Harry Watches The WATCHMEN And Can Remain Silent Not One More Second!

was hoping you would post your review.

Been reading great graphic novels again this week, culminating with The Watchmen. Working on Kingdom Come right now.

i am proud to say i read half of that. let me get back on it, after i get my 5th.

Stick it to the man!

or have you managed to evade the long cock of warner bros embargo?

Good review Harry. Well done.

Mad Max over Saw.

Do you think this is a movie that will be worth revisiting when a director's cut is released? Or with that Black Freighter edition?

With that build up? He was going to love it no matter what... I admire the passion... though, I really was fired up for Indy 4 too... Watchmen looks really cool but I want Dawn of the dead 2

I'm still skeptical

So I think Harry will be OK here

and Blade 2.

But you got me with that whole Godzilla thing

BITCHES!!!!!!! And of course Harry love Watchmen. I guarantee it will be his favorite film of the year.

Could you explain why Ozymandias doesn't have a more fleshed out role? Is the point still there? Do we understand where he's coming from, or does it just feel too sudden to have such a nihilistic (but at the same time NOT nihilistic) kind of climax?<p>This is a determining factor in how I will feel about this movie.

harrison is still my tight compadre.

It's alright Harry. At least it's not Spiderman 3 or Fantastic Four 2 so I'm sure I'll love it too.

Yes, his point is there. But its broad strokes instead of loving detail.

You are the visionary director of Ain't It Cool News

Of course Harry loved it.

Is it a good film? Something sci-fi geeks will love?

Damn, you beat me too it. I just wanted to mock all the haters who can't stomach a positive review.

As a somewhat rabid fan of the source material, this is the kind of review that I was hoping to see. I was getting worried about seeing this on the 6th, and - even if my hopes aren't totally sky high - reading your thoughts sets me at ease more than just a bit. Now for the extended cut - I'm in NY, so - hopefully in the theater!

Me too, I have been waiting for this movie for 20 plus years. And your review, since forever. Thanks for sharing with us. Can not wait to see next week.

And that makes me smile.

Thats all I needed to know

Never forget.

Rorshach's handcuff scene always brought up memories of Mad Max. It an iritating truth that kids would say he was ripping off Saw. And these kids are the kids of the kids who loved Power Rangers but never heard of Voltron. It's elder abuse.

I read that Hollis' death isn't shown on screen in this cut (although it will be in the extended cut). That being the case - how is it handled in this version?

Harry's review or the actual movie?? sheesh.. Great review Harry, I love the backstory in the beginning.

Hmmm..Maybe I will gamble $12 on it.

*spoliers* I thought that the guy they cast as Veidt looks too young and too much like a light weight to pull off the villain role. I thought they should have cast a guy named Jeffery Nordling. Look him up on IMDB. I was channel-surfing one day and saw this guy acting in one of the Mighty Ducks sequel, and was struck that he looked exactly like Veidt. It seems to me crucial to the success of the WATCHMEN movie that they get Veidt right. I am more interested in hearing how Ozymandias came off in the movie, Harry. I'm not a fan of the guy that they went with. I hope the film proves me wrong, but the guy does not look like he could beat up the Comedian and trick the world into peace.

Or is this film going to be one for the "film editing fuck ups" awards? I'm not going to be noticing AMATEUR crap like that all the way through am I?

Well, I don't really have that perception. BUT - My wife, father, three hot ladies I know all loved it with no prior knowledge of the material. They're the only people I know that were "Virgins" to the material - and that was there reaction.

Now you got me all worked up to see this thing and I stil have to wait 10 days!!! I haven't even watched the animated comics. I am saving the experience of hearing the voices of the characters for the big screen. Let me digress for a moment with the thought of the mom/daughter image of Gugino and Akerman... Oh my. 10 damn days.

If you are all so fucking totally mistrustfull of Harrys reviews then do one of the following... Fuck off from this site, Fuck off from this talkback, Go and create your own website and post your own reviews there... fucking guy cant win. If your not gonna use this forum for a chance to discuss movies then why the fuck are you here.... fucking pricks make my blood boil!!!!

Harry, what about the SCORE?!?!?! Is it epic and monumental? Being a musician, that really is the clincher for me. The cherry on top as it were... Please enlighten us.

Seriously, he's got the least face time out of any major character in the book as it is.

...is that he's barely in it until it's revealed that he's the bad guy. Then you get those monologues that could never be done in a film.<p>So you either have to take the material in the monologues and spread it out over the movie, or just cut the material out altogether.<p>I'm hoping it's Option #1, but get the feeling from what I'm reading that it's Option #2. Oh well. I still expect the movie to be great.

See Watchmen. Geek out on Watchmen either way. Get laid afterwards. No matter how awesome or not this movie will be, and I'll contribute to those opening weekend totals, the highlight of my night will be the getting laid. It's just a movie. A weird complex "unfilmable" controversial intense movie, but a movie nonetheless.

did you take a gamble or get permission?

You mean to tell me that the Laurie leaving Jon for Dan thing is glossed over, Harry? Oh that would be a shame... <p> It's one of the best examples of Jon's "time line" - where he knows she will leave him before it ever crosses her mind. The knowing smile from Manhattan while she talks to Dan is a classic image.

Very insightful, full of passion, and well-written. The only part I raised an eyebrow at was this: "After watching shitty superhero fights for way too long, it felt good to see these characters get it right." Let's see...last year gave us IRON MAN, THE INCREDIBLE HULK and THE DARK KNIGHT, all of which you loved, as I recall. And then there is HEROES, which you've claimed puts most comic book movies to shame. Were these supehero entries lacking in good fights you think?<p>Anyway, I'm definitely going to watch WATCHMEN, and ASAP. Like you, I read it in high school. I related very much to your reminiscences of reading comics back then. It was a good time to be reading them, extraordinary actually. Good review, man!

Harry, you mention that Saw did the hacksaw thing, don't forget Mad Max did it in 1979. Don't forget that you said you cried at Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and it wasn't at the wasted oppurtunity.

I know exactly what you mean about how people jump on nitpicks and small criticisms in otherwise glowing reviews and attempt to reclassify them as the reviewer hating the film but being too scared to admit it, but I have to say that fact that you loved it but not entirely unconditionally made me ironically more optimistic than when you gush unabashedly about a film!

...I still have a chance of liking the movie for what it is...and then digging into the books for the real thing.

nothing else gets me so excited with anticipation. i have many other loves in life that I get giddy with excitement for, but none that are as consuming and distracting as waiting for a film. it's like a crush.

You can become a bit too 'involved' shall we say for me to believe in your ability to be impartial. Having said that I do absolutely have trust in your passion for film. If you say you fucking loved it, then I feel more positive about it. I'm loving the amount of good reviews we're seeing. I ignore the News Of The World one as its owned by that cunt Murdoch, who owns Fox which is now a club for cunts that no -one else will employ. Yes, he owns The Times, who also loved it but editorially Murdoch tends to leave the Times to it's own devices because of its reputation. The News Of The World and Sun on the other hand, he regularly interferes with and sacks editors if they don't drain his ball sack of its cock snot every other day. But I digress. I for one am pleased that the squid isn't in there. In the comic, on paper it is a masterstroke, a tour-de-force in "Fuck Me!!' endings. In film it would just look silly. It's the truth, deal with it. I love the original comic and have done for over 20 years and will do for the rest of my life. BUT there is NO film maker, alive or dead that could pull off the squid ending and give it the same satisfactory oh my god feeling that you got in the pit of your stomach when you read it for the first time. Which is part of the reason, I feel, that its taken this long for the film to get made. All the others that have tried to get their heads round it and failed. Synder is the first to realise and have the balls to admit it can't be done they there is no way he's going to top it so does it in a way that works with the story. Flame me if you want but that's my opinion and its just as valid as anyone else's. And I love the fact its an 18 film. It means it won't be diluted and I'm looking forward to taking a shot of it neat with no ice next week!!

just spent the day refreshing rotten tomatoes or new reviews, was refreshing to read yours

You heard it here first.

tell Johnny the Boy to cut his leg off to get away way back in 1979 or do I not know what I'm talking about? Everyone gives credit for this bad assness to Rorshac(sp?) or Saw, but I swear Mel did it first.

... and setting the place on fire telling him to saw through his own arm is gone. Why? SAW." Uh, no... actually it's from Mad Max. And actually Mad Max did it first. (But I've always given Moore a pass on this.)

Harry, you just got nerd-served!

What's this about shoes?

the biggest mindfuck? a live-action hard R rated Powerpuff Girls movie. And believe me, if the movie were like the show's first season it would definitely be a hard R.

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/2009-2-24-the-motion-captured-review-watchmen

...then ANYTHING is possible to make. No more excuses from bean counters and illiterate corporate suit monkeys. Nothing need be compromised, no story "updated" so the audience can "relate" to it, no aspect has to be "apologized" for. Just make it faithfully and respectfully, and the material will find its audience. The days ahead might be very good, indeed. Good news, Harry.

I still miss the squid, but the closer the movie gets to release, the more excited I am becoming. We'll always have the GN, soon we will have the almost 4 hour long director's cut and mark my words in the next 20 years or so we will have the 12 part mini series on TV. Roll on the 6th of March

Damn, with all the "Watchmen" reviews popping up all over the net, I'm going to feel like the last person on Earth to see this one. Will a not-pefect, nearly 3 hour version of an obtuse and abstract (to the mainstream; this ain't "Spider-Man"!) R-rated comic book movie draw an audience? Will it open huge and die off quick like "Friday the 13th"? Will it build over the weeks as word of mouth builds? Or will it totally bomb like "The Spirit"? I'm afraid of a little "Grindhouse" effect here. This looks "too insider" for the masses, and they may skip if for simpler, more vanilla (and shorter) entertainment. The suspense is killing me.

but how it's perceived. Teens watching the movie without reading the comic would see it as "oh, total SAW rip!" and have no idea that Watchmen and Mad Max did it earlier. That's clearly harry's point.

alas..im sure this will fit the bill

All the cocks you've had to smoke with the review payola and banners on this site and your woman still has to work? Very sorry to hear that. If you can't get rich off the internet, no one can.

And good review Harry. I like it how you let us know how you feel about the film and how that impacts your viewing experience. Your reviews are never condescending like other critics who like like to tell you that their experience is the end all and be all.

FUCKING PRICK!!! MCG FIRE THIS AMATEUR!!! Good review Harry you ape/man hybrid.

It's called Dead Man's Chest and Hellboy and that wasn't all that shocking. Giant tentacles attacking people. Kraken wasn't scary. It looks ridiculous. I agree that we have seen city wiped out by bombs with Sum Of All Fears and T3 and such. Mushroom cloud has been done to death. And as for Psychic death squid. We all hated The Happening could you imagine people psychicly running around offing themselves (No way Squid can grab them all). No you need worldwide destruction and while MAYBE a giant Spaceship could have sufficed since Owl has the ship it's been seen and done before with ID4.

Moriarty has posted his review on Hitfix. You should DEFINITELY go and see it.

I just finished watching Mimic: Sentinal on SciFi. Can anybody tell me why I did that? it doesn't even qualify as a waste of my time. it's a nothing. it's a non-film with non-person playing a beyond useless character.

THANK YOU. Great review. Balanced and passionate and well inforrmed. You've still got it, man. THANK YOU.

whether you buy him as a complicated character, possibly a hero OR a villain will make or break the thing. Cant get a sense of that from this review

It is pretty obvious, On the rooftop SS2 is wearing her 4" fuck me heels..in the fight scene she is wearing what appear to be black sneakers. Normally scenes are shot so that if a costume or situation is completely not doable, such as the insane notion of someone fighting in 4" heels..or a rubber suit with a cape..., it is edited so that said problem is never shown on the screen...or altered, perhaps with effects, so that it appears that it actually did happen. In this case neither happened..and we get slow motion evidence of it. A small thing yes...but lazy film making; or perhaps a filmmaker short on $$$ or rushed for time.</p><p> I just wanted to know if the production values from this teaser clip were what I should expect from the film as a whole.

Harry, you did not dissapoint, brother.<p>Got your history/docudrama bona fides out of the way, which in this day and age of internet reviewage are a requirement.<p>You didn't mention fluids. You didn't even talk about your food of choice at the screening. :( (Mine's a big ass Cherry Pepsi and a medium popcorn. The wife likes nachos with extra jalapenos).<p>Lastly, the review was superb. As a person who was optimistic since the first trailer, I'm glad my guts still offer some semblence of good taste.<p>Harry, do they actually have the psychoanalyst scenes in there? Especially the liberals-at-dinner scene. I.E. "No, he killed a six year old girl and fed her to his dogs." God, I need to KNOW!!

MAD MAX did it first. even before watchmen or SAW. remember that, M'F'ers!

sorry for the mad max repetition then...malkovich as nolan's riddler? i've been hoping that for years. hope it's true.

... people need to get off their graphic novel high horse.

So this review holds no water.

sure, but what does this have to do with Cloverfield? Wait, what year is this? Is Lost on tomoro nite? Wait, what talkback is this? sorry, yeah i know, this movie can't come any sooner!

My work has barred all streaming media so I can't watch those clips. And my laptop is buggered so can't check them at home either. Thanks for the info.

Looks like it's going to be Ror and Manhattan's Movie, which, lets face it was always going to be the case because as good as the comics ending is it can't be allowed to overshadow all that comes before it and even if Snyder has "missed" with his ending there's plenty of good to be had before then.<p> <p>And BTW TDK fell way towards the end too but it didn't stop me really enjoying that Movie.<p> <p>Can't wait to see this.

The ending news doesn't particularly bother me, but every indication is that Ozy is the weak link in the film. How about some more details? Does he come off as a tough guy or a pussy? Does he have some cheesy-ass German accent like the actor indicated he would? Does he come off as smart and in control?

cuz I've never registered with them.

Kelly Leak of the Bad News Bears Rules!!!

This and Quint's review has me convinced, can't wait to see this film. Then I'll get stuck into the novel afterwards to see what all this squid nonsense is about! I usually prefer to read the literary version after seeing a film adaptation, since a novel gives that extra detail I crave.

I think I understand what it is. I don't know how it winds up working, but if it is what I think it is, then I think it's - at least conceptually - an improvement over the Squid. So much of the story focuses on heroes in the real world and the wonder of Dr. Manhattan as the guiding force of modern American history, then to turn the end back on that directly has the potential to be thematically perfect.

didn't like it concerned about? were they just monomaniacal insane people like myself who accept no comrpomise whatsoever?

Good points on why they should of left the squid in. I'm still debating whether I'm going to see this or not.

to the studios doing to comic book films, what they did to ff and wanted<p> will the suits watch this movie and say...you know what, we were wrong...the source material is strong enough to use<p> will this movie be enough so that the suits stop just using the geeks to hype their shit, and finally respect us? <P> why do i have a feeling that the answer is no to all my questions

You live in France! How many times?!?!?<p>But seriously, you should be able to find some theatres in Spain that have sub-titled screenings with original language audio. I know whenever I'm in Europe I never have any trouble finding a new movie screening in English. Except in France cos I don't bother looking since I speak French anyway. But that's only if you don't want to have to watch it with dodgy Spanish dubbing.

How is the poster-boy for American military supremacy nuking some cities supposed to create world peace? Everyone can just point at him and say "See! This is the result of the great American Satan! It's the unintentional consequences of American imperialism!" Veidt's plan is genius in it's simplicity: frighten governments into cooperation against a non-Earth threat. If Manhattan was responsible, I don't see how anyone would want to cooperate with the USA. For that plan to work, it needs a non-Earth source to be the scapegoat.

What a Godamn shame...

Think it looks like it'll be a real treat of a film. Here's hoping all the notes work with me and don't make me feel like I'm at a party i wasn't invited to.

Do you think Warners has a hit on its hands? With the aspect of repeated veiwings possibly needed to absorb it all this could make the film a hit and maybe even generate a directors cut screening with all the black frieghter and cut scenes..That 3 hour plus version that I want to see on the big screen..Is it that kind of powerful?

good review Harry. True, you let the full fledged teenager in all of us (who've been waiting for this about as long as you have) to this film outta the bag, but your review is much in the same vein as Quint and Moriarty's. Thanks for that man. I must lament that being deployed overseas means making a run down to a "Haji Shop" for piratey goodness, but that's only way I'm going to see this and revel in it as much as all of you!

It seems like you are excited more about the movie existing at all than the actually quality of the film...same with Quint. The best thing about it is that it will turn people on to the graphic novel.

if the initial run makes money, the director's cut will be released in ny and la in july<p> if the grosses is are good in ny and la, it will go wide

The geeks will pay this see this movie whether it is shitty or not. X3, FF, many more crappy comic book films made hundreds of millions of dollars because the geeks gave up their hard earned money to watch a crappy film. And they never learn and will keep doing it. They encourage and actually indirectly finance shit films. Watchmen doesn't sound that shitty, but if you pay to see it, you are rewarding the filmmakers and studio for making it.

I certainly hope you are correct.. I have no problem waiting for the eventual directors cut on DVD but I would certainly pay to see it on the big screen...Also won't this be the first time an R rated film will be seen on Imax?

I'm glad that the studio will be getting my money for this film. Considering that if 20th Century Fox did end up making their own version under Rothman we'd probably be seeing a 90 minute PG-13 version with Seth Rogan as Nite-Owl and Vin Diesel as Dr. Manhatten with slapstick humor and probably some weird happy ending where the Watchmen are together at the end setting up an unnecessary sequel. <p> There have been so many good reviews for this movie, why are you so set on this failing before even experiencing it for yourself?

i think it was...i could be wrong...i saw it at a regular theater...i have an aversion of paying 15 bux to go to a movie

A comic? Or is there just a comic for the movie?

I had faith in the project when (and I know that I might get some shit for this) I heard Snyder was going to direct this. But every review I read seems to exceed my expectation. I need to go find some of my negative friends to try and bring me down a bit. By now I am expecting God to just come out of the screen and high-5 everyone in the audience.

I don't remember it being in Imax Maybe someone out there could refresh the memory..I'm with you about the 15 bucks though..I shelled out 15 for the 3d cameron Ghosts of the Abyss at my local I max and after it was over I thought it would be a long while before I did again...Maybe the time has come..

not the geek crowd<p> do a search for blogs on both...you will see the majority of geeks badmouthing all three films<P> those 3 films were terrible, in that they reinforced in the mindset of the suits that they could do whatever they wanted to the source material...the sheep will still put down their hard earned caishe for a couple of hours of mindless entertainment<p> see, rothman hates the comic book genre (im waiting for entourage to do a send up on the guy) how in the world a guy like that is big in the biz, is beyond me<p> i want watchmen to make money...but i dont want to happen, what i see happening as a result of tdk...christ, they wanna do a fucking dark supes movie...they have so missed the point<p> has anyone at warners spent anytime and watched dini's stuff? that guy gets it...at every fucking level<p> he produced toons that are deeper than live action films...and his joker is truly insane<p> and i know what people will say, that you can do with an animated film things you cant do in live action...i dont buy it<p> all i want is respect...thats it

Wait for Green Lantern from Warner..I have faith that the project will be back on track as a serious Super hero film after TDK and Watchmen.. A dark Supes just aint my cup of tea ethier but the last Superman didn't work on quite a few levels for me in fact I found myself nodding off toward the end as it had such a slow 2nd to 3rd act that I started to get bored..Superman needs action and balls out mind blowing huge fight scenes that leave you thinking how the fuck did they do that? I hope the Wachowskis get a crack at the restart cause when I watch the Matrix flying fight scenes I think that was what they needed to amp up to and go beyond to make it Super man. I think the Singer version was to much restart and not enough finish..

ever being able to make a 100% faithful adaption. Especially considering all the momentum and clout it took for Snyder to hold on to 1985 and Nixon and the Cold War. <p> The ONLY thing that could have gotten closer is if he had filmed enough extra scenes for a "Squid Director's Cut" somehow.

they turned supes into a super stalker...for no point at all<p> i mean christ, luthor still only cares about beach front property?<p> and if they wanna do a green lantern right, team him up with green arrow and revamp the adams/o'neil stories for modern times...would work even better with john stewart as a conservative green lantern

they turned supes into a super stalker...for no point at all<p> i mean christ, luthor still only cares about beach front property?<p> and if they wanna do a green lantern right, team him up with green arrow and revamp the adams/o'neil stories for modern times...would work even better with john stewart as a conservative green lantern

I like the last paragraph.

I'm not sure what you meant by that, Harry, as what you described seems pretty spot on with the book. I am disappointed that Manhattan being Klaatu gives his character short shrift. Good review. Seeing it in IMAX a week from Saturday.

