previous knowledge and positive expectations. "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy was a successful adaptation, in spite your views, but do really think this "Watchmen" was satisfactory?
Bruce Wayne is one of the most famous citizens in Gotham. His voice disguise is necessary and therefore doesn't bother me. Maybe I would like a Latin accent better, though. Many chins look alike, so I'm fine with the cool mask. The loser heroes in "Watchmen" are otherwise completely anonymous and therefore only need to disguise their voices when talking to relatives.
I know you will judge "Shrek" erroneously (?) all on it's own. I think we both review with our best effort, and don't hold our belief that the other sometimes lacks taste against him. We fight the fight and then move on. I love your blog and think you do a great job, even if I think you are wrong.
P.S. I did not deduct any points for the blue penis. There were many more offensive things about this film worth my focus.
Oh, and I'm really looking forward to the "Rodan"/ "War of the Gargantuas" reviews. It will be your chance to kick my tastes in the groin.
Post a Comment