The Escapist Presents: MovieBob Reviews: Watchmen

[Actual]

While I also enjoyed the movie and agree with Bob on most points, it has come to my attention exactly why this movie will not be recognized for the masterpiece it is as an adaptation, a super hero movie, and a film in its own right: Dr Manhattan's penis.

Ok the book was giant blue wang-tastic, so I went to the movie looking for the colossal god stick. And was disappointed. But I see you guys complaining about it like it was all over the place and totally tasteless. Did I see a censored version (in England, so not likely), or was it really not that noticeable and everyone's making a big deal out of what was just a small reference to the way it was presented (ie. to your face!....mmmmmm) in the book.

Also can people point to the specific peno-centric scenes so when I get my own copy I can freezeframe!? ;p

 

[SonofSeth]

2009: YEAR OF THE CGI DONG!

Fixed

No no, now it's fixed, there's one also in the GTA4 expansion, Lost and the Damned.

 

[The Extremist]

I think you missed the point of my post, it was about objective reviewing.

I get that you were concerned about objective reviewing, but your counter-points were very concerned about the big blue penis. The only negative comments in your post the don't involve the penis are a) People walked out of the movie and b) involve Malin Akerman's acting ability. Since 50% of your criticism was leveled at The Penis I had to infer that it bothered you somewhat.

Incidentally, by it's very definition reviews are not objective. They are opinions expressed with supporting arguments, no more.

You obviously loved the movie and are very concerned with letting ppl kno that if they didnt see it as anything close to god like as you did that they are wrong.

I call cum hoc ergo propter hoc on your argument. Whether I loved the movie or not what I *am* seeing is Watchmen being torn to shreds for trivialities. It's failings are blown out of proportion and it's successes glossed over. This naturally leads to rabid fanboyism in response in an effort to counteract the negativity which just leads to harsher criticism until neither the fanbois nor detractors have any perspective on the matter.

Its just an opinion, dont take it so seriously.

I merely responded in kind. You used some pretty strong language yourself.

The guy who played rorschrach was ok, but not amazing - lets face it, for most of the film he was just voice acting. The guy who played John was pretty good too, although, again, mostly emotionless and voice acting.

That's what was so amazing to me. Billy Crudup (Doc Manhattan) couldn't express himself with his face or tone of voice. That's a very difficult role to play and I think he did well. Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach) got to do emotive scenes, such as where he gets surrounded, the scenes in the prison and the ending which contrasted nicely with the "just voice acting" parts.

What this film most felt like to me was a piece of self indulgent fanboyism. And I'm sure the self indulgent fanboys loved it to bits. But for other people - even those like me who love a good sf/f or superhero film - you need to make us give a damn about the characters.

I guess here's where most people will differ. I didn't even know about the book until this movie, and I didn't read the book before seeing the movie. I didn't go near the hype, had no idea what to expect from the characters and was definitely no fan. And I really enjoyed the characters, especially Rorschach, Dr Manhattan and Ozymandias (in that order).

This isn't an attempt to offer proof by example, incidentally, merely a counter-example to your sweeping generalisation.

Also, I think the nose prosthetic they used for richard nixon deserved its own name in the credits. That thing was massive!

That I agree with. It really detracted from the scenes with Nixon in. I don't know if it was intended to be ridiculous for some deep artistic effect or caricaturing Nixon or whatever, but it distracted from the rest of the scene.

 

[sebar nl]

well i'll go watch it then.

 

[Deacon Cole]

I think you missed the point of my post, it was about objective reviewing. And really we dont "deserve" a movie like watchmen? its just a movie kids get over it already, the studio does not need ur over zealous protection. No i didnt condense 162 minutes of a movie into a a few word comment about penises. You obviously loved the movie and are very concerned with letting ppl kno that if they didnt see it as anything close to god like as you did that they are wrong. Its just an opinion, dont take it so seriously.

I'd say you missed the point of my post. It really doesn't matter what the quality of Watchmen was or not. What matters is that to focus on Dr Manhattan's penis is fucking immature. It's barely in the movie and even when it is on screen, you can't make it out because they put a glow effect on it to obscure it. It's pathetic, really. Is male genitalia that... threatening?

for instance, I don't recall a single moment that even hinted at homosexuality in 300. So is this movie gay simply because it features half-naked men? Frankly, that's weak sauce. If that's true, then Forrest Gump is also gay because he's mildly retarded. Spider-Man is gay because Peter Parker is a nerd and wears glasses. The Dark Knight is super gay because he wears that rubber suit and has a butler around to "service" him.

What we're dealing with here is rampant immaturity, which I wouldn't worry about if it was only coming from people under the age of twelve which it isn't, and sexual insecurity. Not that they're all homosexuals in denial, although some probably are, but they are so worried about even appearing to be gay that they have to act like an immature ass about this.

It sickens me that it's even worth mentioning, but it just keeps coming up like the entire movie was two and a half hours of Billy Crudup swinging his schlong around. Which is why I say that the world does not deserve movies like Watchmen that try to be excellent (I'm still undecided on this point, but I was expecting to be disappointed but was pleasantly surprised) nor does the world deserve vacuous crap like Michael Bay movies. The world does not deserve anything. There is no point in trying to make great art because it will not recognize it. The world looks at Michelangelo's David and giggles because David's penis is hanging out.

 

[whaleswiththumbs]

Thanks MovieBob for your slightly unbiased help, slightly your still defending it alittle.