Of all the blogs I read and post to - I always come back to AICN. Thanks Harry. Great review and a movie I definitely plan to see. I was waiting to see if you were going to do the comparison with the Dark Knight that I've read in so MANY reviews - glad you didn't go down that past. I haven't seen Watchmen, but I know this is going to be a totally different beast and viewing experience. Thanks for keeping it real. From up North, I remain frozen in cryostatis I am Snowdog

Besides the whole torture-porn thing...

I've been a loyal AICN fan for longer than I can recall. I was never a TB-type because I got banned right out of the gate for insulting Harry's writing AND his nephew at the same time. Hey, I deserved it. Harry, you've turned in a really solid review here. It flows, it's smart, and it's everything I read AICN for. I truly enjoyed it. Damnit, man, see what happens when you put your heart and soul into your writing? This just might be the best review you've ever written. My compiments.

the blu ray will be trasure, this is almost like an extended trailer

" Rorschach’s handcuffing the kidnapper/murderer to the big woodburning heater is still there. But giving him the hacksaw and setting the place on fire telling him to saw through his own arm is gone. "</p> Um, that takes away a HELL of a lot out of the character doesn't it ? I mean, philosphically...</p></p> So, he the garden-variety, full-on, butcher here now then ? There was a LOT of intellectuality in that character's construction. Not the type we are usually comfortable with, but still. I don't know, but reducing all that to Travis Bickle posture would mess up Alan Moore's major point. Which is, he's the Randian rational creature realized. Now, how will his point of such a thing being intellectual barbarism resonate, if they would have already established him previously as a brute ? And this is of course a Zach Snyder film.</p></p>Must see it.</p>

Over a year, along with Wanted with just the soul intention of reading those two comics. But damn it if comics now just take up all my money and life. I actually read Wanted before the movie, therefore ruining the movie that had nothing to do with the comic book. I never got around to reading Watchmen, I'll probably do it this week. But man comics are fucking awesome, let me know when they make a Marvel Apes movie.

I'm going to give it every chance to impress me in the cinema, but I'll be damned if I'm going to be a gutless apologist for a squidless ending! They raped the story and that is that - this movie may be better than Rise of the Sivler Surfer, but NO FUCKING SQUID = GALACTUS FUCKING CLOUD... FUCKING SIMPLE AS THAT!!!!!!!!!!!

So thats why you got your ass handed to you by posting Joker fakes last year and then refusing to report on anything about the Dark Knight?

You'll be shitfaced till next Friday

Ass kissing going on in that review. I want to puke. I want to know what Moore thinks of the film!

Of course Moore hates it. He despises Hollywood and I believe he's even mentioned he won't even see a single one of his adaptions.

Can't wait to see this i'm going in a virgin i know nothing about the graphic novel so it will be a cool experince for sure

Thanks Harry. About time this site became fucking professional again. Looking forward to this... gonna miss the squid tho :(

I don't think Moore has any desire to see any of it. That's pretty much his say on the record.

http://tinyurl.com/d2pr5k<p>Moore must be rolling in his sanctum sanctorum.

You will know. Every geek sight will report on it. It will be an event of its own hearing what he has to say.

I always championed Brad Pitt for it but people said "no, no, he will take you out of the movie". If it was the same Brad Pitt I saw in The Assassination of Jesse James then they are wrong. Plus the whole meta aspect of being the most famous man in the world. Plus he looks more like Veidt.

Does anyone really buy that Moore doesn't watch the adaptations? I just don't buy it. Maybe he won't see it in theaters, but I bet come dvd release time he'll watch it. I mean, why not?

and I wasn't disappointed, fantastic review, probably one of your best, and the best written review I've read of Watchmen so far, I can't believe I've got to wait another 10 days before I see it.

...he was mildly smiling, reminding himself of Harry's reviews of Ep I, Ep II, Indy IV and some others...<p>Can't wait to see this, though.

Sounds good.

that's what I'm concerned about.

hahaha sweet dude, those idiots on the Bale talkback don't know what the real shit is at aintitcool. All about Kurt Russell and Chest Bumping Fat kids and Michael Bay Denis.

...your way of summing up every way that the idiotic clip you last posted was unoriginal garbage from every technical film-making standpoint. Meaning I'm assuming you're not blind enough to actually think that people were complaining specifically about "slow motion fighting" as much as they were ripping apart the same tired, unoriginal, rehashed, high-school-demographic film-making techniques that we've been spoon-fed for so many years. I haven't seen the movie, and know absolutely nothing about the source material, but I know that even though the most common complaint for that clip was "slow motion fighting", most of those people were also talking about all the other things that made that clip utterly laughable. <p><p>I'm not judging the film by that clip, since obviously I haven't seen it. You just seem to be missing the point of all the complaints by simply breaking it all down to "everyone who thinks this is all about slow motion fighting is stupid" as your way of ignoring the REAL problems that people had with that clip and the possibility of it being a reflection of the movie in general.

Bale laughs at your Chest Bumping Fat Kids!<P> Harry - Nice review, balanced all the required elements better than you ever have. Print it out, frame it, and use it as a reference for every other review you do forthwith. Very, very good review.<P> Yes, I'm super-pissed that there's no squid - and the moving of the "Nothing ends" line sounds absolutely SHITE, so even though 95% of this movie is bang-on WATCHMEN - this is a project where if you don't go 100%, you end up with 0%. I'm sure the lead up is awesome, but I can't get over losing the climax to some of the most audacious writing comics have ever been party to, to rip-off T3 and THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL. Weak decision, and an EPIC SNYDERFAIL!!!

seeing as Harry loves most everything. But Quints review is really stellar. Cannot wait

He never bothers writing reviews for films he didn't gush over. Thats how he gets the reputation for being a studio bitch because it looks like he loves everything. The only bad review I can recall of his in recent times is his review for The Happening.<p> He needs to review every new theatrical movie he sees and not just the one movie he loves the most a month.

Very even handed. I'm expecting to probably have a very similar reaction when I go see it.<br><br> You should definitely check out Supernatural, Harry. First season was really shaky, but the show really took off when Ben Edlund took over as head writer guy. I think it's probably the most underrated show on tv right now.<br><br> It also had THE most brutal scene I've ever seen on network TV. A dewd getting decapitated by being garroted with barbed wire.

I went to the world premiere in London on Monday and came out neither liking nor disliking it. It looks fantastic and certainly for fans of the comic (i'm not one but as comics go it was interesting and i liked the ending a lot) it captures the spirit and look really well. But i found it never engaged me. It felt like watching one nice-looking scene after another without ever really connecting into it. It had no flow. I have to say though that i found the comic a bit like that but it all came together with a cracker-jack ending that made up for the rest (which i had spent wondering why it is so acclaimed). With the ending, and i don't mean the squid, although that is obviously the catalyst, I mean the moral argument, Manhattan's decision, Rorschach and Nite Owl's conclusions and the New Frontiersman it became brilliant. Unfortunately Snyder has balls-ed up the ending here. Not just the squid, but Ozy's argument, Manhattan's decision and most crucially the Frontiersman. And a word of warning to people who haven't read it. On Tuesday I had to explain to 3 different people who also saw it but haven't read it what the hell was going on and what happened at the end. Is it a bad film, no it isn't. Is it great? No it isn't. I'd say 6/10. I'll be interested to see the extended version though to see if it flows together and engages you though.

Ah... that's the review I've been dreading to read, but it makes sense. The thing about movies, as we all know, is that we don't watch them to characters experiencing various emotions. We watch them to experience those emotions OURSELVES. To do this, we need to relate to the lead character or characters. When a popular, blockbusting film fails to do this, it is essentially useless. When a film I really want to like has this failing, it breaks my heart. Last time it happened was, I think, The Golden Compass. A beautiful looking film, but somehow I found myself observing it rather than being engaged. Adaptations of popular but dense books often have this failing. As do many biopics. So, Filmcoyote, your review rings true - though I wish it wasn't do.

That, after all, was the big difference between the two cuts of KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. The theatrical version was totally unengaging, and therefor deadly dull. The director's cut, however, managed to get you caring about the characters, so you were able to enter the world and get excited/sad/frightened etc etc.

"Laurie’s sexual betrayal with Dan being the cause of Jon’s leaving", ummm................no. Jon left as he no longer had a connection with mankind. He is delid=beratly shown smiling when he finds Laurie and Dan naked, to ram the point home that he is gald she is happy as he can no longer gi=ve her what she wants, There was no betrayal.

STAR WARS: EPISODE 1 (they were SO ambitious, but there was no character one could get involved with. I think they got it right in 2&3, thanks to the underrated Hayden guy). SUPERMAN RETURNS (Brandon R was charming but his set of problems was really difficult to understand - probably because there were so many unanswered questions about why he disappeared etc). SPIDERMAN 3 (we were with Parker ever step of the way in 2, but his arc in 3 - what? You become an ASSHOLE, then stop being an asshole?) VALKERIE (God I wanted to love this, but I just didn't find myself under Tom Cruise's skin, if you see what I mean. If they had got us involved with the characters, this would have been the most incredible film). THE LOST WORLD (one of the very few times Spielberg hasn't managed to do it. cut him some slack - he's a genius at making you care for his characters. But here I though: I am looking at a stampede of dinosaurs - how come I'm bored?)

too many qualifications and allwonces. is it a good film? does it tell a story well, clearly, imagingatively, with energy. Does it tackle themes of Watchmen with clarity, does it know what it's saying. Many people seem unsure about this film after watching it. Not necessarily a bad thing, but does not entirely give confidence. I'm off to read Moriarty's review, see if he can give a better indication of the film's worth.

L.A. CONFIDENTIAL (it's so damn complicated, and most recent noir end up being dead cold: but dammit, they pulled it off) MILLER'S CROSSING (so stylised, and we are never given a conventional peek into the characters' hearts - but it's so fantastic!) GRACE OF MY HEART (most fake biopics one just thinks what's the point - but this one shows fiction's triumph over fact. the lead is incredible) AU HAZARD BALTHAZAR (what, I care about this donkey? Um, yes i do actually). HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN (in Chamber of Secrets, Harry was an annoying kid, borderline unlikable. Cuaron pulled it back - and the success of the rest of the series stems from this incredible turnaround). HELLBOY 2 (I didn't like the leads in Hellboy 1. I do now.) ANYTHING BY JEAN-PIERRE MELVILLE (here are some grumpy men who don't say much. but look - you are desperate to know what happens next). CLUELESS (she's a spoilt, totally selfish princess. how come I don't hate her? NB it's not just the sexy stockings.)

Harold, your typical gushing over-enthusiastic reviews always make me doubt your judgement on some level – the fact that you seem to temper your obvious enjoyment of Watchmen with a little constructive balanced crit makes me damn hopeful that I’ll enjoy the flick.

is going to direct the new Batman,if nolan wont accept to do it.

http://tinyurl.com/7bvb3y <p>it talks about AICN too.

Great - a slo-mo Batman movie with a shit My Chemical Romance cover crowbarred in there. Maybe he could be REALLY post-modern ironic douchey and make the MCR cover be "The End Is The Beginning Is The End". Oooh, snide and ironically hip!<P> I loved DOTD, thought 300 was a pretty painting but not much more, and now this...<P> Snyder had it all, now he's dropped the ball. So sad.

here is the linke with the news: <p>http://tinyurl.com/bhacmk

And he apparently shares a bed with Quint when Yoko isn't around.

I had a similar reaction with Fellowship of the Ring (even without having read the books.) Theatrical cut felt like it was missing "something" and just left me kind of cold. Extended had me completely engaged and had that missing "something". Also, The Abyss. Original cut kind of bored me, Director's cut is a million times better.

Some films just have so many great parts you can't bring yourself to put it down on its weaknesses. Take Fight Club, for all extensive purposes its an art house studio film. Big budget, very sytlish, adapts a popular cult book, and yet it was rated R, violent, filled with sex, and had an anti-corporate message that ended with blowing up buildings! HOly shit how did this thing get green lighted? Sometimes it just happens. And yes Fight Club is flawed, the twist doesn't make sense, and its a little long in the tooth. And yet its too awesome to hate, it does way too many great things to put down for the few it gets wrong. Sometimes you can forgive the flaws when a film is that damn good at everything else it does. I think Watchmen is very much like Fight Club in that sense.

Watchmen is already a hit with the main geek critics. What on satans green earth are you talking about? Snyder will never do a Batman. I guarantee it. Nolan will come back he's just keeping them biting their nails so he can ask for more pay. Snyders got many more projects under his belt right now. He can't suddenly do Batman. Stop believing everything you read.

HUH?! Someone explain.

take that bale talkbackers.

Are you TRYING to become the main nemesis for the Professionals or something? You WANT to get on the Balebackers' shitlist?<P> Understand this: the Baleback is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop - EVER! - until you are BANNED!<P> *cue Brad Fiedel score*

Because he went from one of the generally best-regarded remakes out there (DAWN OF THE DEAD) to making a moving comic book with no emotional connection whatsoever (300) to making an adaptation that he's SOOOOO keen on keeping close to its source material, that he rips out the climax, replaces it with one that makes no sense, which makes the initial murder that kicks off the whole movie nonsensical, and in turn rips out several philosophical and existential trains of thought that were carefully woven through the graphic novel and that would have explained Dr Manhattan's motivations and intentions far better than this movie seems to. Oh, and there's a scene where Dan actually lays a hand on Ozy?<P> Face it: Zack has killed this adaptation. he committed the fatal flaw - thought that he and the other film-makers had a better idea for an ending than the original writer - who is generally widely regarded as the best writer in comics EVER - and said ending then dilutes the inciting incident, the motivations of the only real superhero in the piece, makes nonsense of the fragile peace that is gained at the end, diminishes the story of Ozymandias - arguably one of the most interesting characters in the GN - and which either renders several key GN scenes nonsensical or requires rewritten scenes that just rob the piece of its power.<P> For fuck's sake... there was this really really REALLY great lightsabre fight between Obi-Wan and Darth Maul back in THE PHANTOM MENACE. Arguably the best sabre fight in the entire 6-movie saga. Do we excuse the other 95% of shite in that movie because they got ONE FIGHT right?<P> This movie was neutered and watered down so dumbass moviegoers would understand it - and to hell with those who understand and absolutely love the original GN. This movie has been neutered, and all the "oh but Rorscach is great and the Comedian is great and it looks reeealy pritty" bollocks doesn't change the fact that they ruined several strands and the climax - which is like making two-thirds of a decent movie and then fucking up the ending. Much like REVENGE OF THE SITH, which was two-thirds great action and a climactic battle we waited over twenty years for, which ended up looking like a bad Playstation 2 demo and had zero emotional investment WHATSOEVER.<P> Snyder fucked up. End of.

I think we ALL know at this point, Warner Bros would offer Nolan and Bale ANYTHING to do a threequel, and we know the Snyder thing is just gossip bullshit. Doesn't mean I shouldn't post several reasons why his BATMAN would suck balls, does it?

Arnie WILL be in The Expendables??

I have high hopes for the extended. There was enough in the theatrical to give me that hope. Snyder obviously loves the material so i think with (hopefully) New Frontiersman better explained and numerous other short-shrift lines explored (such as Hollis) this could be transformed. Funnily enough as i was reading your response to my post i was thinking about the Abyss, which was then raised by Dominic-Vobiscum a little further down. The Abyss theatrical was an okay film that i would have given about the same fairly average rating to, but whether you love it or loathe it (I love it) the Special Edition is transformed. It is truly like watching a different film. I have to admit to not having seen Kingdom Of Heaven but given from you posts i can tell our opinions of the Star Wars prequels, Superman Returns, L.A. Confidential and the superb Miller's Crossing (my favourite Coen Bros) are similar i may have to seek it out. That said i hope Watchmen works for you as it obviously is for some. Personally i liked Hellboy more than the sequel (although that looked stunning) so you could find your view of Watchmen will be different too.

You are so lucky to have seen it already... and you have made me want to check the Abyss again, haven't seen that since those first Fox widescreen editions were released in the UK. And I can't remember which edition it was. Just that the bit when he goes down the Cayman Trough was extraordinary!

...Let's go home and dream about tomorrow... <br /><br /> Sounds like it's worth a look, Harry. Thanks.

Snyder got the R-rated approval of the movie,because he had just made a huge success with an R-rated movie.if 300 was pg-13,were the producers of watchmen,going to let him make the watchmen movie as r-rated? i dont think so. and one more thing.why SS2 isnt smoking? i yes the producer didnt want to smoke,only the bad guys smoke,regardless if her smokin was part of her character. anyway

of yahoos news about arnie on expendables?

Nice post regarding "Films which, against the odds, get you engaged."<p>Another thing about LA CONFIDENTIAL and MILLER'S CROSSING - especially Miller's Crossing - is the really great dialogue. WATCHMEN should have that element if they carry it over from the GN.

He is the product, not your buddy. This is not impartial and you ARE hedging. Not as much as your Lady In The Water review though. I got a bad feeling about this. Zack Snyder doesn't seem to learn: LETTER-PERFECT LITERALISM DOES NOT A GOOD MOVIE MAKE.

Seriously guys, it COULD have been another "Extraordinary League of Gentlemen" It COULD have been another lazy, piss-on-the-original adaptation like the ones comic fans are so used to. Clearly, it's not. Clearly, Snyder held the source material as sacred, not a suggestion. Yes, even with a changed ending, it's CLEARLY more respectful to the comic book than just about anything we could have hoped for out of a big-budget feature film. <p>This is a time to count the blessings of this film - which is the chance that future filmakers might see that respecting the source as much as possible should be THE STANDARD, not THE EXCEPTION.

I rear the graphic novel sometime last year for the first time and really enjoyed it. I haven't lived with it for my entire life so I'm not attached to specifics from the GN. If the new ending works in the context of the film then I'll give it a fair shot. <br><br> That said, I'm amazed that several good-to-great reviews have come out over the last few days (that I've seen, anyway), and people like spud are calling the movie a complete failure. <br><br> Look, I hope it's good. No offense to Harry, but he's enjoyed a lot of crap in the past (Van Helsing springs to mind) that I couldn't stand. That said, I'm going to go into this with an open mind. Maybe I'm in a better position to enjoy it since I'm not married to the source material. <br><br> We shall see.

PRICELESS

You are so alone. Even in the face of good reviews you continue on with this pathetic fanboy dribble.

Listen, I know artist need to be artist and bring your personal style to whatever you are working on, but changing the ending is BULLSHIT! For me that is what made Watchmen awesome. As in all his works Moore leaves you something to think about. Im still gonna see it but I am not pleased.

Harry, that was a very well written review. Didn't give away too much, but gave enough. It also felt very HONEST. Thanks!

Completely agree re the dialogue. What we want to know, of course, is which category WATCHMEN falls into. I think that will be the factor on which the success of the film will rest.

Nah, I don't think so. You see, since news of Zack's Corporate Cocksucking Compromise(TM) with that bullshit ending and the ton of retcon that probably WON'T have been done to accommodate such blatant stupidity, there has been a veritable smorgasbord of people expounding upon why removing the squid idea has ripped the heart of the movie. The only people who don't give a shit about this change tend to (a) not think the squid was important in the first place - and that's so wrong I could be in here for days telling you why; (b) are the kind of people who say "gee, he did it 80% right, why complain?", and are the kind of fuckwits who actually enjoyed the Star Wars Prequels (hey the movie was shit but there was this one good scene...) and (c) just want to wind up the squid disciples. To those people, I say, go fuck yourselves.<P> Hey, knowthyself, if you're the kind of half-asser who thinks the greatest graphic novel ever written deserves a half-assed rewritten-by-morons adaptation that's been dumbed down to get the moron vote - hey, have at it. This Bud's for you. The rest of us - who AREN'T so fucking stupid that we could accept a glowing blue god incarnate but not a genetically engineered fake alien squid - hey, we'll happily go on calling a turd a turd, even with pretty little fake noir CGI sheens and slo-mo SFX for the Linkin Park crowd all over it.<P> ALAN MOORE WAS RIGHT. AGAIN.

lets be honest - was Harry's review really the one we were pining for? We practically predicted every line - he even shoehorned another forced meme into it, as usual.<p> Nobody is saying 'bugnuts' - let it go.<p> And the psychiatric scenes in the comic were filler when the publisher insisted that they expand the record selling series by a few more issues. Grats for picking the filler as your favorite part.

he sold out. The man sold the rights to his work and then complains about hollywood in general. I agree that League was horseshit, but Moore is being a douche for writing off everything else. He is a crybaby, he should have held onto his work instead of cashing in. That way he could have made the movie he wanted to. But you cant sell your work for millions and then complain that no one can do it justice or complain about how it was handled. I love the Watchmen and I think I will enjoy the flick. But I am not fan of Alan Moore has a person. He is a man who took all the money knowing what was going to be done and has been complaining ever since. Alan give back the cash, take back your characters and stories, that way hollywood cant ruin it. Until then, Alan enjoy your money and try to believe that this movie will be an enjoyable adaption of one of the greatest stories ever written.

