Watchmen: The Movie (reviews and spoilers)

I recall panties found in an old stove, and some dogs (I think they were German shepherds) chewing on a thighbone, but no kids getting their faces eaten off by dogs.

For the record, I will be stunned if the movie does not suck. It certainly looks great. But, I expect it to suck.

ETA By looks great I mean that the style and visuals are great not that I think the film holds promise of being great

IIRC, they do mention that many people had tried to replicate it, particularly in the USSR, and they’d just ended up disintegrating themselves. The implication is that it took a certain kind of genius to be able to rebuild one’s self after being blasted to atoms, and only Dr. Manhattan possessed such an intellect.

Yeah, we’ve had threads on intrinsic field retraction and that was the consensus. Without the watchmaker’s skill and Jon’s love and desperation to get back, people just disintegrate.

Right, that makes sense, thanks a bunch!

IGN AU gave it a 10/10.

If ever anyone fit the description “a grower, not a shower,” it’s Dr. Manhattan.

I guess I’m confused. Many early reviews are saying it’s brilliant and while not perfect, a surprisingly good adaptation.

:confused:

CNN.com’s take on the making of the movie: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/25/ew.watchmen/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

I noticed in the TV trailer that you can very briefly see a smiley face on the giant energy-ball thingie in Times Square. :eek: :slight_smile:

You mean the one that said Tom Cruise would have been perfect to play Ozymandias?

You’ll excuse me if I don’t give this opinion much weight.

How did this thread end up all the way back here? Anyway, I got my tickets for the preview tonight! :smiley:

Indeed, today with 41 reviews counted it’s at 76%.

But take a look at the “top critics” average. 14%

Now there are only eight “top critic” reviews counted at the moment. But with this many (41/8) reviews in, I’ve never seen such a huge disparity between the general average and the “top critics” average.

We’ll see what happens as more reviews trickle in though. But that’s such a weirdly huge disparity I’m not sure what to think right now.

In general, I find that the movies with a lower “top critics” average than the overall average are fun enough to watch, but in a “repeat to yourself ‘it’s just a show, I should really just relax’” sort of way. But if it stays at 76%/14% the new injunction may have to be “watch–but only while comatose.”

-FrL-

(I actually thought the suggestion made a lot of sense.)

Re:Ozymandias having superpowers: Nope. He’s just had the time and money to get himself really really really well trained. Like Batman. Add to that his smarts and money, and yes he’s very dangerous. I think the bullet-catching was something he’d worked out theoretically, but he never practiced it, because what if he messes up? One-trick game.

I didn’t care for his costume in the trailer, but it wasn’t a great costume anyway. Hard to make it look good.

Heh, Metacritic currently shows an average score of 44%, with nine reviews ranging from 20% to 100%. That’s basically a random distribution…

Given that the response to the source material is equally variable, I’m not giving the critics much weight on this one.

I was going by the reviews in the OP. If additional reviews say it’s good, well ther you are. I’m still annoyed that the movie was made at all, though I’ll go see it, sheep that I am.

I think a movie like this can only be judged as, “Well, is it as good as you can possibly do?”

I mean, should they have made this movie? I have no idea. Did they do their absolute best and will it introduce the book to more people? I will know when I see it.

My wife hasn’t read it, so she’d be a good judge.

Most people seem to weigh in on that side. You and others have given me good reasons to support your argument though I’m still on the side of him having some powers. I don’t care how much training you have you can’t catch a bullet in your hands. Therefore he has powers.

Odesio

What if Alan Moore simply believed that if you really really really trained hard, you could catch bullets, yet that’s not actually the case? Would his error then mean that Ozymandias has superpowers, even though he’s expressly written as not having them?


Anyway, I just got back from seeing the film an hour or so ago. I liked it, for what it’s worth. Surely there’s things to quibble about and whatnot, but I think a lot of the early pannings came from critics that had the ‘this film should never have been made’-bug firmly wedged up their assess, who would’ve thrashed it even if it was the greatest marvel ever committed to celluloid. It’s not, but it is a movie well worth watching – my greatest quibble at this point would probably be that the ending changed some implications regarding the source material’s reflections on human nature, and I’m not sure I agree with the point as it was made.

It seems like everyone’s saying now that trying to stay too close to the source material hampered the film’s creativity and originality, and while there’s something to that, if they’d let the film veer off course an iota more, everybody would now be screaming about the violation of the original vision or some such. Given this tightrope walk, I say the film does remarkably well.

Also, there’s lots to discover throughout the film, and I’m afraid I’ve missed a few things, so keep your eyes open!

It’s tightening up a little–63% to 27%–but that’s still a 30+ disparity while also putting it perilously close to Rotten territory.