Makes some sense, still don't like that fact. It's like spoofing a spoof, just stupid ton do. I get that whoever(once again if you know help out) wrote Watchman in 1985 was trying to t(pr)each that to us he could have made it alittle better, maybe it's just the movie director's fault, Dr Manhattan is trying to be a serious character and his junk hanging around completely throws that out. It's just not good directing, you could have implied that stuff, i was fine with the ass scenes, you can see that anywhere, but i will never in my life see a naked guy working on almost sci-fi level equipment, and he definetly wont be blue.(hopefully) i had what i was going to say after this but i seem to have forgotten, might have been about the atrocities of The Comedian(the evil nazi) but w/e, it will come to me. Also if you have an idea where the whole going to mars shit was about. Yeah i know it's him trying to distance himself from mankind, but if he can see into the future he has control over space and time, he could just go to a latter date, perhapes one where a nuclear holocaust did occur and then etc. etc. lost my train of thought etc.

 

[Mrmandude]

i have fucking dyselkia it's hard for me to do that shit man god

 

[Mrmandude]

Dsylexia wanker and just because you like comething dosn't make me a fanboy god damn nerds are hard to talk to.

 

[anNIALLator]

Hear hear!

 

[letsnoobtehpwns]

I still haven't seen it but I want to. I have a "friend" that saw it on opening day and he says the movie was "gay". He is to fucking stupid to realize what's going on in any movie. Also, he condemned the movie for having a penis in it. It's not gay to show male nudity in a movie... unless if their interacting with it. Well, you can't expect much from an obese 14 year old Hispanic who thinks he's "gansta" and sits in his room all day playing Runescape.

 

[Actual]

While I also enjoyed the movie and agree with Bob on most points, it has come to my attention exactly why this movie will not be recognized for the masterpiece it is as an adaptation, a super hero movie, and a film in its own right: Dr Manhattan's penis.

Ok the book was giant blue wang-tastic, so I went to the movie looking for the colossal god stick.

Giant? Collosal? Jon was actually, judging from my limitted experience, rather unimpressive, even substandard - I think you revealed something about yourself.

If you're not impressed by a free swinging 20 foot schlong advancing over the jungles of Vietnam, well then Sir, I salute you.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

You and me have very diffrent opinons on the movie.

I will however give credit to the actor who played Rosarch. However i still think that the comic was better then the movie. Not only that but the movie raised more questions.

i understand that these questions can be answered by expressing movie logic (meaning there is no logic) but still

1)how does the main villan (a normal human) throw the Comedian across the room when the comedian weighs over 200 pounds?

2) how does Rosarch's grappling gun reach an apartment that is on the 20 feet floor?

3)Where did Ozymandis get that cat?

 

[grenideer]

http://whyihateeverything.com/?p=8

To sum it up - Watchmen = No good.

 

[jboking]

I think MovieBob was far to gracious. I liked the watchmen, but even an uneducated film ditz like myself could find numerous problems with it. I would have liked to hear about some of the random ass scenes of over the top violence. I didn't much care for Ozzys performance either.

Care to explain? Yeah Ozzy's a real dipwad, but I would like to know where these "random ass scenes" were, and how they spoiled the movie.

To include the full quote up there,"Random ass scenes of over the top violence" - Remember when Night Owl and Silk Specter were getting mugged. Night owl punched a mans bone out of his arm. That didn't happen in the comic, it's overly violent, and makes it seem as though these individuals have some sort of super strength. Suffice it to say it ruins the illusion that these people are vulnerable and have been inactive for years. The extension to the sex scene was unnecessary as well.

Does that explain enough?

 

[Altorin]

What I'm truly grateful to the movie for is that Watchmen is now part of mainstream culture. No matter how big a superhero or comic book is the public doesn't really know about it until a popular movie is made, not just because of the people who have seen it but because of the millions more who are exposed to the marketing. Some people might morn the loss of the underground nature of the book, but I'm loving being able to talk to other people about these characters. And of course this will bring more people to the book, which no one can say is a bad thing. I mean, my dad just started reading the graphic novel because he saw a review of the film and found the book in my old room. He hasn't read a comic since silver age superman, but now he burning through Watchmen. I never thought I be able to discuss this with him without having to explain everything to him.

Probably the most important piece of comic book culture has been brought to the screen and done so masterfully. It shows that our fiction can be just as deep, moving and meaningful as any other work, and more so than most character dramas fishing for Oscar nominations. I plan to see this film three to seven times, and my forth showing's tonight. Go out, drag your friends along and show them what all the fuss is about.

agreed 120%.

Plus, as Far as Adaptations go (Sorry Bob, it's almost impossible NOT to talk about how an adaptation film works, especially when the original subject matter is this important to the original viewers), Watchmen is a pretty spot-on adaptation. There's very little I would have changed if I had to squeeze it into a movie - the squid and the pirate comic would be the first to go. Yes, they were great ideas on paper, but movie goers expect something different.

Go watch Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and you'll see what I mean.

For an adaptation movie to be truly stellar, it has to pay decent homage to its source material, and this one nails it.

 

[pedrnorth]

I found Watchmen to be only slightly less pretentious than all of the fans who've swallowed its phony promises of being something deep and profound. And I suspect the reviewer of being just this sort of person.

 

[MonkeyWorldUK]

I couldn't agree more with MovieBob on this one, I was absolutely enlightened by the sheer brilliance of this film; I walked out of the cinema with an air of disbelief about me. Also, it has become my new "base line" of assessing people. The people who don't like this film are the ones that didn't understand what the hell happened in it. Very good film!

 

[Sparrow]

Oh. So, you didn't like the movie then?

FTLULZ

 

[Genta8]

The first half was beautiful. *applause*