...Read some of the earlier versions of the script; in particular, the Sam Hamm crap. Snyder got it closer than most. <br /><br /> Movie scripts aren't written in a vacuum. Everyone, from the director to the backers have an input and when it's finished, it may never look like what the poor, dumb-fuck writer first put to paper. Be glad with what ya have, or just don't go see it. I avoided LOEG for that reason. <br /><br /> And I disagree, CullenisPrime. I don't think you can ever accuse Alan Moore of being motivated by money. The man is bugfuck, but he's a bugfuck with principles.

Feel free to join us for spirited conversation in the Twitch TB anytime. <P> Love, <p>Daniel

Well, for me anyway, the issue there was that "the squid" provided definitive evidence of "an outside, utterly alien force" as a danger to humanity as a whole, basically pushing the nations of the world to revert to turning their attention to a greater fear and a base, protective instinct to overcome their current hatred and distrust of one another. Explosions have been seen before. It's not quite as much a shock as something never before seen by the eyes of man. And it's not about rubble. It's about the city left mostly intact. It's about half the population cradled in a pool of their own blood and the remains of inhuman flesh; their heads having just been detonated from the inside out. It's about the human carnage set against something utterly inhuman. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean yeah, the Manhattan McGuffin might work too, but then it's the same argument as whether or not some scars are enough to make a man go as crazy as having whatever passes for what's left of his humanity chemically scoured from him in regard to Heath Ledger's Joker (brilliant performance in my opinion). It's semantics, but in the end, it's just not the same thing. It potentially borders on the pedestrian. Yeah, it's going to be pinned on Dr. Manhattan. And yes, he's inhuman. As he is, that would mean this aspect of his character will be played up even more, but that could also alter the dynamic of his earlier story (which paints some very human elements). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hell, maybe the dichotomy of the two will wind up giving his character the biggest thematic emotional arc of the film. And I completely get why WB would feel the need to change it, but is it enough to simply get humanity to go "hey, let's stop fighting and gang up on this big blue dick!" The motivation, the raw, unbridled fear of something so much worse and utterly unrecognizable from us out there in the universe can't be lost, or it's simply an echo of the ending. I just hope they still capture that.

Friggen Hypocrite!

Not saying he is motivated by money. Just hard to agree with someone who still wants control, but sold that control years ago.

"I haven't seen the movie yet, but I know Snyder FUCKED IT ALL UP!!!1!!1"<P>What the fuck is wrong with you? Why don't you actually see it and give it a chance before condemning it to hell. Some of you are so stupid, WANTING to hate something because it might not match up PERFECTLY with you expectations of what it MUST be. Get over yourself, losers. <P>Someone could probably make a career out of psycho-analyzing dumbass geeks who want to hate something so badly that they so dearly love, claiming that creators of media are out to get them and their childhoods.

Moore took the money. He sold all his rights. He didnt ask for last approval or any kind of say at all. When he took the money, he signed away everything and he knew it. By selling his rights away, he gave the buyer the right to do anything they want with the material and he knew that. So the fact that he and his stories are now "above" hollywood is crap. And to now say he has principles is just wrong.

I appreciate that he's a god and everything, but his attitude gets on my nerves. He's like that guy who never shuts up about the fact that he doesn't watch TV.

Well stated. You pretty much perfectly reflect what I'm hoping/fearing about the Big Plot Alteration. My problem was never the literal removal of the "squid." My problem is that--logically speaking--the Doc M proxy doesn't work. As has been stated elsewhere, it becomes a DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL scenario in which the world stops fighting because a godlike power commanded it. That's ok, but it completely changes the original story's ultimate point. And there are FAR too many plot holes which open up in that case (e.g., the world and specifically the USSR buying that Manhattan is no longer a US tool, let alone the idea that they would wait for intel to push the button once one of their major cities was annihilated).<BR><BR>In any case, I am eager to see this one. It's becoming clear that I won't agree with the Big Plot Alteration, but it does appear that there is much the film adaptation got right. Particularly heartened by the latest three minute Rorschach clip...

Moore didn't take any money for the movie rights to WATCHMEN. This is because he got fucked over by DC in the late 80s regarding the contract for the rights to the characters of WATCHMEN. But even if he HAD taken it - does this mean he should be perfectly happy to see a story he spent years carefully crafting being butchered by some half-witted dumb fucks desperately trying to make a classic of its kind play to the kind of knuckle-dragging dumb bastards that couldn't even spell WATCHMEN, much less understand it.<P> There are two kinds of people in the world: those who think that art should be treated as the wonderful creation that it is, and should be left alone to be aprreciated for what it is - and people who think you should grind up anything remotely creative or original and spit it out as the lowest common denominator kind of shit you see weekly at the multiplexes.<P> I'm defintely the former. You seem to be the latter. And given the creation of a piece original art versus the soulless whoring of said creativity to screw as many people out of their money to watch a butchered, bastardised, neutered half-assed copy of the original piece of art - I'll be the former every day of the week and twice on Sunday.<P> Why don't you get it? You're probably one of the latter, and if you are, I sincerely hope one day you find yourself so culturally bereft that you find yourself whoring a programme called WANKING TRAMPS FOR PENNIES round the local cable TV networks, wondering how it all got to this. You are everything that is wrong with Hollywood, and with art and culture in general.

I'm pretty sure that Moore didn't get ANY money for Watchmen. So he's not quite as bad as you say. Still, if you don't want a film made from your book, stipulate that you don't want a film made from your book, no?

I just read somewhere that Moore didn't own Watchmen, or V for Vendetta - so it wasn't his choice whether it was made into a film or not. Sad. Take a look at what Moore says on Empireonline about superheroes and America - pretty much spot-on. The guy is a dude.

We don't have it in for you - just ended up posting at the same time.

Back when I wrote Watchmen I still trusted the viperous bastards, I had a different feeling about American superhero comics and what they meant. I’ve recently come to the point where I think that basically most American superhero comics, and this is probably a sweeping generalisation, they’re a lot like America’s foreign policy. America has an inordinate fondness for the unfair fight. That’s why I believe guns are so popular in America – because you can ambush people, you can shoot them in the back, you can behave in a very cowardly fashion. Friendly fire, or as we call it everywhere else in the world, American fire. If you’re up there in the stratosphere so that everything on the ground looks like ants, it might be insurgents, it might be an Iraqi wedding party, it might be some English soldiers. There’s that beautiful bit of dialogue from the cockpit video when they say, “You’ve just bombed a load of Brits.” Their pilots say, “Woah, dude, we’re going to jail.” This is the Iraq war, not Bill And Ted’s Excellent Adventure! I believe that the whole thing about superheroes is they don’t like it up them. They would prefer not to get involved in a fight if they don’t have superior firepower, or they’re invulnerable because they came from the planet Krypton when they were a baby. I genuinely think it’s this squeamishness that’s behind the American superhero myth. It’s the only country where it’s really taken hold. As Brits, we'll go to see American superhero films, just like the rest of the world, but we never really created superheroes of our own. And as Londoners, when we had that little bit of bother on the 7th July 2005 – after America had two big buildings blown up... Terrible shame, but we had a lot more than two buildings blown up during the ‘40s when America was providing most of the munitions to Hitler... But when it happened in England, what was the reaction of the American forces on the 8th of July, as soon as those bombs went off? They pulled the American servicemen outside of the M25, because London was too dangerous for the armed and trained American military men. Then after a few days, they thought, actually, this does look kind of bad, even for America, let’s creep back into London and pretend we’ve been here all the time.”

I never said any of that. My point is that art should remain art. I agree with you on that. And I do believe that Watchmen story from the book cannot be filmed. But I dont think this cant be a good adaption. All I was saying that Moore should give these films a chance. ANd I m not going to feel sorry for someone who sold the control to his work and now feels that he got screwed. His book is amazing, but he had the chance to tell DC I have control over my work, but he didnt. And there are tons of writers you have not budged from that stance and have kept full control.

Essentially, the dispute became a matter of whether or not Moore owned the characters or whether or not the books were 'work-for-hire" a la The Killing Joke or things Moore has done using an existing stable of "owned" characters. I don't remember the particulars, but essentially it came down to DC's lawyers being bigger than Moore's and that the rights to the characters would revert to Moore upon DC discontinuing publication on Watchmen and V. The theirs being bigger than his part comes in on the technicality that, despite a tentative stop date reached initially, DC still continues to actively publish the books, therefore they still keep the rights. At any rate, Moore has yet to accept any money from the film adaptations, with a provision that gives his share to the artists involved with the books (so both Dave Gibbons and David Lloyd received Moore's cut on top of whatever consultant fees WB chose to pay them for their involvement in Watchmen and V respectively).

about changes to this movie from the comic. Same people that praised other movies that changed things from comics and/or novels. Guarantee that the same people complaining will the there on opening weekend.

He is probably throwing up in anger on his Lulu comics now.

300 was such a pile of souless 2d shite. what a waste. i really want this to be good...but everything ive seen says otherwise.

Is that, when the comic was originally published, nearly EVERYONE thought the Squid was silly and anticlimactic in what was otherwise a flawless and brilliant work of art. Apparently some of the more anal retentive amongst us have taken an about face and now claiming that the squid is the single most important thing in the story. Which is, of course, utter nonsense. Why? Because the haters -- most of whom are obese virgins who live in mom's basement -- NEED to be miserable ALL THE TIME. They need to hate everything they see (and, in this case, don't see, since none of them have seen it yet and they already "hate" it) as a way to deflect from their own pointless, aimless, empty, sad, lonely, angry lives.<br><br> Note to the anal-retentives -- the Squid is a MacGuffin! It could be ANYTHING and still be true to the theme and story. Even the man who drew the freaking thing (Dave Gibbons) said this.

I bet Zack got paid giant bucks to work on this film, and the writers, and the producers. How long has this film actually gone into shooting and production? 2 years? With a crew of hundreds at his every whim.. Zack made giant bucks out of it, While Moore worked on that story for a while, alone, and with one artist, a letterer and a colorist. It would be a grand day for creators, when they get a bonus for creating a work that gets made into a film this big. A bonus that is more or equal to, a director, or a writer that comes in and adapts the work. WB has the potential to make tons of dough in the Watchmen, they will take a story that is unique and stands alone, and if the film does well, merchandising, animated shows..you name it. The director gets a piece of that, does the original artist? Or the original writer? I hope the film does well, it always is bad for the genre when movies fail. But it would be nice to one day dream of a balance for the original creators of the properties that these studios find it so easy to exploit.

I think people are rested from last year's profitable crop of superhero movies and are ready for more. Now there might be a drop-off as word of mouth gets around about how unconventional a superhero movie it truly is, but I think the trailers as well as curiousity will bring people to the theaters.

"America has an inordinate fondness for the unfair fight. That's why I believe guns are so popular in America - because you can ambush people, you can shoot them in the back, you can behave in a very cowardly fashion."<p>I suppose Hamas is the epitome of the honorable warrior.<p>That said, I can't wait for this movie.

HARRY LOVED: Twilight, the SW prequels, Crystal Skull, qantum of solace, the mummy flicks etc etc etc...

Where the fuck are you getting that information? YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SQUID BECAUSE YOU ARE MENTALLY DEFICIENT. I'm sorry about that, but to say it wouldn't work in a movie is at least debatable, to say it didn't work in the GN means that you didn't understand it. It's that fucking simple.

He's an immensely talented twat, but he's still a twat. That Total Film interview snippet made me want to kick him the balls. I can't stand people that make sweeping generalizations about an entire nation of people. And to do so because he got "screwed" over what was essentially a gentleman's agreement just shows how far he's crawled up his own ass.<br><br> Would he still be bitching about Watchmen if he was allowed to use the Charlton Comics characters that he originally wanted to use? That would DEFINITELY have been work for hire.

I agree that I have found some of Harry's reviews highly questionable (most notably KotCS which I ranted on about ad nauseum)...HOWEVER - it's a pretty big leap to say that the review is outright worthless when it's actually one of his better written reviews in some time and is similar in tone and theme to virtually every review now coming out. Just food for thought.

squeezing his balls during the opening credits.

initially most questioned the use of the squid as although it made for a cool splash page, it seemed absurd and illogical<p> however, over the years and multiple readings, most came to understand not only what the squid represented, but the backstory where the squid was created<p> remember, the book is not just about deconstructing the masked hero, but it is also an englishman's critique on the entire american comic book industry<p> on a surface level, the removal of the squid is not a big deal...but when you bore down, removing the squid rips the heart out of what moore was trying to say

So he could have gotten a big pay day but decided to give the money to Gibbons instead.

This squid gets more important every day around here. Tomorrow the squid will be the main character and the entire cast should be removed and replaced with the squid. Because its the heart of what moore was trying to say.

I understand the novel perfectly. YOU, on the other hand, are an anal-retentive wacko who COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT OF THE NOVEL. May I suggest regular exercise, hygiene, moving out of mothers basement, and maybe, just maybe, kissing a girl? Good luck!

touche'. but my point is that harry saying a movie is good doesn't make it so. his reviews (for me) have become irrelevant hyperbole.

What the fuck is it with you and this tired "mother's basement" clichéd bullshit? I'm fucking 28 years old and haven't lived with my mother for over a decade. I suggest you find a new insult because you're really starting to sound like you're overcompensating, you tool.

dude... is that you of Universe Asunder fame? :-) Haven't seen you around JBL recently. Great review, Harry. As a comics fan, I am shamed that I have never read Watchmen. Since my collecting days began, I have known of this and have heard a lot about it but never gotten around to reading it. But the review (and my comic book loyalties) makes me want to see it that much more.

Harry is the one that I most consistently ignore.

I've lived on my own since I was 18 years old. I have a girlfriend. I am tall, thin, and regularly exercise. So, yeah, the whole pop-psychology thing was an epic fail. Good try though! <br><br>Btw, it's funny to note how upset you're getting when I call you out. Looks like I touched a nerve, eh? I'm sorry your lives are so empty. I'm sorry you need to be miserable and hate EVERYTHING; even things you haven't seen! So, so sorry.<br><br> What it comes down to is it doesn't really matter what the MacGuffin is. Further, that Dr. Manhattan as Klaatu makes way more narrative sense. Basically because the novel develops how much of an object of fear Dr. Manhattan becomes after leaving the Earth; much, MUCH more so than the Squid which is barely hinted at, and when it appears, makes almost no sense and comes completely out of left field. Again, nearly EVERYONE agreed that it was the low point of the novel... up until it was announced it wouldn't be in the film. Afterwards everyone pretended to think that the squid is the most important element of the novel. Thats just straight up BULLSHIT. Get over your anal retentive geekery, lighten the fuck up, and try to ENJOY yourselves for once. It doesn't all have to be misery in mom's basement.

Rubber, glue, off me, to you:<br><br> I challenge you, sir, to provide a link to an extant, contemporaneous critique of WATCHMEN in 1986 that claims the Squid is the most important, defining element of the novel you erroneously think it is.<br><br>I'll be waiting... actaully, I won't be, because I don't care. Have fun being miserable! What else do you hate without even having seen it? I bet is ALOT of stuff.

"Squid which is barely hinted at, and when it appears, makes almost no sense and comes completely out of left field" that's the fucking point, RIGHT FUCKING THERE. That's what it'd take, that's what makes it the perfect plan and that is what makes Veidt the fucking genius that he is.

As someone who read Watchmen as it came out month to month, I can absolutely vouch that the squid ending was regarded as the weakest aspect of the book. When issue #12 came out, the general reaction was that the book had been exceptional but that the squid ending and Veidt's plan was disappointing in that it was such a cornball, sci-fi B-movie element in an otherwise unprecedented adult take on superheroes. Don't have any links to offer - maybe I could find some reviews in old issues of the comic book press to quote from but take it from someone who was around at the time (I was a high school senior in '86) that the squid was the most criticized element of Watchmen. Funny to see it given so much importance now.

But the idiotic squid lovers aren't. RRRRIIIGGGHHHT. Fuck you kurt. Go fuck that squid you love so damn much.

i agree with your remark about the ending. the source material will always be better than a film adaption. i've never been one to bitch about how close a film follows the source material. if it works as a film... great. it is a completely seperate entity and succeeds or fails on it's own merits. if this gets people to try the graphic novel out than fanfuckingtastic.

You have a life and you still waste your time on this squid garbage. Your even WORSE than any loser who lives with their mom. WORSE. Because you should care LESS and you don't.

Then why the blood-curdling rage? Aaaaaand pwned.<br><br> Oh, but you're right, I don't have any links to articles that back up my claim. Most of that was gleaned from, well, more or less everyone I know who read the novel. Except for raging dorks like yourself who suddenly think its the most important element of the novel because you need to hate everything -- even things you've never seen. So, anyway, thats anecdotal. You got me there. I suppose I could go and hunt down these articles, but, quite frankly, I have more important things to do and I don't care what you think.<br><br>But, feel free hating everything and being miserable! Have fun with that! Don't cry too hard.

...As someone who was reading Watchmen as it came out in '86 (I was a high school senior at the time), I can vouch that the squid ending was the most criticized aspect of the book and in the eyes of many fans and critics back then it was a cornball, sci-fi monster movie element that kept Watchmen just shy of being a full masterpiece. I don't have any links to provide but take it from someone who was there - the squid was regarded as a letdown after eleven amazing issues of build-up. There was the general feeling of "that's it?". Of course, the virtues of Watchmen outweigh its minuses and the squid has became more accepted over time (to the point where some people think the whole book hinges on it) but to someone who remembers the inital reaction to it, it's funny to see such live or die importance attached to the squid.

I just don't get the technique of stating a mass generalization, aka The Squid sucked and everyone hated it, then to keep repeating it over and over as if it will somehow be accepted. I loved the Squid, Harry loved the fucking Squid, everyone I knew thought it was genius, so what does that mean? Some people get it, for others it's beyond there understanding. I don't hate you for the fact that you can't comprehend it's brilliance, I feel bad for you as you apparently cannot digest literature at Moore's level. You have taken the path that many have in these talk backs, when you become frustrated that you don't have the mental ammunition to fight a war with those obliviously more articulate and profound than yourself you result to petty insults of the originator of the comments while ignoring the content. Look, Kurt Lockwood is the Alpha Male in these talk backs, in this one I agree with him, I'm sure down the road I will disagree. when this happens my reaction won't be to insult him, but to try to research my position as best as possible and make my point and support it as well as I can. That is how a healthy debate exists. When anyone in these discussions starts name calling, Moriarty for example, it automatically deflates whatever point they were trying to make regardless of it has merit or not. I have seen you post here enough to know you aren't a simple troll like BrightEyes, but my respect for you drops as you continue to sink to lower and lower depths of personal attacks to somehow redeem your self.

I don't know why, but that struck me as hilarious. Although i am on the other side of the squid debate, you might have scored the funniest line.

Its a big giant monster to make the ending big and giant. Genius it is not. Now this is getting out of hand.

I said it was anticlimactic and silly. It was when it came out (note the other posters saying the same thing I did), and it is now. That it was anticlimactic and silly was, arguably, the satirical point Moore was trying to make about deus-ex machina contrivances and bad comic book writing, BUT, is also an unsatisfying ending.<br><br> Personally, I like the idea of Dr. Manhattan as Klaatu alot more, and think it makes much more narrative sense. Feel free to go ballistic with rage about this. I couldn't possibly care less. But, it does help to prove my point about anal-retentive geeks who need to be miserable and hate everything they see AND HAVENT SEEN. Have fun digging that hole. Its entertaining to me to watch you sputter with incoherent, impotent rage. <br><br>And the funniest thing? The really telling thing? Is that ALL of you will be there opening weekend. And, I suspect, the haters will be there for several showings, each time "hating" it more than the last. Again, proving my supposition about the lives of the terminally miserable basement dwelling anal-retentives 100% correct.<br><br>Thank you!

It's probably pointless to try to reason with someone like LaserPants. His idea of a debate is just to keep repeating the same damn thing over and over, only increasing in volume and adding ever more inventive invective as he goes. As they say, the most hollow bell makes the loudest noise. I don't think he gets it. YOU MIGHT GET IT! HE! DOES! NOT! GET! IT!<P> And as for knowthyself... he seems marginally more intelligent than LaserTwat, but barely. He might get it, but he should still GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY EYELINE!!!<p> God, these fucking morons who keep insisting the squid doesn't matter. They should be fucking forced to re-read that graphic novel, Clockwork Orange style, over and over until they understand WHY that ending was so genius. Becuase as of right now - THEY DO NOT GET IT!<P> Fucking asses.

Stop the fightin'!!! None of this shit's going to matter when you're 80 and taking your final breaths. It's just a movie.

The problem you have there is that to my knowledge NOT ONE PERSON HERE has claimed they were gonna boycott the movie. Having reservations about the altered details and pre-emptively hating the movie are not the same fucking thing. Everyone here is hoping that the changes work and the movie is awesome, we don't want to see it fail.

First off, Harry, I know these guys are thrilled with your review, but it felt a little small to me. You liked it, and you point to what you did like, but you avoided talking about the pacing, the acting, the music... the movie. I do appreciate that the backstory and color commentary which you use to frame your perspective was on-target though, unlike some of your other notorious reviews of late.<p> Now, onto the meat of the respone. Harry, as I said in another talkback, Veidt didn't come up with "the squid" plot, he came up with a plot to kidnap artists and scientists (artists such as the writer of Tales of The Black Freighter, which I guess doesn't matter if you're taking out the streetcorner AND the comic itself) and trick them into coming up with a plot that will unite the world, and it is their plot which is "the squid" - he merely brings their idea to life: the genetic design, the transporter, the psychic scream.<p> It is Veidt's machinations which are the "joke" that the Comedian stumbles upon, which shakes him to his core. Without that joke, the Comedian has no reason to freak out and blather everything to Moloch, whose apartment is bugged by Veidt, which ultimately gets the Comedian killed leading to a smiley face button in a pool of blood on the sidewalk - the start of everything. <p> See, you can't merely make the story about convincing the world to unite in fear of Dr. Manhattan, because the story already takes place in a world that has been taught to fear superheroes and is living under the fear of nuclear weapons. If Veidt's master stroke is merely paying off on that fear, it's a much lesser plot, a relatively simplistic one, and not one which causes the Comedian to lose his composure. The Squid is convoluted, yes, but it has a right to be, it is something far beyond the mere troubles of the day, it is the true culmination of a global joke, one that not even a twisted jester such as the Comedian could ever comprehend, and that is what sets everything in motion.<p> I'll be there for this movie, I really hope it works for me, I want to give it a chance, but I do have to call shame-on-you to Zack Snyder for this change, it's crucial to the plot. Especially when you admit your film is more a sci-fi flick than superhero action, you cannot take out the keystone sci-fi element, the one that is monumental, simply because it tells a quicker story... because then it tells a different story, a lesser story, not the story that made Watchmen the story it was in the first place.

it's anything but! You guys claiming this really do need to re-read the graphic novel. There's talk of Doc Manhattan's advanced technology, setting up the transporter. There's talk of the kidnapped artists and scientists, setting up the crazy out-of-this-world scheme. There's tons of setup showing the world is 5 minutes away from the brink of disaster, setting up the need for the Squid. There's Veidt's genetically engineered pet, setting up a different genetically engineered animal. <p>The Squid comes in and the world is rocked back on its heels, but it is not god from a machine, it is the exact opposite: it is a machine from a man who sees himself as a god. It changes everything for the world, but for the story, it is not itself the end, it merely frames the final act of the story, setting up the characters' final actions.

The only active, squid-obsessed AICN trolls in recent TBs are laughably piss-poor writers with a penchant for straw man fallacies and shallow hyperbole. <BR><BR>Fuck 'em up, Kurt. I'm just sitting back and enjoying the fireworks.

You better tell Alan Moore to apologize right now to the U.S.A. or we will be forced to take drastic action. <P> We will immediately return the following annoying Limey celebrities to you crappy, cold rainy little island post haste: <P> Sharon Osborne <P> Simon Cowell <P> David Beckham and his wife "Snotty Spice" <P> All the other "Spice Girls" including: "Fat", "Stupid" and "Litigious". <P> What Litigious did to poor Edie Murphy is criminal. Granted Edie probably thought she was a tranny and could not get pregnant but, still, she took him for a shitload of money. <P> I also find it ironic that a nation that built their "empire" by machine gunning down aboriginal people armed with only spears and shields. Who also fought a war with the Chinese to force the Chinese to buy heroin from them have the balls to criticize any other nation on earth.

For me, even if I believe (as I suspect) that the Doc M solution is a poor proxy for the original work's, I'm keeping an open mind and expect to pleased by much of the film. <BR><BR>I know it may be impossible for a couple of you to conceive, but it's *possible* to not completely love or completely hate something. It's called ambivalence. Look it up.

...Um... Not quite. I see this line a lot here, and I just laugh every time. I don't know anyone who is going to see this. It just looks bad. I'm give the benefit of the doubt to those who were probably just referring to fans of the source material; I'm sure most of them will, in fact, be there. But no, the rest of us who actually give half a damn about quality cinema and decent entertainment just don't care.

Sorry, fella, but as an Englishman I have to step in here, since your line about us 'gunning down aboriginal people' made me spit my tea.<p>So tell me, you of the most enlightened civilised nation on Earth, exactly what happened to the indigenous population of the goold old U S of A?

Nice posts man, well thought out. I can't get past the lack of the physic scream you mention. Wasn't it the fear that the Squid telepathically communicated to the survivors that was thought to keep the peace and maintain the threat for many years after? I wonder how this was resolved, or like many things was it just ignored. I'm still floored that Nite Owl's death scene wasn't seen as necessary so it was cut. To me, next to rorscach's death, that was the most emotional moment of the story. But again, that's just me. It does scare me that we have seen hints that rorscachs death scene has changed, different people are there, and now it's more brutal?? What would your thoughts on that be? Sorry if this comes off as confused, I'm stoned.

Fine, we'll take 'em all back. But Clive Owen, Daniel Craig, Jason Statham and Christian fucking Bale are coming with 'em. Funny how you have to import all your tough motherfuckers from over here ain't it.

I don't think white people were the indigenous people of America, there were Indians there first, I believe the Euros who came over wiped most of them out. I'm Canadian so my American history is a little rusty. Let me say one more thing, this fucking Eastbound Down and Out is fantastic.

We'll let them keep Vinnie Jones. Just to be sociable, eh?

Also, I think far more than the initial fear of invasion "the squid" generated in the world population, the ULTIMATE and GROWING worldwide epiphany was simple: we are not alone in a vast universe and have more in common as a species with each other than we could have guessed before our eyes were opened. <BR><BR>And there was every indication in the comic that the alien Thing appearing in NYC was a sheer accident--not any kind of proper invasion by its design. To me, the "new awakening" Veidt is hoping for works in part because the tragedy evokes a new sense of positive, optimistic unity between humans as a whole; not an oppressive, slavishly enforced peace borne out of fear from divine punishment. <BR><BR>I don't dispute that the filmmakers' solution is a clever, easier to understand fix for the general viewing audience--but it is a *much* more typical and uncreative and ultimately unsatisfying solution than Moore's (not to mention the new solution's intrinsic logic holes which have been discussed at length for many months). <BR><BR>And--yes, despite these qualms--I'm looking forward to seeing and likely enjoying this film adaptation. What a concept.

Do you believe as I do that the Squid could have been one of the most visually unique and memorable moments of this genre of Cinema ever? I would have thought Snyder would have embraced the squid as it's brief story is so visual, playing to his strength?

Good point about Hollis' death. One of my very favorite moments comes when Dan uncharacteristically flips out on the top-knot gang member after he learns what has happened to his old mentor (and Gibbons somehow is able to visually convey complete surprise in the masked Rorschach's visage). Too bad that's gone in the theatrical cut.

Yes. I honestly think that including Veidt's original plan (more or less), could've been visually one of the most astounding, horrifying sequences ever set to film. If done badly, it could have the opposite effect, mind you. But I have every reason to believe this creative team (with Gibbons' direction) could do it justice. I do wish they had kept the thousands of bloodied corpses, faces twisted with horror in any case. In fact, the one image imprinted in my imagination every time I think of WATCHMEN is that huge spread at the head of issue 12. I know some people hated and were bewildered by the choice. But I thought it was pure genius. I remember my jaw dropping in awe and sheer, chilling delight at the fucking balls it took to IMAGINE such a thing, let alone print it in a comic book.<BR><BR>Yep. I'll likely always believe--no matter what I think of the movie otherwise--that Snyder and company missed a brilliant chance to elevate (what purportedly is) an otherwise excellent film adaptation into a true, cult masterpiece on celluloid. <BR><BR>On a different topic, how the FUCK did this team apparently screw the pooch on makeup so badly. Even the most Snyder-fellating of reviews (e.g., Devin's) complain of the poor old age makeup. Shit, is Dick Smith still alive? Haven't these fuckers ever seen AMADEUS or THE EXORCIST? Just can't imagine how such a well paid, generally talented team got so much right visually and still royally fucked up on something as basic as old age/Nixon makeup.

Kind of an interesting split in opinions going on here. "X" percentage of the group is, in essence, saying that if Dr. Manhattan attacked the Earth that they, personally, as leaders of other countries, would attack America. "Y" percentage of this board is, in essence, saying that if Dr. Manhattan attacked the entire world they would pull together with the rest of the world to try to find an answer. Be fun to count up the numbers of those who would attack America as opposed to those who would pull together. Or are the "X's" saying that those OTHER dummies would attack America, but they personally would be wise enough not to? In which case they're saying that they're smarter than all the generals and presidents and stuff. An interesting conclusion. At any rate, be fun to see what percentage of people would chose more destruction, as opposed to those who would chose to talk, negotiate, plan, and try to save the world. I know which side I'd be on. What about you guys?

But I've never read Watchmen. Always meant to, but then I've always meant to do a lot of things. Simple question: Should I read the book before seeing the movie? Maybe I'll answer that myself. I guess it's always a good thing to read something. It IS fundamental,after all.

With todays effects, the squid is a piece of cake to do, plus the less seen the better, pieces of the thing laying on top of buildings is an amazing visual, and especially if we get quick inside glimpse of what the people who are exposed to that mental shock wave see. Shame. I will miss dear ol Squid. But I happen to agree with Kurt, if you are going to do this, keep that ending. The ending is the most important part of a story. Hey, The Death star does not blow up, it just comes apart like an onion.. it makes better sense.. I hope it all works when it comes on the screen.

Read it. My guess is the movie will be a breeze to follow after reading the source material.

what we need now is the film adaption of the first part of moore's miracleman. good stuff. although matrix revolutions has already ruined the climactic fight between miracleman and his sidekick. come on people...let me get some love for miracleman.

End of Story. Film is and will always be un-filmmable

MIRACLEMAN is indeed ace, and I'd love to see someone take a film adaptation stab at it. Talk about dark, though... It gives Morrison's ZENITH a run for its money in the dark department (well--not quite).

The book should have never been called "Watchmen" it should have been called "Squiddy Squid Squid McSquiddington". OMG THEY TOOK OUT THE SQUID AND ANYONE WHO ISN'T INFURIATED IS CLEARLY AN UNEDUCATED SLOB, WAAAAAA, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, WHY DOESN'T EVERYONE HATE ME? IS IT BECAUSE I BITCH ABOUT SQUID NOT BEING IN A MOVIE?

Hipshot, you make a good point. People seem to be criticizing the new ending because they assume that a Dr. Manhattan attack would cause other countries to push the doomsday button without any kind of investigation. Not even a phone call, which is all it would take to confirm that the US had also been attacked (if I'm understanding the new ending correctly, that is). The logic of the new ending seems fine to me, but I guess I can see the problems some people have with it. I guess I fall in the "talk and negotiate" category rather than the "blind retaliation" one.

should be "WHY DOES EVERYONE HATE ME?" Oh well, if only I had the squid to guide me maybe I wouldn't have made that typo.

daniel craig as miracleman. too bad i hear the ownership of it is a fucking mess. that cock mcfarlane. miracleman would be a damn good movie.

Please. No one here is infuriated. Different folks have different opinions about all *sorts* of different things, little buddy. And that's ok. Get it? <BR><BR>Now... it's time for you to get off that computer. I think your mom's calling you, and you have homework to do.

You dumb fuck. I don't suppose there's any chance you actually understood what the graphic novel was about, was there? Are you stil trying to figure out whether Adrian Veidt was a good guy or a bad guy?<P> You sad, strange little man.

WAAAAAAGH nobody ever listens to me so I have to go on the internets and yell at some geeks WAAAAAAAGH I don't understand why anyone's moaning about some stupid ending that was too confusing - I like the new easy simple ending WAAAAAAAAAAGH It's only a movie it's not like the book's all that great I don't get it I don't get it I DON'T GET IT WAAAAAAAGH!!!<P> WHAT DON'T YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND?<p> Fuckin' asses. Me and the anti-Squiddies are fucking DONE PROFESSIONALLY.

You're right of course, no one is infuriated about it and everyone is having a civilized sharing of opinions. Not a single person is mad about it. A message board has never and will never be a place for name calling and petty, pointless arguments. Also, using the "living with your mom" or "time to do your homework" insult is the most original and under-used zinger in the history of the world wide web. Sincerely, Liar

For proving my point.

I'm happy they changed the Rorschach hacksaw bit, because in the end that was pretty much a Mad Max rip off. For me Watchmen is a 90% perfect story but I never liked the ending with the squid, so I'm not that attached to it. I read it when I was 14, so I think part of it was that there was no clear-cut resolution, although I read it again recently, and now I really appreciate the balls it took to take that stance. But the fact that it was direct take off on the Outer Limits episode seemed a little lazy, and even the editor at the time Len Wein criticized Moore for that. But I think Veidt getting offed in the Hayter script might be a little more satisfying dramatically, but I admire Snyder for sticking to the core material and not doing some bullshit revisionist hatchet job which always will ruin a comic book adaptation. I still have a problem with the rape in Watchmen. Does anyone else? I'm not talking that I was offended by it; I mean it's just very believable or credible. I mean have you ever heard of a woman ever falling for and having consensual sex with a guy who raped her? I don't think there is a precedent towards that and it's pretty insulting to women. I know about battered women syndrome but this is pretty different. In any case I can't wait to see the movie. I'm sure it will be flawed but hopefully entertaining and provoking, in the way the comic was. Anyone else think Moore will eat his words and go see the movie? I think it would be way too tempting to see someone's interpretation of your creation, whether it was positive or negative.

Don't you dare bash the squid! How dare you???

But seriously... I know the "living with your mom" comeback is indeed cliché, but--in your case--it seemed to be sincerely a perfect fit. And you WERE pretty much asking for it with that insipid, poorly worded and undeniably juvenile rant. It's cool, though. We were all twelve or thirteen once. No harm in testing out the grown-up waters, bud. Have a good one now...

My deepest apologies. I didn't mean to bring anything juvenile into a discussion about a comic book squid. Whoops, there I go again daring to say anything like that about the most important aspect of the most important artistic achievement in the history of mankind.

Yeah, I know some readers just didn't like Moore's resolution to WATCHMEN. Personally I think it's a move of remarkable genius (more Lovecraftian in nature than anything else I can think of in the medium).<BR><BR>Regarding the rape: YES. I have ALWAYS had a problem with it. That's the one element that makes me cringe every time. I understand Moore's point about things being complicated, and I don't DOUBT that raped women have and do fall for their rapist in reality, but this element would frankly sit better in my craw had it been penned by someone who really knows a thing or two about rape. I'm ambivalent, but--yeah--it just always makes me cringe...

this film would direct itself. of course i would be happy to direct, if anyone would give me the chance.

Glad I'm not the only one. I imagine on opening weekend a lot of girlfriends and wives being dragged to the film, and getting royally pissed over that element. I've already told my GF the scoop and I can tell she's just going to humor me and go (she also bought me the Rorschach figure for valentine's day. she's a saint). The story is mostly flawless but that part still doesn't sit right with me for plausibility.

as dark and nasty as it might be, I've always read the rape-then-relationship part of WATCHMEN to be a comment on the nature of violent sexual fetishes - not that SS1 asks to be raped, or even that she enjoys it, but she MAY have always had a little something for the Comedian, harboured a secret crush on him, and after the rape, she re-imagines what happened as being a prelude to a relationship by focussing on enjoying the roughness of the experience and ignoring the non-consensual side of the event. This sounds pretty fucked up - and is in no way the norm - but I have read some pretty extreme psychology cases regarding this sort of stuff. I don't think the average woman gets off on being raped, or falls for the rapist - but let's face it, it's a fucked up world, and if just one woman is that fucked up in the head that she can accept rape as a positive advance from a man she secretly wants sexually... There's your situation. It ain't pretty, but it might be where Moore was coming from - just commenting on it, not agreeing with it.

see...it would be great.

I concede your point, but rape fantasies are very different from the real thing, as is s&m, bdsm, etc. But I see where you're going with it, Maybe Moore just didn't have a good grasp on that at the time, or he was just looking to push some buttons. Just thought that might have been a element that could have been changed for the movie: Keep the rape scene but don't add the picture kissing part. Just my 2 cents

Just got back from seeing this and have to say it is fantastic. The final third of the film falls apart but hey, blame that on the script writer. The first two thirds are beautiful.

And I agree that such things do happen in a complicated, fucked up world. I actually DO believe it only happened that once, too. And I believe that Sally loved Eddie very much despite his many sins.<BR><BR>But I know it was all REALLY awkward explaining this element of the story to my wife, who immediately pointed out that Moore--as a man who (as far as I know) has never been raped--arguably didn't earn the right to make that little character turn. My response: maybe not, but thank Christ that didn't stop him from doing it (and other clueless, brilliant writers like him).<BR><BR>Weirdly, even though the rape element IS difficult, I LIKE the cringeworthy complexity and inappropriateness of it. The problem is, of course, that it plays into the "she wanted" misogynistic myth. But anyone who's a deeper reader can see through that. And I don't really care what the author's intent was.<BR><BR>Sorry. Just rambling.

i'm writing the screenplay right now.

These sorts of "arguments" walk a fine line between being mildly entertaining and truly sad.<p><p>Person 1: "I see that I have hurt your sensitive feelings, because you seem quite upset. Clearly you're inferior to me because you cannot present your point without yelling."<p><p>Person 2: "Oh grow up. Not all of us live in our mother's basement. Nice try, you sad little person, but when you're ready to join us adults, let me know."<p><p>...And of course you have to include a smiley face and a bunch of "lol"s to show the other person that you're perfectly calm and not bothered by their remarks, since that will clearly make the other person more upset and get more out of control.<p><p>Come on, these are high-school-internet-chat-room debate tactics, do people honestly think that it makes them seem more credible? It's especially sad when both sides do the exact same things to try and "get" to the other person. Present your argument and be done with it. Responding to the other guy's jabs with nothing more than "See, you're insulting me with your poorly-written words because you're angry and juvenile, so I laugh at you" only makes you look like a complete idiot. Stick to your point or sit down.

Do tell. Details please!

Person 3: "I take AICN TB seriously. *Very* seriously. And I've come to the inescapable conclusion that you're all sad, pathetic creatures of a limited, easily definable kind. For the LIFE of me, I don't know WHY I frequent this inane website. Low life, transparent, self-righteous scum--the lot of you."<BR><BR>;) LOL!

Dark Knight was painful to wait for and this is just as bad. Just don't want to get my hopes too high so I go into Phantom Menace depression if I get let down.....but I really don't think that will happen. We know he's nailed the visuals, and every interview I read with Snyder he seems really on top of the concepts and themes. I love how he says the film will comment and subvert the comic book film status quo as the series did with comics themselves. That's a very good observation that a lot of other directors wouldn't have realized or implemented. I wasn't bowled over by 300 even though it looked awesome. But I think part of that was Miller's dialogue. It reads great but not always awesome when you hear it spoken. Like what Harrison Ford to said to Lucas on the New Hope script "You can write this shit, but you can't say it". I think the Spirit really drove that home. Loved Dawn of the Dead though and my curiosity is killing me at this point!

Yes, I am a Squid lover. http://tinyurl.com/g7tev

If only all of use could be so lucky as to see the squid.

Person 4: "Well, if I openly do every gesture that I'm accused of doing, and present it in a jokingly-mirrored fashion, I can TOTALLY get away with it."<p><p> Actually that was genuinely funny. I guess we could list a few more dozen Persons if we tried. I wasn't just talking to you by the way. But you're giving the "you must be at least *this* mature to debate with me and voice your opinion here" impression to others, so I'd say you and I take our AICN TB's equally serious. =p

If Snyder had never changed the ending then you people would not lose countless hours of your lives debating a fucking cartoon hand drawn squid. YOU IDIOTS I AM GLAD IT IS NOT IN THERE. NOW YOU CAN CONTEXTUALISE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR LIVES BY THE EXISTENCE OF A FUCKING FICTIONAL SQUID.

Interesting for me to direct Watchmen. I know his career is on the downturn. Yet I think he would have ate up this material.

For me the subtext is they don't like the ending. That's why the squid should be there. It solves that issue. I want the dam squid.

And LOL indeed. Being a self-satisfied, self-righteous TB prick at times IS good fun. Glad to be of service... :>

He worships a snake deity. That's probably where the idea for the squid even originated from. Now I'm waiting for people to rush to his defense saying it's his *right* to worship a snake if he wants.

snake handling is in my blood. my mother yelled at me when i was in the bathroom one day "what are you doing in there so long." the impure just don't understand.

I look forward to reading about how he consumed more calories at a meal before the movie than the entire population of Ethiopia did last year. <p> "Well we started of with the deep fried lard ...."

The indigenous population in North America was primarily wiped out by old world diseases for which they had no natural immunity. The rest we killed piecemeal with single shot rifles and starvation. <P> I don't make any excuses for the mistreatment of Native Americans by the European settlers and the American Government. It is America's 2nd original sin after slavery. Andrew Jackson should be removed from the twenty dollar bill for what he did to the Cherokee. <P> My objection was to Moore's holier than thou assertion that Americans are cowards because they like guns and are afraid of a fair fight. <P> Anyone that knows anything about history or geopolitics knows that the amount of damage that has been done to the world by the legacy of the British Empire is astounding. And most of the peoples they conquered did not lose in a "fair fight". Truthfully no military in the world is interested in a "fair fight". Its like that line in "Patton", "Make the other sonofabitch die for their county." <P> The situations in Israel and the Pakistan/Indian conflict as well as the very unstable situation in many African countries can be traced to British and general European colonialism. I notice you have no excuses for the "Opium War." And yes I am well aware that Americans were heavily involved in the "China Trade". <P> I will concede that quality American action stars is very poor. Today's young Americans seem to be extra sissified. I truly hang my head in shame that we have to keep going to Britain and Australia to find manly action stars. <P> I still however blame Britain and the rest of Europe for inventing reality TV.

Christian Bale is no longer my god. It is now SQUID. All hail our might squid overlords from Dimension X.

comes across as such a cunt. Like a smarmy middle aged ex pornstar who's done his fair share of coke during his career and let his one worthwhile attribute distinguish whatever modesty he once had in what was, no doubt, a prize-winning cumshot. The squid set up could have been twisted in some other way during the comic's production so that the final effect was somewhat more in tone with what had come before. The squid is a damp squib.

I only read this review as a test - A test to see if you could write a review without (a) mentioning your sex life (b) mentioning your sexual fantasies (c) mentioning anything remotely related to sex or bodily functions... You were doing pretty well, and I thought you might actually prove me wrong - And then you went and destroyed it in the last paragraph... "the perfect 5 hour wet dream" - Dude, I stopped having those when I was 13 - Why do you have to go and reduce the movie to your lard-ass bodily functions? It's like your a twittering 8yo who still giggles when 'boobies' appear on a TV Screen...

your a twittering - you're a twittering

Is THAT GONE TOO? That was THE POINT of the comics tone!!!

I'm so sick of you all. New ending makes sense and is a better commentary for cinema... Plus there is an epic Directors cut on the way. This film is an epic, as close to perfect studio picture, love letter and companion piece you will get.

That will definitely end the Squid debate.

WHY A SQUID!? HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THAT??? If it had been a giant reptile, would it have been blasphemous to Moore's sham religion? If a giant squid makes sense, how about a giant damn albatross? Or a monstrous chipmunk? I always felt it to be anticlimactic. Think of Jupiter at the end, crying 'These people only wanted Tandoori to go and now they're dead' with a fucking squid jutting out in all directions. It's just so RIDICULOUS. It's something for a studio to be EMBARASSED for even being ASKED to allow in a potential multi-million dollar feature film. A giant squid is in the same realm occupied by big explosions and Vin Diesel as Dr. Manhattan. Wouldn't work in an existential film about people in costumes for real. Might as well be making X-Men films about Asteroid M and the Savage Lands and Spiderman films about The Clone Saga and Secret Wars then...

Jesus, you won't even read a comic book will you? Listening to a comic book is just the laziest thing I've ever heard. Do you ever read?

thanks for the informative and great review,Harry! I can't wait to see it. I'm doing a pretty good job of not getting my hopes up,but man,Dr.M is loookin' so f'n cool. peace.

was taken directly from Drew McWeeny's (Moriarty) review...

... debate.<br><br>Seriously, it was interesting at first, then it became mildly amusing, but now it's just getting annoying.<br><br>First of all, this horrible attitude some people are taking of "if you don't like the squid you didn't understand it, therefore you're stupid" is really getting on my nerves. Are people really THAT arrogant, to think that their OPINION and TASTE is so profoundly "right" that only neanderthal heathens would possibly dare to disagree with them? Are you so self-centered that you are physically unable to respect the opinions of others? The same also applies, by the way, to people who say "if you liked the squid you're stupid".<br><br>Secondly, and this really does need to be shouted from the damn rooftops, people are placing WAAAAAAAYYYYYY too much importance on the squid's role in the story. Yes, as a visual, an image, it is absolutely brilliant and horrifying and I genuinely feel a sense of loss at not seeing the calamari-based death and destruction on the big screen, possibly the most suitable medium ever invented for this kind of imagery. However, for people to claim that the squid is the "most important" bit, or "the heart of the story", or any such other claims that we have all seen made on these talkbacks, is quite frankly ridiculous.<br><br>The meaning behind Watchmen (one meaning, at least - there are so many levels to the story that there are too many to count) is in the reasons behind Veidt's master plan, in which the squid, as horrifying and impressive as it may be, is only ever the TOOL with whih the plan is carried out. The plan is to save humanity from destroying itself, a fate that is inevitable (at least in Moore's alternate reality - you could argue in this reality too, but that's for a different type of discussion) unless intervention is made. The nature of Veidt's intervention is to create a tragedy so profound and devestating that all of humanity unites, NOT - repeat, NOT - in defence against the forces that caused the tragedy (utopia cannot be brought about through fear), but in the realisation that human life is too precious and too easily ended by forces far greater than we can comprehend to be wasted on petty squabbles based on lines on the map.<br><br>Some people on these boards have recognised this and attempted to move this debate onto the next level, arguing whether the squid achieves this aim BETTER than the method used in the movie, but to me this debate is even more pointless than the "squid is good/squid is bad" debate, as NOBODY HAS SEEN THE MOVIE YET. How can you possibly debate the respective merits of two options if you have only ever personally experienced ONE of the options? It's like trying to debate whether tea is better than coffee without ever having tasted coffee!!<br><br>Once people HAVE seen the movie, this aspect of the debate does carry some form of merit, but until then it is nothing more than petty bickering and pointless theorising. I have plenty of theories of my own as to how the "Jon" ending can work - and how it can work BETTER than the squid ending - but without seeing how it actually plays out there's no point in me discussing them.<br><br>Please, please, please, people, STOP with this fishy fighting. There are so many themes and ideas within Watchmen that merit discussion that I could type for a week and not list them all. Why are we all wasting so much time on one plot point that comes and goes in the space of about 4 pages?

i mean i will be going for sure but no one i know gives a fuck about it. and I mean no one. the casual friday night movie goers at my work could not care less. this could be a costly flop. hope i am wrong but the signs are not great.

...that its made me realize how great the heroes of Marvel and DC really are. I'm not saying I hated Watchmen I just think the character are over the top whinny douche bags "heroes". I mean these characters don't even deserve to be called heroes they suck so much. Superheroes inspire us to be better and yes they can be flawed and self-involved (especially after the success of Watchmen) but they aren't all morally bankrupt to the point of being completely useless like these characters are. And I think the squid was as stupid as nipples on Batman.

Why did Moore choose a SQUID??? Why not just a huge, lumbering black mass of gelatin? Would have been more menacing. And the squid in Watchmen isn't even Lovecraftian looking. It looks more like Shuma Gorath than Cthulhu. FAIL.

Hope to be proved wrong but its an R rated movie,artisitc (from the reviews so far), 2hour and 40 minuted movie based on a property that is not broadly known in the mainstream, with no name actors. <p> Lots of people have commented but for me its missing at least one well known actor. Even the first Star Wars movie had Alec Guiness. <p> Its Zack's name, some fancy posters and trailers they need to get the mainstream audience there.<p> I think it will make budget, and do well in DVD sales etc. Particularly given the "geeks" longer cut will be on DVD/Blu-ray.

Just thought you should know that. I think that helps with his writing.

geeks for V for Vendetta only earned it 70mil U$ (but I'm sure World $ plus DVD etc helped it make a profit)<br> Still hope the Watch-geeks could get this one to at least 150mil U$ and maybe a beter result overseas<br> I know I'm going to have some "oh no" moments in the film when I see it in less than a week, but can't speak highly enough about Snyder's efforts to date.<br> Even before seeing the theatrical release, I want to contribute to a small statuette of/for Zac with an inscription below: "In Gratitude"

rorshach has been described as travis bickle in a mask since the comic came out<p> its what bugs me when reviewers say that they get irritated by his voiceovers on the diary<p> did bickle also irritate them?

it's here http://www.absoluteradio.co.uk/player/6642/the_actors_behind_nite_owl__silk_spectre_and_sally_jupiter_from_watchmen.html:sd plus interviews with other cast and with Snyder

http://tinyurl.com/dxkget yes, she does talk about THAT outfit, and her ass

Hollywood Reporter: http://tinyurl.com/azp9ka Now imagine what the sucker would have written if the squid was in it.

The Hollywood Reporter's review of The Watchmen is one of the most vicious reviews of anything that I have ever read...and to tell you the truth, the review matched my opinion of 300, which was a horrible, horrible...and completely overrated movie.

It's condescending and automatically fails for that crime. Any critic who condescends isn't worth paying attention to. They cant separate their feelings from what is on the screen and assume everyone will feel the same way and report it to you in that way.

Its only based on 12 reviews, but 10 out of 12 are glowingly positive. Expect it to settle around 75-80%. Now listen as a Hater Nation wails with grief, with nothing to hate, they turn their attention inside, to themselves, the real object of their hate; their own self-loathing endlessly projected onto things outside themselves as a kind of deflection / overcompensation. Poor, poor haters. There, there. There, there.

Snyder has failed on a epic level if that is the case.

It never criticizes the movie. Its pretty much just targeting the whole comic book genre in movies. As if after TDK and Iron Man he's had enough.

They turned this great GN into a post 9/11 farce, where in essence they say "it's good for america to blow up capital cities of the world where all intellectual are to save the more simple people and give them peace. A big let down and no one can condone this moral code.

You're not wrong. The squid debate has been talked to death and is done as far as I'm concerned. At this point, I'm just curious to know whether the alternate climax will work for me or not. I'm fairly sure the rest of it will sit well with me (the apparently inexplicable and horrible old age/Nixon makeup aside). <BR><BR>Interested to know your take on the rape problem (discussed in the thread above).<BR><BR>LaserPants, who are these haters of whom you speak? I imagine that your calculations are correct regarding overall critical acclaim. Of course, there have been plenty of movies that have fallen into that range that I've disliked--even "hated." But I expect I'll at least like and admire the WATCHMEN film adaptation.

Scan through the posts above, and in the other TBs about WATCHMEN. Pay special attention to the one with the clip of Laurie and Dan infiltrating the prison. There are countless posts from people who haven't even seen the movie yet, decrying it as a disaster. Thusly is demonstrated the haters.

Both this critic and the other critic who hated the film do indeed seem to loathe and ridicule Moore's basic premise itself. And both reviews were sloppily, lazily written. In fact, they remind me so much of famous literary critic Edmund Wilson's ridiculous pan of Tolkien's LOTR in which he betrays more about his own failures and limitations as a reader than he does about Tolkien's failures and limitations as a writer.

You're not a supposed to condone the moral code. This is exactly the same thing as in the novel. Do the ends justify the means? Are they both heroes and villains? The answers aren't shoved down your throat, there are no clear answers in the novel, nor are they in the film. YOU have to be an active participant and decide for yourself.

You've gotta admit, though: that prison riot clip was pretty mediocre out of context. In fact, I think that ironically the WATCHMEN marketing team alienated a lot of fans by releasing clips like that one (many of which use Snyder's patented slo/fast-mo effect). Most people in the viewing audience have never heard of WATCHMEN before. But they have heard of 300. And these clips were mostly meant to appeal to them.

They know the comic geeks will see the film, however outraged they might be. Everyone else, though--that's the hard sell. My guess is that the marketing for this film will pay off in spades.

The 300 was such a badly put together, and overrated film, and the HR review of Watchmen seems to only echo that same empty feeling I got when I saw 300. I'll see Watchmen for myself, and judge it independently, but frankly, I thought the graphic novel was an overrated bore, although with some very smart themes...but a failure nonetheless. Moore seems to have been inspired by old sex comics, from Mexico, to America, and France, like Heavy Metal Magazine...and various underground sex comics from the 70s/80s...with political overtones, but really, The New Teen Titans of the early 80s (Marv Wolfman and George Perez)and the early 80's era X-Men, and The Legion of Super Heroes, were better books. Yes, they were missing the heavy sex, save for Heavy Metal, and the real life historical references, the thing that made Watchmen stand-out from the others, but Watchmen...although it has intelligence, it has no soul or heart, where the other books that I mentioned, had that, and intelligence to boot, in addition to stories that moved with action and facinating ideas and flights of fantasy and science fiction. On the contrary, Watchmen is sterile and largely sits there in cerebral contemplation of itself, and its themes, while forgetting how to touch its reading audience with broad emotion...save for paranoia, fear and pain...and that is its fatal flaw.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1 117939777.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 <p> Seemed to think it will please the fans; bemuse much of the mainstream with its complexity. Brilliant in places, flawed in others.<p> Still, a solid review

He loves films you don't. It's called personal taste, children.

Do they like it or not? They don't seem to really take a side. And mentioning possible box office in a review is very unprofessional.

Handicapping box office is what Variety DOES. It's a trade publication. It's the same thing as Billboard predicting sales in album reviews.

The giant squid to signify a being of power of destruction so unlike anything seen on earth, so as to shock the world into forgetting its troubles, to lure those in power into working together toward a better future... but Rorschach's journal was still out there, to undo all Ozimandias' 'good' work. Whose side were you on at the end, Rorschach’s direct view of the world or humanity’s chance to start over; or both? The book ends wherever and however you want it to end, you are given the choice. Having not seen the film I hope that it too still gives you that choice. I would also comment that a running theme in the book was that science helped and also hindered society. Dr Manhattan left earth to muse this fact; the cancer spreading through a society (massive symbolism for many an issue there), his role in the Vietnam War etc. A massive nuclear or whatever explosion (as I believe the film depicts) feels just too absolutely scientific in origin for the Dr Manhattan of the book to agree to it being unleashed. The book made it clear (well to me) that it had to be organic, something of this world but not of the world they new, for everyone to reassess their surroundings. The giant squid. Some would think alien from outer space and some would look to the seas, the plants etc. Wherever they looked it didn’t matter, it showed that there was something else, to give them pause to rediscover that that there was more to a human existence than just destroying each other. Dr Manhattan realised it and let Ozimandias do what he must, Humanity deserved another chance to start over.

I'm guessing over fifty million bucks on opening weekend, even with the R rating.

Ahem...FUCK ALAN MOORE. If he were half the fucking 'genius' he thinks he is, he would have taken proper legal action to protect all of his precious works a long time ago. I enjoy his stuff, but he and his opinions can both fuck off in general terms. And come to think of it, so can most of the whiney talkbackers on AICN. Cheers!

And he doesn't need to protect his works, because they're already the way he wants them to be - in comic book form. The lad understands there's a desire to have films made from some of his creations, but that doesn't mean he has to be part of that process. Instead, he opts out, and any cash which would have come his way goes to the artist he worked with on the project. That's about the fairest and most decent thing anyone could do in the circumstances. Of course he's batshit insane, but that's all part of his charm.

personal taste? no..there are indeed such things as shitty films...and harry tend to love them. mummy series? that last indy film? shitty films.

300 & The Matrix weren't known properties to the mainstream either, and they made a shitload of money. On the brightside if it does tank, we don't have to worry about them doing something stupid like making a sequel. I think it will be a moderate hit, but nowhere even close to DK #'s But I keep wondering when the comic book film bubble will burst. People get bored with this stuff eventually, so I just hope we get a few more good ones in there before there is superhero fatigue. I really hope Green Lantern is cool and not cheesy, and I still don't know why the hell 100 Bullets hasn't been made into a cable series.

OK, so firstly, I loved this film after taking a night to digest it. However, leaving the cinema I felt gut-punched. Reason being is that the final act falls apart under the weight of having to explain Manhattan’s justification and Ozy's plan when they haven't really been foreshadowed other than making it clear they were working together. I think the one scene in the film that summed up my feelings on the whole is Rorschach's death scene. *SPOILERS* Manhattan and Rorschach's conversation outside the Arctic lair is beautiful and tense, the actor marvellous and the direction brilliant. However! As soon as Manhattan kills him, there is an air of silliness. Nite Owls 'noooo' is somewhat akin to that of Darth Vader’s! (Not even kidding...there is a second or two in between the act and the reaction!). The final scene with Adrian being attacked by Nite Owl and Rorschach just oozes 'this is a set-piece' and ultimately comes off as dumb, silly and camp in a way that none of the rest of the film does. For some reason, Ozy begins to super-jump in this scene! Add to that giving Manhattan’s 'Nothing ever ends' line to Laurie and ending the film with My Chemical Romance (the music was so well chosen up to that point...Bob Dylan's All Along the Watchtower would have worked brilliantly here, ending the film with a kind of haunting 'lack') and I felt gut punched! However, the rest of the film is beyond spot on that I've come to forgive the ending that is clearly not Snyder's fault. I can see why they changed it, I really can, but when you have to have a character stand for a good 2 minutes and lecture you on why he is doing what he is doing, then there is no justification for him doing that, y'know? Scriptwriting 101 Mr. Hayter! So, Hayter gets the fans kick to the face, not Snyder here. Snyder has done a brilliant job bringing the screen a world that oozes noir; gritty realism yet adds fantastic comical flourishes. This is the world in the comics and Snyder has brought it to the screen in all its glory. Rorschach is played amazingly - the guy was born to play Kovacs, and no matter what the un-knowing public will say, it is Batman who will be stealing Rorschach’s voice. It was human and revealing where Bale's was just plain distracting, stupid and funny. Really this character is spot on. As is Nite Owl, Manhattan (whose Mars sequence is almost perfectly realised...seemed to rush a bit at the 'reconstruction' segment and I missed the spinning bottle) and Comedian. In fact, Jeffrey Dean Morgan is so good as the Comedian I think we may have a better, more realised character on screen than we do in the comic. I understand flaming arrows will come my way for saying that, but just wait until you see him - absolutely everything you thought he should be and a lot more than you realised he could be. There's a kind of sad loneliness to him that his childish grin during Vietnam scenes masks. He's a man lost without a purpose who has no one around because of how dedicated to his purpose he was. The opening sequence is exactly as Harry wrote - it's not a fight, it's a murder. I cringed several times and felt so sorry for the Comedian. He never stood a chance and as he is thrown out of that window, my stomach turned and my heart went with him. The wonderful thing about this film is how multi-layered it is. You'll find yourself wanting to pause and take in the glorious details that Snyder has ensured are in the film. I understand that the cinematic cut is one that Snyder is not too pleased with, and that is fine. Do not be put-off by that because this film is so much better than it could have been - it is a gift. Rarely is something so treasured realised in this fine a form. Sure, there are missteps, but hey, nothing's perfect right? Count our blessings and enjoy the moments that come as close to perfection as God would allow. It's not quite the film I always hoped it would be, but it IS 2 thirds the film I never thought it could be and for that I am damn giddy. Ladies and gentleman, this is your chance to watch the watchmen you knew back when the comics were published on the big ol' silver screen in all their glory. My grin is larger than Julia Roberts' right now and I cannot wait to see it again. The sex scene (the one that has been flamed across ‘teh internets’ for days!)is, honestly, just brilliant. I think it worked fabulously and is engineered to point out just how silly it all is. Laurie (in her leather boots and nothing else) going at it with Dan in Archie above the city. Yes, it's silly, but then, isn't that what we're meant to think of these people who dress up a bats, I mean owls, and fight crime? P.P.S: Yes, I just attempted to deconstruct the meaning from a scene in Watchmen the film. I'm giddy that we have a film we can do that with. Huzzah! Another P.S: yes, I know this review is shoddily written and for that I apologise. Any questions just ask away in talk back and really, go into this movie with nothing to fear. Snyder has done it.

Stephen Hawking is a genius, Einstein was a genius, those freaky little kids they trundle out on news reports and doco's, they're geniuses. <p> Moore is a hypocrite, decrying Hollywood and all who sail in her while signing up to do a guest spot on the Simpsons. Fuck him, he's a comic book writer, nothing more. <p> Like his stuck up fans, he thinks his shit don't stink and he operates on another level than most, but really he only railed against the American comic book system because he hadn't the talent to do what they did. <p> Again, not a genius, but a hypocrite and an egotistical narcassist. I'm sure I just spelt narcassist wrong, but you know what I mean.

"I'm sure I just spelt narcassist wrong" <br><br> Way to go, genius.

Consider this...most likely when Moore was writing this story, he probably had a list of various external threat to all humanity scenarios to use at the end, and probably just randomly settled on one. For another thing, it might not have even been a 'squid' before Gibbons got a hold of it and actually designed it. If Moore hadn't decided on the squid, and picked Manhattan instead, or an alien invasion force, or a natural disaster of earth shattering proportions, it would still be the exact same story. All the 'squid' needs to be is a framejob done by Ozymandias that makes the world think they need to pull together for the common goal of saving themselves. And Manhattan works just as well as the squid. And when it comes to common sense, Manhattan being that plot device makes a lot more of it than exploding a psychic squid from space.

The thing that always has annoyed me about Terrence Malick films, besides the fact that they suck, is that when I complain that they suck some a-hole is always around to say, "But - but - but - you don't understand. It's a 'tone poem' in film!" Malick films may very well be tone poems in film - but the poems themselves SUCK, and are on the level of the fake folk song played in the "guitar smash" scene in ANIMAL HOUSE. 300, on the other hand, actually achieved the feat of translating heroic poetry to film. It did so largely because Miller had managed the same transposition to comic art, and Snyder just followed the blueprint, but he still DID it.

Is that any changes made should be things that are taken from the work itself, used different or reworked. Watchmen was smart to USE something that was already in the story instead of inventing something new. That is the squids ultimate flaw. It comes out of nowhere literally from another comic and was thrown into Watchmen. At least Manhattan is in the book the whole time.

http://tinyurl.com/a9vyub

For the squid, Harry.

reviews frequently have sentences that oddly omit the word 'the' ('pic was shot in vancouver' for example), it's because their editors put the articles through a find-and-replace filter to replace words like 'movie' and 'tv show' with hip, cool Mountain Dew totally extreme alternatives, such as 'pic' and 'skein' in a sad, sad attempt to be cool and relevant. You see a few decades ago, Variety coined the phrase 'sitcom' and it caught on in pop culture, almost immediately. Ever since then it has tried (unsuccessfully) dozens of times to try to introduce other words into pop culture. It's basically a rule at Variety, in your article you HAVE to say 'skein' instead of tv show, and you HAVE to say 'pic' instead of movie. So they filter the articles to make sure no renegade writies try to slip a literate article under their noses. This is basically the journalistic equivilant of someone giving themselves a nickname and then referring to themselves by it in the hopes that other people will start to call them by said nickname.

so many people are saying this review is crap because "Harry liked this movie" or "he hated this movie" so "that makes him an idiot." Get over yourselves people. You don't agree with his opinion on a movie that's fine but to make that a blanket statement that all the movies he like will suck just because you didn't agree with his opinion on another movie? That's just stupid.

Badlands was a piece of shit. Nobody goes on a murder spree across the country and then gets all giddy about his capture. 'Ooh, ooh! THERE's the spot where you caught me! Hey, want my zippo lighter? I won't be needing it any more since I'm gonna fry in a few months! YEE-HAW!' And to make matters worse, the COPS compliment him on what an extraordinary individual he is even while they're helping him to death row!!! Absolutely retarded.

You people are getting too worked up. It'll be remade in 5-10 years anyways at the rate Hollywood is doing things nowadays. So if you dont like this version, Im sure another will be on the horizon.

shut the fuck up, please. have you ever even read from hell? FUCK YOU. its narcissist, dumbass.

Sounds like Viedt isn't the bad guy in this movie? So then wtf!? Sounds pretty damn stupid if that's the case. I guess I'll wait and watch it for free on cable. Thanks for the warning Harry.

I don't always agree with the big star-struck lug, but when something hits him deep in his big geeky belly, it's infectious as hell.

Rorscach sounds like the dark knight only 10 times worse. Nearly 3 hours of that..no thanks. He doesn't sound crazy or threatening, just goofy and like he's trying too hard.

The most successful Comic of all time is a failure now? Those comics you mentions arrant better. Watchmen doesn't forget how to touch its reading audience with broad emotion... the book is about how precious life is and how wonderful the good and bard are to have just experienced it. It doesn't fail at anything it just does things differently.

"hadn't the talent to do what they did" That's a very dumb thing to say. Moore walked out of DC at the top -- he was (nearly) to comic writing what Kirby was to comic art -- everybody since is standing on his shoulders.

No, Veidt is the "bad"(or "good") guy (depending on your perspective)

OK, I'd just like to say now what bugged me about the squid. The Squid sent a telepathic message because its brain was "cloned from a psychic". A PSYCHIC. There was no establishment of psychic powers in that world (unless you count Jon, who never remotely demonstrated telepathic ability). Additionally, there were NO POWERS other than Jon. The whole existence of "Psychic"s undercuts that. The whole Psychic thing is totally pulled out of left field and in that sense, the squid is an improvised CHEAT. The Squid simply DOESN'T WORK -- its the weakest element of the story. (weaker than the password, or Rorshach kicking apart a toilet bowl) You have to look PAST it to make the ending work.

I completely understand what it means and I still think it's stupid. I don't know if I'll see the movie or not but if the squid is a deal breaker for you don't go see the movie but for the love of God shut the fuck up about it.

Really. This flick bleeds, and sweats and exudes beauty. I want to thank Snyder for creating such a beautiful dream. You'll witness it.

Get over it. If you think that, then you're not intelligent enough to understand why he sounds like Batman. I'd suggest you see if before judging.

The book seemed long winded dialogue wise...becoming densely conversational...and overly drawn-out, without advancing the plot much at times, that's all, I think they could have made their point in half the time...and moved on. But given that, not everyone is right...on everything, so perhaps I am wrong?<BR><BR>I hope the movie is great...and I will take a wait and see stance until I see it, to give an opinion.

This will show how awwesome it is: <br /><br /> http://tinyurl.com/br9z7k

I got that as well but the book makes it work. The dialog is a bit robotic sometimes as well. Moore is an indulgent excessive writer. I just don't think that is a bad thing. He breaks the rules and makes it work. <p> The way I'm seeing the film is as a great companion piece. Thats the film Snyder made.

Have you seen a little movie called JFK? Remember that riveting sequence where Donal Sutherland basically talks for 20 minutes straight? You're on the friggin' edge of your seat the whole time. With a properly directed, acted, and edited film, there are very few limits. JFK-era Oliver Stone (provided special effects were good enough back then, which is doubtful) could have pulled off Watchmen, I think, and it would've been magnificent. Still hoping this is good, though.

My take on the so-called "rape problem" is that it is not a problem IN THEORY. <br><br>Unfortunately, I say this because I have known someone who was raped. Her behaviour, in particular as it relates to her sexuality, changed dramatically after the incident, becoming far more reckless and promiscuous. While she did not actually go back to her attacker (he was a stranger and was never caught), she certainly associated with the type of person she would not have even considered before the incident.<br><br>Take into account as well the numerous examples of women in abusive relationships who don't leave even when given the chance over and over again and I certainly have no problem, from a psychological sort of standpoint, with Sally hooking up with Eddie years after the incident.<br><br>In theory.<br><br>In practice, I do have a problem of sorts with the way Moore developed this plotline. The whole "Eddie is Laurie's father" plot point is fairly central to one of the key moments in the story, that of Laurie persuading Jon to return to earth (the whole "miracle of humanity" thing). In that sense, I don't think we are ever given a clear enough insight into Sally's character to tell us exactly what feelings she had that justified this act. Moore just seems to use it, story-wise, as a shocking moment to give Laurie an emotional reaction, without truly giving us sufficient psychological weight to explain such a moment.<br><br>Of course, considering we see the event only through Laurie's eyes and she cannot understand why her mother went back to Eddie, perhaps it was a conscious choice on Moore's part NOT to explain it, putting the audience in the same position as Laurie at that moment. However, I think this explanation is letting Moore off lightly.<br><br>That being said, to be honest I reckon you could pick up any book on your bookshelf and find AT LEAST one incident where a character does or says something out of the ordinary without sufficient explanation as to WHY they do or say it, so I don't think we need to make too big a deal of it in the grand scheme of things. The alternative would be to have all our favourite novels so crammed full of amateur psychology that there would be no room for the stories that made us read them in the first place.<br><br>It is certainly plausible for a rape victim to go back to her attacker, particularly if she knew him and already had some sort of feelings for him. Moore's use of this may be suspect, but it is unfortunately not the impossibility that some have made it out to be and CERTAINLY isn't anything to do with "rape fantasy" or "asking for it".

..but i have never understood why people have made such a big deal out of how hard this would be to turn into a film. the book isn't that deep or challenging. don't get me wrong either i fucking love the book but i have always thought people have gone overboard about how intelligent and special it is. i am not saying that i am some super smart brainiac. i am thick as pig shit to be honest but i have just never felt the book was as mindblowing and difficult as others do.

...and I celebrate all that rule breaking, really. Only crazies, crooks, fools, or visionary geniuses break the rules...and although I don't care for crazies, crooks, and fools--I love visionaries...and geniuses! To that end, I have to say, I think Moore is a visionary genius, and people like him...and those who are empathetic enough to recognize such people, make the world a much better place. So...you're right!!! Smile!!!!!

...I think the talk about how Watchmen needs a 12 hour miniseries to work visually is bullshit. A 150 minute movie should do fine, if not feel a little rushed, but the 200 minute cut should be long enough. There's not all that many plot points. And just the basic nature of film would suggest that about half of the chapters be heavily truncated. Who wants to see Veidt trudging through several paragraphs worth of expository dialogue while kicking the shit out of Rorschach?

Are person who is sexually assualted can be mentally imprinted by the attack. Now, I know that this is said to be true of children...but whether this occures with teens, or adults, I don't know, yet with kids, it can create a split personality, 1)...the original personality before the attack, 2) a second personality post attack, and 3) a third blank personality. The point is, when a person is assailed, sexually, the body is forced to experience sexual pleasure, even if it is not wanted or invited, this would include orgasm...and that is what causes the mental imprinting. The body and mind begin to associated sexual pleasure with seamy kinds of sex, rough sex, secretive sex, S&M, sexual abuse, and other forms of dangerous and risky sex...or other sexually related matters like experimental sex, and or, sexual perversions, etc., and when that happens...either the person, the victim, will seek it out, more dangerous sexual situations and taboos, like an addictive drug addict searching for a secretive drug score, not wanting friends or family to know that they have been mentally or morally compromised, or they will do the complete opposite, and flee from that sort of lifestyle. <BR><BR>I'll put it to you this way, do you remember the first time that you engaged in any sexual activity...masturbation, or even sex with another person, you couldn't shut it off, or stop...well, that is also a form of imprinting. Once the bell is rung, it can't be unrung. Your friend seems to be dealing with that, issues related to imprinting from the attack...and is actively seeking out situations that place her in similar circumstances because that is what her mind...subconsciously, and consciously, is demanding of her, even though it is something she detests, the impulse haunts her. This doesn't happen with every victim, my point, however is that it can...and from you description, it has happened to your friend. <BR><BR>There is one more thing that you should consider. Was she a virgin at the time of the attack, not very experienced, and or, did she contract a disease...ala HIV??? If this was the way she was introduced to sex, it may be the only way she can relate to it...as aggressive...cruel, and dark. She may feel like she has been compromised to the point where she blames herself, and feels unredeemable, or damaged, and thus, not good enough or worthy of a better life, or lover/life-mate...as if, it is her fault, which it is not!<BR><BR>There is a song by the Offspring. I think it is new, but I am unsure??? It is about a girl who was raped and about the young man in her life who was too young to realize it, or help? He didn't know what had happened. Years later, reflecting on his friend's changed behaviour and life outlook, and how the incident change her life, he through an epiphany, suddenly looks back and understands what happened...and reaches out to her to try and support her emotionally, so that she can preserve what is left of her life...and help her survive and not let that horrible assault crush her spirit for life. I have only heard the song once, last Saturday. The title of the song is the young woman's name...and I didn't retain that title, as I only heard it that once, but I hope you find the track...and give it to your friend...and offer your emotional support to her and suggest that perhaps the two of you can talk to a theorapist about this incident...before it is too late.<BR><BR>Writing her a letter and telling her of your love for her, as a friend, and your concern for her, may be an ice breaker for deeper discussions and a welcomed change in her. Maybe she just needs an open ear? After that, once you know that she has read the letter, let it rest for a while, and just be her friend and see if she responds, and if she doesn't, at least you tried your best. Good Luck and God Bless you Both!!!

A person who is sexually assualted can be mentally imprinted by the attack. Now, I know that this is said to be true of children...but whether this occures with teens, or adults, I don't know, yet with kids, it can create a split personality? 1)...the original personality before the attack, 2) a second personality post attack, and 3) a third blank personality. The point is, when a person is assailed, sexually, the body is forced to experience sexual pleasure, even if it is not wanted or invited, this would include orgasm...and that is what causes the mental imprinting. The body and mind begin to associate sexual pleasure with seamy kinds of sex, rough sex, secretive sex, S&M, sexual abuse, and other forms of dangerous and risky sex...or other sexually related matters like experimental sex, and or, sexual perversions, etc., and when that happens...either the person, the victim, will seek it out, more dangerous sexual situations and taboos, like an addictive drug addict searching for a secretive drug score, not wanting friends or family to know that they have been mentally or morally compromised, or they will do the complete opposite, and flee from that sort of lifestyle. <BR><BR>I'll put it to you this way. Do you remember the first time that you engaged in any sexual activity...masturbation, or even sex with another person? You couldn't shut it off, or stop...well, that is also a form of imprinting. Once the bell is rung, it can't be unrung. Your friend seems to be dealing with that, issues related to imprinting from the attack...and is actively seeking out situations that place her in similar circumstances because that is what her mind...subconsciously, and consciously, is demanding of her, even though it is something she detests, the impulse haunts her. This doesn't happen with every victim, my point however, is that it can...and from you description of the situation, it has happened to your friend. <BR><BR>There is one more thing that you should consider. Was she a virgin at the time of the attack, not very experienced, and or, did she contract a disease...ala HIV??? If this was the way she was introduced to sex, it may be the only way she can relate to it...as aggressive...cruel, and dark. She may feel like she has been compromised to the point where she blames herself, and feels unredeemable, or damaged, and thus, not good enough or worthy of a better life, or lover/life-mate...as if, it is her fault, which it is not!<BR><BR>There is a song by the Offspring. I think it is new, but I am unsure??? It is about a girl who was raped and about the young man in her life who was too young to realize it, or help? He didn't know what had happened. Years later, reflecting on his friend's changed behaviour and life outlook, after a particular night where she was disheveled in appearance, and how the incident change her life, he through an epiphany, suddenly looks back on that night, and understands what happened...and reaches-out to her to try and support her emotionally and spritually, so that she can preserve what is left of her life...and help her survive it, and move to a better place, and not let that horrible assault crush her spirit for the rest of her life. I have only heard the song once, last Saturday. The title of the song is the young woman's name...and I didn't retain that title, as I only heard it that once, but I hope you find the track...and give it to your friend...and offer your emotional support to her, and suggest that perhaps the two of you can talk to a therapist about this incident...before it is too late.<BR><BR>Writing her a letter and telling her of your love for her, as a friend, and your concern for her, may be an ice breaker for deeper discussions and a welcomed change in her. Maybe she just needs an open ear? After that, once you know that she has read the letter, let it rest for a while, and just be her friend and see if she responds, and if she doesn't, at least you tried your best. Good Luck and God Bless you Both!!!

Headgeek tends to get a bit excited but, hey, I loved Blade II.! It's a classic and i reckon Harry is on the money with this review. Anyone who expects anything but style over content (from a man who thought Dawn of the Dead needed a remake) is fooling themselves. I'd sure like to see the DC of Watchmen before the TC but the wait for this movie has been so lengthy I doubt I'm going to be able to hold out. IMAX here I come.

"I have watched the WATCHMEN. WATCHMEN wasn’t something I discovered because my father handed it to me. It wasn’t because he took me to buy it. I found WATCHMEN all on my own. After creating AICN, for the past 13 years we’ve been tracking WATCHMEN, and many times it looked as though it was going to happen. Then even when this thing did happen, it looked like another force was going to keep it from coming out. AICN is also famous for essentially screaming “We’re mad as Hell and we’re not going to take it anymore!” when Joel Schumacher and Warner Brothers sodomized everything we held dear about BATMAN with BATMAN AND ROBIN. Recently in Talkbacks people have been screaming about “The Squid”, NITE OWL’s belly and slow motion fighting. There are many more changes than that. I love Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ original masterpiece. I cling to every psychiatric session that Rorschach goes to in prison. I love how looking into Rorschach drags that therapist into the pit. Disrupts his home life. I love the Squid, not because it’s a brilliant device, but because it’s bugnuts insane. Because nobody could conceive of it as being the brilliant concoction of the most brilliant man on Earth. I love the entire book that is about Manhattan’s perception of time. And I love that he understands and perceives the universe as someone for whom String Theory isn’t a theory, but a tapestry that he can see. A practical fabric of life that is there for him at all times. I love that when I first discovered WATCHMEN, I had to wait between issues. That it was a part of that Sophmore High School Experience. That I got my driver’s license and had to drive 2 hours round trip to get the next issue, and that only my friends in my high school read those issues and shared that experience with me. That it wasn’t a single session. That it wasn’t a trade paperback experience, but something that I waited and wondered where it was all going. That I got aggravated that it wasn’t necessarily telling me the story I could have possibly conceived or made up at that age. That my friends and I sat around talking about it. Condemning & Condoning Ozymandias. That it introduced me to Alexander The Great. I love that as I’ve run this site… I’ve been able to revisit the material continually and discover not only little things about that story that my brain wasn’t picking up on at the initial readings and even subsequent readings. And I love that in the future I will revisit that book, that material and discover ever more. There is a reason TIME MAGAZINE put it as one of the 100 greatest works. It is deeply textured and nuanced in a way that very few comic books have ever been. And never forget. This was a comic book, long before it became the high brow GRAPHIC NOVEL. An elitest term meant to divorce itself from its comic roots." Harry, it would be nice to see you write a review with the "I" key removed from your keyboard.

As for a rape victim loving her attacker, there IS a fairly good literary precedent. They named the city "Paris" after him. I have criticisms of the story "Watchmen" (which, by the way, I worship, just not uncritically) but the glimpse of Sally and Eddy's complex relationship is not one of them. "You're young, you don't know."

Why? Because he created the scenario where he could reduce the population by half. There was no cause for the effect. He masterminded a genocide plot. He's a sociopath. At least Rorschach had a code. He understood the inherent evil in everyone, and punished it appropriately judged by its severity. I would throw away a chance at world peace, yes, to expose evil. Because evil will show its true colors eventually whether in times of war or peace. The cycle of madness for power would eventually begin all over again. So, to put it bluntly, Ozymandias' ambitions are FUCKED when the New Frontiersman prints Rorschach's writings.

But then why are you reading HARRY'S reviews? Isn't that kinda fundamentally his style? Its not like there'll be a shortage of objective, professionally written reviews. I don't go to a country bar to hear a symphony (actually I don't go to country bars or listen to symphonies, but you know what I mean).

The question arises because of the premise of Ozymandias. It is established that Veidt can (effectively and reliably) see the future and know the consequences of his actions if he works to change it. In this sense, he is the counterpoint to Jon who sees all time simultaneously but is essentially helpless to change anything (Veidt actually breaks Jon's omnipotence with his tachyon trick and makes Jon's view of the future uncertain again). Veidt sees his LACK of action leading to the death of ALL humankind and is complled to commit genocide to save everyone he DOESN'T kill. If you buy the premise, then his actions are moral. Now Moore's/Gibbon's ending is intended to show the fallacy of Veidt's control, but I never really believed that would work (from his post-millenium position, Veidt could have easily dealt with publication of "Rorshach's Journal").

Bottom Line: Ouch. It's not easy being a comic book hero these days. The poor boys have taken their lumps in "Hancock," "The Dark Knight" and even "Iron Man." Self-doubt, angst and inadequacies plague them. And now comes "Watchmen." Its costumed superheroes, operating in an alternative 1985, are seriously screwed up -- and so is their movie. If anyone were able to make a nine-figure movie, something like "Watchmen" would have been the opening-night film at the Sundance Film Festival. As stimulating as it was to see the superhero movie enter the realm of crime fiction in "The Dark Knight," "Watchmen" enters into a realm that is both nihilistic and campy. The two make odd companions. The film, directed by Zack Snyder ("300"), will test the limits of superhero movie fans. If you're not already invested in these characters because of the original graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, nothing this movie does is likely to change that predicament. That's bad news for Warner Bros. and Paramount, which hold domestic and international rights, respectively. Opening weekends everywhere will reflect the huge anticipation of this much-touted, news-making movie. After that, the boxoffice slide could be drastic. Snyder and writers David Hayter and Alex Tse never find a reason for those unfamiliar with the graphic novel to care about any of this nonsense. And it is nonsense. When one superhero has to take a Zen break, he does so on Mars. Of course he does. The film opens with a brutal killing, then moves on to a credit-roll newsreel of sorts that takes us though the Cold War years, landing us in 1985 when Nixon is in his third term, tipping us that we're in an alternate 1985 America, where our superheroes have taken care of Woodward and Bernstein and other forces have evidently taken care of the U.S. Constitution. The opening murder happens to a character called the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), who was once a member of a now-banished team of superheroes called the Masks. Fellow ex-Mask Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) -- his mask one of perpetually shifting inkblots -- takes exception to his old colleague's death. He believes the entire society of ex-crime-fighters is being targeted even as the Doomsday Clock -- which charts tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union that could lead to nuclear war -- nears midnight. His investigation and renewed contacts with former buddies fills us in on the complicated histories and problematic psychiatric makeups of these colleagues. It's all very complicated but not impenetrable. We pick up the relationships quickly enough, but soon realize these back stories owe more to soap operas than to superhero comics. The thing is, these aren't so much superheroes as ordinary human beings with, let us say, comic-book martial arts prowess. The one exception is Billy Crudup's Jon Osterman, aka Dr. Manhattan, who in true comic book fashion was caught in a laboratory accident that turned him into a scientific freak -- a naked, glowing giant, looking a little bit like the Oscar statuette only with actual genitals -- who has amazing God-like powers. These powers are being harnessed by an ex-Mask, Matthew Goode's menacing though slightly effeminate industrialist Adrian Veidt. When Dr. Manhattan's frustrated girlfriend, yet another former Mask, Malin Akerman's Laurie Jupiter, can't get any satisfaction from Dr. M, she turns to the former Nite Owl II, Dan Dreiberg, who seems too much of a good guy to be an actual superhero, but he does miss those midnight prowls. The point is that these superheroes, before Nixon banned them, were more vigilantes than real heroes, so the question the movie poses is, ah-hah, who is watching these Watchmen? They don't seem too much different from the villains. Which also means we don't empathize with any of these creatures. And what's with the silly Halloween getups? Did anyone ever buy those Hollywood Boulevard costumes? The violence is not as bad as early rumors would have one believe. It's still comic book stuff, only with lots of bloody effects and makeup. The real disappointment is that the film does not transport an audience to another world, as "300" did. Nor does the third-rate Chandler-esque narration by Rorschach help. There is something a little lackadaisical here. The set pieces are surprisingly flat and the characters have little resonance. Fight scenes don't hold a candle to Asian action. Even the digital effects are ho-hum. Armageddon never looked so cheesy. The film seems to take pride in its darkness, but this is just another failed special effect. Cinematographer Larry Fong and production designer Alex McDowell blend real and digital sets with earthen tones and secondary colors that give a sense of the past. But the stories are too absurd and acting too uneven to convince anyone. The appearances of a waxworks Nixon, Kissinger and other 1980s personalities will only bring hoots from less charitable audiences. Looks like we have the first real flop of 2009.

Thank you for your kind words.<br><br>Without going into details, I feel fairly certain that what you are describing is what happened to my friend. However, the event happened a long time ago. Along with our other friends, I have always provided her with love and support and it has helped her to come to terms with what happened, evidenced by the fact that she is now, to my constant relief and happiness, in a very heathy, very loving long term relationship.<br><br>The only reason I brought it up in this debate was that some people clearly do not understand the complex and often confusing psychological ramifications of a rape and therefore cannot see how plausible the situation between Eddie and Sally was, resorting to accusations of rape fantasy etc, which is clearly off the mark to the point of being offensive.<br><br>However, thank you again for your comments. It's always nice to know that some people on these boards are not only intelligent, insightful people but also show some genuine care for the others on this board and realise that the real world is ultimately far more important than any movie could ever be.

Corey849, I didn't say I was a genius, just couldn't be arsed checking the spelling, narcissist isn't really an everyday word for me. <p> That leads me to Virtual Ninja, congrats for correcting my fuck up, I was one letter out. If I'd seriously malformed the word I'd be a dumbass, as it is you're a nit-picky little retard, whom I noticed didn't refute what I'd said about Moore other than questioning his genius. <p> Let me spell it out so your mal-formed brain pan may understand it.....I DON'T CONSIDER COMIC BOOK WRITERS TO BE GENIUSES!! Is that clear enough for you dipshit? The man is a hypocrite and an idiot for not protecting his property properly, some genius. And no I haven't read From Hell, is that another property he didn't protect properly, or did he sell his soul on that one? <p> The man failed to protect his property and it's been transferred to film, and I'll watch the movie a million times before I'll read the comic...better that than join the legions of elitist assholes who think the sun shines from Moore's wrinkly old ass. Fuck him, and fuck you both!

A fanboy is still a fanboy.

Those of you who keep listing the films that Harry likes as some sort of proof that he has absolutely no taste need to get some new material. You seem to forget he also endorses some incredibly great films and on occasion he even manages to get obscure, smaller films noticed that might have otherwise slipped through the cracks. As to the whole Squid debate, I can respect both sides yet what mystifies me is why so many intelligent people fail to grasp the concept of an ADAPTATION. Anytime you transfer one medium to another there will be compromises, which means that what you hope for instead of a word-for-word adaptation is something that will make changes when necessary while preserving the integrity and spirit of the original work. The anger over the Squid reminds me of those detractors who stated emphatically that Nolan and Ledger’s Joker would be a failure because his skin was no longer bleached white but rather was makeup sloppily applied. I have no problem with the squid as an ending but I also don’t think it’s an irreplaceable plot point either. The crux of the Squid is that it’s alien, foreign and a potential threat to the entire human race, so Doc M as the villain could just as easily fit the bill. As a point of fact, Doc M being framed for theses attacks makes sense within the continuity of the novel because it is Ozy who is responsible for Manhattan leaving earth.

You make an interesting point, which is that people will sometimes overinflate something to make it seem impossibly complicated, thereby increasing their own self esteem that they “get it.” To be fair, I think Watchmen is an incredibly dense, nuanced and layered work that actually gets better with multiple readings but at the same time the predominate theme is relatively obvious and consistently reinforced throughout the story. I mean, the whole “who watches the watchmen?” quote pretty much tells you everything you need to know about the main thematic arch of the novel.

Granted, I haven't seen it, but the mainstream reviews I've been reading is that it doesn't connect with a non-comic book Watchmen worshipping audience. Which to me makes sense. I think to really appreciate the kind of deconstruction/revisionist super hero ideas you kind need be a regular comic book reader at least very familiar with the material. Especially if it's about a super hero team. I also read that the acting falters and the digital effects were kind of subpar... (honestly some of it did have me worried from the trailer. The Mars Watch Palace look hokey as well as the nuclear bomb stuff). That being said I'm still onboard. For me all that shit has to fail in a big way as I'm a pretty big fan of the source material. As long as the tone and main story is there, it's all good. I just don't think it's going to do good at the box office.

of his review of Southland Tales? He praises it, and apologizes for it at the same time.

the unemploiment problem in one go. Sieg Heil.

There is no deconstruction/revisionist super hero ideas in the movie Watchmen. It's utter shiitee, plain and simple.

Watchmen is now a movie. How much it grosses is not our problem. Why should we concern ourself with reviews from stuffy elitist magazines who haven't LIVED with the material like us? Our responsibility as fans is to simply enjoy or not enjoy the experience. Some of you talk as if YOUR film careers depend on this movie! Let Zack Snyder worry about his career.

i cant wait to see this ive heard of the watchmen but the book i missed out on so im going in pretty much unknown to the world of it

the entire hollywood reporter review, and not just link to it?<p> it is apparent that the reviewer doesnt like the source material, and thinks that all comic book and comic book movies are silly fodder<p> not only that, he really didnt watch the movie, and was too busy finger banging the ass of his male hooker date to pay attention to small things, like the name of the group

Many of the Talkbacks can get strangely meanspirited as many individuals seemingly forget that we are only speaking of movies, TV shows, and print media...etc., and they find it easy to call names and to say ugly things without thinking.<BR><BR>To make such a rebound, I can honestly say, that your friend has been Blessed by God...and a number of human Angels that surround her, and one of them is you. And in these days, to find a long term...and loving romantic relationship, is becoming increasingly rare...more evidence, I think, that ultimately...good things happen to good people, and that God is real. <BR><BR>As for the issue of rape fantasy vs. real rape, and The Watchmen...what many don't understand is that the two are not mutually exclusive. Real rape is about hate, suffering, inflicting pain, exerting power over victims, violence, cruelty and anger...having nothing to do with love. The rape fantasy, has nothing to do with any of that, the hate, the suffering, or the infliction of pain, etc., it is simply a fantasy moored in seduction by the loving rogue...a Han Solo/Indian Jones type who isn't a rapist, rather he comes in the form of a metaphorical threat, but proves himself to be a good man, who is anything but a threat. It is more about dealing with ones justified...and unjustified fears toward someone who appears to be, or is....powerful, in their manner, sexuality, charisma...or social status...and allowing one's self to give into that person in a trusting way...having faith that they will not hurt you, and will show proof that they mean no harm. I think the rape fantasy is really a metaphor for issues of trust...in other words, will a man stay around for a woman and show her true love and respect after they first mate, or will he turn out to be the bad guy with the "Wham Bam Thank You Ma'am" attitude(???)...who uses a woman for sex...and leaves. The rape fantasy is the allegory for that, and the secret hopes of a woman that the man who presents himself as a seducer or a hero to her, whom she suspects the possibility that he may be a villain or a rogue...will promptly show himself to be a true hero in the end...and abate her fears, through surprising action...only found in the form of the offer of real friendship, love, compassion and intimacy...and that has nothing to do with real rape, or its true face. I have seen the face of real rape before, as a child, while watching the weeping and screaming face of the assistant dance instructor who was teaching me tap dancing. I will never forget her, she had to be in her early 20s at the time...and I will never forget the image of her attacker, a coward with a knife as he walked away from the scene.<BR><BR>Yiannis, you have been, and continue to be a wonderful friend to the young lady whom you mentioned. She is very lucky, and as I said, Blessed to know you...and in a way, that makes you something of a hero, a real life hero...and she sees that in you, and that is all the matters. If you have ever wondered what your reason is to be on this planet, as many of us do, and have, perhaps you have found it (?) in helping to make this young woman's life...better.

He has this crazy vision in the book after eating a big ball of hash... in a weird way, THC gave him the idea to destroy the world in order to save it. There were some nice images that went with that! Oh yeah, reading it as a monthly was a whole different experience. Takes me back. Wow that was a loooong time ago.

I HATE that Manhattan is being used as a scapegoat in the film, but I also was not in love with the original ending. Why? I just didn't think that something that crazy-ass would make the world hold hands and sing Kumbaya together. I think some people would've cried conspiracy, others would've blamed Russia for some reason or another foreign enemy (not just interstellar, or if they did they would find a tangible, prosecutable cause on earth) and it would not have benn the big ol' deux ex machina that Oz said/knew it would. That felt less realistic than the squid itself.

http://tinyurl.com/cjxg67

That was a well thought out, well written review. I think that's your first review that I've actually read the whole way through. Please keep writing in this more adult style instead of the 13 year old shit you normally do.

Okay, we get the fact that you went to high school at one point in your life. It's just a shame you still write like you're in grade school.

...it's just your opinion that's a matter of opinion..

Nations would argue over who dealt the final blow to the enemy, who deserved more concessions in foreign trade policy, etc. Nothing would change. It would still be shades of 'My country is better than yours because...'

Pot Bellied Pig. Th-th-th-th-th-that's all folks!

I will not watch this movie, ever, if no squid is involved...SQUID FTW!!! Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot...reveal yourselves!!

If you accept Veidt as the smartest, richest, most powerful entrepreneur on the planet, then you necessarily accept that he can manipulate people, politics, nations, economies and keep on top of all the things that requires. To say the resolution is "unrealistic" is ludicrous-- you just don't think it would work because you're not as smart as Veidt. (What, you DIDN'T have a problem with "former superhero becomes world manipulating plutocrat" but DID have a problem with "now he can unify/control the entire world"?)

I realize its extremely obscure, but ALWAYS remember that Watchmen was, in origin, Moore's story about the Charlton superheros that had just been acquired by DC. Peter Cannon was a fundamentally good, pacifist man who wanted to be a zen monk (or something). He didn't want to be a "superhero" but his mental/spiritual training had left him with abilities to do almost anything that was remotely physically possible for a human being, so he kept getting roped into super heroics. Veidt/Ozymandias is that "fundamentally good" hyper-capable man pulled inevitably into fundamentally evil actions by his own abilities. You can speak of Veidt's arrogance, but is it arrogance if he is RIGHT? Like his original "type" Peter Cannon, Adrian Veidt is REQUIRED to be arrogant and take actions "against his will" by his own hyper-abilities. In this sense, he is another AUTHENTIC "super-hero" with "powers" just as much as Jon/Captain Atom or Dan/Blue Beetle with his gadgets.

Just looking at these clips, you can tell there's way too much product placement for Swatch watches. I know it fits in with the 80's theme, and the studio needed help covering the budget, but the way they did this totally takes me out of the story: http://tinyurl.com/cje6fw

Ozy was pulling a "Pattern Interrupt." Causing people to stop and think...with the hope that they would then move in the "right" direction, and away from MAD. The question of good or evil is important, and Moore rather obviously considers Ozy a superman, above such ordinary concepts. He's damned no matter what: if he does nothing, and 90% of the planet is destroyed, you'd say: how dare you not try! And if he acts, then he is a different kind of monster. Moore's genius is that, twenty years later, his material can be debated like this. Yes, it's just a comic book (and no where near as "realistic" as some seem to think...but certainly realistic in comparison to the comics printed up until that time) He created a meta-comic, and a damned find one, arguably the best ever created. So he's nutso. Many are. Few create something so singular.

One thing that I'm surprised isn't being discussed more is how much more brutal the movie is than the comic, and how it dims our affection for the characters. In the bar flashback in which Manhattan makes the criminal's head explode, we see a close-up of a woman nearby getting literally splattered with blood, and then a shot of the dead guy's entrails stuck to the ceiling. And in their response to the knot-top attack, Laurie and Dan don't merely defend themselves with punches to the mouth and grabs to the groin: Dan breaks a guy's leg so that (as I recall) the bone juts bloodily out of the skin, and Laurie stabs another one right in the neck with his own knife, for no apparent reason beyond sadism. Making every main character nearly as vicious as Rorschach or the Comedian is a very strange choice that distances us greatly from all of them, and detracts from some of the film's genuine, less sensationalistic virtues. (The worst element, though: the atrocious acting of Malin Akerman, who very nearly pulls the entire movie down around her head.)

In their assessment about the meaning of Moore work, in my opinion. I think Watchmen's companion piece is V for Vendetta. Any discussion of what Alan Moore is trying to say has to come back to the fact that Alan Moore is an anarchist. I don't think he is any way saying that what Veidt does is right or wrong. I think the point is more that we shouldn't exalt people to positions of heroism where they feel they have the right to make life or death decisions for us. Even with the Squid, the most important character in the whole story is Dr. Manhattan, and he's an almost entirely passive force. The moral of the story isn't that the ends justify the means or that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The moral of Watchmen is "Superheroes are bad for you."

What's the point in not utilizing the kind of power at their disposal? As long as it's not as destructive as Ozymandias' super-intuition or whatever you would call it.

Because it means sacrificing control over your life to somebody who doesn't identify with you at all. Think about the important characters in Watchmen. Rorschach is a psychopath. Dr. Manhattan is a god who sees in string theory. Veidt believes himself to be above the rest of the world. Silk Spectre is a crazy chick with mommy issues. The Comedian is a neorealist government spook with the most violent of tempers. The most trustworthy character is Dan, the only one who really is a caped crusader. So would you utilize superheroes if only 1 in 6 were sane? Again, this is what I think Moore's perspective is, not mine. I think he was trying to say something along the lines of "if there were really superheroes this is what it would be like. Aren't you glad there aren't any?"

i'm feelin kinda stupid here, not that that's unusual, lol. Harry mentioned 2 things i can't seem to remember or find in my copy of the GN. he said somethin about Dreiberg having pre-existing alternate identities, and also somethin about Dan being "warned by a detective"? can someone remind me what those mean?

As much as I want to see this film, I'm thinking of skipping it in the theaters. I think I want the 190 minute director's cut to be the first version of the film I see, then the Black Freighter version. I remember seeing the Two Towers in the theater, a month after watching the extended version of Fellowship. I liked the film but never really embraced it until I watched the longer version. These theatrical versions, even with 146 and 170 running times, always feel a bit hatched when rendering such complicated material.<br /> <br /> I hate to admit this but the truth is I just don't go out to the movies much, anymore. I have a 61" HDTV and, despite my lack of a good sound system, would prefer to simply watch movies from it these days. I get so frustrated with theater vendors. I live in Thousand Oaks, California and there are four Mann Theaters within a reasonable driving area (T.O. Westlake Village, Agoura Hills and Simi Valley).<br /> <br /> These theaters never play a film for more than two weeks unless it's a huge hit. Then it never gets more than four. The Dark Knight came out in late July and was the second biggest grossing film of all time. By early September it had disappeared from all of my local theaters. Ten years ago, Titanic took three months to surpass Star Wars as the biggest film ever. Part of the reason for that was that it had time to make that money. Contemporary cinema is being run by people with the business sense and marketing skill of a heroin addict. It's pathetic.<br /> <br /> Part of me just thinks we shouldn't worry about catching this one in theaters. The real money will be made from the Blue Ray/DVD sales. Still, I want this film to be a hit. I just want us all to collectively tell theater owners how stupid they're being by just stopping our patronage until they get their collective heads out of their collective ass. Maybe it isn't fair for me to project this onto Watchmen but it'll be still be gone in two to four weeks. My Blue Ray will be in my collection forever, right next to my first printing trade paperback that I got back in 1989, when I was thirteen, because I'm a fucking geek.<br /> <br/> The comic may have been the medium it was printed on Harry, but Watchmen was always structured like a novel, complete with Chapters. The trade paperback is what got Watchmen on Time Magazines 100 best novels of all time list, the sole graphic novel in the bunch.<br /> <br /> Come on, fat man! Admit it! You just like rubbing it in that you were reading Watchmen when it was being printed. You fucking geek! Tell me something, when you read Watchmen again will you pull out your actual comic books and read them with care? Or will you just grab the TPB? ;-)<br /> <br /> I can read my Pynchon with the best of them. I have a feeling that Alan Moore is probably a big fan of Gravity's Rainbow. But, at the end of the day, I still prefer my comic books to literature. Comic books, in my mind, truly are the great art of our age. I propose we all plan to support Watchmen by buying it on the day it comes out on video. I hope it makes a lot of money in the two to four weeks they let it play before shuffling it off like fast food.

What happened Harry? What were you doing in school? Counting the gills on the creature from the black lagoon.

One of the lucky ones here to catch the midnight IMAX screening at WonderCon yesterday. Looks gorgeous as hell, about as well executed as you could expect of a very complex book. Still not something I think I can watch repeat viewings of. Maybe it's the fact that IMAX is a finicky format to see any movie in (and we were seated way too close to the screen), maybe it was from the margarita hangover that was in full force during the viewing...but ultimately Watchmen is a very dark book, and Snyder filled his movie with nearly every single dark aspect of it while minimizing its few uplifting qualities. My wife, who has never read the book, pointed out correctly that the only identifiable character in the movie is Rorshach (despite my insistence that the book paints all of the Watchmen as sympathetic on some level). If I had to compare this to anything, I'd have to say it's the Schindler's List of comic book movies. Wonderfully shot and beautifully acted, but too harsh and dark to lend itself to multiple viewings.

In Glasgow,Scotland, the IMAX cinema has declined to show because of 18 certificate given. I am officially RAGING!!!!!

Over at The Movie Hour podcast Ethan hasn't read the novel, but Joe has. In the next episode, Ethan gives his pre-viewing criticism as a first-time reader. Great movie Podcast. http://www.themoviehour.com

Scotland is not a communist nation! We have a right!!!

...but instead he put on too much weight and they cast him as the squid. Too bad they got rid of the squid.

I think that point is made invalid by the fact that they don't change forever, they unite because they think this might be an invasion, so they have more important things to worry about.

Big freakin' deal, nerds!

Cant wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So many exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I emailed the fuclers at Glasgow Science Centre and they told me that they could not afford to purchase the film to show to the public. I told them that this film would pay for itself. I am fucking raging with them too. They are rank fucking amatuers. I think the Odeon at Braehead is the next best screen to see it on.

I get to go see Watchmen in IMAX this Friday! I'm psyched! My girlfriend surprised me with tickets to the IMAX in Anaheim at the Gardenwalk. Here's hoping it doesn't disappoint!

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/entertainment/film/193648/Robbie-Collin-gives-first-review-for-Alan-Moore-comic-adaptation-Watchmen-featuring-dr-Manhattan- Rorschach.html<p> Oh dear.

Seriously, I just read a review where it states that Dr. Manhattan is naked while destroying the VietCong. Why? In the book he wasn't even naked in this scene. And from the sounds of it, he's naked in almost every scene. <br></br> Whatever gets you off Zack.

Yes, I believe I would. As long as they were more like Nite Owl or Rorschach, and not like Dr. Manhattan or Ozymandias. Thing is, we rely on politicians every day and look how much suffering they have caused in the world, Democrats and Republicans alike. I would rather see a masked vigilante like Rorschach going around giving these tyrants hard, uncompromising justice than for them to continue to drive the world to the brink of decadence and oblivion. There are people in politics RIGHT NOW who think just like Veidt. I'm with Moore on the anarchy issue. What else is left to believe in a world where Bohemian Grove, plutonium spills, billion dollar swindles, Sean Hannity, Sean Penn, pedophilia, FEMA camps, drug prohibition, abortion, the Georgia Guidestones, Scientology and prisons all exist?

The superheroes are just stand-ins for or servants to those same politicians. It's a deconstruction of the superhero's power relationship to us as much as a deconstruction of the superhero himself. In terms of story it's an analysis of a world with superheroes and ultimately a rejection of that world and of the necessity of heroes themselves. AS for what I've seen written elsewhere here about the perpetual peace Veidt brings about. There is absolutely no evidence that Moore believes Adrian Veidt has created a lasting peace. He's created a peace based on group-think and fear of an outside enemy. The same kind of tenuous peace that was present when Dr. Manhattan was on Earth. Dr. Manhattan reinforces this idea as well, "Nothing Ever Ends." The peace in the film is even less likely to last, considering the belief in a vengeful God has yet to bring peace to any region. If you think world peace is achieved at the end of Watchmen, you're looking at the graphic novel with far more optimism than Moore asks of you.

I think the superheroes in watchmen are meant to make us think of politicians. What I should have written was it's a deconstruction of the superhero, and deconstruction of power relationships in general.

If you read the book you'll notice that as time goes by after Jon Osterman's accident he becomes gradually less and less in touch with humanity. This is visually represented with how much clothing he wears from being fully clothed at the first Crimebusters meeting flashback to completely naked in the present, and wearing tightie blackies in between. Of course in formal events like at the funeral and at the news station he puts a suit on though. But when he gets as big as he does in the Vietnam part or when Rorschach drops in to see him he obviously can't fit into the clothing he has. The comic only had to have still frames but in the movie you don't have that luxury and I'm guessing that they rightfully decided not to pull the Austin Powers thing like we saw recently in Beowulf.

That's a good point, but then I wonder, how long do people get along for? two years? Five? Ten? Is any number good enough to justify what he did? Also, I don't think it would work because there is no solid reason found either in a comparable historical event or in knowledge of how people and governments behave that supports his theory of mass destruction = unity. He can give reasons all he wants, but unless the reasons make sense then they don't mean shit. The other thing I'm not crazy about is how the film clearly labels the superheroes as the watchmen, but the comic is more ambiguous and lets you also see the police's point of view and their actions (hell even the shrink is a kind of watchmen, trying to serve the greater good through his job.) We'll see.

When I read it, I didn't see theses people as the enormous threat veidt did. The original silk spectre became a mogul force of her own in a way, etc. Basically, I saw their superhero lives as stepping stones for something better (or just different, because Dan's life isn't really propelled to a new level by his hero past), except for Rorshach and Manhattan.

He gets so caught up in being literal to the page (except for his fucking slo-mo, over-fetishized visuals and music choices) that he forgets the WEIGHT and EMOTION of the piece. I don't have a problem with streamlining or adapting a work for film, and I often think Zack Snyder's visuals are stunning. But he has yet to prove that he is mature or responsible enough to handle a really weighty script or source material without simply being letter-perfect and then tricking it up with his own bullshit. That's not a movie; that's stenography with an MTV aesthetic and a Bedazzler. And I fear that's what the movie will feel like, and come off leaden as a result. In case people haven't yet realized, this is not going to be a box office smash. And some of you might say, "Well that's fine, as long as it's true to what WE want." And well, I'm sorry but BULLSHIT. We are all fans, yes. But Snyder was supposed to make A GOOD MOVIE, not a fanboy valentine. If he could do both, great, but usually people can't. And I fear people will slobber all over their valentine and forget to judge the movie on its own merit, its own ability to properly uphold and translate Moore's themes with a degree of insight and maturity not previously shown by the director. I hope I'm very wrong about Zack Snyder and this film. But from what I've seen, I don't think I am.

Zack hasn't made a good movie... He has made A GREAT FILM! Have a look at rotten tomatoes.

If Snyder wasn't being literal to the page you would cut him down also. He's doing the best he can from within the system and by using his acquired set of skills. Too many tall poppies.

Is if Rorschach's monologues are all intact.

Rorschach with the psychiatrist. "What do you see?" "Clouds." LOL I love knowing what he's actually seeing. Gave me goose bumps.

... is pretty brilliant. The actual film isn't quite that misguided, but his comments are still highly on target. And Power_Girl: The RT rating is based on a measly 20 reviews, the vast majority of them from genre sites and other, even less credible sources. Only the Variety and H'wood Reporter pieces are indicative of how the movie might play with the mainstream critics and audiences Reflecto mentions. And those two reviews are negative. When more of the legitimate critics start weighing in, I think you're going to see that rating drop precipitously. (To address the coming onslaught, yes, I AM saying that the New York Times is more credible than Jo Blo's Movie Emporium. Let's be real here.)

You don't know what I'd do or say. The Burton Batman films and Donner's Superman are far from letter-perfect, dated in some places, but they can be appreciated as solid adaptations. I see you are already trying to grease the wheels of lowered expectation with "does the best he can" and "too many tall poppies". Yes, it must be so hard for a man with a MTV Joseph Kahn aesthetic to try and subjugate his slo-mo oiled-up hydraulic jump-cut bullshit for the purposes of telling a cohesive, coherent adaptation; better to just lay the material out straight-faced with no real depth beyond the initial page, and then present it the way he does everything else, even if that seems anachronistic with the material. And yes, I have gone over the Rotten Tomatoes ratings thoroughly, going beyond the headlines to the actual articles. Many of the so-called "positive" reviews so far are actually very mixed and apologetic, saying the same things over and over: No real depth, just transcription, muddled by a lack of understanding of what is translating to screen beyond the literal.

"But he put it all from the page onto the screen, especially in the Director's Cut, so what's the problem?" Well, I fear that the PROBLEM is going to be that even if he put it all on the screen, HE DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO DIRECT WATCHMEN PROPERLY. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. For some geeks, Watchmen will still work because Snyder will have inoculated himself against their criticism by being completely slavish to the text and not changing very much at all; therefore, he gets points for being extremely faithful, which in some talkbackers' minds will cancel out any concerns of solid, mature filmmaking that tells a truly cinematic story and doesn't just bombard you with imagery and long expository scenes. THERE IS MORE TO A PROPER ADAPTATION THAN THAT. And that's why I fear this film will come off very hollow - beautiful but hollow - when I see it.

In five days we can all stop guessing and theorizing and actually give a real opinion of Snyders film. its useless to keep speculationg this close to release. Whats the point? You could see it and love it and than all of this would have been for nothing.

“The negative feedback is relayed by my friends. I think the fanboys aren’t particularly happy – there are a load of people they’d have rather had in before me It’s already being slated before they’ve seeing anything. But if fanboys still hate the film after going and seeing it, they can all line up and suck my dick. I don’t give a fuck. I’m having a child and that’s more important to me – so I don’t give a fuck. Grow a dick.” <p> Gee, well, if he's having a kid, then I guess we should all give him a pass. <p> Pretty-boy needs to grow some thicker skin.

Goode has a point. Fanboys are retarded.

But anytime you adapt something to the screen, someone, somewhere, is going to piss all over you. <p> What's worse? Being retarded, or being a little bitch when you're rejected by the retards?

But you've got the director and producers running around giving free handjobs at comic convention, in the hopes of making back some of their $100 million.... And then you've got this hairless-fuck, shitting all over the fan-base. <p> If he's got a kid on the way, and wants to keep making the fat Hollywood cash, he had better learn how to tow that company line.

Oops, in the dark the enter key is real close to the shift key. The guys on At the Movies are alright, though the younger one definitely seems to be a tool.. But cool anyway they both really liked watchmen.

..and with little to no mention of any big negatives. Heck the young one even mentioned the slo mo as a positive part of the film. I think Watchmen succeeds as unrivaled spectacle. This may bode well for future mainstream critic praise for Watchmen. Its also got another two positives on rottentomatoes.com.

Glad to see i'm not only one obsessing on every bit of pre-release info possible :) Haven't been this excited since Fellowship came out.

If that's all you see in the world it must suck to be you...still, it was a nicely compiled list and I do get yur larger point. I don't care how bad any particular system may be...anarchy is a clusterfuck.

the guy basically criticizes the book more than the movie

and he's been waiting a long time. blue balls

...would be to multiply himself and try to have a three way with our eyeballs, but then our eyeballs would get upset and bring up how alienated they feel from Dr. Manhattan.

Head over to variety and check out the latest 'article' involving watchmen. Groups their own writer, and mentions New Yorker review.. basically trying to fuel any hate fire from fans. I'm a fan of novel, and i'm excited as hell to see movie. Why are most of the negative reviews coming from people who mostly have issues with source material?

I got to see a sneak preview on Saturday night. I won't post a 10,000 word review, but just say I agree pretty much with Harry's review (which is unusual).

Looks like Watchmen follows the comic a little TOO closely. A movie must stand on it's own merits. Snyder should've just told Moore, "sorry but my responsibility is to my film audience, not the comic geeks. You'll get your chance in the extended edition DVD".

Are we watching the 'Watchmen' backlash? <BR><BR> Beware: A fanboy's frenzy cuts both ways. The theaters are booked, the videos have gone viral (the above clip, posted to YouTube this morning, is the last one of a weeks-long campaign) and release of the long-anticipated, lawsuit-strewn "Watchmen" is just days away... but there are signs that a backlash tsunami could be brewing. <BR><BR> James Hunt at Den of Geek writes: <BR><BR> It might surprise you to learn this, but as a comics fan, I have no interest in seeing the Watchmen movie.... Frank Miller’s Spirit already demonstrated perfectly well why you might not want to see Watchmen. The beauty of Eisner’s comics was never anything to do with the pulpy characters – it was all about the design of the page, the flow of the storytelling, the very act of Eisner re-inventing a medium even as he worked within it. You can try to make a film reflect that, but the one thing you can’t do is copy it. <BR><BR> [snip] <BR><BR> By his own admission, Watchmen is nothing more than Snyder attempting to get people to read the graphic novel – and hey, I’m way ahead of him... this is one case where the book isn’t just better than the film – it makes the film unnecessary. <BR><BR> Well, then what about those of us who haven't been previously inculcated into the "Watchmen" cult? Variety's own Justin Chang (who read the graphic novel before reviewing the film but did not count himself among its original fans) says that the film offers little opportunity to inspire fresh converts: <BR><BR> Yet the movie is ultimately undone by its own reverence; there’s simply no room for these characters and stories to breathe of their own accord, and even the most fastidiously replicated scenes can feel glib and truncated. As “Watchmen” lurches toward its apocalyptic (and slightly altered) finale, something happens that didn’t happen in the novel: Wavering between seriousness and camp, and absent the cerebral tone that gave weight to some of the book’s headier ideas, the film seems to yield to the very superhero cliches it purports to subvert. <BR><BR> Oh. And as Anne Thompson points out, Anthony Lane at the New Yorker buries the film: <BR><BR> The problem is that Snyder, following Moore, is so insanely aroused by the look of vengeance, and by the stylized application of physical power, that the film ends up twice as fascistic as the forces it wishes to lampoon. The result is perfectly calibrated for its target group: nobody over twenty-five could take any joy from the savagery that is fleshed out onscreen, just as nobody under eighteen should be allowed to witness it. <BR><BR> A fanboy might ask: What do you expect? It's the New Yorker. Meanwhile, Fandango reported today that the film currently comprises 61% of the site’s sales, with dozens of midnight Thursday night showtimes already sold out. And there are plenty of critics swift to disagree with the naysayers; RT currently gives the film an 82% rating ("technical and thematic strengths overwhelm its narrative shortcomings"). <BR><BR> Of course, "Watchmen" creator Alan Moore has long distanced himself entirely from this adaptation and any others that might stem from his works. Maybe his futuristic visions are even more accurate than we'd thought.

Watchmen stands at 76% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, but if you click over to show only reviews by "Top Critics" (Meaning actual critics) it's coming out at an abysmal 17% percent.

Is about the underlying source material-- there are educated intelligent people who don't think this is a good story or a good novel. And to be fair, it is a very seriously flawed masterpiece. If you aren't approaching it from the world of Comic superheroes (circa 1980) its a strange and disjointed conception.

from the savagery that is fleshed out onscreen." Who would ever suggest that the violence of Watchmen is to evoke "joy"? There are many virtues to Watchmen, but if you're approaching that story to bring a nice sunny smile to your day...

They hated Blade Runner. They hated 2001 A Space Odyssey. They hated The Matrix, referring to it as a "time waster until Episode I hits." They hated Star Wars. They hated Fight Club. Shows you the worth of critics. Naysayers until pop culture proves them wrong than they pretend they LOVED it when it cameout..

You said it brother. When I was a kid I saw both Blade Runner and John Carpenter's the Thing and they blew my mind. I remember reading the reviews and just being dumbfounded at how out of touch and ignorant they are. People like Roger Ebert would slam films like Halloween, or Night of the Living Dead, only to go back later and praise the film. It's like they have to put on their genre-hating hat so they seem cultured and snobbish, and then retract it when they see how far off the mark they are. A lot of these reviews have nothing to do the film; it's either a complete lack of understanding of the source material (like the dumbass from the New Yorker who asked, "Where has the comedy gone?” Shades of the Schickel's Dark Knight review who didn't think the Joker was funny enough), a grudge against Snyder (since most critics bashed the hell out of 300. One critic even said that the WB tagline "from the visionary director of 300" spurred more bile from him then it would have otherwise. Basically critics as a whole are sick of comic book films. Only a few get really good reviews. I'll be the first to admit this film sucks if it's not any good or if it's merely so-so though. I don't go around trying to convince myself that I like something when I know it's a turd. I hurt a lot of my friends’ feelings when I said Phantom Menace was a shit fest upon leaving the theater. About a month later they all regrettably agreed with me, haha!

Loved that shit.<p>Loved it. To. Fucking. Pieces.<p>So, when I take what a critic says to heart, I'll remember to put my cock in a desk fan, because both things will be happening as I ice skate to my job in Satan's Sodomy Factory.

You are all Rorschach. Stunted, neurotic, socially retarded, and completely inflexible in the face of new paradigms.<p>The squid is a great piece of literature. But it's also the filmic equivalent of Tom Bombadil. Both serve a purpose, but could have been excised or changed without killing the throughline of the story.<p>Also, keep up the good fight of protecting the 'good name' of the Watchmen graphic novel, because this will change everything! Wait, no, let me check...ending in the comic is still the same. So, stay the fuck home, and please, shut the fuck up.

I would never expect such a thing to come from this publication. Kind of like how I would never expect US magazine to be shrill and invasive.

... saw it Monday night here in New Orleans, it was a spot-on adaptation. It felt as if I were reading it again for the (?) time as I watched. The "substitute" squid device was a great idea that served the story just as well. It worked better on film, that's all. Jackie Earl Haley's Rorshach was absolutely fucking electric! I honestly can't say enough good things about this instant classic. Anyone spot David Bowie and Mick Jagger in the (beautiful) opening credit sequence?

We'll be at the 1st SOLD OUT Denver Imax screening tomorrow night at Midnight. Just read the 3pm,7pm and 1030pm Imax screenings here are already sold out. Should be a great ride.

them to keep the squid ending? I won't know what the exact ending is until Friday at midnight, but... damn, they had to change the stupid squid. That is the worst part of the entire story. The graphic novel ending is still incredible, but the squid is stupid, unnecessary, and seems to come straight from the unimaginative mind of Roger Corman. It was part of the point, I know, but it didn't work.

But let's face it, it's something that Moore created, to also make commentary on the stupidity of the villains master plan. What made it so effective, is the aftermath of it. The plan worked, and it was devastating. That's why us fans ended up loving the Squid, because the emotional impact that it had. So yes, it worked, it was perfect, and it fits within it's own medium. Would it work on the big screen? I doubt it. Which is why I wasn't surprised that part of the ending was altered. I love the Squid, but what ends up working one medium, may never work in another. Oh, and Sally falling in love with the Comedian almost 10 years after what he did to her, is unexplanable. That's why Dr. Manhattan called it the "thermodynamic miracle." It is just something that can never be explained.

Ok now there is another seemingly editorial Watchmen article at variety which gets front page on Variety's website. I don't think i've ever seen them purposefully trash something like this before. WTF is going on?

He gave "Watchmen" 4 stars. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=REVIEWS

Now roll over and Play DEAD!!!!

Maybe it would of worked better as a TV Series. They said: "the Lord of the rings was unfilmable", but look what PJ did. So maybe more movies will help answer the questions.

you get that SAW ripped it off from MAD MAX right? <p> they said so themselves, without hesitation - call it a "homage"

I saw it with a few guys and girls, and even the dames were sick of seeing cock. I don't know shit about Watchmen, but Rorschach saved this movie for me. Thought he was the guy from Partidge Family until the credits, poor guy!

You get that Mad Max ripped it off from the original Watchmen comic which came out like a year earlier, right?

I dunno, I frequently felt like there was a layer of humor to the proceedings. Not sure if it was intended or not, or if I imagined it...

I don't remember that being the case. At all.

Sorry, but this movie is trying WAY too hard to be faithful to the source material. The first two acts were ploddingly slow. Somewhere in the middle of it I turned to my gf and said, "This movie is boring as hell." The third act was better, and I actually LIKED the ending. The Giant Squid -- come on, that's just damn silly. Fanboys would loved it; everyone else would have rolled their eyes.

You know what would have made a really cool and memorable ending for a Watchmen movie? A giant fucking space squid! I thought it was a pretty reverent adaptation but I can't belive virgin audiences will get much out of that final 1/3.

The new ending. Ijust don’t like it as much as the ending of the books. As the movie nears its ending, it felt like it was rushing to an established conclusion. <a href='http://www.superwatches.net'>fake watches</a>

The new ending. Ijust don’t like it as much as the ending of the books. As the movie nears its ending, it felt like it was rushing to an established conclusion. http://www.superwatches.net/

The Hollywood Reporter's review of The Watchmen is one of the most vicious reviews of anything that I have ever read...and to tell you the truth, the review matched my opinion of 300, which was a horrible, horrible...and completely overrated movie. www.replicawatchreport.com